| Trump administration mulls $4.3B in foreign aid cuts Posted: 15 Aug 2019 05:09 PM PDT  Cuts of $787M to United Nations international peacekeeping activities are expected to be requested.
|
| S. Korea says N. Korea has fired more projectiles into sea Posted: 15 Aug 2019 04:57 PM PDT ![S. Korea says N. Korea has fired more projectiles into sea]( "S. Korea says N. Korea has fired more projectiles into sea") South Korea's military said Friday North Korea fired more projectiles into the sea to extend a recent streak of weapons tests believed to be aimed at pressuring Washington and Seoul over slow nuclear diplomacy. South Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff said projectiles were twice launched from an area on the North's eastern coast. The Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't immediately say what the weapons were, how many were launched or how far they flew.
|
| Syrian troops advance in northwest amid intense bombardment Posted: 15 Aug 2019 04:09 PM PDT  Syrian forces gained more ground from insurgents in the country's northwest on Thursday, edging closer to a major rebel-held town a day after militants shot down a government warplane in the area. The government offensive, which intensified last week, has displaced nearly 100,000 people over the past four days, according to the Syrian Response Coordination Group, a relief group active in northwestern Syria. Syrian troops have been on the offensive in Idlib and its surroundings, the last major rebel stronghold in Syria, since April 30.
|
| UN: Over 37 health-related attacks in Libya since offensive Posted: 15 Aug 2019 03:59 PM PDT ![UN: Over 37 health-related attacks in Libya since offensive]( "UN: Over 37 health-related attacks in Libya since offensive") More than 37 attacks have been reported against health workers, health facilities and ambulances in Libya since the self-styled Libyan National Army led by Khalifa Hifter launched an offensive in early April to capture the capital of Tripoli, the United Nations said Thursday. The U.N. political mission in Libya said in a statement that the "deplorable attacks" impacted at least 19 hospitals and 19 civilian and military ambulances, resulting in 11 deaths and more than 33 injuries, though the actual number may be significantly higher.
|
| Israel bars US congresswomen - with a nudge from Trump Posted: 15 Aug 2019 03:29 PM PDT  With a push from President Donald Trump, Israel on Thursday barred two Muslim-American congresswomen from entering the country for a visit, an extraordinary step bringing the longtime U.S. ally into Trump's domestic fight against political rivals at home. The U.S. president is essentially relying on Israel to retaliate against two freshman lawmakers, Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who are both outspoken critics of Israel's treatment of Palestinians.
|
| As China faces fate on Hong Kong, America and other democracies face a choice Posted: 15 Aug 2019 03:29 PM PDT  Donald Trump tweets as Xi Jinping lines up his military tanks and Hong Kong protesters wave American flags and sing the U.S. national anthem: Our view
|
| China Preps Tariff Response as Trump Sees a Xi Call ‘Very Soon’ Posted: 15 Aug 2019 03:04 PM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Terms of Trade is a daily newsletter that untangles a world embroiled in trade wars. Sign up here. China called looming U.S. tariffs a violation of accords reached by Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, vowing retaliation as Beijing also pushed back on Trump's effort to link the trade war with the turmoil in Hong Kong.Trump on Thursday said he had a call coming soon with Xi.The plans for 10% tariffs on an additional $300 billion in Chinese imports have taken the U.S. and China off the track of resolving their dispute through negotiation, the State Council Tariff Committee, which has overseen tit-for-tat retaliation, said in a short statement on Thursday. China "has no choice but to take necessary measures to retaliate," it said, without specifying what the nation would do.Separately, a foreign affairs ministry spokeswoman expressed hope that the U.S. would leave Hong Kong as an internal matter for the Chinese government to deal with. Trump said Thursday that an agreement with China has to be on "our terms," according to Fox Business.The U.S. president later told reporters in Morristown, New Jersey, that he has a call scheduled "very soon" with Xi over trade. "They would like to do something," Trump said, without elaborating.U.S. stocks finished the day higher after getting whipsawed throughout the session as Treasury yields plummeted to levels unseen in years. Trade headlines set investors on edge, though volatility has gripped markets for most of August since Trump escalated his spat with China.Trump announced the tariffs set for Sept. 1 and Dec. 15. China has halted purchases of agricultural goods and allowed the yuan to weaken. Still, top negotiators held a phone call earlier this week and the U.S. delayed the imposition of some of the new import taxes.Negotiators also agreed to have another call in the coming two weeks and people familiar said earlier the Chinese delegation is sticking to their plan to travel to the U.S. in September for face-to-face meetings.China's statement indicates that Beijing doesn't think the U.S. delaying some of the tariffs is enough, said Zhou Xiaoming, a former Ministry of Commerce official and diplomat. China is sticking to the position that no new duties should be imposed at all, he said, adding that China's retaliation "may not be limited to tariffs."Hu Xijin, the editor-in-chief of the Communist Party's Global Times newspaper, echoed that sentiment. He tweeted before the Thursday announcement that China wants both sides to respect the consensus reached when Trump and Xi met in Osaka in June. "I doubt the Chinese side will resume large-scale purchase of U.S. farm goods under the current circumstances," he said.Less than 12 hours before the Chinese statement on retaliation, Trump appeared to float the possibility of another meeting with Xi. In a flurry of tweets, he defended his tariff decisions, praised Xi and urged the Chinese president to "humanely" resolve the protests that have gripped Hong Kong for more than two months."Of course China wants to make a trade deal," Trump wrote. "Let them work humanely with Hong Kong first!"China doesn't want external advice on how to deal with Hong Kong."Hong Kong is purely China's internal affair. We have noticed that President Trump has previously said that 'Hong Kong is part of China and they'll have to deal with that themselves. They don't need advice,"' China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying said in a written comments to a question about Trump's tweet. "We hope that the U.S. side will do as what they say."China's position on the trade negotiations has been consistent and clear, Hua said, adding that China hopes the U.S. can meet halfway and implement the consensus of the two leaders in Osaka, "and find mutually acceptable solutions through dialogue and consultation, on the basis of equality and mutual respect."Trump ended his Twitter post with an apparent overture to Xi -- writing "Personal meeting?" -- without clarifying whether he was suggesting another summit.Hua said the two leaders "have always kept in touch through meetings, calls, and letters."\--With assistance from Jennifer Jacobs and Sarah Ponczek.To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: Miao Han in Beijing at mhan22@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Sharon Chen at schen462@bloomberg.net, Brendan Murray, Sarah McGregorFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Brazil’s Bolsonaro Defiant as Norway Freezes Rainforest Cash Posted: 15 Aug 2019 02:50 PM PDT ![Brazil's Bolsonaro Defiant as Norway Freezes Rainforest Cash]( "Brazil's Bolsonaro Defiant as Norway Freezes Rainforest Cash") (Bloomberg) -- Brazil's President Jair Bolsonaro dismissed European leaders' concerns about his government's environmental policies after Norway followed Germany and froze millions of dollars in financial aid to an Amazon rainforest preservation fund.Bolsonaro accused the global elite of indifference to Amazonian deforestation, in comments to reporters in Brasilia on Thursday, arguing their interest was motivated by the natural riches of the region. Norway is not in a position to lecture Brazil and Germany's Angela Merkel should understand that the South American country is under new management, Bolsonaro said. The suspended cash transfer should be used to "reforest Germany" instead, he added.Earlier in the day Norway had announced the suspension of a $33 million payment to the Amazon fund. Germany had previously said it would halt a contribution of 35 million euros. Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon soared to alarming levels in July as an area almost three times the size of New York City was cleared in the jungle last month alone, according to the alert system of Brazil's National Institute for Space Research, known as INPE. Bolsonaro dismissed the data in a press conference, fired the director of INPE, and said that the country has become a victim of a hostile narrative."We are losing the information war regarding the Amazon rainforest," he said. "Brazil will truly take off once we manage to sensibly extract the riches there."The Brazilian president said that he had made his opinions clear to other world leaders. "I have said to Angela Merkel and Macron in a polite but firm manner that we will not be subservient anymore," he said.To contact the reporter on this story: Mario Sergio Lima in Brasilia Newsroom at mlima11@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Juan Pablo Spinetto at jspinetto@bloomberg.net, Bruce DouglasFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| The Latest: Trump defends Israel move to bar 2 congresswomen Posted: 15 Aug 2019 02:48 PM PDT  President Donald Trump is defending Israel's decision to bar two Democratic members of Congress from visiting the country, even as he claims he didn't "encourage or discourage" the move. Israel announced earlier Thursday that it had taken the unprecedented move of barring a visit by Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota over their criticism of the country. Trump had tweeted before the announcement that it would "show great weakness" to let them in.
|
| AP Analysis: Trump uses Israel to fuel partisan fires Posted: 15 Aug 2019 02:30 PM PDT  President Donald Trump's encouragement and support of Israel's decision to ban two Democratic lawmakers may play well to his political base, but it could endanger the foundations of the U.S.-Israel relationship in the longer term. The move to bar Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota from Israel fueled a partisan fire over the Jewish state that has been raging in the United States, with Trump eagerly fanning the flames.
|
| China Loses Status as U.S.’s Top Foreign Creditor to Japan Posted: 15 Aug 2019 01:53 PM PDT ![China Loses Status as U.S.'s Top Foreign Creditor to Japan]( "China Loses Status as U.S.'s Top Foreign Creditor to Japan") (Bloomberg) -- Japan surpassed China in June as the top holder of U.S. Treasuries as the trade war between the world's two largest economies intensified.Japan increased its holdings of U.S. bonds, bills and notes by $21.9 billion to $1.12 trillion, the highest level in more than 2 1/2 years, according to data released by the Treasury Department on Thursday. Meanwhile, China's ownership rose for the first time in four months to $1.11 trillion, up by $2.3 billion.The last time Japan held the position as America's largest foreign creditor was May 2017. The nation has added more than $100 billion worth of Treasuries at a fairly steady pace since October 2018. Treasuries have become more attractive as the globe's pool of negative yielding debt grows, according to BMO Capital Markets. While benchmark 10-year U.S. yields have plunged to the lowest level since 2016 in recent months, the rate on 10-year Japanese government bonds is currently negative 0.23%."The buying we have seen from Japanese investors is really a reflection of the globally low and negative yield environment," said BMO strategist Ben Jeffery.A cautious months-long calm in the U.S.-China trade war was interrupted in May when talks between the two sides broke down. In June the U.S. raised tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods to 25% from 10%.While Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping agreed to a ceasefire in late June, that only lasted about a month before the U.S. president announced that on Sept. 1 he'll impose a 10% levy on virtually every import from China not yet subject to duties.This week, Trump partially backed down by delaying the 10% charge on certain items, including mobile phones and laptops, until Dec. 15 to stem the impact on holiday shopping. Beijing says it still plans to retaliate.China's U.S. debt hoard has come under increased scrutiny in the trade dispute amid speculation that the Asian nation could sell Treasuries in response. Earlier this month, the U.S. formally labeled China a currency manipulator after the yuan weakened past 7 per dollar.(Updates with analyst comment from third paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Sarah McGregor in Washington at smcgregor5@bloomberg.net;Katherine Greifeld in New York at kgreifeld@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Margaret Collins at mcollins45@bloomberg.net, ;Benjamin Purvis at bpurvis@bloomberg.net, Sarah McGregor, Robert JamesonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein’s ‘Madam’ Ghislaine Maxwell Spotted at In-N-Out Burger Posted: 15 Aug 2019 01:44 PM PDT  Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/GettyOn Thursday August 15, the New York Post reported that British socialite—and accused madam of deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein—Ghislaine Maxwell had been spotted at an In-N-Out Burger in Universal City, Los Angeles. She was dining alone with a pet pup by her side, and reading a book titled The Book of Honor: The Secret Lives and Deaths of CIA Operatives. When the Post's source snapped a picture of the raven-haired 57-year-old, he asked, "Are you who I think you are?" She replied, 'Yes, I am.'"Police have reportedly been scrambling to find Maxwell as she faces a new lawsuit from one victim who alleges the socialite gave "organizational support to Epstein's sex-trafficking ring" and procured "underage girls for Epstein's sexual pleasure."Since Epstein's apparent jail-cell suicide on Saturday, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York said their sex-trafficking and conspiracy probe into the multimillionaire's orbit is ongoing. (In a July court filing, prosecutors said they were investigating "uncharged individuals" in Epstein's case.)Attorney General William Barr has vowed that authorities are coming for Epstein's alleged accomplices. "Let me assure you that case will continue on against anyone who was complicit with Epstein," Barr said Monday. "Any co-conspirators should not rest easy. Victims deserve justice and will get it."Maxwell hasn't been charged with any crimes in connection to Epstein. And for years, she has denied any wrongdoing, in particular after accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre claimed that Maxwell and Epstein groomed her for sex with Britain's Prince Andrew. (Buckingham Palace and Andrew also deny that anything improper happened.)Send The Daily Beast a TipEpstein Had His Own Lodge at Interlochen's Prestigious Arts Camp for KidsBut last Friday, a tranche of unsealed documents in a defamation lawsuit filed by Giuffre spelled out how Maxwell allegedly drove around seeking teen "masseuses" for Epstein to abuse, and how she allegedly participated in the sexual abuse herself and kept a "sex slave" of her own.David Boies, a lawyer for Giuffre and other Epstein victims, said Maxwell should be prosecutors' next logical focus after Epstein's demise. "Maxwell is not gonna be able to hide," Boies predicted. "There's no place in the civilized world where she can go and not be found. And unlike Epstein, she does not have the massive resources that would be required to carve out a new life in some obscure place where she cannot be extradited from.""I think it's interesting to speculate as to where she is. I also think the more important issue is: where do the prosecutors stand in bringing a case and is she cooperating?"It's unclear if Maxwell has spoken to authorities after Epstein's arrest. Multiple lawyers of Maxwell's didn't return messages seeking comment. Before Maxwell was spotted at In-N-Out Burger, friends had told The Daily Beast that she was lying low in France, where she has been known to stay at Epstein's residence on Paris's exclusive Avenue Foch near the Arc de Triomphe. "She isn't responding to even her closest friends' calls," said one person who had tried reaching her in recent weeks. Epstein purchased multiple properties within a building at 22 Avenue Foch for about 1.5 million euros in 2002, and officials in France have called for a police probe into his activities there.Maxwell's sister Christine also owns property in France.Yet on Wednesday, the Daily Mail reported that Maxwell wasn't holed up somewhere in Europe—but in the secluded mansion of tech CEO and maritime expert Scott Borgerson in Manchester-by-the-Sea, Massachusetts. The British tabloid snapped photos of Borgerson, 43, walking a dog it claims is Maxwell's."She's become a real homebody, rarely ventures out," a source told the Mail. "She's the antithesis of the woman who traveled extensively and partied constantly with Epstein."Tech CEO and maritime expert Scott Borgerson's home in Manchester-by-the-Sea, MassachusettsRealtorOutside the wooded trail to Borgerson's manse, where dogs were barking, a woman drove by and told a Daily Beast reporter of Maxwell: "Is she still there? They better get her out fast because the town will run her out."Residents in the downtown Manchester area—less than two miles from Borgerson's home—did not recognize Maxwell or her boyfriend, and only a few had heard about her connection to Epstein.A 66-year-old resident who has been living in the area since 1993 said he heard the news from a friend, and said he found it "surprising.""This is not the kind of community that tolerates that crap," he said.Another woman who asked not to be named said she was horrified to hear people connected to Epstein lived in the area. "I don't care what political side you're on ... I have less than zero tolerance. If she's guilty I don't want her in my town," said the 46-year-old attorney, who said she's worked with women who have been trafficked for sex."If she's falsely accused, then it's horrible. If she's rightly accused it's repulsive and disgusting," the lawyer said.In the city of Boston, where Borgerson owns another property close to the state house and the next to the city's historic park, all was business as usual.The strip of street his property is located on is a quiet area in Beacon Hill—a neighborhood known for its high housing costs and a stone's throw from the bustling downtown area. Reached by The Daily Beast, Borgerson denied that he was dating Maxwell or that she was staying at his $3 million home. "Ghislaine is not at my house. She's a friend—former friend. Not true," Borgerson said, adding that he was about to board a plane and would call police in light of the Mail's report to protect his house and his family."The police are coming to my house," he said. "No one's home except my cat."In a text message to a Daily Beast reporter, Borgerson added, "Hi, I'm traveling abroad for business. Ghislaine Maxwell is not at my home and I don't know where she is. I'm passionate about ocean policy and wish people were as interested in Jones Act reform, joining the law of the sea, and funding icebreakers."Borgerson was listed as a "director" of Maxwell's ocean nonprofit, the TerraMar Project, in 2013 tax filings. That year, Maxwell and Borgerson both attended the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavík. While Maxwell was representing TerraMar, Borgerson was there as CEO of CargoMetrics, a Boston-based firm that "delivers transformative quantitative investing and maritime shipping solutions, anchored in its proprietary platform that tracks all seaborne cargoes and vessels," according to one press release.In 2014, a United Nations event featured Maxwell as a speaker. According to her bio in the program, Maxwell's "web-based non-profit" aimed "to protect the Oceans by empowering a global community of ocean citizens." It further described Maxwell as "a private helicopter pilot and an Emergency Medical Technician and a qualified ROV and Deepworker submarine pilot."A former Coast Guard officer, Borgerson was also a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, which featured Borgerson and Maxwell as speakers during one 2014 talk titled "Governing the Ocean Commons: Growing Challenges, New Approaches." Friends of Maxwell, according to The New York Times, said Borgerson became her boyfriend. Maxwell had allegedly described Borgerson as a "Navy SEAL" to her pals.Maxwell's dubious charity also roped in the Clinton Global Initiative, the now-defunct networking platform for the Clinton Foundation. In the fall of 2013, CGI named TerraMar as one of the "commitments to action" at their annual meeting. A close-up of Ghislaine Maxwell's residence in LondonGoogle MapsIndeed, Maxwell was tied to the Clintons for years and attended Chelsea's wedding in 2010. She's also flown on President Trump's private jet, according to Politico, which reported Maxwell helped get Epstein access to Trumpworld, including parties at Mar-a-Lago.A blurb on the Clinton Foundation's website announced TerraMar would launch the Sustainable Oceans Alliance "to mobilize the international community and the public at large on the importance of the Oceans and the Seas and to ensure that the 193 UN Member States recognize and incorporate oceans in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to be adopted in 2015."While TerraMar's website listed modelling mogul Paolo Zampolli as a member of the Alliance, Zampolli recently told Politico he didn't know Maxwell was involved. Zampolli said he remembered the late diplomat Stuart Beck, a former director of TerraMar, brought Maxwell to the United Nations twice to discuss her ocean activism. Zampolli reiterated this in an interview with The Daily Beast."She came to the United Nations twice to meet with me. She had a very creative idea about the oceans," Zampolli told one Daily Beast scribe. "She wanted to create awareness and give free passports to the ocean. Oceans are so big. Her idea wasn't aligned with the charter of the U.N.""She was very active and knowledgeable about the oceans," he added. "I learnt after the meetings the Clinton foundation was funding her. She did not give us money. It was not a United Nations idea. It was a virtual passport. It's like getting a piece of ice from an eskimo. It would be like getting a passport for an ice cube."Shortly after Epstein's arrest, TerraMar disabled its website and the New York Post reported that the feds were probing the charity over its potential connection to Epstein."The TerraMar Project is sad to announce that it will cease all operations," a message on the group's defunct site reads. "The web site will be closed. TerraMar's mission has always been to connect ocean lovers to positive actions, highlight science, and bring conscious change to how to people from across the globe can live, work and enjoy the ocean."Before Maxwell surfaced, speculation ran wild as to where she might be. Those close to her pointed to one of her relatives' properties in France.A property in southern France that belongs to Maxwell's sister ChristineDana Kennedy for The Daily BeastMaxwell was born in Maisons-Laffitte, in the Paris suburbs, to a French mother (Holocaust researcher Elisabeth "Betty" Maxwell) and a Czech-born father, the notorious publishing mogul Robert Maxwell who died mysteriously after falling from his yacht, the Lady Ghislaine, after he'd plundered hundreds of millions from his Daily Mirror employees' pension fund. She and several of her six surviving siblings—as well as her late mother, who died in 2013—had homes in various small towns in the south of France. Her older sister, Christine Malina-Maxwell, has a home in Meyreuil, a semi-rural village about 8 miles from Aix-en-Provence. Nobody was home at the walled-in villa when The Daily Beast rang the gate buzzer Wednesday. Most of the surrounding estates seemed empty. A neighbor directly across the way had a strange reaction when asked if he knew the Malinas or Ghislaine Maxwell. He seemed to confirm that a man with the last name Malina lived there but said he'd never heard of Ghislaine Maxwell. But as the reporter was leaving, he started laughing and said, "Maybe they're all there."Meanwhile, there was no answer at Maxwell's townhouse on Kinnerton Street in London's Belgravia district. A gaggle of press shutterbugs told a Daily Beast reporter they've seen no signs of life at the home over the last two or three weeks.Neighbors say the house, which had fresh flowers in its window boxes, hasn't appeared lived-in for a while. "I've only seen someone go in and out a couple of times and my first thought was that it was maybe a cleaner," said one resident who has lived on the street since last year. "It's not really the kind of street where everyone talks to each other. It's actually been quite nice having all you lot (journalists) around because there's been someone to talk to."Another neighbor said she didn't recognize Maxwell's name and said of the townhouse, "I have no idea who lives there. A few of us know each other on the street but I don't know who lives at that house."Ghislaine Maxwell's residence in LondonJamie Ross for The Daily BeastAccording to public records, the property hasn't been sold since 1997. The windows of the home appear to match those in the infamous photo of Prince Andrew with his arm around the bare midriff of Virginia Roberts, now Virginia Giuffre, as Maxwell smiles behind them. In a 2015 court declaration, Giuffre stated, "One day when I was in London (specifically in a townhouse that is under Maxwell's name), I got news from Maxwell that I would be meeting a prince. Later that day, Epstein told me I was meeting a 'major prince.' Epstein told me 'to exceed' everything I had been taught.""He emphasized that whatever Prince Andrew wanted, I was to make sure he got," Giuffre added. "Eventually Prince Andrew arrived, along with his security guards. The guards then went out of the house and stayed out front in their car. It was just Epstein, Maxwell, and me inside alone with Andy."Maxwell's name is also connected to a cottage in Salisbury, records show, for her company Ellmax. In 2015, the Daily Mail reported the home was occupied by Maxwell's old friend, Catherine Vaughan Edwards. (Katie Vaughan Edwards was listed as a "director" of TerraMar in 2012 tax records.) The New York Post, which revealed Maxwell posed for racy photos in the 1990s wearing an American flag bikini, reported that the British heiress was last spotted on Manhattan's social scene in October 2016. One fellow socialite told the Post, "What's crazy—now—is that other women liked her and really thought she was a 'girl's girl.' The friend added, "I would see her at parties and she seemed perfectly lovely—but then I would hear these stories about her."Wherever Maxwell is, she's surely heard the news of Jeffrey Epstein's demise. The two were entwined romantically, financially—and, some say, criminally—for years.According to one unsealed deposition, Epstein's former house manager in Palm Beach, Juan Alessi, said Maxwell "became the supervisor not only for this house, but for all the homes" when Epstein was absent. Alessi said more than 100 girls came to Epstein's mansion during his employment, and that he cleaned and returned sex toys to Maxwell's closet.Asked who went out looking for girls, Alessi said, "Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein and their friends, because their friends relayed to other friends they knew a massage therapist and they would send to the house. So it was referrals."A butler for Epstein's ex-girlfriend, Eva Andersson-Dubin, detailed one occasion where Maxwell, Epstein, and an unnamed 15-year-old girl from Sweden, entered the home Dubin shares with her husband Glenn, a billionaire hedge-funder. The employee, Rinaldo Rizzo, testified that Eva brought the girl into the kitchen and left. The teen, who was distraught, told Rizzo she was Epstein's personal assistant. She then burst into tears, claiming she was on Epstein's island with Maxwell and Epstein's ex-assistant, co-conspirator Sarah Kellen. The trio had asked her for sex, and she said no.According to Rizzo, the girl didn't know how she got to the Dubins' residence from the island and claimed Kellen snatched her passport and phone and handed them to Maxwell. The girl then allegedly told Rizzo, "I was threatened by Ghislaine not to discuss this."55 Court Street in BostonHandoutGiuffre claimed in a deposition that Maxwell had sex with underage girls every day Giuffre was around her—and that Maxwell directed her to have sex with Glenn Dubin, Prince Andrew, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, MIT mathematician Marvin Minsky, former Senator George Mitchell, model scout Jean-Luc Brunel, and the owner of a large hotel chain. (The men have denied her claims.)"Glenn and Eva Dubin are outraged by the allegations against them in the unsealed court records and categorically reject them," said a spokesperson for the couple."You know, I was told to do something by these people constantly, told to—my whole life revolved around just pleasing these men and keeping Ghislaine and Jeffrey happy," Giuffre testified. "Their whole entire lives revolved around sex."Giuffre's defamation suit against Maxwell, filed in 2015, described the socialite as a "primary co-conspirator" who was granted immunity via Epstein's 2007 plea agreement. This week, attorneys for Epstein's victims suing the government asked a judge to rescind the deal's provisions that protected Epstein's accomplices, stating, "It would be unfair to the victims if Epstein not only managed to cheat justice through his death, but also left behind some kind of legal issue preventing the victims from obtaining the rescission remedy to which they are plainly entitled." As part of the shady non-prosecution agreement, the feds agreed not to charge "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Marcinkova."While Maxwell wasn't explicitly named, she's long been at the center of the Epstein controversy as his girlfriend-turned-majordomo and recruiter of his minor victims. And now that Epstein is dead, all eyes are on Maxwell as the keeper of his secrets.The government will have access to the full, unredacted evidentiary record in the case Giuffre brought against Maxwell, Boies said. "In my view, it is very unlikely that Maxwell will escape prosecution," Boies said. "If that's right, she would have an enormous incentive to see if she could do a deal."He added, "It would be a lot better for her to cooperate as opposed to fight it, because somebody's going to cooperate. There are too many people with knowledge. There are too many people involved in the criminal enterprise. Somebody's going to cooperate, and in that context, if you're somebody in Maxwell's position, you want to be sure you're in as early as possible."Barbara McQuade, the former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said Maxwell could remain as the most egregious offender in Epstein's case."I would imagine if I were a prosecutor or an investigator in the Epstein case, I would be considering her a subject of the investigation," said McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School. "People are usually subjects, witnesses or targets. You gather evidence about people.""Just what we know from the press, there's some complicity there," McQuade added.McQuade said that if Maxwell were charged, the complaint would likely be filed under seal. And that the FBI has offices across the world to work with foreign agencies to find her—if Maxwell is hiding from authorities. "She is an intriguing figure here," McQuade told The Daily Beast. "It could be that investigators have already talked to her and are not making that known that she's cooperating. Or it could be that she is under investigation herself. She even could have been indicted under seal."Based on the allegations brought by victims to the media, Maxwell could face charges for being co-conspirator of Epstein, McQuade said. One of the child sex-trafficking charges in Epstein's indictment, 18 U.S.C. 1591, refers to recruiting and enticing minors. "She herself could be liable as a principal even if she was not engaged in any sex acts with the girls," McQuade said.— Additional reporting by Adam Rawnsley and Blake MontgomeryRead more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
|
| Thousands of Yemenis rally in support of separatists in Aden Posted: 15 Aug 2019 12:39 PM PDT  Thousands of Yemenis rallied Thursday in the port city of Aden in support of southern separatists who seized the city from the country's internationally recognized government amid diplomatic efforts aimed at reinstating forces loyal to the Saudi-backed president. Yemeni military officials said a Saudi Arabia-United Arab Emirates commission arrived to monitor the withdrawal of separatist forces from government headquarters and military camps seized last week from President Abel Rabbo Mansour Hadi's presidential guards after four days of fighting that left more than 70 people dead, including civilians.
|
| How to Kill an F-15 Eagle in Battle: Hackers? Posted: 15 Aug 2019 12:35 PM PDT  A team of hackers in early August 2019 gained access to an F-15 fighter in an eye-opening U.S. military test. The successful hack underscores U.S. forces' vulnerability to electronic intrusion."It was the first time outside researchers were allowed physical access to the critical F-15 system to search for weaknesses," reporter Joseph Marks wrote for The Washington Post.From the article:> And after two long days, the seven hackers found a mother lode of vulnerabilities that — if exploited in real life — could have completely shut down the Trusted Aircraft Information Download Station, which collects reams of data from video cameras and sensors while the jet is in flight.> > They even found bugs that the Air Force had tried but failed to fix after the same group of hackers performed similar tests in November [2018] without actually touching the device. …> > The hackers lobbed a variety of attacks — including injecting the system with malware and even going at it with pliers and screwdrivers. When I saw it, the metal box that's usually secure on the aircraft had wires hanging out the front.The hackers revealed their success to Will Roper, the Air Force's top weapons-buyer, Marks wrote. "They were able to get back in through the back doors they already knew were open," Roper said.Roper is "trying to turn that around," Marks explained. The acquisitions chief is "hopeful about the results of the U.S. government's newfound openness to ethical hackers."More from the post story: > This is a drastic change from previous years, when the military would not allow hackers to try to search for vulnerabilities in extremely sensitive equipment, let alone take a literal whack at it.> > But the Air Force is convinced that unless it allows America's best hackers to search out all the digital vulnerabilities in its planes and weapons systems, then the best hackers from adversaries such as Russia, Iran and North Korea will find and exploit those vulnerabilities first."There are millions of lines of code that are in all of our aircraft and if there's one of them that's flawed, then a country that can't build a fighter to shoot down that aircraft might take it out with just a few keystrokes," Roper told Marks.The F-15, which after 40 years of service is still the Air Force's main air-to-air fighter, was the target of an earlier hack that wasn't at all "ethical."Starting in 2014, North Korean hackers infiltrated a computer network belonging to a South Korean aerospace firm's computer network.The hackers made off with some 42,000 documents, including blueprints for the F-15's wing design.South Korea operates one of the same models of F-15 that the United States does. Korea Aerospace Industries builds the F-15's wings under contract with Boeing, the number-two U.S. defense firm. Boeing has described KAI as a "valued supplier."South Korean authorities first detected the hack in February 2017, South Korea's police cyber investigation unit told Reuters.North Korea has neither the know-how nor the resources to copy the F-15 or even adapt the Eagle's blueprints to its own designs. "North Korea will never build a serious air force," Robert Edwin Kelly, an associate professor at Pusan National University in South Korea, told The Daily Beast.The hack nevertheless exposed a vulnerability, one of many that the U.S. military hopes to address. In 2020 Roper wants to invite, to Nellis or Creech Air Force Bases near Las Vegas, what Marks called "vetted hackers."There the hackers "can probe for bugs on every digital system in a military plane, including for ways that bugs in one system can allow hackers to exploit other systems until they've gained effective control of the entire plane," Marks explained."We want to bring this community to bear on real weapons systems and real airplanes," Roper told Marks. "And if they have vulnerabilities, it would be best to find them before we go into conflict."David Axe serves as Defense Editor of the National Interest. He is the author of the graphic novels War Fix, War Is Boring and Machete Squad.
|
| Al Qaeda releases 'blooper reel' of Islamic State videos amid jihadi spat Posted: 15 Aug 2019 12:18 PM PDT  Al-Qaeda has released embarrassing outtakes from an Islamic State propaganda video of fighters in Yemen, in an attempt to undermine its bitter rival. The blooper reel, released by Al-Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula's Hidayah Media Productions, shows a kneeling militant trying to renew his pledge of allegiance to Isil leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi but repeatedly being interrupted by a squawking bird in the tree above. The jihadi, identified as Abu Muhammad al-Adeni, appears to be distracted by the chirping, causing him to forget his lines. He takes out notes from his pocket, while another fighter can be heard telling him to "stay calm, keep cool". The media group does not reveal how it got hold of the unedited version of the video, but it could have been handed over by an Isil defector or taken from a captured base. Analysts said the video, which Al-Qaeda's titled "The Hollywood reality of al-Baghdadi group - Part 2" was produced by Islamic State's branch in Yemen in 2017, when the group was growing in strength. Elizabeth Kendall, a Middle East expert at Oxford University, who first shared the video on Twitter wrote: "Heroic bird relentlessly drowns out ISIS-Y's attempt to renew allegiance to the caliph," in reference to the Yemeni affiliate of Isil. "Leader's feeble memory adds to the woes... These bodged 'takes' didn't make it into the official video of this solemn event, released end July." "One of the interesting things for me here is al-Qaeda do counter-narratives better than we do, using humour and mockery in a local and very clever way," she said. The video has drawn comparisons to the hapless jihadists in Chris Morris's 2010 dark comedy Four Lions. The Islamic State and al-Qaeda have been waging a deadly contest for territory, recruits and influence in Yemen, where both are battling the Shia Iran-backed Houthi militants. An online propaganda war has ensued, with both groups releasing competing online propaganda and social media. Hidayah Media was behind a 2016 video that accused Isil of using the dark red cordial Vimto drink as fake blood in a staged battle in one of its videos, which prompted widespread jokes and hashtags on Twitter at their expense. However, offline, in recent months, the fighting has escalated. Isil has deployed suicide bombers against al-Qaeda positions.
|
| Gibraltar orders Iranian tanker release despite US detention bid Posted: 15 Aug 2019 12:15 PM PDT  Gibraltar's Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favour of releasing an Iranian supertanker seized on suspicion of shipping oil to war-torn Syria in breach of international sanctions, in a blow to the United States which had tried to block the vessel's departure. The decision by Chief Justice Anthony Dudley came after Gibraltar's government said it had received written assurances from Iran that the Grace 1 would not be headed for countries "subject to European Union sanctions".
|
| Trump Makes Israel Look Weak Posted: 15 Aug 2019 11:40 AM PDT ![Trump Makes Israel Look Weak]( "Trump Makes Israel Look Weak") (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Benjamin Netanyahu says he had no choice but to forbid two first-year members of Congress from visiting Israel. Israeli law bans those who boycott it, and after reviewing the itinerary of Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the Israeli prime minister determined their visit's "sole purpose was to support boycotts and deny Israel's legitimacy," according to his statement to the press. What else could he do? In the narrowest possible sense, Netanyahu has a point. Omar, Tlaib and other Jacobins in the Democratic Party single out Israel for special opprobrium. Unlike another recent Democratic Party delegation, they had not planned to meet either government officials or members of the opposition.In a more meaningful sense, however, Netanyahu's statement is hogwash. First, it cannot have been a surprise that Omar and Tlaib were not traveling to Israel to get on-the-ground policy briefings. For these lawmakers, Israel is merely a prop they can use to rouse their supporters.More important, as Axios reported this week, Israeli agencies discussing the visit had already agreed to allow the visit. Israel's ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, also had said that Israel would allow the Omar-Tlaib delegation out of respect for Congress. Everyone knew this was a stunt. So what happened between that meeting and Netanyahu's announcement? The answer is the same four words that have upended so many other well-laid plans: President Donald Trump tweeted.On Wednesday morning he said on Twitter that it would "show great weakness" for Israel to allow entry to Omar and Tlaib. And within a few hours Netanyahu gave his statement about their itinerary and Israeli law. Trump had already expressed privately his disappointment with Israel's decision to let the squad members into Israel, according to Axios. By tweeting, he was just saying the quiet part out loud.Yet Trump's message — that it showed strength for Israel to ban Omar and Tlaib — is contradicted by the events it set in motion. By reversing its decision following the protests of a powerful friend, Israel looks weak.Forget for a moment the specifics of Omar and Tlaib's visit, or their rhetoric and positions on issues important to Israel. Deciding who can and cannot visit one's country is elemental to national sovereignty. Israel has surrendered that sovereignty in this instance because Trump wants to elevate Omar and Tlaib as a foil for his own domestic political reasons.There is no doubt that the president has pursued policies that have strengthened Israeli security. He has moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal and recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. But if the cost of that support is an expectation for partisan obeisance, then how much are those policies really worth?Netanyahu's government got it right the first time. Omar and Tlaib are more clowns than demons. Let them have their pageant. The Jewish state has survived diplomatic isolation, economic warfare, suicide bombers and invading armies. A confident nation does not fear a few hostile press conferences — or the temper of an erratic president.To contact the author of this story: Eli Lake at elake1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Newman at mnewman43@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Eli Lake is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering national security and foreign policy. He was the senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast and covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times, the New York Sun and UPI.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Trump Makes Israel Look Weak Posted: 15 Aug 2019 11:40 AM PDT ![Trump Makes Israel Look Weak]( "Trump Makes Israel Look Weak") (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Benjamin Netanyahu says he had no choice but to forbid two first-year members of Congress from visiting Israel. Israeli law bans those who boycott it, and after reviewing the itinerary of Representatives Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the Israeli prime minister determined their visit's "sole purpose was to support boycotts and deny Israel's legitimacy," according to his statement to the press. What else could he do? In the narrowest possible sense, Netanyahu has a point. Omar, Tlaib and other Jacobins in the Democratic Party single out Israel for special opprobrium. Unlike another recent Democratic Party delegation, they had not planned to meet either government officials or members of the opposition.In a more meaningful sense, however, Netanyahu's statement is hogwash. First, it cannot have been a surprise that Omar and Tlaib were not traveling to Israel to get on-the-ground policy briefings. For these lawmakers, Israel is merely a prop they can use to rouse their supporters.More important, as Axios reported this week, Israeli agencies discussing the visit had already agreed to allow the visit. Israel's ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, also had said that Israel would allow the Omar-Tlaib delegation out of respect for Congress. Everyone knew this was a stunt. So what happened between that meeting and Netanyahu's announcement? The answer is the same four words that have upended so many other well-laid plans: President Donald Trump tweeted.On Wednesday morning he said on Twitter that it would "show great weakness" for Israel to allow entry to Omar and Tlaib. And within a few hours Netanyahu gave his statement about their itinerary and Israeli law. Trump had already expressed privately his disappointment with Israel's decision to let the squad members into Israel, according to Axios. By tweeting, he was just saying the quiet part out loud.Yet Trump's message — that it showed strength for Israel to ban Omar and Tlaib — is contradicted by the events it set in motion. By reversing its decision following the protests of a powerful friend, Israel looks weak.Forget for a moment the specifics of Omar and Tlaib's visit, or their rhetoric and positions on issues important to Israel. Deciding who can and cannot visit one's country is elemental to national sovereignty. Israel has surrendered that sovereignty in this instance because Trump wants to elevate Omar and Tlaib as a foil for his own domestic political reasons.There is no doubt that the president has pursued policies that have strengthened Israeli security. He has moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal and recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. But if the cost of that support is an expectation for partisan obeisance, then how much are those policies really worth?Netanyahu's government got it right the first time. Omar and Tlaib are more clowns than demons. Let them have their pageant. The Jewish state has survived diplomatic isolation, economic warfare, suicide bombers and invading armies. A confident nation does not fear a few hostile press conferences — or the temper of an erratic president.To contact the author of this story: Eli Lake at elake1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Newman at mnewman43@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Eli Lake is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering national security and foreign policy. He was the senior national security correspondent for the Daily Beast and covered national security and intelligence for the Washington Times, the New York Sun and UPI.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| WRAPUP 3-China warns it could quell Hong Kong protesters; Trump urges Xi to meet them Posted: 15 Aug 2019 11:37 AM PDT ![WRAPUP 3-China warns it could quell Hong Kong protesters; Trump urges Xi to meet them]( "WRAPUP 3-China warns it could quell Hong Kong protesters; Trump urges Xi to meet them") Hong Kong braced for more mass protests over the weekend, even as China warned it could use its power to quell demonstrations and U.S. President Donald Trump urged his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, to meet with the protesters to defuse weeks of tensions. Hundreds of China's People's Armed Police (PAP) on Thursday conducted exercises at a sports stadium in Shenzhen that borders Hong Kong a day after the U.S. State Department said it was "deeply concerned" about the movements, which have prompted worries that the troops could be used to break up protests.
|
| Gibraltar releases Iran supertanker that US sought to seize Posted: 15 Aug 2019 11:27 AM PDT  The British overseas territory of Gibraltar released a seized Iranian supertanker Thursday over last-minute objections from the U.S., potentially easing tensions between London and Tehran, which still holds a British-flagged vessel. The release of the Grace 1 comes amid a growing confrontation between Iran and the West after U.S. President Donald Trump pulled Washington out of Tehran's nuclear deal with world powers over a year ago. In past weeks, the Persian Gulf region has seen six attacks on oil tankers that the U.S. has blamed on Iran and the downing of a U.S. surveillance drone by Iranian forces.
|
| Corbyn Plan to Become U.K.’s Caretaker Prime Minister Falls Flat Posted: 15 Aug 2019 10:38 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn's appeal to other U.K. parties that he should become a caretaker prime minister to stop a no-deal Brexit looks to have already fallen flat, as even some in his own party apparently accepted an alternative plan was needed.Corbyn on Wednesday evening wrote to rival party leaders, as well as selected Conservative members of Parliament, and suggested they should support him to oust Boris Johnson so he could seek a delay to Britain's departure from the European Union and call a general election.While the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru, who between them have 39 MPs, expressed a willingness to discuss the idea, it was rejected by the Liberal Democrats, who have 14 MPs. The party's leader, Jo Swinson, called Corbyn a "divisive" figure who had no realistic chance of getting a majority behind him even on a temporary basis."There's no way he can unite rebel Conservatives and independents," Swinson said in a speech in London on Thursday. "It's not even certain he could secure all the votes of Labour members of Parliament."Corbyn's proposal was that he should table a confidence motion -- as leader of the main opposition party, he is the only person who can demand such a vote and be certain of the request being accepted -- once other parties had agreed to his plan.Although Corbyn insisted on Thursday that it was his right to lead the administration that would follow -- Labour has 247 seats and would thus supply three-quarters of the votes behind any replacement government -- some MPs in his party seemed to acknowledge that he wouldn't be a plausible candidate as a caretaker premier."If the PM loses a vote of no confidence, of course the Leader of the Opposition should be first in line to test the confidence of the House, followed by anyone else who seems to stand a chance of forming a government," Chris Bryant, a Labour MP, said on Twitter. "There's no reason not to have several attempts in short order."Stephen Kinnock, another Labour MP, told Politico that if lawmakers rejected Corbyn, it would be reasonable to ask him to support an alternative leader.But Conservative MP Guto Bebb reacted more positively, calling a short-term government under Corbyn "less damaging than the generational damage that would be caused by a no-deal Brexit.""Those that have said that they will do anything necessary to stop the long-term damage of a no-deal exit must take seriously this type of offer," Bebb told the BBC.Still, Corbyn's letter largely highlighted the difficulties of a so-called government of national unity, a plan floated by some to stop the no-deal Brexit that they fear Johnson will pursue.He didn't even write to the former Labour MPs who quit his party earlier this year. Given that their reason for leaving was his leadership, that makes sense -- but he would need their votes. The letter also confirmed that Corbyn wouldn't allow Labour MPs to support any other such caretaker government.Dominic Grieve, one of the Tories that Corbyn approached, said he was happy to discuss ways of blocking a no-deal Brexit, but that a unity government under the Labour leader seemed a "most unlikely way forward." Some of Corbyn's views, Grieve told the BBC, were "entirely abhorrent.""Even for a short period a prime minister in a caretaker capacity has got to be somebody who can inspire trust," Grieve said. "I have to say that seeing Jeremy Corbyn's history, it's difficult to see how he could possibly be in a position to do such a thing."Corbyn also made clear his priority is a general election, rather than stopping Brexit altogether. Those who want to stay in the EU prefer the idea of calling another referendum. While Labour is now committed to holding such a vote if it wins power, it has kept open the option of campaigning to leave the bloc.The primary focus when Parliament returns next month is likely to be less on any confidence vote than in moves by the large group of Conservative MPs -- including former Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond -- to find a legislative route to blocking a no-deal Brexit.(Updates with Grieve response from 13th paragraph.)To contact the reporters on this story: Robert Hutton in London at rhutton1@bloomberg.net;Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, Stuart Biggs, Mark WilliamsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Iraq takes security measures following mysterious blasts Posted: 15 Aug 2019 10:26 AM PDT  Iraq on Thursday banned unauthorized flights and ordered all military camps and munitions warehouses to be moved outside Iraqi cities following a massive explosion at a munitions depot southwest of Baghdad that killed one civilian and wounded 13 earlier this week. The blast shook the Iraqi capital and sent explosives and mortar shells shooting into the sky, damaging nearby homes and terrifying residents who ran into the streets with their cellphones. The federal police base houses a weapons depot belonging to a militia group under the umbrella of the mainly Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces.
|
| Israeli police say officers kill Palestinian teen attacker Posted: 15 Aug 2019 10:21 AM PDT ![Israeli police say officers kill Palestinian teen attacker]( "Israeli police say officers kill Palestinian teen attacker") Israeli police say officers shot dead a Palestinian teen and seriously wounded another after they stabbed a policeman outside a flashpoint Jerusalem holy site. Police Spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said Thursday the officer was moderately wounded in the stabbing in Jerusalem's Old City. The Palestinian Red Crescent said a guard from the Islamic Waqf, which manages the nearby compound, also suffered a gunshot wound and was hospitalized.
|
| The Syria Safe Zone Will Cripple the Kurds Posted: 15 Aug 2019 10:06 AM PDT  The State Department announced early this month that U.S. and Turkish military delegations had reached an agreement on establishing a safe area in northern Syria for refugees fleeing the fighting that has devastated that country since 2011. One major problem with this agreement is that the proposed zone would be detached from territory now controlled by Syria's Kurdish militias, which have been operating under the umbrella of the Syrian Democratic Forces. Washington sees the Kurdish militias as key allies against ISIS, but Ankara regards them as enablers of the Turkish Kurd separatists that have been battling with Turkey since the 1980s.The announcement omitted any meaningful details, such as key parameters for the zone or who will be in charge of actually maintaining security within the area. Perhaps that should not be too surprising. After all, the problem the agreement seeks to resolve is excruciatingly complex and impervious to easy answers or quick solutions.Upwards of four million Syrian refugees have flooded into Turkey. Turkey wants to establish a safe area so it can start to relocate refugees, easing the strain it has put on Turkey's domestic resources, not to mention the political problems it would rather not have. But in Turkey's calculations, the safe zone doubles as an opportunity to push the Syrian Kurds farther away from Turkey's border, thus making it harder for some monolithic Kurdish entity to assert itself in claiming Turkey's eastern lands. So the agreement represents a potential double-win for Turkey, but at the expense of the Kurds.The Kurds are beset on all sides. The Turks view them as terrorists who seek to carve out a homeland that would claim a part of Turkey; the government of Syria views them in a similar way, an obstacle to Bashar Al-Assad's complete control of the country that he has vowed to reclaim "every inch" of.Competitors within the region include what remains of the Islamic State, lethal elements of Al Qaeda, large numbers of opposition fighters from other Islamist extremist groups, Iranian troublemakers, and pro-Iranian militias (including Hezbollah operatives). All of these players battle constantly for control of what little working infrastructure remains, with the Kurds caught in the middle.The United States wants to relieve suffering and prevent the Kurds from being exterminated. But the United States is also practical and fully cognizant that the Kurds are good fighters and the most effective local means through which to attack terror groups that pose a threat to U.S. interests.As for the Syrian Kurds, their survival is at stake and can only be secured by maintaining an effective claim on a homeland that, by its nature, sustains the "threat" perceived by all of the other actors in this bloody play.The lack of agreement on who will do what to create and maintain this safe zone also highlights the complexity of the U.S.-Turkey relationship. Both are members of NATO and the United States depends on the use of military facilities hosted by the Turks. Yet Turkey has pushed forward in acquiring the advanced S-400 air defense radar/missile system from Russia in spite of U.S. concerns about the threat it poses to America's newest fighter jet program, the F-35. Turkey has been a part of the program since its beginning and was slated to receive one hundred fighters. But now, Turkey has been barred from acquiring the fighter jets or participating in the production of components for the F-35 program.So what to do? That Syria's refugees need a sanctuary as long as the civil war rages is a given. And the Kurds are valuable partners in America's efforts to fight ISIS and contain Iranian influence. Washington should not allow them to fall prey to Syria's brutal regime or its Iranian backers.The United States cannot completely quit the region because of the larger security risks presented by an assortment of terrorist groups and Iran's designs to entrench itself in Syria and open up a new front on the borders of Israel. The United States should seek to mediate between Turkey and Syrian Kurds, just as it played a role in fostering better relations between Turkey and Iraqi Kurds.As frustrating, drawn-out, and unsatisfactory as all of this is, a "least bad" outcome is far preferable to slaughter, ethnic cleansing, broken alliances, and a region plunged deeper into chaos. That's the nature of intractable problems; it is often the nature of regional relations, and it highlights the importance of patient, focused, and artful diplomacy.Dakota L. Wood is a senior research fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Center for National Defense. James Phillips is the senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs in the think tank's Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies.Image: Reuters
|
| The United States is Losing Latin America to China Posted: 15 Aug 2019 10:05 AM PDT  HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, the United States has been sensitive about foreign powers involving themselves in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere. Yet with the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, Washington seemed to forget about its "backyard" in the Americas. Instead, the U.S. foreign policy establishment focused on Eurasia, particularly after 9/11. Sensing an opportunity to attain influence in the region at the expense of the United States, China has stepped into Latin America—strengthening diplomatic ties, expanding trade relations and pouring tens of billions of yuan into infrastructure investments.Beijing's intentions were stated outright in a 2008 policy paper that, apart from a few China and Latin America hands, was largely overlooked at the time. Though China and Latin America are separated by the breadth of the Pacific Ocean, the paper stated that both sides "enjoy a time-honored friendship" and "are at a similar stage of development and face the common task of achieving development." The region's then mostly left-wing governments, often ignored and at times antagonized by the United States' cavalier attitude towards them, welcomed China's message of harmonious and collaborative development. After all, China's own model of state-led economic development has advanced its economy by leaps and bounds over the past four decades, lifting over 800 million people out of poverty and significantly increasing the ordinary citizen's standard of living. Latin American countries could not help but covet achieving similar results.Now, over a decade later, China's efforts have borne fruit. Beijing wields sizeable economic and diplomatic influence in the region, much to the consternation of a Washington that is now thoroughly hawkish on China. Yet despite this new attitude, American policy towards the region has not seen much of an improvement. Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. government has imposed tariffs, cut off aid to countries that do not do more to stop migration to the United States, and is seemingly determined to build a literal wall along the southern border with Mexico. But beyond the day-to-day whims of the Oval Office, there is a much deeper internal conundrum that U.S. policymakers must face: China has proven that government-led industrial policies can work. These have been so successful that they have lifted millions of people out of squalor and have enabled China to compete with the United States in economic development, high-tech industries and more.In defending its preeminence over the New World, the United States will have to do more than merely recalibrate its regional policies: Washington's political establishment will have to confront its own ideological assumptions—particularly those that inform its approach towards geo-economics. Doing so will require overcoming a long-held aversion to state-led economic initiatives and the notion that the free market holds unquestionable authority over matters of economics and finance. The best way to start this journey is to examine what, precisely, China has achieved down south.CHINA'S POLICY papers from 2008 and 2016 are rather clear in proclaiming the "goal of establishing a comprehensive and cooperative partnership featuring equality, mutual benefit and common development with Latin American and Caribbean countries." The emphasis on development is encouraging for Latin American governments, as it indicates that China wants to help address a sore need in the region—one that has always existed and continues to exist even now. With more than 60 percent of the region's roads remaining unpaved, 70 percent of sewage going untreated, and unreliable power grids resulting in enormous losses in electricity, there is plenty of work to be done.The United States is certainly aware of Latin America's needs. It was only a few years ago that, in the 44th Annual Washington Conference on the Americas, then-Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker noted that there are significant U.S. investment opportunities available in Latin America, especially in infrastructure. But while the United States must convince private companies to invest down south, China, with its state-owned enterprises (SOEs), can move and build faster. And so, with China signaling that it could commit to substantially increase its presence in the region, and that it stood ready to deploy billions of dollars to promote much-needed trade, investment and infrastructure development, how could Latin American governments possibly turn Beijing down? After all, this is a country that since 1978 has, according to the World Bank, "experienced rapid economic and social development. gdp growth has averaged nearly 10 [percent] a year—the fastest sustained expansion by a major economy in history—and more than 850 million people have lifted themselves out of poverty." It is a track record that speaks for itself, and one that many developing nations wish to emulate.China took up the invitation of Latin American governments and immediately got to work. Between 2000 and 2017, according to Red-ALC China, Chinese companies invested over $109 billion in Latin America; separately, the Inter-American Dialogue's China-Latin America Finance Database estimates that, since 2005, Chinese policy banks (the China Development Bank and the Export-Import Bank of China) have disbursed more than $141 billion in loans, with 87 percent of those funds directed towards energy and infrastructure projects. A more recent report from the Inter-American Dialogue and Boston University's Global Economic Governance Initiative puts the loan amount at over $150 billion, which exceeds the combined lending of the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the caf-Development Bank of Latin America.Out of the aforementioned $141 billion in policy bank loans from 2005 to 2017, $96.9 billion (68.5 percent) has gone into energy-related projects, $25.9 billion (18.3 percent) into infrastructure development, $2.1 billion (1.5 percent) into mining projects and $16.2 billion (11 percent) into other ventures (including government bonds, trade financing, business development and more).One might ask: why are the majority of these loans going to the energy sector? Perhaps the answer lies in the Global Energy Interconnection proposal put forward by State Grid Corporation of China Chairman Liu Zhenya. The plan, designated a "national strategy" by Chinese president Xi Jinping, can be described as the energy equivalent of the transportation infrastructure-focused Belt and Road Initiative: it seeks to build a global electricity grid mainly based on ultra-high-voltage (UHV)—a technology that enables electricity to be carried across enormous distances with greater efficiency than current high-voltage lines.Who would control this grid? Chinese officials say that, like the Internet, "no one" would. Yet such a claim cannot be so readily accepted. For starters, China itself is, in the words of a study from the Paulson Institute, "intensifying its efforts to set indigenous standards for homegrown ultra-high voltage transmission technology" and seeking to "contribute to UHV standards internationally." This sort of standards-setting in the international arena, along with the network effects that come with it, is concerning to Western political and security analysts. After all, this is a traditional area of great power competition, since states whose technology becomes the dominant standard can use it against others. By establishing a global standard in energy infrastructure, China could conceivably shut out American firms from entire markets due to a lack of technological interoperability.Additionally, the best way to secure control, or at least influence, over this hypothetical global power grid would be through controlling or influencing the power plants that contribute to it. In Latin America, there are dozens of such projects: the San José hydroelectric plants in Bolivia, the Reventazón Dam in Costa Rica, two nuclear power plants in the Patagonia region of Argentina, the natural gas Martano power plant in Panama, and so on and so forth.In addition to energy infrastructure, there is also the usual transportation infrastructure that is invoked by analysts when they discuss the Belt and Road Initiative. Chinese SOEs, such as the China Harbour Engineering Company, have been busy building and acquiring container ship terminals across the region, from the Panama Canal to Manzanillo in Mexico's Pacific coast. Meanwhile, Chinese giants Huawei and ZTE have built telecommunications networks in many Latin American countries.And all of these various projects, of course, have been or are being built by companies that are either close to China's government or are outright SOEs.THOUGH CHINA'S presence in the United States' sphere of influence is troubling for Washington, it is hard to deny that Beijing isn't helping the region meet its enormous infrastructure needs. But Latin American countries may not be benefiting as much as many think they are.Take China's loans as an example. Of the aforementioned $141 billion in loans calculated in 2017, $115.3 billion came from the China Development Bank (the remaining $25.8 billion from the Export-Import Bank of China). These loans have a higher interest rate on average than their international counterparts, leaving recipients having to pay back more over time. This comes with a presumed upside for developing countries though: unlike loans from Western institutions, Chinese loans do not have governance and environmental conditions attached to them. In other words, there is no need to conduct lengthy, time-consuming environmental surveys, cost-assessment studies, inordinate transparency measures and more.Yet what has happened to Ecuador perhaps best demonstrates the kind of negative repercussions that can occur when massive loans are made to developing countries with no governance or environmental strings attached. According to data from the Inter-American Dialogue, as of late 2018, Ecuador has taken around $18.4 billion in loans from China's policy banks—adding up to about a third of Ecuador's public debt. This money was used to fund a number of projects, the largest of which (to the tune of $1.7 billion) is the Coca Codo Sinclair hydroelectric dam. Unfortunately, as an in-depth investigation by The New York Times has revealed, the Coca Codo Sinclair project has been an embarrassing disaster. For one, against all common sense, it was built near a volcano that has been active since the sixteenth century. Not only is the area seismologically active, but a 2010 independent review of the project "warned that the amount of water in the region to power the dam had not been studied for nearly 30 years."Then there are issues with the construction of the dam itself. Chinese loans, while usually free of governance and environmental requirements, do come with certain conditions—namely that infrastructure projects must employ Chinese SOE construction firms and use Chinese equipment, barring other competitors from partaking in infrastructure development contracts. These sorts of conditions can exclude international, and more importantly, domestic firms from participation in the building process. Additionally, this limits the potential positive impact on the local economy—little to none of the construction work is sourced out to local workers, nor is there an increased local demand for food/products/services. Most importantly, the lack of transparency measures can result in lax standards for material acquisition and construction. In Coca Codo Sinclar's case, over seven thousand cracks have developed due to the usage of substandard steel and an inadequate welding job by Chinese builders.In short, for a $1.7 billion loan, Ecuador received a faulty, overly-large, crumbling dam that can only work at half capacity due to the country's wet/dry seasons—and that is when everything is working well.So how will Ecuador pay for this dam, and everything else, to the tune of $18.4 billion? That remains an unanswered question. In the meantime, it is paying back China with its most valuable export: oil. To be more specific, China gets to keep around 80 percent of the country's oil (which makes up around 58 percent of Ecuador's exports) at a discount due to the loan contracts, which stated that debt is to be repaid in oil instead of currency.This pursuit of commodities also serves as another instance of how China's economic behavior isn't necessarily benefiting Latin American countries as some might think. On paper, there is a blossoming trade relationship between China and the region: a 2018 report from the un's Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean shows that the value of the trade of goods between China and Latin America has grown from a few billion in 2000 to around $266 billion in 2018. However, what matters is what's being traded. As it turns out, in 2016, manufactured goods accounted for 91 percent of Latin America's imports from China, compared to 68 percent from the rest of the world. Meanwhile, commodities (particularly, in order of importance, soybeans, copper ore, iron ore, refined copper and oil) accounted for 72 percent of Latin America's exports to China, compared to 27 percent for the rest of the world.Keeping Latin American economies concentrated in commodities and resource extraction does not benefit them. Aside from not adding much value to the lives of domestic consumers, these are highly cyclical industries that often go through periods of booms and busts. When a commodities cycle ends, as one did following the 2008 financial crisis, governments can suddenly experience a loss in income and political stability. Ideally, developing economies should aim to develop their domestic manufacturing sectors, which provide more jobs, reduce the dependence on manufactured imports and open the door for more domestic entrepreneurship.Unfortunately, the growth in the import of Chinese manufactured goods has meant stiff competition for Latin American companies. A 2017 report from the International Labor Organization found that, between 1995 and 2011, employment in "computers, textiles and footwear, as well as trade – was reduced by 1 million jobs due to the Chinese imports" in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Mexico alone. A separate analysis found that, "from 2008 to 2013, 75 [percent] of the region's manufactured exports faced a threat from China," though this is an improvement from the period between 2003 and 2008, when the figure stood at 83 percent. Additionally, this report finds that "it is unlikely that the reduced threat comes from better labor productivity in the [Latin American] manufacturing sector, because China's productivity continues to outpace labor productivity in [Latin American] manufacturing."Overall, China's economic expansion into Latin America has been extremely favorable for Beijing. Investments in infrastructure either enable greater economic activity that favor Chinese interests, and/or thrust Latin American countries into debt traps, effectively turning them into economic vassals. Either way, China benefits. Over the long term though, this is a dangerous proposition: local populations in these countries could grow disgruntled at what they see as a new imperialism originating from the East. This is not lost upon Chinese policymakers. With keen foresight, they supplement their economic statecraft with diplomatic initiatives and unconventional security measures. These, too, are visible in Latin America.ON PAPER, when it comes to international diplomacy, China is focused on promoting "the construction of a new type of international relations with win-win cooperation at the core." It seeks to achieve this through "exchanges and mutual learning, as well as carrying forward the [China-Latin America] friendship from generation to generation," according to the 2016 policy paper on Latin America. In practice, this means that China uses its diplomatic heft to shape local agendas and viewpoints, all to create an environment where it can operate with minimal disruption.An example of this is the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), a thirty-three-member regional bloc that notably excludes the United States and is seen as an alternative to the U.S.-led and headquartered Organization of American States (OAS). Beijing has engaged CELAC rather enthusiastically via the China-CELAC Forum and a cooperation plan for the years 2015 to 2019. This plan lays out how China and Latin American countries can more closely cooperate with one another on matters of economic development, fostering ties and so forth. It also provides China, in the words of Juan Pablo Cardenal, the author of a 2017 report from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), "a convenient policy framework to introduce and promote its soft power agenda" in the region.Some of this is plainly visible in the plan itself. China, for example, provided "CELAC countries with 6,000 governmental scholarships, 6,000 training opportunities and 400 opportunities for on-the-job master degree programs in China between 2015 and 2019." The NED report adds that Beijing also provided more funding for international scholarships, with official figures estimating "377,000 foreigners studied in China in 2014, up from 84,000 a decade earlier. Furthermore, the Chinese government plans to raise that figure to 500,000 by 2020." This spree of seemingly generously philanthropic funding actually helps serve China's interests: it presents an opportunity to influence the views of current and future Latin Americans, giving them a rose-tinted view of Chinese society and achievements. Chinese state-sponsored media training, for example, probably does not cover the necessity of a free press, editorial independence and investigative reporting. In fact, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission found that many of these media training programs—managed by Xinhua, China's official state-run news agency, and the People's Daily, the official newspaper of China's Communist Party—"are explicitly political and are intended to improve foreign perceptions of China and legitimize the ruling party."In Latin America, this sort of influence is already manifest. Since 2018, the nonprofit research group Global Americas has, for example, been reviewing articles aimed at Latin American audiences provided by Xinhua and the People's Daily, and has found that they present an overly positive view of China's economic ties with the region. Meanwhile, media partnerships help expand China's influence even further: Brazil's Agência Brasil, Cuba's Granma, Venezuela's TeleSUR and Chile's La Tercera frequently republish material from Xinhua, People's Daily and China Daily, another state-run publication. Similarly, China Daily has a "China Watch" supplement in the Argentinian newspapers Diario Uno, La Capital and Cronista.Washington shouldn't be too surprised at such overt influence campaign though, seeing as similar efforts are also underway at home. Look no further than the presence of Confucius Institutes within U.S. universities, the funding of think tanks by entities linked to the Chinese Communist Party, and of course, paid inserts in high-profile Western newspapers. Even The New York Times and The Washington Post, often regarded as the U.S. newspapers of record, run and have run (respectively) insert sections with content created and paid for by China Daily. This strategy, which Chinese officials call "borrowing foreign newspapers," illustrates how Beijing can shape political discourse overseas at a relatively low cost.CHINA'S MILITARY and security activities in Latin America are understandably subtler than their economic initiatives—anything too bold, like stationing military units in the region, would set off alarm bells in Washington and other capitals. Rather, Beijing has focused on importing something into Latin America that is far less provocative but is no less worrisome: its internal security model.Ecuador, for example, has set up ECU-911: a 4,300-camera national video surveillance and emergency response system designed and built by Chinese companies Huawei and China National Electronics Import and Export Corporation (CEIEC). Meanwhile, Bolivia has a similar system also built by CEIEC called BOL-110, though it is currently operating at a far smaller scale (around six hundred or so cameras) than its Ecuadorian counterpart. Both are touted for bringing down crime and helping local police, firefighters and first aid responders do their jobs more effectively, and are now widely accepted in these countries. However, an investigation by The New York Times earlier this year found that, in Ecuador's case, some surveillance footage "also goes to the country's feared domestic intelligence agency, which under the previous president, Rafael Correa, had a lengthy track record of following, intimidating and attacking political opponents." That they are being monitored does not seem to bother Ecuadorian citizens all that much. After all, privacy concerns and possible political implications take a backseat to the daily realities of drugs and gang violence in Latin America. Nonetheless, it is not hard to imagine a future where a Latin American ruler decides to use such a surveillance network for more sinister purposes, such as tracking or sanctioning political opponents, government dissidents/critics, protestors and so forth.If anything, some governments might decide to go further. Venezuela, for instance, turned to China to help design a national identity program. Seeing what was possible with the help of Chinese telecoms giant ZTE, Nicolás Maduro's government took inspiration from China's social credit system to create the "fatherland card" ID system. This system collects a vast amount of data on any particular individual—including personal information, state benefits received, voting records and more—making it very easy for the Venezuelan government to exert control over the daily lives of citizens.Latin American rulers holding this sort of sway over their respective domestic populations suits Beijing's purposes quite well, as it makes it easier for governments to crush political dissent—particularly any that is aimed towards Chinese economic interests. If that isn't enough, and if certain facilities require more protection than the usual, China may decide to up the ante by stationing its own forces within these countries. China's own 2015 defense strategy white paper notes that, "in response to the new requirement coming from the country's growing strategic interests, the armed forces will actively participate in both regional and international security cooperation and effectively secure China's overseas interests." Indeed, safeguarding "the security of China's overseas interests" is deliberately listed as a strategic task of China's armed forces. A more blunt assessment comes from retired People's Liberation Army (PLA) colonel Yue Gang, who said that "the PLAin the future will need to go abroad to protect China's overseas interests in countries along the Belt and Road Initiative." In Latin America, there are a number of possible sites. For example, there is a satellite and space control station in Argentina that was built by the Chinese military and is currently being leased rent-free to China for a period of fifty years. Likewise, any number of the dozens of commercial shipping ports in the region, particularly those that were originally built or expanded by Chinese companies, could be acquired and converted to military bases under the pretext of safeguarding Chinese commercial and economic interests.WITH CHINA expanding its footprint in Latin America, it is no surprise that U.S. policymakers and defense officials have begun to sound increasingly anxious. Part of it is recognition that China is indeed becoming very much involved in what Washington considers to be its own local sphere of influence. More broadly and more importantly though, part of it is the fact that the U.S. foreign policy establishment has finally awakened from what journalist James Mann back in 2007 called "the China fantasy"—the neoliberal ideal that economic liberalization in China would inevitably also result in political and social liberalization. It is this conceited point of view, so doggedly self-assured of the inevitable triumph of neoliberal economic policies and liberal democratic governance, that prevented U.S. policymakers from acting sooner.Yet while Washington seems to have woken up to this new challenge on its doorstep, it apparently has no idea how to address it. The Trump administration's current policy, for instance, reads like something straight out of the Cold War, with an undue focus on the region's left-wing governments and a not-so-subtle unspoken desire for CIA-backed regime change operations. Even some of the actors are still the same: look no further than the decision to appoint Elliott Abrams, a diplomat known for his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal, as U.S. Special Representative for Venezuela.The end of the post-Cold War interregnum of U.S. preeminence implies a return to a multipolar, or at the very least, bipolar, world order. National economic policy can no longer be separate from military and diplomatic policy: all must be coordinated together in order to ward off the strategic and economic consequences of a changing international environment. If the United States intends to retain its leadership in high-tech industries, global finance, and most importantly, international aid/development, it is apparent that it too must develop a long-term economic strategy that addresses both domestic and international concerns.This is something that America's allies seem to have already realized: Germany's federal minister for economic affairs and energy, Peter Altmaier, has declared that the German government should be able to purchase stakes in systemically important companies if it means preserving national security. Separately, Altmaier and his French counterpart, Bruno Le Maire, have put out a joint manifesto proposing "a European industry policy designed to better protect and promote 'European champions.'" The United States will have to start thinking along similar lines. Presidential, as well as Congressional leadership, will be necessary. The question is, where to begin?A good starting point would likely be to do some house cleaning: the U.S. government is currently not capable of putting together a unified geo-economic strategy. All the relevant organizations are spread out across Washington in various offices. The U.S. Trade Representative, for example, is located with the Executive Office of the President, while the International Trade Administration is in the Commerce Department. Meanwhile, the Export-Import Bank, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency, the International Development Finance Corporation (USIDFC) and many more are independent entities. Consolidating these various agencies and offices into a single department (whether new or existing) headed by a cabinet-level official charged with formulating and implementing geo-economic policy would put the United States in equal standing with its peers.Next, policymakers must embrace the challenge of devising cost-effective yet still-effective international development strategies as an instrument of U.S. power. China, as we have seen, is prepared to spend billions of dollars in building infrastructure, sponsoring educational opportunities and more. By way of comparison, the USIDFC, which is the U.S. agency responsible for financing private development projects, only has $60 billion in funding for the entire world—a mere two-fifths of the amount China has lent to Latin American countries alone. Washington will have to get creative to ensure that it gets the most bang for its buck. The best way to achieve this is by supporting efforts that help developing countries help themselves. For instance, the United States can help in infrastructure development by financing the environmental assessments or community consultation stipulations that come with World Bank loans. Alternatively, perhaps it can fund urban planning or engineering departments in Latin American universities, producing better-trained experts that can properly oversee local and regional infrastructure projects. Separately, the United States can tap into its greatest asset—the sheer financial might of its private sector—by encouraging it to buy and refinance Latin American debt to China with longer repayment terms. Akin to the "Brady Bonds" pioneered in the 1980s, this initiative could temper Chinese influence and reduce the payment burdens that these countries face.Finally, the United States must work to improve its diplomatic relations with Latin American countries. This will be a difficult task, to say the least, given both the current administration's recent moves and, more broadly, Washington's rather colorful history with the region, which includes military interventions, multiple coups, economic impositions and more. Critics usually have a favorite grievance they can recite from memory. Overcoming this will require reexamining the Monroe Doctrine in its original context: not as a pretext for imperial domination of the Western Hemisphere, but rather a responsibility to protect our "sister republics" in the New World from the political machinations of the Old. One possible avenue for this change is the OAS. Latin American critics of the institution perceive it to be dominated by the United States, while Washington often feels it holds little power over it. In reality, the organization is struggling due to an ill-defined mission, an unclear focus, and an overabundance of programs and projects that have proliferated out of control but lack the necessary budget to work. Reforming the OASto serve as a more reliable platform for regional economic collaboration, educational opportunities and advocacy of democratic norms could yield multiple benefits. More importantly, delegating power and responsibility to Latin American countries would send a signal that the United States is capable and willing to listen to the views and concerns of its peers. All this can be achieved relatively cheaply too: the OAS' current annual budget is a paltry $84 million. Adding a few more million, not even a fraction of a fraction of what the U.S. government spends elsewhere, would yield enormous diplomatic returns.IN ROBERT Sobel's For Want of a Nail, an alternative history book, fictional Mexican politician Pedro Hermión gives a truculent foreign policy address at his party's national convention. He declares:In Mexico del Norte the Mexicanos have a game – some call it a sport. The peasants put two scorpions in a large bottle, and then take wagers as to which will win the struggle. Slowly the scorpions circle each other, until one lashes out at the other, and strikes him dead. So it is on our continent.Though the context is very different, Hermión is certainly right about one thing: the Americas are, in reality, a small place, and having two great powers like China and the United States competing over this landmass is a precarious proposition. In order to uphold and sustain regional stability, Washington must stop using its might like a club (heavy-handed, blunt and dumb), and relearn the art of wielding influence like a rapier (swift, elegant and precise). Above all else, what is intolerable is the casually irresponsible attitude towards power and its use.If there is one unbeatable advantage that the United States still possesses over China though, it is that it can still project a cultural and moral authority that people around the world admire. Individuals still aspire to the idea of a fair and democratic government that respects the rule of law, free speech, freedom of religion and so on. China, for all its economic advancement, reveals its own weaknesses every time it oppresses religious minorities, silences internal dissent, or otherwise fails to successfully persuade other countries to become subservient in a greater Chinese cultural whole. It cannot convince, so it must compel. In Latin America though, hard power is of limited utility; soft power through economic and diplomatic influence will carry the day in the region. This is something that Washington ought to ponder.Carlos Roa is the senior editor of the National Interest.Image: Reuters
|
| The Uncomfortable Truth about Afghanistan's Future Posted: 15 Aug 2019 09:53 AM PDT  Anyone looking in Afghanistan for an easily understood story of good versus evil, or moderation versus extremism, will be disappointed. That war-torn country is a congeries of conflicts with diverse ethnic, sectarian, and ideological overtones. Battles are fought between antagonists who hate each other but each exemplify values far different from anything that Americans would identify with or want to defend. And that's just the internal Afghan conflicts, on top of which is the added complexity of external involvement by Pakistan, India, and others.Such a place is unfavorable territory for prosecuting what has become America's longest war, which has no military solution in sight. President Donald Trump is right to seek a negotiated agreement that would permit a U.S. military withdrawal, even though his diplomatic clumsiness, on display during a meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, needlessly offended Afghans with talk about how he could wipe Afghanistan off the face of the Earth if he chose to, and needlessly angered Indians with his false claim that New Delhi wanted him to mediate the Kashmir dispute.Whatever agreement emerges from ongoing negotiations between the Afghan Taliban and U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad is sure to face criticism from people in Washington quick to focus on what an undesirable lot the Taliban are. Indeed, there is much to loathe about the Taliban's domestic policies, especially regarding their medieval views about the role of women. But the critics should keep in mind the complexities of Afghan conflict and which, if any, issues involving Afghanistan really are important enough to the United States to become make-or-break issues in negotiations.International terrorism, which can affect U.S. interests, is probably the most often cited rationale for U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. The rationale routinely overstates the supposed uniqueness of Afghanistan as a base for terrorists, an overstatement that projects into the future some irreproducible circumstances of the past. Nonetheless, there are real terrorists in Afghanistan, and on this issue it is worth reflecting on some reporting by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius during a recent visit there. Ignatius refers to fighting between the Taliban and the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State or ISIS. In a couple of provinces in the north and west of the country, ISIS fighters faced a "double whammy: U.S. counterterrorism forces struck the top leadership, and mainstream Taliban fighters cleaned up the rest." The fact that the Taliban and the United States share a common enemy in the form of ISIS leads Ignatius to wonder, "Could the United States and the Taliban quietly cooperate against a common enemy, after a peace deal?"Setting aside details about what this might imply regarding any residual U.S. military presence, more fundamental observations follow from this line-up of conflict and cooperation. One is that the Afghan Taliban are not international terrorists. They never have been, even when, in a marriage of convenience, they hosted Osama bin Laden's organization to get its help in the Afghan civil war than raging. The Taliban think negative and violent thoughts about the United States only insofar as the United States interferes with the Taliban's objectives regarding the organization of politics and society inside Afghanistan.Another observation is that even loathsome actors can be counterterrorist partners. Indeed, the story of counterterrorism worldwide is filled with strange bedfellows, although most of the cooperation that matters takes place out of public view. What's more, a loathsome but local partner may be even more effective in the counterterrorist tasks that matter most than the United States would be. When someone else can do the fighting and dying for their own local reasons, and to combat an international terrorist group in the process, so much the better for the United States.Finally, doing business with a distasteful element such as the Taliban, only some of whose interests parallel those of the United States, is not a reason to tie the United States to everything else such an element does. Nor is it a reason similarly to tie any other outside actor that has specific reasons to do business with the Taliban. The Trump administration, as part of its misrepresentation-filled campaign of stoking hostility toward Iran, has gone so far as to blame Iran for car bombs in Afghanistan that Tehran probably had nothing to do with. On the eve of a possible U.S. agreement with the Taliban, which will be followed by the Taliban continuing to blow things up as it fights its enemies within Afghanistan, the administration needs to be more careful about such stone-throwing.Iran, by the way, has interests regarding Afghanistan, the Afghan civil war, and terrorism that closely parallel the interests of the United States—just as it did in the first few months of the U.S. intervention, when Iran provided critical help in midwifing a new Afghan government to replace the Taliban. Iranian interests have suffered in the past at the hands of the Taliban, and in more recent years from attacks by ISIS. There is no shortage of strange bedfellows in combating the likes of ISIS.Whenever Ambassador Khalilzad's negotiations bear fruit, the result should be judged not by the company that the United States has been keeping in the negotiating room but instead by how well the result upholds genuine U.S. interests while extracting it from its longest war in history.Paul R. Pillar is a contributing editor at the National Interest and the author of Why America Misunderstands the World.Image: Flickr / U.S. Department of Defense
|
| The Latest: UK says Iran must abide by EU sanctions on Syria Posted: 15 Aug 2019 09:27 AM PDT  Britain's Foreign Office has warned Iran to abide by the assurances it provided to the government of Gibraltar that led to the release of a detained Iranian supertanker. In a statement hours after a Gibraltar court released the Grace I, U.K. authorities insisted they would not allow Iran or anyone else to bypass European Union sanctions meant to punish Syria for using chemical weapons against its own people.
|
| Saudi-UAE delegation in Yemen's Aden to discuss separatist pullout Posted: 15 Aug 2019 09:17 AM PDT  A joint Saudi-Emirati military delegation travelled to Aden on Thursday to discuss demands for a pullout of UAE-backed southern separatists from positions they captured in Yemen's interim capital, government and separatist sources said. The visit comes after deadly clashes last week in the southern port city that reflected a rift between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, the main partners in a pro-government coalition fighting Iran-aligned Shiite Huthi rebels. It also coincided with protests in Aden in favour of independence.
|
| The #TrumpRecession Label Is Going to Stick Posted: 15 Aug 2019 08:44 AM PDT  (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Spend a decade or two writing about financial markets, and a few themes will begin to emerge. These are: No. 1. Politics and investing do not mix;No. 2. Presidents usually get too much credit when things go right and too much blame when things go wrong;No. 3. Most of the time, markets don't care about politics. But the president and presidential appointees can and do have a major impact on the economy, monetary policy, the dollar, trade relations and alliances;No. 4. History is replete with examples of presidents messing up and stumbling into wars, aggravating recessions and market crashes, even inflicting long-term structural damage on the nation.Points 3 and 4 deserve extra consideration, since they seem most applicable to the current state of economic affairs. In other words, the broader economy, the market, and any potential recession are now firmly attached to, and under the influence of, President Donald Trump.Trump came into office in the midst of a robust recovery from the financial crisis, with an economy operating at close to full strength. Between 2010 and January 2017, when Trump was sworn into office, the economy created 16.1 million jobs (5 million have been added under Trump) and the unemployment rate had been cut by more than half, from 10% to 4.7% (it has declined 1% under Trump). As of June 2009, when the recession ended, the expansion had been underway for 91 months. Perhaps the president's most favored metric, the stock market, had already risen 236% from its March 2009 low.In other words, Trump inherited an accelerating post-credit crisis recovery, and he only had to avoid disrupting those healthy -- and improving -- economic trends. What occurred instead is a litany of unforced errors and misguided decisions, many of them made by Trump political appointees. Let's consider just two of the more consequential ones that are driving events:• Peter Navarro, the architect of this president's trade and tariff policies, particularly vis-à-vis China. Trade wars, despite what Trump said, are neither fun nor easy to win. Mainstream economists have been warning that Navarro was in over his head and that his unsound trade theories would cause economic problems. Indeed, the Navarro brand of protectionism has already had a number of damaging economic consequences, blunted for now only by the momentum of the economic boom Trump inherited. We are about to find out exactly how long that will last.• Jerome Powell, an inflation hawk who Trump appointed as Federal Reserve chair. Unless you prefer high rates, this was an almost unaccountably foolish choice. Trump fired Janet Yellen as Fed chair, reportedly because he thought she was too short for the job, and after disparaging her management of monetary policy, saying she "should be ashamed of herself." The irony is that Yellen was an inflation dove, who favored lower rates for longer as the economy was still recovering when Trump took office. That irony no doubt is lost on Trump as he rails against Powell and the higher rates he adopted -- something Trump called for when Barack Obama was president and fighting the worst recession in three-quarters of a century.But don't blame Navarro or Powell; it's not like they sold themselves as something other than what they are.Making appointments merely to troll one's predecessor is something less than smart. Expertise matters, as does the ability to vet your appointees. If the president today is unhappy with higher rates, well, he has only himself to blame. And if China is proving harder to wrestle with in trade negotiations, maybe the president shouldn't have been so quick to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That deal (remember how great the president is at deals?) would have lined up the U.S. and almost a dozen other nations as counterweights to China and its trade policies. Actions have consequences, and the undeniable consequences of this president's actions are rates that are higher today than they would otherwise have been and worldwide trade disruption.To be sure, we can't place all of the blame on Trump for the economic slowdowns in Europe and China, for the chaos of Brexit and other issues that predate his term in office. Much of the unsettled environment was already in place. He was just the spark in the gas-filled room.My original thesis in 2016 was that investors who were blaming Trump for market volatility were being partisan and unobjective. To damage this stock market, Trump would have had to do a series of things that were ill-advised and counterproductive. As it turns, he has done just that. If a recession occurs in 2020 -- and the current model of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York puts it at a 32% chance in the next 12 months -- a good measure of the blame must go to this president.Trump reveled in taking credit for the boom he inherited. If the U.S. goes into a contraction, he shouldn't be surprised if the "Trump recession" label sticks.To contact the author of this story: Barry Ritholtz at britholtz3@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Barry Ritholtz is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He founded Ritholtz Wealth Management and was chief executive and director of equity research at FusionIQ, a quantitative research firm. He is the author of "Bailout Nation."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| The #TrumpRecession Label Is Going to Stick Posted: 15 Aug 2019 08:44 AM PDT  (Bloomberg Opinion) -- Spend a decade or two writing about financial markets, and a few themes will begin to emerge. These are: No. 1. Politics and investing do not mix;No. 2. Presidents usually get too much credit when things go right and too much blame when things go wrong;No. 3. Most of the time, markets don't care about politics. But the president and presidential appointees can and do have a major impact on the economy, monetary policy, the dollar, trade relations and alliances;No. 4. History is replete with examples of presidents messing up and stumbling into wars, aggravating recessions and market crashes, even inflicting long-term structural damage on the nation.Points 3 and 4 deserve extra consideration, since they seem most applicable to the current state of economic affairs. In other words, the broader economy, the market, and any potential recession are now firmly attached to, and under the influence of, President Donald Trump.Trump came into office in the midst of a robust recovery from the financial crisis, with an economy operating at close to full strength. Between 2010 and January 2017, when Trump was sworn into office, the economy created 16.1 million jobs (5 million have been added under Trump) and the unemployment rate had been cut by more than half, from 10% to 4.7% (it has declined 1% under Trump). As of June 2009, when the recession ended, the expansion had been underway for 91 months. Perhaps the president's most favored metric, the stock market, had already risen 236% from its March 2009 low.In other words, Trump inherited an accelerating post-credit crisis recovery, and he only had to avoid disrupting those healthy -- and improving -- economic trends. What occurred instead is a litany of unforced errors and misguided decisions, many of them made by Trump political appointees. Let's consider just two of the more consequential ones that are driving events:• Peter Navarro, the architect of this president's trade and tariff policies, particularly vis-à-vis China. Trade wars, despite what Trump said, are neither fun nor easy to win. Mainstream economists have been warning that Navarro was in over his head and that his unsound trade theories would cause economic problems. Indeed, the Navarro brand of protectionism has already had a number of damaging economic consequences, blunted for now only by the momentum of the economic boom Trump inherited. We are about to find out exactly how long that will last.• Jerome Powell, an inflation hawk who Trump appointed as Federal Reserve chair. Unless you prefer high rates, this was an almost unaccountably foolish choice. Trump fired Janet Yellen as Fed chair, reportedly because he thought she was too short for the job, and after disparaging her management of monetary policy, saying she "should be ashamed of herself." The irony is that Yellen was an inflation dove, who favored lower rates for longer as the economy was still recovering when Trump took office. That irony no doubt is lost on Trump as he rails against Powell and the higher rates he adopted -- something Trump called for when Barack Obama was president and fighting the worst recession in three-quarters of a century.But don't blame Navarro or Powell; it's not like they sold themselves as something other than what they are.Making appointments merely to troll one's predecessor is something less than smart. Expertise matters, as does the ability to vet your appointees. If the president today is unhappy with higher rates, well, he has only himself to blame. And if China is proving harder to wrestle with in trade negotiations, maybe the president shouldn't have been so quick to pull out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. That deal (remember how great the president is at deals?) would have lined up the U.S. and almost a dozen other nations as counterweights to China and its trade policies. Actions have consequences, and the undeniable consequences of this president's actions are rates that are higher today than they would otherwise have been and worldwide trade disruption.To be sure, we can't place all of the blame on Trump for the economic slowdowns in Europe and China, for the chaos of Brexit and other issues that predate his term in office. Much of the unsettled environment was already in place. He was just the spark in the gas-filled room.My original thesis in 2016 was that investors who were blaming Trump for market volatility were being partisan and unobjective. To damage this stock market, Trump would have had to do a series of things that were ill-advised and counterproductive. As it turns, he has done just that. If a recession occurs in 2020 -- and the current model of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York puts it at a 32% chance in the next 12 months -- a good measure of the blame must go to this president.Trump reveled in taking credit for the boom he inherited. If the U.S. goes into a contraction, he shouldn't be surprised if the "Trump recession" label sticks.To contact the author of this story: Barry Ritholtz at britholtz3@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Greiff at jgreiff@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Barry Ritholtz is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He founded Ritholtz Wealth Management and was chief executive and director of equity research at FusionIQ, a quantitative research firm. He is the author of "Bailout Nation."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar Barred From Israel—But a Conflagration Is Coming Posted: 15 Aug 2019 08:42 AM PDT  Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/GettyJERUSALEM—While the caretaker government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was busy banning the entry into Israel and Palestine of two members of the United States Congress, a much more serious and enduring danger to the Holy Land looms on the near horizon.The controversy over the visit by Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) is fraught with the kind of short-term tag-team political grandstanding that has characterized the ties between Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump. Tlaib, of Palestinian descent, and Omar, born in Somalia, are both Muslims. They are also two of the four members of Congress—not coincidentally, all of them women of color—that Trump said should "go back" to the countries they came from and make things better there rather than complain about his version of America. Now Netanyahu, fighting for reelection in the face of corruption indictments, has stopped these two from entering the country because they support the Boycott, Divest, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, seeing it as a pressure tool in favor of the Palestinians. And apparently because that's what Trump demanded in a peremptory tweet, calling any such visit "weakness" on the part of his close friend the Israeli premier. But there is, in fact, a much greater and deeply practical problem facing Israel than the visit of Tlaib and Omar, and a developing crisis that is directly the fault of Trump and the U.S. Congress.* * *Fighting Fire With ... Cooperation* * *A few weeks ago, amid scorching temperatures and a typically rainless summer, fires broke out across Israel and the West Bank. Local firefighting crews successfully battled to contain the blazes, including, as they've done repeatedly in the past, a small detachment from the Palestinian Authority (PA). Working side-by-side with their Israeli counterparts, the Palestinian Civil Defense crews were later lauded publicly for their assistance: social media videos showed the Israeli and Palestinian firefighters smiling, shaking hands, and posing for pictures. This drew the attention of Trump's peace envoy, Jason Greenblatt, who on Twitter called the "ongoing cooperation and coordination" between the two sides an "example of what could be when neighbors live in peace. There is so much to gain!" Yet under the Trump administration U.S. funding for those very same PA Security Forces (PASF) has, since the start of this year, been completely halted. The American-led security mission in Jerusalem that advises, trains, and equips those forces is, according to several sources familiar with the matter, out of money. Programs have been shuttered and personnel sent home. Worse still, efforts in Congress to amend the anti-terrorism bill that initially led to the cut off in aid have stalled amid political jostling between the House and Senate, per two additional sources. All this, despite widespread recognition that PA security personnel, operating in coordination with Israel, are a boon for stability in the region and Israeli security in particular. The Trump administration, though, seems fixated on unveiling its long-delayed peace plan. Congress endlessly debates the true meaning of being "pro-Israel," including undue focus on a handful of leftwing representatives like Ohmar and Tlaib who support boycotting Israel (and these days whether they'll be allowed entry to visit Israel). While the most positive and tangible aspect of the entire Israeli-Palestinian relationship is being left to languish. The Hush-Hush Deal That Keeps the Middle East From ExplodingThe law in question, called the Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act (ATCA), took effect at the start of February. The bill foisted an impossible choice on the PA: accept any U.S. aid and you automatically trigger acceptance of the U.S. court system's jurisdiction in various terrorism-related civil suits—potentially opening up the PA and its affiliated organizations to hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities and, effectively, bankruptcy. The Palestinians not surprisingly chose to forgo all American money. The problem with the law became evident once it was clear the PA wouldn't budge and that the prime loser would in fact be the PASF. "We're already not helping the victims [who sued the Palestinian Authority for terrorism damages]," one congressional source said back in January. "Why would we now hurt ourselves and our national interest" by potentially creating a security crisis in Israel?Despite talk in recent months on Capitol Hill about a readiness to find a "fix" for ATCA, acrimony continued between the bill's primary sponsor, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, and the State Department, which oversees security assistance to the Palestinians. "Both sides were stuck without a move that can advance them," says one source familiar with Grassley's thinking. According to some reports Israeli officials were even lobbying Congress behind-the-scenes to amend the legislation and get funding back on track. Only in June did relations apparently improve enough to begin work on a real solution—which is where partisan infighting took over. Now Trump's Shutdown Threatens Israel's SecurityAs part of a massive Israel security assistance package passed last month in the Democrat-controlled House, a reworked ATCA provision was also included. Gone were the financial triggers in the original bill. In their place, jurisdiction in U.S. courts would be activated if the PA moved to attain member-state status at the United Nations and other affiliated bodies, as well as if it reopened an office in the U.S. (the Trump administration shuttered the de facto Palestinian embassy in Washington last fall).The Republican-controlled Senate, meanwhile, was working on its own version of a remedied ATCA bill, which was introduced last month as well. This version was, as one source put it, "more robust" than the House bill: if the PA didn't actually withdraw from the various U.N. agencies it had previously attained member-state status in, then that in itself would be a form of consent for U.S. jurisdiction.In touting the draft bill, one Republican senator stated that it would "provide justice for U.S. victims of international terrorism while promoting the important security cooperation among U.S., Israeli, and Palestinian security forces"—nearly identical language to that used by the Democratic House sponsors. Yet the gaps between the two versions, and the two sides, are still extremely wide, according to the sources who spoke to The Daily Beast. One source lamented the fact that the Senate hadn't actually put forward a genuine compromise version, while another blasted the House bill as a "political statement, and not an effort to get something enacted." While talks between House and Senate staffers on this issue are known to be taking place, it all might be for naught. Yes, both versions do in theory allow U.S. security aid to resume flowing to the PA without the fear of lawsuits. But the new conditions—tied to the highly symbolic issue of international recognition of Palestinian statehood—are likely a non-starter as far as the PA is concerned.One senior Palestinian official close to President Mahmoud Abbas blasted even the new ATCA triggers as a "blackmail tool" against the PA that would "irreversibly kill the idea of a two-state solution" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "I've never seen a parliament issue legislation regarding a second party that's all contingent on the relationship with a third party…it's absurd," he added, alluding to some of the revised ATCA provisions being contingent on Israel's agreement. "Congress should relocate from Capitol Hill to Bet El," he said, referring to an Israeli army base, home to the military body tasked with administering the West Bank. "They are mistaken if they think these steps [regarding UN membership and a U.S. office] will create leverage over the Palestinians." * * *Closing Shop* * *The impact of all these Washington machinations on the ground in Israel-Palestine has been significant. The American-led security detail based in Jerusalem, officially called the U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC) mission, has seen its $60 million budget frozen due to the PA's refusal to accept any more U.S. aid. While American military officers, led by a three-star general, are still present working out of the old U.S. consulate compound, the training programs and equipment they used to provide for the PA Security Forces have been stopped, per multiple sources familiar with the matter. Government contractors and other non-essential personnel have, for their part, returned home."It used to be an advise and assist mission [to the PASF] so now it's more advise," one former European official told The Daily Beast. "But you need money to support your advice." This official rattled off examples of the corrosion this lack of funding could have on the PASF's long-term effectiveness: the lack of new equipment and vehicles, maintenance programs, logistical system upgrades and facility refurbishment. All this, even before the impact on the overall training programs for actual Palestinian personnel that used to be funded in large part by the U.S. Compounding matters, the American commander of the USSC, Lt. Gen. Eric Wendt, an imposing special forces veteran, is concluding his two-year term in the coming months. A new general helming a mission with no funding and unclear future isn't a likely recipe for success. The U.S. embassy in Jerusalem declined to say whether Wendt would be finishing his tour early. Despite its name, the USSC is in fact a multinational mission. Britain, Canada, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey contribute military officers and other law enforcement specialists to the cause. These contributions, however, are usually limited to paying the salary and deployments of their personnel or, alternatively, indirectly funding discrete initiatives. While no conversations have taken place among European states regarding the possibility of stopping their contribution to the USSC, no real decision has been made, either, about increasing their support to the PASF via this mechanism, The Daily Beast has learned. European officials are also loathe to expand the mandate of the USSC's sister organization that solely trains the PA Civil Police (called the EU Coordinating Office for Palestinian Police Support) so that, like the USSC, it encompasses multiple other Palestinian security organs. As with most things relating to the Middle East Peace Process, American leadership is crucial—as is, by extension, Israeli trust and buy-in. The prospects of there ever being an EU Security Coordinator for Israel-Palestine is faint to non-existent. Tellingly, in the middle of this tumult, the United Kingdom signed a memorandum of understanding late last month directly with the PA in support of its Interior Ministry and security forces. The MOU calls for technical expertise and training, rather than equipment and funding, to be provided through a third-party civilian NGO. The announcement went on to say that the U.K. "continues to believe in, and to support, the two state solution"—a vision that both the Trump administration and government of Netanyahu government have attempted to bury. As Palestinian officials never tire of explaining, they view the PASF and security coordination with Israel as a means to an end: the end being statehood. The USSC has, since its establishment in 2005, helped underpin the most stable period in the West Bank in three decades. Despite the U.S. aid cutoff and a major financial crisis stemming from a separate Israeli anti-terror law, the PASF in recent months has somehow persevered, retaining their cohesion and professionalism. A multi-city and multi-service training exercise (thought to be the first of its kind) was held in the West Bank last month. The PASF also recently undertook an ambitious operation to root out illegal weapons and other pockets of crime in the restive city of Hebron. (At least some observers maintain that both maneuvers were intended as a show of continued PASF strength, not least to its remaining international backers.) Amid a political process that's actually regressing, Abbas has yet to sever ties with Israel despite repeated threats to do so. For now security coordination endures. That's the good news. The question, however, is how long the PASF can continue under such political, financial and material duress. For over a decade under American auspices, the Israeli-Palestinian security relationship has been dramatically reformed. Israeli officials, Congress, and even the Trump administration admit as much in their more candid moments. Properly supported and nurtured, there is, as Trump envoy Greenblatt put it, "much to gain" from these ties; there is also much that can be lost. Israeli and Palestinian firefighters working together to put out a blaze may be a common sight these days, but it has also come to be taken for granted. With the tinder splayed out purposefully by the Trump administration underneath the existing framework of an Israeli-Palestinian peace, a real conflagration would threaten much more than just the parched fields of the Holy Land.Research for this article was made possible with the support of the Transatlantic Media Fellowship of the Heinrich Boell Foundation Washington D.C.Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.
|
| The Latest: UN Security Council to discuss Kashmir Posted: 15 Aug 2019 08:29 AM PDT  The U.N. Security Council has scheduled a rare meeting on Kashmir in response to requests by China and Pakistan following India's revocation of the region's special constitutional status and downgrading of its statehood to a territory. Poland holds the rotating presidency of the U.N.'s most powerful body and its spokesman said Thursday that the closed consultations will take place Friday morning. U.N. officials said the council session may be its first on Kashmir since the late 1990s, or possibly since the 1971 India-Pakistan war.
|
| Netanyahu bars Democrat congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from entering Israel Posted: 15 Aug 2019 08:23 AM PDT  Benjamin Netanyahu has barred two Muslim-American Democrat congresswomen from entering Israel after Donald Trump said it would show "great weakness" if he allowed them in. The move will inflame tensions between the Israeli prime minister and the Democratic Party but will also delight Mr Trump, who has repeatedly targeted both women with racial attacks. It may also set a precedent that could see Jeremy Corbyn barred from visiting Israel or the Palestinian territories because he supports boycotting Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the first Muslim women in Congress, were due to arrive this weekend for a tour of Jerusalem and several West Bank Palestinian cities. Both have expressed support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement, which encourages boycotts of Israel in protest of its treatment of the Palestinians. Under Israeli law, BDS supporters can be barred from entering the country. But Israel's ambassador in Washington said previously that Ms Omar and Ms Tlaib would be allowed in "out of respect for the US Congress". Israel's government reversed course amid pressure from Mr Trump, who made it clear he wanted the women to be barred. "It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit," he said on Twitter. "They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds." It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or done to change their minds. Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 15, 2019 Mr Netanyahu called the congresswomen "leading activists in promoting the legislation of boycotts against Israel in the American Congress". "The itinerary of the two congresswomen reveals that their sole purpose is to harm Israel and increase incitement against it," he said. Miftah, a Palestinian group helping to organise the trip, said Israel was trying to "impose a blackout on reality in occupied Palestine and prevent Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar from having direct contact with Palestinian people". "This ban is a clear case of discrimination and hostility based on political views and ethnic background, deserving of moral indignation and unequivocal condemnation in Palestine and the United States," the group said. Donald Trump has repeatedly launched racial attacks against Ms Omar Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images Ms Omar released a statement comparing the ban to Mr Trump's ban on people from Muslim-majority countries entering the US. "It is an affront that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under pressure from President Trump, would deny entry to representatives of the US government," she said. "Trump's Muslim ban is what Israel is implementing, this time against two duly elected Members of Congress." David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, gave Mr Netanyahu America's full backing. "In contrast to the nearly 70 freshmen members of Congress who just recently completed, or who are currently pursuing, a balanced visit to Israel that includes meetings with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders, the Tlaib/Omar Delegation has limited its exposure to tours organized by the most strident of BDS activists," he said. "This trip, pure and simple, is nothing more than an effort to fuel the BDS engine that Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar so vigorously support." He said the BDS movement was "no less than economic warfare designed to delegitimise and ultimately destroy the Jewish State." He added: "Israel properly has enacted laws to bar entry of BDS activists under the circumstances present here, and it has every right to protect its borders against those activists in the same manner as it would bar entrants with more conventional weapons." David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, greets Ivanka Trump on her arrival in Israel in May 2018 Ms Omar and Ms Tlaib were among a wave of Left-wing Democrats elected in the 2018 midterm elections. Ms Tlaib is of Palestinian origin and both women are strong supporters of Palestinian rights. However, both have also been accused of veering into anti-Semitism while criticising Israel. Mr Trump has taken aim at both women in a series of tweets, suggesting that they "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came". Mr Trump's supporters chanted "send her back" about Ms Omar at a recent rally, a chorus that the president later distanced himself from. Mr Netanyahu's decision was immediately condemned by Democrat presidential candidates. "This would be a shameful, unprecedented move," said Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat senator who is among the leading candidates for president. Israel doesn't advance its case as a tolerant democracy or unwavering US ally by barring elected members of Congress from visiting because of their political views. This would be a shameful, unprecedented move. I urge Israel's government to allow @IlhanMN and @RashidaTlaib entry.— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) August 15, 2019 Democrats have become openly critical of the Right-wing Israeli leader in recent years and several Democrat presidential candidates have accused him of racism. Many Democrats have not forgiven Mr Netanyahu for a 2015 speech he gave in Washington lambasting Barack Obama's nuclear agreement with Iran. The speech was seen by Democrats as disrespectful of Mr Obama. Thursday's decision has potential implications for any future visits to Israel by Mr Corbyn, who has called for boycotts of Israeli settlements and for a halt to arms sales to the Jewish state. Israeli officials had previously said that an exception would be made for Mr Corbyn out of respect for the British-Israeli partnership. However, if Israel is prepared to risk a confrontation with the Democratic Party it seems they could also bar the Labour leader. Mr Netanyahu's decision was criticised by some Israeli liberals. "A country with a smart foreign policy would invite members of congress who do not like its positions and make sure that the visit exposes the complexity of the conflict," said Stav Shaffir, an opposition MP. "The cowardly Netanyahu slams the door and gives a gift to BDS, who gives back to Bibi gift: fear and disconnection."
|
| US 'piracy' attempt failed, Iran says after court orders tanker release Posted: 15 Aug 2019 08:22 AM PDT  Iran's top diplomat said a US attempt at "piracy" had failed after a Gibraltar court on Thursday ordered the release of a tanker carrying Iranian oil despite a US detention request. A supreme court judge in Gibraltar ruled in favour of releasing the Grace 1 supertanker which had been seized in waters off the British territory on July 4 on suspicion of breaching EU sanctions on Syria. "Having failed to accomplish its objectives through its #EconomicTerrorism -- including depriving cancer patients of medicine -- the US attempted to abuse the legal system to steal our property on the high seas," Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted.
|
| A Secret? Is the U.S. Army's Go To Sniper Rifle Really Just a Hunting Rifle? Posted: 15 Aug 2019 08:16 AM PDT  The selection of .300 Winchester Magnum extended the U.S. Army sniper's range to 1200 meters—four hundred beyond that of the M24. As a result the M2010 ESR received an improved, longer-range optic, the Leupold Mark 4 M5A2 with variable 6.5- to twenty-power magnification. The Leupold scope can be fitted with the Knight's Armament AN/PVS-29 or AN/PVS-30 night-vision scopes for night firing. Finally, a suppressor designed by Advanced Armament Company eliminates flash and significantly reduces the noise signature of the rifle, very useful features when a sniper is trying to conceal his or her position.The U.S. Army's long-serving sniper rifle has its roots in one of the most iconic American hunting rifles ever produced. The M-24 Sniper Weapon System, standard issue among the Army's sniper teams, is based on the fifty-six-year-old Remington 700 hunting rifle. When the U.S. Army decided to field a new, heavier-caliber sniper weapon, it again turned to the Remington 700 to produce the advanced M2010 rifle.The Remington 700 is one of the most popular American firearms of the twentieth century. Introduced in 1956 as a affordable, relatively lightweight bolt action hunting rifle, the 700 line of rifles sold more than four million copies. The rifle is available in a more than two dozen calibers, from .17 Remington to .458 Winchester Magnum, and can bag game from squirrels to moose.In the mid-1980s the U.S. Army decided it needed to replace the service's existing sniper rifle, the M21 sniping rifle, with a new weapon. The M21, based on the M14 battle rifle, dated to the Vietnam War. Although semiautomatic, the M21 was less accurate and required more maintenance than most sniper rifles. The Army opened up a competition for a new rifle in November 1986 and picked a winner, Remington Arms, in July 1987.Recommended: America Has Military Options for North Korea (but They're All Bad)Recommended: 1,700 Planes Ready for War: Everything You Need To Know About China's Air ForceRecommended: Stealth vs. North Korea's Air Defenses: Who Wins?Remington's contestant, known as the M24 Sniper Weapon System, was a bolt-action rifle based on the Remington 700 hunting rifle. It was similar to the Marine Corps' M40 sniper weapon, also based on the Remington hunting rifle. The rifle barrel was free-floated, only touching the rest of the rifle where it attaches to the Remington action, in order to prevent pressure from changing the point of impact. Remington also provided the weapon with a Harris bipod to support shooting from the prone position and cover.The M24 was chambered in 7.62×51-millimeter (.308 Winchester), meant to use M118 7.62×51 Special Ball ammo and the M118's 173-grain bullet. The rifle used a heavy, twenty-four-inch-long barrel that increased velocity (and thus distance), and could be fired repeatedly without heat affecting accuracy. Barrel twist, which imparts spin on the bullet and increases accuracy, was one complete turn for every eleven inches.The optic is one of the most important features of a sniper rifle. The M24 was originally equipped with a Leupold M3A Ultra fixed power scope with ten-power magnification, and featured Redfield (and later OK Weber) fixed iron sights for use in emergencies. A fixed power scope, the M3A had fewer moving parts to break under field conditions. This was later replaced with a ten-power Leupold Mk. IV LR/T M1 scope.Unlike the M21, which was a semiautomatic rifle fed by a large twenty-round box magazine, the M24 was a bolt-action rifle fed by an internal five-round magazine. The shift away from semiautomatic to bolt action may have been controversial at the time, but it was the right decision. Bolt-action weapons, manually cycled by the user, are more reliable and far less prone to jamming. They were also more accurate than semiautomatic rifles at the time, although this is no longer necessarily true.The M24/M118 Special Ball combination was a reasonable accurate combination, capable of shooting a minute of angle (one inch of deviation at one hundred yards). As one retired U.S. Army sniper put it, the M118 Special Ball round was capable of accuracy from .2 (1.5 inch groups at five hundred yards) to one minute of angle. At worst the M118 Special Ball round was capable of a ten-inch spread at a thousand yards—acceptable considering a human target's chest is generally assumed to be twenty-three inches across.The M24 performed well in Afghanistan and Iraq, with sniper teams capable of long-distance, long-term observation of target areas. On September 27, 2005, U.S. Army sniper team leader SSgt. Jim Gilliland shot an insurgent with his M24 Sniper Weapon System at a range of 1,367 yards, or seven-tenths of a mile. At that distance, gravity caused the 7.62-millimeter M118 round to drop an amazing ninety-one feet vertically, a distance that Staff Sergeant Gilliland had to compensate for in order to make his shot.In 2010, the U.S. Army selected a new sniper rifle, the M2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle, to replace the M24. The M2010 is actually the same M24 Remington action, which in a move of great foresight the Army had demanded be technically a long-action, capable of someday moving to the heavier .300 Winchester Magnum caliber. The M24 action was rebarreled with a twenty-four-inch .300 WM barrel and bedded into a futuristic-looking aluminium chassis that provided a rock-steady firing platform. Although the M2010 has a detachable box magazine, it retains the same number of rounds (five) as the M24.The selection of .300 Winchester Magnum extended the U.S. Army sniper's range to 1200 meters—four hundred beyond that of the M24. As a result the M2010 ESR received an improved, longer-range optic, the Leupold Mark 4 M5A2 with variable 6.5- to twenty-power magnification. The Leupold scope can be fitted with the Knight's Armament AN/PVS-29 or AN/PVS-30 night-vision scopes for night firing. Finally, a suppressor designed by Advanced Armament Company eliminates flash and significantly reduces the noise signature of the rifle, very useful features when a sniper is trying to conceal his or her position.The Remington Model 700 is completely unrecognizable as the M2010 Enhanced Sniper Rifle, but the sleek, skeletal sniper weapon owes its existence to the classic hunting rifle found in homes across America. The ability to draw on a hunting weapon and turn it into not one but two sniper rifles is a testament to the Model 700's excellent design.Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.
|
| UPDATE 3-Trump urges China's Xi to meet Hong Kong protesters Posted: 15 Aug 2019 08:05 AM PDT  U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to meet personally with the protesters in Hong Kong, saying it would lead to an end to tensions that have seized the territory for weeks. "If President Xi would meet directly and personally with the protesters, there would be a happy and enlightened ending to the Hong Kong problem. Trump's tweet came a day after he tied a U.S. trade deal with China to a humane resolution of the weeks of protests wracking Hong Kong.
|
| In Just 6 Hours Israel Proved Why Its Air Force Is Nearly Unbeatable Posted: 15 Aug 2019 08:03 AM PDT  To say that Operation Moked is unique is incorrect. On June 22, 1941, the Luftwaffe pounded Soviet airfields during Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's surprise invasion of the Soviet Union. The Soviets may have lost almost four thousand aircraft in the first three days of the offensive—many destroyed on the ground—at a cost of less than eighty German aircraft.At 7:10 a.m. Israeli time, sixteen Israeli Air Force Fouga Magister training jets took off and pretended to be what they were not. Flying routine flight paths and using routine radio frequencies, they looked to Arab radar operators like the normal morning Israeli combat air patrol.At 7:15 a.m., another 183 aircraft—almost the entire Israeli combat fleet—roared into the air. They headed west over the Mediterranean before diving low, which dropped them from Arab radar screens. This was also nothing new: for two years, Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian radar had tracked Israeli aircraft—though never this many Israeli aircraft—taking off every morning on this same flight path, and then disappearing from their scopes before they returned to base. But that morning, instead of going home, the Israeli armada of French-made Mirage and Super Mystere jets turned south toward Egypt, flying under strict radio silence and just sixty feet above the waves.Recommended: Why an F-22 Raptor Would Crush an F-35 in a 'Dogfight'Recommended: Air War: Stealth F-22 Raptor vs. F-14 Tomcat (That Iran Still Flies)Recommended: A New Report Reveals Why There Won't Be Any 'New' F-22 RaptorsIt was June 5, 1967, and the Six-Day War was about to begin. The conflict, which would shape the Middle East as we know it today, had been simmering for months between Israel and its neighbors. Outnumbered by the combined Arab armies, and surrounded by enemies on three sides and the deep blue Mediterranean on the fourth, Israel had resolved to strike first and win quickly.That meant controlling the skies. But the Israeli Air Force could pit only two hundred aircraft, almost all French models (the United States wouldn't sell aircraft to the IAF until 1968), against six hundred Arab planes, including many Soviet-supplied MiG fighters. Israeli leaders also worried over Egypt's thirty Soviet-made Tu-16 Badger bombers, each of which could drop ten tons of bombs on Israeli cities.Thus was born Operation Moked ("Focus"), a preemptive strike aimed at destroying the Arab air forces on the ground—and one of the most brilliant aerial operations in history. The plan had been worked out and practiced for several years. IAF pilots flew repeated practice missions against mock Egyptian airfields in the Negev Desert, while Israeli intelligence collected information on Egyptian dispositions and defenses.Would all the effort pay off? The answer would become clear minutes after the Israeli aerial armada banked over the Mediterranean and arrived over Egypt.Jordanian radar operators, troubled by the unusual number of Israeli aircraft in the air that day, sent a coded warning to the Egyptians. But the Egyptians had changed their codes the day before without bothering to inform the Jordanians.Not that the warning would have made a huge difference. "Rather than attacking at dawn, the IAF decided to wait for a couple of hours until 0745hrs, 0845hrs Egyptian time," writes author Simon Dunstan. "By this time, the morning mists over the Nile Delta had dispersed and the Egyptian dawn patrols had returned to base where the pilots were now having their breakfast, while many pilots and ground crew were still making their way to work."Meanwhile, the commanders of the Egyptian armed forces and air force were away from their posts on an inspection tour, flying aboard a transport as the Israeli aircraft came in (scared that their own antiaircraft gunners would mistake them for Israelis and blast them out of the skies, the commanders had ordered that Egyptian air defenses not fire on any aircraft while the transport plane was in the air).The Israeli aircraft climbed to nine thousand feet as they approached their targets: ten Egyptian airfields where the aircraft were neatly parked in rows, wingtip to wingtip. Almost totally unhindered by Egyptian interceptors and flak, the Israeli aircraft, in flights of four, made three to four passes each with bombs and cannon. First hit were the runways so planes couldn't take off, followed by Egyptian bombers, and then other aircraft.It was here that the Israelis deployed a secret weapon: the "concrete dibber" bombs, the first specialized anti-runway weapons. Based on a French design, the bombs were braked by parachute, and then a rocket motor slammed them into the runway, creating a crater that made it impossible for Egyptian aircraft to take off.The first wave lasted just eighty minutes. Then there was a respite, but only for ten minutes. Then second wave came in to strike an additional fourteen airfields. The Egyptians could have been forgiven for thinking Israel had secretly managed to amass a huge air force.The truth was that Israeli ground crews had practiced the rearming and refueling of returning aircraft in less than eight minutes, which allowed the strike aircraft of the first wave to fly in the second. After 170 minutes—just under three hours—Egypt had lost 293 of its nearly five hundred aircraft, including all of its Soviet-made Tu-16 and Il-28 bombers that had threatened Israeli cities, as well as 185 MiG fighters. The Israelis lost nineteen aircraft, mostly to ground fire.The day still wasn't over for the Israeli Air Force. At 12:45 p.m. on June 5, the IAF turned its attention to the other Arab air forces. Syrian and Jordanian airfields were hit, as was the Iraqi H3 airbase. The Syrian lost two-thirds of their air force, with fifty-seven planes destroyed on the ground, while Jordan lost all of its twenty-eight aircraft. By the end of the 1967 war, the Arabs had lost 450 aircraft, compared to forty-six of Israel's.Six hours or so after the first IAF aircraft had soared into the morning sky, Israel had won the Six-Day War. Not that the tank crews and paratroopers on the ground wouldn't face some hard fighting in the Sinai, the Golan and Jerusalem. But destroying the Arab air forces didn't just mean that Israeli troops could operate without air attack; it also meant that Israeli aircraft could relentlessly bomb and strafe Arab ground troops, which turned the Egyptian retreat from Sinai into a rout.To say that Operation Moked is unique is incorrect. On June 22, 1941, the Luftwaffe pounded Soviet airfields during Operation Barbarossa, Hitler's surprise invasion of the Soviet Union. The Soviets may have lost almost four thousand aircraft in the first three days of the offensive—many destroyed on the ground—at a cost of less than eighty German aircraft.But Operation Moked stands out for its meticulous preparation and split-second timing. It is a mark of respect that Israel's air offensive has become the gold standard for preemptive air strikes to destroy an enemy air force.Saddam Hussein began Iraq's 1980 invasion of Iran with an Israeli-style strike on Iranian airfields. It failed miserably.Had Israel attempted this against North Vietnam in 1967, the outcome would also have been very different. For that matter, had Operation Moked failed to achieve surprise, or if the Israeli pilots had missed their targets, Israel would have gone down in history as reckless and foolish. That's exactly what happened to the IAF six years later, in the 1973 October War.But the gamble paid off. Yet there was nothing magical about the Israeli triumph. Careful preparation, abetted by Arab carelessness and a bit of good luck, had been rewarded.Operation Moked changed the course of the 1967 war—and of history.Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.
|
| Hong Kong Protest Leader Willing to Meet with ‘Emperor Xi’ Posted: 15 Aug 2019 08:00 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong said Chinese President Xi Jinping was welcome to meet the city's protesters "directly and openly".Wong's tweet came minutes after U.S. President Donald Trump tweeted that the "Hong Kong problem" would end if Xi met the protesters directly.Trump Says Xi Should Meet 'Personally' With Hong Kong ProtestersTo contact the reporter on this story: Maria Jose Valero in New York at mvalero3@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Polina Noskova at pnoskova@bloomberg.net, Sebastian TongFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Trump Says Xi Should Meet ‘Personally’ With Hong Kong Protesters Posted: 15 Aug 2019 07:57 AM PDT  (Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump suggested that Chinese President Xi Jinping meet directly with protesters in Hong Kong, saying it would lead to a "happy and enlightened ending" to demonstrations that have rocked the territory for more than two months."If President Xi would meet directly and personally with the protesters, there would be a happy and enlightened ending to the Hong Kong problem. I have no doubt!" Trump tweeted Thursday.The president's comments come after days of turmoil at Hong Kong's airport, which protesters took over, forcing flight cancellations and raising the specter that China would intervene aggressively to quell the demonstrations. But it would be largely unprecedented for China's leader to agree to talks with representatives from a largely leaderless protest movement that has challenged his government's legitimacy.Late on Wednesday, Trump appeared to link unrest in Hong Kong with progress in trade talks with the U.S."Of course China wants to make a trade deal," Trump wrote. "Let them work humanely with Hong Kong first!"The American leader's tweets appeared to signal a shift from his largely passive approach to about 10 weeks of demonstrations in Hong Kong, which at one point he called "riots" in language similar to that used by authorities in Beijing. The protests, which began with widespread opposition to a China-backed extradition bill, have shifted to focus more on calls for greater democracy.At least one prominent Hong Kong dissident moved to quickly embrace Trump's suggestion. Joshua Wong, an activist who served a brief jail term for his role leading an earlier wave of pro-democracy protests in 2014, responded to the U.S. president's tweet in a cutting fashion."Welcome Emperor Xi come to HK and meet with protesters directly and openly during demonstration," Wong wrote on Twitter.(Updates to add dissident commenting on Trump's suggestion in final paragraphs.)To contact the reporter on this story: Joshua Gallu in Washington at jgallu@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Bill Faries at wfaries@bloomberg.net, Kevin WhitelawFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
|
| Trump news - live: President gloats as congresswomen barred from Israel and pledges to get tougher on crime Posted: 15 Aug 2019 07:57 AM PDT  Donald Trump has pledged to "get much tougher on street crime" after six police officers were shot and wounded in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday night while trying to enforce a drugs warrant. The president has also gloated after outspoken Democratic congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib were barred from entering Israel, having been critical of the influence of Israeli lobbyists in Washington, declaring: "They hate all Jewish people".Mr Trump has meanwhile offered to meet with Chinese premier Xi Jinping over the anti-government protests in Hong Kong, which he says are an obstacle to the resolution of the trade war raging between the two superpowers, continuing to gloat that the US is "winning, big time".Please allow a moment for our liveblog to load
|
| China's Government Threatens Retaliation Against US, Trump Calls For 'Personal Meeting' With Xi Posted: 15 Aug 2019 07:45 AM PDT ![China's Government Threatens Retaliation Against US, Trump Calls For 'Personal Meeting' With Xi]( "China's Government Threatens Retaliation Against US, Trump Calls For 'Personal Meeting' With Xi") China's Customs Tariff Commission of the State Council said in an online post the government feels "severely violated" by Trump's tariff escalation as it is not consistent with an agreement reached during the G-20 summit, CNBC wrote. Trump wrote in a Tweet Wednesday China President Xi Jinping is a "great leader who very much has the respect of his people." He followed up that his Chinese counterpart likely wants to "quickly and humanely" reach a solution to the escalation of tensions and riots in Hong Kong.
|
| Trump urges Chinese leader Xi to meet Hong Kong protesters Posted: 15 Aug 2019 07:44 AM PDT  US President Donald Trump said Thursday that a meeting between Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Hong Kong's pro-democracy activists could lead to a "happy" ending to months of protests. "If President Xi would meet directly and personally with the protesters, there would be a happy and enlightened ending to the Hong Kong problem. Trump appeared to be clarifying a tweet he wrote on Wednesday on Xi, trade relations, and Hong Kong, which he ended by saying "Personal meeting?" That was taken by some as Trump offering to meet with the Chinese president.
|
| German minister offers to resign if university revokes title Posted: 15 Aug 2019 07:34 AM PDT ![German minister offers to resign if university revokes title]( "German minister offers to resign if university revokes title") A center-left minister in German Chancellor Angela Merkel's government says she will resign if her PhD is revoked over plagiarism allegations. Franziska Giffey, a former mayor of one of Berlin's toughest districts, was considered a rising star in German politics and her Social Democratic Party when she was appointed families minister in 2017.
|
| Moon Jae-in's Dream: Korean Unification by 2045 Posted: 15 Aug 2019 07:27 AM PDT  Nobody can accuse Moon Jae-in of thinking small. Within a year of taking office, the South Korean president decided to use his considerable political capital and domestic political support to begin a comprehensive rapprochement with his fellow Koreans in the North. Kim Jong-un, the dictator who was testing intercontinental ballistic missiles as recently as the fall of 2017, sensed an opportunity to perhaps split the U.S.-South Korea Alliance and was intrigued by the policy. And in less than a year, Kim and Moon would meet for three summits—the last one, in September 2018, resulting in a detailed demilitarization accord which sought to lower tensions along the Demilitarized Zone, regularizing bilateral contact, and pave the way for more serious discussions.2019 hasn't been as hopeful. Inter-Korean talks have ground to a halt since President Donald Trump and Kim walked away from Hanoi in February without even a cursory joint statement. Nowadays, it's more likely for officials in Pyongyang to scold the South for acting as an American stooge. Agreements that were inked last year are in purgatory, with a joint military commission in limbo and joint excavation projects on hold. Moon Jae-in's judgment is increasingly being questioned from all directions. Chosun Ilbo ran an editorial in early August suggesting Moon may have lost his mind. The Korea JoongAng Daily wasn't much kinder to Moon's North Korea policy: "Seoul has itself to be blamed for the current pitiful situation...Because Seoul posed as an eager go-between [between the U.S. and the North], its role naturally became meaningless once the two hit it off."Moon, however, remains a full believer in what has been described in shorthand as the "sunshine policy"—that you will get a lot more from the Kim regime by finding avenues of cooperation than by isolation. This is a man who, after all, served as President Roh Moo-hyun's top staffer, the major proponent of the sunshine policy and the architect of the second only inter-Korean summit since the end of the Korean War. No amount of badgering from the editorialists or bad-mouthing from the political opposition is powerful enough to extinguish Moon's hopes for the future.His August 15 speech commemorating the liberation of the Korean Peninsula from Japan was quintessential Moon Jae-in: full of hopeful rhetoric, wrapped with a touch of defiance about why his approach to the North will pay off over the long-term. Moon is as committed to establishing a durable peace on the Korean Peninsula through bold economic integration as he has ever been. "[W]e aim to establish a peace economy in which prosperity is achieved through peace and also complete our liberation through the unification of the Peninsula," Moon remarked. The final goal: one Korea by 2045.In Moon's view, unification is not only possible but desirable. "Once the Korean Peninsula is unified, it is expected to become one of the six largest economies in the world," the South Korean president predicted. As soon as a single Korean nation is formed, businesses that once shunned North Korea or avoided it due to the intricate web of U.S. and U.N. Security Council sanctions will reassess and pour in investment. Peace will hover over the Korean Peninsula like a sunny day hovers over the state of California. North Koreans will cease to be North Koreans and will instead become Koreans—citizens of a historically proud, politically unified, financial behemoth that could overtake Japan as East Asia's economic powerhouse. None of this is possible, however, if the spirit of constructive dialogue that prevailed last year is overtaken by paranoia, hostility, and pessimism. What Moon was communicating in his address was the same message he has staked his political career on—shutting the book on nearly 70 years of Korean division.Today, of course, any talk of Korean unification is the stuff of fairytales. It's as close to a mirage in the desert as you will find in global politics, about as likely as Iran and Saudi Arabia making nice or China allowing Taiwan to declare independence. Whether Moon wants to admit it or not, Korean unification is not as easy as turning on a lightbulb or willing it into existence through positive thoughts. In fact, the goal of one Korea won't even be determined by the Koreans themselves; as long as Washington has a veto over Seoul's North Korea policy and is willing to stifle the same cross-border projects the Moon administration wishes to implement, unification is not a realistic prospect. But to rule it out completely would also be shortsighted. Crazy things have happened before. If you told a U.S. official in 1980 that the Berlin Wall would fall in less than a decade, you might have been called clinically insane. Very few people would have thought Hosni Mubarak, Egypt's 30-year dictator, would be swept from power on the back of mass protests. The same could be said of Libya's Muammar al-Qaddafi. And yet they did.Moon Jae-in understands Korean unity is a big lift. He probably understands that accomplishing such a feat by 2045 is incredibly unrealistic. But for Moon, none of this matters. What's important is to keep the idea alive so the next generation of Korean leaders can turn the dream into a fact of life. If Moon succeeds in doing that, all of the recent denunciations and insults that have been thrown his way may be worth it.Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities, a foreign policy organization focused on promoting a realistic grand strategy to ensure American security and prosperity.Image: Reuters.
|
| Trump urges meeting between China's Xi, Hong Kong protesters Posted: 15 Aug 2019 07:13 AM PDT U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday urged Chinese President Xi Jinping to meet personally with the Hong Kong protesters, saying it would lead to an end to tensions that have seized the territory for weeks. "If President Xi would meet directly and personally with the protesters, there would be a happy and enlightened ending to the Hong Kong problem.
|
| It’s Official: July Was the Hottest Month In ALL of Recorded Human History Posted: 15 Aug 2019 06:23 AM PDT  The world just lived through the hottest month of the year ever recorded in human history.According to new data just released by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), July 2019 has broken all records for the hottest month, with temperatures 1.71 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average.NOAA's calculations confirm the findings of three other recently released data sets. Independent findings from the Copernicus Climate Change Service (a European climate agency), Japan Meteorological Agency, and Berkeley Earth all show that last month was the warmest on Earth since record-keeping began.According to data from Berkeley Earth, for instance, last month was 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.22 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels, just shy of the Paris Agreement's aspirational target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees.In a statement following the release of the Copernicus data, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said, "We have always lived through hot summers. But this is not the summer of our youth. This is not your grandfather's summer."If this year's unprecedented heat continues, it will likely result in 2015-2019 being the hottest five years on record. The previous hottest month ever recorded was July 2016 — and nine of the 10 hottest Julys ever have all happened since 2005."July has re-written climate history, with dozens of new temperature records at local, national and global level," Petteri Taalas, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization, said in a statement earlier this month.Indeed, the summer of 2019 will be remembered for Arctic fires, melting Antarctic sea ice, and dangerous heat waves across several continents.Iceland, for instance, officially lost its first glacier to climate change. Scientists will be installing a plaque this month to commemorate the sombre milestone. It reads: "In the next 200 years all our glaciers are expected to follow the same path. This monument is to acknowledge that we know what is happening and what needs to be done. Only you know if we did it."And over the course of July, Greenland's ice sheet melted dramatically — 197 billion tons of water from the glaciers flowed into the North Atlantic. This is enough to raise global sea levels by 0.02 inches (0.5 millimeters).These events follow last year's summer which was similarly filled with rare but devastating late-season hurricanes and historic, deadly wildfires — all trends scientists say can be expected in a warming world.Kyla Mandel is the editor for the climate team at Think Progress. Her work has appeared in National Geographic, Mother Jones, and Vice. She has a master's degree from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism, specializing in science, health, and environment reporting. You can reach her at kmandel@thinkprogress.org.This first appeared in Think Progress here. Image: NOAA.
|
| EXPLAINER-UK to loosen budget purse strings as Brexit nears Posted: 15 Aug 2019 06:17 AM PDT ![EXPLAINER-UK to loosen budget purse strings as Brexit nears]( "EXPLAINER-UK to loosen budget purse strings as Brexit nears") Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government has made billions of pounds of new spending commitments in its first three weeks in office, even before the potential costs of a disruptive, no-deal Brexit are taken into account. New Finance Minister Sajid Javid will give more details of the plans next month, before a full annual budget later in the year - assuming that a no-confidence vote and an election do not intervene before then. HOW ARE BRITAIN'S PUBLIC FINANCES NOW?
|
| Iranian Oil Tanker Held On British Territory Released After US Makes Moves To Seize It Posted: 15 Aug 2019 05:59 AM PDT  Authorities in Gibraltar, a British territory, released an Iranian oil tanker Thursday, hours after the U.S. requested to seize the ship.The Iranian oil tanker, Grace 1, was seized July 4, with Iran seizing a British oil tanker shortly after in retaliation. The U.S. applied to seize the oil tanker Thursday morning, according to the Gibraltar government. Hours later, the Iranian oil tanker was released."The U.S. Department of Justice has applied to seize the Grace 1 on a number of allegations which are now being considered," the Gibraltar government said in a statement, according to the New York Times. "The matter will return to the Supreme Court of Gibraltar at 4 p.m. today."Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, tweeted Thursday that the request was a "piracy attempt."The U.S. recently imposed sanctions on Iran, and the request to seize Grace 1 adds to escalating tensions between the U.S. and Iran, the NYT reported.Gibraltar released Grace 1 after being assured by Iran that "the destination of Grace 1 would not be an entity that is subject to European Union sanctions.""In light of the assurances we have received there are no longer any reasonable grounds for the continued legal detention of the Grace 1," Fabian Picardo, the chief minister of Gibraltar, said in a statement Thursday.Iran has not yet released the British oil tanker that they seized, but they have indicated in the past that a trade may be an option if their oil tanker was released. An Iranian oil trader briefed on the situation noted that the British ship would be released after Iran's tanker reached Greece, the NYT reported.Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
|
| We will not rule out any option to stop Brexit - Scottish leader Sturgeon Posted: 15 Aug 2019 04:20 AM PDT ![We will not rule out any option to stop Brexit - Scottish leader Sturgeon]( "We will not rule out any option to stop Brexit - Scottish leader Sturgeon") The leader of the Scottish National Party, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Thursday her party and its 35 lawmakers would explore any option to stop Brexit in parliament and did not rule out backing opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn. "We will work with anyone and we'll explore any option to stop Brexit," Sturgeon told the BBC.
|
