May 16, 2018
9:27 am
The Michael Cohen Bribery Scandal Is Now a Trump Bribery Scandal
By
Jonathan Chait
@jonathanchait
Last night, the Daily Mail reported a development in the Michael Cohen saga of seismic scale. In a December 2016 meeting in Trump Tower, the British tabloid reports, Cohen asked Ahmed Al-Rumaihi, who runs a $100 billion Qatari investment fund, to send him “millions” which, the story claims, would go “through him to Trump family members.”
We have already learned of multiple cases of Cohen using his access to Trump to jack up multiple corporations for outrageous sums. The Daily Mail report deepens the trouble in two crucial ways. First, it extends Cohen’s scheme from domestic corporations (or, in one case, domestic corporations controlled by foreign entities) to direct overseas fundraising. Second, and more ominously, it alleges that Cohen funneled the money to Trump’s family. It was bad enough that Trump’s lawyer was enriching himself by cashing in on access. Now the story suggests he was enriching them, transforming the Cohen bribery story into a Trump bribery story.
The story’s publication did not reverberate with the explosive force proportional to the scale of the allegation. The reason is that the Daily Mail lacks the familiarity and credibility of major American legacy media firms. Its occasional bombshell scoops reside in a never-never land between rumor and accepted fact.
And yet there is plenty of contextual evidence to support the charge. One is that Rumaihi suspiciously denied attending the meeting, which leaked Trump Tower surveillance footage later revealed he attended. Another reason is that, multiple reports have linked both Qatar as a source of players in the broader web of shady Trump financial dealings with Russia, and Cohen as a key conduit. So it would fit the pattern for Cohen to be soliciting a bribe from Qatar on behalf of the Trump family. And yet another reason is Trump’s notorious resentment of other people making money off of him. If Cohen used Trump’s election to solicit bribes, it seems highly likely Trump would demand a taste.
And then there is another reason to credit this allegation: Direct bribery of Trump is still happening, in plain sight.
Trump has defied all modern precedent by retaining control of his family company while serving as president, allowing interests domestic or foreign to curry favor by enriching him personally. One such case occurred this week. In short order, China invested half a billion dollars into an Indonesian infrastructure project that will benefit a Trump property, and Trump then immediately turned around and gave China a curiously favorable trade concession.
What makes the case so suspicious is that, while Trump has repeatedly mocked China and threatened to pick fights with it, the issue at hand involves China engaging in unambiguously bad behavior. ZTE, the Chinese telecommunications firms, admitted to violating U.S. sanctions on both North Korea and Iran. (Ratcheting up sanctions pressure on Iran is now a centerpiece of American foreign policy in the Middle East, thanks to Trump’s decision to back out of the nuclear inspections agreement.) The U.S. Department of Commerce found ZTE also failed to accept the terms of punishment.
But rather than express nationalist indignation, Trump instead proclaimed his bizarre sympathy that the penalties would hurt Chinese workers (“Too many jobs in China lost”), in what has to be the first time Trump has ever evinced any concern about the well-being of the Chinese labor force. His capitulation left China trade hawks apoplectic. “It’s outrageous,” American Enterprise Institute scholar Derek Scissors, a critic of Chinese trade practices, told The Wall Street Journal. “We are giving up on punishing ZTE for the Chinese restoring the trade status quo.”
It is obviously possible that this sequence of events might be the product of pure incompetence. But immediate progression from Chinese payment that benefitted Trump to oddly worded Trump tweet to oddly designed concession to China suggests bribery as a more likely explanation.
What’s clearly true is that the usual restraints against such behavior are altogether absent. There is an old phrase that used to be bandied around the media constantly: “the appearance of a conflict of interest.” Officials were held to this standard, which required them to avoid even looking like they might be tempted to allow their personal interest to influence their decisions. And of course, petty corruption often won out even in the face of this putatively strict public ethic. But it had to travel through a wicket of rules guarding against outright corruption.
The Trump family, by contrast, is operating in a rules-free environment. The appearance of a conflict of interest is not even in question. There are proven conflicts everywhere, and the only question is straight-out quid pro quo bribery. The only authority empowered to uncover the alleged bribes is Robert Mueller.
While federal officials below the level of president are subject to rigid disclosure and divestment rules, the president has refused to disclose his personal financial information at all. In normal times, Congress would immediately hold hearings to get to the bottom of the ZTE deal, which would generate screaming headlines. In this case, everybody has so fully internalized the reality that congressional Republicans will not conduct any oversight over this administration that a serious congressional probe is unimaginable.
Is Trump collecting bribes? Did Cohen collect bribes for Trump in December 2016? What on Earth would stop them?
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
'Monster' Black Hole Is Discovered That Consumes Mass Equivalent of the Sun Every 2 Days - Fortune
'Monster' Black Hole Is Discovered That Consumes Mass Equivalent of the Sun Every 2 Days
By SARAH GRAY May 15, 2018
Australian researchers have discovered what they’ve described as the fastest-growing black hole in the universe.
“This black hole is growing so rapidly that it’s shining thousands of times more brightly than an entire galaxy, due to all of the gases it sucks in daily that cause lots of friction and heat,” Dr. Christian Wolf, a researcher from the Australian National University who was on the team that made the discovery, said according to a statement.
Researchers believe that this “monster” of black hole consumes the mass equivalent to our sun every two days. If placed at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, it would not only “appear 10 times brighter than a full moon,” Wolf said, but it would also make life on Earth impossible due to the x-rays the black hole releases.
And according to Space.com, this black hole is distant enough that it likely released its light around 12 billion years ago, when the ANU researchers estimate that this black hole was as large as 20 billion suns, and grew 1% every million years.
Carl Zimmer
✔
@carlzimmer
15 May
Astronomers find a hungry black hole that could gobble up our sun in two days http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/astronomers-find-fastest-growing-black-hole-known-in-space …
Carl Zimmer
✔
@carlzimmer
(It’s billions of light years away, so don’t cancel your weekend plans.)
11:46 AM - May 15, 2018
Initially the SkyMapper telescope at the ANU Siding Spring Observatory discovered light from the black hole in the “near-infrared.” Data from European Space Agency’s Gaia satellite helped discover the black hole, and the spectrograph on the ANU 2.3 meter telescope confirmed the discovery.
The next step for researchers is to learn how it grew so large during the beginnings of our universe, and to find other fast-growing black holes like it.
“Fast-growing supermassive black holes also help to clear the fog around them by ionising gases,” Wolf said in a statement, “which makes the Universe more transparent.”
The researchers’ findings will be published in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia.
By SARAH GRAY May 15, 2018
Australian researchers have discovered what they’ve described as the fastest-growing black hole in the universe.
“This black hole is growing so rapidly that it’s shining thousands of times more brightly than an entire galaxy, due to all of the gases it sucks in daily that cause lots of friction and heat,” Dr. Christian Wolf, a researcher from the Australian National University who was on the team that made the discovery, said according to a statement.
Researchers believe that this “monster” of black hole consumes the mass equivalent to our sun every two days. If placed at the center of our Milky Way galaxy, it would not only “appear 10 times brighter than a full moon,” Wolf said, but it would also make life on Earth impossible due to the x-rays the black hole releases.
And according to Space.com, this black hole is distant enough that it likely released its light around 12 billion years ago, when the ANU researchers estimate that this black hole was as large as 20 billion suns, and grew 1% every million years.
Carl Zimmer
✔
@carlzimmer
15 May
Astronomers find a hungry black hole that could gobble up our sun in two days http://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/astronomers-find-fastest-growing-black-hole-known-in-space …
Carl Zimmer
✔
@carlzimmer
(It’s billions of light years away, so don’t cancel your weekend plans.)
11:46 AM - May 15, 2018
Initially the SkyMapper telescope at the ANU Siding Spring Observatory discovered light from the black hole in the “near-infrared.” Data from European Space Agency’s Gaia satellite helped discover the black hole, and the spectrograph on the ANU 2.3 meter telescope confirmed the discovery.
The next step for researchers is to learn how it grew so large during the beginnings of our universe, and to find other fast-growing black holes like it.
“Fast-growing supermassive black holes also help to clear the fog around them by ionising gases,” Wolf said in a statement, “which makes the Universe more transparent.”
The researchers’ findings will be published in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia.
Investors are going to buy bitcoin whether advisors like it or not, says financial pundit - CNBC News
May 16, 2018
Investors are going to buy bitcoin whether advisors like it or not, says financial pundit
JP Morgan chairman Jamie Dimon has called bitcoin a "fraud," and Vanguard CEO Tim Buckley told CNBC in an interview: "You will never see a fund from Vanguard on bitcoin."
However, advisors need to brush up on cryptocurrency and blockchain technology so they can properly address questions from their clients, says Lex Sokolin of Autonomous Research.
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are a good way to add alternatives to allocation, on the order of 3 percent to 5 percent of a portfolio.
Jim Pavia | @jimpavia
Published 2 Hours Ago Updated 33 Mins Ago
CNBC.com
2 Hours Ago | 01:20
Many investors wonder when the right time will be to put some money in bitcoin. It's a question that financial advisors increasingly hear these days.
Yet advisors, for the most part, don't recommend investing in digital currency, or in the investment vehicles that have cropped up around it, at all. In fact, earlier this year, Merrill Lynch banned bitcoin buying across the firm. JP Morgan chairman Jamie Dimon called bitcoin a "fraud" (he later softened some of his comments), and Vanguard CEO Tim Buckley told CNBC in an interview: "You will never see a fund from Vanguard on bitcoin."
There's no doubt that bitcoin has been wildly volatile, so for now, many advisors apparently remain wary and urge investors to avoid cryptocurrency investments altogether.
More from Straight Talk:
Even if bitcoin crashes, blockchain is the future
Micro-investing builds wealth bit by bit
How to pick a new financial advisor
Lex Sokolin, global director of fintech strategy at Autonomous Research, thinks that is a big mistake.
"Cryptocurrency is very controversial, but it's really here to stay," he said. "And the underlying [blockchain] technology is really fundamental to the types of companies that people are building right now."
It's important for individuals who want to invest in cryptocurrency to first understand what it is and also how blockchain technology works, Sokolin explained.
To be sure, one of the most compelling things about cryptocurrency is actually blockchain, he added. To that point, Amazon just announced that its cloud computing arm is partnering with a start-up called Kaleido to make it easier for customers to put their services on blockchain.
"It's volatile right now, so you should not just go and fill your entire portfolio with cryptocurrencies," he said. "But it is a good way to add alternatives to your general allocation, something like 3 [percent] to 5 percent of your portfolio."
Sokolin warned financial advisors that their clients are going to buy bitcoin whether they like it or not.
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about about our products and service. Privacy Policy.
"So [advisors] can choose to say that this whole thing will fall apart and not get educated about it and not help [investors], but that's really irresponsible," he said.
Advisors need to take the time and brush up on the subjects of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology so they can properly address questions from their clients, Sokolin explained.
"Advisors really need to start to understand the basics of how blockchain works," he said. "Start to understand why there are different cryptocurrencies.
"What's the difference between a payments coin, like bitcoin or ethereum?" Sokolin added. "All of these things are different, so advisors have to spend the time so they can actually help their clients make sense of this."
Investors are going to buy bitcoin whether advisors like it or not, says financial pundit
JP Morgan chairman Jamie Dimon has called bitcoin a "fraud," and Vanguard CEO Tim Buckley told CNBC in an interview: "You will never see a fund from Vanguard on bitcoin."
However, advisors need to brush up on cryptocurrency and blockchain technology so they can properly address questions from their clients, says Lex Sokolin of Autonomous Research.
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are a good way to add alternatives to allocation, on the order of 3 percent to 5 percent of a portfolio.
Jim Pavia | @jimpavia
Published 2 Hours Ago Updated 33 Mins Ago
CNBC.com
2 Hours Ago | 01:20
Many investors wonder when the right time will be to put some money in bitcoin. It's a question that financial advisors increasingly hear these days.
Yet advisors, for the most part, don't recommend investing in digital currency, or in the investment vehicles that have cropped up around it, at all. In fact, earlier this year, Merrill Lynch banned bitcoin buying across the firm. JP Morgan chairman Jamie Dimon called bitcoin a "fraud" (he later softened some of his comments), and Vanguard CEO Tim Buckley told CNBC in an interview: "You will never see a fund from Vanguard on bitcoin."
There's no doubt that bitcoin has been wildly volatile, so for now, many advisors apparently remain wary and urge investors to avoid cryptocurrency investments altogether.
More from Straight Talk:
Even if bitcoin crashes, blockchain is the future
Micro-investing builds wealth bit by bit
How to pick a new financial advisor
Lex Sokolin, global director of fintech strategy at Autonomous Research, thinks that is a big mistake.
"Cryptocurrency is very controversial, but it's really here to stay," he said. "And the underlying [blockchain] technology is really fundamental to the types of companies that people are building right now."
It's important for individuals who want to invest in cryptocurrency to first understand what it is and also how blockchain technology works, Sokolin explained.
To be sure, one of the most compelling things about cryptocurrency is actually blockchain, he added. To that point, Amazon just announced that its cloud computing arm is partnering with a start-up called Kaleido to make it easier for customers to put their services on blockchain.
"It's volatile right now, so you should not just go and fill your entire portfolio with cryptocurrencies," he said. "But it is a good way to add alternatives to your general allocation, something like 3 [percent] to 5 percent of your portfolio."
Sokolin warned financial advisors that their clients are going to buy bitcoin whether they like it or not.
Get this delivered to your inbox, and more info about about our products and service. Privacy Policy.
"So [advisors] can choose to say that this whole thing will fall apart and not get educated about it and not help [investors], but that's really irresponsible," he said.
Advisors need to take the time and brush up on the subjects of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology so they can properly address questions from their clients, Sokolin explained.
"Advisors really need to start to understand the basics of how blockchain works," he said. "Start to understand why there are different cryptocurrencies.
"What's the difference between a payments coin, like bitcoin or ethereum?" Sokolin added. "All of these things are different, so advisors have to spend the time so they can actually help their clients make sense of this."
Barramundi farm first NT beneficiary of $5bn government incentive - Guardian ( source : Australian Associated Press )
Barramundi farm first NT beneficiary of $5bn government incentive
The Naif was set up to give the northern Australian economy a boost, but two years later, only two businesses have received funds
Australian Associated Press
Wed 16 May 2018 18.56 AEST Last modified on Wed 16 May 2018 19.03 AEST
Minister for northern Australia Matt Canavan
The minister for northern Australia, Matt Canavan, admitted the incentive had not performed as hoped but said changes to requirements would ‘get things moving’. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
It has taken nearly two years but a barramundi farm near Darwin has become the first Northern Territory recipient to receive funds from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, with almost $30 million to expand its business.
The $5bn Naif was set up in July 2016 with fanfare about developing Australia’s economy but has been criticised, with only one other project, $16m for a marine support base in WA’s Pilbara, funded so far.
Humpty Doo Barramundi, located about an hour’s drive east of Darwin, will receive $28.7m and increase its workforce by 50 and more than treble its annual output to 10,000 tonnes.
That, with an initial $7.2m cheap loan from the fund and a similar amount from ANZ bank in the first stage of a $58m larger expansion, was announced by the minister for Northern Australia, Matt Canavan, at the farm on Wednesday.
The Naif is supposed to contribute $5bn to helping roll out projects over five years but is well short of that, ahead of the halfway point at the end of this year.
Senator Canavan recently admitted it was not performing as had been hoped when a requirement for half the total cost to be funded privately was scrapped to try and “get things moving”.
He said he was hopeful that projects of about $500m and $1bn would be approved this year putting NAIF on track to remit the money.
Other proposed projects include Darwin Airport, a solar farm in the NT and a power line from Mt Isa to Townsville, among 17 in the due diligence and execution phases from the NT, WA and Queensland.
The NT economy is struggling, with the looming end of the construction of the large Inpex gas project, and the Naif would help its economy and society be “financially self-sustaining”, Canavan said.
Matt Canavan castigates fossil fuel opponents for using 'highly objectionable' term 'just transition'
The Naif was set up to give the northern Australian economy a boost, but two years later, only two businesses have received funds
Australian Associated Press
Wed 16 May 2018 18.56 AEST Last modified on Wed 16 May 2018 19.03 AEST
Minister for northern Australia Matt Canavan
The minister for northern Australia, Matt Canavan, admitted the incentive had not performed as hoped but said changes to requirements would ‘get things moving’. Photograph: Lukas Coch/AAP
It has taken nearly two years but a barramundi farm near Darwin has become the first Northern Territory recipient to receive funds from the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, with almost $30 million to expand its business.
The $5bn Naif was set up in July 2016 with fanfare about developing Australia’s economy but has been criticised, with only one other project, $16m for a marine support base in WA’s Pilbara, funded so far.
Humpty Doo Barramundi, located about an hour’s drive east of Darwin, will receive $28.7m and increase its workforce by 50 and more than treble its annual output to 10,000 tonnes.
That, with an initial $7.2m cheap loan from the fund and a similar amount from ANZ bank in the first stage of a $58m larger expansion, was announced by the minister for Northern Australia, Matt Canavan, at the farm on Wednesday.
The Naif is supposed to contribute $5bn to helping roll out projects over five years but is well short of that, ahead of the halfway point at the end of this year.
Senator Canavan recently admitted it was not performing as had been hoped when a requirement for half the total cost to be funded privately was scrapped to try and “get things moving”.
He said he was hopeful that projects of about $500m and $1bn would be approved this year putting NAIF on track to remit the money.
Other proposed projects include Darwin Airport, a solar farm in the NT and a power line from Mt Isa to Townsville, among 17 in the due diligence and execution phases from the NT, WA and Queensland.
The NT economy is struggling, with the looming end of the construction of the large Inpex gas project, and the Naif would help its economy and society be “financially self-sustaining”, Canavan said.
Matt Canavan castigates fossil fuel opponents for using 'highly objectionable' term 'just transition'
Judge Rules Robert Mueller Has the Right to Prosecute Paul Manafort - TIME
Judge Rules Robert Mueller Has the Right to Prosecute Paul Manafort
By CHAD DAY / AP May 15, 2018
A federal judge in Washington ruled Tuesday that special counsel Robert Mueller was working within his authority when he brought charges against President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman.
The decision was a setback for Paul Manafort in his defense against charges of money-laundering conspiracy, false statements and acting as an unregistered foreign agent. Manafort had argued that Mueller had exceeded his authority because the case was unrelated to Russian election interference.
But U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson disagreed, siding with prosecutors who had produced an August 2017 memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The memo shows Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate Manafort’s Ukrainian work and related financial crimes.
Jackson had previously thrown out a civil case Manafort brought challenging Mueller’s authority.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, declined to comment.
The decision allows one of two criminal cases against Manafort to proceed.
In addition to the Washington indictment, Manafort also faces charges in Virginia of bank fraud and tax evasion. The Virginia indictment accuses him of hiding tens of millions of dollars he earned advising pro-Russia politicians in Ukraine from 2006 through 2015. It also accuses him of fraudulently obtaining millions in loans from financial institutions including while he worked for the Trump campaign.
None of the charges relate to allegations of Russian election interference and possible coordination with Trump associates, the main thrust of Mueller’s public appointment order. Manafort has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.
Manafort has filed a similar motion to dismiss his charges in Virginia. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III has yet to rule on it. Ellis had previously grilled Mueller’s team on whether the case was within his mandate and questioned whether they brought the case to get Manafort to testify against Trump.
By CHAD DAY / AP May 15, 2018
A federal judge in Washington ruled Tuesday that special counsel Robert Mueller was working within his authority when he brought charges against President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman.
The decision was a setback for Paul Manafort in his defense against charges of money-laundering conspiracy, false statements and acting as an unregistered foreign agent. Manafort had argued that Mueller had exceeded his authority because the case was unrelated to Russian election interference.
But U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson disagreed, siding with prosecutors who had produced an August 2017 memo from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. The memo shows Rosenstein authorized Mueller to investigate Manafort’s Ukrainian work and related financial crimes.
Jackson had previously thrown out a civil case Manafort brought challenging Mueller’s authority.
Peter Carr, a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, declined to comment.
The decision allows one of two criminal cases against Manafort to proceed.
In addition to the Washington indictment, Manafort also faces charges in Virginia of bank fraud and tax evasion. The Virginia indictment accuses him of hiding tens of millions of dollars he earned advising pro-Russia politicians in Ukraine from 2006 through 2015. It also accuses him of fraudulently obtaining millions in loans from financial institutions including while he worked for the Trump campaign.
None of the charges relate to allegations of Russian election interference and possible coordination with Trump associates, the main thrust of Mueller’s public appointment order. Manafort has pleaded not guilty and denied any wrongdoing.
Manafort has filed a similar motion to dismiss his charges in Virginia. U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III has yet to rule on it. Ellis had previously grilled Mueller’s team on whether the case was within his mandate and questioned whether they brought the case to get Manafort to testify against Trump.
Brexit: EU Withdrawal Bill rejected by Scottish Parliament, in fresh blow for Theresa May - Independent
May 15, 2018
Brexit: EU Withdrawal Bill rejected by Scottish Parliament, in fresh blow for Theresa May
The move could trigger a constitutional crisis, as it would be the first time the UK Government has pushed through laws against the will of Scotland
Lizzy Buchan Political Correspondent @LizzyBuchan
North Korea threatens stunning U-turn on summit with America
Meghan Markle's father 'will miss wedding due to heart operation'
India motorway collapse kills 16 as concrete falls onto crowded road
Theresa May is facing a fresh Brexit wrangle as the Scottish parliament has formally refused its consent to key legislation after months of rows over its impact on devolved powers.
MSPs have set themselves at odds with Westminster by backing a Scottish government motion that makes clear that Holyrood "does not consent to the EU Withdrawal Bill".
The move could trigger a constitutional crisis, as it would be the first time the UK government has pushed through laws against the will of Scotland, if Ms May decides to press ahead with the legislation.
Brexit: EU Withdrawal Bill rejected by Scottish Parliament
It comes as the prime minister struggled to break the deadlock over customs arrangements after Brexit, which has divided her cabinet.
Scottish Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats backed the SNP in the Holyrood vote, which gave Nicola Sturgeon's party the numbers to defeat the Scottish Conservatives on the motion.
Scottish government Brexit minister Mike Russell previously said the bill "rides roughshod over devolution", as it could see some powers returned to Whitehall, rather than Holyrood, after the UK leaves the EU.
Speaking after the vote, he said: “The UK Government wants to take a power to restrict the competence of this Parliament.
“And it wants to be able to exercise this power even in the face of an explicit decision by this Parliament that it should not.
“The Scottish Parliament has now said overwhelmingly that this attempt to undermine devolution is unacceptable.”
Norway-style Brexit declared ‘dead’ by Labour MP
No significant progress made on any Brexit issue in talks since March
Post-Brexit, the UK will need Turkey more than ever
Labour frontbencher deletes tweet backing fresh referendum
Brexit: Nicky Morgan backs push to stay in EU single market
Such a move would not prevent the UK government from introducing the legislation - but it would be the first time Westminster has pushed through laws against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Russell will now write to David Lidington, Ms May’s de facto deputy, who has been leading the talks with the devolved administrations.
Earlier, David Mundell, the Scottish secretary, rejected claims of a "power grab" as he said no changes were being made to existing arrangements.
He said: "Obviously, it's up to the Scottish parliament to take whatever decision they want to take.
"I still hope that they will take a positive decision, that they will take a step back and look at the proposal that we have put forward in relation to the specific arrangement which is just to keep 24 areas which affect the whole of the UK exactly as they are at the moment, so that the day after we leave the EU nothing will have changed.
Brexit: EU Withdrawal Bill rejected by Scottish Parliament, in fresh blow for Theresa May
The move could trigger a constitutional crisis, as it would be the first time the UK Government has pushed through laws against the will of Scotland
Lizzy Buchan Political Correspondent @LizzyBuchan
North Korea threatens stunning U-turn on summit with America
Meghan Markle's father 'will miss wedding due to heart operation'
India motorway collapse kills 16 as concrete falls onto crowded road
Theresa May is facing a fresh Brexit wrangle as the Scottish parliament has formally refused its consent to key legislation after months of rows over its impact on devolved powers.
MSPs have set themselves at odds with Westminster by backing a Scottish government motion that makes clear that Holyrood "does not consent to the EU Withdrawal Bill".
The move could trigger a constitutional crisis, as it would be the first time the UK government has pushed through laws against the will of Scotland, if Ms May decides to press ahead with the legislation.
Brexit: EU Withdrawal Bill rejected by Scottish Parliament
It comes as the prime minister struggled to break the deadlock over customs arrangements after Brexit, which has divided her cabinet.
Scottish Labour, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats backed the SNP in the Holyrood vote, which gave Nicola Sturgeon's party the numbers to defeat the Scottish Conservatives on the motion.
Scottish government Brexit minister Mike Russell previously said the bill "rides roughshod over devolution", as it could see some powers returned to Whitehall, rather than Holyrood, after the UK leaves the EU.
Speaking after the vote, he said: “The UK Government wants to take a power to restrict the competence of this Parliament.
“And it wants to be able to exercise this power even in the face of an explicit decision by this Parliament that it should not.
“The Scottish Parliament has now said overwhelmingly that this attempt to undermine devolution is unacceptable.”
Norway-style Brexit declared ‘dead’ by Labour MP
No significant progress made on any Brexit issue in talks since March
Post-Brexit, the UK will need Turkey more than ever
Labour frontbencher deletes tweet backing fresh referendum
Brexit: Nicky Morgan backs push to stay in EU single market
Such a move would not prevent the UK government from introducing the legislation - but it would be the first time Westminster has pushed through laws against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament.
Mr Russell will now write to David Lidington, Ms May’s de facto deputy, who has been leading the talks with the devolved administrations.
Earlier, David Mundell, the Scottish secretary, rejected claims of a "power grab" as he said no changes were being made to existing arrangements.
He said: "Obviously, it's up to the Scottish parliament to take whatever decision they want to take.
"I still hope that they will take a positive decision, that they will take a step back and look at the proposal that we have put forward in relation to the specific arrangement which is just to keep 24 areas which affect the whole of the UK exactly as they are at the moment, so that the day after we leave the EU nothing will have changed.
Tesla reorganization comes as top executives depart automaker - CBS News
May 14, 2018, 2:05 PM
Tesla reorganization comes as top executives depart automaker
Elon Musk told Tesla workers on Monday the electric car company is "flattening" its management structure as part of a "thorough reorganization."
The update from the boss comes amid a rash of executive departures from Tesla and as the company struggles to meet production targets for its Model 3 sedans.
A spokesperson for Tesla confirmed the memo from Musk, which read:
"To ensure that Tesla is well prepared for the future, we have been undertaking a thorough reorganization of our company. As part of the reorg, we are flattening the management structure to improve communication, combining functions where sensible and trimming activities that are not vital to the success of our mission.
To be clear, we will continue to hire rapidly in critical hourly and salaried positions to support the Model 3 production ramp and future product development."
Top execs to leave in recent months include Matthew Schwall, Tesla's main conduit with government regulators, who recently joined Google's self-driving car company, Waymo.
Jim Keller, who led Tesla's Autopilot driver-assistance system, departed for Intel in April. Sales chief Jon McNeill left for Lyft in February.
Doug Field, a senior vice president of engineering who until recently ran Model 3 production, is taking time off to spend more time with his family but remains with the company, Tesla told CNET earlier this month.
Tesla shares were down nearly 2 percent on Monday afternoon, trading just above $296.
Musk signaled in a recent conference call that changes would come to shore up Tesla's finances.
"We are going to conduct sort of a reorganization, restructuring of the company in the next -- this month -- and make sure we're well set up to achieve that goal," he said, referring to a target of Tesla reaching positive cash flow in the third quarter.
The company earlier this month reported its largest-ever quarterly loss, results that Musk followed up on with an unusual conference call with stock analysts, in which he lashed out against "boring, bonehead" questions.
Tesla reorganization comes as top executives depart automaker
Elon Musk told Tesla workers on Monday the electric car company is "flattening" its management structure as part of a "thorough reorganization."
The update from the boss comes amid a rash of executive departures from Tesla and as the company struggles to meet production targets for its Model 3 sedans.
A spokesperson for Tesla confirmed the memo from Musk, which read:
"To ensure that Tesla is well prepared for the future, we have been undertaking a thorough reorganization of our company. As part of the reorg, we are flattening the management structure to improve communication, combining functions where sensible and trimming activities that are not vital to the success of our mission.
To be clear, we will continue to hire rapidly in critical hourly and salaried positions to support the Model 3 production ramp and future product development."
Top execs to leave in recent months include Matthew Schwall, Tesla's main conduit with government regulators, who recently joined Google's self-driving car company, Waymo.
Jim Keller, who led Tesla's Autopilot driver-assistance system, departed for Intel in April. Sales chief Jon McNeill left for Lyft in February.
Doug Field, a senior vice president of engineering who until recently ran Model 3 production, is taking time off to spend more time with his family but remains with the company, Tesla told CNET earlier this month.
Tesla shares were down nearly 2 percent on Monday afternoon, trading just above $296.
Musk signaled in a recent conference call that changes would come to shore up Tesla's finances.
"We are going to conduct sort of a reorganization, restructuring of the company in the next -- this month -- and make sure we're well set up to achieve that goal," he said, referring to a target of Tesla reaching positive cash flow in the third quarter.
The company earlier this month reported its largest-ever quarterly loss, results that Musk followed up on with an unusual conference call with stock analysts, in which he lashed out against "boring, bonehead" questions.
'She's NOT going to tell me I can't speak about my life': Meghan Markle's half-sister launches astonishing attack on royal bride-to-be - Daily Mail
'She's NOT going to tell me I can't speak about my life': Meghan Markle's half-sister launches astonishing attack on royal bride-to-be
Samantha Markle hits out at her half sister in bombshell interview with US media
She blasted Meghan for claims Meghan is trying to censor her for speaking out
Samantha has given a series of interviews in recent weeks defending the family
By Ed Riley For Mailonline
PUBLISHED: 18:21 AEST, 16 May 2018 | UPDATED: 18:52 AEST, 16 May 2018
Meghan Markle's half sister has hit out at the bride-to-be saying that she has no right to try and censor her.
Samantha Markle has given a bombshell interview to US media where she insisted she had 'freedom of speech' and has every right to speak out.
Thomas Markle's daughter by his first marriage has been accused of abusing her connections to Meghan who she hasn't seen for ten years.
The mother of three has given a series of interviews speaking about Meghan's romance with Prince Harry in recent weeks.
Samantha Markle has given a bombshell interview to US media where she insisted she had 'freedom of speech'
Samantha Markle has given a bombshell interview to US media where she insisted she had 'freedom of speech'
And amid claims Meghan is upset about her talking commenting on their relationship, she once again spoke out, telling her she would continue to air her views.
Samantha, 53, told TMZ: 'If its about my life or my father's there is something in this country called freedom of speech.
'She doesn't have a copyright on that and she's not going to tell me that I can't speak about my life or my father's life where its a matter of public self-defence.
'The media is disparaging us. I'm not going to take it.
'She's not qualified to suggest that I don't under any law in this country.
'This is not Great Britain. I am a United States citizen and that's all there is to it. She's way out of her league to tell me that I can't speak.
'I'm not saying anything about her but if I'm talking about my life or my father's she has to respect it.
'Meghan and I do not have a relationship now the last year, I think it has been strained because of what tabloids have said.'
She also claimed that Meghan doesn't have a relationship 'with anyone' in the family.
Samantha has made a number of disparaging remarks about Meghan's romance with Prince Harry.
She has said she always fancied Harry because she wanted to become a princess. She is also set to release her memoirs and she has promised to reveal all about her half sister.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5734989/Meghan-Markles-half-sister-attacks-Harrys-bride-trying-censor-her.html#ixzz5FeZxvXyb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Samantha Markle hits out at her half sister in bombshell interview with US media
She blasted Meghan for claims Meghan is trying to censor her for speaking out
Samantha has given a series of interviews in recent weeks defending the family
By Ed Riley For Mailonline
PUBLISHED: 18:21 AEST, 16 May 2018 | UPDATED: 18:52 AEST, 16 May 2018
Meghan Markle's half sister has hit out at the bride-to-be saying that she has no right to try and censor her.
Samantha Markle has given a bombshell interview to US media where she insisted she had 'freedom of speech' and has every right to speak out.
Thomas Markle's daughter by his first marriage has been accused of abusing her connections to Meghan who she hasn't seen for ten years.
The mother of three has given a series of interviews speaking about Meghan's romance with Prince Harry in recent weeks.
Samantha Markle has given a bombshell interview to US media where she insisted she had 'freedom of speech'
Samantha Markle has given a bombshell interview to US media where she insisted she had 'freedom of speech'
And amid claims Meghan is upset about her talking commenting on their relationship, she once again spoke out, telling her she would continue to air her views.
Samantha, 53, told TMZ: 'If its about my life or my father's there is something in this country called freedom of speech.
'She doesn't have a copyright on that and she's not going to tell me that I can't speak about my life or my father's life where its a matter of public self-defence.
'The media is disparaging us. I'm not going to take it.
'She's not qualified to suggest that I don't under any law in this country.
'This is not Great Britain. I am a United States citizen and that's all there is to it. She's way out of her league to tell me that I can't speak.
'I'm not saying anything about her but if I'm talking about my life or my father's she has to respect it.
'Meghan and I do not have a relationship now the last year, I think it has been strained because of what tabloids have said.'
She also claimed that Meghan doesn't have a relationship 'with anyone' in the family.
Samantha has made a number of disparaging remarks about Meghan's romance with Prince Harry.
She has said she always fancied Harry because she wanted to become a princess. She is also set to release her memoirs and she has promised to reveal all about her half sister.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5734989/Meghan-Markles-half-sister-attacks-Harrys-bride-trying-censor-her.html#ixzz5FeZxvXyb
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Malaysia's Anwar walks free, says will not join cabinet any time soon - Reuters
MAY 16, 2018 / 1:28 PM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO
Malaysia's Anwar walks free, says will not join cabinet any time soon
Joseph Sipalan, Tom Westbrook
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Jailed Malaysian reformist Anwar Ibrahim was granted a full pardon and freed on Wednesday, capping dramatic changes in the Southeast Asian country since the government was ousted in an election upset last week.
Malaysian politician Anwar Ibrahim poses with his wife and daughter during a news conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia May 16, 2018. REUTERS/Lai Seng Sin
The question for Malaysia now is how Anwar will get along with Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, his ally-turned-foe-turned-ally, and what role he will play in the new government.
Anwar, 70, said he would like to take time off with his family and did not intend to join the cabinet any time soon. He said he would support the government led by Mahathir and Deputy Prime Minister Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, who is Anwar’s wife.
“I’ve told Tun Mahathir, I don’t need to serve in the cabinet for now,” Anwar said, using an honorific for the prime minister.
Anwar has been in hospital for some months, for surgery on a shoulder. But he looked in fine fettle as he walked free for the first time in three years, dressed in a black suit and tie, his hair neatly swept back.
Anwar was sentenced in 2015 to a five-year term for sodomy, a charge he says was trumped up by the government of ousted Prime Minister Najib Razak.
Mahathir, with whom Anwar joined forces to win last Wednesday’s election, greeted him at the palace where they both met the king.
Anwar was Mahathir’s deputy in the 1990s but fell out with his mentor during the Asian financial crisis.
He was sacked from the ruling party and founded the Reformasi movement, challenging Mahathir’s government. Within weeks, he was arrested and jailed on charges of sodomy and corruption.
Images at the time of a goateed, bespectacled Anwar in court with a black eye and bruises brought condemnation of Mahathir from around the world.
Anwar’s trial became a spectacle, with prosecutors at one stage bringing out what they said was a semen-stained mattress allegedly used when he had sex with two male aides.
After being freed in 2004, Anwar was jailed a second time. Both times, he and his supporters have said the charges were politically motivated.
Malaysian politician Anwar Ibrahim kisses his wife during a news conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia May 16, 2018. REUTERS/Lai Seng Sin
Anwar later told a news conference at his home he had forgiven the veteran leader, who was a pugnacious, uncompromising prime minister for 22 years from 1981.
“I and Mahathir have buried the hatchet already, it was a long time ago,” Anwar said as he sat at a table under a marquee set up in the driveway of his home, his tie and jacket off and sleeves rolled up, after returning from the palace.
“I have forgiven him, he has proved his mettle. Why should I harbor any malice toward him?” Anwar said, speaking above supporters sounding their car horns and a tropical downpour.
The pardon, which enables Anwar to re-enter politics immediately, was granted on the grounds that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
‘FIGHT NOT OVER’
Under a pre-election pact, Mahathir, 92, had vowed to enable Anwar’s release and eventually step aside for him to become prime minister.
On Tuesday, Mahathir said he expected to be prime minister for one or two more years, setting off talk of fresh differences between the two.
“Seeing him walk free makes me emotional, but the fight is not over,” said Ridzuan Ismail, an Anwar supporter at the hospital. “Now we need to see him become prime minister.”
Jack Seng, another supporter wearing a shirt with an image of Anwar behind bars, said he thought Mahathir and Anwar would resolve any tension between them.
“I think we need to let Mahathir do his work to save Malaysia and to get back its system of government.”
Differences have already cropped up between supporters of Mahathir and Anwar over cabinet positions and Anwar’s role.
Mahathir is the leader of the ruling alliance and Anwar’s People’s Justice Party (PKR) won the majority of parliamentary seats in the group.
“The base case is that Mahathir passes the baton to Anwar. But Mahathir may be reluctant to hand over to his former nemesis, and if he drags his feet other scenarios could come into play,” said Peter Mumford of the Eurasia Group in a research note.
Mahathir is also racing ahead with an investigation into graft at 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a state fund founded by the ousted premier Najib that is sunk in a multi-billion-dollar graft scandal.
Mahathir has replaced the attorney-general and officials at the anti-graft agency, in what appears to be a purge of people seen as close to the former premier.
Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, have been barred from leaving the country. Najib denies wrongdoing.
“It looks very likely that Najib will face the full force of the law,” said Adib Zalkapli, a Kuala Lumpur-based analyst with risk consultancy Vriens & Partners.
“Just last week nobody would have thought that this posh boarding school boy would be rear ended by his old political headmaster,” he said.
The prime minister of neighboring Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, will visit Mahathir on Saturday, Lee’s office said.
Additional reporting by Rozanna Latiff, Emily Chow and Liz Lee; jack Kim in SINGAPORE; Writing by Praveen Menon; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan, Robert Birsel
Malaysia's Anwar walks free, says will not join cabinet any time soon
Joseph Sipalan, Tom Westbrook
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - Jailed Malaysian reformist Anwar Ibrahim was granted a full pardon and freed on Wednesday, capping dramatic changes in the Southeast Asian country since the government was ousted in an election upset last week.
Malaysian politician Anwar Ibrahim poses with his wife and daughter during a news conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia May 16, 2018. REUTERS/Lai Seng Sin
The question for Malaysia now is how Anwar will get along with Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, his ally-turned-foe-turned-ally, and what role he will play in the new government.
Anwar, 70, said he would like to take time off with his family and did not intend to join the cabinet any time soon. He said he would support the government led by Mahathir and Deputy Prime Minister Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, who is Anwar’s wife.
“I’ve told Tun Mahathir, I don’t need to serve in the cabinet for now,” Anwar said, using an honorific for the prime minister.
Anwar has been in hospital for some months, for surgery on a shoulder. But he looked in fine fettle as he walked free for the first time in three years, dressed in a black suit and tie, his hair neatly swept back.
Anwar was sentenced in 2015 to a five-year term for sodomy, a charge he says was trumped up by the government of ousted Prime Minister Najib Razak.
Mahathir, with whom Anwar joined forces to win last Wednesday’s election, greeted him at the palace where they both met the king.
Anwar was Mahathir’s deputy in the 1990s but fell out with his mentor during the Asian financial crisis.
He was sacked from the ruling party and founded the Reformasi movement, challenging Mahathir’s government. Within weeks, he was arrested and jailed on charges of sodomy and corruption.
Images at the time of a goateed, bespectacled Anwar in court with a black eye and bruises brought condemnation of Mahathir from around the world.
Anwar’s trial became a spectacle, with prosecutors at one stage bringing out what they said was a semen-stained mattress allegedly used when he had sex with two male aides.
After being freed in 2004, Anwar was jailed a second time. Both times, he and his supporters have said the charges were politically motivated.
Malaysian politician Anwar Ibrahim kisses his wife during a news conference in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia May 16, 2018. REUTERS/Lai Seng Sin
Anwar later told a news conference at his home he had forgiven the veteran leader, who was a pugnacious, uncompromising prime minister for 22 years from 1981.
“I and Mahathir have buried the hatchet already, it was a long time ago,” Anwar said as he sat at a table under a marquee set up in the driveway of his home, his tie and jacket off and sleeves rolled up, after returning from the palace.
“I have forgiven him, he has proved his mettle. Why should I harbor any malice toward him?” Anwar said, speaking above supporters sounding their car horns and a tropical downpour.
The pardon, which enables Anwar to re-enter politics immediately, was granted on the grounds that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
‘FIGHT NOT OVER’
Under a pre-election pact, Mahathir, 92, had vowed to enable Anwar’s release and eventually step aside for him to become prime minister.
On Tuesday, Mahathir said he expected to be prime minister for one or two more years, setting off talk of fresh differences between the two.
“Seeing him walk free makes me emotional, but the fight is not over,” said Ridzuan Ismail, an Anwar supporter at the hospital. “Now we need to see him become prime minister.”
Jack Seng, another supporter wearing a shirt with an image of Anwar behind bars, said he thought Mahathir and Anwar would resolve any tension between them.
“I think we need to let Mahathir do his work to save Malaysia and to get back its system of government.”
Differences have already cropped up between supporters of Mahathir and Anwar over cabinet positions and Anwar’s role.
Mahathir is the leader of the ruling alliance and Anwar’s People’s Justice Party (PKR) won the majority of parliamentary seats in the group.
“The base case is that Mahathir passes the baton to Anwar. But Mahathir may be reluctant to hand over to his former nemesis, and if he drags his feet other scenarios could come into play,” said Peter Mumford of the Eurasia Group in a research note.
Mahathir is also racing ahead with an investigation into graft at 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), a state fund founded by the ousted premier Najib that is sunk in a multi-billion-dollar graft scandal.
Mahathir has replaced the attorney-general and officials at the anti-graft agency, in what appears to be a purge of people seen as close to the former premier.
Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor, have been barred from leaving the country. Najib denies wrongdoing.
“It looks very likely that Najib will face the full force of the law,” said Adib Zalkapli, a Kuala Lumpur-based analyst with risk consultancy Vriens & Partners.
“Just last week nobody would have thought that this posh boarding school boy would be rear ended by his old political headmaster,” he said.
The prime minister of neighboring Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, will visit Mahathir on Saturday, Lee’s office said.
Additional reporting by Rozanna Latiff, Emily Chow and Liz Lee; jack Kim in SINGAPORE; Writing by Praveen Menon; Editing by Raju Gopalakrishnan, Robert Birsel
Trump's Iran deal pullout sends a bad message to North Korea, former UN chief says - CNBC News
May 15, 2018
Trump's Iran deal pullout sends a bad message to North Korea, former UN chief says
Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is worried about America's image when it comes to establishing credibility in its upcoming talks with North Korea.
"Can I trust the U.S. president? This may be the first question by North Korea's leader," Ban told CNBC.
With the stated aim of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has scheduled talks with Kim Jong Un that would be the first ever between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean head of state.
Natasha Turak | @NatashaTurak
Published 2 Mins Ago
CNBC.com
Cannot say that I trust North Korea and Kim, Ban Ki-moon says Ban Ki-moon: Cannot say that I trust North Korea and Kim
Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is worried about America's image when it comes to establishing credibility in its upcoming talks with North Korea.
President Donald Trump's recent decision to withdraw from the Iranian Nuclear Deal does not set a good precedent for reliability and that will matter to North Korea President Kim Jong Un during upcoming nuclear talks, the South Korean diplomat told CNBC's Nancy Hungerford on Wednesday.
"I personally believe that it has given a very problematic message in terms of credibility, and trust and confidence in (the) U.S. What kind of message North Korea will get from this?" Ban asked.
"Can I trust the U.S. president? This may be the first question by North Korea's leader."
Trump on May 8 announced America's withdrawal from the Iran deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 with China, France, Russia, the U.K. and Germany. The landmark agreement lifted economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program, and the International Atomic Energy Agency regularly reported that Iran was in compliance with its rules.
Trump, however, vocally derided it, calling it the "worst deal ever" and pledging to do away with it as he has done with a number of policy actions by the Barack Obama administration.
With the stated aim of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has scheduled talks with North Korea's Kim. Planned to take place in Singapore on June 12, the meeting would be the first ever between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean head of state.
Ban Ki-moon: Deeply concerned about North Korea talks cancellation Ban Ki-moon: Deeply concerned about North Korea talks cancellation
1 Hour Ago | 02:23
Following the historic signing of a peace agreement in April between North and South Korea's presidents in the border truce village of Panmunjom, hopes are high for progress on peace and nuclear talks between the two longtime adversaries and with the U.S. But Trump's Iran move casts an unfavorable light on his negotiating position, Ban said.
"Now they're on the verge of agreeing a very grand and big agreement between U.S. and North Korean leader, and there was very historic agreement between South Korean president and North Korean leader in Panmunjom. Then all this agreement, having seen what happened to JCPOA in Iran, what kind of message North Korea's leader will have?"
Ban added that he had long been warning the Trump administration against leaving the JCPOA, but to no avail. "Now it has been done, I sincerely hope that President Trump will have a successful meeting and convince North Korea that this time, the U.S. will be strongly committed, together with South Korea."
Ban also discussed his skepticism over North Korea's sincerity in its pledges, recounting four previous instances going back to the 1990s in which the North backtracked on its agreements to work toward denuclearization.
Asked if Trump was deserving of a Nobel Prize, as was suggested by the South Korean President Moon Jae-In, Ban was reserved.
"I do not want to prejudge, or impinge upon the judgment and integrity of the Nobel Committee," he said. "This is up to them to decide."
Talks under threat
In an unexpected move, North Korea on Tuesday abruptly cancelled talks with the South planned for Wednesday and threatened to walk away from the U.S. negotiations.
Pyongyang blamed joint military drills between the U.S. and South Korea, longtime security partners, for triggering "provocation" and accused them of preparing for an invasion. The head of the North's delegation for the talks said his country was "indefinitely canceling the planned high-level inter-Korean talks" due to the military exercises.
The Pentagon defended the drills, describing them as "defensive exercises" that are "part of the ROK-U.S. Alliance's routine, annual training program to maintain a foundation of military readiness." The spring exercises have been taking place for decades.
The U.S. State Department said it had not received information concerning a cancellation of the June summit between Trump and Kim, and would continue planning for it.
Trump's Iran deal pullout sends a bad message to North Korea, former UN chief says
Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is worried about America's image when it comes to establishing credibility in its upcoming talks with North Korea.
"Can I trust the U.S. president? This may be the first question by North Korea's leader," Ban told CNBC.
With the stated aim of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has scheduled talks with Kim Jong Un that would be the first ever between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean head of state.
Natasha Turak | @NatashaTurak
Published 2 Mins Ago
CNBC.com
Cannot say that I trust North Korea and Kim, Ban Ki-moon says Ban Ki-moon: Cannot say that I trust North Korea and Kim
Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon is worried about America's image when it comes to establishing credibility in its upcoming talks with North Korea.
President Donald Trump's recent decision to withdraw from the Iranian Nuclear Deal does not set a good precedent for reliability and that will matter to North Korea President Kim Jong Un during upcoming nuclear talks, the South Korean diplomat told CNBC's Nancy Hungerford on Wednesday.
"I personally believe that it has given a very problematic message in terms of credibility, and trust and confidence in (the) U.S. What kind of message North Korea will get from this?" Ban asked.
"Can I trust the U.S. president? This may be the first question by North Korea's leader."
Trump on May 8 announced America's withdrawal from the Iran deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015 with China, France, Russia, the U.K. and Germany. The landmark agreement lifted economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program, and the International Atomic Energy Agency regularly reported that Iran was in compliance with its rules.
Trump, however, vocally derided it, calling it the "worst deal ever" and pledging to do away with it as he has done with a number of policy actions by the Barack Obama administration.
With the stated aim of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, the Trump administration has scheduled talks with North Korea's Kim. Planned to take place in Singapore on June 12, the meeting would be the first ever between a sitting U.S. president and a North Korean head of state.
Ban Ki-moon: Deeply concerned about North Korea talks cancellation Ban Ki-moon: Deeply concerned about North Korea talks cancellation
1 Hour Ago | 02:23
Following the historic signing of a peace agreement in April between North and South Korea's presidents in the border truce village of Panmunjom, hopes are high for progress on peace and nuclear talks between the two longtime adversaries and with the U.S. But Trump's Iran move casts an unfavorable light on his negotiating position, Ban said.
"Now they're on the verge of agreeing a very grand and big agreement between U.S. and North Korean leader, and there was very historic agreement between South Korean president and North Korean leader in Panmunjom. Then all this agreement, having seen what happened to JCPOA in Iran, what kind of message North Korea's leader will have?"
Ban added that he had long been warning the Trump administration against leaving the JCPOA, but to no avail. "Now it has been done, I sincerely hope that President Trump will have a successful meeting and convince North Korea that this time, the U.S. will be strongly committed, together with South Korea."
Ban also discussed his skepticism over North Korea's sincerity in its pledges, recounting four previous instances going back to the 1990s in which the North backtracked on its agreements to work toward denuclearization.
Asked if Trump was deserving of a Nobel Prize, as was suggested by the South Korean President Moon Jae-In, Ban was reserved.
"I do not want to prejudge, or impinge upon the judgment and integrity of the Nobel Committee," he said. "This is up to them to decide."
Talks under threat
In an unexpected move, North Korea on Tuesday abruptly cancelled talks with the South planned for Wednesday and threatened to walk away from the U.S. negotiations.
Pyongyang blamed joint military drills between the U.S. and South Korea, longtime security partners, for triggering "provocation" and accused them of preparing for an invasion. The head of the North's delegation for the talks said his country was "indefinitely canceling the planned high-level inter-Korean talks" due to the military exercises.
The Pentagon defended the drills, describing them as "defensive exercises" that are "part of the ROK-U.S. Alliance's routine, annual training program to maintain a foundation of military readiness." The spring exercises have been taking place for decades.
The U.S. State Department said it had not received information concerning a cancellation of the June summit between Trump and Kim, and would continue planning for it.
N Korea cancels talks with South Korea and warns US - BBC News
N Korea cancels talks with South Korea and warns US
15 May 2018
How to talk to North Korea - advice from three North Korean experts
North Korea has cancelled Wednesday's high-level talks with South Korea because of anger over its joint military exercises with the US.
The North's official KCNA news agency said the exercises were a "provocation" and a rehearsal for an invasion.
It also warned the US over the fate of the historic summit between Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump that is scheduled for 12 June in Singapore.
In March, Mr Trump stunned the world by accepting an invitation to meet Mr Kim.
"We will both try to make it a very special moment for World Peace!" the US leader later tweeted.
The US state department said it was continuing to prepare for the Trump-Kim summit and that it was not aware of any changes in the North Korean position.
The political gamble of the 21st Century
How does North Korea's Kim Jong-un travel?
North Korea crisis in 300 words
What exactly has North Korea cancelled?
In short, the scheduled talks with South Korea were a follow-up to a rare summit that was held on 27 April.
They were agreed earlier this week and were set to take place at Panmunjom, a military compound in the demilitarised zone between the two countries that is often referred to as the "truce town".
Representatives had planned to discuss further details of the agreements they had made at the historic summit.
This covers things like ridding the peninsula of nuclear weapons and turning the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953 into a peace treaty.
Other points the leaders agreed in a joint statement were:
An end to "hostile activities" between the two nations
Changing the demilitarised zone (DMZ) that divides the country into a "peace zone" by ceasing propaganda broadcasts
An arms reduction in the region pending the easing of military tension
To push for four-way talks involving the US and China
Media captionKim Jong-un issues his pledge for peace with South Korea
Why is it so unhappy?
Joint military drills between the US and South Korea have often angered the North.
In the past, they have threatened an "all-out offensive" in response to the exercises and condemned them as pouring "gasoline on fire".
The latest drills - known as Max Thunder - involve some 100 warplanes, including an unspecified number of B-52 bombers and F-15K jets.
The North has described them as a "provocation" and preparation for a future invasion, which is something they have said before.
But the US and South Korea have always insisted the drills are purely for defence purposes, and based out of a mutual defence agreement they signed in 1953.
They also say the exercises are necessary to strengthen their readiness in case of an external attack.
The US and South Korea insist their joint military drills are purely for defence purposes
So what's happening with the Trump-Kim talks?
It depends who you ask.
North Korea fired a warning shot at the US when it announced it was cancelling Wednesday's talks with the South.
"The United States will also have to undertake careful deliberations about the fate of the planned North Korea-US summit in light of this provocative military ruckus jointly conducted with the South Korean authorities," the KCNA report said.
The BBC's South Korea correspondent Laura Bicker says the wording of the statement showed North Korea was casting doubt over talks, rather than saying they were about to be cancelled.
Will historic Koreas summit lead to peace?
The Koreas - the basics explained
But the US was quick to resist any suggestion that the summit was now in doubt.
"We will continue to plan the meeting," a state department spokeswoman told reporters soon after the news of the cancelled talks broke.
She added that the US had received "no notification" of a change in the North's position.
15 May 2018
How to talk to North Korea - advice from three North Korean experts
North Korea has cancelled Wednesday's high-level talks with South Korea because of anger over its joint military exercises with the US.
The North's official KCNA news agency said the exercises were a "provocation" and a rehearsal for an invasion.
It also warned the US over the fate of the historic summit between Kim Jong-un and US President Donald Trump that is scheduled for 12 June in Singapore.
In March, Mr Trump stunned the world by accepting an invitation to meet Mr Kim.
"We will both try to make it a very special moment for World Peace!" the US leader later tweeted.
The US state department said it was continuing to prepare for the Trump-Kim summit and that it was not aware of any changes in the North Korean position.
The political gamble of the 21st Century
How does North Korea's Kim Jong-un travel?
North Korea crisis in 300 words
What exactly has North Korea cancelled?
In short, the scheduled talks with South Korea were a follow-up to a rare summit that was held on 27 April.
They were agreed earlier this week and were set to take place at Panmunjom, a military compound in the demilitarised zone between the two countries that is often referred to as the "truce town".
Representatives had planned to discuss further details of the agreements they had made at the historic summit.
This covers things like ridding the peninsula of nuclear weapons and turning the armistice that ended the Korean War in 1953 into a peace treaty.
Other points the leaders agreed in a joint statement were:
An end to "hostile activities" between the two nations
Changing the demilitarised zone (DMZ) that divides the country into a "peace zone" by ceasing propaganda broadcasts
An arms reduction in the region pending the easing of military tension
To push for four-way talks involving the US and China
Media captionKim Jong-un issues his pledge for peace with South Korea
Why is it so unhappy?
Joint military drills between the US and South Korea have often angered the North.
In the past, they have threatened an "all-out offensive" in response to the exercises and condemned them as pouring "gasoline on fire".
The latest drills - known as Max Thunder - involve some 100 warplanes, including an unspecified number of B-52 bombers and F-15K jets.
The North has described them as a "provocation" and preparation for a future invasion, which is something they have said before.
But the US and South Korea have always insisted the drills are purely for defence purposes, and based out of a mutual defence agreement they signed in 1953.
They also say the exercises are necessary to strengthen their readiness in case of an external attack.
The US and South Korea insist their joint military drills are purely for defence purposes
So what's happening with the Trump-Kim talks?
It depends who you ask.
North Korea fired a warning shot at the US when it announced it was cancelling Wednesday's talks with the South.
"The United States will also have to undertake careful deliberations about the fate of the planned North Korea-US summit in light of this provocative military ruckus jointly conducted with the South Korean authorities," the KCNA report said.
The BBC's South Korea correspondent Laura Bicker says the wording of the statement showed North Korea was casting doubt over talks, rather than saying they were about to be cancelled.
Will historic Koreas summit lead to peace?
The Koreas - the basics explained
But the US was quick to resist any suggestion that the summit was now in doubt.
"We will continue to plan the meeting," a state department spokeswoman told reporters soon after the news of the cancelled talks broke.
She added that the US had received "no notification" of a change in the North's position.
John Bolton: Bush-era war hawk makes comeback - BBC News
John Bolton: Bush-era war hawk makes comeback
22 March 2018
President Donald Trump has appointed John Bolton, the former US envoy to the UN, as his national security adviser, politically reanimating a strident Bush administration neo-conservative.
The decision comes as a surprise, not least because Mr Trump was reported to have decided against naming Mr Bolton secretary of state last year as he disliked his walrus moustache.
Mr Bolton's new role will prove controversial since he remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq war, which the US president himself once lambasted as "a big mistake".
Known for that bushy facial hair, curmudgeonly manner and tousled appearance, Mr Bolton is praised by conservative admirers as a straight-talking foreign policy hawk.
But the Republican was also once memorably branded by a cable television host as "a massive neocon on steroids".
Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul described Mr Bolton last year in an op-ed as "hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the US has made in the last 15 years".
A Baltimore fireman's son, Mr Bolton has been a staunch conservative from his boyhood.
Mr Bolton with President Bush in the Oval Office in December 2006
At the age of 15 he took time off school to campaign for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential campaign.
At Yale University, where he studied law, he recalled in his memoir feeling like a "space alien" among the campus anti-Vietnam war activists.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were among his classmates, but he said he "didn't run in their circles".
Mr Bolton went on to serve in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush.
He ruffled feathers in the second Bush administration where he initially worked as US Department of State under-secretary for arms control.
Mr Bolton was accused of trying to force out two intelligence analysts who disagreed with him and of seeking to undermine his boss, Colin Powell.
He also helped build the case that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be wrong.
A 2003 satellite image, which the US State Department claimed showed an Iraqi chemical ammunition depot
But Mr Bolton was praised for his work establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative, an international agreement to prohibit fissile material shipments.
Nevertheless, President Bush dismayed diplomats when he named Mr Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations.
More than 100 former US envoys signed a letter urging senators to reject the nomination.
Five things Trump's new security chief believes
This was, after all, the man who had once said there was "no such thing" as the UN and called the US the world's "only real power".
Mr Bolton had also previously declared that if the 38-storey UN building "lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference".
President Bush had to use a recess appointment to crowbar Mr Bolton into the job in 2005 after Senate Democrats, and even a few Republicans, blocked the move.
Democrats ultimately refused to confirm Mr Bolton and he had to step down when his appointment expired in January 2007.
Diplomats at the UN privately criticised his style as abrasive.
Even the state department was not spared the ire of Mr Bolton, who is known for his scorn of dovish multilateral institutions.
He once derided careerists at the US foreign ministry as having been "schooled in accommodation and compromise with foreigners, rather than aggressive advocacy of US interests".
Mr Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, does not appear to have modified his views since his last spell in government.
As he briefly weighed his own run for the US presidency in 2016, he maintained the American-led invasion of Iraq had been "correct".
He also called in a New York Times op-ed for Iran to be bombed, and pilloried President Obama's nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic as a "diplomatic Waterloo".
In his memoir, Surrender is Not an Option, Mr Bolton railed against the "deadening Brussels bureaucracies" of the European Union.
And in a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, he set out the case for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.
His new role at the commander-in-chief's ear may perplex those who voted for Mr Trump because of his vow to avoid US military adventures overseas.
22 March 2018
President Donald Trump has appointed John Bolton, the former US envoy to the UN, as his national security adviser, politically reanimating a strident Bush administration neo-conservative.
The decision comes as a surprise, not least because Mr Trump was reported to have decided against naming Mr Bolton secretary of state last year as he disliked his walrus moustache.
Mr Bolton's new role will prove controversial since he remains an unapologetic cheerleader of the 2003 Iraq war, which the US president himself once lambasted as "a big mistake".
Known for that bushy facial hair, curmudgeonly manner and tousled appearance, Mr Bolton is praised by conservative admirers as a straight-talking foreign policy hawk.
But the Republican was also once memorably branded by a cable television host as "a massive neocon on steroids".
Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul described Mr Bolton last year in an op-ed as "hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the US has made in the last 15 years".
A Baltimore fireman's son, Mr Bolton has been a staunch conservative from his boyhood.
Mr Bolton with President Bush in the Oval Office in December 2006
At the age of 15 he took time off school to campaign for Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential campaign.
At Yale University, where he studied law, he recalled in his memoir feeling like a "space alien" among the campus anti-Vietnam war activists.
Bill and Hillary Clinton were among his classmates, but he said he "didn't run in their circles".
Mr Bolton went on to serve in the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush and George W Bush.
He ruffled feathers in the second Bush administration where he initially worked as US Department of State under-secretary for arms control.
Mr Bolton was accused of trying to force out two intelligence analysts who disagreed with him and of seeking to undermine his boss, Colin Powell.
He also helped build the case that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be wrong.
A 2003 satellite image, which the US State Department claimed showed an Iraqi chemical ammunition depot
But Mr Bolton was praised for his work establishing the Proliferation Security Initiative, an international agreement to prohibit fissile material shipments.
Nevertheless, President Bush dismayed diplomats when he named Mr Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations.
More than 100 former US envoys signed a letter urging senators to reject the nomination.
Five things Trump's new security chief believes
This was, after all, the man who had once said there was "no such thing" as the UN and called the US the world's "only real power".
Mr Bolton had also previously declared that if the 38-storey UN building "lost 10 storeys today, it wouldn't make a bit of difference".
President Bush had to use a recess appointment to crowbar Mr Bolton into the job in 2005 after Senate Democrats, and even a few Republicans, blocked the move.
Democrats ultimately refused to confirm Mr Bolton and he had to step down when his appointment expired in January 2007.
Diplomats at the UN privately criticised his style as abrasive.
Even the state department was not spared the ire of Mr Bolton, who is known for his scorn of dovish multilateral institutions.
He once derided careerists at the US foreign ministry as having been "schooled in accommodation and compromise with foreigners, rather than aggressive advocacy of US interests".
Mr Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, does not appear to have modified his views since his last spell in government.
As he briefly weighed his own run for the US presidency in 2016, he maintained the American-led invasion of Iraq had been "correct".
He also called in a New York Times op-ed for Iran to be bombed, and pilloried President Obama's nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic as a "diplomatic Waterloo".
In his memoir, Surrender is Not an Option, Mr Bolton railed against the "deadening Brussels bureaucracies" of the European Union.
And in a recent op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, he set out the case for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.
His new role at the commander-in-chief's ear may perplex those who voted for Mr Trump because of his vow to avoid US military adventures overseas.
John Bolton: Five things new Trump security adviser believes- BBC News
John Bolton: Five things new Trump security adviser believes
23 March 2018
John Bolton's nomination as US ambassador to the UN during the Bush Administration proved controversial
John Bolton, a hawkish conservative who rose to prominence in the George W Bush administration, will be the new National Security Adviser to President Donald Trump.
A firm defender of American power and a confrontational advocate for wielding that strength abroad, Mr Bolton has never shied away from making his strong views known - whether from a government perch, in the pages of newspapers or from a Fox News pulpit.
Here are five things he believes.
1. A pre-emptive strike against North Korea is perfectly justified
Mr Bolton's views on North Korea will draw intense scrutiny as he joins the White House, given a looming summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un expected to take place by May.
The incoming National Security Adviser has made it clear that he believes that North Korea and its nuclear programme pose an "imminent threat" to the US, dismissing those who would argue that Washington still has time for diplomacy.
"Given the gaps in US intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal in February of possible pre-emptive action.
"It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current "necessity" posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."
2. Bombing Iran is probably OK, too
Donald Trump is reported to have got rid of his secretary of state Rex Tillerson due to their opposing views on the Iran nuclear deal, which the US president has been deeply critical of.
In John Bolton, he will find someone whose views are much more aligned with his.
Mr Bolton has lambasted Barack Obama for agreeing the 2015 international nuclear deal with Iran, writing last year that the text of the agreement "created huge loopholes, and Iran is now driving its missile and nuclear programs straight through them".
In March 2015, a few months before the deal was agreed, he argued in the New York Times that only military action would suffice.
"Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed," he said, advocating Israeli action specifically.
"Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran's opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran."
Bush-era hawk makes comeback
Why did Trump dump his security adviser?
The White House revolving door
3. He's not the biggest fan of the UN
"There is no United Nations," Mr Bolton said in a 1994 speech. "There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."
That speech was made more than a decade before he was nominated by the George W Bush administration to be US ambassador to the UN - but Mr Bolton's scepticism of a global body accountable to no one sovereign nation is deeply held.
The Economist called him "the most controversial ambassador ever sent by America to the United Nations", but he also won praise in some quarters, for fiercely pushing for reform of the international institution.
4. The Iraq War wasn't a mistake
Just a few weeks ago, the president was calling the US-led invasion in 2003, "the single worst decision ever made". Around the same time, John Bolton, who backed it strongly, was refusing to condemn it.
"When you say the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a mistake, it's simplistic," he is reported to have said in a Fox News appearance.
In 2016, when he was mulling a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr Bolton was less equivocal.
"If you knew everything you do today, of course you'd make different choices, but I'd still overthrow Saddam Hussein, who was a threat to peace and stability in the region," the Washington Post quoted him as saying.
5. Russia needs to be dealt with strongly
Mr Bolton has described Russian interference in the 2016 US election as a "true act of war, and one Washington will never tolerate".
In July 2017, when President Trump met President Putin and the Russian leader denied Russian meddling, Mr Bolton wrote that he was "lying with the benefit of the best KGB training".
More recently, following the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripial in the UK - an attack blamed on Russia - Mr Bolton said the West should respond with a "very strong answer".
23 March 2018
John Bolton's nomination as US ambassador to the UN during the Bush Administration proved controversial
John Bolton, a hawkish conservative who rose to prominence in the George W Bush administration, will be the new National Security Adviser to President Donald Trump.
A firm defender of American power and a confrontational advocate for wielding that strength abroad, Mr Bolton has never shied away from making his strong views known - whether from a government perch, in the pages of newspapers or from a Fox News pulpit.
Here are five things he believes.
1. A pre-emptive strike against North Korea is perfectly justified
Mr Bolton's views on North Korea will draw intense scrutiny as he joins the White House, given a looming summit between President Trump and Kim Jong-un expected to take place by May.
The incoming National Security Adviser has made it clear that he believes that North Korea and its nuclear programme pose an "imminent threat" to the US, dismissing those who would argue that Washington still has time for diplomacy.
"Given the gaps in US intelligence about North Korea, we should not wait until the very last minute," he wrote in the Wall Street Journal in February of possible pre-emptive action.
"It is perfectly legitimate for the United States to respond to the current "necessity" posed by North Korea's nuclear weapons by striking first."
2. Bombing Iran is probably OK, too
Donald Trump is reported to have got rid of his secretary of state Rex Tillerson due to their opposing views on the Iran nuclear deal, which the US president has been deeply critical of.
In John Bolton, he will find someone whose views are much more aligned with his.
Mr Bolton has lambasted Barack Obama for agreeing the 2015 international nuclear deal with Iran, writing last year that the text of the agreement "created huge loopholes, and Iran is now driving its missile and nuclear programs straight through them".
In March 2015, a few months before the deal was agreed, he argued in the New York Times that only military action would suffice.
"Time is terribly short, but a strike can still succeed," he said, advocating Israeli action specifically.
"Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran's opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran."
Bush-era hawk makes comeback
Why did Trump dump his security adviser?
The White House revolving door
3. He's not the biggest fan of the UN
"There is no United Nations," Mr Bolton said in a 1994 speech. "There is an international community that occasionally can be led by the only real power left in the world, and that's the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."
That speech was made more than a decade before he was nominated by the George W Bush administration to be US ambassador to the UN - but Mr Bolton's scepticism of a global body accountable to no one sovereign nation is deeply held.
The Economist called him "the most controversial ambassador ever sent by America to the United Nations", but he also won praise in some quarters, for fiercely pushing for reform of the international institution.
4. The Iraq War wasn't a mistake
Just a few weeks ago, the president was calling the US-led invasion in 2003, "the single worst decision ever made". Around the same time, John Bolton, who backed it strongly, was refusing to condemn it.
"When you say the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was a mistake, it's simplistic," he is reported to have said in a Fox News appearance.
In 2016, when he was mulling a bid for the Republican presidential nomination, Mr Bolton was less equivocal.
"If you knew everything you do today, of course you'd make different choices, but I'd still overthrow Saddam Hussein, who was a threat to peace and stability in the region," the Washington Post quoted him as saying.
5. Russia needs to be dealt with strongly
Mr Bolton has described Russian interference in the 2016 US election as a "true act of war, and one Washington will never tolerate".
In July 2017, when President Trump met President Putin and the Russian leader denied Russian meddling, Mr Bolton wrote that he was "lying with the benefit of the best KGB training".
More recently, following the poisoning of ex-spy Sergei Skripial in the UK - an attack blamed on Russia - Mr Bolton said the West should respond with a "very strong answer".
North Korea threatens to cancel Trump summit - BBC News
May 16, 2018
North Korea threatens to cancel Trump summit
Why North Korea is angry at this man
North Korea has said it may pull out of a summit with US President Donald Trump if the US insists it gives up its nuclear weapons.
The highly anticipated meeting between Mr Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un is due to take place on 12 June.
But in an angry statement, North Korea's vice-foreign minister accused the US of making reckless statements and of harbouring sinister intentions.
He pointed the finger squarely at US National Security Adviser John Bolton.
"We do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him," Kim Kye-gwan said.
The groundbreaking agreement for Mr Kim and Mr Trump to meet came about as North Korea said it was committed to denuclearising the Korean peninsula.
Exactly what that would entail has remained unclear, but North Korea has invited foreign media to witness the dismantling of its main nuclear test site later this month.
Mr Bolton recently said North Korea could follow a "Libya model" of verifiable denuclearisation, but Pyongyang rejects comparisons to Libya, saying it is a nuclear-armed state, while Libya was only in the early stages of weapons development when it reached a deal with the UK and US in 2003.
The BBC's Laura Bicker in Seoul says North Korea - which had long said its nuclear arsenal is essential for its survival as a state - is now making its demands clear.
What does North Korea's statement say?
Mr Kim's statement, carried by state media, said that if the US "corners us and unilaterally demands we give up nuclear weapons we will no longer have an interest in talks" and "will have to reconsider" attending the 12 June summit in Singapore.
He said North Korea did have "high hopes" but that it was "very unfortunate that the US is provoking us ahead of the summit by spitting out ludicrous statements".
North Korea crisis in 300 words
Will historic Koreas summit lead to peace?
Kim Kye-gwan is known to be highly respected in the North Korean leadership and has taken part in negotiations with the US before. There is very little chance his comments were not personally endorsed by Kim Jong-un.
Hours before the announcement, in a sign of growing problems, North Korea had also pulled out of a meeting scheduled with South Korea on Wednesday. because of anger over the start of US-South Korea joint military drills.
North Korea had earlier said it would allow them to go ahead, but then called them "a provocative military ruckus" which was undermining its diplomatic efforts.
Media captionKim Jong-un and Donald Trump: From enemies to frenemies?
The sudden change in tone from Pyongyang is said to have taken US officials by surprise. Analysts said North Korea could be trying to strengthen its hand before talks.
Why the personal attack on John Bolton?
The hawkish conservative is a firm defender of US power and a confrontational advocate for wielding that strength abroad. He has previously said it would be "perfectly legitimate" to carry out a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.
In media interviews over the weekend, he said North Korea could follow a Libyan model of nuclear disarmament - Libya gave up its weapons' programmes in the early 2000s and only then secured economic aid and normalised relations with the US.
However during the 2011 uprising against Colonel Gaddafi's regime, Western powers intervened in Libya, and Gaddafi was captured and killed by rebel forces.
North Korea has in the past suggested that Libya may have escaped Western military intervention had it kept its nuclear weapons programme.
John Bolton: Bush-era war hawk makes comeback
Five things Trump's security chief believes
The Muammar Gaddafi story
Kim Kye-gwan said in his statement that this was "not an expression of intention to address the issue through dialogue".
"It is essentially a manifestation of awfully sinister moves to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq which had been collapsed due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers.
"We do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards [Bolton]."
Mr Kim also warns Mr Trump that if he "follows in the footsteps of his predecessors" - refusing to engage with North Korea unless it gives up its nuclear weapons - "he will be recorded as more tragic and unsuccessful president than his predecessors, far from his initial ambition to make unprecedented success".
Why has North Korea changed its tune?
Laura Bicker, BBC News, Seoul
Nuclear weapons have been central to North Korean ideology for its entire history
The whole reason the North Korean state has spent years building up a nuclear arsenal, at such a great cost, is for survival.
So to compare denuclearisation in North Korea with Libya or indeed Iraq as John Bolton did on Sunday is not going to offer much comfort. Both regimes collapsed.
This is also a warning shot to the Trump administration. They will be aware how much Mr Trump wants this summit and how it is being spun as a success brought about by his maximum pressure strategy.
There were signs this boasting irritated Pyongyang, but now it has decided to speak out through someone in a position of power.
The release of three Americans from prison was a major concession by North Korea
North Korea wants the world to know that it is coming to the negotiating table from a position of strength, and they may feel that they are making all the concessions.
They've suspended all missile tests, released the three US detainees, Kim Jong-un met President Moon and the pair signed a declaration, and they're about to dismantle a nuclear test site in front of international media.
So to hear the Trump administration claiming credit for a deal they don't like has been a step too far.
These statements more than hint that North Korea is prepared to walk away from President Trump's summit in Singapore until it does hear a deal it does like.
North Korea threatens to cancel Trump summit
Why North Korea is angry at this man
North Korea has said it may pull out of a summit with US President Donald Trump if the US insists it gives up its nuclear weapons.
The highly anticipated meeting between Mr Trump and North Korea's Kim Jong-un is due to take place on 12 June.
But in an angry statement, North Korea's vice-foreign minister accused the US of making reckless statements and of harbouring sinister intentions.
He pointed the finger squarely at US National Security Adviser John Bolton.
"We do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards him," Kim Kye-gwan said.
The groundbreaking agreement for Mr Kim and Mr Trump to meet came about as North Korea said it was committed to denuclearising the Korean peninsula.
Exactly what that would entail has remained unclear, but North Korea has invited foreign media to witness the dismantling of its main nuclear test site later this month.
Mr Bolton recently said North Korea could follow a "Libya model" of verifiable denuclearisation, but Pyongyang rejects comparisons to Libya, saying it is a nuclear-armed state, while Libya was only in the early stages of weapons development when it reached a deal with the UK and US in 2003.
The BBC's Laura Bicker in Seoul says North Korea - which had long said its nuclear arsenal is essential for its survival as a state - is now making its demands clear.
What does North Korea's statement say?
Mr Kim's statement, carried by state media, said that if the US "corners us and unilaterally demands we give up nuclear weapons we will no longer have an interest in talks" and "will have to reconsider" attending the 12 June summit in Singapore.
He said North Korea did have "high hopes" but that it was "very unfortunate that the US is provoking us ahead of the summit by spitting out ludicrous statements".
North Korea crisis in 300 words
Will historic Koreas summit lead to peace?
Kim Kye-gwan is known to be highly respected in the North Korean leadership and has taken part in negotiations with the US before. There is very little chance his comments were not personally endorsed by Kim Jong-un.
Hours before the announcement, in a sign of growing problems, North Korea had also pulled out of a meeting scheduled with South Korea on Wednesday. because of anger over the start of US-South Korea joint military drills.
North Korea had earlier said it would allow them to go ahead, but then called them "a provocative military ruckus" which was undermining its diplomatic efforts.
Media captionKim Jong-un and Donald Trump: From enemies to frenemies?
The sudden change in tone from Pyongyang is said to have taken US officials by surprise. Analysts said North Korea could be trying to strengthen its hand before talks.
Why the personal attack on John Bolton?
The hawkish conservative is a firm defender of US power and a confrontational advocate for wielding that strength abroad. He has previously said it would be "perfectly legitimate" to carry out a pre-emptive strike on North Korea.
In media interviews over the weekend, he said North Korea could follow a Libyan model of nuclear disarmament - Libya gave up its weapons' programmes in the early 2000s and only then secured economic aid and normalised relations with the US.
However during the 2011 uprising against Colonel Gaddafi's regime, Western powers intervened in Libya, and Gaddafi was captured and killed by rebel forces.
North Korea has in the past suggested that Libya may have escaped Western military intervention had it kept its nuclear weapons programme.
John Bolton: Bush-era war hawk makes comeback
Five things Trump's security chief believes
The Muammar Gaddafi story
Kim Kye-gwan said in his statement that this was "not an expression of intention to address the issue through dialogue".
"It is essentially a manifestation of awfully sinister moves to impose on our dignified state the destiny of Libya or Iraq which had been collapsed due to yielding the whole of their countries to big powers.
"We do not hide our feeling of repugnance towards [Bolton]."
Mr Kim also warns Mr Trump that if he "follows in the footsteps of his predecessors" - refusing to engage with North Korea unless it gives up its nuclear weapons - "he will be recorded as more tragic and unsuccessful president than his predecessors, far from his initial ambition to make unprecedented success".
Why has North Korea changed its tune?
Laura Bicker, BBC News, Seoul
Nuclear weapons have been central to North Korean ideology for its entire history
The whole reason the North Korean state has spent years building up a nuclear arsenal, at such a great cost, is for survival.
So to compare denuclearisation in North Korea with Libya or indeed Iraq as John Bolton did on Sunday is not going to offer much comfort. Both regimes collapsed.
This is also a warning shot to the Trump administration. They will be aware how much Mr Trump wants this summit and how it is being spun as a success brought about by his maximum pressure strategy.
There were signs this boasting irritated Pyongyang, but now it has decided to speak out through someone in a position of power.
The release of three Americans from prison was a major concession by North Korea
North Korea wants the world to know that it is coming to the negotiating table from a position of strength, and they may feel that they are making all the concessions.
They've suspended all missile tests, released the three US detainees, Kim Jong-un met President Moon and the pair signed a declaration, and they're about to dismantle a nuclear test site in front of international media.
So to hear the Trump administration claiming credit for a deal they don't like has been a step too far.
These statements more than hint that North Korea is prepared to walk away from President Trump's summit in Singapore until it does hear a deal it does like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
