Leaders of the Group of Seven wealthy nations will discuss global trade woes at their annual summit on Sunday, likely laying bare a yawning divide between <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-us-would-tax-french-wine-in-response-to-digital-tax-245250">US President Donald Trump and his Western allies</a>.

The G7 gathering is taking place against a backdrop of growing worries about a global economic downturn and coincides with an era of international disunity across an array of issues that have strained decades-old allegiances.

Trump joined the leaders from France, Britain, Japan, Germany, Italy and Canada in the French coastal resort of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/french-police-fire-tear-gas-water-cannons-at-anti-g7-protesters-245391">Biarritz</a> for three days of talks that kicked off on Saturday with an ambitious agenda that includes the defence of democracy, gender equality, education and climate change.

The delegations had barely arrived before divergences were exposed, with senior US officials accusing the host, French President Emmanuel Macron, of looking "to fracture the G7" by focusing on "niche issues" rather than major global concerns.

France denied this, pointing to Sunday's initial session covering the economy, trade and security - areas that used to draw easy consensus but are now sources of great friction.

Trump arrived in France just hours after escalating his trade war with China in a tit-for-tat battle between the world's two largest economies that has spooked financial markets.

"I am very worried about the way it's going, the growth of protectionism, of tariffs that we're seeing," British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Saturday.

"Those who support the tariffs are at risk of incurring the blame for the downturn in the global economy, irrespective of whether or not that is true."

Underlining the discord, Trump also threatened his host on the eve of the summit, saying the United States would tax French wine "like they've never seen before" unless Paris dropped a digital tax on US technology companies.

Leaping into the fray, European Council President Donald Tusk, who takes part in the G7 discussions, warned the EU would respond "in kind" if Trump acted on his threat.

"This may be the last moment to restore our political community," Tusk told reporters on Saturday, giving a bleak assessment of Western relations.

Looking to broaden the scope of the debate, Macron has invited several African leaders to discuss the problems facing their continent, while leaders from India, Australia, Chile and Spain are due to attend a dinner on Sunday where the focus will be on the environment among other issues.

Brexit squabbles

Trump up-ended last year's G7 summit in Canada, walking out of the meeting early and disassociating himself from the final communique having initially endorsed the document.

France has got around that problem by doing away with the time-honoured communique, deciding it was not worth even trying to find common language.

While the transatlantic rift is the most stark, there are also deep divisions within the European camp, with Johnson making his G7 debut at a time when he is struggling to persuade EU capitals to renegotiate Britain's divorce from the bloc.

Johnson and Tusk, who are due to talk on Sunday on the sidelines of the summit, sparred ahead of the meeting over who would take the blame if Britain leaves the EU on October 31 without a Brexit agreement acceptable to both sides.

"I still hope that PM Johnson will not like to go down in history as Mr No Deal," said Tusk, who leads the political direction of the 28-nation European Union.

Johnson later retorted that it would be Tusk himself who would carry the mantle if Britain could not secure a new withdrawal agreement.

Macron added to the internal EU strains by unexpectedly threatening on Friday to block an EU trade deal with a group of South American states over Brazil's handling of fires that are ravaging the Amazon rainforest.

Germany and Britain both voiced deep concern about the blazes, but disagreed with Macron on how to respond, saying shooting down the ambitious Mercosur trade accord would not help save the Amazon.

Leaders of the Group of Seven wealthy nations will discuss global trade woes at their annual summit on Sunday, likely laying bare a yawning divide between US President Donald Trump and his Western allies.

Leaders of the Group of Seven wealthy nations will discuss global trade woes at their annual summit on Sunday, likely laying bare a yawning divide between US President Donald Trump and his Western allies. The G7 gathering is taking place against a backdrop of growing worries about a global economic downturn and coincides with an era of international disunity across an array of issues that have strained decades-old allegiances. Trump joined the leaders from France, Britain, Japan, Germany, Italy and Canada in the French coastal resort of Biarritz for three days of talks that kicked off on Saturday with an ambitious agenda that includes the defence of democracy, gender equality, education and climate change. The delegations had barely arrived before divergences were exposed, with senior US officials accusing the host, French President Emmanuel Macron, of looking "to fracture the G7" by focusing on "niche issues" rather than major global concerns. France denied this, pointing to Sunday's initial session covering the economy, trade and security - areas that used to draw easy consensus but are now sources of great friction. Trump arrived in France just hours after escalating his trade war with China in a tit-for-tat battle between the world's two largest economies that has spooked financial markets. "I am very worried about the way it's going, the growth of protectionism, of tariffs that we're seeing," British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Saturday. "Those who support the tariffs are at risk of incurring the blame for the downturn in the global economy, irrespective of whether or not that is true." Underlining the discord, Trump also threatened his host on the eve of the summit, saying the United States would tax French wine "like they've never seen before" unless Paris dropped a digital tax on US technology companies. Leaping into the fray, European Council President Donald Tusk, who takes part in the G7 discussions, warned the EU would respond "in kind" if Trump acted on his threat. "This may be the last moment to restore our political community," Tusk told reporters on Saturday, giving a bleak assessment of Western relations. Looking to broaden the scope of the debate, Macron has invited several African leaders to discuss the problems facing their continent, while leaders from India, Australia, Chile and Spain are due to attend a dinner on Sunday where the focus will be on the environment among other issues. Brexit squabbles Trump up-ended last year's G7 summit in Canada, walking out of the meeting early and disassociating himself from the final communique having initially endorsed the document. France has got around that problem by doing away with the time-honoured communique, deciding it was not worth even trying to find common language. While the transatlantic rift is the most stark, there are also deep divisions within the European camp, with Johnson making his G7 debut at a time when he is struggling to persuade EU capitals to renegotiate Britain's divorce from the bloc. Johnson and Tusk, who are due to talk on Sunday on the sidelines of the summit, sparred ahead of the meeting over who would take the blame if Britain leaves the EU on October 31 without a Brexit agreement acceptable to both sides. "I still hope that PM Johnson will not like to go down in history as Mr No Deal," said Tusk, who leads the political direction of the 28-nation European Union. Johnson later retorted that it would be Tusk himself who would carry the mantle if Britain could not secure a new withdrawal agreement. Macron added to the internal EU strains by unexpectedly threatening on Friday to block an EU trade deal with a group of South American states over Brazil's handling of fires that are ravaging the Amazon rainforest. Germany and Britain both voiced deep concern about the blazes, but disagreed with Macron on how to respond, saying shooting down the ambitious Mercosur trade accord would not help save the Amazon.

Trade and economy in focus as G7 leaders get down to work

Several hundred anti-G7 protesters staged an unusual protest in southwestern France on Sunday, holding "stolen" portraits of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/frances-macron-says-real-ecocide-going-on-in-amazon-245341">French President Emmanuel Macron</a> which were held upside down in a pointed critique on his policies.&nbsp;

Demonstrators at the so-called "portrait march" were carrying official portraits of the 41-year-old French leader which had been taken down from town halls across the country over the last few months.

The climate and social justice march were organised by environmental activist group ANV COP 21, as well as two Basque groups Alternatiba et Bizi all of whom were marching under a slogan which pledged to "take down Macron".&nbsp;

"One, two, three degrees, it's a crime against humanity!" they chanted as they marched through the narrow streets of Bayonne near the southwestern French resort of Biarritz where <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-paints-picture-of-unity-at-prickly-g7-summit-245475">world leaders are gathering for the G7 summit</a>.

"We are holding him upside down to show the lack of sense in his policies," explained a Bizi activist called Mathieu.

Others also carried what appeared to be portraits wrapped up in bags or newspaper on which was written in French, English, Spanish and Basque: "Climate, social justice: where is Macron?"

"Taking down a portrait is civil disobedience, it's considered as theft" in some parts of France, said another demonstrator called Abram.

When the summit opened on Saturday, more than 9,000 protesters joined a peaceful anti-G7 march across a bridge linking France and Spain, police said, with organisers giving a figure of 15,000 marchers.&nbsp;

But later in the day, things heated up with police using tear gas and water cannon to break up protests in Bayonne, where hundreds chanted anti-capitalist slogans were blocked from reaching the city centre.

By Saturday evening, 68 people had been arrested, 38 of whom were taken into custody, officials said, without giving further details.&nbsp;

Anti-capitalist activists, environmentalists, and other anti-globalisation groups have since Monday been flocking to a counter-summit in nearby Hendaye, close to the Spanish border, which has largely been peaceful.&nbsp;

Biarritz is a popular tourist destination that would normally be basking in its annual summer boom, but with US President Donald Trump and other world leaders flying in for three days of talks, the resort was in lockdown.

France has deployed more than 13,000 police and gendarmes to secure the event amid fears of disturbances by radical anti-capitalist groups, anarchists or the yellow vest protesters. 
&nbsp;

Several hundred anti-G7 protesters staged an unusual protest in southwestern France on Sunday, holding "stolen" portraits of French President Emmanuel Macron which were held upside down in a pointed critique on his policies.

Several hundred anti-G7 protesters staged an unusual protest in southwestern France on Sunday, holding "stolen" portraits of French President Emmanuel Macron which were held upside down in a pointed critique on his policies. Demonstrators at the so-called "portrait march" were carrying official portraits of the 41-year-old French leader which had been taken down from town halls across the country over the last few months. The climate and social justice march were organised by environmental activist group ANV COP 21, as well as two Basque groups Alternatiba et Bizi all of whom were marching under a slogan which pledged to "take down Macron". "One, two, three degrees, it's a crime against humanity!" they chanted as they marched through the narrow streets of Bayonne near the southwestern French resort of Biarritz where world leaders are gathering for the G7 summit. "We are holding him upside down to show the lack of sense in his policies," explained a Bizi activist called Mathieu. Others also carried what appeared to be portraits wrapped up in bags or newspaper on which was written in French, English, Spanish and Basque: "Climate, social justice: where is Macron?" "Taking down a portrait is civil disobedience, it's considered as theft" in some parts of France, said another demonstrator called Abram. When the summit opened on Saturday, more than 9,000 protesters joined a peaceful anti-G7 march across a bridge linking France and Spain, police said, with organisers giving a figure of 15,000 marchers. But later in the day, things heated up with police using tear gas and water cannon to break up protests in Bayonne, where hundreds chanted anti-capitalist slogans were blocked from reaching the city centre. By Saturday evening, 68 people had been arrested, 38 of whom were taken into custody, officials said, without giving further details. Anti-capitalist activists, environmentalists, and other anti-globalisation groups have since Monday been flocking to a counter-summit in nearby Hendaye, close to the Spanish border, which has largely been peaceful. Biarritz is a popular tourist destination that would normally be basking in its annual summer boom, but with US President Donald Trump and other world leaders flying in for three days of talks, the resort was in lockdown. France has deployed more than 13,000 police and gendarmes to secure the event amid fears of disturbances by radical anti-capitalist groups, anarchists or the yellow vest protesters.

Anti-G7 activists march with 'stolen' Emmanuel Macron portraits

Iran has blacklisted US-based think-tank the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and its chief Mark Dubowitz on accusations of being behind "economic terrorism" against the Islamic republic.

The<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/irans-javad-zarif-heading-to-asia-in-push-against-us-sanctions-245310"> Iranian foreign ministry</a> said in a statement issued late Saturday that it had "added the so-called Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD) and its director to the sanctions list".

"The American institution with the deceitful name" and Dubowitz were accused of being involved in "designing, imposing and intensifying the impacts of economic terrorism against Iran", it said.

The FDD and Dubowitz were blamed for "seriously and actively trying to harm the Iranian people's security and vital interests", according to the English-language statement posted on the ministry's website.

They were accused of doing so through "fabricating and spreading lies, encouraging, providing consultations, lobbying, and launching a smear campaign" against Iran.

As a result, they would be "subject to legal consequences", it said.

The move would be "without prejudice to any further legal measures that the other administrative, judicial or security institutions and organisations may take" against them and their "collaborators and accomplices".

The FDD describes itself as a Washington-based "non-partisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy".

The think-tank responded to Tehran's move with a statement saying,&nbsp;"FDD considers its inclusion on any list put out by the regime as a badge of honour and looks forward to the day when Americans and others can visit a free and democratic Iran".

It strongly opposed the 2015 deal that saw world powers lift sanctions against Iran in return for limits on its nuclear programme.

Tensions between arch-foes Iran and the United States have escalated since President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the accord last year and began reimposing sanctions against the Islamic republic.

Iran has blacklisted US-based think-tank the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and its chief Mark Dubowitz on accusations of being behind "economic terrorism" against the Islamic republic.

Iran has blacklisted US-based think-tank the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and its chief Mark Dubowitz on accusations of being behind "economic terrorism" against the Islamic republic. The Iranian foreign ministry said in a statement issued late Saturday that it had "added the so-called Foundation for Defence of Democracies (FDD) and its director to the sanctions list". "The American institution with the deceitful name" and Dubowitz were accused of being involved in "designing, imposing and intensifying the impacts of economic terrorism against Iran", it said. The FDD and Dubowitz were blamed for "seriously and actively trying to harm the Iranian people's security and vital interests", according to the English-language statement posted on the ministry's website. They were accused of doing so through "fabricating and spreading lies, encouraging, providing consultations, lobbying, and launching a smear campaign" against Iran. As a result, they would be "subject to legal consequences", it said. The move would be "without prejudice to any further legal measures that the other administrative, judicial or security institutions and organisations may take" against them and their "collaborators and accomplices". The FDD describes itself as a Washington-based "non-partisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy". The think-tank responded to Tehran's move with a statement saying, "FDD considers its inclusion on any list put out by the regime as a badge of honour and looks forward to the day when Americans and others can visit a free and democratic Iran". It strongly opposed the 2015 deal that saw world powers lift sanctions against Iran in return for limits on its nuclear programme. Tensions between arch-foes Iran and the United States have escalated since President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the accord last year and began reimposing sanctions against the Islamic republic.

Iran blacklists US-based think-tank: Foreign ministry

There may be little relief on the horizon for investors in US energy companies, whose shares moved from darlings to dismal performers during <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/wall-street-notches-all-time-highs-as-rate-cut-hopes-lift-investor-spirits-235406">Wall Street</a>'s record bull run and now face a shaky global economy, doubts about fossil fuel investments and general market scepticism.

Energy has been the worst-performing of the 11 S&amp;P 500 sectors this year, the worst performer since US President Donald Trump's 2016 election and the worst performer since the US bull stock market began more than a decade ago.

As a result, the S&amp;P 500 energy sector has its lowest weight in the overall S&amp;P 500 since at least 1995, according to Refinitiv Datastream data.&nbsp;

It represents under 5 per cent of the benchmark index, down from over 15 per cent in mid-2008, when oil prices reached historic highs at over $140 a barrel, nearly three times current levels.

But this year, the energy sector has even failed to keep pace with oil prices, despite their traditional tendency to move in the same direction.

The poor returns raised some hope that the sector will soon find a floor that would allow it to rebound, especially those stocks with appealing dividends, but that remains to be seen.&nbsp;

“The view of the sector, in general, has gotten to a point where it's a very difficult space for institutional investors to embrace because it`s been such a chronic underperformer,” said Walter Todd, chief investment officer at Greenwood Capital in South Carolina.

Since the current bull run began in March 2009, the S&amp;P 500, which many investors view as a proxy for the stock market, has soared well over 300 per cent, while the energy sector has climbed 32 per cent.&nbsp;

Oil prices are up relatively little throughout the bull market, which has largely overlapped with a US economic expansion characterized by modest growth and with a boom in shale exploration that helped make the country the world`s top oil producer.

This year, however, US crude prices have climbed over 18 per cent to about $54 a barrel against a 3 per cent drop for the energy sector, although there is a wide disparity in performance among the 28 S&amp;P 500 energy stocks.&nbsp;

“If you look over the last 18 to 24 months, the reason why this space is so frustrating is that when oil rallies, they rally but not nearly to the degree you think that they should," Todd said. "But then when oil comes in, they get crushed.”

Investors have become wary of energy companies in the past out-spending their cash flows and of drilling wells without adequate returns, said Pearce Hammond, managing director at Simmons Energy in Houston.

"Basically, they were destroying capital," Hammond said. "It seems like this year has been the year when investors said, 'Stop.' "

Trump has sought to cut regulations involving energy and other natural resources companies, but the sector has still struggled during his administration.

“If you remove regulation, you are inviting more drilling which then adds supply which means lower prices," said Christian Ledoux, chief investment officer at South Texas Money Management in San Antonio.

Trump's tariff battle against China is raising concerns about the economy.&nbsp;

Indeed, falling long-dated yields in the US Treasury market have inverted the yield curve, a warning sign that a recession could be looming.

This could particularly hit energy stocks.

“It’s an economically sensitive space and they are probably one of the largest victims of any trade war concerns,” said Burns McKinney, portfolio manager with Allianz Global Investors in Dallas.

Energy shares underperformed on Friday as trade tensions escalated and China threatened to impose tariffs on US crude oil imports for the first time.

Some investors avoid the fossil fuel industry as they worry about the companies impact on climate change.&nbsp;

"The oil and gas companies, for a lot of investors, have become a bit of a pariah," Hammond said.

To be sure, the energy stocks have lagged so much that some strategists and investors say they are becoming appealing.

Citigroup equity strategist Tobias Levkovich rates the sector "overweight," noting it is at its most attractive valuation relative to the S&amp;P 500 since 2002.&nbsp;

But in a recent report, Levkovich conceded, "We along with others struggle to perceive which catalysts encourage the Street to step back into the sector, short of a major supply disruption."

Some investors say energy shares could benefit simply from a catch-up trade with oil.&nbsp;

Another factor, High dividend payout rates among some companies as US Treasury yields have tumbled.&nbsp;

Exxon Mobil Corp's dividend yields 5 per cent, while Occidental Petroleum Corp yields 7per cent, compared to just a 1.54 per cent yield on the 10-year US Treasury note.

“If you stick to investment-grade rated companies, there’s a pretty small list of energy companies to invest in, and if you did that you’d probably be OK,” said Ledoux, whose firm's holdings include Chevron Corp.

However, Robert Pavlik, chief investment strategist at SlateStone Wealth, who is slightly underweight the sector, said he could sell energy holdings should the stocks rise to lock in profits.

"I don’t think that there is that much upside," Pavlik said. "Where is oil going to go if the whole industry continues to shift (to alternative energy) as it is and we are looking at a slowdown in the economy?"

There may be little relief on the horizon for investors in US energy companies, whose shares moved from darlings to dismal performers during Wall Street's record bull run and now face a shaky global economy, doubts about fossil fuel investments and general market scepticism.

There may be little relief on the horizon for investors in US energy companies, whose shares moved from darlings to dismal performers during Wall Street's record bull run and now face a shaky global economy, doubts about fossil fuel investments and general market scepticism. Energy has been the worst-performing of the 11 S&P 500 sectors this year, the worst performer since US President Donald Trump's 2016 election and the worst performer since the US bull stock market began more than a decade ago. As a result, the S&P 500 energy sector has its lowest weight in the overall S&P 500 since at least 1995, according to Refinitiv Datastream data. It represents under 5 per cent of the benchmark index, down from over 15 per cent in mid-2008, when oil prices reached historic highs at over $140 a barrel, nearly three times current levels. But this year, the energy sector has even failed to keep pace with oil prices, despite their traditional tendency to move in the same direction. The poor returns raised some hope that the sector will soon find a floor that would allow it to rebound, especially those stocks with appealing dividends, but that remains to be seen. “The view of the sector, in general, has gotten to a point where it's a very difficult space for institutional investors to embrace because it`s been such a chronic underperformer,” said Walter Todd, chief investment officer at Greenwood Capital in South Carolina. Since the current bull run began in March 2009, the S&P 500, which many investors view as a proxy for the stock market, has soared well over 300 per cent, while the energy sector has climbed 32 per cent. Oil prices are up relatively little throughout the bull market, which has largely overlapped with a US economic expansion characterized by modest growth and with a boom in shale exploration that helped make the country the world`s top oil producer. This year, however, US crude prices have climbed over 18 per cent to about $54 a barrel against a 3 per cent drop for the energy sector, although there is a wide disparity in performance among the 28 S&P 500 energy stocks. “If you look over the last 18 to 24 months, the reason why this space is so frustrating is that when oil rallies, they rally but not nearly to the degree you think that they should," Todd said. "But then when oil comes in, they get crushed.” Investors have become wary of energy companies in the past out-spending their cash flows and of drilling wells without adequate returns, said Pearce Hammond, managing director at Simmons Energy in Houston. "Basically, they were destroying capital," Hammond said. "It seems like this year has been the year when investors said, 'Stop.' " Trump has sought to cut regulations involving energy and other natural resources companies, but the sector has still struggled during his administration. “If you remove regulation, you are inviting more drilling which then adds supply which means lower prices," said Christian Ledoux, chief investment officer at South Texas Money Management in San Antonio. Trump's tariff battle against China is raising concerns about the economy. Indeed, falling long-dated yields in the US Treasury market have inverted the yield curve, a warning sign that a recession could be looming. This could particularly hit energy stocks. “It’s an economically sensitive space and they are probably one of the largest victims of any trade war concerns,” said Burns McKinney, portfolio manager with Allianz Global Investors in Dallas. Energy shares underperformed on Friday as trade tensions escalated and China threatened to impose tariffs on US crude oil imports for the first time. Some investors avoid the fossil fuel industry as they worry about the companies impact on climate change. "The oil and gas companies, for a lot of investors, have become a bit of a pariah," Hammond said. To be sure, the energy stocks have lagged so much that some strategists and investors say they are becoming appealing. Citigroup equity strategist Tobias Levkovich rates the sector "overweight," noting it is at its most attractive valuation relative to the S&P 500 since 2002. But in a recent report, Levkovich conceded, "We along with others struggle to perceive which catalysts encourage the Street to step back into the sector, short of a major supply disruption." Some investors say energy shares could benefit simply from a catch-up trade with oil. Another factor, High dividend payout rates among some companies as US Treasury yields have tumbled. Exxon Mobil Corp's dividend yields 5 per cent, while Occidental Petroleum Corp yields 7per cent, compared to just a 1.54 per cent yield on the 10-year US Treasury note. “If you stick to investment-grade rated companies, there’s a pretty small list of energy companies to invest in, and if you did that you’d probably be OK,” said Ledoux, whose firm's holdings include Chevron Corp. However, Robert Pavlik, chief investment strategist at SlateStone Wealth, who is slightly underweight the sector, said he could sell energy holdings should the stocks rise to lock in profits. "I don’t think that there is that much upside," Pavlik said. "Where is oil going to go if the whole industry continues to shift (to alternative energy) as it is and we are looking at a slowdown in the economy?"

No ready spark is seen for lagging US energy shares

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/former-pakistan-prime-minister-shahid-khaqan-abbasi-arrested-in-lng-scam-236867">Pakistan LNG</a> (PLL) has replaced its top manager with immediate effect, appointing Shahid Yousaf as managing director and chief executive, the state-owned operator said on Saturday without giving a reason for the change.

Former Chief Executive Adnan Gilani, a US-educated former Wall Street executive who had been the main public face of Pakistan's push into the liquefied natural gas sector, "will no longer be associated with PLL and we wish him the best," it said in an emailed statement.

"Mr Yousaf brings a vast and rich experience of the LNG/Gas sector to lead and grow the operations of the company," it said.

The group did not explain the abrupt change in leadership but denied reports in the Pakistani press that the move was connected with an anti-corruption investigation.

"Mr Gilani's resignation is due to reasons unrelated to any NAB investigation," it said in a separate statement, referring to the National Accountability Bureau, an anti-corruption body.

&nbsp;It said Gilani was a "world-class professional" and said the company had achieved "remarkable results" under his leadership.

No comment was immediately available from Gilani.

Pakistan has stepped up its purchases of LNG sharply in recent years as it has grappled with a chronic energy and fuel crisis that has led to repeated power outages and weighed on its struggling economy.

In March, Gilani told an investment conference that Pakistan's LNG purchases could triple over the next three to five years to as much as 30 million tonnes.

It was not immediately clear whether the management change would have any impact on any long term contracts under discussion with Pakistan LNG, which buys liquefied natural gas from the international market to supply to the domestic market.

The drive into the LNG sector was initiated under the previous government of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and has been the subject of a series of corruption investigations targeting officials including Sharif and his successor as prime minister, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi.

Pakistan LNG (PLL) has replaced its top manager with immediate effect, appointing Shahid Yousaf as managing director and chief executive, the state-owned operator said on Saturday without giving a reason for the change.

Pakistan LNG (PLL) has replaced its top manager with immediate effect, appointing Shahid Yousaf as managing director and chief executive, the state-owned operator said on Saturday without giving a reason for the change. Former Chief Executive Adnan Gilani, a US-educated former Wall Street executive who had been the main public face of Pakistan's push into the liquefied natural gas sector, "will no longer be associated with PLL and we wish him the best," it said in an emailed statement. "Mr Yousaf brings a vast and rich experience of the LNG/Gas sector to lead and grow the operations of the company," it said. The group did not explain the abrupt change in leadership but denied reports in the Pakistani press that the move was connected with an anti-corruption investigation. "Mr Gilani's resignation is due to reasons unrelated to any NAB investigation," it said in a separate statement, referring to the National Accountability Bureau, an anti-corruption body. It said Gilani was a "world-class professional" and said the company had achieved "remarkable results" under his leadership. No comment was immediately available from Gilani. Pakistan has stepped up its purchases of LNG sharply in recent years as it has grappled with a chronic energy and fuel crisis that has led to repeated power outages and weighed on its struggling economy. In March, Gilani told an investment conference that Pakistan's LNG purchases could triple over the next three to five years to as much as 30 million tonnes. It was not immediately clear whether the management change would have any impact on any long term contracts under discussion with Pakistan LNG, which buys liquefied natural gas from the international market to supply to the domestic market. The drive into the LNG sector was initiated under the previous government of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and has been the subject of a series of corruption investigations targeting officials including Sharif and his successor as prime minister, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi.

Head of Pakistan LNG replaced

U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday lashed back at a new round of Chinese tariffs by heaping an additional 5% duty on some $550 billion in targeted Chinese goods in the latest tit-for-tat trade war escalation by the world’s two largest economies.

Trump slaps new tariffs on China, Additional 5% Tariff On Chinese Imports

US President Donald Trump said on Friday the United States has a really good relationship with North Korea and that the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, has been "pretty straight" with him.

"Kim Jong Un has been very straight with me," Trump told reporters at the White House after North Korea fired what appeared to be two short-range ballistic missiles into the sea off its east coast, according to the South Korean military.

A US&nbsp;official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the two missiles North Korea had fired appeared to be similar to launches in recent weeks.

Saturday's launch, the seventh by North Korea since US&nbsp;President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met at the inter-Korean border in June, have complicated attempts to restart talks between US&nbsp;and North Korean negotiators over the future of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes.

The two leaders agreed to restart working-level negotiations in June, but since then the United States has so far been unsuccessful in attempts to get talks going.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump said on Friday the United States has a really good relationship with North Korea and that the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, has been "pretty straight" with him.

US President Donald Trump said on Friday the United States has a really good relationship with North Korea and that the country's leader, Kim Jong Un, has been "pretty straight" with him. "Kim Jong Un has been very straight with me," Trump told reporters at the White House after North Korea fired what appeared to be two short-range ballistic missiles into the sea off its east coast, according to the South Korean military. A US official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the two missiles North Korea had fired appeared to be similar to launches in recent weeks. Saturday's launch, the seventh by North Korea since US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un met at the inter-Korean border in June, have complicated attempts to restart talks between US and North Korean negotiators over the future of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programmes. The two leaders agreed to restart working-level negotiations in June, but since then the United States has so far been unsuccessful in attempts to get talks going.

Trump says US has really good relationship with North Korea

US President Donald Trump plans to hold discussions on Kashmir with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Watch video to know more

G7: Trump To Talk Kashmir With Pm Modi

U.S. President Donald Trump named India as one of the countries that ought to be fighting the Islamic State (IS) in Afghanistan. He also appeared to suggest that Russia, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan were countries that should be fighting the IS in Afghanistan.

Trump slams India, says 'India not doing enough in Afghanistan'

A 19-jet aerial parade soared over the Hudson River in New York on Thursday (August 22) in advance of the New York International Air Show.

'People have a love affair with aviation' - UK and US military teams fly over the Hudson River

By Kevin Johnson 
 
The Trump administration is trying to terminate the Flores settlement, a legal agreement that determines how immigrant children are treated in US immigration detention.

The 1997 settlement established basic standards for the treatment of unaccompanied minors who were in the custody of federal authorities for violating immigration laws.

It requires the federal government to place children with a close relative or family friend “without unnecessary delay,” rather than detaining them, and to keep immigrant children who are in custody in the “least restrictive conditions” possible. Generally speaking, this has meant migrant children can be kept in federal immigrant detention for only 20 days.

But a new regulation, originally proposed by the Trump administration in 2018 and finalised on August 21, would remove the requirements of the Flores settlement.

Case took years

In the 1980s, the Reagan administration aggressively used detention of Central Americans as a device to deter migration from that region, where violent civil wars had caused tens of thousands to flee.

Central Americans arrested at the US-Mexico border were held in custody – including many who sought asylum in the US because they feared persecution if returned home.

Immigrant rights groups filed a series of lawsuits challenging various aspects of the detention policies, including denying migrants access to counsel, taking steps to encourage them to “consent” to deportation and detaining them in isolated locations far from families and attorneys.

One suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1985 on behalf of Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador. She had fled violence in her home country to live with an aunt who was in the US.

But Flores was detained by federal authorities at the US border for not having proper documentation permitting her to stay in the US.

The American Civil Liberties Union charged that holding Flores indefinitely violated the US&nbsp;Constitution and immigration laws. The Flores case slowly made its way to the US Supreme Court.

In its 1993 ruling in the case, the court held that a regulation allowing the government to release a migrant child to a close family member or legal guardian in the United States was legal.

But the primary legacy of the case was the subsequent settlement, to which both the Clinton administration and the plaintiffs agreed in 1997.

The Flores settlement is a landmark agreement in no small part because Central Americans continue to flee violence in their homelands and the US government has responded with mass detention of immigrant children.

Although the settlement was agreeable to the Clinton administration, the Trump administration strongly desires to detain families, including children, for periods longer than permitted by the Flores settlement – in fact, indefinitely.

Longtime contentious issue

Litigation over enforcement of the Flores settlement has exploded during the Trump administration, which has detained migrant children in poor conditions along the US-Mexico border since soon after taking office.

The lawsuits include a court case brought by immigrants’ rights and civil liberties groups in response to what they called the “imminent threat to the health and welfare” of migrant children in detention. US border officials should have “promptly released children to their relatives and provided safe and sanitary detention conditions for all children in its custody,” said an attorney representing the groups that brought the action.

Similarly, in the summer of 2018, based on the Flores settlement, a federal court barred immigration authorities from giving children psychotropic drugs without consent of parents or legal guardians.

Conditions apparently have not improved in detention centers across the country. Several children have died while in custody since January, and public outcry over the conditions of detention for the migrants have led to numerous court fights.

During recent litigation seeking to enforce the Flores settlement, the Department of Justice made headlines for its defense of the detention conditions of migrant children. The judges of the court of appeals were incredulous at the government’s claim that soap and a toothbrush were not necessarily required for detained migrant children. Not surprisingly, the court flatly rejected the government’s claim.

Last year, the Trump administration requested to amend the settlement to allow it to indefinitely detain migrant children.

The courts consistently have denied these requests and have continued to monitor the detention of migrant children, as the Flores settlement requires them to do.

Importantly, the new rule will allow the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services to respond to significant changes that have occurred since the Flores settlement agreement has been in place, including dramatic increases in the numbers of unaccompanied children and family units crossing into the United States.

The rule is slated to take effect on October 23. But immigration and civil liberties advocates have vowed to challenge the rule in court, which will put the proposed change in front of US District Judge Dolly M. Gee. Gee is the judge who denied the administration’s request last year to extend family detentions. 
 
(Kevin Johnson is Dean and Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, Davis)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/changes-for-a-landmark-agreement-mean-immigrant-children-face-harsher-treatment-in-us-122282">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 Kevin Johnson The Trump administration is trying to terminate the Flores settlement, a legal agreement that determines how immigrant children are treated in US immigration detention.

By Kevin Johnson The Trump administration is trying to terminate the Flores settlement, a legal agreement that determines how immigrant children are treated in US immigration detention. The 1997 settlement established basic standards for the treatment of unaccompanied minors who were in the custody of federal authorities for violating immigration laws. It requires the federal government to place children with a close relative or family friend “without unnecessary delay,” rather than detaining them, and to keep immigrant children who are in custody in the “least restrictive conditions” possible. Generally speaking, this has meant migrant children can be kept in federal immigrant detention for only 20 days. But a new regulation, originally proposed by the Trump administration in 2018 and finalised on August 21, would remove the requirements of the Flores settlement. Case took years In the 1980s, the Reagan administration aggressively used detention of Central Americans as a device to deter migration from that region, where violent civil wars had caused tens of thousands to flee. Central Americans arrested at the US-Mexico border were held in custody – including many who sought asylum in the US because they feared persecution if returned home. Immigrant rights groups filed a series of lawsuits challenging various aspects of the detention policies, including denying migrants access to counsel, taking steps to encourage them to “consent” to deportation and detaining them in isolated locations far from families and attorneys. One suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1985 on behalf of Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador. She had fled violence in her home country to live with an aunt who was in the US. But Flores was detained by federal authorities at the US border for not having proper documentation permitting her to stay in the US. The American Civil Liberties Union charged that holding Flores indefinitely violated the US Constitution and immigration laws. The Flores case slowly made its way to the US Supreme Court. In its 1993 ruling in the case, the court held that a regulation allowing the government to release a migrant child to a close family member or legal guardian in the United States was legal. But the primary legacy of the case was the subsequent settlement, to which both the Clinton administration and the plaintiffs agreed in 1997. The Flores settlement is a landmark agreement in no small part because Central Americans continue to flee violence in their homelands and the US government has responded with mass detention of immigrant children. Although the settlement was agreeable to the Clinton administration, the Trump administration strongly desires to detain families, including children, for periods longer than permitted by the Flores settlement – in fact, indefinitely. Longtime contentious issue Litigation over enforcement of the Flores settlement has exploded during the Trump administration, which has detained migrant children in poor conditions along the US-Mexico border since soon after taking office. The lawsuits include a court case brought by immigrants’ rights and civil liberties groups in response to what they called the “imminent threat to the health and welfare” of migrant children in detention. US border officials should have “promptly released children to their relatives and provided safe and sanitary detention conditions for all children in its custody,” said an attorney representing the groups that brought the action. Similarly, in the summer of 2018, based on the Flores settlement, a federal court barred immigration authorities from giving children psychotropic drugs without consent of parents or legal guardians. Conditions apparently have not improved in detention centers across the country. Several children have died while in custody since January, and public outcry over the conditions of detention for the migrants have led to numerous court fights. During recent litigation seeking to enforce the Flores settlement, the Department of Justice made headlines for its defense of the detention conditions of migrant children. The judges of the court of appeals were incredulous at the government’s claim that soap and a toothbrush were not necessarily required for detained migrant children. Not surprisingly, the court flatly rejected the government’s claim. Last year, the Trump administration requested to amend the settlement to allow it to indefinitely detain migrant children. The courts consistently have denied these requests and have continued to monitor the detention of migrant children, as the Flores settlement requires them to do. Importantly, the new rule will allow the Department of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services to respond to significant changes that have occurred since the Flores settlement agreement has been in place, including dramatic increases in the numbers of unaccompanied children and family units crossing into the United States. The rule is slated to take effect on October 23. But immigration and civil liberties advocates have vowed to challenge the rule in court, which will put the proposed change in front of US District Judge Dolly M. Gee. Gee is the judge who denied the administration’s request last year to extend family detentions. (Kevin Johnson is Dean and Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies, University of California, Davis) (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.)

Changes for a landmark agreement mean immigrant children face harsher treatment in US

On August 18, shortly after its withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the United States conducted a flight test of a land-based cruise missile that had been banned by that treaty as its range exceeded 500 kilometers.

Blame game over collapse of INF treaty

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/singapore-to-raise-retirement-age-to-65-years-prime-minister-243941">Singapore</a>'s core inflation eased to its slowest pace in more than three years in July, data showed on Friday, prompting authorities to downgrade their full-year forecast amid firming bets for monetary policy easing.

The core inflation gauge rose 0.8 per cent from a year earlier, the slowest rate since April 2016, weighed down by declines in utilities and retail prices.

That was lower than a 1.0 per cent forecast in a Reuters poll and a 1.2 per cent&nbsp;increase in the previous month.

Authorities said they expected core inflation - the preferred price gauge of the central bank which is due to meet in October - to be in the lower half of their 1 per cent-2 per cent&nbsp;forecast for 2019, having previously said it would come in the middle.

The 1 per cent-2 per cent&nbsp;forecast range remains in place.

"This is further evidence of the weakened condition of the economy," said Steve Cochrane, chief APAC economist at Moody's Analytics.

"This will likely raise expectations of monetary policy easing... Particularly as many central banks in the region have already begun to ease monetary policy."

The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said last week, after the city-state slashed its full-year growth forecast, that it was not considering an out-of-cycle policy move.

The Singapore dollar weakened after the data release and was down around 0.2 per cent&nbsp;against the US dollar on the day.

The headline consumer price index in July rose 0.4 per cent&nbsp;year-on-year, matching January's figures, the lowest so far in 2019. The poll had called for a 0.55 per cent&nbsp;rise, compared with a 0.6 per cent&nbsp;increase a month earlier.

Singapore's headline rate is expected to average 0.5 per cent-1.5 per cent&nbsp;for the full year, MAS and Singapore's trade ministry said in a joint statement on Friday.

"An acceleration in inflationary pressures is unlikely against the backdrop of slower GDP growth, uncertainties in the global economy, as well as the continuing restraining effects of MAS' monetary policy tightening in 2018," the authorities said.

Singapore's core inflation eased to its slowest pace in more than three years in July, data showed on Friday, prompting authorities to downgrade their full-year forecast amid firming bets for monetary policy easing.

Singapore's core inflation eased to its slowest pace in more than three years in July, data showed on Friday, prompting authorities to downgrade their full-year forecast amid firming bets for monetary policy easing. The core inflation gauge rose 0.8 per cent from a year earlier, the slowest rate since April 2016, weighed down by declines in utilities and retail prices. That was lower than a 1.0 per cent forecast in a Reuters poll and a 1.2 per cent increase in the previous month. Authorities said they expected core inflation - the preferred price gauge of the central bank which is due to meet in October - to be in the lower half of their 1 per cent-2 per cent forecast for 2019, having previously said it would come in the middle. The 1 per cent-2 per cent forecast range remains in place. "This is further evidence of the weakened condition of the economy," said Steve Cochrane, chief APAC economist at Moody's Analytics. "This will likely raise expectations of monetary policy easing... Particularly as many central banks in the region have already begun to ease monetary policy." The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) said last week, after the city-state slashed its full-year growth forecast, that it was not considering an out-of-cycle policy move. The Singapore dollar weakened after the data release and was down around 0.2 per cent against the US dollar on the day. The headline consumer price index in July rose 0.4 per cent year-on-year, matching January's figures, the lowest so far in 2019. The poll had called for a 0.55 per cent rise, compared with a 0.6 per cent increase a month earlier. Singapore's headline rate is expected to average 0.5 per cent-1.5 per cent for the full year, MAS and Singapore's trade ministry said in a joint statement on Friday. "An acceleration in inflationary pressures is unlikely against the backdrop of slower GDP growth, uncertainties in the global economy, as well as the continuing restraining effects of MAS' monetary policy tightening in 2018," the authorities said.

Singapore cuts 2019 core inflation forecast as prices hit a 3-year low

Washington's attempt to politicize the China-U.S. trade issue by interfering in China's domestic affairs is not helping to resolve the dispute, as Beijing has said time and again that it won't budge on an issue of principle, according to a China Media Group (CMG) commentary published on Tuesday.

Politicizing China-U.S. trade issue won't help resolve dispute

List Of Issues That Trump Could Focus On Instead Of Interfering In Kashmir Dispute Trump and the U.S. have made a habit of interfering in the internal issues of other countries like the Kashmir Dispute. We have drawn up a list of five other issues, that the U.S. President could concentrate on instead of making bizarre offers to mediate the Kashmir issue.

Gravitas: Instead of meddling in Kashmir, Trump could do these!

Perils Of Doing Diplomacy With Trump, The Master At Contradicting Himself If you wonder why Trump keeps poking his nose in the Kashmir issue, here's something that should interest you. The U.S. President has made a habit of making U-turns on most international issues. Needless to say, Trump's about-face has hurt not only the allies of the U.S. but also the consistency in policy making in the U.S.

Gravitas: Trump & the habit to make u-turns

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.

Watch WION Speed News, August 22nd, 2019

The head of US Southern Command says military officials are focusing on preparing for "the day after" Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro leaves power. Navy Adm. Craig Faller warned Monday against Venezuela's "formidable weapon system" and criticised Cuba, Russia and China for assisting Maduro.

Joint military exercises between Brazil and the US

An Analysis Of Trump's Latest Offer To Mediate The Kashmir Dispute On #WionEdit, Palki closely analyses Trump's latest offer to mediate the Kashmir dispute. The offer is 'egotistical', 'delusional', 'ignorant', 'dangerous' and 'deceptive'.

WION Edit: Trump's Kashmir offer 'Dangerous', 'Deceptive', 'Ignorant' &  Egotistical'

Watch WION Speed News, August 21th, 2019

President Donald Trump’s threat to pull the United States out of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is not credible as Congress would probably block any effort to do so, analysts told Sputnik.

Not Feasible

Trump said on August 13 that the United States may pull out of the WTO, following what he claimed were years of mistreatment at the hands of the organisation.

However, trade and economic affairs analyst Alan Tonelson, American research fellow at the US Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation, said Trump’s threat was unlikely to be taken seriously.

"President Trump's threat isn't credible in the very short run, if only because under the WTO agreement itself, he's obligated to give the organisation a six-month notice before the actual pull out," he said.

Trump would face an alliance of traditional free-trade Republicans in his own party and the opposition Democrats who control the House of Representatives since the November 2018 midterm elections, Tonelson, founder of RealityChek blog which covers trade and economics, pointed out.

Over the longer term, US law requires Congress to vote every five years on staying in the WTO, and the next such occasion comes up next year, Tonelson observed.

"So far, continued American membership has proven extremely popular on Capitol Hill," he said.

However, Trump might be able to take advantage of the very different national political dynamics within the United States since WTO membership was last approved in 2015, Tonelson cautioned.

"Clearly the climate is different today from that during the previous vote, in 2015, and the President could unnerve the rest of the world even more than it already has by at least making it a campaign issue, and consequently by boosting the ‘No’ votes considerably, at least on the GOP side," he said.

Trump also enjoyed powers that could enable him to paralyse the workings of the WTO without having to withdraw the United States officially from the organisation, Tonelson commented.

"It's crucial to remember that the President's decision to block the appointment of certain WTO judges could bring the critical appellate level of the organisation's dispute-resolution system to a halt by the end of this year. So unless he reneges, US withdrawal might not even be needed to evade the organisation's rulings," he said.

Washington’s withdrawal from the WTO, he added, would surely further disrupt a global economy that has already been shaken up "by the US trade policy reversal engineered by President Trump." Nevertheless, the US leader might be prepared to run that risk, Tonelson advised.

"Given how slowly cases make their way through the WTO process, it's difficult to believe that the disruption would be significant, since sluggish procedures mean that few businesses can afford to base their planning on expected WTO outcomes," he said. "Longer term, a neutered WTO could even prompt national governments to return to less formal, and probably quicker, ways to resolve their trade disputes."

Other WTO members might decide to keep the organisation going if only as a gesture of anti-Trump defiance.

"But the centrality of the United States to the world trade system and broader economy mean that its US-less survival would be largely symbolic," he said.

Pullout would backfire

Popular Resistance Co-Director Kevin Zeese agreed, however, that Trump was unlikely to overcome broad-based congressional opposition to withdrawing the United States from the WTO.

"Trump would need congressional approval to pull the US out of the WTO so it is unlikely," he said.

Unilateral US withdrawal from the WTO could also backfire on Trump and Washington by boosting China’s global economic and trade standing, Zeese cautioned.

"The WTO was developed by the US, many of the rules were written by the US and the US dominates it. If the US were to leave, China would probably become the leader. It would cause confusion in lots of trade agreements because the WTO is an arbiter of trade disputes," he said.

Zeese also agreed with Tonelson that Trump’s threats increased the dangers of a major international economic recession.

"It is bizarre to be threatening this at this time when the markets are already skittish and there are growing signs of recession. Disrupting the WTO would be one more thing to make investors insecure because of impacts [that] are hard to predict," he said.

Zeese also stressed that unilateral withdrawal from the WTO would be a self-defeating move for Washington.

"Why is Trump doing it? His is a mind I cannot read. So much of what he does makes little sense. Leaving the WTO would be one more step taken by Trump that would weaken the US as a global hegemony," he said.

Dollar dominance was a critical tool on US foreign policy that was now weakening, Zeese observed.

"If the US is no longer the reserve currency and used in trade between nations, it will have unpredictable, but certainly negative consequences for the US economy," he concluded.

 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

President Donald Trump’s threat to pull the United States out of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is not credible as Congress would probably block any effort to do so, analysts told Sputnik.

President Donald Trump’s threat to pull the United States out of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is not credible as Congress would probably block any effort to do so, analysts told Sputnik. Not Feasible Trump said on August 13 that the United States may pull out of the WTO, following what he claimed were years of mistreatment at the hands of the organisation. However, trade and economic affairs analyst Alan Tonelson, American research fellow at the US Business and Industry Council Educational Foundation, said Trump’s threat was unlikely to be taken seriously. "President Trump's threat isn't credible in the very short run, if only because under the WTO agreement itself, he's obligated to give the organisation a six-month notice before the actual pull out," he said. Trump would face an alliance of traditional free-trade Republicans in his own party and the opposition Democrats who control the House of Representatives since the November 2018 midterm elections, Tonelson, founder of RealityChek blog which covers trade and economics, pointed out. Over the longer term, US law requires Congress to vote every five years on staying in the WTO, and the next such occasion comes up next year, Tonelson observed. "So far, continued American membership has proven extremely popular on Capitol Hill," he said. However, Trump might be able to take advantage of the very different national political dynamics within the United States since WTO membership was last approved in 2015, Tonelson cautioned. "Clearly the climate is different today from that during the previous vote, in 2015, and the President could unnerve the rest of the world even more than it already has by at least making it a campaign issue, and consequently by boosting the ‘No’ votes considerably, at least on the GOP side," he said. Trump also enjoyed powers that could enable him to paralyse the workings of the WTO without having to withdraw the United States officially from the organisation, Tonelson commented. "It's crucial to remember that the President's decision to block the appointment of certain WTO judges could bring the critical appellate level of the organisation's dispute-resolution system to a halt by the end of this year. So unless he reneges, US withdrawal might not even be needed to evade the organisation's rulings," he said. Washington’s withdrawal from the WTO, he added, would surely further disrupt a global economy that has already been shaken up "by the US trade policy reversal engineered by President Trump." Nevertheless, the US leader might be prepared to run that risk, Tonelson advised. "Given how slowly cases make their way through the WTO process, it's difficult to believe that the disruption would be significant, since sluggish procedures mean that few businesses can afford to base their planning on expected WTO outcomes," he said. "Longer term, a neutered WTO could even prompt national governments to return to less formal, and probably quicker, ways to resolve their trade disputes." Other WTO members might decide to keep the organisation going if only as a gesture of anti-Trump defiance. "But the centrality of the United States to the world trade system and broader economy mean that its US-less survival would be largely symbolic," he said. Pullout would backfire Popular Resistance Co-Director Kevin Zeese agreed, however, that Trump was unlikely to overcome broad-based congressional opposition to withdrawing the United States from the WTO. "Trump would need congressional approval to pull the US out of the WTO so it is unlikely," he said. Unilateral US withdrawal from the WTO could also backfire on Trump and Washington by boosting China’s global economic and trade standing, Zeese cautioned. "The WTO was developed by the US, many of the rules were written by the US and the US dominates it. If the US were to leave, China would probably become the leader. It would cause confusion in lots of trade agreements because the WTO is an arbiter of trade disputes," he said. Zeese also agreed with Tonelson that Trump’s threats increased the dangers of a major international economic recession. "It is bizarre to be threatening this at this time when the markets are already skittish and there are growing signs of recession. Disrupting the WTO would be one more thing to make investors insecure because of impacts [that] are hard to predict," he said. Zeese also stressed that unilateral withdrawal from the WTO would be a self-defeating move for Washington. "Why is Trump doing it? His is a mind I cannot read. So much of what he does makes little sense. Leaving the WTO would be one more step taken by Trump that would weaken the US as a global hegemony," he said. Dollar dominance was a critical tool on US foreign policy that was now weakening, Zeese observed. "If the US is no longer the reserve currency and used in trade between nations, it will have unpredictable, but certainly negative consequences for the US economy," he concluded. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Donald Trump’s threat to leave World Trade Organisation not credible

US diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad is heading to Doha, Qatar on Tuesday for more <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/fears-in-us-of-bad-peace-deal-with-the-taliban-243743">talks with the Taliban</a> as signs of a possible <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-president-donald-trump-hails-very-good-discussions-with-the-taliban-243958">Afghanistan peace deal</a> emerge, the State Department announced.

After talks in Doha, Khalilzad will travel to Kabul where he "will consult with the leadership of the Afghan government on the peace process and encourage full preparation for intra-Afghan negotiations," the department said.

An Afghanistan peace agreement that the US seems close to reaching with the Taliban has prompted worries that President Donald Trump's desire to quickly withdraw US troops could further plunge the country into civil war.

Trump said Friday he was pleased with talks on ending the war, 18 years after the September 11, attacks that prompted the US invasion of Afghanistan in the first place.

In recent days several US officials have suggested that an accord could be imminent in discussions with the Taliban in Qatar.

The US negotiator, Zalmay Khalilzad, was expected to return to the region very soon in hopes of sealing an agreement with the Afghan rebel force.

Such a potentially historic accord has raised an outcry from an eclectic assortment of critics in Washington, ranging from neo-conservatives to former Democratic administration officials to ex-military heroes.

In tweets, interviews and op-ed pieces in newspapers, they are cautioning against hastily bringing home the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan, a warning which some hope will also score points ahead of next year's presidential election.

And they are calling on Trump to treat this war as he did North Korea and its nuclear weapons and insist on no deal rather than a bad deal.

"Under no circumstances should the Trump administration repeat the mistake its predecessor made in Iraq and agree to a total withdrawal of combat forces from Afghanistan," retired general David Petraeus, who used to command those soldiers, warned in a piece for The Wall Street Journal.

He was referring to Barack Obama and how the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq helped fuel the emergence of the Islamic State group.

The main points of the peace accord being negotiated with the Taliban are known - US soldiers would withdraw in exchange for a pledge from them not to let Al-Qaida or the Islamic State group operate in the territory that the Taliban controls.

There would also be an immediate ceasefire, and the Taliban would begin talks with the Afghan government, with which the rebels have until now refused all dialogue.

US diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad is heading to Doha, Qatar on Tuesday for more talks with the Taliban as signs of a possible Afghanistan peace deal emerge, the State Department announced.

US diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad is heading to Doha, Qatar on Tuesday for more talks with the Taliban as signs of a possible Afghanistan peace deal emerge, the State Department announced. After talks in Doha, Khalilzad will travel to Kabul where he "will consult with the leadership of the Afghan government on the peace process and encourage full preparation for intra-Afghan negotiations," the department said. An Afghanistan peace agreement that the US seems close to reaching with the Taliban has prompted worries that President Donald Trump's desire to quickly withdraw US troops could further plunge the country into civil war. Trump said Friday he was pleased with talks on ending the war, 18 years after the September 11, attacks that prompted the US invasion of Afghanistan in the first place. In recent days several US officials have suggested that an accord could be imminent in discussions with the Taliban in Qatar. The US negotiator, Zalmay Khalilzad, was expected to return to the region very soon in hopes of sealing an agreement with the Afghan rebel force. Such a potentially historic accord has raised an outcry from an eclectic assortment of critics in Washington, ranging from neo-conservatives to former Democratic administration officials to ex-military heroes. In tweets, interviews and op-ed pieces in newspapers, they are cautioning against hastily bringing home the 14,000 US troops in Afghanistan, a warning which some hope will also score points ahead of next year's presidential election. And they are calling on Trump to treat this war as he did North Korea and its nuclear weapons and insist on no deal rather than a bad deal. "Under no circumstances should the Trump administration repeat the mistake its predecessor made in Iraq and agree to a total withdrawal of combat forces from Afghanistan," retired general David Petraeus, who used to command those soldiers, warned in a piece for The Wall Street Journal. He was referring to Barack Obama and how the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq helped fuel the emergence of the Islamic State group. The main points of the peace accord being negotiated with the Taliban are known - US soldiers would withdraw in exchange for a pledge from them not to let Al-Qaida or the Islamic State group operate in the territory that the Taliban controls. There would also be an immediate ceasefire, and the Taliban would begin talks with the Afghan government, with which the rebels have until now refused all dialogue.

US Taliban negotiator Zalmay Khalilzad returning to Doha for more talks

US&nbsp;Secretary of State<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/pompeo-wishes-north-korea-would-not-test-missiles-244479"> Mike&nbsp;Pompeo</a>&nbsp;said on Tuesday the United States was not sending "mixed&nbsp;messages" on&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;Technologies and he does not believe a&nbsp;US&nbsp;blacklist of the Chinese telecommunications giant will block a trade deal with Beijing.

"I don't think there's a&nbsp;mixed&nbsp;message at all,"&nbsp;Pompeo&nbsp;said in an interview with CNBC.

"The threat of having Chinese telecoms systems inside of American networks or inside of networks around the world presents an enormous risk, a national security risk," he said.

Washington blacklisted&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;in May, alleging the Chinese company is involved in activities contrary to&nbsp;US&nbsp;national security or foreign policy interests.

The United States extended a reprieve that permits&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-gives-huawei-another-90-days-reprieve-from-ban-amid-economic-blacklist-244165">Huawei</a>&nbsp;to buy components&nbsp;from&nbsp;US&nbsp;companies to supply existing customers, the Commerce Department said on Monday, but it also moved to add more than 40 of&nbsp;Huawei's units to its economic blacklist.

President Donald Trump, however, indicated over the weekend there would be no <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-to-extend-huaweis-partial-reprieve-on-supply-curbs-sources-243540">extension</a>, saying what would happen would be the "opposite."

"We’re actually open not to doing business with them,” Trump said on Sunday.

Huawei, the world's largest telecommunications equipment maker, is still prohibited&nbsp;from&nbsp;buying American parts and components to manufacture new products without additional special licenses.

The&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;dispute coincides with a trade war between the world's two largest economies.

Talks are at a standstill for now, with the threat of greater tariffs and other trade restrictions hanging over the world economy.

Asked if Chinese President Xi Jinping was stalling negotiations because of&nbsp;US&nbsp;actions toward&nbsp;Huawei,&nbsp;Pompeo&nbsp;said: "That's not been our experience. That is not what's happening today."

"I think he's prepared to engage in a complex set of trade negotiations,"&nbsp;Pompeo&nbsp;told CNBC. "So, no, he hasn't walked away, he hasn't said 'I won't talk if you do these things.'"

The United States in May added&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;to the so-called Entity List, effectively banning the telecom giant&nbsp;from&nbsp;buying parts and components&nbsp;from&nbsp;American companies without government approval.

Shortly afterwards, the Commerce Department allowed&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;to buy some American-made goods to minimize disruption for its customers, including rural&nbsp;US telecommunications companies that use&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;equipment in their networks.

Pomepo conceded "the world was late to the game" and let Chinese telecommunications companies get a jump start on providing supplies for the networks of the United States and its allies. He said it will take time to unravel&nbsp;from&nbsp;Huawei&nbsp;and other Chinese systems.

"There's enormous costs in some of these transitions. You can't rip and tear it all up at once," he said. "So our effort is to put together a pathway where ... the risk&nbsp;from&nbsp;Chinese Communist Party-connected telecom companies isn't present in the United States or the trusted networks in which the United States participates all over the world."

Huawei&nbsp;has repeatedly denied it is controlled by China's ruling Communist Party.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Tuesday the United States was not sending "mixed messages" on Huawei Technologies and he does not believe a US blacklist of the Chinese telecommunications giant will block a trade deal with Beijing.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Tuesday the United States was not sending "mixed messages" on Huawei Technologies and he does not believe a US blacklist of the Chinese telecommunications giant will block a trade deal with Beijing. "I don't think there's a mixed message at all," Pompeo said in an interview with CNBC. "The threat of having Chinese telecoms systems inside of American networks or inside of networks around the world presents an enormous risk, a national security risk," he said. Washington blacklisted Huawei in May, alleging the Chinese company is involved in activities contrary to US national security or foreign policy interests. The United States extended a reprieve that permits Huawei to buy components from US companies to supply existing customers, the Commerce Department said on Monday, but it also moved to add more than 40 of Huawei's units to its economic blacklist. President Donald Trump, however, indicated over the weekend there would be no extension, saying what would happen would be the "opposite." "We’re actually open not to doing business with them,” Trump said on Sunday. Huawei, the world's largest telecommunications equipment maker, is still prohibited from buying American parts and components to manufacture new products without additional special licenses. The Huawei dispute coincides with a trade war between the world's two largest economies. Talks are at a standstill for now, with the threat of greater tariffs and other trade restrictions hanging over the world economy. Asked if Chinese President Xi Jinping was stalling negotiations because of US actions toward Huawei, Pompeo said: "That's not been our experience. That is not what's happening today." "I think he's prepared to engage in a complex set of trade negotiations," Pompeo told CNBC. "So, no, he hasn't walked away, he hasn't said 'I won't talk if you do these things.'" The United States in May added Huawei to the so-called Entity List, effectively banning the telecom giant from buying parts and components from American companies without government approval. Shortly afterwards, the Commerce Department allowed Huawei to buy some American-made goods to minimize disruption for its customers, including rural US telecommunications companies that use Huawei equipment in their networks. Pomepo conceded "the world was late to the game" and let Chinese telecommunications companies get a jump start on providing supplies for the networks of the United States and its allies. He said it will take time to unravel from Huawei and other Chinese systems. "There's enormous costs in some of these transitions. You can't rip and tear it all up at once," he said. "So our effort is to put together a pathway where ... the risk from Chinese Communist Party-connected telecom companies isn't present in the United States or the trusted networks in which the United States participates all over the world." Huawei has repeatedly denied it is controlled by China's ruling Communist Party.

'No mixed messages' from US on Huawei: Mike Pompeo

The<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/united-states-announces-humanitarian-aid-to-afghanistan-worth-125-million-244429"> United States</a> on Tuesday will urge the United Nations Security Council to extend an arms embargo and travel ban on Iran before the measures expire in October, US Special Representative for<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-any-external-military-presence-in-gulf-source-of-insecurity-241885"> Iran </a>Brian Hook said during a press briefing on Tuesday. 
 
"We are not far away from the arms embargo expiring and the travel ban lifting ... we believe that the UN Security Council has an important role to play to ensure that the arms embargo and the travel ban are continued, so that will be a discussion today at the UN Security Council," Hook said. 
 
UN Resolution 2231, which the Security Council adopted in July 2015 after signing the international nuclear deal with Iran, set a deadline for the sanctions to end by October 18, 2020.

The United States on Tuesday will urge the United Nations Security Council to extend an arms embargo and travel ban on Iran before the measures expire in October, US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook said during a press briefing on Tuesday.

The United States on Tuesday will urge the United Nations Security Council to extend an arms embargo and travel ban on Iran before the measures expire in October, US Special Representative for Iran Brian Hook said during a press briefing on Tuesday. "We are not far away from the arms embargo expiring and the travel ban lifting ... we believe that the UN Security Council has an important role to play to ensure that the arms embargo and the travel ban are continued, so that will be a discussion today at the UN Security Council," Hook said. UN Resolution 2231, which the Security Council adopted in July 2015 after signing the international nuclear deal with Iran, set a deadline for the sanctions to end by October 18, 2020.

US to Discuss Extending Iran Arms Embargo, Travel Ban At UNSC Meeting: Special Envoy

us-1

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

us 1