The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-democratic-representative-tulsi-gabbard-says-she-will-run-for-president-in-2020-189711">US&nbsp;Representative Tulsi&nbsp;Gabbard</a>, an Iraq War veteran who at times has had a spiky relationship with the Democratic Party, on Saturday will add another liberal voice to a burgeoning field of candidates seeking the party's&nbsp;2020&nbsp;presidential nomination.

Gabbard, 37, will&nbsp;officially&nbsp;launch her&nbsp;candidacy&nbsp;in Hawaii, where she has served as a&nbsp;congresswoman&nbsp;since 2013. A Samoan-American, she was <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/proud-to-be-first-hindu-american-to-run-for-president-tulsi-gabbard-193304">the first Hindu elected to Congress.</a>

She made headlines in 2016 by quitting a leadership post at the Democratic National Committee over the party’s decision to limit the number of debates between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, a move analysts said helped Clinton.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/tulsi-gabbard-may-run-for-us-presidency-in-2020-sources-176797">Gabbard&nbsp;</a>then endorsed Sanders for president, becoming one of the few members of Congress to do so. She remains popular with some progressives but will have serious competition on that front with candidates such as Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren in the presidential field.

Gabbard&nbsp;has not been a factor in early&nbsp;2020&nbsp;opinion polls, and her nascent campaign already has shown signs of trouble.

Politico reported this week that her campaign manager was set to depart in the coming days after weeks of disarray.

Gabbard’s campaign on Friday confirmed the departure but said Rania Batrice would remain an adviser to&nbsp;Gabbard.&nbsp;

Gabbard&nbsp;also was forced to apologize for her past opposition to same-sex marriage, which she now supports, and has been engaged in a public feud with Hawaii's popular Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono over a federal judicial nominee.

Democratic nominating contests begin in February&nbsp;2020. The candidate who amasses the majority of delegates will be nominated at the party’s convention in the summer and will likely face Republican President Donald Trump in November's general election.

Gabbard&nbsp;served in Iraq and Kuwait in a Hawaii National Guard field medical unit, experiences she said helped inform her noninterventionist foreign policy views. She has made veterans issues&nbsp;a priority while in Congress.

Gabbard&nbsp;has consistently opposed&nbsp;US&nbsp;intervention in Syria, going as far as to secretly meet with Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, in January 2017, sparking fierce criticism from some in her own party. She opposes removing Assad from power.

Later that year, she expressed scepticism over the Trump administration's conclusion that Assad's regime was behind a chemical weapons attack that killed dozens in Syria. Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean called&nbsp;Gabbard's views "a disgrace" and said she was unfit to be in Congress.

Last November, she blasted Trump for not taking a harder stance toward Saudi Arabia following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

She also slammed the administration for supporting Saudi Arabia in its conflict with Yemen.

In 2015, she parted with many Democrats by criticizing then-President Barack Obama for refusing to use the term "Islamic extremism" to describe members of Islamic State and other militant groups.

The US Representative Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran who at times has had a spiky relationship with the Democratic Party, on Saturday will add another liberal voice to a burgeoning field of candidates seeking the party's 2020 presidential nomination.

The US Representative Tulsi Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran who at times has had a spiky relationship with the Democratic Party, on Saturday will add another liberal voice to a burgeoning field of candidates seeking the party's 2020 presidential nomination. Gabbard, 37, will officially launch her candidacy in Hawaii, where she has served as a congresswoman since 2013. A Samoan-American, she was the first Hindu elected to Congress. She made headlines in 2016 by quitting a leadership post at the Democratic National Committee over the party’s decision to limit the number of debates between presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, a move analysts said helped Clinton. Gabbard then endorsed Sanders for president, becoming one of the few members of Congress to do so. She remains popular with some progressives but will have serious competition on that front with candidates such as Senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren in the presidential field. Gabbard has not been a factor in early 2020 opinion polls, and her nascent campaign already has shown signs of trouble. Politico reported this week that her campaign manager was set to depart in the coming days after weeks of disarray. Gabbard’s campaign on Friday confirmed the departure but said Rania Batrice would remain an adviser to Gabbard. Gabbard also was forced to apologize for her past opposition to same-sex marriage, which she now supports, and has been engaged in a public feud with Hawaii's popular Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono over a federal judicial nominee. Democratic nominating contests begin in February 2020. The candidate who amasses the majority of delegates will be nominated at the party’s convention in the summer and will likely face Republican President Donald Trump in November's general election. Gabbard served in Iraq and Kuwait in a Hawaii National Guard field medical unit, experiences she said helped inform her noninterventionist foreign policy views. She has made veterans issues a priority while in Congress. Gabbard has consistently opposed US intervention in Syria, going as far as to secretly meet with Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, in January 2017, sparking fierce criticism from some in her own party. She opposes removing Assad from power. Later that year, she expressed scepticism over the Trump administration's conclusion that Assad's regime was behind a chemical weapons attack that killed dozens in Syria. Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean called Gabbard's views "a disgrace" and said she was unfit to be in Congress. Last November, she blasted Trump for not taking a harder stance toward Saudi Arabia following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. She also slammed the administration for supporting Saudi Arabia in its conflict with Yemen. In 2015, she parted with many Democrats by criticizing then-President Barack Obama for refusing to use the term "Islamic extremism" to describe members of Islamic State and other militant groups.

US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard to officially declare 2020 presidential nomination

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has sent a demarche to the United States embassy in New Delhi in connection with the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/indian-embassy-opens-hotline-after129-indian-students-arrested-in-us-pay-and-stay-visa-scam-194502">immigration scam</a>&nbsp;busted by US&nbsp;authorities. that according to US immigration authorities tried to exploit the US student visa system.

Some 129 Indian students and eight other individuals were arrested after the US Department of Homeland Security conducted a sting operation to bust the scam that had included the setting up of a&nbsp;fake university in Farmington Hills, Michigan, US.&nbsp;

According to court documents accessed by WION, the students were allegedly using a "pay to stay" scheme — and were aware that they would not have to attend class&nbsp;but still be able to maintain their student visa status.&nbsp;

In the demarche, India called for the "need for immediate consular access for Indian officials to the detainees" and underlined that the students, "who may have been duped into enrolling in the ‘University’ should be treated differently from those recruiters who have duped them."&nbsp;

So far, about 30 Indian students have been contacted by Indian consular officers.

Meanwhile, the US embassy spokesperson has confirmed that it received a Demarche from the Ministry of External Affairs.

Speaking to WION, Deputy Consul General of the Indian consulate in Houston Surendra Adhana said, "Each consulate in the USA is getting consular access to students detained in their jurisdiction. We got these two. There will be a third one in San Antonio (on Saturday) despite it being a holiday"

Officials from the Indian consulate in Houston have met the detained students at the Montgomery Processing Centre and Prairieland Detention Centre in Texas.

New Delhi has asked the US to share all details of the students and asked them to "release them from detention at the earliest and not to resort to deportation against their will."

All the arrested Indian students have been put on "removal proceedings". The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told WION that it will "seek to maintain them in its custody pending the outcome of those proceedings."&nbsp;

This comes even as the Indian mission in Washington has established a 24/7 helpline -- +1-202-322-1190 and +1-202-340-2590 and an email: cons3.washington@mea.gov.in &nbsp;for assistance related to the detention of Indian students.

India has said that its Embassy and Consulates in the United States attach "the highest priority to the welfare of the detained students" and "will continue to work with the US authorities and other stakeholders to address the issue."

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has sent a demarche to the United States embassy in New Delhi in connection with the immigration scam busted by US authorities.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has sent a demarche to the United States embassy in New Delhi in connection with the immigration scam busted by US authorities. that according to US immigration authorities tried to exploit the US student visa system. Some 129 Indian students and eight other individuals were arrested after the US Department of Homeland Security conducted a sting operation to bust the scam that had included the setting up of a fake university in Farmington Hills, Michigan, US. According to court documents accessed by WION, the students were allegedly using a "pay to stay" scheme — and were aware that they would not have to attend class but still be able to maintain their student visa status. In the demarche, India called for the "need for immediate consular access for Indian officials to the detainees" and underlined that the students, "who may have been duped into enrolling in the ‘University’ should be treated differently from those recruiters who have duped them." So far, about 30 Indian students have been contacted by Indian consular officers. Meanwhile, the US embassy spokesperson has confirmed that it received a Demarche from the Ministry of External Affairs. Speaking to WION, Deputy Consul General of the Indian consulate in Houston Surendra Adhana said, "Each consulate in the USA is getting consular access to students detained in their jurisdiction. We got these two. There will be a third one in San Antonio (on Saturday) despite it being a holiday" Officials from the Indian consulate in Houston have met the detained students at the Montgomery Processing Centre and Prairieland Detention Centre in Texas. New Delhi has asked the US to share all details of the students and asked them to "release them from detention at the earliest and not to resort to deportation against their will." All the arrested Indian students have been put on "removal proceedings". The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) told WION that it will "seek to maintain them in its custody pending the outcome of those proceedings." This comes even as the Indian mission in Washington has established a 24/7 helpline -- +1-202-322-1190 and +1-202-340-2590 and an email: cons3.washington@mea.gov.in for assistance related to the detention of Indian students. India has said that its Embassy and Consulates in the United States attach "the highest priority to the welfare of the detained students" and "will continue to work with the US authorities and other stakeholders to address the issue."

Indian students arrested in immigration scam: India sends demarche to US

Troops captured four Islamic State (IS) suspects in a Turkish town on the Syrian border while they were attempting to cross the frontier illegally, the defence ministry announced on Saturday.

Border units from the Turkish armed forces captured the four "Daesh terrorists" on Friday in the Akcakale district of Sanliurfa in southeast Turkey, the ministry said on its official Twitter account, using an Arabic acronym for IS.&nbsp;

One of the suspects, identified as Feride Samur, was being sought with a red notice arrest warrant, the state-run Anadolu news agency reported.&nbsp;

IS jihadists are blamed in Turkey for a spate of terror attacks including a 2015 bombing on a peace rally in the capital Ankara's train station that claimed 100 lives.&nbsp;

Turkey has boosted security at its border crossings to prevent any infiltrations and allowed a US-led international coalition to launch air raids on the group's bases in Syria from its soil.

Troops captured four Islamic State (IS) suspects in a Turkish town on the Syrian border while they were attempting to cross the frontier illegally, the defence ministry announced on Saturday.

Troops captured four Islamic State (IS) suspects in a Turkish town on the Syrian border while they were attempting to cross the frontier illegally, the defence ministry announced on Saturday. Border units from the Turkish armed forces captured the four "Daesh terrorists" on Friday in the Akcakale district of Sanliurfa in southeast Turkey, the ministry said on its official Twitter account, using an Arabic acronym for IS. One of the suspects, identified as Feride Samur, was being sought with a red notice arrest warrant, the state-run Anadolu news agency reported. IS jihadists are blamed in Turkey for a spate of terror attacks including a 2015 bombing on a peace rally in the capital Ankara's train station that claimed 100 lives. Turkey has boosted security at its border crossings to prevent any infiltrations and allowed a US-led international coalition to launch air raids on the group's bases in Syria from its soil.

Turkey captures IS suspects on Syria border: Ministry

President Vladimir Putin on Saturday said Russia was suspending its participation in a key Cold War-era missile treaty in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/will-withdraw-from-inf-missile-treaty-unless-russia-complies-trump-194448">a mirror response to </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/will-withdraw-from-inf-missile-treaty-unless-russia-complies-trump-194448">a US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/will-withdraw-from-inf-missile-treaty-unless-russia-complies-trump-194448"> move the day before</a>.&nbsp;

"Our American partners have announced they are suspending their participation in the deal, and we are also suspending our participation," he said of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Putin said during a televised meeting with foreign and defence ministers Sergei Lavrov and Sergei Shoigu that Russia would no longer initiate talks with the US on disarmament.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>'We will wait until our partners have matured enough to conduct an equal, meaningful dialogue with us on this important topic,' Putin said</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text='We will wait until our partners have matured enough to conduct an equal, meaningful dialogue with us on this important topic,' Putin said" target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">×</a></div>
</div>
</div>

"We will wait until our partners have matured enough to conduct an equal, meaningful dialogue with us on this important topic," the president said.

President Donald Trump said Friday that Washington was suspending its obligations under the INF treaty and starting a process to withdraw in six months.

Washington says a Russian medium-range missile system breaches the INF deal.

But Moscow has long insisted it does not violate the agreement, and last month invited reporters and foreign military attaches to a briefing on the disputed weapons system.&nbsp;

Lavrov on Saturday repeated Russian accusations that Washington itself has been in violation of the deal for many years.&nbsp;

At the meeting, Putin said Russia would seek to develop medium-range missiles in response to what he said were similar projects in the US.&nbsp;

But he told the ministers that Russia would "not be drawn into a costly new arms race".

Russia would only deploy intermediate- and short-range missiles in Europe or elsewhere in answer to similar moves from the US, he added.&nbsp;

Putin has previously threatened to develop nuclear missiles banned under the INF treaty if it is scrapped.&nbsp;

European leaders have voiced fears over the consequences of the treaty's demise and called on Russia to address concerns before the United States formally leaves in August.

Signed towards the end of the Cold War by then US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the treaty bans ground-launched missiles with a range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometres.&nbsp;

The deal resolved a crisis over Soviet nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles targeting Western capitals, but put no restrictions on other major military actors such as China.&nbsp;

President Vladimir Putin on Saturday said Russia was suspending its participation in a key Cold War-era missile treaty in a mirror response to a US move the day before.

President Vladimir Putin on Saturday said Russia was suspending its participation in a key Cold War-era missile treaty in a mirror response to a US move the day before. "Our American partners have announced they are suspending their participation in the deal, and we are also suspending our participation," he said of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Putin said during a televised meeting with foreign and defence ministers Sergei Lavrov and Sergei Shoigu that Russia would no longer initiate talks with the US on disarmament. 'We will wait until our partners have matured enough to conduct an equal, meaningful dialogue with us on this important topic,' Putin said × "We will wait until our partners have matured enough to conduct an equal, meaningful dialogue with us on this important topic," the president said. President Donald Trump said Friday that Washington was suspending its obligations under the INF treaty and starting a process to withdraw in six months. Washington says a Russian medium-range missile system breaches the INF deal. But Moscow has long insisted it does not violate the agreement, and last month invited reporters and foreign military attaches to a briefing on the disputed weapons system. Lavrov on Saturday repeated Russian accusations that Washington itself has been in violation of the deal for many years. At the meeting, Putin said Russia would seek to develop medium-range missiles in response to what he said were similar projects in the US. But he told the ministers that Russia would "not be drawn into a costly new arms race". Russia would only deploy intermediate- and short-range missiles in Europe or elsewhere in answer to similar moves from the US, he added. Putin has previously threatened to develop nuclear missiles banned under the INF treaty if it is scrapped. European leaders have voiced fears over the consequences of the treaty's demise and called on Russia to address concerns before the United States formally leaves in August. Signed towards the end of the Cold War by then US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the treaty bans ground-launched missiles with a range of between 500 and 5,500 kilometres. The deal resolved a crisis over Soviet nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles targeting Western capitals, but put no restrictions on other major military actors such as China.

Following US move, Putin says Russia is pulling out of nuclear missile treaty

It is expected to be a long haul for the<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/detention-of-indian-students-in-us-india-places-consular-request-says-according-highest-priority-194456"> eight Indians who were involved in the immigration scam</a> in the United States by enrolling 129 other Indians in a fake university in an attempt to exploit the US student visa system. These individuals have now been placed in "removal proceedings" and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has told WION that it will "seek to maintain them in its custody pending the outcome of those proceedings."&nbsp;

If convicted, the eight accused will face a maximum penalty of five years in a US federal prison.

The individuals who were arrested in the immigration scam are Barath Kakireddy, Suresh Kandala, Phanideep Karnati, Prem Rampeesa, Santosh Sama, Avinash Thakkallapally, Aswanth Nune and Naveen Prathipati.

It also looks difficult for the 129 Indians who enrolled themselves in the fake university and have been arrested. WION has accessed the court documents in which it has been mentioned that "Each of the foreign citizens who “enrolled” and made “tuition” payments to the University knew that they would not attend any actual classes, earn credits, or make academic progress toward an actual degree in a particular field of study – a “pay to stay” scheme", clearly suggesting they are also considered culpable by US authorities.

It further added, "each student knew that the University’s program was not approved by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was illegal and that discretion should be used when discussing the program with others."
<img alt="US Documents" data-align="center" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="957d9ff5-f1d6-478d-99b4-0757188a084d" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/us%201.jpg" />
 
&nbsp;All of them were arrested after the US Department of Homeland security did an operation by setting up a fake university in Farmington Hills, Michigan state of US.

This comes even as India has "highlighted" to the US government "that a distinction should be made between those involved in recruiting or enrolling students and students who have been duped or defrauded in the process."

The Ministry of external affairs in a press release said that it is "according the highest priority to the situation" arising out of the detention of Indian students in the United States and has placed a formal request for consular access for the students.&nbsp;

Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) further said, "We are monitoring the situation closely and have impressed upon the US Government the need to address the situation at the earliest."

The Indian mission is in touch with US State Department and the Department of Homeland Security and has requested for a list of the detained students and other details such as place of detention and Identity.

Indian mission, according to MEA, is rendering "all assistance to Indian students in the US to deal with the emerging situation" and has also involved Indian community organizations in reaching out to the students.

It is expected to be a long haul for the eight Indians who were involved in the immigration scam in the United States by enrolling 129 other Indians in a fake university in an attempt to exploit the US student visa system.

It is expected to be a long haul for the eight Indians who were involved in the immigration scam in the United States by enrolling 129 other Indians in a fake university in an attempt to exploit the US student visa system. These individuals have now been placed in "removal proceedings" and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has told WION that it will "seek to maintain them in its custody pending the outcome of those proceedings." If convicted, the eight accused will face a maximum penalty of five years in a US federal prison. The individuals who were arrested in the immigration scam are Barath Kakireddy, Suresh Kandala, Phanideep Karnati, Prem Rampeesa, Santosh Sama, Avinash Thakkallapally, Aswanth Nune and Naveen Prathipati. It also looks difficult for the 129 Indians who enrolled themselves in the fake university and have been arrested. WION has accessed the court documents in which it has been mentioned that "Each of the foreign citizens who “enrolled” and made “tuition” payments to the University knew that they would not attend any actual classes, earn credits, or make academic progress toward an actual degree in a particular field of study – a “pay to stay” scheme", clearly suggesting they are also considered culpable by US authorities. It further added, "each student knew that the University’s program was not approved by the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was illegal and that discretion should be used when discussing the program with others." All of them were arrested after the US Department of Homeland security did an operation by setting up a fake university in Farmington Hills, Michigan state of US. This comes even as India has "highlighted" to the US government "that a distinction should be made between those involved in recruiting or enrolling students and students who have been duped or defrauded in the process." The Ministry of external affairs in a press release said that it is "according the highest priority to the situation" arising out of the detention of Indian students in the United States and has placed a formal request for consular access for the students. Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) further said, "We are monitoring the situation closely and have impressed upon the US Government the need to address the situation at the earliest." The Indian mission is in touch with US State Department and the Department of Homeland Security and has requested for a list of the detained students and other details such as place of detention and Identity. Indian mission, according to MEA, is rendering "all assistance to Indian students in the US to deal with the emerging situation" and has also involved Indian community organizations in reaching out to the students.

Immigration scam: Long haul for detained Indians as US puts its foot down

As part of its effort to give greater chance to foreign workers who have received higher education from the US, the Trump administration on Wednesday formally announced a new rule related to the filing of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-proposes-changes-to-h-1b-visas-to-be-given-to-most-skilled-highest-paid-foreign-workers-180602">H-1B visas,</a> asserting that it is more efficient, effective and helps in attracting the best talent in the US.

The final rule reverses the order by which US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) selects H-1B petitions under the regular cap and the advanced degree exemption.

Among other things, it introduces an electronic registration requirement for petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions.

To be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, the new rule will go into effect on April 1, though the electronic registration requirement will be suspended for the fiscal year (FY) 2020 cap season, USCIS said.

"These simple and smart changes are a positive benefit for employers, the foreign workers they seek to employ, and the agency's adjudicators, helping the H-1B visa programme work better," said USCIS Director Francis Cissna.

Early this month, President Donald Trump said that he wants to bring in changes in the H-1B visa systems so that holders of these visas can stay in the country and accelerate their path to citizenship.

The H-1B visa, popular among Indian IT professionals, is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in speciality occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise.

The new registration system, once implemented, will lower overall costs for employers and increase government efficiency, he said.

Cissna said USCIS is also furthering Donald Trump's goal of improving the immigration system by making a simple adjustment to the H-1B cap selection process.

"As a result, US employers seeking to employ foreign workers with a US master's or higher degree will have a greater chance of selection in the H-1B lottery in years of excess demand for new H-1B visas," Cissna said

Effective from April 1, USCIS will first select H-1B petitions (or registrations, once the registration requirement is implemented) submitted on behalf of all beneficiaries, including those that may be eligible for the advanced degree exemption.

Thereafter USCIS will select from the remaining eligible petitions, a number projected to reach the advanced degree exemption.

Changing the order in which USCIS counts these allocations will likely increase the number of petitions for beneficiaries with a master's or higher degree from a US institution of higher education to be selected under the H-1B numerical allocations, a media statement said.

Specifically, the change will result in an estimated increase of up to 16 per cent (or 5,340 workers) in the number of selected petitions for H-1B beneficiaries with a master's degree or higher from a US institution of higher education.

USCIS will begin accepting H-1B cap petitions for fiscal 2020 on April 1, 2019. The reverse selection order will apply to petitions filed for the FY 2020 H-1B cap season.

Based on the feedback, USCIS said it has decided to suspend the electronic registration requirement for the fiscal 2020 cap season to complete user testing and ensure the system and process are fully functional.

Once implemented, the electronic registration requirement will require petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap petitions, including those that may be eligible for the advanced degree exemption, to first electronically register with USCIS during a designated registration period.

Only those whose registrations are selected will be eligible to file an H-1B cap-subject petition. USCIS expects that the electronic registration requirement, once implemented, will reduce overall costs for petitioners and create a more efficient and cost-effective H-1B cap petition process for USCIS and petitioners, according to an official statement.

As part of its effort to give greater chance to foreign workers who have received higher education from the US, the Trump administration on Wednesday formally announced a new rule related to the filing of H-1B visas, asserting that it is more efficient, effective and helps in attracting the best talent in the US.

As part of its effort to give greater chance to foreign workers who have received higher education from the US, the Trump administration on Wednesday formally announced a new rule related to the filing of H-1B visas, asserting that it is more efficient, effective and helps in attracting the best talent in the US. The final rule reverses the order by which US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) selects H-1B petitions under the regular cap and the advanced degree exemption. Among other things, it introduces an electronic registration requirement for petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap-subject petitions. To be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, the new rule will go into effect on April 1, though the electronic registration requirement will be suspended for the fiscal year (FY) 2020 cap season, USCIS said. "These simple and smart changes are a positive benefit for employers, the foreign workers they seek to employ, and the agency's adjudicators, helping the H-1B visa programme work better," said USCIS Director Francis Cissna. Early this month, President Donald Trump said that he wants to bring in changes in the H-1B visa systems so that holders of these visas can stay in the country and accelerate their path to citizenship. The H-1B visa, popular among Indian IT professionals, is a non-immigrant visa that allows US companies to employ foreign workers in speciality occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise. The new registration system, once implemented, will lower overall costs for employers and increase government efficiency, he said. Cissna said USCIS is also furthering Donald Trump's goal of improving the immigration system by making a simple adjustment to the H-1B cap selection process. "As a result, US employers seeking to employ foreign workers with a US master's or higher degree will have a greater chance of selection in the H-1B lottery in years of excess demand for new H-1B visas," Cissna said Effective from April 1, USCIS will first select H-1B petitions (or registrations, once the registration requirement is implemented) submitted on behalf of all beneficiaries, including those that may be eligible for the advanced degree exemption. Thereafter USCIS will select from the remaining eligible petitions, a number projected to reach the advanced degree exemption. Changing the order in which USCIS counts these allocations will likely increase the number of petitions for beneficiaries with a master's or higher degree from a US institution of higher education to be selected under the H-1B numerical allocations, a media statement said. Specifically, the change will result in an estimated increase of up to 16 per cent (or 5,340 workers) in the number of selected petitions for H-1B beneficiaries with a master's degree or higher from a US institution of higher education. USCIS will begin accepting H-1B cap petitions for fiscal 2020 on April 1, 2019. The reverse selection order will apply to petitions filed for the FY 2020 H-1B cap season. Based on the feedback, USCIS said it has decided to suspend the electronic registration requirement for the fiscal 2020 cap season to complete user testing and ensure the system and process are fully functional. Once implemented, the electronic registration requirement will require petitioners seeking to file H-1B cap petitions, including those that may be eligible for the advanced degree exemption, to first electronically register with USCIS during a designated registration period. Only those whose registrations are selected will be eligible to file an H-1B cap-subject petition. USCIS expects that the electronic registration requirement, once implemented, will reduce overall costs for petitioners and create a more efficient and cost-effective H-1B cap petition process for USCIS and petitioners, according to an official statement.

US announces new ‘simple and effective’ rule for H-1B visas  under regular cap

India remains one of the most important strategic partners of the United States, a top American senator said. Mark Warner from the Democratic Party and Republican senator John Cornyn met the new Indian Envoy to the US, Harsh V Shringla, at the US Capital here.

“India remains one of our most important strategic partners,” Cornyn said in a statement on Tuesday, a day after the meeting. Warner and Cornyn are co-chairs of the powerful India Caucus, the only country-specific caucus in the Senate.

“I’m glad Senator Warner and I were able to meet with the Ambassador to welcome him to his post and discuss ways in which our two countries can continue to work together toward advancing our common interests on issues like trade and global security,” he said.

During the meeting, the senators discussed how to further strengthen the partnership between the two countries.

“I appreciate the opportunity to meet Ambassador Shringla to talk about the issues bridging our nations, especially since Virginia is home to one of the largest populations of Indian Americans,” said Warner, who is vice chairman of the powerful Senate Select Committee on Intelligence “The US and India have many shared economic and strategic interests, so I look forward to working with the Ambassador on these matters,” the Virginia senator added.

 
Issues discussed in the meeting included areas of opportunity to deepen the strategic partnership, increasing international exchange programs between the two counties, and the implications of India’s decision to require all payment system providers to store their data exclusively in India.

Shringla had presented his credentials to President Donald Trump at the White House on January 12.

India remains one of the most important strategic partners of the United States, a top American senator said. Mark Warner from the Democratic Party and Republican senator John Cornyn met the new Indian Envoy to the US, Harsh V Shringla, at the US Capital here.

India remains one of the most important strategic partners of the United States, a top American senator said. Mark Warner from the Democratic Party and Republican senator John Cornyn met the new Indian Envoy to the US, Harsh V Shringla, at the US Capital here. “India remains one of our most important strategic partners,” Cornyn said in a statement on Tuesday, a day after the meeting. Warner and Cornyn are co-chairs of the powerful India Caucus, the only country-specific caucus in the Senate. “I’m glad Senator Warner and I were able to meet with the Ambassador to welcome him to his post and discuss ways in which our two countries can continue to work together toward advancing our common interests on issues like trade and global security,” he said. During the meeting, the senators discussed how to further strengthen the partnership between the two countries. “I appreciate the opportunity to meet Ambassador Shringla to talk about the issues bridging our nations, especially since Virginia is home to one of the largest populations of Indian Americans,” said Warner, who is vice chairman of the powerful Senate Select Committee on Intelligence “The US and India have many shared economic and strategic interests, so I look forward to working with the Ambassador on these matters,” the Virginia senator added. Issues discussed in the meeting included areas of opportunity to deepen the strategic partnership, increasing international exchange programs between the two counties, and the implications of India’s decision to require all payment system providers to store their data exclusively in India. Shringla had presented his credentials to President Donald Trump at the White House on January 12.

India one of the most important strategic partners, says top US Senator

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as an Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks.

White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again. Negotiations are going to continue".

But the Arab divide is looming large on the Afghan peace talks.

The United Arab Emirates Ambassador to India Dr. Ahmed Albanna lashed out at Qatar for hosting "terrorists". Doha last week hosted the US Taliban talks.

He said, "Qataris are hosting terrorist and exporting terrorist from there country. Terrorist are graduates of Guantanamo".

Adding, "Qatar supports extremism and continues to interfere in internal affairs of other states. Qatar represents a threat."

It is interesting to add that Abu Dhabi has also hosted US Taliban talks.&nbsp;

Asked about Abu Dhabi hosting the talks, the ambassador replied, "In order to implement our vision, we are a country that will like to see peace in the region and will do utmost to eliminate terrorist groups or reaching out that can ease of problems in the region. UAE has created a unique position. We have taken action and we are a major player in the implementation of certain polices in the region."

UAE along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Senegal, Jordan, Djibouti severed ties with Qatar in 2017.

Currently, Qatari planes and ships are denied airspace and sea route to these countries.

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as an Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks. White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again.

The White House has reacted to the developments in Afghanistan even as an Arab divide seems to shadow the Afghan peace talks. White House Spokesperson Sarah Sanders in a briefing said, "Our priority is to end the war in Afghanistan and to ensure there is never a base for terrorism in Afghanistan again. Negotiations are going to continue". But the Arab divide is looming large on the Afghan peace talks. The United Arab Emirates Ambassador to India Dr. Ahmed Albanna lashed out at Qatar for hosting "terrorists". Doha last week hosted the US Taliban talks. He said, "Qataris are hosting terrorist and exporting terrorist from there country. Terrorist are graduates of Guantanamo". Adding, "Qatar supports extremism and continues to interfere in internal affairs of other states. Qatar represents a threat." It is interesting to add that Abu Dhabi has also hosted US Taliban talks. Asked about Abu Dhabi hosting the talks, the ambassador replied, "In order to implement our vision, we are a country that will like to see peace in the region and will do utmost to eliminate terrorist groups or reaching out that can ease of problems in the region. UAE has created a unique position. We have taken action and we are a major player in the implementation of certain polices in the region." UAE along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, Senegal, Jordan, Djibouti severed ties with Qatar in 2017. Currently, Qatari planes and ships are denied airspace and sea route to these countries.

Afghan Peace talks: Arab divide shadows the talks as US says negotiations will continue

US intelligence chiefs contradicted some of President Donald Trump's most fundamental foreign policy claims Tuesday, underscoring a persistent division in his view of the world and theirs.

In a hearing on global threats at the Senate Intelligence Committee, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/pakistan-supported-terror-groups-will-continue-attacks-in-india-us-193778">the country's top spies</a> took issue with Trump's assertion that the Islamic State group has been defeated, and that North Korea can be convinced to forego its nuclear weapons.

They also challenged Trump's claim that Tehran is actively seeking nuclear weapons, the justification Trump gave for withdrawing last year from a multilateral treaty on Iran.

And they underscored again that Russia meddled deeply on Trump's behalf in the 2016 presidential election -- which he has repeatedly denied -- and can be expected to do the same in 2020.

The hearing took place weeks after Trump cited a victory over Islamic State to justify his sudden announcement of an immediate pullout from Syria -- a move that alarmed the US defense establishment and allies in the Middle East.

And it came just weeks before Trump plans a second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to negotiate a hoped-for denuclearization of the hermit state.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the committee that the US intelligence community believes it is unlikely that Pyongyang will agree to completely denuclearize.&nbsp;

"We continue to assess that North Korea is unlikely to give up all of its nuclear weapons and production capabilities, even as it seeks to negotiate partial denuclearization steps to obtain key US and international concessions," Coats said in the annual "Worldwide Threat Assessment" report.

"North Korea's leaders see having a nuclear weapons capability as "critical to regime survival."

IS eyeing comeback 
The report also warned that Islamic State is hardly vanquished and could easily rise again in a vacuum left by departing US forces, resuming global attacks and restarting its propaganda machine.

"ISIS still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria, and it maintains eight branches, more than a dozen networks, and thousands of dispersed supporters around the world, despite significant leadership and territorial losses," Coats said.

Iran complying with deal 
The Coats report highlighted the broad and increasing threat to the United States from China, a point of agreement across the board in the Trump administration.

It characterized the US-China struggle as an ideological battle between the Western model of a democratically-based economy and China's authoritarian capitalism.&nbsp;

"Chinese leaders will increasingly seek to assert China's model of authoritarian capitalism as an alternative -- and implicitly superior -- development path abroad, exacerbating great-power competition that could threaten international support for democracy, human rights and the rule of law," the report said.

It also warned of a growing alignment between China and Russia, saying their relationship "is likely to strengthen in the coming year as some of their interests and threat perceptions converge, particularly regarding perceived US unilateralism and interventionism and Western promotion of democratic values and human rights."

FBI Director Christopher Wray told the panel that the FBI is investigating Chinese economic espionage in nearly all of its 56 field offices around the country.

"China writ large is the most significant counterintelligence threat we face," Wray said.

Iran adhering to nuclear deal 
But the intelligence community showed a distinct divergence on other thrusts of Trump policy.

On Iran, Central Intelligence Agency Director Gina Haspel told the hearing that the country is still abiding by the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal, despite Trump's decision to withdraw last year, claiming Tehran had broken it.

"At the moment technically they are in compliance" with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Haspel told lawmakers.

"I think the most recent information is the Iranians are considering taking steps that would lessen their adherence to JCPOA as they seek to pressure the European to come through with the investment and trade benefits that Iran hoped to gain from the deal."

There was no comment from the White House on the Coats report. But analysts said it showed a glaring divide that has existed since the beginning of Trump's term in 2017.

"A normal human being listening to the intel chiefs today on Iran and North Korea would conclude that Trump was dead wrong to withdraw from the JCPOA and dead right to negotiate with KJU even though zero nukes was magical thinking," said Aaron David Miller, director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson Center think tank in Washington.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

US intelligence chiefs contradicted some of President Donald Trump's most fundamental foreign policy claims Tuesday, underscoring a persistent division in his view of the world and theirs.

US intelligence chiefs contradicted some of President Donald Trump's most fundamental foreign policy claims Tuesday, underscoring a persistent division in his view of the world and theirs. In a hearing on global threats at the Senate Intelligence Committee, the country's top spies took issue with Trump's assertion that the Islamic State group has been defeated, and that North Korea can be convinced to forego its nuclear weapons. They also challenged Trump's claim that Tehran is actively seeking nuclear weapons, the justification Trump gave for withdrawing last year from a multilateral treaty on Iran. And they underscored again that Russia meddled deeply on Trump's behalf in the 2016 presidential election -- which he has repeatedly denied -- and can be expected to do the same in 2020. The hearing took place weeks after Trump cited a victory over Islamic State to justify his sudden announcement of an immediate pullout from Syria -- a move that alarmed the US defense establishment and allies in the Middle East. And it came just weeks before Trump plans a second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un to negotiate a hoped-for denuclearization of the hermit state. Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the committee that the US intelligence community believes it is unlikely that Pyongyang will agree to completely denuclearize. "We continue to assess that North Korea is unlikely to give up all of its nuclear weapons and production capabilities, even as it seeks to negotiate partial denuclearization steps to obtain key US and international concessions," Coats said in the annual "Worldwide Threat Assessment" report. "North Korea's leaders see having a nuclear weapons capability as "critical to regime survival." IS eyeing comeback The report also warned that Islamic State is hardly vanquished and could easily rise again in a vacuum left by departing US forces, resuming global attacks and restarting its propaganda machine. "ISIS still commands thousands of fighters in Iraq and Syria, and it maintains eight branches, more than a dozen networks, and thousands of dispersed supporters around the world, despite significant leadership and territorial losses," Coats said. Iran complying with deal The Coats report highlighted the broad and increasing threat to the United States from China, a point of agreement across the board in the Trump administration. It characterized the US-China struggle as an ideological battle between the Western model of a democratically-based economy and China's authoritarian capitalism. "Chinese leaders will increasingly seek to assert China's model of authoritarian capitalism as an alternative -- and implicitly superior -- development path abroad, exacerbating great-power competition that could threaten international support for democracy, human rights and the rule of law," the report said. It also warned of a growing alignment between China and Russia, saying their relationship "is likely to strengthen in the coming year as some of their interests and threat perceptions converge, particularly regarding perceived US unilateralism and interventionism and Western promotion of democratic values and human rights." FBI Director Christopher Wray told the panel that the FBI is investigating Chinese economic espionage in nearly all of its 56 field offices around the country. "China writ large is the most significant counterintelligence threat we face," Wray said. Iran adhering to nuclear deal But the intelligence community showed a distinct divergence on other thrusts of Trump policy. On Iran, Central Intelligence Agency Director Gina Haspel told the hearing that the country is still abiding by the terms of the 2015 nuclear deal, despite Trump's decision to withdraw last year, claiming Tehran had broken it. "At the moment technically they are in compliance" with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Haspel told lawmakers. "I think the most recent information is the Iranians are considering taking steps that would lessen their adherence to JCPOA as they seek to pressure the European to come through with the investment and trade benefits that Iran hoped to gain from the deal." There was no comment from the White House on the Coats report. But analysts said it showed a glaring divide that has existed since the beginning of Trump's term in 2017. "A normal human being listening to the intel chiefs today on Iran and North Korea would conclude that Trump was dead wrong to withdraw from the JCPOA and dead right to negotiate with KJU even though zero nukes was magical thinking," said Aaron David Miller, director of the Middle East program at the Woodrow Wilson Center think tank in Washington.

Iran not looking to build bomb, North Korea will not give up nukes: US intelligence chiefs

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-us-hit-by-hysteria-since-dropping-nuclear-deal-189680">Iran's President Hassan Rouhan</a>i slammed his critics on Wednesday, defending the political achievements of a<a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/anti-nuclear-deal-momentum-is-growing-in-iran-190888"> landmark 2015 nuclear dea</a>l and calling the US an "oath-breaker".

"One should not condemn the government or the great Islamic system instead of America — this is the greatest damage that can be done," he said on state TV.

Hardliners have repeatedly hammered the 2015 nuclear deal with six world powers since the early stages of negotiations, calling it a fool's errand and a deception.

They contend that Iran has gained nothing from the agreement despite complying with its restrictions on the Islamic republic's nuclear programme, intensifying their criticism after Washington withdrew from the treaty last year.

Speaking during an annual ceremony of allegiance to the late founder of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Rouhani said: "America has not been an oath-breaker only to us, but also to Europe, China, NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)."

President Donald Trump withdrew Washington from the deal — technically called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — last May, reimposing punishing sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

Washington also withdrew from the TPP trade agreement in 2016, the Paris Agreement on climate change control the next year and forced Canada and Mexico to renegotiate and sign a new deal in 2018 replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The other parties to the Iran nuclear deal — Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia along with the European Union — have insisted it remains in force and is working.

Rouhani took another jab at opponents who have criticised Iranian diplomats' lack of foresight over not predicting the US withdrawal.

"No agreement is based on whether the other party remains, but the main basis is the country's interests," he said.

He ended his speech by calling for "unity", saying Khomeini's main concern was not foreign forces but domestic "discord". 
&nbsp;

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani slammed his critics on Wednesday, defending the political achievements of a landmark 2015 nuclear deal and calling the US an "oath-breaker".

Iran's President Hassan Rouhani slammed his critics on Wednesday, defending the political achievements of a landmark 2015 nuclear deal and calling the US an "oath-breaker". "One should not condemn the government or the great Islamic system instead of America — this is the greatest damage that can be done," he said on state TV. Hardliners have repeatedly hammered the 2015 nuclear deal with six world powers since the early stages of negotiations, calling it a fool's errand and a deception. They contend that Iran has gained nothing from the agreement despite complying with its restrictions on the Islamic republic's nuclear programme, intensifying their criticism after Washington withdrew from the treaty last year. Speaking during an annual ceremony of allegiance to the late founder of the Islamic republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Rouhani said: "America has not been an oath-breaker only to us, but also to Europe, China, NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)." President Donald Trump withdrew Washington from the deal — technically called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — last May, reimposing punishing sanctions on the Islamic Republic. Washington also withdrew from the TPP trade agreement in 2016, the Paris Agreement on climate change control the next year and forced Canada and Mexico to renegotiate and sign a new deal in 2018 replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement. The other parties to the Iran nuclear deal — Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia along with the European Union — have insisted it remains in force and is working. Rouhani took another jab at opponents who have criticised Iranian diplomats' lack of foresight over not predicting the US withdrawal. "No agreement is based on whether the other party remains, but the main basis is the country's interests," he said. He ended his speech by calling for "unity", saying Khomeini's main concern was not foreign forces but domestic "discord".

US oath-breaker not only to us, but also to Europe, China, NAFTA and TPP: Rouhani

Tens of millions of people in the United States are bracing for a potentially life-threatening deep arctic chill forecast to hit swaths of the country on Wednesday.

Companies have told their workers to stay home, schools are closed and hundreds of flights have been cancelled.

The US Postal Service — known for its commitment to bringing the mail whatever the weather — has even reportedly suspended deliveries in Iowa due to the severe cold.

Temperatures in almost a dozen states stretching more than 1,200 miles (1,930 kilometres) from the Dakotas to Ohio were forecast to be the coldest in a generation, if not on record.

"One of the coldest arctic air mass intrusions in recent memory is surging south into the Upper Midwest before spreading across much of the eastern two-thirds of the country," the National Weather Service said.

"Expect frigid temperatures, bitterly cold and life-threatening wind chills, likely leading to widespread record lows and low maximum temperatures from the Upper Midwest to the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley."

The cause is <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/explainer-what-is-the-polar-vortex-and-why-is-it-so-cold-193834">a swirl of arctic air that broke away from the polar vortex that usually encircles the North Pole</a>.&nbsp;

The National Weather Service forecast temperatures between -10 to -40 degrees Fahrenheit (-23 to -40 °C) by Wednesday across the Midwest, with wind chills making it seem as cold as -65 degrees Fahrenheit in one area of Minnesota.

Chicago, America's third largest city, was expected to be colder than parts of Antarctica.

Authorities in Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin put emergency measures in place to handle the frigid weather.&nbsp;

"We need everyone to do your part and make sure you and your families are prepared," said Illinois Governor JB Pritzker.

Frostbite warnings

&nbsp;Americans were asked to stay home if possible Wednesday when temperatures are expected to be at their coldest.&nbsp;

Scores of schools, businesses and government agencies announced closures in multiple states.

"People exposed to extreme cold are susceptible to frostbite in a matter of minutes," warned the NWS.&nbsp;

Lawrence Gottlieb of the University of Chicago Medical Center said the threat was significant "when temps fall below zero, especially when there is a strong wind."

Some 160 warming centres were opened in Chicago, where temperatures could potentially equal or exceed the all-time record of -27 degrees Fahrenheit. With the wind chill, it would feel like -40 °C or -50 °C, officials said.&nbsp;

"They are life-threatening conditions and temperatures," Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel told a news conference.&nbsp;

In Minneapolis, officials allowed residents to stay on public buses and trains for warmth.&nbsp;

<img alt="Midwest cold" data-align="left" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="856af3ba-b8b6-47da-88a4-bebf417fdeb3" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%2878%29.jpg" />

<img alt="Midwest cold2" data-align="left" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="db659949-7986-4c03-95c4-27d13475df01" src="/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design%20%2877%29.jpg" />

(A man walks along the Chicago River (top) and a pedestrian stops to take a picture of the river. Photos: Reuters)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Snow storm

In the northeastern and southern United States, snow was falling.

A cold emergency was declared in the US capital Washington, with additional services put on for the homeless.

In Atlanta, some 300 flights were cancelled Tuesday as the city prepares for the Super Bowl and more than 400 were cancelled in Chicago, a major regional hub for US airlines.&nbsp;

In Canada, the icy temperatures — stretching from Manitoba in the western Prairies region to the Atlantic seaboard — prompted a rare "hazardous" cold warning from the government.&nbsp;

Environment Canada reported record-breaking snowfall at the Ottawa airport, where some 50 flights were cancelled, with an accumulation of nearly a meter (more than three feet).

An additional 200 flights were cancelled at Toronto's airport.&nbsp;

Global warming?

Scientists say climate change is causing more extreme weather, and one theory for polar vortex chills is that arctic air currents usually trapped around the North Pole are weakened and dislodged by a warming climate.&nbsp;

President Donald Trump used the occasion to again voice skepticism about climate change, tweeting: "What the hell is going on with Global Warming? (sic) Please come back fast, we need you!"

But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which operates NWS, tweeted, "Winter storms don't prove that global warming isn't happening," with a link to a 2015 explanatory article.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Tens of millions of people in the United States are bracing for a potentially life-threatening deep arctic chill forecast to hit swaths of the country on Wednesday.

Tens of millions of people in the United States are bracing for a potentially life-threatening deep arctic chill forecast to hit swaths of the country on Wednesday. Companies have told their workers to stay home, schools are closed and hundreds of flights have been cancelled. The US Postal Service — known for its commitment to bringing the mail whatever the weather — has even reportedly suspended deliveries in Iowa due to the severe cold. Temperatures in almost a dozen states stretching more than 1,200 miles (1,930 kilometres) from the Dakotas to Ohio were forecast to be the coldest in a generation, if not on record. "One of the coldest arctic air mass intrusions in recent memory is surging south into the Upper Midwest before spreading across much of the eastern two-thirds of the country," the National Weather Service said. "Expect frigid temperatures, bitterly cold and life-threatening wind chills, likely leading to widespread record lows and low maximum temperatures from the Upper Midwest to the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley." The cause is a swirl of arctic air that broke away from the polar vortex that usually encircles the North Pole. The National Weather Service forecast temperatures between -10 to -40 degrees Fahrenheit (-23 to -40 °C) by Wednesday across the Midwest, with wind chills making it seem as cold as -65 degrees Fahrenheit in one area of Minnesota. Chicago, America's third largest city, was expected to be colder than parts of Antarctica. Authorities in Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin put emergency measures in place to handle the frigid weather. "We need everyone to do your part and make sure you and your families are prepared," said Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. Frostbite warnings Americans were asked to stay home if possible Wednesday when temperatures are expected to be at their coldest. Scores of schools, businesses and government agencies announced closures in multiple states. "People exposed to extreme cold are susceptible to frostbite in a matter of minutes," warned the NWS. Lawrence Gottlieb of the University of Chicago Medical Center said the threat was significant "when temps fall below zero, especially when there is a strong wind." Some 160 warming centres were opened in Chicago, where temperatures could potentially equal or exceed the all-time record of -27 degrees Fahrenheit. With the wind chill, it would feel like -40 °C or -50 °C, officials said. "They are life-threatening conditions and temperatures," Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel told a news conference. In Minneapolis, officials allowed residents to stay on public buses and trains for warmth. (A man walks along the Chicago River (top) and a pedestrian stops to take a picture of the river. Photos: Reuters) Snow storm In the northeastern and southern United States, snow was falling. A cold emergency was declared in the US capital Washington, with additional services put on for the homeless. In Atlanta, some 300 flights were cancelled Tuesday as the city prepares for the Super Bowl and more than 400 were cancelled in Chicago, a major regional hub for US airlines. In Canada, the icy temperatures — stretching from Manitoba in the western Prairies region to the Atlantic seaboard — prompted a rare "hazardous" cold warning from the government. Environment Canada reported record-breaking snowfall at the Ottawa airport, where some 50 flights were cancelled, with an accumulation of nearly a meter (more than three feet). An additional 200 flights were cancelled at Toronto's airport. Global warming? Scientists say climate change is causing more extreme weather, and one theory for polar vortex chills is that arctic air currents usually trapped around the North Pole are weakened and dislodged by a warming climate. President Donald Trump used the occasion to again voice skepticism about climate change, tweeting: "What the hell is going on with Global Warming? (sic) Please come back fast, we need you!" But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which operates NWS, tweeted, "Winter storms don't prove that global warming isn't happening," with a link to a 2015 explanatory article.

Chicago colder than Antarctica: -40 °C temperatures forecast for US Midwest

US President Donald Trump will meet with China's trade envoy this week during talks aimed at resolving the trade dispute with Beijing, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Monday.

Chinese Vice Premier Liu He is leading a delegation of 30 officials to Washington for talks Wednesday and Thursday as the pressure mounts on both sides to reach a deal.

Beijing and Washington have a month remaining in a truce declared in December before US tariffs on hundreds of billions in Chinese exports are due to increase sharply -- a prospect economists say could help knock the wind out of an already-faltering global economy.

Mnuchin told reporters he expected "significant progress at these meetings." He will participate in the talks along with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, among others.

While Trump has made the soaring $336 billion US trade deficit with China a particular focus of his ire, American officials also are demanding far-reaching reforms to Chinese industrial policy to curb the alleged theft of American technological know-how and massive state intervention in commodities markets.

The world's two largest economies last year exchanged tariffs on more than $360 billion in two-way trade. US duty rates on $200 billion in Chinese goods are scheduled to increase to 25 percent from 10 percent on March 2 unless Trump decides otherwise.

Slowing economy 
The tariffs have weighed on China's slowing economy, which last year posted its weakest performance in 30 years.

Apparently seeking to manage expectations in the trade talks, US officials have alternated between saying the two sides are "miles and miles" from reaching an agreement and projecting optimism that common ground can be reached.

Mnuchin said Monday that enforcement of any agreement, protection of American intellectual property and an end to the forced joint venture policies as a condition of access to the Chinese market were "three of the most important issues on the agenda."

The need to make any agreement enforceable was "obvious," he said.

"We want to make sure that when we get a deal that that deal will be enforced," Mnuchin said, adding that "there's been an acknowledgement with China that they understand that."

Observers say China is likely to resist making any changes to its "Made in China 2025" industrial strategy and that resolving such complex disagreements is a tall order within the three-month window of the current trade truce.

Released in 2015, the Chinese strategy sets the goal of industrial dominance in sectors such as robotics, artificial intelligence, electric autos and other areas deemed crucial to the future economic success of developed economies.

Trump's aggressive trade strategy sees Beijing's goals as a direct threat to American dominance.

Meanwhile, Washington also unveiled sweeping criminal charges against the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei -- an uncomfortable bone of contention between the two partners that has so far involved the arrest of a top company executive in Canada on a US warrant.

As the charges were announced at a separate event from Mnuchin's briefing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told reporters the two matters were not at all related.

"These indictments are law enforcement actions and are wholly separate from our trade negotiations with China," Ross said.

"Commerce will continue to work with our interagency partners to protect US national security interests."

US President Donald Trump will meet with China's trade envoy this week during talks aimed at resolving the trade dispute with Beijing, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Monday.

US President Donald Trump will meet with China's trade envoy this week during talks aimed at resolving the trade dispute with Beijing, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said Monday. Chinese Vice Premier Liu He is leading a delegation of 30 officials to Washington for talks Wednesday and Thursday as the pressure mounts on both sides to reach a deal. Beijing and Washington have a month remaining in a truce declared in December before US tariffs on hundreds of billions in Chinese exports are due to increase sharply -- a prospect economists say could help knock the wind out of an already-faltering global economy. Mnuchin told reporters he expected "significant progress at these meetings." He will participate in the talks along with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, among others. While Trump has made the soaring $336 billion US trade deficit with China a particular focus of his ire, American officials also are demanding far-reaching reforms to Chinese industrial policy to curb the alleged theft of American technological know-how and massive state intervention in commodities markets. The world's two largest economies last year exchanged tariffs on more than $360 billion in two-way trade. US duty rates on $200 billion in Chinese goods are scheduled to increase to 25 percent from 10 percent on March 2 unless Trump decides otherwise. Slowing economy The tariffs have weighed on China's slowing economy, which last year posted its weakest performance in 30 years. Apparently seeking to manage expectations in the trade talks, US officials have alternated between saying the two sides are "miles and miles" from reaching an agreement and projecting optimism that common ground can be reached. Mnuchin said Monday that enforcement of any agreement, protection of American intellectual property and an end to the forced joint venture policies as a condition of access to the Chinese market were "three of the most important issues on the agenda." The need to make any agreement enforceable was "obvious," he said. "We want to make sure that when we get a deal that that deal will be enforced," Mnuchin said, adding that "there's been an acknowledgement with China that they understand that." Observers say China is likely to resist making any changes to its "Made in China 2025" industrial strategy and that resolving such complex disagreements is a tall order within the three-month window of the current trade truce. Released in 2015, the Chinese strategy sets the goal of industrial dominance in sectors such as robotics, artificial intelligence, electric autos and other areas deemed crucial to the future economic success of developed economies. Trump's aggressive trade strategy sees Beijing's goals as a direct threat to American dominance. Meanwhile, Washington also unveiled sweeping criminal charges against the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei -- an uncomfortable bone of contention between the two partners that has so far involved the arrest of a top company executive in Canada on a US warrant. As the charges were announced at a separate event from Mnuchin's briefing, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross told reporters the two matters were not at all related. "These indictments are law enforcement actions and are wholly separate from our trade negotiations with China," Ross said. "Commerce will continue to work with our interagency partners to protect US national security interests."

US-China trade talks: Trump to meet Chinese vice premier this week

The United States announced <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-calls-on-world-to-pick-a-side-on-venezuela-europeans-set-to-recognize-guaido-193131">sanctions against Venezuela's state oil company</a> Monday in a coordinated effort with the main opposition leader to cripple embattled President Nicolas Maduro's power base.

The measures against state-owned PDVSA were presented as a way of preventing the leftist strongman from looting the coffers in his economically ruined country before he is replaced by the man Washington says is the rightful interim president — opposition leader Juan Guaido.

"The purpose of sanctions is to change behavior," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters at the White House.

"So when there is a recognition that the company is the property of, the rightful rulers, the rightful leaders, then indeed that money will be available to Guaido."

Guaido, who heads the National Assembly legislature and has named himself acting president, issued his own statement, saying he was taking "orderly control of our republic's assets abroad" to prevent a departing Maduro from trying "to empty the coffers."

Venezuela was once a Latin American success story and has the world's largest oil reserves, but has been driven into the ground during years of hardline leftist rule.

With millions short of food and other basic resources, there is widespread discontent. However, so far, Maduro has retained the backing of the powerful armed forces, as well as support from Russia and China.

Washington has moved decisively to seek the exit of Maduro by recognizing Guaido and urging the military to switch loyalties.

President Donald Trump's national security advisor, John Bolton, called for security forces "to accept the peaceful, democratic and constitutional transfer of power."

"We've seen Venezuelan official and military personnel heeding this call," he added, citing the defection this weekend of the country's military attache to Washington.

Bolton also would not rule out the use of US troops.

"The president has made it clear on this matter that all options are on the table," he told reporters.

Pope's 'bloodbath' fears 
Guaido called for a two-hour strike Wednesday "to demand that the armed forces side with the people" ahead of a "big national and international rally" on Saturday.

His remarks came as the death toll in last week's protests rose to 35, according to NGO workers, with the government security forces accused of killing another eight in "extra-judicial executions."

Following a trip to Panama, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/dont-fight-in-front-of-the-kids-pope-francis-190061">Pope Francis</a> said he was afraid the escalating crisis would become "a bloodbath."

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, meanwhile, offered to step in, saying he could provide "good offices to facilitate dialogue and negotiation between the parties."

Along with China and Russia, Turkey and leftist regional allies Bolivia, Cuba and Mexico still back Maduro.

But a dozen Latin American countries have recognized Guaido and six European nations -- Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain -- have said they would follow suit unless Maduro calls elections by February 3.

- US: PDVSA must drop Maduro - 
Mnuchin said PDVSA must cut itself off from Maduro in order to see sanctions dropped.

"The path to sanctions relief for PDVSA is through the expeditious transfer of control to the interim president or a subsequent, democratically elected government," he said.

PDVSA's US-based subsidiary Citgo will be able to continue operations, as long as its earnings are deposited into a blocked account in the United States.

Guaido, who declared himself acting president Wednesday, said he will begin the process of naming new boards for PDVSA and Citgo to "start recovering our industry that is going through a dark time."

Lawmakers will be asked to take "the necessary measures to guarantee the greatest transparency and control of the use" of the assets, Guaido added.

"We took this decision to ensure that Citgo stays in the hands of Venezuelans."

An angry Maduro nevertheless accused the United States of trying to "steal Citgo" and pledged to file legal action over the new sanctions.

Since being elected head of the National Assembly legislature last month, Guaido has managed to rally a previously disunited opposition.

Maduro has been in charge since 2013 but his re-election in May was branded illegitimate by the European Union, United States and Organization of American States.

Several opposition leaders had been forced into exile, jailed or barred from standing in the election, leading the opposition to boycott the poll.

The United States announced sanctions against Venezuela's state oil company Monday in a coordinated effort with the main opposition leader to cripple embattled President Nicolas Maduro's power base.

The United States announced sanctions against Venezuela's state oil company Monday in a coordinated effort with the main opposition leader to cripple embattled President Nicolas Maduro's power base. The measures against state-owned PDVSA were presented as a way of preventing the leftist strongman from looting the coffers in his economically ruined country before he is replaced by the man Washington says is the rightful interim president — opposition leader Juan Guaido. "The purpose of sanctions is to change behavior," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters at the White House. "So when there is a recognition that the company is the property of, the rightful rulers, the rightful leaders, then indeed that money will be available to Guaido." Guaido, who heads the National Assembly legislature and has named himself acting president, issued his own statement, saying he was taking "orderly control of our republic's assets abroad" to prevent a departing Maduro from trying "to empty the coffers." Venezuela was once a Latin American success story and has the world's largest oil reserves, but has been driven into the ground during years of hardline leftist rule. With millions short of food and other basic resources, there is widespread discontent. However, so far, Maduro has retained the backing of the powerful armed forces, as well as support from Russia and China. Washington has moved decisively to seek the exit of Maduro by recognizing Guaido and urging the military to switch loyalties. President Donald Trump's national security advisor, John Bolton, called for security forces "to accept the peaceful, democratic and constitutional transfer of power." "We've seen Venezuelan official and military personnel heeding this call," he added, citing the defection this weekend of the country's military attache to Washington. Bolton also would not rule out the use of US troops. "The president has made it clear on this matter that all options are on the table," he told reporters. Pope's 'bloodbath' fears Guaido called for a two-hour strike Wednesday "to demand that the armed forces side with the people" ahead of a "big national and international rally" on Saturday. His remarks came as the death toll in last week's protests rose to 35, according to NGO workers, with the government security forces accused of killing another eight in "extra-judicial executions." Following a trip to Panama, Pope Francis said he was afraid the escalating crisis would become "a bloodbath." United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, meanwhile, offered to step in, saying he could provide "good offices to facilitate dialogue and negotiation between the parties." Along with China and Russia, Turkey and leftist regional allies Bolivia, Cuba and Mexico still back Maduro. But a dozen Latin American countries have recognized Guaido and six European nations -- Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain -- have said they would follow suit unless Maduro calls elections by February 3. - US: PDVSA must drop Maduro - Mnuchin said PDVSA must cut itself off from Maduro in order to see sanctions dropped. "The path to sanctions relief for PDVSA is through the expeditious transfer of control to the interim president or a subsequent, democratically elected government," he said. PDVSA's US-based subsidiary Citgo will be able to continue operations, as long as its earnings are deposited into a blocked account in the United States. Guaido, who declared himself acting president Wednesday, said he will begin the process of naming new boards for PDVSA and Citgo to "start recovering our industry that is going through a dark time." Lawmakers will be asked to take "the necessary measures to guarantee the greatest transparency and control of the use" of the assets, Guaido added. "We took this decision to ensure that Citgo stays in the hands of Venezuelans." An angry Maduro nevertheless accused the United States of trying to "steal Citgo" and pledged to file legal action over the new sanctions. Since being elected head of the National Assembly legislature last month, Guaido has managed to rally a previously disunited opposition. Maduro has been in charge since 2013 but his re-election in May was branded illegitimate by the European Union, United States and Organization of American States. Several opposition leaders had been forced into exile, jailed or barred from standing in the election, leading the opposition to boycott the poll.

US goes after Venezuela's oil to hit Maduro

China's top trade negotiator arrived in Washington as the world's top two economies prepare for high-stakes trade talks, Chinese state media said Tuesday.

The large delegation led by Vice Premier Liu He and including the head of the central bank arrived Monday as a US Justice Department indictment against top Chinese tech firm Huawei was unsealed, possibly complicating the discussions.

Beijing and Washington have a month remaining on a truce — declared in December by Donald Trump and Xi Jinping — that delayed a hike in tariffs on hundreds of billions in Chinese exports economists say could further damage an already-faltering global economy.

Trump will meet with Liu during the two-day talks, which are slated to open Wednesday, US officials said, as pressure mounts on both sides to reach a deal, with China, in particular, struggling with stuttering growth.

While there have been contradictory reports on the chances of success for the negotiations, global equities have been risen in recent weeks on hopes the two will reach some sort of deal.

China's negotiating team includes central bank chief Yi Gang, Vice Finance Minister Liao Min, and Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang, among other high-level officials, official state news agency Xinhua reported.

But the gathering comes days after the US Justice Department unveiled sweeping charges against Chinese telecoms giant Huawei and its chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou — also the daughter of the company's founder.

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross said on Monday the indictments were "wholly separate from our trade negotiations with China".

However, he added: "Commerce will continue to work with our interagency partners to protect US national security interests."

China's top trade negotiator arrived in Washington as the world's top two economies prepare for high-stakes trade talks, Chinese state media said Tuesday. The large delegation led by Vice Premier Liu He and including the head of the central bank arrived Monday as a US Justice Department indictment against top Chinese tech firm Huawei was unsealed, possibly complicating the discussions.

China's top trade negotiator arrived in Washington as the world's top two economies prepare for high-stakes trade talks, Chinese state media said Tuesday. The large delegation led by Vice Premier Liu He and including the head of the central bank arrived Monday as a US Justice Department indictment against top Chinese tech firm Huawei was unsealed, possibly complicating the discussions. Beijing and Washington have a month remaining on a truce — declared in December by Donald Trump and Xi Jinping — that delayed a hike in tariffs on hundreds of billions in Chinese exports economists say could further damage an already-faltering global economy. Trump will meet with Liu during the two-day talks, which are slated to open Wednesday, US officials said, as pressure mounts on both sides to reach a deal, with China, in particular, struggling with stuttering growth. While there have been contradictory reports on the chances of success for the negotiations, global equities have been risen in recent weeks on hopes the two will reach some sort of deal. China's negotiating team includes central bank chief Yi Gang, Vice Finance Minister Liao Min, and Vice Foreign Minister Zheng Zeguang, among other high-level officials, official state news agency Xinhua reported. But the gathering comes days after the US Justice Department unveiled sweeping charges against Chinese telecoms giant Huawei and its chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou — also the daughter of the company's founder. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross said on Monday the indictments were "wholly separate from our trade negotiations with China". However, he added: "Commerce will continue to work with our interagency partners to protect US national security interests."

China's top trade negotiator arrives in US for talks

*By&nbsp;Steven Friedman

One day, if they follow instructions, Africa’s new democracies will grow up to be “real” like those of Western Europe and North America. This assumption makes little sense – but it influences the way many people in the West and in Africa think about African democracies.

Challenging this myth is a central theme of my book Power in Action: Democracy, Citizenship and Social Justice, which has just been published by Wits University Press.

Over the past two decades, the book notes, democracy has blossomed in Africa: in 1990, the continent housed, at most, four democracies. Today, countries in which the government is not at least elected in a free vote in which opposition parties contest are a small minority. But there is still a deep-rooted feeling among Western academics, policymakers and journalists that African democracies are not yet “the finished product” – that they are still on their way to becoming full democracies.

This view gave birth to a field of academic study in the West – the search for “democratic consolidation”. It emerged because academics assumed that the new democracies were not yet “complete”, even though they called themselves democratic. And so they set out to discover whether democracies in Africa (and Asia and Latin America) were “consolidated”, which meant that they were the finished product.

The academics have never said how we would know a “complete” democracy when we saw one. They don’t have to – it is obvious from their writing that, to become the “finished article”, democracies have to become like those in the West.

The academics are reflecting a widely held view. Western governments that set out to make the world democratic were trying to “help” democracies outside the West to become just like those in it. European and US politicians who care about democracy elsewhere share this view. So do many Africans.

Colonial mindset&nbsp;

Academics on the African continent are keen to study whether their democracies are on the way to being “consolidated” and much commentary on the continent assumes that a “grown-up” democracy looks like Britain, France or the US. This is particularly so in countries like South Africa which house a significant minority of people of Western origin, many of whom believe that the West is the home of civilisation to which the rest of the world should aspire.

This view has a distinctly colonial flavour. The moral excuse for colonialism was that it was bringing to the colonised “civilisation”, which meant whatever people in the colonising country valued. There is no difference between this and trying to persuade the formerly colonised that their democracies can only become “real” if they mimic those in the West.

But it makes very little sense to claim that Western democracies are the “finished product”.

First, Western democracies differ between themselves. So which version are people in Africa meant to mimic? Must their countries become unitary states like Britain or France, or federal like the US and Germany? Must African states give unions and business associations a say in decisions as Sweden, Austria and Switzerland have done? Must language or religious groups be allowed a special say as Belgium and Holland have done? It is not clear which of the many forms of Western democracy Africans are meant to want to be.

Second, the “finished products” of the West are not that finished. Britain has an unelected house of traditional leaders and clergy – the House of Lords. The US system allows the half-million residents of one state to have the same say in the Senate as the 35 million of another. Several Western democracies detain suspects without trial – the US has done this for nearly two decades at Guantanamo Bay, far longer than South Africa’s apartheid state ever detained anyone without trial.

The media in several Western countries is judged by specialists to be less free than those in some non-Western democracies. To show the absurdity of claiming that Western democracies are always better, think what would happen if an African president was elected because he won the vote in a state where the voting machines were faulty and the governor was his brother? This happened in the US in 2000 – and no-one has declared it an “incomplete” democracy.

Third, the democratic idea is that every adult should have an equal say in the decisions which affect them. Where does that happen? Nowhere. So no democracy is a “finished product”. All fall short of the democratic goal and so Western democracies are no more real than those elsewhere. It also makes little sense to claim that one democracy is further down the road to “completion” than another – democracy has many aspects and on some, newer democracies outside the West are further down the road than those they are meant to want to be.

More people vote in some African countries than in some in the West. South Africa does more to promote women’s participation than most Western countries. A study of Botswana complained that its people did not value democracy because only 45% of voters knew the name of their member of Parliament – but the equivalent figure in Sweden was only 33% and several other European countries lagged far behind Botswana, whose voters are better informed than Swedes.

Inferiority complex 

In sum, the democratic inferiority complex of many Africans is unwarranted. The idea that our democracies are “B Grade” and those of the West are prime quality is false.

None of this means that African democracies are better than those in the West. It means that the idea of “real” and “not yet real” democracies expresses a colonial mentality, not reality.

Like all democracies, Africa’s have much room for improvement. But they will never become what they could be if they struggle to become a copy of a romanticised Western democracy. Africa’s democracies will progress if they concentrate on the core democratic principle – giving more and more people a say over more and more issues – and debate how to do that in their particular conditions.

*(Steven Friedman is Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Rhodes University and the University of Johannesburg)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-claim-that-democracy-fares-better-in-the-west-than-in-africa-is-a-fallacy-110408">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

*By Steven Friedman One day, if they follow instructions, Africa’s new democracies will grow up to be “real” like those of Western Europe and North America. This assumption makes little sense – but it influences the way many people in the West and in Africa think about African democracies.

*By Steven Friedman One day, if they follow instructions, Africa’s new democracies will grow up to be “real” like those of Western Europe and North America. This assumption makes little sense – but it influences the way many people in the West and in Africa think about African democracies. Challenging this myth is a central theme of my book Power in Action: Democracy, Citizenship and Social Justice, which has just been published by Wits University Press. Over the past two decades, the book notes, democracy has blossomed in Africa: in 1990, the continent housed, at most, four democracies. Today, countries in which the government is not at least elected in a free vote in which opposition parties contest are a small minority. But there is still a deep-rooted feeling among Western academics, policymakers and journalists that African democracies are not yet “the finished product” – that they are still on their way to becoming full democracies. This view gave birth to a field of academic study in the West – the search for “democratic consolidation”. It emerged because academics assumed that the new democracies were not yet “complete”, even though they called themselves democratic. And so they set out to discover whether democracies in Africa (and Asia and Latin America) were “consolidated”, which meant that they were the finished product. The academics have never said how we would know a “complete” democracy when we saw one. They don’t have to – it is obvious from their writing that, to become the “finished article”, democracies have to become like those in the West. The academics are reflecting a widely held view. Western governments that set out to make the world democratic were trying to “help” democracies outside the West to become just like those in it. European and US politicians who care about democracy elsewhere share this view. So do many Africans. Colonial mindset Academics on the African continent are keen to study whether their democracies are on the way to being “consolidated” and much commentary on the continent assumes that a “grown-up” democracy looks like Britain, France or the US. This is particularly so in countries like South Africa which house a significant minority of people of Western origin, many of whom believe that the West is the home of civilisation to which the rest of the world should aspire. This view has a distinctly colonial flavour. The moral excuse for colonialism was that it was bringing to the colonised “civilisation”, which meant whatever people in the colonising country valued. There is no difference between this and trying to persuade the formerly colonised that their democracies can only become “real” if they mimic those in the West. But it makes very little sense to claim that Western democracies are the “finished product”. First, Western democracies differ between themselves. So which version are people in Africa meant to mimic? Must their countries become unitary states like Britain or France, or federal like the US and Germany? Must African states give unions and business associations a say in decisions as Sweden, Austria and Switzerland have done? Must language or religious groups be allowed a special say as Belgium and Holland have done? It is not clear which of the many forms of Western democracy Africans are meant to want to be. Second, the “finished products” of the West are not that finished. Britain has an unelected house of traditional leaders and clergy – the House of Lords. The US system allows the half-million residents of one state to have the same say in the Senate as the 35 million of another. Several Western democracies detain suspects without trial – the US has done this for nearly two decades at Guantanamo Bay, far longer than South Africa’s apartheid state ever detained anyone without trial. The media in several Western countries is judged by specialists to be less free than those in some non-Western democracies. To show the absurdity of claiming that Western democracies are always better, think what would happen if an African president was elected because he won the vote in a state where the voting machines were faulty and the governor was his brother? This happened in the US in 2000 – and no-one has declared it an “incomplete” democracy. Third, the democratic idea is that every adult should have an equal say in the decisions which affect them. Where does that happen? Nowhere. So no democracy is a “finished product”. All fall short of the democratic goal and so Western democracies are no more real than those elsewhere. It also makes little sense to claim that one democracy is further down the road to “completion” than another – democracy has many aspects and on some, newer democracies outside the West are further down the road than those they are meant to want to be. More people vote in some African countries than in some in the West. South Africa does more to promote women’s participation than most Western countries. A study of Botswana complained that its people did not value democracy because only 45% of voters knew the name of their member of Parliament – but the equivalent figure in Sweden was only 33% and several other European countries lagged far behind Botswana, whose voters are better informed than Swedes. Inferiority complex In sum, the democratic inferiority complex of many Africans is unwarranted. The idea that our democracies are “B Grade” and those of the West are prime quality is false. None of this means that African democracies are better than those in the West. It means that the idea of “real” and “not yet real” democracies expresses a colonial mentality, not reality. Like all democracies, Africa’s have much room for improvement. But they will never become what they could be if they struggle to become a copy of a romanticised Western democracy. Africa’s democracies will progress if they concentrate on the core democratic principle – giving more and more people a say over more and more issues – and debate how to do that in their particular conditions. *(Steven Friedman is Director of the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Rhodes University and the University of Johannesburg) (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)

The claim that democracy fares better in the West than in Africa is a fallacy

NATO Secretary General, Jons Stoltenberg, has stated that alliance troops would not stay "longer than necessary" in Afghanistan.

"We will not stay longer than necessary, but we will not leave before we have a situation, which enables to leave or reduce the number of troops without jeopardizing the main goal of our presence," Sputnik quoted Stoltenberg as saying during a meeting with the US acting Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan on Monday."

''We strongly support those efforts…We are in close contact with the United States…Our military presence, the purpose of that is to create the conditions for the political solution, and we hope that we will be able to achieve that," the NATO chief remarked during the meeting.

He outlined that it is "too early to speculate" about the withdrawal of NATO alliance troops from Afghanistan, noting that it was imperative to reach a peaceful solution in Afghanistan.

This comes after the United States put forth that there had been significant progress during talks with the Taliban recently.

Furthermore, both the United States and Taliban agreed in principle to chalk out a framework for a deal that could eventually end the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan.

Previously, reports suggesting the exit of US troops have been dismissed by the White House, with authorities iterating that the US President, Donald Trump, had no such plans.

There are currently around 14,000 US troops and 16,000 personnel from NATO and its allies in Afghanistan.

NATO Secretary General, Jons Stoltenberg, has stated that alliance troops would not stay "longer than necessary" in Afghanistan. "We will not stay longer than necessary, but we will not leave before we have a situation, which enables to leave or reduce the number of troops without jeopardizing the main goal of our presence," Sputnik quoted Stoltenberg as saying during a meeting with the US acting Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan on Monday.

NATO Secretary General, Jons Stoltenberg, has stated that alliance troops would not stay "longer than necessary" in Afghanistan. "We will not stay longer than necessary, but we will not leave before we have a situation, which enables to leave or reduce the number of troops without jeopardizing the main goal of our presence," Sputnik quoted Stoltenberg as saying during a meeting with the US acting Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan on Monday." ''We strongly support those efforts…We are in close contact with the United States…Our military presence, the purpose of that is to create the conditions for the political solution, and we hope that we will be able to achieve that," the NATO chief remarked during the meeting. He outlined that it is "too early to speculate" about the withdrawal of NATO alliance troops from Afghanistan, noting that it was imperative to reach a peaceful solution in Afghanistan. This comes after the United States put forth that there had been significant progress during talks with the Taliban recently. Furthermore, both the United States and Taliban agreed in principle to chalk out a framework for a deal that could eventually end the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan. Previously, reports suggesting the exit of US troops have been dismissed by the White House, with authorities iterating that the US President, Donald Trump, had no such plans. There are currently around 14,000 US troops and 16,000 personnel from NATO and its allies in Afghanistan.

Will not stay longer than necessary in Afghanistan: NATO Chief

The United States last year slid down the rankings of a global corruption index as America's system of checks and balances faced growing threats on Donald Trump's watch, Transparency International said Tuesday.

The US lost four points to score 71 out of 100 on the watchdog's 2018 Corruption Perceptions Index, sending the country tumbling out of the top 20 for the first time since 2011.

"The low score comes at a time when the US is experiencing threats to its system of checks and balances as well as an erosion of ethical norms at the highest levels of power," TI said in its annual report.

The second year of Trump's presidency was a turbulent one, ranging from damaging revelations in an investigation probing links between Trump's 2016 campaign team and Russia, to his controversial backing for a Supreme Court nominee accused of sexual assault.

The US leader, who frequently rails against the media for writing "fake news", was also dogged by accusations of nepotism and conflicts of interest.

Last month, Trump agreed to close his personal charity after the New York attorney general said it had acted "as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr&nbsp;Trump's business and political interests".

Transparency International's closely-watched index ranks 180 nations according to their perceived level of public sector corruption, where a score of zero means very corrupt and 100 signifies very clean.

"The Trump presidency has illuminated the cracks in the US system for ensuring a government that is accountable to the public interest," TI's Zoe Reiter, acting representative to the US, told AFP.

"But President Trump is a symptom rather than a cause; the issues were there before he took office. For example, the Office of Government Ethics simply doesn't have the teeth to control for conflicts of interest at the highest levels," she said.

Rise of autocrats

As in previous years, New Zealand and Nordic countries were among the best in class with Denmark narrowly beating New Zealand to the top spot at 88 and 87 points respectively.

Strife-torn Somalia was once again the worst performer, below Yemen, South Sudan and Syria which all scored in the low teens.

The Berlin-based watchdog also singled out Turkey and Hungary for falling down the rankings, blaming "the deterioration of rule of law and democratic institutions, as well as a rapidly shrinking space for civil society and independent media".

"With many democratic institutions under threat across the globe — often by leaders with authoritarian or populist tendencies — we need to do more to strengthen checks and balances and protect citizens' rights," TI's managing director Patricia Moreira said.

As part of its recommendations, the group urged governments to stand up for a free press and support civil society organisations that encourage public oversight over government spending.

The index is compiled based on data from 12 international organisations including the World Bank, African Development Bank and the World Economic Forum.

The United States last year slid down the rankings of a global corruption index as America's system of checks and balances faced growing threats on Donald Trump's watch, Transparency International said Tuesday.

The United States last year slid down the rankings of a global corruption index as America's system of checks and balances faced growing threats on Donald Trump's watch, Transparency International said Tuesday. The US lost four points to score 71 out of 100 on the watchdog's 2018 Corruption Perceptions Index, sending the country tumbling out of the top 20 for the first time since 2011. "The low score comes at a time when the US is experiencing threats to its system of checks and balances as well as an erosion of ethical norms at the highest levels of power," TI said in its annual report. The second year of Trump's presidency was a turbulent one, ranging from damaging revelations in an investigation probing links between Trump's 2016 campaign team and Russia, to his controversial backing for a Supreme Court nominee accused of sexual assault. The US leader, who frequently rails against the media for writing "fake news", was also dogged by accusations of nepotism and conflicts of interest. Last month, Trump agreed to close his personal charity after the New York attorney general said it had acted "as little more than a checkbook to serve Mr Trump's business and political interests". Transparency International's closely-watched index ranks 180 nations according to their perceived level of public sector corruption, where a score of zero means very corrupt and 100 signifies very clean. "The Trump presidency has illuminated the cracks in the US system for ensuring a government that is accountable to the public interest," TI's Zoe Reiter, acting representative to the US, told AFP. "But President Trump is a symptom rather than a cause; the issues were there before he took office. For example, the Office of Government Ethics simply doesn't have the teeth to control for conflicts of interest at the highest levels," she said. Rise of autocrats As in previous years, New Zealand and Nordic countries were among the best in class with Denmark narrowly beating New Zealand to the top spot at 88 and 87 points respectively. Strife-torn Somalia was once again the worst performer, below Yemen, South Sudan and Syria which all scored in the low teens. The Berlin-based watchdog also singled out Turkey and Hungary for falling down the rankings, blaming "the deterioration of rule of law and democratic institutions, as well as a rapidly shrinking space for civil society and independent media". "With many democratic institutions under threat across the globe — often by leaders with authoritarian or populist tendencies — we need to do more to strengthen checks and balances and protect citizens' rights," TI's managing director Patricia Moreira said. As part of its recommendations, the group urged governments to stand up for a free press and support civil society organisations that encourage public oversight over government spending. The index is compiled based on data from 12 international organisations including the World Bank, African Development Bank and the World Economic Forum.

Corruption seen rising in Trump's US: Watchdog

Dispatch: US pushes allies to ban Huawei

A senior US government official, speaking after six days of talks between a US team and the Afghan Taliban, said on Monday that Washington was committed to the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan after 17 years of war.

The official, who declined to be identified, described "significant progress" in talks last week with Afghan Taliban militants in Qatar on a foreign troop pullout, but more negotiations were needed on a ceasefire and its timing.

"Of course we don't seek a permanent military presence in Afghanistan," the official said in the capital Kabul.

"Our goal is to help bring peace in Afghanistan and we would like a future partnership, newly defined with a post-peace government," the official told Reuters. "We would like to leave a good legacy."

There could not be a withdrawal without a ceasefire, the official added.

Both US officials and the hardline Islamic group hailed progress after the talks on Saturday but the US official said that no draft deal had been finalised.

As well as the sticking point of the ceasefire, the Taliban did not discuss the need for talks with the Afghan government to reach a political settlement that the US believes is a core part of a deal.

The Taliban have repeatedly refused to talk to the Western-backed Afghan government, which they see as a puppet of the United States.

The US team, headed by special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, is in Kabul this week meeting<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-president-sirisena-calls-on-taliban-to-enter-serious-talks-with-kabul-193440"> Afghan President Ashraf Ghani</a>.

After being toppled by a US-led invasion in 2001, the Taliban control about half of Afghanistan and are staging daily attacks amid the diplomacy.

Further talks are due to start in Qatar on February 25.

As well as the withdrawal of troops, the official said progress was made on addressing US concerns that Afghanistan is not used as a base by al Qaeda or Islamic State for attacks against the United States and its allies.

"That is why we came to Afghanistan in the first place," the official said.

Meanwhile, Ghani said the presence of foreign forces was based on an international agreement and they will not be required in the long term.

"No Afghans want foreign forces in their country for the long term," Ghani said in a televised address.

"The current presence of foreign forces is based on need, and this need has always been contemplated and will be contemplated ... and according to an exact and arranged plan we are trying to bring down that number to zero," he said.

A senior US government official, speaking after six days of talks between a US team and the Afghan Taliban, said on Monday that Washington was committed to the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan after 17 years of war.

A senior US government official, speaking after six days of talks between a US team and the Afghan Taliban, said on Monday that Washington was committed to the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan after 17 years of war. The official, who declined to be identified, described "significant progress" in talks last week with Afghan Taliban militants in Qatar on a foreign troop pullout, but more negotiations were needed on a ceasefire and its timing. "Of course we don't seek a permanent military presence in Afghanistan," the official said in the capital Kabul. "Our goal is to help bring peace in Afghanistan and we would like a future partnership, newly defined with a post-peace government," the official told Reuters. "We would like to leave a good legacy." There could not be a withdrawal without a ceasefire, the official added. Both US officials and the hardline Islamic group hailed progress after the talks on Saturday but the US official said that no draft deal had been finalised. As well as the sticking point of the ceasefire, the Taliban did not discuss the need for talks with the Afghan government to reach a political settlement that the US believes is a core part of a deal. The Taliban have repeatedly refused to talk to the Western-backed Afghan government, which they see as a puppet of the United States. The US team, headed by special peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad, is in Kabul this week meeting Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. After being toppled by a US-led invasion in 2001, the Taliban control about half of Afghanistan and are staging daily attacks amid the diplomacy. Further talks are due to start in Qatar on February 25. As well as the withdrawal of troops, the official said progress was made on addressing US concerns that Afghanistan is not used as a base by al Qaeda or Islamic State for attacks against the United States and its allies. "That is why we came to Afghanistan in the first place," the official said. Meanwhile, Ghani said the presence of foreign forces was based on an international agreement and they will not be required in the long term. "No Afghans want foreign forces in their country for the long term," Ghani said in a televised address. "The current presence of foreign forces is based on need, and this need has always been contemplated and will be contemplated ... and according to an exact and arranged plan we are trying to bring down that number to zero," he said.

US doesn't seek permanent Afghan military presence: Official

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-peace-envoy-visits-kabul-to-consult-afghanistan-president-ashraf-ghani-on-talks-with-taliban-193206">Afghan president Ashraf Ghani called on the Taliban </a>to "enter serious talks" with the government in Kabul Monday, following unprecedented marathon negotiations between the insurgents and the US in Qatar last week.

"I call on the Taliban to... show their Afghan will, and accept Afghans' demand for peace, and enter serious talks with the Afghan government," he said in a nationally televised address from the presidential palace in Kabul.&nbsp;

Afghan authorities have previously complained of being excluded from the discussions in Qatar and warned that any deal between the US and the Taliban would require Kabul's endorsement.&nbsp;

However, the Taliban have long refused to speak directly to Ghani's government, branding them "puppets".

Ghani spoke hours after his office released a statement saying that US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad had assured them that the focus of the talks in Qatar remains to find a way to facilitate peace negotiations between the militants and Kabul.

Khalilzad arrived in Afghanistan late Sunday after six days of talks between Taliban representatives and US officials in Doha.&nbsp;

Both parties have cited "progress" as hopes rise that the unprecedented length of the negotiations could mean a deal paving the way for Afghan peace talks may be in sight, although sticking points remain.

"We want peace, we want it fast but we want it with a plan," Ghani continued Monday.&nbsp;

"We should not forget that the victims of this war are Afghans and the peace process should also be Afghan-led."

Afghan president Ashraf Ghani called on the Taliban to "enter serious talks" with the government in Kabul Monday, following unprecedented marathon negotiations between the insurgents and the US in Qatar last week.

Afghan president Ashraf Ghani called on the Taliban to "enter serious talks" with the government in Kabul Monday, following unprecedented marathon negotiations between the insurgents and the US in Qatar last week. "I call on the Taliban to... show their Afghan will, and accept Afghans' demand for peace, and enter serious talks with the Afghan government," he said in a nationally televised address from the presidential palace in Kabul. Afghan authorities have previously complained of being excluded from the discussions in Qatar and warned that any deal between the US and the Taliban would require Kabul's endorsement. However, the Taliban have long refused to speak directly to Ghani's government, branding them "puppets". Ghani spoke hours after his office released a statement saying that US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad had assured them that the focus of the talks in Qatar remains to find a way to facilitate peace negotiations between the militants and Kabul. Khalilzad arrived in Afghanistan late Sunday after six days of talks between Taliban representatives and US officials in Doha. Both parties have cited "progress" as hopes rise that the unprecedented length of the negotiations could mean a deal paving the way for Afghan peace talks may be in sight, although sticking points remain. "We want peace, we want it fast but we want it with a plan," Ghani continued Monday. "We should not forget that the victims of this war are Afghans and the peace process should also be Afghan-led."

Afghan president Ghani calls on Taliban to 'enter serious talks' with Kabul

Venezuela's military attache to Washington broke ranks with Nicolas Maduro on Saturday, urging his "brothers in the military" to back the head of the National Assembly <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-opposition-leader-cranks-up-pressure-on-maduro-192958">Juan </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-opposition-leader-cranks-up-pressure-on-maduro-192958">Guaido</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuela-opposition-leader-cranks-up-pressure-on-maduro-192958"> as interim president</a>, he told AFP.

"This defence attache does not recognise Nicolas Maduro as president, considering him a usurper, and recognises Juan Guaido as the legitimate interim president," Colonel Jose Luis Silva said.

"This position is consistent with the constitution and laws of Venezuela and I call upon my brothers in the military to join in supporting Guaido."

Venezuela's military attache to Washington broke ranks with Nicolas Maduro on Saturday, urging his "brothers in the military" to back the head of the National Assembly Juan Guaido as interim president, he told AFP.

Venezuela's military attache to Washington broke ranks with Nicolas Maduro on Saturday, urging his "brothers in the military" to back the head of the National Assembly Juan Guaido as interim president, he told AFP. "This defence attache does not recognise Nicolas Maduro as president, considering him a usurper, and recognises Juan Guaido as the legitimate interim president," Colonel Jose Luis Silva said. "This position is consistent with the constitution and laws of Venezuela and I call upon my brothers in the military to join in supporting Guaido."

Venezuela military attache to US urges army to back Maduro opponent

<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/maduro-lacks-authority-to-snap-ties-expel-diplomats-us-192341&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjrjqe12IrgAhWLvY8KHYlEB_IQFggLMAI&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw15Y2sVj8mkDKrs_EAusLTi">The United States </a>is pushing for a United Nations Security Council statement expressing full support for <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/india-news/news-brief-big-stories-of-day-192355&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjrjqe12IrgAhWLvY8KHYlEB_IQFggIMAE&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw2_rcicXvl8sCSxOJFYAAWi">Venezuela's National Assembly </a>as the country's "only democratically elected institution," but Russia is expected to block the move, diplomats said on Friday.

The council will meet on Saturday at the request of the United States after Washington and a string of countries in the region recognized Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as head of state and urged President Nicolas Maduro to step down.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Venezuela's Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza, along with several other ministers, are due to address the 15-member body. Ahead of the public meeting, the United States circulated a draft Security Council statement.

The draft, seen by Reuters, said: "As conditions in the Republic of Venezuela continue to deteriorate, the Security Council expresses its full support for the National Assembly as Venezuela's only democratically elected institution."

If the council backed the statement, it would effectively recognize Guaido - who is head of the National Assembly - as Venezuela's head of state. Guaido declared himself the country's interim president on Wednesday.

However, Russia's UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said on Friday that Moscow would oppose the US push for the Security Council to back Guaido as interim president. Council statements must be agreed by consensus.

Before Washington circulated the draft statement to council members late on Friday, Nebenzia told Reuters: "That will not pass ... For us, nothing changes."

The draft statement also "calls for the immediate start of a political process that leads to free, fair and credible elections with international electoral observation in the shortest possible time."

During Saturday's Security Council meeting, Pompeo will urge council members and other countries to recognize Guaido, the State Department said in a statement on Friday.

The United States is pushing for a United Nations Security Council statement expressing full support for Venezuela's National Assembly as the country's "only democratically elected institution," but Russia is expected to block the move, diplomats said on Friday.

The United States is pushing for a United Nations Security Council statement expressing full support for Venezuela's National Assembly as the country's "only democratically elected institution," but Russia is expected to block the move, diplomats said on Friday. The council will meet on Saturday at the request of the United States after Washington and a string of countries in the region recognized Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido as head of state and urged President Nicolas Maduro to step down. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Venezuela's Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza, along with several other ministers, are due to address the 15-member body. Ahead of the public meeting, the United States circulated a draft Security Council statement. The draft, seen by Reuters, said: "As conditions in the Republic of Venezuela continue to deteriorate, the Security Council expresses its full support for the National Assembly as Venezuela's only democratically elected institution." If the council backed the statement, it would effectively recognize Guaido - who is head of the National Assembly - as Venezuela's head of state. Guaido declared himself the country's interim president on Wednesday. However, Russia's UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said on Friday that Moscow would oppose the US push for the Security Council to back Guaido as interim president. Council statements must be agreed by consensus. Before Washington circulated the draft statement to council members late on Friday, Nebenzia told Reuters: "That will not pass ... For us, nothing changes." The draft statement also "calls for the immediate start of a political process that leads to free, fair and credible elections with international electoral observation in the shortest possible time." During Saturday's Security Council meeting, Pompeo will urge council members and other countries to recognize Guaido, the State Department said in a statement on Friday.

US pushes UN Security Council to back Venezuela's Guaido

The United States government is concerned about India’s revised e-commerce regulations and has told officials in New Delhi the policy will hinder the Indian investment plans of Amazon.com and Walmart, three sources familiar with the talks told Reuters.

The tussle marks the latest in a number of US protests over Indian government policies which impact American companies and comes at a time when the two countries are trying to iron out other trade irritants. In 2017, the US lodged a written protest against India’s decision to cap medical device prices, which upset American companies.

India’s e-commerce investment rules, which kick in from February 1, ban companies from selling products via firms in which they have an equity interest and also bar them from making deals with sellers to sell exclusively on their platforms.

The policy has dealt a blow to Walmart, which just last year invested $16 billion in buying 77 per cent of India’s Flipkart, and Amazon, as it would force them to change their business structures in the country and raise their operational costs.

“There is a very strong undercurrent as to how this should be made a bilateral issue,” said a Washington-based industry source aware of the companies’ thinking.

“This has gone way beyond being a local (India) tussle.”

A US government official earlier this month told Indian officials to protect Walmart and Flipkart’s investments in the country, an Indian trade ministry official told Reuters.

The US government cited “good relations” between the two countries and stressed that American companies should be given concessions in the larger interest of bilateral trade, but India gave a “non-committal” response, the source added.

But Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is unlikely to delay the revised rules or amend them in any meaningful way as he is seeking the support of the tens of millions of small retailers and traders in India ahead of a general election that must be held by May. The small firms see Walmart and Amazon as a threat to their businesses.

An Indian industry source said Walmart, Amazon and lobbying groups were coordinating efforts with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the local embassy to express their discontent about the policy.

The USTR did not respond to a request for comment. The US Embassy in New Delhi, and Indian trade ministry spokeswoman Monideepa Mukherjee, declined to comment.

Asked about the Indian policy’s implications, Walmart spokesman Greg Hitt said: “We certainly, as you would expect, have engaged the (United States) administration on this issue.” He declined to share further details.

Amazon India said it was committed to complying with local laws but it needed “adequate time to understand” the policy.

GLOBAL VS LOCAL

Amazon and Walmart have both made bold bets to tap India’s booming e-commerce market, which Morgan Stanley had estimated, before the latest government move would grow 30 percent a year to $200 billion in the 10 years up to 2027.

The companies have targeted a growing population of tech-savvy shoppers in India, luring them with deep discounts on everything from dishwashers to smartphones.

India’s small traders and shopkeepers had for years complained that e-commerce companies were engaging in predatory pricing and hurting the businesses of brick-and-mortar retailers.

They alleged that the online retailers used their control over inventory from their affiliates to create an unfair marketplace that allowed them to sell some products at lower prices. Such arrangements would be barred under the new policy.

“We are disappointed more than surprised. It makes it harder to plan things,” a US-based Walmart source told Reuters.

“It is a serious issue. We are doing our best to work with Indian authorities and trying to explain why this is bad for business.”

The Confederation of All India Traders, which has supported tougher scrutiny of large e-commerce players, said the companies were acting “desperate” by pressurising the Indian government.

“Any deferment or change (in the policy) will adversely affect millions of small businesses,” said the group’s secretary general, Praveen Khandelwal.

POLITICS, DEADLINE RISK

Both Walmart-owned Flipkart and Amazon have requested the government to delay implementation of the policy, but India is unlikely to relent.

Indian officials have told Reuters no relief was likely as the policy was seen helping the small trader community, who form a critical voter base for Modi.

“The idea is just to win over the trading community ahead of elections and on that point the government will not budge from the deadline,” a second Indian trade ministry official said.

At stake are big ticket investments. When Walmart bought Flipkart last year, it said the decision underscored its “long-term commitment to India”.

Amazon has committed to investing $5.5 billion in the country and Modi has in recent years met its founder Jeff Bezos multiple times. In 2017, Bezos said he was “excited to keep investing and growing” in the country.

That investment climate has turned sour with sudden policy changes. Prasanto Roy, a New Delhi-based consultant who closely tracks India’s technology policy landscape, said the government should provide stable policies to attract investment.

“You can’t change policies overnight without consultation and tell companies who have invested billions to go fly a kite,” Roy said.

The United States government is concerned about India’s revised e-commerce regulations and has told officials in New Delhi the policy will hinder the Indian investment plans of Amazon.

The United States government is concerned about India’s revised e-commerce regulations and has told officials in New Delhi the policy will hinder the Indian investment plans of Amazon.com and Walmart, three sources familiar with the talks told Reuters. The tussle marks the latest in a number of US protests over Indian government policies which impact American companies and comes at a time when the two countries are trying to iron out other trade irritants. In 2017, the US lodged a written protest against India’s decision to cap medical device prices, which upset American companies. India’s e-commerce investment rules, which kick in from February 1, ban companies from selling products via firms in which they have an equity interest and also bar them from making deals with sellers to sell exclusively on their platforms. The policy has dealt a blow to Walmart, which just last year invested $16 billion in buying 77 per cent of India’s Flipkart, and Amazon, as it would force them to change their business structures in the country and raise their operational costs. “There is a very strong undercurrent as to how this should be made a bilateral issue,” said a Washington-based industry source aware of the companies’ thinking. “This has gone way beyond being a local (India) tussle.” A US government official earlier this month told Indian officials to protect Walmart and Flipkart’s investments in the country, an Indian trade ministry official told Reuters. The US government cited “good relations” between the two countries and stressed that American companies should be given concessions in the larger interest of bilateral trade, but India gave a “non-committal” response, the source added. But Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is unlikely to delay the revised rules or amend them in any meaningful way as he is seeking the support of the tens of millions of small retailers and traders in India ahead of a general election that must be held by May. The small firms see Walmart and Amazon as a threat to their businesses. An Indian industry source said Walmart, Amazon and lobbying groups were coordinating efforts with the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the local embassy to express their discontent about the policy. The USTR did not respond to a request for comment. The US Embassy in New Delhi, and Indian trade ministry spokeswoman Monideepa Mukherjee, declined to comment. Asked about the Indian policy’s implications, Walmart spokesman Greg Hitt said: “We certainly, as you would expect, have engaged the (United States) administration on this issue.” He declined to share further details. Amazon India said it was committed to complying with local laws but it needed “adequate time to understand” the policy. GLOBAL VS LOCAL Amazon and Walmart have both made bold bets to tap India’s booming e-commerce market, which Morgan Stanley had estimated, before the latest government move would grow 30 percent a year to $200 billion in the 10 years up to 2027. The companies have targeted a growing population of tech-savvy shoppers in India, luring them with deep discounts on everything from dishwashers to smartphones. India’s small traders and shopkeepers had for years complained that e-commerce companies were engaging in predatory pricing and hurting the businesses of brick-and-mortar retailers. They alleged that the online retailers used their control over inventory from their affiliates to create an unfair marketplace that allowed them to sell some products at lower prices. Such arrangements would be barred under the new policy. “We are disappointed more than surprised. It makes it harder to plan things,” a US-based Walmart source told Reuters. “It is a serious issue. We are doing our best to work with Indian authorities and trying to explain why this is bad for business.” The Confederation of All India Traders, which has supported tougher scrutiny of large e-commerce players, said the companies were acting “desperate” by pressurising the Indian government. “Any deferment or change (in the policy) will adversely affect millions of small businesses,” said the group’s secretary general, Praveen Khandelwal. POLITICS, DEADLINE RISK Both Walmart-owned Flipkart and Amazon have requested the government to delay implementation of the policy, but India is unlikely to relent. Indian officials have told Reuters no relief was likely as the policy was seen helping the small trader community, who form a critical voter base for Modi. “The idea is just to win over the trading community ahead of elections and on that point the government will not budge from the deadline,” a second Indian trade ministry official said. At stake are big ticket investments. When Walmart bought Flipkart last year, it said the decision underscored its “long-term commitment to India”. Amazon has committed to investing $5.5 billion in the country and Modi has in recent years met its founder Jeff Bezos multiple times. In 2017, Bezos said he was “excited to keep investing and growing” in the country. That investment climate has turned sour with sudden policy changes. Prasanto Roy, a New Delhi-based consultant who closely tracks India’s technology policy landscape, said the government should provide stable policies to attract investment. “You can’t change policies overnight without consultation and tell companies who have invested billions to go fly a kite,” Roy said.

US voices concern as India's e-commerce restrictions hit Amazon, Walmart: Sources

The United States and China are playing Eurasia’s 21st-century 'Great Game' from different but equally skewed maps. While the US map appears to be outdated, the Chinese map portrays a reality that is imagined.

If the skewed realities of both China and the United States have one thing in common, it is in strategist Parag Khanna’s mind the fact that neither realises that the Great Game’s prize, a new world order, has already been determined.

“We are living – for the first time ever -- in a truly multipolar and multicivilisational order in which North America, Europe and Asia each represents a major share of power,” Khanna says in his just-published book, The Future is Asian.

While the United States sees the great game as an open-ended battle for influence in Europe and Asia and looks at Russia as a European rather than a Eurasian power, China overestimates what its future position, aided by its $1 trillion infrastructure and energy-driven Belt and Road initiative, is likely to be.

The skewed perceptions of both the United States and China create spaces for multiple other powers like Russia and various Middle Eastern states to carve out positions of their own.

China, nonetheless, alongside Russia has one advantage. In contrast, to the United States, it adopts the notion put forward by former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macias that the number of the world’s continents is shrinking from seven to six. Increasingly, Europe and Asia no longer see their common landmass as two separate continents and are gravitating towards what Macias calls a “supercontinent.”&nbsp;

Khanna implicitly acknowledges Macias’ notion by concluding that contrary to perceived Chinese expectations “ultimately, China’s position will be not of an Asian or global hegemon but rather of the eastern anchor of the Asian – and Eurasian – mega-system.”

China’s perceived other advantage, its economic and financial muscle, in the juggling for position on the new supercontinent is also proving to be its Achilles Heel.

The belief that the driver of the Belt and Road is geopolitics rather than economics is bolstered by predictions that none of China’s Indian Ocean port projects has much hope of financial success.

A Financial Times study last year concluded that 78 countries targeted by China for project development are among the world’s most risky economies. On a scale of one to seven, the highest level of country risk, Belt and Road countries ranked 5.2, a significantly higher risk than the 3.5 average for emerging markets. They had a median rating by Moody’s, the credit rating agency, that was the equivalent of non-investment junk investment grade.

The risk was reflected on the balance sheets of major Chinese state-owned companies that build, operate and invest in many Belt and Road projects. The study reported that China’s top internationally active construction and engineering contractors were almost four times more highly leveraged than their non-Chinese competitors.

In a bid to avert a financial crisis, the government has ordered state-owned companies to reduce their debt burden, in part by attributing greater importance to the viability of overseas projects.

The risk to China is not purely economic. It is also geopolitical and reputational. Increasingly, China is forced to focus short term less on the Great Game itself and more on countering the negative effect of a growing perception that China’s projection of the Belt and Road as a mutually beneficial proposition is more fantasy than fact.

A growing number of countries, like Pakistan, Malaysia, Myanmar and Nepal, question the benefits of Belt and Road projects and are resisting China’s often onerous commercial and funding terms.

Ironically, China’s immediate rivals in efforts to maintain its status and ensure that it does not lose hard-won ground are not the United States, India or Japan but its newly assertive, geopolitically ambitious friends in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as Iran.

That is nowhere truer than in Pakistan, a Belt and Road crown jewel, where Saudi Arabia and the UAE have exploited to their advantage Chinese irritation with Pakistani demands to shift the emphasis of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) from infrastructure and energy to agriculture, job creation and the enabling of third-party investment, primarily from countries in the Gulf.

Chinese chagrin has been evident in China’s hesitancy to respond to Pakistani requests for help in averting a financial crisis.

Filling the gap, massive Saudi and UAE aid and investment to the tune of $30 billion in balance of payment support, deferred oil import payments and investment in the troubled Pakistani province of Balochistan that borders Iran has helped the government of Imran Khan avoid asking the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cap in hand to bail it out.

China fears that Pakistan’s mounting dependence on Saudi Arabia and the UAE coupled with a US campaign intended to curb Iran’s regional projection potentially complicates the security of its massive $45 billion-plus investment that to a large extent targets Balochistan.

The United States and Saudi Arabia see Balochistan as a possible launching pad for possible efforts to destabilise the Islamic republic by stirring unrest among its Baloch population and other ethnic minorities.

Increased Saudi and UAE influence in Balochistan could, moreover, suck China into the escalating maelstrom of the two countries’ rivalry with Iran.

Ironically, Saudi and UAE investment has at the same time shielded China from potentially embarrassing disclosure of the financial terms of CPEC-related projects that the IMF was demanding as part of any bailout. Media reports said that Pakistan had informally told the IMF that it would be paying China $40 billion over 20 years for $26.5 billion in Chinese funding of CPEC-related projects.

The impact of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, like much of the rest of the Middle East, goes far beyond Balochistan. It also puts its mark elsewhere on the Eurasian supercontinent. In the words of analyst Galip Dalay, the Middle East or West Asia will, for better or for worse, shape each other.

&nbsp;“The contemporary Middle East is no longer the geopolitically US-centric space that the Europeans once knew. Europe can respond in several ways: proceed with its largely ad-hoc, incoherent and crisis-driven policies of recent years; continue to be incorporated into someone else's game plan, as with the French-German involvement in the Russian-led Astana (peace) process for Syria; or craft a more coherent policy towards the region, with a strong emphasis on democratisation, reform, good governance, inclusion and reconciliation… If Europe doesn’t engage and invest in the transformation of the Middle East, regional developments will dramatically transform it, whether through radicalism, refugees, terrorism, xenophobia or populism. Interactions between Europe and the Middle East will be transformative, for better or for worse.,” Dalay said.

The Middle East is similarly crucial to the success of China’s Belt and Road with Iran and Turkey representing key nodes that further the rise of Eurasia through Chinese-funded rails that link the Atlantic coast of Europe to the People’s Republic.

The Middle East’s impact is one facet of a bigger game in which world and regional powers are competing for the position in Khanna’s multipolar and multicivilisational order.

Robert Malley, a former Obama National Security Council official and head of the International Crisis Group argues that autocratic and authoritarian leaders are testing the limits of the 'Great Game' as the power of Western nations erodes and embattled concepts of multilateralism no longer serve to constrain them.

“As the era of largely uncontested US primacy fades, the international order has been thrown into turmoil. More leaders are tempted more often to test limits, jostle for power, and seek to bolster their influence—or diminish that of their rivals—by meddling in foreign conflicts… Having annexed parts of Georgia and Crimea and stoked separatist violence in Ukraine’s Donbass region, Russia is now throwing its weight around in the Sea of Azov, poisoning dissidents in the United Kingdom, and subverting Western democracies with cyberwarfare. China obstructs freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and arbitrarily detains Canadian citizens… Saudi Arabia has pushed the envelope with the war in Yemen, the kidnapping of a Lebanese prime minister, and the gruesome murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul. Iran plots attacks against dissidents on European soil. Israel feels emboldened to undermine ever more systematically the foundations of a possible two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Malley said.

By implication, Malley was suggesting that efforts to push the envelope were enabled by the US’ failure to recognise that Europe and Asia were becoming one supercontinent.

That failure was mirrored in the US National Security Strategy published in 2017 by the White House and a study by Rand Corporation in 2018 designed to conceptualise current geopolitics as an era of intensifying international competition.

Rather than recognising an increasingly evident divergence of interests between the United States and Europe, the study suggested that the US would continue to have the opportunity if it chooses, to lead a predominant coalition of value-sharing democracies and other largely status quo states to help preserve stability.”

The study appeared to downplay any divergence by reducing differences to “identity-fuelled nationalism” that aims to recapture (countries’) “rightful place” in world politics,” a reference to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as well as European nations grappling with the rise of nationalist, populist and far-right forces and a Middle East that is shaping Europe through highly emotive issues such as migration, political violence and religious identity.

The US focus on Russia as a European rather than a regional power with global ambitions also means that it underestimates Moscow’s play in the Middle East despite its military intervention in Syria.

Russia national security scholar Stephen Blank argues that President Vladimir Putin’s strategy in the region is rooted in the thinking of Yevgeny Primakov, a Middle East expert and linguist and former spymaster, foreign minister and deputy prime minister, who like Khanna envisioned the emergence of a multi-polar, multi-civilisational world with Eurasia at its centre.

Primakov saw the Middle East as a key arena for countering the United States that would enable Russia, weakened by the demise of the Soviet Union and a subsequent economic crisis, to regain its status as a global and regional power and ensure that it would be one pole in a multi-polar world.

By identifying the region as a preferred battleground, Russia benefitted in the words of historian Niall Ferguson from the fact that its significant oil reserves made it “the only power that has no vested interest in stability in the Middle East.”

Blank argued that “in order to reassert Russia’s greatness, Primakov and Putin aimed ultimately at strategic denial, denying Washington sole possession of a dominant role in the Middle East from where US influence could expand to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),” a regional grouping of post-Soviet nations.

They believed that if Russia succeeded it would force the United States to concede multi-polarity and grant Russia the recognition it deserves. That, in turn, would allow Putin to demonstrate to the Russian elite his ability to restore Russia to great power status.

Syria offered Russia the opportunity to display its military prowess without the United States challenging the move. At the same time, Russia leveraged its political and economic clout to forge an alliance with Turkey and partner with Iran. The approach constituted an effort to defang Turkish and Iranian influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Similarly, Russia after brutally repressing religiously inspired Chechen rebels in the 1990s, was proving to be far defter than either China or the United States at promoting politically pacifist or apolitical Islam in a complex game of playing all sides against the middle.

Russian engagement runs the gamut from engaging with militants to cooperating with Muslim autocrats to encouraging condemnation of the kind of Islam adopted by partners such as Saudi Arabia.

Said Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center and a former Russian military officer: “Russia is not the Soviet Union. It does not see the Middle East as a region that it can dominate. Displacing the United States from the leading position in the Middle East is way above Russia’s capacity, and keeping the region in its sphere of influence is way above Russia’s resources. Russia has certainly benefited from waning US interest in the Middle East as, absent an active America, Russia can act with more confidence and ease.”

Describing Russia as “a lonely power,” Trenin went on to say that the difference between Russia and the Soviet Union was that the “Soviet Union was heavily engaged around the Middle East in spending money on an ideological and geopolitical project, the Russian Federation is active in the region trying to make money. The Soviet Union was about an idea. Russia’s idea is about Russia itself.”

In the Great Game’s jostling for position, Trump’s America First approach mirrors Trenin’s portrayal of Russian policy. That leaves China tied up in the contradictions of a policy that is packaged in assertions of lofty ideals but like the United States and Russia is in effect first and foremost about the pursuit of Chinese interests.

 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The United States and China are playing Eurasia’s 21st-century 'Great Game' from different but equally skewed maps. While the US map appears to be outdated, the Chinese map portrays a reality that is imagined.

The United States and China are playing Eurasia’s 21st-century 'Great Game' from different but equally skewed maps. While the US map appears to be outdated, the Chinese map portrays a reality that is imagined. If the skewed realities of both China and the United States have one thing in common, it is in strategist Parag Khanna’s mind the fact that neither realises that the Great Game’s prize, a new world order, has already been determined. “We are living – for the first time ever -- in a truly multipolar and multicivilisational order in which North America, Europe and Asia each represents a major share of power,” Khanna says in his just-published book, The Future is Asian. While the United States sees the great game as an open-ended battle for influence in Europe and Asia and looks at Russia as a European rather than a Eurasian power, China overestimates what its future position, aided by its $1 trillion infrastructure and energy-driven Belt and Road initiative, is likely to be. The skewed perceptions of both the United States and China create spaces for multiple other powers like Russia and various Middle Eastern states to carve out positions of their own. China, nonetheless, alongside Russia has one advantage. In contrast, to the United States, it adopts the notion put forward by former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macias that the number of the world’s continents is shrinking from seven to six. Increasingly, Europe and Asia no longer see their common landmass as two separate continents and are gravitating towards what Macias calls a “supercontinent.” Khanna implicitly acknowledges Macias’ notion by concluding that contrary to perceived Chinese expectations “ultimately, China’s position will be not of an Asian or global hegemon but rather of the eastern anchor of the Asian – and Eurasian – mega-system.” China’s perceived other advantage, its economic and financial muscle, in the juggling for position on the new supercontinent is also proving to be its Achilles Heel. The belief that the driver of the Belt and Road is geopolitics rather than economics is bolstered by predictions that none of China’s Indian Ocean port projects has much hope of financial success. A Financial Times study last year concluded that 78 countries targeted by China for project development are among the world’s most risky economies. On a scale of one to seven, the highest level of country risk, Belt and Road countries ranked 5.2, a significantly higher risk than the 3.5 average for emerging markets. They had a median rating by Moody’s, the credit rating agency, that was the equivalent of non-investment junk investment grade. The risk was reflected on the balance sheets of major Chinese state-owned companies that build, operate and invest in many Belt and Road projects. The study reported that China’s top internationally active construction and engineering contractors were almost four times more highly leveraged than their non-Chinese competitors. In a bid to avert a financial crisis, the government has ordered state-owned companies to reduce their debt burden, in part by attributing greater importance to the viability of overseas projects. The risk to China is not purely economic. It is also geopolitical and reputational. Increasingly, China is forced to focus short term less on the Great Game itself and more on countering the negative effect of a growing perception that China’s projection of the Belt and Road as a mutually beneficial proposition is more fantasy than fact. A growing number of countries, like Pakistan, Malaysia, Myanmar and Nepal, question the benefits of Belt and Road projects and are resisting China’s often onerous commercial and funding terms. Ironically, China’s immediate rivals in efforts to maintain its status and ensure that it does not lose hard-won ground are not the United States, India or Japan but its newly assertive, geopolitically ambitious friends in the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as well as Iran. That is nowhere truer than in Pakistan, a Belt and Road crown jewel, where Saudi Arabia and the UAE have exploited to their advantage Chinese irritation with Pakistani demands to shift the emphasis of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) from infrastructure and energy to agriculture, job creation and the enabling of third-party investment, primarily from countries in the Gulf. Chinese chagrin has been evident in China’s hesitancy to respond to Pakistani requests for help in averting a financial crisis. Filling the gap, massive Saudi and UAE aid and investment to the tune of $30 billion in balance of payment support, deferred oil import payments and investment in the troubled Pakistani province of Balochistan that borders Iran has helped the government of Imran Khan avoid asking the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cap in hand to bail it out. China fears that Pakistan’s mounting dependence on Saudi Arabia and the UAE coupled with a US campaign intended to curb Iran’s regional projection potentially complicates the security of its massive $45 billion-plus investment that to a large extent targets Balochistan. The United States and Saudi Arabia see Balochistan as a possible launching pad for possible efforts to destabilise the Islamic republic by stirring unrest among its Baloch population and other ethnic minorities. Increased Saudi and UAE influence in Balochistan could, moreover, suck China into the escalating maelstrom of the two countries’ rivalry with Iran. Ironically, Saudi and UAE investment has at the same time shielded China from potentially embarrassing disclosure of the financial terms of CPEC-related projects that the IMF was demanding as part of any bailout. Media reports said that Pakistan had informally told the IMF that it would be paying China $40 billion over 20 years for $26.5 billion in Chinese funding of CPEC-related projects. The impact of Saudi Arabia and the UAE, like much of the rest of the Middle East, goes far beyond Balochistan. It also puts its mark elsewhere on the Eurasian supercontinent. In the words of analyst Galip Dalay, the Middle East or West Asia will, for better or for worse, shape each other. “The contemporary Middle East is no longer the geopolitically US-centric space that the Europeans once knew. Europe can respond in several ways: proceed with its largely ad-hoc, incoherent and crisis-driven policies of recent years; continue to be incorporated into someone else's game plan, as with the French-German involvement in the Russian-led Astana (peace) process for Syria; or craft a more coherent policy towards the region, with a strong emphasis on democratisation, reform, good governance, inclusion and reconciliation… If Europe doesn’t engage and invest in the transformation of the Middle East, regional developments will dramatically transform it, whether through radicalism, refugees, terrorism, xenophobia or populism. Interactions between Europe and the Middle East will be transformative, for better or for worse.,” Dalay said. The Middle East is similarly crucial to the success of China’s Belt and Road with Iran and Turkey representing key nodes that further the rise of Eurasia through Chinese-funded rails that link the Atlantic coast of Europe to the People’s Republic. The Middle East’s impact is one facet of a bigger game in which world and regional powers are competing for the position in Khanna’s multipolar and multicivilisational order. Robert Malley, a former Obama National Security Council official and head of the International Crisis Group argues that autocratic and authoritarian leaders are testing the limits of the 'Great Game' as the power of Western nations erodes and embattled concepts of multilateralism no longer serve to constrain them. “As the era of largely uncontested US primacy fades, the international order has been thrown into turmoil. More leaders are tempted more often to test limits, jostle for power, and seek to bolster their influence—or diminish that of their rivals—by meddling in foreign conflicts… Having annexed parts of Georgia and Crimea and stoked separatist violence in Ukraine’s Donbass region, Russia is now throwing its weight around in the Sea of Azov, poisoning dissidents in the United Kingdom, and subverting Western democracies with cyberwarfare. China obstructs freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and arbitrarily detains Canadian citizens… Saudi Arabia has pushed the envelope with the war in Yemen, the kidnapping of a Lebanese prime minister, and the gruesome murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in its consulate in Istanbul. Iran plots attacks against dissidents on European soil. Israel feels emboldened to undermine ever more systematically the foundations of a possible two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Malley said. By implication, Malley was suggesting that efforts to push the envelope were enabled by the US’ failure to recognise that Europe and Asia were becoming one supercontinent. That failure was mirrored in the US National Security Strategy published in 2017 by the White House and a study by Rand Corporation in 2018 designed to conceptualise current geopolitics as an era of intensifying international competition. Rather than recognising an increasingly evident divergence of interests between the United States and Europe, the study suggested that the US would continue to have the opportunity if it chooses, to lead a predominant coalition of value-sharing democracies and other largely status quo states to help preserve stability.” The study appeared to downplay any divergence by reducing differences to “identity-fuelled nationalism” that aims to recapture (countries’) “rightful place” in world politics,” a reference to Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as well as European nations grappling with the rise of nationalist, populist and far-right forces and a Middle East that is shaping Europe through highly emotive issues such as migration, political violence and religious identity. The US focus on Russia as a European rather than a regional power with global ambitions also means that it underestimates Moscow’s play in the Middle East despite its military intervention in Syria. Russia national security scholar Stephen Blank argues that President Vladimir Putin’s strategy in the region is rooted in the thinking of Yevgeny Primakov, a Middle East expert and linguist and former spymaster, foreign minister and deputy prime minister, who like Khanna envisioned the emergence of a multi-polar, multi-civilisational world with Eurasia at its centre. Primakov saw the Middle East as a key arena for countering the United States that would enable Russia, weakened by the demise of the Soviet Union and a subsequent economic crisis, to regain its status as a global and regional power and ensure that it would be one pole in a multi-polar world. By identifying the region as a preferred battleground, Russia benefitted in the words of historian Niall Ferguson from the fact that its significant oil reserves made it “the only power that has no vested interest in stability in the Middle East.” Blank argued that “in order to reassert Russia’s greatness, Primakov and Putin aimed ultimately at strategic denial, denying Washington sole possession of a dominant role in the Middle East from where US influence could expand to the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS),” a regional grouping of post-Soviet nations. They believed that if Russia succeeded it would force the United States to concede multi-polarity and grant Russia the recognition it deserves. That, in turn, would allow Putin to demonstrate to the Russian elite his ability to restore Russia to great power status. Syria offered Russia the opportunity to display its military prowess without the United States challenging the move. At the same time, Russia leveraged its political and economic clout to forge an alliance with Turkey and partner with Iran. The approach constituted an effort to defang Turkish and Iranian influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Similarly, Russia after brutally repressing religiously inspired Chechen rebels in the 1990s, was proving to be far defter than either China or the United States at promoting politically pacifist or apolitical Islam in a complex game of playing all sides against the middle. Russian engagement runs the gamut from engaging with militants to cooperating with Muslim autocrats to encouraging condemnation of the kind of Islam adopted by partners such as Saudi Arabia. Said Dmitri Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center and a former Russian military officer: “Russia is not the Soviet Union. It does not see the Middle East as a region that it can dominate. Displacing the United States from the leading position in the Middle East is way above Russia’s capacity, and keeping the region in its sphere of influence is way above Russia’s resources. Russia has certainly benefited from waning US interest in the Middle East as, absent an active America, Russia can act with more confidence and ease.” Describing Russia as “a lonely power,” Trenin went on to say that the difference between Russia and the Soviet Union was that the “Soviet Union was heavily engaged around the Middle East in spending money on an ideological and geopolitical project, the Russian Federation is active in the region trying to make money. The Soviet Union was about an idea. Russia’s idea is about Russia itself.” In the Great Game’s jostling for position, Trump’s America First approach mirrors Trenin’s portrayal of Russian policy. That leaves China tied up in the contradictions of a policy that is packaged in assertions of lofty ideals but like the United States and Russia is in effect first and foremost about the pursuit of Chinese interests. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

US and China's skewed maps complicate 21st century's 'Great Game' in Eurasia

us-1

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

us 1