Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged Saudi Arabia to release footage of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/saudi-journalist-was-killed-by-15-man-hit-team-that-then-dismembered-his-body-with-bone-saw-nyt-170659">journalist Jamal Khashoggi </a>and President Donald Trump demanded answers over his fate, as the kingdom faced growing pressure Thursday to provide a convincing explanation for his disappearance.

The Washington Post, the daily to which Khashoggi was a contributor, added to the mystery by reporting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had ordered an operation to "lure" the critical journalist back home.

Khashoggi has not been seen since October 2 when he went to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain official documents for his upcoming marriage. Turkish officials quoted in media have said he was killed but Riyadh denies that.

The mystery has captivated the world but also threatens to harm brittle Turkish-Saudi relations and hurt efforts by the crown prince to improve the image of his country with a reform drive.

Erdogan challenged Saudi Arabia to provide CCTV images to back up its version that Khashoggi had left the consulate safely, indicating he did not find the current Saudi explanations sufficient.

"Is it possible there were no camera systems in a consulate, in an embassy? Is it possible that there was no Saudi camera system where this incident took place?"

Erdogan told Turkish reporters in comments published in newspapers.

"If a bird flew, or a fly or a mosquito appeared, the systems would capture this; they (Saudi Arabia) have the most cutting-edge systems," he was quoted as saying.

The consulate said CCTV cameras were not working that day and dismissed the murder claims as "baseless".

'Demanding everything'

The case is also threatening the strong relationship the Trump administration has built with Prince Mohammed, who wants to turn the oil-rich conservative kingdom into a hub for innovation and reform.

The two sides have worked together on challenging Iran despite growing concern over the prince's campaign against dissidents, which critics say has shown up the true face of his rule.

In a reversal from Washington's initial low-key response, Trump demanded answers after he spoke to Saudi authorities "at the highest level".&nbsp;

"We're demanding everything. We want to see what's going on there," he said. Trump later told "Fox News at Night" that "it would not be a good thing at all" if Saudi involvement was proven.

Khashoggi is a former government adviser who fled Saudi Arabia in September 2017 and lived in the US fearing arrest back home.

In his columns for the Washington Post and comments elsewhere, Khashoggi was critical of some policies of Mohammed bin Salman as well as Riyadh's role in the war in Yemen.

'Cannot remain silent'

While unnamed Turkish officials quoted in the media have been giving sometimes macabre details of the alleged murder, Erdogan has so far been more circumspect.

He has said Saudi Arabia must prove its version of events but so far has stopped short of directly accusing the kingdom or laying the blame on the powerful crown prince.

"It's not possible for us to stay silent regarding an incident like this," Erdogan said.

He added that it would "not be right" to comment yet but said he had "concerns".

Ankara and Riyadh have worked over recent years to maintain cordial relations despite disputes on key issues, such as the ousting of the Islamist Egyptian government and the blockade on Turkey's key regional ally Qatar.

Friends of Khashoggi told the Washington Post that for several months, senior Saudi officials were offering him protection, "even a high-level job working for the government" if the critic returned to the kingdom. Khashoggi was sceptical of such offers.

Following the Washington Post report, State Department deputy spokesman Robert Palladino said the US "had no advanced knowledge of Jamal Khashoggi's disappearance".

Turkish police are looking into a team of 15 Saudis who they say were at the consulate at the same time as Khashoggi and arrived in Istanbul on October 2 on board two private planes. Turkish media have said the 15 were an "assassination team" and that they took the consulate's footage with them.

After images of the men and their names were published by pro-government Sabah daily, media identified most of them as senior figures in Riyadh or close to the crown prince.

Turkish police are also analysing CCTV footage which showed a vehicle that went inside the consulate and then to the consul-general's residence nearby after 1200 GMT, two hours after Khashoggi had entered the mission.

Turkish authorities have been given permission to search the consulate -- Saudi sovereign territory -- but it has not yet taken place.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged Saudi Arabia to release footage of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and President Donald Trump demanded answers over his fate, as the kingdom faced growing pressure Thursday to provide a convincing explanation for his disappearance.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan urged Saudi Arabia to release footage of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and President Donald Trump demanded answers over his fate, as the kingdom faced growing pressure Thursday to provide a convincing explanation for his disappearance. The Washington Post, the daily to which Khashoggi was a contributor, added to the mystery by reporting Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had ordered an operation to "lure" the critical journalist back home. Khashoggi has not been seen since October 2 when he went to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to obtain official documents for his upcoming marriage. Turkish officials quoted in media have said he was killed but Riyadh denies that. The mystery has captivated the world but also threatens to harm brittle Turkish-Saudi relations and hurt efforts by the crown prince to improve the image of his country with a reform drive. Erdogan challenged Saudi Arabia to provide CCTV images to back up its version that Khashoggi had left the consulate safely, indicating he did not find the current Saudi explanations sufficient. "Is it possible there were no camera systems in a consulate, in an embassy? Is it possible that there was no Saudi camera system where this incident took place?" Erdogan told Turkish reporters in comments published in newspapers. "If a bird flew, or a fly or a mosquito appeared, the systems would capture this; they (Saudi Arabia) have the most cutting-edge systems," he was quoted as saying. The consulate said CCTV cameras were not working that day and dismissed the murder claims as "baseless". 'Demanding everything' The case is also threatening the strong relationship the Trump administration has built with Prince Mohammed, who wants to turn the oil-rich conservative kingdom into a hub for innovation and reform. The two sides have worked together on challenging Iran despite growing concern over the prince's campaign against dissidents, which critics say has shown up the true face of his rule. In a reversal from Washington's initial low-key response, Trump demanded answers after he spoke to Saudi authorities "at the highest level". "We're demanding everything. We want to see what's going on there," he said. Trump later told "Fox News at Night" that "it would not be a good thing at all" if Saudi involvement was proven. Khashoggi is a former government adviser who fled Saudi Arabia in September 2017 and lived in the US fearing arrest back home. In his columns for the Washington Post and comments elsewhere, Khashoggi was critical of some policies of Mohammed bin Salman as well as Riyadh's role in the war in Yemen. 'Cannot remain silent' While unnamed Turkish officials quoted in the media have been giving sometimes macabre details of the alleged murder, Erdogan has so far been more circumspect. He has said Saudi Arabia must prove its version of events but so far has stopped short of directly accusing the kingdom or laying the blame on the powerful crown prince. "It's not possible for us to stay silent regarding an incident like this," Erdogan said. He added that it would "not be right" to comment yet but said he had "concerns". Ankara and Riyadh have worked over recent years to maintain cordial relations despite disputes on key issues, such as the ousting of the Islamist Egyptian government and the blockade on Turkey's key regional ally Qatar. Friends of Khashoggi told the Washington Post that for several months, senior Saudi officials were offering him protection, "even a high-level job working for the government" if the critic returned to the kingdom. Khashoggi was sceptical of such offers. Following the Washington Post report, State Department deputy spokesman Robert Palladino said the US "had no advanced knowledge of Jamal Khashoggi's disappearance". Turkish police are looking into a team of 15 Saudis who they say were at the consulate at the same time as Khashoggi and arrived in Istanbul on October 2 on board two private planes. Turkish media have said the 15 were an "assassination team" and that they took the consulate's footage with them. After images of the men and their names were published by pro-government Sabah daily, media identified most of them as senior figures in Riyadh or close to the crown prince. Turkish police are also analysing CCTV footage which showed a vehicle that went inside the consulate and then to the consul-general's residence nearby after 1200 GMT, two hours after Khashoggi had entered the mission. Turkish authorities have been given permission to search the consulate -- Saudi sovereign territory -- but it has not yet taken place.

Erdogan, Trump step up pressure over missing Saudi journalist

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump said on Tuesday his second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un would be held after US&nbsp;congressional elections on Nov. 6.

Speaking to reporters as he flew to Iowa for a political rally, Trump said: "It’ll be after the midterms. I just can't leave now."

Earlier on Tuesday, Trump told reporters that plans were being made for his second summit with Kim and that he thought "incredible" progress had been made in US&nbsp;talks with the long-isolated North Asian country.

He said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had very good talks with Kim over the weekend and that three or four locations were being considered.

Pompeo echoed Trump's comments when he spoke briefly to reporters during a Tuesday afternoon visit to the White House.

"While there's still a long way to go and much work to do, we can now see a path where we will achieve (our) ultimate goal, which is the full and final verified denuclearization of North Korea," he said.

Trump and Kim held a historic first summit in Singapore on June 12 at which Kim pledged to work toward denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. His actions have fallen short, however, of Washington's demands for a complete inventory of its weapons and facilities and irreversible steps to give up its nuclear arsenal, which could threaten the United States.

'No rockets flying'

Still, Trump was upbeat on progress so far.

"You got no rockets flying, you have no missiles flying, you have no nuclear testing," Trump said in the Oval Office. "We've made incredible progress - beyond incredible.

"But I have agreed to meet," he said. "We have a very good relationship with Chairman Kim. I like him, he likes me, the relationship is good."

Pompeo said on Monday the two sides were "pretty close" to agreeing on details for a second summit.

He added that Kim had said he was ready to allow international inspectors into North Korea's Punggye-ri nuclear testing site and the Sohae missile engine test facility as soon as the United States and North Korea agreed on logistics.

But experts questioned what Pompeo achieved on Sunday on his fourth visit to Pyongyang this year. They said the North Korean leader appeared simply to be repackaging and dragging out past pledges.

Trump noted that the United States had not lifted the "very big sanctions" it has imposed on Pyongyang.

"I'd love to remove them, but we have to get something for doing it," Trump said.

North Korea is very interested in reaching some sort of agreement on denuclearization so that it can grow economically with the benefit of the foreign investment closed to it now, Trump said.

The UN&nbsp;World Food Program said on Tuesday that the supply of food remained precarious in North Korea, where one in five children is stunted by malnutrition. More than 10 million North Koreans, nearly 40 per cent of the population, are undernourished and need humanitarian aid, it said.

"I will tell you they're calling, wanting to go there and wanting to invest," Trump said. "At some point, when Chairman Kim makes that decision, I think he's going to unleash something that's going to be spectacular, really spectacular.

"And I think he knows it and I think that's one of the reasons that we're having very successful conversations."

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday his second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un would be held after US congressional elections on Nov. 6. Speaking to reporters as he flew to Iowa for a political rally, Trump said: "It’ll be after the midterms.

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday his second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un would be held after US congressional elections on Nov. 6. Speaking to reporters as he flew to Iowa for a political rally, Trump said: "It’ll be after the midterms. I just can't leave now." Earlier on Tuesday, Trump told reporters that plans were being made for his second summit with Kim and that he thought "incredible" progress had been made in US talks with the long-isolated North Asian country. He said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had very good talks with Kim over the weekend and that three or four locations were being considered. Pompeo echoed Trump's comments when he spoke briefly to reporters during a Tuesday afternoon visit to the White House. "While there's still a long way to go and much work to do, we can now see a path where we will achieve (our) ultimate goal, which is the full and final verified denuclearization of North Korea," he said. Trump and Kim held a historic first summit in Singapore on June 12 at which Kim pledged to work toward denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. His actions have fallen short, however, of Washington's demands for a complete inventory of its weapons and facilities and irreversible steps to give up its nuclear arsenal, which could threaten the United States. 'No rockets flying' Still, Trump was upbeat on progress so far. "You got no rockets flying, you have no missiles flying, you have no nuclear testing," Trump said in the Oval Office. "We've made incredible progress - beyond incredible. "But I have agreed to meet," he said. "We have a very good relationship with Chairman Kim. I like him, he likes me, the relationship is good." Pompeo said on Monday the two sides were "pretty close" to agreeing on details for a second summit. He added that Kim had said he was ready to allow international inspectors into North Korea's Punggye-ri nuclear testing site and the Sohae missile engine test facility as soon as the United States and North Korea agreed on logistics. But experts questioned what Pompeo achieved on Sunday on his fourth visit to Pyongyang this year. They said the North Korean leader appeared simply to be repackaging and dragging out past pledges. Trump noted that the United States had not lifted the "very big sanctions" it has imposed on Pyongyang. "I'd love to remove them, but we have to get something for doing it," Trump said. North Korea is very interested in reaching some sort of agreement on denuclearization so that it can grow economically with the benefit of the foreign investment closed to it now, Trump said. The UN World Food Program said on Tuesday that the supply of food remained precarious in North Korea, where one in five children is stunted by malnutrition. More than 10 million North Koreans, nearly 40 per cent of the population, are undernourished and need humanitarian aid, it said. "I will tell you they're calling, wanting to go there and wanting to invest," Trump said. "At some point, when Chairman Kim makes that decision, I think he's going to unleash something that's going to be spectacular, really spectacular. "And I think he knows it and I think that's one of the reasons that we're having very successful conversations."

Trump says next summit with North Korea's Kim after US midterm elections

By Lorenzo Carrieri

China’s economic growth over the last 30 years has astounded the world. Since 1978, under the tenure of Deng Xiaoping, China has embarked on a process of transformation that enabled it to escape economic isolation. Beijing’s government has de-collectivised agriculture and freed foreign exchange transactions in addition to allowing private entities to trade and permitting some foreign investment. Ever since, Beijing has dismissed Maoism and ushered in a new era of capitalism and market reforms, enjoying a sustainable growth rate year after year.

However, notwithstanding the achievements in terms of economic prowess, China seems to be stuck in what is called a “middle-income trap,” and its economy suffers from several shortcomings: high level of corporate debt, an over-reliance on export-driven manufacturing and a high degree of financial repression, to name but a few.

Where is China headed? Where will China’s economy be in 10 years? Is China going to be more integrated into the world economy, either in terms of international trade and investment, or will progress be reversed, especially in light of a trade war with the US and emerging markets’ volatility to a rising dollar?

The main assumption we have to make in order to tackle this question is that China’s economic policy revolves around a slow but steady approach to market-driven reforms. Its transitional post-communist economy maintains the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) monopoly on political power while it pursues a more market-driven and services-oriented economic strategy. A tightly controlled political structure alongside a dynamic economy, where economic growth is the key feature that legitimizes political power, China’s approach to international trade and investment has several unique features that allow us to grasp the dynamics of change the country has undergone.

Lessons Learned

As far as economic international trade and investment are concerned, China’s interest groups sustain economic openness. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) were making the decisions when China began opening up in 1979. At that time, all assets were state-owned, and officials were in charge of regulating — via the enterprises they controlled — corporate governance. Thus, Communist Party officials both deduced and aggregated interests over economic policy, which eventually resulted in bureaucrats having a lot of influence on all economic organized activity and a high stake in maintaining an open system. In addition, China has been developing a vast stock market for decades, which helps SOEs to obtain financing and contribute to the state’s fiscal revenues.

China has learned from the failure of other communist states. While the USSR collapsed in 1991, and all its satellites were crumbling around it, shaken by the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and squeezed by international sanctions, China decided to adjust its economic policy according to the external constraints of the systemic structure — namely, to depoliticise macroeconomic policies and adjust them to the rule of basic economic equilibria: existence of budget constraints, fiscal and monetary responsibility, a system of market-clearing prices and inflation under check.

Therefore, with the support of the military and the bureaucracy, Deng committed to build a dynamic economy. For him, the only way to preserve the support for the Communist Party was to embark upon a process of overarching economic reforms that would change China’s economy and uplift the well-being at home and increase China’s international prestige and leverage abroad. Economic reforms ahead of political reforms — this assumption continues to be pressed into the Chinese policy-makers’ playbook.

Thus, in the coming years, it seems unlikely that this key feature of the CCP will fade away, especially because it provides the political power with leverage on decentralized economic activity. The party’s legitimacy is strengthened by the fact that the CCP becomes widely recognized for an improvement in living standards, which in turn reinforces its grip on power and raises the cost of opposing it. In regard to this, the last political moves under President Xi Jinping seem to follow in Deng’s footsteps. Xi has been steadily consolidating his grip over the party as he pursues economic reforms aimed at increasing China’s domestic fortunes.

Capital Flows

Nevertheless, as far as capital inflows are concerned, China lags behind its peers. On the one hand, although it has implemented new inflow liberalization measures in 2016, its capital account continues to be relatively closed. On the other hand, foreign investment is still restricted to the extent that intangible assets, such as human capital and management techniques for supply chains, are hard to absorb without a more liberalized foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign portfolio investment (FPI) policy. In regard to this, China’s central bank is carefully loosening control on cross-border capital flows, while policy responses are taking into account domestic financial conditions and stability of the exchange rate.

It is difficult to predict what is going to happen in this regard, but it is likely that China will move forward carefully with an actual floating exchange rate, simultaneously eating into foreign reserves to curb high volatility in order to shore up financial stability. Plus, it is likely that Beijing will follow through with a controlled capital-account liberalization. Thus, China will continue to use what Kevin Gallacher calls “countervailing monetary power” — a string of measures that has helped Beijing (and other emerging markets such as Brazil and South Korea) to offset against the structural power of global markets. From countercyclical regulations to macro-prudential measures, China’s financial institutions will likely continue on the path of curbing the negative externalities of a surge in capital inflow — especially in times of expansionary policy in the US and the EU — and capital flight.

In the coming years, all these measures would likely ease inward FDI, generating positive externalities and knowledge spillovers by importing foreign technology. This could create a situation where Beijing could set up an investment-friendly environment where forces of agglomeration, such as a world-class system of property rights, a sophisticated industrial base, vast labour markets, a high-skilled workforce and specialized service providers will lead China closer to its technological ambitions.

International Trade

As for trade, China remains a net exporter on the international stage. Plus, it has one of the highest national saving rates worldwide, known as the “Chinese Saving Puzzle.” The two factors are intrinsically correlated. On the one hand, high savings bring about excessive investment domestically, which in turn leads to supply dwarfing demand, low level of consumption, plus a risk of a credit-boom cycle and low growth of income. On the other hand, a high savings rate has engendered a “saving glut” abroad, with large global imbalances and low-interest rates.

Nonetheless, current account surplus to GDP has been falling steadily since 2007. Amongst the main reasons have been a high import volume, more investment, nominal effective exchange rate appreciation, weak demand in major advanced economies and, more recently, a widening of the services deficit. These trends signal that China is opening its massive market to foreign products and services, getting rid of barriers and tariffs on imports. In addition, a current account surplus shrinking is the result of higher consumption by households. Even though private consumption remains very low compared to the global average, the rise of a sophisticated and vibrant urban middle-class keen on foreign goods and services could lead to a huge shift in the Chinese and world trade balance in the years ahead.

Another important sign that suggests a more “integrated” China is the exchange-rate regime. China’s yuan follows a band with a fixed floor and ceiling, inside which the exchange rate is allowed to float with respect to the US dollar and other currencies. Over the last decades, China has pursued a “beggar-thy-neighbor” currency policy to keep the sales price of exports at a low level while maintaining a high-level price of imports. This has brought about a low rate of consumption and an over-reliance on an export-driven economy.

Simultaneously, the Chinese authorities have also taken advantage of currency depreciation and FX intervention through open-market operations and other measures to respond to large capital outflows in 2015-16 that were putting depreciation pressures on the exchange rate. The bottom line is that China has been pursuing a “slow but steady” market-oriented strategy to let its currency float, even in the light of domestic pressures.

In relation to this, the implementation of a proactive monetary policy — including interest rate cuts, open-market operations such as US Treasury securities purchase and stiff financial regulation — are a sign of Beijing’s determination to be integrated within the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Right (SDR) basket of reserve currencies. This elite club of currencies confers members the right to purchase domestic currency in FX markets in order to maintain exchange rates. This move, coherent with market fundamentals, seems consistent with the idea that Beijing will be more and more integrated into the international trade and investment regime in the coming decade, and that preferential trade agreements and investment policies will continue to shape its exchange rate policy.

Trade War 
 
However, the current trade war with the US could end up hurting China’s economy. With regard to this, several forces come into play. Indirect or direct effects of higher tariffs and barriers might take their toll on international and domestic demand for services such as logistics and wholesale trade, and might also negatively affect business sentiment and investment as a whole.

In tackling this situation, the People’s Bank of China should undertake more aggressive accommodative monetary in order to support demand being hit and promote investment. This could also help to absorb the shocks of trade tariffs, with a declining exchange rate of the yuan that offsets the loss in export competitiveness.

Nevertheless, as a JPMorgan strategists stress, a more accommodative monetary policy could backfire. Not just in terms of downward pressure on the yuan, but also in spoiling Beijing’s attempts to fix macroeconomic imbalances with tighter regulations such as high level of corporate leverage, rapid build-up in debt, and credit distortions. Therefore, the only way out would be to resort to fiscal measures to support exporters and boost domestic demand, while in the meantime taking for granted a cheaper yuan.

The real dilemma for a more globalised China in the years ahead is the so-called Mundell-Fleming trilemma: the impossibility to enjoy simultaneously an independent monetary policy, a liberalized capital account and a fixed exchange rate. Thus far, China’s trade-off has been a mixture of low-interest rates, a loose monetary policy, a de jure monitored capital account liberalization and a currency-managed floating exchange rate. In the years to come, China will find it more desirable to move toward an independent monetary policy and pick one out of capital account openness and exchange rate flexibility. On the one hand, a floating exchange rate could help dampen shocks and address capital flow pressure, while cross-border capital flows regulation could be relaxed instead of being used as tool for macroeconomic policy adjustments.

A Convergence of Problems

In the next decade, China will become increasingly more “globalized.” However, the integration into the world economy will not be as smooth as many scholars think. That’s why the rise of China poses quite a few problems. First of all, there’s an economic order problem. As perfectly addressed by Benjamin Cohen, experts have to account for the issue of systemic flexibility and of China’s intentions. Cohen asserts that monetary systems don’t seem to lack the flexibility to accommodate a newcomer, as demonstrated in the past. However, the question remains whether China will adjust to the status quo and abide by the laws or not.

Second is the question of democracy. In dealing with economic change, China is currently undergoing a process of convergence of problems: the challenge that globalization poses for national sovereignty, popular legitimacy, democracy and economic change. According to Dani Rodrik, this is the global dilemma that every economy faces when entering the global stage. Like in Mundell-Fleming’s trilemma, two out of three are permitted. Since the crackdown on the Tiananmen’s protests, China seems to have undermined the emergence of democracy, maintaining at the same time a national sovereignty in terms of leaving room for maneuver in capital-account liberalisation and monetary policy.

However, an increasingly integrated economy engaged with the international standards might cause China to go easy on national sovereignty, which could eventually be downplayed as compliance with a range of transnational regulatory regimes. In regard to this, China in the coming years will likely be more locked in globalisation and economic change than a decade ago. Think of the accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001 or joining SDR. Beijing has thus decided to achieve economic integration through what Robert Holton calls the golden straitjacket: a tight control of the political structure of the society eschewing mass politics and democratic participation, where national sovereignty and economic change are maintained as the main driving forces.

However, the greatest unknown factor is at home. In fact, the greatest risk for China would be the incapacity of the ruling class to manage the extraordinary economic, social, political, but also urban and environmental, transformations toward which the country is headed. This could eventually lead the Communist Party elite to give up on more economic integration and turn inward to maintain its draconian control over society. At that time, the world will understand in which direction China is going.

(Lorenzo Carrieri is a postgraduate student in economics at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/asia_pacific/china-economic-growth-trade-war-asia-pacific-news-analysis-19001/">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 Lorenzo Carrieri China’s economic growth over the last 30 years has astounded the world. Since 1978, under the tenure of Deng Xiaoping, China has embarked on a process of transformation that enabled it to escape economic isolation.

By Lorenzo Carrieri China’s economic growth over the last 30 years has astounded the world. Since 1978, under the tenure of Deng Xiaoping, China has embarked on a process of transformation that enabled it to escape economic isolation. Beijing’s government has de-collectivised agriculture and freed foreign exchange transactions in addition to allowing private entities to trade and permitting some foreign investment. Ever since, Beijing has dismissed Maoism and ushered in a new era of capitalism and market reforms, enjoying a sustainable growth rate year after year. However, notwithstanding the achievements in terms of economic prowess, China seems to be stuck in what is called a “middle-income trap,” and its economy suffers from several shortcomings: high level of corporate debt, an over-reliance on export-driven manufacturing and a high degree of financial repression, to name but a few. Where is China headed? Where will China’s economy be in 10 years? Is China going to be more integrated into the world economy, either in terms of international trade and investment, or will progress be reversed, especially in light of a trade war with the US and emerging markets’ volatility to a rising dollar? The main assumption we have to make in order to tackle this question is that China’s economic policy revolves around a slow but steady approach to market-driven reforms. Its transitional post-communist economy maintains the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) monopoly on political power while it pursues a more market-driven and services-oriented economic strategy. A tightly controlled political structure alongside a dynamic economy, where economic growth is the key feature that legitimizes political power, China’s approach to international trade and investment has several unique features that allow us to grasp the dynamics of change the country has undergone. Lessons Learned As far as economic international trade and investment are concerned, China’s interest groups sustain economic openness. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) were making the decisions when China began opening up in 1979. At that time, all assets were state-owned, and officials were in charge of regulating — via the enterprises they controlled — corporate governance. Thus, Communist Party officials both deduced and aggregated interests over economic policy, which eventually resulted in bureaucrats having a lot of influence on all economic organized activity and a high stake in maintaining an open system. In addition, China has been developing a vast stock market for decades, which helps SOEs to obtain financing and contribute to the state’s fiscal revenues. China has learned from the failure of other communist states. While the USSR collapsed in 1991, and all its satellites were crumbling around it, shaken by the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and squeezed by international sanctions, China decided to adjust its economic policy according to the external constraints of the systemic structure — namely, to depoliticise macroeconomic policies and adjust them to the rule of basic economic equilibria: existence of budget constraints, fiscal and monetary responsibility, a system of market-clearing prices and inflation under check. Therefore, with the support of the military and the bureaucracy, Deng committed to build a dynamic economy. For him, the only way to preserve the support for the Communist Party was to embark upon a process of overarching economic reforms that would change China’s economy and uplift the well-being at home and increase China’s international prestige and leverage abroad. Economic reforms ahead of political reforms — this assumption continues to be pressed into the Chinese policy-makers’ playbook. Thus, in the coming years, it seems unlikely that this key feature of the CCP will fade away, especially because it provides the political power with leverage on decentralized economic activity. The party’s legitimacy is strengthened by the fact that the CCP becomes widely recognized for an improvement in living standards, which in turn reinforces its grip on power and raises the cost of opposing it. In regard to this, the last political moves under President Xi Jinping seem to follow in Deng’s footsteps. Xi has been steadily consolidating his grip over the party as he pursues economic reforms aimed at increasing China’s domestic fortunes. Capital Flows Nevertheless, as far as capital inflows are concerned, China lags behind its peers. On the one hand, although it has implemented new inflow liberalization measures in 2016, its capital account continues to be relatively closed. On the other hand, foreign investment is still restricted to the extent that intangible assets, such as human capital and management techniques for supply chains, are hard to absorb without a more liberalized foreign direct investment (FDI) and foreign portfolio investment (FPI) policy. In regard to this, China’s central bank is carefully loosening control on cross-border capital flows, while policy responses are taking into account domestic financial conditions and stability of the exchange rate. It is difficult to predict what is going to happen in this regard, but it is likely that China will move forward carefully with an actual floating exchange rate, simultaneously eating into foreign reserves to curb high volatility in order to shore up financial stability. Plus, it is likely that Beijing will follow through with a controlled capital-account liberalization. Thus, China will continue to use what Kevin Gallacher calls “countervailing monetary power” — a string of measures that has helped Beijing (and other emerging markets such as Brazil and South Korea) to offset against the structural power of global markets. From countercyclical regulations to macro-prudential measures, China’s financial institutions will likely continue on the path of curbing the negative externalities of a surge in capital inflow — especially in times of expansionary policy in the US and the EU — and capital flight. In the coming years, all these measures would likely ease inward FDI, generating positive externalities and knowledge spillovers by importing foreign technology. This could create a situation where Beijing could set up an investment-friendly environment where forces of agglomeration, such as a world-class system of property rights, a sophisticated industrial base, vast labour markets, a high-skilled workforce and specialized service providers will lead China closer to its technological ambitions. International Trade As for trade, China remains a net exporter on the international stage. Plus, it has one of the highest national saving rates worldwide, known as the “Chinese Saving Puzzle.” The two factors are intrinsically correlated. On the one hand, high savings bring about excessive investment domestically, which in turn leads to supply dwarfing demand, low level of consumption, plus a risk of a credit-boom cycle and low growth of income. On the other hand, a high savings rate has engendered a “saving glut” abroad, with large global imbalances and low-interest rates. Nonetheless, current account surplus to GDP has been falling steadily since 2007. Amongst the main reasons have been a high import volume, more investment, nominal effective exchange rate appreciation, weak demand in major advanced economies and, more recently, a widening of the services deficit. These trends signal that China is opening its massive market to foreign products and services, getting rid of barriers and tariffs on imports. In addition, a current account surplus shrinking is the result of higher consumption by households. Even though private consumption remains very low compared to the global average, the rise of a sophisticated and vibrant urban middle-class keen on foreign goods and services could lead to a huge shift in the Chinese and world trade balance in the years ahead. Another important sign that suggests a more “integrated” China is the exchange-rate regime. China’s yuan follows a band with a fixed floor and ceiling, inside which the exchange rate is allowed to float with respect to the US dollar and other currencies. Over the last decades, China has pursued a “beggar-thy-neighbor” currency policy to keep the sales price of exports at a low level while maintaining a high-level price of imports. This has brought about a low rate of consumption and an over-reliance on an export-driven economy. Simultaneously, the Chinese authorities have also taken advantage of currency depreciation and FX intervention through open-market operations and other measures to respond to large capital outflows in 2015-16 that were putting depreciation pressures on the exchange rate. The bottom line is that China has been pursuing a “slow but steady” market-oriented strategy to let its currency float, even in the light of domestic pressures. In relation to this, the implementation of a proactive monetary policy — including interest rate cuts, open-market operations such as US Treasury securities purchase and stiff financial regulation — are a sign of Beijing’s determination to be integrated within the International Monetary Fund’s Special Drawing Right (SDR) basket of reserve currencies. This elite club of currencies confers members the right to purchase domestic currency in FX markets in order to maintain exchange rates. This move, coherent with market fundamentals, seems consistent with the idea that Beijing will be more and more integrated into the international trade and investment regime in the coming decade, and that preferential trade agreements and investment policies will continue to shape its exchange rate policy. Trade War However, the current trade war with the US could end up hurting China’s economy. With regard to this, several forces come into play. Indirect or direct effects of higher tariffs and barriers might take their toll on international and domestic demand for services such as logistics and wholesale trade, and might also negatively affect business sentiment and investment as a whole. In tackling this situation, the People’s Bank of China should undertake more aggressive accommodative monetary in order to support demand being hit and promote investment. This could also help to absorb the shocks of trade tariffs, with a declining exchange rate of the yuan that offsets the loss in export competitiveness. Nevertheless, as a JPMorgan strategists stress, a more accommodative monetary policy could backfire. Not just in terms of downward pressure on the yuan, but also in spoiling Beijing’s attempts to fix macroeconomic imbalances with tighter regulations such as high level of corporate leverage, rapid build-up in debt, and credit distortions. Therefore, the only way out would be to resort to fiscal measures to support exporters and boost domestic demand, while in the meantime taking for granted a cheaper yuan. The real dilemma for a more globalised China in the years ahead is the so-called Mundell-Fleming trilemma: the impossibility to enjoy simultaneously an independent monetary policy, a liberalized capital account and a fixed exchange rate. Thus far, China’s trade-off has been a mixture of low-interest rates, a loose monetary policy, a de jure monitored capital account liberalization and a currency-managed floating exchange rate. In the years to come, China will find it more desirable to move toward an independent monetary policy and pick one out of capital account openness and exchange rate flexibility. On the one hand, a floating exchange rate could help dampen shocks and address capital flow pressure, while cross-border capital flows regulation could be relaxed instead of being used as tool for macroeconomic policy adjustments. A Convergence of Problems In the next decade, China will become increasingly more “globalized.” However, the integration into the world economy will not be as smooth as many scholars think. That’s why the rise of China poses quite a few problems. First of all, there’s an economic order problem. As perfectly addressed by Benjamin Cohen, experts have to account for the issue of systemic flexibility and of China’s intentions. Cohen asserts that monetary systems don’t seem to lack the flexibility to accommodate a newcomer, as demonstrated in the past. However, the question remains whether China will adjust to the status quo and abide by the laws or not. Second is the question of democracy. In dealing with economic change, China is currently undergoing a process of convergence of problems: the challenge that globalization poses for national sovereignty, popular legitimacy, democracy and economic change. According to Dani Rodrik, this is the global dilemma that every economy faces when entering the global stage. Like in Mundell-Fleming’s trilemma, two out of three are permitted. Since the crackdown on the Tiananmen’s protests, China seems to have undermined the emergence of democracy, maintaining at the same time a national sovereignty in terms of leaving room for maneuver in capital-account liberalisation and monetary policy. However, an increasingly integrated economy engaged with the international standards might cause China to go easy on national sovereignty, which could eventually be downplayed as compliance with a range of transnational regulatory regimes. In regard to this, China in the coming years will likely be more locked in globalisation and economic change than a decade ago. Think of the accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001 or joining SDR. Beijing has thus decided to achieve economic integration through what Robert Holton calls the golden straitjacket: a tight control of the political structure of the society eschewing mass politics and democratic participation, where national sovereignty and economic change are maintained as the main driving forces. However, the greatest unknown factor is at home. In fact, the greatest risk for China would be the incapacity of the ruling class to manage the extraordinary economic, social, political, but also urban and environmental, transformations toward which the country is headed. This could eventually lead the Communist Party elite to give up on more economic integration and turn inward to maintain its draconian control over society. At that time, the world will understand in which direction China is going. (Lorenzo Carrieri is a postgraduate student in economics at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins) (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)

The dilemmas of China’s economic rise

Florida's governor mobilized National Guard troops and thousands of Gulf Coast residents were ordered evacuated on Monday, two days before Hurricane Michael was forecast to slam ashore with life-threatening waves, winds and rains.

Michael was packing sustained winds of up to 85 miles per hour (140 kph) and gaining strength as it skirted past Cuba's western tip en route to a likely Wednesday landfall as the most powerful storm to strike the Florida Panhandle in at least a decade.

Currently ranked as a Category 1 storm on the five-step Saffir-Simpson wind scale, Michael could grow into a Category 3, becoming the second major hurricane in the Atlantic basin this year following Florence last month, forecasters said.

The storm is expected to unleash coastal storm surges of up to 12 feet (3.7 meters) along Florida's Panhandle and dump as much as a foot (30 cm) of rain across Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) reported.

The NHC warned that both could trigger deadly flooding and that residents within the hurricane warning zone should likewise "prepare for life-threatening winds."

Florida Governor Rick Scott declared a state of emergency in 35 counties along Florida's Panhandle and Big Bend regions. Mandatory evacuations were under way in coastal areas, with 1,250 National Guard soldiers aiding the process and more than 4,000 troops placed on standby, Scott tweeted.

"The FL panhandle needs to be prepared for a direct hit with sustained hurricane force winds," Scott wrote on Twitter on Monday.

In Gulf County alone, the first to begin ordering residents of low-lying areas to higher ground, mandatory evacuation notices encompassed an estimated 3,800 homes, said Jessica Sasich of the county's emergency operations centre.

Many are located in the coastal town of Port St. Joe, the county's largest municipality, lying directly in the hurricane's projected path, she said.

In neighbouring Alabama, Governor Kay Ivey declared an emergency for the entire state on Monday in anticipation of wind damage, heavy rains and power outages.

Michael kills 13 in Central America

As the storm moved north it battered Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula and western Cuba with drenching rains and winds of up to 80 mph (130 kph), the Miami-based hurricane centre said.

Torrential downpours and flash-flooding over the weekend caused 13 deaths in Central America after Michael formed off the coast of northern Honduras.

In Florida, state offices, schools and universities were set to close on Tuesday through the end of the week in panhandle counties. Some beach town residents were left to decide on their own for the time being whether to leave their homes.

"I haven't made up my mind yet, but I know some of my staff are going," said Dave Trepanier, owner of Firefly, a restaurant a block from the beach in Panama City, Bay County, an area where the hurricane is expected to come ashore.

Lines at gasoline stations were growing long in Panama City as people prepared to leave areas under mandatory evacuation, Trepanier said.

Hurricane Michael would be the first major hurricane to hit the panhandle since Hurricane Dennis in 2005, which made landfall near Pensacola, according to hurricane centre data.

After striking Florida, Michael is forecast to move up the East Coast on Wednesday and Thursday ploughing through the Carolinas, still recovering from Hurricane Florence last month.

Energy companies halted nearly a fifth of Gulf of Mexico oil production and evacuated personnel from 10 platforms on Monday.

The Gulf of Mexico is home to 17 per cent of daily U.S. crude oil output and 5 per cent of daily natural gas output, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Florida's governor mobilized National Guard troops and thousands of Gulf Coast residents were ordered evacuated on Monday, two days before Hurricane Michael was forecast to slam ashore with life-threatening waves, winds and rains.

Florida's governor mobilized National Guard troops and thousands of Gulf Coast residents were ordered evacuated on Monday, two days before Hurricane Michael was forecast to slam ashore with life-threatening waves, winds and rains. Michael was packing sustained winds of up to 85 miles per hour (140 kph) and gaining strength as it skirted past Cuba's western tip en route to a likely Wednesday landfall as the most powerful storm to strike the Florida Panhandle in at least a decade. Currently ranked as a Category 1 storm on the five-step Saffir-Simpson wind scale, Michael could grow into a Category 3, becoming the second major hurricane in the Atlantic basin this year following Florence last month, forecasters said. The storm is expected to unleash coastal storm surges of up to 12 feet (3.7 meters) along Florida's Panhandle and dump as much as a foot (30 cm) of rain across Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) reported. The NHC warned that both could trigger deadly flooding and that residents within the hurricane warning zone should likewise "prepare for life-threatening winds." Florida Governor Rick Scott declared a state of emergency in 35 counties along Florida's Panhandle and Big Bend regions. Mandatory evacuations were under way in coastal areas, with 1,250 National Guard soldiers aiding the process and more than 4,000 troops placed on standby, Scott tweeted. "The FL panhandle needs to be prepared for a direct hit with sustained hurricane force winds," Scott wrote on Twitter on Monday. In Gulf County alone, the first to begin ordering residents of low-lying areas to higher ground, mandatory evacuation notices encompassed an estimated 3,800 homes, said Jessica Sasich of the county's emergency operations centre. Many are located in the coastal town of Port St. Joe, the county's largest municipality, lying directly in the hurricane's projected path, she said. In neighbouring Alabama, Governor Kay Ivey declared an emergency for the entire state on Monday in anticipation of wind damage, heavy rains and power outages. Michael kills 13 in Central America As the storm moved north it battered Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula and western Cuba with drenching rains and winds of up to 80 mph (130 kph), the Miami-based hurricane centre said. Torrential downpours and flash-flooding over the weekend caused 13 deaths in Central America after Michael formed off the coast of northern Honduras. In Florida, state offices, schools and universities were set to close on Tuesday through the end of the week in panhandle counties. Some beach town residents were left to decide on their own for the time being whether to leave their homes. "I haven't made up my mind yet, but I know some of my staff are going," said Dave Trepanier, owner of Firefly, a restaurant a block from the beach in Panama City, Bay County, an area where the hurricane is expected to come ashore. Lines at gasoline stations were growing long in Panama City as people prepared to leave areas under mandatory evacuation, Trepanier said. Hurricane Michael would be the first major hurricane to hit the panhandle since Hurricane Dennis in 2005, which made landfall near Pensacola, according to hurricane centre data. After striking Florida, Michael is forecast to move up the East Coast on Wednesday and Thursday ploughing through the Carolinas, still recovering from Hurricane Florence last month. Energy companies halted nearly a fifth of Gulf of Mexico oil production and evacuated personnel from 10 platforms on Monday. The Gulf of Mexico is home to 17 per cent of daily U.S. crude oil output and 5 per cent of daily natural gas output, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Hurricane Michael menaces Florida after fatal flooding in Central America

As the world celebrated the UN-designated International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on September 26, there were still some 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, largely in the hands of the US and the Russian Federation, some on ready alert”.

There are plans to “modernise” nuclear weapons, and there are at least seven other States with nuclear weapons: North Korea, Pakistan, India and China in Asia, Israel in the Middle East and France and the United Kingdom in Europe.

The instability and tensions of current world politics merit that we look at ways in which governments and NGOs have tried to deal with the existence of nuclear weapons, their control and their possible abolition.

There have been four avenues proposed since 1945: Presented, dropped, represented, combined with other proposals for political settlements, linked to proposals for general disarmament or focused on nuclear issues alone.

The first avenue proposed was the Baruch Plan, named after Bernard Baruch, a financier, often adviser to US presidents going back to Woodrow Wilson and the First World War. He had been named a US delegate to the United Nations in charge of atomic issues.

The Baruch Plan proposed the creation of IAEA, which would have a monopoly of all activities connected with atomic research and development such as mining, ownership and management of refineries, and the construction of atomic reactors. The agency staff would be internationally recruited and would be free from interference from national governments.

However, the Baruch Plan was proposed as the Cold War (1945-1990) was starting to heat up and become more structured. In 1949, the US nuclear monopoly was broken by the explosion of the first Soviet bomb, and then in 1950, the war started in Korea. The Korean War led to the next stage, the second and third avenues in nuclear arms policy, someone contradictory but proposed at the same time, and in the light of the Korean War experience.

Avenue two proposed that limited war could be carried out but with nuclear weapons that were smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and that would not necessarily lead to an all-out war between the United States and the Soviet Union. This avenue is most closely associated with Henry Kissinger and his book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy.

The 1950-1953 Korean War showed that war was a real possibility, perhaps due to political miscalculations, erroneous intelligence and failure to see how a local situation could have a much broader impact.

At the same time that Henry Kissinger was writing his book, reflecting largely in similar ways, Robert Osgood of the University of Chicago was teaching a seminar on limited war in which I was one of his students. The seminar led to the widely-read book: Limited War: The Challenge to American Strategy.

It was in Europe where the opposing NATO-Warsaw Pact forces faced each other most closely that the third avenue was proposed: Nuclear-weapon-free zones.

In October 1957, Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Adam Rapacki put forward a plan for creating a nuclear-weapon-free and neutral zone in central Europe, usually known as the Rapacki Plan. The first stage would be the “freezing” of nuclear armaments in Poland, Czechoslovakia and the two German States. The second stage would consist of a reduction of conventional armaments and complete de-nuclearisation of the four states.

Nuclear-weapon-free zones took shape after the 1962 Cuban missiles crisis. Even today, it is difficult to know how close to a war the 1962 nuclear missiles in Cuba brought the United States and the Soviet Union.

It was close enough that it worried leaders in Latin America. Led by the ambassador of Mexico to the United Nations and later Nobel Laureate Alfonso Garcia Robles, negotiations for a Latin American nuclear-weapon-free zone were started, and in 1967, 21 Latin American States signed the Treaty of Tlatelolco. In Latin America, Argentina and Brazil, have nuclear power industries and a potential capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Thus the treaty provides a confidence-building framework between these two regional powers, although the two have none of the tensions between them that coloured Warsaw Pact-NATO relations.

The fourth avenue and the one most discussed at the United Nations these days is a convention to ban the possession and use of nuclear weapons on the lines of the conventions to ban chemical weapons, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.

My own view is that effective nuclear-weapon control will come from a combined regional conflict resolution and nuclear-weapon-free zone approach that was first set out in the Rapacki proposals. I believe that the Korean Peninsula holds the most potential for a settlement within a nuclear-weapon-free zone. 
 
(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-us-and-russian-nuclear-weapons-continue-to-roam-free-2673170">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

As the world celebrated the UN-designated International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on September 26, there were still some 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, largely in the hands of the US and the Russian Federation, some on ready alert”.

As the world celebrated the UN-designated International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on September 26, there were still some 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, largely in the hands of the US and the Russian Federation, some on ready alert”. There are plans to “modernise” nuclear weapons, and there are at least seven other States with nuclear weapons: North Korea, Pakistan, India and China in Asia, Israel in the Middle East and France and the United Kingdom in Europe. The instability and tensions of current world politics merit that we look at ways in which governments and NGOs have tried to deal with the existence of nuclear weapons, their control and their possible abolition. There have been four avenues proposed since 1945: Presented, dropped, represented, combined with other proposals for political settlements, linked to proposals for general disarmament or focused on nuclear issues alone. The first avenue proposed was the Baruch Plan, named after Bernard Baruch, a financier, often adviser to US presidents going back to Woodrow Wilson and the First World War. He had been named a US delegate to the United Nations in charge of atomic issues. The Baruch Plan proposed the creation of IAEA, which would have a monopoly of all activities connected with atomic research and development such as mining, ownership and management of refineries, and the construction of atomic reactors. The agency staff would be internationally recruited and would be free from interference from national governments. However, the Baruch Plan was proposed as the Cold War (1945-1990) was starting to heat up and become more structured. In 1949, the US nuclear monopoly was broken by the explosion of the first Soviet bomb, and then in 1950, the war started in Korea. The Korean War led to the next stage, the second and third avenues in nuclear arms policy, someone contradictory but proposed at the same time, and in the light of the Korean War experience. Avenue two proposed that limited war could be carried out but with nuclear weapons that were smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and that would not necessarily lead to an all-out war between the United States and the Soviet Union. This avenue is most closely associated with Henry Kissinger and his book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. The 1950-1953 Korean War showed that war was a real possibility, perhaps due to political miscalculations, erroneous intelligence and failure to see how a local situation could have a much broader impact. At the same time that Henry Kissinger was writing his book, reflecting largely in similar ways, Robert Osgood of the University of Chicago was teaching a seminar on limited war in which I was one of his students. The seminar led to the widely-read book: Limited War: The Challenge to American Strategy. It was in Europe where the opposing NATO-Warsaw Pact forces faced each other most closely that the third avenue was proposed: Nuclear-weapon-free zones. In October 1957, Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Adam Rapacki put forward a plan for creating a nuclear-weapon-free and neutral zone in central Europe, usually known as the Rapacki Plan. The first stage would be the “freezing” of nuclear armaments in Poland, Czechoslovakia and the two German States. The second stage would consist of a reduction of conventional armaments and complete de-nuclearisation of the four states. Nuclear-weapon-free zones took shape after the 1962 Cuban missiles crisis. Even today, it is difficult to know how close to a war the 1962 nuclear missiles in Cuba brought the United States and the Soviet Union. It was close enough that it worried leaders in Latin America. Led by the ambassador of Mexico to the United Nations and later Nobel Laureate Alfonso Garcia Robles, negotiations for a Latin American nuclear-weapon-free zone were started, and in 1967, 21 Latin American States signed the Treaty of Tlatelolco. In Latin America, Argentina and Brazil, have nuclear power industries and a potential capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Thus the treaty provides a confidence-building framework between these two regional powers, although the two have none of the tensions between them that coloured Warsaw Pact-NATO relations. The fourth avenue and the one most discussed at the United Nations these days is a convention to ban the possession and use of nuclear weapons on the lines of the conventions to ban chemical weapons, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. My own view is that effective nuclear-weapon control will come from a combined regional conflict resolution and nuclear-weapon-free zone approach that was first set out in the Rapacki proposals. I believe that the Korean Peninsula holds the most potential for a settlement within a nuclear-weapon-free zone. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US and Russian nuclear weapons continue to roam free

Union Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas Dharmendra Pradhan said that despite the sanctions imposed by the United States, Indian companies have made nominations to purchase oil from Iran.

Delivering the opening remarks at the inaugural conference of The Energy Forum here on Monday, Pradhan said: "Two days ago, two of our companies made nominations to purchase Iranian oil in November. We do not know if we will get a waiver (from US sanctions) or not. Isn't it new diplomatic power and recognition of the new leadership of India?"

Stressing on the need to lower carbon footprint and enhance self-sufficiency in terms of energy, Pradhan noted that the Centre is focusing on achieving a significant reduction in the import of carbon molecules.

"Energy is an important component for any economy. India, being the third largest energy consumer in the world, imports nearly 300MMT of carbon molecules every year. Our challenge is to lower this import volume, enhance self-sufficiency and lower our carbon footprints," he said.

Emphasising on the Centre's efforts to expand India's gas-pipeline network, he added, "We aim to expand India's gas-pipeline network to nearly more than half of the country and are pushing to establish India as a gas-based economy, with domestic as well as foreign investments and also enhancing exploration and production activities to augment our own hydrocarbon production capacities."

Asserting that 'when the bottom of the pyramid is transformed, the characteristic of the country is transformed'&nbsp;he underlined the positive impact of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana on the lives of women.

"I interacted with a large number of beneficiaries of Ujjawala Yojana a few days back. All of them unanimously said that previously they had to spend around Rs. 1000 to 1200 to purchase wood, coal and other items for cooking. Today, they buy gas cylinders at a maximum cost of Rs 900, out of which Rs 400-450 is returned in the form of subsidy, and hence, the effective expenditure is only about Rs 500. They also said that many of their eye issues were resolved because of the same and they were getting more time to rest now."

The conference aims at analysing the global energy industry and overcoming challenges to address India's energy security. Other significant issues such as import reduction, sustainability, and reduction of CO2 footprints were also tabled for discussion at the conference.&nbsp;

Union Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas Dharmendra Pradhan said that despite the sanctions imposed by the United States, Indian companies have made nominations to purchase oil from Iran.

Union Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas Dharmendra Pradhan said that despite the sanctions imposed by the United States, Indian companies have made nominations to purchase oil from Iran. Delivering the opening remarks at the inaugural conference of The Energy Forum here on Monday, Pradhan said: "Two days ago, two of our companies made nominations to purchase Iranian oil in November. We do not know if we will get a waiver (from US sanctions) or not. Isn't it new diplomatic power and recognition of the new leadership of India?" Stressing on the need to lower carbon footprint and enhance self-sufficiency in terms of energy, Pradhan noted that the Centre is focusing on achieving a significant reduction in the import of carbon molecules. "Energy is an important component for any economy. India, being the third largest energy consumer in the world, imports nearly 300MMT of carbon molecules every year. Our challenge is to lower this import volume, enhance self-sufficiency and lower our carbon footprints," he said. Emphasising on the Centre's efforts to expand India's gas-pipeline network, he added, "We aim to expand India's gas-pipeline network to nearly more than half of the country and are pushing to establish India as a gas-based economy, with domestic as well as foreign investments and also enhancing exploration and production activities to augment our own hydrocarbon production capacities." Asserting that 'when the bottom of the pyramid is transformed, the characteristic of the country is transformed' he underlined the positive impact of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana on the lives of women. "I interacted with a large number of beneficiaries of Ujjawala Yojana a few days back. All of them unanimously said that previously they had to spend around Rs. 1000 to 1200 to purchase wood, coal and other items for cooking. Today, they buy gas cylinders at a maximum cost of Rs 900, out of which Rs 400-450 is returned in the form of subsidy, and hence, the effective expenditure is only about Rs 500. They also said that many of their eye issues were resolved because of the same and they were getting more time to rest now." The conference aims at analysing the global energy industry and overcoming challenges to address India's energy security. Other significant issues such as import reduction, sustainability, and reduction of CO2 footprints were also tabled for discussion at the conference.

Recognition of new leadership of India: Pradhan on India buying oil from Iran

US&nbsp;Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to put a bruising confirmation battle behind him on Monday at a White House ceremony in which President Donald Trump declared him innocent of sexual misconduct and apologised for the heated process.

"On behalf of our nation, I want to apologise to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure," Trump said at the start of a ceremonial swearing-in in the East Room of the White House.

"Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception," he said.

Kavanaugh's confirmation process exploded in controversy after California university professor Christine Blasey Ford went public with allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, while they were in high school.

Kavanaugh gave a forceful, emotional denial of those allegations during testimony before lawmakers that some Democrats said showed a lack of judicial temperament. The US&nbsp;Senate voted 50-48 on Saturday to confirm him, with just one Democrat supporting him.

Kavanaugh said on Monday that he was starting his new job without bitterness, seeking to set a new tone after the divisive process.

"The Senate confirmation process was contentious and emotional. That process is over. My focus now is to be the best justice I can be," he said with his wife and children standing nearby.

He said he would aim to be a force for stability and unity on the court, whose other eight members all attended the White House ceremony.

"Although the Senate confirmation process tested me as it has tested others, it did not change me," he said.

US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to put a bruising confirmation battle behind him on Monday at a White House ceremony in which President Donald Trump declared him innocent of sexual misconduct and apologised for the heated process.

US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh sought to put a bruising confirmation battle behind him on Monday at a White House ceremony in which President Donald Trump declared him innocent of sexual misconduct and apologised for the heated process. "On behalf of our nation, I want to apologise to Brett and the entire Kavanaugh family for the terrible pain and suffering you have been forced to endure," Trump said at the start of a ceremonial swearing-in in the East Room of the White House. "Those who step forward to serve our country deserve a fair and dignified evaluation, not a campaign of political and personal destruction based on lies and deception," he said. Kavanaugh's confirmation process exploded in controversy after California university professor Christine Blasey Ford went public with allegations that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in 1982, while they were in high school. Kavanaugh gave a forceful, emotional denial of those allegations during testimony before lawmakers that some Democrats said showed a lack of judicial temperament. The US Senate voted 50-48 on Saturday to confirm him, with just one Democrat supporting him. Kavanaugh said on Monday that he was starting his new job without bitterness, seeking to set a new tone after the divisive process. "The Senate confirmation process was contentious and emotional. That process is over. My focus now is to be the best justice I can be," he said with his wife and children standing nearby. He said he would aim to be a force for stability and unity on the court, whose other eight members all attended the White House ceremony. "Although the Senate confirmation process tested me as it has tested others, it did not change me," he said.

Trump apologises to Kavanaugh, says he is innocent of sexual assault charges

Justin Rose is backing Ireland's Padraig Harrington to be Europe's next Ryder Cup captain after helping the team to a crushing victory over the United States last month.

Harrington, who has won three majors and played in six successive Ryder Cups from 1999 to 2010, was a vice-captain to Thomas Bjorn and is odds-on favourite to captain at Whistling Straits in Wisconsin in two years' time.

"I would say a three times major champion, clearly a European legend, for me Padraig is the frontrunner," Rose, who reached world number one this year and is now second in the rankings, told a television channel on Tuesday.

"And then you've got (Lee) Westwood... It's interesting when you try to project out who the possible captains are for the next 10 Ryder Cups."

Former world number one Westwood, 45, was also one of the five European vice-captains this year. The Englishman has said he would like to captain Europe in Italy in 2022 when Rome hosts the event.

Harrington told Irish national radio station RTE last week that he wanted to be a Ryder Cup captain at some stage.

Still playing, the 47-year-old narrowly missed out on his first European Tour title at the Czech Masters last month, where his second-place finish was his best placing in almost a year.

Northern Ireland's Rory McIlroy, a member of the victorious team in Paris and winner of four majors, has also backed Harrington, who won back-to-back British Opens in 2007 and 2008 and the PGA Championship also in 2008.

"I've always thought Padraig would be a good captain in the United States. He's won a lot of golf tournaments over there, he's won a PGA Championship," McIlroy said last week.

"I think the continuity in the European camp having all these vice-captains this year and preparing for captaincy down the road has been a huge foundation of why we've been so good."

Justin Rose is backing Ireland's Padraig Harrington to be Europe's next Ryder Cup captain after helping the team to a crushing victory over the United States last month.

Justin Rose is backing Ireland's Padraig Harrington to be Europe's next Ryder Cup captain after helping the team to a crushing victory over the United States last month. Harrington, who has won three majors and played in six successive Ryder Cups from 1999 to 2010, was a vice-captain to Thomas Bjorn and is odds-on favourite to captain at Whistling Straits in Wisconsin in two years' time. "I would say a three times major champion, clearly a European legend, for me Padraig is the frontrunner," Rose, who reached world number one this year and is now second in the rankings, told a television channel on Tuesday. "And then you've got (Lee) Westwood... It's interesting when you try to project out who the possible captains are for the next 10 Ryder Cups." Former world number one Westwood, 45, was also one of the five European vice-captains this year. The Englishman has said he would like to captain Europe in Italy in 2022 when Rome hosts the event. Harrington told Irish national radio station RTE last week that he wanted to be a Ryder Cup captain at some stage. Still playing, the 47-year-old narrowly missed out on his first European Tour title at the Czech Masters last month, where his second-place finish was his best placing in almost a year. Northern Ireland's Rory McIlroy, a member of the victorious team in Paris and winner of four majors, has also backed Harrington, who won back-to-back British Opens in 2007 and 2008 and the PGA Championship also in 2008. "I've always thought Padraig would be a good captain in the United States. He's won a lot of golf tournaments over there, he's won a PGA Championship," McIlroy said last week. "I think the continuity in the European camp having all these vice-captains this year and preparing for captaincy down the road has been a huge foundation of why we've been so good."

Golf: Rose backs Harrington to be Europe's next Ryder Cup captain

Washington's newly named point man tasked with finding a peaceful end to Afghanistan's 17-year war is in Pakistan to seek help from the new government in Islamabad in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, the US Embassy said Tuesday.

A former US ambassador in Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Pakistan from neighbouring Afghanistan. His tour of the region will also include Middle East stops in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

In Afghanistan, he met with President Ashraf Ghani, a long-time friend. Khalilzad, who was also born in Afghanistan, first served in Kabul as a special envoy of President George W Bush following the 2001 ouster of the Taliban, and then later as Washington's ambassador.

But Khalilzad has had a prickly relationship with Pakistan and has often accused Islamabad of fomenting violence in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban. He has even said the United States should declare Pakistan a terrorist state.

Washington and Kabul have both repeatedly accused Pakistan of providing safe havens for Taliban insurgents, a claim Islamabad has denied and countered with charges that its own insurgents have found sanctuary in Afghanistan.

Both neighbouring countries have been brutally targeted by militants. In Pakistan the perpetrators have most often been the region's Islamic State affiliate, as well as the Pakistani Taliban.

In neighbouring Afghanistan, the IS has been relentless in attacks, mostly targeting minority Shiites. The Afghan Taliban say they restrict their attacks to Afghan security forces but thousands of civilians have been killed in their attacks.

Pakistan's new Prime Minister Imran Khan has been a strident critic of Islamabad's previous participation in Washington's so-called war on terror.&nbsp;

However, he promised after winning the polls in July that his government would be "partners in peace." It is not clear what that would entail but Pakistan has supported Afghan President Ghani's peace overtures to the Taliban.

In Pakistan, Khalilzad was met by Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua, who led a delegation that included "security, defense and diplomatic officials," according to a tweet from the foreign office spokesman. There were no further details.

Pakistan's Afghan policy is largely seen as navigated by the military and its intelligence agency, known by its acronym, ISI.

Khalilzad's tour of the region, which was first announced by the State Department as a mission to coordinate and lead U.S. Efforts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, has been shrouded in secrecy.

One of his stops is Qatar, where the Taliban maintain a political office. In July, the Taliban said they met there with Alice Wells, Washington's then-top diplomat in the region.

Washington has neither denied nor confirmed the meeting though Wells was in Qatar at the time. It is not known whether there would be a similar meeting with Khalilzad on his visit.

Direct talks with the US have been a persistent demand of the Taliban, who accuse Ghani's government of being America's "puppets." The Taliban have refused so far to comment on Khalilzad's appointment.

The Afghan Taliban have condemned Afghanistan's parliamentary elections later this month and threatened more attacks on Afghan security forces.

In a statement on Monday, which was also released in English, the Taliban also urged Afghan candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot lists.&nbsp;

They denounced the polls as an America-designed ploy to further US interests in Afghanistan and warned Afghan security forces that they would be targeted.

The statement also repeated the long-standing Taliban demand for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan.

Washington's newly named point man tasked with finding a peaceful end to Afghanistan's 17-year war is in Pakistan to seek help from the new government in Islamabad in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, the US Embassy said Tuesday.

Washington's newly named point man tasked with finding a peaceful end to Afghanistan's 17-year war is in Pakistan to seek help from the new government in Islamabad in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, the US Embassy said Tuesday. A former US ambassador in Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Pakistan from neighbouring Afghanistan. His tour of the region will also include Middle East stops in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. In Afghanistan, he met with President Ashraf Ghani, a long-time friend. Khalilzad, who was also born in Afghanistan, first served in Kabul as a special envoy of President George W Bush following the 2001 ouster of the Taliban, and then later as Washington's ambassador. But Khalilzad has had a prickly relationship with Pakistan and has often accused Islamabad of fomenting violence in Afghanistan by supporting the Taliban. He has even said the United States should declare Pakistan a terrorist state. Washington and Kabul have both repeatedly accused Pakistan of providing safe havens for Taliban insurgents, a claim Islamabad has denied and countered with charges that its own insurgents have found sanctuary in Afghanistan. Both neighbouring countries have been brutally targeted by militants. In Pakistan the perpetrators have most often been the region's Islamic State affiliate, as well as the Pakistani Taliban. In neighbouring Afghanistan, the IS has been relentless in attacks, mostly targeting minority Shiites. The Afghan Taliban say they restrict their attacks to Afghan security forces but thousands of civilians have been killed in their attacks. Pakistan's new Prime Minister Imran Khan has been a strident critic of Islamabad's previous participation in Washington's so-called war on terror. However, he promised after winning the polls in July that his government would be "partners in peace." It is not clear what that would entail but Pakistan has supported Afghan President Ghani's peace overtures to the Taliban. In Pakistan, Khalilzad was met by Foreign Secretary Tehmina Janjua, who led a delegation that included "security, defense and diplomatic officials," according to a tweet from the foreign office spokesman. There were no further details. Pakistan's Afghan policy is largely seen as navigated by the military and its intelligence agency, known by its acronym, ISI. Khalilzad's tour of the region, which was first announced by the State Department as a mission to coordinate and lead U.S. Efforts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, has been shrouded in secrecy. One of his stops is Qatar, where the Taliban maintain a political office. In July, the Taliban said they met there with Alice Wells, Washington's then-top diplomat in the region. Washington has neither denied nor confirmed the meeting though Wells was in Qatar at the time. It is not known whether there would be a similar meeting with Khalilzad on his visit. Direct talks with the US have been a persistent demand of the Taliban, who accuse Ghani's government of being America's "puppets." The Taliban have refused so far to comment on Khalilzad's appointment. The Afghan Taliban have condemned Afghanistan's parliamentary elections later this month and threatened more attacks on Afghan security forces. In a statement on Monday, which was also released in English, the Taliban also urged Afghan candidates to withdraw their names from the ballot lists. They denounced the polls as an America-designed ploy to further US interests in Afghanistan and warned Afghan security forces that they would be targeted. The statement also repeated the long-standing Taliban demand for a complete withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan.

US envoy on Afghan peace takes his mission to Pakistan

The United States accused Tehran Monday of having "unclean hands" as it fought an Iranian court bid to unfreeze $2.0 billion dollars earmarked by Washington for terror victims.

Washington said Iran's "support for international terrorism", including bombings and airline hijackings, should disqualify it from being heard at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

Iran took Washington to the UN's top court in 2016 over a US Supreme Court ruling that the $2 billion (1.74 billion euros) should go to victims of attacks blamed on the Islamic republic.

Iran said the case breached a 1955 "Treaty of Amity" between Washington and Tehran signed before Iran's Islamic revolution.

Washington tore up that treaty last week after the ICJ in a separate case ordered the United States to ease sanctions reimposed on Tehran by US President Donald Trump after he pulled out of Iran's 2015 international nuclear deal.

"Iran comes to the court with unclean hands. Indeed, it is a remarkable show of bad faith," Richard Visek, a US State Department legal official, told the court.

"The actions at the root of this case centre on Iran's support for international terrorism... Iran's bad acts include supports for terrorist bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and airline hijackings," he said.

Visek also accused Iran's "most senior leaders" of the "encouragement and promotion of terrorism" and "violation of nuclear non-proliferation, ballistic missile and arms trafficking obligations".

Iran's use of the 1955 treaty to lodge the case was an "abuse of process", he added.

The ICJ was set up after World War II to rule on disputes between United Nations member states. Its rulings are binding but it has no power to enforce them.

In Washington, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said: "We owe it to our fallen heroes, their families, and the victims of Iran’s terrorist activities to vigorously defend against the Iranian regime’s meritless claims this week in The Hague."

And "we will continue to fight against the scourge of Iran’s terrorist activities in all venues and will continue to increase the pressure on this outlaw state," Pompeo said.&nbsp;

'Full reparations'

At Monday's hearing, a 15-judge bench listened to US arguments over whether the ICJ can take up the case under its strict rules governing its procedure.

The terror attacks whose American victims were to be compensated under the April 2016 Supreme Court ruling included the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut, in which 241 soldiers were killed, and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. The decision affects a total of more than 1,000 Americans.

Iran angrily accused Washington of breaking the 1955 treaty -- even though it was signed at the time with the pro-US regime of the Shah -- and called for the United States "to make full reparations to Iran for the violation of its international legal obligations".

A decision by the ICJ's judges may not be made public for weeks or even months.

But Monday's showdown risks deepening the Trump administration's rift with international justice.

Last Wednesday, Trump's national security advisor John Bolton announced that Washington was not only leaving the amity treaty but also quitting the international accord relating to the UN top court's jurisdiction.

That followed Iran's shock victory last week when the ICJ ruled that the United States must lift sanctions against Tehran targeting humanitarian goods like food and medicine.

The step also came after the Palestinians went to the ICJ to challenge the US move of its Israel embassy to Jerusalem.&nbsp;

The United States accused Tehran Monday of having "unclean hands" as it fought an Iranian court bid to unfreeze $2.0 billion dollars earmarked by Washington for terror victims.

The United States accused Tehran Monday of having "unclean hands" as it fought an Iranian court bid to unfreeze $2.0 billion dollars earmarked by Washington for terror victims. Washington said Iran's "support for international terrorism", including bombings and airline hijackings, should disqualify it from being heard at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. Iran took Washington to the UN's top court in 2016 over a US Supreme Court ruling that the $2 billion (1.74 billion euros) should go to victims of attacks blamed on the Islamic republic. Iran said the case breached a 1955 "Treaty of Amity" between Washington and Tehran signed before Iran's Islamic revolution. Washington tore up that treaty last week after the ICJ in a separate case ordered the United States to ease sanctions reimposed on Tehran by US President Donald Trump after he pulled out of Iran's 2015 international nuclear deal. "Iran comes to the court with unclean hands. Indeed, it is a remarkable show of bad faith," Richard Visek, a US State Department legal official, told the court. "The actions at the root of this case centre on Iran's support for international terrorism... Iran's bad acts include supports for terrorist bombings, assassinations, kidnappings and airline hijackings," he said. Visek also accused Iran's "most senior leaders" of the "encouragement and promotion of terrorism" and "violation of nuclear non-proliferation, ballistic missile and arms trafficking obligations". Iran's use of the 1955 treaty to lodge the case was an "abuse of process", he added. The ICJ was set up after World War II to rule on disputes between United Nations member states. Its rulings are binding but it has no power to enforce them. In Washington, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said: "We owe it to our fallen heroes, their families, and the victims of Iran’s terrorist activities to vigorously defend against the Iranian regime’s meritless claims this week in The Hague." And "we will continue to fight against the scourge of Iran’s terrorist activities in all venues and will continue to increase the pressure on this outlaw state," Pompeo said. 'Full reparations' At Monday's hearing, a 15-judge bench listened to US arguments over whether the ICJ can take up the case under its strict rules governing its procedure. The terror attacks whose American victims were to be compensated under the April 2016 Supreme Court ruling included the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut, in which 241 soldiers were killed, and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. The decision affects a total of more than 1,000 Americans. Iran angrily accused Washington of breaking the 1955 treaty -- even though it was signed at the time with the pro-US regime of the Shah -- and called for the United States "to make full reparations to Iran for the violation of its international legal obligations". A decision by the ICJ's judges may not be made public for weeks or even months. But Monday's showdown risks deepening the Trump administration's rift with international justice. Last Wednesday, Trump's national security advisor John Bolton announced that Washington was not only leaving the amity treaty but also quitting the international accord relating to the UN top court's jurisdiction. That followed Iran's shock victory last week when the ICJ ruled that the United States must lift sanctions against Tehran targeting humanitarian goods like food and medicine. The step also came after the Palestinians went to the ICJ to challenge the US move of its Israel embassy to Jerusalem.

Iran has 'unclean hands' in world court battle, says US

US&nbsp;adviser on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Kabul to hold the first round of talks with Afghan leaders since being appointed an envoy to lead peace efforts with the Taliban and end the 17-year war, Afghan officials said on Sunday.

Last month Khalilzad, 67, an Afghan-born former US&nbsp;ambassador to Kabul and Iraq, joined the US&nbsp;State Department team to lead the reconciliation effort and peace talks with the Taliban.

A spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said Khalilzad met with Ghani on Sunday and he is expected to meet senior ministers and top diplomats in Kabul on Monday.

A senior government official said Khalilzad will be travelling to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Qatar as part of a 10-day trip in an attempt to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.

Khalilzad’s appointment last month highlighted the US administration's fresh efforts to convince the Taliban leadership to participate in the Afghan peace process, despite a surge in attacks by the militant group.

Khalilzad's knowledge of Afghanistan’s main languages, culture and politics could help him engage with all the stakeholders in the peace process in addition to his experience advising or working for four US&nbsp;administrations.

But his visit comes as the Taliban and the Islamic State group ramp up attacks across the country two weeks before the country is set to hold long-delayed parliamentary polls.

In the latest incident, Taliban fighters killed at least 10 policemen in a district in central Afghanistan and blocked arterial highways.

US adviser on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Kabul to hold the first round of talks with Afghan leaders since being appointed an envoy to lead peace efforts with the Taliban and end the 17-year war, Afghan officials said on Sunday.

US adviser on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Kabul to hold the first round of talks with Afghan leaders since being appointed an envoy to lead peace efforts with the Taliban and end the 17-year war, Afghan officials said on Sunday. Last month Khalilzad, 67, an Afghan-born former US ambassador to Kabul and Iraq, joined the US State Department team to lead the reconciliation effort and peace talks with the Taliban. A spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said Khalilzad met with Ghani on Sunday and he is expected to meet senior ministers and top diplomats in Kabul on Monday. A senior government official said Khalilzad will be travelling to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Qatar as part of a 10-day trip in an attempt to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. Khalilzad’s appointment last month highlighted the US administration's fresh efforts to convince the Taliban leadership to participate in the Afghan peace process, despite a surge in attacks by the militant group. Khalilzad's knowledge of Afghanistan’s main languages, culture and politics could help him engage with all the stakeholders in the peace process in addition to his experience advising or working for four US administrations. But his visit comes as the Taliban and the Islamic State group ramp up attacks across the country two weeks before the country is set to hold long-delayed parliamentary polls. In the latest incident, Taliban fighters killed at least 10 policemen in a district in central Afghanistan and blocked arterial highways.

US special envoy to Afghanistan arrives in Kabul as Taliban launch fresh attacks

The United States on Monday asked judges at the International Court of Justice to throw out a claim by Iran to recover $1.75 billion (1.5 billion euros) in national bank assets seized by US courts.

The US Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the assets must be turned over to American families of victims of the 1983 bombing of a US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, among others.

The hearings at the tribunal were separate from Iran's claim relating to current US sanctions against Teheran.

Iran's claim in both cases is based on a 1955 Amity Treaty, which was signed 24 years before Iran's Islamic Revolution that turned the two countries into arch enemies.

"The actions at the root of this case centre on Iran's support for international terrorism," Richard Visek, legal advisor to the US Department of State, said on Monday, calling on the court to reject Iran's suit.

Washington announced last week it would withdraw from the Amity Treaty after the tribunal ordered the US to ensure that sanctions against Iran do not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety.

It will take a year for a withdrawal from the Amity Treaty to take effect and Iran's case against the asset seizure, which was filed in 2016, will continue regardless.

The hearings in The Hague will run until Friday and focus on US objections to the UN's highest court's jurisdiction. No date for a ruling has been set.

The United States on Monday asked judges at the International Court of Justice to throw out a claim by Iran to recover $1.75 billion (1.5 billion euros) in national bank assets seized by US courts.

The United States on Monday asked judges at the International Court of Justice to throw out a claim by Iran to recover $1.75 billion (1.5 billion euros) in national bank assets seized by US courts. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2016 that the assets must be turned over to American families of victims of the 1983 bombing of a US Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, among others. The hearings at the tribunal were separate from Iran's claim relating to current US sanctions against Teheran. Iran's claim in both cases is based on a 1955 Amity Treaty, which was signed 24 years before Iran's Islamic Revolution that turned the two countries into arch enemies. "The actions at the root of this case centre on Iran's support for international terrorism," Richard Visek, legal advisor to the US Department of State, said on Monday, calling on the court to reject Iran's suit. Washington announced last week it would withdraw from the Amity Treaty after the tribunal ordered the US to ensure that sanctions against Iran do not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety. It will take a year for a withdrawal from the Amity Treaty to take effect and Iran's case against the asset seizure, which was filed in 2016, will continue regardless. The hearings in The Hague will run until Friday and focus on US objections to the UN's highest court's jurisdiction. No date for a ruling has been set.

US rejects Iran's legal claim to recover $1.75 billion in frozen assets

The United States will confront Tehran at the UN's top court on Monday over billions in frozen assets, in a case that could deepen the Trump administration's rift with international justice.

Iran had dragged Washington before the International Court of Justice in June 2016 to oppose a US Supreme Court ruling that the $2 billion should go to victims of terror attacks blamed on the Islamic republic.

Monday's hearing of US objections against Iran's appeal comes a week after the ICJ in a separate case ordered the United States to ease sanctions reimposed after President Donald Trump pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.

Both the assets and the sanctions cases are based on a 1955 "Treaty of Amity" between Washington and Tehran that predates Iran's Islamic revolution.

Last Wednesday the Trump administration announced it was not only tearing up the 1955 treaty but also that it was quitting the international accord relating to the UN top court's jurisdiction.

It remained unclear how Washington will respond to the latest case before the court but US officials confirmed that its lawyers will be present at the hearing on Monday.

The ICJ was set up after World War II to rule on disputes between United Nations member states. Its rulings are binding but it has no power to enforce them.

'Full reparations'

At Monday's hearing a 15-judge bench is to listen to arguments by Washington's lawyers over whether the ICJ can take up the case under its strict rules governing its procedure.

The US Supreme Court ruled in April 2016 that $2 billion in Iran's frozen assets must go to American victims of terror attacks.

These included the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut in which 241 soldiers were killed and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In total the decision affects more than 1,000 Americans.

Iran angrily accused Washington of breaking the 1955 treaty -- even though it was signed at the time with the pro-US regime of the Shah -- and called for the US "to make full reparations to Iran for the violation of its international legal obligations."

Tehran said that because the US has maintained its designation of Iran as a major state sponsor of terrorism, its assets including the Central Bank also known as the Bank Markazi, have been "subjected to enforcement proceedings in the United States" even if they should benefit from immunity under the 1955 treaty.

A decision by the ICJ's judges could take weeks or even months before being made public.

'Compulsory jurisdiction'

Iran won a shock victory last week when the ICJ ruled that the US must lift sanctions against Tehran targeting humanitarian goods like food and medicine.

In response, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the United States was terminating the 1955 friendship treaty.&nbsp;

But Trump's national security advisor John Bolton also announced that the United States was pulling out of the 1961 Optional Protocol and Dispute Resolution of the Vienna Convention.

The protocol establishes the ICJ as the "compulsory jurisdiction" for disputes unless nations decide to settle them elsewhere.

The step also comes after the Palestinians went to the ICJ to challenge the US move of its Israel embassy to Jerusalem.&nbsp;

Trump last month at the United Nations virulently rejected the authority of the International Criminal Court -- a separate court based in The Hague that the US is not a member of -- over a probe into US forces in Afghanistan.

The United States will confront Tehran at the UN's top court on Monday over billions in frozen assets, in a case that could deepen the Trump administration's rift with international justice.

The United States will confront Tehran at the UN's top court on Monday over billions in frozen assets, in a case that could deepen the Trump administration's rift with international justice. Iran had dragged Washington before the International Court of Justice in June 2016 to oppose a US Supreme Court ruling that the $2 billion should go to victims of terror attacks blamed on the Islamic republic. Monday's hearing of US objections against Iran's appeal comes a week after the ICJ in a separate case ordered the United States to ease sanctions reimposed after President Donald Trump pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Both the assets and the sanctions cases are based on a 1955 "Treaty of Amity" between Washington and Tehran that predates Iran's Islamic revolution. Last Wednesday the Trump administration announced it was not only tearing up the 1955 treaty but also that it was quitting the international accord relating to the UN top court's jurisdiction. It remained unclear how Washington will respond to the latest case before the court but US officials confirmed that its lawyers will be present at the hearing on Monday. The ICJ was set up after World War II to rule on disputes between United Nations member states. Its rulings are binding but it has no power to enforce them. 'Full reparations' At Monday's hearing a 15-judge bench is to listen to arguments by Washington's lawyers over whether the ICJ can take up the case under its strict rules governing its procedure. The US Supreme Court ruled in April 2016 that $2 billion in Iran's frozen assets must go to American victims of terror attacks. These included the 1983 bombing of a US Marine barracks in Beirut in which 241 soldiers were killed and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In total the decision affects more than 1,000 Americans. Iran angrily accused Washington of breaking the 1955 treaty -- even though it was signed at the time with the pro-US regime of the Shah -- and called for the US "to make full reparations to Iran for the violation of its international legal obligations." Tehran said that because the US has maintained its designation of Iran as a major state sponsor of terrorism, its assets including the Central Bank also known as the Bank Markazi, have been "subjected to enforcement proceedings in the United States" even if they should benefit from immunity under the 1955 treaty. A decision by the ICJ's judges could take weeks or even months before being made public. 'Compulsory jurisdiction' Iran won a shock victory last week when the ICJ ruled that the US must lift sanctions against Tehran targeting humanitarian goods like food and medicine. In response, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the United States was terminating the 1955 friendship treaty. But Trump's national security advisor John Bolton also announced that the United States was pulling out of the 1961 Optional Protocol and Dispute Resolution of the Vienna Convention. The protocol establishes the ICJ as the "compulsory jurisdiction" for disputes unless nations decide to settle them elsewhere. The step also comes after the Palestinians went to the ICJ to challenge the US move of its Israel embassy to Jerusalem. Trump last month at the United Nations virulently rejected the authority of the International Criminal Court -- a separate court based in The Hague that the US is not a member of -- over a probe into US forces in Afghanistan.

United States in new global court showdown with Iran

Melania Trump's wardrobe choices during Africa trip stir controversy 

Brazilians began casting ballots Sunday in their most divisive presidential election in years, with a far-right politician promising an iron-fisted crackdown on crime, Jair Bolsonaro, the firm favourite in the first round.

Surveys suggest the 63-year-old former paratrooper, who wants to cut spiralling debt through sweeping privatizations and embrace the United States and Israel, could count on more than one in three voters in the vast Latin American nation.

But at least as many in the 147-million-strong electorate reject the veteran federal lawmaker.

He is known for repeated offensive comments against women, gays and the poor, and for lauding the military dictatorship Brazil shucked off just three decades ago.

If Bolsonaro gets more than 50 per cent of the vote to lead the field of 13 candidates, he will win the presidency outright. Otherwise, a run-off will be held on October 28.

Analysts say a first-round victory for Bolsonaro is possible -- but unlikely.

The last surveys released late Saturday credited Bolsonaro with 36 per cent against 22 per cent for his nearest rival, leftist former Sao Paulo mayor Fernando Haddad.&nbsp;

With blank and invalid votes stripped out, Bolsonaro could pocket 40-41 per cent of the vote to 25 per cent for Haddad, polling firms Ibope and Datafolha said.

A run-off was seen as too close to call, given the two-point margin of error, though Bolsonaro was seen with a small edge: 45 per cent, to 41-43 per cent for Haddad.

Voting began at 8:00 am (1100 GMT) under tight security. Initial results were expected shortly after the last polling stations close at 2200 GMT in the western Amazonian state of Acre.

Voting marked by 'fear, anger'&nbsp;

Haddad, 55, has picked up support that still exists for leftist ex-president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the Workers Party icon jailed for corruption who was declared ineligible from making a comeback because of a failed appeal.

Brazil lived through its economic heyday during Lula's 2003-2010 presidency, but plunged into its worst-ever recession under his chosen successor, Dilma Rousseff. She was impeached and booted from office in 2016 for financial wrongdoing.

Many blame the Workers Party for the country's current economic malaise.

The result is one of the most polarized elections Brazil has seen. Voter rejection of the two leading candidates is bigger than their polled support.

Voters stuck between the far right and the left are likely to make their choice "more from fear or from anger than from conviction," said Geraldo Monteiro, a political analyst at Rio de Janeiro State University.&nbsp;

The run-off round could be "even more radical, maybe with violence," he warned.

The winner will rule the world's eighth biggest economy: a nation with 210 million inhabitants and abundant natural resources whose top trading partner is China.

Should Bolsonaro become president, he will have to form legislative alliances.

His ultraconservative Social Liberal Party has just eight deputies in the outgoing, 513-seat lower house of congress.&nbsp;

After Sunday's general election, in which new federal and state legislatures will also be chosen, it might at best pick up only a handful of seats.

But Bolsonaro, a Catholic, is close to the evangelical church lobby that includes many lawmakers. Deputies linked to Brazil's powerful agro-business lobby are also siding with him.

A 'clean' candidate&nbsp;

Bolsonaro's profile and anti-crime agenda got an unintended boost a month ago when he was stabbed by a lone assailant who police said had political motives.

Forced off the campaign trail for weeks, Bolsonaro intensified his use of Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to reach Brazilians.

In the week before the election, his poll figures soared, while Haddad's stalled.

Even those opposed to Bolsonaro admit that he is a "clean" candidate, unsullied by corruption scandals that have mired many other politicians.

At a last pro-Bolsonaro rally in the capital Brasilia, supporters said they saw him as a savior.

"Bolsonaro is the best for the country today -- he is the hope of a better country. If we don't have Bolsonaro, we will become a Venezuela," said one demonstrating government worker, Cacio de Oliveira.

The current president, Rousseff's center-right former deputy Michel Temer, is not contesting Sunday's election.

He will leave office at the end of the year as a deeply unpopular figure in a country with 13 million unemployed, climbing public debt and inflation, and record violence.

Brazilians began casting ballots Sunday in their most divisive presidential election in years, with a far-right politician promising an iron-fisted crackdown on crime, Jair Bolsonaro, the firm favourite in the first round.

Brazilians began casting ballots Sunday in their most divisive presidential election in years, with a far-right politician promising an iron-fisted crackdown on crime, Jair Bolsonaro, the firm favourite in the first round. Surveys suggest the 63-year-old former paratrooper, who wants to cut spiralling debt through sweeping privatizations and embrace the United States and Israel, could count on more than one in three voters in the vast Latin American nation. But at least as many in the 147-million-strong electorate reject the veteran federal lawmaker. He is known for repeated offensive comments against women, gays and the poor, and for lauding the military dictatorship Brazil shucked off just three decades ago. If Bolsonaro gets more than 50 per cent of the vote to lead the field of 13 candidates, he will win the presidency outright. Otherwise, a run-off will be held on October 28. Analysts say a first-round victory for Bolsonaro is possible -- but unlikely. The last surveys released late Saturday credited Bolsonaro with 36 per cent against 22 per cent for his nearest rival, leftist former Sao Paulo mayor Fernando Haddad. With blank and invalid votes stripped out, Bolsonaro could pocket 40-41 per cent of the vote to 25 per cent for Haddad, polling firms Ibope and Datafolha said. A run-off was seen as too close to call, given the two-point margin of error, though Bolsonaro was seen with a small edge: 45 per cent, to 41-43 per cent for Haddad. Voting began at 8:00 am (1100 GMT) under tight security. Initial results were expected shortly after the last polling stations close at 2200 GMT in the western Amazonian state of Acre. Voting marked by 'fear, anger' Haddad, 55, has picked up support that still exists for leftist ex-president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, the Workers Party icon jailed for corruption who was declared ineligible from making a comeback because of a failed appeal. Brazil lived through its economic heyday during Lula's 2003-2010 presidency, but plunged into its worst-ever recession under his chosen successor, Dilma Rousseff. She was impeached and booted from office in 2016 for financial wrongdoing. Many blame the Workers Party for the country's current economic malaise. The result is one of the most polarized elections Brazil has seen. Voter rejection of the two leading candidates is bigger than their polled support. Voters stuck between the far right and the left are likely to make their choice "more from fear or from anger than from conviction," said Geraldo Monteiro, a political analyst at Rio de Janeiro State University. The run-off round could be "even more radical, maybe with violence," he warned. The winner will rule the world's eighth biggest economy: a nation with 210 million inhabitants and abundant natural resources whose top trading partner is China. Should Bolsonaro become president, he will have to form legislative alliances. His ultraconservative Social Liberal Party has just eight deputies in the outgoing, 513-seat lower house of congress. After Sunday's general election, in which new federal and state legislatures will also be chosen, it might at best pick up only a handful of seats. But Bolsonaro, a Catholic, is close to the evangelical church lobby that includes many lawmakers. Deputies linked to Brazil's powerful agro-business lobby are also siding with him. A 'clean' candidate Bolsonaro's profile and anti-crime agenda got an unintended boost a month ago when he was stabbed by a lone assailant who police said had political motives. Forced off the campaign trail for weeks, Bolsonaro intensified his use of Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to reach Brazilians. In the week before the election, his poll figures soared, while Haddad's stalled. Even those opposed to Bolsonaro admit that he is a "clean" candidate, unsullied by corruption scandals that have mired many other politicians. At a last pro-Bolsonaro rally in the capital Brasilia, supporters said they saw him as a savior. "Bolsonaro is the best for the country today -- he is the hope of a better country. If we don't have Bolsonaro, we will become a Venezuela," said one demonstrating government worker, Cacio de Oliveira. The current president, Rousseff's center-right former deputy Michel Temer, is not contesting Sunday's election. He will leave office at the end of the year as a deeply unpopular figure in a country with 13 million unemployed, climbing public debt and inflation, and record violence.

Brazil votes for new president, far-right Bolsonaro in lead

The United States’ time is up. The country is wading into the pits of absolute decline. But, there is a bit of an irony involved here, the country contra international relations theory and practice is not declining because of peer competitor(s), or hard balancing; it is in decline because of its own follies and an inexorable drift into torpor and turpitude.&nbsp;

These assertions might sound counterintuitive or even in the nature of a pious wish given that the country holds the balance in almost all domains of power and politics.&nbsp;

For instance, its defence spending is unmatched, &nbsp;its hard power peerless, power projection capabilities unmatched and the system of alliances that it presides over rather relatively unscathed. &nbsp;The question then arises is that is the United States is still at the apogee of its power, how can it be in decline? If it is in decline, should it be a cause of celebration? And, more importantly perhaps, who or what should replace the country?

First things first.

Power, a slippery and contested concept, is intimately linked with legitimacy. It is not the “number of tanks or battalions (to briefly paraphrase Joseph Stalin) that a country has that determines its “actual” power (or influence) but a combination of power and the fund of legitimacy it enjoys. The United States, despite its grave crimes like the Vietnam war, its egregious and bloody meddling in Latin America, its blatant and fraudulent use of power in the Second Gulf War and so on did enjoy legitimacy especially in the aftermath of the Second world war.

This legitimacy accrued from the country’s leadership in creating and instituting the liberal world order. Consequently, many countries not only acquiesced in its leadership but also accepted the country. But, with the concentration of power in the United States( also known as unipolarity), hubris became the predominant impulse of the United States. The country not only squandered its fund of power and legitimacy by opting for “wars of choice” in Afghanistan and Iraq but also became contemptuous of rules, regimes and norms that it had helped institute. The United States also lost the plot domestically as the country’s elite became so self-centred and self-absorbed that there was a massive disconnect between the masses and the governing classes of the country. This, in turn, corrupted the United States’ democracy and its institutions, in the process.

The chicken finally came to roost, so to speak, in the form of Donald Trump to the highest office of the country. Trump is not only disdainful of ( and in the process reconfiguring) United States institutional fabric in an insalubrious and deleterious way but also swaggering internationally in a cavalier way that he is destroying the fabric of world order, norms, laws and regimes thereof. His gratuitous assault on Iran, the contempt demonstrated by his administration toward the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, and the aggressive and bellicose approach adopted toward China illustrate the point. But, this is not all, the United States is being hollowed out from within by the corruption of its institutions, the ungainly and cruel treatment of refugees and immigrants, the arrogant and disdain demonstrated toward the rule of law and so on. Cumulatively, the gravamen of these omissions and commissions can only mean decline.

Now, if the United States is in decline, who or what can replace it? The obvious contender is China given its power, heft and clout. But, there are obvious issues with China’s total dominance of the international system. The country’s world view and its sense of self, along with issues of humanitarian concern would render China an inadequate globally preponderant power, among other things. &nbsp;The European Union is too mired in structural issues to actually even countenance global leadership. By elimination then, what the world is left with is international law and institutions of global governance like the United Nations.

In the absence of hegemony, only international law and institutions can actually fill the void in anarchic international relations. But, here too, issues arise, the major one being that states invariably act in and out of self-interest. However, given that there will be no more a hegemon to enforce peace, or hold the balance in a way that approximates global public goods, all the states of and in the international system must redefine their interests and conceive these in a way where , internationally and globally, international law, regimes and laws reign supreme. 
 
This might even constitute raison d’etat given that if , in the past, the United States was looked toward as the provider of security and public goods, and that it is in decline and there would be no entity to do this in the future, states’ self-interest would lie in bandwagoning together and agglomerating their interests in and to some well-defined goals and peace. The most important of these goals would be the world order, global peace and stability, themes and ideas that would redound to the benefit of all. Moreover, this potential combination would also check and hem the worst instincts and impulses of states, especially powerful ones.

This potential state of affairs and the desired condition can only be reified if international institutions and laws are strengthened by a robust backing of states. &nbsp;Broken down, it means reviving the United Nations and making it more robust, not merely as a declamatory body or one whose USP lies only in “low politics” but making it an arbiter of high politics. It can happen when states delegate their power, not just rhetorically but substantively to the “Parliament of Man” and, among other things imbue the august body with hard power capabilities.

The United States is declining. There is no other state which can actually replace it, as of now. And, in and during its decline, the country can do something silly and odious, like going to war or rejigging the economic order in place drastically, so much so that the rest of the world suffers. Before the country, during the throes of decline, lashes out and before the world drifts into a more intense disorder, it is time to introspect and accord primacy to law and institutions which promote peace, stability and prosperity. The time to make haste slowly is now!

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The United States’ time is up. The country is wading into the pits of absolute decline. But, there is a bit of an irony involved here, the country contra international relations theory and practice is not declining because of peer competitor(s), or hard balancing; it is in decline because of its own follies and an inexorable drift into torpor and turpitude.

The United States’ time is up. The country is wading into the pits of absolute decline. But, there is a bit of an irony involved here, the country contra international relations theory and practice is not declining because of peer competitor(s), or hard balancing; it is in decline because of its own follies and an inexorable drift into torpor and turpitude. These assertions might sound counterintuitive or even in the nature of a pious wish given that the country holds the balance in almost all domains of power and politics. For instance, its defence spending is unmatched, its hard power peerless, power projection capabilities unmatched and the system of alliances that it presides over rather relatively unscathed. The question then arises is that is the United States is still at the apogee of its power, how can it be in decline? If it is in decline, should it be a cause of celebration? And, more importantly perhaps, who or what should replace the country? First things first. Power, a slippery and contested concept, is intimately linked with legitimacy. It is not the “number of tanks or battalions (to briefly paraphrase Joseph Stalin) that a country has that determines its “actual” power (or influence) but a combination of power and the fund of legitimacy it enjoys. The United States, despite its grave crimes like the Vietnam war, its egregious and bloody meddling in Latin America, its blatant and fraudulent use of power in the Second Gulf War and so on did enjoy legitimacy especially in the aftermath of the Second world war. This legitimacy accrued from the country’s leadership in creating and instituting the liberal world order. Consequently, many countries not only acquiesced in its leadership but also accepted the country. But, with the concentration of power in the United States( also known as unipolarity), hubris became the predominant impulse of the United States. The country not only squandered its fund of power and legitimacy by opting for “wars of choice” in Afghanistan and Iraq but also became contemptuous of rules, regimes and norms that it had helped institute. The United States also lost the plot domestically as the country’s elite became so self-centred and self-absorbed that there was a massive disconnect between the masses and the governing classes of the country. This, in turn, corrupted the United States’ democracy and its institutions, in the process. The chicken finally came to roost, so to speak, in the form of Donald Trump to the highest office of the country. Trump is not only disdainful of ( and in the process reconfiguring) United States institutional fabric in an insalubrious and deleterious way but also swaggering internationally in a cavalier way that he is destroying the fabric of world order, norms, laws and regimes thereof. His gratuitous assault on Iran, the contempt demonstrated by his administration toward the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, and the aggressive and bellicose approach adopted toward China illustrate the point. But, this is not all, the United States is being hollowed out from within by the corruption of its institutions, the ungainly and cruel treatment of refugees and immigrants, the arrogant and disdain demonstrated toward the rule of law and so on. Cumulatively, the gravamen of these omissions and commissions can only mean decline. Now, if the United States is in decline, who or what can replace it? The obvious contender is China given its power, heft and clout. But, there are obvious issues with China’s total dominance of the international system. The country’s world view and its sense of self, along with issues of humanitarian concern would render China an inadequate globally preponderant power, among other things. The European Union is too mired in structural issues to actually even countenance global leadership. By elimination then, what the world is left with is international law and institutions of global governance like the United Nations. In the absence of hegemony, only international law and institutions can actually fill the void in anarchic international relations. But, here too, issues arise, the major one being that states invariably act in and out of self-interest. However, given that there will be no more a hegemon to enforce peace, or hold the balance in a way that approximates global public goods, all the states of and in the international system must redefine their interests and conceive these in a way where , internationally and globally, international law, regimes and laws reign supreme. This might even constitute raison d’etat given that if , in the past, the United States was looked toward as the provider of security and public goods, and that it is in decline and there would be no entity to do this in the future, states’ self-interest would lie in bandwagoning together and agglomerating their interests in and to some well-defined goals and peace. The most important of these goals would be the world order, global peace and stability, themes and ideas that would redound to the benefit of all. Moreover, this potential combination would also check and hem the worst instincts and impulses of states, especially powerful ones. This potential state of affairs and the desired condition can only be reified if international institutions and laws are strengthened by a robust backing of states. Broken down, it means reviving the United Nations and making it more robust, not merely as a declamatory body or one whose USP lies only in “low politics” but making it an arbiter of high politics. It can happen when states delegate their power, not just rhetorically but substantively to the “Parliament of Man” and, among other things imbue the august body with hard power capabilities. The United States is declining. There is no other state which can actually replace it, as of now. And, in and during its decline, the country can do something silly and odious, like going to war or rejigging the economic order in place drastically, so much so that the rest of the world suffers. Before the country, during the throes of decline, lashes out and before the world drifts into a more intense disorder, it is time to introspect and accord primacy to law and institutions which promote peace, stability and prosperity. The time to make haste slowly is now! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

As the US declines, International Law and Institutions must be strengthened

The US trade deficit ballooned in August to its highest level in six months as exports of tariff-targeted goods fell while American consumers snapped up imported cars and mobile phones, the government reported Friday.

With US imports of goods and services at their highest on record, the result pushed the goods deficits with China and Mexico to all-time-highs, according to the Commerce Department report.

The total US trade deficit rose 6.4 per cent over July to $53.2 billion, overshooting analyst forecasts which called for a smaller five per cent increase. That was on record imports of $262.7 billion and exports of $209.4 billion.

The result came at a triumphant moment for President Donald Trump, who has hailed a new agreement to remodel North America's trading system and is waging a battle of tariffs with Beijing.

The August figures suggested retaliatory tariffs imposed by China continued to whipsaw American farmers, whose rural counties Trump's Republican party traditionally counts on for political support.

The numbers also reflect reports that businesses have rushed to import goods before tariffs hit on China, including importing products needed in stores for the holiday shopping season, driving up the trade gap.

The gap in goods trade with China rose to $38.6 billion for August and hit $8.7 billion with Mexico -- both the highest monthly totals ever.

At $31.1 billion, imports from Mexico also were the highest ever.

And soybean exports, a sector highly dependent on trade with China, plunged $1 billion from July, when Beijing unveiled retaliatory duties in response to Trump's escalating trade fight.

Meanwhile, US exports of crude oil and other petroleum products fell by a combined $1.6 billion for the month, but was offset by $1.6 billion jump in exports of artwork, antiques and pharmaceuticals, the Commerce Department reported.

On the other side of the ledger, imports of autos rose $1 billion while imports of mobile phones and other household goods rose by $900 million.

The US trade deficit ballooned in August to its highest level in six months as exports of tariff-targeted goods fell while American consumers snapped up imported cars and mobile phones, the government reported Friday.

The US trade deficit ballooned in August to its highest level in six months as exports of tariff-targeted goods fell while American consumers snapped up imported cars and mobile phones, the government reported Friday. With US imports of goods and services at their highest on record, the result pushed the goods deficits with China and Mexico to all-time-highs, according to the Commerce Department report. The total US trade deficit rose 6.4 per cent over July to $53.2 billion, overshooting analyst forecasts which called for a smaller five per cent increase. That was on record imports of $262.7 billion and exports of $209.4 billion. The result came at a triumphant moment for President Donald Trump, who has hailed a new agreement to remodel North America's trading system and is waging a battle of tariffs with Beijing. The August figures suggested retaliatory tariffs imposed by China continued to whipsaw American farmers, whose rural counties Trump's Republican party traditionally counts on for political support. The numbers also reflect reports that businesses have rushed to import goods before tariffs hit on China, including importing products needed in stores for the holiday shopping season, driving up the trade gap. The gap in goods trade with China rose to $38.6 billion for August and hit $8.7 billion with Mexico -- both the highest monthly totals ever. At $31.1 billion, imports from Mexico also were the highest ever. And soybean exports, a sector highly dependent on trade with China, plunged $1 billion from July, when Beijing unveiled retaliatory duties in response to Trump's escalating trade fight. Meanwhile, US exports of crude oil and other petroleum products fell by a combined $1.6 billion for the month, but was offset by $1.6 billion jump in exports of artwork, antiques and pharmaceuticals, the Commerce Department reported. On the other side of the ledger, imports of autos rose $1 billion while imports of mobile phones and other household goods rose by $900 million.

Record US imports drive goods trade deficit with China to high in August

A video showing US President Donald Trump walking with a paper stuck onto his left shoe went viral on social media today.

The incident which shows President Trump walking up the stairs of the plane with a white paper stuck onto his left foot&nbsp;happened on Thursday at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport.

The incident happened when President Trump was departing for the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester, Minnesota.

The paper got detached from his foot when he reached the top and turned to wave back at his people.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowfullscreen="true" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="373" scrolling="no" src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FKSTPTV%2Fvideos%2F983529125153588%2F&amp;show_text=0&amp;width=560" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Social media exploded over the incident with several users speculating that the paper which got stuck to Trump's foot was a toilet tissue.

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

A video showing US President Donald Trump walking with a paper stuck onto his left shoe went viral on social media today. The incident which shows President Trump walking up the stairs of the plane with a white paper stuck onto his left foot happened on Thursday at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport.

A video showing US President Donald Trump walking with a paper stuck onto his left shoe went viral on social media today. The incident which shows President Trump walking up the stairs of the plane with a white paper stuck onto his left foot happened on Thursday at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport. The incident happened when President Trump was departing for the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester, Minnesota. The paper got detached from his foot when he reached the top and turned to wave back at his people. × Social media exploded over the incident with several users speculating that the paper which got stuck to Trump's foot was a toilet tissue.

Watch: 'Toilet paper' stuck to Trump's foot as he boards plane

S-400 sytem has an estimated range of 400 kilometres with an altitude of 30 kilometres. It also has the capability to intercept the intermediate-range ballistic missile, not just that the Tiumph system can target aircrafts, UAVs, cruise missiles with equal ease engaging 300 targets at a time.

Star Wars: America's THAAD vs Russia's S-400 missile defence system

Russia and Saudi Arabia struck a private deal in September to raise oil output to cool rising prices and informed the United States before a meeting in Algiers with other producers, four sources familiar with the plan said.

US President Donald Trump has blamed the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for high crude prices and called on it to boost output to bring down fuel costs before the US congressional elections on November 6.

The deal underlines how Russia and Saudi Arabia are increasingly deciding oil output policies bilaterally, before consulting with the rest of OPEC.

The sources said Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih and his Russian counterpart Alexander Novak agreed during a series of meetings to lift output from September through December as crude headed towards $80 a barrel. It is now over $85.

"The Russians and the Saudis agreed to add barrels to the market quietly with a view not to look like they are acting on Trump's order to pump more," one source said.

"The Saudi minister told (US Energy Secretary Rick) Perry that Saudi Arabia will raise output if its customers asked for more oil," another source said.

Originally, the two countries had hoped to announce an overall increase of 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) from Saudi-led OPEC and non-OPEC Russia at a gathering of oil ministers in Algiers at the end of September.

But with opposition from some in OPEC, including Iran which is subject to US&nbsp;sanctions, they decided to defer any formal decision until a full OPEC meeting in December.

"Saudi is trying to thread a needle with a rope by satisfying customer concerns about higher oil prices, but also wanting to keep prices from falling and sending the wrong price signal to industry which absolutely needs to continue to invest to prevent a supply crunch," Yasser Elguindi, energy market strategist at consultancy Energy Aspects https://www.energyaspects.com said.

Executives at the world's biggest oil and gas companies are under growing pressure to loosen the purse strings to replenish reserves and halt declines in crude production after years of austerity.

Perry looped in&nbsp;

Since the meeting in Algiers, Reuters has reported that Riyadh planned to lift output by some 200,000 bpd to 300,000 bpd from September to help fill the gap left by lower Iranian output due to the sanctions.

Russian output rose 150,000 bpd in September.

Iran accused Saudi Arabia and Russia on Wednesday of breaking OPEC's agreement on output cuts by producing more crude, adding that the two countries would not be able to produce enough oil to make up for a reduction in Iranian exports.

A source at a major Russian oil company told Reuters: "I would expect Russia's oil production will hover at around 11.4 to 11.6 million bpd until the end of 2018 and may increase further to 11.8 million bpd later on in 2019."

Russian produced 11.36 million bpd in September, up from 11.21 million bpd in August, Energy Ministry data showed.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday it could raise production by 200,000 to 300,000 bpd to tackle possible fuel shortages while Falih said Saudi Arabia will increase output further in November from 10.7 million bpd.

Perry was made aware of the Saudi-Russia plan to lift output before the Algiers gathering, meeting with Falih three times in September and Novak once. The three did not meet together.

Perry's spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes did not comment on details of the talks but said the energy secretary, "continues to be engaged with leaders from other major oil producing nations and remains confident in their ability to boost output if needed".

She said Perry had in recent meetings "impressed upon his counterparts that keeping supply up is important for the global economy".

Oil prices rose to $85 a barrel this week as buyers of Iranian crude wound down their purchases to meet the terms of US sanctions on Tehran.

Sources said Riyadh would help fill that shortfall because buyers needed replacement supplies. Saudi Arabia has spare capacity to produce oil at a higher rate and holds a large volume of crude in storage.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia is keen to maintain unity among the so-called OPEC+ alliance, a group comprising OPEC states, Russia and several other producers that has agreed on output curbs. That's because it may need to change course and seek the collaboration of OPEC+ for any future production cuts.

"Iranian crude exports are considerably lower and market participants are concerned of a wide market deficit this quarter," said Giovanni Staunovo, analyst at Swiss bank UBS.

"To cover those losses, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the other Gulf countries are increasing production, but this will bring down the global spare capacity to a 10-year low."

Football diplomacy

In the run up to the private deal with Russia, Falih flew to the United States during the second week of September where he and fellow Texas A&amp;M University alumnus Perry attended a football game in College Station, Texas.

Falih then held official talks with Perry in Washington on September 10, the US Energy Department has said.

Perry flew to Moscow two days later to meet Novak, while Falih also met Novak in Moscow a day later.

Perry told Reuters during his Moscow visit that Saudi Arabia, the United States and Russia had enough capacity between them to compensate for the loss of Iranian supply over the next 18 months.

After Moscow, Falih and Perry met again in Vienna where they attended an event in the Austrian capital, sources said.

"Perry was aware that Russia is going to ramp up oil output," a third source familiar with talks said.

It was at this point that Falih and Novak discussed announcing a 500,000-bpd increase at the Sept. 23 Algiers meeting of OPEC and non-OPEC countries. The plan did not materialise, with any formal decision deferred until a regular OPEC meeting in Vienna on December 6.

"Saudi Arabia is not going to flood the market and risk a price crash. Saudi Arabia has to work with other producers and see what are they doing, who is raising exports and to which market," another source said.

Russia and Saudi Arabia struck a private deal in September to raise oil output to cool rising prices and informed the United States before a meeting in Algiers with other producers, four sources familiar with the plan said.

Russia and Saudi Arabia struck a private deal in September to raise oil output to cool rising prices and informed the United States before a meeting in Algiers with other producers, four sources familiar with the plan said. US President Donald Trump has blamed the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) for high crude prices and called on it to boost output to bring down fuel costs before the US congressional elections on November 6. The deal underlines how Russia and Saudi Arabia are increasingly deciding oil output policies bilaterally, before consulting with the rest of OPEC. The sources said Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih and his Russian counterpart Alexander Novak agreed during a series of meetings to lift output from September through December as crude headed towards $80 a barrel. It is now over $85. "The Russians and the Saudis agreed to add barrels to the market quietly with a view not to look like they are acting on Trump's order to pump more," one source said. "The Saudi minister told (US Energy Secretary Rick) Perry that Saudi Arabia will raise output if its customers asked for more oil," another source said. Originally, the two countries had hoped to announce an overall increase of 500,000 barrels per day (bpd) from Saudi-led OPEC and non-OPEC Russia at a gathering of oil ministers in Algiers at the end of September. But with opposition from some in OPEC, including Iran which is subject to US sanctions, they decided to defer any formal decision until a full OPEC meeting in December. "Saudi is trying to thread a needle with a rope by satisfying customer concerns about higher oil prices, but also wanting to keep prices from falling and sending the wrong price signal to industry which absolutely needs to continue to invest to prevent a supply crunch," Yasser Elguindi, energy market strategist at consultancy Energy Aspects https://www.energyaspects.com said. Executives at the world's biggest oil and gas companies are under growing pressure to loosen the purse strings to replenish reserves and halt declines in crude production after years of austerity. Perry looped in Since the meeting in Algiers, Reuters has reported that Riyadh planned to lift output by some 200,000 bpd to 300,000 bpd from September to help fill the gap left by lower Iranian output due to the sanctions. Russian output rose 150,000 bpd in September. Iran accused Saudi Arabia and Russia on Wednesday of breaking OPEC's agreement on output cuts by producing more crude, adding that the two countries would not be able to produce enough oil to make up for a reduction in Iranian exports. A source at a major Russian oil company told Reuters: "I would expect Russia's oil production will hover at around 11.4 to 11.6 million bpd until the end of 2018 and may increase further to 11.8 million bpd later on in 2019." Russian produced 11.36 million bpd in September, up from 11.21 million bpd in August, Energy Ministry data showed. Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday it could raise production by 200,000 to 300,000 bpd to tackle possible fuel shortages while Falih said Saudi Arabia will increase output further in November from 10.7 million bpd. Perry was made aware of the Saudi-Russia plan to lift output before the Algiers gathering, meeting with Falih three times in September and Novak once. The three did not meet together. Perry's spokeswoman Shaylyn Hynes did not comment on details of the talks but said the energy secretary, "continues to be engaged with leaders from other major oil producing nations and remains confident in their ability to boost output if needed". She said Perry had in recent meetings "impressed upon his counterparts that keeping supply up is important for the global economy". Oil prices rose to $85 a barrel this week as buyers of Iranian crude wound down their purchases to meet the terms of US sanctions on Tehran. Sources said Riyadh would help fill that shortfall because buyers needed replacement supplies. Saudi Arabia has spare capacity to produce oil at a higher rate and holds a large volume of crude in storage. At the same time, Saudi Arabia is keen to maintain unity among the so-called OPEC+ alliance, a group comprising OPEC states, Russia and several other producers that has agreed on output curbs. That's because it may need to change course and seek the collaboration of OPEC+ for any future production cuts. "Iranian crude exports are considerably lower and market participants are concerned of a wide market deficit this quarter," said Giovanni Staunovo, analyst at Swiss bank UBS. "To cover those losses, Saudi Arabia, Russia and the other Gulf countries are increasing production, but this will bring down the global spare capacity to a 10-year low." Football diplomacy In the run up to the private deal with Russia, Falih flew to the United States during the second week of September where he and fellow Texas A&M University alumnus Perry attended a football game in College Station, Texas. Falih then held official talks with Perry in Washington on September 10, the US Energy Department has said. Perry flew to Moscow two days later to meet Novak, while Falih also met Novak in Moscow a day later. Perry told Reuters during his Moscow visit that Saudi Arabia, the United States and Russia had enough capacity between them to compensate for the loss of Iranian supply over the next 18 months. After Moscow, Falih and Perry met again in Vienna where they attended an event in the Austrian capital, sources said. "Perry was aware that Russia is going to ramp up oil output," a third source familiar with talks said. It was at this point that Falih and Novak discussed announcing a 500,000-bpd increase at the Sept. 23 Algiers meeting of OPEC and non-OPEC countries. The plan did not materialise, with any formal decision deferred until a regular OPEC meeting in Vienna on December 6. "Saudi Arabia is not going to flood the market and risk a price crash. Saudi Arabia has to work with other producers and see what are they doing, who is raising exports and to which market," another source said.

Saudi Arabia, Russia agreed in September to lift oil output: US

The US Justice Department Thursday indicted seven agents of Russia's GRU military intelligence agency as part of a joint crackdown with Western allies on a series of major hacking plots attributed to Moscow.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/four-russians-agents-expelled-on-cyber-attack-dutch-intelligence-169413">Also read: Four Russians agents expelled for cyber attack: Dutch intelligence</a>

The indictments were announced as Dutch security services said they had thwarted a cyber attack on the global chemical weapons watchdog, the OPCW -- expelling four Russian agents -- and after Britain and Australia blamed the GRU for plots that notably targeted the US Democratic Party and global sports bodies.

John Demers, US Assistant Attorney General for National Security, confirmed the seven agents were indicted in connection to the attack on the OPCW, on football's governing body FIFA and the US and global anti-doping agencies, and on the US nuclear energy company Westinghouse among others.

The indictments also include charges of money laundering, using virtual currencies like bitcoin, wire fraud and identify theft.

"Nations like Russia and others that engage in malicious and norm-shattering cyber and influence activities should understand the continuing and steadfast resolve of the United States and its allies to prevent, disrupt and deter such unaccountable conduct," Demers told a news conference.

"The defendants, in this case, should know that justice is very patient, its reach is long and its memory is even longer," he said.

The defendants, all Russian nationals and residents, were named as Aleksei Sergeyevich Morenets, 41, Evgenii Mikhaylovich, Serebriakov, 37, Ivan Sergeyevich Yermakov, 32, Artem Andreyevich Malyshev, 30, and Dmitriy Sergeyevich Badin, 27, and Oleg Mikhaylovich Sotnikov, 46, and Alexey Valerevich Minin, 46.&nbsp;

While the latest case did not arise from Robert Mueller's probe into Russian election meddling, it overlaps with it.

Yermakov, Malyshev, and Badin were among the 12 GRU officers indicted in July this year by Mueller, over alleged interference in the US polls in 2016.

Demers said the operations -- dating back to 2014 -- "involved sophisticated, persistent and unauthorized access into the victims' computer networks for the purpose of stealing private or otherwise sensitive information."

Russian reaction&nbsp;

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly and angrily rejected similar charges, and Russia's foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, reacting to the British and Australian claims, that the allegations had been mixed together "indiscriminately."&nbsp;

NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg separately warned Russia to halt its "reckless" behavior.

Canada confirmed Thursday it believes itself to have been targeted by Russian cyber attacks, citing breaches at its center for ethics in sports and at the Montreal-based World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).

"The government of Canada assesses with high confidence that the Russian military's intelligence arm, the GRU, was responsible" for these cyber attacks, the foreign ministry said in a statement.

GRU stands for the Main Intelligence Directorate, Russia's military intelligence agency which is one of Moscow's three spy agencies along with the FSB security service and the SVR foreign intelligence agency.

London has also accused two of GRU's officers of poisoning former double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British city of Salisbury in March, using a perfume bottle containing a powerful nerve agent.

The US Justice Department Thursday indicted seven agents of Russia's GRU military intelligence agency as part of a joint crackdown with Western allies on a series of major hacking plots attributed to Moscow.

The US Justice Department Thursday indicted seven agents of Russia's GRU military intelligence agency as part of a joint crackdown with Western allies on a series of major hacking plots attributed to Moscow. Also read: Four Russians agents expelled for cyber attack: Dutch intelligence The indictments were announced as Dutch security services said they had thwarted a cyber attack on the global chemical weapons watchdog, the OPCW -- expelling four Russian agents -- and after Britain and Australia blamed the GRU for plots that notably targeted the US Democratic Party and global sports bodies. John Demers, US Assistant Attorney General for National Security, confirmed the seven agents were indicted in connection to the attack on the OPCW, on football's governing body FIFA and the US and global anti-doping agencies, and on the US nuclear energy company Westinghouse among others. The indictments also include charges of money laundering, using virtual currencies like bitcoin, wire fraud and identify theft. "Nations like Russia and others that engage in malicious and norm-shattering cyber and influence activities should understand the continuing and steadfast resolve of the United States and its allies to prevent, disrupt and deter such unaccountable conduct," Demers told a news conference. "The defendants, in this case, should know that justice is very patient, its reach is long and its memory is even longer," he said. The defendants, all Russian nationals and residents, were named as Aleksei Sergeyevich Morenets, 41, Evgenii Mikhaylovich, Serebriakov, 37, Ivan Sergeyevich Yermakov, 32, Artem Andreyevich Malyshev, 30, and Dmitriy Sergeyevich Badin, 27, and Oleg Mikhaylovich Sotnikov, 46, and Alexey Valerevich Minin, 46. While the latest case did not arise from Robert Mueller's probe into Russian election meddling, it overlaps with it. Yermakov, Malyshev, and Badin were among the 12 GRU officers indicted in July this year by Mueller, over alleged interference in the US polls in 2016. Demers said the operations -- dating back to 2014 -- "involved sophisticated, persistent and unauthorized access into the victims' computer networks for the purpose of stealing private or otherwise sensitive information." Russian reaction Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly and angrily rejected similar charges, and Russia's foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, reacting to the British and Australian claims, that the allegations had been mixed together "indiscriminately." NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg separately warned Russia to halt its "reckless" behavior. Canada confirmed Thursday it believes itself to have been targeted by Russian cyber attacks, citing breaches at its center for ethics in sports and at the Montreal-based World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). "The government of Canada assesses with high confidence that the Russian military's intelligence arm, the GRU, was responsible" for these cyber attacks, the foreign ministry said in a statement. GRU stands for the Main Intelligence Directorate, Russia's military intelligence agency which is one of Moscow's three spy agencies along with the FSB security service and the SVR foreign intelligence agency. London has also accused two of GRU's officers of poisoning former double-agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter in the British city of Salisbury in March, using a perfume bottle containing a powerful nerve agent.

US indicts Russian military agents in hacking case

The United States is taking steps to avoid exposure to binding decisions by the International Court of Justice, the US national security adviser John Bolton said on Wednesday as he accused the UN court of being "politicised and ineffective."

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo earlier on Wednesday said that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/after-icj-verdict-us-terminate-1955-treaty-amity-iran-169266">Washington was terminating a treaty of amity with Tehran</a>, after the International Court ordered the United States to ensure that sanctions against Iran, due to be tightened next month, did not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation.

The ICJ, based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, is the United Nations’ venue for resolving disputes between nations.&nbsp;

There have been mounting concerns among US allies about the Trump administration's commitment to multilateralism.

In the nearly two years since being elected, President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from a nuclear agreement between six powers and Iran, pulled out of a global climate accord, left the UN cultural agency, and threatened NATO military allies that the United States would "go its own way" if members did not spend more on defence.&nbsp;

Wednesday's ruling by the International Court handed a small victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the Trump administration violated the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries.

Bolton, citing what he called "Iran's abuse of the ICJ," said that the United States would withdraw from the "optional protocol" under the 1961 Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations.

"We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction, dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice," Bolton said on Wednesday. "The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicised claims are brought against us."

The decision to withdraw from the optional protocol follows a complaint brought by the Palestinians in September, which challenged Washington's decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

The Vienna Convention is an international treaty setting out diplomatic relations between states. It is often cited as a means to provide diplomatic immunity.&nbsp;

In 2005, the Bush administration took issue with the ICJ after it ruled that the execution of a Mexican national in Texas breached US obligations under international law.

The Palestinians argued that the US government's placement of its embassy in Jerusalem violated an international treaty and that it should be moved.

"This really has less to do with Iran and the Palestinians than with the continued consistent policy of the United States to reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, which we think is politicized and ineffective," Bolton said.

He added: "I`d like to stress the United States remains a party to the underlying Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention."

Palestine was recognised by the UN General Assembly in 2012 as a non-member observer state, though its statehood is not recognised by either Israel or the United States.

The United States is taking steps to avoid exposure to binding decisions by the International Court of Justice, the US national security adviser John Bolton said on Wednesday as he accused the UN court of being "politicised and ineffective.

The United States is taking steps to avoid exposure to binding decisions by the International Court of Justice, the US national security adviser John Bolton said on Wednesday as he accused the UN court of being "politicised and ineffective." Secretary of State Mike Pompeo earlier on Wednesday said that Washington was terminating a treaty of amity with Tehran, after the International Court ordered the United States to ensure that sanctions against Iran, due to be tightened next month, did not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation. The ICJ, based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, is the United Nations’ venue for resolving disputes between nations. There have been mounting concerns among US allies about the Trump administration's commitment to multilateralism. In the nearly two years since being elected, President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from a nuclear agreement between six powers and Iran, pulled out of a global climate accord, left the UN cultural agency, and threatened NATO military allies that the United States would "go its own way" if members did not spend more on defence. Wednesday's ruling by the International Court handed a small victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the Trump administration violated the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries. Bolton, citing what he called "Iran's abuse of the ICJ," said that the United States would withdraw from the "optional protocol" under the 1961 Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations. "We will commence a review of all international agreements that may still expose the United States to purported binding jurisdiction, dispute resolution in the International Court of Justice," Bolton said on Wednesday. "The United States will not sit idly by as baseless politicised claims are brought against us." The decision to withdraw from the optional protocol follows a complaint brought by the Palestinians in September, which challenged Washington's decision to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Vienna Convention is an international treaty setting out diplomatic relations between states. It is often cited as a means to provide diplomatic immunity. In 2005, the Bush administration took issue with the ICJ after it ruled that the execution of a Mexican national in Texas breached US obligations under international law. The Palestinians argued that the US government's placement of its embassy in Jerusalem violated an international treaty and that it should be moved. "This really has less to do with Iran and the Palestinians than with the continued consistent policy of the United States to reject the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, which we think is politicized and ineffective," Bolton said. He added: "I`d like to stress the United States remains a party to the underlying Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention." Palestine was recognised by the UN General Assembly in 2012 as a non-member observer state, though its statehood is not recognised by either Israel or the United States.

US says International Court of Justice is 'politicised and ineffective'

The United States will make its cyber warfare capabilities available to NATO, Defence Secretary James Mattis said Thursday, as allies denounced an alleged Russian bid to hack the international chemical weapons watchdog.

Mattis said the attempted attack on the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) showed how cyber attacks were becoming "more frequent, more complex and... More destructive".

"This is why the United States, like the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia will provide national cyber contributions to help NATO fight in this important domain," Mattis told reporters at a meeting of NATO defence ministers.

The Netherlands revealed extraordinary details of the plot by Russia's GRU military intelligence agency against the OPCW in The Hague, including photos of the alleged agents and their equipment.

Mattis refused to be drawn on what kind of response the OPCW plot should be met with, saying "tit for tat on cyber" was not necessarily appropriate, but he insisted the Kremlin must face consequences.

"Basically the Russians got caught with their equipment, with their people who were doing it and they have got to pay the piper. They are going to have to be held to account," Mattis said.

"We have a wide variety among our nations of responses available to us."&nbsp; 
At the time of the attack, the OPCW was investigating the nerve agent poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, England.&nbsp;

Dutch officials said it was not clear if the cyber operation was linked to that.

Mattis said the US would offer cyber support to NATO allies immediately, but refused to go into detail about the kind of capabilities it would make&nbsp; 
available. &nbsp; &nbsp;

NATO says its forces have successfully used offensive cyber techniques to disrupt Islamic State and Al-Qaeda operations in Iraq.

The alliance has recognised cyber as a full conflict domain alongside air, land, sea and space and said that a cyber attack could trigger its Article 5 mutual defence pact.

NATO's Baltic members -- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia -- say they come under near-daily cyber assault, with government departments, banking systems and the power grid coming in for attack, and point the finger at former Soviet ruler Russia.&nbsp;

The United States will make its cyber warfare capabilities available to NATO, Defence Secretary James Mattis said Thursday, as allies denounced an alleged Russian bid to hack the international chemical weapons watchdog.

The United States will make its cyber warfare capabilities available to NATO, Defence Secretary James Mattis said Thursday, as allies denounced an alleged Russian bid to hack the international chemical weapons watchdog. Mattis said the attempted attack on the Organisation for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) showed how cyber attacks were becoming "more frequent, more complex and... More destructive". "This is why the United States, like the United Kingdom, Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia will provide national cyber contributions to help NATO fight in this important domain," Mattis told reporters at a meeting of NATO defence ministers. The Netherlands revealed extraordinary details of the plot by Russia's GRU military intelligence agency against the OPCW in The Hague, including photos of the alleged agents and their equipment. Mattis refused to be drawn on what kind of response the OPCW plot should be met with, saying "tit for tat on cyber" was not necessarily appropriate, but he insisted the Kremlin must face consequences. "Basically the Russians got caught with their equipment, with their people who were doing it and they have got to pay the piper. They are going to have to be held to account," Mattis said. "We have a wide variety among our nations of responses available to us." At the time of the attack, the OPCW was investigating the nerve agent poisoning of former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, England. Dutch officials said it was not clear if the cyber operation was linked to that. Mattis said the US would offer cyber support to NATO allies immediately, but refused to go into detail about the kind of capabilities it would make available. NATO says its forces have successfully used offensive cyber techniques to disrupt Islamic State and Al-Qaeda operations in Iraq. The alliance has recognised cyber as a full conflict domain alongside air, land, sea and space and said that a cyber attack could trigger its Article 5 mutual defence pact. NATO's Baltic members -- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia -- say they come under near-daily cyber assault, with government departments, banking systems and the power grid coming in for attack, and point the finger at former Soviet ruler Russia.

US to make cyber capabilities available to NATO: Defence Secretary Mattis

Four Turkish soldiers were killed on Thursday in an attack caused by an improvised explosive device in southeastern Turkey blamed on "terrorists", the provincial governor said.

Another five soldiers were injured in the explosion as their military vehicle was passing through the Gercus district of Batman province, the governorate said in a statement.

It blamed the attack on "terrorists" and said a wide operation had been launched to capture the culprits.&nbsp;

Although the governor's office did not explicitly blame the attack on the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the state has been battling PKK fighters in the southeast region after the collapse of a two-year ceasefire in 2015.

The PKK has waged an insurgency inside Turkey since 1984 that has claimed some 40,000 lives.&nbsp;

It is banned as a terrorist group by Ankara, the United States and the European Union.

Four Turkish soldiers were killed on Thursday in an attack caused by an improvised explosive device in southeastern Turkey blamed on "terrorists", the provincial governor said.

Four Turkish soldiers were killed on Thursday in an attack caused by an improvised explosive device in southeastern Turkey blamed on "terrorists", the provincial governor said. Another five soldiers were injured in the explosion as their military vehicle was passing through the Gercus district of Batman province, the governorate said in a statement. It blamed the attack on "terrorists" and said a wide operation had been launched to capture the culprits. Although the governor's office did not explicitly blame the attack on the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the state has been battling PKK fighters in the southeast region after the collapse of a two-year ceasefire in 2015. The PKK has waged an insurgency inside Turkey since 1984 that has claimed some 40,000 lives. It is banned as a terrorist group by Ankara, the United States and the European Union.

Four Turkish soldiers killed in attack in southeast

Pakistan wants the US to facilitate talks with India as the two nations are not engaging bilaterally, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has said, warning that the absence of dialogue could lead to an escalation of tension.&nbsp;

But the Pakistani request on the facilitation of the talks has been rejected by the US, the top Pakistani leader told a Washington audience on Wednesday, a day after he had meetings with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, during which he raised the issue only to be pushed back by the Trump administration.

India is opposed to any third country mediation in its relations with Pakistan. Pakistan has continuously sought mediation to sort out the differences, including over Kashmir.

"When we asked the US, to play facilitating role...Why do we ask? Simply because we are not engaging bilaterally. And that bilateral disengagement is a distraction. We want to focus, we want to move on the western side of the border, which we are not being able to because we have to watch our back from eastern side (of the border with India). That is not a healthy situation to be in," Qureshi said in response to a question at the US Institute of Peace, a US Congress-funded top American think-tank.&nbsp;

"Now can you (United States) facilitate? The answer from them is no. They wanted bilaterally. But there is no bilateral movement," Qureshi said warning that this could lead to an escalation of tension between the two South Asian countries.

"If that lack of facilitation leads to escalation and some of the statements that have come out of late have not been very helpful," the Pakistani foreign minister said in an apparent reference to the remarks by Indian leaders.&nbsp;

The new government of Prime Minister Imran Khan, he claimed, is not shy of engaging. Referring to the cancelling of his meeting with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj in New York, he alleged that India backed off.&nbsp;

However, he quickly skipped India's reasons for this glorification of terrorists by issuing postal stamps and brutal killing of the Indian security personnel.

"If the Indians have a better option, share it with us. If disengagement, if not talking to each other will resolve and stabilise the region, fine. If that's their analysis fine," Qureshi said.

Qureshi, who left for Pakistan after his meetings with the Trump administration officials, said it is unfortunate that the two countries are not engaging.&nbsp;

"It's unfortunate. That's the way it is. Now. What does this government want? We want normalisation. We want co-existence. You've got to recognise the reality. Pakistan is a reality. So is India. We have issues. How do we resolve them?" he asked.

After coming to power, the first speech made by Prime Minister Khan was "that every step you (India) take towards peace, we will take two. And he meant it. It wasn't just because it sounded good. It wasn't to please anyone. He is too blunt a person to please people. He can be very straight and he can be very blunt. But he said that because he feels that way," Qureshi said.

India has said that Pakistan created the conditions for the cancellation of the talks due to the issuing of postage stamps glorifying terrorists and brutal killing of its three security personnel.

The Pakistan foreign minister did not mention that in his answer and only said that the stalled dialogue process is not good for the two countries and the region.

Responding to a question on India's stand that talks and terrorism cannot go together, a view which is shared by Washington too, Qureshi referred to a statement by Khan while he was an opposition leader and met Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a trip to New Delhi that there would always be spoilers.

"There will always be spoilers. There will always be elements that will scuttle the process of peace. But when they do that, let re-engage to fight them. They will push us back. But we have to see what is in our interest, what is in the regional interest. What's in Pakistan's interest," Qureshi said quoting what Khan had told Modi. Soon, he raised the Kashmir issue.

"They have to realise, and I think they were being simplistic, if they feel that everything that's wrong on the Indian side of Kashmir is all of Pakistan's making, that is an unrealistic approach," he said.

India, he said, should also revisit its policies and see why and how people have been alienated.

Pakistan wants the US to facilitate talks with India as the two nations are not engaging bilaterally, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has said, warning that the absence of dialogue could lead to an escalation of tension.

Pakistan wants the US to facilitate talks with India as the two nations are not engaging bilaterally, Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi has said, warning that the absence of dialogue could lead to an escalation of tension. But the Pakistani request on the facilitation of the talks has been rejected by the US, the top Pakistani leader told a Washington audience on Wednesday, a day after he had meetings with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton, during which he raised the issue only to be pushed back by the Trump administration. India is opposed to any third country mediation in its relations with Pakistan. Pakistan has continuously sought mediation to sort out the differences, including over Kashmir. "When we asked the US, to play facilitating role...Why do we ask? Simply because we are not engaging bilaterally. And that bilateral disengagement is a distraction. We want to focus, we want to move on the western side of the border, which we are not being able to because we have to watch our back from eastern side (of the border with India). That is not a healthy situation to be in," Qureshi said in response to a question at the US Institute of Peace, a US Congress-funded top American think-tank. "Now can you (United States) facilitate? The answer from them is no. They wanted bilaterally. But there is no bilateral movement," Qureshi said warning that this could lead to an escalation of tension between the two South Asian countries. "If that lack of facilitation leads to escalation and some of the statements that have come out of late have not been very helpful," the Pakistani foreign minister said in an apparent reference to the remarks by Indian leaders. The new government of Prime Minister Imran Khan, he claimed, is not shy of engaging. Referring to the cancelling of his meeting with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj in New York, he alleged that India backed off. However, he quickly skipped India's reasons for this glorification of terrorists by issuing postal stamps and brutal killing of the Indian security personnel. "If the Indians have a better option, share it with us. If disengagement, if not talking to each other will resolve and stabilise the region, fine. If that's their analysis fine," Qureshi said. Qureshi, who left for Pakistan after his meetings with the Trump administration officials, said it is unfortunate that the two countries are not engaging. "It's unfortunate. That's the way it is. Now. What does this government want? We want normalisation. We want co-existence. You've got to recognise the reality. Pakistan is a reality. So is India. We have issues. How do we resolve them?" he asked. After coming to power, the first speech made by Prime Minister Khan was "that every step you (India) take towards peace, we will take two. And he meant it. It wasn't just because it sounded good. It wasn't to please anyone. He is too blunt a person to please people. He can be very straight and he can be very blunt. But he said that because he feels that way," Qureshi said. India has said that Pakistan created the conditions for the cancellation of the talks due to the issuing of postage stamps glorifying terrorists and brutal killing of its three security personnel. The Pakistan foreign minister did not mention that in his answer and only said that the stalled dialogue process is not good for the two countries and the region. Responding to a question on India's stand that talks and terrorism cannot go together, a view which is shared by Washington too, Qureshi referred to a statement by Khan while he was an opposition leader and met Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a trip to New Delhi that there would always be spoilers. "There will always be spoilers. There will always be elements that will scuttle the process of peace. But when they do that, let re-engage to fight them. They will push us back. But we have to see what is in our interest, what is in the regional interest. What's in Pakistan's interest," Qureshi said quoting what Khan had told Modi. Soon, he raised the Kashmir issue. "They have to realise, and I think they were being simplistic, if they feel that everything that's wrong on the Indian side of Kashmir is all of Pakistan's making, that is an unrealistic approach," he said. India, he said, should also revisit its policies and see why and how people have been alienated.

We aren't engaging with India bilaterally, asked US to play facilitating role: Pak foreign minister Qureshi

Russian President Vladimir Putin headed for India on Thursday looking to tie up billions of dollars in arms deals with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, likely irking the US, China and Pakistan in one fell swoop.

The Kremlin said before the two-day visit by Putin and top Russian ministers that the "key feature" would be the signing of a $5-billion deal for the S-400 air defence system, despite the risk of US sanctions against countries buying Russian defence kit.

On the eve of Putin's arrival later Thursday, the United States poured cold water on India's efforts to obtain a waiver to avoid sanctions under legislation called Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

Upgrades in arms systems "including the S-400 air and missile defense system" would be a particular focus for CAATSA, a US State Department spokesperson was quoted as saying by India's PTI news agency.

Last month Washington slapped financial sanctions on the Chinese military for buying Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets -- and the S-400.

However, the US is in a difficult position when it comes to India. It wants to bolster ties with New Delhi to counter China's growing assertiveness, something that has also rattled India.

Washington and New Delhi announced plans last month for joint military drills in 2019, and agreed on the exchange of sensitive military information. The US is now India's second-biggest arms supplier.

But Russia remains number one, and a string of new deals with the Asian giant would be a major win for Moscow -- and a big snub to the US.

Putin and Modi, who appear to enjoy a personal rapport, are also likely to discuss a deal for four Krivak-class frigates worth $2 billion and 200 light utility Ka-226 helicopters pegged at $1 billion.

"It's about time we showed that we are not going to be pushed around by Washington," R.R. Subramanian, a Delhi-based strategic affairs analyst, said.

Experts say India needs the sophisticated S-400 to fill critical gaps in its defence capabilities, in view of China's rise and perceived threats from Pakistan, against whom India has fought three wars.

Indian Air Force Chief Birender Singh Dhanoa said Wednesday that the S-400, and the 36 Rafale fighter jets purchased from France -- a 2016 deal mired in political controversy -- represent a "booster dose" for the country.

Last year India and China had a military standoff over a Himalayan plateau claimed by Beijing and Bhutan, a close ally of India. China has also perturbed India by loaning vast amounts of money to countries such as Sri Lanka where it has long held sway.

Boldly go

Putin, 65, and Modi, 68, are also set to discuss a possible second Russian-built nuclear power plant. Moscow is currently expanding India's biggest nuclear power plant in Kudankulam.

Also on the agenda is Russian training for Indian astronauts as New Delhi aims to launch its first crewed space mission in 2022.

Rakesh Sharma, the only Indian to travel in space, did so on a Soviet spacecraft in 1984.

But military kit is the main focus.

India is the world's biggest arms importer and is undergoing a $100-billion upgrade of its ageing hardware, much of it of Soviet vintage including MiG jets that have frequently crashed in the Indian countryside.

Russia and India have had warm ties since Stalin died in 1953.

But annual Russia-India trade has slipped below $10 billion since 2014, as Modi cultivated closer diplomatic and economic ties with Washington, while Russia has courted Pakistan and China.

Ties received a boost last year when Modi and Putin held a fruitful annual bilateral summit, followed by meetings in Astana and at the G20 in Germany. They also met in Sochi this year. 
On the strategic front, Russia helped India become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation this year and has backed New Delhi's long-held demand for a permanent UN Security Council seat.&nbsp;

Moscow is also pushing for India's entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries controlling access to nuclear technology.

Afghanistan though has been a sticking point, experts say, where Moscow wants to engage Taliban in the peace process -- a prospect unacceptable to India.

Russian President Vladimir Putin headed for India on Thursday looking to tie up billions of dollars in arms deals with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, likely irking the US, China and Pakistan in one fell swoop.

Russian President Vladimir Putin headed for India on Thursday looking to tie up billions of dollars in arms deals with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, likely irking the US, China and Pakistan in one fell swoop. The Kremlin said before the two-day visit by Putin and top Russian ministers that the "key feature" would be the signing of a $5-billion deal for the S-400 air defence system, despite the risk of US sanctions against countries buying Russian defence kit. On the eve of Putin's arrival later Thursday, the United States poured cold water on India's efforts to obtain a waiver to avoid sanctions under legislation called Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). Upgrades in arms systems "including the S-400 air and missile defense system" would be a particular focus for CAATSA, a US State Department spokesperson was quoted as saying by India's PTI news agency. Last month Washington slapped financial sanctions on the Chinese military for buying Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets -- and the S-400. However, the US is in a difficult position when it comes to India. It wants to bolster ties with New Delhi to counter China's growing assertiveness, something that has also rattled India. Washington and New Delhi announced plans last month for joint military drills in 2019, and agreed on the exchange of sensitive military information. The US is now India's second-biggest arms supplier. But Russia remains number one, and a string of new deals with the Asian giant would be a major win for Moscow -- and a big snub to the US. Putin and Modi, who appear to enjoy a personal rapport, are also likely to discuss a deal for four Krivak-class frigates worth $2 billion and 200 light utility Ka-226 helicopters pegged at $1 billion. "It's about time we showed that we are not going to be pushed around by Washington," R.R. Subramanian, a Delhi-based strategic affairs analyst, said. Experts say India needs the sophisticated S-400 to fill critical gaps in its defence capabilities, in view of China's rise and perceived threats from Pakistan, against whom India has fought three wars. Indian Air Force Chief Birender Singh Dhanoa said Wednesday that the S-400, and the 36 Rafale fighter jets purchased from France -- a 2016 deal mired in political controversy -- represent a "booster dose" for the country. Last year India and China had a military standoff over a Himalayan plateau claimed by Beijing and Bhutan, a close ally of India. China has also perturbed India by loaning vast amounts of money to countries such as Sri Lanka where it has long held sway. Boldly go Putin, 65, and Modi, 68, are also set to discuss a possible second Russian-built nuclear power plant. Moscow is currently expanding India's biggest nuclear power plant in Kudankulam. Also on the agenda is Russian training for Indian astronauts as New Delhi aims to launch its first crewed space mission in 2022. Rakesh Sharma, the only Indian to travel in space, did so on a Soviet spacecraft in 1984. But military kit is the main focus. India is the world's biggest arms importer and is undergoing a $100-billion upgrade of its ageing hardware, much of it of Soviet vintage including MiG jets that have frequently crashed in the Indian countryside. Russia and India have had warm ties since Stalin died in 1953. But annual Russia-India trade has slipped below $10 billion since 2014, as Modi cultivated closer diplomatic and economic ties with Washington, while Russia has courted Pakistan and China. Ties received a boost last year when Modi and Putin held a fruitful annual bilateral summit, followed by meetings in Astana and at the G20 in Germany. They also met in Sochi this year. On the strategic front, Russia helped India become a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation this year and has backed New Delhi's long-held demand for a permanent UN Security Council seat. Moscow is also pushing for India's entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group of countries controlling access to nuclear technology. Afghanistan though has been a sticking point, experts say, where Moscow wants to engage Taliban in the peace process -- a prospect unacceptable to India.

US, Chinese unease as Russian President Putin seeks India arms deals

Four Turkish soldiers were killed on Thursday in an attack caused by an improvised explosive device in southeastern Turkey, the provincial governor said.

Another five soldiers were injured in the explosion as their military vehicle was passing through the Gercus district of Batman province, the governorate said in a statement.

It blamed the attack on "terrorists" and said a wide operation had been launched to capture the culprits.&nbsp;

Although the governor's office did not explicitly blame the attack on the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the state has been battling PKK fighters in the southeast region after the collapse of a two-year ceasefire in 2015.

The PKK has waged an insurgency inside Turkey since 1984 that has claimed some 40,000 lives.&nbsp;

It is banned as a terrorist group by Ankara, the United States and the European Union.

Four Turkish soldiers were killed on Thursday in an attack caused by an improvised explosive device in southeastern Turkey, the provincial governor said. Another five soldiers were injured in the explosion as their military vehicle was passing through the Gercus district of Batman province, the governorate said in a statement.

Four Turkish soldiers were killed on Thursday in an attack caused by an improvised explosive device in southeastern Turkey, the provincial governor said. Another five soldiers were injured in the explosion as their military vehicle was passing through the Gercus district of Batman province, the governorate said in a statement. It blamed the attack on "terrorists" and said a wide operation had been launched to capture the culprits. Although the governor's office did not explicitly blame the attack on the outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), the state has been battling PKK fighters in the southeast region after the collapse of a two-year ceasefire in 2015. The PKK has waged an insurgency inside Turkey since 1984 that has claimed some 40,000 lives. It is banned as a terrorist group by Ankara, the United States and the European Union.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran on Wednesday for threats to American missions in Iraq and said the United States was terminating a treaty of amity with Tehran.

"Iran is the origin of the current threat to Americans in Iraq," Pompeo told reporters at the State Department. "Our intelligence in this regard is solid. We can see the hand of the Ayatollah and his henchmen supporting these attacks on the United States."

The United States announced on Friday it will effectively close its consulate in the Iraqi city of Basra and relocate diplomatic personnel assigned there following increasing threats from Iran and Iran-backed militia, including rocket fire.

The decision added to mounting tension between the United States and Iran, which is the target of increasing US economic sanctions.

On Wednesday, the World Court ordered the United States to ensure that sanctions against Iran, due to be tightened next month, do not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety.

Judges at the International Court of Justice handed a victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the administration of US President Donald Trump violate the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries.

Washington responded by pulling out of the treaty, something Pompeo said should have been done decades ago.

"We're disappointed that the court failed to recognize that it has no jurisdiction to issue any order relating to these sanctions measures with the United States, which is doing its work on Iran to protect its own essential security interests," Pompeo said.

He said the United States would work to ensure it is providing humanitarian assistance to the Iranian people.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran on Wednesday for threats to American missions in Iraq and said the United States was terminating a treaty of amity with Tehran.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo blamed Iran on Wednesday for threats to American missions in Iraq and said the United States was terminating a treaty of amity with Tehran. "Iran is the origin of the current threat to Americans in Iraq," Pompeo told reporters at the State Department. "Our intelligence in this regard is solid. We can see the hand of the Ayatollah and his henchmen supporting these attacks on the United States." The United States announced on Friday it will effectively close its consulate in the Iraqi city of Basra and relocate diplomatic personnel assigned there following increasing threats from Iran and Iran-backed militia, including rocket fire. The decision added to mounting tension between the United States and Iran, which is the target of increasing US economic sanctions. On Wednesday, the World Court ordered the United States to ensure that sanctions against Iran, due to be tightened next month, do not affect humanitarian aid or civil aviation safety. Judges at the International Court of Justice handed a victory to Tehran, which had argued that sanctions imposed since May by the administration of US President Donald Trump violate the terms of a 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries. Washington responded by pulling out of the treaty, something Pompeo said should have been done decades ago. "We're disappointed that the court failed to recognize that it has no jurisdiction to issue any order relating to these sanctions measures with the United States, which is doing its work on Iran to protect its own essential security interests," Pompeo said. He said the United States would work to ensure it is providing humanitarian assistance to the Iranian people.

Iran is origin of threat to US missions in Iraq: Pompeo

Pakistan FM Qureshi meets U.S Secy Mike Pompeo

A Republican US&nbsp;senator who could be pivotal in determining whether President Donald Trump's nominee Brett Kavanaugh gets to sit on the Supreme Court raised concerns on Tuesday about the judge's "partisan" tone at last week's hearing into sexual misconduct allegations.

As the FBI completed interviews with four people as part of its one-week investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh, moderate Republican Senator Jeff Flake said he was worried about the conservative federal appeals court judge's performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday.

"I was very troubled by the tone of the remarks. ... The interaction with the members was sharp and partisan, and that concerns me," Flake said.

"I tell myself, 'You give a little leeway because of what he's been through.' But on the other hand, we can't have this on the court. We simply can't," Flake told an event in Washington hosted by The Atlantic magazine.

Kavanaugh struck an angry and defiant tone during the hearing, denying allegations made by three women against him. He painted himself as the victim of "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" by Democrats, lashing out at Democratic senators and frequently interrupting them.

Flake, who is retiring as a senator in January, is seen as potentially key figure in any vote in the full Senate on whether to confirm Kavanaugh.

A member of the Judiciary Committee, Flake voted to approve Kavanaugh in the panel's vote on Friday that sent the nomination to the full Senate for consideration, but only after he requested that the FBI conduct an investigation of the sexual misconduct allegations against the nominee. Trump subsequently ordered the investigation.

Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor from California, testified that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party in 1982 when they were high school students in Maryland.

Trump said on Tuesday he believed Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the US&nbsp;Senate this week, but it depends on what comes back in the FBI probe of sexual misconduct allegations.

"I want to see what happens with the FBI," Trump told reporters at the White House before he left on a visit to Philadelphia.

Tight margin

Supreme Court nominations require Senate confirmation. Trump's Republicans control the Senate by a 51-49 margin. That means if all the Democrats vote against Kavanaugh, Trump could not afford to have more than one Republican oppose his nominee, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a tie-breaking vote.

The nomination has become a politically explosive issue just weeks before Nov. 6 elections, when control of Congress is at stake. Some of Trump's fellow Republicans fear that pushing ahead with confirmation could alienate women voters, while Democrats seek to capitalize.

Flake said the FBI had completed interviews with four people. ABC News reported that the agency finished its interview with Kavanaugh's friend, Mark Judge, who Ford identified as a witness to the assault. Judge has previously denied any memory of any such incident.

A White House official told Reuters over the weekend that as well as Judge, the FBI was due to question Deborah Ramirez, who has said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when both were Yale University students in the 1980s.

The FBI will also question Leland Keyser and P.J. Smyth, two people who Ford said were at the gathering of teenagers where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her. A third woman who has accused the judge of sexual misconduct in the 1980s, Julie Swetnick, was not on the initial list of witnesses to be interviewed.

Senate Republicans compiled the list of four witnesses.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday the Senate would vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation this week.

"But here's what we know ... one thing for sure. The Senate will vote on Judge Kavanaugh here, on this floor, this week. Here on this floor, this week," McConnell told the chamber.

It was not clear if McConnell was referring to a final vote or an initial, procedural vote that would likely not be definitive.

The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said she thought a Friday vote on Kavanaugh would not give senators enough time to evaluate the FBI probe.

"I believe it's too soon," Senator Dianne Feinstein told reporters. "It's Tuesday, and we have to put all the facts together."

A Republican US senator who could be pivotal in determining whether President Donald Trump's nominee Brett Kavanaugh gets to sit on the Supreme Court raised concerns on Tuesday about the judge's "partisan" tone at last week's hearing into sexual misconduct allegations.

A Republican US senator who could be pivotal in determining whether President Donald Trump's nominee Brett Kavanaugh gets to sit on the Supreme Court raised concerns on Tuesday about the judge's "partisan" tone at last week's hearing into sexual misconduct allegations. As the FBI completed interviews with four people as part of its one-week investigation into the allegations against Kavanaugh, moderate Republican Senator Jeff Flake said he was worried about the conservative federal appeals court judge's performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Thursday. "I was very troubled by the tone of the remarks. ... The interaction with the members was sharp and partisan, and that concerns me," Flake said. "I tell myself, 'You give a little leeway because of what he's been through.' But on the other hand, we can't have this on the court. We simply can't," Flake told an event in Washington hosted by The Atlantic magazine. Kavanaugh struck an angry and defiant tone during the hearing, denying allegations made by three women against him. He painted himself as the victim of "a calculated and orchestrated political hit" by Democrats, lashing out at Democratic senators and frequently interrupting them. Flake, who is retiring as a senator in January, is seen as potentially key figure in any vote in the full Senate on whether to confirm Kavanaugh. A member of the Judiciary Committee, Flake voted to approve Kavanaugh in the panel's vote on Friday that sent the nomination to the full Senate for consideration, but only after he requested that the FBI conduct an investigation of the sexual misconduct allegations against the nominee. Trump subsequently ordered the investigation. Christine Blasey Ford, a university professor from California, testified that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party in 1982 when they were high school students in Maryland. Trump said on Tuesday he believed Kavanaugh will be confirmed by the US Senate this week, but it depends on what comes back in the FBI probe of sexual misconduct allegations. "I want to see what happens with the FBI," Trump told reporters at the White House before he left on a visit to Philadelphia. Tight margin Supreme Court nominations require Senate confirmation. Trump's Republicans control the Senate by a 51-49 margin. That means if all the Democrats vote against Kavanaugh, Trump could not afford to have more than one Republican oppose his nominee, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a tie-breaking vote. The nomination has become a politically explosive issue just weeks before Nov. 6 elections, when control of Congress is at stake. Some of Trump's fellow Republicans fear that pushing ahead with confirmation could alienate women voters, while Democrats seek to capitalize. Flake said the FBI had completed interviews with four people. ABC News reported that the agency finished its interview with Kavanaugh's friend, Mark Judge, who Ford identified as a witness to the assault. Judge has previously denied any memory of any such incident. A White House official told Reuters over the weekend that as well as Judge, the FBI was due to question Deborah Ramirez, who has said Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when both were Yale University students in the 1980s. The FBI will also question Leland Keyser and P.J. Smyth, two people who Ford said were at the gathering of teenagers where Kavanaugh allegedly assaulted her. A third woman who has accused the judge of sexual misconduct in the 1980s, Julie Swetnick, was not on the initial list of witnesses to be interviewed. Senate Republicans compiled the list of four witnesses. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday the Senate would vote on Kavanaugh's confirmation this week. "But here's what we know ... one thing for sure. The Senate will vote on Judge Kavanaugh here, on this floor, this week. Here on this floor, this week," McConnell told the chamber. It was not clear if McConnell was referring to a final vote or an initial, procedural vote that would likely not be definitive. The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said she thought a Friday vote on Kavanaugh would not give senators enough time to evaluate the FBI probe. "I believe it's too soon," Senator Dianne Feinstein told reporters. "It's Tuesday, and we have to put all the facts together."

Key US senator concerned about Kavanaugh's 'partisan' tone

US First Lady Melania Trump on Tuesday kicked off her first major solo trip in Ghana's capital Accra, aiming to cast a positive light on her embattled husband's administration.&nbsp;

A relaxed-looking Trump smiled and waved as she stepped off an overnight flight from Washington to be met on the red carpet by her Ghanaian counterpart Rebecca Akufo-Addo.

She beamed as she was welcomed by a troupe of traditional drummers and dancers. "Thank you very much," she said with a smile.

The former model, whose choice of clothing is keenly watched, changed from a safari-inspired departure outfit of suede trench coat and leopard print heels to a red and white striped dress with white pumps by the time she arrived in West Africa.

She is scheduled to visit a hospital in Accra to learn about newborn health and also have tea with Mrs Akufo-Addo at the presidential residence, Jubilee House.

The 48-year-old is promoting her Be Best initiative, her official agenda unveiled in May designed to improve children's well-being.&nbsp;

Her office said it will also "showcase" the work of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), even at a time when her husband's government is looking to slash US aid across the world.

But unlike her predecessors, her visit will be followed closely to see if she can build bridges after the president reportedly dismissed Africa as a collection of "shithole countries".

In addition to Ghana, she is due to visit Malawi, Kenya and Egypt before returning to Washington early on October 7.

'Rorschach test in Louboutins'&nbsp;

The enigmatic US first lady has typically stayed out of the spotlight since her husband became president yet she has made headlines for rare public appearances.&nbsp;

In June, she made a surprise visit to Texas to visit detained children at the Mexican border, wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "I really don't care. Do U?"

No one knew who the message was intended for, leaving it -- and her -- up for interpretation.&nbsp;

This ambiguity has led some pundits to describe her as a "Rorschach test in Louboutins" after the interpretative ink blots used in psychoanalysis and the luxury shoes.

But as Melania Trump attempts to step out of her husband's shadow, this trip has been seen as an attempt for her to carve her own diplomatic path.&nbsp;

She has previously travelled alone to Canada and joined her husband on several foreign visits.

Spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said the Africa tour is close to her heart. "This is her trip, her initiative," she said.

That hasn't stopped Donald Trump from weighing in last week, when he told journalists that his wife was "making a big trip to Africa".&nbsp;

"We both love Africa. Africa is so beautiful, the most beautiful part of the world, in many ways," he added.

The US president has yet to travel to Africa since taking office.

Melania Trump's visit to Ghana will inevitably draw comparisons to when former president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle visited Ghana in 2009.&nbsp;

During that visit, Barack Obama gave a speech to parliament saying "Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions".

He also toured the Cape Coast Castle, a former slavery outpost, with his family.&nbsp;

Ghana is seen as a haven of stability in an often turbulent region but despite the interest back home, the first lady's visit did not appear to have generated similar fervour locally.

Unlike the Obamas' visit, the roads from the airport were not packed with onlookers while there was little fanfare in the local media, according to an AFP reporter on the ground.

US First Lady Melania Trump on Tuesday kicked off her first major solo trip in Ghana's capital Accra, aiming to cast a positive light on her embattled husband's administration.

US First Lady Melania Trump on Tuesday kicked off her first major solo trip in Ghana's capital Accra, aiming to cast a positive light on her embattled husband's administration. A relaxed-looking Trump smiled and waved as she stepped off an overnight flight from Washington to be met on the red carpet by her Ghanaian counterpart Rebecca Akufo-Addo. She beamed as she was welcomed by a troupe of traditional drummers and dancers. "Thank you very much," she said with a smile. The former model, whose choice of clothing is keenly watched, changed from a safari-inspired departure outfit of suede trench coat and leopard print heels to a red and white striped dress with white pumps by the time she arrived in West Africa. She is scheduled to visit a hospital in Accra to learn about newborn health and also have tea with Mrs Akufo-Addo at the presidential residence, Jubilee House. The 48-year-old is promoting her Be Best initiative, her official agenda unveiled in May designed to improve children's well-being. Her office said it will also "showcase" the work of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), even at a time when her husband's government is looking to slash US aid across the world. But unlike her predecessors, her visit will be followed closely to see if she can build bridges after the president reportedly dismissed Africa as a collection of "shithole countries". In addition to Ghana, she is due to visit Malawi, Kenya and Egypt before returning to Washington early on October 7. 'Rorschach test in Louboutins' The enigmatic US first lady has typically stayed out of the spotlight since her husband became president yet she has made headlines for rare public appearances. In June, she made a surprise visit to Texas to visit detained children at the Mexican border, wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words "I really don't care. Do U?" No one knew who the message was intended for, leaving it -- and her -- up for interpretation. This ambiguity has led some pundits to describe her as a "Rorschach test in Louboutins" after the interpretative ink blots used in psychoanalysis and the luxury shoes. But as Melania Trump attempts to step out of her husband's shadow, this trip has been seen as an attempt for her to carve her own diplomatic path. She has previously travelled alone to Canada and joined her husband on several foreign visits. Spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said the Africa tour is close to her heart. "This is her trip, her initiative," she said. That hasn't stopped Donald Trump from weighing in last week, when he told journalists that his wife was "making a big trip to Africa". "We both love Africa. Africa is so beautiful, the most beautiful part of the world, in many ways," he added. The US president has yet to travel to Africa since taking office. Melania Trump's visit to Ghana will inevitably draw comparisons to when former president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle visited Ghana in 2009. During that visit, Barack Obama gave a speech to parliament saying "Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions". He also toured the Cape Coast Castle, a former slavery outpost, with his family. Ghana is seen as a haven of stability in an often turbulent region but despite the interest back home, the first lady's visit did not appear to have generated similar fervour locally. Unlike the Obamas' visit, the roads from the airport were not packed with onlookers while there was little fanfare in the local media, according to an AFP reporter on the ground.

Melania Trump kicks off Africa tour in Ghana

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