US&nbsp;Secretary of State Antony Blinken and South Korean Foreign Minister Chung Eui-Yong reaffirmed a commitment between their countries and Japan to work closely toward the 'denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula',&nbsp;the State Department said. 
 
The statement, issued after the two met on the sidelines of a Group of Seven summit, referred, without naming North Korea, to efforts that have made little or no progress towards getting Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear arsenal. 
 
Blinken and Chung also stressed the importance of multilateral cooperation to address other regional issues "including the&nbsp;return to the path to democracy&nbsp;for the people of Burma," the statement said, referring to a military coup in Myanmar earlier this year.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and South Korean Foreign Minister Chung Eui-Yong reaffirmed a commitment between their countries and Japan to work closely toward the 'denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula', the State Department said.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and South Korean Foreign Minister Chung Eui-Yong reaffirmed a commitment between their countries and Japan to work closely toward the 'denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula', the State Department said. The statement, issued after the two met on the sidelines of a Group of Seven summit, referred, without naming North Korea, to efforts that have made little or no progress towards getting Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear arsenal. Blinken and Chung also stressed the importance of multilateral cooperation to address other regional issues "including the return to the path to democracy for the people of Burma," the statement said, referring to a military coup in Myanmar earlier this year.

US, South Korea reaffirm cooperation towards denuclearisation of Korean Peninsula

A shooting in a popular nightlife district in downtown Austin, Texas, early Saturday left 14 people injured, with two of them in critical condition, police said.

Officers responded to a report of shots fired around 1:25 a.m. in a district known for drawing large crowds to its bars and restaurants.

Joseph Chacon, the interim chief of the Austin Police Department, said at a news briefing Saturday afternoon that the shooting appeared to have started as “some kind of disturbance between two parties.”

He said that there was no information to indicate the victims were intentionally targeted, and that most were “innocent bystanders.”

The police revised the number of victims to 14, from 13. The chief said it was possible there are still others who were hurt who have not sought medical help or reported their injuries to police.

The police said on Saturday afternoon that a suspect was in custody and a second suspect remained at large. The person in custody was not identified.

The police said in a statement that the victims had been wounded or injured, but the chief said all of them had been shot. Two victims were in critical condition and 12 were in stable condition, police said.

Chacon said that police officers used first aid gear they carry, such as chest seals and tourniquets, to provide lifesaving help and that responding officers had exhausted all of their supplies at the scene.

He said that the downtown area was filled with people at the time of the shooting and that the neighborhood was drawing pre-pandemic crowd sizes.

A shooting in a popular nightlife district in downtown Austin, Texas, early Saturday left 14 people injured, with two of them in critical condition, police said.

A shooting in a popular nightlife district in downtown Austin, Texas, early Saturday left 14 people injured, with two of them in critical condition, police said. Officers responded to a report of shots fired around 1:25 a.m. in a district known for drawing large crowds to its bars and restaurants. Joseph Chacon, the interim chief of the Austin Police Department, said at a news briefing Saturday afternoon that the shooting appeared to have started as “some kind of disturbance between two parties.” He said that there was no information to indicate the victims were intentionally targeted, and that most were “innocent bystanders.” The police revised the number of victims to 14, from 13. The chief said it was possible there are still others who were hurt who have not sought medical help or reported their injuries to police. The police said on Saturday afternoon that a suspect was in custody and a second suspect remained at large. The person in custody was not identified. The police said in a statement that the victims had been wounded or injured, but the chief said all of them had been shot. Two victims were in critical condition and 12 were in stable condition, police said. Chacon said that police officers used first aid gear they carry, such as chest seals and tourniquets, to provide lifesaving help and that responding officers had exhausted all of their supplies at the scene. He said that the downtown area was filled with people at the time of the shooting and that the neighborhood was drawing pre-pandemic crowd sizes.

14 people are hurt in shooting in downtown Austin, police say

US President Joe Biden and his NATO counterparts will bid a symbolic farewell to Afghanistan on Monday in their last summit before America winds up its longest 'forever war' and the US military pulls out for good.

The meeting is bound to renew questions about whether NATO's most ambitious operation ever was worth it.

The 18-year effort cost the United States alone USD 2.26 trillion, and the price in lives includes 2,442 American troops and 1,144 personnel among US allies, according to figures from Brown University. NATO does not keep a record of those, who die in its operations.

Those casualty figures dwarf Afghan losses, which include more than 47,000 civilians, up to 69,000 members of the national armed forces and police, and over 51,000 opposition fighters.

The military effort followed the 2001 arrival of a US-led coalition that ousted the Taliban for harbouring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Few experts argue that it brought long-term stability, meaningful democracy or security.

"At this point, you get the impression that NATO leaders almost want to downplay and leave quietly, rather than making too big a deal of it, and going on to focus on other business," said Erik Brattberg, director of the Europe Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

With the US leading the withdrawal, European allies and Canada want to hear Biden's thinking about how security will be assured at their embassies, along major transport routes and above all at Kabul's airport.

Many wonder whether the Afghan government can survive a resurgent Taliban. Some think Kabul's capitulation is only a matter of time.

"We are currently in intense discussions with our member states, the United States, NATO and the United Nations on the absence of essential security conditions for our continued diplomatic presence. It will be difficult to keep it&nbsp;in place," European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said.

For now, NATO plans to leave civilian advisers to help build up government institutions. It's unclear, who will protect them. The 30-nation alliance is also weighing whether to train Afghan special forces outside the country.

As an organisation, NATO will not provide sanctuary for Afghans, who worked alongside its forces 'routinely risking their lives' although a few individual members will. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says it's simply time to leave.

"Afghanistan has come a long way, both when it comes to building strong, capable security forces, but also when it comes to social and economic progress," he said.

"At some stage, it has to be the Afghans that take full responsibility for peace and stability in their own country." 
Few Afghans share that assessment of their country, which has a 54% poverty rate, runaway crime, rampant corruption and an illicit economy that outstrips the legal economy.

When NATO took charge of international security operations in 2003, Afghanistan was its first major mission outside Europe and North America. The aim was to stabilise the government, build up local security forces and remove a potential base for extremist groups.

Yet 18 years later, security is at its lowest ebb for most Afghans. The capital is rife with criminal gangs, many linked to powerful warlords, and there are routine attacks by an upstart Islamic State.

Quite early into the operations, as combat took its toll on NATO troops, extremists and civilians, a stalemate developed. The Taliban could not be routed from outlying areas, but neither could its fighters seize and hold major cities.

Troop surges made little difference, and it soon became clear that NATO's military training effort was its exit strategy. Only by creating a big army capable of standing on its own feet could the organisation wind up its operations.

But the Afghan army was plagued by corruption, desertion and low morale. Experts say it still is, and this remains a major concern as NATO insists on funding the nation's security forces after it's gone.

Donald Trump's unilateral decision to leave by May 1 stunned US&nbsp;Allies. It highlighted NATO's weakness: European members and Canada simply cannot sustain major operations without logistical support from their biggest partner. 
Biden's decision to pull US&nbsp;troops out by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington changed little, although he did consult allies this time.

James Dobbins, a former Afghan envoy, who now works for the RAND Corporation think tank, predicts the exit will mean the loss of government legitimacy.

"The US&nbsp;Departure will be seen as a victory for the Taliban and a defeat for the United States," he said in an opinion piece. "The result will be a blow to American credibility, the weakening of deterrence and the value of American reassurance elsewhere."

On Monday, NATO's leaders will reaffirm the strength of their alliance and go back to what they know best: their old nemesis, Russia. Biden will brief his partners before meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani was not invited to NATO's summit.

"There is little appetite left to continue investing in Afghanistan," Brattberg said. "There is a sense of being fed up in a lot of NATO countries, and now it's just time to pack the bags and get out with little consideration about the consequences that could have on the ground."

(With inputs from agencies)

US President Joe Biden and his NATO counterparts will bid a symbolic farewell to Afghanistan on Monday in their last summit before America winds up its longest 'forever war' and the US military pulls out for good.

US President Joe Biden and his NATO counterparts will bid a symbolic farewell to Afghanistan on Monday in their last summit before America winds up its longest 'forever war' and the US military pulls out for good. The meeting is bound to renew questions about whether NATO's most ambitious operation ever was worth it. The 18-year effort cost the United States alone USD 2.26 trillion, and the price in lives includes 2,442 American troops and 1,144 personnel among US allies, according to figures from Brown University. NATO does not keep a record of those, who die in its operations. Those casualty figures dwarf Afghan losses, which include more than 47,000 civilians, up to 69,000 members of the national armed forces and police, and over 51,000 opposition fighters. The military effort followed the 2001 arrival of a US-led coalition that ousted the Taliban for harbouring al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Few experts argue that it brought long-term stability, meaningful democracy or security. "At this point, you get the impression that NATO leaders almost want to downplay and leave quietly, rather than making too big a deal of it, and going on to focus on other business," said Erik Brattberg, director of the Europe Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. With the US leading the withdrawal, European allies and Canada want to hear Biden's thinking about how security will be assured at their embassies, along major transport routes and above all at Kabul's airport. Many wonder whether the Afghan government can survive a resurgent Taliban. Some think Kabul's capitulation is only a matter of time. "We are currently in intense discussions with our member states, the United States, NATO and the United Nations on the absence of essential security conditions for our continued diplomatic presence. It will be difficult to keep it in place," European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said. For now, NATO plans to leave civilian advisers to help build up government institutions. It's unclear, who will protect them. The 30-nation alliance is also weighing whether to train Afghan special forces outside the country. As an organisation, NATO will not provide sanctuary for Afghans, who worked alongside its forces 'routinely risking their lives' although a few individual members will. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg says it's simply time to leave. "Afghanistan has come a long way, both when it comes to building strong, capable security forces, but also when it comes to social and economic progress," he said. "At some stage, it has to be the Afghans that take full responsibility for peace and stability in their own country." Few Afghans share that assessment of their country, which has a 54% poverty rate, runaway crime, rampant corruption and an illicit economy that outstrips the legal economy. When NATO took charge of international security operations in 2003, Afghanistan was its first major mission outside Europe and North America. The aim was to stabilise the government, build up local security forces and remove a potential base for extremist groups. Yet 18 years later, security is at its lowest ebb for most Afghans. The capital is rife with criminal gangs, many linked to powerful warlords, and there are routine attacks by an upstart Islamic State. Quite early into the operations, as combat took its toll on NATO troops, extremists and civilians, a stalemate developed. The Taliban could not be routed from outlying areas, but neither could its fighters seize and hold major cities. Troop surges made little difference, and it soon became clear that NATO's military training effort was its exit strategy. Only by creating a big army capable of standing on its own feet could the organisation wind up its operations. But the Afghan army was plagued by corruption, desertion and low morale. Experts say it still is, and this remains a major concern as NATO insists on funding the nation's security forces after it's gone. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to leave by May 1 stunned US Allies. It highlighted NATO's weakness: European members and Canada simply cannot sustain major operations without logistical support from their biggest partner. Biden's decision to pull US troops out by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington changed little, although he did consult allies this time. James Dobbins, a former Afghan envoy, who now works for the RAND Corporation think tank, predicts the exit will mean the loss of government legitimacy. "The US Departure will be seen as a victory for the Taliban and a defeat for the United States," he said in an opinion piece. "The result will be a blow to American credibility, the weakening of deterrence and the value of American reassurance elsewhere." On Monday, NATO's leaders will reaffirm the strength of their alliance and go back to what they know best: their old nemesis, Russia. Biden will brief his partners before meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani was not invited to NATO's summit. "There is little appetite left to continue investing in Afghanistan," Brattberg said. "There is a sense of being fed up in a lot of NATO countries, and now it's just time to pack the bags and get out with little consideration about the consequences that could have on the ground." (With inputs from agencies)

NATO leaders to bid symbolic adieu to Afghanistan at summit

Russian President Vladimir&nbsp;Putin, in an interview with NBC News ahead of his meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden next week, said U.S.-Russia relations are at their lowest point in years.

Putin&nbsp;and Biden will meet in Geneva on Wednesday. The White House has said Biden will bring up ransomware attacks emanating from Russia, Moscow's aggression against Ukraine, the jailing of dissidents, and other issues that have irritated the relationship.

"We have a bilateral relationship that has deteriorated to its lowest point in recent years,"&nbsp;Putin&nbsp;said, according to an NBC translation of excerpts of an interview broadcast on Friday.

Putin&nbsp;praised former President Donald Trump as "an extraordinary individual, talented individual," and said Biden, as a career politician, was "radically different" from Trump.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/g7-leaders-agree-on-a-joint-declaration-to-stop-future-pandemics-390934">Also Read |&nbsp;G7 leaders agree on a joint declaration to stop future pandemics</a>

Asked about Biden calling him a killer in an interview in March,&nbsp;Putin&nbsp;said he had heard dozens of such accusations. "This is not something I worry about in the least,"&nbsp;Putin&nbsp;said.

Biden, at the start of an eight-day visit to Europe this week, said: "We're not seeking conflict with Russia."

"We want a stable and predictable relationship ... but I've been clear: The United States will respond in a robust and meaningful way if the Russian government engages in harmful activities."

Putin&nbsp;was asked about several Russian dissidents whose deaths have been blamed on Moscow, including ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko who was poisoned in 2006.&nbsp;Putin&nbsp;dismissed the question as “verbal indigestion.“ He said some of those responsible for the deaths are in prison.

On the issue of recent ransomware attacks that the United States has traced to Russia,&nbsp;Putin&nbsp;denied any knowledge of the hackings and called on Biden to reach an agreement with him on cyberspace, NBC News said.

Putin&nbsp;also dismissed a report in the Washington Post this week that Russia was preparing to supply Iran with an advanced satellite that would enable it to track potential military targets across the Middle East.

"It's just fake news. At the very least, I don't know anything about this kind of thing,"&nbsp;Putin&nbsp;said, according to NBC News. "It's just nonsense garbage."

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with NBC News ahead of his meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden next week, said U.S.-Russia relations are at their lowest point in years.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with NBC News ahead of his meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden next week, said U.S.-Russia relations are at their lowest point in years. Putin and Biden will meet in Geneva on Wednesday. The White House has said Biden will bring up ransomware attacks emanating from Russia, Moscow's aggression against Ukraine, the jailing of dissidents, and other issues that have irritated the relationship. "We have a bilateral relationship that has deteriorated to its lowest point in recent years," Putin said, according to an NBC translation of excerpts of an interview broadcast on Friday. Putin praised former President Donald Trump as "an extraordinary individual, talented individual," and said Biden, as a career politician, was "radically different" from Trump. Also Read | G7 leaders agree on a joint declaration to stop future pandemics Asked about Biden calling him a killer in an interview in March, Putin said he had heard dozens of such accusations. "This is not something I worry about in the least," Putin said. Biden, at the start of an eight-day visit to Europe this week, said: "We're not seeking conflict with Russia." "We want a stable and predictable relationship ... but I've been clear: The United States will respond in a robust and meaningful way if the Russian government engages in harmful activities." Putin was asked about several Russian dissidents whose deaths have been blamed on Moscow, including ex-KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko who was poisoned in 2006. Putin dismissed the question as “verbal indigestion.“ He said some of those responsible for the deaths are in prison. On the issue of recent ransomware attacks that the United States has traced to Russia, Putin denied any knowledge of the hackings and called on Biden to reach an agreement with him on cyberspace, NBC News said. Putin also dismissed a report in the Washington Post this week that Russia was preparing to supply Iran with an advanced satellite that would enable it to track potential military targets across the Middle East. "It's just fake news. At the very least, I don't know anything about this kind of thing," Putin said, according to NBC News. "It's just nonsense garbage."

Putin says relations with US at lowest point in years, praises Trump

A Los Angeles-Atlanta flight was diverted for emergency landing after a passenger attacked two flight attendants and threatened to bring the plane down. The incident took place late Friday (local time)

A frightening commotion broke out in the front of Delta Flight 1730, according to the airline and media reports.

As a man grappled with flight attendants -- and said repeatedly that he was "going to take the plane down" -- the pilot called over the public address system for "all able-bodied men" to assist.

Several, including an off-duty pilot, rushed forward and, after several moments of violent struggle partly captured on video, were able to overpower the man, police said.

The plane, which had been well on its way from the West Coast to Atlanta in the southeast, was diverted instead to Oklahoma City.&nbsp;

Police there took the suspect, identified as an off-duty Delta employee in his late 20s, into custody, reports said. His precise motive was unknown.

After complaining of chest pains and showing signs of what police said were mental issues, the man was hospitalized.

No other injuries were reported.

In a statement, Delta thanked the passengers and crew who "assisted in detaining an unruly passenger."

Police searched the plane before allowing the flight to continue on. The FBI is investigating.

The incident took place the same day the US Transportation Security Administration said its agents had screened more than two million passengers at airports -- the most since before the Covid-19 crisis erupted.

Meantime, data from the Federal Aviation Authority show that "unruly passenger" incidents on commercial flights have shot up this year amid high stress levels and as mask-wearing has taken on a political edge.

The agency has launched 394 formal enforcement actions in "unruly passenger" cases through May 25 of this year, a far higher pace than the 183 for all of 2020, according to its website.

Many more cases have not led to formal action.

(With inputs from agencies)

A Los Angeles-Atlanta flight was diverted for emergency landing after a passenger attacked two flight attendants and threatened to bring the plane down. The incident took place late Friday (local time) A frightening commotion broke out in the front of Delta Flight 1730, according to the airline and media reports.

A Los Angeles-Atlanta flight was diverted for emergency landing after a passenger attacked two flight attendants and threatened to bring the plane down. The incident took place late Friday (local time) A frightening commotion broke out in the front of Delta Flight 1730, according to the airline and media reports. As a man grappled with flight attendants -- and said repeatedly that he was "going to take the plane down" -- the pilot called over the public address system for "all able-bodied men" to assist. Several, including an off-duty pilot, rushed forward and, after several moments of violent struggle partly captured on video, were able to overpower the man, police said. The plane, which had been well on its way from the West Coast to Atlanta in the southeast, was diverted instead to Oklahoma City. Police there took the suspect, identified as an off-duty Delta employee in his late 20s, into custody, reports said. His precise motive was unknown. After complaining of chest pains and showing signs of what police said were mental issues, the man was hospitalized. No other injuries were reported. In a statement, Delta thanked the passengers and crew who "assisted in detaining an unruly passenger." Police searched the plane before allowing the flight to continue on. The FBI is investigating. The incident took place the same day the US Transportation Security Administration said its agents had screened more than two million passengers at airports -- the most since before the Covid-19 crisis erupted. Meantime, data from the Federal Aviation Authority show that "unruly passenger" incidents on commercial flights have shot up this year amid high stress levels and as mask-wearing has taken on a political edge. The agency has launched 394 formal enforcement actions in "unruly passenger" cases through May 25 of this year, a far higher pace than the 183 for all of 2020, according to its website. Many more cases have not led to formal action. (With inputs from agencies)

Flight diverted after man threatens to 'take plane down' in US

The United States and China clashed in rare talks Friday as President Joe Biden made his international debut at the G7 summit, with his administration pressing Beijing on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">Covid</a>, Taiwan and human rights.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken, joining Biden at the summit of industrial democracies in England, spoke by telephone with senior Chinese official Yang Jiechi, their first talks since a heated in-person encounter in Alaska in March.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/world-leaders-meet-at-g7-summit-amid-coronavirus-crisis-390883">World leaders meet at G7 summit amid coronavirus crisis</a>

As Biden used his first presidential trip abroad to unveil a massive plan to buy and distribute 500 million Covid vaccine doses around the world, Blinken renewed US pressure on China over the origins of the pandemic that has killed more than 3.7 million people.

Blinken "stressed the importance of cooperation and transparency regarding the origin of the virus," including allowing World Health Organization experts back into China, State Department spokesman Ned Price said in a statement.

Biden has ordered US intelligence to report back by late August on whether Covid-19, first detected in late 2019 in the city of Wuhan, emerged from an animal source or a laboratory accident.

Former President Donald Trump trotted out the lab-leak theory but was widely dismissed, with many believing he was seeking to deflect criticism over his own handling of the pandemic, but Biden has said there was a need for further study after criticizing Beijing for not giving more access to a WHO probe.&nbsp;

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/g7-summit-from-protests-to-elbow-bumps-day-1-in-cornwall-391023/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Yang told Blinken that the laboratory theory was "absurd," according to the state-run China Global Television Network.

"We urge the US side to respect facts and science, not to politicize the origin tracing and to focus its attention on international cooperation on the fight against the pandemic," Yang said.

China, which like Russia has been shipping its own vaccines to friendly countries, has sought to rebrand itself in the world's eyes not as the country that failed to stop the virus but as a model on how to contain it.

'Interests of small circles'&nbsp;

Yang, a senior Politburo member who has long taken a lead in Beijing's handling of the United States, renewed denunciations of Washington as Biden met with leaders from other Group of Seven nations, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-says-g7-may-reallocate-100-billion-from-imf-funds-to-covid-ravaged-nations-390990">US says G7 may reallocate $100 billion from IMF funds to COVID-ravaged nations</a>

"Genuine multilateralism is not pseudo-multilateralism based on the interests of small circles," Yang told Blinken, according to China Central Television.

"The only genuine multilateralism is that founded on the principles of the charter of the United Nations and international law," Yang said.

Yang also renewed accusations of US hypocrisy on human rights as Blinken pressed on what the United States considers the genocide of Uyghurs and other mostly Muslim Turkic people who are incarcerated in camps.

"The United States should resolve its own domestic serious human rights violations, and not use the so-called human rights issues as an excuse to arbitrarily interfere in the internal affairs of other countries," he said.

Yang made similar accusations about the United States in front of cameras during the meeting in Anchorage, taking aback US officials who expected brief, civil remarks but raising his star power inside China.

Concern on Taiwan

Blinken also voiced alarm at China's increasing pressure on Taiwan including military flights off its coast.

Blinken "called on Beijing to cease its pressure campaign against Taiwan and peacefully resolve cross-Strait issues," the State Department statement said.

Washington has been increasingly alarmed that China will attempt to use force on Taiwan, a self-governing democracy it considers part of its territory, after its sweeping curbs on freedoms in Hong Kong.

The United States in recent days agreed to reopen trade talks with Taiwan and authorized a military plane to bring a delegation of senators who offered Covid vaccines.

Amid wide bipartisan criticism of China, Biden has largely continued the hawkish stance of Trump, in substance if not in tone.

The Biden administration has described China as a pre-eminent international challenge and vowed to counter it by shoring up alliances and investing heavily in infrastructure and development at home.

The United States and China clashed in rare talks Friday as President Joe Biden made his international debut at the G7 summit, with his administration pressing Beijing on Covid, Taiwan and human rights.

The United States and China clashed in rare talks Friday as President Joe Biden made his international debut at the G7 summit, with his administration pressing Beijing on Covid, Taiwan and human rights. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, joining Biden at the summit of industrial democracies in England, spoke by telephone with senior Chinese official Yang Jiechi, their first talks since a heated in-person encounter in Alaska in March. Also read | World leaders meet at G7 summit amid coronavirus crisis As Biden used his first presidential trip abroad to unveil a massive plan to buy and distribute 500 million Covid vaccine doses around the world, Blinken renewed US pressure on China over the origins of the pandemic that has killed more than 3.7 million people. Blinken "stressed the importance of cooperation and transparency regarding the origin of the virus," including allowing World Health Organization experts back into China, State Department spokesman Ned Price said in a statement. Biden has ordered US intelligence to report back by late August on whether Covid-19, first detected in late 2019 in the city of Wuhan, emerged from an animal source or a laboratory accident. Former President Donald Trump trotted out the lab-leak theory but was widely dismissed, with many believing he was seeking to deflect criticism over his own handling of the pandemic, but Biden has said there was a need for further study after criticizing Beijing for not giving more access to a WHO probe. Yang told Blinken that the laboratory theory was "absurd," according to the state-run China Global Television Network. "We urge the US side to respect facts and science, not to politicize the origin tracing and to focus its attention on international cooperation on the fight against the pandemic," Yang said. China, which like Russia has been shipping its own vaccines to friendly countries, has sought to rebrand itself in the world's eyes not as the country that failed to stop the virus but as a model on how to contain it. 'Interests of small circles' Yang, a senior Politburo member who has long taken a lead in Beijing's handling of the United States, renewed denunciations of Washington as Biden met with leaders from other Group of Seven nations, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Also read | US says G7 may reallocate $100 billion from IMF funds to COVID-ravaged nations "Genuine multilateralism is not pseudo-multilateralism based on the interests of small circles," Yang told Blinken, according to China Central Television. "The only genuine multilateralism is that founded on the principles of the charter of the United Nations and international law," Yang said. Yang also renewed accusations of US hypocrisy on human rights as Blinken pressed on what the United States considers the genocide of Uyghurs and other mostly Muslim Turkic people who are incarcerated in camps. "The United States should resolve its own domestic serious human rights violations, and not use the so-called human rights issues as an excuse to arbitrarily interfere in the internal affairs of other countries," he said. Yang made similar accusations about the United States in front of cameras during the meeting in Anchorage, taking aback US officials who expected brief, civil remarks but raising his star power inside China. Concern on Taiwan Blinken also voiced alarm at China's increasing pressure on Taiwan including military flights off its coast. Blinken "called on Beijing to cease its pressure campaign against Taiwan and peacefully resolve cross-Strait issues," the State Department statement said. Washington has been increasingly alarmed that China will attempt to use force on Taiwan, a self-governing democracy it considers part of its territory, after its sweeping curbs on freedoms in Hong Kong. The United States in recent days agreed to reopen trade talks with Taiwan and authorized a military plane to bring a delegation of senators who offered Covid vaccines. Amid wide bipartisan criticism of China, Biden has largely continued the hawkish stance of Trump, in substance if not in tone. The Biden administration has described China as a pre-eminent international challenge and vowed to counter it by shoring up alliances and investing heavily in infrastructure and development at home.

US, China clash as Biden debuts at G7

Covaxin has been denied emergency use authorisation in the US. The vaccine is yet to be listed on the WHO's list of approved vaccines. The lack of global approvals has put a question mark on travel, work & study plans of millions of Indians.

Gravitas: Why did America deny approval to Covaxin?

The US Food and Drug Administration said Friday it had told Johnson &amp; Johnson that millions of doses of Covid vaccine produced at a troubled plant can't be used because of possible contamination issues.

In a statement, the FDA said "several" batches of vaccine manufactured at the Emergent BioSolutions facility in the city of Baltimore are not suitable for use. Each batch is known to correspond to several million doses. 
Neither the agency nor J&amp;J revealed the precise number of doses, but The New York Times placed the number at 60 million, quoting people familiar with the matter.

"These actions followed an extensive review of records, including the production history of the facility and the testing performed to evaluate the quality of the product," said FDA scientist Peter Marks.

The Emergent plant was ordered to pause production in April several weeks after it was determined that batches of substance used to produce the J&amp;J vaccine were cross-contaminated with ingredients from the AstraZeneca vaccine, ruining a reported 15 million J&amp;J doses.

The FDA is still deciding whether to allow the factory to reopen. Sixty million AstraZeneca doses produced there and earmarked to be donated abroad are currently being inspected for quality before they can be shipped.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/as-europe-reopens-borders-germany-to-lift-travel-warning-for-most-countries-from-july-1-390867">Also Read |&nbsp;As Europe reopens borders, Germany to lift travel warning for most countries from July 1</a>

All of the J&amp;J vaccines distributed and used in the United States so far were made in the Netherlands, not in Baltimore.

On the other hand, the FDA said it was greenlighting two batches of J&amp;J vaccine made at the plant -- that is to say, 10 million doses of the one-shot regimen, a source familiar with the matter said.

Additional J&amp;J batches remain under review.

"Johnson &amp; Johnson has committed to producing safe, high-quality vaccines in order to bring health and hope to people everywhere," said J&amp;J executive vice president Kathy Wengel.

Meanwhile, Canada on Friday announced it would not distribute 300,000 doses of the J&amp;J vaccine made at the Baltimore plant due to quality "concerns."

The country's health authorities planned to inspect the facility this summer.

"Until this inspection has been completed, Canada will not be accepting any product or ingredients made at this site," Health Canada said in a statement.

The US Food and Drug Administration said Friday it had told Johnson & Johnson that millions of doses of Covid vaccine produced at a troubled plant can't be used because of possible contamination issues.

The US Food and Drug Administration said Friday it had told Johnson & Johnson that millions of doses of Covid vaccine produced at a troubled plant can't be used because of possible contamination issues. In a statement, the FDA said "several" batches of vaccine manufactured at the Emergent BioSolutions facility in the city of Baltimore are not suitable for use. Each batch is known to correspond to several million doses. Neither the agency nor J&J revealed the precise number of doses, but The New York Times placed the number at 60 million, quoting people familiar with the matter. "These actions followed an extensive review of records, including the production history of the facility and the testing performed to evaluate the quality of the product," said FDA scientist Peter Marks. The Emergent plant was ordered to pause production in April several weeks after it was determined that batches of substance used to produce the J&J vaccine were cross-contaminated with ingredients from the AstraZeneca vaccine, ruining a reported 15 million J&J doses. The FDA is still deciding whether to allow the factory to reopen. Sixty million AstraZeneca doses produced there and earmarked to be donated abroad are currently being inspected for quality before they can be shipped. Also Read | As Europe reopens borders, Germany to lift travel warning for most countries from July 1 All of the J&J vaccines distributed and used in the United States so far were made in the Netherlands, not in Baltimore. On the other hand, the FDA said it was greenlighting two batches of J&J vaccine made at the plant -- that is to say, 10 million doses of the one-shot regimen, a source familiar with the matter said. Additional J&J batches remain under review. "Johnson & Johnson has committed to producing safe, high-quality vaccines in order to bring health and hope to people everywhere," said J&J executive vice president Kathy Wengel. Meanwhile, Canada on Friday announced it would not distribute 300,000 doses of the J&J vaccine made at the Baltimore plant due to quality "concerns." The country's health authorities planned to inspect the facility this summer. "Until this inspection has been completed, Canada will not be accepting any product or ingredients made at this site," Health Canada said in a statement.

US tells J&J millions of vaccine doses from troubled plant can't be used

Attorney General Merrick Garland laid out an expansive plan on Friday for protecting voting rights, announcing that the Justice Department would double enforcement staff on the issue, scrutinize new state laws that seek to curb voter access and take action if it sees a violation of federal law.

In his first public speech on an issue that has provoked intense partisan conflict in statehouses and in Washington, Garland served notice to Republicans pushing a raft of restrictive voting laws that he was determined to ensure the right to vote for all Americans.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/heres-how-democrats-sweeping-voting-rights-law-would-work-374584">Here’s how Democrats’ sweeping voting rights law would work</a>

Garland did not outline any investigations or specific actions the department might take against states. Nevertheless, his pledge is an about-face from the department’s near abdication of voting rights enforcement under the Trump administration. Over the past four years, the department did not file any new cases under the Voting Rights Act until May of last year, a rare period of silence for one of the most consequential arms for protecting voting rights in the country.

“To meet the challenge of the current moment, we must rededicate the resources of the Department of Justice to a critical part of its original mission: enforcing federal law to protect the franchise for all eligible voters,” Garland said in an address at the department headquarters.

Garland made a specific commitment to protect the voting rights of people of colour, reflecting a return to the traditional role the Justice Department has played in preventing discrimination based on race. Voting rights groups and civil rights activists have argued that many of the new voting laws would have a disproportionate impact on voters of colour, and President Joe Biden described the restrictions Georgia passed in March as “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.’’

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/florida-republicans-pass-voting-limits-in-broad-elections-bill-381618">Florida Republicans pass voting limits in broad elections bill</a>

Without identifying specific states, Garland made an apparent allusion to the hourslong lines many Black voters faced last year in Georgia’s June primary elections, citing studies showing that “in some jurisdictions, nonwhite voters must wait in a line substantially longer than white voters to cast their ballots.’’

He also made a clear reference to Arizona’s Republican-led&nbsp;and widely derided. recount of 2 million votes in Maricopa County, saying the department would scrutinize postelection audits “to ensure they abide by federal statutory requirements to protect election records and avoid the intimidation of voters.”

In a statement Friday evening, the department said it had sent a letter to the Arizona Senate, expressing concern over, and explaining federal legal constraints on, the conduct of its continuing postelection audit.

The drive to enact new voting laws has become a core mission of the Republican Party, as former President Donald Trump and his allies continue to peddle false claims about a rigged election and call for more states he lost to audit their results despite no evidence of fraud. Pledges to restrict access to voting under the banner of “election integrity” have become commonplace in fundraising emails and campaign ads from Republican candidates.

Republican-led legislatures in several states including Georgia, Florida and Iowa have passed laws imposing new voting restrictions, and Texas, New Hampshire, Arizona and Michigan, among other states, are considering changes to their electoral systems.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/georgia-law-kicks-off-partisan-battle-over-voting-rights-373609">Georgia law kicks off partisan battle over voting rights</a>&nbsp;

At the same time, hopes have dimmed on the left that Congress will pass two major election bills after Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. said he would not support abolishing the filibuster to advance such measures.

Garland has said that protecting the right to vote is one of his top priorities as attorney general, and his top lieutenants include high-profile voting rights advocates such as Vanita Gupta, the department’s No. 3 official, and Kristen Clarke, head of the Civil Rights Division. The division currently has about a dozen employees on its enforcement staff, which is focused on protecting the right to vote, according to a department official familiar with the staff.

Despite his pledge, Garland is still limited in what he can do unless Democrats in Congress somehow manage to pass new voter protection laws. He can sue states that are found to have violated any of the nation’s four major federal voting rights laws. He can notify state and local governments when he believes that their procedures violate federal law. And federal prosecutors can charge people who are found to have intimidated voters, a federal crime.

The Justice Department’s most powerful tool, the Voting Rights Act, was significantly weakened by a 2013 Supreme Court decision that struck down pieces of the act forcing states with legacies of racial discrimination to receive Justice Department approval before they could change their voting laws.

Now the department can only sue after a law has been passed and found to violate the act, meaning that a restrictive law could stand through multiple election cycles as litigation winds its way through the courts.

Any new steps to protect voting rights are unlikely to move quickly, said Joanna Lydgate, a former deputy attorney general of Massachusetts who co-founded the States United Democracy Center. “People will need to be patient,” she said.

Still, progressive groups praised the announcement, which is seen as an important bulwark against the new voting laws introduced in all but two states that have Republican-controlled legislatures. There are nearly 400 measures in total, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive public policy institute that is part of the New York University School of Law.

As of May 14, lawmakers had passed 22 new laws in 14 states to make the process of voting more difficult, according to the group.

Democrats have filed lawsuits against some new voting laws, but that litigation could take years to wind its way through the courts and may have little power to stop those laws from affecting upcoming elections. And so far, the federal government has not joined the legal fight.

“We need to make sure that the federal government is an active participant in protecting the right to vote,” said Tom Perez, a former Democratic National Committee chair who led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during President Barack Obama’s first term. “We can’t simply rely on private lawsuits.”

Conservatives who have crafted and pushed for the new voting laws scoffed at Garland’s announcement.

“Americans have been clear: they support laws making it easy to vote and hard to cheat in states across the country,” said Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action, which helped write and then organized support for many of the new laws. “Despite the false narrative coming out of the White House and now the Department of Justice, Americans support secure, fair elections, even if the left does not.”

The Justice Department’s curbed abilities to fight voter fraud were amplified under the Trump administration.

“It was a really low point for voting rights enforcement,” said Wendy R. Weisser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center. “There’s a lot of ground to be made up obviously, and now there’s unprecedented challenges to voting rights.”

During the 2020 election, the department publicly appeared to be more concerned with hunting for fraud than protecting voting rights. In September, then-Attorney General William Barr made numerous false statements about voting by mail in an interview with CNN, and amplified the importance of a minor ballot error in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, making it appear as if it warranted a major fraud investigation.

Garland expressed scepticism about the use of unorthodox postelection audits, saying they could undermine faith in the nation’s ability to host free and fair elections. He said that some jurisdictions had used disinformation to justify such audits.

Assertions of material voter fraud in the 2020 election “have been refuted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of both this administration and the previous one, as well as by every court, federal and state, that has considered them,” Garland said.

The Justice Department will publish guidance explaining the civil and criminal statutes that apply to post-election audits, as well as guidance on early voting and voting by mail, and will work with other agencies to combat disinformation, Garland said.

Republicans have taken aim at specific pillars of voting access, particularly ones utilized during the 2020 election as voters sought safer options amid the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">coronavirus pandemic</a>. In an effort to restrict voting by mail, they have sought to limit the number of drop boxes in multiple states, limit who can request mail ballots and add new identification requirements for absentee ballots.

Republican legislatures are also seeking to greatly empower partisan poll watchers across the country. The role, which is meant to simply be an observational check granted to both political parties and all candidates, has grown increasingly controversial as party leaders, including Trump, have sometimes used militarist language to describe them.

Garland said that the Justice Department had taken note of a sharp rise “in menacing and violent threats” against state and local election workers. Such threats, he said, undermined the electoral process and violated federal laws.

Attorney General Merrick Garland laid out an expansive plan on Friday for protecting voting rights, announcing that the Justice Department would double enforcement staff on the issue, scrutinize new state laws that seek to curb voter access and take action if it sees a violation of federal law.

Attorney General Merrick Garland laid out an expansive plan on Friday for protecting voting rights, announcing that the Justice Department would double enforcement staff on the issue, scrutinize new state laws that seek to curb voter access and take action if it sees a violation of federal law. In his first public speech on an issue that has provoked intense partisan conflict in statehouses and in Washington, Garland served notice to Republicans pushing a raft of restrictive voting laws that he was determined to ensure the right to vote for all Americans. Also read | Here’s how Democrats’ sweeping voting rights law would work Garland did not outline any investigations or specific actions the department might take against states. Nevertheless, his pledge is an about-face from the department’s near abdication of voting rights enforcement under the Trump administration. Over the past four years, the department did not file any new cases under the Voting Rights Act until May of last year, a rare period of silence for one of the most consequential arms for protecting voting rights in the country. “To meet the challenge of the current moment, we must rededicate the resources of the Department of Justice to a critical part of its original mission: enforcing federal law to protect the franchise for all eligible voters,” Garland said in an address at the department headquarters. Garland made a specific commitment to protect the voting rights of people of colour, reflecting a return to the traditional role the Justice Department has played in preventing discrimination based on race. Voting rights groups and civil rights activists have argued that many of the new voting laws would have a disproportionate impact on voters of colour, and President Joe Biden described the restrictions Georgia passed in March as “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.’’ Also read | Florida Republicans pass voting limits in broad elections bill Without identifying specific states, Garland made an apparent allusion to the hourslong lines many Black voters faced last year in Georgia’s June primary elections, citing studies showing that “in some jurisdictions, nonwhite voters must wait in a line substantially longer than white voters to cast their ballots.’’ He also made a clear reference to Arizona’s Republican-led and widely derided. recount of 2 million votes in Maricopa County, saying the department would scrutinize postelection audits “to ensure they abide by federal statutory requirements to protect election records and avoid the intimidation of voters.” In a statement Friday evening, the department said it had sent a letter to the Arizona Senate, expressing concern over, and explaining federal legal constraints on, the conduct of its continuing postelection audit. The drive to enact new voting laws has become a core mission of the Republican Party, as former President Donald Trump and his allies continue to peddle false claims about a rigged election and call for more states he lost to audit their results despite no evidence of fraud. Pledges to restrict access to voting under the banner of “election integrity” have become commonplace in fundraising emails and campaign ads from Republican candidates. Republican-led legislatures in several states including Georgia, Florida and Iowa have passed laws imposing new voting restrictions, and Texas, New Hampshire, Arizona and Michigan, among other states, are considering changes to their electoral systems. Also read | Georgia law kicks off partisan battle over voting rights At the same time, hopes have dimmed on the left that Congress will pass two major election bills after Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. said he would not support abolishing the filibuster to advance such measures. Garland has said that protecting the right to vote is one of his top priorities as attorney general, and his top lieutenants include high-profile voting rights advocates such as Vanita Gupta, the department’s No. 3 official, and Kristen Clarke, head of the Civil Rights Division. The division currently has about a dozen employees on its enforcement staff, which is focused on protecting the right to vote, according to a department official familiar with the staff. Despite his pledge, Garland is still limited in what he can do unless Democrats in Congress somehow manage to pass new voter protection laws. He can sue states that are found to have violated any of the nation’s four major federal voting rights laws. He can notify state and local governments when he believes that their procedures violate federal law. And federal prosecutors can charge people who are found to have intimidated voters, a federal crime. The Justice Department’s most powerful tool, the Voting Rights Act, was significantly weakened by a 2013 Supreme Court decision that struck down pieces of the act forcing states with legacies of racial discrimination to receive Justice Department approval before they could change their voting laws. Now the department can only sue after a law has been passed and found to violate the act, meaning that a restrictive law could stand through multiple election cycles as litigation winds its way through the courts. Any new steps to protect voting rights are unlikely to move quickly, said Joanna Lydgate, a former deputy attorney general of Massachusetts who co-founded the States United Democracy Center. “People will need to be patient,” she said. Still, progressive groups praised the announcement, which is seen as an important bulwark against the new voting laws introduced in all but two states that have Republican-controlled legislatures. There are nearly 400 measures in total, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive public policy institute that is part of the New York University School of Law. As of May 14, lawmakers had passed 22 new laws in 14 states to make the process of voting more difficult, according to the group. Democrats have filed lawsuits against some new voting laws, but that litigation could take years to wind its way through the courts and may have little power to stop those laws from affecting upcoming elections. And so far, the federal government has not joined the legal fight. “We need to make sure that the federal government is an active participant in protecting the right to vote,” said Tom Perez, a former Democratic National Committee chair who led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during President Barack Obama’s first term. “We can’t simply rely on private lawsuits.” Conservatives who have crafted and pushed for the new voting laws scoffed at Garland’s announcement. “Americans have been clear: they support laws making it easy to vote and hard to cheat in states across the country,” said Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action, which helped write and then organized support for many of the new laws. “Despite the false narrative coming out of the White House and now the Department of Justice, Americans support secure, fair elections, even if the left does not.” The Justice Department’s curbed abilities to fight voter fraud were amplified under the Trump administration. “It was a really low point for voting rights enforcement,” said Wendy R. Weisser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center. “There’s a lot of ground to be made up obviously, and now there’s unprecedented challenges to voting rights.” During the 2020 election, the department publicly appeared to be more concerned with hunting for fraud than protecting voting rights. In September, then-Attorney General William Barr made numerous false statements about voting by mail in an interview with CNN, and amplified the importance of a minor ballot error in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, making it appear as if it warranted a major fraud investigation. Garland expressed scepticism about the use of unorthodox postelection audits, saying they could undermine faith in the nation’s ability to host free and fair elections. He said that some jurisdictions had used disinformation to justify such audits. Assertions of material voter fraud in the 2020 election “have been refuted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of both this administration and the previous one, as well as by every court, federal and state, that has considered them,” Garland said. The Justice Department will publish guidance explaining the civil and criminal statutes that apply to post-election audits, as well as guidance on early voting and voting by mail, and will work with other agencies to combat disinformation, Garland said. Republicans have taken aim at specific pillars of voting access, particularly ones utilized during the 2020 election as voters sought safer options amid the coronavirus pandemic. In an effort to restrict voting by mail, they have sought to limit the number of drop boxes in multiple states, limit who can request mail ballots and add new identification requirements for absentee ballots. Republican legislatures are also seeking to greatly empower partisan poll watchers across the country. The role, which is meant to simply be an observational check granted to both political parties and all candidates, has grown increasingly controversial as party leaders, including Trump, have sometimes used militarist language to describe them. Garland said that the Justice Department had taken note of a sharp rise “in menacing and violent threats” against state and local election workers. Such threats, he said, undermined the electoral process and violated federal laws.

Garland pledges renewed efforts to protect voting rights

On Feb. 6, 2018, Apple received a grand jury subpoena for the names and phone records connected to 109 email addresses and phone numbers. It was one of the more than 250 data requests that the company received on average from US law enforcement each week at the time. An Apple paralegal complied and provided the information.

This year, a gag order on the subpoena expired. Apple said it alerted the people who were the subjects of the subpoena, just as it does with dozens of customers each day. But this request was out of the ordinary.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-officials-seized-apple-data-of-two-democratic-lawmakers-new-york-times-390716">Trump officials seized Apple data of two Democratic lawmakers: New York Times</a>

Without knowing it, Apple said, it had handed over the data of congressional staffers, their families and at least two members of Congress, including Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., then the House Intelligence Committee’s ranking member and now its chair. It turned out the subpoena was part of a wide-ranging investigation by the Trump administration into leaks of classified information.

The revelations have now plunged Apple into the middle of a firestorm over the Trump administration’s efforts to find the sources of news stories, and the handling underscores the flood of law enforcement requests that tech companies increasingly contend with. The number of these requests has soared in recent years to thousands a week, putting Apple and other tech giants like Google and Microsoft in an uncomfortable position between law enforcement, the courts and the customers whose privacy they have promised to protect.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/apple-google-and-a-deal-that-controls-the-internet-337885">Apple, Google and a deal that controls the internet</a>

The companies regularly comply with the requests because they are legally required to do so. The subpoenas can be vague, so Apple, Google and others are often unclear on the nature or subject of an investigation. They can challenge some subpoenas if they are too broad or if they relate to a corporate client. In the first six months of 2020, Apple challenged 238 demands from the government for its customers’ account data or 4 per cent of such requests.

As part of the same leak investigation by the Trump administration, Google fought a gag order this year on a subpoena to turn over data on the emails of four New York Times reporters. Google argued that its contract as The Times’ corporate email provider required it to inform the newspaper of any government requests for its emails, said Ted Boutrous, an outside lawyer for The Times.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/privacy-for-sale-as-apple-and-facebook-fight-for-consumers-354932">Privacy for sale as Apple and Facebook fight for consumers</a>

But more frequently than not, the companies comply with law enforcement demands. And that underlines an awkward truth: As their products become more central to people’s lives, the world’s largest tech companies have become surveillance intermediaries and crucial partners to authorities, with the power to arbitrate which requests to honour and which to reject.

Fred Sainz, an Apple spokesman, said in a statement that the company regularly challenged government data requests and informed affected customers as soon as it legally could.

“In this case, the subpoena, which was issued by a federal grand jury and included a nondisclosure order signed by a federal magistrate judge, provided no information on the nature of the investigation and it would have been virtually impossible for Apple to understand the intent of the desired information without digging through users’ accounts,” he said. “Consistent with the request, Apple limited the information it provided to account subscriber information and did not provide any content such as emails or pictures.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-lawmakers-question-google-twitter-and-others-over-auction-of-user-data-375266">US lawmakers question Google, Twitter and others over auction of user data</a>

In a statement, Microsoft said it received a subpoena in 2017 related to a personal email account. It said it notified the customer after the gag order expired and learned that the person was a congressional staff member. “We will continue to aggressively seek reform that imposes reasonable limits on government secrecy in cases like this,” the company said.

Google declined to comment on whether it received a subpoena related to the investigation on the House Intelligence Committee.

The Justice Department has not commented publicly on Apple’s turning over House Intelligence Committee records. In congressional testimony this week, Attorney General Merrick Garland sidestepped criticism of the Trump administration’s decisions and said the seizure of records was made “under a set of policies that have existed for decades.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-defense-intelligence-agency-admits-it-bought-peoples-location-data-report-358741">US Defense Intelligence Agency admits it bought people's location data: Report</a>

In the Justice Department’s leak investigation, Apple and Microsoft turned over the so-called metadata of people who worked in Congress, including phone records, device information, and addresses. It is not unusual for the Justice Department to subpoena such metadata, because the information can be used to establish whether someone had contact with a member of the media or whether the person’s work or home accounts were tied to anonymous accounts that were used to disseminate classified information.

Under the gag orders that authorities placed on the subpoenas, Apple and Microsoft also agreed to not tell those people whose information was being demanded. In Apple’s case, a yearlong gag order was renewed three separate times. That contrasted with Google, which resisted the gag order on a subpoena to turn over data on the four Times reporters.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-surveillance-of-democrats-sparks-abuse-of-power-claims-390987">Trump surveillance of Democrats sparks abuse of power claims</a>

The differing responses are largely explained by the different relationships the companies had with their customers in the case. Apple and Microsoft were ordered to hand over data related to individual accounts, while the subpoena to Google affected a corporate customer, which was governed by a contract. That contract gave Google a more specific basis on which to challenge the gag order, lawyers said.

The subpoena to Apple was also more opaque, it simply asked for information about a series of email addresses and phone numbers, and the company said it did not know it related to an investigation into Congress. For Google, it was clear that the Justice Department sought records from The Times because the email addresses were clearly those of Times reporters.

Google said it generally did not handle requests for customer information differently for individual accounts and corporate customers. But the company has a strong argument to redirect requests for data of corporate customers based on the Justice Department’s own recommendations.

In guidelines released in 2017, the Justice Department urged prosecutors to “seek data directly” from companies instead of going through a technology provider, unless doing so was impractical or would compromise the investigation. By going to Google to seize information about the reporters, the Justice Department sought to circumvent The Times. Google declined to say whether it used the Justice Department guidelines to fight the gag order.

Google said it produced some data in 83 per cent of the nearly 40,000 requests for information from US government agencies it received in the first half of 2020. By comparison, it produced some data in 39 per cent of requests for information on 398 paying corporate customers of Google Cloud, including its email and web-hosting offerings, during the same time period.

Law enforcement requests for data from American tech companies have more than doubled in recent years. Facebook said it received nearly 123,000 data requests from the US government last year, up from 37,000 in 2015.

Apple said that in the first half of 2020, it received an average of 400 requests a week for customer data from US law enforcement, more than double the rate five years prior. The company’s compliance rate has remained roughly between 80 per cent and 85 per cent for years.

Authorities are also demanding information about more accounts in each request. In the first half of 2020, each US government subpoena or warrant to Apple requested data for 11 accounts or devices on average, up from fewer than three accounts or devices in the first half of 2015, the company said.

Apple said that after the government began including more than 100 accounts in some subpoenas, as it did in the leak investigation in 2018, it asked law enforcement to limit requests to 25 accounts each. Police did not always comply, the company said.

Apple has often challenged subpoenas that included so many accounts because they were too broad, said a former senior lawyer for the company, who spoke on the condition of confidentiality. This person said that it would not have been surprising for Apple to challenge the 2018 Justice Department subpoena but that whether a request was challenged often depended on whether a paralegal handling the subpoena elevated it to more senior lawyers.

On Feb. 6, 2018, Apple received a grand jury subpoena for the names and phone records connected to 109 email addresses and phone numbers. It was one of the more than 250 data requests that the company received on average from US law enforcement each week at the time.

On Feb. 6, 2018, Apple received a grand jury subpoena for the names and phone records connected to 109 email addresses and phone numbers. It was one of the more than 250 data requests that the company received on average from US law enforcement each week at the time. An Apple paralegal complied and provided the information. This year, a gag order on the subpoena expired. Apple said it alerted the people who were the subjects of the subpoena, just as it does with dozens of customers each day. But this request was out of the ordinary. Also read | Trump officials seized Apple data of two Democratic lawmakers: New York Times Without knowing it, Apple said, it had handed over the data of congressional staffers, their families and at least two members of Congress, including Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., then the House Intelligence Committee’s ranking member and now its chair. It turned out the subpoena was part of a wide-ranging investigation by the Trump administration into leaks of classified information. The revelations have now plunged Apple into the middle of a firestorm over the Trump administration’s efforts to find the sources of news stories, and the handling underscores the flood of law enforcement requests that tech companies increasingly contend with. The number of these requests has soared in recent years to thousands a week, putting Apple and other tech giants like Google and Microsoft in an uncomfortable position between law enforcement, the courts and the customers whose privacy they have promised to protect. Also read | Apple, Google and a deal that controls the internet The companies regularly comply with the requests because they are legally required to do so. The subpoenas can be vague, so Apple, Google and others are often unclear on the nature or subject of an investigation. They can challenge some subpoenas if they are too broad or if they relate to a corporate client. In the first six months of 2020, Apple challenged 238 demands from the government for its customers’ account data or 4 per cent of such requests. As part of the same leak investigation by the Trump administration, Google fought a gag order this year on a subpoena to turn over data on the emails of four New York Times reporters. Google argued that its contract as The Times’ corporate email provider required it to inform the newspaper of any government requests for its emails, said Ted Boutrous, an outside lawyer for The Times. Also read | Privacy for sale as Apple and Facebook fight for consumers But more frequently than not, the companies comply with law enforcement demands. And that underlines an awkward truth: As their products become more central to people’s lives, the world’s largest tech companies have become surveillance intermediaries and crucial partners to authorities, with the power to arbitrate which requests to honour and which to reject. Fred Sainz, an Apple spokesman, said in a statement that the company regularly challenged government data requests and informed affected customers as soon as it legally could. “In this case, the subpoena, which was issued by a federal grand jury and included a nondisclosure order signed by a federal magistrate judge, provided no information on the nature of the investigation and it would have been virtually impossible for Apple to understand the intent of the desired information without digging through users’ accounts,” he said. “Consistent with the request, Apple limited the information it provided to account subscriber information and did not provide any content such as emails or pictures.” Also read | US lawmakers question Google, Twitter and others over auction of user data In a statement, Microsoft said it received a subpoena in 2017 related to a personal email account. It said it notified the customer after the gag order expired and learned that the person was a congressional staff member. “We will continue to aggressively seek reform that imposes reasonable limits on government secrecy in cases like this,” the company said. Google declined to comment on whether it received a subpoena related to the investigation on the House Intelligence Committee. The Justice Department has not commented publicly on Apple’s turning over House Intelligence Committee records. In congressional testimony this week, Attorney General Merrick Garland sidestepped criticism of the Trump administration’s decisions and said the seizure of records was made “under a set of policies that have existed for decades.” Also read | US Defense Intelligence Agency admits it bought people's location data: Report In the Justice Department’s leak investigation, Apple and Microsoft turned over the so-called metadata of people who worked in Congress, including phone records, device information, and addresses. It is not unusual for the Justice Department to subpoena such metadata, because the information can be used to establish whether someone had contact with a member of the media or whether the person’s work or home accounts were tied to anonymous accounts that were used to disseminate classified information. Under the gag orders that authorities placed on the subpoenas, Apple and Microsoft also agreed to not tell those people whose information was being demanded. In Apple’s case, a yearlong gag order was renewed three separate times. That contrasted with Google, which resisted the gag order on a subpoena to turn over data on the four Times reporters. Also read | Trump surveillance of Democrats sparks abuse of power claims The differing responses are largely explained by the different relationships the companies had with their customers in the case. Apple and Microsoft were ordered to hand over data related to individual accounts, while the subpoena to Google affected a corporate customer, which was governed by a contract. That contract gave Google a more specific basis on which to challenge the gag order, lawyers said. The subpoena to Apple was also more opaque, it simply asked for information about a series of email addresses and phone numbers, and the company said it did not know it related to an investigation into Congress. For Google, it was clear that the Justice Department sought records from The Times because the email addresses were clearly those of Times reporters. Google said it generally did not handle requests for customer information differently for individual accounts and corporate customers. But the company has a strong argument to redirect requests for data of corporate customers based on the Justice Department’s own recommendations. In guidelines released in 2017, the Justice Department urged prosecutors to “seek data directly” from companies instead of going through a technology provider, unless doing so was impractical or would compromise the investigation. By going to Google to seize information about the reporters, the Justice Department sought to circumvent The Times. Google declined to say whether it used the Justice Department guidelines to fight the gag order. Google said it produced some data in 83 per cent of the nearly 40,000 requests for information from US government agencies it received in the first half of 2020. By comparison, it produced some data in 39 per cent of requests for information on 398 paying corporate customers of Google Cloud, including its email and web-hosting offerings, during the same time period. Law enforcement requests for data from American tech companies have more than doubled in recent years. Facebook said it received nearly 123,000 data requests from the US government last year, up from 37,000 in 2015. Apple said that in the first half of 2020, it received an average of 400 requests a week for customer data from US law enforcement, more than double the rate five years prior. The company’s compliance rate has remained roughly between 80 per cent and 85 per cent for years. Authorities are also demanding information about more accounts in each request. In the first half of 2020, each US government subpoena or warrant to Apple requested data for 11 accounts or devices on average, up from fewer than three accounts or devices in the first half of 2015, the company said. Apple said that after the government began including more than 100 accounts in some subpoenas, as it did in the leak investigation in 2018, it asked law enforcement to limit requests to 25 accounts each. Police did not always comply, the company said. Apple has often challenged subpoenas that included so many accounts because they were too broad, said a former senior lawyer for the company, who spoke on the condition of confidentiality. This person said that it would not have been surprising for Apple to challenge the 2018 Justice Department subpoena but that whether a request was challenged often depended on whether a paralegal handling the subpoena elevated it to more senior lawyers.

Tech giants are plunged into political firestorm

The United States believes keeping an international diplomatic presence in Kabul requires a 'functioning, secure' airport, a State Department spokesperson said on Friday, suggesting that embassies could be forced to close without one. 
 
The statement came a day after a Taliban spokesman effectively rejected Turkey's proposal that its troops remain to guard and run the Hamid Karzai International Airport after the departure of the rest of the US-led foreign force. 
 
The Taliban's position poses serious questions for the United States, other countries and international organisations with missions in Kabul about how to evacuate personnel from landlocked Afghanistan should fighting threaten the capital. 
 
"We underscore that a functioning, secure airport is essential to any international diplomatic presence and will benefit Afghan travellers and the Afghan economy," the State Department spokesperson said in response to the Taliban statement. 
 
The spokesperson declined to elaborate. But their comment appeared to be a message to the Islamist Taliban that unless countries with embassies in Kabul feel that their diplomats can safely access a functioning airport, they could close their missions. 
 
US&nbsp;officials have said they believe the insurgents seek international legitimacy and an end to their pariah status. 
 
Australia shuttered its embassy in Kabul last month because of security concerns. US&nbsp;Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week vowed to keep the US&nbsp;embassy open. 
 
President Joe Biden's decision to withdraw from America's longest war, stalled peace talks and unrelenting violence are fueling fears that Afghanistan is headed into an all-out civil war that could return the Taliban to power. 
 
Biden is expected to discuss the issue when he holds talks with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan in Brussels on Monday. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The United States believes keeping an international diplomatic presence in Kabul requires a 'functioning, secure' airport, a State Department spokesperson said on Friday, suggesting that embassies could be forced to close without one.

The United States believes keeping an international diplomatic presence in Kabul requires a 'functioning, secure' airport, a State Department spokesperson said on Friday, suggesting that embassies could be forced to close without one. The statement came a day after a Taliban spokesman effectively rejected Turkey's proposal that its troops remain to guard and run the Hamid Karzai International Airport after the departure of the rest of the US-led foreign force. The Taliban's position poses serious questions for the United States, other countries and international organisations with missions in Kabul about how to evacuate personnel from landlocked Afghanistan should fighting threaten the capital. "We underscore that a functioning, secure airport is essential to any international diplomatic presence and will benefit Afghan travellers and the Afghan economy," the State Department spokesperson said in response to the Taliban statement. The spokesperson declined to elaborate. But their comment appeared to be a message to the Islamist Taliban that unless countries with embassies in Kabul feel that their diplomats can safely access a functioning airport, they could close their missions. US officials have said they believe the insurgents seek international legitimacy and an end to their pariah status. Australia shuttered its embassy in Kabul last month because of security concerns. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken this week vowed to keep the US embassy open. President Joe Biden's decision to withdraw from America's longest war, stalled peace talks and unrelenting violence are fueling fears that Afghanistan is headed into an all-out civil war that could return the Taliban to power. Biden is expected to discuss the issue when he holds talks with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan in Brussels on Monday. (With inputs from agencies)

US says diplomatic presence in Kabul requires 'functioning, secure airport'

The Pentagon announced on Friday a new package of $150 million in military assistance for Ukraine that will include counter-artillery radar, electronic warfare equipment and counter-drone technology, bolstering Kyiv amid elevated tensions with Moscow. 
 
Although the funds were already committed by Congress, the Defense Department's announcement details specifically how the US&nbsp;military will allocate assistance earmarked for Ukraine before the end of the US&nbsp;government's fiscal year in September. 
 
The latest tranche of assistance will come in addition to the $125 million that the Pentagon announced on March 1, which included armed Mark VI patrol boats. 
 
Moscow annexed Ukraine's Crimea region in 2014 and backed a pro-Russian separatist uprising in eastern Ukraine that triggered a conflict that has killed over 14,000 people. 
 
Tensions have flared again in recent months after the two countries traded blame for a surge in fighting in Ukraine's Donbass, and Russia, in what it called a defensive exercise, massed troops on its border with Ukraine and in Crimea. 
 
US&nbsp;President Joe Biden told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Monday that he will stand up for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity ahead of a summit between Biden and Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Geneva on June 16. 
 
The Pentagon said the US&nbsp;security assistance included capabilities 'to enhance the lethality, command and control and situational awareness of Ukraine's forces'. 
 
It would provide counter-artillery radars, counter-drone systems, secure communications gear, electronic warfare and military medical evacuation equipment. The United States would also provide training and equipment to improve the operational safety and capacity of Ukrainian Air Force bases, it said. 
 
The US&nbsp;assistance followed certification by the Pentagon that Ukraine 'made sufficient progress on defence reforms this year',&nbsp;as required by US&nbsp;law. 
 
When he was the US&nbsp;president, Donald Trump was impeached by the Democratic-led House of Representatives in 2019 after accusing him of using US&nbsp;aid as leverage to try to force Kyiv into smearing Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 presidential election. The Republican-led Senate later acquitted Trump. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Pentagon announced on Friday a new package of $150 million in military assistance for Ukraine that will include counter-artillery radar, electronic warfare equipment and counter-drone technology, bolstering Kyiv amid elevated tensions with Moscow.

The Pentagon announced on Friday a new package of $150 million in military assistance for Ukraine that will include counter-artillery radar, electronic warfare equipment and counter-drone technology, bolstering Kyiv amid elevated tensions with Moscow. Although the funds were already committed by Congress, the Defense Department's announcement details specifically how the US military will allocate assistance earmarked for Ukraine before the end of the US government's fiscal year in September. The latest tranche of assistance will come in addition to the $125 million that the Pentagon announced on March 1, which included armed Mark VI patrol boats. Moscow annexed Ukraine's Crimea region in 2014 and backed a pro-Russian separatist uprising in eastern Ukraine that triggered a conflict that has killed over 14,000 people. Tensions have flared again in recent months after the two countries traded blame for a surge in fighting in Ukraine's Donbass, and Russia, in what it called a defensive exercise, massed troops on its border with Ukraine and in Crimea. US President Joe Biden told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on Monday that he will stand up for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity ahead of a summit between Biden and Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Geneva on June 16. The Pentagon said the US security assistance included capabilities 'to enhance the lethality, command and control and situational awareness of Ukraine's forces'. It would provide counter-artillery radars, counter-drone systems, secure communications gear, electronic warfare and military medical evacuation equipment. The United States would also provide training and equipment to improve the operational safety and capacity of Ukrainian Air Force bases, it said. The US assistance followed certification by the Pentagon that Ukraine 'made sufficient progress on defence reforms this year', as required by US law. When he was the US president, Donald Trump was impeached by the Democratic-led House of Representatives in 2019 after accusing him of using US aid as leverage to try to force Kyiv into smearing Joe Biden ahead of the 2020 presidential election. The Republican-led Senate later acquitted Trump. (With inputs from agencies)

Eying Russia, Pentagon to send Ukraine counter-drone, electronic warfare equipment

The&nbsp;US Food &amp; Drug Administration on Friday, June 11,&nbsp;said Johnson &amp; Johnson must throw away&nbsp;millions&nbsp;of&nbsp;doses&nbsp;of its&nbsp;COVID-19&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;that were manufactured at a problem-plagued Baltimore factory but also cleared&nbsp;millions&nbsp;for use.

Two sources familiar with the situation told Reuters that the agency had cleared about 10 million&nbsp;doses. The New York Times said that the batches being&nbsp;discarded amount to around 60 million&nbsp;doses, citing people familiar with the matter.

Without disclosing or confirming the number of&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;doses, the&nbsp;FDA&nbsp;said in a news release that it had authorized two batches of the&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;for use, that several other batches were not suitable for use, and that others were being evaluated.

The agency said it was not yet ready to authorize Emergent BioSolutions Inc's plant for manufacturing the J&amp;J&nbsp;vaccine. Production of J&amp;J's&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;at the Baltimore site was halted by&nbsp;US authorities in April and J&amp;J was put in charge of manufacturing at the plant.

One source familiar with the matter told Reuters that the J&amp;J&nbsp;doses&nbsp;are expected to be exported to other countries. The&nbsp;doses&nbsp;are already in vials and ready for use, the other source said.

Safety concerns about the J&amp;J&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;paired with flagging&nbsp;US demand for vaccinations, in general, have slowed the rollout of the one-shot&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;to a crawl. Close to half of the 21 million&nbsp;doses&nbsp;produced for the United States sit unused.

The&nbsp;FDA&nbsp;said its decision allows for the J&amp;J&nbsp;doses&nbsp;to be used in the United States or exported. The agency said the drugmaker and Emergent must agree that the&nbsp;FDA&nbsp;can share relevant information about the manufacturing of the&nbsp;doses&nbsp;with regulators where the&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;is shipped.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-says-g7-may-reallocate-100-billion-from-imf-funds-to-covid-ravaged-nations-390990">Also Read |&nbsp;US says G7 may reallocate $100 billion from IMF funds to COVID-ravaged nations</a>

J&amp;J, in a statement, confirmed that the&nbsp;FDA&nbsp;authorized the two batches, but did not acknowledge the&nbsp;doses&nbsp;regulators decided should be tossed.

The&nbsp;FDA&nbsp;declined to comment beyond its statement.

Last month, Emergent Chief Executive Robert Kramer said it was his understanding that there are 100 million&nbsp;doses&nbsp;of J&amp;J's&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;ready for&nbsp;FDA&nbsp;review and that regulators had begun the review process.

The April halt followed the discovery that ingredients from AstraZeneca's&nbsp;COVID-19&nbsp;vaccine, also being produced at the plant at the time, contaminated a batch of J&amp;J's&nbsp;vaccine. AstraZeneca's shot is no longer being made there.

An&nbsp;FDA&nbsp;inspection also turned up a long list of sanitary problems and bad manufacturing practices at the Emergent plant.

Separately, Europe's drug regulator said on Friday that batches of J&amp;J&nbsp;COVID-19&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;made for the region around the time the contamination issues&nbsp;were revealed at the Baltimore plant would, as a precaution, not be used.

The European Medicines Agency did not say how many shots were affected, but Reuters has reported it involves&nbsp;millions&nbsp;of&nbsp;doses, making it harder for J&amp;J to meet a target of delivering 55 million to Europe by end of June.

The US Food & Drug Administration on Friday, June 11, said Johnson & Johnson must throw away millions of doses of its COVID-19 vaccine that were manufactured at a problem-plagued Baltimore factory but also cleared millions for use.

The US Food & Drug Administration on Friday, June 11, said Johnson & Johnson must throw away millions of doses of its COVID-19 vaccine that were manufactured at a problem-plagued Baltimore factory but also cleared millions for use. Two sources familiar with the situation told Reuters that the agency had cleared about 10 million doses. The New York Times said that the batches being discarded amount to around 60 million doses, citing people familiar with the matter. Without disclosing or confirming the number of vaccine doses, the FDA said in a news release that it had authorized two batches of the vaccine for use, that several other batches were not suitable for use, and that others were being evaluated. The agency said it was not yet ready to authorize Emergent BioSolutions Inc's plant for manufacturing the J&J vaccine. Production of J&J's vaccine at the Baltimore site was halted by US authorities in April and J&J was put in charge of manufacturing at the plant. One source familiar with the matter told Reuters that the J&J doses are expected to be exported to other countries. The doses are already in vials and ready for use, the other source said. Safety concerns about the J&J vaccine paired with flagging US demand for vaccinations, in general, have slowed the rollout of the one-shot vaccine to a crawl. Close to half of the 21 million doses produced for the United States sit unused. The FDA said its decision allows for the J&J doses to be used in the United States or exported. The agency said the drugmaker and Emergent must agree that the FDA can share relevant information about the manufacturing of the doses with regulators where the vaccine is shipped. Also Read | US says G7 may reallocate $100 billion from IMF funds to COVID-ravaged nations J&J, in a statement, confirmed that the FDA authorized the two batches, but did not acknowledge the doses regulators decided should be tossed. The FDA declined to comment beyond its statement. Last month, Emergent Chief Executive Robert Kramer said it was his understanding that there are 100 million doses of J&J's vaccine ready for FDA review and that regulators had begun the review process. The April halt followed the discovery that ingredients from AstraZeneca's COVID-19 vaccine, also being produced at the plant at the time, contaminated a batch of J&J's vaccine. AstraZeneca's shot is no longer being made there. An FDA inspection also turned up a long list of sanitary problems and bad manufacturing practices at the Emergent plant. Separately, Europe's drug regulator said on Friday that batches of J&J COVID-19 vaccine made for the region around the time the contamination issues were revealed at the Baltimore plant would, as a precaution, not be used. The European Medicines Agency did not say how many shots were affected, but Reuters has reported it involves millions of doses, making it harder for J&J to meet a target of delivering 55 million to Europe by end of June.

US FDA says J&J should discard millions of defected doses

The Group of Seven rich nations will announce on Saturday a new global infrastructure plan as a response to China's belt and road intiative, a senior official in US&nbsp;President Joe Biden's administration said. 
 
The official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, said the United States would also push the other G7 leaders for 'concrete action on forced labour' in China, and to include criticism of Beijing in their final communique. 
 
"This is not just about confronting or taking on China," the official said. "But until now we haven't offered a positive alternative that reflects our values, our standards and our way of doing business." 
 
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure scheme launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping involving development and investment initiatives that would stretch from Asia to Europe and beyond. 
 
More than 100 countries have signed agreements with China to cooperate in BRI projects like railways, ports, highways and other infrastructure. 
 
According to a Refinitiv database, as of mid-last year, more than 2,600 projects at a cost of $3.7 trillion were linked to the initiative, although the Chinese foreign ministry said last June that about 20% of projects had been seriously affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
 
In March, Biden said he had suggested to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is hosting the three-day G7 leaders' summit in southwest England, that democratic countries should develop their own rival scheme. 
 
The US&nbsp;official said until now, the West had failed to offer a positive alternative to the 'lack of transparency, poor environmental and labour standards, and coercive approach' of the Chinese government that had left many countries worse off. 
 
"So tomorrow we’ll be announcing ‘build back better for the world,’ an ambitious new global infrastructure initiative with our G7 partners that won’t just be an alternative to the B and I (Belt and Road)," the official said. 
 
In talks, Biden will also press the other leaders to make clear that they believe forced labour practices were an affront to human dignity and "an egregious example of China’s unfair economic competition" to show that they were serious about defending human rights. 
 
"We’re pushing on being specific on areas like Xinjiang where forced labour is taking place and where we have to express our values as a G7," the official said of the final communique to be issued at the end of the summit on Sunday, 
 
There were no specifics on how the global infrastructure scheme would be funded. The plan would involve raising hundreds of billions in public and private money to help close a $40 trillion infrastructure gap in needy countries by 2035, the official said 
 
The aim was to work with Congress to supplement existing development financing "with the hope that together with G7 partners, the private sector and other stakeholders we soon be collectively catalysing hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment for low and middle income countries that need it". 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Group of Seven rich nations will announce on Saturday a new global infrastructure plan as a response to China's belt and road intiative, a senior official in US President Joe Biden's administration said.

The Group of Seven rich nations will announce on Saturday a new global infrastructure plan as a response to China's belt and road intiative, a senior official in US President Joe Biden's administration said. The official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, said the United States would also push the other G7 leaders for 'concrete action on forced labour' in China, and to include criticism of Beijing in their final communique. "This is not just about confronting or taking on China," the official said. "But until now we haven't offered a positive alternative that reflects our values, our standards and our way of doing business." China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure scheme launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping involving development and investment initiatives that would stretch from Asia to Europe and beyond. More than 100 countries have signed agreements with China to cooperate in BRI projects like railways, ports, highways and other infrastructure. According to a Refinitiv database, as of mid-last year, more than 2,600 projects at a cost of $3.7 trillion were linked to the initiative, although the Chinese foreign ministry said last June that about 20% of projects had been seriously affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In March, Biden said he had suggested to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is hosting the three-day G7 leaders' summit in southwest England, that democratic countries should develop their own rival scheme. The US official said until now, the West had failed to offer a positive alternative to the 'lack of transparency, poor environmental and labour standards, and coercive approach' of the Chinese government that had left many countries worse off. "So tomorrow we’ll be announcing ‘build back better for the world,’ an ambitious new global infrastructure initiative with our G7 partners that won’t just be an alternative to the B and I (Belt and Road)," the official said. In talks, Biden will also press the other leaders to make clear that they believe forced labour practices were an affront to human dignity and "an egregious example of China’s unfair economic competition" to show that they were serious about defending human rights. "We’re pushing on being specific on areas like Xinjiang where forced labour is taking place and where we have to express our values as a G7," the official said of the final communique to be issued at the end of the summit on Sunday, There were no specifics on how the global infrastructure scheme would be funded. The plan would involve raising hundreds of billions in public and private money to help close a $40 trillion infrastructure gap in needy countries by 2035, the official said The aim was to work with Congress to supplement existing development financing "with the hope that together with G7 partners, the private sector and other stakeholders we soon be collectively catalysing hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment for low and middle income countries that need it". (With inputs from agencies)

G7 to counter China's belt and road with infrastructure project: Senior US official

The United States and other Group of Seven nations are considering reallocating $100 billion from the International Monetary Fund's warchest to help countries struggling to cope with the COVID-19 crisis, the White House said.

The issue will be on the table when G7 leaders discuss how to help steer the world's recovery from the coronavirus pandemic at a three-day summit in Cornwall, England, which began on Friday.

"The United States and our G7 partners are actively considering a global effort to multiply the impact of the proposed Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation to the countries most in need," the U.S. president's office said.

"At potentially up to $100 billion in size, the proposed effort would further support health needs – including vaccinations," it said, adding that it would help promote a more sustained and inclusive global recovery.

SDRs are the&nbsp;IMF's reserve asset and are exchangeable for dollars, euros, sterling, yen, and Chinese yuan or renminbi. Member states can loan or donate their SDR reserves to other countries for their use.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/world-leaders-meet-at-g7-summit-amid-coronavirus-crisis-390883">Also Read |&nbsp;World leaders meet at G7 summit amid coronavirus crisis</a>

The United States, which has targeted the SDR allocation to be distributed around the "late (northern) summer," on Friday said: "We strongly support the effort to recycle SDRs to further support health needs."

The&nbsp;IMF&nbsp;had no immediate comment.

IMF&nbsp;Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, who will speak virtually with G7 leaders this weekend, on Wednesday told a separate event that she expected the fund's governors to approve a $650 billion boost in SDRs in mid-August.

The global lender is continuing to study how best richer countries could donate or loan their reserves to benefit poorer nations. Details are expected in early autumn.

French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday called on the other G7 nations to find an agreement on reallocating $100 billion in SDRs to African states.

World finance chiefs agreed in April to issue new SDRs and extend a debt-servicing freeze to help developing countries deal with the pandemic, although only $34 billion of the $650 billion in new reserves will be allocated to Africa since SDRs are issued according to the size of a member's holding in the&nbsp;IMF.

The United States and other Group of Seven nations are considering reallocating $100 billion from the International Monetary Fund's warchest to help countries struggling to cope with the COVID-19 crisis, the White House said.

The United States and other Group of Seven nations are considering reallocating $100 billion from the International Monetary Fund's warchest to help countries struggling to cope with the COVID-19 crisis, the White House said. The issue will be on the table when G7 leaders discuss how to help steer the world's recovery from the coronavirus pandemic at a three-day summit in Cornwall, England, which began on Friday. "The United States and our G7 partners are actively considering a global effort to multiply the impact of the proposed Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation to the countries most in need," the U.S. president's office said. "At potentially up to $100 billion in size, the proposed effort would further support health needs – including vaccinations," it said, adding that it would help promote a more sustained and inclusive global recovery. SDRs are the IMF's reserve asset and are exchangeable for dollars, euros, sterling, yen, and Chinese yuan or renminbi. Member states can loan or donate their SDR reserves to other countries for their use. Also Read | World leaders meet at G7 summit amid coronavirus crisis The United States, which has targeted the SDR allocation to be distributed around the "late (northern) summer," on Friday said: "We strongly support the effort to recycle SDRs to further support health needs." The IMF had no immediate comment. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, who will speak virtually with G7 leaders this weekend, on Wednesday told a separate event that she expected the fund's governors to approve a $650 billion boost in SDRs in mid-August. The global lender is continuing to study how best richer countries could donate or loan their reserves to benefit poorer nations. Details are expected in early autumn. French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday called on the other G7 nations to find an agreement on reallocating $100 billion in SDRs to African states. World finance chiefs agreed in April to issue new SDRs and extend a debt-servicing freeze to help developing countries deal with the pandemic, although only $34 billion of the $650 billion in new reserves will be allocated to Africa since SDRs are issued according to the size of a member's holding in the IMF.

US says G7 may reallocate $100 billion from IMF funds to COVID-ravaged nations

The main representative of the Chinese government in Hong Kong said on Saturday people trying to turn the city into a 'pawn in geopolitics' were the 'real enemies' and Beijing was the true defender of the city's special status. 
 
Luo Huining, director of China's Hong Kong Liaison Office, told a forum that the financial hub, a former British colony handed over to China in 1997, remained one of the world's most competitive economies, the South China Morning Post reported. 
 
"Those trying to turn Hong Kong into a pawn in geopolitics, a tool in curbing China, as well as a bridgehead for infiltrating the mainland, are destroying the foundation of one country, two systems," Luo said, referring to the formula agreed when Britain handed the city back aimed at preserving its freedoms and role as a financial hub. 
 
"They are the real enemies of Hong Kong's prosperity and stability," he said, without identifying any people or groups. 
 
Luo said the ruling Communist Party was 'the creator, leader, implementer and defender of one country, two systems'. 
 
Despite such assurances, many Hong Kong residents have over recent years become worried about what they see as attempts by Beijing to curtail its freedoms. 
 
China denies that. 
 
The Liaison Office did not answer calls outside normal business hours to confirm the contents of the speech and it did not immediately respond to faxed questions. 
 
Unease among many Hong Kong residents grew in 2014 when pro-democracy protesters took to the streets to demand universal suffrage. Demonstrations snowballed again in 2019, sparked by opposition to judicial reform that many people saw as a threat to their way of life. 
 
Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on the city in last June stifling the pro-democracy movement and raising new concerns about the city's prospects. 
 
The law's supporters say it has restored order and improved prospects for the city's economy, which Luo said was among the world's most competitive despite fears it would deteriorate under Chinese rule. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The main representative of the Chinese government in Hong Kong said on Saturday people trying to turn the city into a 'pawn in geopolitics' were the 'real enemies' and Beijing was the true defender of the city's special status.

The main representative of the Chinese government in Hong Kong said on Saturday people trying to turn the city into a 'pawn in geopolitics' were the 'real enemies' and Beijing was the true defender of the city's special status. Luo Huining, director of China's Hong Kong Liaison Office, told a forum that the financial hub, a former British colony handed over to China in 1997, remained one of the world's most competitive economies, the South China Morning Post reported. "Those trying to turn Hong Kong into a pawn in geopolitics, a tool in curbing China, as well as a bridgehead for infiltrating the mainland, are destroying the foundation of one country, two systems," Luo said, referring to the formula agreed when Britain handed the city back aimed at preserving its freedoms and role as a financial hub. "They are the real enemies of Hong Kong's prosperity and stability," he said, without identifying any people or groups. Luo said the ruling Communist Party was 'the creator, leader, implementer and defender of one country, two systems'. Despite such assurances, many Hong Kong residents have over recent years become worried about what they see as attempts by Beijing to curtail its freedoms. China denies that. The Liaison Office did not answer calls outside normal business hours to confirm the contents of the speech and it did not immediately respond to faxed questions. Unease among many Hong Kong residents grew in 2014 when pro-democracy protesters took to the streets to demand universal suffrage. Demonstrations snowballed again in 2019, sparked by opposition to judicial reform that many people saw as a threat to their way of life. Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on the city in last June stifling the pro-democracy movement and raising new concerns about the city's prospects. The law's supporters say it has restored order and improved prospects for the city's economy, which Luo said was among the world's most competitive despite fears it would deteriorate under Chinese rule. (With inputs from agencies)

Beijing official says 'real enemies' want Hong Kong to be 'pawn in geopolitics'

Iran regained its vote in the UN General Assembly on Friday after the United States enabled Tehran to use funds frozen in South Korea to pay some $16 million it owed to the world body.

Iran lost its vote in the 193-member General Assembly in January because it was more than two years in arrears. It owed a total of more than $65 million but paid the minimum amount needed to regain its vote.

"Iran has paid the minimum amount due," UN spokesman Farhan Haq said on Friday, confirming Iran could vote again.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-calls-un-voting-rights-suspension-unacceptable-389450">Iran calls UN voting rights suspension 'unacceptable'</a>

Iran says $20 billion of its oil revenue has been frozen in countries like South Korea, Iraq and China since 2018 under sanctions imposed by then-US President Donald Trump.

"Illegal US sanctions have not just deprived our people of medicine; they have also prevented Iran from paying our dues in arrears to the UN," Iran's UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi posted on Twitter. "After more than 6 months of working on it, the UN today announced it has received the funds."

Iran was able to vote in the General Assembly on Friday to elect five new members of the UN Security Council.

Iran's Foreign Ministry said that it had proposed to the United Nations that it could use funds frozen in South Korea to pay its dues. It said the world body followed up with the US Treasury Department to get the appropriate approvals.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-to-host-un-nuclear-watchdog-chief-ahead-of-sanctions-deadline-365039">Iran to host UN nuclear watchdog chief ahead of sanctions deadline</a>

"The permit was recently issued and the process of withdrawing the membership fee from Iran's account in the Korean banks and transferring it to the UN account in Seoul has been paved, and this payment will be made soon," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said last week.

A spokesperson for the US Treasury Department said on Friday: "The US government typically authorizes the payment of UN dues, including through OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) general licenses and specific licenses."

The UN payment comes as US President Joe Biden's administration and Iranian officials are expected to begin their sixth round of indirect talks in Vienna this weekend about how both sides might resume compliance with a 2015 nuclear deal.

Under the deal with key world powers, Iran limited its nuclear program to make it harder to obtain fissile material for atomic weapons in return for relief from the US, European Union and UN sanctions.

However, Trump abandoned the deal in 2018, arguing it gave Tehran too much sanctions relief for too few nuclear restrictions and reimposed sanctions that slashed Iran's oil exports. Iran then retaliated about a year later by violating the limits on its nuclear program.

Iran regained its vote in the UN General Assembly on Friday after the United States enabled Tehran to use funds frozen in South Korea to pay some $16 million it owed to the world body.

Iran regained its vote in the UN General Assembly on Friday after the United States enabled Tehran to use funds frozen in South Korea to pay some $16 million it owed to the world body. Iran lost its vote in the 193-member General Assembly in January because it was more than two years in arrears. It owed a total of more than $65 million but paid the minimum amount needed to regain its vote. "Iran has paid the minimum amount due," UN spokesman Farhan Haq said on Friday, confirming Iran could vote again. Also read | Iran calls UN voting rights suspension 'unacceptable' Iran says $20 billion of its oil revenue has been frozen in countries like South Korea, Iraq and China since 2018 under sanctions imposed by then-US President Donald Trump. "Illegal US sanctions have not just deprived our people of medicine; they have also prevented Iran from paying our dues in arrears to the UN," Iran's UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi posted on Twitter. "After more than 6 months of working on it, the UN today announced it has received the funds." Iran was able to vote in the General Assembly on Friday to elect five new members of the UN Security Council. Iran's Foreign Ministry said that it had proposed to the United Nations that it could use funds frozen in South Korea to pay its dues. It said the world body followed up with the US Treasury Department to get the appropriate approvals. Also read | Iran to host UN nuclear watchdog chief ahead of sanctions deadline "The permit was recently issued and the process of withdrawing the membership fee from Iran's account in the Korean banks and transferring it to the UN account in Seoul has been paved, and this payment will be made soon," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said last week. A spokesperson for the US Treasury Department said on Friday: "The US government typically authorizes the payment of UN dues, including through OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) general licenses and specific licenses." The UN payment comes as US President Joe Biden's administration and Iranian officials are expected to begin their sixth round of indirect talks in Vienna this weekend about how both sides might resume compliance with a 2015 nuclear deal. Under the deal with key world powers, Iran limited its nuclear program to make it harder to obtain fissile material for atomic weapons in return for relief from the US, European Union and UN sanctions. However, Trump abandoned the deal in 2018, arguing it gave Tehran too much sanctions relief for too few nuclear restrictions and reimposed sanctions that slashed Iran's oil exports. Iran then retaliated about a year later by violating the limits on its nuclear program.

Iran regains UN vote after US enables UN payment

Two people including a child were shot dead in a grocery store in Florida on Thursday, the latest in a series of shootings in the southern US state. The shooting -- in which the gunman also killed himself -- occurred in a Publix grocery store in Royal Palm Beach, 80 miles (130 kilometers) north of Miami, police said.

Two people including a child were shot dead in a grocery store in Florida on Thursday, the latest in a series of shootings in the southern US state. The shooting -- in which the gunman also killed himself -- occurred in a Publix grocery store in Royal Palm Beach, 80 miles (130 kilometers) north of Miami, police said. "Upon arrival deputies located three individuals deceased from gunshot wounds, one adult male, one adult female, and one child," the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office said. "The shooter is one of the deceased." Also Read | Trump hints at comeback in major speech, calls on nations to cancel their China debt The shooter turned his gun on himself, Teri Barbera, spokeswoman for the sheriff's office, told AFP. This was the latest shooting in south Florida in recent days. On Sunday, three people were killed and five wounded at a graduation party in Miami. Two people were killed and at least 20 wounded a week earlier when three shooters fired "indiscriminately" into a crowd outside a concert in the Miami area, police said. Mass shootings have taken place across the United States this year in a surge of violence that President Joe Biden has branded an "epidemic."

Shooting in grocery store in Florida, two killed, including one child

Boris Johnson's wife Carrie, along with their one-year-old son Wilfred were spotted playing on the beach with the US first lady. Dr Jill Biden is accompanying her husband for the G7 visit.&nbsp;

After having a fun time at the beach, both the ladies were seen with their husbands for a walkabout on the eve of a G7 summit.

Both the couples admired the serene view. "I told the Prime Minister that we have something in common - we both married way above our stature," Biden told Johnson jokingly. The UK prime minister agreed and said, "I'm not going to dissent from that one. I'm not doing to disagree with the President there, or indeed on anything else."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
-seaside diplomacy- 
Carrie, (one-year-old) Wilfred Johnson walk with Jill Biden on Cornish beach <a href="https://t.co/TCuELS4Tek">pic.twitter.com/TCuELS4Tek</a>
— TARIK TOROS (@TarikToros) <a href="https://twitter.com/TarikToros/status/1403108208965738497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 10, 2021</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>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uks-johnson-hails-biden-as-a-big-breath-of-fresh-air-390733">Also Read |&nbsp;UK's Johnson hails Biden as 'a big breath of fresh air'</a>

The two&nbsp;leaders met at the English seaside resort of Carbis bay. Biden declared, "I've been to this great country many times, but this is my first time as President of the United States."

<img alt="Boris Johnson's wife Carrie and their one-year-old son Wilfred with US First Lady" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="17511691-3aae-4aeb-b670-18ec905dff51" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screenshot%202021-06-11%20at%202.39.21%20PM.png" />&nbsp;Image Source: Twitter

Johnson hailed the US President as "a big breath of fresh air" because he wanted to work with London on a huge range of issues including climate change and COVID to security.

Johnson said, "It’s a big breath of fresh air. It’s new, it’s interesting and we’re working very hard together. We went on for about an hour and 20 or so. It was a long, long, good session. We covered a huge range of subjects".&nbsp;

Johnson played out differences with Washington on the impact of Brexit on the peace in Northern Ireland as he said that the US, UK, and European Union had "complete harmony" on finding solutions to uphold the 1998 peace deal. "There’s complete harmony on the need to keep going, find solutions, and make sure we uphold the Belfast Good Friday Agreement", Johnson added.&nbsp;

Boris Johnson's wife Carrie, along with their one-year-old son Wilfred were spotted playing on the beach with the US first lady. Dr Jill Biden is accompanying her husband for the G7 visit.

Boris Johnson's wife Carrie, along with their one-year-old son Wilfred were spotted playing on the beach with the US first lady. Dr Jill Biden is accompanying her husband for the G7 visit. After having a fun time at the beach, both the ladies were seen with their husbands for a walkabout on the eve of a G7 summit. Both the couples admired the serene view. "I told the Prime Minister that we have something in common - we both married way above our stature," Biden told Johnson jokingly. The UK prime minister agreed and said, "I'm not going to dissent from that one. I'm not doing to disagree with the President there, or indeed on anything else." -seaside diplomacy- Carrie, (one-year-old) Wilfred Johnson walk with Jill Biden on Cornish beach pic.twitter.com/TCuELS4Tek — TARIK TOROS (@TarikToros) June 10, 2021 × Also Read | UK's Johnson hails Biden as 'a big breath of fresh air' The two leaders met at the English seaside resort of Carbis bay. Biden declared, "I've been to this great country many times, but this is my first time as President of the United States." Image Source: Twitter Johnson hailed the US President as "a big breath of fresh air" because he wanted to work with London on a huge range of issues including climate change and COVID to security. Johnson said, "It’s a big breath of fresh air. It’s new, it’s interesting and we’re working very hard together. We went on for about an hour and 20 or so. It was a long, long, good session. We covered a huge range of subjects". Johnson played out differences with Washington on the impact of Brexit on the peace in Northern Ireland as he said that the US, UK, and European Union had "complete harmony" on finding solutions to uphold the 1998 peace deal. "There’s complete harmony on the need to keep going, find solutions, and make sure we uphold the Belfast Good Friday Agreement", Johnson added.

Boris Johnson's wife Carrie and their son Wilfred spotted with US first lady

US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson held their first in-person talks ahead of the G7 Summit in Cornwall in southwest England. During their meeting, they agreed on a deal called the Atlantic Charter, which commits the two countries to work together on global challenges.

Biden-Johnson agreed on Atlantic Charter deal during first in-person talks

According to a Pew Research Center survey of 12 nations, the United States' image abroad has improved sharply since President Joe Biden replaced Donald Trump. More than 16,000 adults from 16 countries expressed confidence in Biden.

Survey: US' global image improves sharply under Biden compared to Trump

The US economy’s rebound from the pandemic is driving the biggest surge in inflation in nearly 13 years, with consumer prices rising in May by 5% from a year ago. The Labor Department said last month’s increase in the consumer-price index was the largest since August 2008, when the reading rose 5.4%.

World Business Watch: US inflation highest in 13 years as prices surge 5% in May

According to Pentagon, the US pullout from Afghanistan is 50% complete, as it approaches its September 11 deadline to remove troops, which marks 20-year anniversary of the Al-Qaeda attacks.

Pentagon: US troops pullout from Afghanistan is 50% complete

US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson held their first in-person talks ahead of the G7 Summit in Cornwall in southwest England. After the meeting between the two leaders, Johnson said that the talks with Biden were a "big breath of fresh air".

Johnson plays down differences with Biden over Northern Ireland, ahead of G7 summit

The European Union and the United States are set to commit at a summit in Brussels next week to end their transatlantic metals and aircraft trade disputes and call for progress on a new study into the origins of COVID-19, according to a draft communique. 
 
The seven-page draft, seen by Reuters, aims to show concrete results of the "new dawn" hailed by EU leaders when U.S. President Joe Biden took over from Donald Trump in January. 
 
The draft, which was discussed by EU ambassadors on Wednesday, commits to ending a long-running dispute over subsidies to aircraft makers before July 11 and setting a Dec. 1 deadline to end punitive tariffs related to a steel and aluminium trade dispute. 
 
Despite pressure by U.S. steel industry groups to keep the "Section 232" national security tariffs imposed by Trump, the draft said: "We commit to working towards lifting before 1 December 2021 all additional/punitive tariffs on both sides linked to our steel and aluminium dispute."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-prez-joe-biden-to-meet-55-world-leaders-during-his-visit-390419">Also Read |&nbsp;US Prez Joe Biden to meet 55 world leaders during his visit</a>

Steel industry sources told Reuters the language may be aimed at retaliatory tariffs on both sides such as those on whiskey and motorbikes, not necessarily the underlying 25% U.S. tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum. A U.S.-EU deal in May to avert escalation of the dispute left these in place while the two sides negotiate for six months to address global excess metals capacity largely centred in China.

Some 12 EU countries are weighing a proposal to extend their own steel "safeguard" quotas beyond the end of June to protect European steelmakers from a flood of imports. 
 
Biden will meet the EU's chief executive, Ursula von der Leyen, and European Council President Charles Michel, who represents EU governments, and will also pledge to promote international cooperation to fight global warming. 
 
The EU and the United States are the world's top trading powers, along with China, but Trump sought to sideline the EU. 
 
After scotching a free-trade agreement with the EU, the Trump administration focused on shrinking a growing U.S. deficit in goods trade. Biden, however, sees the EU as an ally in promoting free trade, as well as in fighting climate change and ending the COVID-19 pandemic. 
 
COVID ORIGINS 
 
At the Brussels summit, both sides will agree to cooperate on China policy and call for a new study into the origins of the pandemic, first detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan, the draft said.

"We call for progress on a transparent, evidence-based, and expert-led WHO-convened phase 2 study on the origins of COVID-19, that is free from interference," the draft said. 
 
The two prevailing theories are that the virus jumped from animals, possibly bats, to humans, or that it escaped from a virology laboratory in Wuhan. Members of a WHO team that visited China this year to investigate COVID-19's origin said they were not given access to all data.

Despite the pledge of support, the EU is "not going to launch our own probe," one EU diplomat said. "We are not anti-China".

A second EU diplomat said the group "doesn't have intelligence services, and we are not going to try to do this origins search through our member states agencies," adding, "The Americans can still talk to European services in member states, but we are not going to get involved."

Despite the caveats, if agreed the joint stance on China will be a boost for the Biden administration, which seeks friends to stand up to Beijing but has said it will not force any ally to choose sides.

In a concession to the EU, the draft makes no mention of Biden's proposals for vaccine patent waivers to boost global production. Instead, it pledges to reduce U.S. export restrictions and promote the voluntary transfer of technologies.

The task of fully inoculating the world is expected to belong. The text says the United States and the EU "aspire to vaccinate at least two-thirds of the world's population by the end of 2022". This means as many as 2.5 billion people in the world may not get a shot before 2023.

EU states have until now tried to maintain a strategic balance that avoids alienating either China or the United States.

But China's military expansion, its claims to sovereignty in most of the South China Sea, and the mass detentions of Muslim Uyghurs in northwestern China have shifted the mood in Brussels.

"We intend to closely consult and cooperate on the full range of issues in the framework of our respective similar multi-faceted approaches to China, which include elements of cooperation, competition, and systemic rivalry," the draft said.

The European Union and the United States are set to commit at a summit in Brussels next week to end their transatlantic metals and aircraft trade disputes and call for progress on a new study into the origins of COVID-19, according to a draft communique.

The European Union and the United States are set to commit at a summit in Brussels next week to end their transatlantic metals and aircraft trade disputes and call for progress on a new study into the origins of COVID-19, according to a draft communique. The seven-page draft, seen by Reuters, aims to show concrete results of the "new dawn" hailed by EU leaders when U.S. President Joe Biden took over from Donald Trump in January. The draft, which was discussed by EU ambassadors on Wednesday, commits to ending a long-running dispute over subsidies to aircraft makers before July 11 and setting a Dec. 1 deadline to end punitive tariffs related to a steel and aluminium trade dispute. Despite pressure by U.S. steel industry groups to keep the "Section 232" national security tariffs imposed by Trump, the draft said: "We commit to working towards lifting before 1 December 2021 all additional/punitive tariffs on both sides linked to our steel and aluminium dispute." Also Read | US Prez Joe Biden to meet 55 world leaders during his visit Steel industry sources told Reuters the language may be aimed at retaliatory tariffs on both sides such as those on whiskey and motorbikes, not necessarily the underlying 25% U.S. tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum. A U.S.-EU deal in May to avert escalation of the dispute left these in place while the two sides negotiate for six months to address global excess metals capacity largely centred in China. Some 12 EU countries are weighing a proposal to extend their own steel "safeguard" quotas beyond the end of June to protect European steelmakers from a flood of imports. Biden will meet the EU's chief executive, Ursula von der Leyen, and European Council President Charles Michel, who represents EU governments, and will also pledge to promote international cooperation to fight global warming. The EU and the United States are the world's top trading powers, along with China, but Trump sought to sideline the EU. After scotching a free-trade agreement with the EU, the Trump administration focused on shrinking a growing U.S. deficit in goods trade. Biden, however, sees the EU as an ally in promoting free trade, as well as in fighting climate change and ending the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID ORIGINS At the Brussels summit, both sides will agree to cooperate on China policy and call for a new study into the origins of the pandemic, first detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan, the draft said. "We call for progress on a transparent, evidence-based, and expert-led WHO-convened phase 2 study on the origins of COVID-19, that is free from interference," the draft said. The two prevailing theories are that the virus jumped from animals, possibly bats, to humans, or that it escaped from a virology laboratory in Wuhan. Members of a WHO team that visited China this year to investigate COVID-19's origin said they were not given access to all data. Despite the pledge of support, the EU is "not going to launch our own probe," one EU diplomat said. "We are not anti-China". A second EU diplomat said the group "doesn't have intelligence services, and we are not going to try to do this origins search through our member states agencies," adding, "The Americans can still talk to European services in member states, but we are not going to get involved." Despite the caveats, if agreed the joint stance on China will be a boost for the Biden administration, which seeks friends to stand up to Beijing but has said it will not force any ally to choose sides. In a concession to the EU, the draft makes no mention of Biden's proposals for vaccine patent waivers to boost global production. Instead, it pledges to reduce U.S. export restrictions and promote the voluntary transfer of technologies. The task of fully inoculating the world is expected to belong. The text says the United States and the EU "aspire to vaccinate at least two-thirds of the world's population by the end of 2022". This means as many as 2.5 billion people in the world may not get a shot before 2023. EU states have until now tried to maintain a strategic balance that avoids alienating either China or the United States. But China's military expansion, its claims to sovereignty in most of the South China Sea, and the mass detentions of Muslim Uyghurs in northwestern China have shifted the mood in Brussels. "We intend to closely consult and cooperate on the full range of issues in the framework of our respective similar multi-faceted approaches to China, which include elements of cooperation, competition, and systemic rivalry," the draft said.

EU, US to end trade tariffs, call for new study into COVID-19 origins, says summit draft

Negotiations between Iran and the world powers on how to revive the 2015 nuclear accord will resume this weekend, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said on Wednesday, adding that Iran's June 18 presidential election was a complicating factor. 
 
"I know that the negotiation will start again over this coming weekend," Sherman said during a virtual event organized by the German Marshall Fund think tank.

"I think there's been a lot of progress made, but, out of my own experience, until the last detail is nailed down, and I mean nailed down, we will not know if we have an agreement," Sherman, one of the key U.S. negotiators for the original deal, said. 
 
The talks seek to revive U.S. and Iranian compliance with a landmark pact under which Iran agreed to curbs on its nuclear program to make it harder to obtain fissile material for a bomb in return for the easing of U.S., European Union and U.N. sanctions.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/assassination-in-iran-could-limit-bidens-options-was-that-the-goal-346211">Also read |&nbsp;Assassination in Iran could limit Biden’s options. Was that the goal?</a>

There have been five rounds of indirect U.S.-Iranian talks since April and the next set are expected to begin in Vienna on Saturday, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters and Iranian state media quoted Iran's lead negotiator as saying. 
 
However, a host of obstacles remain, suggesting a return to compliance with the accord is still a way off, four diplomats, two Iranian officials, and two analysts say.

Another factor is the June 18 elections to replace President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist who promoted the original deal and who widely expected to be followed by a hard-line successor.

"This is complicated, of course, by the Iranian presidential election, which is happening in just a few days," Sherman said, without elaborating.

That said, the election is expected to have little impact on Iran’s foreign and nuclear policies, which are decided by the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and all seven candidates running for president have supported the talks. 
 
Then-U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned the deal in 2018, saying it was too soft on Iran, and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by violating its nuclear limits about a year later.

Negotiations between Iran and the world powers on how to revive the 2015 nuclear accord will resume this weekend, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said on Wednesday, adding that Iran's June 18 presidential election was a complicating factor.

Negotiations between Iran and the world powers on how to revive the 2015 nuclear accord will resume this weekend, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said on Wednesday, adding that Iran's June 18 presidential election was a complicating factor. "I know that the negotiation will start again over this coming weekend," Sherman said during a virtual event organized by the German Marshall Fund think tank. "I think there's been a lot of progress made, but, out of my own experience, until the last detail is nailed down, and I mean nailed down, we will not know if we have an agreement," Sherman, one of the key U.S. negotiators for the original deal, said. The talks seek to revive U.S. and Iranian compliance with a landmark pact under which Iran agreed to curbs on its nuclear program to make it harder to obtain fissile material for a bomb in return for the easing of U.S., European Union and U.N. sanctions. Also read | Assassination in Iran could limit Biden’s options. Was that the goal? There have been five rounds of indirect U.S.-Iranian talks since April and the next set are expected to begin in Vienna on Saturday, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters and Iranian state media quoted Iran's lead negotiator as saying. However, a host of obstacles remain, suggesting a return to compliance with the accord is still a way off, four diplomats, two Iranian officials, and two analysts say. Another factor is the June 18 elections to replace President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist who promoted the original deal and who widely expected to be followed by a hard-line successor. "This is complicated, of course, by the Iranian presidential election, which is happening in just a few days," Sherman said, without elaborating. That said, the election is expected to have little impact on Iran’s foreign and nuclear policies, which are decided by the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and all seven candidates running for president have supported the talks. Then-U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned the deal in 2018, saying it was too soft on Iran, and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by violating its nuclear limits about a year later.

Iran nuclear talks to resume over the weekend, says US

The Pentagon Papers case was a triumph for press freedom. Or was it?

The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion rejecting the Nixon administration’s attempt to censor publication of a secret history of the Vietnam War was just three paragraphs long and declared only that the government had not overcome a “heavy presumption” against prior restraints, on that occasion.

The vote was, moreover, fairly close, 6-3. Every justice contributed a concurring or dissenting opinion, none of which got more than two votes. You need a spreadsheet to make sense of who voted for what, but the bottom line is at odds with the conventional view that the case was a flat-out First Amendment victory.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-says-it-will-no-longer-seize-reporters-records-in-leak-probes-389730">US says it will no longer seize reporters' records in leak probes</a>

“A majority of the Supreme Court not only left open the possibility of prior restraints in other cases but of criminal sanctions being imposed on the press following publication of the Pentagon Papers themselves,” Floyd Abrams, who represented The New York Times in the case, wrote in his 2014 book, “Friend of the Court.”

There are, it turns out, two ways to understand the Pentagon Papers decision. One is that it was a potent vindication of press freedom establishing a bedrock principle: The government cannot stop the new media from providing information to citizens in a democracy.

Another view takes account of the letter and the limits of the decision. Even as to prior restraints, the Supreme Court left the door slightly ajar. As to the possibility of punishing the press&nbsp;after&nbsp;publication, two justices in the majority wrote that they had no doubt that news organizations could be prosecuted under the espionage laws.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-secretly-seized-phone-records-of-times-reporters-389303">Trump administration secretly seized phone records of Times reporters</a>

To be sure, the decision has taken on a symbolic weight that has swamped its technical holding, said Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago and an editor of a volume of essays commemorating the 50th anniversary of the decision, “National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press.”

“The case created a largely overwhelming sense that the press cannot be either enjoined from or prosecuted for publishing national secrets,” he said. “That’s become the expectation as a result of Pentagon Papers.”

But even if the decision seems to have created near-absolute protection for the press, he went on, it addressed only one piece of the relationship between citizens and their government.

An intermediary, the press, was protected. But neither its sources nor its readers gained rights.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/number-of-journalists-killed-for-their-reporting-doubled-in-2020-351577">Number of journalists killed for their reporting doubled in 2020</a>

“What Pentagon Papers and its successor decisions created,” Stone said, “was an incoherent state of the law.”

The decision did not live up to its promise, Anthony Lewis, a Supreme Court reporter and columnist for The Times and an authority on the First Amendment, wrote in his 1991 book, “Make No Law.”

“The Pentagon Papers case was a famous victory for the press, and for the Madisonian principle that the public must know what its government is doing,” wrote Lewis, who died in 2013. “Or so it seemed at the time. Later decisions showed that it was not much of a victory.”

Prior restraints against the press may have been effectively barred, Lewis wrote, but the Supreme Court did not hesitate to block books by former government officials who sought to write about national security secrets they had learned in the course of their employment.

In those later decisions, Stone said, “the court took the view that there is no right to leak and no public right to information.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-china-is-stifling-press-freedom-in-hong-kong-330040">How China is stifling press freedom in Hong Kong</a>

The decision had another, darker side, wrote Alexander Bickel, the Yale law professor who argued the case for The Times in the Supreme Court.

“The American press was freer before it won its battle with the government,” he wrote in his classic 1975 book, “The Morality of Consent.”

“Through one civil and two world wars and other wars, there had never been an effort by the federal government to censor a newspaper by attempting to impose a prior restraint,” he wrote. “That spell was broken, and in a sense, freedom was thus diminished.”

Justice William O. Douglas, who was in the majority in 1971, wrote two years later that the vote had been too close and had followed two weeks of successful government-imposed censorship.

“We have allowed ominous inroads to be made on the historic freedom of the newspapers,” he wrote. “The effort to suppress the publication of the Pentagon Papers failed only by a narrow margin and actually succeeded for a brief spell in imposing prior restraint on our press for the first time in our history.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-tells-us-to-mind-own-business-over-media-freedom-311598">Russia tells US to 'mind own business' over media freedom</a>

It was unimaginable, though, that the Supreme Court would rule out prior restraints entirely, and that posed a litigation-strategy puzzle for Bickel when he argued before the justices.

He conceded, at least in the abstract, that courts could stop a publication if it would “lead directly and unavoidably to a disastrous event.”

Justice Potter Stewart explored the point. What if, he asked, disclosure of sensitive information in wartime “would result in the sentencing to death of 100 young men whose only offense had been that they were 19 years old and had low draft numbers?”

Bickel tried to duck the question, but the justice pressed him: “You would say that the Constitution requires that it be published and that these men die?”

Bickel yielded, to the consternation of some of The Times’ allies. “I’m afraid,” he said, “that my inclinations of humanity overcome the somewhat more abstract devotion to the First Amendment.”

As a matter of litigation tactics, it was a necessary answer, said David Rudenstine, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York City and the author of “The Day the Presses Stopped,” a history of the case.

“I don’t think an advocate could say anything else,” Rudenstine said, “unless you really wanted to lose the case.”

Still, Bickel’s response outraged the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an unusual brief that same day disavowing Bickel’s answer. It said Stewart’s question “must be answered in a totally different manner” and that “the answer is, painfully but simply, that the right of a free people to determine its destiny has been, and should continue to be, paramount to any attempt by the government to impinge upon, erode or ultimately destroy the right of the people to know.”

Bickel had made another concession when he argued the case in the federal appeals court in New York. Asked for an example of a government secret that would justify a prior restraint, he posited, presciently as it turned out, one in which “the hydrogen bomb turns up.”

Eight years later, on the only other occasion on which the federal government has sought a prior restraint on national security grounds, a federal judge in Wisconsin barred The Progressive magazine from publishing an article called “The H-bomb Secret,” which included detailed instructions for making a hydrogen bomb.

While the appeal was pending, others published similar information and the government dropped its case.

As that case suggests, prior restraints that actually keep information already in the hands of the press from the public are hard to accomplish. By the time the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case, more than a dozen newspapers had published parts of them. These days, a whistleblower like Daniel Ellsberg could skip the intermediaries entirely and post documents directly on the internet.

So far, there have been no prosecutions of journalists in the United States for seeking or publishing classified information, but the espionage laws on their face may well be read to forbid possession and publication of classified information by the press.

The press’s victory in the Pentagon Papers case may have been incomplete. But a loss would have been devastating.

“What would be the law today if the case had come out differently?” Rudenstine asked. “It’s very possible that there could have been a prosecution of The Times. That would have changed American law quite a lot.”

“The general thought,” he said, “was that if you lost the prior restraint case that there was no chance of winning the criminal prosecution.”

The opposite happened, said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University and the other editor of “National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press.” “As a practical matter, the press and the government have arrived at the state of mind that there will not be prior restraints or subsequent prosecutions, that that would violate the spirit of the First Amendment,” he said. “Apart from the Progressive case, the government has not gone after the press in either form.”

But he added that this was in large part a product of mature accommodation among responsible institutions, one that was at risk during the Donald Trump administration.

“The continuing viability of a fulsome Pentagon Papers doctrine does not apply in the context of a near-authoritarian government like the one we had,” he said. “It’s those kinds of ambiguities about Pentagon Papers that makes the whole system much more vulnerable when you have a true threat to democracy.”

The Pentagon Papers case was a triumph for press freedom. Or was it? The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion rejecting the Nixon administration’s attempt to censor publication of a secret history of the Vietnam War was just three paragraphs long and declared only that the government had not overcome a “heavy presumption” against prior restraints, on that occasion.

The Pentagon Papers case was a triumph for press freedom. Or was it? The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion rejecting the Nixon administration’s attempt to censor publication of a secret history of the Vietnam War was just three paragraphs long and declared only that the government had not overcome a “heavy presumption” against prior restraints, on that occasion. The vote was, moreover, fairly close, 6-3. Every justice contributed a concurring or dissenting opinion, none of which got more than two votes. You need a spreadsheet to make sense of who voted for what, but the bottom line is at odds with the conventional view that the case was a flat-out First Amendment victory. Also read | US says it will no longer seize reporters' records in leak probes “A majority of the Supreme Court not only left open the possibility of prior restraints in other cases but of criminal sanctions being imposed on the press following publication of the Pentagon Papers themselves,” Floyd Abrams, who represented The New York Times in the case, wrote in his 2014 book, “Friend of the Court.” There are, it turns out, two ways to understand the Pentagon Papers decision. One is that it was a potent vindication of press freedom establishing a bedrock principle: The government cannot stop the new media from providing information to citizens in a democracy. Another view takes account of the letter and the limits of the decision. Even as to prior restraints, the Supreme Court left the door slightly ajar. As to the possibility of punishing the press after publication, two justices in the majority wrote that they had no doubt that news organizations could be prosecuted under the espionage laws. Also read | Trump administration secretly seized phone records of Times reporters To be sure, the decision has taken on a symbolic weight that has swamped its technical holding, said Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago and an editor of a volume of essays commemorating the 50th anniversary of the decision, “National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press.” “The case created a largely overwhelming sense that the press cannot be either enjoined from or prosecuted for publishing national secrets,” he said. “That’s become the expectation as a result of Pentagon Papers.” But even if the decision seems to have created near-absolute protection for the press, he went on, it addressed only one piece of the relationship between citizens and their government. An intermediary, the press, was protected. But neither its sources nor its readers gained rights. Also read | Number of journalists killed for their reporting doubled in 2020 “What Pentagon Papers and its successor decisions created,” Stone said, “was an incoherent state of the law.” The decision did not live up to its promise, Anthony Lewis, a Supreme Court reporter and columnist for The Times and an authority on the First Amendment, wrote in his 1991 book, “Make No Law.” “The Pentagon Papers case was a famous victory for the press, and for the Madisonian principle that the public must know what its government is doing,” wrote Lewis, who died in 2013. “Or so it seemed at the time. Later decisions showed that it was not much of a victory.” Prior restraints against the press may have been effectively barred, Lewis wrote, but the Supreme Court did not hesitate to block books by former government officials who sought to write about national security secrets they had learned in the course of their employment. In those later decisions, Stone said, “the court took the view that there is no right to leak and no public right to information.” Also read | How China is stifling press freedom in Hong Kong The decision had another, darker side, wrote Alexander Bickel, the Yale law professor who argued the case for The Times in the Supreme Court. “The American press was freer before it won its battle with the government,” he wrote in his classic 1975 book, “The Morality of Consent.” “Through one civil and two world wars and other wars, there had never been an effort by the federal government to censor a newspaper by attempting to impose a prior restraint,” he wrote. “That spell was broken, and in a sense, freedom was thus diminished.” Justice William O. Douglas, who was in the majority in 1971, wrote two years later that the vote had been too close and had followed two weeks of successful government-imposed censorship. “We have allowed ominous inroads to be made on the historic freedom of the newspapers,” he wrote. “The effort to suppress the publication of the Pentagon Papers failed only by a narrow margin and actually succeeded for a brief spell in imposing prior restraint on our press for the first time in our history.” Also read | Russia tells US to 'mind own business' over media freedom It was unimaginable, though, that the Supreme Court would rule out prior restraints entirely, and that posed a litigation-strategy puzzle for Bickel when he argued before the justices. He conceded, at least in the abstract, that courts could stop a publication if it would “lead directly and unavoidably to a disastrous event.” Justice Potter Stewart explored the point. What if, he asked, disclosure of sensitive information in wartime “would result in the sentencing to death of 100 young men whose only offense had been that they were 19 years old and had low draft numbers?” Bickel tried to duck the question, but the justice pressed him: “You would say that the Constitution requires that it be published and that these men die?” Bickel yielded, to the consternation of some of The Times’ allies. “I’m afraid,” he said, “that my inclinations of humanity overcome the somewhat more abstract devotion to the First Amendment.” As a matter of litigation tactics, it was a necessary answer, said David Rudenstine, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York City and the author of “The Day the Presses Stopped,” a history of the case. “I don’t think an advocate could say anything else,” Rudenstine said, “unless you really wanted to lose the case.” Still, Bickel’s response outraged the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an unusual brief that same day disavowing Bickel’s answer. It said Stewart’s question “must be answered in a totally different manner” and that “the answer is, painfully but simply, that the right of a free people to determine its destiny has been, and should continue to be, paramount to any attempt by the government to impinge upon, erode or ultimately destroy the right of the people to know.” Bickel had made another concession when he argued the case in the federal appeals court in New York. Asked for an example of a government secret that would justify a prior restraint, he posited, presciently as it turned out, one in which “the hydrogen bomb turns up.” Eight years later, on the only other occasion on which the federal government has sought a prior restraint on national security grounds, a federal judge in Wisconsin barred The Progressive magazine from publishing an article called “The H-bomb Secret,” which included detailed instructions for making a hydrogen bomb. While the appeal was pending, others published similar information and the government dropped its case. As that case suggests, prior restraints that actually keep information already in the hands of the press from the public are hard to accomplish. By the time the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case, more than a dozen newspapers had published parts of them. These days, a whistleblower like Daniel Ellsberg could skip the intermediaries entirely and post documents directly on the internet. So far, there have been no prosecutions of journalists in the United States for seeking or publishing classified information, but the espionage laws on their face may well be read to forbid possession and publication of classified information by the press. The press’s victory in the Pentagon Papers case may have been incomplete. But a loss would have been devastating. “What would be the law today if the case had come out differently?” Rudenstine asked. “It’s very possible that there could have been a prosecution of The Times. That would have changed American law quite a lot.” “The general thought,” he said, “was that if you lost the prior restraint case that there was no chance of winning the criminal prosecution.” The opposite happened, said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University and the other editor of “National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press.” “As a practical matter, the press and the government have arrived at the state of mind that there will not be prior restraints or subsequent prosecutions, that that would violate the spirit of the First Amendment,” he said. “Apart from the Progressive case, the government has not gone after the press in either form.” But he added that this was in large part a product of mature accommodation among responsible institutions, one that was at risk during the Donald Trump administration. “The continuing viability of a fulsome Pentagon Papers doctrine does not apply in the context of a near-authoritarian government like the one we had,” he said. “It’s those kinds of ambiguities about Pentagon Papers that makes the whole system much more vulnerable when you have a true threat to democracy.”

A first amendment case that made an ‘Incoherent State of the Law’

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin directed the Pentagon on Wednesday to sharpen its focus on China, which the United States has tagged as its top strategic rival.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin directed the Pentagon on Wednesday to sharpen its focus on China, which the United States has tagged as its top strategic rival. "Now, it is up to the Department to get to work," Austin said after issuing an internal directive to the giant Pentagon bureaucracy. The directive, details of which are classified, comes after an assessment by a task force established by the new Biden administration in February to study the Defense Department's strategy towards China. "The initiatives I am putting forward today are nested inside the larger US government approach to China and will help inform the development of the National Defense Strategy we are working on," Austin said. A senior defense official said the task force had identified a "'say-do gap between the stated prioritization of China and what we saw in a number of areas related to attention and resources and processes." Also Read | Attack in Afghanistan kills 10 from charity that clears land mines "The directive today is really about ensuring that the department lives up to that prioritization," the official said. Austin said the directive will "improve the Department's ability to revitalize our network of allies and partners, bolster deterrence, and accelerate the development of new operational concepts, emerging capabilities, future force posture, and a modernized civilian and military workforce." Pentagon operations over the past two decades have been focused largely on dealing with jihadist militants in the Middle East and not a modern army such as that of China. The Pentagon's 2018 National Defense Strategy identified China as a major strategic competitor but the task force found that not much had been done to meet the challenges posed by Beijing. The US military is currently seeking to expand its presence in the Pacific at a time when China has been increasingly belligerent towards Taiwan, which it considers part of its territory. The United States maintains a significant presence in the Middle East, even as it has begun the withdrawal of its remaining 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan. To ensure that his directive is followed, Austin will be personally responsible for the implementation of the classified recommendations of the task force.

US defence chief urges Pentagon to sharpen focus on China

Merck &amp; Co said on Wednesday (June 9) the U.S. government has agreed to pay about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.

The oral antiviral treatment, molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease, similar to Tamiflu to treat influenza.

The treatment course being tested in the trial is an oral dose given every 12 hours for five days.

Merck expects to have more than 10 million courses of therapy available by the end of this year and said it was in discussions with other countries interested in advance purchase agreements for molnupiravir.

The company, which is developing the drug with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is assessing the treatment in a late-stage trial in non-hospitalized patients to see if it reduces the risk of hospitalization or death.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/seeking-a-pill-to-cure-covid-drugmakers-eye-alternative-to-vaccines-387717">Also Read |&nbsp;Seeking a pill to cure Covid: Drugmakers eye alternative to vaccines</a>

Data from the trial, which plans to enrol a total of 1,850 patients globally, are expected in the fall of 2021, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Other antiviral drugs also contending to be the first treatment aimed at the cause of COVID-19 include Pfizer Inc's PFE.N PF-07321332 and Roche Holding AG's ROG.S AT-527. (Full Story)

If successful, Merck said it expects to file for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir in the second half of 2021 at the earliest.

Merck has focused on its treatment after two COVID-19 vaccines it was developing failed to generate the necessary immune responses in early testing, prompting it to abandon them in January.

The drugmaker announced a change of plans and said in April it would no longer pursue the use of molnupiravir in hospitalized patients. 
&nbsp;

Merck & Co said on Wednesday (June 9) the U.S. government has agreed to pay about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.

Merck & Co said on Wednesday (June 9) the U.S. government has agreed to pay about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators. The oral antiviral treatment, molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease, similar to Tamiflu to treat influenza. The treatment course being tested in the trial is an oral dose given every 12 hours for five days. Merck expects to have more than 10 million courses of therapy available by the end of this year and said it was in discussions with other countries interested in advance purchase agreements for molnupiravir. The company, which is developing the drug with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is assessing the treatment in a late-stage trial in non-hospitalized patients to see if it reduces the risk of hospitalization or death. Also Read | Seeking a pill to cure Covid: Drugmakers eye alternative to vaccines Data from the trial, which plans to enrol a total of 1,850 patients globally, are expected in the fall of 2021, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Other antiviral drugs also contending to be the first treatment aimed at the cause of COVID-19 include Pfizer Inc's PFE.N PF-07321332 and Roche Holding AG's ROG.S AT-527. (Full Story) If successful, Merck said it expects to file for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir in the second half of 2021 at the earliest. Merck has focused on its treatment after two COVID-19 vaccines it was developing failed to generate the necessary immune responses in early testing, prompting it to abandon them in January. The drugmaker announced a change of plans and said in April it would no longer pursue the use of molnupiravir in hospitalized patients.

US to need Merck's COVID-19 drug for preparedness, says doctor

US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are expected to agree to work to open up travel between the two countries "as soon as possible," the British government said in a statement late on Wednesday.

Biden, who arrived in England on Wednesday for his first overseas trip as president, will meet with Johnson in Cornwall on Thursday ahead of a meeting of the leaders of the Group of Seven advanced economies that begins Friday, the statement said. 
Reuters reported on Tuesday that the Biden administration was forming expert working groups with Britain, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union to determine how best to safely restart travel after 15 months of pandemic restrictions.

US and UK airline officials said they do not expect Washington to lift restrictions until around July 4 at the earliest.

Airlines and others have pressed the administration to lift the restrictions on most non-US citizens who have been in Britain, the 26 Schengen nations in Europe without border controls, Ireland, China, India, South Africa, Iran, and Brazil.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eu-us-to-end-trade-tariffs-call-for-new-study-into-covid-19-origins-says-summit-draft-390485">Also Read |&nbsp;EU, US to end trade tariffs, call for new study into COVID-19 origins, says summit draft</a>

The two leaders are expected to agree on an ambitious new "Atlantic Charter" modeled on the one signed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941 that set out their goals for the post-war world.

The new charter maps out plans for close cooperation in eight areas, including "defending democracy, building a fair and sustainable trading system, dealing with cyberattacks, combating climate change, and ending the coronavirus pandemic.

One key goal will be resuming safe travel, the UK statement said. Before the pandemic, more than 5 million Britons visited the United States and more than 4.5 million Americans visited Britain every year - more than any other country.

A new travel task force would make recommendations on safely reopening travel and ensuring that Britain and the United States work closely on international travel policy going forward.

"Links between the UK and US are not only crucial for our people, they create and sustain jobs across and throughout our two countries," the statement said.

US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are expected to agree to work to open up travel between the two countries "as soon as possible," the British government said in a statement late on Wednesday.

US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are expected to agree to work to open up travel between the two countries "as soon as possible," the British government said in a statement late on Wednesday. Biden, who arrived in England on Wednesday for his first overseas trip as president, will meet with Johnson in Cornwall on Thursday ahead of a meeting of the leaders of the Group of Seven advanced economies that begins Friday, the statement said. Reuters reported on Tuesday that the Biden administration was forming expert working groups with Britain, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union to determine how best to safely restart travel after 15 months of pandemic restrictions. US and UK airline officials said they do not expect Washington to lift restrictions until around July 4 at the earliest. Airlines and others have pressed the administration to lift the restrictions on most non-US citizens who have been in Britain, the 26 Schengen nations in Europe without border controls, Ireland, China, India, South Africa, Iran, and Brazil. Also Read | EU, US to end trade tariffs, call for new study into COVID-19 origins, says summit draft The two leaders are expected to agree on an ambitious new "Atlantic Charter" modeled on the one signed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941 that set out their goals for the post-war world. The new charter maps out plans for close cooperation in eight areas, including "defending democracy, building a fair and sustainable trading system, dealing with cyberattacks, combating climate change, and ending the coronavirus pandemic. One key goal will be resuming safe travel, the UK statement said. Before the pandemic, more than 5 million Britons visited the United States and more than 4.5 million Americans visited Britain every year - more than any other country. A new travel task force would make recommendations on safely reopening travel and ensuring that Britain and the United States work closely on international travel policy going forward. "Links between the UK and US are not only crucial for our people, they create and sustain jobs across and throughout our two countries," the statement said.

US, UK leaders expected to work to reopen travel

US Senate is all set to pass a wideranging industrial policy bill to address the military and commercial competition with China. The proposal aims to address a number of technological areas in which the United States has fallen behind its Chinese competitors.

US Senate to pass industrial policy bill to counter China

us-1

Us, News on Us, stories on Us, articles on Us, Us stories at Wion, Us news, Us latest news

us 1