April 12. 2018
US House Speaker Paul Ryan to retire in blow to Republicans
What Paul Ryan quitting could really mean
US House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan will not run for re-election this year, in a big blow to Republicans with mid-term elections looming.
Congress' most powerful lawmaker said he would not stand for another term in his Wisconsin district this November.
Republicans already face a tough challenge from Democrats to keep control of the lower chamber.
Mr Ryan joins nearly 30 House Republicans who have announced this year they are retiring outright.
Democrats need 23 seats to take over the House.
In a Wednesday morning news conference, Mr Ryan said the decision was family-related.
"You all know that I did not seek this job," he said. "I took it reluctantly.
"But I have given this job everything. I have no regrets whatsoever for having accepted this responsibility."
He continued: "But the truth is it's easy for it to take over everything in your life and you can't just let that happen."
The 48-year-old father-of-three said he did not want to be known by his children as "only a weekend dad".
Profile: House Speaker Paul Ryan
Mr Ryan said he would retire in January after finishing his congressional term.
Fleeing a sinking ship?
Analysis by Anthony Zurcher, BBC News, Washington
Paul Ryan had to be coaxed into taking the speaker's gavel in 2015 and never seemed to relish the job. Rumours had been swirling in conservative circles for months that he was eyeing the exits.
The speaker will frame his decision as one of putting family first - and, with young children, the fundraising and legislative duties of the office are burdensome - but it's impossible not to view the move in a larger political context. He's had frequent clashes with Donald Trump, and their differences - in temperament and policy - continue to be stark.
A mid-term election looms, and there are at least even odds that a Democrat could be speaker next year. Even if Republicans prevail, their majority will certainly be diminished, making the job of passing legislation through a party already torn between moderates and ideological hardliners all the more difficult.
Rather than go down with the ship - or perhaps suffer the same fate as Tom Foley in 1994, the last sitting speaker to lose a re-election race - Mr Ryan is reserving his seat on a lifeboat. He's not the first congressional Republican to do so, and with the top man leading the way, more are sure to follow.
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Mr Ryan - with his wife, Janna, and daughter, Liza, by his side - was re-elected comfortably in 2016
According to Axios, which broke the story, he has found his job frustrating, partly because of President Donald Trump.
US House speaker deletes tax cuts tweet
Mr Trump praised the speaker on Twitter as "a truly good man".
In an interview with CNN, Mr Ryan explained that he and Mr Trump are "very different people".
"I'm from the upper Midwest. I'm not from New York, we're from a different generation. So we have different styles," Mr Ryan said.
He added that despite having "had a lot of friction in our relationship," the two men have a "common agenda to agree on".
"I'm not going to run for president", he said, concluding: "The last thing I'm thinking about is running for something."
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said Mr Ryan's departure was an ominous sign for Republicans, months away from nationwide elections.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Speaker Paul Ryan is a truly good man, and while he will not be seeking re-election, he will leave a legacy of achievement that nobody can question. We are with you Paul!
11:50 PM - Apr 11, 2018
"Stay tuned for more retirements as Republicans increasingly realise that their midterm prospects are doomed," the fundraising committee added.
Mr Ryan's seat in Wisconsin's first district could now fall into Democratic hands, according to analysts at the Cook Political Report and Sabato's Crystal Ball.
All 435 House lawmakers and 34 senators will face the voters this November, in what will amount to a referendum on Republican control of Congress and the White House.
The resignation of Mr Ryan - whose role as House speaker places him second-in-line to the president after Vice-President Mike Pence - will spark speculation about whether he could one day mount a White House campaign.
The clean-cut conservative, who has served in the House since 1999, was the Republican vice-presidential running mate for Mitt Romney in 2012.
Mitt Romney
✔
@MittRomney
Love of country compelled Paul Ryan to accept the Speakership, a role he alone could fill at a critical time. He unified the House, passed scores of bills, and led with integrity, honor and dignity. The country will miss Speaker Ryan.
12:36 AM - Apr 12, 2018
In December Mr Ryan achieved his cherished goal of overhauling the US tax code, and according to Axios, regarded it as the capstone of his legislative career.
Republican congressman Steve Scalise and former White House chief of staff Reince Priebus are among those being touted as possible successors.
Meanwhile, the House speaker whom Mr Ryan replaced - John Boehner - announced on Twitter he is joining the board of a legal cannabis corporation "because my thinking on cannabis has evolved".
The Ohio Republican, who retired from politics in 2015, once said he was "unalterably opposed" to legalising marijuana.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
US president warns Moscow to prepare for missile strikes - Financial Times
April 11, 2018
Trump says US poised to take military action against Syria
US president warns Moscow to prepare for missile strikes
Vasily Nebenzia: 'We may be standing on the verge of very grave and tragic events' © AP
Kathrin Hille in Moscow
President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned Russia to prepare for a US strike against Syria following the alleged chemical weapons attack in the country last week.
“Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” You shouldn’t be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!” Mr Trump tweeted.
Mr Trump’s tweet marked a dramatic escalation in the war of words between the US and Russia over the alleged chemical weapons attack and raised concerns about the risk of military confrontation between the powers if the US decides to strike Syria.
French president Emmanuel Macron, who has spoken twice to Mr Trump since the attack, on Wednesday suggested that Washington and its allies had already decided to respond with military action, but were weighing the details of the operation.
Mr Trump, who has also discussed the issue with UK prime minister Theresa May, on Tuesday cancelled a visit to Latin America to oversee the response. Earlier in the week, he said he would make a decision on a possible strike within 24 to 48 hours.
Mr Trump’s tweet came the morning after Russia had warned Washington not to strike Syria, declaring that any assault would trigger “grave repercussions”.
On Tuesday, the US and its allies clashed with Russia at the UN over competing resolutions on a joint chemical weapons inspection mission for Syria.
Vasily Nebenzia, the Russian ambassador to the UN, warned at the security council that military action “could lead to grave repercussions”. Later he told the US: “I would once again implore you — refrain from those plans that you have in mind for Syria.”
Alexander Zasypkin, Russia’s envoy to Lebanon, late on Tuesday reminded the US that the head of the Russian military has said his forces in Syria would not only shoot down any missiles that threatened them but would target the source of the weapons.
“In case the lives of our soldiers are under threat, the armed forces of the Russian Federation will take retaliatory measures . . . against missiles and against the delivery vehicles used,” Valery Gerasimov, head of Russia’s armed forces, said in March.
Russia’s warnings came as the US, France and the UK were debating how to respond to allegations that Douma, a rebel holdout near the Syrian capital of Damascus had been attacked with chemical weapons, killing at least 40 people.
The heightened rhetoric between Russia and the west heightens the risk of a wider confrontation and raises the prospect of Russian forces directly targeting the US and allied warships, aircraft and submarines that would likely be involved in any action.
Russia has strengthened its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean in recent months, according to IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly, and has powerful air defence systems as well as combat aircraft stationed in Syria. At the weekend, a Russian combat aircraft flew deliberately low over a French warship patrolling together with a US naval vessel off the Lebanese coast, according to Reuters.
While humanitarian aid groups and western governments have pointed the finger at Syria, Russia, which backs the regime of Bashar al-Assad, denies that a chemical weapons attack took place at all.
On Wednesday, the World Health Organization demanded that Mr Assad allow its inspectors access the site of the alleged attack.
Separately, Russia said its military and the Syrian government would support an investigation team from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that was expected to arrive in Douma soon. The OPCW inspectors do not have a mandate to attribute blame only to test for chemical weapons.
Russia has been blocking attempts at a renewal of the joint inspection mission for chemical weapons in Syria since it expired last autumn. Most recently, Russia sponsored a proposal that insisted such a mission must have an invitation from the Syrian government, visit all sites in question and prove responsibility of an alleged perpetrator beyond any reasonable doubt — conditions that western diplomats argue would hamper the independence of such a mission.
David Gardner
Opinion: Syria must not be allowed to normalise the use of chemical weapons
Mr Nebenzia suggested that the US and its allies did not want a real investigation, and might use the UNSC’s failure to adopt their proposal to justify military action.
“You say that we are very good at playing games. I’m not sure about that. But what we know for sure is that you’re good at making threats,” he said. “The threats that you are uttering now with regard to Syria must extremely worry all of us.”
On Wednesday buses continued to take rebel fighters and their families out of Douma. Just hours after the alleged attack, Jaish al-Islam, which controlled the town, brokered a deal through Russia to surrender in return for safe passage out of government-besieged eastern Ghouta.
Once the last fighters have been evacuated, the Syrian government will retake control of Douma. Some medical workers worry that the evidence of the attack could be diluted or destroyed in attempt to cover up the incident.
Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, wrapping up his first official visit to France, said Saudi Arabia would support a military operation in Syria. “If required by our alliance with our partners, we will be there,” he said, according to the French translation of his remarks spoken in Arabic
America’s Three Bad Options in Syria - New York Times ( The Interpreter )
America’s Three Bad Options in Syria
The Interpreter
By MAX FISHER APRIL 10, 2018
A picture said to show victims of a suspected chemical attack in Douma, a suburb of Damascus, in Syria on Sunday. Credit Syrian Civil Defense White Helmets, via Associated Press
Chemical weapons are again suspected to have been used in Syria, apparently by government forces, circumstantial evidence suggests. Again, many Americans, particularly in Washington, have responded with calls to do something. And, again, punitive airstrikes against the Syrian government are the most discussed option.
These debates over Syria are revealing, but not in the way the participants often intend. That Americans so often arrive at the same policy of limited airstrikes tells us a lot about why the Syria problem is so difficult. It also tells us a lot about the foreign policy hangups of the United States.
You can tell there’s something odd about this conversation by the fact that it’s barely changed between the Obama and Trump administrations.
It was one thing, before 2017, to argue that, had then President Barack Obama followed through on his 2013 threat of punitive strikes, this would have deterred Syria from future use of chemical weapons, changed the course of the war, and perhaps even toppled Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian leader.
But last year President Trump carried out punitive strikes of exactly the sort that had been demanded. Little demonstrably changed in Syria. But, oddly, not much changed in the United States either, where the belief in limited strikes remains as firm as ever.
I believe the fundamental analytical point is accurate and dominates all of these types of discussions: A significant majority of Americans...
David Bell 1 hour ago
By far the biggest user of chemical weapons throughout history is the USA, 2 million tonnes and all on civilians, ask anyone in N Korea,...
Billarm 1 hour ago
Why do we want another overthrow? Has that ever worked out in the Middle East?
“The utter irrelevance of Trump’s one-off bombing of a Syrian airfield hasn’t made the slightest dent in the myth that Obama bombing Syria in 2013 would have changed everything, has it,” Marc Lynch, a George Washington University professor of Middle East studies, wrote on Twitter.
Indeed, pressure is mounting for another set of such strikes, and it looks as if Mr. Trump may again carry them out.
What Americans may be confronting — whether they want to or not — is the reality that some problems can’t be fixed by the sort of low-cost, low-risk solutions to which they grew accustomed in the brief moment of American global hegemony after the Cold War. It feels impossible that something could be beyond easy American resolution, so the problem must be that the president lacks proper will or resolve to see that resolution through.
“For those who want a military response, the question is simple: can you tell me any practical response short of full-fledged invasion that could prevent this?” Emma Ashford, a Cato Institute analyst, asked on Twitter, referring to further chemical attacks.
To understand this, it helps to divide possible American responses into three categories, each of which comes up against hard problems that are structural to the Syrian war.
A Tomahawk missile being launched toward a Syrian airfield in April last year from the American guided-missile destroyer Porter. Credit Ford Williams/U.S. Navy
Option category #1 could be termed the sort of limited, punitive strikes that Mr. Obama was pressured to execute and that Mr. Trump saw through last year.
Such action is meant to impose a modest cost on Mr. Assad or to send a message that future chemical weapons use will not be tolerated. At the same time, it is meant to avoid any risk of changing the course of the war, which could lead in unanticipated directions — like embroiling the United States in a larger conflict, or collapsing the Syrian government, which could, in turn, spread chaos that would risk millions of lives.
But past efforts at these kind of strikes have failed for two reasons. First, they do not change Mr. Assad’s calculus because, to Mr. Assad, this war is a matter of personal and national survival. If he believes chemical weapons are necessary to his survival, he will abandon them only in the face of some threat to his survival greater than the benefit he thinks they offer him. That requires an existential threat, which the United States is unwilling to impose because of the risks.
Second, Mr. Assad’s Russian and Iranian allies can easily help him absorb the costs imposed by such strikes. If the United States bombs another Syrian runway, Russian contractors can simply pave Mr. Assad a new one. It’s not exactly a game-changer for him.
Fuzzier arguments for limited strikes — that they will communicate American resolve and toughness — play well in domestic politics, but there is little concrete evidence that such messages make much difference to adversaries.
Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
The Interpreter Newsletter
Understand the world with sharp insight and commentary on the major news stories of the week.
Option category #2 might describe the policies that Mr. Obama favored: actions that make the war costlier for Mr. Assad — arming anti-government rebels, for instance — so as to pressure the Syrian leader into complying with American demands.
Mr. Obama supplied rebels with anti-tank TOW missiles, which they used to great effect, pushing back government forces with the weapons they called “Assad tamers.”
The problem with this strategy is that Mr. Assad’s Russian and Iranian allies are able to escalate in turn, matching and exceeding any American bid. The Americans send guns; the Iranians send a combat brigade. The Americans send missiles; the Russians install an artillery unit. Russia and Iran can simply do more, giving them control over what military planners call “the escalation ladder.”
Some analysts argue that the “Assad tamers” were so successful that they prompted Russia’s 2015 intervention in Syria. In that sense, Mr. Obama’s approach not only failed, it backfired terribly. The result was a bloodier war with more Syrian suffering but little change in Mr. Assad’s calculus. Further such escalations would risk the same.
Option category #3 would be attacks that go beyond what the Russians and Iranians can match, which is likely to mean either a full intervention or strikes that existentially threaten the Syrian government.
These strikes would only be enough to work if they deliberately create one of two risks that the United States has strained to avoid. The first risk is that of collapsing the Syrian government, which would exacerbate Syrian suffering by throwing millions more lives into chaos and most likely prolong the war. The second risk is of a direct military confrontation with Russia, a nuclear-armed power with the ability to escalate hostilities rapidly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, putting millions of non-Syrians at risk.
“Bottom line: Assad’s actions are abhorrent, but there is no practical military option here unless you are willing to effectively collapse the Syrian state and re-escalate the civil war,” Ms. Ashford wrote.
Mr. Trump, she predicted, would launch another set of punitive strikes that would “change nothing” but win domestic approval.
But why does such support still exist for a policy that has already demonstrably failed?
Research by Sarah Kreps and Sarah Maxey, political scientists at Cornell University and the University of Pennsylvania, found that Americans feel a moral obligation to help humanitarian victims — and to provide that help in the form of military action. This can lead Americans to support seemingly incongruous policies like saving war refugees by dropping bombs.
But it’s not just voters. Within Washington, an odd revisionism has arisen around Mr. Trump’s previous set of strikes, meant to explain why they produced little tangible benefit. They only appeared to fail because the United States, it is said, did not properly capitalize on the “leverage” the strikes had provided.
There is an alternate hypothesis: The reason that limited strikes rarely seem to translate into “leverage” is because they do not produce “leverage,” a fuzzy term with no fixed meaning.
This is where this debate arguably starts to reveal more about the United States, and particularly Washington’s foreign policy community, than about the Syrian war.
The cult of “limited strikes” is so powerful in Washington that, even when they do occur, it’s said they were never properly capitalized on. There is always the shimmering hope, just over the next hill, that bombing a runway will make all of Washington’s dreams come true.
It sometimes seems as if the United States will be bombing empty runways until the end of time, dead certain that it’s a way to get everything Americans want at no real cost or risk, and that all the past failures only prove that the next time it’ll work for sure.
The Interpreter is a column by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub exploring the ideas and context behind major world events. Follow them on Twitter @Max_Fisher and @amandataub.
The Interpreter
By MAX FISHER APRIL 10, 2018
A picture said to show victims of a suspected chemical attack in Douma, a suburb of Damascus, in Syria on Sunday. Credit Syrian Civil Defense White Helmets, via Associated Press
Chemical weapons are again suspected to have been used in Syria, apparently by government forces, circumstantial evidence suggests. Again, many Americans, particularly in Washington, have responded with calls to do something. And, again, punitive airstrikes against the Syrian government are the most discussed option.
These debates over Syria are revealing, but not in the way the participants often intend. That Americans so often arrive at the same policy of limited airstrikes tells us a lot about why the Syria problem is so difficult. It also tells us a lot about the foreign policy hangups of the United States.
You can tell there’s something odd about this conversation by the fact that it’s barely changed between the Obama and Trump administrations.
It was one thing, before 2017, to argue that, had then President Barack Obama followed through on his 2013 threat of punitive strikes, this would have deterred Syria from future use of chemical weapons, changed the course of the war, and perhaps even toppled Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian leader.
But last year President Trump carried out punitive strikes of exactly the sort that had been demanded. Little demonstrably changed in Syria. But, oddly, not much changed in the United States either, where the belief in limited strikes remains as firm as ever.
I believe the fundamental analytical point is accurate and dominates all of these types of discussions: A significant majority of Americans...
David Bell 1 hour ago
By far the biggest user of chemical weapons throughout history is the USA, 2 million tonnes and all on civilians, ask anyone in N Korea,...
Billarm 1 hour ago
Why do we want another overthrow? Has that ever worked out in the Middle East?
“The utter irrelevance of Trump’s one-off bombing of a Syrian airfield hasn’t made the slightest dent in the myth that Obama bombing Syria in 2013 would have changed everything, has it,” Marc Lynch, a George Washington University professor of Middle East studies, wrote on Twitter.
Indeed, pressure is mounting for another set of such strikes, and it looks as if Mr. Trump may again carry them out.
What Americans may be confronting — whether they want to or not — is the reality that some problems can’t be fixed by the sort of low-cost, low-risk solutions to which they grew accustomed in the brief moment of American global hegemony after the Cold War. It feels impossible that something could be beyond easy American resolution, so the problem must be that the president lacks proper will or resolve to see that resolution through.
“For those who want a military response, the question is simple: can you tell me any practical response short of full-fledged invasion that could prevent this?” Emma Ashford, a Cato Institute analyst, asked on Twitter, referring to further chemical attacks.
To understand this, it helps to divide possible American responses into three categories, each of which comes up against hard problems that are structural to the Syrian war.
A Tomahawk missile being launched toward a Syrian airfield in April last year from the American guided-missile destroyer Porter. Credit Ford Williams/U.S. Navy
Option category #1 could be termed the sort of limited, punitive strikes that Mr. Obama was pressured to execute and that Mr. Trump saw through last year.
Such action is meant to impose a modest cost on Mr. Assad or to send a message that future chemical weapons use will not be tolerated. At the same time, it is meant to avoid any risk of changing the course of the war, which could lead in unanticipated directions — like embroiling the United States in a larger conflict, or collapsing the Syrian government, which could, in turn, spread chaos that would risk millions of lives.
But past efforts at these kind of strikes have failed for two reasons. First, they do not change Mr. Assad’s calculus because, to Mr. Assad, this war is a matter of personal and national survival. If he believes chemical weapons are necessary to his survival, he will abandon them only in the face of some threat to his survival greater than the benefit he thinks they offer him. That requires an existential threat, which the United States is unwilling to impose because of the risks.
Second, Mr. Assad’s Russian and Iranian allies can easily help him absorb the costs imposed by such strikes. If the United States bombs another Syrian runway, Russian contractors can simply pave Mr. Assad a new one. It’s not exactly a game-changer for him.
Fuzzier arguments for limited strikes — that they will communicate American resolve and toughness — play well in domestic politics, but there is little concrete evidence that such messages make much difference to adversaries.
Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story
The Interpreter Newsletter
Understand the world with sharp insight and commentary on the major news stories of the week.
Option category #2 might describe the policies that Mr. Obama favored: actions that make the war costlier for Mr. Assad — arming anti-government rebels, for instance — so as to pressure the Syrian leader into complying with American demands.
Mr. Obama supplied rebels with anti-tank TOW missiles, which they used to great effect, pushing back government forces with the weapons they called “Assad tamers.”
The problem with this strategy is that Mr. Assad’s Russian and Iranian allies are able to escalate in turn, matching and exceeding any American bid. The Americans send guns; the Iranians send a combat brigade. The Americans send missiles; the Russians install an artillery unit. Russia and Iran can simply do more, giving them control over what military planners call “the escalation ladder.”
Some analysts argue that the “Assad tamers” were so successful that they prompted Russia’s 2015 intervention in Syria. In that sense, Mr. Obama’s approach not only failed, it backfired terribly. The result was a bloodier war with more Syrian suffering but little change in Mr. Assad’s calculus. Further such escalations would risk the same.
Option category #3 would be attacks that go beyond what the Russians and Iranians can match, which is likely to mean either a full intervention or strikes that existentially threaten the Syrian government.
These strikes would only be enough to work if they deliberately create one of two risks that the United States has strained to avoid. The first risk is that of collapsing the Syrian government, which would exacerbate Syrian suffering by throwing millions more lives into chaos and most likely prolong the war. The second risk is of a direct military confrontation with Russia, a nuclear-armed power with the ability to escalate hostilities rapidly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, putting millions of non-Syrians at risk.
“Bottom line: Assad’s actions are abhorrent, but there is no practical military option here unless you are willing to effectively collapse the Syrian state and re-escalate the civil war,” Ms. Ashford wrote.
Mr. Trump, she predicted, would launch another set of punitive strikes that would “change nothing” but win domestic approval.
But why does such support still exist for a policy that has already demonstrably failed?
Research by Sarah Kreps and Sarah Maxey, political scientists at Cornell University and the University of Pennsylvania, found that Americans feel a moral obligation to help humanitarian victims — and to provide that help in the form of military action. This can lead Americans to support seemingly incongruous policies like saving war refugees by dropping bombs.
But it’s not just voters. Within Washington, an odd revisionism has arisen around Mr. Trump’s previous set of strikes, meant to explain why they produced little tangible benefit. They only appeared to fail because the United States, it is said, did not properly capitalize on the “leverage” the strikes had provided.
There is an alternate hypothesis: The reason that limited strikes rarely seem to translate into “leverage” is because they do not produce “leverage,” a fuzzy term with no fixed meaning.
This is where this debate arguably starts to reveal more about the United States, and particularly Washington’s foreign policy community, than about the Syrian war.
The cult of “limited strikes” is so powerful in Washington that, even when they do occur, it’s said they were never properly capitalized on. There is always the shimmering hope, just over the next hill, that bombing a runway will make all of Washington’s dreams come true.
It sometimes seems as if the United States will be bombing empty runways until the end of time, dead certain that it’s a way to get everything Americans want at no real cost or risk, and that all the past failures only prove that the next time it’ll work for sure.
The Interpreter is a column by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub exploring the ideas and context behind major world events. Follow them on Twitter @Max_Fisher and @amandataub.
Can Trump fire special counsel Mueller? Maybe, but the probe would go on. - NBC News
Can Trump fire special counsel Mueller? Maybe, but the probe would go on.
Legal experts, as they often do, disagree about what Trump could do, and the courts have never provided an answer to a situation like this.
by Pete Williams / Apr.11.2018 / 7:14 AM ET
WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Sarah Sanders added a new level of uncertainty over the future of Robert Mueller when she seemed to suggest Tuesday that the president might have the power to fire the special counsel.
"I know a number of individuals in the legal community and including at the Department of Justice that he has the power to do so," she said, though it was not clear whether she might have meant that the president could direct the deputy attorney general to fire Mueller.
But does the president have the authority to do it himself?
White House: We've been advised that Trump can fire Mueller
There's no clear answer, and there is apparently no formal opinion from the Justice Department concluding that the president has that power.
Under the Justice Department regulations that set up the office of special counsel, Mueller can be fired only by Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing the special counsel's investigation.
Normally, this power rests with the attorney general, but Jeff Sessions has recused himself, so it falls to Rosenstein. The regulations say a special counsel can be fired "for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies."
These regulations also say a special counsel "may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General" (in this case, the deputy attorney general).
That would seem to mean that only Rosenstein could fire Mueller.
But there's a potential constitutional issue — namely that a president, as chief executive, has the authority to fire anyone in the executive branch. This argument goes that such a constitutional power would override any statute or regulation.
WH: Trump 'certainly believes he has the power' to fire Mueller
00:58
And some legal scholars have suggested another scenario: Trump could argue that Mueller is interfering with foreign relations and that the president therefore had separate authority to fire him.
Legal experts, as they often do, disagree about what Trump could do, and the courts have never provided an answer to a situation like this.
Rosenstein has repeatedly said he has confidence in Mueller and sees no grounds for firing the special counsel. If Trump ordered Rosenstein to do it anyway and Rosenstein refused, Trump would clearly have authority to fire the deputy attorney general.
Under an executive order spelling out the order of succession at the Justice Department, authority over Mueller would then fall to the associate attorney general, who was Rachel Brand. No successor to her has yet been confirmed.
Authority would then go to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, although that position is currently held by an acting official, then to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Robert Higdon, and then to the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas, Erin Nealy Cox.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department in Washington on March 23. Win McNamee / Getty Images
Of course, any move to fire Mueller, either directly or indirectly, would have serious political consequences for the president.
Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, said, "Trump has all sorts of powers. That doesn't mean exercising them is wise or comports with the rule of law. If he fires Mueller or Rosenstein to protect himself, it is an impeachable offense and will trigger a constitutional crisis."
And firing the special counsel would not accomplish Trump's goal of putting an end to the Russia meddling investigation. The probe would simply revert to the FBI and the Justice Department, where prosecutors and federal agents would continue the kind of work they were doing before the special counsel was appointed.
Legal experts, as they often do, disagree about what Trump could do, and the courts have never provided an answer to a situation like this.
by Pete Williams / Apr.11.2018 / 7:14 AM ET
WASHINGTON — White House press secretary Sarah Sanders added a new level of uncertainty over the future of Robert Mueller when she seemed to suggest Tuesday that the president might have the power to fire the special counsel.
"I know a number of individuals in the legal community and including at the Department of Justice that he has the power to do so," she said, though it was not clear whether she might have meant that the president could direct the deputy attorney general to fire Mueller.
But does the president have the authority to do it himself?
White House: We've been advised that Trump can fire Mueller
There's no clear answer, and there is apparently no formal opinion from the Justice Department concluding that the president has that power.
Under the Justice Department regulations that set up the office of special counsel, Mueller can be fired only by Rod Rosenstein, who is overseeing the special counsel's investigation.
Normally, this power rests with the attorney general, but Jeff Sessions has recused himself, so it falls to Rosenstein. The regulations say a special counsel can be fired "for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or for other good cause, including violation of Departmental policies."
These regulations also say a special counsel "may be disciplined or removed from office only by the personal action of the Attorney General" (in this case, the deputy attorney general).
That would seem to mean that only Rosenstein could fire Mueller.
But there's a potential constitutional issue — namely that a president, as chief executive, has the authority to fire anyone in the executive branch. This argument goes that such a constitutional power would override any statute or regulation.
WH: Trump 'certainly believes he has the power' to fire Mueller
00:58
And some legal scholars have suggested another scenario: Trump could argue that Mueller is interfering with foreign relations and that the president therefore had separate authority to fire him.
Legal experts, as they often do, disagree about what Trump could do, and the courts have never provided an answer to a situation like this.
Rosenstein has repeatedly said he has confidence in Mueller and sees no grounds for firing the special counsel. If Trump ordered Rosenstein to do it anyway and Rosenstein refused, Trump would clearly have authority to fire the deputy attorney general.
Under an executive order spelling out the order of succession at the Justice Department, authority over Mueller would then fall to the associate attorney general, who was Rachel Brand. No successor to her has yet been confirmed.
Authority would then go to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, although that position is currently held by an acting official, then to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Robert Higdon, and then to the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas, Erin Nealy Cox.
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department in Washington on March 23. Win McNamee / Getty Images
Of course, any move to fire Mueller, either directly or indirectly, would have serious political consequences for the president.
Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, said, "Trump has all sorts of powers. That doesn't mean exercising them is wise or comports with the rule of law. If he fires Mueller or Rosenstein to protect himself, it is an impeachable offense and will trigger a constitutional crisis."
And firing the special counsel would not accomplish Trump's goal of putting an end to the Russia meddling investigation. The probe would simply revert to the FBI and the Justice Department, where prosecutors and federal agents would continue the kind of work they were doing before the special counsel was appointed.
Mark Zuckerberg gave evidence in front of Congress and the memes were amazing - Independent
April 11, 2018
Mark Zuckerberg gave evidence in front of Congress and the memes were amazing
Posted about an hour ago by Jake Hall in news
UPVOTE
It’s fair to say Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t had the best year.
The Facebook CEO has been involved in several high-profile scandals over the last few months. In fact, just last week, it was discovered that his messages were quietly disappearing from the Facebook inboxes of his recipients; in response, the company hastily announced that it would roll out an 'unsend' feature for all users.
This year also saw Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie unveil mass data breaches, which were yesterday addressed when Zuckerberg finally faced US Congress in a lengthy five-hour hearing.
Somehow managing to look both sheepish and incredibly robotic, the CEO admitted the company had failed to properly inform users of their data being leaked and deflected joke questions from senators looking to highlight just how bad the invasion of privacy had been.
Naturally, the internet responded to the hearing in the only way it knows how: memes.
Most Twitter users picked apart his awkwardness and joked about his lack of emotion, whereas others compared him to Data, the Star Trek android designed as a replica of its human creator. Others cracked Myspace jokes (R.I.P.), whereas plenty of others highlighted the similarities between Zuckerberg and his portrayal in 2010 film The Social Network.
Matthew Teague
✔
@MatthewTeague
Mark Zuckerberg’s manner has always reminded me of someone, but I could never quite grasp hold of it.
Just now it hit me, watching him testify about data.
5:26 AM - Apr 11, 2018
Germain Lussier
✔
@GermainLussier
Every time I see Mark Zuckerberg in real life, I like Jesse Eisenberg's performance in The Social Network more and more.
4:56 AM - Apr 11, 2018
Ashley Feinberg
✔
@ashleyfeinberg
when everything's fine and you feel great
4:53 AM - Apr 11, 2018
Amber Discko
✔
@amberdiscko
me when I realize my actions have a consequence
4:57 AM - Apr 11, 2018
Jeffrey Young
✔
@JeffYoung
tfw you aren't being grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee
4:36 AM - Apr 11, 2018
His seemingly unnatural movements also revived Internet suspicion that Zuckerberg is, in fact, a lizard. The theory still lingers, but Zuckerberg himself denies the rumours.
ＲＵＩＮ™
@BravingRuin
"don't forget to drink the water, humans like water"
4:37 AM - Apr 11, 2018
161K
55.3K people are talking about this
Mark Zuckerberg gave evidence in front of Congress and the memes were amazing
Posted about an hour ago by Jake Hall in news
UPVOTE
It’s fair to say Mark Zuckerberg hasn’t had the best year.
The Facebook CEO has been involved in several high-profile scandals over the last few months. In fact, just last week, it was discovered that his messages were quietly disappearing from the Facebook inboxes of his recipients; in response, the company hastily announced that it would roll out an 'unsend' feature for all users.
This year also saw Cambridge Analytica whistleblower Christopher Wylie unveil mass data breaches, which were yesterday addressed when Zuckerberg finally faced US Congress in a lengthy five-hour hearing.
Somehow managing to look both sheepish and incredibly robotic, the CEO admitted the company had failed to properly inform users of their data being leaked and deflected joke questions from senators looking to highlight just how bad the invasion of privacy had been.
Naturally, the internet responded to the hearing in the only way it knows how: memes.
Most Twitter users picked apart his awkwardness and joked about his lack of emotion, whereas others compared him to Data, the Star Trek android designed as a replica of its human creator. Others cracked Myspace jokes (R.I.P.), whereas plenty of others highlighted the similarities between Zuckerberg and his portrayal in 2010 film The Social Network.
Matthew Teague
✔
@MatthewTeague
Mark Zuckerberg’s manner has always reminded me of someone, but I could never quite grasp hold of it.
Just now it hit me, watching him testify about data.
5:26 AM - Apr 11, 2018
Germain Lussier
✔
@GermainLussier
Every time I see Mark Zuckerberg in real life, I like Jesse Eisenberg's performance in The Social Network more and more.
4:56 AM - Apr 11, 2018
Ashley Feinberg
✔
@ashleyfeinberg
when everything's fine and you feel great
4:53 AM - Apr 11, 2018
Amber Discko
✔
@amberdiscko
me when I realize my actions have a consequence
4:57 AM - Apr 11, 2018
Jeffrey Young
✔
@JeffYoung
tfw you aren't being grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee
4:36 AM - Apr 11, 2018
His seemingly unnatural movements also revived Internet suspicion that Zuckerberg is, in fact, a lizard. The theory still lingers, but Zuckerberg himself denies the rumours.
ＲＵＩＮ™
@BravingRuin
"don't forget to drink the water, humans like water"
4:37 AM - Apr 11, 2018
161K
55.3K people are talking about this
The Tragedy of James Comey - New York Times
The Tragedy of James Comey
James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in June.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
David Leonhardt
By David Leonhardt
Opinion Columnist
April 8, 2018
James Comey is about to be ubiquitous. His book will be published next week, and parts may leak this week. Starting Sunday, he will begin an epic publicity tour, including interviews with Stephen Colbert, David Remnick, Rachel Maddow, Mike Allen, George Stephanopoulos and “The View.”
All of which will raise the question: What, ultimately, are we supposed to make of Comey?
He may be the most significant supporting player of the Trump era, and his reputation has whipsawed over the last two years. He’s spent time as a villain, a savior and some bizarre combination of the two, depending on your political views.
I think that the harshest criticisms of Comey have been unfair all along. He has never been a partisan, for either side. Over a long career at the Justice Department, he was driven by its best ideals: upholding the rule of law without fear or favor. His strengths allowed him to resist political pressure from more than one president of the United States.
Yet anybody who’s read Greek tragedy knows that strengths can turn into weaknesses when a person becomes too confident in those strengths. And that’s the key to understanding the very complex story of James Comey.
Long before he was a household name, Comey was a revered figure within legal circles. His rise was fairly typical: first a federal judge’s clerk, then a prosecutor, eventually a political appointee. But he was more charismatic than most bureaucrats — six feet eight inches tall, with an easy wit and refreshing informality. People loved working for him.
If you read his 2005 goodbye speech to the Justice Department, when he was stepping down as George W. Bush’s deputy attorney general, you can understand why. It’s funny, displaying the gifts of a storyteller. It includes an extended tribute to the department’s rank and file, like “secretaries, document clerks, custodians and support people who never get thanked enough.” He insists on “the exact same amount of human dignity and respect” for “every human being in this organization,” and he quotes the 18th-century preacher John Wesley: “Do all the good that you can.”
Above all, though, the speech is a celebration of the department’s mission. Many Justice Department officials, from both parties, have long believed that they should be more independent and less political than other cabinet departments. Comey was known as an evangelist of this view. To be a Justice Department employee, he said in his goodbye, is to be “committed to getting it right, and to doing the right thing, whatever the price.”
It wasn’t just an act, either. Comey sometimes chided young prosecutors who had never lost a case, accusing them of caring more about their win-loss record than justice. He told them they were members of the Chicken Excrement Club (or something like that). Most famously, in 2004, he stood up to Bush and Dick Cheney over a dubious surveillance program.
But as real as Comey’s independence and integrity were, they also became part of a persona that he cultivated and relished.
The reason that people knew about his defiance of Bush and Cheney is that Comey himself told Congress, at a stage-managed 2007 hearing. As a former Justice official later told the journalist Garrett Graff, “Jim Comey always has to be positioned oppositional to those in power.”
With this background, you can understand — though not excuse — Comey’s great mistake. He was the F.B.I. director overseeing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. He and his team decided that she had not done anything that warranted criminal charges. And he knew that Republicans would blast him as a coward who was trying to curry favor with the likely future president.
So he decided to go public with his explanation for not charging Clinton and to criticize her harshly. He then doubled down, releasing a public update on the investigation 11 days before the election, even as other Justice officials urged him not to. Department policy dictates that investigators aren’t supposed to talk publicly about why they are not bringing charges. They especially don’t do so when they could affect an election.
Comey, however, decided that he knew better than everyone else. He was the righteous Jim Comey, after all. He was going to speak truth to power. He was also, not incidentally, going to protect his own fearless image. He developed a series of rationales, suggesting that he really had no choice. They remain unpersuasive. When doing the right thing meant staying quiet and taking some lumps, Comey chose not to.
His tragic mistake matters because of the giant consequences for the country. He helped elect the most dangerous, unfit American president of our lifetimes. No matter how brave Comey has since been, no matter how honorable his full career, he can never undo that damage.
As he takes over the spotlight again, I’ll be thinking about the human lessons as well the political ones. Comey has greater strengths than most people. But for all of us, there is a fine line between strength and hubris.
James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee in June.CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times
David Leonhardt
By David Leonhardt
Opinion Columnist
April 8, 2018
James Comey is about to be ubiquitous. His book will be published next week, and parts may leak this week. Starting Sunday, he will begin an epic publicity tour, including interviews with Stephen Colbert, David Remnick, Rachel Maddow, Mike Allen, George Stephanopoulos and “The View.”
All of which will raise the question: What, ultimately, are we supposed to make of Comey?
He may be the most significant supporting player of the Trump era, and his reputation has whipsawed over the last two years. He’s spent time as a villain, a savior and some bizarre combination of the two, depending on your political views.
I think that the harshest criticisms of Comey have been unfair all along. He has never been a partisan, for either side. Over a long career at the Justice Department, he was driven by its best ideals: upholding the rule of law without fear or favor. His strengths allowed him to resist political pressure from more than one president of the United States.
Yet anybody who’s read Greek tragedy knows that strengths can turn into weaknesses when a person becomes too confident in those strengths. And that’s the key to understanding the very complex story of James Comey.
Long before he was a household name, Comey was a revered figure within legal circles. His rise was fairly typical: first a federal judge’s clerk, then a prosecutor, eventually a political appointee. But he was more charismatic than most bureaucrats — six feet eight inches tall, with an easy wit and refreshing informality. People loved working for him.
If you read his 2005 goodbye speech to the Justice Department, when he was stepping down as George W. Bush’s deputy attorney general, you can understand why. It’s funny, displaying the gifts of a storyteller. It includes an extended tribute to the department’s rank and file, like “secretaries, document clerks, custodians and support people who never get thanked enough.” He insists on “the exact same amount of human dignity and respect” for “every human being in this organization,” and he quotes the 18th-century preacher John Wesley: “Do all the good that you can.”
Above all, though, the speech is a celebration of the department’s mission. Many Justice Department officials, from both parties, have long believed that they should be more independent and less political than other cabinet departments. Comey was known as an evangelist of this view. To be a Justice Department employee, he said in his goodbye, is to be “committed to getting it right, and to doing the right thing, whatever the price.”
It wasn’t just an act, either. Comey sometimes chided young prosecutors who had never lost a case, accusing them of caring more about their win-loss record than justice. He told them they were members of the Chicken Excrement Club (or something like that). Most famously, in 2004, he stood up to Bush and Dick Cheney over a dubious surveillance program.
But as real as Comey’s independence and integrity were, they also became part of a persona that he cultivated and relished.
The reason that people knew about his defiance of Bush and Cheney is that Comey himself told Congress, at a stage-managed 2007 hearing. As a former Justice official later told the journalist Garrett Graff, “Jim Comey always has to be positioned oppositional to those in power.”
With this background, you can understand — though not excuse — Comey’s great mistake. He was the F.B.I. director overseeing the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server. He and his team decided that she had not done anything that warranted criminal charges. And he knew that Republicans would blast him as a coward who was trying to curry favor with the likely future president.
So he decided to go public with his explanation for not charging Clinton and to criticize her harshly. He then doubled down, releasing a public update on the investigation 11 days before the election, even as other Justice officials urged him not to. Department policy dictates that investigators aren’t supposed to talk publicly about why they are not bringing charges. They especially don’t do so when they could affect an election.
Comey, however, decided that he knew better than everyone else. He was the righteous Jim Comey, after all. He was going to speak truth to power. He was also, not incidentally, going to protect his own fearless image. He developed a series of rationales, suggesting that he really had no choice. They remain unpersuasive. When doing the right thing meant staying quiet and taking some lumps, Comey chose not to.
His tragic mistake matters because of the giant consequences for the country. He helped elect the most dangerous, unfit American president of our lifetimes. No matter how brave Comey has since been, no matter how honorable his full career, he can never undo that damage.
As he takes over the spotlight again, I’ll be thinking about the human lessons as well the political ones. Comey has greater strengths than most people. But for all of us, there is a fine line between strength and hubris.
10 Powerful Women on How #MeToo Has Changed the Fight for Equal Pay - TIME Business
10 Powerful Women on How #MeToo Has Changed the Fight for Equal Pay
Posted: 10 Apr 2018 03:00 AM PDT
The last year has proven to be a transformational one for women in the workplace.
Starting last October, women (and men) in industries around the country began coming forward with stories of sexual harassment and and assault in the workplace following a slew of allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein — driving greater awareness to the #MeToo movement and creating initiatives like Time’s Up. Now, companies are scrambling to clear house of employees who have used their power to sexually harass or assault their colleagues — and, in some cases, have replaced the ousted men with women.
But dismissing bad eggs doesn’t fix the culture that enabled them. On Equal Pay Day 2018, which falls on April 10, women still earned $0.80 on the dollar compared to their male counterparts — and that pay gap is more pronounced for women of color. Executives and workplace leaders cite power as the key dynamic that can lead to the sexual harassment and targeting of employees — and money, as some say, is power.
Though the average amount a woman makes compared to her male colleague hasn’t shift much in recent years, change is afoot. Cities across the country have passed laws banning companies from asking prospective employees their salary histories — a move equal pay advocates say will help end the perpetuation of the gender wage gap and create a more even playing field. Advocates have also encouraged companies to provide greater transparency with their payrolls, giving women the chance to better leverage themselves in salary negotiations and hold companies accountable. And having more diverse and female leaderships on boards and in C-suite positions could help advance these culture and policy shifts.
Still, estimates from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research show the pay gap won’t be closed for women until at least 2059 — and not until 2233 for Hispanic women and 2124 for black women. In recent months, companies like Starbucks and Adobe have announced they’ve reached pay parity. But there’s still a long road ahead for universal equal pay.
Ahead of Equal Pay Day, TIME spoke with 10 powerful female leaders and executives about their thoughts on equal pay and what is next for an issue that can’t quite seem to go away. Here’s what they said.
Kimberly Churches
President and CEO of the American Association for University Women
On how equal pay relates to other workplace challenges women face: I really look at this as a Venn diagram: sexual harassment in the workplace, eliminating the pay gap and ensuring the leadership gap is filled. It really is about equity in pay, equity in leadership and ensuring we’re having environments in every workplace that are good for men and women. We really look at that as a triple threat for women, and it gets to issues of productivity. If women are faced with sexism and harassing behavior in the workplace, that’s taking away time they could be using towards the organization’s ROY (return on investment).
On how #MeToo will change how workplaces view cultural issues: This is not a PR problem that [companies] should just be addressing with NDAs and pay-offs quietly. This is a cultural problem that when the next generations come up, they’re going to lose certain employee pipelines if they don’t work on that culture problem. Employers are thinking about moving beyond their values written on the wall and actually ensuring that they are living their values and being much more proactive about doing increased education and training rather than doing reactive.
On equipping women to negotiate higher salaries with the AAUW’s WorkSmart program: It’s about making sure they really understand both what the marketplace will bear based on their experience, what their value add is to the organization, and setting clear where they are in the scheme of this so they can, really proactively based on that research, couple that with the qualitative skills of understanding how to negotiate. That’s what we’re working on with the WorkSmart program. It really is arming women around the nation with the tools that they need to really help their families thrive economically.
Letitia James
New York City Public Advocate
Getty Images
On banning employers from asking questions about salary history in New York City: No one should be judged on their past salaries. They’ll be judged on their skills and what they bring to the table, and no longer will their past salaries follow them or be attached with them all the way until retirement. It’s really important that individual employers be more conspicuous in posting salaries and they hire based on one’s ability, as opposed to one’s previous salary.
On how #MeToo is changing workplaces: The #MeToo movement obviously is advancing policies that create safe workplaces and workplaces that are free of discrimination and free of harassment. A lot of things are coming to the forefront as a result of the activism that we are seeing, both in the gender equality space and in other spaces, including but not limited to gun control. And again, it’s because of what is happening on the national level, the ground is shaking and I think change is happening right before our eyes.
On how Trump’s election win inspired progressives to work harder on women’s issues: He’s awakened the sleeping giant, and to a certain extent, that is a good thing. We took a lot of things for granted, and now, with so many things being taken away from us, everything’s on the table, everything’s up for debate, everything’s at risk. We’re seeing more and more change happening and rightfully so, and we’re seeing more and more individuals in Congress retire, and that’s always a good thing. And most of them happen to be male, pale and stale.
Megan Colligan
Former worldwide president of marketing and distribution at Paramount Pictures
Getty Images
On the importance of Time’s Up and having support networks: A lot is built into the system that is intended to devalue you, and it’s really important to try as much as possible to create a really strong system around women so they feel emboldened to be strong and to get paid for what they’re worth. It’s 2018. It feels, to me, at times ludicrous that this is still a conversation, but it really is a deep, deep issue that goes into nearly every industry and is a real problem. And a far greater problem if you are a woman of color It is something that really deserves addressing.
On why boardrooms must be diverse: If you’re sitting with a monolithic group of people, and those 10 people all represent the exact same thing — they are all 58-year-old, heterosexual white guys with three kids who live on the westside of Los Angeles — by definition, you are going to limit your ability to have a thoughtful, meaningful, dynamic conversation about a piece of material or decision about anything. You’re going to have blinders on, you’re going to miss nuance, you’re going to miss interpretation. It is impossible to have somebody else’s point of you, no matter how empathetic or how open-minded you are. As a business leader in today’s culture, it is imperative if you want to run a great business, that you value diversity of thought and diversity of background as a premium to running a great business. It is no longer acceptable that what you’re doing is casting a boardroom that makes you feel comfortable or people that make you feel like you’re looking in a sea of mirrors. You’re not meant to be reflecting back your own thoughts or ideas or seeing people that look you.
Arianna Huffington
CEO of Thrive Global, Founder of the Huffington Post
Getty Images
On how the fight for equal pay is changing: What’s changing now is consumer pressure – more and more people, especially young people, expect and even demand that the brands they identify with align with certain core principles. And that increasingly means equal pay and diversity. There’s also the fact that companies with more diversity in their leadership perform better.
On what’s next for Time’s Up: We shouldn’t limit the discussion just to explicit harassment, because it’s our entire workplace culture that needs to change. Far too many workplaces are fueled by a culture of machismo, which affects the day-to-day experience of women at every level. We need to change the conditions that create a fertile breeding ground not just for harassment but for the idea that it’s okay to talk over women, devalue them, ignore their contributions and silence their voices in ways big and small.
On how workplaces can be improved for women: Ending our culture of burnout. Yes, it affects everyone, but women pay the highest price. Given that women are more likely to be doing more work at home than men, workplaces in which being expected to be always on and sleep deprivation are taken as a proxy for commitment and dedication become a backdoor way of excluding women or at least making it harder for them to advance.
Jennifer Hyman
CEO and co-founder of Rent the Runway
Getty Images
On #MeToo and Times Up’s impact on the equal pay fight: This is a moment where employees should band together and advocate for themselves, because corporations and leaders are listening now more than they ever had in history. So if women in an organization were to ban together and demand equal pay, there’s more of a chance that’s going to happen now and there will be attention around the issue than there would’ve been a few years ago.
On how companies without pay equity will get pushed out down the road: I think that businesses that continue to be homogenous will see themselves faltering and will overtime disappear. There’s more choice than ever for young, smart people as to where they can work, and where to spend a career. … This is not a generation that’s going to sit back and be quiet like previous generations have before them. When something is wrong and immoral, they’re going to speak up. Unless business leaders understand the future of their employee base is not willing to accept the unequal environment that has perpetuated in the past, they’re not going to be around in the future.
Andrea Jung
CEO of Grameen America; former CEO of Avon
Getty Images
On what it takes to solve the gender wage gap: There are a lot of things that may require policy. This is not one of them. This is simply asking the question. This should not be difficult. There are many things culturally and policy-wise that will take some time. This one could solved tomorrow. It’s unacceptable, as far as I’m concerned, that, again, men and women, alike, who are leading companies, who are on boards, who are running HR, don’t just absolutely take a look at it and say tomorrow it stops. If we adjusted pay, and it doesn’t have to be all in one day, but if we made a commitment to adjust pay to ensure women are paid the same as men, particularly when we hire and promote, you begin to deal with an issue that should be resolved by the end of 2018. There’s just now way we should be going into the next decade with inequality for the same job.
On how #MeToo and #Time’sUp play a role in equal pay: It’s sort of an existential moment for equality, and I think MeToo and Time’s Up, while the original focus has been on harassment, I think it is about equality. They are integrally linked, and there is no question in my mind that it’s Times Up for $0.80. MeToo also means I should be earning a dollar for a dollar. I don’t think this genie can get put back in its bottle. I think this is a defining moment.which can in fact move the needle finally on long-awaited equality in the workplace.
On how the gender wage gap hurts not just women: Equality in the financial space is critical to mobility and to not only self-confidence, but to participation and the country. There’s no way that the economy in the United States can grow without women participating and equally.
Debra Lee
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BET Network
Getty Images
On how barrier-breaking women can help solve the wage gap: I think younger women are expecting more. I look at my 24-year-old daughter, and she grew up in a different time than I did, so she saw the steps I was able to make and the accomplishments that I was able to do. But she also has her own expectation of what women should be in the workplace. I think each generation is a little bit more demanding in terms of work-life balance or how they were treated in the workplace. I look at my mother’s generation and, well, she had to work. My sister’s generation, they made a decision between work and being a mother. My generation, I think was the first that said, ‘Hey, we can do both. We can be mothers, and be married, and have families and have careers.’ I just can’t imagine what this next generation’s going to do because they’re so much more self-confident. I just have really high hopes for them, that they’re going to really set this world on fire. Because of all of these things they’ve seen happening, they’re just not going to let it happen anymore. When you think of the number of women who have been quiet through #MeToo moments, and now all of sudden people have the courage to speak out? Well, hopefully this will be a signal to all of our daughters that you never have to take anything like this again. I’m optimistic that each generation gets a little bit more equal and we’ve got to keep moving the ball down the court, and hopefully there won’t be any setbacks.
On her work for Time’s Up on creating more diverse board rooms: The board is the starting point for having women especially be seen as an important part of a company. It’s a statement to the shareholders, it’s a statement to employees and executives at the company, that the company is committed to women’s advancement.
On the importance of elevating the voices of women of color: We have to include the voices of women of color. I think with the #MeToo movement, it was important to go back and say, ‘Now wait a moment, this black woman came up this term 10 years ago.’
You don’t want young people feeling like if you look a certain way or if you come from a certain place, your issues are going to be taken more seriously. All of these issues are important, and as you said, with women of color making less than white women, that’s an issue we should talk about . We should have the voices of a diverse group of people. Just like all of the other issues, it’s just really important to make sure we hear from different kinds of people.
Patty McCord
Author and former Netflix chief talent officer
On how female-dominated departments can fix the wage gap: What are the three typically most-female dominated in a company? Sales and marketing, finance and HR. I say: Fix pay? We own it. We’re in charge of our destiny. Find your power, and do something about this. It’s called writing checks. I think pay is so fundamental, and, you know, everything else gets very nuanced.
On how #MeToo and #TimesUp have empowered women to demand equal pay: I tell people, look, I’m about to get all shrill on you. I’m going to be aggressive. I’m going to be assertive. I’m going to be bossy. I’m going to be a nasty woman. I’m going to persist. Because I’ve had it. I don’t mean that we shouldn’t pay attention to the soft stuff, I don’t. But we gotta fix pay. Right? You’re going to feel a hell of a lot more powerful, and a hell of a lot stronger, and a hell of a lot more able to stand up for yourself when you’re paid fairly. Right? And then the search for equality is about that: equality.
On knowing your worth: Understanding your worth — what your worth — is a really important financial decision that all of us should be thinking about and not just being passively waiting for it. It’s more about getting information and data to help inform you about what you’re worth, because you’re worth what somebody else will pay you to do what it is you know how to do. It’s a market. It really is a market system in most places, but it’s not if you’re inside of a corporation with a fixed compensation scheme that traps you inside of it. For example, if you go out and interview — which is one of the ways I recommend you find out what you’re worth, and a good exercise to do anyway — it keeps you limber. It’s a skill you should keep up.
Claudia Mirza
CEO and co-founder of Akorbi, a global language translation company
On the importance of having diverse boardrooms: You need to be really thoughtful about diversity in the boardroom. Boardrooms do not necessarily have a lot of diversity in them, so I would say in order to promote equal pay and equal opportunity to women at work, it goes more than that. The diversity of the boardroom is extremely critical, but also diversity in the executive level. I remember that I was the only woman at work in the executive team, and really the executive team was not that exciting. We were working and everything, but the moment we added a woman to the room, we realized it really changed.
On how #MeToo and #TimesUp show a company’s strength is in its principles: It goes back to the foundation of a business. Going back to diverse boardrooms, where women are involved and women and male are equally — and also, community, and diversity, people with disabilities — we have the opportunity to hear their equal perspective. But also creating the right avenues for people to report them. [...] You have to create different avenues and workflows for people to be able to report irregular activities.
On the power of teaching negotiation strategies early on: Negotiation has a technique, and we cannot be victims of negotiation tactics in order to evaluate the value of ourselves. It is important for us as women to understand how to value ourselves and bring those negotiation tactics, and that’s by building that. We need to teach our girls to be bold, to not to think they are less than a man and empower them from childhood to believe that everything is possible.
Donna Morris
Executive Vice President of Customer and Employee Experience at Adobe
Getty Images
On what companies should value — and how female leadership can help: If you fundamentally believe that people are the most important asset to your company, why wouldn’t you seek to establish practices and programs, and have a principal that you should compensate fairly based on their contribution? It just seems crazy that one group would be disadvantaged relative to another group. I think the role that women in leadership can play is that they can bring in different perspectives, which is important, just like men can bring in different perspectives to a group that might be made up of all women.
Time’s up for the companies that haven’t addressed pay gaps. It’s really up. I cannot understand why companies can be satisfied with operating with pay gaps between gender or between ethnic groups here in the U.S. It’s unacceptable.
On the importance of speaking up: I think what the MeToo and the Time’s Up movements have done — which I view as a very good thing — it has really given individuals confidence to speak up. I think that confidence comes as much from men as it does from women. There’s a tendency to believe MeToo or Time’s Up is all about women. I actually think it’s a lot about empowering men as well. Empowering men to speak up, and I think that’s equally powerful.
On standardized pay for new hires: I’m actually an advocate for having standardized pay. That’s less about people at certain schools earn more than those from other schools. Why should it matter? You got a degree, you got a certain amount of experience, shouldn’t now it be an equal playing field? I think there are lots of merits to having more standardizations earlier on in your career.
Posted: 10 Apr 2018 03:00 AM PDT
The last year has proven to be a transformational one for women in the workplace.
Starting last October, women (and men) in industries around the country began coming forward with stories of sexual harassment and and assault in the workplace following a slew of allegations against film producer Harvey Weinstein — driving greater awareness to the #MeToo movement and creating initiatives like Time’s Up. Now, companies are scrambling to clear house of employees who have used their power to sexually harass or assault their colleagues — and, in some cases, have replaced the ousted men with women.
But dismissing bad eggs doesn’t fix the culture that enabled them. On Equal Pay Day 2018, which falls on April 10, women still earned $0.80 on the dollar compared to their male counterparts — and that pay gap is more pronounced for women of color. Executives and workplace leaders cite power as the key dynamic that can lead to the sexual harassment and targeting of employees — and money, as some say, is power.
Though the average amount a woman makes compared to her male colleague hasn’t shift much in recent years, change is afoot. Cities across the country have passed laws banning companies from asking prospective employees their salary histories — a move equal pay advocates say will help end the perpetuation of the gender wage gap and create a more even playing field. Advocates have also encouraged companies to provide greater transparency with their payrolls, giving women the chance to better leverage themselves in salary negotiations and hold companies accountable. And having more diverse and female leaderships on boards and in C-suite positions could help advance these culture and policy shifts.
Still, estimates from the Institute for Women’s Policy Research show the pay gap won’t be closed for women until at least 2059 — and not until 2233 for Hispanic women and 2124 for black women. In recent months, companies like Starbucks and Adobe have announced they’ve reached pay parity. But there’s still a long road ahead for universal equal pay.
Ahead of Equal Pay Day, TIME spoke with 10 powerful female leaders and executives about their thoughts on equal pay and what is next for an issue that can’t quite seem to go away. Here’s what they said.
Kimberly Churches
President and CEO of the American Association for University Women
On how equal pay relates to other workplace challenges women face: I really look at this as a Venn diagram: sexual harassment in the workplace, eliminating the pay gap and ensuring the leadership gap is filled. It really is about equity in pay, equity in leadership and ensuring we’re having environments in every workplace that are good for men and women. We really look at that as a triple threat for women, and it gets to issues of productivity. If women are faced with sexism and harassing behavior in the workplace, that’s taking away time they could be using towards the organization’s ROY (return on investment).
On how #MeToo will change how workplaces view cultural issues: This is not a PR problem that [companies] should just be addressing with NDAs and pay-offs quietly. This is a cultural problem that when the next generations come up, they’re going to lose certain employee pipelines if they don’t work on that culture problem. Employers are thinking about moving beyond their values written on the wall and actually ensuring that they are living their values and being much more proactive about doing increased education and training rather than doing reactive.
On equipping women to negotiate higher salaries with the AAUW’s WorkSmart program: It’s about making sure they really understand both what the marketplace will bear based on their experience, what their value add is to the organization, and setting clear where they are in the scheme of this so they can, really proactively based on that research, couple that with the qualitative skills of understanding how to negotiate. That’s what we’re working on with the WorkSmart program. It really is arming women around the nation with the tools that they need to really help their families thrive economically.
Letitia James
New York City Public Advocate
Getty Images
On banning employers from asking questions about salary history in New York City: No one should be judged on their past salaries. They’ll be judged on their skills and what they bring to the table, and no longer will their past salaries follow them or be attached with them all the way until retirement. It’s really important that individual employers be more conspicuous in posting salaries and they hire based on one’s ability, as opposed to one’s previous salary.
On how #MeToo is changing workplaces: The #MeToo movement obviously is advancing policies that create safe workplaces and workplaces that are free of discrimination and free of harassment. A lot of things are coming to the forefront as a result of the activism that we are seeing, both in the gender equality space and in other spaces, including but not limited to gun control. And again, it’s because of what is happening on the national level, the ground is shaking and I think change is happening right before our eyes.
On how Trump’s election win inspired progressives to work harder on women’s issues: He’s awakened the sleeping giant, and to a certain extent, that is a good thing. We took a lot of things for granted, and now, with so many things being taken away from us, everything’s on the table, everything’s up for debate, everything’s at risk. We’re seeing more and more change happening and rightfully so, and we’re seeing more and more individuals in Congress retire, and that’s always a good thing. And most of them happen to be male, pale and stale.
Megan Colligan
Former worldwide president of marketing and distribution at Paramount Pictures
Getty Images
On the importance of Time’s Up and having support networks: A lot is built into the system that is intended to devalue you, and it’s really important to try as much as possible to create a really strong system around women so they feel emboldened to be strong and to get paid for what they’re worth. It’s 2018. It feels, to me, at times ludicrous that this is still a conversation, but it really is a deep, deep issue that goes into nearly every industry and is a real problem. And a far greater problem if you are a woman of color It is something that really deserves addressing.
On why boardrooms must be diverse: If you’re sitting with a monolithic group of people, and those 10 people all represent the exact same thing — they are all 58-year-old, heterosexual white guys with three kids who live on the westside of Los Angeles — by definition, you are going to limit your ability to have a thoughtful, meaningful, dynamic conversation about a piece of material or decision about anything. You’re going to have blinders on, you’re going to miss nuance, you’re going to miss interpretation. It is impossible to have somebody else’s point of you, no matter how empathetic or how open-minded you are. As a business leader in today’s culture, it is imperative if you want to run a great business, that you value diversity of thought and diversity of background as a premium to running a great business. It is no longer acceptable that what you’re doing is casting a boardroom that makes you feel comfortable or people that make you feel like you’re looking in a sea of mirrors. You’re not meant to be reflecting back your own thoughts or ideas or seeing people that look you.
Arianna Huffington
CEO of Thrive Global, Founder of the Huffington Post
Getty Images
On how the fight for equal pay is changing: What’s changing now is consumer pressure – more and more people, especially young people, expect and even demand that the brands they identify with align with certain core principles. And that increasingly means equal pay and diversity. There’s also the fact that companies with more diversity in their leadership perform better.
On what’s next for Time’s Up: We shouldn’t limit the discussion just to explicit harassment, because it’s our entire workplace culture that needs to change. Far too many workplaces are fueled by a culture of machismo, which affects the day-to-day experience of women at every level. We need to change the conditions that create a fertile breeding ground not just for harassment but for the idea that it’s okay to talk over women, devalue them, ignore their contributions and silence their voices in ways big and small.
On how workplaces can be improved for women: Ending our culture of burnout. Yes, it affects everyone, but women pay the highest price. Given that women are more likely to be doing more work at home than men, workplaces in which being expected to be always on and sleep deprivation are taken as a proxy for commitment and dedication become a backdoor way of excluding women or at least making it harder for them to advance.
Jennifer Hyman
CEO and co-founder of Rent the Runway
Getty Images
On #MeToo and Times Up’s impact on the equal pay fight: This is a moment where employees should band together and advocate for themselves, because corporations and leaders are listening now more than they ever had in history. So if women in an organization were to ban together and demand equal pay, there’s more of a chance that’s going to happen now and there will be attention around the issue than there would’ve been a few years ago.
On how companies without pay equity will get pushed out down the road: I think that businesses that continue to be homogenous will see themselves faltering and will overtime disappear. There’s more choice than ever for young, smart people as to where they can work, and where to spend a career. … This is not a generation that’s going to sit back and be quiet like previous generations have before them. When something is wrong and immoral, they’re going to speak up. Unless business leaders understand the future of their employee base is not willing to accept the unequal environment that has perpetuated in the past, they’re not going to be around in the future.
Andrea Jung
CEO of Grameen America; former CEO of Avon
Getty Images
On what it takes to solve the gender wage gap: There are a lot of things that may require policy. This is not one of them. This is simply asking the question. This should not be difficult. There are many things culturally and policy-wise that will take some time. This one could solved tomorrow. It’s unacceptable, as far as I’m concerned, that, again, men and women, alike, who are leading companies, who are on boards, who are running HR, don’t just absolutely take a look at it and say tomorrow it stops. If we adjusted pay, and it doesn’t have to be all in one day, but if we made a commitment to adjust pay to ensure women are paid the same as men, particularly when we hire and promote, you begin to deal with an issue that should be resolved by the end of 2018. There’s just now way we should be going into the next decade with inequality for the same job.
On how #MeToo and #Time’sUp play a role in equal pay: It’s sort of an existential moment for equality, and I think MeToo and Time’s Up, while the original focus has been on harassment, I think it is about equality. They are integrally linked, and there is no question in my mind that it’s Times Up for $0.80. MeToo also means I should be earning a dollar for a dollar. I don’t think this genie can get put back in its bottle. I think this is a defining moment.which can in fact move the needle finally on long-awaited equality in the workplace.
On how the gender wage gap hurts not just women: Equality in the financial space is critical to mobility and to not only self-confidence, but to participation and the country. There’s no way that the economy in the United States can grow without women participating and equally.
Debra Lee
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of BET Network
Getty Images
On how barrier-breaking women can help solve the wage gap: I think younger women are expecting more. I look at my 24-year-old daughter, and she grew up in a different time than I did, so she saw the steps I was able to make and the accomplishments that I was able to do. But she also has her own expectation of what women should be in the workplace. I think each generation is a little bit more demanding in terms of work-life balance or how they were treated in the workplace. I look at my mother’s generation and, well, she had to work. My sister’s generation, they made a decision between work and being a mother. My generation, I think was the first that said, ‘Hey, we can do both. We can be mothers, and be married, and have families and have careers.’ I just can’t imagine what this next generation’s going to do because they’re so much more self-confident. I just have really high hopes for them, that they’re going to really set this world on fire. Because of all of these things they’ve seen happening, they’re just not going to let it happen anymore. When you think of the number of women who have been quiet through #MeToo moments, and now all of sudden people have the courage to speak out? Well, hopefully this will be a signal to all of our daughters that you never have to take anything like this again. I’m optimistic that each generation gets a little bit more equal and we’ve got to keep moving the ball down the court, and hopefully there won’t be any setbacks.
On her work for Time’s Up on creating more diverse board rooms: The board is the starting point for having women especially be seen as an important part of a company. It’s a statement to the shareholders, it’s a statement to employees and executives at the company, that the company is committed to women’s advancement.
On the importance of elevating the voices of women of color: We have to include the voices of women of color. I think with the #MeToo movement, it was important to go back and say, ‘Now wait a moment, this black woman came up this term 10 years ago.’
You don’t want young people feeling like if you look a certain way or if you come from a certain place, your issues are going to be taken more seriously. All of these issues are important, and as you said, with women of color making less than white women, that’s an issue we should talk about . We should have the voices of a diverse group of people. Just like all of the other issues, it’s just really important to make sure we hear from different kinds of people.
Patty McCord
Author and former Netflix chief talent officer
On how female-dominated departments can fix the wage gap: What are the three typically most-female dominated in a company? Sales and marketing, finance and HR. I say: Fix pay? We own it. We’re in charge of our destiny. Find your power, and do something about this. It’s called writing checks. I think pay is so fundamental, and, you know, everything else gets very nuanced.
On how #MeToo and #TimesUp have empowered women to demand equal pay: I tell people, look, I’m about to get all shrill on you. I’m going to be aggressive. I’m going to be assertive. I’m going to be bossy. I’m going to be a nasty woman. I’m going to persist. Because I’ve had it. I don’t mean that we shouldn’t pay attention to the soft stuff, I don’t. But we gotta fix pay. Right? You’re going to feel a hell of a lot more powerful, and a hell of a lot stronger, and a hell of a lot more able to stand up for yourself when you’re paid fairly. Right? And then the search for equality is about that: equality.
On knowing your worth: Understanding your worth — what your worth — is a really important financial decision that all of us should be thinking about and not just being passively waiting for it. It’s more about getting information and data to help inform you about what you’re worth, because you’re worth what somebody else will pay you to do what it is you know how to do. It’s a market. It really is a market system in most places, but it’s not if you’re inside of a corporation with a fixed compensation scheme that traps you inside of it. For example, if you go out and interview — which is one of the ways I recommend you find out what you’re worth, and a good exercise to do anyway — it keeps you limber. It’s a skill you should keep up.
Claudia Mirza
CEO and co-founder of Akorbi, a global language translation company
On the importance of having diverse boardrooms: You need to be really thoughtful about diversity in the boardroom. Boardrooms do not necessarily have a lot of diversity in them, so I would say in order to promote equal pay and equal opportunity to women at work, it goes more than that. The diversity of the boardroom is extremely critical, but also diversity in the executive level. I remember that I was the only woman at work in the executive team, and really the executive team was not that exciting. We were working and everything, but the moment we added a woman to the room, we realized it really changed.
On how #MeToo and #TimesUp show a company’s strength is in its principles: It goes back to the foundation of a business. Going back to diverse boardrooms, where women are involved and women and male are equally — and also, community, and diversity, people with disabilities — we have the opportunity to hear their equal perspective. But also creating the right avenues for people to report them. [...] You have to create different avenues and workflows for people to be able to report irregular activities.
On the power of teaching negotiation strategies early on: Negotiation has a technique, and we cannot be victims of negotiation tactics in order to evaluate the value of ourselves. It is important for us as women to understand how to value ourselves and bring those negotiation tactics, and that’s by building that. We need to teach our girls to be bold, to not to think they are less than a man and empower them from childhood to believe that everything is possible.
Donna Morris
Executive Vice President of Customer and Employee Experience at Adobe
Getty Images
On what companies should value — and how female leadership can help: If you fundamentally believe that people are the most important asset to your company, why wouldn’t you seek to establish practices and programs, and have a principal that you should compensate fairly based on their contribution? It just seems crazy that one group would be disadvantaged relative to another group. I think the role that women in leadership can play is that they can bring in different perspectives, which is important, just like men can bring in different perspectives to a group that might be made up of all women.
Time’s up for the companies that haven’t addressed pay gaps. It’s really up. I cannot understand why companies can be satisfied with operating with pay gaps between gender or between ethnic groups here in the U.S. It’s unacceptable.
On the importance of speaking up: I think what the MeToo and the Time’s Up movements have done — which I view as a very good thing — it has really given individuals confidence to speak up. I think that confidence comes as much from men as it does from women. There’s a tendency to believe MeToo or Time’s Up is all about women. I actually think it’s a lot about empowering men as well. Empowering men to speak up, and I think that’s equally powerful.
On standardized pay for new hires: I’m actually an advocate for having standardized pay. That’s less about people at certain schools earn more than those from other schools. Why should it matter? You got a degree, you got a certain amount of experience, shouldn’t now it be an equal playing field? I think there are lots of merits to having more standardizations earlier on in your career.
China’s Xi Jinping Offers Trade Concessions, but They May Not Be Enough to Satisfy Trump - TIME
China’s Xi Jinping Offers Trade Concessions, but They May Not Be Enough to Satisfy Trump
Posted: 10 Apr 2018 12:38 AM PDT
It was a conciliatory gesture, though far from surrender. Chinese President Xi Jinping moved Tuesday to dampen the roiling trade dispute with the U.S. by pledging to “significantly lower” tariffs on imported American cars and further open his nation’s markets to foreign investment, thus helping to stave off fears of an escalating trade war prompted by U.S. President Donald Trump’s accusations of unfair trade practices.
Speaking to business and world leaders on China’s holiday island of Hainan at the Boao Forum — branded as China’s answer to the World Economic Forum at Davos — Xi defended globalization, said he would to explore opening more free trade zones and actively promote multilateralism.
“China’s door will not close [to the world] and will only open wider and wider,” Xi told the audience, which included IMF chief Christine Lagarde, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte and Hong Kong’s leader Carrie Lam.
It was Xi’s first major address since tensions between China and the U.S. spiked over alleged intellectual property (IP) theft and a trade imbalance, resulting in threats of over $150 billion in reciprocal tariffs between the world’s two biggest economies. Markets have been spooked as business leaders fear a full-blown trade war.
Addressing the trade imbalance at a cabinet meeting Monday, Trump said, “China has been taking advantage of the United States for many years … and they have really done a number on this country.”
Read more: How China Could Use ‘America First’ to Its Advantage
By contrast, Chinese officials have characterized the spat as between Beijing-led multilateralism and nativist American unilateralism. “We should act on the vision of common, cooperative, and sustainable security and firmly uphold the international order and system underpinned by the principles in the U.N. charter,” Xi told Boao, slamming “Cold War” and “zero-sum” mentalities in a clear riposte to Trump’s broadsides.
Xi’s announcement of trade concessions is a positive development, though it remains to be seen how, or if, these measures come to pass. China has for years pledged to allow American credit cards into the country — most recently during Xi’s first encounter with Trump at Mar-a-Lago last April — though this has yet to happen. At Boao, Xi said the unspecified auto tariff reduction would take effect “this year” and access issues tackled “as soon as possible.”
“With China historically, there’s always been a difference between what’s declared and what’s actually implemented,” says Jim Nolt, an Asia specialist with World Policy Institute.
In addition, as Trump’s goal is reducing America’s current record $375.2 billion trade deficit with China, which the former reality television star speciously claims has cost America millions of jobs and 60,000 factories, it’s unlikely that the sort of tariff reductions Xi proffered would do much to eat into this figure — and certainly not by the $100 billion Trump has targeted. “With a lot of effort, it might be possible to reduce this by $100 billion for a year, but not permanently,” says Derek Scissors, an economist focusing on China at the American Enterprise Institute.
CHINA-ECONOMY AFP/Getty Images Workers loading ships at a port in Nantong, in China’s eastern Jiangsu province, on March 9, 2018.
Regarding Chinese IP theft, which a seven-month investigation by the U.S. Trade Representative alleges costs the U.S. between $225 billion and $600 billion every year, Beijing’s record is certainly poor. But American businesses told that same enquiry that China is taking some positive steps, in 2014 launching special courts to deal with IP that have received positive feedback. “China has been addressing this problem but not to the satisfaction of the U.S.,” says Nolt.
At Boao, Xi was keen to present China as a responsible world partner. He reaffirmed his commitment to low-carbon sustainable development and protecting the environment, a veiled reference to Trump’s widely condemned decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Xi also championed his signature Belt and Road Initiative, a trade and infrastructure network tracing the ancient Silk Road.
“It’s a big thing for China to persuade people that it’s not just working for China’s interests,” says Brown. “To say that it’s presenting an indigenous form of globalization with Chinese characteristics has never been used before.”
Muddying the waters is whether the Trump administration has a more sweeping goal in sight than simply fixing a trade imbalance. In an op-ed in the London Financial Times on Monday, Trump’s notoriously Sinophobic White House Trade Advisor Peter Navarro painted the conflict with Beijing as an existential threat.
Read more: There’s a Real Risk That Trump’s Trade War With China Won’t Change Anything
“Today, Chinese sovereign wealth funds and other state actors are scouring Silicon Valley trying to buy up the crown jewels of the American high-tech industry,” he wrote, adding that China’s GDP has grown from $1.3 trillion to $11.2 trillion over the past 17 years by breaking “every rule in the fair trade book on the way.” In February, FBI Director Christopher Wray even warned of a “whole-of-society” threat from China. “And I think it’s going to take a whole-of-society response by us,” he said.
The Chinese Communist Party — ably aided by its jingoistic state media — has long exploited the phantom of meddlesome Western nations determined to keep China down. The risk, now, is that we may have a White House that is giving that theory some legs, especially as Trump’s latest tariffs put in its crosshairs Xi’s “Made in China 2025” initiative to dominate a string of high-tech strategic industries.
“If your objective is to make China perpetually a small, compliant actor, that’s not going to happen, at least not without a huge amount of conflict — economically and potentially even militarily,” says Kerry Brown, professor of Chinese politics at Kings College London. “It’s economic at the moment but things can spiral out of control.” (On Tuesday, Australia’s Fairfax Media claimed that China and Vanuatu had discussed the possibility of Beijing stationing a permanent military based on the Pacific island nation, in what would be a direct challenge to Washington. Vanuatu reportedly denied the claim.)
But even if the dispute remains economic, the damage could be widespread and severe. Stock markets have already tumbled, and on top of the risk of falling profits for American and Chinese businesses, Nolt says the crisis could possibly leach into the financial sector, given many companies that export abroad borrow against future earnings and may have to default on that debt.
“For me, this is the most serious crisis in the post-War era in terms of trade and financial relations,” he says. “And it could become a much more general crisis that affects the whole world.”
Russia threatens to shoot down any US missiles fired at Syria - Al Jazeera
April 11, 2018
Russia threatens to shoot down any US missiles fired at Syria
Russian ambassador to Lebanon says his country will respond if US and allies strike Syria, amid heightening tensions.
Alexander Zasypkin said he was referring to a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian chief of staff [Al-Manar TV]
Alexander Zasypkin said he was referring to a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian chief of staff [Al-Manar TV]
EU air traffic control agency warns of flights over Syria
today
Oil prices soar over fears of US strike on Syria
today
US to 'respond' to Syria attack; Russia warns of 'repercussions'
today
Trump vows 'major decision'; Putin warns against 'provocation'
yesterday
Russia's ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin has said that his country would respond to any US missiles fired at neighbouring Syria by shooting them down and targeting their launch sites.
In an interview with Hezbollah-owned al-Manar TV on Tuesday, Zasypkin said that "if there is a US missile attack, we - in line with both Putin and Russia's chief of staff's remarks - will shoot down US rockets and even the sources that launched the missiles."
The Russian envoy was referring to comments made by the Russian chief of staff, General Valery Gerasimov, who in March warned that Moscow would shoot down missiles fired towards Syria and would target their launch sites if the attacks threatened members of the Russian army.
Gerasimov said his country would use its weapons against the US if it decided to attack Syrian bases in response to a chemical attack, and if US action endangered Russian army personnel in the country.
In his interview with al-Manar, Zasypkin also said his country made some progress in Syria, including the almost-full "liberation" of Eastern Ghouta near the capital, Damascus, from armed opposition groups.
Zasypkin's remarks come as the US and several European countries threatened to use military action against the Syrian government and its main ally, Russia, in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held town.
Saturday's attack on the town of Douma in Eastern Ghouta has killed dozens of people, mostly women and children, according to activists and local medics.
The Syrian government and Russia have denied that a chemical attack took place.
On Tuesday, rival draft resolutions by the US and Russia to set up a new expert body to probe chemical weapons attacks in Syria both failed to pass at the United Nations Security Council.
James Mattis, US defence secretary, did not rule out any military action against the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, warned Washington was ready to "respond" to the attack regardless of whether the Security Council acted or not.
Meanwhile, the Syrian government has put its forces on "high alert" amid the looming threat of a US military response.
With Russian military assistance, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad launched a bloody offensive on Eastern Ghouta, which had been under rebel control since mid-2013.
Since the start of the aerial bombardment campaign on February 18, the offensive has claimed more than 1,600 civilian lives, and has, through a series of deals reached with rebel groups, internally displaced more than 45,000 people according to the United Nations.
Russia threatens to shoot down any US missiles fired at Syria
Russian ambassador to Lebanon says his country will respond if US and allies strike Syria, amid heightening tensions.
Alexander Zasypkin said he was referring to a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian chief of staff [Al-Manar TV]
Alexander Zasypkin said he was referring to a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian chief of staff [Al-Manar TV]
EU air traffic control agency warns of flights over Syria
today
Oil prices soar over fears of US strike on Syria
today
US to 'respond' to Syria attack; Russia warns of 'repercussions'
today
Trump vows 'major decision'; Putin warns against 'provocation'
yesterday
Russia's ambassador to Lebanon Alexander Zasypkin has said that his country would respond to any US missiles fired at neighbouring Syria by shooting them down and targeting their launch sites.
In an interview with Hezbollah-owned al-Manar TV on Tuesday, Zasypkin said that "if there is a US missile attack, we - in line with both Putin and Russia's chief of staff's remarks - will shoot down US rockets and even the sources that launched the missiles."
The Russian envoy was referring to comments made by the Russian chief of staff, General Valery Gerasimov, who in March warned that Moscow would shoot down missiles fired towards Syria and would target their launch sites if the attacks threatened members of the Russian army.
Gerasimov said his country would use its weapons against the US if it decided to attack Syrian bases in response to a chemical attack, and if US action endangered Russian army personnel in the country.
In his interview with al-Manar, Zasypkin also said his country made some progress in Syria, including the almost-full "liberation" of Eastern Ghouta near the capital, Damascus, from armed opposition groups.
Zasypkin's remarks come as the US and several European countries threatened to use military action against the Syrian government and its main ally, Russia, in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held town.
Saturday's attack on the town of Douma in Eastern Ghouta has killed dozens of people, mostly women and children, according to activists and local medics.
The Syrian government and Russia have denied that a chemical attack took place.
On Tuesday, rival draft resolutions by the US and Russia to set up a new expert body to probe chemical weapons attacks in Syria both failed to pass at the United Nations Security Council.
James Mattis, US defence secretary, did not rule out any military action against the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while US ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, warned Washington was ready to "respond" to the attack regardless of whether the Security Council acted or not.
Meanwhile, the Syrian government has put its forces on "high alert" amid the looming threat of a US military response.
With Russian military assistance, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad launched a bloody offensive on Eastern Ghouta, which had been under rebel control since mid-2013.
Since the start of the aerial bombardment campaign on February 18, the offensive has claimed more than 1,600 civilian lives, and has, through a series of deals reached with rebel groups, internally displaced more than 45,000 people according to the United Nations.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has demanded "unhindered access" to Douma in Syria, to check reports from its partners that 500 people have been affected by a chemical attack there - BBC News
April 11, 2018
Syria war: WHO demands access to 'chemical attack site'
Footage from Douma in the aftermath of the attack appeared to show people using water to counteract the effects
The World Health Organization (WHO) has demanded "unhindered access" to Douma in Syria, to check reports from its partners that 500 people have been affected by a chemical attack there.
The Syrian government denies being behind any use of chemical weapons.
The US has threatened a "forceful" response to reports of an attack but Russia has called this a "pretext" to attack its ally, Syria.
The WHO cited reports that 70 people had been killed.
It said its "health cluster" partners reported that 500 people had suffered symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals, including difficulty breathing, irritation of mucous membranes, and disruption to the central nervous system.
"Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks," the WHO statement continued.
Syria 'chemical attack': What we know
Russia warns US over Syria response
Why is there a war in Syria?
"We should all be outraged at these horrific reports and images from Douma," said Dr. Peter Salama of the WHO.
"WHO demands immediate unhindered access to the area to provide care to those affected, to assess the health impacts, and to deliver a comprehensive public health response."
What happened in the suspected attack?
Syrian opposition activists, rescue workers and medics allege that the attack on Douma in the Eastern Ghouta was carried out by government forces using bombs filled with toxic chemicals.
The Syrian-American Medical Society said more than 500 people were brought to medical centres with symptoms "indicative of exposure to a chemical agent".
It said this included breathing difficulties, bluish skin, foaming mouths, corneal burns and "the emission of chlorine-like odour".
Viewpoint: Chemical weapons ‘threat to West’
Israel blamed for Syria airfield attack
The estimates of how many people died in the suspected chemical attack range from 42 to more than 60 people, but medical groups say numbers could rise as rescue workers gain access to basements where hundreds of families had sought refuge from bombing.
The French representative at the UN Security Council said poison gas had deliberately been used as it could seep down to the basements.
Following the alleged attack, Syria and Russia reached an evacuation deal with the Jaish al-Islam rebels, who up until now have been holding Douma.
Syria war: WHO demands access to 'chemical attack site'
Footage from Douma in the aftermath of the attack appeared to show people using water to counteract the effects
The World Health Organization (WHO) has demanded "unhindered access" to Douma in Syria, to check reports from its partners that 500 people have been affected by a chemical attack there.
The Syrian government denies being behind any use of chemical weapons.
The US has threatened a "forceful" response to reports of an attack but Russia has called this a "pretext" to attack its ally, Syria.
The WHO cited reports that 70 people had been killed.
It said its "health cluster" partners reported that 500 people had suffered symptoms consistent with exposure to toxic chemicals, including difficulty breathing, irritation of mucous membranes, and disruption to the central nervous system.
"Two health facilities were also reportedly affected by these attacks," the WHO statement continued.
Syria 'chemical attack': What we know
Russia warns US over Syria response
Why is there a war in Syria?
"We should all be outraged at these horrific reports and images from Douma," said Dr. Peter Salama of the WHO.
"WHO demands immediate unhindered access to the area to provide care to those affected, to assess the health impacts, and to deliver a comprehensive public health response."
What happened in the suspected attack?
Syrian opposition activists, rescue workers and medics allege that the attack on Douma in the Eastern Ghouta was carried out by government forces using bombs filled with toxic chemicals.
The Syrian-American Medical Society said more than 500 people were brought to medical centres with symptoms "indicative of exposure to a chemical agent".
It said this included breathing difficulties, bluish skin, foaming mouths, corneal burns and "the emission of chlorine-like odour".
Viewpoint: Chemical weapons ‘threat to West’
Israel blamed for Syria airfield attack
The estimates of how many people died in the suspected chemical attack range from 42 to more than 60 people, but medical groups say numbers could rise as rescue workers gain access to basements where hundreds of families had sought refuge from bombing.
The French representative at the UN Security Council said poison gas had deliberately been used as it could seep down to the basements.
Following the alleged attack, Syria and Russia reached an evacuation deal with the Jaish al-Islam rebels, who up until now have been holding Douma.
Michael Cohen: Why the raid on Trump's lawyer is a big deal - BBC News
Michael Cohen: Why the raid on Trump's lawyer is a big deal
Anthony Zurcher
North America reporter
@awzurcher on Twitter
11 April 2018
The FBI has raided the office, home and hotel room of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's long-time personal lawyer, business adviser and fixer-of-uncomfortable-problems. Now Mr Cohen himself has become the uncomfortable problem, with no easy fix in sight.
There's basically no precedent for this sort of action in modern US presidential politics. And Mr Trump's response on Monday afternoon - an unprompted, extended tirade that used the word "disgrace" or "disgraceful" nine times - hints that the president is concerned… and angry.
Here are a few reasons why the Cohen raid is a significant development in the ongoing presidential investigations - and a growing headache for the White House.
The man under the microscope
Fifty-one-year-old New Yorker Michael Cohen has a law degree, but his past duties for Mr Trump were not typical attorney obligations.
While he did provide counsel, he also was one of the Trump Organization's lead negotiators on foreign business dealings, the man who would send threatening legal letters to Trump critics and - at least in the Stormy Daniels episode - someone who would arrange to keep potentially embarrassing information about Mr Trump under wraps.
"They say I'm Mr Trump's pitbull, that I'm his right-hand man," Mr Cohen said in 2011. "What I am is a loyal employee. I like the man a lot."
In other words, Mr Cohen - although he severed his ties with the Trump business organisation in 2017 - has been deeply embedded in the Trump world for roughly a decade.
If he is under legal scrutiny, it could open a vast window into the inner workings of the president's business empire. His real estate dealings in Russia had already attracted the attention of special counsel Robert Mueller's team, and he was featured prominently in the now-notorious Christopher Steele dossier.
Even if the search leads nowhere, federal agents scrutinising a presidential lawyer's business is still a remarkable development. At the moment, however, there's no telling what law enforcement's efforts on Monday could turn up.
A second investigation
The issue isn't just what happened - federal investigators reportedly collecting documents and related information about Mr Cohen's tax records, business dealings and six-figure payment to secure the silence of Daniels, an adult film star who says she had an affair with Mr Trump. It's also who is doing the investigating.
According to media reports, the search was the result of information originally discovered by Mueller's investigation, but his office wasn't involved in the search. Instead, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein instructed the Mueller team to refer the matter to the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, which requested and executed the warrant.
Stormy Daniels: 'I was threatened'
Should Trump be worried about Stormy Daniels?
Geoffrey Berman has served as the acting US attorney for the Southern District for more than a year, after Mr Trump fired his predecessor, Preet Bharara. He's a long-time Republican donor, including to Mr Trump's presidential campaign, and has reportedly recused himself from the investigation.
Because this is being handled by his office and not the special counsel, however, any move Mr Trump makes against Mr Mueller will have no impact on this inquiry, which appears to be focused on whether the payment to Daniels - and perhaps other women who have alleged romantic involvement with Mr Trump - violated tax, banking or campaign finance laws.
Mr Cohen says he made a $130,000 payment to Daniels in October 2016 out of his own funds in exchange for her silence. If that turns out not to be the case, or if the payment is considered to be the equivalent of campaign contribution, it could run afoul of federal disclosure rules. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards faced criminal prosecution in 2011 for undisclosed campaign payments he made to a former mistress.
In other words, this is not an academic consideration.
Privilege threatened
The FBI-conducted raid of Mr Cohen's property isn't a garden-variety search, either. Because Mr Cohen is the president's personal attorney, federal investigators had to comply with extra safeguards to avoid infringing on a client's right to confidential legal counsel.
Top-level Justice Department officials had to approve of the move, and extra personnel were involved in the process to ensure that "privileged" communications between Mr Cohen and his clients, including Mr Trump, were not disclosed to the investigatory team.
The sensitivity of the search was probably on the president's mind on Tuesday morning when he tweeted, "Attorney-client privilege is dead!"
Media captionSchumer to Trump: Attorney raid not an attack on US
The lawyer protections aren't iron-clad, however. There are exceptions to the rules, such as in cases where the lawyer is discussing topics outside the realm of agreed legal representation or the parties are involved in committing or concealing criminal activity.
If investigators conclude there is reason to believe that Mr Cohen's payment to Daniels violated banking, tax or campaign finance laws - and is able to convince a judge to concur - then material related to that act, even if it includes otherwise protected communications, could be admissible in court.
A storm is brewing
During a meeting with his military advisers on Monday the president embarked on extended remarks about what he viewed as the impropriety of the Cohen search.
He called his lawyer a "good man" and claimed that law enforcement "broke into" his office. Mr Cohen told CNN that FBI agents "were extremely professional, courteous and respectful".
Mr Trump reiterated that the investigations - including, presumably, the one involving Mr Cohen - were a "witch hunt". He again questioned the impartiality of those investigating him, asserted that there was no evidence of "collusion" between his campaign and Russia, and said Democrats should be the focus of scrutiny.
He called the investigation an "attack on our country" and "on what we all stand for" and entertained the possibility of firing Mr Mueller, as "many people" are saying he should do.
"So we'll see what happens," the president said.
Trump: FBI raid of my lawyer's office is "a whole new level of unfairness"
The most significant development out of the Cohen raid, then, is what it could set in motion.
The president relied on many of his worn phrases - "many people are saying" and "we'll see" - that have, in the past, hinted at future action. He has reportedly considered firing Mr Mueller in the past. Would the special counsel's role in all this be enough to push the president over the top?
Mr Trump again took swipes at his own attorney general and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein - himself a past target of presidential ire - who approved the New York office's raid. Could their positions be in jeopardy?
In a Russia investigation that has moved by increments over the past few months, the Cohen search represents a stunning development. There's a new front in the political and legal warfare, and a new series of exposures for the president and those closest to him.
Even if the president decides to act, however, the scope of the inquiry - and the potential damage that could result - just became much more challenging to contain.
Anthony Zurcher
North America reporter
@awzurcher on Twitter
11 April 2018
The FBI has raided the office, home and hotel room of Michael Cohen, Donald Trump's long-time personal lawyer, business adviser and fixer-of-uncomfortable-problems. Now Mr Cohen himself has become the uncomfortable problem, with no easy fix in sight.
There's basically no precedent for this sort of action in modern US presidential politics. And Mr Trump's response on Monday afternoon - an unprompted, extended tirade that used the word "disgrace" or "disgraceful" nine times - hints that the president is concerned… and angry.
Here are a few reasons why the Cohen raid is a significant development in the ongoing presidential investigations - and a growing headache for the White House.
The man under the microscope
Fifty-one-year-old New Yorker Michael Cohen has a law degree, but his past duties for Mr Trump were not typical attorney obligations.
While he did provide counsel, he also was one of the Trump Organization's lead negotiators on foreign business dealings, the man who would send threatening legal letters to Trump critics and - at least in the Stormy Daniels episode - someone who would arrange to keep potentially embarrassing information about Mr Trump under wraps.
"They say I'm Mr Trump's pitbull, that I'm his right-hand man," Mr Cohen said in 2011. "What I am is a loyal employee. I like the man a lot."
In other words, Mr Cohen - although he severed his ties with the Trump business organisation in 2017 - has been deeply embedded in the Trump world for roughly a decade.
If he is under legal scrutiny, it could open a vast window into the inner workings of the president's business empire. His real estate dealings in Russia had already attracted the attention of special counsel Robert Mueller's team, and he was featured prominently in the now-notorious Christopher Steele dossier.
Even if the search leads nowhere, federal agents scrutinising a presidential lawyer's business is still a remarkable development. At the moment, however, there's no telling what law enforcement's efforts on Monday could turn up.
A second investigation
The issue isn't just what happened - federal investigators reportedly collecting documents and related information about Mr Cohen's tax records, business dealings and six-figure payment to secure the silence of Daniels, an adult film star who says she had an affair with Mr Trump. It's also who is doing the investigating.
According to media reports, the search was the result of information originally discovered by Mueller's investigation, but his office wasn't involved in the search. Instead, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein instructed the Mueller team to refer the matter to the US attorney for the Southern District of New York, which requested and executed the warrant.
Stormy Daniels: 'I was threatened'
Should Trump be worried about Stormy Daniels?
Geoffrey Berman has served as the acting US attorney for the Southern District for more than a year, after Mr Trump fired his predecessor, Preet Bharara. He's a long-time Republican donor, including to Mr Trump's presidential campaign, and has reportedly recused himself from the investigation.
Because this is being handled by his office and not the special counsel, however, any move Mr Trump makes against Mr Mueller will have no impact on this inquiry, which appears to be focused on whether the payment to Daniels - and perhaps other women who have alleged romantic involvement with Mr Trump - violated tax, banking or campaign finance laws.
Mr Cohen says he made a $130,000 payment to Daniels in October 2016 out of his own funds in exchange for her silence. If that turns out not to be the case, or if the payment is considered to be the equivalent of campaign contribution, it could run afoul of federal disclosure rules. Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards faced criminal prosecution in 2011 for undisclosed campaign payments he made to a former mistress.
In other words, this is not an academic consideration.
Privilege threatened
The FBI-conducted raid of Mr Cohen's property isn't a garden-variety search, either. Because Mr Cohen is the president's personal attorney, federal investigators had to comply with extra safeguards to avoid infringing on a client's right to confidential legal counsel.
Top-level Justice Department officials had to approve of the move, and extra personnel were involved in the process to ensure that "privileged" communications between Mr Cohen and his clients, including Mr Trump, were not disclosed to the investigatory team.
The sensitivity of the search was probably on the president's mind on Tuesday morning when he tweeted, "Attorney-client privilege is dead!"
Media captionSchumer to Trump: Attorney raid not an attack on US
The lawyer protections aren't iron-clad, however. There are exceptions to the rules, such as in cases where the lawyer is discussing topics outside the realm of agreed legal representation or the parties are involved in committing or concealing criminal activity.
If investigators conclude there is reason to believe that Mr Cohen's payment to Daniels violated banking, tax or campaign finance laws - and is able to convince a judge to concur - then material related to that act, even if it includes otherwise protected communications, could be admissible in court.
A storm is brewing
During a meeting with his military advisers on Monday the president embarked on extended remarks about what he viewed as the impropriety of the Cohen search.
He called his lawyer a "good man" and claimed that law enforcement "broke into" his office. Mr Cohen told CNN that FBI agents "were extremely professional, courteous and respectful".
Mr Trump reiterated that the investigations - including, presumably, the one involving Mr Cohen - were a "witch hunt". He again questioned the impartiality of those investigating him, asserted that there was no evidence of "collusion" between his campaign and Russia, and said Democrats should be the focus of scrutiny.
He called the investigation an "attack on our country" and "on what we all stand for" and entertained the possibility of firing Mr Mueller, as "many people" are saying he should do.
"So we'll see what happens," the president said.
Trump: FBI raid of my lawyer's office is "a whole new level of unfairness"
The most significant development out of the Cohen raid, then, is what it could set in motion.
The president relied on many of his worn phrases - "many people are saying" and "we'll see" - that have, in the past, hinted at future action. He has reportedly considered firing Mr Mueller in the past. Would the special counsel's role in all this be enough to push the president over the top?
Mr Trump again took swipes at his own attorney general and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein - himself a past target of presidential ire - who approved the New York office's raid. Could their positions be in jeopardy?
In a Russia investigation that has moved by increments over the past few months, the Cohen search represents a stunning development. There's a new front in the political and legal warfare, and a new series of exposures for the president and those closest to him.
Even if the president decides to act, however, the scope of the inquiry - and the potential damage that could result - just became much more challenging to contain.
Syria 'chemical attack': Russia warns US against military action - BBC News
11/4/2018
Syria 'chemical attack': Russia warns US against military action
Syrian Army soldiers gather near the town of Douma, where the suspected chemical attack happened
Russia has urged the US to avoid taking military action in response to an alleged chemical attack in Syria.
"I would once again beseech you to refrain from the plans that you're currently developing," Moscow's UN envoy Vasily Nebenzia said on Tuesday.
He warned Washington that it will "bear responsibility" for any "illegal military adventure" it carries out.
But Western leaders say they have agreed to work together to target those responsible for the attack in Douma.
French President Emmanuel Macron said any strikes would target Syrian government chemical facilities.
US President Donald Trump has promised a "forceful" response, and he and his Defence Secretary, James Mattis, have cancelled travel plans this week.
UK agrees Syria action with US and France
Syria 'chemical attack': What we know
Why is there a war in Syria?
Syrian opposition activists, rescue workers and medics say dozens of people died in a suspected chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Douma, in the Eastern Ghouta region.
President Bashar al-Assad's government - which receives military backing from Russia - denies being behind any chemical attack.
What is the UN doing?
The warning from Moscow came during a divided meeting of the UN Security Council which failed to pass any measures to set up an inquiry into the alleged attack.
As permanent members of the council, Russia and the US both have the power to veto. They both blocked each other's proposals to set up independent investigations.
The US-drafted resolution would have allowed investigators to apportion blame for the suspected attack, while Russia's version would have left that to the Security Council.
A team from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is due to deploy to Syria "shortly" to determine whether banned weapons were used in Douma.
But the OPCW will not seek to establish who was responsible for the attack.
US ambassador Nikki Haley and Russia ambassador Vasily Nebenzia clashed at the UN
The UN session was the latest in a series of showdowns between Russia and the US and saw harsh words exchanged between the countries.
Mr Nebenzia accused the US of "planting this resolution" as a "pretext" to justify military action.
"We could find ourselves on the threshold of some very sad and serious events," he said.
US envoy Nikki Haley responded by calling the vote a "travesty".
"Russia has trashed the credibility of the council," she said.
"Whenever we propose anything meaningful on Syria, Russia vetoes it."
Will there be a military strike?
Media captionThe US president has said "nothing's off the table" - so what options are on the table?
It seems the US and its allies may be preparing for one.
Mr Trump cancelled his first official trip to Latin America so he could focus on Syria.
That decision suggests the US response may involve a larger military operation than a limited strike, says the BBC's Barbara Plett Usher in Washington.
Washington has also been in discussion with France and the UK, raising the prospect of co-ordinated Western military action. The Times reports that the UK's Prime Minister Theresa May has urged Mr Trump to provide more evidence of the suspected chemical attack.
A US Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS Donald Cook, is in the Mediterranean, and the European air traffic control agency, Eurocontrol, has warned airlines to take "due consideration" while in the eastern Mediterranean over the next few days, because of the possible launch of missiles into Syria.
Several senior Russian figures have warned of a Russian response to a US attack. Alexander Zasypkin, Moscow's ambassador to Lebanon, is the latest, repeating a warning by the head of the military that missiles would be shot down and their launch sites targeted.
What happened in the suspected attack?
Syrian opposition activists, rescue workers and medics allege that the attack on Douma was done by government forces using bombs filled with toxic chemicals.
The Syrian-American Medical Society said more than 500 people were brought to medical centres with symptoms "indicative of exposure to a chemical agent".
It said this included breathing difficulties, bluish skin, mouth foaming, corneal burns and "the emission of chlorine-like odour".
Viewpoint: Chemical weapons ‘threat to West’
Israel blamed for Syria airfield attack
The estimates of how many people died in the suspected chemical attack range from 42 to more than 60 people, but medical groups say numbers could rise as rescue workers gain access to basements where hundreds of families had sought refuge from bombing.
The French representative at the UN Security Council said poison gas had deliberately been used as it could seep down to the basements.
Following the alleged attack, Syria and Russia reached an evacuation deal with the Jaish al-Islam rebels, who up until now have been holding Douma.
Syria 'chemical attack': Russia warns US against military action
Syrian Army soldiers gather near the town of Douma, where the suspected chemical attack happened
Russia has urged the US to avoid taking military action in response to an alleged chemical attack in Syria.
"I would once again beseech you to refrain from the plans that you're currently developing," Moscow's UN envoy Vasily Nebenzia said on Tuesday.
He warned Washington that it will "bear responsibility" for any "illegal military adventure" it carries out.
But Western leaders say they have agreed to work together to target those responsible for the attack in Douma.
French President Emmanuel Macron said any strikes would target Syrian government chemical facilities.
US President Donald Trump has promised a "forceful" response, and he and his Defence Secretary, James Mattis, have cancelled travel plans this week.
UK agrees Syria action with US and France
Syria 'chemical attack': What we know
Why is there a war in Syria?
Syrian opposition activists, rescue workers and medics say dozens of people died in a suspected chemical attack on the rebel-held town of Douma, in the Eastern Ghouta region.
President Bashar al-Assad's government - which receives military backing from Russia - denies being behind any chemical attack.
What is the UN doing?
The warning from Moscow came during a divided meeting of the UN Security Council which failed to pass any measures to set up an inquiry into the alleged attack.
As permanent members of the council, Russia and the US both have the power to veto. They both blocked each other's proposals to set up independent investigations.
The US-drafted resolution would have allowed investigators to apportion blame for the suspected attack, while Russia's version would have left that to the Security Council.
A team from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is due to deploy to Syria "shortly" to determine whether banned weapons were used in Douma.
But the OPCW will not seek to establish who was responsible for the attack.
US ambassador Nikki Haley and Russia ambassador Vasily Nebenzia clashed at the UN
The UN session was the latest in a series of showdowns between Russia and the US and saw harsh words exchanged between the countries.
Mr Nebenzia accused the US of "planting this resolution" as a "pretext" to justify military action.
"We could find ourselves on the threshold of some very sad and serious events," he said.
US envoy Nikki Haley responded by calling the vote a "travesty".
"Russia has trashed the credibility of the council," she said.
"Whenever we propose anything meaningful on Syria, Russia vetoes it."
Will there be a military strike?
Media captionThe US president has said "nothing's off the table" - so what options are on the table?
It seems the US and its allies may be preparing for one.
Mr Trump cancelled his first official trip to Latin America so he could focus on Syria.
That decision suggests the US response may involve a larger military operation than a limited strike, says the BBC's Barbara Plett Usher in Washington.
Washington has also been in discussion with France and the UK, raising the prospect of co-ordinated Western military action. The Times reports that the UK's Prime Minister Theresa May has urged Mr Trump to provide more evidence of the suspected chemical attack.
A US Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS Donald Cook, is in the Mediterranean, and the European air traffic control agency, Eurocontrol, has warned airlines to take "due consideration" while in the eastern Mediterranean over the next few days, because of the possible launch of missiles into Syria.
Several senior Russian figures have warned of a Russian response to a US attack. Alexander Zasypkin, Moscow's ambassador to Lebanon, is the latest, repeating a warning by the head of the military that missiles would be shot down and their launch sites targeted.
What happened in the suspected attack?
Syrian opposition activists, rescue workers and medics allege that the attack on Douma was done by government forces using bombs filled with toxic chemicals.
The Syrian-American Medical Society said more than 500 people were brought to medical centres with symptoms "indicative of exposure to a chemical agent".
It said this included breathing difficulties, bluish skin, mouth foaming, corneal burns and "the emission of chlorine-like odour".
Viewpoint: Chemical weapons ‘threat to West’
Israel blamed for Syria airfield attack
The estimates of how many people died in the suspected chemical attack range from 42 to more than 60 people, but medical groups say numbers could rise as rescue workers gain access to basements where hundreds of families had sought refuge from bombing.
The French representative at the UN Security Council said poison gas had deliberately been used as it could seep down to the basements.
Following the alleged attack, Syria and Russia reached an evacuation deal with the Jaish al-Islam rebels, who up until now have been holding Douma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
