The US&nbsp;government could announce new sanctions to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as early as next week unless his military defies orders to block convoys of humanitarian aid planned for this weekend, a senior administration official said on Friday.

US&nbsp;Vice President Mike Pence and other leaders in the Western Hemisphere will meet in Bogota on Monday. Depending on what happens on Venezuela's borders over the weekend, the leaders could dramatically boost aid pledges to the country - or take new steps to crack down, the official told reporters.

"If there is any type of violence, or if there is any type of negative reaction from the hierarchy of the Venezuela armed forces, there may also be measures that are announced by the vice president and other countries in regards to closing even further the international financial circle," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

In a sign of the importance of the issue to the White House, President Donald Trump's top national security adviser John Bolton canceled a weekend trip to South Korea to talk to allies ahead of a summit next week on North Korea's nuclear talks.

Bolton wanted to monitor the unfolding developments in Venezuela, his spokesman Garrett Marquis said.

Pence will lead the US&nbsp;delegation to the meeting of the Lima Group regional bloc, and so far has an "open script" for what he will propose, the official said.

"He has the carrots, but he's also ready with the sticks for those that promote or execute violence," the official said. "That will be announced not only by the United States, but by the rest of the region's democracies."

The United States has stockpiled aid on Colombia's border with Venezuela at the request of opposition leader Juan Guaido, whom Washington and other dozens of other Western governments have recognized as Venezuela's legitimate president since Maduro held elections last year decried as fraudulent.

Despite shortages of food and medicine, Maduro has denied there is a crisis in the country, and says the aid is aimed at undermining his government. He has ordered some of the country's borders closed to keep the aid from entering.

Tensions are running high and <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/un-chief-warns-venezuela-against-lethal-force-on-protesters-199058">there has been some violence</a>. Soldiers killed two people and injured 15 near the border with Brazil on Friday, witnesses said.

The Trump administration last month slapped sanctions on state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela PDVSA.UL, known as PDVSA, to cut Maduro off from his government's main source of revenues.

The administration official declined to comment on future sanctions, but said the United States and other allies are looking at ways to expel family members of Venezuelan military officials who are living outside the country - including some in south Florida.

"They're going to face a situation where they and their families are going to have to go back to Venezuela," he said.

The US&nbsp;official described the aid convoys as a key test for the Venezuelan military as its leaders weigh whether to obey Maduro or Guaido, who has asked the military to let it pass.

"It's really the first order he gives to them as their commander in chief," the US&nbsp;official added. 
&nbsp;

The US government could announce new sanctions to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as early as next week unless his military defies orders to block convoys of humanitarian aid planned for this weekend, a senior administration official said on Friday.

The US government could announce new sanctions to pressure Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro as early as next week unless his military defies orders to block convoys of humanitarian aid planned for this weekend, a senior administration official said on Friday. US Vice President Mike Pence and other leaders in the Western Hemisphere will meet in Bogota on Monday. Depending on what happens on Venezuela's borders over the weekend, the leaders could dramatically boost aid pledges to the country - or take new steps to crack down, the official told reporters. "If there is any type of violence, or if there is any type of negative reaction from the hierarchy of the Venezuela armed forces, there may also be measures that are announced by the vice president and other countries in regards to closing even further the international financial circle," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. In a sign of the importance of the issue to the White House, President Donald Trump's top national security adviser John Bolton canceled a weekend trip to South Korea to talk to allies ahead of a summit next week on North Korea's nuclear talks. Bolton wanted to monitor the unfolding developments in Venezuela, his spokesman Garrett Marquis said. Pence will lead the US delegation to the meeting of the Lima Group regional bloc, and so far has an "open script" for what he will propose, the official said. "He has the carrots, but he's also ready with the sticks for those that promote or execute violence," the official said. "That will be announced not only by the United States, but by the rest of the region's democracies." The United States has stockpiled aid on Colombia's border with Venezuela at the request of opposition leader Juan Guaido, whom Washington and other dozens of other Western governments have recognized as Venezuela's legitimate president since Maduro held elections last year decried as fraudulent. Despite shortages of food and medicine, Maduro has denied there is a crisis in the country, and says the aid is aimed at undermining his government. He has ordered some of the country's borders closed to keep the aid from entering. Tensions are running high and there has been some violence. Soldiers killed two people and injured 15 near the border with Brazil on Friday, witnesses said. The Trump administration last month slapped sanctions on state-owned oil company Petroleos de Venezuela PDVSA.UL, known as PDVSA, to cut Maduro off from his government's main source of revenues. The administration official declined to comment on future sanctions, but said the United States and other allies are looking at ways to expel family members of Venezuelan military officials who are living outside the country - including some in south Florida. "They're going to face a situation where they and their families are going to have to go back to Venezuela," he said. The US official described the aid convoys as a key test for the Venezuelan military as its leaders weigh whether to obey Maduro or Guaido, who has asked the military to let it pass. "It's really the first order he gives to them as their commander in chief," the US official added.

US threatens new sanctions on Venezuela if aid convoys blocked

While there is no such thing as “free trade”, but freer trade, which gained impetus after the second world war has not only raised world output, among other things but raised, also lifted millions out of poverty. Underpinned and promoted by an institutional firmament, especially the World Trade Organisation (WTO), whose precursor was the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT),&nbsp;and what has been termed as the “liberal world order”, the freer trade paradigm is under serious threat. This holds despite US president Donald Trump’s assurances that trade talks between the United States and China were going on well and the March 1 deadline for tariffs might be extended.

The backdrop to the threat to freer trade is a mélange of the 2008 financial crisis, the assumption of Donald Trump to the highest office in the United States, with the concomitant rise of protectionism and mercantilism, or in other words, the primacy of the nation-state over a more open trading and even world order. The paradox here is that the United States, which led and pioneered the liberal economic and political world order and whose support for it was essential, benefited from an open economic order but is now retreating from it. The reasons pertain not to economics but to political economy.

While broad benefits accrue from freer trade, but it has both distributional and other economic consequences in terms of both “winners” and “losers”. This has been poignant in the United States where the distributional consequences of freer trade were acutely and intensely felt by those left behind by the gale of trade. The base brought Trump to power who, in his campaign pledges, promised to unwind the trade bargains and pacts and “make America great again(MAGA). In lieu of his pledges, Trump picked a trade fight with China and also attempted to rejigg trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The result has been a disruption that might feel good to some, but throws a spanner into the works of freer trade.

This insalubrious development is not only ominous but potentially threatens to roll back the stupendous gains made so far throwing into jeopardy human welfare. The question is: can freer trade be salvaged?&nbsp;

Yes. It can and it will perhaps gyrate to a dynamic of its own.&nbsp;

The reasons accrue from the nature of the 21st-century economy which is both a knowledge and a “gig” economy and the widgets, nuts and bolts one too. Trump’s focus till now has been the relocation of manufacturing to the United States. But, the country’s economy and even the global economy in which it is enmeshed has moved on. Profound and staggering developments in the Information, Communications and Technologies (ICTs), automation, robotics and Artificial Intelligence(AI) mean that the name of the game is different, especially in the developed world. This is not to demean the nuts and bolts economy which is and will remain relevant but it will be a complement to changes elsewhere. It is here that the United States, the world’s largest economy, must focus on instead of adopting a protectionist mercantilist paradigm.&nbsp;

The nature of this approach should be to reorient the country’s educational institutions and skill development in tune with the demands and the needs of the 21st century. A political price might have to made here but from a long duree perspective, it is the adoption of this particular approach that would be more sustainable and yield rewards both to the United States and the world, at large.

But, importantly, an important structural complement to the suggested paradigm, should be the creation of safety nets for those who are likely to be left behind by what is a veritable gale of “creative destruction” in the offing. 
 
Cumulatively, a novel approach toward education, skill development and a safety net could lead to a condition that would be win-win and offset the losses from freer trade. There would also ensue global prosperity which could undercut migratory pressures to both the developed world and the United States, in particular.

In the final analysis, freer trade is a blessing that has proved to be a boon for mankind. It would be a sheer travesty if its momentum is derailed, even if temporarily. What is required,&nbsp;at this delicate point in world history, is far-sighted and deft leadership that is both particular and general.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

While there is no such thing as “free trade”, but freer trade, which gained impetus after the second world war has not only raised world output, among other things but raised, also lifted millions out of poverty.

While there is no such thing as “free trade”, but freer trade, which gained impetus after the second world war has not only raised world output, among other things but raised, also lifted millions out of poverty. Underpinned and promoted by an institutional firmament, especially the World Trade Organisation (WTO), whose precursor was the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), and what has been termed as the “liberal world order”, the freer trade paradigm is under serious threat. This holds despite US president Donald Trump’s assurances that trade talks between the United States and China were going on well and the March 1 deadline for tariffs might be extended. The backdrop to the threat to freer trade is a mélange of the 2008 financial crisis, the assumption of Donald Trump to the highest office in the United States, with the concomitant rise of protectionism and mercantilism, or in other words, the primacy of the nation-state over a more open trading and even world order. The paradox here is that the United States, which led and pioneered the liberal economic and political world order and whose support for it was essential, benefited from an open economic order but is now retreating from it. The reasons pertain not to economics but to political economy. While broad benefits accrue from freer trade, but it has both distributional and other economic consequences in terms of both “winners” and “losers”. This has been poignant in the United States where the distributional consequences of freer trade were acutely and intensely felt by those left behind by the gale of trade. The base brought Trump to power who, in his campaign pledges, promised to unwind the trade bargains and pacts and “make America great again(MAGA). In lieu of his pledges, Trump picked a trade fight with China and also attempted to rejigg trade between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The result has been a disruption that might feel good to some, but throws a spanner into the works of freer trade. This insalubrious development is not only ominous but potentially threatens to roll back the stupendous gains made so far throwing into jeopardy human welfare. The question is: can freer trade be salvaged? Yes. It can and it will perhaps gyrate to a dynamic of its own. The reasons accrue from the nature of the 21st-century economy which is both a knowledge and a “gig” economy and the widgets, nuts and bolts one too. Trump’s focus till now has been the relocation of manufacturing to the United States. But, the country’s economy and even the global economy in which it is enmeshed has moved on. Profound and staggering developments in the Information, Communications and Technologies (ICTs), automation, robotics and Artificial Intelligence(AI) mean that the name of the game is different, especially in the developed world. This is not to demean the nuts and bolts economy which is and will remain relevant but it will be a complement to changes elsewhere. It is here that the United States, the world’s largest economy, must focus on instead of adopting a protectionist mercantilist paradigm. The nature of this approach should be to reorient the country’s educational institutions and skill development in tune with the demands and the needs of the 21st century. A political price might have to made here but from a long duree perspective, it is the adoption of this particular approach that would be more sustainable and yield rewards both to the United States and the world, at large. But, importantly, an important structural complement to the suggested paradigm, should be the creation of safety nets for those who are likely to be left behind by what is a veritable gale of “creative destruction” in the offing. Cumulatively, a novel approach toward education, skill development and a safety net could lead to a condition that would be win-win and offset the losses from freer trade. There would also ensue global prosperity which could undercut migratory pressures to both the developed world and the United States, in particular. In the final analysis, freer trade is a blessing that has proved to be a boon for mankind. It would be a sheer travesty if its momentum is derailed, even if temporarily. What is required, at this delicate point in world history, is far-sighted and deft leadership that is both particular and general. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

US-China trade talks: Free trade must not be derailed

Washington, United States | AFP | Wednesday 2/21/2019 - 02:54 UTC+5 | 263 words

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un must make a "meaningful" gesture if he wants to see sanctions lifted, US President Donald Trump said Wednesday ahead of a second summit between the two men.&nbsp;

"The sanctions are on in full. I haven't taken sanctions off," Trump told reporters at the White House.

"I'd love to be able to, but in order to do that, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-hes-in-no-rush-for-north-korea-to-denuclearise-198480">we have to do something that's meaningful</a> on the other side."

Trump and Kim are due to meet in Hanoi next week to discuss progress on the issue of North Korea's nuclear program since they first met in Singapore last year.&nbsp;

"Chairman Kim and I have a very good relationship. I wouldn't be surprised to see something work out," Trump said, without providing further details.

Trump reiterated his view that North Korea has "great" potential for economic development and suggested the Vietnam summit would not be the last.

At their landmark meeting in Singapore last year, the US and North Korean leaders produced a vaguely worded document in which Kim pledged to work toward "the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula."

But progress has since stalled, with the two sides disagreeing over what that means.

Trump on Tuesday said that while he hoped his next meeting with Kim would yield much progress, he was also in "no rush" for results.

The two men are set to meet in Hanoi on February 27-28.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders meanwhile said Trump spoke by phone with Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the two men "reaffirmed their commitment to achieving the final, fully verified denuclearization of" North Korea.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Washington, United States | AFP | Wednesday 2/21/2019 - 02:54 UTC+5 | 263 words North Korean leader Kim Jong Un must make a "meaningful" gesture if he wants to see sanctions lifted, US President Donald Trump said Wednesday ahead of a second summit between the two men.

Washington, United States | AFP | Wednesday 2/21/2019 - 02:54 UTC+5 | 263 words North Korean leader Kim Jong Un must make a "meaningful" gesture if he wants to see sanctions lifted, US President Donald Trump said Wednesday ahead of a second summit between the two men. "The sanctions are on in full. I haven't taken sanctions off," Trump told reporters at the White House. "I'd love to be able to, but in order to do that, we have to do something that's meaningful on the other side." Trump and Kim are due to meet in Hanoi next week to discuss progress on the issue of North Korea's nuclear program since they first met in Singapore last year. "Chairman Kim and I have a very good relationship. I wouldn't be surprised to see something work out," Trump said, without providing further details. Trump reiterated his view that North Korea has "great" potential for economic development and suggested the Vietnam summit would not be the last. At their landmark meeting in Singapore last year, the US and North Korean leaders produced a vaguely worded document in which Kim pledged to work toward "the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula." But progress has since stalled, with the two sides disagreeing over what that means. Trump on Tuesday said that while he hoped his next meeting with Kim would yield much progress, he was also in "no rush" for results. The two men are set to meet in Hanoi on February 27-28. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders meanwhile said Trump spoke by phone with Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the two men "reaffirmed their commitment to achieving the final, fully verified denuclearization of" North Korea.

Kim must make 'meaningful' gesture to see sanctions ease: Trump

US President Donald Trump threatened Wednesday to impose tariffs on European auto imports if he is unable to strike a trade deal with the EU.

"We're negotiating. If we don't make the deal, we'll do the tariffs," Trump told reporters in response to a question on new tariffs.

Trump's renewed threat against the EU auto industry takes on a new edge as it came two days after the Commerce Department delivered a report that sources said found <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/merkel-says-us-calling-european-cars-a-threat-is-frightening-197761">European car imports constitute a national security threat to the United States</a>.

The report could set the stage for the White House to impose tariffs within 90 days, a move Brussels has vowed to parry with its own set of counter-tariffs.

Washington already has used the national security argument to impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, drawing instant retaliation from the EU, Canada, Mexico and China.

In one of many aggressive moves against US trading partners, Trump, who boasts that he favors tariffs, has threatened 25 percent duties on European autos, especially targeting Germany, which he says has harmed the American car industry.

Trump reached a truce with the EU following a meeting last July with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker but on Wednesday expressed frustration with the state of talks.

"We're trying to make a deal," Trump said. "They're very tough to make a deal with, the EU. They've been very difficult over a period of time, over many, many years."

However, negotiations with the EU have not yet begun. The European Commission must seek approval from member states on a negotiating mandate before it can enter into talks. EU trade ministers will meet in Bucharest on Thursday and Friday to review the proposal.

But the sides have differences over what is to be included: the US negotiating goals include agriculture, while EU officials insist that will be off limits, and talks will be restricted to industrial goods and regulatory issues.

The White House is also locked in tough, high-stakes negotiations with China to find a way to resolve the conflict that saw punishing tariffs exchanged between Beijing and Washington.

US President Donald Trump threatened Wednesday to impose tariffs on European auto imports if he is unable to strike a trade deal with the EU. "We're negotiating.

US President Donald Trump threatened Wednesday to impose tariffs on European auto imports if he is unable to strike a trade deal with the EU. "We're negotiating. If we don't make the deal, we'll do the tariffs," Trump told reporters in response to a question on new tariffs. Trump's renewed threat against the EU auto industry takes on a new edge as it came two days after the Commerce Department delivered a report that sources said found European car imports constitute a national security threat to the United States. The report could set the stage for the White House to impose tariffs within 90 days, a move Brussels has vowed to parry with its own set of counter-tariffs. Washington already has used the national security argument to impose steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, drawing instant retaliation from the EU, Canada, Mexico and China. In one of many aggressive moves against US trading partners, Trump, who boasts that he favors tariffs, has threatened 25 percent duties on European autos, especially targeting Germany, which he says has harmed the American car industry. Trump reached a truce with the EU following a meeting last July with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker but on Wednesday expressed frustration with the state of talks. "We're trying to make a deal," Trump said. "They're very tough to make a deal with, the EU. They've been very difficult over a period of time, over many, many years." However, negotiations with the EU have not yet begun. The European Commission must seek approval from member states on a negotiating mandate before it can enter into talks. EU trade ministers will meet in Bucharest on Thursday and Friday to review the proposal. But the sides have differences over what is to be included: the US negotiating goals include agriculture, while EU officials insist that will be off limits, and talks will be restricted to industrial goods and regulatory issues. The White House is also locked in tough, high-stakes negotiations with China to find a way to resolve the conflict that saw punishing tariffs exchanged between Beijing and Washington.

Trump threatens tariffs on EU if no trade deal reached

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday called upon lawmakers to back a resolution to halt the national emergency declared by US President Donald Trump to fund a wall on the southern border with Mexico.

Trump announced the emergency in order to bypass Congress, which approved only a quarter of the $5.6 billion he wanted for the wall in a spending bill.

Sixteen states earlier this week sued over the declaration, but the Trump administration has continued with plans to pull together around a further $6.6 billion in federal funding, mostly from the Department of Defense.

Texas congressman Joaquin Castro had last week vowed to introduce a resolution to terminate the president's move.

Lawmakers have until 3:00 pm (2000 GMT) on Thursday to co-sponsor it, before it is formally introduced on Friday.

"I write to invite all Members of Congress to cosponsor Congressman Joaquin Castro's privileged resolution," Pelosi said in a letter to Democrats and Republicans late Wednesday."

"The President's decision to go outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process violates the Constitution and must be terminated," she said.

"We have a solemn responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and defend our system of checks and balances against the President's assault.

Democrats were quick to express their support.

"I'm a YES to overturn the declaration," Democratic Senator Brian Schatz tweeted.

Meanwhile, House Democrat Linda Sanchez, of California, said she was "proud" to support Castro's resolution.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday called upon lawmakers to back a resolution to halt the national emergency declared by US President Donald Trump to fund a wall on the southern border with Mexico.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday called upon lawmakers to back a resolution to halt the national emergency declared by US President Donald Trump to fund a wall on the southern border with Mexico. Trump announced the emergency in order to bypass Congress, which approved only a quarter of the $5.6 billion he wanted for the wall in a spending bill. Sixteen states earlier this week sued over the declaration, but the Trump administration has continued with plans to pull together around a further $6.6 billion in federal funding, mostly from the Department of Defense. Texas congressman Joaquin Castro had last week vowed to introduce a resolution to terminate the president's move. Lawmakers have until 3:00 pm (2000 GMT) on Thursday to co-sponsor it, before it is formally introduced on Friday. "I write to invite all Members of Congress to cosponsor Congressman Joaquin Castro's privileged resolution," Pelosi said in a letter to Democrats and Republicans late Wednesday." "The President's decision to go outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process violates the Constitution and must be terminated," she said. "We have a solemn responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and defend our system of checks and balances against the President's assault. Democrats were quick to express their support. "I'm a YES to overturn the declaration," Democratic Senator Brian Schatz tweeted. Meanwhile, House Democrat Linda Sanchez, of California, said she was "proud" to support Castro's resolution.

Pelosi on warpath with Trump again, calls for support to halt US president's 'emergency'

A heavily armed group of foreign nationals, who were arrested in Haiti on Sunday after days of massive anti-government protests, were handed over to US authorities on Wednesday, Haitian and US authorities said.

It was unclear if all the members of the group, which reportedly included five Americans, a Serb and a Russian, were flown to the United States.

"The return of the individuals to the U.S. was coordinated with the Haitian authorities," a State Department representative for Western Hemisphere Affairs said in an emailed statement, without providing further details.

A spokesman for Haiti's Justice Ministry also confirmed that the individuals were "were handed over to U.S. authorities this Wednesday."

Media reports said that, at the time of their arrest, the men were armed with semi-automatic weapons, rifles, pistols, drones and satellite phones in their two vehicles.

Videos circulating on social media alleged to show at least six men being escorted through the airport in Port-au-Prince toward a plane bound for the United States.

Since the arrests, Haitian newspapers have printed names that corresponded to social media profiles of U.S. citizens claiming military backgrounds. However, Reuters could not independently confirm the identities of the arrested men.

Thousands of demonstrators called for President Jovenel Moise to resign and for an independent probe into the whereabouts of funds from the PetroCaribe agreement, an alliance between Caribbean countries and OPEC member Venezuela.

Protests that began on Feb. 7 died down after about a week-and-a-half but opposition leaders have called for Haitians to take to the streets again on Friday.

The State Department last week ordered all non-emergency U.S. personnel and their families to leave Haiti and advised U.S. citizens not to travel there.

A heavily armed group of foreign nationals, who were arrested in Haiti on Sunday after days of massive anti-government protests, were handed over to US authorities on Wednesday, Haitian and US authorities said.

A heavily armed group of foreign nationals, who were arrested in Haiti on Sunday after days of massive anti-government protests, were handed over to US authorities on Wednesday, Haitian and US authorities said. It was unclear if all the members of the group, which reportedly included five Americans, a Serb and a Russian, were flown to the United States. "The return of the individuals to the U.S. was coordinated with the Haitian authorities," a State Department representative for Western Hemisphere Affairs said in an emailed statement, without providing further details. A spokesman for Haiti's Justice Ministry also confirmed that the individuals were "were handed over to U.S. authorities this Wednesday." Media reports said that, at the time of their arrest, the men were armed with semi-automatic weapons, rifles, pistols, drones and satellite phones in their two vehicles. Videos circulating on social media alleged to show at least six men being escorted through the airport in Port-au-Prince toward a plane bound for the United States. Since the arrests, Haitian newspapers have printed names that corresponded to social media profiles of U.S. citizens claiming military backgrounds. However, Reuters could not independently confirm the identities of the arrested men. Thousands of demonstrators called for President Jovenel Moise to resign and for an independent probe into the whereabouts of funds from the PetroCaribe agreement, an alliance between Caribbean countries and OPEC member Venezuela. Protests that began on Feb. 7 died down after about a week-and-a-half but opposition leaders have called for Haitians to take to the streets again on Friday. The State Department last week ordered all non-emergency U.S. personnel and their families to leave Haiti and advised U.S. citizens not to travel there.

Heavily armed foreigners arrested in Haiti sent to United States, officials say

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought Tuesday to reassure Europeans that there is broad-based and long-term US support for the transatlantic alliance despite President Donald Trump's harsh criticism.

In an implicit message, the Republican president is not omnipotent, the most powerful Democrat said she and fellow visiting congressmen were asserting the role of their legislative branch as co-equal to the executive.

The congressmen are "reaffirming our commitment to the transatlantic alliance, our commitment to NATO, our respect for the European Union and our ability and desire for us all to work together to strengthen our alliance," Pelosi told a press conference in Brussels.

The congressmen spent Monday and Tuesday in Brussels, headquarters of NATO and the European Union, where they attended a meeting of members of parliament from NATO nations as well as talks with EU officials.

Before Belgium, Pelosi had been in Germany as part of a larger group of Democratic and Republican lawmakers who attended the Munich Security Conference to support the transatlantic alliance.

Pelosi said the new Democratic-led house, which followed last November's mid-term elections, was helping assert itself in line with the constitution.

"We have Article 1, the legislative branch, the first branch of government, co-equal to the other branches and we have asserted ourselves in that way," Pelosi said.

With Democrats in control of the House, she said, the Republican minority came into line behind the NATO Support Act, which she said passed by an overwhelming 357 votes to 22.

The Democratic congressmen met EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and her boss, European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker.&nbsp;

Mogherini's office said the US and EU sides "confirmed the crucial importance of maintaining a strong transatlantic partnership."

It said this would happen through "continued cooperation and dialogue" in areas like trade, climate change and human rights.&nbsp;

Both Mogherini and Pelosi "confirmed the importance of safeguarding multilateralism and the international rules-based order in promoting democratic values," Mogherini's office said.

Washington's European allies in NATO remain on edge since Trump, during a summit in July, reportedly threatened to "go it alone" unless they boosted defence spending.

Trump's "America First" approach to trade, including tariffs on metals and threats of tariffs on autos, has also worried Europeans he will abandon the alliance.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought Tuesday to reassure Europeans that there is broad-based and long-term US support for the transatlantic alliance despite President Donald Trump's harsh criticism.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought Tuesday to reassure Europeans that there is broad-based and long-term US support for the transatlantic alliance despite President Donald Trump's harsh criticism. In an implicit message, the Republican president is not omnipotent, the most powerful Democrat said she and fellow visiting congressmen were asserting the role of their legislative branch as co-equal to the executive. The congressmen are "reaffirming our commitment to the transatlantic alliance, our commitment to NATO, our respect for the European Union and our ability and desire for us all to work together to strengthen our alliance," Pelosi told a press conference in Brussels. The congressmen spent Monday and Tuesday in Brussels, headquarters of NATO and the European Union, where they attended a meeting of members of parliament from NATO nations as well as talks with EU officials. Before Belgium, Pelosi had been in Germany as part of a larger group of Democratic and Republican lawmakers who attended the Munich Security Conference to support the transatlantic alliance. Pelosi said the new Democratic-led house, which followed last November's mid-term elections, was helping assert itself in line with the constitution. "We have Article 1, the legislative branch, the first branch of government, co-equal to the other branches and we have asserted ourselves in that way," Pelosi said. With Democrats in control of the House, she said, the Republican minority came into line behind the NATO Support Act, which she said passed by an overwhelming 357 votes to 22. The Democratic congressmen met EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and her boss, European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker. Mogherini's office said the US and EU sides "confirmed the crucial importance of maintaining a strong transatlantic partnership." It said this would happen through "continued cooperation and dialogue" in areas like trade, climate change and human rights. Both Mogherini and Pelosi "confirmed the importance of safeguarding multilateralism and the international rules-based order in promoting democratic values," Mogherini's office said. Washington's European allies in NATO remain on edge since Trump, during a summit in July, reportedly threatened to "go it alone" unless they boosted defence spending. Trump's "America First" approach to trade, including tariffs on metals and threats of tariffs on autos, has also worried Europeans he will abandon the alliance.

Pelosi pledges long-term US backing of NATO, EU

Watch: WION Gravitas, February 19th, 2019

Protests against Donald Trump across US on Presidents Day

The founder of Chinese telecom giant Huawei has hit back at US efforts to blacklist the company, saying defiantly that the world cannot do without Huawei and its "more advanced" technology.

"<a href="http://www.wionews.com/americas/united-states-formally-charges-chinas-huawei-with-bank-fraud-stealing-trade-secrets-193545">There's no way the US can crush us</a>," Ren Zhengfei said in an interview with the BBC.&nbsp;

"The world cannot leave us because we are more advanced."

Ren, 74, also denounced as "politically motivated" the December arrest of his daughter, Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, who is accused of violating US sanctions against Iran.

"We object to this," he said.&nbsp;

"But now that we've gone down this path, we'll let the courts settle it."

The normally media-shy Huawei founder has been forced to step into the limelight in recent months as the company has come under increasing pressure over espionage concerns and the US-led campaign to persuade other countries to ban its technology.

Last year, security concerns prompted Australia to ban Huawei equipment from its future 5G network.

New Zealand has also blocked its largest telecom carrier from using Huawei technology for the next generation network, while the Czech Republic has reportedly excluded it from a 20-million-euro ($22 million) tender to build a tax portal.

US prosecutors also are charging Huawei with stealing trade secrets, saying it offered rewards to employees for stealing technology from other rivals.

Ren shrugged off the growing pressure.

"If the lights go out in the West, the East will still shine," he said. "America doesn't represent the world."

"Even if they persuade more countries not to use us temporarily, we can always downsize and become smaller."

The founder of Chinese telecom giant Huawei has hit back at US efforts to blacklist the company, saying defiantly that the world cannot do without Huawei and its "more advanced" technology.

The founder of Chinese telecom giant Huawei has hit back at US efforts to blacklist the company, saying defiantly that the world cannot do without Huawei and its "more advanced" technology. "There's no way the US can crush us," Ren Zhengfei said in an interview with the BBC. "The world cannot leave us because we are more advanced." Ren, 74, also denounced as "politically motivated" the December arrest of his daughter, Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou, who is accused of violating US sanctions against Iran. "We object to this," he said. "But now that we've gone down this path, we'll let the courts settle it." The normally media-shy Huawei founder has been forced to step into the limelight in recent months as the company has come under increasing pressure over espionage concerns and the US-led campaign to persuade other countries to ban its technology. Last year, security concerns prompted Australia to ban Huawei equipment from its future 5G network. New Zealand has also blocked its largest telecom carrier from using Huawei technology for the next generation network, while the Czech Republic has reportedly excluded it from a 20-million-euro ($22 million) tender to build a tax portal. US prosecutors also are charging Huawei with stealing trade secrets, saying it offered rewards to employees for stealing technology from other rivals. Ren shrugged off the growing pressure. "If the lights go out in the West, the East will still shine," he said. "America doesn't represent the world." "Even if they persuade more countries not to use us temporarily, we can always downsize and become smaller."

There's no way the US can crush us: Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei

By Jeff Bachman

The US House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to pass legislation to deny further military assistance for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

The bipartisan vote for the bill was a repudiation of the Obama and Trump administrations’ support for the Saudis and a war that many charge includes violations of human rights. A Saudi-led coalition of states has been aggressively bombing Yemen and imposing an air and naval blockade of its ports for more than three years, leading UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to describe Yemen as “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.”

The legislation now goes to the Senate. President Trump has said that he would veto it if passed.

Guterres put the crisis in stark perspective, emphasising the near complete lack of security for the Yemeni people. More than 22 million people out of a total population of 28 million are in need of humanitarian aid and protection. Eighteen million people lack reliable access to food; 8.4 million people “do not know how they will obtain their next meal.”

As a scholar of genocide and human rights, I believe the destruction brought about by these attacks combined with the blockade amounts to genocide.

Based on my research, published online by Third World Quarterly, I believe the coalition would not be capable of committing this crime without the material and logistical support of both the Obama and Trump administrations.

A ‘storm’ recast as ‘hope’

Yemen has been gripped by a civil war since 2015, pitting the Shia Houthi movement – which has fought for centuries for control of parts of Yemen – against a government backed by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Because of these religious differences, it would be easy to recast what is largely a political conflict in Yemen as a sectarian one.

That characterisation fits Saudi and US assertions that the Houthis are controlled by Shiite Iran, a claim that has not gone uncontested. Both the Saudis and the US are hostile to Iran, so US support of Saudia Arabia in Yemen represents what US administrations have said are strategic interests in the region.

Besides Saudi Arabia, the coalition attacking Yemen includes the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait and Bahrain. Qatar was part of the coalition but is no longer.

During the first three years of “Operation Decisive Storm,” later renamed “Operation Renewal of Hope,” 16,749 coalition air attacks in Yemen were documented by the Yemen Data Project, which describes itself as an “independent data collection project aimed at collecting and disseminating data on the conduct of the war in Yemen.”

Based on the information available to it using open sources, the Yemen Data Project reports that two-thirds of the coalition’s bombing attacks have been against nonmilitary and unknown targets. The coalition isn’t accidentally attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure – it’s doing it deliberately.

That’s evident from the kind – and volume – of civilian targets documented. They include places that are generally protected against attack even under the lax rules of international humanitarian law: Residential areas, vehicles, marketplaces and mosques as well as boats, social gatherings and camps for internally displaced persons.

Because of the role it plays in movement of people, food and medicine, Yemen’s transportation infrastructure is especially important. Airports, ports, bridges and roads have all been repeatedly attacked.

Yemen’s economic infrastructure – farms, private businesses and factories, oil and gas facilities, water and electricity lines and food storage – have also been hit. And the coalition has targeted and destroyed schools and medical facilities, too.

Finally, Yemen’s cultural heritage has been attacked. In all, at least 78 cultural sites have been damaged or destroyed, including archaeological sites, museums, mosques, churches and tombs, as well as numerous other monuments and residences that have great historical and cultural significance.

How to make a crisis

The attacks aren’t the only way the coalition is creating a massive humanitarian crisis.

The air and naval blockade, in effect since March 2015, “is essentially using the threat of starvation as a bargaining tool and an instrument of war,” according to the UN panel of experts on Yemen.

The blockade stops and inspects vessels seeking entry to Yemen’s ports. That allows the coalition to regulate and restrict Yemenis’ access to food, fuel, medical supplies and humanitarian aid.

In his analysis of the blockade’s legality, Dutch military scholar Martin Fink writes that the blockade means “massive time delays and uncertainty on what products would be allowed to enter.”

Despite U.N. efforts to alleviate some of the worst delays, imports are often held up for a long time. In some cases, food that makes it through the blockade has already spoiled, if the entry is not denied altogether.

In some ways, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is unprecedented and can be tied directly to the conflict. As the World Bank notes, “Yemen’s very difficult economic challenges before the current conflict cannot be compared to the intensely critical situation the country is facing today.”

Similarly, Tufts University scholar Alex de Waal describes Yemen as “the greatest famine atrocity of our lifetimes.” It was caused, writes de Waal, by the coalition “deliberately destroying the country’s food-producing infrastructure.”

The failing security for the people of Yemen has been compounded by a failing health system. The World Health Organisation reported in September 2017 that only 45 per cent of health facilities in Yemen were functional.

As Secretary-General Guterres put it, “Treatable illnesses become a death sentence when local health services are suspended and it is impossible to travel outside the country.”

As of February 2018, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the coalition had killed 6,000 people in airstrikes and wounded nearly 10,000 more.

Yet, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report, these counts are conservative. Tens of thousands of Yemenis have also died from causes related to the war. According to Save the Children, an estimated 85,000 children under five may have died since 2015, with more than 50,000 child deaths in 2017 alone from hunger and related causes.

Coalition actions in Yemen amount to nothing short of what Raphael Lemkin, the individual who coined the term “genocide,” referred to as a “synchronized attack on different aspects of life.”

The US contribution

The coalition’s genocide in Yemen would not be possible without the complicity of the US. This has been a bipartisan presidential effort, covering both the Obama and Trump administrations.

US arms are being used to kill Yemenis and destroy their country. In 2016, well after the coalition began its genocidal assault on Yemen, four of the top five recipients of US arms sales were members of the coalition.

The U.S. has also provided the coalition with logistical support, including mid-air refuelling, targeting advice and support, intelligence, expedited munitions resupply and maintenance.

Other than the sale of arms, perhaps the most significant contribution to the coalition’s ability to commit genocide in Yemen has been the provision of fuel and midair refuelling of coalition warplanes, which was halted in early November 2018. By the middle of 2017, the US had delivered over 67 million pounds of fuel to the coalition and refuelled coalition aircraft more than 9,000 times.

Shared responsibility for genocide

As a genocide scholar, I believe that under international law, the US shares responsibility with the coalition for genocide in Yemen.

What does this mean? It means that the US must cease and desist all activities that facilitate genocide in Yemen. This would include stopping all sales of weapons and ending logistical support for coalition action. The legislation passed by the House would largely accomplish this, though the House bill would allow intelligence sharing with Saudi Arabia to continue when “appropriate in the national security interest of the United States.”

However, even if the Senate passes it, the president’s likely veto of the bill will mean no change in the deadly status quo unless the legislation garners enough support to override a presidential veto.

In an ideal world, one in which all states are equally subjects before international law, the U.S. would also seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding what restitution it owes the people of Yemen for its role in the coalition’s genocide.

Similarly, the US would request an International Criminal Court investigation into individual culpability of US officials in both the Obama and Trump administrations for their role in facilitating the crimes committed in Yemen.

Of course, this is not an ideal world.

The US recognises neither the International Court of Justice’s authority to judge the legality of its actions, nor the International Criminal Court’s authority to investigate the suspected criminal acts of individual US officials. Such an investigation could be triggered by a UN Security Council referral, but the US would simply veto any such effort.

All that is left, then, is for the people of the US to hold their own to account for the crimes committed in their names. 
 
(Jeff Bachman is Professorial Lecturer in Human Rights, American University School of International Service)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/senate-vote-could-end-us-complicity-in-the-saudi-led-genocide-in-yemen-111952">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

By Jeff Bachman The US House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to pass legislation to deny further military assistance for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen.

By Jeff Bachman The US House of Representatives has voted overwhelmingly to pass legislation to deny further military assistance for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. The bipartisan vote for the bill was a repudiation of the Obama and Trump administrations’ support for the Saudis and a war that many charge includes violations of human rights. A Saudi-led coalition of states has been aggressively bombing Yemen and imposing an air and naval blockade of its ports for more than three years, leading UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to describe Yemen as “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.” The legislation now goes to the Senate. President Trump has said that he would veto it if passed. Guterres put the crisis in stark perspective, emphasising the near complete lack of security for the Yemeni people. More than 22 million people out of a total population of 28 million are in need of humanitarian aid and protection. Eighteen million people lack reliable access to food; 8.4 million people “do not know how they will obtain their next meal.” As a scholar of genocide and human rights, I believe the destruction brought about by these attacks combined with the blockade amounts to genocide. Based on my research, published online by Third World Quarterly, I believe the coalition would not be capable of committing this crime without the material and logistical support of both the Obama and Trump administrations. A ‘storm’ recast as ‘hope’ Yemen has been gripped by a civil war since 2015, pitting the Shia Houthi movement – which has fought for centuries for control of parts of Yemen – against a government backed by Sunni Saudi Arabia. Because of these religious differences, it would be easy to recast what is largely a political conflict in Yemen as a sectarian one. That characterisation fits Saudi and US assertions that the Houthis are controlled by Shiite Iran, a claim that has not gone uncontested. Both the Saudis and the US are hostile to Iran, so US support of Saudia Arabia in Yemen represents what US administrations have said are strategic interests in the region. Besides Saudi Arabia, the coalition attacking Yemen includes the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan, Kuwait and Bahrain. Qatar was part of the coalition but is no longer. During the first three years of “Operation Decisive Storm,” later renamed “Operation Renewal of Hope,” 16,749 coalition air attacks in Yemen were documented by the Yemen Data Project, which describes itself as an “independent data collection project aimed at collecting and disseminating data on the conduct of the war in Yemen.” Based on the information available to it using open sources, the Yemen Data Project reports that two-thirds of the coalition’s bombing attacks have been against nonmilitary and unknown targets. The coalition isn’t accidentally attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure – it’s doing it deliberately. That’s evident from the kind – and volume – of civilian targets documented. They include places that are generally protected against attack even under the lax rules of international humanitarian law: Residential areas, vehicles, marketplaces and mosques as well as boats, social gatherings and camps for internally displaced persons. Because of the role it plays in movement of people, food and medicine, Yemen’s transportation infrastructure is especially important. Airports, ports, bridges and roads have all been repeatedly attacked. Yemen’s economic infrastructure – farms, private businesses and factories, oil and gas facilities, water and electricity lines and food storage – have also been hit. And the coalition has targeted and destroyed schools and medical facilities, too. Finally, Yemen’s cultural heritage has been attacked. In all, at least 78 cultural sites have been damaged or destroyed, including archaeological sites, museums, mosques, churches and tombs, as well as numerous other monuments and residences that have great historical and cultural significance. How to make a crisis The attacks aren’t the only way the coalition is creating a massive humanitarian crisis. The air and naval blockade, in effect since March 2015, “is essentially using the threat of starvation as a bargaining tool and an instrument of war,” according to the UN panel of experts on Yemen. The blockade stops and inspects vessels seeking entry to Yemen’s ports. That allows the coalition to regulate and restrict Yemenis’ access to food, fuel, medical supplies and humanitarian aid. In his analysis of the blockade’s legality, Dutch military scholar Martin Fink writes that the blockade means “massive time delays and uncertainty on what products would be allowed to enter.” Despite U.N. efforts to alleviate some of the worst delays, imports are often held up for a long time. In some cases, food that makes it through the blockade has already spoiled, if the entry is not denied altogether. In some ways, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen is unprecedented and can be tied directly to the conflict. As the World Bank notes, “Yemen’s very difficult economic challenges before the current conflict cannot be compared to the intensely critical situation the country is facing today.” Similarly, Tufts University scholar Alex de Waal describes Yemen as “the greatest famine atrocity of our lifetimes.” It was caused, writes de Waal, by the coalition “deliberately destroying the country’s food-producing infrastructure.” The failing security for the people of Yemen has been compounded by a failing health system. The World Health Organisation reported in September 2017 that only 45 per cent of health facilities in Yemen were functional. As Secretary-General Guterres put it, “Treatable illnesses become a death sentence when local health services are suspended and it is impossible to travel outside the country.” As of February 2018, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the coalition had killed 6,000 people in airstrikes and wounded nearly 10,000 more. Yet, according to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report, these counts are conservative. Tens of thousands of Yemenis have also died from causes related to the war. According to Save the Children, an estimated 85,000 children under five may have died since 2015, with more than 50,000 child deaths in 2017 alone from hunger and related causes. Coalition actions in Yemen amount to nothing short of what Raphael Lemkin, the individual who coined the term “genocide,” referred to as a “synchronized attack on different aspects of life.” The US contribution The coalition’s genocide in Yemen would not be possible without the complicity of the US. This has been a bipartisan presidential effort, covering both the Obama and Trump administrations. US arms are being used to kill Yemenis and destroy their country. In 2016, well after the coalition began its genocidal assault on Yemen, four of the top five recipients of US arms sales were members of the coalition. The U.S. has also provided the coalition with logistical support, including mid-air refuelling, targeting advice and support, intelligence, expedited munitions resupply and maintenance. Other than the sale of arms, perhaps the most significant contribution to the coalition’s ability to commit genocide in Yemen has been the provision of fuel and midair refuelling of coalition warplanes, which was halted in early November 2018. By the middle of 2017, the US had delivered over 67 million pounds of fuel to the coalition and refuelled coalition aircraft more than 9,000 times. Shared responsibility for genocide As a genocide scholar, I believe that under international law, the US shares responsibility with the coalition for genocide in Yemen. What does this mean? It means that the US must cease and desist all activities that facilitate genocide in Yemen. This would include stopping all sales of weapons and ending logistical support for coalition action. The legislation passed by the House would largely accomplish this, though the House bill would allow intelligence sharing with Saudi Arabia to continue when “appropriate in the national security interest of the United States.” However, even if the Senate passes it, the president’s likely veto of the bill will mean no change in the deadly status quo unless the legislation garners enough support to override a presidential veto. In an ideal world, one in which all states are equally subjects before international law, the U.S. would also seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding what restitution it owes the people of Yemen for its role in the coalition’s genocide. Similarly, the US would request an International Criminal Court investigation into individual culpability of US officials in both the Obama and Trump administrations for their role in facilitating the crimes committed in Yemen. Of course, this is not an ideal world. The US recognises neither the International Court of Justice’s authority to judge the legality of its actions, nor the International Criminal Court’s authority to investigate the suspected criminal acts of individual US officials. Such an investigation could be triggered by a UN Security Council referral, but the US would simply veto any such effort. All that is left, then, is for the people of the US to hold their own to account for the crimes committed in their names. (Jeff Bachman is Professorial Lecturer in Human Rights, American University School of International Service) (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.)

Senate vote could end US complicity in the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen

Geopolitics, like thermodynamics, has its laws of conservation. If a wall comes down in one place, you can bet that it will go up somewhere else. It wasn’t long after the Berlin Wall fell that different kinds of walls went up in Eastern Europe. New borders separated the Czech Republic from Slovakia, and then, after much bloodshed, the new successor states of former Yugoslavia.

By the end of the 1990s, barriers were being established in small towns in the Czech Republic, in Slovakia and in Romania to separate Roma and non-Roma populations. Germans on both sides of the former Berlin Wall were declaring that they were one people. But in other countries in the region, the majority population was insisting, rule of law notwithstanding, that the citizenry was not one people and a wall was necessary to emphasise the distinction.

These discriminatory walls anticipated the next round of walls in the region: to keep out immigrants. Hungary built a wall on its border with Serbia in 2015, and then a second one in 2017 just to be sure. Germany was letting in more than a million desperate people. Hungary and most of the rest of Eastern Europe, after making the earlier case that they belonged in the European Union, were shutting the door after themselves.

It’s not just Eastern Europe. The Brexit vote was basically an effort to build a big wall across the English Channel to separate the United Kingdom from Europe. Keeping out immigrants was a major motivating factor.

Walls are practically everywhere, alas. You can find a very sad set of walls separating Israel from the Occupied Territories. Spain has walled off its cities of Ceuta and Melilla from the rest of Morocco (yes, there are two Spanish towns in North Africa). There’s a wall between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. According to Elisabeth Vallet, a geography professor at the University of Quebec-Montreal, there were 15 border walls around the world in 1989. That has jumped to 77 today.

Donald Trump's wall 
 
As with so many of his fixations, Donald Trump’s call for a wall is hardly original. And this wall, too, is a response to the collapse of walls elsewhere. Economic globalisation was responsible, from the 1980s on, for gradually tearing down all manner of barriers: to trade, to finance and to the movement of manufacturers. Trump and his economic populists have done as much as they can to put back some of those barriers — for instance, by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and by slapping tariffs on products from allies and adversaries.

But Trump’s wall along the US-Mexico border is first and foremost about keeping people out. Economic globalisation removed some barriers to the movement of people, but primarily those with highly sought-after skills. As for the truly desperate who were trying to climb over walls and breach borders, they were often motivated more by war and the violence of non-state actors.

These two types of “open borders” — one for money, the other for bodies — have often been confused in the public imagination. Or politicians have deliberately conflated the two, as Trump supporters did in the case of the infamous Hillary Clinton quote about “open borders.” She quite obviously meant economic globalization, not immigration, which was troubling in its own right, but for different reasons.

Trump is not a big fan of openness, in any of its manifestations. He loves the idea of exclusivity: private jets, elite parties, membership-only clubs like Mar-a-Lago. He prefers not to reveal his tax returns. He’d like to keep all of his financials well hidden. In Trump’s mind, walls define the parameters of privilege. Whenever he can wall off the press, his “low-intelligence” critics, the populations of “shit-hole” countries, he does so in a New York minute. He devises travel bans. He instructs his press secretary to dispense with the traditional daily press briefings. He stays within his Fox News enclosure. Even when he prances before the public in mass events, he wants to make sure that everyone in the crowd is on his side.

The Trump brand has always been about exclusivity, though of a rather tawdry variety: the appearance of prestige instead of the reality. As the writer Fran Lebowitz once remarked, Trump is “a poor person’s idea of a rich person.” It could also be said that he’s a non-political person’s idea of a president. He projects the appearance of a president — handshakes with other leaders, photo ops in the Oval Office — without any of the substance. All of his talk of “fake news” is just an indirect admission of his own doubts about his own authenticity as a president.

No surprise, then, that Trump is offering the appearance of security rather than the reality of security. A wall is largely a symbol. It means nothing when the United States refuses to address the true causes of insecurity, both at home and abroad. Nicholas Kristof did a nice column in The New York Times, drawn in part from my IPS colleagues’ National Priorities Project data, about all the sensible ways to spend $5.7 billion: on America’s children, on gun buybacks and drug treatment programs, on job training for prisoners, and on helping people overseas. That’s what a real president would support, not a “fake president.”

Insecurity

But let’s dig a little deeper. The wall addresses a core psychological insecurity. Trump supporters — and many others — feel as if their own privileges are evaporating. Those privileges are connected to race and gender (the angry white men who now swell the ranks of the Republican Party). But they are also connected to class (the blue-collar workers that once formed the backbone of the Democratic Party).

And don’t forget the oft-overlooked privilege of being American. US citizens are feeling increasingly anxious as they watch the United States fail to achieve its objectives in one war after another — even as China expands its influence and Russia regains its great power status. Americans watch conflict, extremism, disease and the other horsemen of the Apocalypse engulf other countries, and they feel as if America can no longer ride in on its white horse to save the day (the last time was perhaps World War II). Worse, they can hear the drumbeat of those hooves approaching the very shores of this country.

Trump and his supporters want that wall to prevent all these privileges — individual, communal, national — from leaking out. It’s the architectural equivalent of a gun. It’s for defense, a way for people to “stand their ground.” But it’s also compensation for powerlessness and lack of control. As with guns, the sense of safety and security is almost entirely illusory.

Liberals, unfortunately, don’t offer much of an alternative. They use more inclusive language when it comes to individual and communal privilege — though liberals are also guilty of constructing walls when they live in the ghettoes of the wealthy, send their children to private schools or expunge any discordant viewpoints from their social media networks. These walls are largely invisible — just like the financial red lines that helped to create America’s urban wastelands — but they are no less powerful.

In terms of national privilege, liberals also believe in American supremacy, though they speak more in terms of restoring American leadership. America, in other words, has not really adjusted to a multipolar world, its more modest place within it or the resulting anxieties that torment the souls of Americans.

The US military, after all its failures around the world, no longer preserves American privilege. The US dollar, weakened by US debt and the strengthening of other national currencies, may soon lose its special glow. A wall is a fallback position, and a rather pathetic one at that. The United States desperately needs a leader — actually, a cadre of leaders — who can reconcile America’s relationship with the world, who can redefine US privilege and who can see the importance of a shift from global power over to global power with. It would be a true privilege to elect such visionaries to leadership positions. The world is waiting.

(John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies)

(This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/us-mexico-border-wall-donald-trump-american-politics-world-news-headlines-today-79083/">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Geopolitics, like thermodynamics, has its laws of conservation. If a wall comes down in one place, you can bet that it will go up somewhere else. It wasn’t long after the Berlin Wall fell that different kinds of walls went up in Eastern Europe.

Geopolitics, like thermodynamics, has its laws of conservation. If a wall comes down in one place, you can bet that it will go up somewhere else. It wasn’t long after the Berlin Wall fell that different kinds of walls went up in Eastern Europe. New borders separated the Czech Republic from Slovakia, and then, after much bloodshed, the new successor states of former Yugoslavia. By the end of the 1990s, barriers were being established in small towns in the Czech Republic, in Slovakia and in Romania to separate Roma and non-Roma populations. Germans on both sides of the former Berlin Wall were declaring that they were one people. But in other countries in the region, the majority population was insisting, rule of law notwithstanding, that the citizenry was not one people and a wall was necessary to emphasise the distinction. These discriminatory walls anticipated the next round of walls in the region: to keep out immigrants. Hungary built a wall on its border with Serbia in 2015, and then a second one in 2017 just to be sure. Germany was letting in more than a million desperate people. Hungary and most of the rest of Eastern Europe, after making the earlier case that they belonged in the European Union, were shutting the door after themselves. It’s not just Eastern Europe. The Brexit vote was basically an effort to build a big wall across the English Channel to separate the United Kingdom from Europe. Keeping out immigrants was a major motivating factor. Walls are practically everywhere, alas. You can find a very sad set of walls separating Israel from the Occupied Territories. Spain has walled off its cities of Ceuta and Melilla from the rest of Morocco (yes, there are two Spanish towns in North Africa). There’s a wall between Saudi Arabia and Iraq. According to Elisabeth Vallet, a geography professor at the University of Quebec-Montreal, there were 15 border walls around the world in 1989. That has jumped to 77 today. Donald Trump's wall As with so many of his fixations, Donald Trump’s call for a wall is hardly original. And this wall, too, is a response to the collapse of walls elsewhere. Economic globalisation was responsible, from the 1980s on, for gradually tearing down all manner of barriers: to trade, to finance and to the movement of manufacturers. Trump and his economic populists have done as much as they can to put back some of those barriers — for instance, by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and by slapping tariffs on products from allies and adversaries. But Trump’s wall along the US-Mexico border is first and foremost about keeping people out. Economic globalisation removed some barriers to the movement of people, but primarily those with highly sought-after skills. As for the truly desperate who were trying to climb over walls and breach borders, they were often motivated more by war and the violence of non-state actors. These two types of “open borders” — one for money, the other for bodies — have often been confused in the public imagination. Or politicians have deliberately conflated the two, as Trump supporters did in the case of the infamous Hillary Clinton quote about “open borders.” She quite obviously meant economic globalization, not immigration, which was troubling in its own right, but for different reasons. Trump is not a big fan of openness, in any of its manifestations. He loves the idea of exclusivity: private jets, elite parties, membership-only clubs like Mar-a-Lago. He prefers not to reveal his tax returns. He’d like to keep all of his financials well hidden. In Trump’s mind, walls define the parameters of privilege. Whenever he can wall off the press, his “low-intelligence” critics, the populations of “shit-hole” countries, he does so in a New York minute. He devises travel bans. He instructs his press secretary to dispense with the traditional daily press briefings. He stays within his Fox News enclosure. Even when he prances before the public in mass events, he wants to make sure that everyone in the crowd is on his side. The Trump brand has always been about exclusivity, though of a rather tawdry variety: the appearance of prestige instead of the reality. As the writer Fran Lebowitz once remarked, Trump is “a poor person’s idea of a rich person.” It could also be said that he’s a non-political person’s idea of a president. He projects the appearance of a president — handshakes with other leaders, photo ops in the Oval Office — without any of the substance. All of his talk of “fake news” is just an indirect admission of his own doubts about his own authenticity as a president. No surprise, then, that Trump is offering the appearance of security rather than the reality of security. A wall is largely a symbol. It means nothing when the United States refuses to address the true causes of insecurity, both at home and abroad. Nicholas Kristof did a nice column in The New York Times, drawn in part from my IPS colleagues’ National Priorities Project data, about all the sensible ways to spend $5.7 billion: on America’s children, on gun buybacks and drug treatment programs, on job training for prisoners, and on helping people overseas. That’s what a real president would support, not a “fake president.” Insecurity But let’s dig a little deeper. The wall addresses a core psychological insecurity. Trump supporters — and many others — feel as if their own privileges are evaporating. Those privileges are connected to race and gender (the angry white men who now swell the ranks of the Republican Party). But they are also connected to class (the blue-collar workers that once formed the backbone of the Democratic Party). And don’t forget the oft-overlooked privilege of being American. US citizens are feeling increasingly anxious as they watch the United States fail to achieve its objectives in one war after another — even as China expands its influence and Russia regains its great power status. Americans watch conflict, extremism, disease and the other horsemen of the Apocalypse engulf other countries, and they feel as if America can no longer ride in on its white horse to save the day (the last time was perhaps World War II). Worse, they can hear the drumbeat of those hooves approaching the very shores of this country. Trump and his supporters want that wall to prevent all these privileges — individual, communal, national — from leaking out. It’s the architectural equivalent of a gun. It’s for defense, a way for people to “stand their ground.” But it’s also compensation for powerlessness and lack of control. As with guns, the sense of safety and security is almost entirely illusory. Liberals, unfortunately, don’t offer much of an alternative. They use more inclusive language when it comes to individual and communal privilege — though liberals are also guilty of constructing walls when they live in the ghettoes of the wealthy, send their children to private schools or expunge any discordant viewpoints from their social media networks. These walls are largely invisible — just like the financial red lines that helped to create America’s urban wastelands — but they are no less powerful. In terms of national privilege, liberals also believe in American supremacy, though they speak more in terms of restoring American leadership. America, in other words, has not really adjusted to a multipolar world, its more modest place within it or the resulting anxieties that torment the souls of Americans. The US military, after all its failures around the world, no longer preserves American privilege. The US dollar, weakened by US debt and the strengthening of other national currencies, may soon lose its special glow. A wall is a fallback position, and a rather pathetic one at that. The United States desperately needs a leader — actually, a cadre of leaders — who can reconcile America’s relationship with the world, who can redefine US privilege and who can see the importance of a shift from global power over to global power with. It would be a true privilege to elect such visionaries to leadership positions. The world is waiting. (John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies) (This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Psychology of the Wall: In Donald Trump’s mind, walls define the parameters of privilege

US National Security Adviser John Bolton told his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval on Friday that America supports India's right to self-defence.

Bolton telephoned Doval Friday morning to express his condolences for the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pulwama-attack-india-slams-pakistan-yet-again-says-islamabad-cannot-claim-its-unaware-of-jem-presence-197702">terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir </a>and offered the US' full support to India in confronting terrorism.&nbsp;

"I told Ajit Doval today that we support India's right to self-defence. I have spoken to him twice, including this morning... And expressed the US' condolences over the terrorist attack,"&nbsp;he told.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
NSA Bolton offers all assistance to India to bring the perpetrators &amp; backer of the attack promptly to justice: MEA <a href="https://t.co/vnxqQkNaaZ">pic.twitter.com/vnxqQkNaaZ</a>
— Sidhant Sibal (@sidhant) <a href="https://twitter.com/sidhant/status/1096618893261656064?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 16, 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>

Bolton said the US has been very clear to Pakistan on ending support to terrorist safe havens.&nbsp;

"We have been very clear on that score... And, we are continuing to be in discussions we are going to have with the Pakistanis,"&nbsp;he said.&nbsp;

Earlier, the White House and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asked Pakistan to end its support to terrorist safe havens inside the country.

"We stand with #India as it confronts terrorism. Pakistan must not provide safe haven for terrorists to threaten international security,"&nbsp;Pompeo said on Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The U.S. condemns yesterday’s horrific terror attack on Indian security forces. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. We stand with <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/India?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#India</a> as it confronts terrorism. Pakistan must not provide safe haven for terrorists to threaten international security.
— Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) <a href="https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1096474341649403905?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 15, 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>

In a stern message to Pakistan, the White House asked Islamabad to "immediately end" its "support" to all terror groups and not to provide "safe haven" to them, as the US condemned the brutal Pulwama terror attack claimed the lives of at least 40 CRPF soldiers.

Pakistan-based <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pulwama-terror-attack-nia-begins-investigation-7-detained-after-raids-197621">Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM)</a> has claimed responsibility for the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama district on Thursday that left at least 40 CRPF soldiers dead and five others critically wounded.

"The United States calls on Pakistan to end immediately the support and safe haven provided to all terrorist groups operating on its soil, whose only goal is to sow chaos, violence, and terror in the region," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a late night statement on Thursday.

US National Security Adviser John Bolton told his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval on Friday that America supports India's right to self-defence. Bolton telephoned Doval Friday morning to express his condolences for the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir and offered the US' full support to India in confronting terrorism.

US National Security Adviser John Bolton told his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval on Friday that America supports India's right to self-defence. Bolton telephoned Doval Friday morning to express his condolences for the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir and offered the US' full support to India in confronting terrorism. "I told Ajit Doval today that we support India's right to self-defence. I have spoken to him twice, including this morning... And expressed the US' condolences over the terrorist attack," he told. NSA Bolton offers all assistance to India to bring the perpetrators & backer of the attack promptly to justice: MEA pic.twitter.com/vnxqQkNaaZ — Sidhant Sibal (@sidhant) February 16, 2019 × Bolton said the US has been very clear to Pakistan on ending support to terrorist safe havens. "We have been very clear on that score... And, we are continuing to be in discussions we are going to have with the Pakistanis," he said. Earlier, the White House and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo asked Pakistan to end its support to terrorist safe havens inside the country. "We stand with #India as it confronts terrorism. Pakistan must not provide safe haven for terrorists to threaten international security," Pompeo said on Twitter. The U.S. condemns yesterday’s horrific terror attack on Indian security forces. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. We stand with #India as it confronts terrorism. Pakistan must not provide safe haven for terrorists to threaten international security. — Secretary Pompeo (@SecPompeo) February 15, 2019 × In a stern message to Pakistan, the White House asked Islamabad to "immediately end" its "support" to all terror groups and not to provide "safe haven" to them, as the US condemned the brutal Pulwama terror attack claimed the lives of at least 40 CRPF soldiers. Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) has claimed responsibility for the terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir's Pulwama district on Thursday that left at least 40 CRPF soldiers dead and five others critically wounded. "The United States calls on Pakistan to end immediately the support and safe haven provided to all terrorist groups operating on its soil, whose only goal is to sow chaos, violence, and terror in the region," White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a late night statement on Thursday.

'We support India's right to self-defence': US NSA Bolton tells his Indian counterpart Doval

Donald Trump declares national emergency to signs border wall deal

President Donald Trump on Friday said the United States would be announcing the end of the Islamic State group's once-sprawling "caliphate" within the next day.

"We have a lot of great announcements having to do with Syria and our success with the eradication of the caliphate and that will be announced over the next 24 hours," Trump told reporters at the White House Friday.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces have been closing in on holdout jihadists since September last year and a few hundred surviving IS members are now boxed into an area of around one square kilometer (less than half a square mile).

The "caliphate" IS supremo Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed in mid-2014 once spanned territory the size of the United Kingdom and administered millions of people.

But successive offensives in Iraq and Syria have shattered the proto-state, which lost its key cities one after the other and has since late 2017 been confined to its traditional power base in the Euphrates valley.

The expected announcement comes after Trump shocked allies and senior figures in his own administration by announcing in December the US was carrying out a full troop withdrawal from Syria.

The plan, which prompted the resignation of then defense secretary Jim Mattis, could be sped up following the declaration of victory.&nbsp;

President Donald Trump on Friday said the United States would be announcing the end of the Islamic State group's once-sprawling "caliphate" within the next day. "We have a lot of great announcements having to do with Syria and our success with the eradication of the caliphate and that will be announced over the next 24 hours," Trump told reporters at the White House Friday.

President Donald Trump on Friday said the United States would be announcing the end of the Islamic State group's once-sprawling "caliphate" within the next day. "We have a lot of great announcements having to do with Syria and our success with the eradication of the caliphate and that will be announced over the next 24 hours," Trump told reporters at the White House Friday. The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces have been closing in on holdout jihadists since September last year and a few hundred surviving IS members are now boxed into an area of around one square kilometer (less than half a square mile). The "caliphate" IS supremo Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi proclaimed in mid-2014 once spanned territory the size of the United Kingdom and administered millions of people. But successive offensives in Iraq and Syria have shattered the proto-state, which lost its key cities one after the other and has since late 2017 been confined to its traditional power base in the Euphrates valley. The expected announcement comes after Trump shocked allies and senior figures in his own administration by announcing in December the US was carrying out a full troop withdrawal from Syria. The plan, which prompted the resignation of then defense secretary Jim Mattis, could be sped up following the declaration of victory.

Trump promises announcement on IS 'caliphate' within '24 hours'

The United States and India plan to boost bilateral trade in energy, aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals and healthcare <a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/us-and-india-hold-talks-to-calm-trade-tensions-197411">as part of a continuing commercial dialogue</a>, officials from both governments said on Thursday.

They have set up seven working groups of chief executives with top US and Indian firms that will focus on financial trade and investments as well as bring together small and medium enterprises (SME) from the two countries.

"The working groups have been formed among the CEOs. They will be providing recommendations to the government," Kenneth Juster, US Ambassador to India, told reporters at a briefing on the sidelines of the talks.

India and the United States have developed close political and security ties. But bilateral trade, which stood at $126 billion in 2017, is widely seen to be performing at nearly a quarter of its potential.

"We resolved to facilitate two-way trade and investment to build on such growth," Indian Trade Minister Suresh Prabhu said in a tweet.

Executives participating in the discussions included Tata chairman N. Chandrasekaran and American Tower CEO James Taiclet, an Indian government statement said.

US and Indian officials pressed on with talks on Thursday to resolve differences over trade and investment, Indian government sources said, after U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross called off his visit because of bad weather at home.

Ross addressed the forum in Delhi through teleconference after his flight was cancelled, a government statement said.

Chief executives of top U.S. and Indian firms raised the issue of data localisation, Juster said, but it was not directly addressed by Indian and U.S. government officials, rather left to private discussions being held separately.

Last year India announced proposals to force foreign companies to store more of their user data locally so as to make it accessible to any legal investigations.

US&nbsp;lobby groups voiced doubts, saying this made it difficult for firms to do business in India.

The United States and India plan to boost bilateral trade in energy, aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals and healthcare as part of a continuing commercial dialogue, officials from both governments said on Thursday.

The United States and India plan to boost bilateral trade in energy, aerospace, defence, pharmaceuticals and healthcare as part of a continuing commercial dialogue, officials from both governments said on Thursday. They have set up seven working groups of chief executives with top US and Indian firms that will focus on financial trade and investments as well as bring together small and medium enterprises (SME) from the two countries. "The working groups have been formed among the CEOs. They will be providing recommendations to the government," Kenneth Juster, US Ambassador to India, told reporters at a briefing on the sidelines of the talks. India and the United States have developed close political and security ties. But bilateral trade, which stood at $126 billion in 2017, is widely seen to be performing at nearly a quarter of its potential. "We resolved to facilitate two-way trade and investment to build on such growth," Indian Trade Minister Suresh Prabhu said in a tweet. Executives participating in the discussions included Tata chairman N. Chandrasekaran and American Tower CEO James Taiclet, an Indian government statement said. US and Indian officials pressed on with talks on Thursday to resolve differences over trade and investment, Indian government sources said, after U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross called off his visit because of bad weather at home. Ross addressed the forum in Delhi through teleconference after his flight was cancelled, a government statement said. Chief executives of top U.S. and Indian firms raised the issue of data localisation, Juster said, but it was not directly addressed by Indian and U.S. government officials, rather left to private discussions being held separately. Last year India announced proposals to force foreign companies to store more of their user data locally so as to make it accessible to any legal investigations. US lobby groups voiced doubts, saying this made it difficult for firms to do business in India.

After commercial dialogue, India & US say they plan to boost trade

The US has urged its citizens to reconsider their <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/pak-saudi-arabia-sri-lanka-in-european-commission-blacklist-for-terror-financing-money-laundering-197258">travel to Pakistan</a> mainly due to terrorism and risks to civil aviation operating within or near the country.

The Federal Aviation Administration, in a notice issued on Wednesday, said that terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in Pakistan.

"Reconsider travel to Pakistan due to terrorism," the State Department said in the latest travel advisory.

It asked Americans not to travel to<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/fatf-dissatisfied-over-pakistans-efforts-to-combat-terror-financing-report-172508"> Balochistan province and Khyber</a> Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) province, including the former Federally, Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), due to terrorism, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir area due to terrorism and the potential for armed conflict.

Terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in Pakistan, it said, adding that terrorists may attack with little or no warning, targeting transportation hubs, markets, shopping malls, military installations, airports, universities, tourist locations, schools, hospitals, places of worship and government facilities.

Noting that terrorist attacks continue to happen across Pakistan, with most occurring in Balochistan and KPK, including the former FATA, the State Department said large-scale terrorist attacks have resulted in hundreds of casualties over the last several years.

India and Pakistan maintain a strong military presence on both sides of the border. The only official Pakistan-India border crossing point for persons who are not citizens of India or Pakistan is in the province of Punjab between Wagah, Pakistan, and Attari, India, the advisory said.

Urging its citizens not to travel to PoK, the State Department said militant groups are known to operate in the area.

"The threat of armed conflict between India and Pakistan remains. Indian and Pakistani military forces periodically exchange fire across the Line of Control," it added.&nbsp;

The US has urged its citizens to reconsider their travel to Pakistan mainly due to terrorism and risks to civil aviation operating within or near the country. The Federal Aviation Administration, in a notice issued on Wednesday, said that terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in Pakistan.

The US has urged its citizens to reconsider their travel to Pakistan mainly due to terrorism and risks to civil aviation operating within or near the country. The Federal Aviation Administration, in a notice issued on Wednesday, said that terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in Pakistan. "Reconsider travel to Pakistan due to terrorism," the State Department said in the latest travel advisory. It asked Americans not to travel to Balochistan province and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) province, including the former Federally, Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), due to terrorism, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir area due to terrorism and the potential for armed conflict. Terrorist groups continue plotting possible attacks in Pakistan, it said, adding that terrorists may attack with little or no warning, targeting transportation hubs, markets, shopping malls, military installations, airports, universities, tourist locations, schools, hospitals, places of worship and government facilities. Noting that terrorist attacks continue to happen across Pakistan, with most occurring in Balochistan and KPK, including the former FATA, the State Department said large-scale terrorist attacks have resulted in hundreds of casualties over the last several years. India and Pakistan maintain a strong military presence on both sides of the border. The only official Pakistan-India border crossing point for persons who are not citizens of India or Pakistan is in the province of Punjab between Wagah, Pakistan, and Attari, India, the advisory said. Urging its citizens not to travel to PoK, the State Department said militant groups are known to operate in the area. "The threat of armed conflict between India and Pakistan remains. Indian and Pakistani military forces periodically exchange fire across the Line of Control," it added.

US urges citizens to 'reconsider' travelling to Pakistan due to terrorism

US and Indian government officials pressed on with talks on Thursday to resolve their differences over trade and investment, Indian government sources said, even though <a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/india-us-commercial-dialogue-us-commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-not-coming-197245">US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross called off his visit because of bad weather</a> at home.

Ross addressed a US-India CEO Forum by video after his flight was cancelled and was due to similarly join the commercial dialogue later in the day with Indian Commerce Minister Suresh Prabhu, the sources said.

US ambassador to India Kenneth Juster is leading the delegation on the ground.

India and the United States are sparring over a range of issues, from India's new rules on e-ecommerce that affect firms such as Amazon and Walmart to data localisation and its tariffs that US President Donald Trump says are exceptionally high.

Washington has also had a longstanding grievance with India over its large trade deficit with the United States and what it sees as the Indian government's lax intellectual property enforcement.

A US trade delegation led by United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin began high-level talks with Chinese counterparts on Thursday to de-escalate a tariff war ahead of a March 1 deadline for a deal.

New Delhi defends the measures on e-commerce as a way to protect the interests of small businesses and says it has been cutting tariffs gradually to give local industry a level playing field and create jobs for a very large youth population.

Details of the discussions held on Thurdsay were not immediately available and officials said the two sides were likely to issue a joint statement later on Thursday.

The sources also said that trade negotiations would be conducted by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and not by the Commerce Department, which is focused on boosting investment, improving the business climate and some specific areas such as travel and tourism.

Still, the two sides are expected to touch on the thorny issues that have cropped up in recent months and pledge efforts to address them. "It will be a friendly discussion, they would avoid the risk of disappointment," said a source with knowledge of the matter.

The meeting comes at a time when the USTR is reviewing India's eligibility as a beneficiary of its Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) under which the country has enjoyed zero tariffs for about 2,000 goods exported to the United States that are worth $5.6 billion.

Reuters reported last week that the USTR is considering withdrawal or scaling back of these tariffs because of the lack of reciprocity from India on its tariffs, its tightening curbs on online sales and its insistence that foreign payment card companies, such as Mastercard and Visa, store data in India.

US and Indian government officials pressed on with talks on Thursday to resolve their differences over trade and investment, Indian government sources said, even though US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross called off his visit because of bad weather at home.

US and Indian government officials pressed on with talks on Thursday to resolve their differences over trade and investment, Indian government sources said, even though US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross called off his visit because of bad weather at home. Ross addressed a US-India CEO Forum by video after his flight was cancelled and was due to similarly join the commercial dialogue later in the day with Indian Commerce Minister Suresh Prabhu, the sources said. US ambassador to India Kenneth Juster is leading the delegation on the ground. India and the United States are sparring over a range of issues, from India's new rules on e-ecommerce that affect firms such as Amazon and Walmart to data localisation and its tariffs that US President Donald Trump says are exceptionally high. Washington has also had a longstanding grievance with India over its large trade deficit with the United States and what it sees as the Indian government's lax intellectual property enforcement. A US trade delegation led by United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin began high-level talks with Chinese counterparts on Thursday to de-escalate a tariff war ahead of a March 1 deadline for a deal. New Delhi defends the measures on e-commerce as a way to protect the interests of small businesses and says it has been cutting tariffs gradually to give local industry a level playing field and create jobs for a very large youth population. Details of the discussions held on Thurdsay were not immediately available and officials said the two sides were likely to issue a joint statement later on Thursday. The sources also said that trade negotiations would be conducted by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and not by the Commerce Department, which is focused on boosting investment, improving the business climate and some specific areas such as travel and tourism. Still, the two sides are expected to touch on the thorny issues that have cropped up in recent months and pledge efforts to address them. "It will be a friendly discussion, they would avoid the risk of disappointment," said a source with knowledge of the matter. The meeting comes at a time when the USTR is reviewing India's eligibility as a beneficiary of its Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) under which the country has enjoyed zero tariffs for about 2,000 goods exported to the United States that are worth $5.6 billion. Reuters reported last week that the USTR is considering withdrawal or scaling back of these tariffs because of the lack of reciprocity from India on its tariffs, its tightening curbs on online sales and its insistence that foreign payment card companies, such as Mastercard and Visa, store data in India.

US and India hold talks to calm trade tensions

By Jeffrey Heller and Maayan Lubell

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's face beams down from election billboards depicting him as a statesman, shaking hands with US&nbsp;President Donald Trump.

Opponents portray him as a criminal. Even before he called an election for April 9, he was branded "CRIME MINISTER" in huge banners at protest rallies, a reference to three corruption investigations threatening his decade of political dominance.

Love him or loathe him, the election is all about Netanyahu.

Although the names of parties will be on ballot papers, the vote will amount to a referendum on Netanyahu in the shadow of his legal woes. If he wins, he will become Israel's longest-serving prime minister this summer.

"There's no central issue other than Netanyahu's reign and clean government - whether he remains prime minister and what the price is for corruption," said Tamar Hermann, a political science professor with the Israel Democracy Institute.

Opinion polls show Netanyahu's Likud party is likely to win about 30 seats in the 120-member parliament, enough for the right-wing leader, now 69 and in his fourth term, to form the type of nationalist-religious coalition government he already heads.

He faces a strong challenge from former armed forces chief Benny Gantz. But Gantz's centrist Resilience party, which is second in opinion polls, would need to pursue groundbreaking political alliances to outstrip a right-wing bloc.

In power since 2009, after the first stint as prime minister from 1996 to 1999, the man ardent supporters hail as "King Bibi" has struck a chord with an electorate that has moved to the right and watched with delight as, under Trump, Washington lined up with many of Netanyahu's policies.

That has included US withdrawal from the international deal curbing Iran's nuclear programme, Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and a cut-off of US aid to the Palestinian Authority over its refusal to resume peace talks that collapsed in 2014.

"He (Netanyahu) has brought us excellent achievements, he represents me with dignity. I feel like my country is flourishing because of him," said Ronit Levy, a 49-year-old insurance agent from the northern city of Afula who goes by the handle of "Ronit the Bibi'ite" on Twitter and Facebook.

The sign on the giant city-centre billboards featuring Netanyahu and Trump says: "Netanyahu. In a different league." 
 
Corruption Cases

But in three corruption cases, Netanyahu is suspected of wrongfully accepting gifts from wealthy businessmen and dispensing favours in alleged bids for favourable coverage in an Israeli newspaper and a website.

He has denied wrongdoing, saying he is a victim of a left-wing witchhunt to topple him and that he has no intention of resigning. But his opponents are attacking his record and underlining the need for clean governance.

In a speech that boosted his ratings on January 29, Gantz said Israel's present leadership encouraged incitement, subversion and hatred, and was so detached from the people that it had adopted "the mannerisms of a French royal house".

"There was already a king who said: 'The State is me,' Gantz said, referring to King Louis XIV of France. "But no. Not here. No Israeli leader is a king. The state is not me. The state is you. The state is actually us. The state is all of us."

Netanyahu's legal saga looks set to enter a new chapter soon. Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit could announce by the end of February whether he intends to file criminal charges, as police have recommended, in the three corruption investigations.

The indictment in court would await the outcome of pre-trial hearings in which Netanyahu would try to dissuade Mandelblit from filing formal charges.

Those hearings would be unlikely to be wrapped up before the election, meaning voters would go to the polls aware that the attorney-general believes there is sufficient evidence to convict Netanyahu of criminal activity.

"The mere notion that in Israel a prime minister can remain in office while under indictment is ridiculous," Gantz said. 
 
Palestinian Issue

Palestinian leaders have had little to say about the Israeli election, maintaining their traditional policy of watching quietly from the sidelines.

They have already broken off contacts with the Trump administration, accusing it of pro-Israel bias. Any new Netanyahu government would be likely to include veteran allies opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state.

Comments last week by Gantz that Israel must find a way "not to have dominion over other people" -- a reference to its continued occupation of the West Bank -- won praise from a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

"It's encouraging if he succeeds and he sticks to this opinion," the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said.

Trump intends to present a long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan only after the election and has been trying to enlist the support of US&nbsp;Arab allies in the region. But expectations of a breakthrough are low.

Another question looms for after the election: will coalition partners still stick with Netanyahu if Mandelblit, after a hearing, moves ahead with the indictment?

Knives are already out: former Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, an erstwhile political ally of Netanyahu, has predicted that right-wing parties now pledging their support would eventually turn on the Israeli leader.

Hermann, of the Israel Democracy Institute, said Netanyahu enjoys loyalty from his core supporters of lower-income Israelis who see him as their champion.

Netanyahu's backers, many of them Jews with roots in the Middle East and North Africa, hold grudges against left-wing parties that once dominated Israeli politics, accusing them of maltreating immigrants from those regions.

"It doesn't matter what he does, they don't expect him to conduct himself by the same moral standards that bind ordinary people," Hermann said. "You don't regard the king the same way you do a peasant."

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

By Jeffrey Heller and Maayan Lubell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's face beams down from election billboards depicting him as a statesman, shaking hands with US President Donald Trump.

By Jeffrey Heller and Maayan Lubell Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's face beams down from election billboards depicting him as a statesman, shaking hands with US President Donald Trump. Opponents portray him as a criminal. Even before he called an election for April 9, he was branded "CRIME MINISTER" in huge banners at protest rallies, a reference to three corruption investigations threatening his decade of political dominance. Love him or loathe him, the election is all about Netanyahu. Although the names of parties will be on ballot papers, the vote will amount to a referendum on Netanyahu in the shadow of his legal woes. If he wins, he will become Israel's longest-serving prime minister this summer. "There's no central issue other than Netanyahu's reign and clean government - whether he remains prime minister and what the price is for corruption," said Tamar Hermann, a political science professor with the Israel Democracy Institute. Opinion polls show Netanyahu's Likud party is likely to win about 30 seats in the 120-member parliament, enough for the right-wing leader, now 69 and in his fourth term, to form the type of nationalist-religious coalition government he already heads. He faces a strong challenge from former armed forces chief Benny Gantz. But Gantz's centrist Resilience party, which is second in opinion polls, would need to pursue groundbreaking political alliances to outstrip a right-wing bloc. In power since 2009, after the first stint as prime minister from 1996 to 1999, the man ardent supporters hail as "King Bibi" has struck a chord with an electorate that has moved to the right and watched with delight as, under Trump, Washington lined up with many of Netanyahu's policies. That has included US withdrawal from the international deal curbing Iran's nuclear programme, Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and a cut-off of US aid to the Palestinian Authority over its refusal to resume peace talks that collapsed in 2014. "He (Netanyahu) has brought us excellent achievements, he represents me with dignity. I feel like my country is flourishing because of him," said Ronit Levy, a 49-year-old insurance agent from the northern city of Afula who goes by the handle of "Ronit the Bibi'ite" on Twitter and Facebook. The sign on the giant city-centre billboards featuring Netanyahu and Trump says: "Netanyahu. In a different league." Corruption Cases But in three corruption cases, Netanyahu is suspected of wrongfully accepting gifts from wealthy businessmen and dispensing favours in alleged bids for favourable coverage in an Israeli newspaper and a website. He has denied wrongdoing, saying he is a victim of a left-wing witchhunt to topple him and that he has no intention of resigning. But his opponents are attacking his record and underlining the need for clean governance. In a speech that boosted his ratings on January 29, Gantz said Israel's present leadership encouraged incitement, subversion and hatred, and was so detached from the people that it had adopted "the mannerisms of a French royal house". "There was already a king who said: 'The State is me,' Gantz said, referring to King Louis XIV of France. "But no. Not here. No Israeli leader is a king. The state is not me. The state is you. The state is actually us. The state is all of us." Netanyahu's legal saga looks set to enter a new chapter soon. Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit could announce by the end of February whether he intends to file criminal charges, as police have recommended, in the three corruption investigations. The indictment in court would await the outcome of pre-trial hearings in which Netanyahu would try to dissuade Mandelblit from filing formal charges. Those hearings would be unlikely to be wrapped up before the election, meaning voters would go to the polls aware that the attorney-general believes there is sufficient evidence to convict Netanyahu of criminal activity. "The mere notion that in Israel a prime minister can remain in office while under indictment is ridiculous," Gantz said. Palestinian Issue Palestinian leaders have had little to say about the Israeli election, maintaining their traditional policy of watching quietly from the sidelines. They have already broken off contacts with the Trump administration, accusing it of pro-Israel bias. Any new Netanyahu government would be likely to include veteran allies opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. Comments last week by Gantz that Israel must find a way "not to have dominion over other people" -- a reference to its continued occupation of the West Bank -- won praise from a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. "It's encouraging if he succeeds and he sticks to this opinion," the spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said. Trump intends to present a long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan only after the election and has been trying to enlist the support of US Arab allies in the region. But expectations of a breakthrough are low. Another question looms for after the election: will coalition partners still stick with Netanyahu if Mandelblit, after a hearing, moves ahead with the indictment? Knives are already out: former Defence Minister Avigdor Lieberman, an erstwhile political ally of Netanyahu, has predicted that right-wing parties now pledging their support would eventually turn on the Israeli leader. Hermann, of the Israel Democracy Institute, said Netanyahu enjoys loyalty from his core supporters of lower-income Israelis who see him as their champion. Netanyahu's backers, many of them Jews with roots in the Middle East and North Africa, hold grudges against left-wing parties that once dominated Israeli politics, accusing them of maltreating immigrants from those regions. "It doesn't matter what he does, they don't expect him to conduct himself by the same moral standards that bind ordinary people," Hermann said. "You don't regard the king the same way you do a peasant." (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

Love him or loathe him, Israeli election is all about Benjamin Netanyahu

Venezuela's oil exports have tapered off and shifted toward India since new <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-seeks-un-resolution-calling-for-venezuela-elections-196300">US sanctions</a> began January 28 as state-run oil company PDVSA seeks to replace deliveries to the United States and Europe that were disrupted by payment restrictions.

The South American nation is turning its focus to cash-paying buyers, especially in India, its second-largest customer after the United States, amid US sanctions designed to undercut financial support for Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Sanctions are designed to bar Maduro's access to oil revenue that has helped his <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/russia-ready-to-help-venezuela-resolve-crisis-warns-us-against-meddling-197030">government remain in power</a>.

In the two weeks since the sanctions were announced, PDVSA has been able to load and export 1.15 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude and refined products, according to Refinitiv Eikon data. Venezuela was exporting about 1.4 million bpd in the months before sanctions, according to the Eikon data.

Two supertankers, Baghdad and Folegandros I, launched late on Monday from Venezuela's Jose terminal carrying cargoes to Indian ports.

Ship tracking data in Refinitiv showed several other tankers carrying Venezuelan crude or fuel towards Asia, although the final destinations of these vessels were not yet clear.

DOUBLING INDIA SALES

Before the sanctions, PDVSA shipped over 500,000 bpd to the United States, its largest cash market, followed by India then China, at above and below 300,000 bpd respectively.

Venezuela has sent its oil minister, Manuel Quevedo, to India to convince refiners, including Reliance Industries Ltd and Nayara Energy Ltd, to double their oil purchases.

"We are selling more than 300,000" bpd to Indian buyers, Quevedo said on Monday in New Delhi. "We want to double that amount."

Reliance is among PDVSA's main cash-paying customers, while Nayara receives Venezuelan oil from one of its largest stakeholders, Russian oil-giant Rosneft. The latter supplies PDVSA oil to Vadinar, India's second largest refinery, under a Rosneft payment for loan program that dates to 2014.

Rosneft should be able to continue to receive PDVSA cargoes under its oil-for-loans, according to a reading of US sanctions by lawyers and traders. Nayara receives around half of Venezuelan crude supplied to Rosneft, with the remainder shipped to Europe, including Rosneft operations in Germany.

According to a trading source close both to Rosneft and PDVSA crude operations, the last cargo containing fuel oil for the Russian company left Venezuela for Asia on Jan. 30-31, containing around 1 million barrels.

"PDVSA supplies to Rosneft or its subsidiaries in India under deals clinched before the sanctions are not falling under the sanctions," said Natalia Abtseshko, head of international projects group at Moscow law firm Vegas Lex.

CASH STILL LACKING

Indian refineries could absorb a large portion of those barrels, but it is still unclear how cash sales would be effected without using the U.S. or European bank systems after April 28, the deadline set by the USTreasury.

Venezuela also is open to barter arrangements with India using oil as payment, its oil minister said, though Quevedo did not explain how such a system would work.

Quevedo's willingness to barter goods for oil suggests the turn may not soon resolve the country's need for cash-paying customers to replace US buyers.

About 9 million barrels were stuck last week in tankers waiting for payment or discharge instructions, according to Eikon data. Most are anchored in the US Gulf Coast as Venezuelan opposition leader and self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido moves to set up escrow accounts to receive proceeds.

Venezuela's oil exports have tapered off and shifted toward India since new US sanctions began January 28 as state-run oil company PDVSA seeks to replace deliveries to the United States and Europe that were disrupted by payment restrictions.

Venezuela's oil exports have tapered off and shifted toward India since new US sanctions began January 28 as state-run oil company PDVSA seeks to replace deliveries to the United States and Europe that were disrupted by payment restrictions. The South American nation is turning its focus to cash-paying buyers, especially in India, its second-largest customer after the United States, amid US sanctions designed to undercut financial support for Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Sanctions are designed to bar Maduro's access to oil revenue that has helped his government remain in power. In the two weeks since the sanctions were announced, PDVSA has been able to load and export 1.15 million barrels per day (bpd) of crude and refined products, according to Refinitiv Eikon data. Venezuela was exporting about 1.4 million bpd in the months before sanctions, according to the Eikon data. Two supertankers, Baghdad and Folegandros I, launched late on Monday from Venezuela's Jose terminal carrying cargoes to Indian ports. Ship tracking data in Refinitiv showed several other tankers carrying Venezuelan crude or fuel towards Asia, although the final destinations of these vessels were not yet clear. DOUBLING INDIA SALES Before the sanctions, PDVSA shipped over 500,000 bpd to the United States, its largest cash market, followed by India then China, at above and below 300,000 bpd respectively. Venezuela has sent its oil minister, Manuel Quevedo, to India to convince refiners, including Reliance Industries Ltd and Nayara Energy Ltd, to double their oil purchases. "We are selling more than 300,000" bpd to Indian buyers, Quevedo said on Monday in New Delhi. "We want to double that amount." Reliance is among PDVSA's main cash-paying customers, while Nayara receives Venezuelan oil from one of its largest stakeholders, Russian oil-giant Rosneft. The latter supplies PDVSA oil to Vadinar, India's second largest refinery, under a Rosneft payment for loan program that dates to 2014. Rosneft should be able to continue to receive PDVSA cargoes under its oil-for-loans, according to a reading of US sanctions by lawyers and traders. Nayara receives around half of Venezuelan crude supplied to Rosneft, with the remainder shipped to Europe, including Rosneft operations in Germany. According to a trading source close both to Rosneft and PDVSA crude operations, the last cargo containing fuel oil for the Russian company left Venezuela for Asia on Jan. 30-31, containing around 1 million barrels. "PDVSA supplies to Rosneft or its subsidiaries in India under deals clinched before the sanctions are not falling under the sanctions," said Natalia Abtseshko, head of international projects group at Moscow law firm Vegas Lex. CASH STILL LACKING Indian refineries could absorb a large portion of those barrels, but it is still unclear how cash sales would be effected without using the U.S. or European bank systems after April 28, the deadline set by the USTreasury. Venezuela also is open to barter arrangements with India using oil as payment, its oil minister said, though Quevedo did not explain how such a system would work. Quevedo's willingness to barter goods for oil suggests the turn may not soon resolve the country's need for cash-paying customers to replace US buyers. About 9 million barrels were stuck last week in tankers waiting for payment or discharge instructions, according to Eikon data. Most are anchored in the US Gulf Coast as Venezuelan opposition leader and self-proclaimed president Juan Guaido moves to set up escrow accounts to receive proceeds.

Venezuela turns to India as sanctions cut oil flow to US, Europe

The world's most infamous cartel boss <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/el-chapo-drugged-and-raped-teenage-girls-witness-claims-194807">Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman</a>, who rose from poverty in rural Mexico to amass billions of dollars, was found guilty in a US court on Tuesday of smuggling tons of drugs to the United States over a violent, colourful, decades-long career.

Jurors in federal court in Brooklyn convicted <a href="http://www.wionews.com/entertainment/el-chapo-dreamed-of-biopic-for-years-before-capture-says-trial-witness-190401">Guzman</a>, 61, head of the Sinaloa Cartel, on all 10 counts brought by US prosecutors.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/the-rise-and-fall-of-el-chapo-mexicos-most-wanted-gangster-197028">The rise and fall of 'El Chapo,' Mexico's most wanted gangster</a>

Richard Donoghue, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said he expected Guzman to receive life without parole when sentenced on June 25. "It is a sentence from which there is no escape and no return," Donoghue told reporters.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/mexican-drug-lord-el-chapo-faces-biggest-us-drugs-trial-175595">Guzman</a>, one of the major figures in Mexican drug wars that have roiled the country since 2006, become almost legendary for escaping from Mexican high-security jails twice and avoiding massive manhunts. He cultivated a Robin Hood image among the poor in his home state of Sinaloa.

Guzman sat and showed no emotion while the verdict was read. Once the jury left the room, he and his wife Emma Coronel, put their hands to their hearts and gave each other the thumbs up sign. His wife shed tears.

Guzman, whose nickname means "Shorty," was extradited to the United States for trial in 2017 after he was arrested in Mexico the year before.

Though other high-ranking cartel figures had been extradited previously, Guzman was the first to go to trial instead of pleading guilty.

The 11-week trial, with testimony from more than 50 witnesses, offered an unprecedented look at the inner workings of the Sinaloa Cartel, named for the state in northwestern Mexico where Guzman was born in a poor mountain village.

The US government said Guzman trafficked tons of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine into the United States over more than two decades, consolidating his power in Mexico through murders and wars with rival cartels.

Small in stature, Guzman's smuggling exploits, the violence he used and the sheer size of his illicit business made Guzman the world's most notorious drug baron since Colombia's Pablo Escobar, who was shot dead by police in 1993.

Guzman's lawyers say he was set up as a “fall guy” by Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, a powerful drug lord from Sinaloa who remains at large.

Jeffrey Lichtman, a lawyer for Guzman, told reporters after the verdict that the defence faced an uphill fight, given the amount of evidence the government presented, and the widespread perception that Guzman was already guilty.

"This was a case that was literally an avalanche, avalanche of evidence," Lichtman said. "Of course we're going to appeal."

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/el-chapos-hometown-sceptical-much-will-change-after-verdict-197062">El Chapo's hometown sceptical much will change after </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/el-chapos-hometown-sceptical-much-will-change-after-verdict-197062">verdict</a>

DRUG WARS

President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was elected last year after promising a change to the deadly military-led war against drug gangs, suggesting a negotiated peace and amnesty for non-violent drug dealers, traffickers and farmers.

The most detailed evidence against Guzman came from more than a dozen former associates who struck deals to cooperate with U.S. prosecutors.

They told jurors how the Sinaloa Cartel gained power in the 1990s, eventually coming to control almost the entire Pacific coast of Mexico.

Guzman made a name for himself in the 1980s by building cross-border tunnels that allowed him to move cocaine from Mexico into the United States faster than anyone else.

The witnesses, who included some of Guzman's top lieutenants, a communications engineer and a onetime mistress, described how he built a sophisticated organization reminiscent of a multinational corporation.

He sent drugs northward with fleets of planes and boats, and had detailed accounting ledgers and an encrypted electronic communication system run through secret computer servers in Canada, the court heard.

Guzman's attempt to take territory from a rival cartel was one of the main reasons for an explosion of drug violence in Mexico. The government has registered more than 250,000 homicides since it launched an aggressive war on cartels in 2006. A report by the US Congressional Research Service last year estimated 150,000 of those deaths were tied to organised crime.

A former bodyguard testified that he watched Guzman kill three rival drug cartel members, including one victim who he shot and then ordered to be buried even as he was still gasping for air.

US District Judge Brian Cogan told the jurors after the verdict that it was up to them to decide to talk to the media, but that he would advise against it. “Once that door is open, it can’t be closed again,” he said.&nbsp;

Estimates of how much money Guzman made from drugs vary. In 2009, Forbes Magazine put him on its list of the world’s richest people, with an estimated $1 billion. It later dropped him from the list, saying it was too difficult to quantify his assets.

The US Justice Department said in 2017 it sought forfeiture of more than $14 billion in drug proceeds and illicit profits from Guzman.

The most shocking allegation of corruption during the trial came from Guzman's former top aide Alex Cifuentes, who accused former Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto of taking a $100 million bribe from Guzman. A spokesman for the ex-president has denied the claim.

In one of the trial's final days, Guzman told the judge he would not testify in his own defence. The same day, he grinned broadly at audience member Alejandro Edda, the Mexican actor who plays Guzman in the Netflix drama "Narcos."

Despite his ties to government officials, Guzman often lived on the run. Imprisoned in Mexico in 1993, he escaped in 2001 hidden in a laundry cart and spent the following years moving from one hideout to another in the mountains of Sinaloa, guarded by a private army.

He was seized again in 2014, but pulled off his best known escape the following year when he disappeared into a tunnel dug into his cell in a maximum security prison.

But the Mexican government says he blew his cover through a series of slip ups, including an attempt to make a movie about his life. He was finally recaptured in January 2016.

Despite Guzman's downfall, the Sinaloa Cartel still has the biggest US distribution presence of Mexican cartels, followed by the fast-growing Jalisco New Generation Cartel, according to the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

Together, they are the biggest producers of drugs sold on US streets.

The world's most infamous cartel boss Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, who rose from poverty in rural Mexico to amass billions of dollars, was found guilty in a US court on Tuesday of smuggling tons of drugs to the United States over a violent, colourful, decades-long career.

The world's most infamous cartel boss Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, who rose from poverty in rural Mexico to amass billions of dollars, was found guilty in a US court on Tuesday of smuggling tons of drugs to the United States over a violent, colourful, decades-long career. Jurors in federal court in Brooklyn convicted Guzman, 61, head of the Sinaloa Cartel, on all 10 counts brought by US prosecutors. Also read: The rise and fall of 'El Chapo,' Mexico's most wanted gangster Richard Donoghue, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, said he expected Guzman to receive life without parole when sentenced on June 25. "It is a sentence from which there is no escape and no return," Donoghue told reporters. Guzman, one of the major figures in Mexican drug wars that have roiled the country since 2006, become almost legendary for escaping from Mexican high-security jails twice and avoiding massive manhunts. He cultivated a Robin Hood image among the poor in his home state of Sinaloa. Guzman sat and showed no emotion while the verdict was read. Once the jury left the room, he and his wife Emma Coronel, put their hands to their hearts and gave each other the thumbs up sign. His wife shed tears. Guzman, whose nickname means "Shorty," was extradited to the United States for trial in 2017 after he was arrested in Mexico the year before. Though other high-ranking cartel figures had been extradited previously, Guzman was the first to go to trial instead of pleading guilty. The 11-week trial, with testimony from more than 50 witnesses, offered an unprecedented look at the inner workings of the Sinaloa Cartel, named for the state in northwestern Mexico where Guzman was born in a poor mountain village. The US government said Guzman trafficked tons of cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine into the United States over more than two decades, consolidating his power in Mexico through murders and wars with rival cartels. Small in stature, Guzman's smuggling exploits, the violence he used and the sheer size of his illicit business made Guzman the world's most notorious drug baron since Colombia's Pablo Escobar, who was shot dead by police in 1993. Guzman's lawyers say he was set up as a “fall guy” by Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, a powerful drug lord from Sinaloa who remains at large. Jeffrey Lichtman, a lawyer for Guzman, told reporters after the verdict that the defence faced an uphill fight, given the amount of evidence the government presented, and the widespread perception that Guzman was already guilty. "This was a case that was literally an avalanche, avalanche of evidence," Lichtman said. "Of course we're going to appeal." Also read: El Chapo's hometown sceptical much will change after verdict DRUG WARS President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was elected last year after promising a change to the deadly military-led war against drug gangs, suggesting a negotiated peace and amnesty for non-violent drug dealers, traffickers and farmers. The most detailed evidence against Guzman came from more than a dozen former associates who struck deals to cooperate with U.S. prosecutors. They told jurors how the Sinaloa Cartel gained power in the 1990s, eventually coming to control almost the entire Pacific coast of Mexico. Guzman made a name for himself in the 1980s by building cross-border tunnels that allowed him to move cocaine from Mexico into the United States faster than anyone else. The witnesses, who included some of Guzman's top lieutenants, a communications engineer and a onetime mistress, described how he built a sophisticated organization reminiscent of a multinational corporation. He sent drugs northward with fleets of planes and boats, and had detailed accounting ledgers and an encrypted electronic communication system run through secret computer servers in Canada, the court heard. Guzman's attempt to take territory from a rival cartel was one of the main reasons for an explosion of drug violence in Mexico. The government has registered more than 250,000 homicides since it launched an aggressive war on cartels in 2006. A report by the US Congressional Research Service last year estimated 150,000 of those deaths were tied to organised crime. A former bodyguard testified that he watched Guzman kill three rival drug cartel members, including one victim who he shot and then ordered to be buried even as he was still gasping for air. US District Judge Brian Cogan told the jurors after the verdict that it was up to them to decide to talk to the media, but that he would advise against it. “Once that door is open, it can’t be closed again,” he said. Estimates of how much money Guzman made from drugs vary. In 2009, Forbes Magazine put him on its list of the world’s richest people, with an estimated $1 billion. It later dropped him from the list, saying it was too difficult to quantify his assets. The US Justice Department said in 2017 it sought forfeiture of more than $14 billion in drug proceeds and illicit profits from Guzman. The most shocking allegation of corruption during the trial came from Guzman's former top aide Alex Cifuentes, who accused former Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto of taking a $100 million bribe from Guzman. A spokesman for the ex-president has denied the claim. In one of the trial's final days, Guzman told the judge he would not testify in his own defence. The same day, he grinned broadly at audience member Alejandro Edda, the Mexican actor who plays Guzman in the Netflix drama "Narcos." Despite his ties to government officials, Guzman often lived on the run. Imprisoned in Mexico in 1993, he escaped in 2001 hidden in a laundry cart and spent the following years moving from one hideout to another in the mountains of Sinaloa, guarded by a private army. He was seized again in 2014, but pulled off his best known escape the following year when he disappeared into a tunnel dug into his cell in a maximum security prison. But the Mexican government says he blew his cover through a series of slip ups, including an attempt to make a movie about his life. He was finally recaptured in January 2016. Despite Guzman's downfall, the Sinaloa Cartel still has the biggest US distribution presence of Mexican cartels, followed by the fast-growing Jalisco New Generation Cartel, according to the US Drug Enforcement Administration. Together, they are the biggest producers of drugs sold on US streets.

Drug lord, escape artist 'El Chapo' convicted by US jury

A rescue operation to save hundreds of dogs in South Korea from the slaughterhouse began Wednesday, as pressure mounts on the country to end its custom of killing canines for meat.

About one million dogs are eaten a year in South Korea, often as a summertime delicacy, with the greasy red meat — invariably boiled for tenderness — believed to increase energy.

But the tradition has earned criticism abroad and has declined as the nation increasingly embraces the idea of dogs as pets instead of livestock, with eating them now something of a taboo among young South Koreans.

The two-week rescue operation by animal protection group Humane Society International (HSI) will save about 200 canines at a dog farm in Hongseong county, 150 kilometres south of Seoul.

The dogs will then be sent to Canada and the United States for rehoming.&nbsp;

"These dogs are no different from any other dogs. Once they receive some tender loving care that they deserve and that they need," Kelly O'Meara, an HSI official, told AFP.

The farm was the 14th complex shut down by the group since 2015. &nbsp;

The organisation said it has rescued around 1,600 dogs during that time, with farmers given support to move into other lines of work. One transformed his dog meat business into a blueberry farm.

Lee Sang-gu, the owner of the Hongseong farm, said he decided to change his business because it was "not profitable anymore", noting even his family members were against eating dog. &nbsp;

According to a survey in 2017, 70 per cent of South Koreans do not eat dog, but far fewer — about 40 per cent — believe the practice should be banned.&nbsp;

It also found 65 per cent support raising and slaughtering dogs under more humane conditions.

The country's largest canine slaughterhouse complex in Seongnam city, south of Seoul, was dismantled in November. Activists who visited found electrocution equipment and a pile of dead dogs abandoned on the floor.

There are currently no laws on how to treat or slaughter canines for meat in South Korea. While farmers have urged Seoul to include dogs under livestock welfare regulations, animal rights groups oppose doing so, seeking complete abolition instead.

A rescue operation to save hundreds of dogs in South Korea from the slaughterhouse began Wednesday, as pressure mounts on the country to end its custom of killing canines for meat.

A rescue operation to save hundreds of dogs in South Korea from the slaughterhouse began Wednesday, as pressure mounts on the country to end its custom of killing canines for meat. About one million dogs are eaten a year in South Korea, often as a summertime delicacy, with the greasy red meat — invariably boiled for tenderness — believed to increase energy. But the tradition has earned criticism abroad and has declined as the nation increasingly embraces the idea of dogs as pets instead of livestock, with eating them now something of a taboo among young South Koreans. The two-week rescue operation by animal protection group Humane Society International (HSI) will save about 200 canines at a dog farm in Hongseong county, 150 kilometres south of Seoul. The dogs will then be sent to Canada and the United States for rehoming. "These dogs are no different from any other dogs. Once they receive some tender loving care that they deserve and that they need," Kelly O'Meara, an HSI official, told AFP. The farm was the 14th complex shut down by the group since 2015. The organisation said it has rescued around 1,600 dogs during that time, with farmers given support to move into other lines of work. One transformed his dog meat business into a blueberry farm. Lee Sang-gu, the owner of the Hongseong farm, said he decided to change his business because it was "not profitable anymore", noting even his family members were against eating dog. According to a survey in 2017, 70 per cent of South Koreans do not eat dog, but far fewer — about 40 per cent — believe the practice should be banned. It also found 65 per cent support raising and slaughtering dogs under more humane conditions. The country's largest canine slaughterhouse complex in Seongnam city, south of Seoul, was dismantled in November. Activists who visited found electrocution equipment and a pile of dead dogs abandoned on the floor. There are currently no laws on how to treat or slaughter canines for meat in South Korea. While farmers have urged Seoul to include dogs under livestock welfare regulations, animal rights groups oppose doing so, seeking complete abolition instead.

Rescue of 200 dogs destined for slaughterhouse begins in South Korea

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/asian-stocks-lifted-by-us-china-trade-talk-hopes-197048">Stock markets jumped </a>Wednesday on hopes of a breakthrough in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-china-trade-talks-begin-amid-deep-differences-193945">US-China trade </a>war.

The dollar mostly rose, while oil prices rallied on news that OPEC crude output hit a four-year nadir.

The pound weakened after official data showed UK inflation hit a two-year low and as the Brexit impasse drags on without a breakthrough insight.

In the US, President Donald Trump said he may extend his trade deal deadline with Beijing, while a report claimed his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping would meet with top US officials, seeming to boost the prospects of an agreement.

High-level talks are due to begin in the Chinese capital Thursday aimed at an accord to stop sharp US tariff hikes that could damage the global economy.

Trump said he could let his March 1 deadline for the tariffs "slide for a little while" if the two sides were close to a meaningful deal, adding that he expects a summit with President Xi "at some point".

Later, a report in the South China Morning Post said Xi would personally meet the US delegation in Beijing, suggesting a redoubled effort to make progress on a deal.

Washington is demanding changes from Beijing on what it says are unfair commercial practices. A resolution would prevent US tariffs more than doubling on $200 billion in Chinese imports next month.&nbsp;

Tokyo stocks added a further 1.3 per cent after Tuesday's gains to finish at a two-month high.

Hong Kong rose 1.2 per cent, and Shanghai earned 1.8 per cent on the news, following Wall Street's lead.

European equities also climbed, with London up 0.6 per cent, Paris 0.3 per cent and Frankfurt 0.2 per cent nearing the half-way stage.

However, some analysts struck a cautious tone, noting that much work needs to be completed before a framework agreement is in reach.

"The rally in stocks has been based on hope rather than any concrete agreements overnight," warned Oanda senior analyst Jeffrey Halley, predicting short-term volatility to come as headlines emerge from Beijing.

Elsewhere Sydney shed 0.3 per cent, with calls for a snap election amid political tensions over refugees adding to underwhelming corporate earnings and subdued metal prices.

Shutdown unlikely&nbsp;

The New Zealand dollar soared 1.5 per cent as the central bank held interest rates unchanged and forecast no moves until 2021 — defying expectations it may follow dovish leads elsewhere by indicating a rate cut.&nbsp;

Renewed global investor confidence saw a movement away from the greenback — which has enjoyed a strong rally in the past week — to riskier currencies.

The pound moved upwards past $1.29, despite no-deal Brexit fears as Prime Minister Theresa May was accused by the opposition of "running down the clock" and "playing chicken" with Brussels over talks.

The yuan also earned back losses after it had dropped following the Lunar New Year break.

Trump's suggestion that another chaotic US government shutdown was now unlikely following a deal struck in Congress over border security further fuelled risk appetite.

The deal to offer nearly $1.4 billion for construction of a Mexico border wall, as well as other security measures, fell far short of Trump's demands but has been presented as a workable compromise.

"I don't think you're going to see a shutdown," said the president.

Stock markets jumped Wednesday on hopes of a breakthrough in the US-China trade war. The dollar mostly rose, while oil prices rallied on news that OPEC crude output hit a four-year nadir.

Stock markets jumped Wednesday on hopes of a breakthrough in the US-China trade war. The dollar mostly rose, while oil prices rallied on news that OPEC crude output hit a four-year nadir. The pound weakened after official data showed UK inflation hit a two-year low and as the Brexit impasse drags on without a breakthrough insight. In the US, President Donald Trump said he may extend his trade deal deadline with Beijing, while a report claimed his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping would meet with top US officials, seeming to boost the prospects of an agreement. High-level talks are due to begin in the Chinese capital Thursday aimed at an accord to stop sharp US tariff hikes that could damage the global economy. Trump said he could let his March 1 deadline for the tariffs "slide for a little while" if the two sides were close to a meaningful deal, adding that he expects a summit with President Xi "at some point". Later, a report in the South China Morning Post said Xi would personally meet the US delegation in Beijing, suggesting a redoubled effort to make progress on a deal. Washington is demanding changes from Beijing on what it says are unfair commercial practices. A resolution would prevent US tariffs more than doubling on $200 billion in Chinese imports next month. Tokyo stocks added a further 1.3 per cent after Tuesday's gains to finish at a two-month high. Hong Kong rose 1.2 per cent, and Shanghai earned 1.8 per cent on the news, following Wall Street's lead. European equities also climbed, with London up 0.6 per cent, Paris 0.3 per cent and Frankfurt 0.2 per cent nearing the half-way stage. However, some analysts struck a cautious tone, noting that much work needs to be completed before a framework agreement is in reach. "The rally in stocks has been based on hope rather than any concrete agreements overnight," warned Oanda senior analyst Jeffrey Halley, predicting short-term volatility to come as headlines emerge from Beijing. Elsewhere Sydney shed 0.3 per cent, with calls for a snap election amid political tensions over refugees adding to underwhelming corporate earnings and subdued metal prices. Shutdown unlikely The New Zealand dollar soared 1.5 per cent as the central bank held interest rates unchanged and forecast no moves until 2021 — defying expectations it may follow dovish leads elsewhere by indicating a rate cut. Renewed global investor confidence saw a movement away from the greenback — which has enjoyed a strong rally in the past week — to riskier currencies. The pound moved upwards past $1.29, despite no-deal Brexit fears as Prime Minister Theresa May was accused by the opposition of "running down the clock" and "playing chicken" with Brussels over talks. The yuan also earned back losses after it had dropped following the Lunar New Year break. Trump's suggestion that another chaotic US government shutdown was now unlikely following a deal struck in Congress over border security further fuelled risk appetite. The deal to offer nearly $1.4 billion for construction of a Mexico border wall, as well as other security measures, fell far short of Trump's demands but has been presented as a workable compromise. "I don't think you're going to see a shutdown," said the president.

Stock markets jump as Trump boosts trade deal hopes

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Wednesday he hopes for "productive" trade meetings in China this week, as the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-could-extend-china-trade-talks-deadline-197022">two countries seek to hammer out an agreement </a>amid a festering dispute that has seen both level tariffs at each other.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/explaining-the-us-china-trade-war-which-grabbed-spotlight-in-2018-185043">Explaining the US-China trade war which grabbed </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/explaining-the-us-china-trade-war-which-grabbed-spotlight-in-2018-185043">spotlight</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/explaining-the-us-china-trade-war-which-grabbed-spotlight-in-2018-185043"> in 2018</a>

US tariffs on $200 billion worth of imports from China are scheduled to rise to 25 per cent from 10 per cent if the two sides cannot reach a deal by a March 1 deadline, increasing pain and costs in sectors from consumer electronics to agriculture.

Mnuchin, asked by reporters as he left his Beijing hotel what his hopes were for the visit, said "productive meetings". He did not elaborate.

Mnuchin, along with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, arrived in the Chinese capital on Tuesday.

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he could let the deadline for a trade agreement "slide for a little while," but that he would prefer not to and expects to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping to close the deal at some point.

Trump's advisers have previously described March 1 as a "hard deadline," but Trump told reporters for the first time that a delay was now possible.

A growing number of US businesses and lawmakers have expressed hopes for a delay in the tariff increase while the two sides tackle the difficult US demands for major "structural" policy changes by China aimed at ending the forced transfer of American trade secrets, curbing Beijing's industrial subsidies and enforcing intellectual property rights.

Trump said last week he did not plan to meet with Xi before the March 1 deadline.

Mnuchin and Lighthizer are scheduled to hold talks on Thursday and Friday with Vice Premier Liu He, the top economic adviser to Xi.

The latest round of talks in Beijing kicked off on Monday with discussions among deputy-level officials to try to work out technical details, including a mechanism for enforcing any trade agreement.

A round of talks at the end of January ended with some progress reported, but no deal and US declarations that much more work was needed.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Wednesday he hopes for "productive" trade meetings in China this week, as the two countries seek to hammer out an agreement amid a festering dispute that has seen both level tariffs at each other.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Wednesday he hopes for "productive" trade meetings in China this week, as the two countries seek to hammer out an agreement amid a festering dispute that has seen both level tariffs at each other. Also read: Explaining the US-China trade war which grabbed spotlight in 2018 US tariffs on $200 billion worth of imports from China are scheduled to rise to 25 per cent from 10 per cent if the two sides cannot reach a deal by a March 1 deadline, increasing pain and costs in sectors from consumer electronics to agriculture. Mnuchin, asked by reporters as he left his Beijing hotel what his hopes were for the visit, said "productive meetings". He did not elaborate. Mnuchin, along with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, arrived in the Chinese capital on Tuesday. US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that he could let the deadline for a trade agreement "slide for a little while," but that he would prefer not to and expects to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping to close the deal at some point. Trump's advisers have previously described March 1 as a "hard deadline," but Trump told reporters for the first time that a delay was now possible. A growing number of US businesses and lawmakers have expressed hopes for a delay in the tariff increase while the two sides tackle the difficult US demands for major "structural" policy changes by China aimed at ending the forced transfer of American trade secrets, curbing Beijing's industrial subsidies and enforcing intellectual property rights. Trump said last week he did not plan to meet with Xi before the March 1 deadline. Mnuchin and Lighthizer are scheduled to hold talks on Thursday and Friday with Vice Premier Liu He, the top economic adviser to Xi. The latest round of talks in Beijing kicked off on Monday with discussions among deputy-level officials to try to work out technical details, including a mechanism for enforcing any trade agreement. A round of talks at the end of January ended with some progress reported, but no deal and US declarations that much more work was needed.

US' Mnuchin hopes for 'productive' trade meetings in China

us-1

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

us 1