The United States has decided to curb military support and other aid programs to Cambodia owing to recent &quot;democratic setbacks&quot; faced by the country. 
&nbsp; 
&quot;Recent setbacks to democracy in Cambodia, however, caused us deep concern, including Senate elections on February 25 that failed to represent the genuine will of the Cambodian people,&quot; the White House said.

The official statement from the Trump administration noted that it was &quot;suspending or curtailing&quot; several programmes to Cambodia including USAID, military assistance and treasury aid among others due to the ongoing instability in the nation.

The aid cut is likely to affect Cambodia&#39;s military and taxation department among others. The White House will continue to extend its support to Cambodia&#39;s healthcare and agriculture.&nbsp;

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp;

The Trump administration noted that it was "suspending or curtailing" several programmes to Cambodia

The United States has decided to curb military support and other aid programs to Cambodia owing to recent "democratic setbacks" faced by the country. "Recent setbacks to democracy in Cambodia, however, caused us deep concern, including Senate elections on February 25 that failed to represent the genuine will of the Cambodian people," the White House said. The official statement from the Trump administration noted that it was "suspending or curtailing" several programmes to Cambodia including USAID, military assistance and treasury aid among others due to the ongoing instability in the nation. The aid cut is likely to affect Cambodia's military and taxation department among others. The White House will continue to extend its support to Cambodia's healthcare and agriculture. (With inputs from Reuters)

US cuts aid, military support to Cambodia

The United States pressed Russia on Monday to use its &quot;influence&quot; to secure an &quot;immediate&quot; full-fledged halt to a bloody offensive in Syria&#39;s rebel-held enclave of Eastern Ghouta.

&quot;The Syrian regime, and its Russian and Iranian backers, continue to attack East Ghouta, a densely populated suburb of Damascus, despite the ceasefire called for by the United Nations Security Council,&quot; State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert tweeted.

&quot;The regime claims it is fighting terrorists, but is instead terrorizing hundreds of thousands of civilians with airstrikes, artillery, rockets, and a looming ground attack. The regime&rsquo;s use of chlorine gas as a weapon only intensifies the misery of the civilian population.

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/syrias-ghouta-russia-orders-daily-5-hour-truce-34166" target="_blank">Russia orders daily 5-hour truce</a>

&quot;#Russia has the influence to stop these operations if it chooses to live up to its obligations under the #UNSC ceasefire,&quot; she added, referring to a Security Council resolution for a 30-day truce that has been a dead letter since it was passed on Saturday.

&quot;The United States calls for an immediate end to offensive operations and urgent access for humanitarian workers to treat the wounded and deliver badly needed humanitarian aid.&quot;

'#Russia has the influence to stop these operations (in Ghouta) if it chooses to live up to its obligations under the #UNSC ceasefire,' State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert tweeted

The United States pressed Russia on Monday to use its "influence" to secure an "immediate" full-fledged halt to a bloody offensive in Syria's rebel-held enclave of Eastern Ghouta. "The Syrian regime, and its Russian and Iranian backers, continue to attack East Ghouta, a densely populated suburb of Damascus, despite the ceasefire called for by the United Nations Security Council," State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert tweeted. "The regime claims it is fighting terrorists, but is instead terrorizing hundreds of thousands of civilians with airstrikes, artillery, rockets, and a looming ground attack. The regime’s use of chlorine gas as a weapon only intensifies the misery of the civilian population. Also read: Russia orders daily 5-hour truce "#Russia has the influence to stop these operations if it chooses to live up to its obligations under the #UNSC ceasefire," she added, referring to a Security Council resolution for a 30-day truce that has been a dead letter since it was passed on Saturday. "The United States calls for an immediate end to offensive operations and urgent access for humanitarian workers to treat the wounded and deliver badly needed humanitarian aid."

US urges Russia to use 'influence' to stop Syria offensive

Russia vetoed Monday a UN draft resolution presented by Britain and strongly backed by the United States that would have pressured Iran over its failure to block supplies of missiles to Yemen`s Huthi rebels.

Britain had sought to include in the measure renewing sanctions on Yemen an expression of &quot;particular concern&quot; from the Security Council over a UN report that found Iran had violated the 2015 arms embargo on Yemen.

The report by a UN panel of experts in January concluded that Iran was in violation after determining that missiles fired by the Huthis at Saudi Arabia last year were made in Iran.

The text, which was backed by France, other European countries and Kuwait, won 11 favorable votes at the 15-member Security Council but was blocked by Russia`s veto.&nbsp;

China and Kazakhstan abstained, while Bolivia also voted against the measure.

Nine votes and no vetoes from the five permanent council members -- Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States -- are required to adopt resolutions at the Security Council.

After hours of negotiations in a bid to reach a compromise, Russia made clear it had strong reservations about the findings of the UN report and would not support a draft resolution that mentioned them.

&quot;We cannot concur with uncorroborated conclusions and evidence which requires verification and discussions within the sanctions committee,&quot; Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told the council.

While the report found that Tehran had violated the embargo by failing to block the shipments, the experts said they were unable to identify the supplier.

Nebenzia warned that taking aim at Iran could have had &quot;dangerous destabilising ramifications&quot; in the Middle East by exacerbating tensions between Shiites and Sunnis.

After the veto, the council unanimously adopted a Russian-drafted measure that extended for one year the sanctions regime against Yemen, but that text made no mention of Iran.Iran has repeatedly denied arming the Huthis in Yemen, despite claims by the United States and Saudi Arabia that the evidence of an arms connection is irrefutable.

US Ambassador Nikki Haley released a statement accusing Russia of shielding Iran and warned the United States would consider other ways to take action against Tehran.

&quot;Today, Russia protected the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Iran,&quot; said Haley, who was traveling to Honduras.

&quot;If Russia is going to use its veto to block action against Iran`s dangerous and destabilizing conduct, then the United States and our partners will need to take actions against Iran that the Russians cannot block.&quot;

Haley has taken a hawkish stance on Iran, accusing Tehran of sowing instability in the Middle East and failing to live up to its commitments under the landmark 2015 nuclear deal.

Russia, which has traditionally friendly relations with Iran, is providing military support along with Tehran to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad`s forces.

Iran`s mission to the United Nations charged that the United States and Britain had pushed an &quot;unwarranted draft resolution&quot; to advance an anti-Iran political agenda.

Iran &quot;categorically rejects allegations regarding arms transfer to Yemen,&quot; said a statement from the mission that described the draft resolution as an attempt to &quot;distract&quot; the world`s attention from the &quot;catastrophic humanitarian situation&quot; in Yemen.

A Saudi-led coalition supporting Yemen`s government has been fighting the Huthis since 2015 in a war that has led to what the United Nations describes as the world`s worst humanitarian crisis.

An alarming 17 million people in Yemen -- 60 per cent of the total population -- are in need of food aid, of whom seven million are on the brink of famine because of the conflict, according to the United Nations.

After hours of negotiations in a bid to reach a compromise, Russia made clear it had strong reservations about the findings of the UN report and would not support a draft resolution that mentioned them

Russia vetoed Monday a UN draft resolution presented by Britain and strongly backed by the United States that would have pressured Iran over its failure to block supplies of missiles to Yemen`s Huthi rebels. Britain had sought to include in the measure renewing sanctions on Yemen an expression of "particular concern" from the Security Council over a UN report that found Iran had violated the 2015 arms embargo on Yemen. The report by a UN panel of experts in January concluded that Iran was in violation after determining that missiles fired by the Huthis at Saudi Arabia last year were made in Iran. The text, which was backed by France, other European countries and Kuwait, won 11 favorable votes at the 15-member Security Council but was blocked by Russia`s veto. China and Kazakhstan abstained, while Bolivia also voted against the measure. Nine votes and no vetoes from the five permanent council members -- Britain, France, China, Russia and the United States -- are required to adopt resolutions at the Security Council. After hours of negotiations in a bid to reach a compromise, Russia made clear it had strong reservations about the findings of the UN report and would not support a draft resolution that mentioned them. "We cannot concur with uncorroborated conclusions and evidence which requires verification and discussions within the sanctions committee," Russian Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told the council. While the report found that Tehran had violated the embargo by failing to block the shipments, the experts said they were unable to identify the supplier. Nebenzia warned that taking aim at Iran could have had "dangerous destabilising ramifications" in the Middle East by exacerbating tensions between Shiites and Sunnis. After the veto, the council unanimously adopted a Russian-drafted measure that extended for one year the sanctions regime against Yemen, but that text made no mention of Iran.Iran has repeatedly denied arming the Huthis in Yemen, despite claims by the United States and Saudi Arabia that the evidence of an arms connection is irrefutable. US Ambassador Nikki Haley released a statement accusing Russia of shielding Iran and warned the United States would consider other ways to take action against Tehran. "Today, Russia protected the terrorist-sponsoring regime in Iran," said Haley, who was traveling to Honduras. "If Russia is going to use its veto to block action against Iran`s dangerous and destabilizing conduct, then the United States and our partners will need to take actions against Iran that the Russians cannot block." Haley has taken a hawkish stance on Iran, accusing Tehran of sowing instability in the Middle East and failing to live up to its commitments under the landmark 2015 nuclear deal. Russia, which has traditionally friendly relations with Iran, is providing military support along with Tehran to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad`s forces. Iran`s mission to the United Nations charged that the United States and Britain had pushed an "unwarranted draft resolution" to advance an anti-Iran political agenda. Iran "categorically rejects allegations regarding arms transfer to Yemen," said a statement from the mission that described the draft resolution as an attempt to "distract" the world`s attention from the "catastrophic humanitarian situation" in Yemen. A Saudi-led coalition supporting Yemen`s government has been fighting the Huthis since 2015 in a war that has led to what the United Nations describes as the world`s worst humanitarian crisis. An alarming 17 million people in Yemen -- 60 per cent of the total population -- are in need of food aid, of whom seven million are on the brink of famine because of the conflict, according to the United Nations.

Russia vetoes Western bid at UN to pressure Iran over Yemen

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/south-korea-brings-curtain-down-on-peace-games-34040">closing ceremony</a> of the 2018 Winter Olympics Games got underway on Sunday.&nbsp;Officials from both North Korea and the United States&nbsp;attended both the closing and opening ceremonies. The daughter of US President Donald Trump and senior Whitehouse adviser, Ivanka Trump also attended the mega event besides&nbsp;South Korean President Moon Jae-in.&nbsp;The Games opened on February 9 and were the biggest Winter Olympics of all time, with 2,920 athletes competing for a record 102 gold medals.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/south-korea-brings-curtain-down-on-peace-games-34040">The Peace Games&nbsp;ended</a> with an unexpected diplomacy between host nation South Korea and its estranged neighbours in the North.

Both the Koreas made a history and entered&nbsp;the Games by forming a joint women ice hockey team - a diplomatic accomplishment that could signal an enduring thaw between the rivals.

When it comes to medal tally that Norway emerged as a champion and topped the final medal tally with 14 golds ahead of Germany, which also had 14 gold but fewer medals in all. Canada was third with 11 golds. Hosts South Korea was seventh.

Russian athletes were to march into the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/south-korea-brings-curtain-down-on-peace-games-34040">closing ceremony</a> under a neutral flag after a ban on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/russia-again-suffers-doping-allegations-here-is-history-of-russian-doping-scandal-33344">Russia&#39;s Olympic</a> committee was upheld on Sunday following a mass <a href="http://www.wionews.com/sports/russia-again-suffers-doping-allegations-here-is-history-of-russian-doping-scandal-33344">doping scandal</a>.

Thousands departed the Pyeongchang Olympic stadium on Sunday night after watching the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics.

One of the fans said, &quot;I think the closing is different feeling and it&#39;s a celebration of the conclusion of this sport. So, it&#39;s time for athletes to come and be recognised. It&#39;s very nice and very appropriate.&quot;

Another fan shared his emotions and said, &quot;Wonderful, just absolutely wonderful, everything. It&#39;s very organised. Just fabulous and fantastic.&quot;

&quot;My feeling was really good. I think especially when South and North Korea, they came together (to participate winter Olympics), I think it&#39;s a good opportunity to be together and then to prepare the unification between South and North Korea and to protect the Asian security and the world peace,&quot; one fan praised the political and diplomatical advancement in both the rival nations.

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="videos-block">
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9"><iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Sg1v03s0hFY"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
23rd edition of Winter Games concluded on February 25 bringing to end of the competition in 15 winter sports (AFP)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

The closing ceremony for the 2018 Winter Olympic Games took place in Pyeongchang on Sunday

The closing ceremony of the 2018 Winter Olympics Games got underway on Sunday. Officials from both North Korea and the United States attended both the closing and opening ceremonies. The daughter of US President Donald Trump and senior Whitehouse adviser, Ivanka Trump also attended the mega event besides South Korean President Moon Jae-in. The Games opened on February 9 and were the biggest Winter Olympics of all time, with 2,920 athletes competing for a record 102 gold medals. The Peace Games ended with an unexpected diplomacy between host nation South Korea and its estranged neighbours in the North. Both the Koreas made a history and entered the Games by forming a joint women ice hockey team - a diplomatic accomplishment that could signal an enduring thaw between the rivals. When it comes to medal tally that Norway emerged as a champion and topped the final medal tally with 14 golds ahead of Germany, which also had 14 gold but fewer medals in all. Canada was third with 11 golds. Hosts South Korea was seventh. Russian athletes were to march into the closing ceremony under a neutral flag after a ban on Russia's Olympic committee was upheld on Sunday following a mass doping scandal. Thousands departed the Pyeongchang Olympic stadium on Sunday night after watching the closing ceremony of the Winter Olympics. One of the fans said, "I think the closing is different feeling and it's a celebration of the conclusion of this sport. So, it's time for athletes to come and be recognised. It's very nice and very appropriate." Another fan shared his emotions and said, "Wonderful, just absolutely wonderful, everything. It's very organised. Just fabulous and fantastic." "My feeling was really good. I think especially when South and North Korea, they came together (to participate winter Olympics), I think it's a good opportunity to be together and then to prepare the unification between South and North Korea and to protect the Asian security and the world peace," one fan praised the political and diplomatical advancement in both the rival nations. 23rd edition of Winter Games concluded on February 25 bringing to end of the competition in 15 winter sports (AFP) ×

Watch: Pyeongchang Winter Olympics ends with fireworks; Norway, Germany finish on top

The United States is seeking to have the United Nations ban 33 vessels from ports worldwide and blacklist 27 shipping businesses for helping North Korea circumvent sanctions.

The US request to a UN sanctions committee, came as President Donald Trump announced Friday the &quot;heaviest sanctions ever&quot; on North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile tests.

Japan joined the United States in supporting the request concerning three of the 33 vessels for carrying out ship-to-ship transfers of oil destined for North Korea in violation of UN resolutions.

Council members have until Friday at 3:00 pm to raise objections to the proposed sanctions.

The measures will come into effect if none of the council members, including the North&#39;s ally China, block the request.

Only eight vessels have so far been banned from ports for sanctions-busting and the US request would significantly expand the blacklist in a bid to cripple North Korea&#39;s maritime network.

Last year, the Security Council adopted a series of resolutions to ban North Korean exports of commodities in a bid to cut off revenue to North Korea&#39;s military programs.

The measures severely restrict deliveries of oil and refined petroleum products to North Korea, but a recent report by a UN panel of experts found that Pyongyang was flouting sanctions.

North Korea earned $200 million in revenue last year from exports of coal, iron, steel and other banned commodities, the report said.

The United States and Japan are strong backers of sanctions as a way to pressure Pyongyang to come to the negotiating table and end its drive to develop nuclear weapons.

The US request to a UN sanctions committee, came as President Donald Trump announced Friday the 'heaviest sanctions ever' on North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile tests

The United States is seeking to have the United Nations ban 33 vessels from ports worldwide and blacklist 27 shipping businesses for helping North Korea circumvent sanctions. The US request to a UN sanctions committee, came as President Donald Trump announced Friday the "heaviest sanctions ever" on North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile tests. Japan joined the United States in supporting the request concerning three of the 33 vessels for carrying out ship-to-ship transfers of oil destined for North Korea in violation of UN resolutions. Council members have until Friday at 3:00 pm to raise objections to the proposed sanctions. The measures will come into effect if none of the council members, including the North's ally China, block the request. Only eight vessels have so far been banned from ports for sanctions-busting and the US request would significantly expand the blacklist in a bid to cripple North Korea's maritime network. Last year, the Security Council adopted a series of resolutions to ban North Korean exports of commodities in a bid to cut off revenue to North Korea's military programs. The measures severely restrict deliveries of oil and refined petroleum products to North Korea, but a recent report by a UN panel of experts found that Pyongyang was flouting sanctions. North Korea earned $200 million in revenue last year from exports of coal, iron, steel and other banned commodities, the report said. The United States and Japan are strong backers of sanctions as a way to pressure Pyongyang to come to the negotiating table and end its drive to develop nuclear weapons.

US seeks UN ban on 33 ships, 27 firms over North Korea smuggling

Days after the United States office reported that North Korea cancelled a planned meeting with US Vice President Mike Pence at the last minute, fresh reports emerged that now Pyongyang is willing to hold dialogue.

According to Seoul&#39;s presidential Blue House, North Korea is willing to hold talks with the United States, its delegation to the Winter Olympics closing ceremony said on Sunday.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
South Korea&rsquo;s presidential office says &#39;North Korea open to talks with United States&#39;: South Korean media reports <a href="https://t.co/FbIpLFR84X">pic.twitter.com/FbIpLFR84X</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/967727411637886977?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 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">&times;</a></div>

In a meeting with the South&#39;s President Moon Jae-in, the North&#39;s delegation &quot;agreed that inter-Korea talks and North-US relations should improve together&quot;.

Pyongyang has frequently said it is willing to talk without preconditions, but Washington says it must first take concrete steps towards denuclearisation.

Earlier, North Korea cancelled a scheduled meeting with US VP Mike Pence

Days after the United States office reported that North Korea cancelled a planned meeting with US Vice President Mike Pence at the last minute, fresh reports emerged that now Pyongyang is willing to hold dialogue. According to Seoul's presidential Blue House, North Korea is willing to hold talks with the United States, its delegation to the Winter Olympics closing ceremony said on Sunday. South Korea’s presidential office says 'North Korea open to talks with United States': South Korean media reports pic.twitter.com/FbIpLFR84X — ANI (@ANI) February 25, 2018 × In a meeting with the South's President Moon Jae-in, the North's delegation "agreed that inter-Korea talks and North-US relations should improve together". Pyongyang has frequently said it is willing to talk without preconditions, but Washington says it must first take concrete steps towards denuclearisation.

North Korea willing to hold talks with US, says Seoul

US President Donald Trump has said that ties with China have improved, but also warned that the relationship could be derailed over trade disputes as Beijing is &quot;absolutely killing us&quot; on this.

The Trump administration has threatened tough action against China including punitive tariffs, sanctions and even a trade war.

Tensions have escalated between Beijing and Washington in recent months, with China reporting a record $275.8 billion trade surplus with the US, contrary to Trump&#39;s goal to narrow the US trade deficit with China.

&quot;I have to say, we&#39;ve developed a great relationship with China, other than the fact that they&#39;ve been killing us on trade for the last long period of time... killing us, absolutely killing the United States on trade. But we have developed a great relationship with China; probably closer than we&#39;ve ever had,&quot; Trump told reporters at a joint White House news conference.

Trump said his personal relationship with President Xi Jinping is quite extraordinary.

&quot;He&#39;s somebody that I like and I think he likes me. With that being said, he likes China and I like the United States. But a lot of things are happening. It&#39;s going to be a very interesting period of time,&quot; he said.&nbsp;

But his administration, he asserted, has to straighten out the trade imbalance with China, he said. &quot;So much (trade imbalance), it&#39;s no good,&quot; he said.

China, he conceded, is tough and getting stronger. &quot;They&#39;re getting stronger, to a large extent, with a lot of the money they&#39;ve made from having poor leadership in the US, because the US leadership has allowed them to get away with murder,&quot; he said.

&quot;With that being said, I think we can have a truly great, even trading relationship with China. Hopefully, that&#39;s going to work out. And hopefully, the relationship I have with President Xi will make that happen. Only time will tell,&quot; he noted.

According to Trump, trade is the only thing that comes between having a better relationship with China.

&quot;The only thing that can get in its way is the trade because it&#39;s so one-sided, it&#39;s so lopsided. And the people that stood here for many years, in this position, right where I am right now, should never have allowed that to happen. It&#39;s very unfair to the United States, and it&#39;s very unfair to the workers of the United States. Very, very unfair,&quot; he rued.&nbsp;

&quot;Even today, it&#39;s extremely hard for companies that want to do business in China, because the barriers are incredible, whereas the barriers coming into our country are foolishly not. Foolishly. I believe in reciprocal trade. If they do something to us, we do something to them,&quot; he said.

&quot;Well, that never happened, and it&#39;s gotten worse and worse over the years. But we&#39;ll correct it. That can be the only thing that can get in the way of a truly long-term great relationship. Because we have all the ingredients for friendship,&quot; said the US President.

The US Commerce Department recently recommended imposing heavy tariffs on China and other countries to counter a global glut in steel and aluminium.

Beijing has warned it could take retaliatory action if necessary.&nbsp;

China reporting a record $275.8 billion trade surplus with the US, contrary to Trump's goal to narrow the US trade deficit with China

US President Donald Trump has said that ties with China have improved, but also warned that the relationship could be derailed over trade disputes as Beijing is "absolutely killing us" on this. The Trump administration has threatened tough action against China including punitive tariffs, sanctions and even a trade war. Tensions have escalated between Beijing and Washington in recent months, with China reporting a record $275.8 billion trade surplus with the US, contrary to Trump's goal to narrow the US trade deficit with China. "I have to say, we've developed a great relationship with China, other than the fact that they've been killing us on trade for the last long period of time... killing us, absolutely killing the United States on trade. But we have developed a great relationship with China; probably closer than we've ever had," Trump told reporters at a joint White House news conference. Trump said his personal relationship with President Xi Jinping is quite extraordinary. "He's somebody that I like and I think he likes me. With that being said, he likes China and I like the United States. But a lot of things are happening. It's going to be a very interesting period of time," he said. But his administration, he asserted, has to straighten out the trade imbalance with China, he said. "So much (trade imbalance), it's no good," he said. China, he conceded, is tough and getting stronger. "They're getting stronger, to a large extent, with a lot of the money they've made from having poor leadership in the US, because the US leadership has allowed them to get away with murder," he said. "With that being said, I think we can have a truly great, even trading relationship with China. Hopefully, that's going to work out. And hopefully, the relationship I have with President Xi will make that happen. Only time will tell," he noted. According to Trump, trade is the only thing that comes between having a better relationship with China. "The only thing that can get in its way is the trade because it's so one-sided, it's so lopsided. And the people that stood here for many years, in this position, right where I am right now, should never have allowed that to happen. It's very unfair to the United States, and it's very unfair to the workers of the United States. Very, very unfair," he rued. "Even today, it's extremely hard for companies that want to do business in China, because the barriers are incredible, whereas the barriers coming into our country are foolishly not. Foolishly. I believe in reciprocal trade. If they do something to us, we do something to them," he said. "Well, that never happened, and it's gotten worse and worse over the years. But we'll correct it. That can be the only thing that can get in the way of a truly long-term great relationship. Because we have all the ingredients for friendship," said the US President. The US Commerce Department recently recommended imposing heavy tariffs on China and other countries to counter a global glut in steel and aluminium. Beijing has warned it could take retaliatory action if necessary.

China absolutely killing US on trade says US president Trump

Oil slipped to $66 a barrel on Friday, under pressure from concerns that rising US&nbsp;oil output and exports will offset OPEC-led attempts to erode stockpiles with output curbs.

US&nbsp;oil production last week was 10.27 million barrels per day, a record level if confirmed by monthly figures. Crude exports jumped to more than 2 million bpd, close to a record high of 2.1 million hit in October.

&quot;The US&nbsp;is pumping out a record amount of oil,&quot; said Naeem Aslam, chief market analyst at Think Markets UK Ltd.

&quot;The bull rally which we have seen for the black gold could fade away as the US&nbsp;oil production undermines the OPEC production cut commitments,&quot; he said.

Brent crude, the global benchmark, was down 34 cents at $66.05 at 0934 GMT. Prices had rallied in early 2018 and reached $71.28 on January 25, the highest since December 2014.

US&nbsp;crude fell 27 cents to $62.50.&nbsp;

Oil also slipped as the US&nbsp;dollar strengthened. A stronger dollar can make oil and other commodities denominated in the US&nbsp;currency more expensive for other currency holders.&nbsp;

The latest decline for crude came despite the US&nbsp;Energy Information Administration reporting on Wednesday that crude stocks fell unexpectedly by 1.6 million barrels. Analysts said low import figures contributed to the decline.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is not outwardly worried by rising in US&nbsp;output and says it is comfortable at the speed the market is moving towards balance.

&quot;I think the pace is excellent, the deal is working and we&#39;re very happy with it,&quot; United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail al-Mazroui, the current OPEC president, told Reuters on Wednesday. &quot;But the job is not yet complete.&quot;

In January 2017, OPEC and allies including Russia began to cut production by about 1.8 million bpd, almost 2 percent of global supply, to get rid of a glut that had built up since 2014 and that led to a price collapse.

OPEC wants to reduce oil inventories held by industrialised nations to their five-year average and is getting closer to that goal, although officials are starting to talk about looking at different metrics.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

US oil production last week was 10.27 million barrels per day, a record level if confirmed by monthly figures

Oil slipped to $66 a barrel on Friday, under pressure from concerns that rising US oil output and exports will offset OPEC-led attempts to erode stockpiles with output curbs. US oil production last week was 10.27 million barrels per day, a record level if confirmed by monthly figures. Crude exports jumped to more than 2 million bpd, close to a record high of 2.1 million hit in October. "The US is pumping out a record amount of oil," said Naeem Aslam, chief market analyst at Think Markets UK Ltd. "The bull rally which we have seen for the black gold could fade away as the US oil production undermines the OPEC production cut commitments," he said. Brent crude, the global benchmark, was down 34 cents at $66.05 at 0934 GMT. Prices had rallied in early 2018 and reached $71.28 on January 25, the highest since December 2014. US crude fell 27 cents to $62.50. Oil also slipped as the US dollar strengthened. A stronger dollar can make oil and other commodities denominated in the US currency more expensive for other currency holders. The latest decline for crude came despite the US Energy Information Administration reporting on Wednesday that crude stocks fell unexpectedly by 1.6 million barrels. Analysts said low import figures contributed to the decline. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries is not outwardly worried by rising in US output and says it is comfortable at the speed the market is moving towards balance. "I think the pace is excellent, the deal is working and we're very happy with it," United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail al-Mazroui, the current OPEC president, told Reuters on Wednesday. "But the job is not yet complete." In January 2017, OPEC and allies including Russia began to cut production by about 1.8 million bpd, almost 2 percent of global supply, to get rid of a glut that had built up since 2014 and that led to a price collapse. OPEC wants to reduce oil inventories held by industrialised nations to their five-year average and is getting closer to that goal, although officials are starting to talk about looking at different metrics.

Oil slips to $66 a barrel as US output offsets OPEC curbs

Till 1974, the reputation of United States Dollar as a global currency was not so established. It was considered at par with Japanese Yen and Pound Sterling. However, an oil pact between Saudi Arabia and the US changed the entire scenario and made US Dollar as the most dominating world currency as on date.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Today, out of over 700 Billion Dollar of global oil trade, more than 95% happens in US Dollar and every country desirous of buying oil from its producers, such as ex-Russian Federation countries, Middle East or Latin America must first accumulate its dollars.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

China has strong reasons to start this initiative as they import over 18% of the world oil and, in the last one decade itself, their crude oil requirements have risen by more than 235%. In 2010, China used to import little less than 4 million barrels of crude oil a day which is now touching over 9.5 million barrels per day, currently the highest in the world. This trend is likely to continue as China is primarily a manufacturing based economy and crude oil is an essential item for them. Being the biggest importer and considering the current global scenario where China is engaged in a kind of muscle flexing with the United States, Dragon is trying to work out new ways to reduce its dependence on the US Currency.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

As per recent reports, China is planning to cover its future oil contracts under &ldquo;Shanghai International Energy Exchange Program&rdquo; and going to launch it on 26th March 2018. The &ldquo;Shanghai International Energy Exchange Program&rdquo; is named by its acronym INE and will include seven kinds of global crude oils. These are primarily from the Middle East and almost all Chinese companies are expected to use INE for their purchase of oil from that region.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It will help Chinese buyers to lock the future oil prices and pay in their local currency, giving an answer to Uncle Sam by pitching of Petro-Yuan against Petro- Dollar. The most important part of the Chinese strategy is that they have located this &ldquo;Shanghai International Energy Exchange Program&rdquo; in their Free Trade Zone which will facilitate foreign traders also to invest.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It did not come suddenly but China had been preparing for it since long. Recently, some of the global economies decided to keep Chinese Yuan in their foreign currency stockpile after IMF decided to designate Chinese Yuan as a global currency in 2015. The main agencies which are keeping Renminbi as forex reserve are Deutsche Bundesbank, the German Central Bank, European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) too. And recently our neighbour Pakistan also decided to make Yuan as a primary Foreign currency. But China has a long way to go. Currently, the share of Renminbi in the global forex reserves is just 1.08% with US Dollar dominating at 63.5% of all reserves. Euro is next with 20%.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In the current scenario, the use of Chinese Yuan is increasing rapidly due to their export-based economy and this is the main reason why China could take the initiative of launching Petro-Yuan. If we take the global trade, The Renminbi is third largest circulated currency in the world after US Dollar (39%) and Euro (33%) with 28% of the world trade. However, in case of crude and petroleum products, US Dollar is still strong with more than 95% of global trade happening through this.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

So, what is the Chinese stake In this? They have a long and ambitious plan for this. Let&rsquo;s see how China expects to be benefitted out of this:

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; Firstly, to dominate global oil market, China would promote its currency in global oil trade.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; Secondly, since it will involve future price trading and benchmarking, it will protect them from higher price surges and they will be able to affect global oil prices in the long term. As oil prices are rising once again, the biggest importer of oil will have the future assurance of prices.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; Thirdly, many Chinese industries are using a different kind of crude grades for their various applications. And, since, they are having different pricing for these types of crudes they can effectively benchmark the same in the international market and, hence, get benefitted.

&nbsp;

China&rsquo;s previous experience in this regard had been good. In 2015, when they endorsed Nickel as one of the community to be traded in Yuan, it crossed all benchmarks of London Metal Exchange within a short time span of six months. But the stakes are high this time.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

China was ready to launch their INE or &ldquo;Shanghai International Energy Exchange Program&rdquo; in 2016 itself but the sudden dip in global oil prices forced them to postpone this move and wait for a right opportunity. With the improvement in global oil index, they are ready to start it.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

So, who will participate in this program and make it a success?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; As mentioned earlier, China already has a sizeable share of global trade, including that with the oil-producing nations. China will try to replicate some of it in its energy exchange.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; Also, there are many countries like Pakistan who do import oil and are under the influence of China. They will certainly form part of the future trade in INE. Though the value will be small, it will give a push to the program.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; Chinese &lsquo;Belt and Road Initiative&rdquo; is aimed at connecting countries to create a Eurasian Trade corridor. Some of these countries, especially erstwhile Russian Federation, are producers and exporters of crude too. They are likely to join INE to form a syndicate against the global monopoly of US Dollar. Russia has already started by selling some part of its oil to China against Renminbi.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; For Middle Eastern countries who are still the biggest producers of oil, the risks caused by the dominance of United States will reduce. This resulted in the fall of global oil prices in the last few years.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&bull;&nbsp; &nbsp; Global oil traders see China as the fastest growing market for their oil products.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Analysts say unanimously that it is an ambitious start for China but it is a highly risky option, keeping in view of the volatility in the global oil trade. It may take years, if not decades, to even establish Renminbi as a global oil currency. Dollar is a fully established and stable currency and it is unlikely that oil traders will put their investments at stake for trying out new ventures.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The global oil market is controlled by the Middle Eastern countries and their reliance on the United States are much higher than China. Since the number of countries is small, the risks involving the prices are high and, last but not the least, breaking the monopoly of US Dollar is extremely difficult, especially where such unpredictable commodity is involved.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Analysts say unanimously that it is an ambitious start for China but it is a highly risky option, keeping in view of the volatility in the global oil trade.

Till 1974, the reputation of United States Dollar as a global currency was not so established. It was considered at par with Japanese Yen and Pound Sterling. However, an oil pact between Saudi Arabia and the US changed the entire scenario and made US Dollar as the most dominating world currency as on date. Today, out of over 700 Billion Dollar of global oil trade, more than 95% happens in US Dollar and every country desirous of buying oil from its producers, such as ex-Russian Federation countries, Middle East or Latin America must first accumulate its dollars. China has strong reasons to start this initiative as they import over 18% of the world oil and, in the last one decade itself, their crude oil requirements have risen by more than 235%. In 2010, China used to import little less than 4 million barrels of crude oil a day which is now touching over 9.5 million barrels per day, currently the highest in the world. This trend is likely to continue as China is primarily a manufacturing based economy and crude oil is an essential item for them. Being the biggest importer and considering the current global scenario where China is engaged in a kind of muscle flexing with the United States, Dragon is trying to work out new ways to reduce its dependence on the US Currency. As per recent reports, China is planning to cover its future oil contracts under “Shanghai International Energy Exchange Program” and going to launch it on 26th March 2018. The “Shanghai International Energy Exchange Program” is named by its acronym INE and will include seven kinds of global crude oils. These are primarily from the Middle East and almost all Chinese companies are expected to use INE for their purchase of oil from that region. It will help Chinese buyers to lock the future oil prices and pay in their local currency, giving an answer to Uncle Sam by pitching of Petro-Yuan against Petro- Dollar. The most important part of the Chinese strategy is that they have located this “Shanghai International Energy Exchange Program” in their Free Trade Zone which will facilitate foreign traders also to invest. It did not come suddenly but China had been preparing for it since long. Recently, some of the global economies decided to keep Chinese Yuan in their foreign currency stockpile after IMF decided to designate Chinese Yuan as a global currency in 2015. The main agencies which are keeping Renminbi as forex reserve are Deutsche Bundesbank, the German Central Bank, European Central Bank (ECB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF) too. And recently our neighbour Pakistan also decided to make Yuan as a primary Foreign currency. But China has a long way to go. Currently, the share of Renminbi in the global forex reserves is just 1.08% with US Dollar dominating at 63.5% of all reserves. Euro is next with 20%. In the current scenario, the use of Chinese Yuan is increasing rapidly due to their export-based economy and this is the main reason why China could take the initiative of launching Petro-Yuan. If we take the global trade, The Renminbi is third largest circulated currency in the world after US Dollar (39%) and Euro (33%) with 28% of the world trade. However, in case of crude and petroleum products, US Dollar is still strong with more than 95% of global trade happening through this. So, what is the Chinese stake In this? They have a long and ambitious plan for this. Let’s see how China expects to be benefitted out of this: • Firstly, to dominate global oil market, China would promote its currency in global oil trade. • Secondly, since it will involve future price trading and benchmarking, it will protect them from higher price surges and they will be able to affect global oil prices in the long term. As oil prices are rising once again, the biggest importer of oil will have the future assurance of prices. • Thirdly, many Chinese industries are using a different kind of crude grades for their various applications. And, since, they are having different pricing for these types of crudes they can effectively benchmark the same in the international market and, hence, get benefitted. China’s previous experience in this regard had been good. In 2015, when they endorsed Nickel as one of the community to be traded in Yuan, it crossed all benchmarks of London Metal Exchange within a short time span of six months. But the stakes are high this time. China was ready to launch their INE or “Shanghai International Energy Exchange Program” in 2016 itself but the sudden dip in global oil prices forced them to postpone this move and wait for a right opportunity. With the improvement in global oil index, they are ready to start it. So, who will participate in this program and make it a success? • As mentioned earlier, China already has a sizeable share of global trade, including that with the oil-producing nations. China will try to replicate some of it in its energy exchange. • Also, there are many countries like Pakistan who do import oil and are under the influence of China. They will certainly form part of the future trade in INE. Though the value will be small, it will give a push to the program. • Chinese ‘Belt and Road Initiative” is aimed at connecting countries to create a Eurasian Trade corridor. Some of these countries, especially erstwhile Russian Federation, are producers and exporters of crude too. They are likely to join INE to form a syndicate against the global monopoly of US Dollar. Russia has already started by selling some part of its oil to China against Renminbi. • For Middle Eastern countries who are still the biggest producers of oil, the risks caused by the dominance of United States will reduce. This resulted in the fall of global oil prices in the last few years. • Global oil traders see China as the fastest growing market for their oil products. Analysts say unanimously that it is an ambitious start for China but it is a highly risky option, keeping in view of the volatility in the global oil trade. It may take years, if not decades, to even establish Renminbi as a global oil currency. Dollar is a fully established and stable currency and it is unlikely that oil traders will put their investments at stake for trying out new ventures. The global oil market is controlled by the Middle Eastern countries and their reliance on the United States are much higher than China. Since the number of countries is small, the risks involving the prices are high and, last but not the least, breaking the monopoly of US Dollar is extremely difficult, especially where such unpredictable commodity is involved. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Chinese Petro-Yuan is the answer to Petro- Dollar but will it succeed?

US President Donald Trump had everyone cracking up when he made a joke about his loss of hair. The US President admitted having a bald spot. He further stated that he tries a lot to fix the issue. Trump&#39;s act of indulging in self-deprecating humour happened while he was addressing Conservatives outside Washington.

&quot;I try like hell to hide that bald spot folks, I work hard,&quot; Trump quipped.

&quot;It doesn&#39;t look bad, hey, we&#39;re hanging in,&quot; he exclaimed.

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Xt5z7gSeis0" width="560"></iframe>

Trump&#39;s hay-coloured hair and the regime of keeping it prim and proper has long been the butt of jokes.

Michael Wolff, in his much controversial book &#39;Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House&#39; has an excerpt that describes Ivanka Trump explaining her father&#39;s elaborate and meticulous hair-styling regime.&nbsp;

In the book, Ivanka is quoted describing her father&#39;s head as a &quot;clean pate&quot; and &quot;contained island after scalp-reduction surgery&quot;. She is also quoted saying that a &quot;flurry of hair&quot; surrounds Trump&#39;s head from the sides and front while all ends are the &quot;drawn up to meet in the centre and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray&quot;.

Trump's hay-coloured hair and the regime of keeping it prim and proper has long been the butt of jokes

US President Donald Trump had everyone cracking up when he made a joke about his loss of hair. The US President admitted having a bald spot. He further stated that he tries a lot to fix the issue. Trump's act of indulging in self-deprecating humour happened while he was addressing Conservatives outside Washington. "I try like hell to hide that bald spot folks, I work hard," Trump quipped. "It doesn't look bad, hey, we're hanging in," he exclaimed. Trump's hay-coloured hair and the regime of keeping it prim and proper has long been the butt of jokes. Michael Wolff, in his much controversial book 'Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House' has an excerpt that describes Ivanka Trump explaining her father's elaborate and meticulous hair-styling regime. In the book, Ivanka is quoted describing her father's head as a "clean pate" and "contained island after scalp-reduction surgery". She is also quoted saying that a "flurry of hair" surrounds Trump's head from the sides and front while all ends are the "drawn up to meet in the centre and then swept back and secured by a stiffening spray".

In self-deprecating joke, Trump laughs at his bald spot

The United States is expected to open its embassy to Israel in Jerusalem in May, a US official said on Friday, a move from Tel Aviv that reverses decades of US policy.

US President Donald Trump announced last year that the United States recognised Jerusalem as Israel`s capital, infuriating even Washington`s Arab allies and dismaying Palestinians who want the eastern part of the city as their capital.

A May opening appears to represent an earlier time frame than what had been expected. While speaking in the Israeli parliament last month, US Vice President Mike Pence said the move would take place by the end of 2019.&nbsp;

The opening will coincide with the 70th anniversary of Israel`s founding, said the US official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

US President Donald Trump announced last year that the United States recognised Jerusalem as Israel`s capital, infuriating even Washington`s Arab allies and dismaying Palestinians who want the eastern part of the city as their capital

The United States is expected to open its embassy to Israel in Jerusalem in May, a US official said on Friday, a move from Tel Aviv that reverses decades of US policy. US President Donald Trump announced last year that the United States recognised Jerusalem as Israel`s capital, infuriating even Washington`s Arab allies and dismaying Palestinians who want the eastern part of the city as their capital. A May opening appears to represent an earlier time frame than what had been expected. While speaking in the Israeli parliament last month, US Vice President Mike Pence said the move would take place by the end of 2019. The opening will coincide with the 70th anniversary of Israel`s founding, said the US official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

US expected to open embassy in Jerusalem in May: Officials

India is willing to help the US with aviation maintenance in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said.

The Pentagon also praised India&#39;s developmental role in the war-torn country.

&quot;India has been very supportive, and they&#39;ve pledged additional developmental aid in Afghanistan. They&#39;ve been willing to help with aviation maintenance,&quot; Pentagon Chief Spokesperson Dana White told reporters.

&quot;All of that is very helpful in ensuring, again, that this regional approach works. India is an important part of that,&quot; she said.

Responding to another question, White said that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis believes that Pakistan has an opportunity to do more with respect to the regional security and that it&#39;s in its interests to do more with respect to regional security.

&quot;It&#39;s an opportunity, and we would welcome Pakistan&#39;s involvement,&quot; White said.

The Pentagon also praised India's developmental role in the war-torn country

India is willing to help the US with aviation maintenance in Afghanistan, the Pentagon said. The Pentagon also praised India's developmental role in the war-torn country. "India has been very supportive, and they've pledged additional developmental aid in Afghanistan. They've been willing to help with aviation maintenance," Pentagon Chief Spokesperson Dana White told reporters. "All of that is very helpful in ensuring, again, that this regional approach works. India is an important part of that," she said. Responding to another question, White said that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis believes that Pakistan has an opportunity to do more with respect to the regional security and that it's in its interests to do more with respect to regional security. "It's an opportunity, and we would welcome Pakistan's involvement," White said.

India willing to help US with aviation maintenance in Afghanistan: Pentagon

President Donald Trump has made comprehensive immigration reform in the United States one of his key legislative goals.

He&rsquo;s proposed bringing the U.S. immigration system &ldquo;into the 21st century&rdquo; by providing a path to citizenship for some undocumented migrants and by fully securing the country&rsquo;s southern border.

Central to his plans is a merit-based, Canada-style immigration system that would replace the current American system that focuses on family reunification and a diversity lottery.

But is merit-based immigration the simple solution for the complex set of immigration-related issues facing the United States?

Canada&rsquo;s &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; system provides some lessons for the United States. Despite the relative success of the Canadian merit-based system, Canada&rsquo;s experience shows there&rsquo;s no magic bullet.

What does &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; mean?

&ldquo;Merit-based&rdquo; immigration systems are based on the principle of selecting newcomers according to their skills, education, adaptability, language proficiency and overall human capital.

These metrics, proponents argue, allow immigrants to fill specific labour market needs. But they also act as predictors of how a newcomer might adapt to a new social, economic and cultural environment.

Yet the notion of merit is complex, contextual and highly politicised.

All immigration selection programs are rooted in implicit and explicit definitions of merit, whether they&rsquo;re based on economic criteria, ideas of cultural compatibility or family relationships. From that standpoint, all immigration programs are &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; systems.

Current U.S. political debates tend to pit the programs of some countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand against the U.S. system as it exists today.

As several analysts and researchers have shown, however, family ties and social links can also be considered a form of merit, and may have positive impacts on immigrants&rsquo; future contributions to their new home.

Consequently, when it comes to immigration, there is no objective definition of what &ldquo;merit&rdquo; really means.

Merit-based systems have also been criticized for reinforcing global human capital inequalities and for indirectly sorting candidates based on ethnic and cultural origins.

But proponents see merit-based systems as yielding better integration outcomes. They also argue that they allow for better management of immigration levels, build public trust and are more responsive to labour market dynamics.

Trump says the system will help ensure economic growth, economic mobility for both native-born Americans and immigrants and will close the door to unwanted immigrants.

Canada&rsquo;s &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; system

Canada implemented a points system in 1967 in order to move away from origin-based selection of immigrants. Fifty years later, in 2017, Canada admitted 296,346 permanent legal immigrants. About 52 per cent of them entered through different categories of the &ldquo;economic&rdquo; class of the immigration program, Canada&rsquo;s own version of a &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; immigration system.

Under this system, economic immigration candidates are evaluated and ranked using a Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS). It&rsquo;s a 100-point selection grid that considers factors such as age, education, work specialization, work experience in Canada and abroad as well as arranged employment in Canada.

Would-be immigrants to Canada are also evaluated for adaptability, measured by elements such as past experiences in Canada, but also by the presence of relatives in the country and their spouses&rsquo; language proficiency.

So even when measuring for &ldquo;merit,&rdquo; the Canadian immigration system does include a recognition of the importance of family ties and social networks.

What&rsquo;s more, not all of the 159,125 individuals who entered Canada through the economic class in 2017 were selected using the economic criteria.

Between 2006 and 2015, only 41 to 49 per cent of these individuals were selected directly based on their potential for contributing to the Canadian economy. The rest of the economic class is comprised of close family members of the main applicant, like spouses and children.

Nonetheless, Canada&rsquo;s experience overall with its immigration program has been positive. Among other benefits, it&rsquo;s been credited with building the Canadian public&rsquo;s support for relatively high immigration levels.

But merit-based immigration programs demand investment into the system, and they may have unintended consequences. Canada&rsquo;s merit-based program provides three important lessons for U.S. policymakers and citizens:

Lesson 1: &ldquo;Merit-based&rdquo; is only the beginning

A central argument by proponents of merit-based immigration is that it will lead to better immigrant integration outcomes.

While that&rsquo;s largely true, a constellation of social and state actions also affect how immigrants fare in their newly adopted homes.

Two are especially important: Immigrant integration services and efforts to find jobs for immigrants.

Canada funds immigrant integration programs that range from language training to information on jobs, bridging programs to jobs and job training. While Canada offers specific social programs for refugees, several services are also available to all classes of permanent immigrants.

Indeed, Canada plans to spend just over $1 billion on immigrant integration services in 2018.

Experience and research have shown these programs are critical to helping merit-based immigrants succeed economically and socially. They also increase immigrants&rsquo; overall sense of belonging to their new society and encourage social participation.

But integration services are not enough: Canada&rsquo;s experience shows that while immigrants selected based on their economic criteria fare better in the labour market than others, many of them still endure economic difficulties.

Underemployment, trouble entering the labour market and the need to go back to school, despite having university degrees, are all too common experiences for Canadian immigrants even if they meet the &ldquo;merit-based&rdquo; criteria.

Skills-based immigration programs can easily run amok if the labour market can&rsquo;t accommodate foreign education and skills credentials. As a consequence, both Canada&rsquo;s federal and provincial governments have had to invest in educating employers &mdash; and are still working to create and enforce standards for foreign skills recognition.

Canada&rsquo;s experience proves that a merit-based system demands much more than simply choosing &ldquo;the right&rdquo; immigrants. Governments must invest in supporting them once they&rsquo;ve been admitted.

Lesson 2: Immigrants &amp; labour market needs

Matching the demands of the labour market to new immigrants is a challenge. That&rsquo;s due in part to the difference between the speed at which labour markets evolve and how quickly an immigration system can operate to bring job-ready candidates to any given country and employer.

The challenge is compounded by popular and political ideas about who is an &ldquo;ideal&rdquo; economic immigrant &mdash; for example, a doctor or an engineer &mdash; and the actual labour needs of the country.

In the last 30 years, those types of disconnects have been a constant test in Canada but also in other countries.

In the early 1990s, the Canadian government&rsquo;s preferred solution was to select immigrants based on predictions about their capacity to adapt to a changing labour market. To do so, they used human capital as the main merit criterion. That had several unintended effects, including the underemployment of many immigrants and labour shortages in several technical sectors.

Since then, the Canadian government has made a move towards a more demand-based model, and provides provinces and territories as well as employers with a bigger say in the selection system.

More recently, the system was again amended to reintroduce human capital factors because the immigrants selected by the demand-driven model were not considered skilled enough.

Canada&rsquo;s experience is one of a tug of war between planning for long-term labour needs and short-term labour supply.

Despite these adjustments, current Canadian programs still struggle to address the needs of labour markets that are increasingly divided between the need for high-skilled versus low-skilled workers, like those in short supply in the service sector.

Consequently, Canada relies increasingly on temporary immigration to meet market demands. In the last 10 years, the number of so-called temporary foreign workers has grown tremendously, as have concerns about worker abuses and overall precarity.

And despite reforms aimed at providing temporary workers a path to permanent residency, the need for those low-skilled labourers runs counter to the long-term social and economic objective of Canada&rsquo;s merit-based system.

What is &ldquo;best&rdquo; for the economy, and what types of immigrants are most needed, often eschews simple answers.

Lesson 3: The need for bureaucrats

Trust in the bureaucracy is critical to a successful merit-based system. Any immigrant-selection system relies on a comprehensive, technical method of assessing would-be newcomers, the gathering of information on the labour market and on global migration trends, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of programs.

On the ground, considerable work is required to assess individual applications based on merit criteria. While technology makes these tasks easier than before, well-trained public servants and well-funded public infrastructure are needed. 
In Canada and elsewhere, government workers use research, field expertise and discretion to assess applicants. The need for accurate data along with the complexity of these programs often make elected officials dependent on the expertise and advice of public servants.

Bureaucrats are uniquely positioned to see the negative consequences of selection programs, and to propose innovative solutions based on their hands-on experience.

What&rsquo;s more, experiments that have involved employers in immigrant selection programs remain inconclusive. While they remain important partners, bureaucrats still have the advantage over employers in assessing immigrants.

The move to merit-based systems often politicize not only overall immigration levels, but also the very definition of &ldquo;merit.&rdquo;

The cacophony of partisan advice and political opinion on these often highly technical assessments of immigrants means it&rsquo;s crucial to have reliable data on immigration and unbiased analysis. The trust of Canadian elected officials in the country&rsquo;s immigration bureaucracy is one of the secret ingredients of its success.

Hardly a &lsquo;magic bullet&rsquo;

A merit-based immigration might address some of America&rsquo;s immigration challenges.

But it could also have negative consequences, especially as long as state-funded integration services remain comparatively limited and not accessible to all immigrants in the U.S..

The U.S. government will also need work to ensure that the immigrants it selects will respond to the actual labour market needs of its diverse economy. The distrust the Trump administration clearly harbours towards the American federal bureaucracy might also create considerable challenges to the design and implementation of a merit-based system.

Canada&rsquo;s experience shows that selecting immigrants based on economic merit is not a silver bullet. Finding the &ldquo;right&rdquo; immigrants is the only one step in a large group of government actions that support immigrants and the country overall.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Canada's experience shows that selecting immigrants based on economic merit is not a silver bullet; finding the "right" immigrants is the only the first step.

President Donald Trump has made comprehensive immigration reform in the United States one of his key legislative goals. He’s proposed bringing the U.S. immigration system “into the 21st century” by providing a path to citizenship for some undocumented migrants and by fully securing the country’s southern border. Central to his plans is a merit-based, Canada-style immigration system that would replace the current American system that focuses on family reunification and a diversity lottery. But is merit-based immigration the simple solution for the complex set of immigration-related issues facing the United States? Canada’s “merit-based” system provides some lessons for the United States. Despite the relative success of the Canadian merit-based system, Canada’s experience shows there’s no magic bullet. What does “merit-based” mean? “Merit-based” immigration systems are based on the principle of selecting newcomers according to their skills, education, adaptability, language proficiency and overall human capital. These metrics, proponents argue, allow immigrants to fill specific labour market needs. But they also act as predictors of how a newcomer might adapt to a new social, economic and cultural environment. Yet the notion of merit is complex, contextual and highly politicised. All immigration selection programs are rooted in implicit and explicit definitions of merit, whether they’re based on economic criteria, ideas of cultural compatibility or family relationships. From that standpoint, all immigration programs are “merit-based” systems. Current U.S. political debates tend to pit the programs of some countries such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand against the U.S. system as it exists today. As several analysts and researchers have shown, however, family ties and social links can also be considered a form of merit, and may have positive impacts on immigrants’ future contributions to their new home. Consequently, when it comes to immigration, there is no objective definition of what “merit” really means. Merit-based systems have also been criticized for reinforcing global human capital inequalities and for indirectly sorting candidates based on ethnic and cultural origins. But proponents see merit-based systems as yielding better integration outcomes. They also argue that they allow for better management of immigration levels, build public trust and are more responsive to labour market dynamics. Trump says the system will help ensure economic growth, economic mobility for both native-born Americans and immigrants and will close the door to unwanted immigrants. Canada’s “merit-based” system Canada implemented a points system in 1967 in order to move away from origin-based selection of immigrants. Fifty years later, in 2017, Canada admitted 296,346 permanent legal immigrants. About 52 per cent of them entered through different categories of the “economic” class of the immigration program, Canada’s own version of a “merit-based” immigration system. Under this system, economic immigration candidates are evaluated and ranked using a Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS). It’s a 100-point selection grid that considers factors such as age, education, work specialization, work experience in Canada and abroad as well as arranged employment in Canada. Would-be immigrants to Canada are also evaluated for adaptability, measured by elements such as past experiences in Canada, but also by the presence of relatives in the country and their spouses’ language proficiency. So even when measuring for “merit,” the Canadian immigration system does include a recognition of the importance of family ties and social networks. What’s more, not all of the 159,125 individuals who entered Canada through the economic class in 2017 were selected using the economic criteria. Between 2006 and 2015, only 41 to 49 per cent of these individuals were selected directly based on their potential for contributing to the Canadian economy. The rest of the economic class is comprised of close family members of the main applicant, like spouses and children. Nonetheless, Canada’s experience overall with its immigration program has been positive. Among other benefits, it’s been credited with building the Canadian public’s support for relatively high immigration levels. But merit-based immigration programs demand investment into the system, and they may have unintended consequences. Canada’s merit-based program provides three important lessons for U.S. policymakers and citizens: Lesson 1: “Merit-based” is only the beginning A central argument by proponents of merit-based immigration is that it will lead to better immigrant integration outcomes. While that’s largely true, a constellation of social and state actions also affect how immigrants fare in their newly adopted homes. Two are especially important: Immigrant integration services and efforts to find jobs for immigrants. Canada funds immigrant integration programs that range from language training to information on jobs, bridging programs to jobs and job training. While Canada offers specific social programs for refugees, several services are also available to all classes of permanent immigrants. Indeed, Canada plans to spend just over $1 billion on immigrant integration services in 2018. Experience and research have shown these programs are critical to helping merit-based immigrants succeed economically and socially. They also increase immigrants’ overall sense of belonging to their new society and encourage social participation. But integration services are not enough: Canada’s experience shows that while immigrants selected based on their economic criteria fare better in the labour market than others, many of them still endure economic difficulties. Underemployment, trouble entering the labour market and the need to go back to school, despite having university degrees, are all too common experiences for Canadian immigrants even if they meet the “merit-based” criteria. Skills-based immigration programs can easily run amok if the labour market can’t accommodate foreign education and skills credentials. As a consequence, both Canada’s federal and provincial governments have had to invest in educating employers — and are still working to create and enforce standards for foreign skills recognition. Canada’s experience proves that a merit-based system demands much more than simply choosing “the right” immigrants. Governments must invest in supporting them once they’ve been admitted. Lesson 2: Immigrants & labour market needs Matching the demands of the labour market to new immigrants is a challenge. That’s due in part to the difference between the speed at which labour markets evolve and how quickly an immigration system can operate to bring job-ready candidates to any given country and employer. The challenge is compounded by popular and political ideas about who is an “ideal” economic immigrant — for example, a doctor or an engineer — and the actual labour needs of the country. In the last 30 years, those types of disconnects have been a constant test in Canada but also in other countries. In the early 1990s, the Canadian government’s preferred solution was to select immigrants based on predictions about their capacity to adapt to a changing labour market. To do so, they used human capital as the main merit criterion. That had several unintended effects, including the underemployment of many immigrants and labour shortages in several technical sectors. Since then, the Canadian government has made a move towards a more demand-based model, and provides provinces and territories as well as employers with a bigger say in the selection system. More recently, the system was again amended to reintroduce human capital factors because the immigrants selected by the demand-driven model were not considered skilled enough. Canada’s experience is one of a tug of war between planning for long-term labour needs and short-term labour supply. Despite these adjustments, current Canadian programs still struggle to address the needs of labour markets that are increasingly divided between the need for high-skilled versus low-skilled workers, like those in short supply in the service sector. Consequently, Canada relies increasingly on temporary immigration to meet market demands. In the last 10 years, the number of so-called temporary foreign workers has grown tremendously, as have concerns about worker abuses and overall precarity. And despite reforms aimed at providing temporary workers a path to permanent residency, the need for those low-skilled labourers runs counter to the long-term social and economic objective of Canada’s merit-based system. What is “best” for the economy, and what types of immigrants are most needed, often eschews simple answers. Lesson 3: The need for bureaucrats Trust in the bureaucracy is critical to a successful merit-based system. Any immigrant-selection system relies on a comprehensive, technical method of assessing would-be newcomers, the gathering of information on the labour market and on global migration trends, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of programs. On the ground, considerable work is required to assess individual applications based on merit criteria. While technology makes these tasks easier than before, well-trained public servants and well-funded public infrastructure are needed. In Canada and elsewhere, government workers use research, field expertise and discretion to assess applicants. The need for accurate data along with the complexity of these programs often make elected officials dependent on the expertise and advice of public servants. Bureaucrats are uniquely positioned to see the negative consequences of selection programs, and to propose innovative solutions based on their hands-on experience. What’s more, experiments that have involved employers in immigrant selection programs remain inconclusive. While they remain important partners, bureaucrats still have the advantage over employers in assessing immigrants. The move to merit-based systems often politicize not only overall immigration levels, but also the very definition of “merit.” The cacophony of partisan advice and political opinion on these often highly technical assessments of immigrants means it’s crucial to have reliable data on immigration and unbiased analysis. The trust of Canadian elected officials in the country’s immigration bureaucracy is one of the secret ingredients of its success. Hardly a ‘magic bullet’ A merit-based immigration might address some of America’s immigration challenges. But it could also have negative consequences, especially as long as state-funded integration services remain comparatively limited and not accessible to all immigrants in the U.S.. The U.S. government will also need work to ensure that the immigrants it selects will respond to the actual labour market needs of its diverse economy. The distrust the Trump administration clearly harbours towards the American federal bureaucracy might also create considerable challenges to the design and implementation of a merit-based system. Canada’s experience shows that selecting immigrants based on economic merit is not a silver bullet. Finding the “right” immigrants is the only one step in a large group of government actions that support immigrants and the country overall. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: What Canada's Merit-based immigration can teach Trump administration

The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits fell to a near 45-year low last week, pointing to strong job growth in February, which should continue to underpin the economy.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 7,000 to a seasonally adjusted 222,000 for the week ended February 17, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Claims fell to 216,000 in mid-January, which was the lowest level since January 1973.

Claims for six states, including California, were estimated because of Monday&#39;s Presidents Day holiday. While that probably distorted last week&#39;s data, the underlying trend in claims was consistent with a robust labor market.

&quot;Firms are extraordinarily unwilling to part company with workers reflecting, in all likelihood, the difficulty of replacing them,&quot; said John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics in New York.&nbsp;

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims unchanged at 230,000 in the latest week. It was the 155th straight week that claims remained below the 300,000 threshold, which is associated with a strong labor market. That is the longest such stretch since 1970, when the labor market was much smaller.

The labor market is near full employment, with the jobless rate at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent. Tightening labor market conditions are starting to push up wage growth, which could help to lift inflation toward the Federal Reserve 2 percent target.

Minutes of the US&nbsp;central bank&#39;s Jan. 30-31 policy meeting published on Wednesday showed policymakers upbeat in their assessment of the economy and a number &quot;judged that the continued tightening in labor markets was likely to translate into faster wage increases at some point.&quot;&nbsp;

US&nbsp;financial markets were little moved by the claims data.

The Labor Department said claims for California, Hawaii, Maine, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming were estimated. It also said claims-taking procedures in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands had still not returned to normal, months after the territories were slammed by Hurricanes Irma and Maria.&nbsp;

The four-week moving average of initial claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, fell 2,250 to 226,000 last week.

The claims data covered the survey period for the nonfarm payrolls component of February&#39;s employment report. The four-week average of claims dropped 17,500 between the January and February survey weeks, suggesting solid job growth this month.&nbsp;

Payrolls increased by 200,000 jobs in January. Strong employment gains in February would seal the case for an interest rate increase next month. The Fed has forecast three rate increases this year. Most economists, however, expect four rate hikes in the wake of strong inflation readings in January.

Thursday&#39;s claims report also showed the number of people receiving benefits after an initial week of aid declined 73,000 to 1.88 million in the week ended February 10. The four-week moving average of the so-called continuing claims fell 16,250 to 1.93 million. 
&nbsp;

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 7,000 to a seasonally adjusted 222,000 for the week ended February 17

The number of Americans filing for unemployment benefits fell to a near 45-year low last week, pointing to strong job growth in February, which should continue to underpin the economy. Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 7,000 to a seasonally adjusted 222,000 for the week ended February 17, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Claims fell to 216,000 in mid-January, which was the lowest level since January 1973. Claims for six states, including California, were estimated because of Monday's Presidents Day holiday. While that probably distorted last week's data, the underlying trend in claims was consistent with a robust labor market. "Firms are extraordinarily unwilling to part company with workers reflecting, in all likelihood, the difficulty of replacing them," said John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics in New York. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims unchanged at 230,000 in the latest week. It was the 155th straight week that claims remained below the 300,000 threshold, which is associated with a strong labor market. That is the longest such stretch since 1970, when the labor market was much smaller. The labor market is near full employment, with the jobless rate at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent. Tightening labor market conditions are starting to push up wage growth, which could help to lift inflation toward the Federal Reserve 2 percent target. Minutes of the US central bank's Jan. 30-31 policy meeting published on Wednesday showed policymakers upbeat in their assessment of the economy and a number "judged that the continued tightening in labor markets was likely to translate into faster wage increases at some point." US financial markets were little moved by the claims data. The Labor Department said claims for California, Hawaii, Maine, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming were estimated. It also said claims-taking procedures in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands had still not returned to normal, months after the territories were slammed by Hurricanes Irma and Maria. The four-week moving average of initial claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, fell 2,250 to 226,000 last week. The claims data covered the survey period for the nonfarm payrolls component of February's employment report. The four-week average of claims dropped 17,500 between the January and February survey weeks, suggesting solid job growth this month. Payrolls increased by 200,000 jobs in January. Strong employment gains in February would seal the case for an interest rate increase next month. The Fed has forecast three rate increases this year. Most economists, however, expect four rate hikes in the wake of strong inflation readings in January. Thursday's claims report also showed the number of people receiving benefits after an initial week of aid declined 73,000 to 1.88 million in the week ended February 10. The four-week moving average of the so-called continuing claims fell 16,250 to 1.93 million.

US jobless claims drop to near 45-year low

South Korea and the United States will announce plans before April for a postponed joint military drill, South Korea&rsquo;s defence minister said on Tuesday.

Seoul and Washington had agreed to postpone the regular joint military exercise until after the Winter Olympics and Paralympics being hosted in South Korea, which ends on March 18.

After the decision to delay the joint exercise, North Korea agreed to hold the first official talks with South Korea in more than two years and send athletes to the Winter Games, easing a standoff over Pyongyang&rsquo;s nuclear and missile programmes.

Asked when the two countries will hold the postponed drill, Song Young-moo told parliament he and his US counterpart, Jim Mattis, would make an announcement between March 18 and the start of April.

&ldquo;The exercise was postponed according to the spirit of the Olympics,&rdquo; Song said. &ldquo;We have agreed to uphold the basis until after the Paralympics...and not to confirm nor deny anything regarding what we would do after that until we announce it&rdquo;.

Song added inter-Korean talks had not come about as a direct result of the postponed drill.

Pyongyang has warned it would not sit idle if the United States and South Korea push ahead with the postponed military exercises.

North Korea denounces the drills as preparations to invade it, and it has at times conducted missile tests or taken other aggressive action in response.

The South Korean and US militaries usually hold military exercises called Key Resolve and Foal Eagle in March and April, which can involve as many as 17,000 US troops and more than 300,000 South Koreans.

South Korea&rsquo;s Unification Minister Cho Myong-gyon said talks to stage the postponed military drill were moving forward.

&ldquo;I&lsquo;m aware negotiations are moving towards a direction where the drills will be held,&rdquo; Cho said in a separate parliamentary session on Tuesday, without elaborating.

A restart of the joint drill is an &ldquo;act of ruthlessly trampling even a small sprout of peace that has been now seen on the Korean peninsula&rdquo;, the North&rsquo;s official KCNA news agency said in a commentary on Monday.

&ldquo;It is a provocative act of chilling the active efforts of the DPRK and enthusiasm of the international community to defuse tension and create a peaceful environment&rdquo;.

North Korea&rsquo;s official name is the Democratic People&rsquo;s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

Tensions on the Korean peninsula have eased since last year resulting in inter-Korean talks and the North sending a high-level delegation led by Kim Yo Jong, the sister of leader Kim Jong Un, and athletes to the Winter Olympics.

South Korea has also floated the idea of co-hosting the 2021 Asian Winter Games with North Korea, and a North Korean official said on Tuesday this may be possible, reported the South&rsquo;s Yonhap news agency.

North Korea may make the North&rsquo;s Masikryong ski resort available for the Games, said Chang Ung, the North&rsquo;s representative on the International Olympic Committee.

The host city for the 2021 event has not yet been decided.

Speaking to a Yonhap reporter at an airport in Beijing, the Chinese capital, Chang said it would be easier for the two sides to co-host the 2021 Asian Winter Games because there is less competition to host them, compared to the Olympics.

As to how that could come about, Chang declined to say, according to Yonhap. He was on his way back to North Korea after observing the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang.

Reporting by Christine Kim and Hyonhee Shin; Editing by Michael Perry and Clarence Fernandez

Seoul and Washington had agreed to postpone the regular joint military exercise until after the Winter Olympics and Paralympics being hosted in South Korea, which ends on March 18

South Korea and the United States will announce plans before April for a postponed joint military drill, South Korea’s defence minister said on Tuesday. Seoul and Washington had agreed to postpone the regular joint military exercise until after the Winter Olympics and Paralympics being hosted in South Korea, which ends on March 18. After the decision to delay the joint exercise, North Korea agreed to hold the first official talks with South Korea in more than two years and send athletes to the Winter Games, easing a standoff over Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programmes. Asked when the two countries will hold the postponed drill, Song Young-moo told parliament he and his US counterpart, Jim Mattis, would make an announcement between March 18 and the start of April. “The exercise was postponed according to the spirit of the Olympics,” Song said. “We have agreed to uphold the basis until after the Paralympics...and not to confirm nor deny anything regarding what we would do after that until we announce it”. Song added inter-Korean talks had not come about as a direct result of the postponed drill. Pyongyang has warned it would not sit idle if the United States and South Korea push ahead with the postponed military exercises. North Korea denounces the drills as preparations to invade it, and it has at times conducted missile tests or taken other aggressive action in response. The South Korean and US militaries usually hold military exercises called Key Resolve and Foal Eagle in March and April, which can involve as many as 17,000 US troops and more than 300,000 South Koreans. South Korea’s Unification Minister Cho Myong-gyon said talks to stage the postponed military drill were moving forward. “I‘m aware negotiations are moving towards a direction where the drills will be held,” Cho said in a separate parliamentary session on Tuesday, without elaborating. A restart of the joint drill is an “act of ruthlessly trampling even a small sprout of peace that has been now seen on the Korean peninsula”, the North’s official KCNA news agency said in a commentary on Monday. “It is a provocative act of chilling the active efforts of the DPRK and enthusiasm of the international community to defuse tension and create a peaceful environment”. North Korea’s official name is the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Tensions on the Korean peninsula have eased since last year resulting in inter-Korean talks and the North sending a high-level delegation led by Kim Yo Jong, the sister of leader Kim Jong Un, and athletes to the Winter Olympics. South Korea has also floated the idea of co-hosting the 2021 Asian Winter Games with North Korea, and a North Korean official said on Tuesday this may be possible, reported the South’s Yonhap news agency. North Korea may make the North’s Masikryong ski resort available for the Games, said Chang Ung, the North’s representative on the International Olympic Committee. The host city for the 2021 event has not yet been decided. Speaking to a Yonhap reporter at an airport in Beijing, the Chinese capital, Chang said it would be easier for the two sides to co-host the 2021 Asian Winter Games because there is less competition to host them, compared to the Olympics. As to how that could come about, Chang declined to say, according to Yonhap. He was on his way back to North Korea after observing the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang. Reporting by Christine Kim and Hyonhee Shin; Editing by Michael Perry and Clarence Fernandez

South Korea to announce joint military drill plan with US before April

&nbsp;

By&nbsp;Alexey<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexey-d-muraviev-13913" rel="author"> </a>D Muraviev*

Russia keeps posing a massive intelligence puzzle to the West: it is never as weak as we may want it to be, nor is it as strong as we fear it may be.

So, how can we classify Russia as an international power? It is not the Soviet Union reincarnated, so it is not a reborn counterpoint to US global supremacy. Nor does it intend to be. But it remains a major strategic spoiler of the US&rsquo; ambitions to retain its rules-based global order.

Moscow is trying to strengthen its relationship with like-minded major powers. China is one of Russia&rsquo;s comrades-in-arms, although not a formal ally. China and Russia are not forming any sort of anti-Western/anti-US alliance; both great powers have their own national agendas.

Over the past ten years, Russia and China have developed very close military ties, but their economic relationship remains uneven and quite low on the common strategic agenda. They are de facto engaged in soft competition across Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific.

But their intention to change the status quo in support of their ambitions aligns with their security and strategic agendas, at least for now. Just like China, Russia seeks to maximize its strategic autonomy by aggressively fending off any perceived challenges to its national interests or sovereignty.

The time cannot be better. US President Donald Trump keeps puzzling allies by reversing major political decisions of previous administrations while prioritising an inward-looking approach to running his country. And he is no match for Vladimir Putin in terms of experience, charisma, domestic popularity and global influence.&nbsp;

Try a simple experiment: search any publication about Russia published by the Australian media and try to find an article on anything Russia-related that does not have a reference to Putin. We see in Putin a manifestation of Russia&rsquo;s ambitions; its political, military, economic and even sports successes and failures; defense of traditional values and criticisms of the Western way of life.

Putin wants for Russia a &ldquo;place under the sun&rdquo;: that is, dominance over the immediate neighbourhood combined with Russia&rsquo;s recognised right to have interests in other parts of the world. The big question is: does modern Russia have what it takes to be a global superpower? The reality is there is no definitive answer to that.

On the one hand, Russia possesses key elements of a superpower: it is self-sufficient when it comes to natural resources and it is an energy superpower; it is a space power with a developed sovereign capability; it has a world-class scientific capability; it is the second-biggest military superpower in the world behind the US. Finally, it has global ambitions and a global agenda.

On the other hand, like China, Russia does not have a civilisational agenda &ndash; a competitive political model that could be an alternative to Western liberalism based on a free-market economy. After all, the Cold War was a clash of competitive socioeconomic systems supported by geopolitical and military-strategic competition. There is none of that today.

Second, Russia does not have the economic might of China and its intertwined economic interaction with the US. The Russian economy has suffered a great deal from the tight sanctions regime implemented after the Ukraine crisis, and is only beginning now to show signs of recovery.

That is not to say Russia has lost the economic means to support itself and its global ambitions. Over the past two years, it has achieved a major breakthrough in exporting grain and other agricultural produce, making it one of the top-three foreign currency earners. In 2017 alone, Russia earned some US$20.5 billion by exporting agricultural produce.

Russia&rsquo;s energy exports also remain high. In 2017, Russian energy giant Gazprom generated total revenue of US$103.6 billion. This year&rsquo;s revenue is expected to reach US$108 billion. In Europe alone, Gazprom controls 34.7% of its energy market, thus making it an important element of Russia&rsquo;s regional geoeconomics.&nbsp;

The Russian defense sector plays its traditional role of both earning much-needed cash and furthering Russia&rsquo;s geopolitical agenda. In 2017, Russian arms exports were worth US$17 billion, while the total portfolio of foreign orders of Russian armaments and military equipment is about US$45 billion, effectively retaining the number-two position in global arms sales.

Still, Russia has no means of global economic expansionism. It is desperately seeking new economic opportunities and partnerships with other countries that do not want all the power focused on the US. This gives China a strategic lead because of its diversified extensive economic partnerships with the US, Europe, and Asia.

Yet it would be premature to crown China as the sole superpower rival to the US. Unlike Russia, China clearly lacks political and diplomatic experience &ndash; the ability to play complex games on a global chessboard.

As an incoming superpower with global ambitions but limited experience in great power politics, China studies carefully the Soviet and Russian experiences and leaves Russia to fight all the major fights at international forums. North Korea and the South China Sea are among the few exceptions where the Chinese show strategic activism.

Apart from its extensive diplomatic experience, China also needs Russia&rsquo;s strategic nuclear and conventional military might.

Under Putin, the Russian military managed to close the capability gap with the most advanced Western militaries and transformed itself from a large, under-equipped and understaffed army into an effective, highly motivated and battle-hardened force. Putin has given the once-cash-strapped military machine a massive financial boost &ndash; and, more importantly, full political support.

Between 2013 and 2017, Russia landed in the world&rsquo;s top-three nations on defense expenditure, just behind the US and China. In Europe, Russia has remained the single largest defense spender and buyer of major combat systems.

From 2012 until early 2017, the Russian military received 30,000 new and upgraded armaments and items of heavy military equipment. The Syria campaign and Russia&rsquo;s ability to exercise strategic reach has once again made the military factor supported by active diplomacy one of the key determinants of successful realising its national strategic agenda.

In short, Russia is a major global power in outlook and reach, locked in a values-based confrontation with the West. But it still lacks all elements of a developed superpower.

But what it does most effectively is play the role of a strategic spoiler in times when the world is gradually accepting a new international configuration with a suite of established and emerging great powers that would dominate a future world order.

&nbsp;

* Alexey<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/alexey-d-muraviev-13913" rel="author"> </a>D Muraviev is Associate Professor of National Security and Strategic Studies, Curtin University

<section>&nbsp;</section>

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Russia is a major global power in outlook and reach, locked in a values-based confrontation with the West. But it still lacks all elements of a developed superpower.

By Alexey D Muraviev* Russia keeps posing a massive intelligence puzzle to the West: it is never as weak as we may want it to be, nor is it as strong as we fear it may be. So, how can we classify Russia as an international power? It is not the Soviet Union reincarnated, so it is not a reborn counterpoint to US global supremacy. Nor does it intend to be. But it remains a major strategic spoiler of the US’ ambitions to retain its rules-based global order. Moscow is trying to strengthen its relationship with like-minded major powers. China is one of Russia’s comrades-in-arms, although not a formal ally. China and Russia are not forming any sort of anti-Western/anti-US alliance; both great powers have their own national agendas. Over the past ten years, Russia and China have developed very close military ties, but their economic relationship remains uneven and quite low on the common strategic agenda. They are de facto engaged in soft competition across Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific. But their intention to change the status quo in support of their ambitions aligns with their security and strategic agendas, at least for now. Just like China, Russia seeks to maximize its strategic autonomy by aggressively fending off any perceived challenges to its national interests or sovereignty. The time cannot be better. US President Donald Trump keeps puzzling allies by reversing major political decisions of previous administrations while prioritising an inward-looking approach to running his country. And he is no match for Vladimir Putin in terms of experience, charisma, domestic popularity and global influence. Try a simple experiment: search any publication about Russia published by the Australian media and try to find an article on anything Russia-related that does not have a reference to Putin. We see in Putin a manifestation of Russia’s ambitions; its political, military, economic and even sports successes and failures; defense of traditional values and criticisms of the Western way of life. Putin wants for Russia a “place under the sun”: that is, dominance over the immediate neighbourhood combined with Russia’s recognised right to have interests in other parts of the world. The big question is: does modern Russia have what it takes to be a global superpower? The reality is there is no definitive answer to that. On the one hand, Russia possesses key elements of a superpower: it is self-sufficient when it comes to natural resources and it is an energy superpower; it is a space power with a developed sovereign capability; it has a world-class scientific capability; it is the second-biggest military superpower in the world behind the US. Finally, it has global ambitions and a global agenda. On the other hand, like China, Russia does not have a civilisational agenda – a competitive political model that could be an alternative to Western liberalism based on a free-market economy. After all, the Cold War was a clash of competitive socioeconomic systems supported by geopolitical and military-strategic competition. There is none of that today. Second, Russia does not have the economic might of China and its intertwined economic interaction with the US. The Russian economy has suffered a great deal from the tight sanctions regime implemented after the Ukraine crisis, and is only beginning now to show signs of recovery. That is not to say Russia has lost the economic means to support itself and its global ambitions. Over the past two years, it has achieved a major breakthrough in exporting grain and other agricultural produce, making it one of the top-three foreign currency earners. In 2017 alone, Russia earned some US$20.5 billion by exporting agricultural produce. Russia’s energy exports also remain high. In 2017, Russian energy giant Gazprom generated total revenue of US$103.6 billion. This year’s revenue is expected to reach US$108 billion. In Europe alone, Gazprom controls 34.7% of its energy market, thus making it an important element of Russia’s regional geoeconomics. The Russian defense sector plays its traditional role of both earning much-needed cash and furthering Russia’s geopolitical agenda. In 2017, Russian arms exports were worth US$17 billion, while the total portfolio of foreign orders of Russian armaments and military equipment is about US$45 billion, effectively retaining the number-two position in global arms sales. Still, Russia has no means of global economic expansionism. It is desperately seeking new economic opportunities and partnerships with other countries that do not want all the power focused on the US. This gives China a strategic lead because of its diversified extensive economic partnerships with the US, Europe, and Asia. Yet it would be premature to crown China as the sole superpower rival to the US. Unlike Russia, China clearly lacks political and diplomatic experience – the ability to play complex games on a global chessboard. As an incoming superpower with global ambitions but limited experience in great power politics, China studies carefully the Soviet and Russian experiences and leaves Russia to fight all the major fights at international forums. North Korea and the South China Sea are among the few exceptions where the Chinese show strategic activism. Apart from its extensive diplomatic experience, China also needs Russia’s strategic nuclear and conventional military might. Under Putin, the Russian military managed to close the capability gap with the most advanced Western militaries and transformed itself from a large, under-equipped and understaffed army into an effective, highly motivated and battle-hardened force. Putin has given the once-cash-strapped military machine a massive financial boost – and, more importantly, full political support. Between 2013 and 2017, Russia landed in the world’s top-three nations on defense expenditure, just behind the US and China. In Europe, Russia has remained the single largest defense spender and buyer of major combat systems. From 2012 until early 2017, the Russian military received 30,000 new and upgraded armaments and items of heavy military equipment. The Syria campaign and Russia’s ability to exercise strategic reach has once again made the military factor supported by active diplomacy one of the key determinants of successful realising its national strategic agenda. In short, Russia is a major global power in outlook and reach, locked in a values-based confrontation with the West. But it still lacks all elements of a developed superpower. But what it does most effectively is play the role of a strategic spoiler in times when the world is gradually accepting a new international configuration with a suite of established and emerging great powers that would dominate a future world order. * Alexey D Muraviev is Associate Professor of National Security and Strategic Studies, Curtin University (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Does Russia have what it takes to be a global superpower?

Indian agencies, the Zee Group has learnt, are scrutinising at least three companies and their directors in Hong Kong, to try and verify if the companies are genuine overseas importers or part of the network of shell companies that Nirav Modi used to carry out his scam.&nbsp;

Sources told the Zee Group that Nirav Modi&#39;s firms Solar Exports and Diamonds 4 US imported diamonds from a few Hong Kong-based companies. The firms received hundreds of crores of rupees on the basis of Letters of Understanding (LoU) issued by Punjab National Bank. The Hong Kong branches of Allahabad Bank and Axis Bank made the payments to &nbsp;the firms.&nbsp;

The three firms. the sources said, are Aura Gems, Sino Traders, and Sunshine Gems. All three of them are based out of Hong Kong.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pnbs-overzealousness-shut-the-doors-on-ability-to-clear-the-dues-nirav-modi-33415" target="_blank">PNB&#39;s &#39;overzealousness&#39; shut door on ability to clear dues, Nirav Modi said in letter to bank</a>

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/full-text-of-nirav-modis-letter-to-pnb-33448" target="_blank">Full text of Nirav Modi&#39;s letter to PNB</a>

Over the last one year, Nirav Modi had allegedly started transferring his money through multiple layers, while making transactions at inflated prices. Some of those transactions are thought to have been with fictitious companies which are now being scrutinised by the agencies.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
The agencies are closely monitoring transactions between India and five countries &mdash;&nbsp;the US, UK, Singapore, Malaysia, and China. 
&nbsp; 
The agencies suspect funds were routed to different cities worldwide.&nbsp;The&nbsp;funds were first transferred from India to Macau, Hong Kong, Beijing, Singapore, and Kuala Lumpur. They were then transferred to London. &nbsp;And from London, the funds were moved to Hawaii, Las Vegas, and New York before being moving to Modi&#39;s Swiss accounts. 
&nbsp; 
Sometime in December 2017, somebody from PNB &mdash; other than the two&nbsp;main accused &mdash; tipped Nirav Modi off about the meeting held by top PNB officials and that a complaint was to be filed with the CBI.

Indian agencies are trying to verify if the companies are genuine overseas exporters or part of the network of shell companies Nirav Modi used to carry out his scam

Indian agencies, the Zee Group has learnt, are scrutinising at least three companies and their directors in Hong Kong, to try and verify if the companies are genuine overseas importers or part of the network of shell companies that Nirav Modi used to carry out his scam. Sources told the Zee Group that Nirav Modi's firms Solar Exports and Diamonds 4 US imported diamonds from a few Hong Kong-based companies. The firms received hundreds of crores of rupees on the basis of Letters of Understanding (LoU) issued by Punjab National Bank. The Hong Kong branches of Allahabad Bank and Axis Bank made the payments to the firms. The three firms. the sources said, are Aura Gems, Sino Traders, and Sunshine Gems. All three of them are based out of Hong Kong. Also read: PNB's 'overzealousness' shut door on ability to clear dues, Nirav Modi said in letter to bank Also read: Full text of Nirav Modi's letter to PNB Over the last one year, Nirav Modi had allegedly started transferring his money through multiple layers, while making transactions at inflated prices. Some of those transactions are thought to have been with fictitious companies which are now being scrutinised by the agencies. The agencies are closely monitoring transactions between India and five countries — the US, UK, Singapore, Malaysia, and China. The agencies suspect funds were routed to different cities worldwide. The funds were first transferred from India to Macau, Hong Kong, Beijing, Singapore, and Kuala Lumpur. They were then transferred to London. And from London, the funds were moved to Hawaii, Las Vegas, and New York before being moving to Modi's Swiss accounts. Sometime in December 2017, somebody from PNB — other than the two main accused — tipped Nirav Modi off about the meeting held by top PNB officials and that a complaint was to be filed with the CBI.

PNB scam: 3 Hong Kong companies under scanner, say sources

The US government on Tuesday proposed extending the availability of skimpy health insurance plans to millions of Americans in another Trump administration move aimed at undercutting the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare.

The US Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule that such plans, now available only for periods of three months or less, will be available for up to 12 months. The agency is considering whether these plans will be renewable.&nbsp;

The plans will not include the benefits that define the insurance created under Democratic former President Barack Obama, including required health benefits such as maternity coverage and the guarantee of insurance regardless of health.&nbsp;

Obamacare currently allows for such short-duration plans, but they are limited to three months. The agency said it expects 100,000 to 200,000 people to shift from an Obamacare plan to such insurance in 2019 when the rule would go into effect, but that millions more people who have no insurance will likely sign up.

America`s Health Insurance Plans, the biggest US health industry lobby, said it was concerned the expansion would make it more expensive to cover the sicker people, particularly those with pre-existing conditions, who remain on the Obamacare marketplace. About 10 million people are enrolled in Obamacare plans that are eligible for income-based subsidies.

Evercore ISI analyst Michael Newshel said in a research note that while the magnitude of the new rule`s impact is debatable, directionally it is &quot;another negative more for the stability of the individual insurance market.&quot;

Even so, there were no new negatives in the government rule proposal, Newshel said. Shares in insurers which sell these plans were mixed. Centene Corp gained $1.18, or 1 per cent, to $101.40; Molina Healthcare rose 68 cents, or less than 1 per cent, to $72.80; Anthem Inc fell $2.53, or about 1 per cent, to $232.49; and Cigna Corp fell $2.29, or 1 per cent, to $191.60.&nbsp;

The premiums on the plans have been rising each year since the marketplace was launched and increased in the double digits in 2018, reflecting a costly pool of members, fewer insurers and less competition, and the government decision to pull back billions of dollars in payments to insurers.

Republican President Donald Trump last year issued an executive order requiring the agency, which oversees the Obamacare individual market, to propose such a rule as part of its goal to make health insurance more affordable.

The order also required an extension of association-based health plans that do not comply with Obamacare and more use of tax-free health savings accounts.&nbsp;

US&nbsp;health officials said they did not expect the introduction of the plans to contribute to a rise in premiums in the ACA marketplace.

The US government on Tuesday proposed extending the availability of skimpy health insurance plans to millions of Americans in another Trump administration move aimed at undercutting the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare

The US government on Tuesday proposed extending the availability of skimpy health insurance plans to millions of Americans in another Trump administration move aimed at undercutting the requirements of the Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare. The US Department of Health and Human Services issued a proposed rule that such plans, now available only for periods of three months or less, will be available for up to 12 months. The agency is considering whether these plans will be renewable. The plans will not include the benefits that define the insurance created under Democratic former President Barack Obama, including required health benefits such as maternity coverage and the guarantee of insurance regardless of health. Obamacare currently allows for such short-duration plans, but they are limited to three months. The agency said it expects 100,000 to 200,000 people to shift from an Obamacare plan to such insurance in 2019 when the rule would go into effect, but that millions more people who have no insurance will likely sign up. America`s Health Insurance Plans, the biggest US health industry lobby, said it was concerned the expansion would make it more expensive to cover the sicker people, particularly those with pre-existing conditions, who remain on the Obamacare marketplace. About 10 million people are enrolled in Obamacare plans that are eligible for income-based subsidies. Evercore ISI analyst Michael Newshel said in a research note that while the magnitude of the new rule`s impact is debatable, directionally it is "another negative more for the stability of the individual insurance market." Even so, there were no new negatives in the government rule proposal, Newshel said. Shares in insurers which sell these plans were mixed. Centene Corp gained $1.18, or 1 per cent, to $101.40; Molina Healthcare rose 68 cents, or less than 1 per cent, to $72.80; Anthem Inc fell $2.53, or about 1 per cent, to $232.49; and Cigna Corp fell $2.29, or 1 per cent, to $191.60. The premiums on the plans have been rising each year since the marketplace was launched and increased in the double digits in 2018, reflecting a costly pool of members, fewer insurers and less competition, and the government decision to pull back billions of dollars in payments to insurers. Republican President Donald Trump last year issued an executive order requiring the agency, which oversees the Obamacare individual market, to propose such a rule as part of its goal to make health insurance more affordable. The order also required an extension of association-based health plans that do not comply with Obamacare and more use of tax-free health savings accounts. US health officials said they did not expect the introduction of the plans to contribute to a rise in premiums in the ACA marketplace.

US to extend skimpy health insurance outside of Obamacare

The message of the 2018 Pyeongchang &ldquo;Peace Olympics&rdquo; is clear.

Athletes using performance-enhancing drugs will be exiled, stripped of national colours and shunned. &ldquo;Olympic Athletes from Russia&rdquo; participating in the Winter Games are feeling such scorn.

Meanwhile, North Korea&rsquo;s 500-person Olympic delegation &mdash; attending the Olympics under duress, constant surveillance and potential abuse &mdash;are venerated. The 22 athletes and some 200 cheerleaders &mdash; an Olympic first &mdash; bear as much resemblance to the Olympic values of &ldquo;friendship, respect and excellence&rdquo; as do the Harlem Globetrotters to the NBA championships.

This sets an alarming precedent. Banning Russia while embracing North Korea reveals the deeper moral value of the Olympics.

The International Olympic Committee opposes performance-enhancing drugs that can carry an athlete to the podium. However, it remains eerily silent on how North Korea pushes their athletes towards that same podium.

&lsquo;Peaceful resolve&rsquo;

&ldquo;Olympic Truce&rdquo; dates back to ancient Greece. It allows athletes to travel safely to participate in Olympic events during times of conflict. North Korean athletes are in Pyeongchang under this edict. It is meant to build peaceful resolve to the Korean conflict.

But is diplomacy possible with North Korea? Kim Jong-un&rsquo;s state of iron-fisted control breaks international agreements with impunity.

North Koreans are not seeing live footage of the 2018 Winter Games. At most, only small snippets through state-controlled media will enter the country. As of today, North Korea has yet to broadcast any footage of the Olympics.

North Korean athletes will not interact with other delegations. They are under 24-hour surveillance by their North Korean minders. Even washroom breaks are closely scrutinized. While worried about potential defections, the North Korean regime is mostly concerned about defamation against it. South Korea even advised anti-North Korean activists to &ldquo;be quiet&rdquo; during the Games.

The process of becoming an elite athlete in North Korea is best described as &ldquo;brutal.&rdquo; Choi Hyun Mi, a North Korean boxer who defected in 2004, has described how North Korea creates Olympians. The government selected her at the age of 11 to box. Food was used for both control and incentive. Fight harder, and you will eat more. Falter, and you will starve.

Abused and condemned

Demoralizing tasks are doled out to those who perform poorly. Choi recalls how athletes were forced to stand in front of crowds to be publicly abused and condemned if they fail to win.

&ldquo;Shaming was particularly bad to competitors who lost to rivals from South Korea, Japan or the United States,&rdquo; she said.&nbsp;

There will be consequences if any of the North Korean delegates err from the script. The regime monitors the families of its athletes, and occasionally holds them as collateral. Speaking off script, or causing shame to the leader or the regime in any way, can result in detention and political re-education.

Three generations can be punished in North Korea if a family member is suspected of defamation of the leader, espionage or contact with foreigners.

To such accounts of human rights abuses, the International Olympic Committee turns a blind eye. But to weed out performance-enhancing dopers, it will scour every last drop of urine.

Sports diplomacy can be an effective means of engagement. The Olympics has in the past shown the communality of sport between Soviet and Western nations. &nbsp;The 1972 Canada/Soviet Union Summit Series was a moment of nationalist fervour and served as a diplomatic gateway to view the other side as human beings passionate about a sport both countries adore.

Great political moment

In 1991, pending the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba hosted the Pan-American games to open up to its neighbours. The 1995 Rugby World Cup is credited as an important diplomatic moment for post-Apartheid South Africa.

But in what sense can there be sports diplomacy with a regime willing to punish family members of athletes, and one that systematically abuses its athletes as part of their Olympic training?

The theme &ldquo;Peace Olympics&rdquo; and the Olympic Truce imply that politics are put on hold, but for North Korea, Pyeongchang is a great political moment. It is a chance to capitalize on the world&rsquo;s fascination about the Hermit Kingdom, while turning a blind eye to the gruesome human rights abuses within the regime.

Make no mistake, sending some 200 female cheerleaders to the Olympics makes for a fantastic diversion from the fact that most North Korean refugees are women, and many are &nbsp;trafficked into the sex trade in China.&nbsp;

The Olympics are also an opportunity to have direct talks free of Donald Trump&rsquo;s dim-witted Tweets about North Korea. But seeking sport diplomacy with North Korea sets a precedent that overlooks human rights abuses, and even validates them as a means to engagement.

So let it be declared that doping and sport diplomacy do not mix. But as North Korea shows, hunger, abuse and propaganda represent a path to the medal podium.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

It is strange that International Olympic Committee is okay with states violating human rights, such as North Korea but banning Russia on charges of doping.

The message of the 2018 Pyeongchang “Peace Olympics” is clear. Athletes using performance-enhancing drugs will be exiled, stripped of national colours and shunned. “Olympic Athletes from Russia” participating in the Winter Games are feeling such scorn. Meanwhile, North Korea’s 500-person Olympic delegation — attending the Olympics under duress, constant surveillance and potential abuse —are venerated. The 22 athletes and some 200 cheerleaders — an Olympic first — bear as much resemblance to the Olympic values of “friendship, respect and excellence” as do the Harlem Globetrotters to the NBA championships. This sets an alarming precedent. Banning Russia while embracing North Korea reveals the deeper moral value of the Olympics. The International Olympic Committee opposes performance-enhancing drugs that can carry an athlete to the podium. However, it remains eerily silent on how North Korea pushes their athletes towards that same podium. ‘Peaceful resolve’ “Olympic Truce” dates back to ancient Greece. It allows athletes to travel safely to participate in Olympic events during times of conflict. North Korean athletes are in Pyeongchang under this edict. It is meant to build peaceful resolve to the Korean conflict. But is diplomacy possible with North Korea? Kim Jong-un’s state of iron-fisted control breaks international agreements with impunity. North Koreans are not seeing live footage of the 2018 Winter Games. At most, only small snippets through state-controlled media will enter the country. As of today, North Korea has yet to broadcast any footage of the Olympics. North Korean athletes will not interact with other delegations. They are under 24-hour surveillance by their North Korean minders. Even washroom breaks are closely scrutinized. While worried about potential defections, the North Korean regime is mostly concerned about defamation against it. South Korea even advised anti-North Korean activists to “be quiet” during the Games. The process of becoming an elite athlete in North Korea is best described as “brutal.” Choi Hyun Mi, a North Korean boxer who defected in 2004, has described how North Korea creates Olympians. The government selected her at the age of 11 to box. Food was used for both control and incentive. Fight harder, and you will eat more. Falter, and you will starve. Abused and condemned Demoralizing tasks are doled out to those who perform poorly. Choi recalls how athletes were forced to stand in front of crowds to be publicly abused and condemned if they fail to win. “Shaming was particularly bad to competitors who lost to rivals from South Korea, Japan or the United States,” she said. There will be consequences if any of the North Korean delegates err from the script. The regime monitors the families of its athletes, and occasionally holds them as collateral. Speaking off script, or causing shame to the leader or the regime in any way, can result in detention and political re-education. Three generations can be punished in North Korea if a family member is suspected of defamation of the leader, espionage or contact with foreigners. To such accounts of human rights abuses, the International Olympic Committee turns a blind eye. But to weed out performance-enhancing dopers, it will scour every last drop of urine. Sports diplomacy can be an effective means of engagement. The Olympics has in the past shown the communality of sport between Soviet and Western nations. The 1972 Canada/Soviet Union Summit Series was a moment of nationalist fervour and served as a diplomatic gateway to view the other side as human beings passionate about a sport both countries adore. Great political moment In 1991, pending the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba hosted the Pan-American games to open up to its neighbours. The 1995 Rugby World Cup is credited as an important diplomatic moment for post-Apartheid South Africa. But in what sense can there be sports diplomacy with a regime willing to punish family members of athletes, and one that systematically abuses its athletes as part of their Olympic training? The theme “Peace Olympics” and the Olympic Truce imply that politics are put on hold, but for North Korea, Pyeongchang is a great political moment. It is a chance to capitalize on the world’s fascination about the Hermit Kingdom, while turning a blind eye to the gruesome human rights abuses within the regime. Make no mistake, sending some 200 female cheerleaders to the Olympics makes for a fantastic diversion from the fact that most North Korean refugees are women, and many are trafficked into the sex trade in China. The Olympics are also an opportunity to have direct talks free of Donald Trump’s dim-witted Tweets about North Korea. But seeking sport diplomacy with North Korea sets a precedent that overlooks human rights abuses, and even validates them as a means to engagement. So let it be declared that doping and sport diplomacy do not mix. But as North Korea shows, hunger, abuse and propaganda represent a path to the medal podium. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: North Korea trains Olympic athletes through hunger, abuse and propaganda

The vast network of Islamist charities taken over last week by Pakistan&#39;s government includes a horse-breeding stable, a fleet of 4x4 trucks, a swimming academy, martial arts classes and tens of thousands of staff and volunteers.

Islamabad hopes that by seizing control of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation (FIF) charities, which the United States says are terrorist fronts, it can stave off being included this week on a global watchlist of country&#39;s deemed to be doing too little to curb militant financing.

But the sheer scale and diversity of the charities founded by Hafiz Saeed, who is designated a terrorist by the United Nations, shows how difficult it will be for the government to even run the network, let alone track and take control of all their sources of income and funding.

Reuters visited three of JuD&#39;s main facilities - protected by close-circuit TV cameras, huge iron gates and stout-built, bearded guards - including a sprawling 200-acre headquarters in Muridke just outside the eastern city of Lahore.&nbsp;

A few government representatives were on site and new signs hung to rename the facilities, but little else appeared to have changed since the government announced it was banning the charities on February 14.

Officials said they have not yet drawn up plans on how to run the network, which includes more than 300 seminaries, schools, hospitals, a publishing house and ambulance services.

&quot;We&#39;re still collecting details about the JuD&#39;s facilities which have been taken over,&quot; a spokesman for the Punjab provincial government, Malik Mohammad Ahmad Khan, told Reuters. &quot;Our financial strategists are in consultation with the federal government to prepare a plan to run these facilities.&quot;

$10 million bounty

Hafiz Saeed is one of the founders of the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), or Army of the Pure, which Washington and India blame for the 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people. The United States has offered a $10 million reward for evidence leading to his conviction.

The LeT has been banned in Pakistan since 2002 but Saeed, who denies involvement in violence or funding militants, was freed by a Pakistani court from house arrest last year and his charity wings had been allowed to remain in operation.

Those charities are the focus of a motion co-sponsored by the United States and European allies calling for Pakistan to be placed on the terrorist financing watchlist maintained by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF).

Member states of the FATF, an intergovernmental body that sets global standards for fighting illicit finance, were discussing the motion at a meeting in Paris this week.&nbsp;

The move is part of a broader US&nbsp;strategy to pressure Pakistan to cut its alleged links to Islamist militants.&nbsp;

Pakistan was on the FATF &quot;grey list&quot; from 2012 to 2015. Islamabad has recently been scrambling to avert being put back on the list, a measure officials fear could hurt its economy, by taking a series of measures such as amending an anti-terrorism law and banning JuD and FIF.

Saeed denounced the latter move in a fiery sermon on Friday, accusing Islamabad of caving into U.S. and Indian pressure.

&quot;It is regrettable that rulers have been bowing to external powers&quot; he said, adding that Islamabad was making the nuclear-armed nation an &quot;American colony&quot;.&nbsp;

No change&nbsp;

At JuD&#39;s Muridke headquarters, Reuters found the day-to-day management of the charity running largely as before.

Only an administrator, two school principals and a doctor had been added by the government to the facility - previously known as Markaz-e-Taiba, now renamed Government Health and Education Complex Sheikhupura - where nearly 1,000 students take classes, a JuD official, Mohammad Athar, told Reuters.&nbsp;

Five policemen had been added to the squad of 100 JuD security guards, while the rest of the staff were still working, he said, adding: &quot;We know nothing about the government`s future plans.&quot;

Besides some 500 visitors daily, Athar said, nearly 3,000 students and employees live on the site, which boasts manicured lawns, rice fields, sports grounds, hostels, residential colonies, a swimming pool and a horse stud farm.

&quot;Schoolboys swim in the pool during summer season,&quot; Athar said. &quot;There are 35 horses for their riding classes.&quot; The students play soccer, gymnastics and martial arts, he said. Cricket is prohibited, said Athar, who believes the game is &quot;a waste of time&quot;.

At JuD&#39;s Hudabya Madrassa in Chakra, on the outskirts of Rawalpindi, which caters for nearly 160 students, 22 teachers and a dozen more of staff, just a caretaker had been appointed since the government takeover.&nbsp;

&quot;I&#39;m drawing 20,000 rupees ($200) salary a month,&quot; said a teacher, Tariq Husain. Monthly expenses for the facility could amount to 1-1.5 million rupees ($10,000-$15,000) a month, according to Reuters` estimate, based on the salaries staff reported and likely overheads of a facility that size.

&quot;People come and donate,&quot; said another teacher, Mohammad Musab. &quot;Our group mainly bear the expenses,&quot; he added, while handing out sweet milk tea and cookies to Reuters journalists.

He said a government official came and took office records on Thursday.

At a third facility, in the heart of Rawalpindi, a grand mosque was under construction, adorned with banners appealing for donations for the Muslims in Kashmir, Palestine and Syria.&nbsp;

Double game&nbsp;

Pakistan has long denied accusations from Washington, New Delhi and others that it supports Islamist militants operating in Afghanistan and disputed Kashmir.

Arif Jamal, the author of Call For Transitional Jihad: Lashkar-e-Taiba 1985-2014, said patience had run out with Pakistan&#39;s &quot;double game&quot;, and doubted the takeover of JuD and FIF would succeed in heading off further action.

&quot;My sense is that they&#39;re not likely to believe Pakistan for a long time even if Pakistan starts to take serious steps to dismantle terrorist parties,&quot; Jamal wrote from Washington in a WhatsApp reply to Reuters.

But Pakistan&#39;s former counterterrorism chief, Khawaja Khalid Farooq, said there were insufficient grounds for the country to be put back on the FATF watchlist.

&quot;I don&#39;t&nbsp;think there is any strong justification,&quot; Farooq said by phone from Dubai. &quot;There may be loopholes in our system which could be pointed out.&quot;

Pakistan&#39;s foreign office spokesman Mohammad Faisal told local 92 TV that Islamabad was lobbying to block the FATF motion, which he called US&nbsp;&quot;pressure tactics&quot;. 
&nbsp;

Islamabad hopes that by seizing control of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation (FIF) charities it can stave off being included this week on a global watchlist of country's deemed to be doing too little to curb militant financing

The vast network of Islamist charities taken over last week by Pakistan's government includes a horse-breeding stable, a fleet of 4x4 trucks, a swimming academy, martial arts classes and tens of thousands of staff and volunteers. Islamabad hopes that by seizing control of the Jamaat-ud-Dawa (JuD) and Falah-e-Insaniat Foundation (FIF) charities, which the United States says are terrorist fronts, it can stave off being included this week on a global watchlist of country's deemed to be doing too little to curb militant financing. But the sheer scale and diversity of the charities founded by Hafiz Saeed, who is designated a terrorist by the United Nations, shows how difficult it will be for the government to even run the network, let alone track and take control of all their sources of income and funding. Reuters visited three of JuD's main facilities - protected by close-circuit TV cameras, huge iron gates and stout-built, bearded guards - including a sprawling 200-acre headquarters in Muridke just outside the eastern city of Lahore. A few government representatives were on site and new signs hung to rename the facilities, but little else appeared to have changed since the government announced it was banning the charities on February 14. Officials said they have not yet drawn up plans on how to run the network, which includes more than 300 seminaries, schools, hospitals, a publishing house and ambulance services. "We're still collecting details about the JuD's facilities which have been taken over," a spokesman for the Punjab provincial government, Malik Mohammad Ahmad Khan, told Reuters. "Our financial strategists are in consultation with the federal government to prepare a plan to run these facilities." $10 million bounty Hafiz Saeed is one of the founders of the militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), or Army of the Pure, which Washington and India blame for the 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people. The United States has offered a $10 million reward for evidence leading to his conviction. The LeT has been banned in Pakistan since 2002 but Saeed, who denies involvement in violence or funding militants, was freed by a Pakistani court from house arrest last year and his charity wings had been allowed to remain in operation. Those charities are the focus of a motion co-sponsored by the United States and European allies calling for Pakistan to be placed on the terrorist financing watchlist maintained by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). Member states of the FATF, an intergovernmental body that sets global standards for fighting illicit finance, were discussing the motion at a meeting in Paris this week. The move is part of a broader US strategy to pressure Pakistan to cut its alleged links to Islamist militants. Pakistan was on the FATF "grey list" from 2012 to 2015. Islamabad has recently been scrambling to avert being put back on the list, a measure officials fear could hurt its economy, by taking a series of measures such as amending an anti-terrorism law and banning JuD and FIF. Saeed denounced the latter move in a fiery sermon on Friday, accusing Islamabad of caving into U.S. and Indian pressure. "It is regrettable that rulers have been bowing to external powers" he said, adding that Islamabad was making the nuclear-armed nation an "American colony". No change At JuD's Muridke headquarters, Reuters found the day-to-day management of the charity running largely as before. Only an administrator, two school principals and a doctor had been added by the government to the facility - previously known as Markaz-e-Taiba, now renamed Government Health and Education Complex Sheikhupura - where nearly 1,000 students take classes, a JuD official, Mohammad Athar, told Reuters. Five policemen had been added to the squad of 100 JuD security guards, while the rest of the staff were still working, he said, adding: "We know nothing about the government`s future plans." Besides some 500 visitors daily, Athar said, nearly 3,000 students and employees live on the site, which boasts manicured lawns, rice fields, sports grounds, hostels, residential colonies, a swimming pool and a horse stud farm. "Schoolboys swim in the pool during summer season," Athar said. "There are 35 horses for their riding classes." The students play soccer, gymnastics and martial arts, he said. Cricket is prohibited, said Athar, who believes the game is "a waste of time". At JuD's Hudabya Madrassa in Chakra, on the outskirts of Rawalpindi, which caters for nearly 160 students, 22 teachers and a dozen more of staff, just a caretaker had been appointed since the government takeover. "I'm drawing 20,000 rupees ($200) salary a month," said a teacher, Tariq Husain. Monthly expenses for the facility could amount to 1-1.5 million rupees ($10,000-$15,000) a month, according to Reuters` estimate, based on the salaries staff reported and likely overheads of a facility that size. "People come and donate," said another teacher, Mohammad Musab. "Our group mainly bear the expenses," he added, while handing out sweet milk tea and cookies to Reuters journalists. He said a government official came and took office records on Thursday. At a third facility, in the heart of Rawalpindi, a grand mosque was under construction, adorned with banners appealing for donations for the Muslims in Kashmir, Palestine and Syria. Double game Pakistan has long denied accusations from Washington, New Delhi and others that it supports Islamist militants operating in Afghanistan and disputed Kashmir. Arif Jamal, the author of Call For Transitional Jihad: Lashkar-e-Taiba 1985-2014, said patience had run out with Pakistan's "double game", and doubted the takeover of JuD and FIF would succeed in heading off further action. "My sense is that they're not likely to believe Pakistan for a long time even if Pakistan starts to take serious steps to dismantle terrorist parties," Jamal wrote from Washington in a WhatsApp reply to Reuters. But Pakistan's former counterterrorism chief, Khawaja Khalid Farooq, said there were insufficient grounds for the country to be put back on the FATF watchlist. "I don't think there is any strong justification," Farooq said by phone from Dubai. "There may be loopholes in our system which could be pointed out." Pakistan's foreign office spokesman Mohammad Faisal told local 92 TV that Islamabad was lobbying to block the FATF motion, which he called US "pressure tactics".

Seized, but not ceased: Banned charities pose challenge for Pakistan

Russia keeps posing a massive intelligence puzzle to the West: it is never as weak as we may want it to be, nor is it as strong as we fear it may be.

So, how can we classify Russia as an international power? It is not the Soviet Union reincarnated, so it is not a reborn counterpoint to US global supremacy. Nor does it intend to be. But it remains a major strategic spoiler of the US&rsquo; ambitions to retain its rules-based global order.&nbsp;

Moscow is trying to strengthen its relationship with like-minded major powers. China is one of Russia&rsquo;s comrades-in-arms, although not a formal ally. China and Russia are not forming any sort of anti-Western/anti-US alliance; both great powers have their own national agendas.&nbsp;

Over the past ten years, Russia and China have developed very close military ties, but their economic relationship remains uneven and quite low on the common strategic agenda. They are de facto engaged in soft competition across Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific.&nbsp;

But their intention to change the status quo in support of their ambitions aligns with their security and strategic agendas, at least for now. Just like China, Russia seeks to maximize its strategic autonomy by aggressively fending off any perceived challenges to its national interests or sovereignty.&nbsp;

The time cannot be better. US President Donald Trump keeps puzzling allies by reversing major political decisions of previous administrations while prioritising an inward-looking approach to running his country. And he is no match for Vladimir Putin in terms of experience, charisma, domestic popularity and global influence.&nbsp;

Try a simple experiment: search any publication about Russia published by the Australian media and try to find an article on anything Russia-related that does not have a reference to Putin. We see in Putin a manifestation of Russia&rsquo;s ambitions; its political, military, economic and even sports successes and failures; defense of traditional values and criticisms of the Western way of life.&nbsp;

Putin wants for Russia a &ldquo;place under the sun&rdquo;: that is, dominance over the immediate neighbourhood combined with Russia&rsquo;s recognised right to have interests in other parts of the world. The big question is: does modern Russia have what it takes to be a global superpower? The reality is there is no definitive answer to that.

On the one hand, Russia possesses key elements of a superpower: it is self-sufficient when it comes to natural resources and it is an energy superpower; it is a space power with a developed sovereign capability; it has a world-class scientific capability; it is the second-biggest military superpower in the world behind the US. Finally, it has global ambitions and a global agenda.

On the other hand, like China, Russia does not have a civilisational agenda &ndash; a competitive political model that could be an alternative to Western liberalism based on a free-market economy. After all, the Cold War was a clash of competitive socioeconomic systems supported by geopolitical and military-strategic competition. There is none of that today.

Second, Russia does not have the economic might of China and its intertwined economic interaction with the US. The Russian economy has suffered a great deal from the tight sanctions regime implemented after the Ukraine crisis, and is only beginning now to show signs of recovery.

That is not to say Russia has lost the economic means to support itself and its global ambitions. Over the past two years, it has achieved a major breakthrough in exporting grain and other agricultural produce, making it one of the top-three foreign currency earners. In 2017 alone, Russia earned some US$20.5 billion by exporting agricultural produce.&nbsp;

Russia&rsquo;s energy exports also remain high. In 2017, Russian energy giant Gazprom generated total revenue of US$103.6 billion. This year&rsquo;s revenue is expected to reach US$108 billion. In Europe alone, Gazprom controls 34.7% of its energy market, thus making it an important element of Russia&rsquo;s regional geoeconomics.&nbsp;

The Russian defense sector plays its traditional role of both earning much-needed cash and furthering Russia&rsquo;s geopolitical agenda. In 2017, Russian arms exports were worth US$17 billion, while the total portfolio of foreign orders of Russian armaments and military equipment is about US$45 billion, effectively retaining the number-two position in global arms sales.

Still, Russia has no means of global economic expansionism. It is desperately seeking new economic opportunities and partnerships with other countries that do not want all the power focused on the US. This gives China a strategic lead because of its diversified extensive economic partnerships with the US, Europe, and Asia.

Yet it would be premature to crown China as the sole superpower rival to the US. Unlike Russia, China clearly lacks political and diplomatic experience &ndash; the ability to play complex games on a global chessboard.&nbsp;

As an incoming superpower with global ambitions but limited experience in great power politics, China studies carefully the Soviet and Russian experiences and leaves Russia to fight all the major fights at international forums. North Korea and the South China Sea are among the few exceptions where the Chinese show strategic activism.

Apart from its extensive diplomatic experience, China also needs Russia&rsquo;s strategic nuclear and conventional military might.

Under Putin, the Russian military managed to close the capability gap with the most advanced Western militaries and transformed itself from a large, under-equipped and understaffed army into an effective, highly motivated and battle-hardened force. Putin has given the once-cash-strapped military machine a massive financial boost &ndash; and, more importantly, full political support.

Between 2013 and 2017, Russia landed in the world&rsquo;s top-three nations on defense expenditure, just behind the US and China. In Europe, Russia has remained the single largest defense spender and buyer of major combat systems.

From 2012 until early 2017, the Russian military received 30,000 new and upgraded armaments and items of heavy military equipment. The Syria campaign and Russia&rsquo;s ability to exercise strategic reach has once again made the military factor supported by active diplomacy one of the key determinants of successful realising its national strategic agenda.

In short, Russia is a major global power in outlook and reach, locked in a values-based confrontation with the West. But it still lacks all elements of a developed superpower.

But what it does most effectively is play the role of a strategic spoiler in times when the world is gradually accepting a new international configuration with a suite of established and emerging great powers that would dominate a future world order.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Russia keeps posing a massive intelligence puzzle to the West: it is never as weak as we may want it to be, nor is it as strong as we fear it may be. So, how can we classify Russia as an international power? It is not the Soviet Union reincarnated, so it is not a reborn counterpoint to US global supremacy. Nor does it intend to be. But it remains a major strategic spoiler of the US’ ambitions to retain its rules-based global order. Moscow is trying to strengthen its relationship with like-minded major powers. China is one of Russia’s comrades-in-arms, although not a formal ally. China and Russia are not forming any sort of anti-Western/anti-US alliance; both great powers have their own national agendas. Over the past ten years, Russia and China have developed very close military ties, but their economic relationship remains uneven and quite low on the common strategic agenda. They are de facto engaged in soft competition across Central Asia and the Asia-Pacific. But their intention to change the status quo in support of their ambitions aligns with their security and strategic agendas, at least for now. Just like China, Russia seeks to maximize its strategic autonomy by aggressively fending off any perceived challenges to its national interests or sovereignty. The time cannot be better. US President Donald Trump keeps puzzling allies by reversing major political decisions of previous administrations while prioritising an inward-looking approach to running his country. And he is no match for Vladimir Putin in terms of experience, charisma, domestic popularity and global influence. Try a simple experiment: search any publication about Russia published by the Australian media and try to find an article on anything Russia-related that does not have a reference to Putin. We see in Putin a manifestation of Russia’s ambitions; its political, military, economic and even sports successes and failures; defense of traditional values and criticisms of the Western way of life. Putin wants for Russia a “place under the sun”: that is, dominance over the immediate neighbourhood combined with Russia’s recognised right to have interests in other parts of the world. The big question is: does modern Russia have what it takes to be a global superpower? The reality is there is no definitive answer to that. On the one hand, Russia possesses key elements of a superpower: it is self-sufficient when it comes to natural resources and it is an energy superpower; it is a space power with a developed sovereign capability; it has a world-class scientific capability; it is the second-biggest military superpower in the world behind the US. Finally, it has global ambitions and a global agenda. On the other hand, like China, Russia does not have a civilisational agenda – a competitive political model that could be an alternative to Western liberalism based on a free-market economy. After all, the Cold War was a clash of competitive socioeconomic systems supported by geopolitical and military-strategic competition. There is none of that today. Second, Russia does not have the economic might of China and its intertwined economic interaction with the US. The Russian economy has suffered a great deal from the tight sanctions regime implemented after the Ukraine crisis, and is only beginning now to show signs of recovery. That is not to say Russia has lost the economic means to support itself and its global ambitions. Over the past two years, it has achieved a major breakthrough in exporting grain and other agricultural produce, making it one of the top-three foreign currency earners. In 2017 alone, Russia earned some US$20.5 billion by exporting agricultural produce. Russia’s energy exports also remain high. In 2017, Russian energy giant Gazprom generated total revenue of US$103.6 billion. This year’s revenue is expected to reach US$108 billion. In Europe alone, Gazprom controls 34.7% of its energy market, thus making it an important element of Russia’s regional geoeconomics. The Russian defense sector plays its traditional role of both earning much-needed cash and furthering Russia’s geopolitical agenda. In 2017, Russian arms exports were worth US$17 billion, while the total portfolio of foreign orders of Russian armaments and military equipment is about US$45 billion, effectively retaining the number-two position in global arms sales. Still, Russia has no means of global economic expansionism. It is desperately seeking new economic opportunities and partnerships with other countries that do not want all the power focused on the US. This gives China a strategic lead because of its diversified extensive economic partnerships with the US, Europe, and Asia. Yet it would be premature to crown China as the sole superpower rival to the US. Unlike Russia, China clearly lacks political and diplomatic experience – the ability to play complex games on a global chessboard. As an incoming superpower with global ambitions but limited experience in great power politics, China studies carefully the Soviet and Russian experiences and leaves Russia to fight all the major fights at international forums. North Korea and the South China Sea are among the few exceptions where the Chinese show strategic activism. Apart from its extensive diplomatic experience, China also needs Russia’s strategic nuclear and conventional military might. Under Putin, the Russian military managed to close the capability gap with the most advanced Western militaries and transformed itself from a large, under-equipped and understaffed army into an effective, highly motivated and battle-hardened force. Putin has given the once-cash-strapped military machine a massive financial boost – and, more importantly, full political support. Between 2013 and 2017, Russia landed in the world’s top-three nations on defense expenditure, just behind the US and China. In Europe, Russia has remained the single largest defense spender and buyer of major combat systems. From 2012 until early 2017, the Russian military received 30,000 new and upgraded armaments and items of heavy military equipment. The Syria campaign and Russia’s ability to exercise strategic reach has once again made the military factor supported by active diplomacy one of the key determinants of successful realising its national strategic agenda. In short, Russia is a major global power in outlook and reach, locked in a values-based confrontation with the West. But it still lacks all elements of a developed superpower. But what it does most effectively is play the role of a strategic spoiler in times when the world is gradually accepting a new international configuration with a suite of established and emerging great powers that would dominate a future world order. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Russia not so much a (re)rising superpower as a skilled strategic spoiler

Experts from Georgia Institute of Technology, US reveal that asteroids may help explain how life started on Earth.

According to a study conducted by a team of researchers at the institute, asteroids may act as &#39;time capsules&#39; and may help reveal what molecules originally existed in the solar system.&nbsp;

<iframe allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vv-NxulkuCo" width="560"></iframe>

&ldquo;We can look to the asteroids to help us understand what chemistry is possible in the universe,&rdquo; noted Nicholas Hud from Georgia Institute of Technology.

&ldquo;It&rsquo;s important for us to study materials from asteroids and meteorites, the smaller versions of asteroids that fall to Earth, to test the validity of our models for how molecules in them could have helped give rise to life. We also need to catalogue the molecules from asteroids and meteorites because there might be compounds there that we had not even considered important for starting life,&rdquo; Hud said.

For decades, NASA scientists have been analysing compounds found in asteroids and meteorites. The analysis provides an understanding of what might have been present when the Earth was formed.

&ldquo;Detection of a molecule in an asteroid or meteorite is about the only evidence everyone will accept for that molecule being prebiotic. It is something we can really lean on,&rdquo; he said.

In Hud&#39;s theory, there are many possible ways that the molecules of life could have been formed. He believes that life could have started with &quot;less sophisticated&quot; and &quot;less efficient&quot; molecules than what we see today. Like life itself, these molecules could have evolved over time.

(With inputs from PTI)&nbsp;

Asteroids may act as 'time capsules' and may help reveal what molecules originally existed in the solar system

Experts from Georgia Institute of Technology, US reveal that asteroids may help explain how life started on Earth. According to a study conducted by a team of researchers at the institute, asteroids may act as 'time capsules' and may help reveal what molecules originally existed in the solar system. “We can look to the asteroids to help us understand what chemistry is possible in the universe,” noted Nicholas Hud from Georgia Institute of Technology. “It’s important for us to study materials from asteroids and meteorites, the smaller versions of asteroids that fall to Earth, to test the validity of our models for how molecules in them could have helped give rise to life. We also need to catalogue the molecules from asteroids and meteorites because there might be compounds there that we had not even considered important for starting life,” Hud said. For decades, NASA scientists have been analysing compounds found in asteroids and meteorites. The analysis provides an understanding of what might have been present when the Earth was formed. “Detection of a molecule in an asteroid or meteorite is about the only evidence everyone will accept for that molecule being prebiotic. It is something we can really lean on,” he said. In Hud's theory, there are many possible ways that the molecules of life could have been formed. He believes that life could have started with "less sophisticated" and "less efficient" molecules than what we see today. Like life itself, these molecules could have evolved over time. (With inputs from PTI)

Wonder how life started on Earth? Study asteroids: US experts

There seems to be no relief for German car makers. After Volkswagen, it&rsquo;s time for Mercedes-maker Daimler to face the wrath of US authorities for cheating to pass diesel emissions tests.&nbsp;

In 2015, Volkswagen was found to be fitting millions of diesel engines worldwide with software to distort emission data. And now German carmaker Daimler has been accused of conducting a similar illegal practice in the US.&nbsp;

Mercedes-maker Daimler has been accused of equipping cars with software to pass diesel emissions tests in the US. Results of internal testing revealed that some of the Mercedes models emit ten times the country&#39;s nitrogen oxide limit.&nbsp;

&nbsp;It is important to understand that a huge amount of nitrogen oxides in the air is poisonous. It can contribute to acid rain, can lead to suffocating smog, and can cause breathing problems and headaches in humans.

It has been reported that Daimler used software devices in cars to regulate the amount of a special fluid known as ad blue, which is used in the engines to neutralise harmful nitrogen oxides.

It comes around three years after Volkswagen admitted to installing secret software on 580,000 US vehicles that allowed them to emit up to 40 times the legal limit.

U.S. Investigators are reported to have found a couple of software functions that helped Daimler cars pass emissions tests. For instance, the &ldquo;bit 15&rdquo; software switched off the car&rsquo;s emission control system after 26 kilometres of driving.

Slipguard, on the other hand, allowed the emissions cleaning system to recognise whether the car was being tested based on speed or acceleration patterns.&nbsp;

A Daimler spokesman declines to comment on the content of the documents that have been quoted in the media. He says the company is fully cooperating with the US authorities and has agreed upon strict confidentiality with the Department of Justice.&nbsp;

A Daimler spokesperson says: &ldquo;the documents available to Bild have obviously selectively been released in order to harm Daimler and its 290,000 employees,&rdquo; says a Daimler spokesperson.&nbsp;

U.S. Investigators are probing Mercedes-maker Daimler. Investigations could lead to significant penalties and recalls.&nbsp;

It&rsquo;s yet to be seen how the US authorities respond to the entire case, but here is an interesting thing to note. It&rsquo;s ironic to see that while Daimler has been accused in the US for cheating on emission tests, it is contributing to a government-funded project in Germany that aims to cut down on air pollution.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

While Daimler has been accused in the US for cheating on emission tests, it is contributing to a government-funded project in Germany that aims to cut down on air pollution.

There seems to be no relief for German car makers. After Volkswagen, it’s time for Mercedes-maker Daimler to face the wrath of US authorities for cheating to pass diesel emissions tests. In 2015, Volkswagen was found to be fitting millions of diesel engines worldwide with software to distort emission data. And now German carmaker Daimler has been accused of conducting a similar illegal practice in the US. Mercedes-maker Daimler has been accused of equipping cars with software to pass diesel emissions tests in the US. Results of internal testing revealed that some of the Mercedes models emit ten times the country's nitrogen oxide limit. It is important to understand that a huge amount of nitrogen oxides in the air is poisonous. It can contribute to acid rain, can lead to suffocating smog, and can cause breathing problems and headaches in humans. It has been reported that Daimler used software devices in cars to regulate the amount of a special fluid known as ad blue, which is used in the engines to neutralise harmful nitrogen oxides. It comes around three years after Volkswagen admitted to installing secret software on 580,000 US vehicles that allowed them to emit up to 40 times the legal limit. U.S. Investigators are reported to have found a couple of software functions that helped Daimler cars pass emissions tests. For instance, the “bit 15” software switched off the car’s emission control system after 26 kilometres of driving. Slipguard, on the other hand, allowed the emissions cleaning system to recognise whether the car was being tested based on speed or acceleration patterns. A Daimler spokesman declines to comment on the content of the documents that have been quoted in the media. He says the company is fully cooperating with the US authorities and has agreed upon strict confidentiality with the Department of Justice. A Daimler spokesperson says: “the documents available to Bild have obviously selectively been released in order to harm Daimler and its 290,000 employees,” says a Daimler spokesperson. U.S. Investigators are probing Mercedes-maker Daimler. Investigations could lead to significant penalties and recalls. It’s yet to be seen how the US authorities respond to the entire case, but here is an interesting thing to note. It’s ironic to see that while Daimler has been accused in the US for cheating on emission tests, it is contributing to a government-funded project in Germany that aims to cut down on air pollution. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Is German car company Daimler poisoning our air?

Former US Secretary of State John Kerry recently noted the significance of the Iran nuclear deal expressing that it is &quot;absolutely critical&quot; that the deal survives although the Trump administration is highly sceptical about the 2015 deal.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump extended sanctions waivers in January. He later stated that he would not do the same at the time of the renewal in May unless his concerns are addressed.

Kerry, who is also one of the leading negotiators on the deal, spoke at the Munich Security Conference today and called the White House&#39;s stance on the nuke deal as &quot;untenable&quot;.&nbsp;

&quot;It is not good diplomacy,&quot; Kerry noted.&nbsp;

Kerry noted the deal to be of the utmost importance for the world. He stated that going backwards on the agreement is not an option. &quot;Without the Iran nuclear agreement the world is not a better place,&quot; Kerry added.&nbsp;

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, on his three-day visit to India, also talked about the nuclear deal and agreements with the United States.&nbsp;

He noted that the Iranian government will adhere to any agreement that is signed with the United States.&nbsp;

&quot;If the US violates this agreement, you will see that America will regret its decision. Not only US administration, but also US people would voice their opposition immediately and will object to the violators,&quot; Rouhani added.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Kerry noted the deal to be of the utmost importance for the world

Former US Secretary of State John Kerry recently noted the significance of the Iran nuclear deal expressing that it is "absolutely critical" that the deal survives although the Trump administration is highly sceptical about the 2015 deal. US President Donald Trump extended sanctions waivers in January. He later stated that he would not do the same at the time of the renewal in May unless his concerns are addressed. Kerry, who is also one of the leading negotiators on the deal, spoke at the Munich Security Conference today and called the White House's stance on the nuke deal as "untenable". "It is not good diplomacy," Kerry noted. Kerry noted the deal to be of the utmost importance for the world. He stated that going backwards on the agreement is not an option. "Without the Iran nuclear agreement the world is not a better place," Kerry added. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, on his three-day visit to India, also talked about the nuclear deal and agreements with the United States. He noted that the Iranian government will adhere to any agreement that is signed with the United States. "If the US violates this agreement, you will see that America will regret its decision. Not only US administration, but also US people would voice their opposition immediately and will object to the violators," Rouhani added.

Iran nuclear deal must survive: Former US Secretary of State John Kerry

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who is currently on a three-day visit to India, expressed his opinion on the Trump administration noting that the Iranians had long had their destiny in the hands of the US.&nbsp;

&quot;They would decide for our economy, our culture. Even we didn&#39;t have an educational channel on TV. All military centres were in total control of the US,&quot; Rouhani said.&nbsp;

He also noted that the Iranian government will adhere to any agreement that is signed with the United States.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Our destiny was in the hands of US for a long period of time. They would decide for our economy, our culture. Even we didn&#39;t have an educational channel on TV. All military centers were in total control of the US: Iran President <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/HassanRouhani?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#HassanRouhani</a> in Delhi <a href="https://t.co/FgcljnlYgS">pic.twitter.com/FgcljnlYgS</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/964839211928096768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 17, 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">&times;</a></div>

&quot;If the US violates this agreement, you will see that America will regret its decision. Not only US administration, but also US people would voice their opposition immediately and will object to the violators,&quot; he further added.&nbsp;

President Rouhani recently condemned Donald Trump&#39;s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel&rsquo;s capital. He also urged the Muslim community to support the Palestinian cause. He criticised the White House for imposing a ban on travellers from six Muslim countries.&nbsp;

Rouhani addressed a congregation of Muslim community in Hyderabad on Friday.

Iran and India have signed as many as 9 MoUs. President Rouhani and PM Modi issued <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/want-to-develop-railway-relations-between-india-and-iran-president-rouhani-33173">a joint statement</a> earlier today.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Rouhani addressed a congregation of Muslim community in Hyderabad on Friday

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who is currently on a three-day visit to India, expressed his opinion on the Trump administration noting that the Iranians had long had their destiny in the hands of the US. "They would decide for our economy, our culture. Even we didn't have an educational channel on TV. All military centres were in total control of the US," Rouhani said. He also noted that the Iranian government will adhere to any agreement that is signed with the United States. Our destiny was in the hands of US for a long period of time. They would decide for our economy, our culture. Even we didn't have an educational channel on TV. All military centers were in total control of the US: Iran President #HassanRouhani in Delhi pic.twitter.com/FgcljnlYgS — ANI (@ANI) February 17, 2018 × "If the US violates this agreement, you will see that America will regret its decision. Not only US administration, but also US people would voice their opposition immediately and will object to the violators," he further added. President Rouhani recently condemned Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He also urged the Muslim community to support the Palestinian cause. He criticised the White House for imposing a ban on travellers from six Muslim countries. Rouhani addressed a congregation of Muslim community in Hyderabad on Friday. Iran and India have signed as many as 9 MoUs. President Rouhani and PM Modi issued a joint statement earlier today.

America will regret if it violates 'nuclear' agreement: President Rouhani

The 19-year-old man accused of killing 17 people at a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/call-for-gun-control-in-us-after-school-shooting-8394" target="_blank">Florida high school</a> fled hidden in a crowd of frightened students and visited two fast food restaurants before he was arrested less than two hours after the massacre, officials said on Thursday.

Authorities said the alleged gunman, Nikolas Cruz, stopped at a Wal-Mart, a Subway restaurant and a McDonald&#39;s immediately after carrying one of the deadliest mass shootings at a public school in US history.

&quot;The suspect crossed fields and ran west along with others who were fleeing and tried to mix in with the group that were running away, fearing for their lives,&quot; Broward Country Sheriff Scott Israel told reporters.

Cruz, who has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder, is accused of using a legally purchased AR-15-style weapon in Wednesday&#39;s attack, moving through Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland outside Miami.

Cruz was a former student of the school who had been expelled.

Authorities said the alleged gunman, Nikolas Cruz, stopped at a Wal-Mart, a Subway restaurant and a McDonald's immediately after carrying one of the deadliest mass shootings at a public school in US history

The 19-year-old man accused of killing 17 people at a Florida high school fled hidden in a crowd of frightened students and visited two fast food restaurants before he was arrested less than two hours after the massacre, officials said on Thursday. Authorities said the alleged gunman, Nikolas Cruz, stopped at a Wal-Mart, a Subway restaurant and a McDonald's immediately after carrying one of the deadliest mass shootings at a public school in US history. "The suspect crossed fields and ran west along with others who were fleeing and tried to mix in with the group that were running away, fearing for their lives," Broward Country Sheriff Scott Israel told reporters. Cruz, who has been charged with 17 counts of premeditated murder, is accused of using a legally purchased AR-15-style weapon in Wednesday's attack, moving through Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland outside Miami. Cruz was a former student of the school who had been expelled.

Accused Florida gunman visited restaurants, store after killing - Police

The Taliban said on Wednesday, in a rare statement to the American people, they wanted to end Afghanistan&rsquo;s 17-year war through talks while warning the message should not be seen as a sign of weakness and the fight against US&nbsp;forces would go on.

Taliban&nbsp;insurgents issued an astounding 17,000-word appeal to the &quot;American people.&quot;&nbsp;The letter emailed to the media in English and four other languages contained official statistics about the human and economic costs of war.

The letter, sent under the banner of &quot;The Islamic Emirate of&nbsp;<a href="https://www.aninews.in/search?query=Afghanistan">Afghanistan</a>,&quot; was issued just weeks after a blitz of deadly insurgent attacks in the Afghan capital.

A more aggressive US&nbsp;strategy in Afghanistan including a surge in air strikes introduced by President Donald Trump in August has pushed the Taliban back from several district centers and two provincial capitals.

But the militants control large parts of the countryside and have responded to the more aggressive US&nbsp;strategy with two attacks in Kabul in the past few weeks, killing nearly 150 people.

The attacks have toughened both the US&nbsp;and Afghan governments&rsquo; stand against initiating talks with the insurgents, although neither side seems capable of winning the conflict.

&ldquo;Our preference is to solve the Afghan issue through peaceful dialogue,&rdquo; the Taliban said.

&quot;Prolonging the war in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;and maintaining American troop presence is neither beneficial for America nor for anyone else,&quot; the letter said.

&quot;Stubbornly seeking the protraction of this war will have dreadful consequences for the region and the stability of America herself,&quot; the document added.

&quot;As confirmed by your own military authorities, 3546 American and foreign soldiers have been killed, more than 20,000 American forces injured and tens of thousands more are suffering mentally,&quot; the letter said, asserting that the actual casualty figures were much higher but were being &quot;concealed&quot; by the U.S. leaders.

The overall message of these arguments was that the American people should make a &quot;rational&quot; assessment of the war.

&quot;You proclaim to be a developed and civilized nation. We leave it to your judgment to decide whether the prevailing conditions of insecurity, chaos and soaring drug problems in&nbsp;Afghanistan&nbsp;constitute reforms or crimes against humanity,&quot; it concluded.

The Taliban, fighting to oust foreign forces and defeat the US-backed government, said the United States must end its &ldquo;occupation&rdquo; and accept the Taliban right to form a government &ldquo;consistent with the beliefs of our people&rdquo;.

In their statement, the Taliban did not mention a January&nbsp;27 raids on a top Kabul hotel, in which more than 30 people were killed, nor a bomb attack on a crowded street a week later that killed more than 100. They claimed both attacks.

The militants only mentioned the Afghan government to deride it on various grounds. A government spokesman declined to comment on the statement.

A spokesman for Afghanistan&rsquo;s NATO-led military mission said the recent Taliban attacks on civilians demonstrated they were not ready to enter &ldquo;good-faith peace negotiations&rdquo; while the government had on numerous occasions made clear it was willing to begin a peace process.

&ldquo;The Taliban statement alone does not show willingness to engage in peace talks. The recent attacks speak louder than these words,&rdquo; said the spokesman, Captain Tom Gresback.

The Taliban said it was not too late for the American people to realise the Taliban can solve problems with every side &ldquo;through healthy politics and dialogue&rdquo;, adding the chances for dialogue were &ldquo;not exhausted&rdquo;.

Preliminary talks on ending the war that kills thousands of people each year have stalled.

But low-level contacts between the government, international groups including the United Nations and groups close to the Taliban have continued even as the insurgency has escalated.

The Taliban said their willingness to play a &ldquo;constructive role in finding a peaceful solution&rdquo; should not be taken as a sign of weakness.

&ldquo;This can never mean that we are exhausted or our will has been sapped,&rdquo; they said.

They said they had no intention to damage any other country or let anyone use Afghan territory against anyone else.

&nbsp;

(With inputs from Reuters)

Taliban insurgents issued an astounding 17,000-word appeal sent under the banner of "The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," to the "American people"

The Taliban said on Wednesday, in a rare statement to the American people, they wanted to end Afghanistan’s 17-year war through talks while warning the message should not be seen as a sign of weakness and the fight against US forces would go on. Taliban insurgents issued an astounding 17,000-word appeal to the "American people." The letter emailed to the media in English and four other languages contained official statistics about the human and economic costs of war. The letter, sent under the banner of "The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," was issued just weeks after a blitz of deadly insurgent attacks in the Afghan capital. A more aggressive US strategy in Afghanistan including a surge in air strikes introduced by President Donald Trump in August has pushed the Taliban back from several district centers and two provincial capitals. But the militants control large parts of the countryside and have responded to the more aggressive US strategy with two attacks in Kabul in the past few weeks, killing nearly 150 people. The attacks have toughened both the US and Afghan governments’ stand against initiating talks with the insurgents, although neither side seems capable of winning the conflict. “Our preference is to solve the Afghan issue through peaceful dialogue,” the Taliban said. "Prolonging the war in Afghanistan and maintaining American troop presence is neither beneficial for America nor for anyone else," the letter said. "Stubbornly seeking the protraction of this war will have dreadful consequences for the region and the stability of America herself," the document added. "As confirmed by your own military authorities, 3546 American and foreign soldiers have been killed, more than 20,000 American forces injured and tens of thousands more are suffering mentally," the letter said, asserting that the actual casualty figures were much higher but were being "concealed" by the U.S. leaders. The overall message of these arguments was that the American people should make a "rational" assessment of the war. "You proclaim to be a developed and civilized nation. We leave it to your judgment to decide whether the prevailing conditions of insecurity, chaos and soaring drug problems in Afghanistan constitute reforms or crimes against humanity," it concluded. The Taliban, fighting to oust foreign forces and defeat the US-backed government, said the United States must end its “occupation” and accept the Taliban right to form a government “consistent with the beliefs of our people”. In their statement, the Taliban did not mention a January 27 raids on a top Kabul hotel, in which more than 30 people were killed, nor a bomb attack on a crowded street a week later that killed more than 100. They claimed both attacks. The militants only mentioned the Afghan government to deride it on various grounds. A government spokesman declined to comment on the statement. A spokesman for Afghanistan’s NATO-led military mission said the recent Taliban attacks on civilians demonstrated they were not ready to enter “good-faith peace negotiations” while the government had on numerous occasions made clear it was willing to begin a peace process. “The Taliban statement alone does not show willingness to engage in peace talks. The recent attacks speak louder than these words,” said the spokesman, Captain Tom Gresback. The Taliban said it was not too late for the American people to realise the Taliban can solve problems with every side “through healthy politics and dialogue”, adding the chances for dialogue were “not exhausted”. Preliminary talks on ending the war that kills thousands of people each year have stalled. But low-level contacts between the government, international groups including the United Nations and groups close to the Taliban have continued even as the insurgency has escalated. The Taliban said their willingness to play a “constructive role in finding a peaceful solution” should not be taken as a sign of weakness. “This can never mean that we are exhausted or our will has been sapped,” they said. They said they had no intention to damage any other country or let anyone use Afghan territory against anyone else. (With inputs from Reuters)

Want to end war through dialogue: Afghan Taliban

Amazon.com Inc will pay a $1.2 million penalty to settle nearly 4,000 alleged violations of U.S. law in a move to prevent harmful exposure to pesticides through illegal sales, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday.

Amazon agreed to closely monitor and remove illegal pesticide products from its website in an effort to &quot;significantly reduce the number of illegal pesticides available through the online marketplace,&quot; the EPA said.

Amazon&#39;s violations were for selling and distributing imported pesticide and insecticide products that had been not licensed for sale in the United States, the EPA said.

Amazon said third-party sellers had sold the products through its website.

Ed Kowalski, EPA&#39;s enforcement director for the region that includes Amazon&#39;s headquarters in Seattle, said the retailer was warehousing, packaging, shipping and profiting off the products.

&quot;They have a responsibility whether to determine whether the products that they&#39;re selling are pesticides and, if so, whether they&#39;re illegal pesticides.&quot;

Amazon immediately removed the products from its website, banned foreign sellers from selling pesticides and stepped up the monitoring of its website for illegal pesticides, the EPA said.

Amazon also asked customers who purchased the products in 2013-2016 to communicate safety concerns, urged them to dispose of the items and refunded customers the cost of the products, about $130,000, the EPA said.

&quot;Regulatory compliance is a top priority at Amazon. Third-party sellers are required to comply with all relevant laws and regulations when listing items for sale on Amazon,&quot; the company said.

Amazon agreed to closely monitor and remove illegal pesticide products from its website in an effort to "significantly reduce the number of illegal pesticides available through the online marketplace," the EPA said

Amazon.com Inc will pay a $1.2 million penalty to settle nearly 4,000 alleged violations of U.S. law in a move to prevent harmful exposure to pesticides through illegal sales, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday. Amazon agreed to closely monitor and remove illegal pesticide products from its website in an effort to "significantly reduce the number of illegal pesticides available through the online marketplace," the EPA said. Amazon's violations were for selling and distributing imported pesticide and insecticide products that had been not licensed for sale in the United States, the EPA said. Amazon said third-party sellers had sold the products through its website. Ed Kowalski, EPA's enforcement director for the region that includes Amazon's headquarters in Seattle, said the retailer was warehousing, packaging, shipping and profiting off the products. "They have a responsibility whether to determine whether the products that they're selling are pesticides and, if so, whether they're illegal pesticides." Amazon immediately removed the products from its website, banned foreign sellers from selling pesticides and stepped up the monitoring of its website for illegal pesticides, the EPA said. Amazon also asked customers who purchased the products in 2013-2016 to communicate safety concerns, urged them to dispose of the items and refunded customers the cost of the products, about $130,000, the EPA said. "Regulatory compliance is a top priority at Amazon. Third-party sellers are required to comply with all relevant laws and regulations when listing items for sale on Amazon," the company said.

Amazon to pay $1.2 million in settlement over pesticide sales, US says

The United States on Thursday pinned the blame for the massive 2017 &#39;NotPetya&quot; cyber attack firmly on Russia and warned Moscow it will face &quot;international consequences.&quot;

The attack launched in June 2017 by the Russian military &ldquo;spread worldwide, causing billions of dollars in damage across Europe, Asia and the Americas,&rdquo; White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement.

&ldquo;It was part of the Kremlin&rsquo;s ongoing effort to destabilize Ukraine and demonstrates ever more clearly Russia&rsquo;s involvement in the ongoing conflict,&rdquo; Sanders said. &ldquo;This was also a reckless and indiscriminate cyber attack that will be met with international consequences.&rdquo;

The attack affected thousands of computers, particularly affecting multinational companies and critical infrastructure. The Kremlin has denied involvement.

The statement came days after leaders of US&nbsp;intelligence agencies again warned that Russia, and potentially other adversaries, were likely to attempt to use cyber means to meddle in the U.S. midterm elections in November.

The US&nbsp;government is &ldquo;reviewing a range of options,&rdquo; a senior White House official said when asked what consequences Russia would face.

It was not clear what those options were, nor what was meant by &ldquo;international consequences.&rdquo;

Earlier on Thursday Russia denied being behind the attack, saying the accusations were part of a &ldquo;Russophobic&rdquo; campaign that it said was being waged by some Western countries.

The White House had intended to release a statement about &lsquo;NotPetya&rsquo; at the same time as London, but those plans were delayed due to a<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/florida-shooting-suspect-was-part-of-white-supremacist-group-33018"> school shooting in Florida</a>, according to three sources familiar with the matter.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

The attack launched in June 2017 by the Russian military “spread worldwide, causing billions of dollars in damage across Europe, Asia and the Americas

The United States on Thursday pinned the blame for the massive 2017 'NotPetya" cyber attack firmly on Russia and warned Moscow it will face "international consequences." The attack launched in June 2017 by the Russian military “spread worldwide, causing billions of dollars in damage across Europe, Asia and the Americas,” White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. “It was part of the Kremlin’s ongoing effort to destabilize Ukraine and demonstrates ever more clearly Russia’s involvement in the ongoing conflict,” Sanders said. “This was also a reckless and indiscriminate cyber attack that will be met with international consequences.” The attack affected thousands of computers, particularly affecting multinational companies and critical infrastructure. The Kremlin has denied involvement. The statement came days after leaders of US intelligence agencies again warned that Russia, and potentially other adversaries, were likely to attempt to use cyber means to meddle in the U.S. midterm elections in November. The US government is “reviewing a range of options,” a senior White House official said when asked what consequences Russia would face. It was not clear what those options were, nor what was meant by “international consequences.” Earlier on Thursday Russia denied being behind the attack, saying the accusations were part of a “Russophobic” campaign that it said was being waged by some Western countries. The White House had intended to release a statement about ‘NotPetya’ at the same time as London, but those plans were delayed due to a school shooting in Florida, according to three sources familiar with the matter. (With inputs from agencies)

Russia to face 'consequences' for 'NotPetya' cyber attack, says White House

Florida saw one of its <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/ex-student-opens-fire-in-florida-school-at-least-17-killed-32906">deadliest mass shooting</a> on Wednesday when a 19-year-old former student attacked the school, killing 17 children.&nbsp;

Heres a rundown of the last five deadliest attacks in US schools and universities:

1. Umpqua Community College Shooting&nbsp;

On October 1, 2015, a 26-year-old man identified as Christopher Harper-Mercer committed the deadliest mass shooting in Oregon history, killing nine people and injuring seven others at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon.&nbsp;

He only let one person go just so that he could inform the police about the incident. Mercer had suffered from long-term mental illness and was described as &quot;hate filled&quot; by those who knew him.

Some theories behind the mass shooting were Mercer falling below a C average, putting him at risk for suspension, as well as him not being able to pay the tuition bill due.

&nbsp;He ultimately committed suicide after the attack.

2. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown

On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.&nbsp;

Lanza killed his mother, before entering the school where he killed 26 people and injured two others; the majority of his victims were children aging from five to 10 years old.

He committed suicide upon completion of the attack. According to the media and news reports, this was one of the most bizarre shootings because Lanza never offered a motive or reasoning behind the murder of his mother nor the horrendous mass slaying of innocent children.

3. Oikos University Shooting

On April 2, 2012, 43-year-old One L. Goh committed California&#39;s deadliest mass killing on at the Korean Christian college Oikos University and killed seven people and wounded at least three more.&nbsp;

He was a former student of the school and opened fire early morning on April 2. Goh had been a nursing student at the college but was not enrolled at the time of the shooting.&nbsp;

Goh apparently targeted a school director he was angry at - but who no longer worked there.&nbsp;

Goh is at Napa State Hospital being treated for paranoid schizophrenia, with his lawyer saying he saw faces in mirrors and experienced delusions regarding &quot;the battle between God and Satan and his role in that battle.&quot;

4. Northern Illinois University

On &nbsp;February 14, 2008, Steven Kazmierczak, 27, &nbsp;dressed in black stepped from behind a curtain at the front of a large lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday and shot 21 people, five of them fatally, then shot and killed himself.&nbsp;

Four died at the scene, including the shooter, and two later died at the hospital. At least 22 people, including a graduate student who was teaching an ocean sciences class, were shot.&nbsp;

The shooter was a graduate student at NIU, he appeared to be a model student, earning a dean&rsquo;s award in 2006.

He also served as vice president of the Academic Criminal Justice Association, a student group focused on educating the community.

He was treated temporarily for mental illness at the Elk Grove Village Thresholds-Mary Hill House psychiatric center,[33] for being &quot;unruly&quot; at home. Reports said that his behavior seemed to become more erratic in the weeks leading up to the shooting and that it is believed he stopped taking medication beforehand.

5. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

On April 16, 2007, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia came under attack when senior student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and injured 17 more in two attacks &ndash; one in a co-ed dormitory, the other in the Engineering, Science and Mechanics building.

Cho ultimately committed suicide following the shooting.&nbsp;He is noted as committing the deadliest attack on a school in US history.

Cho was previously diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder; among the tapes he personally mailed to NBC news, Cho expressed his hatred for the wealthy, compared himself to Jesus Christ and explained that he was forced to commit the mass shooting due to voices in his head.

&nbsp;

Florida saw one of its deadliest mass shooting on Wednesday when a 19-year-old former student attacked the school, killing 17 children

Florida saw one of its deadliest mass shooting on Wednesday when a 19-year-old former student attacked the school, killing 17 children. Heres a rundown of the last five deadliest attacks in US schools and universities: 1. Umpqua Community College Shooting On October 1, 2015, a 26-year-old man identified as Christopher Harper-Mercer committed the deadliest mass shooting in Oregon history, killing nine people and injuring seven others at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. He only let one person go just so that he could inform the police about the incident. Mercer had suffered from long-term mental illness and was described as "hate filled" by those who knew him. Some theories behind the mass shooting were Mercer falling below a C average, putting him at risk for suspension, as well as him not being able to pay the tuition bill due. He ultimately committed suicide after the attack. 2. Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown On December 14, 2012, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Lanza killed his mother, before entering the school where he killed 26 people and injured two others; the majority of his victims were children aging from five to 10 years old. He committed suicide upon completion of the attack. According to the media and news reports, this was one of the most bizarre shootings because Lanza never offered a motive or reasoning behind the murder of his mother nor the horrendous mass slaying of innocent children. 3. Oikos University Shooting On April 2, 2012, 43-year-old One L. Goh committed California's deadliest mass killing on at the Korean Christian college Oikos University and killed seven people and wounded at least three more. He was a former student of the school and opened fire early morning on April 2. Goh had been a nursing student at the college but was not enrolled at the time of the shooting. Goh apparently targeted a school director he was angry at - but who no longer worked there. Goh is at Napa State Hospital being treated for paranoid schizophrenia, with his lawyer saying he saw faces in mirrors and experienced delusions regarding "the battle between God and Satan and his role in that battle." 4. Northern Illinois University On February 14, 2008, Steven Kazmierczak, 27, dressed in black stepped from behind a curtain at the front of a large lecture hall at Northern Illinois University on Thursday and shot 21 people, five of them fatally, then shot and killed himself. Four died at the scene, including the shooter, and two later died at the hospital. At least 22 people, including a graduate student who was teaching an ocean sciences class, were shot. The shooter was a graduate student at NIU, he appeared to be a model student, earning a dean’s award in 2006. He also served as vice president of the Academic Criminal Justice Association, a student group focused on educating the community. He was treated temporarily for mental illness at the Elk Grove Village Thresholds-Mary Hill House psychiatric center,[33] for being "unruly" at home. Reports said that his behavior seemed to become more erratic in the weeks leading up to the shooting and that it is believed he stopped taking medication beforehand. 5. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University On April 16, 2007, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia came under attack when senior student Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and injured 17 more in two attacks – one in a co-ed dormitory, the other in the Engineering, Science and Mechanics building. Cho ultimately committed suicide following the shooting. He is noted as committing the deadliest attack on a school in US history. Cho was previously diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder; among the tapes he personally mailed to NBC news, Cho expressed his hatred for the wealthy, compared himself to Jesus Christ and explained that he was forced to commit the mass shooting due to voices in his head.

US school shootings: Deadly attacks as 'model' students become killers

China is trying to gain access to sensitive US&nbsp;technologies and intellectual properties through telecommunications companies, academia and joint business ventures, US&nbsp;senators and spy chiefs warned on Tuesday at a Senate hearing.

Republican Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he worried about the spread in the United States of what he called &quot;counterintelligence and information security risks that come prepackaged with the goods and services of certain overseas vendors.&quot;

&quot;The focus of my concern today is China, and specifically Chinese telecoms (companies) like Huawei (Technologies Co Ltd) and ZTE Corp, that are widely understood to have extraordinary ties to the Chinese government,&quot; Burr said.

Chinese firms have come under greater scrutiny in the United States in recent years over fears they may be conduits for spying, something they have consistently denied.

A Huawei spokesman said the company is aware of &quot;U.S. government activities seemingly aimed at inhibiting Huawei`s business in the U.S. market.&quot; He also said the firm is trusted by governments and customers in 170 countries and poses no greater cyber security risk than other vendors.

ZTE officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Burr said he worried that foreign commercial investment and acquisitions might jeopardize sensitive technologies and that U.S. academic research and laboratories may be at risk of infiltration by China`s spies.

Several of the U.S. spy agency chiefs who testified at the committee`s annual worldwide threats hearing cited concerns raised by what they called China`s &quot;all of society&quot; approach toward gaining access to technology and intellectual property.

&quot;The reality is that the Chinese have turned more and more to more creative avenues using non-traditional collectors,&quot; said FBI Director Christopher Wray in response to a question about student spies.

Senator Mark Warner, the committee`s Democratic vice chairman, said he worried about commercialization of surveillance technologies as well as the close relationship between the Chinese government and companies.

&quot;Some of these Chinese tech companies may not even have to acquire an American company before they become pervasive in our markets,&quot; Warner said.

Wray said the United States needed a more &quot;strategic perspective on China`s efforts to use acquisitions and other types of business ventures.&quot;

Under questioning from Republican Senator Tom Cotton, none of the Intelligence officials said they would use a Huawei or ZTE product.

Last week, Cotton and Republican Senator Marco Rubio introduced legislation that would block the government from buying or leasing telecoms equipment from Huawei or ZTE, citing concern the companies would use their access to spy on U.S. officials.

In 2012, Huawei and ZTE were the subject of a U.S. investigation into whether their equipment provided an opportunity for foreign espionage and threatened critical U.S. infrastructure - something they have consistently denied.&nbsp;

&quot;Chinese cyber espionage and cyber attack capabilities will continue to support China`s national security and economic priorities,&quot; said Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence.

US senators and spy chiefs warned at a Senate hearing

China is trying to gain access to sensitive US technologies and intellectual properties through telecommunications companies, academia and joint business ventures, US senators and spy chiefs warned on Tuesday at a Senate hearing. Republican Senator Richard Burr, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he worried about the spread in the United States of what he called "counterintelligence and information security risks that come prepackaged with the goods and services of certain overseas vendors." "The focus of my concern today is China, and specifically Chinese telecoms (companies) like Huawei (Technologies Co Ltd) and ZTE Corp, that are widely understood to have extraordinary ties to the Chinese government," Burr said. Chinese firms have come under greater scrutiny in the United States in recent years over fears they may be conduits for spying, something they have consistently denied. A Huawei spokesman said the company is aware of "U.S. government activities seemingly aimed at inhibiting Huawei`s business in the U.S. market." He also said the firm is trusted by governments and customers in 170 countries and poses no greater cyber security risk than other vendors. ZTE officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Burr said he worried that foreign commercial investment and acquisitions might jeopardize sensitive technologies and that U.S. academic research and laboratories may be at risk of infiltration by China`s spies. Several of the U.S. spy agency chiefs who testified at the committee`s annual worldwide threats hearing cited concerns raised by what they called China`s "all of society" approach toward gaining access to technology and intellectual property. "The reality is that the Chinese have turned more and more to more creative avenues using non-traditional collectors," said FBI Director Christopher Wray in response to a question about student spies. Senator Mark Warner, the committee`s Democratic vice chairman, said he worried about commercialization of surveillance technologies as well as the close relationship between the Chinese government and companies. "Some of these Chinese tech companies may not even have to acquire an American company before they become pervasive in our markets," Warner said. Wray said the United States needed a more "strategic perspective on China`s efforts to use acquisitions and other types of business ventures." Under questioning from Republican Senator Tom Cotton, none of the Intelligence officials said they would use a Huawei or ZTE product. Last week, Cotton and Republican Senator Marco Rubio introduced legislation that would block the government from buying or leasing telecoms equipment from Huawei or ZTE, citing concern the companies would use their access to spy on U.S. officials. In 2012, Huawei and ZTE were the subject of a U.S. investigation into whether their equipment provided an opportunity for foreign espionage and threatened critical U.S. infrastructure - something they have consistently denied. "Chinese cyber espionage and cyber attack capabilities will continue to support China`s national security and economic priorities," said Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence.

US senators concerned about Chinese access to intellectual property

us-1

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

us 1