By Tom Engelhardt

Face it: It’s been an abusive time, to use a word he likes to wield. In his telling, of course, it’s he or his people who are always the abused ones, and they — the “fake news media” — are the abusers. But let’s be honest. You’ve been abused, too, and so have I. All of us have and by that same fake news media.

It isn’t complicated, really. Thanks to them, to those cable news talking heads who never stop yammering about him, to the reporters who clamour over his every word or twitch, he’s always there, 24/7. I know that it’s still called covering the news, but it’s a phrase that no longer faintly fits the situation. Yes, a near majority of Americans voted for him as president, but no one voted to make him a living (and living-room) icon, a never-ending presence not just in our world, but in all our private worlds, too.

Never, not ever, has a single human being been so inescapable. You can’t turn on TV news, read a newspaper, listen to the radio, wander on social media or do much of anything else without almost instantly bumping into or tripping over him — attacking them, praising himself, telling you how wonderful or terrible he feels and how much he loves or loathes. Well, whatever happens, to be ever so briefly on his mind that very moment.

And if that isn’t really almost too obvious to write down, then what is? Still, just briefly, let’s try to take in the obvious. Let me put it this way: never, not since Adam or certainly Nebuchadnezzar, not to speak of Eve or Cleopatra, has anyone in history been so unrelentingly focused upon or mercilessly covered, so, in a sense, fawned upon — and, of course, “abused”. In the past, I’ve labelled what we’re living through “the white Ford Bronco presidency” because, for the last nearly three years, the media has covered him as if he were indeed O.J. Simpson in that car fleeing the police over his wife’s murder, as if, that is, there was nothing else on Earth worth gluing our eyeballs to, and not as in O.J.’s case for a relatively few hours, but for what already seems like an eternity.

In a way, this is the simplest piece I’ve ever written, because whoever you are, wherever you live in this country (or possibly on the planet), whatever you think of him, positive or negative, you already know all of this. You’ve already discussed it with your friends. You’ve certainly wondered what would happen if the mainstream media suddenly stopped attending to Donald Trump. Oh yes, I hadn’t mentioned his name until now, because why bother? You never had a doubt, did you?

The Unthinkable

My guess on the effect of such a withdrawal of coverage: He’d shrivel up and die. Your guess may be different, but it doesn’t matter because we’re clearly never going to find out. Even the recent presidential decision to take away CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass — with the doctored video of his behavior and all — after a distinctly abusive press conference (“I’ll tell you what: CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN”), was only the cause for yet another deluge of coverage.

None of Acosta’s media compatriots, not even at CNN, decided, for instance, to protest by refusing to cover another White House event until he got that pass back, though CNN is suing the Trump administration. None of them evidently even seriously considered closing the door, shutting the gate, turning their backs on you-know-who. That clearly is 21st-century media version of thinking about the unthinkable.

Honestly, who doesn’t talk about all this in the face of a presidency that’s in your face, all our faces, in a way that no other president, emperor, king, autocrat, dictator, movie star, celebrity or — feel free to fill in whatever I haven’t thought of here — has ever before been. His every phrase, tweet, complaint, bit of praise, parenthetical comment, angry snit, insult, or even policy decision is reported, discussed, gnawed on, considered, reconsidered, yakked about nonstop, hour after hour after endless hour, reshown in clip after repetitive clip. This is, in short, a unique historical experience of ours and ours alone. How could we not talk about it all the time?

Oh wait! Oddly enough, in case you hadn’t noticed, there’s one place where it’s barely talked about at all, where silence largely reigns, and to my mind that couldn’t be stranger. Here’s the only catch in the non-stop coverage of Donald J. Trump (2015 to 2018 and beyond): That same mainstream media that can’t get enough of him, that eats up and gnaws on his every odd phrase, gesture, act or passing thought is essentially silent on only one thing — the coverage itself.

The most obvious subject in the world — not him, but the thing that keeps him going, that keeps the whole ship of state more or less afloat at this point — the unprecedented focus on him just doesn’t seem to be a subject fit for significant coverage, even though it’s a commonplace in our conversations out here in what still passes for the real world. We may regularly roll our eyes, but the mainstream media programmatically never does. Not in public anyway. And as was true from the beginning of the Trump era, from The New York Times and Politico to The Atlantic magazine, media outfits have hired yet more people to cover — well, Donald Trump (and not just from Washington either) and ploughed right on.

But do they cover themselves? Hardly. Media critics inside those mainstream companies have become an ever rarer species. The New York Times, for instance, let go of its “public editor” in May 2017 and left it to perhaps random tweeters to handle how the paper was covering anything. And that’s been typical. Or put another way: There’s really only one media critic left in the mainstream world — and you know just who he is! (A typical tweeted comment of his: “A very big part of the Anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News. It has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. Mainstream Media must clean up its act, FAST!”)

And sometimes that criticism couldn’t be more personal. (“Loser,” he recently called White House reporter April Ryan. “What a stupid question that is,” he said to CNN’s Abby Phillip. “What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot, you ask a lot of stupid questions.”) I’m referring, of course, to America’s media-critic-in-chief now in residence in Washington, DC, when, of course, he isn’t out in the provinces getting a little love from his adoring “base” in those endless rallies for the midterm elections and, of course, the ones for the 2020 campaign, which began long ago.

And naturally enough, the “fake news” reporters can’t cover those rallies enough or discuss them and what he says at them more often. But again, there’s one catch, one lacuna, in all this. They almost never cover Donald J. Trump’s rally of rallies in that same analytical and dissecting fashion. I’m thinking, of course, of the rallies that truly keep him going, and by that I mean his endless set of interactions with — yep, the media. After all, without being eternally in their glowing spotlight, without that endless coverage of everything him, what would he be?

The Media Critic-in-Chief

In a sense, those hordes of reporters crowding into his world are his most adoring fans (even if many of them may loathe him personally). They may not literally bathe him in love (as his fans in those stadiums do), but they certainly bathe him in what he loves most, what clearly keeps him up and running — attention. And from each of those media “rallies” of his, however small, however impromptu, however angry or insulting, no matter the nature of the words exchanged, he clearly comes away feeling clean as a new born babe (though they perhaps feel dirty as, well, who knows what).

It may not be a love affair, but it certainly is an affair to remember. And despite the fact that his official news conferences may be rare, he manages to meet the press (to use a thoroughly outmoded phrase) constantly and in ways too numerous to mention. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that he’s taken more questions from reporters — even if he’s regularly mangled and shredded them — than all our recent presidents (except that other classic narcissist, Bill Clinton).

Being the canny self-promoter that he is, Donald Trump knows the value of those exchanges, no matter their nature. He knows that the specifics of what the media may write or say about him matter remarkably little, as long as they cover him in this totalistic fashion, as long as they never stop bathing him in his own ultimate form of glory. They are, as he would be the first to tell you, his “earned media.” In fact, just the other day at his post-election news conference, he had this little exchange with a reporter:

“Q: Mr. President, first off, I personally think it’s very good to have you here because a free press and this type of engagement—”

“The President: I do, too. Actually? I do, too.”

“Q: Yes. It’s vital to democracy.”

“The President: It’s called ‘earned media.’ It’s worth billions. Go ahead.”

Let’s be clear: Donald Trump is no fool. He knows that he’s got not just a knack but the knack for accruing “earned media” — that is, unpaid for publicity and advertising. Estimates were that he got a staggering $5.6 billion of it during his 2015-2016 election campaign and, exactly as he implied in that knowing aside, it’s never ended. And yes, it is “vital” to him, if not to “democracy.” Think of him, in fact, as President Earned Media.

Since we are talking about a mutual affair, however, the opposite is also true: Donald Trump is the media’s version of, at the risk of being completely repetitious, earned media. No one’s put it better than former CBS head Leslie Moonves — recently taken down by the #MeToo moment — during the 2016 election campaign. “It may not be good for America,” he said, “but it’s damn good for CBS.” He added, “The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this [is] going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald. Keep going.” And, as we all know, Donald did.

Keep in mind that the media had been thrown into chaos and confusion by the growth of the online world of the internet, as many news businesses faltered and staff cuts were widespread. How convenient, then, to stumble upon such genuine human clickbait, someone on whom you could focus your attention so relatively cheaply and profitably. So much for covering the world, a distinctly expensive proposition. Talk about bargain basement candidacies and presidencies.

From the moment he descended that escalator in Trump Tower in June 2015, Donald Trump became the media equivalent of a freebie — someone viewers and readers just couldn’t help watching, hearing about, reading about. It was like stumbling on a gold mine in the desert. As it turned out, Americans were indeed ready to have the talking heads of CNN (now the president’s eternal punching bag), MSNBC and Fox News yammer on hour after hour, day after day about him and only him. It was, in its own way, a genuine miracle for news companies that had found themselves up against the wall, and it couldn’t have been more real, or — as, at some level, Donald Trump himself grasped — more fake.

Quite A Performance

Put it all together and you can understand how a major Trump rally — oops, I mean that post-election news conference of his — actually worked. But first let me take a moment, in truly Trumpian fashion, to thank myself on your behalf. Like you, I watched clips of that news conference. Then I did all of you a favour and actually read the whole 17,000-plus words of it, one hour and 26 minutes worth of his and their words, so you wouldn’t have to.

And believe me, it was quite a performance as the president called on or ignored reporters desperate to get his attention, insulted them, spoke with them, spoke against them, spoke over them (“We are a hot country. This is a hot White House”), spoke around them, described them (“I come in here as a nice person wanting to answer questions and I have people jumping out of there seats, screaming questions at me”), wandered away from them, wandered away from himself, ignored or didn’t answer their questions, was incoherent for significant stretches of time, or couldn’t even hold onto a thought. And by the way, the reporters there more than matched him (“One, I was tempted to ask you why you like Oprah so much, but I think I’ll go on to the question that”), blow for blowhard (“Based off of that, how would you say, over the last two years, God plays — what kind of a factor He plays in the day-to-day execution of the Office of the Presidency?”).

Read the whole thing and you’d have to be struck — even by the less-than-soaring standards of past presidential news conferences — by how little (with a bow to Gertrude Stein) there there actually was there. The president’s incoherence was remarkably well matched by the dreariness of the generally expectable, largely thought-free questions he was asked on a limited set of topics.

As always, though, there were those Trumpian moments that aren’t likely to leave your head soon thereafter. There was, for instance, the exchange in which the president called on PBS’s Yamiche Alcindor, a relatively rare black reporter in that room. She began her question this way, “On the campaign trail, you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists. Now people are also saying…”

At that point, the president promptly interrupted to respond: “I don’t know why you’d say that. That’s such a racist question.” (Something he’d then repeat twice more.) The pure chutzpah of that response should have taken anyone’s breath away, but it was also a reminder of the strange sense of freedom Trump feels to say anything in the presence of the media, including mocking or insulting three black female reporters at that news conference. And this can only happen again and again and again. It’s hard not to feel that we are all now eternally watching two sets of addicts who simply can’t exist without or get enough of each other.

Toward the end of that news conference, one of the reporters began a question (also focused on white nationalism) this way: “Thank you, sir. And I think we’d all love to have more of these, if you’re willing…”

It tells us so much about our 21st-century Trumpian world that anyone in that press corps would wish for more of the same. I have a feeling that somewhere in all of this someone, maybe Bob Mueller, should indict all of them for fraud. In the meantime, the rest of us remain in a world wallpapered with Donald Trump, a world in which the fake news media, which is his truest “base,” just can’t get enough of him. 
 
(The author is&nbsp;co-founder of the American Empire Project and runs TomDispatch.com)

(This article was originally published on Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/donald-trump-media-fake-news-cnn-jim-accosta-us-politics-news-10920/">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 Tom Engelhardt Face it: It’s been an abusive time, to use a word he likes to wield. In his telling, of course, it’s he or his people who are always the abused ones, and they — the “fake news media” — are the abusers.

By Tom Engelhardt Face it: It’s been an abusive time, to use a word he likes to wield. In his telling, of course, it’s he or his people who are always the abused ones, and they — the “fake news media” — are the abusers. But let’s be honest. You’ve been abused, too, and so have I. All of us have and by that same fake news media. It isn’t complicated, really. Thanks to them, to those cable news talking heads who never stop yammering about him, to the reporters who clamour over his every word or twitch, he’s always there, 24/7. I know that it’s still called covering the news, but it’s a phrase that no longer faintly fits the situation. Yes, a near majority of Americans voted for him as president, but no one voted to make him a living (and living-room) icon, a never-ending presence not just in our world, but in all our private worlds, too. Never, not ever, has a single human being been so inescapable. You can’t turn on TV news, read a newspaper, listen to the radio, wander on social media or do much of anything else without almost instantly bumping into or tripping over him — attacking them, praising himself, telling you how wonderful or terrible he feels and how much he loves or loathes. Well, whatever happens, to be ever so briefly on his mind that very moment. And if that isn’t really almost too obvious to write down, then what is? Still, just briefly, let’s try to take in the obvious. Let me put it this way: never, not since Adam or certainly Nebuchadnezzar, not to speak of Eve or Cleopatra, has anyone in history been so unrelentingly focused upon or mercilessly covered, so, in a sense, fawned upon — and, of course, “abused”. In the past, I’ve labelled what we’re living through “the white Ford Bronco presidency” because, for the last nearly three years, the media has covered him as if he were indeed O.J. Simpson in that car fleeing the police over his wife’s murder, as if, that is, there was nothing else on Earth worth gluing our eyeballs to, and not as in O.J.’s case for a relatively few hours, but for what already seems like an eternity. In a way, this is the simplest piece I’ve ever written, because whoever you are, wherever you live in this country (or possibly on the planet), whatever you think of him, positive or negative, you already know all of this. You’ve already discussed it with your friends. You’ve certainly wondered what would happen if the mainstream media suddenly stopped attending to Donald Trump. Oh yes, I hadn’t mentioned his name until now, because why bother? You never had a doubt, did you? The Unthinkable My guess on the effect of such a withdrawal of coverage: He’d shrivel up and die. Your guess may be different, but it doesn’t matter because we’re clearly never going to find out. Even the recent presidential decision to take away CNN White House correspondent Jim Acosta’s press pass — with the doctored video of his behavior and all — after a distinctly abusive press conference (“I’ll tell you what: CNN should be ashamed of itself having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person. You shouldn’t be working for CNN”), was only the cause for yet another deluge of coverage. None of Acosta’s media compatriots, not even at CNN, decided, for instance, to protest by refusing to cover another White House event until he got that pass back, though CNN is suing the Trump administration. None of them evidently even seriously considered closing the door, shutting the gate, turning their backs on you-know-who. That clearly is 21st-century media version of thinking about the unthinkable. Honestly, who doesn’t talk about all this in the face of a presidency that’s in your face, all our faces, in a way that no other president, emperor, king, autocrat, dictator, movie star, celebrity or — feel free to fill in whatever I haven’t thought of here — has ever before been. His every phrase, tweet, complaint, bit of praise, parenthetical comment, angry snit, insult, or even policy decision is reported, discussed, gnawed on, considered, reconsidered, yakked about nonstop, hour after hour after endless hour, reshown in clip after repetitive clip. This is, in short, a unique historical experience of ours and ours alone. How could we not talk about it all the time? Oh wait! Oddly enough, in case you hadn’t noticed, there’s one place where it’s barely talked about at all, where silence largely reigns, and to my mind that couldn’t be stranger. Here’s the only catch in the non-stop coverage of Donald J. Trump (2015 to 2018 and beyond): That same mainstream media that can’t get enough of him, that eats up and gnaws on his every odd phrase, gesture, act or passing thought is essentially silent on only one thing — the coverage itself. The most obvious subject in the world — not him, but the thing that keeps him going, that keeps the whole ship of state more or less afloat at this point — the unprecedented focus on him just doesn’t seem to be a subject fit for significant coverage, even though it’s a commonplace in our conversations out here in what still passes for the real world. We may regularly roll our eyes, but the mainstream media programmatically never does. Not in public anyway. And as was true from the beginning of the Trump era, from The New York Times and Politico to The Atlantic magazine, media outfits have hired yet more people to cover — well, Donald Trump (and not just from Washington either) and ploughed right on. But do they cover themselves? Hardly. Media critics inside those mainstream companies have become an ever rarer species. The New York Times, for instance, let go of its “public editor” in May 2017 and left it to perhaps random tweeters to handle how the paper was covering anything. And that’s been typical. Or put another way: There’s really only one media critic left in the mainstream world — and you know just who he is! (A typical tweeted comment of his: “A very big part of the Anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News. It has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. Mainstream Media must clean up its act, FAST!”) And sometimes that criticism couldn’t be more personal. (“Loser,” he recently called White House reporter April Ryan. “What a stupid question that is,” he said to CNN’s Abby Phillip. “What a stupid question. But I watch you a lot, you ask a lot of stupid questions.”) I’m referring, of course, to America’s media-critic-in-chief now in residence in Washington, DC, when, of course, he isn’t out in the provinces getting a little love from his adoring “base” in those endless rallies for the midterm elections and, of course, the ones for the 2020 campaign, which began long ago. And naturally enough, the “fake news” reporters can’t cover those rallies enough or discuss them and what he says at them more often. But again, there’s one catch, one lacuna, in all this. They almost never cover Donald J. Trump’s rally of rallies in that same analytical and dissecting fashion. I’m thinking, of course, of the rallies that truly keep him going, and by that I mean his endless set of interactions with — yep, the media. After all, without being eternally in their glowing spotlight, without that endless coverage of everything him, what would he be? The Media Critic-in-Chief In a sense, those hordes of reporters crowding into his world are his most adoring fans (even if many of them may loathe him personally). They may not literally bathe him in love (as his fans in those stadiums do), but they certainly bathe him in what he loves most, what clearly keeps him up and running — attention. And from each of those media “rallies” of his, however small, however impromptu, however angry or insulting, no matter the nature of the words exchanged, he clearly comes away feeling clean as a new born babe (though they perhaps feel dirty as, well, who knows what). It may not be a love affair, but it certainly is an affair to remember. And despite the fact that his official news conferences may be rare, he manages to meet the press (to use a thoroughly outmoded phrase) constantly and in ways too numerous to mention. I’m sure you won’t be surprised to learn that he’s taken more questions from reporters — even if he’s regularly mangled and shredded them — than all our recent presidents (except that other classic narcissist, Bill Clinton). Being the canny self-promoter that he is, Donald Trump knows the value of those exchanges, no matter their nature. He knows that the specifics of what the media may write or say about him matter remarkably little, as long as they cover him in this totalistic fashion, as long as they never stop bathing him in his own ultimate form of glory. They are, as he would be the first to tell you, his “earned media.” In fact, just the other day at his post-election news conference, he had this little exchange with a reporter: “Q: Mr. President, first off, I personally think it’s very good to have you here because a free press and this type of engagement—” “The President: I do, too. Actually? I do, too.” “Q: Yes. It’s vital to democracy.” “The President: It’s called ‘earned media.’ It’s worth billions. Go ahead.” Let’s be clear: Donald Trump is no fool. He knows that he’s got not just a knack but the knack for accruing “earned media” — that is, unpaid for publicity and advertising. Estimates were that he got a staggering $5.6 billion of it during his 2015-2016 election campaign and, exactly as he implied in that knowing aside, it’s never ended. And yes, it is “vital” to him, if not to “democracy.” Think of him, in fact, as President Earned Media. Since we are talking about a mutual affair, however, the opposite is also true: Donald Trump is the media’s version of, at the risk of being completely repetitious, earned media. No one’s put it better than former CBS head Leslie Moonves — recently taken down by the #MeToo moment — during the 2016 election campaign. “It may not be good for America,” he said, “but it’s damn good for CBS.” He added, “The money’s rolling in and this is fun. I’ve never seen anything like this, and this [is] going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But bring it on, Donald. Keep going.” And, as we all know, Donald did. Keep in mind that the media had been thrown into chaos and confusion by the growth of the online world of the internet, as many news businesses faltered and staff cuts were widespread. How convenient, then, to stumble upon such genuine human clickbait, someone on whom you could focus your attention so relatively cheaply and profitably. So much for covering the world, a distinctly expensive proposition. Talk about bargain basement candidacies and presidencies. From the moment he descended that escalator in Trump Tower in June 2015, Donald Trump became the media equivalent of a freebie — someone viewers and readers just couldn’t help watching, hearing about, reading about. It was like stumbling on a gold mine in the desert. As it turned out, Americans were indeed ready to have the talking heads of CNN (now the president’s eternal punching bag), MSNBC and Fox News yammer on hour after hour, day after day about him and only him. It was, in its own way, a genuine miracle for news companies that had found themselves up against the wall, and it couldn’t have been more real, or — as, at some level, Donald Trump himself grasped — more fake. Quite A Performance Put it all together and you can understand how a major Trump rally — oops, I mean that post-election news conference of his — actually worked. But first let me take a moment, in truly Trumpian fashion, to thank myself on your behalf. Like you, I watched clips of that news conference. Then I did all of you a favour and actually read the whole 17,000-plus words of it, one hour and 26 minutes worth of his and their words, so you wouldn’t have to. And believe me, it was quite a performance as the president called on or ignored reporters desperate to get his attention, insulted them, spoke with them, spoke against them, spoke over them (“We are a hot country. This is a hot White House”), spoke around them, described them (“I come in here as a nice person wanting to answer questions and I have people jumping out of there seats, screaming questions at me”), wandered away from them, wandered away from himself, ignored or didn’t answer their questions, was incoherent for significant stretches of time, or couldn’t even hold onto a thought. And by the way, the reporters there more than matched him (“One, I was tempted to ask you why you like Oprah so much, but I think I’ll go on to the question that”), blow for blowhard (“Based off of that, how would you say, over the last two years, God plays — what kind of a factor He plays in the day-to-day execution of the Office of the Presidency?”). Read the whole thing and you’d have to be struck — even by the less-than-soaring standards of past presidential news conferences — by how little (with a bow to Gertrude Stein) there there actually was there. The president’s incoherence was remarkably well matched by the dreariness of the generally expectable, largely thought-free questions he was asked on a limited set of topics. As always, though, there were those Trumpian moments that aren’t likely to leave your head soon thereafter. There was, for instance, the exchange in which the president called on PBS’s Yamiche Alcindor, a relatively rare black reporter in that room. She began her question this way, “On the campaign trail, you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw that as emboldening white nationalists. Now people are also saying…” At that point, the president promptly interrupted to respond: “I don’t know why you’d say that. That’s such a racist question.” (Something he’d then repeat twice more.) The pure chutzpah of that response should have taken anyone’s breath away, but it was also a reminder of the strange sense of freedom Trump feels to say anything in the presence of the media, including mocking or insulting three black female reporters at that news conference. And this can only happen again and again and again. It’s hard not to feel that we are all now eternally watching two sets of addicts who simply can’t exist without or get enough of each other. Toward the end of that news conference, one of the reporters began a question (also focused on white nationalism) this way: “Thank you, sir. And I think we’d all love to have more of these, if you’re willing…” It tells us so much about our 21st-century Trumpian world that anyone in that press corps would wish for more of the same. I have a feeling that somewhere in all of this someone, maybe Bob Mueller, should indict all of them for fraud. In the meantime, the rest of us remain in a world wallpapered with Donald Trump, a world in which the fake news media, which is his truest “base,” just can’t get enough of him. (The author is co-founder of the American Empire Project and runs TomDispatch.com) (This article was originally published on Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Donald Trump and the Media: A match made in hell?

US President Donald Trump on Thursday renewed a threat to close the US-Mexico border if the situation there gets out of control and warned it would hurt Mexico's trade with the United States.

"If we find that it gets to a level where we are going to lose control or where people are going to start getting hurt, we will close entry into the country for a period of time until we can get it under control," he told reporters.

"The whole border. I mean the whole border. Mexico will not be able to sell their cars into the United States where they make so many cars," he said.

President Donald Trump had issued the proclamation earlier this month as a matter of what he called national security as a US-bound caravan of Central American migrants made its way through Mexico toward the US border.

A federal judge on Monday (November 19) put a temporary halt to a Trump administration order denying the possibility of asylum to people who enter the US illegally.

(With inputs from AFP)

US President Donald Trump on Thursday renewed a threat to close the US-Mexico border if the situation there gets out of control and warned it would hurt Mexico's trade with the United States.

US President Donald Trump on Thursday renewed a threat to close the US-Mexico border if the situation there gets out of control and warned it would hurt Mexico's trade with the United States. "If we find that it gets to a level where we are going to lose control or where people are going to start getting hurt, we will close entry into the country for a period of time until we can get it under control," he told reporters. "The whole border. I mean the whole border. Mexico will not be able to sell their cars into the United States where they make so many cars," he said. President Donald Trump had issued the proclamation earlier this month as a matter of what he called national security as a US-bound caravan of Central American migrants made its way through Mexico toward the US border. A federal judge on Monday (November 19) put a temporary halt to a Trump administration order denying the possibility of asylum to people who enter the US illegally. (With inputs from AFP)

Trump renews threat to close down entire border with Mexico

US President Donald Trump renewed his attacks on the judiciary Thursday, accusing judges of making the country unsafe as he fanned <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/arrest-detain-and-deport-donald-trump-on-people-entering-us-illegally-171934">a bitter row over asylum seekers</a>.

Trump launched his latest salvo of tweets on the issue a day after clashing publicly with the chief justice of the Supreme Court over the independence of the courts.

"Judges must not Legislate Security ... and Safety at the Border, or anywhere else," Trump tweeted.

"They know nothing about it and are making our Country unsafe."

"Our great Law Enforcement professionals MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO THEIR JOB! If not there will be only bedlam, chaos, injury and death," he added.

Trump, who has attacked judges before after unfavourable court rulings, gave vent to his anger earlier this week after a federal appeals court temporarily blocked a presidential proclamation on asylum.

The proclamation said only people entering the United States at official checkpoints can apply for asylum, automatically rejecting those caught sneaking across the border.

In an extraordinary step, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts reacted to Trump's calling the federal judge who issued the ruling an "Obama judge."

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said in a statement to the Associated Press on Wednesday.

"What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them," Roberts said.

Trump responded on Thursday.

"Justice Roberts can say what he wants, but the 9th Circuit is a complete &amp; total disaster," Trump tweeted Thursday.

"It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, &amp; is used to get an almost guaranteed result."

According to US media reports, the Supreme Court did reverse around 79 per cent of 9th Circuit cases reviewed from 2010-2015 -- but the 6th Circuit, in fact, had the highest reversal rate of 87 per cent.&nbsp;

US President Donald Trump renewed his attacks on the judiciary Thursday, accusing judges of making the country unsafe as he fanned a bitter row over asylum seekers.

US President Donald Trump renewed his attacks on the judiciary Thursday, accusing judges of making the country unsafe as he fanned a bitter row over asylum seekers. Trump launched his latest salvo of tweets on the issue a day after clashing publicly with the chief justice of the Supreme Court over the independence of the courts. "Judges must not Legislate Security ... and Safety at the Border, or anywhere else," Trump tweeted. "They know nothing about it and are making our Country unsafe." "Our great Law Enforcement professionals MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO THEIR JOB! If not there will be only bedlam, chaos, injury and death," he added. Trump, who has attacked judges before after unfavourable court rulings, gave vent to his anger earlier this week after a federal appeals court temporarily blocked a presidential proclamation on asylum. The proclamation said only people entering the United States at official checkpoints can apply for asylum, automatically rejecting those caught sneaking across the border. In an extraordinary step, US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts reacted to Trump's calling the federal judge who issued the ruling an "Obama judge." "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said in a statement to the Associated Press on Wednesday. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them," Roberts said. Trump responded on Thursday. "Justice Roberts can say what he wants, but the 9th Circuit is a complete & total disaster," Trump tweeted Thursday. "It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result." According to US media reports, the Supreme Court did reverse around 79 per cent of 9th Circuit cases reviewed from 2010-2015 -- but the 6th Circuit, in fact, had the highest reversal rate of 87 per cent.

Trump accuses US judges of making country 'unsafe'

Nancy Pelosi, working to reclaim the top job in the US House of Representatives, has called for the creation of a new leadership post in a move that could make room for younger lawmakers in the upper echelons of the House Democrats.

The 78-year-old San Francisco liberal and current House Democratic leader is fighting hard to regain the job of speaker after the November 6 elections in which Democrats gained a majority in the 435-member chamber.

Pelosi previously held the post in 2007-2011 when she made history as the first woman speaker. But a handful of fellow Democrats have opposed her taking up the job again, saying the party needs new, younger leadership when the new Congress convenes in January.

In a letter to current and incoming House Democrats late on Tuesday, Pelosi called for creation of an additional committee post in House leadership ranks, focused on policy and communications.

"This enhancement ... will position House Democrats to best take advantage of the new size and diversity of our Caucus," Pelosi wrote.&nbsp; 
The House Democrats` other current top leaders are No. 2 Steny Hoyer and No. 3 James Clyburn, both also in their late 70s. The two have said they plan run for top spots, Hoyer as majority leader and Clyburn as majority whip.

While 16 Democrats have threatened to join Republicans and vote against Pelosi in January when the House elects a speaker, no Democrat has openly issued a challenge to her. On Tuesday, she won the backing of one potential challenger, fellow Democrat Marcia Fudge.

Democratic former President Barack Obama, a highly influential figure in the party, called Pelosi "one of the most effective legislative leaders that this country`s ever seen" in an interview with podcast "The Axe Files" released on Tuesday.

Representative Jim Himes, in a CNN interview on Wednesday, said fellow Democrats have a right to consider alternative leaders but added the party should unite once that plays out.

"If it doesn`t work: Stop. Allow us to unify, allow us to move forward," Himes said, adding he would not yet announce who he was supporting for the speaker role.

House Democrats elected to the next Congress are scheduled to meet on November 28 to pick their leaders and nominee for speaker. The full House will vote in early January on the speaker position.

In her letter, Pelosi acknowledged the expanding Democratic caucus and said the new position would be in addition to three current co-chairs of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee: Representatives Cheri Bustos, David Cicilline and Hakeem Jeffries.&nbsp;

President Donald Trump`s fellow Republicans retained their majority in the Senate in this month`s elections.&nbsp;

Nancy Pelosi, working to reclaim the top job in the US House of Representatives, has called for the creation of a new leadership post in a move that could make room for younger lawmakers in the upper echelons of the House Democrats.

Nancy Pelosi, working to reclaim the top job in the US House of Representatives, has called for the creation of a new leadership post in a move that could make room for younger lawmakers in the upper echelons of the House Democrats. The 78-year-old San Francisco liberal and current House Democratic leader is fighting hard to regain the job of speaker after the November 6 elections in which Democrats gained a majority in the 435-member chamber. Pelosi previously held the post in 2007-2011 when she made history as the first woman speaker. But a handful of fellow Democrats have opposed her taking up the job again, saying the party needs new, younger leadership when the new Congress convenes in January. In a letter to current and incoming House Democrats late on Tuesday, Pelosi called for creation of an additional committee post in House leadership ranks, focused on policy and communications. "This enhancement ... will position House Democrats to best take advantage of the new size and diversity of our Caucus," Pelosi wrote. The House Democrats` other current top leaders are No. 2 Steny Hoyer and No. 3 James Clyburn, both also in their late 70s. The two have said they plan run for top spots, Hoyer as majority leader and Clyburn as majority whip. While 16 Democrats have threatened to join Republicans and vote against Pelosi in January when the House elects a speaker, no Democrat has openly issued a challenge to her. On Tuesday, she won the backing of one potential challenger, fellow Democrat Marcia Fudge. Democratic former President Barack Obama, a highly influential figure in the party, called Pelosi "one of the most effective legislative leaders that this country`s ever seen" in an interview with podcast "The Axe Files" released on Tuesday. Representative Jim Himes, in a CNN interview on Wednesday, said fellow Democrats have a right to consider alternative leaders but added the party should unite once that plays out. "If it doesn`t work: Stop. Allow us to unify, allow us to move forward," Himes said, adding he would not yet announce who he was supporting for the speaker role. House Democrats elected to the next Congress are scheduled to meet on November 28 to pick their leaders and nominee for speaker. The full House will vote in early January on the speaker position. In her letter, Pelosi acknowledged the expanding Democratic caucus and said the new position would be in addition to three current co-chairs of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee: Representatives Cheri Bustos, David Cicilline and Hakeem Jeffries. President Donald Trump`s fellow Republicans retained their majority in the Senate in this month`s elections.

In bid for top US House job, Pelosi makes room for others

The killers of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi may have gotten more than they bargained for.

The killing has sparked multiple battles that are likely in coming months to shape relationships ranging from that between the United States and Saudi Arabia to those between US President Donald J Trump, his Republican party, the US Congress, and the country’s intelligence community.

The fallout of the killing could also shape Trump’s ability to pursue his policy goals in the Middle East, including forcing Iran to its knees and imposing a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Rather than putting an end to differences over how to respond to &nbsp;Khashoggi’s killing, Trump’s decision to stand by Saudi Arabia and its crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, irrespective of who may have been responsible for the murder, marks the opening of a new round in what prominent journalist Rami Khouri dubbed “a new era in the Khashoggi case.”

The battles are likely to be fought on multiple fronts. One venue will be the Group of 20 (G-20) summit at the end of this month in Argentina with Prince Mohammed, whom the Central Intelligence Agency and many in the US Congress believe to be responsible for the killing, in attendance.

How Prince Mohammed is received at the summit is certain to indicate to what degree the crown prince’s international standing has been tarnished and may constitute a reality check for him of the damage Saudi Arabia has suffered as a result of Khashoggi’s killing.

It will also serve as one indication of how much of a battle Trump may have to fight in seeking to ensure that Prince Mohammed remains insulated from consequences of Khashoggi’s death.

To be sure, Prince Mohammed decided to attend the G-20 summit prior to Trump’s decision to take no further action against Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, by attending the crown prince, emboldened by Trump’s support, “is daring his international critics to put their rhetoric into action and betting that they won't," said Gulf scholar Kristian Ulrichsen.

The stakes for both Trump and Prince Mohammed are high.

In leaking its conclusion that Prince Mohammed was responsible for the killing, the CIA was sending two messages: its willingness to take on Trump against the backdrop of a long-strained relationship between the president and the intelligence community and the suggestion that the agency does not believe that Prince Mohammed’s survival as king-in-waiting is crucial to US national security or the stability of the kingdom.

Both messages feed into what potentially constitutes the first major policy confrontation between Trump, the Republican party and Congress. The anti-Saudi sentiment was mounting in Congress already before Khashoggi’s killing because of Saudi conduct of its war in Yemen that has created the worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two. The killing appears to be propelling the Congress into action.

The CIA’s implicit challenging of Trump’s assessment of the importance of Prince Mohammed was followed by a report &nbsp;by the Washington-based Center for International Policy that concluded that US arms sales to the kingdom accounted for fewer than 20,000 US jobs a year – a far cry from the hundreds of thousands of jobs asserted by the president.

Prince Mohammed’s reception at the G-20 summit coupled with the outcome of the potential battle between Trump, the CIA and Congress could also shape developments in Saudi Arabia.

The kingdom has so far dug in its heels with King Salman relying on concepts of prestige and honour as well as patronage to signal full support for his son while Prince Mohammed appears to be trying to show that Saudi Arabia is not wholly dependent on the United States.

Bolstering the Center for International Policy report, Reuters reported this week seeing a letter pre-dating the Khashoggi killing in which Prince Mohammed instructs the defence ministry to “focus on purchasing weapon systems and equipment in the most pressing fields” and get training on them, including the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system.

The letter takes on added significance with Germany this week imposing an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and the US Congress potentially adopting similar measures.

The letter goes to the heart of the debate in Washington that beyond issues of values is about the importance of the US-Saudi relationship. Members of Congress, and the intelligence and foreign policy community question the relationship’s significance despite Trump’s insistence on the value of Saudi arms purchases as well as the kingdom’s importance in managing oil prices and supporting US policy in the Middle East.

“The real facts are: 1) the Saudis need US weapons and equipment more than we need to sell them, in part because they demonstrate the US security commitment to the kingdom; and 2) it would be very difficult and expensive for the Saudis to make good on their periodic threats to ‘buy foreign’ if they can't get what they want from the United States,” said former US Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller in an article for CNN co-authored by Richard Sokolsky.

Messrs. Miller and Sokolsky went on to question Saudi Arabia’s importance in countering Iran and forging an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. “Saudi Arabia has proven to be too weak and incompetent to be a bulwark against Iran; on the contrary, it has been an enabler of Tehran's influence,” the two men said.

They cautioned that “direct and under-the-table (Saudi) contacts (with Israel) are a far cry from open meetings or support for a US peace plan that on issues like Jerusalem and borders violates the Arab consensus and could hand Iran and Sunni Muslims a propaganda windfall.”

Despite mounting criticism of the kingdom, most analysts argue that Prince Mohammed is likely to weather the Khashoggi crisis.

Saudi Arabia is, nevertheless, already feeling the fallout of the crisis not only internationally but also in terms of the prospects for Prince Mohammed’s plans to reform and diversify the kingdom’s economy.

The crisis was one reason why Aramco, the kingdom’s giant national oil company, shelved plans to embark on a massive corporate-bond sale to fund a $70 billion stake in national petrochemical firm SABIC. The sale was considered after Saudi Arabia earlier suspended plans to take Aramco public in a move that Prince Mohammed had hoped would raise $100 billion.

Close ties with the United States have long been at the core of the ruling Al Saud family’s survival strategy. They were also at the heart of the approach of Prince Mohammed who appeared determined to ensure at whatever cost US reengagement in the Middle East in alliance with the kingdom following former President Barak Obama’s perceived pivot towards Asia and determination to bring Iran back into the international fold.

The rise of Trump appears to hold out that promise. Trump’s decision to stand by Saudi Arabia and its rulers no matter what positions the president as the kind of friend the kingdom can rely on. The coming weeks and months are likely to be a litmus test of Trump’s ability to keep his end of the bargain.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The killers of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi may have gotten more than they bargained for. The killing has sparked multiple battles that are likely in coming months to shape relationships ranging from that between the United States and Saudi Arabia to those between US President Donald J Trump, his Republican party, the US Congress, and the country’s intelligence community.

The killers of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi may have gotten more than they bargained for. The killing has sparked multiple battles that are likely in coming months to shape relationships ranging from that between the United States and Saudi Arabia to those between US President Donald J Trump, his Republican party, the US Congress, and the country’s intelligence community. The fallout of the killing could also shape Trump’s ability to pursue his policy goals in the Middle East, including forcing Iran to its knees and imposing a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Rather than putting an end to differences over how to respond to Khashoggi’s killing, Trump’s decision to stand by Saudi Arabia and its crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, irrespective of who may have been responsible for the murder, marks the opening of a new round in what prominent journalist Rami Khouri dubbed “a new era in the Khashoggi case.” The battles are likely to be fought on multiple fronts. One venue will be the Group of 20 (G-20) summit at the end of this month in Argentina with Prince Mohammed, whom the Central Intelligence Agency and many in the US Congress believe to be responsible for the killing, in attendance. How Prince Mohammed is received at the summit is certain to indicate to what degree the crown prince’s international standing has been tarnished and may constitute a reality check for him of the damage Saudi Arabia has suffered as a result of Khashoggi’s killing. It will also serve as one indication of how much of a battle Trump may have to fight in seeking to ensure that Prince Mohammed remains insulated from consequences of Khashoggi’s death. To be sure, Prince Mohammed decided to attend the G-20 summit prior to Trump’s decision to take no further action against Saudi Arabia. Nonetheless, by attending the crown prince, emboldened by Trump’s support, “is daring his international critics to put their rhetoric into action and betting that they won't," said Gulf scholar Kristian Ulrichsen. The stakes for both Trump and Prince Mohammed are high. In leaking its conclusion that Prince Mohammed was responsible for the killing, the CIA was sending two messages: its willingness to take on Trump against the backdrop of a long-strained relationship between the president and the intelligence community and the suggestion that the agency does not believe that Prince Mohammed’s survival as king-in-waiting is crucial to US national security or the stability of the kingdom. Both messages feed into what potentially constitutes the first major policy confrontation between Trump, the Republican party and Congress. The anti-Saudi sentiment was mounting in Congress already before Khashoggi’s killing because of Saudi conduct of its war in Yemen that has created the worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two. The killing appears to be propelling the Congress into action. The CIA’s implicit challenging of Trump’s assessment of the importance of Prince Mohammed was followed by a report by the Washington-based Center for International Policy that concluded that US arms sales to the kingdom accounted for fewer than 20,000 US jobs a year – a far cry from the hundreds of thousands of jobs asserted by the president. Prince Mohammed’s reception at the G-20 summit coupled with the outcome of the potential battle between Trump, the CIA and Congress could also shape developments in Saudi Arabia. The kingdom has so far dug in its heels with King Salman relying on concepts of prestige and honour as well as patronage to signal full support for his son while Prince Mohammed appears to be trying to show that Saudi Arabia is not wholly dependent on the United States. Bolstering the Center for International Policy report, Reuters reported this week seeing a letter pre-dating the Khashoggi killing in which Prince Mohammed instructs the defence ministry to “focus on purchasing weapon systems and equipment in the most pressing fields” and get training on them, including the Russian S-400 surface-to-air missile system. The letter takes on added significance with Germany this week imposing an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia and the US Congress potentially adopting similar measures. The letter goes to the heart of the debate in Washington that beyond issues of values is about the importance of the US-Saudi relationship. Members of Congress, and the intelligence and foreign policy community question the relationship’s significance despite Trump’s insistence on the value of Saudi arms purchases as well as the kingdom’s importance in managing oil prices and supporting US policy in the Middle East. “The real facts are: 1) the Saudis need US weapons and equipment more than we need to sell them, in part because they demonstrate the US security commitment to the kingdom; and 2) it would be very difficult and expensive for the Saudis to make good on their periodic threats to ‘buy foreign’ if they can't get what they want from the United States,” said former US Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller in an article for CNN co-authored by Richard Sokolsky. Messrs. Miller and Sokolsky went on to question Saudi Arabia’s importance in countering Iran and forging an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. “Saudi Arabia has proven to be too weak and incompetent to be a bulwark against Iran; on the contrary, it has been an enabler of Tehran's influence,” the two men said. They cautioned that “direct and under-the-table (Saudi) contacts (with Israel) are a far cry from open meetings or support for a US peace plan that on issues like Jerusalem and borders violates the Arab consensus and could hand Iran and Sunni Muslims a propaganda windfall.” Despite mounting criticism of the kingdom, most analysts argue that Prince Mohammed is likely to weather the Khashoggi crisis. Saudi Arabia is, nevertheless, already feeling the fallout of the crisis not only internationally but also in terms of the prospects for Prince Mohammed’s plans to reform and diversify the kingdom’s economy. The crisis was one reason why Aramco, the kingdom’s giant national oil company, shelved plans to embark on a massive corporate-bond sale to fund a $70 billion stake in national petrochemical firm SABIC. The sale was considered after Saudi Arabia earlier suspended plans to take Aramco public in a move that Prince Mohammed had hoped would raise $100 billion. Close ties with the United States have long been at the core of the ruling Al Saud family’s survival strategy. They were also at the heart of the approach of Prince Mohammed who appeared determined to ensure at whatever cost US reengagement in the Middle East in alliance with the kingdom following former President Barak Obama’s perceived pivot towards Asia and determination to bring Iran back into the international fold. The rise of Trump appears to hold out that promise. Trump’s decision to stand by Saudi Arabia and its rulers no matter what positions the president as the kind of friend the kingdom can rely on. The coming weeks and months are likely to be a litmus test of Trump’s ability to keep his end of the bargain. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Khashoggi crisis: Reshaping US politics and relations with Saudi Arabia

US & Russia negotiating peace with terrorists?

The United States has moved to disrupt an Iranian-Russian network that sent millions of barrels of oil to Syria and hundreds of millions of dollars to indirectly fund militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.&nbsp;

The complicated arrangement, described by the US Treasury in a statement on Tuesday, involved a Syrian citizen allegedly using his Russia-based company to ship Iranian oil to Syria with the aid of a Russian state-owned company.

Syria then helped transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to Hezbollah, which functions as a political party that is part of the Lebanese government and as a militia, as well as to Hamas, the Palestinian group that rules the Gaza Strip.

The US Treasury Department alleged that since 2014, vessels carrying Iranian oil have switched off transponders to conceal deliveries to Syria.&nbsp;

The Treasury, the State Department and the US Coast Guard State have issued an advisory to the maritime community about the sanctions risks of shipping oil to Syria`s government.

An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman called the sanctions "fruitless, illogical and inefficient".

Bahram Qasemi was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA on Wednesday: "Those who designed and implemented these sanctions will understand sooner or later that they will not achieve their goals."&nbsp;

The alleged arrangement shows how Russia has sought to undercut US policy toward Syria, where Washington and Moscow back opposite sides of a civil war that began in 2011, as well as toward Iran, which the United States wants to curb its nuclear and missile programs and support for militant proxies.

"Today we are acting against a complex scheme Iran and Russia have used to bolster the (Syrian President Bashar al-) Assad regime and generate funds for Iranian malign activity," US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement announcing sanctions on those it said were tied to the network. 
"Central Bank of Iran officials continue to exploit the international financial system," he added.&nbsp;

Richard Nephew, a sanctions expert at Columbia University, said: "The arrangement exposes Russia`s efforts to support Assad for their own interests, which has the function of thwarting the US desire to no longer have Assad in power."

Those targeted include Syrian Mohammad Amer Alchwiki and his Russia-based company Global Vision Group, which were central to the delivery of Iranian oil to Syria and the transfer of funds to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps` Quds Force`s "lethal proxies", the Treasury Department said in a statement.

Other targets include Syrian national Hajji Abd Al-Nasir, Lebanon national Muhammad Qasim Al-Bazzal and Russian national Andrey Dogaev, as well as Iranian nationals Rasoul Sajjad and Hossein Yaghoubi Miab, the statement said.

Sajjad and Yaghoubi, Central Bank of Iran officials, worked to facilitate Alchwiki`s transfers, it said.

Others sanctioned include state-owned Russian company Promsyrioimport, a subsidiary of the Russian Ministry of Energy, which the US Treasury alleges had facilitated shipments of Iranian oil to Syria, as well as Mir Business Bank and Iran-based Tadbir Kish Medical and Pharmaceutical Company.

Russia will continue supplying oil to Syria in line with its agreement with Damascus despite pressure from the United States, RIA news agency quoted Oleg Morozov, a member of the Russian Federation Council, as saying late on Tuesday.

"The political defeat in Syria apparently prompts the United States to return to the idea of regime change in Damascus. Therefore, economic pressure through oil supply shutdown becomes a tool of the new economic war with Bashar Assad and indirectly with Moscow and Iran," he said.&nbsp;

According to Morozov, Russia acts and will act "absolutely legally".

"We have an agreement with Syria and therefore it`s up to us to decide what we supply and to whom. This will be our answer, (it is) much more effective than counter sanctions," he added.

The Russian Energy Ministry, to which Promsyrioimport belongs, declined immediate comment.&nbsp;

The Treasury`s "designation" of the individuals and entities effectively cuts them off from the global financial system by blocking any of their assets under US jurisdiction and in effect warning non-US institutions against dealing with them.

The United States is at odds with Britain, France and Germany as well as with Russia and China over US President Donald Trump`s May 8 decision to abandon the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, negotiated with the other world powers during Democratic President Barack Obama`s administration.

That agreement removed many US and other economic sanctions from Iran in return for Tehran`s commitment to curtail its nuclear program.

Trump restored US sanctions on November 5 and has threatened more action to stop its "outlaw" policies.

Iran, in turn, called Trump`s actions economic warfare and vowed to defy the sanctions. European powers that continue to back the nuclear deal said they opposed the reapplication of sanctions.

The United States has moved to disrupt an Iranian-Russian network that sent millions of barrels of oil to Syria and hundreds of millions of dollars to indirectly fund militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

The United States has moved to disrupt an Iranian-Russian network that sent millions of barrels of oil to Syria and hundreds of millions of dollars to indirectly fund militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah. The complicated arrangement, described by the US Treasury in a statement on Tuesday, involved a Syrian citizen allegedly using his Russia-based company to ship Iranian oil to Syria with the aid of a Russian state-owned company. Syria then helped transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to Hezbollah, which functions as a political party that is part of the Lebanese government and as a militia, as well as to Hamas, the Palestinian group that rules the Gaza Strip. The US Treasury Department alleged that since 2014, vessels carrying Iranian oil have switched off transponders to conceal deliveries to Syria. The Treasury, the State Department and the US Coast Guard State have issued an advisory to the maritime community about the sanctions risks of shipping oil to Syria`s government. An Iranian foreign ministry spokesman called the sanctions "fruitless, illogical and inefficient". Bahram Qasemi was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA on Wednesday: "Those who designed and implemented these sanctions will understand sooner or later that they will not achieve their goals." The alleged arrangement shows how Russia has sought to undercut US policy toward Syria, where Washington and Moscow back opposite sides of a civil war that began in 2011, as well as toward Iran, which the United States wants to curb its nuclear and missile programs and support for militant proxies. "Today we are acting against a complex scheme Iran and Russia have used to bolster the (Syrian President Bashar al-) Assad regime and generate funds for Iranian malign activity," US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement announcing sanctions on those it said were tied to the network. "Central Bank of Iran officials continue to exploit the international financial system," he added. Richard Nephew, a sanctions expert at Columbia University, said: "The arrangement exposes Russia`s efforts to support Assad for their own interests, which has the function of thwarting the US desire to no longer have Assad in power." Those targeted include Syrian Mohammad Amer Alchwiki and his Russia-based company Global Vision Group, which were central to the delivery of Iranian oil to Syria and the transfer of funds to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps` Quds Force`s "lethal proxies", the Treasury Department said in a statement. Other targets include Syrian national Hajji Abd Al-Nasir, Lebanon national Muhammad Qasim Al-Bazzal and Russian national Andrey Dogaev, as well as Iranian nationals Rasoul Sajjad and Hossein Yaghoubi Miab, the statement said. Sajjad and Yaghoubi, Central Bank of Iran officials, worked to facilitate Alchwiki`s transfers, it said. Others sanctioned include state-owned Russian company Promsyrioimport, a subsidiary of the Russian Ministry of Energy, which the US Treasury alleges had facilitated shipments of Iranian oil to Syria, as well as Mir Business Bank and Iran-based Tadbir Kish Medical and Pharmaceutical Company. Russia will continue supplying oil to Syria in line with its agreement with Damascus despite pressure from the United States, RIA news agency quoted Oleg Morozov, a member of the Russian Federation Council, as saying late on Tuesday. "The political defeat in Syria apparently prompts the United States to return to the idea of regime change in Damascus. Therefore, economic pressure through oil supply shutdown becomes a tool of the new economic war with Bashar Assad and indirectly with Moscow and Iran," he said. According to Morozov, Russia acts and will act "absolutely legally". "We have an agreement with Syria and therefore it`s up to us to decide what we supply and to whom. This will be our answer, (it is) much more effective than counter sanctions," he added. The Russian Energy Ministry, to which Promsyrioimport belongs, declined immediate comment. The Treasury`s "designation" of the individuals and entities effectively cuts them off from the global financial system by blocking any of their assets under US jurisdiction and in effect warning non-US institutions against dealing with them. The United States is at odds with Britain, France and Germany as well as with Russia and China over US President Donald Trump`s May 8 decision to abandon the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, negotiated with the other world powers during Democratic President Barack Obama`s administration. That agreement removed many US and other economic sanctions from Iran in return for Tehran`s commitment to curtail its nuclear program. Trump restored US sanctions on November 5 and has threatened more action to stop its "outlaw" policies. Iran, in turn, called Trump`s actions economic warfare and vowed to defy the sanctions. European powers that continue to back the nuclear deal said they opposed the reapplication of sanctions.

US targets Iran-Russia network over oil sent to Syria

The year 2018 has been an exceptional year for India-US economic relations. Trade tensions triggered by protectionist measures taken by the US Administration following the show of aggressive intent by President Donald Trump against the major economies, has left India in a piquant situation.

While several of those targeted have either adopted retaliatory measures or have decided to concede ground to the largest economic power, India seems to have been caught between the imperatives of maintaining a policy of non-confrontation with its strategic partner, on the one hand, and to protect the interests of domestic manufacturing industry, especially when the industry is facing some of the most serious challenges.

In March, President Trump announced his decision to block imports by imposing “reciprocal tax” against countries using tariffs on American products. The objective was to trigger the revival of the American manufacturing sector. Through a Presidential Proclamation, import tariffs of 25 per cent and 10 per cent were imposed on steel and aluminium, by invoking the provisions of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This provision allows the Administration to take measures to protect domestic industries for “national defence” and “national security”.

India was among the countries adversely affected by increased import tariffs on steel and aluminium. Indian exporters faced an additional burden of $241 million arising from the proposed import duties, which was nearly 20 per cent of their export realisations in calendar year 2017.

Until 2015-16, the United States was one of the largest markets for the Indian industry, with an export share of above 8 per cent. In the subsequent years, exports declined precipitously, and the export share dipped to less than half in the subsequent years.

With its exports to one of the world’s largest steel markets already on a down-hill, Indian steel industry, thus faced an uncertain future.

Like most affected countries, India tried to initiate negotiations with the US government by announcing retaliatory measures. In May, India submitted a notification in the WTO, indicating that tariffs on 20 products imported from the US would be increased.

Included in this list were agricultural products like soya beans and palmolein, and the American icon, Harley Davidson motorcycles. In a later notification in June, India increased the list to 30 products, but subsequently, Harley Davidson was taken off the list.

Although the increase in import duties were to take effect from August 4, this action was deferred, presumably because of the two-by-two dialogue between India and the US, which was held in the third week of August.

While India’s position has been to find a negotiated solution to the trade frictions, the US Administration has adopted an aggressive stance towards India and other trade partners, which was underlined by President Trump.

Yet another evidence of this stance was the increase in anti-dumping actions against India in 2018. Until mid-November, the US Customs and Border Protection had taken anti-dumping actions against 27 products exported by India, the highest in recent years.

Interestingly, a majority of these products included those from the iron and steel industry. This shows that the injury to the Indian industry that began with the tariff hikes in March, was heightened by the anti-dumping action.

The most recent of US actions against India was the Presidential Proclamation of October 30 (Proclamation 9813) “To Modify the List of Products Eligible for Duty-Free Treatment Under the Generalized System of Preferences”.

This Proclamation gave a list of products from the developing countries, which would not receive duty-free access into the United States market from November 1, 2018, that they had hitherto enjoyed under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP).

The GSP was introduced in 1971 after the second session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) had unanimously adopted it in 1968. Under the GSP, developing countries’ exports were granted duty-free access by the developed countries. Developed countries thus granted unilateral trade concessions to the developing countries for increasing their exports.

The US Trade Administration annually reviews the GSP preferences, examining whether exports from developing countries conform to Competitive Need Limitations (CNL).

A developing country can lose its GSP benefits on any product if the CNLs are exceeded. Two measures are adopted for assessing CNLs: import of a product from a beneficiary developing country accounts for 50 per cent or more of the total imports of the product; or imports exceed a certain dollar value, which was set at $180 million in 2017.

Enforcement of CNLs is subject to waivers, the main being the de minimis waiver. This waiver sets a floor for the value of imported products below which CNLs cannot be enforced. In 2017, the floor was set at $23.5 million.

In its current year’s review, the US identified 94 products from 16 countries, which would lose GSP benefits from November 1, 2018. This list included 50 products imported from India, by far the largest number for any GSP beneficiary.

The list of products targeting imports from India are all relatively low-value products; more than half of the 50 products had import values of less than $1 million in 2017.

The product with the highest import value in 2017, hand-loomed carpet and other textile floor coverings, was just $10.3 million, way below the CNL threshold of $180 million. The Indian products for which US has withdrawn GSP benefits, clearly qualify for de minimis waiver, since their import values were below the threshold of $23.5 million in 2017.

It is time that the government of India protects the interests of the domestic manufacturing industry from the increasingly protectionist American Administration.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-battling-against-us-protectionism-2687311">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The year 2018 has been an exceptional year for India-US economic relations. Trade tensions triggered by protectionist measures taken by the US Administration following the show of aggressive intent by President Donald Trump against the major economies, has left India in a piquant situation.

The year 2018 has been an exceptional year for India-US economic relations. Trade tensions triggered by protectionist measures taken by the US Administration following the show of aggressive intent by President Donald Trump against the major economies, has left India in a piquant situation. While several of those targeted have either adopted retaliatory measures or have decided to concede ground to the largest economic power, India seems to have been caught between the imperatives of maintaining a policy of non-confrontation with its strategic partner, on the one hand, and to protect the interests of domestic manufacturing industry, especially when the industry is facing some of the most serious challenges. In March, President Trump announced his decision to block imports by imposing “reciprocal tax” against countries using tariffs on American products. The objective was to trigger the revival of the American manufacturing sector. Through a Presidential Proclamation, import tariffs of 25 per cent and 10 per cent were imposed on steel and aluminium, by invoking the provisions of Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This provision allows the Administration to take measures to protect domestic industries for “national defence” and “national security”. India was among the countries adversely affected by increased import tariffs on steel and aluminium. Indian exporters faced an additional burden of $241 million arising from the proposed import duties, which was nearly 20 per cent of their export realisations in calendar year 2017. Until 2015-16, the United States was one of the largest markets for the Indian industry, with an export share of above 8 per cent. In the subsequent years, exports declined precipitously, and the export share dipped to less than half in the subsequent years. With its exports to one of the world’s largest steel markets already on a down-hill, Indian steel industry, thus faced an uncertain future. Like most affected countries, India tried to initiate negotiations with the US government by announcing retaliatory measures. In May, India submitted a notification in the WTO, indicating that tariffs on 20 products imported from the US would be increased. Included in this list were agricultural products like soya beans and palmolein, and the American icon, Harley Davidson motorcycles. In a later notification in June, India increased the list to 30 products, but subsequently, Harley Davidson was taken off the list. Although the increase in import duties were to take effect from August 4, this action was deferred, presumably because of the two-by-two dialogue between India and the US, which was held in the third week of August. While India’s position has been to find a negotiated solution to the trade frictions, the US Administration has adopted an aggressive stance towards India and other trade partners, which was underlined by President Trump. Yet another evidence of this stance was the increase in anti-dumping actions against India in 2018. Until mid-November, the US Customs and Border Protection had taken anti-dumping actions against 27 products exported by India, the highest in recent years. Interestingly, a majority of these products included those from the iron and steel industry. This shows that the injury to the Indian industry that began with the tariff hikes in March, was heightened by the anti-dumping action. The most recent of US actions against India was the Presidential Proclamation of October 30 (Proclamation 9813) “To Modify the List of Products Eligible for Duty-Free Treatment Under the Generalized System of Preferences”. This Proclamation gave a list of products from the developing countries, which would not receive duty-free access into the United States market from November 1, 2018, that they had hitherto enjoyed under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP). The GSP was introduced in 1971 after the second session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) had unanimously adopted it in 1968. Under the GSP, developing countries’ exports were granted duty-free access by the developed countries. Developed countries thus granted unilateral trade concessions to the developing countries for increasing their exports. The US Trade Administration annually reviews the GSP preferences, examining whether exports from developing countries conform to Competitive Need Limitations (CNL). A developing country can lose its GSP benefits on any product if the CNLs are exceeded. Two measures are adopted for assessing CNLs: import of a product from a beneficiary developing country accounts for 50 per cent or more of the total imports of the product; or imports exceed a certain dollar value, which was set at $180 million in 2017. Enforcement of CNLs is subject to waivers, the main being the de minimis waiver. This waiver sets a floor for the value of imported products below which CNLs cannot be enforced. In 2017, the floor was set at $23.5 million. In its current year’s review, the US identified 94 products from 16 countries, which would lose GSP benefits from November 1, 2018. This list included 50 products imported from India, by far the largest number for any GSP beneficiary. The list of products targeting imports from India are all relatively low-value products; more than half of the 50 products had import values of less than $1 million in 2017. The product with the highest import value in 2017, hand-loomed carpet and other textile floor coverings, was just $10.3 million, way below the CNL threshold of $180 million. The Indian products for which US has withdrawn GSP benefits, clearly qualify for de minimis waiver, since their import values were below the threshold of $23.5 million in 2017. It is time that the government of India protects the interests of the domestic manufacturing industry from the increasingly protectionist American Administration. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Battling against US protectionism

A day after Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan and US President Donald Trump slammed each other on twitter, Pakistan on Tuesday summoned American US Charge d'affaires CdA Ambassador Paul Jones.

According to Pakistan to the ministry of foreign affairs release Islamabad registered a "strong protest on the unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations made against Pakistan".

American US Charge d'affaires was summoned by the Pakistani foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua and conveyed her Government's disappointment on the recent tweets and comments by the US President. The US CdA was told that such "baseless rhetoric about Pakistan was totally unacceptable."&nbsp;

Rejecting the insinuations about Osama Bin Laden, the Foreign Secretary reminded the US CdA "that it was Pakistan's intelligence cooperation that provided the initial evidence to trace the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden."

The Imran-Trump tiff on tweeter started after US President in an interview to Fox news channel justified aid cut to Pakistan and said the country doesn't do "a damn thing" and was hiding Osama.

Explaining the US CdA that no other country had paid a heavier price than Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, Tehmina Janjua said, "US must not forget that scores of top AQ leaders were killed or captured by active Pakistani cooperation."

She also remined "Pakistan's continued support to the efforts of international community in Afghanistan" through Ground/ Air and Sea lines of communication was "unquestionably critical to the success of this Mission in Afghanistan."

Meanwhile, Diplomatic sources told WION that US CdA has assured Pakistan that America greatly values Pakistan sacrifices and needs its support. CdA also told Foreign secretary that diplomatic channels should remain open between Pakistan and US.

Slamming Pak on Twitter, Trump had tweeted, "We paid Pakistan Billions of Dollars &amp; they never told us he was living there.". Earlier, Pakistan's Prime Minister had tweeted that US was trying to make Pakistan a "scapegoat for their failures".

The relationship between the 2 erstwhile allies has suffered in last few years over Pakistan's inaction on terror which has miffed Washington. The first tweet this year by US President this year was on Pakistan saying he is the cutting aid to the country since it has only offered "lies and deceit".

A day after Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan and US President Donald Trump slammed each other on twitter, Pakistan on Tuesday summoned American US Charge d'affaires CdA Ambassador Paul Jones.

A day after Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan and US President Donald Trump slammed each other on twitter, Pakistan on Tuesday summoned American US Charge d'affaires CdA Ambassador Paul Jones. According to Pakistan to the ministry of foreign affairs release Islamabad registered a "strong protest on the unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations made against Pakistan". American US Charge d'affaires was summoned by the Pakistani foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua and conveyed her Government's disappointment on the recent tweets and comments by the US President. The US CdA was told that such "baseless rhetoric about Pakistan was totally unacceptable." Rejecting the insinuations about Osama Bin Laden, the Foreign Secretary reminded the US CdA "that it was Pakistan's intelligence cooperation that provided the initial evidence to trace the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden." The Imran-Trump tiff on tweeter started after US President in an interview to Fox news channel justified aid cut to Pakistan and said the country doesn't do "a damn thing" and was hiding Osama. Explaining the US CdA that no other country had paid a heavier price than Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, Tehmina Janjua said, "US must not forget that scores of top AQ leaders were killed or captured by active Pakistani cooperation." She also remined "Pakistan's continued support to the efforts of international community in Afghanistan" through Ground/ Air and Sea lines of communication was "unquestionably critical to the success of this Mission in Afghanistan." Meanwhile, Diplomatic sources told WION that US CdA has assured Pakistan that America greatly values Pakistan sacrifices and needs its support. CdA also told Foreign secretary that diplomatic channels should remain open between Pakistan and US. Slamming Pak on Twitter, Trump had tweeted, "We paid Pakistan Billions of Dollars & they never told us he was living there.". Earlier, Pakistan's Prime Minister had tweeted that US was trying to make Pakistan a "scapegoat for their failures". The relationship between the 2 erstwhile allies has suffered in last few years over Pakistan's inaction on terror which has miffed Washington. The first tweet this year by US President this year was on Pakistan saying he is the cutting aid to the country since it has only offered "lies and deceit".

Pakistan summons US envoy over President Trump's tweets

The Kremlin said on Tuesday that public opposition by a group of US&nbsp;senators to a Russian candidate to head the international police organisation Interpol amounted to election meddling.

Interpol's general assembly is due to elect a new head at a meeting on Wednesday. On Monday, four US&nbsp;senators issued a statement urging US&nbsp;President Donald Trump to oppose the candidacy of Russia's Alexander Prokopchuk.

The senators accuse Russia of abusing Interpol to settle scores and harass dissidents by issuing warrants, known as red notices, for their arrest. The senators said the election of Prokopchuk would allow Moscow to step up such abuse.

"This is probably a certain kind of interference in the electoral process of an international organisation," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.

Prokopchuk, a former major general in Russia's Interior Ministry and current vice president of Interpol, is generally considered the leading candidate for the presidency.

Bill Browder, a British fund manager critical of the Kremlin who has been detained repeatedly at Russia's behest before being released again, said it would be "outrageous" if Prokopchuk was named to head the global police agency.

"This particular individual has been responsible for trying to chase me down and have Interpol arrest me seven times," he said in comments to BBC radio.

"All of a sudden, this guy is now put in charge of the institution he's been trying to abuse for the last six years," he said.

The Kremlin said on Tuesday that public opposition by a group of US senators to a Russian candidate to head the international police organisation Interpol amounted to election meddling.

The Kremlin said on Tuesday that public opposition by a group of US senators to a Russian candidate to head the international police organisation Interpol amounted to election meddling. Interpol's general assembly is due to elect a new head at a meeting on Wednesday. On Monday, four US senators issued a statement urging US President Donald Trump to oppose the candidacy of Russia's Alexander Prokopchuk. The senators accuse Russia of abusing Interpol to settle scores and harass dissidents by issuing warrants, known as red notices, for their arrest. The senators said the election of Prokopchuk would allow Moscow to step up such abuse. "This is probably a certain kind of interference in the electoral process of an international organisation," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call. Prokopchuk, a former major general in Russia's Interior Ministry and current vice president of Interpol, is generally considered the leading candidate for the presidency. Bill Browder, a British fund manager critical of the Kremlin who has been detained repeatedly at Russia's behest before being released again, said it would be "outrageous" if Prokopchuk was named to head the global police agency. "This particular individual has been responsible for trying to chase me down and have Interpol arrest me seven times," he said in comments to BBC radio. "All of a sudden, this guy is now put in charge of the institution he's been trying to abuse for the last six years," he said.

Kremlin says US is meddling in selection of Interpol head

Iran will continue to export oil despite US&nbsp;sanctions, which are part of a psychological war doomed to failure, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday.

By reimposing sanctions on OPEC's third biggest crude producer, Washington wants to force Tehran to drop its ballistic missile programmes, further curb its nuclear work and limit its support for proxy militias from Syria to Lebanon and Yemen.

"We will not yield to this pressure, which is part of the psychological war launched against Iran," Rouhani said in a speech in the city of Khoy, broadcast live on state television.

"They have failed to stop our oil exports. We will keep exporting it ... Your regional policies have failed and you blame Iran for that failure from Afghanistan to Yemen and Syria," he added, to chants of "Death to America!".

Rouhani said Washington lacked the necessary international support for its sanctions, and noted that it had granted temporary waivers to eight major buyers of Iranian oil.

"America is isolated now. Iran is supported by many countries. Except for the Zionist regime (Israel) and some countries in the region, no other country backs America's pressure on Iran," he said.

The European Union, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China, participants with the United States in the 2015 deal that lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme, have been trying to find ways to circumvent the US&nbsp;limitations.

In particular, the EU has been trying to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for non-dollar trade with Iran.

But this has not stopped foreign businesses ranging from oil companies and trading houses to firms leaving Iran for fear of incurring US penalties.

Iran has threatened to exit the deal if its economic benefits are not preserved, but Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi told a news conference that it remained "hopeful that the Europeans can save the deal".

The SPV was conceived as a clearing house that could be used to help match Iranian oil and gas exports against purchases of EU goods, circumventing the US&nbsp;sanctions, which are based on the global use of the dollar for oil trade.

The EU wanted to have the SPV set up by this month, but no country has offered to host it, six diplomats told Reuters last week.

"We expect EU to implement the SPV as soon as possible," Qasemi said. "Iran adheres to its commitments as long as other signatories honour theirs."

Iran's deputy Oil Minister Amirhossein Zamaninia said "France might host the SPV", the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Monday.

The French Foreign Ministry declined to comment. The Finance Ministry has said that all options are on the table for the SPV and that no decisions had been taken.

Washington has warned that European banks and firms who engage in the SPV will be at risk from the reimposed US&nbsp;sanctions.

Iran will continue to export oil despite US sanctions, which are part of a psychological war doomed to failure, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday. By reimposing sanctions on OPEC's third biggest crude producer, Washington wants to force Tehran to drop its ballistic missile programmes, further curb its nuclear work and limit its support for proxy militias from Syria to Lebanon and Yemen.

Iran will continue to export oil despite US sanctions, which are part of a psychological war doomed to failure, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Monday. By reimposing sanctions on OPEC's third biggest crude producer, Washington wants to force Tehran to drop its ballistic missile programmes, further curb its nuclear work and limit its support for proxy militias from Syria to Lebanon and Yemen. "We will not yield to this pressure, which is part of the psychological war launched against Iran," Rouhani said in a speech in the city of Khoy, broadcast live on state television. "They have failed to stop our oil exports. We will keep exporting it ... Your regional policies have failed and you blame Iran for that failure from Afghanistan to Yemen and Syria," he added, to chants of "Death to America!". Rouhani said Washington lacked the necessary international support for its sanctions, and noted that it had granted temporary waivers to eight major buyers of Iranian oil. "America is isolated now. Iran is supported by many countries. Except for the Zionist regime (Israel) and some countries in the region, no other country backs America's pressure on Iran," he said. The European Union, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China, participants with the United States in the 2015 deal that lifted sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme, have been trying to find ways to circumvent the US limitations. In particular, the EU has been trying to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for non-dollar trade with Iran. But this has not stopped foreign businesses ranging from oil companies and trading houses to firms leaving Iran for fear of incurring US penalties. Iran has threatened to exit the deal if its economic benefits are not preserved, but Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi told a news conference that it remained "hopeful that the Europeans can save the deal". The SPV was conceived as a clearing house that could be used to help match Iranian oil and gas exports against purchases of EU goods, circumventing the US sanctions, which are based on the global use of the dollar for oil trade. The EU wanted to have the SPV set up by this month, but no country has offered to host it, six diplomats told Reuters last week. "We expect EU to implement the SPV as soon as possible," Qasemi said. "Iran adheres to its commitments as long as other signatories honour theirs." Iran's deputy Oil Minister Amirhossein Zamaninia said "France might host the SPV", the semi-official Fars news agency reported on Monday. The French Foreign Ministry declined to comment. The Finance Ministry has said that all options are on the table for the SPV and that no decisions had been taken. Washington has warned that European banks and firms who engage in the SPV will be at risk from the reimposed US sanctions.

We will not yield to this pressure: Rouhani says Iran will continue oil exports despite US sanctions

CNN said Monday it asked for a new emergency hearing to allow its reporter Jim Acosta to remain at the White House, saying officials are threatening to again revoke his press pass.

The statement from the cable news channel came just three days after a federal judge ordered the White House to allow Acosta's return citing a lack of "due process" -- without ruling on CNN's argument that the ejection violated constitutional free press guarantees.

CNN said it received a letter Friday, hours after the judge's ruling, indicating the White House planned to revoke Acosta's press pass again after the 14-day temporary restraining order expires.

"The White House is continuing to violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the constitution," the network said in a statement Sunday.&nbsp;

"These actions threaten all journalists and news organizations. Jim Acosta and CNN will continue to report the news about the White House and the president."

The White House letter, seeking to address the question of due process, said Acosta "violated basic standards" of news events when he got into a heated exchange with President Donald Trump on November 7.

"You asked a question and the president answered it," the letter said.

"You then shouted a second question at the president on a new topic, which the president answered at the same time he asked you to yield the floor to a new questioner. At that point, you continued shouting at the president and refused to physically surrender the microphone."

CNN attorney Theodore Boutros said in a court motion he was asking Judge Timothy Kelly for a new emergency hearing the week of November 26.

On Friday, Trump said that "rules and regulations" were being drafted to govern news conferences, where the president or his representatives often accuse journalists -- Acosta in particular -- of being overly hostile.

On November 7, the day he was stripped of his pass, Acosta had riled Trump by refusing to give up the microphone at a news conference when he considered that Trump was evading his question.

Trump responded by branding Acosta a "rude, terrible person."

CNN said Monday it asked for a new emergency hearing to allow its reporter Jim Acosta to remain at the White House, saying officials are threatening to again revoke his press pass.

CNN said Monday it asked for a new emergency hearing to allow its reporter Jim Acosta to remain at the White House, saying officials are threatening to again revoke his press pass. The statement from the cable news channel came just three days after a federal judge ordered the White House to allow Acosta's return citing a lack of "due process" -- without ruling on CNN's argument that the ejection violated constitutional free press guarantees. CNN said it received a letter Friday, hours after the judge's ruling, indicating the White House planned to revoke Acosta's press pass again after the 14-day temporary restraining order expires. "The White House is continuing to violate the First and Fifth Amendments of the constitution," the network said in a statement Sunday. "These actions threaten all journalists and news organizations. Jim Acosta and CNN will continue to report the news about the White House and the president." The White House letter, seeking to address the question of due process, said Acosta "violated basic standards" of news events when he got into a heated exchange with President Donald Trump on November 7. "You asked a question and the president answered it," the letter said. "You then shouted a second question at the president on a new topic, which the president answered at the same time he asked you to yield the floor to a new questioner. At that point, you continued shouting at the president and refused to physically surrender the microphone." CNN attorney Theodore Boutros said in a court motion he was asking Judge Timothy Kelly for a new emergency hearing the week of November 26. On Friday, Trump said that "rules and regulations" were being drafted to govern news conferences, where the president or his representatives often accuse journalists -- Acosta in particular -- of being overly hostile. On November 7, the day he was stripped of his pass, Acosta had riled Trump by refusing to give up the microphone at a news conference when he considered that Trump was evading his question. Trump responded by branding Acosta a "rude, terrible person."

CNN says White House threatening to revoke Acosta's press pass again

By Faith Kearns and Max Moritz

It doesn’t take long in California to develop a feel for “fire weather.” When it’s hot and dry and the winds blow a certain way, there can be no doubt that, as in the past, landscapes will continue to be forged in fire.

And so, we residents of the state find ourselves again facing late fall wildfires that have scorched drought-parched vegetation while the rainy season evades its highly anticipated start. As the death toll and structure loss from fires burning in the northern and southern parts of the state continue to surpass records set not even a year ago, it is crucial to understand the role winds play in California fires.

Predictable but future unclear

Across California, late fall winds – called by various names including Santa Anas, Diablos and sundowners – blow hot, dry air from the interior of the state out toward the coasts. The winds often intensify as they are channelled through mountain passes and then blasted across dry vegetation and steep surfaces to create the perfect conditions for fire. Given an ignition, those same winds then help to spread fire very quickly.

While these winds are in many ways predictable, they are also altering fire hazard in ways that researchers don’t fully understand. As the climate changes, bringing warmer temperatures and increasingly erratic precipitation patterns, more of these extreme wind events may occur during times that are highly conducive to fire.

It is also conceivable that climate change will cause shifts in the pressure patterns that spawn extreme wind events, to begin with. Therefore, it is possible that in the future we may see extreme winds in new regions or during unexpected times of the year. A deeper understanding of the controls on these events is emerging, but relatively little is known about what the future will hold.

Wind and fire risk

Fire hazard is determined by a variety of factors that include vegetation, topography and weather. Add people and homes, and you get fire risk. While wind is one of the biggest factors in fire spread, it also generates flying embers far ahead of the fire itself.

It is this storm of burning embers that often shower neighbourhoods and ignite homes after finding vulnerable parts of landscaping and structures. Under the worst circumstances, wind-driven home-to-home fire spread then occurs, causing risky, fast-moving “urban conflagrations” that can be almost impossible to stop and extremely dangerous to evacuate.

Managing the type and amount of vegetation, or “fuel,” in an area provides a set of tools for altering fire behaviour in wildland fires. But during wind-driven urban conflagrations, homes are usually a major – if not the main – source of fuel.

Although defensible space immediately around homes is certainly important, vegetation management cannot be the sole solution. Fire-prone communities must also intensify urban and evacuation planning efforts that make the built environment and those living there less vulnerable to fires and the extreme winds that drive them.

Looking ahead 
 
The most recent fires in California are sounding alarm bells that simply cannot be ignored, lest we fall into the trap of normalising the incredible loss of lives and devastated communities year after year. Indeed, fire has become a critical public health and safety issue in this state.

As residents and researchers who have worked extensively on fire in California, we believe the state and its newly elected leadership face a formidable challenge and an opportunity to reinvest in a robust, interdisciplinary approach to wildfire risk reduction that combines the best of both research and practice. It must integrate both new (and potentially controversial) urban planning reforms as well as novel thinking about evacuation alternatives.

As it stands, California is failing to keep up with what we know about fire hazard and risk, and losing time as we struggle against rapidly changing climate conditions. Simply put: There is no time to waste. 
 
(Faith Kearns is Academic Coordinator, California Institute for Water Resources, University of California; Max Moritz is&nbsp;Cooperative Extension Wildfire Specialist at the University of California Forest Research and Outreach)

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-fierce-fall-and-winter-winds-help-fuel-california-fires-106985">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 Faith Kearns and Max Moritz It doesn’t take long in California to develop a feel for “fire weather.” When it’s hot and dry and the winds blow a certain way, there can be no doubt that, as in the past, landscapes will continue to be forged in fire.

By Faith Kearns and Max Moritz It doesn’t take long in California to develop a feel for “fire weather.” When it’s hot and dry and the winds blow a certain way, there can be no doubt that, as in the past, landscapes will continue to be forged in fire. And so, we residents of the state find ourselves again facing late fall wildfires that have scorched drought-parched vegetation while the rainy season evades its highly anticipated start. As the death toll and structure loss from fires burning in the northern and southern parts of the state continue to surpass records set not even a year ago, it is crucial to understand the role winds play in California fires. Predictable but future unclear Across California, late fall winds – called by various names including Santa Anas, Diablos and sundowners – blow hot, dry air from the interior of the state out toward the coasts. The winds often intensify as they are channelled through mountain passes and then blasted across dry vegetation and steep surfaces to create the perfect conditions for fire. Given an ignition, those same winds then help to spread fire very quickly. While these winds are in many ways predictable, they are also altering fire hazard in ways that researchers don’t fully understand. As the climate changes, bringing warmer temperatures and increasingly erratic precipitation patterns, more of these extreme wind events may occur during times that are highly conducive to fire. It is also conceivable that climate change will cause shifts in the pressure patterns that spawn extreme wind events, to begin with. Therefore, it is possible that in the future we may see extreme winds in new regions or during unexpected times of the year. A deeper understanding of the controls on these events is emerging, but relatively little is known about what the future will hold. Wind and fire risk Fire hazard is determined by a variety of factors that include vegetation, topography and weather. Add people and homes, and you get fire risk. While wind is one of the biggest factors in fire spread, it also generates flying embers far ahead of the fire itself. It is this storm of burning embers that often shower neighbourhoods and ignite homes after finding vulnerable parts of landscaping and structures. Under the worst circumstances, wind-driven home-to-home fire spread then occurs, causing risky, fast-moving “urban conflagrations” that can be almost impossible to stop and extremely dangerous to evacuate. Managing the type and amount of vegetation, or “fuel,” in an area provides a set of tools for altering fire behaviour in wildland fires. But during wind-driven urban conflagrations, homes are usually a major – if not the main – source of fuel. Although defensible space immediately around homes is certainly important, vegetation management cannot be the sole solution. Fire-prone communities must also intensify urban and evacuation planning efforts that make the built environment and those living there less vulnerable to fires and the extreme winds that drive them. Looking ahead The most recent fires in California are sounding alarm bells that simply cannot be ignored, lest we fall into the trap of normalising the incredible loss of lives and devastated communities year after year. Indeed, fire has become a critical public health and safety issue in this state. As residents and researchers who have worked extensively on fire in California, we believe the state and its newly elected leadership face a formidable challenge and an opportunity to reinvest in a robust, interdisciplinary approach to wildfire risk reduction that combines the best of both research and practice. It must integrate both new (and potentially controversial) urban planning reforms as well as novel thinking about evacuation alternatives. As it stands, California is failing to keep up with what we know about fire hazard and risk, and losing time as we struggle against rapidly changing climate conditions. Simply put: There is no time to waste. (Faith Kearns is Academic Coordinator, California Institute for Water Resources, University of California; Max Moritz is Cooperative Extension Wildfire Specialist at the University of California Forest Research and Outreach) (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

How fierce fall and winter winds help fuel California fires

The US special envoy to Afghanistan hopes to cement a peace deal with Taliban insurgents by April 2019, local media reported on Sunday.

Zalmay Khalilzad, in Kabul to lead talks between the United States, the Taliban and the Afghan government, told reporters he hopes "a peace deal is reached before April 20 next year".

Afghanistan is planning to hold a presidential election on April 20, 2019.

The Afghan-born US diplomat said he remained "cautiously optimistic" about the peace talks.

Khalilzad, chosen by US President Donald Trump's administration to hold direct talks with the Taliban, met the leaders of the hardline Islamist group in Qatar last month to find ways to end the 17-year war in Afghanistan.

On Sunday Khalilzad said the end state of the talks would be "peace and a successful Afghanistan, one that doesn’t pose any threats to itself and to the international community".

The Taliban were not immediately available for comment.

The insurgents, fighting to expel foreign forces and defeat the Western-backed Afghan government, last month presented demands to Khalilzad that included a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops and the release of senior Taliban from jails.

The US special envoy to Afghanistan hopes to cement a peace deal with Taliban insurgents by April 2019, local media reported on Sunday. Zalmay Khalilzad, in Kabul to lead talks between the United States, the Taliban and the Afghan government, told reporters he hopes "a peace deal is reached before April 20 next year".

The US special envoy to Afghanistan hopes to cement a peace deal with Taliban insurgents by April 2019, local media reported on Sunday. Zalmay Khalilzad, in Kabul to lead talks between the United States, the Taliban and the Afghan government, told reporters he hopes "a peace deal is reached before April 20 next year". Afghanistan is planning to hold a presidential election on April 20, 2019. The Afghan-born US diplomat said he remained "cautiously optimistic" about the peace talks. Khalilzad, chosen by US President Donald Trump's administration to hold direct talks with the Taliban, met the leaders of the hardline Islamist group in Qatar last month to find ways to end the 17-year war in Afghanistan. On Sunday Khalilzad said the end state of the talks would be "peace and a successful Afghanistan, one that doesn’t pose any threats to itself and to the international community". The Taliban were not immediately available for comment. The insurgents, fighting to expel foreign forces and defeat the Western-backed Afghan government, last month presented demands to Khalilzad that included a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops and the release of senior Taliban from jails.

US envoy hopes for peace deal with Taliban in 2019: Report

Forty-four per cent of German firms expect a further escalation of trade tensions between Europe and the United States, which is likely to continue to dampen new investments, the RND newspaper chain reported, citing a survey by the IW economic institute.

Thirty-four per cent do not see trade ties growing more strained, RND reported.

It said 41 per cent of firms surveyed considered it unlikely that the United States and the European Union (EU) would reach agreement on a transatlantic trade agreement.

US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker struck an agreement in July that should shield European firms from US auto tariffs while the two sides continue to work on trade issues.&nbsp;

But the EU`s trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, last week said any US-EU trade deal would be limited in scope, covering industrial goods, but not agriculture.

Pascal Lamy, the former director general of the World Trade Organisation, last month said the EU should also prepare for its companies to be targeted by US sanctions in a worsening trade dispute between the United States and China.

The IW study said continued uncertainty about the global trade environment would weigh on firms` willingness to invest, which in turn would depress German firms` export prospects in the United States and elsewhere.

"Given worldwide economic developments, the downturn of the German economy is expected to continue," IW said in the study, according to RND.

The DIHK German Chambers of Commerce also sees no signs that the United States will change course and back away from threatened tariffs, a situation that is of particular concern to German automakers, the media group reported.

DIHK President Eric Schweitzer said it was imperative to continue dialogue with Washington, with the goal of negotiating a longer-term free trade agreement that would give industry more certainty and room for manouevre.

"For the moment, we are far from such a reasonable agreement with our second most important trading partner, the United States," he added. 
He said the group had halved its export growth forecast for 2018 to 2.8 per cent, and expected modest growth of just 2.5 per cent next year.&nbsp;

Forty-four per cent of German firms expect a further escalation of trade tensions between Europe and the United States, which is likely to continue to dampen new investments, the RND newspaper chain reported, citing a survey by the IW economic institute.

Forty-four per cent of German firms expect a further escalation of trade tensions between Europe and the United States, which is likely to continue to dampen new investments, the RND newspaper chain reported, citing a survey by the IW economic institute. Thirty-four per cent do not see trade ties growing more strained, RND reported. It said 41 per cent of firms surveyed considered it unlikely that the United States and the European Union (EU) would reach agreement on a transatlantic trade agreement. US President Donald Trump and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker struck an agreement in July that should shield European firms from US auto tariffs while the two sides continue to work on trade issues. But the EU`s trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmstrom, last week said any US-EU trade deal would be limited in scope, covering industrial goods, but not agriculture. Pascal Lamy, the former director general of the World Trade Organisation, last month said the EU should also prepare for its companies to be targeted by US sanctions in a worsening trade dispute between the United States and China. The IW study said continued uncertainty about the global trade environment would weigh on firms` willingness to invest, which in turn would depress German firms` export prospects in the United States and elsewhere. "Given worldwide economic developments, the downturn of the German economy is expected to continue," IW said in the study, according to RND. The DIHK German Chambers of Commerce also sees no signs that the United States will change course and back away from threatened tariffs, a situation that is of particular concern to German automakers, the media group reported. DIHK President Eric Schweitzer said it was imperative to continue dialogue with Washington, with the goal of negotiating a longer-term free trade agreement that would give industry more certainty and room for manouevre. "For the moment, we are far from such a reasonable agreement with our second most important trading partner, the United States," he added. He said the group had halved its export growth forecast for 2018 to 2.8 per cent, and expected modest growth of just 2.5 per cent next year.

Nearly half of German firms expect growing trade strains with US: Survey

At least forty people, mostly women and children were killed on Saturday in the latest wave of US-led coalition airstrikes against the last remaining Islamic State-held pocket in Syria near the border with Iraq, the militants and some local residents said.

Asked about reports of air strikes in the Buqan area near Hajin on the eastern banks of the Euphrates River on Saturday, the coalition’s spokesman confirmed that there were strikes but denied there were civilian casualties.

Colonel Sean Ryan, the coalition spokesman, said "the coalition takes great measures to identify and strike appropriate ISIS targets in order to avoid non-combatant casualties."&nbsp;

Islamic State`s Amaq news agency quoted a medical source as saying 40 people had been killed, a claim which was also made by Syrian state media. 
Relatives of families from the area and Syrian state media&nbsp;said dozens of people have been killed in the last two weeks from US coalition airstrikes in Hajin and areas around it.

The Syrian government protested just over a week ago to the United Nations about an air strike by the US-led coalition against Islamic State which it said killed 26 civilians in Hajin.&nbsp;

The fighting is the latest phase of efforts by the US-led coalition and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to clear Islamic State from its last foothold east of the Euphrates River following last year`s defeat of the group in Raqqa, its Syrian headquarters.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

At least forty people, mostly women and children were killed on Saturday in the latest wave of US-led coalition airstrikes against the last remaining Islamic State-held pocket in Syria near the border with Iraq, the militants and some local residents said.

At least forty people, mostly women and children were killed on Saturday in the latest wave of US-led coalition airstrikes against the last remaining Islamic State-held pocket in Syria near the border with Iraq, the militants and some local residents said. Asked about reports of air strikes in the Buqan area near Hajin on the eastern banks of the Euphrates River on Saturday, the coalition’s spokesman confirmed that there were strikes but denied there were civilian casualties. Colonel Sean Ryan, the coalition spokesman, said "the coalition takes great measures to identify and strike appropriate ISIS targets in order to avoid non-combatant casualties." Islamic State`s Amaq news agency quoted a medical source as saying 40 people had been killed, a claim which was also made by Syrian state media. Relatives of families from the area and Syrian state media said dozens of people have been killed in the last two weeks from US coalition airstrikes in Hajin and areas around it. The Syrian government protested just over a week ago to the United Nations about an air strike by the US-led coalition against Islamic State which it said killed 26 civilians in Hajin. The fighting is the latest phase of efforts by the US-led coalition and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to clear Islamic State from its last foothold east of the Euphrates River following last year`s defeat of the group in Raqqa, its Syrian headquarters.

Islamic State says US-led strikes kill 40 in militant pocket in Syria

China and the US crossed swords Saturday ahead of an APEC summit, duelling over protectionism, trade tariffs and "chequebook diplomacy" as they laid out sharply contrasting visions for the Pacific Rim region.

In combative back-to-back speeches at a business forum held on a hulking cruise ship moored in Port Moresby, Xi Jinping and US Vice President Mike Pence pulled few punches.

The feisty exchanges laid the ground for what could be a fiery encounter between the Chinese leader and President Donald Trump at next month's G20 in Argentina.

Xi lashed out at "America First" trade protectionism and stressed that global trade rules should not be applied "with double standards or selfish agendas" -- in a thinly veiled swipe at Washington.

The world's top two economies have been embroiled in a spiralling trade war, imposing tit-for-tat tariffs on each other's goods in a confrontation experts warn could torpedo the global economy.

Xi urged the world to "say no to protectionism and unilateralism", warning it was a "short-sighted approach" that was "doomed to failure".

For his part, Pence vowed US tariffs would remain in place unless Beijing "changes its ways".

"We've put tariffs on USD 250 billion in Chinese goods and that number could more than double," he told CEOs from around the region.

Amid fears diplomatic and trade friction could spill over into the military sphere, Pence announced the US would join forces with Australia in the development of a new naval base.

And in a move likely to irritate Beijing, he also briefly met Taiwan's APEC representative.

Trump decided to skip the summit in Papua New Guinea, leaving the door open for Xi, who arrived two days earlier for a state visit and has been the undoubted star of the show.

Xi opened a new road and a school in Port Moresby, where he was serenaded by dozens of people from various tribes sporting parrot feathers, possum pelts and seashell necklaces.

The APEC summit of leaders from 21 countries across the region has developed into a tussle for influence between an increasingly assertive China and a more withdrawn US.

This appeared to be borne out by the first "family photo" of leaders, which featured Xi front and centre while Pence was absent.

But in his speech, Pence lashed out at Chinese largesse in strong terms, mocking the Belt-and-Road initiative that sees China offering loans to poorer countries in the region to improve infrastructure.

The vice president urged Pacific nations to embrace the United States, which, he said, did not offer a "constricting belt or a one-way road".

He said the terms of China's loans were "opaque at best" and "too often, they come with strings attached and lead to staggering debt".

"Do not accept foreign debt that could compromise your sovereignty," he said.

"We don't drown our partners in a sea of debt... We don't coerce, corrupt, or compromise your independence. The United States deals openly and fairly."&nbsp;

As if pre-empting the criticism, Xi defended the plan amid attacks it is akin to "chequebook diplomacy" to further Chinese interests in the region.

He denied there was a "hidden geopolitical agenda... Nor is it a trap as some people have labelled it".

And the Chinese leader warned that no one would gain from heightened tensions between the US and his emerging superpower.

"History has shown that confrontation -- whether in the form of a cold war, hot war or trade war -- will produce no winners," he said.

Pence too stressed that Washington wanted a "better relationship" with Beijing -- if it respects its neighbours' sovereignty, embraced "free, fair and reciprocal trade" and improved its human rights record.

Officially, the leaders will discuss improving regional economic cooperation under the theme of "embracing the digital future" but the punchy speeches set the scene for a tense gathering.

In the absence of Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the summit itself has been relatively low-key and the focus has turned to the venue Port Moresby.

The capital of Papua New Guinea has been ranked as one of the least liveable cities for expatriates, with a high level of crime, often perpetrated by feared street gangs known as "raskols".

Delegates have been advised not to venture out alone -- especially after dark -- and officials and journalists have been hosted on massive cruise ships moored in the harbour due to safety issues and a dearth of hotel rooms.

Nevertheless, in a last-minute change-of-heart, Pence decided to stay overnight in the city rather than fly in and out from Australia as originally planned.

Resplendent in shiny red or yellow patterned shirts, the leaders enjoyed a respite from negotiations at a gala dinner before starting the formal talks on Sunday.&nbsp;

China and the US crossed swords Saturday ahead of an APEC summit, duelling over protectionism, trade tariffs and "chequebook diplomacy" as they laid out sharply contrasting visions for the Pacific Rim region.

China and the US crossed swords Saturday ahead of an APEC summit, duelling over protectionism, trade tariffs and "chequebook diplomacy" as they laid out sharply contrasting visions for the Pacific Rim region. In combative back-to-back speeches at a business forum held on a hulking cruise ship moored in Port Moresby, Xi Jinping and US Vice President Mike Pence pulled few punches. The feisty exchanges laid the ground for what could be a fiery encounter between the Chinese leader and President Donald Trump at next month's G20 in Argentina. Xi lashed out at "America First" trade protectionism and stressed that global trade rules should not be applied "with double standards or selfish agendas" -- in a thinly veiled swipe at Washington. The world's top two economies have been embroiled in a spiralling trade war, imposing tit-for-tat tariffs on each other's goods in a confrontation experts warn could torpedo the global economy. Xi urged the world to "say no to protectionism and unilateralism", warning it was a "short-sighted approach" that was "doomed to failure". For his part, Pence vowed US tariffs would remain in place unless Beijing "changes its ways". "We've put tariffs on USD 250 billion in Chinese goods and that number could more than double," he told CEOs from around the region. Amid fears diplomatic and trade friction could spill over into the military sphere, Pence announced the US would join forces with Australia in the development of a new naval base. And in a move likely to irritate Beijing, he also briefly met Taiwan's APEC representative. Trump decided to skip the summit in Papua New Guinea, leaving the door open for Xi, who arrived two days earlier for a state visit and has been the undoubted star of the show. Xi opened a new road and a school in Port Moresby, where he was serenaded by dozens of people from various tribes sporting parrot feathers, possum pelts and seashell necklaces. The APEC summit of leaders from 21 countries across the region has developed into a tussle for influence between an increasingly assertive China and a more withdrawn US. This appeared to be borne out by the first "family photo" of leaders, which featured Xi front and centre while Pence was absent. But in his speech, Pence lashed out at Chinese largesse in strong terms, mocking the Belt-and-Road initiative that sees China offering loans to poorer countries in the region to improve infrastructure. The vice president urged Pacific nations to embrace the United States, which, he said, did not offer a "constricting belt or a one-way road". He said the terms of China's loans were "opaque at best" and "too often, they come with strings attached and lead to staggering debt". "Do not accept foreign debt that could compromise your sovereignty," he said. "We don't drown our partners in a sea of debt... We don't coerce, corrupt, or compromise your independence. The United States deals openly and fairly." As if pre-empting the criticism, Xi defended the plan amid attacks it is akin to "chequebook diplomacy" to further Chinese interests in the region. He denied there was a "hidden geopolitical agenda... Nor is it a trap as some people have labelled it". And the Chinese leader warned that no one would gain from heightened tensions between the US and his emerging superpower. "History has shown that confrontation -- whether in the form of a cold war, hot war or trade war -- will produce no winners," he said. Pence too stressed that Washington wanted a "better relationship" with Beijing -- if it respects its neighbours' sovereignty, embraced "free, fair and reciprocal trade" and improved its human rights record. Officially, the leaders will discuss improving regional economic cooperation under the theme of "embracing the digital future" but the punchy speeches set the scene for a tense gathering. In the absence of Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the summit itself has been relatively low-key and the focus has turned to the venue Port Moresby. The capital of Papua New Guinea has been ranked as one of the least liveable cities for expatriates, with a high level of crime, often perpetrated by feared street gangs known as "raskols". Delegates have been advised not to venture out alone -- especially after dark -- and officials and journalists have been hosted on massive cruise ships moored in the harbour due to safety issues and a dearth of hotel rooms. Nevertheless, in a last-minute change-of-heart, Pence decided to stay overnight in the city rather than fly in and out from Australia as originally planned. Resplendent in shiny red or yellow patterned shirts, the leaders enjoyed a respite from negotiations at a gala dinner before starting the formal talks on Sunday.

US, China in APEC cruise ship clash on trade, influence

Premier engineering and science institute BITS Pilani has announced that it received a US $1 million pledge from a US-based alumni couple for its campus programmes, the largest individual donation ever received by the institution.

The couple -- Prashanth and Anuradha Palakurthi -- made the announcement on Friday, during the ruby anniversary celebrations of Prashanth's 1978-83 batch.&nbsp;

More than 200 alumni of the batch have gathered from all over the world to relive their campus memories in the desert town of Pilani in Rajasthan from November 16-18.

Warmly welcoming the contribution, Prof Souvik Bhattacharyya, Vice-Chancellor, BITS Pilani, termed the announcement by the Palakurthis as "momentous and a game changing gesture".

"With this pledge, BITS Pilani is launching a campaign to set up a Rs 100 crore Research Endowment Fund. This fund would help provide an additional thrust to Research by way of attracting research driven faculty, post-doctoral fellows and research scholars," he said.

Prof Bhattacharyya said the donation will also help "provide seed fund support to new faculty, and help set up advanced research labs to pursue institutional research agenda."

"I believe Prashanth and Anuradha have started a brilliant endeavour to propel BITS Pilani to the next level; I understand they will continue to support and I invite other eminent Alumni to support us in our efforts," Bhattacharyya said at the event.

Prashanth Palakurthi is the Founder and CEO of US-based Reflexis Systems, and his wife Anuradha, the founder of Juju Productions, is a professional singer and radio personality in the United States.

Speaking at the gala event commemorating 40 years of his entry to BITS Pilani, Prashanth said that "we wanted to give back to our alma mater which gave us so much and where we started our journey."

Anuradha, who joined BITS in 1984, said the institute has needs in several areas including infrastructure and research.

"We hope our contribution is followed up by many more from the family of hugely successful alumni, " she said.

At the event, Anuradha also performed JuJu Prouctions' first live show, titled Desert Storm, accompanied by a 42-member musical band from Bollywood.

Prof A K Sarkar, Campus Director, Pilani, applauded the donation and said, The Research Endowment Fund would be instrumental for our journey to pursue our agenda for Institute of Eminence (IoE) in the years to come.

"The gesture by Prashant showcases the love and emotional bonding that BITSians across the globe have for their alma mater. His contribution would go a long way in inspiring other alumni to give back to BITS in tangible and intangible ways, said Prof Arya Kumar, Dean Alumni Relations."

BITS Pilani was conferred the 'Institute of Eminence (IoE)' status in July by the Union government alongside IISc Bangalore, IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay.

BITS Pilani operates from four campuses at Pilani, Goa, Hyderabad and Dubai and features in prestigious international and national ranking such as QS Asia ranking.

Recently it broke into the World top 500 ranks when it was ranked 401-500 in THE 2019 Subject Ranking for Life Sciences.

Premier engineering and science institute BITS Pilani has announced that it received a US $1 million pledge from a US-based alumni couple for its campus programmes, the largest individual donation ever received by the institution.

Premier engineering and science institute BITS Pilani has announced that it received a US $1 million pledge from a US-based alumni couple for its campus programmes, the largest individual donation ever received by the institution. The couple -- Prashanth and Anuradha Palakurthi -- made the announcement on Friday, during the ruby anniversary celebrations of Prashanth's 1978-83 batch. More than 200 alumni of the batch have gathered from all over the world to relive their campus memories in the desert town of Pilani in Rajasthan from November 16-18. Warmly welcoming the contribution, Prof Souvik Bhattacharyya, Vice-Chancellor, BITS Pilani, termed the announcement by the Palakurthis as "momentous and a game changing gesture". "With this pledge, BITS Pilani is launching a campaign to set up a Rs 100 crore Research Endowment Fund. This fund would help provide an additional thrust to Research by way of attracting research driven faculty, post-doctoral fellows and research scholars," he said. Prof Bhattacharyya said the donation will also help "provide seed fund support to new faculty, and help set up advanced research labs to pursue institutional research agenda." "I believe Prashanth and Anuradha have started a brilliant endeavour to propel BITS Pilani to the next level; I understand they will continue to support and I invite other eminent Alumni to support us in our efforts," Bhattacharyya said at the event. Prashanth Palakurthi is the Founder and CEO of US-based Reflexis Systems, and his wife Anuradha, the founder of Juju Productions, is a professional singer and radio personality in the United States. Speaking at the gala event commemorating 40 years of his entry to BITS Pilani, Prashanth said that "we wanted to give back to our alma mater which gave us so much and where we started our journey." Anuradha, who joined BITS in 1984, said the institute has needs in several areas including infrastructure and research. "We hope our contribution is followed up by many more from the family of hugely successful alumni, " she said. At the event, Anuradha also performed JuJu Prouctions' first live show, titled Desert Storm, accompanied by a 42-member musical band from Bollywood. Prof A K Sarkar, Campus Director, Pilani, applauded the donation and said, The Research Endowment Fund would be instrumental for our journey to pursue our agenda for Institute of Eminence (IoE) in the years to come. "The gesture by Prashant showcases the love and emotional bonding that BITSians across the globe have for their alma mater. His contribution would go a long way in inspiring other alumni to give back to BITS in tangible and intangible ways, said Prof Arya Kumar, Dean Alumni Relations." BITS Pilani was conferred the 'Institute of Eminence (IoE)' status in July by the Union government alongside IISc Bangalore, IIT Delhi and IIT Bombay. BITS Pilani operates from four campuses at Pilani, Goa, Hyderabad and Dubai and features in prestigious international and national ranking such as QS Asia ranking. Recently it broke into the World top 500 ranks when it was ranked 401-500 in THE 2019 Subject Ranking for Life Sciences.

US-based alumni couple donates US $1 million to BITS Pilani

The US special envoy for Afghanistan is trying to reassure the US-backed government in Kabul that it will not be shut out of a peace process with the Taliban, after it complained of being side-lined from talks, officials said on Friday.

The US envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, wants representatives of Afghan society to join talks aimed at ending the 17-year war between the Western-backed government and the Islamist Taliban, who were ousted from power by US-led forces in 2001.

Khalilzad, an Afghan-born US diplomat, met Taliban leaders in Qatar last month to try to push talks forward but the Taliban have long rejected direct talks with the elected government, led by President Ashraf Ghani.

"Ghani and many Afghan politicians felt that the US was shutting them out of the peace talks," said a close aide to Ghani.

"Khalilzad cleared the differences by meeting top Afghan politicians, civil society members and women to prove that US will not isolate Afghans during next round of peace talks," he said.

Ghani`s office declined to comment.

The Taliban are fighting to expel foreign forces and defeat the Western-backed government.

The United States has for years resisted getting involved in direct talks with the militants, saying the process must be "Afghan-owned and Afghan-led".

The Taliban last month presented demands to Khalilzad that included a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops and the release of senior Taliban from jails in Afghanistan and Pakistan.&nbsp;

In October, Pakistan released one of the co-founders of the Taliban and another high-ranking commander.

No date has been announced for another round of talks but the Taliban have stepped up their attacks on government forces, inflicting hundreds of casualties over recent weeks in assaults in different parts of the country.

A senior government official in Kabul said Khalilzad wanted Afghan society represented in talks.

"Ambassador Khalilzad met men and women from all walks of the Afghan society to bring them together as a stakeholder in talks with the Taliban," the government official said.

The emphasis on "Afghan society" appeared aimed at persuading the Taliban to accept an Afghan delegation that does not officially represent the government.

Two Taliban officials in Afghanistan said they would continue engagement with Khalilzad, but would not say if their leaders would accept an Afghan delegation.

"We`re watching every diplomatic move of the US officials. We`ll continue our fight until the US accepts our demands," said Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman.

The US special envoy for Afghanistan is trying to reassure the US-backed government in Kabul that it will not be shut out of a peace process with the Taliban, after it complained of being side-lined from talks, officials said on Friday.

The US special envoy for Afghanistan is trying to reassure the US-backed government in Kabul that it will not be shut out of a peace process with the Taliban, after it complained of being side-lined from talks, officials said on Friday. The US envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, wants representatives of Afghan society to join talks aimed at ending the 17-year war between the Western-backed government and the Islamist Taliban, who were ousted from power by US-led forces in 2001. Khalilzad, an Afghan-born US diplomat, met Taliban leaders in Qatar last month to try to push talks forward but the Taliban have long rejected direct talks with the elected government, led by President Ashraf Ghani. "Ghani and many Afghan politicians felt that the US was shutting them out of the peace talks," said a close aide to Ghani. "Khalilzad cleared the differences by meeting top Afghan politicians, civil society members and women to prove that US will not isolate Afghans during next round of peace talks," he said. Ghani`s office declined to comment. The Taliban are fighting to expel foreign forces and defeat the Western-backed government. The United States has for years resisted getting involved in direct talks with the militants, saying the process must be "Afghan-owned and Afghan-led". The Taliban last month presented demands to Khalilzad that included a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops and the release of senior Taliban from jails in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In October, Pakistan released one of the co-founders of the Taliban and another high-ranking commander. No date has been announced for another round of talks but the Taliban have stepped up their attacks on government forces, inflicting hundreds of casualties over recent weeks in assaults in different parts of the country. A senior government official in Kabul said Khalilzad wanted Afghan society represented in talks. "Ambassador Khalilzad met men and women from all walks of the Afghan society to bring them together as a stakeholder in talks with the Taliban," the government official said. The emphasis on "Afghan society" appeared aimed at persuading the Taliban to accept an Afghan delegation that does not officially represent the government. Two Taliban officials in Afghanistan said they would continue engagement with Khalilzad, but would not say if their leaders would accept an Afghan delegation. "We`re watching every diplomatic move of the US officials. We`ll continue our fight until the US accepts our demands," said Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman.

US peace envoy seeks to reassure Kabul it won't be blocked from talks

Turkey has ruled out any deal with the United States to scale down its investigation into the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi if the US expels a Muslim cleric who Ankara says was behind a failed coup two years ago.

NBC News reported on Thursday that the Trump administration was exploring ways to remove cleric Fethullah Gulen and persuade President Tayyip Erdogan to ease pressure on Saudi Arabia over the killing. The White House said the story was "not accurate".

A senior Turkish official said the issues of Gulen`s extradition, which Turkey has long sought, and the investigation into who was behind Khashoggi`s killing at Saudi Arabia`s Istanbul consulate last month, were separate issues.

"At no point did Turkey offer to hold back on the Khashoggi investigation in return for Fethullah Gulen`s extradition," the official said. "We have no intention to intervene in the Khashoggi investigation in return for any political or legal favour."

Erdogan has said the order for Khashoggi`s killing came from the highest levels of the Saudi leadership. Washington on Thursday announced sanctions over the killings, targeting 17 Saudi officials but not the Riyadh government - an important US security and economic ally.

Some Saudi commentators pointed to the NBC report as evidence that Turkey was trying to use Khashoggi`s killing for political gain.

"I never had any doubt that Turkey was trading with the blood of Jamal Khashoggi," Abdulrahman al-Rashed, a prominent Saudi columnist, wrote on Twitter.

&nbsp;Erdogan has long demanded that Washington extradite Gulen, who denies any involvement in the attempted coup and has lived in self-imposed exile in the United States since 1999. US officials have said the courts need sufficient evidence to extradite the elderly cleric.&nbsp;

Turkey has ruled out any deal with the United States to scale down its investigation into the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi if the US expels a Muslim cleric who Ankara says was behind a failed coup two years ago.

Turkey has ruled out any deal with the United States to scale down its investigation into the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi if the US expels a Muslim cleric who Ankara says was behind a failed coup two years ago. NBC News reported on Thursday that the Trump administration was exploring ways to remove cleric Fethullah Gulen and persuade President Tayyip Erdogan to ease pressure on Saudi Arabia over the killing. The White House said the story was "not accurate". A senior Turkish official said the issues of Gulen`s extradition, which Turkey has long sought, and the investigation into who was behind Khashoggi`s killing at Saudi Arabia`s Istanbul consulate last month, were separate issues. "At no point did Turkey offer to hold back on the Khashoggi investigation in return for Fethullah Gulen`s extradition," the official said. "We have no intention to intervene in the Khashoggi investigation in return for any political or legal favour." Erdogan has said the order for Khashoggi`s killing came from the highest levels of the Saudi leadership. Washington on Thursday announced sanctions over the killings, targeting 17 Saudi officials but not the Riyadh government - an important US security and economic ally. Some Saudi commentators pointed to the NBC report as evidence that Turkey was trying to use Khashoggi`s killing for political gain. "I never had any doubt that Turkey was trading with the blood of Jamal Khashoggi," Abdulrahman al-Rashed, a prominent Saudi columnist, wrote on Twitter. Erdogan has long demanded that Washington extradite Gulen, who denies any involvement in the attempted coup and has lived in self-imposed exile in the United States since 1999. US officials have said the courts need sufficient evidence to extradite the elderly cleric.

Turkey says will not link fate of US-based cleric to Khashoggi

North Korea will deport a US citizen detained since October after he entered illegally from China and told his captors he was manipulated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the North Korean state news agency reported on Friday.

The KCNA news agency identified the American as Bruce Byron Lowrance and said he was detained on October 16 as he crossed the border.&nbsp;

An American man of the same name was deported from South Korea in November 2017 after being found wandering near the heavily fortified border with North Korea, but there was no immediate confirmation of the identity of the man held by North Korea.

A spokesman for the US Embassy in the South Korean capital, Seoul, said he could not comment because of privacy concerns, and would not confirm whether American officials were aware that the man was being held.

Using the initials of North Korea`s official name, the Democratic People`s Republic of Korea, KCNA said the man had told his captors "he illegally entered the DPRK under the manipulation of the CIA".

North Korea`s treatment of US citizens has been highly contentious at times over the years, sometimes holding them as prisoners for extended periods. 
In 2017, the death of American student Otto Warmbier after having been detained in North Korea for 17 months helped spark nearly a year of tension as Pyongyang and Washington traded threats of war.

In September 2017, the United States imposed a ban on its citizens travelling to North Korea, with a few exceptions for humanitarian workers or journalists.

In May, North Korea released three American prisoners and handed them over to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, clearing a major obstacle ahead of an unprecedented summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in June.

Talks between North Korea and the United States have since stalled, with North Korean state media announcing on Friday that Kim had inspected the test of an unidentified new weapon for the first time in almost a year.

North Korea will deport a US citizen detained since October after he entered illegally from China and told his captors he was manipulated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the North Korean state news agency reported on Friday.

North Korea will deport a US citizen detained since October after he entered illegally from China and told his captors he was manipulated by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the North Korean state news agency reported on Friday. The KCNA news agency identified the American as Bruce Byron Lowrance and said he was detained on October 16 as he crossed the border. An American man of the same name was deported from South Korea in November 2017 after being found wandering near the heavily fortified border with North Korea, but there was no immediate confirmation of the identity of the man held by North Korea. A spokesman for the US Embassy in the South Korean capital, Seoul, said he could not comment because of privacy concerns, and would not confirm whether American officials were aware that the man was being held. Using the initials of North Korea`s official name, the Democratic People`s Republic of Korea, KCNA said the man had told his captors "he illegally entered the DPRK under the manipulation of the CIA". North Korea`s treatment of US citizens has been highly contentious at times over the years, sometimes holding them as prisoners for extended periods. In 2017, the death of American student Otto Warmbier after having been detained in North Korea for 17 months helped spark nearly a year of tension as Pyongyang and Washington traded threats of war. In September 2017, the United States imposed a ban on its citizens travelling to North Korea, with a few exceptions for humanitarian workers or journalists. In May, North Korea released three American prisoners and handed them over to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, clearing a major obstacle ahead of an unprecedented summit between President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in June. Talks between North Korea and the United States have since stalled, with North Korean state media announcing on Friday that Kim had inspected the test of an unidentified new weapon for the first time in almost a year.

North Korea to deport US citizen held since October: State media

The United States said it would oppose on Friday for the first time an annual resolution at the United Nations calling on Israel to rescind its authority in the occupied Golan Heights, drawing praise from Israeli officials.

The Golan Heights form a buffer between Israel and Syria of about 1,200 square km (460 square miles). Israel captured most of it from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war. It annexed the territory in 1981, a move not recognised internationally.&nbsp;

The United States has abstained in previous years on the annual "Occupied Syrian Golan" resolution, which declares Israel`s decision to impose its jurisdiction in the area "null and void", but Washington's UN envoy Nikki Haley said it would vote against the resolution in Friday`s vote.

"The United States will no longer abstain when the United Nations engages in its useless annual vote on the Golan Heights," she said in a statement on Thursday.

"The resolution is plainly biased against Israel. Further, the atrocities the Syrian regime continues to commit prove its lack of fitness to govern anyone."

Her comments came after the US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, said in September that he expected Israel to keep the Golan Heights in perpetuity, in an apparent nod towards its claim of sovereignty over the territory.

Since early in Donald Trump's presidency, Israel has lobbied for formal US endorsement of its control of the Golan. Trump has recognised Jerusalem as Israel`s capital, breaking with other world powers, though his national security adviser John Bolton told Reuters in August a similar Golan move was not under discussion.

In the past two years, Trump has twice ordered US-led air strikes against targets in Syria in response to what Washington called the use of chemical weapons against civilians by President Bashar al-Assad`s forces.

Israeli officials praised the US move.

Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan called it "extremely important", saying on Twitter that "no sane person can believe that it (the Golan) should be given to Assad &amp; Iran".

Tehran has supported Assad during the civil war and Israel has been warning against Iranian military entrenchment in Syria.

Israel has closely monitored the fighting in Syria, where just across the Golan frontier battles have raged in clear view.

The United States said it would oppose on Friday for the first time an annual resolution at the United Nations calling on Israel to rescind its authority in the occupied Golan Heights, drawing praise from Israeli officials.

The United States said it would oppose on Friday for the first time an annual resolution at the United Nations calling on Israel to rescind its authority in the occupied Golan Heights, drawing praise from Israeli officials. The Golan Heights form a buffer between Israel and Syria of about 1,200 square km (460 square miles). Israel captured most of it from Syria in the 1967 Middle East war. It annexed the territory in 1981, a move not recognised internationally. The United States has abstained in previous years on the annual "Occupied Syrian Golan" resolution, which declares Israel`s decision to impose its jurisdiction in the area "null and void", but Washington's UN envoy Nikki Haley said it would vote against the resolution in Friday`s vote. "The United States will no longer abstain when the United Nations engages in its useless annual vote on the Golan Heights," she said in a statement on Thursday. "The resolution is plainly biased against Israel. Further, the atrocities the Syrian regime continues to commit prove its lack of fitness to govern anyone." Her comments came after the US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, said in September that he expected Israel to keep the Golan Heights in perpetuity, in an apparent nod towards its claim of sovereignty over the territory. Since early in Donald Trump's presidency, Israel has lobbied for formal US endorsement of its control of the Golan. Trump has recognised Jerusalem as Israel`s capital, breaking with other world powers, though his national security adviser John Bolton told Reuters in August a similar Golan move was not under discussion. In the past two years, Trump has twice ordered US-led air strikes against targets in Syria in response to what Washington called the use of chemical weapons against civilians by President Bashar al-Assad`s forces. Israeli officials praised the US move. Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan called it "extremely important", saying on Twitter that "no sane person can believe that it (the Golan) should be given to Assad & Iran". Tehran has supported Assad during the civil war and Israel has been warning against Iranian military entrenchment in Syria. Israel has closely monitored the fighting in Syria, where just across the Golan frontier battles have raged in clear view.

US to oppose UN Golan resolution, wins Israeli praise

WION CHAT: Siddhant Sibbal on India-US trade deals

Hate crimes surged 17 per cent in the United States in Donald Trump's first year as president, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a new report Tuesday.

The FBI said that 7,175 hate crimes were reported during 2017, compared to 6,121 in 2016.

Hate crimes of all types -- based on race, religion, gender and sexual orientation -- were higher.

African-Americans were the leading target of crimes based on race, and Jews were the most-targeted group by religion, according to the FBI.

The total number of hate crimes was the highest since 2008.

The FBI did not explain the increase, which came amid a perceived general rise in social and political tensions across the country marked by the election of the divisive Trump.

But it did note that more law enforcement jurisdictions were reporting hate crimes than previous years.&nbsp;

The report came after the country was shocked in recent weeks by two mass shootings, including one in which 11 Jewish worshippers were killed in a Pittsburgh synagogue by an anti-Semitic gunman, and a series of pipe bombs sent to foes of Donald Trump by a Florida supporter of the president. None of the bombs exploded.

"This report is a call to action -- and we will heed that call," said Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker in a statement.

"The Department of Justice's top priority is to reduce violent crime in America, and hate crimes are violent crimes.... I am particularly troubled by the increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes," he said.

Hate crimes surged 17 per cent in the United States in Donald Trump's first year as president, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a new report Tuesday. The FBI said that 7,175 hate crimes were reported during 2017, compared to 6,121 in 2016.

Hate crimes surged 17 per cent in the United States in Donald Trump's first year as president, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said in a new report Tuesday. The FBI said that 7,175 hate crimes were reported during 2017, compared to 6,121 in 2016. Hate crimes of all types -- based on race, religion, gender and sexual orientation -- were higher. African-Americans were the leading target of crimes based on race, and Jews were the most-targeted group by religion, according to the FBI. The total number of hate crimes was the highest since 2008. The FBI did not explain the increase, which came amid a perceived general rise in social and political tensions across the country marked by the election of the divisive Trump. But it did note that more law enforcement jurisdictions were reporting hate crimes than previous years. The report came after the country was shocked in recent weeks by two mass shootings, including one in which 11 Jewish worshippers were killed in a Pittsburgh synagogue by an anti-Semitic gunman, and a series of pipe bombs sent to foes of Donald Trump by a Florida supporter of the president. None of the bombs exploded. "This report is a call to action -- and we will heed that call," said Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker in a statement. "The Department of Justice's top priority is to reduce violent crime in America, and hate crimes are violent crimes.... I am particularly troubled by the increase in anti-Semitic hate crimes," he said.

US hate crimes surged in Trump's first year: FBI

us-1

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

us 1