<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-record-long-government-shutdown-could-be-resolved-in-15-minutes-189918&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjKgMqX-PPfAhWLq48KHXyuCvYQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1yApEN-FzcRkC040UDwpmM">US President Donald Trump</a> is due to unveil a revamped US missile defence strategy on Thursday that looks at ways to boost America's security, including by possibly deploying a new layer of space-based sensors to detect and track enemy missiles.

The Missile Defense Review will also recommend studying experimental technologies, including prospects for space-based weaponry that might be able to shoot down enemy missiles - a throwback to Ronald Reagan's so-called "Star Wars" initiative in the 1980s.

"Space, I think, is the key to the next step of missile defence," a senior Trump administration official told reporters ahead of the document's release on Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"A space-based layer of sensors is something we are looking at to help get early warning and tracking and discrimination of missiles when they are launched."

The official stressed that the viability of space-based missile defence weaponry was only being studied and no decisions had been made.&nbsp;

The investments come on top of previously announced the US plans to increase the number of ground-based interceptors over the next several years, hiking the number positioned at Fort Greely, Alaska to 64 from 44.&nbsp;

US military officials have long stressed that America's missile defences are primarily designed to counter attacks from countries with more limited arsenals, like North Korea, which US&nbsp;intelligence officials believe is still advancing its nuclear program despite a halt to missile launches last year.

For Trump, who is trying to revive efforts to persuade <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/east-asia/north-korean-official-heads-for-talks-in-sweden-report-190463&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjbn_ir-PPfAhWPT30KHWQMDSEQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw3m8cjV8utF4hWoBessNdOc">North Korea</a> to abandon its nuclear arsenal, the report's release comes at an awkward moment.

Three North Korean officials, including the top envoy involved in talks with the United States, are booked on a flight to Washington, suggesting possible movement toward a second summit between Trump and <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/kim-jong-un-seeks-to-up-ante-with-xi-summit-analysts-189006&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjslurg-PPfAhWHLY8KHT30AEYQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0aG8cXAzGcB-SLTdFoIDPl">North Korean leader Kim Jong Un</a>, according to South Korean media.

It was unclear to what extent the report would single out North Korea. But the senior Trump administration official suggested it would at least be mentioned.

Trump, who is due to speak at the Pentagon, declared in June that the North no longer posed a nuclear threat, buoyed by optimism following his landmark summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore.

Pentagon officials contend that US missiles defences are too few to be able to counter a first-strike on the US homeland by a major nuclear power, like Russia or China. Washington hopes those countries will instead be deterred from attacks by America's nuclear arsenal.

Still, Russia views US missile defence advances as a threat and Trump's report is likely to stoke tensions with Moscow.

China, in turn, has also alarmed the Pentagon with advances in super-fast "hypersonic" technology, which could allow Beijing to field missiles that are far harder to detect.

In a report earlier this week that singled out the hypersonic threat, the Pentagon warned China's military was "on the verge of fielding some of the most modern weapon systems in the world."

"In some areas, it already leads the world," the report said.

US officials, including Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Michael Griffin, believe a space-based sensor layer could help detect missiles moving at hypersonic speeds. 
&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump is due to unveil a revamped US missile defence strategy on Thursday that looks at ways to boost America's security, including by possibly deploying a new layer of space-based sensors to detect and track enemy missiles.

US President Donald Trump is due to unveil a revamped US missile defence strategy on Thursday that looks at ways to boost America's security, including by possibly deploying a new layer of space-based sensors to detect and track enemy missiles. The Missile Defense Review will also recommend studying experimental technologies, including prospects for space-based weaponry that might be able to shoot down enemy missiles - a throwback to Ronald Reagan's so-called "Star Wars" initiative in the 1980s. "Space, I think, is the key to the next step of missile defence," a senior Trump administration official told reporters ahead of the document's release on Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity. "A space-based layer of sensors is something we are looking at to help get early warning and tracking and discrimination of missiles when they are launched." The official stressed that the viability of space-based missile defence weaponry was only being studied and no decisions had been made. The investments come on top of previously announced the US plans to increase the number of ground-based interceptors over the next several years, hiking the number positioned at Fort Greely, Alaska to 64 from 44. US military officials have long stressed that America's missile defences are primarily designed to counter attacks from countries with more limited arsenals, like North Korea, which US intelligence officials believe is still advancing its nuclear program despite a halt to missile launches last year. For Trump, who is trying to revive efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear arsenal, the report's release comes at an awkward moment. Three North Korean officials, including the top envoy involved in talks with the United States, are booked on a flight to Washington, suggesting possible movement toward a second summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, according to South Korean media. It was unclear to what extent the report would single out North Korea. But the senior Trump administration official suggested it would at least be mentioned. Trump, who is due to speak at the Pentagon, declared in June that the North no longer posed a nuclear threat, buoyed by optimism following his landmark summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore. Pentagon officials contend that US missiles defences are too few to be able to counter a first-strike on the US homeland by a major nuclear power, like Russia or China. Washington hopes those countries will instead be deterred from attacks by America's nuclear arsenal. Still, Russia views US missile defence advances as a threat and Trump's report is likely to stoke tensions with Moscow. China, in turn, has also alarmed the Pentagon with advances in super-fast "hypersonic" technology, which could allow Beijing to field missiles that are far harder to detect. In a report earlier this week that singled out the hypersonic threat, the Pentagon warned China's military was "on the verge of fielding some of the most modern weapon systems in the world." "In some areas, it already leads the world," the report said. US officials, including Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Michael Griffin, believe a space-based sensor layer could help detect missiles moving at hypersonic speeds.

Trump's new missile defence strategy eyes space-based sensors

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/asian-markets-sink-after-us-federal-reserve-hikes-rates-185461">Asian markets</a> were mixed Thursday as renewed concerns about<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-engaging-with-china-on-indo-pacific-concept-186852"> China</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/opinions/with-china-us-tensions-on-the-rise-does-australia-need-a-new-defence-strategy-178938">-US tensions</a> overshadowed a positive lead from Wall Street following a better-than-expected round of corporate earnings.

The pound extended gains against the dollar after prime minister Theresa May survived a no-confidence vote as she prepares to draw up new proposals to leave the European Union that is palatable to a majority of MPs.

After a tumultuous December, global equities have enjoyed a broadly strong start to the year, largely thanks optimism China and the US will resolve their trade row.

But confidence took a knock Wednesday from a report that said US officials were carrying out a criminal probe into Chinese tech giant Huawei and could soon indict the firm over allegations of theft of trade secrets from its US business partners.

Lawmakers have also introduced a bill to ban the export of American parts and components to Chinese telecom companies that are in violation of US export control or sanctions laws -- with Huawei and fellow Chinese firm ZTE the likely targets.

"Huawei is effectively an intelligence-gathering arm of the Chinese Communist Party whose founder and CEO was an engineer for the People's Liberation Army," said Republican Senator Tom Cotton, one of the bill's sponsors.

The developments follow the arrest last year in Canada of Huawei's chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou, who is the daughter of the company founder and faces extradition to the US on Iran-linked fraud charges.

It also muddies the waters in trade talks between Beijing and Washington, which looked to be on a positive course after officials held three days of talks earlier this month, with both sides seemingly upbeat.

Cost of US shutdown

In early trade, Hong Kong eased 0.1 per cent and Shanghai shed 0.3 per cent while Tokyo was down 0.2 per cent by the break and Singapore slipped 0.4 per cent.

But Sydney edged up 0.1 per cent while Seoul put on 0.2 per cent with Taipei, Wellington, Manila and Jakarta also in positive territory.

On Wall Street, all three main indexes closed with gains after earnings reports from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs that overshot forecasts, while executives said they were confident the US economy was in rude health.

The Federal Reserve's closely followed "Beige Book" report pointed out that while political and trade uncertainty was weighing on business confidence, growth was continuing at a modest pace in most of the country.

However, there are increasing worries about the impact of the US government shutdown as it moves towards a fifth week, with Oxford Economics estimating it is slashing growth by $700 million a week.

On currency markets, the pound edged up against the dollar with dealers optimistic that Britain will not leave the EU without a deal in place, despite May's exit plan being thrown out by MPs Tuesday.

On Wednesday she survived a no-confidence vote and is now planning her next move, with speculation swirling that the March 29 date for leaving will be delayed or another referendum will be called.

"Nothing has happened in the last 24 hours to dissuade us from the view that we are headed in the direction of an (exit) delay, softer Brexit... or no Brexit," said National Australia Bank strategist Ray Attrill.

Asian markets were mixed Thursday as renewed concerns about China-US tensions overshadowed a positive lead from Wall Street following a better-than-expected round of corporate earnings.

Asian markets were mixed Thursday as renewed concerns about China-US tensions overshadowed a positive lead from Wall Street following a better-than-expected round of corporate earnings. The pound extended gains against the dollar after prime minister Theresa May survived a no-confidence vote as she prepares to draw up new proposals to leave the European Union that is palatable to a majority of MPs. After a tumultuous December, global equities have enjoyed a broadly strong start to the year, largely thanks optimism China and the US will resolve their trade row. But confidence took a knock Wednesday from a report that said US officials were carrying out a criminal probe into Chinese tech giant Huawei and could soon indict the firm over allegations of theft of trade secrets from its US business partners. Lawmakers have also introduced a bill to ban the export of American parts and components to Chinese telecom companies that are in violation of US export control or sanctions laws -- with Huawei and fellow Chinese firm ZTE the likely targets. "Huawei is effectively an intelligence-gathering arm of the Chinese Communist Party whose founder and CEO was an engineer for the People's Liberation Army," said Republican Senator Tom Cotton, one of the bill's sponsors. The developments follow the arrest last year in Canada of Huawei's chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou, who is the daughter of the company founder and faces extradition to the US on Iran-linked fraud charges. It also muddies the waters in trade talks between Beijing and Washington, which looked to be on a positive course after officials held three days of talks earlier this month, with both sides seemingly upbeat. Cost of US shutdown In early trade, Hong Kong eased 0.1 per cent and Shanghai shed 0.3 per cent while Tokyo was down 0.2 per cent by the break and Singapore slipped 0.4 per cent. But Sydney edged up 0.1 per cent while Seoul put on 0.2 per cent with Taipei, Wellington, Manila and Jakarta also in positive territory. On Wall Street, all three main indexes closed with gains after earnings reports from Bank of America and Goldman Sachs that overshot forecasts, while executives said they were confident the US economy was in rude health. The Federal Reserve's closely followed "Beige Book" report pointed out that while political and trade uncertainty was weighing on business confidence, growth was continuing at a modest pace in most of the country. However, there are increasing worries about the impact of the US government shutdown as it moves towards a fifth week, with Oxford Economics estimating it is slashing growth by $700 million a week. On currency markets, the pound edged up against the dollar with dealers optimistic that Britain will not leave the EU without a deal in place, despite May's exit plan being thrown out by MPs Tuesday. On Wednesday she survived a no-confidence vote and is now planning her next move, with speculation swirling that the March 29 date for leaving will be delayed or another referendum will be called. "Nothing has happened in the last 24 hours to dissuade us from the view that we are headed in the direction of an (exit) delay, softer Brexit... or no Brexit," said National Australia Bank strategist Ray Attrill.

Asian markets mixed as Huawei report offsets US earnings

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/model-claiming-trump-secrets-to-be-deported-after-thai-trial-190535">A model from Belarus </a>who was arrested during a "sex training seminar" in Thailand and then claimed to have evidence of Russian interference in US president Donald Trump's election was deported on Thursday.

Thai authorities said Anastasia Vashukevich, 27, two other Belarussians and five Russians were being sent to their home countries two days after they pleaded guilty to charges including conspiracy and soliciting.

Vashukevich drew world attention last February when she said she had hours of audio recordings that could shed light on links between Russian officials and Trump's election in 2016.

She offered to release the recordings in exchange for asylum in the United States but never produced evidence to substantiate her claim and later said she had no plans to release anything.

Thai immigration chief Surachate Hakparn told media all eight deportees were willing to return to their countries. The deportations were being coordinated with Belarus and Russia, he said.

Vashukevich made no comment at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport. Last year, she had said she feared that she would be sent to Russia.

Self-proclaimed "sex guru" Alexander Kirillov, 38, a fellow Belarussian among the deportees, told media the group had been seeking deportation since last March.

"If you have been to a Thai prison, you are not afraid of anything," he said.

They were arrested at the beach resort of Pattaya during a seminar on seduction techniques.

Vashukevich, who is also known as Nastya Rybka, said she had recordings of conversations on interference in the US election through an association with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. But Deripaska's representatives have accused her of fabrication and said she was never his mistress.

Deripaska is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and is a onetime associate of Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort.

The US intelligence agencies have concluded that Moscow sought to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to boost Trump's chances of winning. Russia has denied meddling and Trump has said no collusion took place.

A model from Belarus who was arrested during a "sex training seminar" in Thailand and then claimed to have evidence of Russian interference in US president Donald Trump's election was deported on Thursday.

A model from Belarus who was arrested during a "sex training seminar" in Thailand and then claimed to have evidence of Russian interference in US president Donald Trump's election was deported on Thursday. Thai authorities said Anastasia Vashukevich, 27, two other Belarussians and five Russians were being sent to their home countries two days after they pleaded guilty to charges including conspiracy and soliciting. Vashukevich drew world attention last February when she said she had hours of audio recordings that could shed light on links between Russian officials and Trump's election in 2016. She offered to release the recordings in exchange for asylum in the United States but never produced evidence to substantiate her claim and later said she had no plans to release anything. Thai immigration chief Surachate Hakparn told media all eight deportees were willing to return to their countries. The deportations were being coordinated with Belarus and Russia, he said. Vashukevich made no comment at Bangkok's Suvarnabhumi Airport. Last year, she had said she feared that she would be sent to Russia. Self-proclaimed "sex guru" Alexander Kirillov, 38, a fellow Belarussian among the deportees, told media the group had been seeking deportation since last March. "If you have been to a Thai prison, you are not afraid of anything," he said. They were arrested at the beach resort of Pattaya during a seminar on seduction techniques. Vashukevich, who is also known as Nastya Rybka, said she had recordings of conversations on interference in the US election through an association with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. But Deripaska's representatives have accused her of fabrication and said she was never his mistress. Deripaska is close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and is a onetime associate of Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort. The US intelligence agencies have concluded that Moscow sought to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election to boost Trump's chances of winning. Russia has denied meddling and Trump has said no collusion took place.

Sex seminar model who claimed Trump secrets deported from Thailand

By Gary Grappo

Nearly a year after his predecessor embarked on a similar mission, on January 15 US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concluded a tour of the Middle East that included stops in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman. A planned stop in Kuwait was cancelled. The ostensible reason for Pompeo’s hastily scheduled tour was to explain his boss’ sudden and unexpected announcement of the US troop withdrawal from Syria.

President Donald Trump’s December decision to leave the fight in Syria shocked America’s Middle East allies. His most senior officials, including former Secretary of Defence James Mattis and others, were also caught off guard. Mattis, after subsequently failing to persuade Trump to reconsider, resigned. The president’s special envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, Brett McGurk, also resigned.

Left questioning whether this was Trump’s first step toward Middle East disengagement — he also later announced that Iran can do what it wants in Syria — Arab states were once again whipsawed by an unpredictable administration. Could they no longer count on American security support, diplomatic power and considerable economic clout to maintain regional order, especially in the face of the Iranian challenge, continuing extremist activity from the likes of ISIS and al-Qaeda, and economic uncertainty? For many, the announcement might portend a period of great power competition in the region, increased Iranian adventurism and consequent instability, all of which the US had resisted since it first became embroiled in the region after World War 2. 
 
No fear: Pompea to the rescue

Enter Mike Pompeo. America’s friends needed reassurances and a way forward on the region’s many challenges. At last, America would speak from the pulpit on its broad strategy for the region, heretofore missing since Donald Trump assumed office two years ago.

On what was his biggest stage at the American University of Cairo, Pompeo delivered what may now be called the clearest statement yet of US policy in the Middle East. In essence, however, it boiled down to continuing resistance to extremism, blunting Iranian influence and not being the policy of Trump’s predecessor, Barak Obama. In 2009, President Obama had attempted to deliver his own version of an American reset of US policy, specifically as it related to Islam and Muslims, and seemingly apologised for the US role in the troubled region’s problems.

In a not-so-veiled criticism of Obama’s decision to withdraw US forces from Iraq in 2011, Pompeo declared that the Trump administration has learned much from its predecessor’s naiveté and miscues: “We learned that when America retreats, chaos often follows. When we neglect our friends, resentment builds. And when we partner with enemies, they advance.” On its face, that would appear a fair and accurate statement for any administration. Against the backdrop of Trump’s announcement proclaiming the war against ISIS effectively won and the consequent US troop withdrawal, it’s downright mystifyingly contradictory.

Indeed, ISIS has been set on its back foot, having lost more that 95 per cent of the “caliphate” it once ruled between Syria and Iraq. But US intelligence experts still assert the presence of some 2,000-3,000 ISIS fighters in the two countries and another 25,000-30,000 elsewhere around the world. One of the ostensible reasons for Mattis’ resignation was that in the career marine general’s judgment, the war against ISIS and other extremists had most definitely not yet been won.

Moreover, America’s friends, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the Syrian Kurds, who have been fighting valiantly beside the American forces for years now, must have been flummoxed to hear Pompeo’s statement on the US having been “absent too much” and his reference to “neglect (of) our friends.” How else to describe Trump’s Syria withdrawal without as much as an advance notice or pre-announcement consultation with those most affected?

Not a message for everyone

Arabs in the region would have found little to address what is most on their minds today. Pompeo neglected to state where the US stood against the alarming increasing harshness of government rule, especially in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Nor did he attempt to address the dearth of respect for fundamental human rights, as Obama at least attempted to do 10 years before. The US secretary seemed to lay all the ills of the Middle East at the feet of the Iranians, who certainly deserve a share of the blame for ongoing instability in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria.

But Iran is only taking advantage of existing circumstances of depressed economies and lack of economic opportunity, declining rule of law, absence of governmental accountability, government repression and insecurity. Would Pompeo address those underlying challenges for which Arab governments seem to have no answers?

In effect, Pompeo seemed to say to governments — as opposed to the people — that if you keep up the fight against the extremists and back the US in resisting Iran, then there is a basis for a relationship with this administration. That only reinforces the hopelessness that plagues the psyches of many in the region, especially young people, and offers encouragement for terrorism, Iranian troublemaking and instability.

In Saudi Arabia, Pompeo reasserted America’s position that “all those involved in the murder of [Jamal] Khashoggi will be held accountable.” Yet, he had extended meetings with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, the official deemed by the CIA, his State Department and the US Senate to have ordered the execution of the Saudi journalist last October in Istanbul. He even seemed to have gone out of his way to excuse the crime, asserting that Saudi Arabia’s “leaders are going to act in their country’s interests.”

To the average person on the street, that must have sounded like a blank check for governments to behave as they wish to preserve themselves, regardless of consequences for their citizens. America is ostensibly out of the business of erecting human rights guardrails for autocrats, except when it doesn’t like them, like in the case of Iran.

More contradictions

Also mysteriously missing from Pompeo’s sojourn was much of an effort to patch up the Gulf Cooperation Council, which Saudi Arabia and MBS set asunder over a year and a half ago in a misguided effort to get neighbouring Qatar to bend to Saudi will. Forced to address it in Qatar without much effect, it doesn’t seem to have figured too prominently when the secretary met with the engineer of the boycott, MBS. The GCC had been the most effective multinational organisation in the Middle East for dealing with the region’s many challenges and a key security partner for the US. Yet the Trump administration, never one to embrace multilateralism, appears little motivated to bring the key Gulf partners together.

Aside from the Sturm und Drang against ISIS, Iran and the Obama policies, there was hardly a mention, if at all, of America’s vision for the Middle East, its approach to ongoing civil wars and humanitarian crises in Syria and Yemen, or its prescriptions for the underlying economic and human problems still afflicting the Arab world. It still has no answer for the infectious ideologies of extremism, however odious Pompeo wants Arabs to find them. Nor does the US have a plan for taming Iran’s adventurism other than using sanctions, which few others seem to want, and the threat of regime change, which no one believes practical, much less possible.

Secretary Pompeo may claim some success for his limited agenda for the trip. Middle East autocrats may also claim success, the Trump administration having again blessed them. But for the people of the Middle East who ultimately bear the region’s many difficulties, Pompeo offered nothing. 
&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/mike-pompeo-middle-east-trip-gulf-iran-politics-news-18272/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By Gary Grappo Nearly a year after his predecessor embarked on a similar mission, on January 15 US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concluded a tour of the Middle East that included stops in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

By Gary Grappo Nearly a year after his predecessor embarked on a similar mission, on January 15 US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo concluded a tour of the Middle East that included stops in Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, the UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Oman. A planned stop in Kuwait was cancelled. The ostensible reason for Pompeo’s hastily scheduled tour was to explain his boss’ sudden and unexpected announcement of the US troop withdrawal from Syria. President Donald Trump’s December decision to leave the fight in Syria shocked America’s Middle East allies. His most senior officials, including former Secretary of Defence James Mattis and others, were also caught off guard. Mattis, after subsequently failing to persuade Trump to reconsider, resigned. The president’s special envoy to the coalition fighting the Islamic State, Brett McGurk, also resigned. Left questioning whether this was Trump’s first step toward Middle East disengagement — he also later announced that Iran can do what it wants in Syria — Arab states were once again whipsawed by an unpredictable administration. Could they no longer count on American security support, diplomatic power and considerable economic clout to maintain regional order, especially in the face of the Iranian challenge, continuing extremist activity from the likes of ISIS and al-Qaeda, and economic uncertainty? For many, the announcement might portend a period of great power competition in the region, increased Iranian adventurism and consequent instability, all of which the US had resisted since it first became embroiled in the region after World War 2. No fear: Pompea to the rescue Enter Mike Pompeo. America’s friends needed reassurances and a way forward on the region’s many challenges. At last, America would speak from the pulpit on its broad strategy for the region, heretofore missing since Donald Trump assumed office two years ago. On what was his biggest stage at the American University of Cairo, Pompeo delivered what may now be called the clearest statement yet of US policy in the Middle East. In essence, however, it boiled down to continuing resistance to extremism, blunting Iranian influence and not being the policy of Trump’s predecessor, Barak Obama. In 2009, President Obama had attempted to deliver his own version of an American reset of US policy, specifically as it related to Islam and Muslims, and seemingly apologised for the US role in the troubled region’s problems. In a not-so-veiled criticism of Obama’s decision to withdraw US forces from Iraq in 2011, Pompeo declared that the Trump administration has learned much from its predecessor’s naiveté and miscues: “We learned that when America retreats, chaos often follows. When we neglect our friends, resentment builds. And when we partner with enemies, they advance.” On its face, that would appear a fair and accurate statement for any administration. Against the backdrop of Trump’s announcement proclaiming the war against ISIS effectively won and the consequent US troop withdrawal, it’s downright mystifyingly contradictory. Indeed, ISIS has been set on its back foot, having lost more that 95 per cent of the “caliphate” it once ruled between Syria and Iraq. But US intelligence experts still assert the presence of some 2,000-3,000 ISIS fighters in the two countries and another 25,000-30,000 elsewhere around the world. One of the ostensible reasons for Mattis’ resignation was that in the career marine general’s judgment, the war against ISIS and other extremists had most definitely not yet been won. Moreover, America’s friends, such as Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the Syrian Kurds, who have been fighting valiantly beside the American forces for years now, must have been flummoxed to hear Pompeo’s statement on the US having been “absent too much” and his reference to “neglect (of) our friends.” How else to describe Trump’s Syria withdrawal without as much as an advance notice or pre-announcement consultation with those most affected? Not a message for everyone Arabs in the region would have found little to address what is most on their minds today. Pompeo neglected to state where the US stood against the alarming increasing harshness of government rule, especially in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Nor did he attempt to address the dearth of respect for fundamental human rights, as Obama at least attempted to do 10 years before. The US secretary seemed to lay all the ills of the Middle East at the feet of the Iranians, who certainly deserve a share of the blame for ongoing instability in Iraq, Bahrain, Yemen and Syria. But Iran is only taking advantage of existing circumstances of depressed economies and lack of economic opportunity, declining rule of law, absence of governmental accountability, government repression and insecurity. Would Pompeo address those underlying challenges for which Arab governments seem to have no answers? In effect, Pompeo seemed to say to governments — as opposed to the people — that if you keep up the fight against the extremists and back the US in resisting Iran, then there is a basis for a relationship with this administration. That only reinforces the hopelessness that plagues the psyches of many in the region, especially young people, and offers encouragement for terrorism, Iranian troublemaking and instability. In Saudi Arabia, Pompeo reasserted America’s position that “all those involved in the murder of [Jamal] Khashoggi will be held accountable.” Yet, he had extended meetings with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, known as MBS, the official deemed by the CIA, his State Department and the US Senate to have ordered the execution of the Saudi journalist last October in Istanbul. He even seemed to have gone out of his way to excuse the crime, asserting that Saudi Arabia’s “leaders are going to act in their country’s interests.” To the average person on the street, that must have sounded like a blank check for governments to behave as they wish to preserve themselves, regardless of consequences for their citizens. America is ostensibly out of the business of erecting human rights guardrails for autocrats, except when it doesn’t like them, like in the case of Iran. More contradictions Also mysteriously missing from Pompeo’s sojourn was much of an effort to patch up the Gulf Cooperation Council, which Saudi Arabia and MBS set asunder over a year and a half ago in a misguided effort to get neighbouring Qatar to bend to Saudi will. Forced to address it in Qatar without much effect, it doesn’t seem to have figured too prominently when the secretary met with the engineer of the boycott, MBS. The GCC had been the most effective multinational organisation in the Middle East for dealing with the region’s many challenges and a key security partner for the US. Yet the Trump administration, never one to embrace multilateralism, appears little motivated to bring the key Gulf partners together. Aside from the Sturm und Drang against ISIS, Iran and the Obama policies, there was hardly a mention, if at all, of America’s vision for the Middle East, its approach to ongoing civil wars and humanitarian crises in Syria and Yemen, or its prescriptions for the underlying economic and human problems still afflicting the Arab world. It still has no answer for the infectious ideologies of extremism, however odious Pompeo wants Arabs to find them. Nor does the US have a plan for taming Iran’s adventurism other than using sanctions, which few others seem to want, and the threat of regime change, which no one believes practical, much less possible. Secretary Pompeo may claim some success for his limited agenda for the trip. Middle East autocrats may also claim success, the Trump administration having again blessed them. But for the people of the Middle East who ultimately bear the region’s many difficulties, Pompeo offered nothing. (This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Mike Pompeo attempts US reset in the Middle East

Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will visit the United States on January 30 and 31 for the next round of trade negotiations with Washington, China's commerce ministry said on Thursday, <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/chinese-us-negotiators-discuss-trade-talks-timetable-183052">confirming earlier reports of the planned talks</a>.

Liu's scheduled visit follows lower-level negotiations held in Beijing last week aimed at resolving a<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trade-negotiations-underway-between-chinese-us-work-teams-chinese-fm-183496"> bitter trade dispute between</a> the world's two largest economies ahead of a scheduled March 2 escalation of US tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods.

Commerce ministry spokesman Gao Feng confirmed Liu's visit during a weekly press briefing.

A source familiar with White House planning for the negotiations said this week that Liu had accepted an invitation to go to Washington for talks with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and US&nbsp;Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on the last two days of January.

Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will visit the United States on January 30 and 31 for the next round of trade negotiations with Washington, China's commerce ministry said on Thursday, confirming earlier reports of the planned talks.

Chinese Vice Premier Liu He will visit the United States on January 30 and 31 for the next round of trade negotiations with Washington, China's commerce ministry said on Thursday, confirming earlier reports of the planned talks. Liu's scheduled visit follows lower-level negotiations held in Beijing last week aimed at resolving a bitter trade dispute between the world's two largest economies ahead of a scheduled March 2 escalation of US tariffs on $200 billion worth of Chinese goods. Commerce ministry spokesman Gao Feng confirmed Liu's visit during a weekly press briefing. A source familiar with White House planning for the negotiations said this week that Liu had accepted an invitation to go to Washington for talks with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on the last two days of January.

China confirms Vice Premier Liu to visit US for trade talks

Al-Shabaab: How Somalia's Al-Qaeda-linked terror outfit terrorises Africa

A US citizen was among those killed in a powerful truck bomb attack against a heavily fortified foreign compound in Kabul this week, officials said Wednesday, as the government continued investigating the blast site.&nbsp;&nbsp;

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-taliban-claim-responsibility-for-deadly-kabul-car-bomb-attack-190365">The Taliban </a>have claimed responsibility after the bomb detonated near the Green Village compound in east Kabul on Monday. Afghan authorities have said at least four people were killed and 113 wounded.&nbsp;

On Wednesday an official at the US embassy in Kabul said an American citizen was among the fatalities but gave no further information. Indian authorities had previously confirmed that one of their citizens was also killed in the attack.&nbsp;

It was not clear if they were included in the four dead, with some Afghan officials giving conflicting tolls.&nbsp;

"We have launched an investigation and it has not finished yet. Once we finish the investigation we will be able to release the final toll," Najib Danish, the interior ministry spokesman, said.&nbsp;

The powerful blast ripped through surrounding neighbourhoods, shattering the windows of surrounding houses and shops.&nbsp;

It came as US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad visits the region for meetings aimed at bringing an end to the 17-year war in Afghanistan, which by some estimates was the world's deadliest conflict zone in 2018.

A US citizen was among those killed in a powerful truck bomb attack against a heavily fortified foreign compound in Kabul this week, officials said Wednesday, as the government continued investigating the blast site.

A US citizen was among those killed in a powerful truck bomb attack against a heavily fortified foreign compound in Kabul this week, officials said Wednesday, as the government continued investigating the blast site. The Taliban have claimed responsibility after the bomb detonated near the Green Village compound in east Kabul on Monday. Afghan authorities have said at least four people were killed and 113 wounded. On Wednesday an official at the US embassy in Kabul said an American citizen was among the fatalities but gave no further information. Indian authorities had previously confirmed that one of their citizens was also killed in the attack. It was not clear if they were included in the four dead, with some Afghan officials giving conflicting tolls. "We have launched an investigation and it has not finished yet. Once we finish the investigation we will be able to release the final toll," Najib Danish, the interior ministry spokesman, said. The powerful blast ripped through surrounding neighbourhoods, shattering the windows of surrounding houses and shops. It came as US peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad visits the region for meetings aimed at bringing an end to the 17-year war in Afghanistan, which by some estimates was the world's deadliest conflict zone in 2018.

US citizen among dead in Kabul truck bomb attack

The United States is closely watching Chinese intentions toward Taiwan, concerned that Beijing's growing military prowess may increase the risk it could one day consider bringing the self-ruled island under its control by force, a US official said on Tuesday.

The senior US defence intelligence official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, did not predict that China's military, known as the People's Liberation Army (PLA), would take such a step but said such a possibility was the top worry as <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/china-already-leads-the-world-in-some-military-technology-pentagon-report-190597&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwitkoHo0vHfAhUW3Y8KHdmXDXgQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw2plz0va-glQArWFANWel6q">China </a>expands and modernizes its military capabilities.

"The biggest concern is that ... they are getting to a point where the PLA leadership may actually tell Xi Jinping that they are confident in their capabilities," the official said, referring to China's president.

Pressed on whether the official was referring to Chinese confidence in its capabilities to be able to successfully win a battle with Taiwan, the official said, "Well, specifically that would be the most concerning to me."

Taiwan is only one of a growing number of flashpoints in the <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/world-economy-to-slow-this-year-due-to-us-china-trade-conflict-world-bank-189112&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwih_paA0_HfAhVJXSsKHbDCDWAQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0Gtz0a361tP0-nlu0XAStT">US-China relationship</a>, including a trade war between the countries, US sanctions on the Chinese military, and China's increasingly muscular military posture in the South China Sea.

However, in meetings with Pentagon leaders, PLA officials have long described Taiwan as China's most sensitive issue.

China has repeatedly sent military aircraft and ships to circle the island on drills in the past few years and worked to isolate the island internationally, whittling down its few remaining diplomatic allies.

It has also strongly objected to US warship passages through the Taiwan Strait this year and issued a terse warning about Taiwan after talks in Beijing on Tuesday with the US Navy`s top officer, Admiral John Richardson.

WHATEVER IT TAKES

In the talks, Chinese General Li Zuocheng, chief of China’s Central Military Commission Joint Staff Department, stressed that Taiwan was "China's internal affairs" and that Beijing would allow "no external interference."

"If someone tries to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military will do whatever it takes to safeguard national reunification, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity," according to an English-language statement by China's defence ministry on the talks.

Washington has no formal ties with Taiwan but is bound by law to help it defend itself and is the island’s main source of arms. The Pentagon says Washington has sold Taiwan more than $15 billion in weaponry since 2010.

Xi has stepped up pressure on the democratic island since Tsai Ing-wen from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party became president in 2016.

On January 2, Xi said in a speech that China reserved the right to use force to bring Taiwan under its control but would strive to achieve peaceful "reunification."

Still, the US defence intelligence official cautioned against over-reacting, noting Xi could believe he has plenty of time to achieve reunification with Taiwan.

The official also cautioned that China`s military still faced gaps in its capabilities.

"They could order them to go today, but I don't think they're particularly confident in that capability," the official said.&nbsp;

Also on Tuesday, the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report describing Taiwan as the "primary driver" for China's military modernization, which it said had made major advances in recent years.

US defence officials have become particularly alarmed about China's advances in super-fast "hypersonic" technology, which could allow it to field missiles that are far harder to detect.&nbsp;

"The result ... is a PLA on the verge of fielding some of the most modern weapon systems in the world. In some areas, it already leads the world," the report said.

The United States is closely watching Chinese intentions toward Taiwan, concerned that Beijing's growing military prowess may increase the risk it could one day consider bringing the self-ruled island under its control by force, a US official said on Tuesday.

The United States is closely watching Chinese intentions toward Taiwan, concerned that Beijing's growing military prowess may increase the risk it could one day consider bringing the self-ruled island under its control by force, a US official said on Tuesday. The senior US defence intelligence official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity, did not predict that China's military, known as the People's Liberation Army (PLA), would take such a step but said such a possibility was the top worry as China expands and modernizes its military capabilities. "The biggest concern is that ... they are getting to a point where the PLA leadership may actually tell Xi Jinping that they are confident in their capabilities," the official said, referring to China's president. Pressed on whether the official was referring to Chinese confidence in its capabilities to be able to successfully win a battle with Taiwan, the official said, "Well, specifically that would be the most concerning to me." Taiwan is only one of a growing number of flashpoints in the US-China relationship, including a trade war between the countries, US sanctions on the Chinese military, and China's increasingly muscular military posture in the South China Sea. However, in meetings with Pentagon leaders, PLA officials have long described Taiwan as China's most sensitive issue. China has repeatedly sent military aircraft and ships to circle the island on drills in the past few years and worked to isolate the island internationally, whittling down its few remaining diplomatic allies. It has also strongly objected to US warship passages through the Taiwan Strait this year and issued a terse warning about Taiwan after talks in Beijing on Tuesday with the US Navy`s top officer, Admiral John Richardson. WHATEVER IT TAKES In the talks, Chinese General Li Zuocheng, chief of China’s Central Military Commission Joint Staff Department, stressed that Taiwan was "China's internal affairs" and that Beijing would allow "no external interference." "If someone tries to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military will do whatever it takes to safeguard national reunification, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity," according to an English-language statement by China's defence ministry on the talks. Washington has no formal ties with Taiwan but is bound by law to help it defend itself and is the island’s main source of arms. The Pentagon says Washington has sold Taiwan more than $15 billion in weaponry since 2010. Xi has stepped up pressure on the democratic island since Tsai Ing-wen from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party became president in 2016. On January 2, Xi said in a speech that China reserved the right to use force to bring Taiwan under its control but would strive to achieve peaceful "reunification." Still, the US defence intelligence official cautioned against over-reacting, noting Xi could believe he has plenty of time to achieve reunification with Taiwan. The official also cautioned that China`s military still faced gaps in its capabilities. "They could order them to go today, but I don't think they're particularly confident in that capability," the official said. Also on Tuesday, the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report describing Taiwan as the "primary driver" for China's military modernization, which it said had made major advances in recent years. US defence officials have become particularly alarmed about China's advances in super-fast "hypersonic" technology, which could allow it to field missiles that are far harder to detect. "The result ... is a PLA on the verge of fielding some of the most modern weapon systems in the world. In some areas, it already leads the world," the report said.

US eyes Taiwan risk as China's military capabilities grow

There’s one thing Turkey and the US can definitely agree on these days: Unreliability is now the bedrock of their relationship. It’s perhaps not surprising when the two powers are led by notably unpredictable men — US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In the latest antagonism, Erdogan’s close adviser, Yasin Aktay, has spoken of the US as a “highly unreliable partner” due to its efforts to safeguard the Syrian Kurdish forces who have partnered with the US in defeating the Islamic State (IS) in Syria.

The criticism is a further illustration of the echo chambers in which diplomacy is being conducted at the moment. Far from seeking to reduce friction (the usual role of diplomacy), such statements are part of the new prickly nationalism that is everywhere in the ascendant.

The most glaring dimension of Aktay’s statement is its subjectivity. Trump’s announcement in December 2018 of the US troop withdrawal from Syria really did put America’s Syrian Kurdish allies in potential harm’s way, at the hands of the Turkish army. The recent move to safeguard that ally could be viewed, in fact, as reliability.

But of course, Atkay is speaking from within the echo chamber of Turkish politics. Within that chamber, the US has deserted its NATO ally in favour of a Syrian Kurdish militia with strong ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — a movement within Turkey designated a terrorist organisation.

His assessment discounts the fact that the threat from IS was very real. The US needed local allies on the ground in order to counter it. Indeed, it was a long time before the Turkish government decided to give the fight against the Islamic State the same priority that it gave the fight against Kurdish groups.

Yet the Turkish displeasure with its NATO ally is not all paranoia and blinkered Turkish nationalism. President Trump has been cavalier in his diplomacy within the international body. He has also been transparently shortsighted in his engagement with the Middle East.

In line with his “America First” policies, Trump was quick to single out IS as a grave threat to be addressed, largely because it had the capacity to impact America itself and American lives. Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, have been far less eager to address Syria’s civil war.

From the Turkish viewpoint, this looks a lot like abandonment. The war on its southern frontier has been highly porous. It has deeply impacted Turkey in terms of terrorist atrocities, refugee flows, political destabilisation, economic impact and the very real threat of escalation from the Assad regime’s allies, Russia and Iran. None of this seems to have moved the US greatly.

Every man for himself

The result is a zero-sum environment in which all the key actors have gradually amassed leaders who see the best strategy as entrenchment and national defence. This may have been led by Russian President Vladimir Putin — the past master of such tactics — but it has been a domino effect.

President Erdogan has veered sharply in the same direction ever since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011. With the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency in November 2016, the world’s key superpower has followed suit. In the current dispute, the only real losers are likely to be the Kurds.

The Turkish government position has ossified. It cannot easily roll back on its war with the Syrian Kurdish militia now. The US position is more fluid. As President Trump as demonstrated, Washington is quite capable of dropping the Syrian Kurdish militia.

The reason the US government has so far stepped back from leaving the Syrian Kurds at the full mercy of other powers in Syria is not altruism. The Syrian Kurds merely offered the right guns for hire at the right time. But to drop them would hand valuable power to US adversaries.

In the cases of Russia and Iran, that would stick in the craw of the US administration. The irony is, as things stand, the other “adversary” who would clearly benefit is a country — Turkey — that is supposed to be an erstwhile NATO ally and a bulwark in the Middle East.

(Nathaniel Handy is a writer and academic)

(This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/turkey-us-relations-syrian-kurds-syria-civil-war-islamic-state-world-news-57293/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

There’s one thing Turkey and the US can definitely agree on these days: Unreliability is now the bedrock of their relationship. It’s perhaps not surprising when the two powers are led by notably unpredictable men — US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

There’s one thing Turkey and the US can definitely agree on these days: Unreliability is now the bedrock of their relationship. It’s perhaps not surprising when the two powers are led by notably unpredictable men — US President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In the latest antagonism, Erdogan’s close adviser, Yasin Aktay, has spoken of the US as a “highly unreliable partner” due to its efforts to safeguard the Syrian Kurdish forces who have partnered with the US in defeating the Islamic State (IS) in Syria. The criticism is a further illustration of the echo chambers in which diplomacy is being conducted at the moment. Far from seeking to reduce friction (the usual role of diplomacy), such statements are part of the new prickly nationalism that is everywhere in the ascendant. The most glaring dimension of Aktay’s statement is its subjectivity. Trump’s announcement in December 2018 of the US troop withdrawal from Syria really did put America’s Syrian Kurdish allies in potential harm’s way, at the hands of the Turkish army. The recent move to safeguard that ally could be viewed, in fact, as reliability. But of course, Atkay is speaking from within the echo chamber of Turkish politics. Within that chamber, the US has deserted its NATO ally in favour of a Syrian Kurdish militia with strong ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — a movement within Turkey designated a terrorist organisation. His assessment discounts the fact that the threat from IS was very real. The US needed local allies on the ground in order to counter it. Indeed, it was a long time before the Turkish government decided to give the fight against the Islamic State the same priority that it gave the fight against Kurdish groups. Yet the Turkish displeasure with its NATO ally is not all paranoia and blinkered Turkish nationalism. President Trump has been cavalier in his diplomacy within the international body. He has also been transparently shortsighted in his engagement with the Middle East. In line with his “America First” policies, Trump was quick to single out IS as a grave threat to be addressed, largely because it had the capacity to impact America itself and American lives. Trump and his predecessor, Barack Obama, have been far less eager to address Syria’s civil war. From the Turkish viewpoint, this looks a lot like abandonment. The war on its southern frontier has been highly porous. It has deeply impacted Turkey in terms of terrorist atrocities, refugee flows, political destabilisation, economic impact and the very real threat of escalation from the Assad regime’s allies, Russia and Iran. None of this seems to have moved the US greatly. Every man for himself The result is a zero-sum environment in which all the key actors have gradually amassed leaders who see the best strategy as entrenchment and national defence. This may have been led by Russian President Vladimir Putin — the past master of such tactics — but it has been a domino effect. President Erdogan has veered sharply in the same direction ever since the start of the Syrian conflict in 2011. With the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency in November 2016, the world’s key superpower has followed suit. In the current dispute, the only real losers are likely to be the Kurds. The Turkish government position has ossified. It cannot easily roll back on its war with the Syrian Kurdish militia now. The US position is more fluid. As President Trump as demonstrated, Washington is quite capable of dropping the Syrian Kurdish militia. The reason the US government has so far stepped back from leaving the Syrian Kurds at the full mercy of other powers in Syria is not altruism. The Syrian Kurds merely offered the right guns for hire at the right time. But to drop them would hand valuable power to US adversaries. In the cases of Russia and Iran, that would stick in the craw of the US administration. The irony is, as things stand, the other “adversary” who would clearly benefit is a country — Turkey — that is supposed to be an erstwhile NATO ally and a bulwark in the Middle East. (Nathaniel Handy is a writer and academic) (This article was originally published on The DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why the US is still losing Turkey

Russia on Tuesday blamed Washington for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/video-russia-will-make-banned-missiles-if-us-exits-arms-treaty-says-putin-181706">the looming collapse of a key arms control deal</a> after fresh talks failed to reach an accord to save the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

"Responsibility for this fully and completely rests with the American side," Russian news agencies quoted deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying after the talks in Geneva.

Ryabkov, who led Moscow's delegation, said the parties had failed to agree on anything and Washington did not appear to be in the mood for more negotiations.&nbsp;

"We are forced to acknowledge that there is no movement forward," he was quoted as saying.

US and Russian diplomats met in Geneva amid widespread concern over the fate of the bilateral agreement, after US President Donald Trump said in October his country would pull out of the deal unless Russia lived up to its terms.&nbsp;

The US side said the meeting in Geneva was "disappointing."

Last month Washington said it would withdraw from the INF treaty within 60 days if Russia did not dismantle missiles that the US claims breach the deal.

Ryabkov slammed the US negotiators for their "uncompromising stand".

He said Americans had confirmed Washington's intention to exit the treaty from February 2.

He said Russia proposed holding another round of talks on the agreement but got no reply from the US side.

"We are ready for dialogue on the basis of equality, mutual respect, (and) without putting forward ultimatums," Ryabkov said.

On Friday Russia plans to brief European diplomats on the status of the talks, he said.

Tensions have risen over the fate of the INF, with Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening a new arms race if the agreement collapsed.

Putin in December suggested he was open to the idea of other countries joining the INF treaty or to starting talks on a new agreement.

The bilateral agreement -- signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 -- forbids ground-launched short- and intermediate-range missiles.

Russia on Tuesday blamed Washington for the looming collapse of a key arms control deal after fresh talks failed to reach an accord to save the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

Russia on Tuesday blamed Washington for the looming collapse of a key arms control deal after fresh talks failed to reach an accord to save the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. "Responsibility for this fully and completely rests with the American side," Russian news agencies quoted deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying after the talks in Geneva. Ryabkov, who led Moscow's delegation, said the parties had failed to agree on anything and Washington did not appear to be in the mood for more negotiations. "We are forced to acknowledge that there is no movement forward," he was quoted as saying. US and Russian diplomats met in Geneva amid widespread concern over the fate of the bilateral agreement, after US President Donald Trump said in October his country would pull out of the deal unless Russia lived up to its terms. The US side said the meeting in Geneva was "disappointing." Last month Washington said it would withdraw from the INF treaty within 60 days if Russia did not dismantle missiles that the US claims breach the deal. Ryabkov slammed the US negotiators for their "uncompromising stand". He said Americans had confirmed Washington's intention to exit the treaty from February 2. He said Russia proposed holding another round of talks on the agreement but got no reply from the US side. "We are ready for dialogue on the basis of equality, mutual respect, (and) without putting forward ultimatums," Ryabkov said. On Friday Russia plans to brief European diplomats on the status of the talks, he said. Tensions have risen over the fate of the INF, with Russian President Vladimir Putin threatening a new arms race if the agreement collapsed. Putin in December suggested he was open to the idea of other countries joining the INF treaty or to starting talks on a new agreement. The bilateral agreement -- signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 -- forbids ground-launched short- and intermediate-range missiles.

Russia says US is 'fully' responsible for collapse of arms treaty

Pakistan has arrested a senior member of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/afghan-taliban-claim-responsibility-for-deadly-kabul-car-bomb-attack-190365">the Afghan Taliban</a> here in a bid to put pressure on the militant group to come to the negotiating table to hold talks with the US, a media report said Tuesday.

Hafez Mohibullah, who served as Religious Affairs Minister when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan until 2001, was held in Peshawar, the BBC reported quoting sources in the group.

The US has repeatedly called on Pakistan to end "safe havens" for the Taliban on its soil. Pakistan denies backing the group to retain influence in Afghanistan.

The reported detention of Mohibullah came ahead of US envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad's visit to Pakistan for a fresh round of talks with top officials to push forward a US-backed ongoing peace process in the war-torn country.

Two high-ranking Taliban figures, talking on condition of anonymity, suggested the former minister had been detained to put pressure on the group into meeting Khalilzad in Pakistan this week, and crucially to agree to meet representatives of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the report said.

"They arrested him [Mohibullah] to send a message," the report said, quoting one senior Taliban figure as saying.

"There was a meeting with Pakistani officials on the upcoming peace talks which ended in arguments. Right afterwards, the authorities raided a number of houses and arrested Mohibullah. After that (Taliban leader) Sheikh Hibatullah sent a message warning everyone to be alert," said another source from the militant group's Quetta Shura or leadership council.

The US wants Pakistan to encourage the militants to reach a settlement in Afghanistan and bring the 17-year war to a close.

The Taliban officials have said they will only begin talks with the Afghan government once a firm date for the withdrawal of American troops from the country has been agreed.

India has been a key stakeholder in the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. India has been maintaining a policy of not engaging with the Taliban and pressing for an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace initiative to bring peace and stability in the war-ravaged country.

Hafez Mohibullah, who served as Religious Affairs Minister when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan until 2001, was held in Peshawar, the BBC reported.

Pakistan has arrested a senior member of the Afghan Taliban here in a bid to put pressure on the militant group to come to the negotiating table to hold talks with the US, a media report said Tuesday. Hafez Mohibullah, who served as Religious Affairs Minister when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan until 2001, was held in Peshawar, the BBC reported quoting sources in the group. The US has repeatedly called on Pakistan to end "safe havens" for the Taliban on its soil. Pakistan denies backing the group to retain influence in Afghanistan. The reported detention of Mohibullah came ahead of US envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad's visit to Pakistan for a fresh round of talks with top officials to push forward a US-backed ongoing peace process in the war-torn country. Two high-ranking Taliban figures, talking on condition of anonymity, suggested the former minister had been detained to put pressure on the group into meeting Khalilzad in Pakistan this week, and crucially to agree to meet representatives of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, the report said. "They arrested him [Mohibullah] to send a message," the report said, quoting one senior Taliban figure as saying. "There was a meeting with Pakistani officials on the upcoming peace talks which ended in arguments. Right afterwards, the authorities raided a number of houses and arrested Mohibullah. After that (Taliban leader) Sheikh Hibatullah sent a message warning everyone to be alert," said another source from the militant group's Quetta Shura or leadership council. The US wants Pakistan to encourage the militants to reach a settlement in Afghanistan and bring the 17-year war to a close. The Taliban officials have said they will only begin talks with the Afghan government once a firm date for the withdrawal of American troops from the country has been agreed. India has been a key stakeholder in the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. India has been maintaining a policy of not engaging with the Taliban and pressing for an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace initiative to bring peace and stability in the war-ravaged country.

Pakistan arrests top Taliban member to put pressure on militant outfit to hold talks with US

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/watch-us-gives-russia-60-days-to-comply-with-nuclear-treaty-181666">US and Russian</a> diplomats were meeting on Tuesday to discuss the fate of a major nuclear missile control treaty that Washington has threatened to ditch over alleged violations by Moscow.&nbsp;

The discussions come amid widespread concern over the fate of the bilateral treaty after US President Donald Trump said in October his country would pull out of the deal unless <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-has-no-evidence-to-prove-breach-of-nuclear-treaty-russia-181665">Russia</a> stopped violating it.&nbsp;

"Russia and the United States will hold consultations on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty #INFtreaty in Geneva on January 15," Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said in a tweet.&nbsp;

Andrea Thompson, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, also tweeted that she was leading the American delegation to the talks.&nbsp;

"Looking forward to sitting down with Russian delegation this morning to discuss how #Russia plans to come back into full and verifiable compliance with the #INFTreaty," she said.&nbsp;

The talks are being held inside the Russian mission, a source there who was not authorised to speak to the media told AFP.

Last month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Washington would withdraw from the Cold War treaty limiting mid-range nuclear arms within 60 days if Russia does not dismantle missiles that the US claims to breach the deal.

"Recently we have noted that the American side has even hardened its tone, we see that as not a very favourable signal," Ryabkov was quoted as saying by Russia's Interfax news agency ahead of the Geneva talks.&nbsp;

Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to the US hardline by threatening to develop more nuclear missiles banned under the treaty. &nbsp;

The landmark treaty was signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 and led to nearly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles being eliminated.

It put an end to a mini-arms race in the 1980s triggered by the Soviet Union's deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles targeting Western European capitals.

US and Russian diplomats were meeting on Tuesday to discuss the fate of a major nuclear missile control treaty that Washington has threatened to ditch over alleged violations by Moscow.

US and Russian diplomats were meeting on Tuesday to discuss the fate of a major nuclear missile control treaty that Washington has threatened to ditch over alleged violations by Moscow. The discussions come amid widespread concern over the fate of the bilateral treaty after US President Donald Trump said in October his country would pull out of the deal unless Russia stopped violating it. "Russia and the United States will hold consultations on the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty #INFtreaty in Geneva on January 15," Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov said in a tweet. Andrea Thompson, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, also tweeted that she was leading the American delegation to the talks. "Looking forward to sitting down with Russian delegation this morning to discuss how #Russia plans to come back into full and verifiable compliance with the #INFTreaty," she said. The talks are being held inside the Russian mission, a source there who was not authorised to speak to the media told AFP. Last month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Washington would withdraw from the Cold War treaty limiting mid-range nuclear arms within 60 days if Russia does not dismantle missiles that the US claims to breach the deal. "Recently we have noted that the American side has even hardened its tone, we see that as not a very favourable signal," Ryabkov was quoted as saying by Russia's Interfax news agency ahead of the Geneva talks. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to the US hardline by threatening to develop more nuclear missiles banned under the treaty. The landmark treaty was signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 and led to nearly 2,700 short- and medium-range missiles being eliminated. It put an end to a mini-arms race in the 1980s triggered by the Soviet Union's deployment of SS-20 nuclear missiles targeting Western European capitals.

US, Russia meet on disputed nuclear treaty in Geneva

The United States and North Korea plan to hold high-level talks in Washington this week to discuss a second meeting between their leaders, South Korean media said on Tuesday, as the old enemies seek an "interim" deal to revitalise nuclear talks.

The meeting, led by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol, is due on Thursday or Friday, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported, citing an unidentified diplomatic source familiar with the issue.

They are expected to finalise the date and venue of a second summit between US&nbsp;President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the newspaper said.

The US&nbsp;embassy in Seoul referred questions to the White House. The White House offered no immediate comment on the Chosun Ilbo report, while a State Department official said: "We don't have any meetings to announce."

South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted an unidentified diplomatic source as saying Pompeo and Kim Yong Chol could meet this week.

The North Korean delegation could visit the United States "as soon as this week" but plans have not been finalised, a CNN reporter, citing an unidentified source, said on Twitter.

Trump wrote Kim Jong Un a letter, which was flown to Pyongyang and hand delivered over the weekend, the CNN reporter added, citing the source.

South Korea's foreign ministry spokesman told reporters the North and the United States were "in contact" but it was "inappropriate" to comment on plans for talks.

A meeting this week could mean the two sides are nearing a compromise after months of standoff over how to move forward in ending North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes.

Trump and Kim pledged at their first summit, in Singapore in June, to work towards denuclearisation "of the Korean peninsula". But there has been little significant progress.

Pompeo, who made several trips to Pyongyang last year, sought to meet his counterpart last November, but the talks were called off at the last minute.

Contact was resumed after Kim's New Year's speech, in which he said he was willing to meet Trump "at any time," South Korea's ambassador to the United States, Cho Yoon-je, told reporters last week.

In Seoul, South Korea deleted a description of North Korea as an "enemy" in its defence white paper released on Tuesday, though it said its weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to peace and stability.

INTERIM MEASURES

The United States and South Korea have been discussing how to respond to any North Korean steps toward denuclearisation, South Korean officials told Reuters.

The United States is considering easing sanctions in exchange for the North's discarding and sending abroad its intercontinental ballistic missiles, in addition to freezing its nuclear programme, the Chosun Ilbo said, citing its source.

US&nbsp;responses could include exemptions from sanctions for inter-Korean business and opening a liaison office, Seoul officials said.

"Those ideas are being discussed as interim measures, not as an end state, in order to expedite the denuclearisation process, because the North wouldn't respond to any demand for a declaration of facilities and weapons," said a senior South Korean official, who declined to be identified.

"The end goal remains unchanged, whether it be complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation, or final, fully verified denuclearisation."

The official said a Trump and Kim meeting could happen by early March, though added: "No one knows what Trump is thinking."

Kim reiterated his resolve to meet Trump during a meeting last week with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Trump said this month he had received a "great" letter from Kim and would probably meet him again soon.

"At the second summit, they'll probably focus on reaching a possible interim deal, rather than a comprehensive roadmap for denuclearisation," said Cheong Seong-chang, a senior fellow at South Korea's Sejong Institute.

The United States and North Korea plan to hold high-level talks in Washington this week to discuss a second meeting between their leaders, South Korean media said on Tuesday, as the old enemies seek an "interim" deal to revitalise nuclear talks.

The United States and North Korea plan to hold high-level talks in Washington this week to discuss a second meeting between their leaders, South Korean media said on Tuesday, as the old enemies seek an "interim" deal to revitalise nuclear talks. The meeting, led by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and senior North Korean official Kim Yong Chol, is due on Thursday or Friday, the Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported, citing an unidentified diplomatic source familiar with the issue. They are expected to finalise the date and venue of a second summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the newspaper said. The US embassy in Seoul referred questions to the White House. The White House offered no immediate comment on the Chosun Ilbo report, while a State Department official said: "We don't have any meetings to announce." South Korea's Yonhap news agency quoted an unidentified diplomatic source as saying Pompeo and Kim Yong Chol could meet this week. The North Korean delegation could visit the United States "as soon as this week" but plans have not been finalised, a CNN reporter, citing an unidentified source, said on Twitter. Trump wrote Kim Jong Un a letter, which was flown to Pyongyang and hand delivered over the weekend, the CNN reporter added, citing the source. South Korea's foreign ministry spokesman told reporters the North and the United States were "in contact" but it was "inappropriate" to comment on plans for talks. A meeting this week could mean the two sides are nearing a compromise after months of standoff over how to move forward in ending North Korea's nuclear and missile programmes. Trump and Kim pledged at their first summit, in Singapore in June, to work towards denuclearisation "of the Korean peninsula". But there has been little significant progress. Pompeo, who made several trips to Pyongyang last year, sought to meet his counterpart last November, but the talks were called off at the last minute. Contact was resumed after Kim's New Year's speech, in which he said he was willing to meet Trump "at any time," South Korea's ambassador to the United States, Cho Yoon-je, told reporters last week. In Seoul, South Korea deleted a description of North Korea as an "enemy" in its defence white paper released on Tuesday, though it said its weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to peace and stability. INTERIM MEASURES The United States and South Korea have been discussing how to respond to any North Korean steps toward denuclearisation, South Korean officials told Reuters. The United States is considering easing sanctions in exchange for the North's discarding and sending abroad its intercontinental ballistic missiles, in addition to freezing its nuclear programme, the Chosun Ilbo said, citing its source. US responses could include exemptions from sanctions for inter-Korean business and opening a liaison office, Seoul officials said. "Those ideas are being discussed as interim measures, not as an end state, in order to expedite the denuclearisation process, because the North wouldn't respond to any demand for a declaration of facilities and weapons," said a senior South Korean official, who declined to be identified. "The end goal remains unchanged, whether it be complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation, or final, fully verified denuclearisation." The official said a Trump and Kim meeting could happen by early March, though added: "No one knows what Trump is thinking." Kim reiterated his resolve to meet Trump during a meeting last week with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Trump said this month he had received a "great" letter from Kim and would probably meet him again soon. "At the second summit, they'll probably focus on reaching a possible interim deal, rather than a comprehensive roadmap for denuclearisation," said Cheong Seong-chang, a senior fellow at South Korea's Sejong Institute.

US, North Korea to hold talks this week seeking 'interim' deal: Report

Raj Shah, an Indian-origin top spokesman in the White House press office, has left US President Donald Trump's administration to join an arm of a lobbying firm, becoming the latest of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-special-envoy-brett-mcgurk-quits-over-trump-syria-pullout-185899">several senior officials to quit in recent months</a>.

Shah, 34, White House deputy spokesman and a former researcher at the Republican National Committee, was in the administration since president Trump took office in January 2017.

His portfolio recently included helping prepare Justice Brett M Kavanaugh for his Senate confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court.

Shah will lead the Media Group, the press wing of Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with offices in Florida and Washington, The New York Times reported.

He will work with Jamie Rubin, a Democrat who was a spokesman for Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, the report said, quoting the officials.

His departure comes as the White House press and communications teams have been depleted. Several aides have moved on to roles at government agencies or have left the Trump administration entirely.

Shah was born in 1984 to Indian parents of Gujarati origin. His parents moved to Chicago in 1970s and then moved to Connecticut where he was born and raised.

Shah joined the White House right from the day the Trump administration took charge. He was made the Deputy Communications Director at the White House. Previously, he was director of Opposition Research in the Republican National Committee.

Shah is the latest in a number of top officials to leave the Trump administration.

Former Defence Secretary James Mattis left Trump's Cabinet last month after former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was pushed out in November. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was unceremoniously fired in March and national security adviser H R McMaster was replaced last year.&nbsp;

Raj Shah, an Indian-origin top spokesman in the White House press office, has left US President Donald Trump's administration to join an arm of a lobbying firm, becoming the latest of several senior officials to quit in recent months.

Raj Shah, an Indian-origin top spokesman in the White House press office, has left US President Donald Trump's administration to join an arm of a lobbying firm, becoming the latest of several senior officials to quit in recent months. Shah, 34, White House deputy spokesman and a former researcher at the Republican National Committee, was in the administration since president Trump took office in January 2017. His portfolio recently included helping prepare Justice Brett M Kavanaugh for his Senate confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court. Shah will lead the Media Group, the press wing of Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with offices in Florida and Washington, The New York Times reported. He will work with Jamie Rubin, a Democrat who was a spokesman for Madeleine Albright, the former secretary of state, the report said, quoting the officials. His departure comes as the White House press and communications teams have been depleted. Several aides have moved on to roles at government agencies or have left the Trump administration entirely. Shah was born in 1984 to Indian parents of Gujarati origin. His parents moved to Chicago in 1970s and then moved to Connecticut where he was born and raised. Shah joined the White House right from the day the Trump administration took charge. He was made the Deputy Communications Director at the White House. Previously, he was director of Opposition Research in the Republican National Committee. Shah is the latest in a number of top officials to leave the Trump administration. Former Defence Secretary James Mattis left Trump's Cabinet last month after former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was pushed out in November. Former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was unceremoniously fired in March and national security adviser H R McMaster was replaced last year.

Indian-origin White House deputy spokesman Raj Shah quits Trump administration

A massive winter storm rolled eastward to the mid-Atlantic United States on Sunday (January 13) after dropping more than a foot of snow on parts of the Midwest and killing at least 7 people in highway accidents on Saturday.

Millions of Americans in ten states and Washington, DC were under a winter storm warning or advisory on Sunday.

It was the first major snowfall in the US capital city.

Washington was forecast to receive almost a half foot of snow, forcing airlines to cancel over one hundred flights leaving Reagan National Airport on Sunday morning.

It was the first major snowfall in the US capital city.

A massive winter storm rolled eastward to the mid-Atlantic United States on Sunday (January 13) after dropping more than a foot of snow on parts of the Midwest and killing at least 7 people in highway accidents on Saturday. Millions of Americans in ten states and Washington, DC were under a winter storm warning or advisory on Sunday. It was the first major snowfall in the US capital city. Washington was forecast to receive almost a half foot of snow, forcing airlines to cancel over one hundred flights leaving Reagan National Airport on Sunday morning.

Watch: Winter storm hits Washington; at least 7 dead

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/how-cold-is-the-moon-at-night-china-to-find-out-190033">China</a>’s exports rose 9.9 per cent in 2018, its strongest trade performance in seven years, despite growing disruptions from an escalating trade war with the United States, customs data showed on Monday.

Imports increased 15.8 per cent last year, resulting in a trade surplus of $351.76 billion, the country’s lowest since 2013.

The world’s largest trading nation got off to a strong start in 2018, but pressure on the economy started to build later in the year as the United States and China began imposing tariffs on each other’s goods and global demand started to cool.

The Customs office is expected to release trade numbers for December later in the day.

China’s export growth is expected to have eased for a second straight month in December as global demand weakened, raising pressure on Beijing as it tries to reach a trade deal with Washington.

Softening demand in China is already being felt around the world, with slowing sales of goods ranging from iPhones to automobiles adding to fears of cooling global growth.

Sources told Reuters last week that Beijing is planning to lower its economic growth target to 6-6.5 per cent this year after an expected 6.6 per cent in 2018, the slowest pace in 28 years.&nbsp;

Imports increased 15.8 per cent last year, resulting in a trade surplus of $351.76 billion, the country’s lowest since 2013.

China’s exports rose 9.9 per cent in 2018, its strongest trade performance in seven years, despite growing disruptions from an escalating trade war with the United States, customs data showed on Monday. Imports increased 15.8 per cent last year, resulting in a trade surplus of $351.76 billion, the country’s lowest since 2013. The world’s largest trading nation got off to a strong start in 2018, but pressure on the economy started to build later in the year as the United States and China began imposing tariffs on each other’s goods and global demand started to cool. The Customs office is expected to release trade numbers for December later in the day. China’s export growth is expected to have eased for a second straight month in December as global demand weakened, raising pressure on Beijing as it tries to reach a trade deal with Washington. Softening demand in China is already being felt around the world, with slowing sales of goods ranging from iPhones to automobiles adding to fears of cooling global growth. Sources told Reuters last week that Beijing is planning to lower its economic growth target to 6-6.5 per cent this year after an expected 6.6 per cent in 2018, the slowest pace in 28 years.

China posts strongest export growth in 7 years despite trade war

There is a "strong possibility" of Tahawwur Hussain Rana - currently serving a 14-year jail term in the US for plotting the 2008 Mumbai terror attack - being extradited to India, an informed source said.&nbsp;

The Indian government, with "full co-operation" from the Trump administration, is currently working on completing the necessary paperwork to ensure the extradition of the Pakistani-Canadian national before his current jail term ends in December 2021.

Rana was arrested in 2009 on the charges of plotting the 26/11 terror attack. Some 166 people, including US nationals, were killed in the attack carried out by 10 Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists. Nine of the attackers were killed by police while lone survivor Ajmal Kasab was captured and hanged after handed down death sentence by an Indian court.

In 2013, Rana was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment.&nbsp;

According to the US officials, he is set to be released in December 2021.

"There is a strong possibility of extradition of Rana to India on completion of his jail term here. We (US and India) are working on this," a source told PTI. 
But the "challenge" is to complete the necessary paperwork during this period and overcome the cumbersome bureaucracy of the two countries and the independent judiciary, the source said.

India's Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice and the US' State Department and the Department of Justice, each of them has their own extradition procedure in place.

And they are unwilling to cut down or speed up their own process when it comes to extradition, it added.

Following a recent visit to the US by India's National Investigation Agency (NIA) team, officials from both sides have agreed to cut down on the bureaucratic procedures so that all the necessary paperwork is ready before the current jail term of Rana ends in December 2021.&nbsp;

From now on, the NIA is expected to have direct communication with their US counterparts to cut short the timeframe and bureaucratic formalities.

In case, the US government in co-operation with the Indian government is unable to complete the necessary paperwork before that, officials here said it would become very tough to ensure a smooth extradition of Rana once he is released from the jail in Chicago, where he is currently serving his sentence.

As per the existing US law, Rana, a Pakistan-born Canadian national, would most probably be deported to Canada if India and the US are unable to complete the cumbersome extradition process before his release.

However, people familiar with the matter told PTI, that there is a "desire" so there is assurance from the highest level in the Trump administration that all necessary steps would be taken in a timely fashion to ensure extradition of Rana before his release.

According to the US officials, the extradition of Rana would help in cementing the relationship between the two countries, boost up the counter-terrorism co-operation and enhance America's image among Indians.

On the 10th anniversary of the Mumbai terror attack, in November 2018, the Trump administration had reiterated its resolve to bring to justice those involved in it.&nbsp;

Vice President Mike Pence had raised this issue during his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in November.

During their recent visit, the NIA team also received guidance from their US counterparts on the paperwork which India needs to complete to meet the requirements of the American judiciary system and their standards.&nbsp;

India would not seek extradition of Rana on the charges for which he is already serving his jail sentence, as officials pointed out that the "double jeopardy" clause in the US justice system prohibits to punish a person twice for the same crime.

India is seeking extradition of Rana on the ground that he was actively involved in planning an attack on the New Delhi-based National Defense College and Chabad Houses in several cities. There is also forgery case registered against him in India.

Citing the partial government shutdown, the State Department and the Department of Justice expressed their inability to respond to the questions related to the extradition of Rana.&nbsp;

The Indian Embassy here and the attorney of Rana did not respond to a question on this issue.&nbsp;

There is a "strong possibility" of Tahawwur Hussain Rana - currently serving a 14-year jail term in the US for plotting the 2008 Mumbai terror attack - being extradited to India, an informed source said.

There is a "strong possibility" of Tahawwur Hussain Rana - currently serving a 14-year jail term in the US for plotting the 2008 Mumbai terror attack - being extradited to India, an informed source said. The Indian government, with "full co-operation" from the Trump administration, is currently working on completing the necessary paperwork to ensure the extradition of the Pakistani-Canadian national before his current jail term ends in December 2021. Rana was arrested in 2009 on the charges of plotting the 26/11 terror attack. Some 166 people, including US nationals, were killed in the attack carried out by 10 Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terrorists. Nine of the attackers were killed by police while lone survivor Ajmal Kasab was captured and hanged after handed down death sentence by an Indian court. In 2013, Rana was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment. According to the US officials, he is set to be released in December 2021. "There is a strong possibility of extradition of Rana to India on completion of his jail term here. We (US and India) are working on this," a source told PTI. But the "challenge" is to complete the necessary paperwork during this period and overcome the cumbersome bureaucracy of the two countries and the independent judiciary, the source said. India's Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Law and Justice and the US' State Department and the Department of Justice, each of them has their own extradition procedure in place. And they are unwilling to cut down or speed up their own process when it comes to extradition, it added. Following a recent visit to the US by India's National Investigation Agency (NIA) team, officials from both sides have agreed to cut down on the bureaucratic procedures so that all the necessary paperwork is ready before the current jail term of Rana ends in December 2021. From now on, the NIA is expected to have direct communication with their US counterparts to cut short the timeframe and bureaucratic formalities. In case, the US government in co-operation with the Indian government is unable to complete the necessary paperwork before that, officials here said it would become very tough to ensure a smooth extradition of Rana once he is released from the jail in Chicago, where he is currently serving his sentence. As per the existing US law, Rana, a Pakistan-born Canadian national, would most probably be deported to Canada if India and the US are unable to complete the cumbersome extradition process before his release. However, people familiar with the matter told PTI, that there is a "desire" so there is assurance from the highest level in the Trump administration that all necessary steps would be taken in a timely fashion to ensure extradition of Rana before his release. According to the US officials, the extradition of Rana would help in cementing the relationship between the two countries, boost up the counter-terrorism co-operation and enhance America's image among Indians. On the 10th anniversary of the Mumbai terror attack, in November 2018, the Trump administration had reiterated its resolve to bring to justice those involved in it. Vice President Mike Pence had raised this issue during his meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi in November. During their recent visit, the NIA team also received guidance from their US counterparts on the paperwork which India needs to complete to meet the requirements of the American judiciary system and their standards. India would not seek extradition of Rana on the charges for which he is already serving his jail sentence, as officials pointed out that the "double jeopardy" clause in the US justice system prohibits to punish a person twice for the same crime. India is seeking extradition of Rana on the ground that he was actively involved in planning an attack on the New Delhi-based National Defense College and Chabad Houses in several cities. There is also forgery case registered against him in India. Citing the partial government shutdown, the State Department and the Department of Justice expressed their inability to respond to the questions related to the extradition of Rana. The Indian Embassy here and the attorney of Rana did not respond to a question on this issue.

'Strong possibility' of 26/11 accused Tahawwur Rana to be extradited to India: Sources

Top Republican lawmakers on Sunday warned against Donald <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-stops-short-of-emergency-declaration-in-border-wall-fight-189699">Trump declaring a national emergency</a> to secure funds for a border wall, signalling doubts within the president's party as a government shutdown was set to enter the fourth workweek.

Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that he would "hate" to see Trump invoke emergency powers for a wall.

"If we do that, it's going to go to court and the wall won't get built," he said. And Representative Steve Scalise, the No. 2 House Republican, told ABC, "We don't want it to come down to a national emergency declaration," even if he believes Trump has the authority to do so.

Trump only recently backed away from talk of an<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/pompeo-hopes-for-imminent-end-to-us-government-shutdown-190082"> emergency declaration</a>, after pressing it for days as a way out of the continuing budget standoff.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-record-long-government-shutdown-could-be-resolved-in-15-minutes-189918">Democrats</a> have strongly opposed the idea. The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, said Sunday on ABC that "if this president is going to turn to national emergencies every time he disagrees with Congress, I'm against it." He urged Trump to "put an end to the shutdown and put everything on the table." As the partisan battle drags on, the effects of the partial shutdown have become steadily clearer, and new polls show growing public dissatisfaction.

On Sunday, Trump acknowledged, at least indirectly, the mounting costs of the shutdown.

"The damage done to our Country from a badly broken Border - Drugs, Crime and so much that is bad - is far greater than a Shutdown, which the Dems can easily fix as soon as they come back to Washington!" he said. Many lawmakers spent the weekend in their home states -- often hearing constituents' complaints about the shutdown -- but will return to Washington on Monday.

Trump has tried various angles to pressure Democratic negotiators, but they have not visibly budged from an offer to support some border security spending -- the figure of $1.3 billion has been floated -- but not the $5.7 billion he wants for a wall.

Two new polls indicate the Democrats may be winning the battle for public support.

The Washington Post/ABC News survey found that far more Americans blame Trump and the Republicans for the shutdown than blame the Democrats -- by 53 per cent to 29 per cent.

Meantime, a separate poll by CNN showed Trump's disapproval rating among Americans had climbed by five points -- to 57 per cent -- in just a month, with just 37 per cent approving.

But the Post poll also found a hardening of Republican support for a wall, with 70 per cent now saying they strongly support the wall, up from 58 per cent a year earlier.

The president has closely tied his fate to his steadfast conservative base.

Many Republicans doubt that the invocation of a national emergency would help their cause -- likely influencing Trump's decision Friday to say he was holding off in order to give Democrats more time to strike a deal. "I want to give them the chance to see if they can act responsibly," he told Fox in an interview late Saturday.

Trump has acknowledged that an emergency declaration would likely trigger a legal battle ending in the Supreme Court.

Opponents say such a unilateral presidential move would be a constitutional overreach and set a dangerous precedent.

The partial shutdown became the longest on record at midnight Friday when it overtook a 21-day stretch in 1995-1996 under president Bill Clinton.

The impasse has paralyzed Washington -- its impact felt increasingly around the country -- with the president refusing to sign off on budgets for swaths of government departments unrelated to the dispute.

As a result, 800,000 federal employees -- including FBI agents, air traffic controllers and museum staff -- received no paychecks on Friday. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the US-Mexican border presents challenges, but Trump has turned his single-minded push for more walls into a crusade.

He tweeted Sunday that "The building of the Wall on the Southern Border will bring down the crime rate throughout the entire Country!" Some studies show that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in the United States.

Only in recent days has Trump begun describing the problem as "humanitarian," referring in a tweet Saturday to "a massive Humanitarian Crisis at our Southern Border."&nbsp;

Top Republican lawmakers on Sunday warned against Donald Trump declaring a national emergency to secure funds for a border wall, signalling doubts within the president's party as a government shutdown was set to enter the fourth workweek.

Top Republican lawmakers on Sunday warned against Donald Trump declaring a national emergency to secure funds for a border wall, signalling doubts within the president's party as a government shutdown was set to enter the fourth workweek. Senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that he would "hate" to see Trump invoke emergency powers for a wall. "If we do that, it's going to go to court and the wall won't get built," he said. And Representative Steve Scalise, the No. 2 House Republican, told ABC, "We don't want it to come down to a national emergency declaration," even if he believes Trump has the authority to do so. Trump only recently backed away from talk of an emergency declaration, after pressing it for days as a way out of the continuing budget standoff. Democrats have strongly opposed the idea. The No. 2 Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, said Sunday on ABC that "if this president is going to turn to national emergencies every time he disagrees with Congress, I'm against it." He urged Trump to "put an end to the shutdown and put everything on the table." As the partisan battle drags on, the effects of the partial shutdown have become steadily clearer, and new polls show growing public dissatisfaction. On Sunday, Trump acknowledged, at least indirectly, the mounting costs of the shutdown. "The damage done to our Country from a badly broken Border - Drugs, Crime and so much that is bad - is far greater than a Shutdown, which the Dems can easily fix as soon as they come back to Washington!" he said. Many lawmakers spent the weekend in their home states -- often hearing constituents' complaints about the shutdown -- but will return to Washington on Monday. Trump has tried various angles to pressure Democratic negotiators, but they have not visibly budged from an offer to support some border security spending -- the figure of $1.3 billion has been floated -- but not the $5.7 billion he wants for a wall. Two new polls indicate the Democrats may be winning the battle for public support. The Washington Post/ABC News survey found that far more Americans blame Trump and the Republicans for the shutdown than blame the Democrats -- by 53 per cent to 29 per cent. Meantime, a separate poll by CNN showed Trump's disapproval rating among Americans had climbed by five points -- to 57 per cent -- in just a month, with just 37 per cent approving. But the Post poll also found a hardening of Republican support for a wall, with 70 per cent now saying they strongly support the wall, up from 58 per cent a year earlier. The president has closely tied his fate to his steadfast conservative base. Many Republicans doubt that the invocation of a national emergency would help their cause -- likely influencing Trump's decision Friday to say he was holding off in order to give Democrats more time to strike a deal. "I want to give them the chance to see if they can act responsibly," he told Fox in an interview late Saturday. Trump has acknowledged that an emergency declaration would likely trigger a legal battle ending in the Supreme Court. Opponents say such a unilateral presidential move would be a constitutional overreach and set a dangerous precedent. The partial shutdown became the longest on record at midnight Friday when it overtook a 21-day stretch in 1995-1996 under president Bill Clinton. The impasse has paralyzed Washington -- its impact felt increasingly around the country -- with the president refusing to sign off on budgets for swaths of government departments unrelated to the dispute. As a result, 800,000 federal employees -- including FBI agents, air traffic controllers and museum staff -- received no paychecks on Friday. Both Democrats and Republicans agree that the US-Mexican border presents challenges, but Trump has turned his single-minded push for more walls into a crusade. He tweeted Sunday that "The building of the Wall on the Southern Border will bring down the crime rate throughout the entire Country!" Some studies show that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in the United States. Only in recent days has Trump begun describing the problem as "humanitarian," referring in a tweet Saturday to "a massive Humanitarian Crisis at our Southern Border."

Top Republicans oppose border 'emergency' as shutdown drags on

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/13-dead-2-still-missing-in-cargo-plane-crash-iran-army-190221">Iran's president</a> said Monday the Islamic Republic plans to launch two domestically made satellites into orbit in the "coming days" to gather information on the country's environment, state TV reported.

"In the coming days we will launch two satellites into space," President Hassan Rouhani said during a trip to the northeastern Golestan province.

"Both the Payam satellite and its carrier rocket are made in our own country and by the youth of this nation," he added.

Payam would orbit the earth at about 600 kilometres (370 miles) above its surface, according to state TV.

Rouhani did not name the second satellite but said both were manufactured at Tehran's Amirkabir University of Technology.

Iran's telecommunications minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi said Wednesday that Payam and a second satellite called Doosti had been successfully tested and that there would be "good news" soon, the conservative Tasnim news agency reported.

Doosti would be tasked with the same purpose as Payam, with a focus on agriculture, and would orbit at an altitude of 250 kilometres, he added.

Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Iran's plans for sending satellites into orbit would violate a 2015 UN Security Council resolution which endorsed an international accord on ending Tehran's nuclear programme.

Resolution 2231 called on Iran to refrain from any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

"The United States will not stand by and watch the Iranian regime's destructive policies place international stability and security at risk," Pompeo said in a statement on January 3.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/cargo-plane-crashes-in-iran-10-feared-dead-190173">Tehran</a> and Washington have been at loggerheads since the US walked away in May last year from the landmark deal with Iran and reimposed crippling sanctions on the country.

Tehran denied the charges Monday that its aerospace activities were a violation of the security council resolution, semi-official ISNA news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi as saying.

"The satellite is part of a civil project with purely scientific aims. Iran will wait for no country's permission to conduct such scientific projects," Ghasemi added.

'In the coming days we will launch two satellites into space,' President Hassan Rouhani said during a trip to the northeastern Golestan province.

Iran's president said Monday the Islamic Republic plans to launch two domestically made satellites into orbit in the "coming days" to gather information on the country's environment, state TV reported. "In the coming days we will launch two satellites into space," President Hassan Rouhani said during a trip to the northeastern Golestan province. "Both the Payam satellite and its carrier rocket are made in our own country and by the youth of this nation," he added. Payam would orbit the earth at about 600 kilometres (370 miles) above its surface, according to state TV. Rouhani did not name the second satellite but said both were manufactured at Tehran's Amirkabir University of Technology. Iran's telecommunications minister Mohammad Javad Azari Jahromi said Wednesday that Payam and a second satellite called Doosti had been successfully tested and that there would be "good news" soon, the conservative Tasnim news agency reported. Doosti would be tasked with the same purpose as Payam, with a focus on agriculture, and would orbit at an altitude of 250 kilometres, he added. Earlier this month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Iran's plans for sending satellites into orbit would violate a 2015 UN Security Council resolution which endorsed an international accord on ending Tehran's nuclear programme. Resolution 2231 called on Iran to refrain from any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons. "The United States will not stand by and watch the Iranian regime's destructive policies place international stability and security at risk," Pompeo said in a statement on January 3. Tehran and Washington have been at loggerheads since the US walked away in May last year from the landmark deal with Iran and reimposed crippling sanctions on the country. Tehran denied the charges Monday that its aerospace activities were a violation of the security council resolution, semi-official ISNA news agency quoted foreign ministry spokesman Bahram Ghasemi as saying. "The satellite is part of a civil project with purely scientific aims. Iran will wait for no country's permission to conduct such scientific projects," Ghasemi added.

Iran to launch two satellites in 'coming days': President Hassan Rouhani

By Chris Edelson

If President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to fund some portion of a wall along the US-Mexico border without congressional authorisation, what would happen next?

Would the courts step in? What is Congress’ role?

As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power in two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the US Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress.

Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The US Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent.

The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency.

If President Trump does declare an emergency, the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of the passive spectator?

Gaining congressional approval

Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorisation. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congress for these actions.

This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labour strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a pre-existing statute on the books weighed against Truman.

When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion, in that case, has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible.

Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted.

Congress’s role

Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes.

Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law.

The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in U.S. waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute.

Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute.

Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action.

For example, in 1846 President James Polk falsely claimed that Mexico had spilled American blood on US soil as a pretext for gaining a declaration of war from Congress.

In 1942, President Franklin D Roosevelt justified the decision to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans without trial based on false claims that time was of the essence, and at least some Japanese-Americans were known to be disloyal.

Although both of these examples pre-date the 1976 Act, they serve as cautionary tales about the wisdom of accepting at face value a president’s claim that an emergency exists. However, because the law now in effect provides no specific standards to define the existence of an emergency, courts might be inclined to defer to presidential discretion. If President Trump declares a national emergency at the border, it is far from clear that courts would strike it down.

By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote. That, of course, would be no easy task in the current Congress.

Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts – assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge. If the president moves ahead with a controversial plan to declare a national emergency as a way to free up money for construction of a border wall, all eyes should be on Congress.

(Chris Edelson is Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-trump-declares-a-national-emergency-could-congress-or-the-courts-reverse-it-109752">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

By Chris Edelson If President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to fund some portion of a wall along the US-Mexico border without congressional authorisation, what would happen next?

By Chris Edelson If President Donald Trump declares a national emergency to fund some portion of a wall along the US-Mexico border without congressional authorisation, what would happen next? Would the courts step in? What is Congress’ role? As I explain in my book “Emergency Presidential Power,” presidents generally claim emergency power in two ways: through inherent or implied authority under the US Constitution or under statutory authority granted by Congress. Relying on the Constitution as a basis for emergency power is controversial, and less likely to stand up to meaningful congressional or judicial review. The US Constitution says nothing specific about presidential emergency power: Presidents can only claim such authority is implied or inherent. The emergency powers the Constitution does describe are actually assigned to Congress. Congress has delegated some emergency powers to the president through statutes, including the National Emergencies Act. But Congress retains the power to reject a president’s declaration of a national emergency. If President Trump does declare an emergency, the question is: Will Congress use the power available to it, or will it play the role of the passive spectator? Gaining congressional approval Since presidents lack any specific constitutional emergency power, they often find it necessary to gain congressional authorisation. For instance, at the start of the Civil War, with Congress out of session, President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and took other unilateral actions. He later sought and gained retroactive approval from Congress for these actions. This precedent of gaining congressional approval was put to the test nearly 100 years later. In 1952, President Harry Truman claimed emergency power to take control of steel factories during the Korean War in response to a labour strike. He invoked a “very great inherent power to meet great national emergencies.” Congress took no specific action to approve or disapprove, though a pre-existing statute on the books weighed against Truman. When factory owners sued the administration, the Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, ruled against Truman in the famous Youngstown Sheet decision. Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurring opinion, in that case, has been especially influential and is often cited by legal scholars and judges. He outlined a three-part test to be used as a starting point in determining when presidential action is constitutionally permissible. Under Jackson’s test, presidents are on the strongest possible footing when acting with congressional approval. In this case, Jackson said, Truman’s position was weak since he was taking action that did not comply with the relevant legislative framework. In Jackson’s view, Truman’s reliance on inherent emergency power under the Constitution would dangerously concentrate power in the president’s hands, something the framers would not have wanted. Congress’s role Jackson’s opinion in Youngstown suggested that emergency power could be defined by Congress in statutes. Congress took up that suggestion with the National Emergencies Act of 1976. Though the act was designed to set limits on presidential power to declare national emergencies of indefinite length, it has ended up providing a largely unregulated way for presidents to take unilateral action. Congress has failed to fulfill its responsibilities under the law. The National Emergencies Act permits the president to declare a national emergency without congressional approval, triggering specific statutory powers that the president can use. For instance, presidents have used this law to impose economic sanctions against terrorists after 9/11 or regulate foreign ships in U.S. waters. Thirty-one emergency declarations are currently in effect under the statute. Congress can vote at any time to terminate a state of emergency, and is required by the statute to meet every six months while an emergency is in effect to consider whether it should continue. However, it has never voted on an emergency declared by a president or held meetings as required by the statute. Perhaps most importantly for Trump, the National Emergencies Act provides no criteria for deciding whether a national emergency exists. We know from history that presidents can contrive emergencies as a pretext for action. For example, in 1846 President James Polk falsely claimed that Mexico had spilled American blood on US soil as a pretext for gaining a declaration of war from Congress. In 1942, President Franklin D Roosevelt justified the decision to intern 110,000 Japanese-Americans without trial based on false claims that time was of the essence, and at least some Japanese-Americans were known to be disloyal. Although both of these examples pre-date the 1976 Act, they serve as cautionary tales about the wisdom of accepting at face value a president’s claim that an emergency exists. However, because the law now in effect provides no specific standards to define the existence of an emergency, courts might be inclined to defer to presidential discretion. If President Trump declares a national emergency at the border, it is far from clear that courts would strike it down. By contrast, it would be straightforward for Congress to reverse a declaration of national emergency. The National Emergencies Act gives legislators authority to reject a presidential declaration of national emergency through simple legislation that would require majorities in the House and Senate. President Trump would presumably veto such action. Legislators would have the opportunity to override a presidential veto with a two-thirds majority vote. That, of course, would be no easy task in the current Congress. Because of the way the National Emergencies Act was drafted, Congress is better positioned to take action than the courts – assuming enough members are moved to act. If Congress does nothing, then the law could become a vehicle for presidential abuse, especially because the act’s language seems to grant the president broad discretion that could insulate an emergency declaration from legal challenge. If the president moves ahead with a controversial plan to declare a national emergency as a way to free up money for construction of a border wall, all eyes should be on Congress. (Chris Edelson is Assistant Professor of Government, American University School of Public Affairs) (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)

US-Mexico wall: If Trump declares a national emergency, could Congress or the courts reverse it?

The US' demand for maintaining long-term military bases in Afghanistan has emerged as a sticking point in talks with the Taliban to end the 17-year-long war in the country, according to a media report in Pakistan.

The report came as the US special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, stepped up efforts to bring the Taliban to negotiations, with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Russia and Iran involved in discussions with the Taliban over the past few months.&nbsp;

The Express Tribune reported quoting officials that the US in return of its demand would provide substantial financial assistance for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan in the post-peace deal.

Although the Taliban have repeatedly demanded complete withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, they showed an inclination to discuss the suggestion of the US maintaining certain bases in the recent negotiations held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The US also wants a guarantee from the Taliban that the Afghan soil would not be used to stage attacks in other nations.

Talks in Abu Dhabi were brokered by Pakistan after President Donald Trump wrote a letter to Prime Minister Imran Khan, seeking Islamabad's help in reaching out to the Taliban.

The latest push for seeking a political solution to the 17-year-long war has brought back Saudi Arabia and the UAE at the centre stage in the Afghan peace process.

The US, through the greater involvement of these countries, wants to put pressure on the Taliban to accept its main demands.

And since then, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been trying to convince Taliban to accept the US demand in return for a major share in the Afghan government and other incentives.

One senior official, who is privy to the negotiations, told The Express Tribune that Washington wants to maintain 'permanent bases' in Afghanistan. 
"And that's been the sticking point in the ongoing talks," added the official, who requested anonymity since he was not authorised to the media on the subject.

The official said, according to the US, those bases would have no role in the Afghan security but meant for maintaining a presence for overall regional stability.

The Taliban were told that the 'minimal presence of the US forces' would allow continued US financial and other support to Afghanistan for the reconstruction efforts.

The other objective includes maintaining close contact with the future Afghan governments in order to ensure that the country does not become a safe haven for any terrorist organisations.

Pakistan is not averse to the US' demand but wants a 'regional consensus' on it since the permanent presence of the US military in Afghanistan would certainly raise eyebrows in Russia, Iran and even China.

These countries fear that the US may use the Afghan soil to advance its own strategic designs in the region.

And that was the reason Pakistan wanted to evolve a regional consensus on the possible Afghan peace deal, said the official.

The US' demand for maintaining long-term military bases in Afghanistan has emerged as a sticking point in talks with the Taliban to end the 17-year-long war in the country, according to a media report in Pakistan.

The US' demand for maintaining long-term military bases in Afghanistan has emerged as a sticking point in talks with the Taliban to end the 17-year-long war in the country, according to a media report in Pakistan. The report came as the US special representative for Afghanistan reconciliation, Zalmay Khalilzad, stepped up efforts to bring the Taliban to negotiations, with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Russia and Iran involved in discussions with the Taliban over the past few months. The Express Tribune reported quoting officials that the US in return of its demand would provide substantial financial assistance for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan in the post-peace deal. Although the Taliban have repeatedly demanded complete withdrawal of the US forces from Afghanistan, they showed an inclination to discuss the suggestion of the US maintaining certain bases in the recent negotiations held in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The US also wants a guarantee from the Taliban that the Afghan soil would not be used to stage attacks in other nations. Talks in Abu Dhabi were brokered by Pakistan after President Donald Trump wrote a letter to Prime Minister Imran Khan, seeking Islamabad's help in reaching out to the Taliban. The latest push for seeking a political solution to the 17-year-long war has brought back Saudi Arabia and the UAE at the centre stage in the Afghan peace process. The US, through the greater involvement of these countries, wants to put pressure on the Taliban to accept its main demands. And since then, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have been trying to convince Taliban to accept the US demand in return for a major share in the Afghan government and other incentives. One senior official, who is privy to the negotiations, told The Express Tribune that Washington wants to maintain 'permanent bases' in Afghanistan. "And that's been the sticking point in the ongoing talks," added the official, who requested anonymity since he was not authorised to the media on the subject. The official said, according to the US, those bases would have no role in the Afghan security but meant for maintaining a presence for overall regional stability. The Taliban were told that the 'minimal presence of the US forces' would allow continued US financial and other support to Afghanistan for the reconstruction efforts. The other objective includes maintaining close contact with the future Afghan governments in order to ensure that the country does not become a safe haven for any terrorist organisations. Pakistan is not averse to the US' demand but wants a 'regional consensus' on it since the permanent presence of the US military in Afghanistan would certainly raise eyebrows in Russia, Iran and even China. These countries fear that the US may use the Afghan soil to advance its own strategic designs in the region. And that was the reason Pakistan wanted to evolve a regional consensus on the possible Afghan peace deal, said the official.

US demand for long-term military bases in Afghanistan sticking point in peace talks: Report

Zimbabweans reacted with outrage Sunday to a sharp rise in fuel prices announced by President Emmerson Mnangagwa in a move to improve supplies as the country struggles with its worst gasoline shortages in a decade.

After years of international isolation, Zimbabwe's economy has been in decline for more than a decade with cash shortages, high unemployment and a recent scarcity of basic staples like bread and cooking oil.

In a televised address late Saturday, Mnangagwa said prices of petrol and diesel would more than double to tackle a shortfall caused by increased demand and "rampant" illegal trading.

Mnangagwa, who took over from longtime leader Robert Mugabe and won a disputed election last July, also announced a package of measures to help state workers after strikes by doctors and teachers over poor pay.

He said from midnight Saturday, petrol prices would rise from $1.24 a litre to $3.31 (2.89 euros) and diesel from $1.36 a litre to $3.11.

But many Zimbabweans criticised the move, worrying a knock-on spike in other costs would worsen an already difficult economic situation and trigger protests and strikes. &nbsp;&nbsp;

"I am not a politician and neither am I an economist but you don't need a rocket scientist to tell you that we are now headed for the worst following the fuel price madness," said William Masuku, 32, a car dealer in Bulawayo, the country's second largest city.

Victor Nyoni, head of a local business body, said the fuel prices would push up the cost of other goods. Businesses are likely to pass on the higher transport costs to the consumer.

Government 'against the people'

The president's announcement came after fuel shortages which began in October last year worsened in recent weeks with motorists sometimes spending nights in fuel pump queues that stretch for kilometres.

The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) said the government had demonstrated a lack of empathy for the already-overburdened poor.

"The government has officially declared its anti-worker, anti-poor and anti-people ideological position," it said. "Workers' salaries have been reduced to nothing and our suffering elevated to another level."

Nelson Chamisa, who heads the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) said the situation was "descending into a humanitarian crisis".

Evan Mawarire, a cleric and activist who led the 2016 anti-government protests that shut down major cities, said: "You have cornered us and you leave us no choice. It's time to mobilise every person who truly loves Zimbabwe."

'Piecemeal solutions'

"Those in government may not admit it but they know in their hearts that they have failed," said Edmore Phiri, a tired-looking motorist who had just spent a second night in a petrol queue in Avondale suburb.

"We are not going anywhere with these piecemeal solutions that are not solutions.&nbsp;

"You can’t have a country where people sleep in cars for days for a commodity that should be readily available."

Mnangagwa, who has pledged to revive the moribund economy, blamed the shortfall on increased fuel usage "compounded by rampant illegal currency and fuel trading activities".

The government claims fuel prices were lower than in other regional countries, saying some foreigners were taking advantage and buying fuel in bulk for resale elsewhere.

Mnangagwa said the new measures were aimed at curbing a burgeoning speculative parallel market in which fuel was being sold at five times the official price.

"It's going to reduce demand for fuel because it's now a bit expensive and that will deal with speculative demand if it was there," said economist Godfrey Mugano.

Mnangagwa also warned the government would deal harshly with those "bent on taking advantage of the current fuel shortages to cause and sponsor unrest and instability in the country".

Government doctors went on a 40-day strike in early December, demanding salaries in US dollars and improved working conditions, while teachers' unions called a strike this week for better pay but their calls went largely unheeded.

Although Mnangagwa announced a package of measures "to cushion government workers", he gave few details.

Despite the price hike, diplomats and tourists would be able to access cheaper fuel at certain pumping stations.

"The intention is to create a constant supply of fuel for diplomats and tourists to manage the country's image," said Mugano.&nbsp;

"Those designated fuel stations will be able to restock easily from the sales they make in US dollars."

After years in international isolation, Zimbabwe's economy has been on a downturn for more than a decade with cash shortages, high unemployment and recently a scarcity of basic staples like bread and cooking oil.

Zimbabweans reacted with outrage Sunday to a sharp rise in fuel prices announced by President Emmerson Mnangagwa in a move to improve supplies as the country struggles with its worst gasoline shortages in a decade. After years of international isolation, Zimbabwe's economy has been in decline for more than a decade with cash shortages, high unemployment and a recent scarcity of basic staples like bread and cooking oil. In a televised address late Saturday, Mnangagwa said prices of petrol and diesel would more than double to tackle a shortfall caused by increased demand and "rampant" illegal trading. Mnangagwa, who took over from longtime leader Robert Mugabe and won a disputed election last July, also announced a package of measures to help state workers after strikes by doctors and teachers over poor pay. He said from midnight Saturday, petrol prices would rise from $1.24 a litre to $3.31 (2.89 euros) and diesel from $1.36 a litre to $3.11. But many Zimbabweans criticised the move, worrying a knock-on spike in other costs would worsen an already difficult economic situation and trigger protests and strikes. "I am not a politician and neither am I an economist but you don't need a rocket scientist to tell you that we are now headed for the worst following the fuel price madness," said William Masuku, 32, a car dealer in Bulawayo, the country's second largest city. Victor Nyoni, head of a local business body, said the fuel prices would push up the cost of other goods. Businesses are likely to pass on the higher transport costs to the consumer. Government 'against the people' The president's announcement came after fuel shortages which began in October last year worsened in recent weeks with motorists sometimes spending nights in fuel pump queues that stretch for kilometres. The Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU) said the government had demonstrated a lack of empathy for the already-overburdened poor. "The government has officially declared its anti-worker, anti-poor and anti-people ideological position," it said. "Workers' salaries have been reduced to nothing and our suffering elevated to another level." Nelson Chamisa, who heads the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) said the situation was "descending into a humanitarian crisis". Evan Mawarire, a cleric and activist who led the 2016 anti-government protests that shut down major cities, said: "You have cornered us and you leave us no choice. It's time to mobilise every person who truly loves Zimbabwe." 'Piecemeal solutions' "Those in government may not admit it but they know in their hearts that they have failed," said Edmore Phiri, a tired-looking motorist who had just spent a second night in a petrol queue in Avondale suburb. "We are not going anywhere with these piecemeal solutions that are not solutions. "You can’t have a country where people sleep in cars for days for a commodity that should be readily available." Mnangagwa, who has pledged to revive the moribund economy, blamed the shortfall on increased fuel usage "compounded by rampant illegal currency and fuel trading activities". The government claims fuel prices were lower than in other regional countries, saying some foreigners were taking advantage and buying fuel in bulk for resale elsewhere. Mnangagwa said the new measures were aimed at curbing a burgeoning speculative parallel market in which fuel was being sold at five times the official price. "It's going to reduce demand for fuel because it's now a bit expensive and that will deal with speculative demand if it was there," said economist Godfrey Mugano. Mnangagwa also warned the government would deal harshly with those "bent on taking advantage of the current fuel shortages to cause and sponsor unrest and instability in the country". Government doctors went on a 40-day strike in early December, demanding salaries in US dollars and improved working conditions, while teachers' unions called a strike this week for better pay but their calls went largely unheeded. Although Mnangagwa announced a package of measures "to cushion government workers", he gave few details. Despite the price hike, diplomats and tourists would be able to access cheaper fuel at certain pumping stations. "The intention is to create a constant supply of fuel for diplomats and tourists to manage the country's image," said Mugano. "Those designated fuel stations will be able to restock easily from the sales they make in US dollars."

Anger as President Mnangagwa raises gas prices in Zimbabwe

A senior commander of the Islamic State militant group was killed in Afghanistan in a raid, US Forces Afghanistan said on Saturday.

Khetab Emir was killed in the raid on January 10 in the eastern area of Nangarhar province, said Lt. Ubon Mendie, a spokesman for the US forces based in Afghanistan.

Emir, who was known by multiple names, facilitated high-profile attacks and supplied Islamic State fighters with weapons and materials to make explosives, Mendie said in a statement.

"His removal helps protect innocent Afghans from future Islamic State violence and weakens their presence in Nangarhar," Mendie said.

Islamic State fighters have developed a stronghold in the province on Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan and have become one of the country's most dangerous militant groups.

The hardline militant group's local affiliate, known as Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) after an old name for the region that includes Afghanistan, has been active since 2015, fighting the Taliban as well as Afghan and foreign forces.

The fight against Islamic State and other militant groups including Al Qaeda and the Taliban is at the heart of the US-led counterterrorism mission being conducted alongside the NATO-led Resolute Support operation aimed at training and advising Afghan security forces.

A senior commander of the Islamic State militant group was killed in Afghanistan in a raid, US Forces Afghanistan said on Saturday. Khetab Emir was killed in the raid on January 10 in the eastern area of Nangarhar province, said Lt.

A senior commander of the Islamic State militant group was killed in Afghanistan in a raid, US Forces Afghanistan said on Saturday. Khetab Emir was killed in the raid on January 10 in the eastern area of Nangarhar province, said Lt. Ubon Mendie, a spokesman for the US forces based in Afghanistan. Emir, who was known by multiple names, facilitated high-profile attacks and supplied Islamic State fighters with weapons and materials to make explosives, Mendie said in a statement. "His removal helps protect innocent Afghans from future Islamic State violence and weakens their presence in Nangarhar," Mendie said. Islamic State fighters have developed a stronghold in the province on Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan and have become one of the country's most dangerous militant groups. The hardline militant group's local affiliate, known as Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) after an old name for the region that includes Afghanistan, has been active since 2015, fighting the Taliban as well as Afghan and foreign forces. The fight against Islamic State and other militant groups including Al Qaeda and the Taliban is at the heart of the US-led counterterrorism mission being conducted alongside the NATO-led Resolute Support operation aimed at training and advising Afghan security forces.

Islamic State commander killed in Afghanistan: US forces

The US ambassador to Germany has warned of sanctions against firms linked to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia, the American embassy in Berlin confirmed Sunday.

A letter envoy Richard Grenell sent to several businesses "reminds that any company operating in the Russian energy export pipeline sector... is in danger under CAATSA of US sanctions," an embassy spokesman told AFP.

The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) adopted in 2017 targets Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

Close Donald Trump ally Grenell's letter "is not meant to be a threat, but a clear message of US policy," the spokesman said.

"The only thing that could be considered blackmail in this situation would be the Kremlin having leverage over future gas supplies," he said.

Construction has already begun on Nord Stream 2, set to double the capacity of an existing pipeline across the Baltic Sea.

Firms including Germany's Wintershall and Uniper, Dutch-British Shell, France's Engie and Austria's OMV are involved in the project.

Combined with the planned TurkStream pipeline across the Black Sea, Nord Stream 2 would do away with the need to transport natural gas to Europe via Ukraine — robbing the country of a factor shielding it from Russian aggression, Grenell said.

The two countries are in conflict over the eastern part of Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia in 2014.

"Firms supporting the construction of the two pipelines are actively undermining the security of Ukraine and Europe," Grenell wrote.

Washington's fears about the pipeline are shared by a number of eastern European Union countries including Poland, and the European Parliament last month passed a resolution condemning the construction.

But German Chancellor Angela Merkel, backed by France and Austria, has so far insisted it is a "purely economic project" that will ensure cheaper, more reliable gas supply.

The veteran leader — a key player in Moscow-Kiev peace talks — says Ukrainian interests will be protected as some Russian gas will still be transported via the country once Nord Stream 2 is online.

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also weighed in on the transatlantic row last week, saying "European energy policy should be decided in Europe, not in the United States." 
&nbsp;

A letter envoy Richard Grenell sent to several businesses 'reminds that any company operating in the Russian energy export pipeline sector... is in danger under CAATSA of US sanctions,' an embassy spokesman said.

The US ambassador to Germany has warned of sanctions against firms linked to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia, the American embassy in Berlin confirmed Sunday. A letter envoy Richard Grenell sent to several businesses "reminds that any company operating in the Russian energy export pipeline sector... is in danger under CAATSA of US sanctions," an embassy spokesman told AFP. The Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) adopted in 2017 targets Iran, Russia, and North Korea. Close Donald Trump ally Grenell's letter "is not meant to be a threat, but a clear message of US policy," the spokesman said. "The only thing that could be considered blackmail in this situation would be the Kremlin having leverage over future gas supplies," he said. Construction has already begun on Nord Stream 2, set to double the capacity of an existing pipeline across the Baltic Sea. Firms including Germany's Wintershall and Uniper, Dutch-British Shell, France's Engie and Austria's OMV are involved in the project. Combined with the planned TurkStream pipeline across the Black Sea, Nord Stream 2 would do away with the need to transport natural gas to Europe via Ukraine — robbing the country of a factor shielding it from Russian aggression, Grenell said. The two countries are in conflict over the eastern part of Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia in 2014. "Firms supporting the construction of the two pipelines are actively undermining the security of Ukraine and Europe," Grenell wrote. Washington's fears about the pipeline are shared by a number of eastern European Union countries including Poland, and the European Parliament last month passed a resolution condemning the construction. But German Chancellor Angela Merkel, backed by France and Austria, has so far insisted it is a "purely economic project" that will ensure cheaper, more reliable gas supply. The veteran leader — a key player in Moscow-Kiev peace talks — says Ukrainian interests will be protected as some Russian gas will still be transported via the country once Nord Stream 2 is online. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas also weighed in on the transatlantic row last week, saying "European energy policy should be decided in Europe, not in the United States."

US threatens sanctions over Russia-Germany gas pipeline

us-1

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

us 1