Hassan Rouhani calls it the budget of resistance, he defiant in the face of U.S Sanctions.

IRAN: Iran President Hassan Unveils a 'RESISTANCE' budget

A rally was organised outside the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/representatives-of-pak-embassy-abu-dhabi-to-attend-oic-meet-200551">Pakistan embassy</a> in Washington on Sunday to protest against Islamabad sponsored terrorism.

Two congressional candidates from Virginia and American veterans who fought and worked in Afghanistan were among those who participated in the rally 'Veterans Rally against terror state Pakistan'.

Demonstrators held placards and chanted slogans against Pakistan for sponsoring terrorism. A few protesters were seen holding a banner that read, 'Pakistan has been involved in more than 90 per cent of all terror attack that has happened in the past 20 years within the United States'.

Pakistan has been repeatedly asked by the international community to take action against state-sponsored terrorism.

The demonstrators also held posters demanding <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/2611-mumbai-attacks-pm-narendra-modi-pens-emotional-letter-to-israeli-survivor-moshe-265779">26/11 Mumbai </a>attack culprits to be brought to justice.

Mumbai had come to a standstill <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/11-year-of-2611-mumbai-attack-see-how-the-world-cinema-has-narrated-the-deadliest-memories-264627">11 years ago</a> on November 26 when 10 Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists who came to the city via sea route from Pakistan carried out a series of coordinated shooting and bombing attacks that killed 166 people and injured over 300 in India's financial capital.

India has repeatedly asked Pakistan to take action against the terrorist groups operating from its soil. However, the architects of Mumbai attack like Hafiz Saeed, Maulana Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and Sufayan Zafar continue to receive Pakistan's military patronage.

A rally was organised outside the Pakistan embassy in Washington on Sunday to protest against Islamabad sponsored terrorism. Two congressional candidates from Virginia and American veterans who fought and worked in Afghanistan were among those who participated in the rally 'Veterans Rally against terror state Pakistan'.

A rally was organised outside the Pakistan embassy in Washington on Sunday to protest against Islamabad sponsored terrorism. Two congressional candidates from Virginia and American veterans who fought and worked in Afghanistan were among those who participated in the rally 'Veterans Rally against terror state Pakistan'. Demonstrators held placards and chanted slogans against Pakistan for sponsoring terrorism. A few protesters were seen holding a banner that read, 'Pakistan has been involved in more than 90 per cent of all terror attack that has happened in the past 20 years within the United States'. Pakistan has been repeatedly asked by the international community to take action against state-sponsored terrorism. The demonstrators also held posters demanding 26/11 Mumbai attack culprits to be brought to justice. Mumbai had come to a standstill 11 years ago on November 26 when 10 Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists who came to the city via sea route from Pakistan carried out a series of coordinated shooting and bombing attacks that killed 166 people and injured over 300 in India's financial capital. India has repeatedly asked Pakistan to take action against the terrorist groups operating from its soil. However, the architects of Mumbai attack like Hafiz Saeed, Maulana Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi and Sufayan Zafar continue to receive Pakistan's military patronage.

US: Rally outside Pakistan embassy against Islamabad sponsored terrorism

Fueling conflicts to create a weapons market

Gravitas: Wion Edit: Conflicts- weapons sales conundrum

China, Russia & the U.S. fight for dominance in arms bazaar

Gravitas: The major players of global arms bazaar

The head of a US&nbsp;congressional panel leading the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/democrats-zoom-in-on-trump-impeachment-charges-this-week-267046">impeachment inquiry</a> against Donald Trump on Monday accused the Republican president of putting himself before his country and violating his oath of office.

In a statement kicking off a hearing in the US&nbsp;House of Representatives to weigh the evidence against Trump, Judiciary Committee Democratic Chairman Jerrold Nadler said there was extensive proof of wrongdoing.

"The evidence shows that Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States, has put himself before his country. He has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people. He has broken his oath," Nadler said. "I will honour mine."

The hearing on Monday is a key step before determining charges, known as articles of impeachment, that the full Democratic-controlled House is likely to vote on before Christmas.

The heart of the issue is whether Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a political rival seeking the Democratic nomination to face Trump in the 2020 election.

Trump denies having done anything wrong and has called the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-win-impeachment-fight-us-president-donald-trump-266504">impeachment probe</a> a hoax.

The House Judiciary panel is expected to vote by the end of the week on whether to send formal charges to the full House, setting up an inevitable clash with the White House and its Republican allies. No current House Republican has come out in favour of impeaching Trump.

Ahead of the hearing, Republicans placed black-and-white signs in the committee room to underscore their argument that Democrats were on a partisan mission to unseat a president who did nothing to merit impeachment.

One sign quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, "We cannot accept a second term for Donald Trump."

"They’re desperate to have an impeachment vote on this president," Representative Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the panel, said during the hearing.

A vote in the House in favour of impeachment would trigger a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate where a two-thirds vote of those present would be needed to remove the president from office. A conviction is considered unlikely.

White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said the White House was not participating in the Judiciary panel's proceedings because cooperating would be "colluding with an illegitimate process."

"We're not going to do their dirty work," Conway told reporters at the White House shortly before the hearing began. "Maybe in the Senate if it's a fair trial," the White House may participate, she added.

It has been 20 years since Americans last witnessed impeachment proceedings, when Republicans brought charges against Democratic President Bill Clinton arising from a sexual relationship he had with a White House intern. He was acquitted in the Senate.

Watch: What's next for Donald Trump?

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-impeachment-saga-whats-next-for-donald-trump-267043/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

'Clear and present danger'

After weeks of investigation into Trump's request that Ukraine investigate Biden and his businessman son, Hunter Biden, the committee is focused on two articles charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Democrats have also accused Trump of abusing his power by withholding $391 million in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/vote-possible-on-trump-articles-of-impeachment-this-week-chairman-nadler-267015">security aid to Ukraine</a> - a vulnerable US&nbsp;ally facing Russian aggression - and holding back a coveted White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy as leverage to pressure Kiev into investigating the Bidens.

But they appeared to back away from basing one of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/democrats-to-spend-weekend-drafting-impeachment-charges-against-donald-trump-266845">articles of impeachment</a> on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian election interference in 2016.

Instead, Democrats suggested they could use Mueller's findings to demonstrate what they describe as a pattern of behaviour by which Trump has sought repeatedly to encourage foreign involvement in US&nbsp;elections and then move to stymie investigators.

Nadler said a visit by Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine last week added to a "pattern of conduct" that represented a continuing risk to the United States. Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, is central to the impeachment probe. He has denied any wrongdoing.

Democrats intend to decide which articles to bring forward after Monday's hearing, which will feature testimony from Democratic and Republican lawyers from the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees.

The proceedings will showcase a 300-page report by Intelligence Committee Democrats that levels allegations of sweeping abuse of power against Trump.

"What we're hoping is today we will be able to quickly lay out the facts, bring out the most compelling part of the story and ... make clear the clear and present danger to the country," US&nbsp;Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat on the Judiciary panel, told CNN on Monday.

In a letter to the White House released late on Sunday, Nadler said he was formally providing the report and other materials related to the proceedings except for "a limited number" of items containing sensitive information that would be available for White House review at a secure location in the House.

Republicans have their own, 110-page report, which argues that the inquiry has relied on "unelected bureaucrats" who "fundamentally disagreed with President Trump's style, world view and decisions" but presented no evidence amounting to an impeachable offence.

The head of a US congressional panel leading the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump on Monday accused the Republican president of putting himself before his country and violating his oath of office.

The head of a US congressional panel leading the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump on Monday accused the Republican president of putting himself before his country and violating his oath of office. In a statement kicking off a hearing in the US House of Representatives to weigh the evidence against Trump, Judiciary Committee Democratic Chairman Jerrold Nadler said there was extensive proof of wrongdoing. "The evidence shows that Donald J. Trump, the president of the United States, has put himself before his country. He has violated his most basic responsibilities to the people. He has broken his oath," Nadler said. "I will honour mine." The hearing on Monday is a key step before determining charges, known as articles of impeachment, that the full Democratic-controlled House is likely to vote on before Christmas. The heart of the issue is whether Trump abused his power by pressuring Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a political rival seeking the Democratic nomination to face Trump in the 2020 election. Trump denies having done anything wrong and has called the impeachment probe a hoax. The House Judiciary panel is expected to vote by the end of the week on whether to send formal charges to the full House, setting up an inevitable clash with the White House and its Republican allies. No current House Republican has come out in favour of impeaching Trump. Ahead of the hearing, Republicans placed black-and-white signs in the committee room to underscore their argument that Democrats were on a partisan mission to unseat a president who did nothing to merit impeachment. One sign quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, "We cannot accept a second term for Donald Trump." "They’re desperate to have an impeachment vote on this president," Representative Doug Collins, the ranking Republican on the panel, said during the hearing. A vote in the House in favour of impeachment would trigger a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate where a two-thirds vote of those present would be needed to remove the president from office. A conviction is considered unlikely. White House adviser Kellyanne Conway said the White House was not participating in the Judiciary panel's proceedings because cooperating would be "colluding with an illegitimate process." "We're not going to do their dirty work," Conway told reporters at the White House shortly before the hearing began. "Maybe in the Senate if it's a fair trial," the White House may participate, she added. It has been 20 years since Americans last witnessed impeachment proceedings, when Republicans brought charges against Democratic President Bill Clinton arising from a sexual relationship he had with a White House intern. He was acquitted in the Senate. Watch: What's next for Donald Trump? 'Clear and present danger' After weeks of investigation into Trump's request that Ukraine investigate Biden and his businessman son, Hunter Biden, the committee is focused on two articles charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Democrats have also accused Trump of abusing his power by withholding $391 million in security aid to Ukraine - a vulnerable US ally facing Russian aggression - and holding back a coveted White House meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy as leverage to pressure Kiev into investigating the Bidens. But they appeared to back away from basing one of the articles of impeachment on former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's report on Russian election interference in 2016. Instead, Democrats suggested they could use Mueller's findings to demonstrate what they describe as a pattern of behaviour by which Trump has sought repeatedly to encourage foreign involvement in US elections and then move to stymie investigators. Nadler said a visit by Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine last week added to a "pattern of conduct" that represented a continuing risk to the United States. Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, is central to the impeachment probe. He has denied any wrongdoing. Democrats intend to decide which articles to bring forward after Monday's hearing, which will feature testimony from Democratic and Republican lawyers from the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees. The proceedings will showcase a 300-page report by Intelligence Committee Democrats that levels allegations of sweeping abuse of power against Trump. "What we're hoping is today we will be able to quickly lay out the facts, bring out the most compelling part of the story and ... make clear the clear and present danger to the country," US Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Democrat on the Judiciary panel, told CNN on Monday. In a letter to the White House released late on Sunday, Nadler said he was formally providing the report and other materials related to the proceedings except for "a limited number" of items containing sensitive information that would be available for White House review at a secure location in the House. Republicans have their own, 110-page report, which argues that the inquiry has relied on "unelected bureaucrats" who "fundamentally disagreed with President Trump's style, world view and decisions" but presented no evidence amounting to an impeachable offence.

Trump impeachment row: Democrat says president violated oath, Republicans attack probe

China said on Monday that it hoped to make a trade deal with the United States as soon as possible, amid intense discussions before fresh US tariffs on Chinese imports are due to kick in at the end of the week.

Beijing hopes it can reach a trade agreement with the United States that satisfies both sides, Assistant Commerce Minister Ren Hongbin told reporters on Monday.

"On the question of China-US trade talks and negotiations, we wish that both sides can, on the foundation of equality and mutual respect, push forward negotiations, and in consideration of each others' core interests, reach an agreement that satisfies all sides as soon as possible," Ren said.

China and the United States are negotiating a so-called "phase one" deal aimed at de-escalating their prolonged trade dispute, but it is unclear whether such an agreement can be reached in the near term.

Washington's next round of tariffs against Chinese goods are scheduled to take effect on December&nbsp;15.

China has demanded that some of the existing US tariffs imposed on about $375 billion worth of its exports be removed, in addition to cancellation of the Dec. 15 tariffs on some $156 billion of its remaining exports to the United States.

US President Donald Trump has demanded that China commit to specific minimum purchases of US agricultural products, among other concessions on intellectual property rights, currency and access to China's financial services markets.

White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Friday that the two sides had talked almost daily, but there were currently no plans for face-to-face talks or a signing ceremony between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

With less than a week to go before the deadline amid "intense" negotiations, Kudlow said Trump would make the final decision on the tariffs, which would hit Chinese-made cellphones, laptop computers, toys and clothing.

"We'll have to see, but right now we're moving along," Trump said last week. "On December 15th, something could happen, but we are not discussing that yet. We are having very good discussions with China, however."

China said on Monday that it hoped to make a trade deal with the United States as soon as possible, amid intense discussions before fresh US tariffs on Chinese imports are due to kick in at the end of the week.

China said on Monday that it hoped to make a trade deal with the United States as soon as possible, amid intense discussions before fresh US tariffs on Chinese imports are due to kick in at the end of the week. Beijing hopes it can reach a trade agreement with the United States that satisfies both sides, Assistant Commerce Minister Ren Hongbin told reporters on Monday. "On the question of China-US trade talks and negotiations, we wish that both sides can, on the foundation of equality and mutual respect, push forward negotiations, and in consideration of each others' core interests, reach an agreement that satisfies all sides as soon as possible," Ren said. China and the United States are negotiating a so-called "phase one" deal aimed at de-escalating their prolonged trade dispute, but it is unclear whether such an agreement can be reached in the near term. Washington's next round of tariffs against Chinese goods are scheduled to take effect on December 15. China has demanded that some of the existing US tariffs imposed on about $375 billion worth of its exports be removed, in addition to cancellation of the Dec. 15 tariffs on some $156 billion of its remaining exports to the United States. US President Donald Trump has demanded that China commit to specific minimum purchases of US agricultural products, among other concessions on intellectual property rights, currency and access to China's financial services markets. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Friday that the two sides had talked almost daily, but there were currently no plans for face-to-face talks or a signing ceremony between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. With less than a week to go before the deadline amid "intense" negotiations, Kudlow said Trump would make the final decision on the tariffs, which would hit Chinese-made cellphones, laptop computers, toys and clothing. "We'll have to see, but right now we're moving along," Trump said last week. "On December 15th, something could happen, but we are not discussing that yet. We are having very good discussions with China, however."

Hope to reach trade agreement with US as soon as possible: China

The Communications&nbsp;Workers&nbsp;of America union filed a federal&nbsp;labour&nbsp;charge against Alphabet Inc's&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/major-corporate-restructuring-at-google-sundar-pichai-becomes-ceo-of-alphabet-266155">Google</a>&nbsp;on Thursday, accusing the company of unlawfully&nbsp;firing&nbsp;four employees to deter&nbsp;workers&nbsp;from engaging in union activities.

The complaint, seen by Reuters, will trigger a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) investigation into whether&nbsp;Google&nbsp;violated the four individuals' right to collectively raise concerns about working conditions.

Google&nbsp;fired the four named employees "to discourage and chill employees from engaging in protected concerted and union activities," the filing states. "Its actions are the antithesis of the freedoms and transparency it publicly touts."

Google&nbsp;did not respond to a request for comment on the filing, though it has said the four&nbsp;workers&nbsp;were let go for violating the company's data-security policies.

Google&nbsp;also last month acknowledged hiring a consultancy known for defeating&nbsp;unionism.

The CWA union, which represents 700,000 North Americans working at <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-&amp;-economy/att-wins-court-approval-to-buy-time-warner-over-trump-opposition-143971?amp">AT&amp;T Inc</a>, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/frozen-2-south-korean-ngo-sues-disney-over-screen-monopoly-265962">Walt Disney Co</a>&nbsp;and companies in several other industries, has been trying to organise&nbsp;workers&nbsp;at&nbsp;Google, said Laurie Burgess, an attorney at Messing Adam &amp; Jasmine who worked on the NLRB filing.

The union stepped forward to make the charge against the company "because it has been harmed by&nbsp;Google's actions," she said.

If at the end of its investigation the NLRB finds&nbsp;Google&nbsp;has a case to answer, the union could seek to reach a settlement or, ultimately appeal to a court.

CWA spokeswoman Beth Allen said its organising director has been in touch with&nbsp;Google&nbsp;employees for some time to offer assistance.

"It's a good partnership we have and through their own organising if they decide they want to form a union, we’re here to help them," she said. "We really believe in&nbsp;workers&nbsp;leading their own struggles."

The four&nbsp;workers, who were fired November 25, "visibly led and participated in" organising at&nbsp;Google, according to the filing.

"I was fired for organising my coworkers&nbsp;and advocating for better working conditions for everyone who works at&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/sundar-pichai-named-alphabet-ceo-google-co-founders-step-down-266045">Google</a>&nbsp;(including employees, temps, vendors, and contractors)," one of the&nbsp;workers, Paul Duke, said in a tweet on Wednesday.

He and others in social media posts since their exit have alleged that&nbsp;Google, which has faced a swell of worker activism over the past two years, wanted to demonstrate consequences for speaking out.

Duke and sacked co-workers&nbsp;Laurence Berland and Sophie Waldman publicly signed a petition in August urging&nbsp;Google&nbsp;to reject business from three US&nbsp;immigration agencies that the petition said had mistreated migrants. The fourth fired worker, Rebecca Rivers, had protested&nbsp;Google&nbsp;policies that appeared to undermine its support for people who identify as gay, lesbian or transgender.

When the NLRB finds violations, it typically tries to help accusers and companies reach a settlement.

Google&nbsp;in September announced such a settlement after an employee accused the company of&nbsp;firing&nbsp;him for his conservative political views.&nbsp;Google&nbsp;said it agreed to remind employees that its "policies do not prevent employees from discussing workplace issues."

The company has long prided itself on listening to employee feedback and even adjusting course on the spot based on ideas at all-staff meetings. But it now serves more than 3 billion consumers and business customers across search, navigation and health technology, and it faces fierce competition in advertising and increased regulatory scrutiny.

The company in the last year has reeled in elements of its unorthodox culture, such as by cutting back on companywide meetings next year, as it deals with its much broader influence.

Workers&nbsp;and investors have been able to exercise limited oversight over&nbsp;Google's practices because co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin control Alphabet's shareholder voting power.

The co-founders stepped down Tuesday from their executive roles but retain their votes and board seats.

The Communications Workers of America union filed a federal labour charge against Alphabet Inc's Google on Thursday, accusing the company of unlawfully firing four employees to deter workers from engaging in union activities.

The Communications Workers of America union filed a federal labour charge against Alphabet Inc's Google on Thursday, accusing the company of unlawfully firing four employees to deter workers from engaging in union activities. The complaint, seen by Reuters, will trigger a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) investigation into whether Google violated the four individuals' right to collectively raise concerns about working conditions. Google fired the four named employees "to discourage and chill employees from engaging in protected concerted and union activities," the filing states. "Its actions are the antithesis of the freedoms and transparency it publicly touts." Google did not respond to a request for comment on the filing, though it has said the four workers were let go for violating the company's data-security policies. Google also last month acknowledged hiring a consultancy known for defeating unionism. The CWA union, which represents 700,000 North Americans working at AT&T Inc, Walt Disney Co and companies in several other industries, has been trying to organise workers at Google, said Laurie Burgess, an attorney at Messing Adam & Jasmine who worked on the NLRB filing. The union stepped forward to make the charge against the company "because it has been harmed by Google's actions," she said. If at the end of its investigation the NLRB finds Google has a case to answer, the union could seek to reach a settlement or, ultimately appeal to a court. CWA spokeswoman Beth Allen said its organising director has been in touch with Google employees for some time to offer assistance. "It's a good partnership we have and through their own organising if they decide they want to form a union, we’re here to help them," she said. "We really believe in workers leading their own struggles." The four workers, who were fired November 25, "visibly led and participated in" organising at Google, according to the filing. "I was fired for organising my coworkers and advocating for better working conditions for everyone who works at Google (including employees, temps, vendors, and contractors)," one of the workers, Paul Duke, said in a tweet on Wednesday. He and others in social media posts since their exit have alleged that Google, which has faced a swell of worker activism over the past two years, wanted to demonstrate consequences for speaking out. Duke and sacked co-workers Laurence Berland and Sophie Waldman publicly signed a petition in August urging Google to reject business from three US immigration agencies that the petition said had mistreated migrants. The fourth fired worker, Rebecca Rivers, had protested Google policies that appeared to undermine its support for people who identify as gay, lesbian or transgender. When the NLRB finds violations, it typically tries to help accusers and companies reach a settlement. Google in September announced such a settlement after an employee accused the company of firing him for his conservative political views. Google said it agreed to remind employees that its "policies do not prevent employees from discussing workplace issues." The company has long prided itself on listening to employee feedback and even adjusting course on the spot based on ideas at all-staff meetings. But it now serves more than 3 billion consumers and business customers across search, navigation and health technology, and it faces fierce competition in advertising and increased regulatory scrutiny. The company in the last year has reeled in elements of its unorthodox culture, such as by cutting back on companywide meetings next year, as it deals with its much broader influence. Workers and investors have been able to exercise limited oversight over Google's practices because co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin control Alphabet's shareholder voting power. The co-founders stepped down Tuesday from their executive roles but retain their votes and board seats.

Labour group accuses Google of illegally firing workers to stifle unionism

As the world's sole superpower, the United States has difficulty to adapt change, said a British business leader in an interview on Monday.

US has difficulty to adapt change of world: UK business leader

China said on Friday it will waive import tariffs for some soybeans and pork shipments from the United States, as the two sides try to thrash out an agreement to defuse their protracted trade war.

The tariff waivers were based on applications by individual firms for US&nbsp;soybeans and pork imports, the finance ministry said in a statement, citing a decision by the country's cabinet. It did not specify the quantities involved.

China imposed tariffs of 25 per cent&nbsp;on both US&nbsp;soybeans and pork in July 2018 as a countermeasure to tariffs levied by Washington over allegations that China steals and forces the transfer of American intellectual property to Chinese firms.

The waiver comes amid negotiations between the United States and China to conclude a 'phase one' or interim deal to de-escalate a 17-month trade war that has roiled financial markets, disrupted supply chains and weighed on global economic growth.

A deal had initially been expected last month, but the two sides are said to be still seeking agreement on major issues such as which tariffs to roll back and the size of US&nbsp;farm purchases China is willing to make.

Though Trump struck an upbeat tone on progress in talks on Thursday, a new round of US&nbsp;tariffs covering about $156 billion of Chinese imports is set to kick in just over a week away on December&nbsp;15.

China's tariff waivers on key US&nbsp;agricultural products is a sign of its commitment to the deal, said an industry source who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Beijing's levies on US&nbsp;soybeans initially brought its purchases of the US' most valuable farm export to a virtual halt, although it has offered waivers to buyers in recent months.

Those waivers are said to have expired, although new exemptions may come too late, said an analyst.

"December arrivals are already pretty high and then we're getting into the Brazil crop," said Darin Friedrichs, senior Asia commodity analyst at INTL FC Stone.

"There's limited space to buy new US&nbsp;soybeans at this point."

Exemptions for pork are likely to be in higher demand, with less than two months until China's Lunar New Year holiday, the country's peak consumption period.

China has been scouring the world for more meat to fill a big shortage of protein after an outbreak of African swine fever devastated its massive hog herd, cutting supplies of pork.

US pork exports to China and Hong Kong are already up 47 per cent&nbsp;in volume terms from January to September, even with high duties in place.

An adviser to the Chinese government said exemptions on the products suited Beijing, as they helped meet market demand for such goods while reducing the trade surplus with the United States.

"We might as well buy soybeans from the US&nbsp;rather than from Brazil. Brazil is actually selling us what was purchased from the United States and they even hiked the prices up before selling to us. In that case, we'd better just buy from the United States," she said.

China said on Friday it will waive import tariffs for some soybeans and pork shipments from the United States, as the two sides try to thrash out an agreement to defuse their protracted trade war.

China said on Friday it will waive import tariffs for some soybeans and pork shipments from the United States, as the two sides try to thrash out an agreement to defuse their protracted trade war. The tariff waivers were based on applications by individual firms for US soybeans and pork imports, the finance ministry said in a statement, citing a decision by the country's cabinet. It did not specify the quantities involved. China imposed tariffs of 25 per cent on both US soybeans and pork in July 2018 as a countermeasure to tariffs levied by Washington over allegations that China steals and forces the transfer of American intellectual property to Chinese firms. The waiver comes amid negotiations between the United States and China to conclude a 'phase one' or interim deal to de-escalate a 17-month trade war that has roiled financial markets, disrupted supply chains and weighed on global economic growth. A deal had initially been expected last month, but the two sides are said to be still seeking agreement on major issues such as which tariffs to roll back and the size of US farm purchases China is willing to make. Though Trump struck an upbeat tone on progress in talks on Thursday, a new round of US tariffs covering about $156 billion of Chinese imports is set to kick in just over a week away on December 15. China's tariff waivers on key US agricultural products is a sign of its commitment to the deal, said an industry source who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter. Beijing's levies on US soybeans initially brought its purchases of the US' most valuable farm export to a virtual halt, although it has offered waivers to buyers in recent months. Those waivers are said to have expired, although new exemptions may come too late, said an analyst. "December arrivals are already pretty high and then we're getting into the Brazil crop," said Darin Friedrichs, senior Asia commodity analyst at INTL FC Stone. "There's limited space to buy new US soybeans at this point." Exemptions for pork are likely to be in higher demand, with less than two months until China's Lunar New Year holiday, the country's peak consumption period. China has been scouring the world for more meat to fill a big shortage of protein after an outbreak of African swine fever devastated its massive hog herd, cutting supplies of pork. US pork exports to China and Hong Kong are already up 47 per cent in volume terms from January to September, even with high duties in place. An adviser to the Chinese government said exemptions on the products suited Beijing, as they helped meet market demand for such goods while reducing the trade surplus with the United States. "We might as well buy soybeans from the US rather than from Brazil. Brazil is actually selling us what was purchased from the United States and they even hiked the prices up before selling to us. In that case, we'd better just buy from the United States," she said.

China to waive tariffs on some US soybeans, pork

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/consumer-inflation-hits-9-year-high-in-pakistan-266392">Pakistan</a> has welcomed the resumption of peace talks between the United States and Taliban which had remained suspended for three months and urged all parties to the Afghan conflict to engage constructively on the same.

"Pakistan welcomes the announcement regarding the resumption of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/no-specific-date-fixed-for-resumption-of-talks-with-us-taliban-political-office-spokesperson-tells-wion-266422">US-Taliban talks</a>. We hope that it will lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and ultimately to a peaceful and stable Afghanistan," the country's Foreign Office said in a statement, as cited by Dawn.

"Pakistan encourages all parties to the conflict to engage constructively as a shared responsibility," it added.

The US State Department said on Wednesday that&nbsp;America will shortly resume talks with the Taliban.

A statement released in this regard read that US negotiator on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, will head to Qatar to "rejoin talks with the Taliban to discuss steps that could lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and a peaceful settlement of the war, specifically a reduction in violence that leads to a ceasefire."

The US and Taliban had held 9 rounds of peace talks in Doha and had reached upon an agreement "in principle", albeit, the negotiations were called off by US President Donald Trump citing the group's continued attacks.

Pakistan has welcomed the resumption of peace talks between the United States and Taliban which had remained suspended for three months and urged all parties to the Afghan conflict to engage constructively on the same.

Pakistan has welcomed the resumption of peace talks between the United States and Taliban which had remained suspended for three months and urged all parties to the Afghan conflict to engage constructively on the same. "Pakistan welcomes the announcement regarding the resumption of the US-Taliban talks. We hope that it will lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and ultimately to a peaceful and stable Afghanistan," the country's Foreign Office said in a statement, as cited by Dawn. "Pakistan encourages all parties to the conflict to engage constructively as a shared responsibility," it added. The US State Department said on Wednesday that America will shortly resume talks with the Taliban. A statement released in this regard read that US negotiator on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, will head to Qatar to "rejoin talks with the Taliban to discuss steps that could lead to intra-Afghan negotiations and a peaceful settlement of the war, specifically a reduction in violence that leads to a ceasefire." The US and Taliban had held 9 rounds of peace talks in Doha and had reached upon an agreement "in principle", albeit, the negotiations were called off by US President Donald Trump citing the group's continued attacks.

Pakistan welcomes resumption of US-Taliban talks

Iran said on Thursday a letter from three European powers to the U.N. Security Council accusing Tehran of having nuclear-capable ballistic missiles showed their "miserable incompetence" in fulfilling their commitments to a 2015 nuclear deal.

"Latest E3 letter to UNSG on missiles is a desperate falsehood to cover up their miserable incompetence in fulfilling bare minimum of their own #JCPOA obligations," Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad&nbsp;Zarif&nbsp;tweeted, referring to the deal by its formal acronym. He urged Britain, France and Germany not to bow to "US&nbsp;bullying".

The British, German and French ambassadors, in a letter circulated on Wednesday, called on U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to inform the Security Council in his next report that Iran’s missile programme was “inconsistent” with a U.N. resolution that had endorsed the nuclear deal reached between Iran and six world powers.

The letter surfaced at a time of heightened friction between Iran and the West, with Tehran rolling back its commitments under the deal step by step in response to Washington’s pullout from the pact last year and reimposition of sanctions on Iran that has crippled its economy.

Britain, France and Germany have sought to salvage the pact, under which Iran undertook to curtail its disputed uranium enrichment programme in return for relief from sanctions. But Tehran has criticised the three European powers for failing to shield Iran's economy from the US&nbsp;penalties.

The United States, Iran's arch-foe, and its Arab allies view Tehran’s ballistic missile programme as a Middle East security threat. Tehran says its missile development activity is solely defensive in nature.

Iran said on Thursday a letter from three European powers to the U.N. Security Council accusing Tehran of having nuclear-capable ballistic missiles showed their "miserable incompetence" in fulfilling their commitments to a 2015 nuclear deal.

Iran said on Thursday a letter from three European powers to the U.N. Security Council accusing Tehran of having nuclear-capable ballistic missiles showed their "miserable incompetence" in fulfilling their commitments to a 2015 nuclear deal. "Latest E3 letter to UNSG on missiles is a desperate falsehood to cover up their miserable incompetence in fulfilling bare minimum of their own #JCPOA obligations," Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted, referring to the deal by its formal acronym. He urged Britain, France and Germany not to bow to "US bullying". The British, German and French ambassadors, in a letter circulated on Wednesday, called on U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to inform the Security Council in his next report that Iran’s missile programme was “inconsistent” with a U.N. resolution that had endorsed the nuclear deal reached between Iran and six world powers. The letter surfaced at a time of heightened friction between Iran and the West, with Tehran rolling back its commitments under the deal step by step in response to Washington’s pullout from the pact last year and reimposition of sanctions on Iran that has crippled its economy. Britain, France and Germany have sought to salvage the pact, under which Iran undertook to curtail its disputed uranium enrichment programme in return for relief from sanctions. But Tehran has criticised the three European powers for failing to shield Iran's economy from the US penalties. The United States, Iran's arch-foe, and its Arab allies view Tehran’s ballistic missile programme as a Middle East security threat. Tehran says its missile development activity is solely defensive in nature.

EU powers' letter to U.N. on Iran's missiles shows 'miserable incompetence': Javad Zarif

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/justin-trudeau-says-china-uses-detentions-as-political-tool-247896">China's envoy to the United States</a> on Wednesday said the two countries were trying to resolve their differences over trade, but he warned of forces that he said were trying to drive a wedge between the two, without providing any details.

Ambassador Cui Tiankai, speaking at a dinner hosted by the US-China Business Council, said US-Chinese ties were at a critical crossroads due to trade frictions, but it was possible to return to a better path.

"At the same time, we must be alert that some destructive forces are taking advantage of the ongoing trade friction (through) extreme rhetoric such as 'decoupling,' the 'new Cold War,' and ‘clash of civilisations,'" Cui said.

He urged US&nbsp;and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-using-ai-to-identify-uighurs-across-the-country-reports-210712">Chinese companies</a> keen to expand trade between the two countries to stand up against what he called efforts to "spread hostility and even create conflict between us," as well as "fake news" about the situations in both Hong Kong and Xinjiang, China's troubled western region that is home to a large Uighur Muslim minority, whom some US&nbsp;officials have said are the victims of human rights abuses.

Cui's comments came a day after US&nbsp;President Donald Trump said a long-awaited interim trade agreement with China could be delayed until after the US&nbsp;presidential election in November 2020, and amid US&nbsp;legislative moves to address the Uighur issue.

The United States and China have been locked in a bitter trade war for 17 months, with the US&nbsp;government cracking down against a broad range of what it sees as efforts by the Chinese government to steal US&nbsp;technology and dominate global markets.

Anti-government demonstrations in Hong Kong and Beijing's treatment of its Uighur Muslim minority have also fanned longstanding human rights concerns. Beijing views US&nbsp;actions on both issues as interference in its sovereign concerns.

The Democratic-led US&nbsp;House of Representatives voted nearly unanimously on Tuesday for a bill that would require the Trump administration to toughen its response to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-used-tiny-chips-on-us-computers-to-steal-secrets-report-169480">China's crackdown</a> on the Uighurs. China warned earlier on Wednesday that the US&nbsp;legislation will affect bilateral cooperation, clouding prospects for a near-term deal to end a trade war.

Cui did not echo those remarks directly but said reports about both the situation in Hong Kong and Xinjiang had been seriously distorted. "Facts are facts no matter how much fake news is generated," he said.

He did not address the US-Chinese trade talks specifically but said Beijing remained committed to expanding bilateral trade and investment between the two countries.

China's envoy to the United States on Wednesday said the two countries were trying to resolve their differences over trade, but he warned of forces that he said were trying to drive a wedge between the two, without providing any details.

China's envoy to the United States on Wednesday said the two countries were trying to resolve their differences over trade, but he warned of forces that he said were trying to drive a wedge between the two, without providing any details. Ambassador Cui Tiankai, speaking at a dinner hosted by the US-China Business Council, said US-Chinese ties were at a critical crossroads due to trade frictions, but it was possible to return to a better path. "At the same time, we must be alert that some destructive forces are taking advantage of the ongoing trade friction (through) extreme rhetoric such as 'decoupling,' the 'new Cold War,' and ‘clash of civilisations,'" Cui said. He urged US and Chinese companies keen to expand trade between the two countries to stand up against what he called efforts to "spread hostility and even create conflict between us," as well as "fake news" about the situations in both Hong Kong and Xinjiang, China's troubled western region that is home to a large Uighur Muslim minority, whom some US officials have said are the victims of human rights abuses. Cui's comments came a day after US President Donald Trump said a long-awaited interim trade agreement with China could be delayed until after the US presidential election in November 2020, and amid US legislative moves to address the Uighur issue. The United States and China have been locked in a bitter trade war for 17 months, with the US government cracking down against a broad range of what it sees as efforts by the Chinese government to steal US technology and dominate global markets. Anti-government demonstrations in Hong Kong and Beijing's treatment of its Uighur Muslim minority have also fanned longstanding human rights concerns. Beijing views US actions on both issues as interference in its sovereign concerns. The Democratic-led US House of Representatives voted nearly unanimously on Tuesday for a bill that would require the Trump administration to toughen its response to China's crackdown on the Uighurs. China warned earlier on Wednesday that the US legislation will affect bilateral cooperation, clouding prospects for a near-term deal to end a trade war. Cui did not echo those remarks directly but said reports about both the situation in Hong Kong and Xinjiang had been seriously distorted. "Facts are facts no matter how much fake news is generated," he said. He did not address the US-Chinese trade talks specifically but said Beijing remained committed to expanding bilateral trade and investment between the two countries.

China's envoy to US warns of 'destructive forces' trying to undermine their relationship

In a conversation with WION, Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson of Taliban political office, said that no "specific date is fixed for resumption of talks with the US". Shaheen's statement comes in the backdrop of US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad's visit to Afghanistan.

Khalilzad arrived in the Afghan capital, Kabul, on Wednesday to discuss ways to end the war in Afghanistan and discuss ceasefire and peace deal with President Ashraf Ghani.

The US state department said that Khalilzad will be flying to Qatar to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-envoy-to-rejoin-doha-talks-with-taliban-after-kabul-visit-state-department-266270">meet Taliban negotiators</a>, news agency Reuters reported.

"The two sides will rejoin the discussion on how to reduce violence," said a State Department spokeswoman.

Shaheen told WION's Anas Mallick that their position on the agreement remains the same.&nbsp;

"The agreement is already in place and finalised. Both the sides have talked about and finalized it in the ninth rounds of talks and had also finalised the mechanism of its implementation. We stand by the agreement," Shaheen said adding that talks are expected to resume next week but no specific date has been decided yet.&nbsp;

In a conversation with WION, Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson of Taliban political office, said that no "specific date is fixed for resumption of talks with the US".

In a conversation with WION, Suhail Shaheen, spokesperson of Taliban political office, said that no "specific date is fixed for resumption of talks with the US". Shaheen's statement comes in the backdrop of US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad's visit to Afghanistan. Khalilzad arrived in the Afghan capital, Kabul, on Wednesday to discuss ways to end the war in Afghanistan and discuss ceasefire and peace deal with President Ashraf Ghani. The US state department said that Khalilzad will be flying to Qatar to meet Taliban negotiators, news agency Reuters reported. "The two sides will rejoin the discussion on how to reduce violence," said a State Department spokeswoman. Shaheen told WION's Anas Mallick that their position on the agreement remains the same. "The agreement is already in place and finalised. Both the sides have talked about and finalized it in the ninth rounds of talks and had also finalised the mechanism of its implementation. We stand by the agreement," Shaheen said adding that talks are expected to resume next week but no specific date has been decided yet.

No specific date fixed for resumption of talks with US: Taliban political office spokesperson tells WION

By Martin Farr

Foreign affairs rarely play a role in British elections. The exception, of course, is Europe: both Labour in 1974 and the Conservatives in 2015 won a narrow parliamentary majority after promising a referendum on UK membership.

For reasons of practicality and protocol, elections are usually scheduled to avoid summits, or the visits of foreign leaders. But nothing is normal any more and 2019’s rushed general election features the first visit of a US president to Watford, an unprepossessing commuter town north of London. Donald Trump flew into the UK on December 2 for a two-day visit to attend a meeting of NATO leaders marking the 70th anniversary of the alliance.

One of the many curiosities of our age is that this most unpopular US president for the British should come so often. Another is that Boris Johnson, a US-born, Atlanticist prime minister, earnestly wishes the leader of the free world was not in the UK. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn, a very-far-from Atlanticist leader of the opposition, is delighted that he should be.

Using the special relationship 
 
The Foreign Office may be the second most prestigious office of state, but in elections, foreign secretaries or their shadows from the opposition seldom find themselves much called on. Defence has had an impact though, such as in 1983 and 1987 when Labour was portrayed as too pacifistic, and in 2005, when the party wished they had been so.

Those episodes revolved around the special relationship between the US and UK – and prime ministers have not been averse to the blandishments of presidents on pre-election visits to the US, such as Harold Macmillan in 1959, and David Cameron in 2015.

Presidents have been prepared to assist in other ways, as I’ve been examining in my research on the historical relationships between US presidents and British premiers. Ronald Reagan’s humiliation of Labour leader Neil Kinnock in 1987 calculatedly bolstered the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher. But there has never been a presidential visit during a general election before now.

Part of the appeal of the Leave campaign in the EU referendum was Britain going out into the world and making more of its historic ties with what Winston Churchill called “English-speaking peoples”. This overlooked the fact that every American president since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s has wanted Britain to lead in Europe because it enhanced US interests to have its closest ally at the centre of what became the world’s largest trading bloc. The exception, as ever, is President Trump.

The special relationship has weakened in the topsy-turvy political world since 2015 – the year Corbyn became Labour leader, Trump announced his presidential candidacy and the British parliament passed legislation to hold a referendum on EU membership. In April 2016 Barack Obama – the most popular recent American president for the British public – visited the UK at the invitation of the prime minister, David Cameron, to assist with the increasingly panicked Remain campaign.

At the personal request of Cameron, Obama told the world that in the event of Brexit, Britain would be at “the back of the queue” for a trade deal. His intervention backfired, reinforcing the Leave narrative of a remote and condescending elite – and Remain never recovered.

Always keen to present himself in opposition to Obama, Trump has pushed his own anti-establishment narrative, which extended to condemnation of transnational institutions including NATO and the EU. In offering the promise of a free trade agreement to the UK, Trump has presented himself as a champion of self-government and so of Brexit, responsibility for which he characteristically ascribed to himself.

As if that were not a sufficient transgression of diplomatic norms, Trump also suggested in 2016 that Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage, should be appointed British ambassador to the US.

More seriously, his relationship with Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, was quite unlike that of any other president and prime minister, as I’ve examined in forthcoming research. Standing alongside May in 2018 and 2019, Trump embarrassed her, and breaking with any sense of protocol or propriety, also praised the person clearly positioning himself to replace her – who, shortly thereafter, did just that.

US presidents have attended NATO summits in the UK before – Jimmy Carter in 1977, George HW Bush in 1990, and Obama in 2014. But Trump’s attitudes towards NATO were originally the principal source of British consternation at his election.

It wasn’t known then that he wasn’t a man of settled policies. In three years he has moved from being NATO’s most prominent critic, to its staunchest defender in the face of criticism of the alliance by the French president, Emmanuel Macron.

A liability for Johnson

It would never have been necessary with any other president, but on this December visit Trump has done as requested – he has observed convention and said he would “stay out of the election”. Except that, insofar as he flagrantly contradicted something he said the last time he was in the UK in the express interest of the prime minister, he has not stayed out of British politics.

Significantly, the impact of Trump’s visit to the UK is on a domestic policy area that is, by contrast, always central to elections: the National Health Service. In a campaign characterised on all sides by millions of this, billions of that, and trillions of the other, Labour has persistently claimed there will be a US-imposed increase in the NHS drugs bill of £500m a week. NHS staff duly joined the now-traditional public protests that mark a Trump visit.

If Trump was ever an asset for Johnson, he’s now deemed a liability. The president sees something of himself in man he’s called “Britain Trump”, not least perhaps their at times disarming physical resemblance. But given British public attitudes to Trump, it’s prudent for Johnson to maintain distance during the last week of a tight election. Trump’s toxicity has the potential to poison Johnson’s hitherto effective campaign.

So after much speculation as to whether they would meet – itself extraordinary – Johnson and Trump did, but, equally extraordinarily, there were no photographs of the host and his guest at that meeting at Number 10 or at a Buckingham Palace reception. The two were eventually photographed together arriving at The Grove, the venue for the NATO leaders summit in Watford.

By contrast, Corbyn has wanted nothing more than the chance to be photographed challenging Trump on the NHS – though it emerged they did not meet at the palace. But not on NATO. On which they agree. A voter could be forgiven for being confused. 
 
(Martin Farr is Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History, Newcastle University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-goes-to-watford-what-happens-when-us-presidents-enter-british-elections-127651">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Martin Farr Foreign affairs rarely play a role in British elections. The exception, of course, is Europe: both Labour in 1974 and the Conservatives in 2015 won a narrow parliamentary majority after promising a referendum on UK membership.

By Martin Farr Foreign affairs rarely play a role in British elections. The exception, of course, is Europe: both Labour in 1974 and the Conservatives in 2015 won a narrow parliamentary majority after promising a referendum on UK membership. For reasons of practicality and protocol, elections are usually scheduled to avoid summits, or the visits of foreign leaders. But nothing is normal any more and 2019’s rushed general election features the first visit of a US president to Watford, an unprepossessing commuter town north of London. Donald Trump flew into the UK on December 2 for a two-day visit to attend a meeting of NATO leaders marking the 70th anniversary of the alliance. One of the many curiosities of our age is that this most unpopular US president for the British should come so often. Another is that Boris Johnson, a US-born, Atlanticist prime minister, earnestly wishes the leader of the free world was not in the UK. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn, a very-far-from Atlanticist leader of the opposition, is delighted that he should be. Using the special relationship The Foreign Office may be the second most prestigious office of state, but in elections, foreign secretaries or their shadows from the opposition seldom find themselves much called on. Defence has had an impact though, such as in 1983 and 1987 when Labour was portrayed as too pacifistic, and in 2005, when the party wished they had been so. Those episodes revolved around the special relationship between the US and UK – and prime ministers have not been averse to the blandishments of presidents on pre-election visits to the US, such as Harold Macmillan in 1959, and David Cameron in 2015. Presidents have been prepared to assist in other ways, as I’ve been examining in my research on the historical relationships between US presidents and British premiers. Ronald Reagan’s humiliation of Labour leader Neil Kinnock in 1987 calculatedly bolstered the then prime minister Margaret Thatcher. But there has never been a presidential visit during a general election before now. Part of the appeal of the Leave campaign in the EU referendum was Britain going out into the world and making more of its historic ties with what Winston Churchill called “English-speaking peoples”. This overlooked the fact that every American president since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s has wanted Britain to lead in Europe because it enhanced US interests to have its closest ally at the centre of what became the world’s largest trading bloc. The exception, as ever, is President Trump. The special relationship has weakened in the topsy-turvy political world since 2015 – the year Corbyn became Labour leader, Trump announced his presidential candidacy and the British parliament passed legislation to hold a referendum on EU membership. In April 2016 Barack Obama – the most popular recent American president for the British public – visited the UK at the invitation of the prime minister, David Cameron, to assist with the increasingly panicked Remain campaign. At the personal request of Cameron, Obama told the world that in the event of Brexit, Britain would be at “the back of the queue” for a trade deal. His intervention backfired, reinforcing the Leave narrative of a remote and condescending elite – and Remain never recovered. Always keen to present himself in opposition to Obama, Trump has pushed his own anti-establishment narrative, which extended to condemnation of transnational institutions including NATO and the EU. In offering the promise of a free trade agreement to the UK, Trump has presented himself as a champion of self-government and so of Brexit, responsibility for which he characteristically ascribed to himself. As if that were not a sufficient transgression of diplomatic norms, Trump also suggested in 2016 that Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage, should be appointed British ambassador to the US. More seriously, his relationship with Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, was quite unlike that of any other president and prime minister, as I’ve examined in forthcoming research. Standing alongside May in 2018 and 2019, Trump embarrassed her, and breaking with any sense of protocol or propriety, also praised the person clearly positioning himself to replace her – who, shortly thereafter, did just that. US presidents have attended NATO summits in the UK before – Jimmy Carter in 1977, George HW Bush in 1990, and Obama in 2014. But Trump’s attitudes towards NATO were originally the principal source of British consternation at his election. It wasn’t known then that he wasn’t a man of settled policies. In three years he has moved from being NATO’s most prominent critic, to its staunchest defender in the face of criticism of the alliance by the French president, Emmanuel Macron. A liability for Johnson It would never have been necessary with any other president, but on this December visit Trump has done as requested – he has observed convention and said he would “stay out of the election”. Except that, insofar as he flagrantly contradicted something he said the last time he was in the UK in the express interest of the prime minister, he has not stayed out of British politics. Significantly, the impact of Trump’s visit to the UK is on a domestic policy area that is, by contrast, always central to elections: the National Health Service. In a campaign characterised on all sides by millions of this, billions of that, and trillions of the other, Labour has persistently claimed there will be a US-imposed increase in the NHS drugs bill of £500m a week. NHS staff duly joined the now-traditional public protests that mark a Trump visit. If Trump was ever an asset for Johnson, he’s now deemed a liability. The president sees something of himself in man he’s called “Britain Trump”, not least perhaps their at times disarming physical resemblance. But given British public attitudes to Trump, it’s prudent for Johnson to maintain distance during the last week of a tight election. Trump’s toxicity has the potential to poison Johnson’s hitherto effective campaign. So after much speculation as to whether they would meet – itself extraordinary – Johnson and Trump did, but, equally extraordinarily, there were no photographs of the host and his guest at that meeting at Number 10 or at a Buckingham Palace reception. The two were eventually photographed together arriving at The Grove, the venue for the NATO leaders summit in Watford. By contrast, Corbyn has wanted nothing more than the chance to be photographed challenging Trump on the NHS – though it emerged they did not meet at the palace. But not on NATO. On which they agree. A voter could be forgiven for being confused. (Martin Farr is Senior Lecturer in Modern and Contemporary British History, Newcastle University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

What happens when US presidents enter British elections

A&nbsp;South&nbsp;Korean&nbsp;court&nbsp;on Wednesday upheld a record $873&nbsp;million&nbsp;fine&nbsp;against&nbsp;US&nbsp;chip&nbsp;giant&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science-tech/tech-group-sides-with-apple-in-qualcomms-iphone-ban-dispute-18142">Qualcomm&nbsp;</a>for unfair business practices related to patent licensing and modem&nbsp;chip&nbsp;sales.

Seoul High&nbsp;Court&nbsp;Judge Noh Tae-ak rejected the company's appeal&nbsp;against&nbsp;the penalty imposed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) in 2016 saying&nbsp;Qualcomm&nbsp;had abused its dominant market position.

The&nbsp;court, however, said the regulator's claims that&nbsp;Qualcomm&nbsp;had disadvantaged smartphone makers by signing "comprehensive" licensing deals lacked evidence, opening the door for the company to continue such practices.

It was not immediately clear whether either side would appeal to the Supreme&nbsp;Court.

Qualcomm, the world's biggest supplier of mobile phone&nbsp;chips, derives most of its profits from a business segment that invents technologies and licenses them.

The company forecast between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion in revenue for that segment for its fiscal first quarter, above analyst expectations of $1.23 billion, according to IBES data from Refinitiv.

Qualcomm&nbsp;is a top&nbsp;chip&nbsp;supplier to&nbsp;South&nbsp;Korean&nbsp;smartphone makers <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/samsung-electronics-third-quarter-net-profit-slumps-52-258964">Samsung Electronics</a>&nbsp;and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/lg-electronics-joins-hands-with-here-technologies-self-driving-cars-27857">LG Electronics</a>, as well as to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/apple-asks-united-states-to-waive-tariffs-on-chinese-made-watches-iphone-parts-airpods-259657">Apple Inc</a>.

A South Korean court on Wednesday upheld a record $873 million fine against US chip giant Qualcomm for unfair business practices related to patent licensing and modem chip sales.

A South Korean court on Wednesday upheld a record $873 million fine against US chip giant Qualcomm for unfair business practices related to patent licensing and modem chip sales. Seoul High Court Judge Noh Tae-ak rejected the company's appeal against the penalty imposed by the Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) in 2016 saying Qualcomm had abused its dominant market position. The court, however, said the regulator's claims that Qualcomm had disadvantaged smartphone makers by signing "comprehensive" licensing deals lacked evidence, opening the door for the company to continue such practices. It was not immediately clear whether either side would appeal to the Supreme Court. Qualcomm, the world's biggest supplier of mobile phone chips, derives most of its profits from a business segment that invents technologies and licenses them. The company forecast between $1.3 billion and $1.5 billion in revenue for that segment for its fiscal first quarter, above analyst expectations of $1.23 billion, according to IBES data from Refinitiv. Qualcomm is a top chip supplier to South Korean smartphone makers Samsung Electronics and LG Electronics, as well as to Apple Inc.

South Korea imposes $873 million fine against US chip gaint Qualcomm

Cyber&nbsp;Monday&nbsp;sales&nbsp;were on course to bring in a record $9.2&nbsp;billion, according to evening estimates, building on a bumper <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/between-black-friday-and-cyber-monday-pope-condemns-virus-of-consumerism-265592">Black Friday</a> weekend for&nbsp;US&nbsp;retailers driven by earlier-than-usual promotions and free shipping.

Shoppers have already had nearly a month of offers and deals as retailers look to draw out their vital holiday season, which is six days shorter this year due to a late Thanksgiving.

Adobe Analytics predicted that $72.1&nbsp;billion&nbsp;was spent online in the month ending December 1, and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/cyber-monday-on-track-for-record-us-online-sales-estimate-265685">Cyber&nbsp;Monday</a>&nbsp;now traditionally the&nbsp;US&nbsp;economy's biggest internet shopping day had logged a 16.9 per cent&nbsp;jump in&nbsp;sales&nbsp;over the year prior as of 7 pm&nbsp;ET.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-designers-turn-to-piracy-after-adobe-announces-it-will-cut-service-254691">Adobe</a>, which measures transactions from 80 of the biggest 100&nbsp;US&nbsp;retailers, said it marked down its prior $9.4&nbsp;billion&nbsp;forecast slightly as more data came in.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/science-tech/amazon-violates-laws-banning-sex-discriminationsued-by-transgender-woman-and-husband-18814">Amazon.com</a> Inc and rivals such as Target Corp and Walmart Inc were&nbsp;poised&nbsp;to benefit from the event, having beefed up delivery services to fulfill online orders more quickly. In-store pickup of online orders has become smoother, too, said Carol Spieckerman, president at consultancy Spieckerman Retail.

"At the end of the day,&nbsp;Cyber&nbsp;Monday&nbsp;is just Black Friday revisited so the momentum, and the deals, really started last week," Spieckerman said.

Adobe also said $3&nbsp;billion&nbsp;of the estimated&nbsp;sales&nbsp;would be from smartphones, a new&nbsp;US&nbsp;record.

Large companies did well in this channel, outpacing small businesses due to investment in mobile apps and other technology, as well as to larger product and deals selections, said Taylor Schreiner, director of Adobe Digital Insights.

"The big companies are still getting disproportionate growth versus the small ones," he said.

The event was not all smooth sailing for the world's biggest online retailer, Amazon. Protesters, who have described the poor treatment of warehouse workers and rising climate emissions from the company's push for speedier deliveries, marched outside CEO Jeff Bezos' Fifth Avenue penthouse in New York City on&nbsp;Monday. "We're humans, not robots," read one sign.

Amazon spokeswoman Kristen Kish said unions and groups&nbsp;funded by competitors were "conjuring misinformation" about Amazon, which had industry-leading pay and benefits. The company aims to be carbon neutral by 2040.

Activists also tried to blockade a shopping mall in Paris, denouncing the spread of Black Friday to European shores. The day's shopping in the United States still paled in comparison to Alibaba Group Holding Ltd's "Singles Day" last month, when the Chinese e-commerce giant raked in $38.4&nbsp;billion&nbsp;in&nbsp;sales.

The&nbsp;US&nbsp;National Retail Federation estimates nearly 69 million Americans will scour the web on&nbsp;Monday&nbsp;for deals on everything from mobile phones to kitchenware, with Adobe estimating the biggest discounts on televisions and computers.

Top&nbsp;sellers included toys from the film "Frozen 2," LOL surprise dolls and Nintendo Co Ltd's Switch games console, Adobe said.

"#CyberMonday2019 The day of the year 85 per cent&nbsp;of the&nbsp;US&nbsp;population pretends to actually be working," tweeted Erika Mayor, a user in Miami.

Cyber Monday sales were on course to bring in a record $9.2 billion, according to evening estimates, building on a bumper Black Friday weekend for US retailers driven by earlier-than-usual promotions and free shipping.

Cyber Monday sales were on course to bring in a record $9.2 billion, according to evening estimates, building on a bumper Black Friday weekend for US retailers driven by earlier-than-usual promotions and free shipping. Shoppers have already had nearly a month of offers and deals as retailers look to draw out their vital holiday season, which is six days shorter this year due to a late Thanksgiving. Adobe Analytics predicted that $72.1 billion was spent online in the month ending December 1, and Cyber Monday now traditionally the US economy's biggest internet shopping day had logged a 16.9 per cent jump in sales over the year prior as of 7 pm ET. Adobe, which measures transactions from 80 of the biggest 100 US retailers, said it marked down its prior $9.4 billion forecast slightly as more data came in. Amazon.com Inc and rivals such as Target Corp and Walmart Inc were poised to benefit from the event, having beefed up delivery services to fulfill online orders more quickly. In-store pickup of online orders has become smoother, too, said Carol Spieckerman, president at consultancy Spieckerman Retail. "At the end of the day, Cyber Monday is just Black Friday revisited so the momentum, and the deals, really started last week," Spieckerman said. Adobe also said $3 billion of the estimated sales would be from smartphones, a new US record. Large companies did well in this channel, outpacing small businesses due to investment in mobile apps and other technology, as well as to larger product and deals selections, said Taylor Schreiner, director of Adobe Digital Insights. "The big companies are still getting disproportionate growth versus the small ones," he said. The event was not all smooth sailing for the world's biggest online retailer, Amazon. Protesters, who have described the poor treatment of warehouse workers and rising climate emissions from the company's push for speedier deliveries, marched outside CEO Jeff Bezos' Fifth Avenue penthouse in New York City on Monday. "We're humans, not robots," read one sign. Amazon spokeswoman Kristen Kish said unions and groups funded by competitors were "conjuring misinformation" about Amazon, which had industry-leading pay and benefits. The company aims to be carbon neutral by 2040. Activists also tried to blockade a shopping mall in Paris, denouncing the spread of Black Friday to European shores. The day's shopping in the United States still paled in comparison to Alibaba Group Holding Ltd's "Singles Day" last month, when the Chinese e-commerce giant raked in $38.4 billion in sales. The US National Retail Federation estimates nearly 69 million Americans will scour the web on Monday for deals on everything from mobile phones to kitchenware, with Adobe estimating the biggest discounts on televisions and computers. Top sellers included toys from the film "Frozen 2," LOL surprise dolls and Nintendo Co Ltd's Switch games console, Adobe said. "#CyberMonday2019 The day of the year 85 per cent of the US population pretends to actually be working," tweeted Erika Mayor, a user in Miami.

US Cyber Monday sales to hit record $9.2 billion

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/microsoft-granted-licence-to-export-mass-market-software-to-huawei-263823">Huawei&nbsp;Technologies Co Ltd</a>&nbsp;plans&nbsp;to&nbsp;shift&nbsp;its&nbsp;research&nbsp;center&nbsp;to&nbsp;Canada&nbsp;from&nbsp;the United States, Ren Zhengfei, the founder of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker, said in an interview with&nbsp;Canada's&nbsp;Globe&nbsp;and&nbsp;Mail.

Ren's remarks came as&nbsp;Reuters&nbsp;reported on Friday that the United States is weighing expanding its power to stop more foreign shipments of products with&nbsp;US&nbsp;technology to&nbsp;Huawei. The&nbsp;US&nbsp;Commerce Department in May placed&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;on a trade blacklist, citing national security concerns.

Huawei's "center for&nbsp;research&nbsp;and development will be moved out of the United States. And that will be relocated to&nbsp;Canada," Ren told the&nbsp;Globe&nbsp;and&nbsp;Mail, adding that the company will also manufacture some mobile network equipment outside China.

The&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;founder wants to build new factory capacity in Europe to make fifth-generation (<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-%26-economy/oneplus-7-will-be-5g-ready-hopes-ceo-pete-lau-147876">5G</a>) networking equipment there, hoping to assuage fears stemming&nbsp;from&nbsp;US&nbsp;allegations that its product could be used by China for spying, the&nbsp;Globe&nbsp;and&nbsp;Mail&nbsp;reported.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/huawei-plans-legal-challenge-to-latest-us-pressure-report-265269">Huawei</a>&nbsp;was not immediately available to comment on Ren's interview when contacted by&nbsp;Reuters. The firm has previously denied it is a risk to&nbsp;US&nbsp;national security.

The company spent $510 million on the operations of its&nbsp;US&nbsp;research&nbsp;arm last year, according to the&nbsp;Globe&nbsp;and&nbsp;Mail&nbsp;report, which added that it has now trimmed the arm's workforce by 600 to about 250.

Separately, Ren's daughter and&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, who was arrested by Canadian police on a&nbsp;US&nbsp;warrant late last year, is fighting extradition to the United States on charges of violating sanctions against Iran. She is currently out on bail.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinese-envoy-to-canada-visits-detained-huawei-cfo-urges-ottawa-to-correct-mistake-265318">Huawei</a>&nbsp;has denied the charges and China has urged&nbsp;Canada&nbsp;to release her.

Commenting on her case, Ren said that it is an example of "obvious political interference&nbsp;from&nbsp;the&nbsp;US"

Huawei Technologies Co Ltd plans to shift its research center to Canada from the United States, Ren Zhengfei, the founder of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker, said in an interview with Canada's Globe and Mail.

Huawei Technologies Co Ltd plans to shift its research center to Canada from the United States, Ren Zhengfei, the founder of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker, said in an interview with Canada's Globe and Mail. Ren's remarks came as Reuters reported on Friday that the United States is weighing expanding its power to stop more foreign shipments of products with US technology to Huawei. The US Commerce Department in May placed Huawei on a trade blacklist, citing national security concerns. Huawei's "center for research and development will be moved out of the United States. And that will be relocated to Canada," Ren told the Globe and Mail, adding that the company will also manufacture some mobile network equipment outside China. The Huawei founder wants to build new factory capacity in Europe to make fifth-generation (5G) networking equipment there, hoping to assuage fears stemming from US allegations that its product could be used by China for spying, the Globe and Mail reported. Huawei was not immediately available to comment on Ren's interview when contacted by Reuters. The firm has previously denied it is a risk to US national security. The company spent $510 million on the operations of its US research arm last year, according to the Globe and Mail report, which added that it has now trimmed the arm's workforce by 600 to about 250. Separately, Ren's daughter and Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, who was arrested by Canadian police on a US warrant late last year, is fighting extradition to the United States on charges of violating sanctions against Iran. She is currently out on bail. Huawei has denied the charges and China has urged Canada to release her. Commenting on her case, Ren said that it is an example of "obvious political interference from the US"

Huawei plans to shift research center to Canada from US: Sources

The Federal Bureau of Investigation considers any mobile app developed in Russia to be a "potential counterintelligence threat," it said on Monday, responding to a US&nbsp;lawmaker's query about <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-senator-schumer-asks-fbi-ftc-to-probe-russias-faceapp-over-security-concerns-236825">face-editing photo app FaceApp</a>.

The viral smartphone app saw a surge in popularity this year due to a filter that ages photos of users' faces.

Concerns about its Russian provenance prompted the Democratic National Committee to warn the party's 2020 presidential candidates against using it, as well as a call from Democratic US&nbsp;Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer for the&nbsp;FBI&nbsp;and the Federal Trade Commission to conduct national security reviews.

There is no evidence that FaceApp provides user data to the Russian government. But the&nbsp;FBI, in a letter responding to Schumer, said Moscow's ability to access communications directly via internet service providers makes any app built there risky.

Russia's intelligence services maintain "robust cyber exploitation capabilities," the&nbsp;FBI&nbsp;said, and are able under local laws to "remotely access all communications and servers on Russian networks without making a request to ISPs."

FaceApp, which launched in 2017, was developed by Wireless Lab, a company based in St. Petersburg. Its chief executive officer, Yaroslav Goncharov, used to be an executive at Yandex, widely known as "Russia's Google."

The company has denied selling or sharing user data with third parties, adding that user data is never transferred to Russia and most images are deleted from its servers within 48 hours of submission.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation considers any mobile app developed in Russia to be a "potential counterintelligence threat," it said on Monday, responding to a US lawmaker's query about face-editing photo app FaceApp.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation considers any mobile app developed in Russia to be a "potential counterintelligence threat," it said on Monday, responding to a US lawmaker's query about face-editing photo app FaceApp. The viral smartphone app saw a surge in popularity this year due to a filter that ages photos of users' faces. Concerns about its Russian provenance prompted the Democratic National Committee to warn the party's 2020 presidential candidates against using it, as well as a call from Democratic US Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer for the FBI and the Federal Trade Commission to conduct national security reviews. There is no evidence that FaceApp provides user data to the Russian government. But the FBI, in a letter responding to Schumer, said Moscow's ability to access communications directly via internet service providers makes any app built there risky. Russia's intelligence services maintain "robust cyber exploitation capabilities," the FBI said, and are able under local laws to "remotely access all communications and servers on Russian networks without making a request to ISPs." FaceApp, which launched in 2017, was developed by Wireless Lab, a company based in St. Petersburg. Its chief executive officer, Yaroslav Goncharov, used to be an executive at Yandex, widely known as "Russia's Google." The company has denied selling or sharing user data with third parties, adding that user data is never transferred to Russia and most images are deleted from its servers within 48 hours of submission.

Russian FaceApp is 'potential counterintelligence threat': FBI

The Trump administration considered banning China's Huawei from the US&nbsp;financial system earlier this year as part of a host of policy options to thwart the blacklisted telecoms equipment giant, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The plan, which was ultimately shelved, called for placing <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/huawei-plans-to-shift-research-center-to-canada-from-us-globe-and-mail-265889">Huawei Technologies Co Ltd</a>, the world's second-largest smartphone producer, on the Treasury Department's Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list.

One of the people familiar with the matter, who favours the move, said it could be revived in the coming months depending on how things go with Huawei.

The plan was considered by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/frustrated-trump-lashes-out-at-impeachment-probe-263974">White House National Security Council</a> and seen by officials as a nuclear option atop a ladder of policy tools to sanction the company, two of the people said. Such a designation can make it virtually impossible for a company to complete transactions in US&nbsp;dollars.

Administration officials drafted a memo and held interagency meetings on the issue, according to one of the people, showing the extent to which administration officials mulled deploying the United States' most aggressive sanctioning tool against the Chinese company.

Its use was tabled in favour of other measures, such as placing Huawei on a trade blacklist, which forces some suppliers to obtain a special license to sell to it.

Huawei did not respond to a request for comment. A Treasury spokesperson said the agency "does not comment on investigations or prospective actions, including to confirm whether one exists."

Huawei would have been among the largest companies ever added to the list, which has included Russia's Rusal, the world's second-largest aluminium company, Russian oligarchs, Iranian politicians, and Venezuelan drug traffickers.

Annie Fixler, a cyber expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, said designating the company "would have broad, widespread implications for Huawei across the globe," noting that its business would be "severely impacted" in Europe and in Asia outside of China.

The US&nbsp;government has brought criminal charges against Huawei, alleging theft of trade secrets, bank fraud, violations of US&nbsp;sanctions against Iran, and has sought to convince allies to ban it from 5G networks over spying fears.

But placing the company on the "SDN list" would mean a host of logistical, diplomatic and economic difficulties for the US&nbsp;government.

The designation prohibits American companies or citizens from trading or conducting financial transactions with those listed and freezes assets held in the United States.

Adding Huawei would, therefore, hammer US&nbsp;allies that already rely on the company for their 4G networks, since almost all dollar payments clear through U.S. financial institutions.

The Treasury could grant licenses to exempt US&nbsp;banks involved in those transactions. But it has generally shied away from doing so, concerned that too many exemptions would blunt the strength of the tool, experts said.

Huawei's sprawling size, with dozens of subsidiaries, would significantly complicate enforcement and carve-out efforts, experts said.

"The larger an entity is, the harder it is for a US&nbsp;Administration to foresee and prepare for the major effects, foreign and domestic, that placing it on the SDN list may cause" said Matthew Tuchband, a former Treasury official who added that careful consideration is needed before designating a company the size of Huawei.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who is seen by many China hawks in the administration as sympathetic to Beijing, has rarely overseen the use of the tool against China, designating a handful of Chinese persons for trafficking in fentanyl and over violations of sanctions against North Korea and Iran.

Nevertheless, some lawmakers still see designating Huawei as worth considering.

"Given Huawei's relentless drive to dominate the 5G landscape, it is one of the most urgent national security threats facing the free world," Republican Congressman Michael Gallagher said.

"All options should be on the table in order to impose maximum pressure," he added.

The Trump administration considered banning China's Huawei from the US financial system earlier this year as part of a host of policy options to thwart the blacklisted telecoms equipment giant, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The Trump administration considered banning China's Huawei from the US financial system earlier this year as part of a host of policy options to thwart the blacklisted telecoms equipment giant, according to three people familiar with the matter. The plan, which was ultimately shelved, called for placing Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, the world's second-largest smartphone producer, on the Treasury Department's Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list. One of the people familiar with the matter, who favours the move, said it could be revived in the coming months depending on how things go with Huawei. The plan was considered by the White House National Security Council and seen by officials as a nuclear option atop a ladder of policy tools to sanction the company, two of the people said. Such a designation can make it virtually impossible for a company to complete transactions in US dollars. Administration officials drafted a memo and held interagency meetings on the issue, according to one of the people, showing the extent to which administration officials mulled deploying the United States' most aggressive sanctioning tool against the Chinese company. Its use was tabled in favour of other measures, such as placing Huawei on a trade blacklist, which forces some suppliers to obtain a special license to sell to it. Huawei did not respond to a request for comment. A Treasury spokesperson said the agency "does not comment on investigations or prospective actions, including to confirm whether one exists." Huawei would have been among the largest companies ever added to the list, which has included Russia's Rusal, the world's second-largest aluminium company, Russian oligarchs, Iranian politicians, and Venezuelan drug traffickers. Annie Fixler, a cyber expert at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, said designating the company "would have broad, widespread implications for Huawei across the globe," noting that its business would be "severely impacted" in Europe and in Asia outside of China. The US government has brought criminal charges against Huawei, alleging theft of trade secrets, bank fraud, violations of US sanctions against Iran, and has sought to convince allies to ban it from 5G networks over spying fears. But placing the company on the "SDN list" would mean a host of logistical, diplomatic and economic difficulties for the US government. The designation prohibits American companies or citizens from trading or conducting financial transactions with those listed and freezes assets held in the United States. Adding Huawei would, therefore, hammer US allies that already rely on the company for their 4G networks, since almost all dollar payments clear through U.S. financial institutions. The Treasury could grant licenses to exempt US banks involved in those transactions. But it has generally shied away from doing so, concerned that too many exemptions would blunt the strength of the tool, experts said. Huawei's sprawling size, with dozens of subsidiaries, would significantly complicate enforcement and carve-out efforts, experts said. "The larger an entity is, the harder it is for a US Administration to foresee and prepare for the major effects, foreign and domestic, that placing it on the SDN list may cause" said Matthew Tuchband, a former Treasury official who added that careful consideration is needed before designating a company the size of Huawei. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, who is seen by many China hawks in the administration as sympathetic to Beijing, has rarely overseen the use of the tool against China, designating a handful of Chinese persons for trafficking in fentanyl and over violations of sanctions against North Korea and Iran. Nevertheless, some lawmakers still see designating Huawei as worth considering. "Given Huawei's relentless drive to dominate the 5G landscape, it is one of the most urgent national security threats facing the free world," Republican Congressman Michael Gallagher said. "All options should be on the table in order to impose maximum pressure," he added.

Trump administration considered placing China's Huawei on SDN list: Sources

Donald Trump Impeachment Hearings Set for Dec 4. Watch video to know more.

Donald Trump Impeachment Hearings Set for Dec 4

The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold its first impeachment hearing on December 4, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against President Donald Trump within weeks.

The following explains the basics of impeachment, what happens next, and why Trump is unlikely to be removed from office. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Why Impeachment?

The founders of the United States feared presidents abusing their powers, so they included in the Constitution a process for removing one from office.

The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." 
 
High crimes and misdemeanours has historically encompassed corruption and abuses of the public trust, as opposed to just indictable violations of criminal statutes.

Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: "An impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment. One, Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. 
&nbsp; &nbsp; 
How does it work?

Impeachment begins in the House, the lower chamber, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the body`s members.

The Constitution gives House leaders wide latitude in deciding how to conduct impeachment proceedings, legal experts said.

The House Intelligence Committee has conducted an investigation into whether Trump abused his power to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations that would benefit him politically, holding weeks of closed-door testimony and televised hearings. The panel is expected to release a formal evidence report shortly after lawmakers return to Congress on Dec. 3 from their Thanksgiving recess.

The Judiciary panel will use the report to consider formal charges that could form the basis of a full House impeachment vote by the end of December.

If the House approves articles of impeachment, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. Historically, the president has been allowed to have defence lawyers call witnesses and request documents.

Can the Senate refuse to hold a trial?

There is debate about whether the Constitution requires a Senate trial. But Senate rules currently in effect require a trial, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly stated that he will allow one to proceed.

Republicans could seek to amend those rules, but such a move is politically risky and considered unlikely, legal experts said.

What about opening a trial and quickly ending it?

The Senate rules allow members to file, before the conclusion of the trial, motions to dismiss the charges against the president. If such a motion passes by a simple majority the impeachment proceedings effectively end.

Clinton`s Senate impeachment trial, which did not end in a conviction, lasted five weeks. Halfway through the proceedings, a Democratic senator introduced a motion to dismiss, which was voted down.

What's the party breakdown in Congress?

The House comprises 431 members, 233 of whom are Democrats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support.

In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat.

The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require a two-thirds majority. So, for Trump to be removed from office via impeachment, in the case of all 100 senators voting, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him. 
&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 
Who becomes the President if Trump is removed?

In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on January 20, 2021. 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold its first impeachment hearing on December 4, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against President Donald Trump within weeks.

The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold its first impeachment hearing on December 4, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against President Donald Trump within weeks. The following explains the basics of impeachment, what happens next, and why Trump is unlikely to be removed from office. Why Impeachment? The founders of the United States feared presidents abusing their powers, so they included in the Constitution a process for removing one from office. The president, under the Constitution, can be removed from office for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." High crimes and misdemeanours has historically encompassed corruption and abuses of the public trust, as opposed to just indictable violations of criminal statutes. Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: "An impeachable offence is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." No president has ever been removed as a direct result of impeachment. One, Richard Nixon, resigned before he could be removed. Two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. How does it work? Impeachment begins in the House, the lower chamber, which debates and votes on whether to bring charges against the president via approval of an impeachment resolution, or "articles of impeachment," by a simple majority of the body`s members. The Constitution gives House leaders wide latitude in deciding how to conduct impeachment proceedings, legal experts said. The House Intelligence Committee has conducted an investigation into whether Trump abused his power to pressure Ukraine to launch investigations that would benefit him politically, holding weeks of closed-door testimony and televised hearings. The panel is expected to release a formal evidence report shortly after lawmakers return to Congress on Dec. 3 from their Thanksgiving recess. The Judiciary panel will use the report to consider formal charges that could form the basis of a full House impeachment vote by the end of December. If the House approves articles of impeachment, a trial is then held in the Senate. House members act as the prosecutors; the senators as jurors; the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. Historically, the president has been allowed to have defence lawyers call witnesses and request documents. Can the Senate refuse to hold a trial? There is debate about whether the Constitution requires a Senate trial. But Senate rules currently in effect require a trial, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly stated that he will allow one to proceed. Republicans could seek to amend those rules, but such a move is politically risky and considered unlikely, legal experts said. What about opening a trial and quickly ending it? The Senate rules allow members to file, before the conclusion of the trial, motions to dismiss the charges against the president. If such a motion passes by a simple majority the impeachment proceedings effectively end. Clinton`s Senate impeachment trial, which did not end in a conviction, lasted five weeks. Halfway through the proceedings, a Democratic senator introduced a motion to dismiss, which was voted down. What's the party breakdown in Congress? The House comprises 431 members, 233 of whom are Democrats. As a result, the Democrats could impeach Trump with no Republican support. In 1998, when Republicans had a House majority, the chamber voted largely along party lines to impeach Clinton, a Democrat. The Senate now has 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats and two independents who usually vote with the Democrats. Conviction and removal of a president would require a two-thirds majority. So, for Trump to be removed from office via impeachment, in the case of all 100 senators voting, at least 20 Republicans and all the Democrats and independents would have to vote against him. Who becomes the President if Trump is removed? In the unlikely event the Senate convicted Trump, Vice President Mike Pence would become president for the remainder of Trump's term, which ends on January 20, 2021. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

How does the impeachment of a US President work?

By Cian O'Driscoll

Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world. A global audience witnessed Kurdish troops indulge in raucous celebrations as they raised their flag on the hill that once flew the IS black banner.

And so it came as something of a shock when, in October 2019, President Donald Trump granted Turkey carte blanche to seize territory held by the Kurds. Consequently, what once appeared an emphatic victory for the Kurds has since descended into yet another dismal defeat.

This is not an unusual tale. Victories have also been proclaimed in the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, only for violence to continue unabated.

The spectre of these apparently endless wars gives us cause to consider whether the notion of “victory” has any purchase or meaning in respect of contemporary warfare. Having spent the best part of the last decade thinking about this very question, I have come to believe that the idea of victory in modern war is nothing more than a myth, albeit an enduringly dangerous one.

As I argue in my new book, it’s high time for us to think again, and more deeply than we have done before, about what victory in war means today.

The view from Washington

The three most recent occupants of the White House offer very different views on the issue of victory. President Trump has made it both the cornerstone of his rhetoric and the lodestar of US foreign and security policy. “You’re going to be so proud of your country,” he assured the audience at a campaign rally in 2016, "We’re going to start winning again: we’re going to win at every level, we’re going to win economically […] we’re going to win militarily […] we’re going to win with every single facet, we’re going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning, and you’ll say ‘please, please, it’s too much winning, we can’t take it anymore’. And I’ll say, ‘no, it isn’t’. We have to keep winning, we have to win more, we’re going to win more."

Victory also loomed large in President George W. Bush’s statements on world politics. Delivering a keynote speech on the Iraq War in 2005, for example, Bush used the word “victory” 15 times while standing in front of a sign that read “Plan for Victory” and pitching a document entitled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”.

Sandwiched between Presidents Bush and Trump, President Barack Obama took a very different view. Convinced that the idiom of victory was a retrograde way to talk about how modern wars end, he sought to excise it from US strategic discourse. The term “victory” is unhelpful, he explained, because it evokes crude associations with conquest and triumphalism.

The disagreement between Trump and Bush on the one hand, and Obama on the other, runs deeper than a mere difference in rhetorical style (or lack thereof). It reflects profound uncertainties about the appropriateness of the language of victory to modern war.

Since the early 20th century, the view has emerged that, when it comes to the mechanised mass slaughter of modern warfare, nobody wins. As Aristide Briand — prime minister of France for periods either side of the first world war — put it: “In modern war there is no victor. Defeat reaches out its heavy hand to the uttermost corners of the Earth and lays its burdens on victor and vanquished alike.”

Bao Ninh, a veteran of the North Vietnamese Army and the author of one of the most moving war novels of the 20th century, The Sorrow of War, made much the same argument, but in simpler terms: “In war, no one wins or loses. There is only destruction.”

Victory is dead

Irrespective of whatever Presidents Bush and Trump might believe, it is certainly tempting to say that there can be no such thing as victory in modern war. It is easy to believe that war is so ghastly and so destructive that it can never result in anything that could reasonably be called a victory. Any successes achieved on the battlefield, it might be argued are likely to be both so tenuous and bought at such a bloody cost that the mere idea of calling them “victories” appears ironic.

But this can only be part of the story. It is too glib to declare victory in modern war an untenable proposition on the grounds that it can only be purchased at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering. The value of a victory may be diminished by a steep price tag, but not entirely negated by it.

For instance, while the second world war produced a truly barbaric body count, and boasts the cold war among its legacies, it also halted Nazism in its tracks. This, it goes without saying, must count for something. More recently, while the 1991 Gulf war arguably created more problems than it solved, it also successfully reversed Iraqi aggression in Kuwait.

My point here is a simple one: although victory can be hideously costly in modern war, and it invariably accomplishes far less than it is intended to achieve, it is not an entirely vacuous concept.

This brings us to the first of three twists in our tale. What is out of date here is not actually the general concept of victory itself, but the notion that victory is the product of decisive battles. The nature of modern warfare is not conducive to clear cut endings. Instead of yielding an emphatic victory for one side and, conversely, an incontrovertible defeat for the other, modern armed conflicts are prone to descend into protracted, drawn out endgames.

So it can sometimes be difficult to discern not only which side has won a given war but whether that war can even be deemed over in the first place. The words of Phil Klay, a writer who served in Iraq several years after President Bush had already declared “mission accomplished”, captured something of this confusion, "Success was a matter of perspective. In Iraq it had to be. There was no Omaha Beach, no Vicksburg Campaign, not even an Alamo to signal a clear defeat. The closest we’d come were those toppled Saddam statues, but that was years ago."

What this suggests is that victories no longer assume the form that they are expected to assume or that they had assumed in the past. If victory has historically been associated with the defeat of the adversary in a climactic pitched battle, this vision is now a relic from a bygone era. This is not how wars end in the 21st century.

Was victory ever really alive?

There is, then, plenty of evidence to support the view that, when it is spoken about in terms of decisiveness achieved through success in pitched battle, victory has little relevance to contemporary armed conflict.

But this is where we encounter the second twist in our tale. Some scholars claim that the vision of victory associated with decisive battle did not suddenly become problematic with the advent of the “war on terror”, nor even with the birth of modern warfare. Rather, they argue, it has always been problematic.

The historian Russell F. Weigley is the leading proponent of this view. He contends that the idea of decisive victory through battle is a romantic trope left over from the only time in history when wars were routinely decided by a single clash of arms: the long century bookended by the battles of Breitenfeld (1631) and Waterloo (1815).

Spectacular but also unique to this period of history, the set-piece battles of this era, Weigley argues, have had a distorting effect upon how war has been understood ever since. The pomp and drama of these clashes was such that they captured the imagination of military historians and the general public alike. Ignoring the fact that that attrition, raiding, and siege craft, rather than grand battles, have historically been the principal means by which wars have been waged, historians (and their readers) have been culpable of buying into (and perpetuating) a kind of Hollywood vision of war that mistakes an exception to the norm.

This excessively battle-centric understanding of warfare has taken root in the popular imagination. Most contemporary representations of war – in literature, media, art and film – envision it as a sequence of battles leading up to and culminating in a decisive set-piece clash of the kind that the 2015 footage from Kobani ostensibly captured. This reflects a distortion of the historical record. In actual fact, very few wars down the centuries have pivoted on battles. Most have hinged on harrying, manoeuvring and the denial of access to vital resources. So far as we fail to see this, a proclivity to “boy’s own history” is to blame.

The idea of decisive victory predicated on success in battle is simply a historical curio that, one interlude aside, has seldom had much relevance to the material realities of war.

Long live victory! 
 
So should this be the end of the matter? Obama and all the other critics of victory have, it seems, been vindicated. It is not merely that victory, couched in terms of decisiveness and indexed to success in pitched battle, has little relevance to the vagaries of contemporary warfare, it is that (one period around the 17th century aside) it has never had any salience.

This brings us to the third and final twist in our tale. While it is true that the idea of decisive victories achieved through pitched battle may be regarded as a product of lazy history writing, this should not be taken to mean that it is of no importance to how warfare is understood and practised. Even if it is just a myth, the idea of victory through decisive battle still bears significant clout. Chimerical though it may be, it still functions as a kind of regulative ideal, guiding people’s understanding, not so much of how wars actually end, but of how they ought to end.

Decisive victories may well be a rare beast, historically speaking, but they are also widely posited as the goal toward which all militaries should strive. This argument can be derived from the writings of, among others, the controversial historian Victor Davis Hanson.

Hanson, whose most recent book is a letter of support for the Trump presidency, is better known for writing several works dedicated to making the case that the idea of decisive victory through battle continues to carry moral weight in Western political culture, even though a long time has passed since it was germane in a military sense.

Hanson traces the idea of decisive victory through battle to classical Greek civilisation and argues that it reflects the longstanding belief that the best way for communities to settle intractable disputes is to send citizen armies to face one another across an open battlefield and there fight it out. By confronting one another in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, societies commit to testing, not only their valour and military prowess, but also the values they fight for in the crucible of combat. Any outcomes that arise from such contests, must, it follows, be respected as the verdict of battle.

There is plenty of evidence to support this view. The history of Western thinking about war from the classical world to the present day is marked by both a repugnance for the adoption of tactics that circumvent the opportunity for pitched battle, and a readiness to sneer at any victories won by those means as somehow less worthy.

In ancient Greece, Odysseus was scorned for his predilection for overcoming his enemies by guile rather than by hand-to-hand combat. In Persia, King Cyrus was similarly lambasted for relying on trickery to overcome his foes “rather than conquering [them] by force in battle”. In the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great valorised victories won by direct confrontation in pitched battles. He responded with contempt when his adviser, Parmenio, proposed launching a night-time ambush on their foes: “The policy you are suggesting is one of bandits and thieves … I am resolved to attack openly and by daylight. I choose to regret my good fortune rather than be ashamed of my victory.”

Beyond the classical world, knights in the middle ages were wont to burnish their victories by exaggerating the importance of battles and downplaying the part played by more humdrum modes of warring (such as raiding) in delivering them. These views also carried over into the canon of modern strategic thought.

The survival of this way of thinking into the present era is evident in the approbation that greets the use of those modes of fighting (such as the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, and drones) that preclude the finality of a decisive victory on the battlefield being achieved by either side. This reflects, I think, a lingering sense that any mode of belligerency that is not geared toward producing victory through the kind of fair fight that a battlefield contest is believed to represent must, in some sense, be morally problematic.

And so even though the ideal of decisive victory is best understood as nothing more than a myth, it still matters. It still shapes how we understand, think about and indeed approach war. As such, it continues to guide our thinking about what war can achieve, when it should be employed, by what means it should be conducted and how and when it should be concluded. To imagine that it can simply be struck from our vocabulary, as Obama apparently assumed, is as naive as it is foolish. But recognising this also reveals some unsettling realities.

‘Mowing the lawn’ 
The ideal of decisive victory, then, is a myth, albeit an enduringly powerful one that continues to shape how we think about war. And this myth poses some dangers.

It’s a myth that tempts us to think that war can still be a conclusive way of settling disputes between societies. It invites us to believe that societies can resolve their conflicts by simply fighting them out, with the winner taking all and loser honourably accepting its defeat as the verdict of battle. The problem with this vision is, of course, that it promises too much. War is too blunt an instrument to deliver such a clean ending. In a way, then, this belief sells us a false bill of goods – one that comes at a terrible cost in blood and treasure. One need only look to the plight of the Kurds in Kobani for proof of this.

To our detriment, we appear to be both stuck with and trapped by the language of victory.

The Israeli strategic doctrine known as “mowing the lawn” provides an intriguing counterpoint to this. Whereas Israeli strategists traditionally focused on procuring decisive battlefield victories against rival state armies, recent experiences in Gaza have led them to adopt a different approach.

Instead of supposing that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) should aim to vanquish its enemies once and for all in direct combat, it is directed toward the pursuit of more modest, contingent objectives. The doctrine counsels that the IDF must treat the threat from Israel’s enemies in the same way that a gardener approaches the mowing of their lawn: that is, as a recurrent task that can never be fully completed but must instead be returned to at regular intervals.

As such, it reflects a hard-won acceptance of the fact that Israel will not achieve a final victory over its foes any time soon. In its place, it proposes that the best Israel can hope for is provisional gains – namely, the degradation and short-term containment of its enemies – that require constant and recurrent consolidation.

There are clearly very serious problems with this position — problems that I do not wish to deflect from or in any way minimise — but it does raise some interesting possibilities for how we think about victory. Specifically, it provokes us to reflect on what victory might look like if we ceased indexing it to notions of decisiveness and conclusiveness.

How might we reconfigure our understanding of victory so that it is coupled to provisional rather than final outcomes? This would presumably involve reframing it in partial and contingent rather than comprehensive terms. There is much to be said for this. But above all else, it would reconnect how we think about victory with the realities of modern warfare and a more sober assessment of the kind of goods it can deliver.

My point is not to persuade states to ape Israel’s strategic posture. It is, rather, to encourage reflection on the conundrum that victory in modern war poses.

What does winning mean today? 
 
Thinking about contemporary armed conflict in terms of victory is problematic because modern warfare is not configured in such a way as to produce what we might regard as a clear-cut victory for one side and an emphatic defeat for the other. Construed this way, victory appears more mythical than real.

But even if it is a myth, it colours how we approach contemporary armed conflict today, tempting us to believe that clean endings are still a possibility – when they are evidently not. Victory is, in this sense, a red herring.

One solution to this conundrum would be to strike victory from our vocabularies. That is, to simply cease talking about it or in its terms. Yet this is easier said than done. As President Obama discovered, the language of victory is very difficult to circumvent or evade. Just when you think it’s dead, it comes back with even greater force behind it.

The dilemma, then, is clear. Victory: can’t live with it, can’t live without it. The challenge arising from this is to rethink what we mean by victory. If, as the historian Christopher Hill once wrote, every generation must rewrite its history anew, the ever-changing nature of war demands that every generation must also rethink its understanding of military victory. 
 
(Cian O'Driscoll is Professor of Politics, University of Glasgow)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-wars-no-longer-be-won-126068">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Cian O'Driscoll Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world.

By Cian O'Driscoll Kurdish forces seized control of the Syrian town of Kobani in January 2015 after a four-month battle with Islamic State fighters. Footage of their triumph was relayed around the world. A global audience witnessed Kurdish troops indulge in raucous celebrations as they raised their flag on the hill that once flew the IS black banner. And so it came as something of a shock when, in October 2019, President Donald Trump granted Turkey carte blanche to seize territory held by the Kurds. Consequently, what once appeared an emphatic victory for the Kurds has since descended into yet another dismal defeat. This is not an unusual tale. Victories have also been proclaimed in the recent wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, only for violence to continue unabated. The spectre of these apparently endless wars gives us cause to consider whether the notion of “victory” has any purchase or meaning in respect of contemporary warfare. Having spent the best part of the last decade thinking about this very question, I have come to believe that the idea of victory in modern war is nothing more than a myth, albeit an enduringly dangerous one. As I argue in my new book, it’s high time for us to think again, and more deeply than we have done before, about what victory in war means today. The view from Washington The three most recent occupants of the White House offer very different views on the issue of victory. President Trump has made it both the cornerstone of his rhetoric and the lodestar of US foreign and security policy. “You’re going to be so proud of your country,” he assured the audience at a campaign rally in 2016, "We’re going to start winning again: we’re going to win at every level, we’re going to win economically […] we’re going to win militarily […] we’re going to win with every single facet, we’re going to win so much, you may even get tired of winning, and you’ll say ‘please, please, it’s too much winning, we can’t take it anymore’. And I’ll say, ‘no, it isn’t’. We have to keep winning, we have to win more, we’re going to win more." Victory also loomed large in President George W. Bush’s statements on world politics. Delivering a keynote speech on the Iraq War in 2005, for example, Bush used the word “victory” 15 times while standing in front of a sign that read “Plan for Victory” and pitching a document entitled “Our National Strategy for Victory in Iraq”. Sandwiched between Presidents Bush and Trump, President Barack Obama took a very different view. Convinced that the idiom of victory was a retrograde way to talk about how modern wars end, he sought to excise it from US strategic discourse. The term “victory” is unhelpful, he explained, because it evokes crude associations with conquest and triumphalism. The disagreement between Trump and Bush on the one hand, and Obama on the other, runs deeper than a mere difference in rhetorical style (or lack thereof). It reflects profound uncertainties about the appropriateness of the language of victory to modern war. Since the early 20th century, the view has emerged that, when it comes to the mechanised mass slaughter of modern warfare, nobody wins. As Aristide Briand — prime minister of France for periods either side of the first world war — put it: “In modern war there is no victor. Defeat reaches out its heavy hand to the uttermost corners of the Earth and lays its burdens on victor and vanquished alike.” Bao Ninh, a veteran of the North Vietnamese Army and the author of one of the most moving war novels of the 20th century, The Sorrow of War, made much the same argument, but in simpler terms: “In war, no one wins or loses. There is only destruction.” Victory is dead Irrespective of whatever Presidents Bush and Trump might believe, it is certainly tempting to say that there can be no such thing as victory in modern war. It is easy to believe that war is so ghastly and so destructive that it can never result in anything that could reasonably be called a victory. Any successes achieved on the battlefield, it might be argued are likely to be both so tenuous and bought at such a bloody cost that the mere idea of calling them “victories” appears ironic. But this can only be part of the story. It is too glib to declare victory in modern war an untenable proposition on the grounds that it can only be purchased at a terrible cost in human lives and suffering. The value of a victory may be diminished by a steep price tag, but not entirely negated by it. For instance, while the second world war produced a truly barbaric body count, and boasts the cold war among its legacies, it also halted Nazism in its tracks. This, it goes without saying, must count for something. More recently, while the 1991 Gulf war arguably created more problems than it solved, it also successfully reversed Iraqi aggression in Kuwait. My point here is a simple one: although victory can be hideously costly in modern war, and it invariably accomplishes far less than it is intended to achieve, it is not an entirely vacuous concept. This brings us to the first of three twists in our tale. What is out of date here is not actually the general concept of victory itself, but the notion that victory is the product of decisive battles. The nature of modern warfare is not conducive to clear cut endings. Instead of yielding an emphatic victory for one side and, conversely, an incontrovertible defeat for the other, modern armed conflicts are prone to descend into protracted, drawn out endgames. So it can sometimes be difficult to discern not only which side has won a given war but whether that war can even be deemed over in the first place. The words of Phil Klay, a writer who served in Iraq several years after President Bush had already declared “mission accomplished”, captured something of this confusion, "Success was a matter of perspective. In Iraq it had to be. There was no Omaha Beach, no Vicksburg Campaign, not even an Alamo to signal a clear defeat. The closest we’d come were those toppled Saddam statues, but that was years ago." What this suggests is that victories no longer assume the form that they are expected to assume or that they had assumed in the past. If victory has historically been associated with the defeat of the adversary in a climactic pitched battle, this vision is now a relic from a bygone era. This is not how wars end in the 21st century. Was victory ever really alive? There is, then, plenty of evidence to support the view that, when it is spoken about in terms of decisiveness achieved through success in pitched battle, victory has little relevance to contemporary armed conflict. But this is where we encounter the second twist in our tale. Some scholars claim that the vision of victory associated with decisive battle did not suddenly become problematic with the advent of the “war on terror”, nor even with the birth of modern warfare. Rather, they argue, it has always been problematic. The historian Russell F. Weigley is the leading proponent of this view. He contends that the idea of decisive victory through battle is a romantic trope left over from the only time in history when wars were routinely decided by a single clash of arms: the long century bookended by the battles of Breitenfeld (1631) and Waterloo (1815). Spectacular but also unique to this period of history, the set-piece battles of this era, Weigley argues, have had a distorting effect upon how war has been understood ever since. The pomp and drama of these clashes was such that they captured the imagination of military historians and the general public alike. Ignoring the fact that that attrition, raiding, and siege craft, rather than grand battles, have historically been the principal means by which wars have been waged, historians (and their readers) have been culpable of buying into (and perpetuating) a kind of Hollywood vision of war that mistakes an exception to the norm. This excessively battle-centric understanding of warfare has taken root in the popular imagination. Most contemporary representations of war – in literature, media, art and film – envision it as a sequence of battles leading up to and culminating in a decisive set-piece clash of the kind that the 2015 footage from Kobani ostensibly captured. This reflects a distortion of the historical record. In actual fact, very few wars down the centuries have pivoted on battles. Most have hinged on harrying, manoeuvring and the denial of access to vital resources. So far as we fail to see this, a proclivity to “boy’s own history” is to blame. The idea of decisive victory predicated on success in battle is simply a historical curio that, one interlude aside, has seldom had much relevance to the material realities of war. Long live victory! So should this be the end of the matter? Obama and all the other critics of victory have, it seems, been vindicated. It is not merely that victory, couched in terms of decisiveness and indexed to success in pitched battle, has little relevance to the vagaries of contemporary warfare, it is that (one period around the 17th century aside) it has never had any salience. This brings us to the third and final twist in our tale. While it is true that the idea of decisive victories achieved through pitched battle may be regarded as a product of lazy history writing, this should not be taken to mean that it is of no importance to how warfare is understood and practised. Even if it is just a myth, the idea of victory through decisive battle still bears significant clout. Chimerical though it may be, it still functions as a kind of regulative ideal, guiding people’s understanding, not so much of how wars actually end, but of how they ought to end. Decisive victories may well be a rare beast, historically speaking, but they are also widely posited as the goal toward which all militaries should strive. This argument can be derived from the writings of, among others, the controversial historian Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson, whose most recent book is a letter of support for the Trump presidency, is better known for writing several works dedicated to making the case that the idea of decisive victory through battle continues to carry moral weight in Western political culture, even though a long time has passed since it was germane in a military sense. Hanson traces the idea of decisive victory through battle to classical Greek civilisation and argues that it reflects the longstanding belief that the best way for communities to settle intractable disputes is to send citizen armies to face one another across an open battlefield and there fight it out. By confronting one another in a kill-or-be-killed scenario, societies commit to testing, not only their valour and military prowess, but also the values they fight for in the crucible of combat. Any outcomes that arise from such contests, must, it follows, be respected as the verdict of battle. There is plenty of evidence to support this view. The history of Western thinking about war from the classical world to the present day is marked by both a repugnance for the adoption of tactics that circumvent the opportunity for pitched battle, and a readiness to sneer at any victories won by those means as somehow less worthy. In ancient Greece, Odysseus was scorned for his predilection for overcoming his enemies by guile rather than by hand-to-hand combat. In Persia, King Cyrus was similarly lambasted for relying on trickery to overcome his foes “rather than conquering [them] by force in battle”. In the fourth century BC, Alexander the Great valorised victories won by direct confrontation in pitched battles. He responded with contempt when his adviser, Parmenio, proposed launching a night-time ambush on their foes: “The policy you are suggesting is one of bandits and thieves … I am resolved to attack openly and by daylight. I choose to regret my good fortune rather than be ashamed of my victory.” Beyond the classical world, knights in the middle ages were wont to burnish their victories by exaggerating the importance of battles and downplaying the part played by more humdrum modes of warring (such as raiding) in delivering them. These views also carried over into the canon of modern strategic thought. The survival of this way of thinking into the present era is evident in the approbation that greets the use of those modes of fighting (such as the use of guerrilla tactics, terrorism, and drones) that preclude the finality of a decisive victory on the battlefield being achieved by either side. This reflects, I think, a lingering sense that any mode of belligerency that is not geared toward producing victory through the kind of fair fight that a battlefield contest is believed to represent must, in some sense, be morally problematic. And so even though the ideal of decisive victory is best understood as nothing more than a myth, it still matters. It still shapes how we understand, think about and indeed approach war. As such, it continues to guide our thinking about what war can achieve, when it should be employed, by what means it should be conducted and how and when it should be concluded. To imagine that it can simply be struck from our vocabulary, as Obama apparently assumed, is as naive as it is foolish. But recognising this also reveals some unsettling realities. ‘Mowing the lawn’ The ideal of decisive victory, then, is a myth, albeit an enduringly powerful one that continues to shape how we think about war. And this myth poses some dangers. It’s a myth that tempts us to think that war can still be a conclusive way of settling disputes between societies. It invites us to believe that societies can resolve their conflicts by simply fighting them out, with the winner taking all and loser honourably accepting its defeat as the verdict of battle. The problem with this vision is, of course, that it promises too much. War is too blunt an instrument to deliver such a clean ending. In a way, then, this belief sells us a false bill of goods – one that comes at a terrible cost in blood and treasure. One need only look to the plight of the Kurds in Kobani for proof of this. To our detriment, we appear to be both stuck with and trapped by the language of victory. The Israeli strategic doctrine known as “mowing the lawn” provides an intriguing counterpoint to this. Whereas Israeli strategists traditionally focused on procuring decisive battlefield victories against rival state armies, recent experiences in Gaza have led them to adopt a different approach. Instead of supposing that the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) should aim to vanquish its enemies once and for all in direct combat, it is directed toward the pursuit of more modest, contingent objectives. The doctrine counsels that the IDF must treat the threat from Israel’s enemies in the same way that a gardener approaches the mowing of their lawn: that is, as a recurrent task that can never be fully completed but must instead be returned to at regular intervals. As such, it reflects a hard-won acceptance of the fact that Israel will not achieve a final victory over its foes any time soon. In its place, it proposes that the best Israel can hope for is provisional gains – namely, the degradation and short-term containment of its enemies – that require constant and recurrent consolidation. There are clearly very serious problems with this position — problems that I do not wish to deflect from or in any way minimise — but it does raise some interesting possibilities for how we think about victory. Specifically, it provokes us to reflect on what victory might look like if we ceased indexing it to notions of decisiveness and conclusiveness. How might we reconfigure our understanding of victory so that it is coupled to provisional rather than final outcomes? This would presumably involve reframing it in partial and contingent rather than comprehensive terms. There is much to be said for this. But above all else, it would reconnect how we think about victory with the realities of modern warfare and a more sober assessment of the kind of goods it can deliver. My point is not to persuade states to ape Israel’s strategic posture. It is, rather, to encourage reflection on the conundrum that victory in modern war poses. What does winning mean today? Thinking about contemporary armed conflict in terms of victory is problematic because modern warfare is not configured in such a way as to produce what we might regard as a clear-cut victory for one side and an emphatic defeat for the other. Construed this way, victory appears more mythical than real. But even if it is a myth, it colours how we approach contemporary armed conflict today, tempting us to believe that clean endings are still a possibility – when they are evidently not. Victory is, in this sense, a red herring. One solution to this conundrum would be to strike victory from our vocabularies. That is, to simply cease talking about it or in its terms. Yet this is easier said than done. As President Obama discovered, the language of victory is very difficult to circumvent or evade. Just when you think it’s dead, it comes back with even greater force behind it. The dilemma, then, is clear. Victory: can’t live with it, can’t live without it. The challenge arising from this is to rethink what we mean by victory. If, as the historian Christopher Hill once wrote, every generation must rewrite its history anew, the ever-changing nature of war demands that every generation must also rethink its understanding of military victory. (Cian O'Driscoll is Professor of Politics, University of Glasgow) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Can wars no longer be won?

Donald Trump visits US troops in Afghanistan on Thanksgiving, Watch video to know more.

Donald Trump visits US troops in Afghanistan on Thanksgiving

This segment of WION brings to you top stories of the morning from across the globe. Watch this video to get updated with the latest information.

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - November 29th, 2019

us-1

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

us 1