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

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - September 1st, 2019

Beach goers in Jacksonville, northeastern Florida, enjoyed the sun-soaked weather on Saturday (August 31) while keeping an eye on the Hurricane Doria's unpredictable path, potentially barreling their way.

Beach goers, surfers enjoy weather as Hurricane Dorian churns in unpredictable course

US and Taliban negotiators are "at the threshold of an agreement" to end 18 years of conflict between them, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/in-donald-trumps-team-misgivings-emerge-over-any-deal-with-taliban-in-afghanistan-us-officials-246901">Washington</a>'s top negotiator said Sunday as he concluded their latest talks.

The foes have been meeting in Doha to conclude a deal under which the Taliban would give security guarantees in return for sharp reductions to the 13,000-strong US force in Afghanistan.

"We are at the threshold of an agreement that will reduce violence and open the door for Afghans to sit together to negotiate an honourable and sustainable peace," tweeted Washington's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
We are at the threshold of an agreement that will reduce violence and open the door for Afghans to sit together to negotiate an honorable &amp; sustainable peace and a unified, sovereign Afghanistan that does not threaten the United States, its allies, or any other country.
— U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad (@US4AfghanPeace) <a href="https://twitter.com/US4AfghanPeace/status/1167945304290672642?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 31, 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>

Khalilzad added that he would travel to Kabul later Sunday "for consultations" following the end of the eighth and final day of the latest round of talks.

US troops were first sent to Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda, which was sheltered by the former Taliban regime.&nbsp;

Washington now wants to end its military involvement -- the longest in its history -- and has been talking to the Taliban since at least 2018.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo previously said he hoped a deal would be finalised before September 1 ahead of Afghan polls due later this month, and next year's US presidential vote.

The Taliban's spokesman in Doha Suhail Shaheen said Saturday that a deal "is near to finalised" but did not specify what obstacles remain to its conclusion.

The agreement will centre on the US withdrawing troops in exchange for a Taliban guarantee that Afghanistan will not be used as a jihadist safe haven.

Negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government, and an eventual ceasefire, will also be key pillars of any deal.

Such a deal would help foster "a unified, sovereign Afghanistan that does not threaten the United States, its allies, or any other country," Khalilzad added in his Sunday tweet.

The apparent final phase of talks follows an excruciating few months for Afghans.

The war-torn nation's people have watched on largely voiceless as US negotiators cut a deal with the Taliban while largely sidelining the government of President Ashraf Ghani.

This ninth round of talks has also progressed to a backdrop of persistent violence with the Taliban staging a brazen attack on the northern city of Kunduz on Saturday.

Afghan security forces say they have "repelled" the coordinated assault.

US and Taliban negotiators are "at the threshold of an agreement" to end 18 years of conflict between them, Washington's top negotiator said Sunday as he concluded their latest talks.

US and Taliban negotiators are "at the threshold of an agreement" to end 18 years of conflict between them, Washington's top negotiator said Sunday as he concluded their latest talks. The foes have been meeting in Doha to conclude a deal under which the Taliban would give security guarantees in return for sharp reductions to the 13,000-strong US force in Afghanistan. "We are at the threshold of an agreement that will reduce violence and open the door for Afghans to sit together to negotiate an honourable and sustainable peace," tweeted Washington's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad. We are at the threshold of an agreement that will reduce violence and open the door for Afghans to sit together to negotiate an honorable & sustainable peace and a unified, sovereign Afghanistan that does not threaten the United States, its allies, or any other country. — U.S. Special Representative Zalmay Khalilzad (@US4AfghanPeace) August 31, 2019 × Khalilzad added that he would travel to Kabul later Sunday "for consultations" following the end of the eighth and final day of the latest round of talks. US troops were first sent to Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda, which was sheltered by the former Taliban regime. Washington now wants to end its military involvement -- the longest in its history -- and has been talking to the Taliban since at least 2018. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo previously said he hoped a deal would be finalised before September 1 ahead of Afghan polls due later this month, and next year's US presidential vote. The Taliban's spokesman in Doha Suhail Shaheen said Saturday that a deal "is near to finalised" but did not specify what obstacles remain to its conclusion. The agreement will centre on the US withdrawing troops in exchange for a Taliban guarantee that Afghanistan will not be used as a jihadist safe haven. Negotiations between the Taliban and the Afghan government, and an eventual ceasefire, will also be key pillars of any deal. Such a deal would help foster "a unified, sovereign Afghanistan that does not threaten the United States, its allies, or any other country," Khalilzad added in his Sunday tweet. The apparent final phase of talks follows an excruciating few months for Afghans. The war-torn nation's people have watched on largely voiceless as US negotiators cut a deal with the Taliban while largely sidelining the government of President Ashraf Ghani. This ninth round of talks has also progressed to a backdrop of persistent violence with the Taliban staging a brazen attack on the northern city of Kunduz on Saturday. Afghan security forces say they have "repelled" the coordinated assault.

US, Taliban on 'threshold' of deal: US Afghan envoy

The US Treasury Department on Friday blacklisted the Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya, which is at the center of a confrontation between Washington and Tehran, and sanctioned its captain.

The ship, formerly called Grace 1, was detained by Britain off Gibraltar in July due to British suspicion it was carrying Iranian oil to Syria in violation of European Union sanctions. It was released in mid-August after Iran gave assurances its cargo was not headed to Syria.

"Vessels like the Adrian Darya 1 enable the (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force) to ship and transfer large volumes of oil, which they attempt to mask and sell illicitly to fund the regime's malign activities and propagate terrorism," Treasury Under Secretary Sigal Mandelker said in a statement.

"Anyone providing support to the Adrian Darya 1 risks being sanctioned," she said.&nbsp;

The United States considers Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group.

Turkey said on Friday the ship was headed to Lebanon's waters after changing course several times, although Beirut said it was not informed of the plan. It raises the possibility that a ship-to-ship transfer of cargo may be attempted once it nears Lebanon's coast.

The US Treasury Department on Friday blacklisted the Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya, which is at the center of a confrontation between Washington and Tehran, and sanctioned its captain.

The US Treasury Department on Friday blacklisted the Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya, which is at the center of a confrontation between Washington and Tehran, and sanctioned its captain. The ship, formerly called Grace 1, was detained by Britain off Gibraltar in July due to British suspicion it was carrying Iranian oil to Syria in violation of European Union sanctions. It was released in mid-August after Iran gave assurances its cargo was not headed to Syria. "Vessels like the Adrian Darya 1 enable the (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Quds Force) to ship and transfer large volumes of oil, which they attempt to mask and sell illicitly to fund the regime's malign activities and propagate terrorism," Treasury Under Secretary Sigal Mandelker said in a statement. "Anyone providing support to the Adrian Darya 1 risks being sanctioned," she said. The United States considers Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group. Turkey said on Friday the ship was headed to Lebanon's waters after changing course several times, although Beirut said it was not informed of the plan. It raises the possibility that a ship-to-ship transfer of cargo may be attempted once it nears Lebanon's coast.

US blacklists Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya, sanctions captain

Swedish climate change campaigner Greta Thunberg has taken part in her first demonstration on US soil since arriving by zero-carbon yacht.

Greta Thunberg joins climate protest outside United Nations

The United States has sanctioned the Iranian oil tanker Adrian Darya 1 . Watch video to know more.

United States imposes sanctions Iranian Tanker

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - August 31st, 2019

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - August 30th, 2019

Hurricane Dorian is on track to strengthen to a powerful Category 4 hurricane with possible life-threatening storm surge and dangerous winds.

Florida braces for Hurricane Dorian, expands state of emergency

President Donald Trump said Thursday that the United States plans to reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan from 14,000 to 8,600 and then will determine further drawdowns.

'US Troops Would Remain in Afghanistan' says Donald Trump

The US Treasury on Friday announced penalties against Taiwanese and Hong Kong shipping firms it says are <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/north-korea-changes-constitution-to-solidify-kim-jong-uns-rule-246503">helping North Korea circumvent United Nations sanctions</a> on Pyongyang's oil exports and imports.

The companies are helping North Korea with "illicit ship-to-ship (STS) transfers to circumvent United Nations (UN) sanctions that restrict the import of petroleum products," Treasury said.

The firms "engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology."

The Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control blocked the assets of Taiwan-based Jui Pang Shipping Co Ltd (Jui Pang) and Jui Zong Ship Management Co Ltd (Jui Zong), as well as the Hong Kong-based Jui Cheng Shipping Company Limited (Jui Cheng).

"Shipping companies trading with North Korea are exposing themselves to significant sanctions risk, despite the deceptive practices they try to employ," Treasury Under Secretary Sigal Mandelker said in a statement.

The agency also targeted two Taiwan-based individuals Huang Wang Ken and Chen Mei Hsiang, as well as a vessel in which the two have an interest.

The Treasury said the attempts to secure refined petroleum through the ship-to-ship transfers evade UN sanctions aimed at preventing North Korea from obtaining resources that would support its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

The US Treasury on Friday announced penalties against Taiwanese and Hong Kong shipping firms it says are helping North Korea circumvent United Nations sanctions on Pyongyang's oil exports and imports.

The US Treasury on Friday announced penalties against Taiwanese and Hong Kong shipping firms it says are helping North Korea circumvent United Nations sanctions on Pyongyang's oil exports and imports. The companies are helping North Korea with "illicit ship-to-ship (STS) transfers to circumvent United Nations (UN) sanctions that restrict the import of petroleum products," Treasury said. The firms "engaged in at least one significant importation from or exportation to North Korea of any goods, services, or technology." The Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control blocked the assets of Taiwan-based Jui Pang Shipping Co Ltd (Jui Pang) and Jui Zong Ship Management Co Ltd (Jui Zong), as well as the Hong Kong-based Jui Cheng Shipping Company Limited (Jui Cheng). "Shipping companies trading with North Korea are exposing themselves to significant sanctions risk, despite the deceptive practices they try to employ," Treasury Under Secretary Sigal Mandelker said in a statement. The agency also targeted two Taiwan-based individuals Huang Wang Ken and Chen Mei Hsiang, as well as a vessel in which the two have an interest. The Treasury said the attempts to secure refined petroleum through the ship-to-ship transfers evade UN sanctions aimed at preventing North Korea from obtaining resources that would support its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

US penalises shipping firms said to help North Korea circumvent UN sanctions

The United States intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 to rid Al-Qaeda of its sanctuaries following the 9/11 terror attacks.

After Washington announced on Thursday that <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-troops-would-remain-in-afghanistan-says-donald-trump-246505">US troop levels in Afghanistan</a> will drop to 8,600 from 13,000 if a deal is reached with the Taliban, here is a timeline of developments.

'War on terror'

On October 7, 2001 -- less than a month after the September 11 attacks that killed around 3,000 people in New York and Washington -- President George W. Bush launches operation "Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan.

The country's fundamentalist Taliban regime had been sheltering Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda movement, accused of the attacks.

The operation opens a military front in the US "war on terrorism".

Within weeks US-led forces overthrow the Taliban, in power since 1996.

Besides carrying out air strikes, Washington also lends support to the Afghan Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban, contributing paramilitary teams from the CIA and special forces.

About 1,000 American soldiers are on the ground by November 2001, rising to 10,000 the next year.

Forgotten war

US attention is diverted from Afghanistan when US forces invade Iraq in 2003 to oust dictator Saddam Hussein, accused of harboring weapons of mass destruction.

The Taliban and other Islamist outfits regroup in their strongholds in southern and eastern Afghanistan, from where they can easily travel between their bases in Pakistan's tribal zones, and launch an insurgency.

In 2008 the US command in Afghanistan calls for more manpower. Bush sends additional soldiers and about 48,500 US troops are deployed.

Peak of 100,000 troops

In 2009 Barack Obama -- elected president on campaign promises to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- boosts the US deployment to around 68,000. In December he sends another 30,000.&nbsp;

The objective is to put brakes on the growing Taliban insurgency and to strengthen Afghan institutions.

By 2012 more than 150,000 foreign soldiers are deployed in Afghanistan, of which 100,000 are American.

Bin Laden killed

Bin Laden is killed on May 2, 2011 in a US special forces operation in Pakistan.

Combat operations end

On December 31, 2014 the NATO alliance ends its combat mission in Afghanistan. But, under agreements reached a few months earlier, 12,500 foreign soldiers -- of which 9,800 are American -- remain to train Afghan troops and conduct anti-terrorist operations.

Security in Afghanistan degenerates as the Taliban's insurgency spreads, with the Islamic State (IS) group also becoming active in early 2015.

In July 2016, Obama slows the planned pace of withdrawal of US troops, saying 8,400 will remain into 2017.

MSF clinic bombed

&nbsp;In October 2015, during intense fighting for the northeastern provincial capital Kunduz, a US airstrike hits a Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) hospital, killing 42 people, including 24 patients.

Mega bomb against IS

In April 2017, the US military drops the largest non-nuclear bomb it has ever used in combat on an Islamic State network of tunnels and caves in eastern Afghanistan. Afghan officials say it killed 96 jihadists.

US reinforcements

In August 2017, the new US President Donald Trump scraps any timetables for a US pullout and re-commits thousands more soldiers.

In mid-November, some 3,000 soldiers arrive to reinforce the 11,000 troops already deployed.

However, deadly attacks multiply, especially against Afghan forces. The US steps up airstrikes dramatically.

Talks

In mid-2018, Washington and Taliban representatives discreetly open talks in Doha focused on slashing the US military footprint in Afghanistan.

In return, the US demands that the Taliban prevent the country from being used as a safe haven for jihadist groups including Al-Qaeda. Talks are also focusing on a ceasefire and the opening of talks with the Kabul government. 
&nbsp;

The United States intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 to rid Al-Qaeda of its sanctuaries following the 9/11 terror attacks. After Washington announced on Thursday that US troop levels in Afghanistan will drop to 8,600 from 13,000 if a deal is reached with the Taliban, here is a timeline of developments.

The United States intervened in Afghanistan in 2001 to rid Al-Qaeda of its sanctuaries following the 9/11 terror attacks. After Washington announced on Thursday that US troop levels in Afghanistan will drop to 8,600 from 13,000 if a deal is reached with the Taliban, here is a timeline of developments. 'War on terror' On October 7, 2001 -- less than a month after the September 11 attacks that killed around 3,000 people in New York and Washington -- President George W. Bush launches operation "Enduring Freedom" in Afghanistan. The country's fundamentalist Taliban regime had been sheltering Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda movement, accused of the attacks. The operation opens a military front in the US "war on terrorism". Within weeks US-led forces overthrow the Taliban, in power since 1996. Besides carrying out air strikes, Washington also lends support to the Afghan Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban, contributing paramilitary teams from the CIA and special forces. About 1,000 American soldiers are on the ground by November 2001, rising to 10,000 the next year. Forgotten war US attention is diverted from Afghanistan when US forces invade Iraq in 2003 to oust dictator Saddam Hussein, accused of harboring weapons of mass destruction. The Taliban and other Islamist outfits regroup in their strongholds in southern and eastern Afghanistan, from where they can easily travel between their bases in Pakistan's tribal zones, and launch an insurgency. In 2008 the US command in Afghanistan calls for more manpower. Bush sends additional soldiers and about 48,500 US troops are deployed. Peak of 100,000 troops In 2009 Barack Obama -- elected president on campaign promises to end the Iraq and Afghanistan wars -- boosts the US deployment to around 68,000. In December he sends another 30,000. The objective is to put brakes on the growing Taliban insurgency and to strengthen Afghan institutions. By 2012 more than 150,000 foreign soldiers are deployed in Afghanistan, of which 100,000 are American. Bin Laden killed Bin Laden is killed on May 2, 2011 in a US special forces operation in Pakistan. Combat operations end On December 31, 2014 the NATO alliance ends its combat mission in Afghanistan. But, under agreements reached a few months earlier, 12,500 foreign soldiers -- of which 9,800 are American -- remain to train Afghan troops and conduct anti-terrorist operations. Security in Afghanistan degenerates as the Taliban's insurgency spreads, with the Islamic State (IS) group also becoming active in early 2015. In July 2016, Obama slows the planned pace of withdrawal of US troops, saying 8,400 will remain into 2017. MSF clinic bombed In October 2015, during intense fighting for the northeastern provincial capital Kunduz, a US airstrike hits a Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) hospital, killing 42 people, including 24 patients. Mega bomb against IS In April 2017, the US military drops the largest non-nuclear bomb it has ever used in combat on an Islamic State network of tunnels and caves in eastern Afghanistan. Afghan officials say it killed 96 jihadists. US reinforcements In August 2017, the new US President Donald Trump scraps any timetables for a US pullout and re-commits thousands more soldiers. In mid-November, some 3,000 soldiers arrive to reinforce the 11,000 troops already deployed. However, deadly attacks multiply, especially against Afghan forces. The US steps up airstrikes dramatically. Talks In mid-2018, Washington and Taliban representatives discreetly open talks in Doha focused on slashing the US military footprint in Afghanistan. In return, the US demands that the Taliban prevent the country from being used as a safe haven for jihadist groups including Al-Qaeda. Talks are also focusing on a ceasefire and the opening of talks with the Kabul government.

Timeline of two decades of US intervention in Afghanistan 

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-recruiting-spies-overseas-through-linkedin-report-246294">China</a> and the United States are discussing the next round of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-president-trump-says-china-wants-to-negotiate-over-trade-war-245660">face-to-face trade talks</a> scheduled in September, but hopes for progress hinge on whether Washington can create favourable conditions, China's commerce ministry said on Thursday.

In the latest tit-for-tat escalation of the trade war between the world's two largest economies, US&nbsp;President Donald Trump last Friday said he would heap an additional duty of 5 per cent on about $550 billion in targeted Chinese goods.

The move came hours after China had unveiled retaliatory tariffs on $75-billion worth of US&nbsp;goods.

China hopes the United States can cancel the planned additional tariffs to avoid an escalation in the trade war, its commerce ministry spokesman, Gao Feng, told reporters on Thursday.

"The most important thing at the moment is to create necessary conditions for both sides to continue negotiations," he said during a weekly briefing, adding that China was lodging "solemn representation" with the United States.

For two years, the Trump administration has sought to pressure China to eliminate what it calls unfair trade practices and make sweeping changes to its policies on intellectual property protection, forced transfers of technology to Chinese firms, industrial subsidies and market access.

But China has constantly denied such accusations, vowing to fight back in kind and criticizing US&nbsp;measures as protectionist.

Gao said China had "ample" countermeasures to retaliate against the planned US&nbsp;tariffs, but talks in the current circumstances should focus on whether the tariffs could be cancelled.

He did not answer directly when asked if his remarks suggested China would not retaliate against the latest US&nbsp;tariff threat.

China has repeatedly said it would have no choice but to retaliate if the United States followed through on its threat.

On Monday, Trump predicted a trade deal with China, saying he believed it was sincere about wanting to reach a deal, citing what he called increasing economic pressure on Beijing and job losses there.

Trump cited as a positive sign comments by Vice Premier Liu He, who has been leading the talks with Washington, that China was willing to resolve the dispute through "calm" negotiations.

He repeated his assertion that Chinese officials had contacted US&nbsp;trade counterparts overnight, offering to resume negotiations, a statement that China declined to confirm.

Gao also declined to provide any detail when asked if there had been a call this week between Beijing and Washington.

"As far as I know, both trade teams have maintained effective communication," he said.

In July 2018, the US-China trade dispute boiled over in tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of each other's goods and threatens to engulf all trade between the countries, putting global growth at risk.

"We hope the United States will show sincerity and concrete actions," Gao said.

China and the United States are discussing the next round of face-to-face trade talks scheduled in September, but hopes for progress hinge on whether Washington can create favourable conditions, China's commerce ministry said on Thursday.

China and the United States are discussing the next round of face-to-face trade talks scheduled in September, but hopes for progress hinge on whether Washington can create favourable conditions, China's commerce ministry said on Thursday. In the latest tit-for-tat escalation of the trade war between the world's two largest economies, US President Donald Trump last Friday said he would heap an additional duty of 5 per cent on about $550 billion in targeted Chinese goods. The move came hours after China had unveiled retaliatory tariffs on $75-billion worth of US goods. China hopes the United States can cancel the planned additional tariffs to avoid an escalation in the trade war, its commerce ministry spokesman, Gao Feng, told reporters on Thursday. "The most important thing at the moment is to create necessary conditions for both sides to continue negotiations," he said during a weekly briefing, adding that China was lodging "solemn representation" with the United States. For two years, the Trump administration has sought to pressure China to eliminate what it calls unfair trade practices and make sweeping changes to its policies on intellectual property protection, forced transfers of technology to Chinese firms, industrial subsidies and market access. But China has constantly denied such accusations, vowing to fight back in kind and criticizing US measures as protectionist. Gao said China had "ample" countermeasures to retaliate against the planned US tariffs, but talks in the current circumstances should focus on whether the tariffs could be cancelled. He did not answer directly when asked if his remarks suggested China would not retaliate against the latest US tariff threat. China has repeatedly said it would have no choice but to retaliate if the United States followed through on its threat. On Monday, Trump predicted a trade deal with China, saying he believed it was sincere about wanting to reach a deal, citing what he called increasing economic pressure on Beijing and job losses there. Trump cited as a positive sign comments by Vice Premier Liu He, who has been leading the talks with Washington, that China was willing to resolve the dispute through "calm" negotiations. He repeated his assertion that Chinese officials had contacted US trade counterparts overnight, offering to resume negotiations, a statement that China declined to confirm. Gao also declined to provide any detail when asked if there had been a call this week between Beijing and Washington. "As far as I know, both trade teams have maintained effective communication," he said. In July 2018, the US-China trade dispute boiled over in tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of each other's goods and threatens to engulf all trade between the countries, putting global growth at risk. "We hope the United States will show sincerity and concrete actions," Gao said.

China hopes US will create conditions necessary for September trade talks

India and the US discussed regional maritime security issues during the fourth round of the India-US Maritime Security Dialogue held on August 23, the External Affairs Ministry said on Tuesday.

A ministry release said that the meeting was held in Monterey, California.

The Indian delegation was led by Indra Mani Pandey, Additional Secretary (Disarmament and International Security Affairs) in the External Affairs Ministry, and Richa Misra, Joint Secretary (Navy), Ministry of Defence.

Ambassador Alice Wells, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Department of State, and Randall Schriver, Assistant Secretary of Defence for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs led the US delegation.

"During the dialogue, the two sides discussed regional maritime security issues and exchanged views on ways to further strengthen bilateral maritime security cooperation," the release said.

The two sides also reviewed the implementation of the decisions taken during the earlier three rounds of maritime security dialogue.

It was agreed to hold the next round of the dialogue in India on a mutually convenient date.&nbsp;

India and the US discussed regional maritime security issues during the fourth round of the India-US Maritime Security Dialogue held on August 23, the External Affairs Ministry said on Tuesday.

India and the US discussed regional maritime security issues during the fourth round of the India-US Maritime Security Dialogue held on August 23, the External Affairs Ministry said on Tuesday. A ministry release said that the meeting was held in Monterey, California. The Indian delegation was led by Indra Mani Pandey, Additional Secretary (Disarmament and International Security Affairs) in the External Affairs Ministry, and Richa Misra, Joint Secretary (Navy), Ministry of Defence. Ambassador Alice Wells, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Department of State, and Randall Schriver, Assistant Secretary of Defence for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs led the US delegation. "During the dialogue, the two sides discussed regional maritime security issues and exchanged views on ways to further strengthen bilateral maritime security cooperation," the release said. The two sides also reviewed the implementation of the decisions taken during the earlier three rounds of maritime security dialogue. It was agreed to hold the next round of the dialogue in India on a mutually convenient date.

India, US discuss regional maritime security issues

Seizing on mounting Farm Belt frustration with President Donald Trump's economic agenda, Democratic rivals are stepping up their push to take back part of rural America, whose overwhelming support for Trump helped propel his upset 2016 election victory.

Seizing on mounting Farm Belt frustration with President Donald Trump's economic agenda, Democratic rivals are stepping up their push to take back part of rural America, whose overwhelming support for Trump helped propel his upset 2016 election victory. The sparsely populated US heartland has remained loyal to the Republican president even as farmers from Iowa to Wisconsin to Pennsylvania bear the brunt of his tariff war with China. His advisers insist Trump's projection of toughness against China will only delight, not alienate, his base. Democrats seeking to face Trump in the November 2020 election challenge that presumption, pointing to farmers reeling from plunging prices and unsold crops during what is now more than a year-long trade war with China. Farmers and ethanol producers are also upset with the administration's latest decision to allow more oil refiners to skirt biofuel laws and useless corn-based ethanol. From front-runner, Joe Biden to US Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, many of the more than 20 Democratic presidential candidates have highlighted the economic damage caused by Trump's trade war and biofuel waivers as the central plank of their pitches to rural America. At various campaign stops in Iowa since June, Biden has said the trade war was "crushing" American farmers. “How many farmers across this state, across this nation, have to face the prospect of losing everything, losing their farm because of these tariffs?” Biden said in Warren County, Iowa, last week. Biden's aides say he will make campaigning in rural areas a top priority. "Vice President Biden will work to expand the market for ethanol and the next generation of biofuels, and will re-engage allies to negotiate trade that benefits American farmers and other workers," TJ Ducklo, a Biden spokesman, told Reuters. In recent weeks, several other candidates, including Warren and Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, have rushed to roll out plans for rural America, touching on everything from farm subsidies to rural healthcare and broadband. They have already been campaigning heavily in rural Iowa, the state that kicks off the party’s nominating contest in February and is the largest producer of corn and ethanol. In the past, Democratic candidates often just paid lip service to rural voters, said former US Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, who founded the One Country Project to help democrats broaden their rural appeal after she lost her re-election bid last year. This year is different, she said in an interview. “There’s an appreciation that we can’t continue to fail at the rate we’re failing in rural America and be successful in presidential races and Senate races," Heitkamp said. She added: “We’re getting helped a lot by the president in this regard." Roger Johnson, president of the National Farmers Union, said in a statement last Friday: "Between burning bridges with all of our biggest trading partners and undermining our domestic biofuels industry, President Trump is making things worse, not better." Uphill battle Many rural voters helped former Democratic President Barack Obama win the White House in 2008 and 2012. But they supported Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton in 2016 by more than 30 percentage points. Next year is again expected to be an uphill battle for Democrats. Officials worry the party's increasingly liberal direction on immigration and other Trump-driven hot-button issues are socially and culturally at odds with rural voters. According to the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted this month, five in 10 US adults in rural areas approved of Trump's performance in office, higher than his 41 per cent approval nationwide. Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, said farmers know the trade war is a "fight worth winning." “Farmers are patriots ... and they know the long-term benefits are going to be worth it for themselves and this nation," Murtaugh said. The White House also unveiled a $16 billion aid package in July to help farmers hurt by the trade war and bad weather. But Democrats point to last year's congressional elections, where the party increased its share of the vote from 2016 in at least 54 districts with large rural populations, as a sign that Trump's grip on rural America may be loosening. Even a small erosion in Trump’s support among rural voters could make a difference in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, where Trump won by razor-thin margins in 2016, Democratic strategists say. Trump won by a combined total of just 77,000 votes in the three states. Priorities USA, the largest Democratic Super PAC, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a week to run digital ads in those states as well as in Florida, aimed at tying Trump’spolicies to economic difficulties that many working-class people face. 'Folded to big oil' A round of more bad news for farmers last week, including extra tariffs Beijing announced on soybeans and other key US agricultural exports gave Democrats a fresh opening to attack Trump. After Reuters reported this month that Trump gave regulators the green light to grant exemptions to more than 30 small refineries so they can use less ethanol, Democratic candidates pounced on it as evidence Trump favours the oil industry. Klobuchar, the Minnesota lawmaker who has centred her campaign narrative on her ability to win over rural Midwestern voters, said that if elected, she would block pending refinery waiver applications and look to reverse any approved. “He folded to Big Oil,” she told reporters on Thursday. Murtaugh, the Trump campaign spokesman, rejected the accusation, saying the president was concerned about some “small” refineries not being able to cope with costly standards. “As president, he must look out for the economic interests of everyone involved,” he said. The backlash from agricultural and biofuel trade groups has been particularly strong in Iowa, a swing state won twice by Obama but that Trump carried in 2016. “Democrats have crisscrossed Iowa. They are speaking to ethanol producers who have idled plants and talking to workers who are losing their jobs," said Patty Judge, a former Democratic lieutenant governor in Iowa and current chair of the Focus on Rural America, which advocates progressive economic policies in rural areas. "This is an opportunity for Democrats to win back the heartland and the White House."

As Trump policies deepen farmers' pain, Democrats see an opening in rural America

Romania's Social Democrat (PSD) minority government may not survive an expected no-confidence vote next month after its sole potential partner said on Tuesday it would not lend support.

Romania's Social Democrat (PSD) minority government may not survive an expected no-confidence vote next month after its sole potential partner said on Tuesday it would not lend support. Prime Minister Viorica Dancila's government lost its majority on Monday after a junior ally, Liberal party ALDE, quit over policy, leaving the PSD vulnerable as the main opposition party said it planned to launch a no-confidence vote against the government after the summer recess. PSD officials said on Monday they would try to secure the backing of the ethnic Hungarian UDMR party, but the party ruled that out on Tuesday. "Our position is clear, we won't back this PSD minority government. We don't have and won't have any deal with PSD to help them stay afloat... There's no logical reason to do that," ethnic Hungarian UDMR party deputy Attila Korodi told Reuters. EU and US authorities have strongly criticised the governing alliance for an overhaul of Romania's judiciary that they say threatens the rule of law, and for watering down anti-graft legislation. Voters turned on the government in European parliament elections in May, with the PSD's support almost halving while ALDE was unable to reach the threshold to enter the assembly. Korodi said the UDMR would back a government made up of opposition parties until the next general election in 2020. With 31 parliamentary seats, the UDMR could have ensured the PSD has a slim but functioning majority. The PSD is now 25 seats short of a majority. Other smaller opposition parties have said they want to bring the government down and the biggest opposition party, the centrist National Liberal Party (PNL) said it was preparing to draft a no-confidence vote to try to topple the government. "We will be gathering signatures to back a censure motion as of next week," said PNL president Ludovic Orban. "We will file it once we garner 233 signatures, to be sure there's a clear majority able to bring Dancila's government down." A government can be toppled if a majority of Romania's 233 members of parliament vote to back the no-confidence motion. ALDE withdrew from the alliance two days after leader Calin Popescu Tariceanu lost a bid to become the sole pro-government candidate in a presidential election scheduled for November. The PSD instead picked its leader, Dancila, to challenge incumbent Klaus Iohannis. The Romanian leu was 0.2 per cent down on the day, trading at 4.7325 against the euro.

Romanian government looks unlikely to survive confidence vote after it loses an ally

Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said he would do everything necessary to prevent Britain from leaving the European Union without a divorce deal as he prepared to meet senior lawmakers on Tuesday to discuss tactics.

Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said he would do everything necessary to prevent Britain from leaving the European Union without a divorce deal as he prepared to meet senior lawmakers on Tuesday to discuss tactics. The United Kingdom is heading towards a constitutional crisis at home and a showdown with the EU as Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pledged to leave the bloc in 66 days without a deal unless it agrees to renegotiate the Brexit divorce. Corbyn said an EU exit without an agreement would leave Britain at the mercy of President Donald Trump and US corporations. "The battle to stop no-deal Brexit isn't a struggle between those who want to leave the EU and those who want continued membership," Corbyn wrote in the Independent newspaper. "It's a battle of the many against the few who are hijacking the referendum result to shift even more power and wealth towards those at the top. That's why the Labour Party will do everything necessary to stop a no-deal bankers' Brexit." Britain is on course for a no-deal exit on October 31 unless parliament can stop it or a new agreement is reached with the EU. The British parliament has rejected three times the withdrawal deal agreed between Johnson's predecessor Theresa May and the EU, deepening a three-year crisis that threatens Britain's status as one of the world's pre-eminent financial centres and a stable destination for foreign investors. Johnson held talks last week with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron and European Council President Donald Tusk about his demand that the Brexit deal on offer is changed to remove the so-called backstop, an insurance policy to prevent the return of a hard border in Ireland. He said on Monday he was prepared to take Brexit talks with the EU down to the last minute. A UK official said Johnson's Brexit adviser David Frost would travel to Brussels on Wednesday for informal discussions. One EU diplomat said Johnson had not made any big mistakes at the G7 summit in France at the weekend, his first outing on the international stage since taking office last month. "The devil is in the detail. If we could get something similar and if this thing would not be called a backstop - we could have success. All this may mean that, in the end, Johnson will have proven himself to be a refined strategist rather than suicidal," the diplomat said. Division over tactics Lawmakers return from their summer break on September 3, reconvening for a fight that will determine the fortunes of the world’s fifth-largest economy. Votes in parliament have shown there is majority support for measures to block or hinder a no-deal exit. But any majority would be unstable, made up of lawmakers from different parties that are ideologically opposed, except when it comes to stopping a disorderly Brexit. Keir Starmer, the Labour Party's Brexit spokesman, said the purpose of Tuesday's meeting with other opposition parties was to agree on a plan for when parliament returns. He said options included passing a law to force the government to seek a delay to Britain’s EU departure or trying to force the government's collapse in a no-confidence vote. The anti-Brexit Liberal Democrat Party, the Scottish National Party, the Welsh nationalist Plaid Cymru and a group of independent lawmakers are due to attend the discussion. But there are continuing splits about tactics. Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson has said Corbyn should drop the idea of trying to become a caretaker prime minister if parliament forces the government's collapse. "I think we are less likely to win that vote of no confidence if there is the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister," she told Sky News. Parliament usually sits for only two weeks at the start of September before breaking while the parties hold their annual conferences. Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly said the meeting of opposition parties "isn’t about stopping a no-deal Brexit. It’s about stopping Brexit". "People can see that, and it adds to the cynical view that millions of voters have towards politics and politicians."

Britain's Corbyn 'will do everything necessary' to stop no-deal Brexit

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has ruled out talks with the US. Watch this video to know more.

Hassan Rouhani rules out talks with US

China is willing to resolve its trade dispute with the United States through "calm" negotiations and resolutely opposes the escalation of the conflict, Vice Premier Liu He, who has been leading the talks with Washington, said on Monday.

China is willing to resolve its trade dispute with the United States through "calm" negotiations and resolutely opposes the escalation of the conflict, Vice Premier Liu He, who has been leading the talks with Washington, said on Monday. The increasingly bitter trade war between the world's two largest economies sharply escalated on Friday, with both sides levelling more tariffs on each other's exports. US President Donald Trump announced an additional duty on some $550 billion of targeted Chinese goods on Friday, hours after China unveiled retaliatory tariffs on $75 billion worth of US goods. However, Trump appeared on Sunday to back off on his threat to order US companies out of China. Liu, speaking at a tech conference in southwest China's Chongqing, said nobody benefited from a trade war. "We are willing to resolve the issue through consultations and cooperation in a calm attitude and resolutely oppose the escalation of the trade war," Liu, who is President Xi Jinping's top economic adviser, said, according to a government transcript. "We believe that the escalation of the trade war is not beneficial for China, the United States, nor to the interests of the people of the world," he added. US companies are especially welcome in China, and will be treated well, Liu said. "We welcome enterprises from all over the world, including the United States, to invest and operate in China," he added. "We will continue to create a good investment environment, protect intellectual property rights, promote the development of smart intelligent industries with our market open, resolutely oppose technological blockades and protectionism, and strive to protect the completeness of the supply chain." It was not clear exactly how Trump could get US companies to leave China. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Trump could order companies out of China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act if he declared a national emergency. The trade war has damaged global growth, upset allies, and raised market fears that the world economy will tip into a recession. Global stock markets reeled on Monday after the latest measures, while China's yuan currency fell to a fresh 11-year low. Investors streamed into the safe harbours of sovereign bonds and gold. Chinese state media on Monday blasted the United States. The official China Daily said in an editorial that Washington would "never be allowed to control China's fate". "It has become unquestionably clear that his administration's tariff war against China is politically motivated. What Washington wants from its largest trade partner is for it to be content to play second fiddle and meekly do as it demands," the English-language paper wrote in an editorial. "Washington has again taken the initiative to escalate the fight in the hope that Beijing will throw in the sponge as early as possible. But Beijing regards the trade war as an unavoidable trial by fire, from which the country will emerge stronger." The Global Times, a widely-read tabloid published by the ruling Communist Party's official People's Daily, said leaving the Chinese market would be "suicide" for US companies, especially for auto firms. "US companies are welcome to invest and operate in the Chinese market, but if some US companies want to obey Trump's order and join Washington's trade war, the result is bleak. A decision to give up the Chinese market is just suicide," the paper said in its editorial.

China says wants 'calm' resolution to US trade war

The US reveals that it has tested a new cruise missile reviving fears of a new arms race.

WION Gravitas: Has US kicked off a new arms race?

As US&nbsp;and Taliban negotiators push to wrap up talks aimed at securing the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan, disagreement remains about whether a pact will mean an end to the insurgents' fight with the US-backed Afghan government.

US and Taliban officials have been negotiating in Qatar since last year on an agreement centred on the withdrawal of US forces, and an end to their longest-ever war, in exchange for a Taliban guarantee that international militant groups will not plot from Afghan soil.

US negotiators have been pressing the Taliban to agree to peace talks with the Kabul government and to a ceasefire, but a senior Taliban official said that would not happen.

"We will continue our fight against the Afghan government and seize power by force," said the Taliban commander on condition of anonymity.

US&nbsp;President Donald Trump is impatient to get US&nbsp;forces out of Afghanistan and end the 18-year war that was launched after September&nbsp;11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

Watch: US-Taliban peace talks - Trump flags progress

<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="https://www.wionews.com/videos/us-taliban-peace-talks-trump-flags-progress-240483/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

But there are fears among Afghan officials and US national security aides that a US troop withdrawal could see Afghanistan plunged into a new round of civil war that could herald a return of Taliban rule and international militants, including Islamic State, finding a refuge.

Another Taliban commander, who also declined to be identified, said a deal was expected to be signed this week under which US forces, which provide all-important air support to Afghan troops, will stop attacking the Taliban and the militants would end their fight against the US troops.

Under the pact, the United States would also cease supporting the Afghan government, the Taliban officials said.

"The Americans will not come to the assistance of the Afghan government and its forces in their fight against us," the first Taliban official said.

Zalmay Khalilzad, the veteran Afghan-American diplomat who has been leading negotiations on the US side, however, rejected the suggestion that US forces would no longer support the Kabul government, saying "no one should be intimidated or fooled by propaganda".

"Let me be clear: We will defend Afghan forces now and after any agreement with the Talibs," he wrote on Twitter in reaction to the Reuters report. He added that

"All sides agree Afghanistan's future will be determined in intra-Afghan negotiations," he said.

The disagreement highlights one of the most sensitive issues surrounding the US-Taliban talks - a resentment among many in the Afghan government that they have been sidelined from talks that will decide the future of their country.

It also raises a question over whether the Taliban leadership will be able to impose any peace agreement on field commanders who may be reluctant to give up fighting when they feel on the brink of victory.

The Taliban, fighting to expel foreign forces and re-establish a theocratic Islamic state since their ouster in October 2001, has refused to talk to the government, denouncing it as a US puppet although they have raised the possibility of negotiations after the deal on the US withdrawal is struck.

'Separate agreement'

The militants now control more territory than they have since 2001 and the war has ground into a stalemate with casualties rising among civilians as well as combatants.

Some 14,000 US troops remain in Afghanistan, training and advising Afghan forces and conducting counterinsurgency operations.

About 17,000 troops from NATO allies and partners make up a NATO-led train, advise, assist mission called Resolute Support in Afghanistan. Out of those, about 8,000 are from the United States with the others from other NATO members and partners.

The Taliban are demanding the withdrawal of all foreign forces.

In a statement on Monday, the hardline Islamist group accused Salaam, a telecoms company owned by the Afghan government, of spying and warned it would treat its officers, employees and installations as military targets.

In June, the Taliban gave Afghan media a week to cease airing anti-Taliban announcements paid for by the government.

There has been no let-up in the fighting over the past year despite the talks. The United States had not stopped conducting airstrikes and helping Afghan forces to destroy camps run by the Taliban and Islamic State fighters, a US official said.

At least 3,812 civilians were killed or wounded in the first half of 2019 in the war against militant groups, including a big increase in the number of casualties caused by government and foreign forces, the United Nations said in July.

Two diplomatic sources with knowledge of the ninth round of talks in Qatar said they expected an agreement to be finalised this week, enabling the US to pull out about half its forces.

An end to the fighting between the Taliban and Afghan government forces would have to be negotiated separately, they said.

"A ceasefire between the Afghan forces and the Taliban requires a separate agreement and deliberations are yet to begin," said one diplomat who has monitored the Qatar talks.

"The US-Taliban agreement will stop the US from conducting airstrikes on the Taliban, and the Taliban will stop insider attacks on the US&nbsp;and other foreign soldiers," the diplomat said.

One Western diplomat said preparations were being made for talks between the rival Afghan sides in Norway. A group of at least 30 Afghans had been identified by the government and its allies to talk to the Taliban.

Suhail Shaheen, a spokesman for the Taliban political office in Doha, said negotiations had gone on late into Sunday.

The two sides would meet again later on Monday after internal talks in the morning, Shaheen said.

"Our meeting with the US team will resume in the early evening," he said.

Most issues had been resolved but a formal agreement had yet to be concluded, he said. 
&nbsp;

As US and Taliban negotiators push to wrap up talks aimed at securing the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan, disagreement remains about whether a pact will mean an end to the insurgents' fight with the US-backed Afghan government.

As US and Taliban negotiators push to wrap up talks aimed at securing the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan, disagreement remains about whether a pact will mean an end to the insurgents' fight with the US-backed Afghan government. US and Taliban officials have been negotiating in Qatar since last year on an agreement centred on the withdrawal of US forces, and an end to their longest-ever war, in exchange for a Taliban guarantee that international militant groups will not plot from Afghan soil. US negotiators have been pressing the Taliban to agree to peace talks with the Kabul government and to a ceasefire, but a senior Taliban official said that would not happen. "We will continue our fight against the Afghan government and seize power by force," said the Taliban commander on condition of anonymity. US President Donald Trump is impatient to get US forces out of Afghanistan and end the 18-year war that was launched after September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Watch: US-Taliban peace talks - Trump flags progress × But there are fears among Afghan officials and US national security aides that a US troop withdrawal could see Afghanistan plunged into a new round of civil war that could herald a return of Taliban rule and international militants, including Islamic State, finding a refuge. Another Taliban commander, who also declined to be identified, said a deal was expected to be signed this week under which US forces, which provide all-important air support to Afghan troops, will stop attacking the Taliban and the militants would end their fight against the US troops. Under the pact, the United States would also cease supporting the Afghan government, the Taliban officials said. "The Americans will not come to the assistance of the Afghan government and its forces in their fight against us," the first Taliban official said. Zalmay Khalilzad, the veteran Afghan-American diplomat who has been leading negotiations on the US side, however, rejected the suggestion that US forces would no longer support the Kabul government, saying "no one should be intimidated or fooled by propaganda". "Let me be clear: We will defend Afghan forces now and after any agreement with the Talibs," he wrote on Twitter in reaction to the Reuters report. He added that "All sides agree Afghanistan's future will be determined in intra-Afghan negotiations," he said. The disagreement highlights one of the most sensitive issues surrounding the US-Taliban talks - a resentment among many in the Afghan government that they have been sidelined from talks that will decide the future of their country. It also raises a question over whether the Taliban leadership will be able to impose any peace agreement on field commanders who may be reluctant to give up fighting when they feel on the brink of victory. The Taliban, fighting to expel foreign forces and re-establish a theocratic Islamic state since their ouster in October 2001, has refused to talk to the government, denouncing it as a US puppet although they have raised the possibility of negotiations after the deal on the US withdrawal is struck. 'Separate agreement' The militants now control more territory than they have since 2001 and the war has ground into a stalemate with casualties rising among civilians as well as combatants. Some 14,000 US troops remain in Afghanistan, training and advising Afghan forces and conducting counterinsurgency operations. About 17,000 troops from NATO allies and partners make up a NATO-led train, advise, assist mission called Resolute Support in Afghanistan. Out of those, about 8,000 are from the United States with the others from other NATO members and partners. The Taliban are demanding the withdrawal of all foreign forces. In a statement on Monday, the hardline Islamist group accused Salaam, a telecoms company owned by the Afghan government, of spying and warned it would treat its officers, employees and installations as military targets. In June, the Taliban gave Afghan media a week to cease airing anti-Taliban announcements paid for by the government. There has been no let-up in the fighting over the past year despite the talks. The United States had not stopped conducting airstrikes and helping Afghan forces to destroy camps run by the Taliban and Islamic State fighters, a US official said. At least 3,812 civilians were killed or wounded in the first half of 2019 in the war against militant groups, including a big increase in the number of casualties caused by government and foreign forces, the United Nations said in July. Two diplomatic sources with knowledge of the ninth round of talks in Qatar said they expected an agreement to be finalised this week, enabling the US to pull out about half its forces. An end to the fighting between the Taliban and Afghan government forces would have to be negotiated separately, they said. "A ceasefire between the Afghan forces and the Taliban requires a separate agreement and deliberations are yet to begin," said one diplomat who has monitored the Qatar talks. "The US-Taliban agreement will stop the US from conducting airstrikes on the Taliban, and the Taliban will stop insider attacks on the US and other foreign soldiers," the diplomat said. One Western diplomat said preparations were being made for talks between the rival Afghan sides in Norway. A group of at least 30 Afghans had been identified by the government and its allies to talk to the Taliban. Suhail Shaheen, a spokesman for the Taliban political office in Doha, said negotiations had gone on late into Sunday. The two sides would meet again later on Monday after internal talks in the morning, Shaheen said. "Our meeting with the US team will resume in the early evening," he said. Most issues had been resolved but a formal agreement had yet to be concluded, he said.

US, Taliban deal will not stop attacks on Afghan forces, some Taliban say

US electric vehicle maker <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/tesla-drops-cheapest-model-x-s-variants-cuts-prices-to-simplify-lineup-236346">Tesla Inc</a> will raise prices in China on Friday, earlier than planned, and is considering increasing prices again in December should Chinese tariffs on US-made cars take effect, people familiar with the matter said.

The people declined to be identified as the plan has not been made public.

A Tesla representative did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for comment on Monday.

The company is among many impacted by Sino-US trade friction.

It currently imports all the cars it sells in China and has had to adjust prices multiple times over the past year due to tariff changes.

Reuters reported this month that Tesla was considering to lift prices in China from September after the yuan weakened significantly against the US dollar.

One person told Reuters on Monday that the automaker was bringing forward these plans to August 30.

Both people said the automaker is now also mulling another price hike in December after China's commerce ministry last week announced it would reinstitute tariffs of 25 per cent on vehicles and 5 per cent on auto parts which it suspended in December, in the latest tit-for-tat escalation of the trade war.

"Tesla will also try to ship more cars to China before December, before the tariff hikes," said one of the people.

US electric vehicle maker Tesla Inc will raise prices in China on Friday, earlier than planned, and is considering increasing prices again in December should Chinese tariffs on US-made cars take effect, people familiar with the matter said.

US electric vehicle maker Tesla Inc will raise prices in China on Friday, earlier than planned, and is considering increasing prices again in December should Chinese tariffs on US-made cars take effect, people familiar with the matter said. The people declined to be identified as the plan has not been made public. A Tesla representative did not immediately respond to Reuters' request for comment on Monday. The company is among many impacted by Sino-US trade friction. It currently imports all the cars it sells in China and has had to adjust prices multiple times over the past year due to tariff changes. Reuters reported this month that Tesla was considering to lift prices in China from September after the yuan weakened significantly against the US dollar. One person told Reuters on Monday that the automaker was bringing forward these plans to August 30. Both people said the automaker is now also mulling another price hike in December after China's commerce ministry last week announced it would reinstitute tariffs of 25 per cent on vehicles and 5 per cent on auto parts which it suspended in December, in the latest tit-for-tat escalation of the trade war. "Tesla will also try to ship more cars to China before December, before the tariff hikes," said one of the people.

Tesla to raise prices in China on August 30, may increase again in December: Report

Saudi Arabia's planned awarding of mandates for the management of an initial public offering (IPO) by its national oil company Aramco is likely to serve as a bell-weather for how Riyadh balances its relations with the United States and China.

In an early indication that Western financial institutions like Goldman Sachs may be losing their near-monopoly, Saudi Arabia this week invited China’s biggest state-owned banks, Industrial &amp; Commercial Bank of China Ltd (ICBC) and Bank of China Limited to pitch alongside the major US, European and other Asian underwriters for the mandate of what is expected to be the largest listing ever.

Analysts took the invitation to Chinese institutions as a sign that Saudi Arabia was considering Hong Kong in addition to London, New York and Tokyo as possible exchanges on which to list the five per cent stake in Aramco that would be on offer.

ICBC, the world’s largest lender by assets, is the only major Chinese state-owned bank to have a commercial banking presence in the kingdom. Bank of China’s London branch was a co-manager on Aramco’s $12 billion bond sale in April.

The invitation to the two Chinese banks came as US investment bank and financial services giant Goldman Sachs was believed to have significantly enhanced its chances as the result of a sustained high-level lobbying effort.

Goldman had failed to secure a prominent role in 2017 when Aramco initially nominated major Western firms to manage the IPO. The offering was ultimately postponed after Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman failed to persuade the market to adopt his $2 trillion valuation of Aramco.

The success of the bond sale, months after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, that attracted more than $100 billion of investor orders persuaded Prince Mohammed that he might be able to pull off the Aramco offering. Goldman Sachs was the bond’s bookrunner.

Chinese state-owned oil companies PetroChina and Sinopec offered to buy the stake when the kingdom first announced that it wanted to sell five per cent of Aramco in the hope of raising $100 billion.

The sovereign funds of Russia, Japan and South Korea also signalled an interest in becoming cornerstone investors.

Granting a Chinese bank a leading role in the IPO would further cement the kingdom’s pivot towards Asia.

It would undermine Saudi Arabia’s ever-greater economic interdependence with Asia that it needs to balance with its increasingly uncertain security relationship with the United States and Europe and reliance on Washington in its struggle against Iran.

The kingdom’s relations with its onetime main ally have changed as the United States becomes less dependent on energy imports on the back of shale oil and renewables.

On the flip side, Saudi Arabia last year accounted for some 12 per cent of Chinese oil imports and its share has since almost doubled. The US-China trade war has prompted Chinese buyers to reduce oil purchases from the United States and look elsewhere.

China and Saudi Arabia earlier this year inked deals worth $28 billion, including a Saudi commitment to build a $10 billion petrochemical complex in China that will refine and process Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia has also invested in energy assets in the United States.

Talk of Saudi energy investments in China first emerged two years ago at the time that a possible direct Chinese investment in Aramco was being touted.

Meanwhile, Saudi relations with the US are troubled by a growing sense that the United States will over time reduce its security commitment to the Gulf and mounting questioning in the US Congress of the alliance with the kingdom as a result of its disastrous four-year-long war in Yemen and the killing of Khashoggi.

Some analysts suggest that the kingdom’s revival of the prospects of an Aramco IPO is a political ploy rather than a serious effort to sell a stake in an asset that generates the bulk of the state’s revenue. The revival coincided with Saudi plans to accelerate privatisation of other state assets.

The IPO “is wheeled out to investors the same way an ailing, elderly Arab ruler is put on display — to remind subjects of the immense power of patronage, and the threat of retribution for disloyalty. But it is also sad and tiresome, a farce that everyone knows is a representation of the past and not where things are headed. The Aramco IPO has become a regular reminder to those in the finance world who depend on the Saudi government for fees, for access to deals and for that slim possibility that the offering goes through. The message is clear — stay loyal, just in case,” said Gulf scholar Karen Young, writing in Al-Monitor.

Young argued that Aramco’s ambition to diversify into refining, gas and petrochemicals neatly aligns itself with Prince Mohammed’s effort to diversify and streamline the Saudi economy. She notes that expanding the company’s shareholder base could complicate the oil company’s ability to execute its plans.

Said Young: “Any discussion of the Aramco IPO always ends on the same note. It is a political decision, which the company will have to be prepared to accept. Oil prices are not helping, as they continue to be depressed, despite rising political tensions in the Persian Gulf. If the government wants to keep its Aramco prize and be able to use its energy resources to wield political influence, it is better off making a deal with China to buy a small stake in the company.”

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Saudi Arabia's planned awarding of mandates for the management of an initial public offering (IPO) by its national oil company Aramco is likely to serve as a bell-weather for how Riyadh balances its relations with the United States and China.

Saudi Arabia's planned awarding of mandates for the management of an initial public offering (IPO) by its national oil company Aramco is likely to serve as a bell-weather for how Riyadh balances its relations with the United States and China. In an early indication that Western financial institutions like Goldman Sachs may be losing their near-monopoly, Saudi Arabia this week invited China’s biggest state-owned banks, Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd (ICBC) and Bank of China Limited to pitch alongside the major US, European and other Asian underwriters for the mandate of what is expected to be the largest listing ever. Analysts took the invitation to Chinese institutions as a sign that Saudi Arabia was considering Hong Kong in addition to London, New York and Tokyo as possible exchanges on which to list the five per cent stake in Aramco that would be on offer. ICBC, the world’s largest lender by assets, is the only major Chinese state-owned bank to have a commercial banking presence in the kingdom. Bank of China’s London branch was a co-manager on Aramco’s $12 billion bond sale in April. The invitation to the two Chinese banks came as US investment bank and financial services giant Goldman Sachs was believed to have significantly enhanced its chances as the result of a sustained high-level lobbying effort. Goldman had failed to secure a prominent role in 2017 when Aramco initially nominated major Western firms to manage the IPO. The offering was ultimately postponed after Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman failed to persuade the market to adopt his $2 trillion valuation of Aramco. The success of the bond sale, months after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, that attracted more than $100 billion of investor orders persuaded Prince Mohammed that he might be able to pull off the Aramco offering. Goldman Sachs was the bond’s bookrunner. Chinese state-owned oil companies PetroChina and Sinopec offered to buy the stake when the kingdom first announced that it wanted to sell five per cent of Aramco in the hope of raising $100 billion. The sovereign funds of Russia, Japan and South Korea also signalled an interest in becoming cornerstone investors. Granting a Chinese bank a leading role in the IPO would further cement the kingdom’s pivot towards Asia. It would undermine Saudi Arabia’s ever-greater economic interdependence with Asia that it needs to balance with its increasingly uncertain security relationship with the United States and Europe and reliance on Washington in its struggle against Iran. The kingdom’s relations with its onetime main ally have changed as the United States becomes less dependent on energy imports on the back of shale oil and renewables. On the flip side, Saudi Arabia last year accounted for some 12 per cent of Chinese oil imports and its share has since almost doubled. The US-China trade war has prompted Chinese buyers to reduce oil purchases from the United States and look elsewhere. China and Saudi Arabia earlier this year inked deals worth $28 billion, including a Saudi commitment to build a $10 billion petrochemical complex in China that will refine and process Saudi oil. Saudi Arabia has also invested in energy assets in the United States. Talk of Saudi energy investments in China first emerged two years ago at the time that a possible direct Chinese investment in Aramco was being touted. Meanwhile, Saudi relations with the US are troubled by a growing sense that the United States will over time reduce its security commitment to the Gulf and mounting questioning in the US Congress of the alliance with the kingdom as a result of its disastrous four-year-long war in Yemen and the killing of Khashoggi. Some analysts suggest that the kingdom’s revival of the prospects of an Aramco IPO is a political ploy rather than a serious effort to sell a stake in an asset that generates the bulk of the state’s revenue. The revival coincided with Saudi plans to accelerate privatisation of other state assets. The IPO “is wheeled out to investors the same way an ailing, elderly Arab ruler is put on display — to remind subjects of the immense power of patronage, and the threat of retribution for disloyalty. But it is also sad and tiresome, a farce that everyone knows is a representation of the past and not where things are headed. The Aramco IPO has become a regular reminder to those in the finance world who depend on the Saudi government for fees, for access to deals and for that slim possibility that the offering goes through. The message is clear — stay loyal, just in case,” said Gulf scholar Karen Young, writing in Al-Monitor. Young argued that Aramco’s ambition to diversify into refining, gas and petrochemicals neatly aligns itself with Prince Mohammed’s effort to diversify and streamline the Saudi economy. She notes that expanding the company’s shareholder base could complicate the oil company’s ability to execute its plans. Said Young: “Any discussion of the Aramco IPO always ends on the same note. It is a political decision, which the company will have to be prepared to accept. Oil prices are not helping, as they continue to be depressed, despite rising political tensions in the Persian Gulf. If the government wants to keep its Aramco prize and be able to use its energy resources to wield political influence, it is better off making a deal with China to buy a small stake in the company.” (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Aramco IPO: Saudi Arabia caught between United States and China

Opponents of a&nbsp;new&nbsp;law&nbsp;in&nbsp;Missouri&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/missouris-sole-abortion-clinic-awaits-ruling-on-whether-it-can-stay-open-231189">restricting most&nbsp;abortions</a> after eight weeks of pregnancy will ask a federal judge on Monday to stop the&nbsp;law&nbsp;from taking effect this week.

Abortion&nbsp;rights&nbsp;groups&nbsp;Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal&nbsp;lawsuit in July and want a judge to put the&nbsp;law&nbsp;on hold until their legal challenge is heard in&nbsp;court.

The&nbsp;new&nbsp;law, signed by Republican Governor Mike Parson in May and set to take effect on Wednesday, allows for an&nbsp;abortion&nbsp;after the eighth week only in the case of medical emergencies and does not exempt victims of rape or incest.

The&nbsp;law&nbsp;is one of the most restrictive in the United States and activists say it effectively forbids most&nbsp;abortions since many women do not know they are pregnant yet at eight weeks.

The 31-page complaint filed in the&nbsp;US District&nbsp;Court&nbsp;for the Western District of&nbsp;Missouri&nbsp;contends that the legislation is unconstitutional.

"Without this relief, the bans will have a devastating effect on patients seeking access to&nbsp;abortion&nbsp;in the state,"&nbsp;lawyers wrote in the complaint. 
In a perennially divisive moral and political&nbsp;fight, similar&nbsp;laws have been proposed in more than a dozen other&nbsp;US states as Republican-controlled legislatures flex their muscles.

Efforts to roll back Roe v. Wade, the&nbsp;US Supreme&nbsp;Court&nbsp;decision legalizing&nbsp;abortion&nbsp;in 1973, have been emboldened by two appointments by President Donald Trump giving conservatives a solid majority on the&nbsp;court.

Parson said in May the&nbsp;new&nbsp;law&nbsp;would make&nbsp;Missouri&nbsp;"one of the strongest pro-life states in the country."

The plaintiffs in the&nbsp;Missouri&nbsp;complaint said the&nbsp;law&nbsp;conflicts with more than four decades of binding precedent, would prohibit "the vast majority of pre-viability&nbsp;abortions", and denied patients healthcare they were entitled to.

Currently, the state&nbsp;law&nbsp;allows&nbsp;abortions up until 22 weeks of pregnancy.

Attorneys for the governor's office, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood were not available for comment early on Monday.

Opponents of a new law in Missouri restricting most abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy will ask a federal judge on Monday to stop the law from taking effect this week.

Opponents of a new law in Missouri restricting most abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy will ask a federal judge on Monday to stop the law from taking effect this week. Abortion rights groups Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit in July and want a judge to put the law on hold until their legal challenge is heard in court. The new law, signed by Republican Governor Mike Parson in May and set to take effect on Wednesday, allows for an abortion after the eighth week only in the case of medical emergencies and does not exempt victims of rape or incest. The law is one of the most restrictive in the United States and activists say it effectively forbids most abortions since many women do not know they are pregnant yet at eight weeks. The 31-page complaint filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Missouri contends that the legislation is unconstitutional. "Without this relief, the bans will have a devastating effect on patients seeking access to abortion in the state," lawyers wrote in the complaint. In a perennially divisive moral and political fight, similar laws have been proposed in more than a dozen other US states as Republican-controlled legislatures flex their muscles. Efforts to roll back Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in 1973, have been emboldened by two appointments by President Donald Trump giving conservatives a solid majority on the court. Parson said in May the new law would make Missouri "one of the strongest pro-life states in the country." The plaintiffs in the Missouri complaint said the law conflicts with more than four decades of binding precedent, would prohibit "the vast majority of pre-viability abortions", and denied patients healthcare they were entitled to. Currently, the state law allows abortions up until 22 weeks of pregnancy. Attorneys for the governor's office, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood were not available for comment early on Monday.

US abortion rights groups fight new Missouri law in court

us-1

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

us 1