Between 2005 and 2015, India, along with Ecuador, posted the biggest increase among origin countries for eligible immigrants opting to become American citizens, a study has found.

By 2015, as many as 80 per cent of eligible immigrants from India opted to become American citizens, as against 69 per cent in 2005, thus registering an increase of 12 percentage point, the Pew Research Center has said.

Ecuador from Africa also registered a similar 12 percentage point increase during the same period.

During this period, the total number of naturalised immigrants in the US increased from 14.4 million in 2005 to 19.8 million in 2015, a 37 per cent increase.

&quot;By 2015, eligible immigrants from India had one of the higher naturalisation rates (80 per cent) due to a 12- percentage-point increase in its naturalisation rate since 2005. Only eligible immigrants from

Ecuador (68 per cent in 2015) had as large an increase,&quot; Pew said.

&quot;This is a bigger increase than for US immigrants overall, among whom naturalisation rates jumped from 62 percent in 2005 to 67 percent in 2015,&quot; the research center said, adding that eligible immigrants from Vietnam (86 per cent) and Iran (85 per cent) had the highest naturalisation rates of any group in 2015.

However, the naturalisation rates among eligible immigrants from Honduras, China and Cuba declined or remained largely unchanged from 2005 to 2015, as per the most recent year for which Pew

Research Center estimates are available.

To be eligible for US citizenship, immigrant must be at least 18 years old, have lived in the country for at least five years as lawful permanent resident or three years for those married to a US citizenship and be in a good standing with the law.

Between 2005 and 2015, the United States denied naturalisation applications to nearly one million immigrants.

By 2015, as many as 80 per cent of eligible immigrants from India opted to become American citizens, as against 69 per cent in 2005, thus registering an increase of 12 percentage point, the Pew Research Center has said

Between 2005 and 2015, India, along with Ecuador, posted the biggest increase among origin countries for eligible immigrants opting to become American citizens, a study has found. By 2015, as many as 80 per cent of eligible immigrants from India opted to become American citizens, as against 69 per cent in 2005, thus registering an increase of 12 percentage point, the Pew Research Center has said. Ecuador from Africa also registered a similar 12 percentage point increase during the same period. During this period, the total number of naturalised immigrants in the US increased from 14.4 million in 2005 to 19.8 million in 2015, a 37 per cent increase. "By 2015, eligible immigrants from India had one of the higher naturalisation rates (80 per cent) due to a 12- percentage-point increase in its naturalisation rate since 2005. Only eligible immigrants from Ecuador (68 per cent in 2015) had as large an increase," Pew said. "This is a bigger increase than for US immigrants overall, among whom naturalisation rates jumped from 62 percent in 2005 to 67 percent in 2015," the research center said, adding that eligible immigrants from Vietnam (86 per cent) and Iran (85 per cent) had the highest naturalisation rates of any group in 2015. However, the naturalisation rates among eligible immigrants from Honduras, China and Cuba declined or remained largely unchanged from 2005 to 2015, as per the most recent year for which Pew Research Center estimates are available. To be eligible for US citizenship, immigrant must be at least 18 years old, have lived in the country for at least five years as lawful permanent resident or three years for those married to a US citizenship and be in a good standing with the law. Between 2005 and 2015, the United States denied naturalisation applications to nearly one million immigrants.

US naturalisation rates increase high among Indians: Study

US gymnast Simone Biles revealed on Monday she was sexually abused by disgraced former USA team doctor Larry Nassar, who was last month jailed for 60 years on child pornography charges.

In a statement posted on Twitter, Biles said she had wrestled with her decision to go public with her story since the scandal broke.

&quot;Most of you know me as a happy, giggly, and energetic girl,&quot; the 20-year-old reigning Olympic all-around champion wrote.&nbsp;

&quot;But lately I&#39;ve felt a bit broken and the more I try to shut off the voice in my head, the louder it screams. I am not afraid to tell my story anymore,&quot; she said.

&quot;I too am one of the many survivors that were sexually abused by Larry Nassar,&quot; the 10-time World Championship medallist added.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Feelings... ???? <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MeToo?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MeToo</a> <a href="https://t.co/ICiu0FCa0n">pic.twitter.com/ICiu0FCa0n</a>
&mdash; Simone Biles (@Simone_Biles) <a href="https://twitter.com/Simone_Biles/status/953014513837715457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 15, 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">&times;</a></div>

Nassar has been accused of sexually assaulting more than 100 young girls including several US Olympians.

Biles&#39;s teammates Aly Raisman, McKayla Maroney and Gabby Douglas are among the members of USA gymnastics squads who have said they were sexually assaulted by Nassar.

The 54-year-old was sentenced to 60 years in prison in December on child pornography charges.&nbsp;

He could be jailed for life when a further sentencing hearing gets underway in Michigan this week on separate sexual assault charges to which he has pleaded guilty.

In her statement on Twitter, Biles described her torment as she attempted to grapple with the abuse she had suffered.

&nbsp;

Larry Nassar has been accused of sexually assaulting more than 100 young girls including several US Olympians

US gymnast Simone Biles revealed on Monday she was sexually abused by disgraced former USA team doctor Larry Nassar, who was last month jailed for 60 years on child pornography charges. In a statement posted on Twitter, Biles said she had wrestled with her decision to go public with her story since the scandal broke. "Most of you know me as a happy, giggly, and energetic girl," the 20-year-old reigning Olympic all-around champion wrote. "But lately I've felt a bit broken and the more I try to shut off the voice in my head, the louder it screams. I am not afraid to tell my story anymore," she said. "I too am one of the many survivors that were sexually abused by Larry Nassar," the 10-time World Championship medallist added. Feelings... ???? #MeToo pic.twitter.com/ICiu0FCa0n — Simone Biles (@Simone_Biles) January 15, 2018 × Nassar has been accused of sexually assaulting more than 100 young girls including several US Olympians. Biles's teammates Aly Raisman, McKayla Maroney and Gabby Douglas are among the members of USA gymnastics squads who have said they were sexually assaulted by Nassar. The 54-year-old was sentenced to 60 years in prison in December on child pornography charges. He could be jailed for life when a further sentencing hearing gets underway in Michigan this week on separate sexual assault charges to which he has pleaded guilty. In her statement on Twitter, Biles described her torment as she attempted to grapple with the abuse she had suffered.

'I was sexually abused by Larry Nassar,' says US gymnast Simone Biles

With tension on the Korean Peninsula higher than it&rsquo;s been for years and fears are surging on all sides that a full-blown conflict is nearer than ever. But as the war of words between Washington and Pyongyang gets ever more lurid, with missile and warhead tests on one side and military exercises and flypasts on the other, it&rsquo;s easy to forget that North and South Korea have made serious efforts to defrost their relationship before.

On July 7 1988, with the Cold War coming to an end, South Korean President Rho Tae-woo announced his plan to &ldquo;actively promote exchanges of visits between the people of South and North Korea, including politicians, businessmen, journalists, religious leaders, cultural leaders, artists, academics and students&rdquo;. This South Korean policy, called Nordpolitik, was modelled on West Germany&rsquo;s Ostpolitik. But it took more than ten years to begin these exchanges.

In 2000, the two leaders of South and North Korea met in Pyongyang for the first time since the division of the Korean peninsula. South Korean President Kim Dae-jung reassured North Korean Leader Kim Jong-il, who was worried that North Korea would meet a fate similar to East Germany, that the South Korean proposal for a peacebuilding process was not to absorb North Korea, but to promote peaceful coexistence.

After their first summit, the South and North Korean governments expanded several cross-border peacebuilding activities, such as humanitarian, development, and economic cooperation, business, and socio-cultural exchanges. Within a few years, as part of these activities, more than half a million people crossed the border between North and South Korea. Almost 2m South Korean tourists visited North Korea.

And yet today, the inter-Korean peacebuilding of the 2000s looks like a long-lost dream. What went wrong?

Pushed to the limit

Some say the breaking point was the hardline changes in US and South Korean policy toward North Korea after 9/11, epitomised by George W. Bush&rsquo;s &ldquo;Axis of Evil&rdquo; speech. Others say the north is to blame because of its nuclear ambitions. But what both arguments have in common is North Korea&rsquo;s deep sense of insecurity, which goes back more than 60 years.

When Japan was defeated in World War II, the Korean independence movement and its provisional government, who had long fought Japanese colonial rule, were not recognised as victors. Instead, the northern half of Korea was put under Soviet control and the south was occupied by the US, effectively dividing the Korean peninsula in two.

The first North Korean leader, Kim Il-sung, seemed convinced he could resolve this division by force, but his attack on South Korea in 1950 and the ensuing Korean War almost cost North Korea its existence. Only Chinese intervention saved it, and the war was suspended (though not ended) by the Armistice Treaty of 1953.

<figure><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NTFreay3bOA?wmode=transparent&amp;start=0" width="440"></iframe></figure>

&nbsp;

But North Korean memories of how US bombers destroyed their country and how close the US came to using the atomic bomb on North Korea, are still very much alive, and may be stronger after the end of the Cold War.

North Korean leaders have for decades used the spectre of an American attack to justify their authoritarian rule. The continuous economic sanctions and displays of military power by the US and South Korea did not deter North Korean plans to develop nuclear weapons in order to ensure its survival, and instead seem to have given the North Korean dictatorship fodder for its rhetoric.

Not backing down

As if to validate the rhetoric of the North Korean regime, the US president, Donald Trump, successfully persuaded South Korea to purchase more American weapons during his recent visit to East Asia. The US and South Korea are planning yet another joint military drill from December 4-8, in which about 230 warfare aircraft will participate in a show of force.

Meanwhile, North Korea fired another ballistic missile on November 28, once again claiming that their development of nuclear and missile technology is not &ldquo;to pose any threat to any country&rdquo;, but to defend North Korea from the US threat.

Putting aside debate around the nature of the North Korean regime, the insecurity experienced by a conflict party is not a phenomenon unique to the Korean conflict. Several contemporary peace processes, such as the Northern Ireland peace process, show that without addressing the issue of insecurity, any agreement would not be possible.

Would peacebuilding mean simply appeasing a regime that is playing with nuclear fire &ndash; or is it perhaps a better option than &ldquo;smart sanctions&rdquo; and military exercises? For South Korean civil society groups, who can remember crossing borders, building relationships, and re-humanising each other, peacebuilding is still regarded as the best way to neutralise the nuclear ambitions of the North Korean leadership and improve the human rights conditions of the North Korean people.

After all, it is about coming up with a more effective strategy for peace in the Korean peninsula, and beyond. If war is not an option, the inevitable process to build peace must resume.

As if to validate the rhetoric of the North Korean regime, the US president, Donald Trump, successfully persuaded South Korea to purchase more American weapons during his recent visit to East Asia. The US and South Korea are planning yet another joint military drill from December 4-8, in which about 230 warfare aircraft will participate in a show of force.

Meanwhile, North Korea fired another ballistic missile on November 28, once again claiming that their development of nuclear and missile technology is not &ldquo;to pose any threat to any country&rdquo;, but to defend North Korea from the US threat.

Putting aside debate around the nature of the North Korean regime, the insecurity experienced by a conflict party is not a phenomenon unique to the Korean conflict. Several contemporary peace processes, such as the Northern Ireland peace process, show that without addressing the issue of insecurity, any agreement would not be possible.

Would peacebuilding mean simply appeasing a regime that is playing with nuclear fire &ndash; or is it perhaps a better option than &ldquo;smart sanctions&rdquo; and military exercises? For South Korean civil society groups, who can remember crossing borders, building relationships, and re-humanising each other, peacebuilding is still regarded as the best way to neutralise the nuclear ambitions of the North Korean leadership and improve the human rights conditions of the North Korean people.

After all, it is about coming up with a <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09512748.2015.1022586?scroll=top&amp;needAccess=true">more effective strategy</a> for peace in the Korean peninsula, and beyond. If war is not an option, the inevitable process to build peace must resume.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-two-koreas-have-tried-to-make-peace-before-and-they-could-do-so-again-86809" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

&nbsp;

For South Korean civil society, who can remember crossing borders, building relationships, and re-humanising each other, peacebuilding is still regarded as the best way to neutralise the nuclear ambitions of the North Korean leadership and improve the human rights conditions of the North Koreans.

With tension on the Korean Peninsula higher than it’s been for years and fears are surging on all sides that a full-blown conflict is nearer than ever. But as the war of words between Washington and Pyongyang gets ever more lurid, with missile and warhead tests on one side and military exercises and flypasts on the other, it’s easy to forget that North and South Korea have made serious efforts to defrost their relationship before. On July 7 1988, with the Cold War coming to an end, South Korean President Rho Tae-woo announced his plan to “actively promote exchanges of visits between the people of South and North Korea, including politicians, businessmen, journalists, religious leaders, cultural leaders, artists, academics and students”. This South Korean policy, called Nordpolitik, was modelled on West Germany’s Ostpolitik. But it took more than ten years to begin these exchanges. In 2000, the two leaders of South and North Korea met in Pyongyang for the first time since the division of the Korean peninsula. South Korean President Kim Dae-jung reassured North Korean Leader Kim Jong-il, who was worried that North Korea would meet a fate similar to East Germany, that the South Korean proposal for a peacebuilding process was not to absorb North Korea, but to promote peaceful coexistence. After their first summit, the South and North Korean governments expanded several cross-border peacebuilding activities, such as humanitarian, development, and economic cooperation, business, and socio-cultural exchanges. Within a few years, as part of these activities, more than half a million people crossed the border between North and South Korea. Almost 2m South Korean tourists visited North Korea. And yet today, the inter-Korean peacebuilding of the 2000s looks like a long-lost dream. What went wrong? Pushed to the limit Some say the breaking point was the hardline changes in US and South Korean policy toward North Korea after 9/11, epitomised by George W. Bush’s “Axis of Evil” speech. Others say the north is to blame because of its nuclear ambitions. But what both arguments have in common is North Korea’s deep sense of insecurity, which goes back more than 60 years. When Japan was defeated in World War II, the Korean independence movement and its provisional government, who had long fought Japanese colonial rule, were not recognised as victors. Instead, the northern half of Korea was put under Soviet control and the south was occupied by the US, effectively dividing the Korean peninsula in two. The first North Korean leader, Kim Il-sung, seemed convinced he could resolve this division by force, but his attack on South Korea in 1950 and the ensuing Korean War almost cost North Korea its existence. Only Chinese intervention saved it, and the war was suspended (though not ended) by the Armistice Treaty of 1953. But North Korean memories of how US bombers destroyed their country and how close the US came to using the atomic bomb on North Korea, are still very much alive, and may be stronger after the end of the Cold War. North Korean leaders have for decades used the spectre of an American attack to justify their authoritarian rule. The continuous economic sanctions and displays of military power by the US and South Korea did not deter North Korean plans to develop nuclear weapons in order to ensure its survival, and instead seem to have given the North Korean dictatorship fodder for its rhetoric. Not backing down As if to validate the rhetoric of the North Korean regime, the US president, Donald Trump, successfully persuaded South Korea to purchase more American weapons during his recent visit to East Asia. The US and South Korea are planning yet another joint military drill from December 4-8, in which about 230 warfare aircraft will participate in a show of force. Meanwhile, North Korea fired another ballistic missile on November 28, once again claiming that their development of nuclear and missile technology is not “to pose any threat to any country”, but to defend North Korea from the US threat. Putting aside debate around the nature of the North Korean regime, the insecurity experienced by a conflict party is not a phenomenon unique to the Korean conflict. Several contemporary peace processes, such as the Northern Ireland peace process, show that without addressing the issue of insecurity, any agreement would not be possible. Would peacebuilding mean simply appeasing a regime that is playing with nuclear fire – or is it perhaps a better option than “smart sanctions” and military exercises? For South Korean civil society groups, who can remember crossing borders, building relationships, and re-humanising each other, peacebuilding is still regarded as the best way to neutralise the nuclear ambitions of the North Korean leadership and improve the human rights conditions of the North Korean people. After all, it is about coming up with a more effective strategy for peace in the Korean peninsula, and beyond. If war is not an option, the inevitable process to build peace must resume. As if to validate the rhetoric of the North Korean regime, the US president, Donald Trump, successfully persuaded South Korea to purchase more American weapons during his recent visit to East Asia. The US and South Korea are planning yet another joint military drill from December 4-8, in which about 230 warfare aircraft will participate in a show of force. Meanwhile, North Korea fired another ballistic missile on November 28, once again claiming that their development of nuclear and missile technology is not “to pose any threat to any country”, but to defend North Korea from the US threat. Putting aside debate around the nature of the North Korean regime, the insecurity experienced by a conflict party is not a phenomenon unique to the Korean conflict. Several contemporary peace processes, such as the Northern Ireland peace process, show that without addressing the issue of insecurity, any agreement would not be possible. Would peacebuilding mean simply appeasing a regime that is playing with nuclear fire – or is it perhaps a better option than “smart sanctions” and military exercises? For South Korean civil society groups, who can remember crossing borders, building relationships, and re-humanising each other, peacebuilding is still regarded as the best way to neutralise the nuclear ambitions of the North Korean leadership and improve the human rights conditions of the North Korean people. After all, it is about coming up with a more effective strategy for peace in the Korean peninsula, and beyond. If war is not an option, the inevitable process to build peace must resume. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Opinion: Are two Koreas serious in defrosting the relationship?

Did Steve Bannon jump or was he pushed? Bannon&rsquo;s opponents spoke of a firing, while his allies &ndash; and Bannon himself &ndash; said he had planned to resign for weeks. Turns out both sides were right. But that is only the start of a tale in which the final chapters are not yet written.

Within hours of leaving his post, Bannon was back as executive chairman of Breitbart. Staff at the right-wing publication, including senior editor Joel Pollak, had already declared &ldquo;#WAR&rdquo; on the White House as soon as their boss&rsquo;s departure was announced.

A Bannon friend said: &ldquo;Steve&rsquo;s unchained. Fully unchained.&rdquo; Another said: &ldquo;It&rsquo;s now a Democrat White House&rdquo;.

At a staff meeting, Bannon refined the blunt declarations. The line that Trump himself would not be attacked was repackaged as a &ldquo;war for Trump&rdquo;. That war would be against Trump&rsquo;s enemies &ndash; but not the counter-protesters at Charlottesville or even the &ldquo;fake media&rdquo;. The war would be waged on those considered the president&rsquo;s foes within the White House.

Breitbart has already lined up its first target: national security adviser H R McMaster. The hard right had been set against McMaster since the spring, when he pushed Bannon off a key committee of the National Security Council. Then, with leverage from the appointment of Kelly as chief of staff, McMaster removed four of Bannon&rsquo;s allies from the council. This tussle led Bannon&rsquo;s camp to counter-attack on social media, calling for &ldquo;McMasterOut&rdquo;.

On the Sunday immediately following Bannon&rsquo;s departure from the White House, Breitbart led with an article: &ldquo;HR McMaster Endorsed Book That Advocates Quran-Kissing Apology Ceremonies.&rdquo; The next day the site was blaming McMaster for Trump&rsquo;s response to the deaths of ten sailors aboard the USS John McCain in a collision near Singapore. According to the article, McMaster failed to brief the president properly, which is why the commander in chief initially reacted to the news by saying &ldquo;that&rsquo;s too bad&rdquo;.

Bannon and his allies had been whipping up an electronic and social media campaign against McMaster for some time. They tried to rally opposition to a review of Afghanistan policy, with Bannon pushing for a privatisation of the US intervention.

The prelude to the war came after Charlottesville when Bannon supported Trump in his message that both sides were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville &mdash; thereby tacitly supporting the white supremacists, even while other advisers warned him against such statements.

Kelly hit back. His allies spread stories that Trump disliked Bannon&rsquo;s leaking, especially about White House in-fighting, and the books and articles portraying the chief strategist as the power in the executive. Bannon also helped design his own demise &ndash; unwittingly or deliberately &ndash; by committing &ldquo;suicide by journalist&rdquo;. Piqued by a story in The American Prospect about North Korea, he called up the journalist to complain about the government&rsquo;s approach &ndash; which he blamed on generals like McMaster. The enemy, he said, was China in an economic war. He also boasted about his influence, claiming he could have people fired in the government.

The article was quickly presented to Trump. On Friday morning, in a staff meeting, the president said his right-hand ideologue would be leaving that day.

The beginning of the end

The Bannon-Breitbart campaign to vanquish McMaster, and then maybe National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, and then maybe Kelly, and then maybe even Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump will get the publicity accorded to a dramatic story.

Framed as a valiant fight against the &ldquo;deep state&rdquo;, it will have its vocal partners. We&rsquo;ll hear from alt-right polemicist Mike Cernovich, who accused McMaster of manipulating intelligence reports to Trump. We&rsquo;ll also get insight from &ldquo;Pizzagate&rdquo; agitator Jack Posobiec, InfoWars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (&ldquo;McMaster&rsquo;s sold out&rdquo;), and even ex-KKK grand wizard David Duke.

It is unlikely to succeed. The retired generals in the White House have succeeded in containing the machinery around Trump, even if the president cannot be restrained on Twitter. They will have the power of executive agencies behind them. Most of the media will have no desire to aid and abet Bannon. Posobiec may appeal to the wonders of social media and InfoWars but, as Charlottesville showed, the alt-right is discovering that it may not even have a secure position on that battleground.

Still, the campaign will be a most unwelcome flank attack as Trump finds himself surrounded on all sides: the Russia investigation, the failure to pass a single major piece of legislation since January, the questions over ethics and conflicts of interests, the looming deadline for adoption of the federal government&rsquo;s budget, and the white supremacy spectre.

Once upon a time &ndash; even last week &ndash; the mantra &ldquo;Trump still has his base&rdquo; was being invoked to minimise the threat to the president. Now even that base is fragmenting.

For the occupant of the White House, it is now Total #WAR.

&nbsp;

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow" target="blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/with-bannon-back-at-breitbart-what-will-war-mean-for-the-white-house-82787" rel="nofollow" target="blank">original article</a>.

&nbsp;

Bannon and his allies had been whipping up an electronic and social media campaign for a long time now.

Did Steve Bannon jump or was he pushed? Bannon’s opponents spoke of a firing, while his allies – and Bannon himself – said he had planned to resign for weeks. Turns out both sides were right. But that is only the start of a tale in which the final chapters are not yet written. Within hours of leaving his post, Bannon was back as executive chairman of Breitbart. Staff at the right-wing publication, including senior editor Joel Pollak, had already declared “#WAR” on the White House as soon as their boss’s departure was announced. A Bannon friend said: “Steve’s unchained. Fully unchained.” Another said: “It’s now a Democrat White House”. At a staff meeting, Bannon refined the blunt declarations. The line that Trump himself would not be attacked was repackaged as a “war for Trump”. That war would be against Trump’s enemies – but not the counter-protesters at Charlottesville or even the “fake media”. The war would be waged on those considered the president’s foes within the White House. Breitbart has already lined up its first target: national security adviser H R McMaster. The hard right had been set against McMaster since the spring, when he pushed Bannon off a key committee of the National Security Council. Then, with leverage from the appointment of Kelly as chief of staff, McMaster removed four of Bannon’s allies from the council. This tussle led Bannon’s camp to counter-attack on social media, calling for “McMasterOut”. On the Sunday immediately following Bannon’s departure from the White House, Breitbart led with an article: “HR McMaster Endorsed Book That Advocates Quran-Kissing Apology Ceremonies.” The next day the site was blaming McMaster for Trump’s response to the deaths of ten sailors aboard the USS John McCain in a collision near Singapore. According to the article, McMaster failed to brief the president properly, which is why the commander in chief initially reacted to the news by saying “that’s too bad”. Bannon and his allies had been whipping up an electronic and social media campaign against McMaster for some time. They tried to rally opposition to a review of Afghanistan policy, with Bannon pushing for a privatisation of the US intervention. The prelude to the war came after Charlottesville when Bannon supported Trump in his message that both sides were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville — thereby tacitly supporting the white supremacists, even while other advisers warned him against such statements. Kelly hit back. His allies spread stories that Trump disliked Bannon’s leaking, especially about White House in-fighting, and the books and articles portraying the chief strategist as the power in the executive. Bannon also helped design his own demise – unwittingly or deliberately – by committing “suicide by journalist”. Piqued by a story in The American Prospect about North Korea, he called up the journalist to complain about the government’s approach – which he blamed on generals like McMaster. The enemy, he said, was China in an economic war. He also boasted about his influence, claiming he could have people fired in the government. The article was quickly presented to Trump. On Friday morning, in a staff meeting, the president said his right-hand ideologue would be leaving that day. The beginning of the end The Bannon-Breitbart campaign to vanquish McMaster, and then maybe National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, and then maybe Kelly, and then maybe even Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump will get the publicity accorded to a dramatic story. Framed as a valiant fight against the “deep state”, it will have its vocal partners. We’ll hear from alt-right polemicist Mike Cernovich, who accused McMaster of manipulating intelligence reports to Trump. We’ll also get insight from “Pizzagate” agitator Jack Posobiec, InfoWars conspiracy theorist Alex Jones (“McMaster’s sold out”), and even ex-KKK grand wizard David Duke. It is unlikely to succeed. The retired generals in the White House have succeeded in containing the machinery around Trump, even if the president cannot be restrained on Twitter. They will have the power of executive agencies behind them. Most of the media will have no desire to aid and abet Bannon. Posobiec may appeal to the wonders of social media and InfoWars but, as Charlottesville showed, the alt-right is discovering that it may not even have a secure position on that battleground. Still, the campaign will be a most unwelcome flank attack as Trump finds himself surrounded on all sides: the Russia investigation, the failure to pass a single major piece of legislation since January, the questions over ethics and conflicts of interests, the looming deadline for adoption of the federal government’s budget, and the white supremacy spectre. Once upon a time – even last week – the mantra “Trump still has his base” was being invoked to minimise the threat to the president. Now even that base is fragmenting. For the occupant of the White House, it is now Total #WAR. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Opinion:  For Trump, it is now Total #WAR from Bannon

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has imposed ten rounds of punitive sanctions on North Korea. The United States has imposed additional sanctions. In the normal course, these should have brought Pyongyang to its knees. Practically all its avenues of earning foreign exchange have been choked. Its main export items (seafood, minerals, coal, iron ore, textiles etc) have been blocked. Since last year, restrictions have been imposed and progressively tightened on its imports of oil and petroleum products, which are critical to the regime&rsquo;s survival. Yet, North Korea is undaunted.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It has simply shrugged off the sanctions. Reportedly even gasoline is not in short supply in the country. Its GDP is growing at 3.5 to 4 per cent annually. From all indications, life continues to be normal for the ordinary citizen. How has Pyongyang managed to do so?

&nbsp;

North Korea conducted its sixth and to date the most powerful nuclear test on 3rd September 2017. On 29th November it tested Hwasong-15 ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) which on a standard trajectory could have travelled some 13,000 kms, reaching any part of the continental United States. It carried a (dummy?) warhead. It is merely a matter of time before it perfects the re-entry technology. The speed at which North Korea is mastering the sophisticated ballistic missile technology has taken even the experts by surprise.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Now the question is, who has been enabling this pariah state to pose the biggest threat to the peace and security architecture in East Asia and beyond?

&nbsp;

The simple truth is that it is none other than North Korea&rsquo;s patron and neighbour with which it shares a 1420 kms border along the Yalu and Tumen rivers. It is a &lsquo;responsible major country&rsquo; (as described by its President) which is a permanent member of the UNSC and poised to become the biggest economy in the world within twenty years. It is the country which has two allies &ndash; Pakistan and North Korea &ndash; both rogue nations. The country in question is -&nbsp; China.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Beijing has perfected the art of voting for sanctions in New York and then finding imaginative ways of neutralising or blunting them, on the ground. Be it the import of coal or export of petroleum products, Beijing has been merrily circumventing sanctions. In recent days, several reports have emerged of Chinese and Russian ships transferring oil to North Korean vessels in international waters.

It is, however, also a fact that Beijing too is getting increasingly concerned by the turn of events. Given its self-image and posturing as a responsible player in the global arena, it is queasy to be seen as the principal protector of a rogue regime. It is also true that Pyongyang no longer does Beijing&rsquo;s bidding unquestionably.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The verbal slugfest between Washington and Pyongyang, that is getting sharper by the day, is anything but good news for China. The possibility of conflict in the Korean Peninsula is growing by the day. Pyongyang which sees WMD (weapons of mass destruction) as an insurance for regime survival, is determined not to roll back its nuclear or missile development programme. On the other hand, a nuclearised North Korea has far-reaching negative implications for the strategic balance in East Asia.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Thus, in some ways, Beijing is caught in a cleft-stick, of its own making. Yet it is not willing to let the Kim regime crumble, purportedly to avert instability. The real reason is that China cannot countenance a pro-west regime along its north-eastern border.&nbsp;

Will China succeed in its game of shadow-boxing? There are no easy answers. In some ways, the world is confronted with a stalemate.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The Kim regime will not give up its WMD programme without a fight. For over two decades, it has been successful in stringing its interlocutors along by going through the motions of a negotiated settlement, while stealthily advancing its nuclear ambitions. Conflict is not a realistic option, given the huge human and material cost it will entail, especially for South Korea. Sanctions are not having the desired impact. North Korea seeks unconditional direct talks with the USA. Secretary Tillerson has alluded to such a possibility only to be undermined by President Trump. The biggest fear at the moment is of a miscalculation by either side, setting in motion a chain of events which would be difficult to predict or calibrate.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

China has been enabling North Korea, the pariah state to pose the biggest threat to the peace and security architecture in East Asia and beyond

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has imposed ten rounds of punitive sanctions on North Korea. The United States has imposed additional sanctions. In the normal course, these should have brought Pyongyang to its knees. Practically all its avenues of earning foreign exchange have been choked. Its main export items (seafood, minerals, coal, iron ore, textiles etc) have been blocked. Since last year, restrictions have been imposed and progressively tightened on its imports of oil and petroleum products, which are critical to the regime’s survival. Yet, North Korea is undaunted. It has simply shrugged off the sanctions. Reportedly even gasoline is not in short supply in the country. Its GDP is growing at 3.5 to 4 per cent annually. From all indications, life continues to be normal for the ordinary citizen. How has Pyongyang managed to do so? North Korea conducted its sixth and to date the most powerful nuclear test on 3rd September 2017. On 29th November it tested Hwasong-15 ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) which on a standard trajectory could have travelled some 13,000 kms, reaching any part of the continental United States. It carried a (dummy?) warhead. It is merely a matter of time before it perfects the re-entry technology. The speed at which North Korea is mastering the sophisticated ballistic missile technology has taken even the experts by surprise. Now the question is, who has been enabling this pariah state to pose the biggest threat to the peace and security architecture in East Asia and beyond? The simple truth is that it is none other than North Korea’s patron and neighbour with which it shares a 1420 kms border along the Yalu and Tumen rivers. It is a ‘responsible major country’ (as described by its President) which is a permanent member of the UNSC and poised to become the biggest economy in the world within twenty years. It is the country which has two allies – Pakistan and North Korea – both rogue nations. The country in question is - China. Beijing has perfected the art of voting for sanctions in New York and then finding imaginative ways of neutralising or blunting them, on the ground. Be it the import of coal or export of petroleum products, Beijing has been merrily circumventing sanctions. In recent days, several reports have emerged of Chinese and Russian ships transferring oil to North Korean vessels in international waters. It is, however, also a fact that Beijing too is getting increasingly concerned by the turn of events. Given its self-image and posturing as a responsible player in the global arena, it is queasy to be seen as the principal protector of a rogue regime. It is also true that Pyongyang no longer does Beijing’s bidding unquestionably. The verbal slugfest between Washington and Pyongyang, that is getting sharper by the day, is anything but good news for China. The possibility of conflict in the Korean Peninsula is growing by the day. Pyongyang which sees WMD (weapons of mass destruction) as an insurance for regime survival, is determined not to roll back its nuclear or missile development programme. On the other hand, a nuclearised North Korea has far-reaching negative implications for the strategic balance in East Asia. Thus, in some ways, Beijing is caught in a cleft-stick, of its own making. Yet it is not willing to let the Kim regime crumble, purportedly to avert instability. The real reason is that China cannot countenance a pro-west regime along its north-eastern border. Will China succeed in its game of shadow-boxing? There are no easy answers. In some ways, the world is confronted with a stalemate. The Kim regime will not give up its WMD programme without a fight. For over two decades, it has been successful in stringing its interlocutors along by going through the motions of a negotiated settlement, while stealthily advancing its nuclear ambitions. Conflict is not a realistic option, given the huge human and material cost it will entail, especially for South Korea. Sanctions are not having the desired impact. North Korea seeks unconditional direct talks with the USA. Secretary Tillerson has alluded to such a possibility only to be undermined by President Trump. The biggest fear at the moment is of a miscalculation by either side, setting in motion a chain of events which would be difficult to predict or calibrate. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: The China-North Korea unholy nexus

Around 202 BC in China, a Han dynasty general had flown kites to scare the enemy with the sound of it. In the seventeenth century in India,&nbsp; Shivaji used kites to scale the walls of an enemy fortress. In 1855, a Russian admiral Sir Arthur Cochrane used 12 feet long heavy kites to tow the torpedoes to the enemy boats. Later in the US, Russia and Europe, kites were used to lift humans, deliver messages, drop bombs and explosives over the enemy.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Since then, things have not changed much except that the kites of those times have been replaced by technically advanced drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or, we can also call them, Flying War Robots. The ultra-expensive, man-dependent, heavy military aircrafts have a cheaper, reliable and much more effective replacement available now.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Lightweight drones can now easily defy the territorial boundaries to conduct intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance missions.&nbsp; They can perform artillery observations, delivery of material and even precision attacks. Their technical advances in terms of greater autonomy, use of Artificial Intelligence and swarming capabilities make the scenario much more threatening. The global forces are operating these machines which are as small as 16gm Black Hornet Nano (a US made UAV) to a massive 40 feet Wingspan Global Hawk UAV which is even bigger than most commercial airliners.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In the last decade, we saw extensive use of drones by America for the bombing operations in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan and they proved to be damn effective. With the least possibility of being detected as they fly at very high altitudes, these steel birds can attack their target with ultra-precision and achieve desired results.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In such a scenario, the million-dollar question is: do these birds really have a strategic implication? The answer is a clear yes. They are just not an example of technical innovation, they are an offensive alternative in the form of cheap, precision-guided vehicle capable of passing any security parameter and attacking nearly any military asset. They are today&rsquo;s Kamikaze Pilots who can attack anywhere.

&nbsp;

However, there is a serious concern. Its ok for us if they are being operated by good guys, but what if they fall into hands of Bad Guys?

&nbsp;

In October 2016, coalition forces in Mosul found ISIS using drones in large number to drop grenades and explosives over Kurdish Forces as well as the coalition army. Sometimes, they were flying over a dozen missions at the same time. And the threat was so severe that the Mosul offensive was to be stalled for many days. &nbsp;

&nbsp;

Since the markets are swarmed with cheap Chinese toys, terror attacks using these small birds cannot be ruled out even in India. A lone wolf can now effectively target even civilian assets like schools, hospitals and public gatherings to cause damage and spread terror.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In Indian scenario, we have a lot to worry. Some of the vehicles openly available in the market are for as low as 8000-10,000 Rupees. It can carry loads of a few kilograms. They can pack a lethal punch in themselves with a little improvisation. Moreover, there is no foolproof detection measure and at times, they are detected once they are within few meters of the target. Terrorists can effectively target our military establishments, parked aircrafts, ammunition and fuel dumps, strategic command centres, inflicting severe damage.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Imagine a 10,000 Rupees drone destroying Rupees 12 billion aircraft with precision.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

They cause serious economic concerns too. In January 2017, the US Forces had to shoot down an ISIS drone by using their $3 Million Patriot Missile. What a joke? What if such drones swarm the sky in a large number? Will any anti-missile defence withstand this? The answer is a clear no.

&nbsp;

Several countries have started developing their own counter-measures against these machines. These range from Laser Shooting, Jamming Rifles, Electronic Counter Measures, Electro-Magnetic Pulse weapons and even live Eagles trained to take out smaller drones.&nbsp;

No matter whatsoever are the technological advances but still, we are far off from an effective countermeasure against these rogue birds, and we have no option but to find a solution at the earliest.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Imagine a 10,000 Rupees drone destroying Rupees 12 billion aircraft with precision.

Around 202 BC in China, a Han dynasty general had flown kites to scare the enemy with the sound of it. In the seventeenth century in India, Shivaji used kites to scale the walls of an enemy fortress. In 1855, a Russian admiral Sir Arthur Cochrane used 12 feet long heavy kites to tow the torpedoes to the enemy boats. Later in the US, Russia and Europe, kites were used to lift humans, deliver messages, drop bombs and explosives over the enemy. Since then, things have not changed much except that the kites of those times have been replaced by technically advanced drones or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or, we can also call them, Flying War Robots. The ultra-expensive, man-dependent, heavy military aircrafts have a cheaper, reliable and much more effective replacement available now. Lightweight drones can now easily defy the territorial boundaries to conduct intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance missions. They can perform artillery observations, delivery of material and even precision attacks. Their technical advances in terms of greater autonomy, use of Artificial Intelligence and swarming capabilities make the scenario much more threatening. The global forces are operating these machines which are as small as 16gm Black Hornet Nano (a US made UAV) to a massive 40 feet Wingspan Global Hawk UAV which is even bigger than most commercial airliners. In the last decade, we saw extensive use of drones by America for the bombing operations in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan and they proved to be damn effective. With the least possibility of being detected as they fly at very high altitudes, these steel birds can attack their target with ultra-precision and achieve desired results. In such a scenario, the million-dollar question is: do these birds really have a strategic implication? The answer is a clear yes. They are just not an example of technical innovation, they are an offensive alternative in the form of cheap, precision-guided vehicle capable of passing any security parameter and attacking nearly any military asset. They are today’s Kamikaze Pilots who can attack anywhere. However, there is a serious concern. Its ok for us if they are being operated by good guys, but what if they fall into hands of Bad Guys? In October 2016, coalition forces in Mosul found ISIS using drones in large number to drop grenades and explosives over Kurdish Forces as well as the coalition army. Sometimes, they were flying over a dozen missions at the same time. And the threat was so severe that the Mosul offensive was to be stalled for many days. Since the markets are swarmed with cheap Chinese toys, terror attacks using these small birds cannot be ruled out even in India. A lone wolf can now effectively target even civilian assets like schools, hospitals and public gatherings to cause damage and spread terror. In Indian scenario, we have a lot to worry. Some of the vehicles openly available in the market are for as low as 8000-10,000 Rupees. It can carry loads of a few kilograms. They can pack a lethal punch in themselves with a little improvisation. Moreover, there is no foolproof detection measure and at times, they are detected once they are within few meters of the target. Terrorists can effectively target our military establishments, parked aircrafts, ammunition and fuel dumps, strategic command centres, inflicting severe damage. Imagine a 10,000 Rupees drone destroying Rupees 12 billion aircraft with precision. They cause serious economic concerns too. In January 2017, the US Forces had to shoot down an ISIS drone by using their $3 Million Patriot Missile. What a joke? What if such drones swarm the sky in a large number? Will any anti-missile defence withstand this? The answer is a clear no. Several countries have started developing their own counter-measures against these machines. These range from Laser Shooting, Jamming Rifles, Electronic Counter Measures, Electro-Magnetic Pulse weapons and even live Eagles trained to take out smaller drones. No matter whatsoever are the technological advances but still, we are far off from an effective countermeasure against these rogue birds, and we have no option but to find a solution at the earliest. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: How dangerous are drones in terrorist hands

Not many relationships in international politics make headlines like China-India relations often do. The chronicle of the transient year 2017 suggests that China-India relations continued to struggle to thrive, even though this relationship commanded plenty of promises and pledges. Best remembered as the &ldquo;year of Doklam&rdquo;, 2017 witnessed Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping pledging a &ldquo;forward-looking constructive&rdquo; bilateral relationship.

&nbsp;

During the September Xiamen BRICS summit, both the leaders tried to overcome the setback that the relationship has faced in recent times. How will this envisioned &ldquo;constructive&rdquo; China-India relationship that aims to have a &ldquo;forward-looking&rdquo; spirit unfold in 2018?&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Fundamentally speaking, a &ldquo;forward-looking constructive&rdquo; relationship would imply that the two countries manage to handle their differences, including the age-old boundary dispute while fostering an engaging economic partnership that will enhance their bilateral and global relationship.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The official media transcript after the Xiamen BRICS summit stated that the established intergovernmental mechanisms between China and India are supposed to play a stronger role to this effect. Their common pledge to scrutinise neoliberal ideas, uphold the structure of a multipolar world order, and reform the global order in favour of the developing world are all indicators of a constructive forward-looking relationship.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The pledge to have a &ldquo;forward-looking&rdquo; and &ldquo;constructive&rdquo; relationship is, however, not entirely a new proposition. Both sides have used similar phrasing in the past to offer a &ldquo;political&rdquo; guidance to their relationship, which is often marred by a range of conflicts &ndash; boundary to geopolitics. Indeed, the proposition to have a &ldquo;constructive&rdquo; relationship is part and parcel of their &ldquo;developmental partnership&rdquo;, which was officially instituted during President Xi Jinping&rsquo;s visit to India in September 2014.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The core essence of this &ldquo;developmental partnership&rdquo; was to guide China-India relations through a stronger economic engagement. The economic engagement has been nurtured under a number of bilateral mechanisms, such as the Joint Economic Group (JEG), Strategic Economic Dialogue and Financial Dialogue to name just a few. These have acted as stabilisers, preventing the relationship from going on a conflict path.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Consequently, bilateral trade, seen often as a &lsquo;stable variable&rsquo; in China-India relations, witnessed a steady rise over the last one decade amidst the rising border tensions and mutual mistrust. From a meagre US$10 billion in 2004, the bilateral trade has expanded to reach around $71 billion by 2017.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

in the recent past, however, a subtle change is noticed in the pattern of relationship. Bilateral trade and institutional dialogue have become extraneous to a stable bilateral relationship.&nbsp; In fact, bilateral trade has been constant around $70 billion for last few years without showing much improvement. The trade imbalance between the two sides is expanding, much to China&rsquo;s favour, creating an increasing discord among the Indian business community.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Additionally, the institutional mechanisms look obsolete to address the rising differences between the two countries. Even frequent leadership meetings have offered little to push ahead their envisioned &ldquo;developmental partnership&rdquo;. For example, before their meeting at the Xiamen BRICS summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping met during the SCO summit in Astana and the G-20 summit in Hamburg in 2017. These meetings, however, could not generate necessary maturity on both sides so as not to engage in an episode like the Doklam stand-off.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Besides, India&rsquo;s decision not to participate in China&rsquo;s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) meeting held in Beijing in May 2017 spiralled their geopolitical differences into the international limelight. The two and a half months&rsquo; long Doklam stand-off damaged further the residual goodwill that their relationship had accomplished over the years, making 2017 the defining year for China-India relations.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

This changing treatise in China-India relations sufficiently indicates that the relationship would be thorny in 2018 and ahead. The official longing might be to carve out an &ldquo;upward trajectory&rdquo; in China-India relations, but fostering such a relationship in the current practical circumstances would be difficult to foresee. Three specific developments explain why China-India relations might continue to struggle to thrive even though there might be a temporary improvement in their overall relationship.

&nbsp;

First, foreign policy passages in both China and India are witnessing constant changes which might point to a more &ldquo;state-centric&rdquo; non-accommodative approach towards each other. After the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), China aims to push ahead it&rsquo;s national security ambitions, in terms of exploiting resource opportunities, expand the country&rsquo;s power base, and exhibit China&rsquo;s leadership both in Asia and beyond.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Xi Jinping sees the next few years as a &ldquo;period of strategic opportunities&rdquo; for China and India as a &lsquo;limited Asian power&rsquo; only.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

On the other hand, New Delhi&rsquo;s foreign policy, under an &ldquo;India first&rdquo; approach,&nbsp; seeks to engage more with big powers while having a focus on Asia and Asian neighbours. Currently, India&rsquo;s prime targets are resource exploration and increasing India&rsquo;s outreach in Asia. This would bring the Chinese and Indian foreign policy into a point of contestation than engagement.

&nbsp;

Second, even though the scope and potential of greater China-India economic engagement are bigger today, still the differing approaches in the promotion of a &ldquo;developmental partnership&rdquo; would be the main barrier between them. China wants to pursue a more purposeful international economic engagement which will facilitate Chinese economic growth. The induction of the BRI into the revised CPC Constitution at the 19th National Congress points to that. This might create friction in the Sino-Indian relations since India is yet to endorse China&rsquo;s BRI.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The usual China-India &ldquo;sister-city&rdquo; and &ldquo;sister-province&rdquo; level engagements have been one of the most promising aspects of their bilateral relationship over the last one decade. But from Beijing&rsquo;s perspective, the &ldquo;sister-city&rdquo; and &ldquo;sister-province&rdquo; level engagements are today seen as an integral part of China&rsquo;s BRI scheme, which India may see as antithetical to its national interest. Besides, it is not clear how China would like to address India&rsquo;s economic concerns on the rising trade imbalance and would situate it in the overall relationship framework.

&nbsp;

Third, China-India differences in the Asia-Pacific region is another new complicated chapter that would not be supportive of their bilateral relations. Beijing seems to be keen on following an intensive maritime strategy not only to protect its interests but also to expedite overseas maritime presence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Many democratic countries, including the United States, Japan and India are not in favour of China&#39;s expansion in the IOR.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Beijing under Xi Jinping is emerging fast as a &ldquo;trading nation&rdquo; and the new focus is to expedite its maritime trading routes in the IOR. That would bring Indian maritime interests into contestation. India&rsquo;s S-A-G-A-R (Security and Growth for All Region) initiative under Prime Minister Narendra Modi equally emphasises on the maritime economy and marine resources which would emerge as a matter of contest between the Chinese and Indian interests in the IOR.

&nbsp;

China aims to configure a bipolar world, sharing the &quot;major&quot; power platform with the United States. China wants to shun the existing &ldquo;status quo&rdquo;&nbsp; and emerge as a &ldquo;revisionist&rdquo; power. This would significantly influence China-India relations.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

&nbsp;Contrasting bilateral perspectives come as a major impediment to a working relationship between India and China today. Just like 2017, the year 2018, therefore, might equally witness conflicting trends between India and China, overriding their cooperative trends.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

China wants to shun the existing ?status quo? and emerge as a ?revisionist? power which would significantly influence China-India relations.

Not many relationships in international politics make headlines like China-India relations often do. The chronicle of the transient year 2017 suggests that China-India relations continued to struggle to thrive, even though this relationship commanded plenty of promises and pledges. Best remembered as the “year of Doklam”, 2017 witnessed Narendra Modi and Xi Jinping pledging a “forward-looking constructive” bilateral relationship. During the September Xiamen BRICS summit, both the leaders tried to overcome the setback that the relationship has faced in recent times. How will this envisioned “constructive” China-India relationship that aims to have a “forward-looking” spirit unfold in 2018? Fundamentally speaking, a “forward-looking constructive” relationship would imply that the two countries manage to handle their differences, including the age-old boundary dispute while fostering an engaging economic partnership that will enhance their bilateral and global relationship. The official media transcript after the Xiamen BRICS summit stated that the established intergovernmental mechanisms between China and India are supposed to play a stronger role to this effect. Their common pledge to scrutinise neoliberal ideas, uphold the structure of a multipolar world order, and reform the global order in favour of the developing world are all indicators of a constructive forward-looking relationship. The pledge to have a “forward-looking” and “constructive” relationship is, however, not entirely a new proposition. Both sides have used similar phrasing in the past to offer a “political” guidance to their relationship, which is often marred by a range of conflicts – boundary to geopolitics. Indeed, the proposition to have a “constructive” relationship is part and parcel of their “developmental partnership”, which was officially instituted during President Xi Jinping’s visit to India in September 2014. The core essence of this “developmental partnership” was to guide China-India relations through a stronger economic engagement. The economic engagement has been nurtured under a number of bilateral mechanisms, such as the Joint Economic Group (JEG), Strategic Economic Dialogue and Financial Dialogue to name just a few. These have acted as stabilisers, preventing the relationship from going on a conflict path. Consequently, bilateral trade, seen often as a ‘stable variable’ in China-India relations, witnessed a steady rise over the last one decade amidst the rising border tensions and mutual mistrust. From a meagre US$10 billion in 2004, the bilateral trade has expanded to reach around $71 billion by 2017. in the recent past, however, a subtle change is noticed in the pattern of relationship. Bilateral trade and institutional dialogue have become extraneous to a stable bilateral relationship. In fact, bilateral trade has been constant around $70 billion for last few years without showing much improvement. The trade imbalance between the two sides is expanding, much to China’s favour, creating an increasing discord among the Indian business community. Additionally, the institutional mechanisms look obsolete to address the rising differences between the two countries. Even frequent leadership meetings have offered little to push ahead their envisioned “developmental partnership”. For example, before their meeting at the Xiamen BRICS summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Xi Jinping met during the SCO summit in Astana and the G-20 summit in Hamburg in 2017. These meetings, however, could not generate necessary maturity on both sides so as not to engage in an episode like the Doklam stand-off. Besides, India’s decision not to participate in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) meeting held in Beijing in May 2017 spiralled their geopolitical differences into the international limelight. The two and a half months’ long Doklam stand-off damaged further the residual goodwill that their relationship had accomplished over the years, making 2017 the defining year for China-India relations. This changing treatise in China-India relations sufficiently indicates that the relationship would be thorny in 2018 and ahead. The official longing might be to carve out an “upward trajectory” in China-India relations, but fostering such a relationship in the current practical circumstances would be difficult to foresee. Three specific developments explain why China-India relations might continue to struggle to thrive even though there might be a temporary improvement in their overall relationship. First, foreign policy passages in both China and India are witnessing constant changes which might point to a more “state-centric” non-accommodative approach towards each other. After the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), China aims to push ahead it’s national security ambitions, in terms of exploiting resource opportunities, expand the country’s power base, and exhibit China’s leadership both in Asia and beyond. Xi Jinping sees the next few years as a “period of strategic opportunities” for China and India as a ‘limited Asian power’ only. On the other hand, New Delhi’s foreign policy, under an “India first” approach, seeks to engage more with big powers while having a focus on Asia and Asian neighbours. Currently, India’s prime targets are resource exploration and increasing India’s outreach in Asia. This would bring the Chinese and Indian foreign policy into a point of contestation than engagement. Second, even though the scope and potential of greater China-India economic engagement are bigger today, still the differing approaches in the promotion of a “developmental partnership” would be the main barrier between them. China wants to pursue a more purposeful international economic engagement which will facilitate Chinese economic growth. The induction of the BRI into the revised CPC Constitution at the 19th National Congress points to that. This might create friction in the Sino-Indian relations since India is yet to endorse China’s BRI. The usual China-India “sister-city” and “sister-province” level engagements have been one of the most promising aspects of their bilateral relationship over the last one decade. But from Beijing’s perspective, the “sister-city” and “sister-province” level engagements are today seen as an integral part of China’s BRI scheme, which India may see as antithetical to its national interest. Besides, it is not clear how China would like to address India’s economic concerns on the rising trade imbalance and would situate it in the overall relationship framework. Third, China-India differences in the Asia-Pacific region is another new complicated chapter that would not be supportive of their bilateral relations. Beijing seems to be keen on following an intensive maritime strategy not only to protect its interests but also to expedite overseas maritime presence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Many democratic countries, including the United States, Japan and India are not in favour of China's expansion in the IOR. Beijing under Xi Jinping is emerging fast as a “trading nation” and the new focus is to expedite its maritime trading routes in the IOR. That would bring Indian maritime interests into contestation. India’s S-A-G-A-R (Security and Growth for All Region) initiative under Prime Minister Narendra Modi equally emphasises on the maritime economy and marine resources which would emerge as a matter of contest between the Chinese and Indian interests in the IOR. China aims to configure a bipolar world, sharing the "major" power platform with the United States. China wants to shun the existing “status quo” and emerge as a “revisionist” power. This would significantly influence China-India relations. Contrasting bilateral perspectives come as a major impediment to a working relationship between India and China today. Just like 2017, the year 2018, therefore, might equally witness conflicting trends between India and China, overriding their cooperative trends. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL).

Opinion: 'Year of Doklam' points to a conflicting China-India relation in 2018

U.S. job growth likely increased at a strong clip in November and wages rebounded as the distortions from the recent hurricanes faded, creating a portrait of a healthy economy that analysts say does not require the kind of fiscal stimulus that President Donald Trump is proposing.

According to a Reuters survey of economists, the Labor Department&#39;s closely watched employment report on Friday will likely show that nonfarm payrolls rose by 200,000 jobs last month after surging 261,000 in October.&nbsp;Employment gains in October were boosted by the return to work of thousands of employees who had been temporarily dislocated by Hurricanes - Harvey and Irma. November&#39;s report will be the first clean reading since the storms, which also impacted September&#39;s employment data.&nbsp;

The unemployment rate is forecast to be unchanged at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent. Average hourly earnings are expected to have risen 0.3 percent in November after being flat the prior month. That would lift the annual increase in wages to 2.7 percent from 2.4 percent in October.&nbsp;Readings in line with expectations would underscore the economy&#39;s strength and fuel criticism of efforts by Trump and his fellow Republicans in the U.S. Congress to cut the corporate income tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent.

&quot;The labor market is in great shape. Tax cuts should be used when the economy needs tax cuts and it doesn&#39;t need tax cuts right now&quot;, said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pennsylvania. He added, &quot;When politics and economics are mixed in the stew, the policies that are created often have an awful smell&quot;.

Republicans argue that the proposed tax cut package will boost the economy and allow companies to hire more workers. But with the labor market near full employment and companies reporting difficulties finding qualified workers, economists disagree. Job openings are near a record high.&nbsp;

&quot;Companies want workers and do not need tax cuts to give them the financial wherewithal to hire more workers&quot;, said Chris Rupkey, chief economist at MUFG in New York. He said, &quot;It&#39;s labor, that the economy is running out of&quot;.

The economy grew at a 3.3 percent annualized rate in the third quarter, the fastest in three years.

Full Employment

While November`s employment report will probably have little impact on expectations that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates at its Dec. 12-13 policy meeting, it could help shape the debate on monetary policy next year.&nbsp;The U.S. central bank has increased borrowing costs twice this year. It has forecast three rate hikes in 2018.&nbsp;

Job growth has averaged 168,000 jobs per month this year, down from the average monthly gain of 187,000 in 2016. A slowdown in job growth is normal when the labor market nears full employment.&nbsp;The economy needs to create 75,000 to 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population.

The unemployment rate has declined by seven-tenths of a percentage point this year. Economists believe that the tightening labor market will unleash a faster pace of wage growth next year.&nbsp;That, combined with the tax cuts, would help boost inflation. 
&quot;I think that in the next three to six months we will see a broader uptick in wage pressures. Given where we are in the economic cycle, if you throw some gasoline in the fire with fiscal stimulus, that will ultimately spark some higher inflation&quot;, said David Donabedian, chief investment officer of CIBC Atlantic Trust in Baltimore.&nbsp; 
 
Employment gains were likely broad in November. Construction payrolls are expected to show strong growth, thanks in part to rebuilding efforts in the areas devastated by the hurricanes.&nbsp;Another month of steady increases is expected in manufacturing employment while hiring for the holiday season likely boosted retail payrolls.

Retailers, including Macy&#39;s Inc, reported strong Black Friday sales.&nbsp;Macy&#39;s said that this month it would hire an additional 7,000 temporary workers for its stores to deal with heavy customer traffic in the run-up to Christmas.

A growth in United States' job sector is anticipated with hourly earnings going up. The unemployment rate is forecast to remain unchanged

U.S. job growth likely increased at a strong clip in November and wages rebounded as the distortions from the recent hurricanes faded, creating a portrait of a healthy economy that analysts say does not require the kind of fiscal stimulus that President Donald Trump is proposing. According to a Reuters survey of economists, the Labor Department's closely watched employment report on Friday will likely show that nonfarm payrolls rose by 200,000 jobs last month after surging 261,000 in October. Employment gains in October were boosted by the return to work of thousands of employees who had been temporarily dislocated by Hurricanes - Harvey and Irma. November's report will be the first clean reading since the storms, which also impacted September's employment data. The unemployment rate is forecast to be unchanged at a 17-year low of 4.1 percent. Average hourly earnings are expected to have risen 0.3 percent in November after being flat the prior month. That would lift the annual increase in wages to 2.7 percent from 2.4 percent in October. Readings in line with expectations would underscore the economy's strength and fuel criticism of efforts by Trump and his fellow Republicans in the U.S. Congress to cut the corporate income tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent. "The labor market is in great shape. Tax cuts should be used when the economy needs tax cuts and it doesn't need tax cuts right now", said Joel Naroff, chief economist at Naroff Economic Advisors in Holland, Pennsylvania. He added, "When politics and economics are mixed in the stew, the policies that are created often have an awful smell". Republicans argue that the proposed tax cut package will boost the economy and allow companies to hire more workers. But with the labor market near full employment and companies reporting difficulties finding qualified workers, economists disagree. Job openings are near a record high. "Companies want workers and do not need tax cuts to give them the financial wherewithal to hire more workers", said Chris Rupkey, chief economist at MUFG in New York. He said, "It's labor, that the economy is running out of". The economy grew at a 3.3 percent annualized rate in the third quarter, the fastest in three years. Full Employment While November`s employment report will probably have little impact on expectations that the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates at its Dec. 12-13 policy meeting, it could help shape the debate on monetary policy next year. The U.S. central bank has increased borrowing costs twice this year. It has forecast three rate hikes in 2018. Job growth has averaged 168,000 jobs per month this year, down from the average monthly gain of 187,000 in 2016. A slowdown in job growth is normal when the labor market nears full employment. The economy needs to create 75,000 to 100,000 jobs per month to keep up with growth in the working-age population. The unemployment rate has declined by seven-tenths of a percentage point this year. Economists believe that the tightening labor market will unleash a faster pace of wage growth next year. That, combined with the tax cuts, would help boost inflation. "I think that in the next three to six months we will see a broader uptick in wage pressures. Given where we are in the economic cycle, if you throw some gasoline in the fire with fiscal stimulus, that will ultimately spark some higher inflation", said David Donabedian, chief investment officer of CIBC Atlantic Trust in Baltimore. Employment gains were likely broad in November. Construction payrolls are expected to show strong growth, thanks in part to rebuilding efforts in the areas devastated by the hurricanes. Another month of steady increases is expected in manufacturing employment while hiring for the holiday season likely boosted retail payrolls. Retailers, including Macy's Inc, reported strong Black Friday sales. Macy's said that this month it would hire an additional 7,000 temporary workers for its stores to deal with heavy customer traffic in the run-up to Christmas.

Strong November US job gains anticipated; wages seen rising

With every new North Korean missile &ndash; such as the one launched on Tuesday, November 28 &ndash; or nuclear test, all eyes are on China. Like previous American presidents, Donald Trump believes that the road to a diplomatic solution on North Korea runs through Beijing. He holds the view that, of any country, China has the most leverage over North Korea and therefore could &ldquo;quickly and easily&rdquo; solve the problem with the Kim Jung-un regime &ndash; but is just not willing to do so.

For Washington, North Korea has become a top national security priority, in particular, because of Pyongyang&rsquo;s unexpectedly fast progress in developing intercontinental nuclear capabilities that may be able to reach the US mainland. Since assuming office, Trump has made North Korea the main focus of US-China relations. His main strategy has been to use trade issues as a bargaining chip to pressure China on North Korea, convinced that exerting enough economic pressure on Beijing will eventually force China to do what he wants.

Not budging

While recent measures &ndash; such as closing joint ventures with North Korean entities in China &ndash; have been viewed as signs of Beijing getting tougher on North Korea, the actions of the Chinese government are unlikely to be overly tough in the future. If it really wanted to take North Korea to task, China has a number of important economic levers at its disposal that it could use. The most effective measure against Kim Jong-un&rsquo;s regime would be for Beijing to completely stop its crude oil supply to its neighbour and thus cut off North Korea&rsquo;s main lifeline. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, China is the largest oil supplier to Pyongyang and accounts for about 90% of North Korea&rsquo;s total trade.

This is why most experts outside of China believe that Beijing is the key to solving the North Korean problem. But why are the Chinese so reluctant to do more despite the increasingly troubling behaviour of their neighbour?

China keeps Pyongyang economically viable because it fears the possible implications for China of the collapse of Kim Jong-un&rsquo;s regime. For a start, it would bring chaos and refugees to China&rsquo;s border. It would also induce an important foreign policy shift for Beijing in north-east Asia. And such interests are all related to one main actor: the United States.

Clash with US interests

Washington&rsquo;s aspirations for the endgame in North Korea are clearly in stark contrast to China&rsquo;s own long-term national interests. Beijing would certainly want to avoid a reunification of two Koreas under the banner of a democratic pro-American Republic of Korea &ndash; especially if this meant the presence of around 28,000 US troops next to its borders.

However, regardless of whether the US military moves north of the 38th parallel, in China&rsquo;s assessment, the US influence and its alliances on the whole Korean peninsula would likely remain. This would not only negatively affect China&rsquo;s security environment but also ultimately have a considerable impact on the balance of power in north-east Asia to Beijing&rsquo;s disadvantage.

In general, Chinese policy-makers view North Korea primarily through the prism of its greater rivalry with the US in Asia. Historically, Pyongyang has been regarded as an important strategic buffer zone against American influence. The very fact that the Chinese government continues to support the Kim regime suggests that this strategic thinking continues to play a substantive role in the calculus of China&rsquo;s foreign policy-making.

North Korea has also become an asset as a bargaining leverage vis-&agrave;-vis the US with respect to other conflicts between Washington and Beijing: for instance the maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas as well as the question of Taiwan&rsquo;s status.

The shift of US foreign policy towards the Asia-pacific region initiated by the Obama administration appears to have increased the value of North Korea for China. As part of its rebalancing strategy, the US has strengthened its relations and military cooperations with regional allies and partners, as well as expanding its institutional involvement in the region.

Washington&rsquo;s strategy in Asia has mainly focused on military issues. Most of China&rsquo;s foreign policy thinkers believe that the US wants to contain China&rsquo;s rise and influence while trying to preserve US dominance in the region. The fear of a strategic encirclement by a chain of US and allied air and military bases has grown in recent years. Moreover, China worries about being surrounded by a gradually expanding US missile defence system in Asia.

Fear of US surveillance&nbsp;

Beijing views the recent instalment of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) in South Korea (which Washington bills as a protection against the missile threat from North Korea) primarily as part of a US-led regional missile defence network serving the larger purpose of weakening China&rsquo;s nuclear deterrence capability. Chinese military and security experts believe that the X-band radar system which comes with the THAAD missile defence battery enables the US to conduct surveillance deep into the Chinese and Russian territory.

The Chinese are particularly concerned that the THAAD system in Seoul will be connected to the other two American X-band radars stationed in the north and the south of Japan &ndash; expanding further data exchange and strengthening the US missile defence system in China&rsquo;s close neighbourhood.

<div class="ui-state-default"><img alt="" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/file-20171129-28917-oeyxue-20171205072955.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
The mobile Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defence system at a golf course in Seongju, South Korea. (Others)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)">&times;</a></div>

This would also be likely to foster a trilateral US-South Korea-Japan military alliance countering China. China also worries that the deployment of THAAD in Seoul might trigger other countries such as Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines to follow suit. Chinese analysts argue that the US is using the North Korea crisis as a pretext to expand its military capabilities in the region.

Whether the crisis amplifies or declines, Washington&rsquo;s interests are at stake in the region &ndash; so, for Beijing, the greatest threat to its national security is not the Kim regime but the US.

So far, US officials have failed to provide China with any good reasons why it should abandon its strategic leverage on North Korea and risk chaos on its doorstep.

This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" rel="nofollow">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/for-beijing-the-greatest-threat-to-chinas-national-security-is-not-the-kim-regime-it-is-the-us-88271" rel="nofollow">original article</a>.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Image credit: EPA

China is reluctant to be more active in dealing with Pyongyang for fear of consolidating the US take over in the region

With every new North Korean missile – such as the one launched on Tuesday, November 28 – or nuclear test, all eyes are on China. Like previous American presidents, Donald Trump believes that the road to a diplomatic solution on North Korea runs through Beijing. He holds the view that, of any country, China has the most leverage over North Korea and therefore could “quickly and easily” solve the problem with the Kim Jung-un regime – but is just not willing to do so. For Washington, North Korea has become a top national security priority, in particular, because of Pyongyang’s unexpectedly fast progress in developing intercontinental nuclear capabilities that may be able to reach the US mainland. Since assuming office, Trump has made North Korea the main focus of US-China relations. His main strategy has been to use trade issues as a bargaining chip to pressure China on North Korea, convinced that exerting enough economic pressure on Beijing will eventually force China to do what he wants. Not budging While recent measures – such as closing joint ventures with North Korean entities in China – have been viewed as signs of Beijing getting tougher on North Korea, the actions of the Chinese government are unlikely to be overly tough in the future. If it really wanted to take North Korea to task, China has a number of important economic levers at its disposal that it could use. The most effective measure against Kim Jong-un’s regime would be for Beijing to completely stop its crude oil supply to its neighbour and thus cut off North Korea’s main lifeline. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, China is the largest oil supplier to Pyongyang and accounts for about 90% of North Korea’s total trade. This is why most experts outside of China believe that Beijing is the key to solving the North Korean problem. But why are the Chinese so reluctant to do more despite the increasingly troubling behaviour of their neighbour? China keeps Pyongyang economically viable because it fears the possible implications for China of the collapse of Kim Jong-un’s regime. For a start, it would bring chaos and refugees to China’s border. It would also induce an important foreign policy shift for Beijing in north-east Asia. And such interests are all related to one main actor: the United States. Clash with US interests Washington’s aspirations for the endgame in North Korea are clearly in stark contrast to China’s own long-term national interests. Beijing would certainly want to avoid a reunification of two Koreas under the banner of a democratic pro-American Republic of Korea – especially if this meant the presence of around 28,000 US troops next to its borders. However, regardless of whether the US military moves north of the 38th parallel, in China’s assessment, the US influence and its alliances on the whole Korean peninsula would likely remain. This would not only negatively affect China’s security environment but also ultimately have a considerable impact on the balance of power in north-east Asia to Beijing’s disadvantage. In general, Chinese policy-makers view North Korea primarily through the prism of its greater rivalry with the US in Asia. Historically, Pyongyang has been regarded as an important strategic buffer zone against American influence. The very fact that the Chinese government continues to support the Kim regime suggests that this strategic thinking continues to play a substantive role in the calculus of China’s foreign policy-making. North Korea has also become an asset as a bargaining leverage vis-à-vis the US with respect to other conflicts between Washington and Beijing: for instance the maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas as well as the question of Taiwan’s status. The shift of US foreign policy towards the Asia-pacific region initiated by the Obama administration appears to have increased the value of North Korea for China. As part of its rebalancing strategy, the US has strengthened its relations and military cooperations with regional allies and partners, as well as expanding its institutional involvement in the region. Washington’s strategy in Asia has mainly focused on military issues. Most of China’s foreign policy thinkers believe that the US wants to contain China’s rise and influence while trying to preserve US dominance in the region. The fear of a strategic encirclement by a chain of US and allied air and military bases has grown in recent years. Moreover, China worries about being surrounded by a gradually expanding US missile defence system in Asia. Fear of US surveillance Beijing views the recent instalment of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) in South Korea (which Washington bills as a protection against the missile threat from North Korea) primarily as part of a US-led regional missile defence network serving the larger purpose of weakening China’s nuclear deterrence capability. Chinese military and security experts believe that the X-band radar system which comes with the THAAD missile defence battery enables the US to conduct surveillance deep into the Chinese and Russian territory. The Chinese are particularly concerned that the THAAD system in Seoul will be connected to the other two American X-band radars stationed in the north and the south of Japan – expanding further data exchange and strengthening the US missile defence system in China’s close neighbourhood. The mobile Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defence system at a golf course in Seongju, South Korea. (Others) × This would also be likely to foster a trilateral US-South Korea-Japan military alliance countering China. China also worries that the deployment of THAAD in Seoul might trigger other countries such as Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines to follow suit. Chinese analysts argue that the US is using the North Korea crisis as a pretext to expand its military capabilities in the region. Whether the crisis amplifies or declines, Washington’s interests are at stake in the region – so, for Beijing, the greatest threat to its national security is not the Kim regime but the US. So far, US officials have failed to provide China with any good reasons why it should abandon its strategic leverage on North Korea and risk chaos on its doorstep. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity). Image credit: EPA

Opinion: The greatest threat to China is US, not the Kim regime

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-warns-north-korean-leadership-will-be-utterly-destroyed-in-case-of-war-25470" target="_blank">US</a><a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-warns-north-korean-leadership-will-be-utterly-destroyed-in-case-of-war-25470" target="_blank"> warns North Korean leadership will be &#39;utterly destroyed&#39; if war breaks out</a>

The United States warned the North Korean leadership that it would be &quot;utterly destroyed&quot; if war were to break out, after Pyongyang test-fired its most advanced intercontinental ballistic missile, putting the US mainland within range.&nbsp;

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/now-assams-brahmaputra-river-also-turns-black-report-25476" target="_blank">Now, Assam&#39;s Brahmaputra river also turns black: Report</a>

After reports that the colour of the water of the river Siang in Arunachal Pradesh turned black, comes a report that the water downstream of the river Brahmaputra in Assam has changed to black as well.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-attacks-british-pm-may-after-she-criticises-his-retweeting-of-anti-islam-videos-25473" target="_blank">Trump attacks British PM May after she criticises his retweeting of anti-Islam videos</a>

Donald Trump hit back publicly at British Prime Minister Theresa May after she criticised his retweeting of anti-Islam videos.&nbsp;

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/bosnian-croat-war-crimes-convict-dies-after-taking-poison-in-court-report-25472" target="_blank">Bosnian-Croat war crimes convict dies after taking &#39;poison&#39; in court: Report</a>

A Bosnian Croat wartime commander died after swallowing what he said was poison in a UN war crimes courtroom on Wednesday after losing an appeal against a 20-year prison sentence, Croatian state TV said.

 
<a href="http://www.wionews.com/football/epl-league-leaders-manchester-city-win-chasers-keep-chasing-25474" target="_blank">EPL: League leaders Manchester City win, chasers keep chasing</a>

With Manchester United having cut the gap with league leaders Manchester City to five points and Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool winning, any City stutter would have been cause for celebration. But Pep Guardiola&#39;s side thundered on with a club record 12th successive league victory.

US warns North Korean leadership will be 'utterly destroyed' if war breaks out The United States warned the North Korean leadership that it would be "utterly destroyed" if war were to break out, after Pyongyang test-fired its most advanced intercontinental ballistic missile, putting the US mainland within range. Now, Assam's Brahmaputra river also turns black: Report After reports that the colour of the water of the river Siang in Arunachal Pradesh turned black, comes a report that the water downstream of the river Brahmaputra in Assam has changed to black as well. Trump attacks British PM May after she criticises his retweeting of anti-Islam videos Donald Trump hit back publicly at British Prime Minister Theresa May after she criticised his retweeting of anti-Islam videos. Bosnian-Croat war crimes convict dies after taking 'poison' in court: Report A Bosnian Croat wartime commander died after swallowing what he said was poison in a UN war crimes courtroom on Wednesday after losing an appeal against a 20-year prison sentence, Croatian state TV said. EPL: League leaders Manchester City win, chasers keep chasing With Manchester United having cut the gap with league leaders Manchester City to five points and Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool winning, any City stutter would have been cause for celebration. But Pep Guardiola's side thundered on with a club record 12th successive league victory.

WION morning news brief, November 30, 2017

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/de-blasio-wins-new-york-city-mayoral-election-23752" target="_blank">New York&#39;s mayor</a> on Monday signed into law the repeal of a 91-year-old piece of legislation that had technically banned dancing in thousands of bars, clubs and restaurants in the city.

The city council voted overwhelmingly on October 31 to axe the law, which had come into effect in 1926 during Prohibition and which campaigners decried as racist, saying it was used initially to crack down on Harlem&#39;s jazz clubs, where blacks and whites mixed.

Campaigners say it was also used historically to target Hispanics and members of the LGBT community. In the 1990s, mayor Rudy Giuliani used the law to get tough on clubs in his fight against crime.

&quot;It&#39;s 2017 and this law just didn&#39;t make sense. Nightlife is part of the New York melting pot that brings people together,&quot; said Mayor Bill de Blasio.

&quot;We want to be a city where people can work hard, and enjoy their city&#39;s nightlife without arcane bans on dancing.&quot;

Although the law was rarely enforced in recent years, it required public spaces that sell food and drink to acquire near impossible-to-obtain permits to authorize dancing indoors or risk a fine.

Yet only around 100 of New York&#39;s more than 22,000 bars, restaurants and clubs had the elusive permit.

Brooklyn Democratic councilman Rafael Espinal led the charge to repeal the law, saying it unfairly discriminated against small businesses.

&quot;Artist, musicians, businesses owners, workers and everyday New Yorkers looking to let loose will no longer have to fear the dance police will shut down their favorite venues,&quot; he said Monday.

A search is also now on for a &quot;nightlife mayor&quot; who can liaise between city hall, residents and the city&#39;s multi-billion-dollar nightlife industry, in order to support a safe nightlife scene that supports 300,000 jobs and attracts tourists far and wide.

While venues will not need a special dancing permit, the city will still require security guards and surveillance cameras in many venues.

&nbsp;

The ban had come into effect in 1926 during Prohibition

New York's mayor on Monday signed into law the repeal of a 91-year-old piece of legislation that had technically banned dancing in thousands of bars, clubs and restaurants in the city. The city council voted overwhelmingly on October 31 to axe the law, which had come into effect in 1926 during Prohibition and which campaigners decried as racist, saying it was used initially to crack down on Harlem's jazz clubs, where blacks and whites mixed. Campaigners say it was also used historically to target Hispanics and members of the LGBT community. In the 1990s, mayor Rudy Giuliani used the law to get tough on clubs in his fight against crime. "It's 2017 and this law just didn't make sense. Nightlife is part of the New York melting pot that brings people together," said Mayor Bill de Blasio. "We want to be a city where people can work hard, and enjoy their city's nightlife without arcane bans on dancing." Although the law was rarely enforced in recent years, it required public spaces that sell food and drink to acquire near impossible-to-obtain permits to authorize dancing indoors or risk a fine. Yet only around 100 of New York's more than 22,000 bars, restaurants and clubs had the elusive permit. Brooklyn Democratic councilman Rafael Espinal led the charge to repeal the law, saying it unfairly discriminated against small businesses. "Artist, musicians, businesses owners, workers and everyday New Yorkers looking to let loose will no longer have to fear the dance police will shut down their favorite venues," he said Monday. A search is also now on for a "nightlife mayor" who can liaise between city hall, residents and the city's multi-billion-dollar nightlife industry, in order to support a safe nightlife scene that supports 300,000 jobs and attracts tourists far and wide. While venues will not need a special dancing permit, the city will still require security guards and surveillance cameras in many venues.

New York repeals 91-year-old dancing ban

The Miss Universe 2017 pageant concluded on November 26 in Las Vegas with South African beauty Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters being crowned as Miss Universe.&nbsp;

The pageant, one-of-a-kind, saw the coming together of 92 females from different countries of the world.&nbsp;

While there are several rounds of challenges, one of the highest point&nbsp;of the pageant is the breathtaking evening gowns that each of the beauties wears.&nbsp;

Here is a roundup of the Top 10 gowns that the stunning ladies donned at the pageant:&nbsp;

Venezuela&#39;s Keysi Sayago wore an elegant white column dress with an embellished silver top.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MISSUNIVERSE?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MISSUNIVERSE</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/VENEZUELA?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#VENEZUELA</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/keysisay?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@keysisay</a> Evening Gown Competition <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Preliminaries?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Preliminaries</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MissUniverse?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MissUniverse</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MissVzla?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MissVzla</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/MAdelaBelleza?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@MAdelaBelleza</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PuroFajardo?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PuroFajardo</a> let&rsquo;s keep voting, we won&rsquo;t stop!!! <a href="https://t.co/MSbQLC4C7G">pic.twitter.com/MSbQLC4C7G</a>
&mdash; Gonzalo Cebrian (@CebrianGonzalo) <a href="https://twitter.com/CebrianGonzalo/status/932951295874490368?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

USA&#39;s K&aacute;ra McCullough wore a glistening golden gown with a major slit, a keyhole bodice, and cap sleeves. It also fastened at the neck.&nbsp;

Phillippines&#39; Rachel Peters, the crowd favorite of the evening and a hot topic on Twitter, wore a metallic gown with a slit and deep V in the bodice. It also boasted cutouts.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Miss <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PHILIPPINES?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PHILIPPINES</a> during the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MissUniverse?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MissUniverse</a> Evening Gown competition! <a href="https://t.co/fKcWlhVP33">pic.twitter.com/fKcWlhVP33</a>
&mdash; Dave Soria (@davesoriax) <a href="https://twitter.com/davesoriax/status/934967861302325250?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

Canada&#39;s Lauren Howe wore a naked dress with a built-in choker and an epic, white train.

South Africa&#39;s Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters, also the winner, opted for a long-sleeved, naked dress with dramatic, crystal embellishment woven throughout.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
It&#39;s your turn, South Africa. Welcome to the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MissUniverse?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MissUniverse</a> Top 3. <a href="https://t.co/NWlN1qRtK4">pic.twitter.com/NWlN1qRtK4</a>
&mdash; Miss Universe (@MissUniverse) <a href="https://twitter.com/MissUniverse/status/934973969328889858?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

Spain&#39;s Sofia Del Prado wore a white, strapless column gown with a feather detail that spilled across the top and cascaded down the back.&nbsp;

Brazil&#39;s Monalysa Alcantara rocked a crimson dress with large, round sequins. It was modern and gorgeous.

Thailand&#39;s Maria Poonlertlarp opted for a navy blue dress with a long, cape sleeve and an open front.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
?????????? Top 3 ???<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MissUniverse?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MissUniverse</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Thailand?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Thailand</a> <a href="https://t.co/UB7wiMSDUb">pic.twitter.com/UB7wiMSDUb</a>
&mdash; I say ho, you say ya (@HoyaHarit) <a href="https://twitter.com/HoyaHarit/status/934986297063620608?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

Jamaica&#39;s Davina Bennett wore a yellow gown with epic, caped sleeves which flowed around her. The lemon shade of the fabric popped against her dark skin and beautiful, natural hair.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
BOOM! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/MissUniverse?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#MissUniverse</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Jamaica?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Jamaica</a> Davina Bennett ???? advanced to top 5. She looks stunning in evening gown. <a href="https://twitter.com/Davina_Bennett_?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@Davina_Bennett_</a> 
 
(Courtesy of FOX) <a href="https://t.co/cxBo5DRQEq">pic.twitter.com/cxBo5DRQEq</a>
&mdash; Team Jamaica (@JamaicaOlympics) <a href="https://twitter.com/JamaicaOlympics/status/934970871441215489?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 27, 2017</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">&times;</a></div>

Colombia &#39;s&nbsp;Laura Gonz&aacute;lez&nbsp;wore an off-the-shoulder, sparkly champagne gown that hugged every single curve.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Miss South Africa Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters won the Miss Universe 2017 crown

The Miss Universe 2017 pageant concluded on November 26 in Las Vegas with South African beauty Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters being crowned as Miss Universe. The pageant, one-of-a-kind, saw the coming together of 92 females from different countries of the world. While there are several rounds of challenges, one of the highest point of the pageant is the breathtaking evening gowns that each of the beauties wears. Here is a roundup of the Top 10 gowns that the stunning ladies donned at the pageant: Venezuela's Keysi Sayago wore an elegant white column dress with an embellished silver top. #MISSUNIVERSE #VENEZUELA @keysisay Evening Gown Competition #Preliminaries @MissUniverse @MissVzla @MAdelaBelleza #PuroFajardo let’s keep voting, we won’t stop!!! pic.twitter.com/MSbQLC4C7G — Gonzalo Cebrian (@CebrianGonzalo) November 21, 2017 × USA's Kára McCullough wore a glistening golden gown with a major slit, a keyhole bodice, and cap sleeves. It also fastened at the neck. Phillippines' Rachel Peters, the crowd favorite of the evening and a hot topic on Twitter, wore a metallic gown with a slit and deep V in the bodice. It also boasted cutouts. Miss #PHILIPPINES during the #MissUniverse Evening Gown competition! pic.twitter.com/fKcWlhVP33 — Dave Soria (@davesoriax) November 27, 2017 × Canada's Lauren Howe wore a naked dress with a built-in choker and an epic, white train. South Africa's Demi-Leigh Nel-Peters, also the winner, opted for a long-sleeved, naked dress with dramatic, crystal embellishment woven throughout. It's your turn, South Africa. Welcome to the #MissUniverse Top 3. pic.twitter.com/NWlN1qRtK4 — Miss Universe (@MissUniverse) November 27, 2017 × Spain's Sofia Del Prado wore a white, strapless column gown with a feather detail that spilled across the top and cascaded down the back. Brazil's Monalysa Alcantara rocked a crimson dress with large, round sequins. It was modern and gorgeous. Thailand's Maria Poonlertlarp opted for a navy blue dress with a long, cape sleeve and an open front. ?????????? Top 3 ???#MissUniverse #Thailand pic.twitter.com/UB7wiMSDUb — I say ho, you say ya (@HoyaHarit) November 27, 2017 × Jamaica's Davina Bennett wore a yellow gown with epic, caped sleeves which flowed around her. The lemon shade of the fabric popped against her dark skin and beautiful, natural hair. BOOM! #MissUniverse #Jamaica Davina Bennett ???? advanced to top 5. She looks stunning in evening gown. @Davina_Bennett_ (Courtesy of FOX) pic.twitter.com/cxBo5DRQEq — Team Jamaica (@JamaicaOlympics) November 27, 2017 × Colombia 's Laura González wore an off-the-shoulder, sparkly champagne gown that hugged every single curve.

Miss Universe 2017: Top 10 evening gowns

An unidentified actress has filed a suit against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, alleging he raped her in his room at a Beverly Hills hotel last year, entertainment publication Variety reported Tuesday.

The actress, identified in the suit only as &quot;Jane Doe,&quot; is the latest of more than 100 women who have come forward to accuse Weinstein of sexual misconduct, ranging from harassment to rape.

Variety said Weinstein&#39;s representatives denied the latest allegations, as with all the other accusations he has faced in recent weeks, saying the producer &quot;believes all of these relationships were consensual.&quot;

In the suit, filed against both Weinstein and the Weinstein Company, the woman says she met the now infamous film mogul at the Montage Hotel in Beverly Hills in late 2015 to discuss being cast in the Netflix series &quot;Marco Polo,&quot; according to Variety.

Once there, however, Weinstein told the woman he wanted to masturbate in front of her and when she said &quot;no&quot; he proceeded to grasp her wrist with one hand and masturbate with the other, the suit alleges.

In the spring of the following year, Weinstein is alleged to have contacted her again as if nothing had happened, giving her the impression she had been cast in &quot;Marco Polo.&quot;

He invited her to meet him again at the Montage Hotel to celebrate and she agreed, according to the woman&#39;s account.

During the meeting, he excused himself and returned in a bathrobe, but when she said she didn&#39;t want to do anything sexual, he dragged her into the bedroom where he used his &quot;massive strength and weight to force himself on her,&quot; the suit alleges.

The woman said she fled the room as soon as she could break free.

The actress, who is represented by attorney Gloria Allred, is seeking compensation and damages, claiming sexual battery, assault, and negligence, according to Variety.

&nbsp;

The actress is identified in the suit only as 'Jane Doe'

An unidentified actress has filed a suit against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, alleging he raped her in his room at a Beverly Hills hotel last year, entertainment publication Variety reported Tuesday. The actress, identified in the suit only as "Jane Doe," is the latest of more than 100 women who have come forward to accuse Weinstein of sexual misconduct, ranging from harassment to rape. Variety said Weinstein's representatives denied the latest allegations, as with all the other accusations he has faced in recent weeks, saying the producer "believes all of these relationships were consensual." In the suit, filed against both Weinstein and the Weinstein Company, the woman says she met the now infamous film mogul at the Montage Hotel in Beverly Hills in late 2015 to discuss being cast in the Netflix series "Marco Polo," according to Variety. Once there, however, Weinstein told the woman he wanted to masturbate in front of her and when she said "no" he proceeded to grasp her wrist with one hand and masturbate with the other, the suit alleges. In the spring of the following year, Weinstein is alleged to have contacted her again as if nothing had happened, giving her the impression she had been cast in "Marco Polo." He invited her to meet him again at the Montage Hotel to celebrate and she agreed, according to the woman's account. During the meeting, he excused himself and returned in a bathrobe, but when she said she didn't want to do anything sexual, he dragged her into the bedroom where he used his "massive strength and weight to force himself on her," the suit alleges. The woman said she fled the room as soon as she could break free. The actress, who is represented by attorney Gloria Allred, is seeking compensation and damages, claiming sexual battery, assault, and negligence, according to Variety.

Actress files suit alleging Weinstein raped her

Global warming is likely to be slightly less severe than previously expected thanks to stronger climate policies by China and India that will offset less US&nbsp;action under President Donald Trump, a study showed on Wednesday.

But average world temperatures are still on track to rise far above the key goal set in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to &quot;well below&quot; two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, it said.

The Carbon Action Tracker (CAT) report, by three independent European research groups, said current policies meant the world was headed for a warming of 3.4 degrees Celsius (6.1 Fahrenheit) by 2100, down from 3.6 degrees (6.5) it predicted a year ago.

&quot;This is the first time since the CAT began tracking action in 2009 that policies at a national level have visibly reduced its end of century temperature estimate,&quot; it said.

China was on track to over-achieve its pledge under the Paris Agreement to peak its carbon emissions by 2030, it said. And India was also making progress to limit a surge in emissions driven by more coal use.

A rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4F) in global average temperatures could cause loss of tropical coral reefs, Alpine glaciers, Arctic summer sea ice and perhaps an irreversible melt of Greenland&#39;s ice that would drive up world sea levels, a UN&nbsp;science panel says.

&quot;It is clear who the leaders are here: in the face of US&nbsp;inaction, China and India are stepping up,&quot; said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, one of the research groups.

Trump, who doubts that climate change is primarily caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, said in June that he would instead focus on promoting jobs in the US&nbsp;fossil fuel industry. 
 
Hare told Reuters that it was too early to say that global emissions were peaking.

&quot;While China India&#39;s emissions growth has slowed, they are still growing,&quot; especially in India, he said. &quot;The most fundamental step to halt the global emissions growth now is for coal plants to be phased out in many countries.&quot;

On Monday, another report said that man-made carbon dioxide emissions were on target to rise by 2 percent in 2017, dashing hopes that they had peaked. The main driver was a 3.5 percent rise by China in 2017.

&nbsp;

Global warming is likely to be slightly less severe than previously expected

Global warming is likely to be slightly less severe than previously expected thanks to stronger climate policies by China and India that will offset less US action under President Donald Trump, a study showed on Wednesday. But average world temperatures are still on track to rise far above the key goal set in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to "well below" two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, it said. The Carbon Action Tracker (CAT) report, by three independent European research groups, said current policies meant the world was headed for a warming of 3.4 degrees Celsius (6.1 Fahrenheit) by 2100, down from 3.6 degrees (6.5) it predicted a year ago. "This is the first time since the CAT began tracking action in 2009 that policies at a national level have visibly reduced its end of century temperature estimate," it said. China was on track to over-achieve its pledge under the Paris Agreement to peak its carbon emissions by 2030, it said. And India was also making progress to limit a surge in emissions driven by more coal use. A rise of 3 degrees Celsius (5.4F) in global average temperatures could cause loss of tropical coral reefs, Alpine glaciers, Arctic summer sea ice and perhaps an irreversible melt of Greenland's ice that would drive up world sea levels, a UN science panel says. "It is clear who the leaders are here: in the face of US inaction, China and India are stepping up," said Bill Hare of Climate Analytics, one of the research groups. Trump, who doubts that climate change is primarily caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, said in June that he would instead focus on promoting jobs in the US fossil fuel industry. Hare told Reuters that it was too early to say that global emissions were peaking. "While China India's emissions growth has slowed, they are still growing," especially in India, he said. "The most fundamental step to halt the global emissions growth now is for coal plants to be phased out in many countries." On Monday, another report said that man-made carbon dioxide emissions were on target to rise by 2 percent in 2017, dashing hopes that they had peaked. The main driver was a 3.5 percent rise by China in 2017.

Climate policies by India, China to offset less US action: Study

Three United States aircraft carriers are set to perform rare drills starting Saturday in the Western Pacific, in the midst of the North Korean crisis, and coinciding with the Asia tour of the American president, the US Navy said Thursday.

The nuclear powered USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz and USS Theodore Roosevelt will conduct the drills to show the US Navy&#39;s unique capability to operate multi-carrier strike groups, according to the Seventh Fleet in a statement released from its headquarters on the Japanese base of Yokosuka.

During the drill, the first of its kind in a decade, the warships will carry out air strike and defense simulations, maritime surveillance, sea supply, coordinated fenced maneuvers and other training, added the Navy.

It is the first time that three aircraft carriers are conducting drills together in the western Pacific since the Valiant Shield exercises in 2006 and 2007 off the coast of the island of Guam.

The drills, rare due to the complexity of the ships&#39; action coordination, will last until Nov. 14.

A spokesperson for the South Korean Ministry of Defense told EFE in Seoul that the three US aircraft carriers will also carry out maneuvers with the South Korean Navy, closer to North Korean territory, in the Sea of Japan &ndash; alternatively called the East Sea in the two Koreas.

The spokesperson could only specify that this second drill will be held on future dates, since most of the details of these joint exercises have not yet finalized.&nbsp;

The drills on Saturday will begin during the final leg of Trump&#39;s five-nation Asia tour amid mounting tension with North Korea in the wake of Pyongyang&#39;s nuclear and missile programs development.

The drill is seen as a show of strength in the face of the challenge posed by Pyongyang&#39;s repeated weapons tests.

These weapons tests, along with Trump&#39;s belligerent rhetoric, have escalated tensions to unprecedented levels since the end of the Korean War (1950-1953).

(All the rights of the contents (text, photo, video, multimedia products and others) included in the services supplied to the user in this test are EFE-EPA property and shall be reproduced under EFE-EPA @copyright. Contents shall be reproduced only in the terms agreed with EFE and by no mean can those be redistributed, transferred or traded. User shall be held responsible for the alteration or misuse of the contents and products included in EFE-EPA services. User is compelled to follow the national law and will be the only responsible for the use or misuse of the contents provided by EFE-EPA.)

During the drill, the first of its kind in a decade, the warships will carry out air strike and defense simulations, maritime surveillance, sea supply, coordinated fenced maneuvers and other training, added the Navy.

Three United States aircraft carriers are set to perform rare drills starting Saturday in the Western Pacific, in the midst of the North Korean crisis, and coinciding with the Asia tour of the American president, the US Navy said Thursday. The nuclear powered USS Ronald Reagan, USS Nimitz and USS Theodore Roosevelt will conduct the drills to show the US Navy's unique capability to operate multi-carrier strike groups, according to the Seventh Fleet in a statement released from its headquarters on the Japanese base of Yokosuka. During the drill, the first of its kind in a decade, the warships will carry out air strike and defense simulations, maritime surveillance, sea supply, coordinated fenced maneuvers and other training, added the Navy. It is the first time that three aircraft carriers are conducting drills together in the western Pacific since the Valiant Shield exercises in 2006 and 2007 off the coast of the island of Guam. The drills, rare due to the complexity of the ships' action coordination, will last until Nov. 14. A spokesperson for the South Korean Ministry of Defense told EFE in Seoul that the three US aircraft carriers will also carry out maneuvers with the South Korean Navy, closer to North Korean territory, in the Sea of Japan – alternatively called the East Sea in the two Koreas. The spokesperson could only specify that this second drill will be held on future dates, since most of the details of these joint exercises have not yet finalized. The drills on Saturday will begin during the final leg of Trump's five-nation Asia tour amid mounting tension with North Korea in the wake of Pyongyang's nuclear and missile programs development. The drill is seen as a show of strength in the face of the challenge posed by Pyongyang's repeated weapons tests. These weapons tests, along with Trump's belligerent rhetoric, have escalated tensions to unprecedented levels since the end of the Korean War (1950-1953). (All the rights of the contents (text, photo, video, multimedia products and others) included in the services supplied to the user in this test are EFE-EPA property and shall be reproduced under EFE-EPA @copyright. Contents shall be reproduced only in the terms agreed with EFE and by no mean can those be redistributed, transferred or traded. User shall be held responsible for the alteration or misuse of the contents and products included in EFE-EPA services. User is compelled to follow the national law and will be the only responsible for the use or misuse of the contents provided by EFE-EPA.)

Three US aircraft carriers to conduct drills in Asia amid North Korean crisis

The President of the United States on Thursday highlighted the importance of the US-China relationship in solving the world&#39;s problems.

&quot;I look forward to many years of success and friendship working together to solve not only our problems, but world problems, and problems of great danger and security,&quot; Donald Trump said between meetings with Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

&quot;I believe we can solve almost all of them, and probably all of them&quot;, he added.

The two leaders expressed their desire to strengthen bilateral cooperation on global issues such as North Korea and disputes over trade.&nbsp;

After the first round of discussions, Trump assured Xi &quot;I do believe there is a solution to (the North Korea crisis), as you do&quot;.

Xi also stressed that &quot;for China and the US, cooperation is the only viable choice&quot; and urged them to &quot;properly manage differences in the spirit of mutual respect&quot;.

Trump referred to his country&#39;s trade deficit with China, calling for a radical change to the relationship.

&quot;The Unites States really has to change its policies, because they have gotten so far behind on trade with China,&quot; he said blaming past administrations while expressing respect for Xi and China.

Trump also praised Xi and Chinese First Lady Peng Liyuan during a private visit by him and US First Lady Melania Trump Wednesday.

&quot;My feeling towards you, is an incredibly warm one, there is great chemistry. I think we are going to do tremendous thing for both China and the United States,&quot; Trump added.

Xi agreed with his US counterpart in that cooperative relations between Washington and Beijing were important for global peace, stability and prosperity.

He also highlighted the significant progress made this year in bilateral relations, and announced that both presidents had agreed on various mechanisms to further political, economic and civil society exchanges.

(All the rights of the contents (text, photo, video, multimedia products and others) included in the services supplied to the user in this test are EFE-EPA property and shall be reproduced under EFE-EPA @copyright. Contents shall be reproduced only in the terms agreed with EFE and by no mean can those be redistributed, transferred or traded. User shall be held responsible for the alteration or misuse of the contents and products included in EFE-EPA services. User is compelled to follow the national law and will be the only responsible for the use or misuse of the contents provided by EFE-EPA.)

The President of the United States on Thursday highlighted the importance of the US-China relationship in solving the world's problems.

The President of the United States on Thursday highlighted the importance of the US-China relationship in solving the world's problems. "I look forward to many years of success and friendship working together to solve not only our problems, but world problems, and problems of great danger and security," Donald Trump said between meetings with Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing. "I believe we can solve almost all of them, and probably all of them", he added. The two leaders expressed their desire to strengthen bilateral cooperation on global issues such as North Korea and disputes over trade. After the first round of discussions, Trump assured Xi "I do believe there is a solution to (the North Korea crisis), as you do". Xi also stressed that "for China and the US, cooperation is the only viable choice" and urged them to "properly manage differences in the spirit of mutual respect". Trump referred to his country's trade deficit with China, calling for a radical change to the relationship. "The Unites States really has to change its policies, because they have gotten so far behind on trade with China," he said blaming past administrations while expressing respect for Xi and China. Trump also praised Xi and Chinese First Lady Peng Liyuan during a private visit by him and US First Lady Melania Trump Wednesday. "My feeling towards you, is an incredibly warm one, there is great chemistry. I think we are going to do tremendous thing for both China and the United States," Trump added. Xi agreed with his US counterpart in that cooperative relations between Washington and Beijing were important for global peace, stability and prosperity. He also highlighted the significant progress made this year in bilateral relations, and announced that both presidents had agreed on various mechanisms to further political, economic and civil society exchanges. (All the rights of the contents (text, photo, video, multimedia products and others) included in the services supplied to the user in this test are EFE-EPA property and shall be reproduced under EFE-EPA @copyright. Contents shall be reproduced only in the terms agreed with EFE and by no mean can those be redistributed, transferred or traded. User shall be held responsible for the alteration or misuse of the contents and products included in EFE-EPA services. User is compelled to follow the national law and will be the only responsible for the use or misuse of the contents provided by EFE-EPA.)

China, USA can solve world problems together, Trump says

The United States announced on Thursday<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-officially-withdraws-from-punishing-paris-climate-pact-16340"> that it is withdrawing from the United Nations Scientific </a>and Cultural Organization UNESCO, accusing the body of &quot;anti-Israel bias.&quot;

&quot;The United States would be withdrawing from&nbsp;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/trump-believes-the-climate-is-changing-says-un-ambassador-nikki-haley-16401">UN&#39;s cultural and educational agency, effective</a> December 31,&quot; State Department said in a statement.

&quot;This decision was not taken lightly, and reflects US concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO,&quot; the State Department said.

&quot;The United States would seek to &quot;remain engaged ...as a non-member observer state in order to contribute US views, perspectives and expertise,&quot; the statement added.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Washington would establish an &quot;observer mission&quot; to replace its representation at the Paris-based agency.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
??OFFICIAL: UNESCO Director-General expresses profound regret at US decision to withdraw from UNESCO. <a href="https://t.co/KoOMd3Kl9H">https://t.co/KoOMd3Kl9H</a> <a href="https://t.co/Mj1BZXIOAF">https://t.co/Mj1BZXIOAF</a>
&mdash; UNESCO (@UNESCO) <a href="https://twitter.com/UNESCO/status/918472569329766400?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 12, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The UNESCO chief&nbsp;expressed &#39;profound regret&rsquo; over US&#39; withdrawal.

&quot;I deeply regret the decision of the United States of America to withdraw from UNESCO,&quot; Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO said.

&quot;In 2011, when payment of membership contributions was suspended at the 36th session of the UNESCO General Conference, I said I was convinced UNESCO had never mattered as much for the United States, or the United States for UNESCO,&quot; UNESCO Director-General said in a statement.

&quot;Despite the withholding of funding, since 2011, we have deepened the partnership between the United States and UNESCO, which has never been so meaningful,&quot; Bokova said.

Paris-based UNESCO, which began work in 1946, is known for designating World Heritage sites such as the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and the Grand Canyon National Park.

The United States had cancelled its substantial budget contribution to 58-member UNESCO in 2011 in protest at a decision to grant the Palestinians full membership.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Washington would establish an "observer mission" to replace its representation at the Paris-based agency.

The United States announced on Thursday that it is withdrawing from the United Nations Scientific and Cultural Organization UNESCO, accusing the body of "anti-Israel bias." "The United States would be withdrawing from UN's cultural and educational agency, effective December 31," State Department said in a statement. "This decision was not taken lightly, and reflects US concerns with mounting arrears at UNESCO, the need for fundamental reform in the organization, and continuing anti-Israel bias at UNESCO," the State Department said. "The United States would seek to "remain engaged ...as a non-member observer state in order to contribute US views, perspectives and expertise," the statement added. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Washington would establish an "observer mission" to replace its representation at the Paris-based agency. ??OFFICIAL: UNESCO Director-General expresses profound regret at US decision to withdraw from UNESCO. https://t.co/KoOMd3Kl9H https://t.co/Mj1BZXIOAF — UNESCO (@UNESCO) October 12, 2017 × The UNESCO chief expressed 'profound regret’ over US' withdrawal. "I deeply regret the decision of the United States of America to withdraw from UNESCO," Irina Bokova, Director-General of UNESCO said. "In 2011, when payment of membership contributions was suspended at the 36th session of the UNESCO General Conference, I said I was convinced UNESCO had never mattered as much for the United States, or the United States for UNESCO," UNESCO Director-General said in a statement. "Despite the withholding of funding, since 2011, we have deepened the partnership between the United States and UNESCO, which has never been so meaningful," Bokova said. Paris-based UNESCO, which began work in 1946, is known for designating World Heritage sites such as the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria and the Grand Canyon National Park. The United States had cancelled its substantial budget contribution to 58-member UNESCO in 2011 in protest at a decision to grant the Palestinians full membership.

US withdraws from UNESCO over 'anti-Israel bias'

The volatile politics of the South China Sea continue to make waves.

China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan have been fighting over this azure stretch of the Pacific for more than a century, but tensions have increased markedly in recent years as China, claiming the South China Sea as its own, has built on some 250 islands there.

Now the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI), a US think tank, has warned that China was building new military facilities on the disputed Spratly archipelago, off the coast of Phillipines, Malaysia and Vietnam.

On June 29 the organisation reported on its website that new satellite images show that missile shelters, communications facilities and other infrastructure are &ldquo;near completion&rdquo;, including those on Mischief Reef, which has been a symbol of China&rsquo;s assertiveness in the South China Sea since the country occupied it in 1995.

Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, along with an arbitration tribunal, were already challenging China&rsquo;s presence in the South China Sea.

The AMTI report could increase tensions with the United States, which insists that this trade route remain under international control.

Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping were supposed to discuss the situation during their first meeting at Mar-a-Lago on April 5 2017. But the launch of 59 Tomahawks in Syria and growing tensions on the Korean peninsula completely overshadowed the maritime issue.

Freedom of navigation

On May 24, the US triggered a confrontation cycle in the South China Sea by sending the guided-missile destroyer USS Dewey to pass through the contested waters, sailing close to Mischief Reef.

It was the first military maritime exercise in eight months and the first of Trump&rsquo;s presidency.

American patrols in the South China Sea had been a regular practice under the Obama administration since 2015.

The South China Sea Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) is a US military program, open to regional allies (including Australia, Japan and the Philippines), in which the US leads maritime exercises in the area.

FONOPS is aimed at reiterating the inalienable principle of freedom of navigation in international waters laid out in the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

China disputes this application of the UN declaration and perceives FONOPS as essentially a unilateral American endeavour. The State Department asserts that the US can and will exercise its freedom of navigation on worldwide, without interference by any other country.

Warships, it has affirmed, should enjoy the same freedom as any other vessel, meaning free access to both exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and territorial seas without permission from the relevant coastal state.

China, which has also been in bilateral talks on the South China Sea with the Phillipines since early this year, has a different interpretation. For Beijing, military vessels cannot enter a coastal state&rsquo;s territorial seas without official permission.

It also claims that military ships in EEZ territorial waters are unlawful and suspicious, and only non-military vessels enjoy the right to passage.

The clash of unilaterality is clear here. For the US, ensuring the freedom of navigation throughout Asia-Pacific region is a national prerogative and a matter of vital importance.

As such, China &ndash; specifically, its military activities on some of the disputed South China Sea islands &ndash; is clearly its main obstacle. A confrontation appears unavoidable, but thus far interactions have cleverly been kept on a safe track because no US allies in Asia have joined the FONOPS exercises.

The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative&rsquo;s assertion that &ldquo;Beijing can now deploy military assets, including combat aircraft and mobile missile launchers, to the Spratly Islands at any time&rdquo; may unsettle that balance.

Trump&rsquo;s interest in the South China Sea

FONOPS, too, is often seen as a challenge to China&rsquo;s claims in the South China Sea.

In fact, the freedom of navigation-focused operations are not explicitly aimed at questioning Chinese sovereignty in the South China Sea. But the US has a clear interest in preserving its role as a regional hegemon, and FONOPS could be seen as a provocation of Beijing and its divergent maritime stance.

During his first months in office, President Trump was accused of neglecting the South China Sea dispute and undervaluing the maritime routes encompassed in the Chinese Nine-Dash line. As the New York Times has reported, the Pentagon has on two occasions turned down requests by the US Pacific Command to conduct operations in the disputed waters, in February and April.

This has worried some US allies in the region, and may have encouraged others to start developing a more independent foreign policy.

Trump&rsquo;s cabinet has given every sign that it will continue the South China Sea policy developed under the Obama administration. On February 4 2017, Secretary of State James Mattis reiterated the importance of the South China Sea on the American agenda. Several months later, Admiral Harry Harris assured that the FONOPS in the South China Sea were planned as usual.

Timing has thus far been key in the waltz between Washington and Beijing. The US needs China&rsquo;s support in facing a growing number of global challenges, from terrorism to North Korea.

And with Trump already pushing China on trade, evidently his weapon of choice for addressing the nations&rsquo; multifaceted bilateral relationship, the administration may have thought it strategic to avoiding outright pressure on Beijing regarding the South China Sea.

FONOPS is part of this geopolitical balancing act. Relaunching operations in the region in May allowed the US to reassure Asian allies about its continued presence and gave China the chance to criticise the US for jeopardising regional peace, thus bringing that FONOPS cycle to a close.

Now, with the new US-reported satellite images of Chinese military development released, the ball is again in Washington&rsquo;s court.

The volatile politics of the South China Sea continue to make waves.

The volatile politics of the South China Sea continue to make waves. China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines and Taiwan have been fighting over this azure stretch of the Pacific for more than a century, but tensions have increased markedly in recent years as China, claiming the South China Sea as its own, has built on some 250 islands there. Now the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI), a US think tank, has warned that China was building new military facilities on the disputed Spratly archipelago, off the coast of Phillipines, Malaysia and Vietnam. On June 29 the organisation reported on its website that new satellite images show that missile shelters, communications facilities and other infrastructure are “near completion”, including those on Mischief Reef, which has been a symbol of China’s assertiveness in the South China Sea since the country occupied it in 1995. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, along with an arbitration tribunal, were already challenging China’s presence in the South China Sea. The AMTI report could increase tensions with the United States, which insists that this trade route remain under international control. Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping were supposed to discuss the situation during their first meeting at Mar-a-Lago on April 5 2017. But the launch of 59 Tomahawks in Syria and growing tensions on the Korean peninsula completely overshadowed the maritime issue. Freedom of navigation On May 24, the US triggered a confrontation cycle in the South China Sea by sending the guided-missile destroyer USS Dewey to pass through the contested waters, sailing close to Mischief Reef. It was the first military maritime exercise in eight months and the first of Trump’s presidency. American patrols in the South China Sea had been a regular practice under the Obama administration since 2015. The South China Sea Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS) is a US military program, open to regional allies (including Australia, Japan and the Philippines), in which the US leads maritime exercises in the area. FONOPS is aimed at reiterating the inalienable principle of freedom of navigation in international waters laid out in the United Nations Conventions on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). China disputes this application of the UN declaration and perceives FONOPS as essentially a unilateral American endeavour. The State Department asserts that the US can and will exercise its freedom of navigation on worldwide, without interference by any other country. Warships, it has affirmed, should enjoy the same freedom as any other vessel, meaning free access to both exclusive economic zones (EEZ) and territorial seas without permission from the relevant coastal state. China, which has also been in bilateral talks on the South China Sea with the Phillipines since early this year, has a different interpretation. For Beijing, military vessels cannot enter a coastal state’s territorial seas without official permission. It also claims that military ships in EEZ territorial waters are unlawful and suspicious, and only non-military vessels enjoy the right to passage. The clash of unilaterality is clear here. For the US, ensuring the freedom of navigation throughout Asia-Pacific region is a national prerogative and a matter of vital importance. As such, China – specifically, its military activities on some of the disputed South China Sea islands – is clearly its main obstacle. A confrontation appears unavoidable, but thus far interactions have cleverly been kept on a safe track because no US allies in Asia have joined the FONOPS exercises. The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative’s assertion that “Beijing can now deploy military assets, including combat aircraft and mobile missile launchers, to the Spratly Islands at any time” may unsettle that balance. Trump’s interest in the South China Sea FONOPS, too, is often seen as a challenge to China’s claims in the South China Sea. In fact, the freedom of navigation-focused operations are not explicitly aimed at questioning Chinese sovereignty in the South China Sea. But the US has a clear interest in preserving its role as a regional hegemon, and FONOPS could be seen as a provocation of Beijing and its divergent maritime stance. During his first months in office, President Trump was accused of neglecting the South China Sea dispute and undervaluing the maritime routes encompassed in the Chinese Nine-Dash line. As the New York Times has reported, the Pentagon has on two occasions turned down requests by the US Pacific Command to conduct operations in the disputed waters, in February and April. This has worried some US allies in the region, and may have encouraged others to start developing a more independent foreign policy. Trump’s cabinet has given every sign that it will continue the South China Sea policy developed under the Obama administration. On February 4 2017, Secretary of State James Mattis reiterated the importance of the South China Sea on the American agenda. Several months later, Admiral Harry Harris assured that the FONOPS in the South China Sea were planned as usual. Timing has thus far been key in the waltz between Washington and Beijing. The US needs China’s support in facing a growing number of global challenges, from terrorism to North Korea. And with Trump already pushing China on trade, evidently his weapon of choice for addressing the nations’ multifaceted bilateral relationship, the administration may have thought it strategic to avoiding outright pressure on Beijing regarding the South China Sea. FONOPS is part of this geopolitical balancing act. Relaunching operations in the region in May allowed the US to reassure Asian allies about its continued presence and gave China the chance to criticise the US for jeopardising regional peace, thus bringing that FONOPS cycle to a close. Now, with the new US-reported satellite images of Chinese military development released, the ball is again in Washington’s court.

From Chinese missile shelters to US warships, the South China Sea conflict is heating up

North Korea capital Pyongyang&#39;s official newspaper Rodong Sinmun called US President Donald Trump a &quot;psychopath&quot;&nbsp;in an editorial.&nbsp;

&quot;South Korea must realise that following psychopath Trump...will only lead to disaster,&quot; an editorial carried by the paper said.

The paper added that Donald Trump was in a &quot;tough situation&quot;&nbsp;back home dealing with domestic political crisis and was thus trying to divert everyone&#39;s attention by toying with the idea of a preemptive strike on North Korea.

Tensions between Washington and Pyongyang have rocketed since the death of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-student-otto-warmbier-dies-week-after-being-released-from-north-korean-jail-17029">Otto Warmbier,</a> who was released from&nbsp;North Korean detention last week. Warmbier was a 22-year-old student who had been held&nbsp;in a hard labour camp for 17 months&nbsp;for trying to steal&nbsp;a propoganda poster.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/2017-06-15t043251z_1_lynxmped5e06w_rtroptp_3_northkorea-usa-student-20170615052816-20170620100325.JPG" />
<div class="media-description">
Earlier in the day, the coroner&#39;s office said it had received Warmbier&#39;s body for an autopsy examination and was expecting to release preliminary findings later on Tuesday or on Wednesday. (Reuters)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

After Warmbier&#39;s death, President Trump called&nbsp;North Korea&nbsp;a &quot;brutal regime&quot;&nbsp;and said&nbsp;he would strive to &quot;prevent such tragedies from befalling innocent people at the hands of regimes that do not respect the rule of law or basic human decency&quot;.

South Korean President Moon Jae-In echoed these words when he said in an interview with CBS Television&#39;s show, This Morning:&nbsp;&quot;I believe we must now have the perception that North Korea is an irrational regime. North Korea bears responsibility for the student&#39;s death.&quot;

Moon is scheduled to visit the White House next week. A centre-left politician&nbsp;sworn&nbsp;in last month, he favours engagement with the North, as opposed to his predecessor Park Geun-Hye.&nbsp;

Washington has also stepped up its muscle-flexing in the region, flying two B-1 bombers over the Korean peninsula Tuesday in a planned training mission with Japan and South Korea as its latest show of force.

The country's official newspaper also encouraged South Korea not to follow the US president, saying 'it would only lead to disaster'

North Korea capital Pyongyang's official newspaper Rodong Sinmun called US President Donald Trump a "psychopath" in an editorial. "South Korea must realise that following psychopath Trump...will only lead to disaster," an editorial carried by the paper said. The paper added that Donald Trump was in a "tough situation" back home dealing with domestic political crisis and was thus trying to divert everyone's attention by toying with the idea of a preemptive strike on North Korea. Tensions between Washington and Pyongyang have rocketed since the death of Otto Warmbier, who was released from North Korean detention last week. Warmbier was a 22-year-old student who had been held in a hard labour camp for 17 months for trying to steal a propoganda poster. Earlier in the day, the coroner's office said it had received Warmbier's body for an autopsy examination and was expecting to release preliminary findings later on Tuesday or on Wednesday. (Reuters) × After Warmbier's death, President Trump called North Korea a "brutal regime" and said he would strive to "prevent such tragedies from befalling innocent people at the hands of regimes that do not respect the rule of law or basic human decency". South Korean President Moon Jae-In echoed these words when he said in an interview with CBS Television's show, This Morning: "I believe we must now have the perception that North Korea is an irrational regime. North Korea bears responsibility for the student's death." Moon is scheduled to visit the White House next week. A centre-left politician sworn in last month, he favours engagement with the North, as opposed to his predecessor Park Geun-Hye. Washington has also stepped up its muscle-flexing in the region, flying two B-1 bombers over the Korean peninsula Tuesday in a planned training mission with Japan and South Korea as its latest show of force.

North Korea calls President Trump a 'psychopath...dealing with political crisis back home'

Donald Trump and US lawmakers inched closer to a deal Tuesday avoiding a government shutdown, as the president, eager to showcase a win marking his first 100 days, retreated from a demand to fund a border wall.

With the government set to exhaust its current funding at midnight Friday, the White House is under the gun to craft a compromise that would keep the government running while not appearing to cave on Trump&#39;s demand that Congress fund a wall on the border with Mexico.

&quot;Hopefully, we&#39;ll reach an agreement some time in the next couple of days,&quot; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, but he did not rule out passing a short-term extension that gives lawmakers time to craft a final deal.

While lawmaker said the funding legislation would steer clear of including funding for a border wall, it is expected to cover broader border security measures, such as the use of drones or anti-tunnelling technology.

But a deal remained far from certain. Among the sticking points is the fate of cost-sharing arrangements that help reduce health insurance costs for low-income Americans buying plans through the Affordable Care Act, the reform implemented by Trump&#39;s predecessor Barack Obama.

Trump had been on a collision course with lawmakers over the wall, demanding that Congress include funding to start construction in its new spending bill.

Democrats blasted the approach, warning that Republicans risked being blamed for shuttering the government barely three months into Trump&#39;s administration.

&quot;There aren&#39;t enough Republican votes to put the wall in&quot; to the spending bill, said veteran Senator Patrick Leahy, top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

With jitters rippling through Washington, Trump apparently agreed to soften his demand days before the deadline.

- Optimism - 
He told a group of conservative journalists he was open to delaying funding for the wall&#39;s construction until September, a White House official said, according to The Washington Post.

By Tuesday, the administration was acknowledging Trump&#39;s plan could be pushed back.

&quot;Building that wall and having it funded remains an important priority to him,&quot; advisor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News.&nbsp;

&quot;But we also know that that can happen later this year and into next year.&quot;

With shutdown fever appearing to break in Washington, top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said he was &quot;optimistic&quot; about reaching a timely deal, provided Republicans do not include controversial other issues such as defunding Planned Parenthood clinics.

&quot;We&#39;re pleased he&#39;s backing off,&quot; Schumer said of Trump&#39;s funding demand.&nbsp;

Instead of a wall, lawmakers are expressing support for a broader set of border security measures, including using drones and other high technology.

&quot;We&#39;re not opposed to border security,&quot; Schumer said.&nbsp;

&quot;We are opposed to the wall. And we&#39;re not going to allow any dollars in any kind of border security appropriation to be used for a wall. Period.&quot;

Building the wall was Trump&#39;s signature campaign promise, but Democrats note that Trump pledged Mexico would pay for it.

Even as the White House appeared to soften its rigid posture, Trump sent mixed messages.

&quot;Don&#39;t let the fake media tell you that I have changed my position on the WALL. It will get built and help stop drugs, human trafficking etc,&quot; he said Tuesday on Twitter.

The president then insisted the wall would be built &quot;soon,&quot; but offered no time frame other than within his four-year term.

&quot;The wall&#39;s going to get built, folks,&quot; Trump told reporters.

- &#39;Active negotiations&#39; - 
Congress, returning from a two-week break, now has three days to strike a deal.

Lawmakers have warned that a stopgap measure, known as a continuing resolution, may be needed to give Congress breathing room to finalize the spending details.

&quot;This is active negotiations,&quot; Republican Senator David Purdue said.

With the 100-day mark landing on Saturday and few legislative victories under his belt, Trump is pressing to fulfill another campaign pledge.

As a candidate, he repeatedly vowed to reform the tax code and slash the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.&nbsp;

An announcement on such reforms is due Wednesday.

Conservatives have sought a reduction in tax rates for years, but they are also adamant about reducing the debt. Some Republicans appeared hesitant to embrace such slashes to &nbsp;corporate tax rates.

&quot;Fifteen percent might be too low,&quot; House Republican Leonard Lance told CNN.

Democrats have expressed little appetite for dramatically reducing taxes, especially for big business.

If there are no significant tax breaks for small business or working-class Americans, &quot;that would certainly for me be a non-starter,&quot; Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow said.

(AFP)

Donald Trump and US lawmakers inched closer to a deal Tuesday avoiding a government shutdown, as the president, eager to showcase a win marking his first 100 days, retreated from a demand to fund a border wall. With the government set to exhaust its current funding at midnight Friday, the White House is under the gun to craft a compromise that would keep the government running while not appearing to cave on Trump's demand that Congress fund a wall on the border with Mexico. "Hopefully, we'll reach an agreement some time in the next couple of days," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, but he did not rule out passing a short-term extension that gives lawmakers time to craft a final deal. While lawmaker said the funding legislation would steer clear of including funding for a border wall, it is expected to cover broader border security measures, such as the use of drones or anti-tunnelling technology. But a deal remained far from certain. Among the sticking points is the fate of cost-sharing arrangements that help reduce health insurance costs for low-income Americans buying plans through the Affordable Care Act, the reform implemented by Trump's predecessor Barack Obama. Trump had been on a collision course with lawmakers over the wall, demanding that Congress include funding to start construction in its new spending bill. Democrats blasted the approach, warning that Republicans risked being blamed for shuttering the government barely three months into Trump's administration. "There aren't enough Republican votes to put the wall in" to the spending bill, said veteran Senator Patrick Leahy, top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. With jitters rippling through Washington, Trump apparently agreed to soften his demand days before the deadline. - Optimism - He told a group of conservative journalists he was open to delaying funding for the wall's construction until September, a White House official said, according to The Washington Post. By Tuesday, the administration was acknowledging Trump's plan could be pushed back. "Building that wall and having it funded remains an important priority to him," advisor Kellyanne Conway told Fox News. "But we also know that that can happen later this year and into next year." With shutdown fever appearing to break in Washington, top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer said he was "optimistic" about reaching a timely deal, provided Republicans do not include controversial other issues such as defunding Planned Parenthood clinics. "We're pleased he's backing off," Schumer said of Trump's funding demand. Instead of a wall, lawmakers are expressing support for a broader set of border security measures, including using drones and other high technology. "We're not opposed to border security," Schumer said. "We are opposed to the wall. And we're not going to allow any dollars in any kind of border security appropriation to be used for a wall. Period." Building the wall was Trump's signature campaign promise, but Democrats note that Trump pledged Mexico would pay for it. Even as the White House appeared to soften its rigid posture, Trump sent mixed messages. "Don't let the fake media tell you that I have changed my position on the WALL. It will get built and help stop drugs, human trafficking etc," he said Tuesday on Twitter. The president then insisted the wall would be built "soon," but offered no time frame other than within his four-year term. "The wall's going to get built, folks," Trump told reporters. - 'Active negotiations' - Congress, returning from a two-week break, now has three days to strike a deal. Lawmakers have warned that a stopgap measure, known as a continuing resolution, may be needed to give Congress breathing room to finalize the spending details. "This is active negotiations," Republican Senator David Purdue said. With the 100-day mark landing on Saturday and few legislative victories under his belt, Trump is pressing to fulfill another campaign pledge. As a candidate, he repeatedly vowed to reform the tax code and slash the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. An announcement on such reforms is due Wednesday. Conservatives have sought a reduction in tax rates for years, but they are also adamant about reducing the debt. Some Republicans appeared hesitant to embrace such slashes to corporate tax rates. "Fifteen percent might be too low," House Republican Leonard Lance told CNN. Democrats have expressed little appetite for dramatically reducing taxes, especially for big business. If there are no significant tax breaks for small business or working-class Americans, "that would certainly for me be a non-starter," Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow said. (AFP)

US govt shutdown threat ebbs as Trump retreats from demand to fund wall

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence warned North Korea on Monday that recent American military strikes in Syria and Afghanistan showed President Donald Trump&#39;s resolve should not be questioned, but Pyongyang vowed to continue missile and nuclear tests.

After a huge display of missiles in Pyongyang and a failed North Korean missile test during the weekend, U.S. officials praised China for stepping up efforts to rein in North Korea, Beijing&#39;s neighbour and ally.

But Pence and South Korea&#39;s acting president, Hwang Kyo-ahn, said they would proceed with the early deployment to South Korea of the U.S. THAAD missile-defence system, in spite of Chinese objections.

At a White House Easter celebration on Monday, Trump was asked if he had a message for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and replied: &ldquo;Gotta behave.&rdquo;

But senior North Korean officials remained defiant.

North Korea&#39;s deputy representative to the United Nations, Kim In Ryong, accused Washington of creating &ldquo;a situation where nuclear war could break out at any time&rdquo; and said Pyongyang&#39;s next nuclear test would take place &quot;at a time and at a place where our headquarters deems necessary.&quot;

North Korea&#39;s Vice Foreign Minister Han Song-Ryol told the BBC that missiles would continue to be tested on &quot;a weekly, monthly and yearly basis.&quot;

Kim Song Gyong, director general of the European Department of North Korea&#39;s Foreign Ministry, told Reuters in Pyongyang that if Washington made &quot;the slightest movement&quot; to make a nuclear strike on North Korea, Pyongyang would strike first and &quot;destroy the aggressors without any mercy.&rdquo;

He went on to clarify that the approach of a U.S. naval strike force led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Carl Vinson to Korean waters would not be considered enough to constitute &ldquo;the slightest movement&rdquo;.

Korean tensions have escalated following repeated North Korean missile tests and concerns that Pyongyang may soon conduct a sixth nuclear bomb test in defiance of U.N. sanctions. Washington is increasingly worried about North Korean efforts to develop a nuclear-tipped missile that could hit the U.S. mainland.

Speaking alongside Hwang, Pence said the world had witnessed Trump&#39;s resolve in the past two weeks, which saw a U.S. missile attack on a Syrian airfield and the dropping of a powerful non-nuclear bomb on Islamic State in Afghanistan.

&quot;North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region,&quot; Pence said on what was his first stop of a four-nation Asia tour intended to show that Trump is not turning his back on the increasingly volatile part of the world.

Pence, whose father served in the 1950-53 Korean War, visited the North-South border on Monday and said Washington would stand by its &quot;ironclad alliance&quot; with South Korea.

&quot;All options are on the table to achieve the objectives and ensure the stability of the people of this country,&quot; he told reporters as tinny propaganda music floated across from the North Korean side of the so-called demilitarized zone (DMZ).

The Trump administration has said that military action remains an option for dealing with North Korea.

But mindful that this would likely trigger massive retaliation and casualties in South Korea and Japan and among U.S. troops there, U.S. officials say the Trump administration&#39;s main focus is on tougher economic sanctions to try to get Pyongyang to abandon its weapons programs.

Trump himself, when asked on Monday if he was considering military action, told Fox News Channel he didn&#39;t want to &quot;telegraph&quot; his plans like the previous administration.

&quot;We&rsquo;ll see what happens. I hope things work out well,&quot; he said but added that the United States had tried to engage the North Koreans in talks for a long time.

On Sunday, Trump&#39;s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, said that the United States, its allies and China were working on a range of responses to North Korea&#39;s latest missile test, citing what he called an international consensus to act.

He indicated Trump was not considering military action for now, despite the dispatch the carrier group.

U.S. officials say tougher sanctions could include an oil embargo, a global ban on North Korea&#39;s airline, intercepting cargo ships and punishing Chinese banks doing business with Pyongyang. They say greater Chinese cooperation is vital.

NO &#39;RED LINES&#39;

White House spokesman Sean Spicer said China had taken some &quot;very helpful&quot; steps, although it remained to be seen how effective these would be. Asked if Trump had a &quot;red line&quot; on North Korea, Spicer said the president did not believe these worked.

Susan Thornton, acting U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asia, said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and China&#39;s top diplomat, State Councillor Yang Jiechi, agreed in a phone call on Sunday on the need for strict enforcement of U.N. resolutions and for international action to press Pyongyang &quot;to cease provocative actions and recommit to peaceful denuclearisation.&rdquo;

Thornton said any new North Korean nuclear test &quot;would draw a pretty significant international response.&quot;

&quot;We&rsquo;re definitely not seeking conflict or regime change,&quot; she said. &quot;But we are committed to defending our people and our allies should it be necessary.&rdquo;

Pence is expected to discuss Korean tensions with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Tuesday when he travels to Tokyo for economic talks with Finance Minister Taro Aso. He will also visit Jakarta and Sydney.

His economic discussions will be closely watched to see how hard a line Washington is prepared to take on trade. Trump campaigned on an &quot;America First&quot; platform, and has vowed to narrow big trade deficits with nations like China and Japan.

But Trump has also shown willingness to link trade to other issues, saying he would cut a better trade deal with China if it exerts influence on North Korea.

China has appeared increasingly frustrated with Pyongyang, speaking out against its weapons tests and supporting United Nations sanctions, while repeatedly calling for talks.

China banned imports of North Korean coal, the country&#39;s most important export, in February, and Chinese media have raised the possibility of restricting oil shipments to the North.

However, Beijing says the crisis is one between the United States and North Korea.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the situation was &quot;highly sensitive, complicated and high risk&quot; and all sides should &quot;avoid taking provocative actions &quot;

(Reuters)

The statement was made by the country's deputy representative to the UN who accused America of creating the situation

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence warned North Korea on Monday that recent American military strikes in Syria and Afghanistan showed President Donald Trump's resolve should not be questioned, but Pyongyang vowed to continue missile and nuclear tests. After a huge display of missiles in Pyongyang and a failed North Korean missile test during the weekend, U.S. officials praised China for stepping up efforts to rein in North Korea, Beijing's neighbour and ally. But Pence and South Korea's acting president, Hwang Kyo-ahn, said they would proceed with the early deployment to South Korea of the U.S. THAAD missile-defence system, in spite of Chinese objections. At a White House Easter celebration on Monday, Trump was asked if he had a message for North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, and replied: “Gotta behave.” But senior North Korean officials remained defiant. North Korea's deputy representative to the United Nations, Kim In Ryong, accused Washington of creating “a situation where nuclear war could break out at any time” and said Pyongyang's next nuclear test would take place "at a time and at a place where our headquarters deems necessary." North Korea's Vice Foreign Minister Han Song-Ryol told the BBC that missiles would continue to be tested on "a weekly, monthly and yearly basis." Kim Song Gyong, director general of the European Department of North Korea's Foreign Ministry, told Reuters in Pyongyang that if Washington made "the slightest movement" to make a nuclear strike on North Korea, Pyongyang would strike first and "destroy the aggressors without any mercy.” He went on to clarify that the approach of a U.S. naval strike force led by the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier Carl Vinson to Korean waters would not be considered enough to constitute “the slightest movement”. Korean tensions have escalated following repeated North Korean missile tests and concerns that Pyongyang may soon conduct a sixth nuclear bomb test in defiance of U.N. sanctions. Washington is increasingly worried about North Korean efforts to develop a nuclear-tipped missile that could hit the U.S. mainland. Speaking alongside Hwang, Pence said the world had witnessed Trump's resolve in the past two weeks, which saw a U.S. missile attack on a Syrian airfield and the dropping of a powerful non-nuclear bomb on Islamic State in Afghanistan. "North Korea would do well not to test his resolve or the strength of the armed forces of the United States in this region," Pence said on what was his first stop of a four-nation Asia tour intended to show that Trump is not turning his back on the increasingly volatile part of the world. Pence, whose father served in the 1950-53 Korean War, visited the North-South border on Monday and said Washington would stand by its "ironclad alliance" with South Korea. "All options are on the table to achieve the objectives and ensure the stability of the people of this country," he told reporters as tinny propaganda music floated across from the North Korean side of the so-called demilitarized zone (DMZ). The Trump administration has said that military action remains an option for dealing with North Korea. But mindful that this would likely trigger massive retaliation and casualties in South Korea and Japan and among U.S. troops there, U.S. officials say the Trump administration's main focus is on tougher economic sanctions to try to get Pyongyang to abandon its weapons programs. Trump himself, when asked on Monday if he was considering military action, told Fox News Channel he didn't want to "telegraph" his plans like the previous administration. "We’ll see what happens. I hope things work out well," he said but added that the United States had tried to engage the North Koreans in talks for a long time. On Sunday, Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, said that the United States, its allies and China were working on a range of responses to North Korea's latest missile test, citing what he called an international consensus to act. He indicated Trump was not considering military action for now, despite the dispatch the carrier group. U.S. officials say tougher sanctions could include an oil embargo, a global ban on North Korea's airline, intercepting cargo ships and punishing Chinese banks doing business with Pyongyang. They say greater Chinese cooperation is vital. NO 'RED LINES' White House spokesman Sean Spicer said China had taken some "very helpful" steps, although it remained to be seen how effective these would be. Asked if Trump had a "red line" on North Korea, Spicer said the president did not believe these worked. Susan Thornton, acting U.S. assistant secretary of state for East Asia, said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and China's top diplomat, State Councillor Yang Jiechi, agreed in a phone call on Sunday on the need for strict enforcement of U.N. resolutions and for international action to press Pyongyang "to cease provocative actions and recommit to peaceful denuclearisation.” Thornton said any new North Korean nuclear test "would draw a pretty significant international response." "We’re definitely not seeking conflict or regime change," she said. "But we are committed to defending our people and our allies should it be necessary.” Pence is expected to discuss Korean tensions with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Tuesday when he travels to Tokyo for economic talks with Finance Minister Taro Aso. He will also visit Jakarta and Sydney. His economic discussions will be closely watched to see how hard a line Washington is prepared to take on trade. Trump campaigned on an "America First" platform, and has vowed to narrow big trade deficits with nations like China and Japan. But Trump has also shown willingness to link trade to other issues, saying he would cut a better trade deal with China if it exerts influence on North Korea. China has appeared increasingly frustrated with Pyongyang, speaking out against its weapons tests and supporting United Nations sanctions, while repeatedly calling for talks. China banned imports of North Korean coal, the country's most important export, in February, and Chinese media have raised the possibility of restricting oil shipments to the North. However, Beijing says the crisis is one between the United States and North Korea. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said the situation was "highly sensitive, complicated and high risk" and all sides should "avoid taking provocative actions " (Reuters)

'Nuclear war could break out at any time,' says North Korea

US President Barack Obama has marked the first anniversary of the nuclear deal with Iran by emphasising its &quot;significant and concrete results&quot; and warning against undoing a pact supported by the world&#39;s major powers.

In language that seemed clearly directed at incoming president Donald Trump, who is set to take office on Friday, Obama said yesterday &quot;the United States must remember that this agreement was the result of years of work, and represents an agreement between the world&#39;s major powers - not simply the United States and Iran.&quot;

He said the deal had &quot;achieved significant, concrete results in making the United States and the world a safer place&quot; and &quot;verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.&quot;

Such a diplomatic solution, he added, was &quot;far preferable to an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program or another war in the Middle East.&quot;

Trump has often denounced the nuclear deal, and in a Sunday interview with The Times, London and Bild newspaper of Germany he continued his criticism, saying, &quot;I&#39;m not happy with the Iran deal, I think it&#39;s one of the worst deals ever made.&quot;

But he declined to say whether he intended to &quot;renegotiate&quot; the deal, as he asserted regularly during the presidential campaign.

Obama insisted yesterday that despite US reservations about other actions by Iran - including its support for &quot;violent proxies&quot; and &quot;terrorist groups&quot; - Tehran was &quot;upholding its commitments, demonstrating the success of diplomacy.&quot;

Iran, he said, had &quot;reduced its uranium stockpile by 98 per cent and removed two-thirds of its centrifuges.&quot;

&quot;There is no question, however, that the challenges we face with Iran would be much worse if Iran were also on the threshold of building a nuclear weapon,&quot; Obama said.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who helped negotiate the deal, said the Iran agreement had &quot;resolved a major nuclear threat without firing a shot or sending a single soldier into combat.&quot;

&quot;It was endorsed unanimously by the United Nations Security Council and earned the support of more than 100 countries across the globe,&quot; he added.

For all of Trump&#39;s sharp criticism of Iran and the nuclear deal, the policy he will embrace once in office remains unclear.

One of his top cabinet nominees, retired Marine general James Mattis, said last week that if he is confirmed as defence secretary, he will support the nuclear deal.

&quot;When America gives her word,&quot; he told senators during his confirmation hearing, &quot;we have to live up to it and work with our allies.&quot;

The pact was signed in July 2015 by Iran and six major powers - the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany - and led to the lifting exactly a year ago of most international sanctions against Iran.&nbsp;

(AFP)

Such a diplomatic solution, he said, was 'far preferable to an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program or another war in the Middle East'

US President Barack Obama has marked the first anniversary of the nuclear deal with Iran by emphasising its "significant and concrete results" and warning against undoing a pact supported by the world's major powers. In language that seemed clearly directed at incoming president Donald Trump, who is set to take office on Friday, Obama said yesterday "the United States must remember that this agreement was the result of years of work, and represents an agreement between the world's major powers - not simply the United States and Iran." He said the deal had "achieved significant, concrete results in making the United States and the world a safer place" and "verifiably prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." Such a diplomatic solution, he added, was "far preferable to an unconstrained Iranian nuclear program or another war in the Middle East." Trump has often denounced the nuclear deal, and in a Sunday interview with The Times, London and Bild newspaper of Germany he continued his criticism, saying, "I'm not happy with the Iran deal, I think it's one of the worst deals ever made." But he declined to say whether he intended to "renegotiate" the deal, as he asserted regularly during the presidential campaign. Obama insisted yesterday that despite US reservations about other actions by Iran - including its support for "violent proxies" and "terrorist groups" - Tehran was "upholding its commitments, demonstrating the success of diplomacy." Iran, he said, had "reduced its uranium stockpile by 98 per cent and removed two-thirds of its centrifuges." "There is no question, however, that the challenges we face with Iran would be much worse if Iran were also on the threshold of building a nuclear weapon," Obama said. Secretary of State John Kerry, who helped negotiate the deal, said the Iran agreement had "resolved a major nuclear threat without firing a shot or sending a single soldier into combat." "It was endorsed unanimously by the United Nations Security Council and earned the support of more than 100 countries across the globe," he added. For all of Trump's sharp criticism of Iran and the nuclear deal, the policy he will embrace once in office remains unclear. One of his top cabinet nominees, retired Marine general James Mattis, said last week that if he is confirmed as defence secretary, he will support the nuclear deal. "When America gives her word," he told senators during his confirmation hearing, "we have to live up to it and work with our allies." The pact was signed in July 2015 by Iran and six major powers - the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany - and led to the lifting exactly a year ago of most international sanctions against Iran. (AFP)

On first anniversary, Obama warns Trump not to undo Iran nuclear deal

Mexico will name a new ambassador to the US, The Hill reports, citing&nbsp;Mexican Foreign Relations Secretariat sources.&nbsp;

The current ambassador Carlos Sada Solana will be replaced by Geronimo Gutierrez, who is currently the managing director of the North American Development Bank.&nbsp;Previously, Gutierrez was the undersecretary for North American affairs at the Foreign Relations Secretariat, The Hill reports.

The announcement is expected to come on Friday, The Hill reports. 
&nbsp; 
The change in appointment comes as relations between the country are strained, as Trump has promised to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), build a wall along the border that the President-elect says Mexico will fund, deport millions of mexicans and place tariffs on goods manufactured in Mexico.&nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
This post is considered to be Mexico&#39;s highest appointment because of the historical closeness between the two countries and because millions of Mexicans currently live in America.

&nbsp;(WION)

The change comes at a crucial juncture, with Donald Trump about to become US president

Mexico will name a new ambassador to the US, The Hill reports, citing Mexican Foreign Relations Secretariat sources. The current ambassador Carlos Sada Solana will be replaced by Geronimo Gutierrez, who is currently the managing director of the North American Development Bank. Previously, Gutierrez was the undersecretary for North American affairs at the Foreign Relations Secretariat, The Hill reports. The announcement is expected to come on Friday, The Hill reports. The change in appointment comes as relations between the country are strained, as Trump has promised to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), build a wall along the border that the President-elect says Mexico will fund, deport millions of mexicans and place tariffs on goods manufactured in Mexico. This post is considered to be Mexico's highest appointment because of the historical closeness between the two countries and because millions of Mexicans currently live in America. (WION)

Mexico to name new US ambassador: Reports

Classified documents report that the heads of four US intelligence agencies presented last week to President-elect Donald Trump included claims that Russian intelligence operatives have compromising information about him, two US officials said Tuesday evening.

They told Reuters the claims, which one called &quot;unsubstantiated,&quot; were contained in a two-page memo appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that US intelligence officials presented to Trump and President Barack Obama last week.

Trump responded on Tuesday evening in a tweet calling the reports: &quot;FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!&quot;&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/818990655418617856">January 11, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.&nbsp;

One of the officials, both of whom requested anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other US&nbsp;agencies are continuing to investigate the credibility and accuracy of the claims.

They are included in opposition research reports made available last year to Democrats and US officials by a former British intelligence official, most of whose past work US officials consider credible.

The official said investigators so far have been unable to confirm the material about Trumpfinancial and personal entanglements with Russian businessmen and others whom US intelligence analysts have concluded are Russian intelligence officers or working on behalf of Russian intelligence. Some material in the reports produced by the former British intelligence officer has proved to be erroneous, the official said.

The FBI declined comment.

&nbsp;

SURFACED LAST YEAR

The charges that Russia attempted to compromise New York real estate businessman Trump were presented to the FBI and other US government officials last summer and have been circulating for months.

The FBI initially took the material seriously, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, which was first reported by CNN. However, the FBI failed to act on the material, and the former British intelligence officer broke off contact about three weeks before the November election, they said.

The warning of information about Russia&#39;s compromising claims follows growing US intelligence and law enforcement concerns about what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has called &quot;multifaceted&quot; Russian influence and espionage operations in Europe and the United States.

In addition to hacking computer networks and spreading propaganda and fake news, it includes efforts to cultivate business and political leaders and find compromising personal, financial and other information on persons of interest, US&nbsp;intelligence officials said.

The classified briefings last week were presented to Obama and Trump by Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers.

US intelligence chiefs included a classified summary of the material to make Trump aware that it is circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress, government officials and others, one of the officials said.

An unclassified intelligence report released on Friday concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an effort to help Trump&#39;s electoral chances by discrediting Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign.

The report said US intelligence agencies have concluded that as part of the effort Russia&#39;s military intelligence agency, the GRU, used intermediaries such as WikiLeaks and others to release emails it hacked from the Democratic National Committee and top Democrats.

(Reuters)

The unclassified intelligence material, which hasn't been verified yet, alleges close ties between US President-elect Trump and the Kremlin

Classified documents report that the heads of four US intelligence agencies presented last week to President-elect Donald Trump included claims that Russian intelligence operatives have compromising information about him, two US officials said Tuesday evening. They told Reuters the claims, which one called "unsubstantiated," were contained in a two-page memo appended to a report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that US intelligence officials presented to Trump and President Barack Obama last week. Trump responded on Tuesday evening in a tweet calling the reports: "FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT!" FAKE NEWS - A TOTAL POLITICAL WITCH HUNT! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2017 × The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment. One of the officials, both of whom requested anonymity to discuss classified matters, said the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other US agencies are continuing to investigate the credibility and accuracy of the claims. They are included in opposition research reports made available last year to Democrats and US officials by a former British intelligence official, most of whose past work US officials consider credible. The official said investigators so far have been unable to confirm the material about Trumpfinancial and personal entanglements with Russian businessmen and others whom US intelligence analysts have concluded are Russian intelligence officers or working on behalf of Russian intelligence. Some material in the reports produced by the former British intelligence officer has proved to be erroneous, the official said. The FBI declined comment. SURFACED LAST YEAR The charges that Russia attempted to compromise New York real estate businessman Trump were presented to the FBI and other US government officials last summer and have been circulating for months. The FBI initially took the material seriously, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, which was first reported by CNN. However, the FBI failed to act on the material, and the former British intelligence officer broke off contact about three weeks before the November election, they said. The warning of information about Russia's compromising claims follows growing US intelligence and law enforcement concerns about what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has called "multifaceted" Russian influence and espionage operations in Europe and the United States. In addition to hacking computer networks and spreading propaganda and fake news, it includes efforts to cultivate business and political leaders and find compromising personal, financial and other information on persons of interest, US intelligence officials said. The classified briefings last week were presented to Obama and Trump by Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers. US intelligence chiefs included a classified summary of the material to make Trump aware that it is circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress, government officials and others, one of the officials said. An unclassified intelligence report released on Friday concluded that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an effort to help Trump's electoral chances by discrediting Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign. The report said US intelligence agencies have concluded that as part of the effort Russia's military intelligence agency, the GRU, used intermediaries such as WikiLeaks and others to release emails it hacked from the Democratic National Committee and top Democrats. (Reuters)

Russian intel's 'compromising' info on Trump under FBI scanner

US President-elect Donald Trump stirred a simmering dispute with Barack Obama on Wednesday, accusing him of derailing a smooth transition with &quot;inflammatory&quot; remarks, before appearing to row back.

Ever since the November 8 election, Trump and Obama have tried to bury political differences in favour of a united public front that would smooth the transfer of power on January 20.

But the Republican president-in-waiting unceremoniously cast any cordiality aside in a morning Twitter tirade from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.

In a declaration that is unprecedented in its personal condemnation of a soon-to-be predecessor, the 70-year-old tweeted: &quot;Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks.&quot;&nbsp;

&quot;Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT!&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks.Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT!
&mdash; Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/814110460761018368">December 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

But Trump later appeared to shift focus from his previous comments, stating the process was going &quot;very, very smoothly.&quot;

Trump said he had spoken to Obama in what he described as &quot;a very nice conversation... appreciated that he called.&quot;

&quot;I actually thought we covered a lot of territory,&quot; Trump said.

&quot;Our staffs have been getting along very well and I&#39;m getting along very well with him other than a couple of statements that I responded to.

&quot;We talked about it and smiled about it and nobody is ever going to know because we are never going to be going against each other.&quot;

White House spokesman Eric Schultz said the call &quot;was positive and focused on continuing a smooth and effective transition,&quot; adding the pair planned to keep in touch over the coming weeks.

Tensions between Trump and the current White House have been growing for weeks as Obama has become more outspoken about a vitriol-filled election that saw Democrat Hillary Clinton suffer a shock defeat.

Obama -- who is still the most popular politician in the country -- recently suggested that he may have won a third term were he not constitutionally barred from doing so.

That seems to have irked the notoriously thin-skinned president-elect.

Competing claims

At the same time, the pair has competed to take credit for solid economic indicators.

After months of talking down the world&#39;s largest economy, Trump has tried to take credit for a number of economic developments that are roughly on trend.

Trump claimed Sprint was creating 5,000 US jobs &quot;because of me.&quot;

&quot;The U.S. Consumer Confidence Index for December surged nearly four points to 113.7, THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN MORE THAN 15 YEARS! Thanks Donald,&quot; he tweeted late Tuesday, referring to himself in the third person.

And Trump announced he would hold in early January a press conference previously set to take place earlier this month to discuss his vast business holdings.

The 70-year-old, who is the wealthiest man to become US president, has been beset by accusations of conflict of interest ever since beating Clinton to the presidency.

White House response

While the White House has seethed behind the scenes, there has been&nbsp;little public response to Trump&#39;s forays into US foreign and domestic policy before he takes office in less than a month.

But tensions reached something of a breaking point after the United States tacitly backed condemnation of Israeli settlement activity at the United Nations.&nbsp;

With Washington withholding its veto, the UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding a halt to Israeli settlement building in the Palestinian territories.&nbsp;

Trump followed up Wednesday&#39;s early tweet with another two taking aim at Obama&#39;s policy toward Israel.

&quot;We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the US, but.......&quot; he wrote.

&quot;Not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (UN)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!&quot;

Throughout the long election campaign, Obama made no secret of his disdain for Trump, describing him as ill-informed and unfit for office.

But since a landmark meeting in the Oval Office a few days after the election, Obama has tried flattery in a bid to bind Trump to the norms of office.

He has praised Trump on a historic victory and made plain that millions of Republican voters would also be hurt if Trump overturns his landmark health care law.&nbsp;

Obama has repeatedly vowed to make the transition as smooth as possible.

At lower levels, the transition has spluttered along after a slow start that saw many key departments wait for substantive meetings with Trump staff.

That is said to have improved in recent weeks, as &quot;landing teams&quot; have begun to work with government agencies and briefing materials have been distributed.

The real estate mogul-turned-commander-in-chief is gradually putting together a team that is made up of Republican establishment figures, billionaires, generals and far-right activists.

At Mar-a-Lago on Wednesday, he met potential secretaries of agriculture and discussed measures to repeal so-called Obamacare and reform veterans&#39; health care with notable doctors.

(AFP)

They have tried to bury their political differences but the President-elect cast any cordiality aside in another Twitter tirade

US President-elect Donald Trump stirred a simmering dispute with Barack Obama on Wednesday, accusing him of derailing a smooth transition with "inflammatory" remarks, before appearing to row back. Ever since the November 8 election, Trump and Obama have tried to bury political differences in favour of a united public front that would smooth the transfer of power on January 20. But the Republican president-in-waiting unceremoniously cast any cordiality aside in a morning Twitter tirade from his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. In a declaration that is unprecedented in its personal condemnation of a soon-to-be predecessor, the 70-year-old tweeted: "Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks." "Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT!" Doing my best to disregard the many inflammatory President O statements and roadblocks.Thought it was going to be a smooth transition - NOT! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 28, 2016 × But Trump later appeared to shift focus from his previous comments, stating the process was going "very, very smoothly." Trump said he had spoken to Obama in what he described as "a very nice conversation... appreciated that he called." "I actually thought we covered a lot of territory," Trump said. "Our staffs have been getting along very well and I'm getting along very well with him other than a couple of statements that I responded to. "We talked about it and smiled about it and nobody is ever going to know because we are never going to be going against each other." White House spokesman Eric Schultz said the call "was positive and focused on continuing a smooth and effective transition," adding the pair planned to keep in touch over the coming weeks. Tensions between Trump and the current White House have been growing for weeks as Obama has become more outspoken about a vitriol-filled election that saw Democrat Hillary Clinton suffer a shock defeat. Obama -- who is still the most popular politician in the country -- recently suggested that he may have won a third term were he not constitutionally barred from doing so. That seems to have irked the notoriously thin-skinned president-elect. Competing claims At the same time, the pair has competed to take credit for solid economic indicators. After months of talking down the world's largest economy, Trump has tried to take credit for a number of economic developments that are roughly on trend. Trump claimed Sprint was creating 5,000 US jobs "because of me." "The U.S. Consumer Confidence Index for December surged nearly four points to 113.7, THE HIGHEST LEVEL IN MORE THAN 15 YEARS! Thanks Donald," he tweeted late Tuesday, referring to himself in the third person. And Trump announced he would hold in early January a press conference previously set to take place earlier this month to discuss his vast business holdings. The 70-year-old, who is the wealthiest man to become US president, has been beset by accusations of conflict of interest ever since beating Clinton to the presidency. White House response While the White House has seethed behind the scenes, there has been little public response to Trump's forays into US foreign and domestic policy before he takes office in less than a month. But tensions reached something of a breaking point after the United States tacitly backed condemnation of Israeli settlement activity at the United Nations. With Washington withholding its veto, the UN Security Council passed a resolution demanding a halt to Israeli settlement building in the Palestinian territories. Trump followed up Wednesday's early tweet with another two taking aim at Obama's policy toward Israel. "We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the US, but......." he wrote. "Not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (UN)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!" Throughout the long election campaign, Obama made no secret of his disdain for Trump, describing him as ill-informed and unfit for office. But since a landmark meeting in the Oval Office a few days after the election, Obama has tried flattery in a bid to bind Trump to the norms of office. He has praised Trump on a historic victory and made plain that millions of Republican voters would also be hurt if Trump overturns his landmark health care law. Obama has repeatedly vowed to make the transition as smooth as possible. At lower levels, the transition has spluttered along after a slow start that saw many key departments wait for substantive meetings with Trump staff. That is said to have improved in recent weeks, as "landing teams" have begun to work with government agencies and briefing materials have been distributed. The real estate mogul-turned-commander-in-chief is gradually putting together a team that is made up of Republican establishment figures, billionaires, generals and far-right activists. At Mar-a-Lago on Wednesday, he met potential secretaries of agriculture and discussed measures to repeal so-called Obamacare and reform veterans' health care with notable doctors. (AFP)

Trump, Obama disputes spill into the open

The Pentagon today announced that outgoing US defence secretary Ashton Carter would be visiting India next week as part of his final trip around the world.

Carter would also travel to Japan, Bahrain, Israel and Great Britain on his trip. He will be in India on December 8 where he is likely to discuss maritime security and the sale of Predator drones by General Atomics.

&nbsp;

This is the first time that an outgoing American defence secretary has included India in his itinerary for the final overseas trip, a PTI report said.

&quot;He (Carter) will look to build on the strategic handshake between the two nations and to continue the momentum in the relationship over the past decade, including expanded defence cooperation during his time as Secretary,&quot; PTI reported from a Pentagon statement.

Carter&#39;s agenda comprises M777 and Predator Guardian for the Indian Navy.

India earlier this year joined the MTCR with support from the US and was also designated a &quot;a major defence partner&quot; when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the US and met President Barack Obama at the Oval Office.

Vivek Lall, chief executive, US and International Strategic Development at General Atomics, are among the US leaders that have been advocating greater convergence between the US and India, PTI reported.

India had acquired Boeing P8I aircraft under his leadrship in 2009.

Modi spoke to President-elect Donald Trump on November 9 to congratulate as India hopes that Trump will pursue a strategy in South Asia making India truly a priority and an anchor in the region.

(WION with inputs from PTI)

This is for the first time that an outgoing American Defence Secretary has included India in his itinerary for the final overseas trip

The Pentagon today announced that outgoing US defence secretary Ashton Carter would be visiting India next week as part of his final trip around the world. Carter would also travel to Japan, Bahrain, Israel and Great Britain on his trip. He will be in India on December 8 where he is likely to discuss maritime security and the sale of Predator drones by General Atomics. This is the first time that an outgoing American defence secretary has included India in his itinerary for the final overseas trip, a PTI report said. "He (Carter) will look to build on the strategic handshake between the two nations and to continue the momentum in the relationship over the past decade, including expanded defence cooperation during his time as Secretary," PTI reported from a Pentagon statement. Carter's agenda comprises M777 and Predator Guardian for the Indian Navy. India earlier this year joined the MTCR with support from the US and was also designated a "a major defence partner" when Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited the US and met President Barack Obama at the Oval Office. Vivek Lall, chief executive, US and International Strategic Development at General Atomics, are among the US leaders that have been advocating greater convergence between the US and India, PTI reported. India had acquired Boeing P8I aircraft under his leadrship in 2009. Modi spoke to President-elect Donald Trump on November 9 to congratulate as India hopes that Trump will pursue a strategy in South Asia making India truly a priority and an anchor in the region. (WION with inputs from PTI)

Carter to visit India next week

Post Donald Trump's win in the US elections, thousands use the subway as their canvas

Subways in New York have turned into art installation passages, with thousands writing notes of unity, love, grief and more. Named Subway Therapy, the movement gained momentum after several thousands opened up their hearts and wrote, literally on the wall. Here in pictures: "Subway therapy" has popped up in #NYC's 14th Street Station, with people leaving positive messages after #election2016. Thanks to the ABC's Jake Sturmer for this pic! ?????? #subwaytherapy A photo posted by ABC News (@abcnews_au) on Nov 9, 2016 at 4:15pm PST Sometimes we all need a little #subwaytherapy A photo posted by Lauren Chilton (@lchilt) on Nov 11, 2016 at 3:23am PST Leaving a protest on Wednesday night, exhausted and with a headache that hasn't completely gone away since Tuesday, I stumbled upon this wall of post-it notes in Union Square, where New Yorkers grieved, raged, and loved in pastel colors on the subway wall. The crowd that gathered stood quietly reading them one by one or scribbling their own. I added mine: "You matter. I love you. I am with you." I am and you do. I will do better. We will do better. #election #subwaytherapy #nyc A photo posted by Jessica Bal (@jessicabal) on Nov 10, 2016 at 10:56pm PST Another reason why I love New York. Coming together when it matters #AstorPlace #SubwayTherapy #NYC #StrongerTogether A photo posted by Krystal W (@kr1wang) on Nov 10, 2016 at 10:37pm PST "I love you if you are Muslim. I love you if you are black. I love you if you are Hispanic. I love you if you are disabled. I love you if you are a victim of sexual assault. I love you if you are poor. I love you no matter what and will fight for you no matter what. And if he builds a wall, I will raise my children to tear it down." ~We're building our own kind of walls here in New York City??~ #subwaytherapy #lovewillalwaystrumphate #notmypresident #strongertogether A photo posted by jessdowling22 (@jessdowling22) on Nov 10, 2016 at 10:00pm PST #united #subwaytherapy #nyc #equality A photo posted by Cassy Woller (@cassywoller) on Nov 10, 2016 at 9:19pm PST #Repost @kattmatt ??? #subwaytherapy #notmypresident #imwithher #DemBros #HillaryBros #BernieBros #Protest A photo posted by DemBros (@hillarybros) on Nov 10, 2016 at 9:13pm PST Now there's an idea ?? #subwaytherapy #michelleobama2020 A photo posted by Yoonie Kim / ??? (@yooniek) on Nov 10, 2016 at 7:21pm PST #SubwayTherapy A photo posted by Kaitlin Griswold (@liebedich) on Nov 10, 2016 at 7:08pm PST #subwaytherapy ??? A photo posted by Helen Schultz (@helenschultz_) on Nov 10, 2016 at 6:21pm PST We need a therapy. #subwaytherapy #expressyourself A photo posted by Lulu (@pandaurinko) on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:41pm PST Reason number 17392 why I love this city: someone created the idea of #subwaytherapy where you left a sticky note with an inspirational message. People were crying, smiling, laughing and soaking in all the love and reading the thousands of notes. The people united will never be defeated. A photo posted by Liv Larsen (@livvlarsen) on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:22pm PST passed by this incredible project tonight on my home and left a little sticky note of my own.. man, I love this city. #subwaytherapy #i??ny #thefutureisfemale A photo posted by PJ (@pjstegall) on Nov 10, 2016 at 5:21pm PST For the next few hours I will be posting my favorite #SubwayTherapy post it's. To all of my #Muslim friends, know me and many others are here. If you feel harassed or scared we will sit with you, cry with you, throw some bows if need be. We WILL fight for you. #realAmerica #makingAmericaGreatFinally #love #religiousfreedom A photo posted by AmberMorArtistry (@ambermorartistry) on Nov 10, 2016 at 4:27pm PST #subwaytherapy #newyorkcity A photo posted by pdl1161 (@pdl1161) on Nov 10, 2016 at 3:22pm PST (Contributed by: Zeba Khan)

Photos: Post-election love notes take over NYC subway

A 19-year-old British man has been charged for trying to grab a police officer&#39;s gun at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas in a bid to kill the Republican presidential nominee. 
 
According to a complaint filed in federal court in Nevada, Michael Sandford tried to disarm the officer at Saturday&#39;s rally at the Mystere Theatre in the Treasure Island Casino before being overpowered. 
 
It said that the young man told a Secret Service agent after his arrest that he had driven from California to Las Vegas &quot;to kill Trump,&quot; and had been to a range a day earlier to learn to shoot as he had never fired a gun before. 
 
&quot;Sandford acknowledged that he would likely only be able to fire one to two rounds and stated he was convinced he would be killed by law enforcement during his attempt on Trump&#39;s life,&quot; the complaint said. 
 
It added that Sandford told investigators he had purchased tickets for a rally in Phoenix, where he &quot;would try again to kill Trump&quot; in the event his plan in Las Vegas failed. 
 
Video of his arrest carried by US media show a skinny man with short brown hair and a grey T-shirt being escorted out of the rally by police officers with his hands behind his back. 
 
The prosecutor&#39;s office said Sandford was ordered held without bond, as he was considered dangerous and represented a flight risk. 
 
Britain&#39;s Foreign Office is &quot;providing assistance&quot; in the case, a spokesman said. 
 
&#39;Would try this again&#39; 
 
The complaint said Sandford had told investigators that he had been in the United States for about 18 months, and had lived in Hoboken, New Jersey, before traveling to California. 
 
&nbsp;Sandford told investigators that he had targeted officer Ameel Jacob&#39;s gun because it was in an unlocked position and would be the easiest way to gain access to a weapon at the rally where those attending had to go through metal detectors. 
 
&quot;Sandford further stated that if he were on the street tomorrow, he would try this again,&quot; according to the complaint. 
 
It said Sandford told the Secret Service that he had been plotting to kill Trump for about a year and finally decided to act on Saturday, as &quot;he finally felt confident to do it.&quot; 
 
His arrest comes amid one of the nastiest US presidential campaigns in recent history, dominated by violent rhetoric, with Trump lashing out at Mexicans, Muslims and other groups. 
 
The real estate billionaire enjoys Secret Service protection but also has his own private security detail that has been accused of using unnecessary force to remove people from events. 
 
A number of protesters have been arrested at his rallies where riot police are deployed in force and there have been mounting demonstrations during his campaign appearances in recent months. 
 
Sandford is due to appear in court for a preliminary hearing on July 5. He faces more than 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if found guilty on the charge of &quot;act of violence on restricted grounds.&quot; 
(AFP)

The man had apparently driven from California to Las Vegas to kill Trump and had visited a shooting range a day earlier to learn to shoot

A 19-year-old British man has been charged for trying to grab a police officer's gun at a Donald Trump rally in Las Vegas in a bid to kill the Republican presidential nominee. According to a complaint filed in federal court in Nevada, Michael Sandford tried to disarm the officer at Saturday's rally at the Mystere Theatre in the Treasure Island Casino before being overpowered. It said that the young man told a Secret Service agent after his arrest that he had driven from California to Las Vegas "to kill Trump," and had been to a range a day earlier to learn to shoot as he had never fired a gun before. "Sandford acknowledged that he would likely only be able to fire one to two rounds and stated he was convinced he would be killed by law enforcement during his attempt on Trump's life," the complaint said. It added that Sandford told investigators he had purchased tickets for a rally in Phoenix, where he "would try again to kill Trump" in the event his plan in Las Vegas failed. Video of his arrest carried by US media show a skinny man with short brown hair and a grey T-shirt being escorted out of the rally by police officers with his hands behind his back. The prosecutor's office said Sandford was ordered held without bond, as he was considered dangerous and represented a flight risk. Britain's Foreign Office is "providing assistance" in the case, a spokesman said. 'Would try this again' The complaint said Sandford had told investigators that he had been in the United States for about 18 months, and had lived in Hoboken, New Jersey, before traveling to California. Sandford told investigators that he had targeted officer Ameel Jacob's gun because it was in an unlocked position and would be the easiest way to gain access to a weapon at the rally where those attending had to go through metal detectors. "Sandford further stated that if he were on the street tomorrow, he would try this again," according to the complaint. It said Sandford told the Secret Service that he had been plotting to kill Trump for about a year and finally decided to act on Saturday, as "he finally felt confident to do it." His arrest comes amid one of the nastiest US presidential campaigns in recent history, dominated by violent rhetoric, with Trump lashing out at Mexicans, Muslims and other groups. The real estate billionaire enjoys Secret Service protection but also has his own private security detail that has been accused of using unnecessary force to remove people from events. A number of protesters have been arrested at his rallies where riot police are deployed in force and there have been mounting demonstrations during his campaign appearances in recent months. Sandford is due to appear in court for a preliminary hearing on July 5. He faces more than 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine if found guilty on the charge of "act of violence on restricted grounds." (AFP)

19-year-old Briton tries to grab cop's gun and kill Trump, charged

Questions over the exact provenance of bedsheets sold by Welspun India to America&#39;s middle classes have not only wiped $740 million off the firm&#39;s market value, but also revived one of Indian manufacturing&#39;s enduring headaches: quality. 
 
India&#39;s government, desperate to accelerate growth and create more jobs, has backed a &quot;Make in India&quot; manufacturing push. India already makes everything from car parts to t-shirts, but is trying to move up the chain to make higher-end products, like Apple&#39;s iPhone. 
 
One major hurdle, however, has been product quality, often blighted by low salaries, poor training and sketchy suppliers. As India manufactures more, cheap is not always cheerful. 
 
So far, in Welspun&#39;s case, US retailer Target Corp has severed ties, accusing it of passing off cheaper sheets as premium Egyptian cotton for two years. Other Welspun clients are probing the company&#39;s products. 
 
It&#39;s not clear what led to the problem. Welspun, whose share price nearly halved this week, has said it would do an external audit of its supply chain. 
 
Other Indian manufacturers distanced themselves from Welspun, but many fretted over the broader impact as the country tries to bet on quality, not just cheap workers, where it faces constant competition from regional rivals. 
 
&quot;It&#39;s high time exporters improve the quality of their products,&quot; said S.C. Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, set up by the government and industry to promote exports. He said the group would take up the issue of quality with its members. 
 
Arvind Sinha, national president of the Textile Association of India, said India&#39;s image as a manufacturing destination for textiles could be tarnished. 
 
&quot;This is another blot on the Indian exports resume,&quot; said an analyst at a local brokerage, who asked not to be named as it would violate his firm&#39;s policies. &quot;The Welspun fiasco could have ripple effects and force companies to scout for options in other regions in Asia that have unscathed records.&quot; 
 
Government officials say the Welspun case is an exception, and don&#39;t expect much damage to India&#39;s reputation as a manufacturing hub. 
 
&quot;We hope it will be one of the stray incidents that will not have much impact on our near $42 billion textile exports,&quot; said a senior textile ministry official, who declined to be named. 
 
A senior official at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry said more such incidents could dent efforts to promote India as a manufacturing export hub. 
 
&quot;If Indian industry is to survive and thrive, it has to adopt global standards,&quot; he said, adding the ministry has raised the issue of standards with exporters through export promotion councils, and has stressed third-party auditing and self-regulation. 
 
DRUGS AND NOODLES 
 
India has been here before. 
 
Its $15 billion pharmaceutical industry, a global supplier of cheaper generic medicines, has been dogged by quality concerns, with health regulators in the United States, Britain and Europe barring some plants from producing drugs for their markets because of inadequate standards. 
 
Highlighting weak official checks and under-resourced testing facilities, Nestle India had to pull its popular Maggi instant noodles off the shelves last year after local regulators found some samples contained unsafe levels of lead. Subsequent tests at government-accredited laboratories showed the noodles were safe for consumption. 
 
Quality assurance experts in India and beyond, however, said damage from the Welspun case could be contained - if the authorities and businesses move quickly to put in place stringent quality assurance standards. 
 
&quot;The government and the companies should themselves put in place better quality control standards to ensure India&#39;s image is protected,&quot; said a certifier at the Indian arm of a Europe-based textile certification company. 
 
The $108 billion textile industry accounts for a tenth of India&#39;s manufacturing production, 5 percent of GDP and 13 percent of export earnings, according to government data. It is the country&#39;s second-largest employer after agriculture. 
 
The government has announced several schemes in the past two years to encourage better use of technology and infrastructure in the textiles sector, and to foster innovation. 
 
But the Welspun case suggests more needs to be done. 
 
&quot;Sourcing strategy is really driven by who can deliver the lowest cost at an acceptable quality, and India is still a place that delivers on that promise,&quot; said Neil Stern, senior partner at retail consultancy McMillan Doolittle in Chicago. 
 
&quot;This certainly brings negative publicity, but companies will stack it up as one bad apple and not view it as a systemic problem.&quot; 
 
(Reuters)

US retailer Target Corp has accused Welspun of passing off cheaper sheets as premium Egyptian cotton for two years

Questions over the exact provenance of bedsheets sold by Welspun India to America's middle classes have not only wiped $740 million off the firm's market value, but also revived one of Indian manufacturing's enduring headaches: quality. India's government, desperate to accelerate growth and create more jobs, has backed a "Make in India" manufacturing push. India already makes everything from car parts to t-shirts, but is trying to move up the chain to make higher-end products, like Apple's iPhone. One major hurdle, however, has been product quality, often blighted by low salaries, poor training and sketchy suppliers. As India manufactures more, cheap is not always cheerful. So far, in Welspun's case, US retailer Target Corp has severed ties, accusing it of passing off cheaper sheets as premium Egyptian cotton for two years. Other Welspun clients are probing the company's products. It's not clear what led to the problem. Welspun, whose share price nearly halved this week, has said it would do an external audit of its supply chain. Other Indian manufacturers distanced themselves from Welspun, but many fretted over the broader impact as the country tries to bet on quality, not just cheap workers, where it faces constant competition from regional rivals. "It's high time exporters improve the quality of their products," said S.C. Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations, set up by the government and industry to promote exports. He said the group would take up the issue of quality with its members. Arvind Sinha, national president of the Textile Association of India, said India's image as a manufacturing destination for textiles could be tarnished. "This is another blot on the Indian exports resume," said an analyst at a local brokerage, who asked not to be named as it would violate his firm's policies. "The Welspun fiasco could have ripple effects and force companies to scout for options in other regions in Asia that have unscathed records." Government officials say the Welspun case is an exception, and don't expect much damage to India's reputation as a manufacturing hub. "We hope it will be one of the stray incidents that will not have much impact on our near $42 billion textile exports," said a senior textile ministry official, who declined to be named. A senior official at the Ministry of Commerce and Industry said more such incidents could dent efforts to promote India as a manufacturing export hub. "If Indian industry is to survive and thrive, it has to adopt global standards," he said, adding the ministry has raised the issue of standards with exporters through export promotion councils, and has stressed third-party auditing and self-regulation. DRUGS AND NOODLES India has been here before. Its $15 billion pharmaceutical industry, a global supplier of cheaper generic medicines, has been dogged by quality concerns, with health regulators in the United States, Britain and Europe barring some plants from producing drugs for their markets because of inadequate standards. Highlighting weak official checks and under-resourced testing facilities, Nestle India had to pull its popular Maggi instant noodles off the shelves last year after local regulators found some samples contained unsafe levels of lead. Subsequent tests at government-accredited laboratories showed the noodles were safe for consumption. Quality assurance experts in India and beyond, however, said damage from the Welspun case could be contained - if the authorities and businesses move quickly to put in place stringent quality assurance standards. "The government and the companies should themselves put in place better quality control standards to ensure India's image is protected," said a certifier at the Indian arm of a Europe-based textile certification company. The $108 billion textile industry accounts for a tenth of India's manufacturing production, 5 percent of GDP and 13 percent of export earnings, according to government data. It is the country's second-largest employer after agriculture. The government has announced several schemes in the past two years to encourage better use of technology and infrastructure in the textiles sector, and to foster innovation. But the Welspun case suggests more needs to be done. "Sourcing strategy is really driven by who can deliver the lowest cost at an acceptable quality, and India is still a place that delivers on that promise," said Neil Stern, senior partner at retail consultancy McMillan Doolittle in Chicago. "This certainly brings negative publicity, but companies will stack it up as one bad apple and not view it as a systemic problem." (Reuters)

Welspun tangle highlights India's quality challenge

Hope Solo, the US women&#39;s football goalkeeper, was banned for six months from international football following her &quot;bunch of cowards&quot; comment at the Rio Olympics. 
 
The comment was directed at the (defensive-minded) Swedish football team, who beat the United States 4-3 on penalty kicks after their quarter-final match ended 1-1. 
 
&quot;The comments by Hope Solo after the match against Sweden during the 2016&nbsp;Olympics were unacceptable and do not meet the standard of conduct we&nbsp;require from our national team players,&quot; US Soccer President Sunil Gulati said&nbsp;in a statement. 
 
&quot;Taking into consideration the past incidents involving Hope, as well as the&nbsp;private conversations we&#39;ve had requiring her to conduct herself in a manner&nbsp;befitting a US national team member, US Soccer determined this is the&nbsp;appropriate disciplinary action,&quot; it stated. 
 
Solo, who was previously suspended for 30 days in 2015,&nbsp;will start her suspension immediately. 
 
The 35-year-old also made news in January last year over a domestic violence case&nbsp;that was dismissed after she pleaded not guilty. 
 
Solo has been a part of US Olympic gold medal-winning teams in 2008 and 2012. 
 
&quot;For 17 years, I dedicated my life to the US women&#39;s national team and did the&nbsp;job of a pro athlete the only way I knew how - with passion, tenacity, an&nbsp;unrelenting commitment to be the best goalkeeper in the world, not just for my&nbsp;country, but to elevate the sport for the next generation of female athletes. In&nbsp;those commitments, I have never wavered,&quot; she said. 
 
&quot;I think we played a bunch of cowards. The best team did not win today,&quot; Solo&nbsp;had said after the match against Sweden in Brasilia on August 12. 
 
(WION with inputs from agencies)

Solo had made the comment at the Rio Olympics after Sweden beat USA

Hope Solo, the US women's football goalkeeper, was banned for six months from international football following her "bunch of cowards" comment at the Rio Olympics. The comment was directed at the (defensive-minded) Swedish football team, who beat the United States 4-3 on penalty kicks after their quarter-final match ended 1-1. "The comments by Hope Solo after the match against Sweden during the 2016 Olympics were unacceptable and do not meet the standard of conduct we require from our national team players," US Soccer President Sunil Gulati said in a statement. "Taking into consideration the past incidents involving Hope, as well as the private conversations we've had requiring her to conduct herself in a manner befitting a US national team member, US Soccer determined this is the appropriate disciplinary action," it stated. Solo, who was previously suspended for 30 days in 2015, will start her suspension immediately. The 35-year-old also made news in January last year over a domestic violence case that was dismissed after she pleaded not guilty. Solo has been a part of US Olympic gold medal-winning teams in 2008 and 2012. "For 17 years, I dedicated my life to the US women's national team and did the job of a pro athlete the only way I knew how - with passion, tenacity, an unrelenting commitment to be the best goalkeeper in the world, not just for my country, but to elevate the sport for the next generation of female athletes. In those commitments, I have never wavered," she said. "I think we played a bunch of cowards. The best team did not win today," Solo had said after the match against Sweden in Brasilia on August 12. (WION with inputs from agencies)

US goalkeeper Solo slapped with six-month ban over 'bunch of cowards' comment

A direct dialogue between India and Pakistan is good for them and the region, the US has said as it voiced support to meetings at any level between the two countries. 
 
&quot;We strongly support all efforts between India and Pakistan that can contribute to a more stable and prosperous region, and that includes meetings at any level between Indian and Pakistani officials,&quot; State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner told reporters at his daily news conference. 
 
&quot;Our longstanding position has always been that India and Pakistan stand to benefit from a normalisation of relations and practical cooperation, and so we would be encouraged that India and Pakistan continue to engage in direct dialogue aimed at reducing tensions,&quot; he said yesterday. 
 
The State Department&#39;s statement came days after India rejected Pakistan&#39;s proposal to hold Foreign Secretary-level talks on Kashmir and asserted that it would like to discuss aspects related to cross-border terrorism which are central to the current situation in Jammu and Kashmir. 
 
Responding to Pakistan Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry&#39;s invitation, Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar on August 17 expressed his willingness to travel to Islamabad but maintained Pakistan has no locus standi in addressing any aspect of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, which is an internal matter of India, except to put an end to cross-border terrorism and infiltration. 
 
(PTI)

The State Department's statement came days after India rejected Pakistan's proposal to hold Foreign Secretary-level talks on Kashmir

A direct dialogue between India and Pakistan is good for them and the region, the US has said as it voiced support to meetings at any level between the two countries. "We strongly support all efforts between India and Pakistan that can contribute to a more stable and prosperous region, and that includes meetings at any level between Indian and Pakistani officials," State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mark Toner told reporters at his daily news conference. "Our longstanding position has always been that India and Pakistan stand to benefit from a normalisation of relations and practical cooperation, and so we would be encouraged that India and Pakistan continue to engage in direct dialogue aimed at reducing tensions," he said yesterday. The State Department's statement came days after India rejected Pakistan's proposal to hold Foreign Secretary-level talks on Kashmir and asserted that it would like to discuss aspects related to cross-border terrorism which are central to the current situation in Jammu and Kashmir. Responding to Pakistan Foreign Secretary Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry's invitation, Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar on August 17 expressed his willingness to travel to Islamabad but maintained Pakistan has no locus standi in addressing any aspect of the situation in Jammu and Kashmir, which is an internal matter of India, except to put an end to cross-border terrorism and infiltration. (PTI)

US says it supports direct Indo-Pak dialogue

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