U.S. Releases Footage Of The Operation That Killed Terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Gravitas: How the Baghdadi operation unfolded

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 1st, 2019

House to formalise Trump impeachment investigation. Watch video to know more.

House to formalise Trump impeachment investigation

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - October 31st, 2019

Beijing slammed US Secretary of State <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pompeo-says-us-must-confront-chinas-communist-party-259032">Mike Pompeo</a> on Thursday for a speech it said had "viciously attacked" China.

In the latest hawkish take on China by President Donald Trump's administration, Pompeo Wednesday called Beijing "truly hostile" to the United States, and vowed to ramp up pressure on China on multiple fronts.

In response, Beijing rounded on his comments Thursday, which it said revealed "arrogance and fear."

"This deliberate distortion of the facts and slandering of China's domestic and foreign policies fully exposes the deep political bias and anti-communist mindset of a small number of US politicians," said foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a press briefing.

"Pompeo's speech viciously attacked the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government," added Geng.

In his talk at the conservative Hudson Institute in New York, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-states-mike-pence-and-mike-pompeo-head-to-turkey-seeking-ceasefire-256457">Pompeo</a> highlighted China's clampdown on Hong Kong protests and incarceration of Uighur Muslims, and said Beijing was seeking international domination.

Watch: Is Pompeo justifying Turkey's invasion?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/pompeo-justifying-turkeys-invasion-257605/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Rights groups say more than one million Uighurs and other mostly Muslim ethnic minorities have been rounded up in internment camps in Xinjiang.

After initially denying their existence, Beijing now defends the camps as "vocational education centres" that counter religious extremism and terrorism.

"The Chinese Communist Party is offering its people and the world an entirely different model of governance, it's one in which a Leninist party rules and everyone must think and act according to the will of the Communist elites," Pompeo said.

"That's not a future that I want... and it's not a future that the freedom-loving people of China" want, he said.

At a dinner attended by Henry Kissinger, the apostle of realpolitik who negotiated the US normalisation of ties with Beijing, Pompeo said Washington had long been too easy on China in hopes that it would transform.

"Today we're finally realising the degree to which the Chinese Communist Party is truly hostile to the United States and our values," Pompeo said.

Pompeo nonetheless said that the United States did not seek confrontation but rather still wanted to encourage a more "liberalised" China.

His remarks come amid a simmering trade war between the two countries, which Trump has voiced hope of resolving.

Beijing slammed US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday for a speech it said had "viciously attacked" China. In the latest hawkish take on China by President Donald Trump's administration, Pompeo Wednesday called Beijing "truly hostile" to the United States, and vowed to ramp up pressure on China on multiple fronts.

Beijing slammed US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday for a speech it said had "viciously attacked" China. In the latest hawkish take on China by President Donald Trump's administration, Pompeo Wednesday called Beijing "truly hostile" to the United States, and vowed to ramp up pressure on China on multiple fronts. In response, Beijing rounded on his comments Thursday, which it said revealed "arrogance and fear." "This deliberate distortion of the facts and slandering of China's domestic and foreign policies fully exposes the deep political bias and anti-communist mindset of a small number of US politicians," said foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang at a press briefing. "Pompeo's speech viciously attacked the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese government," added Geng. In his talk at the conservative Hudson Institute in New York, Pompeo highlighted China's clampdown on Hong Kong protests and incarceration of Uighur Muslims, and said Beijing was seeking international domination. Watch: Is Pompeo justifying Turkey's invasion? Rights groups say more than one million Uighurs and other mostly Muslim ethnic minorities have been rounded up in internment camps in Xinjiang. After initially denying their existence, Beijing now defends the camps as "vocational education centres" that counter religious extremism and terrorism. "The Chinese Communist Party is offering its people and the world an entirely different model of governance, it's one in which a Leninist party rules and everyone must think and act according to the will of the Communist elites," Pompeo said. "That's not a future that I want... and it's not a future that the freedom-loving people of China" want, he said. At a dinner attended by Henry Kissinger, the apostle of realpolitik who negotiated the US normalisation of ties with Beijing, Pompeo said Washington had long been too easy on China in hopes that it would transform. "Today we're finally realising the degree to which the Chinese Communist Party is truly hostile to the United States and our values," Pompeo said. Pompeo nonetheless said that the United States did not seek confrontation but rather still wanted to encourage a more "liberalised" China. His remarks come amid a simmering trade war between the two countries, which Trump has voiced hope of resolving.

China blasts Pompeo for 'vicious' speech against Beijing

By John A Tures

After former Islamic State Group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a US military action, speculation began on whether or not President Donald Trump would get a boost in public opinion surveys as a result.

My political science research with my students shows that presidents do enjoy a short-term poll boost after foreign policy raids and capital city captures.

However, that’s often followed by a long-term decline.

A closer look at the polls 
 
Supporters of the diversionary theory of war, known in the media as the “Wag the Dog” effect, contend that presidents can boost their approval ratings in the polls by fighting a war abroad.

In other words, they benefit from a burst of patriotism during the conflict.

But international relations scholars Bradley Lian and John R. Oneal tested this theory by looking at conflicts from 1950 through 1984 and found scant empirical support for this hypothesis.

My students and I considered 12 cases to determine whether presidents benefit at the polls from conducting raids involving the capture of a leader, seizure of a capital city or an attempt to rescue hostages, and how long that support can be expected to last.

The events we looked at included the surrender of Manuel Noriega in January of 1990; the apprehension of Saddam Hussein in 2003; and the killing of Moammar Gaddafi in 2011.

We looked at polls conducted by the Gallup Polling Presidential Job Approval Center, calculating an average of three presidential approval polls taken before the foreign policy event, and the mean of the first three polls issued after the case.

We also analysed polls taken by the end of the year, or six months later if the raid took place near the end of the year, to see how presidents fared long after the event.

Our results show that in 75 per cent of cases, the US President received a boost in the polls shortly after a foreign policy raid or capital capture.

But the jump is short lived. In 83 per cent of cases, presidential approval declined over the next several months. In seven cases, it fell by more than five percentage points from the initial poll boost.

For example, President Donald Trump insisted that al-Baghdadi’s death was a bigger deal than the raid that killed Osama Bin-Laden. That May 2011 event was widely credited with sealing President Barack Obama’s reelection the following year.

That credit may have been misplaced. Our evidence shows that Obama’s approval ratings had declined to 45 per cent by December of 2011. Thus, if history is any guide, I expect that Trump may have higher approval ratings in the coming days but shouldn’t count on better polls over the next several months.

(John A Tures is Professor of Political Science, LaGrange College)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/will-killing-al-baghdadi-give-trump-a-boost-in-the-polls-probably-but-it-wont-last-125987"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

By John A Tures After former Islamic State Group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a US military action, speculation began on whether or not President Donald Trump would get a boost in public opinion surveys as a result.

By John A Tures After former Islamic State Group leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed in a US military action, speculation began on whether or not President Donald Trump would get a boost in public opinion surveys as a result. My political science research with my students shows that presidents do enjoy a short-term poll boost after foreign policy raids and capital city captures. However, that’s often followed by a long-term decline. A closer look at the polls Supporters of the diversionary theory of war, known in the media as the “Wag the Dog” effect, contend that presidents can boost their approval ratings in the polls by fighting a war abroad. In other words, they benefit from a burst of patriotism during the conflict. But international relations scholars Bradley Lian and John R. Oneal tested this theory by looking at conflicts from 1950 through 1984 and found scant empirical support for this hypothesis. My students and I considered 12 cases to determine whether presidents benefit at the polls from conducting raids involving the capture of a leader, seizure of a capital city or an attempt to rescue hostages, and how long that support can be expected to last. The events we looked at included the surrender of Manuel Noriega in January of 1990; the apprehension of Saddam Hussein in 2003; and the killing of Moammar Gaddafi in 2011. We looked at polls conducted by the Gallup Polling Presidential Job Approval Center, calculating an average of three presidential approval polls taken before the foreign policy event, and the mean of the first three polls issued after the case. We also analysed polls taken by the end of the year, or six months later if the raid took place near the end of the year, to see how presidents fared long after the event. Our results show that in 75 per cent of cases, the US President received a boost in the polls shortly after a foreign policy raid or capital capture. But the jump is short lived. In 83 per cent of cases, presidential approval declined over the next several months. In seven cases, it fell by more than five percentage points from the initial poll boost. For example, President Donald Trump insisted that al-Baghdadi’s death was a bigger deal than the raid that killed Osama Bin-Laden. That May 2011 event was widely credited with sealing President Barack Obama’s reelection the following year. That credit may have been misplaced. Our evidence shows that Obama’s approval ratings had declined to 45 per cent by December of 2011. Thus, if history is any guide, I expect that Trump may have higher approval ratings in the coming days but shouldn’t count on better polls over the next several months. (John A Tures is Professor of Political Science, LaGrange College) (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)

Will killing Al-Baghdadi give Donald Trump a boost in the polls?

President Donald Trump still hopes to sign a trade deal with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in coming weeks, despite Chile's cancellation of the APEC summit where they had been scheduled to meet, the White House said Wednesday.

"We look forward to finalizing Phase One of the historic trade deal with China within the same time frame, and when we have an announcement, we'll let you know," spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement.

President Sebastian Pinera announced earlier that Chile could no longer hold the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and later Cop 25 climate change conference in Santiago, due to violent unrest in the city.

Gidley said as of now there was no replacement location.

"It's our understanding the organisation does not currently have a secondary site prepared. We’re awaiting potential information regarding another location," he said.

Trump and Xi had been targeting an encounter on the sidelines of the APEC event to sign an initial agreement aimed at resolving an 18-month trade war between the world's two biggest economies.

President Donald Trump still hopes to sign a trade deal with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in coming weeks, despite Chile's cancellation of the APEC summit where they had been scheduled to meet, the White House said Wednesday.

President Donald Trump still hopes to sign a trade deal with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in coming weeks, despite Chile's cancellation of the APEC summit where they had been scheduled to meet, the White House said Wednesday. "We look forward to finalizing Phase One of the historic trade deal with China within the same time frame, and when we have an announcement, we'll let you know," spokesman Hogan Gidley said in a statement. President Sebastian Pinera announced earlier that Chile could no longer hold the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit and later Cop 25 climate change conference in Santiago, due to violent unrest in the city. Gidley said as of now there was no replacement location. "It's our understanding the organisation does not currently have a secondary site prepared. We’re awaiting potential information regarding another location," he said. Trump and Xi had been targeting an encounter on the sidelines of the APEC event to sign an initial agreement aimed at resolving an 18-month trade war between the world's two biggest economies.

United States wants China trade deal in 'same time frame' despite APEC summit cancellation

By James Johnson

The US government, long a proponent of advancing technology for military purposes, sees artificial intelligence as key to the next generation of fighting tools.

Several recent investments and Pentagon initiatives show that military leaders are concerned about keeping up with – and ahead of – China and Russia, two countries that have made big gains in developing artificial-intelligence systems. AI-powered weapons include target recognition systems, weapons guided by AI, and cyberattack and cyberdefense software that runs without human intervention.

The US defence community is coming to understand that AI will significantly transform, if not completely reinvent, the world’s military power balance. The concern is more than the military. As Chinese and Russian technologies become more sophisticated, they threaten US domination of technological innovation and development, as well as global economic power and influence.

Military leaders see the threat to US technological leadership coming from two main sources: A&nbsp;rising and ambitious China and a mischievous and declining Russia. Taken together, these forces challenge global stability.

The nature of the threat

A 2018 Pentagon report noted that technological developments could change the types of threats facing the US, which might include space-based weapons, long-range ballistic missiles and cyberweapons.

A February 2019 analysis warned that China’s investments in its military’s AI systems – in particular, those supporting robotics, autonomy, precision munitions and cyber warfare – threaten to overtake the United States. Chinese government agencies are working closely with the country’s civilian businesses to keep on top of fast-changing technological developments.

In addition, some Chinese and Russian projects have developed military AI systems specifically aimed at what they perceive as US technological weaknesses. For instance, swarms of armed AI-enhanced drones might locate and attack the secure computer systems countries rely on to control and launch their nuclear weapons.

Pentagon’s response

So far the Pentagon’s actions have been largely bureaucratic, rather than concrete. It has released a Defense Department-wide strategy document that articulates broad principles for the development and use of AI in future warfare. The military has established a Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, which is tasked with accelerating the delivery and adoption of AI.

But projects with names like “the Third Offset,” “Project Maven” and the “AI Next Campaign” have minimal funding. Leaders have released few details about what they will actually do.

Working with Silicon Valley

The Pentagon has also established the Defense Innovation Unit, with permission to circumvent the cumbersome military purchasing process, to coordinate with Silicon Valley and bring new technologies into military use relatively quickly.

That unit has sparked discussions about the potential for the Chinese military to acquire and use US-designed technologies, which led to the US&nbsp;bans on doing business with many Chinese technology firms.

Many experts consider it possible for China to surpass the US&nbsp;in the development and use of AI. However, China trails the US in several ways. The United States has the world’s largest intelligence budget; the most popular hardware, software and technology companies; and the most advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, both offensive and defensive. I and other experts expect these advantages to preserve US&nbsp;technological leadership for now, at least – but perhaps not forever.

(James Johnson is Postdoctoral Fellow in Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-us-losing-the-artificial-intelligence-arms-race-124969">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 James Johnson The US government, long a proponent of advancing technology for military purposes, sees artificial intelligence as key to the next generation of fighting tools.

By James Johnson The US government, long a proponent of advancing technology for military purposes, sees artificial intelligence as key to the next generation of fighting tools. Several recent investments and Pentagon initiatives show that military leaders are concerned about keeping up with – and ahead of – China and Russia, two countries that have made big gains in developing artificial-intelligence systems. AI-powered weapons include target recognition systems, weapons guided by AI, and cyberattack and cyberdefense software that runs without human intervention. The US defence community is coming to understand that AI will significantly transform, if not completely reinvent, the world’s military power balance. The concern is more than the military. As Chinese and Russian technologies become more sophisticated, they threaten US domination of technological innovation and development, as well as global economic power and influence. Military leaders see the threat to US technological leadership coming from two main sources: A rising and ambitious China and a mischievous and declining Russia. Taken together, these forces challenge global stability. The nature of the threat A 2018 Pentagon report noted that technological developments could change the types of threats facing the US, which might include space-based weapons, long-range ballistic missiles and cyberweapons. A February 2019 analysis warned that China’s investments in its military’s AI systems – in particular, those supporting robotics, autonomy, precision munitions and cyber warfare – threaten to overtake the United States. Chinese government agencies are working closely with the country’s civilian businesses to keep on top of fast-changing technological developments. In addition, some Chinese and Russian projects have developed military AI systems specifically aimed at what they perceive as US technological weaknesses. For instance, swarms of armed AI-enhanced drones might locate and attack the secure computer systems countries rely on to control and launch their nuclear weapons. Pentagon’s response So far the Pentagon’s actions have been largely bureaucratic, rather than concrete. It has released a Defense Department-wide strategy document that articulates broad principles for the development and use of AI in future warfare. The military has established a Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, which is tasked with accelerating the delivery and adoption of AI. But projects with names like “the Third Offset,” “Project Maven” and the “AI Next Campaign” have minimal funding. Leaders have released few details about what they will actually do. Working with Silicon Valley The Pentagon has also established the Defense Innovation Unit, with permission to circumvent the cumbersome military purchasing process, to coordinate with Silicon Valley and bring new technologies into military use relatively quickly. That unit has sparked discussions about the potential for the Chinese military to acquire and use US-designed technologies, which led to the US bans on doing business with many Chinese technology firms. Many experts consider it possible for China to surpass the US in the development and use of AI. However, China trails the US in several ways. The United States has the world’s largest intelligence budget; the most popular hardware, software and technology companies; and the most advanced cyberwarfare capabilities, both offensive and defensive. I and other experts expect these advantages to preserve US technological leadership for now, at least – but perhaps not forever. (James Johnson is Postdoctoral Fellow in Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury Institute of International Studies) (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)

Is the US losing the artificial intelligence arms race?

By Natasha Lindstaedt

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State (IS), is dead. After US special forces raided his safe house in Idlib province in north-west Syria, Baghdadi reportedly fled and detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children. Over the past several years, there have been constant reports of his death but up until now, none of these reports have been verified.

The death of Osama bin Laden in 2011 did not lead to the end of Al-Qaeda, but what does al-Baghdadi’s death mean for IS?

Al-Baghdadi was most likely born in the Iraqi city of Samarra in 1971. Though he was a poor student with bad eyesight, he rose to command al-Qaeda’s Iraqi division. He was captured by US forces in a raid in 2004 in Falluja, Iraq, but was not considered to be particularly important at the time. Few would predict that Al-Baghdadi would rise to such a position of power. He was not noted for being particularly charismatic or memorable.

By 2010, al-Baghdadi took control of the group that would be eventually called the Islamic State, a group whose predecessor was Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI had been led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi until he was killed in 2006. Under the helm of al-Zarqawi, AQI had become one of the region’s most brutal and effective insurgent groups, controlling the flow of resources and foreign fighters into Iraq. By 2007, the group had almost faded away, but by 2009 it was gaining support in Sunni tribal areas now known as the Islamic State in Iraq.

Split with Al-Qaeda

By the time al-Baghdadi took over, a rift had grown between the wider al-Qaeda group and IS, which had been simmering since al-Zarqawi led AQI. To al-Qaeda, Baghdadi was excessively violent and counter-productive to al-Qaeda’s objectives. Extravagant brutality such as beheading Muslims would alienate most Muslims. Al-Qaeda was also alarmed at IS’s predatory strategy of taking territory and resources from other rebel groups.

Al-Baghdadi, for his part, had no interest in subsuming IS under the wider leadership of al-Qaeda. He sent delegates (who were mostly of Syrian descent) into Syria after the Syrian war began in March 2011, a decision which al-Qaeda rejected. After repeated attempts by al-Qaeda to convince al-Baghdadi to move out of Syria, it officially cut its ties with him in February 2014.

Al-Baghdadi believed that al-Qaeda was ineffective, and had failed to set up an actual state.

Declaration of the caliphate

In June 2014, al-Baghdadi made his first public appearance delivering a sermon from a mosque in the recently captured city of Mosul, where he claimed to come from the same tribe as the prophet Muhammad. He also brazenly declared himself to be the caliph – or the political and religious leader of the Muslim community. Though this declaration was universally rejected by Islamic authorities, his plan of setting up a caliphate attracted thousands of foreign fighters to his cause.

At the height of al-Baghdadi’s power, IS had set up organisational structures across multiple countries and created a de facto state, the size of Belgium with 8m people living under its control. He established a brutal justice system, legalised slavery, collected taxes and provided a handful of public services.

While Bin Laden was more concerned with overthrowing modern Arab dictators, eliminating Israel and knocking over Western symbols of power, al-Baghdadi focused more on reviving the glory of the past. His dramatic vision for IS attracted those that wanted to be considered to be part of a line of warriors that extended back to the Prophet Muhammad.

Fall from power

By 2017, IS’s fortunes started to turn. It had inspired or helped to plan a series of terrorist attacks in Belgium, the US, France and Turkey that drew increasing resolve from the West to step up efforts to eliminate the group. Iraq’s forces also became more effective against IS, eventually retaking Mosul in 2017.

By March of 2019, IS surrendered its final territorial stronghold in Baghouz, Syria after extensive fighting with the mostly Kurdish, Syrian Democratic Forces. IS no longer had territory that it could lay claim to, and without territory, it could not claim to be a valid caliphate.

In an attempt to strengthen his standing, al-Baghdadi appeared in a video in April to demonstrate that the group could still exist, even if it lacked territory. He tried to energise his fighters to redouble their efforts. This would be only the second time that he would appear to the public.

His decision not to appear in person was about ensuring his own safety. Airstrikes had already caused a series of injuries. To avoid being caught, he never used mobile phones and frequently changed safe houses.

This makes his presence in Idlib province in Syria where he died somewhat surprising. The province is controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an Islamist militia fiercely opposed to IS. The region is also currently under siege by Russian and Syrian forces.

What’s next for IS?

As I’ve argued in my own research, for most terrorist groups which are hierarchically organised, the death of a leader signals its demise. In fact most terrorist groups fall apart within a year of forming once the group has been decapitated. Terrorist groups that are larger and more cellular in structure, such as Al-Qaeda, have been able to weather the deaths of leaders, helping to explain the group’s longevity.

IS will likely name a successor to lead the group, and al-Baghdadi tried to prepare his followers that he would not live forever. But it could now start to operate in a way similar to Al-Qaeda with a cell-like structure, where it may attempt to plan terrorist attacks to signal its continued relevance to its followers. It needs to attract new numbers as it has seen its membership dwindle since its territory has disappeared.

The US decision to pull out of Syria has compromised the Kurds, who were managing detention centres holding captured IS fighters. The Turkish advance into Kurdish held territory in north-eastern Syria has led to the escape of several hundreds of IS fighters. The US, however, already claims it has gathered further intelligence from al-Baghdadi’s compound that will continue to weaken IS.

Studies of terrorist groups that have managed succession raise concerns that when one leader dies, the leadership that follows can be less disciplined, more violent and determined to exact revenge. Given Baghdadi’s penchant for brutality, it’s hard to imagine how that’s possible.

(Natasha Lindstaedt is Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/al-baghdadis-death-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-leader-of-islamic-state-125947">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Natasha Lindstaedt Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State (IS), is dead. After US special forces raided his safe house in Idlib province in north-west Syria, Baghdadi reportedly fled and detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children.

By Natasha Lindstaedt Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State (IS), is dead. After US special forces raided his safe house in Idlib province in north-west Syria, Baghdadi reportedly fled and detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and three of his children. Over the past several years, there have been constant reports of his death but up until now, none of these reports have been verified. The death of Osama bin Laden in 2011 did not lead to the end of Al-Qaeda, but what does al-Baghdadi’s death mean for IS? Al-Baghdadi was most likely born in the Iraqi city of Samarra in 1971. Though he was a poor student with bad eyesight, he rose to command al-Qaeda’s Iraqi division. He was captured by US forces in a raid in 2004 in Falluja, Iraq, but was not considered to be particularly important at the time. Few would predict that Al-Baghdadi would rise to such a position of power. He was not noted for being particularly charismatic or memorable. By 2010, al-Baghdadi took control of the group that would be eventually called the Islamic State, a group whose predecessor was Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). AQI had been led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi until he was killed in 2006. Under the helm of al-Zarqawi, AQI had become one of the region’s most brutal and effective insurgent groups, controlling the flow of resources and foreign fighters into Iraq. By 2007, the group had almost faded away, but by 2009 it was gaining support in Sunni tribal areas now known as the Islamic State in Iraq. Split with Al-Qaeda By the time al-Baghdadi took over, a rift had grown between the wider al-Qaeda group and IS, which had been simmering since al-Zarqawi led AQI. To al-Qaeda, Baghdadi was excessively violent and counter-productive to al-Qaeda’s objectives. Extravagant brutality such as beheading Muslims would alienate most Muslims. Al-Qaeda was also alarmed at IS’s predatory strategy of taking territory and resources from other rebel groups. Al-Baghdadi, for his part, had no interest in subsuming IS under the wider leadership of al-Qaeda. He sent delegates (who were mostly of Syrian descent) into Syria after the Syrian war began in March 2011, a decision which al-Qaeda rejected. After repeated attempts by al-Qaeda to convince al-Baghdadi to move out of Syria, it officially cut its ties with him in February 2014. Al-Baghdadi believed that al-Qaeda was ineffective, and had failed to set up an actual state. Declaration of the caliphate In June 2014, al-Baghdadi made his first public appearance delivering a sermon from a mosque in the recently captured city of Mosul, where he claimed to come from the same tribe as the prophet Muhammad. He also brazenly declared himself to be the caliph – or the political and religious leader of the Muslim community. Though this declaration was universally rejected by Islamic authorities, his plan of setting up a caliphate attracted thousands of foreign fighters to his cause. At the height of al-Baghdadi’s power, IS had set up organisational structures across multiple countries and created a de facto state, the size of Belgium with 8m people living under its control. He established a brutal justice system, legalised slavery, collected taxes and provided a handful of public services. While Bin Laden was more concerned with overthrowing modern Arab dictators, eliminating Israel and knocking over Western symbols of power, al-Baghdadi focused more on reviving the glory of the past. His dramatic vision for IS attracted those that wanted to be considered to be part of a line of warriors that extended back to the Prophet Muhammad. Fall from power By 2017, IS’s fortunes started to turn. It had inspired or helped to plan a series of terrorist attacks in Belgium, the US, France and Turkey that drew increasing resolve from the West to step up efforts to eliminate the group. Iraq’s forces also became more effective against IS, eventually retaking Mosul in 2017. By March of 2019, IS surrendered its final territorial stronghold in Baghouz, Syria after extensive fighting with the mostly Kurdish, Syrian Democratic Forces. IS no longer had territory that it could lay claim to, and without territory, it could not claim to be a valid caliphate. In an attempt to strengthen his standing, al-Baghdadi appeared in a video in April to demonstrate that the group could still exist, even if it lacked territory. He tried to energise his fighters to redouble their efforts. This would be only the second time that he would appear to the public. His decision not to appear in person was about ensuring his own safety. Airstrikes had already caused a series of injuries. To avoid being caught, he never used mobile phones and frequently changed safe houses. This makes his presence in Idlib province in Syria where he died somewhat surprising. The province is controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, an Islamist militia fiercely opposed to IS. The region is also currently under siege by Russian and Syrian forces. What’s next for IS? As I’ve argued in my own research, for most terrorist groups which are hierarchically organised, the death of a leader signals its demise. In fact most terrorist groups fall apart within a year of forming once the group has been decapitated. Terrorist groups that are larger and more cellular in structure, such as Al-Qaeda, have been able to weather the deaths of leaders, helping to explain the group’s longevity. IS will likely name a successor to lead the group, and al-Baghdadi tried to prepare his followers that he would not live forever. But it could now start to operate in a way similar to Al-Qaeda with a cell-like structure, where it may attempt to plan terrorist attacks to signal its continued relevance to its followers. It needs to attract new numbers as it has seen its membership dwindle since its territory has disappeared. The US decision to pull out of Syria has compromised the Kurds, who were managing detention centres holding captured IS fighters. The Turkish advance into Kurdish held territory in north-eastern Syria has led to the escape of several hundreds of IS fighters. The US, however, already claims it has gathered further intelligence from al-Baghdadi’s compound that will continue to weaken IS. Studies of terrorist groups that have managed succession raise concerns that when one leader dies, the leadership that follows can be less disciplined, more violent and determined to exact revenge. Given Baghdadi’s penchant for brutality, it’s hard to imagine how that’s possible. (Natasha Lindstaedt is Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex) (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)

Al-Baghdadi’s death: The rise and fall of the leader of Islamic State

Trump shares image of hero dog injured in Baghdadi raid. Watch video to know more.

Trump shares image of hero dog injured in Baghdadi raid

A Step-By-Step Account Of The U.S. Operation That Killed Terrorist Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

Gravitas: US kills Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: Here's how it unfolded

By Vahid Niayesh

Did President Donald Trump’s travel ban – in place now for more than 22 months – become, in practice, a Muslim ban?

The third version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban went into full effect on December 8, 2017.

The list of countries whose citizens are banned from entering the United States include Muslim-majority countries Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia, as well as North Korea and Venezuela.

Now that time has passed, policymakers, political scientists like myself and all Americans can start to understand the ban’s effects.

Was it actually a Muslim ban, as it was called at the time it was introduced? Or was that just an anti-Trump label? What percentage of people from those banned countries did pass the “enhanced vetting” and get an actual visa to enter the United States?

I looked through the government’s data to find answers.

Sharp decline

The US Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs regularly provides data on the number of visas issued for all countries.

Based on the data the agency provides for the fiscal year, the number of immigrant visas issued for the country of Iran decreased by 78 per cent between 2017 and 2018.

However, the fiscal year data for the year 2018 included the last three months of 2017, when the travel ban wasn’t still implemented. I broke the data down by months to understand how travel ban changed the number of visas issued from calendar year to calendar year. This offered a more accurate picture of the travel ban.

This analysis shows that only 537 immigrant visas were issued in 2018 for the 12 months after the travel ban went into effect for individuals born in Iran. Compare that to 6,643 visas issued in the previous year. That is a 92 per cent decrease in number of visas issued.

Other Muslim countries in the ban were similarly affected.

For instance, Somalia experienced 86 per cent decrease in number of immigrant visas issued during the 12 months after the travel ban went into effect. Yemen’s visas reduced by 83 per cent.

Libya and Syria had the smallest change among the Muslim countries in the ban, decreasing by 80 per cent and 77 per cent respectively.

Muslim vs non-Muslim countries

Many critics of the new travel rules argued that they were effectively a “Muslim ban.”

The Trump administration countered that there are Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that are not included in the travel ban, and there are non-Muslim countries like Venezuela and North Korea that are included.

However, US Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs data shows that there was a significant decrease in the number of immigrant visas issued to Muslim countries affected by the travel ban. Meanwhile, the number of immigrant visas issued per month to the non-Muslim countries in the ban virtually remained unchanged.

In fact, there was a 40 per cent increase in the number of visas issued to North Koreans per calendar-year data, relative to the prior year, when the travel ban was blocked by federal courts.

Country of chargeability

There are some questions that government data cannot answer.

For example, rather than providing data on where each visa recipient lives, the U.S. Department of State by report if the Visa Office only offers information on the country of chargeability, which basically means where the applicant was born.

There were five fiancé visas issued to Iranians in calendar year 2018, compared to 358 fiancé visas issued in 2017. But even that low number does not tell us whether these five visas were given to Iranians that actually lived inside Iran. These visas may have been given to Iranians who had been living in Canada or Europe for many years but were born in Iran.

The actual impact of the Trump travel ban, in other words, could be even bigger than what the data shows.

Visas and waivers

Waivers are another important issue that is hard to study.

The vast majority people from the seven restricted countries who applied for a visa after the implementation of the ban were rejected outright.

However, US officials may grant a waiver to someone if there is evidence that the applicant is facing so much undue hardship that they need to be united with their loved ones in the US.

This could happen, for example, if a family member in the United States is dying and a person from a restricted nation wants to see them one last time, like the Yemeni mother who got a chance to see her baby boy just two days before he died.

In the first six months after the full implementation of the ban, such waivers were only given to around 2 per cent of individuals from banned countries. This gradually increased to 6 per cent after one year.

Being considered for a waiver is not the same as getting a visa. A person who is being considered for a waiver still cannot enter the US. They must wait under “administrative processing” status until they are cleared for a visa. It could take several years before applicants find out the results of their application. During this period, they cannot enter the U.S.

One recent lawsuit against the travel ban claims that some of their 14 clients have been under consideration for a waiver for 18 months at least, with no visa being granted to any of them yet.

What’s next

The first congressional hearing on the travel ban, held on September 24, established a need to reassess the impacts of the policy.

From what I see, looking at 18 months of government-provided data, the current travel ban is in effect a Muslim ban. I think that policymakers should take a deeper look into travel ban statistics and hold the Trump administration accountable for its visa policy for the restricted countries.

(Vahid Niayesh is Lecturer in Political Science, California State University, Long Beach)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-travel-ban-really-looks-like-almost-two-years-in-123564"> 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 Vahid Niayesh Did President Donald Trump’s travel ban – in place now for more than 22 months – become, in practice, a Muslim ban? The third version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban went into full effect on December 8, 2017.

By Vahid Niayesh Did President Donald Trump’s travel ban – in place now for more than 22 months – become, in practice, a Muslim ban? The third version of President Donald Trump’s travel ban went into full effect on December 8, 2017. The list of countries whose citizens are banned from entering the United States include Muslim-majority countries Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Somalia, as well as North Korea and Venezuela. Now that time has passed, policymakers, political scientists like myself and all Americans can start to understand the ban’s effects. Was it actually a Muslim ban, as it was called at the time it was introduced? Or was that just an anti-Trump label? What percentage of people from those banned countries did pass the “enhanced vetting” and get an actual visa to enter the United States? I looked through the government’s data to find answers. Sharp decline The US Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs regularly provides data on the number of visas issued for all countries. Based on the data the agency provides for the fiscal year, the number of immigrant visas issued for the country of Iran decreased by 78 per cent between 2017 and 2018. However, the fiscal year data for the year 2018 included the last three months of 2017, when the travel ban wasn’t still implemented. I broke the data down by months to understand how travel ban changed the number of visas issued from calendar year to calendar year. This offered a more accurate picture of the travel ban. This analysis shows that only 537 immigrant visas were issued in 2018 for the 12 months after the travel ban went into effect for individuals born in Iran. Compare that to 6,643 visas issued in the previous year. That is a 92 per cent decrease in number of visas issued. Other Muslim countries in the ban were similarly affected. For instance, Somalia experienced 86 per cent decrease in number of immigrant visas issued during the 12 months after the travel ban went into effect. Yemen’s visas reduced by 83 per cent. Libya and Syria had the smallest change among the Muslim countries in the ban, decreasing by 80 per cent and 77 per cent respectively. Muslim vs non-Muslim countries Many critics of the new travel rules argued that they were effectively a “Muslim ban.” The Trump administration countered that there are Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan that are not included in the travel ban, and there are non-Muslim countries like Venezuela and North Korea that are included. However, US Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs data shows that there was a significant decrease in the number of immigrant visas issued to Muslim countries affected by the travel ban. Meanwhile, the number of immigrant visas issued per month to the non-Muslim countries in the ban virtually remained unchanged. In fact, there was a 40 per cent increase in the number of visas issued to North Koreans per calendar-year data, relative to the prior year, when the travel ban was blocked by federal courts. Country of chargeability There are some questions that government data cannot answer. For example, rather than providing data on where each visa recipient lives, the U.S. Department of State by report if the Visa Office only offers information on the country of chargeability, which basically means where the applicant was born. There were five fiancé visas issued to Iranians in calendar year 2018, compared to 358 fiancé visas issued in 2017. But even that low number does not tell us whether these five visas were given to Iranians that actually lived inside Iran. These visas may have been given to Iranians who had been living in Canada or Europe for many years but were born in Iran. The actual impact of the Trump travel ban, in other words, could be even bigger than what the data shows. Visas and waivers Waivers are another important issue that is hard to study. The vast majority people from the seven restricted countries who applied for a visa after the implementation of the ban were rejected outright. However, US officials may grant a waiver to someone if there is evidence that the applicant is facing so much undue hardship that they need to be united with their loved ones in the US. This could happen, for example, if a family member in the United States is dying and a person from a restricted nation wants to see them one last time, like the Yemeni mother who got a chance to see her baby boy just two days before he died. In the first six months after the full implementation of the ban, such waivers were only given to around 2 per cent of individuals from banned countries. This gradually increased to 6 per cent after one year. Being considered for a waiver is not the same as getting a visa. A person who is being considered for a waiver still cannot enter the US. They must wait under “administrative processing” status until they are cleared for a visa. It could take several years before applicants find out the results of their application. During this period, they cannot enter the U.S. One recent lawsuit against the travel ban claims that some of their 14 clients have been under consideration for a waiver for 18 months at least, with no visa being granted to any of them yet. What’s next The first congressional hearing on the travel ban, held on September 24, established a need to reassess the impacts of the policy. From what I see, looking at 18 months of government-provided data, the current travel ban is in effect a Muslim ban. I think that policymakers should take a deeper look into travel ban statistics and hold the Trump administration accountable for its visa policy for the restricted countries. (Vahid Niayesh is Lecturer in Political Science, California State University, Long Beach) (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)

What Donald Trump’s travel ban really looks like, almost two years in

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, America's big tech companies are being challenged on many fronts from across the political spectrum, from antitrust concerns to their policies on political ads and ensuring election security.

Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have argued in favour of either breaking up or tightening regulation of firms such as Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Amazon.com Inc.

Republican President Donald Trump's administration has also stepped up its scrutiny, announcing a wide-ranging investigation in July into whether major digital tech companies engaged in anti-competitive practices.

Trump's Democratic challengers also criticise online platforms for allowing politicians to make false claims in advertising ahead of the election next November.

Social media platforms are under particular scrutiny after US&nbsp;intelligence agencies said Russia used them to wage an influence operation to interfere with the 2016 election - a claim Moscow has denied.

Here are some of the candidates' positions on Big Tech.

President Trump

Trump, whose social media use and digital advertising campaign helped propel him to the White House in 2016, in September attacked the "immense power" of social media giants in his address to the United Nations.

Trump has stopped short of calling for tech giants to be broken up, as Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have, but said "obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly," when asked about major tech companies in a June interview with CNBC.

Trump and other Republicans have also criticized social media companies, without evidence, for alleged political bias.

The president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. wrote an opinion piece for The Hill political website in September entitled "Free speech suppression online builds case to break up Big Tech."

Silicon Valley firms have also been at odds with the Trump administration over policies such as its repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules and the impact of the U.S.-China trade war on their supply chains.

Joe Biden

Biden, who was vice president in the Silicon Valley-friendly Obama administration, has taken a more moderate stance than his progressive rivals on the issue of big tech company break-ups.

In a May interview with the Associated Press, he said that splitting up companies such as Facebook was "something we should take a really hard look at" but that it was "premature" to make a final judgment.

The campaign told Reuters that, as president, Biden would aggressively use "all the tools available - including utilizing antitrust measures" to ensure corporations act responsibly.

He did not speak up during a discussion of the issue at the most recent Democratic debate in October.

Biden has criticized e-commerce giant Amazon's $0 federal tax bill in 2018.

"I have nothing against Amazon, but no company pulling in billions of dollars of profits should pay a lower tax rate than firefighters and teachers. We need to reward work, not just wealth," he said in a tweet in June.

His campaign also clashed with Facebook, Twitter and Google over their political ad policies after they refused to take down a Trump ad that the Biden team said contained false claims about his son Hunter's dealings with Ukraine.

Elizabeth Warren

Warren is leading the charge to break up big tech companies on the grounds they hold outsized influence and stifle competition.

She has called for legislation to restrict large tech platforms - which she would designate as "platform utilities" -from owning and participating in a marketplace at the same time.

Under this law, Apple would not be allowed to both run the App Store and sell its own apps on it, for example.

She also said she would nominate regulators to unwind anti-competitive mergers such as Facebook's deals for WhatsApp and Instagram, and Amazon's deal for Whole Foods.

Warren in October challenged Facebook's policy of exempting politicians' ads from fact-checking by running ads containing the false claim that CEO Mark Zuckerberg was endorsing Trump's re-election bid.

The senator from Massachusetts has also said that she would reject campaign donations over $200 from executives of big tech firms.

Bernie Sanders

Sanders, a US senator from Vermont who frequently criticizes corporate influence, has also called for the break-up of big tech companies such as Facebook and Amazon.

His administration would "absolutely" try to split apart the companies, Sanders said at a Washington Post event in July.

He has said that he will have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review all mergers that have taken place during the Trump administration. His broad plan to reshape corporate America would also mandate all large companies to be owned partly by their workers.

Asked how he differentiates himself from Warren on major issues, Sanders told ABC in October: "Elizabeth considers herself - if I got the quote correctly - to be a capitalist to her bones. I don't."

Sanders has been vocal in his attacks on Amazon over issues such as its tax contributions and working conditions at its warehouses. In 2018, he introduced a 'Stop BEZOS Act' in the Senate, in a reference to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, which would make large corporations either pay their workers more or pay the government for public benefits that their workers receive.

Pete Buttigieg

In general, Pete Buttigieg, who became Facebook's 287th user shortly after it was launched in 2004 at Harvard University, where he was a student, has been more reluctant to slam the tech giants than some other candidates.

The mayor from South Bend, Indiana, said that the break-up of big tech companies is a "remedy that should be on the table," but also said it was not a politician's place to designate which companies should be broken up.

He has said that the FTC should be empowered to prevent and sometimes reverse mergers, but argued that large tech companies should be scrutinized for their actions rather than their size. He says concerns over monopolies and concerns over data security or privacy should not be conflated.

He is in favour of having legislation to protect individual data rights at a national level, including the right to be forgotten - which would give citizens the power to demand that online platforms delete data about them, as is the case in Europe.

Kamala Harris

Senator Harris of California, the home of Silicon Valley, has said that Facebook has not been sufficiently regulated. She has not called outright for the break-up of big tech firms but said it should be "seriously" considered.

During the campaign, Harris touted her experience protecting consumers' online privacy while she was state attorney general.

In Congress, Harris, along with fellow candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar, introduced the bipartisan ENOUGH Act in 2017 to protect against online exploitation of private images. Harris recently called on Twitter to suspend Trump's Twitter account, saying his tweets threaten violence. In response, the company said that Trump's tweets did not violate its policies.

Amy Klobuchar

The Minnesota senator has made oversight of big technology companies one of her major issues in Congress and argued for data privacy laws and net neutrality safeguards as priorities at her campaign launch in February. Klobuchar has called for tighter regulation of tech giants and suggested that companies who profit from users' data could be taxed.

She has not endorsed Warren's plan for their break-up, saying that she would first want investigations. Her plan for her first 100 days in office includes an "aggressive retrospective review of mergers," which she said she would pay for with an extra merger fee on "megamergers."

She is also one of the authors of the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which would require social media platforms to disclose the purchaser of a political ad, as is required for television and print ads.

Andrew Yang

Yang, the former CEO of a start-up, has benefited from a surge of grassroots supporters on social media who style themselves as the #yanggang.

Although the technology entrepreneur said "we would be well served" if big tech companies were to break themselves up, he is more focused on dealing with the impact of automation on American jobs and on regulating artificial intelligence. Yang has also emphasized the negative effects of tech on mental health and said he would create a Department of Attention Economy, ideally led by tech ethics advocate Tristan Harris, to look at how to responsibly design and use apps and devices.

He has also called for people to receive a share of the economic value generated from their data.

Cory Booker

New Jersey Senator Booker said that Warren's call to break up the tech giants was "more like a Donald Trump thing to say" and has instead argued that stronger antitrust laws need to be enforced.

When questioned at the October Democratic debate on the issue, Booker advocated reforms to stop tech companies being used "to undermine our democracy" around elections.

He talked broadly about antitrust, "from pharma to farms," but did not single out tech companies.

A Stanford University graduate who co-founded his own social media start-up WayWire, Booker has historically received donations from major Silicon Valley names such as Zuckerberg. The Facebook CEO also donated $100 million to Newark schools when Booker was mayor of the New Jersey city.

Beto O' Rourke

O'Rourke, a former US representative from Texas, wants to see Big Tech regulated rather than broken up. He has said he does not think it is the role of a president to designate which companies should be dismantled.

O'Rourke's campaign told Reuters he would stand up for small business by preventing online platform owners from promoting their own content and products over that of competitors. He also plans to create a new digital markets regulator to create and enforce rules on issues such as privacy and data mobility.

O’Rourke, who as a teenager was part of an influential hacking group, has also said he thinks social media companies should be treated as publishers.

He wants to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally provides immunity to online platforms for content posted by users, to make social media companies more accountable for the amplification of hate speech and domestic terrorism on their platforms.

His campaign recently urged Facebook, Twitter and Google to do more to combat online disinformation, after the campaign encountered the spread of a false claim about a gunman in a mass shooting.

Julian Castro

Castro, who was secretary of housing and urban development in the Obama administration, has said it is worth considering proposals to break up the big tech companies and said during the recent Democratic debate that the US&nbsp;needs to take a stronger stance in cracking down on monopolistic trade practices.

In the October debate, the former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, also singled out Amazon by name for helping to "put small businesses out of business" and for "shortchanging a lot of its workers."

Tulsi Gabbard

Gabbard, a US representative from Hawaii, has called for the break-up of big tech companies and praised Warren's plan.

In July, she filed a $50 million lawsuit against Google accusing the company of discrimination when it temporarily suspended her ad account after the first Democratic debate. Google said the account had been automatically flagged for unusual activity, without specifying exactly what the issue was.

Gabbard said that Google's actions reflected "how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values."

Tom Steyer

California billionaire Steyer has said he is running for president to remove the influence of corporate money from politics.

In the October debate, he said that monopolies either have to be dismantled or regulated, but that to win against Trump, Democrats would have to "show the American people that we don't just know how to tax and have programs to break up companies."

Instead, he said, Democrats must harness the innovation and competition of the private sector.

Steyer's campaign has been noted for its massive ad spending which helped push him to the debate stage, including more than $6 million in Facebook ads, according to Democratic digital firm Bully Pulpit Interactive.

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, America's big tech companies are being challenged on many fronts from across the political spectrum, from antitrust concerns to their policies on political ads and ensuring election security.

In the run-up to the 2020 presidential election, America's big tech companies are being challenged on many fronts from across the political spectrum, from antitrust concerns to their policies on political ads and ensuring election security. Many of the Democratic presidential candidates have argued in favour of either breaking up or tightening regulation of firms such as Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Amazon.com Inc. Republican President Donald Trump's administration has also stepped up its scrutiny, announcing a wide-ranging investigation in July into whether major digital tech companies engaged in anti-competitive practices. Trump's Democratic challengers also criticise online platforms for allowing politicians to make false claims in advertising ahead of the election next November. Social media platforms are under particular scrutiny after US intelligence agencies said Russia used them to wage an influence operation to interfere with the 2016 election - a claim Moscow has denied. Here are some of the candidates' positions on Big Tech. President Trump Trump, whose social media use and digital advertising campaign helped propel him to the White House in 2016, in September attacked the "immense power" of social media giants in his address to the United Nations. Trump has stopped short of calling for tech giants to be broken up, as Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have, but said "obviously there is something going on in terms of monopoly," when asked about major tech companies in a June interview with CNBC. Trump and other Republicans have also criticized social media companies, without evidence, for alleged political bias. The president's eldest son, Donald Trump Jr. wrote an opinion piece for The Hill political website in September entitled "Free speech suppression online builds case to break up Big Tech." Silicon Valley firms have also been at odds with the Trump administration over policies such as its repeal of Obama-era net neutrality rules and the impact of the U.S.-China trade war on their supply chains. Joe Biden Biden, who was vice president in the Silicon Valley-friendly Obama administration, has taken a more moderate stance than his progressive rivals on the issue of big tech company break-ups. In a May interview with the Associated Press, he said that splitting up companies such as Facebook was "something we should take a really hard look at" but that it was "premature" to make a final judgment. The campaign told Reuters that, as president, Biden would aggressively use "all the tools available - including utilizing antitrust measures" to ensure corporations act responsibly. He did not speak up during a discussion of the issue at the most recent Democratic debate in October. Biden has criticized e-commerce giant Amazon's $0 federal tax bill in 2018. "I have nothing against Amazon, but no company pulling in billions of dollars of profits should pay a lower tax rate than firefighters and teachers. We need to reward work, not just wealth," he said in a tweet in June. His campaign also clashed with Facebook, Twitter and Google over their political ad policies after they refused to take down a Trump ad that the Biden team said contained false claims about his son Hunter's dealings with Ukraine. Elizabeth Warren Warren is leading the charge to break up big tech companies on the grounds they hold outsized influence and stifle competition. She has called for legislation to restrict large tech platforms - which she would designate as "platform utilities" -from owning and participating in a marketplace at the same time. Under this law, Apple would not be allowed to both run the App Store and sell its own apps on it, for example. She also said she would nominate regulators to unwind anti-competitive mergers such as Facebook's deals for WhatsApp and Instagram, and Amazon's deal for Whole Foods. Warren in October challenged Facebook's policy of exempting politicians' ads from fact-checking by running ads containing the false claim that CEO Mark Zuckerberg was endorsing Trump's re-election bid. The senator from Massachusetts has also said that she would reject campaign donations over $200 from executives of big tech firms. Bernie Sanders Sanders, a US senator from Vermont who frequently criticizes corporate influence, has also called for the break-up of big tech companies such as Facebook and Amazon. His administration would "absolutely" try to split apart the companies, Sanders said at a Washington Post event in July. He has said that he will have the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) review all mergers that have taken place during the Trump administration. His broad plan to reshape corporate America would also mandate all large companies to be owned partly by their workers. Asked how he differentiates himself from Warren on major issues, Sanders told ABC in October: "Elizabeth considers herself - if I got the quote correctly - to be a capitalist to her bones. I don't." Sanders has been vocal in his attacks on Amazon over issues such as its tax contributions and working conditions at its warehouses. In 2018, he introduced a 'Stop BEZOS Act' in the Senate, in a reference to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, which would make large corporations either pay their workers more or pay the government for public benefits that their workers receive. Pete Buttigieg In general, Pete Buttigieg, who became Facebook's 287th user shortly after it was launched in 2004 at Harvard University, where he was a student, has been more reluctant to slam the tech giants than some other candidates. The mayor from South Bend, Indiana, said that the break-up of big tech companies is a "remedy that should be on the table," but also said it was not a politician's place to designate which companies should be broken up. He has said that the FTC should be empowered to prevent and sometimes reverse mergers, but argued that large tech companies should be scrutinized for their actions rather than their size. He says concerns over monopolies and concerns over data security or privacy should not be conflated. He is in favour of having legislation to protect individual data rights at a national level, including the right to be forgotten - which would give citizens the power to demand that online platforms delete data about them, as is the case in Europe. Kamala Harris Senator Harris of California, the home of Silicon Valley, has said that Facebook has not been sufficiently regulated. She has not called outright for the break-up of big tech firms but said it should be "seriously" considered. During the campaign, Harris touted her experience protecting consumers' online privacy while she was state attorney general. In Congress, Harris, along with fellow candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar, introduced the bipartisan ENOUGH Act in 2017 to protect against online exploitation of private images. Harris recently called on Twitter to suspend Trump's Twitter account, saying his tweets threaten violence. In response, the company said that Trump's tweets did not violate its policies. Amy Klobuchar The Minnesota senator has made oversight of big technology companies one of her major issues in Congress and argued for data privacy laws and net neutrality safeguards as priorities at her campaign launch in February. Klobuchar has called for tighter regulation of tech giants and suggested that companies who profit from users' data could be taxed. She has not endorsed Warren's plan for their break-up, saying that she would first want investigations. Her plan for her first 100 days in office includes an "aggressive retrospective review of mergers," which she said she would pay for with an extra merger fee on "megamergers." She is also one of the authors of the bipartisan Honest Ads Act, which would require social media platforms to disclose the purchaser of a political ad, as is required for television and print ads. Andrew Yang Yang, the former CEO of a start-up, has benefited from a surge of grassroots supporters on social media who style themselves as the #yanggang. Although the technology entrepreneur said "we would be well served" if big tech companies were to break themselves up, he is more focused on dealing with the impact of automation on American jobs and on regulating artificial intelligence. Yang has also emphasized the negative effects of tech on mental health and said he would create a Department of Attention Economy, ideally led by tech ethics advocate Tristan Harris, to look at how to responsibly design and use apps and devices. He has also called for people to receive a share of the economic value generated from their data. Cory Booker New Jersey Senator Booker said that Warren's call to break up the tech giants was "more like a Donald Trump thing to say" and has instead argued that stronger antitrust laws need to be enforced. When questioned at the October Democratic debate on the issue, Booker advocated reforms to stop tech companies being used "to undermine our democracy" around elections. He talked broadly about antitrust, "from pharma to farms," but did not single out tech companies. A Stanford University graduate who co-founded his own social media start-up WayWire, Booker has historically received donations from major Silicon Valley names such as Zuckerberg. The Facebook CEO also donated $100 million to Newark schools when Booker was mayor of the New Jersey city. Beto O' Rourke O'Rourke, a former US representative from Texas, wants to see Big Tech regulated rather than broken up. He has said he does not think it is the role of a president to designate which companies should be dismantled. O'Rourke's campaign told Reuters he would stand up for small business by preventing online platform owners from promoting their own content and products over that of competitors. He also plans to create a new digital markets regulator to create and enforce rules on issues such as privacy and data mobility. O’Rourke, who as a teenager was part of an influential hacking group, has also said he thinks social media companies should be treated as publishers. He wants to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which generally provides immunity to online platforms for content posted by users, to make social media companies more accountable for the amplification of hate speech and domestic terrorism on their platforms. His campaign recently urged Facebook, Twitter and Google to do more to combat online disinformation, after the campaign encountered the spread of a false claim about a gunman in a mass shooting. Julian Castro Castro, who was secretary of housing and urban development in the Obama administration, has said it is worth considering proposals to break up the big tech companies and said during the recent Democratic debate that the US needs to take a stronger stance in cracking down on monopolistic trade practices. In the October debate, the former mayor of San Antonio, Texas, also singled out Amazon by name for helping to "put small businesses out of business" and for "shortchanging a lot of its workers." Tulsi Gabbard Gabbard, a US representative from Hawaii, has called for the break-up of big tech companies and praised Warren's plan. In July, she filed a $50 million lawsuit against Google accusing the company of discrimination when it temporarily suspended her ad account after the first Democratic debate. Google said the account had been automatically flagged for unusual activity, without specifying exactly what the issue was. Gabbard said that Google's actions reflected "how the increasing dominance of big tech companies over our public discourse threatens our core American values." Tom Steyer California billionaire Steyer has said he is running for president to remove the influence of corporate money from politics. In the October debate, he said that monopolies either have to be dismantled or regulated, but that to win against Trump, Democrats would have to "show the American people that we don't just know how to tax and have programs to break up companies." Instead, he said, Democrats must harness the innovation and competition of the private sector. Steyer's campaign has been noted for its massive ad spending which helped push him to the debate stage, including more than $6 million in Facebook ads, according to Democratic digital firm Bully Pulpit Interactive.

Where US presidential candidates stand on breaking up Big Tech

Summarising The Response From The U.S. & The World To The Death Of Terrorist al-Baghdadi

Gravitas: How The World Reacted To The Death Of Al-baghdadi

Russia's big charge at the U.S., 'U.S. troops oversaw smuggling of oil from Syria'. Watch this video to know more.

Russia's big charge at the U.S., 'U.S. troops oversaw smuggling of oil from Syria'

North Korea said Sunday the United States must not exploit the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/north-koreas-kim-jong-un-and-trump-have-special-relationship-state-media-257802">"close personal relations"</a> between Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump as negotiations over Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal remain deadlocked.

Talks between Pyongyang and Washington have stalled since a second summit between Trump and Kim in Hanoi in February broke down without an agreement.

The two have since blamed each other for the failure of the summit, with the North demanding the US bring forward a "new method" by the end of the year.

Kim Yong Chol, who served as the North's counterpart to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo until the collapse of the Hanoi meeting, credited Trump and Kim's close ties for salvaging the diplomacy but warned they were not enough.

"There is a limit to everything," Kim, now the chairman of the Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency.

"The close personal relations can never be kept aloof from the public mindset and they are never a guarantee for preventing the DPRK-US relations from getting aggravated," he said using the acronym for the North's official name.

It was a rare statement by the former top envoy, who was rumoured to have been purged following the collapse of the Hanoi summit until he reappeared in a photo accompanying Kim Jong Un at an art performance in June.

His comment comes just days after Trump touted his close ties with the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/north-korea-leader-kim-vows-to-clear-south-korea-relics-from-kumgang-resort-257625">North Korean leader</a>, saying they liked each other and shared mutual "respect".

Pyongyang reciprocated in a statement by a top official, citing Kim as saying "the relationship between him and President Trump is special".

After trading threats of war and insults in 2017, the two leaders held a high-profile summit in Singapore last year, with Kim signing a vague pledge to work towards "denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula".

But little progress has been made after an unsuccessful second summit in Hanoi in February, and earlier this month, the North broke off the latest round of working-level talks in Sweden.&nbsp;

North Korea said Sunday the United States must not exploit the "close personal relations" between Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump as negotiations over Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal remain deadlocked.

North Korea said Sunday the United States must not exploit the "close personal relations" between Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump as negotiations over Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal remain deadlocked. Talks between Pyongyang and Washington have stalled since a second summit between Trump and Kim in Hanoi in February broke down without an agreement. The two have since blamed each other for the failure of the summit, with the North demanding the US bring forward a "new method" by the end of the year. Kim Yong Chol, who served as the North's counterpart to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo until the collapse of the Hanoi meeting, credited Trump and Kim's close ties for salvaging the diplomacy but warned they were not enough. "There is a limit to everything," Kim, now the chairman of the Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, said in a statement carried by the official KCNA news agency. "The close personal relations can never be kept aloof from the public mindset and they are never a guarantee for preventing the DPRK-US relations from getting aggravated," he said using the acronym for the North's official name. It was a rare statement by the former top envoy, who was rumoured to have been purged following the collapse of the Hanoi summit until he reappeared in a photo accompanying Kim Jong Un at an art performance in June. His comment comes just days after Trump touted his close ties with the North Korean leader, saying they liked each other and shared mutual "respect". Pyongyang reciprocated in a statement by a top official, citing Kim as saying "the relationship between him and President Trump is special". After trading threats of war and insults in 2017, the two leaders held a high-profile summit in Singapore last year, with Kim signing a vague pledge to work towards "denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula". But little progress has been made after an unsuccessful second summit in Hanoi in February, and earlier this month, the North broke off the latest round of working-level talks in Sweden.

North Korea warns United States not to exploit 'close' Trump-Kim ties

By Greg Barton

“Remaining and expanding”. The propaganda tagline of Islamic State (IS) has rung hollow since the collapse of the physical caliphate. But recent developments in northeastern Syria threaten to give it fresh legitimacy.

US President Donald Trump lifted sanctions on Turkey after he announced the Turkish government agreed to a permanent ceasefire in northern Syria.

In a televised speech, he pushed back against criticisms of his decision to remove 1,000 troops from Syria, abandoning their Kurdish allies.

This decision allowed Turkish forces – a hybrid of Turkish military and Free Syrian Army rebels, including jihadi extremists – to surge across the Turkish border and begin intense bombardment of towns and cities liberated from IS.

Just how quickly and how far IS will rise from now remains unclear. One thing that’s certain, however, is that IS and the al-Qaeda movement that spawned it, plan and act for the long-term. They believe in their divine destiny and are prepared to sacrifice anything to achieve it.

In speaking about the resurgence of IS, we risk talking up the IS brand, the very thing it cares so very much about. But the greater risk is underestimating the capacity for reinvention, resilience and enduring appeal of IS.

And complacency and short-sighted politics threaten to lead us to repeat the mistakes of a decade ago that saw a decimated Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) insurgency roar back to life.

From violent beginnings

In 2006, Sunni tribes in northwestern Iraq killed or arrested the majority of ISI fighters with US support, reducing their strength from many thousands to a few hundred.

But with no backing for the Sunni tribes from the poorly functioning, Shia-dominated government in Baghdad, the outbreak of civil war in Syria, and the draw-down of US troops, ISI launched an insurgency in Syria before rising triumphant as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

ISIS quickly became the most potent terrorist group in history, drawing more than 40,000 fighters from around the world, and seizing control of northeastern Syria and northwestern Iraq.

The final defeat of the IS caliphate in northeastern Syria came after five hard years of fighting and 11,000 lives from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), largely composed of members of the Kurdish YPG.

To the US, the SDF fighters were local partners and boots-on-the-ground after multiple false starts and expensive mistakes from allying with rebel groups in the Free Syrian Army. Without this SDF alliance, the IS caliphate could not be toppled.

Trump’s betrayal could open up ISIS recruitment

Donald Trump’s betrayal of the SDF in recent weeks is disastrous on several levels. It ignores the threat IS represents and validates ISIS’s central narrative.

What’s more, it contributes to the very circumstances of neglect, cynical short-term thinking and governance failures that lead to giving the IS insurgency an open pathway for recruiting.

Trump’s reckless move to withdraw 1,000 special forces troops from Syria comes from an impatience to end an 18-year long “Global War on Terrorism” military campaign of unprecedented expense.

This is somewhat understandable. After almost $6 trillion of US Federal expenditure and two decades of fighting, surely enough is enough.

But the inconvenient truth is IS and al-Qaeda jihadi fighters around the world have increased, in some estimates nearly four-fold, since September 11.

Still, betraying the SDF and pulling out of Syria for small short-term savings risks jeopardising all that has been achieved in defeating the IS caliphate in northwestern Iraq.

IS hardliners in overcrowded camps

IS will never return to its days of power as a physical caliphate, but all the evidence points to it tipping past an inflection point and beginning a long, steady resurgence.

IS has thousands of terrorist fighters still active in the field in northern Iraq. They’re attacking by night and rebuilding strength from disgruntled Sunni communities, as well as having thousands of fighters lying low in Syria.

But in recent months, the tempo of IS attacks has shifted from Iraq to Syria with the previously hidden insurgency reemerging.

As many as 12,000 terrorist fighters, including 2,000 foreigners, are detained in prisons run, at least until this week, by the SDF. Many are located in the border region now being overrun by the Turkish military and the Syrian jihadi it counts as loyal instruments.

Elsewhere, in poorly secured overcrowded camps for internally displaced peoples (IDPs), tens of thousands of women, many fiercely loyal to IS, and children are held in precarious circumstances.

In the Al Hawl camp alone there are more than 60,000 women and children linked to IS, including 11 Australian women and their 44 children, along with 10,000 IDPs.

The IS hardliners not only enforce a reign of terror within the camps, but are in regular communication with IS insurgents. They confidently await their liberation by the IS insurgent forces.

Liberated ISIS fighters

The hope of being freed is neither naive nor remote. Already, hundreds of fighters and IDPs have escaped the prisons and camps since the Turkish offensive began.

From mid-2012 until mid-2013, IS ran an insurgent campaign called “Breaking the Walls”. It saw thousands of hardened senior ISIS leaders, and many other militants who would later join the movement, broken out of half a dozen prisons surrounding Baghdad.

Suicide squads were used to blast holes in prison walls. Heavily armed assault teams moved rapidly through the prisons, blasting open cells and rushing the hundreds of liberated terrorist fighters into tactical four-wheel-drives. They were to be driven away in the desert through the night to rebuild the senior ranks of ISIS.

The liberated fighters were not only more valuable to ISIS after their time in prison, with many switching allegiances to join the movement, they were better educated and more deeply radicalised graduating for what they refer to as their terrorist universities.

It would appear the same cycle is now being repeated in northeastern Syria.

(Greg Barton is Chair in Global Islamic Politics, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-retreat-from-syria-could-see-islamic-state-roar-back-to-life-125311">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Greg Barton “Remaining and expanding”. The propaganda tagline of Islamic State (IS) has rung hollow since the collapse of the physical caliphate. But recent developments in northeastern Syria threaten to give it fresh legitimacy.

By Greg Barton “Remaining and expanding”. The propaganda tagline of Islamic State (IS) has rung hollow since the collapse of the physical caliphate. But recent developments in northeastern Syria threaten to give it fresh legitimacy. US President Donald Trump lifted sanctions on Turkey after he announced the Turkish government agreed to a permanent ceasefire in northern Syria. In a televised speech, he pushed back against criticisms of his decision to remove 1,000 troops from Syria, abandoning their Kurdish allies. This decision allowed Turkish forces – a hybrid of Turkish military and Free Syrian Army rebels, including jihadi extremists – to surge across the Turkish border and begin intense bombardment of towns and cities liberated from IS. Just how quickly and how far IS will rise from now remains unclear. One thing that’s certain, however, is that IS and the al-Qaeda movement that spawned it, plan and act for the long-term. They believe in their divine destiny and are prepared to sacrifice anything to achieve it. In speaking about the resurgence of IS, we risk talking up the IS brand, the very thing it cares so very much about. But the greater risk is underestimating the capacity for reinvention, resilience and enduring appeal of IS. And complacency and short-sighted politics threaten to lead us to repeat the mistakes of a decade ago that saw a decimated Islamic State in Iraq (ISI) insurgency roar back to life. From violent beginnings In 2006, Sunni tribes in northwestern Iraq killed or arrested the majority of ISI fighters with US support, reducing their strength from many thousands to a few hundred. But with no backing for the Sunni tribes from the poorly functioning, Shia-dominated government in Baghdad, the outbreak of civil war in Syria, and the draw-down of US troops, ISI launched an insurgency in Syria before rising triumphant as Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). ISIS quickly became the most potent terrorist group in history, drawing more than 40,000 fighters from around the world, and seizing control of northeastern Syria and northwestern Iraq. The final defeat of the IS caliphate in northeastern Syria came after five hard years of fighting and 11,000 lives from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), largely composed of members of the Kurdish YPG. To the US, the SDF fighters were local partners and boots-on-the-ground after multiple false starts and expensive mistakes from allying with rebel groups in the Free Syrian Army. Without this SDF alliance, the IS caliphate could not be toppled. Trump’s betrayal could open up ISIS recruitment Donald Trump’s betrayal of the SDF in recent weeks is disastrous on several levels. It ignores the threat IS represents and validates ISIS’s central narrative. What’s more, it contributes to the very circumstances of neglect, cynical short-term thinking and governance failures that lead to giving the IS insurgency an open pathway for recruiting. Trump’s reckless move to withdraw 1,000 special forces troops from Syria comes from an impatience to end an 18-year long “Global War on Terrorism” military campaign of unprecedented expense. This is somewhat understandable. After almost $6 trillion of US Federal expenditure and two decades of fighting, surely enough is enough. But the inconvenient truth is IS and al-Qaeda jihadi fighters around the world have increased, in some estimates nearly four-fold, since September 11. Still, betraying the SDF and pulling out of Syria for small short-term savings risks jeopardising all that has been achieved in defeating the IS caliphate in northwestern Iraq. IS hardliners in overcrowded camps IS will never return to its days of power as a physical caliphate, but all the evidence points to it tipping past an inflection point and beginning a long, steady resurgence. IS has thousands of terrorist fighters still active in the field in northern Iraq. They’re attacking by night and rebuilding strength from disgruntled Sunni communities, as well as having thousands of fighters lying low in Syria. But in recent months, the tempo of IS attacks has shifted from Iraq to Syria with the previously hidden insurgency reemerging. As many as 12,000 terrorist fighters, including 2,000 foreigners, are detained in prisons run, at least until this week, by the SDF. Many are located in the border region now being overrun by the Turkish military and the Syrian jihadi it counts as loyal instruments. Elsewhere, in poorly secured overcrowded camps for internally displaced peoples (IDPs), tens of thousands of women, many fiercely loyal to IS, and children are held in precarious circumstances. In the Al Hawl camp alone there are more than 60,000 women and children linked to IS, including 11 Australian women and their 44 children, along with 10,000 IDPs. The IS hardliners not only enforce a reign of terror within the camps, but are in regular communication with IS insurgents. They confidently await their liberation by the IS insurgent forces. Liberated ISIS fighters The hope of being freed is neither naive nor remote. Already, hundreds of fighters and IDPs have escaped the prisons and camps since the Turkish offensive began. From mid-2012 until mid-2013, IS ran an insurgent campaign called “Breaking the Walls”. It saw thousands of hardened senior ISIS leaders, and many other militants who would later join the movement, broken out of half a dozen prisons surrounding Baghdad. Suicide squads were used to blast holes in prison walls. Heavily armed assault teams moved rapidly through the prisons, blasting open cells and rushing the hundreds of liberated terrorist fighters into tactical four-wheel-drives. They were to be driven away in the desert through the night to rebuild the senior ranks of ISIS. The liberated fighters were not only more valuable to ISIS after their time in prison, with many switching allegiances to join the movement, they were better educated and more deeply radicalised graduating for what they refer to as their terrorist universities. It would appear the same cycle is now being repeated in northeastern Syria. (Greg Barton is Chair in Global Islamic Politics, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US retreat from Syria could see Islamic State roar back to life

By Bamo Nouri

Iraq’s recent wave of protests against poverty, a lack of basic services, unemployment, and the interference of Iran in the country’s domestic affairs showed a country at the end of its tether. Official figures put the number killed in the violent crackdown of protesters at 157.

Since 2011, protests and popular movements that challenged elite dominance or questioned the government have been violently repressed. The presence of Iran has increased as the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq has become dependent on the Iranian Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) to maintain order in Iraq. Indeed, there have been reports that snipers were deployed by Iranian-backed militias in the latest round of protests in October.

The problems for Iraq are deep-rooted and institutional, and if not addressed may yet escalate into a full scale revolution. What’s needed is reform of the country’s 2005 constitution, which was written during a period of political instability after a war and occupation ridden by conflict. The only way for Iraq to have a chance at prosperity and peace is by addressing its flawed foundations which were heavily influenced by the occupiers.

Iraq’s 2005 constitution, which was influenced by the US, failed to create a unified, representative government. Ambiguities within the document have been abused by those in power and it has exacerbated sectarian divisions within Iraq’s politics. The constitution created a system in which public sector and government roles are allocated based on sect and ethnicity.

Unrepresentative elites 
 
Iraq has become a nation that is for the few and not the many, as unrepresentative Iraqi political elites bid to share out its resources. Millions of Iraqis are left unrepresented and without prospects.

While the majority of citizens are discontented and struggling, Iraq’s elites remain fortified and continue to govern through a system known as “wasta”, which involves serving those you favour and hold close, such as friends and family. Divides along ethnic and sectarian lines remain a key theme when identifying the causes of disagreement between competing sects who unite to form political blocs in Iraq’s government.

The lengthy government formation process that takes place after elections is dependent on the division of key state institutions based on ethnic and sectarian identities. To achieve this, political parties form blocs with and against each other to achieve their goals, with the biggest becoming the governing bloc. Although Iraqi elites are divided based on ethnicity, sect and religion, this race for power – and with it the ability to distribute and share the country’s resources – creates a unity between elites.

For example, in three separate parliamentary elections since 2003, the winning candidate has not become prime minister. In the 2014 elections, Nouri al-Maliki, as the head of the State of Law coalition, won the largest number of seats in parliament, yet due to disagreements over government formation and the fight against Islamic State, he was replaced by Haider al-Abadi. In the 2018 elections, Muqtada al-Sadr’s Saairun coalition won a majority, but it was eventually Adil Abdul-Mahdi, an independent, who was chosen as prime minister.

Ministerial fiefdoms where political parties are given ministries in exchange for support to form governing blocs have created a dysfunctional government. It means there is no clear governmental strategy, which in turn severely impedes development.

The mechanics of this power-sharing system are illustrated by coalitions of oligarchs who use public institutions to distribute favours to clients. Political parties control government procurement and reconstruction contracts, who either auction them off, or set up shell companies to award contracts to themselves. These contracts are then sub-contracted, or simply never fulfilled, with funds ending up being drained in the process, ultimately benefiting a narrow Iraqi elite. Iraq was ranked 168 out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s 2018 corruption perception index.

Democracy in theory only

Freedom of speech is non-existent and those who speak out against the government are targeted and often killed, as are protesters. On the whole, democracy in Iraq only exists in theory.

In order for Iraq to ever be able to meet the growing demands of its people and the challenges of prospering on the global stage, immediate political reform is needed. The reform process must directly address the rushed and divisive constitution. This needs to be followed by the democratisation of Iraq’s institutions and the re-creation of Iraq’s national identity so the country can escape the worst of its sectarianism and become more unified as a nation.

Without all of these issues addressed with equal importance, the cycle of adversity will continue as Iraq will remain a reactive as opposed to the proactive nation.

(Bamo Nouri is Lecturer, City, University of London)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/iraqs-discontent-its-roots-and-how-to-begin-fixing-it-124959">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 Bamo Nouri Iraq’s recent wave of protests against poverty, a lack of basic services, unemployment, and the interference of Iran in the country’s domestic affairs showed a country at the end of its tether.

By Bamo Nouri Iraq’s recent wave of protests against poverty, a lack of basic services, unemployment, and the interference of Iran in the country’s domestic affairs showed a country at the end of its tether. Official figures put the number killed in the violent crackdown of protesters at 157. Since 2011, protests and popular movements that challenged elite dominance or questioned the government have been violently repressed. The presence of Iran has increased as the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq has become dependent on the Iranian Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) to maintain order in Iraq. Indeed, there have been reports that snipers were deployed by Iranian-backed militias in the latest round of protests in October. The problems for Iraq are deep-rooted and institutional, and if not addressed may yet escalate into a full scale revolution. What’s needed is reform of the country’s 2005 constitution, which was written during a period of political instability after a war and occupation ridden by conflict. The only way for Iraq to have a chance at prosperity and peace is by addressing its flawed foundations which were heavily influenced by the occupiers. Iraq’s 2005 constitution, which was influenced by the US, failed to create a unified, representative government. Ambiguities within the document have been abused by those in power and it has exacerbated sectarian divisions within Iraq’s politics. The constitution created a system in which public sector and government roles are allocated based on sect and ethnicity. Unrepresentative elites Iraq has become a nation that is for the few and not the many, as unrepresentative Iraqi political elites bid to share out its resources. Millions of Iraqis are left unrepresented and without prospects. While the majority of citizens are discontented and struggling, Iraq’s elites remain fortified and continue to govern through a system known as “wasta”, which involves serving those you favour and hold close, such as friends and family. Divides along ethnic and sectarian lines remain a key theme when identifying the causes of disagreement between competing sects who unite to form political blocs in Iraq’s government. The lengthy government formation process that takes place after elections is dependent on the division of key state institutions based on ethnic and sectarian identities. To achieve this, political parties form blocs with and against each other to achieve their goals, with the biggest becoming the governing bloc. Although Iraqi elites are divided based on ethnicity, sect and religion, this race for power – and with it the ability to distribute and share the country’s resources – creates a unity between elites. For example, in three separate parliamentary elections since 2003, the winning candidate has not become prime minister. In the 2014 elections, Nouri al-Maliki, as the head of the State of Law coalition, won the largest number of seats in parliament, yet due to disagreements over government formation and the fight against Islamic State, he was replaced by Haider al-Abadi. In the 2018 elections, Muqtada al-Sadr’s Saairun coalition won a majority, but it was eventually Adil Abdul-Mahdi, an independent, who was chosen as prime minister. Ministerial fiefdoms where political parties are given ministries in exchange for support to form governing blocs have created a dysfunctional government. It means there is no clear governmental strategy, which in turn severely impedes development. The mechanics of this power-sharing system are illustrated by coalitions of oligarchs who use public institutions to distribute favours to clients. Political parties control government procurement and reconstruction contracts, who either auction them off, or set up shell companies to award contracts to themselves. These contracts are then sub-contracted, or simply never fulfilled, with funds ending up being drained in the process, ultimately benefiting a narrow Iraqi elite. Iraq was ranked 168 out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s 2018 corruption perception index. Democracy in theory only Freedom of speech is non-existent and those who speak out against the government are targeted and often killed, as are protesters. On the whole, democracy in Iraq only exists in theory. In order for Iraq to ever be able to meet the growing demands of its people and the challenges of prospering on the global stage, immediate political reform is needed. The reform process must directly address the rushed and divisive constitution. This needs to be followed by the democratisation of Iraq’s institutions and the re-creation of Iraq’s national identity so the country can escape the worst of its sectarianism and become more unified as a nation. Without all of these issues addressed with equal importance, the cycle of adversity will continue as Iraq will remain a reactive as opposed to the proactive nation. (Bamo Nouri is Lecturer, City, University of London) (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)

Iraq’s wave of protests – its roots and how to begin fixing it

By Miles A Pomper

As the Syrian crisis pits Turkish troops against former US-allied Kurdish forces, Pentagon officials have been reviewing plans to remove 50 nuclear bombs stored at a US airbase in Turkey.

A congressional directive to the Pentagon to quickly assess alternative homes for the US. “Personnel and assets” currently stationed at Incirlik Air Base is part of a broader bipartisan bill, still being debated, that proposes sanctions against Turkey. President Donald Trump has been forced to issue public reassurances that the weapons are secure.

During the Cold War, the US stationed B-61 nuclear bombs in Turkey, among other NATO countries. Formally, the US-controlled the weapons during peacetime, but the host countries’ forces trained and equipped planes so they could drop the bombs with US support in the case of war. The idea was to deter Soviet ground forces and reassure US allies by making clear that the US would be willing to risk nuclear war to block a Soviet invasion of a country hosting the bombs.

In addition, in the years before the US developed intercontinental ballistic missiles, they presented a way for NATO to demonstrate it could act quickly to respond to a Soviet attack.

The 50 bombs still at Incirlik Air Base, in southern Turkey – and others in Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands – are the last nuclear remnants of that Cold War strategy. The US began pulling nuclear bombs out of NATO countries after the Cold War ended, and since 2000 has removed 40 bombs from Turkey.

Two decades ago, the Turkish Air Force stopped equipping its planes to drop B-61s. Now the bombs at Incirlik could only be used if US pilots first flew nuclear-weapon-capable planes there to load them up. The bombs were left in Turkey even after a 2016 coup attempt raised serious concerns about their safety. After that event, the US Defense and Energy departments began planning how to remove them – but didn’t actually bring them back to the US.

How secure are they?

US nuclear weapons are stored in hardened bunkers, protected by electronic systems and heavily armed US troops. The Pentagon has recently reinforced both of those methods of defence.

The bombs themselves also require 12-digit codes to activate them, However, those protections are only strong enough to delay unauthorised use, rather than actually prevent it. If those barriers were overcome, US forces could disable the weapons by destroying electrical components or detonating their chemical high explosive without causing a nuclear release. In the worst case, they could blow up the weapons or the facilities at Incirlik.

Still the US procedures are not designed to prevent skilled attacks or sabotage, especially from an ally. With enough time, Turkey could make use of the nuclear material – if not to detonate in an actual nuclear explosion, then to “release disastrous and deadly radiation.”

What’s wrong with removing them?

Taking the weapons out of Turkey carries some physical risks. The bombs aren’t terribly heavy – roughly 700 pounds each – but moving nuclear material requires significant security. In addition, the Turkish government would have to help – or at least not stand in the way – of landing transport planes or sending cargo convoys by land or sea.

The greater risks are likely to be political. Those concerns have discouraged previous US administrations from removing the bombs, even though Turkey’s defence community isn’t particularly interested in using them.

One US concern is that Turkey could perceive the move as a push away from NATO. That could lead to Turkey seeking closer ties with Russia.

In addition, pulling the nuclear weapons out of Turkey could prompt requests to remove other bombs from Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, where they are publicly unpopular.

A new worry just arose, when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently mused whether perhaps Turkey should leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and develop its own nuclear arsenal US officials have long feared that pulling the American nuclear bombs out could encourage Ergodan to try to turn that bluster into reality.

Unintentionally, Trump’s efforts to provide reassurance may have made this challenge more difficult. The presence of B-61s in the five countries is an open secret, confirmed by independent observers. But it has nonetheless been NATO policy not to acknowledge the deployments, giving local politicians and the US&nbsp;a shield from parliamentary and public oversight.

By publicly confirming that the weapons were in Turkey, Trump has raised the political stakes should he try to remove them, and made it more difficult for the United States and Turkey to strike a quiet deal to that effect.&nbsp; 
 
(Miles A Pomper is Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-us-has-nuclear-weapons-in-turkey-and-may-try-to-put-the-bombs-away-125477">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 Miles A Pomper As the Syrian crisis pits Turkish troops against former US-allied Kurdish forces, Pentagon officials have been reviewing plans to remove 50 nuclear bombs stored at a US airbase in Turkey.

By Miles A Pomper As the Syrian crisis pits Turkish troops against former US-allied Kurdish forces, Pentagon officials have been reviewing plans to remove 50 nuclear bombs stored at a US airbase in Turkey. A congressional directive to the Pentagon to quickly assess alternative homes for the US. “Personnel and assets” currently stationed at Incirlik Air Base is part of a broader bipartisan bill, still being debated, that proposes sanctions against Turkey. President Donald Trump has been forced to issue public reassurances that the weapons are secure. During the Cold War, the US stationed B-61 nuclear bombs in Turkey, among other NATO countries. Formally, the US-controlled the weapons during peacetime, but the host countries’ forces trained and equipped planes so they could drop the bombs with US support in the case of war. The idea was to deter Soviet ground forces and reassure US allies by making clear that the US would be willing to risk nuclear war to block a Soviet invasion of a country hosting the bombs. In addition, in the years before the US developed intercontinental ballistic missiles, they presented a way for NATO to demonstrate it could act quickly to respond to a Soviet attack. The 50 bombs still at Incirlik Air Base, in southern Turkey – and others in Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands – are the last nuclear remnants of that Cold War strategy. The US began pulling nuclear bombs out of NATO countries after the Cold War ended, and since 2000 has removed 40 bombs from Turkey. Two decades ago, the Turkish Air Force stopped equipping its planes to drop B-61s. Now the bombs at Incirlik could only be used if US pilots first flew nuclear-weapon-capable planes there to load them up. The bombs were left in Turkey even after a 2016 coup attempt raised serious concerns about their safety. After that event, the US Defense and Energy departments began planning how to remove them – but didn’t actually bring them back to the US. How secure are they? US nuclear weapons are stored in hardened bunkers, protected by electronic systems and heavily armed US troops. The Pentagon has recently reinforced both of those methods of defence. The bombs themselves also require 12-digit codes to activate them, However, those protections are only strong enough to delay unauthorised use, rather than actually prevent it. If those barriers were overcome, US forces could disable the weapons by destroying electrical components or detonating their chemical high explosive without causing a nuclear release. In the worst case, they could blow up the weapons or the facilities at Incirlik. Still the US procedures are not designed to prevent skilled attacks or sabotage, especially from an ally. With enough time, Turkey could make use of the nuclear material – if not to detonate in an actual nuclear explosion, then to “release disastrous and deadly radiation.” What’s wrong with removing them? Taking the weapons out of Turkey carries some physical risks. The bombs aren’t terribly heavy – roughly 700 pounds each – but moving nuclear material requires significant security. In addition, the Turkish government would have to help – or at least not stand in the way – of landing transport planes or sending cargo convoys by land or sea. The greater risks are likely to be political. Those concerns have discouraged previous US administrations from removing the bombs, even though Turkey’s defence community isn’t particularly interested in using them. One US concern is that Turkey could perceive the move as a push away from NATO. That could lead to Turkey seeking closer ties with Russia. In addition, pulling the nuclear weapons out of Turkey could prompt requests to remove other bombs from Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany, where they are publicly unpopular. A new worry just arose, when Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently mused whether perhaps Turkey should leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and develop its own nuclear arsenal US officials have long feared that pulling the American nuclear bombs out could encourage Ergodan to try to turn that bluster into reality. Unintentionally, Trump’s efforts to provide reassurance may have made this challenge more difficult. The presence of B-61s in the five countries is an open secret, confirmed by independent observers. But it has nonetheless been NATO policy not to acknowledge the deployments, giving local politicians and the US a shield from parliamentary and public oversight. By publicly confirming that the weapons were in Turkey, Trump has raised the political stakes should he try to remove them, and made it more difficult for the United States and Turkey to strike a quiet deal to that effect. (Miles A Pomper is Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Middlebury) (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 US has nuclear weapons in Turkey – and may try to put the bombs away

Rep. Ilhan Omar Makes Polarising Remarks On India At The U.S. Congressional Hearing Ilhan Omar attempts to create alarms against India in the Kashmir issue and NRC debate.

Gravitas: Reactions & Rebuttal To Ilhan Omar's Anti-india Rhetoric

Turkey’s ambassador to China, Emin Onen, didn’t mince his words this week when he took his Chinese hosts to task for failing to support Turkey’s military campaign against a Kurdish militia in Syria.

Speaking in Turkish through a translator at a news conference at his Beijing embassy, Onen implicitly put China on the spot by calling on it to stand with Turkey in its fight against political violence.

In doing so, Onen was laying bare long-standing strains in Turkish-Chinese relations as well as contradictions that link Turkey’s long-standing refusal to fully recognise Kurdish rights to China’s brutal crackdown in its troubled, north-western province of Xinjiang.

Chinese officials have long sought to prevent Turkey from speaking out on the crackdown by privately arguing in discussions with their Turkish counterparts that China’s massive effort to fundamentally alter the belief system of Turkic Muslims, packaged as a fight against political violence, was no different from Turkish attitudes towards the Kurds.

Turkey has justified its decades-old policy in predominantly Kurdish southeastern Turkey and its more recent interventions in Syria as a struggle against the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) that has been designated a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the United States and the European Union, and its Syrian affiliate, the People's Protection Units (YPG).

The PKK has waged an insurgency in south-eastern Turkey for more than three decades. Tens of thousands have been killed in PKK attacks and Turkish military operations.

The YPG, which has not been designated by either the US or the EU, served in recent years as the United States’ ground troops in the battle to defeat the Islamic State’s Syria-based Caliphate.

“What we hope for is that China, whether internally or externally, is an anti-terrorist nation. They are a member of the (United Nations) Security Council, so they should understand our present situation,” Onen said.

“Certainly, we know that China is a country that is fighting against terror ... We are also fighting against ... (political violence) and it’s one of the most important issues,” Onen went on to say.

Onen was responding to what amounted to a Chinese condemnation of the Turkish incursion into Syria when Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang, urged “Turkey to halt military action and to return to the right track, resolving the issue with political solutions.”

China had earlier called on Turkey to “exercise restraint,” insisting that Syria’s “sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity must be respected and upheld.”

The stakes for both Turkey and China are high.

Both are likely hoping that Russian execution of an enhanced ceasefire initially negotiated by US Vice president Mike Pence on a visit to Ankara last week will enable them to avoid a further deterioration in relations. Russia took ownership of the Syrian process during talks on Tuesday between presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Turkey, home to the largest Chinese Turkic Muslim exile community, and long a supporter of political and cultural rights for Uighurs, has on occasion breached the Muslim’s world’s wall of silence about the Chinese crackdown.

If Turkey, one of the Islamic world’s most powerful nations that compete with Saudi Arabia and Iran for leadership, were to revert to sustained criticism of the Chinese crackdown, it would make it more difficult for other Muslim states to maintain their silence or, in some cases, endorsement of Chinese policy.

It would ironically align Turkey with the United States, which last week imposed sanctions in a bid to force Turkey to halt its Syrian military campaign. The US, unlike the Muslim world, has been vocal in its condemnation of the Chinese crackdown in Xinjiang.

Taking China to task on Xinjiang is risky business, certainly for a country that has seen its economy falter. Turkey has been counting on China to help it resolve its economic problems.

China, transferred in June on the eve of Turkish elections, $1 billion to Turkey as part of a Turkish lira-Chinese yuan currency swap. China, which sees Turkey as a key node in its Belt and Road initiative, has further pledged $3.6 billion in funding for energy and telecommunications infrastructure projects.

Deng Li, China’s ambassador to Turkey, warned in March that public Turkish criticism of China’s Xinjiang policy “will negatively affect mutual trust and understanding and will be reflected in commercial and economic relations.”

Li issued his threat after Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and his ministry spokesman, Hami Aksoy, in a rare expression of anti-Chinese sentiment used harsh language to condemn events in Xinjiang where some one million Turkic Muslims are believed to have been incarcerated in re-education camps and/or pushed into force labour.

Calling the crackdown an “embarrassment to humanity,” Aksoy demanded that Chinese authorities respect human rights of the Uighurs and close what he termed “concentration camps.”

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on Turkey two months later to support China’s policy in Xinjiang in a bid to “safeguard the overall situation of the strategic cooperation between the two countries.”

The strains in Turkish-Chinese relations were put on public display in July when China’s state news agency Xinhua quoted visiting Erdogan as saying that people in Xinjiang “live happily.”

Turkish officials insisted that Erdogan had expressed the hope that people in China would “live happily in peace and prosperity,” not that they were living happily.

Chinese foreign ministry spokeswomen Hua Chunying, clearly believing that this time around it would be Turkey rather than China that blinks first, insisted on Tuesday, “We called on Turkey many times to stop its military action. We hope all sides will form a synergy to combat terrorism, advance the political settlement process of the Syrian issue, and jointly safeguard peace and tranquillity in the region.”

It’s a synergy built on sand as long as Turkey and China cloak their refusal to come to grips with minority rights in counterterrorism terms that are opportunistically called into question whenever they contradict their geopolitical ambitions. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

Turkey’s ambassador to China, Emin Onen, didn’t mince his words this week when he took his Chinese hosts to task for failing to support Turkey’s military campaign against a Kurdish militia in Syria.

Turkey’s ambassador to China, Emin Onen, didn’t mince his words this week when he took his Chinese hosts to task for failing to support Turkey’s military campaign against a Kurdish militia in Syria. Speaking in Turkish through a translator at a news conference at his Beijing embassy, Onen implicitly put China on the spot by calling on it to stand with Turkey in its fight against political violence. In doing so, Onen was laying bare long-standing strains in Turkish-Chinese relations as well as contradictions that link Turkey’s long-standing refusal to fully recognise Kurdish rights to China’s brutal crackdown in its troubled, north-western province of Xinjiang. Chinese officials have long sought to prevent Turkey from speaking out on the crackdown by privately arguing in discussions with their Turkish counterparts that China’s massive effort to fundamentally alter the belief system of Turkic Muslims, packaged as a fight against political violence, was no different from Turkish attitudes towards the Kurds. Turkey has justified its decades-old policy in predominantly Kurdish southeastern Turkey and its more recent interventions in Syria as a struggle against the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) that has been designated a terrorist organisation by Turkey, the United States and the European Union, and its Syrian affiliate, the People's Protection Units (YPG). The PKK has waged an insurgency in south-eastern Turkey for more than three decades. Tens of thousands have been killed in PKK attacks and Turkish military operations. The YPG, which has not been designated by either the US or the EU, served in recent years as the United States’ ground troops in the battle to defeat the Islamic State’s Syria-based Caliphate. “What we hope for is that China, whether internally or externally, is an anti-terrorist nation. They are a member of the (United Nations) Security Council, so they should understand our present situation,” Onen said. “Certainly, we know that China is a country that is fighting against terror ... We are also fighting against ... (political violence) and it’s one of the most important issues,” Onen went on to say. Onen was responding to what amounted to a Chinese condemnation of the Turkish incursion into Syria when Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang, urged “Turkey to halt military action and to return to the right track, resolving the issue with political solutions.” China had earlier called on Turkey to “exercise restraint,” insisting that Syria’s “sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity must be respected and upheld.” The stakes for both Turkey and China are high. Both are likely hoping that Russian execution of an enhanced ceasefire initially negotiated by US Vice president Mike Pence on a visit to Ankara last week will enable them to avoid a further deterioration in relations. Russia took ownership of the Syrian process during talks on Tuesday between presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Turkey, home to the largest Chinese Turkic Muslim exile community, and long a supporter of political and cultural rights for Uighurs, has on occasion breached the Muslim’s world’s wall of silence about the Chinese crackdown. If Turkey, one of the Islamic world’s most powerful nations that compete with Saudi Arabia and Iran for leadership, were to revert to sustained criticism of the Chinese crackdown, it would make it more difficult for other Muslim states to maintain their silence or, in some cases, endorsement of Chinese policy. It would ironically align Turkey with the United States, which last week imposed sanctions in a bid to force Turkey to halt its Syrian military campaign. The US, unlike the Muslim world, has been vocal in its condemnation of the Chinese crackdown in Xinjiang. Taking China to task on Xinjiang is risky business, certainly for a country that has seen its economy falter. Turkey has been counting on China to help it resolve its economic problems. China, transferred in June on the eve of Turkish elections, $1 billion to Turkey as part of a Turkish lira-Chinese yuan currency swap. China, which sees Turkey as a key node in its Belt and Road initiative, has further pledged $3.6 billion in funding for energy and telecommunications infrastructure projects. Deng Li, China’s ambassador to Turkey, warned in March that public Turkish criticism of China’s Xinjiang policy “will negatively affect mutual trust and understanding and will be reflected in commercial and economic relations.” Li issued his threat after Turkish foreign minister Mevlut Cavusoglu and his ministry spokesman, Hami Aksoy, in a rare expression of anti-Chinese sentiment used harsh language to condemn events in Xinjiang where some one million Turkic Muslims are believed to have been incarcerated in re-education camps and/or pushed into force labour. Calling the crackdown an “embarrassment to humanity,” Aksoy demanded that Chinese authorities respect human rights of the Uighurs and close what he termed “concentration camps.” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on Turkey two months later to support China’s policy in Xinjiang in a bid to “safeguard the overall situation of the strategic cooperation between the two countries.” The strains in Turkish-Chinese relations were put on public display in July when China’s state news agency Xinhua quoted visiting Erdogan as saying that people in Xinjiang “live happily.” Turkish officials insisted that Erdogan had expressed the hope that people in China would “live happily in peace and prosperity,” not that they were living happily. Chinese foreign ministry spokeswomen Hua Chunying, clearly believing that this time around it would be Turkey rather than China that blinks first, insisted on Tuesday, “We called on Turkey many times to stop its military action. We hope all sides will form a synergy to combat terrorism, advance the political settlement process of the Syrian issue, and jointly safeguard peace and tranquillity in the region.” It’s a synergy built on sand as long as Turkey and China cloak their refusal to come to grips with minority rights in counterterrorism terms that are opportunistically called into question whenever they contradict their geopolitical ambitions. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Turkey and China tie themselves in knots over Syria and Xinjiang

China now has more privately-held start-ups valued by investors at over $1 billion than the US, a report said Monday.

There were 206 Chinese firms out of a global total of 494 ultra-valuable start-ups, known as "unicorns", in June 2019, according to the research&nbsp;firm Hurun Report.

This makes China the country with the largest number of unicorns in the world, with the US coming in second with 203 such companies.

"China and the USA dominate with over 80 per cent of the world's known unicorns, despite representing only half of the world's GDP and a quarter of the world's population," Hurun Report chairman Rupert Hoogewerf said.

"The rest of the world needs to wake up to creating an environment that allows unicorns to flourish in."

According to Hurun, China is home to the world's three most valuable unicorns, Alibaba affiliate Ant Financial,&nbsp;app maker ByteDance and ride-hailing giant Didi Chuxing, which have a combined value of $280 billion.

Major US names like Airbnb and coworking space operator WeWork also made the list, which included&nbsp;lesser-known startups like California-based automated pizza delivery company Zume and Indian fantasy sports platform Dream11.

Hurun, which released its inaugural Global Unicorn List Monday, told AFP this was the first time China's number of unicorns was confirmed by researchers to have surpassed the US.

A report released in June by another research firm, Visual Capitalist, found only 94 unicorns from China compared to 156 from the US, based on data from May 2019.

The companies identified by Hurun were founded only seven years ago on average,&nbsp;and more than half come from five industries "disrupting the world economy," Hoogewerf said.

E-commerce and fintech accounted for the most unicorns globally, followed by cloud computing, artificial intelligence and logistics, according to Hurun.

Additionally, a number of companies on the list were formerly units of larger companies that had been split off.

"Chinese companies are far and away the most successful at spinning off unicorns, with 18 of the world's 20 'spun-off' unicorns," Hoogewerf said.

"Alibaba, for example, started Alipay, before spinning its fintech business into Ant Financial in 2014."

China now has more privately-held start-ups valued by investors at over $1 billion than the US, a report said Monday. There were 206 Chinese firms out of a global total of 494 ultra-valuable start-ups, known as "unicorns", in June 2019, according to the research firm Hurun Report.

China now has more privately-held start-ups valued by investors at over $1 billion than the US, a report said Monday. There were 206 Chinese firms out of a global total of 494 ultra-valuable start-ups, known as "unicorns", in June 2019, according to the research firm Hurun Report. This makes China the country with the largest number of unicorns in the world, with the US coming in second with 203 such companies. "China and the USA dominate with over 80 per cent of the world's known unicorns, despite representing only half of the world's GDP and a quarter of the world's population," Hurun Report chairman Rupert Hoogewerf said. "The rest of the world needs to wake up to creating an environment that allows unicorns to flourish in." According to Hurun, China is home to the world's three most valuable unicorns, Alibaba affiliate Ant Financial, app maker ByteDance and ride-hailing giant Didi Chuxing, which have a combined value of $280 billion. Major US names like Airbnb and coworking space operator WeWork also made the list, which included lesser-known startups like California-based automated pizza delivery company Zume and Indian fantasy sports platform Dream11. Hurun, which released its inaugural Global Unicorn List Monday, told AFP this was the first time China's number of unicorns was confirmed by researchers to have surpassed the US. A report released in June by another research firm, Visual Capitalist, found only 94 unicorns from China compared to 156 from the US, based on data from May 2019. The companies identified by Hurun were founded only seven years ago on average, and more than half come from five industries "disrupting the world economy," Hoogewerf said. E-commerce and fintech accounted for the most unicorns globally, followed by cloud computing, artificial intelligence and logistics, according to Hurun. Additionally, a number of companies on the list were formerly units of larger companies that had been split off. "Chinese companies are far and away the most successful at spinning off unicorns, with 18 of the world's 20 'spun-off' unicorns," Hoogewerf said. "Alibaba, for example, started Alipay, before spinning its fintech business into Ant Financial in 2014."

China's 'unicorn' startups exceed United States number for first time

Report: Turkey Could Seize U.S.Nuclear Weapons Stored At An American Airbase In Turkey

Gravitas: U.S. Has 50 'nuke Bombs' In Turkey: Can Turkey Hold U.S. Hostage?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a group of United States lawmakers arrived in Jordan for talks with King Abdullah II, her office said on Saturday, just days after the speaker clashed with President Donald Trump in a meeting on Syria policy.

"With the deepening crisis in Syria after Turkey’s incursion, our delegation has engaged in vital discussions about the impact to regional stability, increased the flow of refugees, and the dangerous opening that has been provided to ISIS, Iran and Russia," Pelosi said in a statement.

The statement described the visiting American delegation as "bipartisan," though congressman Mac Thornberry was the only Republican representative listed as being on the trip.

The US visit to Jordan comes after Turkey launched an offensive against Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria on October 9, following President Trump's withdrawal of troops from the area.

Trump has defended his move as "strategically brilliant" but earlier this week 129 members of his Republican Party joined Democrats in the House of Representatives denounced the withdrawal.

On Wednesday, Pelosi and Senate minority leader Charles Schumer walked out of an acrimonious White House meeting with Trump on Syria, a sign of the deteriorating relations as the House conducts an impeachment inquiry.

The administration then brokered a ceasefire between Turkish and Kurdish forces Thursday, but on Saturday the sides accused each other of violating the agreement.

The offensive has already killed more than 500 people, including dozens of civilians, while some 300,000 civilians have been displaced within Syria, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights war monitor.

More than 650,000 Syrian refugees are registered with the UNHCR in Jordan, which shares a 370-kilometre&nbsp;border with Syria.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a group of United States lawmakers arrived in Jordan for talks with King Abdullah II, her office said on Saturday, just days after the speaker clashed with President Donald Trump in a meeting on Syria policy.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a group of United States lawmakers arrived in Jordan for talks with King Abdullah II, her office said on Saturday, just days after the speaker clashed with President Donald Trump in a meeting on Syria policy. "With the deepening crisis in Syria after Turkey’s incursion, our delegation has engaged in vital discussions about the impact to regional stability, increased the flow of refugees, and the dangerous opening that has been provided to ISIS, Iran and Russia," Pelosi said in a statement. The statement described the visiting American delegation as "bipartisan," though congressman Mac Thornberry was the only Republican representative listed as being on the trip. The US visit to Jordan comes after Turkey launched an offensive against Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria on October 9, following President Trump's withdrawal of troops from the area. Trump has defended his move as "strategically brilliant" but earlier this week 129 members of his Republican Party joined Democrats in the House of Representatives denounced the withdrawal. On Wednesday, Pelosi and Senate minority leader Charles Schumer walked out of an acrimonious White House meeting with Trump on Syria, a sign of the deteriorating relations as the House conducts an impeachment inquiry. The administration then brokered a ceasefire between Turkish and Kurdish forces Thursday, but on Saturday the sides accused each other of violating the agreement. The offensive has already killed more than 500 people, including dozens of civilians, while some 300,000 civilians have been displaced within Syria, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights war monitor. More than 650,000 Syrian refugees are registered with the UNHCR in Jordan, which shares a 370-kilometre border with Syria.

Nancy Pelosi leads 'bipartisan' United States group for meetings in Jordan

Beijing and Washington have made "substantial progress" towards a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-hopes-us-china-trade-deal-will-be-signed-by-middle-of-november-256808">partial trade deal</a>, China's top trade negotiator said Saturday, in his first comments since talks with US President Donald Trump last week.

Trump announced a partial deal after meetings in Washington with the Chinese trade delegation led by Liu He, which ended on October 11.

It included promises to increase purchases of US farm products and protections for intellectual property&nbsp;but lacked specific details.

"China and the US have made substantial progress in many aspects, and laid an important foundation for a phase one agreement," the Vice Premier said at a virtual reality conference in Nanchang, Jiangxi province, on Saturday.

In his first public comments about the Washington talks, Liu said an important foundation for the signing of a phased deal had been worked out.

China is "willing to work together with the US to address each other's core concerns on the basis of equality and mutual respect," Liu said, according to a report on Taoran notes, a social media account run by the official&nbsp;Economic Daily.

The deal announced by Trump offered a temporary reprieve from tariffs planned for mid-October.&nbsp;

It did not, however, roll back any of the stinging import duties already imposed up to now on hundreds of billions of dollars in trade between the economic powers. Neither did it address another round of import taxes planned for December.

"Stopping the escalation of the trade war benefits China, the US and the whole world. It's what producers and consumers alike are hoping for," Liu said.

Beijing and Washington have made "substantial progress" towards a partial trade deal, China's top trade negotiator said Saturday, in his first comments since talks with US President Donald Trump last week.

Beijing and Washington have made "substantial progress" towards a partial trade deal, China's top trade negotiator said Saturday, in his first comments since talks with US President Donald Trump last week. Trump announced a partial deal after meetings in Washington with the Chinese trade delegation led by Liu He, which ended on October 11. It included promises to increase purchases of US farm products and protections for intellectual property but lacked specific details. "China and the US have made substantial progress in many aspects, and laid an important foundation for a phase one agreement," the Vice Premier said at a virtual reality conference in Nanchang, Jiangxi province, on Saturday. In his first public comments about the Washington talks, Liu said an important foundation for the signing of a phased deal had been worked out. China is "willing to work together with the US to address each other's core concerns on the basis of equality and mutual respect," Liu said, according to a report on Taoran notes, a social media account run by the official Economic Daily. The deal announced by Trump offered a temporary reprieve from tariffs planned for mid-October. It did not, however, roll back any of the stinging import duties already imposed up to now on hundreds of billions of dollars in trade between the economic powers. Neither did it address another round of import taxes planned for December. "Stopping the escalation of the trade war benefits China, the US and the whole world. It's what producers and consumers alike are hoping for," Liu said.

China, US make 'substantial' trade deal progress: Top official

The Temporary Pause To Turkey's Military Offensive In Syria Fails To Stop Violence On The Ground On Thursday, the U.S. reached a deal with Turkey for a 120-hour long temporary ceasefire.

Gravitas: Trump's Misadventure In Syria: Fighting Continues In Northern Syria

President Donald Trump said Friday that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/erdogan-threatens-to-restart-syria-operation-tuesday-if-deal-not-respected-256748">Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan</a> had assured him that he wants the "ceasefire" with Kurdish militants in northern Syria to work.

Trump, in a series of tweets, said he had spoken to Erdogan and "he very much wants the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/deadly-turkey-air-strikes-shatter-north-east-syria-truce-256721">ceasefire, or pause</a>, to work.

"Likewise, the Kurds want it, and the ultimate solution, to happen," the US president said.

"There is good will on both sides &amp; a really good chance for success," he said. "The US has secured the Oil, &amp; the ISIS Fighters are double secured by Kurds &amp; Turkey."

Trump also said that "some" European countries, which he did not name, "are now willing, for the first time, to take the (Islamic State group) Fighters that came from their nations."

"This is good news, but should have been done after WE captured them," he said. "Anyway, big progress being made!!!!"

Trump also tweeted "DEFEAT TERRORISM!" in all capital letters in response to a tweet by Erdogan saying "Mr. President, many more lives will be saved when we defeat terrorism, which is humanity's arch enemy."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Just spoke to President <a href="https://twitter.com/RTErdogan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RTErdogan</a> of Turkey. He told me there was minor sniper and mortar fire that was quickly eliminated. He very much wants the ceasefire, or pause, to work. Likewise, the Kurds want it, and the ultimate solution, to happen. Too bad there wasn’t.....
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1185219641972539392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 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>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
....I have just been notified that some European Nations are now willing, for the first time, to take the ISIS Fighters that came from their nations. This is good news, but should have been done after WE captured them. Anyway, big progress being made!!!!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1185219643432230913?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 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>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
DEFEAT TERRORISM! <a href="https://t.co/8WbnLPgWIK">https://t.co/8WbnLPgWIK</a>
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1185220552254017537?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 18, 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>

Earlier Friday, Erdogan warned that Ankara would resume military operations against Kurdish forces in Syria if they did not withdraw from a "safe zone" along the Turkey-Syria border.

Turkey has agreed to suspend its offensive for five days in northern Syria while Kurdish fighters withdraw from the area, after high-stake talks with US Vice President Mike Pence in Ankara. 
&nbsp;

President Donald Trump said Friday that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had assured him that he wants the "ceasefire" with Kurdish militants in northern Syria to work.

President Donald Trump said Friday that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan had assured him that he wants the "ceasefire" with Kurdish militants in northern Syria to work. Trump, in a series of tweets, said he had spoken to Erdogan and "he very much wants the ceasefire, or pause, to work. "Likewise, the Kurds want it, and the ultimate solution, to happen," the US president said. "There is good will on both sides & a really good chance for success," he said. "The US has secured the Oil, & the ISIS Fighters are double secured by Kurds & Turkey." Trump also said that "some" European countries, which he did not name, "are now willing, for the first time, to take the (Islamic State group) Fighters that came from their nations." "This is good news, but should have been done after WE captured them," he said. "Anyway, big progress being made!!!!" Trump also tweeted "DEFEAT TERRORISM!" in all capital letters in response to a tweet by Erdogan saying "Mr. President, many more lives will be saved when we defeat terrorism, which is humanity's arch enemy." Just spoke to President @RTErdogan of Turkey. He told me there was minor sniper and mortar fire that was quickly eliminated. He very much wants the ceasefire, or pause, to work. Likewise, the Kurds want it, and the ultimate solution, to happen. Too bad there wasn’t..... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2019 × ....I have just been notified that some European Nations are now willing, for the first time, to take the ISIS Fighters that came from their nations. This is good news, but should have been done after WE captured them. Anyway, big progress being made!!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2019 × DEFEAT TERRORISM! https://t.co/8WbnLPgWIK — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 18, 2019 × Earlier Friday, Erdogan warned that Ankara would resume military operations against Kurdish forces in Syria if they did not withdraw from a "safe zone" along the Turkey-Syria border. Turkey has agreed to suspend its offensive for five days in northern Syria while Kurdish fighters withdraw from the area, after high-stake talks with US Vice President Mike Pence in Ankara.

Trump says Erdogan told him he wants ceasefire to work

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - October 17th, 2019

China's commerce ministry said on Thursday that China hoped to reach a phased agreement with the United States over trade as early as possible, and make progress on cancelling tariffs on each others' goods.

A phased agreement would help restore market confidence and reduce uncertainty, Gao Feng, a spokesman at the ministry, told reporters, adding that both sides were maintaining close communication.

On October 11, US President Donald Trump outlined the first phase of a deal to end the trade war with China and suspended a threatened tariff hike, but officials on both sides said much more work needed to be done before an accord could be agreed.

Trump had originally planned to proceed with a hike in tariffs to 30% from 25% on about $250 billion worth of Chinese goods last week. But the US administration has yet to make a decision on how to address planned 10% tariffs on roughly $156 billion of Chinese goods due to take effect on December 15.

US and Chinese trade negotiators are working on nailing down a Phase 1 trade deal text for their presidents to sign next month, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Wednesday.

Mnuchin said the Trump administration's "objective" was for the agreement to be signed between the presidents of the two countries at a November&nbsp;16-17 summit of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation countries in Santiago, Chile.

Working-level representatives from both countries are working on specifics of an agreement now, Gao said.

In recent days, there have been positive signs from China.

China's securities regulator on Friday unveiled a firm timetable for scrapping foreign ownership limits in futures, securities and mutual fund companies for the first time. Increasing foreign access to the sector is among the US demands at the trade talks.

A day before, the US Department of Agriculture confirmed net sales of 142,172 tonnes of US&nbsp;pork to China in the week ended October 3, the largest weekly sale to the world's top pork market on record.

Trump said China had agreed to make purchases of $40 billion to $50 billion in US agricultural goods. Mnuchin said the purchases would be scaled up to that amount annually.

On Wednesday, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said China will remove business restrictions on foreign banks, brokerages and fund management firms, without giving details.

China's commerce ministry said on Thursday that China hoped to reach a phased agreement with the United States over trade as early as possible, and make progress on cancelling tariffs on each others' goods.

China's commerce ministry said on Thursday that China hoped to reach a phased agreement with the United States over trade as early as possible, and make progress on cancelling tariffs on each others' goods. A phased agreement would help restore market confidence and reduce uncertainty, Gao Feng, a spokesman at the ministry, told reporters, adding that both sides were maintaining close communication. On October 11, US President Donald Trump outlined the first phase of a deal to end the trade war with China and suspended a threatened tariff hike, but officials on both sides said much more work needed to be done before an accord could be agreed. Trump had originally planned to proceed with a hike in tariffs to 30% from 25% on about $250 billion worth of Chinese goods last week. But the US administration has yet to make a decision on how to address planned 10% tariffs on roughly $156 billion of Chinese goods due to take effect on December 15. US and Chinese trade negotiators are working on nailing down a Phase 1 trade deal text for their presidents to sign next month, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Wednesday. Mnuchin said the Trump administration's "objective" was for the agreement to be signed between the presidents of the two countries at a November 16-17 summit of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation countries in Santiago, Chile. Working-level representatives from both countries are working on specifics of an agreement now, Gao said. In recent days, there have been positive signs from China. China's securities regulator on Friday unveiled a firm timetable for scrapping foreign ownership limits in futures, securities and mutual fund companies for the first time. Increasing foreign access to the sector is among the US demands at the trade talks. A day before, the US Department of Agriculture confirmed net sales of 142,172 tonnes of US pork to China in the week ended October 3, the largest weekly sale to the world's top pork market on record. Trump said China had agreed to make purchases of $40 billion to $50 billion in US agricultural goods. Mnuchin said the purchases would be scaled up to that amount annually. On Wednesday, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said China will remove business restrictions on foreign banks, brokerages and fund management firms, without giving details.

China says hopes to reach phased trade pact with US as early as possible

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - October 16th, 2019

Turkey launched an offensive targeting Syrian Kurdish fighters last week after US troops allied to them pulled out.

Erdogan rejects US ceasefire call on Syria

us-1

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

us 1