US President Donald Trump's administration has revoked an Obama-era waterway regulation in a move condemned by conservationists but celebrated by farmers and developers.

It is the latest move from the president to boost the economy, frequently at the expense of the environment, while fulfilling promises made to his base in the 2016 campaign.

The waterways will be governed under a previous agreement until the end of the year when the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-rolls-back-regulations-on-industrial-methane-leaks-246566">Environmental Protection Agency </a>(EPA) is expected to adopt rules that define far more narrowly which waterways should be protected.

Environmental groups called the decision &nbsp;announced on Thursday &nbsp;to repeal the 2015 Waters of the United States rules (WOTUS) "shameful and dangerous."

Former President Barack Obama's WOTUS made the majority of American waterways subject to federal regulation, requiring landowners to get permits before they could develop or pollute lakes or rivers and environmentalists argued protecting delicate water systems from human damage.

But EPA chief Andrew Wheeler labelled Obama's regulations "an egregious power grab" and said at a press conference in Washington his department's changes were a return to "a longstanding and familiar regulatory framework."

Environmental groups warned the repeal would threaten drinking water, increase the pollution of streams and wetlands, and limit measures that reduce flooding.

Former EPA director of science and technology Betsy Southerland told the Associated Press: "This repeal is a victory for land developers, oil and gas drillers and miners."

US President Donald Trump's administration has revoked an Obama-era waterway regulation in a move condemned by conservationists but celebrated by farmers and developers.

US President Donald Trump's administration has revoked an Obama-era waterway regulation in a move condemned by conservationists but celebrated by farmers and developers. It is the latest move from the president to boost the economy, frequently at the expense of the environment, while fulfilling promises made to his base in the 2016 campaign. The waterways will be governed under a previous agreement until the end of the year when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to adopt rules that define far more narrowly which waterways should be protected. Environmental groups called the decision announced on Thursday to repeal the 2015 Waters of the United States rules (WOTUS) "shameful and dangerous." Former President Barack Obama's WOTUS made the majority of American waterways subject to federal regulation, requiring landowners to get permits before they could develop or pollute lakes or rivers and environmentalists argued protecting delicate water systems from human damage. But EPA chief Andrew Wheeler labelled Obama's regulations "an egregious power grab" and said at a press conference in Washington his department's changes were a return to "a longstanding and familiar regulatory framework." Environmental groups warned the repeal would threaten drinking water, increase the pollution of streams and wetlands, and limit measures that reduce flooding. Former EPA director of science and technology Betsy Southerland told the Associated Press: "This repeal is a victory for land developers, oil and gas drillers and miners."

Donald Trump repeals Obama-era waterway protections

Oil slipped to around $60 a barrel on Friday as concern about a slowdown in the global economy and oil demand outweighed hints of progress in the US-China trade dispute.

OPEC and the International Energy Agency (IEA) both issued reports this week pointing to an oil surplus next year, despite a pact by OPEC and its allies, a producer alliance known as OPEC+, to limit supplies. The deal runs until March.

"In order to avoid a price slide and a massive inventory build, OPEC+ would need to implement further voluntary production cuts," said Eugen Weinberg, analyst at Commerzbank.

"The challenge facing OPEC+ is thus likely to become even bigger next year, maintaining the pressure on the oil price."

Benchmark Brent crude was down 20 cents at $60.18 a barrel by 0955 GMT, while<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/us-briefly-overtakes-saudi-arabia-as-top-oil-exporter-international-energy-agency-249182"> US</a> West Texas Intermediate fell 27 cents to $54.82.

Hopes of progress in the US-China trade dispute lent support. The world's two largest economies are preparing for a new round of talks aimed at curbing the spat and have been making conciliatory gestures, cheering investors.

"Both sides have made further displays of goodwill," said Stephen Brennock of broker PVM. "The upshot is that no further deterioration in the economic environment is expected, hence the downside for oil prices should be limited in the near term."

Brent has traded in a range of nearly $5 this week and is heading for its first weekly loss in five weeks. The US benchmark, similarly volatile, was on track for the first weekly drop in three weeks.

Brent is up 12 per cent in 2019, helped by the deal between the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies including Russia to cut output by 1.2 million barrels per day.

The producers are trying to stop inventories from building up and, in a sign, the plan is bearing fruit, US crude oil stocks fell last week to the lowest in nearly a year.

An OPEC+ monitoring committee met this week and secured pledges from<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/oil-hits-six-week-high-on-hopes-of-extended-opec-output-cuts-248741"> OPEC </a>members Nigeria and Iraq to deliver their share of the cut, something they have failed to do so far, but made no progress on possibly deepening the supply curbs.

Some OPEC delegates say the idea of a larger cut for next year is gaining support. But Saudi Arabia's new energy minister said talks on that issue would be left until the next OPEC+ meeting in December.

Oil slipped to around $60 a barrel on Friday as concern about a slowdown in the global economy and oil demand outweighed hints of progress in the US-China trade dispute.

Oil slipped to around $60 a barrel on Friday as concern about a slowdown in the global economy and oil demand outweighed hints of progress in the US-China trade dispute. OPEC and the International Energy Agency (IEA) both issued reports this week pointing to an oil surplus next year, despite a pact by OPEC and its allies, a producer alliance known as OPEC+, to limit supplies. The deal runs until March. "In order to avoid a price slide and a massive inventory build, OPEC+ would need to implement further voluntary production cuts," said Eugen Weinberg, analyst at Commerzbank. "The challenge facing OPEC+ is thus likely to become even bigger next year, maintaining the pressure on the oil price." Benchmark Brent crude was down 20 cents at $60.18 a barrel by 0955 GMT, while US West Texas Intermediate fell 27 cents to $54.82. Hopes of progress in the US-China trade dispute lent support. The world's two largest economies are preparing for a new round of talks aimed at curbing the spat and have been making conciliatory gestures, cheering investors. "Both sides have made further displays of goodwill," said Stephen Brennock of broker PVM. "The upshot is that no further deterioration in the economic environment is expected, hence the downside for oil prices should be limited in the near term." Brent has traded in a range of nearly $5 this week and is heading for its first weekly loss in five weeks. The US benchmark, similarly volatile, was on track for the first weekly drop in three weeks. Brent is up 12 per cent in 2019, helped by the deal between the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies including Russia to cut output by 1.2 million barrels per day. The producers are trying to stop inventories from building up and, in a sign, the plan is bearing fruit, US crude oil stocks fell last week to the lowest in nearly a year. An OPEC+ monitoring committee met this week and secured pledges from OPEC members Nigeria and Iraq to deliver their share of the cut, something they have failed to do so far, but made no progress on possibly deepening the supply curbs. Some OPEC delegates say the idea of a larger cut for next year is gaining support. But Saudi Arabia's new energy minister said talks on that issue would be left until the next OPEC+ meeting in December.

Oil slips towards $60 on demand worries, despite trade hopes

Frontrunner Joe Biden came out swinging in the third Democratic debate for the White House nomination, clashing with his top two rivals over the future of health care in America and dismissing their plans as unrealistic pipe dreams.

Biden, under pressure to appear in command as the candidate to beat in 2020, pushed back hard against senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren during the debate in Houston, Texas a showdown seen as a tough test of the 76-year-old's stamina.

In a high-octane clash with his fellow septuagenarians, the former vice president warned Sanders's plan to finance universal healthcare "gets him halfway there," while Warren has yet to indicate how hers will be paid for.

"I lay out how I can pay for it, how I can get it done, and why it's better," Biden said of his plan, which maintains and builds on the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare.

Warren, a rising star in the race, and Sanders each put up a spirited defense of their proposals.&nbsp;

"Those at the very top, the richest individuals and the biggest corporations, are going to pay more. And middle-class families are going to pay less," Warren said.

Sanders, whose plans advocates for a shift away from private health insurance, assured voters "we will finally make sure that every American has health care as a human right, not a privilege."

The three-way battle over healthcare kicked off a marathon debate, as 10 hopefuls scrambled for breakout moments as they vye for the right to challenge President Donald Trump.

But the candidates stood united on one key factor: ousting Trump from the White House.

"We must and will defeat Trump, the most dangerous president in the history of this country," Sanders said. "But we must do more. We must do more."

At a dinner with Republican legislators on Thursday evening, Trump quickly dropped his message of "respect" toward his opponents, which he'd expressed just three hours earlier.

He called Sanders "Crazy Bernie, he's a crazy guy." He lamented that he'd "hit Pocantonas" Warren "way too early," in reference to his mockery of the senator's controversial claim to have had Native American blood.

And he reserved his longest joke for Biden, or "Sleepy Joe."

"He's fallen asleep, he's no idea what he's doing or saying," Trump said to laughter from his party, before acting out a scene in which he imitated Chinese President Xi Jinping negotiating with Biden, with the Democrat mumbling "where am I?" and Xi telling him "sign here."

Dominant top three

All eyes were on Biden who is battling accusations that he is a gaffe-prone candidate past his prime who could struggle during a gruelling campaign.

Biden maintains a grip on pole position with 26.8 per cent support, despite a noticeable dip in recent weeks, according to a poll average compiled by RealClearPolitics.

Sanders, at 78 the oldest candidate in the field, is narrowly ahead of Warren at 17.3 per cent support, and has largely avoided clashing with his friend and fellow progressive.

A summer of verbal miscues -- and an apparent lack of preparedness for spirited attacks by rivals in the first debate -- raised doubts about Biden's age and mental clarity, concerns he and his team have roundly dismissed.

He enjoys strong support in particular from African-American communities and from working-class whites who appreciate his blue-collar appeal and believe he is best able to beat Trump, a top priority for Democratic voters.

Warren, 70, has electrified town halls and impressed voters with her extensive collection of policy platforms.

Early Thursday she released her latest plan, one that would increase Social Security benefits for all Americans by $200 per month.

While Warren's stock has risen, the campaigns of others such as Senator Kamala Harris and 37-year-old South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg have stalled.

For the second tier, including ex-congressman Beto O'Rourke, senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar, and Obama-era housing secretary Julian Castro -- all polling under three per cent -- a breakout moment is critical to stay relevant.

Navigating between the leaders and the strugglers is tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang, who has made establishing a universal basic income to offset job losses a key part of his campaign, and who grabbed the spotlight Thursday by promising to give a "freedom dividend" of $1,000 per month to 10 American families for a year. 
&nbsp;

Frontrunner Joe Biden came out swinging in the third Democratic debate for the White House nomination, clashing with his top two rivals over the future of health care in America and dismissing their plans as unrealistic pipe dreams.

Frontrunner Joe Biden came out swinging in the third Democratic debate for the White House nomination, clashing with his top two rivals over the future of health care in America and dismissing their plans as unrealistic pipe dreams. Biden, under pressure to appear in command as the candidate to beat in 2020, pushed back hard against senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren during the debate in Houston, Texas a showdown seen as a tough test of the 76-year-old's stamina. In a high-octane clash with his fellow septuagenarians, the former vice president warned Sanders's plan to finance universal healthcare "gets him halfway there," while Warren has yet to indicate how hers will be paid for. "I lay out how I can pay for it, how I can get it done, and why it's better," Biden said of his plan, which maintains and builds on the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare. Warren, a rising star in the race, and Sanders each put up a spirited defense of their proposals. "Those at the very top, the richest individuals and the biggest corporations, are going to pay more. And middle-class families are going to pay less," Warren said. Sanders, whose plans advocates for a shift away from private health insurance, assured voters "we will finally make sure that every American has health care as a human right, not a privilege." The three-way battle over healthcare kicked off a marathon debate, as 10 hopefuls scrambled for breakout moments as they vye for the right to challenge President Donald Trump. But the candidates stood united on one key factor: ousting Trump from the White House. "We must and will defeat Trump, the most dangerous president in the history of this country," Sanders said. "But we must do more. We must do more." At a dinner with Republican legislators on Thursday evening, Trump quickly dropped his message of "respect" toward his opponents, which he'd expressed just three hours earlier. He called Sanders "Crazy Bernie, he's a crazy guy." He lamented that he'd "hit Pocantonas" Warren "way too early," in reference to his mockery of the senator's controversial claim to have had Native American blood. And he reserved his longest joke for Biden, or "Sleepy Joe." "He's fallen asleep, he's no idea what he's doing or saying," Trump said to laughter from his party, before acting out a scene in which he imitated Chinese President Xi Jinping negotiating with Biden, with the Democrat mumbling "where am I?" and Xi telling him "sign here." Dominant top three All eyes were on Biden who is battling accusations that he is a gaffe-prone candidate past his prime who could struggle during a gruelling campaign. Biden maintains a grip on pole position with 26.8 per cent support, despite a noticeable dip in recent weeks, according to a poll average compiled by RealClearPolitics. Sanders, at 78 the oldest candidate in the field, is narrowly ahead of Warren at 17.3 per cent support, and has largely avoided clashing with his friend and fellow progressive. A summer of verbal miscues -- and an apparent lack of preparedness for spirited attacks by rivals in the first debate -- raised doubts about Biden's age and mental clarity, concerns he and his team have roundly dismissed. He enjoys strong support in particular from African-American communities and from working-class whites who appreciate his blue-collar appeal and believe he is best able to beat Trump, a top priority for Democratic voters. Warren, 70, has electrified town halls and impressed voters with her extensive collection of policy platforms. Early Thursday she released her latest plan, one that would increase Social Security benefits for all Americans by $200 per month. While Warren's stock has risen, the campaigns of others such as Senator Kamala Harris and 37-year-old South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg have stalled. For the second tier, including ex-congressman Beto O'Rourke, senators Cory Booker and Amy Klobuchar, and Obama-era housing secretary Julian Castro -- all polling under three per cent -- a breakout moment is critical to stay relevant. Navigating between the leaders and the strugglers is tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang, who has made establishing a universal basic income to offset job losses a key part of his campaign, and who grabbed the spotlight Thursday by promising to give a "freedom dividend" of $1,000 per month to 10 American families for a year.

Joe Biden comes out fighting in Democratic White House debate

President Donald Trump has announced the cancellation of talks with Taliban in view of the killings of 12 persons, including an American, by the terrorist outfit. Interestingly, the Taliban has owned up the attack to derive leverage during its secret talks with the American President; the so-called peace deal is derailed for the time being.

During his recent visit to the US, Pakistani PM Imran Khan seems to have convinced the American President that if the latter offers to mediate in Kashmir, Pakistan will bring Taliban onboard and facilitate US’ honourable exit from Afghanistan.

When American troops set foot on Afghan soil they did not ask for the Taliban’s permission. So why should they need it now when they are all set to leave? President Trump is contesting elections for a second term and he needs to convey to the American people that he is going to save billions of dollars, which were unnecessarily spent in Afghanistan; hence the hasty retreat.&nbsp;

The truth is that the Americans know the Taliban better than anyone else because of their extensive dealings with the terror outfit: they know the Taliban’s propensity to go back on an agreement. Any American attempt to involve Pakistan to broker the deal with the Taliban is going to be a futile and counter-productive exercise. Yet, they continue to do so.

Pakistan has used extremist groups to attain strategic depth in Afghanistan in order to achieve its objectives. Tomorrow, it could well use Taliban to foment trouble in Afghanistan, India and the region in general.

Afghans perceive Pakistan as their principal enemy because of them, peace has always eluded the landlocked country. Islamabad has consistently created and used radicals in Afghanistan. It has blackmailed that country for long because it offers the Karachi Port for Afghanistan’s import and export needs. Pakistan has consistently supplied low-quality wheat to Afghanistan at high prices, taking advantage of the latter’s geography.

The other big reason for this dislike is the Durand line, which the Afghans believe the British used as a tool to divide the Pashtuns. In 1893, the British split the Pashtun areas keeping Peshawar and FATA belt within the borders of British India while giving a bigger chunk to Afghanistan. Most Pashtuns hope for a united Pashtunistan one day.

There may be some Pakistani friends in Talibani Pashtuns, but all other ethnic groups living in Afghanistan nurse deep animosity towards that country.

It is noteworthy that Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and Shia tribes living in bordering areas of Iran, hold Pakistan responsible for the disturbances and instability that their country is undergoing.

One can safely conclude that once NATO forces exit from Afghanistan, Pakistan with the help of its Taliban supporters, will let all hell loose, as it had done after the withdrawal of Soviets.

If there is any country which has done developmental work in Afghanistan in the last few years, it is India. The Salma dam, constructed and funded by India in the Herat province, has been named the Afghan-India friendship dam by the government of Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s Parliament has been build by India, which is also supporting numerous other infrastructure projects.

Afghans acknowledge their friendship with India and value the economic cooperation that comes with it. India has built the Chabahar port in Iran and has constructed a road connecting it with the Herat province in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is likely to arm-twist Afghanistan on account of sea connectivity it provides to the latter through the Karachi port. In that scenario, the Chabahar- Herat route can become a lifeline for the Afghans. The current Afghan government earnestly wants India to be involved in talks with the Taliban.

As far as India is concerned, the geopolitical scenario looks grim in the Af-Pak region. In all likelihood, Pakistan will send Taliban guerrillas to foment trouble in Kashmir and try to jeopardise Indian economic activities in Afghanistan.

It will also play spoilsport for Indian trade with the Central Asian republics through the Chabahar-Herat route.

Someone has to persuade Trump to understand that a country, which harboured Osama bin Laden, was never trustworthy in the past and will never be so in the future.

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-american-trust-in-pak-and-taliban-difficult-to-comprehend-2788855">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;

&nbsp;

President Donald Trump has announced the cancellation of talks with Taliban in view of the killings of 12 persons, including an American, by the terrorist outfit.

President Donald Trump has announced the cancellation of talks with Taliban in view of the killings of 12 persons, including an American, by the terrorist outfit. Interestingly, the Taliban has owned up the attack to derive leverage during its secret talks with the American President; the so-called peace deal is derailed for the time being. During his recent visit to the US, Pakistani PM Imran Khan seems to have convinced the American President that if the latter offers to mediate in Kashmir, Pakistan will bring Taliban onboard and facilitate US’ honourable exit from Afghanistan. When American troops set foot on Afghan soil they did not ask for the Taliban’s permission. So why should they need it now when they are all set to leave? President Trump is contesting elections for a second term and he needs to convey to the American people that he is going to save billions of dollars, which were unnecessarily spent in Afghanistan; hence the hasty retreat. The truth is that the Americans know the Taliban better than anyone else because of their extensive dealings with the terror outfit: they know the Taliban’s propensity to go back on an agreement. Any American attempt to involve Pakistan to broker the deal with the Taliban is going to be a futile and counter-productive exercise. Yet, they continue to do so. Pakistan has used extremist groups to attain strategic depth in Afghanistan in order to achieve its objectives. Tomorrow, it could well use Taliban to foment trouble in Afghanistan, India and the region in general. Afghans perceive Pakistan as their principal enemy because of them, peace has always eluded the landlocked country. Islamabad has consistently created and used radicals in Afghanistan. It has blackmailed that country for long because it offers the Karachi Port for Afghanistan’s import and export needs. Pakistan has consistently supplied low-quality wheat to Afghanistan at high prices, taking advantage of the latter’s geography. The other big reason for this dislike is the Durand line, which the Afghans believe the British used as a tool to divide the Pashtuns. In 1893, the British split the Pashtun areas keeping Peshawar and FATA belt within the borders of British India while giving a bigger chunk to Afghanistan. Most Pashtuns hope for a united Pashtunistan one day. There may be some Pakistani friends in Talibani Pashtuns, but all other ethnic groups living in Afghanistan nurse deep animosity towards that country. It is noteworthy that Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and Shia tribes living in bordering areas of Iran, hold Pakistan responsible for the disturbances and instability that their country is undergoing. One can safely conclude that once NATO forces exit from Afghanistan, Pakistan with the help of its Taliban supporters, will let all hell loose, as it had done after the withdrawal of Soviets. If there is any country which has done developmental work in Afghanistan in the last few years, it is India. The Salma dam, constructed and funded by India in the Herat province, has been named the Afghan-India friendship dam by the government of Afghanistan. Afghanistan’s Parliament has been build by India, which is also supporting numerous other infrastructure projects. Afghans acknowledge their friendship with India and value the economic cooperation that comes with it. India has built the Chabahar port in Iran and has constructed a road connecting it with the Herat province in Afghanistan. Pakistan is likely to arm-twist Afghanistan on account of sea connectivity it provides to the latter through the Karachi port. In that scenario, the Chabahar- Herat route can become a lifeline for the Afghans. The current Afghan government earnestly wants India to be involved in talks with the Taliban. As far as India is concerned, the geopolitical scenario looks grim in the Af-Pak region. In all likelihood, Pakistan will send Taliban guerrillas to foment trouble in Kashmir and try to jeopardise Indian economic activities in Afghanistan. It will also play spoilsport for Indian trade with the Central Asian republics through the Chabahar-Herat route. Someone has to persuade Trump to understand that a country, which harboured Osama bin Laden, was never trustworthy in the past and will never be so in the future. (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

American trust in Pakistan and Taliban difficult to comprehend

By Kelly Sims Gallagher and Fang Zhang

As the effects of climate change become more widespread and alarming, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called on nations to step up their plans for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Every country has a part to play, but if the world’s largest emitters fail to meet their commitments, the goal of holding global warming to a manageable level will remain out of reach.

US carbon dioxide emissions are on the rise after several years of decline, due in part to the Trump administration’s repeal or delay of Obama administration policies. In contrast, China – the world largest emitter – appears to be honouring its climate targets under the 2015 Paris Agreement, as we documented in a recent article with colleagues.

We study many aspects of China’s energy and climate policy, including industrial energy efficiency and reforestation. Our analysis indicates that if China fully executes existing policies and finishes reforming its electric power sector into a market-based system, its carbon dioxide emissions are likely to peak well before its 2030 target.

China’s Climate Portfolio

Over the last decade China has positioned itself as a global leader on climate action through aggressive investments and a bold mix of climate, renewable energy, energy efficiency and economic policies. As one of us (Kelly Sims Gallagher) documents in the recent book “Titans of the Climate,” China has implemented more than 100 policies related to lowering its energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

Notable examples include a feed-in-tariff policy for renewable energy generators, which offers them a guaranteed price for their power; energy efficiency standards for power plants, motor vehicles, buildings and equipment; targets for energy production from non-fossil sources; and mandated caps on coal consumption.

China has added vast wind and solar installations to its grid and developed large domestic industries to manufacture solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles. In late 2017 it launched a national emissions trading system, which creates a market for buying and selling carbon dioxide emissions allowances. This was a profoundly symbolic step, given that the United States still has not adopted a national market-based climate policy.

Most of these policies will produce additional benefits, such as improving China’s energy security, promoting economic reform and reducing ground-level air pollution. The only major program explicitly aimed at reducing carbon dioxide is the emissions trading system.

Major Challenges and Policy Gaps 
 
Under the Paris Agreement, China committed to start reducing its carbon dioxide emissions and derive 20 per cent&nbsp;of its energy from non-fossil fuels by around 2030. But when Chinese emissions rose in 2018, international observers feared that Beijing might fail to meet its targets. We analysed China’s actions to assess that risk.

In our review, we found that the policies with the greatest influence over China’s projected emissions in 2030 were power sector reform, industrial transformation, industrial efficiency, emissions trading and light-duty vehicle efficiency.

Reforming the electric power sector is an essential step. Traditionally, electricity pricing schemes in China were determined by the National Development and Reform Commission, which leads the country’s macroeconomic planning. They favoured existing power producers, particularly coal plants, not the cleanest or most efficient sources.

China committed to electric power reform, including emission reductions and greater use of renewables, in 2015. Converting to a process under which grid managers buy electricity from generators starting with the lowest-cost sources should facilitate installation and use of renewables, since renewable electricity has almost zero marginal costs. Meanwhile, renewable energy projects across China, especially solar, have become cheaper than grid electricity.

Even as China made big investments in wind and solar power in recent years, it also kept building coal plants. Power sector reform will help reduce the resulting overcapacity by stopping planned additions and encouraging market competition.

But success is not guaranteed. The affected companies are giant state-owned enterprises. There is political resistance from owners of existing coal-fired power plants and from provinces that produce and use a lot of coal. The current US-China trade war is slowing China’s economic growth and spurring rising concerns about employment, which could further complicate the reform process.

China’s emissions trading system has had a very modest impact so far because it set a low initial price on carbon dioxide emissions: $7 per ton, increasing by 3 per cent&nbsp;annually through 2030. But our analysis found that emissions trading, which allows low-carbon generators to make money by selling emissions allowances that they don’t need, could become influential over the longer term if it can sustain a much higher price. If China reduces its cap on total carbon dioxide emissions after 2025, which will increase the price of emissions allowances, this policy could become a major driver for emission reductions in the power sector.

Energy efficiency standards, particularly for coal-fired power plants, factories and motor vehicles, will also be very important over the coming decade. To continue driving progress, China will need to update these standards continuously.

Finally, there are some important gaps in China’s climate policies. Currently, they only target carbon dioxide emissions, although China also generates significant quantities of other greenhouse gases, including methane and black carbon.

And China is contributing to emissions outside of its borders by exporting coal equipment and directly financing overseas coal plants through its Belt and Road Initiative. No nation, including China, currently reports emissions generated abroad in its national emissions inventory.

Following Through

The biggest challenge China faces in achieving its Paris targets is making sure that business and local governments comply with policies and regulations that the government has already put in place. In the past, China has sometimes struggled with environmental enforcement at the local level when provincial and city governments prioritized economic development over the environment.

Assuming that China does carry out its existing and announced climate and energy policies, we think its carbon dioxide emissions could likely peak well before 2030. In our view, Chinese leaders should focus on completing power sector reform as soon as possible, implementing and strengthening emissions trading, making energy efficiency standards more stringent in the future and developing new carbon pricing policies for sectors such as iron, steel and transportation.

If they succeed, US politicians will no longer have “But what about China?” as an excuse for opposing climate policies at home.

(Kelly Sims Gallagher is Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy and Director, Center for International Environment and Resource Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University; Fang Zhang is China Research Coordinator and Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Tufts University) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/china-is-positioned-to-lead-on-climate-change-as-the-us-rolls-back-its-policies-114897"> 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 Kelly Sims Gallagher and Fang Zhang As the effects of climate change become more widespread and alarming, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called on nations to step up their plans for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

By Kelly Sims Gallagher and Fang Zhang As the effects of climate change become more widespread and alarming, UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called on nations to step up their plans for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Every country has a part to play, but if the world’s largest emitters fail to meet their commitments, the goal of holding global warming to a manageable level will remain out of reach. US carbon dioxide emissions are on the rise after several years of decline, due in part to the Trump administration’s repeal or delay of Obama administration policies. In contrast, China – the world largest emitter – appears to be honouring its climate targets under the 2015 Paris Agreement, as we documented in a recent article with colleagues. We study many aspects of China’s energy and climate policy, including industrial energy efficiency and reforestation. Our analysis indicates that if China fully executes existing policies and finishes reforming its electric power sector into a market-based system, its carbon dioxide emissions are likely to peak well before its 2030 target. China’s Climate Portfolio Over the last decade China has positioned itself as a global leader on climate action through aggressive investments and a bold mix of climate, renewable energy, energy efficiency and economic policies. As one of us (Kelly Sims Gallagher) documents in the recent book “Titans of the Climate,” China has implemented more than 100 policies related to lowering its energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Notable examples include a feed-in-tariff policy for renewable energy generators, which offers them a guaranteed price for their power; energy efficiency standards for power plants, motor vehicles, buildings and equipment; targets for energy production from non-fossil sources; and mandated caps on coal consumption. China has added vast wind and solar installations to its grid and developed large domestic industries to manufacture solar panels, batteries and electric vehicles. In late 2017 it launched a national emissions trading system, which creates a market for buying and selling carbon dioxide emissions allowances. This was a profoundly symbolic step, given that the United States still has not adopted a national market-based climate policy. Most of these policies will produce additional benefits, such as improving China’s energy security, promoting economic reform and reducing ground-level air pollution. The only major program explicitly aimed at reducing carbon dioxide is the emissions trading system. Major Challenges and Policy Gaps Under the Paris Agreement, China committed to start reducing its carbon dioxide emissions and derive 20 per cent of its energy from non-fossil fuels by around 2030. But when Chinese emissions rose in 2018, international observers feared that Beijing might fail to meet its targets. We analysed China’s actions to assess that risk. In our review, we found that the policies with the greatest influence over China’s projected emissions in 2030 were power sector reform, industrial transformation, industrial efficiency, emissions trading and light-duty vehicle efficiency. Reforming the electric power sector is an essential step. Traditionally, electricity pricing schemes in China were determined by the National Development and Reform Commission, which leads the country’s macroeconomic planning. They favoured existing power producers, particularly coal plants, not the cleanest or most efficient sources. China committed to electric power reform, including emission reductions and greater use of renewables, in 2015. Converting to a process under which grid managers buy electricity from generators starting with the lowest-cost sources should facilitate installation and use of renewables, since renewable electricity has almost zero marginal costs. Meanwhile, renewable energy projects across China, especially solar, have become cheaper than grid electricity. Even as China made big investments in wind and solar power in recent years, it also kept building coal plants. Power sector reform will help reduce the resulting overcapacity by stopping planned additions and encouraging market competition. But success is not guaranteed. The affected companies are giant state-owned enterprises. There is political resistance from owners of existing coal-fired power plants and from provinces that produce and use a lot of coal. The current US-China trade war is slowing China’s economic growth and spurring rising concerns about employment, which could further complicate the reform process. China’s emissions trading system has had a very modest impact so far because it set a low initial price on carbon dioxide emissions: $7 per ton, increasing by 3 per cent annually through 2030. But our analysis found that emissions trading, which allows low-carbon generators to make money by selling emissions allowances that they don’t need, could become influential over the longer term if it can sustain a much higher price. If China reduces its cap on total carbon dioxide emissions after 2025, which will increase the price of emissions allowances, this policy could become a major driver for emission reductions in the power sector. Energy efficiency standards, particularly for coal-fired power plants, factories and motor vehicles, will also be very important over the coming decade. To continue driving progress, China will need to update these standards continuously. Finally, there are some important gaps in China’s climate policies. Currently, they only target carbon dioxide emissions, although China also generates significant quantities of other greenhouse gases, including methane and black carbon. And China is contributing to emissions outside of its borders by exporting coal equipment and directly financing overseas coal plants through its Belt and Road Initiative. No nation, including China, currently reports emissions generated abroad in its national emissions inventory. Following Through The biggest challenge China faces in achieving its Paris targets is making sure that business and local governments comply with policies and regulations that the government has already put in place. In the past, China has sometimes struggled with environmental enforcement at the local level when provincial and city governments prioritized economic development over the environment. Assuming that China does carry out its existing and announced climate and energy policies, we think its carbon dioxide emissions could likely peak well before 2030. In our view, Chinese leaders should focus on completing power sector reform as soon as possible, implementing and strengthening emissions trading, making energy efficiency standards more stringent in the future and developing new carbon pricing policies for sectors such as iron, steel and transportation. If they succeed, US politicians will no longer have “But what about China?” as an excuse for opposing climate policies at home. (Kelly Sims Gallagher is Professor of Energy and Environmental Policy and Director, Center for International Environment and Resource Policy at The Fletcher School, Tufts University; Fang Zhang is China Research Coordinator and Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Tufts 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)

China is positioned to lead on climate change as the US rolls back its policies

Afghans are bracing for fresh violence after Donald Trump abruptly scuttled US-Taliban talks, yanking this month's presidential election back into the spotlight as the militants look to keep voters from the polls with bloody attacks.

For months now a question mark has hung over the September 28 vote, in which President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistan-commits-to-holding-presidential-polls-on-time-248549">Ashraf Ghani</a> will face off against his own Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, as America prioritized securing a deal with the insurgents that would allow it to begin exiting its longest war.

With the agreement seemingly imminent and the US-backed government in Kabul undermined as rumours swirled of an interim regime, many Afghans and observers had expected the poll to be cancelled outright.

Even the more-than-a-dozen candidates who include former warlords, ex-spies and onetime members of the country's communist regime did not appear to believe it would take place, with little in the way of campaigning.

As the incumbent, Ghani is presumed to be the favourite, though with the lack of campaigning or credible polling observers cautioned against making any predictions.

But with Trump's bombshell announcement Saturday that the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghanistans-taliban-sends-warning-to-us-president-donald-trump-in-bitter-exchange-249252"> US-Taliban</a> talks were off, the situation changed.

The Taliban quickly made it known that the only alternative was more fighting and with renewed focus on the election, which they have always opposed, the polls are a prime target, as they seek to delegitimize any resulting government by minimizing turnout.

"The Taliban will do everything possible to disrupt the election, we expect more violence," Haroun Mir, an independent analyst based in Kabul, told AFP.

Abdul Waheed Wafa, the executive director of the Afghanistan Centre at Kabul University, described a mood of confusion and fear.

"Nobody at the moment is ready, not the people of Afghanistan, not the election commission and not even the government," he said.

The presidential vote, Afghanistan's fourth since the fall of the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-attack-kabul-commando-base-in-afghanistan-four-killed-249198">Taliban </a>in 2001, has already been delayed twice this year.

Turnout could be "very, very low", Wafa added, citing fear of violence and a loss of hope among voters following widespread fraud allegations during the 2014 election, for which there was no credible turnout estimate.

Both Ghani and former anti-Soviet fighter Abdullah claimed they had won that contest, with the US stepping in to broker a fragile power-sharing agreement.

No incentive to back off

Last October's legislative elections were bloodied by a series of deadly attacks as the Taliban called on citizens to stay away.

"We are so scared we are wary, we are concerned and we don't know what kind of election we will have," Wafa said.

With US-Taliban suddenly scuppered by Trump's tweets, the insurgents are now expected to try to deprive Ghani of legitimacy which some already feel is in short supply after he was sidelined by Washington in their Taliban talks.

Ghani and his officials had complained loudly over being kept out. They see the election as a way to reaffirm their right to negotiate for Afghans.

"Any future path towards peace has to be based on the will of the Afghan people and it should be owned and led by the Afghan government," said government spokesman Sediq Sediqqi.

A key element of the US-Taliban talks had been securing a guarantee from the insurgents that they will hold a direct dialogue with Kabul, deemed crucial to ending the nearly 18-year conflict.

They have historically refused to speak to a government they deem a "puppet" of the US.

But if the government which has also been blighted by corruption and disunity does win a strong mandate, then "the Taliban will have no alternative but to deal with it", argues the analyst Mir.

The question is whether the elections can be seen as fair and representative, say experts from the Afghanistan Analysts Network.

AAN analyst Thomas Ruttig told AFP that with the election so near it was "difficult to speculate there is very little time left for campaigning".

The Taliban, he said, "have enough power to disrupt the vote".

If they do, as ever in Afghanistan, it is civilians who will pay a disproportionate price.

"Stop breaking more hearts!" Facebook user Omid Sharifi wrote this week, adding that there are no winners in the escalating violence. 
&nbsp;

Afghans are bracing for fresh violence after Donald Trump abruptly scuttled US-Taliban talks, yanking this month's presidential election back into the spotlight as the militants look to keep voters from the polls with bloody attacks.

Afghans are bracing for fresh violence after Donald Trump abruptly scuttled US-Taliban talks, yanking this month's presidential election back into the spotlight as the militants look to keep voters from the polls with bloody attacks. For months now a question mark has hung over the September 28 vote, in which President Ashraf Ghani will face off against his own Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, as America prioritized securing a deal with the insurgents that would allow it to begin exiting its longest war. With the agreement seemingly imminent and the US-backed government in Kabul undermined as rumours swirled of an interim regime, many Afghans and observers had expected the poll to be cancelled outright. Even the more-than-a-dozen candidates who include former warlords, ex-spies and onetime members of the country's communist regime did not appear to believe it would take place, with little in the way of campaigning. As the incumbent, Ghani is presumed to be the favourite, though with the lack of campaigning or credible polling observers cautioned against making any predictions. But with Trump's bombshell announcement Saturday that the US-Taliban talks were off, the situation changed. The Taliban quickly made it known that the only alternative was more fighting and with renewed focus on the election, which they have always opposed, the polls are a prime target, as they seek to delegitimize any resulting government by minimizing turnout. "The Taliban will do everything possible to disrupt the election, we expect more violence," Haroun Mir, an independent analyst based in Kabul, told AFP. Abdul Waheed Wafa, the executive director of the Afghanistan Centre at Kabul University, described a mood of confusion and fear. "Nobody at the moment is ready, not the people of Afghanistan, not the election commission and not even the government," he said. The presidential vote, Afghanistan's fourth since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, has already been delayed twice this year. Turnout could be "very, very low", Wafa added, citing fear of violence and a loss of hope among voters following widespread fraud allegations during the 2014 election, for which there was no credible turnout estimate. Both Ghani and former anti-Soviet fighter Abdullah claimed they had won that contest, with the US stepping in to broker a fragile power-sharing agreement. No incentive to back off Last October's legislative elections were bloodied by a series of deadly attacks as the Taliban called on citizens to stay away. "We are so scared we are wary, we are concerned and we don't know what kind of election we will have," Wafa said. With US-Taliban suddenly scuppered by Trump's tweets, the insurgents are now expected to try to deprive Ghani of legitimacy which some already feel is in short supply after he was sidelined by Washington in their Taliban talks. Ghani and his officials had complained loudly over being kept out. They see the election as a way to reaffirm their right to negotiate for Afghans. "Any future path towards peace has to be based on the will of the Afghan people and it should be owned and led by the Afghan government," said government spokesman Sediq Sediqqi. A key element of the US-Taliban talks had been securing a guarantee from the insurgents that they will hold a direct dialogue with Kabul, deemed crucial to ending the nearly 18-year conflict. They have historically refused to speak to a government they deem a "puppet" of the US. But if the government which has also been blighted by corruption and disunity does win a strong mandate, then "the Taliban will have no alternative but to deal with it", argues the analyst Mir. The question is whether the elections can be seen as fair and representative, say experts from the Afghanistan Analysts Network. AAN analyst Thomas Ruttig told AFP that with the election so near it was "difficult to speculate there is very little time left for campaigning". The Taliban, he said, "have enough power to disrupt the vote". If they do, as ever in Afghanistan, it is civilians who will pay a disproportionate price. "Stop breaking more hearts!" Facebook user Omid Sharifi wrote this week, adding that there are no winners in the escalating violence.

Afghan election back in spotlight after Trump's Taliban tweets

Biden clashes with Warren, Sanders on health care in 3rd Democratic debate. Watch video to know more.

3rd Democratic debate: Biden clashes with Warren, Sanders on health care

In a bid to highlight religious persecution in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-un-envoy-meets-unga-president-discusses-kashmir-issue-245943">Pakistan</a>, a US-based Sindhi organisation is planning to hold a protest against abduction and forceful conversion of Hindu girls from the community during the upcoming United Nations General Assembly <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/pm-narendra-modi-to-attend-united-nation-general-assembly-meet-in-september-235507">(UNGA) session</a> in New York on September 26.

Sindhi Foundation, which has frequently raised the issue of forced conversion of girls in Pakistan, will hold a demonstration under the banner of SaveSindhiGirl.

The body has noted that there is an escalation of forced conversion in the country.

Every year, around 1,000 young Sindhi Hindu girls between the age of 12 and 28 are abducted, forcibly married and converted to Islam.

Every month between 40 to 60 Sindhi girls are converted.

According to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/united-nations-intervention-sought-after-deteriorating-human-rights-situation-in-pakistani-province-206647">Pakistan's own human rights</a> commission from January 2004 to May 2018, there were 7,430 cases of such abductions of Sindhi girls in Pakistan.

The actual number is estimated to be much higher as most of the cases go unreported.

According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, families who report their daughters as missing are often ignored by the police and their First Information Report (FIR) is never submitted. Therefore, girls are left with their abductors, where they are often coerced into silence through threats or use of violence against them or their families.

During the UNGA meeting, Prime Minister Imran Khan is expected to address the session.

The foundation has said that there is involvement of influential political leaders with links with the Army in the forced conversion of young girls. &nbsp;

Among them is one prominent name, Mian Mitho, a religious leader and politician, who has participated in countless conversions of young Sindhi girls.

He has close connections with both the Army and Imran Khan who have allowed him to do so without receiving any punishment for his actions.

Pakistan has been condemned internationally for cracking down on the minorities living in their countries.

Islamabad has also reportedly been discriminating against its religious minorities which is manifested in various forms of targeted violence, mass murders, extrajudicial killings, abduction, rapes, forced conversion to Islam, etc., making the Pakistani Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Ahmadiyyas, and Shias one of the most persecuted minorities in the region.

Last month, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada had raised the issue of suppression of religious freedom by China and Pakistan and slammed the two Asian nations for "persecuting and repressing" their religious minorities.

During the meet on Safety of Religious Minorities, the US, UK, and Canada expressed concerns over the increasing, widespread and undue restrictions on religious freedom in the two countries.

They also highlighted the discrimination suffered by the Uyghur community in China and of Christians, Ahmadis, Hindus and other minorities in Pakistan.

In a bid to highlight religious persecution in Pakistan, a US-based Sindhi organisation is planning to hold a protest against abduction and forceful conversion of Hindu girls from the community during the upcoming United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session in New York on September 26.

In a bid to highlight religious persecution in Pakistan, a US-based Sindhi organisation is planning to hold a protest against abduction and forceful conversion of Hindu girls from the community during the upcoming United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) session in New York on September 26. Sindhi Foundation, which has frequently raised the issue of forced conversion of girls in Pakistan, will hold a demonstration under the banner of SaveSindhiGirl. The body has noted that there is an escalation of forced conversion in the country. Every year, around 1,000 young Sindhi Hindu girls between the age of 12 and 28 are abducted, forcibly married and converted to Islam. Every month between 40 to 60 Sindhi girls are converted. According to Pakistan's own human rights commission from January 2004 to May 2018, there were 7,430 cases of such abductions of Sindhi girls in Pakistan. The actual number is estimated to be much higher as most of the cases go unreported. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, families who report their daughters as missing are often ignored by the police and their First Information Report (FIR) is never submitted. Therefore, girls are left with their abductors, where they are often coerced into silence through threats or use of violence against them or their families. During the UNGA meeting, Prime Minister Imran Khan is expected to address the session. The foundation has said that there is involvement of influential political leaders with links with the Army in the forced conversion of young girls. Among them is one prominent name, Mian Mitho, a religious leader and politician, who has participated in countless conversions of young Sindhi girls. He has close connections with both the Army and Imran Khan who have allowed him to do so without receiving any punishment for his actions. Pakistan has been condemned internationally for cracking down on the minorities living in their countries. Islamabad has also reportedly been discriminating against its religious minorities which is manifested in various forms of targeted violence, mass murders, extrajudicial killings, abduction, rapes, forced conversion to Islam, etc., making the Pakistani Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Ahmadiyyas, and Shias one of the most persecuted minorities in the region. Last month, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada had raised the issue of suppression of religious freedom by China and Pakistan and slammed the two Asian nations for "persecuting and repressing" their religious minorities. During the meet on Safety of Religious Minorities, the US, UK, and Canada expressed concerns over the increasing, widespread and undue restrictions on religious freedom in the two countries. They also highlighted the discrimination suffered by the Uyghur community in China and of Christians, Ahmadis, Hindus and other minorities in Pakistan.

Sindhi Foundation to hold protest against forceful conversion of girls in Pakistan during UNGA

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump`s administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-give-additional-120-million-to-help-venezuelan-migrants-247770">immigrants </a>at the US-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-deny-citizenship-to-immigrants-who-use-public-benefits-us-242502">immigration policies</a>.

The court said the rule, which requires most<a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/few-immigrants-fit-the-legal-definition-of-global-refugees-239846"> immigrants</a> who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they travelled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues.

Among the nine judges on the court, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

The court`s ruling handed a victory to Trump at a time when much of his immigration agenda had been struck down by lower courts. "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" Trump said on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum! <a href="https://t.co/9Ka00qK1Ob">https://t.co/9Ka00qK1Ob</a>
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1171918282905018370?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 11, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The rule would bar almost all <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/shock-investment-urged-to-stem-flow-of-central-american-migrants-245236">immigrants</a> from applying for asylum at the southern border. It represents the latest effort by Trump`s administration to crack down on immigration, a signature issue during his presidency and 2020 re-election bid.

The American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the administration`s policy in federal court said it violates US immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule, which was unveiled on July 15.

In her dissent, Sotomayor said that the government`s rule may be in significant tension with the asylum statute.

"It is especially concerning, moreover, that the rule the government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere — without affording the public a chance to weigh in."

Eight days after the rule went into effect in July, California-based US District Judge Jon Tigar issued a nationwide injunction blocking it.

Then began a back-and-forth between Tigar and the 9th Circuit, which scaled back the injunction so that the Trump rule was blocked in the border states of California and Arizona while in effect in Texas and New Mexico.

Tigar ruled to restore the nationwide ban on Monday, but the 9th Circuit scaled it back again on Tuesday night.

They were both trumped by Supreme Court, which will allow the asylum restriction to remain in place until the underlying legality of the rule is determined at trial.

"This is just a temporary step, and we`re hopeful we`ll prevail at the end of the day," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said. "The lives of thousands of families are at stake."

The Republican president`s administration issued the rule in an attempt to reduce the surging number of asylum claims primarily by Central American migrants who have crossed the US-Mexico border in large numbers during his presidency.

The rule would block nearly all families and individuals from countries like El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala from entering the United States as asylum seekers after crossing through Mexico. The rule would keep asylum protections for Mexican citizens.

White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said the Trump administration was "pleased" by the Supreme Court`s decision, which he said rejected an "erroneous" ruling by the lower court judge.

But Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the US House of Representatives` Judiciary Committee, and Zoe Lofgren, the head of the judiciary panel`s immigration subcommittee, called the court`s decision disappointing.

"Lives will be lost. This rule will result in those fleeing fear and persecution to be turned away at our doorstep and will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the region," they said in a statement.

Government argued right to set policy

The rule drew legal challenges including from a coalition of groups represented by the ACLU who accused the administration of pursuing an "asylum ban" and jeopardizing the safety of migrants fleeing persecution.

In the administration`s request to fully enforce the rule, US Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the Supreme Court to issue a stay blocking the injunction while litigation over the issue proceeds because the judge`s order interferes with the government`s authority to establish immigration policy.

The administration said the rule screens out asylum claims that are unlikely to succeed and "deters aliens without a genuine need for asylum from making the arduous and potentially dangerous journey from Central America to the United States."

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump`s administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the US-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies.

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday granted a request by President Donald Trump`s administration to fully enforce a new rule that would curtail asylum applications by immigrants at the US-Mexico border, a key element of his hardline immigration policies. The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they travelled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues. Among the nine judges on the court, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented. The court`s ruling handed a victory to Trump at a time when much of his immigration agenda had been struck down by lower courts. "BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!" Trump said on Twitter. BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum! https://t.co/9Ka00qK1Ob — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 11, 2019 × The rule would bar almost all immigrants from applying for asylum at the southern border. It represents the latest effort by Trump`s administration to crack down on immigration, a signature issue during his presidency and 2020 re-election bid. The American Civil Liberties Union and others who challenged the administration`s policy in federal court said it violates US immigration law and accused the administration of failing to follow the correct legal process in issuing the rule, which was unveiled on July 15. In her dissent, Sotomayor said that the government`s rule may be in significant tension with the asylum statute. "It is especially concerning, moreover, that the rule the government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere — without affording the public a chance to weigh in." Eight days after the rule went into effect in July, California-based US District Judge Jon Tigar issued a nationwide injunction blocking it. Then began a back-and-forth between Tigar and the 9th Circuit, which scaled back the injunction so that the Trump rule was blocked in the border states of California and Arizona while in effect in Texas and New Mexico. Tigar ruled to restore the nationwide ban on Monday, but the 9th Circuit scaled it back again on Tuesday night. They were both trumped by Supreme Court, which will allow the asylum restriction to remain in place until the underlying legality of the rule is determined at trial. "This is just a temporary step, and we`re hopeful we`ll prevail at the end of the day," ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said. "The lives of thousands of families are at stake." The Republican president`s administration issued the rule in an attempt to reduce the surging number of asylum claims primarily by Central American migrants who have crossed the US-Mexico border in large numbers during his presidency. The rule would block nearly all families and individuals from countries like El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala from entering the United States as asylum seekers after crossing through Mexico. The rule would keep asylum protections for Mexican citizens. White House spokesman Hogan Gidley said the Trump administration was "pleased" by the Supreme Court`s decision, which he said rejected an "erroneous" ruling by the lower court judge. But Jerrold Nadler, the Democratic chairman of the US House of Representatives` Judiciary Committee, and Zoe Lofgren, the head of the judiciary panel`s immigration subcommittee, called the court`s decision disappointing. "Lives will be lost. This rule will result in those fleeing fear and persecution to be turned away at our doorstep and will only exacerbate the humanitarian crisis in the region," they said in a statement. Government argued right to set policy The rule drew legal challenges including from a coalition of groups represented by the ACLU who accused the administration of pursuing an "asylum ban" and jeopardizing the safety of migrants fleeing persecution. In the administration`s request to fully enforce the rule, US Solicitor General Noel Francisco asked the Supreme Court to issue a stay blocking the injunction while litigation over the issue proceeds because the judge`s order interferes with the government`s authority to establish immigration policy. The administration said the rule screens out asylum claims that are unlikely to succeed and "deters aliens without a genuine need for asylum from making the arduous and potentially dangerous journey from Central America to the United States."

US Supreme Court allows Trump to deny asylum to many Central Americans

Iran’s ambassador to India, Ali Chegini, recently urged New Delhi to follow an independent line and take advantage of the opportunities presented by Iran in the oil and gas sector.&nbsp;

To buttress his point, he showcased how Beijing had refused to follow the sanctions imposed by the US targeting Iran’s oil and financial sectors.&nbsp;

According to Chegini, China had agreed to invest $280 billion in Iran’s oil, gas and petrochemical sectors that are being affected by US sanctions. As compared to China, India’s reaction is a tame capitulation to the American diktat.&nbsp;

China is receiving oil shipments from a larger number of Iranian tankers defying sanctions imposed by the United States to strangulate Tehran’s main source of income, because it clearly prizes self-interest over American unilateralism.&nbsp;

As it is, China, as Tehran’s top trading partner, receives the largest share of Iran’s crude exports. Besides, being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it is able to neutralise America. It is sad to see India looking like a US lackey.

That India is feeling the pressure of US sanctions is evident from reports that New Delhi has reportedly directed at least one of the refiners to devise a payment mechanism that would avoid the US banking system in an effort to avoid exposure to American secondary sanctions.

Indian refiners had established a rupee-based barter system to pay for Iranian crude oil several years ago when paying in dollars was not an option.&nbsp;

Now that India is trying to find newer pastures to compensate its loss to Iran with supplies from the US and Venezuela, she is mulling an escape route to bypass US sanctions in its transactions with Venezuela.

How long will this subterfuge work? If the Trump administration decides to punish the People’s Bank of China or other Chinese banks that engage in transactions with the Central Bank of Iran, or penalise energy giant Sinopec, which, like Zhuhai Zhenrong, also imports oil from Iran, there would be massive trade repercussions and the headwinds might well shoot up fuel prices.

Iran is forging strong political links with American rivals such as China and Russia, and with India, that was formally, till the other day, “non-aligned”.&nbsp;

Iran’s link to China and India in terms of the role that Iranian oil and gas has played in their rapid economic growth is incontestable.&nbsp;

Beijing’s relatively new commercial and political relationship with Tehran, for example, that is still in its infancy as compared to India, has been created and sustained by an insatiable Chinese thirst for oil that its domestic production has failed to quench since the early to mid-1990s.&nbsp;

The Trump Administration’s decision to permanently end all sanction waivers earlier this year has forced India to not just slash Iranian crude imports, but to stop them altogether.&nbsp;

Even during the Iran–Iraq war, India shifted its oil supplies away from Iraq and Iran to elsewhere in the Gulf, but took care to keep good relations with both countries.

The first bilateral visit of Prime Minister Narsimha Rao to Iran took place in 1993 and a year later, Iran prevented Pakistan from tabling a resolution critical of India on the Kashmir issue at the UN Human Rights Commission. Rao’s understanding was that India had more in common with Shia Iran than with the ‘increasingly Wahhabised Arab world’.&nbsp;

In 2003, during Iranian President Khatami’s visit to New Delhi as a guest of honour on Republic Day, the two countries signed the New Delhi Declaration calling for a strategic partnership.&nbsp;

India has traditionally declined to be seen as being required to gang up with the United States against Iran. At the end of the day, it is time to question if the Trump administration’s goal of putting “maximum pressure” on Iran will work.

Importantly, in the face of the US President’s unpredictability – given that sanctions can hardly bring a regime down to its knees – how can India jettison so much at stake?&nbsp; 
 
(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-iran-jettisoning-energy-stakes-for-america-s-sake-2789104">original article</a>) 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

Iran’s ambassador to India, Ali Chegini, recently urged New Delhi to follow an independent line and take advantage of the opportunities presented by Iran in the oil and gas sector.

Iran’s ambassador to India, Ali Chegini, recently urged New Delhi to follow an independent line and take advantage of the opportunities presented by Iran in the oil and gas sector. To buttress his point, he showcased how Beijing had refused to follow the sanctions imposed by the US targeting Iran’s oil and financial sectors. According to Chegini, China had agreed to invest $280 billion in Iran’s oil, gas and petrochemical sectors that are being affected by US sanctions. As compared to China, India’s reaction is a tame capitulation to the American diktat. China is receiving oil shipments from a larger number of Iranian tankers defying sanctions imposed by the United States to strangulate Tehran’s main source of income, because it clearly prizes self-interest over American unilateralism. As it is, China, as Tehran’s top trading partner, receives the largest share of Iran’s crude exports. Besides, being a permanent member of the UN Security Council, it is able to neutralise America. It is sad to see India looking like a US lackey. That India is feeling the pressure of US sanctions is evident from reports that New Delhi has reportedly directed at least one of the refiners to devise a payment mechanism that would avoid the US banking system in an effort to avoid exposure to American secondary sanctions. Indian refiners had established a rupee-based barter system to pay for Iranian crude oil several years ago when paying in dollars was not an option. Now that India is trying to find newer pastures to compensate its loss to Iran with supplies from the US and Venezuela, she is mulling an escape route to bypass US sanctions in its transactions with Venezuela. How long will this subterfuge work? If the Trump administration decides to punish the People’s Bank of China or other Chinese banks that engage in transactions with the Central Bank of Iran, or penalise energy giant Sinopec, which, like Zhuhai Zhenrong, also imports oil from Iran, there would be massive trade repercussions and the headwinds might well shoot up fuel prices. Iran is forging strong political links with American rivals such as China and Russia, and with India, that was formally, till the other day, “non-aligned”. Iran’s link to China and India in terms of the role that Iranian oil and gas has played in their rapid economic growth is incontestable. Beijing’s relatively new commercial and political relationship with Tehran, for example, that is still in its infancy as compared to India, has been created and sustained by an insatiable Chinese thirst for oil that its domestic production has failed to quench since the early to mid-1990s. The Trump Administration’s decision to permanently end all sanction waivers earlier this year has forced India to not just slash Iranian crude imports, but to stop them altogether. Even during the Iran–Iraq war, India shifted its oil supplies away from Iraq and Iran to elsewhere in the Gulf, but took care to keep good relations with both countries. The first bilateral visit of Prime Minister Narsimha Rao to Iran took place in 1993 and a year later, Iran prevented Pakistan from tabling a resolution critical of India on the Kashmir issue at the UN Human Rights Commission. Rao’s understanding was that India had more in common with Shia Iran than with the ‘increasingly Wahhabised Arab world’. In 2003, during Iranian President Khatami’s visit to New Delhi as a guest of honour on Republic Day, the two countries signed the New Delhi Declaration calling for a strategic partnership. India has traditionally declined to be seen as being required to gang up with the United States against Iran. At the end of the day, it is time to question if the Trump administration’s goal of putting “maximum pressure” on Iran will work. Importantly, in the face of the US President’s unpredictability – given that sanctions can hardly bring a regime down to its knees – how can India jettison so much at stake? (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Iran: Jettisoning energy stakes for America’s sake

Hong Kong activists called off protests on Wednesday in remembrance of September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and denounced a Chinese state newspaper report that they were planning "massive terror" in the Chinese-ruled city.

Hong Kong has been rocked by months of sometimes violent unrest, prompted by anger over planned legislation that would have allowed extraditions to China but broadening into calls for democracy and for Communist Party rulers in Beijing to leave the city alone.

"Anti-government fanatics are planning massive terror attacks, including blowing up gas pipes, in Hong Kong on September 11," the Hong Kong edition of the China Daily said on its Facebook page on Tuesday alongside a picture of the attacks on the twin towers in New York.

"The 9/11 terror plot also encourages indiscriminate attacks on non-native speakers of Cantonese and starting mountain fires," it said.

The Facebook post said, "leaked information was part of the strategy being schemed by radical protesters in their online chat rooms".

The former British colony of Hong Kong returned to China in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" formula that guarantees freedoms not enjoyed on the mainland, including an independent legal system, triggering the anger over the extradition bill.

Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam has said she will withdraw the bill but many Hong Kong residents fear Beijing is steadily eroding the city's autonomy. 
China denies meddling and has accused the United States, Britain and others of fomenting the unrest.

"We don’t even need to do a fact check to know that this is fake news," protester Michael, 24, said of the China Daily post.

"The state media doesn’t care about its credibility. Whenever something they claimed to have heard on WhatsApp or friends’ friends, they will spread it right away," he said.

The protesters called off action on Wednesday.

"In solidarity against terrorism, all forms of protest in Hong Kong will be suspended on September&nbsp;11, apart from potential singing and chanting," they said in a statement.

Protester Karen, 23, said the China Daily report was worrying.

“When they try to frame the whole protest with those words, it alarms me. They are predicting rather than reporting," she said. "I think people calling it off today is a nice move.

The protests spread to the sports field on Tuesday, as many football fans defied Chinese law to boo the national anthem ahead of a soccer World Cup qualifier against Iran.

Several peaceful protests are planned for the coming days, combining with festivities marking the Mid-Autumn Festival.

Hong Kong activists called off protests on Wednesday in remembrance of September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and denounced a Chinese state newspaper report that they were planning "massive terror" in the Chinese-ruled city.

Hong Kong activists called off protests on Wednesday in remembrance of September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and denounced a Chinese state newspaper report that they were planning "massive terror" in the Chinese-ruled city. Hong Kong has been rocked by months of sometimes violent unrest, prompted by anger over planned legislation that would have allowed extraditions to China but broadening into calls for democracy and for Communist Party rulers in Beijing to leave the city alone. "Anti-government fanatics are planning massive terror attacks, including blowing up gas pipes, in Hong Kong on September 11," the Hong Kong edition of the China Daily said on its Facebook page on Tuesday alongside a picture of the attacks on the twin towers in New York. "The 9/11 terror plot also encourages indiscriminate attacks on non-native speakers of Cantonese and starting mountain fires," it said. The Facebook post said, "leaked information was part of the strategy being schemed by radical protesters in their online chat rooms". The former British colony of Hong Kong returned to China in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" formula that guarantees freedoms not enjoyed on the mainland, including an independent legal system, triggering the anger over the extradition bill. Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam has said she will withdraw the bill but many Hong Kong residents fear Beijing is steadily eroding the city's autonomy. China denies meddling and has accused the United States, Britain and others of fomenting the unrest. "We don’t even need to do a fact check to know that this is fake news," protester Michael, 24, said of the China Daily post. "The state media doesn’t care about its credibility. Whenever something they claimed to have heard on WhatsApp or friends’ friends, they will spread it right away," he said. The protesters called off action on Wednesday. "In solidarity against terrorism, all forms of protest in Hong Kong will be suspended on September 11, apart from potential singing and chanting," they said in a statement. Protester Karen, 23, said the China Daily report was worrying. “When they try to frame the whole protest with those words, it alarms me. They are predicting rather than reporting," she said. "I think people calling it off today is a nice move. The protests spread to the sports field on Tuesday, as many football fans defied Chinese law to boo the national anthem ahead of a soccer World Cup qualifier against Iran. Several peaceful protests are planned for the coming days, combining with festivities marking the Mid-Autumn Festival.

Hong Kong protesters hit pause to mark September 11 attacks

A lower price tag and new features may not be enough for Apple Inc to win customers for its <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/new-iphones-to-share-limelight-as-apple-revs-up-services-248911">newly-launched iPhone 11</a> series in China, the world's largest smartphone market that is already crowded with cheaper and feature-packed rival handsets.

Apple's unveiling of three new iPhones in California met with a limp reaction on Wednesday from analysts and on social media in China, where the US&nbsp;giant has been losing ground to competitors in recent years.

"More competitive aggressive pricing and a better camera would be its selling points, but the market is still full of challenges, both market competition and macroeconomic factors," said Will Wong, who tracks China's phone market at research firm IDC.

The iPhone 11 will have two back cameras, including an ultra-wide-angle lens and the next generation of microchips, the A13.

Prices start at $699, down from last year's new iPhone that started at $749. Apple also dropped the price of last year's equivalent model iPhone XR by $150.

The more expensive iPhone 11 Pro will have three cameras on the back and starts at $999. The bigger screen iPhone 11 Pro Max starts at $1,099.

As anticipated, none will be fifth generation-enabled, which puts the phones a step behind 5G models already released by Huawei Technologies and smaller rival Vivo.

"Since we still have to wait a year for 5G, why not just buy Huawei on Monday," said one user on China's Twitter-like service Weibo.

One meme doing the rounds on social media featured Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook bragging about the new features and Richard Yu, CEO of Huawei's consumer business group, shutting him down by pointing out that Huawei has had those features for years.

When it came to features, one of the main draws of the new launch for US&nbsp;buyers,&nbsp;a $5 per month Netflix-like streaming service&nbsp;will not be available in China.

Price competition&nbsp;

Apple's share of the China market in the June quarter fell to 5.8 per cent&nbsp;from 6.4 per cent&nbsp;in the year-earlier period, according to research firm Canalys, as Huawei experienced a surge in support from Chinese consumers after the brand was caught up in a trade war between the United States and China.

Counterpoint analyst Neil Shah said the entry price, while lower by Apple, remains high compared to local rivals.

Combined with the lack of 5G, which made the new iPhones "less attractive and future-proof" for Chinese consumers, Shah said, forecasting that Apple will sell 30-35 million iPhones in China this year, down from 63 million phones in 2015.

Still, some analysts said that Apple's decision to lower the entry price for the new iPhone, one of the most discussed topics on Weibo on Wednesday, was a positive sign.

"We think the lower iPhone 11 price point and trade-in program will help promote upgrades, specifically in China, while the Apple Arcade and TV+ offerings will hep accelerate services growth," CFRA analyst Angelo Zino said in a research note.

The new phones will be available to order on Friday and start shipping September 20.

A lower price tag and new features may not be enough for Apple Inc to win customers for its newly-launched iPhone 11 series in China, the world's largest smartphone market that is already crowded with cheaper and feature-packed rival handsets.

A lower price tag and new features may not be enough for Apple Inc to win customers for its newly-launched iPhone 11 series in China, the world's largest smartphone market that is already crowded with cheaper and feature-packed rival handsets. Apple's unveiling of three new iPhones in California met with a limp reaction on Wednesday from analysts and on social media in China, where the US giant has been losing ground to competitors in recent years. "More competitive aggressive pricing and a better camera would be its selling points, but the market is still full of challenges, both market competition and macroeconomic factors," said Will Wong, who tracks China's phone market at research firm IDC. The iPhone 11 will have two back cameras, including an ultra-wide-angle lens and the next generation of microchips, the A13. Prices start at $699, down from last year's new iPhone that started at $749. Apple also dropped the price of last year's equivalent model iPhone XR by $150. The more expensive iPhone 11 Pro will have three cameras on the back and starts at $999. The bigger screen iPhone 11 Pro Max starts at $1,099. As anticipated, none will be fifth generation-enabled, which puts the phones a step behind 5G models already released by Huawei Technologies and smaller rival Vivo. "Since we still have to wait a year for 5G, why not just buy Huawei on Monday," said one user on China's Twitter-like service Weibo. One meme doing the rounds on social media featured Apple Chief Executive Tim Cook bragging about the new features and Richard Yu, CEO of Huawei's consumer business group, shutting him down by pointing out that Huawei has had those features for years. When it came to features, one of the main draws of the new launch for US buyers, a $5 per month Netflix-like streaming service will not be available in China. Price competition Apple's share of the China market in the June quarter fell to 5.8 per cent from 6.4 per cent in the year-earlier period, according to research firm Canalys, as Huawei experienced a surge in support from Chinese consumers after the brand was caught up in a trade war between the United States and China. Counterpoint analyst Neil Shah said the entry price, while lower by Apple, remains high compared to local rivals. Combined with the lack of 5G, which made the new iPhones "less attractive and future-proof" for Chinese consumers, Shah said, forecasting that Apple will sell 30-35 million iPhones in China this year, down from 63 million phones in 2015. Still, some analysts said that Apple's decision to lower the entry price for the new iPhone, one of the most discussed topics on Weibo on Wednesday, was a positive sign. "We think the lower iPhone 11 price point and trade-in program will help promote upgrades, specifically in China, while the Apple Arcade and TV+ offerings will hep accelerate services growth," CFRA analyst Angelo Zino said in a research note. The new phones will be available to order on Friday and start shipping September 20.

Tepid reaction for Apple's new iPhones in China amid tough competition

President Donald Trump said Monday that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/wion-edit-us-taliban-talks-cancelled-impact-on-india-248667">negotiations with the Taliban “are dead”</a> and indicated that he had no further interest in meeting with the group over an end to the Afghanistan war.

The weakness of the US-Taliban negotiations resided in the fact that they concentrated on relatively narrow War on Terror yardsticks including withdrawal of American forces, a cease-fire, intra-Afghan negotiations to follow, and guarantees by the Taliban not to harbor terrorist groups.

It was a list of exit criteria, not a strategy for addressing the regional nation-state dynamics of which the Afghan conflict is fundamentally a biproduct.

The War in Afghanistan has its origins in the decades-old antagonism between Pakistan and India spawned by the violence-punctuated partition of the British Indian Empire in August 1947.

Since partition, Pakistan and India have fought three wars (1947, 1965, 1971), clashed in the 1999 Kargil Conflict and engaged in many other armed skirmishes, particularly along the Line of Control in Kashmir.

Pakistan has always viewed Afghanistan as a necessary client-state, a security buffer against what they consider potential Indian encirclement and as a springboard to extend their own influence into the resource-rich areas of Central Asia.

Not surprisingly, Pakistani interference in Afghanistan long pre-dated Soviet and American involvement during the 1980s.

As early as the 1950s, Pakistan began inserting into Afghanistan Islamists associated with the its Jamaat-e-Islami party.

In 1974, then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto set up a cell within Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to begin managing dissident Islamists in Afghanistan, which mounted two failed Islamist coups in 1974 and 1975.

During the late 1970s, under President Zia ul-Haq, Pakistan pursued a policy of aggressive “Islamization” with the proliferation of religious schools “madrasas” and religious political parties, resulting in a society that became ever more extreme and intolerant.

Two parallel experiences have had significant influence on Pakistan’s present-day foreign policy: (1) the successful 1980s mujahideen war to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan with the subsequent Pakistan-sponsored Taliban control of Afghanistan and (2) Pakistan’s 1998 development of nuclear weapons.

That is, Islamist fighters were found to be useful proxies for the Pakistani military and the ISI, particularly against India and Afghanistan and that retaliation for the use of those 4th generation warfare operations could be largely “immunized” by Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella.

That joint policy has led to years of attacks by Pakistan-based terrorists against India.

The prelude to America’s current involvement in Afghanistan and the main failure of the Reagan Administration’s Afghanistan policy was letting the Central Intelligence Agency blindly outsource mujahideen funding to Pakistan’s ISI, which funneled American money and arms, not to Afghan nationalists like Ahmad Shah Massoud, but to pro-Pakistani Islamists such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani.

It is an undisputed fact that the Taliban were created by the ISI beginning in 1994 as a means to intervene in the Afghan civil war and influence the outcome in favor of Pakistani national interests when its previous favored Islamist, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, failed in that effort.

If anything, Pakistan’s behavior has been consistent. It has successfully exploited US&nbsp;short-term goals while pursuing its long-term regional interests, mostly those contrary to our own.

While the US&nbsp;has been fighting the War on Terror in Afghanistan since 2001, Pakistan has been using the Taliban as a proxy to control Afghanistan as part of its struggle with India and to promote the foreign policy ambitions of its “all weather” ally, China.

Even within the context of US-Taliban negotiations, Pakistan attempted to leverage its position by pushing for the Taliban to have an outsize political role in Kabul once foreign forces leave and to press for foreign intervention in its conflict with India over Kashmir, something India rejects.

The contents of the US-Taliban agreement that appeared publicly did not adequately address future strategic challenges. The de facto surrendering of Afghanistan to the control of Pakistan’s Taliban proxy could have dangerous, perhaps even conflicting ramifications.

First, Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the epicenter of regional Islamic militancy and an exporter of jihad.

Second, China’s growing geopolitical strength and its increased presence in Pakistan have changed the strategic dynamics of the region, largely rendering whatever remains of US South Asian policy obsolete.&nbsp;

The future threat is from China in the form of the Chinese-Pakistani alliance. China’s aim is to dominate South Asia, first economically based on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and then militarily using its alliance with Pakistan to establish military bases, particularly on Pakistan’s Arabian Sea coast, thus controlling vital maritime lanes and the mouth of the Persian Gulf.

Those bases would provide a critical link between China’s military facilities in the South China Sea and its naval base in Djibouti at the entrance of the Red Sea and the Suez Canal.

The only bargaining chip the US&nbsp;has had in the Afghan negotiations is our diminishing “presence,” which is clearly unsustainable, given the Taliban’s continuing pursuit of a military solution and the prospect of a “Dien Bien Phu” at Bagram airbase.

Between now and the beginning of a final withdrawal, the US&nbsp;should be identifying additional forms of influence as a basis for a new South Asian strategy.

A new strategy for South Asia should focus on preventing Chinese-Pakistani domination of the region or any US&nbsp;adversary from benefitting from our withdrawal by using all the elements of US power – diplomatic, informational, military and economic.

From a politico-military standpoint, two approaches, operating in parallel, are required.

We should adopt a traditional containment policy, applying regional diplomacy, especially greater cooperation with India and augmenting US&nbsp;naval and air power projection to counter Chinese attempts to box-in US forces in the Persian Gulf area and outflank the US naval base at Diego Garcia.

Additionally, increased financial and economic pressure needs to be applied to Pakistan to restrain its use of terrorist proxies as an element of its foreign policy.

In order to maintain a balance of power, the US should use strategic disruption, not of China directly, but of its plans to dominate the region.

Tactically, that would involve managing and, when necessary, exploiting the inherent conflicts in South Asia including state-to-state disputes, the Sunni-Shia divide and ethnic separatism within Pakistan such as the Balochistan independence insurgency and the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement fighting for civil rights in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province.

The center of gravity and also the weakest link of the China-Pakistan alliance is CPEC, which is the flagship of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a collection of infrastructure projects and a network of commercial agreements designed to link the entire world directly to the Chinese economy through inter-connected land-based and maritime routes.

The guarantor of that soft power approach is the hard power of Chinesemilitary expansion including Chinese bases to control the northern Indian Ocean.

CPEC transits two volatile regions, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, long disputed by India, and Balochistan, home of a festering ethnic insurgency since the partition of India in 1947, when the region was forcibly incorporated into Pakistan. Both are targets of opportunity for strategic disruption of Chinese-Pakistani regional ambitions.

It is late, but there may still be time to defeat Chinese South Asian ambitions “on the beaches.”

President Donald Trump said Monday that negotiations with the Taliban “are dead” and indicated that he had no further interest in meeting with the group over an end to the Afghanistan war.

President Donald Trump said Monday that negotiations with the Taliban “are dead” and indicated that he had no further interest in meeting with the group over an end to the Afghanistan war. The weakness of the US-Taliban negotiations resided in the fact that they concentrated on relatively narrow War on Terror yardsticks including withdrawal of American forces, a cease-fire, intra-Afghan negotiations to follow, and guarantees by the Taliban not to harbor terrorist groups. It was a list of exit criteria, not a strategy for addressing the regional nation-state dynamics of which the Afghan conflict is fundamentally a biproduct. The War in Afghanistan has its origins in the decades-old antagonism between Pakistan and India spawned by the violence-punctuated partition of the British Indian Empire in August 1947. Since partition, Pakistan and India have fought three wars (1947, 1965, 1971), clashed in the 1999 Kargil Conflict and engaged in many other armed skirmishes, particularly along the Line of Control in Kashmir. Pakistan has always viewed Afghanistan as a necessary client-state, a security buffer against what they consider potential Indian encirclement and as a springboard to extend their own influence into the resource-rich areas of Central Asia. Not surprisingly, Pakistani interference in Afghanistan long pre-dated Soviet and American involvement during the 1980s. As early as the 1950s, Pakistan began inserting into Afghanistan Islamists associated with the its Jamaat-e-Islami party. In 1974, then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto set up a cell within Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI) to begin managing dissident Islamists in Afghanistan, which mounted two failed Islamist coups in 1974 and 1975. During the late 1970s, under President Zia ul-Haq, Pakistan pursued a policy of aggressive “Islamization” with the proliferation of religious schools “madrasas” and religious political parties, resulting in a society that became ever more extreme and intolerant. Two parallel experiences have had significant influence on Pakistan’s present-day foreign policy: (1) the successful 1980s mujahideen war to oust the Soviet Union from Afghanistan with the subsequent Pakistan-sponsored Taliban control of Afghanistan and (2) Pakistan’s 1998 development of nuclear weapons. That is, Islamist fighters were found to be useful proxies for the Pakistani military and the ISI, particularly against India and Afghanistan and that retaliation for the use of those 4th generation warfare operations could be largely “immunized” by Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella. That joint policy has led to years of attacks by Pakistan-based terrorists against India. The prelude to America’s current involvement in Afghanistan and the main failure of the Reagan Administration’s Afghanistan policy was letting the Central Intelligence Agency blindly outsource mujahideen funding to Pakistan’s ISI, which funneled American money and arms, not to Afghan nationalists like Ahmad Shah Massoud, but to pro-Pakistani Islamists such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani. It is an undisputed fact that the Taliban were created by the ISI beginning in 1994 as a means to intervene in the Afghan civil war and influence the outcome in favor of Pakistani national interests when its previous favored Islamist, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, failed in that effort. If anything, Pakistan’s behavior has been consistent. It has successfully exploited US short-term goals while pursuing its long-term regional interests, mostly those contrary to our own. While the US has been fighting the War on Terror in Afghanistan since 2001, Pakistan has been using the Taliban as a proxy to control Afghanistan as part of its struggle with India and to promote the foreign policy ambitions of its “all weather” ally, China. Even within the context of US-Taliban negotiations, Pakistan attempted to leverage its position by pushing for the Taliban to have an outsize political role in Kabul once foreign forces leave and to press for foreign intervention in its conflict with India over Kashmir, something India rejects. The contents of the US-Taliban agreement that appeared publicly did not adequately address future strategic challenges. The de facto surrendering of Afghanistan to the control of Pakistan’s Taliban proxy could have dangerous, perhaps even conflicting ramifications. First, Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the epicenter of regional Islamic militancy and an exporter of jihad. Second, China’s growing geopolitical strength and its increased presence in Pakistan have changed the strategic dynamics of the region, largely rendering whatever remains of US South Asian policy obsolete. The future threat is from China in the form of the Chinese-Pakistani alliance. China’s aim is to dominate South Asia, first economically based on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and then militarily using its alliance with Pakistan to establish military bases, particularly on Pakistan’s Arabian Sea coast, thus controlling vital maritime lanes and the mouth of the Persian Gulf. Those bases would provide a critical link between China’s military facilities in the South China Sea and its naval base in Djibouti at the entrance of the Red Sea and the Suez Canal. The only bargaining chip the US has had in the Afghan negotiations is our diminishing “presence,” which is clearly unsustainable, given the Taliban’s continuing pursuit of a military solution and the prospect of a “Dien Bien Phu” at Bagram airbase. Between now and the beginning of a final withdrawal, the US should be identifying additional forms of influence as a basis for a new South Asian strategy. A new strategy for South Asia should focus on preventing Chinese-Pakistani domination of the region or any US adversary from benefitting from our withdrawal by using all the elements of US power – diplomatic, informational, military and economic. From a politico-military standpoint, two approaches, operating in parallel, are required. We should adopt a traditional containment policy, applying regional diplomacy, especially greater cooperation with India and augmenting US naval and air power projection to counter Chinese attempts to box-in US forces in the Persian Gulf area and outflank the US naval base at Diego Garcia. Additionally, increased financial and economic pressure needs to be applied to Pakistan to restrain its use of terrorist proxies as an element of its foreign policy. In order to maintain a balance of power, the US should use strategic disruption, not of China directly, but of its plans to dominate the region. Tactically, that would involve managing and, when necessary, exploiting the inherent conflicts in South Asia including state-to-state disputes, the Sunni-Shia divide and ethnic separatism within Pakistan such as the Balochistan independence insurgency and the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement fighting for civil rights in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province. The center of gravity and also the weakest link of the China-Pakistan alliance is CPEC, which is the flagship of China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a collection of infrastructure projects and a network of commercial agreements designed to link the entire world directly to the Chinese economy through inter-connected land-based and maritime routes. The guarantor of that soft power approach is the hard power of Chinesemilitary expansion including Chinese bases to control the northern Indian Ocean. CPEC transits two volatile regions, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, long disputed by India, and Balochistan, home of a festering ethnic insurgency since the partition of India in 1947, when the region was forcibly incorporated into Pakistan. Both are targets of opportunity for strategic disruption of Chinese-Pakistani regional ambitions. It is late, but there may still be time to defeat Chinese South Asian ambitions “on the beaches.”

The now dead US-Taliban talks lacked strategic vision

President Donald Trump wants US "interest rates down to zero, or less," he tweeted Wednesday amid widespread expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut rates later this month.

"We should then start to refinance our debt. Interest cost could be brought way down,&nbsp;while at the same time substantially lengthening the term," he added.

"It is only the naivete of Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve that doesn't allow us to do what other countries are already doing," he asserted.

"A once in a lifetime opportunity that we are missing because of 'Boneheads,"&nbsp;Trump said, in perhaps his most insulting comment to date about the US central bank.

As it becomes increasingly apparent that the US economy has slowed in 2019, in large part because of concerns about Trump's trade war with China, Trump has publicly berated Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the independent Fed for failing to loosen monetary policy fast enough.

The "Federal Reserve should get our interest rates down to zero, or less," Trump said.

Investors overwhelmingly expect the Fed to deliver a 25-basis-point rate cut next week. But cutting to zero would be an extreme move reserved only for a severe economic crisis.

After raising the benchmark lending rate four times last year, to a range of 2.0-2.25 per cent, the central bank cut in July for the first time in more than a decade, partly as insurance against the impact of trade uncertainties on the economy.

Powell has vowed to act to ensure that American economic expansion continues but warned the central bank has no "rulebook" for dealing with trade conflict.

Trump selected Powell to take over Fed leadership but has heaped constant criticism on him for his handling of the policy, even speculating about whether he may be a bigger "enemy" than Beijing.

With many of the world's central banks cutting rates amid signs of flagging economic growth, Trump says the Fed is putting the United States at a disadvantage.

He also has complained about the Fed's efforts to reduce its massive holdings of securities, that were built up during the 2008 global financial crisis after rates were cut to zero in an attempt to shore up the ravaged economy.

"We have the great currency, power, and balance sheet," he tweeted.

While the Fed is not expecting a recession, trade frictions, as well as slower global growth and persistently low inflation, are among the "significant risks" that policymakers are watching, the Fed chair said during a conversation at the University of Zurich on Friday.

The US economic landscape has shifted this year, as business investment has weakened noticeably, manufacturing has fallen into decline and job creation has slowed.

And with other world economies slowing, the US dollar has strengthened as investors find a safe haven in purchases of US assets like government debt.

The stronger dollar tends to make US exports more expensive.

The Fed chair noted, however, that unemployment had remained near historic lows for about 18 months while wages were rising, fueling consumer spending.

Powell, whom Trump promoted to Fed chairman last year, has reiterated that he and his Fed colleagues ignore such comments when they set monetary policy.

President Donald Trump wants US "interest rates down to zero, or less," he tweeted Wednesday amid widespread expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut rates later this month.

President Donald Trump wants US "interest rates down to zero, or less," he tweeted Wednesday amid widespread expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut rates later this month. "We should then start to refinance our debt. Interest cost could be brought way down, while at the same time substantially lengthening the term," he added. "It is only the naivete of Jay Powell and the Federal Reserve that doesn't allow us to do what other countries are already doing," he asserted. "A once in a lifetime opportunity that we are missing because of 'Boneheads," Trump said, in perhaps his most insulting comment to date about the US central bank. As it becomes increasingly apparent that the US economy has slowed in 2019, in large part because of concerns about Trump's trade war with China, Trump has publicly berated Fed Chair Jerome Powell and the independent Fed for failing to loosen monetary policy fast enough. The "Federal Reserve should get our interest rates down to zero, or less," Trump said. Investors overwhelmingly expect the Fed to deliver a 25-basis-point rate cut next week. But cutting to zero would be an extreme move reserved only for a severe economic crisis. After raising the benchmark lending rate four times last year, to a range of 2.0-2.25 per cent, the central bank cut in July for the first time in more than a decade, partly as insurance against the impact of trade uncertainties on the economy. Powell has vowed to act to ensure that American economic expansion continues but warned the central bank has no "rulebook" for dealing with trade conflict. Trump selected Powell to take over Fed leadership but has heaped constant criticism on him for his handling of the policy, even speculating about whether he may be a bigger "enemy" than Beijing. With many of the world's central banks cutting rates amid signs of flagging economic growth, Trump says the Fed is putting the United States at a disadvantage. He also has complained about the Fed's efforts to reduce its massive holdings of securities, that were built up during the 2008 global financial crisis after rates were cut to zero in an attempt to shore up the ravaged economy. "We have the great currency, power, and balance sheet," he tweeted. While the Fed is not expecting a recession, trade frictions, as well as slower global growth and persistently low inflation, are among the "significant risks" that policymakers are watching, the Fed chair said during a conversation at the University of Zurich on Friday. The US economic landscape has shifted this year, as business investment has weakened noticeably, manufacturing has fallen into decline and job creation has slowed. And with other world economies slowing, the US dollar has strengthened as investors find a safe haven in purchases of US assets like government debt. The stronger dollar tends to make US exports more expensive. The Fed chair noted, however, that unemployment had remained near historic lows for about 18 months while wages were rising, fueling consumer spending. Powell, whom Trump promoted to Fed chairman last year, has reiterated that he and his Fed colleagues ignore such comments when they set monetary policy.

Bring interest rates down to zero, or less: Trump to Federal Reserve

General Motors is recalling nearly 3.5 million vehicles because of a brake problem that increases the risk of a crash, according to documents published by a US safety agency.

The issue is with the vacuum pump, which can diminish vacuum over time, affecting braking and "extending the distance required to stop the vehicle, thereby increasing the risk of a crash," according to a letter to GM from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

GM will notify owners of the issue, NHTSA said in the letter, which was dated September 10 and available Wednesday on the agency's website.

The issue affects nearly 3.5 million pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, including the Chevrolet Silverado (2014-2018), the GMC Sierra (2014-2018), the Chevrolet Suburban (2015-2018) and the Cadillac Escalade (2015-2017).

The company also is recalling around 180,000 Chevrolet Malibu cars over disabled fuel injectors; 91,000 Chevrolet Express models and GMC Savanas, from 2019, over a problem with the seatbelt light; and 3,400 Buick Enclaves and Chevrolet Traverses, from 2020, over a crack in the engine compartment.

General Motors is recalling nearly 3.5 million vehicles because of a brake problem that increases the risk of a crash, according to documents published by a US safety agency.

General Motors is recalling nearly 3.5 million vehicles because of a brake problem that increases the risk of a crash, according to documents published by a US safety agency. The issue is with the vacuum pump, which can diminish vacuum over time, affecting braking and "extending the distance required to stop the vehicle, thereby increasing the risk of a crash," according to a letter to GM from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. GM will notify owners of the issue, NHTSA said in the letter, which was dated September 10 and available Wednesday on the agency's website. The issue affects nearly 3.5 million pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles, including the Chevrolet Silverado (2014-2018), the GMC Sierra (2014-2018), the Chevrolet Suburban (2015-2018) and the Cadillac Escalade (2015-2017). The company also is recalling around 180,000 Chevrolet Malibu cars over disabled fuel injectors; 91,000 Chevrolet Express models and GMC Savanas, from 2019, over a problem with the seatbelt light; and 3,400 Buick Enclaves and Chevrolet Traverses, from 2020, over a crack in the engine compartment.

General Motors recalls 3.5 million vehicles over brake issue

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/hong-kong-protesters-hit-pause-to-mark-september-11-attacks-248978">Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;activists</a> called off protests on Wednesday in remembrance of the September&nbsp;11, 2001 attacks on the United States and denounced a Chinese state newspaper report that they were planning "massive terror" in the Chinese-ruled city.

Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;has been rocked by months of sometimes violent unrest, prompted by anger over planned legislation to allow extraditions to China, but broadening into calls for democracy and for Communist rulers in Beijing to leave the city alone.

"Anti-government fanatics are planning massive terror attacks, including blowing up gas pipes, in&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;on&nbsp;September&nbsp;11," the&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;edition of the China Daily said on its Facebook page, alongside a picture of the hijacked airliner attacks on the twin towers in New York.

"The 9/11&nbsp;terror plot also encourages indiscriminate attacks on non-native speakers of Cantonese and starting mountain fires."

The post said, "leaked information was part of the strategy being schemed by radical&nbsp;protesters&nbsp;in their online chat rooms".

The former British colony of&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;returned to China in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" formula that guarantees freedoms not enjoyed on the mainland, including an independent legal system, triggering the anger over the extradition bill.

Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;leader Carrie Lam has said she will withdraw the bill but many&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;residents fear Beijing is steadily eroding the autonomy of the Asian financial hub.

China denies meddling and has accused the United States, Britain and others of fomenting the unrest.

"We don’t even need to do a fact check to know that this is fake news," said one protester, Michael, 24, referring to the China Daily post.

"The state media doesn’t care about its credibility.

Whenever something they claimed to have heard on WhatsApp or friends’ friends, they will spread it right away."

The&nbsp;protesters&nbsp;called off action on Wednesday.

"In solidarity against terrorism, all forms of protest in&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;will be suspended on September 11, apart from potential singing and chanting," they said in a statement.

The China Daily report was worrying, said another protester, Karen, 23. "When they try to frame the whole protest with those words, it alarms me," she said.

"They are predicting rather than reporting. I think people calling it off today is a nice move."

&nbsp;

FAMILY FRICTIONS

The chairwoman of the&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;Federation of Women, Pansy Ho, a prominent businesswoman and daughter of Macau casino operator Stanley Ho, said she was worried about violent extremism.

"Children of all ages are indoctrinated with police hatred and anti-establishment beliefs at school and online mobilised to conduct massive school strikes," she told the UN&nbsp;Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Lam said in a speech on Wednesday that&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;was grappling with significant challenges.

"My fervent hope is that we can bridge our divide by upholding the one country, two systems principle, and the Basic Law, and through the concerted efforts of the government and the people of&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong," she told business leaders.

The Basic Law is&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong's mini-constitution.

Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;airline Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd has become the biggest corporate casualty of the unrest after China demanded it suspend staff involved in, or who support, the protests.

Cathay Pacific said on Wednesday inbound traffic to&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;in August fell 38 per cent&nbsp;and outbound traffic 12 per cent&nbsp;compared with a year earlier, and that it did not anticipate&nbsp;September&nbsp;to be any less difficult.

Joshua Wong, one of the prominent leaders of the 2014 "Umbrella" pro-democracy movement which brought key streets in&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;to a standstill for 79 days, said in Berlin that the fight for democracy was an uphill battle.

"I hope one day not only&nbsp;Hong&nbsp;Kong&nbsp;people, but also people in mainland China, can enjoy freedom and democracy," he said.

The protests spread to the sports field on Tuesday, as many football fans defied Chinese law to boo the national anthem ahead of a soccer World Cup qualifier against Iran.

Several peaceful protests are planned for the next few days, combining with celebrations marking the Mid-Autumn Festival.

Hong Kong activists called off protests on Wednesday in remembrance of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and denounced a Chinese state newspaper report that they were planning "massive terror" in the Chinese-ruled city.

Hong Kong activists called off protests on Wednesday in remembrance of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and denounced a Chinese state newspaper report that they were planning "massive terror" in the Chinese-ruled city. Hong Kong has been rocked by months of sometimes violent unrest, prompted by anger over planned legislation to allow extraditions to China, but broadening into calls for democracy and for Communist rulers in Beijing to leave the city alone. "Anti-government fanatics are planning massive terror attacks, including blowing up gas pipes, in Hong Kong on September 11," the Hong Kong edition of the China Daily said on its Facebook page, alongside a picture of the hijacked airliner attacks on the twin towers in New York. "The 9/11 terror plot also encourages indiscriminate attacks on non-native speakers of Cantonese and starting mountain fires." The post said, "leaked information was part of the strategy being schemed by radical protesters in their online chat rooms". The former British colony of Hong Kong returned to China in 1997 under a "one country, two systems" formula that guarantees freedoms not enjoyed on the mainland, including an independent legal system, triggering the anger over the extradition bill. Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam has said she will withdraw the bill but many Hong Kong residents fear Beijing is steadily eroding the autonomy of the Asian financial hub. China denies meddling and has accused the United States, Britain and others of fomenting the unrest. "We don’t even need to do a fact check to know that this is fake news," said one protester, Michael, 24, referring to the China Daily post. "The state media doesn’t care about its credibility. Whenever something they claimed to have heard on WhatsApp or friends’ friends, they will spread it right away." The protesters called off action on Wednesday. "In solidarity against terrorism, all forms of protest in Hong Kong will be suspended on September 11, apart from potential singing and chanting," they said in a statement. The China Daily report was worrying, said another protester, Karen, 23. "When they try to frame the whole protest with those words, it alarms me," she said. "They are predicting rather than reporting. I think people calling it off today is a nice move." FAMILY FRICTIONS The chairwoman of the Hong Kong Federation of Women, Pansy Ho, a prominent businesswoman and daughter of Macau casino operator Stanley Ho, said she was worried about violent extremism. "Children of all ages are indoctrinated with police hatred and anti-establishment beliefs at school and online mobilised to conduct massive school strikes," she told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. Lam said in a speech on Wednesday that Hong Kong was grappling with significant challenges. "My fervent hope is that we can bridge our divide by upholding the one country, two systems principle, and the Basic Law, and through the concerted efforts of the government and the people of Hong Kong," she told business leaders. The Basic Law is Hong Kong's mini-constitution. Hong Kong airline Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd has become the biggest corporate casualty of the unrest after China demanded it suspend staff involved in, or who support, the protests. Cathay Pacific said on Wednesday inbound traffic to Hong Kong in August fell 38 per cent and outbound traffic 12 per cent compared with a year earlier, and that it did not anticipate September to be any less difficult. Joshua Wong, one of the prominent leaders of the 2014 "Umbrella" pro-democracy movement which brought key streets in Hong Kong to a standstill for 79 days, said in Berlin that the fight for democracy was an uphill battle. "I hope one day not only Hong Kong people, but also people in mainland China, can enjoy freedom and democracy," he said. The protests spread to the sports field on Tuesday, as many football fans defied Chinese law to boo the national anthem ahead of a soccer World Cup qualifier against Iran. Several peaceful protests are planned for the next few days, combining with celebrations marking the Mid-Autumn Festival.

Hong Kong protesters hit pause in memory of September 11

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/oil-rises-as-saudi-signals-opec-cuts-to-continue-under-new-minister-248572">OPEC</a> on Wednesday cut its forecast for growth in world <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/oil-edges-down-on-lower-demand-outlook-us-china-trade-dispute-242428">oil demand</a> in 2020 due to an economic slowdown, an outlook the producer group said highlighted the need for ongoing efforts to prevent a new glut of crude.

In a monthly report, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/oil-hits-six-week-high-on-hopes-of-extended-opec-output-cuts-248741">oil</a> demand worldwide would expand by 1.08 million barrels per day, 60,000 BPD&nbsp;less than previously estimated, and indicated the market would be in surplus.

The weaker outlook amid a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/us-china-trade-war-in-10-dates-241155#march-8-2018-tax-on-steel-aluminium-241132">US-China trade war</a>&nbsp;and Brexit could press the case for OPEC and its allies to maintain or adjust their policy of cutting output.

Iraq said ministers would on Thursday discuss whether deeper cuts were needed.

OPEC, in the report, lowered its forecast for world economic growth in 2020 to 3.1 per cent&nbsp;from 3.2 per cent&nbsp;and said next year's increase in oil demand would be outpaced by "strong growth" in supply from rival producers such as the United States.

"This highlights the shared responsibility of all producing countries to support oil market stability to avoid unwanted volatility and a potential relapse into market imbalance," the report said.

OPEC, Russia and other producers have since January&nbsp;1 implemented a deal to cut output by 1.2 million BPD. The alliance, known as OPEC+, in July renewed the pact until March 2020 and a committee reviewing the pact meets on Thursday.

Oil prices pared an earlier gain after the report was released to sit just below $63 a barrel.

Despite the OPEC-led cut, oil has tumbled from April's 2019 peak above $75, pressured by trade concerns and an economic slowdown.

The report said oil inventories in industrialised economies fell in July, a development that could ease OPEC concern over a possible glut.

Even so, stocks in July exceeded the five-year average,&nbsp;a yardstick OPEC watches closely&nbsp;by 36 million barrels.

OPEC and its partners have been limiting supply since 2017, helping to clear a glut that built up in 2014-2016 when producers pumped at will, and revive prices.

The policy has given a sustained boost to US&nbsp;shale and other rival supply, and the report suggests the world will need less OPEC crude next year.

Demand for OPEC crude will average 29.40 million BPD in 2020, OPEC said, down 1.2 million BPD from this year.

OPEC said its oil output in August rose, however, by 136,000 bpd to 29.74 million BPD according to figures the group collects from secondary sources.

It was the first increase this year. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/saudi-arabia-replaces-aramco-chairman-ahead-of-potential-ipo-247313">Saudi Arabia</a>, Iraq and Nigeria boosted supply.

Top exporter Saudi Arabia told OPEC that the kingdom raised August output by just over 200,000 BPD to 9.789 million BPD. Saudi Arabia continues to pump far less than its quota of 10.311 BPD.

Thanks in part to Saudi restraint, producers are still over-complying with the supply-cutting deal. Losses in Iran and Venezuela, two OPEC members facing US sanctions, have widened the supply reduction.

August's increase, however, puts OPEC output further above the 2020 demand forecast.

The report suggests there will be a 2020 supply surplus of 340,000 BPD if OPEC keeps pumping at August's rate and other things remain equal, more than the surplus forecast in last month's report.

OPEC on Wednesday cut its forecast for growth in world oil demand in 2020 due to an economic slowdown, an outlook the producer group said highlighted the need for ongoing efforts to prevent a new glut of crude.

OPEC on Wednesday cut its forecast for growth in world oil demand in 2020 due to an economic slowdown, an outlook the producer group said highlighted the need for ongoing efforts to prevent a new glut of crude. In a monthly report, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said oil demand worldwide would expand by 1.08 million barrels per day, 60,000 BPD less than previously estimated, and indicated the market would be in surplus. The weaker outlook amid a US-China trade war and Brexit could press the case for OPEC and its allies to maintain or adjust their policy of cutting output. Iraq said ministers would on Thursday discuss whether deeper cuts were needed. OPEC, in the report, lowered its forecast for world economic growth in 2020 to 3.1 per cent from 3.2 per cent and said next year's increase in oil demand would be outpaced by "strong growth" in supply from rival producers such as the United States. "This highlights the shared responsibility of all producing countries to support oil market stability to avoid unwanted volatility and a potential relapse into market imbalance," the report said. OPEC, Russia and other producers have since January 1 implemented a deal to cut output by 1.2 million BPD. The alliance, known as OPEC+, in July renewed the pact until March 2020 and a committee reviewing the pact meets on Thursday. Oil prices pared an earlier gain after the report was released to sit just below $63 a barrel. Despite the OPEC-led cut, oil has tumbled from April's 2019 peak above $75, pressured by trade concerns and an economic slowdown. The report said oil inventories in industrialised economies fell in July, a development that could ease OPEC concern over a possible glut. Even so, stocks in July exceeded the five-year average, a yardstick OPEC watches closely by 36 million barrels. OPEC and its partners have been limiting supply since 2017, helping to clear a glut that built up in 2014-2016 when producers pumped at will, and revive prices. The policy has given a sustained boost to US shale and other rival supply, and the report suggests the world will need less OPEC crude next year. Demand for OPEC crude will average 29.40 million BPD in 2020, OPEC said, down 1.2 million BPD from this year. OPEC said its oil output in August rose, however, by 136,000 bpd to 29.74 million BPD according to figures the group collects from secondary sources. It was the first increase this year. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Nigeria boosted supply. Top exporter Saudi Arabia told OPEC that the kingdom raised August output by just over 200,000 BPD to 9.789 million BPD. Saudi Arabia continues to pump far less than its quota of 10.311 BPD. Thanks in part to Saudi restraint, producers are still over-complying with the supply-cutting deal. Losses in Iran and Venezuela, two OPEC members facing US sanctions, have widened the supply reduction. August's increase, however, puts OPEC output further above the 2020 demand forecast. The report suggests there will be a 2020 supply surplus of 340,000 BPD if OPEC keeps pumping at August's rate and other things remain equal, more than the surplus forecast in last month's report.

OPEC cuts 2020 oil demand forecast, urges effort to avert a new glut

Oil prices rose on Wednesday after a reported sharp drop in US&nbsp;crude stocks and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/oil-rises-as-saudi-signals-opec-cuts-to-continue-under-new-minister-248572">OPEC</a>&nbsp;member Iraq said the producer group would discuss deepening output cuts amid ongoing demand concerns.

Brent crude gained 52 cents, or 0.8 per cent, to $62.90 a barrel by 1027 GMT, while US&nbsp;West Texas Intermediate rose 60 cents, or 1.1 per cent, to $58 a barrel.

Oil prices have risen more than 7 per cent this&nbsp;month, supported by declines in global inventories and signs of an easing in trade tensions between the United States and China, the world's two largest economies and energy consumers.

Prices rose this week after <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-saudi-energy-minister-a-royal-with-decades-of-experience-in-opec-cuts-248719">Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman</a>, Saudi Arabia's new energy minister, said oil policy would not change and said an OPEC deal with Russia and other producers to cut output by 1.2 million barrels per day (BPD) would be maintained.

Iraqi Oil Minister Thamer Ghadhban said the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries would discuss whether to deepen cuts when ministers meet on Thursday.

He said OPEC had discussed cuts of 1.6 million to 1.8 million BPD when considering output curbs last year.

Russia's Energy Minister Alexander Novak said an alliance of OPEC and other producers, known as OPEC+, would discuss global oil demand, but added that there were no fresh proposals to change production cut volumes.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/oil-hits-six-week-high-on-hopes-of-extended-opec-output-cuts-248741">OPEC cut</a> its forecast on Wednesday for growth in world oil demand in 2020 by 60,000 BPD to 1.08 million BPD, due to an economic slowdown.

It indicated the market would be in surplus.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) also slashed its demand forecasts this week.

Growing signs of a slowdown were flagged by oil traders and executives attending industry gatherings in Singapore and Abu Dhabi this week.

OPEC has pointed to rising global production next year, particularly in US shale fields, while data from the American Petroleum Institute (API) showed US&nbsp;crude stocks fell last week by 7.2 million barrels, more than twice the amount analysts in a Reuters poll had forecast.

"The API report is quite constructive for the oil market as it points to a tightening domestic oil market in the face of flat production and stronger demand," Dutch bank ING said.

The EIA's official numbers for US&nbsp;inventories will be released at 1430 GMT on Wednesday.

Oil prices rose on Wednesday after a reported sharp drop in US crude stocks and OPEC member Iraq said the producer group would discuss deepening output cuts amid ongoing demand concerns.

Oil prices rose on Wednesday after a reported sharp drop in US crude stocks and OPEC member Iraq said the producer group would discuss deepening output cuts amid ongoing demand concerns. Brent crude gained 52 cents, or 0.8 per cent, to $62.90 a barrel by 1027 GMT, while US West Texas Intermediate rose 60 cents, or 1.1 per cent, to $58 a barrel. Oil prices have risen more than 7 per cent this month, supported by declines in global inventories and signs of an easing in trade tensions between the United States and China, the world's two largest economies and energy consumers. Prices rose this week after Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, Saudi Arabia's new energy minister, said oil policy would not change and said an OPEC deal with Russia and other producers to cut output by 1.2 million barrels per day (BPD) would be maintained. Iraqi Oil Minister Thamer Ghadhban said the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries would discuss whether to deepen cuts when ministers meet on Thursday. He said OPEC had discussed cuts of 1.6 million to 1.8 million BPD when considering output curbs last year. Russia's Energy Minister Alexander Novak said an alliance of OPEC and other producers, known as OPEC+, would discuss global oil demand, but added that there were no fresh proposals to change production cut volumes. OPEC cut its forecast on Wednesday for growth in world oil demand in 2020 by 60,000 BPD to 1.08 million BPD, due to an economic slowdown. It indicated the market would be in surplus. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) also slashed its demand forecasts this week. Growing signs of a slowdown were flagged by oil traders and executives attending industry gatherings in Singapore and Abu Dhabi this week. OPEC has pointed to rising global production next year, particularly in US shale fields, while data from the American Petroleum Institute (API) showed US crude stocks fell last week by 7.2 million barrels, more than twice the amount analysts in a Reuters poll had forecast. "The API report is quite constructive for the oil market as it points to a tightening domestic oil market in the face of flat production and stronger demand," Dutch bank ING said. The EIA's official numbers for US inventories will be released at 1430 GMT on Wednesday.

International oil prices gain after fall in US stocks

Asian markets mostly rose Wednesday with a broadly upbeat tone across trading floors ahead of major meetings at the European and US central banks, while there is also a growing sense of optimism over <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-us-trade-talks-to-restart-after-g20-tariff-truce-239483">China-US trade talks</a>.

News that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/i-asked-nsa-john-bolton-to-resign-tweets-us-president-donald-trump-248901">Donald Trump</a> had fired his fervently hawkish national security adviser also lifted sentiment with analysts saying it could see the White House take a less strident approach and ease geopolitical tensions.

With the global economy sputtering, attention has turned increasingly to central banks as investors look for more stimulus.

Watch Vidoe:&nbsp;US President Donald Trump fires NSA John Bolton

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="http://13.235.153.162/videos/us-president-donald-trump-fires-nsa-john-bolton-248930/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

On Thursday the European Central Bank holds one of its most anticipated gatherings and hopes are for a series of fresh measures including a possible interest rate cut, fresh bond-buying quantitative easing (QE) or other loosening tools.

That is followed by the Federal Reserve's board meeting next week, where it is tipped to announce another reduction in borrowing costs as the world's top economy which has so far been the strongest globally stutters.

"With the expectation of the resumption of quantitative easing by the ECB&nbsp;and a rate cut by the Federal Reserve next week, the risk environment has solidified and tempted investors out of hiding from the bond markets and back into equities," said Jeffrey Halley, senior market analyst at OANDA.

In the afternoon trade, Hong Kong climbed 1.6 per cent as investors made the most of the upbeat mood to pick up cheap stocks after months of sometimes violent protests in the city weighed on the stock market.

Tokyo finished one per cent higher, Singapore put on more than one per cent, Seoul rose 0.8 per cent, Sydney gained 0.4 per cent and Taipei added 0.3 per cent, while Manila, Mumbai, Bangkok, and Jakarta also posted gains.

However, Shanghai was fell 0.4 per cent, with little major reaction to the news that China had listed 16 US categories of goods it would exempt from tariffs, ahead of planned top-level trade talks next month. Dealers also appeared to brush off Beijing's decision on Tuesday to lift limits on foreign investment in the country.

Wellington tumbled almost two per cent as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's government was rocked by its handling of sexual assault allegations against a top Labour Party staffer.

In early trade London rose 0.5 per cent, Frankfurt jumped 0.6 per cent and Paris edged up 0.3 per cent.

Trump's decision to sack John Bolton as a leading security adviser raised the possibility of an easing of tensions between the US and several nations, particularly Iran.

The controversial <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-security-adviser-john-bolton-to-urge-tougher-uk-stance-on-iran-and-china-242307">Bolton</a> was closely linked to the invasion of Iraq and other past aggressive US foreign policy decisions and was seen as one of the main driving forces in Trump's muscular approach to Tehran, North Korea, and Venezuela, among others.

Stephen Innes at AxiTrader said that while the move did not necessarily mean a huge change in policy direction, "it does eliminate the most vocal advocate for US military-enforced regime change in the Trump administration".

He added that "from a geopolitical risk perspective, it does lessen war risk premiums, especially in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran and opens the door to more friendly discussion with North Korea".

However, the possibility of dialling down in the stand-off between the US and Iran led to a plunge Tuesday in the price of oil, with WTI diving almost three per cent from an intraday high and Brent shedding 2.5 per cent.

The two contracts later clawed back some of the losses on bargain-buying expectations for more output cuts by leading producers led by Saudi Arabia.

In share trading companies linked to Apple enjoyed healthy buying after the US tech giant unveiled new iPhones, including a lower-priced offering, and set launch dates for its original video offering as well as its game subscription service.

In Tokyo, Alps Alpine surged three per cent, Japan Display put on nearly three per cent and Sharp rallied more than four per cent, while LG Display in Seoul was up two per cent in Seoul. Taipei-listed Foxconn rose by 0.2 per cent.

On forex markets, the positive vibe helped the dollar up against the safe-haven yen, while higher-yielding, riskier currencies edged up against the greenback.

The pound held its recent gains as Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he was pushing to strike a divorce agreement with the European Union, having lost a series of key votes to MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit.

Asian markets mostly rose Wednesday with a broadly upbeat tone across trading floors ahead of major meetings at the European and US central banks, while there is also a growing sense of optimism over China-US trade talks.

Asian markets mostly rose Wednesday with a broadly upbeat tone across trading floors ahead of major meetings at the European and US central banks, while there is also a growing sense of optimism over China-US trade talks. News that Donald Trump had fired his fervently hawkish national security adviser also lifted sentiment with analysts saying it could see the White House take a less strident approach and ease geopolitical tensions. With the global economy sputtering, attention has turned increasingly to central banks as investors look for more stimulus. Watch Vidoe: US President Donald Trump fires NSA John Bolton × On Thursday the European Central Bank holds one of its most anticipated gatherings and hopes are for a series of fresh measures including a possible interest rate cut, fresh bond-buying quantitative easing (QE) or other loosening tools. That is followed by the Federal Reserve's board meeting next week, where it is tipped to announce another reduction in borrowing costs as the world's top economy which has so far been the strongest globally stutters. "With the expectation of the resumption of quantitative easing by the ECB and a rate cut by the Federal Reserve next week, the risk environment has solidified and tempted investors out of hiding from the bond markets and back into equities," said Jeffrey Halley, senior market analyst at OANDA. In the afternoon trade, Hong Kong climbed 1.6 per cent as investors made the most of the upbeat mood to pick up cheap stocks after months of sometimes violent protests in the city weighed on the stock market. Tokyo finished one per cent higher, Singapore put on more than one per cent, Seoul rose 0.8 per cent, Sydney gained 0.4 per cent and Taipei added 0.3 per cent, while Manila, Mumbai, Bangkok, and Jakarta also posted gains. However, Shanghai was fell 0.4 per cent, with little major reaction to the news that China had listed 16 US categories of goods it would exempt from tariffs, ahead of planned top-level trade talks next month. Dealers also appeared to brush off Beijing's decision on Tuesday to lift limits on foreign investment in the country. Wellington tumbled almost two per cent as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern's government was rocked by its handling of sexual assault allegations against a top Labour Party staffer. In early trade London rose 0.5 per cent, Frankfurt jumped 0.6 per cent and Paris edged up 0.3 per cent. Trump's decision to sack John Bolton as a leading security adviser raised the possibility of an easing of tensions between the US and several nations, particularly Iran. The controversial Bolton was closely linked to the invasion of Iraq and other past aggressive US foreign policy decisions and was seen as one of the main driving forces in Trump's muscular approach to Tehran, North Korea, and Venezuela, among others. Stephen Innes at AxiTrader said that while the move did not necessarily mean a huge change in policy direction, "it does eliminate the most vocal advocate for US military-enforced regime change in the Trump administration". He added that "from a geopolitical risk perspective, it does lessen war risk premiums, especially in Syria, Venezuela, and Iran and opens the door to more friendly discussion with North Korea". However, the possibility of dialling down in the stand-off between the US and Iran led to a plunge Tuesday in the price of oil, with WTI diving almost three per cent from an intraday high and Brent shedding 2.5 per cent. The two contracts later clawed back some of the losses on bargain-buying expectations for more output cuts by leading producers led by Saudi Arabia. In share trading companies linked to Apple enjoyed healthy buying after the US tech giant unveiled new iPhones, including a lower-priced offering, and set launch dates for its original video offering as well as its game subscription service. In Tokyo, Alps Alpine surged three per cent, Japan Display put on nearly three per cent and Sharp rallied more than four per cent, while LG Display in Seoul was up two per cent in Seoul. Taipei-listed Foxconn rose by 0.2 per cent. On forex markets, the positive vibe helped the dollar up against the safe-haven yen, while higher-yielding, riskier currencies edged up against the greenback. The pound held its recent gains as Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he was pushing to strike a divorce agreement with the European Union, having lost a series of key votes to MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit.

Asian markets extend gains over optimism on China-US trade talks

Iran on Wednesday rejected the possibility of a meeting between&nbsp;<a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/iran-says-boltons-departure-will-not-push-tehran-to-talks-with-us-249008">President Hassan Rouhani</a>&nbsp;and US counterpart <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-on-a-meeting-with-irans-rouhani-anything-is-possible-247640">Donald Trump</a> after the White House signalled it was open to such an encounter.

Two of Trump's top lieutenants on Tuesday indicated he was ready to meet the <a href="http://13.235.153.162/world/irans-hassan-rouhani-rules-out-bilateral-talks-with-us-247279">Iranian president</a> without preconditions after the US leader sacked his hawkish national security adviser John Bolton.

But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stressed the United States would maintain its campaign of "maximum pressure" against the Islamic republic.

The idea of a Trump-Rouhani meeting was floated last month by French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been spearheading European efforts to de-escalate tensions between Iran and the United States.

The arch-foes have been at loggerheads since May last year when Trump unilaterally withdrew from a 2015 nuclear deal and began reimposing crippling sanctions on Iran.

Iran's representative at the United Nations reiterated Rouhani's position in an interview published Wednesday by state news agency IRNA.

Majid Takht-Ravanchi said a meeting could take place only if Washington ends its "economic terrorism" by lifting all of its sanctions against Tehran.

The Iranian envoy said any meeting must also be held in the framework of the group of major powers that negotiated the 2015 nuclear deal.

"As long as the US government's economic terrorism and such cruel sanctions are imposed on the Iranian people, there is no room for negotiations," he was quoted as saying by IRNA.

The diplomat said Trump's decision to dismiss Bolton a hardliner accused of pushing Trump towards war against Iran was a matter for the Americans.

"The removal of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/with-boltons-departure-an-iran-hawk-leaves-the-chessboard-248951">John Bolton</a> is an internal affair and we don't take stands on domestic issues," said Takht-Ravanchi.

Asked about the impact of Bolton's sacking on long-fraught relations between Iran and the United States, he said it was "too soon" to make any judgements.

"Whether the extremist policy of the US changes or not depends on various factors in US foreign policy," he told ISNA.

Bolton is a controversial figure closely linked to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and other aggressive US foreign policy decisions.

He had been seen as one of the main driving forces in the White House's muscular approach to Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela among others.

Iran on Wednesday rejected the possibility of a meeting between President Hassan Rouhani and US counterpart Donald Trump after the White House signalled it was open to such an encounter.

Iran on Wednesday rejected the possibility of a meeting between President Hassan Rouhani and US counterpart Donald Trump after the White House signalled it was open to such an encounter. Two of Trump's top lieutenants on Tuesday indicated he was ready to meet the Iranian president without preconditions after the US leader sacked his hawkish national security adviser John Bolton. But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stressed the United States would maintain its campaign of "maximum pressure" against the Islamic republic. The idea of a Trump-Rouhani meeting was floated last month by French President Emmanuel Macron, who has been spearheading European efforts to de-escalate tensions between Iran and the United States. The arch-foes have been at loggerheads since May last year when Trump unilaterally withdrew from a 2015 nuclear deal and began reimposing crippling sanctions on Iran. Iran's representative at the United Nations reiterated Rouhani's position in an interview published Wednesday by state news agency IRNA. Majid Takht-Ravanchi said a meeting could take place only if Washington ends its "economic terrorism" by lifting all of its sanctions against Tehran. The Iranian envoy said any meeting must also be held in the framework of the group of major powers that negotiated the 2015 nuclear deal. "As long as the US government's economic terrorism and such cruel sanctions are imposed on the Iranian people, there is no room for negotiations," he was quoted as saying by IRNA. The diplomat said Trump's decision to dismiss Bolton a hardliner accused of pushing Trump towards war against Iran was a matter for the Americans. "The removal of John Bolton is an internal affair and we don't take stands on domestic issues," said Takht-Ravanchi. Asked about the impact of Bolton's sacking on long-fraught relations between Iran and the United States, he said it was "too soon" to make any judgements. "Whether the extremist policy of the US changes or not depends on various factors in US foreign policy," he told ISNA. Bolton is a controversial figure closely linked to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and other aggressive US foreign policy decisions. He had been seen as one of the main driving forces in the White House's muscular approach to Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela among others.

Iran again rebuffs US talk of Trump-Rouhani meeting

China announced exemptions for 16 types of US&nbsp;products from additional retaliatory duties, in a move that comes as trade negotiators from the two countries prepare to meet later this month to try and de-escalate their protracted tariff row.

The exemptions will apply to US&nbsp;goods including some anti-cancer drugs and lubricants, as well as animal feed such as whey and fish meal, the Ministry of Finance said in a statement on its website on Wednesday.

China has imposed several rounds of duties on US&nbsp;goods in retaliation against US&nbsp;Section 301 tariffs, beginning last year in July and August with a 25% levy on about $50 billion of US&nbsp;imports.

In all, the world's two largest economies have slapped tit-for-tat tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods in a bitter trade war that has dragged on for well over a year and hurt business investment, profits and global growth.

The items on the two tariff exemption lists - posted on the ministry's website - will not be subject to additional duties imposed by China on US&nbsp;goods "as countermeasures to US&nbsp;Section 301 measures", the ministry said in its statement.

The exemption will take effect on September 17 and be valid for a year through to Sept. 16, 2020, it said.

However, the exempted list includes only a small quantity of items in comparison to over 5,000 types of US&nbsp;products that are already subject to China's additional tariffs. Moreover, major US&nbsp;imports, such as soybean and corn, are still subject to hefty additional duties.

Wednesday's announcement comes before Chinese trade deputies are expected to meet with their US&nbsp;counterparts in mid-September in Washington. That will be followed by minister-level meetings in early October in the US&nbsp;capital, involving Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, US&nbsp;Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

China announced exemptions for 16 types of US products from additional retaliatory duties, in a move that comes as trade negotiators from the two countries prepare to meet later this month to try and de-escalate their protracted tariff row.

China announced exemptions for 16 types of US products from additional retaliatory duties, in a move that comes as trade negotiators from the two countries prepare to meet later this month to try and de-escalate their protracted tariff row. The exemptions will apply to US goods including some anti-cancer drugs and lubricants, as well as animal feed such as whey and fish meal, the Ministry of Finance said in a statement on its website on Wednesday. China has imposed several rounds of duties on US goods in retaliation against US Section 301 tariffs, beginning last year in July and August with a 25% levy on about $50 billion of US imports. In all, the world's two largest economies have slapped tit-for-tat tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods in a bitter trade war that has dragged on for well over a year and hurt business investment, profits and global growth. The items on the two tariff exemption lists - posted on the ministry's website - will not be subject to additional duties imposed by China on US goods "as countermeasures to US Section 301 measures", the ministry said in its statement. The exemption will take effect on September 17 and be valid for a year through to Sept. 16, 2020, it said. However, the exempted list includes only a small quantity of items in comparison to over 5,000 types of US products that are already subject to China's additional tariffs. Moreover, major US imports, such as soybean and corn, are still subject to hefty additional duties. Wednesday's announcement comes before Chinese trade deputies are expected to meet with their US counterparts in mid-September in Washington. That will be followed by minister-level meetings in early October in the US capital, involving Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

China exempts 16 types of US goods from additional tariffs

US to mark 18th anniversary of the September 11 attacks

&nbsp;Auto sales in China fell for a 14th consecutive month in August, with the number of new energy vehicles (NEVs) sold contracting for the second month in a row, data from the country's biggest auto industry association showed.

Total<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/car-sales-at-historic-low-in-india-auto-companies-urge-government-to-revive-sector-248676"> auto sales</a> fell 6.9 per cent from the same month a year earlier, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) said on Wednesday.

That followed declines of 4.3 per cent in July and 9.6 per cent in June, as well as the first annual contraction last year since the 1990s against a backdrop of slowing economic growth and a crippling trade war with the United States.

Sales of new energy vehicles (NEVs) fell 15.8 per cent in August,<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinas-exports-fall-in-august-as-us-trade-war-rumbles-248393"> CAAM </a>said, following a 4.7 per cent fall in July - their first decline since January 2017. NEV sales jumped almost 62 per cent last year even as the broader auto market contracted.

NEVs include plug-in hybrids, battery-only electric vehicles and those powered by hydrogen fuel cells.

China has been a keen supporter of NEVs and has implemented sales quota requirements for automakers.

Auto sales in China fell for a 14th consecutive month in August, with the number of new energy vehicles (NEVs) sold contracting for the second month in a row, data from the country's biggest auto industry association showed.

Auto sales in China fell for a 14th consecutive month in August, with the number of new energy vehicles (NEVs) sold contracting for the second month in a row, data from the country's biggest auto industry association showed. Total auto sales fell 6.9 per cent from the same month a year earlier, the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers (CAAM) said on Wednesday. That followed declines of 4.3 per cent in July and 9.6 per cent in June, as well as the first annual contraction last year since the 1990s against a backdrop of slowing economic growth and a crippling trade war with the United States. Sales of new energy vehicles (NEVs) fell 15.8 per cent in August, CAAM said, following a 4.7 per cent fall in July - their first decline since January 2017. NEV sales jumped almost 62 per cent last year even as the broader auto market contracted. NEVs include plug-in hybrids, battery-only electric vehicles and those powered by hydrogen fuel cells. China has been a keen supporter of NEVs and has implemented sales quota requirements for automakers.

China auto sales fall 6.9% in August, 14th month of decline

Former US&nbsp;Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Monday anti-government protests in Hong Kong were "not an internal" Chinese matter and that the United States should offer at least moral support to the demonstrators.

The retired US&nbsp;Marine general, speaking at a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York, said the United States should generally side with those standing up for human rights, which he said included the Hong Kong protesters.

"When people stand up for those (rights), I just inherently think we ought to stand with them, even if it's just moral," said Mattis, who abruptly resigned as Pentagon chief in December over disagreements with President Donald Trump's foreign policy.

"This is not an internal matter," Mattis said in remarks likely to irritate Beijing, which has denounced the sometimes violent protests and accused the United States and Britain of fomenting unrest in the former British colony.

Trump has previously described the protests as riots but has also called on China to end the discord in a "humanitarian" way. He said a crackdown could make his efforts to end a damaging trade war with China "very hard."

Mattis said China's effort to pass a law to allow people in Hong Kong to be extradited to mainland China was in breach of the "one country, two systems" formula under which British control of Hong Kong was ended in 1997.

"They said it would be two systems, and the extradition law was a violation of that," said Mattis, who is promoting a new memoir about his role in the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although the extradition bill was withdrawn last week after months of unrest, the mass protests in streets and public places across Hong Kong continue, having grown into a broader pro-democracy backlash against the Chinese government.

Protesters marched outside the US&nbsp;consulate in Hong Kong over the weekend, urging Trump to help "liberate" the city. Hong Kong police fired tear gas to disperse the crowds.

"We have to be careful: We don't want to say we're going to land the 82nd Airborne Division in Hong Kong to do this," he said. "But morally? Yeah, I think we have to stand with them."

In his nearly two years as defence secretary, Mattis had tried to forge a relationship with the Chinese military, worried that tense relations between the two countries could boil over into conflict.

SURPRISED AT TALIBAN TALKS

Mattis resigned from Trump's administration a day after Trump's plans to withdraw US&nbsp;troops from Syria became public. His resignation letter was widely seen as a sharp critique of Trump's approach to national security, including what Mattis saw as a failure to value American allies around the world.

Although there had been speculation that Mattis might enter the political arena, he has since declined to share his views on Trump, saying it is inappropriate for military figures to pontificate on politics.

Mattis also said he was surprised by the news last weekend that Trump had invited Afghanistan's Taliban leaders for peace talks in the United States.

Trump said he cancelled the talks after the insurgent group claimed responsibility for an attack in Kabul that killed an American soldier and 11 other people.

"I salute people who try to bring wars to an end," Mattis said. The Taliban, however, had repeatedly failed to break with al Qaeda, the militant group behind September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, he said.

"The Taliban was offered: If you break with al Qaeda, we have no problem with you," Mattis said. "President (George W.) Bush offered that, President Obama offered that, President Trump has offered that, and they've declined. So yes, I was very surprised that we were at that point."

Asked on Monday whether he had confidence in Trump's leadership, he said only that he had "great confidence" in American voters and in the US Constitution.

"If we will employ our constitutional checks and balances correctly, this big experiment will continue," Mattis said.

Former US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Monday anti-government protests in Hong Kong were "not an internal" Chinese matter and that the United States should offer at least moral support to the demonstrators.

Former US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Monday anti-government protests in Hong Kong were "not an internal" Chinese matter and that the United States should offer at least moral support to the demonstrators. The retired US Marine general, speaking at a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York, said the United States should generally side with those standing up for human rights, which he said included the Hong Kong protesters. "When people stand up for those (rights), I just inherently think we ought to stand with them, even if it's just moral," said Mattis, who abruptly resigned as Pentagon chief in December over disagreements with President Donald Trump's foreign policy. "This is not an internal matter," Mattis said in remarks likely to irritate Beijing, which has denounced the sometimes violent protests and accused the United States and Britain of fomenting unrest in the former British colony. Trump has previously described the protests as riots but has also called on China to end the discord in a "humanitarian" way. He said a crackdown could make his efforts to end a damaging trade war with China "very hard." Mattis said China's effort to pass a law to allow people in Hong Kong to be extradited to mainland China was in breach of the "one country, two systems" formula under which British control of Hong Kong was ended in 1997. "They said it would be two systems, and the extradition law was a violation of that," said Mattis, who is promoting a new memoir about his role in the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the extradition bill was withdrawn last week after months of unrest, the mass protests in streets and public places across Hong Kong continue, having grown into a broader pro-democracy backlash against the Chinese government. Protesters marched outside the US consulate in Hong Kong over the weekend, urging Trump to help "liberate" the city. Hong Kong police fired tear gas to disperse the crowds. "We have to be careful: We don't want to say we're going to land the 82nd Airborne Division in Hong Kong to do this," he said. "But morally? Yeah, I think we have to stand with them." In his nearly two years as defence secretary, Mattis had tried to forge a relationship with the Chinese military, worried that tense relations between the two countries could boil over into conflict. SURPRISED AT TALIBAN TALKS Mattis resigned from Trump's administration a day after Trump's plans to withdraw US troops from Syria became public. His resignation letter was widely seen as a sharp critique of Trump's approach to national security, including what Mattis saw as a failure to value American allies around the world. Although there had been speculation that Mattis might enter the political arena, he has since declined to share his views on Trump, saying it is inappropriate for military figures to pontificate on politics. Mattis also said he was surprised by the news last weekend that Trump had invited Afghanistan's Taliban leaders for peace talks in the United States. Trump said he cancelled the talks after the insurgent group claimed responsibility for an attack in Kabul that killed an American soldier and 11 other people. "I salute people who try to bring wars to an end," Mattis said. The Taliban, however, had repeatedly failed to break with al Qaeda, the militant group behind September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, he said. "The Taliban was offered: If you break with al Qaeda, we have no problem with you," Mattis said. "President (George W.) Bush offered that, President Obama offered that, President Trump has offered that, and they've declined. So yes, I was very surprised that we were at that point." Asked on Monday whether he had confidence in Trump's leadership, he said only that he had "great confidence" in American voters and in the US Constitution. "If we will employ our constitutional checks and balances correctly, this big experiment will continue," Mattis said.

US should side with Hong Kong protesters, says ex-Pentagon chief Mattis

us-1

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

us 1