<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/israelis-protest-moves-to-grant-netanyahu-immunity-limit-supreme-court-221711">Israelis </a>hailed a US announcement that it no longer considers settlements in the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/palestinian-health-ministry-a-palestinian-shot-dead-in-west-bank-clashes-261418">West Bank </a>and annexed east Jerusalem illegal, but the Palestinians pledged fresh measures to oppose it Tuesday.

Most Israeli politicians and media joined settler groups in welcoming the announcement made by US Secretary of State <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/top-us-lawmakers-press-pompeo-for-answers-on-iran-arms-control-report-219258">Mike Pompeo </a>on Monday.

Israeli Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/benjamin-netanyahu-gives-rare-tv-interview-to-address-allegations-205334">Benjamin Netanyahu</a> said it reflected "a historical truth that the Jewish people are not foreign colonialists in Judaea and Samaria," using the biblical terms for the southern and northern West Bank.

Pompeo said that after legal consultation they had concluded the establishment of settlements was "not, per se, inconsistent with international law".

He said that the United States was not necessarily considering the settlements legal either but instead would defer to the judgement of Israeli courts.

The decision is the latest in a series of pro-Israeli moves by Donald Trump's administration in recent years, including recognising the disputed city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, seized from Syria in the Six-Day War of 1967.

Watch: Reversal of US on it's long standing policy on Israeli settlements

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/reversal-of-us-on-its-long-standing-policy-on-israeli-settlements-263114/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

More than 600,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, alongside more than three million Palestinians.

The statement puts the United States at odds with virtually the whole of the rest of the international community and breaks with UN Security Council resolutions declaring the settlements to be illegal as they are built on occupied land.

The Arab League criticised the announcement Tuesday, calling it an "extremely adverse development."

The only two Arab states to have signed peace treaties with Israel Egypt and Jordan&nbsp;both sharply criticised the US change of policy, with Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi warning of its "dangerous consequences".

The direct impact on the ground may be limited but analysts say it will further embolden the settlement movement and may fend off potential legal moves against Israel.

The Palestinian Authority which considers the US biased and has rejected the Trump administration as a mediator if peace talks are ever revived&nbsp;denounced the latest decision.

Chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Palestinians would take a series of measures to oppose the move.

"We began deliberations in the UN to present a draft resolution in the Security Council," he said Tuesday.

"We expect a (US) veto but we will do it. Let the United States veto international law.

"We are going to the (UN) General Assembly and we will ask. the International Criminal Court to open an official judicial investigation with Israeli officials concerning settlements."

The US change of policy was widely seen as an attempt to change the legal context for a series of suits and complaints against Israel.

The European Union’s top court last week ruled that EU countries must identify products made in Israeli settlements on their labels.

The International Criminal Court is expected to take key decisions on two cases against Israel in the coming weeks, including on whether Israeli settlements are a war crime according to international law.

Ofer Zalzberg, senior Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group think tank, said the US was trying to weaken the legal pressure on its ally.

"The Trump administration is trying to unravel international consensus on this issue of the illegality of settlements," Zalzberg said.

"It adds to a deepening politicisation of international law, making it appear to be malleable to political opinions."

Israeli settlers, who overwhelmingly form part of Netanyahu's right-wing constituency, said the US policy change paved the way for annexation of the settlements."We applaud the Trump administration for revealing the truth about the standing of Israeli communities in Judaea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley," the Yesha settlements council said.

"After the American recognition, we must move to the next stage applying sovereignty to Israeli settlements."

Erekat said it was only the latest move by the US to try and force the Palestinians to capitulate and give up their claims to an independent state.

"They wanted us on our knees and they used every trick internally, externally, regionally to put pressure on us. We stand tall and we will stand tall."

Israelis hailed a US announcement that it no longer considers settlements in the West Bank and annexed east Jerusalem illegal, but the Palestinians pledged fresh measures to oppose it Tuesday.

Israelis hailed a US announcement that it no longer considers settlements in the West Bank and annexed east Jerusalem illegal, but the Palestinians pledged fresh measures to oppose it Tuesday. Most Israeli politicians and media joined settler groups in welcoming the announcement made by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it reflected "a historical truth that the Jewish people are not foreign colonialists in Judaea and Samaria," using the biblical terms for the southern and northern West Bank. Pompeo said that after legal consultation they had concluded the establishment of settlements was "not, per se, inconsistent with international law". He said that the United States was not necessarily considering the settlements legal either but instead would defer to the judgement of Israeli courts. The decision is the latest in a series of pro-Israeli moves by Donald Trump's administration in recent years, including recognising the disputed city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital and recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, seized from Syria in the Six-Day War of 1967. Watch: Reversal of US on it's long standing policy on Israeli settlements × More than 600,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, alongside more than three million Palestinians. The statement puts the United States at odds with virtually the whole of the rest of the international community and breaks with UN Security Council resolutions declaring the settlements to be illegal as they are built on occupied land. The Arab League criticised the announcement Tuesday, calling it an "extremely adverse development." The only two Arab states to have signed peace treaties with Israel Egypt and Jordan both sharply criticised the US change of policy, with Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi warning of its "dangerous consequences". The direct impact on the ground may be limited but analysts say it will further embolden the settlement movement and may fend off potential legal moves against Israel. The Palestinian Authority which considers the US biased and has rejected the Trump administration as a mediator if peace talks are ever revived denounced the latest decision. Chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said the Palestinians would take a series of measures to oppose the move. "We began deliberations in the UN to present a draft resolution in the Security Council," he said Tuesday. "We expect a (US) veto but we will do it. Let the United States veto international law. "We are going to the (UN) General Assembly and we will ask. the International Criminal Court to open an official judicial investigation with Israeli officials concerning settlements." The US change of policy was widely seen as an attempt to change the legal context for a series of suits and complaints against Israel. The European Union’s top court last week ruled that EU countries must identify products made in Israeli settlements on their labels. The International Criminal Court is expected to take key decisions on two cases against Israel in the coming weeks, including on whether Israeli settlements are a war crime according to international law. Ofer Zalzberg, senior Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group think tank, said the US was trying to weaken the legal pressure on its ally. "The Trump administration is trying to unravel international consensus on this issue of the illegality of settlements," Zalzberg said. "It adds to a deepening politicisation of international law, making it appear to be malleable to political opinions." Israeli settlers, who overwhelmingly form part of Netanyahu's right-wing constituency, said the US policy change paved the way for annexation of the settlements."We applaud the Trump administration for revealing the truth about the standing of Israeli communities in Judaea, Samaria and the Jordan Valley," the Yesha settlements council said. "After the American recognition, we must move to the next stage applying sovereignty to Israeli settlements." Erekat said it was only the latest move by the US to try and force the Palestinians to capitulate and give up their claims to an independent state. "They wanted us on our knees and they used every trick internally, externally, regionally to put pressure on us. We stand tall and we will stand tall."

Israelis celebrate, Palestinians vow measures to oppose as US backs settlements in West Bank

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/huawei-lawyer-tells-us-jury-spelling-errors-video-shows-rival-stole-trade-secrets-224361">Huawei Technologies&nbsp;</a>has dismissed a new <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-gives-huawei-another-90-days-reprieve-from-ban-amid-economic-blacklist-244165">90-day extension</a> by the Trump administration allowing US&nbsp;firms to continue doing business with the Chinese company as making little difference, repeating that it was being unfairly treated.

US&nbsp;regulators are crafting rules on telecommunications firms that pose national security risks. But after adding Huawei to an economic blacklist in May, the US&nbsp;Commerce Department has allowed it to purchase some American-made goods.

Its 90-day license extensions aim to minimise disruption for its customers, many of which operate networks in rural America.

Huawei said on Monday that the latest extension would not "have a substantial impact on Huawei's business either way".

"This decision does not change the fact that Huawei continues to be treated unfairly either," the Chinese firm said.

The extension comes as the United States and China try to resolve a trade war that has lasted for more than a year, with Huawei one of its most visible targets.

Beijing reiterated on Tuesday that it hopes Chinese companies will be treated fairly.

"We urge the US&nbsp;to stop abusing export controls to discriminate against the firms of another country in the name of national security, and to stop politicizing a trade problem," Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said on Tuesday.

Reuters on Sunday reported the 90-day extension after the administration of President Donald Trump had initially planned a two-week reprieve but ran into bureaucratic issues.

"The Temporary General License extension will allow carriers to continue to service customers in some of the most remote areas of the United States who would otherwise be left in the dark," US&nbsp;Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said.

"The Department will continue to rigorously monitor sensitive technology exports to ensure that our innovations are not harnessed by those who would threaten our national security," Ross said in a statement on Monday.

The US&nbsp;Commerce Department added Huawei to its "Entity List" in May, concluding it was engaged in activities "contrary to US&nbsp;national security or foreign policy interests."

Huawei said the decision to add it to the list had caused more harm to the US&nbsp;than to Huawei.

"This has done significant economic harm to the American companies with which Huawei does business," it added.

In May, Trump also signed an executive order declaring a national emergency and barring US&nbsp;companies from using telecommunications equipment made by companies posing a national security risk. The Commerce Department was directed to draw up an enforcement plan by mid-October but has yet to publish one.

Huawei Technologies has dismissed a new 90-day extension by the Trump administration allowing US firms to continue doing business with the Chinese company as making little difference, repeating that it was being unfairly treated.

Huawei Technologies has dismissed a new 90-day extension by the Trump administration allowing US firms to continue doing business with the Chinese company as making little difference, repeating that it was being unfairly treated. US regulators are crafting rules on telecommunications firms that pose national security risks. But after adding Huawei to an economic blacklist in May, the US Commerce Department has allowed it to purchase some American-made goods. Its 90-day license extensions aim to minimise disruption for its customers, many of which operate networks in rural America. Huawei said on Monday that the latest extension would not "have a substantial impact on Huawei's business either way". "This decision does not change the fact that Huawei continues to be treated unfairly either," the Chinese firm said. The extension comes as the United States and China try to resolve a trade war that has lasted for more than a year, with Huawei one of its most visible targets. Beijing reiterated on Tuesday that it hopes Chinese companies will be treated fairly. "We urge the US to stop abusing export controls to discriminate against the firms of another country in the name of national security, and to stop politicizing a trade problem," Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said on Tuesday. Reuters on Sunday reported the 90-day extension after the administration of President Donald Trump had initially planned a two-week reprieve but ran into bureaucratic issues. "The Temporary General License extension will allow carriers to continue to service customers in some of the most remote areas of the United States who would otherwise be left in the dark," US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said. "The Department will continue to rigorously monitor sensitive technology exports to ensure that our innovations are not harnessed by those who would threaten our national security," Ross said in a statement on Monday. The US Commerce Department added Huawei to its "Entity List" in May, concluding it was engaged in activities "contrary to US national security or foreign policy interests." Huawei said the decision to add it to the list had caused more harm to the US than to Huawei. "This has done significant economic harm to the American companies with which Huawei does business," it added. In May, Trump also signed an executive order declaring a national emergency and barring US companies from using telecommunications equipment made by companies posing a national security risk. The Commerce Department was directed to draw up an enforcement plan by mid-October but has yet to publish one.

Huawei plays down impact of new US license extension

Gold held steady on Tuesday, after hitting its highest since November&nbsp;7 earlier in the session, as doubts about a trade deal between the United States and China dented risk sentiment.

Spot gold was little changed at $1,471.90 per ounce as of 0559 GMT.

US&nbsp;gold futures inched up 0.07 per cent&nbsp;to $1,472.90 per ounce.

"We're not seeing any big moves at the moment and given the proximity to the $1,490-level, movements will be sideways in the short term, unless Beijing or Washington come and say that a trade deal is unlikely," said Michael McCarthy, chief market strategist at CMC Markets.

Asian share markets were mixed as another day awaiting clearer news on the progress of the trade negotiations left investors bereft of trading motivation.

Overnight, CNBC had reported the mood in Beijing was pessimistic about the prospects of sealing an agreement.

"The to and fro between the two parties surrounding the first phase of the deal is keeping prices in a tight range," ANZ analyst Daniel Hynes said.

"Lingering global economic scenario and a weaker dollar is providing some support to gold."

The dollar held near a two-week low.

Market participants also kept a close eye on the unrest in<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../china-appoints-new-police-chief-in-hong-kong- 263113"> Hong Kong</a>, with dozens of protesters in the financial hub staging a dramatic escape from a university campus sealed off by police on Monday.

Gold is considered a safe store of value during economic or political uncertainties.

The focus now shifts to minutes from the US&nbsp;Federal Reserve's last policy meeting this year, due on Wednesday.

The Fed cut rates three times this year in part to offset what it views as damage done by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../china-us-had-constructive-phone-call-on-trade- report-262656">tariff war</a>. But after their meeting in October, policymakers signalled they would lower rates no further unless the economy took a serious turn for the worse.

"It is worth noting that recent gains (in gold) have been led by fast-money interest in the face of (exchange traded fund) ETF outflows, positioning that is fickle amid price volatility," according to MKS PAMP.

Holdings of the SPDR Gold Trust, the world's largest gold-backed exchange-traded fund, fell 0.6 per cent&nbsp;to 891.79 tonnes on Monday from Friday.

Elsewhere, silver rose 0.6 per cent&nbsp;to $17.12 per ounce, while palladium fell 0.3 per cent&nbsp;to $1,732.93 per ounce.

Platinum advanced 0.5 per cent to $898.10 per ounce.

Gold held steady on Tuesday, after hitting its highest since November 7 earlier in the session, as doubts about a trade deal between the United States and China dented risk sentiment.

Gold held steady on Tuesday, after hitting its highest since November 7 earlier in the session, as doubts about a trade deal between the United States and China dented risk sentiment. Spot gold was little changed at $1,471.90 per ounce as of 0559 GMT. US gold futures inched up 0.07 per cent to $1,472.90 per ounce. "We're not seeing any big moves at the moment and given the proximity to the $1,490-level, movements will be sideways in the short term, unless Beijing or Washington come and say that a trade deal is unlikely," said Michael McCarthy, chief market strategist at CMC Markets. Asian share markets were mixed as another day awaiting clearer news on the progress of the trade negotiations left investors bereft of trading motivation. Overnight, CNBC had reported the mood in Beijing was pessimistic about the prospects of sealing an agreement. "The to and fro between the two parties surrounding the first phase of the deal is keeping prices in a tight range," ANZ analyst Daniel Hynes said. "Lingering global economic scenario and a weaker dollar is providing some support to gold." The dollar held near a two-week low. Market participants also kept a close eye on the unrest in Hong Kong, with dozens of protesters in the financial hub staging a dramatic escape from a university campus sealed off by police on Monday. Gold is considered a safe store of value during economic or political uncertainties. The focus now shifts to minutes from the US Federal Reserve's last policy meeting this year, due on Wednesday. The Fed cut rates three times this year in part to offset what it views as damage done by the tariff war. But after their meeting in October, policymakers signalled they would lower rates no further unless the economy took a serious turn for the worse. "It is worth noting that recent gains (in gold) have been led by fast-money interest in the face of (exchange traded fund) ETF outflows, positioning that is fickle amid price volatility," according to MKS PAMP. Holdings of the SPDR Gold Trust, the world's largest gold-backed exchange-traded fund, fell 0.6 per cent to 891.79 tonnes on Monday from Friday. Elsewhere, silver rose 0.6 per cent to $17.12 per ounce, while palladium fell 0.3 per cent to $1,732.93 per ounce. Platinum advanced 0.5 per cent to $898.10 per ounce.

Gold prices steady as US-China trade deal doubts linger

The number of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../wion-edit-will-artificial-intelligence-lead-to-job- losses-260746">Indian students</a> studying in the United States increased by nearly three per cent in 2018-19 over the last year to 202,014, as per the 2019 Open Doors Report released on Monday.

This marks the sixth consecutive year that the total number of Indians pursuing their higher education in the US has grown, the US embassy in New Delhi said in a release.

The report, which provides an annual statistical survey on international students in the US, shows that Indians make up over 18 percent of all international students in the US, and provides the second-highest number of graduate students and third-highest undergraduate students.

Speaking on the occasion of the release of the report at the United States India Educational Foundation (USIEF), the US Embassy's Minister Counselor for Consular Affairs, Charisse Phillips, said, "Student exchanges between our two countries (India and the US) help strengthen the foundation upon which our strategic partnership is built. Indian students are looking for a great education and the United States offers the best return on this investment."

In 2018-19, US colleges and universities hosted more than one million international students for the fourth consecutive year, while the total number of international students expanded for the thirteenth consecutive year.

The top places of origin for international students studying in the US were China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil and Mexico, while the top host states were California, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana.

The number of Indian students studying in the United States increased by nearly three per cent in 2018-19 over the last year to 202,014, as per the 2019 Open Doors Report released on Monday.

The number of Indian students studying in the United States increased by nearly three per cent in 2018-19 over the last year to 202,014, as per the 2019 Open Doors Report released on Monday. This marks the sixth consecutive year that the total number of Indians pursuing their higher education in the US has grown, the US embassy in New Delhi said in a release. The report, which provides an annual statistical survey on international students in the US, shows that Indians make up over 18 percent of all international students in the US, and provides the second-highest number of graduate students and third-highest undergraduate students. Speaking on the occasion of the release of the report at the United States India Educational Foundation (USIEF), the US Embassy's Minister Counselor for Consular Affairs, Charisse Phillips, said, "Student exchanges between our two countries (India and the US) help strengthen the foundation upon which our strategic partnership is built. Indian students are looking for a great education and the United States offers the best return on this investment." In 2018-19, US colleges and universities hosted more than one million international students for the fourth consecutive year, while the total number of international students expanded for the thirteenth consecutive year. The top places of origin for international students studying in the US were China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Vietnam, Taiwan, Japan, Brazil and Mexico, while the top host states were California, New York, Texas, Massachusetts, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana.

Indians studying in US increase by 3 per cent in 2018-19: Report

The founder and CEO of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../exclusive-us-opens-national-security- investigation-into-tiktok-sources-259364">TikTok</a> owner <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../founder-of-chinas-smartphone-maker-smartisan -barred-from-planes-trains-259693">ByteDance</a> will focus on adding users of the popular video app in countries outside of its strongest markets, according to an internal staff note seen by Reuters, as it faces political pressure in the United States.

The note from Zhang Yiming setting out company goals for November and December comes after lawmakers in the US&nbsp;recently voiced concerns about collection of user data and whether China censors content seen by US&nbsp;users.

"Continue to diversify TikTok's growth," said the note, which was written in both English and Mandarin Chinese. "Increase investment in weaker markets," Zhang added.

The video app is especially popular with US&nbsp;teenagers and young adults, drawing scrutiny at a time of rising tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Zhang did not mention the pressure in the US&nbsp;but urged the firm to enhance its capabilities in "handling global public affairs" and strengthening user data protection.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has started to review ByteDance’s $1 billion acquisition of the US&nbsp;app Musical.ly, which was subsequently merged into TikTok, Reuters reported this month.

ByteDance didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The company has said the Chinese government does not have any jurisdiction over TikTok content.

Launched just two years ago, TikTok has been downloaded 1.5 billion times, making it the third most downloaded non-gaming app of the year, after of Facebook's WhatsApp and Messenger apps, according to research firm SensorTower.

TikTok has faced regulatory challenges in India and Indonesia, where it is also a big hit. India temporary banned downloads of the app in April this year and Indonesia did the same last year, largely due to concerns about salacious content.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../if-madras-high-court-doesnt-decide-by-april-24 -ban-on-tiktok-will-be-lifted-supreme-court-212501">SensorTower</a> said that India is the main driver for TikTok's new downloads this year, and the app is also popular in Britain, France, Japan, Australia and Canada, according to App Annie.

In his brief note, Zhang also made mention of the company's other apps, such as the Chinese version of TikTok, Douyin, and Chinese news aggregator Jinri Toutiao. Both Douyin and Toutiao make money from advertising, competing with China's tech giants Tencent Holdings and Baidu Inc

He said the goal for Toutiao, one of ByteDance's major sources of revenue, was to enhance its "monetization efficiency" and urged staffers to "continue to put our foot to the floor" for Douyin to widen the app's advantage over its competitors.

The founder and CEO of TikTok owner ByteDance will focus on adding users of the popular video app in countries outside of its strongest markets, according to an internal staff note seen by Reuters, as it faces political pressure in the United States.

The founder and CEO of TikTok owner ByteDance will focus on adding users of the popular video app in countries outside of its strongest markets, according to an internal staff note seen by Reuters, as it faces political pressure in the United States. The note from Zhang Yiming setting out company goals for November and December comes after lawmakers in the US recently voiced concerns about collection of user data and whether China censors content seen by US users. "Continue to diversify TikTok's growth," said the note, which was written in both English and Mandarin Chinese. "Increase investment in weaker markets," Zhang added. The video app is especially popular with US teenagers and young adults, drawing scrutiny at a time of rising tensions between Washington and Beijing. Zhang did not mention the pressure in the US but urged the firm to enhance its capabilities in "handling global public affairs" and strengthening user data protection. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has started to review ByteDance’s $1 billion acquisition of the US app Musical.ly, which was subsequently merged into TikTok, Reuters reported this month. ByteDance didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The company has said the Chinese government does not have any jurisdiction over TikTok content. Launched just two years ago, TikTok has been downloaded 1.5 billion times, making it the third most downloaded non-gaming app of the year, after of Facebook's WhatsApp and Messenger apps, according to research firm SensorTower. TikTok has faced regulatory challenges in India and Indonesia, where it is also a big hit. India temporary banned downloads of the app in April this year and Indonesia did the same last year, largely due to concerns about salacious content. SensorTower said that India is the main driver for TikTok's new downloads this year, and the app is also popular in Britain, France, Japan, Australia and Canada, according to App Annie. In his brief note, Zhang also made mention of the company's other apps, such as the Chinese version of TikTok, Douyin, and Chinese news aggregator Jinri Toutiao. Both Douyin and Toutiao make money from advertising, competing with China's tech giants Tencent Holdings and Baidu Inc He said the goal for Toutiao, one of ByteDance's major sources of revenue, was to enhance its "monetization efficiency" and urged staffers to "continue to put our foot to the floor" for Douyin to widen the app's advantage over its competitors.

ByteDance CEO urges TikTok diversification as US pressure mounts: internal note

Russia's&nbsp;military&nbsp;export sales have not fallen despite US&nbsp;sanctions, the head of state conglomerate&nbsp;Rostec&nbsp;said on Monday.

Rostec, whose business includes weapons manufacturer Kalashnikov as well as&nbsp;Russian&nbsp;Helicopters and United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), is among&nbsp;Russian&nbsp;firms that have been affected by&nbsp;sanctions&nbsp;imposed on the country over the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and other factors.

Rosoboronexport, the state agency for&nbsp;exports&nbsp;and imports recorded&nbsp;military&nbsp;sales of $13.7 billion in 2018, slightly higher than the previous year,&nbsp;Rostec&nbsp;head Sergey Chemezov told reporters at the Dubai Airshow.

Sales for 2019 are expected to be like that of 2018 as the company has already recorded over $11 billion currently, he said.

“It is growing, that means our production is of higher quality and reliable.”

Chemezov said Russia would also continue its&nbsp;military&nbsp;cooperation with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with several projects underway despite some western countries shunning the two Gulf states because of their role in the Yemen war.

Some countries such as Germany, Norway and others have restricted sale of arms to countries engaged in the Yemen war.

Russia always cooperates only with legitimate governments and has always advocated a diplomatic settlement of the conflict in Yemen. “At the same time, Saudi Arabia is our partner," Chemezov said.

Several projects are underway in cooperation with Saudi Arabia, including plans for a Kalashnikov plant in the Kingdom, he said, declining to give more details as negotiations are not yet completed.

Chemezov said there had been interested from the Middle East for Russia’s single-aisle passenger jet, the MC-21, that would compete with similar jets from Airbus and Boeing.&nbsp;Discussions are ongoing but no contract has been signed with any Middle East buyer, he said, declining to name potential customers.

Currently, there are orders for more than 170 of the planes, mostly from airlines in Russia.

“Regular production” of around 72 aircraft per year is planned. The first deliveries will begin in 2021, he said.

Asked whether an advance payment of $800 million was made by India to Russia relating to the S-400 long-range surface-to-air missile systems, Chemezov said the advance payment was done.&nbsp; “I don’t want to clarify the numbers, negotiations are underway, 2025 is the completion date.”

Russia's military export sales have not fallen despite US sanctions, the head of state conglomerate Rostec said on Monday. Rostec, whose business includes weapons manufacturer Kalashnikov as well as Russian Helicopters and United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), is among Russian firms that have been affected by sanctions imposed on the country over the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and other factors.

Russia's military export sales have not fallen despite US sanctions, the head of state conglomerate Rostec said on Monday. Rostec, whose business includes weapons manufacturer Kalashnikov as well as Russian Helicopters and United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), is among Russian firms that have been affected by sanctions imposed on the country over the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and other factors. Rosoboronexport, the state agency for exports and imports recorded military sales of $13.7 billion in 2018, slightly higher than the previous year, Rostec head Sergey Chemezov told reporters at the Dubai Airshow. Sales for 2019 are expected to be like that of 2018 as the company has already recorded over $11 billion currently, he said. “It is growing, that means our production is of higher quality and reliable.” Chemezov said Russia would also continue its military cooperation with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates with several projects underway despite some western countries shunning the two Gulf states because of their role in the Yemen war. Some countries such as Germany, Norway and others have restricted sale of arms to countries engaged in the Yemen war. Russia always cooperates only with legitimate governments and has always advocated a diplomatic settlement of the conflict in Yemen. “At the same time, Saudi Arabia is our partner," Chemezov said. Several projects are underway in cooperation with Saudi Arabia, including plans for a Kalashnikov plant in the Kingdom, he said, declining to give more details as negotiations are not yet completed. Chemezov said there had been interested from the Middle East for Russia’s single-aisle passenger jet, the MC-21, that would compete with similar jets from Airbus and Boeing. Discussions are ongoing but no contract has been signed with any Middle East buyer, he said, declining to name potential customers. Currently, there are orders for more than 170 of the planes, mostly from airlines in Russia. “Regular production” of around 72 aircraft per year is planned. The first deliveries will begin in 2021, he said. Asked whether an advance payment of $800 million was made by India to Russia relating to the S-400 long-range surface-to-air missile systems, Chemezov said the advance payment was done. “I don’t want to clarify the numbers, negotiations are underway, 2025 is the completion date.”

Russian military exports unaffected by United States sanctions: Rostec CEO

Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Sunday held bilateral meetings with his Japanese counterpart Taro Kono and the United States Secretary of Defence Mark T Esper on sidelines of the ASEAN Defence Minister's Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus). 
 
"Had a wonderful interaction with Japan's Minister of Defence, Mr&nbsp;Taro Kono. We had a detailed discussion on adding further momentum to India-Japan defence cooperation," Singh tweeted.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Had a wonderful interaction with Japan’s Minister of Defence, Mr. Taro Kono. 
 
We had a detailed discussion on adding further momentum to India-Japan defence cooperation. <a href="https://t.co/WaiTt6GPTI">pic.twitter.com/WaiTt6GPTI</a>
— Rajnath Singh (@rajnathsingh) <a href="https://twitter.com/rajnathsingh/status/1195927720183529473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 17, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The ADMM-Plus meeting will witness the participation of defence ministers from ASEAN member countries and eight other nations. The ministers would gather and discuss the way forward for security cooperation in this meeting. 
 
Prior to this, Singh also had a fruitful discussion with Esper over boosting defence cooperation between India and the US as well as the opportunities and challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. 
 
"Had an excellent meeting with <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/rajnath-singh-meets-mark-esper-on-the-sidelines-of-admm-plus-meeting-in-bangkok-262660">US Secretary of Defence, Dr&nbsp;Mark T Esper</a> in Bangkok today. We talked about ways to expand defence cooperation between India and the United States," Singh said. 
 
"Productive discussion today with Indian MinDef Rajnath Singh on opportunities and challenges in the #IndoPacific. As the largest democracy in the world, India is a major defence partner and has an essential role in maintaining stability in the Indian Ocean region," Esper tweeted. 
 
Singh, earlier today, told that the ASEAN cooperation forms a central point in India's Act East policy. 
 
He said that the forum will provide an opportunity to deliberate on sustainable security, terrorism and coastal security. 
 
"Security can only be successful if it is sustainable," the minister stressed. 
 
Later today, Singh will also inaugurate the India pavilion at the Defence and Security Exhibition in Bangkok. He will address the business seminar and interact with the industry representatives. 
 
As part of the agenda for the ADMM Plus meeting, Singh will also release the Handbook on Military Medicine for ASEAN along with the Defence Minister of Myanmar. 
 
A courtesy call with&nbsp;the Prime Minister of Thailand Prayut Chan-o-cha will also take place during the visit.

Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Sunday held bilateral meetings with his Japanese counterpart Taro Kono and the United States Secretary of Defence Mark T Esper on sidelines of the ASEAN Defence Minister's Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus).

Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh on Sunday held bilateral meetings with his Japanese counterpart Taro Kono and the United States Secretary of Defence Mark T Esper on sidelines of the ASEAN Defence Minister's Meeting-Plus (ADMM-Plus). "Had a wonderful interaction with Japan's Minister of Defence, Mr Taro Kono. We had a detailed discussion on adding further momentum to India-Japan defence cooperation," Singh tweeted. Had a wonderful interaction with Japan’s Minister of Defence, Mr. Taro Kono. We had a detailed discussion on adding further momentum to India-Japan defence cooperation. pic.twitter.com/WaiTt6GPTI — Rajnath Singh (@rajnathsingh) November 17, 2019 × The ADMM-Plus meeting will witness the participation of defence ministers from ASEAN member countries and eight other nations. The ministers would gather and discuss the way forward for security cooperation in this meeting. Prior to this, Singh also had a fruitful discussion with Esper over boosting defence cooperation between India and the US as well as the opportunities and challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. "Had an excellent meeting with US Secretary of Defence, Dr Mark T Esper in Bangkok today. We talked about ways to expand defence cooperation between India and the United States," Singh said. "Productive discussion today with Indian MinDef Rajnath Singh on opportunities and challenges in the #IndoPacific. As the largest democracy in the world, India is a major defence partner and has an essential role in maintaining stability in the Indian Ocean region," Esper tweeted. Singh, earlier today, told that the ASEAN cooperation forms a central point in India's Act East policy. He said that the forum will provide an opportunity to deliberate on sustainable security, terrorism and coastal security. "Security can only be successful if it is sustainable," the minister stressed. Later today, Singh will also inaugurate the India pavilion at the Defence and Security Exhibition in Bangkok. He will address the business seminar and interact with the industry representatives. As part of the agenda for the ADMM Plus meeting, Singh will also release the Handbook on Military Medicine for ASEAN along with the Defence Minister of Myanmar. A courtesy call with the Prime Minister of Thailand Prayut Chan-o-cha will also take place during the visit.

Rajnath Singh holds bilateral meetings with Japan, US at ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus in Bangkok

Turkey will not give up on Russian S-400 air defense system to acquire US Patriots, says Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Erdogan: Turkey won’t give up on Russia’s S-400

&nbsp;Hopes of a trade deal between Washington and Beijing turned world stock markets and other risk assets higher on Friday, though an escalating wave of<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../urban-unrest-propels-global-wave-of-protests- 262305"> global protests from Hong Kong</a><a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../urban-unrest-propels-global-wave-of-protests- 262305"> to Chile</a> left some deep scars.

Europe's main bourses followed Asia and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../wall-street-subdued-as-economic-trade-doubts- persist-262154">Wall Street</a> higher after White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow said on Thursday that the US&nbsp;and China were getting close to an agreement and were talking every day.

"We're getting close," he told an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "The mood music is pretty good, and that has not always been so in these things."

It kept alive hopes that MSCI's 49-country world index and Europe's STOXX 600 could both avoid their first weekly falls since the start of October, but others had little chance.

Emerging market stocks&nbsp;were down 1.7 per cent&nbsp;for the week, while the violent escalation of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong left the Hang Seng down 4.7 per cent&nbsp;&lt;.HSI&gt;, its worst weekly performance in four months.

Chinese blue-chip shares ended the day down 0.75 per cent&nbsp;and 2.4 per cent, their biggest fall since August, while fierce anti-government protests in Chile gave its currency its worst week since 2011 with a 7 per cent&nbsp;plunge.

Shane Oliver, chief economist at AMP Capital in Sydney, likened regional markets' bullish reaction to positive trade news to being in a relationship with an alcoholic, driven by entrenched hopes for recovery.

"Markets want to believe that there will be some sort of resolution to this issue, some sort of lasting truce at least, even though the experience of the last 18 months doesn't give a lot of cause for comfort," he said.

However, Oliver said weaker Chinese and US&nbsp;economies as well as the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../fierce-proceedings-expected-as-impeachment- testimony-against-donald-trump-set-to-telecast-today-261802">US&nbsp;presidential election </a>next year put pressure on both sides to come to an agreement.

In currencies, the safe-haven yen&nbsp;weakened, with the dollar rising 0.17 per cent&nbsp;to buy 108.57 yen. The euro&nbsp;was barely changed at $1.1023 and the dollar index, which tracks the greenback against a basket of six major rivals was off just 0.02 per cent&nbsp;at 98.143.

Higher US&nbsp;Treasury yields also illustrated the risk-on tone in the Asian session, with the 10-year yield&nbsp;rising to 1.848 per cent&nbsp;from a US close of 1.815 per cent&nbsp;on Thursday.

The policy-sensitive two-year yield rose to 1.6101 per cent&nbsp;from 1.593 per cent on Thursday after US&nbsp;Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said the risk of the U.S. economy facing a dramatic bust is remote.

A Reuters poll of more than 100 economists showed that while concerns have eased over a US&nbsp;recession, few see an economic rebound, and most believe a trade truce is unlikely in the coming year.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Government borrowing costs in Germany and France also inched up on Friday, but were set for sizeable weekly declines, in contrast to southern European countries that have come under heavy selling pressure again this week.

Germany's 10-year Bund yield was at -0.33 per cent off more than one-week lows hit on Thursday. But it is down 8 bps on the week, set for the biggest weekly fall since mid-August. Dutch 10-year bond yields are down 7 bps this week, and French yields are 5 bps lower.

Data on Thursday had showed Germany's economy grew just 0.1 per cent&nbsp;in the third quarter, with consumer spending helping the country to avoid a mild contraction and a technical recession of two quarters of economic shrinkage.

"In general, there has been risk aversion in recent days and a shift to core bond markets from the periphery," said Daniel Lenz, a rates strategist at DZ Bank.

Global sentiment has been buffeted in recent weeks by conflicting assessments of progress in talks between the United States and China aimed at ending their 16-month-long trade war.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../asian-markets-boosted-by-fresh-china-us-trade- optimism-262213">China's commerce ministry</a> said the two countries are holding "in-depth" discussions on a first phase trade agreement, and that cancelling tariffs is an important condition to reaching a deal.

China has also ended a nearly five-year ban on imports of US&nbsp;poultry meat, which the US&nbsp;Trade Representative said would lead to more than $1 billion in annual shipments to China.

Those developments followed comments from officials from both countries last week that they had a deal to roll back tariffs, only to have US&nbsp;President Donald Trump deny that any such deal had been agreed to.

The new record for the S&amp;P, which gained just 0.08 per cent&nbsp;to 3,096.63, came despite a grim outlook from network gear maker Cisco Systems &lt;CSCO.O&gt; that underlined the impact of trade uncertainty.

In commodity markets, US&nbsp;crude prices rebounded after sliding Thursday on rising US&nbsp;crude inventories. US&nbsp;West Texas Intermediate crude was 0.44 per cent&nbsp;higher at $57.02 a barrel.

Global benchmark Brent crude added 0.37 per cent&nbsp;to $62.51 per barrel.

Gold retreated from gains that had been prompted by trade uncertainty. Spot gold&nbsp;was last trading at $1,463.90 per ounce, down 0.48 per cent.

($1 = 6.9941 Chinese yuan)

Hopes of a trade deal between Washington and Beijing turned world stock markets and other risk assets higher on Friday, though an escalating wave of global protests from Hong Kong to Chile left some deep scars.

Hopes of a trade deal between Washington and Beijing turned world stock markets and other risk assets higher on Friday, though an escalating wave of global protests from Hong Kong to Chile left some deep scars. Europe's main bourses followed Asia and Wall Street higher after White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow said on Thursday that the US and China were getting close to an agreement and were talking every day. "We're getting close," he told an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "The mood music is pretty good, and that has not always been so in these things." It kept alive hopes that MSCI's 49-country world index and Europe's STOXX 600 could both avoid their first weekly falls since the start of October, but others had little chance. Emerging market stocks were down 1.7 per cent for the week, while the violent escalation of pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong left the Hang Seng down 4.7 per cent <.HSI>, its worst weekly performance in four months. Chinese blue-chip shares ended the day down 0.75 per cent and 2.4 per cent, their biggest fall since August, while fierce anti-government protests in Chile gave its currency its worst week since 2011 with a 7 per cent plunge. Shane Oliver, chief economist at AMP Capital in Sydney, likened regional markets' bullish reaction to positive trade news to being in a relationship with an alcoholic, driven by entrenched hopes for recovery. "Markets want to believe that there will be some sort of resolution to this issue, some sort of lasting truce at least, even though the experience of the last 18 months doesn't give a lot of cause for comfort," he said. However, Oliver said weaker Chinese and US economies as well as the US presidential election next year put pressure on both sides to come to an agreement. In currencies, the safe-haven yen weakened, with the dollar rising 0.17 per cent to buy 108.57 yen. The euro was barely changed at $1.1023 and the dollar index, which tracks the greenback against a basket of six major rivals was off just 0.02 per cent at 98.143. Higher US Treasury yields also illustrated the risk-on tone in the Asian session, with the 10-year yield rising to 1.848 per cent from a US close of 1.815 per cent on Thursday. The policy-sensitive two-year yield rose to 1.6101 per cent from 1.593 per cent on Thursday after US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said the risk of the U.S. economy facing a dramatic bust is remote. A Reuters poll of more than 100 economists showed that while concerns have eased over a US recession, few see an economic rebound, and most believe a trade truce is unlikely in the coming year. Government borrowing costs in Germany and France also inched up on Friday, but were set for sizeable weekly declines, in contrast to southern European countries that have come under heavy selling pressure again this week. Germany's 10-year Bund yield was at -0.33 per cent off more than one-week lows hit on Thursday. But it is down 8 bps on the week, set for the biggest weekly fall since mid-August. Dutch 10-year bond yields are down 7 bps this week, and French yields are 5 bps lower. Data on Thursday had showed Germany's economy grew just 0.1 per cent in the third quarter, with consumer spending helping the country to avoid a mild contraction and a technical recession of two quarters of economic shrinkage. "In general, there has been risk aversion in recent days and a shift to core bond markets from the periphery," said Daniel Lenz, a rates strategist at DZ Bank. Global sentiment has been buffeted in recent weeks by conflicting assessments of progress in talks between the United States and China aimed at ending their 16-month-long trade war. China's commerce ministry said the two countries are holding "in-depth" discussions on a first phase trade agreement, and that cancelling tariffs is an important condition to reaching a deal. China has also ended a nearly five-year ban on imports of US poultry meat, which the US Trade Representative said would lead to more than $1 billion in annual shipments to China. Those developments followed comments from officials from both countries last week that they had a deal to roll back tariffs, only to have US President Donald Trump deny that any such deal had been agreed to. The new record for the S&P, which gained just 0.08 per cent to 3,096.63, came despite a grim outlook from network gear maker Cisco Systems <CSCO.O> that underlined the impact of trade uncertainty. In commodity markets, US crude prices rebounded after sliding Thursday on rising US crude inventories. US West Texas Intermediate crude was 0.44 per cent higher at $57.02 a barrel. Global benchmark Brent crude added 0.37 per cent to $62.51 per barrel. Gold retreated from gains that had been prompted by trade uncertainty. Spot gold was last trading at $1,463.90 per ounce, down 0.48 per cent. ($1 = 6.9941 Chinese yuan)

Global Markets: US-China trade hopes revive stocks, protests leave scars

The US&nbsp;government recorded a $134 billion budget deficit in October, the first month of the new fiscal year, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday.

That compared to a budget deficit of $100 billion in the same month last year, according to the Treasury's monthly budget statement.

Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast a $133 billion deficit for the month.

Unadjusted receipts last month totalled $246 billion, down 3 per cent&nbsp;from October 2018, while unadjusted outlays were $380 billion, a rise of 8 per cent&nbsp;from the same month a year earlier.

The US&nbsp;government's fiscal year ends in September each year. Fiscal year 2019 saw a widening in the deficit to $984 billion, the largest budget deficit in seven years, a result of the Trump administration's decision to cut taxes and increase government spending.

Those figures reflected the second full budget year under US&nbsp;President Donald Trump, a Republican, and a time when the country had an expanding tax base with moderate economic growth and an unemployment rate near a 50-year low.

When adjusted for calendar effects, the deficit for October remained at $134 billion compared with an adjusted deficit of $113 billion in October 2018.

The US government recorded a $134 billion budget deficit in October, the first month of the new fiscal year, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday. That compared to a budget deficit of $100 billion in the same month last year, according to the Treasury's monthly budget statement.

The US government recorded a $134 billion budget deficit in October, the first month of the new fiscal year, the Treasury Department said on Wednesday. That compared to a budget deficit of $100 billion in the same month last year, according to the Treasury's monthly budget statement. Analysts polled by Reuters had forecast a $133 billion deficit for the month. Unadjusted receipts last month totalled $246 billion, down 3 per cent from October 2018, while unadjusted outlays were $380 billion, a rise of 8 per cent from the same month a year earlier. The US government's fiscal year ends in September each year. Fiscal year 2019 saw a widening in the deficit to $984 billion, the largest budget deficit in seven years, a result of the Trump administration's decision to cut taxes and increase government spending. Those figures reflected the second full budget year under US President Donald Trump, a Republican, and a time when the country had an expanding tax base with moderate economic growth and an unemployment rate near a 50-year low. When adjusted for calendar effects, the deficit for October remained at $134 billion compared with an adjusted deficit of $113 billion in October 2018.

US government posts $134 billion deficit in October

This segment of WION brings to you top stories of the morning from across the globe. Watch this video to get updated with the latest information.

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - November 14th, 2019

&nbsp;Oil&nbsp;rose on Thursday after industry data showed a surprise drop in&nbsp;US&nbsp;crude&nbsp;inventories, while&nbsp;comments&nbsp;from an&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../new-oil-field-adds-222-billion-barrels-with- current-technology-iran-261333">OPEC</a>&nbsp;official about lower-than-expected&nbsp;US&nbsp;shale&nbsp;production&nbsp;growth&nbsp;in 2020 also provided some support.

Prices, however, were capped by mixed signs for&nbsp;oil&nbsp;demand in China, the world's biggest&nbsp;crude&nbsp;importer, as industrial output rose more slowly than expected in October, but&nbsp;oil&nbsp;refinery throughput hit the second-highest level ever.

Brent futures rose 47 cents, or 0.8 per cent, to $62.84 per barrel by 0808 GMT, while&nbsp;US&nbsp;West Texas Intermediate&nbsp;crude&nbsp;gained 47 cents, or 0.8 per cent, to reach $57.59.

The Secretary General of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Mohammad Barkindo said on Wednesday that there would likely be downward revisions of supply going into 2020, especially from United States&nbsp;shale, adding that some&nbsp;US&nbsp;shale&nbsp;oil&nbsp;firms see output growing by only 300,000-400,000 barrels per day (bpd).

While Barkindo's&nbsp;comments&nbsp;supported&nbsp;oil&nbsp;prices, there is not a clear way for&nbsp;OPEC&nbsp;to forecast&nbsp;oil&nbsp;production outside the group, Howie Lee, an economist at Singapore's OCBC bank said.

"I don't see much changes in supply so prices are still trading within the same range from the start of November," he said.

Barkindo's&nbsp;comments&nbsp;were also in contrast with forecasts by the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../oil-prices-gain-after-us-inventories-fall-249041">US&nbsp;Energy Information Administration</a> (EIA) on Wednesday that&nbsp;US&nbsp;oil&nbsp;production is on course to hit new records this year and next.

The American Petroleum Institute reported on Wednesday an unexpected drop in&nbsp;crude&nbsp;stockpiles by 541,000 barrels in the week to November&nbsp;8, against analysts' expectations of an increase of 1.6 million barrels. Gasoline and distillates inventories increased, the API data showed.

Official weekly EIA data is due at 11:00 a.m. EST (1600 GMT) on Thursday. Both reports were delayed a day for the&nbsp;US&nbsp;Veterans Day holiday on Monday.

OPEC&nbsp;and its allies, including Russia, meet on Dec. 5-6 to discuss&nbsp;output policy and production curbs of 1.2 million bpd that have been in place since January with the aim of supporting&nbsp;crude&nbsp;prices. The pact runs&nbsp;to March 2020.

Barkindo said on Wednesday it was too early to say if further output cuts&nbsp;would be needed.

"They have made it quite clear that they are not reducing production further," said OCBC's Lee. "What Saudi can do now is to urge compliance among members especially Iraq and Nigeria. If they can comply, then they can talk about cuts."

Oil rose on Thursday after industry data showed a surprise drop in US crude inventories, while comments from an OPEC official about lower-than-expected US shale production growth in 2020 also provided some support.

Oil rose on Thursday after industry data showed a surprise drop in US crude inventories, while comments from an OPEC official about lower-than-expected US shale production growth in 2020 also provided some support. Prices, however, were capped by mixed signs for oil demand in China, the world's biggest crude importer, as industrial output rose more slowly than expected in October, but oil refinery throughput hit the second-highest level ever. Brent futures rose 47 cents, or 0.8 per cent, to $62.84 per barrel by 0808 GMT, while US West Texas Intermediate crude gained 47 cents, or 0.8 per cent, to reach $57.59. The Secretary General of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) Mohammad Barkindo said on Wednesday that there would likely be downward revisions of supply going into 2020, especially from United States shale, adding that some US shale oil firms see output growing by only 300,000-400,000 barrels per day (bpd). While Barkindo's comments supported oil prices, there is not a clear way for OPEC to forecast oil production outside the group, Howie Lee, an economist at Singapore's OCBC bank said. "I don't see much changes in supply so prices are still trading within the same range from the start of November," he said. Barkindo's comments were also in contrast with forecasts by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) on Wednesday that US oil production is on course to hit new records this year and next. The American Petroleum Institute reported on Wednesday an unexpected drop in crude stockpiles by 541,000 barrels in the week to November 8, against analysts' expectations of an increase of 1.6 million barrels. Gasoline and distillates inventories increased, the API data showed. Official weekly EIA data is due at 11:00 a.m. EST (1600 GMT) on Thursday. Both reports were delayed a day for the US Veterans Day holiday on Monday. OPEC and its allies, including Russia, meet on Dec. 5-6 to discuss output policy and production curbs of 1.2 million bpd that have been in place since January with the aim of supporting crude prices. The pact runs to March 2020. Barkindo said on Wednesday it was too early to say if further output cuts would be needed. "They have made it quite clear that they are not reducing production further," said OCBC's Lee. "What Saudi can do now is to urge compliance among members especially Iraq and Nigeria. If they can comply, then they can talk about cuts."

Oil gains on US crude stocks fall, OPEC comments on slower US shale growth

By Sukru Cildir

The relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, both oil-rich states in the Middle East, has oscillated from co-operation to conflict throughout history. Alongside a range of factors that shape their rivalry including sectarianism and nationalism has been the politics of oil.

Oil is a strategic international commodity, and its use as a political tool is widespread. Its role in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry can’t be understood without unpicking the international context, and the power structures that govern the way countries interact with each other. At the heart of this is the dominance of the US over this international system.

The dynamics between the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia over oil were laid bare in September 2019, after a series of drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities. The attacks caused the suspension of 5.7m barrels per day (mbpd) of crude oil production, nearly half the Saudi output.

The Houthis, a Yemeni faction, claimed responsibility. However, American and Saudi government officials accused Iran of committing these attacks. In return, the Iranians blamed foreign forces in the region for the insecurity and told the US to leave the area.

While the Saudi-Iranian oil rivalry is ostensibly the business of these two countries, it has always had an international dimension, overshadowed by the US.

After the revolution

The 1979 Iranian revolution marked a turning point for the place oil played within the Saudi-Iranian relationship. Before then, both countries were important allies of the US, a position which brought with it political and economic benefits particularly to their oil industries. But the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran paved the way for a separation of paths.

While Saudi Arabia remained a staunch ally of the US, Iran adopted a revolutionary and anti-Western foreign policy, which prompted its isolation from an international system that was dominated by the US.

As a result, ever since 1979, the Iranian oil industry has been subject to American pressure, through a range of economic sanctions and embargoes, which has crippled Iranian oil production. Iran has been unable to reach the level of oil production of over six mbpd that it had in the pre-revolution years. Meanwhile, Saudi oil production reached over 12 mbpd in 2018.

This led to the Iranian oil industry being deprived of necessary foreign investment and technology transfer, and it has fallen behind Saudi Aramco, the kingdom’s state-owned oil company, and other regional competitors. Saudi Arabia has largely backed the US policy of isolating and sanctioning Iran, particularly the Iranian oil industry, which has, as I’ve argued elsewhere, contributed to the ongoing tensions in the Saudi-Iranian relationship.

As Saudi Aramaco prepares for an IPO in December that could make it the world’s biggest publicly listed company, Iran is desperate to revitalise its own outmoded oil industry. As Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh admitted in early 2019, many of Iran’s ageing oil facilities are in fact “operating museums”.

The US continues to have such an influence on Middle Eastern oil politics because of the way it has successfully pushed its own international agenda since 1945. After World War II, the US cemented its dominance over an international system built on the basis of liberal and capitalist principles. While the US rewards its allies with economic and political benefits, it punishes its challengers through a range of political and economic measures, not least economic sanctions.

Oil became a strategic international commodity in the post-World War II period, and began to play a pivotal role in the way the US maintained its global dominance. To do this, the US aimed to open up and transnationalise oil-rich economies in the Global South such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, to both promote its national interests and solidify its privileged position within the current system.

Accordingly, the supply of Middle Eastern oil into international markets without disruption – and at a reasonable price – became an essential instrument for maintaining American dominance, even though the US didn’t need to import oil from the Middle East.

A world of US dominance

The political economist Susan Strange provided a theoretical framework back in 1987 to explain the structure of US dominance over the international system through four main dimensions: production, finance, security and knowledge. This is also a useful way to understand how the US shapes the international oil market – and the Saudi-Iranian rivalry.

By 2018, in the wake of a shale boom, the US became the largest oil-producing country in the world by reaching production of 15 mbpd. Financially, oil has been priced and traded in US dollars, in particular since the early 1970s when a series of negotiations and agreements linking the sale of oil to the US dollar were made between Saudi Arabia and the US. This has increased global demand for US dollars, and helped the US deal with its trade deficit and keep its interest rates low. It has also helped the US to monitor the petroleum trade by controlling global bank transfers.

The US also stands as a main security provider to oil-rich Gulf monarchies, with publicly acknowledged military bases in over 12 countries in the Middle East. Additionally, it has a supremacy over global knowledge, most obviously through its continued domination and control of the sector’s technological needs. By leading global innovation and technological development in the shale revolution, for example, and having the highest budget for research and development, the US largely controls global technology transfer. This has also deprived Iran of necessary technology, capital and know-how to modernise its ageing oil industry, constraining production.

Therefore, despite the fact that the Saudi-Iranian oil rivalry seems like a regional issue, the role of American power in a globalised world has been key to shaping this regional political competition over oil.

(Sukru Cildir is PhD Candidate, Lancaster University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="http://theconversation.com/how-saudi-iranian-oil-rivalry-has-been-shaped-by-american-power-124123">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Sukru Cildir The relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, both oil-rich states in the Middle East, has oscillated from co-operation to conflict throughout history.

By Sukru Cildir The relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran, both oil-rich states in the Middle East, has oscillated from co-operation to conflict throughout history. Alongside a range of factors that shape their rivalry including sectarianism and nationalism has been the politics of oil. Oil is a strategic international commodity, and its use as a political tool is widespread. Its role in the Saudi-Iranian rivalry can’t be understood without unpicking the international context, and the power structures that govern the way countries interact with each other. At the heart of this is the dominance of the US over this international system. The dynamics between the US, Iran and Saudi Arabia over oil were laid bare in September 2019, after a series of drone attacks on Saudi oil facilities. The attacks caused the suspension of 5.7m barrels per day (mbpd) of crude oil production, nearly half the Saudi output. The Houthis, a Yemeni faction, claimed responsibility. However, American and Saudi government officials accused Iran of committing these attacks. In return, the Iranians blamed foreign forces in the region for the insecurity and told the US to leave the area. While the Saudi-Iranian oil rivalry is ostensibly the business of these two countries, it has always had an international dimension, overshadowed by the US. After the revolution The 1979 Iranian revolution marked a turning point for the place oil played within the Saudi-Iranian relationship. Before then, both countries were important allies of the US, a position which brought with it political and economic benefits particularly to their oil industries. But the 1979 Islamic revolution in Iran paved the way for a separation of paths. While Saudi Arabia remained a staunch ally of the US, Iran adopted a revolutionary and anti-Western foreign policy, which prompted its isolation from an international system that was dominated by the US. As a result, ever since 1979, the Iranian oil industry has been subject to American pressure, through a range of economic sanctions and embargoes, which has crippled Iranian oil production. Iran has been unable to reach the level of oil production of over six mbpd that it had in the pre-revolution years. Meanwhile, Saudi oil production reached over 12 mbpd in 2018. This led to the Iranian oil industry being deprived of necessary foreign investment and technology transfer, and it has fallen behind Saudi Aramco, the kingdom’s state-owned oil company, and other regional competitors. Saudi Arabia has largely backed the US policy of isolating and sanctioning Iran, particularly the Iranian oil industry, which has, as I’ve argued elsewhere, contributed to the ongoing tensions in the Saudi-Iranian relationship. As Saudi Aramaco prepares for an IPO in December that could make it the world’s biggest publicly listed company, Iran is desperate to revitalise its own outmoded oil industry. As Iranian oil minister Bijan Zanganeh admitted in early 2019, many of Iran’s ageing oil facilities are in fact “operating museums”. The US continues to have such an influence on Middle Eastern oil politics because of the way it has successfully pushed its own international agenda since 1945. After World War II, the US cemented its dominance over an international system built on the basis of liberal and capitalist principles. While the US rewards its allies with economic and political benefits, it punishes its challengers through a range of political and economic measures, not least economic sanctions. Oil became a strategic international commodity in the post-World War II period, and began to play a pivotal role in the way the US maintained its global dominance. To do this, the US aimed to open up and transnationalise oil-rich economies in the Global South such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, to both promote its national interests and solidify its privileged position within the current system. Accordingly, the supply of Middle Eastern oil into international markets without disruption – and at a reasonable price – became an essential instrument for maintaining American dominance, even though the US didn’t need to import oil from the Middle East. A world of US dominance The political economist Susan Strange provided a theoretical framework back in 1987 to explain the structure of US dominance over the international system through four main dimensions: production, finance, security and knowledge. This is also a useful way to understand how the US shapes the international oil market – and the Saudi-Iranian rivalry. By 2018, in the wake of a shale boom, the US became the largest oil-producing country in the world by reaching production of 15 mbpd. Financially, oil has been priced and traded in US dollars, in particular since the early 1970s when a series of negotiations and agreements linking the sale of oil to the US dollar were made between Saudi Arabia and the US. This has increased global demand for US dollars, and helped the US deal with its trade deficit and keep its interest rates low. It has also helped the US to monitor the petroleum trade by controlling global bank transfers. The US also stands as a main security provider to oil-rich Gulf monarchies, with publicly acknowledged military bases in over 12 countries in the Middle East. Additionally, it has a supremacy over global knowledge, most obviously through its continued domination and control of the sector’s technological needs. By leading global innovation and technological development in the shale revolution, for example, and having the highest budget for research and development, the US largely controls global technology transfer. This has also deprived Iran of necessary technology, capital and know-how to modernise its ageing oil industry, constraining production. Therefore, despite the fact that the Saudi-Iranian oil rivalry seems like a regional issue, the role of American power in a globalised world has been key to shaping this regional political competition over oil. (Sukru Cildir is PhD Candidate, Lancaster University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

How Saudi-Iranian oil rivalry has been shaped by American power

Arctic blast to put US into deep freeze. Watch video to know more.

Arctic blast to put US into deep freeze

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - November 11th, 2019

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - November 10th, 2019

United States President Donald Trump on Friday said he wanted to raise the minimum age for the purchase of e-cigarettes from 18 to 21 as part of a plan to curtail youth vaping.

But he also indicated that he was concerned about the impact of regulation on business, in a sign that the administration is considering stepping back from a previously announced complete ban on flavoured e-juices that are popular among adolescents.

"We're going to be coming out with a very important position on vaping. We have to take care of our kids most importantly, so we're going to have an age limit of 21 or so" he told reporters, adding that a policy would be announced "next week."

The administration announced in September it would soon ban flavoured products, but it appeared lobbying efforts by the vaping industry may have changed that position.

"We have a lot of people to look at, including jobs frankly," said Trump. "It has become a big industry. We're gonna take care of it."

The vaping industry is facing unprecedented scrutiny amid a mysterious epidemic of lung conditions linked to e-cigarette use that has killed 39 people and sickened more than 2,000 in the US in recent months.

Investigators say no single substance is behind the outbreak, but preliminary work has linked a cutting agent used in cannabis flavourings, usually sold on the black market, to lung injury.

The federal minimum age for purchasing tobacco products is 18, but states can also set their own law and several have already passed bills restricting their sale to people aged 21 and over.

United States President Donald Trump on Friday said he wanted to raise the minimum age for the purchase of e-cigarettes from 18 to 21 as part of a plan to curtail youth vaping.

United States President Donald Trump on Friday said he wanted to raise the minimum age for the purchase of e-cigarettes from 18 to 21 as part of a plan to curtail youth vaping. But he also indicated that he was concerned about the impact of regulation on business, in a sign that the administration is considering stepping back from a previously announced complete ban on flavoured e-juices that are popular among adolescents. "We're going to be coming out with a very important position on vaping. We have to take care of our kids most importantly, so we're going to have an age limit of 21 or so" he told reporters, adding that a policy would be announced "next week." The administration announced in September it would soon ban flavoured products, but it appeared lobbying efforts by the vaping industry may have changed that position. "We have a lot of people to look at, including jobs frankly," said Trump. "It has become a big industry. We're gonna take care of it." The vaping industry is facing unprecedented scrutiny amid a mysterious epidemic of lung conditions linked to e-cigarette use that has killed 39 people and sickened more than 2,000 in the US in recent months. Investigators say no single substance is behind the outbreak, but preliminary work has linked a cutting agent used in cannabis flavourings, usually sold on the black market, to lung injury. The federal minimum age for purchasing tobacco products is 18, but states can also set their own law and several have already passed bills restricting their sale to people aged 21 and over.

Trump wants to raise minimum age for vaping to 21

The psychological scars remain raw a year after California's deadliest wildfire raced across a mountain ridge and destroyed the town of Paradise, killing 85 people.

Hope and despair in Paradise one year after devastating fire

One of the last five known concert posters from the Beatles 1966 Shea Stadium show is hitting the auction block.

Actor puts his rare Beatles' concert poster on the auction block

A United States&nbsp;official is expected to arrive in Belgrade on Friday to discuss the purchase of advanced Russian anti-aircraft missile systems which could expose Serbia to US&nbsp;sanctions.

Serbia's military depends heavily on Russian and former Soviet weapons technology, but Russia's arms sales have been hit by US&nbsp;sanctions over its role in the conflict in east Ukraine.

Serbian news agency Beta said Thomas Zarzecki, an envoy for the US&nbsp;State Department's Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, would discuss compliance with the sanctions during a visit that has not been announced by the US&nbsp;embassy.

Embassy officials could not be reached for comment and the US&nbsp;State Department did not reply to emailed questions.

Serbia has recently purchased Pantsir anti-aircraft missile launchers from Russia and deliveries are expected in the next few months. In recent years, Belgrade has also bought Russian MiG-29 jets, helicopters, tanks and armoured personnel carriers.

US&nbsp;concerns grew last month when Russia sent its S-400 missile defence system and Pantsir launchers to Serbia for a military drill. The move underlined Moscow's wish to keep a traditional Slavic ally on the side as Belgrade pursues links with NATO and tries to join the European Union.

Matthew Palmer, a US&nbsp;envoy for the Balkans, said last week that Serbia could risk sanctions over its arms deals with Russia. Under the sanctions, Serbia could face punishments ranging from visa bans to denial of export licences.

Late on Thursday, President Aleksandar Vucic urged Serbs not to fear broad sanctions would be imposed on Serbia similar to those of the 1990s during the Balkan wars.

"When the US&nbsp;is deciding about such sanctions ... they are imposing it against a company or an individual, not against an entire nation," he said.

Serbia declared military neutrality in 2006 and joined NATO's Partnership for Peace programme in 2015, though it is not seeking full membership of the US-led alliance.

Serbia has also relied on Russia for support in its refusal to recognise the independence of its former southern province of Kosovo, which seceded in 2008 after a guerrilla uprising. NATO peacekeepers remain in Kosovo.

A United States official is expected to arrive in Belgrade on Friday to discuss the purchase of advanced Russian anti-aircraft missile systems which could expose Serbia to US sanctions.

A United States official is expected to arrive in Belgrade on Friday to discuss the purchase of advanced Russian anti-aircraft missile systems which could expose Serbia to US sanctions. Serbia's military depends heavily on Russian and former Soviet weapons technology, but Russia's arms sales have been hit by US sanctions over its role in the conflict in east Ukraine. Serbian news agency Beta said Thomas Zarzecki, an envoy for the US State Department's Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, would discuss compliance with the sanctions during a visit that has not been announced by the US embassy. Embassy officials could not be reached for comment and the US State Department did not reply to emailed questions. Serbia has recently purchased Pantsir anti-aircraft missile launchers from Russia and deliveries are expected in the next few months. In recent years, Belgrade has also bought Russian MiG-29 jets, helicopters, tanks and armoured personnel carriers. US concerns grew last month when Russia sent its S-400 missile defence system and Pantsir launchers to Serbia for a military drill. The move underlined Moscow's wish to keep a traditional Slavic ally on the side as Belgrade pursues links with NATO and tries to join the European Union. Matthew Palmer, a US envoy for the Balkans, said last week that Serbia could risk sanctions over its arms deals with Russia. Under the sanctions, Serbia could face punishments ranging from visa bans to denial of export licences. Late on Thursday, President Aleksandar Vucic urged Serbs not to fear broad sanctions would be imposed on Serbia similar to those of the 1990s during the Balkan wars. "When the US is deciding about such sanctions ... they are imposing it against a company or an individual, not against an entire nation," he said. Serbia declared military neutrality in 2006 and joined NATO's Partnership for Peace programme in 2015, though it is not seeking full membership of the US-led alliance. Serbia has also relied on Russia for support in its refusal to recognise the independence of its former southern province of Kosovo, which seceded in 2008 after a guerrilla uprising. NATO peacekeepers remain in Kosovo.

Serbia faces risk of United States sanctions over Russian arms deal

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - November 7th, 2019

It seems as if the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement has effectively ended. Is Iran using the nuclear programme to blackmail the world? Or did US sanctions force Iran to violate the deal? What's the impact on India?

On WION Edit, we explore the situation.

First, look at the nuclear agreement called the JCPOA and Iran's compliance record.

It was not a perfect deal but it was working. The deal did not have a clear way to stop Iran from developing nukes or to curb Iran's terror-sponsoring. Then they imposed sanctions and Iran's economy took a serious hit.

In 2015, when the deal was signed, when sanctions were lifted, Iran had hoped for a growth surge. That did not happen.

Then in 2018, when the deal collapsed and sanctions were back, Iran's economy suffered more. So, it started enriching uranium and even now, Iran says it will stop if America returns to the deal.

The country is bleeding. Inflation is touching 40 per cent. The government is paying the price. Hardliners are putting pressure on reformists. President Hassan Rouhani has been cornered. Iran is an oil-producing country, oil is its most profitable commodity and Iran is being banned for selling oil.

At a time when it desperately needs the money, a textbook case of being pushed to the wall.

Plus, US President Donald Trump remains evasive. He doesn't spell out what exactly he wants from Iran, what will it take to lift the sanctions.

And this should bother everyone. Because if Iran revives its nuclear ambitions, it's bad news for the whole world.

In any case, American sanctions on Iran are hurting other countries too. India is a case in point. Iran's tradition oil buyer and an old strategic and cultural ally.

America's actions impact India in many ways. First, the Chabahar port which is crucial for India's strategic interests.&nbsp;Chabahar brings India, Afghanistan, and Iran together.

India has invested a lot in the Chabahar special economic zone and Hajigak iron and steel mining project. If Iran's economy deteriorates, it hurts India's investments - both strategic and monetary.

Aspect number 2,&nbsp; oil prices. India has diversified its oil sources. So, no supply disruptions. But if sanctions on Iran continue, prices might go up for a country that imports more than 80 per cent of its oil.

Aspect number 3, impact on India-Iran ties.

Yes, there are no permanent friends or foes in global politics. But India and Iran share historical ties.

Delhi is risking all this because of Washington.

India took a six-month grace period after US sanctions. Since May 2019, India has not bought oil from Iran. Now China has done the same. It was Iran's biggest buyer. More than 8 lakh barrels per day. It has stopped buying.

Both India and China have 'communicated' to the US about the strategic importance of Iran. Look at it, the US unilaterally walks out of a multi-lateral deal, which the US negotiated. Then it imposes sanctions on Iran.

And then it forces other countries to stop doing business with Iran. And what do these countries do? They comply.

So, who's the victim and who's the villain in this game?

The primary victims are the people of Iran. The secondary victims are developing countries like India and China.

The tertiary victim is regional peace. Who's the villain? An oppressive regime in Iran that wants to use this to blackmail the world and a president in Washington who views the world through the tinted glass of tariffs and sanctions. Both. 
 
(Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

It seems as if the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement has effectively ended. Is Iran using the nuclear programme to blackmail the world? Or did US sanctions force Iran to violate the deal?

It seems as if the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement has effectively ended. Is Iran using the nuclear programme to blackmail the world? Or did US sanctions force Iran to violate the deal? What's the impact on India? On WION Edit, we explore the situation. First, look at the nuclear agreement called the JCPOA and Iran's compliance record. It was not a perfect deal but it was working. The deal did not have a clear way to stop Iran from developing nukes or to curb Iran's terror-sponsoring. Then they imposed sanctions and Iran's economy took a serious hit. In 2015, when the deal was signed, when sanctions were lifted, Iran had hoped for a growth surge. That did not happen. Then in 2018, when the deal collapsed and sanctions were back, Iran's economy suffered more. So, it started enriching uranium and even now, Iran says it will stop if America returns to the deal. The country is bleeding. Inflation is touching 40 per cent. The government is paying the price. Hardliners are putting pressure on reformists. President Hassan Rouhani has been cornered. Iran is an oil-producing country, oil is its most profitable commodity and Iran is being banned for selling oil. At a time when it desperately needs the money, a textbook case of being pushed to the wall. Plus, US President Donald Trump remains evasive. He doesn't spell out what exactly he wants from Iran, what will it take to lift the sanctions. And this should bother everyone. Because if Iran revives its nuclear ambitions, it's bad news for the whole world. In any case, American sanctions on Iran are hurting other countries too. India is a case in point. Iran's tradition oil buyer and an old strategic and cultural ally. America's actions impact India in many ways. First, the Chabahar port which is crucial for India's strategic interests. Chabahar brings India, Afghanistan, and Iran together. India has invested a lot in the Chabahar special economic zone and Hajigak iron and steel mining project. If Iran's economy deteriorates, it hurts India's investments - both strategic and monetary. Aspect number 2, oil prices. India has diversified its oil sources. So, no supply disruptions. But if sanctions on Iran continue, prices might go up for a country that imports more than 80 per cent of its oil. Aspect number 3, impact on India-Iran ties. Yes, there are no permanent friends or foes in global politics. But India and Iran share historical ties. Delhi is risking all this because of Washington. India took a six-month grace period after US sanctions. Since May 2019, India has not bought oil from Iran. Now China has done the same. It was Iran's biggest buyer. More than 8 lakh barrels per day. It has stopped buying. Both India and China have 'communicated' to the US about the strategic importance of Iran. Look at it, the US unilaterally walks out of a multi-lateral deal, which the US negotiated. Then it imposes sanctions on Iran. And then it forces other countries to stop doing business with Iran. And what do these countries do? They comply. So, who's the victim and who's the villain in this game? The primary victims are the people of Iran. The secondary victims are developing countries like India and China. The tertiary victim is regional peace. Who's the villain? An oppressive regime in Iran that wants to use this to blackmail the world and a president in Washington who views the world through the tinted glass of tariffs and sanctions. Both. (Disclaimer: WION Edit is the channel's take on the big events of the world)

WION Edit: Nuclear deal crumbles - Is Iran a victim or a villain?

By John Broich

Since US troops left their region, roughly 180,000 Kurds of northeastern Syria have been displaced, and over 200 have been killed.

Those Kurds, soldiers who’d battled the Islamic State and families, had hoped to secure a future Kurdistan state in areas now targeted by Turkish warplanes and patrolled by Russian mercenaries.

This is only the latest reversal for the Kurds, a group of around 40 million who identify with a regional homeland and common historical background, but are now divided between four countries. Despite their many attempts, there’ve never won and kept a Kurdish nation.

Drawing borders after WWI

The most decisive reversal came at the end of the first World War. That’s when the Allies, victors over Germany and the Ottoman Empire, divided their geographical spoils of war.

In a series of conferences in a succession of European palaces, Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau of France, Woodrow Wilson and dozens of other leaders conspired, harangued and horse-traded from 1919 to 1921. Under clouds of cigar smoke, between servings of foie gras and champagne, they redrew a large swath of the globe’s map.

Besides doling out spoils to themselves, such as far-flung German imperial holdings, their aims were to replace the Austro-Hungarian Empire, punish Germany in Europe and – the biggest task – fill the vacuum left by the demise of the sprawling Ottoman Empire, which before the war covered territory from the edge of Bulgaria to Yemen.

Their guiding principle for redrawing the map, at least in most cases, was the reigning concept of race nationalism, what’s often called today ethno-nationalism.

Simply put, the Allies’ delegates assumed that nation states should be composed as much as possible by single “races,” single ethnic and linguistic populations. So, they defined, in some ways created, new races – like, for example, Hungarians or Austrians – and drew borders around them.

Who should receive an ethno-state?

What to do in the big, central zone of the defeated Ottoman Empire, stretching between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf?

Should there be one big, Greater Arabia or Arab federation, as some British officials promised their Arab allies who revolted against the Ottomans? Should there be many little nations, with borders around Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds? (Following their race-nation instinct, the British did support what they called a new “National Home for the Jewish people” in former Ottoman Palestine.)

That, too, is what President Woodrow Wilson’s call for self-determination dictated. Wilson himself was explicit in calling for a new, broadly encompassing Kurdistan.

They took for granted that Kurds were a race and that Kurdistan was a place. In fact, it was already depicted in pre-WWI atlases. The problem of drawing its borders fell, British Parliamentarians told themselves, to them in immediate postwar years. And it’s what some powerful people in British officialdom assumed would happen.

Not only did it fit British race thinking to create Kurdistan – to be heavily staffed by British “advisers” like the other new states, of course – but they believed the Kurds truculent and independent, unlikely to accede to domination by a neighbour.

They would “never accept an Arab ruler,” in the words of one British Colonial Office official, if they were embedded in an Arab nation.

A missed opportunity

But the Allies and the League of Nations never created Kurdistan. Why not?

British imperial self-interest, in this case, overruled ethnonational thinking. By the terms of the Sykes-Picot agreement, the secret French and British understanding of roughly who would get what after the war, the French claimed dominance of the northern Levant, what’s today Lebanon and Syria.

The British wanted a big geographical bloc in the region to match that of the French, to act as a counterweight. They formalized this by inventing a large country soon dubbed “Iraq.”

The line dividing Sykes-Picot’s French sphere and British sphere already cut straight through Kurdish areas. That partition was part of the reason why the British could not simply carve out a new, large Kurdistan (that they’d dominate like Iraq).

For another, British colonial officials, like the famous writer-turned-colonial administrator Gertrude Bell, wanted a Kurdish population retained in the new Iraq as a counterbalance to its large Shiite population, which was deemed seditious.

This represented classic British imperial thinking long employed in places like India: divide and conquer. The Kurds might not be particularly docile or loyal to the British, but they could be counted on not to unite with the Arabs or Assyrians, either, and throw off British meddling.

The British, too, suspected there were large oilfields under the important Kurdish capital of Mosul. Better to keep the Mosul region securely within Iraq, some leaders judged.

That colonial-era behavior had a recent analog, when President Donald Trump said that the Kurds could be allowed to remain near oilfields in far eastern Syria to protect them against the Islamic State. They’re still useful, it seems, for maintaining order above oil.

The roots of the trouble with Turkey 
 
The Allies’ last, half-hearted attempt to create at least a small Kurdistan took place during yet another conference of the Allies in the Paris suburb of Sèvres in 1920.

Planned for eastern Anatolia, or Asia Minor, squeezed into borders to which the Kurds objected as too little, this Kurdistan came to naught. The new, revolutionary nationalists in Turkey wanted their own race-nation of Turks. And they did not want Anatolia chopped up for the sake of Kurds or Armenians. They’d simply have to become Turks, too, or face the consequences.

From 1920, the new Turkish Army occupied what was to become the little Kurdistan, and the Allies had no will to challenge them. The last hope that WWI’s victors would create even a fractional Kurdistan disappeared without fanfare.

But the Kurds didn’t stop – have never stopped – resisting. When the British lumped them into their invented country of Iraq, the Kurds naturally revolted in 1919. When a delegation of British colonial authorities arrived to parley with the Kurdish leader, Sheikh Mahmoud Barzinji, the man calmly quoted Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, with its call for the “autonomous development” of the peoples formerly dominated by the Ottoman Empire. The British responded with two brigades.

Now, as then, it seems world powers support Kurd’s self-determination only until it’s no longer expedient.

(John Broich is Associate Professor, Case Western Reserve University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-there-is-no-kurdish-nation-126243">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By John Broich Since US troops left their region, roughly 180,000 Kurds of northeastern Syria have been displaced, and over 200 have been killed. Those Kurds, soldiers who’d battled the Islamic State and families, had hoped to secure a future Kurdistan state in areas now targeted by Turkish warplanes and patrolled by Russian mercenaries.

By John Broich Since US troops left their region, roughly 180,000 Kurds of northeastern Syria have been displaced, and over 200 have been killed. Those Kurds, soldiers who’d battled the Islamic State and families, had hoped to secure a future Kurdistan state in areas now targeted by Turkish warplanes and patrolled by Russian mercenaries. This is only the latest reversal for the Kurds, a group of around 40 million who identify with a regional homeland and common historical background, but are now divided between four countries. Despite their many attempts, there’ve never won and kept a Kurdish nation. Drawing borders after WWI The most decisive reversal came at the end of the first World War. That’s when the Allies, victors over Germany and the Ottoman Empire, divided their geographical spoils of war. In a series of conferences in a succession of European palaces, Prime Minister David Lloyd George, Georges Clemenceau of France, Woodrow Wilson and dozens of other leaders conspired, harangued and horse-traded from 1919 to 1921. Under clouds of cigar smoke, between servings of foie gras and champagne, they redrew a large swath of the globe’s map. Besides doling out spoils to themselves, such as far-flung German imperial holdings, their aims were to replace the Austro-Hungarian Empire, punish Germany in Europe and – the biggest task – fill the vacuum left by the demise of the sprawling Ottoman Empire, which before the war covered territory from the edge of Bulgaria to Yemen. Their guiding principle for redrawing the map, at least in most cases, was the reigning concept of race nationalism, what’s often called today ethno-nationalism. Simply put, the Allies’ delegates assumed that nation states should be composed as much as possible by single “races,” single ethnic and linguistic populations. So, they defined, in some ways created, new races – like, for example, Hungarians or Austrians – and drew borders around them. Who should receive an ethno-state? What to do in the big, central zone of the defeated Ottoman Empire, stretching between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf? Should there be one big, Greater Arabia or Arab federation, as some British officials promised their Arab allies who revolted against the Ottomans? Should there be many little nations, with borders around Christian Arabs, Muslim Arabs, Armenians, Assyrians, Kurds? (Following their race-nation instinct, the British did support what they called a new “National Home for the Jewish people” in former Ottoman Palestine.) That, too, is what President Woodrow Wilson’s call for self-determination dictated. Wilson himself was explicit in calling for a new, broadly encompassing Kurdistan. They took for granted that Kurds were a race and that Kurdistan was a place. In fact, it was already depicted in pre-WWI atlases. The problem of drawing its borders fell, British Parliamentarians told themselves, to them in immediate postwar years. And it’s what some powerful people in British officialdom assumed would happen. Not only did it fit British race thinking to create Kurdistan – to be heavily staffed by British “advisers” like the other new states, of course – but they believed the Kurds truculent and independent, unlikely to accede to domination by a neighbour. They would “never accept an Arab ruler,” in the words of one British Colonial Office official, if they were embedded in an Arab nation. A missed opportunity But the Allies and the League of Nations never created Kurdistan. Why not? British imperial self-interest, in this case, overruled ethnonational thinking. By the terms of the Sykes-Picot agreement, the secret French and British understanding of roughly who would get what after the war, the French claimed dominance of the northern Levant, what’s today Lebanon and Syria. The British wanted a big geographical bloc in the region to match that of the French, to act as a counterweight. They formalized this by inventing a large country soon dubbed “Iraq.” The line dividing Sykes-Picot’s French sphere and British sphere already cut straight through Kurdish areas. That partition was part of the reason why the British could not simply carve out a new, large Kurdistan (that they’d dominate like Iraq). For another, British colonial officials, like the famous writer-turned-colonial administrator Gertrude Bell, wanted a Kurdish population retained in the new Iraq as a counterbalance to its large Shiite population, which was deemed seditious. This represented classic British imperial thinking long employed in places like India: divide and conquer. The Kurds might not be particularly docile or loyal to the British, but they could be counted on not to unite with the Arabs or Assyrians, either, and throw off British meddling. The British, too, suspected there were large oilfields under the important Kurdish capital of Mosul. Better to keep the Mosul region securely within Iraq, some leaders judged. That colonial-era behavior had a recent analog, when President Donald Trump said that the Kurds could be allowed to remain near oilfields in far eastern Syria to protect them against the Islamic State. They’re still useful, it seems, for maintaining order above oil. The roots of the trouble with Turkey The Allies’ last, half-hearted attempt to create at least a small Kurdistan took place during yet another conference of the Allies in the Paris suburb of Sèvres in 1920. Planned for eastern Anatolia, or Asia Minor, squeezed into borders to which the Kurds objected as too little, this Kurdistan came to naught. The new, revolutionary nationalists in Turkey wanted their own race-nation of Turks. And they did not want Anatolia chopped up for the sake of Kurds or Armenians. They’d simply have to become Turks, too, or face the consequences. From 1920, the new Turkish Army occupied what was to become the little Kurdistan, and the Allies had no will to challenge them. The last hope that WWI’s victors would create even a fractional Kurdistan disappeared without fanfare. But the Kurds didn’t stop – have never stopped – resisting. When the British lumped them into their invented country of Iraq, the Kurds naturally revolted in 1919. When a delegation of British colonial authorities arrived to parley with the Kurdish leader, Sheikh Mahmoud Barzinji, the man calmly quoted Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, with its call for the “autonomous development” of the peoples formerly dominated by the Ottoman Empire. The British responded with two brigades. Now, as then, it seems world powers support Kurd’s self-determination only until it’s no longer expedient. (John Broich is Associate Professor, Case Western Reserve University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why there is no Kurdish nation

9 US Citizens Were Killed in an Ambush in Mexico. Watch video to know more.

9 US Citizens Were Killed in an Ambush in Mexico

As the Trump administration on Monday began the process of formally pulling out of the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/11000-scientists-caution-against-climate-emergency-warn-of-unavoidable-human-suffering-260246"> Paris climate agreement</a>, French President Emmanuel Macron and Chinese President Xi Jinping reaffirmed their strong support for the global accord.&nbsp;

"Both sides attach high importance to measures responding to climate change and protection of ecological diversity, and we agree to cooperate over next year's 15th Biodiversity Convention on Biodiversity held in Kunming to push forth the Paris Climate Accords in response to climate change," Chinese President Xi Jinping said during his meeting with President Macron in Beijing.

Xi added that the international community should "jointly protect <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/paris-climate-agreement-us-should-take-more-responsibility-says-china-260120">our homeland planet Earth</a>", adding "we are against the attempt to place national interests above the common interests of humanity".

Macron too a swipe at the US, decalaring: "I deplore the choices made by some others, but I want to see them as marginal choices, because when China, the European Union, Russia, which ratified the Paris agreements a few weeks ago, engage with firmness, the isolated choice of one or another (country) is not enough to change the course of the world, it will only lead to them being edged out."

Both leaders also issued a joint statement reaffirming their committment towards the climate agreement. In a joint statement, Xi and Macron reaffirmed "their firm support for the Paris accord which they consider as an irreversible&nbsp;process and a compass for strong action on climate".&nbsp;

Xi and Macron expressed determination to improve international cooperation to "ensure a complete and efficient implementation of the Paris accord" while pledgeing to restore almost a third of degraded land as well as eliminating fossil fuel subsidies in the medium term.

The US had presented its withdrawal letter to the United Nations on Monday which was negotiated by the Obama administration.

As the Trump administration on Monday began the process of formally pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, French President Emmanuel Macron and Chinese President Xi Jinping reaffirmed their strong support for the global accord.

As the Trump administration on Monday began the process of formally pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, French President Emmanuel Macron and Chinese President Xi Jinping reaffirmed their strong support for the global accord. "Both sides attach high importance to measures responding to climate change and protection of ecological diversity, and we agree to cooperate over next year's 15th Biodiversity Convention on Biodiversity held in Kunming to push forth the Paris Climate Accords in response to climate change," Chinese President Xi Jinping said during his meeting with President Macron in Beijing. Xi added that the international community should "jointly protect our homeland planet Earth", adding "we are against the attempt to place national interests above the common interests of humanity". Macron too a swipe at the US, decalaring: "I deplore the choices made by some others, but I want to see them as marginal choices, because when China, the European Union, Russia, which ratified the Paris agreements a few weeks ago, engage with firmness, the isolated choice of one or another (country) is not enough to change the course of the world, it will only lead to them being edged out." Both leaders also issued a joint statement reaffirming their committment towards the climate agreement. In a joint statement, Xi and Macron reaffirmed "their firm support for the Paris accord which they consider as an irreversible process and a compass for strong action on climate". Xi and Macron expressed determination to improve international cooperation to "ensure a complete and efficient implementation of the Paris accord" while pledgeing to restore almost a third of degraded land as well as eliminating fossil fuel subsidies in the medium term. The US had presented its withdrawal letter to the United Nations on Monday which was negotiated by the Obama administration.

Macron, Xi declare Paris climate accord 'irreversible process'

A page from Iran's history: 40th anniversary of US embassy takeover. Watch video to know more.

A page from Iran's history: 40th anniversary of US embassy takeover

The rise of the civilisational state and of civilisational rather than national leaders is calling into question the concept of sovereign nation-states.

That is evident in the consequences of the civilizational assault on minorities ranging from the Kurds in Syria and Turkey to Muslims in China, India and Myanmar to Islamophobia and mounting anti-Semitism in the United States, France and Hungary as well as sectarianism in the Middle East.

Democracies legally enshrined yardsticks of non-discrimination and equality irrespective of creed, ethnicity, colour, gender and religion but never succeeded in truly enforcing those principles.

As a result, civilisationalism’s assault spotlights the long-standing failure of the nation-state, evident from the moment it was conceptualised by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, to give true meaning to guarantee the security, safety and rights of all its inhabitants irrespective of creed, colour, race, ethnicity, faith or gender.

The rise of a critical mass of civilizational leaders, including China’s Xi Jinping, Myanmar’s Win Myint, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Victor Orban and US President Donald J Trump makes a rethink inevitable not only of the functioning of democracy but also of the concepts of the nation state and sovereignty that have structured world orders for close to 500 years.

Many of these leaders conceive of their societies and/or states as defined by civilization and its reach into akin Diaspora communities rather than by legally recognized borders, population within those borders, and language.

Civilisationalism has allowed China to extend its reach in the South China Sea beyond internationally recognised borders at the expense of other littoral states as well as to Diaspora communities across the globe.

It also provided the basis on which China has so far successfully imposed its views on others whether its acceptance of its one-China policy or silence, if not acquiescence, in repression in Xinjiang.

Civilisationalism has further enabled Russia to recognise breakaway states in Georgia, annexe Crimea, and spark violent conflict in eastern Ukraine.

In some ways, the nation state, designed to put an end to religious wars in Europe, paved the way for a revival of civilisationalism by godfathering exclusionary politics that were based on a determination of who belonged and who did not belong to a nation, a question which civilisationalism answers by legitimizing supremacism, racism and prejudice.

From the outset, newly conceived European nation-states sought to build nations by not fully embracing those it believed were not truly part of their nation.

The nation state’s exclusivity, rather than as a result of the Westphalia treaty pulling the curtain on an era of European wars, sparked another round of armed conflict intended to fortify newly found national identities.

Today, the reconceptualisation of nation-state and the notion of sovereignty has become an imperative with civilisationalism adopting exclusivity as its battle cry and the nation state’s centuries-long inability and unwillingness to negotiate mutually workable arrangements that take account of aspirations and identities of societal groups that feel excluded.

Reconceptualisation would need to be geared towards guaranteeing individual and minority rights based on an international legal framework that is enforceable.&nbsp;

Failure to do so would likely usher in an era of disruptive societal tension, marginalisation and disenfranchisement of minorities, flows of mass migration, radicalisation and increased political violence.

A recent International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) report concluded that China was advising countries confronting political and economic instability, sometimes sparked in part by Chinese project-related corruption, to adopt its model of brutally cracking down on any expression of dissent like in Xinjiang.

China, according to the report, is also advocating implementation of its system of social control, involving the use of invasive Chinese artificial intelligence-based surveillance technology, reducing media to parrots of government policy, and firewalling the Internet. China is further training governments in ways of disrupting opposition activity.

China’s view of economic development as a way of countering what it sees as cultural drivers of extremism underlies its effort to Sinicize Turkic Muslim Islam in Xinjiang and is implicit in Chinese aid to countries in the Middle East.

Xi announced in July of last year $20billion in loans to Middle Eastern nations as well as $106 million in financial aid for Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen on the back of Chinese assertions that finance would help resolve the region’s political, religious and cultural tensions.

“China is increasingly proactive in its response to instability in developing countries. It is now more forthright in its advice to partner countries and is proactive in promoting Chinese solutions to other countries’ problems,” said Nicholas Crawford, the IISS report’s author.

China’s policy prescriptions, elements of which are being adopted across the globe, is likely to perpetuate problems inherent to exclusivism propagated by both civilisationalists and nation-states that are more concerned about perceived threats to their territorial integrity or constructed collective identities than aspirations of groups that are part of their societal fabric.

The rise of civilisationalists, autocrats, authoritarians and illiberals, including Xi, does not bode well for Eurasia, a region pockmarked by groups whose rights have been repeatedly violated by various civilizationalist leaders as well as exclusionary nation-states concerned about challenges to their territorial integrity or constructed collective identities.

“Geopolitics is no longer simply about the economy or security… The non-Western world, led by Beijing and Moscow, is pushing back against the Western claim to embody universal values… The rejection of Western universalism by the elites in Russia and China challenges the idea of the nation state as the international norm for political organisation… The new pivot of geopolitics is civilisation,” said political scientist Adrian Pabst.

A tour of the world’s flashpoints proves the point.

The flashpoints include predominantly Kurdish south-eastern Turkey, what is left of the Kurdish enclave in northern Syria, Rohingya rotting away in Bangladeshi refugee camps after fleeing ethnic cleansing in Myanmar; the plight of Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang and Catalan efforts to democratically decide whether they want to remain part of Spain.

They illustrate the fact that the failure of the nation-state to build truly inclusive and cohesive societies coupled with the rise of the civilizational state and civilizationalist leaders portends a new world order that is likely to be characterized by individual and collective rights abuse that heightens societal tensions and aggravates disputes and conflicts.

“The global order provides more mechanisms for states to deal diplomatically with each other than with the people inside them,” noted scholar and author Malka Older.

The civilizationalist threat to individual and minority rights is enhanced by its insistence on collective adherence to an overriding ideology whether that is the Chinese communist party’s concept of absolute control of anything and everything cloaked in ultra-nationalism and concepts of unique Chinese characteristics; Russian Orthodoxy cemented in the alliance between church and state; or Victor Orban’s conceptualization of a Hungarian nation that is homogenously white and Christian.

In a recent study of religion and tolerance in the Middle East, widely viewed as perhaps the religiously most intolerant part of the world, political scientist Michael Hoffman concluded that it is not religion that in and of itself breeds intolerance and prejudice.

Instead, Hoffman suggested that Muslim attitudes towards the other differ sharply between believers who pray collectively in a mosque and those who worship in private.

Private prayer “does not contain the same sectarian content as communal prayer,” Hoffman noted, implicitly pointing a finger at autocratic authorities who in the Middle East often exercise tight control of what is said in the mosque.

“The group identification mechanism is not present for private prayer; since private prayer is fundamentally a personal phenomenon, it does not cause believers to distinguish more sharply between their own sect and others and therefore does not produce the intolerant outcomes associated with communal worship,” Hoffman went on to say.

Hoffman’s research, despite its focus on the Middle East, spotlighted in an era of rising civilisationalism the risks to universal basic human dignity as well as individual and minorities rights in directly or indirectly imposing collectivist beliefs that drown out the political, ethnic or religious other.

The silver lining in what are bleak prospects may be Pabst’s conclusion that “neither the Western cult of private freedom without social solidarity nor the totalitarian tendencies among China’s and Russia’s elites can nurture resilient societies against the disruptive forces of technology and implacable economic globalisation… (Yet) across different civilisations there is an inchoate sense that the purpose of politics is the free association of people around common interests and shared social virtues of generosity, loyalty, courage, sacrifice and gratitude. The practice of such virtues can bind us together as citizens, nations and cultures beyond colour, class or creed.” 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The rise of the civilisational state and of civilisational rather than national leaders is calling into question the concept of sovereign nation-states. That is evident in the consequences of the civilizational assault on minorities ranging from the Kurds in Syria and Turkey to Muslims in China, India and Myanmar to Islamophobia and mounting anti-Semitism in the United States, France and Hungary as well as sectarianism in the Middle East.

The rise of the civilisational state and of civilisational rather than national leaders is calling into question the concept of sovereign nation-states. That is evident in the consequences of the civilizational assault on minorities ranging from the Kurds in Syria and Turkey to Muslims in China, India and Myanmar to Islamophobia and mounting anti-Semitism in the United States, France and Hungary as well as sectarianism in the Middle East. Democracies legally enshrined yardsticks of non-discrimination and equality irrespective of creed, ethnicity, colour, gender and religion but never succeeded in truly enforcing those principles. As a result, civilisationalism’s assault spotlights the long-standing failure of the nation-state, evident from the moment it was conceptualised by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, to give true meaning to guarantee the security, safety and rights of all its inhabitants irrespective of creed, colour, race, ethnicity, faith or gender. The rise of a critical mass of civilizational leaders, including China’s Xi Jinping, Myanmar’s Win Myint, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Hungary’s Victor Orban and US President Donald J Trump makes a rethink inevitable not only of the functioning of democracy but also of the concepts of the nation state and sovereignty that have structured world orders for close to 500 years. Many of these leaders conceive of their societies and/or states as defined by civilization and its reach into akin Diaspora communities rather than by legally recognized borders, population within those borders, and language. Civilisationalism has allowed China to extend its reach in the South China Sea beyond internationally recognised borders at the expense of other littoral states as well as to Diaspora communities across the globe. It also provided the basis on which China has so far successfully imposed its views on others whether its acceptance of its one-China policy or silence, if not acquiescence, in repression in Xinjiang. Civilisationalism has further enabled Russia to recognise breakaway states in Georgia, annexe Crimea, and spark violent conflict in eastern Ukraine. In some ways, the nation state, designed to put an end to religious wars in Europe, paved the way for a revival of civilisationalism by godfathering exclusionary politics that were based on a determination of who belonged and who did not belong to a nation, a question which civilisationalism answers by legitimizing supremacism, racism and prejudice. From the outset, newly conceived European nation-states sought to build nations by not fully embracing those it believed were not truly part of their nation. The nation state’s exclusivity, rather than as a result of the Westphalia treaty pulling the curtain on an era of European wars, sparked another round of armed conflict intended to fortify newly found national identities. Today, the reconceptualisation of nation-state and the notion of sovereignty has become an imperative with civilisationalism adopting exclusivity as its battle cry and the nation state’s centuries-long inability and unwillingness to negotiate mutually workable arrangements that take account of aspirations and identities of societal groups that feel excluded. Reconceptualisation would need to be geared towards guaranteeing individual and minority rights based on an international legal framework that is enforceable. Failure to do so would likely usher in an era of disruptive societal tension, marginalisation and disenfranchisement of minorities, flows of mass migration, radicalisation and increased political violence. A recent International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) report concluded that China was advising countries confronting political and economic instability, sometimes sparked in part by Chinese project-related corruption, to adopt its model of brutally cracking down on any expression of dissent like in Xinjiang. China, according to the report, is also advocating implementation of its system of social control, involving the use of invasive Chinese artificial intelligence-based surveillance technology, reducing media to parrots of government policy, and firewalling the Internet. China is further training governments in ways of disrupting opposition activity. China’s view of economic development as a way of countering what it sees as cultural drivers of extremism underlies its effort to Sinicize Turkic Muslim Islam in Xinjiang and is implicit in Chinese aid to countries in the Middle East. Xi announced in July of last year $20billion in loans to Middle Eastern nations as well as $106 million in financial aid for Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen on the back of Chinese assertions that finance would help resolve the region’s political, religious and cultural tensions. “China is increasingly proactive in its response to instability in developing countries. It is now more forthright in its advice to partner countries and is proactive in promoting Chinese solutions to other countries’ problems,” said Nicholas Crawford, the IISS report’s author. China’s policy prescriptions, elements of which are being adopted across the globe, is likely to perpetuate problems inherent to exclusivism propagated by both civilisationalists and nation-states that are more concerned about perceived threats to their territorial integrity or constructed collective identities than aspirations of groups that are part of their societal fabric. The rise of civilisationalists, autocrats, authoritarians and illiberals, including Xi, does not bode well for Eurasia, a region pockmarked by groups whose rights have been repeatedly violated by various civilizationalist leaders as well as exclusionary nation-states concerned about challenges to their territorial integrity or constructed collective identities. “Geopolitics is no longer simply about the economy or security… The non-Western world, led by Beijing and Moscow, is pushing back against the Western claim to embody universal values… The rejection of Western universalism by the elites in Russia and China challenges the idea of the nation state as the international norm for political organisation… The new pivot of geopolitics is civilisation,” said political scientist Adrian Pabst. A tour of the world’s flashpoints proves the point. The flashpoints include predominantly Kurdish south-eastern Turkey, what is left of the Kurdish enclave in northern Syria, Rohingya rotting away in Bangladeshi refugee camps after fleeing ethnic cleansing in Myanmar; the plight of Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang and Catalan efforts to democratically decide whether they want to remain part of Spain. They illustrate the fact that the failure of the nation-state to build truly inclusive and cohesive societies coupled with the rise of the civilizational state and civilizationalist leaders portends a new world order that is likely to be characterized by individual and collective rights abuse that heightens societal tensions and aggravates disputes and conflicts. “The global order provides more mechanisms for states to deal diplomatically with each other than with the people inside them,” noted scholar and author Malka Older. The civilizationalist threat to individual and minority rights is enhanced by its insistence on collective adherence to an overriding ideology whether that is the Chinese communist party’s concept of absolute control of anything and everything cloaked in ultra-nationalism and concepts of unique Chinese characteristics; Russian Orthodoxy cemented in the alliance between church and state; or Victor Orban’s conceptualization of a Hungarian nation that is homogenously white and Christian. In a recent study of religion and tolerance in the Middle East, widely viewed as perhaps the religiously most intolerant part of the world, political scientist Michael Hoffman concluded that it is not religion that in and of itself breeds intolerance and prejudice. Instead, Hoffman suggested that Muslim attitudes towards the other differ sharply between believers who pray collectively in a mosque and those who worship in private. Private prayer “does not contain the same sectarian content as communal prayer,” Hoffman noted, implicitly pointing a finger at autocratic authorities who in the Middle East often exercise tight control of what is said in the mosque. “The group identification mechanism is not present for private prayer; since private prayer is fundamentally a personal phenomenon, it does not cause believers to distinguish more sharply between their own sect and others and therefore does not produce the intolerant outcomes associated with communal worship,” Hoffman went on to say. Hoffman’s research, despite its focus on the Middle East, spotlighted in an era of rising civilisationalism the risks to universal basic human dignity as well as individual and minorities rights in directly or indirectly imposing collectivist beliefs that drown out the political, ethnic or religious other. The silver lining in what are bleak prospects may be Pabst’s conclusion that “neither the Western cult of private freedom without social solidarity nor the totalitarian tendencies among China’s and Russia’s elites can nurture resilient societies against the disruptive forces of technology and implacable economic globalisation… (Yet) across different civilisations there is an inchoate sense that the purpose of politics is the free association of people around common interests and shared social virtues of generosity, loyalty, courage, sacrifice and gratitude. The practice of such virtues can bind us together as citizens, nations and cultures beyond colour, class or creed.” (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Adjusting to the new world order

40th Anniversary of beginning of Iran hostage crisis. Watch video to know more

40th Anniversary of beginning of Iran hostage crisis

A US appeals court ruled on Monday that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/white-house-witnesses-are-no-shows-in-impeachment-probe-259947">President Donald Trump</a> must release eight years of tax returns, dealing a blow to his attempts to keep his personal earnings private.

The decision is the latest development in a years-long effort to obtain copies of Trump's taxes, which he promised during the campaign to make public after an audit but has since refused to share.

A three-judge panel in Manhattan rejected an appeal by the president's lawyers challenging a subpoena by New York prosecutors that demanded that his accounting firm hand over the records.

The federal judges, however, refused to take a position on claims by Trump's attorneys that as America's leader he is immune from any criminal investigation.

"We emphasize again the narrowness of the issue before us," they wrote in their decision.

"This appeal does not require us to consider whether the president is immune from indictment and prosecution while in office, nor to consider whether the president may lawfully be ordered to produce documents for use in a state criminal proceeding," the judges added.

The president's legal team did not immediately respond to a request for comment but it is likely that the case will end up in the Supreme Court.

Trump had filed suit against Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr, a Democrat who had subpoenaed the accounting firm Mazars USA, seeking access to the president's returns dating back to 2011.

Vance is investigating payments made by Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney, to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress who claimed to have had a sexual liaison with Trump before he ran for president in 2016.

Cohen is currently serving three years in prison after admitting paying hush money,&nbsp;in violation of campaign finance laws,&nbsp;to Daniels and another woman, tax fraud, and lying to Congress.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-threatens-to-withhold-emergency-aid-from-fire-hit-california-259805">Trump's lawyers</a> claimed in court that their client doesn't need to abide by Vance's injunction because as president of the United States he cannot be prosecuted for an offence.

But the judges ruled that presidential immunity was not an issue here because it was the accounting firm that had been subpoenaed for the documents.

Trump broke with a long-established norm during the 2016 presidential election by refusing to release his tax returns as most presidents have done since the 1970s even though it is not required by law.

He has claimed that they are under audit by the Internal Revenue Service, and there have been various attempts to obtain them, including by the Democratic-led House of Representatives.

A US appeals court ruled on Monday that President Donald Trump must release eight years of tax returns, dealing a blow to his attempts to keep his personal earnings private.

A US appeals court ruled on Monday that President Donald Trump must release eight years of tax returns, dealing a blow to his attempts to keep his personal earnings private. The decision is the latest development in a years-long effort to obtain copies of Trump's taxes, which he promised during the campaign to make public after an audit but has since refused to share. A three-judge panel in Manhattan rejected an appeal by the president's lawyers challenging a subpoena by New York prosecutors that demanded that his accounting firm hand over the records. The federal judges, however, refused to take a position on claims by Trump's attorneys that as America's leader he is immune from any criminal investigation. "We emphasize again the narrowness of the issue before us," they wrote in their decision. "This appeal does not require us to consider whether the president is immune from indictment and prosecution while in office, nor to consider whether the president may lawfully be ordered to produce documents for use in a state criminal proceeding," the judges added. The president's legal team did not immediately respond to a request for comment but it is likely that the case will end up in the Supreme Court. Trump had filed suit against Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr, a Democrat who had subpoenaed the accounting firm Mazars USA, seeking access to the president's returns dating back to 2011. Vance is investigating payments made by Michael Cohen, Trump's former personal attorney, to Stormy Daniels, an adult film actress who claimed to have had a sexual liaison with Trump before he ran for president in 2016. Cohen is currently serving three years in prison after admitting paying hush money, in violation of campaign finance laws, to Daniels and another woman, tax fraud, and lying to Congress. Trump's lawyers claimed in court that their client doesn't need to abide by Vance's injunction because as president of the United States he cannot be prosecuted for an offence. But the judges ruled that presidential immunity was not an issue here because it was the accounting firm that had been subpoenaed for the documents. Trump broke with a long-established norm during the 2016 presidential election by refusing to release his tax returns as most presidents have done since the 1970s even though it is not required by law. He has claimed that they are under audit by the Internal Revenue Service, and there have been various attempts to obtain them, including by the Democratic-led House of Representatives.

United States judges reject Trump appeal over tax returns

North Korea and the United States could hold another round of working-level talks as soon as mid-November to expedite progress before a year-end deadline set by Pyongyang, a South Korean lawmaker said on Monday.

North Korean and US officials met for the first time last month in Stockholm since US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met and agreed in June to reopen denuclearisation talks that stalled after their failed summit in Vietnam in February.

But that meeting also collapsed as the North's envoy said the United States was not ready and failed to show flexibility.

Both sides are expected to meet again no later than early December to kick-start negotiations before a year-end deadline set by Kim, South Korean lawmaker Lee Eun-jae said after attending a briefing by the National Intelligence Service (NIS).

"The NIS expected the talks would resume this month or early December at the latest," Lee told reporters.

"It's time for them to enter negotiations in earnest after checking each other's stance in Stockholm, and there's a deadline given by Chairman Kim."

Kim is eyeing another summit with Trump in December, Lee said.

North Korea and the United States could hold another round of working-level talks as soon as mid-November to expedite progress before a year-end deadline set by Pyongyang, a South Korean lawmaker said on Monday.

North Korea and the United States could hold another round of working-level talks as soon as mid-November to expedite progress before a year-end deadline set by Pyongyang, a South Korean lawmaker said on Monday. North Korean and US officials met for the first time last month in Stockholm since US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un met and agreed in June to reopen denuclearisation talks that stalled after their failed summit in Vietnam in February. But that meeting also collapsed as the North's envoy said the United States was not ready and failed to show flexibility. Both sides are expected to meet again no later than early December to kick-start negotiations before a year-end deadline set by Kim, South Korean lawmaker Lee Eun-jae said after attending a briefing by the National Intelligence Service (NIS). "The NIS expected the talks would resume this month or early December at the latest," Lee told reporters. "It's time for them to enter negotiations in earnest after checking each other's stance in Stockholm, and there's a deadline given by Chairman Kim." Kim is eyeing another summit with Trump in December, Lee said.

North Korea, US could hold talks in mid-November: South Korean lawmaker

Apple Inc&nbsp;asked the Trump administration to waive tariffs on Chinese-made Apple Watches, iPhone components, and other consumer products, according to company filings with the US Trade Representative's Office.

The company on Thursday sought tariff exclusions from 11 products, including HomePod speakers, iMac computers, parts for use in repairing iPhones, iPhone smart battery cases, AirPods and others. The public has until November&nbsp;14 to submit comments on the requests.

Apple told the U.S. Trade Representative's Office the products were consumer electronic devices and "not strategically important or related to 'Made in China 2025' or other Chinese industrial programs."

The exclusions seek relief from 15 per cent&nbsp;tariffs that took effect on September&nbsp;1.

FitBit Inc&nbsp;asked the administration to waive tariffs on its fitness trackers. The company told the administration "the vast majority of global production capacity for wrist-wearable communications devices is in China."

The company added that "while Fitbit is aware of facilities currently producing such devices in Taiwan and South Korea, these facilities are fully owned by, or otherwise contracted to, Fitbit competitors that use them for their own branded production, rendering them unavailable to Fitbit." Alphabet Inc&nbsp;announced Friday it has reached a deal to acquire Fitbit.

Apple submitted the requests on the first day the Trump administration began accepting them. An Apple spokesman did not immediately comment.

Apple's wearables and accessories&nbsp;business,&nbsp;which includes the Apple Watch, AirPods and HomePod - brought in $24.5 billion&nbsp;in its fiscal 2019 ended in September, or about 9.4 per cent&nbsp;of Apple's revenue. Sales in the segment were up 41% versus the prior year, and the devices have become an important driver of Apple's&nbsp;business&nbsp;as iPhone sales declined for the past four straight quarters.

Apple chief executive Tim Cook said Wednesday on the company's earnings call the company is paying "some tariffs today, as you know, some that went into effect pre-September and some others that went into effect in September. So we are paying some."

Christie's Inc has asked the administration waive tariffs on Chinese sculptures, statues, paintings, antique furniture and silverware, and other collectible items.

Sea Eagle Boats Inc submitted requests to waive tariffs on inflatable stand up paddleboards.

Apple Inc asked the Trump administration to waive tariffs on Chinese-made Apple Watches, iPhone components, and other consumer products, according to company filings with the US Trade Representative's Office.

Apple Inc asked the Trump administration to waive tariffs on Chinese-made Apple Watches, iPhone components, and other consumer products, according to company filings with the US Trade Representative's Office. The company on Thursday sought tariff exclusions from 11 products, including HomePod speakers, iMac computers, parts for use in repairing iPhones, iPhone smart battery cases, AirPods and others. The public has until November 14 to submit comments on the requests. Apple told the U.S. Trade Representative's Office the products were consumer electronic devices and "not strategically important or related to 'Made in China 2025' or other Chinese industrial programs." The exclusions seek relief from 15 per cent tariffs that took effect on September 1. FitBit Inc asked the administration to waive tariffs on its fitness trackers. The company told the administration "the vast majority of global production capacity for wrist-wearable communications devices is in China." The company added that "while Fitbit is aware of facilities currently producing such devices in Taiwan and South Korea, these facilities are fully owned by, or otherwise contracted to, Fitbit competitors that use them for their own branded production, rendering them unavailable to Fitbit." Alphabet Inc announced Friday it has reached a deal to acquire Fitbit. Apple submitted the requests on the first day the Trump administration began accepting them. An Apple spokesman did not immediately comment. Apple's wearables and accessories business, which includes the Apple Watch, AirPods and HomePod - brought in $24.5 billion in its fiscal 2019 ended in September, or about 9.4 per cent of Apple's revenue. Sales in the segment were up 41% versus the prior year, and the devices have become an important driver of Apple's business as iPhone sales declined for the past four straight quarters. Apple chief executive Tim Cook said Wednesday on the company's earnings call the company is paying "some tariffs today, as you know, some that went into effect pre-September and some others that went into effect in September. So we are paying some." Christie's Inc has asked the administration waive tariffs on Chinese sculptures, statues, paintings, antique furniture and silverware, and other collectible items. Sea Eagle Boats Inc submitted requests to waive tariffs on inflatable stand up paddleboards.

Apple asks United States to waive tariffs on Chinese-made watches, iPhone parts, AirPods

us-1

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

us 1