The Group of Seven rich nations will announce on Saturday a new global infrastructure plan as a response to China's belt and road intiative, a senior official in US&nbsp;President Joe Biden's administration said. 
 
The official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, said the United States would also push the other G7 leaders for 'concrete action on forced labour' in China, and to include criticism of Beijing in their final communique. 
 
"This is not just about confronting or taking on China," the official said. "But until now we haven't offered a positive alternative that reflects our values, our standards and our way of doing business." 
 
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure scheme launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping involving development and investment initiatives that would stretch from Asia to Europe and beyond. 
 
More than 100 countries have signed agreements with China to cooperate in BRI projects like railways, ports, highways and other infrastructure. 
 
According to a Refinitiv database, as of mid-last year, more than 2,600 projects at a cost of $3.7 trillion were linked to the initiative, although the Chinese foreign ministry said last June that about 20% of projects had been seriously affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. 
 
In March, Biden said he had suggested to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is hosting the three-day G7 leaders' summit in southwest England, that democratic countries should develop their own rival scheme. 
 
The US&nbsp;official said until now, the West had failed to offer a positive alternative to the 'lack of transparency, poor environmental and labour standards, and coercive approach' of the Chinese government that had left many countries worse off. 
 
"So tomorrow we’ll be announcing ‘build back better for the world,’ an ambitious new global infrastructure initiative with our G7 partners that won’t just be an alternative to the B and I (Belt and Road)," the official said. 
 
In talks, Biden will also press the other leaders to make clear that they believe forced labour practices were an affront to human dignity and "an egregious example of China’s unfair economic competition" to show that they were serious about defending human rights. 
 
"We’re pushing on being specific on areas like Xinjiang where forced labour is taking place and where we have to express our values as a G7," the official said of the final communique to be issued at the end of the summit on Sunday, 
 
There were no specifics on how the global infrastructure scheme would be funded. The plan would involve raising hundreds of billions in public and private money to help close a $40 trillion infrastructure gap in needy countries by 2035, the official said 
 
The aim was to work with Congress to supplement existing development financing "with the hope that together with G7 partners, the private sector and other stakeholders we soon be collectively catalysing hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment for low and middle income countries that need it". 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The Group of Seven rich nations will announce on Saturday a new global infrastructure plan as a response to China's belt and road intiative, a senior official in US President Joe Biden's administration said.

The Group of Seven rich nations will announce on Saturday a new global infrastructure plan as a response to China's belt and road intiative, a senior official in US President Joe Biden's administration said. The official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, said the United States would also push the other G7 leaders for 'concrete action on forced labour' in China, and to include criticism of Beijing in their final communique. "This is not just about confronting or taking on China," the official said. "But until now we haven't offered a positive alternative that reflects our values, our standards and our way of doing business." China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure scheme launched in 2013 by President Xi Jinping involving development and investment initiatives that would stretch from Asia to Europe and beyond. More than 100 countries have signed agreements with China to cooperate in BRI projects like railways, ports, highways and other infrastructure. According to a Refinitiv database, as of mid-last year, more than 2,600 projects at a cost of $3.7 trillion were linked to the initiative, although the Chinese foreign ministry said last June that about 20% of projects had been seriously affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In March, Biden said he had suggested to British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who is hosting the three-day G7 leaders' summit in southwest England, that democratic countries should develop their own rival scheme. The US official said until now, the West had failed to offer a positive alternative to the 'lack of transparency, poor environmental and labour standards, and coercive approach' of the Chinese government that had left many countries worse off. "So tomorrow we’ll be announcing ‘build back better for the world,’ an ambitious new global infrastructure initiative with our G7 partners that won’t just be an alternative to the B and I (Belt and Road)," the official said. In talks, Biden will also press the other leaders to make clear that they believe forced labour practices were an affront to human dignity and "an egregious example of China’s unfair economic competition" to show that they were serious about defending human rights. "We’re pushing on being specific on areas like Xinjiang where forced labour is taking place and where we have to express our values as a G7," the official said of the final communique to be issued at the end of the summit on Sunday, There were no specifics on how the global infrastructure scheme would be funded. The plan would involve raising hundreds of billions in public and private money to help close a $40 trillion infrastructure gap in needy countries by 2035, the official said The aim was to work with Congress to supplement existing development financing "with the hope that together with G7 partners, the private sector and other stakeholders we soon be collectively catalysing hundreds of billions of dollars in infrastructure investment for low and middle income countries that need it". (With inputs from agencies)

G7 to counter China's belt and road with infrastructure project: Senior US official

The United States and other Group of Seven nations are considering reallocating $100 billion from the International Monetary Fund's warchest to help countries struggling to cope with the COVID-19 crisis, the White House said.

The issue will be on the table when G7 leaders discuss how to help steer the world's recovery from the coronavirus pandemic at a three-day summit in Cornwall, England, which began on Friday.

"The United States and our G7 partners are actively considering a global effort to multiply the impact of the proposed Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation to the countries most in need," the U.S. president's office said.

"At potentially up to $100 billion in size, the proposed effort would further support health needs – including vaccinations," it said, adding that it would help promote a more sustained and inclusive global recovery.

SDRs are the&nbsp;IMF's reserve asset and are exchangeable for dollars, euros, sterling, yen, and Chinese yuan or renminbi. Member states can loan or donate their SDR reserves to other countries for their use.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/world-leaders-meet-at-g7-summit-amid-coronavirus-crisis-390883">Also Read |&nbsp;World leaders meet at G7 summit amid coronavirus crisis</a>

The United States, which has targeted the SDR allocation to be distributed around the "late (northern) summer," on Friday said: "We strongly support the effort to recycle SDRs to further support health needs."

The&nbsp;IMF&nbsp;had no immediate comment.

IMF&nbsp;Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, who will speak virtually with G7 leaders this weekend, on Wednesday told a separate event that she expected the fund's governors to approve a $650 billion boost in SDRs in mid-August.

The global lender is continuing to study how best richer countries could donate or loan their reserves to benefit poorer nations. Details are expected in early autumn.

French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday called on the other G7 nations to find an agreement on reallocating $100 billion in SDRs to African states.

World finance chiefs agreed in April to issue new SDRs and extend a debt-servicing freeze to help developing countries deal with the pandemic, although only $34 billion of the $650 billion in new reserves will be allocated to Africa since SDRs are issued according to the size of a member's holding in the&nbsp;IMF.

The United States and other Group of Seven nations are considering reallocating $100 billion from the International Monetary Fund's warchest to help countries struggling to cope with the COVID-19 crisis, the White House said.

The United States and other Group of Seven nations are considering reallocating $100 billion from the International Monetary Fund's warchest to help countries struggling to cope with the COVID-19 crisis, the White House said. The issue will be on the table when G7 leaders discuss how to help steer the world's recovery from the coronavirus pandemic at a three-day summit in Cornwall, England, which began on Friday. "The United States and our G7 partners are actively considering a global effort to multiply the impact of the proposed Special Drawing Rights (SDR) allocation to the countries most in need," the U.S. president's office said. "At potentially up to $100 billion in size, the proposed effort would further support health needs – including vaccinations," it said, adding that it would help promote a more sustained and inclusive global recovery. SDRs are the IMF's reserve asset and are exchangeable for dollars, euros, sterling, yen, and Chinese yuan or renminbi. Member states can loan or donate their SDR reserves to other countries for their use. Also Read | World leaders meet at G7 summit amid coronavirus crisis The United States, which has targeted the SDR allocation to be distributed around the "late (northern) summer," on Friday said: "We strongly support the effort to recycle SDRs to further support health needs." The IMF had no immediate comment. IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, who will speak virtually with G7 leaders this weekend, on Wednesday told a separate event that she expected the fund's governors to approve a $650 billion boost in SDRs in mid-August. The global lender is continuing to study how best richer countries could donate or loan their reserves to benefit poorer nations. Details are expected in early autumn. French President Emmanuel Macron on Thursday called on the other G7 nations to find an agreement on reallocating $100 billion in SDRs to African states. World finance chiefs agreed in April to issue new SDRs and extend a debt-servicing freeze to help developing countries deal with the pandemic, although only $34 billion of the $650 billion in new reserves will be allocated to Africa since SDRs are issued according to the size of a member's holding in the IMF.

US says G7 may reallocate $100 billion from IMF funds to COVID-ravaged nations

The main representative of the Chinese government in Hong Kong said on Saturday people trying to turn the city into a 'pawn in geopolitics' were the 'real enemies' and Beijing was the true defender of the city's special status. 
 
Luo Huining, director of China's Hong Kong Liaison Office, told a forum that the financial hub, a former British colony handed over to China in 1997, remained one of the world's most competitive economies, the South China Morning Post reported. 
 
"Those trying to turn Hong Kong into a pawn in geopolitics, a tool in curbing China, as well as a bridgehead for infiltrating the mainland, are destroying the foundation of one country, two systems," Luo said, referring to the formula agreed when Britain handed the city back aimed at preserving its freedoms and role as a financial hub. 
 
"They are the real enemies of Hong Kong's prosperity and stability," he said, without identifying any people or groups. 
 
Luo said the ruling Communist Party was 'the creator, leader, implementer and defender of one country, two systems'. 
 
Despite such assurances, many Hong Kong residents have over recent years become worried about what they see as attempts by Beijing to curtail its freedoms. 
 
China denies that. 
 
The Liaison Office did not answer calls outside normal business hours to confirm the contents of the speech and it did not immediately respond to faxed questions. 
 
Unease among many Hong Kong residents grew in 2014 when pro-democracy protesters took to the streets to demand universal suffrage. Demonstrations snowballed again in 2019, sparked by opposition to judicial reform that many people saw as a threat to their way of life. 
 
Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on the city in last June stifling the pro-democracy movement and raising new concerns about the city's prospects. 
 
The law's supporters say it has restored order and improved prospects for the city's economy, which Luo said was among the world's most competitive despite fears it would deteriorate under Chinese rule. 
 
(With inputs from agencies)

The main representative of the Chinese government in Hong Kong said on Saturday people trying to turn the city into a 'pawn in geopolitics' were the 'real enemies' and Beijing was the true defender of the city's special status.

The main representative of the Chinese government in Hong Kong said on Saturday people trying to turn the city into a 'pawn in geopolitics' were the 'real enemies' and Beijing was the true defender of the city's special status. Luo Huining, director of China's Hong Kong Liaison Office, told a forum that the financial hub, a former British colony handed over to China in 1997, remained one of the world's most competitive economies, the South China Morning Post reported. "Those trying to turn Hong Kong into a pawn in geopolitics, a tool in curbing China, as well as a bridgehead for infiltrating the mainland, are destroying the foundation of one country, two systems," Luo said, referring to the formula agreed when Britain handed the city back aimed at preserving its freedoms and role as a financial hub. "They are the real enemies of Hong Kong's prosperity and stability," he said, without identifying any people or groups. Luo said the ruling Communist Party was 'the creator, leader, implementer and defender of one country, two systems'. Despite such assurances, many Hong Kong residents have over recent years become worried about what they see as attempts by Beijing to curtail its freedoms. China denies that. The Liaison Office did not answer calls outside normal business hours to confirm the contents of the speech and it did not immediately respond to faxed questions. Unease among many Hong Kong residents grew in 2014 when pro-democracy protesters took to the streets to demand universal suffrage. Demonstrations snowballed again in 2019, sparked by opposition to judicial reform that many people saw as a threat to their way of life. Beijing imposed a sweeping national security law on the city in last June stifling the pro-democracy movement and raising new concerns about the city's prospects. The law's supporters say it has restored order and improved prospects for the city's economy, which Luo said was among the world's most competitive despite fears it would deteriorate under Chinese rule. (With inputs from agencies)

Beijing official says 'real enemies' want Hong Kong to be 'pawn in geopolitics'

Iran regained its vote in the UN General Assembly on Friday after the United States enabled Tehran to use funds frozen in South Korea to pay some $16 million it owed to the world body.

Iran lost its vote in the 193-member General Assembly in January because it was more than two years in arrears. It owed a total of more than $65 million but paid the minimum amount needed to regain its vote.

"Iran has paid the minimum amount due," UN spokesman Farhan Haq said on Friday, confirming Iran could vote again.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-calls-un-voting-rights-suspension-unacceptable-389450">Iran calls UN voting rights suspension 'unacceptable'</a>

Iran says $20 billion of its oil revenue has been frozen in countries like South Korea, Iraq and China since 2018 under sanctions imposed by then-US President Donald Trump.

"Illegal US sanctions have not just deprived our people of medicine; they have also prevented Iran from paying our dues in arrears to the UN," Iran's UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi posted on Twitter. "After more than 6 months of working on it, the UN today announced it has received the funds."

Iran was able to vote in the General Assembly on Friday to elect five new members of the UN Security Council.

Iran's Foreign Ministry said that it had proposed to the United Nations that it could use funds frozen in South Korea to pay its dues. It said the world body followed up with the US Treasury Department to get the appropriate approvals.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-to-host-un-nuclear-watchdog-chief-ahead-of-sanctions-deadline-365039">Iran to host UN nuclear watchdog chief ahead of sanctions deadline</a>

"The permit was recently issued and the process of withdrawing the membership fee from Iran's account in the Korean banks and transferring it to the UN account in Seoul has been paved, and this payment will be made soon," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said last week.

A spokesperson for the US Treasury Department said on Friday: "The US government typically authorizes the payment of UN dues, including through OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) general licenses and specific licenses."

The UN payment comes as US President Joe Biden's administration and Iranian officials are expected to begin their sixth round of indirect talks in Vienna this weekend about how both sides might resume compliance with a 2015 nuclear deal.

Under the deal with key world powers, Iran limited its nuclear program to make it harder to obtain fissile material for atomic weapons in return for relief from the US, European Union and UN sanctions.

However, Trump abandoned the deal in 2018, arguing it gave Tehran too much sanctions relief for too few nuclear restrictions and reimposed sanctions that slashed Iran's oil exports. Iran then retaliated about a year later by violating the limits on its nuclear program.

Iran regained its vote in the UN General Assembly on Friday after the United States enabled Tehran to use funds frozen in South Korea to pay some $16 million it owed to the world body.

Iran regained its vote in the UN General Assembly on Friday after the United States enabled Tehran to use funds frozen in South Korea to pay some $16 million it owed to the world body. Iran lost its vote in the 193-member General Assembly in January because it was more than two years in arrears. It owed a total of more than $65 million but paid the minimum amount needed to regain its vote. "Iran has paid the minimum amount due," UN spokesman Farhan Haq said on Friday, confirming Iran could vote again. Also read | Iran calls UN voting rights suspension 'unacceptable' Iran says $20 billion of its oil revenue has been frozen in countries like South Korea, Iraq and China since 2018 under sanctions imposed by then-US President Donald Trump. "Illegal US sanctions have not just deprived our people of medicine; they have also prevented Iran from paying our dues in arrears to the UN," Iran's UN Ambassador Majid Takht Ravanchi posted on Twitter. "After more than 6 months of working on it, the UN today announced it has received the funds." Iran was able to vote in the General Assembly on Friday to elect five new members of the UN Security Council. Iran's Foreign Ministry said that it had proposed to the United Nations that it could use funds frozen in South Korea to pay its dues. It said the world body followed up with the US Treasury Department to get the appropriate approvals. Also read | Iran to host UN nuclear watchdog chief ahead of sanctions deadline "The permit was recently issued and the process of withdrawing the membership fee from Iran's account in the Korean banks and transferring it to the UN account in Seoul has been paved, and this payment will be made soon," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Saeed Khatibzadeh said last week. A spokesperson for the US Treasury Department said on Friday: "The US government typically authorizes the payment of UN dues, including through OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) general licenses and specific licenses." The UN payment comes as US President Joe Biden's administration and Iranian officials are expected to begin their sixth round of indirect talks in Vienna this weekend about how both sides might resume compliance with a 2015 nuclear deal. Under the deal with key world powers, Iran limited its nuclear program to make it harder to obtain fissile material for atomic weapons in return for relief from the US, European Union and UN sanctions. However, Trump abandoned the deal in 2018, arguing it gave Tehran too much sanctions relief for too few nuclear restrictions and reimposed sanctions that slashed Iran's oil exports. Iran then retaliated about a year later by violating the limits on its nuclear program.

Iran regains UN vote after US enables UN payment

Two people including a child were shot dead in a grocery store in Florida on Thursday, the latest in a series of shootings in the southern US state. The shooting -- in which the gunman also killed himself -- occurred in a Publix grocery store in Royal Palm Beach, 80 miles (130 kilometers) north of Miami, police said.

Two people including a child were shot dead in a grocery store in Florida on Thursday, the latest in a series of shootings in the southern US state. The shooting -- in which the gunman also killed himself -- occurred in a Publix grocery store in Royal Palm Beach, 80 miles (130 kilometers) north of Miami, police said. "Upon arrival deputies located three individuals deceased from gunshot wounds, one adult male, one adult female, and one child," the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office said. "The shooter is one of the deceased." Also Read | Trump hints at comeback in major speech, calls on nations to cancel their China debt The shooter turned his gun on himself, Teri Barbera, spokeswoman for the sheriff's office, told AFP. This was the latest shooting in south Florida in recent days. On Sunday, three people were killed and five wounded at a graduation party in Miami. Two people were killed and at least 20 wounded a week earlier when three shooters fired "indiscriminately" into a crowd outside a concert in the Miami area, police said. Mass shootings have taken place across the United States this year in a surge of violence that President Joe Biden has branded an "epidemic."

Shooting in grocery store in Florida, two killed, including one child

Boris Johnson's wife Carrie, along with their one-year-old son Wilfred were spotted playing on the beach with the US first lady. Dr Jill Biden is accompanying her husband for the G7 visit.&nbsp;

After having a fun time at the beach, both the ladies were seen with their husbands for a walkabout on the eve of a G7 summit.

Both the couples admired the serene view. "I told the Prime Minister that we have something in common - we both married way above our stature," Biden told Johnson jokingly. The UK prime minister agreed and said, "I'm not going to dissent from that one. I'm not doing to disagree with the President there, or indeed on anything else."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
-seaside diplomacy- 
Carrie, (one-year-old) Wilfred Johnson walk with Jill Biden on Cornish beach <a href="https://t.co/TCuELS4Tek">pic.twitter.com/TCuELS4Tek</a>
— TARIK TOROS (@TarikToros) <a href="https://twitter.com/TarikToros/status/1403108208965738497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 10, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uks-johnson-hails-biden-as-a-big-breath-of-fresh-air-390733">Also Read |&nbsp;UK's Johnson hails Biden as 'a big breath of fresh air'</a>

The two&nbsp;leaders met at the English seaside resort of Carbis bay. Biden declared, "I've been to this great country many times, but this is my first time as President of the United States."

<img alt="Boris Johnson's wife Carrie and their one-year-old son Wilfred with US First Lady" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="17511691-3aae-4aeb-b670-18ec905dff51" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Screenshot%202021-06-11%20at%202.39.21%20PM.png" />&nbsp;Image Source: Twitter

Johnson hailed the US President as "a big breath of fresh air" because he wanted to work with London on a huge range of issues including climate change and COVID to security.

Johnson said, "It’s a big breath of fresh air. It’s new, it’s interesting and we’re working very hard together. We went on for about an hour and 20 or so. It was a long, long, good session. We covered a huge range of subjects".&nbsp;

Johnson played out differences with Washington on the impact of Brexit on the peace in Northern Ireland as he said that the US, UK, and European Union had "complete harmony" on finding solutions to uphold the 1998 peace deal. "There’s complete harmony on the need to keep going, find solutions, and make sure we uphold the Belfast Good Friday Agreement", Johnson added.&nbsp;

Boris Johnson's wife Carrie, along with their one-year-old son Wilfred were spotted playing on the beach with the US first lady. Dr Jill Biden is accompanying her husband for the G7 visit.

Boris Johnson's wife Carrie, along with their one-year-old son Wilfred were spotted playing on the beach with the US first lady. Dr Jill Biden is accompanying her husband for the G7 visit. After having a fun time at the beach, both the ladies were seen with their husbands for a walkabout on the eve of a G7 summit. Both the couples admired the serene view. "I told the Prime Minister that we have something in common - we both married way above our stature," Biden told Johnson jokingly. The UK prime minister agreed and said, "I'm not going to dissent from that one. I'm not doing to disagree with the President there, or indeed on anything else." -seaside diplomacy- Carrie, (one-year-old) Wilfred Johnson walk with Jill Biden on Cornish beach pic.twitter.com/TCuELS4Tek — TARIK TOROS (@TarikToros) June 10, 2021 × Also Read | UK's Johnson hails Biden as 'a big breath of fresh air' The two leaders met at the English seaside resort of Carbis bay. Biden declared, "I've been to this great country many times, but this is my first time as President of the United States." Image Source: Twitter Johnson hailed the US President as "a big breath of fresh air" because he wanted to work with London on a huge range of issues including climate change and COVID to security. Johnson said, "It’s a big breath of fresh air. It’s new, it’s interesting and we’re working very hard together. We went on for about an hour and 20 or so. It was a long, long, good session. We covered a huge range of subjects". Johnson played out differences with Washington on the impact of Brexit on the peace in Northern Ireland as he said that the US, UK, and European Union had "complete harmony" on finding solutions to uphold the 1998 peace deal. "There’s complete harmony on the need to keep going, find solutions, and make sure we uphold the Belfast Good Friday Agreement", Johnson added.

Boris Johnson's wife Carrie and their son Wilfred spotted with US first lady

US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson held their first in-person talks ahead of the G7 Summit in Cornwall in southwest England. During their meeting, they agreed on a deal called the Atlantic Charter, which commits the two countries to work together on global challenges.

Biden-Johnson agreed on Atlantic Charter deal during first in-person talks

According to a Pew Research Center survey of 12 nations, the United States' image abroad has improved sharply since President Joe Biden replaced Donald Trump. More than 16,000 adults from 16 countries expressed confidence in Biden.

Survey: US' global image improves sharply under Biden compared to Trump

The US economy’s rebound from the pandemic is driving the biggest surge in inflation in nearly 13 years, with consumer prices rising in May by 5% from a year ago. The Labor Department said last month’s increase in the consumer-price index was the largest since August 2008, when the reading rose 5.4%.

World Business Watch: US inflation highest in 13 years as prices surge 5% in May

According to Pentagon, the US pullout from Afghanistan is 50% complete, as it approaches its September 11 deadline to remove troops, which marks 20-year anniversary of the Al-Qaeda attacks.

Pentagon: US troops pullout from Afghanistan is 50% complete

US President Joe Biden and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson held their first in-person talks ahead of the G7 Summit in Cornwall in southwest England. After the meeting between the two leaders, Johnson said that the talks with Biden were a "big breath of fresh air".

Johnson plays down differences with Biden over Northern Ireland, ahead of G7 summit

The European Union and the United States are set to commit at a summit in Brussels next week to end their transatlantic metals and aircraft trade disputes and call for progress on a new study into the origins of COVID-19, according to a draft communique. 
 
The seven-page draft, seen by Reuters, aims to show concrete results of the "new dawn" hailed by EU leaders when U.S. President Joe Biden took over from Donald Trump in January. 
 
The draft, which was discussed by EU ambassadors on Wednesday, commits to ending a long-running dispute over subsidies to aircraft makers before July 11 and setting a Dec. 1 deadline to end punitive tariffs related to a steel and aluminium trade dispute. 
 
Despite pressure by U.S. steel industry groups to keep the "Section 232" national security tariffs imposed by Trump, the draft said: "We commit to working towards lifting before 1 December 2021 all additional/punitive tariffs on both sides linked to our steel and aluminium dispute."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-prez-joe-biden-to-meet-55-world-leaders-during-his-visit-390419">Also Read |&nbsp;US Prez Joe Biden to meet 55 world leaders during his visit</a>

Steel industry sources told Reuters the language may be aimed at retaliatory tariffs on both sides such as those on whiskey and motorbikes, not necessarily the underlying 25% U.S. tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum. A U.S.-EU deal in May to avert escalation of the dispute left these in place while the two sides negotiate for six months to address global excess metals capacity largely centred in China.

Some 12 EU countries are weighing a proposal to extend their own steel "safeguard" quotas beyond the end of June to protect European steelmakers from a flood of imports. 
 
Biden will meet the EU's chief executive, Ursula von der Leyen, and European Council President Charles Michel, who represents EU governments, and will also pledge to promote international cooperation to fight global warming. 
 
The EU and the United States are the world's top trading powers, along with China, but Trump sought to sideline the EU. 
 
After scotching a free-trade agreement with the EU, the Trump administration focused on shrinking a growing U.S. deficit in goods trade. Biden, however, sees the EU as an ally in promoting free trade, as well as in fighting climate change and ending the COVID-19 pandemic. 
 
COVID ORIGINS 
 
At the Brussels summit, both sides will agree to cooperate on China policy and call for a new study into the origins of the pandemic, first detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan, the draft said.

"We call for progress on a transparent, evidence-based, and expert-led WHO-convened phase 2 study on the origins of COVID-19, that is free from interference," the draft said. 
 
The two prevailing theories are that the virus jumped from animals, possibly bats, to humans, or that it escaped from a virology laboratory in Wuhan. Members of a WHO team that visited China this year to investigate COVID-19's origin said they were not given access to all data.

Despite the pledge of support, the EU is "not going to launch our own probe," one EU diplomat said. "We are not anti-China".

A second EU diplomat said the group "doesn't have intelligence services, and we are not going to try to do this origins search through our member states agencies," adding, "The Americans can still talk to European services in member states, but we are not going to get involved."

Despite the caveats, if agreed the joint stance on China will be a boost for the Biden administration, which seeks friends to stand up to Beijing but has said it will not force any ally to choose sides.

In a concession to the EU, the draft makes no mention of Biden's proposals for vaccine patent waivers to boost global production. Instead, it pledges to reduce U.S. export restrictions and promote the voluntary transfer of technologies.

The task of fully inoculating the world is expected to belong. The text says the United States and the EU "aspire to vaccinate at least two-thirds of the world's population by the end of 2022". This means as many as 2.5 billion people in the world may not get a shot before 2023.

EU states have until now tried to maintain a strategic balance that avoids alienating either China or the United States.

But China's military expansion, its claims to sovereignty in most of the South China Sea, and the mass detentions of Muslim Uyghurs in northwestern China have shifted the mood in Brussels.

"We intend to closely consult and cooperate on the full range of issues in the framework of our respective similar multi-faceted approaches to China, which include elements of cooperation, competition, and systemic rivalry," the draft said.

The European Union and the United States are set to commit at a summit in Brussels next week to end their transatlantic metals and aircraft trade disputes and call for progress on a new study into the origins of COVID-19, according to a draft communique.

The European Union and the United States are set to commit at a summit in Brussels next week to end their transatlantic metals and aircraft trade disputes and call for progress on a new study into the origins of COVID-19, according to a draft communique. The seven-page draft, seen by Reuters, aims to show concrete results of the "new dawn" hailed by EU leaders when U.S. President Joe Biden took over from Donald Trump in January. The draft, which was discussed by EU ambassadors on Wednesday, commits to ending a long-running dispute over subsidies to aircraft makers before July 11 and setting a Dec. 1 deadline to end punitive tariffs related to a steel and aluminium trade dispute. Despite pressure by U.S. steel industry groups to keep the "Section 232" national security tariffs imposed by Trump, the draft said: "We commit to working towards lifting before 1 December 2021 all additional/punitive tariffs on both sides linked to our steel and aluminium dispute." Also Read | US Prez Joe Biden to meet 55 world leaders during his visit Steel industry sources told Reuters the language may be aimed at retaliatory tariffs on both sides such as those on whiskey and motorbikes, not necessarily the underlying 25% U.S. tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum. A U.S.-EU deal in May to avert escalation of the dispute left these in place while the two sides negotiate for six months to address global excess metals capacity largely centred in China. Some 12 EU countries are weighing a proposal to extend their own steel "safeguard" quotas beyond the end of June to protect European steelmakers from a flood of imports. Biden will meet the EU's chief executive, Ursula von der Leyen, and European Council President Charles Michel, who represents EU governments, and will also pledge to promote international cooperation to fight global warming. The EU and the United States are the world's top trading powers, along with China, but Trump sought to sideline the EU. After scotching a free-trade agreement with the EU, the Trump administration focused on shrinking a growing U.S. deficit in goods trade. Biden, however, sees the EU as an ally in promoting free trade, as well as in fighting climate change and ending the COVID-19 pandemic. COVID ORIGINS At the Brussels summit, both sides will agree to cooperate on China policy and call for a new study into the origins of the pandemic, first detected in the Chinese city of Wuhan, the draft said. "We call for progress on a transparent, evidence-based, and expert-led WHO-convened phase 2 study on the origins of COVID-19, that is free from interference," the draft said. The two prevailing theories are that the virus jumped from animals, possibly bats, to humans, or that it escaped from a virology laboratory in Wuhan. Members of a WHO team that visited China this year to investigate COVID-19's origin said they were not given access to all data. Despite the pledge of support, the EU is "not going to launch our own probe," one EU diplomat said. "We are not anti-China". A second EU diplomat said the group "doesn't have intelligence services, and we are not going to try to do this origins search through our member states agencies," adding, "The Americans can still talk to European services in member states, but we are not going to get involved." Despite the caveats, if agreed the joint stance on China will be a boost for the Biden administration, which seeks friends to stand up to Beijing but has said it will not force any ally to choose sides. In a concession to the EU, the draft makes no mention of Biden's proposals for vaccine patent waivers to boost global production. Instead, it pledges to reduce U.S. export restrictions and promote the voluntary transfer of technologies. The task of fully inoculating the world is expected to belong. The text says the United States and the EU "aspire to vaccinate at least two-thirds of the world's population by the end of 2022". This means as many as 2.5 billion people in the world may not get a shot before 2023. EU states have until now tried to maintain a strategic balance that avoids alienating either China or the United States. But China's military expansion, its claims to sovereignty in most of the South China Sea, and the mass detentions of Muslim Uyghurs in northwestern China have shifted the mood in Brussels. "We intend to closely consult and cooperate on the full range of issues in the framework of our respective similar multi-faceted approaches to China, which include elements of cooperation, competition, and systemic rivalry," the draft said.

EU, US to end trade tariffs, call for new study into COVID-19 origins, says summit draft

Negotiations between Iran and the world powers on how to revive the 2015 nuclear accord will resume this weekend, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said on Wednesday, adding that Iran's June 18 presidential election was a complicating factor. 
 
"I know that the negotiation will start again over this coming weekend," Sherman said during a virtual event organized by the German Marshall Fund think tank.

"I think there's been a lot of progress made, but, out of my own experience, until the last detail is nailed down, and I mean nailed down, we will not know if we have an agreement," Sherman, one of the key U.S. negotiators for the original deal, said. 
 
The talks seek to revive U.S. and Iranian compliance with a landmark pact under which Iran agreed to curbs on its nuclear program to make it harder to obtain fissile material for a bomb in return for the easing of U.S., European Union and U.N. sanctions.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/assassination-in-iran-could-limit-bidens-options-was-that-the-goal-346211">Also read |&nbsp;Assassination in Iran could limit Biden’s options. Was that the goal?</a>

There have been five rounds of indirect U.S.-Iranian talks since April and the next set are expected to begin in Vienna on Saturday, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters and Iranian state media quoted Iran's lead negotiator as saying. 
 
However, a host of obstacles remain, suggesting a return to compliance with the accord is still a way off, four diplomats, two Iranian officials, and two analysts say.

Another factor is the June 18 elections to replace President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist who promoted the original deal and who widely expected to be followed by a hard-line successor.

"This is complicated, of course, by the Iranian presidential election, which is happening in just a few days," Sherman said, without elaborating.

That said, the election is expected to have little impact on Iran’s foreign and nuclear policies, which are decided by the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and all seven candidates running for president have supported the talks. 
 
Then-U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned the deal in 2018, saying it was too soft on Iran, and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by violating its nuclear limits about a year later.

Negotiations between Iran and the world powers on how to revive the 2015 nuclear accord will resume this weekend, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said on Wednesday, adding that Iran's June 18 presidential election was a complicating factor.

Negotiations between Iran and the world powers on how to revive the 2015 nuclear accord will resume this weekend, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said on Wednesday, adding that Iran's June 18 presidential election was a complicating factor. "I know that the negotiation will start again over this coming weekend," Sherman said during a virtual event organized by the German Marshall Fund think tank. "I think there's been a lot of progress made, but, out of my own experience, until the last detail is nailed down, and I mean nailed down, we will not know if we have an agreement," Sherman, one of the key U.S. negotiators for the original deal, said. The talks seek to revive U.S. and Iranian compliance with a landmark pact under which Iran agreed to curbs on its nuclear program to make it harder to obtain fissile material for a bomb in return for the easing of U.S., European Union and U.N. sanctions. Also read | Assassination in Iran could limit Biden’s options. Was that the goal? There have been five rounds of indirect U.S.-Iranian talks since April and the next set are expected to begin in Vienna on Saturday, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters and Iranian state media quoted Iran's lead negotiator as saying. However, a host of obstacles remain, suggesting a return to compliance with the accord is still a way off, four diplomats, two Iranian officials, and two analysts say. Another factor is the June 18 elections to replace President Hassan Rouhani, a pragmatist who promoted the original deal and who widely expected to be followed by a hard-line successor. "This is complicated, of course, by the Iranian presidential election, which is happening in just a few days," Sherman said, without elaborating. That said, the election is expected to have little impact on Iran’s foreign and nuclear policies, which are decided by the country’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and all seven candidates running for president have supported the talks. Then-U.S. President Donald Trump abandoned the deal in 2018, saying it was too soft on Iran, and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by violating its nuclear limits about a year later.

Iran nuclear talks to resume over the weekend, says US

The Pentagon Papers case was a triumph for press freedom. Or was it?

The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion rejecting the Nixon administration’s attempt to censor publication of a secret history of the Vietnam War was just three paragraphs long and declared only that the government had not overcome a “heavy presumption” against prior restraints, on that occasion.

The vote was, moreover, fairly close, 6-3. Every justice contributed a concurring or dissenting opinion, none of which got more than two votes. You need a spreadsheet to make sense of who voted for what, but the bottom line is at odds with the conventional view that the case was a flat-out First Amendment victory.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-says-it-will-no-longer-seize-reporters-records-in-leak-probes-389730">US says it will no longer seize reporters' records in leak probes</a>

“A majority of the Supreme Court not only left open the possibility of prior restraints in other cases but of criminal sanctions being imposed on the press following publication of the Pentagon Papers themselves,” Floyd Abrams, who represented The New York Times in the case, wrote in his 2014 book, “Friend of the Court.”

There are, it turns out, two ways to understand the Pentagon Papers decision. One is that it was a potent vindication of press freedom establishing a bedrock principle: The government cannot stop the new media from providing information to citizens in a democracy.

Another view takes account of the letter and the limits of the decision. Even as to prior restraints, the Supreme Court left the door slightly ajar. As to the possibility of punishing the press&nbsp;after&nbsp;publication, two justices in the majority wrote that they had no doubt that news organizations could be prosecuted under the espionage laws.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-secretly-seized-phone-records-of-times-reporters-389303">Trump administration secretly seized phone records of Times reporters</a>

To be sure, the decision has taken on a symbolic weight that has swamped its technical holding, said Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago and an editor of a volume of essays commemorating the 50th anniversary of the decision, “National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press.”

“The case created a largely overwhelming sense that the press cannot be either enjoined from or prosecuted for publishing national secrets,” he said. “That’s become the expectation as a result of Pentagon Papers.”

But even if the decision seems to have created near-absolute protection for the press, he went on, it addressed only one piece of the relationship between citizens and their government.

An intermediary, the press, was protected. But neither its sources nor its readers gained rights.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/number-of-journalists-killed-for-their-reporting-doubled-in-2020-351577">Number of journalists killed for their reporting doubled in 2020</a>

“What Pentagon Papers and its successor decisions created,” Stone said, “was an incoherent state of the law.”

The decision did not live up to its promise, Anthony Lewis, a Supreme Court reporter and columnist for The Times and an authority on the First Amendment, wrote in his 1991 book, “Make No Law.”

“The Pentagon Papers case was a famous victory for the press, and for the Madisonian principle that the public must know what its government is doing,” wrote Lewis, who died in 2013. “Or so it seemed at the time. Later decisions showed that it was not much of a victory.”

Prior restraints against the press may have been effectively barred, Lewis wrote, but the Supreme Court did not hesitate to block books by former government officials who sought to write about national security secrets they had learned in the course of their employment.

In those later decisions, Stone said, “the court took the view that there is no right to leak and no public right to information.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-china-is-stifling-press-freedom-in-hong-kong-330040">How China is stifling press freedom in Hong Kong</a>

The decision had another, darker side, wrote Alexander Bickel, the Yale law professor who argued the case for The Times in the Supreme Court.

“The American press was freer before it won its battle with the government,” he wrote in his classic 1975 book, “The Morality of Consent.”

“Through one civil and two world wars and other wars, there had never been an effort by the federal government to censor a newspaper by attempting to impose a prior restraint,” he wrote. “That spell was broken, and in a sense, freedom was thus diminished.”

Justice William O. Douglas, who was in the majority in 1971, wrote two years later that the vote had been too close and had followed two weeks of successful government-imposed censorship.

“We have allowed ominous inroads to be made on the historic freedom of the newspapers,” he wrote. “The effort to suppress the publication of the Pentagon Papers failed only by a narrow margin and actually succeeded for a brief spell in imposing prior restraint on our press for the first time in our history.”

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-tells-us-to-mind-own-business-over-media-freedom-311598">Russia tells US to 'mind own business' over media freedom</a>

It was unimaginable, though, that the Supreme Court would rule out prior restraints entirely, and that posed a litigation-strategy puzzle for Bickel when he argued before the justices.

He conceded, at least in the abstract, that courts could stop a publication if it would “lead directly and unavoidably to a disastrous event.”

Justice Potter Stewart explored the point. What if, he asked, disclosure of sensitive information in wartime “would result in the sentencing to death of 100 young men whose only offense had been that they were 19 years old and had low draft numbers?”

Bickel tried to duck the question, but the justice pressed him: “You would say that the Constitution requires that it be published and that these men die?”

Bickel yielded, to the consternation of some of The Times’ allies. “I’m afraid,” he said, “that my inclinations of humanity overcome the somewhat more abstract devotion to the First Amendment.”

As a matter of litigation tactics, it was a necessary answer, said David Rudenstine, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York City and the author of “The Day the Presses Stopped,” a history of the case.

“I don’t think an advocate could say anything else,” Rudenstine said, “unless you really wanted to lose the case.”

Still, Bickel’s response outraged the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an unusual brief that same day disavowing Bickel’s answer. It said Stewart’s question “must be answered in a totally different manner” and that “the answer is, painfully but simply, that the right of a free people to determine its destiny has been, and should continue to be, paramount to any attempt by the government to impinge upon, erode or ultimately destroy the right of the people to know.”

Bickel had made another concession when he argued the case in the federal appeals court in New York. Asked for an example of a government secret that would justify a prior restraint, he posited, presciently as it turned out, one in which “the hydrogen bomb turns up.”

Eight years later, on the only other occasion on which the federal government has sought a prior restraint on national security grounds, a federal judge in Wisconsin barred The Progressive magazine from publishing an article called “The H-bomb Secret,” which included detailed instructions for making a hydrogen bomb.

While the appeal was pending, others published similar information and the government dropped its case.

As that case suggests, prior restraints that actually keep information already in the hands of the press from the public are hard to accomplish. By the time the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case, more than a dozen newspapers had published parts of them. These days, a whistleblower like Daniel Ellsberg could skip the intermediaries entirely and post documents directly on the internet.

So far, there have been no prosecutions of journalists in the United States for seeking or publishing classified information, but the espionage laws on their face may well be read to forbid possession and publication of classified information by the press.

The press’s victory in the Pentagon Papers case may have been incomplete. But a loss would have been devastating.

“What would be the law today if the case had come out differently?” Rudenstine asked. “It’s very possible that there could have been a prosecution of The Times. That would have changed American law quite a lot.”

“The general thought,” he said, “was that if you lost the prior restraint case that there was no chance of winning the criminal prosecution.”

The opposite happened, said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University and the other editor of “National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press.” “As a practical matter, the press and the government have arrived at the state of mind that there will not be prior restraints or subsequent prosecutions, that that would violate the spirit of the First Amendment,” he said. “Apart from the Progressive case, the government has not gone after the press in either form.”

But he added that this was in large part a product of mature accommodation among responsible institutions, one that was at risk during the Donald Trump administration.

“The continuing viability of a fulsome Pentagon Papers doctrine does not apply in the context of a near-authoritarian government like the one we had,” he said. “It’s those kinds of ambiguities about Pentagon Papers that makes the whole system much more vulnerable when you have a true threat to democracy.”

The Pentagon Papers case was a triumph for press freedom. Or was it? The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion rejecting the Nixon administration’s attempt to censor publication of a secret history of the Vietnam War was just three paragraphs long and declared only that the government had not overcome a “heavy presumption” against prior restraints, on that occasion.

The Pentagon Papers case was a triumph for press freedom. Or was it? The Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion rejecting the Nixon administration’s attempt to censor publication of a secret history of the Vietnam War was just three paragraphs long and declared only that the government had not overcome a “heavy presumption” against prior restraints, on that occasion. The vote was, moreover, fairly close, 6-3. Every justice contributed a concurring or dissenting opinion, none of which got more than two votes. You need a spreadsheet to make sense of who voted for what, but the bottom line is at odds with the conventional view that the case was a flat-out First Amendment victory. Also read | US says it will no longer seize reporters' records in leak probes “A majority of the Supreme Court not only left open the possibility of prior restraints in other cases but of criminal sanctions being imposed on the press following publication of the Pentagon Papers themselves,” Floyd Abrams, who represented The New York Times in the case, wrote in his 2014 book, “Friend of the Court.” There are, it turns out, two ways to understand the Pentagon Papers decision. One is that it was a potent vindication of press freedom establishing a bedrock principle: The government cannot stop the new media from providing information to citizens in a democracy. Another view takes account of the letter and the limits of the decision. Even as to prior restraints, the Supreme Court left the door slightly ajar. As to the possibility of punishing the press after publication, two justices in the majority wrote that they had no doubt that news organizations could be prosecuted under the espionage laws. Also read | Trump administration secretly seized phone records of Times reporters To be sure, the decision has taken on a symbolic weight that has swamped its technical holding, said Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago and an editor of a volume of essays commemorating the 50th anniversary of the decision, “National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press.” “The case created a largely overwhelming sense that the press cannot be either enjoined from or prosecuted for publishing national secrets,” he said. “That’s become the expectation as a result of Pentagon Papers.” But even if the decision seems to have created near-absolute protection for the press, he went on, it addressed only one piece of the relationship between citizens and their government. An intermediary, the press, was protected. But neither its sources nor its readers gained rights. Also read | Number of journalists killed for their reporting doubled in 2020 “What Pentagon Papers and its successor decisions created,” Stone said, “was an incoherent state of the law.” The decision did not live up to its promise, Anthony Lewis, a Supreme Court reporter and columnist for The Times and an authority on the First Amendment, wrote in his 1991 book, “Make No Law.” “The Pentagon Papers case was a famous victory for the press, and for the Madisonian principle that the public must know what its government is doing,” wrote Lewis, who died in 2013. “Or so it seemed at the time. Later decisions showed that it was not much of a victory.” Prior restraints against the press may have been effectively barred, Lewis wrote, but the Supreme Court did not hesitate to block books by former government officials who sought to write about national security secrets they had learned in the course of their employment. In those later decisions, Stone said, “the court took the view that there is no right to leak and no public right to information.” Also read | How China is stifling press freedom in Hong Kong The decision had another, darker side, wrote Alexander Bickel, the Yale law professor who argued the case for The Times in the Supreme Court. “The American press was freer before it won its battle with the government,” he wrote in his classic 1975 book, “The Morality of Consent.” “Through one civil and two world wars and other wars, there had never been an effort by the federal government to censor a newspaper by attempting to impose a prior restraint,” he wrote. “That spell was broken, and in a sense, freedom was thus diminished.” Justice William O. Douglas, who was in the majority in 1971, wrote two years later that the vote had been too close and had followed two weeks of successful government-imposed censorship. “We have allowed ominous inroads to be made on the historic freedom of the newspapers,” he wrote. “The effort to suppress the publication of the Pentagon Papers failed only by a narrow margin and actually succeeded for a brief spell in imposing prior restraint on our press for the first time in our history.” Also read | Russia tells US to 'mind own business' over media freedom It was unimaginable, though, that the Supreme Court would rule out prior restraints entirely, and that posed a litigation-strategy puzzle for Bickel when he argued before the justices. He conceded, at least in the abstract, that courts could stop a publication if it would “lead directly and unavoidably to a disastrous event.” Justice Potter Stewart explored the point. What if, he asked, disclosure of sensitive information in wartime “would result in the sentencing to death of 100 young men whose only offense had been that they were 19 years old and had low draft numbers?” Bickel tried to duck the question, but the justice pressed him: “You would say that the Constitution requires that it be published and that these men die?” Bickel yielded, to the consternation of some of The Times’ allies. “I’m afraid,” he said, “that my inclinations of humanity overcome the somewhat more abstract devotion to the First Amendment.” As a matter of litigation tactics, it was a necessary answer, said David Rudenstine, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York City and the author of “The Day the Presses Stopped,” a history of the case. “I don’t think an advocate could say anything else,” Rudenstine said, “unless you really wanted to lose the case.” Still, Bickel’s response outraged the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed an unusual brief that same day disavowing Bickel’s answer. It said Stewart’s question “must be answered in a totally different manner” and that “the answer is, painfully but simply, that the right of a free people to determine its destiny has been, and should continue to be, paramount to any attempt by the government to impinge upon, erode or ultimately destroy the right of the people to know.” Bickel had made another concession when he argued the case in the federal appeals court in New York. Asked for an example of a government secret that would justify a prior restraint, he posited, presciently as it turned out, one in which “the hydrogen bomb turns up.” Eight years later, on the only other occasion on which the federal government has sought a prior restraint on national security grounds, a federal judge in Wisconsin barred The Progressive magazine from publishing an article called “The H-bomb Secret,” which included detailed instructions for making a hydrogen bomb. While the appeal was pending, others published similar information and the government dropped its case. As that case suggests, prior restraints that actually keep information already in the hands of the press from the public are hard to accomplish. By the time the Supreme Court ruled in the Pentagon Papers case, more than a dozen newspapers had published parts of them. These days, a whistleblower like Daniel Ellsberg could skip the intermediaries entirely and post documents directly on the internet. So far, there have been no prosecutions of journalists in the United States for seeking or publishing classified information, but the espionage laws on their face may well be read to forbid possession and publication of classified information by the press. The press’s victory in the Pentagon Papers case may have been incomplete. But a loss would have been devastating. “What would be the law today if the case had come out differently?” Rudenstine asked. “It’s very possible that there could have been a prosecution of The Times. That would have changed American law quite a lot.” “The general thought,” he said, “was that if you lost the prior restraint case that there was no chance of winning the criminal prosecution.” The opposite happened, said Lee C. Bollinger, the president of Columbia University and the other editor of “National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press.” “As a practical matter, the press and the government have arrived at the state of mind that there will not be prior restraints or subsequent prosecutions, that that would violate the spirit of the First Amendment,” he said. “Apart from the Progressive case, the government has not gone after the press in either form.” But he added that this was in large part a product of mature accommodation among responsible institutions, one that was at risk during the Donald Trump administration. “The continuing viability of a fulsome Pentagon Papers doctrine does not apply in the context of a near-authoritarian government like the one we had,” he said. “It’s those kinds of ambiguities about Pentagon Papers that makes the whole system much more vulnerable when you have a true threat to democracy.”

A first amendment case that made an ‘Incoherent State of the Law’

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin directed the Pentagon on Wednesday to sharpen its focus on China, which the United States has tagged as its top strategic rival.

US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin directed the Pentagon on Wednesday to sharpen its focus on China, which the United States has tagged as its top strategic rival. "Now, it is up to the Department to get to work," Austin said after issuing an internal directive to the giant Pentagon bureaucracy. The directive, details of which are classified, comes after an assessment by a task force established by the new Biden administration in February to study the Defense Department's strategy towards China. "The initiatives I am putting forward today are nested inside the larger US government approach to China and will help inform the development of the National Defense Strategy we are working on," Austin said. A senior defense official said the task force had identified a "'say-do gap between the stated prioritization of China and what we saw in a number of areas related to attention and resources and processes." Also Read | Attack in Afghanistan kills 10 from charity that clears land mines "The directive today is really about ensuring that the department lives up to that prioritization," the official said. Austin said the directive will "improve the Department's ability to revitalize our network of allies and partners, bolster deterrence, and accelerate the development of new operational concepts, emerging capabilities, future force posture, and a modernized civilian and military workforce." Pentagon operations over the past two decades have been focused largely on dealing with jihadist militants in the Middle East and not a modern army such as that of China. The Pentagon's 2018 National Defense Strategy identified China as a major strategic competitor but the task force found that not much had been done to meet the challenges posed by Beijing. The US military is currently seeking to expand its presence in the Pacific at a time when China has been increasingly belligerent towards Taiwan, which it considers part of its territory. The United States maintains a significant presence in the Middle East, even as it has begun the withdrawal of its remaining 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan. To ensure that his directive is followed, Austin will be personally responsible for the implementation of the classified recommendations of the task force.

US defence chief urges Pentagon to sharpen focus on China

Merck &amp; Co said on Wednesday (June 9) the U.S. government has agreed to pay about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators.

The oral antiviral treatment, molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease, similar to Tamiflu to treat influenza.

The treatment course being tested in the trial is an oral dose given every 12 hours for five days.

Merck expects to have more than 10 million courses of therapy available by the end of this year and said it was in discussions with other countries interested in advance purchase agreements for molnupiravir.

The company, which is developing the drug with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is assessing the treatment in a late-stage trial in non-hospitalized patients to see if it reduces the risk of hospitalization or death.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/seeking-a-pill-to-cure-covid-drugmakers-eye-alternative-to-vaccines-387717">Also Read |&nbsp;Seeking a pill to cure Covid: Drugmakers eye alternative to vaccines</a>

Data from the trial, which plans to enrol a total of 1,850 patients globally, are expected in the fall of 2021, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Other antiviral drugs also contending to be the first treatment aimed at the cause of COVID-19 include Pfizer Inc's PFE.N PF-07321332 and Roche Holding AG's ROG.S AT-527. (Full Story)

If successful, Merck said it expects to file for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir in the second half of 2021 at the earliest.

Merck has focused on its treatment after two COVID-19 vaccines it was developing failed to generate the necessary immune responses in early testing, prompting it to abandon them in January.

The drugmaker announced a change of plans and said in April it would no longer pursue the use of molnupiravir in hospitalized patients. 
&nbsp;

Merck & Co said on Wednesday (June 9) the U.S. government has agreed to pay about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.

Merck & Co said on Wednesday (June 9) the U.S. government has agreed to pay about $1.2 billion for 1.7 million courses of its experimental COVID-19 treatment if it is proven to work in an ongoing large trial and authorized by U.S. regulators. The oral antiviral treatment, molnupiravir, aims to stop COVID-19 from progressing and can be given early in the course of the disease, similar to Tamiflu to treat influenza. The treatment course being tested in the trial is an oral dose given every 12 hours for five days. Merck expects to have more than 10 million courses of therapy available by the end of this year and said it was in discussions with other countries interested in advance purchase agreements for molnupiravir. The company, which is developing the drug with Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, is assessing the treatment in a late-stage trial in non-hospitalized patients to see if it reduces the risk of hospitalization or death. Also Read | Seeking a pill to cure Covid: Drugmakers eye alternative to vaccines Data from the trial, which plans to enrol a total of 1,850 patients globally, are expected in the fall of 2021, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Other antiviral drugs also contending to be the first treatment aimed at the cause of COVID-19 include Pfizer Inc's PFE.N PF-07321332 and Roche Holding AG's ROG.S AT-527. (Full Story) If successful, Merck said it expects to file for the emergency use authorization of molnupiravir in the second half of 2021 at the earliest. Merck has focused on its treatment after two COVID-19 vaccines it was developing failed to generate the necessary immune responses in early testing, prompting it to abandon them in January. The drugmaker announced a change of plans and said in April it would no longer pursue the use of molnupiravir in hospitalized patients.

US to need Merck's COVID-19 drug for preparedness, says doctor

US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are expected to agree to work to open up travel between the two countries "as soon as possible," the British government said in a statement late on Wednesday.

Biden, who arrived in England on Wednesday for his first overseas trip as president, will meet with Johnson in Cornwall on Thursday ahead of a meeting of the leaders of the Group of Seven advanced economies that begins Friday, the statement said. 
Reuters reported on Tuesday that the Biden administration was forming expert working groups with Britain, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union to determine how best to safely restart travel after 15 months of pandemic restrictions.

US and UK airline officials said they do not expect Washington to lift restrictions until around July 4 at the earliest.

Airlines and others have pressed the administration to lift the restrictions on most non-US citizens who have been in Britain, the 26 Schengen nations in Europe without border controls, Ireland, China, India, South Africa, Iran, and Brazil.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/eu-us-to-end-trade-tariffs-call-for-new-study-into-covid-19-origins-says-summit-draft-390485">Also Read |&nbsp;EU, US to end trade tariffs, call for new study into COVID-19 origins, says summit draft</a>

The two leaders are expected to agree on an ambitious new "Atlantic Charter" modeled on the one signed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941 that set out their goals for the post-war world.

The new charter maps out plans for close cooperation in eight areas, including "defending democracy, building a fair and sustainable trading system, dealing with cyberattacks, combating climate change, and ending the coronavirus pandemic.

One key goal will be resuming safe travel, the UK statement said. Before the pandemic, more than 5 million Britons visited the United States and more than 4.5 million Americans visited Britain every year - more than any other country.

A new travel task force would make recommendations on safely reopening travel and ensuring that Britain and the United States work closely on international travel policy going forward.

"Links between the UK and US are not only crucial for our people, they create and sustain jobs across and throughout our two countries," the statement said.

US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are expected to agree to work to open up travel between the two countries "as soon as possible," the British government said in a statement late on Wednesday.

US President Joe Biden and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson are expected to agree to work to open up travel between the two countries "as soon as possible," the British government said in a statement late on Wednesday. Biden, who arrived in England on Wednesday for his first overseas trip as president, will meet with Johnson in Cornwall on Thursday ahead of a meeting of the leaders of the Group of Seven advanced economies that begins Friday, the statement said. Reuters reported on Tuesday that the Biden administration was forming expert working groups with Britain, Canada, Mexico, and the European Union to determine how best to safely restart travel after 15 months of pandemic restrictions. US and UK airline officials said they do not expect Washington to lift restrictions until around July 4 at the earliest. Airlines and others have pressed the administration to lift the restrictions on most non-US citizens who have been in Britain, the 26 Schengen nations in Europe without border controls, Ireland, China, India, South Africa, Iran, and Brazil. Also Read | EU, US to end trade tariffs, call for new study into COVID-19 origins, says summit draft The two leaders are expected to agree on an ambitious new "Atlantic Charter" modeled on the one signed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and President Franklin Roosevelt in 1941 that set out their goals for the post-war world. The new charter maps out plans for close cooperation in eight areas, including "defending democracy, building a fair and sustainable trading system, dealing with cyberattacks, combating climate change, and ending the coronavirus pandemic. One key goal will be resuming safe travel, the UK statement said. Before the pandemic, more than 5 million Britons visited the United States and more than 4.5 million Americans visited Britain every year - more than any other country. A new travel task force would make recommendations on safely reopening travel and ensuring that Britain and the United States work closely on international travel policy going forward. "Links between the UK and US are not only crucial for our people, they create and sustain jobs across and throughout our two countries," the statement said.

US, UK leaders expected to work to reopen travel

US Senate is all set to pass a wideranging industrial policy bill to address the military and commercial competition with China. The proposal aims to address a number of technological areas in which the United States has fallen behind its Chinese competitors.

US Senate to pass industrial policy bill to counter China

The remnants of China's biggest rocket crashed into the Indian Ocean near the Maldives on Sunday with no reports of damage, but Beijing was criticised by NASA for its failure to 'meet responsible standards' regarding its space debris.

The bulk of the out-of-control rocket, which had put into orbit the core module of China's planned space station on April 29, was mostly destroyed as it re-entered the atmosphere, China's state media reported.

The Long March-5B vehicle re-entered the atmosphere at 10:24 Beijing time on Sunday, the Chinese Manned Space Engineering office said.

It said debris from the 18-tonne rocket, one of the largest items in decades to have an undirected dive into the atmosphere, landed in the Indian Ocean at a point 72.47 degrees&nbsp;east and 2.65 degrees&nbsp;North. There were no reports of injuries or damage.

There have been intense speculation over where the rocket debris might land, and US officials and other experts warned its return risked potential casualties.

The hurtling debris of the rocket evoked sharp criticism from the US, NASA and international astrophysicists that Beijing has won a reckless gamble the uncontrolled fall of the rocket stroked fears that it may fall into inhabited areas.

The global anxiety over the debris was sparked by remnants of a similar Chinese rocket fell in Ivory Coast last year damaging several homes in villages.

It was the largest craft to crash to Earth since the US space laboratory, Skylab scattered debris over the southern Australian town of Esperance in 1979.

In a statement NASA Administrator Senator Bill Nelson criticised China, saying that it failed to meet responsible standards. "Spacefaring nations must minimise the risks to people and property on Earth of re-entries of space objects and maximise transparency regarding those operations."

US Space Command, meanwhile, simply said the rocket had 're-entered over the Arabian Peninsula'. 
It did not confirm the landing point reported by Chinese media, saying instead that it was 'unknown if the debris [had] impacted land or water'.

State-run Chinese media dismissed the criticism of debris falling in an 'uncontrolled' manner as 'purely false allegation'.

Despite clarification by China's space industry insiders and Foreign Ministry that the probability of the rocket remnants causing harm was extremely low, the Western media outlets and Pentagon, incessantly hyped that the debris was heading back to Earth in an 'uncontrolled'&nbsp;manner, state-run Global Times reported.

It is a 'purely false allegation', it quoted as Chinese analysts as saying.

The so-called "uncontrolled re-entry" of China's rocket debris is a groundless, false accusation, Song Zhongping, an aerospace expert told the Global Times on Sunday.

"It only refers to the loss of propulsion, but in no way means that China has lost track of its flying trajectory and real-time location," Song said.

It is 'completely normal' for rocket debris to return to Earth, and has been a common practice carried out by global participants in the aerospace field, including China, the Global Times report said.

(With inputs from agencies)

The remnants of China's biggest rocket crashed into the Indian Ocean near the Maldives on Sunday with no reports of damage, but Beijing was criticised by NASA for its failure to 'meet responsible standards' regarding its space debris.

The remnants of China's biggest rocket crashed into the Indian Ocean near the Maldives on Sunday with no reports of damage, but Beijing was criticised by NASA for its failure to 'meet responsible standards' regarding its space debris. The bulk of the out-of-control rocket, which had put into orbit the core module of China's planned space station on April 29, was mostly destroyed as it re-entered the atmosphere, China's state media reported. The Long March-5B vehicle re-entered the atmosphere at 10:24 Beijing time on Sunday, the Chinese Manned Space Engineering office said. It said debris from the 18-tonne rocket, one of the largest items in decades to have an undirected dive into the atmosphere, landed in the Indian Ocean at a point 72.47 degrees east and 2.65 degrees North. There were no reports of injuries or damage. There have been intense speculation over where the rocket debris might land, and US officials and other experts warned its return risked potential casualties. The hurtling debris of the rocket evoked sharp criticism from the US, NASA and international astrophysicists that Beijing has won a reckless gamble the uncontrolled fall of the rocket stroked fears that it may fall into inhabited areas. The global anxiety over the debris was sparked by remnants of a similar Chinese rocket fell in Ivory Coast last year damaging several homes in villages. It was the largest craft to crash to Earth since the US space laboratory, Skylab scattered debris over the southern Australian town of Esperance in 1979. In a statement NASA Administrator Senator Bill Nelson criticised China, saying that it failed to meet responsible standards. "Spacefaring nations must minimise the risks to people and property on Earth of re-entries of space objects and maximise transparency regarding those operations." US Space Command, meanwhile, simply said the rocket had 're-entered over the Arabian Peninsula'. It did not confirm the landing point reported by Chinese media, saying instead that it was 'unknown if the debris [had] impacted land or water'. State-run Chinese media dismissed the criticism of debris falling in an 'uncontrolled' manner as 'purely false allegation'. Despite clarification by China's space industry insiders and Foreign Ministry that the probability of the rocket remnants causing harm was extremely low, the Western media outlets and Pentagon, incessantly hyped that the debris was heading back to Earth in an 'uncontrolled' manner, state-run Global Times reported. It is a 'purely false allegation', it quoted as Chinese analysts as saying. The so-called "uncontrolled re-entry" of China's rocket debris is a groundless, false accusation, Song Zhongping, an aerospace expert told the Global Times on Sunday. "It only refers to the loss of propulsion, but in no way means that China has lost track of its flying trajectory and real-time location," Song said. It is 'completely normal' for rocket debris to return to Earth, and has been a common practice carried out by global participants in the aerospace field, including China, the Global Times report said. (With inputs from agencies)

Debris from China's biggest rocket crashes into Indian Ocean; NASA criticises Beijing's handling 

Indian-Americans, who constitute the second-largest immigrant group in the US, regularly encounter discrimination and polarisation, according to a survey released on Wednesday.

The report, 'Social Realities of Indian Americans: Results from the 2020 Indian American Attitudes Survey' draws on the Indian-American Attitudes Survey (IAAS), a collaboration between the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Johns Hopkins-SAIS, and the University of Pennsylvania.

Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/havana-zoo-introduces-cubas-first-yanek-a-rare-white-tiger-390376">Havana Zoo introduces Cuba's first Yanek, a rare white tiger</a>

The findings of the report are based on a nationally representative online survey of 1,200 Indian-American residents in the US, the 2020 IAAS, conducted between September 1 and September 20, 2020, in partnership with the research and analytics firm YouGov, it said in a statement.

Indian-Americans regularly encounter discrimination.

One in two Indian Americans reports being discriminated against in the past year, with discrimination based on skin colour identified as the most common form of bias.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/fatigue-ptsd-depression-and-more-heres-how-to-fight-post-covid-problems-390332">Fatigue, PTSD, depression and more: Here's how to fight post-Covid problems</a>

"Somewhat surprisingly, Indian-Americans born in the United States are much more likely to report being victims of discrimination than their foreign-born counterparts,"&nbsp;said the report.

According to the report, Indian-Americans exhibit very high rates of marriage within their community.

While eight out of 10 respondents have a spouse or partner of Indian-origin, US-born Indian-Americans are four times more likely to have a spouse or partner who is of Indian-origin but was born in the United States.

The survey found that religion plays a central role in the lives of Indian-Americans but religious practice varies. 
While nearly three-quarters of Indian-Americans state that religion plays an important role in their lives, religious practice is less pronounced.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/loki-episode-1-review-tom-hiddlestons-show-introduces-alternate-narrative-for-marvel-390339">'Loki' episode 1 review: Tom Hiddleston's show introduces alternate narrative for Marvel</a>

Forty per cent of respondents pray at least once a day and 27 per cent attend religious services at least once a week.

The report notes that roughly half of all Hindu Indian-Americans identify with a caste group. Foreign-born respondents are significantly more likely than US-born respondents to espouse a caste identity. The overwhelming majority of Hindus with a caste identity, more than eight in ten,&nbsp;self-identify as belonging to the category of General or upper caste.

'Indian-American'&nbsp;itself is a contested identity. While Indian-American is a commonly used shorthand to describe people of Indian origin, it is not universally embraced. Only four in 10 respondents believe that Indian-American&nbsp;is the term that best captures their background, the report said.

Civic and political engagement varies considerably by one's citizenship status. Across nearly all metrics of civic and political participation, US-born citizens report the highest levels of engagement, followed by foreign-born US citizens, with non-citizens trailing behind.

Indian-Americans' social communities are heavily populated by other people of Indian origin. Indian-Americans, especially members of the first generation, tend to socialise with other Indian-Americans.

Internally, the social networks of Indian-Americans are more homogenous in terms of religion than either Indian region (state) of origin or caste.

The report says that polarisation among Indian-Americans reflects broader trends in American society. 
"While religious polarisation is less pronounced at an individual level, partisan polarisation, linked to political preferences both in India and the United States,&nbsp;is rife. However, this polarisation is asymmetric: Democrats are much less comfortable having close friends who are Republicans than the converse," it said.

The same is true of Congress Party supporters vis-a-vis supporters of the BJP.

"To some extent, divisions in India are being reproduced within the Indian-American community. While only a minority of respondents are concerned about the importation of political divisions from India to the United States, those who identify religion, political leadership and political parties in India as the most common factors," the report added.

Indian-Americans comprise slightly more than 1 per cent of the total US population and less than 1 per cent of all registered voters.

Indian Americans are the second-largest immigrant group in the United States. There are 4.2 million people of Indian origin residing in the United States, according to 2018 data.

Indian-Americans, who constitute the second-largest immigrant group in the US, regularly encounter discrimination and polarisation, according to a survey released on Wednesday.

Indian-Americans, who constitute the second-largest immigrant group in the US, regularly encounter discrimination and polarisation, according to a survey released on Wednesday. The report, 'Social Realities of Indian Americans: Results from the 2020 Indian American Attitudes Survey' draws on the Indian-American Attitudes Survey (IAAS), a collaboration between the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Johns Hopkins-SAIS, and the University of Pennsylvania. Also Read | Havana Zoo introduces Cuba's first Yanek, a rare white tiger The findings of the report are based on a nationally representative online survey of 1,200 Indian-American residents in the US, the 2020 IAAS, conducted between September 1 and September 20, 2020, in partnership with the research and analytics firm YouGov, it said in a statement. Indian-Americans regularly encounter discrimination. One in two Indian Americans reports being discriminated against in the past year, with discrimination based on skin colour identified as the most common form of bias. Also read | Fatigue, PTSD, depression and more: Here's how to fight post-Covid problems "Somewhat surprisingly, Indian-Americans born in the United States are much more likely to report being victims of discrimination than their foreign-born counterparts," said the report. According to the report, Indian-Americans exhibit very high rates of marriage within their community. While eight out of 10 respondents have a spouse or partner of Indian-origin, US-born Indian-Americans are four times more likely to have a spouse or partner who is of Indian-origin but was born in the United States. The survey found that religion plays a central role in the lives of Indian-Americans but religious practice varies. While nearly three-quarters of Indian-Americans state that religion plays an important role in their lives, religious practice is less pronounced. Also read | 'Loki' episode 1 review: Tom Hiddleston's show introduces alternate narrative for Marvel Forty per cent of respondents pray at least once a day and 27 per cent attend religious services at least once a week. The report notes that roughly half of all Hindu Indian-Americans identify with a caste group. Foreign-born respondents are significantly more likely than US-born respondents to espouse a caste identity. The overwhelming majority of Hindus with a caste identity, more than eight in ten, self-identify as belonging to the category of General or upper caste. 'Indian-American' itself is a contested identity. While Indian-American is a commonly used shorthand to describe people of Indian origin, it is not universally embraced. Only four in 10 respondents believe that Indian-American is the term that best captures their background, the report said. Civic and political engagement varies considerably by one's citizenship status. Across nearly all metrics of civic and political participation, US-born citizens report the highest levels of engagement, followed by foreign-born US citizens, with non-citizens trailing behind. Indian-Americans' social communities are heavily populated by other people of Indian origin. Indian-Americans, especially members of the first generation, tend to socialise with other Indian-Americans. Internally, the social networks of Indian-Americans are more homogenous in terms of religion than either Indian region (state) of origin or caste. The report says that polarisation among Indian-Americans reflects broader trends in American society. "While religious polarisation is less pronounced at an individual level, partisan polarisation, linked to political preferences both in India and the United States, is rife. However, this polarisation is asymmetric: Democrats are much less comfortable having close friends who are Republicans than the converse," it said. The same is true of Congress Party supporters vis-a-vis supporters of the BJP. "To some extent, divisions in India are being reproduced within the Indian-American community. While only a minority of respondents are concerned about the importation of political divisions from India to the United States, those who identify religion, political leadership and political parties in India as the most common factors," the report added. Indian-Americans comprise slightly more than 1 per cent of the total US population and less than 1 per cent of all registered voters. Indian Americans are the second-largest immigrant group in the United States. There are 4.2 million people of Indian origin residing in the United States, according to 2018 data.

Indian-Americans regularly encounter discrimination: Survey

China is the single nation that militarily, economically, diplomatically and politically has the ability to try to disturb the rules-based order that the United States, its friends and allies strongly defend, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken has said.

He also said that China is both the most consequential and most complicated relationship the US has. "It (China) is the single nation state that militarily, economically, diplomatically, politically has the ability to try to up the rules-based order that we strongly defend because it's advanced our own security and prosperity for so many years," Blinken told lawmakers during a Congressional hearing on Tuesday.

Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee during the hearing on the 2022 Budget Request for the State Department, Blinken said the US-China relationship has increasing adversarial aspects to it.

"It certainly has competitive ones. And it still has some cooperative ones as well. But the common denominator is to approach each of those aspects of the relationship from a position of strength. I think that strength starts with a few things," he said.

Blinken said that it starts with alliances and partnerships. "This is a unique strategic asset for us, something that China does not enjoy. That's why we're working to revitalise those alliances and partnerships. It includes our engagement in international organisations and international life because when we pull back, China fills in and starts to shape the rules and set the norms," he said.

"It absolutely includes our military and our deterrent capability. As you know, better than I, some years ago we started to shift resources to the Asia Pacific, including about 60 per cent of our Navy. Continue to take the steps necessary to make sure we have a strong deterrent," Blinken said.

Finally, it involves making the right investments in ourselves, he said. "Investments in our technology, investments in our workers, investments in innovation and research and development, all of those elements together or how we approach China from a position of strength," Blinken said.

Responding to a question, the secretary of state said that China is making more investments in its nuclear programme and seeks to build its arsenal. "This is something that I think we need to engage because it presents a growing challenge. So, this is something that we're focused on. We're working on it," he said.

Blinken said that the foundational piece of ties with China has to be approaching it from a position of strength. The elements of that strength are strong alliances and partnerships.

"That is a strategic asset for us that China doesn't have. When we are working and speaking collectively with others who are aggrieved by China's practices in one area or another, we are much stronger. We're much more effective just in the economic realm, to cite one example," he said.

"Alone, we're about 20 per cent, 25 per cent of the world GDP. When we're working in concert with other democracies, we are 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the world GDP. It's a lot harder for China to ignore. So, alliances and partnerships, that's a critical piece," Blinken said.

Second is actually leaning in an engaging in these very imperfect international institutions, he said.&nbsp;"The challenge there is that these institutions tend to set the rules, the standards, the norms. When we pull back, China fills in, and it has a stronger hand in setting the rules on new technologies, for example leaning. We are leaning in, making sure with our allies and partners that we're present," he said.

"Third, what you've just done or are on the verge of doing, I think this afternoon, with this very important legislation that is making the right investments in ourselves, and our technology, in research and development, in our workers, that is fundamentally our greatest source of strength when it comes to competing and dealing effectively with China," Blinken said.

He said, of course, "our military, our deterrent capacity, all of those things have to be married together."&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)

China is the single nation that militarily, economically, diplomatically and politically has the ability to try to disturb the rules-based order that the United States, its friends and allies strongly defend, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken has said.

China is the single nation that militarily, economically, diplomatically and politically has the ability to try to disturb the rules-based order that the United States, its friends and allies strongly defend, US Secretary of State Tony Blinken has said. He also said that China is both the most consequential and most complicated relationship the US has. "It (China) is the single nation state that militarily, economically, diplomatically, politically has the ability to try to up the rules-based order that we strongly defend because it's advanced our own security and prosperity for so many years," Blinken told lawmakers during a Congressional hearing on Tuesday. Testifying before the Senate Appropriations Committee during the hearing on the 2022 Budget Request for the State Department, Blinken said the US-China relationship has increasing adversarial aspects to it. "It certainly has competitive ones. And it still has some cooperative ones as well. But the common denominator is to approach each of those aspects of the relationship from a position of strength. I think that strength starts with a few things," he said. Blinken said that it starts with alliances and partnerships. "This is a unique strategic asset for us, something that China does not enjoy. That's why we're working to revitalise those alliances and partnerships. It includes our engagement in international organisations and international life because when we pull back, China fills in and starts to shape the rules and set the norms," he said. "It absolutely includes our military and our deterrent capability. As you know, better than I, some years ago we started to shift resources to the Asia Pacific, including about 60 per cent of our Navy. Continue to take the steps necessary to make sure we have a strong deterrent," Blinken said. Finally, it involves making the right investments in ourselves, he said. "Investments in our technology, investments in our workers, investments in innovation and research and development, all of those elements together or how we approach China from a position of strength," Blinken said. Responding to a question, the secretary of state said that China is making more investments in its nuclear programme and seeks to build its arsenal. "This is something that I think we need to engage because it presents a growing challenge. So, this is something that we're focused on. We're working on it," he said. Blinken said that the foundational piece of ties with China has to be approaching it from a position of strength. The elements of that strength are strong alliances and partnerships. "That is a strategic asset for us that China doesn't have. When we are working and speaking collectively with others who are aggrieved by China's practices in one area or another, we are much stronger. We're much more effective just in the economic realm, to cite one example," he said. "Alone, we're about 20 per cent, 25 per cent of the world GDP. When we're working in concert with other democracies, we are 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the world GDP. It's a lot harder for China to ignore. So, alliances and partnerships, that's a critical piece," Blinken said. Second is actually leaning in an engaging in these very imperfect international institutions, he said. "The challenge there is that these institutions tend to set the rules, the standards, the norms. When we pull back, China fills in, and it has a stronger hand in setting the rules on new technologies, for example leaning. We are leaning in, making sure with our allies and partners that we're present," he said. "Third, what you've just done or are on the verge of doing, I think this afternoon, with this very important legislation that is making the right investments in ourselves, and our technology, in research and development, in our workers, that is fundamentally our greatest source of strength when it comes to competing and dealing effectively with China," Blinken said. He said, of course, "our military, our deterrent capacity, all of those things have to be married together." (With inputs from agencies)

China has ability to try to disturb rules-based order that US, allies defend: Blinken 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that hundreds of US sanctions will remain on Iran even if the United States rejoins the 2015 nuclear accord. Blinken said the sanctions will remain in place until Iran's behaviour changes.

Antony Blinken says hundreds of sanctions to remain on Iran even if US rejoins nuclear deal

It's a jam-packed schedule for US President Joe Biden as he heads to Europe. This will be Biden's first foreign trip as the President of America. The 8-day trip will conclude on June 16.

US President Biden heads to Europe, meet with Queen & Putin on the cards

US Vice President Kamala Harris declared her two-day trip to Central America a success after extensive discussions with leaders there. Harris defended not visiting the US-Mexico border following criticism.

Harris declares Central America trip 'a success' amid criticism over border

us-1

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

us 1