The United States is closely watching Chinese intentions toward Taiwan, concerned that Beijing's growing military prowess may increase the risk it could one day consider bringing the self-ruled island under its control by force, a US official said on Tuesday.

The senior US defence intelligence official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, did not predict that China's military, known as the People's Liberation Army (PLA), would take such a step but said such a possibility was the top worry as <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/china-already-leads-the-world-in-some-military-technology-pentagon-report-190597&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwitkoHo0vHfAhUW3Y8KHdmXDXgQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw2plz0va-glQArWFANWel6q">China </a>expands and modernizes its military capabilities.

"The biggest concern is that ... they are getting to a point where the PLA leadership may actually tell Xi Jinping that they are confident in their capabilities," the official said, referring to China's president.

Pressed on whether the official was referring to Chinese confidence in its capabilities to be able to successfully win a battle with Taiwan, the official said, "Well, specifically that would be the most concerning to me."

Taiwan is only one of a growing number of flashpoints in the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/world-economy-to-slow-this-year-due-to-us-china-trade-conflict-world-bank-189112&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwih_paA0_HfAhVJXSsKHbDCDWAQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0Gtz0a361tP0-nlu0XAStT">US-China relationship</a>, including a trade war between the countries, US sanctions on the Chinese military, and China's increasingly muscular military posture in the South China Sea.

However, in meetings with Pentagon leaders, PLA officials have long described Taiwan as China's most sensitive issue.

China has repeatedly sent military aircraft and ships to circle the island on drills in the past few years and worked to isolate the island internationally, whittling down its few remaining diplomatic allies.

It has also strongly objected to US warship passages through the Taiwan Strait this year and issued a terse warning about Taiwan after talks in Beijing on Tuesday with the US Navy`s top officer, Admiral John Richardson.

WHATEVER IT TAKES

In the talks, Chinese General Li Zuocheng, chief of China’s Central Military Commission Joint Staff Department, stressed that Taiwan was "China's internal affairs" and that Beijing would allow "no external interference."

"If someone tries to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military will do whatever it takes to safeguard national reunification, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity," according to an English-language statement by China's defence ministry on the talks.

Washington has no formal ties with Taiwan but is bound by law to help it defend itself and is the island’s main source of arms. The Pentagon says Washington has sold Taiwan more than $15 billion in weaponry since 2010.

Xi has stepped up pressure on the democratic island since Tsai Ing-wen from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party became president in 2016.

On January 2, Xi said in a speech that China reserved the right to use force to bring Taiwan under its control but would strive to achieve peaceful "reunification."

Still, the US defence intelligence official cautioned against over-reacting, noting Xi could believe he has plenty of time to achieve reunification with Taiwan.

The official also cautioned that China`s military still faced gaps in its capabilities.

"They could order them to go today, but I don't think they're particularly confident in that capability," the official said.&nbsp;

Also on Tuesday, the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report describing Taiwan as the "primary driver" for China's military modernization, which it said had made major advances in recent years.

US defence officials have become particularly alarmed about China's advances in super-fast "hypersonic" technology, which could allow it to field missiles that are far harder to detect.&nbsp;

"The result ... is a PLA on the verge of fielding some of the most modern weapon systems in the world. In some areas, it already leads the world," the report said.

The United States is closely watching Chinese intentions toward Taiwan, concerned that Beijing's growing military prowess may increase the risk it could one day consider bringing the self-ruled island under its control by force, a US official said on Tuesday.

The United States is closely watching Chinese intentions toward Taiwan, concerned that Beijing's growing military prowess may increase the risk it could one day consider bringing the self-ruled island under its control by force, a US official said on Tuesday. The senior US defence intelligence official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, did not predict that China's military, known as the People's Liberation Army (PLA), would take such a step but said such a possibility was the top worry as China expands and modernizes its military capabilities. "The biggest concern is that ... they are getting to a point where the PLA leadership may actually tell Xi Jinping that they are confident in their capabilities," the official said, referring to China's president. Pressed on whether the official was referring to Chinese confidence in its capabilities to be able to successfully win a battle with Taiwan, the official said, "Well, specifically that would be the most concerning to me." Taiwan is only one of a growing number of flashpoints in the US-China relationship, including a trade war between the countries, US sanctions on the Chinese military, and China's increasingly muscular military posture in the South China Sea. However, in meetings with Pentagon leaders, PLA officials have long described Taiwan as China's most sensitive issue. China has repeatedly sent military aircraft and ships to circle the island on drills in the past few years and worked to isolate the island internationally, whittling down its few remaining diplomatic allies. It has also strongly objected to US warship passages through the Taiwan Strait this year and issued a terse warning about Taiwan after talks in Beijing on Tuesday with the US Navy`s top officer, Admiral John Richardson. WHATEVER IT TAKES In the talks, Chinese General Li Zuocheng, chief of China’s Central Military Commission Joint Staff Department, stressed that Taiwan was "China's internal affairs" and that Beijing would allow "no external interference." "If someone tries to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military will do whatever it takes to safeguard national reunification, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity," according to an English-language statement by China's defence ministry on the talks. Washington has no formal ties with Taiwan but is bound by law to help it defend itself and is the island’s main source of arms. The Pentagon says Washington has sold Taiwan more than $15 billion in weaponry since 2010. Xi has stepped up pressure on the democratic island since Tsai Ing-wen from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party became president in 2016. On January 2, Xi said in a speech that China reserved the right to use force to bring Taiwan under its control but would strive to achieve peaceful "reunification." Still, the US defence intelligence official cautioned against over-reacting, noting Xi could believe he has plenty of time to achieve reunification with Taiwan. The official also cautioned that China`s military still faced gaps in its capabilities. "They could order them to go today, but I don't think they're particularly confident in that capability," the official said. Also on Tuesday, the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report describing Taiwan as the "primary driver" for China's military modernization, which it said had made major advances in recent years. US defence officials have become particularly alarmed about China's advances in super-fast "hypersonic" technology, which could allow it to field missiles that are far harder to detect. "The result ... is a PLA on the verge of fielding some of the most modern weapon systems in the world. In some areas, it already leads the world," the report said.

US eyes Taiwan risk as China's military capabilities grow

There’s one thing Turkey and the US can definitely agree on these days: Unreliability is now the bedrock of their relationship. It’s perhaps not surprising when the two powers are led by notably unpredictable men — US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In the latest antagonism, Erdogan’s close adviser, Yasin Aktay, has spoken of the US as a “highly unreliable partner” due to its efforts to safeguard the Syrian Kurdish forces who have partnered with the US in defeating the Islamic State (IS) in Syria.

The criticism is a further illustration of the echo chambers in which diplomacy is being conducted at the moment. Far from seeking to reduce friction (the usual role of diplomacy), such statements are part of the new prickly nationalism that is everywhere in the ascendant.

The most glaring dimension of Aktay’s statement is its subjectivity. Trump’s announcement in December 2018 of the US troop withdrawal from Syria really did put America’s Syrian Kurdish allies in potential harm’s way, at the hands of the Turkish army. The recent move to safeguard that ally could be viewed, in fact, as reliability.

But of course, Atkay is speaking from within the echo chamber of Turkish politics. Within that chamber, the US has deserted its NATO ally in favour of a Syrian Kurdish militia with strong ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — a movement within Turkey designated a terrorist organisation.

His assessment discounts the fact that the threat from IS was very real. The US needed local allies on the ground in order to counter it. Indeed, it was a long time before the Turkish government decided to give the fight against the Islamic State the same priority that it gave the fight against Kurdish groups.

Yet the Turkish displeasure with its NATO ally is not all paranoia and blinkered Turkish nationalism. President Trump has been cavalier in his diplomacy within the international body. He has also been transparently shortsighted in his engagement with the Middle East.

In line with his “America First” policies, Trump was quick to single out IS as a grave threat to be addressed, largely because it had the capacity to impact America itself and American lives. Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, have been far less eager to address Syria’s civil war.

From the Turkish viewpoint, this looks a lot like abandonment. The war on its southern frontier has been highly porous. It has deeply impacted Turkey in terms of terrorist atrocities, refugee flows, political destabilisation, economic impact and the very real threat of escalation from the Assad regime’s allies, Russia and Iran. None of this seems to have moved the US greatly.

Every man for himself

The result is a zero-sum environment in which all the key actors have gradually amassed leaders who see the best strategy as entrenchment and national defence. This may have been led by Russian President Vladimir Putin — the past master of such tactics — but it has been a domino effect.

President Erdogan has veered sharply in the same direction ever since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011. With the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency in November 2016, the world’s key superpower has followed suit. In the current dispute, the only real losers are likely to be the Kurds.

The Turkish government position has ossified. It cannot easily roll back on its war with the Syrian Kurdish militia now. The US position is more fluid. As President Trump as demonstrated, Washington is quite capable of dropping the Syrian Kurdish militia.

The reason the US government has so far stepped back from leaving the Syrian Kurds at the full mercy of other powers in Syria is not altruism. The Syrian Kurds merely offered the right guns for hire at the right time. But to drop them would hand valuable power to US adversaries.

In the cases of Russia and Iran, that would stick in the craw of the US administration. The irony is, as things stand, the other “adversary” who would clearly benefit is a country — Turkey — that is supposed to be an erstwhile NATO ally and a bulwark in the Middle East.

(Nathaniel Handy is a writer and academic)

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/turkey-us-relations-syrian-kurds-syria-civil-war-islamic-state-world-news-57293/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

There’s one thing Turkey and the US can definitely agree on these days: Unreliability is now the bedrock of their relationship. It’s perhaps not surprising when the two powers are led by notably unpredictable men — US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

There’s one thing Turkey and the US can definitely agree on these days: Unreliability is now the bedrock of their relationship. It’s perhaps not surprising when the two powers are led by notably unpredictable men — US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In the latest antagonism, Erdogan’s close adviser, Yasin Aktay, has spoken of the US as a “highly unreliable partner” due to its efforts to safeguard the Syrian Kurdish forces who have partnered with the US in defeating the Islamic State (IS) in Syria. The criticism is a further illustration of the echo chambers in which diplomacy is being conducted at the moment. Far from seeking to reduce friction (the usual role of diplomacy), such statements are part of the new prickly nationalism that is everywhere in the ascendant. The most glaring dimension of Aktay’s statement is its subjectivity. Trump’s announcement in December 2018 of the US troop withdrawal from Syria really did put America’s Syrian Kurdish allies in potential harm’s way, at the hands of the Turkish army. The recent move to safeguard that ally could be viewed, in fact, as reliability. But of course, Atkay is speaking from within the echo chamber of Turkish politics. Within that chamber, the US has deserted its NATO ally in favour of a Syrian Kurdish militia with strong ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — a movement within Turkey designated a terrorist organisation. His assessment discounts the fact that the threat from IS was very real. The US needed local allies on the ground in order to counter it. Indeed, it was a long time before the Turkish government decided to give the fight against the Islamic State the same priority that it gave the fight against Kurdish groups. Yet the Turkish displeasure with its NATO ally is not all paranoia and blinkered Turkish nationalism. President Trump has been cavalier in his diplomacy within the international body. He has also been transparently shortsighted in his engagement with the Middle East. In line with his “America First” policies, Trump was quick to single out IS as a grave threat to be addressed, largely because it had the capacity to impact America itself and American lives. Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, have been far less eager to address Syria’s civil war. From the Turkish viewpoint, this looks a lot like abandonment. The war on its southern frontier has been highly porous. It has deeply impacted Turkey in terms of terrorist atrocities, refugee flows, political destabilisation, economic impact and the very real threat of escalation from the Assad regime’s allies, Russia and Iran. None of this seems to have moved the US greatly. Every man for himself The result is a zero-sum environment in which all the key actors have gradually amassed leaders who see the best strategy as entrenchment and national defence. This may have been led by Russian President Vladimir Putin — the past master of such tactics — but it has been a domino effect. President Erdogan has veered sharply in the same direction ever since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011. With the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency in November 2016, the world’s key superpower has followed suit. In the current dispute, the only real losers are likely to be the Kurds. The Turkish government position has ossified. It cannot easily roll back on its war with the Syrian Kurdish militia now. The US position is more fluid. As President Trump as demonstrated, Washington is quite capable of dropping the Syrian Kurdish militia. The reason the US government has so far stepped back from leaving the Syrian Kurds at the full mercy of other powers in Syria is not altruism. The Syrian Kurds merely offered the right guns for hire at the right time. But to drop them would hand valuable power to US adversaries. In the cases of Russia and Iran, that would stick in the craw of the US administration. The irony is, as things stand, the other “adversary” who would clearly benefit is a country — Turkey — that is supposed to be an erstwhile NATO ally and a bulwark in the Middle East. (Nathaniel Handy is a writer and academic) (This article was originally published on The DNA. 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 the US is still losing Turkey

Russia on Tuesday blamed Washington for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/video-russia-will-make-banned-missiles-if-us-exits-arms-treaty-says-putin-181706">the looming collapse of a key arms control deal</a> after fresh talks failed to reach an accord to save the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

"Responsibility for this fully and completely rests with the American side," Russian news agencies quoted deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying after the talks in Geneva.

Ryabkov, who led Moscow's delegation, said the parties had failed to agree on anything and Washington did not appear to be in the mood for more negotiations.&nbsp;

"We are forced to acknowledge that there is no movement forward," he was quoted as saying.

US and Russian diplomats met in Geneva amid widespread concern over the fate of the bilateral agreement, after US President Donald Trump said in October his country would pull out of the deal unless Russia lived up to its terms.&nbsp;

The US side said the meeting in Geneva was "disappointing."

Last month Washington said it would withdraw from the INF treaty within 60 days if Russia did not dismantle missiles that the US claims breach the deal.

Ryabkov slammed the US negotiators for their "uncompromising stand".

He said Americans had confirmed Washington's intention to exit the treaty from February 2.

He said Russia proposed holding another round of talks on the agreement but got no reply from the US side.

"We are ready for dialogue on the basis of equality, mutual respect, (and) without putting forward ultimatums," Ryabkov said.

On Friday Russia plans to brief European diplomats on the status of the talks, he said.

Tensions have risen over the fate of the INF, with Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening a new arms race if the agreement collapsed.

Putin in December suggested he was open to the idea of other countries joining the INF treaty or to starting talks on a new agreement.

The bilateral agreement -- signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 -- forbids ground-launched short- and intermediate-range missiles.

Russia on Tuesday blamed Washington for the looming collapse of a key arms control deal after fresh talks failed to reach an accord to save the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Russia on Tuesday blamed Washington for the looming collapse of a key arms control deal after fresh talks failed to reach an accord to save the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. "Responsibility for this fully and completely rests with the American side," Russian news agencies quoted deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying after the talks in Geneva. Ryabkov, who led Moscow's delegation, said the parties had failed to agree on anything and Washington did not appear to be in the mood for more negotiations. "We are forced to acknowledge that there is no movement forward," he was quoted as saying. US and Russian diplomats met in Geneva amid widespread concern over the fate of the bilateral agreement, after US President Donald Trump said in October his country would pull out of the deal unless Russia lived up to its terms. The US side said the meeting in Geneva was "disappointing." Last month Washington said it would withdraw from the INF treaty within 60 days if Russia did not dismantle missiles that the US claims breach the deal. Ryabkov slammed the US negotiators for their "uncompromising stand". He said Americans had confirmed Washington's intention to exit the treaty from February 2. He said Russia proposed holding another round of talks on the agreement but got no reply from the US side. "We are ready for dialogue on the basis of equality, mutual respect, (and) without putting forward ultimatums," Ryabkov said. On Friday Russia plans to brief European diplomats on the status of the talks, he said. Tensions have risen over the fate of the INF, with Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening a new arms race if the agreement collapsed. Putin in December suggested he was open to the idea of other countries joining the INF treaty or to starting talks on a new agreement. The bilateral agreement -- signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 -- forbids ground-launched short- and intermediate-range missiles.

Russia says US is 'fully' responsible for collapse of arms treaty

Pakistan has arrested a senior member of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-taliban-claim-responsibility-for-deadly-kabul-car-bomb-attack-190365">the Afghan Taliban</a> here in a bid to put pressure on the militant group to come to the negotiating table to hold talks with the US, a media report said Tuesday.

Hafez Mohibullah, who served as Religious Affairs Minister when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan until 2001, was held in Peshawar, the BBC reported quoting sources in the group.

The US has repeatedly called on Pakistan to end "safe havens" for the Taliban on its soil. Pakistan denies backing the group to retain influence in Afghanistan.

The reported detention of Mohibullah came ahead of US envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad's visit to Pakistan for a fresh round of talks with top officials to push forward a US-backed ongoing peace process in the war-torn country.

Two high-ranking Taliban figures, talking on condition of anonymity, suggested the former minister had been detained to put pressure on the group into meeting Khalilzad in Pakistan this week, and crucially to agree to meet representatives of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the report said.

"They arrested him [Mohibullah] to send a message," the report said, quoting one senior Taliban figure as saying.

"There was a meeting with Pakistani officials on the upcoming peace talks which ended in arguments. Right afterwards, the authorities raided a number of houses and arrested Mohibullah. After that (Taliban leader) Sheikh Hibatullah sent a message warning everyone to be alert," said another source from the militant group's Quetta Shura or leadership council.

The US wants Pakistan to encourage the militants to reach a settlement in Afghanistan and bring the 17-year war to a close.

The Taliban officials have said they will only begin talks with the Afghan government once a firm date for the withdrawal of American troops from the country has been agreed.

India has been a key stakeholder in the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. India has been maintaining a policy of not engaging with the Taliban and pressing for an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace initiative to bring peace and stability in the war-ravaged country.

Hafez Mohibullah, who served as Religious Affairs Minister when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan until 2001, was held in Peshawar, the BBC reported.

Pakistan has arrested a senior member of the Afghan Taliban here in a bid to put pressure on the militant group to come to the negotiating table to hold talks with the US, a media report said Tuesday. Hafez Mohibullah, who served as Religious Affairs Minister when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan until 2001, was held in Peshawar, the BBC reported quoting sources in the group. The US has repeatedly called on Pakistan to end "safe havens" for the Taliban on its soil. Pakistan denies backing the group to retain influence in Afghanistan. The reported detention of Mohibullah came ahead of US envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad's visit to Pakistan for a fresh round of talks with top officials to push forward a US-backed ongoing peace process in the war-torn country. Two high-ranking Taliban figures, talking on condition of anonymity, suggested the former minister had been detained to put pressure on the group into meeting Khalilzad in Pakistan this week, and crucially to agree to meet representatives of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the report said. "They arrested him [Mohibullah] to send a message," the report said, quoting one senior Taliban figure as saying. "There was a meeting with Pakistani officials on the upcoming peace talks which ended in arguments. Right afterwards, the authorities raided a number of houses and arrested Mohibullah. After that (Taliban leader) Sheikh Hibatullah sent a message warning everyone to be alert," said another source from the militant group's Quetta Shura or leadership council. The US wants Pakistan to encourage the militants to reach a settlement in Afghanistan and bring the 17-year war to a close. The Taliban officials have said they will only begin talks with the Afghan government once a firm date for the withdrawal of American troops from the country has been agreed. India has been a key stakeholder in the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. India has been maintaining a policy of not engaging with the Taliban and pressing for an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace initiative to bring peace and stability in the war-ravaged country.

Pakistan arrests top Taliban member to put pressure on militant outfit to hold talks with US

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-us-gives-russia-60-days-to-comply-with-nuclear-treaty-181666">US and Russian</a> diplomats were meeting on Tuesday to discuss the fate of a major nuclear missile control treaty that Washington has threatened to ditch over alleged violations by Moscow.&nbsp;

The discussions come amid widespread concern over the fate of the bilateral treaty after US President Donald Trump said in October his country would pull out of the deal unless <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-has-no-evidence-to-prove-breach-of-nuclear-treaty-russia-181665">Russia</a> stopped violating it.&nbsp;

"Russia and the United States will hold consultations on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty #INFtreaty in Geneva on January 15," Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said in a tweet.&nbsp;

Andrea Thompson, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, also tweeted that she was leading the American delegation to the talks.&nbsp;

"Looking forward to sitting down with Russian delegation this morning to discuss how #Russia plans to come back into full and verifiable compliance with the #INFTreaty," she said.&nbsp;

The talks are being held inside the Russian mission, a source there who was not authorised to speak to the media told AFP.

Last month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Washington would withdraw from the Cold War treaty limiting mid-range nuclear arms within 60 days if Russia does not dismantle missiles that the US claims to breach the deal.

"Recently we have noted that the American side has even hardened its tone, we see that as not a very favourable signal," Ryabkov was quoted as saying by Russia's Interfax news agency ahead of the Geneva talks.&nbsp;

Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to the US hardline by threatening to develop more nuclear missiles banned under the treaty. &nbsp;

The landmark treaty was signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 and led to nearly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles being eliminated.

It put an end to a mini-arms race in the 1980s triggered by the Soviet Union's deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles targeting Western European capitals.

US and Russian diplomats were meeting on Tuesday to discuss the fate of a major nuclear missile control treaty that Washington has threatened to ditch over alleged violations by Moscow.

US and Russian diplomats were meeting on Tuesday to discuss the fate of a major nuclear missile control treaty that Washington has threatened to ditch over alleged violations by Moscow. The discussions come amid widespread concern over the fate of the bilateral treaty after US President Donald Trump said in October his country would pull out of the deal unless Russia stopped violating it. "Russia and the United States will hold consultations on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty #INFtreaty in Geneva on January 15," Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said in a tweet. Andrea Thompson, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, also tweeted that she was leading the American delegation to the talks. "Looking forward to sitting down with Russian delegation this morning to discuss how #Russia plans to come back into full and verifiable compliance with the #INFTreaty," she said. The talks are being held inside the Russian mission, a source there who was not authorised to speak to the media told AFP. Last month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Washington would withdraw from the Cold War treaty limiting mid-range nuclear arms within 60 days if Russia does not dismantle missiles that the US claims to breach the deal. "Recently we have noted that the American side has even hardened its tone, we see that as not a very favourable signal," Ryabkov was quoted as saying by Russia's Interfax news agency ahead of the Geneva talks. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to the US hardline by threatening to develop more nuclear missiles banned under the treaty. The landmark treaty was signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 and led to nearly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles being eliminated. It put an end to a mini-arms race in the 1980s triggered by the Soviet Union's deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles targeting Western European capitals.

US, Russia meet on disputed nuclear treaty in Geneva

The United States and North Korea plan to hold high-level talks in Washington this week to discuss a second meeting between their leaders, South Korean media said on Tuesday, as the old enemies seek an "interim" deal to revitalise nuclear talks.

The meeting, led by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol, is due on Thursday or Friday, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported, citing an unidentified diplomatic source familiar with the issue.

They are expected to finalise the date and venue of a second summit between US&nbsp;President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the newspaper said.

The US&nbsp;embassy in Seoul referred questions to the White House. The White House offered no immediate comment on the Chosun Ilbo report, while a State Department official said: "We don't have any meetings to announce."

South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted an unidentified diplomatic source as saying Pompeo and Kim Yong Chol could meet this week.

The North Korean delegation could visit the United States "as soon as this week" but plans have not been finalised, a CNN reporter, citing an unidentified source, said on Twitter.

Trump wrote Kim Jong Un a letter, which was flown to Pyongyang and hand delivered over the weekend, the CNN reporter added, citing the source.

South Korea's foreign ministry spokesman told reporters the North and the United States were "in contact" but it was "inappropriate" to comment on plans for talks.

A meeting this week could mean the two sides are nearing a compromise after months of standoff over how to move forward in ending North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes.

Trump and Kim pledged at their first summit, in Singapore in June, to work towards denuclearisation "of the Korean peninsula". But there has been little significant progress.

Pompeo, who made several trips to Pyongyang last year, sought to meet his counterpart last November, but the talks were called off at the last minute.

Contact was resumed after Kim's New Year's speech, in which he said he was willing to meet Trump "at any time," South Korea's ambassador to the United States, Cho Yoon-je, told reporters last week.

In Seoul, South Korea deleted a description of North Korea as an "enemy" in its defence white paper released on Tuesday, though it said its weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to peace and stability.

INTERIM MEASURES

The United States and South Korea have been discussing how to respond to any North Korean steps toward denuclearisation, South Korean officials told Reuters.

The United States is considering easing sanctions in exchange for the North's discarding and sending abroad its intercontinental ballistic missiles, in addition to freezing its nuclear programme, the Chosun Ilbo said, citing its source.

US&nbsp;responses could include exemptions from sanctions for inter-Korean business and opening a liaison office, Seoul officials said.

"Those ideas are being discussed as interim measures, not as an end state, in order to expedite the denuclearisation process, because the North wouldn't respond to any demand for a declaration of facilities and weapons," said a senior South Korean official, who declined to be identified.

"The end goal remains unchanged, whether it be complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation, or final, fully verified denuclearisation."

The official said a Trump and Kim meeting could happen by early March, though added: "No one knows what Trump is thinking."

Kim reiterated his resolve to meet Trump during a meeting last week with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Trump said this month he had received a "great" letter from Kim and would probably meet him again soon.

"At the second summit, they'll probably focus on reaching a possible interim deal, rather than a comprehensive roadmap for denuclearisation," said Cheong Seong-chang, a senior fellow at South Korea's Sejong Institute.

The United States and North Korea plan to hold high-level talks in Washington this week to discuss a second meeting between their leaders, South Korean media said on Tuesday, as the old enemies seek an "interim" deal to revitalise nuclear talks.

The United States and North Korea plan to hold high-level talks in Washington this week to discuss a second meeting between their leaders, South Korean media said on Tuesday, as the old enemies seek an "interim" deal to revitalise nuclear talks. The meeting, led by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol, is due on Thursday or Friday, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported, citing an unidentified diplomatic source familiar with the issue. They are expected to finalise the date and venue of a second summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the newspaper said. The US embassy in Seoul referred questions to the White House. The White House offered no immediate comment on the Chosun Ilbo report, while a State Department official said: "We don't have any meetings to announce." South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted an unidentified diplomatic source as saying Pompeo and Kim Yong Chol could meet this week. The North Korean delegation could visit the United States "as soon as this week" but plans have not been finalised, a CNN reporter, citing an unidentified source, said on Twitter. Trump wrote Kim Jong Un a letter, which was flown to Pyongyang and hand delivered over the weekend, the CNN reporter added, citing the source. South Korea's foreign ministry spokesman told reporters the North and the United States were "in contact" but it was "inappropriate" to comment on plans for talks. A meeting this week could mean the two sides are nearing a compromise after months of standoff over how to move forward in ending North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes. Trump and Kim pledged at their first summit, in Singapore in June, to work towards denuclearisation "of the Korean peninsula". But there has been little significant progress. Pompeo, who made several trips to Pyongyang last year, sought to meet his counterpart last November, but the talks were called off at the last minute. Contact was resumed after Kim's New Year's speech, in which he said he was willing to meet Trump "at any time," South Korea's ambassador to the United States, Cho Yoon-je, told reporters last week. In Seoul, South Korea deleted a description of North Korea as an "enemy" in its defence white paper released on Tuesday, though it said its weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to peace and stability. INTERIM MEASURES The United States and South Korea have been discussing how to respond to any North Korean steps toward denuclearisation, South Korean officials told Reuters. The United States is considering easing sanctions in exchange for the North's discarding and sending abroad its intercontinental ballistic missiles, in addition to freezing its nuclear programme, the Chosun Ilbo said, citing its source. US responses could include exemptions from sanctions for inter-Korean business and opening a liaison office, Seoul officials said. "Those ideas are being discussed as interim measures, not as an end state, in order to expedite the denuclearisation process, because the North wouldn't respond to any demand for a declaration of facilities and weapons," said a senior South Korean official, who declined to be identified. "The end goal remains unchanged, whether it be complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation, or final, fully verified denuclearisation." The official said a Trump and Kim meeting could happen by early March, though added: "No one knows what Trump is thinking." Kim reiterated his resolve to meet Trump during a meeting last week with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Trump said this month he had received a "great" letter from Kim and would probably meet him again soon. "At the second summit, they'll probably focus on reaching a possible interim deal, rather than a comprehensive roadmap for denuclearisation," said Cheong Seong-chang, a senior fellow at South Korea's Sejong Institute.

US, North Korea to hold talks this week seeking 'interim' deal: Report

Raj Shah, an Indian-origin top spokesman in the White House press office, has left US President Donald Trump's administration to join an arm of a lobbying firm, becoming the latest of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-special-envoy-brett-mcgurk-quits-over-trump-syria-pullout-185899">several senior officials to quit in recent months</a>.

Shah, 34, White House deputy spokesman and a former researcher at the Republican National Committee, was in the administration since president Trump took office in January 2017.

His portfolio recently included helping prepare Justice Brett M Kavanaugh for his Senate confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court.

Shah will lead the Media Group, the press wing of Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with offices in Florida and Washington, The New York Times reported.

He will work with Jamie Rubin, a Democrat who was a spokesman for Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, the report said, quoting the officials.

His departure comes as the White House press and communications teams have been depleted. Several aides have moved on to roles at government agencies or have left the Trump administration entirely.

Shah was born in 1984 to Indian parents of Gujarati origin. His parents moved to Chicago in 1970s and then moved to Connecticut where he was born and raised.

Shah joined the White House right from the day the Trump administration took charge. He was made the Deputy Communications Director at the White House. Previously, he was director of Opposition Research in the Republican National Committee.

Shah is the latest in a number of top officials to leave the Trump administration.

Former Defence Secretary James Mattis left Trump's Cabinet last month after former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was pushed out in November. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was unceremoniously fired in March and national security adviser H R McMaster was replaced last year.&nbsp;

Raj Shah, an Indian-origin top spokesman in the White House press office, has left US President Donald Trump's administration to join an arm of a lobbying firm, becoming the latest of several senior officials to quit in recent months.

Raj Shah, an Indian-origin top spokesman in the White House press office, has left US President Donald Trump's administration to join an arm of a lobbying firm, becoming the latest of several senior officials to quit in recent months. Shah, 34, White House deputy spokesman and a former researcher at the Republican National Committee, was in the administration since president Trump took office in January 2017. His portfolio recently included helping prepare Justice Brett M Kavanaugh for his Senate confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court. Shah will lead the Media Group, the press wing of Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with offices in Florida and Washington, The New York Times reported. He will work with Jamie Rubin, a Democrat who was a spokesman for Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, the report said, quoting the officials. His departure comes as the White House press and communications teams have been depleted. Several aides have moved on to roles at government agencies or have left the Trump administration entirely. Shah was born in 1984 to Indian parents of Gujarati origin. His parents moved to Chicago in 1970s and then moved to Connecticut where he was born and raised. Shah joined the White House right from the day the Trump administration took charge. He was made the Deputy Communications Director at the White House. Previously, he was director of Opposition Research in the Republican National Committee. Shah is the latest in a number of top officials to leave the Trump administration. Former Defence Secretary James Mattis left Trump's Cabinet last month after former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was pushed out in November. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was unceremoniously fired in March and national security adviser H R McMaster was replaced last year.

Indian-origin White House deputy spokesman Raj Shah quits Trump administration

A massive winter storm rolled eastward to the mid-Atlantic United States on Sunday (January 13) after dropping more than a foot of snow on parts of the Midwest and killing at least 7 people in highway accidents on Saturday.

Millions of Americans in ten states and Washington, DC were under a winter storm warning or advisory on Sunday.

It was the first major snowfall in the US capital city.

Washington was forecast to receive almost a half foot of snow, forcing airlines to cancel over one hundred flights leaving Reagan National Airport on Sunday morning.

It was the first major snowfall in the US capital city.

A massive winter storm rolled eastward to the mid-Atlantic United States on Sunday (January 13) after dropping more than a foot of snow on parts of the Midwest and killing at least 7 people in highway accidents on Saturday. Millions of Americans in ten states and Washington, DC were under a winter storm warning or advisory on Sunday. It was the first major snowfall in the US capital city. Washington was forecast to receive almost a half foot of snow, forcing airlines to cancel over one hundred flights leaving Reagan National Airport on Sunday morning.

Watch: Winter storm hits Washington; at least 7 dead

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/how-cold-is-the-moon-at-night-china-to-find-out-190033">China</a>’s exports rose 9.9 per cent in 2018, its strongest trade performance in seven years, despite growing disruptions from an escalating trade war with the United States, customs data showed on Monday.

Imports increased 15.8 per cent last year, resulting in a trade surplus of $351.76 billion, the country’s lowest since 2013.

The world’s largest trading nation got off to a strong start in 2018, but pressure on the economy started to build later in the year as the United States and China began imposing tariffs on each other’s goods and global demand started to cool.

The Customs office is expected to release trade numbers for December later in the day.

China’s export growth is expected to have eased for a second straight month in December as global demand weakened, raising pressure on Beijing as it tries to reach a trade deal with Washington.

Softening demand in China is already being felt around the world, with slowing sales of goods ranging from iPhones to automobiles adding to fears of cooling global growth.

Sources told Reuters last week that Beijing is planning to lower its economic growth target to 6-6.5 per cent this year after an expected 6.6 per cent in 2018, the slowest pace in 28 years.&nbsp;

Imports increased 15.8 per cent last year, resulting in a trade surplus of $351.76 billion, the country’s lowest since 2013.

China’s exports rose 9.9 per cent in 2018, its strongest trade performance in seven years, despite growing disruptions from an escalating trade war with the United States, customs data showed on Monday. Imports increased 15.8 per cent last year, resulting in a trade surplus of $351.76 billion, the country’s lowest since 2013. The world’s largest trading nation got off to a strong start in 2018, but pressure on the economy started to build later in the year as the United States and China began imposing tariffs on each other’s goods and global demand started to cool. The Customs office is expected to release trade numbers for December later in the day. China’s export growth is expected to have eased for a second straight month in December as global demand weakened, raising pressure on Beijing as it tries to reach a trade deal with Washington. Softening demand in China is already being felt around the world, with slowing sales of goods ranging from iPhones to automobiles adding to fears of cooling global growth. Sources told Reuters last week that Beijing is planning to lower its economic growth target to 6-6.5 per cent this year after an expected 6.6 per cent in 2018, the slowest pace in 28 years.

China posts strongest export growth in 7 years despite trade war

There is a "strong possibility" of Tahawwur Hussain Rana - currently serving a 14-year jail term in the US for plotting the 2008 Mumbai terror attack - being extradited to India, an informed source said.&nbsp;

The Indian government, with "full co-operation" from the Trump administration, is currently working on completing the necessary paperwork to ensure the extradition of the Pakistani-Canadian national before his current jail term ends in December 2021.

Rana was arrested in 2009 on the charges of plotting the 26/11 terror attack. Some 166 people, including US nationals, were killed in the attack carried out by 10 Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists. Nine of the attackers were killed by police while lone survivor Ajmal Kasab was captured and hanged after handed down death sentence by an Indian court.

In 2013, Rana was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment.&nbsp;

According to the US officials, he is set to be released in December 2021.

"There is a strong possibility of extradition of Rana to India on completion of his jail term here. We (US and India) are working on this," a source told PTI. 
But the "challenge" is to complete the necessary paperwork during this period and overcome the cumbersome bureaucracy of the two countries and the independent judiciary, the source said.

India's Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice and the US' State Department and the Department of Justice, each of them has their own extradition procedure in place.

And they are unwilling to cut down or speed up their own process when it comes to extradition, it added.

Following a recent visit to the US by India's National Investigation Agency (NIA) team, officials from both sides have agreed to cut down on the bureaucratic procedures so that all the necessary paperwork is ready before the current jail term of Rana ends in December 2021.&nbsp;

From now on, the NIA is expected to have direct communication with their US counterparts to cut short the timeframe and bureaucratic formalities.

In case, the US government in co-operation with the Indian government is unable to complete the necessary paperwork before that, officials here said it would become very tough to ensure a smooth extradition of Rana once he is released from the jail in Chicago, where he is currently serving his sentence.

As per the existing US law, Rana, a Pakistan-born Canadian national, would most probably be deported to Canada if India and the US are unable to complete the cumbersome extradition process before his release.

However, people familiar with the matter told PTI, that there is a "desire" so there is assurance from the highest level in the Trump administration that all necessary steps would be taken in a timely fashion to ensure extradition of Rana before his release.

According to the US officials, the extradition of Rana would help in cementing the relationship between the two countries, boost up the counter-terrorism co-operation and enhance America's image among Indians.

On the 10th anniversary of the Mumbai terror attack, in November 2018, the Trump administration had reiterated its resolve to bring to justice those involved in it.&nbsp;

Vice President Mike Pence had raised this issue during his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in November.

During their recent visit, the NIA team also received guidance from their US counterparts on the paperwork which India needs to complete to meet the requirements of the American judiciary system and their standards.&nbsp;

India would not seek extradition of Rana on the charges for which he is already serving his jail sentence, as officials pointed out that the "double jeopardy" clause in the US justice system prohibits to punish a person twice for the same crime.

India is seeking extradition of Rana on the ground that he was actively involved in planning an attack on the New Delhi-based National Defense College and Chabad Houses in several cities. There is also forgery case registered against him in India.

Citing the partial government shutdown, the State Department and the Department of Justice expressed their inability to respond to the questions related to the extradition of Rana.&nbsp;

The Indian Embassy here and the attorney of Rana did not respond to a question on this issue.&nbsp;

There is a "strong possibility" of Tahawwur Hussain Rana - currently serving a 14-year jail term in the US for plotting the 2008 Mumbai terror attack - being extradited to India, an informed source said.

There is a "strong possibility" of Tahawwur Hussain Rana - currently serving a 14-year jail term in the US for plotting the 2008 Mumbai terror attack - being extradited to India, an informed source said. The Indian government, with "full co-operation" from the Trump administration, is currently working on completing the necessary paperwork to ensure the extradition of the Pakistani-Canadian national before his current jail term ends in December 2021. Rana was arrested in 2009 on the charges of plotting the 26/11 terror attack. Some 166 people, including US nationals, were killed in the attack carried out by 10 Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists. Nine of the attackers were killed by police while lone survivor Ajmal Kasab was captured and hanged after handed down death sentence by an Indian court. In 2013, Rana was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment. According to the US officials, he is set to be released in December 2021. "There is a strong possibility of extradition of Rana to India on completion of his jail term here. We (US and India) are working on this," a source told PTI. But the "challenge" is to complete the necessary paperwork during this period and overcome the cumbersome bureaucracy of the two countries and the independent judiciary, the source said. India's Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice and the US' State Department and the Department of Justice, each of them has their own extradition procedure in place. And they are unwilling to cut down or speed up their own process when it comes to extradition, it added. Following a recent visit to the US by India's National Investigation Agency (NIA) team, officials from both sides have agreed to cut down on the bureaucratic procedures so that all the necessary paperwork is ready before the current jail term of Rana ends in December 2021. From now on, the NIA is expected to have direct communication with their US counterparts to cut short the timeframe and bureaucratic formalities. In case, the US government in co-operation with the Indian government is unable to complete the necessary paperwork before that, officials here said it would become very tough to ensure a smooth extradition of Rana once he is released from the jail in Chicago, where he is currently serving his sentence. As per the existing US law, Rana, a Pakistan-born Canadian national, would most probably be deported to Canada if India and the US are unable to complete the cumbersome extradition process before his release. However, people familiar with the matter told PTI, that there is a "desire" so there is assurance from the highest level in the Trump administration that all necessary steps would be taken in a timely fashion to ensure extradition of Rana before his release. According to the US officials, the extradition of Rana would help in cementing the relationship between the two countries, boost up the counter-terrorism co-operation and enhance America's image among Indians. On the 10th anniversary of the Mumbai terror attack, in November 2018, the Trump administration had reiterated its resolve to bring to justice those involved in it. Vice President Mike Pence had raised this issue during his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in November. During their recent visit, the NIA team also received guidance from their US counterparts on the paperwork which India needs to complete to meet the requirements of the American judiciary system and their standards. India would not seek extradition of Rana on the charges for which he is already serving his jail sentence, as officials pointed out that the "double jeopardy" clause in the US justice system prohibits to punish a person twice for the same crime. India is seeking extradition of Rana on the ground that he was actively involved in planning an attack on the New Delhi-based National Defense College and Chabad Houses in several cities. There is also forgery case registered against him in India. Citing the partial government shutdown, the State Department and the Department of Justice expressed their inability to respond to the questions related to the extradition of Rana. The Indian Embassy here and the attorney of Rana did not respond to a question on this issue.

'Strong possibility' of 26/11 accused Tahawwur Rana to be extradited to India: Sources

Top Republican lawmakers on Sunday warned against Donald <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-stops-short-of-emergency-declaration-in-border-wall-fight-189699">Trump declaring a national emergency</a> to secure funds for a border wall, signalling doubts within the president's party as a government shutdown was set to enter the fourth workweek.

Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that he would "hate" to see Trump invoke emergency powers for a wall.

"If we do that, it's going to go to court and the wall won't get built," he said. And Representative Steve Scalise, the No. 2 House Republican, told ABC, "We don't want it to come down to a national emergency declaration," even if he believes Trump has the authority to do so.

Trump only recently backed away from talk of an<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/pompeo-hopes-for-imminent-end-to-us-government-shutdown-190082"> emergency declaration</a>, after pressing it for days as a way out of the continuing budget standoff.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-record-long-government-shutdown-could-be-resolved-in-15-minutes-189918">Democrats</a> have strongly opposed the idea. The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, said Sunday on ABC that "if this president is going to turn to national emergencies every time he disagrees with Congress, I'm against it." He urged Trump to "put an end to the shutdown and put everything on the table." As the partisan battle drags on, the effects of the partial shutdown have become steadily clearer, and new polls show growing public dissatisfaction.

On Sunday, Trump acknowledged, at least indirectly, the mounting costs of the shutdown.

"The damage done to our Country from a badly broken Border - Drugs, Crime and so much that is bad - is far greater than a Shutdown, which the Dems can easily fix as soon as they come back to Washington!" he said. Many lawmakers spent the weekend in their home states -- often hearing constituents' complaints about the shutdown -- but will return to Washington on Monday.

Trump has tried various angles to pressure Democratic negotiators, but they have not visibly budged from an offer to support some border security spending -- the figure of $1.3 billion has been floated -- but not the $5.7 billion he wants for a wall.

Two new polls indicate the Democrats may be winning the battle for public support.

The Washington Post/ABC News survey found that far more Americans blame Trump and the Republicans for the shutdown than blame the Democrats -- by 53 per cent to 29 per cent.

Meantime, a separate poll by CNN showed Trump's disapproval rating among Americans had climbed by five points -- to 57 per cent -- in just a month, with just 37 per cent approving.

But the Post poll also found a hardening of Republican support for a wall, with 70 per cent now saying they strongly support the wall, up from 58 per cent a year earlier.

The president has closely tied his fate to his steadfast conservative base.

Many Republicans doubt that the invocation of a national emergency would help their cause -- likely influencing Trump's decision Friday to say he was holding off in order to give Democrats more time to strike a deal. "I want to give them the chance to see if they can act responsibly," he told Fox in an interview late Saturday.

Trump has acknowledged that an emergency declaration would likely trigger a legal battle ending in the Supreme Court.

Opponents say such a unilateral presidential move would be a constitutional overreach and set a dangerous precedent.

The partial shutdown became the longest on record at midnight Friday when it overtook a 21-day stretch in 1995-1996 under president Bill Clinton.

The impasse has paralyzed Washington -- its impact felt increasingly around the country -- with the president refusing to sign off on budgets for swaths of government departments unrelated to the dispute.

As a result, 800,000 federal employees -- including FBI agents, air traffic controllers and museum staff -- received no paychecks on Friday. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the US-Mexican border presents challenges, but Trump has turned his single-minded push for more walls into a crusade.

He tweeted Sunday that "The building of the Wall on the Southern Border will bring down the crime rate throughout the entire Country!" Some studies show that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in the United States.

Only in recent days has Trump begun describing the problem as "humanitarian," referring in a tweet Saturday to "a massive Humanitarian Crisis at our Southern Border."&nbsp;

Top Republican lawmakers on Sunday warned against Donald Trump declaring a national emergency to secure funds for a border wall, signalling doubts within the president's party as a government shutdown was set to enter the fourth workweek.

Top Republican lawmakers on Sunday warned against Donald Trump declaring a national emergency to secure funds for a border wall, signalling doubts within the president's party as a government shutdown was set to enter the fourth workweek. Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that he would "hate" to see Trump invoke emergency powers for a wall. "If we do that, it's going to go to court and the wall won't get built," he said. And Representative Steve Scalise, the No. 2 House Republican, told ABC, "We don't want it to come down to a national emergency declaration," even if he believes Trump has the authority to do so. Trump only recently backed away from talk of an emergency declaration, after pressing it for days as a way out of the continuing budget standoff. Democrats have strongly opposed the idea. The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, said Sunday on ABC that "if this president is going to turn to national emergencies every time he disagrees with Congress, I'm against it." He urged Trump to "put an end to the shutdown and put everything on the table." As the partisan battle drags on, the effects of the partial shutdown have become steadily clearer, and new polls show growing public dissatisfaction. On Sunday, Trump acknowledged, at least indirectly, the mounting costs of the shutdown. "The damage done to our Country from a badly broken Border - Drugs, Crime and so much that is bad - is far greater than a Shutdown, which the Dems can easily fix as soon as they come back to Washington!" he said. Many lawmakers spent the weekend in their home states -- often hearing constituents' complaints about the shutdown -- but will return to Washington on Monday. Trump has tried various angles to pressure Democratic negotiators, but they have not visibly budged from an offer to support some border security spending -- the figure of $1.3 billion has been floated -- but not the $5.7 billion he wants for a wall. Two new polls indicate the Democrats may be winning the battle for public support. The Washington Post/ABC News survey found that far more Americans blame Trump and the Republicans for the shutdown than blame the Democrats -- by 53 per cent to 29 per cent. Meantime, a separate poll by CNN showed Trump's disapproval rating among Americans had climbed by five points -- to 57 per cent -- in just a month, with just 37 per cent approving. But the Post poll also found a hardening of Republican support for a wall, with 70 per cent now saying they strongly support the wall, up from 58 per cent a year earlier. The president has closely tied his fate to his steadfast conservative base. Many Republicans doubt that the invocation of a national emergency would help their cause -- likely influencing Trump's decision Friday to say he was holding off in order to give Democrats more time to strike a deal. "I want to give them the chance to see if they can act responsibly," he told Fox in an interview late Saturday. Trump has acknowledged that an emergency declaration would likely trigger a legal battle ending in the Supreme Court. Opponents say such a unilateral presidential move would be a constitutional overreach and set a dangerous precedent. The partial shutdown became the longest on record at midnight Friday when it overtook a 21-day stretch in 1995-1996 under president Bill Clinton. The impasse has paralyzed Washington -- its impact felt increasingly around the country -- with the president refusing to sign off on budgets for swaths of government departments unrelated to the dispute. As a result, 800,000 federal employees -- including FBI agents, air traffic controllers and museum staff -- received no paychecks on Friday. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the US-Mexican border presents challenges, but Trump has turned his single-minded push for more walls into a crusade. He tweeted Sunday that "The building of the Wall on the Southern Border will bring down the crime rate throughout the entire Country!" Some studies show that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in the United States. Only in recent days has Trump begun describing the problem as "humanitarian," referring in a tweet Saturday to "a massive Humanitarian Crisis at our Southern Border."

Top Republicans oppose border 'emergency' as shutdown drags on

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/13-dead-2-still-missing-in-cargo-plane-crash-iran-army-190221">Iran's president</a> said Monday the Islamic Republic plans to launch two domestically made satellites into orbit in the "coming days" to gather information on the country's environment, state TV reported.

"In the coming days we will launch two satellites into space," President Hassan Rouhani said during a trip to the northeastern Golestan province.

"Both the Payam satellite and its carrier rocket are made in our own country and by the youth of this nation," he added.

Payam would orbit the earth at about 600 kilometres (370 miles) above its surface, according to state TV.

Rouhani did not name the second satellite but said both were manufactured at Tehran's Amirkabir University of Technology.

Iran's telecommunications minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi said Wednesday that Payam and a second satellite called Doosti had been successfully tested and that there would be "good news" soon, the conservative Tasnim news agency reported.

Doosti would be tasked with the same purpose as Payam, with a focus on agriculture, and would orbit at an altitude of 250 kilometres, he added.

Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Iran's plans for sending satellites into orbit would violate a 2015 UN Security Council resolution which endorsed an international accord on ending Tehran's nuclear programme.

Resolution 2231 called on Iran to refrain from any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

"The United States will not stand by and watch the Iranian regime's destructive policies place international stability and security at risk," Pompeo said in a statement on January 3.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/cargo-plane-crashes-in-iran-10-feared-dead-190173">Tehran</a> and Washington have been at loggerheads since the US walked away in May last year from the landmark deal with Iran and reimposed crippling sanctions on the country.

Tehran denied the charges Monday that its aerospace activities were a violation of the security council resolution, semi-official ISNA news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi as saying.

"The satellite is part of a civil project with purely scientific aims. Iran will wait for no country's permission to conduct such scientific projects," Ghasemi added.

'In the coming days we will launch two satellites into space,' President Hassan Rouhani said during a trip to the northeastern Golestan province.

Iran's president said Monday the Islamic Republic plans to launch two domestically made satellites into orbit in the "coming days" to gather information on the country's environment, state TV reported. "In the coming days we will launch two satellites into space," President Hassan Rouhani said during a trip to the northeastern Golestan province. "Both the Payam satellite and its carrier rocket are made in our own country and by the youth of this nation," he added. Payam would orbit the earth at about 600 kilometres (370 miles) above its surface, according to state TV. Rouhani did not name the second satellite but said both were manufactured at Tehran's Amirkabir University of Technology. Iran's telecommunications minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi said Wednesday that Payam and a second satellite called Doosti had been successfully tested and that there would be "good news" soon, the conservative Tasnim news agency reported. Doosti would be tasked with the same purpose as Payam, with a focus on agriculture, and would orbit at an altitude of 250 kilometres, he added. Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Iran's plans for sending satellites into orbit would violate a 2015 UN Security Council resolution which endorsed an international accord on ending Tehran's nuclear programme. Resolution 2231 called on Iran to refrain from any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. "The United States will not stand by and watch the Iranian regime's destructive policies place international stability and security at risk," Pompeo said in a statement on January 3. Tehran and Washington have been at loggerheads since the US walked away in May last year from the landmark deal with Iran and reimposed crippling sanctions on the country. Tehran denied the charges Monday that its aerospace activities were a violation of the security council resolution, semi-official ISNA news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi as saying. "The satellite is part of a civil project with purely scientific aims. Iran will wait for no country's permission to conduct such scientific projects," Ghasemi added.

Iran to launch two satellites in 'coming days': President Hassan Rouhani

By Chris Edelson

If President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to fund some portion of a wall along the US-Mexico border without congressional authorisation, what would happen next?

Would the courts step in? What is Congress’ role?

As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power in two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the US Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress.

Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The US Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent.

The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency.

If President Trump does declare an emergency, the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of the passive spectator?

Gaining congressional approval

Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorisation. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congress for these actions.

This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labour strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a pre-existing statute on the books weighed against Truman.

When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion, in that case, has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible.

Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted.

Congress’s role

Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes.

Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law.

The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in U.S. waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute.

Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute.

Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action.

For example, in 1846 President James Polk falsely claimed that Mexico had spilled American blood on US soil as a pretext for gaining a declaration of war from Congress.

In 1942, President Franklin D Roosevelt justified the decision to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans without trial based on false claims that time was of the essence, and at least some Japanese-Americans were known to be disloyal.

Although both of these examples pre-date the 1976 Act, they serve as cautionary tales about the wisdom of accepting at face value a president’s claim that an emergency exists. However, because the law now in effect provides no specific standards to define the existence of an emergency, courts might be inclined to defer to presidential discretion. If President Trump declares a national emergency at the border, it is far from clear that courts would strike it down.

By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote. That, of course, would be no easy task in the current Congress.

Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts – assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge. If the president moves ahead with a controversial plan to declare a national emergency as a way to free up money for construction of a border wall, all eyes should be on Congress.

(Chris Edelson is Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-trump-declares-a-national-emergency-could-congress-or-the-courts-reverse-it-109752">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 Chris Edelson If President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to fund some portion of a wall along the US-Mexico border without congressional authorisation, what would happen next?

By Chris Edelson If President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to fund some portion of a wall along the US-Mexico border without congressional authorisation, what would happen next? Would the courts step in? What is Congress’ role? As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power in two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the US Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress. Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The US Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent. The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency. If President Trump does declare an emergency, the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of the passive spectator? Gaining congressional approval Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorisation. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congress for these actions. This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labour strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a pre-existing statute on the books weighed against Truman. When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion, in that case, has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible. Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted. Congress’s role Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes. Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law. The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in U.S. waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute. Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute. Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action. For example, in 1846 President James Polk falsely claimed that Mexico had spilled American blood on US soil as a pretext for gaining a declaration of war from Congress. In 1942, President Franklin D Roosevelt justified the decision to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans without trial based on false claims that time was of the essence, and at least some Japanese-Americans were known to be disloyal. Although both of these examples pre-date the 1976 Act, they serve as cautionary tales about the wisdom of accepting at face value a president’s claim that an emergency exists. However, because the law now in effect provides no specific standards to define the existence of an emergency, courts might be inclined to defer to presidential discretion. If President Trump declares a national emergency at the border, it is far from clear that courts would strike it down. By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote. That, of course, would be no easy task in the current Congress. Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts – assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge. If the president moves ahead with a controversial plan to declare a national emergency as a way to free up money for construction of a border wall, all eyes should be on Congress. (Chris Edelson is Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs) (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-Mexico wall: If Trump declares a national emergency, could Congress or the courts reverse it?

The US' demand for maintaining long-term military bases in Afghanistan has emerged as a sticking point in talks with the Taliban to end the 17-year-long war in the country, according to a media report in Pakistan.

The report came as the US special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, stepped up efforts to bring the Taliban to negotiations, with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Russia and Iran involved in discussions with the Taliban over the past few months.&nbsp;

The Express Tribune reported quoting officials that the US in return of its demand would provide substantial financial assistance for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan in the post-peace deal.

Although the Taliban have repeatedly demanded complete withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, they showed an inclination to discuss the suggestion of the US maintaining certain bases in the recent negotiations held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The US also wants a guarantee from the Taliban that the Afghan soil would not be used to stage attacks in other nations.

Talks in Abu Dhabi were brokered by Pakistan after President Donald Trump wrote a letter to Prime Minister Imran Khan, seeking Islamabad's help in reaching out to the Taliban.

The latest push for seeking a political solution to the 17-year-long war has brought back Saudi Arabia and the UAE at the centre stage in the Afghan peace process.

The US, through the greater involvement of these countries, wants to put pressure on the Taliban to accept its main demands.

And since then, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been trying to convince Taliban to accept the US demand in return for a major share in the Afghan government and other incentives.

One senior official, who is privy to the negotiations, told The Express Tribune that Washington wants to maintain 'permanent bases' in Afghanistan. 
"And that's been the sticking point in the ongoing talks," added the official, who requested anonymity since he was not authorised to the media on the subject.

The official said, according to the US, those bases would have no role in the Afghan security but meant for maintaining a presence for overall regional stability.

The Taliban were told that the 'minimal presence of the US forces' would allow continued US financial and other support to Afghanistan for the reconstruction efforts.

The other objective includes maintaining close contact with the future Afghan governments in order to ensure that the country does not become a safe haven for any terrorist organisations.

Pakistan is not averse to the US' demand but wants a 'regional consensus' on it since the permanent presence of the US military in Afghanistan would certainly raise eyebrows in Russia, Iran and even China.

These countries fear that the US may use the Afghan soil to advance its own strategic designs in the region.

And that was the reason Pakistan wanted to evolve a regional consensus on the possible Afghan peace deal, said the official.

The US' demand for maintaining long-term military bases in Afghanistan has emerged as a sticking point in talks with the Taliban to end the 17-year-long war in the country, according to a media report in Pakistan.

The US' demand for maintaining long-term military bases in Afghanistan has emerged as a sticking point in talks with the Taliban to end the 17-year-long war in the country, according to a media report in Pakistan. The report came as the US special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, stepped up efforts to bring the Taliban to negotiations, with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Russia and Iran involved in discussions with the Taliban over the past few months. The Express Tribune reported quoting officials that the US in return of its demand would provide substantial financial assistance for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan in the post-peace deal. Although the Taliban have repeatedly demanded complete withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, they showed an inclination to discuss the suggestion of the US maintaining certain bases in the recent negotiations held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The US also wants a guarantee from the Taliban that the Afghan soil would not be used to stage attacks in other nations. Talks in Abu Dhabi were brokered by Pakistan after President Donald Trump wrote a letter to Prime Minister Imran Khan, seeking Islamabad's help in reaching out to the Taliban. The latest push for seeking a political solution to the 17-year-long war has brought back Saudi Arabia and the UAE at the centre stage in the Afghan peace process. The US, through the greater involvement of these countries, wants to put pressure on the Taliban to accept its main demands. And since then, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been trying to convince Taliban to accept the US demand in return for a major share in the Afghan government and other incentives. One senior official, who is privy to the negotiations, told The Express Tribune that Washington wants to maintain 'permanent bases' in Afghanistan. "And that's been the sticking point in the ongoing talks," added the official, who requested anonymity since he was not authorised to the media on the subject. The official said, according to the US, those bases would have no role in the Afghan security but meant for maintaining a presence for overall regional stability. The Taliban were told that the 'minimal presence of the US forces' would allow continued US financial and other support to Afghanistan for the reconstruction efforts. The other objective includes maintaining close contact with the future Afghan governments in order to ensure that the country does not become a safe haven for any terrorist organisations. Pakistan is not averse to the US' demand but wants a 'regional consensus' on it since the permanent presence of the US military in Afghanistan would certainly raise eyebrows in Russia, Iran and even China. These countries fear that the US may use the Afghan soil to advance its own strategic designs in the region. And that was the reason Pakistan wanted to evolve a regional consensus on the possible Afghan peace deal, said the official.

US demand for long-term military bases in Afghanistan sticking point in peace talks: Report

Zimbabweans reacted with outrage Sunday to a sharp rise in fuel prices announced by President Emmerson Mnangagwa in a move to improve supplies as the country struggles with its worst gasoline shortages in a decade.

After years of international isolation, Zimbabwe's economy has been in decline for more than a decade with cash shortages, high unemployment and a recent scarcity of basic staples like bread and cooking oil.

In a televised address late Saturday, Mnangagwa said prices of petrol and diesel would more than double to tackle a shortfall caused by increased demand and "rampant" illegal trading.

Mnangagwa, who took over from longtime leader Robert Mugabe and won a disputed election last July, also announced a package of measures to help state workers after strikes by doctors and teachers over poor pay.

He said from midnight Saturday, petrol prices would rise from $1.24 a litre to $3.31 (2.89 euros) and diesel from $1.36 a litre to $3.11.

But many Zimbabweans criticised the move, worrying a knock-on spike in other costs would worsen an already difficult economic situation and trigger protests and strikes. &nbsp;&nbsp;

"I am not a politician and neither am I an economist but you don't need a rocket scientist to tell you that we are now headed for the worst following the fuel price madness," said William Masuku, 32, a car dealer in Bulawayo, the country's second largest city.

Victor Nyoni, head of a local business body, said the fuel prices would push up the cost of other goods. Businesses are likely to pass on the higher transport costs to the consumer.

Government 'against the people'

The president's announcement came after fuel shortages which began in October last year worsened in recent weeks with motorists sometimes spending nights in fuel pump queues that stretch for kilometres.

The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) said the government had demonstrated a lack of empathy for the already-overburdened poor.

"The government has officially declared its anti-worker, anti-poor and anti-people ideological position," it said. "Workers' salaries have been reduced to nothing and our suffering elevated to another level."

Nelson Chamisa, who heads the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) said the situation was "descending into a humanitarian crisis".

Evan Mawarire, a cleric and activist who led the 2016 anti-government protests that shut down major cities, said: "You have cornered us and you leave us no choice. It's time to mobilise every person who truly loves Zimbabwe."

'Piecemeal solutions'

"Those in government may not admit it but they know in their hearts that they have failed," said Edmore Phiri, a tired-looking motorist who had just spent a second night in a petrol queue in Avondale suburb.

"We are not going anywhere with these piecemeal solutions that are not solutions.&nbsp;

"You can’t have a country where people sleep in cars for days for a commodity that should be readily available."

Mnangagwa, who has pledged to revive the moribund economy, blamed the shortfall on increased fuel usage "compounded by rampant illegal currency and fuel trading activities".

The government claims fuel prices were lower than in other regional countries, saying some foreigners were taking advantage and buying fuel in bulk for resale elsewhere.

Mnangagwa said the new measures were aimed at curbing a burgeoning speculative parallel market in which fuel was being sold at five times the official price.

"It's going to reduce demand for fuel because it's now a bit expensive and that will deal with speculative demand if it was there," said economist Godfrey Mugano.

Mnangagwa also warned the government would deal harshly with those "bent on taking advantage of the current fuel shortages to cause and sponsor unrest and instability in the country".

Government doctors went on a 40-day strike in early December, demanding salaries in US dollars and improved working conditions, while teachers' unions called a strike this week for better pay but their calls went largely unheeded.

Although Mnangagwa announced a package of measures "to cushion government workers", he gave few details.

Despite the price hike, diplomats and tourists would be able to access cheaper fuel at certain pumping stations.

"The intention is to create a constant supply of fuel for diplomats and tourists to manage the country's image," said Mugano.&nbsp;

"Those designated fuel stations will be able to restock easily from the sales they make in US dollars."

After years in international isolation, Zimbabwe's economy has been on a downturn for more than a decade with cash shortages, high unemployment and recently a scarcity of basic staples like bread and cooking oil.

Zimbabweans reacted with outrage Sunday to a sharp rise in fuel prices announced by President Emmerson Mnangagwa in a move to improve supplies as the country struggles with its worst gasoline shortages in a decade. After years of international isolation, Zimbabwe's economy has been in decline for more than a decade with cash shortages, high unemployment and a recent scarcity of basic staples like bread and cooking oil. In a televised address late Saturday, Mnangagwa said prices of petrol and diesel would more than double to tackle a shortfall caused by increased demand and "rampant" illegal trading. Mnangagwa, who took over from longtime leader Robert Mugabe and won a disputed election last July, also announced a package of measures to help state workers after strikes by doctors and teachers over poor pay. He said from midnight Saturday, petrol prices would rise from $1.24 a litre to $3.31 (2.89 euros) and diesel from $1.36 a litre to $3.11. But many Zimbabweans criticised the move, worrying a knock-on spike in other costs would worsen an already difficult economic situation and trigger protests and strikes. "I am not a politician and neither am I an economist but you don't need a rocket scientist to tell you that we are now headed for the worst following the fuel price madness," said William Masuku, 32, a car dealer in Bulawayo, the country's second largest city. Victor Nyoni, head of a local business body, said the fuel prices would push up the cost of other goods. Businesses are likely to pass on the higher transport costs to the consumer. Government 'against the people' The president's announcement came after fuel shortages which began in October last year worsened in recent weeks with motorists sometimes spending nights in fuel pump queues that stretch for kilometres. The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) said the government had demonstrated a lack of empathy for the already-overburdened poor. "The government has officially declared its anti-worker, anti-poor and anti-people ideological position," it said. "Workers' salaries have been reduced to nothing and our suffering elevated to another level." Nelson Chamisa, who heads the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) said the situation was "descending into a humanitarian crisis". Evan Mawarire, a cleric and activist who led the 2016 anti-government protests that shut down major cities, said: "You have cornered us and you leave us no choice. It's time to mobilise every person who truly loves Zimbabwe." 'Piecemeal solutions' "Those in government may not admit it but they know in their hearts that they have failed," said Edmore Phiri, a tired-looking motorist who had just spent a second night in a petrol queue in Avondale suburb. "We are not going anywhere with these piecemeal solutions that are not solutions. "You can’t have a country where people sleep in cars for days for a commodity that should be readily available." Mnangagwa, who has pledged to revive the moribund economy, blamed the shortfall on increased fuel usage "compounded by rampant illegal currency and fuel trading activities". The government claims fuel prices were lower than in other regional countries, saying some foreigners were taking advantage and buying fuel in bulk for resale elsewhere. Mnangagwa said the new measures were aimed at curbing a burgeoning speculative parallel market in which fuel was being sold at five times the official price. "It's going to reduce demand for fuel because it's now a bit expensive and that will deal with speculative demand if it was there," said economist Godfrey Mugano. Mnangagwa also warned the government would deal harshly with those "bent on taking advantage of the current fuel shortages to cause and sponsor unrest and instability in the country". Government doctors went on a 40-day strike in early December, demanding salaries in US dollars and improved working conditions, while teachers' unions called a strike this week for better pay but their calls went largely unheeded. Although Mnangagwa announced a package of measures "to cushion government workers", he gave few details. Despite the price hike, diplomats and tourists would be able to access cheaper fuel at certain pumping stations. "The intention is to create a constant supply of fuel for diplomats and tourists to manage the country's image," said Mugano. "Those designated fuel stations will be able to restock easily from the sales they make in US dollars."

Anger as President Mnangagwa raises gas prices in Zimbabwe

A senior commander of the Islamic State militant group was killed in Afghanistan in a raid, US Forces Afghanistan said on Saturday.

Khetab Emir was killed in the raid on January 10 in the eastern area of Nangarhar province, said Lt. Ubon Mendie, a spokesman for the US forces based in Afghanistan.

Emir, who was known by multiple names, facilitated high-profile attacks and supplied Islamic State fighters with weapons and materials to make explosives, Mendie said in a statement.

"His removal helps protect innocent Afghans from future Islamic State violence and weakens their presence in Nangarhar," Mendie said.

Islamic State fighters have developed a stronghold in the province on Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan and have become one of the country's most dangerous militant groups.

The hardline militant group's local affiliate, known as Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) after an old name for the region that includes Afghanistan, has been active since 2015, fighting the Taliban as well as Afghan and foreign forces.

The fight against Islamic State and other militant groups including Al Qaeda and the Taliban is at the heart of the US-led counterterrorism mission being conducted alongside the NATO-led Resolute Support operation aimed at training and advising Afghan security forces.

A senior commander of the Islamic State militant group was killed in Afghanistan in a raid, US Forces Afghanistan said on Saturday. Khetab Emir was killed in the raid on January 10 in the eastern area of Nangarhar province, said Lt.

A senior commander of the Islamic State militant group was killed in Afghanistan in a raid, US Forces Afghanistan said on Saturday. Khetab Emir was killed in the raid on January 10 in the eastern area of Nangarhar province, said Lt. Ubon Mendie, a spokesman for the US forces based in Afghanistan. Emir, who was known by multiple names, facilitated high-profile attacks and supplied Islamic State fighters with weapons and materials to make explosives, Mendie said in a statement. "His removal helps protect innocent Afghans from future Islamic State violence and weakens their presence in Nangarhar," Mendie said. Islamic State fighters have developed a stronghold in the province on Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan and have become one of the country's most dangerous militant groups. The hardline militant group's local affiliate, known as Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) after an old name for the region that includes Afghanistan, has been active since 2015, fighting the Taliban as well as Afghan and foreign forces. The fight against Islamic State and other militant groups including Al Qaeda and the Taliban is at the heart of the US-led counterterrorism mission being conducted alongside the NATO-led Resolute Support operation aimed at training and advising Afghan security forces.

Islamic State commander killed in Afghanistan: US forces

The US ambassador to Germany has warned of sanctions against firms linked to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia, the American embassy in Berlin confirmed Sunday.

A letter envoy Richard Grenell sent to several businesses "reminds that any company operating in the Russian energy export pipeline sector... is in danger under CAATSA of US sanctions," an embassy spokesman told AFP.

The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) adopted in 2017 targets Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

Close Donald Trump ally Grenell's letter "is not meant to be a threat, but a clear message of US policy," the spokesman said.

"The only thing that could be considered blackmail in this situation would be the Kremlin having leverage over future gas supplies," he said.

Construction has already begun on Nord Stream 2, set to double the capacity of an existing pipeline across the Baltic Sea.

Firms including Germany's Wintershall and Uniper, Dutch-British Shell, France's Engie and Austria's OMV are involved in the project.

Combined with the planned TurkStream pipeline across the Black Sea, Nord Stream 2 would do away with the need to transport natural gas to Europe via Ukraine — robbing the country of a factor shielding it from Russian aggression, Grenell said.

The two countries are in conflict over the eastern part of Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia in 2014.

"Firms supporting the construction of the two pipelines are actively undermining the security of Ukraine and Europe," Grenell wrote.

Washington's fears about the pipeline are shared by a number of eastern European Union countries including Poland, and the European Parliament last month passed a resolution condemning the construction.

But German Chancellor Angela Merkel, backed by France and Austria, has so far insisted it is a "purely economic project" that will ensure cheaper, more reliable gas supply.

The veteran leader — a key player in Moscow-Kiev peace talks — says Ukrainian interests will be protected as some Russian gas will still be transported via the country once Nord Stream 2 is online.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also weighed in on the transatlantic row last week, saying "European energy policy should be decided in Europe, not in the United States." 
&nbsp;

A letter envoy Richard Grenell sent to several businesses 'reminds that any company operating in the Russian energy export pipeline sector... is in danger under CAATSA of US sanctions,' an embassy spokesman said.

The US ambassador to Germany has warned of sanctions against firms linked to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia, the American embassy in Berlin confirmed Sunday. A letter envoy Richard Grenell sent to several businesses "reminds that any company operating in the Russian energy export pipeline sector... is in danger under CAATSA of US sanctions," an embassy spokesman told AFP. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) adopted in 2017 targets Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Close Donald Trump ally Grenell's letter "is not meant to be a threat, but a clear message of US policy," the spokesman said. "The only thing that could be considered blackmail in this situation would be the Kremlin having leverage over future gas supplies," he said. Construction has already begun on Nord Stream 2, set to double the capacity of an existing pipeline across the Baltic Sea. Firms including Germany's Wintershall and Uniper, Dutch-British Shell, France's Engie and Austria's OMV are involved in the project. Combined with the planned TurkStream pipeline across the Black Sea, Nord Stream 2 would do away with the need to transport natural gas to Europe via Ukraine — robbing the country of a factor shielding it from Russian aggression, Grenell said. The two countries are in conflict over the eastern part of Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia in 2014. "Firms supporting the construction of the two pipelines are actively undermining the security of Ukraine and Europe," Grenell wrote. Washington's fears about the pipeline are shared by a number of eastern European Union countries including Poland, and the European Parliament last month passed a resolution condemning the construction. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel, backed by France and Austria, has so far insisted it is a "purely economic project" that will ensure cheaper, more reliable gas supply. The veteran leader — a key player in Moscow-Kiev peace talks — says Ukrainian interests will be protected as some Russian gas will still be transported via the country once Nord Stream 2 is online. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also weighed in on the transatlantic row last week, saying "European energy policy should be decided in Europe, not in the United States."

US threatens sanctions over Russia-Germany gas pipeline

Amid reports of United States beginning to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-led-coalition-withdrawing-equipment-from-syria-189689">pullout&nbsp;from Syria</a>, the focus now shifts to Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the US president will do the same in Afghanistan -- withdraw troops from America's longest war.&nbsp;

Just like Syria, while US lawmakers and policymakers remain divided over the pullout move with respect to Afghanistan, the man who shaped the post-Taliban Afghanistan believes this would be a good decision.

In an exclusive interview with WION, Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's former president talked about his views on Trump's policy on Afghanistan, China's growing presence around the region and India's role as one of Afghanistan's strategic allies.&nbsp;

Karzai said that America will never leave Afghanistan owing to its strategic placement on the world map.&nbsp;

Watch the full interview here:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HatUkYUot18" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"We have a very strategic location, we have all the other superpowers in our neighbourhood -- Russia is there, China is there, India is there and we have regional powers surrounding us as well, therefore our location is surely to interest the United States. Truly, that is one of the reasons why the US is there. The US will stay in Afghanistan and would like to stay in Afghanistan," former Afghan president said.&nbsp;

He agreed that the Americans have turned his country into a war lab. As per a UNICEF report, the violence in Afghanistan maimed or killed some 5,000 children within the first three quarters of 2018. Many have been wounded, thousands lost their lives.

"This is one of the worst things they could have done to Afghanistan and they did it; that is the reason why they lost the support of the Afghan people. This is something that I have condemned very strongly and I would do it again and again. I would raise my condemnation against that atrocity again," Karzai told WION.&nbsp;

Karzai identified India as a key ally and stated that it can play a greater role in Afghanistan.&nbsp;India's work has been consistent in Afghanistan. Over the years, India has built more than four thousand kilometres of roads, dams and hydropower plants. But Karzai thinks that India has the ability to do more.&nbsp;

"India has the ability, the stature and the presence in Afghanistan, in the minds and the hearts of the people, to be able to do things independently. India is the most strategic of Afghanistan's allies in terms of the bilateral relations between the two countries, in terms of the help that India has given to Afghanistan. India has and will continue to play a role in Afghanistan," ex-Afghan president said.&nbsp;

Beijing wants to extend the China-Pakistan Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan. Karzai says Kabul welcomes provided it brings a 'win-win' situation to both China and Afghanistan.&nbsp;

"We all have political ambitions, Afghanistan has political ambitions, India has. Economic power brings you the power to reach political ambitions. It is legitimate, there is nothing wrong in that as long as you do it not at the cost of others; as long as you do it in a win-win&nbsp;situation," he noted.&nbsp;

Karzai further added that he doesn't think US president Donald Trump intended to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-mocks-indian-pm-for-library-in-afghanistan-187955">mock India on the library incident</a>.&nbsp;

"I don't think his intention was to mock India. I think it did not occur to him at that time that it was not a library but a parliament house. People make mistakes and say things," he said.&nbsp;

Amid reports of United States beginning to pullout from Syria, the focus now shifts to Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the US president will do the same in Afghanistan -- withdraw troops from America's longest war.

Amid reports of United States beginning to pullout from Syria, the focus now shifts to Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the US president will do the same in Afghanistan -- withdraw troops from America's longest war. Just like Syria, while US lawmakers and policymakers remain divided over the pullout move with respect to Afghanistan, the man who shaped the post-Taliban Afghanistan believes this would be a good decision. In an exclusive interview with WION, Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's former president talked about his views on Trump's policy on Afghanistan, China's growing presence around the region and India's role as one of Afghanistan's strategic allies. Karzai said that America will never leave Afghanistan owing to its strategic placement on the world map. Watch the full interview here: × "We have a very strategic location, we have all the other superpowers in our neighbourhood -- Russia is there, China is there, India is there and we have regional powers surrounding us as well, therefore our location is surely to interest the United States. Truly, that is one of the reasons why the US is there. The US will stay in Afghanistan and would like to stay in Afghanistan," former Afghan president said. He agreed that the Americans have turned his country into a war lab. As per a UNICEF report, the violence in Afghanistan maimed or killed some 5,000 children within the first three quarters of 2018. Many have been wounded, thousands lost their lives. "This is one of the worst things they could have done to Afghanistan and they did it; that is the reason why they lost the support of the Afghan people. This is something that I have condemned very strongly and I would do it again and again. I would raise my condemnation against that atrocity again," Karzai told WION. Karzai identified India as a key ally and stated that it can play a greater role in Afghanistan. India's work has been consistent in Afghanistan. Over the years, India has built more than four thousand kilometres of roads, dams and hydropower plants. But Karzai thinks that India has the ability to do more. "India has the ability, the stature and the presence in Afghanistan, in the minds and the hearts of the people, to be able to do things independently. India is the most strategic of Afghanistan's allies in terms of the bilateral relations between the two countries, in terms of the help that India has given to Afghanistan. India has and will continue to play a role in Afghanistan," ex-Afghan president said. Beijing wants to extend the China-Pakistan Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan. Karzai says Kabul welcomes provided it brings a 'win-win' situation to both China and Afghanistan. "We all have political ambitions, Afghanistan has political ambitions, India has. Economic power brings you the power to reach political ambitions. It is legitimate, there is nothing wrong in that as long as you do it not at the cost of others; as long as you do it in a win-win situation," he noted. Karzai further added that he doesn't think US president Donald Trump intended to mock India on the library incident. "I don't think his intention was to mock India. I think it did not occur to him at that time that it was not a library but a parliament house. People make mistakes and say things," he said.

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai tells WION why he thinks US would like to stay in Afghanistan

The new Indian high commissioner to the United States, Harsh Vardhan Shringla, has presented his credentials to US President Donald Trump in a ceremony at the White House. Shringla conveyed warm greetings from President Kovind and Prime Minister Modi to Trump and First Lady Melania.&nbsp;

"US President fondly recalled his friendship with Prime Minister Modi and his recent telephone conversation with the Prime Minister. He highlighted <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/opinion-explaining-trumps-blow-hot-blow-cold-india-policy-165229">the broad range of strategic interests and fundamental democratic values shared between our two countries</a>," a statement from the Indian high commission in the US said.&nbsp;

"The United States is the partner of choice in India’s remarkable journey of transformation. Our investment relationship has become increasingly reciprocal, with growing American investments in India being matched by rapid growth in Indian investments in the United States. These have helped fulfil our common objective of creating more jobs, promoting prosperity and economic growth in our respective countries," Shringla said in his written remarks to Trump.&nbsp;

Shringla said India has been a "positive and stabilising partner of the United States in South Asia and Indo Pacific region" and our approach and action in the region have largely complemented each other’s. On Afghanistan he said: "India has scaled up its economic development assistance to Afghanistan", adding, "India will always strive to remain the net security provider and the first responder in the Indian Ocean Region, working in concert with our most important partners including the United States."

India and the US held their inaugural 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue in September 2018 and Indian PM Narendra Modi, US President Donald Trump and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe had a trilateral JAI (Japan, America, India) meeting in December 2018 on the sidelines of G20 Summit.

Shringla, who was before this India's high commissioner to Bangladesh, said "India and the United States are the world’s largest and the oldest democracies". He added that "our relationship has been nurtured by shared belief in democratic values, individual freedom and rule of law, and increasingly, by strong convergences of interest on key regional and global issues — making ours a truly global partnership."

 
Pakistani ambassador also presents credientials to Trump

Pakistan’s new ambassador to the United States of America, Dr Asad Majeed Khan, also presented his credentials to Donald Trump.&nbsp;

According to a release by the Pakistani embassy in the United States, "Ambassador Khan conveyed the greetings of Pakistan’s leadership to President Trump who reciprocated with similar positive sentiments for Prime Minister Imran Khan." The release added that "President Trump has said that he wants to explore opportunities for the two countries to work closely together and to renew their partnership."

Later, in a message to the Pakistani American community, Asad said, "Our diaspora in the United States is a valuable asset that can play a vital role in realising Prime Minister Imran Khan's vision of building a stronger and better Pakistan"

The US-Pakistan relationship has seen a downward trend in the recent past due to what America says is Islamabad's continued support to terrorism which has created instability in the region.

The new Indian high commissioner to the United States, Harsh Vardhan Shringla, has presented his credentials to US President Donald Trump in a ceremony at the White House.

The new Indian high commissioner to the United States, Harsh Vardhan Shringla, has presented his credentials to US President Donald Trump in a ceremony at the White House. Shringla conveyed warm greetings from President Kovind and Prime Minister Modi to Trump and First Lady Melania. "US President fondly recalled his friendship with Prime Minister Modi and his recent telephone conversation with the Prime Minister. He highlighted the broad range of strategic interests and fundamental democratic values shared between our two countries," a statement from the Indian high commission in the US said. "The United States is the partner of choice in India’s remarkable journey of transformation. Our investment relationship has become increasingly reciprocal, with growing American investments in India being matched by rapid growth in Indian investments in the United States. These have helped fulfil our common objective of creating more jobs, promoting prosperity and economic growth in our respective countries," Shringla said in his written remarks to Trump. Shringla said India has been a "positive and stabilising partner of the United States in South Asia and Indo Pacific region" and our approach and action in the region have largely complemented each other’s. On Afghanistan he said: "India has scaled up its economic development assistance to Afghanistan", adding, "India will always strive to remain the net security provider and the first responder in the Indian Ocean Region, working in concert with our most important partners including the United States." India and the US held their inaugural 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue in September 2018 and Indian PM Narendra Modi, US President Donald Trump and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe had a trilateral JAI (Japan, America, India) meeting in December 2018 on the sidelines of G20 Summit. Shringla, who was before this India's high commissioner to Bangladesh, said "India and the United States are the world’s largest and the oldest democracies". He added that "our relationship has been nurtured by shared belief in democratic values, individual freedom and rule of law, and increasingly, by strong convergences of interest on key regional and global issues — making ours a truly global partnership." Pakistani ambassador also presents credientials to Trump Pakistan’s new ambassador to the United States of America, Dr Asad Majeed Khan, also presented his credentials to Donald Trump. According to a release by the Pakistani embassy in the United States, "Ambassador Khan conveyed the greetings of Pakistan’s leadership to President Trump who reciprocated with similar positive sentiments for Prime Minister Imran Khan." The release added that "President Trump has said that he wants to explore opportunities for the two countries to work closely together and to renew their partnership." Later, in a message to the Pakistani American community, Asad said, "Our diaspora in the United States is a valuable asset that can play a vital role in realising Prime Minister Imran Khan's vision of building a stronger and better Pakistan" The US-Pakistan relationship has seen a downward trend in the recent past due to what America says is Islamabad's continued support to terrorism which has created instability in the region.

India, US share 'strategic interests', 'fundamental democratic values': Trump to Indian high commissioner

The United States and India in Delhi on Friday held a 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue to discuss over the diplomatic stance on the Indo-Pacific region as well as stabilizing peace in Afghanistan.

According to a press statement released by the US Embassy, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells and Assistant Secretary of Defense Randall Schriver met with Indian Joint Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs Gourangalal Das and Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Defence Shambhu Kumaran for an inter-sessional 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue between US and India.

"The two sides discussed our strong strategic partnership and ways to advance our cooperation on critical diplomatic and security priorities, including our shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region and a stable and prosperous Afghanistan," the statement read.

The first round of the meeting on the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue was held in New Delhi in September 2018 and focussed on the need for upholding peaceful resolution of territorial maritime disputes, promoting market-based economics, supporting good governance, fundamental rights, and liberties, and preventing external economic coercion.

The Dialogue was held between US Secretary of State Micheal Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

The 2+2 Dialogue between India and the US was launched as a reflection of the shared commitment by Prime Minister Modi and US President Donald Trump to provide a positive, forward-looking vision for the India-US strategic partnership and to promote synergy in their diplomatic and security efforts, the US Embassy said in its statement.&nbsp;

The United States and India in Delhi on Friday held a 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue to discuss over the diplomatic stance on the Indo-Pacific region as well as stabilizing peace in Afghanistan.

The United States and India in Delhi on Friday held a 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue to discuss over the diplomatic stance on the Indo-Pacific region as well as stabilizing peace in Afghanistan. According to a press statement released by the US Embassy, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells and Assistant Secretary of Defense Randall Schriver met with Indian Joint Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs Gourangalal Das and Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Defence Shambhu Kumaran for an inter-sessional 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue between US and India. "The two sides discussed our strong strategic partnership and ways to advance our cooperation on critical diplomatic and security priorities, including our shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region and a stable and prosperous Afghanistan," the statement read. The first round of the meeting on the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue was held in New Delhi in September 2018 and focussed on the need for upholding peaceful resolution of territorial maritime disputes, promoting market-based economics, supporting good governance, fundamental rights, and liberties, and preventing external economic coercion. The Dialogue was held between US Secretary of State Micheal Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The 2+2 Dialogue between India and the US was launched as a reflection of the shared commitment by Prime Minister Modi and US President Donald Trump to provide a positive, forward-looking vision for the India-US strategic partnership and to promote synergy in their diplomatic and security efforts, the US Embassy said in its statement.

2+2 meeting: India, US discuss Indo-Pacific, Afghanistan peace reconciliation

Mexican authorities said Thursday they had found 21 bodies on the US-Mexican border after a drug-gang shootout in a town near where <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-will-skip-davos-meeting-if-us-government-shutdown-continues-189462">President Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;visited&nbsp;later in the day.

The bodies -- some of them badly burned -- were found Wednesday in the border town of Miguel Aleman, about 170 miles (270 kilometres) from McAllen, Texas, the city Trump was due to visit as he continues his push to build his long-sought border wall.

"We have reports there was a shootout yesterday (Wednesday) between two criminal groups that ended with 21 people dead," the security spokesman for the state of Tamaulipas, Luis Alberto Rodriguez, told Mexican TV news channel Milenio.

"Some of them were burned. Seven vehicles were also located... It was a confrontation between two rival groups that are involved in a turf war over drug-trafficking routes."

The Mexican army found the bodies in a remote area following a tip-off, he said.

Tamaulipas has become one of the most violent states in Mexico as rival drug cartels fight each other for its strategic position on the US border.

Mexico has been racked by drug-related violence in recent years -- something Trump has alluded to in arguing his wall is needed to keep out violent criminals and narcotics.

McAllen, where he was meeting with border patrol agents, sits across from Tamaulipas. The US State Department has issued its most severe travel warning for the state because of violent crime, classifying it alongside countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

More than 200,000 people have been murdered in Mexico since the government deployed the army to fight the country's powerful drug cartels in 2006, including a record 28,711 in 2017.

Preliminary figures indicate the homicide record was broken again in 2018.

Mexican authorities said Thursday they had found 21 bodies on the US-Mexican border after a drug-gang shootout in a town near where President Donald Trump visited later in the day.

Mexican authorities said Thursday they had found 21 bodies on the US-Mexican border after a drug-gang shootout in a town near where President Donald Trump visited later in the day. The bodies -- some of them badly burned -- were found Wednesday in the border town of Miguel Aleman, about 170 miles (270 kilometres) from McAllen, Texas, the city Trump was due to visit as he continues his push to build his long-sought border wall. "We have reports there was a shootout yesterday (Wednesday) between two criminal groups that ended with 21 people dead," the security spokesman for the state of Tamaulipas, Luis Alberto Rodriguez, told Mexican TV news channel Milenio. "Some of them were burned. Seven vehicles were also located... It was a confrontation between two rival groups that are involved in a turf war over drug-trafficking routes." The Mexican army found the bodies in a remote area following a tip-off, he said. Tamaulipas has become one of the most violent states in Mexico as rival drug cartels fight each other for its strategic position on the US border. Mexico has been racked by drug-related violence in recent years -- something Trump has alluded to in arguing his wall is needed to keep out violent criminals and narcotics. McAllen, where he was meeting with border patrol agents, sits across from Tamaulipas. The US State Department has issued its most severe travel warning for the state because of violent crime, classifying it alongside countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 200,000 people have been murdered in Mexico since the government deployed the army to fight the country's powerful drug cartels in 2006, including a record 28,711 in 2017. Preliminary figures indicate the homicide record was broken again in 2018.

21 bodies found after drug gang shootout on US-Mexico border as Trump visits

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

President Donald Trump warned of murderers and gangsters spreading across the country during a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-heads-to-us-mexico-border-to-push-wall-plan-189442">visit to the US-Mexican border </a>Thursday to push his demand for a multi-billion dollar wall.

Trump used the backdrop of the Rio Grande border river at McAllen, Texas, to ramp up what has already turned into a hugely messy political fight with Democratic opponents, resulting in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-will-skip-davos-meeting-if-us-government-shutdown-continues-189462">shutdown of swaths of the US government</a>.

With typical rhetorical flourishes, Trump said that only building more walls along the Mexican border could stop an onslaught of violent crime.

"They just go where there's no security and you don't even know the difference between Mexico and the United States," he told a meeting of border patrol officers. "They have women tied up, they have tape over their mouths, electrical tape."

"If we had a barrier of any kind, a powerful barrier, whether its steel or concrete..., we would stop it cold," Trump said.

Opposition Democrats are refusing to approve $5.7 billion in wall funding, saying that overwhelming numbers of illegal immigrants do not commit serious crimes and that Trump is mainly promoting the project to satisfy his right-wing base.

Trump said that illegal immigrant crime stretched right up into the north of the country. However, widely respected studies show that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in the United States.

Government shutdown goes on

Trump's main way of pressuring Congress has been to refuse to sign off on a host of unrelated, normally uncontroversial, government spending until he gets his wall funded.

That has resulted in a partial government shutdown now in its 20th day, with hundreds of thousands of federal employees -- including air traffic controllers, the FBI and Coast Guard -- going without pay.

Signalling he's ready to maintain the game of brinksmanship, Trump tweeted on arrival in Texas that he will scrap a visit to the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which runs from January 21-25.

Trump had been expected to make a brief appearance at the influential get-together, attended by many world leaders, but said that opposition Democratic "intransigence" required him to stay home.

National emergency?

Trump said he was ready to expand the debate over funding for a border wall to some of the other issues surrounding the over-burdened US immigration system -- a suggestion that could open the door to working with Democrats.

"I would like to do a much broader form of immigration," he said in Texas.

But throughout the day, the frustrated president also repeated his threat to declare a national emergency and give himself authority to go around Congress if he can't get approval for the wall.

"If I have to, I will. I have no doubt about it."

Analysts say the declaration would likely be challenged in court as a case of presidential overreach, in which case the wall still could face being blocked.

However, it would still give Trump political cover with his base by showing he'd done what he could. At that point, Trump could end the partial government shutdown and declare a win.

White House walkout

Trump, who revels in telling stories about his negotiating skills as a New York real estate magnate, has not managed to get the Democrats to budge on his demand for the $5.7 billion.

On Wednesday, he invited Democratic leaders to the White House but walked out of the meeting.

"A total waste of time," Trump tweeted. "I said bye-bye, nothing else works!"

Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, told journalists Trump "sort of slammed the table," then "got up and walked out."

"Again, we saw a temper tantrum because he couldn't get his way," Schumer said. 
Trump disputed that Thursday, saying "I didn't pound the table. That is a lie."

"I don't have temper tantrums," he said.

21 bodies found in Mexico

Few on either side of the debate dispute that the border poses a significant challenge, not least because of ruthless Mexican gangs bringing drugs to the huge US market.

Illustrating the danger, Mexican authorities said Thursday they had found 21 bodies after a gang shootout in Miguel Aleman, a town about 170 miles (270 kilometres) across the border from McAllen, Texas.

However, opponents to Trump say he is hyping the danger posed to Americans -- and the help that more walls would bring -- to stir xenophobia for his own political gains.

Yanira de Hernandez, a 52-year-old Salvadoran migrant who hopes to get to US soil from Mexico, said she simply dreams of a better life in a country built on immigration.

"Everyone has the right to emigrate, to seek a new future. We're not going to commit any crimes. We hope he (Trump) understands that and that God helps him to change, because his ancestors were migrants too," she said in the Mexican border city of Tijuana.

President Donald Trump warned of murderers and gangsters spreading across the country during a visit to the US-Mexican border Thursday to push his demand for a multi-billion dollar wall.

President Donald Trump warned of murderers and gangsters spreading across the country during a visit to the US-Mexican border Thursday to push his demand for a multi-billion dollar wall. Trump used the backdrop of the Rio Grande border river at McAllen, Texas, to ramp up what has already turned into a hugely messy political fight with Democratic opponents, resulting in the shutdown of swaths of the US government. With typical rhetorical flourishes, Trump said that only building more walls along the Mexican border could stop an onslaught of violent crime. "They just go where there's no security and you don't even know the difference between Mexico and the United States," he told a meeting of border patrol officers. "They have women tied up, they have tape over their mouths, electrical tape." "If we had a barrier of any kind, a powerful barrier, whether its steel or concrete..., we would stop it cold," Trump said. Opposition Democrats are refusing to approve $5.7 billion in wall funding, saying that overwhelming numbers of illegal immigrants do not commit serious crimes and that Trump is mainly promoting the project to satisfy his right-wing base. Trump said that illegal immigrant crime stretched right up into the north of the country. However, widely respected studies show that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in the United States. Government shutdown goes on Trump's main way of pressuring Congress has been to refuse to sign off on a host of unrelated, normally uncontroversial, government spending until he gets his wall funded. That has resulted in a partial government shutdown now in its 20th day, with hundreds of thousands of federal employees -- including air traffic controllers, the FBI and Coast Guard -- going without pay. Signalling he's ready to maintain the game of brinksmanship, Trump tweeted on arrival in Texas that he will scrap a visit to the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which runs from January 21-25. Trump had been expected to make a brief appearance at the influential get-together, attended by many world leaders, but said that opposition Democratic "intransigence" required him to stay home. National emergency? Trump said he was ready to expand the debate over funding for a border wall to some of the other issues surrounding the over-burdened US immigration system -- a suggestion that could open the door to working with Democrats. "I would like to do a much broader form of immigration," he said in Texas. But throughout the day, the frustrated president also repeated his threat to declare a national emergency and give himself authority to go around Congress if he can't get approval for the wall. "If I have to, I will. I have no doubt about it." Analysts say the declaration would likely be challenged in court as a case of presidential overreach, in which case the wall still could face being blocked. However, it would still give Trump political cover with his base by showing he'd done what he could. At that point, Trump could end the partial government shutdown and declare a win. White House walkout Trump, who revels in telling stories about his negotiating skills as a New York real estate magnate, has not managed to get the Democrats to budge on his demand for the $5.7 billion. On Wednesday, he invited Democratic leaders to the White House but walked out of the meeting. "A total waste of time," Trump tweeted. "I said bye-bye, nothing else works!" Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, told journalists Trump "sort of slammed the table," then "got up and walked out." "Again, we saw a temper tantrum because he couldn't get his way," Schumer said. Trump disputed that Thursday, saying "I didn't pound the table. That is a lie." "I don't have temper tantrums," he said. 21 bodies found in Mexico Few on either side of the debate dispute that the border poses a significant challenge, not least because of ruthless Mexican gangs bringing drugs to the huge US market. Illustrating the danger, Mexican authorities said Thursday they had found 21 bodies after a gang shootout in Miguel Aleman, a town about 170 miles (270 kilometres) across the border from McAllen, Texas. However, opponents to Trump say he is hyping the danger posed to Americans -- and the help that more walls would bring -- to stir xenophobia for his own political gains. Yanira de Hernandez, a 52-year-old Salvadoran migrant who hopes to get to US soil from Mexico, said she simply dreams of a better life in a country built on immigration. "Everyone has the right to emigrate, to seek a new future. We're not going to commit any crimes. We hope he (Trump) understands that and that God helps him to change, because his ancestors were migrants too," she said in the Mexican border city of Tijuana.

Trump pushes wall plan in US-Mexico border visit

The United States on Thursday refused to recognize <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuelas-president-maduro-starts-new-term-shrugs-off-criticism-189465">Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro</a>'s legitimacy as he started a controversial new term and urged rank-and-file government employees to empower the opposition.

"The US will not recognize the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/president-maduro-to-start-new-term-as-venezuela-isolation-grows-189445">Maduro </a>dictatorship's illegitimate inauguration," national security advisor John Bolton tweeted.

"We will continue to increase pressure on the corrupt regime, support the democratic National Assembly, and call for democracy and freedom in Venezuela," he wrote.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The US will not recognize the Maduro dictatorship’s illegitimate inauguration. We will continue to increase pressure on the corrupt regime, support the democratic National Assembly, and call for democracy and freedom in Venezuela.
— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1083381197777063937?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 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>

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Venezuelans to work not with Maduro but with the National Assembly, which is controlled by the opposition but has been sidelined by a new Constituent Assembly created by Maduro's government.

"We urge those who support this regime, from everyday employees getting by on food subsidies to the Venezuelan security forces sworn to support the constitution, to stop enabling repression and corruption and to work with the National Assembly and its duly elected leader, Juan Guaido, in accordance with your constitution on a peaceful return to democracy," Pompeo said in a statement.

"The Venezuelan people and the international community will remember and judge your actions. Now is the time to convince the Maduro dictatorship that the moment has arrived for democracy to return to Venezuela," he said.

"The Secretary reinforced the US commitment to the National Assembly, the only legitimate and last democratically elected institution in Venezuela, and the re-establishment of democracy in Venezuela," spokesperson Robert Palladino added.

Maduro was sworn in for a second six-year term under a cloud of skyrocketing inflation, shortages of basic food and medicine and an exodus of Venezuelans to neighbouring countries, following an election that was boycotted by the opposition.

The Lima Group -- a bloc of 14 Latin American powers and Canada -- urged Maduro to renounce his term and hand over power to parliament, although Mexico's new leftist government stayed neutral.

The European Union has also said that last year's election was marred by fraud and has extended sanctions.

The United States has for years put pressure on Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez, with President Donald Trump publicly musing about military intervention.

On Tuesday, the United States imposed its latest sanctions as it targeted seven Venezuelans allegedly involved in black-market currency exchanges that generated billions of dollars in illicit profits.

 
&nbsp;

The United States on Thursday refused to recognize Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's legitimacy as he started a controversial new term and urged rank-and-file government employees to empower the opposition.

The United States on Thursday refused to recognize Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's legitimacy as he started a controversial new term and urged rank-and-file government employees to empower the opposition. "The US will not recognize the Maduro dictatorship's illegitimate inauguration," national security advisor John Bolton tweeted. "We will continue to increase pressure on the corrupt regime, support the democratic National Assembly, and call for democracy and freedom in Venezuela," he wrote. The US will not recognize the Maduro dictatorship’s illegitimate inauguration. We will continue to increase pressure on the corrupt regime, support the democratic National Assembly, and call for democracy and freedom in Venezuela. — John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) January 10, 2019 × Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Venezuelans to work not with Maduro but with the National Assembly, which is controlled by the opposition but has been sidelined by a new Constituent Assembly created by Maduro's government. "We urge those who support this regime, from everyday employees getting by on food subsidies to the Venezuelan security forces sworn to support the constitution, to stop enabling repression and corruption and to work with the National Assembly and its duly elected leader, Juan Guaido, in accordance with your constitution on a peaceful return to democracy," Pompeo said in a statement. "The Venezuelan people and the international community will remember and judge your actions. Now is the time to convince the Maduro dictatorship that the moment has arrived for democracy to return to Venezuela," he said. "The Secretary reinforced the US commitment to the National Assembly, the only legitimate and last democratically elected institution in Venezuela, and the re-establishment of democracy in Venezuela," spokesperson Robert Palladino added. Maduro was sworn in for a second six-year term under a cloud of skyrocketing inflation, shortages of basic food and medicine and an exodus of Venezuelans to neighbouring countries, following an election that was boycotted by the opposition. The Lima Group -- a bloc of 14 Latin American powers and Canada -- urged Maduro to renounce his term and hand over power to parliament, although Mexico's new leftist government stayed neutral. The European Union has also said that last year's election was marred by fraud and has extended sanctions. The United States has for years put pressure on Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez, with President Donald Trump publicly musing about military intervention. On Tuesday, the United States imposed its latest sanctions as it targeted seven Venezuelans allegedly involved in black-market currency exchanges that generated billions of dollars in illicit profits.

US vows to pressure Venezuela's 'illegitimate' President Maduro

By John A Tures

One of the biggest myths about government shutdowns is that presidents usually win.

This may explain why President Donald Trump threatened to continue the shutdown for months, even years. However, a poll conducted in the first week of January shows that 51 per cent of adults believe Trump is to blame for the shutdown.

I’m a scholar of political science and often research presidential politics. I did an analysis of Gallup data, a group that does public opinion polling, from its Presidential Job Approval Center.

There have been 18 shutdowns since 1977. I found that in the nine longest shutdowns during that time, presidents lose an average of 3 percentage points of public support or approval during a government shutdown of four or more days.

Most presidents lose shutdowns

In only two of the nine cases that I looked at, did a chief executive boost his numbers. Jimmy Carter inched up a percentage point or two in 1977 and 1978 during the government shutdowns that took place during his presidency.

In the seven other cases, the shutdown led to declines in public approval of the president. And in the majority of cases, the president’s party lost the next presidential election.

The clearest example is President George H W Bush. In 1990, this GOP president was riding a 66 per cent approval rating after the successful Operation Desert Shield (when we sent US troops to Saudi Arabia to deter an attack by Iraq) and a long period of economic growth.

But Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress battled over the budget deficit, triggering a government shutdown from October 5 to 9. Public approval for Bush fell 10 percentage points.

Some of this may have been the result of Bush approving tax increases to close the budget deficit, which broke one of his campaign pledges of “no new taxes.”

But images of closed federal facilities didn’t help, giving voters the appearance of Bush presiding over gridlock. This hurt him in the 1992 election when voters agreed with Democrats that Bush’s policies led to legislative deadlock.

Pundits often cite the case of Democratic President Bill Clinton as an exception. They claim he “won” the longest shutdown in US history. This shutdown took place from December 5, 1995, to January 6, 1996, or 21 full days.

GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich wanted to reduce the budget deficit, while Clinton opposed deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

It’s true that Clinton went on to defeat GOP Sen. Robert Dole – one of his rivals during the shutdown – in the 1996 election. But Gallup polling shows that Clinton’s approval ratings from mid-November to early January had fallen 11 percentage points to 42 per cent.

In other circumstances, this could have cost Clinton another term. But in this case, he faced no opposition in his Democratic primary, while Dole lost precious time and money battling several rivals for the 1996 GOP nomination. I believe Clinton won in spite of the shutdown, not because of it.

Why presidents lose

People see the president as the most powerful actor in government.

“Presidents have more authority than anyone else in the United States government, and control more money and military forces than any other person in the world,” write Hoover Institution scholars Paul T Hill and Ashley E Jochim in their book “The Power of Persuasion.”

Hill and Jochim note that despite all of that power, presidents much work with Congress to get tasks accomplished. Because of their perceived power, presidents are often expected to accomplish more than their constitutional authority allows them to get done, notes Richard Neustadt in his book “Presidential Power.”

When the government is closed, history shows the president will be held accountable.

(John A Tures is Professor of Political Science, Lagrange College)

(This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trump-will-likely-lose-the-government-shutdown-109491">The Conversation</a>. Read the original article)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

By John A Tures One of the biggest myths about government shutdowns is that presidents usually win. This may explain why President Donald Trump threatened to continue the shutdown for months, even years.

By John A Tures One of the biggest myths about government shutdowns is that presidents usually win. This may explain why President Donald Trump threatened to continue the shutdown for months, even years. However, a poll conducted in the first week of January shows that 51 per cent of adults believe Trump is to blame for the shutdown. I’m a scholar of political science and often research presidential politics. I did an analysis of Gallup data, a group that does public opinion polling, from its Presidential Job Approval Center. There have been 18 shutdowns since 1977. I found that in the nine longest shutdowns during that time, presidents lose an average of 3 percentage points of public support or approval during a government shutdown of four or more days. Most presidents lose shutdowns In only two of the nine cases that I looked at, did a chief executive boost his numbers. Jimmy Carter inched up a percentage point or two in 1977 and 1978 during the government shutdowns that took place during his presidency. In the seven other cases, the shutdown led to declines in public approval of the president. And in the majority of cases, the president’s party lost the next presidential election. The clearest example is President George H W Bush. In 1990, this GOP president was riding a 66 per cent approval rating after the successful Operation Desert Shield (when we sent US troops to Saudi Arabia to deter an attack by Iraq) and a long period of economic growth. But Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress battled over the budget deficit, triggering a government shutdown from October 5 to 9. Public approval for Bush fell 10 percentage points. Some of this may have been the result of Bush approving tax increases to close the budget deficit, which broke one of his campaign pledges of “no new taxes.” But images of closed federal facilities didn’t help, giving voters the appearance of Bush presiding over gridlock. This hurt him in the 1992 election when voters agreed with Democrats that Bush’s policies led to legislative deadlock. Pundits often cite the case of Democratic President Bill Clinton as an exception. They claim he “won” the longest shutdown in US history. This shutdown took place from December 5, 1995, to January 6, 1996, or 21 full days. GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich wanted to reduce the budget deficit, while Clinton opposed deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare. It’s true that Clinton went on to defeat GOP Sen. Robert Dole – one of his rivals during the shutdown – in the 1996 election. But Gallup polling shows that Clinton’s approval ratings from mid-November to early January had fallen 11 percentage points to 42 per cent. In other circumstances, this could have cost Clinton another term. But in this case, he faced no opposition in his Democratic primary, while Dole lost precious time and money battling several rivals for the 1996 GOP nomination. I believe Clinton won in spite of the shutdown, not because of it. Why presidents lose People see the president as the most powerful actor in government. “Presidents have more authority than anyone else in the United States government, and control more money and military forces than any other person in the world,” write Hoover Institution scholars Paul T Hill and Ashley E Jochim in their book “The Power of Persuasion.” Hill and Jochim note that despite all of that power, presidents much work with Congress to get tasks accomplished. Because of their perceived power, presidents are often expected to accomplish more than their constitutional authority allows them to get done, notes Richard Neustadt in his book “Presidential Power.” When the government is closed, history shows the president will be held accountable. (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)

Why Donald Trump will likely lose the government shutdown

In case India wants to use Iran's channels of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-call-off-peace-talks-with-us-officials-189044">communication with the Taliban</a>, then Tehran will be open to such a proposition, Iranian diplomatic sources have said, at a time when there was a renewed focus on peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan.

They said though Iran's influence over the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-uae-to-closely-work-on-afghanistan-peace-reconciliation-188783">Taliban was not comparable to that of Pakistan's</a>, still, it would try to use the clout over the terror outfit for bringing peace and stability in the war-torn country.

Major powers like the US and Russia have been reaching out to the&nbsp;Taliban as part of efforts to push the stalled Afghan peace process.&nbsp;

The issue of peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan is likely to figure during talks between External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and her Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif on Wednesday.

In a significant move, India had sent two former diplomats in "non-official" capacity to a conference on the Afghan peace process in Moscow in November which was attended by a high-level Taliban delegation.&nbsp;

The conference organised by Russia was attended by representatives of Afghanistan as well as from several other countries including the US, Pakistan, and China.&nbsp;

The Iranian sources said Tehran was ready to use its influence over Taliban on behalf of the Afghan government. If India wants Tehran's channels of communication with the militant outfit, we are always open to do that, they said.

India has been maintaining a policy of not engaging with Taliban and pressing for an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace initiative to bring peace and stability in the war-ravaged country.

The Iranian sources said a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan will be security challenge to Iran, India, but it will be an existential threat to Pakistan.

Iran is learned to have conveyed its view to Islamabad about how Taliban can be a real threat to its existence.&nbsp;

The sources said Tehran believes that there is a need for a situation where Taliban is not exploited by the US to create instability in the region, it is not exploited by UAE and Saudi Arabia to "create havoc".

Iran had contacts with Taliban as they control some areas adjacent Iran's border, the sources said adding Iran had the first round dialogue with Taliban.

"We had a short dialogue with them in Moscow and then we had the first round of that talk in Tehran," said a source.

On the Chabahar port, the sources said anybody who is interested to join in the project including China, can come on board.&nbsp;

On the long-pending proposal of Iran-Pak-India gas pipeline project, the sources said Tehran was of the opinion that it continues to be economically feasible.

Major powers like the US and Russia have been reaching out to the Taliban as part of efforts to push the stalled Afghan peace process.

In case India wants to use Iran's channels of communication with the Taliban, then Tehran will be open to such a proposition, Iranian diplomatic sources have said, at a time when there was a renewed focus on peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. They said though Iran's influence over the Taliban was not comparable to that of Pakistan's, still, it would try to use the clout over the terror outfit for bringing peace and stability in the war-torn country. Major powers like the US and Russia have been reaching out to the Taliban as part of efforts to push the stalled Afghan peace process. The issue of peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan is likely to figure during talks between External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and her Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif on Wednesday. In a significant move, India had sent two former diplomats in "non-official" capacity to a conference on the Afghan peace process in Moscow in November which was attended by a high-level Taliban delegation. The conference organised by Russia was attended by representatives of Afghanistan as well as from several other countries including the US, Pakistan, and China. The Iranian sources said Tehran was ready to use its influence over Taliban on behalf of the Afghan government. If India wants Tehran's channels of communication with the militant outfit, we are always open to do that, they said. India has been maintaining a policy of not engaging with Taliban and pressing for an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace initiative to bring peace and stability in the war-ravaged country. The Iranian sources said a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan will be security challenge to Iran, India, but it will be an existential threat to Pakistan. Iran is learned to have conveyed its view to Islamabad about how Taliban can be a real threat to its existence. The sources said Tehran believes that there is a need for a situation where Taliban is not exploited by the US to create instability in the region, it is not exploited by UAE and Saudi Arabia to "create havoc". Iran had contacts with Taliban as they control some areas adjacent Iran's border, the sources said adding Iran had the first round dialogue with Taliban. "We had a short dialogue with them in Moscow and then we had the first round of that talk in Tehran," said a source. On the Chabahar port, the sources said anybody who is interested to join in the project including China, can come on board. On the long-pending proposal of Iran-Pak-India gas pipeline project, the sources said Tehran was of the opinion that it continues to be economically feasible.

Iran ready to use influence over Taliban to bring peace to Afghanistan: Diplomatic sources

The Afghan Taliban said on Tuesday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-call-off-peace-talks-with-us-officials-189044">they had called off peace talks with US officials in Qatar</a> this week due to an "agenda disagreement", especially over the involvement of Afghan officials as well as a possible ceasefire and prisoner exchange.

Two days of peace talks had been set to start on Wednesday, Taliban officials told Reuters earlier, but the hardline Islamic militant group had refused to allow "puppet" Afghan officials to join.

The US ambassador to Kabul, John Bass, tweeted that reports of US-Taliban talks on Wednesday were "inaccurate" and added: "Taliban should talk to fellow Afghans as much as they talk to media."

A separate tweet from the US embassy in the Afghan capital stressed that intra-Afghan talks were "essential" to settling the conflict.&nbsp;

The State Department later announced that US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad would lead an interagency delegation to India, China, Afghanistan, and Pakistan from January 8–21 that would meet senior government officials in each country "to facilitate an intra-Afghan political settlement".&nbsp;

It said Khalilzad continued to coordinate his efforts with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, and other Afghan stakeholders.

"The US goal is to promote dialogue among Afghans about how to end the conflict, and to encourage the parties to come together at the negotiating table to reach a political settlement," the statement said.

The war in Afghanistan is America's longest overseas military intervention. It has cost Washington nearly $1 trillion and killed tens of thousands of people.

Reports last month about US President Donald Trump's plans to withdraw thousands of troops from Afghanistan triggered uncertainty in Kabul, which depends on the United States and other foreign powers for military support and training.&nbsp;

A Taliban source told Reuters that US officials had insisted that the Taliban should meet Afghan officials in Qatar and said: "both sides were in disagreement over declaring a ceasefire in 2019."&nbsp;

"Both sides have agreed to not meet in Qatar," he added.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said earlier that the two sides were still working on the technical details and were not clear on the agenda for the talks.

A Taliban leader had told Reuters that the talks, which would have been the fourth round with Khalilzad, would have involved a US withdrawal, prisoner exchange and the lifting of a ban on movement of Taliban leaders.

Taliban sources said that they had demanded that US authorities release 25,000 prisoners and they would free 3,000, but that US officials were not keen to discuss the exchange at this stage.

"We would never announce any ceasefire until and unless we achieve major gains on the ground. We have the feeling that Zalmay Khalilzad doesn`t have enough power to make important decisions," another Taliban official said.

The Taliban have rejected repeated requests from regional powers to allow Afghan officials to take part in the talks, insisting that the United States is their main adversary.

The insurgents, seeking to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster by US-led troops, called off a meeting with US officials in Saudi Arabia this week because of Riyadh`s insistence involving the Afghan government.

The United States sent troops to Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. At its peak, the US deployment involved more than 100,000 troops, but Washington withdrew most in 2014 and now has around 14,000 troops in the country as part of a NATO-led mission aiding Afghan security forces and hunting militants.

As peace talks gained momentum a draft agreement drawn up by the influential US think tank RAND Corporation outlining the clauses for a potential peace deal was circulated among Afghan officials and diplomats in Kabul.&nbsp;

The document, reviewed by Reuters, suggests that the United States and NATO withdraw their military missions in phases over an expected period of 18 months. It adds that the United States may continue providing civilian assistance.

The U.S. embassy tweet said RAND’s work was independent of the US government and did not represent US policy.

A separate tweet from the US embassy in the Afghan capital stressed that intra-Afghan talks were 'essential' to settling the conflict.

The Afghan Taliban said on Tuesday they had called off peace talks with US officials in Qatar this week due to an "agenda disagreement", especially over the involvement of Afghan officials as well as a possible ceasefire and prisoner exchange. Two days of peace talks had been set to start on Wednesday, Taliban officials told Reuters earlier, but the hardline Islamic militant group had refused to allow "puppet" Afghan officials to join. The US ambassador to Kabul, John Bass, tweeted that reports of US-Taliban talks on Wednesday were "inaccurate" and added: "Taliban should talk to fellow Afghans as much as they talk to media." A separate tweet from the US embassy in the Afghan capital stressed that intra-Afghan talks were "essential" to settling the conflict. The State Department later announced that US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad would lead an interagency delegation to India, China, Afghanistan, and Pakistan from January 8–21 that would meet senior government officials in each country "to facilitate an intra-Afghan political settlement". It said Khalilzad continued to coordinate his efforts with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, and other Afghan stakeholders. "The US goal is to promote dialogue among Afghans about how to end the conflict, and to encourage the parties to come together at the negotiating table to reach a political settlement," the statement said. The war in Afghanistan is America's longest overseas military intervention. It has cost Washington nearly $1 trillion and killed tens of thousands of people. Reports last month about US President Donald Trump's plans to withdraw thousands of troops from Afghanistan triggered uncertainty in Kabul, which depends on the United States and other foreign powers for military support and training. A Taliban source told Reuters that US officials had insisted that the Taliban should meet Afghan officials in Qatar and said: "both sides were in disagreement over declaring a ceasefire in 2019." "Both sides have agreed to not meet in Qatar," he added. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said earlier that the two sides were still working on the technical details and were not clear on the agenda for the talks. A Taliban leader had told Reuters that the talks, which would have been the fourth round with Khalilzad, would have involved a US withdrawal, prisoner exchange and the lifting of a ban on movement of Taliban leaders. Taliban sources said that they had demanded that US authorities release 25,000 prisoners and they would free 3,000, but that US officials were not keen to discuss the exchange at this stage. "We would never announce any ceasefire until and unless we achieve major gains on the ground. We have the feeling that Zalmay Khalilzad doesn`t have enough power to make important decisions," another Taliban official said. The Taliban have rejected repeated requests from regional powers to allow Afghan officials to take part in the talks, insisting that the United States is their main adversary. The insurgents, seeking to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster by US-led troops, called off a meeting with US officials in Saudi Arabia this week because of Riyadh`s insistence involving the Afghan government. The United States sent troops to Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. At its peak, the US deployment involved more than 100,000 troops, but Washington withdrew most in 2014 and now has around 14,000 troops in the country as part of a NATO-led mission aiding Afghan security forces and hunting militants. As peace talks gained momentum a draft agreement drawn up by the influential US think tank RAND Corporation outlining the clauses for a potential peace deal was circulated among Afghan officials and diplomats in Kabul. The document, reviewed by Reuters, suggests that the United States and NATO withdraw their military missions in phases over an expected period of 18 months. It adds that the United States may continue providing civilian assistance. The U.S. embassy tweet said RAND’s work was independent of the US government and did not represent US policy.

Afghan Taliban cancel peace talks with US citing 'agenda disagreement'

By Sojin Lim

News broke in early January that North Korea’s acting ambassador to Italy, Jo Song-gil, is in hiding and reportedly is seeking asylum in an “unidentified Western country”. The possible high-level defection came as a surprise, especially as US president Donald Trump recently confirmed his desire to have a second US-North Korea summit, and South Korean president Moon Jae-in is soon expecting a visit from the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un. At time of writing, the North Korean leader was in China on an unannounced visit to see president Xi Jinping.

When Kim Jong-un sent handwritten letters to Moon and Trump on New Year’s Eve, he seemed to be promising that the three countries could continue their dialogue over the Korean peninsula’s peace process. But why is Jo Song-gil seeking asylum if Kim Jong-un really is open to change in North Korea? Is he making his escape for personal reasons – or is it an indication that things are as bad as ever in Pyongyang?

Whatever the reason, Jo Song-gil’s defection could impact the ongoing negotiations. He could, for example, share sensitive information with the US and South Korea about the real denuclearisation situation in North Korea – and this could make Kim Jong-un less willing to engage.

And the negotiations are already fragile. Over the past 12 months, there have been repeated promises – and cancellations – made by all sides. It certainly remains to be seen whether the three countries will meet as suggested – and whether it will amount to any more than “gesture politics” if they do.

On one level, things do look different to the past, when little tangible progress was made. South Korea’s Moon Jae-in is a proactive leader, and Kim Jong-un is young, ambitious and eager to make his own mark. Both Kim Jong-un and Trump are also deeply unpredictable, however.

But there are other factors to consider, too, not least North Korea’s sharp economic downturn. This has, in fact, given many North Koreans wider access to information from outside the country, partially thanks to a growing number of defectors communicating with those who remain and the outside world. Kim Jong Un’s “equal emphasis” (Byungjin) policy, which focuses on both military and economic development, has also given impetus to his willingness to talk with Moon and Trump.

But even if the willingness is there, North Korea’s regime cannot upend nearly 70 years of history in a day. It will be a long process.

Bargaining chip

Although Kim Jong-un’s current performance on this issue is occasionally more promising than that of his father or grandfather, the truth is that he cannot abandon his nuclear programme until he can see an alternative way of guaranteeing the security of his regime.

After all, North Korea’s nuclear programme has so far worked well as a bargaining chip in international negotiations – although the current UN sanctions are an exception. Indeed, North Korea’s nuclear threats and long-range missiles have strengthened the county’s hand against the US, while without them, North Korea has almost nothing to offer as a concession.

Nor should we forget the role the North Korean media plays. By showing images of Kim Jong-un shaking hands with world leaders, it has become part of his survival strategy, bolstering his strongman image among both ordinary North Koreans and his government. Any meeting Kim Jong-un agrees to should, at least partly, be seen in this light.

Ultimately, there have been no significant changes in North Korea’s nuclear programme (besides demolishing some old or disused facilities). Nor will it be possible to achieve completely irreversible denuclearisation as long as North Korea retains its theoretical nuclear know-how. At the same time, while North Korea tends to highlight its will to halt rather than dismantle its nuclear capability, the US wants more before it invests economically.

So how to move forward? And how can negotiators overcome the current chicken-or-egg dilemma: denuclearisation first or economic support first?

The answer is twofold. First, we need something truly imaginative. Perhaps the US can find a solution by transforming the nuclear sites in North Korea into special industrial clusters and providing some of its military capability in exchange for nuclear disarmament. In this way, North Korea can attract private investment from the US, while easing its security concerns.

In the end, however, foreign policy objectives on the peninsula will need to be realistic. As mentioned before, a truly denuclearised North Korea will never happen as it will retain its theoretical nuclear knowledge. It will be far more practical, then, to find a common ground of mutual interests.

Accountability 
 
Second, there needs to be a sense of “mutual accountability”. The traditional definition of accountability has three stages: responsibility, answerability, and enforceability.

The “responsibility” stage can take the form of policy dialogue and trust building. Plenty of dialogue occurred during the six-party talks held intermittently since 2003 between North Korea, China, the US, South Korea, Japan and Russia – but they appeared to fail to build any meaningful trust. The latest rounds of dialogue between the US and the two Koreas will also fall at this hurdle unless they find a novel way forward.

Consequently, the dialogue must be based on mutual understanding and openness. The rest of the world must understand that North Korea is a fragile state, which cannot overcome the denuclearisation problem on its own – especially given its vulnerable financial situation. After all, it’s not just the US that doesn’t trust North Korea; North Korea doesn’t trust the US either, especially following the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

But that is just the first step. The “answerability” stage will require much greater information sharing and transparency. The international community is so suspicious of the sincerity of Kim Jong-un’s denuclearisation process because of that country’s poor level of openness and the limited access to solid information from within North Korea. Once North Korea opens its borders, there will be simultaneous achievements in terms of both denuclearisation and economic development.

All parties need measurable and transparent indicators of progress. But if agreements aren’t kept, a move can be made towards “enforceability”, including convening inspection panels or enforcing a compliance review process. Kim Jong-un’s father and predecessor, Kim Jong-il, for example, faced international sanctions along with the removal of food aid even during a famine period when he left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003.

2019 may yet bring a way forward. But unless there is a foundation of mutual understanding, defectors such as Jo Song-gil may offer the only tangible insight into what’s really going on in North Korea.

(Sojin Lim is Deputy Director of the International Institute of Korean Studies, University of Central Lancashire)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/north-korea-what-latest-defection-tells-us-about-hopes-for-peace-on-peninsula-109447">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 Sojin Lim News broke in early January that North Korea’s acting ambassador to Italy, Jo Song-gil, is in hiding and reportedly is seeking asylum in an “unidentified Western country”.

By Sojin Lim News broke in early January that North Korea’s acting ambassador to Italy, Jo Song-gil, is in hiding and reportedly is seeking asylum in an “unidentified Western country”. The possible high-level defection came as a surprise, especially as US president Donald Trump recently confirmed his desire to have a second US-North Korea summit, and South Korean president Moon Jae-in is soon expecting a visit from the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un. At time of writing, the North Korean leader was in China on an unannounced visit to see president Xi Jinping. When Kim Jong-un sent handwritten letters to Moon and Trump on New Year’s Eve, he seemed to be promising that the three countries could continue their dialogue over the Korean peninsula’s peace process. But why is Jo Song-gil seeking asylum if Kim Jong-un really is open to change in North Korea? Is he making his escape for personal reasons – or is it an indication that things are as bad as ever in Pyongyang? Whatever the reason, Jo Song-gil’s defection could impact the ongoing negotiations. He could, for example, share sensitive information with the US and South Korea about the real denuclearisation situation in North Korea – and this could make Kim Jong-un less willing to engage. And the negotiations are already fragile. Over the past 12 months, there have been repeated promises – and cancellations – made by all sides. It certainly remains to be seen whether the three countries will meet as suggested – and whether it will amount to any more than “gesture politics” if they do. On one level, things do look different to the past, when little tangible progress was made. South Korea’s Moon Jae-in is a proactive leader, and Kim Jong-un is young, ambitious and eager to make his own mark. Both Kim Jong-un and Trump are also deeply unpredictable, however. But there are other factors to consider, too, not least North Korea’s sharp economic downturn. This has, in fact, given many North Koreans wider access to information from outside the country, partially thanks to a growing number of defectors communicating with those who remain and the outside world. Kim Jong Un’s “equal emphasis” (Byungjin) policy, which focuses on both military and economic development, has also given impetus to his willingness to talk with Moon and Trump. But even if the willingness is there, North Korea’s regime cannot upend nearly 70 years of history in a day. It will be a long process. Bargaining chip Although Kim Jong-un’s current performance on this issue is occasionally more promising than that of his father or grandfather, the truth is that he cannot abandon his nuclear programme until he can see an alternative way of guaranteeing the security of his regime. After all, North Korea’s nuclear programme has so far worked well as a bargaining chip in international negotiations – although the current UN sanctions are an exception. Indeed, North Korea’s nuclear threats and long-range missiles have strengthened the county’s hand against the US, while without them, North Korea has almost nothing to offer as a concession. Nor should we forget the role the North Korean media plays. By showing images of Kim Jong-un shaking hands with world leaders, it has become part of his survival strategy, bolstering his strongman image among both ordinary North Koreans and his government. Any meeting Kim Jong-un agrees to should, at least partly, be seen in this light. Ultimately, there have been no significant changes in North Korea’s nuclear programme (besides demolishing some old or disused facilities). Nor will it be possible to achieve completely irreversible denuclearisation as long as North Korea retains its theoretical nuclear know-how. At the same time, while North Korea tends to highlight its will to halt rather than dismantle its nuclear capability, the US wants more before it invests economically. So how to move forward? And how can negotiators overcome the current chicken-or-egg dilemma: denuclearisation first or economic support first? The answer is twofold. First, we need something truly imaginative. Perhaps the US can find a solution by transforming the nuclear sites in North Korea into special industrial clusters and providing some of its military capability in exchange for nuclear disarmament. In this way, North Korea can attract private investment from the US, while easing its security concerns. In the end, however, foreign policy objectives on the peninsula will need to be realistic. As mentioned before, a truly denuclearised North Korea will never happen as it will retain its theoretical nuclear knowledge. It will be far more practical, then, to find a common ground of mutual interests. Accountability Second, there needs to be a sense of “mutual accountability”. The traditional definition of accountability has three stages: responsibility, answerability, and enforceability. The “responsibility” stage can take the form of policy dialogue and trust building. Plenty of dialogue occurred during the six-party talks held intermittently since 2003 between North Korea, China, the US, South Korea, Japan and Russia – but they appeared to fail to build any meaningful trust. The latest rounds of dialogue between the US and the two Koreas will also fall at this hurdle unless they find a novel way forward. Consequently, the dialogue must be based on mutual understanding and openness. The rest of the world must understand that North Korea is a fragile state, which cannot overcome the denuclearisation problem on its own – especially given its vulnerable financial situation. After all, it’s not just the US that doesn’t trust North Korea; North Korea doesn’t trust the US either, especially following the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. But that is just the first step. The “answerability” stage will require much greater information sharing and transparency. The international community is so suspicious of the sincerity of Kim Jong-un’s denuclearisation process because of that country’s poor level of openness and the limited access to solid information from within North Korea. Once North Korea opens its borders, there will be simultaneous achievements in terms of both denuclearisation and economic development. All parties need measurable and transparent indicators of progress. But if agreements aren’t kept, a move can be made towards “enforceability”, including convening inspection panels or enforcing a compliance review process. Kim Jong-un’s father and predecessor, Kim Jong-il, for example, faced international sanctions along with the removal of food aid even during a famine period when he left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003. 2019 may yet bring a way forward. But unless there is a foundation of mutual understanding, defectors such as Jo Song-gil may offer the only tangible insight into what’s really going on in North Korea. (Sojin Lim is Deputy Director of the International Institute of Korean Studies, University of Central Lancashire) (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 latest defection tells us about hopes for peace on Korean peninsula

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-despite-us-sanctions-it-has-found-new-potential-oil-buyers-188406">US sanctions are putting unprecedented pressure on Iranians </a>while "first class idiots" are running Washington's policy, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday.

US President Donald Trump last year pulled out of an international pact on Iran's nuclear program and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/the-knowns-and-unknowns-of-us-iran-oil-sanction-waivers-176204">reimposed sanctions intended to scupper Tehran's oil exports</a>, curb its missile program and clip its regional influence.

The measures have hit Iran's economy hard.

"The sanctions do put pressure on the country and the people," Khamenei said, according to a transcript on his website of a speech in Tehran to commemorate an event from the 1979 revolution.

"The Americans happily say that these sanctions are unprecedented in history. Yes, they're unprecedented. And the defeat that the Americans will face will be unprecedented, God willing," he added.

Khamenei lambasted US officials' approach to Iran as irrational, saying: "They are first-class idiots."

Iran's economy has faced instability in recent months with the rial fluctuating in value, making it difficult for ordinary people to make ends meet.

Sporadic protests linked to the tough economic situation have been led by truck drivers, farmers, workers, merchants, and teachers, occasionally resulting in violent confrontations with security forces.

The Iranian government must help the country's weakest, Khamenei added in his speech.

US sanctions are putting unprecedented pressure on Iranians while "first class idiots" are running Washington's policy, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday.

US sanctions are putting unprecedented pressure on Iranians while "first class idiots" are running Washington's policy, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday. US President Donald Trump last year pulled out of an international pact on Iran's nuclear program and reimposed sanctions intended to scupper Tehran's oil exports, curb its missile program and clip its regional influence. The measures have hit Iran's economy hard. "The sanctions do put pressure on the country and the people," Khamenei said, according to a transcript on his website of a speech in Tehran to commemorate an event from the 1979 revolution. "The Americans happily say that these sanctions are unprecedented in history. Yes, they're unprecedented. And the defeat that the Americans will face will be unprecedented, God willing," he added. Khamenei lambasted US officials' approach to Iran as irrational, saying: "They are first-class idiots." Iran's economy has faced instability in recent months with the rial fluctuating in value, making it difficult for ordinary people to make ends meet. Sporadic protests linked to the tough economic situation have been led by truck drivers, farmers, workers, merchants, and teachers, occasionally resulting in violent confrontations with security forces. The Iranian government must help the country's weakest, Khamenei added in his speech.

'First class idiots' running Washington policy: Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei

Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has overseen the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-calls-claims-about-russian-election-meddling-a-hoax-and-blames-obama-153722">Russian election meddling probe</a>, is set to leave the US Department of Justice in coming weeks as President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the department is set to take over, several US media outlets reported on Wednesday.

Rosenstein has had oversight of the US Special Counsel's probe into alleged Russian interference in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-slams-ridiculous-us-election-meddling-charges-169505">2016 presidential election and possible connections to Trump's campaign</a>. Then-attorney general Jeff Sessions, an early Trump supporter during the presidential campaign, had recused himself.

William Barr, Trump's pick to replace Sessions who was fired soon after the November midterm congressional elections, is set to appear for a confirmation hearing next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which must weigh his nomination before the full Senate considers his approval.

ABC News, citing multiple sources familiar with Rosenstein's plans, reported that he intended to leave in the coming weeks as Barr transitioned into the job. Fox News, citing unnamed Justice Department officials, also reported the planned departure in weeks. CNN also reported the move, citing an unnamed source.

Reuters was unable to immediately verify the reports and representatives for the Justice Department could not be immediately reached for comment.

If confirmed, Barr, who was US Attorney General under the late President George H W Bush from 1991 to 1993, would oversee the investigation led by US Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a fellow Republican chosen by Rosenstein.

Barr's nomination is likely to meet heavy scrutiny regarding the ongoing investigation, particularly from Democrats, following reports he had written a memo in June questioning the probe. Rosenstein has said the memo had no impact on the department's work.

Officials told ABC and Fox that Rosenstein had planned to serve as deputy for two years - a milestone that was approaching.

He also wanted to help ensure Barr, if confirmed by the Senate, had a smooth transition, ABC said, citing sources.

Rosenstein has stayed on under Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, whose controversial appointment has sparked numerous legal challenges and raised questions about what role he would play regarding the investigation.

Rosenstein has been frequently criticized by Trump, who calls the Russia investigation a "witch hunt" and denies any collusion with Moscow. Russia has also denied any election interference.

US intelligence agencies have found that Russia sought to sway the 2016 presidential vote to Trump over Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton.

Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has overseen the Russian election meddling probe, is set to leave the US Department of Justice in coming weeks as President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the department is set to take over, several US media outlets reported on Wednesday.

Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has overseen the Russian election meddling probe, is set to leave the US Department of Justice in coming weeks as President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the department is set to take over, several US media outlets reported on Wednesday. Rosenstein has had oversight of the US Special Counsel's probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible connections to Trump's campaign. Then-attorney general Jeff Sessions, an early Trump supporter during the presidential campaign, had recused himself. William Barr, Trump's pick to replace Sessions who was fired soon after the November midterm congressional elections, is set to appear for a confirmation hearing next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which must weigh his nomination before the full Senate considers his approval. ABC News, citing multiple sources familiar with Rosenstein's plans, reported that he intended to leave in the coming weeks as Barr transitioned into the job. Fox News, citing unnamed Justice Department officials, also reported the planned departure in weeks. CNN also reported the move, citing an unnamed source. Reuters was unable to immediately verify the reports and representatives for the Justice Department could not be immediately reached for comment. If confirmed, Barr, who was US Attorney General under the late President George H W Bush from 1991 to 1993, would oversee the investigation led by US Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a fellow Republican chosen by Rosenstein. Barr's nomination is likely to meet heavy scrutiny regarding the ongoing investigation, particularly from Democrats, following reports he had written a memo in June questioning the probe. Rosenstein has said the memo had no impact on the department's work. Officials told ABC and Fox that Rosenstein had planned to serve as deputy for two years - a milestone that was approaching. He also wanted to help ensure Barr, if confirmed by the Senate, had a smooth transition, ABC said, citing sources. Rosenstein has stayed on under Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, whose controversial appointment has sparked numerous legal challenges and raised questions about what role he would play regarding the investigation. Rosenstein has been frequently criticized by Trump, who calls the Russia investigation a "witch hunt" and denies any collusion with Moscow. Russia has also denied any election interference. US intelligence agencies have found that Russia sought to sway the 2016 presidential vote to Trump over Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton.

US official overseeing Russia collusion probe to leave: Reports

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/moscow-says-fbi-arrested-russian-a-day-after-it-detained-ex-us-marine-188459">The Kremlin on Wednesday rejected</a> a British suggestion it might use a former<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/russia-says-it-is-not-willing-to-exchange-detained-ex-us-marine-report-188431"> US Marine detained in Russia </a>on espionage charges as a pawn in a diplomatic game and said it reserved the right to conduct counter-intelligence activities.

Paul Whelan, a former US Marine who also holds a British passport, was detained by Russia's Federal Security Service on December 28. His family has said he is innocent and that he was in Moscow to attend a wedding.

Commenting on the case earlier this month, British foreign minister Jeremy Hunt said individuals should not be used as pawns of diplomatic leverage.

Asked about Hunt's remark, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters:

"In Russia, we never use people as pawns in diplomatic games. In Russia, we conduct counter-intelligence activity against those suspected of espionage. That is done regularly."

The Kremlin on Wednesday rejected a British suggestion it might use a former US Marine detained in Russia on espionage charges as a pawn in a diplomatic game and said it reserved the right to conduct counter-intelligence activities.

The Kremlin on Wednesday rejected a British suggestion it might use a former US Marine detained in Russia on espionage charges as a pawn in a diplomatic game and said it reserved the right to conduct counter-intelligence activities. Paul Whelan, a former US Marine who also holds a British passport, was detained by Russia's Federal Security Service on December 28. His family has said he is innocent and that he was in Moscow to attend a wedding. Commenting on the case earlier this month, British foreign minister Jeremy Hunt said individuals should not be used as pawns of diplomatic leverage. Asked about Hunt's remark, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: "In Russia, we never use people as pawns in diplomatic games. In Russia, we conduct counter-intelligence activity against those suspected of espionage. That is done regularly."

Kremlin says it will not use detained ex-US marine Paul Whelan as pawn

us-1

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

us 1