Oil prices fell on Friday as OPEC discussed a potential exemption from cutting output for Iran and as the producer club sought to get heavyweight supplier Russia on board.

International Brent crude oil futures fell below $60 per barrel, trading at $59.53 per barrel at 0750 GMT, down 53 cents, or 0.9 per cent from their last close.

US&nbsp;West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures were at $51.05 per barrel, down 44 cents, or 0.9 per cent.

The declines came after crude slumped by almost 3 per cent the previous day, with the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) ending a meeting at its headquarters in Vienna, Austria, on Thursday without announcing a decision to cut crude supply.

There was also still discussion around Iran seeking an exemption from any cuts amid U.S. sanctions which already reduced its exports, OPEC delegates told Reuters.

OPEC also wants to get Russia on board with cuts. Russia wants to cut its oil output by a maximum of 150,000 barrels per day (bpd) for the first three months of 2019, RIA news agency cited a source as saying on Friday.

Analysts expect OPEC to cut more than Russia, but warn that a big cut will be needed to reverse recent price falls.

"Reversing the overwhelmingly bearish price sentiment will likely require a credible and cohesive message from the OPEC meeting. Even a 1 million bpd cut could lead to a 'sell the news' reaction in the short term," US&nbsp;investment bank Jefferies said on Friday.

"If no agreement is reached, oil prices have significant downside," it added.

Supply surge, price plunge

Oil producers have been hit by a 30-per cent plunge in crude prices since October as supply surges just as the demand outlook weakens amid a global economic slowdown.

Oil output from the world's biggest producers - OPEC, Russia and the United States - has increased by 3.3 million bpd since the end of 2017, to 56.38 million bpd, meeting almost 60 per cent of global consumption.

That increase alone is equivalent to the output of major OPEC producer the United Arab Emirates.

The surge is largely down to soaring U.S. crude oil production, which has jumped by 2.5 million bpd since early 2016 to a record 11.7 million bpd, making the United States the world's biggest oil producer.

As a result, the United States last week exported more crude oil and fuel than it imported for the first time on records going back to 1973, according to data released on Thursday. 
&nbsp;

Oil prices fell on Friday as OPEC discussed a potential exemption from cutting output for Iran and as the producer club sought to get heavyweight supplier Russia on board.

Oil prices fell on Friday as OPEC discussed a potential exemption from cutting output for Iran and as the producer club sought to get heavyweight supplier Russia on board. International Brent crude oil futures fell below $60 per barrel, trading at $59.53 per barrel at 0750 GMT, down 53 cents, or 0.9 per cent from their last close. US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures were at $51.05 per barrel, down 44 cents, or 0.9 per cent. The declines came after crude slumped by almost 3 per cent the previous day, with the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) ending a meeting at its headquarters in Vienna, Austria, on Thursday without announcing a decision to cut crude supply. There was also still discussion around Iran seeking an exemption from any cuts amid U.S. sanctions which already reduced its exports, OPEC delegates told Reuters. OPEC also wants to get Russia on board with cuts. Russia wants to cut its oil output by a maximum of 150,000 barrels per day (bpd) for the first three months of 2019, RIA news agency cited a source as saying on Friday. Analysts expect OPEC to cut more than Russia, but warn that a big cut will be needed to reverse recent price falls. "Reversing the overwhelmingly bearish price sentiment will likely require a credible and cohesive message from the OPEC meeting. Even a 1 million bpd cut could lead to a 'sell the news' reaction in the short term," US investment bank Jefferies said on Friday. "If no agreement is reached, oil prices have significant downside," it added. Supply surge, price plunge Oil producers have been hit by a 30-per cent plunge in crude prices since October as supply surges just as the demand outlook weakens amid a global economic slowdown. Oil output from the world's biggest producers - OPEC, Russia and the United States - has increased by 3.3 million bpd since the end of 2017, to 56.38 million bpd, meeting almost 60 per cent of global consumption. That increase alone is equivalent to the output of major OPEC producer the United Arab Emirates. The surge is largely down to soaring U.S. crude oil production, which has jumped by 2.5 million bpd since early 2016 to a record 11.7 million bpd, making the United States the world's biggest oil producer. As a result, the United States last week exported more crude oil and fuel than it imported for the first time on records going back to 1973, according to data released on Thursday.

Oil sinks as OPEC mulls Iran supply cut exemption, tries to get Russia on board

Breaking News: Canada arrests Huawei's global chief financial officer

The infamous migrant “caravan” comprised approximately 5,000 to 6,000 people from Central America when it finally concluded its slow six-week crawl to Tijuana, the Mexican border city just south of California.

At one point the caravan swelled to 7,000 people, but many of them succumbed to exhaustion, sleep and sickness along the way and chose to stay behind in Mexican towns; others turned back to their country of origin.

The hardest hit by these events are undoubtedly the children, unaware of the magnitude of their journey and unable to keep up with its physical requirements.

The photographs taken by journalists following the caravan have highlighted the plight of child migrants and their parents. The impact of the journey on migrant parent-child relationships has been less discussed.

As a clinical psychologist, my practice and research has demonstrated that refugee parents, such as these migrants, often exhibit symptoms of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that have profound effects on parenting.

Their emotionally distraught state can sometimes lead to overprotectiveness, harshness in parenting and even reversal of parent-child roles. Children in these circumstances are more likely to suffer from mental health problems.

Infections, dehydration, tear gas

The caravan formed in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on October 13, nearly seven weeks ago. The 500 migrants who have been in the caravan from the beginning have marched a total of 4,000 blistering km on their way to Tijuana.

Along the way, migrants have suffered from fevers, eye infections, lice infestations, respiratory infections and dehydration.

As the city of Tijuana tries to accommodate thousands of migrants in temporary shelters, the crowded and unhygienic conditions only escalate health concerns. Children are more susceptible to diseases and tire out quicker, making this journey especially arduous for them.

This adds to the list of concerns their parents already have. The batons and tear gas that these migrants have faced at the United States border further adds to the stress of relocation.

Financial strife and marital discord

The biggest push factors for these asylum seekers are the corruption and poverty rampant in their countries. According to the World Bank, two-thirds of the population of Honduras lived in poverty in 2016. According to the CIA World Factbook, over 30 per cent of the population lived under the poverty line in El Salvador at the same time.

The signs of the migrants’ financial strife are evident. Migrant families have relied heavily on the generosity of strangers for food, shelter and transportation in the towns they have passed through. There is also the fact that people simply do not walk 4,000 km if they can travel the same distance in any other vehicle. In some cases, families have resorted to begging along the way for passage.

Financial stress tends to increase the likelihood of marital discord, which leads to criticism and anger between spouses.

Over time the strain on a marital relationship often spills over onto the parent-child relationship — leading to a marked reduction in nurturance, responsiveness to needs and consistency in parenting.

This can contribute to socio-emotional problems in children — such as low self-esteem, depression, drug use and other health problems.

Gang violence and dissociation

Due to widespread gang violence, El Salvador has the highest homicide rate in the world, followed in second place by Honduras, with Guatemala not too far behind.

Migrant families have reported fleeing their hometowns due to threats against their lives, or the lives of family members, if they did not join the local gang. Often, gangs also extort cuts of people’s already meagre livelihoods and threaten others with physical and sexual assault.

Research indicates that repetitive community violence exposure causes parents to feel hopeless, powerless and emotionally drained, leading to symptoms of depression, anxiety and PTSD.

Other fallouts include dissociation (feeling cut off from reality) and lower understanding of and tolerance towards their child’s psychological distress.

As a result, children are more likely to develop emotional difficulties, learn disengagement and form similar unhelpful coping mechanisms.

Need for social and emotional support 
 
Today in Tijuana, some asylum-seeking families await to be processed by authorities while others begin to settle into life in Mexico. Their parent-child relationships will be further tested and strained under the pressure of acculturation and other post-migration stressors.

This underlines the need for social and emotional support at the end of this journey, as well as efforts to help them rehabilitate into safer areas.

Childhood is already a delicate time for growth and development, even when good enough parenting and a stable, nurturing environment is available. A gruelling move to a strange and potentially hostile country obviously feels necessary for these migrant families — or they wouldn’t be on the move.

Given the life they are fleeing, an uncertain future in an idealised country eclipses certain desolation and death in their homelands. 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-challenge-of-parenting-in-a-migrant-caravan-107875">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

The infamous migrant “caravan” comprised approximately 5,000 to 6,000 people from Central America when it finally concluded its slow six-week crawl to Tijuana, the Mexican border city just south of California.

The infamous migrant “caravan” comprised approximately 5,000 to 6,000 people from Central America when it finally concluded its slow six-week crawl to Tijuana, the Mexican border city just south of California. At one point the caravan swelled to 7,000 people, but many of them succumbed to exhaustion, sleep and sickness along the way and chose to stay behind in Mexican towns; others turned back to their country of origin. The hardest hit by these events are undoubtedly the children, unaware of the magnitude of their journey and unable to keep up with its physical requirements. The photographs taken by journalists following the caravan have highlighted the plight of child migrants and their parents. The impact of the journey on migrant parent-child relationships has been less discussed. As a clinical psychologist, my practice and research has demonstrated that refugee parents, such as these migrants, often exhibit symptoms of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that have profound effects on parenting. Their emotionally distraught state can sometimes lead to overprotectiveness, harshness in parenting and even reversal of parent-child roles. Children in these circumstances are more likely to suffer from mental health problems. Infections, dehydration, tear gas The caravan formed in San Pedro Sula, Honduras, on October 13, nearly seven weeks ago. The 500 migrants who have been in the caravan from the beginning have marched a total of 4,000 blistering km on their way to Tijuana. Along the way, migrants have suffered from fevers, eye infections, lice infestations, respiratory infections and dehydration. As the city of Tijuana tries to accommodate thousands of migrants in temporary shelters, the crowded and unhygienic conditions only escalate health concerns. Children are more susceptible to diseases and tire out quicker, making this journey especially arduous for them. This adds to the list of concerns their parents already have. The batons and tear gas that these migrants have faced at the United States border further adds to the stress of relocation. Financial strife and marital discord The biggest push factors for these asylum seekers are the corruption and poverty rampant in their countries. According to the World Bank, two-thirds of the population of Honduras lived in poverty in 2016. According to the CIA World Factbook, over 30 per cent of the population lived under the poverty line in El Salvador at the same time. The signs of the migrants’ financial strife are evident. Migrant families have relied heavily on the generosity of strangers for food, shelter and transportation in the towns they have passed through. There is also the fact that people simply do not walk 4,000 km if they can travel the same distance in any other vehicle. In some cases, families have resorted to begging along the way for passage. Financial stress tends to increase the likelihood of marital discord, which leads to criticism and anger between spouses. Over time the strain on a marital relationship often spills over onto the parent-child relationship — leading to a marked reduction in nurturance, responsiveness to needs and consistency in parenting. This can contribute to socio-emotional problems in children — such as low self-esteem, depression, drug use and other health problems. Gang violence and dissociation Due to widespread gang violence, El Salvador has the highest homicide rate in the world, followed in second place by Honduras, with Guatemala not too far behind. Migrant families have reported fleeing their hometowns due to threats against their lives, or the lives of family members, if they did not join the local gang. Often, gangs also extort cuts of people’s already meagre livelihoods and threaten others with physical and sexual assault. Research indicates that repetitive community violence exposure causes parents to feel hopeless, powerless and emotionally drained, leading to symptoms of depression, anxiety and PTSD. Other fallouts include dissociation (feeling cut off from reality) and lower understanding of and tolerance towards their child’s psychological distress. As a result, children are more likely to develop emotional difficulties, learn disengagement and form similar unhelpful coping mechanisms. Need for social and emotional support Today in Tijuana, some asylum-seeking families await to be processed by authorities while others begin to settle into life in Mexico. Their parent-child relationships will be further tested and strained under the pressure of acculturation and other post-migration stressors. This underlines the need for social and emotional support at the end of this journey, as well as efforts to help them rehabilitate into safer areas. Childhood is already a delicate time for growth and development, even when good enough parenting and a stable, nurturing environment is available. A gruelling move to a strange and potentially hostile country obviously feels necessary for these migrant families — or they wouldn’t be on the move. Given the life they are fleeing, an uncertain future in an idealised country eclipses certain desolation and death in their homelands. (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)

The challenge of parenting in a migrant caravan

A US soldier based in Hawaii was sentenced on Tuesday to 25 years in prison for attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group also known as ISIS.

Ikaika Erik Kang, 35, whose sentence was part of a plea agreement, will also be under at least 20 years of supervised release after he completes his prison term.

"Kang swore to defend the United States as a member of our military, but betrayed his country by swearing allegiance to ISIS and attempting to provide it material support," John Demers, assistant attorney general for national security, said in a statement.

According to authorities, Kang, a sergeant in the US Army, became sympathetic to ISIS by at least early 2016 and regularly watched propaganda videos published online by the terror group while expressing a desire to become a member.

Prosecutors said he spoke in detail about committing specific acts of violence including launching attacks at public gatherings such as the Honolulu Christmas Parade and planning a suicide bombing at his army barracks.

In June and July of last year, he met with undercover FBI agents posing as people with connections to ISIS and provided them with sensitive material.

He also supplied the agents with a small aerial drone and military-style clothing and gear.

On another occasion, he provided two undercover FBI employees -- one pretending to be a high-ranking ISIS leader and another an ISIS fighter -- with a two-hour combat training session to hone their fighting and marksmanship skills.

Kang was arrested after he swore allegiance to ISIS during a ceremony conducted by the purported ISIS leader.

"This is the first case in the state of Hawaii where someone was convicted for providing material support to terrorism," said Sean Kaul, special agent in charge of the FBI office in Honolulu. "This should serve as reminder that even though we are 2,500 miles from the US mainland these crimes can and do happen everywhere."

According to local media, Kang grew up in an abusive household and his father suffered from mental health issues. Two former members of the US military also testified that he had mental health issues and could easily be influenced.

A US soldier based in Hawaii was sentenced on Tuesday to 25 years in prison for attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group also known as ISIS. Ikaika Erik Kang, 35, whose sentence was part of a plea agreement, will also be under at least 20 years of supervised release after he completes his prison term.

A US soldier based in Hawaii was sentenced on Tuesday to 25 years in prison for attempting to provide support to the Islamic State group also known as ISIS. Ikaika Erik Kang, 35, whose sentence was part of a plea agreement, will also be under at least 20 years of supervised release after he completes his prison term. "Kang swore to defend the United States as a member of our military, but betrayed his country by swearing allegiance to ISIS and attempting to provide it material support," John Demers, assistant attorney general for national security, said in a statement. According to authorities, Kang, a sergeant in the US Army, became sympathetic to ISIS by at least early 2016 and regularly watched propaganda videos published online by the terror group while expressing a desire to become a member. Prosecutors said he spoke in detail about committing specific acts of violence including launching attacks at public gatherings such as the Honolulu Christmas Parade and planning a suicide bombing at his army barracks. In June and July of last year, he met with undercover FBI agents posing as people with connections to ISIS and provided them with sensitive material. He also supplied the agents with a small aerial drone and military-style clothing and gear. On another occasion, he provided two undercover FBI employees -- one pretending to be a high-ranking ISIS leader and another an ISIS fighter -- with a two-hour combat training session to hone their fighting and marksmanship skills. Kang was arrested after he swore allegiance to ISIS during a ceremony conducted by the purported ISIS leader. "This is the first case in the state of Hawaii where someone was convicted for providing material support to terrorism," said Sean Kaul, special agent in charge of the FBI office in Honolulu. "This should serve as reminder that even though we are 2,500 miles from the US mainland these crimes can and do happen everywhere." According to local media, Kang grew up in an abusive household and his father suffered from mental health issues. Two former members of the US military also testified that he had mental health issues and could easily be influenced.

US soldier gets 25 years in prison for backing ISIS

Former US vice president Joe Biden has stoked speculation he may run for the White House in 2020 by saying he believes he is the "most qualified person" to be president.

Biden, 76, made the remarks on Monday night while in Montana during a stop on a tour to promote his 2017 book "Promise Me, Dad" about the death from brain cancer of his son Beau.

"I think I'm the most qualified person in the country to be president," a local newspaper, the Missoula Current, quoted Biden as saying.

"The issues that we face as a country today are the issues that I've worked on my whole life -– the plight of the middle class and foreign policy," he said.

Biden, who served for eight years as vice president to Democrat Barack Obama, said he would have to consult with his family before deciding whether to take on Republican Donald Trump two years from now.

"My family and I need to decide as a unit whether we're ready -- we do everything as a family," Biden said, adding that he would make a decision in the next six weeks to two months.

Biden, who served as a US senator from Delaware before becoming vice president, was asked whether his reputation for making "gaffes" could harm his prospects.

"I may be a gaffe machine, but my god, what a wonderful thing compared to a guy who can't tell the truth," he said in a reference to Trump.

"No one doubts what I say, the problem is I sometimes say all that I mean," Biden said. "The question is what kind of nation are we becoming?

"We can't have four more years."

Biden, should he decide to run, would be considered a strong candidate in what could be a crowded field seeking the 2020 Democratic nomination for president.

Former US vice president Joe Biden has stoked speculation he may run for the White House in 2020 by saying he believes he is the "most qualified person" to be president.

Former US vice president Joe Biden has stoked speculation he may run for the White House in 2020 by saying he believes he is the "most qualified person" to be president. Biden, 76, made the remarks on Monday night while in Montana during a stop on a tour to promote his 2017 book "Promise Me, Dad" about the death from brain cancer of his son Beau. "I think I'm the most qualified person in the country to be president," a local newspaper, the Missoula Current, quoted Biden as saying. "The issues that we face as a country today are the issues that I've worked on my whole life -– the plight of the middle class and foreign policy," he said. Biden, who served for eight years as vice president to Democrat Barack Obama, said he would have to consult with his family before deciding whether to take on Republican Donald Trump two years from now. "My family and I need to decide as a unit whether we're ready -- we do everything as a family," Biden said, adding that he would make a decision in the next six weeks to two months. Biden, who served as a US senator from Delaware before becoming vice president, was asked whether his reputation for making "gaffes" could harm his prospects. "I may be a gaffe machine, but my god, what a wonderful thing compared to a guy who can't tell the truth," he said in a reference to Trump. "No one doubts what I say, the problem is I sometimes say all that I mean," Biden said. "The question is what kind of nation are we becoming? "We can't have four more years." Biden, should he decide to run, would be considered a strong candidate in what could be a crowded field seeking the 2020 Democratic nomination for president.

Biden says he's 'most qualified' to be US president

The Pentagon`s pick for the next commander of US Central Command said on Tuesday the high casualty rate of Afghan security forces would not be sustainable even with the stalemate in the fight against Taliban militants.

"Their losses have been very high. They are fighting hard, but their losses are not going to be sustainable unless we correct this problem," Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

The assessment comes as both Western-backed security forces and the Taliban have pushed to gain momentum as the United States has stepped up efforts to find a peaceful settlement to end the 17-year-long war in Afghanistan.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said last month that since 2015 more than 28,000 members of the Afghan security forces had been killed.

McKenzie said the United States would have to work with Afghan forces to improve how they recruit, train and carry out missions.

He added that Afghan forces were not capable of securing the mountainous South Asian country without help from the nearly 14,000 US troops deployed there.

"If we left precipitously right now, I do not believe they would be able to successfully defend their country," McKenzie said.

He said he did not know how long it would take for Afghan forces to be self-sufficient and that Taliban fighters were estimated at 60,000.

US President Donald Trump wants to end the conflict between Afghan security forces and the Taliban, who are fighting to drive out international forces and reestablish their version of strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster.

McKenzie said he was unaware of any plans to significantly change the US military footprint in Afghanistan.

Recent attacks underscore the pressure on Afghanistan`s overstretched security forces, suffering from their highest-ever level of casualties, estimates from the NATO-led "Resolute Support" mission show.

The Kabul government no longer releases exact casualty figures, but officials say at least 500 men are being killed each month and hundreds more wounded, a tally many consider low.

In November dozens of elite commandos were among the casualties suffered by Afghan security forces as the Taliban claimed to have taken a district in Ghazni province.

US commanders have said they expect the Taliban to step up military efforts to better their position while they maintain contacts with U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad aimed at opening peace negotiations.

PAKISTAN

Trump recently asked for Pakistan`s help with faltering Afghan peace talks in a letter to new Prime Minister Imran Khan, making clear that Islamabad`s assistance was "fundamental" to the health of the two countries` strained relationship.

McKenzie said Pakistan was needed for long-term stability in Afghanistan and could play a key role in facilitating talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government.

"At this time, however, Pakistan does not appear to be using the full extent of its influence to encourage the Taliban to come to the table," McKenzie said in written responses to questions from lawmakers.

"We continue to see the Taliban being utilized as a hedge against India rather than as part of a stable, reconciled Afghanistan," he added.

The Pentagon`s pick for the next commander of US Central Command said on Tuesday the high casualty rate of Afghan security forces would not be sustainable even with the stalemate in the fight against Taliban militants.

The Pentagon`s pick for the next commander of US Central Command said on Tuesday the high casualty rate of Afghan security forces would not be sustainable even with the stalemate in the fight against Taliban militants. "Their losses have been very high. They are fighting hard, but their losses are not going to be sustainable unless we correct this problem," Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie said during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. The assessment comes as both Western-backed security forces and the Taliban have pushed to gain momentum as the United States has stepped up efforts to find a peaceful settlement to end the 17-year-long war in Afghanistan. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said last month that since 2015 more than 28,000 members of the Afghan security forces had been killed. McKenzie said the United States would have to work with Afghan forces to improve how they recruit, train and carry out missions. He added that Afghan forces were not capable of securing the mountainous South Asian country without help from the nearly 14,000 US troops deployed there. "If we left precipitously right now, I do not believe they would be able to successfully defend their country," McKenzie said. He said he did not know how long it would take for Afghan forces to be self-sufficient and that Taliban fighters were estimated at 60,000. US President Donald Trump wants to end the conflict between Afghan security forces and the Taliban, who are fighting to drive out international forces and reestablish their version of strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster. McKenzie said he was unaware of any plans to significantly change the US military footprint in Afghanistan. Recent attacks underscore the pressure on Afghanistan`s overstretched security forces, suffering from their highest-ever level of casualties, estimates from the NATO-led "Resolute Support" mission show. The Kabul government no longer releases exact casualty figures, but officials say at least 500 men are being killed each month and hundreds more wounded, a tally many consider low. In November dozens of elite commandos were among the casualties suffered by Afghan security forces as the Taliban claimed to have taken a district in Ghazni province. US commanders have said they expect the Taliban to step up military efforts to better their position while they maintain contacts with U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad aimed at opening peace negotiations. PAKISTAN Trump recently asked for Pakistan`s help with faltering Afghan peace talks in a letter to new Prime Minister Imran Khan, making clear that Islamabad`s assistance was "fundamental" to the health of the two countries` strained relationship. McKenzie said Pakistan was needed for long-term stability in Afghanistan and could play a key role in facilitating talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government. "At this time, however, Pakistan does not appear to be using the full extent of its influence to encourage the Taliban to come to the table," McKenzie said in written responses to questions from lawmakers. "We continue to see the Taliban being utilized as a hedge against India rather than as part of a stable, reconciled Afghanistan," he added.

Afghan security forces' deaths unsustainable: US general

The likely incoming Democratic chairman of the congressional panel overseeing the US census said on Tuesday he aims to pressure the Trump administration into removing a question about citizenship from the 2020 census questionnaire.

Representative Gerald Connolly said that when Democrats assume leadership of the House of Representatives in January, they plan to call Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to testify about the citizenship question, which has spurred criticism and lawsuits.

Ross earlier "lied to Congress" about why the question was added to the census, Connolly told Reuters in an interview.

"My hope is we get this question removed from the actual census," Connolly said in an interview with Reuters, saying he would seek to bring that about by calling the public`s attention to the issue.

"It`s not too late ... we have until June before the forms are finalised," he said.

Evidence produced by the committee could also be cited by courts investigating the matter, he said.

Ross announced the citizenship question in March, billing it as a way to help enforce the Voting Rights Act, which requires a tally of citizens of voting age to protect minorities against discrimination.

Critics have said the question could depress the response to the census from immigrants, who often live in Democratic-leaning areas. If undercounted, areas with high immigrant populations could lose seats in the House.

Numerous US states and cities have sued the administration to have the question removed, calling it unconstitutional.

US congressional elections last month gave Democrats control of the House starting in January. Connolly is expected to chair the government operations subcommittee, part of the House Oversight Committee.

Connolly and Representative Elijah Cummings, likely chairman of the full Oversight Committee, earlier this year questioned Ross` contention that the Commerce Department added the citizenship question at the request of the Justice Department, saying court documents indicated Commerce initiated the idea.&nbsp;

"Wilbur Ross has a problem. ... He told Congress previously that (the Justice Department) kind of made him do it. We now know that’s not true. ... That means you (Ross) lied to Congress about this," Connolly said Tuesday. "Why? If you are so confident in the importance of this question, why would you feel compelled to lie about it?" he said.

A Commerce Department spokesman said Ross had explained his rationale in March for including the citizenship question, and that nothing in the court documents subsequently produced "changes the sound rationale he articulated."

The likely incoming Democratic chairman of the congressional panel overseeing the US census said on Tuesday he aims to pressure the Trump administration into removing a question about citizenship from the 2020 census questionnaire.

The likely incoming Democratic chairman of the congressional panel overseeing the US census said on Tuesday he aims to pressure the Trump administration into removing a question about citizenship from the 2020 census questionnaire. Representative Gerald Connolly said that when Democrats assume leadership of the House of Representatives in January, they plan to call Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to testify about the citizenship question, which has spurred criticism and lawsuits. Ross earlier "lied to Congress" about why the question was added to the census, Connolly told Reuters in an interview. "My hope is we get this question removed from the actual census," Connolly said in an interview with Reuters, saying he would seek to bring that about by calling the public`s attention to the issue. "It`s not too late ... we have until June before the forms are finalised," he said. Evidence produced by the committee could also be cited by courts investigating the matter, he said. Ross announced the citizenship question in March, billing it as a way to help enforce the Voting Rights Act, which requires a tally of citizens of voting age to protect minorities against discrimination. Critics have said the question could depress the response to the census from immigrants, who often live in Democratic-leaning areas. If undercounted, areas with high immigrant populations could lose seats in the House. Numerous US states and cities have sued the administration to have the question removed, calling it unconstitutional. US congressional elections last month gave Democrats control of the House starting in January. Connolly is expected to chair the government operations subcommittee, part of the House Oversight Committee. Connolly and Representative Elijah Cummings, likely chairman of the full Oversight Committee, earlier this year questioned Ross` contention that the Commerce Department added the citizenship question at the request of the Justice Department, saying court documents indicated Commerce initiated the idea. "Wilbur Ross has a problem. ... He told Congress previously that (the Justice Department) kind of made him do it. We now know that’s not true. ... That means you (Ross) lied to Congress about this," Connolly said Tuesday. "Why? If you are so confident in the importance of this question, why would you feel compelled to lie about it?" he said. A Commerce Department spokesman said Ross had explained his rationale in March for including the citizenship question, and that nothing in the court documents subsequently produced "changes the sound rationale he articulated."

Lawmaker aims to get citizenship question removed from US census

US prosecutors announced Tuesday that they have charged four people with taking part in a decades-long scheme to evade US taxes that came to light after a massive leak of offshore financial data known as the "Panama Papers."

Three of the four people have already been arrested, prosecutors said, in the first criminal case brought by US authorities in connection with Mossack Fonseca &amp; Co, the Panamanian law firm at the centre of the leak.

Harald Joachim von der Goltz, a client of the firm, was arrested in London on Monday; Dirk Brauer, an employee of an asset management company closely tied to the firm, was arrested in Paris on November 15; and Richard Gaffey, a US-based accountant, was arrested in Massachusetts on Tuesday, according to prosecutors.

The fourth defendant, Ramses Owens, was a lawyer at Mossack Fonseca and remains at large, prosecutors said. The law firm shut down earlier this year.

Bill Lovett, a lawyer for Gaffey, could not immediately be reached for comment. Lawyers for the other three defendants could not immediately be identified.

The most serious charges in the case, which include wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy, carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.

In an indictment unsealed in Manhattan federal court, prosecutors said that from 2000 to 2017, Owens and Brauer conspired to help clients of Mossack Fonseca conceal assets, investments and income from US tax authorities, using sham foundations and shell companies formed under the law of countries including Panama, Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands. Owens, 50, is a citizen of Panama and Brauer, 54, is German citizen, prosecutors said.

One of those clients was von Der Goltz, an 81-year-old German citizen, according to the indictment. Prosecutors said that Owens and Gaffey helped von Der Goltz avoid taxes by creating shell companies and bank accounts that he falsely claimed were solely owned by his elderly mother, a Guatemalan citizen who did not pay US taxes.

Prosecutors also said that Gaffey, a 74-year-old US citizen, helped another unnamed client of the Mossack Fonseca conceal offshore bank accounts from US authorities.

The "Panama Papers", which consist of millions of documents from Mossack Fonseca, were leaked to the media in April 2016.

A review of the documents also prompted German authorities to raid the offices of Deutsche Bank AG and its board members as part of a money laundering investigation last week.

US prosecutors announced Tuesday that they have charged four people with taking part in a decades-long scheme to evade US taxes that came to light after a massive leak of offshore financial data known as the "Panama Papers.

US prosecutors announced Tuesday that they have charged four people with taking part in a decades-long scheme to evade US taxes that came to light after a massive leak of offshore financial data known as the "Panama Papers." Three of the four people have already been arrested, prosecutors said, in the first criminal case brought by US authorities in connection with Mossack Fonseca & Co, the Panamanian law firm at the centre of the leak. Harald Joachim von der Goltz, a client of the firm, was arrested in London on Monday; Dirk Brauer, an employee of an asset management company closely tied to the firm, was arrested in Paris on November 15; and Richard Gaffey, a US-based accountant, was arrested in Massachusetts on Tuesday, according to prosecutors. The fourth defendant, Ramses Owens, was a lawyer at Mossack Fonseca and remains at large, prosecutors said. The law firm shut down earlier this year. Bill Lovett, a lawyer for Gaffey, could not immediately be reached for comment. Lawyers for the other three defendants could not immediately be identified. The most serious charges in the case, which include wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy, carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. In an indictment unsealed in Manhattan federal court, prosecutors said that from 2000 to 2017, Owens and Brauer conspired to help clients of Mossack Fonseca conceal assets, investments and income from US tax authorities, using sham foundations and shell companies formed under the law of countries including Panama, Hong Kong and the British Virgin Islands. Owens, 50, is a citizen of Panama and Brauer, 54, is German citizen, prosecutors said. One of those clients was von Der Goltz, an 81-year-old German citizen, according to the indictment. Prosecutors said that Owens and Gaffey helped von Der Goltz avoid taxes by creating shell companies and bank accounts that he falsely claimed were solely owned by his elderly mother, a Guatemalan citizen who did not pay US taxes. Prosecutors also said that Gaffey, a 74-year-old US citizen, helped another unnamed client of the Mossack Fonseca conceal offshore bank accounts from US authorities. The "Panama Papers", which consist of millions of documents from Mossack Fonseca, were leaked to the media in April 2016. A review of the documents also prompted German authorities to raid the offices of Deutsche Bank AG and its board members as part of a money laundering investigation last week.

US charges four in 'Panama Papers' tax evasion scheme

The United States expects China will remove retaliatory tariffs on US farm products "quickly" as part of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-and-china-called-a-truce-in-the-trade-war-now-what-181070">the trade truce reached over the weekend</a>, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow said Monday.

Beijing retaliated with steep duties on US crops in the trade war which has seen President Donald Trump hit $250 billion in Chinese goods with tariffs of 10-25 percent.

As a result, soybean exports to China have plunged, harming US farmers.

"My expectation is that China will roll back those tariffs quickly," Kudlow told reporters.

Kudlow stressed that Chinese officials repeatedly said the trade commitments announced after Trump's dinner with China's President Xi Jinping would be implemented "immediately." But he acknowledged that it was unclear what that would mean.

He said it would give the weekend deal "more credibility" if Beijing followed through with some immediate steps.

"Let's get rolling folks. Today is Monday. The dinner was Saturday," Kudlow said.

Likewise he said there was a commitment to remove China's punitive tariffs on US auto exports, and while there was no agreement on the final level "I expect those tariffs to go to zero."

The leaders committed to a 90-day truce in the trade confrontation, and while Kudlow said the "history is not great" with China on trade, he was optimistic.&nbsp;

"We've never been close to this."

The United States expects China will remove retaliatory tariffs on US farm products "quickly" as part of the trade truce reached over the weekend, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow said Monday.

The United States expects China will remove retaliatory tariffs on US farm products "quickly" as part of the trade truce reached over the weekend, White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow said Monday. Beijing retaliated with steep duties on US crops in the trade war which has seen President Donald Trump hit $250 billion in Chinese goods with tariffs of 10-25 percent. As a result, soybean exports to China have plunged, harming US farmers. "My expectation is that China will roll back those tariffs quickly," Kudlow told reporters. Kudlow stressed that Chinese officials repeatedly said the trade commitments announced after Trump's dinner with China's President Xi Jinping would be implemented "immediately." But he acknowledged that it was unclear what that would mean. He said it would give the weekend deal "more credibility" if Beijing followed through with some immediate steps. "Let's get rolling folks. Today is Monday. The dinner was Saturday," Kudlow said. Likewise he said there was a commitment to remove China's punitive tariffs on US auto exports, and while there was no agreement on the final level "I expect those tariffs to go to zero." The leaders committed to a 90-day truce in the trade confrontation, and while Kudlow said the "history is not great" with China on trade, he was optimistic. "We've never been close to this."

We expect China to roll back retaliatory farm tariffs 'quickly': White House

China on Tuesday welcomed<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-calls-for-his-ex-lawyer-michael-cohen-to-be-jailed-181267"> US President Donald Trump</a>'s move to seek Pakistan's support for his efforts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table to end the 17-year brutal war in Afghanistan.

Trump has written to Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, seeking Islamabad's "assistance and facilitation in achieving a negotiated settlement of the Afghan war".

Commenting on the development, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said, "we welcome sound interaction between Pakistan and the US".

"Sound and steady development of Pakistan-US relations is conducive to the realisation of the reconstruction of Afghanistan as well as anti-terrorism endeavours," he said.

It is also conducive to regional peace and stability.

"We are pleased to see the improvement of their bilateral relations (and we) support their mutually beneficial cooperation and to step up communication on this issue," Geng said.

In the letter, Trump "stated that his most important regional priority was achieving a negotiated settlement of the Afghan war. In this regard, he has sought Pakistan's support and facilitation."

In Washington, a spokesperson of the US National Security Council told PTI that "the president recognises that Pakistan has the ability to deny the Taliban sanctuary on its territory...The letter also makes clear that Pakistan's assistance with the Afghan peace process is fundamental to building an enduring

US-Pakistan partnership." 
Since taking office, Trump has been very critical of Pakistan's lax attitude towards combatting terrorism.

Last month, Trump said Pakistan does not do "a damn thing" for the US, alleging that Islamabad had helped al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden hide near its garrison city of Abbottabad.

Ties between the US and Pakistan strained after Trump, while announcing his Afghanistan and South Asia policy in August last year, hit out at Pakistan for providing safe havens to "agents of chaos" that kill Americans in Afghanistan and warned Islamabad that it has "much to lose" by harbouring terrorists.

In September, the Trump administration cancelled $300 million in military aid to Islamabad for not doing enough against terror groups like the Haqqani Network and the Taliban active on its soil.

The Trump administration, in recent months, has intensified its efforts to seek a negotiated settlement of America's longest war in Afghanistan where the US has lost over

2,400 soldiers since late 2001, when it invaded the country after the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/photos/united-states-observes-17-years-of-911-attacks-165144"> 9/11 terror attacks</a>.

The Taliban are fighting to flush out US-led international forces and re-establish their regime in Afghanistan after their ouster in 2001.

China on Tuesday welcomed US President Donald Trump's move to seek Pakistan's support for his efforts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table to end the 17-year brutal war in Afghanistan.

China on Tuesday welcomed US President Donald Trump's move to seek Pakistan's support for his efforts to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table to end the 17-year brutal war in Afghanistan. Trump has written to Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan, seeking Islamabad's "assistance and facilitation in achieving a negotiated settlement of the Afghan war". Commenting on the development, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said, "we welcome sound interaction between Pakistan and the US". "Sound and steady development of Pakistan-US relations is conducive to the realisation of the reconstruction of Afghanistan as well as anti-terrorism endeavours," he said. It is also conducive to regional peace and stability. "We are pleased to see the improvement of their bilateral relations (and we) support their mutually beneficial cooperation and to step up communication on this issue," Geng said. In the letter, Trump "stated that his most important regional priority was achieving a negotiated settlement of the Afghan war. In this regard, he has sought Pakistan's support and facilitation." In Washington, a spokesperson of the US National Security Council told PTI that "the president recognises that Pakistan has the ability to deny the Taliban sanctuary on its territory...The letter also makes clear that Pakistan's assistance with the Afghan peace process is fundamental to building an enduring US-Pakistan partnership." Since taking office, Trump has been very critical of Pakistan's lax attitude towards combatting terrorism. Last month, Trump said Pakistan does not do "a damn thing" for the US, alleging that Islamabad had helped al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden hide near its garrison city of Abbottabad. Ties between the US and Pakistan strained after Trump, while announcing his Afghanistan and South Asia policy in August last year, hit out at Pakistan for providing safe havens to "agents of chaos" that kill Americans in Afghanistan and warned Islamabad that it has "much to lose" by harbouring terrorists. In September, the Trump administration cancelled $300 million in military aid to Islamabad for not doing enough against terror groups like the Haqqani Network and the Taliban active on its soil. The Trump administration, in recent months, has intensified its efforts to seek a negotiated settlement of America's longest war in Afghanistan where the US has lost over 2,400 soldiers since late 2001, when it invaded the country after the 9/11 terror attacks. The Taliban are fighting to flush out US-led international forces and re-establish their regime in Afghanistan after their ouster in 2001.

China welcomes Trump seeking Pakistan's help to end war in Afghanistan

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning 2nd December, 2018

G20 Summit: Trump, Xi Jinping break the ice; discuss trade tensions

The US consulate in Mexico's second city, Guadalajara, was attacked with explosives hours before a visit to the country by Vice President Mike Pence and first daughter Ivanka Trump, authorities said Saturday.

The explosion late Friday night damaged a wall but caused no injuries, they said.

"The investigation has been handed over to federal authorities, who will give information on developments in due time," the prosecutor's office for the western state of Jalisco, where Guadalajara is located, said on Twitter.

The attack ocurred just before Pence and President Donald Trump's daughter and adviser Ivanka flew into Mexico City on Saturday morning at the head of a high-level US delegation attending the inauguration of Mexico's new president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

Prosecution sources said a person threw an explosive device at the building and ran away. The suspect was caught on film by security cameras but evaded authorities, despite the heavy security presence at the building.

Grenade fragments were found at the scene, according to investigation sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The blast left a 40-centimeter (16-inch) hole in an exterior wall.

In a video posted online in recent days, purportedly by the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, the powerful drug trafficking organization had threatened to attack the consulate.

The cartel, one of the largest and most violent in Mexico, is a top target for US anti-drug operations.

The US consulate in Mexico's second city, Guadalajara, was attacked with explosives hours before a visit to the country by Vice President Mike Pence and first daughter Ivanka Trump, authorities said Saturday.

The US consulate in Mexico's second city, Guadalajara, was attacked with explosives hours before a visit to the country by Vice President Mike Pence and first daughter Ivanka Trump, authorities said Saturday. The explosion late Friday night damaged a wall but caused no injuries, they said. "The investigation has been handed over to federal authorities, who will give information on developments in due time," the prosecutor's office for the western state of Jalisco, where Guadalajara is located, said on Twitter. The attack ocurred just before Pence and President Donald Trump's daughter and adviser Ivanka flew into Mexico City on Saturday morning at the head of a high-level US delegation attending the inauguration of Mexico's new president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Prosecution sources said a person threw an explosive device at the building and ran away. The suspect was caught on film by security cameras but evaded authorities, despite the heavy security presence at the building. Grenade fragments were found at the scene, according to investigation sources who spoke on condition of anonymity. The blast left a 40-centimeter (16-inch) hole in an exterior wall. In a video posted online in recent days, purportedly by the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, the powerful drug trafficking organization had threatened to attack the consulate. The cartel, one of the largest and most violent in Mexico, is a top target for US anti-drug operations.

US consulate in Mexico's Guadalajara attacked

The United States said Saturday that it agreed in a long-awaited summit with China to suspend new tariffs for 90 days as the two powers seek to end a trade war.

The White House said a threatened increase of tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods from 10 to 25 percent, which was set to take effect on January 1, would be put off for 90 days.&nbsp;

"If at the end of this period of time, the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the 10 percent tariffs will be raised to 25 percent," a White House statement said after <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/at-g20-dinner-trump-calls-relationship-with-xi-very-special-180799">dinner talks between President Donald Trump and his counterpart Xi Jinping</a> on the sidelines of a G20 summit in Buenos Aires.

Trump, who in recent months has harshly criticized China and accused it of meddling in US elections, in the statement called his meeting with Xi "amazing and productive."

China earlier confirmed the outlines of the arrangement, saying that officials of the world's two largest economies would get to work on resolving a range of trade disputes.

The White House said that China has also agreed to step up purchases "immediately" of an unspecified amount of US agricultural goods.&nbsp;

Amid the trade tensions, China has sharply curtailed its purchases of US soybeans and other produce, dealing a significant blow to farmers, a major support base for Trump.

In what the White House called a "wonderful humanitarian gesture," the White House said that Xi would crack down on fentanyl, the opioid painkiller largely made in China that is behind an epidemic of US overdoses.

The White House said that China would subject fentanyl makers to the "maximum penalty under the law." China is the world's leading executioner, with drug offenses subject to the death penalty.

The United States said Saturday that it agreed in a long-awaited summit with China to suspend new tariffs for 90 days as the two powers seek to end a trade war. The White House said a threatened increase of tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods from 10 to 25 percent, which was set to take effect on January 1, would be put off for 90 days.

The United States said Saturday that it agreed in a long-awaited summit with China to suspend new tariffs for 90 days as the two powers seek to end a trade war. The White House said a threatened increase of tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods from 10 to 25 percent, which was set to take effect on January 1, would be put off for 90 days. "If at the end of this period of time, the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the 10 percent tariffs will be raised to 25 percent," a White House statement said after dinner talks between President Donald Trump and his counterpart Xi Jinping on the sidelines of a G20 summit in Buenos Aires. Trump, who in recent months has harshly criticized China and accused it of meddling in US elections, in the statement called his meeting with Xi "amazing and productive." China earlier confirmed the outlines of the arrangement, saying that officials of the world's two largest economies would get to work on resolving a range of trade disputes. The White House said that China has also agreed to step up purchases "immediately" of an unspecified amount of US agricultural goods. Amid the trade tensions, China has sharply curtailed its purchases of US soybeans and other produce, dealing a significant blow to farmers, a major support base for Trump. In what the White House called a "wonderful humanitarian gesture," the White House said that Xi would crack down on fentanyl, the opioid painkiller largely made in China that is behind an epidemic of US overdoses. The White House said that China would subject fentanyl makers to the "maximum penalty under the law." China is the world's leading executioner, with drug offenses subject to the death penalty.

US says it is suspending new China tariffs for 90 days

The United States and China agreed Saturday in a long-anticipated summit to hold off on new tariffs after January 1, Chinese state media said following a months-long trade war.

The China Daily and Chinese international broadcaster CGTN both said President Donald <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/at-g20-dinner-trump-calls-relationship-with-xi-very-special-180799">Trump and his counterpart Xi Jinping</a> agreed to halt tariffs "after January 1."

Trump had threatened starting on New Year's Day to raise tariffs from 10 to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports.

The White House did not immediately comment on the outcome of the meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, but senior Trump adviser Larry Kudlow said that it went "very well."

Trade tensions between the United States and China have soared since the start of the year, with Trump already slapping $250 billion worth of tariffs.

Trump -- a staunch defender of US manufacturing in his "America First" policy -- has assailed China for trading practices and especially over its alleged theft of foreign technology.

The Trump administration has demanded that China end a requirement that foreign companies team up with local partners, a key way in which Beijing is accused of seizing US know-how to promote its own industry.

China has denied the charges but promised ahead of the summit to do more to welcome foreign imports.

The United States and China agreed Saturday in a long-anticipated summit to hold off on new tariffs after January 1, Chinese state media said following a months-long trade war.

The United States and China agreed Saturday in a long-anticipated summit to hold off on new tariffs after January 1, Chinese state media said following a months-long trade war. The China Daily and Chinese international broadcaster CGTN both said President Donald Trump and his counterpart Xi Jinping agreed to halt tariffs "after January 1." Trump had threatened starting on New Year's Day to raise tariffs from 10 to 25 percent on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. The White House did not immediately comment on the outcome of the meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, but senior Trump adviser Larry Kudlow said that it went "very well." Trade tensions between the United States and China have soared since the start of the year, with Trump already slapping $250 billion worth of tariffs. Trump -- a staunch defender of US manufacturing in his "America First" policy -- has assailed China for trading practices and especially over its alleged theft of foreign technology. The Trump administration has demanded that China end a requirement that foreign companies team up with local partners, a key way in which Beijing is accused of seizing US know-how to promote its own industry. China has denied the charges but promised ahead of the summit to do more to welcome foreign imports.

China, US agree to no new tariffs 'after January 1': Chinese media

Iran said on Sunday its missile programme is defensive and not in breach of UN&nbsp;resolutions, the state news agency IRNA said, following a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-vows-iran-pressure-says-not-after-regime-change-167482">US allegation</a> that Tehran had carried out a new missile test.

US&nbsp;Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday condemned what he described as Iran's testing of a medium-range ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads as a violation of the 2015 international agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme.

"Iran's missile programme is defensive in nature... There is no Security Council resolution prohibiting the missile programme and missile tests by Iran," IRNA quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi as saying in response to Pompeo's remarks.

Qasemi did not confirm or deny that Iran had carried out a new missile test.

Under the UN&nbsp;resolution enshrining the 2015 nuclear deal with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, Iran is "called upon" to refrain for up to eight years from work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons.

Iran has repeatedly said its missile programme is purely defensive and denied its missiles are capable of being tipped with nuclear warheads.

Qasemi, addressing Pompeo, said: "It is...ironic that you cite a resolution that you have not only breached through your unilateral and unlawful withdrawal form the (nuclear) accord but that you also encourage others to breach or even threaten to punish and sanction them if they carry it (accord) out."

President Donald Trump pulled Washington out of the nuclear deal, approved before he took office, in May and reimposed sanctions on Tehran. Trump said the deal was flawed as it did not include curbs on Iran's development of ballistic missiles or its support for armed proxies in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq.

Iran said on Sunday its missile programme is defensive and not in breach of UN resolutions, the state news agency IRNA said, following a US allegation that Tehran had carried out a new missile test.

Iran said on Sunday its missile programme is defensive and not in breach of UN resolutions, the state news agency IRNA said, following a US allegation that Tehran had carried out a new missile test. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Saturday condemned what he described as Iran's testing of a medium-range ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads as a violation of the 2015 international agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme. "Iran's missile programme is defensive in nature... There is no Security Council resolution prohibiting the missile programme and missile tests by Iran," IRNA quoted Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi as saying in response to Pompeo's remarks. Qasemi did not confirm or deny that Iran had carried out a new missile test. Under the UN resolution enshrining the 2015 nuclear deal with Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States, Iran is "called upon" to refrain for up to eight years from work on ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly said its missile programme is purely defensive and denied its missiles are capable of being tipped with nuclear warheads. Qasemi, addressing Pompeo, said: "It is...ironic that you cite a resolution that you have not only breached through your unilateral and unlawful withdrawal form the (nuclear) accord but that you also encourage others to breach or even threaten to punish and sanction them if they carry it (accord) out." President Donald Trump pulled Washington out of the nuclear deal, approved before he took office, in May and reimposed sanctions on Tehran. Trump said the deal was flawed as it did not include curbs on Iran's development of ballistic missiles or its support for armed proxies in Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and Iraq.

Iran says missile programme defensive after US alleges it carried out missile test

The United States will send 12 teams of observers and fund thousands of domestic observers to monitor an election in Bangladesh it hopes will be free and fair, a senior official at the US embassy in Dhaka said.

Amid opposition concerns about rigging in the December 30 general election, there has been speculation about US plans for it, especially after the European Union this week said it would not send observers, nor comment on the vote or result.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is seeking a third straight term.

Her old rival, Khaleda Zia, who leads the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, is in jail after being convicted on charges she says were politically motivated. Scores of BNP workers have also been detained.

The BNP boycotted the last election, in 2014, as unfair, but has said it will take part this time, though it is seeking international monitors of polls it says it believes will be flawed.

The United States is sending a dozen teams, each of about two observers, who will fan out to most parts of the country, William Moeller, political officer at the US embassy in Dhaka, told Reuters.&nbsp;

"The Bangladesh government has emphasized that it plans to hold a free and fair election," Moeller said this week.

"We welcome that and are providing funding for election observers who hope to see such an outcome."

Moeller referred to reports of harassment and intimidation before recent city corporation elections, which he said may have suppressed voter turnout.

“We raised these concerns at the time, so we are hoping we won’t see the same issues in the national elections.”

The US National Democratic Institute said after an assessment in October the polls would be held "amid a high degree of political polarization, heightened tensions and shrinking political space”.

The Bangkok-based Asian Network for Free Elections will send a team of about 30 short- and long-term observers, Moeller said.&nbsp;

About 15,000 Bangladeshi observers will be funded jointly by the US Agency for International Development, Britain`s Department for International Development and the Swiss government, he said.

The domestic observers would spread out but might not be able to reach every polling station, he said.

PLAYING DOWN WORRIES

Hasina and Khaleda have alternated in power over the last 28 years. Elections in Bangladesh are often violent and marred by ballot-stuffing and voter intimidation.

Hasina`s Awami League has held power since 2009 and dispensed from 2014 with a practice of letting a neutral caretaker government oversee elections, to the anger of the BNP.

The government has brushed off opposition fears of rigging.

"I don’t see any possibility this time, because all the parties are participating, and all of them will have their election agents,” said HT Imam, a political adviser to Hasina.

Bangladesh has seen steady economic growth under Hasina and the development of a vibrant garment sector under-pinning export growth, and accounting for 80 per cent of the economy.&nbsp;

But rights groups have criticized increasing curbs on freedom of speech and the media.

Hope to capitalise on dissatisfaction, the BNP has formed an alliance with smaller parties called the National Unity Front and Hasina said this week she expected competitive polls.

The EU delegation in Dhaka said it was not sending observers because of growing demand for them amid tight resources.

India had no plan to send observers unless Bangladesh asked, an official at the Indian High Commission said.&nbsp;

The United States will send 12 teams of observers and fund thousands of domestic observers to monitor an election in Bangladesh it hopes will be free and fair, a senior official at the US embassy in Dhaka said.

The United States will send 12 teams of observers and fund thousands of domestic observers to monitor an election in Bangladesh it hopes will be free and fair, a senior official at the US embassy in Dhaka said. Amid opposition concerns about rigging in the December 30 general election, there has been speculation about US plans for it, especially after the European Union this week said it would not send observers, nor comment on the vote or result. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina is seeking a third straight term. Her old rival, Khaleda Zia, who leads the main opposition Bangladesh Nationalist Party, is in jail after being convicted on charges she says were politically motivated. Scores of BNP workers have also been detained. The BNP boycotted the last election, in 2014, as unfair, but has said it will take part this time, though it is seeking international monitors of polls it says it believes will be flawed. The United States is sending a dozen teams, each of about two observers, who will fan out to most parts of the country, William Moeller, political officer at the US embassy in Dhaka, told Reuters. "The Bangladesh government has emphasized that it plans to hold a free and fair election," Moeller said this week. "We welcome that and are providing funding for election observers who hope to see such an outcome." Moeller referred to reports of harassment and intimidation before recent city corporation elections, which he said may have suppressed voter turnout. “We raised these concerns at the time, so we are hoping we won’t see the same issues in the national elections.” The US National Democratic Institute said after an assessment in October the polls would be held "amid a high degree of political polarization, heightened tensions and shrinking political space”. The Bangkok-based Asian Network for Free Elections will send a team of about 30 short- and long-term observers, Moeller said. About 15,000 Bangladeshi observers will be funded jointly by the US Agency for International Development, Britain`s Department for International Development and the Swiss government, he said. The domestic observers would spread out but might not be able to reach every polling station, he said. PLAYING DOWN WORRIES Hasina and Khaleda have alternated in power over the last 28 years. Elections in Bangladesh are often violent and marred by ballot-stuffing and voter intimidation. Hasina`s Awami League has held power since 2009 and dispensed from 2014 with a practice of letting a neutral caretaker government oversee elections, to the anger of the BNP. The government has brushed off opposition fears of rigging. "I don’t see any possibility this time, because all the parties are participating, and all of them will have their election agents,” said HT Imam, a political adviser to Hasina. Bangladesh has seen steady economic growth under Hasina and the development of a vibrant garment sector under-pinning export growth, and accounting for 80 per cent of the economy. But rights groups have criticized increasing curbs on freedom of speech and the media. Hope to capitalise on dissatisfaction, the BNP has formed an alliance with smaller parties called the National Unity Front and Hasina said this week she expected competitive polls. The EU delegation in Dhaka said it was not sending observers because of growing demand for them amid tight resources. India had no plan to send observers unless Bangladesh asked, an official at the Indian High Commission said.

US to send observers to Bangladesh election amid opposition concerns

Former US president &nbsp;George H W Bush&nbsp;died on November 30 at the age of&nbsp;94, reported news agency AFP.

"Jeb, Neil, Marvin, Doro and I are saddened to announce that after 94 remarkable years, our dear Dad has died," his son, former president George W. Bush, said in a statement released on Twitter by a family spokesman.

"George H.W. Bush was a man of the highest character and the best dad a son or daughter could ask for," the statement added.

He was the 41st president of the United States and the father of the 43rd president George W. Bush. Bush served as vice president two terms before he became president.

His death marked the passing of an era, wrote Washington Post.

His wife of 73 years, Barbara Bush, died on April 17.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Statement by the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, on the passing of his father this evening at the age 94. <a href="https://t.co/oTiDq1cE7h">pic.twitter.com/oTiDq1cE7h</a>
— Jim McGrath (@jgm41) <a href="https://twitter.com/jgm41/status/1068729735495073792?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 1, 2018</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>

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Former US president George H W Bush died on November 30 at the age of 94, reported news agency AFP. "Jeb, Neil, Marvin, Doro and I are saddened to announce that after 94 remarkable years, our dear Dad has died," his son, former president George W.

Former US president George H W Bush died on November 30 at the age of 94, reported news agency AFP. "Jeb, Neil, Marvin, Doro and I are saddened to announce that after 94 remarkable years, our dear Dad has died," his son, former president George W. Bush, said in a statement released on Twitter by a family spokesman. "George H.W. Bush was a man of the highest character and the best dad a son or daughter could ask for," the statement added. He was the 41st president of the United States and the father of the 43rd president George W. Bush. Bush served as vice president two terms before he became president. His death marked the passing of an era, wrote Washington Post. His wife of 73 years, Barbara Bush, died on April 17. Statement by the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush, on the passing of his father this evening at the age 94. pic.twitter.com/oTiDq1cE7h — Jim McGrath (@jgm41) December 1, 2018 ×

Former US president George H W Bush dies at 94

More than 20,000 Indian nationals, mostly men, have sought asylum in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-proposes-changes-to-h-1b-visas-to-be-given-to-most-skilled-highest-paid-foreign-workers-180602">US since 2014</a>, according to the latest figures.&nbsp;

Till July, a maximum number of 7,214 Indian nationals had applied for asylum in the US.&nbsp;

Of these only 296 were women, according to the information provided by the US Department of Homeland Security to the North American Punjabi Association (NAPA).&nbsp;

California-based NAPA, has been working among illegal immigrants from Punjab. As per the information obtained by the NAPA from Department of Homeland Security, 2,306 Indian nationals applied for asylum in the year 2014.&nbsp;

Of these 146 were women and the gender of one of the Indian applicants is not known. The next year, 2,971 Indians, including 96 women, sought asylum.

In 2016, as many as 4,088 Indians, including 123 women, asked for asylum from the US. In both 2015 and 2016, the gender of one applicant each was not known.&nbsp;

In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security received asylum from 3,656 Indians, including 187 women.&nbsp;

“The number of Indian who are seeking asylum in the US has almost doubled in the last two years. This is an issue of concern for all of us,” Satnam Singh Chahal, executive director of NAPA said in a statement.&nbsp;

Every year several thousand Indians, mostly from Punjab try their luck to settle abroad, he said alleging that each one of them pays between Rs 25 lakh and Rs 30 lakh per person to travel agents.

Observing that the US asylum law applies to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” Chahal said those fleeing generalised crime and violence in their home country do not easily fit into these categories.&nbsp;

The Trump administration has introduced a number of controversial policies in line with its hardline stance on immigration.

More than 20,000 Indian nationals, mostly men, have sought asylum in the US since 2014, according to the latest figures. Till July, a maximum number of 7,214 Indian nationals had applied for asylum in the US.

More than 20,000 Indian nationals, mostly men, have sought asylum in the US since 2014, according to the latest figures. Till July, a maximum number of 7,214 Indian nationals had applied for asylum in the US. Of these only 296 were women, according to the information provided by the US Department of Homeland Security to the North American Punjabi Association (NAPA). California-based NAPA, has been working among illegal immigrants from Punjab. As per the information obtained by the NAPA from Department of Homeland Security, 2,306 Indian nationals applied for asylum in the year 2014. Of these 146 were women and the gender of one of the Indian applicants is not known. The next year, 2,971 Indians, including 96 women, sought asylum. In 2016, as many as 4,088 Indians, including 123 women, asked for asylum from the US. In both 2015 and 2016, the gender of one applicant each was not known. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security received asylum from 3,656 Indians, including 187 women. “The number of Indian who are seeking asylum in the US has almost doubled in the last two years. This is an issue of concern for all of us,” Satnam Singh Chahal, executive director of NAPA said in a statement. Every year several thousand Indians, mostly from Punjab try their luck to settle abroad, he said alleging that each one of them pays between Rs 25 lakh and Rs 30 lakh per person to travel agents. Observing that the US asylum law applies to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion,” Chahal said those fleeing generalised crime and violence in their home country do not easily fit into these categories. The Trump administration has introduced a number of controversial policies in line with its hardline stance on immigration.

Over 20,000 Indians have sought political asylum in US in past 4 years

The United States said on Friday that it welcomes efforts by India and Pakistan to increase people-to-people contact, days after the two neighbouring countries laid foundation stones for a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/all-you-need-to-know-about-kartarpur-corridor-project-180005">corridor linking two revered gurdwaras</a> on both sides of the border.&nbsp;

"I'm aware of reports on this Kartarpur corridor. I understand that it's kind of a visa-free way for Indians to visit this important Sikh site. And of course, the United States would welcome efforts to increase people-to-people ties between India and Pakistan,"&nbsp;State Department deputy spokesman Robert Palladino told reporters.

Palladino was responding to questions on the construction of the much-awaited corridor that will connect Darbar Sahib in Pakistan's Kartarpur"&nbsp;the final resting place of Sikh faith's founder Guru Nanak Dev&nbsp;with Dera Baba Nanak shrine in Gurdaspur district and facilitate visa-free movement of pilgrims.

The Kartarpur corridor, which India had proposed to Pakistan around 20 years ago, is expected to be completed within six months.

Thousands of Sikh devotees from India visit Pakistan every year to celebrate the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak.&nbsp;

Replying to another question on President Donald Trump's tweets on stopping aid to Pakistan at a time when the US is seeking its cooperation on Afghanistan, the State Department Spokesperson stressed the need for Islamabad to build confidence in bilateral relations.

"The Secretary (of State) has emphasized the need for Pakistan to deliver outcome and build confidence and trust between our two countries, and our policy towards Pakistan is clear,"&nbsp;Palladino said.

The United States said on Friday that it welcomes efforts by India and Pakistan to increase people-to-people contact, days after the two neighbouring countries laid foundation stones for a corridor linking two revered gurdwaras on both sides of the border.

The United States said on Friday that it welcomes efforts by India and Pakistan to increase people-to-people contact, days after the two neighbouring countries laid foundation stones for a corridor linking two revered gurdwaras on both sides of the border. "I'm aware of reports on this Kartarpur corridor. I understand that it's kind of a visa-free way for Indians to visit this important Sikh site. And of course, the United States would welcome efforts to increase people-to-people ties between India and Pakistan," State Department deputy spokesman Robert Palladino told reporters. Palladino was responding to questions on the construction of the much-awaited corridor that will connect Darbar Sahib in Pakistan's Kartarpur" the final resting place of Sikh faith's founder Guru Nanak Dev with Dera Baba Nanak shrine in Gurdaspur district and facilitate visa-free movement of pilgrims. The Kartarpur corridor, which India had proposed to Pakistan around 20 years ago, is expected to be completed within six months. Thousands of Sikh devotees from India visit Pakistan every year to celebrate the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak. Replying to another question on President Donald Trump's tweets on stopping aid to Pakistan at a time when the US is seeking its cooperation on Afghanistan, the State Department Spokesperson stressed the need for Islamabad to build confidence in bilateral relations. "The Secretary (of State) has emphasized the need for Pakistan to deliver outcome and build confidence and trust between our two countries, and our policy towards Pakistan is clear," Palladino said.

US welcomes efforts by India, Pakistan to increase people-to-people contact

U.S. displays new evidence of Iranian weaponry in Yemen, Afghanistan

The US is demanding transparency over China's debt on Pakistan, the Trump Administration told lawmakers amid concerns that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/pakistan/pakistan-is-desperately-looking-for-loans-imran-khan-at-saudi-investment-conference-172963">Islamabad is seeking a multibillion-dollar bailout package from the IMF</a> to pay back Chinese creditors.&nbsp;

Cash-strapped Pakistan has requested the bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in October to deal with a mounting balance-of-payments crisis.&nbsp;

"The IMF team just came back from Pakistan. One of the things we're pushing hard for is full transparency of the debt," Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs David Malpass told lawmakers during a Congressional hearing.

Malpass was responding to a query on Pakistan-specific Chinese debt from Senator Jeff Merkley during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Multilateral and International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic Energy and Environmental Policy.

Senator Merkley, a ranking member of the subcommittee had asked if IMF funds are essentially being used to repay Chinese debt.&nbsp;

"Pakistan is a good example of a country that has a significant amount of Chinese investment. I think the number I have is USD62 billion. They owe a lot of money back to China, Chinese banks, and they're seeking an IMF bailout. I think it's a USD 12 billion bailout. They have asked the US to make sure that we don't block this," the Senator from Oregon said

"Is that IMF money essentially going to help Pakistan repay Chinese banks? Why is that a good economic development strategy?" Merkley asked.

"One of the challenges is they (China) haven't disclosed the terms of --in many cases -- they haven't disclosed the terms of that debt. That means the interest rate, the maturity, and when it would have to be repaid," he said.&nbsp;

"We think that the maturity of the Chinese debt comes after the IMF would have been repaid," Malpass said responding to the question on Pakistan.

Pakistan is a major recipient of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI, is a multi-billion-dollar initiative launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping when he came to power in 2013. It aims to link Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Gulf region, Africa and Europe with a network of land and sea route.&nbsp;

The BRI also includes the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).&nbsp; 
"So, from the standpoint of IMF money being used to pay Chinese money, I would say a challenge is to find a program that will cause substantial economic reform in Pakistan and that will allow it to be funded, that Pakistan be funded and have an ability to survive in financial terms going forward," Malpass said.

According to the top Treasury official, this problem is not unique to Pakistan.&nbsp;

"China is lending in many countries where the terms of the loans are simply not given, and that gives China a lot of leverage within its programme and it's something that we're pushing back on very hard in the Paris Club, in the OECD, in the IMF, the World Bank, at the G20 and in the G7," he said.

Responding to a question, Malpass said that in some cases the terms of the Chinese debt are not given to the borrower nor to the international community.&nbsp;

"They're not made public, they're not available to the international committee, but sometimes they're not even available to certain parts inside the government itself. That's an issue because China may make a loan, but not really want the terms of the loan to be disclosed even within the government that it's lending to," he said as lawmakers expressed concerns over Chinese debt trap model.&nbsp;

The BRI often leaves countries with excessive debt and poor quality project, US officials have said, citing example of countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives.&nbsp;

Senator Todd Young, who was chairing the hearing, said that the US should ensure developing countries have an alternative to the Chinese model, which often involves poor transparency, unsustainable debt, and the creation of dependence, which is frequently exploited later for China's strategic advantage.

"In a vacuum created by the absence of US leadership, Beijing would twist these organisations to their purposes and state capitalist model. Absent US leadership in engagement, China would expedite the creation of alternatives to the institutions that have done so much good and serve the interest of Americans and millions around the world," he said.&nbsp;

Senator Jeff Merkley at the hearing alleged that China is adopting a debt trap model, in which they are setting up a system where they can exercise leverage in a fashion that is not beneficial to the development of the welfare of the citizens of many countries.

The Chinese government provide and continues to provide subsidized loans, export credits, loan forgiveness and more for state owned enterprises. These firms use unfair advantages to shrink market share for US firms who don't receive the same benefits from Washington and are forced to lay off workers, he alleged.

Malpass told lawmakers that the US has engaged repeatedly with China on trade and investment concerns and the problems caused by the BRI.&nbsp;

Roland de Marcellus. Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Finance and Development, said that as the Sri Lankan Government could not pay its debt over Hambantota Port, China converted the port to their own ownership for a 99 year lease, as well as 15,000 acres of land.&nbsp;

The US is demanding transparency over China's debt on Pakistan, the Trump Administration told lawmakers amid concerns that Islamabad is seeking a multibillion-dollar bailout package from the IMF to pay back Chinese creditors.

The US is demanding transparency over China's debt on Pakistan, the Trump Administration told lawmakers amid concerns that Islamabad is seeking a multibillion-dollar bailout package from the IMF to pay back Chinese creditors. Cash-strapped Pakistan has requested the bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in October to deal with a mounting balance-of-payments crisis. "The IMF team just came back from Pakistan. One of the things we're pushing hard for is full transparency of the debt," Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs David Malpass told lawmakers during a Congressional hearing. Malpass was responding to a query on Pakistan-specific Chinese debt from Senator Jeff Merkley during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Multilateral and International Development, Multilateral Institutions, and International Economic Energy and Environmental Policy. Senator Merkley, a ranking member of the subcommittee had asked if IMF funds are essentially being used to repay Chinese debt. "Pakistan is a good example of a country that has a significant amount of Chinese investment. I think the number I have is USD62 billion. They owe a lot of money back to China, Chinese banks, and they're seeking an IMF bailout. I think it's a USD 12 billion bailout. They have asked the US to make sure that we don't block this," the Senator from Oregon said "Is that IMF money essentially going to help Pakistan repay Chinese banks? Why is that a good economic development strategy?" Merkley asked. "One of the challenges is they (China) haven't disclosed the terms of --in many cases -- they haven't disclosed the terms of that debt. That means the interest rate, the maturity, and when it would have to be repaid," he said. "We think that the maturity of the Chinese debt comes after the IMF would have been repaid," Malpass said responding to the question on Pakistan. Pakistan is a major recipient of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI, is a multi-billion-dollar initiative launched by Chinese President Xi Jinping when he came to power in 2013. It aims to link Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Gulf region, Africa and Europe with a network of land and sea route. The BRI also includes the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). "So, from the standpoint of IMF money being used to pay Chinese money, I would say a challenge is to find a program that will cause substantial economic reform in Pakistan and that will allow it to be funded, that Pakistan be funded and have an ability to survive in financial terms going forward," Malpass said. According to the top Treasury official, this problem is not unique to Pakistan. "China is lending in many countries where the terms of the loans are simply not given, and that gives China a lot of leverage within its programme and it's something that we're pushing back on very hard in the Paris Club, in the OECD, in the IMF, the World Bank, at the G20 and in the G7," he said. Responding to a question, Malpass said that in some cases the terms of the Chinese debt are not given to the borrower nor to the international community. "They're not made public, they're not available to the international committee, but sometimes they're not even available to certain parts inside the government itself. That's an issue because China may make a loan, but not really want the terms of the loan to be disclosed even within the government that it's lending to," he said as lawmakers expressed concerns over Chinese debt trap model. The BRI often leaves countries with excessive debt and poor quality project, US officials have said, citing example of countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Senator Todd Young, who was chairing the hearing, said that the US should ensure developing countries have an alternative to the Chinese model, which often involves poor transparency, unsustainable debt, and the creation of dependence, which is frequently exploited later for China's strategic advantage. "In a vacuum created by the absence of US leadership, Beijing would twist these organisations to their purposes and state capitalist model. Absent US leadership in engagement, China would expedite the creation of alternatives to the institutions that have done so much good and serve the interest of Americans and millions around the world," he said. Senator Jeff Merkley at the hearing alleged that China is adopting a debt trap model, in which they are setting up a system where they can exercise leverage in a fashion that is not beneficial to the development of the welfare of the citizens of many countries. The Chinese government provide and continues to provide subsidized loans, export credits, loan forgiveness and more for state owned enterprises. These firms use unfair advantages to shrink market share for US firms who don't receive the same benefits from Washington and are forced to lay off workers, he alleged. Malpass told lawmakers that the US has engaged repeatedly with China on trade and investment concerns and the problems caused by the BRI. Roland de Marcellus. Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Finance and Development, said that as the Sri Lankan Government could not pay its debt over Hambantota Port, China converted the port to their own ownership for a 99 year lease, as well as 15,000 acres of land.

US wants to know how much money Pakistan owes China

U.S Senate Resolution on Yemen War

China is going to this week's G-20 summit hoping for a deal to ease a damaging trade war with the United States, Beijing's ambassador to Washington said on Tuesday, while warning of dire consequences if US hardliners try to separate the world's two largest economies.

Speaking to Reuters before heading to join Chinese President Xi Jinping's delegation at the Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Cui Tiankai said China and the United States had a shared responsibility to cooperate in the interests of the global economy.

Asked whether he thought hardliners in the White House were seeking to separate the closely linked US and Chinese economies, Cui said he did not think it was possible or helpful to do so, adding: "I don't know if people really realise the possible consequences - the impact, the negative impact - if there is such a decoupling."

He drew parallels to the tariff wars of the 1930s among industrial countries, which contributed to a collapse of global trade and heightened tensions in the years before World War Two.

“The lessons of history are still there. In the last century, we had two world wars, and in between them, the Great Depression. I don’t think anybody should really try to have a repetition of history. These things should never happen again, so people have to act in a responsible way."

Asked whether he thought the current tensions, which have seen the two sides impose tit-for-tat tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of goods, could degenerate into all-out conflict, Cui called the outcome "unimaginable" and the two countries should do everything to prevent it.

Cui said China did not want to have a trade war and sought a negotiated solution to the impasse stemming from US President Donald Trump's demands for far-reaching Chinese concessions to correct a $375 billion goods trade deficit with China.

"We are against any trade war," the ambassador said, but added that China would "fight to safeguard our own interests."

"We believe that the key to a negotiated solution to the trade issues is a balanced approach to the concerns of both sides and honestly so far I have not seen sufficient response from the US side to our concerns."

"We cannot accept that one side would put forward a number of demands and the other side just has to satisfy all these things."

White House chief economist Larry Kudlow said on Tuesday that Trump was open to a trade deal with China but was prepared to hike tariffs on Chinese imports if there is no breakthrough on long-standing trade irritants during a planned dinner on Saturday in Buenos Aires with Xi.

TREASURY DEBT

Cui said he did not believe Beijing was seriously considering using its massive US Treasury debt holdings as a trade war weapon, citing concerns that such a move would destabilise financial markets.

"This is very dangerous, this is like playing with fire," he said when asked if China would consider selling Treasuries or reducing purchases should trade tensions worsen.

Trade and economic analysts have often said China could slow its purchases of US Treasuries or sell off its holdings to pressure Washington into a deal.

China is the largest foreign holder of US Treasury debt, with $1.15 trillion on September. 30, according to the latest Treasury data, compared with $1.19 trillion a year earlier. As of Monday, there was about $15.97 trillion of total public Treasury debt outstanding.

Cui said China's Treasury holdings were a good example of the economic interdependence between the United States and China.

He said Trump and Xi had "a very good working relationship and personal friendship" formed in three previous face-to-face meetings, including two formal summits, and that had been shown by a long phone conversation in early November.

White House insiders say there remain substantial differences within the Trump administration over how far to push China.

The division groups on one side anti-China hardliner and trade adviser Peter Navarro, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and those who favour a complete re-evaluation of the relationship. On the other side are pragmatists led by Kudlow and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, concerned about the harm deepening friction could do to the US economy and markets.

China is going to this week's G-20 summit hoping for a deal to ease a damaging trade war with the United States, Beijing's ambassador to Washington said on Tuesday, while warning of dire consequences if US hardliners try to separate the world's two largest economies.

China is going to this week's G-20 summit hoping for a deal to ease a damaging trade war with the United States, Beijing's ambassador to Washington said on Tuesday, while warning of dire consequences if US hardliners try to separate the world's two largest economies. Speaking to Reuters before heading to join Chinese President Xi Jinping's delegation at the Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires, Cui Tiankai said China and the United States had a shared responsibility to cooperate in the interests of the global economy. Asked whether he thought hardliners in the White House were seeking to separate the closely linked US and Chinese economies, Cui said he did not think it was possible or helpful to do so, adding: "I don't know if people really realise the possible consequences - the impact, the negative impact - if there is such a decoupling." He drew parallels to the tariff wars of the 1930s among industrial countries, which contributed to a collapse of global trade and heightened tensions in the years before World War Two. “The lessons of history are still there. In the last century, we had two world wars, and in between them, the Great Depression. I don’t think anybody should really try to have a repetition of history. These things should never happen again, so people have to act in a responsible way." Asked whether he thought the current tensions, which have seen the two sides impose tit-for-tat tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of goods, could degenerate into all-out conflict, Cui called the outcome "unimaginable" and the two countries should do everything to prevent it. Cui said China did not want to have a trade war and sought a negotiated solution to the impasse stemming from US President Donald Trump's demands for far-reaching Chinese concessions to correct a $375 billion goods trade deficit with China. "We are against any trade war," the ambassador said, but added that China would "fight to safeguard our own interests." "We believe that the key to a negotiated solution to the trade issues is a balanced approach to the concerns of both sides and honestly so far I have not seen sufficient response from the US side to our concerns." "We cannot accept that one side would put forward a number of demands and the other side just has to satisfy all these things." White House chief economist Larry Kudlow said on Tuesday that Trump was open to a trade deal with China but was prepared to hike tariffs on Chinese imports if there is no breakthrough on long-standing trade irritants during a planned dinner on Saturday in Buenos Aires with Xi. TREASURY DEBT Cui said he did not believe Beijing was seriously considering using its massive US Treasury debt holdings as a trade war weapon, citing concerns that such a move would destabilise financial markets. "This is very dangerous, this is like playing with fire," he said when asked if China would consider selling Treasuries or reducing purchases should trade tensions worsen. Trade and economic analysts have often said China could slow its purchases of US Treasuries or sell off its holdings to pressure Washington into a deal. China is the largest foreign holder of US Treasury debt, with $1.15 trillion on September. 30, according to the latest Treasury data, compared with $1.19 trillion a year earlier. As of Monday, there was about $15.97 trillion of total public Treasury debt outstanding. Cui said China's Treasury holdings were a good example of the economic interdependence between the United States and China. He said Trump and Xi had "a very good working relationship and personal friendship" formed in three previous face-to-face meetings, including two formal summits, and that had been shown by a long phone conversation in early November. White House insiders say there remain substantial differences within the Trump administration over how far to push China. The division groups on one side anti-China hardliner and trade adviser Peter Navarro, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and those who favour a complete re-evaluation of the relationship. On the other side are pragmatists led by Kudlow and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, concerned about the harm deepening friction could do to the US economy and markets.

Trade war: China envoy warns of dire consequences if US hardliners get their way

By Jeff Bachman

A Saudi-led coalition of states has been aggressively bombing Yemen and imposing an air and naval blockade of its ports for more than three years, leading UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to describe Yemen as “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.”

Guterres put the crisis in stark perspective, emphasizing the near complete lack of security for the Yemeni people. More than 22 million people out of a total population of 28 million are in need of humanitarian aid and protection. Eighteen million people lack reliable access to food; 8.4 million people “do not know how they will obtain their next meal.”

As a scholar of genocide and human rights, I believe the destruction brought about by these attacks combined with the blockade amounts to genocide.

Based on my research, to be published in an upcoming issue of Third World Quarterly, I believe the coalition would not be capable of committing this crime without the material and logistical support of both the Obama and Trump administrations.

A ‘storm’ recast as ‘hope’

Yemen has been gripped by a civil war since 2015, pitting the Shia Houthi movement – which has fought for centuries for control of parts of Yemen – against a government backed by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Because of these religious differences, it would be easy to recast what is largely a political conflict in Yemen as a sectarian one.

That characterisation fits Saudi and US&nbsp;assertions that the Houthis are controlled by Shiite Iran, a claim that has not gone uncontested. Both the Saudis and the US&nbsp;are hostile to Iran, so US&nbsp;support of Saudia Arabia in Yemen represents what US&nbsp;administrations have said are strategic interests in the region.

Besides Saudi Arabia, the coalition attacking Yemen includes the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait and Bahrain. Qatar was part of the coalition but is no longer.

During the first three years of “Operation Decisive Storm,” later renamed “Operation Renewal of Hope,” 16,749 coalition air attacks in Yemen were documented by the Yemen Data Project (YDP), which describes itself as an “independent data collection project aimed at collecting and disseminating data on the conduct of the war in Yemen.”

Based on the information available to it using open sources, YDP reports that two-thirds of the coalition’s bombing attacks have been against non-military and unknown targets. The coalition isn’t accidentally attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure – it’s doing it deliberately.

That’s evident from the kind – and volume – of civilian targets documented. They include places that are generally protected against attack even under the lax rules of international humanitarian law: Residential areas, vehicles, marketplaces and mosques as well as boats, social gatherings and camps for internally displaced persons.

Because of the role&nbsp;it plays in the movement of people, food and medicine, Yemen’s transportation infrastructure is especially important. Airports, ports, bridges and roads have all been repeatedly attacked.

Yemen’s economic infrastructure – farms, private businesses and factories, oil and gas facilities, water and electricity lines and food storage – have also been hit. And the coalition has targeted and destroyed schools and medical facilities, too.

Finally, Yemen’s cultural heritage has been attacked. In all, at least 78 cultural sites have been damaged or destroyed, including archaeological sites, museums, mosques, churches and tombs, as well as numerous other monuments and residences that have great historical and cultural significance.

How to make a crisis

The attacks aren’t the only way the coalition is creating a massive humanitarian crisis.

The air and naval blockade, in effect since March 2015, “is essentially using the threat of starvation as a bargaining tool and an instrument of war,” according to the UN panel of experts on Yemen.

The blockade stops and inspects vessels seeking entry to Yemen’s ports. That allows the coalition to regulate and restrict Yemenis’ access to food, fuel, medical supplies and humanitarian aid.

In his analysis of the blockade’s legality, Dutch military scholar Martin Fink writes that the blockade means “massive time delays and uncertainty on what products would be allowed to enter.”

Despite UN efforts to alleviate some of the worst delays, imports are often held up for a long time. In some cases, food that makes it through the blockade has already spoiled, if the entry is not denied altogether.

In some ways, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is unprecedented and can be tied directly to the conflict. As the World Bank notes, “Yemen’s very difficult economic challenges before the current conflict cannot be compared to the intensely critical situation the country is facing today.”

Similarly, Tufts University scholar Alex de Waal describes Yemen as “the greatest famine atrocity of our lifetimes.” It was caused, writes de Waal, by the coalition “deliberately destroying the country’s food-producing infrastructure.”

The failing security for the people of Yemen has been compounded by a failing health system. The World Health Organisation reported in September 2017 that only 45 per cent of health facilities in Yemen were functional.

As Secretary-General Guterres put it, “Treatable illnesses become a death sentence when local health services are suspended and it is impossible to travel outside the country.”

As of February 2018, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the coalition had killed 6,000 people in airstrikes and wounded nearly 10,000 more.

Yet, according to the OHCHR report, these counts are conservative. Tens of thousands of Yemenis have also died from causes related to the war. According to Save the Children, an estimated 85,000 children under five may have died since 2015, with more than 50,000 child deaths in 2017 alone from hunger and related causes.

Coalition actions in Yemen amount to nothing short of what Raphael Lemkin, the individual who coined the term “genocide,” referred to as a “synchronized attack on different aspects of life.”

The US contribution 
 
The coalition’s genocide in Yemen would not be possible without the complicity of the US. This has been a bipartisan presidential effort, covering both the Obama and Trump administrations.

US arms are being used to kill Yemenis and destroy their country. In 2016, well after the coalition began its genocidal assault on Yemen, four of the top five recipients of US arms sales were members of the coalition.

The US has also provided the coalition with logistical support, including mid-air refuelling, targeting advice and support, intelligence, expedited munitions resupply and maintenance.

Other than the sale of arms, perhaps the most significant contribution to the coalition’s ability to commit genocide in Yemen has been the provision of fuel and mid-air refuelling of coalition warplanes, which was halted in early November 2018. By the middle of 2017, the US had delivered over 67 million pounds of fuel to the coalition and refuelled coalition aircraft more than 9,000 times.

Shared responsibility for genocide

As a genocide scholar, I believe that under international law, the US shares responsibility with the coalition for genocide in Yemen.

What does this mean? It means that the US&nbsp;must cease and desist all activities that facilitate genocide in Yemen. This would include stopping all sales of weapons and ending logistical support for coalition action.

In an ideal world, one in which all states are equally subjects before international law, the US would also seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding what restitution it owes the people of Yemen for its role in the coalition’s genocide.

Similarly, the US would request an International Criminal Court investigation into individual culpability of US officials in both the Obama and Trump administrations for their role in facilitating the crimes committed in Yemen.

Of course, this is not an ideal world.

The US&nbsp;recognises neither the International Court of Justice’s authority to judge the legality of its actions, nor the International Criminal Court’s authority to investigate the suspected criminal acts of individual US officials. Such an investigation could be triggered by a UN&nbsp;Security Council referral, but the US would simply veto any such effort.

All that is left, then, is for the people of the US to hold their own to account for the crimes committed in their names. 
 
(Jeff Bachman is Professorial Lecturer in Human Rights, American University School of International Service)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-complicity-in-the-saudi-led-genocide-in-yemen-spans-obama-trump-administrations-106896">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 Jeff Bachman A Saudi-led coalition of states has been aggressively bombing Yemen and imposing an air and naval blockade of its ports for more than three years, leading UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to describe Yemen as “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

By Jeff Bachman A Saudi-led coalition of states has been aggressively bombing Yemen and imposing an air and naval blockade of its ports for more than three years, leading UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to describe Yemen as “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.” Guterres put the crisis in stark perspective, emphasizing the near complete lack of security for the Yemeni people. More than 22 million people out of a total population of 28 million are in need of humanitarian aid and protection. Eighteen million people lack reliable access to food; 8.4 million people “do not know how they will obtain their next meal.” As a scholar of genocide and human rights, I believe the destruction brought about by these attacks combined with the blockade amounts to genocide. Based on my research, to be published in an upcoming issue of Third World Quarterly, I believe the coalition would not be capable of committing this crime without the material and logistical support of both the Obama and Trump administrations. A ‘storm’ recast as ‘hope’ Yemen has been gripped by a civil war since 2015, pitting the Shia Houthi movement – which has fought for centuries for control of parts of Yemen – against a government backed by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Because of these religious differences, it would be easy to recast what is largely a political conflict in Yemen as a sectarian one. That characterisation fits Saudi and US assertions that the Houthis are controlled by Shiite Iran, a claim that has not gone uncontested. Both the Saudis and the US are hostile to Iran, so US support of Saudia Arabia in Yemen represents what US administrations have said are strategic interests in the region. Besides Saudi Arabia, the coalition attacking Yemen includes the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait and Bahrain. Qatar was part of the coalition but is no longer. During the first three years of “Operation Decisive Storm,” later renamed “Operation Renewal of Hope,” 16,749 coalition air attacks in Yemen were documented by the Yemen Data Project (YDP), which describes itself as an “independent data collection project aimed at collecting and disseminating data on the conduct of the war in Yemen.” Based on the information available to it using open sources, YDP reports that two-thirds of the coalition’s bombing attacks have been against non-military and unknown targets. The coalition isn’t accidentally attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure – it’s doing it deliberately. That’s evident from the kind – and volume – of civilian targets documented. They include places that are generally protected against attack even under the lax rules of international humanitarian law: Residential areas, vehicles, marketplaces and mosques as well as boats, social gatherings and camps for internally displaced persons. Because of the role it plays in the movement of people, food and medicine, Yemen’s transportation infrastructure is especially important. Airports, ports, bridges and roads have all been repeatedly attacked. Yemen’s economic infrastructure – farms, private businesses and factories, oil and gas facilities, water and electricity lines and food storage – have also been hit. And the coalition has targeted and destroyed schools and medical facilities, too. Finally, Yemen’s cultural heritage has been attacked. In all, at least 78 cultural sites have been damaged or destroyed, including archaeological sites, museums, mosques, churches and tombs, as well as numerous other monuments and residences that have great historical and cultural significance. How to make a crisis The attacks aren’t the only way the coalition is creating a massive humanitarian crisis. The air and naval blockade, in effect since March 2015, “is essentially using the threat of starvation as a bargaining tool and an instrument of war,” according to the UN panel of experts on Yemen. The blockade stops and inspects vessels seeking entry to Yemen’s ports. That allows the coalition to regulate and restrict Yemenis’ access to food, fuel, medical supplies and humanitarian aid. In his analysis of the blockade’s legality, Dutch military scholar Martin Fink writes that the blockade means “massive time delays and uncertainty on what products would be allowed to enter.” Despite UN efforts to alleviate some of the worst delays, imports are often held up for a long time. In some cases, food that makes it through the blockade has already spoiled, if the entry is not denied altogether. In some ways, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is unprecedented and can be tied directly to the conflict. As the World Bank notes, “Yemen’s very difficult economic challenges before the current conflict cannot be compared to the intensely critical situation the country is facing today.” Similarly, Tufts University scholar Alex de Waal describes Yemen as “the greatest famine atrocity of our lifetimes.” It was caused, writes de Waal, by the coalition “deliberately destroying the country’s food-producing infrastructure.” The failing security for the people of Yemen has been compounded by a failing health system. The World Health Organisation reported in September 2017 that only 45 per cent of health facilities in Yemen were functional. As Secretary-General Guterres put it, “Treatable illnesses become a death sentence when local health services are suspended and it is impossible to travel outside the country.” As of February 2018, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the coalition had killed 6,000 people in airstrikes and wounded nearly 10,000 more. Yet, according to the OHCHR report, these counts are conservative. Tens of thousands of Yemenis have also died from causes related to the war. According to Save the Children, an estimated 85,000 children under five may have died since 2015, with more than 50,000 child deaths in 2017 alone from hunger and related causes. Coalition actions in Yemen amount to nothing short of what Raphael Lemkin, the individual who coined the term “genocide,” referred to as a “synchronized attack on different aspects of life.” The US contribution The coalition’s genocide in Yemen would not be possible without the complicity of the US. This has been a bipartisan presidential effort, covering both the Obama and Trump administrations. US arms are being used to kill Yemenis and destroy their country. In 2016, well after the coalition began its genocidal assault on Yemen, four of the top five recipients of US arms sales were members of the coalition. The US has also provided the coalition with logistical support, including mid-air refuelling, targeting advice and support, intelligence, expedited munitions resupply and maintenance. Other than the sale of arms, perhaps the most significant contribution to the coalition’s ability to commit genocide in Yemen has been the provision of fuel and mid-air refuelling of coalition warplanes, which was halted in early November 2018. By the middle of 2017, the US had delivered over 67 million pounds of fuel to the coalition and refuelled coalition aircraft more than 9,000 times. Shared responsibility for genocide As a genocide scholar, I believe that under international law, the US shares responsibility with the coalition for genocide in Yemen. What does this mean? It means that the US must cease and desist all activities that facilitate genocide in Yemen. This would include stopping all sales of weapons and ending logistical support for coalition action. In an ideal world, one in which all states are equally subjects before international law, the US would also seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding what restitution it owes the people of Yemen for its role in the coalition’s genocide. Similarly, the US would request an International Criminal Court investigation into individual culpability of US officials in both the Obama and Trump administrations for their role in facilitating the crimes committed in Yemen. Of course, this is not an ideal world. The US recognises neither the International Court of Justice’s authority to judge the legality of its actions, nor the International Criminal Court’s authority to investigate the suspected criminal acts of individual US officials. Such an investigation could be triggered by a UN Security Council referral, but the US would simply veto any such effort. All that is left, then, is for the people of the US to hold their own to account for the crimes committed in their names. (Jeff Bachman is Professorial Lecturer in Human Rights, American University School of International Service) (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 complicity in the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen spans Obama, Trump administrations

The much vaunted “flat world” of Tom Friedman is under threat in many parts of the globe and nowhere more than in the original capital of the free world, the United States of America. With non-tariff trade and immigration barriers being erected all over the world and President Trump making aggressive moves to fulfil his “Make in America” and “Bring jobs back to America” promises, the scenario seems to be fairly bleak for India’s many hopeful US residents.

The most recent salvo fired by the Trump Administration in the US is the amendment to the Labor Condition Application (LCA) that has come into force from November 19, 2018. This requires prospective employers of people entering the US on H-1B visas to disclose all intended places of employment including any proposed short-term assignments and a large amount of information on the company status including identification of secondary entities and locations and the number of H-1B visa workers currently employed in the firm and at third-party works sites of the firm. While one could argue that this is only a demand for more disclosures, the increased paperwork required will become a further deterrent for companies already concerned at the substantial delays and high rejection rates in visa applications to work in the US.

Another deterrent for middle and senior-level professionals seeking to work and build careers in the US is the introduction of legislation by two US lawmakers that seeks to revoke the work authorisation given by the Obama Administration to spouses of H-1B visa holders. The permission given to H-4 dependent visa holders to work while their spouses were employed in the US had made it feasible for career-minded spouses to seek gainful employment. This group of over a hundred thousand people, largely women, &nbsp;would be seriously challenged if this revocation actually happens.

A positive development in this regard has been the letter sent by 130 senior lawmakers to the Secretary of US Homeland Security asking that the decision of the previous administration should not be rescinded. The subsequent assurance provided by a US Citizenship and Immigration spokesman that the rule-making process is still incomplete and a new economic analysis would be a determinant in the final decision should give a boost to the tens of thousands of bright and highly employable people who would be potentially adversely affected by this reversal.&nbsp;

Even if the Administration were to ignore the adverse impact on families, on purely economic grounds, the arguments in favour of letting these talented people work in the US are many. Most of the spouses in the US are extremely well qualified and more than capable of getting and outperforming in highly skilled vocations. Nipping their promising careers in the bud could well deny American employers the opportunity to add substantial productivity to their work force. And it is almost inevitable that in a world where two jobs in a family are useful in building a better lifestyle and opportunities for children, this could sow the seeds of marital discord and even result in some spouses deserting the H-1B holder and returning to their country of origin to seek gainful employment and an identity for themselves.

For the Indian tech sector, the increased tightening of opportunities to send manpower to the US to staff critical positions has led to three tactical steps – local hiring, subcontracting and a mitigation in the efforts to sell an American dream. Local hiring started on a significant scale a few years ago and rightly so since it is only appropriate that jobs in a country where the business originates are offered to citizens and residents of that country where possible, rather than getting temporary staff from India or elsewhere. Today, local hiring has moved from anecdotal levels to tens of thousands with centres of Indian companies springing up in many parts of the US. Sub-contracting to local and Latin American firms have also commenced and professionals are also being recruited from Mexico and Canada through the TN visa category, which has the potential for indefinite renewal and are easy to procure and process.&nbsp;

Hundreds of thousands of young Indians, who for decades had seen the American dream, have realised them through the vista of opportunities that the H-1B visa and subsequently the H-4 visa gave to them and their families. In families around the country, fortunes have been re-written by children in the US and they have also added greatly to the success of companies in the US, initially in the tech sector and today in all sections of the economy. Will any administration not see the immense value offered by the Indian diaspora in the US and thwart its continuing contribution and success? President Trump, we are glad you choose to celebrate Diwali in the White House but now the time has come to make the great land of America truly inclusive and “keep America great” by being the beacon of opportunity for the whole world that it has always been!

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-us-visas-a-call-to-action-2689284">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The much vaunted “flat world” of Tom Friedman is under threat in many parts of the globe and nowhere more than in the original capital of the free world, the United States of America.

The much vaunted “flat world” of Tom Friedman is under threat in many parts of the globe and nowhere more than in the original capital of the free world, the United States of America. With non-tariff trade and immigration barriers being erected all over the world and President Trump making aggressive moves to fulfil his “Make in America” and “Bring jobs back to America” promises, the scenario seems to be fairly bleak for India’s many hopeful US residents. The most recent salvo fired by the Trump Administration in the US is the amendment to the Labor Condition Application (LCA) that has come into force from November 19, 2018. This requires prospective employers of people entering the US on H-1B visas to disclose all intended places of employment including any proposed short-term assignments and a large amount of information on the company status including identification of secondary entities and locations and the number of H-1B visa workers currently employed in the firm and at third-party works sites of the firm. While one could argue that this is only a demand for more disclosures, the increased paperwork required will become a further deterrent for companies already concerned at the substantial delays and high rejection rates in visa applications to work in the US. Another deterrent for middle and senior-level professionals seeking to work and build careers in the US is the introduction of legislation by two US lawmakers that seeks to revoke the work authorisation given by the Obama Administration to spouses of H-1B visa holders. The permission given to H-4 dependent visa holders to work while their spouses were employed in the US had made it feasible for career-minded spouses to seek gainful employment. This group of over a hundred thousand people, largely women, would be seriously challenged if this revocation actually happens. A positive development in this regard has been the letter sent by 130 senior lawmakers to the Secretary of US Homeland Security asking that the decision of the previous administration should not be rescinded. The subsequent assurance provided by a US Citizenship and Immigration spokesman that the rule-making process is still incomplete and a new economic analysis would be a determinant in the final decision should give a boost to the tens of thousands of bright and highly employable people who would be potentially adversely affected by this reversal. Even if the Administration were to ignore the adverse impact on families, on purely economic grounds, the arguments in favour of letting these talented people work in the US are many. Most of the spouses in the US are extremely well qualified and more than capable of getting and outperforming in highly skilled vocations. Nipping their promising careers in the bud could well deny American employers the opportunity to add substantial productivity to their work force. And it is almost inevitable that in a world where two jobs in a family are useful in building a better lifestyle and opportunities for children, this could sow the seeds of marital discord and even result in some spouses deserting the H-1B holder and returning to their country of origin to seek gainful employment and an identity for themselves. For the Indian tech sector, the increased tightening of opportunities to send manpower to the US to staff critical positions has led to three tactical steps – local hiring, subcontracting and a mitigation in the efforts to sell an American dream. Local hiring started on a significant scale a few years ago and rightly so since it is only appropriate that jobs in a country where the business originates are offered to citizens and residents of that country where possible, rather than getting temporary staff from India or elsewhere. Today, local hiring has moved from anecdotal levels to tens of thousands with centres of Indian companies springing up in many parts of the US. Sub-contracting to local and Latin American firms have also commenced and professionals are also being recruited from Mexico and Canada through the TN visa category, which has the potential for indefinite renewal and are easy to procure and process. Hundreds of thousands of young Indians, who for decades had seen the American dream, have realised them through the vista of opportunities that the H-1B visa and subsequently the H-4 visa gave to them and their families. In families around the country, fortunes have been re-written by children in the US and they have also added greatly to the success of companies in the US, initially in the tech sector and today in all sections of the economy. Will any administration not see the immense value offered by the Indian diaspora in the US and thwart its continuing contribution and success? President Trump, we are glad you choose to celebrate Diwali in the White House but now the time has come to make the great land of America truly inclusive and “keep America great” by being the beacon of opportunity for the whole world that it has always been! (This article was originally published on 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)

US visas – a call to action

Climate change to cost US billions

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - November 24th 2018

By Greg Raymond 
 
There is no evidence that China has ever contemplated using its nuclear weapons to coerce another state. Instead, China has maintained a “no first use policy” on nuclear weapons. Surprising as it may sound to many, China wants to build an image of itself as a responsible power.

But the fact remains that China could threaten to use those weapons to force the Australian government into, say, ceasing its patrols of the South China Sea, regardless of the much-debated US “nuclear umbrella” in East Asia.

This is the reality that Australian defence planners have lived with for some 50 years. Australian defence force planning has long accepted the premise that our self-reliance needs to be viewed within an alliance context. As recently as 2009, the government plainly conceded that the Australian Defence Force was not expected to deal with a situation:

…where we were under threat from a major power whose military capabilities were simply beyond our capacity to resist.

In such a situation, we don’t expect to be alone.

This point is important to bear in mind when we consider recent discussions of a “Plan B” to strengthen Australia’s defence posture.

Commentators have suggested recently that Australia’s strategic risk is increasing and the A$195 billion defence spending plan announced in the 2016 Defence White Paper is now insufficient.

Australian taxpayers would certainly be interested to know why a plan that doubles our submarine fleet, significantly expands our navy and adds 100 of the most advanced and expensive combat aircraft ever invented would now be seen as insufficient.

The answer lies in the shifting strategic landscape in the Asia-Pacific region, which has led to greater concerns about China’s long-term intentions and rising tensions between China and the US. So what exactly has changed? 
 
China’s recent activities in the region

Since the last Defence White Paper in 2016, Australian defence observers have been alarmed by four things:

<ol>
	<li>China’s rejection of the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling that deemed its nine-dash line claim in the South China Sea illegal 
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li>China’s conversion of its South China Sea artificial islands into military bases, which was largely complete by the end of 2016, despite a pledge President Xi Jinping gave then-President Barack Obama that China had “no intention to militarise” the islands 
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li>Reports in April of this year that China was establishing partnerships with Pacific nations like Vanuatu for potential future military bases and other arrangements&nbsp; 
	&nbsp;</li>
	<li>The election of Donald Trump as US president and the uncertainty this has brought to the region due to his disparaging of traditional alliances and disdain for multilateral institutions</li>
</ol>

These events have occurred against a backdrop of China’s rapidly expanding global footprint. This includes the establishment of its first overseas military base in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa, and its growing access to regional ports such as the controversial Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, which the Sri Lankan government ceded to Beijing on a 99-year lease.

These regional shifts have also come amid growing illiberalism in China, evidence of increasing Chinese intelligence and influence operations in Australia (especially the Dastyari affair) and bullying behaviour from Chinese officials in their meetings with Australian politicians.

In addition, Trump appears to mark a significant break with the strategic priorities of previous US administrations. He’s threatened to walk away from America’s support for the traditional allies and global trade institutions that have characterised US foreign policy since the Second World War. This has put unprecedented distance between the United States and Australia, which as a middle power needs healthy global institutions.

But in China, it’s different. The Trump administration and importantly, the US security apparatus, share Australia’s darkening view of China to the point we may now be seeing a new Cold War developing in the region.

Case in point: the recent announcement of US participation in the development of a joint naval base with Australia on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island. This is clear evidence of the US’s new willingness to compete with China and a signal the US wants to dispel the uncertainty left in the region in the wake of Obama’s problematic “pivot” to Asia.

Assessing the risks for Australia 
 
In assessing whether Australia needs a steep increase in its defence spending, there are two questions we must ask: Firstly, what regional developments could the 2016 Defence White Paper not have anticipated? And of these, which equate to risks that increased defence spending can obviate?

Our defence planners have been well aware since at least 2009 of China’s gradually modernising defence forces and steadily growing navy. China’s moves toward a blue-water fleet, including new carriers and cruisers, were also well understood in 2016.

While the artificial islands in the South China Sea were still being built, their eventual militarisation was also anticipated by Australian defence leaders, despite China’s protestations to the contrary.

But even knowing all of this, Australia’s defence planners essentially decided in the 2016 White Paper to continue with the “Force 2030” force structure they envisaged in 2009. There have been some additions like shore-based anti-ship missiles, but our plan has largely been focused on enablers – that is, the capability to make the force operate with greater certainty, precision and coordination. Importantly, this White Paper did not envisage Australia fighting China on its own.

Of the strategic developments involving China since 2016 – from the revelations of its influence operations to its new-found interest in the Pacific – the question defence planners should now be asking is whether any undermine the fundamental judgements of the 2016 White Paper. Do they point to a need to radically change Australia’s defence posture?

Combating China’s illicit influence in Australia is being dealt with through our stronger foreign influence laws. Offsetting China’s influence in the Pacific will be best undertaken through Australia’s aid and diplomatic programmes.

This leaves the big question of the role of the US in the Asia-Pacific region – the most critical of defence planning factors. Will Australia be left on its own in the foreseeable future?

And here we must observe that despite Trump’s anti-alliance rhetoric, the American force posture in the Western Pacific actually remains unchanged. There have been no base closures and no force draw-downs as of yet from the bases encircling China in Guam, Japan and South Korea, though Trump has threatened this.

Moreover, the hardening US view against China means a likely strengthening of its Asia-Pacific posture under the new National Security Statement, the cardinal US security policy document.

In fact, the US is now expanding its presence in the region with the announcement of the new joint naval base on Manus Island. The US also recently put its nuclear deterrence guarantee to Australia in writing for the first time in history. And the American Marine build-up in Darwin continues.

Although China’s military advances are making the task of possibly defeating its navy more challenging, the fact remains that it will be a long time before it’s able to start a war with the US confident of victory. The US also seems unwilling to leave China to dominate Asia.

In these circumstances, would China use its forces against other countries in the region, like Australia, without the US getting involved? In my view, it could not.

Therefore, while every responsible government should continue to assess defence planning and ensure appropriate levels of readiness, the case for a sharply increased defence spending plan is not at this point compelling. 
 
(Greg Raymond is Research fellow, Australian National University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-china-us-tensions-on-the-rise-does-australia-need-a-new-defence-strategy-106515">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 Greg Raymond There is no evidence that China has ever contemplated using its nuclear weapons to coerce another state. Instead, China has maintained a “no first use policy” on nuclear weapons.

By Greg Raymond There is no evidence that China has ever contemplated using its nuclear weapons to coerce another state. Instead, China has maintained a “no first use policy” on nuclear weapons. Surprising as it may sound to many, China wants to build an image of itself as a responsible power. But the fact remains that China could threaten to use those weapons to force the Australian government into, say, ceasing its patrols of the South China Sea, regardless of the much-debated US “nuclear umbrella” in East Asia. This is the reality that Australian defence planners have lived with for some 50 years. Australian defence force planning has long accepted the premise that our self-reliance needs to be viewed within an alliance context. As recently as 2009, the government plainly conceded that the Australian Defence Force was not expected to deal with a situation: …where we were under threat from a major power whose military capabilities were simply beyond our capacity to resist. In such a situation, we don’t expect to be alone. This point is important to bear in mind when we consider recent discussions of a “Plan B” to strengthen Australia’s defence posture. Commentators have suggested recently that Australia’s strategic risk is increasing and the A$195 billion defence spending plan announced in the 2016 Defence White Paper is now insufficient. Australian taxpayers would certainly be interested to know why a plan that doubles our submarine fleet, significantly expands our navy and adds 100 of the most advanced and expensive combat aircraft ever invented would now be seen as insufficient. The answer lies in the shifting strategic landscape in the Asia-Pacific region, which has led to greater concerns about China’s long-term intentions and rising tensions between China and the US. So what exactly has changed? China’s recent activities in the region Since the last Defence White Paper in 2016, Australian defence observers have been alarmed by four things: China’s rejection of the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling that deemed its nine-dash line claim in the South China Sea illegal China’s conversion of its South China Sea artificial islands into military bases, which was largely complete by the end of 2016, despite a pledge President Xi Jinping gave then-President Barack Obama that China had “no intention to militarise” the islands Reports in April of this year that China was establishing partnerships with Pacific nations like Vanuatu for potential future military bases and other arrangements The election of Donald Trump as US president and the uncertainty this has brought to the region due to his disparaging of traditional alliances and disdain for multilateral institutions These events have occurred against a backdrop of China’s rapidly expanding global footprint. This includes the establishment of its first overseas military base in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa, and its growing access to regional ports such as the controversial Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, which the Sri Lankan government ceded to Beijing on a 99-year lease. These regional shifts have also come amid growing illiberalism in China, evidence of increasing Chinese intelligence and influence operations in Australia (especially the Dastyari affair) and bullying behaviour from Chinese officials in their meetings with Australian politicians. In addition, Trump appears to mark a significant break with the strategic priorities of previous US administrations. He’s threatened to walk away from America’s support for the traditional allies and global trade institutions that have characterised US foreign policy since the Second World War. This has put unprecedented distance between the United States and Australia, which as a middle power needs healthy global institutions. But in China, it’s different. The Trump administration and importantly, the US security apparatus, share Australia’s darkening view of China to the point we may now be seeing a new Cold War developing in the region. Case in point: the recent announcement of US participation in the development of a joint naval base with Australia on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island. This is clear evidence of the US’s new willingness to compete with China and a signal the US wants to dispel the uncertainty left in the region in the wake of Obama’s problematic “pivot” to Asia. Assessing the risks for Australia In assessing whether Australia needs a steep increase in its defence spending, there are two questions we must ask: Firstly, what regional developments could the 2016 Defence White Paper not have anticipated? And of these, which equate to risks that increased defence spending can obviate? Our defence planners have been well aware since at least 2009 of China’s gradually modernising defence forces and steadily growing navy. China’s moves toward a blue-water fleet, including new carriers and cruisers, were also well understood in 2016. While the artificial islands in the South China Sea were still being built, their eventual militarisation was also anticipated by Australian defence leaders, despite China’s protestations to the contrary. But even knowing all of this, Australia’s defence planners essentially decided in the 2016 White Paper to continue with the “Force 2030” force structure they envisaged in 2009. There have been some additions like shore-based anti-ship missiles, but our plan has largely been focused on enablers – that is, the capability to make the force operate with greater certainty, precision and coordination. Importantly, this White Paper did not envisage Australia fighting China on its own. Of the strategic developments involving China since 2016 – from the revelations of its influence operations to its new-found interest in the Pacific – the question defence planners should now be asking is whether any undermine the fundamental judgements of the 2016 White Paper. Do they point to a need to radically change Australia’s defence posture? Combating China’s illicit influence in Australia is being dealt with through our stronger foreign influence laws. Offsetting China’s influence in the Pacific will be best undertaken through Australia’s aid and diplomatic programmes. This leaves the big question of the role of the US in the Asia-Pacific region – the most critical of defence planning factors. Will Australia be left on its own in the foreseeable future? And here we must observe that despite Trump’s anti-alliance rhetoric, the American force posture in the Western Pacific actually remains unchanged. There have been no base closures and no force draw-downs as of yet from the bases encircling China in Guam, Japan and South Korea, though Trump has threatened this. Moreover, the hardening US view against China means a likely strengthening of its Asia-Pacific posture under the new National Security Statement, the cardinal US security policy document. In fact, the US is now expanding its presence in the region with the announcement of the new joint naval base on Manus Island. The US also recently put its nuclear deterrence guarantee to Australia in writing for the first time in history. And the American Marine build-up in Darwin continues. Although China’s military advances are making the task of possibly defeating its navy more challenging, the fact remains that it will be a long time before it’s able to start a war with the US confident of victory. The US also seems unwilling to leave China to dominate Asia. In these circumstances, would China use its forces against other countries in the region, like Australia, without the US getting involved? In my view, it could not. Therefore, while every responsible government should continue to assess defence planning and ensure appropriate levels of readiness, the case for a sharply increased defence spending plan is not at this point compelling. (Greg Raymond is Research fellow, Australian National University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

With China-US tensions on the rise, does Australia need a new defence strategy?

The US government on Friday will issue a new report detailing the threat climate change poses to the economy, in what is expected to be a dire warning at odds with the Trump administration’s pro-fossil fuels agenda.

The congressionally mandated report, written with the help of more than a dozen US government agencies and departments, will supplement a study issued last year that concluded humans are the main driver of global warming, and warned of potentially catastrophic effects to the planet.

"It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," according to that report. "There is no convincing alternative explanation ...”

This year`s report is expected to detail the costs of climate change and provide scientific assessments of the risks and the extent to which people can adapt to it.&nbsp;

The report is expected clash with policy under President Donald Trump, who has been rolling back environmental and climate protections to maximize production of domestic fossil fuels, including crude oil, already the highest in the world above Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Trump last year announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Deal agreed by nearly 200 nations to combat climate change, arguing the accord would hurt the US economy and provide little tangible environmental benefit. Under the Paris pact`s rules, however, Trump can not officially withdraw from the agreement until after the 2020 US presidential election. The US government still sends delegations to UN climate negotiations.

Trump and several members of his cabinet have also repeatedly cast doubt on the science of climate change, saying the causes are not yet settled.&nbsp; 
That is despite the fact an overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the globe agree that the burning of fossil fuels drives global warming, and is leading to rising seas, flooding, droughts, and more frequent powerful storms.

Previous research, including from US government scientists, has concluded that climate change could have severe economic consequences, including damage to infrastructure, water supplies and agriculture.&nbsp;

Severe weather and other impacts also increase the risk of disease transmission, decrease air quality, and can increase mental health problems, among other effects, according to US and international studies.

Thirteen government departments and agencies, from the Agriculture Department to NASA, were part of the committee that compiled the new report.&nbsp;

The US government on Friday will issue a new report detailing the threat climate change poses to the economy, in what is expected to be a dire warning at odds with the Trump administration’s pro-fossil fuels agenda.

The US government on Friday will issue a new report detailing the threat climate change poses to the economy, in what is expected to be a dire warning at odds with the Trump administration’s pro-fossil fuels agenda. The congressionally mandated report, written with the help of more than a dozen US government agencies and departments, will supplement a study issued last year that concluded humans are the main driver of global warming, and warned of potentially catastrophic effects to the planet. "It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century," according to that report. "There is no convincing alternative explanation ...” This year`s report is expected to detail the costs of climate change and provide scientific assessments of the risks and the extent to which people can adapt to it. The report is expected clash with policy under President Donald Trump, who has been rolling back environmental and climate protections to maximize production of domestic fossil fuels, including crude oil, already the highest in the world above Saudi Arabia and Russia. Trump last year announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris Deal agreed by nearly 200 nations to combat climate change, arguing the accord would hurt the US economy and provide little tangible environmental benefit. Under the Paris pact`s rules, however, Trump can not officially withdraw from the agreement until after the 2020 US presidential election. The US government still sends delegations to UN climate negotiations. Trump and several members of his cabinet have also repeatedly cast doubt on the science of climate change, saying the causes are not yet settled. That is despite the fact an overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the globe agree that the burning of fossil fuels drives global warming, and is leading to rising seas, flooding, droughts, and more frequent powerful storms. Previous research, including from US government scientists, has concluded that climate change could have severe economic consequences, including damage to infrastructure, water supplies and agriculture. Severe weather and other impacts also increase the risk of disease transmission, decrease air quality, and can increase mental health problems, among other effects, according to US and international studies. Thirteen government departments and agencies, from the Agriculture Department to NASA, were part of the committee that compiled the new report.

US report to detail costs of climate change as Trump downplays threat

By Tom Engelhardt

Face it: It’s been an abusive time, to use a word he likes to wield. In his telling, of course, it’s he or his people who are always the abused ones, and they — the “fake news media” — are the abusers. But let’s be honest. You’ve been abused, too, and so have I. All of us have and by that same fake news media.

It isn’t complicated, really. Thanks to them, to those cable news talking heads who never stop yammering about him, to the reporters who clamour over his every word or twitch, he’s always there, 24/7. I know that it’s still called covering the news, but it’s a phrase that no longer faintly fits the situation. Yes, a near majority of Americans voted for him as president, but no one voted to make him a living (and living-room) icon, a never-ending presence not just in our world, but in all our private worlds, too.

Never, not ever, has a single human being been so inescapable. You can’t turn on TV news, read a newspaper, listen to the radio, wander on social media or do much of anything else without almost instantly bumping into or tripping over him — attacking them, praising himself, telling you how wonderful or terrible he feels and how much he loves or loathes. Well, whatever happens, to be ever so briefly on his mind that very moment.

And if that isn’t really almost too obvious to write down, then what is? Still, just briefly, let’s try to take in the obvious. Let me put it this way: never, not since Adam or certainly Nebuchadnezzar, not to speak of Eve or Cleopatra, has anyone in history been so unrelentingly focused upon or mercilessly covered, so, in a sense, fawned upon — and, of course, “abused”. In the past, I’ve labelled what we’re living through “the white Ford Bronco presidency” because, for the last nearly three years, the media has covered him as if he were indeed O.J. Simpson in that car fleeing the police over his wife’s murder, as if, that is, there was nothing else on Earth worth gluing our eyeballs to, and not as in O.J.’s case for a relatively few hours, but for what already seems like an eternity.

In a way, this is the simplest piece I’ve ever written, because whoever you are, wherever you live in this country (or possibly on the planet), whatever you think of him, positive or negative, you already know all of this. You’ve already discussed it with your friends. You’ve certainly wondered what would happen if the mainstream media suddenly stopped attending to Donald Trump. Oh yes, I hadn’t mentioned his name until now, because why bother? You never had a doubt, did you?

The Unthinkable

My guess on the effect of such a withdrawal of coverage: He’d shrivel up and die. Your guess may be different, but it doesn’t matter because we’re clearly never going to find out. Even the recent presidential decision to take away CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass — with the doctored video of his behavior and all — after a distinctly abusive press conference (“I’ll tell you what: CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN”), was only the cause for yet another deluge of coverage.

None of Acosta’s media compatriots, not even at CNN, decided, for instance, to protest by refusing to cover another White House event until he got that pass back, though CNN is suing the Trump administration. None of them evidently even seriously considered closing the door, shutting the gate, turning their backs on you-know-who. That clearly is 21st-century media version of thinking about the unthinkable.

Honestly, who doesn’t talk about all this in the face of a presidency that’s in your face, all our faces, in a way that no other president, emperor, king, autocrat, dictator, movie star, celebrity or — feel free to fill in whatever I haven’t thought of here — has ever before been. His every phrase, tweet, complaint, bit of praise, parenthetical comment, angry snit, insult, or even policy decision is reported, discussed, gnawed on, considered, reconsidered, yakked about nonstop, hour after hour after endless hour, reshown in clip after repetitive clip. This is, in short, a unique historical experience of ours and ours alone. How could we not talk about it all the time?

Oh wait! Oddly enough, in case you hadn’t noticed, there’s one place where it’s barely talked about at all, where silence largely reigns, and to my mind that couldn’t be stranger. Here’s the only catch in the non-stop coverage of Donald J. Trump (2015 to 2018 and beyond): That same mainstream media that can’t get enough of him, that eats up and gnaws on his every odd phrase, gesture, act or passing thought is essentially silent on only one thing — the coverage itself.

The most obvious subject in the world — not him, but the thing that keeps him going, that keeps the whole ship of state more or less afloat at this point — the unprecedented focus on him just doesn’t seem to be a subject fit for significant coverage, even though it’s a commonplace in our conversations out here in what still passes for the real world. We may regularly roll our eyes, but the mainstream media programmatically never does. Not in public anyway. And as was true from the beginning of the Trump era, from The New York Times and Politico to The Atlantic magazine, media outfits have hired yet more people to cover — well, Donald Trump (and not just from Washington either) and ploughed right on.

But do they cover themselves? Hardly. Media critics inside those mainstream companies have become an ever rarer species. The New York Times, for instance, let go of its “public editor” in May 2017 and left it to perhaps random tweeters to handle how the paper was covering anything. And that’s been typical. Or put another way: There’s really only one media critic left in the mainstream world — and you know just who he is! (A typical tweeted comment of his: “A very big part of the Anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News. It has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. Mainstream Media must clean up its act, FAST!”)

And sometimes that criticism couldn’t be more personal. (“Loser,” he recently called White House reporter April Ryan. “What a stupid question that is,” he said to CNN’s Abby Phillip. “What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot, you ask a lot of stupid questions.”) I’m referring, of course, to America’s media-critic-in-chief now in residence in Washington, DC, when, of course, he isn’t out in the provinces getting a little love from his adoring “base” in those endless rallies for the midterm elections and, of course, the ones for the 2020 campaign, which began long ago.

And naturally enough, the “fake news” reporters can’t cover those rallies enough or discuss them and what he says at them more often. But again, there’s one catch, one lacuna, in all this. They almost never cover Donald J. Trump’s rally of rallies in that same analytical and dissecting fashion. I’m thinking, of course, of the rallies that truly keep him going, and by that I mean his endless set of interactions with — yep, the media. After all, without being eternally in their glowing spotlight, without that endless coverage of everything him, what would he be?

The Media Critic-in-Chief

In a sense, those hordes of reporters crowding into his world are his most adoring fans (even if many of them may loathe him personally). They may not literally bathe him in love (as his fans in those stadiums do), but they certainly bathe him in what he loves most, what clearly keeps him up and running — attention. And from each of those media “rallies” of his, however small, however impromptu, however angry or insulting, no matter the nature of the words exchanged, he clearly comes away feeling clean as a new born babe (though they perhaps feel dirty as, well, who knows what).

It may not be a love affair, but it certainly is an affair to remember. And despite the fact that his official news conferences may be rare, he manages to meet the press (to use a thoroughly outmoded phrase) constantly and in ways too numerous to mention. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that he’s taken more questions from reporters — even if he’s regularly mangled and shredded them — than all our recent presidents (except that other classic narcissist, Bill Clinton).

Being the canny self-promoter that he is, Donald Trump knows the value of those exchanges, no matter their nature. He knows that the specifics of what the media may write or say about him matter remarkably little, as long as they cover him in this totalistic fashion, as long as they never stop bathing him in his own ultimate form of glory. They are, as he would be the first to tell you, his “earned media.” In fact, just the other day at his post-election news conference, he had this little exchange with a reporter:

“Q: Mr. President, first off, I personally think it’s very good to have you here because a free press and this type of engagement—”

“The President: I do, too. Actually? I do, too.”

“Q: Yes. It’s vital to democracy.”

“The President: It’s called ‘earned media.’ It’s worth billions. Go ahead.”

Let’s be clear: Donald Trump is no fool. He knows that he’s got not just a knack but the knack for accruing “earned media” — that is, unpaid for publicity and advertising. Estimates were that he got a staggering $5.6 billion of it during his 2015-2016 election campaign and, exactly as he implied in that knowing aside, it’s never ended. And yes, it is “vital” to him, if not to “democracy.” Think of him, in fact, as President Earned Media.

Since we are talking about a mutual affair, however, the opposite is also true: Donald Trump is the media’s version of, at the risk of being completely repetitious, earned media. No one’s put it better than former CBS head Leslie Moonves — recently taken down by the #MeToo moment — during the 2016 election campaign. “It may not be good for America,” he said, “but it’s damn good for CBS.” He added, “The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this [is] going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald. Keep going.” And, as we all know, Donald did.

Keep in mind that the media had been thrown into chaos and confusion by the growth of the online world of the internet, as many news businesses faltered and staff cuts were widespread. How convenient, then, to stumble upon such genuine human clickbait, someone on whom you could focus your attention so relatively cheaply and profitably. So much for covering the world, a distinctly expensive proposition. Talk about bargain basement candidacies and presidencies.

From the moment he descended that escalator in Trump Tower in June 2015, Donald Trump became the media equivalent of a freebie — someone viewers and readers just couldn’t help watching, hearing about, reading about. It was like stumbling on a gold mine in the desert. As it turned out, Americans were indeed ready to have the talking heads of CNN (now the president’s eternal punching bag), MSNBC and Fox News yammer on hour after hour, day after day about him and only him. It was, in its own way, a genuine miracle for news companies that had found themselves up against the wall, and it couldn’t have been more real, or — as, at some level, Donald Trump himself grasped — more fake.

Quite A Performance

Put it all together and you can understand how a major Trump rally — oops, I mean that post-election news conference of his — actually worked. But first let me take a moment, in truly Trumpian fashion, to thank myself on your behalf. Like you, I watched clips of that news conference. Then I did all of you a favour and actually read the whole 17,000-plus words of it, one hour and 26 minutes worth of his and their words, so you wouldn’t have to.

And believe me, it was quite a performance as the president called on or ignored reporters desperate to get his attention, insulted them, spoke with them, spoke against them, spoke over them (“We are a hot country. This is a hot White House”), spoke around them, described them (“I come in here as a nice person wanting to answer questions and I have people jumping out of there seats, screaming questions at me”), wandered away from them, wandered away from himself, ignored or didn’t answer their questions, was incoherent for significant stretches of time, or couldn’t even hold onto a thought. And by the way, the reporters there more than matched him (“One, I was tempted to ask you why you like Oprah so much, but I think I’ll go on to the question that”), blow for blowhard (“Based off of that, how would you say, over the last two years, God plays — what kind of a factor He plays in the day-to-day execution of the Office of the Presidency?”).

Read the whole thing and you’d have to be struck — even by the less-than-soaring standards of past presidential news conferences — by how little (with a bow to Gertrude Stein) there there actually was there. The president’s incoherence was remarkably well matched by the dreariness of the generally expectable, largely thought-free questions he was asked on a limited set of topics.

As always, though, there were those Trumpian moments that aren’t likely to leave your head soon thereafter. There was, for instance, the exchange in which the president called on PBS’s Yamiche Alcindor, a relatively rare black reporter in that room. She began her question this way, “On the campaign trail, you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists. Now people are also saying…”

At that point, the president promptly interrupted to respond: “I don’t know why you’d say that. That’s such a racist question.” (Something he’d then repeat twice more.) The pure chutzpah of that response should have taken anyone’s breath away, but it was also a reminder of the strange sense of freedom Trump feels to say anything in the presence of the media, including mocking or insulting three black female reporters at that news conference. And this can only happen again and again and again. It’s hard not to feel that we are all now eternally watching two sets of addicts who simply can’t exist without or get enough of each other.

Toward the end of that news conference, one of the reporters began a question (also focused on white nationalism) this way: “Thank you, sir. And I think we’d all love to have more of these, if you’re willing…”

It tells us so much about our 21st-century Trumpian world that anyone in that press corps would wish for more of the same. I have a feeling that somewhere in all of this someone, maybe Bob Mueller, should indict all of them for fraud. In the meantime, the rest of us remain in a world wallpapered with Donald Trump, a world in which the fake news media, which is his truest “base,” just can’t get enough of him. 
 
(The author is&nbsp;co-founder of the American Empire Project and runs TomDispatch.com)

(This article was originally published on Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/donald-trump-media-fake-news-cnn-jim-accosta-us-politics-news-10920/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Tom Engelhardt Face it: It’s been an abusive time, to use a word he likes to wield. In his telling, of course, it’s he or his people who are always the abused ones, and they — the “fake news media” — are the abusers.

By Tom Engelhardt Face it: It’s been an abusive time, to use a word he likes to wield. In his telling, of course, it’s he or his people who are always the abused ones, and they — the “fake news media” — are the abusers. But let’s be honest. You’ve been abused, too, and so have I. All of us have and by that same fake news media. It isn’t complicated, really. Thanks to them, to those cable news talking heads who never stop yammering about him, to the reporters who clamour over his every word or twitch, he’s always there, 24/7. I know that it’s still called covering the news, but it’s a phrase that no longer faintly fits the situation. Yes, a near majority of Americans voted for him as president, but no one voted to make him a living (and living-room) icon, a never-ending presence not just in our world, but in all our private worlds, too. Never, not ever, has a single human being been so inescapable. You can’t turn on TV news, read a newspaper, listen to the radio, wander on social media or do much of anything else without almost instantly bumping into or tripping over him — attacking them, praising himself, telling you how wonderful or terrible he feels and how much he loves or loathes. Well, whatever happens, to be ever so briefly on his mind that very moment. And if that isn’t really almost too obvious to write down, then what is? Still, just briefly, let’s try to take in the obvious. Let me put it this way: never, not since Adam or certainly Nebuchadnezzar, not to speak of Eve or Cleopatra, has anyone in history been so unrelentingly focused upon or mercilessly covered, so, in a sense, fawned upon — and, of course, “abused”. In the past, I’ve labelled what we’re living through “the white Ford Bronco presidency” because, for the last nearly three years, the media has covered him as if he were indeed O.J. Simpson in that car fleeing the police over his wife’s murder, as if, that is, there was nothing else on Earth worth gluing our eyeballs to, and not as in O.J.’s case for a relatively few hours, but for what already seems like an eternity. In a way, this is the simplest piece I’ve ever written, because whoever you are, wherever you live in this country (or possibly on the planet), whatever you think of him, positive or negative, you already know all of this. You’ve already discussed it with your friends. You’ve certainly wondered what would happen if the mainstream media suddenly stopped attending to Donald Trump. Oh yes, I hadn’t mentioned his name until now, because why bother? You never had a doubt, did you? The Unthinkable My guess on the effect of such a withdrawal of coverage: He’d shrivel up and die. Your guess may be different, but it doesn’t matter because we’re clearly never going to find out. Even the recent presidential decision to take away CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass — with the doctored video of his behavior and all — after a distinctly abusive press conference (“I’ll tell you what: CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN”), was only the cause for yet another deluge of coverage. None of Acosta’s media compatriots, not even at CNN, decided, for instance, to protest by refusing to cover another White House event until he got that pass back, though CNN is suing the Trump administration. None of them evidently even seriously considered closing the door, shutting the gate, turning their backs on you-know-who. That clearly is 21st-century media version of thinking about the unthinkable. Honestly, who doesn’t talk about all this in the face of a presidency that’s in your face, all our faces, in a way that no other president, emperor, king, autocrat, dictator, movie star, celebrity or — feel free to fill in whatever I haven’t thought of here — has ever before been. His every phrase, tweet, complaint, bit of praise, parenthetical comment, angry snit, insult, or even policy decision is reported, discussed, gnawed on, considered, reconsidered, yakked about nonstop, hour after hour after endless hour, reshown in clip after repetitive clip. This is, in short, a unique historical experience of ours and ours alone. How could we not talk about it all the time? Oh wait! Oddly enough, in case you hadn’t noticed, there’s one place where it’s barely talked about at all, where silence largely reigns, and to my mind that couldn’t be stranger. Here’s the only catch in the non-stop coverage of Donald J. Trump (2015 to 2018 and beyond): That same mainstream media that can’t get enough of him, that eats up and gnaws on his every odd phrase, gesture, act or passing thought is essentially silent on only one thing — the coverage itself. The most obvious subject in the world — not him, but the thing that keeps him going, that keeps the whole ship of state more or less afloat at this point — the unprecedented focus on him just doesn’t seem to be a subject fit for significant coverage, even though it’s a commonplace in our conversations out here in what still passes for the real world. We may regularly roll our eyes, but the mainstream media programmatically never does. Not in public anyway. And as was true from the beginning of the Trump era, from The New York Times and Politico to The Atlantic magazine, media outfits have hired yet more people to cover — well, Donald Trump (and not just from Washington either) and ploughed right on. But do they cover themselves? Hardly. Media critics inside those mainstream companies have become an ever rarer species. The New York Times, for instance, let go of its “public editor” in May 2017 and left it to perhaps random tweeters to handle how the paper was covering anything. And that’s been typical. Or put another way: There’s really only one media critic left in the mainstream world — and you know just who he is! (A typical tweeted comment of his: “A very big part of the Anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News. It has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. Mainstream Media must clean up its act, FAST!”) And sometimes that criticism couldn’t be more personal. (“Loser,” he recently called White House reporter April Ryan. “What a stupid question that is,” he said to CNN’s Abby Phillip. “What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot, you ask a lot of stupid questions.”) I’m referring, of course, to America’s media-critic-in-chief now in residence in Washington, DC, when, of course, he isn’t out in the provinces getting a little love from his adoring “base” in those endless rallies for the midterm elections and, of course, the ones for the 2020 campaign, which began long ago. And naturally enough, the “fake news” reporters can’t cover those rallies enough or discuss them and what he says at them more often. But again, there’s one catch, one lacuna, in all this. They almost never cover Donald J. Trump’s rally of rallies in that same analytical and dissecting fashion. I’m thinking, of course, of the rallies that truly keep him going, and by that I mean his endless set of interactions with — yep, the media. After all, without being eternally in their glowing spotlight, without that endless coverage of everything him, what would he be? The Media Critic-in-Chief In a sense, those hordes of reporters crowding into his world are his most adoring fans (even if many of them may loathe him personally). They may not literally bathe him in love (as his fans in those stadiums do), but they certainly bathe him in what he loves most, what clearly keeps him up and running — attention. And from each of those media “rallies” of his, however small, however impromptu, however angry or insulting, no matter the nature of the words exchanged, he clearly comes away feeling clean as a new born babe (though they perhaps feel dirty as, well, who knows what). It may not be a love affair, but it certainly is an affair to remember. And despite the fact that his official news conferences may be rare, he manages to meet the press (to use a thoroughly outmoded phrase) constantly and in ways too numerous to mention. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that he’s taken more questions from reporters — even if he’s regularly mangled and shredded them — than all our recent presidents (except that other classic narcissist, Bill Clinton). Being the canny self-promoter that he is, Donald Trump knows the value of those exchanges, no matter their nature. He knows that the specifics of what the media may write or say about him matter remarkably little, as long as they cover him in this totalistic fashion, as long as they never stop bathing him in his own ultimate form of glory. They are, as he would be the first to tell you, his “earned media.” In fact, just the other day at his post-election news conference, he had this little exchange with a reporter: “Q: Mr. President, first off, I personally think it’s very good to have you here because a free press and this type of engagement—” “The President: I do, too. Actually? I do, too.” “Q: Yes. It’s vital to democracy.” “The President: It’s called ‘earned media.’ It’s worth billions. Go ahead.” Let’s be clear: Donald Trump is no fool. He knows that he’s got not just a knack but the knack for accruing “earned media” — that is, unpaid for publicity and advertising. Estimates were that he got a staggering $5.6 billion of it during his 2015-2016 election campaign and, exactly as he implied in that knowing aside, it’s never ended. And yes, it is “vital” to him, if not to “democracy.” Think of him, in fact, as President Earned Media. Since we are talking about a mutual affair, however, the opposite is also true: Donald Trump is the media’s version of, at the risk of being completely repetitious, earned media. No one’s put it better than former CBS head Leslie Moonves — recently taken down by the #MeToo moment — during the 2016 election campaign. “It may not be good for America,” he said, “but it’s damn good for CBS.” He added, “The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this [is] going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald. Keep going.” And, as we all know, Donald did. Keep in mind that the media had been thrown into chaos and confusion by the growth of the online world of the internet, as many news businesses faltered and staff cuts were widespread. How convenient, then, to stumble upon such genuine human clickbait, someone on whom you could focus your attention so relatively cheaply and profitably. So much for covering the world, a distinctly expensive proposition. Talk about bargain basement candidacies and presidencies. From the moment he descended that escalator in Trump Tower in June 2015, Donald Trump became the media equivalent of a freebie — someone viewers and readers just couldn’t help watching, hearing about, reading about. It was like stumbling on a gold mine in the desert. As it turned out, Americans were indeed ready to have the talking heads of CNN (now the president’s eternal punching bag), MSNBC and Fox News yammer on hour after hour, day after day about him and only him. It was, in its own way, a genuine miracle for news companies that had found themselves up against the wall, and it couldn’t have been more real, or — as, at some level, Donald Trump himself grasped — more fake. Quite A Performance Put it all together and you can understand how a major Trump rally — oops, I mean that post-election news conference of his — actually worked. But first let me take a moment, in truly Trumpian fashion, to thank myself on your behalf. Like you, I watched clips of that news conference. Then I did all of you a favour and actually read the whole 17,000-plus words of it, one hour and 26 minutes worth of his and their words, so you wouldn’t have to. And believe me, it was quite a performance as the president called on or ignored reporters desperate to get his attention, insulted them, spoke with them, spoke against them, spoke over them (“We are a hot country. This is a hot White House”), spoke around them, described them (“I come in here as a nice person wanting to answer questions and I have people jumping out of there seats, screaming questions at me”), wandered away from them, wandered away from himself, ignored or didn’t answer their questions, was incoherent for significant stretches of time, or couldn’t even hold onto a thought. And by the way, the reporters there more than matched him (“One, I was tempted to ask you why you like Oprah so much, but I think I’ll go on to the question that”), blow for blowhard (“Based off of that, how would you say, over the last two years, God plays — what kind of a factor He plays in the day-to-day execution of the Office of the Presidency?”). Read the whole thing and you’d have to be struck — even by the less-than-soaring standards of past presidential news conferences — by how little (with a bow to Gertrude Stein) there there actually was there. The president’s incoherence was remarkably well matched by the dreariness of the generally expectable, largely thought-free questions he was asked on a limited set of topics. As always, though, there were those Trumpian moments that aren’t likely to leave your head soon thereafter. There was, for instance, the exchange in which the president called on PBS’s Yamiche Alcindor, a relatively rare black reporter in that room. She began her question this way, “On the campaign trail, you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists. Now people are also saying…” At that point, the president promptly interrupted to respond: “I don’t know why you’d say that. That’s such a racist question.” (Something he’d then repeat twice more.) The pure chutzpah of that response should have taken anyone’s breath away, but it was also a reminder of the strange sense of freedom Trump feels to say anything in the presence of the media, including mocking or insulting three black female reporters at that news conference. And this can only happen again and again and again. It’s hard not to feel that we are all now eternally watching two sets of addicts who simply can’t exist without or get enough of each other. Toward the end of that news conference, one of the reporters began a question (also focused on white nationalism) this way: “Thank you, sir. And I think we’d all love to have more of these, if you’re willing…” It tells us so much about our 21st-century Trumpian world that anyone in that press corps would wish for more of the same. I have a feeling that somewhere in all of this someone, maybe Bob Mueller, should indict all of them for fraud. In the meantime, the rest of us remain in a world wallpapered with Donald Trump, a world in which the fake news media, which is his truest “base,” just can’t get enough of him. (The author is co-founder of the American Empire Project and runs TomDispatch.com) (This article was originally published on Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Donald Trump and the Media: A match made in hell?

us-1

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

us 1