The first Indo-US tri-services exercise is likely to take place next year and talks are on to include the special forces of two countries in the drill, a senior US defence official has said.

The three forces of India and the US already take part in bilateral exercises separately -- their armies participate in an annual drill called Yudh Abyaas, whose latest edition took place last month, the air forces take part in a bilateral drill called Cope India and the navies participate in an exercise in Malabar, involving Japan.&nbsp;

But this will be the first time the three services of the India and the US will participate in a drill together.

"The first one will be in India, and it will take place in 2019. It would include all our services, plus we are kind of scoping the exercise right now to include each of the services' special operations forces. That's very exciting. This is under discussion right now...Essentially all our services, plus potentially the special operations forces," Brigadier General David E Brigham told PTI.

An Initial Planning Conference (IPC) will be held to discuss the scale of the exercise, he said. No date has been fixed for the joint drill yet, he said.

The drill may take place somewhere in late August because US naval ships could be in the region around that time.

The drill will focus on United Nations-based scenario and the over-arching mission of humanitarian assistance, disaster relief measure, Brigham said.

He said India was the "natural humanitarian disaster relief hub" in the Indo-Pacific.&nbsp;

The Indian Army has Para SF, the Navy has Marcos while the Air Force has the Garud as their respective special forces.

Although the joint tri-services drill was formally announced after the first 2 plus 2 plus dialogue between the principals of the external affairs and defence ministries of the two countries last month, work on it had begun much before.

The first Indo-US tri-services exercise is likely to take place next year and talks are on to include the special forces of two countries in the drill, a senior US defence official has said.

The first Indo-US tri-services exercise is likely to take place next year and talks are on to include the special forces of two countries in the drill, a senior US defence official has said. The three forces of India and the US already take part in bilateral exercises separately -- their armies participate in an annual drill called Yudh Abyaas, whose latest edition took place last month, the air forces take part in a bilateral drill called Cope India and the navies participate in an exercise in Malabar, involving Japan. But this will be the first time the three services of the India and the US will participate in a drill together. "The first one will be in India, and it will take place in 2019. It would include all our services, plus we are kind of scoping the exercise right now to include each of the services' special operations forces. That's very exciting. This is under discussion right now...Essentially all our services, plus potentially the special operations forces," Brigadier General David E Brigham told PTI. An Initial Planning Conference (IPC) will be held to discuss the scale of the exercise, he said. No date has been fixed for the joint drill yet, he said. The drill may take place somewhere in late August because US naval ships could be in the region around that time. The drill will focus on United Nations-based scenario and the over-arching mission of humanitarian assistance, disaster relief measure, Brigham said. He said India was the "natural humanitarian disaster relief hub" in the Indo-Pacific. The Indian Army has Para SF, the Navy has Marcos while the Air Force has the Garud as their respective special forces. Although the joint tri-services drill was formally announced after the first 2 plus 2 plus dialogue between the principals of the external affairs and defence ministries of the two countries last month, work on it had begun much before.

First Indo-US tri-services exercise likely to include special forces of 2 countries

The United States is seeking regime change in Iran, President Hassan Rouhani said Sunday in a speech broadcast on state TV.

The US is using psychological and economic warfare and questioning the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic to pursue regime change in Iran, Rouhani said in a speech commemorating the beginning of the academic year at Tehran University.

The United States is seeking regime change in Iran, President Hassan Rouhani said Sunday in a speech broadcast on state TV. The US is using psychological and economic warfare and questioning the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic to pursue regime change in Iran, Rouhani said in a speech commemorating the beginning of the academic year at Tehran University.

US is seeking regime change in Iran: Rouhani

An American pastor held for two years in Turkey on terror-related charges arrived home in the United States on Saturday, where he was to meet with US President Donald Trump, who signaled an easing in the diplomatic crisis sparked by the case.

Andrew Brunson -- who has become a cause celebre for Trump's conservative Christian base -- was due at the White House to see Trump shortly after his arrival at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington.

On Friday, a Turkish court in Aliaga convicted Brunson on charges of espionage and aiding terror groups. It sentenced him to three years, one month and 15 days in jail -- but released him based on time served and good behavior.

Brunson maintained his innocence throughout the process, and Trump administration officials have said the charges were politically motivated.&nbsp;

Trump thanked Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his help on the case, which caused not only a serious diplomatic row between the NATO allies but led to a crash in the lira, exposing Turkey's economic fragility.

"Pastor Andrew Brunson, released by Turkey, will be with me in the Oval Office at 2:30 PM (this afternoon)," Trump tweeted.

"It will be wonderful to see and meet him. He is a great Christian who has been through such a tough experience. I would like to thank President @RT_Erdogan for his help!"

Erdogan however said the court's decision was "taken independently."

Both Trump and Erdogan have denied reports that the two sides reached a secret deal for the 50-year-old Brunson to be released in exchange for the US easing "economic pressure" on Ankara.

"There was NO DEAL made with Turkey... I don't make deals for hostages," Trump said on Twitter.

"There was, however, great appreciation on behalf of the United States, which will lead to good, perhaps great, relations between the United States &amp; Turkey!"

Erdogan responded: "I hope that the United States and Turkey continue cooperation in a manner that befits two allies."

'I am an innocent man'

Brunson is an evangelical Presbyterian clergyman who lived in Turkey for nearly half his life, initially moving there in 1993 as part of a missionary program.

He was first detained in October 2016, faced up to 35 years in jail. Prosecutors then demanded a sentence of up to 10 years. The pastor steadfastly insisted he was not guilty.

"I am an innocent man. I love Jesus. I love Turkey," he said in his final defense.

When the verdict was read out, Brunson wept and hugged his wife Norine.

After gathering his belongings, Brunson was driven to the airport in the Turkish city of Izmir, where he boarded a US military plane for Germany.&nbsp;

Upon arrival there for a refueling stop, he kissed an American flag presented to him by Richard Grenell, the US ambassador in Berlin.

'Navigate through a minefield'

While the strain in US-Turkish relations eased with Brunson's release, problems remain.&nbsp;

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged Turkey to "quickly release" other Americans in detention.

He said Washington would "continue to work hard to bring home all American hostages and those wrongfully imprisoned and detained."

NASA scientist Serkan Golge, a dual US-Turkish national, was jailed for seven and a half years in February on terror charges, a term reduced to five years last month.

And two Turkish employees of US diplomatic missions remain in jail. One of them, former Adana consulate staffer Hamza Ulucay, was denied release on Friday.

Anthony Skinner, director for Middle East and North Africa at the Verisk Maplecroft consultancy, said that the US and Turkey had plenty of disagreements beyond Brunson.

"The clamp has now been removed, which opens the way for bilateral negotiations to address other sources of disagreement, but Washington and Ankara still have to navigate through a minefield," Skinner said.

He pointed to Turkey's order for Russian S-400 missile defense systems, which has riled its Western allies, as well as Ankara's determination to do business with Iran in defiance of US sanctions.

Turkey is bracing for potential fines from US authorities over sanctions-busting by Turkish lender Halkbank, whose deputy director general has been jailed in the United States.&nbsp;

Brunson's release comes at a sensitive time for the Turkish leadership, which is under global scrutiny over how it handles the case of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who disappeared at Riyadh's consulate in Istanbul last week.

Both Erdogan and Trump have pressed Saudi Arabia to explain what happened to Khashoggi.&nbsp;

Now that the Brunson issue has been resolved to Washington's satisfaction, it could help the two sides coordinate their Saudi policy more closely.

&nbsp;

An American pastor held for two years in Turkey on terror-related charges arrived home in the United States on Saturday, where he was to meet with US President Donald Trump, who signaled an easing in the diplomatic crisis sparked by the case.

An American pastor held for two years in Turkey on terror-related charges arrived home in the United States on Saturday, where he was to meet with US President Donald Trump, who signaled an easing in the diplomatic crisis sparked by the case. Andrew Brunson -- who has become a cause celebre for Trump's conservative Christian base -- was due at the White House to see Trump shortly after his arrival at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington. On Friday, a Turkish court in Aliaga convicted Brunson on charges of espionage and aiding terror groups. It sentenced him to three years, one month and 15 days in jail -- but released him based on time served and good behavior. Brunson maintained his innocence throughout the process, and Trump administration officials have said the charges were politically motivated. Trump thanked Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan for his help on the case, which caused not only a serious diplomatic row between the NATO allies but led to a crash in the lira, exposing Turkey's economic fragility. "Pastor Andrew Brunson, released by Turkey, will be with me in the Oval Office at 2:30 PM (this afternoon)," Trump tweeted. "It will be wonderful to see and meet him. He is a great Christian who has been through such a tough experience. I would like to thank President @RT_Erdogan for his help!" Erdogan however said the court's decision was "taken independently." Both Trump and Erdogan have denied reports that the two sides reached a secret deal for the 50-year-old Brunson to be released in exchange for the US easing "economic pressure" on Ankara. "There was NO DEAL made with Turkey... I don't make deals for hostages," Trump said on Twitter. "There was, however, great appreciation on behalf of the United States, which will lead to good, perhaps great, relations between the United States & Turkey!" Erdogan responded: "I hope that the United States and Turkey continue cooperation in a manner that befits two allies." 'I am an innocent man' Brunson is an evangelical Presbyterian clergyman who lived in Turkey for nearly half his life, initially moving there in 1993 as part of a missionary program. He was first detained in October 2016, faced up to 35 years in jail. Prosecutors then demanded a sentence of up to 10 years. The pastor steadfastly insisted he was not guilty. "I am an innocent man. I love Jesus. I love Turkey," he said in his final defense. When the verdict was read out, Brunson wept and hugged his wife Norine. After gathering his belongings, Brunson was driven to the airport in the Turkish city of Izmir, where he boarded a US military plane for Germany. Upon arrival there for a refueling stop, he kissed an American flag presented to him by Richard Grenell, the US ambassador in Berlin. 'Navigate through a minefield' While the strain in US-Turkish relations eased with Brunson's release, problems remain. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo urged Turkey to "quickly release" other Americans in detention. He said Washington would "continue to work hard to bring home all American hostages and those wrongfully imprisoned and detained." NASA scientist Serkan Golge, a dual US-Turkish national, was jailed for seven and a half years in February on terror charges, a term reduced to five years last month. And two Turkish employees of US diplomatic missions remain in jail. One of them, former Adana consulate staffer Hamza Ulucay, was denied release on Friday. Anthony Skinner, director for Middle East and North Africa at the Verisk Maplecroft consultancy, said that the US and Turkey had plenty of disagreements beyond Brunson. "The clamp has now been removed, which opens the way for bilateral negotiations to address other sources of disagreement, but Washington and Ankara still have to navigate through a minefield," Skinner said. He pointed to Turkey's order for Russian S-400 missile defense systems, which has riled its Western allies, as well as Ankara's determination to do business with Iran in defiance of US sanctions. Turkey is bracing for potential fines from US authorities over sanctions-busting by Turkish lender Halkbank, whose deputy director general has been jailed in the United States. Brunson's release comes at a sensitive time for the Turkish leadership, which is under global scrutiny over how it handles the case of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who disappeared at Riyadh's consulate in Istanbul last week. Both Erdogan and Trump have pressed Saudi Arabia to explain what happened to Khashoggi. Now that the Brunson issue has been resolved to Washington's satisfaction, it could help the two sides coordinate their Saudi policy more closely.

Freed US pastor Brunson arrives in US from Turkey, Trump thanks Erdogan

US national security adviser John Bolton has vowed to further intensify the Trump administration's tough approach to China, saying Beijing's "behaviour needs to be adjusted in the trade area, in the international, military and political areas."

Speaking in a radio interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show recorded on Thursday and aired on Friday, Bolton said President Donald Trump believed China had taken advantage of the international order for far too long and not enough Americans had stood up to it.

"Now's the time to do it" he said.

Bolton said Trump's tough approach towards China, a country the administration saw as the "major issue this century," had left Beijing "confused."

"They've never seen an American president this tough before. I think their behaviour needs to be adjusted in the trade area, in the international, military and political areas, in a whole range of areas," he said.

"Perhaps we'll see at the G20 meeting in Argentina next month Xi Jinping willing to come to talk turkey on some of these issues," he added.

Bolton's remarks came amid a series of administration broadsides against China that goes beyond a trade war. These have included accusing Beijing of trying to undermine Trump ahead of next month's congressional elections and of taking reckless military actions in the South China Sea.

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Friday Trump would go through with plans to meet Xi at the G20 summit if it looked possible to chart "a positive direction." But he said re-launching trade talks with China would require Beijing to commit to taking action on structural reforms to its economy.

Bolton called recent Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea, where a US warship had a near collision with a Chinese vessel last month, "dangerous" and said the United States was determined to keep international sea lanes open.

"This is something the Chinese need to understand," he said, adding that allies including Britain and Australia were also sailing through the South China Sea to make this point.

"We're going to do a lot more on that," he said.

"I think we could see more exploitation of mineral resources in the South China Sea with or without Chinese cooperation. They need to know they have not achieved a fait accompli here. This is not a Chinese province and will not be."

Bolton did not elaborate on his remark about mineral exploitation in the strategic waterway, which China claims almost in its entirety in spite of several rival claimants.

Bolton said China's violation of international norms in trade and business had allowed it to gain substantial economic and military strength.

"If they're put back in the proper place they would be if they weren't allowed to steal our technology, their military capabilities would be substantially reduced. And a lot of the tensions we see caused by China would be reduced," Bolton said.

He indicated that Washington was prepared to take more action to restrict sensitive high-tech exports to China.

"We did this and continue to do it in terms of dual-use technology that could affect nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or ballistic-missile development.

"I think in cyberspace, we're entitled to do the same thing ... We want to do it in ways that protect our open economy, but deny others the ability to take advantage of it."

Bolton said he expected a second summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "sometime in the next couple of months," but said it remained to be seen if the diplomatic effort to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons would be successful.

"The president has held the door open for North Korea," he said. "They need to denuclearize completely and irreversibly. And if they do that and walk through the door, the future could be very different for the North Korean people.

"The future remains uncertain on the president's diplomacy. He's optimistic. He presses hard. He does not have stars in his eyes about this. Neither does Mike Pompeo, neither does Jim Mattis, neither do I," Bolton said, referring to the U.S. secretaries of defence and state.

US national security adviser John Bolton has vowed to further intensify the Trump administration's tough approach to China, saying Beijing's "behaviour needs to be adjusted in the trade area, in the international, military and political areas.

US national security adviser John Bolton has vowed to further intensify the Trump administration's tough approach to China, saying Beijing's "behaviour needs to be adjusted in the trade area, in the international, military and political areas." Speaking in a radio interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show recorded on Thursday and aired on Friday, Bolton said President Donald Trump believed China had taken advantage of the international order for far too long and not enough Americans had stood up to it. "Now's the time to do it" he said. Bolton said Trump's tough approach towards China, a country the administration saw as the "major issue this century," had left Beijing "confused." "They've never seen an American president this tough before. I think their behaviour needs to be adjusted in the trade area, in the international, military and political areas, in a whole range of areas," he said. "Perhaps we'll see at the G20 meeting in Argentina next month Xi Jinping willing to come to talk turkey on some of these issues," he added. Bolton's remarks came amid a series of administration broadsides against China that goes beyond a trade war. These have included accusing Beijing of trying to undermine Trump ahead of next month's congressional elections and of taking reckless military actions in the South China Sea. US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Friday Trump would go through with plans to meet Xi at the G20 summit if it looked possible to chart "a positive direction." But he said re-launching trade talks with China would require Beijing to commit to taking action on structural reforms to its economy. Bolton called recent Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea, where a US warship had a near collision with a Chinese vessel last month, "dangerous" and said the United States was determined to keep international sea lanes open. "This is something the Chinese need to understand," he said, adding that allies including Britain and Australia were also sailing through the South China Sea to make this point. "We're going to do a lot more on that," he said. "I think we could see more exploitation of mineral resources in the South China Sea with or without Chinese cooperation. They need to know they have not achieved a fait accompli here. This is not a Chinese province and will not be." Bolton did not elaborate on his remark about mineral exploitation in the strategic waterway, which China claims almost in its entirety in spite of several rival claimants. Bolton said China's violation of international norms in trade and business had allowed it to gain substantial economic and military strength. "If they're put back in the proper place they would be if they weren't allowed to steal our technology, their military capabilities would be substantially reduced. And a lot of the tensions we see caused by China would be reduced," Bolton said. He indicated that Washington was prepared to take more action to restrict sensitive high-tech exports to China. "We did this and continue to do it in terms of dual-use technology that could affect nuclear, chemical or biological weapons or ballistic-missile development. "I think in cyberspace, we're entitled to do the same thing ... We want to do it in ways that protect our open economy, but deny others the ability to take advantage of it." Bolton said he expected a second summit between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un "sometime in the next couple of months," but said it remained to be seen if the diplomatic effort to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons would be successful. "The president has held the door open for North Korea," he said. "They need to denuclearize completely and irreversibly. And if they do that and walk through the door, the future could be very different for the North Korean people. "The future remains uncertain on the president's diplomacy. He's optimistic. He presses hard. He does not have stars in his eyes about this. Neither does Mike Pompeo, neither does Jim Mattis, neither do I," Bolton said, referring to the U.S. secretaries of defence and state.

US vows to get even tougher on China, says Beijing's 'behaviour needs to be adjusted'

Taliban leaders and the newly-appointed US special envoy for peace efforts in Afghanistan will continue to hold meetings to discuss ways to end the ongoing war, the Taliban said in a statement on Saturday.

Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-born US diplomat, met with Taliban leaders in Qatar on Friday in an effort to find a way to end the 17-year-old war in Afghanistan.

"Both sides spoke (about) an end to the occupation and peaceful solution to the Afghan issue ... Both sides agreed to continue meeting in the future," Zabiullah Mujahid, the Taliban`s spokesman, said in a statement.&nbsp;

Taliban leaders and the newly-appointed US special envoy for peace efforts in Afghanistan will continue to hold meetings to discuss ways to end the ongoing war, the Taliban said in a statement on Saturday.

Taliban leaders and the newly-appointed US special envoy for peace efforts in Afghanistan will continue to hold meetings to discuss ways to end the ongoing war, the Taliban said in a statement on Saturday. Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-born US diplomat, met with Taliban leaders in Qatar on Friday in an effort to find a way to end the 17-year-old war in Afghanistan. "Both sides spoke (about) an end to the occupation and peaceful solution to the Afghan issue ... Both sides agreed to continue meeting in the future," Zabiullah Mujahid, the Taliban`s spokesman, said in a statement.

Taliban says will continue talks with US special envoy for peace efforts in Afghanistan

US Vice President Mike Pence told Central American countries on Thursday the United States was willing to help with economic development and investment if they did more to tackle mass migration, corruption and gang violence.

Speaking at a meeting with Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales and El Salvador Vice President Oscar Ortiz, Pence also warned them about increasing regional investment from China.

The meeting, hosted by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, was part of Washington's efforts to curb migration, boost economic growth and fund security programs.

"We stand ready to help you unleash your energy resources, to create more business development in your countries, to increase collaboration between our universities and cultural exchanges, and more," Pence told the meeting.

He added: "As you build commercial partnerships with other countries, including China, we urge you to focus on, and demand, transparency and look after your, and our, long-term interests."

Pence called on Morales to increase resources for border security and urged Hernandez to redouble efforts to combat human trafficking. He pressed Ortiz to ensure that El Salvador strengthened law enforcement units to tackle gang violence.

"If you do more, I'm here to say on behalf of the president of the United States and the American people, we'll do more," said Pence.

Hernandez said US funding was declining at a time when Washington wanted more done on border security. He also called on the United States to reunite migrant children with their parents.

"We see every year that there is a reduction in the resources that are budgeted by the United States. This should not take us to the conclusion that you have lost interest in your relationship with me, but it does concern us," Hernandez said through an interpreter.

US and Central American officials have clashed in recent months over Washington's policy earlier this year of separating migrant children and parents trying to cross the US-Mexican border. Governments in the region have demanded information from the United States as they seek to reunite families.

"If you look at your conscience, if we all put ourselves in the shoes of these parents, imagine if a child from your country found himself or herself in that situation, you could understand the rejection this has caused in my country, the huge pressure we face," Hernandez said.

US Vice President Mike Pence told Central American countries on Thursday the United States was willing to help with economic development and investment if they did more to tackle mass migration, corruption and gang violence.

US Vice President Mike Pence told Central American countries on Thursday the United States was willing to help with economic development and investment if they did more to tackle mass migration, corruption and gang violence. Speaking at a meeting with Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales and El Salvador Vice President Oscar Ortiz, Pence also warned them about increasing regional investment from China. The meeting, hosted by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, was part of Washington's efforts to curb migration, boost economic growth and fund security programs. "We stand ready to help you unleash your energy resources, to create more business development in your countries, to increase collaboration between our universities and cultural exchanges, and more," Pence told the meeting. He added: "As you build commercial partnerships with other countries, including China, we urge you to focus on, and demand, transparency and look after your, and our, long-term interests." Pence called on Morales to increase resources for border security and urged Hernandez to redouble efforts to combat human trafficking. He pressed Ortiz to ensure that El Salvador strengthened law enforcement units to tackle gang violence. "If you do more, I'm here to say on behalf of the president of the United States and the American people, we'll do more," said Pence. Hernandez said US funding was declining at a time when Washington wanted more done on border security. He also called on the United States to reunite migrant children with their parents. "We see every year that there is a reduction in the resources that are budgeted by the United States. This should not take us to the conclusion that you have lost interest in your relationship with me, but it does concern us," Hernandez said through an interpreter. US and Central American officials have clashed in recent months over Washington's policy earlier this year of separating migrant children and parents trying to cross the US-Mexican border. Governments in the region have demanded information from the United States as they seek to reunite families. "If you look at your conscience, if we all put ourselves in the shoes of these parents, imagine if a child from your country found himself or herself in that situation, you could understand the rejection this has caused in my country, the huge pressure we face," Hernandez said.

US to Central America: Will help with your development if you cut down migration

By Louis Monroy-Santander

Colombia’s new president Ivan Duque has begun his tenure facing a number of significant challenges. He must manage the 2016 peace deal achieved by his predecessor, Juan Manuel Santos, which he believes lets some former Farc guerillas off too lightly.&nbsp;

He must battle drug production, which has been rising since the end of the armed conflict. And he must manage the desperate humanitarian and political crisis that is seeping across the border from neighbouring Venezuela.

Thanks to Santos’s peace diplomacy, which helped bring to an end five decades of fighting, Colombia now has the opportunity to open up and expand its foreign policy approach. Duque could now develop a more amicable and positive vision that enables him to establish agreements on social, political, economic and humanitarian issues with countries around the world.

Consequently, Duque’s foreign policy approach is being closely monitored – particularly how it tallies with that of the Trump administration in the US. Closer ties between the US and Colombia were evident during Duque’s intervention at the United Nations General Assembly and his encounter with president Donald Trump, where both drug trafficking and the Venezuelan crisis were discussed.

President Duque’s intervention insisted on the need to combat drug trafficking as a global threat, the need to combat the evident increase in illicit crop plantations, his commitment to fighting corruption, and the need to work with the international community in dealing with the most difficult migratory and humanitarian problem in the region: the Venezuelan crisis.

Colombia’s alignment with American foreign policy has increased tensions between Bogota, Washington and Caracas, leading to speculation about a possible military intervention into Venezuela to topple the regime of Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s president. Meanwhile, Trump has expressed publicly his support for Colombia as an ally in the war on drugs and offered support for Colombia in the event of a military clash with Venezuela. The US administration also announced sanctions against Cilia Flores, Maduro’s wife, and Diosdado Cabello, Maduro’s top political ally.

For his part, Duque has insisted that Colombia will not support a military intervention into Venezuela, and has instead called on the international community to support sanctions that bring an end to Maduro’s regime.

The Venezuela question

Indeed, Duque opposes a closed border approach and has insisted on opening up diplomatic channels and resources to deal with the crisis in Venezuela, including the International Criminal Court to denounce the violations of the Maduro regime and initiate a peaceful democratic transition. Back in 2017, for example, Duque, together with other senators, initiated a complaint against Maduro at the ICC for the crimes of torture, political discrimination, murder and kidnapping.

But Maduro has contested the US sanctions imposed on his wife, and challenged Duque to a televised debate (to be broadcast both in Colombia and Venezuela) to discuss the range of issues affecting bilateral relations – an invitation rejected by Duque, who deemed it a mere electoral stunt. Maduro has also deployed Venezuelan troops along the Colombian border, justifying these troop movements as a strategy for combating illegal drug networks located along the border, an act interpreted by both Trump and Duque as intimidation.

Although international pressure is a useful instrument for weakening Maduro’s administration, the ongoing and escalating verbal clashes between the three presidents is a dangerous strategy.

US military interventions are viewed with great suspicion in Latin America, particularly after those in Granada and Panama became enforced occupations. A US/Colombian intervention in Venezuela would likely require troops to stay for the long haul, in a country where most physical and social structures have been destroyed, drug traffickers benefit from widespread lawlessness and nation-building would be a lengthy process. The presence of US troops would also play into the hands of Maduro, who already rails to his supporters about US plots against him.

However, the US has often used indirect means to influence events in South America, using allied forces and governments in the region to intervene on its behalf. Trump, for example, has met with various officers of the Venezuelan military since 2017, to discuss the possibility of a coup against president Maduro, although none have ended in concrete material support.

Colombia, therefore, plays a vital role in the current situation – both as Venezuela’s closest neighbour and the most important regional US ally – and the Duque administration has rejected signing the Lima declaration which would have ruled out any intervention leading to regime change in Venezuela.

But an internal coup in Venezuela – with the support of the US and Colombia – would be beset with difficulties. It would require an overarching political and military strategy, as well as regional tactical coordination, with agreements based on varying interests and loyalties. The Venezuelan military, meanwhile, has been purged and politicised through a constant rotation of army commanders since 2002. Irrespective of what Colombia and the US want, putting plans into place in a country as chaotic as Venezuela will be no easy feat.

 
(Louis Monroy-Santander is Teaching Fellow in Defence, Development and Diplomacy, Durham University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/tensions-rise-between-colombia-us-and-venezuela-amid-rumours-of-a-military-intervention-104340">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By Louis Monroy-Santander Colombia’s new president Ivan Duque has begun his tenure facing a number of significant challenges. He must manage the 2016 peace deal achieved by his predecessor, Juan Manuel Santos, which he believes lets some former Farc guerillas off too lightly.

By Louis Monroy-Santander Colombia’s new president Ivan Duque has begun his tenure facing a number of significant challenges. He must manage the 2016 peace deal achieved by his predecessor, Juan Manuel Santos, which he believes lets some former Farc guerillas off too lightly. He must battle drug production, which has been rising since the end of the armed conflict. And he must manage the desperate humanitarian and political crisis that is seeping across the border from neighbouring Venezuela. Thanks to Santos’s peace diplomacy, which helped bring to an end five decades of fighting, Colombia now has the opportunity to open up and expand its foreign policy approach. Duque could now develop a more amicable and positive vision that enables him to establish agreements on social, political, economic and humanitarian issues with countries around the world. Consequently, Duque’s foreign policy approach is being closely monitored – particularly how it tallies with that of the Trump administration in the US. Closer ties between the US and Colombia were evident during Duque’s intervention at the United Nations General Assembly and his encounter with president Donald Trump, where both drug trafficking and the Venezuelan crisis were discussed. President Duque’s intervention insisted on the need to combat drug trafficking as a global threat, the need to combat the evident increase in illicit crop plantations, his commitment to fighting corruption, and the need to work with the international community in dealing with the most difficult migratory and humanitarian problem in the region: the Venezuelan crisis. Colombia’s alignment with American foreign policy has increased tensions between Bogota, Washington and Caracas, leading to speculation about a possible military intervention into Venezuela to topple the regime of Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s president. Meanwhile, Trump has expressed publicly his support for Colombia as an ally in the war on drugs and offered support for Colombia in the event of a military clash with Venezuela. The US administration also announced sanctions against Cilia Flores, Maduro’s wife, and Diosdado Cabello, Maduro’s top political ally. For his part, Duque has insisted that Colombia will not support a military intervention into Venezuela, and has instead called on the international community to support sanctions that bring an end to Maduro’s regime. The Venezuela question Indeed, Duque opposes a closed border approach and has insisted on opening up diplomatic channels and resources to deal with the crisis in Venezuela, including the International Criminal Court to denounce the violations of the Maduro regime and initiate a peaceful democratic transition. Back in 2017, for example, Duque, together with other senators, initiated a complaint against Maduro at the ICC for the crimes of torture, political discrimination, murder and kidnapping. But Maduro has contested the US sanctions imposed on his wife, and challenged Duque to a televised debate (to be broadcast both in Colombia and Venezuela) to discuss the range of issues affecting bilateral relations – an invitation rejected by Duque, who deemed it a mere electoral stunt. Maduro has also deployed Venezuelan troops along the Colombian border, justifying these troop movements as a strategy for combating illegal drug networks located along the border, an act interpreted by both Trump and Duque as intimidation. Although international pressure is a useful instrument for weakening Maduro’s administration, the ongoing and escalating verbal clashes between the three presidents is a dangerous strategy. US military interventions are viewed with great suspicion in Latin America, particularly after those in Granada and Panama became enforced occupations. A US/Colombian intervention in Venezuela would likely require troops to stay for the long haul, in a country where most physical and social structures have been destroyed, drug traffickers benefit from widespread lawlessness and nation-building would be a lengthy process. The presence of US troops would also play into the hands of Maduro, who already rails to his supporters about US plots against him. However, the US has often used indirect means to influence events in South America, using allied forces and governments in the region to intervene on its behalf. Trump, for example, has met with various officers of the Venezuelan military since 2017, to discuss the possibility of a coup against president Maduro, although none have ended in concrete material support. Colombia, therefore, plays a vital role in the current situation – both as Venezuela’s closest neighbour and the most important regional US ally – and the Duque administration has rejected signing the Lima declaration which would have ruled out any intervention leading to regime change in Venezuela. But an internal coup in Venezuela – with the support of the US and Colombia – would be beset with difficulties. It would require an overarching political and military strategy, as well as regional tactical coordination, with agreements based on varying interests and loyalties. The Venezuelan military, meanwhile, has been purged and politicised through a constant rotation of army commanders since 2002. Irrespective of what Colombia and the US want, putting plans into place in a country as chaotic as Venezuela will be no easy feat. (Louis Monroy-Santander is Teaching Fellow in Defence, Development and Diplomacy, Durham University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Tensions rise between Colombia, US and Venezuela amid rumours of a military intervention

With the US and the EU proposing significant changes to tally each UN member state's share of peacekeeping financing, India has expressed concern over such efforts to introduce the element of maximum ceiling in paying for peacekeeping budgets.&nbsp;

During a session of the General Assembly's Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), the representatives of the US and the European Union proposed significant changes to the way in which each Member State's share of peacekeeping financing is tallied up.&nbsp;

Setting out her government's position, the representative of the United States&nbsp;which accounts for 28.47 per cent of the $ 6.7 billion peacekeeping budget for 2018/19, said no other international organisation depends on one country for more than one-quarter of its assessed resources.&nbsp;

India expressed concern at the efforts by delegations to introduce the element of the maximum ceiling in the peacekeeping scale.&nbsp;

"The peacekeeping scale must continue to clearly reflect the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the Security Council for the maintenance of peace and security. The current system of discounts applied to the peacekeeping scale for developing countries based on low per capita income must continue," First Secretary in The Permanent Mission of India to the UN Mahesh Kumar said at the session Wednesday.&nbsp;

The American delegate Cherith Norman-Chalet said that as President Donald Trump noted in his recent address to the General Assembly, the United States is calling for a 25 per cent ceiling on the peacekeeping scale of assessments, adding that such a ceiling would be in the organisation's best interests while reducing its reliance on any single member state. She said her delegation looks forward to working with all Member States to negotiate an equitable share of the burden.&nbsp;

"We recognise this will not be easy, but we believe there is a way if there is a will," she added.&nbsp;

The European Union's representation, emphasising that the bloc's member States are the largest collective financial contributors to the United Nations, said that&nbsp; "like the regular budget" peacekeeping rates of assessment should reflect Member States' capacity to pay while taking into account the special responsibility of the five permanent Security Council members. Specific additional peacekeeping discounts should be based on justifiable, objective and comparable criteria that would provide relief to countries with low per capita income, the EU delegate said.&nbsp;

Kumar further said that India calls for reform in the Security Council, and reiterated its readiness to fully assume financial responsibilities arising out from India's permanent membership of the Security Council.&nbsp;

"Our insistence on efficient utilization of resources and the entire current reform exercise would not mean much if assessments are not paid on time. All the members of the United Nations should honour financial obligations arising out of the membership in full, on time and without any conditions," he said.&nbsp;

Kumar noted that more than $ 3.3 billion assessed amount is outstanding and this is roughly one-third of the annual assessment of the organisation.&nbsp;

"This hampers efficient deployment of resources in the service of mandates given by the member states. This situation put those member states that would have benefitted from the efficient implementation of mandates, and the member states that would have paid their assessments on time to a serious disadvantage,"&nbsp;he said.&nbsp;

He also noted that contributions of several developing countries including India are due for a significant increase, based on the current methodology. He voiced India's commitment to fulfilling its financial responsibilities. India has paid in full its regular budget assessment for the year 2019 in advance.&nbsp; 
Kumar said that despite the upcoming appreciable increase in India's assessed contribution, India believes that the current methodology has worked well and must continue.&nbsp;

The principles of "capacity to pay" and the "low per capita income adjustment" are fundamental criteria in the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations.&nbsp;

"They are not negotiable," he said adding that core elements of the current methodology of the scale of assessments, such as base period, Gross National Income, conversion rates, gradient, floor, ceiling for Least Developed Countries, and debt stock adjustment must be kept intact.&nbsp;

As the largest cumulative Troops and Police contributor to the peacekeeping operations, India is "acutely aware" of the role of adequate resources in the implementation of peacekeeping mandates.&nbsp;

"The failure to honour financial obligation in full towards the peacekeeping operations has over the years resulted in the prolonged and unacceptable situation of some closed peacekeeping missions ending in financial deficit," he said.&nbsp;

He expressed concern that Troop and Police contributing countries, who render the greatest service in maintaining international peace and security, are forced to wait endlessly for their payments.&nbsp;

"There are large amounts due to India both from the closed and active peacekeeping missions," he said.

With the US and the EU proposing significant changes to tally each UN member state's share of peacekeeping financing, India has expressed concern over such efforts to introduce the element of maximum ceiling in paying for peacekeeping budgets.

With the US and the EU proposing significant changes to tally each UN member state's share of peacekeeping financing, India has expressed concern over such efforts to introduce the element of maximum ceiling in paying for peacekeeping budgets. During a session of the General Assembly's Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary), the representatives of the US and the European Union proposed significant changes to the way in which each Member State's share of peacekeeping financing is tallied up. Setting out her government's position, the representative of the United States which accounts for 28.47 per cent of the $ 6.7 billion peacekeeping budget for 2018/19, said no other international organisation depends on one country for more than one-quarter of its assessed resources. India expressed concern at the efforts by delegations to introduce the element of the maximum ceiling in the peacekeeping scale. "The peacekeeping scale must continue to clearly reflect the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the Security Council for the maintenance of peace and security. The current system of discounts applied to the peacekeeping scale for developing countries based on low per capita income must continue," First Secretary in The Permanent Mission of India to the UN Mahesh Kumar said at the session Wednesday. The American delegate Cherith Norman-Chalet said that as President Donald Trump noted in his recent address to the General Assembly, the United States is calling for a 25 per cent ceiling on the peacekeeping scale of assessments, adding that such a ceiling would be in the organisation's best interests while reducing its reliance on any single member state. She said her delegation looks forward to working with all Member States to negotiate an equitable share of the burden. "We recognise this will not be easy, but we believe there is a way if there is a will," she added. The European Union's representation, emphasising that the bloc's member States are the largest collective financial contributors to the United Nations, said that "like the regular budget" peacekeeping rates of assessment should reflect Member States' capacity to pay while taking into account the special responsibility of the five permanent Security Council members. Specific additional peacekeeping discounts should be based on justifiable, objective and comparable criteria that would provide relief to countries with low per capita income, the EU delegate said. Kumar further said that India calls for reform in the Security Council, and reiterated its readiness to fully assume financial responsibilities arising out from India's permanent membership of the Security Council. "Our insistence on efficient utilization of resources and the entire current reform exercise would not mean much if assessments are not paid on time. All the members of the United Nations should honour financial obligations arising out of the membership in full, on time and without any conditions," he said. Kumar noted that more than $ 3.3 billion assessed amount is outstanding and this is roughly one-third of the annual assessment of the organisation. "This hampers efficient deployment of resources in the service of mandates given by the member states. This situation put those member states that would have benefitted from the efficient implementation of mandates, and the member states that would have paid their assessments on time to a serious disadvantage," he said. He also noted that contributions of several developing countries including India are due for a significant increase, based on the current methodology. He voiced India's commitment to fulfilling its financial responsibilities. India has paid in full its regular budget assessment for the year 2019 in advance. Kumar said that despite the upcoming appreciable increase in India's assessed contribution, India believes that the current methodology has worked well and must continue. The principles of "capacity to pay" and the "low per capita income adjustment" are fundamental criteria in the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations. "They are not negotiable," he said adding that core elements of the current methodology of the scale of assessments, such as base period, Gross National Income, conversion rates, gradient, floor, ceiling for Least Developed Countries, and debt stock adjustment must be kept intact. As the largest cumulative Troops and Police contributor to the peacekeeping operations, India is "acutely aware" of the role of adequate resources in the implementation of peacekeeping mandates. "The failure to honour financial obligation in full towards the peacekeeping operations has over the years resulted in the prolonged and unacceptable situation of some closed peacekeeping missions ending in financial deficit," he said. He expressed concern that Troop and Police contributing countries, who render the greatest service in maintaining international peace and security, are forced to wait endlessly for their payments. "There are large amounts due to India both from the closed and active peacekeeping missions," he said.

India concerned over proposed changes to formula for dividing UN peacekeeping bill

Interpol, the France-based global police agency, is supposed to find missing or wanted people. Last week, to its embarrassment, it said it couldn’t locate its own president, Meng Hongwei, who was on a visit to China. Beijing finally revealed on October 7 that Meng had been detained on arrival. A former Chinese vice-minister, he is being investigated on charges of corruption and has resigned from Interpol.

The incident raises questions about the legitimacy of China’s rise as the world’s pre-eminent superpower, seizing that mantle from the United States. Three other developments could stall China’s rise. First, the trade war with the US which is going badly for Beijing. US Defence Secretary James Mattis’ official visit to China has been called off though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Beijing earlier this week to calm tempers. Washington has meanwhile imposed a second round of tariffs on Chinese exports valued at $200 billion. Since China buys only about a third of what it sells to the US, it has little economic leverage to fight back. The escalating trade war could shave a full percentage point off China’s GDP growth rate in 2018-19.

The second headwind facing China are growing concerns over the viability of its ambitious $500-billion Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Dubbed China’s ‘new Silk Route’, the BRI is President Xi Jinping’s brainchild. He has invested so much political capital in the BRI that any setback to it could spark domestic opposition to his tenure as president for life.

When Sri Lanka couldn’t repay high-interest Chinese debt for building infrastructure at the Hambantota port, China simply took it over on a 99-year lease. Malaysia was next. Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir on a visit to China defied protocol to publicly cancel or rework a slew of Chinese infrastructure projects in Malaysia worth $23 billion.

Pakistan soon followed. Over the past week, ministers in the Imran Khan government have complained about the high-cost debt of projects under the $60 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is a key component of the BRI. Islamabad directed its ire at China’s investment of $8.2 billion to upgrade a railway line from Karachi to Peshawar. Railways Minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad said the cost of the project is being cut to $6.2 billion and will later be reduced further to $4.2 billion — half its original value.

For a while, Pakistan’s new government toyed with the idea of inviting cash-rich Saudi Arabia as the third partner in CPEC. Annoyed, Beijing shot the proposal down. It wants the BRI and its cogs like the CPEC to be Chinese-funded, Chinese-owned and Chinese-run. The Pakistani government backed down and said Saudi Arabia would only be involved as a contractor for specific ancillary projects within the CPEC.

With Pakistan’s economy in a shambles, Islamabad is in a bind. It needs China’s funds but has realised that it is rapidly sinking into a debt trap. Other Asian countries are waking up to the threat as well. Myanmar has slashed the cost of its proposed China-funded Kyaukpyu port from $7.3 billion to $1.3 billion. Bangladesh too is downsizing — or cancelling — BRI projects.

In Europe, where Xi Jinping went on a charm offensive, Hungary and other EU countries are developing cold feet over the BRI’s inflated infrastructure costs and high-interest debt. In Africa too, where China is investing heavily, countries like Tanzania are cancelling or resizing BRI projects.

The third factor stalling China’s rise lies closer to home. With the Chinese economy cooling and GDP growth slowing, local infrastructure projects are running ahead of demand. As The Economist recently pointed out, “The infrastructure boom (in China) has lost steam this year. After expanding at a double digit pace for much of the past three decades, investment in it has slowed sharply. Since May, spending on projects ranging from railways to power plants has fallen compared with a year earlier, the longest weak patch on record.”

All this doesn’t mean the BRI is doomed. It will continue to be China’s most ambitious geo-economic initiative, linking the country to the world with a series of interlocking infrastructure projects. But this modern version of China’s historic Silk Route will shrink in size and scope as the complex geopolitical trade battles with the US play out.

India has long opposed the BRI because its CPEC component violates Indian sovereignty in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). India watched closely as Washington snubbed Beijing recently by selling arms to Taiwan worth over $330 million. A near-clash last week between a US destroyer and a Chinese warship just beyond the 12 nautical mile exclusion zone off the Spratly islands claimed by Beijing underscores Washington’s determination to not cede ground to China as hegemon of the South China Sea.

Beijing, meanwhile, continues to veto the designation by the United Nations of Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. It continues to block India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Both reveal Beijing’s mala fide intent. But with the global tide turning against it across multiple fronts, China has been pushed on to the back foot. Will that help change its behaviour? Unlikely.

The detention of Interpol’s ex-president Meng Hongwei shows that Beijing continues to behave as a law unto itself.

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-silk-route-hits-roadblocks-2673949">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

Interpol, the France-based global police agency, is supposed to find missing or wanted people. Last week, to its embarrassment, it said it couldn’t locate its own president, Meng Hongwei, who was on a visit to China.

Interpol, the France-based global police agency, is supposed to find missing or wanted people. Last week, to its embarrassment, it said it couldn’t locate its own president, Meng Hongwei, who was on a visit to China. Beijing finally revealed on October 7 that Meng had been detained on arrival. A former Chinese vice-minister, he is being investigated on charges of corruption and has resigned from Interpol. The incident raises questions about the legitimacy of China’s rise as the world’s pre-eminent superpower, seizing that mantle from the United States. Three other developments could stall China’s rise. First, the trade war with the US which is going badly for Beijing. US Defence Secretary James Mattis’ official visit to China has been called off though Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited Beijing earlier this week to calm tempers. Washington has meanwhile imposed a second round of tariffs on Chinese exports valued at $200 billion. Since China buys only about a third of what it sells to the US, it has little economic leverage to fight back. The escalating trade war could shave a full percentage point off China’s GDP growth rate in 2018-19. The second headwind facing China are growing concerns over the viability of its ambitious $500-billion Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Dubbed China’s ‘new Silk Route’, the BRI is President Xi Jinping’s brainchild. He has invested so much political capital in the BRI that any setback to it could spark domestic opposition to his tenure as president for life. When Sri Lanka couldn’t repay high-interest Chinese debt for building infrastructure at the Hambantota port, China simply took it over on a 99-year lease. Malaysia was next. Prime Minister Mohamad Mahathir on a visit to China defied protocol to publicly cancel or rework a slew of Chinese infrastructure projects in Malaysia worth $23 billion. Pakistan soon followed. Over the past week, ministers in the Imran Khan government have complained about the high-cost debt of projects under the $60 billion China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is a key component of the BRI. Islamabad directed its ire at China’s investment of $8.2 billion to upgrade a railway line from Karachi to Peshawar. Railways Minister Sheikh Rasheed Ahmad said the cost of the project is being cut to $6.2 billion and will later be reduced further to $4.2 billion — half its original value. For a while, Pakistan’s new government toyed with the idea of inviting cash-rich Saudi Arabia as the third partner in CPEC. Annoyed, Beijing shot the proposal down. It wants the BRI and its cogs like the CPEC to be Chinese-funded, Chinese-owned and Chinese-run. The Pakistani government backed down and said Saudi Arabia would only be involved as a contractor for specific ancillary projects within the CPEC. With Pakistan’s economy in a shambles, Islamabad is in a bind. It needs China’s funds but has realised that it is rapidly sinking into a debt trap. Other Asian countries are waking up to the threat as well. Myanmar has slashed the cost of its proposed China-funded Kyaukpyu port from $7.3 billion to $1.3 billion. Bangladesh too is downsizing — or cancelling — BRI projects. In Europe, where Xi Jinping went on a charm offensive, Hungary and other EU countries are developing cold feet over the BRI’s inflated infrastructure costs and high-interest debt. In Africa too, where China is investing heavily, countries like Tanzania are cancelling or resizing BRI projects. The third factor stalling China’s rise lies closer to home. With the Chinese economy cooling and GDP growth slowing, local infrastructure projects are running ahead of demand. As The Economist recently pointed out, “The infrastructure boom (in China) has lost steam this year. After expanding at a double digit pace for much of the past three decades, investment in it has slowed sharply. Since May, spending on projects ranging from railways to power plants has fallen compared with a year earlier, the longest weak patch on record.” All this doesn’t mean the BRI is doomed. It will continue to be China’s most ambitious geo-economic initiative, linking the country to the world with a series of interlocking infrastructure projects. But this modern version of China’s historic Silk Route will shrink in size and scope as the complex geopolitical trade battles with the US play out. India has long opposed the BRI because its CPEC component violates Indian sovereignty in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). India watched closely as Washington snubbed Beijing recently by selling arms to Taiwan worth over $330 million. A near-clash last week between a US destroyer and a Chinese warship just beyond the 12 nautical mile exclusion zone off the Spratly islands claimed by Beijing underscores Washington’s determination to not cede ground to China as hegemon of the South China Sea. Beijing, meanwhile, continues to veto the designation by the United Nations of Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar as a global terrorist. It continues to block India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). Both reveal Beijing’s mala fide intent. But with the global tide turning against it across multiple fronts, China has been pushed on to the back foot. Will that help change its behaviour? Unlikely. The detention of Interpol’s ex-president Meng Hongwei shows that Beijing continues to behave as a law unto itself. (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)

China on back foot as Silk Route hits roadblocks

The US government on Wednesday announced a plan for tougher oversight of foreign investment in key technology industries, a move seen as largely targeted at China.

President Donald Trump has accused China of rampant theft of American technology and used that as justification for imposing punitive tariffs on thousands of products amounting to more than $250 billion in annual imports.

The new rules, which take effect November 10, updated 30-year-old statutes giving the president broad powers to block foreign investments in sensitive industries or those deemed harmful to US national security.

The reform allows the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review any investment, not just company takeovers, in an American firm in one of 27 key sectors.

"These temporary regulations address specific risks to US critical technology," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement on Wednesday.

Those include aeronautics, telecommunications, computers, semiconductors and batteries, a senior US Treasury official told reporters.&nbsp; 
The industries were selected because they are ones where "the threat of erosion of technological superiority from foreign direct investment...requires immediate attention," the official said. But the products subject to higher scrutiny only account for 2.5 per cent of the total.

The official said the rules did not target a particular country, but CFIUS, an intergovernmental panel overseen by the Treasury, has blocked takeovers by Chinese investors. In some cases just the prospect of a review has discouraged deals.

In announcing the reform in August, Trump made it clear the focus would be on Beijing and the threats to national security. He said China "won't be stealing our companies anymore, especially companies that are quite complex."

Congress approved the law known as FIRRMA with bipartisan support, and Treasury is implementing new rules under a pilot program until the final version takes effect in 15 months.&nbsp;

There are three criteria for increased scrutiny: any foreign investment, even a minority stake; whether the foreign investor gets a seat on the board of directors of the US tech company; and whether the foreign investor can influence the company's decision-making process.

Treasury has not indicated how small a foreign stake would trigger the additional oversight but has said it hopes to complete reviews within 30 days. 
The official said Washington was preparing additional regulations to protect artificial intelligence and infrastructure.

According to the latest figures available, the CFIUS looked at 172 transactions in 2016 and launched 79 investigations with a single negative decision.

The US government on Wednesday announced a plan for tougher oversight of foreign investment in key technology industries, a move seen as largely targeted at China.

The US government on Wednesday announced a plan for tougher oversight of foreign investment in key technology industries, a move seen as largely targeted at China. President Donald Trump has accused China of rampant theft of American technology and used that as justification for imposing punitive tariffs on thousands of products amounting to more than $250 billion in annual imports. The new rules, which take effect November 10, updated 30-year-old statutes giving the president broad powers to block foreign investments in sensitive industries or those deemed harmful to US national security. The reform allows the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to review any investment, not just company takeovers, in an American firm in one of 27 key sectors. "These temporary regulations address specific risks to US critical technology," Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said in a statement on Wednesday. Those include aeronautics, telecommunications, computers, semiconductors and batteries, a senior US Treasury official told reporters. The industries were selected because they are ones where "the threat of erosion of technological superiority from foreign direct investment...requires immediate attention," the official said. But the products subject to higher scrutiny only account for 2.5 per cent of the total. The official said the rules did not target a particular country, but CFIUS, an intergovernmental panel overseen by the Treasury, has blocked takeovers by Chinese investors. In some cases just the prospect of a review has discouraged deals. In announcing the reform in August, Trump made it clear the focus would be on Beijing and the threats to national security. He said China "won't be stealing our companies anymore, especially companies that are quite complex." Congress approved the law known as FIRRMA with bipartisan support, and Treasury is implementing new rules under a pilot program until the final version takes effect in 15 months. There are three criteria for increased scrutiny: any foreign investment, even a minority stake; whether the foreign investor gets a seat on the board of directors of the US tech company; and whether the foreign investor can influence the company's decision-making process. Treasury has not indicated how small a foreign stake would trigger the additional oversight but has said it hopes to complete reviews within 30 days. The official said Washington was preparing additional regulations to protect artificial intelligence and infrastructure. According to the latest figures available, the CFIUS looked at 172 transactions in 2016 and launched 79 investigations with a single negative decision.

US tightens restrictions on foreign investment in key sectors

WION CHAT: Jonathan Wachtel speaks on Haley's resignation

Hurricane Michael intensified Tuesday as it barreled toward the Florida coast, becoming a category 3 major storm as the governor of the southern US state warned residents to prepare immediately for a "monstrous" hit.

Michael was now packing winds of 120 miles per hour (195 kilometers per hour) as it aimed for the Florida panhandle, the finger-shaped strip of land on the Gulf of Mexico.

The National Hurricane Center (NHC) said the storm was expected to make landfall on Wednesday afternoon, bringing hurricane force winds, a "life-threatening storm surge" and heavy rainfall.

"Hurricane Michael is a monstrous storm and the forecast keeps getting more dangerous," said Florida Governor Rick Scott, who has activated 2,500 members of the National Guard in response. "The time to prepare is now.

"Hurricane Michael poses a deadly threat," Scott said, warning that it could be the "most destructive storm to hit the Florida panhandle in decades."

Panama City Beach fire department chief Larry Couch urged residents to evacuate.

"If they decide to stay, there will be a point where we can't get to them," Couch said. "We will shut down operations at a certain point and when we do that, they're on their own.

"Be safe and leave," he said.

President Donald Trump issued an emergency declaration for the state, freeing up federal funds for relief operations and providing the assistance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

"It is imperative that you heed the directions of your State and Local Officials. Please be prepared, be careful and be SAFE!" Trump tweeted.

State officials also issued disaster declarations in Alabama and Georgia, both of which are also expected to feel the impact from the storm.

As of 5:00 pm Eastern time (2100 GMT), Michael was about 295 miles (470 kilometers) south of Panama City and moving north at 12 miles per hour (19 kph).

Flash flood, tornado warnings 
The NHC said some areas of the Florida coast could expect storm surge of nine to 13 feet, and as much as a foot of rain.

The heavy rains could cause flash floods, the NHC said, and spawn tornados in northwestern Florida.

Some 120,000 residents were under mandatory evacuation orders in Bay County in the panhandle, a low-lying area of beachfront resorts and retirement communities.

Michael was forecast to have the power to uproot trees, block roads and knock out power for days when it hits Florida. It is expected to weaken as it moves up into the southeastern United States.

The storm is a category three out of five on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale.

Drivers waited in long lines at gas stations and residents hurried to fill sandbags, while tolls were suspended on some roads to aid movement ahead of the storm's landfall.

"Since 6:00 am it's been backed up. We're just now running out of regular (gasoline)," Danny Hess, an employee at a gas station in Panama City, told local WJHG television.

The Carolinas are still recovering from Hurricane Florence, which left dozens dead and is estimated to have caused billions of dollars in damage last month.

It made landfall on the coast as a Category 1 hurricane on September 14 and drenched some parts of the state with 40 inches of rain.

Last year saw a string of catastrophic storms batter the western Atlantic -- including Irma, Maria and Harvey, which caused a record-equaling $125 billion in damage when it flooded the Houston metropolitan area.

Scientists have long warned that global warming will make storms more destructive, and some say the evidence for this may already be visible.

At their most fearsome, these low-pressure weather fronts pack more power than the energy released by the atomic bomb that levelled Hiroshima.

Hurricane Michael intensified Tuesday as it barreled toward the Florida coast, becoming a category 3 major storm as the governor of the southern US state warned residents to prepare immediately for a "monstrous" hit.

Hurricane Michael intensified Tuesday as it barreled toward the Florida coast, becoming a category 3 major storm as the governor of the southern US state warned residents to prepare immediately for a "monstrous" hit. Michael was now packing winds of 120 miles per hour (195 kilometers per hour) as it aimed for the Florida panhandle, the finger-shaped strip of land on the Gulf of Mexico. The National Hurricane Center (NHC) said the storm was expected to make landfall on Wednesday afternoon, bringing hurricane force winds, a "life-threatening storm surge" and heavy rainfall. "Hurricane Michael is a monstrous storm and the forecast keeps getting more dangerous," said Florida Governor Rick Scott, who has activated 2,500 members of the National Guard in response. "The time to prepare is now. "Hurricane Michael poses a deadly threat," Scott said, warning that it could be the "most destructive storm to hit the Florida panhandle in decades." Panama City Beach fire department chief Larry Couch urged residents to evacuate. "If they decide to stay, there will be a point where we can't get to them," Couch said. "We will shut down operations at a certain point and when we do that, they're on their own. "Be safe and leave," he said. President Donald Trump issued an emergency declaration for the state, freeing up federal funds for relief operations and providing the assistance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). "It is imperative that you heed the directions of your State and Local Officials. Please be prepared, be careful and be SAFE!" Trump tweeted. State officials also issued disaster declarations in Alabama and Georgia, both of which are also expected to feel the impact from the storm. As of 5:00 pm Eastern time (2100 GMT), Michael was about 295 miles (470 kilometers) south of Panama City and moving north at 12 miles per hour (19 kph). Flash flood, tornado warnings The NHC said some areas of the Florida coast could expect storm surge of nine to 13 feet, and as much as a foot of rain. The heavy rains could cause flash floods, the NHC said, and spawn tornados in northwestern Florida. Some 120,000 residents were under mandatory evacuation orders in Bay County in the panhandle, a low-lying area of beachfront resorts and retirement communities. Michael was forecast to have the power to uproot trees, block roads and knock out power for days when it hits Florida. It is expected to weaken as it moves up into the southeastern United States. The storm is a category three out of five on the Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale. Drivers waited in long lines at gas stations and residents hurried to fill sandbags, while tolls were suspended on some roads to aid movement ahead of the storm's landfall. "Since 6:00 am it's been backed up. We're just now running out of regular (gasoline)," Danny Hess, an employee at a gas station in Panama City, told local WJHG television. The Carolinas are still recovering from Hurricane Florence, which left dozens dead and is estimated to have caused billions of dollars in damage last month. It made landfall on the coast as a Category 1 hurricane on September 14 and drenched some parts of the state with 40 inches of rain. Last year saw a string of catastrophic storms batter the western Atlantic -- including Irma, Maria and Harvey, which caused a record-equaling $125 billion in damage when it flooded the Houston metropolitan area. Scientists have long warned that global warming will make storms more destructive, and some say the evidence for this may already be visible. At their most fearsome, these low-pressure weather fronts pack more power than the energy released by the atomic bomb that levelled Hiroshima.

Hurricane Michael turns into category 3 storm as it barrels towards Florida

Taylor Swift, Cardi B, Camila Cabello & others at the American Music Awards

The Chinese embassy in New Delhi has issued a statement calling for both countries to "deepen their cooperation to fight trade protectionism".&nbsp;

The statement says practicing unilateral trade protectionism in the name of “national security” and “fair trade” will not only affect China’s economic development, but also undermine the external environment of India and hinder India’s booming economy".&nbsp;

The statement comes at a time when <a href="http://www.wionews.com/americas/imf-cuts-chinas-growth-rate-on-negative-effect-of-tariff-actions-170439">China and US are engaged in a full-blown trade </a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/americas/imf-cuts-chinas-growth-rate-on-negative-effect-of-tariff-actions-170439">war</a>&nbsp;with both the economic giants imposing tariffs on each others products.&nbsp;

It is interesting to note that the statement was issued two days after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited China and met Jang Jiechi, member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), and Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

The statement from the Chinese embassy futher said that "facing unilateralism and bullying activities", China and India have greater reason to join "efforts to build a more just and reasonable international order". &nbsp;

India and China have been trying to engage with each other in a more positive manner of late and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jingping have met three times in the last few months — at the famous Wuhan informal summit, at the SCO meet, and finally the BRICS summit in Johannesburg.&nbsp;

They are likely to meet again on the sidelines of G20 summit in Argentina.&nbsp;

The two sides jointly published the “Qingdao Declaration” and the 10th BRICS Summit Johannesburg declaration, sending out a clear message against protectionism.&nbsp;

The Chinese embassy statement lashed out at the US.&nbsp;

Calling US Vice-President Mike Pence’s statements "groundless accusations", the statement said "US should view and understand China's development in a right way and immediately stop its misguided comments and actions which harm China’s core interest. China is unswervingly pressing ahead with comprehensively deepening reform and opening wider to the outside world."

"China has initiated an unprecedented effort to influence American public opinion, the 2018 elections, and the environment leading into the 2020 presidential elections," Pence had said. US President Donald Trump had said the same thing at the United Nations Security Council in September.&nbsp;

The Chinese embassy in New Delhi has issued a statement calling for both countries to "deepen their cooperation to fight trade protectionism". The statement says practicing unilateral trade protectionism in the name of “national security” and “fair trade” will not only affect China’s economic development, but also undermine the external environment of India and hinder India’s booming economy".

The Chinese embassy in New Delhi has issued a statement calling for both countries to "deepen their cooperation to fight trade protectionism". The statement says practicing unilateral trade protectionism in the name of “national security” and “fair trade” will not only affect China’s economic development, but also undermine the external environment of India and hinder India’s booming economy". The statement comes at a time when China and US are engaged in a full-blown trade war with both the economic giants imposing tariffs on each others products. It is interesting to note that the statement was issued two days after US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited China and met Jang Jiechi, member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC), and Foreign Minister Wang Yi. The statement from the Chinese embassy futher said that "facing unilateralism and bullying activities", China and India have greater reason to join "efforts to build a more just and reasonable international order". India and China have been trying to engage with each other in a more positive manner of late and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jingping have met three times in the last few months — at the famous Wuhan informal summit, at the SCO meet, and finally the BRICS summit in Johannesburg. They are likely to meet again on the sidelines of G20 summit in Argentina. The two sides jointly published the “Qingdao Declaration” and the 10th BRICS Summit Johannesburg declaration, sending out a clear message against protectionism. The Chinese embassy statement lashed out at the US. Calling US Vice-President Mike Pence’s statements "groundless accusations", the statement said "US should view and understand China's development in a right way and immediately stop its misguided comments and actions which harm China’s core interest. China is unswervingly pressing ahead with comprehensively deepening reform and opening wider to the outside world." "China has initiated an unprecedented effort to influence American public opinion, the 2018 elections, and the environment leading into the 2020 presidential elections," Pence had said. US President Donald Trump had said the same thing at the United Nations Security Council in September.

India, China should build more 'reasonable international order': Chinese Embassy

As the world celebrated the UN-designated International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on September 26, there were still some 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, largely in the hands of the US and the Russian Federation, some on ready alert”.

There are plans to “modernise” nuclear weapons, and there are at least seven other States with nuclear weapons: North Korea, Pakistan, India and China in Asia, Israel in the Middle East and France and the United Kingdom in Europe.

The instability and tensions of current world politics merit that we look at ways in which governments and NGOs have tried to deal with the existence of nuclear weapons, their control and their possible abolition.

There have been four avenues proposed since 1945: Presented, dropped, represented, combined with other proposals for political settlements, linked to proposals for general disarmament or focused on nuclear issues alone.

The first avenue proposed was the Baruch Plan, named after Bernard Baruch, a financier, often adviser to US presidents going back to Woodrow Wilson and the First World War. He had been named a US delegate to the United Nations in charge of atomic issues.

The Baruch Plan proposed the creation of IAEA, which would have a monopoly of all activities connected with atomic research and development such as mining, ownership and management of refineries, and the construction of atomic reactors. The agency staff would be internationally recruited and would be free from interference from national governments.

However, the Baruch Plan was proposed as the Cold War (1945-1990) was starting to heat up and become more structured. In 1949, the US nuclear monopoly was broken by the explosion of the first Soviet bomb, and then in 1950, the war started in Korea. The Korean War led to the next stage, the second and third avenues in nuclear arms policy, someone contradictory but proposed at the same time, and in the light of the Korean War experience.

Avenue two proposed that limited war could be carried out but with nuclear weapons that were smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and that would not necessarily lead to an all-out war between the United States and the Soviet Union. This avenue is most closely associated with Henry Kissinger and his book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy.

The 1950-1953 Korean War showed that war was a real possibility, perhaps due to political miscalculations, erroneous intelligence and failure to see how a local situation could have a much broader impact.

At the same time that Henry Kissinger was writing his book, reflecting largely in similar ways, Robert Osgood of the University of Chicago was teaching a seminar on limited war in which I was one of his students. The seminar led to the widely-read book: Limited War: The Challenge to American Strategy.

It was in Europe where the opposing NATO-Warsaw Pact forces faced each other most closely that the third avenue was proposed: Nuclear-weapon-free zones.

In October 1957, Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Adam Rapacki put forward a plan for creating a nuclear-weapon-free and neutral zone in central Europe, usually known as the Rapacki Plan. The first stage would be the “freezing” of nuclear armaments in Poland, Czechoslovakia and the two German States. The second stage would consist of a reduction of conventional armaments and complete de-nuclearisation of the four states.

Nuclear-weapon-free zones took shape after the 1962 Cuban missiles crisis. Even today, it is difficult to know how close to a war the 1962 nuclear missiles in Cuba brought the United States and the Soviet Union.

It was close enough that it worried leaders in Latin America. Led by the ambassador of Mexico to the United Nations and later Nobel Laureate Alfonso Garcia Robles, negotiations for a Latin American nuclear-weapon-free zone were started, and in 1967, 21 Latin American States signed the Treaty of Tlatelolco. In Latin America, Argentina and Brazil, have nuclear power industries and a potential capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Thus the treaty provides a confidence-building framework between these two regional powers, although the two have none of the tensions between them that coloured Warsaw Pact-NATO relations.

The fourth avenue and the one most discussed at the United Nations these days is a convention to ban the possession and use of nuclear weapons on the lines of the conventions to ban chemical weapons, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions.

My own view is that effective nuclear-weapon control will come from a combined regional conflict resolution and nuclear-weapon-free zone approach that was first set out in the Rapacki proposals. I believe that the Korean Peninsula holds the most potential for a settlement within a nuclear-weapon-free zone. 
 
(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-us-and-russian-nuclear-weapons-continue-to-roam-free-2673170">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

As the world celebrated the UN-designated International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on September 26, there were still some 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, largely in the hands of the US and the Russian Federation, some on ready alert”.

As the world celebrated the UN-designated International Day for Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on September 26, there were still some 16,000 nuclear weapons in the world, largely in the hands of the US and the Russian Federation, some on ready alert”. There are plans to “modernise” nuclear weapons, and there are at least seven other States with nuclear weapons: North Korea, Pakistan, India and China in Asia, Israel in the Middle East and France and the United Kingdom in Europe. The instability and tensions of current world politics merit that we look at ways in which governments and NGOs have tried to deal with the existence of nuclear weapons, their control and their possible abolition. There have been four avenues proposed since 1945: Presented, dropped, represented, combined with other proposals for political settlements, linked to proposals for general disarmament or focused on nuclear issues alone. The first avenue proposed was the Baruch Plan, named after Bernard Baruch, a financier, often adviser to US presidents going back to Woodrow Wilson and the First World War. He had been named a US delegate to the United Nations in charge of atomic issues. The Baruch Plan proposed the creation of IAEA, which would have a monopoly of all activities connected with atomic research and development such as mining, ownership and management of refineries, and the construction of atomic reactors. The agency staff would be internationally recruited and would be free from interference from national governments. However, the Baruch Plan was proposed as the Cold War (1945-1990) was starting to heat up and become more structured. In 1949, the US nuclear monopoly was broken by the explosion of the first Soviet bomb, and then in 1950, the war started in Korea. The Korean War led to the next stage, the second and third avenues in nuclear arms policy, someone contradictory but proposed at the same time, and in the light of the Korean War experience. Avenue two proposed that limited war could be carried out but with nuclear weapons that were smaller than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima and that would not necessarily lead to an all-out war between the United States and the Soviet Union. This avenue is most closely associated with Henry Kissinger and his book Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. The 1950-1953 Korean War showed that war was a real possibility, perhaps due to political miscalculations, erroneous intelligence and failure to see how a local situation could have a much broader impact. At the same time that Henry Kissinger was writing his book, reflecting largely in similar ways, Robert Osgood of the University of Chicago was teaching a seminar on limited war in which I was one of his students. The seminar led to the widely-read book: Limited War: The Challenge to American Strategy. It was in Europe where the opposing NATO-Warsaw Pact forces faced each other most closely that the third avenue was proposed: Nuclear-weapon-free zones. In October 1957, Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Adam Rapacki put forward a plan for creating a nuclear-weapon-free and neutral zone in central Europe, usually known as the Rapacki Plan. The first stage would be the “freezing” of nuclear armaments in Poland, Czechoslovakia and the two German States. The second stage would consist of a reduction of conventional armaments and complete de-nuclearisation of the four states. Nuclear-weapon-free zones took shape after the 1962 Cuban missiles crisis. Even today, it is difficult to know how close to a war the 1962 nuclear missiles in Cuba brought the United States and the Soviet Union. It was close enough that it worried leaders in Latin America. Led by the ambassador of Mexico to the United Nations and later Nobel Laureate Alfonso Garcia Robles, negotiations for a Latin American nuclear-weapon-free zone were started, and in 1967, 21 Latin American States signed the Treaty of Tlatelolco. In Latin America, Argentina and Brazil, have nuclear power industries and a potential capacity to develop nuclear weapons. Thus the treaty provides a confidence-building framework between these two regional powers, although the two have none of the tensions between them that coloured Warsaw Pact-NATO relations. The fourth avenue and the one most discussed at the United Nations these days is a convention to ban the possession and use of nuclear weapons on the lines of the conventions to ban chemical weapons, anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions. My own view is that effective nuclear-weapon control will come from a combined regional conflict resolution and nuclear-weapon-free zone approach that was first set out in the Rapacki proposals. I believe that the Korean Peninsula holds the most potential for a settlement within a nuclear-weapon-free zone. (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)

US and Russian nuclear weapons continue to roam free

US&nbsp;adviser on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Kabul to hold the first round of talks with Afghan leaders since being appointed an envoy to lead peace efforts with the Taliban and end the 17-year war, Afghan officials said on Sunday.

Last month Khalilzad, 67, an Afghan-born former US&nbsp;ambassador to Kabul and Iraq, joined the US&nbsp;State Department team to lead the reconciliation effort and peace talks with the Taliban.

A spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said Khalilzad met with Ghani on Sunday and he is expected to meet senior ministers and top diplomats in Kabul on Monday.

A senior government official said Khalilzad will be travelling to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Qatar as part of a 10-day trip in an attempt to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table.

Khalilzad’s appointment last month highlighted the US administration's fresh efforts to convince the Taliban leadership to participate in the Afghan peace process, despite a surge in attacks by the militant group.

Khalilzad's knowledge of Afghanistan’s main languages, culture and politics could help him engage with all the stakeholders in the peace process in addition to his experience advising or working for four US&nbsp;administrations.

But his visit comes as the Taliban and the Islamic State group ramp up attacks across the country two weeks before the country is set to hold long-delayed parliamentary polls.

In the latest incident, Taliban fighters killed at least 10 policemen in a district in central Afghanistan and blocked arterial highways.

US adviser on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Kabul to hold the first round of talks with Afghan leaders since being appointed an envoy to lead peace efforts with the Taliban and end the 17-year war, Afghan officials said on Sunday.

US adviser on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad arrived in Kabul to hold the first round of talks with Afghan leaders since being appointed an envoy to lead peace efforts with the Taliban and end the 17-year war, Afghan officials said on Sunday. Last month Khalilzad, 67, an Afghan-born former US ambassador to Kabul and Iraq, joined the US State Department team to lead the reconciliation effort and peace talks with the Taliban. A spokesman for Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said Khalilzad met with Ghani on Sunday and he is expected to meet senior ministers and top diplomats in Kabul on Monday. A senior government official said Khalilzad will be travelling to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Qatar as part of a 10-day trip in an attempt to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table. Khalilzad’s appointment last month highlighted the US administration's fresh efforts to convince the Taliban leadership to participate in the Afghan peace process, despite a surge in attacks by the militant group. Khalilzad's knowledge of Afghanistan’s main languages, culture and politics could help him engage with all the stakeholders in the peace process in addition to his experience advising or working for four US administrations. But his visit comes as the Taliban and the Islamic State group ramp up attacks across the country two weeks before the country is set to hold long-delayed parliamentary polls. In the latest incident, Taliban fighters killed at least 10 policemen in a district in central Afghanistan and blocked arterial highways.

US special envoy to Afghanistan arrives in Kabul as Taliban launch fresh attacks

Singer Taylor Swift has now come out after breaking her age old refusal to talk about politics by endorsing Tennessee Democrats Phil Bredesen and Jim Cooper, who are running for Senate and House of Representatives, respectively.

Swift paired social media and social activism in a lengthy Instagram post on Sunday evening. One month before the midterm elections, she endorsed the two Democrats and entreated her followers to register and show up to the polls.&nbsp;

"I always have and always will cast my vote based on which candidate will protect and fight for the human rights I believe we all deserve in this country," she wrote in a lengthy post.

"I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG. I believe that the systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening and prevalent."

"In the past I've been reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions, but due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now," Swift wrote in an Instagram post.

The pop star - who spent later years growing up in Tennessee - also slammed Republican candidate and US Rep. Marsha Blackburn in her lengthy post on Sunday.&nbsp;

"As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me. She voted against equal pay for women. She voted against the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which attempts to protect women from domestic violence, stalking, and date rape. She believes businesses have a right to refuse service to gay couples. She also believes they should not have the right to marry."&nbsp;

"These are not MY Tennessee values."

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/BopoXpYnCes/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_medium=loading" data-instgrm-version="12" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:540px; min-width:326px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);">
<div style="padding:16px;">
<div style=" display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;">&nbsp;</div>
</div>
</div>

<div style="padding: 19% 0;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display:block; height:50px; margin:0 auto 12px; width:50px;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BopoXpYnCes/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_medium=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank"><svg height="50px" version="1.1" viewbox="0 0 60 60" width="50px" xmlns="https://www.w3.org/2000/svg" xmlns:xlink="https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd" stroke="none" stroke-width="1"><g fill="#000000" transform="translate(-511.000000, -20.000000)"><g><path d="M556.869,30.41 C554.814,30.41 553.148,32.076 553.148,34.131 C553.148,36.186 554.814,37.852 556.869,37.852 C558.924,37.852 560.59,36.186 560.59,34.131 C560.59,32.076 558.924,30.41 556.869,30.41 M541,60.657 C535.114,60.657 530.342,55.887 530.342,50 C530.342,44.114 535.114,39.342 541,39.342 C546.887,39.342 551.658,44.114 551.658,50 C551.658,55.887 546.887,60.657 541,60.657 M541,33.886 C532.1,33.886 524.886,41.1 524.886,50 C524.886,58.899 532.1,66.113 541,66.113 C549.9,66.113 557.115,58.899 557.115,50 C557.115,41.1 549.9,33.886 541,33.886 M565.378,62.101 C565.244,65.022 564.756,66.606 564.346,67.663 C563.803,69.06 563.154,70.057 562.106,71.106 C561.058,72.155 560.06,72.803 558.662,73.347 C557.607,73.757 556.021,74.244 553.102,74.378 C549.944,74.521 548.997,74.552 541,74.552 C533.003,74.552 532.056,74.521 528.898,74.378 C525.979,74.244 524.393,73.757 523.338,73.347 C521.94,72.803 520.942,72.155 519.894,71.106 C518.846,70.057 518.197,69.06 517.654,67.663 C517.244,66.606 516.755,65.022 516.623,62.101 C516.479,58.943 516.448,57.996 516.448,50 C516.448,42.003 516.479,41.056 516.623,37.899 C516.755,34.978 517.244,33.391 517.654,32.338 C518.197,30.938 518.846,29.942 519.894,28.894 C520.942,27.846 521.94,27.196 523.338,26.654 C524.393,26.244 525.979,25.756 528.898,25.623 C532.057,25.479 533.004,25.448 541,25.448 C548.997,25.448 549.943,25.479 553.102,25.623 C556.021,25.756 557.607,26.244 558.662,26.654 C560.06,27.196 561.058,27.846 562.106,28.894 C563.154,29.942 563.803,30.938 564.346,32.338 C564.756,33.391 565.244,34.978 565.378,37.899 C565.522,41.056 565.552,42.003 565.552,50 C565.552,57.996 565.522,58.943 565.378,62.101 M570.82,37.631 C570.674,34.438 570.167,32.258 569.425,30.349 C568.659,28.377 567.633,26.702 565.965,25.035 C564.297,23.368 562.623,22.342 560.652,21.575 C558.743,20.834 556.562,20.326 553.369,20.18 C550.169,20.033 549.148,20 541,20 C532.853,20 531.831,20.033 528.631,20.18 C525.438,20.326 523.257,20.834 521.349,21.575 C519.376,22.342 517.703,23.368 516.035,25.035 C514.368,26.702 513.342,28.377 512.574,30.349 C511.834,32.258 511.326,34.438 511.181,37.631 C511.035,40.831 511,41.851 511,50 C511,58.147 511.035,59.17 511.181,62.369 C511.326,65.562 511.834,67.743 512.574,69.651 C513.342,71.625 514.368,73.296 516.035,74.965 C517.703,76.634 519.376,77.658 521.349,78.425 C523.257,79.167 525.438,79.673 528.631,79.82 C531.831,79.965 532.853,80.001 541,80.001 C549.148,80.001 550.169,79.965 553.369,79.82 C556.562,79.673 558.743,79.167 560.652,78.425 C562.623,77.658 564.297,76.634 565.965,74.965 C567.633,73.296 568.659,71.625 569.425,69.651 C570.167,67.743 570.674,65.562 570.82,62.369 C570.966,59.17 571,58.147 571,50 C571,41.851 570.966,40.831 570.82,37.631"></path></g></g></g></svg></a></div>

<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style=" color:#3897f0; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:550; line-height:18px;"><a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BopoXpYnCes/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_medium=loading" style=" background:#FFFFFF; line-height:0; padding:0 0; text-align:center; text-decoration:none; width:100%;" target="_blank">View this post on Instagram</a></div>
</div>

<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style="background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg)">&nbsp;</div>
</div>

<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style=" width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" background-color: #F4F4F4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);">&nbsp;</div>

<div style=" width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);">&nbsp;</div>
</div>
</div>

<a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BopoXpYnCes/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_medium=loading" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">I’m writing this post about the upcoming midterm elections on November 6th, in which I’ll be voting in the state of Tennessee. In the past I’ve been reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions, but due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now. I always have and always will cast my vote based on which candidate will protect and fight for the human rights I believe we all deserve in this country. I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG. I believe that the systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening and prevalent. I cannot vote for someone who will not be willing to fight for dignity for ALL Americans, no matter their skin color, gender or who they love. Running for Senate in the state of Tennessee is a woman named Marsha Blackburn. As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me. She voted against equal pay for women. She voted against the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which attempts to protect women from domestic violence, stalking, and date rape. She believes businesses have a right to refuse service to gay couples. She also believes they should not have the right to marry. These are not MY Tennessee values. I will be voting for Phil Bredesen for Senate and Jim Cooper for House of Representatives. Please, please educate yourself on the candidates running in your state and vote based on who most closely represents your values. For a lot of us, we may never find a candidate or party with whom we agree 100% on every issue, but we have to vote anyway. So many intelligent, thoughtful, self-possessed people have turned 18 in the past two years and now have the right and privilege to make their vote count. But first you need to register, which is quick and easy to do. October 9th is the LAST DAY to register to vote in the state of TN. Go to vote.org and you can find all the info. Happy Voting! 🗳😃🌈</a>

<p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A post shared by <a href="https://www.instagram.com/taylorswift/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_medium=loading" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px;" target="_blank"> Taylor Swift</a> (@taylorswift) on <time datetime="2018-10-07T23:33:38+00:00" style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;">Oct 7, 2018 at 4:33pm PDT</time>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async defer src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

By early Monday, more than a million Instagram users had registered their approval.&nbsp;

She plans to vote for Representative Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Senator Phil Bredesen (D-TN), who sparked controversy for voicing support for Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. &nbsp;

Bredesen was quick to trumpet Swift’s endorsement. "Thank you for the kind words @taylorswift13. I’m honored to have your support and that of so many Tennesseans who are ready to put aside the partisan shouting and get things done. We’re ready for it. Last day to register to vote is October 9," he wrote on Twitter.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Thank you for the kind words <a href="https://twitter.com/taylorswift13?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@taylorswift13</a>. I’m honored to have your support and that of so many Tennesseans who are ready to put aside the partisan shouting and get things done. We’re ready for it. Last day to register to vote is October 9. <a href="https://t.co/6Xd6YyaJCG">https://t.co/6Xd6YyaJCG</a> <a href="https://t.co/CatUBkXPKe">pic.twitter.com/CatUBkXPKe</a>
— Phil Bredesen (@PhilBredesen) <a href="https://twitter.com/PhilBredesen/status/1049092137944530944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 8, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Swift, who spent much of her teenage life in Tennessee, previously endorsed the March For Our Lives movement, though has faced criticism in the past for largely remaining silent on her political views.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

Singer Taylor Swift has now come out after breaking her age old refusal to talk about politics by endorsing Tennessee Democrats Phil Bredesen and Jim Cooper, who are running for Senate and House of Representatives, respectively.

Singer Taylor Swift has now come out after breaking her age old refusal to talk about politics by endorsing Tennessee Democrats Phil Bredesen and Jim Cooper, who are running for Senate and House of Representatives, respectively. Swift paired social media and social activism in a lengthy Instagram post on Sunday evening. One month before the midterm elections, she endorsed the two Democrats and entreated her followers to register and show up to the polls. "I always have and always will cast my vote based on which candidate will protect and fight for the human rights I believe we all deserve in this country," she wrote in a lengthy post. "I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG. I believe that the systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening and prevalent." "In the past I've been reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions, but due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now," Swift wrote in an Instagram post. The pop star - who spent later years growing up in Tennessee - also slammed Republican candidate and US Rep. Marsha Blackburn in her lengthy post on Sunday. "As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me. She voted against equal pay for women. She voted against the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which attempts to protect women from domestic violence, stalking, and date rape. She believes businesses have a right to refuse service to gay couples. She also believes they should not have the right to marry." "These are not MY Tennessee values." View this post on Instagram I’m writing this post about the upcoming midterm elections on November 6th, in which I’ll be voting in the state of Tennessee. In the past I’ve been reluctant to publicly voice my political opinions, but due to several events in my life and in the world in the past two years, I feel very differently about that now. I always have and always will cast my vote based on which candidate will protect and fight for the human rights I believe we all deserve in this country. I believe in the fight for LGBTQ rights, and that any form of discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender is WRONG. I believe that the systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening and prevalent. I cannot vote for someone who will not be willing to fight for dignity for ALL Americans, no matter their skin color, gender or who they love. Running for Senate in the state of Tennessee is a woman named Marsha Blackburn. As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me. She voted against equal pay for women. She voted against the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which attempts to protect women from domestic violence, stalking, and date rape. She believes businesses have a right to refuse service to gay couples. She also believes they should not have the right to marry. These are not MY Tennessee values. I will be voting for Phil Bredesen for Senate and Jim Cooper for House of Representatives. Please, please educate yourself on the candidates running in your state and vote based on who most closely represents your values. For a lot of us, we may never find a candidate or party with whom we agree 100% on every issue, but we have to vote anyway. So many intelligent, thoughtful, self-possessed people have turned 18 in the past two years and now have the right and privilege to make their vote count. But first you need to register, which is quick and easy to do. October 9th is the LAST DAY to register to vote in the state of TN. Go to vote.org and you can find all the info. Happy Voting! 🗳😃🌈 A post shared by Taylor Swift (@taylorswift) on Oct 7, 2018 at 4:33pm PDT × By early Monday, more than a million Instagram users had registered their approval. She plans to vote for Representative Jim Cooper (D-TN) and Senator Phil Bredesen (D-TN), who sparked controversy for voicing support for Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings. Bredesen was quick to trumpet Swift’s endorsement. "Thank you for the kind words @taylorswift13. I’m honored to have your support and that of so many Tennesseans who are ready to put aside the partisan shouting and get things done. We’re ready for it. Last day to register to vote is October 9," he wrote on Twitter. Thank you for the kind words @taylorswift13. I’m honored to have your support and that of so many Tennesseans who are ready to put aside the partisan shouting and get things done. We’re ready for it. Last day to register to vote is October 9. https://t.co/6Xd6YyaJCG pic.twitter.com/CatUBkXPKe — Phil Bredesen (@PhilBredesen) October 8, 2018 × Swift, who spent much of her teenage life in Tennessee, previously endorsed the March For Our Lives movement, though has faced criticism in the past for largely remaining silent on her political views.

Taylor Swift breaks silence on politics, endorses two Tennessee Democrats for midterms

India need not take an aggressive position in public on the issue of US sanctions on nations defying its directive to bring their oil imports from Iran to zero by November 4, says a former Indian diplomat.

India has to play a cautious role, in that priority should be the country's national interests, former Ambassador of India to Saudi Arabia Oman and the UAE Talmiz Ahmad said.

"India's national interests lie in maintaining relations with Iran while at the same time not totally alienating the United States", he told PTI.

"And what India will do and I think that's the correct policy that there will be some reduction in oil imports for a short period and at the same time discussions with the United States will continue in order to ensure that the US policy becomes more accomodative", Mr Ahmad said.

He was of the view that over a period of time or as early as six months, the entire sanctions regime would "collapse".

"My own view is that we don't need to take an aggressive position in public but constantly subserve our own interests and wait for that time when the United States' absurd policy is revised by the international community or the US itself," he said.

Ahmad said this had to be done quietly without going public and ensuring the country's interests was safeguarded.

According to him, there would be some reduction in oil purchases from Iran in the short term but it's not likely to continue for a longer period.

India need not take an aggressive position in public on the issue of US sanctions on nations defying its directive to bring their oil imports from Iran to zero by November 4, says a former Indian diplomat.

India need not take an aggressive position in public on the issue of US sanctions on nations defying its directive to bring their oil imports from Iran to zero by November 4, says a former Indian diplomat. India has to play a cautious role, in that priority should be the country's national interests, former Ambassador of India to Saudi Arabia Oman and the UAE Talmiz Ahmad said. "India's national interests lie in maintaining relations with Iran while at the same time not totally alienating the United States", he told PTI. "And what India will do and I think that's the correct policy that there will be some reduction in oil imports for a short period and at the same time discussions with the United States will continue in order to ensure that the US policy becomes more accomodative", Mr Ahmad said. He was of the view that over a period of time or as early as six months, the entire sanctions regime would "collapse". "My own view is that we don't need to take an aggressive position in public but constantly subserve our own interests and wait for that time when the United States' absurd policy is revised by the international community or the US itself," he said. Ahmad said this had to be done quietly without going public and ensuring the country's interests was safeguarded. According to him, there would be some reduction in oil purchases from Iran in the short term but it's not likely to continue for a longer period.

Wait and watch US sanctions implode: Ex-envoy's advice to India on Iran

The rupee slumped by 30 paise to finish at a fresh lifetime low of 74.06 against the US dollar Monday amid strengthening of the greenback and steady capital outflows.

The rupee had opened lower by 14 paisa against Friday's close of 73.76 in early trade as the US dollar strength against major global currencies weighed on the rupee sentiment.

At the Interbank Foreign Exchange (Forex) market, the local currency opened lower at 73.89 a dollar against its previous closing of 73.76.

It recovered to a high of 73.76, but failed to sustain the momentum and plunged to 74.10 and finally closed at 74.06, down by 30 paise, marking its fifth straight session of decline.

On Friday, the domestic unit plummeted by 18 paise to end at 73.76.

The rupee slumped by 30 paise to finish at a fresh lifetime low of 74.06 against the US dollar Monday amid strengthening of the greenback and steady capital outflows.

The rupee slumped by 30 paise to finish at a fresh lifetime low of 74.06 against the US dollar Monday amid strengthening of the greenback and steady capital outflows. The rupee had opened lower by 14 paisa against Friday's close of 73.76 in early trade as the US dollar strength against major global currencies weighed on the rupee sentiment. At the Interbank Foreign Exchange (Forex) market, the local currency opened lower at 73.89 a dollar against its previous closing of 73.76. It recovered to a high of 73.76, but failed to sustain the momentum and plunged to 74.10 and finally closed at 74.06, down by 30 paise, marking its fifth straight session of decline. On Friday, the domestic unit plummeted by 18 paise to end at 73.76.

Rupee slumps 30 paise to close at record low of 74.06

The US jobless rate tumbled in September to its lowest level since December 1969, even as job creation slowed, likely due in part to Hurricane Florence, the government reported Friday.

A month ahead of hard-fought congressional elections, the result was sure to delight US President Donald Trump, who has eagerly taken credit for America's extended run of economic expansion even as his Republican party faces a possible rebuke from disenchanted voters.

Unemployment fell to a 48-year-low of 3.7 per cent last month from 3.9 per cent, an unusually large drop, according to the Labor Department's closely-watched monthly jobs report.

But despite the lower jobless rate, non-farm employers added just 134,000 net new positions, far weaker than analysts expected.

Hurricane Florence, the storm that made landfall along the mid-Atlantic US coast on September 14, caused widespread disruption for homes and employers but it was not possible to determine the extent to which this might have depressed the September jobs numbers, officials said.

Economists had expected job creation to slow but only to 184,000, even with the hurricane effect, from the 270,000 net new positions created in August. Job gains in July and August were revised up a combined 87,000 from the original reports.

Employees temporarily left unable to work during natural disasters can be left off the government's monthly jobs survey, especially part time workers who receive no pay during the week of the survey, meaning figures can rebound in the month after a storm.

"We're humming, we're just humming," White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters. "The economy's running full speed ahead."

And he said he expects the economy can maintain the "very good pace" of job creation.

The modest job gains came after private payrolls firm ADP said hiring surged 230,000 in the month, but the two reports often diverge since they calculate employment differently.

S&amp;P Global economist Satyam Panday noted that the three-month average for job gains was 190,000, slightly below the rate of 201,000 over the last year.

But this is "still impressive given the mature stage of the current expansion," he said in an analytical note.

Echoes of the Nixon era

Meanwhile, the labor force participation rate held steady at 62.7 per cent, while the number of unemployed people fell by 270,000 to six million, with the largest drop among adult women.&nbsp;

Hourly pay edged up 0.3 per cent for the month, and is 2.8 per cent higher than the same month last year, a notch above inflation.

Job gains were noted in healthcare, up 26,000, transportation and warehousing, up 24,000, and construction, up 23,000.

But the banner result from August's jobs numbers was surely the record low jobless rate, which was driven lower by job gains among adult women.

But with unemployment at levels not seen since Richard Nixon was in the White House, the September report also sure strengthened the case for the Federal Reserve to continue raising interest rates.

Markets widely expect the central bank to raise rates again in December but some analysts say markets may not have taken the Fed's expectations for next year -- another three increases -- into account, potentially leaving them in for a rude shock.

Wall Street closed down sharply following the news, extending losses from Thursday's selloff due to a sudden jump in bond yields.

The last time the US jobless rate was so low preceded more than a decade of economic pain tied to rising price pressures and efforts to rein them in. But wage increases so far have been modest, something that puzzles economists but allows the Fed to move gradually.

And many analysts see the unemployment rate continuing to decline this year, ramping up pressure on wages and prices.

"No-one at the Fed thinks unemployment near three per cent is sustainable," Ian Shepherdson of Pantheon Macroeconomics said in a client note.

As a result, the Fed is all but guaranteed to stick to its plan of raising rates four times before the end of next year, he added.

The US jobless rate tumbled in September to its lowest level since December 1969, even as job creation slowed, likely due in part to Hurricane Florence, the government reported Friday.

The US jobless rate tumbled in September to its lowest level since December 1969, even as job creation slowed, likely due in part to Hurricane Florence, the government reported Friday. A month ahead of hard-fought congressional elections, the result was sure to delight US President Donald Trump, who has eagerly taken credit for America's extended run of economic expansion even as his Republican party faces a possible rebuke from disenchanted voters. Unemployment fell to a 48-year-low of 3.7 per cent last month from 3.9 per cent, an unusually large drop, according to the Labor Department's closely-watched monthly jobs report. But despite the lower jobless rate, non-farm employers added just 134,000 net new positions, far weaker than analysts expected. Hurricane Florence, the storm that made landfall along the mid-Atlantic US coast on September 14, caused widespread disruption for homes and employers but it was not possible to determine the extent to which this might have depressed the September jobs numbers, officials said. Economists had expected job creation to slow but only to 184,000, even with the hurricane effect, from the 270,000 net new positions created in August. Job gains in July and August were revised up a combined 87,000 from the original reports. Employees temporarily left unable to work during natural disasters can be left off the government's monthly jobs survey, especially part time workers who receive no pay during the week of the survey, meaning figures can rebound in the month after a storm. "We're humming, we're just humming," White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told reporters. "The economy's running full speed ahead." And he said he expects the economy can maintain the "very good pace" of job creation. The modest job gains came after private payrolls firm ADP said hiring surged 230,000 in the month, but the two reports often diverge since they calculate employment differently. S&P Global economist Satyam Panday noted that the three-month average for job gains was 190,000, slightly below the rate of 201,000 over the last year. But this is "still impressive given the mature stage of the current expansion," he said in an analytical note. Echoes of the Nixon era Meanwhile, the labor force participation rate held steady at 62.7 per cent, while the number of unemployed people fell by 270,000 to six million, with the largest drop among adult women. Hourly pay edged up 0.3 per cent for the month, and is 2.8 per cent higher than the same month last year, a notch above inflation. Job gains were noted in healthcare, up 26,000, transportation and warehousing, up 24,000, and construction, up 23,000. But the banner result from August's jobs numbers was surely the record low jobless rate, which was driven lower by job gains among adult women. But with unemployment at levels not seen since Richard Nixon was in the White House, the September report also sure strengthened the case for the Federal Reserve to continue raising interest rates. Markets widely expect the central bank to raise rates again in December but some analysts say markets may not have taken the Fed's expectations for next year -- another three increases -- into account, potentially leaving them in for a rude shock. Wall Street closed down sharply following the news, extending losses from Thursday's selloff due to a sudden jump in bond yields. The last time the US jobless rate was so low preceded more than a decade of economic pain tied to rising price pressures and efforts to rein them in. But wage increases so far have been modest, something that puzzles economists but allows the Fed to move gradually. And many analysts see the unemployment rate continuing to decline this year, ramping up pressure on wages and prices. "No-one at the Fed thinks unemployment near three per cent is sustainable," Ian Shepherdson of Pantheon Macroeconomics said in a client note. As a result, the Fed is all but guaranteed to stick to its plan of raising rates four times before the end of next year, he added.

US unemployment falls to 48-year low in September

Criticised by the White House for <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/china-actively-trying-to-impact-and-change-our-election-us-president-donald-trump-166467">alleged interference in US politics</a>, China has quietly blazed a path at the United Nations where it is, little by little, becoming one of the most influential members.

At the Security Council, where China holds one of five permanent seats, its statements remain bland, often recalling fundamentals of the United Nations Charter such as national sovereignty and principles of non-interference.

"In their interpretation, democracy is optional, as are human rights," a European diplomat said.

Yet in peacekeeping missions or when jobs are available at the New York secretariat, Beijing increasingly makes its presence felt.

More than 2,500 Chinese military personnel wear UN blue helmets on peacekeeping mission in Libya, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan.

China has also "enormously increased" its voluntary financial contributions to the UN while the US administration of President Donald Trump cuts back its own financing.

"To fund reports and missions allows the buying of influence" and pushing its candidates into positions, the diplomat said, adding that to have Chinese in multiple roles "is a source of information and influence."

Another diplomat, also speaking anonymously, said: "China is taking power at the United Nations."

In 2017 and 2018, the country, which is economically expanding in Africa and elsewhere, became a key player in two major international issues: North Korea and Myanmar.

Under American pressure, Beijing imposed unprecedented economic sanctions against Pyongyang, but with the hope that an accord on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula will lead to the departure of about 30,000 US troops based in South Korea -- China's behind-the-scenes strategy in the region.

China meanwhile considers the crisis of Myanmar's Muslim minority Rohingya, 700,000 of whom fled a military crackdown to Bangladesh, as a bilateral issue between those two countries, and succeeded in preventing any firm Security Council action.

Power and erosion 
"The increase in power of China at the UN is taking place in parallel with a slow erosion of automatic reciprocal support" practiced until now with Russia, European capitals have noted.&nbsp;

While Moscow has recourse to its veto power, China sometimes relies on abstention.

At less high-profile levels of the UN, such as negotiation over texts between experts from the 15-member Security Council, China is "present on all subjects," a diplomat said, speaking anonymously.

Beijing, for example, is now seeking to become chief author on texts about Afghanistan, replacing the Netherlands, which on January 1 will leave its seat as a non-permanent Security Council member, several diplomats said.

The vast majority of UN resolutions still are written by the United States, Britain or France, a reflection of an older world order.

China, like Russia, is rarely the author, although it was in charge of the Somalia file long ago.

"For China, multipolarity is a subway stop. There will be a future station G2 -- China/US, and then one day it will be a G1 -- in their mind!" a diplomat said.

"They are long-term players. They don't want to create a commotion," another diplomatic source said.

The United States has imposed $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods and Trump has gone so far as alleging that China is interfering in the November midterm US elections in hopes of defeating his Republican Party due to his tough trade stance.

Speaking to a US think tank last week, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi dismissed fears that his country was seeking to overtake the US as the pre-eminent world power.

Concluding that China is about to seek hegemony, he said, is "a serious strategic misjudgment." 
&nbsp;

Criticised by the White House for alleged interference in US politics, China has quietly blazed a path at the United Nations where it is, little by little, becoming one of the most influential members.

Criticised by the White House for alleged interference in US politics, China has quietly blazed a path at the United Nations where it is, little by little, becoming one of the most influential members. At the Security Council, where China holds one of five permanent seats, its statements remain bland, often recalling fundamentals of the United Nations Charter such as national sovereignty and principles of non-interference. "In their interpretation, democracy is optional, as are human rights," a European diplomat said. Yet in peacekeeping missions or when jobs are available at the New York secretariat, Beijing increasingly makes its presence felt. More than 2,500 Chinese military personnel wear UN blue helmets on peacekeeping mission in Libya, Mali, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Sudan. China has also "enormously increased" its voluntary financial contributions to the UN while the US administration of President Donald Trump cuts back its own financing. "To fund reports and missions allows the buying of influence" and pushing its candidates into positions, the diplomat said, adding that to have Chinese in multiple roles "is a source of information and influence." Another diplomat, also speaking anonymously, said: "China is taking power at the United Nations." In 2017 and 2018, the country, which is economically expanding in Africa and elsewhere, became a key player in two major international issues: North Korea and Myanmar. Under American pressure, Beijing imposed unprecedented economic sanctions against Pyongyang, but with the hope that an accord on denuclearization of the Korean peninsula will lead to the departure of about 30,000 US troops based in South Korea -- China's behind-the-scenes strategy in the region. China meanwhile considers the crisis of Myanmar's Muslim minority Rohingya, 700,000 of whom fled a military crackdown to Bangladesh, as a bilateral issue between those two countries, and succeeded in preventing any firm Security Council action. Power and erosion "The increase in power of China at the UN is taking place in parallel with a slow erosion of automatic reciprocal support" practiced until now with Russia, European capitals have noted. While Moscow has recourse to its veto power, China sometimes relies on abstention. At less high-profile levels of the UN, such as negotiation over texts between experts from the 15-member Security Council, China is "present on all subjects," a diplomat said, speaking anonymously. Beijing, for example, is now seeking to become chief author on texts about Afghanistan, replacing the Netherlands, which on January 1 will leave its seat as a non-permanent Security Council member, several diplomats said. The vast majority of UN resolutions still are written by the United States, Britain or France, a reflection of an older world order. China, like Russia, is rarely the author, although it was in charge of the Somalia file long ago. "For China, multipolarity is a subway stop. There will be a future station G2 -- China/US, and then one day it will be a G1 -- in their mind!" a diplomat said. "They are long-term players. They don't want to create a commotion," another diplomatic source said. The United States has imposed $250 billion in tariffs on Chinese goods and Trump has gone so far as alleging that China is interfering in the November midterm US elections in hopes of defeating his Republican Party due to his tough trade stance. Speaking to a US think tank last week, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi dismissed fears that his country was seeking to overtake the US as the pre-eminent world power. Concluding that China is about to seek hegemony, he said, is "a serious strategic misjudgment."

In divided UN, China quietly blazes path to power

Control of the US Congress hangs in the balance in hard-fought midterm elections next month. And, even with a booming economy, the party in power does not have the wind at its back.

The lowest unemployment level in nearly 50 years has also not substantially lifted President Donald Trump's standing in opinion polls, and he remains among the least popular US leaders of the last 70 years.&nbsp;

Forecasts point to solid chances that Democrats could wrest control of the House of Representatives away from Republicans, drastically shifting the political landscape in Washington.

Below are some facts on the recent run of the world's largest economy.

How good is the economy?

Quite. By most measures, it is unusually strong. US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said last week the outlook was "remarkably positive." &nbsp;&nbsp;

GDP grew at a 4.2 per cent clip in the second quarter, the strongest in nearly four years and the fastest among advanced economies -- though it was helped by a few one-off factors that are unlikely to be replicated later in the year.

The last time the unemployment rate was this low -- 3.7 per cent -- president Richard Nixon was enacting tax reform and The Beatles were breaking up.&nbsp; 
Inflation is rising only slowly, but enough to eat into wages, which also are growing sluggishly.

Job creation through September has averaged 218,000 net new positions a month so far this year, the fastest rate since 2015.

Consumer and business confidence, as well as measures of services and manufacturing activity, are all at historically high levels.&nbsp;

But the housing sector, which can be a leading indicator in the economic cycle, appears in decline, with building and sales steadily weakening.

Wall Street also has been very happy for much of the past 20 months, repeatedly smashing records.

But economist Jared Bernstein, adviser to former Vice President Joe Biden, notes that prosperity has not been evenly shared.

Corporate after-tax profits rose 14.9 percent in the first six quarters of the Trump era, but mid-level hourly wages gained only 0.5 percent in the same period.

Credit to Trump or Obama ?

Economists caution against attributing economic performance, good or bad, solely to presidents.

Trump has forcefully claimed ownership for the current economy but it was former President Barack Obama who presided over most of the recovery.

"There's no question that there's a mixture of credit involved. President Obama took office during the worst downturn since the Great Depression," Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican former director of the Congressional Budget Office, told AFP.

But Trump has slashed taxes and regulations to energize businesses, Holtz-Eakin said.

Following December's tax cuts and a big spending package enacted in February, the US economy does appear to be growing faster than it did in the prior two years -- for now -- and business investment picked up.

The International Monetary Fund in July forecast US growth of 2.9 per cent for 2018, which would match the expansion in 2015 under Obama.

But as unemployment has fallen and available workers have become scarce, job growth has actually slowed under Trump.

Since January 2017, the economy had added 3.9 million jobs. But in the final 21 months of Obama's presidency, there were 4.5 million net new positions created.

And, since peaking at 10 per cent in October 2009, the US unemployment rate has fallen 6.3 percentage points: 5.3 points of that was under Obama and just one under Trump.

What are the risks?

Predicting recessions is a notoriously difficult task. But economists say dangers to the US economy, and the odds of a downturn, are growing.

The trade war with China, America's largest trading partner, already is causing "chaos" for US electronics manufacturers, according to the Institute for Supply Management, with the hit to US supply chains likely to show up in economic data in the near future.

And there are no negotiations between Washington and Beijing currently scheduled.

As the Fed raises lending rates, there is a growing risk of popping an asset bubble created by years of easy money from the Fed -- and thus wiping out household wealth and tipping the economy into recession.

Economic contagion could also spread from emerging markets as they suffer capital flight, falling currency values and rising debt costs.

Record high global debt is a key risk flagged by the IMF, as it reached an all-time high of $182 trillion -- almost 60 per cent higher than in 2007.

Control of the US Congress hangs in the balance in hard-fought midterm elections next month. And, even with a booming economy, the party in power does not have the wind at its back.

Control of the US Congress hangs in the balance in hard-fought midterm elections next month. And, even with a booming economy, the party in power does not have the wind at its back. The lowest unemployment level in nearly 50 years has also not substantially lifted President Donald Trump's standing in opinion polls, and he remains among the least popular US leaders of the last 70 years. Forecasts point to solid chances that Democrats could wrest control of the House of Representatives away from Republicans, drastically shifting the political landscape in Washington. Below are some facts on the recent run of the world's largest economy. How good is the economy? Quite. By most measures, it is unusually strong. US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said last week the outlook was "remarkably positive." GDP grew at a 4.2 per cent clip in the second quarter, the strongest in nearly four years and the fastest among advanced economies -- though it was helped by a few one-off factors that are unlikely to be replicated later in the year. The last time the unemployment rate was this low -- 3.7 per cent -- president Richard Nixon was enacting tax reform and The Beatles were breaking up. Inflation is rising only slowly, but enough to eat into wages, which also are growing sluggishly. Job creation through September has averaged 218,000 net new positions a month so far this year, the fastest rate since 2015. Consumer and business confidence, as well as measures of services and manufacturing activity, are all at historically high levels. But the housing sector, which can be a leading indicator in the economic cycle, appears in decline, with building and sales steadily weakening. Wall Street also has been very happy for much of the past 20 months, repeatedly smashing records. But economist Jared Bernstein, adviser to former Vice President Joe Biden, notes that prosperity has not been evenly shared. Corporate after-tax profits rose 14.9 percent in the first six quarters of the Trump era, but mid-level hourly wages gained only 0.5 percent in the same period. Credit to Trump or Obama ? Economists caution against attributing economic performance, good or bad, solely to presidents. Trump has forcefully claimed ownership for the current economy but it was former President Barack Obama who presided over most of the recovery. "There's no question that there's a mixture of credit involved. President Obama took office during the worst downturn since the Great Depression," Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican former director of the Congressional Budget Office, told AFP. But Trump has slashed taxes and regulations to energize businesses, Holtz-Eakin said. Following December's tax cuts and a big spending package enacted in February, the US economy does appear to be growing faster than it did in the prior two years -- for now -- and business investment picked up. The International Monetary Fund in July forecast US growth of 2.9 per cent for 2018, which would match the expansion in 2015 under Obama. But as unemployment has fallen and available workers have become scarce, job growth has actually slowed under Trump. Since January 2017, the economy had added 3.9 million jobs. But in the final 21 months of Obama's presidency, there were 4.5 million net new positions created. And, since peaking at 10 per cent in October 2009, the US unemployment rate has fallen 6.3 percentage points: 5.3 points of that was under Obama and just one under Trump. What are the risks? Predicting recessions is a notoriously difficult task. But economists say dangers to the US economy, and the odds of a downturn, are growing. The trade war with China, America's largest trading partner, already is causing "chaos" for US electronics manufacturers, according to the Institute for Supply Management, with the hit to US supply chains likely to show up in economic data in the near future. And there are no negotiations between Washington and Beijing currently scheduled. As the Fed raises lending rates, there is a growing risk of popping an asset bubble created by years of easy money from the Fed -- and thus wiping out household wealth and tipping the economy into recession. Economic contagion could also spread from emerging markets as they suffer capital flight, falling currency values and rising debt costs. Record high global debt is a key risk flagged by the IMF, as it reached an all-time high of $182 trillion -- almost 60 per cent higher than in 2007.

US economy booms as elections near, but who gets credit?

The United States’ time is up. The country is wading into the pits of absolute decline. But, there is a bit of an irony involved here, the country contra international relations theory and practice is not declining because of peer competitor(s), or hard balancing; it is in decline because of its own follies and an inexorable drift into torpor and turpitude.&nbsp;

These assertions might sound counterintuitive or even in the nature of a pious wish given that the country holds the balance in almost all domains of power and politics.&nbsp;

For instance, its defence spending is unmatched, &nbsp;its hard power peerless, power projection capabilities unmatched and the system of alliances that it presides over rather relatively unscathed. &nbsp;The question then arises is that is the United States is still at the apogee of its power, how can it be in decline? If it is in decline, should it be a cause of celebration? And, more importantly perhaps, who or what should replace the country?

First things first.

Power, a slippery and contested concept, is intimately linked with legitimacy. It is not the “number of tanks or battalions (to briefly paraphrase Joseph Stalin) that a country has that determines its “actual” power (or influence) but a combination of power and the fund of legitimacy it enjoys. The United States, despite its grave crimes like the Vietnam war, its egregious and bloody meddling in Latin America, its blatant and fraudulent use of power in the Second Gulf War and so on did enjoy legitimacy especially in the aftermath of the Second world war.

This legitimacy accrued from the country’s leadership in creating and instituting the liberal world order. Consequently, many countries not only acquiesced in its leadership but also accepted the country. But, with the concentration of power in the United States( also known as unipolarity), hubris became the predominant impulse of the United States. The country not only squandered its fund of power and legitimacy by opting for “wars of choice” in Afghanistan and Iraq but also became contemptuous of rules, regimes and norms that it had helped institute. The United States also lost the plot domestically as the country’s elite became so self-centred and self-absorbed that there was a massive disconnect between the masses and the governing classes of the country. This, in turn, corrupted the United States’ democracy and its institutions, in the process.

The chicken finally came to roost, so to speak, in the form of Donald Trump to the highest office of the country. Trump is not only disdainful of ( and in the process reconfiguring) United States institutional fabric in an insalubrious and deleterious way but also swaggering internationally in a cavalier way that he is destroying the fabric of world order, norms, laws and regimes thereof. His gratuitous assault on Iran, the contempt demonstrated by his administration toward the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, and the aggressive and bellicose approach adopted toward China illustrate the point. But, this is not all, the United States is being hollowed out from within by the corruption of its institutions, the ungainly and cruel treatment of refugees and immigrants, the arrogant and disdain demonstrated toward the rule of law and so on. Cumulatively, the gravamen of these omissions and commissions can only mean decline.

Now, if the United States is in decline, who or what can replace it? The obvious contender is China given its power, heft and clout. But, there are obvious issues with China’s total dominance of the international system. The country’s world view and its sense of self, along with issues of humanitarian concern would render China an inadequate globally preponderant power, among other things. &nbsp;The European Union is too mired in structural issues to actually even countenance global leadership. By elimination then, what the world is left with is international law and institutions of global governance like the United Nations.

In the absence of hegemony, only international law and institutions can actually fill the void in anarchic international relations. But, here too, issues arise, the major one being that states invariably act in and out of self-interest. However, given that there will be no more a hegemon to enforce peace, or hold the balance in a way that approximates global public goods, all the states of and in the international system must redefine their interests and conceive these in a way where , internationally and globally, international law, regimes and laws reign supreme. 
 
This might even constitute raison d’etat given that if , in the past, the United States was looked toward as the provider of security and public goods, and that it is in decline and there would be no entity to do this in the future, states’ self-interest would lie in bandwagoning together and agglomerating their interests in and to some well-defined goals and peace. The most important of these goals would be the world order, global peace and stability, themes and ideas that would redound to the benefit of all. Moreover, this potential combination would also check and hem the worst instincts and impulses of states, especially powerful ones.

This potential state of affairs and the desired condition can only be reified if international institutions and laws are strengthened by a robust backing of states. &nbsp;Broken down, it means reviving the United Nations and making it more robust, not merely as a declamatory body or one whose USP lies only in “low politics” but making it an arbiter of high politics. It can happen when states delegate their power, not just rhetorically but substantively to the “Parliament of Man” and, among other things imbue the august body with hard power capabilities.

The United States is declining. There is no other state which can actually replace it, as of now. And, in and during its decline, the country can do something silly and odious, like going to war or rejigging the economic order in place drastically, so much so that the rest of the world suffers. Before the country, during the throes of decline, lashes out and before the world drifts into a more intense disorder, it is time to introspect and accord primacy to law and institutions which promote peace, stability and prosperity. The time to make haste slowly is now!

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The United States’ time is up. The country is wading into the pits of absolute decline. But, there is a bit of an irony involved here, the country contra international relations theory and practice is not declining because of peer competitor(s), or hard balancing; it is in decline because of its own follies and an inexorable drift into torpor and turpitude.

The United States’ time is up. The country is wading into the pits of absolute decline. But, there is a bit of an irony involved here, the country contra international relations theory and practice is not declining because of peer competitor(s), or hard balancing; it is in decline because of its own follies and an inexorable drift into torpor and turpitude. These assertions might sound counterintuitive or even in the nature of a pious wish given that the country holds the balance in almost all domains of power and politics. For instance, its defence spending is unmatched, its hard power peerless, power projection capabilities unmatched and the system of alliances that it presides over rather relatively unscathed. The question then arises is that is the United States is still at the apogee of its power, how can it be in decline? If it is in decline, should it be a cause of celebration? And, more importantly perhaps, who or what should replace the country? First things first. Power, a slippery and contested concept, is intimately linked with legitimacy. It is not the “number of tanks or battalions (to briefly paraphrase Joseph Stalin) that a country has that determines its “actual” power (or influence) but a combination of power and the fund of legitimacy it enjoys. The United States, despite its grave crimes like the Vietnam war, its egregious and bloody meddling in Latin America, its blatant and fraudulent use of power in the Second Gulf War and so on did enjoy legitimacy especially in the aftermath of the Second world war. This legitimacy accrued from the country’s leadership in creating and instituting the liberal world order. Consequently, many countries not only acquiesced in its leadership but also accepted the country. But, with the concentration of power in the United States( also known as unipolarity), hubris became the predominant impulse of the United States. The country not only squandered its fund of power and legitimacy by opting for “wars of choice” in Afghanistan and Iraq but also became contemptuous of rules, regimes and norms that it had helped institute. The United States also lost the plot domestically as the country’s elite became so self-centred and self-absorbed that there was a massive disconnect between the masses and the governing classes of the country. This, in turn, corrupted the United States’ democracy and its institutions, in the process. The chicken finally came to roost, so to speak, in the form of Donald Trump to the highest office of the country. Trump is not only disdainful of ( and in the process reconfiguring) United States institutional fabric in an insalubrious and deleterious way but also swaggering internationally in a cavalier way that he is destroying the fabric of world order, norms, laws and regimes thereof. His gratuitous assault on Iran, the contempt demonstrated by his administration toward the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, and the aggressive and bellicose approach adopted toward China illustrate the point. But, this is not all, the United States is being hollowed out from within by the corruption of its institutions, the ungainly and cruel treatment of refugees and immigrants, the arrogant and disdain demonstrated toward the rule of law and so on. Cumulatively, the gravamen of these omissions and commissions can only mean decline. Now, if the United States is in decline, who or what can replace it? The obvious contender is China given its power, heft and clout. But, there are obvious issues with China’s total dominance of the international system. The country’s world view and its sense of self, along with issues of humanitarian concern would render China an inadequate globally preponderant power, among other things. The European Union is too mired in structural issues to actually even countenance global leadership. By elimination then, what the world is left with is international law and institutions of global governance like the United Nations. In the absence of hegemony, only international law and institutions can actually fill the void in anarchic international relations. But, here too, issues arise, the major one being that states invariably act in and out of self-interest. However, given that there will be no more a hegemon to enforce peace, or hold the balance in a way that approximates global public goods, all the states of and in the international system must redefine their interests and conceive these in a way where , internationally and globally, international law, regimes and laws reign supreme. This might even constitute raison d’etat given that if , in the past, the United States was looked toward as the provider of security and public goods, and that it is in decline and there would be no entity to do this in the future, states’ self-interest would lie in bandwagoning together and agglomerating their interests in and to some well-defined goals and peace. The most important of these goals would be the world order, global peace and stability, themes and ideas that would redound to the benefit of all. Moreover, this potential combination would also check and hem the worst instincts and impulses of states, especially powerful ones. This potential state of affairs and the desired condition can only be reified if international institutions and laws are strengthened by a robust backing of states. Broken down, it means reviving the United Nations and making it more robust, not merely as a declamatory body or one whose USP lies only in “low politics” but making it an arbiter of high politics. It can happen when states delegate their power, not just rhetorically but substantively to the “Parliament of Man” and, among other things imbue the august body with hard power capabilities. The United States is declining. There is no other state which can actually replace it, as of now. And, in and during its decline, the country can do something silly and odious, like going to war or rejigging the economic order in place drastically, so much so that the rest of the world suffers. Before the country, during the throes of decline, lashes out and before the world drifts into a more intense disorder, it is time to introspect and accord primacy to law and institutions which promote peace, stability and prosperity. The time to make haste slowly is now! (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

As the US declines, International Law and Institutions must be strengthened

US voters will soon render their verdict on Donald Trump and his ruling Republican Party after two tumultuous years that have deeply shaken the world's oldest existing democracy.

Have Americans had enough? The answer comes at polling stations one month from Saturday, with Republicans battling to keep control of the US Congress and Democrats hoping a "blue wave" will wash them out.&nbsp;

Trump -- among the most polarizing US leaders ever -- is not on the ballot, but his presence looms large over the midterms, which he has declared "the most important congressional elections of our lifetime."

He has hit the campaign trail for political allies and to rally his base, attacking "obstructionist" Democrats and touting his success in improving the US economy.

"I'm not on the ticket," he told supporters at a Mississippi rally Tuesday. "But I am on the ticket, because this is also a referendum about me."

Some Republicans, especially those who prevailed in 2016 in districts won by Hillary Clinton, are running at arm's length from Trump, whose poll ratings remain under water.

But many candidates have wholeheartedly embraced the president and acknowledged their election fortunes will rise or fall with him.

'Defining moment'

Democrats are energized, with well-funded campaigns aiming to snatch seats in Tennessee and other red states like Georgia, Kansas and Texas as they aim to reclaim the 435-member House of Representatives and the 100-member Senate.

"Folks are sensing a sea change coming here," Tariq Thowfeek of the Texas Democratic Party told AFP in Austin.

He pointed to the compelling grassroots candidacy of Beto O'Rourke, whose bid to oust Republican Senator Ted Cruz would send shockwaves through the nation if it succeeds on November 6.

O'Rourke often speaks of this being "a defining moment for our country," and embraces the opportunity to engage with Texans of all stripes.

He drills down on kitchen table issues including health care -- a top priority for Democratic voters -- jobs and education, while demanding criminal justice reform, more rational immigration policies and gun safety legislation.

But the man in the White House is still expected to have the predominant impact on the midterms.

"For Democrats the top issue by a mile is Donald Trump," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics.

"He is the reason they're turning out to vote, and almost unanimously they're voting against him."

In the first midterms of the anti-harassment #MeToo era, the power of the female vote is certain to be tested -- even more so with the dramatic debate currently roiling the US Senate.&nbsp;

The election season is occurring in the shadow of a bitter Supreme Court battle, in which Democrats are aiming to spoil the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a federal judge who stands accused of sexual assault.

'Rallying cry'

It remains unclear just how that partisan fight might impact the midterms. But Trump is confident his nominee, whose confirmation would shift the nine-justice high court rightward, will energize his base -- a necessity if the party wants to hold ground in November.

Kavanaugh "is like a rallying cry for the Republicans," Trump told reporters Tuesday.

If Kavanaugh gets confirmed, it would mean Republicans control the White House, both chambers of Congress, and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, potentially diminishing the sense of urgency among Republican voters.

Depressed turnout could spell disaster for Republicans, who face a hostile election climate.&nbsp;

Democrats must gain 23 seats to retake the House. Dave Wasserman of the non-partisan Cook Political Report predicts Democrats will flip 25 to 40 seats, while the Center for Politics says that number could near 50.

In a sign of 2018's Democratic tilt, a hefty 29 Republican-held House seats are rated a "toss up" by Cook, compared to just two Democratic seats.&nbsp;

"It's getting ugly" for Republicans, tweeted Wasserman, as he pointed to the GOP closing the funding spigot for some embattled candidates in districts won by Trump in 2016.

Trump has employed fear-mongering to counter the Democrats' enthusiasm edge.

"If Democrats get control, they will raise your taxes, flood your streets with criminal aliens, weaken our military, outlaw private health insurance and replace freedom with socialism," Trump said in Mississippi.

Meanwhile, Democrats are promoting a diverse collection of candidates. Native Americans, Muslims, and Latinas are seeking to make history in many races, while Florida, Georgia and Maryland could elect their first black governors.&nbsp;

A new Quinnipiac Poll gives conservatives some hope, as it showed Republicans cutting the general Democratic lead in House races from 14 points to seven.

In the Senate, Democrats have a steeper climb, even though Republicans have a slim 51-49 majority.&nbsp;

Of the 35 Senate seats in contention in November, Democrats are defending 26 of them -- including 10 in states Trump won. Republicans are defending just nine seats.&nbsp;

US voters will soon render their verdict on Donald Trump and his ruling Republican Party after two tumultuous years that have deeply shaken the world's oldest existing democracy.

US voters will soon render their verdict on Donald Trump and his ruling Republican Party after two tumultuous years that have deeply shaken the world's oldest existing democracy. Have Americans had enough? The answer comes at polling stations one month from Saturday, with Republicans battling to keep control of the US Congress and Democrats hoping a "blue wave" will wash them out. Trump -- among the most polarizing US leaders ever -- is not on the ballot, but his presence looms large over the midterms, which he has declared "the most important congressional elections of our lifetime." He has hit the campaign trail for political allies and to rally his base, attacking "obstructionist" Democrats and touting his success in improving the US economy. "I'm not on the ticket," he told supporters at a Mississippi rally Tuesday. "But I am on the ticket, because this is also a referendum about me." Some Republicans, especially those who prevailed in 2016 in districts won by Hillary Clinton, are running at arm's length from Trump, whose poll ratings remain under water. But many candidates have wholeheartedly embraced the president and acknowledged their election fortunes will rise or fall with him. 'Defining moment' Democrats are energized, with well-funded campaigns aiming to snatch seats in Tennessee and other red states like Georgia, Kansas and Texas as they aim to reclaim the 435-member House of Representatives and the 100-member Senate. "Folks are sensing a sea change coming here," Tariq Thowfeek of the Texas Democratic Party told AFP in Austin. He pointed to the compelling grassroots candidacy of Beto O'Rourke, whose bid to oust Republican Senator Ted Cruz would send shockwaves through the nation if it succeeds on November 6. O'Rourke often speaks of this being "a defining moment for our country," and embraces the opportunity to engage with Texans of all stripes. He drills down on kitchen table issues including health care -- a top priority for Democratic voters -- jobs and education, while demanding criminal justice reform, more rational immigration policies and gun safety legislation. But the man in the White House is still expected to have the predominant impact on the midterms. "For Democrats the top issue by a mile is Donald Trump," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "He is the reason they're turning out to vote, and almost unanimously they're voting against him." In the first midterms of the anti-harassment #MeToo era, the power of the female vote is certain to be tested -- even more so with the dramatic debate currently roiling the US Senate. The election season is occurring in the shadow of a bitter Supreme Court battle, in which Democrats are aiming to spoil the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, a federal judge who stands accused of sexual assault. 'Rallying cry' It remains unclear just how that partisan fight might impact the midterms. But Trump is confident his nominee, whose confirmation would shift the nine-justice high court rightward, will energize his base -- a necessity if the party wants to hold ground in November. Kavanaugh "is like a rallying cry for the Republicans," Trump told reporters Tuesday. If Kavanaugh gets confirmed, it would mean Republicans control the White House, both chambers of Congress, and a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, potentially diminishing the sense of urgency among Republican voters. Depressed turnout could spell disaster for Republicans, who face a hostile election climate. Democrats must gain 23 seats to retake the House. Dave Wasserman of the non-partisan Cook Political Report predicts Democrats will flip 25 to 40 seats, while the Center for Politics says that number could near 50. In a sign of 2018's Democratic tilt, a hefty 29 Republican-held House seats are rated a "toss up" by Cook, compared to just two Democratic seats. "It's getting ugly" for Republicans, tweeted Wasserman, as he pointed to the GOP closing the funding spigot for some embattled candidates in districts won by Trump in 2016. Trump has employed fear-mongering to counter the Democrats' enthusiasm edge. "If Democrats get control, they will raise your taxes, flood your streets with criminal aliens, weaken our military, outlaw private health insurance and replace freedom with socialism," Trump said in Mississippi. Meanwhile, Democrats are promoting a diverse collection of candidates. Native Americans, Muslims, and Latinas are seeking to make history in many races, while Florida, Georgia and Maryland could elect their first black governors. A new Quinnipiac Poll gives conservatives some hope, as it showed Republicans cutting the general Democratic lead in House races from 14 points to seven. In the Senate, Democrats have a steeper climb, even though Republicans have a slim 51-49 majority. Of the 35 Senate seats in contention in November, Democrats are defending 26 of them -- including 10 in states Trump won. Republicans are defending just nine seats.

With US midterms a month away, verdict on Trump looms

us-1

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

us 1