South Korea approved a plan on Thursday to send $8 million worth of aid to North Korea, as China warned the crisis on the Korean peninsula was getting more serious by the day and the war of words between Pyongyang and Washington continued.

North Korea&#39;s foreign minister likened US President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;to a &quot;barking dog&quot; on Thursday, after&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;warned he would &quot;totally destroy&quot; the North if it threatened the United States and its allies.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the situation on the Korean peninsula was getting more serious by the day and could not be allowed to spin out of control.

&quot;We call on all parties to be calmer than calm and not let the situation escalate out of control,&quot; Wang said, according to a report from the state-run China News Service on Thursday.

Meeting separately with his South Korean counterpart, Kang Kyung-wha, Wang reiterated a call for South Korea to remove the US-built THAAD anti-missile system, which China says is a threat to its own security.

&quot;China hopes South Korea will make efforts to reduce tension,&quot; a report on China&#39;s official Xinhua news agency quoted Wang as saying.

The decision to send aid to North Korea was not popular in South Korea, hitting President Moon Jae-in&#39;s approval rating. It also raised concerns in Japan and the United States and followed new UN sanctions against North Korea over its sixth nuclear test earlier this month.

The South&#39;s Unification Ministry said its aid policy remained unaffected by geopolitical tensions with the North. The exact timing of when the aid would be sent, as well as its size, would be confirmed later, the ministry said in a statement.

The South said it aimed to send $4.5 million worth of nutritional products for children and pregnant women through the World Food Programme and $3.5 million worth of vaccines and medicinal treatments through UNICEF.

&quot;We have consistently said we would pursue humanitarian aid for North Korea in consideration of the poor conditions children and pregnant women are in there, apart from political issues,&quot; said Unification Minister Cho Myong-gyon.

UNICEF&#39;s regional director for East Asia and the Pacific Karin Hulshof said in a statement before the decision the problems North Korean children face &quot;are all too real&quot;.

&quot;Today, we estimate that around 200,000 children are affected by acute malnutrition, heightening their risk of death and increasing rates of stunting,&quot; Hulshof said.

&quot;Food and essential medicines and equipment to treat young children are in short supply,&quot; she said.

The last time the South had sent aid to the North was in December 2015 through the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) under ex-president Park Geun-hye.

Dog Barking

South Korea&#39;s efforts aimed at fresh aid for North Korea dragged down Moon&#39;s approval rating. Realmeter, a South Korean polling organisation, said on Thursday Moon&#39;s approval rating stood at 65.7 per cent, weakening for a fourth straight month.

Although the approval rate is still high, those surveyed said Moon had fallen out of favour due to North Korea&#39;s continued provocations and the government&#39;s decision to consider sending aid to North Korea, Realmeter said.

Moon will meet Japan&#39;s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;later on Thursday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, where North Korea was expected to be the core agenda item.

In an address on Tuesday,&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;escalated his standoff with North Korea over its nuclear challenge, threatening to &quot;totally destroy&quot; the country of 26 million people if the North threatened the United States and its allies.

Trump&nbsp;also mocked its leader, Kim Jong Un, calling him a &quot;rocket man&quot;.

North Korea&#39;s Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho called&nbsp;Trump&#39;s comments &quot;the sound of a dog barking&quot;.

&quot;There is a saying that goes: &#39;Even when dogs bark, the parade goes on&#39;,&quot; Ri said in televised remarks to reporters in front of a hotel near the U.N. headquarters in New York.

&quot;If (Trump) was thinking about surprising us with dog-barking sounds then he is clearly dreaming,&quot; he said.

Asked by reporters what he thought of&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;calling North Korean leader Kim Jong Un &quot;rocket man&quot;, Ri quipped: &quot;I feel sorry for his aides.&quot;

North Korea conducted its sixth and largest nuclear test on Sept. 3 and has launched numerous missiles this year, including two intercontinental ballistic missiles and two other rockets that flew over Japan.

Such provocations have sparked strong disapproval from the international community, especially from the United States and Japan.

North Korea's foreign minister likened US President Donald?Trump?to a 'barking dog' on Thursday, after?Trump?warned he would 'totally destroy' the North if it threatened the United States and its allies

South Korea approved a plan on Thursday to send $8 million worth of aid to North Korea, as China warned the crisis on the Korean peninsula was getting more serious by the day and the war of words between Pyongyang and Washington continued. North Korea's foreign minister likened US President Donald Trump to a "barking dog" on Thursday, after Trump warned he would "totally destroy" the North if it threatened the United States and its allies. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said the situation on the Korean peninsula was getting more serious by the day and could not be allowed to spin out of control. "We call on all parties to be calmer than calm and not let the situation escalate out of control," Wang said, according to a report from the state-run China News Service on Thursday. Meeting separately with his South Korean counterpart, Kang Kyung-wha, Wang reiterated a call for South Korea to remove the US-built THAAD anti-missile system, which China says is a threat to its own security. "China hopes South Korea will make efforts to reduce tension," a report on China's official Xinhua news agency quoted Wang as saying. The decision to send aid to North Korea was not popular in South Korea, hitting President Moon Jae-in's approval rating. It also raised concerns in Japan and the United States and followed new UN sanctions against North Korea over its sixth nuclear test earlier this month. The South's Unification Ministry said its aid policy remained unaffected by geopolitical tensions with the North. The exact timing of when the aid would be sent, as well as its size, would be confirmed later, the ministry said in a statement. The South said it aimed to send $4.5 million worth of nutritional products for children and pregnant women through the World Food Programme and $3.5 million worth of vaccines and medicinal treatments through UNICEF. "We have consistently said we would pursue humanitarian aid for North Korea in consideration of the poor conditions children and pregnant women are in there, apart from political issues," said Unification Minister Cho Myong-gyon. UNICEF's regional director for East Asia and the Pacific Karin Hulshof said in a statement before the decision the problems North Korean children face "are all too real". "Today, we estimate that around 200,000 children are affected by acute malnutrition, heightening their risk of death and increasing rates of stunting," Hulshof said. "Food and essential medicines and equipment to treat young children are in short supply," she said. The last time the South had sent aid to the North was in December 2015 through the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) under ex-president Park Geun-hye. Dog Barking South Korea's efforts aimed at fresh aid for North Korea dragged down Moon's approval rating. Realmeter, a South Korean polling organisation, said on Thursday Moon's approval rating stood at 65.7 per cent, weakening for a fourth straight month. Although the approval rate is still high, those surveyed said Moon had fallen out of favour due to North Korea's continued provocations and the government's decision to consider sending aid to North Korea, Realmeter said. Moon will meet Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Trump later on Thursday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, where North Korea was expected to be the core agenda item. In an address on Tuesday, Trump escalated his standoff with North Korea over its nuclear challenge, threatening to "totally destroy" the country of 26 million people if the North threatened the United States and its allies. Trump also mocked its leader, Kim Jong Un, calling him a "rocket man". North Korea's Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho called Trump's comments "the sound of a dog barking". "There is a saying that goes: 'Even when dogs bark, the parade goes on'," Ri said in televised remarks to reporters in front of a hotel near the U.N. headquarters in New York. "If (Trump) was thinking about surprising us with dog-barking sounds then he is clearly dreaming," he said. Asked by reporters what he thought of Trump calling North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "rocket man", Ri quipped: "I feel sorry for his aides." North Korea conducted its sixth and largest nuclear test on Sept. 3 and has launched numerous missiles this year, including two intercontinental ballistic missiles and two other rockets that flew over Japan. Such provocations have sparked strong disapproval from the international community, especially from the United States and Japan.

North Korea shrugs off Trump as 'barking dog'

It is a short distance from Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue to the United Nations headquarters on First Avenue, but these are different worlds. Donald Trump&rsquo;s native world is one of unilateralism and competition, with more than a hint of bravado and aggression. The U.N.&lsquo;s world is one of multilateralism and cooperation, with a heavy dose of diplomacy and collaboration.

Those two worlds met when Trump gave his first speech to the U.N. as America&rsquo;s president. And the nationalism and pragmatism of the relatively recently inaugurated leader of the U.S., <a href="https://theconversation.com/will-trump-victory-make-angela-merkel-leader-of-the-free-world-69017">if no longer the free world</a>, collided with the cosmopolitan, enduringly optimistic, if often weary,&nbsp;leadership of the U.N. Not surprisingly, it starkly contrasted with <a href="http://time.com/4501910/president-obama-united-nations-speech-transcript/">Barack Obama&rsquo;s final speech to the U.N.</a> a year ago.

&#39;It&rsquo;s complicated&rsquo;

Since his inauguration, Donald Trump has conceded on several occasions that <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/opinions/trump-foreign-policy-ghitis-opinion/index.html">foreign policy is &ldquo;complicated.</a>&rdquo; And his speech at the U.N. reinforced that fact. He attempted to bridge an uncomfortable divide between the isolationism and muscular foreign policy embraced by much of his political base and the inescapable need to cooperate with other countries in order to tackle a series of foreign policy problems that even the most powerful of states cannot address alone. My initial impression as a student of international relations is that he largely failed to reconcile that tension.

Trump&rsquo;s inaugural presidential address was more memorable for his <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/20/donald-trumps-full-inauguration-speech-transcript-annotated/">reference to carnage</a> than an appeal to inspirational values. And, likewise, his first U.N. speech will probably be remembered more for his threats against North Korea and his reference to the decimation of the U.S. middle class than a few desultory utterances in which he commended the United Nations for its humanitarian efforts.

Straddling two constituencies

Unsurprisingly, Trump&rsquo;s commentary was broad-ranging and inchoate. In again invoking the concept of &ldquo;<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-to-deliver-un-speech-focused-on-principled-realism/">principled realism</a>,&rdquo; he tried to straddle, and to please, both his base and the audience in the room. But just like his wavering recent comments about events in Charlottesville or the fate of the &ldquo;Dreamers&rdquo; of DACA, his ambivalence on the future relationship between the United States and the United Nations will likely leave neither his supporters or his global audience satisfied.

So, against this background, what were the lessons gleaned from Trump&rsquo;s speech?

Here are five key points:

We are the world?

For the last three decades, every student who takes a university course in international relations has been taught two things. The first is that the countries of the world are becoming more interdependent. The second is that the United Nations is one of the mechanisms that can be used to address issues that require a collective response, like climate change or growing inequality. Trump rejected that formulation. In his speech, he argued that the United Nations should be built on the basis of sovereign, strong and independent states fed by patriotism and nationalism &ndash; not cosmopolitanism. States should be left alone unless they threaten external security or, Trump suggested eccentrically, they abrogate human rights &ndash; singularly referring to Venezuela.

Throwback to W

Rogue states, or &ldquo;regimes,&rdquo; are back in fashion. The term, like the &ldquo;Axis of Evil,&rdquo; was introduced by George W. Bush&rsquo;s administration. Then, it principally referred to Iran, North Korea and Iraq, and was used to justify an interventionist U.S. foreign policy. That language disappeared during the Obama administration, in favor of a focus on strategic patience and diplomacy. Trump&rsquo;s rejection of Obama&rsquo;s foreign policy could have taken him off in several directions. But in this instance, he has returned to Bush&rsquo;s.

A line to remember

But Bush&rsquo;s foray didn&rsquo;t end well. He used the term &ndash; and the threat those countries reputedly posed to international stability &ndash; to justify a long, bloody and costly war in Iraq that ultimately destabilized the Middle East. The consequences of Trump&rsquo;s return to that language could prove catastrophic on the Korean Peninsula. Never before can I recall an American president threatening to &ldquo;totally destroy&rdquo; another country like North Korea, as Trump did while standing at a lectern of an organization whose core mission is dedicated to peace. That, I suspect, will be the line from his speech that will be longest remembered, regardless of whether war actually breaks out.

Looking out for number one

Paradoxically, according to Trump, in pursuing its own narrow, short-term self-interest on security and trade, the United States will remain a &ldquo;model&rdquo; for the rest of the world. Again, this claim upends conventional American wisdom.

Attempts to enhance America&rsquo;s global reputation for the last seven decades have been built on its efforts to cultivate at least an image of <a href="http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10271.html">enlightened self-interest.</a> This has entailed promoting global stability, trade and democracy. Taking this long-term view has been at a cost to American taxpayers, workers and even American lives in a series of wars. American presidents have routinely justified this sacrifice by calling the U.S. &ldquo;a model&rdquo; from which the world has ultimately benefited. Until now, none has justified selfishness as a virtue to the rest of the world. &ldquo;As President of the United States, I will always put America first just like you, the leaders of your countries, will always, and should always, put your countries first,&rdquo; <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/19/trump-un-speech-2017-full-text-transcript-242879">proclaimed Trump.</a> It was a line reminiscent of Gordon Gecko&rsquo;s famous speech in the movie Wall Street, that &ldquo;greed is good.&rdquo;

Ignoring the needs of others

Economic and national security may be in, but enhancing economic and social development, addressing global inequality and combating climate change are certainly out.

The irony is inescapable: Two more hurricanes were threatening America&rsquo;s shores as Trump spoke. Seemingly oblivious to that fact, he completely ignored two of the greatest interrelated challenges facing humanity in a building whose central mission is to protect the species: how to feed the world&rsquo;s population while ensuring all of our children actually remain alive so that they can enjoy that meal. America First, he clearly implied, entails the right of the American middle class to drive to the mall and have enough money to spend on U.S. manufactured products when it gets there. But, on this occasion, the possibility that they may have to drive through a hurricane, flood, forest fire or smog to get there was not recognized by Trump as a major problem. And on questions of economic, political or social development? The nearest he got was a reference to refugees: Wars should cease so that they can return to their homes. It&rsquo;s cheaper that way. The president is probably unacquainted with the fact that a large proportion of the world&rsquo;s potential <a href="https://caribbeantradelaw.com/2017/01/30/hr4939-us-caribbean-strategic-engagement-act-of-2016-key-points-to-note/">environmental refugees</a> live in the Caribbean, and when the sea rises I suspect they will be heading in boats towards Florida, if not Mar-a-Lago, with no home to return to.

So what&rsquo;s the bottom line?

First, principled realism is a nice term if you are trying to appear coherent. But its principle components &ndash; of isolationism and engagement &ndash; are <a href="http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100158520">inherently contradictory</a>. Cobbling them together should lead us to expect contradiction and equivocation rather than be surprised by it.

Second, we learned once again that Trump looks longingly backwards rather than forwards. His speech, when dispassionately analyzed, would have seemed more befitting if delivered in 1917 rather than 2017.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84328/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />And finally, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/19/politics/trump-un-speech-world-leaders-react/index.html">the lukewarm applause Trump received</a> &ndash; both when criticizing Iran and at the conclusion of his speech &ndash; suggests that, with few exceptions, the world&rsquo;s leaders share the sentiment held by a large portion of the American electorate: that the next three years and four months are going <a href="https://www.vox.com/2017/6/12/15781752/donald-trump-eternity-time-perception">to feel like an eternity</a>.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" nofollow="" rel="">The Conversation</a>.The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-speaks-at-the-un-5-takeaways-84328" nofollow="" rel="">original article</a>.

In his first speech after becoming President of United States, Donald Trump threatened North Korea with total destruction.

It is a short distance from Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue to the United Nations headquarters on First Avenue, but these are different worlds. Donald Trump’s native world is one of unilateralism and competition, with more than a hint of bravado and aggression. The U.N.‘s world is one of multilateralism and cooperation, with a heavy dose of diplomacy and collaboration. Those two worlds met when Trump gave his first speech to the U.N. as America’s president. And the nationalism and pragmatism of the relatively recently inaugurated leader of the U.S., if no longer the free world, collided with the cosmopolitan, enduringly optimistic, if often weary, leadership of the U.N. Not surprisingly, it starkly contrasted with Barack Obama’s final speech to the U.N. a year ago. 'It’s complicated’ Since his inauguration, Donald Trump has conceded on several occasions that foreign policy is “complicated.” And his speech at the U.N. reinforced that fact. He attempted to bridge an uncomfortable divide between the isolationism and muscular foreign policy embraced by much of his political base and the inescapable need to cooperate with other countries in order to tackle a series of foreign policy problems that even the most powerful of states cannot address alone. My initial impression as a student of international relations is that he largely failed to reconcile that tension. Trump’s inaugural presidential address was more memorable for his reference to carnage than an appeal to inspirational values. And, likewise, his first U.N. speech will probably be remembered more for his threats against North Korea and his reference to the decimation of the U.S. middle class than a few desultory utterances in which he commended the United Nations for its humanitarian efforts. Straddling two constituencies Unsurprisingly, Trump’s commentary was broad-ranging and inchoate. In again invoking the concept of “principled realism,” he tried to straddle, and to please, both his base and the audience in the room. But just like his wavering recent comments about events in Charlottesville or the fate of the “Dreamers” of DACA, his ambivalence on the future relationship between the United States and the United Nations will likely leave neither his supporters or his global audience satisfied. So, against this background, what were the lessons gleaned from Trump’s speech? Here are five key points: We are the world? For the last three decades, every student who takes a university course in international relations has been taught two things. The first is that the countries of the world are becoming more interdependent. The second is that the United Nations is one of the mechanisms that can be used to address issues that require a collective response, like climate change or growing inequality. Trump rejected that formulation. In his speech, he argued that the United Nations should be built on the basis of sovereign, strong and independent states fed by patriotism and nationalism – not cosmopolitanism. States should be left alone unless they threaten external security or, Trump suggested eccentrically, they abrogate human rights – singularly referring to Venezuela. Throwback to W Rogue states, or “regimes,” are back in fashion. The term, like the “Axis of Evil,” was introduced by George W. Bush’s administration. Then, it principally referred to Iran, North Korea and Iraq, and was used to justify an interventionist U.S. foreign policy. That language disappeared during the Obama administration, in favor of a focus on strategic patience and diplomacy. Trump’s rejection of Obama’s foreign policy could have taken him off in several directions. But in this instance, he has returned to Bush’s. A line to remember But Bush’s foray didn’t end well. He used the term – and the threat those countries reputedly posed to international stability – to justify a long, bloody and costly war in Iraq that ultimately destabilized the Middle East. The consequences of Trump’s return to that language could prove catastrophic on the Korean Peninsula. Never before can I recall an American president threatening to “totally destroy” another country like North Korea, as Trump did while standing at a lectern of an organization whose core mission is dedicated to peace. That, I suspect, will be the line from his speech that will be longest remembered, regardless of whether war actually breaks out. Looking out for number one Paradoxically, according to Trump, in pursuing its own narrow, short-term self-interest on security and trade, the United States will remain a “model” for the rest of the world. Again, this claim upends conventional American wisdom. Attempts to enhance America’s global reputation for the last seven decades have been built on its efforts to cultivate at least an image of enlightened self-interest. This has entailed promoting global stability, trade and democracy. Taking this long-term view has been at a cost to American taxpayers, workers and even American lives in a series of wars. American presidents have routinely justified this sacrifice by calling the U.S. “a model” from which the world has ultimately benefited. Until now, none has justified selfishness as a virtue to the rest of the world. “As President of the United States, I will always put America first just like you, the leaders of your countries, will always, and should always, put your countries first,” proclaimed Trump. It was a line reminiscent of Gordon Gecko’s famous speech in the movie Wall Street, that “greed is good.” Ignoring the needs of others Economic and national security may be in, but enhancing economic and social development, addressing global inequality and combating climate change are certainly out. The irony is inescapable: Two more hurricanes were threatening America’s shores as Trump spoke. Seemingly oblivious to that fact, he completely ignored two of the greatest interrelated challenges facing humanity in a building whose central mission is to protect the species: how to feed the world’s population while ensuring all of our children actually remain alive so that they can enjoy that meal. America First, he clearly implied, entails the right of the American middle class to drive to the mall and have enough money to spend on U.S. manufactured products when it gets there. But, on this occasion, the possibility that they may have to drive through a hurricane, flood, forest fire or smog to get there was not recognized by Trump as a major problem. And on questions of economic, political or social development? The nearest he got was a reference to refugees: Wars should cease so that they can return to their homes. It’s cheaper that way. The president is probably unacquainted with the fact that a large proportion of the world’s potential environmental refugees live in the Caribbean, and when the sea rises I suspect they will be heading in boats towards Florida, if not Mar-a-Lago, with no home to return to. So what’s the bottom line? First, principled realism is a nice term if you are trying to appear coherent. But its principle components – of isolationism and engagement – are inherently contradictory. Cobbling them together should lead us to expect contradiction and equivocation rather than be surprised by it. Second, we learned once again that Trump looks longingly backwards rather than forwards. His speech, when dispassionately analyzed, would have seemed more befitting if delivered in 1917 rather than 2017. And finally, the lukewarm applause Trump received – both when criticizing Iran and at the conclusion of his speech – suggests that, with few exceptions, the world’s leaders share the sentiment held by a large portion of the American electorate: that the next three years and four months are going to feel like an eternity. This article was originally published on The Conversation.The Conversation. Read the original article.

Trump's first speech in the UN goes against the values of the organisation

U.S. President Donald&nbsp;Trump&#39;s&nbsp;speech to the United Nations, where he warned he would &quot;totally destroy&quot;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/south-korea-wants-greater-missile-power-in-face-of-north-korean-threats-19799">&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;if threatened</a>, reinforced the need for Pyongyang to realise it must give up its nuclear weapons,&nbsp;South&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;said on Wednesday.

In a hard-edged speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump mockedNorth&nbsp;Korean leader Kim Jong Un as a &quot;rocket man&quot; for his repeated ballistic missile tests.

&quot;We view the speech as portraying a&nbsp;firm&nbsp;and specific stance on the key issues regarding keeping peace and safety that the international community and the United Nations are faced with,&quot; the office of&nbsp;South&nbsp;Korean President Moon Jae-in said in a statement on Wednesday.

&quot;It clearly showed how seriously the United States government views&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&#39;s nuclear programme as the president spent an unusual amount of time discussing the issue,&quot; the presidential Blue House&#39;s statement said.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/read-full-text-of-donald-trumps-un-speech-20420">Trump&#39;s&nbsp;speech </a>&quot;reaffirmed that&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;should be made to realize denuclearisation is the only way to the future through utmost sanctions and pressure&quot;, it said.

Moon came to power in May on a platform of more engagement with&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea. Since Pyongyang&#39;s sixth and largest nuclear test earlier on September&nbsp;3, however, Moon has said the time is not right for dialogue.

He and Trump plan to meet in New York early on Wednesday US&nbsp;time, Moon&#39;s office said.

&quot;GREAT STRENGTH&quot;

Trump&#39;s&nbsp;most direct military threat to attack&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;was his latest expression of concern about Pyongyang&#39;s repeated weapons tests.

&quot;The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea,&quot; Trump told the 193-member world body. &quot;Rocketman is on a suicide mission for himself and his regime.&quot;

U.S. ally Japan, which Pyongyang often threatens to destroy, has taken a consistently hard line on&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea, pushing for increased sanctions and pressure.

&quot;We greatly appreciate President Trump&rsquo;s approach to changing&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&rsquo;s policy stance, denuclearising the country and calling on the international community, including China and Russia, for their cooperation toward strengthening pressure on&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea,&quot; Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters.

Suga also welcomed&nbsp;Trump&#39;s&nbsp;reference to a Japanese girl who was kidnapped by&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korean agents in 1977.

The plight of abductees is a key issue for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has pledged to rescue them while in office, and an emotive one for the Japanese public.

North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;admitted in 2002 it had kidnapped 13 Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s to train spies. Five of them returned to Japan but Tokyo suspects that hundreds more may have been taken.

STRICT SANCTIONS

North&nbsp;Korea, which has conducted more than 80 missile tests under third-generation leader Kim, says it needs its weapons to protect itself from U.S. aggression.&nbsp;South&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;and the United States are technically still at war with&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;after the 1950-53&nbsp;Korean conflict ended with a truce, not a peace treaty.

US&nbsp;Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, interviewed by Fox News on Tuesday, highlighted Washington&#39;s policy of pressuring&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;through sanctions.

&quot;We have the strictest sanctions ever put in place. We do believe there are early signs of those having an effect,&quot; he said. &quot;Ultimately, though, we&#39;re going to need the assistance of the neighbours in the region.&quot;

The UN&nbsp;Security Council has unanimously imposed nine rounds of sanctions on&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea since 2006, the latest earlier this month aimed at restricting fuel supplies and cutting off textile exports, a key foreign exchange earner.

The United States has urged China,&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&#39;s main ally and trading partner, and Russia to do more to rein in Kim, something Trump appeared to allude to in his speech.

&quot;It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime but would arm, supply and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict,&quot; Trump told the General Assembly.

China&#39;s Foreign Ministry asked to respond to&nbsp;Trump&#39;s&nbsp;comments about destroying&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;if it had to, said U.N. resolutions were clear the&nbsp;Korean peninsula issue should be resolved peacefully through political and diplomatic means.

The resolutions passed by the UN&nbsp;Security Council on&nbsp;North&nbsp;Korea&nbsp;reflected the &quot;common will and consensus of the international community&quot; to denuclearisation of the&nbsp;Korean Peninsula, Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a regular briefing.

In a hard-edged speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump mockedNorth?Korean leader Kim Jong Un as a "rocket man" for his repeated ballistic missile tests.

U.S. President Donald Trump's speech to the United Nations, where he warned he would "totally destroy" North Korea if threatened, reinforced the need for Pyongyang to realise it must give up its nuclear weapons, South Korea said on Wednesday. In a hard-edged speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump mockedNorth Korean leader Kim Jong Un as a "rocket man" for his repeated ballistic missile tests. "We view the speech as portraying a firm and specific stance on the key issues regarding keeping peace and safety that the international community and the United Nations are faced with," the office of South Korean President Moon Jae-in said in a statement on Wednesday. "It clearly showed how seriously the United States government views North Korea's nuclear programme as the president spent an unusual amount of time discussing the issue," the presidential Blue House's statement said. Trump's speech "reaffirmed that North Korea should be made to realize denuclearisation is the only way to the future through utmost sanctions and pressure", it said. Moon came to power in May on a platform of more engagement with North Korea. Since Pyongyang's sixth and largest nuclear test earlier on September 3, however, Moon has said the time is not right for dialogue. He and Trump plan to meet in New York early on Wednesday US time, Moon's office said. "GREAT STRENGTH" Trump's most direct military threat to attack North Korea was his latest expression of concern about Pyongyang's repeated weapons tests. "The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea," Trump told the 193-member world body. "Rocketman is on a suicide mission for himself and his regime." U.S. ally Japan, which Pyongyang often threatens to destroy, has taken a consistently hard line on North Korea, pushing for increased sanctions and pressure. "We greatly appreciate President Trump’s approach to changing North Korea’s policy stance, denuclearising the country and calling on the international community, including China and Russia, for their cooperation toward strengthening pressure on North Korea," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told reporters. Suga also welcomed Trump's reference to a Japanese girl who was kidnapped by North Korean agents in 1977. The plight of abductees is a key issue for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who has pledged to rescue them while in office, and an emotive one for the Japanese public. North Korea admitted in 2002 it had kidnapped 13 Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s to train spies. Five of them returned to Japan but Tokyo suspects that hundreds more may have been taken. STRICT SANCTIONS North Korea, which has conducted more than 80 missile tests under third-generation leader Kim, says it needs its weapons to protect itself from U.S. aggression. South Korea and the United States are technically still at war with North Korea after the 1950-53 Korean conflict ended with a truce, not a peace treaty. US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, interviewed by Fox News on Tuesday, highlighted Washington's policy of pressuring North Korea through sanctions. "We have the strictest sanctions ever put in place. We do believe there are early signs of those having an effect," he said. "Ultimately, though, we're going to need the assistance of the neighbours in the region." The UN Security Council has unanimously imposed nine rounds of sanctions on North Korea since 2006, the latest earlier this month aimed at restricting fuel supplies and cutting off textile exports, a key foreign exchange earner. The United States has urged China, North Korea's main ally and trading partner, and Russia to do more to rein in Kim, something Trump appeared to allude to in his speech. "It is an outrage that some nations would not only trade with such a regime but would arm, supply and financially support a country that imperils the world with nuclear conflict," Trump told the General Assembly. China's Foreign Ministry asked to respond to Trump's comments about destroying North Korea if it had to, said U.N. resolutions were clear the Korean peninsula issue should be resolved peacefully through political and diplomatic means. The resolutions passed by the UN Security Council on North Korea reflected the "common will and consensus of the international community" to denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula, Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a regular briefing.

Trump's warning to North Korea is firm and specific: South Korea

Rock giants U2 and pop star Ed Sheeran have called off concerts in St Louis, as the US city braced&nbsp;Sunday&nbsp;for a second day of protests over the acquittal of a former police officer in the shooting death of a black man.

The Irish rock band and entertainment firm Live Nation announced the&nbsp;Saturday&nbsp;show&#39;s cancellation in a statement citing concerns about fans&#39; security.

&quot;We have been informed by the St Louis Police Department that they are not in a position to provide the standard protection for our audience as would be expected for an event of this size,&quot; they said.

&quot;We cannot in good conscience risk our fans&#39; safety by proceeding with&nbsp;tonight&#39;s&nbsp;concert. As much as we regret having to cancel, we feel it is the only acceptable course of action in the current environment.&quot;&nbsp;

And Briton Sheeran announced he was pulling the plug on his show, set for a different St Louis venue&nbsp;Sunday, amid the protests.&nbsp;

A judge in the Missouri city&nbsp;Friday&nbsp;found a white former police officer, Jason Stockley, not guilty of murdering Anthony Lamar Smith, a suspected drug dealer, following a high-speed chase in 2011.

The case has drawn a lot of attention in St Louis, where racial tensions have been high since the 2014 killing of a black man in the city&#39;s suburb of Ferguson by a white police officer.&nbsp;

In an interview with the St Louis Post-Dispatch, Stockley said he understands how the video of him fatally shooting Smith looks bad to investigators and the public.&nbsp;

&quot;I can feel for and I understand what the family is going through, and I know everyone wants someone to blame, but I&#39;m just not the guy,&quot; he said.

Hundreds of people turned out for initially peaceful protests after the verdict, but the situation turned violent&nbsp;Friday&nbsp;night, leading police to break up the crowd with tear gas.

Ten officers were injured in the standoff with rock-throwing protesters, according to St. Louis police who made at least 23 arrests.&nbsp;

On Saturday, protesters gathered at a park and then marched through two St Louis shopping malls, chanting &quot;the whole damn system is guilty as hell.&quot;

&quot;I can feel for and I understand what the family is going through, and I know everyone wants someone to blame, but I&#39;m just not the guy,&quot; Stockley told the St Louis Post-Dispatch.

Stockley, 36, shot Smith, 24, five times December 20, 2011, after a car chase that followed a suspected drug deal.

He was caught on an in-car camera video telling his partner, Brian Bianchi, &quot;Going to kill this (expletive) don&#39;t you know it.

Prosecutors brought first-degree murder charges in 2016, alleging that Stockley&#39;s comments to his partner showed premeditation and alleging he planted a gun in Smith&#39;s car after the shooting.

On Friday, Judge Timothy Wilson acquitted Stockley, concluding there was no evidence he had planted the gun and that his video-taped comment lacked context because the portions before and after were inaudible.

The Irish rock band and entertainment firm Live Nation announced the?Saturday?show's cancellation in a statement citing concerns about fans' security

Rock giants U2 and pop star Ed Sheeran have called off concerts in St Louis, as the US city braced Sunday for a second day of protests over the acquittal of a former police officer in the shooting death of a black man. The Irish rock band and entertainment firm Live Nation announced the Saturday show's cancellation in a statement citing concerns about fans' security. "We have been informed by the St Louis Police Department that they are not in a position to provide the standard protection for our audience as would be expected for an event of this size," they said. "We cannot in good conscience risk our fans' safety by proceeding with tonight's concert. As much as we regret having to cancel, we feel it is the only acceptable course of action in the current environment." And Briton Sheeran announced he was pulling the plug on his show, set for a different St Louis venue Sunday, amid the protests. A judge in the Missouri city Friday found a white former police officer, Jason Stockley, not guilty of murdering Anthony Lamar Smith, a suspected drug dealer, following a high-speed chase in 2011. The case has drawn a lot of attention in St Louis, where racial tensions have been high since the 2014 killing of a black man in the city's suburb of Ferguson by a white police officer. In an interview with the St Louis Post-Dispatch, Stockley said he understands how the video of him fatally shooting Smith looks bad to investigators and the public. "I can feel for and I understand what the family is going through, and I know everyone wants someone to blame, but I'm just not the guy," he said. Hundreds of people turned out for initially peaceful protests after the verdict, but the situation turned violent Friday night, leading police to break up the crowd with tear gas. Ten officers were injured in the standoff with rock-throwing protesters, according to St. Louis police who made at least 23 arrests. On Saturday, protesters gathered at a park and then marched through two St Louis shopping malls, chanting "the whole damn system is guilty as hell." "I can feel for and I understand what the family is going through, and I know everyone wants someone to blame, but I'm just not the guy," Stockley told the St Louis Post-Dispatch. Stockley, 36, shot Smith, 24, five times December 20, 2011, after a car chase that followed a suspected drug deal. He was caught on an in-car camera video telling his partner, Brian Bianchi, "Going to kill this (expletive) don't you know it. Prosecutors brought first-degree murder charges in 2016, alleging that Stockley's comments to his partner showed premeditation and alleging he planted a gun in Smith's car after the shooting. On Friday, Judge Timothy Wilson acquitted Stockley, concluding there was no evidence he had planted the gun and that his video-taped comment lacked context because the portions before and after were inaudible.

U2, Sheeran cancel concerts in protest-hit St Louis

Iraq&#39;s parliament voted on Tuesday to reject an Iraqi Kurdish independence referendum planned for Sept. 25, authorising the prime minister to take all measures to preserve Iraq&#39;s unity, a lawmaker said.

&quot;Kurdish lawmakers walked out of the session but the decision to reject the referendum was passed by a majority,&quot; Mohammed al-Karbouli said.

Kurdish lawmaker Majid Shingali said Kurds would reject the decision.

&quot;This decision has no value and we will not implement it,&quot; he told Reuters.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi&rsquo;s government had previously rejected the referendum as unilateral and unconstitutional.

The United States and other Western nations fear the September vote in Iraqi Kurdistan could ignite a new conflict with Baghdad and possibly neighboring countries, diverting attention from the war against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria.

Turkey, along with Iraq, Iran and Syria, also opposes the idea of Iraqi Kurdish independence, fearing separatism could spread to their own Kurdish populations.

Kurds have sought an independent state since at least the end of World War I, when colonial powers divided up the Middle East and left Kurdish-populated territory split between modern-day Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

"Kurdish lawmakers walked out of the session but the decision to reject the referendum was passed by a majority," Mohammed al-Karbouli said.

Iraq's parliament voted on Tuesday to reject an Iraqi Kurdish independence referendum planned for Sept. 25, authorising the prime minister to take all measures to preserve Iraq's unity, a lawmaker said. "Kurdish lawmakers walked out of the session but the decision to reject the referendum was passed by a majority," Mohammed al-Karbouli said. Kurdish lawmaker Majid Shingali said Kurds would reject the decision. "This decision has no value and we will not implement it," he told Reuters. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s government had previously rejected the referendum as unilateral and unconstitutional. The United States and other Western nations fear the September vote in Iraqi Kurdistan could ignite a new conflict with Baghdad and possibly neighboring countries, diverting attention from the war against Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria. Turkey, along with Iraq, Iran and Syria, also opposes the idea of Iraqi Kurdish independence, fearing separatism could spread to their own Kurdish populations. Kurds have sought an independent state since at least the end of World War I, when colonial powers divided up the Middle East and left Kurdish-populated territory split between modern-day Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria.

Iraqi parliament rejects Iraqi Kurdish referendum

Pakistan&#39;s Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said on Monday (September 11) it would be counter-productive for the United States to sanction Pakistani officials or further cut military assistance, warning it would hurt both countries&#39; fight against militancy.

US-Pakistan relations have frayed since President Donald Trump last month set out a new Afghanistan policy and lashed out at nuclear-armed Pakistan as a fickle ally that gives safe haven to &quot;agents of chaos&quot; by harbouring the Afghan Taliban and other militants.

The United States has already begun conditioning future aid to Pakistan on progress Islamabad makes in tackling the Haqqani network militants who it alleges are Pakistan-based and have helped the Taliban carry out deadly attacks inside Afghanistan.

Pakistan denies hosting militant sanctuaries, and Islamabad bristles at claims it has not done enough to tackle militancy, noting it has borne the brunt of violence in the so-called war on terror, suffering more than 60,000 casualties since 2001.

Former petroleum minister Abbasi, 58, who was installed as prime minister last month after the Supreme Court ousted veteran premier Nawaz Sharif over undeclared income, told Reuters that any targeted sanctions by Washington against Pakistani military and intelligence officials would not help US. counter-terrorism efforts.

The Trump administration&#39;s tougher stance is seen as pushing Islamabad closer to Beijing, which has pledged about $60 billion in roads, rail and power infrastructure in Pakistan as part of its ambitious Belt and Road initiative to build vast land and sea trade routes linking Asia with Europe and Africa.

U.S.-Pakistan relations have frayed since President Donald Trump last month set out a new Afghanistan policy and lashed out at nuclear-armed Pakistan as a fickle ally that gives safe haven to "agents of chaos" by harbouring the Afghan Taliban and other militants.

Pakistan's Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said on Monday (September 11) it would be counter-productive for the United States to sanction Pakistani officials or further cut military assistance, warning it would hurt both countries' fight against militancy. US-Pakistan relations have frayed since President Donald Trump last month set out a new Afghanistan policy and lashed out at nuclear-armed Pakistan as a fickle ally that gives safe haven to "agents of chaos" by harbouring the Afghan Taliban and other militants. The United States has already begun conditioning future aid to Pakistan on progress Islamabad makes in tackling the Haqqani network militants who it alleges are Pakistan-based and have helped the Taliban carry out deadly attacks inside Afghanistan. Pakistan denies hosting militant sanctuaries, and Islamabad bristles at claims it has not done enough to tackle militancy, noting it has borne the brunt of violence in the so-called war on terror, suffering more than 60,000 casualties since 2001. Former petroleum minister Abbasi, 58, who was installed as prime minister last month after the Supreme Court ousted veteran premier Nawaz Sharif over undeclared income, told Reuters that any targeted sanctions by Washington against Pakistani military and intelligence officials would not help US. counter-terrorism efforts. The Trump administration's tougher stance is seen as pushing Islamabad closer to Beijing, which has pledged about $60 billion in roads, rail and power infrastructure in Pakistan as part of its ambitious Belt and Road initiative to build vast land and sea trade routes linking Asia with Europe and Africa.

Pakistan PM warns US sanctions would be counter-productive

No fewer than 16 Americans were hurt in what has previously been dubbed an acoustic attack on the US mission in Cuba, the State Department said Thursday.

Officials are probing a series of incidents dating back to September last year in which diplomats are thought to have been hit with a mystery sonic weapon.

The &quot;unprecedented&quot; attacks came to light last month when Washington warned Cuba it would be held responsible for the safety of US personnel in Havana.

But on Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert gave the first indication of the scale of the incident, which has threatened slowly improving ties.

&quot;We can confirm that at least 16 US government employees, members of our embassy community, have experienced some kind of symptoms,&quot; she said.

Late last year US embassy staff and at least one Canadian began to feel the effects of what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called a &quot;health attack.&quot;

US officials have said those hurt appeared to have been targeted by some form of previously unknown acoustic assault, but have not blamed Cuba directly.

Cuba has insisted it has no knowledge of any attack and is working to &quot;clarify the facts of the situation.&quot;

No details of the injuries have been released, but a CBS News report suggested at least one victim suffered what amounted to &quot;brain damage.&quot;

&quot;We take the situation extremely seriously,&quot; Nauert said, after revealing the new casualty toll.

Nauert confirmed that the 16 cases she was referring to were all US citizens connected to the mission, but was not sure if any were family members of staff.

Some were evacuated to Miami for treatment in US hospitals, others were cared for by American doctors who traveled to Havana to work at the embassy.

Separately, Canada has said one of its diplomats posted to Havana is being treated for hearing loss.

In May, the US ordered two Cuban diplomats to leave their recently reopened embassy in Washington and return to Havana, without publicly saying why.

It is now known that Washington had alerted the Cuban government to what its foreign ministry dubbed the &quot;alleged incidents&quot; as far back as February 17.

But US officials made no public complaint until just last month when Tillerson warned that Cuba must help investigate and prevent further attacks.

Nauert said on Thursday that the incidents do now appear to have ended, but that investigations are ongoing to find the culprits.

Tough line

Relations between the United States and Cuba were restored by then president Barack Obama and his counterpart Raul Castro in 2015 after a half-century.

But tensions mounted again after Obama&#39;s successor Donald Trump, who won many Cuban American votes by promising a tough line, rolled back detente.

In June, Trump tightened rules for Americans traveling to Cuba, banned ties with a military-run tourism firm and reaffirmed the existing US trade embargo.

The US embassy was closed in 1961 at the height of the Cold War when diplomatic relations broke down between Washington and Fidel Castro&#39;s revolutionary regime.

The mission reopened as a &quot;special interests section&quot; rather than a full embassy under an agreement between Castro and US President Jimmy Carter. 
But the US diplomats were hardly made welcome.

Anti-American propaganda was displayed around the compound, which Cuba saw as a base for fomenting opposition sedition.

American diplomats in Havana and their Cuban rivals in Washington both regularly complained of harassment or heavy-handed surveillance, but never of sonic attack.

Officials are probing a series of incidents dating back to September last year in which diplomats are thought to have been hit with a mystery sonic weapon

No fewer than 16 Americans were hurt in what has previously been dubbed an acoustic attack on the US mission in Cuba, the State Department said Thursday. Officials are probing a series of incidents dating back to September last year in which diplomats are thought to have been hit with a mystery sonic weapon. The "unprecedented" attacks came to light last month when Washington warned Cuba it would be held responsible for the safety of US personnel in Havana. But on Thursday, State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert gave the first indication of the scale of the incident, which has threatened slowly improving ties. "We can confirm that at least 16 US government employees, members of our embassy community, have experienced some kind of symptoms," she said. Late last year US embassy staff and at least one Canadian began to feel the effects of what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson called a "health attack." US officials have said those hurt appeared to have been targeted by some form of previously unknown acoustic assault, but have not blamed Cuba directly. Cuba has insisted it has no knowledge of any attack and is working to "clarify the facts of the situation." No details of the injuries have been released, but a CBS News report suggested at least one victim suffered what amounted to "brain damage." "We take the situation extremely seriously," Nauert said, after revealing the new casualty toll. Nauert confirmed that the 16 cases she was referring to were all US citizens connected to the mission, but was not sure if any were family members of staff. Some were evacuated to Miami for treatment in US hospitals, others were cared for by American doctors who traveled to Havana to work at the embassy. Separately, Canada has said one of its diplomats posted to Havana is being treated for hearing loss. In May, the US ordered two Cuban diplomats to leave their recently reopened embassy in Washington and return to Havana, without publicly saying why. It is now known that Washington had alerted the Cuban government to what its foreign ministry dubbed the "alleged incidents" as far back as February 17. But US officials made no public complaint until just last month when Tillerson warned that Cuba must help investigate and prevent further attacks. Nauert said on Thursday that the incidents do now appear to have ended, but that investigations are ongoing to find the culprits. Tough line Relations between the United States and Cuba were restored by then president Barack Obama and his counterpart Raul Castro in 2015 after a half-century. But tensions mounted again after Obama's successor Donald Trump, who won many Cuban American votes by promising a tough line, rolled back detente. In June, Trump tightened rules for Americans traveling to Cuba, banned ties with a military-run tourism firm and reaffirmed the existing US trade embargo. The US embassy was closed in 1961 at the height of the Cold War when diplomatic relations broke down between Washington and Fidel Castro's revolutionary regime. The mission reopened as a "special interests section" rather than a full embassy under an agreement between Castro and US President Jimmy Carter. But the US diplomats were hardly made welcome. Anti-American propaganda was displayed around the compound, which Cuba saw as a base for fomenting opposition sedition. American diplomats in Havana and their Cuban rivals in Washington both regularly complained of harassment or heavy-handed surveillance, but never of sonic attack.

Mystery Havana embassy attacks hurt 16 US staff

With photographs obliquely showing a new rocket design, North Korea has sent a message that it is working on an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) more powerful than any it has previously tested, weapons experts said on Thursday.

If developed, such a missile could possibly reach any place on the US mainland, including Washington and New York, they said.

North Korea&#39;s state media published photographs late on Wednesday of leader Kim Jong Un standing next to a diagram of a three-stage rocket it called the Hwasong-13.

Missile experts, who scrutinise such pictures for clues about North Korea&#39;s weapons programmes, said there is no indication the rocket has been fully developed. In any case, it had not been flight tested and it was impossible to calculate its potential range.

However, a three-stage rocket would be more powerful than the two-stage Hwasong-14 ICBM tested twice in July, they said. South Korean and US officials and experts have said the Hwasong-14 may have a range of about 10,000 km (6,200 miles) and could possibly strike many parts of the United States, but not the East Coast.

&quot;We should be looking at Hwasong-13 as a 12,000-km class ICBM that can strike all of the mainland United States,&quot; said Kim Dong-yub, a military expert at Seoul&#39;s Kyungnam University.

&quot;It&#39;s likely meant to show that they are working on a three-stage design with greater boost and range,&quot; said retired Brigadier General Moon Sung-muk, an arms control expert who has represented South Korea in military talks with North Korea.

He said the pictures were intended to show that North Korea was refusing to bow to international pressure to abandon its weapons programmes.

&quot;The North is trying to be in control of the playing field,&quot; Moon said.

Tensions Ease &nbsp;

Wednesday&#39;s report carried by the KCNA news agency lacked the traditionally robust threats against the United States, and US President Donald Trump expressed optimism about a possible improvement in relations.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said it was unclear if the photos were taken before or after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Tuesday welcomed what he called the restraint North Korea had shown recently in its weapons programmes and said he hoped a path could be opening for dialogue &quot;sometime in the near future.&quot;

&quot;We consider it overall a good first step that there haven&#39;t been any missile launches or testing for ...three-plus weeks or so,&quot; Nauert told a regular briefing.

However Pyongyang needed to do a lot more to show it was willing to negotiate in good faith, she said.

The photographs were accompanied by a report of Kim issuing instructions for the production of more rocket engines and warheads during a visit to the Academy of Defense Sciences, an agency he set up to develop ballistic missiles.

&quot;We&#39;re getting a look at it to emphasise domestic production of missiles, and to advertise what&#39;s coming next,&quot; said Joshua Pollack, a nuclear weapon and missile systems expert who edits the US based Nonproliferation Review.

The photographs were published as tensions between North Korea and the United States appeared to have eased slightly since North Korea tested the Hwasong-14 and later threatened to fire missiles towards the US Pacific territory of Guam.

Kyungnam University&#39;s Kim said the Hwasong-13 appeared similar to the KN-08, a three-stage missile of which only a mockup has previously been seen at military parades. But the new images show a modified design for the main booster stage that clusters two engines.

Another picture published by North Korean state media showed Kim Jong Un standing next to a rocket casing that appeared to be made of a material that could include plastic. Experts said if such material were used in the missile, it would be intended to reduce weight and boost range.

The photographs also showed the design for the Pukguksong-3, likely a new solid-fuel intermediate-range ballistic missile being developed for submarine launches.

With photographs obliquely showing a new rocket design, North Korea has sent a message that it is working on an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) more powerful than any it has previously tested

With photographs obliquely showing a new rocket design, North Korea has sent a message that it is working on an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) more powerful than any it has previously tested, weapons experts said on Thursday. If developed, such a missile could possibly reach any place on the US mainland, including Washington and New York, they said. North Korea's state media published photographs late on Wednesday of leader Kim Jong Un standing next to a diagram of a three-stage rocket it called the Hwasong-13. Missile experts, who scrutinise such pictures for clues about North Korea's weapons programmes, said there is no indication the rocket has been fully developed. In any case, it had not been flight tested and it was impossible to calculate its potential range. However, a three-stage rocket would be more powerful than the two-stage Hwasong-14 ICBM tested twice in July, they said. South Korean and US officials and experts have said the Hwasong-14 may have a range of about 10,000 km (6,200 miles) and could possibly strike many parts of the United States, but not the East Coast. "We should be looking at Hwasong-13 as a 12,000-km class ICBM that can strike all of the mainland United States," said Kim Dong-yub, a military expert at Seoul's Kyungnam University. "It's likely meant to show that they are working on a three-stage design with greater boost and range," said retired Brigadier General Moon Sung-muk, an arms control expert who has represented South Korea in military talks with North Korea. He said the pictures were intended to show that North Korea was refusing to bow to international pressure to abandon its weapons programmes. "The North is trying to be in control of the playing field," Moon said. Tensions Ease Wednesday's report carried by the KCNA news agency lacked the traditionally robust threats against the United States, and US President Donald Trump expressed optimism about a possible improvement in relations. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said it was unclear if the photos were taken before or after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on Tuesday welcomed what he called the restraint North Korea had shown recently in its weapons programmes and said he hoped a path could be opening for dialogue "sometime in the near future." "We consider it overall a good first step that there haven't been any missile launches or testing for ...three-plus weeks or so," Nauert told a regular briefing. However Pyongyang needed to do a lot more to show it was willing to negotiate in good faith, she said. The photographs were accompanied by a report of Kim issuing instructions for the production of more rocket engines and warheads during a visit to the Academy of Defense Sciences, an agency he set up to develop ballistic missiles. "We're getting a look at it to emphasise domestic production of missiles, and to advertise what's coming next," said Joshua Pollack, a nuclear weapon and missile systems expert who edits the US based Nonproliferation Review. The photographs were published as tensions between North Korea and the United States appeared to have eased slightly since North Korea tested the Hwasong-14 and later threatened to fire missiles towards the US Pacific territory of Guam. Kyungnam University's Kim said the Hwasong-13 appeared similar to the KN-08, a three-stage missile of which only a mockup has previously been seen at military parades. But the new images show a modified design for the main booster stage that clusters two engines. Another picture published by North Korean state media showed Kim Jong Un standing next to a rocket casing that appeared to be made of a material that could include plastic. Experts said if such material were used in the missile, it would be intended to reduce weight and boost range. The photographs also showed the design for the Pukguksong-3, likely a new solid-fuel intermediate-range ballistic missile being developed for submarine launches.

In photos, North Korea signals a more powerful ICBM in the works

American Express has landed itself into trouble by engaging in discriminatory practices that include charging higher rates from its customers, according to federal regulators.

The company will have to pay $96 million to credit card customers in Puerto Rico and other US territories.

In addition to this, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has also ordered American Express to pay $1 million and formulate new guidelines ensuring non-discriminatory card offerings in future.&nbsp;

The US CFPB announced recently that over 200,000 consumer&#39;s at two of the company&#39;s banking subsidiaries had been influenced by the practices.The Bureau also said that the company follows stricter credit cutoffs and less debt forgiveness for consumers outside the US states.&nbsp;

American Express clarified that the discrepancy, which was discovered by the organisation itself, had already been reported to the CFPB in 2013. The company also added that it had admitted compensating $95 million to the affected customers.&nbsp;

&quot;Having long since taken actions that the CFPB subsequently ratified, the company decided to settle with them rather than go through years of litigation that would have provided no additional value to any of its customers,&quot; American Express said.

Justifying The American Express, CFPB said that the company had not intentionally discriminated against customers. The discrepancy occurred due to different business units overseeing cards in US territories and US states.

&quot;They have ceased this practice and are making consumers whole. In particular, because they self-reported the problem and fully cooperated with our investigation, no civil penalties are being assessed in this matter,&quot; CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in the statement.

&nbsp;

In addition to this, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has also ordered American Express to pay $1 million and formulate new guidelines ensuring non-discriminatory card offerings in future

American Express has landed itself into trouble by engaging in discriminatory practices that include charging higher rates from its customers, according to federal regulators. The company will have to pay $96 million to credit card customers in Puerto Rico and other US territories. In addition to this, the US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has also ordered American Express to pay $1 million and formulate new guidelines ensuring non-discriminatory card offerings in future. The US CFPB announced recently that over 200,000 consumer's at two of the company's banking subsidiaries had been influenced by the practices.The Bureau also said that the company follows stricter credit cutoffs and less debt forgiveness for consumers outside the US states. American Express clarified that the discrepancy, which was discovered by the organisation itself, had already been reported to the CFPB in 2013. The company also added that it had admitted compensating $95 million to the affected customers. "Having long since taken actions that the CFPB subsequently ratified, the company decided to settle with them rather than go through years of litigation that would have provided no additional value to any of its customers," American Express said. Justifying The American Express, CFPB said that the company had not intentionally discriminated against customers. The discrepancy occurred due to different business units overseeing cards in US territories and US states. "They have ceased this practice and are making consumers whole. In particular, because they self-reported the problem and fully cooperated with our investigation, no civil penalties are being assessed in this matter," CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in the statement.

American Express to compensate card owners $96 million for engaging in discriminatory practices

The United States must value Pakistan&#39;s role in Afghanistan and respect its security concerns, China&#39;s top diplomat Yang Jiechi told US secretary of state Rex Tillerson in a phone call, according to Chinese state media.

China&#39;s Foreign Ministry defended its ally Pakistan earlier this week after President Donald Trump said the United States could no longer be silent about militants using safe havens on Pakistani soil.

On Monday, Trump committed the United States to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan, signalling he would send more troops to America&#39;s longest war and vowing &quot;a fight to win&quot;.

He insisted that others - the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and NATO allies - step up their own commitment to resolving the 16-year conflict, but he saved his sharpest words for Pakistan.

Yang, who outranks China&#39;s foreign minister, told Tillerson on Wednesday that China was willing to coordinate with the United States on Afghanistan and make joint efforts to realise peace and stability there and in the region, according to a Chinese statement issued late that night.

&quot;We must value Pakistan&#39;s important role on the Afghanistan issue, and respect Pakistan&#39;s sovereignty and reasonable security concerns,&quot; Yang told Tillerson.

Pakistan has been battling home-grown Islamists for years. It sees Afghanistan as a vital strategic interest and a bulwark against old rival, India. Islamabad denies harbouring militants, who move across the porous border with Afghanistan.&nbsp;

China and Pakistan consider each other &quot;all-weather friends&quot; and have close diplomatic, economic and security ties.

Beijing has its own security concerns in the region, in particular any links between militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Islamist groups China blames for violence in its far western region of Xinjiang.

Foreign minister Wang Yi met Pakistani foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua in Beijing on Tuesday, according to a statement on Thursday.

He praised Pakistan&#39;s efforts to combat extremism and to secure the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a development initiative central to President Xi Jinping&#39;s global Belt and Road development plan.

&quot;Given the current complicated and changing international and regional situation, the strategic significance of China-Pakistan relations is even more prominent,&quot; Wang said.

&nbsp;

China's top diplomat told US?secretary of state Rex Tillerson that the country is willing to coordinate with the US on Afghanistan and make joint efforts to realise peace and stability there and in the region

The United States must value Pakistan's role in Afghanistan and respect its security concerns, China's top diplomat Yang Jiechi told US secretary of state Rex Tillerson in a phone call, according to Chinese state media. China's Foreign Ministry defended its ally Pakistan earlier this week after President Donald Trump said the United States could no longer be silent about militants using safe havens on Pakistani soil. On Monday, Trump committed the United States to an open-ended conflict in Afghanistan, signalling he would send more troops to America's longest war and vowing "a fight to win". He insisted that others - the Afghan government, Pakistan, India and NATO allies - step up their own commitment to resolving the 16-year conflict, but he saved his sharpest words for Pakistan. Yang, who outranks China's foreign minister, told Tillerson on Wednesday that China was willing to coordinate with the United States on Afghanistan and make joint efforts to realise peace and stability there and in the region, according to a Chinese statement issued late that night. "We must value Pakistan's important role on the Afghanistan issue, and respect Pakistan's sovereignty and reasonable security concerns," Yang told Tillerson. Pakistan has been battling home-grown Islamists for years. It sees Afghanistan as a vital strategic interest and a bulwark against old rival, India. Islamabad denies harbouring militants, who move across the porous border with Afghanistan. China and Pakistan consider each other "all-weather friends" and have close diplomatic, economic and security ties. Beijing has its own security concerns in the region, in particular any links between militants in Pakistan and Afghanistan and Islamist groups China blames for violence in its far western region of Xinjiang. Foreign minister Wang Yi met Pakistani foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua in Beijing on Tuesday, according to a statement on Thursday. He praised Pakistan's efforts to combat extremism and to secure the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a development initiative central to President Xi Jinping's global Belt and Road development plan. "Given the current complicated and changing international and regional situation, the strategic significance of China-Pakistan relations is even more prominent," Wang said.

China asks US to respect Pakistan's security concerns

Tokyo stocks fell Friday morning, following sharp falls in New York on a deadly attack in Spain and rising concerns over the fate of US President Donald Trump&#39;s economic agenda.

A van driver ploughed into crowds of pedestrians on Barcelona&#39;s most popular street in broad daylight on Thursday, killing 13 people in an attack claimed by the Islamic State jihadist group.

Hours later, Spanish police said they had shot dead &quot;four suspected terrorists&quot; and injured another one in Cambrils, a city south of Barcelona.

Investors are likely to shun risks after all major indices fell on Wall Street and the yen strengthened, a negative for Japanese shares, Okasan Online Securities said in a commentary.

&quot;A van ramming broke out in Spain in what is believed to be a terror attack at a time when President Trump&#39;s views on racial discrimination were drawing criticism from various quarters,&quot; said Yoshihiro Ito, chief strategist at the brokerage.&nbsp;

&quot;This made risk-off sentiment prevail,&quot; he added.

Tokyo&#39;s benchmark Nikkei 225 index lost 1.02 per cent, or 201.10 points, to sit at 19,501.53 by the break while the Topix index of all first-section issues was down 1.03 per cent, or 16.59 points, at 1,598.23. 
In Washington, the administration has faced an exodus of CEOs outraged at the president&#39;s comments on white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups involved in violence last weekend in Virginia that killed one woman.

&quot;There had been strong concerns toward President Trump&#39;s policy operation until now, but his comments on race have put him in an even more precarious position,&quot; Hideyuki Ishiguro, a senior strategist at Daiwa Securities, told Bloomberg News.

The White House Thursday said Trump has abandoned plans to form an advisory council on infrastructure.

The yen, a safe haven for buyers in times of uncertainty, rose against the dollar, a negative development for Japanese exporters as the stronger currency erodes their repatriated profits.&nbsp;

The greenback was at 109.43 yen on Friday against 109.57 yen in New York and 109.86 yen in Tokyo earlier Thursday.

In Tokyo trade, automakers were lower with Toyota down 0.92 per cent to end the morning at 6,118 yen while Honda fell 0.95 per cent to 3,014 yen.

Financial stocks fell sharply. Top brokerage Nomura tumbled 2.15 per cent to 628 yen and major bank Mitsubishi UFJ lost 1.93 per cent to end the morning at 679.7 yen.&nbsp;

A van driver ploughed into crowds of pedestrians on Barcelona's most popular street in broad daylight on Thursday, killing 13 people in an attack claimed by the Islamic State jihadist group

Tokyo stocks fell Friday morning, following sharp falls in New York on a deadly attack in Spain and rising concerns over the fate of US President Donald Trump's economic agenda. A van driver ploughed into crowds of pedestrians on Barcelona's most popular street in broad daylight on Thursday, killing 13 people in an attack claimed by the Islamic State jihadist group. Hours later, Spanish police said they had shot dead "four suspected terrorists" and injured another one in Cambrils, a city south of Barcelona. Investors are likely to shun risks after all major indices fell on Wall Street and the yen strengthened, a negative for Japanese shares, Okasan Online Securities said in a commentary. "A van ramming broke out in Spain in what is believed to be a terror attack at a time when President Trump's views on racial discrimination were drawing criticism from various quarters," said Yoshihiro Ito, chief strategist at the brokerage. "This made risk-off sentiment prevail," he added. Tokyo's benchmark Nikkei 225 index lost 1.02 per cent, or 201.10 points, to sit at 19,501.53 by the break while the Topix index of all first-section issues was down 1.03 per cent, or 16.59 points, at 1,598.23. In Washington, the administration has faced an exodus of CEOs outraged at the president's comments on white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups involved in violence last weekend in Virginia that killed one woman. "There had been strong concerns toward President Trump's policy operation until now, but his comments on race have put him in an even more precarious position," Hideyuki Ishiguro, a senior strategist at Daiwa Securities, told Bloomberg News. The White House Thursday said Trump has abandoned plans to form an advisory council on infrastructure. The yen, a safe haven for buyers in times of uncertainty, rose against the dollar, a negative development for Japanese exporters as the stronger currency erodes their repatriated profits. The greenback was at 109.43 yen on Friday against 109.57 yen in New York and 109.86 yen in Tokyo earlier Thursday. In Tokyo trade, automakers were lower with Toyota down 0.92 per cent to end the morning at 6,118 yen while Honda fell 0.95 per cent to 3,014 yen. Financial stocks fell sharply. Top brokerage Nomura tumbled 2.15 per cent to 628 yen and major bank Mitsubishi UFJ lost 1.93 per cent to end the morning at 679.7 yen.

Tokyo stocks down at break as Spain attack jolts markets

As communities across the United States redouble efforts to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces after a far-right rally in Virginia turned deadly, city leaders now face another conundrum: what to do with the statues.

President Donald&nbsp;Trump&nbsp;described them on Thursday as &quot;beautiful statues and monuments,&quot; part of the history and culture of the country that will be &quot;greatly missed.&quot;

But they are seen by many Americans as symbols of racism and glorifications of the Confederate defense of slavery in the Civil War, fueling the debate over race and politics in America.

Cities are speeding up their removal since Saturday&#39;s rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a suspected white supremacist crashed a car into a crowd, killing one woman, during protests against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, who headed the Confederate army in the American Civil War.

Since Monday, officials in Baltimore and Gainesville, Florida, have taken down statues while another was torn from its plinth by protesters in Durham, North Carolina. Calls for more to be removed have grown louder.

This has created an additional headache for cities and spurred another debate: how to dispose of the statues once they are taken down.

Some have suggested museums, others putting them in Confederate cemeteries and one city councilman proposed using their metal to make likenesses of civil rights leaders.

&quot;Melting them down and using the materials to make monuments for Frederick Douglass, Thurgood Marshall, Harriet Tubman would be powerful!&quot; Baltimore city councilman Brandon Scott wrote on Twitter this week. The mayor&#39;s office said that was unlikely.

Unlike eastern Europe

The debate contrasts sharply with how Eastern Europe handled thousands of statues following the collapse of Communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Often pulled down by angry mobs, some of the statues ended up in dumpsters and others in museums to teach people the evils of totalitarian regimes. In Budapest, a for-profit park hosts about 40 statues of communist heroes such as Karl Marx.

In the US South, the debate still rages between those nostalgic for the past and those who view the monuments as painful reminders of slavery.

There are more than 700 Confederate statues in the United States according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, most of them created in the 1910s and 1920s, decades after the Civil War ended. They were intended to reassert the power of white people, said Jonathan Leib, Chair of Political Science and Geography at Old Dominion University in Virginia.

&quot;They&#39;re visible, tangible expressions of power,&quot; he said on Thursday.

In Birmingham, Alabama, Mayor William Bell ordered workers to hide a Confederate statue behind plywood boards, while the city challenges a state law banning the removal of such monuments.

&quot;They represent acts of sedition against the United States of America and treason against the United State of America,&quot; he told Reuters on Wednesday.

But sympathies persist, as both lawmakers and citizens resist plans to remove them.

&quot;I absolutely disagree with this sanitization of history,&quot; Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican, told WVHU radio on Tuesday.

Proper context

For now, many of the removed statues gather dust in warehouses or, as in the case of New Orleans, sit disassembled in a city scrap yard, where two were found by local reporters.

In Baltimore, statues are now in storage, according to the mayor&#39;s spokesman Anthony McCarthy, who said they will likely end up in a Confederate cemetery or a museum.

Many&nbsp;city legislators have expressed&nbsp;interest in&nbsp;relocating&nbsp;statues to museums, where they might be viewed as historical artifacts and not rallying points for racism.

Anna Lopez Brosche, city council president in Jacksonville, Florida, encouraged the removal of Confederate statues from public property&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;and proposed placing them where they will be &quot;historically contextualized.&quot;

In Lexington, Kentucky, Mayor Jim Gray has proposed removing statues from one city park, formerly the site of a slave auction block and whipping post.

Meanwhile, a statue removed in Gainesville, Florida,&nbsp;on Monday&nbsp;is being returned to a local chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which erected it in 1904.&nbsp;

The group, founded in 1894 by women descended from Confederate soldiers, put up many of the statues as part of their goal to display what they call &quot;a truthful history&quot; of the Civil War and mark places &quot;made historic by Confederate valor.&quot;

Some historians argue that, as in Eastern Europe, the Confederate monuments should be preserved, but in the proper context.

&quot;A slave whipping post isn&#39;t something we want up, just out in public without interpretation,&quot; said W. Fitzhugh Brundage, American History professor at the University of North Carolina.

&quot;But on the other hand, if you have it in the Smithsonian where people can see it and it can be properly interpreted, it&#39;s a valuable teaching tool.&quot;

Since Monday, officials in Baltimore and Gainesville, Florida, have taken down statues while another was torn from its plinth by protesters in Durham, North Carolina. Calls for more to be removed have grown louder

As communities across the United States redouble efforts to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces after a far-right rally in Virginia turned deadly, city leaders now face another conundrum: what to do with the statues. President Donald Trump described them on Thursday as "beautiful statues and monuments," part of the history and culture of the country that will be "greatly missed." But they are seen by many Americans as symbols of racism and glorifications of the Confederate defense of slavery in the Civil War, fueling the debate over race and politics in America. Cities are speeding up their removal since Saturday's rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where a suspected white supremacist crashed a car into a crowd, killing one woman, during protests against the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, who headed the Confederate army in the American Civil War. Since Monday, officials in Baltimore and Gainesville, Florida, have taken down statues while another was torn from its plinth by protesters in Durham, North Carolina. Calls for more to be removed have grown louder. This has created an additional headache for cities and spurred another debate: how to dispose of the statues once they are taken down. Some have suggested museums, others putting them in Confederate cemeteries and one city councilman proposed using their metal to make likenesses of civil rights leaders. "Melting them down and using the materials to make monuments for Frederick Douglass, Thurgood Marshall, Harriet Tubman would be powerful!" Baltimore city councilman Brandon Scott wrote on Twitter this week. The mayor's office said that was unlikely. Unlike eastern Europe The debate contrasts sharply with how Eastern Europe handled thousands of statues following the collapse of Communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Often pulled down by angry mobs, some of the statues ended up in dumpsters and others in museums to teach people the evils of totalitarian regimes. In Budapest, a for-profit park hosts about 40 statues of communist heroes such as Karl Marx. In the US South, the debate still rages between those nostalgic for the past and those who view the monuments as painful reminders of slavery. There are more than 700 Confederate statues in the United States according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, most of them created in the 1910s and 1920s, decades after the Civil War ended. They were intended to reassert the power of white people, said Jonathan Leib, Chair of Political Science and Geography at Old Dominion University in Virginia. "They're visible, tangible expressions of power," he said on Thursday. In Birmingham, Alabama, Mayor William Bell ordered workers to hide a Confederate statue behind plywood boards, while the city challenges a state law banning the removal of such monuments. "They represent acts of sedition against the United States of America and treason against the United State of America," he told Reuters on Wednesday. But sympathies persist, as both lawmakers and citizens resist plans to remove them. "I absolutely disagree with this sanitization of history," Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin, a Republican, told WVHU radio on Tuesday. Proper context For now, many of the removed statues gather dust in warehouses or, as in the case of New Orleans, sit disassembled in a city scrap yard, where two were found by local reporters. In Baltimore, statues are now in storage, according to the mayor's spokesman Anthony McCarthy, who said they will likely end up in a Confederate cemetery or a museum. Many city legislators have expressed interest in relocating statues to museums, where they might be viewed as historical artifacts and not rallying points for racism. Anna Lopez Brosche, city council president in Jacksonville, Florida, encouraged the removal of Confederate statues from public property on Monday and proposed placing them where they will be "historically contextualized." In Lexington, Kentucky, Mayor Jim Gray has proposed removing statues from one city park, formerly the site of a slave auction block and whipping post. Meanwhile, a statue removed in Gainesville, Florida, on Monday is being returned to a local chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, which erected it in 1904. The group, founded in 1894 by women descended from Confederate soldiers, put up many of the statues as part of their goal to display what they call "a truthful history" of the Civil War and mark places "made historic by Confederate valor." Some historians argue that, as in Eastern Europe, the Confederate monuments should be preserved, but in the proper context. "A slave whipping post isn't something we want up, just out in public without interpretation," said W. Fitzhugh Brundage, American History professor at the University of North Carolina. "But on the other hand, if you have it in the Smithsonian where people can see it and it can be properly interpreted, it's a valuable teaching tool."

US cities wrestle with Confederate statues' fate

Ukraine denied on Monday that it had ever supplied defence technology to North Korea, responding to an article in the New York Times that said North Korea may have purchased rocket engines from Ukrainian factory&nbsp;Yuzhmash.

Concern that North Korea is close to achieving its goal of putting the mainland United States within the range of a nuclear weapon has raised global tensions in recent weeks. The United States is a key backer of Ukraine.

The secretary of the Ukrainian Security and Defence Council, Oleksandr Turchynov, said Ukraine &quot;has never supplied rocket engines or any kind of missile technology to North Korea.&quot;

State-owned Yuzhmash said it had not produced military-grade ballistic missiles since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

&quot;In the years of independence, Yuzhmash has not produced, and is not producing, missiles and military missile systems,&quot; it said in a statement published on their company&#39;s website.

President Donald Trump warned at the weekend that the US&nbsp;military was &quot;locked and loaded&quot; if North Korea acted unwisely after threatening last week to land missiles near the US&nbsp;Pacific territory of Guam.

North Korean officials, in turn, have accused the US&nbsp;leader of driving the Korean peninsula to the brink of nuclear war.

On Sunday, the head of the US&nbsp;Central Intelligence Agency said he would not be surprised if North Korea tested another missile after it conducted two tests in July.

State-owned Yuzhmash said it had not produced military-grade ballistic missiles since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991

Ukraine denied on Monday that it had ever supplied defence technology to North Korea, responding to an article in the New York Times that said North Korea may have purchased rocket engines from Ukrainian factory Yuzhmash. Concern that North Korea is close to achieving its goal of putting the mainland United States within the range of a nuclear weapon has raised global tensions in recent weeks. The United States is a key backer of Ukraine. The secretary of the Ukrainian Security and Defence Council, Oleksandr Turchynov, said Ukraine "has never supplied rocket engines or any kind of missile technology to North Korea." State-owned Yuzhmash said it had not produced military-grade ballistic missiles since independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. "In the years of independence, Yuzhmash has not produced, and is not producing, missiles and military missile systems," it said in a statement published on their company's website. President Donald Trump warned at the weekend that the US military was "locked and loaded" if North Korea acted unwisely after threatening last week to land missiles near the US Pacific territory of Guam. North Korean officials, in turn, have accused the US leader of driving the Korean peninsula to the brink of nuclear war. On Sunday, the head of the US Central Intelligence Agency said he would not be surprised if North Korea tested another missile after it conducted two tests in July.

Ukraine denies selling missile technology to North Korea

Australia &quot;will come to the aid of the United States&quot; if North Korea attacks, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Friday, after nuclear-armed Pyongyang outlined plans to fire missiles near the US territory of Guam.

The Australian leader&#39;s comments of support to close ally Washington followed President Donald Trump&#39;s warning to North Korea that it should be &quot;very, very nervous&quot; of the consequences if the isolated nation even thought of attacking US soil.

&quot;The United States has no stronger ally than Australia,&quot; Turnbull told Melbourne commercial radio station 3AW.

&quot;And we have an ANZUS agreement and if there is an attack on Australia or the United States then... each of us will come to the other&#39;s aid.

&quot;So let&#39;s be very clear about that. If there is an attack on the United States by North Korea, then the ANZUS treaty will be invoked and Australia will come to the aid of the United States.&quot;

Relations between Washington and Pyongyang have been tense for months, in the wake of the North&#39;s repeated missile tests, including two successful intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test launches in July.

The escalating dispute took an unexpected turn Tuesday when Trump seemed to borrow from the North&#39;s arsenal of rhetoric and said it faced &quot;fire and fury like the world has never seen&quot; if it continued to threaten the US.

Turnbull said he spoke to US Vice President Mike Pence Thursday, who told him the preferred approach to deal with North Korea was through economic sanctions.

The UN Security Council on Saturday approved tough sanctions which could cost Pyongyang US$1 billion a year, with the sweeping measures the first of that scope to be imposed on North Korea since Trump took office.

&nbsp;

The escalating dispute between?Washington and Pyongyang?took an unexpected turn on Tuesday when Trump seemed to borrow from the North's arsenal of rhetoric and said it faced 'fire and fury like the world has never seen' if it continued to threaten the US

Australia "will come to the aid of the United States" if North Korea attacks, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said Friday, after nuclear-armed Pyongyang outlined plans to fire missiles near the US territory of Guam. The Australian leader's comments of support to close ally Washington followed President Donald Trump's warning to North Korea that it should be "very, very nervous" of the consequences if the isolated nation even thought of attacking US soil. "The United States has no stronger ally than Australia," Turnbull told Melbourne commercial radio station 3AW. "And we have an ANZUS agreement and if there is an attack on Australia or the United States then... each of us will come to the other's aid. "So let's be very clear about that. If there is an attack on the United States by North Korea, then the ANZUS treaty will be invoked and Australia will come to the aid of the United States." Relations between Washington and Pyongyang have been tense for months, in the wake of the North's repeated missile tests, including two successful intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test launches in July. The escalating dispute took an unexpected turn Tuesday when Trump seemed to borrow from the North's arsenal of rhetoric and said it faced "fire and fury like the world has never seen" if it continued to threaten the US. Turnbull said he spoke to US Vice President Mike Pence Thursday, who told him the preferred approach to deal with North Korea was through economic sanctions. The UN Security Council on Saturday approved tough sanctions which could cost Pyongyang US$1 billion a year, with the sweeping measures the first of that scope to be imposed on North Korea since Trump took office.

Will back US in any North Korea conflict: Australia

North Korea on Thursday said it will be ready by mid-August to fire four missiles near the US territory of Guam after Trump&#39;s warning to Pyongyang that any additional threats will be met with &quot;fire and fury&quot;.

Hwasong-12 rockets would pass over Japan and land in the sea about 30km (17 miles) from Guam, if the plan was approved by Kim Jong-un, the official KCNA news agency said.

&quot;They will fly 3,356.7km for 1,065 seconds and hit the waters 30-40km away from Guam,&quot; KCNA quoted army chief General Kim Rak Gyom as saying.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/japan-could-legally-intercept-a-guam-bound-north-korea-missile-report-18792" target="_blank">Also read:&nbsp;Japan could legally intercept a Guam-bound North Korea missile, says report</a>

Guam is home to about 163,000 people and a US military base that includes a submarine squadron, an air base and a Coast Guard group.

It also said&nbsp;Donald Trump&#39;s &quot;fire and fury&quot; comments earlier this week are a &quot;load of nonsense&quot;, saying only &quot;absolute force can work on him&quot;.

&quot;Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and only absolute force can work on him,&quot; Kim Rak Gyom said.

North Korea earlier this week said&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/preview/article/18729">it is considering missile strikes on the US Pacific territory of Guam</a>, just hours after Trump&rsquo;s &quot;fire and fury&quot; comment.

<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MTkAv5KrwzE" width="560"></iframe>

&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

Hwasong-12 rockets would pass over Japan and land in the sea about 30km (17 miles) from Guam if the plan was approved by Kim Jong-un, the official KCNA news agency said

North Korea on Thursday said it will be ready by mid-August to fire four missiles near the US territory of Guam after Trump's warning to Pyongyang that any additional threats will be met with "fire and fury". Hwasong-12 rockets would pass over Japan and land in the sea about 30km (17 miles) from Guam, if the plan was approved by Kim Jong-un, the official KCNA news agency said. "They will fly 3,356.7km for 1,065 seconds and hit the waters 30-40km away from Guam," KCNA quoted army chief General Kim Rak Gyom as saying. Also read: Japan could legally intercept a Guam-bound North Korea missile, says report Guam is home to about 163,000 people and a US military base that includes a submarine squadron, an air base and a Coast Guard group. It also said Donald Trump's "fire and fury" comments earlier this week are a "load of nonsense", saying only "absolute force can work on him". "Sound dialogue is not possible with such a guy bereft of reason and only absolute force can work on him," Kim Rak Gyom said. North Korea earlier this week said it is considering missile strikes on the US Pacific territory of Guam, just hours after Trump’s "fire and fury" comment.

North Korea says it will develop Guam strike plan by 'mid-August'

The United States plans to carry out a new test of its THAAD missile defence system against an intermediate-range ballistic missile in the coming days, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Friday, as tensions with North Korea climb.

Despite being planned months ago, the US&nbsp;missile defence test will gain significance in the wake of North Korea&#39;s launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on July 4 that has heightened concerns about the threat from Pyongyang.

The test will be the first of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) to defend against a simulated attack by an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), one of the officials said. The THAAD interceptors will be fired from Alaska.

The United States has THAAD interceptors in Guam that are meant to help guard against a missile attack from a country such as North Korea.

The officials who disclosed to Reuters the precise nature and timing of the test spoke on condition of anonymity.

Asked by Reuters, the US&nbsp;Missile Defence Agency confirmed that it aimed to carry out a THAAD flight test &quot;in early July.&quot;

Chris Johnson, a spokesman at the Missile Defence Agency, said the THAAD weapon system at the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska in Kodiak, Alaska, would &quot;detect, track and engage a target with a THAAD interceptor.&quot;

&quot;The test is designated as Flight Test THAAD (FTT)-18,&quot; Johnson said, without elaborating.

In May testimony to Congress, however, Vice Admiral James Syring, then the director of the Missile Defence Agency, said FTT-18 would aim to demonstrate THAAD&#39;s ability to intercept a separating IRBM target.

THAAD is a ground-based missile defence system that defends against short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles at the terminal stage of flight.

Syring, in his testimony, said THAAD had a 100 percent successful track record in its 13 flight tests so far.

Lockheed Martin Corp &lt;LMT.N&gt; is the prime contractor for the THAAD system.

The test will be the first of the THAAD to defend against a simulated attack by an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), a Reuters report cited an official as saying

The United States plans to carry out a new test of its THAAD missile defence system against an intermediate-range ballistic missile in the coming days, two U.S. officials told Reuters on Friday, as tensions with North Korea climb. Despite being planned months ago, the US missile defence test will gain significance in the wake of North Korea's launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) on July 4 that has heightened concerns about the threat from Pyongyang. The test will be the first of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) to defend against a simulated attack by an intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM), one of the officials said. The THAAD interceptors will be fired from Alaska. The United States has THAAD interceptors in Guam that are meant to help guard against a missile attack from a country such as North Korea. The officials who disclosed to Reuters the precise nature and timing of the test spoke on condition of anonymity. Asked by Reuters, the US Missile Defence Agency confirmed that it aimed to carry out a THAAD flight test "in early July." Chris Johnson, a spokesman at the Missile Defence Agency, said the THAAD weapon system at the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska in Kodiak, Alaska, would "detect, track and engage a target with a THAAD interceptor." "The test is designated as Flight Test THAAD (FTT)-18," Johnson said, without elaborating. In May testimony to Congress, however, Vice Admiral James Syring, then the director of the Missile Defence Agency, said FTT-18 would aim to demonstrate THAAD's ability to intercept a separating IRBM target. THAAD is a ground-based missile defence system that defends against short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles at the terminal stage of flight. Syring, in his testimony, said THAAD had a 100 percent successful track record in its 13 flight tests so far. Lockheed Martin Corp <LMT.N> is the prime contractor for the THAAD system.

US plans to test THAAD missile defences as North Korea tensions escalate: Report

By: Claire Snell-Rood and Cathleen Willging

Much has been made of the distress and discontent in rural areas during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Few realise, however, this is also felt through unequal health.

Researchers call it the &ldquo;rural mortality&nbsp;penalty.&rdquo; While rates of mortality have steadily fallen in the nation&rsquo;s <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/113/7/E815.full">urban areas</a>, they have actually climbed for rural Americans. And the picture is even bleaker for specific groups, such as rural white women and people of colour, who face persistent disparities in health outcomes. In every category, from suicide to unintentional injury to heart disease, rural residents&rsquo; health has been declining since the 1990s.

While some have blamed these gaping disparities on &ldquo;culture&rdquo; or &ldquo;lifestyle&rdquo; factors &ndash; such as a supposed fatalism or overconsumption of unhealthy products like Mountain Dew &ndash; the truth is that the biggest culprit is limited access to health care and challenging economic circumstances.

The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 began to change this as more rural Americans gained insurance coverage and the government invested more money into regional health facilities and training.

This progress is now at risk, however, as the Republican Congress inches closer to repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a feeble alternative that greatly weakens rural health care access. As researchers who study the mental and physical health of rural Americans, we believe this would have disastrous consequences.

The travails of rural America

Even as <a href="https://theconversation.com/where-is-rural-america-and-what-does-it-look-like-72045?sr=1">rural America</a> feeds the country, <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/05/22/529493413/in-some-rural-counties-hunger-is-rising-but-food-donations-arent">hunger is on the rise</a> in rural areas.

Some <a href="https://www.iatp.org/files/258_2_98043.pdf">98 percent of rural residents</a> live in food deserts &ndash; defined as counties in which one must drive more than 10 miles to get to the nearest supermarket. This makes it challenging to maintain healthy and nutritious diets, leading to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481194/">higher rates of obesity in rural areas</a> that greatly increase the risk for diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.

As rural workers struggle to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-america-struggles-as-young-people-chase-jobs-in-cities-1395890099">sustain employment</a> in a <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/22/a-very-bad-sign-for-all-but-americas-biggest-cities/?utm_term=.174ccab19701">shifting economy</a>, the increasing poverty is contributing to mental distress and <a href="http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002204260703700302">substance use</a>. On a larger scale, the economic changes that have hit rural areas have resulted in a declining tax base, lower incomes and strained educational institutions. Together, they challenge rural residents&rsquo; health not just in the immediate term but cumulatively over their lives.

<figure class="align-center "><img alt="" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/175505/width754/file-20170625-13475-1udmu6z.jpg" />
<figcaption>
&nbsp;

Like many other rural hospitals in the U.S., Evans Memorial in Claxton, Georgia, has struggled to keep its doors open while treating patients who tend to be older, poorer and often uninsured. AP Photo/Russ Bynum
</figcaption>
</figure>

Barriers to accessing health care

Yet, despite all these medical issues, rural residents have a tough time getting the health care they need.

The nature of rural employment, for example, is characterised by <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-0361.2005.tb00058.x/epdf">self-employment, seasonal work and lower-than-average pay</a>. This means rural workers are <a href="https://www.ruralhealthinfo.org/pdf/research_compendium.pdf">less likely to get insurance through their jobs and thus face higher premiums</a> when buying their own policies.

The lack of public transportation in most rural areas is also a major hurdle to seeing a doctor, particularly as residents <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16606425">have to travel much farther</a> than those in urban areas to reach health care providers.

Rural residents get most of their services through primary care providers, who take on the work of other practitioners, like behavioural health clinicians, due to longstanding specialist shortages. When handling numerous complaints during a single medical encounter, primary care providers may concentrate on the acutest health concerns of their patients, undermining the ability to diagnose all their conditions and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609543/">meaningfully discuss their larger health risks</a>, such as exercise, weight and substance use. When providers are rushed or deliver sub-par care, rural residents may wonder if seeking it out is worth the challenge, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27322157">opting to struggle on their own</a>.

These and other constraints make it tougher for rural Americans to get the screenings necessary to spot serious diseases such as <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J013v42n02_06">cancer</a> early or to maintain adequate follow-up on conditions like <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24183213">hearing loss</a>. Finding the regular medical care necessary to manage chronic conditions, such as diabetes, depression or opioid disorders, is even more challenging.

Rural health care has at times been <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18709749">characterised as patchwork</a>. In part, that&rsquo;s because the costs of sustaining health care infrastructure in rural areas<a href="https://www.apha.org/policies-and-advocacy/public-health-policy-statements/policy-database/2014/07/30/10/36/rural-health-goals-guaranteeing-a-future"> are higher</a> thanks to the large service areas, the inability to negotiate bulk pricing and lack of financial incentives to fill in provider gaps.

The ACA and the AHCA

The ACA, intended to turn this around, has in fact led to dramatic gains in insurance coverage among rural Americans.

Broadly speaking, insurance rates in rural areas <a href="http://hrms.urban.org/quicktakes/Substantial-Gains-in-Health-Insurance-Coverage-Occurring-for-Adults-in-Both-Rural-and-Urban-Areas.html">reached almost 86 percent</a> in early 2015, up from an estimated 78 percent in 2013.

In Kentucky &ndash; a state with high poverty, a large rural population (42 percent of residents) and a successful <a href="https://theconversation.com/love-it-or-hate-it-obamacare-has-expanded-coverage-for-millions-66472?sr=2">Medicaid expansion</a> initiative &ndash; <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/blog/medicaid-at-50-kentuckys-experience-highlights-benefits-of-medicaid-expansion">tens of thousands of newly insured low-income adults</a> began using preventative services after previously being unable to afford it. The state&rsquo;s uninsured fell by half and, as a result, <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/35/1/96.abstract">fewer people skipped taking their medications</a> due to financial hardships relative to other states that didn&rsquo;t expand Medicaid.

The ACA also <a href="http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/how-obamacare-repeal-would-harm-rural-america">strengthened rural health care institutions</a> by investing in upgrades to hospitals and clinics, preventative health programs and support for providers to stay in rural areas. While rural hospitals are often laden with the expense of providing extensive care without payment to indigent patients, rural hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/house-passed-bill-would-devastate-health-care-in-rural-america?utm_source=CBPP+Email+Updates&amp;utm_campaign=d303d5c441-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_05_16&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_term=0_ee3f6da374-d303d5c441-110964945">finally was able to better balance their books when caring for this vulnerable group</a>. At the same time, the ACA supported innovative models ideal for rural areas that prioritised <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18709749">outreach</a>, <a href="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/5/852.abstract">integration of services</a> and <a href="http://nashp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Rural-Opioid-Primer.pdf">collaboration between safety-net players</a>.

Both the <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/obamacare-senate-bill-compare/">House and Senate</a> bills to repeal and replace Obamacare would <a href="http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/how-obamacare-repeal-would-harm-rural-america">drastically reduce rural Americans&rsquo; insurance coverage</a> and significantly threaten the ability of <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/06/22/533680909/republicans-proposed-medicaid-cuts-would-hit-rural-patients-hard">many rural hospitals and clinics to keep their doors open</a>. <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/research/health/house-passed-bill-would-devastate-health-care-in-rural-america">Analysts show</a> that the bill would provide insufficient tax credits to pay for rural premium costs, drastically increase the price of rural premiums and increase uncompensated care in rural hospitals.

What rural areas need from health care reform

Previous efforts at health care reform show us that rural areas are uniquely vulnerable. Efforts need to take account not only of coverage and access &ndash; as has been the focus of the current debate &ndash; but also how reform affects rural health care institutions and the larger social factors shaping overall health.

The particular economic factors affecting rural health care institutions <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3415203/">make rural areas particularly vulnerable to political shifts</a> that disrupt services for existing patients and for those newly insured, creating immense challenges for rural providers. Steps that fail to account for the impact of financial hardship on these institutions not only hurt their bottom line but contribute to <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22229021">poor morale and workforce turnover</a> and larger-scale decisions to reduce services, which decrease their ability to address patient needs.

At the same time, commitment to improving the health of rural Americans requires attention to the so-called upstream factors shaping rural health. That means <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/medicaid-plays-a-more-significant-role-in-small-towns-and-rural-communities-than-in-metro-areas-300469734.html">preserving the safety net programs so vital in rural areas</a> with underemployment and low-paying jobs, <a href="http://www.soar-ky.org/about-us">strengthening rural economies</a> and investing in <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/01/04/a-better-future-for-rural-communities-starts-at-the-schoolhouse/">high-quality education</a>.

<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78018/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" width="1" />If our leaders are serious about reform that will lessen the rural-urban mortality gap, they should recognise the unique needs of rural America and ensure health care policy reflects how vital access to quality care is to their financial success &ndash; not to mention their well-being.

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/claire-snell-rood-378593">Claire Snell-Rood</a>, Assistant Professor of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley and Cathleen Willging, Adjunct Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of New Mexico

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/ahca-would-make-rural-americas-already-distressed-health-care-worse-78018">original article</a>.

Researchers who study the mental and physical health of rural Americans, believe this repealing Obamacare would have disastrous consequences

By: Claire Snell-Rood and Cathleen Willging Much has been made of the distress and discontent in rural areas during the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Few realise, however, this is also felt through unequal health. Researchers call it the “rural mortality penalty.” While rates of mortality have steadily fallen in the nation’s urban areas, they have actually climbed for rural Americans. And the picture is even bleaker for specific groups, such as rural white women and people of colour, who face persistent disparities in health outcomes. In every category, from suicide to unintentional injury to heart disease, rural residents’ health has been declining since the 1990s. While some have blamed these gaping disparities on “culture” or “lifestyle” factors – such as a supposed fatalism or overconsumption of unhealthy products like Mountain Dew – the truth is that the biggest culprit is limited access to health care and challenging economic circumstances. The passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 began to change this as more rural Americans gained insurance coverage and the government invested more money into regional health facilities and training. This progress is now at risk, however, as the Republican Congress inches closer to repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a feeble alternative that greatly weakens rural health care access. As researchers who study the mental and physical health of rural Americans, we believe this would have disastrous consequences. The travails of rural America Even as rural America feeds the country, hunger is on the rise in rural areas. Some 98 percent of rural residents live in food deserts – defined as counties in which one must drive more than 10 miles to get to the nearest supermarket. This makes it challenging to maintain healthy and nutritious diets, leading to higher rates of obesity in rural areas that greatly increase the risk for diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers. As rural workers struggle to sustain employment in a shifting economy, the increasing poverty is contributing to mental distress and substance use. On a larger scale, the economic changes that have hit rural areas have resulted in a declining tax base, lower incomes and strained educational institutions. Together, they challenge rural residents’ health not just in the immediate term but cumulatively over their lives. Like many other rural hospitals in the U.S., Evans Memorial in Claxton, Georgia, has struggled to keep its doors open while treating patients who tend to be older, poorer and often uninsured. AP Photo/Russ Bynum Barriers to accessing health care Yet, despite all these medical issues, rural residents have a tough time getting the health care they need. The nature of rural employment, for example, is characterised by self-employment, seasonal work and lower-than-average pay. This means rural workers are less likely to get insurance through their jobs and thus face higher premiums when buying their own policies. The lack of public transportation in most rural areas is also a major hurdle to seeing a doctor, particularly as residents have to travel much farther than those in urban areas to reach health care providers. Rural residents get most of their services through primary care providers, who take on the work of other practitioners, like behavioural health clinicians, due to longstanding specialist shortages. When handling numerous complaints during a single medical encounter, primary care providers may concentrate on the acutest health concerns of their patients, undermining the ability to diagnose all their conditions and meaningfully discuss their larger health risks, such as exercise, weight and substance use. When providers are rushed or deliver sub-par care, rural residents may wonder if seeking it out is worth the challenge, opting to struggle on their own. These and other constraints make it tougher for rural Americans to get the screenings necessary to spot serious diseases such as cancer early or to maintain adequate follow-up on conditions like hearing loss. Finding the regular medical care necessary to manage chronic conditions, such as diabetes, depression or opioid disorders, is even more challenging. Rural health care has at times been characterised as patchwork. In part, that’s because the costs of sustaining health care infrastructure in rural areas are higher thanks to the large service areas, the inability to negotiate bulk pricing and lack of financial incentives to fill in provider gaps. The ACA and the AHCA The ACA, intended to turn this around, has in fact led to dramatic gains in insurance coverage among rural Americans. Broadly speaking, insurance rates in rural areas reached almost 86 percent in early 2015, up from an estimated 78 percent in 2013. In Kentucky – a state with high poverty, a large rural population (42 percent of residents) and a successful Medicaid expansion initiative – tens of thousands of newly insured low-income adults began using preventative services after previously being unable to afford it. The state’s uninsured fell by half and, as a result, fewer people skipped taking their medications due to financial hardships relative to other states that didn’t expand Medicaid. The ACA also strengthened rural health care institutions by investing in upgrades to hospitals and clinics, preventative health programs and support for providers to stay in rural areas. While rural hospitals are often laden with the expense of providing extensive care without payment to indigent patients, rural hospitals in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA finally was able to better balance their books when caring for this vulnerable group. At the same time, the ACA supported innovative models ideal for rural areas that prioritised outreach, integration of services and collaboration between safety-net players. Both the House and Senate bills to repeal and replace Obamacare would drastically reduce rural Americans’ insurance coverage and significantly threaten the ability of many rural hospitals and clinics to keep their doors open. Analysts show that the bill would provide insufficient tax credits to pay for rural premium costs, drastically increase the price of rural premiums and increase uncompensated care in rural hospitals. What rural areas need from health care reform Previous efforts at health care reform show us that rural areas are uniquely vulnerable. Efforts need to take account not only of coverage and access – as has been the focus of the current debate – but also how reform affects rural health care institutions and the larger social factors shaping overall health. The particular economic factors affecting rural health care institutions make rural areas particularly vulnerable to political shifts that disrupt services for existing patients and for those newly insured, creating immense challenges for rural providers. Steps that fail to account for the impact of financial hardship on these institutions not only hurt their bottom line but contribute to poor morale and workforce turnover and larger-scale decisions to reduce services, which decrease their ability to address patient needs. At the same time, commitment to improving the health of rural Americans requires attention to the so-called upstream factors shaping rural health. That means preserving the safety net programs so vital in rural areas with underemployment and low-paying jobs, strengthening rural economies and investing in high-quality education. If our leaders are serious about reform that will lessen the rural-urban mortality gap, they should recognise the unique needs of rural America and ensure health care policy reflects how vital access to quality care is to their financial success – not to mention their well-being. Claire Snell-Rood, Assistant Professor of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley and Cathleen Willging, Adjunct Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of New Mexico This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Trump's health care policy is disastrous for rural America

Russian hackers targeted 21 US states&#39; election systems in last year&#39;s presidential race, a Department of Homeland Security official told Congress on Wednesday.

Jeanette Manfra, the department&#39;s acting deputy undersecretary of cyber security, would not identify which states had been targeted, citing confidentiality agreements. She reiterated that there was no evidence that any actual votes were manipulated.

&quot;As of right now, we have evidence that election-related systems in 21 states were targeted,&quot; Manfra told the Senate Intelligence Committee, which investigating Russia&#39;s meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Systems were breached in a smaller number of states, she said, but did not give a specific figure.

Department officials had said about 20 states had been probed by hackers working on behalf of the Russian government, but recent news media reports had suggested the number could have been far higher.

Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate panel, expressed frustration at Manfra&#39;s refusal to identify which states had been targeted.

&quot;I just fundamentally disagree,&quot; he said.

Warner on Tuesday sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly asking the agency to disclose more information about hacking attempts on state and local election systems.

Arizona and Illinois last year confirmed that hackers had targeted their voter registration systems.

US&nbsp;intelligence agencies concluded that the Kremlin orchestrated a wide-ranging influence operation that included email hacking and online propaganda in order to discredit Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump, a Republican, win the White House.

Manfra and other officials testifying on Wednesday reiterated that US&nbsp;elections are resilient to hacking in part because they are decentralized and largely operated on the state and local level. 
Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, expressed skepticism at that assertion, saying only a small amount of votes in key battleground states would need to be altered to tip the scales of an election.

&quot;A sophisticated actor could hack an election simply by focusing on certain counties,&quot; King said. &quot;I don&#39;t think it works just to say it&rsquo;s a big system and diversity will protect us.&quot;

Russia has repeatedly denied responsibility for any cyber attacks during the US presidential election. Trump has inconsistently said Russia may or may not have been responsible for the hacking but has dismissed allegations that his associates colluded with Moscow as &quot;fake news.&quot; 
&nbsp;

The official did not identify the states but said there was no evidence that any actual votes were manipulated

Russian hackers targeted 21 US states' election systems in last year's presidential race, a Department of Homeland Security official told Congress on Wednesday. Jeanette Manfra, the department's acting deputy undersecretary of cyber security, would not identify which states had been targeted, citing confidentiality agreements. She reiterated that there was no evidence that any actual votes were manipulated. "As of right now, we have evidence that election-related systems in 21 states were targeted," Manfra told the Senate Intelligence Committee, which investigating Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Systems were breached in a smaller number of states, she said, but did not give a specific figure. Department officials had said about 20 states had been probed by hackers working on behalf of the Russian government, but recent news media reports had suggested the number could have been far higher. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate panel, expressed frustration at Manfra's refusal to identify which states had been targeted. "I just fundamentally disagree," he said. Warner on Tuesday sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly asking the agency to disclose more information about hacking attempts on state and local election systems. Arizona and Illinois last year confirmed that hackers had targeted their voter registration systems. US intelligence agencies concluded that the Kremlin orchestrated a wide-ranging influence operation that included email hacking and online propaganda in order to discredit Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump, a Republican, win the White House. Manfra and other officials testifying on Wednesday reiterated that US elections are resilient to hacking in part because they are decentralized and largely operated on the state and local level. Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Democrats, expressed skepticism at that assertion, saying only a small amount of votes in key battleground states would need to be altered to tip the scales of an election. "A sophisticated actor could hack an election simply by focusing on certain counties," King said. "I don't think it works just to say it’s a big system and diversity will protect us." Russia has repeatedly denied responsibility for any cyber attacks during the US presidential election. Trump has inconsistently said Russia may or may not have been responsible for the hacking but has dismissed allegations that his associates colluded with Moscow as "fake news."

Russian hackers targeted 21 US states during election: US official

Eight Afghan guards have been&nbsp;killed and two others wounded after&nbsp;gunmen attacked the American base at Bagram&nbsp;in Afghanistan.

Bagram is around 50 kilometres (31 miles) north of Kabul. The Bagram base&nbsp;contains the largest US contingent in the country.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/dozens-killed-and-wounded-in-attack-on-regional-afghanistan-police-hq-officials-16965">Also Read:&nbsp;At least 5 dead, 18 wounded in Afghan police HQ attacks</a>

&quot;They were all local residents serving as guards at Bagram,&quot; said district governor Abdul Shakoor Quddusi, adding that they were riding back home in a convoy when attacked.&nbsp;

Nobody has claimed responsibility for the attack. The Taliban are setting up nationwide attacks to regain&nbsp;their Afghanistan stronghold, while ISIS is trying to make new inroads into the country.&nbsp;

The US is expected&nbsp;to increase military deployment in the country to help Afghan forces contain the Taliban&#39;s rising offensive. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-to-send-4000-more-troops-to-afghanistan-reports-16891">At present, there are 8,400 US troops and another 5,000 from NATO allies </a>in Afghanistan, much&nbsp;less&nbsp;compared to the 100,000 troops six years ago.&nbsp;

Seven American soldiers were wounded in an insider attack by an Afghan soldier at Camp Shaheen near the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif on Saturday.

Analysts say such attacks are expected to increase this year as US troops engage with the Afghan military to double the size of its special forces, considered to be effective in the fight against insurgents.

The Afghan conflict is the longest in American history, with US-led forces at war there since the Taliban regime was ousted in 2001. 
&nbsp;

Bagram is around 50 kilometres (31 miles) north of Kabul. The Bagram base?contains the largest US contingent in the country

Eight Afghan guards have been killed and two others wounded after gunmen attacked the American base at Bagram in Afghanistan. Bagram is around 50 kilometres (31 miles) north of Kabul. The Bagram base contains the largest US contingent in the country. Also Read: At least 5 dead, 18 wounded in Afghan police HQ attacks "They were all local residents serving as guards at Bagram," said district governor Abdul Shakoor Quddusi, adding that they were riding back home in a convoy when attacked. Nobody has claimed responsibility for the attack. The Taliban are setting up nationwide attacks to regain their Afghanistan stronghold, while ISIS is trying to make new inroads into the country. The US is expected to increase military deployment in the country to help Afghan forces contain the Taliban's rising offensive. At present, there are 8,400 US troops and another 5,000 from NATO allies in Afghanistan, much less compared to the 100,000 troops six years ago. Seven American soldiers were wounded in an insider attack by an Afghan soldier at Camp Shaheen near the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif on Saturday. Analysts say such attacks are expected to increase this year as US troops engage with the Afghan military to double the size of its special forces, considered to be effective in the fight against insurgents. The Afghan conflict is the longest in American history, with US-led forces at war there since the Taliban regime was ousted in 2001.

Eight Afghan guards killed, two injured in attack on American base at Bagram

By Agnisheik Chatterji

The US administration&#39;s decision to open the possibility of redeploying thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan is a welcome one, but its success hinges on several factors.

US President Donald Trump Tuesday decided to empower the Pentagon to decide on the troop levels in Afghanistan, in his bid to &quot;win&quot; the stalemate in the war-torn country.

Not very long back -- even till 2015 -- the US was talking about an exit strategy from Afghanistan. They were looking to withdraw their troops by 2017. From 100,000 American soldiers in 2011, the US government has whittled down its presence to 8,400 troops, who are primarily engaged in non-combative roles.&nbsp;

But a rash of events turned that plan on its head. The pivot is primarily down to Washington&#39;s scrambled policy in the region that is bedevilled by a resurgent Taliban, a dormant Al Qaeda and a growing Islamic State.

There has been an increasing concern in the Pentagon about the Afghan security forces&#39; inability to withstand the annual Spring Offensive launched by the Taliban.&nbsp;

The fact that the US administration has spent close to $71 billion on training the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), coupled with an annual $23 billion expenditure on the reconstruction of the ravaged country, stakes in the Afghanistan war remain ambitiously high.&nbsp;

Despite spending billions of dollars in training the local forces, the Afghan government controls roughly 59.7&nbsp;per cent of districts in 2017, down from 72 per cent in November 2015. This is down to a resilient Taliban chipping away at the fraying stalemate in the country and failure of the US in ably training the security personnel.

The recent attack on American soldiers has also pressured the US government to get their act together in the country. Five soldiers have been killed since April to underscore the turmoil swirling in the tough terrains of the South Asian nation.

When Senator John McCain questioned the government&#39;s will to act on the Afghanistan conundrum, US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis admitted that they were still &quot;not winning&quot; the longest war in Afghanistan.

&quot;We are not winning in Afghanistan right now,&quot; Mattis said during Tuesday&#39;s congressional hearing, adding: &quot;And we will correct this as soon as possible.&quot;

Light-footprint approach&nbsp;

The US army has long wanted reinforcement of troops to combat the stasis that has gripped the ANSF too. About 35 per cent of the personnel do&nbsp;not re-enlist every year, according to the report submitted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR).

Mattis defined &quot;winning&quot; in Afghanistan as a situation where the Afghan government, with international help, drives the insurgency down to a level that local security forces can handle it.&nbsp;

Although additional troops on the ground might lessen violence and the Taliban juggernaut in the short- to medium-term, duration of their stay would be imperative for any positive outcome.

The Americans can&#39;t just expect to arrest the level of violence and make a hasty retreat by leaving behind a few soldiers in non-combative role. That is because it is unreasonable to train the local security agencies in three, four years and then leave them to fight the extremists. The local forces would need air and logistical support to thwart future battles.

An untimely &quot;right-sizing&quot; of US troops would thereby diminish or negate important capabilities in countering terrorist threats, financing and overseeing contracts.&nbsp;

US&#39; presence in Korea is a point in case where decades of military deployment has yielded a semblance of stability in the region.

As mentioned before, 35 per cent of personnel don&#39;t re-enlist, meaning that full recruitment to cover the gap would ultimately result in dilution of quality. Also, there have been several concerns about the ability of middle- to senior-level Afghan commanders&#39; ability to lead troops in combat.

So the decision to introduce more US military presence would be good news in the region, but the burgeoning costs of the war is fraught with peril and also fiscally unsustainable.

Negotiations remain a pipe dream

In 2011, the US had all the cards in their negotiation with the Taliban. The US had about 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and the Taliban were in the doldrums. But even then, the two parties failed to forge a peace plan as Taliban continued playing hardball.

So if the current administration hopes to push the years-long war into a negotiated settlement by reining in the Taliban, their plan is more likely to fall off the cliff.

Today&#39;s Taliban is a different beast. The group has splintered in the aftermath of their leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour&#39;s death in 2016. Negotiating with a multi-headed group will be a nightmare for the White House.

The political infighting in the country is another factor that has precipitated Taliban&#39;s gains. Uncertainty in the corridors of power in Kabul and local governments have handed the Taliban a fertile ground to re-ignite their support among the masses.&nbsp;

The SIGAR 2017 report says: &quot;The National Unity Government grappled with political challenges ranging from defiance from Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum, a former warlord whose bodyguards are charged with sodomising a political opponent, to resolving conflicts with the parliament over a path to promised parliamentary elections and Afghanistan&rsquo;s 2019 presidential contest.&quot;&nbsp;

If the US has to be successful in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, they have to upgrade the quality of polity in the country.

The US has to rectify its operational problems too, which has largely been marred by corruption.

Several Afghan security forces leaders have been prosecuted on corruption charges. There has also been widespread misuse of the funds sent by the US in the last few years, especially after they scaled down their presence.

The US will have to crack down on financial irregularities as well to sustain their project in the long run.&nbsp;

&#39;McMaster&#39;s War&#39;

The Trump administration&#39;s renewed policy in Afghanistan has been largely forged by national security advisor Lt Gen HR McMaster. So much so that certain sections of the White House have dubbed the fresh Afghan blueprint as &quot;McMaster&#39;s War&quot;.

The shift in decision-making from the White House to the Pentagon has been credited to McMaster.

He has been an endorser of Sun Tzu&#39;s &quot;The Art of War&quot; tenet which advocates winning the hearts and minds of the populace to help defeat the insurgency.

But the task of micro-managing the local population remains an uphill task as the Afghans would be wary, and weary, of yet another bout of foreign presence in their country.&nbsp;

US troops have been viewed by the locals with deep hostility due to the bloody quagmire they have endured for 16 years and wanton shootings perpetrated by US soldiers.&nbsp;

As Abraham Lincoln said in his 1858 &ldquo;A House Divided&rdquo; speech, &ldquo;If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it&quot;.

Therefore, it remains vital for the US administration to adopt a multi-pronged strategy -- not just miltarily -- to consolidate any gains they make in the country.

(WION)

The task of micro-managing the local population remains an uphill task as the Afghans would be wary, and weary, of yet another bout of foreign presence in their country.

By Agnisheik Chatterji The US administration's decision to open the possibility of redeploying thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan is a welcome one, but its success hinges on several factors. US President Donald Trump Tuesday decided to empower the Pentagon to decide on the troop levels in Afghanistan, in his bid to "win" the stalemate in the war-torn country. Not very long back -- even till 2015 -- the US was talking about an exit strategy from Afghanistan. They were looking to withdraw their troops by 2017. From 100,000 American soldiers in 2011, the US government has whittled down its presence to 8,400 troops, who are primarily engaged in non-combative roles. But a rash of events turned that plan on its head. The pivot is primarily down to Washington's scrambled policy in the region that is bedevilled by a resurgent Taliban, a dormant Al Qaeda and a growing Islamic State. There has been an increasing concern in the Pentagon about the Afghan security forces' inability to withstand the annual Spring Offensive launched by the Taliban. The fact that the US administration has spent close to $71 billion on training the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), coupled with an annual $23 billion expenditure on the reconstruction of the ravaged country, stakes in the Afghanistan war remain ambitiously high. Despite spending billions of dollars in training the local forces, the Afghan government controls roughly 59.7 per cent of districts in 2017, down from 72 per cent in November 2015. This is down to a resilient Taliban chipping away at the fraying stalemate in the country and failure of the US in ably training the security personnel. The recent attack on American soldiers has also pressured the US government to get their act together in the country. Five soldiers have been killed since April to underscore the turmoil swirling in the tough terrains of the South Asian nation. When Senator John McCain questioned the government's will to act on the Afghanistan conundrum, US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis admitted that they were still "not winning" the longest war in Afghanistan. "We are not winning in Afghanistan right now," Mattis said during Tuesday's congressional hearing, adding: "And we will correct this as soon as possible." Light-footprint approach The US army has long wanted reinforcement of troops to combat the stasis that has gripped the ANSF too. About 35 per cent of the personnel do not re-enlist every year, according to the report submitted by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). Mattis defined "winning" in Afghanistan as a situation where the Afghan government, with international help, drives the insurgency down to a level that local security forces can handle it. Although additional troops on the ground might lessen violence and the Taliban juggernaut in the short- to medium-term, duration of their stay would be imperative for any positive outcome. The Americans can't just expect to arrest the level of violence and make a hasty retreat by leaving behind a few soldiers in non-combative role. That is because it is unreasonable to train the local security agencies in three, four years and then leave them to fight the extremists. The local forces would need air and logistical support to thwart future battles. An untimely "right-sizing" of US troops would thereby diminish or negate important capabilities in countering terrorist threats, financing and overseeing contracts. US' presence in Korea is a point in case where decades of military deployment has yielded a semblance of stability in the region. As mentioned before, 35 per cent of personnel don't re-enlist, meaning that full recruitment to cover the gap would ultimately result in dilution of quality. Also, there have been several concerns about the ability of middle- to senior-level Afghan commanders' ability to lead troops in combat. So the decision to introduce more US military presence would be good news in the region, but the burgeoning costs of the war is fraught with peril and also fiscally unsustainable. Negotiations remain a pipe dream In 2011, the US had all the cards in their negotiation with the Taliban. The US had about 100,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and the Taliban were in the doldrums. But even then, the two parties failed to forge a peace plan as Taliban continued playing hardball. So if the current administration hopes to push the years-long war into a negotiated settlement by reining in the Taliban, their plan is more likely to fall off the cliff. Today's Taliban is a different beast. The group has splintered in the aftermath of their leader Akhtar Mohammad Mansour's death in 2016. Negotiating with a multi-headed group will be a nightmare for the White House. The political infighting in the country is another factor that has precipitated Taliban's gains. Uncertainty in the corridors of power in Kabul and local governments have handed the Taliban a fertile ground to re-ignite their support among the masses. The SIGAR 2017 report says: "The National Unity Government grappled with political challenges ranging from defiance from Vice President Abdul Rashid Dostum, a former warlord whose bodyguards are charged with sodomising a political opponent, to resolving conflicts with the parliament over a path to promised parliamentary elections and Afghanistan’s 2019 presidential contest." If the US has to be successful in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table, they have to upgrade the quality of polity in the country. The US has to rectify its operational problems too, which has largely been marred by corruption. Several Afghan security forces leaders have been prosecuted on corruption charges. There has also been widespread misuse of the funds sent by the US in the last few years, especially after they scaled down their presence. The US will have to crack down on financial irregularities as well to sustain their project in the long run. 'McMaster's War' The Trump administration's renewed policy in Afghanistan has been largely forged by national security advisor Lt Gen HR McMaster. So much so that certain sections of the White House have dubbed the fresh Afghan blueprint as "McMaster's War". The shift in decision-making from the White House to the Pentagon has been credited to McMaster. He has been an endorser of Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" tenet which advocates winning the hearts and minds of the populace to help defeat the insurgency. But the task of micro-managing the local population remains an uphill task as the Afghans would be wary, and weary, of yet another bout of foreign presence in their country. US troops have been viewed by the locals with deep hostility due to the bloody quagmire they have endured for 16 years and wanton shootings perpetrated by US soldiers. As Abraham Lincoln said in his 1858 “A House Divided” speech, “If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it". Therefore, it remains vital for the US administration to adopt a multi-pronged strategy -- not just miltarily -- to consolidate any gains they make in the country. (WION)

US plan to win Afghan stalemate is zero-sum game

A Pentagon investigation has concluded that at least 105 civilians died in an anti-IS strike in the Iraqi city of Mosul in March, officials said Thursday, but they blamed the toll on a secondary explosion of jihadist munitions.

A US aircraft delivered a single precision-guided bomb into a building in west Mosul on March 17, with the aim of killing a pair of snipers on the second story of the structure in the al-Jadida neighbourhood, which at the time was under Islamic State control.

But the bomb also caused a large cache of IS explosives to detonate, leading to the catastrophic collapse of the building that had civilians sheltering downstairs, officials said.

&quot;The secondary explosion triggered a rapid failure of the structure which killed the two ISIS snipers, 101 civilians sheltered in the bottom floors of the structure and four civilians in the neighbouring structure to the west,&quot; said US Air Force Brigadier General Matt Isler, the lead investigator.

Isler said another 36 civilians who are &quot;believed to be connected&quot; to the building remained unaccounted for, but they had likely fled the area shortly before the strike. He said he was &quot;very confident&quot; in the final toll.

It was the single deadliest incident for civilians stemming from a coalition strike since anti-IS operations in Iraq and Syria began nearly three years ago.&nbsp;

The United States had previously only acknowledged that it &quot;probably&quot; had a role in the civilian deaths.&nbsp;

The investigation comes amid broader claims that US forces under President Donald Trump are killing more civilians as the military fulfills a plan to &quot;annihilate&quot; the Islamic State group.&nbsp;

The Pentagon denies this and says its rules of engagement remain unchanged and insists its precision-targeting abilities are the best in the world.

Defeat Islamic State

Officials say the US takes every precaution to avoid hitting civilians, including by aborting missile strikes at the last moment if a civilian unexpectedly wanders into the target zone.

&quot;Our condolences go out to all those that were affected,&quot; said Major General Joe Martin.&nbsp;

&quot;The coalition takes every feasible measure to protect civilians from harm. The best way to protect civilians is to defeat ISIS.&quot;

No condolence payments have been made, Isler said, though such a move has not been ruled out.

According to Isler, Iraqi counterterrorism service (CTS) troops had been moving into the al-Jadida neighbourhood in west Mosul when they came under fire from the IS snipers.&nbsp;

Mosul was a former IS bastion but the jihadists now only control about 10 percent of the city.

Bad weather had kept surveillance drones from gathering video of the area for two days, and CTS and coalition forces -- not knowing civilians were in the building -- ultimately called in a strike, Isler said.

The precision-guided bomb selected -- a GBU-38 carrying 192 pounds of explosives -- was rigged to cause only localised damage to the building, but it ignited a large amount of ordnance which, unbeknownst to the coalition, IS fighters had previously placed inside.

&quot;Post-blast analysis detected residues common to explosives used by ISIS, but not consistent with the explosive content of a GBU-38 munition,&quot; Central Command said in a statement.

&quot;Engineering and weapons analysis indicates that the GBU-38 should have resulted in no more than 16-20 percent damage to the structure, localised to the front of the second floor.&quot;

Officials said IS may have deliberately rigged the building to explode and then used the snipers to intentionally provoke an air strike.

As of the most recent Centcom official tally, a total of 396 civilians had been killed since the beginning of the bombing campaign against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria nearly three years ago.

The 105 figure from the March incident would push that number beyond 500.

Airwars, a London-based collective of journalists and researchers that tracks civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria, claims a minimum of 3,350 people have died in coalition strikes.&nbsp;

(AFP)

The Pentagon investigation blamed the toll on a secondary explosion of jihadist munitions

A Pentagon investigation has concluded that at least 105 civilians died in an anti-IS strike in the Iraqi city of Mosul in March, officials said Thursday, but they blamed the toll on a secondary explosion of jihadist munitions. A US aircraft delivered a single precision-guided bomb into a building in west Mosul on March 17, with the aim of killing a pair of snipers on the second story of the structure in the al-Jadida neighbourhood, which at the time was under Islamic State control. But the bomb also caused a large cache of IS explosives to detonate, leading to the catastrophic collapse of the building that had civilians sheltering downstairs, officials said. "The secondary explosion triggered a rapid failure of the structure which killed the two ISIS snipers, 101 civilians sheltered in the bottom floors of the structure and four civilians in the neighbouring structure to the west," said US Air Force Brigadier General Matt Isler, the lead investigator. Isler said another 36 civilians who are "believed to be connected" to the building remained unaccounted for, but they had likely fled the area shortly before the strike. He said he was "very confident" in the final toll. It was the single deadliest incident for civilians stemming from a coalition strike since anti-IS operations in Iraq and Syria began nearly three years ago. The United States had previously only acknowledged that it "probably" had a role in the civilian deaths. The investigation comes amid broader claims that US forces under President Donald Trump are killing more civilians as the military fulfills a plan to "annihilate" the Islamic State group. The Pentagon denies this and says its rules of engagement remain unchanged and insists its precision-targeting abilities are the best in the world. Defeat Islamic State Officials say the US takes every precaution to avoid hitting civilians, including by aborting missile strikes at the last moment if a civilian unexpectedly wanders into the target zone. "Our condolences go out to all those that were affected," said Major General Joe Martin. "The coalition takes every feasible measure to protect civilians from harm. The best way to protect civilians is to defeat ISIS." No condolence payments have been made, Isler said, though such a move has not been ruled out. According to Isler, Iraqi counterterrorism service (CTS) troops had been moving into the al-Jadida neighbourhood in west Mosul when they came under fire from the IS snipers. Mosul was a former IS bastion but the jihadists now only control about 10 percent of the city. Bad weather had kept surveillance drones from gathering video of the area for two days, and CTS and coalition forces -- not knowing civilians were in the building -- ultimately called in a strike, Isler said. The precision-guided bomb selected -- a GBU-38 carrying 192 pounds of explosives -- was rigged to cause only localised damage to the building, but it ignited a large amount of ordnance which, unbeknownst to the coalition, IS fighters had previously placed inside. "Post-blast analysis detected residues common to explosives used by ISIS, but not consistent with the explosive content of a GBU-38 munition," Central Command said in a statement. "Engineering and weapons analysis indicates that the GBU-38 should have resulted in no more than 16-20 percent damage to the structure, localised to the front of the second floor." Officials said IS may have deliberately rigged the building to explode and then used the snipers to intentionally provoke an air strike. As of the most recent Centcom official tally, a total of 396 civilians had been killed since the beginning of the bombing campaign against the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria nearly three years ago. The 105 figure from the March incident would push that number beyond 500. Airwars, a London-based collective of journalists and researchers that tracks civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria, claims a minimum of 3,350 people have died in coalition strikes. (AFP)

At least 105 civilians died in anti-IS strike in Mosul in March: Pentagon

Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn declined on Monday to comply with a subpoena from the Senate Intelligence Committee as it investigates possible Russian interference in the 2016 US election.

Flynn invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, according to a letter to the Senate committee from his attorney, which was obtained by Reuters.

The retired lieutenant general is a key witness in the Russia probe.

Flynn`s attorneys did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner, the top Republican and Democrat on the panel, said in a statement they were disappointed by Flynn`s decision, but would &quot;vigorously pursue&quot; his testimony.

The committee is conducting one of the main congressional probes into US intelligence agency reports of Russian meddling in the election and whether there was any collusion between President Donald Trump&rsquo;s campaign and Russia. Moscow has repeatedly denied the allegations and Trump denies any collusion between his campaign and Russian officials.

Flynn apparently misled Pentagon investigators about his foreign connections when he sought to renew his security clearance in early 2016, according to a document obtained by congressional Democrats and released in part on Monday.

Flynn, interviewed as part of the clearance renewal process, said that all of his foreign trips as a private citizen &quot;were funded by U.S. companies,&quot; according to excerpts of a March 14, 2016 report compiled by security clearance investigators.

In fact, a trip Flynn made to Moscow in December 2015, where he attended a gala dinner and sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin, was paid for by Russia Today, which U.S. officials consider a state-run propaganda arm, according to documents previously released by the House Oversight Committee.

The document is the latest to shed light on how Flynn received a security clearance and was subsequently hired as Trump`s national security advisor. He was forced to resign from the job in February after less than a month for failing to disclose the content of his talks with Sergei Kislyak, Russia`s ambassador to the United States, and then misleading Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations.

Excerpts were released by Rep. Elijah Cummings, ranking Democrat on the House committee.

Flynn`s decision to decline to comply with the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena was first reported by the Associated Press.

The Senate committee first requested documents from Flynn in an April 28 letter, but he declined to cooperate with the request. Then it issued a subpoena.

In response, his attorney wrote to the committee that &quot;the context in which the Committee has called for General Flynn&rsquo;s testimonial production of documents makes clear that he has more than a reasonable apprehension that any testimony he provides could be used against him.&quot;

Flynn&rsquo;s legal team said that he was rejecting the subpoena because the committee spurned his offer, made by the retired Army general in a May 8 letter, &quot;to give a full account of the facts and to answer the committee&rsquo;s questions, should the circumstances permit, including assurances against unfair prosecution. We stated that, absent such assurances, General Flynn would respectfully decline your request for an interview and for production of documents.&quot;

It was not clear what the committee would do if Flynn decided not to comply.

On Monday, Senator James Lankford, a Republican member of the intelligence panel, said on Twitter that Flynn was within his rights to invoke the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

&ldquo;We will get to the truth one way or another,&rdquo; Lankford said on Twitter. &ldquo;We need facts, not speculation &amp; anonymous sources.&rdquo; 
Congress has the constitutional authority to enforce a subpoena.

A Congressional Research Service report outlined three main options: seeking criminal prosecution through the executive branch, asking the courts for a civil judgement and using a dormant power of &quot;inherent contempt&quot; to detain and imprison an individual.

The latter option has not been used in 75 years, the report said, with Congress more often relying on the criminal contempt statute recently.

US intelligence agencies concluded in January that Moscow tried to sway the November vote in Trump`s favour. Russia has denied involvement, and Trump denies any collusion between his campaign and Russia.

Reuters reported on Thursday that Flynn and other advisers to Trump&rsquo;s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the US presidential race.

Two other former Trump associates - one-time campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Republican operative Roger Stone - have turned over documents the Senate panel had requested, while a third - campaign adviser Carter Page - had not yet complied, NBC News reported, citing a congressional source.

Flynn has acknowledged being a paid consultant to the Turkish government during the campaign.

(Reuters)

Flynn apparently misled Pentagon investigators about his foreign connections when he sought to renew his security clearance in early 2016, according to a document obtained by congressional Democrats and released in part on Monday.

Former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn declined on Monday to comply with a subpoena from the Senate Intelligence Committee as it investigates possible Russian interference in the 2016 US election. Flynn invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, according to a letter to the Senate committee from his attorney, which was obtained by Reuters. The retired lieutenant general is a key witness in the Russia probe. Flynn`s attorneys did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Senators Richard Burr and Mark Warner, the top Republican and Democrat on the panel, said in a statement they were disappointed by Flynn`s decision, but would "vigorously pursue" his testimony. The committee is conducting one of the main congressional probes into US intelligence agency reports of Russian meddling in the election and whether there was any collusion between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia. Moscow has repeatedly denied the allegations and Trump denies any collusion between his campaign and Russian officials. Flynn apparently misled Pentagon investigators about his foreign connections when he sought to renew his security clearance in early 2016, according to a document obtained by congressional Democrats and released in part on Monday. Flynn, interviewed as part of the clearance renewal process, said that all of his foreign trips as a private citizen "were funded by U.S. companies," according to excerpts of a March 14, 2016 report compiled by security clearance investigators. In fact, a trip Flynn made to Moscow in December 2015, where he attended a gala dinner and sat next to Russian President Vladimir Putin, was paid for by Russia Today, which U.S. officials consider a state-run propaganda arm, according to documents previously released by the House Oversight Committee. The document is the latest to shed light on how Flynn received a security clearance and was subsequently hired as Trump`s national security advisor. He was forced to resign from the job in February after less than a month for failing to disclose the content of his talks with Sergei Kislyak, Russia`s ambassador to the United States, and then misleading Vice President Mike Pence about the conversations. Excerpts were released by Rep. Elijah Cummings, ranking Democrat on the House committee. Flynn`s decision to decline to comply with the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoena was first reported by the Associated Press. The Senate committee first requested documents from Flynn in an April 28 letter, but he declined to cooperate with the request. Then it issued a subpoena. In response, his attorney wrote to the committee that "the context in which the Committee has called for General Flynn’s testimonial production of documents makes clear that he has more than a reasonable apprehension that any testimony he provides could be used against him." Flynn’s legal team said that he was rejecting the subpoena because the committee spurned his offer, made by the retired Army general in a May 8 letter, "to give a full account of the facts and to answer the committee’s questions, should the circumstances permit, including assurances against unfair prosecution. We stated that, absent such assurances, General Flynn would respectfully decline your request for an interview and for production of documents." It was not clear what the committee would do if Flynn decided not to comply. On Monday, Senator James Lankford, a Republican member of the intelligence panel, said on Twitter that Flynn was within his rights to invoke the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. “We will get to the truth one way or another,” Lankford said on Twitter. “We need facts, not speculation & anonymous sources.” Congress has the constitutional authority to enforce a subpoena. A Congressional Research Service report outlined three main options: seeking criminal prosecution through the executive branch, asking the courts for a civil judgement and using a dormant power of "inherent contempt" to detain and imprison an individual. The latter option has not been used in 75 years, the report said, with Congress more often relying on the criminal contempt statute recently. US intelligence agencies concluded in January that Moscow tried to sway the November vote in Trump`s favour. Russia has denied involvement, and Trump denies any collusion between his campaign and Russia. Reuters reported on Thursday that Flynn and other advisers to Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the US presidential race. Two other former Trump associates - one-time campaign chairman Paul Manafort and Republican operative Roger Stone - have turned over documents the Senate panel had requested, while a third - campaign adviser Carter Page - had not yet complied, NBC News reported, citing a congressional source. Flynn has acknowledged being a paid consultant to the Turkish government during the campaign. (Reuters)

Ex-US NSA Flynn refuses to comply with subpoena from Senate Intelligence Committee

Two Chinese SU-30 aircraft carried out what the US&nbsp;military described on Thursday as an &quot;unprofessional&quot; intercept of a US aircraft designed to detect radiation while it was flying in international airspace over the East China Sea.

&quot;The issue is being addressed with China through appropriate diplomatic and military channels,&quot; said Air Force spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Lori Hodge.

Hodge said the US&nbsp;characterisation of the incident was based on initial reports from the US aircrew aboard the WC-135 Constant Phoenix aircraft &quot;due to the manoeuvres by the Chinese pilot, as well as the speeds and proximity of both aircraft.&quot;

&quot;Distances always have a bearing on how we characterise interactions,&quot; Hodge said, adding a US military investigation into the intercept was underway.

She said the WC-135 was carrying out a routine mission at the time and was operating in accordance with international law.

China is deeply suspicious of any US military activity in the resource-rich South China Sea.

On February 8, a US Navy P-3 spy plane and a Chinese military aircraft came close to each other over the South China Sea in an incident the Navy saw as unsafe but also inadvertent.

Reuters reported at the time that the aircraft came within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of each other in the vicinity of the Scarborough Shoal, between the Philippines and the Chinese mainland.

(Reuters)

Two Chinese SU-30 aircraft intercepted a US aircraft designed to detect radiation while it was flying in international airspace over the East China Sea, the US said

Two Chinese SU-30 aircraft carried out what the US military described on Thursday as an "unprofessional" intercept of a US aircraft designed to detect radiation while it was flying in international airspace over the East China Sea. "The issue is being addressed with China through appropriate diplomatic and military channels," said Air Force spokeswoman Lieutenant Colonel Lori Hodge. Hodge said the US characterisation of the incident was based on initial reports from the US aircrew aboard the WC-135 Constant Phoenix aircraft "due to the manoeuvres by the Chinese pilot, as well as the speeds and proximity of both aircraft." "Distances always have a bearing on how we characterise interactions," Hodge said, adding a US military investigation into the intercept was underway. She said the WC-135 was carrying out a routine mission at the time and was operating in accordance with international law. China is deeply suspicious of any US military activity in the resource-rich South China Sea. On February 8, a US Navy P-3 spy plane and a Chinese military aircraft came close to each other over the South China Sea in an incident the Navy saw as unsafe but also inadvertent. Reuters reported at the time that the aircraft came within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of each other in the vicinity of the Scarborough Shoal, between the Philippines and the Chinese mainland. (Reuters)

East China Sea: Chinese jets intercept US plane

The United States on Monday accused Syria of building a prison crematorium to destroy the remains of thousands of murdered detainees, putting pressure on Russia to rein in its ally.

Warning Moscow it should not turn a blind eye to Bashar al-Assad&#39;s crimes, the State Department released satellite images that it said backed up reports of mass killings at a Syrian jail.

&quot;The United States is on record, has stated many times, that we are appalled by the atrocities that have been carried out by the Syrian regime,&quot; said Stuart Jones, the top US diplomat for the Middle East.

&quot;And these atrocities have been carried out seemingly with the unconditional support from Russia and Iran.&quot;

And he added a message to President Vladimir Putin&#39;s government: &quot;Russia must now, with great urgency, exercise its influence over the Syrian regime to guarantee that horrific violations stop now.&quot;

Jones&#39; warning came as UN-mediated peace talks between Damascus and the Syrian opposition were about to resume in Geneva, and appeared aimed at maintaining pressure on Assad&#39;s backers.

The head of the opposition delegation to the talks welcomed the US statement, but complained it had come too late.

&quot;This is but a drop in the ocean. What happens in the regime&#39;s prisons is much uglier than this,&quot; Nasr al-Hariri said.

&quot;The time has come for the world -- chiefly the US -- to act to halt these human rights violations.&quot;

&nbsp;&#39;Cover up&#39;

One newly released image, a commercial satellite photograph dating back to January 2015, shows snow melting on the roof of a building attached to the Saydnaya military complex north of Damascus.

This, along with an earlier picture allegedly showing heavy-duty ventilation systems on the structure, appears to support earlier claims by rights groups that Saydnaya is an execution center.

&quot;Beginning in 2013, the Syrian regime modified a building within the Saydnaya complex to support what we believe is a crematorium&quot; built in &quot;an effort to cover up the extent of the mass murders taking place in Saydnaya,&quot; said Jones.

Jones, an acting assistant secretary of state, said Washington&#39;s information came from credible humanitarian agencies and from the US &quot;intelligence community&quot; -- implying that classified evidence beyond the commercial pictures exists.

At Saydnaya, Syria holds up to 70 prisoners in cells that are meant for five, Jones alleged.

&quot;And according to multiple sources, the regime is responsible for killing as many as 50 detainees per day at Saydnaya.&quot;

He did not give an official estimate for the total number killed, but cited an Amnesty International report that between 5,000 and 11,000 had died in the prison between 2011 and 2015.

Assad&#39;s regime, he alleged, has detained between 65,000 and 117,000 people over the same period -- the first five years of a civil war that has left hundreds of thousands dead.&nbsp;

It was not immediately clear why the United States waited more than two years to present its evidence.&nbsp;

Jones said: &quot;I would say that this information has been developing.&quot;

He also said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had raised concerns about Assad&#39;s brutality with Russia&#39;s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during his visit to Washington last week.

Sarin attack

Moscow, along with Iran, is Syria&#39;s main foreign backer and Washington believes Russian pressure is the only thing that will compel Assad to negotiate a peace deal.

President Donald Trump came to office vowing to focus US efforts in Syria on defeating the Islamic State group, a jihadist force that exploited the civil war to seize the east of the country.

He also said he hoped to work with Putin towards this goal.

But relations with Moscow, already dire under Trump&#39;s predecessor Barack Obama, have not improved and Assad has continued to bombard civilian areas in his battle with opposition rebels.

Last month, when Assad was again accused of using the banned nerve agent sarin in a strike on his own people,

Trump ordered a retaliatory US cruise missile strike on a Syrian air base.

When asked whether the Saydnaya deaths could trigger action, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump would never &quot;telegraph the actions he takes.&quot;

&quot;When he&#39;s ready to act, he will let everyone know,&quot; he said.

(AFP)

The State Department released satellite images that it said backed up reports of mass killings at a Syrian jail

The United States on Monday accused Syria of building a prison crematorium to destroy the remains of thousands of murdered detainees, putting pressure on Russia to rein in its ally. Warning Moscow it should not turn a blind eye to Bashar al-Assad's crimes, the State Department released satellite images that it said backed up reports of mass killings at a Syrian jail. "The United States is on record, has stated many times, that we are appalled by the atrocities that have been carried out by the Syrian regime," said Stuart Jones, the top US diplomat for the Middle East. "And these atrocities have been carried out seemingly with the unconditional support from Russia and Iran." And he added a message to President Vladimir Putin's government: "Russia must now, with great urgency, exercise its influence over the Syrian regime to guarantee that horrific violations stop now." Jones' warning came as UN-mediated peace talks between Damascus and the Syrian opposition were about to resume in Geneva, and appeared aimed at maintaining pressure on Assad's backers. The head of the opposition delegation to the talks welcomed the US statement, but complained it had come too late. "This is but a drop in the ocean. What happens in the regime's prisons is much uglier than this," Nasr al-Hariri said. "The time has come for the world -- chiefly the US -- to act to halt these human rights violations." 'Cover up' One newly released image, a commercial satellite photograph dating back to January 2015, shows snow melting on the roof of a building attached to the Saydnaya military complex north of Damascus. This, along with an earlier picture allegedly showing heavy-duty ventilation systems on the structure, appears to support earlier claims by rights groups that Saydnaya is an execution center. "Beginning in 2013, the Syrian regime modified a building within the Saydnaya complex to support what we believe is a crematorium" built in "an effort to cover up the extent of the mass murders taking place in Saydnaya," said Jones. Jones, an acting assistant secretary of state, said Washington's information came from credible humanitarian agencies and from the US "intelligence community" -- implying that classified evidence beyond the commercial pictures exists. At Saydnaya, Syria holds up to 70 prisoners in cells that are meant for five, Jones alleged. "And according to multiple sources, the regime is responsible for killing as many as 50 detainees per day at Saydnaya." He did not give an official estimate for the total number killed, but cited an Amnesty International report that between 5,000 and 11,000 had died in the prison between 2011 and 2015. Assad's regime, he alleged, has detained between 65,000 and 117,000 people over the same period -- the first five years of a civil war that has left hundreds of thousands dead. It was not immediately clear why the United States waited more than two years to present its evidence. Jones said: "I would say that this information has been developing." He also said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had raised concerns about Assad's brutality with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during his visit to Washington last week. Sarin attack Moscow, along with Iran, is Syria's main foreign backer and Washington believes Russian pressure is the only thing that will compel Assad to negotiate a peace deal. President Donald Trump came to office vowing to focus US efforts in Syria on defeating the Islamic State group, a jihadist force that exploited the civil war to seize the east of the country. He also said he hoped to work with Putin towards this goal. But relations with Moscow, already dire under Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, have not improved and Assad has continued to bombard civilian areas in his battle with opposition rebels. Last month, when Assad was again accused of using the banned nerve agent sarin in a strike on his own people, Trump ordered a retaliatory US cruise missile strike on a Syrian air base. When asked whether the Saydnaya deaths could trigger action, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump would never "telegraph the actions he takes." "When he's ready to act, he will let everyone know," he said. (AFP)

US accuses Syria of building 'crematorium' in prison to hide mass murders

Indian actress Priyanka Chopra always leaves you asking for more.&nbsp;

In yet another international appearance, Priyanka was spotted at the world premiere of her debut Hollywood film, Baywatch on Saturday.&nbsp;

She was present with the entire star cast of the movie including,&nbsp;Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron.

The star took to Instagram to share her excitement:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowtransparency="true" class="instagram-media instagram-media-rendered" data-instgrm-payload-id="instagram-media-payload-5" frameborder="0" height="503" id="instagram-embed-5" scrolling="no" src="https://www.instagram.com/p/BUFphh1gTZK/embed/captioned/?cr=1&amp;v=7#%7B%22ci%22%3A5%2C%22os%22%3A11402.655%7D" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 1px solid rgb(219, 219, 219); margin: 1px 1px 12px; max-width: 658px; width: calc(100% - 2px); border-radius: 4px; box-shadow: none; display: block; padding: 0px;"></iframe><script async defer src="//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowtransparency="true" class="instagram-media instagram-media-rendered" data-instgrm-payload-id="instagram-media-payload-6" frameborder="0" height="660" id="instagram-embed-6" scrolling="no" src="https://www.instagram.com/p/BUFpYnSAdjm/embed/captioned/?cr=1&amp;v=7#%7B%22ci%22%3A6%2C%22os%22%3A11405.970000000001%7D" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 1px solid rgb(219, 219, 219); margin: 1px 1px 12px; max-width: 658px; width: calc(100% - 2px); border-radius: 4px; box-shadow: none; display: block; padding: 0px;"></iframe><script async defer src="//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowtransparency="true" class="instagram-media instagram-media-rendered" data-instgrm-payload-id="instagram-media-payload-7" frameborder="0" height="660" id="instagram-embed-7" scrolling="no" src="https://www.instagram.com/p/BUFkTboAX_z/embed/captioned/?cr=1&amp;v=7#%7B%22ci%22%3A7%2C%22os%22%3A11410.880000000001%7D" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 1px solid rgb(219, 219, 219); margin: 1px 1px 12px; max-width: 658px; width: calc(100% - 2px); border-radius: 4px; box-shadow: none; display: block; padding: 0px;"></iframe><script async defer src="//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowtransparency="true" class="instagram-media instagram-media-rendered" data-instgrm-payload-id="instagram-media-payload-8" frameborder="0" height="579" id="instagram-embed-8" scrolling="no" src="https://www.instagram.com/p/BUDuBrqAXCZ/embed/captioned/?cr=1&amp;v=7#%7B%22ci%22%3A8%2C%22os%22%3A11961.845000000001%7D" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 1px solid rgb(219, 219, 219); margin: 1px 1px 12px; max-width: 658px; width: calc(100% - 2px); border-radius: 4px; box-shadow: none; display: block; padding: 0px;"></iframe><script async defer src="//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allowtransparency="true" class="instagram-media instagram-media-rendered" data-instgrm-payload-id="instagram-media-payload-9" frameborder="0" height="720" id="instagram-embed-9" scrolling="no" src="https://www.instagram.com/p/BUCpMSngQBe/embed/captioned/?cr=1&amp;v=7#%7B%22ci%22%3A9%2C%22os%22%3A11967.680000000002%7D" style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 1px solid rgb(219, 219, 219); margin: 1px 1px 12px; max-width: 658px; width: calc(100% - 2px); border-radius: 4px; box-shadow: none; display: block; padding: 0px;"></iframe><script async defer src="//platform.instagram.com/en_US/embeds.js"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

She wore a shimmery dark blue gown with a plunging neckline.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/16179100_755576927941516_4799623005672441402_o-20170515052553.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
The movie also features Alexandra Daddario and Kelly Rohrbach. (Facebook)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The movie is slated for an India release on June 2.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(WION) 
&nbsp;

Priyanka Chopra dazzles at the Baywatch premiere

Indian actress Priyanka Chopra always leaves you asking for more. In yet another international appearance, Priyanka was spotted at the world premiere of her debut Hollywood film, Baywatch on Saturday. She was present with the entire star cast of the movie including, Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron. The star took to Instagram to share her excitement: × × × × × She wore a shimmery dark blue gown with a plunging neckline. The movie also features Alexandra Daddario and Kelly Rohrbach. (Facebook) × The movie is slated for an India release on June 2. (WION)

Priyanka Chopra dazzles at Baywatch premiere

A senior North Korean diplomat who handles relations with the United States said on Saturday Pyongyang would have dialogue with the U.S. administration if conditions were right, South Korea&#39;s Yonhap news agency reported.

Choe Son Hui, North Korea&#39;s foreign ministry director general for U.S. affairs, made the comment to reporters in Beijing as she was travelling home from Norway, Yonhap said.

&quot;We&#39;ll have dialogue if the conditions are there,&quot; she told reporters when asked if the North was preparing to hold talks with the Trump administration, according to Yonhap.

When asked if North Korea was also preparing to talk with the new government in South Korea, of liberal President Moon Jae-in, Choe said: &quot;We&#39;ll see.&quot;

The comments by Choe, who is a veteran member of the North&#39;s team of nuclear negotiators, came amid stepped up international efforts to press North Korea and ease tension over its pursuit of nuclear arms.

U.S. President Donald Trump warned in an interview with Reuters in late April that a &quot;major, major conflict&quot; with the North was possible, but he would prefer a diplomatic outcome to the dispute over its nuclear and missile programmes.

Trump later said he would be &quot;honoured&quot; to meet the North&#39;s leader, Kim Jong Un, under the right conditions.

Choe was in Norway for so-called Track Two talks with former U.S. government officials, according to Japanese media, the latest in a series of such meetings.

A source with knowledge of the latest meeting said at least one former U.S. government official took part but the U.S. administration was not involved.

South Korea&#39;s Moon, elected this week on a platform of a moderate approach to North Korea, has said he would be willing to go to Pyongyang under the right circumstances and said dialogue must be used in parallel with sanctions to resolve the problem over North Korea&#39;s weapons.

North Korea has conducted five nuclear tests in defiance of U.N. and U.S. sanctions and is also developing long-range missiles to deliver atomic weapons.

It says it needs such weapons to defend itself against U.S. aggression.

(Reuters)

Choe Son Hui, North Korea's foreign ministry director general for US affairs, made the comment to reporters in Beijing as she was travelling home from Norway

A senior North Korean diplomat who handles relations with the United States said on Saturday Pyongyang would have dialogue with the U.S. administration if conditions were right, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported. Choe Son Hui, North Korea's foreign ministry director general for U.S. affairs, made the comment to reporters in Beijing as she was travelling home from Norway, Yonhap said. "We'll have dialogue if the conditions are there," she told reporters when asked if the North was preparing to hold talks with the Trump administration, according to Yonhap. When asked if North Korea was also preparing to talk with the new government in South Korea, of liberal President Moon Jae-in, Choe said: "We'll see." The comments by Choe, who is a veteran member of the North's team of nuclear negotiators, came amid stepped up international efforts to press North Korea and ease tension over its pursuit of nuclear arms. U.S. President Donald Trump warned in an interview with Reuters in late April that a "major, major conflict" with the North was possible, but he would prefer a diplomatic outcome to the dispute over its nuclear and missile programmes. Trump later said he would be "honoured" to meet the North's leader, Kim Jong Un, under the right conditions. Choe was in Norway for so-called Track Two talks with former U.S. government officials, according to Japanese media, the latest in a series of such meetings. A source with knowledge of the latest meeting said at least one former U.S. government official took part but the U.S. administration was not involved. South Korea's Moon, elected this week on a platform of a moderate approach to North Korea, has said he would be willing to go to Pyongyang under the right circumstances and said dialogue must be used in parallel with sanctions to resolve the problem over North Korea's weapons. North Korea has conducted five nuclear tests in defiance of U.N. and U.S. sanctions and is also developing long-range missiles to deliver atomic weapons. It says it needs such weapons to defend itself against U.S. aggression. (Reuters)

North Korea says will have dialogue with US under right conditions: Yonhap

Turkey warned the United States on Wednesday that a decision to arm Kurdish forces fighting Islamic State in Syria could end up hurting Washington, and accused its NATO ally of siding with terrorists.&nbsp;

The rebuke came a week before President Tayyip Erdogan is due in Washington for his first meeting with US&nbsp;President Donald Trump, who approved the arms supply to support a campaign to retake the Syrian city of Raqqa from Islamic State.

Turkey views the YPG as the Syrian extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has fought an insurgency in southeast Turkey since 1984 and is considered a terrorist group by the United States, Turkey and Europe.

&quot;We want to believe that our allies will prefer to side with us, not with a terrorist organisation,&quot; Erdogan told a news conference in Ankara, saying he would convey Turkey&#39;s stance to Trump next week and at a NATO summit later this month.

He said he hoped that recently taken decisions would be changed by the time he visits the United States.&nbsp;

Earlier, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim told reporters the US&nbsp;failure to consider Turkey&#39;s sensitivities &quot;will surely have consequences and will yield a negative result for the US&nbsp;as well&quot;.

The United States regards the YPG as a valuable partner in the fight against Islamic State militants in northern Syria. Washington says that arming the Kurdish forces is necessary to recapturing Raqqa, Islamic State&#39;s de facto capital in Syria and a hub for planning attacks against the West.

That argument holds little sway with Ankara, which worries that advances by the YPG in northern Syria could inflame the PKK insurgency on Turkish soil.&nbsp;

Weapons supplied to the YPG have in the past fallen into PKK hands, said Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu.

&quot;Both the PKK and YPG are terrorist organisations and they are no different apart from their names,&quot; he told a televised news conference. &quot;Every weapon seized by them is a threat to Turkey.&quot;

The YPG said Washington&#39;s decision would bring swift results and help the militia &quot;play a stronger, more influential and more decisive role in combating terrorism&quot;.

The Pentagon said on Tuesday it was aware of concerns in Turkey, which has given vital support to a US-led campaign against Islamic State insurgents in Syria and Iraq. Jets carrying out air strikes against the jihadist group have flown from Turkey&#39;s Incirlik air base.

Erdogan has repeatedly castigated Washington for its support of the YPG.

&#39;Same sack&#39;

Deputy Prime Minister Nurettin Canikli said the United States should review its move. &quot;We hope the US&nbsp;administration will put a stop to this wrong and turn back from it,&quot; he said in an interview with Turkish broadcaster A Haber.&nbsp;

&quot;Such a policy will not be beneficial; you can&#39;t be in the same sack as terrorist organisations.&quot;

But US&nbsp;Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said he was confident the United States would be able to resolve the tensions.

&quot;We&#39;ll work out any of the concerns. We will work very closely with Turkey in support of their security on their southern border. It&#39;s Europe&#39;s southern border, and we&#39;ll stay closely connected,&quot; Mattis told reporters during a visit to the Pabrade Training Area in Lithuania.

Ankara has argued that Washington should switch support for the Raqqa assault from the YPG to Syrian rebels Turkey has trained and led against Islamic State for the past year - despite US&nbsp;scepticism about their military capability.

&quot;There is no reality in the comments that a ground operation against Daesh (Islamic State) can only be successful with the YPG. I hope they turn back from this mistake,&quot; Canikli said.

Despite the angry language, Erdogan&#39;s government has little prospect of reversing Washington&#39;s decision, and any retaliatory move would come at a cost.&nbsp;

Cavusoglu said Trump would address the issue with Trump during his planned May 16-17 visit to Washington, suggesting there were no plans to call off the talks in protest.

&quot;Turkey doesn&#39;t have much room to move here,&quot; said Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat and analyst at Carnegie Europe. &quot;I think Washington made such an evaluation when taking this decision.&quot;

While Turkey could impose limits on the use of the Incirlik base, that would hamper operations against Islamic State, which also menaces Turkey itself and has claimed responsibility for attacks including the bombing of Istanbul airport.

Turkey could also step up air strikes on PKK targets in northern Iraq. Turkish warplanes attacked Kurdish YPG fighters in northeastern Syria and Iraq&#39;s Sinjar region late last month.

But Cavusoglu and Canikli both pointed to a diplomatic, rather than military, response to Trump&#39;s decision.

&quot;We are carrying out, and will carry out, all necessary diplomatic communications,&quot; Canikli said. &quot;Our wish is that the US&nbsp;stops this wrong and does what is mandated by our friendship.&quot;

(Reuters)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

"We want to believe that our allies will prefer to side with us, not with a terrorist organisation," Turkish President Erdogan said.

Turkey warned the United States on Wednesday that a decision to arm Kurdish forces fighting Islamic State in Syria could end up hurting Washington, and accused its NATO ally of siding with terrorists. The rebuke came a week before President Tayyip Erdogan is due in Washington for his first meeting with US President Donald Trump, who approved the arms supply to support a campaign to retake the Syrian city of Raqqa from Islamic State. Turkey views the YPG as the Syrian extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has fought an insurgency in southeast Turkey since 1984 and is considered a terrorist group by the United States, Turkey and Europe. "We want to believe that our allies will prefer to side with us, not with a terrorist organisation," Erdogan told a news conference in Ankara, saying he would convey Turkey's stance to Trump next week and at a NATO summit later this month. He said he hoped that recently taken decisions would be changed by the time he visits the United States. Earlier, Prime Minister Binali Yildirim told reporters the US failure to consider Turkey's sensitivities "will surely have consequences and will yield a negative result for the US as well". The United States regards the YPG as a valuable partner in the fight against Islamic State militants in northern Syria. Washington says that arming the Kurdish forces is necessary to recapturing Raqqa, Islamic State's de facto capital in Syria and a hub for planning attacks against the West. That argument holds little sway with Ankara, which worries that advances by the YPG in northern Syria could inflame the PKK insurgency on Turkish soil. Weapons supplied to the YPG have in the past fallen into PKK hands, said Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu. "Both the PKK and YPG are terrorist organisations and they are no different apart from their names," he told a televised news conference. "Every weapon seized by them is a threat to Turkey." The YPG said Washington's decision would bring swift results and help the militia "play a stronger, more influential and more decisive role in combating terrorism". The Pentagon said on Tuesday it was aware of concerns in Turkey, which has given vital support to a US-led campaign against Islamic State insurgents in Syria and Iraq. Jets carrying out air strikes against the jihadist group have flown from Turkey's Incirlik air base. Erdogan has repeatedly castigated Washington for its support of the YPG. 'Same sack' Deputy Prime Minister Nurettin Canikli said the United States should review its move. "We hope the US administration will put a stop to this wrong and turn back from it," he said in an interview with Turkish broadcaster A Haber. "Such a policy will not be beneficial; you can't be in the same sack as terrorist organisations." But US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said he was confident the United States would be able to resolve the tensions. "We'll work out any of the concerns. We will work very closely with Turkey in support of their security on their southern border. It's Europe's southern border, and we'll stay closely connected," Mattis told reporters during a visit to the Pabrade Training Area in Lithuania. Ankara has argued that Washington should switch support for the Raqqa assault from the YPG to Syrian rebels Turkey has trained and led against Islamic State for the past year - despite US scepticism about their military capability. "There is no reality in the comments that a ground operation against Daesh (Islamic State) can only be successful with the YPG. I hope they turn back from this mistake," Canikli said. Despite the angry language, Erdogan's government has little prospect of reversing Washington's decision, and any retaliatory move would come at a cost. Cavusoglu said Trump would address the issue with Trump during his planned May 16-17 visit to Washington, suggesting there were no plans to call off the talks in protest. "Turkey doesn't have much room to move here," said Sinan Ulgen, a former Turkish diplomat and analyst at Carnegie Europe. "I think Washington made such an evaluation when taking this decision." While Turkey could impose limits on the use of the Incirlik base, that would hamper operations against Islamic State, which also menaces Turkey itself and has claimed responsibility for attacks including the bombing of Istanbul airport. Turkey could also step up air strikes on PKK targets in northern Iraq. Turkish warplanes attacked Kurdish YPG fighters in northeastern Syria and Iraq's Sinjar region late last month. But Cavusoglu and Canikli both pointed to a diplomatic, rather than military, response to Trump's decision. "We are carrying out, and will carry out, all necessary diplomatic communications," Canikli said. "Our wish is that the US stops this wrong and does what is mandated by our friendship." (Reuters)

Turkey warns US of blowback from decision to arm Kurdish fighters in Syria

The Trump administration could respond to North Korea&#39;s latest failed missile test by speeding up its plans for new US sanctions against Pyongyang, including possible measures against specific North Korean and Chinese entities, a US official told Reuters on Friday.

With North Korea acting in defiance of pressure from the United States and North Korea&#39;s main ally, China, Washington could also conduct new naval drills and deploy more ships and aircraft in the region as a show of force, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

&quot;It&#39;s possible that something could be sped up,&quot; the official said of the potential for imposing a limited package of targeted sanctions on North Korea. &quot;Something that&#39;s ready to go could be taken from the larger package and expedited.&quot;

The source said the ballistic missile launch was the kind of &quot;provocation&quot; that had been anticipated ahead of South Korea&#39;s May 9 election, and President Donald Trump could use the test-firing to further press China to do more to rein in North Korea.

US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the missile fired from a region north of Pyongyang was probably a medium-range missile known as a KN-17 and appears to have broken up within minutes of taking off.

Should North Korea test-fire an intercontinental ballistic missile as it has threatened, Washington would consider it a more dangerous milestone, the administration official told Reuters, suggesting it would draw a much tougher US response.

The Trump administration is especially worried about Pyongyang&#39;s work to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the United States. Washington is also watching closely for the possibility of North Korea&#39;s sixth nuclear test.

The missile test came just hours after US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned the United Nations Security Council that failure to curb North Korea&#39;s nuclear and ballistic missile programs could lead to &quot;catastrophic consequences.&quot;

The official said any new sanctions could be rolled out in coming days and may hit a number of entities that have already been &quot;vetted&quot; by the US government for such measures, while the administration continues crafting a broader sanctions package.

The targets, the official said, could include financial institutions and front companies in North Korea as well as China, which could anger Beijing.

While Trump has praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for signalling increased cooperation on the North Korea issue, the official said Beijing still &quot;needs to draw some sort of line in the sand&quot; with Pyongyang over its nuclear and missile programs.

The military options under active consideration include displays of US power in the region meant to deter North Korea and reassure US allies South Korea, the official said.

But it stops short of pre-emptive U.S. military strikes, which could run the risk of massive North Korean retaliation and huge casualties in Japan and South Korea and among US forces in both countries.

(Reuters)

Washington could conduct new naval drills and deploy more ships and aircraft in the region

The Trump administration could respond to North Korea's latest failed missile test by speeding up its plans for new US sanctions against Pyongyang, including possible measures against specific North Korean and Chinese entities, a US official told Reuters on Friday. With North Korea acting in defiance of pressure from the United States and North Korea's main ally, China, Washington could also conduct new naval drills and deploy more ships and aircraft in the region as a show of force, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's possible that something could be sped up," the official said of the potential for imposing a limited package of targeted sanctions on North Korea. "Something that's ready to go could be taken from the larger package and expedited." The source said the ballistic missile launch was the kind of "provocation" that had been anticipated ahead of South Korea's May 9 election, and President Donald Trump could use the test-firing to further press China to do more to rein in North Korea. US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the missile fired from a region north of Pyongyang was probably a medium-range missile known as a KN-17 and appears to have broken up within minutes of taking off. Should North Korea test-fire an intercontinental ballistic missile as it has threatened, Washington would consider it a more dangerous milestone, the administration official told Reuters, suggesting it would draw a much tougher US response. The Trump administration is especially worried about Pyongyang's work to develop a nuclear-tipped missile capable of hitting the United States. Washington is also watching closely for the possibility of North Korea's sixth nuclear test. The missile test came just hours after US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson warned the United Nations Security Council that failure to curb North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs could lead to "catastrophic consequences." The official said any new sanctions could be rolled out in coming days and may hit a number of entities that have already been "vetted" by the US government for such measures, while the administration continues crafting a broader sanctions package. The targets, the official said, could include financial institutions and front companies in North Korea as well as China, which could anger Beijing. While Trump has praised Chinese President Xi Jinping for signalling increased cooperation on the North Korea issue, the official said Beijing still "needs to draw some sort of line in the sand" with Pyongyang over its nuclear and missile programs. The military options under active consideration include displays of US power in the region meant to deter North Korea and reassure US allies South Korea, the official said. But it stops short of pre-emptive U.S. military strikes, which could run the risk of massive North Korean retaliation and huge casualties in Japan and South Korea and among US forces in both countries. (Reuters)

US could respond to Pyongyang's latest failed missile test by speeding up sanctions

Russia and the United States have a shared understanding that US air strikes on Syria should not be repeated, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moualem in Moscow on Thursday, Interfax news agency reported.

He said this was &quot;concluded&quot; during Wednesday&#39;s visit of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow.

But in Washington, the US State Department said Tillerson did not eliminate the possibility the United States may undertake future strikes.

&quot;The secretary explained there were no subsequent targets after the missile strike, but he did not rule out any future action,&quot; State Department acting spokesman Mark Toner said in a statement.

&quot;He stressed that Russia is in a position to use its influence over the Assad regime to ensure it is never again necessary for the US to act,&quot; Toner said.

(Reuters)

He said this was 'concluded' during Wednesday's visit of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow

Russia and the United States have a shared understanding that US air strikes on Syria should not be repeated, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moualem in Moscow on Thursday, Interfax news agency reported. He said this was "concluded" during Wednesday's visit of US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Moscow. But in Washington, the US State Department said Tillerson did not eliminate the possibility the United States may undertake future strikes. "The secretary explained there were no subsequent targets after the missile strike, but he did not rule out any future action," State Department acting spokesman Mark Toner said in a statement. "He stressed that Russia is in a position to use its influence over the Assad regime to ensure it is never again necessary for the US to act," Toner said. (Reuters)

US and Russia agree no future air strike in Syria: Russian foreign minister

Talk about a craving: an eight-year-old American boy drove his father&#39;s van to a McDonald&#39;s because he just had to have a cheeseburger.

The Ohio boy said he learned to drive by watching YouTube videos, the Weirton Daily Times reported on Sunday evening&#39;s adventure.

The child, at the wheel with his four-year-old sister riding shotgun, drove for about a mile and a half, stopping at red lights and letting traffic pass before he executed a left turn into the McDonald&#39;s in the town of East Palestine in eastern Ohio, the paper said.

The parents were home asleep, it added.

Police were alerted by people who saw the boy driving through town.

When he pulled up to the drive-through window at the burger joint, employees thought it was all a joke.

&quot;The workers thought that the parents were in the back, but obviously they weren&#39;t,&quot; East Palestine patrolman Jacob Koehler told the newspaper.

When police showed up the boy started crying because he thought he had done something wrong, it added.

The kids&#39;&nbsp;grandparents were called to take them to the police station, and in the meantime, they got a meal of a cheeseburger, chicken nuggets and fries.

The parents picked up their kids at the police station and no charges were filed, the paper said.

(AFP)

The Ohio boy said he learned to drive by watching YouTube videos. Don't worry, keeping him safe was his 4-year-old sister sitting shotgun

Talk about a craving: an eight-year-old American boy drove his father's van to a McDonald's because he just had to have a cheeseburger. The Ohio boy said he learned to drive by watching YouTube videos, the Weirton Daily Times reported on Sunday evening's adventure. The child, at the wheel with his four-year-old sister riding shotgun, drove for about a mile and a half, stopping at red lights and letting traffic pass before he executed a left turn into the McDonald's in the town of East Palestine in eastern Ohio, the paper said. The parents were home asleep, it added. Police were alerted by people who saw the boy driving through town. When he pulled up to the drive-through window at the burger joint, employees thought it was all a joke. "The workers thought that the parents were in the back, but obviously they weren't," East Palestine patrolman Jacob Koehler told the newspaper. When police showed up the boy started crying because he thought he had done something wrong, it added. The kids' grandparents were called to take them to the police station, and in the meantime, they got a meal of a cheeseburger, chicken nuggets and fries. The parents picked up their kids at the police station and no charges were filed, the paper said. (AFP)

8-year-old boy drives dad's car to McDonald's because he just needed a cheeseburger

Top US experts have expressed concern over Pakistan&#39;s decision to give the death penalty to Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav as they warned that Islamabad wants to send a &quot;strong message&quot; to India against isolating it on the world stage.

Jadhav, 46, was given the death sentence by military Field General Court Martial under the army act for his alleged involvement in terrorism and espionage. The death sentence was confirmed by army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa.

&quot;Apart from the gross irregularities in the Jadhav situation, such as the lack of consular access and the secrecy surrounding the surprise court-martial, what struck me the most is the contrast between the speed of Mr Jadhav&#39;s trial set against the endless postponements for that of the Mumbai attackers,&quot; Alyssa Ayres, a former senior State Department official in its South and Central Asia Bureau said.

&quot;The latter case, by contrast, has been in a continual state of prolongation for nearly nine years,&quot; Ayres told PTI.

She is currently senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, a top American think-tank.

Bharat Gopalaswamy, director of South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-DC based top US think-tank, believes that the evidence warranting Jadhav&#39;s conviction &quot;is rather flimsy&quot; and the story by the Pakistani authorities &quot;do not add up&quot;.

Without furnishing further evidence, this conviction as it stands, &quot;seems to be politically motivated&quot; in order to counter India&#39;s aggressive diplomacy against Pakistan in combating terrorism, he said.

&quot;This whole story is shrouded in mystery and uncertainty, but it seems clear that Pakistan wants to send a very strong message to India, whether to warn New Delhi against meddling in Pakistan or to push back in a big way against India&#39;s efforts to isolate Pakistan on the world stage,&quot; said Michael Kugelman, deputy director and senior associate for South Asia at the prestigious Woodrow Wilson Center.

&quot;At the same time, given how much India will want to ensure that Yadav isn&#39;t executed, Pakistan now has a very large bargaining chip at its disposal. Pakistan may want to use Yadav as a trump card to get some type of major concession from India,&quot; Kugelman said.

&quot;The bottom line is that India-Pakistan relations are on life support. We can kiss goodbye any immediate prospects for resuming dialogue, though that wasn&#39;t a very strong possibility even before the announcement about Yadav&#39;s death sentence. Ultimately, India and Pakistan face some very dark and dangerous days ahead,&quot;&nbsp;he said.

Also Read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/preview/article/14403">Pakistan responds to Sushma Swaraj&#39;s statement, says&nbsp;it can defend itself</a> &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;

According to Sameer Lalwani, senior associate and deputy director for Stimson&#39;s South Asia program, said the decision and timing of Jadhav&#39;s execution sentence &quot;appears puzzling&quot; because in many ways it does not seem to work in Pakistan&#39;s self-interest.

&quot;If Jadhav posed a threat and Pakistan wanted to send a deterrent signal to potential saboteurs of CPEC and Gwadar, they could have executed him months ago after his intelligence value had been exhausted,&quot; Lalwani said.

&quot;If Pakistan wanted to exploit Jadhav&#39;s capture for diplomatic purposes by showcasing evidence of Indian sub-conventional aggression, Pakistan still has yet to convince the international community and an execution raises suspicions,&quot; Lalwani said.

&quot;Finally, if the Indians care that much about Jadhav, Pakistan could have used him as a bargaining chip. Perhaps the sentence is an opening bargaining gambit but actually executing Jadhav may not be reaping much of a deterrent signal for Pakistan while foreclosing on diplomatic or trade value,&quot; he said.

Both the State Department and the White House refused to comment on the sentencing of Jadhav.

&quot;We have seen these reports. We refer you to the governments of India and Pakistan for further information,&quot; a State Department spokesperson said.

(PTI)

Jadhav was given the death sentence by military Field General Court Martial for his alleged involvement in terrorism and espionage

Top US experts have expressed concern over Pakistan's decision to give the death penalty to Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav as they warned that Islamabad wants to send a "strong message" to India against isolating it on the world stage. Jadhav, 46, was given the death sentence by military Field General Court Martial under the army act for his alleged involvement in terrorism and espionage. The death sentence was confirmed by army chief Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa. "Apart from the gross irregularities in the Jadhav situation, such as the lack of consular access and the secrecy surrounding the surprise court-martial, what struck me the most is the contrast between the speed of Mr Jadhav's trial set against the endless postponements for that of the Mumbai attackers," Alyssa Ayres, a former senior State Department official in its South and Central Asia Bureau said. "The latter case, by contrast, has been in a continual state of prolongation for nearly nine years," Ayres told PTI. She is currently senior fellow for India, Pakistan and South Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations, a top American think-tank. Bharat Gopalaswamy, director of South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-DC based top US think-tank, believes that the evidence warranting Jadhav's conviction "is rather flimsy" and the story by the Pakistani authorities "do not add up". Without furnishing further evidence, this conviction as it stands, "seems to be politically motivated" in order to counter India's aggressive diplomacy against Pakistan in combating terrorism, he said. "This whole story is shrouded in mystery and uncertainty, but it seems clear that Pakistan wants to send a very strong message to India, whether to warn New Delhi against meddling in Pakistan or to push back in a big way against India's efforts to isolate Pakistan on the world stage," said Michael Kugelman, deputy director and senior associate for South Asia at the prestigious Woodrow Wilson Center. "At the same time, given how much India will want to ensure that Yadav isn't executed, Pakistan now has a very large bargaining chip at its disposal. Pakistan may want to use Yadav as a trump card to get some type of major concession from India," Kugelman said. "The bottom line is that India-Pakistan relations are on life support. We can kiss goodbye any immediate prospects for resuming dialogue, though that wasn't a very strong possibility even before the announcement about Yadav's death sentence. Ultimately, India and Pakistan face some very dark and dangerous days ahead," he said. Also Read: Pakistan responds to Sushma Swaraj's statement, says it can defend itself According to Sameer Lalwani, senior associate and deputy director for Stimson's South Asia program, said the decision and timing of Jadhav's execution sentence "appears puzzling" because in many ways it does not seem to work in Pakistan's self-interest. "If Jadhav posed a threat and Pakistan wanted to send a deterrent signal to potential saboteurs of CPEC and Gwadar, they could have executed him months ago after his intelligence value had been exhausted," Lalwani said. "If Pakistan wanted to exploit Jadhav's capture for diplomatic purposes by showcasing evidence of Indian sub-conventional aggression, Pakistan still has yet to convince the international community and an execution raises suspicions," Lalwani said. "Finally, if the Indians care that much about Jadhav, Pakistan could have used him as a bargaining chip. Perhaps the sentence is an opening bargaining gambit but actually executing Jadhav may not be reaping much of a deterrent signal for Pakistan while foreclosing on diplomatic or trade value," he said. Both the State Department and the White House refused to comment on the sentencing of Jadhav. "We have seen these reports. We refer you to the governments of India and Pakistan for further information," a State Department spokesperson said. (PTI)

US experts question Kulbhushan Jadhav's death sentence

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