Amid reports of United States beginning to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-led-coalition-withdrawing-equipment-from-syria-189689">pullout&nbsp;from Syria</a>, the focus now shifts to Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the US president will do the same in Afghanistan -- withdraw troops from America's longest war.&nbsp;

Just like Syria, while US lawmakers and policymakers remain divided over the pullout move with respect to Afghanistan, the man who shaped the post-Taliban Afghanistan believes this would be a good decision.

In an exclusive interview with WION, Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's former president talked about his views on Trump's policy on Afghanistan, China's growing presence around the region and India's role as one of Afghanistan's strategic allies.&nbsp;

Karzai said that America will never leave Afghanistan owing to its strategic placement on the world map.&nbsp;

Watch the full interview here:

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false"><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HatUkYUot18" width="560"></iframe></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

"We have a very strategic location, we have all the other superpowers in our neighbourhood -- Russia is there, China is there, India is there and we have regional powers surrounding us as well, therefore our location is surely to interest the United States. Truly, that is one of the reasons why the US is there. The US will stay in Afghanistan and would like to stay in Afghanistan," former Afghan president said.&nbsp;

He agreed that the Americans have turned his country into a war lab. As per a UNICEF report, the violence in Afghanistan maimed or killed some 5,000 children within the first three quarters of 2018. Many have been wounded, thousands lost their lives.

"This is one of the worst things they could have done to Afghanistan and they did it; that is the reason why they lost the support of the Afghan people. This is something that I have condemned very strongly and I would do it again and again. I would raise my condemnation against that atrocity again," Karzai told WION.&nbsp;

Karzai identified India as a key ally and stated that it can play a greater role in Afghanistan.&nbsp;India's work has been consistent in Afghanistan. Over the years, India has built more than four thousand kilometres of roads, dams and hydropower plants. But Karzai thinks that India has the ability to do more.&nbsp;

"India has the ability, the stature and the presence in Afghanistan, in the minds and the hearts of the people, to be able to do things independently. India is the most strategic of Afghanistan's allies in terms of the bilateral relations between the two countries, in terms of the help that India has given to Afghanistan. India has and will continue to play a role in Afghanistan," ex-Afghan president said.&nbsp;

Beijing wants to extend the China-Pakistan Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan. Karzai says Kabul welcomes provided it brings a 'win-win' situation to both China and Afghanistan.&nbsp;

"We all have political ambitions, Afghanistan has political ambitions, India has. Economic power brings you the power to reach political ambitions. It is legitimate, there is nothing wrong in that as long as you do it not at the cost of others; as long as you do it in a win-win&nbsp;situation," he noted.&nbsp;

Karzai further added that he doesn't think US president Donald Trump intended to <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-mocks-indian-pm-for-library-in-afghanistan-187955">mock India on the library incident</a>.&nbsp;

"I don't think his intention was to mock India. I think it did not occur to him at that time that it was not a library but a parliament house. People make mistakes and say things," he said.&nbsp;

Amid reports of United States beginning to pullout from Syria, the focus now shifts to Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the US president will do the same in Afghanistan -- withdraw troops from America's longest war.

Amid reports of United States beginning to pullout from Syria, the focus now shifts to Afghanistan. Reports suggest that the US president will do the same in Afghanistan -- withdraw troops from America's longest war. Just like Syria, while US lawmakers and policymakers remain divided over the pullout move with respect to Afghanistan, the man who shaped the post-Taliban Afghanistan believes this would be a good decision. In an exclusive interview with WION, Hamid Karzai, Afghanistan's former president talked about his views on Trump's policy on Afghanistan, China's growing presence around the region and India's role as one of Afghanistan's strategic allies. Karzai said that America will never leave Afghanistan owing to its strategic placement on the world map. Watch the full interview here: × "We have a very strategic location, we have all the other superpowers in our neighbourhood -- Russia is there, China is there, India is there and we have regional powers surrounding us as well, therefore our location is surely to interest the United States. Truly, that is one of the reasons why the US is there. The US will stay in Afghanistan and would like to stay in Afghanistan," former Afghan president said. He agreed that the Americans have turned his country into a war lab. As per a UNICEF report, the violence in Afghanistan maimed or killed some 5,000 children within the first three quarters of 2018. Many have been wounded, thousands lost their lives. "This is one of the worst things they could have done to Afghanistan and they did it; that is the reason why they lost the support of the Afghan people. This is something that I have condemned very strongly and I would do it again and again. I would raise my condemnation against that atrocity again," Karzai told WION. Karzai identified India as a key ally and stated that it can play a greater role in Afghanistan. India's work has been consistent in Afghanistan. Over the years, India has built more than four thousand kilometres of roads, dams and hydropower plants. But Karzai thinks that India has the ability to do more. "India has the ability, the stature and the presence in Afghanistan, in the minds and the hearts of the people, to be able to do things independently. India is the most strategic of Afghanistan's allies in terms of the bilateral relations between the two countries, in terms of the help that India has given to Afghanistan. India has and will continue to play a role in Afghanistan," ex-Afghan president said. Beijing wants to extend the China-Pakistan Corridor (CPEC) to Afghanistan. Karzai says Kabul welcomes provided it brings a 'win-win' situation to both China and Afghanistan. "We all have political ambitions, Afghanistan has political ambitions, India has. Economic power brings you the power to reach political ambitions. It is legitimate, there is nothing wrong in that as long as you do it not at the cost of others; as long as you do it in a win-win situation," he noted. Karzai further added that he doesn't think US president Donald Trump intended to mock India on the library incident. "I don't think his intention was to mock India. I think it did not occur to him at that time that it was not a library but a parliament house. People make mistakes and say things," he said.

Former Afghan President Hamid Karzai tells WION why he thinks US would like to stay in Afghanistan

The new Indian high commissioner to the United States, Harsh Vardhan Shringla, has presented his credentials to US President Donald Trump in a ceremony at the White House. Shringla conveyed warm greetings from President Kovind and Prime Minister Modi to Trump and First Lady Melania.&nbsp;

"US President fondly recalled his friendship with Prime Minister Modi and his recent telephone conversation with the Prime Minister. He highlighted <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/opinion-explaining-trumps-blow-hot-blow-cold-india-policy-165229">the broad range of strategic interests and fundamental democratic values shared between our two countries</a>," a statement from the Indian high commission in the US said.&nbsp;

"The United States is the partner of choice in India’s remarkable journey of transformation. Our investment relationship has become increasingly reciprocal, with growing American investments in India being matched by rapid growth in Indian investments in the United States. These have helped fulfil our common objective of creating more jobs, promoting prosperity and economic growth in our respective countries," Shringla said in his written remarks to Trump.&nbsp;

Shringla said India has been a "positive and stabilising partner of the United States in South Asia and Indo Pacific region" and our approach and action in the region have largely complemented each other’s. On Afghanistan he said: "India has scaled up its economic development assistance to Afghanistan", adding, "India will always strive to remain the net security provider and the first responder in the Indian Ocean Region, working in concert with our most important partners including the United States."

India and the US held their inaugural 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue in September 2018 and Indian PM Narendra Modi, US President Donald Trump and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe had a trilateral JAI (Japan, America, India) meeting in December 2018 on the sidelines of G20 Summit.

Shringla, who was before this India's high commissioner to Bangladesh, said "India and the United States are the world’s largest and the oldest democracies". He added that "our relationship has been nurtured by shared belief in democratic values, individual freedom and rule of law, and increasingly, by strong convergences of interest on key regional and global issues — making ours a truly global partnership."

 
Pakistani ambassador also presents credientials to Trump

Pakistan’s new ambassador to the United States of America, Dr Asad Majeed Khan, also presented his credentials to Donald Trump.&nbsp;

According to a release by the Pakistani embassy in the United States, "Ambassador Khan conveyed the greetings of Pakistan’s leadership to President Trump who reciprocated with similar positive sentiments for Prime Minister Imran Khan." The release added that "President Trump has said that he wants to explore opportunities for the two countries to work closely together and to renew their partnership."

Later, in a message to the Pakistani American community, Asad said, "Our diaspora in the United States is a valuable asset that can play a vital role in realising Prime Minister Imran Khan's vision of building a stronger and better Pakistan"

The US-Pakistan relationship has seen a downward trend in the recent past due to what America says is Islamabad's continued support to terrorism which has created instability in the region.

The new Indian high commissioner to the United States, Harsh Vardhan Shringla, has presented his credentials to US President Donald Trump in a ceremony at the White House.

The new Indian high commissioner to the United States, Harsh Vardhan Shringla, has presented his credentials to US President Donald Trump in a ceremony at the White House. Shringla conveyed warm greetings from President Kovind and Prime Minister Modi to Trump and First Lady Melania. "US President fondly recalled his friendship with Prime Minister Modi and his recent telephone conversation with the Prime Minister. He highlighted the broad range of strategic interests and fundamental democratic values shared between our two countries," a statement from the Indian high commission in the US said. "The United States is the partner of choice in India’s remarkable journey of transformation. Our investment relationship has become increasingly reciprocal, with growing American investments in India being matched by rapid growth in Indian investments in the United States. These have helped fulfil our common objective of creating more jobs, promoting prosperity and economic growth in our respective countries," Shringla said in his written remarks to Trump. Shringla said India has been a "positive and stabilising partner of the United States in South Asia and Indo Pacific region" and our approach and action in the region have largely complemented each other’s. On Afghanistan he said: "India has scaled up its economic development assistance to Afghanistan", adding, "India will always strive to remain the net security provider and the first responder in the Indian Ocean Region, working in concert with our most important partners including the United States." India and the US held their inaugural 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue in September 2018 and Indian PM Narendra Modi, US President Donald Trump and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe had a trilateral JAI (Japan, America, India) meeting in December 2018 on the sidelines of G20 Summit. Shringla, who was before this India's high commissioner to Bangladesh, said "India and the United States are the world’s largest and the oldest democracies". He added that "our relationship has been nurtured by shared belief in democratic values, individual freedom and rule of law, and increasingly, by strong convergences of interest on key regional and global issues — making ours a truly global partnership." Pakistani ambassador also presents credientials to Trump Pakistan’s new ambassador to the United States of America, Dr Asad Majeed Khan, also presented his credentials to Donald Trump. According to a release by the Pakistani embassy in the United States, "Ambassador Khan conveyed the greetings of Pakistan’s leadership to President Trump who reciprocated with similar positive sentiments for Prime Minister Imran Khan." The release added that "President Trump has said that he wants to explore opportunities for the two countries to work closely together and to renew their partnership." Later, in a message to the Pakistani American community, Asad said, "Our diaspora in the United States is a valuable asset that can play a vital role in realising Prime Minister Imran Khan's vision of building a stronger and better Pakistan" The US-Pakistan relationship has seen a downward trend in the recent past due to what America says is Islamabad's continued support to terrorism which has created instability in the region.

India, US share 'strategic interests', 'fundamental democratic values': Trump to Indian high commissioner

The United States and India in Delhi on Friday held a 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue to discuss over the diplomatic stance on the Indo-Pacific region as well as stabilizing peace in Afghanistan.

According to a press statement released by the US Embassy, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells and Assistant Secretary of Defense Randall Schriver met with Indian Joint Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs Gourangalal Das and Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Defence Shambhu Kumaran for an inter-sessional 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue between US and India.

"The two sides discussed our strong strategic partnership and ways to advance our cooperation on critical diplomatic and security priorities, including our shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region and a stable and prosperous Afghanistan," the statement read.

The first round of the meeting on the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue was held in New Delhi in September 2018 and focussed on the need for upholding peaceful resolution of territorial maritime disputes, promoting market-based economics, supporting good governance, fundamental rights, and liberties, and preventing external economic coercion.

The Dialogue was held between US Secretary of State Micheal Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman.

The 2+2 Dialogue between India and the US was launched as a reflection of the shared commitment by Prime Minister Modi and US President Donald Trump to provide a positive, forward-looking vision for the India-US strategic partnership and to promote synergy in their diplomatic and security efforts, the US Embassy said in its statement.&nbsp;

The United States and India in Delhi on Friday held a 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue to discuss over the diplomatic stance on the Indo-Pacific region as well as stabilizing peace in Afghanistan.

The United States and India in Delhi on Friday held a 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue to discuss over the diplomatic stance on the Indo-Pacific region as well as stabilizing peace in Afghanistan. According to a press statement released by the US Embassy, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells and Assistant Secretary of Defense Randall Schriver met with Indian Joint Secretary of the Ministry of External Affairs Gourangalal Das and Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Defence Shambhu Kumaran for an inter-sessional 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue between US and India. "The two sides discussed our strong strategic partnership and ways to advance our cooperation on critical diplomatic and security priorities, including our shared vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific region and a stable and prosperous Afghanistan," the statement read. The first round of the meeting on the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue was held in New Delhi in September 2018 and focussed on the need for upholding peaceful resolution of territorial maritime disputes, promoting market-based economics, supporting good governance, fundamental rights, and liberties, and preventing external economic coercion. The Dialogue was held between US Secretary of State Micheal Pompeo, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Defence Minister Nirmala Sitharaman. The 2+2 Dialogue between India and the US was launched as a reflection of the shared commitment by Prime Minister Modi and US President Donald Trump to provide a positive, forward-looking vision for the India-US strategic partnership and to promote synergy in their diplomatic and security efforts, the US Embassy said in its statement.

2+2 meeting: India, US discuss Indo-Pacific, Afghanistan peace reconciliation

Mexican authorities said Thursday they had found 21 bodies on the US-Mexican border after a drug-gang shootout in a town near where <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-will-skip-davos-meeting-if-us-government-shutdown-continues-189462">President Donald Trump</a>&nbsp;visited&nbsp;later in the day.

The bodies -- some of them badly burned -- were found Wednesday in the border town of Miguel Aleman, about 170 miles (270 kilometres) from McAllen, Texas, the city Trump was due to visit as he continues his push to build his long-sought border wall.

"We have reports there was a shootout yesterday (Wednesday) between two criminal groups that ended with 21 people dead," the security spokesman for the state of Tamaulipas, Luis Alberto Rodriguez, told Mexican TV news channel Milenio.

"Some of them were burned. Seven vehicles were also located... It was a confrontation between two rival groups that are involved in a turf war over drug-trafficking routes."

The Mexican army found the bodies in a remote area following a tip-off, he said.

Tamaulipas has become one of the most violent states in Mexico as rival drug cartels fight each other for its strategic position on the US border.

Mexico has been racked by drug-related violence in recent years -- something Trump has alluded to in arguing his wall is needed to keep out violent criminals and narcotics.

McAllen, where he was meeting with border patrol agents, sits across from Tamaulipas. The US State Department has issued its most severe travel warning for the state because of violent crime, classifying it alongside countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

More than 200,000 people have been murdered in Mexico since the government deployed the army to fight the country's powerful drug cartels in 2006, including a record 28,711 in 2017.

Preliminary figures indicate the homicide record was broken again in 2018.

Mexican authorities said Thursday they had found 21 bodies on the US-Mexican border after a drug-gang shootout in a town near where President Donald Trump visited later in the day.

Mexican authorities said Thursday they had found 21 bodies on the US-Mexican border after a drug-gang shootout in a town near where President Donald Trump visited later in the day. The bodies -- some of them badly burned -- were found Wednesday in the border town of Miguel Aleman, about 170 miles (270 kilometres) from McAllen, Texas, the city Trump was due to visit as he continues his push to build his long-sought border wall. "We have reports there was a shootout yesterday (Wednesday) between two criminal groups that ended with 21 people dead," the security spokesman for the state of Tamaulipas, Luis Alberto Rodriguez, told Mexican TV news channel Milenio. "Some of them were burned. Seven vehicles were also located... It was a confrontation between two rival groups that are involved in a turf war over drug-trafficking routes." The Mexican army found the bodies in a remote area following a tip-off, he said. Tamaulipas has become one of the most violent states in Mexico as rival drug cartels fight each other for its strategic position on the US border. Mexico has been racked by drug-related violence in recent years -- something Trump has alluded to in arguing his wall is needed to keep out violent criminals and narcotics. McAllen, where he was meeting with border patrol agents, sits across from Tamaulipas. The US State Department has issued its most severe travel warning for the state because of violent crime, classifying it alongside countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 200,000 people have been murdered in Mexico since the government deployed the army to fight the country's powerful drug cartels in 2006, including a record 28,711 in 2017. Preliminary figures indicate the homicide record was broken again in 2018.

21 bodies found after drug gang shootout on US-Mexico border as Trump visits

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning, January 11th 2019

President Donald Trump warned of murderers and gangsters spreading across the country during a <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-heads-to-us-mexico-border-to-push-wall-plan-189442">visit to the US-Mexican border </a>Thursday to push his demand for a multi-billion dollar wall.

Trump used the backdrop of the Rio Grande border river at McAllen, Texas, to ramp up what has already turned into a hugely messy political fight with Democratic opponents, resulting in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-will-skip-davos-meeting-if-us-government-shutdown-continues-189462">shutdown of swaths of the US government</a>.

With typical rhetorical flourishes, Trump said that only building more walls along the Mexican border could stop an onslaught of violent crime.

"They just go where there's no security and you don't even know the difference between Mexico and the United States," he told a meeting of border patrol officers. "They have women tied up, they have tape over their mouths, electrical tape."

"If we had a barrier of any kind, a powerful barrier, whether its steel or concrete..., we would stop it cold," Trump said.

Opposition Democrats are refusing to approve $5.7 billion in wall funding, saying that overwhelming numbers of illegal immigrants do not commit serious crimes and that Trump is mainly promoting the project to satisfy his right-wing base.

Trump said that illegal immigrant crime stretched right up into the north of the country. However, widely respected studies show that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in the United States.

Government shutdown goes on

Trump's main way of pressuring Congress has been to refuse to sign off on a host of unrelated, normally uncontroversial, government spending until he gets his wall funded.

That has resulted in a partial government shutdown now in its 20th day, with hundreds of thousands of federal employees -- including air traffic controllers, the FBI and Coast Guard -- going without pay.

Signalling he's ready to maintain the game of brinksmanship, Trump tweeted on arrival in Texas that he will scrap a visit to the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which runs from January 21-25.

Trump had been expected to make a brief appearance at the influential get-together, attended by many world leaders, but said that opposition Democratic "intransigence" required him to stay home.

National emergency?

Trump said he was ready to expand the debate over funding for a border wall to some of the other issues surrounding the over-burdened US immigration system -- a suggestion that could open the door to working with Democrats.

"I would like to do a much broader form of immigration," he said in Texas.

But throughout the day, the frustrated president also repeated his threat to declare a national emergency and give himself authority to go around Congress if he can't get approval for the wall.

"If I have to, I will. I have no doubt about it."

Analysts say the declaration would likely be challenged in court as a case of presidential overreach, in which case the wall still could face being blocked.

However, it would still give Trump political cover with his base by showing he'd done what he could. At that point, Trump could end the partial government shutdown and declare a win.

White House walkout

Trump, who revels in telling stories about his negotiating skills as a New York real estate magnate, has not managed to get the Democrats to budge on his demand for the $5.7 billion.

On Wednesday, he invited Democratic leaders to the White House but walked out of the meeting.

"A total waste of time," Trump tweeted. "I said bye-bye, nothing else works!"

Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, told journalists Trump "sort of slammed the table," then "got up and walked out."

"Again, we saw a temper tantrum because he couldn't get his way," Schumer said. 
Trump disputed that Thursday, saying "I didn't pound the table. That is a lie."

"I don't have temper tantrums," he said.

21 bodies found in Mexico

Few on either side of the debate dispute that the border poses a significant challenge, not least because of ruthless Mexican gangs bringing drugs to the huge US market.

Illustrating the danger, Mexican authorities said Thursday they had found 21 bodies after a gang shootout in Miguel Aleman, a town about 170 miles (270 kilometres) across the border from McAllen, Texas.

However, opponents to Trump say he is hyping the danger posed to Americans -- and the help that more walls would bring -- to stir xenophobia for his own political gains.

Yanira de Hernandez, a 52-year-old Salvadoran migrant who hopes to get to US soil from Mexico, said she simply dreams of a better life in a country built on immigration.

"Everyone has the right to emigrate, to seek a new future. We're not going to commit any crimes. We hope he (Trump) understands that and that God helps him to change, because his ancestors were migrants too," she said in the Mexican border city of Tijuana.

President Donald Trump warned of murderers and gangsters spreading across the country during a visit to the US-Mexican border Thursday to push his demand for a multi-billion dollar wall.

President Donald Trump warned of murderers and gangsters spreading across the country during a visit to the US-Mexican border Thursday to push his demand for a multi-billion dollar wall. Trump used the backdrop of the Rio Grande border river at McAllen, Texas, to ramp up what has already turned into a hugely messy political fight with Democratic opponents, resulting in the shutdown of swaths of the US government. With typical rhetorical flourishes, Trump said that only building more walls along the Mexican border could stop an onslaught of violent crime. "They just go where there's no security and you don't even know the difference between Mexico and the United States," he told a meeting of border patrol officers. "They have women tied up, they have tape over their mouths, electrical tape." "If we had a barrier of any kind, a powerful barrier, whether its steel or concrete..., we would stop it cold," Trump said. Opposition Democrats are refusing to approve $5.7 billion in wall funding, saying that overwhelming numbers of illegal immigrants do not commit serious crimes and that Trump is mainly promoting the project to satisfy his right-wing base. Trump said that illegal immigrant crime stretched right up into the north of the country. However, widely respected studies show that illegal immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in the United States. Government shutdown goes on Trump's main way of pressuring Congress has been to refuse to sign off on a host of unrelated, normally uncontroversial, government spending until he gets his wall funded. That has resulted in a partial government shutdown now in its 20th day, with hundreds of thousands of federal employees -- including air traffic controllers, the FBI and Coast Guard -- going without pay. Signalling he's ready to maintain the game of brinksmanship, Trump tweeted on arrival in Texas that he will scrap a visit to the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which runs from January 21-25. Trump had been expected to make a brief appearance at the influential get-together, attended by many world leaders, but said that opposition Democratic "intransigence" required him to stay home. National emergency? Trump said he was ready to expand the debate over funding for a border wall to some of the other issues surrounding the over-burdened US immigration system -- a suggestion that could open the door to working with Democrats. "I would like to do a much broader form of immigration," he said in Texas. But throughout the day, the frustrated president also repeated his threat to declare a national emergency and give himself authority to go around Congress if he can't get approval for the wall. "If I have to, I will. I have no doubt about it." Analysts say the declaration would likely be challenged in court as a case of presidential overreach, in which case the wall still could face being blocked. However, it would still give Trump political cover with his base by showing he'd done what he could. At that point, Trump could end the partial government shutdown and declare a win. White House walkout Trump, who revels in telling stories about his negotiating skills as a New York real estate magnate, has not managed to get the Democrats to budge on his demand for the $5.7 billion. On Wednesday, he invited Democratic leaders to the White House but walked out of the meeting. "A total waste of time," Trump tweeted. "I said bye-bye, nothing else works!" Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, told journalists Trump "sort of slammed the table," then "got up and walked out." "Again, we saw a temper tantrum because he couldn't get his way," Schumer said. Trump disputed that Thursday, saying "I didn't pound the table. That is a lie." "I don't have temper tantrums," he said. 21 bodies found in Mexico Few on either side of the debate dispute that the border poses a significant challenge, not least because of ruthless Mexican gangs bringing drugs to the huge US market. Illustrating the danger, Mexican authorities said Thursday they had found 21 bodies after a gang shootout in Miguel Aleman, a town about 170 miles (270 kilometres) across the border from McAllen, Texas. However, opponents to Trump say he is hyping the danger posed to Americans -- and the help that more walls would bring -- to stir xenophobia for his own political gains. Yanira de Hernandez, a 52-year-old Salvadoran migrant who hopes to get to US soil from Mexico, said she simply dreams of a better life in a country built on immigration. "Everyone has the right to emigrate, to seek a new future. We're not going to commit any crimes. We hope he (Trump) understands that and that God helps him to change, because his ancestors were migrants too," she said in the Mexican border city of Tijuana.

Trump pushes wall plan in US-Mexico border visit

The United States on Thursday refused to recognize <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/venezuelas-president-maduro-starts-new-term-shrugs-off-criticism-189465">Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro</a>'s legitimacy as he started a controversial new term and urged rank-and-file government employees to empower the opposition.

"The US will not recognize the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/president-maduro-to-start-new-term-as-venezuela-isolation-grows-189445">Maduro </a>dictatorship's illegitimate inauguration," national security advisor John Bolton tweeted.

"We will continue to increase pressure on the corrupt regime, support the democratic National Assembly, and call for democracy and freedom in Venezuela," he wrote.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
The US will not recognize the Maduro dictatorship’s illegitimate inauguration. We will continue to increase pressure on the corrupt regime, support the democratic National Assembly, and call for democracy and freedom in Venezuela.
— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) <a href="https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1083381197777063937?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Venezuelans to work not with Maduro but with the National Assembly, which is controlled by the opposition but has been sidelined by a new Constituent Assembly created by Maduro's government.

"We urge those who support this regime, from everyday employees getting by on food subsidies to the Venezuelan security forces sworn to support the constitution, to stop enabling repression and corruption and to work with the National Assembly and its duly elected leader, Juan Guaido, in accordance with your constitution on a peaceful return to democracy," Pompeo said in a statement.

"The Venezuelan people and the international community will remember and judge your actions. Now is the time to convince the Maduro dictatorship that the moment has arrived for democracy to return to Venezuela," he said.

"The Secretary reinforced the US commitment to the National Assembly, the only legitimate and last democratically elected institution in Venezuela, and the re-establishment of democracy in Venezuela," spokesperson Robert Palladino added.

Maduro was sworn in for a second six-year term under a cloud of skyrocketing inflation, shortages of basic food and medicine and an exodus of Venezuelans to neighbouring countries, following an election that was boycotted by the opposition.

The Lima Group -- a bloc of 14 Latin American powers and Canada -- urged Maduro to renounce his term and hand over power to parliament, although Mexico's new leftist government stayed neutral.

The European Union has also said that last year's election was marred by fraud and has extended sanctions.

The United States has for years put pressure on Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez, with President Donald Trump publicly musing about military intervention.

On Tuesday, the United States imposed its latest sanctions as it targeted seven Venezuelans allegedly involved in black-market currency exchanges that generated billions of dollars in illicit profits.

 
&nbsp;

The United States on Thursday refused to recognize Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's legitimacy as he started a controversial new term and urged rank-and-file government employees to empower the opposition.

The United States on Thursday refused to recognize Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's legitimacy as he started a controversial new term and urged rank-and-file government employees to empower the opposition. "The US will not recognize the Maduro dictatorship's illegitimate inauguration," national security advisor John Bolton tweeted. "We will continue to increase pressure on the corrupt regime, support the democratic National Assembly, and call for democracy and freedom in Venezuela," he wrote. The US will not recognize the Maduro dictatorship’s illegitimate inauguration. We will continue to increase pressure on the corrupt regime, support the democratic National Assembly, and call for democracy and freedom in Venezuela. — John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) January 10, 2019 × Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called on Venezuelans to work not with Maduro but with the National Assembly, which is controlled by the opposition but has been sidelined by a new Constituent Assembly created by Maduro's government. "We urge those who support this regime, from everyday employees getting by on food subsidies to the Venezuelan security forces sworn to support the constitution, to stop enabling repression and corruption and to work with the National Assembly and its duly elected leader, Juan Guaido, in accordance with your constitution on a peaceful return to democracy," Pompeo said in a statement. "The Venezuelan people and the international community will remember and judge your actions. Now is the time to convince the Maduro dictatorship that the moment has arrived for democracy to return to Venezuela," he said. "The Secretary reinforced the US commitment to the National Assembly, the only legitimate and last democratically elected institution in Venezuela, and the re-establishment of democracy in Venezuela," spokesperson Robert Palladino added. Maduro was sworn in for a second six-year term under a cloud of skyrocketing inflation, shortages of basic food and medicine and an exodus of Venezuelans to neighbouring countries, following an election that was boycotted by the opposition. The Lima Group -- a bloc of 14 Latin American powers and Canada -- urged Maduro to renounce his term and hand over power to parliament, although Mexico's new leftist government stayed neutral. The European Union has also said that last year's election was marred by fraud and has extended sanctions. The United States has for years put pressure on Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez, with President Donald Trump publicly musing about military intervention. On Tuesday, the United States imposed its latest sanctions as it targeted seven Venezuelans allegedly involved in black-market currency exchanges that generated billions of dollars in illicit profits.

US vows to pressure Venezuela's 'illegitimate' President Maduro

By John A Tures

One of the biggest myths about government shutdowns is that presidents usually win.

This may explain why President Donald Trump threatened to continue the shutdown for months, even years. However, a poll conducted in the first week of January shows that 51 per cent of adults believe Trump is to blame for the shutdown.

I’m a scholar of political science and often research presidential politics. I did an analysis of Gallup data, a group that does public opinion polling, from its Presidential Job Approval Center.

There have been 18 shutdowns since 1977. I found that in the nine longest shutdowns during that time, presidents lose an average of 3 percentage points of public support or approval during a government shutdown of four or more days.

Most presidents lose shutdowns

In only two of the nine cases that I looked at, did a chief executive boost his numbers. Jimmy Carter inched up a percentage point or two in 1977 and 1978 during the government shutdowns that took place during his presidency.

In the seven other cases, the shutdown led to declines in public approval of the president. And in the majority of cases, the president’s party lost the next presidential election.

The clearest example is President George H W Bush. In 1990, this GOP president was riding a 66 per cent approval rating after the successful Operation Desert Shield (when we sent US troops to Saudi Arabia to deter an attack by Iraq) and a long period of economic growth.

But Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress battled over the budget deficit, triggering a government shutdown from October 5 to 9. Public approval for Bush fell 10 percentage points.

Some of this may have been the result of Bush approving tax increases to close the budget deficit, which broke one of his campaign pledges of “no new taxes.”

But images of closed federal facilities didn’t help, giving voters the appearance of Bush presiding over gridlock. This hurt him in the 1992 election when voters agreed with Democrats that Bush’s policies led to legislative deadlock.

Pundits often cite the case of Democratic President Bill Clinton as an exception. They claim he “won” the longest shutdown in US history. This shutdown took place from December 5, 1995, to January 6, 1996, or 21 full days.

GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich wanted to reduce the budget deficit, while Clinton opposed deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare.

It’s true that Clinton went on to defeat GOP Sen. Robert Dole – one of his rivals during the shutdown – in the 1996 election. But Gallup polling shows that Clinton’s approval ratings from mid-November to early January had fallen 11 percentage points to 42 per cent.

In other circumstances, this could have cost Clinton another term. But in this case, he faced no opposition in his Democratic primary, while Dole lost precious time and money battling several rivals for the 1996 GOP nomination. I believe Clinton won in spite of the shutdown, not because of it.

Why presidents lose

People see the president as the most powerful actor in government.

“Presidents have more authority than anyone else in the United States government, and control more money and military forces than any other person in the world,” write Hoover Institution scholars Paul T Hill and Ashley E Jochim in their book “The Power of Persuasion.”

Hill and Jochim note that despite all of that power, presidents much work with Congress to get tasks accomplished. Because of their perceived power, presidents are often expected to accomplish more than their constitutional authority allows them to get done, notes Richard Neustadt in his book “Presidential Power.”

When the government is closed, history shows the president will be held accountable.

(John A Tures is Professor of Political Science, Lagrange College)

(This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-trump-will-likely-lose-the-government-shutdown-109491">The Conversation</a>. Read the original article)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

By John A Tures One of the biggest myths about government shutdowns is that presidents usually win. This may explain why President Donald Trump threatened to continue the shutdown for months, even years.

By John A Tures One of the biggest myths about government shutdowns is that presidents usually win. This may explain why President Donald Trump threatened to continue the shutdown for months, even years. However, a poll conducted in the first week of January shows that 51 per cent of adults believe Trump is to blame for the shutdown. I’m a scholar of political science and often research presidential politics. I did an analysis of Gallup data, a group that does public opinion polling, from its Presidential Job Approval Center. There have been 18 shutdowns since 1977. I found that in the nine longest shutdowns during that time, presidents lose an average of 3 percentage points of public support or approval during a government shutdown of four or more days. Most presidents lose shutdowns In only two of the nine cases that I looked at, did a chief executive boost his numbers. Jimmy Carter inched up a percentage point or two in 1977 and 1978 during the government shutdowns that took place during his presidency. In the seven other cases, the shutdown led to declines in public approval of the president. And in the majority of cases, the president’s party lost the next presidential election. The clearest example is President George H W Bush. In 1990, this GOP president was riding a 66 per cent approval rating after the successful Operation Desert Shield (when we sent US troops to Saudi Arabia to deter an attack by Iraq) and a long period of economic growth. But Bush and the Democratic-controlled Congress battled over the budget deficit, triggering a government shutdown from October 5 to 9. Public approval for Bush fell 10 percentage points. Some of this may have been the result of Bush approving tax increases to close the budget deficit, which broke one of his campaign pledges of “no new taxes.” But images of closed federal facilities didn’t help, giving voters the appearance of Bush presiding over gridlock. This hurt him in the 1992 election when voters agreed with Democrats that Bush’s policies led to legislative deadlock. Pundits often cite the case of Democratic President Bill Clinton as an exception. They claim he “won” the longest shutdown in US history. This shutdown took place from December 5, 1995, to January 6, 1996, or 21 full days. GOP House Speaker Newt Gingrich wanted to reduce the budget deficit, while Clinton opposed deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare. It’s true that Clinton went on to defeat GOP Sen. Robert Dole – one of his rivals during the shutdown – in the 1996 election. But Gallup polling shows that Clinton’s approval ratings from mid-November to early January had fallen 11 percentage points to 42 per cent. In other circumstances, this could have cost Clinton another term. But in this case, he faced no opposition in his Democratic primary, while Dole lost precious time and money battling several rivals for the 1996 GOP nomination. I believe Clinton won in spite of the shutdown, not because of it. Why presidents lose People see the president as the most powerful actor in government. “Presidents have more authority than anyone else in the United States government, and control more money and military forces than any other person in the world,” write Hoover Institution scholars Paul T Hill and Ashley E Jochim in their book “The Power of Persuasion.” Hill and Jochim note that despite all of that power, presidents much work with Congress to get tasks accomplished. Because of their perceived power, presidents are often expected to accomplish more than their constitutional authority allows them to get done, notes Richard Neustadt in his book “Presidential Power.” When the government is closed, history shows the president will be held accountable. (John A Tures is Professor of Political Science, Lagrange College) (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)

Why Donald Trump will likely lose the government shutdown

In case India wants to use Iran's channels of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-call-off-peace-talks-with-us-officials-189044">communication with the Taliban</a>, then Tehran will be open to such a proposition, Iranian diplomatic sources have said, at a time when there was a renewed focus on peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan.

They said though Iran's influence over the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-uae-to-closely-work-on-afghanistan-peace-reconciliation-188783">Taliban was not comparable to that of Pakistan's</a>, still, it would try to use the clout over the terror outfit for bringing peace and stability in the war-torn country.

Major powers like the US and Russia have been reaching out to the&nbsp;Taliban as part of efforts to push the stalled Afghan peace process.&nbsp;

The issue of peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan is likely to figure during talks between External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and her Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif on Wednesday.

In a significant move, India had sent two former diplomats in "non-official" capacity to a conference on the Afghan peace process in Moscow in November which was attended by a high-level Taliban delegation.&nbsp;

The conference organised by Russia was attended by representatives of Afghanistan as well as from several other countries including the US, Pakistan, and China.&nbsp;

The Iranian sources said Tehran was ready to use its influence over Taliban on behalf of the Afghan government. If India wants Tehran's channels of communication with the militant outfit, we are always open to do that, they said.

India has been maintaining a policy of not engaging with Taliban and pressing for an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace initiative to bring peace and stability in the war-ravaged country.

The Iranian sources said a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan will be security challenge to Iran, India, but it will be an existential threat to Pakistan.

Iran is learned to have conveyed its view to Islamabad about how Taliban can be a real threat to its existence.&nbsp;

The sources said Tehran believes that there is a need for a situation where Taliban is not exploited by the US to create instability in the region, it is not exploited by UAE and Saudi Arabia to "create havoc".

Iran had contacts with Taliban as they control some areas adjacent Iran's border, the sources said adding Iran had the first round dialogue with Taliban.

"We had a short dialogue with them in Moscow and then we had the first round of that talk in Tehran," said a source.

On the Chabahar port, the sources said anybody who is interested to join in the project including China, can come on board.&nbsp;

On the long-pending proposal of Iran-Pak-India gas pipeline project, the sources said Tehran was of the opinion that it continues to be economically feasible.

Major powers like the US and Russia have been reaching out to the Taliban as part of efforts to push the stalled Afghan peace process.

In case India wants to use Iran's channels of communication with the Taliban, then Tehran will be open to such a proposition, Iranian diplomatic sources have said, at a time when there was a renewed focus on peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. They said though Iran's influence over the Taliban was not comparable to that of Pakistan's, still, it would try to use the clout over the terror outfit for bringing peace and stability in the war-torn country. Major powers like the US and Russia have been reaching out to the Taliban as part of efforts to push the stalled Afghan peace process. The issue of peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan is likely to figure during talks between External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and her Iranian counterpart Javad Zarif on Wednesday. In a significant move, India had sent two former diplomats in "non-official" capacity to a conference on the Afghan peace process in Moscow in November which was attended by a high-level Taliban delegation. The conference organised by Russia was attended by representatives of Afghanistan as well as from several other countries including the US, Pakistan, and China. The Iranian sources said Tehran was ready to use its influence over Taliban on behalf of the Afghan government. If India wants Tehran's channels of communication with the militant outfit, we are always open to do that, they said. India has been maintaining a policy of not engaging with Taliban and pressing for an Afghan-owned and Afghan-led peace initiative to bring peace and stability in the war-ravaged country. The Iranian sources said a Taliban-dominated Afghanistan will be security challenge to Iran, India, but it will be an existential threat to Pakistan. Iran is learned to have conveyed its view to Islamabad about how Taliban can be a real threat to its existence. The sources said Tehran believes that there is a need for a situation where Taliban is not exploited by the US to create instability in the region, it is not exploited by UAE and Saudi Arabia to "create havoc". Iran had contacts with Taliban as they control some areas adjacent Iran's border, the sources said adding Iran had the first round dialogue with Taliban. "We had a short dialogue with them in Moscow and then we had the first round of that talk in Tehran," said a source. On the Chabahar port, the sources said anybody who is interested to join in the project including China, can come on board. On the long-pending proposal of Iran-Pak-India gas pipeline project, the sources said Tehran was of the opinion that it continues to be economically feasible.

Iran ready to use influence over Taliban to bring peace to Afghanistan: Diplomatic sources

The Afghan Taliban said on Tuesday <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-call-off-peace-talks-with-us-officials-189044">they had called off peace talks with US officials in Qatar</a> this week due to an "agenda disagreement", especially over the involvement of Afghan officials as well as a possible ceasefire and prisoner exchange.

Two days of peace talks had been set to start on Wednesday, Taliban officials told Reuters earlier, but the hardline Islamic militant group had refused to allow "puppet" Afghan officials to join.

The US ambassador to Kabul, John Bass, tweeted that reports of US-Taliban talks on Wednesday were "inaccurate" and added: "Taliban should talk to fellow Afghans as much as they talk to media."

A separate tweet from the US embassy in the Afghan capital stressed that intra-Afghan talks were "essential" to settling the conflict.&nbsp;

The State Department later announced that US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad would lead an interagency delegation to India, China, Afghanistan, and Pakistan from January 8–21 that would meet senior government officials in each country "to facilitate an intra-Afghan political settlement".&nbsp;

It said Khalilzad continued to coordinate his efforts with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, and other Afghan stakeholders.

"The US goal is to promote dialogue among Afghans about how to end the conflict, and to encourage the parties to come together at the negotiating table to reach a political settlement," the statement said.

The war in Afghanistan is America's longest overseas military intervention. It has cost Washington nearly $1 trillion and killed tens of thousands of people.

Reports last month about US President Donald Trump's plans to withdraw thousands of troops from Afghanistan triggered uncertainty in Kabul, which depends on the United States and other foreign powers for military support and training.&nbsp;

A Taliban source told Reuters that US officials had insisted that the Taliban should meet Afghan officials in Qatar and said: "both sides were in disagreement over declaring a ceasefire in 2019."&nbsp;

"Both sides have agreed to not meet in Qatar," he added.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said earlier that the two sides were still working on the technical details and were not clear on the agenda for the talks.

A Taliban leader had told Reuters that the talks, which would have been the fourth round with Khalilzad, would have involved a US withdrawal, prisoner exchange and the lifting of a ban on movement of Taliban leaders.

Taliban sources said that they had demanded that US authorities release 25,000 prisoners and they would free 3,000, but that US officials were not keen to discuss the exchange at this stage.

"We would never announce any ceasefire until and unless we achieve major gains on the ground. We have the feeling that Zalmay Khalilzad doesn`t have enough power to make important decisions," another Taliban official said.

The Taliban have rejected repeated requests from regional powers to allow Afghan officials to take part in the talks, insisting that the United States is their main adversary.

The insurgents, seeking to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster by US-led troops, called off a meeting with US officials in Saudi Arabia this week because of Riyadh`s insistence involving the Afghan government.

The United States sent troops to Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. At its peak, the US deployment involved more than 100,000 troops, but Washington withdrew most in 2014 and now has around 14,000 troops in the country as part of a NATO-led mission aiding Afghan security forces and hunting militants.

As peace talks gained momentum a draft agreement drawn up by the influential US think tank RAND Corporation outlining the clauses for a potential peace deal was circulated among Afghan officials and diplomats in Kabul.&nbsp;

The document, reviewed by Reuters, suggests that the United States and NATO withdraw their military missions in phases over an expected period of 18 months. It adds that the United States may continue providing civilian assistance.

The U.S. embassy tweet said RAND’s work was independent of the US government and did not represent US policy.

A separate tweet from the US embassy in the Afghan capital stressed that intra-Afghan talks were 'essential' to settling the conflict.

The Afghan Taliban said on Tuesday they had called off peace talks with US officials in Qatar this week due to an "agenda disagreement", especially over the involvement of Afghan officials as well as a possible ceasefire and prisoner exchange. Two days of peace talks had been set to start on Wednesday, Taliban officials told Reuters earlier, but the hardline Islamic militant group had refused to allow "puppet" Afghan officials to join. The US ambassador to Kabul, John Bass, tweeted that reports of US-Taliban talks on Wednesday were "inaccurate" and added: "Taliban should talk to fellow Afghans as much as they talk to media." A separate tweet from the US embassy in the Afghan capital stressed that intra-Afghan talks were "essential" to settling the conflict. The State Department later announced that US Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation Zalmay Khalilzad would lead an interagency delegation to India, China, Afghanistan, and Pakistan from January 8–21 that would meet senior government officials in each country "to facilitate an intra-Afghan political settlement". It said Khalilzad continued to coordinate his efforts with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah, and other Afghan stakeholders. "The US goal is to promote dialogue among Afghans about how to end the conflict, and to encourage the parties to come together at the negotiating table to reach a political settlement," the statement said. The war in Afghanistan is America's longest overseas military intervention. It has cost Washington nearly $1 trillion and killed tens of thousands of people. Reports last month about US President Donald Trump's plans to withdraw thousands of troops from Afghanistan triggered uncertainty in Kabul, which depends on the United States and other foreign powers for military support and training. A Taliban source told Reuters that US officials had insisted that the Taliban should meet Afghan officials in Qatar and said: "both sides were in disagreement over declaring a ceasefire in 2019." "Both sides have agreed to not meet in Qatar," he added. Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said earlier that the two sides were still working on the technical details and were not clear on the agenda for the talks. A Taliban leader had told Reuters that the talks, which would have been the fourth round with Khalilzad, would have involved a US withdrawal, prisoner exchange and the lifting of a ban on movement of Taliban leaders. Taliban sources said that they had demanded that US authorities release 25,000 prisoners and they would free 3,000, but that US officials were not keen to discuss the exchange at this stage. "We would never announce any ceasefire until and unless we achieve major gains on the ground. We have the feeling that Zalmay Khalilzad doesn`t have enough power to make important decisions," another Taliban official said. The Taliban have rejected repeated requests from regional powers to allow Afghan officials to take part in the talks, insisting that the United States is their main adversary. The insurgents, seeking to reimpose strict Islamic law after their 2001 ouster by US-led troops, called off a meeting with US officials in Saudi Arabia this week because of Riyadh`s insistence involving the Afghan government. The United States sent troops to Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. At its peak, the US deployment involved more than 100,000 troops, but Washington withdrew most in 2014 and now has around 14,000 troops in the country as part of a NATO-led mission aiding Afghan security forces and hunting militants. As peace talks gained momentum a draft agreement drawn up by the influential US think tank RAND Corporation outlining the clauses for a potential peace deal was circulated among Afghan officials and diplomats in Kabul. The document, reviewed by Reuters, suggests that the United States and NATO withdraw their military missions in phases over an expected period of 18 months. It adds that the United States may continue providing civilian assistance. The U.S. embassy tweet said RAND’s work was independent of the US government and did not represent US policy.

Afghan Taliban cancel peace talks with US citing 'agenda disagreement'

By Sojin Lim

News broke in early January that North Korea’s acting ambassador to Italy, Jo Song-gil, is in hiding and reportedly is seeking asylum in an “unidentified Western country”. The possible high-level defection came as a surprise, especially as US president Donald Trump recently confirmed his desire to have a second US-North Korea summit, and South Korean president Moon Jae-in is soon expecting a visit from the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un. At time of writing, the North Korean leader was in China on an unannounced visit to see president Xi Jinping.

When Kim Jong-un sent handwritten letters to Moon and Trump on New Year’s Eve, he seemed to be promising that the three countries could continue their dialogue over the Korean peninsula’s peace process. But why is Jo Song-gil seeking asylum if Kim Jong-un really is open to change in North Korea? Is he making his escape for personal reasons – or is it an indication that things are as bad as ever in Pyongyang?

Whatever the reason, Jo Song-gil’s defection could impact the ongoing negotiations. He could, for example, share sensitive information with the US and South Korea about the real denuclearisation situation in North Korea – and this could make Kim Jong-un less willing to engage.

And the negotiations are already fragile. Over the past 12 months, there have been repeated promises – and cancellations – made by all sides. It certainly remains to be seen whether the three countries will meet as suggested – and whether it will amount to any more than “gesture politics” if they do.

On one level, things do look different to the past, when little tangible progress was made. South Korea’s Moon Jae-in is a proactive leader, and Kim Jong-un is young, ambitious and eager to make his own mark. Both Kim Jong-un and Trump are also deeply unpredictable, however.

But there are other factors to consider, too, not least North Korea’s sharp economic downturn. This has, in fact, given many North Koreans wider access to information from outside the country, partially thanks to a growing number of defectors communicating with those who remain and the outside world. Kim Jong Un’s “equal emphasis” (Byungjin) policy, which focuses on both military and economic development, has also given impetus to his willingness to talk with Moon and Trump.

But even if the willingness is there, North Korea’s regime cannot upend nearly 70 years of history in a day. It will be a long process.

Bargaining chip

Although Kim Jong-un’s current performance on this issue is occasionally more promising than that of his father or grandfather, the truth is that he cannot abandon his nuclear programme until he can see an alternative way of guaranteeing the security of his regime.

After all, North Korea’s nuclear programme has so far worked well as a bargaining chip in international negotiations – although the current UN sanctions are an exception. Indeed, North Korea’s nuclear threats and long-range missiles have strengthened the county’s hand against the US, while without them, North Korea has almost nothing to offer as a concession.

Nor should we forget the role the North Korean media plays. By showing images of Kim Jong-un shaking hands with world leaders, it has become part of his survival strategy, bolstering his strongman image among both ordinary North Koreans and his government. Any meeting Kim Jong-un agrees to should, at least partly, be seen in this light.

Ultimately, there have been no significant changes in North Korea’s nuclear programme (besides demolishing some old or disused facilities). Nor will it be possible to achieve completely irreversible denuclearisation as long as North Korea retains its theoretical nuclear know-how. At the same time, while North Korea tends to highlight its will to halt rather than dismantle its nuclear capability, the US wants more before it invests economically.

So how to move forward? And how can negotiators overcome the current chicken-or-egg dilemma: denuclearisation first or economic support first?

The answer is twofold. First, we need something truly imaginative. Perhaps the US can find a solution by transforming the nuclear sites in North Korea into special industrial clusters and providing some of its military capability in exchange for nuclear disarmament. In this way, North Korea can attract private investment from the US, while easing its security concerns.

In the end, however, foreign policy objectives on the peninsula will need to be realistic. As mentioned before, a truly denuclearised North Korea will never happen as it will retain its theoretical nuclear knowledge. It will be far more practical, then, to find a common ground of mutual interests.

Accountability 
 
Second, there needs to be a sense of “mutual accountability”. The traditional definition of accountability has three stages: responsibility, answerability, and enforceability.

The “responsibility” stage can take the form of policy dialogue and trust building. Plenty of dialogue occurred during the six-party talks held intermittently since 2003 between North Korea, China, the US, South Korea, Japan and Russia – but they appeared to fail to build any meaningful trust. The latest rounds of dialogue between the US and the two Koreas will also fall at this hurdle unless they find a novel way forward.

Consequently, the dialogue must be based on mutual understanding and openness. The rest of the world must understand that North Korea is a fragile state, which cannot overcome the denuclearisation problem on its own – especially given its vulnerable financial situation. After all, it’s not just the US that doesn’t trust North Korea; North Korea doesn’t trust the US either, especially following the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

But that is just the first step. The “answerability” stage will require much greater information sharing and transparency. The international community is so suspicious of the sincerity of Kim Jong-un’s denuclearisation process because of that country’s poor level of openness and the limited access to solid information from within North Korea. Once North Korea opens its borders, there will be simultaneous achievements in terms of both denuclearisation and economic development.

All parties need measurable and transparent indicators of progress. But if agreements aren’t kept, a move can be made towards “enforceability”, including convening inspection panels or enforcing a compliance review process. Kim Jong-un’s father and predecessor, Kim Jong-il, for example, faced international sanctions along with the removal of food aid even during a famine period when he left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003.

2019 may yet bring a way forward. But unless there is a foundation of mutual understanding, defectors such as Jo Song-gil may offer the only tangible insight into what’s really going on in North Korea.

(Sojin Lim is Deputy Director of the International Institute of Korean Studies, University of Central Lancashire)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/north-korea-what-latest-defection-tells-us-about-hopes-for-peace-on-peninsula-109447">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 Sojin Lim News broke in early January that North Korea’s acting ambassador to Italy, Jo Song-gil, is in hiding and reportedly is seeking asylum in an “unidentified Western country”.

By Sojin Lim News broke in early January that North Korea’s acting ambassador to Italy, Jo Song-gil, is in hiding and reportedly is seeking asylum in an “unidentified Western country”. The possible high-level defection came as a surprise, especially as US president Donald Trump recently confirmed his desire to have a second US-North Korea summit, and South Korean president Moon Jae-in is soon expecting a visit from the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un. At time of writing, the North Korean leader was in China on an unannounced visit to see president Xi Jinping. When Kim Jong-un sent handwritten letters to Moon and Trump on New Year’s Eve, he seemed to be promising that the three countries could continue their dialogue over the Korean peninsula’s peace process. But why is Jo Song-gil seeking asylum if Kim Jong-un really is open to change in North Korea? Is he making his escape for personal reasons – or is it an indication that things are as bad as ever in Pyongyang? Whatever the reason, Jo Song-gil’s defection could impact the ongoing negotiations. He could, for example, share sensitive information with the US and South Korea about the real denuclearisation situation in North Korea – and this could make Kim Jong-un less willing to engage. And the negotiations are already fragile. Over the past 12 months, there have been repeated promises – and cancellations – made by all sides. It certainly remains to be seen whether the three countries will meet as suggested – and whether it will amount to any more than “gesture politics” if they do. On one level, things do look different to the past, when little tangible progress was made. South Korea’s Moon Jae-in is a proactive leader, and Kim Jong-un is young, ambitious and eager to make his own mark. Both Kim Jong-un and Trump are also deeply unpredictable, however. But there are other factors to consider, too, not least North Korea’s sharp economic downturn. This has, in fact, given many North Koreans wider access to information from outside the country, partially thanks to a growing number of defectors communicating with those who remain and the outside world. Kim Jong Un’s “equal emphasis” (Byungjin) policy, which focuses on both military and economic development, has also given impetus to his willingness to talk with Moon and Trump. But even if the willingness is there, North Korea’s regime cannot upend nearly 70 years of history in a day. It will be a long process. Bargaining chip Although Kim Jong-un’s current performance on this issue is occasionally more promising than that of his father or grandfather, the truth is that he cannot abandon his nuclear programme until he can see an alternative way of guaranteeing the security of his regime. After all, North Korea’s nuclear programme has so far worked well as a bargaining chip in international negotiations – although the current UN sanctions are an exception. Indeed, North Korea’s nuclear threats and long-range missiles have strengthened the county’s hand against the US, while without them, North Korea has almost nothing to offer as a concession. Nor should we forget the role the North Korean media plays. By showing images of Kim Jong-un shaking hands with world leaders, it has become part of his survival strategy, bolstering his strongman image among both ordinary North Koreans and his government. Any meeting Kim Jong-un agrees to should, at least partly, be seen in this light. Ultimately, there have been no significant changes in North Korea’s nuclear programme (besides demolishing some old or disused facilities). Nor will it be possible to achieve completely irreversible denuclearisation as long as North Korea retains its theoretical nuclear know-how. At the same time, while North Korea tends to highlight its will to halt rather than dismantle its nuclear capability, the US wants more before it invests economically. So how to move forward? And how can negotiators overcome the current chicken-or-egg dilemma: denuclearisation first or economic support first? The answer is twofold. First, we need something truly imaginative. Perhaps the US can find a solution by transforming the nuclear sites in North Korea into special industrial clusters and providing some of its military capability in exchange for nuclear disarmament. In this way, North Korea can attract private investment from the US, while easing its security concerns. In the end, however, foreign policy objectives on the peninsula will need to be realistic. As mentioned before, a truly denuclearised North Korea will never happen as it will retain its theoretical nuclear knowledge. It will be far more practical, then, to find a common ground of mutual interests. Accountability Second, there needs to be a sense of “mutual accountability”. The traditional definition of accountability has three stages: responsibility, answerability, and enforceability. The “responsibility” stage can take the form of policy dialogue and trust building. Plenty of dialogue occurred during the six-party talks held intermittently since 2003 between North Korea, China, the US, South Korea, Japan and Russia – but they appeared to fail to build any meaningful trust. The latest rounds of dialogue between the US and the two Koreas will also fall at this hurdle unless they find a novel way forward. Consequently, the dialogue must be based on mutual understanding and openness. The rest of the world must understand that North Korea is a fragile state, which cannot overcome the denuclearisation problem on its own – especially given its vulnerable financial situation. After all, it’s not just the US that doesn’t trust North Korea; North Korea doesn’t trust the US either, especially following the toppling of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. But that is just the first step. The “answerability” stage will require much greater information sharing and transparency. The international community is so suspicious of the sincerity of Kim Jong-un’s denuclearisation process because of that country’s poor level of openness and the limited access to solid information from within North Korea. Once North Korea opens its borders, there will be simultaneous achievements in terms of both denuclearisation and economic development. All parties need measurable and transparent indicators of progress. But if agreements aren’t kept, a move can be made towards “enforceability”, including convening inspection panels or enforcing a compliance review process. Kim Jong-un’s father and predecessor, Kim Jong-il, for example, faced international sanctions along with the removal of food aid even during a famine period when he left the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003. 2019 may yet bring a way forward. But unless there is a foundation of mutual understanding, defectors such as Jo Song-gil may offer the only tangible insight into what’s really going on in North Korea. (Sojin Lim is Deputy Director of the International Institute of Korean Studies, University of Central Lancashire) (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)

What latest defection tells us about hopes for peace on Korean peninsula

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-despite-us-sanctions-it-has-found-new-potential-oil-buyers-188406">US sanctions are putting unprecedented pressure on Iranians </a>while "first class idiots" are running Washington's policy, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday.

US President Donald Trump last year pulled out of an international pact on Iran's nuclear program and&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/the-knowns-and-unknowns-of-us-iran-oil-sanction-waivers-176204">reimposed sanctions intended to scupper Tehran's oil exports</a>, curb its missile program and clip its regional influence.

The measures have hit Iran's economy hard.

"The sanctions do put pressure on the country and the people," Khamenei said, according to a transcript on his website of a speech in Tehran to commemorate an event from the 1979 revolution.

"The Americans happily say that these sanctions are unprecedented in history. Yes, they're unprecedented. And the defeat that the Americans will face will be unprecedented, God willing," he added.

Khamenei lambasted US officials' approach to Iran as irrational, saying: "They are first-class idiots."

Iran's economy has faced instability in recent months with the rial fluctuating in value, making it difficult for ordinary people to make ends meet.

Sporadic protests linked to the tough economic situation have been led by truck drivers, farmers, workers, merchants, and teachers, occasionally resulting in violent confrontations with security forces.

The Iranian government must help the country's weakest, Khamenei added in his speech.

US sanctions are putting unprecedented pressure on Iranians while "first class idiots" are running Washington's policy, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday.

US sanctions are putting unprecedented pressure on Iranians while "first class idiots" are running Washington's policy, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday. US President Donald Trump last year pulled out of an international pact on Iran's nuclear program and reimposed sanctions intended to scupper Tehran's oil exports, curb its missile program and clip its regional influence. The measures have hit Iran's economy hard. "The sanctions do put pressure on the country and the people," Khamenei said, according to a transcript on his website of a speech in Tehran to commemorate an event from the 1979 revolution. "The Americans happily say that these sanctions are unprecedented in history. Yes, they're unprecedented. And the defeat that the Americans will face will be unprecedented, God willing," he added. Khamenei lambasted US officials' approach to Iran as irrational, saying: "They are first-class idiots." Iran's economy has faced instability in recent months with the rial fluctuating in value, making it difficult for ordinary people to make ends meet. Sporadic protests linked to the tough economic situation have been led by truck drivers, farmers, workers, merchants, and teachers, occasionally resulting in violent confrontations with security forces. The Iranian government must help the country's weakest, Khamenei added in his speech.

'First class idiots' running Washington policy: Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei

Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has overseen the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/donald-trump-calls-claims-about-russian-election-meddling-a-hoax-and-blames-obama-153722">Russian election meddling probe</a>, is set to leave the US Department of Justice in coming weeks as President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the department is set to take over, several US media outlets reported on Wednesday.

Rosenstein has had oversight of the US Special Counsel's probe into alleged Russian interference in the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-slams-ridiculous-us-election-meddling-charges-169505">2016 presidential election and possible connections to Trump's campaign</a>. Then-attorney general Jeff Sessions, an early Trump supporter during the presidential campaign, had recused himself.

William Barr, Trump's pick to replace Sessions who was fired soon after the November midterm congressional elections, is set to appear for a confirmation hearing next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which must weigh his nomination before the full Senate considers his approval.

ABC News, citing multiple sources familiar with Rosenstein's plans, reported that he intended to leave in the coming weeks as Barr transitioned into the job. Fox News, citing unnamed Justice Department officials, also reported the planned departure in weeks. CNN also reported the move, citing an unnamed source.

Reuters was unable to immediately verify the reports and representatives for the Justice Department could not be immediately reached for comment.

If confirmed, Barr, who was US Attorney General under the late President George H W Bush from 1991 to 1993, would oversee the investigation led by US Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a fellow Republican chosen by Rosenstein.

Barr's nomination is likely to meet heavy scrutiny regarding the ongoing investigation, particularly from Democrats, following reports he had written a memo in June questioning the probe. Rosenstein has said the memo had no impact on the department's work.

Officials told ABC and Fox that Rosenstein had planned to serve as deputy for two years - a milestone that was approaching.

He also wanted to help ensure Barr, if confirmed by the Senate, had a smooth transition, ABC said, citing sources.

Rosenstein has stayed on under Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, whose controversial appointment has sparked numerous legal challenges and raised questions about what role he would play regarding the investigation.

Rosenstein has been frequently criticized by Trump, who calls the Russia investigation a "witch hunt" and denies any collusion with Moscow. Russia has also denied any election interference.

US intelligence agencies have found that Russia sought to sway the 2016 presidential vote to Trump over Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton.

Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has overseen the Russian election meddling probe, is set to leave the US Department of Justice in coming weeks as President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the department is set to take over, several US media outlets reported on Wednesday.

Deputy US Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who has overseen the Russian election meddling probe, is set to leave the US Department of Justice in coming weeks as President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the department is set to take over, several US media outlets reported on Wednesday. Rosenstein has had oversight of the US Special Counsel's probe into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and possible connections to Trump's campaign. Then-attorney general Jeff Sessions, an early Trump supporter during the presidential campaign, had recused himself. William Barr, Trump's pick to replace Sessions who was fired soon after the November midterm congressional elections, is set to appear for a confirmation hearing next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which must weigh his nomination before the full Senate considers his approval. ABC News, citing multiple sources familiar with Rosenstein's plans, reported that he intended to leave in the coming weeks as Barr transitioned into the job. Fox News, citing unnamed Justice Department officials, also reported the planned departure in weeks. CNN also reported the move, citing an unnamed source. Reuters was unable to immediately verify the reports and representatives for the Justice Department could not be immediately reached for comment. If confirmed, Barr, who was US Attorney General under the late President George H W Bush from 1991 to 1993, would oversee the investigation led by US Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a fellow Republican chosen by Rosenstein. Barr's nomination is likely to meet heavy scrutiny regarding the ongoing investigation, particularly from Democrats, following reports he had written a memo in June questioning the probe. Rosenstein has said the memo had no impact on the department's work. Officials told ABC and Fox that Rosenstein had planned to serve as deputy for two years - a milestone that was approaching. He also wanted to help ensure Barr, if confirmed by the Senate, had a smooth transition, ABC said, citing sources. Rosenstein has stayed on under Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker, whose controversial appointment has sparked numerous legal challenges and raised questions about what role he would play regarding the investigation. Rosenstein has been frequently criticized by Trump, who calls the Russia investigation a "witch hunt" and denies any collusion with Moscow. Russia has also denied any election interference. US intelligence agencies have found that Russia sought to sway the 2016 presidential vote to Trump over Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton.

US official overseeing Russia collusion probe to leave: Reports

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/moscow-says-fbi-arrested-russian-a-day-after-it-detained-ex-us-marine-188459">The Kremlin on Wednesday rejected</a> a British suggestion it might use a former<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/russia-says-it-is-not-willing-to-exchange-detained-ex-us-marine-report-188431"> US Marine detained in Russia </a>on espionage charges as a pawn in a diplomatic game and said it reserved the right to conduct counter-intelligence activities.

Paul Whelan, a former US Marine who also holds a British passport, was detained by Russia's Federal Security Service on December 28. His family has said he is innocent and that he was in Moscow to attend a wedding.

Commenting on the case earlier this month, British foreign minister Jeremy Hunt said individuals should not be used as pawns of diplomatic leverage.

Asked about Hunt's remark, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters:

"In Russia, we never use people as pawns in diplomatic games. In Russia, we conduct counter-intelligence activity against those suspected of espionage. That is done regularly."

The Kremlin on Wednesday rejected a British suggestion it might use a former US Marine detained in Russia on espionage charges as a pawn in a diplomatic game and said it reserved the right to conduct counter-intelligence activities.

The Kremlin on Wednesday rejected a British suggestion it might use a former US Marine detained in Russia on espionage charges as a pawn in a diplomatic game and said it reserved the right to conduct counter-intelligence activities. Paul Whelan, a former US Marine who also holds a British passport, was detained by Russia's Federal Security Service on December 28. His family has said he is innocent and that he was in Moscow to attend a wedding. Commenting on the case earlier this month, British foreign minister Jeremy Hunt said individuals should not be used as pawns of diplomatic leverage. Asked about Hunt's remark, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: "In Russia, we never use people as pawns in diplomatic games. In Russia, we conduct counter-intelligence activity against those suspected of espionage. That is done regularly."

Kremlin says it will not use detained ex-US marine Paul Whelan as pawn

Universal has pushed back the release of Jordan Peele's second directorial 'Us'&nbsp;by a week and the film will now release on March 22.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, the horror thriller was earlier scheduled to hit the theatres on March 15. Prior to the news, it was announced that the movie is set to have its world premiere at the opening-night film at the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, Texas, on March 8.

"We are crazy excited to world premiere the most anticipated film of 2019 from the creative powerhouse that brought us 'Get Out'.

"We honestly couldn't imagine a more perfect film to kick off the 2019 SXSW Film Festival," festival director Janet Pierson said.

Headlined by Lupita Nyong'o and Winston Duke, the film centres on a family who is haunted by doppelganger versions of themselves.

It also stars Shahadi Wright-Joseph, Evan Alex, Elisabeth Moss, Tim Heidecker, Anna Diop and 'Aquaman'&nbsp;actor Yahya Abdul-Mateen II.

Peele became the first African-American writer to win the Best Original Screenplay Oscar 2018 for his work on 'Get Out'.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Universal has pushed back the release of Jordan Peele's second directorial 'Us' by a week and the film will now release on March 22. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the horror thriller was earlier scheduled to hit the theatres on March 15.

Universal has pushed back the release of Jordan Peele's second directorial 'Us' by a week and the film will now release on March 22. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the horror thriller was earlier scheduled to hit the theatres on March 15. Prior to the news, it was announced that the movie is set to have its world premiere at the opening-night film at the SXSW Film Festival in Austin, Texas, on March 8. "We are crazy excited to world premiere the most anticipated film of 2019 from the creative powerhouse that brought us 'Get Out'. "We honestly couldn't imagine a more perfect film to kick off the 2019 SXSW Film Festival," festival director Janet Pierson said. Headlined by Lupita Nyong'o and Winston Duke, the film centres on a family who is haunted by doppelganger versions of themselves. It also stars Shahadi Wright-Joseph, Evan Alex, Elisabeth Moss, Tim Heidecker, Anna Diop and 'Aquaman' actor Yahya Abdul-Mateen II. Peele became the first African-American writer to win the Best Original Screenplay Oscar 2018 for his work on 'Get Out'.

Jordan Peele's horror-thriller 'Us' postponed by a week

The United States and China concluded on Wednesday three days of extended talks to resolve their trade war, with a member of the American delegation saying negotiations "went just fine".

The US officials arrived in Beijing on Monday for the first sit-down talks since President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping agreed on December 1 to a three-month truce on a tit-for-tat trade spat.

Asian markets rose on increasing optimism that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal ahead of a March deadline and avert further import tariff hikes.

A member of the US delegation, Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs Ted McKinney, told reporters that the team would return to the United States later on Wednesday.

"I think they went just fine," McKinney said of the talks as he left the hotel with his luggage, adding the trip "has been a good one for us".

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-says-us-china-trade-talks-going-very-well-189098">Trump boasted on Twitter</a> on Tuesday that discussions in China were "going very well!"

China's foreign ministry confirmed the negotiations had ended in Beijing but declined to comment on the outcome, saying details would be released later.&nbsp;

"If it's a good outcome, it doesn't just benefit the US and China, but it is also good news for the world economy," said foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang.

The US delegation, led by Deputy Trade Representative Jeffrey Gerrish, had been scheduled to end its visit on Tuesday.

"The extension of the talks indicate that both sides take this very seriously," Lu said.

Washington has been clamouring for an end to the alleged forced transfer -- and even theft -- of American technology, as well as steep government subsidies for Chinese companies.&nbsp;

The Trump administration also wants Beijing to buy more American goods to narrow a yawning trade gap and allow foreign players better access to the Chinese market.

'Encouraging words' 
US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross signalled in a CNBC interview on Monday that there was a "very good chance" of reaching an agreement.

China's economy was more vulnerable to the fallout from the trade war, he said, noting that Beijing exports more goods to the United States than the other way around.

"I think a deal is very possible and I've heard some very encouraging words," Apple chief executive Tim Cook told CNBC.

"I don't speak for them obviously," Cook said in reference to the Trump administration. "I do talk with them and I give them my ideas and thoughts."

The US smartphone maker has felt the pinch of the bruising trade spat, and warned that 2018 revenues would miss its forecast -- in large part due to a slump in iPhone sales in China.

The temporary trade-war ceasefire came after the two sides imposed import duties on more than $300 billion of each other's goods.

Without a resolution, punitive US duty rates on $200 billion in Chinese goods are due to rise to 25 percent from 10 percent on March 2.

The current trade round coincided with an unannounced visit from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who arrived in Beijing on Tuesday for talks with Xi in Beijing ahead of a possible second meeting between Kim and Trump.

China -- Pyongyang's sole diplomatic ally and main source of trade -- said it would not use Kim's visit as a bargaining chip in the US trade talks.

Kim's train left Beijing on Wednesday around the same time the US trade negotiators headed for the airport.

The United States and China concluded on Wednesday three days of extended talks to resolve their trade war, with a member of the American delegation saying negotiations "went just fine".

The United States and China concluded on Wednesday three days of extended talks to resolve their trade war, with a member of the American delegation saying negotiations "went just fine". The US officials arrived in Beijing on Monday for the first sit-down talks since President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping agreed on December 1 to a three-month truce on a tit-for-tat trade spat. Asian markets rose on increasing optimism that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal ahead of a March deadline and avert further import tariff hikes. A member of the US delegation, Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs Ted McKinney, told reporters that the team would return to the United States later on Wednesday. "I think they went just fine," McKinney said of the talks as he left the hotel with his luggage, adding the trip "has been a good one for us". Trump boasted on Twitter on Tuesday that discussions in China were "going very well!" China's foreign ministry confirmed the negotiations had ended in Beijing but declined to comment on the outcome, saying details would be released later. "If it's a good outcome, it doesn't just benefit the US and China, but it is also good news for the world economy," said foreign ministry spokesman Lu Kang. The US delegation, led by Deputy Trade Representative Jeffrey Gerrish, had been scheduled to end its visit on Tuesday. "The extension of the talks indicate that both sides take this very seriously," Lu said. Washington has been clamouring for an end to the alleged forced transfer -- and even theft -- of American technology, as well as steep government subsidies for Chinese companies. The Trump administration also wants Beijing to buy more American goods to narrow a yawning trade gap and allow foreign players better access to the Chinese market. 'Encouraging words' US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross signalled in a CNBC interview on Monday that there was a "very good chance" of reaching an agreement. China's economy was more vulnerable to the fallout from the trade war, he said, noting that Beijing exports more goods to the United States than the other way around. "I think a deal is very possible and I've heard some very encouraging words," Apple chief executive Tim Cook told CNBC. "I don't speak for them obviously," Cook said in reference to the Trump administration. "I do talk with them and I give them my ideas and thoughts." The US smartphone maker has felt the pinch of the bruising trade spat, and warned that 2018 revenues would miss its forecast -- in large part due to a slump in iPhone sales in China. The temporary trade-war ceasefire came after the two sides imposed import duties on more than $300 billion of each other's goods. Without a resolution, punitive US duty rates on $200 billion in Chinese goods are due to rise to 25 percent from 10 percent on March 2. The current trade round coincided with an unannounced visit from North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, who arrived in Beijing on Tuesday for talks with Xi in Beijing ahead of a possible second meeting between Kim and Trump. China -- Pyongyang's sole diplomatic ally and main source of trade -- said it would not use Kim's visit as a bargaining chip in the US trade talks. Kim's train left Beijing on Wednesday around the same time the US trade negotiators headed for the airport.

US, China conclude trade talks, American official says they 'went just fine'

Vietnam has accused <a href="http://www.wionews.com/business-economy/apple-facebook-propel-wall-street-to-three-week-peak-189115">Facebook of violating a new cybersecurity law</a> by refusing to scrub anti-government content from its site, the first reprimand since the controversial bill came into effect days ago.

The law, which went live January 1 and has drawn criticism from the US, the EU, and web freedom groups, requires internet companies to remove "toxic content" and hand over user data when requested by authorities.

It also stipulates that companies should host servers in the one-party state — including banks and e-commerce companies — sparking fears of data and privacy breaches and cybersecurity threats.

State broadcaster Vietnam Television reported Wednesday that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-ads-may-help-reduce-cancer-deaths-study-187324">Facebook failed to take down pages</a> allegedly calling for anti-government activities, citing requests from the Ministry of Information and Communications.

The ministry sent several letters and emails requesting the removals, according to the report.

But Facebook "delayed and even failed to remove information, claiming the information did not violate community standards," VTV reported.

Vietnam also accused the company of hosting advertisements for "illegal products" including counterfeit money, fake goods, weapons and firecrackers, the report added. &nbsp;

The ministry could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The consequences for violating the law are expected to be laid out in a decree which has yet to be made public.

Vietnam has said the bill is designed to improve cybersecurity in the country, but critics say the legislation — which mirrors China's draconian internet rules — is aimed at silencing online dissent.

In a statement to AFP Wednesday, Facebook said it is "transparent about the content restrictions we make pursuant with local law in our Transparency Report".

"We have a clear process for governments to report illegal content to us, and we review all these requests against our terms of service and local law," a spokeswoman told AFP.

Social media is a crucial platform for activists in communist Vietnam, where all independent press and public protests are banned.

Facebook is by far the most popular tool for activists, though several have complained to AFP in recent months that posts have disappeared and accounts been blocked.

Unlike in China, social media and instant messaging services like WhatsApp are not banned, and analysts say the cybersecurity law is a means to control online expression without banning services — a move that would likely cause a widespread outcry.

There are more than 53 million Facebook users in Vietnam — over half of the population — many of whom use the site as a crucial platform for business and commerce.

State broadcaster Vietnam Television reported Wednesday that Facebook failed to take down pages allegedly calling for anti-government activities.

Vietnam has accused Facebook of violating a new cybersecurity law by refusing to scrub anti-government content from its site, the first reprimand since the controversial bill came into effect days ago. The law, which went live January 1 and has drawn criticism from the US, the EU, and web freedom groups, requires internet companies to remove "toxic content" and hand over user data when requested by authorities. It also stipulates that companies should host servers in the one-party state — including banks and e-commerce companies — sparking fears of data and privacy breaches and cybersecurity threats. State broadcaster Vietnam Television reported Wednesday that Facebook failed to take down pages allegedly calling for anti-government activities, citing requests from the Ministry of Information and Communications. The ministry sent several letters and emails requesting the removals, according to the report. But Facebook "delayed and even failed to remove information, claiming the information did not violate community standards," VTV reported. Vietnam also accused the company of hosting advertisements for "illegal products" including counterfeit money, fake goods, weapons and firecrackers, the report added. The ministry could not be reached for comment Wednesday. The consequences for violating the law are expected to be laid out in a decree which has yet to be made public. Vietnam has said the bill is designed to improve cybersecurity in the country, but critics say the legislation — which mirrors China's draconian internet rules — is aimed at silencing online dissent. In a statement to AFP Wednesday, Facebook said it is "transparent about the content restrictions we make pursuant with local law in our Transparency Report". "We have a clear process for governments to report illegal content to us, and we review all these requests against our terms of service and local law," a spokeswoman told AFP. Social media is a crucial platform for activists in communist Vietnam, where all independent press and public protests are banned. Facebook is by far the most popular tool for activists, though several have complained to AFP in recent months that posts have disappeared and accounts been blocked. Unlike in China, social media and instant messaging services like WhatsApp are not banned, and analysts say the cybersecurity law is a means to control online expression without banning services — a move that would likely cause a widespread outcry. There are more than 53 million Facebook users in Vietnam — over half of the population — many of whom use the site as a crucial platform for business and commerce.

Vietnam accuses Facebook of breaching new cyber law

By Nick Megoran

Border disputes have recently taken on renewed importance, threatening political crisis in the UK, US and EU. Yet 2018 saw positive steps towards resolving some of the world’s most difficult border conflicts, between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and Ethiopia and Eritrea. What lessons can be drawn from these examples?

International boundaries are not the same as international borders. Boundaries are invisible vertical planes extending upwards into airspace and downwards into the subsoil, marking the legal limit of states. Borders, on the other hand, are the practices associated with managing movement over boundaries, such as customs checkpoints, passport controls, and fences. Although literally at the edge of states, they can symbolically figure at the heart of a nation’s politics.

This was amply demonstrated in 2018. In the UK, the “Irish backstop” question plunged the country into an unprecedented political crisis. In the Mediterranean, meanwhile, over 2,200 migrants died attempting to evade the EU’s draconian border controls. At the same time, political gains have been made by parties of the right who regard the EU’s border-control policies as not draconian enough.

Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, US President Donald Trump’s tub-thumping over a “caravan” of Central American migrants supposedly threatening the US border made 2017’s hotly-contested midterm elections even uglier. Tussles with lawmakers over funding a border wall with Mexico have now led to a government shutdown.

All this is a long way away from the “borderless world” that 1990s globalisation theorists such as Kenichi Ohmae predicted would follow the end of the Cold War. Instead, we are seeing a “rebordering” of the world, the physical and symbolic reinforcement of what historian Timothy Synder has called “the wall around the West”.

But the Western perspective isn’t the only one. Indeed, 2018 saw a number of hopeful and instructive developments in Asia and Africa.

Central Asia

Created in the 1920s by the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan became independent states in 1991. Their mutual boundary was an internal division within the Soviet Union, and was never intended to be an international boundary. Consequently, when the two states became independent, there were numerous disputes about its precise course. Villages, ethnic groups, families, farms, transport links and utility provision crisscrossed the borderlands.

Nonetheless, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, imposed unilateral border controls. Visas were demanded, crossborder bridges demolished, roads blocked, and bus routes terminated. Villages that straddled the boundary were demolished and residents forcibly moved elsewhere. Barbed wire fences were erected, unmarked mine fields laid, and soldiers deployed to the border frequently used violence on petty traders and other borderlanders. A boundary commission was established, but its work stalled as relations between the two states deteriorated.

Populists in Kyrgyzstan reacted furiously, alleging that Uzbekistan was invading them. Inter-ethnic dynamics within Kyrgyzstan worsened, culminating in 2010 with pogroms against the country’s Uzbek minority.

Karimov died in 2016 and was succeeded by his protege, Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Mirziyoyev prioritised rebuilding regional relations, kick-starting delimitation negotiations and in late 2017 unilaterally reopened many border crossings.

In 2018, I visited the border and saw crowds of people crossing for trade and to visit family members, many of whom they had not seen for a decade and a half. Ethnic and interstate relations have improved as a result.

Ethiopia-Eritrea

An even more striking example from 2018 was the ending of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border conflict. As with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, this boundary was a colonial legacy that artificially divided populations – and between 1998 and 2000, the two countries fought a bitter border war during which some 70,000 people died. The disputed territories were relatively small and of little economic value, but became heavily politicised by the militaristic governments of both countries.

The Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) was established under a 2000 peace agreement to end the war. It rendered its decision in 2002 and planned to oversee demarcation in 2003. Although previously agreeing that the ruling would be binding, Ethiopia took the highly unusual position of refusing to accept it. Despite pressure from the UN Security Council, troops continued to occupy disputed territory, refugees remained in camps, and crossborder contact was minimal. The threat of renewed war continued.

But in April 2018, the relatively youthful Abiy Ahmed took over as Ethiopian prime minister. He moved rapidly to improve relations with Eritrea, accepting the EEBC ruling and pulling troops back from disputed areas. A mere three months after taking office, he signed a peace accord with his Eritrean counterpart, formally ending the war. This was accompanied by joyful scenes of families reunited after two decades.

How to make good borders

Good borders are not about technical lines on a map, but political will. Changes in leadership in Uzbekistan and Ethiopia were crucial in restarting boundary delimitation and border management processes that had become deadlocked. As a result, families have been reunited, ethnic tensions reduced, and trade opportunities increased.

There are broader lessons here. The impasses created by the Irish border question in the Brexit negotiations and Trump’s border wall have created a political crisis, poisoned politics, and fanned xenophobia. More migrants die each year because of the EU’s militarised border controls than at any other border on Earth. These outcomes are not inevitable; they are political choices.

The EU, UK and US like to see themselves as moral standard-bearers in the international community. When it comes to border politics, however, they could do a lot worse than look to Uzbekistan and Ethiopia in 2019.

(Nick Megoran is Reader in Political Geography, Newcastle University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/need-to-solve-a-border-dispute-look-to-ethiopia-and-uzbekistan-109149">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 Nick Megoran Border disputes have recently taken on renewed importance, threatening political crisis in the UK, US and EU. Yet 2018 saw positive steps towards resolving some of the world’s most difficult border conflicts, between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and Ethiopia and Eritrea.

By Nick Megoran Border disputes have recently taken on renewed importance, threatening political crisis in the UK, US and EU. Yet 2018 saw positive steps towards resolving some of the world’s most difficult border conflicts, between Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan and Ethiopia and Eritrea. What lessons can be drawn from these examples? International boundaries are not the same as international borders. Boundaries are invisible vertical planes extending upwards into airspace and downwards into the subsoil, marking the legal limit of states. Borders, on the other hand, are the practices associated with managing movement over boundaries, such as customs checkpoints, passport controls, and fences. Although literally at the edge of states, they can symbolically figure at the heart of a nation’s politics. This was amply demonstrated in 2018. In the UK, the “Irish backstop” question plunged the country into an unprecedented political crisis. In the Mediterranean, meanwhile, over 2,200 migrants died attempting to evade the EU’s draconian border controls. At the same time, political gains have been made by parties of the right who regard the EU’s border-control policies as not draconian enough. Across the Atlantic, meanwhile, US President Donald Trump’s tub-thumping over a “caravan” of Central American migrants supposedly threatening the US border made 2017’s hotly-contested midterm elections even uglier. Tussles with lawmakers over funding a border wall with Mexico have now led to a government shutdown. All this is a long way away from the “borderless world” that 1990s globalisation theorists such as Kenichi Ohmae predicted would follow the end of the Cold War. Instead, we are seeing a “rebordering” of the world, the physical and symbolic reinforcement of what historian Timothy Synder has called “the wall around the West”. But the Western perspective isn’t the only one. Indeed, 2018 saw a number of hopeful and instructive developments in Asia and Africa. Central Asia Created in the 1920s by the Soviet Union, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan became independent states in 1991. Their mutual boundary was an internal division within the Soviet Union, and was never intended to be an international boundary. Consequently, when the two states became independent, there were numerous disputes about its precise course. Villages, ethnic groups, families, farms, transport links and utility provision crisscrossed the borderlands. Nonetheless, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, imposed unilateral border controls. Visas were demanded, crossborder bridges demolished, roads blocked, and bus routes terminated. Villages that straddled the boundary were demolished and residents forcibly moved elsewhere. Barbed wire fences were erected, unmarked mine fields laid, and soldiers deployed to the border frequently used violence on petty traders and other borderlanders. A boundary commission was established, but its work stalled as relations between the two states deteriorated. Populists in Kyrgyzstan reacted furiously, alleging that Uzbekistan was invading them. Inter-ethnic dynamics within Kyrgyzstan worsened, culminating in 2010 with pogroms against the country’s Uzbek minority. Karimov died in 2016 and was succeeded by his protege, Shavkat Mirziyoyev. Mirziyoyev prioritised rebuilding regional relations, kick-starting delimitation negotiations and in late 2017 unilaterally reopened many border crossings. In 2018, I visited the border and saw crowds of people crossing for trade and to visit family members, many of whom they had not seen for a decade and a half. Ethnic and interstate relations have improved as a result. Ethiopia-Eritrea An even more striking example from 2018 was the ending of the Ethiopian-Eritrean border conflict. As with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, this boundary was a colonial legacy that artificially divided populations – and between 1998 and 2000, the two countries fought a bitter border war during which some 70,000 people died. The disputed territories were relatively small and of little economic value, but became heavily politicised by the militaristic governments of both countries. The Eritrea–Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) was established under a 2000 peace agreement to end the war. It rendered its decision in 2002 and planned to oversee demarcation in 2003. Although previously agreeing that the ruling would be binding, Ethiopia took the highly unusual position of refusing to accept it. Despite pressure from the UN Security Council, troops continued to occupy disputed territory, refugees remained in camps, and crossborder contact was minimal. The threat of renewed war continued. But in April 2018, the relatively youthful Abiy Ahmed took over as Ethiopian prime minister. He moved rapidly to improve relations with Eritrea, accepting the EEBC ruling and pulling troops back from disputed areas. A mere three months after taking office, he signed a peace accord with his Eritrean counterpart, formally ending the war. This was accompanied by joyful scenes of families reunited after two decades. How to make good borders Good borders are not about technical lines on a map, but political will. Changes in leadership in Uzbekistan and Ethiopia were crucial in restarting boundary delimitation and border management processes that had become deadlocked. As a result, families have been reunited, ethnic tensions reduced, and trade opportunities increased. There are broader lessons here. The impasses created by the Irish border question in the Brexit negotiations and Trump’s border wall have created a political crisis, poisoned politics, and fanned xenophobia. More migrants die each year because of the EU’s militarised border controls than at any other border on Earth. These outcomes are not inevitable; they are political choices. The EU, UK and US like to see themselves as moral standard-bearers in the international community. When it comes to border politics, however, they could do a lot worse than look to Uzbekistan and Ethiopia in 2019. (Nick Megoran is Reader in Political Geography, Newcastle University) (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)

Need to solve a border dispute? Look to Ethiopia and Uzbekistan

New York prosecutors unveiled an indictment Tuesday of the Russian lawyer whose participation in a June 2016 meeting with top officials of President Donald Trump's election campaign has given rise to allegations of collusion.

Natalya Veselnitskaya was charged with fabricating evidence in a separate 2013 money laundering case the US filed against a Russian company, Prevezon Holdings, which was allegedly involved in a $230 million tax fraud scheme in Moscow.

Veselnitskaya "is now a wanted person in the United States for intentionally misleading US investigators," said Homeland Security investigator Angel Melendez.

New York prosecutors unveiled an indictment Tuesday of the Russian lawyer whose participation in a June 2016 meeting with top officials of President Donald Trump's election campaign has given rise to allegations of collusion.

New York prosecutors unveiled an indictment Tuesday of the Russian lawyer whose participation in a June 2016 meeting with top officials of President Donald Trump's election campaign has given rise to allegations of collusion. Natalya Veselnitskaya was charged with fabricating evidence in a separate 2013 money laundering case the US filed against a Russian company, Prevezon Holdings, which was allegedly involved in a $230 million tax fraud scheme in Moscow. Veselnitskaya "is now a wanted person in the United States for intentionally misleading US investigators," said Homeland Security investigator Angel Melendez.

US indicts Russian lawyer who joined 2016 Trump Tower meeting

The US decision to withdraw troops from Syria will not jeopardise Washington`s efforts to counter threats in the region, which come from Iran and Islamic State, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Tuesday.

Pompeo was in Jordan, making his first visit to the Middle East since President Donald Trump`s abrupt announcement that he will pull the 2,000 US troops from Syria, which caused alarm among US allies in the region and prompted the resignation of Defence Secretary Jim Mattis.

The US troops in Syria have been fighting against Islamic State and also served as a counterweight to the Syrian government, which is backed by Iran and Russia.

Many of Trump`s domestic and international critics have said that withdrawing the troops abruptly could expose Washington`s Kurdish allies to repression from Turkey, and also allow Iran to solidify its influence in Syria.

But Pompeo said Washington was not stepping down from its efforts to challenge Iran. American policy makers were "redoubling not only our diplomatic but our commercial efforts to put real pressure on Iran," he said.&nbsp;

"There is enormous agreement on the risk that Iran poses to Jordan and other countries in the region," Pompeo added.&nbsp;

Jordan, which has expressed worries in the past about Iranian influence, particularly near the Jordanian border in southern Syria, said Tehran should refrain from meddling in the affairs of its neighbours Syria and Iraq.&nbsp;

"We all have problems with Iran`s expansionist policies in the region," Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said.

The US decision to withdraw troops from Syria will not jeopardise Washington`s efforts to counter threats in the region, which come from Iran and Islamic State, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Tuesday.

The US decision to withdraw troops from Syria will not jeopardise Washington`s efforts to counter threats in the region, which come from Iran and Islamic State, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Tuesday. Pompeo was in Jordan, making his first visit to the Middle East since President Donald Trump`s abrupt announcement that he will pull the 2,000 US troops from Syria, which caused alarm among US allies in the region and prompted the resignation of Defence Secretary Jim Mattis. The US troops in Syria have been fighting against Islamic State and also served as a counterweight to the Syrian government, which is backed by Iran and Russia. Many of Trump`s domestic and international critics have said that withdrawing the troops abruptly could expose Washington`s Kurdish allies to repression from Turkey, and also allow Iran to solidify its influence in Syria. But Pompeo said Washington was not stepping down from its efforts to challenge Iran. American policy makers were "redoubling not only our diplomatic but our commercial efforts to put real pressure on Iran," he said. "There is enormous agreement on the risk that Iran poses to Jordan and other countries in the region," Pompeo added. Jordan, which has expressed worries in the past about Iranian influence, particularly near the Jordanian border in southern Syria, said Tehran should refrain from meddling in the affairs of its neighbours Syria and Iraq. "We all have problems with Iran`s expansionist policies in the region," Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said.

US withdrawal from Syria does not jeopardise efforts to counter Iran, Pompeo says

The Taliban on Tuesday cancelled the planned peace talks with the US officials in Qatar over an agenda disagreement.

The meeting was cancelled even after the change&nbsp;in the&nbsp;venue of the meet on the demands of the&nbsp;Taliban. The Taliban had earlier demanded a shift in the venue of the talks to Qatar.

"Both sides have agreed to not meet in Qatar," senior Taliban members based in Afghanistan told Reuters.

The meeting between the leaders of the two groups aimed at&nbsp;a discussion to end the possible ceasefire in 2019 and the <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-urge-us-to-exit-afghanistan-or-face-soviet-style-defeat-186871">withdrawal of foreign forces</a>.

Talks had been planned for two days starting Wednesday in Qatar, senior Taliban members earlier told Reuters. The Taliban had rejected requests from regional powers to allow <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/taliban-launches-brutal-attack-on-afghan-army-182317">Afghan officials </a>to take part in the discussion.

The Taliban regards the United States as its main adversary in the Afghan war and views direct talks with Washington as a legitimate effort to seek the withdrawal of foreign troops before engaging with the Afghan government.

The war in Afghanistan is America's longest overseas military intervention. It has cost Washington nearly a trillion dollars and killed tens of thousands of people.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict have intensified since Taliban representatives began meeting with Khalilzad, an Afghan-born, US diplomat last year. Officials from the warring sides have met at least three times, but fighting has not subsided.

The leaders of the Taliban have already refused to hold direct talks with Afghanistan government.

(With inputs from Reuters)

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Taliban on Tuesday cancelled the planned peace talks with the US officials in Qatar over an agenda disagreement. The meeting was cancelled even after the change in the venue of the meet on the demands of the Taliban.

The Taliban on Tuesday cancelled the planned peace talks with the US officials in Qatar over an agenda disagreement. The meeting was cancelled even after the change in the venue of the meet on the demands of the Taliban. The Taliban had earlier demanded a shift in the venue of the talks to Qatar. "Both sides have agreed to not meet in Qatar," senior Taliban members based in Afghanistan told Reuters. The meeting between the leaders of the two groups aimed at a discussion to end the possible ceasefire in 2019 and the withdrawal of foreign forces. Talks had been planned for two days starting Wednesday in Qatar, senior Taliban members earlier told Reuters. The Taliban had rejected requests from regional powers to allow Afghan officials to take part in the discussion. The Taliban regards the United States as its main adversary in the Afghan war and views direct talks with Washington as a legitimate effort to seek the withdrawal of foreign troops before engaging with the Afghan government. The war in Afghanistan is America's longest overseas military intervention. It has cost Washington nearly a trillion dollars and killed tens of thousands of people. Diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict have intensified since Taliban representatives began meeting with Khalilzad, an Afghan-born, US diplomat last year. Officials from the warring sides have met at least three times, but fighting has not subsided. The leaders of the Taliban have already refused to hold direct talks with Afghanistan government. (With inputs from Reuters)

Taliban call off peace talks with US officials

Malaysia said Tuesday it was investigating claims China offered to help bail out <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/malaysia-files-criminal-charges-against-goldman-sachs-in-1mdb-probe-184778">scandal-hit state fund 1MDB </a>and get foreign probes into the controversy dropped in return for securing infrastructure deals.

Huge sums were purportedly looted from the Malaysian government fund in an audacious fraud, which allegedly involved <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/former-prime-minister-of-malaysia-charged-for-altering-state-funds-1mdb-loot-183396">former leader Najib Razak </a>and contributed to his shock poll defeat in May.

The Wall Street Journal reported Chinese officials offered in 2016 to help bail out the debt-mired fund and said they would try to use their influence to get countries to drop investigations into the case, citing minutes from meetings between Chinese and Malaysian officials.

Stolen 1MDB money was allegedly laundered via a complex web of transactions around the world, and countries including Singapore, the US and Switzerland have launched probes. Despite the reported Chinese offer, the investigations continued.

The Chinese also offered to bug the homes and offices of Wall Street Journal reporters in Hong Kong who were investigating 1MDB to find out who was passing information to them, the paper said.

In exchange, the report said that Malaysia promised stakes in railway and pipeline projects as part of China's "Belt and Road Initiative", a major infrastructure drive seeking to link Asia, Europe, and Africa.

Within months, the government in Kuala Lumpur signed billions of dollars worth of deals with Chinese state companies backed by funding from Chinese banks.

Malaysian Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng told local media that he could not confirm the claims but would look into the matter.

"If there is anything that explicitly states this in black and white, we will pursue the case," he was cited as saying.

A finance ministry spokeswoman confirmed Lim made the comments.

The Chinese government information office did not respond to requests for comment, the Wall Street Journal said. China's foreign ministry has previously denied money from its infrastructure programme was used to bail out 1MDB, it said.

Since the defeat of Najib's government to a reformist alliance in May — the first change of government since Malaysia became an independent country — ties have cooled markedly between Beijing and Kuala Lumpur.

New Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who came out of retirement to oust former protege Najib amid public anger over 1MDB, has shelved $22 billion worth of Chinese projects.

The US State Department alleges that $4.5 billion was looted from the fund by Najib and his cronies, and spent on everything from artwork to high-end real estate.&nbsp;

Najib has been arrested and charged over the scandal since being ejected from office. He denies any wrongdoing.

Huge sums were purportedly looted from the Malaysian government fund in an audacious fraud, which allegedly involved former leader Najib Razak.

Malaysia said Tuesday it was investigating claims China offered to help bail out scandal-hit state fund 1MDB and get foreign probes into the controversy dropped in return for securing infrastructure deals. Huge sums were purportedly looted from the Malaysian government fund in an audacious fraud, which allegedly involved former leader Najib Razak and contributed to his shock poll defeat in May. The Wall Street Journal reported Chinese officials offered in 2016 to help bail out the debt-mired fund and said they would try to use their influence to get countries to drop investigations into the case, citing minutes from meetings between Chinese and Malaysian officials. Stolen 1MDB money was allegedly laundered via a complex web of transactions around the world, and countries including Singapore, the US and Switzerland have launched probes. Despite the reported Chinese offer, the investigations continued. The Chinese also offered to bug the homes and offices of Wall Street Journal reporters in Hong Kong who were investigating 1MDB to find out who was passing information to them, the paper said. In exchange, the report said that Malaysia promised stakes in railway and pipeline projects as part of China's "Belt and Road Initiative", a major infrastructure drive seeking to link Asia, Europe, and Africa. Within months, the government in Kuala Lumpur signed billions of dollars worth of deals with Chinese state companies backed by funding from Chinese banks. Malaysian Finance Minister Lim Guan Eng told local media that he could not confirm the claims but would look into the matter. "If there is anything that explicitly states this in black and white, we will pursue the case," he was cited as saying. A finance ministry spokeswoman confirmed Lim made the comments. The Chinese government information office did not respond to requests for comment, the Wall Street Journal said. China's foreign ministry has previously denied money from its infrastructure programme was used to bail out 1MDB, it said. Since the defeat of Najib's government to a reformist alliance in May — the first change of government since Malaysia became an independent country — ties have cooled markedly between Beijing and Kuala Lumpur. New Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who came out of retirement to oust former protege Najib amid public anger over 1MDB, has shelved $22 billion worth of Chinese projects. The US State Department alleges that $4.5 billion was looted from the fund by Najib and his cronies, and spent on everything from artwork to high-end real estate. Najib has been arrested and charged over the scandal since being ejected from office. He denies any wrongdoing.

Malaysia probes claim China offered to bail out 1MDB

Asian markets rallied Monday after a blockbuster performance on <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/wall-street-ekes-out-gains-apple-cuts-revenue-forecast-after-the-bell-187953">Wall Street as US jobs</a> data beat forecasts and the head of the Federal Reserve hinted at a slower pace of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-fed-could-rethink-rate-hikes-as-trump-trade-wars-drag-on-economy-185760">interest rate hikes</a>.

China's move to make it easier for banks to lend also provided support to equities, while investors keep an eye on Beijing as negotiators begin talks to end a trade war between the world's top two economies.

Dealers started the week on the front foot following a surge on Wall Street Friday that came after figures showed more than 300,000 US jobs were created in December, tempering recent concerns about growth.

Later that day, Fed boss Jerome Powell said the bank had no "pre-set" plan for raising borrowing costs and was keeping a close watch on financial developments.

"We're listening... sensitively to the message that markets are sending and we'll be taking those downside risks into account as we make policy going forward," he told a gathering of economists.

The news was music to the ears of traders, who have been fretting that the Fed would press on with its rate hike cycle, making it more expensive to borrow for investment.

The comments saw the Dow pile on more than three per cent while the Nasdaq was more than four per cent higher.

They also overshadowed the budget gridlock on Capitol Hill that has shut down the US government, with Donald Trump warning it could go on for years if he is not given funding to build a wall on the Mexican border.

And the gains filtered through to Asia, where Tokyo's Nikkei ended the morning session 2.8 per cent higher, while Sydney gained 1.3 per cent and Seoul jumped 1.6 per cent.

Taipei surged two per cent and Manila was up 1.7 per cent with Jakarta 1.1 per cent up.

Risk on 'stable footing'&nbsp;

Hong Kong jumped more than one per cent and Shanghai was 0.7 per cent higher, with buying also boosted by news that the People's Bank of China had cut the amount of cash banks must keep in reserve.

The move aims to free up funds for lending in a bid to grease the economy's wheels following a string of weak data that has raised questions about the outlook.

There was also some optimism as Chinese and US officials kicked off talks to find a solution to the trade war that has seen the two sides impose tariffs in hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods.

The row was a key factor behind the big losses on global markets last year and any move to bring it to an end will be cheered on trading floors.

Trump on Friday raised hopes for an agreement, saying: "I think we will make a deal with China."

Stephen Innes, head of Asia-Pacific trade at OANDA, said: "Risk sentiment is on more stable footing than we opened 2019 as a confluence of factors including the (China reserve rate) cut, China and the US... holding trade talks this week and of course Chair Powell's comments."

All, he said, were "market-friendly developments".&nbsp;

The upbeat mood gave a lift to high-yielding currencies, with South Korea's won and the Indonesian rupiah soaring against the dollar, while there were also healthy gains for Australia's dollar.

Oil was also benefitting, with both contracts up more than one per cent thanks to the wave of positive headlines.

But while there was a sense of hope, analysts remain cagey about the coming months.

"I do think going forward you are probably not likely to see that type of move where equities sell off 20 per cent in the space of six weeks, but generally volatility will be higher than what you saw in 2017 and the first half of 2018," Raymond Lee, managing director and portfolio manager at Kapstream Capital, told Bloomberg TV. 
&nbsp;

Dealers started the week on the front foot following a surge on Wall Street Friday that came after figures showed more than 300,000 US jobs were created in December.

Asian markets rallied Monday after a blockbuster performance on Wall Street as US jobs data beat forecasts and the head of the Federal Reserve hinted at a slower pace of interest rate hikes. China's move to make it easier for banks to lend also provided support to equities, while investors keep an eye on Beijing as negotiators begin talks to end a trade war between the world's top two economies. Dealers started the week on the front foot following a surge on Wall Street Friday that came after figures showed more than 300,000 US jobs were created in December, tempering recent concerns about growth. Later that day, Fed boss Jerome Powell said the bank had no "pre-set" plan for raising borrowing costs and was keeping a close watch on financial developments. "We're listening... sensitively to the message that markets are sending and we'll be taking those downside risks into account as we make policy going forward," he told a gathering of economists. The news was music to the ears of traders, who have been fretting that the Fed would press on with its rate hike cycle, making it more expensive to borrow for investment. The comments saw the Dow pile on more than three per cent while the Nasdaq was more than four per cent higher. They also overshadowed the budget gridlock on Capitol Hill that has shut down the US government, with Donald Trump warning it could go on for years if he is not given funding to build a wall on the Mexican border. And the gains filtered through to Asia, where Tokyo's Nikkei ended the morning session 2.8 per cent higher, while Sydney gained 1.3 per cent and Seoul jumped 1.6 per cent. Taipei surged two per cent and Manila was up 1.7 per cent with Jakarta 1.1 per cent up. Risk on 'stable footing' Hong Kong jumped more than one per cent and Shanghai was 0.7 per cent higher, with buying also boosted by news that the People's Bank of China had cut the amount of cash banks must keep in reserve. The move aims to free up funds for lending in a bid to grease the economy's wheels following a string of weak data that has raised questions about the outlook. There was also some optimism as Chinese and US officials kicked off talks to find a solution to the trade war that has seen the two sides impose tariffs in hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods. The row was a key factor behind the big losses on global markets last year and any move to bring it to an end will be cheered on trading floors. Trump on Friday raised hopes for an agreement, saying: "I think we will make a deal with China." Stephen Innes, head of Asia-Pacific trade at OANDA, said: "Risk sentiment is on more stable footing than we opened 2019 as a confluence of factors including the (China reserve rate) cut, China and the US... holding trade talks this week and of course Chair Powell's comments." All, he said, were "market-friendly developments". The upbeat mood gave a lift to high-yielding currencies, with South Korea's won and the Indonesian rupiah soaring against the dollar, while there were also healthy gains for Australia's dollar. Oil was also benefitting, with both contracts up more than one per cent thanks to the wave of positive headlines. But while there was a sense of hope, analysts remain cagey about the coming months. "I do think going forward you are probably not likely to see that type of move where equities sell off 20 per cent in the space of six weeks, but generally volatility will be higher than what you saw in 2017 and the first half of 2018," Raymond Lee, managing director and portfolio manager at Kapstream Capital, told Bloomberg TV.

Asia markets rally after Wall Sreet surge as US-China trade talks begin

Asian players are proving to be conceptually and bureaucratically better positioned in the 21st century’s 'great game' that involves tectonic geopolitical shifts with the emergence of what former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macaes terms the fusion of Europe and Asia into a “supercontinent.”

Yet, in contrast to the United States, Asian players despite approaching Europe and Asia as one political, albeit polarised and disorganised entity populated by widely differing and competing visions, may find that their historic legacies work against them.

US Naval College national security scholar Nikolas K Gvosdev argued that the United States, for example, was blinded to the shifts by the State Department’s classification of Russia as part of Europe, its lumping of Central Asia together with Pakistan and India and the Pentagon’s association of the region with the Arab world and Iran.

“The (State Department’s) continued inclusion of Russia within the diplomatic confines of a larger European bureau has intellectually limited assessments about Russia’s position in the world by framing Russian action primarily through a European lens. Not only does this undercount Russia’s ability to be a major player in the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, it has also, in my view, tended to overweight the importance of the Baltic littoral to Russian policy,” Gvosdev said.

He warned that the US government’s geographical classification of Central Asia, Eurasia’s heartland has “relegated it to second-tier status in terms of US attention and priorities.”

US failure to get ahead of the tectonic shifts in global geopolitics contrasts starkly with the understanding of Central Asian nations that they increasingly exist in an integrated, interconnected region that cannot isolate itself from changes enveloping it.

That understanding is reflected in a report by the Astana Club that brings together prominent political figures, diplomats, and experts from the great game’s various players under the auspices of Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Entitled, ‘Toward a Greater Eurasia: How to Build a Common Future?,’ the report warns that the Eurasian supercontinent needs to anticipate the Great Game’s risks that include mounting tensions between the United States and China; global trade wars; arms races; escalating conflict in the greater Middle East; deteriorating relations between Russia and the West; a heating up of contained European conflicts such as former Yugoslavia; rising chances of separatism and ethnic/religious conflict; and environmental degradation as well as technological advances.

The report suggested that the risks were enhanced by the fragility of the global system with the weakening of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and NATO.

Nazarbayev, Russian president Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan may be better positioned to understand the shifts given that they govern territories at the heart of the emerging Eurasian supercontinent and see it as an integral development rooted in their countries’ histories.

The then Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu made as much clear in 2013, “The last century was only a parenthesis for us. We will close that parenthesis. We will do so without going to war, or calling anyone an enemy, without being disrespectful to any border; we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to Batumi. This is the core of our power. These may look like different countries to you, but Yemen and Skopje were part of the same country a hundred and ten years ago as were Erzurum and Benghazi,” Davutoglu said drawing a picture of a modern-day revival of the Ottoman empire.

Erdogan has taken that ambition a step further by increasingly expanding it to the Turkic and Muslim world.

At its core, Erdogan’s vision, according to Eurasia scholar Igor Torbakov, is built on the notion that the world is divided into distinct civilisations. And upon that foundation rise three pillars: 1) A just world order can only be a multipolar one; 2) No civilisation has the right to claim a hegemonic position in the international system, and 3) Non-Western civilisations (including those in Turkey and Russia) are in the ascendant. In addition, anti-Western sentiment and self-assertiveness are crucial elements of this outlook.

Expressing that sentiment, Turkish bestselling author and Erdogan supporter Alev Alati quipped: “We are the ones who have adopted Islam as an identity but have become so competent in playing chess with Westerners that we can beat them. We made this country that lacked oil, gold and gas what it is now. It was not easy, and we won’t give it up so quickly.”

The Achilles Heel, however, of Putin and Erdogan’s Eurasianism is the fact that its geographies are populated by former empires like the Ottomans and Russia whose post-imperial notions of national identity remain contested and drive its leaders to define national unity as state unity, control the flow of information, and repress alternative views expressions of dissent.

Turkey and Russia still “see themselves as empires, and, as a general rule, an empire’s political philosophy is one of universalism and exceptionalism. In other words, empires don’t have friends – they have either enemies or dependencies,” said Torbakov, the Eurasia scholar, or exist in what Russian strategists term “imperial or geopolitical solitude.”

Erdogan’s vision of a modern-day Ottoman empire encompasses the Turkic and Muslim world. Different groups of Russian strategists promote concepts of Russia as a state that has to continuously act as an empire or as a unique “state civilisation” devoid of expansionist ambition despite its premise of a Russian World that embraces the primacy of Russian culture as well as tolerance for non-Russian cultures. Both notions highlight the pitfalls of their nations’ history and Eurasianism.

Both Erdogan and Russia’s vision remain controversial. In Erdogan’s case, it is Muslim more than the Turkic world that is unwilling to accept Turkish leadership unchallenged with Saudi Arabia leading the charge and Turkish-Iranian relations defined by immediate common interests rather than shared strategic thinking.

Similarly, post-Soviet states take issue with Russia’s notion of the primacy of its culture. Beyond the Russian-Ukrainian conflict over the annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s support for Russian-speaking rebels in the east of the country, Ukraine emphasised its rejection of Russian cultural primacy with this month’s creation of a Ukrainian Orthodox Church independent of its Russian counterpart.

Earlier, Ukraine’s parliament passed a law in September 2017 establishing Ukrainian rather than Russian as the language of instruction in schools and colleges. The law stipulated that educational institutions could teach courses in a second language, provided it was an official language of the European Union. National minorities were guaranteed the right to study in Ukrainian as well as their minority language.

Similarly, Kazakhstan, the Eurasian nation par excellence, shifted from Cyrillic to Latin script.

“Russia’s influence (in Central Asia) has been largely mythologised, and its role in both national and regional security has not been properly and honestly discussed. Different fears and phobias still influence the decision-making process, including those over Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea, the concept of the ‘Russian World’ as a pillar of its national identity, and its soft power,” said Kazakh Central Asia scholar Anna Gussarova.

Ukraine may put a dent in the Russian World’s attractivity, but it does not amount to a body blow.

Gussarova cautioned that while Central Asian elites may recognise the risks involved in embracing Russian primacy, the region’s public remains far more aligned with Russian culture, at least linguistically.

“Whereas the expert community, which is supposed to shape public opinion, uses the English-language platforms Facebook and Twitter, the general public relies on Russian-language social media. This dichotomy underscores the limitations of any effort by the government and affiliated experts to shape public perceptions. At the same time, this gap shows greater public support for Russia and its activities, which makes nation-building and language issues difficult and sensitive,” Gussarova said. 
 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Asian players are proving to be conceptually and bureaucratically better positioned in the 21st century’s 'great game' that involves tectonic geopolitical shifts with the emergence of what former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macaes terms the fusion of Europe and Asia into a “supercontinent.

Asian players are proving to be conceptually and bureaucratically better positioned in the 21st century’s 'great game' that involves tectonic geopolitical shifts with the emergence of what former Portuguese Europe minister Bruno Macaes terms the fusion of Europe and Asia into a “supercontinent.” Yet, in contrast to the United States, Asian players despite approaching Europe and Asia as one political, albeit polarised and disorganised entity populated by widely differing and competing visions, may find that their historic legacies work against them. US Naval College national security scholar Nikolas K Gvosdev argued that the United States, for example, was blinded to the shifts by the State Department’s classification of Russia as part of Europe, its lumping of Central Asia together with Pakistan and India and the Pentagon’s association of the region with the Arab world and Iran. “The (State Department’s) continued inclusion of Russia within the diplomatic confines of a larger European bureau has intellectually limited assessments about Russia’s position in the world by framing Russian action primarily through a European lens. Not only does this undercount Russia’s ability to be a major player in the Middle East, South Asia and East Asia, it has also, in my view, tended to overweight the importance of the Baltic littoral to Russian policy,” Gvosdev said. He warned that the US government’s geographical classification of Central Asia, Eurasia’s heartland has “relegated it to second-tier status in terms of US attention and priorities.” US failure to get ahead of the tectonic shifts in global geopolitics contrasts starkly with the understanding of Central Asian nations that they increasingly exist in an integrated, interconnected region that cannot isolate itself from changes enveloping it. That understanding is reflected in a report by the Astana Club that brings together prominent political figures, diplomats, and experts from the great game’s various players under the auspices of Kazakh president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Entitled, ‘Toward a Greater Eurasia: How to Build a Common Future?,’ the report warns that the Eurasian supercontinent needs to anticipate the Great Game’s risks that include mounting tensions between the United States and China; global trade wars; arms races; escalating conflict in the greater Middle East; deteriorating relations between Russia and the West; a heating up of contained European conflicts such as former Yugoslavia; rising chances of separatism and ethnic/religious conflict; and environmental degradation as well as technological advances. The report suggested that the risks were enhanced by the fragility of the global system with the weakening of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and NATO. Nazarbayev, Russian president Vladimir Putin and Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan may be better positioned to understand the shifts given that they govern territories at the heart of the emerging Eurasian supercontinent and see it as an integral development rooted in their countries’ histories. The then Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu made as much clear in 2013, “The last century was only a parenthesis for us. We will close that parenthesis. We will do so without going to war, or calling anyone an enemy, without being disrespectful to any border; we will again tie Sarajevo to Damascus, Benghazi to Erzurum to Batumi. This is the core of our power. These may look like different countries to you, but Yemen and Skopje were part of the same country a hundred and ten years ago as were Erzurum and Benghazi,” Davutoglu said drawing a picture of a modern-day revival of the Ottoman empire. Erdogan has taken that ambition a step further by increasingly expanding it to the Turkic and Muslim world. At its core, Erdogan’s vision, according to Eurasia scholar Igor Torbakov, is built on the notion that the world is divided into distinct civilisations. And upon that foundation rise three pillars: 1) A just world order can only be a multipolar one; 2) No civilisation has the right to claim a hegemonic position in the international system, and 3) Non-Western civilisations (including those in Turkey and Russia) are in the ascendant. In addition, anti-Western sentiment and self-assertiveness are crucial elements of this outlook. Expressing that sentiment, Turkish bestselling author and Erdogan supporter Alev Alati quipped: “We are the ones who have adopted Islam as an identity but have become so competent in playing chess with Westerners that we can beat them. We made this country that lacked oil, gold and gas what it is now. It was not easy, and we won’t give it up so quickly.” The Achilles Heel, however, of Putin and Erdogan’s Eurasianism is the fact that its geographies are populated by former empires like the Ottomans and Russia whose post-imperial notions of national identity remain contested and drive its leaders to define national unity as state unity, control the flow of information, and repress alternative views expressions of dissent. Turkey and Russia still “see themselves as empires, and, as a general rule, an empire’s political philosophy is one of universalism and exceptionalism. In other words, empires don’t have friends – they have either enemies or dependencies,” said Torbakov, the Eurasia scholar, or exist in what Russian strategists term “imperial or geopolitical solitude.” Erdogan’s vision of a modern-day Ottoman empire encompasses the Turkic and Muslim world. Different groups of Russian strategists promote concepts of Russia as a state that has to continuously act as an empire or as a unique “state civilisation” devoid of expansionist ambition despite its premise of a Russian World that embraces the primacy of Russian culture as well as tolerance for non-Russian cultures. Both notions highlight the pitfalls of their nations’ history and Eurasianism. Both Erdogan and Russia’s vision remain controversial. In Erdogan’s case, it is Muslim more than the Turkic world that is unwilling to accept Turkish leadership unchallenged with Saudi Arabia leading the charge and Turkish-Iranian relations defined by immediate common interests rather than shared strategic thinking. Similarly, post-Soviet states take issue with Russia’s notion of the primacy of its culture. Beyond the Russian-Ukrainian conflict over the annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s support for Russian-speaking rebels in the east of the country, Ukraine emphasised its rejection of Russian cultural primacy with this month’s creation of a Ukrainian Orthodox Church independent of its Russian counterpart. Earlier, Ukraine’s parliament passed a law in September 2017 establishing Ukrainian rather than Russian as the language of instruction in schools and colleges. The law stipulated that educational institutions could teach courses in a second language, provided it was an official language of the European Union. National minorities were guaranteed the right to study in Ukrainian as well as their minority language. Similarly, Kazakhstan, the Eurasian nation par excellence, shifted from Cyrillic to Latin script. “Russia’s influence (in Central Asia) has been largely mythologised, and its role in both national and regional security has not been properly and honestly discussed. Different fears and phobias still influence the decision-making process, including those over Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea, the concept of the ‘Russian World’ as a pillar of its national identity, and its soft power,” said Kazakh Central Asia scholar Anna Gussarova. Ukraine may put a dent in the Russian World’s attractivity, but it does not amount to a body blow. Gussarova cautioned that while Central Asian elites may recognise the risks involved in embracing Russian primacy, the region’s public remains far more aligned with Russian culture, at least linguistically. “Whereas the expert community, which is supposed to shape public opinion, uses the English-language platforms Facebook and Twitter, the general public relies on Russian-language social media. This dichotomy underscores the limitations of any effort by the government and affiliated experts to shape public perceptions. At the same time, this gap shows greater public support for Russia and its activities, which makes nation-building and language issues difficult and sensitive,” Gussarova said. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The rise of Eurasia: Geopolitical advantages and historic pitfalls

us-1

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

us 1