Ahead of the US President Donald Trump's visit to India on Monday, Washington has said that Pakistan needs to act on terror groups for having a successful dialogue with India.

A senior US administration official said, "We continue to believe a core foundation of any successful dialogue between the two is based on continued momentum in Pakistan's efforts to crack down on terrorists and extremists on its territory. So we continue to look for that."

The comments come even as Pakistan remains on anti-terrorist financing body FATF's 'grey list' due to its failure to implement its action plan which calls acting on terror groups based on its territory and territories under control. The FATF in a statement released on Friday said, "all deadlines in the action plan have expired" and it now has time till June of this year or "FATF will take action".

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/washington-looks-for-indian-support-ahead-of-taliban-us-deal-282155">Washington looks for Indian support ahead of Taliban-US deal</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-pakistan-to-remain-on-the-fatf-grey-list-282108/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Asked, if US President will raise the mediation on Kashmir during his 2-day India tour, the official said, "I think what you'll hear from the President is very much encouraging a reduction in tensions between India and Pakistan, encouraging the two countries to engage in bilateral dialogue with each other to resolve their differences."

Adding, "President will urge both countries to seek to maintain peace and stability along the line of control and refrain from actions or statements that could increase tensions in the region".

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/global-watchdog-fatf-keeps-pakistan-on-terrorism-financing-grey-list-282068">Global watchdog FATF keeps Pakistan on terrorism financing 'grey list'</a>

US President last year, during Pak Prime minister Imran Khan's Washington visit, had said that Washington can mediate between India and Pakistan, something he repeated many times later.

New Delhi had categorially dismissed the idea, with PM Modi during his meet with US President in France on the sidelines of G7 said, India and Pakistan can "bilaterally" resolve all issues and "we don't want to trouble any third country".

India's official stance when it comes to India and Pakistan ties is no third party mediation which has been stated under the Shimla and Lahore agreements.

Ahead of the US President Donald Trump's visit to India on Monday, Washington has said that Pakistan needs to act on terror groups for having a successful dialogue with India.

Ahead of the US President Donald Trump's visit to India on Monday, Washington has said that Pakistan needs to act on terror groups for having a successful dialogue with India. A senior US administration official said, "We continue to believe a core foundation of any successful dialogue between the two is based on continued momentum in Pakistan's efforts to crack down on terrorists and extremists on its territory. So we continue to look for that." The comments come even as Pakistan remains on anti-terrorist financing body FATF's 'grey list' due to its failure to implement its action plan which calls acting on terror groups based on its territory and territories under control. The FATF in a statement released on Friday said, "all deadlines in the action plan have expired" and it now has time till June of this year or "FATF will take action". Also read: Washington looks for Indian support ahead of Taliban-US deal × Asked, if US President will raise the mediation on Kashmir during his 2-day India tour, the official said, "I think what you'll hear from the President is very much encouraging a reduction in tensions between India and Pakistan, encouraging the two countries to engage in bilateral dialogue with each other to resolve their differences." Adding, "President will urge both countries to seek to maintain peace and stability along the line of control and refrain from actions or statements that could increase tensions in the region". Also read: Global watchdog FATF keeps Pakistan on terrorism financing 'grey list' US President last year, during Pak Prime minister Imran Khan's Washington visit, had said that Washington can mediate between India and Pakistan, something he repeated many times later. New Delhi had categorially dismissed the idea, with PM Modi during his meet with US President in France on the sidelines of G7 said, India and Pakistan can "bilaterally" resolve all issues and "we don't want to trouble any third country". India's official stance when it comes to India and Pakistan ties is no third party mediation which has been stated under the Shimla and Lahore agreements.

Islamabad has to act on terror for successful India-Pak dialogue: US

US President Donald Trump will land in India on Monday.&nbsp; 
 
He is preparing to contest the next election in a few months and any diplomatic move, state visit or global engagement is now being closely watched at home.

Also, around the world, all eyes will be on the Modi- Trump meet. In short, this is a big event and some vested groups want to ride this event and make a nuisance.

Four American lawmakers have written to US Secretary of State - Mike Pompeo. They want Trump to take a stand against the shutdown in Kashmir, and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA).

The letter claims that the rights of certain religious minorities and the secular character of the Indian state are under threat. The lawmakers describe the events in Jammu and Kashmir as troubling.

They have asked Mike Pompeo for assessments on a few points:&nbsp;

The number of political detainees in Kashmir and whether they have been subjected to torture or not. Restrictions on the Internet and mobile service, access for foreign diplomats, journalists and observers.

They also want to know if the implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) would render anyone stateless. And, they are demanding specific numbers. 
&nbsp; 
These are leaders from both sides of the aisle, a group of bipartisan lawmakers - Chris Van Hollen and Richard Durbin are from the democratic party; Todd Young and Lindsey Graham from the Republican Party. Graham is the same lawmaker who was recently rebuffed by External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar.

Other lawmakers too are using the opportunity to mount pressure on Trump, Ami Bera is one of them. He is an influential lawmaker - who has expressed concern over India's new Citizenship Law and the situation in Kashmir. George Holding - a Republican lawmaker has also spoken out. They all want Trump to say something on both the issues.

So far, the United States has stood by India, at the same time, Trump has made repeated offers of mediation between India and Pakistan on Kashmir. However, it's not certain if Trump plans to bring up Kashmir or CAA while he is in India. 
 
What will most certainly figure in the talks is trade.

&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump will land in India on Monday. He is preparing to contest the next election in a few months and any diplomatic move, state visit or global engagement is now being closely watched at home.

US President Donald Trump will land in India on Monday. He is preparing to contest the next election in a few months and any diplomatic move, state visit or global engagement is now being closely watched at home. Also, around the world, all eyes will be on the Modi- Trump meet. In short, this is a big event and some vested groups want to ride this event and make a nuisance. Four American lawmakers have written to US Secretary of State - Mike Pompeo. They want Trump to take a stand against the shutdown in Kashmir, and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). The letter claims that the rights of certain religious minorities and the secular character of the Indian state are under threat. The lawmakers describe the events in Jammu and Kashmir as troubling. They have asked Mike Pompeo for assessments on a few points: The number of political detainees in Kashmir and whether they have been subjected to torture or not. Restrictions on the Internet and mobile service, access for foreign diplomats, journalists and observers. They also want to know if the implementation of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) would render anyone stateless. And, they are demanding specific numbers. These are leaders from both sides of the aisle, a group of bipartisan lawmakers - Chris Van Hollen and Richard Durbin are from the democratic party; Todd Young and Lindsey Graham from the Republican Party. Graham is the same lawmaker who was recently rebuffed by External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar. Other lawmakers too are using the opportunity to mount pressure on Trump, Ami Bera is one of them. He is an influential lawmaker - who has expressed concern over India's new Citizenship Law and the situation in Kashmir. George Holding - a Republican lawmaker has also spoken out. They all want Trump to say something on both the issues. So far, the United States has stood by India, at the same time, Trump has made repeated offers of mediation between India and Pakistan on Kashmir. However, it's not certain if Trump plans to bring up Kashmir or CAA while he is in India. What will most certainly figure in the talks is trade.

How should India approach Donald Trump's state visit?

When US President Donald Trump lands in India, it's going to be like one of those great Indian weddings - probably the grandest of them all, one that will culminate in the biggest cricket stadium in the world.

But what cannot be brushed under the red carpet being rolled out to Trump is the fact that the trade deal with India is still not done.

Trump is busy bragging how many millions are going to gather when he lands - seven million. Even by Trump's standards, this is an exaggeration.

It's another matter that the total population of Ahmedabad city is about 5 and a half million, but the President is not known to be bothered with facts very much.&nbsp;

And this latest one made in India could turn out to be very expensive because Trump brings with him zero clarity on the biggest issue on the table - the trade deal - which has been stuck in limbo for a while now.

India made a valiant attempt in September last year, sending Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal to the UNGA in New York at the last moment, just to see if the momentum around the 'Howdy Modi' event could lead to a deal - it didn't.

And now it's time for 'Namaste Trump' already. As he comes calling - the question is - do India and the United States have any chances of hammering out a trade deal?

The US trade representative &nbsp;- Robert Lighthizer - has already cancelled his India visit, despite some major concessions being proposed - no breakthroughs have been reported so far in the negotiations.

Trump has been complaining about Indian tariffs for the whole of last year, and that stance doesn't seem to have changed - he has effectively ruled out a bilateral trade deal.

At least until his possible re-election in November. "We can have a trade deal with India, but I’m really saving the big deal for later on, we’re doing a very big trade deal with India. We’ll have it. I don’t know if it’ll be done before the election, but we’ll have a very big deal with India," Trump's comments and the lukewarm efforts at negotiation raise a bigger question.

Is this visit more about optics than actual bilateral business?

Trump seems more excited about the massive roadshow and the event at Sardar Patel Stadium than about bilateral trade, and defence cooperation.

The trade deal might not come through before the elections, but Trump certainly has a lot to gain in the meantime. Gujarati-Americans have considerable clout in the United States of America.

And they will be an important vote bank for Trump in the election in&nbsp;November - members of US delegation have already started arriving in India.

India's Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla met with the American Congressional delegation. The chairman of the sub-committee on Asia-Pacific Affairs was leading it.

Members of the India Caucus were also present at the meeting. According to the sources in the Indian government, India's counter to Trump's high tariff complaint is Korea and Japan who levy higher tariffs than India.

The sources have also said that no big-ticket announcements should be expected during Trump's visit- now that certainly sets the expectations right for Trump's trip. 
&nbsp;

When US President Donald Trump lands in India, it's going to be like one of those great Indian weddings - probably the grandest of them all, one that will culminate in the biggest cricket stadium in the world.

When US President Donald Trump lands in India, it's going to be like one of those great Indian weddings - probably the grandest of them all, one that will culminate in the biggest cricket stadium in the world. But what cannot be brushed under the red carpet being rolled out to Trump is the fact that the trade deal with India is still not done. Trump is busy bragging how many millions are going to gather when he lands - seven million. Even by Trump's standards, this is an exaggeration. It's another matter that the total population of Ahmedabad city is about 5 and a half million, but the President is not known to be bothered with facts very much. And this latest one made in India could turn out to be very expensive because Trump brings with him zero clarity on the biggest issue on the table - the trade deal - which has been stuck in limbo for a while now. India made a valiant attempt in September last year, sending Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal to the UNGA in New York at the last moment, just to see if the momentum around the 'Howdy Modi' event could lead to a deal - it didn't. And now it's time for 'Namaste Trump' already. As he comes calling - the question is - do India and the United States have any chances of hammering out a trade deal? The US trade representative - Robert Lighthizer - has already cancelled his India visit, despite some major concessions being proposed - no breakthroughs have been reported so far in the negotiations. Trump has been complaining about Indian tariffs for the whole of last year, and that stance doesn't seem to have changed - he has effectively ruled out a bilateral trade deal. At least until his possible re-election in November. "We can have a trade deal with India, but I’m really saving the big deal for later on, we’re doing a very big trade deal with India. We’ll have it. I don’t know if it’ll be done before the election, but we’ll have a very big deal with India," Trump's comments and the lukewarm efforts at negotiation raise a bigger question. Is this visit more about optics than actual bilateral business? Trump seems more excited about the massive roadshow and the event at Sardar Patel Stadium than about bilateral trade, and defence cooperation. The trade deal might not come through before the elections, but Trump certainly has a lot to gain in the meantime. Gujarati-Americans have considerable clout in the United States of America. And they will be an important vote bank for Trump in the election in November - members of US delegation have already started arriving in India. India's Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla met with the American Congressional delegation. The chairman of the sub-committee on Asia-Pacific Affairs was leading it. Members of the India Caucus were also present at the meeting. According to the sources in the Indian government, India's counter to Trump's high tariff complaint is Korea and Japan who levy higher tariffs than India. The sources have also said that no big-ticket announcements should be expected during Trump's visit- now that certainly sets the expectations right for Trump's trip.

Here's why no trade deal should be expected during Donald Trump's India visit

Iran elections come at a time when the Islamic Republic is most vulnerable, both from the inside and from the outside. American sanctions have crippled the economy and public anger against the regime has raged on unabated.

Iranians will vote for the first time since US President Donald Trump pulled out of the Nuclear Deal. Whether they turn out in big numbers or not will be a referendum in itself.

This Parliamentary election of Iran is a litmus test of the people's faith in the state. It comes at a time when the sentiment against the regime is at its worst.

The confrontation with America, the economic hardship and an airline tragedy - the people's confidence in Iran's leaders is battered 
and that is set to pose the biggest problem for the authorities in this election. &nbsp;

Four years ago, things looked very different - Hassan Rouhani and his allies won big. Hopes were high that the 2015 nuclear deal would pull Iran out of political isolation, and more importantly boost the economy.

But now, the vote to pick 290 lawmakers comes after the US pulled out of the deal. Sanctions have sent the economy on a swift downward spiral over the last 2 years and the standard of living has dipped.&nbsp;

In November 2019, protests exploded across the country against fuel price hikes. Those protests turned political, with demonstrators demanding a regime change.

A crackdown by the revolutionary guards killed hundreds and thousands of others were arrested. The regime also faced major flack for the poor handling of slain General Qasem Soleimani's funeral. The stampede which occurred during his funeral killed over 50 people and more than 200 were injured.

The public is also livid over the accidental downing of the Ukrainian passenger plane last month, which killed all 176 people aboard - mainly Iranians.

After days of denial, Tehran finally put the blame on the revolutionary guards. The people of Iran are exhausted by a string of crises.&nbsp;

Around 58 million Iranians are eligible to vote - the turnout in 2012 was 66 per cent, in 2016, it reduced to 62 per cent and in 2020, it is expected to drop significantly.

Nearly half of the candidates, with moderate political views, have been rejected. Ayatollah Khamenei has ensured that hardliners dominate the field. He is Iran's highest authority and has tried to drum up the nationalistic sentiment to secure a strong turnout.

Whatever be the turnout, Iran's foreign policy or nuclear policy will remain the same because it will be Khamenei's loyalists who will be in Parliament.

Iran elections come at a time when the Islamic Republic is most vulnerable, both from the inside and from the outside. American sanctions have crippled the economy and public anger against the regime has raged on unabated.

Iran elections come at a time when the Islamic Republic is most vulnerable, both from the inside and from the outside. American sanctions have crippled the economy and public anger against the regime has raged on unabated. Iranians will vote for the first time since US President Donald Trump pulled out of the Nuclear Deal. Whether they turn out in big numbers or not will be a referendum in itself. This Parliamentary election of Iran is a litmus test of the people's faith in the state. It comes at a time when the sentiment against the regime is at its worst. The confrontation with America, the economic hardship and an airline tragedy - the people's confidence in Iran's leaders is battered and that is set to pose the biggest problem for the authorities in this election. Four years ago, things looked very different - Hassan Rouhani and his allies won big. Hopes were high that the 2015 nuclear deal would pull Iran out of political isolation, and more importantly boost the economy. But now, the vote to pick 290 lawmakers comes after the US pulled out of the deal. Sanctions have sent the economy on a swift downward spiral over the last 2 years and the standard of living has dipped. In November 2019, protests exploded across the country against fuel price hikes. Those protests turned political, with demonstrators demanding a regime change. A crackdown by the revolutionary guards killed hundreds and thousands of others were arrested. The regime also faced major flack for the poor handling of slain General Qasem Soleimani's funeral. The stampede which occurred during his funeral killed over 50 people and more than 200 were injured. The public is also livid over the accidental downing of the Ukrainian passenger plane last month, which killed all 176 people aboard - mainly Iranians. After days of denial, Tehran finally put the blame on the revolutionary guards. The people of Iran are exhausted by a string of crises. Around 58 million Iranians are eligible to vote - the turnout in 2012 was 66 per cent, in 2016, it reduced to 62 per cent and in 2020, it is expected to drop significantly. Nearly half of the candidates, with moderate political views, have been rejected. Ayatollah Khamenei has ensured that hardliners dominate the field. He is Iran's highest authority and has tried to drum up the nationalistic sentiment to secure a strong turnout. Whatever be the turnout, Iran's foreign policy or nuclear policy will remain the same because it will be Khamenei's loyalists who will be in Parliament.

US pullout from nuclear deal makes Iran elections even more crucial

Today, we lament the loss of the media's credibility, but the fact is that it has often been questioned in the past too.

The line between News and propaganda is a fine one. When states target News outfits in a proxy battle, then it's time to revisit the rules.

Let's discuss how the media can tread this fine line in the age of nationalistic politics and trigger happy diplomacy? How can the media safeguard its Independence?

Is the media really independent or is it a handmaiden of political powers? Is it only corporate or government ownership that compromises the media? or do obvious political biases play a role?

There's a lot of ground to cover, as always we start with some figures - just 9 per cent of the world's population live in countries where journalists can operate freely and independently.

This is according to a report by reporters without borders, in the rest of the world, strongmen are rising and press freedoms are eroding.

Media outlets face an existential crisis - both in monetary and moral terms. It's a tough balancing act, if you don't question the powers that be, you're not doing your job.

But if you criticise them, you lose access or in extreme cases your licence to operate.&nbsp;

Two years ago, Thailand's Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha found a new way to dodge tricky questions from the press - he installed a cardboard cutout at a press conference.

Three years back, Czech president Milos Zeman waved a mock rifle at journalists - again at a press conference. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has a reputation of threatening and abusing journalists.

And who can forget this fiery exchange between US President Donald Trump and a CNN correspondent. The American government revoked his press credentials for quizzing Trump.

Jim Acosta won back access to the white house in court. It's a sign of the times - in the age of nationalism, leaders are more confrontational, they see the press as a party to political battles.

And they take on the press as they would take on the Opposition - political leanings, and not objectivity, dictate media coverage. And media outlets face the consequences of such compromises.

Attacking state-owned media is now a legitimate tool of diplomatic retaliation - America leads the world here. It first declared Russian state media as foreign agents, now it is targetting Chinese organisations. &nbsp;

The Trump administration says it is cracking down on propaganda machinery of rival states - there is some merit to that argument.

Around the world, the press has now begun to wear their political leanings on their sleeves. News stories turn into hit jobs or politically motivated campaigns.

It's becoming harder to distinguish news from comment, fact from fiction and reports from opinion. Governments are arming themselves with state media machinery to counter negative reportage and set the narrative.

In the age of social media, leaders have found ways to bypass the gatekeepers of mass media and communicate directly with the people.&nbsp;

Any story, opinion or thought that doesn't fit the official narrative is challenged - the result is stronger scrutiny of journalists and more barriers in their path.

These are challenging times for the global press and branding journalists as state agents is another low. 
 
&nbsp;

Today, we lament the loss of the media's credibility, but the fact is that it has often been questioned in the past too. The line between News and propaganda is a fine one.

Today, we lament the loss of the media's credibility, but the fact is that it has often been questioned in the past too. The line between News and propaganda is a fine one. When states target News outfits in a proxy battle, then it's time to revisit the rules. Let's discuss how the media can tread this fine line in the age of nationalistic politics and trigger happy diplomacy? How can the media safeguard its Independence? Is the media really independent or is it a handmaiden of political powers? Is it only corporate or government ownership that compromises the media? or do obvious political biases play a role? There's a lot of ground to cover, as always we start with some figures - just 9 per cent of the world's population live in countries where journalists can operate freely and independently. This is according to a report by reporters without borders, in the rest of the world, strongmen are rising and press freedoms are eroding. Media outlets face an existential crisis - both in monetary and moral terms. It's a tough balancing act, if you don't question the powers that be, you're not doing your job. But if you criticise them, you lose access or in extreme cases your licence to operate. Two years ago, Thailand's Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha found a new way to dodge tricky questions from the press - he installed a cardboard cutout at a press conference. Three years back, Czech president Milos Zeman waved a mock rifle at journalists - again at a press conference. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has a reputation of threatening and abusing journalists. And who can forget this fiery exchange between US President Donald Trump and a CNN correspondent. The American government revoked his press credentials for quizzing Trump. Jim Acosta won back access to the white house in court. It's a sign of the times - in the age of nationalism, leaders are more confrontational, they see the press as a party to political battles. And they take on the press as they would take on the Opposition - political leanings, and not objectivity, dictate media coverage. And media outlets face the consequences of such compromises. Attacking state-owned media is now a legitimate tool of diplomatic retaliation - America leads the world here. It first declared Russian state media as foreign agents, now it is targetting Chinese organisations. The Trump administration says it is cracking down on propaganda machinery of rival states - there is some merit to that argument. Around the world, the press has now begun to wear their political leanings on their sleeves. News stories turn into hit jobs or politically motivated campaigns. It's becoming harder to distinguish news from comment, fact from fiction and reports from opinion. Governments are arming themselves with state media machinery to counter negative reportage and set the narrative. In the age of social media, leaders have found ways to bypass the gatekeepers of mass media and communicate directly with the people. Any story, opinion or thought that doesn't fit the official narrative is challenged - the result is stronger scrutiny of journalists and more barriers in their path. These are challenging times for the global press and branding journalists as state agents is another low.

WION Edit: Attacking the media, a tool for diplomatic retaliation?

India's cabinet on Wednesday approved a plan to sign an initial pact on intellectual property rights with the United States, a government minister said, days ahead of a visit by U.S. President Donald Trump.

The United States has long urged India to strengthen protection for intellectual property and that has been a cause of friction on top of trade disputes between the two countries.

Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar said approval for an MoU with the United States was secured at a cabinet meeting presided over by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

India's cabinet on Wednesday approved a plan to sign an initial pact on intellectual property rights with the United States, a government minister said, days ahead of a visit by U.

India's cabinet on Wednesday approved a plan to sign an initial pact on intellectual property rights with the United States, a government minister said, days ahead of a visit by U.S. President Donald Trump. The United States has long urged India to strengthen protection for intellectual property and that has been a cause of friction on top of trade disputes between the two countries. Information and Broadcasting Minister Prakash Javadekar said approval for an MoU with the United States was secured at a cabinet meeting presided over by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

India clears accord on intellectual property rights with US

By Tom Smith

The president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, decided to terminate a prominent and unpopular military agreement with the US in early February. The move came as a direct response to Washington’s invocation of the American Magnitsky Act, which gives the US government the power to impose visa and financial sanctions on human rights abusers around the world.

But Duterte is using it as a pretext to push the Philippines, which is battling an ongoing series of insurgencies, closer to China.

Duterte’s “drug war” has killed over 20,000 people (nobody knows the true extent). In January, the US triggered the Magnitsky Act over the violence. The US then denied a US visa and froze the assets of Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, a close ally of Duterte who is now the National Police Chief and figurehead of the war on drugs.

After a month of procrastinating, Duterte followed through on his threat to terminate the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which allows US military personnel and equipment to move through the Philippines and is the basis of a deeply entrenched military alliance between the two countries. There are some 300 US-Philippines joint exercises each year and the Philippines remains a key strategic ally for the US.

So far so tit-for-tat. But Duterte, a proud America-basher, knows there will be plenty who support withdrawing from the VFA.

The VFA has been a symbol of American imperialism in the Philippines since its inception in 1998. It was one of the few issues that united liberals and nationalists, who argued that it was unconstitutional and point to incidents of US Marines using the VFA to try and avoid Filipino justice – most notoriously in the case of the 2014 murder of Filipino trans woman Jennifer Laude.

Liberals have argued forcefully that the country was in an unbalanced, if not abusive, relationship with the US. But it has taken an authoritarian president and a ruthless campaign of extrajudicial killings to enact any re-balance. If that doesn’t quell celebrations in the Philippines and elsewhere at the termination of the VFA, then thinking through the possible fallout and its implications for the country and wider region will.

Territorial disputes and terrorism

The US president, Donald Trump, shrugged off the Philippines’ decision. There are still other Philippine-US military agreements in place: the more comprehensive 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is already being targetted for termination too, according to Duterte’s spokesman.

Besides this, the US still has a separate mutual defence pact with its former colony and assists internally as well as externally in security operations. The US has played a key role in counter-terror and counter-insurgency campaigns in the Philippines since 9/11.

Focusing on Islamist rather than communist groups, US training, intelligence and surveillance has been a constant presence for the past two decades, if not very successful. Violence proliferates from a variety of ever-evolving militant groups and US assistance if not insistence on offensive operations has a patchy record.

When the US helped the army end its five-month siege of Marawi city in 2017, not only did it fail to prevent the destruction of the city. It oversaw what Amnesty International alleged were violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

What value the US is bringing to the battle with Islamist militancy certainly deserves scrutiny. But the prospect of less Western oversight and training for the Philippines in this complex and often exoticised conflict is also concerning.

Externally, the South China Sea dispute between China and a host of nations, including the Philippines, is critical to US interests in the region. The alliance with the Philippines has been a key part of US strategy in countering Chinese expansionism in the region.

The Philippines sought redress at the International Court of Arbitration over territorial claims against the Chinese and won. China was found to be in breach of international law in 2016, but Duterte has since tried to entirely ignore the dispute, which was launched by a predecessor, as he is keen to push back against US influence and inclined to build closer relations with China. He is unwilling to be a pawn in the tussle between Washington and Beijing and openly courted closer Russian and Chinese relations.

Can China fill the US void?

Senior US and Filipino military officials are unhappy with the VFA termination. While the US blames Duterte and insists the US is doing the right thing in terms of human rights, the move pits Duterte against his own military. They think he’s potentially taken away their support and that he’s cow-towing to Beijing.

The prospect of the Philippines surrendering territory to China and potentially involving its military in counter-terror operations should fill few with joy. Chinese counter-terror operations in its own Xinjiang province towards the Uighur are hardly a best-practice guide for a nation already swamped by human rights abuses.

Yet Duterte, who openly admits to the “militarisation of government” has politicised his military. The military is bonded to him through its role in the war on drugs and by numerous political appointments of military figures to government.

The Americans have more options, large bases in stable nations including Japan and South Korea and other allies across Southeast Asia. While Filipinos have already suffered under Duterte, with two years left of his tenure the Americans may take a leaf out of the Chinese playbook by playing the long game and waiting out Duterte in favour of a new administration willing to stand up to China.

(Tom Smith is Principal Lecturer in International Relations, University of Portsmouth)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/rodrigo-duterte-terminated-a-military-agreement-with-us-why-it-could-push-philippines-closer-to-china-131812">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

By Tom Smith The president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, decided to terminate a prominent and unpopular military agreement with the US in early February. The move came as a direct response to Washington’s invocation of the American Magnitsky Act, which gives the US government the power to impose visa and financial sanctions on human rights abusers around the world.

By Tom Smith The president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, decided to terminate a prominent and unpopular military agreement with the US in early February. The move came as a direct response to Washington’s invocation of the American Magnitsky Act, which gives the US government the power to impose visa and financial sanctions on human rights abusers around the world. But Duterte is using it as a pretext to push the Philippines, which is battling an ongoing series of insurgencies, closer to China. Duterte’s “drug war” has killed over 20,000 people (nobody knows the true extent). In January, the US triggered the Magnitsky Act over the violence. The US then denied a US visa and froze the assets of Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, a close ally of Duterte who is now the National Police Chief and figurehead of the war on drugs. After a month of procrastinating, Duterte followed through on his threat to terminate the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), which allows US military personnel and equipment to move through the Philippines and is the basis of a deeply entrenched military alliance between the two countries. There are some 300 US-Philippines joint exercises each year and the Philippines remains a key strategic ally for the US. So far so tit-for-tat. But Duterte, a proud America-basher, knows there will be plenty who support withdrawing from the VFA. The VFA has been a symbol of American imperialism in the Philippines since its inception in 1998. It was one of the few issues that united liberals and nationalists, who argued that it was unconstitutional and point to incidents of US Marines using the VFA to try and avoid Filipino justice – most notoriously in the case of the 2014 murder of Filipino trans woman Jennifer Laude. Liberals have argued forcefully that the country was in an unbalanced, if not abusive, relationship with the US. But it has taken an authoritarian president and a ruthless campaign of extrajudicial killings to enact any re-balance. If that doesn’t quell celebrations in the Philippines and elsewhere at the termination of the VFA, then thinking through the possible fallout and its implications for the country and wider region will. Territorial disputes and terrorism The US president, Donald Trump, shrugged off the Philippines’ decision. There are still other Philippine-US military agreements in place: the more comprehensive 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) is already being targetted for termination too, according to Duterte’s spokesman. Besides this, the US still has a separate mutual defence pact with its former colony and assists internally as well as externally in security operations. The US has played a key role in counter-terror and counter-insurgency campaigns in the Philippines since 9/11. Focusing on Islamist rather than communist groups, US training, intelligence and surveillance has been a constant presence for the past two decades, if not very successful. Violence proliferates from a variety of ever-evolving militant groups and US assistance if not insistence on offensive operations has a patchy record. When the US helped the army end its five-month siege of Marawi city in 2017, not only did it fail to prevent the destruction of the city. It oversaw what Amnesty International alleged were violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. What value the US is bringing to the battle with Islamist militancy certainly deserves scrutiny. But the prospect of less Western oversight and training for the Philippines in this complex and often exoticised conflict is also concerning. Externally, the South China Sea dispute between China and a host of nations, including the Philippines, is critical to US interests in the region. The alliance with the Philippines has been a key part of US strategy in countering Chinese expansionism in the region. The Philippines sought redress at the International Court of Arbitration over territorial claims against the Chinese and won. China was found to be in breach of international law in 2016, but Duterte has since tried to entirely ignore the dispute, which was launched by a predecessor, as he is keen to push back against US influence and inclined to build closer relations with China. He is unwilling to be a pawn in the tussle between Washington and Beijing and openly courted closer Russian and Chinese relations. Can China fill the US void? Senior US and Filipino military officials are unhappy with the VFA termination. While the US blames Duterte and insists the US is doing the right thing in terms of human rights, the move pits Duterte against his own military. They think he’s potentially taken away their support and that he’s cow-towing to Beijing. The prospect of the Philippines surrendering territory to China and potentially involving its military in counter-terror operations should fill few with joy. Chinese counter-terror operations in its own Xinjiang province towards the Uighur are hardly a best-practice guide for a nation already swamped by human rights abuses. Yet Duterte, who openly admits to the “militarisation of government” has politicised his military. The military is bonded to him through its role in the war on drugs and by numerous political appointments of military figures to government. The Americans have more options, large bases in stable nations including Japan and South Korea and other allies across Southeast Asia. While Filipinos have already suffered under Duterte, with two years left of his tenure the Americans may take a leaf out of the Chinese playbook by playing the long game and waiting out Duterte in favour of a new administration willing to stand up to China. (Tom Smith is Principal Lecturer in International Relations, University of Portsmouth) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why a terminated agreement with the US could push the Philippines closer to China

General Motors Co said that it will wind down sales, design and engineering operations in Australia and New Zealand and retire the Holden brand by 2021. Basically, It decides to retreat from more markets outside of the United States and China.

American General Motors decides to retreat from more markets outside of the US & China

A 14-year-old boy in the United States has been charged by the New York Police Department (NYPD) for stabbing and will be tried as an adult.

According to reports, Rashaun Weaver fatally stabbed a college student called Tessa Majors in December.

Weaver will be tried as an adult for two counts of second-degree murder and several counts of robbery. He has also been charged for a felony.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-promises-sweeping-reform-to-system-after-terror-stabbing-278202">UK promises sweeping reform after terror stabbing</a>

As per reports, Weaver has been held after nearly a couple of months since the crime took place.&nbsp;

On December 11, Weaver stabbed 18-years-old Majors while two other teens stood and watched. Majors was robbed for which another 13-year-old has been held in custody. The teen is believed to have robbed Majors and witnessed Weaver repeatedly plunge&nbsp;the knife into Majors.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/mass-stabbing-reported-at-jewish-place-of-worship-in-new-york-270818">Mass stabbing reported at Jewish place of worship in New York&nbsp;</a>

Majors was a freshman at the prestigious Barnard College. On the evening of December 11, she was confronted by three teenagers and was robbed, later stabbed.&nbsp;

A 14-year-old boy in the United States has been charged by the New York Police Department (NYPD) for stabbing and will be tried as an adult. According to reports, Rashaun Weaver fatally stabbed a college student called Tessa Majors in December.

A 14-year-old boy in the United States has been charged by the New York Police Department (NYPD) for stabbing and will be tried as an adult. According to reports, Rashaun Weaver fatally stabbed a college student called Tessa Majors in December. Weaver will be tried as an adult for two counts of second-degree murder and several counts of robbery. He has also been charged for a felony. Also read: UK promises sweeping reform after terror stabbing As per reports, Weaver has been held after nearly a couple of months since the crime took place. On December 11, Weaver stabbed 18-years-old Majors while two other teens stood and watched. Majors was robbed for which another 13-year-old has been held in custody. The teen is believed to have robbed Majors and witnessed Weaver repeatedly plunge the knife into Majors. Also read: Mass stabbing reported at Jewish place of worship in New York Majors was a freshman at the prestigious Barnard College. On the evening of December 11, she was confronted by three teenagers and was robbed, later stabbed.

US teen charged with murder, to be tried as an adult 

Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said nationalistic policies have been electorally validated in the US and China and economic rebalancing is becoming political rebalancing.

Speaking during a panel discussion at the Munich Security Conference in Germany on Friday, Jaishankar said "What has led to weaker multilateralism? We have seen in the last 20 years an economic rebalancing in the world. It was a question of time before the economic rebalancing translated into political rebalancing... If there is going to be political rebalancing then we are going to be in a transition era," he said

US Senator Lindsey Graham tried to raise the Kashmir issue at the conference and said, “When it comes to Kashmir, I don’t know how it ends, but let us make sure, two democracies will end it differently.“

Jaishankar replied, “don’t worry senator. One democracy will settle it, and you know which one!“

The minister stressed that the United Nations is far less credible today than it has been through its history, "which is not surprising because when you think about it, there are not too many things which are 75 years old and still as good as they were"."Clearly, there is something that needs to be done there," Jaishankar added. 
&nbsp;

Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said nationalistic policies have been electorally validated in the US and China and economic rebalancing is becoming political rebalancing.

Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said nationalistic policies have been electorally validated in the US and China and economic rebalancing is becoming political rebalancing. Speaking during a panel discussion at the Munich Security Conference in Germany on Friday, Jaishankar said "What has led to weaker multilateralism? We have seen in the last 20 years an economic rebalancing in the world. It was a question of time before the economic rebalancing translated into political rebalancing... If there is going to be political rebalancing then we are going to be in a transition era," he said US Senator Lindsey Graham tried to raise the Kashmir issue at the conference and said, “When it comes to Kashmir, I don’t know how it ends, but let us make sure, two democracies will end it differently.“ Jaishankar replied, “don’t worry senator. One democracy will settle it, and you know which one!“ The minister stressed that the United Nations is far less credible today than it has been through its history, "which is not surprising because when you think about it, there are not too many things which are 75 years old and still as good as they were"."Clearly, there is something that needs to be done there," Jaishankar added.

World more nationalistic today, says External Affairs Minister Jaishankar

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/european-commission-could-slap-3-billion-euro-fine-on-italy-for-excessive-debt-deputy-pm-salvini-222359">European Commission</a> has opened an investigation into whether China is dumping aluminium extrusions, products widely used in transport, construction and electronics, in the European Union, it said on Friday.

A notice in the EU's Official Journal said it was acting on a complaint filed last month by industry group European Aluminium representing seven producers.

"The evidence provided by the complainant shows that the volume and the prices of the imported product under investigation have had, among other consequences, a negative impact," the Commission said.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/latest-business-news-google-goes-to-court-for-825-billion-euros-over-eu-antitrust-violations-280222">Google goes to court over EU antitrust fines</a>

European Aluminium welcomed the move, calling for an urgent launch of anti-dumping duties.

"In the past year, production lines and entire plants closed, with significant job losses as a result. We ask the EU to be proactive rather than wait until it is too late," Gerd Götz, director general of European Aluminium, said in a statement.

Aluminium extrusions from China are already subject to anti-dumping duties in the United States, Canada, Australia and Vietnam, the statement added.

Aluminium extrusions are used for engine blocks and chassis in autos, to house coaxial cables for electronics and as building facades in construction.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/european-union-slaps-anti-dumping-duty-on-steel-imports-from-china-11764">European Union slaps anti-dumping duty on steel imports from China</a>

Wen Xianjun, vice chairman of the China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association, who previously led aluminium anti-dumping negotiations with the United States, said his department opposed the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/european-union-slaps-anti-dumping-duty-on-steel-imports-from-china-11764">EU </a>investigation and was studying it.

"It will further increase global trade protectionism. We will organise related companies to actively respond to the complaint," said Wen, who is also an independent non-executive director at China's top aluminium extruder China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd.

Members of European Aluminium include Norsk Hydro, Rio Tinto and Alcoa.

They are battling a weak market impacted by a lack of demand, including from the auto sector.

The European Commission has opened an investigation into whether China is dumping aluminium extrusions, products widely used in transport, construction and electronics, in the European Union, it said on Friday.

The European Commission has opened an investigation into whether China is dumping aluminium extrusions, products widely used in transport, construction and electronics, in the European Union, it said on Friday. A notice in the EU's Official Journal said it was acting on a complaint filed last month by industry group European Aluminium representing seven producers. "The evidence provided by the complainant shows that the volume and the prices of the imported product under investigation have had, among other consequences, a negative impact," the Commission said. Also read: Google goes to court over EU antitrust fines European Aluminium welcomed the move, calling for an urgent launch of anti-dumping duties. "In the past year, production lines and entire plants closed, with significant job losses as a result. We ask the EU to be proactive rather than wait until it is too late," Gerd Götz, director general of European Aluminium, said in a statement. Aluminium extrusions from China are already subject to anti-dumping duties in the United States, Canada, Australia and Vietnam, the statement added. Aluminium extrusions are used for engine blocks and chassis in autos, to house coaxial cables for electronics and as building facades in construction. Also read: European Union slaps anti-dumping duty on steel imports from China Wen Xianjun, vice chairman of the China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association, who previously led aluminium anti-dumping negotiations with the United States, said his department opposed the EU investigation and was studying it. "It will further increase global trade protectionism. We will organise related companies to actively respond to the complaint," said Wen, who is also an independent non-executive director at China's top aluminium extruder China Zhongwang Holdings Ltd. Members of European Aluminium include Norsk Hydro, Rio Tinto and Alcoa. They are battling a weak market impacted by a lack of demand, including from the auto sector.

European Union launches anti-dumping investigation on China aluminium products

Fifteen children died in a fire that swept overnight through an orphanage in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/haiti-opposition-condemns-countrys-slide-into-rule-by-decree-274329">Haiti </a>run by a US&nbsp;religious group, authorities said on Friday, triggering renewed controversy over the hundreds of unlicensed orphanages in the poorest nation in the Americas.

Two children were burned to death and 13 died due to smoke inhalation in the blaze that ravaged the Pennsylvania-based Church of Bible Understanding's orphanage in Kenscoff, just south of the capital.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/47-children-evacuated-from-aleppo-orphanage-some-in-critical-shape-un-10324/amp">47 children evacuated from Aleppo orphanage, some in critical shape: UN</a>

The cause of the blaze was not clear. One of the children at the orphanage told Reuters they had been using candles because the power in the block was out and a generator was not working.

Arielle Jeanty Villedrouin, director of the Institute for Social Welfare, said the religious group did not have a license to operate the institution, which housed around 60 children.

"Orphanages" mostly house not just orphans but children whose parents feel they cannot afford to look after them proliferated after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti that killed tens of thousands.

Yet just 35 of 754 such institutions are officially authorized, with another 100 in the process of getting a license. The government has closed around 160 institutions over the last five years, Villedrouin said, and has barred more from opening.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/haiti-opposition-condemns-countrys-slide-into-rule-by-decree-274329">Haiti opposition condemns country's slide into rule by decree</a>

"We are going to place them in a transit center while we do research on their family and see if we can reunite them with their parents," she told Reuters.

Four in five of the around 30,000 children in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/haiti-opposition-condemns-countrys-slide-into-rule-by-decree-274329">Haiti's </a>orphanages have living parents, according to the government.

A woman who answered the Church of Bible Understanding's telephone number in Port-au-Prince, asked for comment, said: "We will make it known when it is appropriate."

There was no response to a voicemail seeking comment at the number listed for the Orphanage of the Church of Bible Understanding at its office in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

The group says on its website it opened its first orphanage in Haiti nearly 40 years ago, with a primary goal "to spread the Gospel to any and all who will receive it."

"I call on the relevant authorities to take urgent measures to decipher the cause of this drama," President Jovenel Moise wrote in a tweet, expressing his "profound sadness."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Je suis profondément ému par la mort d’une dizaine d’enfants, suite à l’incendie déclaré hier soir dans les locaux de l’orphelinat Compréhension de la Bible, situé à Fermathe. J’enjoins les autorités compétentes à adopter des mesures urgentes pour établir les causes de ce drame.
— Président Jovenel Moïse (@moisejovenel) <a href="https://twitter.com/moisejovenel/status/1228413637733253120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 14, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Nearly 60 percent&nbsp;of Haiti's 11.2 million inhabitants survive on less than $2.40 a day, according to the World Bank.

Poverty, disability and a lack of access to basic healthcare, education and social services mean many Haitian parents send their children to orphanages or wealthier relatives or acquaintances. Those taken in by relatives are often used as servants or isolated from children in the household and seldom sent to school, critics say.

Children living in hundreds of orphanages suffer sexual and physical abuse and some are trafficked into orphanages for profit to attract donations, the London-based charity Lumos wrote in a report three years ago.

Donors, mostly from the United States and faith-based organizations, give $70 million a year to one-third of Haiti’s orphanages, it said.

Fifteen children died in a fire that swept overnight through an orphanage in Haiti run by a US religious group, authorities said on Friday, triggering renewed controversy over the hundreds of unlicensed orphanages in the poorest nation in the Americas.

Fifteen children died in a fire that swept overnight through an orphanage in Haiti run by a US religious group, authorities said on Friday, triggering renewed controversy over the hundreds of unlicensed orphanages in the poorest nation in the Americas. Two children were burned to death and 13 died due to smoke inhalation in the blaze that ravaged the Pennsylvania-based Church of Bible Understanding's orphanage in Kenscoff, just south of the capital. Also read: 47 children evacuated from Aleppo orphanage, some in critical shape: UN The cause of the blaze was not clear. One of the children at the orphanage told Reuters they had been using candles because the power in the block was out and a generator was not working. Arielle Jeanty Villedrouin, director of the Institute for Social Welfare, said the religious group did not have a license to operate the institution, which housed around 60 children. "Orphanages" mostly house not just orphans but children whose parents feel they cannot afford to look after them proliferated after the 2010 earthquake in Haiti that killed tens of thousands. Yet just 35 of 754 such institutions are officially authorized, with another 100 in the process of getting a license. The government has closed around 160 institutions over the last five years, Villedrouin said, and has barred more from opening. Also read: Haiti opposition condemns country's slide into rule by decree "We are going to place them in a transit center while we do research on their family and see if we can reunite them with their parents," she told Reuters. Four in five of the around 30,000 children in Haiti's orphanages have living parents, according to the government. A woman who answered the Church of Bible Understanding's telephone number in Port-au-Prince, asked for comment, said: "We will make it known when it is appropriate." There was no response to a voicemail seeking comment at the number listed for the Orphanage of the Church of Bible Understanding at its office in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The group says on its website it opened its first orphanage in Haiti nearly 40 years ago, with a primary goal "to spread the Gospel to any and all who will receive it." "I call on the relevant authorities to take urgent measures to decipher the cause of this drama," President Jovenel Moise wrote in a tweet, expressing his "profound sadness." Je suis profondément ému par la mort d’une dizaine d’enfants, suite à l’incendie déclaré hier soir dans les locaux de l’orphelinat Compréhension de la Bible, situé à Fermathe. J’enjoins les autorités compétentes à adopter des mesures urgentes pour établir les causes de ce drame. — Président Jovenel Moïse (@moisejovenel) February 14, 2020 × Nearly 60 percent of Haiti's 11.2 million inhabitants survive on less than $2.40 a day, according to the World Bank. Poverty, disability and a lack of access to basic healthcare, education and social services mean many Haitian parents send their children to orphanages or wealthier relatives or acquaintances. Those taken in by relatives are often used as servants or isolated from children in the household and seldom sent to school, critics say. Children living in hundreds of orphanages suffer sexual and physical abuse and some are trafficked into orphanages for profit to attract donations, the London-based charity Lumos wrote in a report three years ago. Donors, mostly from the United States and faith-based organizations, give $70 million a year to one-third of Haiti’s orphanages, it said.

Haiti orphanage fire kills 15, renews debate over unlicensed orphanages

The United States has imposed sanctions on Sri Lanka's army chief, Lieutenant General Shavendra Silva, for alleged human rights violations including extrajudicial killings in 2009 during the country's civil war, US&nbsp;Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Friday.

"The allegations of gross human rights violations against Shavendra Silva, documented by the United Nations and other organizations, are serious and credible," Pompeo said in a statement.

The sanctions imposed on Friday by Washington bar Silva and his family members from entering the United States.

Silva's appointment as army commander of the island nation in August drew sharp criticism from the United States and the United Nations, which in September suspended the Sri Lankan army from its peacekeeping operations after he was named army chief.

Silva is credited with leading an army division against Tamil Tiger rebels in the final phases of the island nation's 26-year-long brutal civil war, which ended in 2009.

His victory, however, was highly controversial. Thousands of civilians were killed in the last phases of the armed conflict, including in areas declared by the government to be a 'no-fire zone,' which came under sustained army shelling, including hospitals.

A United Nations panel has accused Silva's division of suspected extrajudicial executions of unarmed rebels in the final week of the war and systematic torture of people in custody.

The United States has imposed sanctions on Sri Lanka's army chief, Lieutenant General Shavendra Silva, for alleged human rights violations including extrajudicial killings in 2009 during the country's civil war, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Friday.

The United States has imposed sanctions on Sri Lanka's army chief, Lieutenant General Shavendra Silva, for alleged human rights violations including extrajudicial killings in 2009 during the country's civil war, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Friday. "The allegations of gross human rights violations against Shavendra Silva, documented by the United Nations and other organizations, are serious and credible," Pompeo said in a statement. The sanctions imposed on Friday by Washington bar Silva and his family members from entering the United States. Silva's appointment as army commander of the island nation in August drew sharp criticism from the United States and the United Nations, which in September suspended the Sri Lankan army from its peacekeeping operations after he was named army chief. Silva is credited with leading an army division against Tamil Tiger rebels in the final phases of the island nation's 26-year-long brutal civil war, which ended in 2009. His victory, however, was highly controversial. Thousands of civilians were killed in the last phases of the armed conflict, including in areas declared by the government to be a 'no-fire zone,' which came under sustained army shelling, including hospitals. A United Nations panel has accused Silva's division of suspected extrajudicial executions of unarmed rebels in the final week of the war and systematic torture of people in custody.

US blacklists Sri Lankan army commander Shavendra Silva, cites killings and abuses

The US has approved the sale of an integrated air defence weapon system to India for an estimated cost of $1.9 billion to modernise its armed forces and to expand its existing air <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/indias-profile-is-attracting-engagement-on-military-issues-181801">defence architecture</a> to counter threats posed by air attacks.&nbsp;

The estimated cost of the entire system is $1.867 billion and the State Department has issued a statement saying that India intends to use these defence articles and services to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-military-expenditure-in-2018-stood-at-665-billion-pak-at-114-billion-sipri-214328">modernise its armed forces</a>, and to expand its existing air defence architecture to counter threats posed by air attack.

Massive military modernisation by China follows this proposed sale which is also exhibiting its <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/latest-india-news-our-target-is-5-billion-of-defence-export-in-next-five-years-narendra-modi-278885">military might</a> in the strategic Indo-Pacific region. The deal comes ahead of President Donald Trump's visit to India

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-aims-to-double-defence-exports-in-five-years-amid-resource-crunch-279876">India aims to double defence exports in five years amid resource crunch</a>

The US president will arrive in India on February 23 with&nbsp;both sides currently fine-tuning his schedule. The US and India are also to seal a trade deal during Trump's planned visit.

India’s military goal of updating its capability while further enhancing greater interoperability between India, the US, and other allies will be achieved by the proposed sale of the IADWS.

A request was also made by India for five AN/MPQ-64Fl Sentinel radar systems; three AMRAAM Guidance Sections; one hundred eighteen AMRAAM AIM-120C-7/C-8 missiles and one hundred thirty-four Stinger FIM-92L missiles.

Included in the comprehensive sale, among other things, are Vehicle Mounted Stinger Rapid Ranger Air Defence Systems and Dual Mount Stinger (DMS) Air Defence Systems.

The US has approved the sale of an integrated air defence weapon system to India for an estimated cost of $1.9 billion to modernise its armed forces and to expand its existing air defence architecture to counter threats posed by air attacks.

The US has approved the sale of an integrated air defence weapon system to India for an estimated cost of $1.9 billion to modernise its armed forces and to expand its existing air defence architecture to counter threats posed by air attacks. The estimated cost of the entire system is $1.867 billion and the State Department has issued a statement saying that India intends to use these defence articles and services to modernise its armed forces, and to expand its existing air defence architecture to counter threats posed by air attack. Massive military modernisation by China follows this proposed sale which is also exhibiting its military might in the strategic Indo-Pacific region. The deal comes ahead of President Donald Trump's visit to India Also Read: India aims to double defence exports in five years amid resource crunch The US president will arrive in India on February 23 with both sides currently fine-tuning his schedule. The US and India are also to seal a trade deal during Trump's planned visit. India’s military goal of updating its capability while further enhancing greater interoperability between India, the US, and other allies will be achieved by the proposed sale of the IADWS. A request was also made by India for five AN/MPQ-64Fl Sentinel radar systems; three AMRAAM Guidance Sections; one hundred eighteen AMRAAM AIM-120C-7/C-8 missiles and one hundred thirty-four Stinger FIM-92L missiles. Included in the comprehensive sale, among other things, are Vehicle Mounted Stinger Rapid Ranger Air Defence Systems and Dual Mount Stinger (DMS) Air Defence Systems.

US approves sale of  $1.9 billion worth integrated air defence weapon system to India

Former <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-leadership-series-exclusive-conversation-with-hamid-karzai-former-afghan-president-189911">Afghanistan</a> President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/global-leadership-series-exclusive-conversation-with-hamid-karzai-former-afghan-president-189911">Hamid Karzai</a> requested the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-two-us-soldiers-killed-by-afghan-soldier-in-nangarhar-province-279541">United States</a> to "stop killing Afghans"&nbsp;and end all military operations after the air strikes on Saturday.

Karzai condemned the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-two-us-soldiers-killed-by-afghan-soldier-in-nangarhar-province-279541">US airstrikes</a> that killed five merchants in the Farah province while paying&nbsp;condolences to the families of the victims.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-two-us-soldiers-killed-by-afghan-soldier-in-nangarhar-province-279541">Afghanistan: Two US soldiers killed by Afghan soldier in Nangarhar province&nbsp;</a>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Strongly condemn the US airstrikes that killed five merchants in Farah province. I urge the United States to stop the killing of our people and end all military operations. My condolences to the victims’ families.
— Hamid Karzai (@KarzaiH) <a href="https://twitter.com/KarzaiH/status/1226550528076763136?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 9, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

According to Dadullah Qaneh, member of the Farah Provincial Council, five civilians were killed in an airstrike in Karez Sheikha village which is 20kms away from Farah.

He described the victims as "traders and deal makers"&nbsp;and said that they were targetted when they were headed to Shaikh Abu Nasr Farahi port.

However,&nbsp;Afghan Zafar military corps, in charge of security in western Afghanistan,&nbsp;has said that five <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-two-us-soldiers-killed-by-afghan-soldier-in-nangarhar-province-279541">Taliban </a>fighters were killed in the airstrike.

Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai requested the United States to "stop killing Afghans" and end all military operations after the air strikes on Saturday.

Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai requested the United States to "stop killing Afghans" and end all military operations after the air strikes on Saturday. Karzai condemned the US airstrikes that killed five merchants in the Farah province while paying condolences to the families of the victims. Also read: Afghanistan: Two US soldiers killed by Afghan soldier in Nangarhar province Strongly condemn the US airstrikes that killed five merchants in Farah province. I urge the United States to stop the killing of our people and end all military operations. My condolences to the victims’ families. — Hamid Karzai (@KarzaiH) February 9, 2020 × According to Dadullah Qaneh, member of the Farah Provincial Council, five civilians were killed in an airstrike in Karez Sheikha village which is 20kms away from Farah. He described the victims as "traders and deal makers" and said that they were targetted when they were headed to Shaikh Abu Nasr Farahi port. However, Afghan Zafar military corps, in charge of security in western Afghanistan, has said that five Taliban fighters were killed in the airstrike.

I urge the United States to stop killing our people: Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai

Iran launched a domestically made satellite on Sunday but it failed to reach orbit, a defence ministry official said.

"It was launched with success and ... we have reached most our aims ... but the "Zafar" satellite did not reach orbit as planned," the official told state television.

The launch was the latest in a programme which the United States says helps Tehran advance its ballistic missile technology. Tehran denies that its aerospace programme is a cover for missile development.

On Sunday, Iran said it will launch a satellite as part of a fledgling programme the United States says is a cover for ballistic missile development.

"The Zafar satellite will be placed in orbit today from Semnan at a speed of 7,400 kilometers," Iranian Minister of Information and Communications Technology Mohammad Javad Azari-Jahromi had said, according to the official IRIB news agency.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/zafar-satellite-did-not-reach-orbit-as-planned-iranian-defence-ministry-279606">Iran unveils ballistic missile, 'new generation' engines</a>

Iran carried out at least two failed satellite launches last year.

The United States says it is concerned that long-range ballistic technology used to put satellites into orbit could also be used to launch nuclear warheads. Tehran denies that satellite activity is a cover for missile development and says it has never pursued the development of nuclear weapons.

President Donald Trump's administration reimposed sanctions on Iran following Washington’s 2018 withdrawal from an international accord designed to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump said the nuclear deal did not go far enough and did not include restrictions on Tehran’s missile program.

Tensions, already high over the nuclear issue, reached the highest level in decades between Iran and the United States after Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad on Jan. 3. Iran retaliated with a missile attack against a U.S. base in Iraq.

Once the satellite is in orbit, the first picture that it will transmit will be of Soleimani, minister Azari-Jahromi hoped on Sunday.

Iran launched its first satellite Omid (Hope) in 2009 and the Rasad (Observation) satellite was sent into orbit in June 2011. Tehran said in 2012 that it had successfully put its third domestically-made satellite Navid (Promise) into orbit.

Iran launched a domestically made satellite on Sunday but it failed to reach orbit, a defence ministry official said. "It was launched with success and ... we have reached most our aims .

Iran launched a domestically made satellite on Sunday but it failed to reach orbit, a defence ministry official said. "It was launched with success and ... we have reached most our aims ... but the "Zafar" satellite did not reach orbit as planned," the official told state television. The launch was the latest in a programme which the United States says helps Tehran advance its ballistic missile technology. Tehran denies that its aerospace programme is a cover for missile development. On Sunday, Iran said it will launch a satellite as part of a fledgling programme the United States says is a cover for ballistic missile development. "The Zafar satellite will be placed in orbit today from Semnan at a speed of 7,400 kilometers," Iranian Minister of Information and Communications Technology Mohammad Javad Azari-Jahromi had said, according to the official IRIB news agency. Also read: Iran unveils ballistic missile, 'new generation' engines Iran carried out at least two failed satellite launches last year. The United States says it is concerned that long-range ballistic technology used to put satellites into orbit could also be used to launch nuclear warheads. Tehran denies that satellite activity is a cover for missile development and says it has never pursued the development of nuclear weapons. President Donald Trump's administration reimposed sanctions on Iran following Washington’s 2018 withdrawal from an international accord designed to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Trump said the nuclear deal did not go far enough and did not include restrictions on Tehran’s missile program. Tensions, already high over the nuclear issue, reached the highest level in decades between Iran and the United States after Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad on Jan. 3. Iran retaliated with a missile attack against a U.S. base in Iraq. Once the satellite is in orbit, the first picture that it will transmit will be of Soleimani, minister Azari-Jahromi hoped on Sunday. Iran launched its first satellite Omid (Hope) in 2009 and the Rasad (Observation) satellite was sent into orbit in June 2011. Tehran said in 2012 that it had successfully put its third domestically-made satellite Navid (Promise) into orbit.

'Zafar' satellite did not reach orbit as planned: Iranian defence ministry

Iran will launch a satellite on Sunday, a government minister said, as part of a fledgling programme the United States says is a cover for ballistic missile development.

Iran will launch a satellite on Sunday, a government minister said, as part of a fledgling programme the United States says is a cover for ballistic missile development. "The Zafar satellite will be placed in orbit today from Semnan at a speed of 7,400 kilometers," Iranian Minister of Information and Communications Technology Mohammad Javad Azari-Jahromi said, according to the official IRIB news agency. Iran carried out at least two failed satellite launches last year. The United States says it is concerned that long-range ballistic technology used to put satellites into orbit could also be used to launch nuclear warheads. Tehran denies that satellite activity is a cover for missile development and says it has never pursued the development of nuclear weapons. President Donald Trump's administration reimposed sanctions on Iran following Washington’s 2018 withdrawal from an international accord designed to curb Iran’s nuclear program. Trump said the nuclear deal did not go far enough and did not include restrictions on Tehran’s missile program. Tensions, already high over the nuclear issue, reached the highest level in decades between Iran and the United States after Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Baghdad on Jan. 3. Iran retaliated with a missile attack against a U.S. base in Iraq. Once the satellite is in orbit, the first picture that it will transmit will be of Soleimani, minister Azari-Jahromi said on Sunday. Iran launched its first satellite Omid (Hope) in 2009 and the Rasad (Observation) satellite was sent into orbit in June 2011. Tehran said in 2012 that it had successfully put its third domestically-made satellite Navid (Promise) into orbit.

Iran to launch satellite; US says programme linked to missiles

Iran should increase its military might to prevent a war, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/khamenei-to-lead-friday-prayers-for-first-time-since-2012-274495">Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei</a> told a gathering of air force commanders on Saturday, dismissing the US sanctions on the country as "criminal act".

"We should be strong to prevent any <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/irans-khamenei-delivers-friday-sermon-bid-to-quell-public-anger-274853">war against the county</a>. Being weak will encourage our enemies to attack Iran," Khamenei, Iran's top authority, said according to state news agency IRNA.

The Islamic Republic has vowed to increase its military strength despite mounting pressure from Western countries to curtail its military capabilities, including its ballistic missile programme.

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/these-american-clowns-who-lie-says-khamenei-in-friday-sermon-referring-to-trump-274902">These American 'clowns' who lie, says Khamenei in Friday sermon referring to Trump</a>

Tensions between Tehran and Washington have spiked since 2018 when US President Donald Trump abandoned a 2015 pact between Iran and world powers under which Tehran accepted curbs to its nuclear programme in return for lifting sanctions.

"Since the revolution, their aim was to stop us from having a strong military and a strong air force but look at us now. We even build planes. We have transformed their pressure to opportunity."

Iran is marking the 41st anniversary of the Islamic revolution, which toppled the US-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979. Washington has reimposed crippling sanctions aimed at halting all Iranian oil exports, saying it seeks to force Iran to negotiate to reach a wider deal.

<img alt="Khamenei" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="fafe40ea-8228-48cd-b2bc-e3afd3d958f9" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%283%29_49.jpg" /> 
[ Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Courtesy: Reuters) ]

Khamenei, who dismissed the US sanctions as a "criminal act", has banned Iranian officials from holding talks unless the United States returns to the deal and lifts all sanctions. He said Iran should distance its economy from dependence on oil exports.

Iran and the United States stormed to the edge of war in early January when Tehran's most prominent general, Qassem Soleimani, was killed in a US drone strike on his convoy in Baghdad.

Tehran responded by launching missile attacks on US targets in Iraq. 
Iranian television said 80 "American terrorists" had been killed and US helicopters and military equipment damaged, without providing any evidence, Washington denied that there were any fatalities.

Iran should increase its military might to prevent a war, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a gathering of air force commanders on Saturday, dismissing the US sanctions on the country as "criminal act".

Iran should increase its military might to prevent a war, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told a gathering of air force commanders on Saturday, dismissing the US sanctions on the country as "criminal act". "We should be strong to prevent any war against the county. Being weak will encourage our enemies to attack Iran," Khamenei, Iran's top authority, said according to state news agency IRNA. The Islamic Republic has vowed to increase its military strength despite mounting pressure from Western countries to curtail its military capabilities, including its ballistic missile programme. Also Read: These American 'clowns' who lie, says Khamenei in Friday sermon referring to Trump Tensions between Tehran and Washington have spiked since 2018 when US President Donald Trump abandoned a 2015 pact between Iran and world powers under which Tehran accepted curbs to its nuclear programme in return for lifting sanctions. "Since the revolution, their aim was to stop us from having a strong military and a strong air force but look at us now. We even build planes. We have transformed their pressure to opportunity." Iran is marking the 41st anniversary of the Islamic revolution, which toppled the US-backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979. Washington has reimposed crippling sanctions aimed at halting all Iranian oil exports, saying it seeks to force Iran to negotiate to reach a wider deal. [ Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Courtesy: Reuters) ] Khamenei, who dismissed the US sanctions as a "criminal act", has banned Iranian officials from holding talks unless the United States returns to the deal and lifts all sanctions. He said Iran should distance its economy from dependence on oil exports. Iran and the United States stormed to the edge of war in early January when Tehran's most prominent general, Qassem Soleimani, was killed in a US drone strike on his convoy in Baghdad. Tehran responded by launching missile attacks on US targets in Iraq. Iranian television said 80 "American terrorists" had been killed and US helicopters and military equipment damaged, without providing any evidence, Washington denied that there were any fatalities.

To prevent war, Iran must increase its military might: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

With Democratic presidential candidates fighting for their political lives ahead of New Hampshire's primary to choose who will face Republican Donald Trump in November, rivals debating on Friday took shots at one another and tried to separate themselves from the pack.

Here’s how each of the seven contenders on stage fared:

JOE BIDEN 
The former vice president, looking to rebound from a faceplant in Iowa's caucuses this week, obviously wanted to come out on the offensive. Unfortunately, he started the night telling the nation that he probably was going to lose New Hampshire as well.

But Biden grew more assured, tearing into US Senator Bernie Sanders over the cost of his Medicare for All plan and his record on guns while questioning Pete Buttigieg’s lack of experience. Biden seemed to relish in his long record of public service, repeatedly listing his accomplishments as a senator and vice president for Barack Obama. “The politics of the past, I think, were not all that bad,” Biden said.

The risk for Biden is such talk only reinforces the view of some Democrats that his moment has passed and why they’re looking to fresh faces such as Buttigieg. But Biden has little choice but lean even harder into his argument that he is best prepared to take over for President Donald Trump.

<img alt="Biden" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="351e7d0b-29e1-4073-b4d4-3cf068c648ab" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%2897%29_0.jpg" /> 
[&nbsp;Democratic Presidential Candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden (Courtesy: Reuters) ]

PETE BUTTIGIEG 
As expected, everyone came gunning for the 38-year-old boyish former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Biden and US Senator Amy Klobuchar questioned his thin track record. Klobuchar also suggested Buttigieg had flipped positions on Medicare for All.&nbsp;

Sanders took a shot at his fundraising. And US Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered a brutal critique of Buttigieg’s defence of his record as mayor concerning African Americans and criminal justice.

All of it was designed to make Buttigieg appear unready for the job – and at times he wobbled. At other points, he turned aggressive, labelling Sanders as an extreme candidate who would drive away moderates. Buttigieg did not back down from making his generational argument that it was time to pass the torch.&nbsp;

<img alt="Pete Buttigieg" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e86f3f22-1b4b-44fd-b429-e090dd49df1d" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%2898%29_0.jpg" /> 
[&nbsp;Pete Buttigieg, Democratic presidential candidate and former South Bend, Indiana mayor (Courtesy: Reuters) ]

He told Biden his achievements “were phenomenally important because they met the moment. But now we have to meet at this moment, and this moment is different.” He also continued his outreach to independents and even Republicans, who could be critical in New Hampshire, which allows non-Democrats to vote.

AMY KLOBUCHAR 
If this is the end of the line for the senator from Minnesota, she will go out turning in probably her best debate performance to date. She showed quick thinking on stage. She was the first candidate to raise her hand when they were asked if they were concerned about having a democratic socialist like Sanders at the top of the ticket.&nbsp;

Not long after, she was the first candidate to bring up Trump’s impeachment and his acquittal by the Senate, a trenchant reminder of the stakes of the election.

It was clear from the outset that Klobuchar looked to dent Buttigieg’s momentum, challenging him and even mocking him while framing herself as a better “unity” candidate. Referring to Trump, she said, “We have a newcomer in the White House, and look what that got us.”

<img alt="Klobuchar" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b57fa770-ed76-4a86-9943-68061bf949ff" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20-%202020-02-08T131153.994.jpg" /> 
[&nbsp;Democratic US Presidential Candidate Amy Klobuchar (Courtesy: Reuters) ]

After a disappointing finish in Iowa - she came in fifth - Klobuchar heads into the New Hampshire primary a distinct underdog. One good debate is not likely to change that.

BERNIE SANDERS 
Coming off a strong performance in Iowa that put him almost in a dead heat with Buttigieg, Sanders was on the defensive early, as rivals like Biden questioned whether a democratic socialist could marshal broad enough support in November to defeat Trump.

As usual, Sanders showed little interest in moderating his message. His remarkable consistency – most of his quotes on Friday could have come from any of the other seven debates of this campaign, or his first presidential run in 2016 – is part of what endears him to his supporters.

It also brings questions about whether he can broaden his appeal to win a majority of American voters. Sanders’ answer on Friday was that his agenda of Medicare for All and higher taxes on the wealthy would inspire more voters to participate in the election. “I believe the way we beat Trump is by having the largest voter turnout in the history of this country,” he said.

<img alt="Sanders" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="789faacc-f28e-4c7b-a456-c1dd6cd0129e" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%2899%29_1.jpg" /> 
[&nbsp;Democratic US&nbsp;Presidential Candidate and US Senator Bernie Sanders (Courtesy: Reuters) ]

TOM STEYER 
The California billionaire was probably the most pugnacious candidate on stage, fashioning himself as a truth-teller trying to elevate the discussion beyond squabbles over healthcare plans and abortion rights toward something more basic: How to beat Trump.

Steyer argued Democrats must find some way to challenge Trump on the economy or risk failure. “We have to go win a huge victory this year, and we're in trouble,” he said. He also seemed to suggest that his rivals had very little idea how to bring the party together and ensure that African Americans and other voters of colour go to the polls in November.&nbsp;

With polls showing Steyer rising as a challenger to Biden in South Carolina, the outsider candidate is likely to keep spending freely, act like he has nothing to lose and perhaps stay on the debate stage.

ELIZABETH WARREN 
Warren continued pressing the closing argument she made in Iowa, arguing that she is uniquely positioned to unify the various factions within the Democratic Party. As a result, she appeared somewhat unwilling to engage in attacks on her rivals.

But as the debate proceeded, Warren fired a few shots at the other candidates. After moderators pressed Buttigieg on his mayoral record on race and policing, Warren was asked whether his answer had been satisfactory.

“No,” she said bluntly, before ticking off several areas – housing, education, employment – in which she has released plans that specifically target racial gaps.

<img alt="Warren" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="b97a700e-ca37-4b1c-a3b8-cfe14d84b149" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%28100%29_1.jpg" /> 
[&nbsp;Democratic 2020 US&nbsp;Presidential Candidate and US&nbsp;Senator Elizabeth Warren (Courtesy: Reuters) ]

Later, she jumped at the chance to criticize billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who is skipping the early voting states and blanketing later states with a barrage of advertising, for trying to “buy” the nomination. She followed that with a thinly veiled shot at Sanders for getting help from an outside political group even though he has sworn off super PACs.

With less speaking time than Buttigieg, Biden, Sanders and Klobuchar, it was not clear whether she made enough of an impact after a week in which she was mostly an afterthought following a third-place finish in Iowa.

ANDREW YANG 
For months, Andrew Yang has pointed to New Hampshire as the early state where he expected to have the most appeal, thanks to the independent voters who make up a large portion of the electorate and might be drawn to his esoteric campaign platform.

But after a poor showing in Iowa, where he finished far behind the top candidates, Yang needed a breakout performance to have any hope of outperforming on Tuesday.

He didn’t get many opportunities. The moderators directed only a handful of questions at him, leaving him with by far the least amount of speaking time. As he has throughout the campaign, he declined to engage in any back-and-forth attacks with other candidates, which meant he spent long stretches in silence as rivals took turns swinging at one another.

<img alt="Yang" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="3388b91a-447e-451c-8cde-d3e3aaf03944" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20-%202020-02-08T131645.502.jpg" /> 
[ Businessman and 2020 US Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang (Courtesy: Twitter Handle @AndrewYang) ]

Yang's campaign, which has far outstripped any reasonable expectations, may be drawing to a close.

With Democratic presidential candidates fighting for their political lives ahead of New Hampshire's primary to choose who will face Republican Donald Trump in November, rivals debating on Friday took shots at one another and tried to separate themselves from the pack.

With Democratic presidential candidates fighting for their political lives ahead of New Hampshire's primary to choose who will face Republican Donald Trump in November, rivals debating on Friday took shots at one another and tried to separate themselves from the pack. Here’s how each of the seven contenders on stage fared: JOE BIDEN The former vice president, looking to rebound from a faceplant in Iowa's caucuses this week, obviously wanted to come out on the offensive. Unfortunately, he started the night telling the nation that he probably was going to lose New Hampshire as well. But Biden grew more assured, tearing into US Senator Bernie Sanders over the cost of his Medicare for All plan and his record on guns while questioning Pete Buttigieg’s lack of experience. Biden seemed to relish in his long record of public service, repeatedly listing his accomplishments as a senator and vice president for Barack Obama. “The politics of the past, I think, were not all that bad,” Biden said. The risk for Biden is such talk only reinforces the view of some Democrats that his moment has passed and why they’re looking to fresh faces such as Buttigieg. But Biden has little choice but lean even harder into his argument that he is best prepared to take over for President Donald Trump. [ Democratic Presidential Candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden (Courtesy: Reuters) ] PETE BUTTIGIEG As expected, everyone came gunning for the 38-year-old boyish former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Biden and US Senator Amy Klobuchar questioned his thin track record. Klobuchar also suggested Buttigieg had flipped positions on Medicare for All. Sanders took a shot at his fundraising. And US Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered a brutal critique of Buttigieg’s defence of his record as mayor concerning African Americans and criminal justice. All of it was designed to make Buttigieg appear unready for the job – and at times he wobbled. At other points, he turned aggressive, labelling Sanders as an extreme candidate who would drive away moderates. Buttigieg did not back down from making his generational argument that it was time to pass the torch. [ Pete Buttigieg, Democratic presidential candidate and former South Bend, Indiana mayor (Courtesy: Reuters) ] He told Biden his achievements “were phenomenally important because they met the moment. But now we have to meet at this moment, and this moment is different.” He also continued his outreach to independents and even Republicans, who could be critical in New Hampshire, which allows non-Democrats to vote. AMY KLOBUCHAR If this is the end of the line for the senator from Minnesota, she will go out turning in probably her best debate performance to date. She showed quick thinking on stage. She was the first candidate to raise her hand when they were asked if they were concerned about having a democratic socialist like Sanders at the top of the ticket. Not long after, she was the first candidate to bring up Trump’s impeachment and his acquittal by the Senate, a trenchant reminder of the stakes of the election. It was clear from the outset that Klobuchar looked to dent Buttigieg’s momentum, challenging him and even mocking him while framing herself as a better “unity” candidate. Referring to Trump, she said, “We have a newcomer in the White House, and look what that got us.” [ Democratic US Presidential Candidate Amy Klobuchar (Courtesy: Reuters) ] After a disappointing finish in Iowa - she came in fifth - Klobuchar heads into the New Hampshire primary a distinct underdog. One good debate is not likely to change that. BERNIE SANDERS Coming off a strong performance in Iowa that put him almost in a dead heat with Buttigieg, Sanders was on the defensive early, as rivals like Biden questioned whether a democratic socialist could marshal broad enough support in November to defeat Trump. As usual, Sanders showed little interest in moderating his message. His remarkable consistency – most of his quotes on Friday could have come from any of the other seven debates of this campaign, or his first presidential run in 2016 – is part of what endears him to his supporters. It also brings questions about whether he can broaden his appeal to win a majority of American voters. Sanders’ answer on Friday was that his agenda of Medicare for All and higher taxes on the wealthy would inspire more voters to participate in the election. “I believe the way we beat Trump is by having the largest voter turnout in the history of this country,” he said. [ Democratic US Presidential Candidate and US Senator Bernie Sanders (Courtesy: Reuters) ] TOM STEYER The California billionaire was probably the most pugnacious candidate on stage, fashioning himself as a truth-teller trying to elevate the discussion beyond squabbles over healthcare plans and abortion rights toward something more basic: How to beat Trump. Steyer argued Democrats must find some way to challenge Trump on the economy or risk failure. “We have to go win a huge victory this year, and we're in trouble,” he said. He also seemed to suggest that his rivals had very little idea how to bring the party together and ensure that African Americans and other voters of colour go to the polls in November. With polls showing Steyer rising as a challenger to Biden in South Carolina, the outsider candidate is likely to keep spending freely, act like he has nothing to lose and perhaps stay on the debate stage. ELIZABETH WARREN Warren continued pressing the closing argument she made in Iowa, arguing that she is uniquely positioned to unify the various factions within the Democratic Party. As a result, she appeared somewhat unwilling to engage in attacks on her rivals. But as the debate proceeded, Warren fired a few shots at the other candidates. After moderators pressed Buttigieg on his mayoral record on race and policing, Warren was asked whether his answer had been satisfactory. “No,” she said bluntly, before ticking off several areas – housing, education, employment – in which she has released plans that specifically target racial gaps. [ Democratic 2020 US Presidential Candidate and US Senator Elizabeth Warren (Courtesy: Reuters) ] Later, she jumped at the chance to criticize billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who is skipping the early voting states and blanketing later states with a barrage of advertising, for trying to “buy” the nomination. She followed that with a thinly veiled shot at Sanders for getting help from an outside political group even though he has sworn off super PACs. With less speaking time than Buttigieg, Biden, Sanders and Klobuchar, it was not clear whether she made enough of an impact after a week in which she was mostly an afterthought following a third-place finish in Iowa. ANDREW YANG For months, Andrew Yang has pointed to New Hampshire as the early state where he expected to have the most appeal, thanks to the independent voters who make up a large portion of the electorate and might be drawn to his esoteric campaign platform. But after a poor showing in Iowa, where he finished far behind the top candidates, Yang needed a breakout performance to have any hope of outperforming on Tuesday. He didn’t get many opportunities. The moderators directed only a handful of questions at him, leaving him with by far the least amount of speaking time. As he has throughout the campaign, he declined to engage in any back-and-forth attacks with other candidates, which meant he spent long stretches in silence as rivals took turns swinging at one another. [ Businessman and 2020 US Presidential Candidate Andrew Yang (Courtesy: Twitter Handle @AndrewYang) ] Yang's campaign, which has far outstripped any reasonable expectations, may be drawing to a close.

Presidential Candidates fight for survival in New Hampshire debate

The United States encouraged the World Health Organization (WHO) on Thursday (February 6) to "engage directly with Taiwan public health authorities" in the fight against coronavirus.

Why is Taiwan upset with WHO over China?

Texas&nbsp;on Thursday executed a&nbsp;man&nbsp;who was&nbsp;convicted&nbsp;for shooting and&nbsp;killing&nbsp;his 29-year-old wife and his two daughters, as well as his father-in-law and sister-in-law shortly after a smoking crack in&nbsp;2002.

Abel Ochoa, 47, was executed with lethal injection and pronounced dead at the state's death chamber in Huntsville at 6.48 p.m&nbsp;17 years after a jury found him guilty of capital murder, according to a statement by the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">Texas&nbsp;</a>Department of Criminal Justice.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">Two dead, one wounded in shooting at Texas University</a>

Ochoa was the third inmate in the United States and the second in&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">Texas&nbsp;</a>to be executed in 2020.&nbsp;Texas, which executed nine people in 2019, has executed more prisoners than any other state since the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">US&nbsp;Supreme Court</a> reinstated the death penalty in 1976. The United States is the only large Western democracy to retain capital punishment.

On Aug. 4,&nbsp;2002, 20 minutes after smoking crack cocaine, Ochoa went into his living room and shot to death his wife Cecilia, nine-month-old daughter Anahi, his father-in-law Bartolo and his sister-in-law Jackie, prosecutors said.

He then reloaded his .9mm Ruger handgun and chased his 7-year-old daughter Crystal into the kitchen, where he shot her four times. He had also shot his sister-in-law Alma, the lone survivor of the attack.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/shooter-among-one-dead-in-texas-church-attack-270896">Shooter among one dead in Texas church attack</a>

Police stopped Ochoa soon after the shooting as he drove his wife's car.

"Ochoa told the arresting officer that the gun he used was at his house on the table, that he could not handle the stress anymore, and that he had gotten tired of his life," court records showed.

Ochoa later wrote a confession in which he told authorities he was frustrated that his wife would not give him more money for drugs, court documents said.

Several state and federal courts have denied requests for the execution to be halted and appeals on Ochoa's behalf since his conviction.

On Thursday, the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">US&nbsp;Supreme Court</a> denied a request by Ochoa to stop the execution.

Twenty two people were executed in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/two-dead-and-one-wounded-in-shooting-at-texas-university-on-tuesday-278439">United States</a> in 2019, down from 25 in 2018 when the country ranked seventh in the world for the number of people it put to death, behind Iraq and Egypt, according to Amnesty International.

Texas on Thursday executed a man who was convicted for shooting and killing his 29-year-old wife and his two daughters, as well as his father-in-law and sister-in-law shortly after a smoking crack in 2002.

Texas on Thursday executed a man who was convicted for shooting and killing his 29-year-old wife and his two daughters, as well as his father-in-law and sister-in-law shortly after a smoking crack in 2002. Abel Ochoa, 47, was executed with lethal injection and pronounced dead at the state's death chamber in Huntsville at 6.48 p.m 17 years after a jury found him guilty of capital murder, according to a statement by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Also read: Two dead, one wounded in shooting at Texas University Ochoa was the third inmate in the United States and the second in Texas to be executed in 2020. Texas, which executed nine people in 2019, has executed more prisoners than any other state since the US Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. The United States is the only large Western democracy to retain capital punishment. On Aug. 4, 2002, 20 minutes after smoking crack cocaine, Ochoa went into his living room and shot to death his wife Cecilia, nine-month-old daughter Anahi, his father-in-law Bartolo and his sister-in-law Jackie, prosecutors said. He then reloaded his .9mm Ruger handgun and chased his 7-year-old daughter Crystal into the kitchen, where he shot her four times. He had also shot his sister-in-law Alma, the lone survivor of the attack. Also read: Shooter among one dead in Texas church attack Police stopped Ochoa soon after the shooting as he drove his wife's car. "Ochoa told the arresting officer that the gun he used was at his house on the table, that he could not handle the stress anymore, and that he had gotten tired of his life," court records showed. Ochoa later wrote a confession in which he told authorities he was frustrated that his wife would not give him more money for drugs, court documents said. Several state and federal courts have denied requests for the execution to be halted and appeals on Ochoa's behalf since his conviction. On Thursday, the US Supreme Court denied a request by Ochoa to stop the execution. Twenty two people were executed in the United States in 2019, down from 25 in 2018 when the country ranked seventh in the world for the number of people it put to death, behind Iraq and Egypt, according to Amnesty International.

Texas executes man convicted of killing five family members in 2002

By Andrew G Jones

A US strike which killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad in January, and the counter-strike by the Iranian military on US targets in Iraq, raised serious questions about the legitimate use of force. When military force was used against targets within its territory, Iraq’s sovereignty was breached.

As a country caught in the middle of the long-running feud between the US and Iran, Iraq has already suffered a great deal in this latest escalation. A senior Iraqi militia commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was also killed in the US strike.

In the weeks since, thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in Iraq. While some continue to demonstrate against the government, others – many of them supporters of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr – are demanding the withdrawal of US troops from the country.

The continued US military presence in the country, against the wishes of the Iraqi government and parliament, is a breach of international law.

Force and intervention

Public international law maintains a tight grip on the rules surrounding the use of force. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force, except in self-defence against an armed attack or collective action authorised by the UN Security Council.

Beyond this, there are very few truly accepted justifications which a country can rely on to legitimately use force within another’s territory. One exception is a doctrine called “intervention by invitation”, where one country is given express permission to take military action in another country by that country’s government.

Alongside other rules that govern this kind of interaction, there are also rules on when a state overstays its welcome and becomes in breach of its international obligations. For example, the Definition of Aggression, a text adopted by the UN which outlines what is considered aggression under international law, sets out that if the state intervening breaks the conditions, or extends its presence on the territory, this counts as an act of aggression.

This was put forward as a claim in a case between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Uganda in 2005. The DRC claimed that Uganda’s ongoing use of force on its territory after it had stopped giving consent, amounted to aggression.

Although in this particular case the International Court of Justice did not find Uganda’s actions were an act of aggression, the court did rule that Uganda had breached the UN Charter’s basic prohibition of force. As a result it was clearly established that a country cannot maintain a military presence within another country after it has been asked to leave.

US refusal to withdraw

The presence of US troops in Iraq dates to the invasion which overthrew Saddam Hussain’s regime in 2003. Whatever the legal status of that conflict, the presence of US forces has been legitimised since that point through the consent of the Iraqi government. In more recent years, American and Iraqi forces have maintained friendly relations, working together to fight the threat of Islamic State.

The closeness of Iraq’s relationship with the US is part of a wider balancing act. Iraq also needs to maintain its relationship with Iran, to which it has become much closer since the fall of Hussein. But since the drone attack which killed Soleimani and al-Muhandis, this balance has shifted. The country’s alliances have been put under increased strain amid growing anti-US sentiment.

In the aftermath of the US strike in January, Iraq’s parliament voted on the future presence of US troops in the country. MPs passed a non-binding resolution stating that the Iraqi government should: “Work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.”

During a subsequent phone call with US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, Iraq’s prime minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, requested a US withdrawal. But instead of heeding the Iraqi authorities’ decision, the US State Department declared that it would not discuss the withdrawal of US troops as their presence in Iraq was “appropriate”. It claimed that there was instead a need for “a conversation between the US and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership.”

Implications under international law

Despite the undeniable power and influence the US has over global events and international policy, the country remains subject to international law. By refusing to withdraw its troops as the Iraqi government requested, the US finds itself at least in breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. A case could also be made that this amounts to an act of aggression.

There is a very real danger of Iraq becoming the battleground for a fight between Iran and the US to which it is not a party. In a country already scarred by decades of conflict, Iraq urgently wants to avoid such a circumstance. As such, it’s now for the US to heed the country’s request and to withdraw its troops in line with its international obligations, and for both the US and Iran to avoid further escalating an already tense situation.

It is up to the international community as a whole to ensure respect of the rule of law. But as the world’s most powerful nation, the US must demonstrate its willingness to comply with its responsibilities and uphold the ideals of international law.

(Andrew G Jones is Lecturer of Law, Coventry University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-refusal-to-withdraw-troops-from-iraq-is-a-breach-of-international-law-131088">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

By Andrew G Jones A US strike which killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad in January, and the counter-strike by the Iranian military on US targets in Iraq, raised serious questions about the legitimate use of force.

By Andrew G Jones A US strike which killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad in January, and the counter-strike by the Iranian military on US targets in Iraq, raised serious questions about the legitimate use of force. When military force was used against targets within its territory, Iraq’s sovereignty was breached. As a country caught in the middle of the long-running feud between the US and Iran, Iraq has already suffered a great deal in this latest escalation. A senior Iraqi militia commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was also killed in the US strike. In the weeks since, thousands of protesters have taken to the streets in Iraq. While some continue to demonstrate against the government, others – many of them supporters of Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr – are demanding the withdrawal of US troops from the country. The continued US military presence in the country, against the wishes of the Iraqi government and parliament, is a breach of international law. Force and intervention Public international law maintains a tight grip on the rules surrounding the use of force. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force, except in self-defence against an armed attack or collective action authorised by the UN Security Council. Beyond this, there are very few truly accepted justifications which a country can rely on to legitimately use force within another’s territory. One exception is a doctrine called “intervention by invitation”, where one country is given express permission to take military action in another country by that country’s government. Alongside other rules that govern this kind of interaction, there are also rules on when a state overstays its welcome and becomes in breach of its international obligations. For example, the Definition of Aggression, a text adopted by the UN which outlines what is considered aggression under international law, sets out that if the state intervening breaks the conditions, or extends its presence on the territory, this counts as an act of aggression. This was put forward as a claim in a case between the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Uganda in 2005. The DRC claimed that Uganda’s ongoing use of force on its territory after it had stopped giving consent, amounted to aggression. Although in this particular case the International Court of Justice did not find Uganda’s actions were an act of aggression, the court did rule that Uganda had breached the UN Charter’s basic prohibition of force. As a result it was clearly established that a country cannot maintain a military presence within another country after it has been asked to leave. US refusal to withdraw The presence of US troops in Iraq dates to the invasion which overthrew Saddam Hussain’s regime in 2003. Whatever the legal status of that conflict, the presence of US forces has been legitimised since that point through the consent of the Iraqi government. In more recent years, American and Iraqi forces have maintained friendly relations, working together to fight the threat of Islamic State. The closeness of Iraq’s relationship with the US is part of a wider balancing act. Iraq also needs to maintain its relationship with Iran, to which it has become much closer since the fall of Hussein. But since the drone attack which killed Soleimani and al-Muhandis, this balance has shifted. The country’s alliances have been put under increased strain amid growing anti-US sentiment. In the aftermath of the US strike in January, Iraq’s parliament voted on the future presence of US troops in the country. MPs passed a non-binding resolution stating that the Iraqi government should: “Work to end the presence of any foreign troops on Iraqi soil and prohibit them from using its land, airspace or water for any reason.” During a subsequent phone call with US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, Iraq’s prime minister, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, requested a US withdrawal. But instead of heeding the Iraqi authorities’ decision, the US State Department declared that it would not discuss the withdrawal of US troops as their presence in Iraq was “appropriate”. It claimed that there was instead a need for “a conversation between the US and Iraqi governments not just regarding security, but about our financial, economic, and diplomatic partnership.” Implications under international law Despite the undeniable power and influence the US has over global events and international policy, the country remains subject to international law. By refusing to withdraw its troops as the Iraqi government requested, the US finds itself at least in breach of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. A case could also be made that this amounts to an act of aggression. There is a very real danger of Iraq becoming the battleground for a fight between Iran and the US to which it is not a party. In a country already scarred by decades of conflict, Iraq urgently wants to avoid such a circumstance. As such, it’s now for the US to heed the country’s request and to withdraw its troops in line with its international obligations, and for both the US and Iran to avoid further escalating an already tense situation. It is up to the international community as a whole to ensure respect of the rule of law. But as the world’s most powerful nation, the US must demonstrate its willingness to comply with its responsibilities and uphold the ideals of international law. (Andrew G Jones is Lecturer of Law, Coventry University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US refusal to withdraw troops from Iraq is a breach of international law

United States President Donald Trump was acquitted of both impeachment charges in the Senate today.

The voting clearly happened along party lines, with Republic led Senate protecting him. The Democrats, on the other hand, all wanted him convicted.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-donald-trump-acquitted-of-impeachment-charges-in-republican-majority-senate-278933">US President Donald Trump acquitted of impeachment charges in Republican-majority Senate</a>

There was one unexpected twist in the trial as Mitt Romney, a&nbsp;Republican leader from Utah&nbsp;decided to vote in favour of convicting Trump on the charge of abuse of power for the involvement of Ukraine in the US elections. This made Romney the first US senator in history to go against his own president and party.

<h6><img alt="pppp" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="11b2383f-a90c-426c-baef-058f7f5e7476" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%281%29_78.jpg" /> 
US Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) returns from a recess during the impeachment trial proceedings of US President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill January 30, 2020, in Washington, DC | AFP 
&nbsp;</h6>

"The president's purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of appalling abuse of public trust," Romney said in a floor speech.

"What he did was not perfect, no. It was a flagrant assault under electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep one's self in the office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine", he added.

Romney issued a statement reflecting on the State of the Union address but did not mention his vote against the president. He did, however, mentioned in his speech that the Republicans will ''vehemently denounce'' his words and that he would draw disapproval from the conservative party. "I'm sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters," he said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
My statement on tonight's State of the Union address: <a href="https://t.co/i4cBEfucLr">pic.twitter.com/i4cBEfucLr</a>
— Senator Mitt Romney (@SenatorRomney) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorRomney/status/1224901384551718917?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

On December 18, Donald Trump was charged with two articles of impeachment including abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress. The voting in the Senate happened mostly along party lines, as it earlier did in the Democratic majority House of Representatives.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/State-of-the-Union-address-us-house-speaker-nancy-pelosi-tears-up-text-as-trump-ends-state-of-the-union-address-278666">US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tears up text as Trump ends State of the Union address</a> 
 
After months of back-and-forth, United States President Donald Trump was acquitted of all charges. Earlier, Trump was impeached in the House, but this trajectory failed to hold its ground in the Senate.

In the Senate, the call was close, as 52 people chose to acquit him, while 48 people voted in favour of the impeachment charge of abusing power.&nbsp;

<img alt="pppp" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="bdcfe519-5e3c-45c2-963b-4e31fbfc1eec" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%282%29_59.jpg" />

The Democrats had accused Trump of abusing power by requesting Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, Trump's Democratic rival. Mitt Romney was the only Republican Senator who voted to convict Trump on this charge, alongside the Democrats, none of whom voted to acquit.

On the other charge of obstruction of Congress, the Senate voted 53-47 to acquit him. He was suspected of blocking witnesses and documents that were sought by the House. All Republicans, including Romney, voted to acquit him, while no Democrats did.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Had failed presidential candidate <a href="https://twitter.com/MittRomney?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MittRomney</a> devoted the same energy and anger to defeating a faltering Barack Obama as he sanctimoniously does to me, he could have won the election. Read the Transcripts!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1225288731235700737?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 6, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Trump lashed out against Romney on Twitter and reiterated ''Read the transcripts!''

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-what-is-the-state-of-the-union-address-278582" hreflang="en">EXPLAINED: What is the State of the Union address</a>

United States President Donald Trump was acquitted of both impeachment charges in the Senate today. The voting clearly happened along party lines, with Republic led Senate protecting him.

United States President Donald Trump was acquitted of both impeachment charges in the Senate today. The voting clearly happened along party lines, with Republic led Senate protecting him. The Democrats, on the other hand, all wanted him convicted. Also read: US President Donald Trump acquitted of impeachment charges in Republican-majority Senate There was one unexpected twist in the trial as Mitt Romney, a Republican leader from Utah decided to vote in favour of convicting Trump on the charge of abuse of power for the involvement of Ukraine in the US elections. This made Romney the first US senator in history to go against his own president and party. US Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) returns from a recess during the impeachment trial proceedings of US President Donald Trump on Capitol Hill January 30, 2020, in Washington, DC | AFP "The president's purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the president is guilty of appalling abuse of public trust," Romney said in a floor speech. "What he did was not perfect, no. It was a flagrant assault under electoral rights, our national security and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep one's self in the office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office that I can imagine", he added. Romney issued a statement reflecting on the State of the Union address but did not mention his vote against the president. He did, however, mentioned in his speech that the Republicans will ''vehemently denounce'' his words and that he would draw disapproval from the conservative party. "I'm sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters," he said. My statement on tonight's State of the Union address: pic.twitter.com/i4cBEfucLr — Senator Mitt Romney (@SenatorRomney) February 5, 2020 × On December 18, Donald Trump was charged with two articles of impeachment including abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress. The voting in the Senate happened mostly along party lines, as it earlier did in the Democratic majority House of Representatives. Also read: US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tears up text as Trump ends State of the Union address After months of back-and-forth, United States President Donald Trump was acquitted of all charges. Earlier, Trump was impeached in the House, but this trajectory failed to hold its ground in the Senate. In the Senate, the call was close, as 52 people chose to acquit him, while 48 people voted in favour of the impeachment charge of abusing power. The Democrats had accused Trump of abusing power by requesting Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden, Trump's Democratic rival. Mitt Romney was the only Republican Senator who voted to convict Trump on this charge, alongside the Democrats, none of whom voted to acquit. On the other charge of obstruction of Congress, the Senate voted 53-47 to acquit him. He was suspected of blocking witnesses and documents that were sought by the House. All Republicans, including Romney, voted to acquit him, while no Democrats did. Had failed presidential candidate @MittRomney devoted the same energy and anger to defeating a faltering Barack Obama as he sanctimoniously does to me, he could have won the election. Read the Transcripts! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 6, 2020 × Trump lashed out against Romney on Twitter and reiterated ''Read the transcripts!'' EXPLAINED: What is the State of the Union address

Mitt Romney becomes first Senator in US history to vote against own party's president

Hollywood superstar Brad Pitt on Wednesday (January 22) stopped traffic in Santa Barbara, California, where he was being honored with the Maltin Modern Master Award at the 35th annual Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

Brad Pitt stops traffic in Santa Barbara, says he doesn't have a date for the Oscars

Today in History: Articles of Confederation, Apollo 14 and more!

Immediately after United States President Donald Trump concluded his ''State of the Union'' address, the House speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped apart the paper copy of his speech.

Trump appeared to have rejected a handshake from the speaker, which was followed by the Speaker tearing up the speech.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@SpeakerPelosi</a> tears up of State of the Union speech.<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SOTU?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SOTU</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/SOTU2020?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#SOTU2020</a> <a href="https://t.co/sIpi4G7KsL">pic.twitter.com/sIpi4G7KsL</a>
— CSPAN (@cspan) <a href="https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1224897851303628801?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Interestingly, there was no mention of the impeachment saga in his speech. Pelosi and Trump have exchanged jibes at multiple occasions, especially since Trump was impeached in the House, with Pelosi at the helm of the process. Since then, both have openly criticised each other.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-calls-unmitigated-disaster-as-sanders-buttigieg-claim-victory-278558">Donald Trump calls Democrats Iowa 'unmitigated disaster' as Sanders, Buttigieg claim victory</a>

The White House criticised Pelosi's actions on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Speaker Pelosi just ripped up: 
 
One of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen. 
 
The survival of a child born at 21 weeks. 
 
The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller. 
 
A service member's reunion with his family. 
 
That's her legacy.
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) <a href="https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1224902083209502721?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The impeachment case is set to be put forth to the Senate tomorrow. An acquittal is expected, considering the Senate has a majority of the Republicans who are expected to vote in his favour.

<h6><img alt="uuuu" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="915ba8e1-5855-4923-96e3-b70abc62b876" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%281%29_72.jpg" /> 
Pelosi tears up Trump's speech | Reuters 
&nbsp;</h6>

Trump had earlier claimed that he was not ''bitter'' from the impeachment hearings and wanted the speech to be ''low-key''.

The speech witnessed many Democrats walking out.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-what-is-the-state-of-the-union-address-278582">EXPLAINED: What is the State of the Union address</a>

The US president spoke for an hour and 18 minutes, and was seen walking out while receiving compliments from Republican lawmakers.

As the address continues, Democrats Gretchen Whitmer and Veronica Escobar are expected to deliver a response to the speech.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Watch the moment a military husband surprises his wife and two kids at the State of the Union. 
 
"I am thrilled to inform you that your husband is back," Pres. Trump says, "he is here with us tonight, and we couldn't keep him waiting any longer." <a href="https://t.co/z21h5Ddt05">https://t.co/z21h5Ddt05</a> <a href="https://t.co/YX5f7P8fNw">pic.twitter.com/YX5f7P8fNw</a>
— ABC News (@ABC) <a href="https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1224896783190458368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

In a key moment, Trump reunited a military family and said ''I am thrilled to inform you that your husband is back''. They were separated for over seven months due to the father's deployment.

Cheers of ''Four more years!'' echoed the halls of the House, setting the tone for the rest of the address.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/latest-update-news-our-borders-are-secure-our-values-are-renewed-%20Trump-in-State-of-the-Union-address">Our borders are secure, our values are renewed and pride restored: Trump in State of the Union address</a>

"Our borders are secure, our values are renewed and pride restored," Trump said.

"Since my election, we have created seven million new jobs," he told the US house.

"Three years ago, we launched the great American comeback. Tonight, I stand before you to share the incredible results," he said.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Traditionally, the Speaker says: "Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States." 
 
Speaker Pelosi said "Members of Congress, the President of the United States."
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) <a href="https://twitter.com/jaketapper/status/1224879754802802688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 5, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

As is customary, the Speaker is expected to introduce the president with references to honorary titles. Pelosi broke away from the practice and simply introduced Trump as the President. &nbsp;&nbsp;

Immediately after United States President Donald Trump concluded his ''State of the Union'' address, the House speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped apart the paper copy of his speech.

Immediately after United States President Donald Trump concluded his ''State of the Union'' address, the House speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped apart the paper copy of his speech. Trump appeared to have rejected a handshake from the speaker, which was followed by the Speaker tearing up the speech. .@SpeakerPelosi tears up of State of the Union speech.#SOTU #SOTU2020 pic.twitter.com/sIpi4G7KsL — CSPAN (@cspan) February 5, 2020 × Interestingly, there was no mention of the impeachment saga in his speech. Pelosi and Trump have exchanged jibes at multiple occasions, especially since Trump was impeached in the House, with Pelosi at the helm of the process. Since then, both have openly criticised each other. Also read: Donald Trump calls Democrats Iowa 'unmitigated disaster' as Sanders, Buttigieg claim victory The White House criticised Pelosi's actions on Twitter. Speaker Pelosi just ripped up: One of our last surviving Tuskegee Airmen. The survival of a child born at 21 weeks. The mourning families of Rocky Jones and Kayla Mueller. A service member's reunion with his family. That's her legacy. — The White House (@WhiteHouse) February 5, 2020 × The impeachment case is set to be put forth to the Senate tomorrow. An acquittal is expected, considering the Senate has a majority of the Republicans who are expected to vote in his favour. Pelosi tears up Trump's speech | Reuters Trump had earlier claimed that he was not ''bitter'' from the impeachment hearings and wanted the speech to be ''low-key''. The speech witnessed many Democrats walking out. Also read: EXPLAINED: What is the State of the Union address The US president spoke for an hour and 18 minutes, and was seen walking out while receiving compliments from Republican lawmakers. As the address continues, Democrats Gretchen Whitmer and Veronica Escobar are expected to deliver a response to the speech. Watch the moment a military husband surprises his wife and two kids at the State of the Union. "I am thrilled to inform you that your husband is back," Pres. Trump says, "he is here with us tonight, and we couldn't keep him waiting any longer." https://t.co/z21h5Ddt05 pic.twitter.com/YX5f7P8fNw — ABC News (@ABC) February 5, 2020 × In a key moment, Trump reunited a military family and said ''I am thrilled to inform you that your husband is back''. They were separated for over seven months due to the father's deployment. Cheers of ''Four more years!'' echoed the halls of the House, setting the tone for the rest of the address. Also read: Our borders are secure, our values are renewed and pride restored: Trump in State of the Union address "Our borders are secure, our values are renewed and pride restored," Trump said. "Since my election, we have created seven million new jobs," he told the US house. "Three years ago, we launched the great American comeback. Tonight, I stand before you to share the incredible results," he said. Traditionally, the Speaker says: "Members of Congress, I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States." Speaker Pelosi said "Members of Congress, the President of the United States." — Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) February 5, 2020 × As is customary, the Speaker is expected to introduce the president with references to honorary titles. Pelosi broke away from the practice and simply introduced Trump as the President.

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tears up text as Trump ends State of the Union address

The United States recently issued a security alert for people planning to travel to Spain on account rampant sexual assault in the country.&nbsp;

The advisory asks US citizens who are visiting or studying in Spain to exercise caution.

The alert takes into account the information given by the Spanish Ministry, which reported "a steady increase in the number of sexual assaults nationally over the past five years", CNN reported.

"This includes a rise in sexual assault against young US citizen visitors and students throughout Spain", the alert said.

On New Year's Eve, three American women were raped in the city of Murcia in southeastern Spain.

<h6><img alt="kkk" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="266f5b84-43dd-4487-993d-40edee2ab94f" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%283%29_46.jpg" /> 
Protests in Spain | Reuters 
&nbsp;</h6>

"US citizen victims of sexual assault in Spain can find it very difficult to navigate the local criminal justice system, which differs significantly from the US system," the embassy alert read.

A ruling in November triggered a series of protests in Spain. Five men were cleared of the sexual assault charges against them. However, the report clearly said that the men took turns to rape the unconscious teenager.

All were convicted of a much lighter charge of sexual abuse.

Spanish law clearly states that an attack can be classified as rape or assault only if the perpetrators use violence or intimidation.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/many-arrested-worldwide-as-spain-police-smash-global-pedophile-ring-267532">Many arrested worldwide as Spain police smash global pedophile ring</a>

The United States recently issued a security alert for people planning to travel to Spain on account rampant sexual assault in the country. The advisory asks US citizens who are visiting or studying in Spain to exercise caution.

The United States recently issued a security alert for people planning to travel to Spain on account rampant sexual assault in the country. The advisory asks US citizens who are visiting or studying in Spain to exercise caution. The alert takes into account the information given by the Spanish Ministry, which reported "a steady increase in the number of sexual assaults nationally over the past five years", CNN reported. "This includes a rise in sexual assault against young US citizen visitors and students throughout Spain", the alert said. On New Year's Eve, three American women were raped in the city of Murcia in southeastern Spain. Protests in Spain | Reuters "US citizen victims of sexual assault in Spain can find it very difficult to navigate the local criminal justice system, which differs significantly from the US system," the embassy alert read. A ruling in November triggered a series of protests in Spain. Five men were cleared of the sexual assault charges against them. However, the report clearly said that the men took turns to rape the unconscious teenager. All were convicted of a much lighter charge of sexual abuse. Spanish law clearly states that an attack can be classified as rape or assault only if the perpetrators use violence or intimidation. Also read: Many arrested worldwide as Spain police smash global pedophile ring

New US advisory requests its citizens in Spain to exercise caution against sexual assault

There is a new breed in town. The Westminster Kennel Club unveiled the newest dog breed to compete in the upcoming dog show.

Sporty, sleek and ready to compete - the Westminster Kennel Club introduces the Azawakh

During his ''State of the Union'' address, United States President Donald Trump blasted the ''Sanctuary city of New York''. Trump was alluding to the rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman by an ''alien'', the US colloquial for illegal immigrants.&nbsp;

“New York City’s sanctuary policies continue to threaten the safety of all residents of the five boroughs as they repeatedly protect criminal aliens who show little regard for the laws of this nation”, Trump said.

Trump claimed that the city had failed the woman by not turning over the immigrant to agencies to pursue deportation.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/explained-what-is-the-state-of-the-union-address-278582">EXPLAINED: What is the State of the Union address</a> 
 
“Tragically, there are many cities in America where radical politicians have chosen to provide sanctuary for these criminal illegal aliens. In sanctuary cities, local officials order police to release dangerous criminal aliens to prey upon the public, instead of handing them over to ICE to be safely removed,” Trump said in his speech.

“Just 29 days ago, a criminal alien freed by the sanctuary city of New York was charged with the brutal rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman. The killer had been previously arrested for assault, but under New York’s sanctuary policies, he was set free. If the city had honoured ICE’s detainer request, his victim would be alive today,” the president said.

<img alt="Trump" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="e942e16c-f88d-435f-ace6-ba104e7dc1ec" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%281%29_74.jpg" />

The alien in question is Reeaz Khan, an immigrant from Guyana. The Post reported that they had put forward a detainer request with the New York Police Department against Khan, who was busted for attacking his dad with a ceramic mug, which gave his father injuries in the chest and the arm. 
 
The perpetrator was then charged with assault, harassment, criminal possession of a weapon, but was later released without bail.

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/latest-update-news-our-borders-are-secure-our-values-are-renewed-%20Trump-in-State-of-the-Union-address">Our borders are secure, our values are renewed and pride restored: Trump in State of the Union address</a>

Almost a month and a half after this incident, Khan was found responsible for the murder of Maria Fuertes, 92, who was found in a near-death condition on a Richmond Hill pavement on January 6 at about 2 am. 
 
According to court papers, the victim remained deserted on the pavement for about two hours after being assaulted and strangled. She succumbed to her injuries at a hospital. Her injuries included a broken spine, rib fractures, etc.

Khan was identified as the attacker by his brother, who had informed the cops.&nbsp;

Trump blasted New York's law enforcement and said, “It was a deadly choice to release a man on an active ICE detainer back onto the streets after his first arrest included assault and weapon charges, and he now faces new charges, including murder,” Decker said.

In pictures:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/all-the-highlights-from-trumps-reality-tv-style-state-of-the-union-address-278726">Highlights from Trump's reality-TV style State of the Union address</a>

During his ''State of the Union'' address, United States President Donald Trump blasted the ''Sanctuary city of New York''. Trump was alluding to the rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman by an ''alien'', the US colloquial for illegal immigrants.

During his ''State of the Union'' address, United States President Donald Trump blasted the ''Sanctuary city of New York''. Trump was alluding to the rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman by an ''alien'', the US colloquial for illegal immigrants. “New York City’s sanctuary policies continue to threaten the safety of all residents of the five boroughs as they repeatedly protect criminal aliens who show little regard for the laws of this nation”, Trump said. Trump claimed that the city had failed the woman by not turning over the immigrant to agencies to pursue deportation. Also read: EXPLAINED: What is the State of the Union address “Tragically, there are many cities in America where radical politicians have chosen to provide sanctuary for these criminal illegal aliens. In sanctuary cities, local officials order police to release dangerous criminal aliens to prey upon the public, instead of handing them over to ICE to be safely removed,” Trump said in his speech. “Just 29 days ago, a criminal alien freed by the sanctuary city of New York was charged with the brutal rape and murder of a 92-year-old woman. The killer had been previously arrested for assault, but under New York’s sanctuary policies, he was set free. If the city had honoured ICE’s detainer request, his victim would be alive today,” the president said. The alien in question is Reeaz Khan, an immigrant from Guyana. The Post reported that they had put forward a detainer request with the New York Police Department against Khan, who was busted for attacking his dad with a ceramic mug, which gave his father injuries in the chest and the arm. The perpetrator was then charged with assault, harassment, criminal possession of a weapon, but was later released without bail. Also read: Our borders are secure, our values are renewed and pride restored: Trump in State of the Union address Almost a month and a half after this incident, Khan was found responsible for the murder of Maria Fuertes, 92, who was found in a near-death condition on a Richmond Hill pavement on January 6 at about 2 am. According to court papers, the victim remained deserted on the pavement for about two hours after being assaulted and strangled. She succumbed to her injuries at a hospital. Her injuries included a broken spine, rib fractures, etc. Khan was identified as the attacker by his brother, who had informed the cops. Trump blasted New York's law enforcement and said, “It was a deadly choice to release a man on an active ICE detainer back onto the streets after his first arrest included assault and weapon charges, and he now faces new charges, including murder,” Decker said. In pictures: Highlights from Trump's reality-TV style State of the Union address

Donald Trump blasts New York City for protecting 'alien' who killed a 92-year-old woman

To counter Russia's growing arsenal of tactical nukes, the US military recently deployed a submarine equipped with a low-yield nuclear weapon.

Alarmists might see it as an escalation of already sky-high nuclear tensions in the world.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-navy-planning-to-build-six-nuclear-attack-submarines-navy-to-parliamentary-panel-270876">Indian Navy planning to build six nuclear attack submarines: Navy to Parliamentary panel</a>

"The US Navy has fielded the W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead," John Rood, the Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, said in a statement.

A modification to the pre-existing W-76 warhead, the new weapon would be used to arm the submarine.

Launch mechanism and codes in the ''football'' for the President have been updated and now reflects this weapon, the CNN reported. 
 
The warheads are the latest addition to the US arsenal in weapons and were first produced in February of last year.

<h6><img alt="uuuuu" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="17236d1c-7a92-42f0-834c-5daca17074fb" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%283%29_47.jpg" /> 
HMS Astute, one of British Royal Navy's new nuclear powered submarines, lays at dock in Gibraltar on its maiden call on March 20, 2014 | AFP 
&nbsp;</h6>

The weapon was earlier part of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. According to this, many believe that the US enemies could use a smaller nuclear weapon against the US, for the American weapons are way more destructive. 
 
"Expanding flexible US nuclear options now, to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression. It will raise the nuclear threshold and help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely," the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review said.

According to the Review, the US is expected to modify existing warheads as part of a $50 million five-year-long programme.

"The United States regularly consults with allies on its nuclear weapons systems, and has provided updates on its development of low-yield tridents since the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review," a NATO official told CNN.

<h6><img alt="pppp" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="8431db57-5d39-4aea-99cf-608008fa2a3e" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%284%29_29.jpg" /> 
This undated picture shows a nuclear-powered submarine of the People's Liberation Army Navy's North Sea Fleet preparing to dive into the sea | AFP 
&nbsp;</h6>

US authorities claimed that no adversary should think that the US is unable to respond to any kind of threats.&nbsp; 
He added that the new weapon "demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment because the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario."

Democratic House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith of Washington called the decision "misguided and dangerous".

"The deployment of this warhead does nothing to make Americans safer. Instead, this destabilizing deployment further increases the potential for miscalculation during a crisis," he told CNN.

According to reports, Russia has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons which are less powerful and destructive than the ones with the US but are capable of large-scale damage still.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/indias-first-submarine-optical-cable-for-andaman-and-nicobar-islands-to-be-operational-by-june-273267">India’s first submarine optical cable for Andaman and Nicobar islands to be operational by June&nbsp;</a>

To counter Russia's growing arsenal of tactical nukes, the US military recently deployed a submarine equipped with a low-yield nuclear weapon. Alarmists might see it as an escalation of already sky-high nuclear tensions in the world.

To counter Russia's growing arsenal of tactical nukes, the US military recently deployed a submarine equipped with a low-yield nuclear weapon. Alarmists might see it as an escalation of already sky-high nuclear tensions in the world. Also read: Indian Navy planning to build six nuclear attack submarines: Navy to Parliamentary panel "The US Navy has fielded the W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead," John Rood, the Under Secretary of Defence for Policy, said in a statement. A modification to the pre-existing W-76 warhead, the new weapon would be used to arm the submarine. Launch mechanism and codes in the ''football'' for the President have been updated and now reflects this weapon, the CNN reported. The warheads are the latest addition to the US arsenal in weapons and were first produced in February of last year. HMS Astute, one of British Royal Navy's new nuclear powered submarines, lays at dock in Gibraltar on its maiden call on March 20, 2014 | AFP The weapon was earlier part of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review. According to this, many believe that the US enemies could use a smaller nuclear weapon against the US, for the American weapons are way more destructive. "Expanding flexible US nuclear options now, to include low-yield options, is important for the preservation of credible deterrence against regional aggression. It will raise the nuclear threshold and help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely," the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review said. According to the Review, the US is expected to modify existing warheads as part of a $50 million five-year-long programme. "The United States regularly consults with allies on its nuclear weapons systems, and has provided updates on its development of low-yield tridents since the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review," a NATO official told CNN. This undated picture shows a nuclear-powered submarine of the People's Liberation Army Navy's North Sea Fleet preparing to dive into the sea | AFP US authorities claimed that no adversary should think that the US is unable to respond to any kind of threats. He added that the new weapon "demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment because the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario." Democratic House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith of Washington called the decision "misguided and dangerous". "The deployment of this warhead does nothing to make Americans safer. Instead, this destabilizing deployment further increases the potential for miscalculation during a crisis," he told CNN. According to reports, Russia has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons which are less powerful and destructive than the ones with the US but are capable of large-scale damage still. Also read: India’s first submarine optical cable for Andaman and Nicobar islands to be operational by June

US deploys new type of nuclear weapon to counter Russian arsenal

California health officials said on Sunday they had confirmed 11 cases of the new, fast-spreading <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinas-coronavirus-infections-hit-daily-record-deaths-climb-to-304-278085">coronavirus</a> in the United States, with one in Santa Clara County and two more in San Benito County.

In Santa Clara County, a woman and the family she is staying with are being quarantined and she is now in isolation at their home, Santa Clara County health officials told a news conference. The woman was not sick enough to require hospitalization, it added.

The other two cases involve a married couple in San Benito County, the San Benito County Public Health Services announced in a release late Sunday.

The Santa Clara woman, who recently traveled to the epicenter of the outbreak in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/coronavirus-outbreak-while-air-india-flight-lands-in-china-to-rescue-indians-pakistan-says-it-wont-evacuate-citizens-from-wuhan-277853">Wuhan</a>, China, is the second case in Santa Clara reported, health officials said. They said the case is not related to the first case in Santa Clara.

<img alt="Wuhan" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="703a5b32-4b29-43f3-beaa-4b4686fc772b" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%289%29_20.jpg" />

<h5>File Photo:&nbsp;Passengers arrive at LAX from Shanghai, China, after a positive case of the coronavirus was announced in the Orange County suburb of Los Angeles, California, US</h5>

The two additional cases involve a husband and wife, and the husband had recently traveled to Wuhan and apparently transmitted the disease to his wife, San Benito County Public Health Services said in a release late Sunday. Neither patient is hospitalized, officials said.

San Benito County health officials were not immediately available to Reuters for comment.

Santa Clara is located about 40 miles (64 km) southeast of San Francisco. San Benito County is about 80 miles west of Fresno.

The US&nbsp;Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) informed county health officials of the case Sunday morning, said Sara Cody, health officer of the Public Health Department of the County of Santa Clara.

The flu-like coronavirus, which is believed to have originated in a market that traded illegally in wildlife in Hubei's provincial capital, Wuhan, has so far resulted in more than 350 deaths in China. Confirmed cases of the virus have been reported in 27 other nations, according to the CDC.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/health-care-in-america-for-one-family-a-300000-debt-nightmare-277176">US&nbsp;health</a> officials have said risks to the United States remain low.

California health officials said on Sunday they had confirmed 11 cases of the new, fast-spreading coronavirus in the United States, with one in Santa Clara County and two more in San Benito County.

California health officials said on Sunday they had confirmed 11 cases of the new, fast-spreading coronavirus in the United States, with one in Santa Clara County and two more in San Benito County. In Santa Clara County, a woman and the family she is staying with are being quarantined and she is now in isolation at their home, Santa Clara County health officials told a news conference. The woman was not sick enough to require hospitalization, it added. The other two cases involve a married couple in San Benito County, the San Benito County Public Health Services announced in a release late Sunday. The Santa Clara woman, who recently traveled to the epicenter of the outbreak in Wuhan, China, is the second case in Santa Clara reported, health officials said. They said the case is not related to the first case in Santa Clara. File Photo: Passengers arrive at LAX from Shanghai, China, after a positive case of the coronavirus was announced in the Orange County suburb of Los Angeles, California, US The two additional cases involve a husband and wife, and the husband had recently traveled to Wuhan and apparently transmitted the disease to his wife, San Benito County Public Health Services said in a release late Sunday. Neither patient is hospitalized, officials said. San Benito County health officials were not immediately available to Reuters for comment. Santa Clara is located about 40 miles (64 km) southeast of San Francisco. San Benito County is about 80 miles west of Fresno. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) informed county health officials of the case Sunday morning, said Sara Cody, health officer of the Public Health Department of the County of Santa Clara. The flu-like coronavirus, which is believed to have originated in a market that traded illegally in wildlife in Hubei's provincial capital, Wuhan, has so far resulted in more than 350 deaths in China. Confirmed cases of the virus have been reported in 27 other nations, according to the CDC. US health officials have said risks to the United States remain low.

US confirms 11th case of new coronavirus

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