July 6, 2018
Sex and relationships expert explains what he thinks is going on with Melania Trump
Posted 5 months ago by Mimi Launder in people
UPVOTE
Throughout US history, the first couple at least attempted to make a show of happy families.
But, in a presidency of many firsts, Donald Trump's wife Melania has been spotted grinning the moment her husband looks away, appearing to slap his hand away and, more recently, apparently ignoring him.
University of Washington sociologist Pepper Schwartz, a sex and relationships expert, thinks the evidence speaks for itself, he explained to Los Angeles Times.
These people are under constant scrutiny. Has anyone ever seen a loving gesture between them?
Recent weeks have put the President and First Lady's relationship under particularly stringent scrutiny.
Donald Trump was alleged to have had an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, whose real name is Stephanie Clifford - a charge he denies.
In the wake of the scandal, Melania cancelled plans to travel with her husband to the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, amid reports she had been sleeping at a Washington DC hotel.
On Friday, the First Lady travelled alone Andrews Air Force Base rather than with her husband, citing a scheduling issue.
HT Los Angeles Times
Saturday, July 7, 2018
Trump wants Warren to prove her Native American heritage. Could she? - MSNBC News
Fact check: Trump wants Warren to prove her Native American heritage. Could she?
The Democratic senator has said she stands by stories about her ancestors she was told as a child. Here's what we know, and what we don't.
by Jane C. Timm / Jul.07.2018 / 12:52 AM ET / Updated 1:23 AM ET
President Donald Trump escalated a familiar attack on Sen. Elizabeth Warren Thursday night, mocking the Massachusetts Democrat and leading potential 2020 rival for her claim of Native American heritage.
He revived his nickname for her — "the fake Pocahontas" — and told the crowd at his Montana campaign rally that should the two find themselves on a debate stage, he would challenge her to submit to genetic testing to prove that she has Native American ancestors.
Trump mocks Warren: 'To the fake Pocahontas, I won't apologize'
JUL.06.201802:44
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian," he said. "I have a feeling she will say no."
Warren immediately shot back: "While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas," she wrote on Twitter, a reference to the migrant children who have been separated from their parents at the southern border because of a Trump administration policy.
Elizabeth Warren
✔
@elizabethforma
Hey, @realDonaldTrump: While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas & you are too incompetent to reunite them in time to meet a court order. Maybe you should focus on fixing the lives you're destroying.
9:52 AM - Jul 6, 2018
Still, Warren has come under frequent fire — from Trump and others — for her still-unproven claims of Native American heritage.
Here's what we know about her ancestry, what experts say and what a DNA test would show.
HOW DID THE DEBATE OVER WARREN'S HERITAGE START?
Warren, who grew up in Oklahoma, land that was once Indian Territory, reportedly listed herself in a directory as a minority professor for nine years (from 1986 to 1995) before eventually landing a job at Harvard.
During Warren's hotly contested Senate bid in Massachusetts in 2012, The Boston Herald uncovered a 1996 student newspaper article quoting a Harvard Law School spokesman who boasted that Warren, who was a professor, was Native American. Her campaign scrambled and failed to offer conclusive proof for the claim, which Warren said stemmed from stories her mother told her as a child.
"Being Native American is part of who our family is and I'm glad to tell anyone about that. I am just very proud of it," Warren told reporters at the time.
In a campaign ad, Warren said she had never asked her mom for documentation that her family was part-Cherokee and part-Delaware, but that it was the reason her parents had to elope.
WHAT DO HER CRITICS SAY?
Political rivals over the years have attempted to paint Warren as a liar and an opportunist.
"Elizabeth Warren said she was a Native American, a person of color," then-Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., said of Warren during one 2012 debate. "As you can see, she's not."
Warren defends Native American references: 'It's a part of me'
MAR.12.201802:06
After Warren emerged as a harsh Trump critic during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump took to calling her "Pocahontas," the name of a storied Native American woman.
"She used the fact that she was Native American to advance her career. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud. I know it. Other people who work with her know it. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud," the president told NBC News during his presidential bid.
Native American leaders have said the "Pocahontas" nickname is culturally insensitive and racist. Warren herself called it a slur.
WOULD A DNA TEST PROVE HER CLAIMS?
Probably not, and Warren said on NBC News' "Meet the Press" in a March interview she will not take one.
DNA tests are not widely accepted as proof of tribal citizenship — in part because the DNA could not show a specific tribe, only some genetic markers from Native people — and are more unreliable for Native Americans than for large ancestral regions like Asia or Africa.
“The reality is she could take a DNA test and have Native ancestry and have it not show up because it depends on which branches of the family tree it’s in and how far back,” Smolenyak said. “That test is very good for finding stuff out going back five, six generations. If you have one great-great-great-great-grant-great grandmother, it’s not going to show.”
WHAT DO HISTORIANS AND GENEALOGISTS SAY?
Native Americans are still the second-largest minority group in Oklahoma, according to the 2010 Census, and tales of Native ancestry are common, experts said.
"My family has a narrative that we're Choctaw, but we don’t have any proof of that," Larry O'Dell, the Oklahoma Historical Society's director of special projects and development, said when asked about tracing Native heritage. "My boss and I were talking earlier, and he has the same kind of narrative. It's just sort of the way it is in Oklahoma."
Independent genealogist Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak, who has traced former first lady Michelle Obama's family back to slaves and former President Barack Obama's ancestors to Ireland, said one of the biggest myths in genealogy is how many families believe their ancestor was a Cherokee princess.
Trump mocks Warren: 'To the fake Pocahontas, I won't apologize'
Thai diver dies amid cave rescue of trapped soccer team
"It's always Cherokee, and it's always a princess," she said.
More than 819,000 people told the 2010 Census they are at least part Cherokee, despite the nation’s three federally recognized Cherokee tribes only having half as many members.
Laura Martin, a deputy director for the Oklahoma Historical Society's research division, said 98 percent of visitors to their library are hunting down ties to Native American heritage. But in order to obtain documentation that's registered by tribes or the U.S. government, ancestors must be listed on historical registers like the Dawes Rolls, which the federal government used to distribute communal tribal land to individual Indians who enrolled between 1898–1906.
"We can help you find federal Census records, marriage records, death records, things like that, but if they did not sign up [on official documents], it kind of ends there," Martin said.
DID HER SELF-IDENTIFIED MINORITY STATUS HELP HER CAREER?
Warren has adamantly insisted that she never used her heritage to get ahead, and there’s no evidence that it was a deciding factor in her employment at Harvard.
"That's totally stupid, ignorant, uninformed and simply wrong," the Harvard Law School professor who recruited her for the position, Charles Fried, told The Associated Press in 2012. "I presented her case to the faculty. I did not mention her Native American connection because I did not know about it.”
Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, reportedly donated to her Senate campaign.
SO, IS WARREN ACTUALLY NATIVE AMERICAN?
There is no documented proof that Warren is descended from Native Americans.
Warren has not provided any. Genealogists who have investigated her history have found her relatives to be listed as white in historical documents like the Census and do not appear in the Indian documents typically used to verify claims of Native American ancestry, like the Dawes Rolls.
The New England Historic Genealogical Society initially said they had proof that she was 1/32nd Native American, only to later backtrack and say they did not have definitive proof. They declined to comment for this story.
Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes traced Warren's maternal family back four generations to the turn of the 19th century; the records listed all members as white. She could not find Warren’s family in any of the 45 Indian records and documents she reviewed for a detailed report.
Trump calls Warren
NOV.28.201706:48
This doesn't mean that Warren is not Native American — some Native Americans were not listed in the Dawes Rolls, for instance, or her ancestors could be from well before those records — but it does mean that there is no evidence that she is, either.
Accordingly, she would not be eligible for citizenship in Indian tribes like Cherokee Nation, as they commonly require a direct ancestor to be listed on those records.
"The fact that it hasn’t been substantiated doesn't 100 percent mean it won't be substantiated," Smolenyak told NBC News, six years after she first started looking into Warren's family. "But … you would have hoped for some proof within this time frame."
Warren, in a speech this year to a Native American group, addressed the controversy and said she stands by the stories she was told as a child.
"I get why some people think there's hay to be made here. You won’t find my family members on any rolls, and I'm not enrolled in a tribe," she said. But, she added, "my parents were real people."
The Democratic senator has said she stands by stories about her ancestors she was told as a child. Here's what we know, and what we don't.
by Jane C. Timm / Jul.07.2018 / 12:52 AM ET / Updated 1:23 AM ET
President Donald Trump escalated a familiar attack on Sen. Elizabeth Warren Thursday night, mocking the Massachusetts Democrat and leading potential 2020 rival for her claim of Native American heritage.
He revived his nickname for her — "the fake Pocahontas" — and told the crowd at his Montana campaign rally that should the two find themselves on a debate stage, he would challenge her to submit to genetic testing to prove that she has Native American ancestors.
Trump mocks Warren: 'To the fake Pocahontas, I won't apologize'
JUL.06.201802:44
"I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian," he said. "I have a feeling she will say no."
Warren immediately shot back: "While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas," she wrote on Twitter, a reference to the migrant children who have been separated from their parents at the southern border because of a Trump administration policy.
Elizabeth Warren
✔
@elizabethforma
Hey, @realDonaldTrump: While you obsess over my genes, your Admin is conducting DNA tests on little kids because you ripped them from their mamas & you are too incompetent to reunite them in time to meet a court order. Maybe you should focus on fixing the lives you're destroying.
9:52 AM - Jul 6, 2018
Still, Warren has come under frequent fire — from Trump and others — for her still-unproven claims of Native American heritage.
Here's what we know about her ancestry, what experts say and what a DNA test would show.
HOW DID THE DEBATE OVER WARREN'S HERITAGE START?
Warren, who grew up in Oklahoma, land that was once Indian Territory, reportedly listed herself in a directory as a minority professor for nine years (from 1986 to 1995) before eventually landing a job at Harvard.
During Warren's hotly contested Senate bid in Massachusetts in 2012, The Boston Herald uncovered a 1996 student newspaper article quoting a Harvard Law School spokesman who boasted that Warren, who was a professor, was Native American. Her campaign scrambled and failed to offer conclusive proof for the claim, which Warren said stemmed from stories her mother told her as a child.
"Being Native American is part of who our family is and I'm glad to tell anyone about that. I am just very proud of it," Warren told reporters at the time.
In a campaign ad, Warren said she had never asked her mom for documentation that her family was part-Cherokee and part-Delaware, but that it was the reason her parents had to elope.
WHAT DO HER CRITICS SAY?
Political rivals over the years have attempted to paint Warren as a liar and an opportunist.
"Elizabeth Warren said she was a Native American, a person of color," then-Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., said of Warren during one 2012 debate. "As you can see, she's not."
Warren defends Native American references: 'It's a part of me'
MAR.12.201802:06
After Warren emerged as a harsh Trump critic during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump took to calling her "Pocahontas," the name of a storied Native American woman.
"She used the fact that she was Native American to advance her career. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud. I know it. Other people who work with her know it. Elizabeth Warren is a total fraud," the president told NBC News during his presidential bid.
Native American leaders have said the "Pocahontas" nickname is culturally insensitive and racist. Warren herself called it a slur.
WOULD A DNA TEST PROVE HER CLAIMS?
Probably not, and Warren said on NBC News' "Meet the Press" in a March interview she will not take one.
DNA tests are not widely accepted as proof of tribal citizenship — in part because the DNA could not show a specific tribe, only some genetic markers from Native people — and are more unreliable for Native Americans than for large ancestral regions like Asia or Africa.
“The reality is she could take a DNA test and have Native ancestry and have it not show up because it depends on which branches of the family tree it’s in and how far back,” Smolenyak said. “That test is very good for finding stuff out going back five, six generations. If you have one great-great-great-great-grant-great grandmother, it’s not going to show.”
WHAT DO HISTORIANS AND GENEALOGISTS SAY?
Native Americans are still the second-largest minority group in Oklahoma, according to the 2010 Census, and tales of Native ancestry are common, experts said.
"My family has a narrative that we're Choctaw, but we don’t have any proof of that," Larry O'Dell, the Oklahoma Historical Society's director of special projects and development, said when asked about tracing Native heritage. "My boss and I were talking earlier, and he has the same kind of narrative. It's just sort of the way it is in Oklahoma."
Independent genealogist Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak, who has traced former first lady Michelle Obama's family back to slaves and former President Barack Obama's ancestors to Ireland, said one of the biggest myths in genealogy is how many families believe their ancestor was a Cherokee princess.
Trump mocks Warren: 'To the fake Pocahontas, I won't apologize'
Thai diver dies amid cave rescue of trapped soccer team
"It's always Cherokee, and it's always a princess," she said.
More than 819,000 people told the 2010 Census they are at least part Cherokee, despite the nation’s three federally recognized Cherokee tribes only having half as many members.
Laura Martin, a deputy director for the Oklahoma Historical Society's research division, said 98 percent of visitors to their library are hunting down ties to Native American heritage. But in order to obtain documentation that's registered by tribes or the U.S. government, ancestors must be listed on historical registers like the Dawes Rolls, which the federal government used to distribute communal tribal land to individual Indians who enrolled between 1898–1906.
"We can help you find federal Census records, marriage records, death records, things like that, but if they did not sign up [on official documents], it kind of ends there," Martin said.
DID HER SELF-IDENTIFIED MINORITY STATUS HELP HER CAREER?
Warren has adamantly insisted that she never used her heritage to get ahead, and there’s no evidence that it was a deciding factor in her employment at Harvard.
"That's totally stupid, ignorant, uninformed and simply wrong," the Harvard Law School professor who recruited her for the position, Charles Fried, told The Associated Press in 2012. "I presented her case to the faculty. I did not mention her Native American connection because I did not know about it.”
Fried, a former U.S. Solicitor General who served under Ronald Reagan, reportedly donated to her Senate campaign.
SO, IS WARREN ACTUALLY NATIVE AMERICAN?
There is no documented proof that Warren is descended from Native Americans.
Warren has not provided any. Genealogists who have investigated her history have found her relatives to be listed as white in historical documents like the Census and do not appear in the Indian documents typically used to verify claims of Native American ancestry, like the Dawes Rolls.
The New England Historic Genealogical Society initially said they had proof that she was 1/32nd Native American, only to later backtrack and say they did not have definitive proof. They declined to comment for this story.
Cherokee genealogist Twila Barnes traced Warren's maternal family back four generations to the turn of the 19th century; the records listed all members as white. She could not find Warren’s family in any of the 45 Indian records and documents she reviewed for a detailed report.
Trump calls Warren
NOV.28.201706:48
This doesn't mean that Warren is not Native American — some Native Americans were not listed in the Dawes Rolls, for instance, or her ancestors could be from well before those records — but it does mean that there is no evidence that she is, either.
Accordingly, she would not be eligible for citizenship in Indian tribes like Cherokee Nation, as they commonly require a direct ancestor to be listed on those records.
"The fact that it hasn’t been substantiated doesn't 100 percent mean it won't be substantiated," Smolenyak told NBC News, six years after she first started looking into Warren's family. "But … you would have hoped for some proof within this time frame."
Warren, in a speech this year to a Native American group, addressed the controversy and said she stands by the stories she was told as a child.
"I get why some people think there's hay to be made here. You won’t find my family members on any rolls, and I'm not enrolled in a tribe," she said. But, she added, "my parents were real people."
Woman behind Trudeau groping allegations stands by account - BBC News
Woman behind Trudeau groping allegations stands by account
7 July 2018
Mr Trudeau says he remembers the event, but does not recall any "negative interactions"
The woman who accused Canadian PM Justin Trudeau 18 years ago of groping her says she stands by her account.
She released a statement on Friday to CBC News, her first public comment on the allegations that resurfaced over a month ago.
She said the incident, described in August 2000 in an editorial in a local newspaper "did occur, as reported".
Mr Trudeau has denied any wrongdoing, saying he is confident he did "not act inappropriately".
The woman was a journalist at the time and covering an event attended by Mr Trudeau.
The editorial and its allegations resurfaced after a blogger posted an image of the article on Twitter in June.
Warren Kinsella
✔
@kinsellawarren
Um, what? #cdnpoli #loc #MeToo
9:25 AM - Jun 7, 2018
The event in Creston, British Columbia, was held to raise money for an avalanche safety charity with which Mr Trudeau was involved.
Days afterwards, an unsigned editorial appeared in a local paper, accusing him of "groping" a young female reporter.
Mr Trudeau first responded to the nearly 20-year-old incident on 1 July when questioned by journalists.
Trudeau denies groping allegations
Trudeau defends asylum seeker policy
Trudeau faces PC 'peoplekind' backlash
The prime minister said he did not recall any "negative interactions" at the event, though he said he remembered the day in Creston well.
On Thursday, the prime minister offered a more detailed response.
"I have been reflecting very carefully on what I remember," he said. "I feel I am confident I did not act inappropriately."
Mr Trudeau said if he apologised at the time it was because he must have sensed the woman in question felt differently about their interaction.
"The same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next," he said.
Published in the Creston Valley Advance newspaper, the piece accused Mr Trudeau of "inappropriately handling" the reporter, who felt "blatantly disrespected" by the actions, which were not described.
According to the editorial, Mr Trudeau apologised for his behaviour and said: "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward."
Mr Trudeau, the son of one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers, Pierre Trudeau, was a 28-year-old teacher at the time of the event.
He became involved with the charity Avalanche Foundation after his brother Michel died in an avalanche in 1998.
In her statement, the woman - who has not been named - confirmed Mr Trudeau did issue an apology to her on the day after the festival, as was published in the editorial.
"I did not pursue the incident at the time and will not be pursuing the incident further," she said.
"Beyond this statement, I will not be providing any further details or information. The debate, if it continues, will continue without my involvement."
7 July 2018
Mr Trudeau says he remembers the event, but does not recall any "negative interactions"
The woman who accused Canadian PM Justin Trudeau 18 years ago of groping her says she stands by her account.
She released a statement on Friday to CBC News, her first public comment on the allegations that resurfaced over a month ago.
She said the incident, described in August 2000 in an editorial in a local newspaper "did occur, as reported".
Mr Trudeau has denied any wrongdoing, saying he is confident he did "not act inappropriately".
The woman was a journalist at the time and covering an event attended by Mr Trudeau.
The editorial and its allegations resurfaced after a blogger posted an image of the article on Twitter in June.
Warren Kinsella
✔
@kinsellawarren
Um, what? #cdnpoli #loc #MeToo
9:25 AM - Jun 7, 2018
The event in Creston, British Columbia, was held to raise money for an avalanche safety charity with which Mr Trudeau was involved.
Days afterwards, an unsigned editorial appeared in a local paper, accusing him of "groping" a young female reporter.
Mr Trudeau first responded to the nearly 20-year-old incident on 1 July when questioned by journalists.
Trudeau denies groping allegations
Trudeau defends asylum seeker policy
Trudeau faces PC 'peoplekind' backlash
The prime minister said he did not recall any "negative interactions" at the event, though he said he remembered the day in Creston well.
On Thursday, the prime minister offered a more detailed response.
"I have been reflecting very carefully on what I remember," he said. "I feel I am confident I did not act inappropriately."
Mr Trudeau said if he apologised at the time it was because he must have sensed the woman in question felt differently about their interaction.
"The same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next," he said.
Published in the Creston Valley Advance newspaper, the piece accused Mr Trudeau of "inappropriately handling" the reporter, who felt "blatantly disrespected" by the actions, which were not described.
According to the editorial, Mr Trudeau apologised for his behaviour and said: "If I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward."
Mr Trudeau, the son of one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers, Pierre Trudeau, was a 28-year-old teacher at the time of the event.
He became involved with the charity Avalanche Foundation after his brother Michel died in an avalanche in 1998.
In her statement, the woman - who has not been named - confirmed Mr Trudeau did issue an apology to her on the day after the festival, as was published in the editorial.
"I did not pursue the incident at the time and will not be pursuing the incident further," she said.
"Beyond this statement, I will not be providing any further details or information. The debate, if it continues, will continue without my involvement."
China and Russia hit back at Trump tariffs - BBC News
China and Russia hit back at Trump tariffs
6 July 2018
US lobsters are among goods subject to Chinese retaliatory tariffs
China has hit back after US tariffs on Chinese goods came into effect and President Donald Trump threatened to impose more.
China's commerce ministry said it had lodged a new complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Meanwhile, Russia has announced extra duties on US imports in retaliation for earlier US steel tariffs.
Beijing has accused the US of starting the "largest trade war in economic history".
US tariffs on $34bn (£25.7bn) of Chinese goods came into effect on Friday.
China retaliated by imposing a similar 25% tariff on 545 US products - including cars, soya beans and lobsters - also worth a total of $34bn.
Russia is introducing extra duties on a range of products imported from the US that can be replaced by locally made equivalents.
They include road-building equipment, products for the oil and gas industry, and tools used in mining.
Media captionWhy the US-China trade war will hit most of our pockets
Mr Trump has already imposed tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, and started charging levies on the imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.
The US tariffs imposed so far would affect the equivalent of 0.6% of global trade and account for 0.1% of global GDP, according to Morgan Stanley.
What is President Trump threatening?
The US president said America might target Chinese goods worth $500bn - the total value of Chinese imports in 2017.
The White House had previously said it would consult on tariffs on another $16bn of products, which Mr Trump has suggested could come into effect later this month.
Mr Trump said: "You have another 16 [billion dollars] in two weeks, and then, as you know, we have $200bn in abeyance and then after the $200bn, we have $300bn in abeyance. OK? So we have 50 plus 200 plus almost 300."
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Donald Trump says US tariffs will protect US jobs
The American tariffs are the result of Mr Trump's attempt to protect US jobs and stop what he calls "unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China".
A conflicted administration
By Tara McKelvey, White House reporter
Behind the trade war, there is conflict within the Trump administration. Hardliners such as Peter Navarro, a trade policy adviser, says the US is defending itself against an "aggressive" China. Meanwhile, some of the officials who previously worked for the Obama administration - known as "holdovers" - are hoping to tamp down the US-China conflict.
The tension between these factions is occasionally on display in the West Wing. I've seen two hardliners struggle over a podium, vying for a chance to broadcast Trump's harsh message on economic issues, while the holdovers sit quietly at the side of the room.
This reflects a larger division in the White House: Trump and his closest aides are trying to bring about radical change, while those who support a more cautious approach find themselves sitting in silence.
What do China and Russia say?
"Trade war is never a solution," said Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. "China would never start a trade war, but if any party resorts to an increase of tariffs then China will take measures in response to protect development interests."
The government-run English language China Daily newspaper said: "The Trump administration is behaving like a gang of hoodlums with its shakedown of other countries, particularly China."
Russia says US tariffs on steel and aluminium, introduced in March, will cost its companies more than half a billion dollars.
Will there be a full-scale trade war?
Analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch forecast only a modest escalation in the US-China battle, adding: "However, we can't rule out a full-blown, recession-inducing 'trade war'."
Rob Carnell, chief Asia economist at ING, said: "This is not economic Armageddon. We will not have to hunt our food with pointy sticks.
"But it is applying the brakes to a global economy that has less durable momentum than appears to be the case."
Carmaker BMW said it could not absorb all of the 25% tariff on the cars it exports to China from a plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina and would have to raise prices.
The new tariffs had little impact on Asian stock markets. The Shanghai Composite closed 0.5% higher, but ended the week 3.5% lower - its seventh consecutive week of losses.
Tokyo closed 1.1% higher and European markets were up more than 1% in morning trading before turning negative on Friday afternoon.
6 July 2018
US lobsters are among goods subject to Chinese retaliatory tariffs
China has hit back after US tariffs on Chinese goods came into effect and President Donald Trump threatened to impose more.
China's commerce ministry said it had lodged a new complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Meanwhile, Russia has announced extra duties on US imports in retaliation for earlier US steel tariffs.
Beijing has accused the US of starting the "largest trade war in economic history".
US tariffs on $34bn (£25.7bn) of Chinese goods came into effect on Friday.
China retaliated by imposing a similar 25% tariff on 545 US products - including cars, soya beans and lobsters - also worth a total of $34bn.
Russia is introducing extra duties on a range of products imported from the US that can be replaced by locally made equivalents.
They include road-building equipment, products for the oil and gas industry, and tools used in mining.
Media captionWhy the US-China trade war will hit most of our pockets
Mr Trump has already imposed tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, and started charging levies on the imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.
The US tariffs imposed so far would affect the equivalent of 0.6% of global trade and account for 0.1% of global GDP, according to Morgan Stanley.
What is President Trump threatening?
The US president said America might target Chinese goods worth $500bn - the total value of Chinese imports in 2017.
The White House had previously said it would consult on tariffs on another $16bn of products, which Mr Trump has suggested could come into effect later this month.
Mr Trump said: "You have another 16 [billion dollars] in two weeks, and then, as you know, we have $200bn in abeyance and then after the $200bn, we have $300bn in abeyance. OK? So we have 50 plus 200 plus almost 300."
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Donald Trump says US tariffs will protect US jobs
The American tariffs are the result of Mr Trump's attempt to protect US jobs and stop what he calls "unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China".
A conflicted administration
By Tara McKelvey, White House reporter
Behind the trade war, there is conflict within the Trump administration. Hardliners such as Peter Navarro, a trade policy adviser, says the US is defending itself against an "aggressive" China. Meanwhile, some of the officials who previously worked for the Obama administration - known as "holdovers" - are hoping to tamp down the US-China conflict.
The tension between these factions is occasionally on display in the West Wing. I've seen two hardliners struggle over a podium, vying for a chance to broadcast Trump's harsh message on economic issues, while the holdovers sit quietly at the side of the room.
This reflects a larger division in the White House: Trump and his closest aides are trying to bring about radical change, while those who support a more cautious approach find themselves sitting in silence.
What do China and Russia say?
"Trade war is never a solution," said Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. "China would never start a trade war, but if any party resorts to an increase of tariffs then China will take measures in response to protect development interests."
The government-run English language China Daily newspaper said: "The Trump administration is behaving like a gang of hoodlums with its shakedown of other countries, particularly China."
Russia says US tariffs on steel and aluminium, introduced in March, will cost its companies more than half a billion dollars.
Will there be a full-scale trade war?
Analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch forecast only a modest escalation in the US-China battle, adding: "However, we can't rule out a full-blown, recession-inducing 'trade war'."
Rob Carnell, chief Asia economist at ING, said: "This is not economic Armageddon. We will not have to hunt our food with pointy sticks.
"But it is applying the brakes to a global economy that has less durable momentum than appears to be the case."
Carmaker BMW said it could not absorb all of the 25% tariff on the cars it exports to China from a plant in Spartanburg, South Carolina and would have to raise prices.
The new tariffs had little impact on Asian stock markets. The Shanghai Composite closed 0.5% higher, but ended the week 3.5% lower - its seventh consecutive week of losses.
Tokyo closed 1.1% higher and European markets were up more than 1% in morning trading before turning negative on Friday afternoon.
Friday, July 6, 2018
TRUMP UK VISIT: THE ROYAL PROTOCOL THE US PRESIDENT WILL FOLLOW WHEN MEETING THE QUEEN - Independent
TRUMP UK VISIT: THE ROYAL PROTOCOL THE US PRESIDENT WILL FOLLOW WHEN MEETING THE QUEEN
Many are wondering how the president will fare when he meets the Queen for the first time
July 6, 2018
SABRINA BARR
@fabsab5
With around a week to go until the US president arrives in the UK, the question of how Donald Trump will fare when meeting Her Majesty the Queen has become a widely discussed topic of conversation.
The Queen has made the acquaintance of almost every acting US president since 1945, starting with Harry Truman whom she met while visiting Washington, DC as a princess in 1951.
There are number of rules that Trump will be expected to follow when he meets the reigning British monarch for the first time, some of which are more regimented than others.
Where are the UK protests against Donald Trump taking place?
"Whilst this is not a full state visit, it will be a meeting of two heads of state, and therefore formalities should be observed," Rupert Wesson, Debrett's academy director, tells The Independent.
"There will be a handful of subtle differences, but not many. For instance, the Queen tends not to shake hands with everyone she meets.
"However, in this case it would be surprising if she didn't."
The Queen is expected to host Trump at Windsor Castle when they meet on Friday 13 July, with the castle remaining closed to the public throughout the day.
"Families belong together" Protests over Trump immigration policy
While Trump will probably be instructed on how to address the Queen in the appropriate manner, the royal family are apparently more relaxed nowadays in regard to royal protocol than they used to be.
"It isn't as much a case of meeting the Queen, but rather being presented to her (typically by one of her courtiers)," Mr Wesson explains.
"In this instance, they will likely say: 'Your Majesty, may I present Mr Donald Trump.'
When is Donald Trump coming to Britain and who will he meet?
"It is customary for men to bow, however this is a very subtle gesture and not exaggerated - the Queen is said to be quite relaxed about this."
The royal family has outlined the proper way in which to address the Queen, tips that Trump will have to take heed of prior to his visit.
When greeting the monarch for the first time, the president will be expected to call her “Your Majesty”, before then referring to her as “Ma’am”, pronounced in the same manner as “jam”.
Trump will likely then bow to the Queen from the neck, while the First Lady will give the royal a small curtsy.
Trump continues attack on media and democrats
Depending on how the Queen decides to receive the president, the pair may also shake hands.
"The rules are not official or written down but rather an understanding," explains etiquette expert Grant Harrold, otherwise known as 'The Royal Butler'.
"President Trump should not offer his hand to the Queen for a handshake but he will have to wait for the Queen to offer the handshake.
"Only then may he accept and he must remember the grip should not be too tight or too loose, and it is two to three pumps then hands go back to your side."
May should ‘stand up’ to Donald Trump on human rights, Amnesty says
Mr Wesson believes that Trump will probably speak first after he's been introduced, with the Queen then following suit.
Furthermore, as it is their first meeting, Mr Harrold suspects that the pair will discuss general topics as opposed to personal matters.
It’s been reported that Trump will also be attending a dinner at Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire during his UK visit, with the estate revealing on its website that the palace, park and gardens will be closed on 11 and 12 July.
While the feast will supposedly be hosted by Theresa May and attended by an assortment of business leaders as opposed to members of the royal family, Trump will still expected to follow certain rules in keeping with formal dinner etiquette.
Trump 'Angry baby' balloon gets go ahead to fly over London for visit
According to Debrett’s, when dining at a formal meal, guests should refrain from hunching in their chairs, starting the meal before anyone else and talking with their mouths full.
Furthermore, if any speeches are being given during the evening, talking during the oration is considered rude.
In 2017, Canada’s governor general David Johnston appeared to breach royal protocol by making physical contact with the Queen while helping her down a flight of stairs at Canada House in London.
However, while many may have assumed any physical contact with the Queen is strictly off limits in keeping with royal protocol, Michelle Obama’s famous hug with the monarch proves that this isn’t necessarily the case.
Many are wondering how the president will fare when he meets the Queen for the first time
July 6, 2018
SABRINA BARR
@fabsab5
With around a week to go until the US president arrives in the UK, the question of how Donald Trump will fare when meeting Her Majesty the Queen has become a widely discussed topic of conversation.
The Queen has made the acquaintance of almost every acting US president since 1945, starting with Harry Truman whom she met while visiting Washington, DC as a princess in 1951.
There are number of rules that Trump will be expected to follow when he meets the reigning British monarch for the first time, some of which are more regimented than others.
Where are the UK protests against Donald Trump taking place?
"Whilst this is not a full state visit, it will be a meeting of two heads of state, and therefore formalities should be observed," Rupert Wesson, Debrett's academy director, tells The Independent.
"There will be a handful of subtle differences, but not many. For instance, the Queen tends not to shake hands with everyone she meets.
"However, in this case it would be surprising if she didn't."
The Queen is expected to host Trump at Windsor Castle when they meet on Friday 13 July, with the castle remaining closed to the public throughout the day.
"Families belong together" Protests over Trump immigration policy
While Trump will probably be instructed on how to address the Queen in the appropriate manner, the royal family are apparently more relaxed nowadays in regard to royal protocol than they used to be.
"It isn't as much a case of meeting the Queen, but rather being presented to her (typically by one of her courtiers)," Mr Wesson explains.
"In this instance, they will likely say: 'Your Majesty, may I present Mr Donald Trump.'
When is Donald Trump coming to Britain and who will he meet?
"It is customary for men to bow, however this is a very subtle gesture and not exaggerated - the Queen is said to be quite relaxed about this."
The royal family has outlined the proper way in which to address the Queen, tips that Trump will have to take heed of prior to his visit.
When greeting the monarch for the first time, the president will be expected to call her “Your Majesty”, before then referring to her as “Ma’am”, pronounced in the same manner as “jam”.
Trump will likely then bow to the Queen from the neck, while the First Lady will give the royal a small curtsy.
Trump continues attack on media and democrats
Depending on how the Queen decides to receive the president, the pair may also shake hands.
"The rules are not official or written down but rather an understanding," explains etiquette expert Grant Harrold, otherwise known as 'The Royal Butler'.
"President Trump should not offer his hand to the Queen for a handshake but he will have to wait for the Queen to offer the handshake.
"Only then may he accept and he must remember the grip should not be too tight or too loose, and it is two to three pumps then hands go back to your side."
May should ‘stand up’ to Donald Trump on human rights, Amnesty says
Mr Wesson believes that Trump will probably speak first after he's been introduced, with the Queen then following suit.
Furthermore, as it is their first meeting, Mr Harrold suspects that the pair will discuss general topics as opposed to personal matters.
It’s been reported that Trump will also be attending a dinner at Blenheim Palace in Oxfordshire during his UK visit, with the estate revealing on its website that the palace, park and gardens will be closed on 11 and 12 July.
While the feast will supposedly be hosted by Theresa May and attended by an assortment of business leaders as opposed to members of the royal family, Trump will still expected to follow certain rules in keeping with formal dinner etiquette.
Trump 'Angry baby' balloon gets go ahead to fly over London for visit
According to Debrett’s, when dining at a formal meal, guests should refrain from hunching in their chairs, starting the meal before anyone else and talking with their mouths full.
Furthermore, if any speeches are being given during the evening, talking during the oration is considered rude.
In 2017, Canada’s governor general David Johnston appeared to breach royal protocol by making physical contact with the Queen while helping her down a flight of stairs at Canada House in London.
However, while many may have assumed any physical contact with the Queen is strictly off limits in keeping with royal protocol, Michelle Obama’s famous hug with the monarch proves that this isn’t necessarily the case.
Chinese Tycoon Wang Jian Falls to His Death While on a Business Trip in France - TIME Business
Chinese Tycoon Wang Jian Falls to His Death While on a Business Trip in France
By ASSOCIATED PRESS July 5, 2018
(BEIJING) — The co-chairman of HNA Group, a conglomerate that operates China’s fourth-largest airline and finance, logistics and other businesses around the world, died in an accident while on a business trip in France, the company said Wednesday.
Wang Jian, a co-founder of the company, suffered “severe injuries” in a fall in Provence in southern France and died Tuesday at age 57, said an HNA Group statement. It gave no other details.
Regional French media outlet France Bleu said Wang fell a dozen or so meters (yards) while taking photos on a high wall in Bonnieux, a town in a region famed for its panoramic views.
Launched in 1993 on the southern island of Hainan, HNA expanded into finance, hotels, logistics and other businesses in a multibillion-dollar global acquisition spree.
More recently, HNA has been selling some assets as Chinese regulators tighten lending controls and press companies to rein in debt.
Wang graduated from the Civil Aviation University of China and received an MBA from the Maastricht School of Management in the Netherlands, according to his company.
HNA agreed last year to acquire a hedge fund operated by Anthony Scaramucci, an aide to U.S. President Donald Trump. That never received regulatory approval and the two sides called off the deal in April.
By ASSOCIATED PRESS July 5, 2018
(BEIJING) — The co-chairman of HNA Group, a conglomerate that operates China’s fourth-largest airline and finance, logistics and other businesses around the world, died in an accident while on a business trip in France, the company said Wednesday.
Wang Jian, a co-founder of the company, suffered “severe injuries” in a fall in Provence in southern France and died Tuesday at age 57, said an HNA Group statement. It gave no other details.
Regional French media outlet France Bleu said Wang fell a dozen or so meters (yards) while taking photos on a high wall in Bonnieux, a town in a region famed for its panoramic views.
Launched in 1993 on the southern island of Hainan, HNA expanded into finance, hotels, logistics and other businesses in a multibillion-dollar global acquisition spree.
More recently, HNA has been selling some assets as Chinese regulators tighten lending controls and press companies to rein in debt.
Wang graduated from the Civil Aviation University of China and received an MBA from the Maastricht School of Management in the Netherlands, according to his company.
HNA agreed last year to acquire a hedge fund operated by Anthony Scaramucci, an aide to U.S. President Donald Trump. That never received regulatory approval and the two sides called off the deal in April.
Canadian Fisherman Say U.S. Border Patrol Is ‘Harassing’ Their Boats in Disputed Waters Off Maine - TIME
WORLD CANADA
Canadian Fisherman Say U.S. Border Patrol Is ‘Harassing’ Their Boats in Disputed Waters Off Maine
Machias Seal Island.
By JAMIE DUCHARME July 5, 2018
Canadian officials say armed U.S. Border Patrol agents have been stopping and boarding Canadian fishing boats to look for illegal immigrants in the contested waters between Maine and New Brunswick, resurfacing an old maritime dispute.
The area is home to Machias Seal Island and represents one of the last remaining border disputes between the U.S. and Canada, thanks to competing stipulations laid out by treaties and land grants. The waters around the 18-acre island, known for their lobster fishing, are a gray zone, meaning both the U.S. and Canada consider them sovereign territory.
That debate has come to a head lately, starting with a June 25 Facebook post in which a Canadian fisherman alleged that U.S. Border Patrol attempted to stop a fellow fisherman “in the zone.” The Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association later confirmed that several such interactions occurred in June, NBC reports.
On Wednesday, New Brunswick Fisheries Minister Rick Doucet told the National Post that he has heard multiple reports of armed U.S. Border Patrol agents boarding lobster boats to look for immigrants.
“Is this overkill? Absolutely. Absolutely overkill,” Doucet told the Post. “It’s quite disturbing when you have fishermen on the water, doing their job, providing for their families … and they’re being harassed,” he said. “Canadian fishermen are being harassed by U.S. Border Patrol. As far as I’m concerned, it needs to stop immediately.”
In a statement provided to the National Post, U.S. Border Patrol said its employees were properly enforcing immigration law.
“Border Patrol does not board Canadian Vessels in the grey zone without consent or probable cause and only conduct(s) interviews as a vessel runs parallel to it, bow to stern,” a spokesman said in the statement.
Despite their governments’ debate, Canadian and American fishermen typically coexist in this area relatively peacefully — with a few notable exceptions. In 2007, according to the National Post, an American fisherman had his thumb torn off when his equipment became tangled during a dispute with a Canadian competitor.
Canadian Fisherman Say U.S. Border Patrol Is ‘Harassing’ Their Boats in Disputed Waters Off Maine
Machias Seal Island.
By JAMIE DUCHARME July 5, 2018
Canadian officials say armed U.S. Border Patrol agents have been stopping and boarding Canadian fishing boats to look for illegal immigrants in the contested waters between Maine and New Brunswick, resurfacing an old maritime dispute.
The area is home to Machias Seal Island and represents one of the last remaining border disputes between the U.S. and Canada, thanks to competing stipulations laid out by treaties and land grants. The waters around the 18-acre island, known for their lobster fishing, are a gray zone, meaning both the U.S. and Canada consider them sovereign territory.
That debate has come to a head lately, starting with a June 25 Facebook post in which a Canadian fisherman alleged that U.S. Border Patrol attempted to stop a fellow fisherman “in the zone.” The Grand Manan Fishermen’s Association later confirmed that several such interactions occurred in June, NBC reports.
On Wednesday, New Brunswick Fisheries Minister Rick Doucet told the National Post that he has heard multiple reports of armed U.S. Border Patrol agents boarding lobster boats to look for immigrants.
“Is this overkill? Absolutely. Absolutely overkill,” Doucet told the Post. “It’s quite disturbing when you have fishermen on the water, doing their job, providing for their families … and they’re being harassed,” he said. “Canadian fishermen are being harassed by U.S. Border Patrol. As far as I’m concerned, it needs to stop immediately.”
In a statement provided to the National Post, U.S. Border Patrol said its employees were properly enforcing immigration law.
“Border Patrol does not board Canadian Vessels in the grey zone without consent or probable cause and only conduct(s) interviews as a vessel runs parallel to it, bow to stern,” a spokesman said in the statement.
Despite their governments’ debate, Canadian and American fishermen typically coexist in this area relatively peacefully — with a few notable exceptions. In 2007, according to the National Post, an American fisherman had his thumb torn off when his equipment became tangled during a dispute with a Canadian competitor.
How a US-China trade war could hurt us all - BBC News
How a US-China trade war could hurt us all
Karishma Vaswani
Asia business correspondent
@BBCKarishma on Twitter
5 July 2018
Both sides may ramp up the rhetoric to such an extent neither can back down
What happens when the world's two biggest economies go to war?
Ok, so it's not a real war - but the US and China are at the beginning of a trade war - and no-one knows just how bad it could get.
So here's how a US-China trade war could hurt us.
Tit-for-tat
A list of Chinese products will be hit with a 25% tariff from Friday - effectively making them 25% more expensive for US consumers.
Technology goods like semiconductor chips assembled in China. They're found in consumer products used in everyday life such as televisions, personal computers, smartphones, and cars
A wide variety of products ranging from plastics, nuclear reactors and dairy-making equipment
According to the Petersen Institute of International Economics more than 90% of the products on the US tariffs list are made up of intermediate inputs or capital equipment. That means stuff that you need as raw material to make other products - so it could have a knock-on effect on many other goods too.
What the US really wants to target though are things produced under China's Made in China 2025 policy.
In retaliation to the US moves, China has hit these sectors:
American agriculture - hitting at American farmers and ranchers, a political vote bank that US President Trump relies on. Some 91% of the 545 products China is placing a tariff on are from the agriculture sector
The car sector - companies such as Tesla and Chrysler manufacture in the US and their products going into China would be affected
Medical products; coal; petroleum (but only marginally).
'Getting scary'
And while Beijing is really good at the chest-thumping, fist-wagging rhetoric, the reality on the ground is much more serious.
What is Beijing planning with its "Made in China 2025" programme?
"Our industry contacts in China have said things like 'seems pretty serious,' or 'this is getting scary', even 'I think there's a chance of things getting worse'," says Vinesh Motwani of Silk Road Research.
He's recently returned from a trip to the mainland, and as part of his research routinely talks to China-based firms to gauge business sentiment there.
These worries, he says, can translate into "increased caution and lower confidence" for businesses as they try to navigate the uncertainty ahead.
Which means: expansion plans could be put on ice. And if Chinese expansion is on hold that has a direct impact on the rest of us in Asia.
Shift manufacturing?
Obviously the US and China's economies are most at risk, although they're not the only ones.
According to DBS's chief economist Taimur Baig, an all-out trade war could shave 0.25% off the GDP of both economies this year. It gets much worse next year - with both countries seeing a reduction in growth of about 0.5% or more.
Mr Baig adds that "considering China grows at 6-7% and the US at 2-3%, we believe the damage would be greater to the US than on China".
But countries like South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan could all be affected too because of disruption to supply chains.
Why the US-China trade war will hit most of our pockets
China sources a lot of components that go into its finished goods from these other countries. As Nick Marro of the Economist Intelligence Unit points out, "any dent in China's export flows will inevitably affect" these other countries.
The case could be made for manufacturing to shift to these other countries - and for them to take advantage of selling to the US - but that shift would take time, and it's hard to see who could match China's scale.
Ultimately, the US consumer will end up paying more for these products.
China backlash
US firms operating in China could also face a "China backlash".
Elon Musk's electric car firm Tesla, for instance, has already highlighted just how important the Chinese market is to it.
But it imports all of its products to China and so would see a 25% tariff placed on its cars sold in China - on top of the 15% tax imported vehicles already face there.
This would inevitably push up prices for Tesla in China, making its vehicles less competitive than they already are, relative to others.
Sino-US tensions could also end up "delaying or preventing" Tesla's ability to release its full potential in China, according to Silk Road Research.
How bad can it get?
It's the question I ask every business person I meet, and the answer is typically always the same: nobody knows.
If history is any guide, then past trade wars have led to deep economic malaise. In particular the US Smoot-Hawley tariffs enacted in 1930 are thought to have inspired a trade war, and led to a massive decline in global trade.
As one study points out, world trade fell by 66% from 1929 to 1934, while US exports and imports to and from Europe each also fell by about two-thirds.
While no one is saying we're there yet, businesses are getting more concerned than they have been in the past, especially because of all the uncertainty.
The tit-for-tat mentality between Beijing and Washington could just end up antagonising both sides to a point where they cannot climb down from their hostile positions for fear of losing face.
"You start with protectionism and isolationism," says Victor Mills, chief executive of Singapore's International Chamber of Commerce. "And then you don't just beggar your neighbour, you beggar yourself."
What many business people are hoping of course, is that this sound and fury is just the start of another series of negotiations.
But the worry is that if it's not - it will escalate, and everybody will be the poorer. And that includes you and me.
Karishma Vaswani
Asia business correspondent
@BBCKarishma on Twitter
5 July 2018
Both sides may ramp up the rhetoric to such an extent neither can back down
What happens when the world's two biggest economies go to war?
Ok, so it's not a real war - but the US and China are at the beginning of a trade war - and no-one knows just how bad it could get.
So here's how a US-China trade war could hurt us.
Tit-for-tat
A list of Chinese products will be hit with a 25% tariff from Friday - effectively making them 25% more expensive for US consumers.
Technology goods like semiconductor chips assembled in China. They're found in consumer products used in everyday life such as televisions, personal computers, smartphones, and cars
A wide variety of products ranging from plastics, nuclear reactors and dairy-making equipment
According to the Petersen Institute of International Economics more than 90% of the products on the US tariffs list are made up of intermediate inputs or capital equipment. That means stuff that you need as raw material to make other products - so it could have a knock-on effect on many other goods too.
What the US really wants to target though are things produced under China's Made in China 2025 policy.
In retaliation to the US moves, China has hit these sectors:
American agriculture - hitting at American farmers and ranchers, a political vote bank that US President Trump relies on. Some 91% of the 545 products China is placing a tariff on are from the agriculture sector
The car sector - companies such as Tesla and Chrysler manufacture in the US and their products going into China would be affected
Medical products; coal; petroleum (but only marginally).
'Getting scary'
And while Beijing is really good at the chest-thumping, fist-wagging rhetoric, the reality on the ground is much more serious.
What is Beijing planning with its "Made in China 2025" programme?
"Our industry contacts in China have said things like 'seems pretty serious,' or 'this is getting scary', even 'I think there's a chance of things getting worse'," says Vinesh Motwani of Silk Road Research.
He's recently returned from a trip to the mainland, and as part of his research routinely talks to China-based firms to gauge business sentiment there.
These worries, he says, can translate into "increased caution and lower confidence" for businesses as they try to navigate the uncertainty ahead.
Which means: expansion plans could be put on ice. And if Chinese expansion is on hold that has a direct impact on the rest of us in Asia.
Shift manufacturing?
Obviously the US and China's economies are most at risk, although they're not the only ones.
According to DBS's chief economist Taimur Baig, an all-out trade war could shave 0.25% off the GDP of both economies this year. It gets much worse next year - with both countries seeing a reduction in growth of about 0.5% or more.
Mr Baig adds that "considering China grows at 6-7% and the US at 2-3%, we believe the damage would be greater to the US than on China".
But countries like South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan could all be affected too because of disruption to supply chains.
Why the US-China trade war will hit most of our pockets
China sources a lot of components that go into its finished goods from these other countries. As Nick Marro of the Economist Intelligence Unit points out, "any dent in China's export flows will inevitably affect" these other countries.
The case could be made for manufacturing to shift to these other countries - and for them to take advantage of selling to the US - but that shift would take time, and it's hard to see who could match China's scale.
Ultimately, the US consumer will end up paying more for these products.
China backlash
US firms operating in China could also face a "China backlash".
Elon Musk's electric car firm Tesla, for instance, has already highlighted just how important the Chinese market is to it.
But it imports all of its products to China and so would see a 25% tariff placed on its cars sold in China - on top of the 15% tax imported vehicles already face there.
This would inevitably push up prices for Tesla in China, making its vehicles less competitive than they already are, relative to others.
Sino-US tensions could also end up "delaying or preventing" Tesla's ability to release its full potential in China, according to Silk Road Research.
How bad can it get?
It's the question I ask every business person I meet, and the answer is typically always the same: nobody knows.
If history is any guide, then past trade wars have led to deep economic malaise. In particular the US Smoot-Hawley tariffs enacted in 1930 are thought to have inspired a trade war, and led to a massive decline in global trade.
As one study points out, world trade fell by 66% from 1929 to 1934, while US exports and imports to and from Europe each also fell by about two-thirds.
While no one is saying we're there yet, businesses are getting more concerned than they have been in the past, especially because of all the uncertainty.
The tit-for-tat mentality between Beijing and Washington could just end up antagonising both sides to a point where they cannot climb down from their hostile positions for fear of losing face.
"You start with protectionism and isolationism," says Victor Mills, chief executive of Singapore's International Chamber of Commerce. "And then you don't just beggar your neighbour, you beggar yourself."
What many business people are hoping of course, is that this sound and fury is just the start of another series of negotiations.
But the worry is that if it's not - it will escalate, and everybody will be the poorer. And that includes you and me.
China hits back after US imposes tariffs worth $34bn - BBC News
July 6, 2018
China hits back after US imposes tariffs worth $34bn
Why the US-China trade war will hit most of our pockets
US tariffs on $34bn (£25.7bn) of Chinese goods have come into effect, signalling the start of a trade war between the world's two largest economies.
The 25% levy came into effect at midnight Washington time.
China has retaliated by imposing a similar 25% tariff on 545 US products, also worth a total of $34bn.
Beijing accused the US of starting the "largest trade war in economic history".
"After the US activated its tariff measures against China, China's measures against the US took effect immediately," said Lu Kang, a foreign ministry spokesman.
Two companies in Shanghai told the BBC that customs authorities were delaying clearance processes for US imports on Friday.
The American tariffs are the result of President Donald Trump's bid to protect US jobs and stop "unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China".
The White House said it would consult on tariffs on another $16bn of products, which Mr Trump has suggested could come into effect later this month.
The US soya farmers taking on Trump
The imposition of the tariffs had little impact on Asian stock markets. The Shanghai Composite closed 0.5% higher, but ended the week 3.5% lower - its seventh consecutive week of losses.
Tokyo closed 1.1% higher, but Hong Kong fell 0.5% in late trading.
Hikaru Sato at Daiwa Securities said markets had already factored in the impact of the first round of tariffs.
Mr Trump has already imposed tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, and started charging levies on the imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.
He has also threatened a 10% levy on an additional $200bn of Chinese goods if Beijng "refuses to change its practices".
The president upped the stakes on Thursday, saying the amount of goods subject to tariffs could rise to more than $500bn.
"You have another 16 [billion dollars] in two weeks, and then, as you know, we have $200bn in abeyance and then after the $200bn, we have $300bn in abeyance. OK? So we have 50 plus 200 plus almost 300," he said.
The US tariffs imposed so far would affect the equivalent of 0.6% of global trade and account for 0.1% of global GDP, according to Morgan Stanley in a research note issued before Mr Trump's comments on Thursday.
Analysts are also concerned about the impact on others in the supply chain and about an escalation of tensions between the US and China in general.
China hits back after US imposes tariffs worth $34bn
Why the US-China trade war will hit most of our pockets
US tariffs on $34bn (£25.7bn) of Chinese goods have come into effect, signalling the start of a trade war between the world's two largest economies.
The 25% levy came into effect at midnight Washington time.
China has retaliated by imposing a similar 25% tariff on 545 US products, also worth a total of $34bn.
Beijing accused the US of starting the "largest trade war in economic history".
"After the US activated its tariff measures against China, China's measures against the US took effect immediately," said Lu Kang, a foreign ministry spokesman.
Two companies in Shanghai told the BBC that customs authorities were delaying clearance processes for US imports on Friday.
The American tariffs are the result of President Donald Trump's bid to protect US jobs and stop "unfair transfers of American technology and intellectual property to China".
The White House said it would consult on tariffs on another $16bn of products, which Mr Trump has suggested could come into effect later this month.
The US soya farmers taking on Trump
The imposition of the tariffs had little impact on Asian stock markets. The Shanghai Composite closed 0.5% higher, but ended the week 3.5% lower - its seventh consecutive week of losses.
Tokyo closed 1.1% higher, but Hong Kong fell 0.5% in late trading.
Hikaru Sato at Daiwa Securities said markets had already factored in the impact of the first round of tariffs.
Mr Trump has already imposed tariffs on imported washing machines and solar panels, and started charging levies on the imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union, Mexico and Canada.
He has also threatened a 10% levy on an additional $200bn of Chinese goods if Beijng "refuses to change its practices".
The president upped the stakes on Thursday, saying the amount of goods subject to tariffs could rise to more than $500bn.
"You have another 16 [billion dollars] in two weeks, and then, as you know, we have $200bn in abeyance and then after the $200bn, we have $300bn in abeyance. OK? So we have 50 plus 200 plus almost 300," he said.
The US tariffs imposed so far would affect the equivalent of 0.6% of global trade and account for 0.1% of global GDP, according to Morgan Stanley in a research note issued before Mr Trump's comments on Thursday.
Analysts are also concerned about the impact on others in the supply chain and about an escalation of tensions between the US and China in general.
Thailand cave rescue: Ex-navy diver dies on oxygen supply mission - BBC News
July 6, 2018
Thailand cave rescue: Ex-navy diver dies on oxygen supply mission
Saman Gunan, pictured here in the cave, lost consciousness in a passageway
A former Thai navy diver has died while taking part in efforts to rescue 12 boys and their football coach trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand.
Petty Officer Saman Gunan lost consciousness on his way out of the Tham Luang cave complex, where he had been delivering air tanks.
The boys have been trapped for nearly two weeks in a chamber in the cave.
They ventured in while the cave was dry but were caught out by a sudden deluge of rain, which flooded the system.
The group was found by British rescue divers after 10 days in the cave, perched on a rock shelf in a small chamber about 4km (2.5 miles) from the cave mouth.
Teams of Thai and international divers have since supplied them with food, oxygen and medical attention, but there are mounting concerns about the oxygen level in the chamber, which officials said had fallen to 15%. The usual level is 21%.
Locals long to see missing Thai cave boys
What are the rescue options?
On the surface, a huge military and civilian rescue operation is racing against the clock to bring the boys to safety. Heavy monsoon rains are expected on Sunday, threatening further flooding.
Officials had initially considered leaving the boys in the chamber to wait out the rainy season - which could have seen them trapped there for up to four months.
Even for experienced divers, the cave is dangerous
But Thailand's Navy Seal commander suggested on Thursday that the divers may now have little choice but to attempt a daring emergency rescue - fraught with danger for the boys, who are aged 11 to 16 and some of whom cannot swim.
"At first, we thought the children could stay for a long time... but now things have changed, we have a limited time," Rear Admiral Apakorn Yookongkaew said.
A death in the cave
The death of Saman - a highly trained diver - on Thursday underscored the danger of moving from the chamber to mouth of the cave, and raised serious doubts about the safety of bringing the boys out through the cramped, flooded passageways.
The diver died after losing consciousness in one of the passageways, said Passakorn Boonyaluck, deputy governor of the Chiang Rai region, where the cave is situated.
"His job was to deliver oxygen. He did not have enough on his way back," Mr Passakorn said.
He said that Saman's dive partner tried to revive him but could not, and his body was brought out of the cave.
The Brits behind the Thai cave boys search
Elon Musk offers to help
Saman, who was reportedly 38, had left the navy but returned to aid in the rescue operation. Said to be an avid runner and cyclist, he was part of the massive rescue operation launched after the group became stranded in the Tham Luang cave.
Officials said his funeral would be sponsored by the Thai king.
The search operation would go on, said Rear Adm Arpakorn. "I can guarantee that we will not panic, we will not stop our mission, we will not let the sacrifice of our friend go to waste," he said.
About 1,000 people are involved in the rescue operation, including navy divers, military personnel and civilian volunteers.
A buddhist monk leads an honour guard carrying PO Saman's coffin
A lack of oxygen
Authorities say there are concerns about falling oxygen levels in the chamber where the boys and their coach are trapped.
Oxygen was being depleted by the large number of people working inside the cave network, said the Chiang Rai Governor, Narongsak Osotthanakorn.
Authorities are now working to get a 5km (3 mile) cable into the cave to supply the group with air. They are also trying to feed a fibre optic cable through to the group, to connect them to their families for the first time in nearly two weeks.
What are the rescue options?
The boys are being regularly supplied with food and medical care, but there are grave concerns over heavy rainfall forecast for Sunday.
Authorities are trying to work out how best to bring the group to safety, with officials stressing they do not intend to take any risks with the boys' safety.
The military has been pumping water out of the cave but if it cannot hold the water level down, it will be left a stark reality: teaching the boys to use diving equipment and bringing them via a route which has already cost one trained diver his life.
Some local groups are searching in the hills for unknown entrances to the cave system, but none has yet been found.
If a rescue attempt fails, leaving the boys to wait out the rain brings with it another danger: that the sinkholes and streams in the hills above could flood the chamber completely.
Diver's death a blow to morale
Rescue operation leaders here say most of those involved have been trained to work in high risk environments, and to deal with eventualities like this.
They say the death of Saman won't impact on their mission. But there is a different atmosphere today in the makeshift village that's evolved at the cave's entrance, and the death of a former navy Seal highlights just how dangerous the route out of the cave remains.
It is unlikely the boys will be told about the death. One of the prime concerns here is to keep them not just physically but mentally strong.
Today, the priority is to connect the fibre optic cable that will allow the boys to speak to their families. It is hoped it will be a vital boost for the young boys, after two long weeks underground.
Thailand cave rescue: Ex-navy diver dies on oxygen supply mission
Saman Gunan, pictured here in the cave, lost consciousness in a passageway
A former Thai navy diver has died while taking part in efforts to rescue 12 boys and their football coach trapped in a flooded cave in Thailand.
Petty Officer Saman Gunan lost consciousness on his way out of the Tham Luang cave complex, where he had been delivering air tanks.
The boys have been trapped for nearly two weeks in a chamber in the cave.
They ventured in while the cave was dry but were caught out by a sudden deluge of rain, which flooded the system.
The group was found by British rescue divers after 10 days in the cave, perched on a rock shelf in a small chamber about 4km (2.5 miles) from the cave mouth.
Teams of Thai and international divers have since supplied them with food, oxygen and medical attention, but there are mounting concerns about the oxygen level in the chamber, which officials said had fallen to 15%. The usual level is 21%.
Locals long to see missing Thai cave boys
What are the rescue options?
On the surface, a huge military and civilian rescue operation is racing against the clock to bring the boys to safety. Heavy monsoon rains are expected on Sunday, threatening further flooding.
Officials had initially considered leaving the boys in the chamber to wait out the rainy season - which could have seen them trapped there for up to four months.
Even for experienced divers, the cave is dangerous
But Thailand's Navy Seal commander suggested on Thursday that the divers may now have little choice but to attempt a daring emergency rescue - fraught with danger for the boys, who are aged 11 to 16 and some of whom cannot swim.
"At first, we thought the children could stay for a long time... but now things have changed, we have a limited time," Rear Admiral Apakorn Yookongkaew said.
A death in the cave
The death of Saman - a highly trained diver - on Thursday underscored the danger of moving from the chamber to mouth of the cave, and raised serious doubts about the safety of bringing the boys out through the cramped, flooded passageways.
The diver died after losing consciousness in one of the passageways, said Passakorn Boonyaluck, deputy governor of the Chiang Rai region, where the cave is situated.
"His job was to deliver oxygen. He did not have enough on his way back," Mr Passakorn said.
He said that Saman's dive partner tried to revive him but could not, and his body was brought out of the cave.
The Brits behind the Thai cave boys search
Elon Musk offers to help
Saman, who was reportedly 38, had left the navy but returned to aid in the rescue operation. Said to be an avid runner and cyclist, he was part of the massive rescue operation launched after the group became stranded in the Tham Luang cave.
Officials said his funeral would be sponsored by the Thai king.
The search operation would go on, said Rear Adm Arpakorn. "I can guarantee that we will not panic, we will not stop our mission, we will not let the sacrifice of our friend go to waste," he said.
About 1,000 people are involved in the rescue operation, including navy divers, military personnel and civilian volunteers.
A buddhist monk leads an honour guard carrying PO Saman's coffin
A lack of oxygen
Authorities say there are concerns about falling oxygen levels in the chamber where the boys and their coach are trapped.
Oxygen was being depleted by the large number of people working inside the cave network, said the Chiang Rai Governor, Narongsak Osotthanakorn.
Authorities are now working to get a 5km (3 mile) cable into the cave to supply the group with air. They are also trying to feed a fibre optic cable through to the group, to connect them to their families for the first time in nearly two weeks.
What are the rescue options?
The boys are being regularly supplied with food and medical care, but there are grave concerns over heavy rainfall forecast for Sunday.
Authorities are trying to work out how best to bring the group to safety, with officials stressing they do not intend to take any risks with the boys' safety.
The military has been pumping water out of the cave but if it cannot hold the water level down, it will be left a stark reality: teaching the boys to use diving equipment and bringing them via a route which has already cost one trained diver his life.
Some local groups are searching in the hills for unknown entrances to the cave system, but none has yet been found.
If a rescue attempt fails, leaving the boys to wait out the rain brings with it another danger: that the sinkholes and streams in the hills above could flood the chamber completely.
Diver's death a blow to morale
Rescue operation leaders here say most of those involved have been trained to work in high risk environments, and to deal with eventualities like this.
They say the death of Saman won't impact on their mission. But there is a different atmosphere today in the makeshift village that's evolved at the cave's entrance, and the death of a former navy Seal highlights just how dangerous the route out of the cave remains.
It is unlikely the boys will be told about the death. One of the prime concerns here is to keep them not just physically but mentally strong.
Today, the priority is to connect the fibre optic cable that will allow the boys to speak to their families. It is hoped it will be a vital boost for the young boys, after two long weeks underground.
Thursday, July 5, 2018
How Trump Went From ‘Fire and Fury’ to Dismissing North Korean Nuclear Advances - New York Times
How Trump Went From ‘Fire and Fury’ to Dismissing North Korean Nuclear Advances
By David E. Sanger
July 4, 2018
WASHINGTON — When the North Koreans were shooting off missile tests and detonating new, more powerful atomic bombs last year, President Trump responded with threats of “fire and fury” and ordered the military to come up with new, if highly risky, pre-emptive strike options.
But since the one-day summit meeting last month in Singapore, Mr. Trump has done an about-face, while the North’s nuclear program has continued. “Many good conversations with North Korea-it is going well!” he wrote Tuesday morning on Twitter.
Even the recent revelations of seemingly modest North Korean progress on missile technology and the production of nuclear fuel — including continued work on a new nuclear reactor that can produce plutonium — have not dimmed Mr. Trump’s enthusiasm. He argues that they mean little compared to the new tone of conversations, and that even though North Korea has not disassembled a single weapon, his mission should be judged a success.
It is that jarring reversal of tone that has led Mr. Trump’s critics to argue that he was taken in by Kim Jong-un, the North’s 34-year-old leader.
Turning the enthusiasm of the meeting in Singapore into a concrete, verifiable agreement is now the job of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is leaving Washington early Thursday for North Korea. It will be his third trip there, but the first to flesh out a timetable and a common understanding of what the Singapore commitment to “work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” really means.
Complicating the task is this: Mr. Pompeo, a former C.I.A. chief who knows the details of the North Korean program intimately and has solicited plans for how to accomplish his goals, must show that he can get the North Koreans to go far beyond the agreement his predecessor once-removed, John Kerry, achieved in negotiations with Iran. Mr. Trump has called that deal a “disaster” for years and pulled out of it two months ago.
Now, it looms over Mr. Pompeo’s talks.
By engaging Mr. Trump in the process of “denuclearizing” the Korean Peninsula, Mr. Kim may be calculating that the president would not dare walk away — especially after Mr. Trump noted before the summit meeting that “everyone thinks” he should win a Nobel Peace Prize, before modestly adding, “but I would never say it.”
Still, the test missile engine site that Mr. Trump told reporters was being dismantled still stands, satellite pictures show. And the C.I.A., among other agencies, has warned that the North’s strategy may now be to build up abilities that can be traded away later, hoping to maneuver Mr. Trump into accepting the country as a de facto nuclear power, and settle for concessions on the size and reach of Mr. Kim’s nuclear force.
Mr. Trump and his allies say that is nonsense; sanctions remain and Mr. Trump has not flinched from the goal of “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization.”
“There’s not any starry-eyed feeling among the group doing this,” John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, insisted Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” saying that most of the major steps toward denuclearization could be taken in a year. In private, Trump administration officials say, Mr. Bolton’s view is the same as it was before he joined the administration: that the North Koreans will never entirely give up their program.
The big question is whether Mr. Kim is truly ready to change course or playing for time with Mr. Trump — as his father and grandfather did with the past four presidents.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is in sales mode.
Frustrated by the series of reports that the North is chugging forward, despite its “denuclearization” pledge, Mr. Trump boasted in a tweet on Tuesday that there had been “no Rocket Launches or Nuclear Testing in 8 months. All of Asia is thrilled. Only the Opposition Party, which includes the Fake News, is complaining.”
Then, with a Trumpian flair, he added, “If not for me, we would now be at War with North Korea!”
Mr. Trump is at least partly right: There have been no missile or nuclear tests since November, a freeze that many, including some Democrats, said was a necessary first step. But a freeze and denuclearization are completely different things.
Mr. Kim retains all of his nuclear abilities, and thus his leverage. He can resume testing any time. Just a year ago, Rex W. Tillerson, then the secretary of state, called that position insufficient because it merely perpetuated an ability to strike that Mr. Trump had, until recently, characterized as intolerable.
But it also reveals, in perhaps the most critical national security crisis Mr. Trump faces, his tendency to conflate a good meeting with a good outcome. It is as if President John F. Kennedy, meeting with the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev for the first time in Vienna in 1961, had declared the Cold War solved. The Cuban missile crisis broke open 16 months later.
Mr. Kim has already accomplished something, too. The heat has been turned down drastically, and the United States has, unilaterally, suspended military exercises with South Korea.
The Obama administration’s Iran agreement shadows Mr. Trump’s talks with the North.
The president regularly calls Iran a major nuclear threat, even though it no longer has enough fuel to make a single nuclear weapon. Under the 2015 agreement, it shipped 97 percent of its nuclear material out of the country. And it never possessed nuclear weapons.
Yet Mr. Trump pulled out after concluding that the United States gave away too much in return for an agreement that would gradually allow the Iranians to resume production around 2030.
The stark contrast between how Mr. Trump talks about Tehran, while insisting that the North is “no longer a nuclear threat,” will become harder and harder to sustain if Mr. Pompeo cannot get Mr. Kim on a rapid denuclearization schedule.
And Mr. Pompeo will need to achieve an inspection regime that provides assurance — not only to intelligence agencies but also to the public in South Korea, Japan and the United States — that the North is not hiding weapons, missiles or production facilities. The C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency believe that, today, it is hiding all three. So far, Mr. Pompeo has said nothing about the details he intends to present, and Mr. Bolton suggested that stories about new intelligence on the North’s improving its nuclear abilities only imperiled the diplomatic process. As a television commentator and columnist, Mr. Bolton often repeated similar reports when it came to building his case about how to deal with Pyongyang and Tehran.
One thing is clear, however: The Trump administration has not uttered the phrase “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization” in weeks, and Mr. Pompeo has also softened his tone. Some administration officials say that South Korea urged getting rid of the everything-must-be-dismantled-immediately approach. And South Korean officials say that while Mr. Kim might not surrender his entire program anytime soon, he might dismantle parts of it, reducing his readiness to go to war.
“Perhaps the biggest diplomatic problem the U.S. will face, if we can get North Korea to agree to fully denuclearize, will be the timing of that denuclearization and how we verify the component steps,” William Perry, the former defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, wrote this week in Politico Magazine.
Mr. Perry, who negotiated repeatedly with the North, cautioned that “these steps will be complex, will take many months, if not years, and will require intrusive verification procedures.”
“But the U.S. has negotiated agreements equally difficult with the Soviet Union, so we do have a positive precedent,” he wrote.
By David E. Sanger
July 4, 2018
WASHINGTON — When the North Koreans were shooting off missile tests and detonating new, more powerful atomic bombs last year, President Trump responded with threats of “fire and fury” and ordered the military to come up with new, if highly risky, pre-emptive strike options.
But since the one-day summit meeting last month in Singapore, Mr. Trump has done an about-face, while the North’s nuclear program has continued. “Many good conversations with North Korea-it is going well!” he wrote Tuesday morning on Twitter.
Even the recent revelations of seemingly modest North Korean progress on missile technology and the production of nuclear fuel — including continued work on a new nuclear reactor that can produce plutonium — have not dimmed Mr. Trump’s enthusiasm. He argues that they mean little compared to the new tone of conversations, and that even though North Korea has not disassembled a single weapon, his mission should be judged a success.
It is that jarring reversal of tone that has led Mr. Trump’s critics to argue that he was taken in by Kim Jong-un, the North’s 34-year-old leader.
Turning the enthusiasm of the meeting in Singapore into a concrete, verifiable agreement is now the job of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is leaving Washington early Thursday for North Korea. It will be his third trip there, but the first to flesh out a timetable and a common understanding of what the Singapore commitment to “work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” really means.
Complicating the task is this: Mr. Pompeo, a former C.I.A. chief who knows the details of the North Korean program intimately and has solicited plans for how to accomplish his goals, must show that he can get the North Koreans to go far beyond the agreement his predecessor once-removed, John Kerry, achieved in negotiations with Iran. Mr. Trump has called that deal a “disaster” for years and pulled out of it two months ago.
Now, it looms over Mr. Pompeo’s talks.
By engaging Mr. Trump in the process of “denuclearizing” the Korean Peninsula, Mr. Kim may be calculating that the president would not dare walk away — especially after Mr. Trump noted before the summit meeting that “everyone thinks” he should win a Nobel Peace Prize, before modestly adding, “but I would never say it.”
Still, the test missile engine site that Mr. Trump told reporters was being dismantled still stands, satellite pictures show. And the C.I.A., among other agencies, has warned that the North’s strategy may now be to build up abilities that can be traded away later, hoping to maneuver Mr. Trump into accepting the country as a de facto nuclear power, and settle for concessions on the size and reach of Mr. Kim’s nuclear force.
Mr. Trump and his allies say that is nonsense; sanctions remain and Mr. Trump has not flinched from the goal of “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization.”
“There’s not any starry-eyed feeling among the group doing this,” John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, insisted Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” saying that most of the major steps toward denuclearization could be taken in a year. In private, Trump administration officials say, Mr. Bolton’s view is the same as it was before he joined the administration: that the North Koreans will never entirely give up their program.
The big question is whether Mr. Kim is truly ready to change course or playing for time with Mr. Trump — as his father and grandfather did with the past four presidents.
Meanwhile, Mr. Trump is in sales mode.
Frustrated by the series of reports that the North is chugging forward, despite its “denuclearization” pledge, Mr. Trump boasted in a tweet on Tuesday that there had been “no Rocket Launches or Nuclear Testing in 8 months. All of Asia is thrilled. Only the Opposition Party, which includes the Fake News, is complaining.”
Then, with a Trumpian flair, he added, “If not for me, we would now be at War with North Korea!”
Mr. Trump is at least partly right: There have been no missile or nuclear tests since November, a freeze that many, including some Democrats, said was a necessary first step. But a freeze and denuclearization are completely different things.
Mr. Kim retains all of his nuclear abilities, and thus his leverage. He can resume testing any time. Just a year ago, Rex W. Tillerson, then the secretary of state, called that position insufficient because it merely perpetuated an ability to strike that Mr. Trump had, until recently, characterized as intolerable.
But it also reveals, in perhaps the most critical national security crisis Mr. Trump faces, his tendency to conflate a good meeting with a good outcome. It is as if President John F. Kennedy, meeting with the Soviet Union’s Nikita Khrushchev for the first time in Vienna in 1961, had declared the Cold War solved. The Cuban missile crisis broke open 16 months later.
Mr. Kim has already accomplished something, too. The heat has been turned down drastically, and the United States has, unilaterally, suspended military exercises with South Korea.
The Obama administration’s Iran agreement shadows Mr. Trump’s talks with the North.
The president regularly calls Iran a major nuclear threat, even though it no longer has enough fuel to make a single nuclear weapon. Under the 2015 agreement, it shipped 97 percent of its nuclear material out of the country. And it never possessed nuclear weapons.
Yet Mr. Trump pulled out after concluding that the United States gave away too much in return for an agreement that would gradually allow the Iranians to resume production around 2030.
The stark contrast between how Mr. Trump talks about Tehran, while insisting that the North is “no longer a nuclear threat,” will become harder and harder to sustain if Mr. Pompeo cannot get Mr. Kim on a rapid denuclearization schedule.
And Mr. Pompeo will need to achieve an inspection regime that provides assurance — not only to intelligence agencies but also to the public in South Korea, Japan and the United States — that the North is not hiding weapons, missiles or production facilities. The C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency believe that, today, it is hiding all three. So far, Mr. Pompeo has said nothing about the details he intends to present, and Mr. Bolton suggested that stories about new intelligence on the North’s improving its nuclear abilities only imperiled the diplomatic process. As a television commentator and columnist, Mr. Bolton often repeated similar reports when it came to building his case about how to deal with Pyongyang and Tehran.
One thing is clear, however: The Trump administration has not uttered the phrase “complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization” in weeks, and Mr. Pompeo has also softened his tone. Some administration officials say that South Korea urged getting rid of the everything-must-be-dismantled-immediately approach. And South Korean officials say that while Mr. Kim might not surrender his entire program anytime soon, he might dismantle parts of it, reducing his readiness to go to war.
“Perhaps the biggest diplomatic problem the U.S. will face, if we can get North Korea to agree to fully denuclearize, will be the timing of that denuclearization and how we verify the component steps,” William Perry, the former defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, wrote this week in Politico Magazine.
Mr. Perry, who negotiated repeatedly with the North, cautioned that “these steps will be complex, will take many months, if not years, and will require intrusive verification procedures.”
“But the U.S. has negotiated agreements equally difficult with the Soviet Union, so we do have a positive precedent,” he wrote.
Donald Trump: OPEC is "doing little to help" with gas prices - CBS News
July 5, 2018, 8:09 AM
Donald Trump: OPEC is "doing little to help" with gas prices
President Donald Trump says OPEC is "doing little to help" rising gas prices and claims "if anything, they are driving prices higher."
Mr. Trump tweeted Wednesday: "The OPEC Monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $'s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!"
Last month, members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel agreed to pump 1 million barrels more crude oil daily, a move that should help contain the recent rise in global energy prices. However, summer months in the U.S. usually lead to increased demand for oil, boosting the price of gasoline in a midterm election year.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The OPEC Monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $’s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!
6:46 AM - Jul 5, 2018
An Iranian oil official said the U.S. president should stop tweeting about oil because Mr. Trump is making the situation worse, according to Bloomberg News.
"Your tweets have driven the prices up by at least $10 per barrel," Iran's OPEC governor Hossein Kazempour Ardebili said the message, Bloomberg reported, citing the Iranian Oil Ministry's Shana news service. "Pls stop it, otherwise it will go even higher!"
Donald Trump: OPEC is "doing little to help" with gas prices
President Donald Trump says OPEC is "doing little to help" rising gas prices and claims "if anything, they are driving prices higher."
Mr. Trump tweeted Wednesday: "The OPEC Monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $'s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!"
Last month, members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries cartel agreed to pump 1 million barrels more crude oil daily, a move that should help contain the recent rise in global energy prices. However, summer months in the U.S. usually lead to increased demand for oil, boosting the price of gasoline in a midterm election year.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The OPEC Monopoly must remember that gas prices are up & they are doing little to help. If anything, they are driving prices higher as the United States defends many of their members for very little $’s. This must be a two way street. REDUCE PRICING NOW!
6:46 AM - Jul 5, 2018
An Iranian oil official said the U.S. president should stop tweeting about oil because Mr. Trump is making the situation worse, according to Bloomberg News.
"Your tweets have driven the prices up by at least $10 per barrel," Iran's OPEC governor Hossein Kazempour Ardebili said the message, Bloomberg reported, citing the Iranian Oil Ministry's Shana news service. "Pls stop it, otherwise it will go even higher!"
Glencore's Buyback Bravado The not-so-subtle message from a $1 billion share repurchase - Blommberg
Glencore's Buyback Bravado
The not-so-subtle message from a $1 billion share repurchase.
By
July 5, 2018, 8:07 PM GMT+10
If you’re in a hole, keep digging. Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg
Glencore Plc’s announcement of a $1 billion stock buyback on Thursday was short on both wit and color. So allow me to hazard a rough translation: “Don't worry, we're rich and our share price should be much higher.”
Faced with the unwelcome attention of the U.S. Department of Justice, most companies would be inclined to batten down the hatches. But, just a couple of days after being ordered to hand over a decades's worth of documents related to its activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Venezuela and Nigeria, the world’s top commodities trader is splashing its cash.
Digging Down
Glencore's stock price was dented by the DoJ's subpoena
Glencore does bravado well – too well, perhaps, for its own good.
Two recent examples are pertinent: not long after the Baar, Switzerland-based company had overcome a nasty tussle with short-sellers, CEO Ivan Glasenberg quipped last year that the balance sheet was now in such good shape that his firm could afford to pay a $20 billion dividend. And earlier this year, Glencore announced it would restart royalty payments to its former Congo business partner Dan Gertler – even though he had recently been made subject to blocking sanctions by the U.S. The company’s solution was to pay Gertler in euros, a possibly unwise move even if Glencore says it had discussed the matter with U.S. authorities.
Compared to the now famous $20 billion boast, today’s buyback and the $2.9 billion of dividends Glencore is promising shareholders this year look pretty modest. But, they send a signal that Glasenberg, who own 8 percent of the stock, thinks the recent sell-off is overdone and the company's balance sheet is more than capable of withstanding a bit of legal trouble.
Indeed, if you leave aside the legal woes, it would be hard to make the case that Glencore's shares are overvalued. Providing commodity prices don't collapse, analysts expect the company to generate about $54 billion of Ebitda in the next three years. With net debt down to about $10.7 billion, and its capital expenditure requirements fairly limited, that should leave plenty of spare cash to return to shareholders. Yet the stock only trades on about eight times estimated earnings, a steep discount to peers BHP Billiton Ltd. and Rio Tinto Plc.
That gap exists because Glencore is seen as a more risky proposition: it's also facing a possible corruption probe in the U.K. and its troubles in the Congo are too copious to list here.
Perhaps Glencore decided to proceed with the buyback to show it has nothing to fear from the Justice Department. But external investors, who aren't privy to the same information, will struggle to share that confidence. The DoJ struck back at Glencore less than a month after the miner’s apparent attempt to circumvent U.S. sanctions. It's hard not to conclude the company misjudged the situation. In business, as in life, pride can often come before a fall.
The not-so-subtle message from a $1 billion share repurchase.
By
July 5, 2018, 8:07 PM GMT+10
If you’re in a hole, keep digging. Photographer: Simon Dawson/Bloomberg
Glencore Plc’s announcement of a $1 billion stock buyback on Thursday was short on both wit and color. So allow me to hazard a rough translation: “Don't worry, we're rich and our share price should be much higher.”
Faced with the unwelcome attention of the U.S. Department of Justice, most companies would be inclined to batten down the hatches. But, just a couple of days after being ordered to hand over a decades's worth of documents related to its activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Venezuela and Nigeria, the world’s top commodities trader is splashing its cash.
Digging Down
Glencore's stock price was dented by the DoJ's subpoena
Glencore does bravado well – too well, perhaps, for its own good.
Two recent examples are pertinent: not long after the Baar, Switzerland-based company had overcome a nasty tussle with short-sellers, CEO Ivan Glasenberg quipped last year that the balance sheet was now in such good shape that his firm could afford to pay a $20 billion dividend. And earlier this year, Glencore announced it would restart royalty payments to its former Congo business partner Dan Gertler – even though he had recently been made subject to blocking sanctions by the U.S. The company’s solution was to pay Gertler in euros, a possibly unwise move even if Glencore says it had discussed the matter with U.S. authorities.
Compared to the now famous $20 billion boast, today’s buyback and the $2.9 billion of dividends Glencore is promising shareholders this year look pretty modest. But, they send a signal that Glasenberg, who own 8 percent of the stock, thinks the recent sell-off is overdone and the company's balance sheet is more than capable of withstanding a bit of legal trouble.
Indeed, if you leave aside the legal woes, it would be hard to make the case that Glencore's shares are overvalued. Providing commodity prices don't collapse, analysts expect the company to generate about $54 billion of Ebitda in the next three years. With net debt down to about $10.7 billion, and its capital expenditure requirements fairly limited, that should leave plenty of spare cash to return to shareholders. Yet the stock only trades on about eight times estimated earnings, a steep discount to peers BHP Billiton Ltd. and Rio Tinto Plc.
That gap exists because Glencore is seen as a more risky proposition: it's also facing a possible corruption probe in the U.K. and its troubles in the Congo are too copious to list here.
Perhaps Glencore decided to proceed with the buyback to show it has nothing to fear from the Justice Department. But external investors, who aren't privy to the same information, will struggle to share that confidence. The DoJ struck back at Glencore less than a month after the miner’s apparent attempt to circumvent U.S. sanctions. It's hard not to conclude the company misjudged the situation. In business, as in life, pride can often come before a fall.
Migration Deal Rescued Merkel’s Government. Now, She Has to Save the Deal. - New York Times
Migration Deal Rescued Merkel’s Government. Now, She Has to Save the Deal.
By Melissa Eddy
July 4, 2018
BERLIN — Two days after pulling her government back from the brink by agreeing to set up transit camps for migrants at the border — and to eventually turn some of them away — Chancellor Angela Merkel is working to keep the deal from falling apart.
She and her interior minister have critical meetings Thursday with the leaders of Austria and Hungary, who must agree to take back some of the migrants in order to make the deal Ms. Merkel struck with the rebellious Bavarian partners in her own government.
Those leaders already criticized Ms. Merkel for her welcoming stance in 2015, when hundreds of thousands of people fleeing conflicts in Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere flooded into Europe. So it is unclear if Austria and Hungary will go along with taking in migrants that Germany turns away.
Those decisions will be important in keeping her three-party coalition intact. Although the conservatives in her coalition have signed onto the deal, the other partner, the center-left Social Democratic Party, has expressed reservations about setting up “transit camps,” especially if other countries won’t take the migrants back and they are left in limbo.
The stakes of Thursday’s negotiations are high, not only for Ms. Merkel — who sought in a television interview to reassure Germans that her government had returned to stability — but for Europe itself. She has fought for democratic principles and the ideal of open borders in the face of a sharp swing to the right among many of the European Union’s 28 member states.
“Europe needs Germany to have a stable government — now more than ever,” said Marcel Dirsus, a political scientist at the University of Kiel. “Ms. Merkel is not perfect, but she is measured, calm and rational. Germany and Europe would be worse off without her.”
Under European Union rules, migrants are supposed to apply for asylum in the first member country in which they arrive, rather than pressing on to other nations like Germany. But Ms. Merkel’s government stopped enforcing those rules when other European countries balked at handling the migrants in their countries.
Ms. Merkel agreed on Monday to set up the transit centers after a two-week standoff with her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, who is head of the Christian Social Union, the conservative party in Bavaria that is the third party in her governing coalition.
The centers would be set up at certain crossing points along Germany’s border with Austria, where migrants arriving from the south would be screened to determine whether they had already applied for asylum in another country in the European Union.
If so, they would be returned to that country. If that country declined to take them back, the deal states that “on the basis of an agreement with Austria,” they would be sent back there.
But Austrian leaders and members of the Social Democrats say that such an agreement does not exist.
Mr. Seehofer is heading to Vienna on Thursday to discuss the transit center deal with the Austrian chancellor, Sebastian Kurz.
In Berlin, Ms. Merkel is to hold talks with Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, whose country was the first point of entry into the European Union for many of the migrants who later made their way to Germany, and whom Berlin would like to now send back.
Mr. Seehofer’s party has cultivated close ties with the Hungarian leader, even as Ms. Merkel has been critical of Mr. Orban’s rejection of taking in migrants.
In addition to demanding more clarity on the details of the deal, the Social Democrats are insisting that any camps not become “massive” internment camps, where people would be held indefinitely. Despite those concerns, the party appeared likely to remain in the coalition, analysts said, because it stands to lose support if the government falls and new elections are held.
In what appeared to be an effort to assuage concerns among her coalition partners, Ms. Merkel said in an interview with the German public broadcaster ARD that authorities would have to decide on the fate of those passing through the centers within 48 hours.
The number of people seeking asylum in Germany has dropped significantly after peaking at more than a million in 2015. But a string of attacks on young women by migrants, a terrorist attack by a migrant on a Christmas market, and fears that the country’s social welfare system is being abused have caused many Germans to turn against the openness, led by Ms. Merkel, shown by Germany three years ago.
The German federal police said that in the first five months of this year, their officers stopped 4,600 people they classified as “unauthorized arrivals” — those who would now be sent to the centers. They say they turned back more than half of those people, but did not explain what happened to the others.
Ms. Merkel has been edging to the right on migrant issues over the past year as her center-right party has bled supporters to the nationalist, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party. That same party now threatens Mr. Seehofer’s grip on power in Bavaria before a state election in October.
But the deal Ms. Merkel struck Monday makes clear that she has shifted further from the values she has long espoused on Germany’s — and Europe’s — being strong enough to take in those in need.
Despite the bitterness of the dispute over migrants, the chancellor insisted that her fractious coalition, and she herself, would survive for a full, four-year term.
“I can’t promise that there won’t be disputes again about other issues, as this is usual when a government includes three parties,” the chancellor said in the television interview.
“This time it was a ferocious dispute about a very emotional topic,” she said. “But I firmly expect, and I’ll do my part to ensure, that our government does good work, not only now but in the coming years.”
By Melissa Eddy
July 4, 2018
BERLIN — Two days after pulling her government back from the brink by agreeing to set up transit camps for migrants at the border — and to eventually turn some of them away — Chancellor Angela Merkel is working to keep the deal from falling apart.
She and her interior minister have critical meetings Thursday with the leaders of Austria and Hungary, who must agree to take back some of the migrants in order to make the deal Ms. Merkel struck with the rebellious Bavarian partners in her own government.
Those leaders already criticized Ms. Merkel for her welcoming stance in 2015, when hundreds of thousands of people fleeing conflicts in Afghanistan, Syria and elsewhere flooded into Europe. So it is unclear if Austria and Hungary will go along with taking in migrants that Germany turns away.
Those decisions will be important in keeping her three-party coalition intact. Although the conservatives in her coalition have signed onto the deal, the other partner, the center-left Social Democratic Party, has expressed reservations about setting up “transit camps,” especially if other countries won’t take the migrants back and they are left in limbo.
The stakes of Thursday’s negotiations are high, not only for Ms. Merkel — who sought in a television interview to reassure Germans that her government had returned to stability — but for Europe itself. She has fought for democratic principles and the ideal of open borders in the face of a sharp swing to the right among many of the European Union’s 28 member states.
“Europe needs Germany to have a stable government — now more than ever,” said Marcel Dirsus, a political scientist at the University of Kiel. “Ms. Merkel is not perfect, but she is measured, calm and rational. Germany and Europe would be worse off without her.”
Under European Union rules, migrants are supposed to apply for asylum in the first member country in which they arrive, rather than pressing on to other nations like Germany. But Ms. Merkel’s government stopped enforcing those rules when other European countries balked at handling the migrants in their countries.
Ms. Merkel agreed on Monday to set up the transit centers after a two-week standoff with her interior minister, Horst Seehofer, who is head of the Christian Social Union, the conservative party in Bavaria that is the third party in her governing coalition.
The centers would be set up at certain crossing points along Germany’s border with Austria, where migrants arriving from the south would be screened to determine whether they had already applied for asylum in another country in the European Union.
If so, they would be returned to that country. If that country declined to take them back, the deal states that “on the basis of an agreement with Austria,” they would be sent back there.
But Austrian leaders and members of the Social Democrats say that such an agreement does not exist.
Mr. Seehofer is heading to Vienna on Thursday to discuss the transit center deal with the Austrian chancellor, Sebastian Kurz.
In Berlin, Ms. Merkel is to hold talks with Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, whose country was the first point of entry into the European Union for many of the migrants who later made their way to Germany, and whom Berlin would like to now send back.
Mr. Seehofer’s party has cultivated close ties with the Hungarian leader, even as Ms. Merkel has been critical of Mr. Orban’s rejection of taking in migrants.
In addition to demanding more clarity on the details of the deal, the Social Democrats are insisting that any camps not become “massive” internment camps, where people would be held indefinitely. Despite those concerns, the party appeared likely to remain in the coalition, analysts said, because it stands to lose support if the government falls and new elections are held.
In what appeared to be an effort to assuage concerns among her coalition partners, Ms. Merkel said in an interview with the German public broadcaster ARD that authorities would have to decide on the fate of those passing through the centers within 48 hours.
The number of people seeking asylum in Germany has dropped significantly after peaking at more than a million in 2015. But a string of attacks on young women by migrants, a terrorist attack by a migrant on a Christmas market, and fears that the country’s social welfare system is being abused have caused many Germans to turn against the openness, led by Ms. Merkel, shown by Germany three years ago.
The German federal police said that in the first five months of this year, their officers stopped 4,600 people they classified as “unauthorized arrivals” — those who would now be sent to the centers. They say they turned back more than half of those people, but did not explain what happened to the others.
Ms. Merkel has been edging to the right on migrant issues over the past year as her center-right party has bled supporters to the nationalist, anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany party. That same party now threatens Mr. Seehofer’s grip on power in Bavaria before a state election in October.
But the deal Ms. Merkel struck Monday makes clear that she has shifted further from the values she has long espoused on Germany’s — and Europe’s — being strong enough to take in those in need.
Despite the bitterness of the dispute over migrants, the chancellor insisted that her fractious coalition, and she herself, would survive for a full, four-year term.
“I can’t promise that there won’t be disputes again about other issues, as this is usual when a government includes three parties,” the chancellor said in the television interview.
“This time it was a ferocious dispute about a very emotional topic,” she said. “But I firmly expect, and I’ll do my part to ensure, that our government does good work, not only now but in the coming years.”
Russia 'must explain nerve agent poisoning' - BBC News
July, 5, 2018
Russia 'must explain nerve agent poisoning'
Home Secretary Sajid Javid has called on Russia to explain the Novichok poisoning after two people were exposed to it in Wiltshire.
The couple, believed to be Charlie Rowley, 45, and Dawn Sturgess, 44, fell ill at a house in Amesbury on Saturday and remain in a critical condition.
Mr Javid said the nerve agent used in the latest poisoning was the same type as that which ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal was exposed to in March.
He said 100 counter-terrorism officers were working with Wiltshire Police.
"It is completely unacceptable for our people to be either deliberate or accidental targets, or for our streets, our parks, our towns, to be dumping grounds for poison," he told MPs.
"It is now time that the Russian state comes forward and explains exactly what has gone on."
Russia 'must explain nerve agent poisoning'
Home Secretary Sajid Javid has called on Russia to explain the Novichok poisoning after two people were exposed to it in Wiltshire.
The couple, believed to be Charlie Rowley, 45, and Dawn Sturgess, 44, fell ill at a house in Amesbury on Saturday and remain in a critical condition.
Mr Javid said the nerve agent used in the latest poisoning was the same type as that which ex-Russian spy Sergei Skripal was exposed to in March.
He said 100 counter-terrorism officers were working with Wiltshire Police.
"It is completely unacceptable for our people to be either deliberate or accidental targets, or for our streets, our parks, our towns, to be dumping grounds for poison," he told MPs.
"It is now time that the Russian state comes forward and explains exactly what has gone on."
Thailand cave: Rescuers in race against weather as rains close in - BBC News
July 5, 2018
Thailand cave: Rescuers in race against weather as rains close in
Rescue workers are concerned about what might happen when monsoon rains hit
Rescuers are racing against the rains to free 12 boys and their football coach, who are trapped in a flooded cave in northern Thailand.
A deluge is expected to hit in a matter of days that could force the water level up, threatening to flood the pocket where the group took refuge.
The teenage boys and their 25-year-old coach have been trapped for 12 days.
They were found on Monday night by rescue divers, on a rock shelf about 4km (2.5 miles) from the cave mouth.
The boys have now received food, foil blankets, and medical attention, and rescuers are trying to run cables through the cave tunnel so they can speak to their families.
When are the rains coming?
The region of Chiang Rai where the boys are trapped has for the past few days experienced a dry spell, and rescuers have taken advantage of this to pump water out of the cave complex.
About 128 million litres of water had been pumped out by Thursday, with the water levels coming down at an average rate of 1.5cm per hour. Rescue workers are now able to walk through a 1.5km (0.9 mile) stretch from the entrance to what's being called the third chamber.
Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Water is being pumped out of the cave complex around the clock
But heavy monsoon rains are forecast for Sunday. Chiang Rai Governor Narongsak Osotthanakorn said they were "racing against water".
"We are calculating how much time we have it if rains, how many hours and days," he said.
The Tham Luang cave complex is regularly flooded during the rainy season until September or October, raising fears that a delay could leave the boys trapped in the cave for months.
What is being done to rescue the boys?
There is hope that enough water can be pumped out of the cave tunnels for the boys to be able to wade - or be floated - out.
But rescuers are also planning for other eventualities.
A team are exploring the forested mountain land above the cave complex to see if they can find a chimney down to the cavern sheltering the boys. They have enlisted the help of bird-watchers, who are specialists in finding hidden holes, the AFP news agency reports.
Media captionBill Whitehouse from the British Cave Rescue Council explains how the boys and their coach might be rescued
Thai Navy Seal divers are also teaching the boys the basics of diving, with a view to guiding them out through flooded waters if necessary.
But such a rescue would be fraught with risk, say experts. Many of the boys cannot swim or dive, and there is a high risk they might panic in the dark, murky, narrow waterways.
The journey for the group to travel up to the cave entrance would take around five hours, rescue divers say.
The Thai military has previously said that if the boys can't dive out, the group may have to wait for up to four months for flooding to recede before they can leave.
Food and other supplies are being put in place for that eventuality.
What are the rescue options?
'The boys are my brothers'
Helier Cheung, BBC News, Tham Luang cave
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Teams of volunteers are each playing their part in the rescue effort
Rescue teams are working in extremely difficult conditions. The heat has been sweltering and unrelenting, at over 30C, while much of the site is submerged in squelchy mud that is several inches thick in places and extremely slippery.
But the work has continued at an unrelenting pace. Everyone is aware that once the monsoon rains start, rescue efforts will be much more difficult.
Meanwhile, hundreds of workers are helping to keep the site in order, with road engineers laying gravel to try and secure the mud, workers for the Thai royal kitchen providing hot food for everyone, and volunteers handing out water bottles and ice lollies to those on site.
One local civil servant, who had volunteered to help hand out supplies, said he did not know the boys personally but had decided to help because "I consider the boys in the caves as my brothers".
Community of hope springs up outside cave
How are the boys coping?
Video from Thai Navy special forces on Monday showed the boys looking emaciated but smiling and at times laughing.
The arrival of food, foil blankets and the prospect of speaking to their loved ones will have buoyed their spirits.
But concern is mounting for both their physical and mental health after 12 days below ground - and it is not clear how they would be helped to survive months more in the cave.
Media captionChilean miner sends message to Thai boys
Video shows Thai cave boys in good health
The Brits behind the Thai cave boys search
How will the boys cope underground?
The boys and their coach had gone on their bikes up to the caves on Saturday 23 June after football practice. It was one boy's 16th birthday, and the team had taken a picnic.
They knew the caves, and some reports suggest they had wanted to explore deeper than on previous occasions.
They entered the cave when it was dry but sudden heavy rains quickly flooded the exit and rushed through the narrow passages, clogging them with mud and debris.
Thailand cave: Rescuers in race against weather as rains close in
Rescue workers are concerned about what might happen when monsoon rains hit
Rescuers are racing against the rains to free 12 boys and their football coach, who are trapped in a flooded cave in northern Thailand.
A deluge is expected to hit in a matter of days that could force the water level up, threatening to flood the pocket where the group took refuge.
The teenage boys and their 25-year-old coach have been trapped for 12 days.
They were found on Monday night by rescue divers, on a rock shelf about 4km (2.5 miles) from the cave mouth.
The boys have now received food, foil blankets, and medical attention, and rescuers are trying to run cables through the cave tunnel so they can speak to their families.
When are the rains coming?
The region of Chiang Rai where the boys are trapped has for the past few days experienced a dry spell, and rescuers have taken advantage of this to pump water out of the cave complex.
About 128 million litres of water had been pumped out by Thursday, with the water levels coming down at an average rate of 1.5cm per hour. Rescue workers are now able to walk through a 1.5km (0.9 mile) stretch from the entrance to what's being called the third chamber.
Image copyrightREUTERS
Image caption
Water is being pumped out of the cave complex around the clock
But heavy monsoon rains are forecast for Sunday. Chiang Rai Governor Narongsak Osotthanakorn said they were "racing against water".
"We are calculating how much time we have it if rains, how many hours and days," he said.
The Tham Luang cave complex is regularly flooded during the rainy season until September or October, raising fears that a delay could leave the boys trapped in the cave for months.
What is being done to rescue the boys?
There is hope that enough water can be pumped out of the cave tunnels for the boys to be able to wade - or be floated - out.
But rescuers are also planning for other eventualities.
A team are exploring the forested mountain land above the cave complex to see if they can find a chimney down to the cavern sheltering the boys. They have enlisted the help of bird-watchers, who are specialists in finding hidden holes, the AFP news agency reports.
Media captionBill Whitehouse from the British Cave Rescue Council explains how the boys and their coach might be rescued
Thai Navy Seal divers are also teaching the boys the basics of diving, with a view to guiding them out through flooded waters if necessary.
But such a rescue would be fraught with risk, say experts. Many of the boys cannot swim or dive, and there is a high risk they might panic in the dark, murky, narrow waterways.
The journey for the group to travel up to the cave entrance would take around five hours, rescue divers say.
The Thai military has previously said that if the boys can't dive out, the group may have to wait for up to four months for flooding to recede before they can leave.
Food and other supplies are being put in place for that eventuality.
What are the rescue options?
'The boys are my brothers'
Helier Cheung, BBC News, Tham Luang cave
Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES
Image caption
Teams of volunteers are each playing their part in the rescue effort
Rescue teams are working in extremely difficult conditions. The heat has been sweltering and unrelenting, at over 30C, while much of the site is submerged in squelchy mud that is several inches thick in places and extremely slippery.
But the work has continued at an unrelenting pace. Everyone is aware that once the monsoon rains start, rescue efforts will be much more difficult.
Meanwhile, hundreds of workers are helping to keep the site in order, with road engineers laying gravel to try and secure the mud, workers for the Thai royal kitchen providing hot food for everyone, and volunteers handing out water bottles and ice lollies to those on site.
One local civil servant, who had volunteered to help hand out supplies, said he did not know the boys personally but had decided to help because "I consider the boys in the caves as my brothers".
Community of hope springs up outside cave
How are the boys coping?
Video from Thai Navy special forces on Monday showed the boys looking emaciated but smiling and at times laughing.
The arrival of food, foil blankets and the prospect of speaking to their loved ones will have buoyed their spirits.
But concern is mounting for both their physical and mental health after 12 days below ground - and it is not clear how they would be helped to survive months more in the cave.
Media captionChilean miner sends message to Thai boys
Video shows Thai cave boys in good health
The Brits behind the Thai cave boys search
How will the boys cope underground?
The boys and their coach had gone on their bikes up to the caves on Saturday 23 June after football practice. It was one boy's 16th birthday, and the team had taken a picnic.
They knew the caves, and some reports suggest they had wanted to explore deeper than on previous occasions.
They entered the cave when it was dry but sudden heavy rains quickly flooded the exit and rushed through the narrow passages, clogging them with mud and debris.
Trump’s Supreme Court Pageant Could Come Down to Looks - Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )
July 4, 2018
Trump’s Supreme Court Pageant Could Come Down to Looks
By
Margaret Hartmann
@MargHartmann
He’s a Supreme Court justice, and he could play one on TV. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Trump has made no secret of how important appearance is to his hiring process. Trump has often remarked that his nominees just look right for their respective roles, and he’s fond of the phrase “central casting.” When considering Mitt Romney for Secretary of State, he said he “looks the part of a top diplomat right out of ‘central casting.’” In a speech to the National Governors Association he said of Vice President Mike Pence, “He’s a real talent, a real guy. And he is central casting, do we agree? Central casting.” He even used the phrase when referring to military leaders at a post-inauguration lunch, adding, “If I’m doing a movie, I’d pick you General, General Mattis.”
Therefore, it’s unsurprising to hear that as Republican officials consider which potential Supreme Court nominees will face an easier confirmation battle in the Senate, poring over their legal writings, Trump is thinking about more superficial matters.
“Beyond the qualifications, what really matters is, does this nominee fit a central casting image for a Supreme Court nominee, as well as his or her spouse,” a Republican close to the White House told Politico. “That’s a big deal. Do they fit the role?”
While nominating someone to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy might be the most consequential pick of Trump’s time in office, most of the the hard work was already done months ago by the Federalist Society. Since Trump is selecting from their list of 25 conservative justices, there’s no risk of him picking a judge who’s great-looking but ideologically horrifying to his base.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump’s short list has been whittled even further, and is now focused on three U.S. appeals court judges: Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Raymond Kethledge. The paper says a “central tension” in the process is whether to base the decision primarily on their work, or on their biography and personal chemistry with Trump.
Kavanaugh is seen as the frontrunner. He’s a former Kennedy clerk with a long record of judicial rulings. One person also noted to Politico that the photo of him being sworn in to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit “looks all-American” — which seems like a not very subtle way of expressing why Amul Thapar, Mitch McConnell’s favorite candidate and the only minority on Trump’s list, didn’t make the final cut.
Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to be a judge to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Trump reportedly asked Marie Louise Gorsuch to stand next to her husband during his nominating speech, and was delighted by the couple’s appealing image. But there’s a problem with the telegenic white people in the Kavanaugh picture: One of them is President George W. Bush. Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley, is close to the Bush family, having served as W.’s personal secretary for years. Brett Kavanaugh is also a protégé of Ken Starr; he wrote much of the graphic report on Bill Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky and led the investigation into the death of Vince Foster. Trump’s hatred of the Clintons might triumph over his hatred of the Bushes.
Barrett is a more controversial pick, as she’s a clearer threat to Roe v. Wade, but that might make her more appealing to Trump. The Catholic judge had a previous run-in with Dianne Feinstein, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, who remarked during her confirmation hearing that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” Feinstein was accused of applying a religious test, and the incident could help fire up the base.
As the Washington Post noted she’s also “young (46), good on her feet, telegenic, unmistakably conservative and, with seven children, has the kind of family you want sitting behind you during tense confirmation hearings.” But that might not be good enough for Trump. A source tells Politico she performed poorly in her interview. Also, the president is said to be looking for someone with a degree from Harvard or Yale, and Barrett went to Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School.
If personal chemistry with Trump winds up being the determining factor, the nomination could go to Kethledge, the dark horse pick. A source said Kethledge and Trump hit it off during their interview, and the president “loved” him. While he does not hail from the Ivy League, he went to the University of Michigan, one of the most well-respected public schools, for his undergraduate and law degrees.
While there is little publicly available commentary on the attractiveness of Kethledge and his family compared to the other contestants, he has other qualities that seem appealing to Trump: a Midwestern background, a passion for hunting and fishing, and a book on leadership co-authored with West Point graduate and veteran Michael Erwin. Here’s a quote from an interview in which Kethledge describes how they came to write a book about the importance of solitude:
Maybe a month later, Mike and I were having beers in an Irish pub in Ann Arbor. He mentioned a speech that Bill Deresiewicz had given at West Point about solitude and leadership. I talked about my barn office in northern Michigan, in a forested area overlooking Lake Huron. I have no internet connection, the HVAC is a wood stove, and my workspace is a simple pine desk. I told Mike that I get an extra 20 IQ points from being in that office.
He was in the office when he learned he was on Trump’s list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees:
I was up in my barn office, actually working on a chapter for this book. The landline phone rang. It was my wife, calling from the gym, where she was on a treadmill. She said, “I just saw you on TV! You’re on Trump’s list!”
That was how I heard the news. It was distracting. I really had to get that chapter done in the short time I had up there. So I thanked my wife for letting me know, and went back to work. Fortunately my cellphone doesn’t work up there.
That’s exactly the kind of anecdote Trump would love to share at Monday’s dramatic nomination ceremony.
Though, Steve Bannon claims the media has it all wrong. He suggests that Trump, the former reality-show and beauty pageant host, is making his Supreme Court picks based on a rigorous study of their judicial temperament, while the stodgy lawyers and politicians who previously occupied the Oval Office went mainly by personality.
“I think President Trump is conducting a search built on the principles he established during his first Supreme Court selection — written opinions and the thinking behind them matter most,” the fired White House chief strategist told the Journal. “Past Republican presidents focused on biography and interviews.”
Trump’s Supreme Court Pageant Could Come Down to Looks
By
Margaret Hartmann
@MargHartmann
He’s a Supreme Court justice, and he could play one on TV. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Trump has made no secret of how important appearance is to his hiring process. Trump has often remarked that his nominees just look right for their respective roles, and he’s fond of the phrase “central casting.” When considering Mitt Romney for Secretary of State, he said he “looks the part of a top diplomat right out of ‘central casting.’” In a speech to the National Governors Association he said of Vice President Mike Pence, “He’s a real talent, a real guy. And he is central casting, do we agree? Central casting.” He even used the phrase when referring to military leaders at a post-inauguration lunch, adding, “If I’m doing a movie, I’d pick you General, General Mattis.”
Therefore, it’s unsurprising to hear that as Republican officials consider which potential Supreme Court nominees will face an easier confirmation battle in the Senate, poring over their legal writings, Trump is thinking about more superficial matters.
“Beyond the qualifications, what really matters is, does this nominee fit a central casting image for a Supreme Court nominee, as well as his or her spouse,” a Republican close to the White House told Politico. “That’s a big deal. Do they fit the role?”
While nominating someone to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy might be the most consequential pick of Trump’s time in office, most of the the hard work was already done months ago by the Federalist Society. Since Trump is selecting from their list of 25 conservative justices, there’s no risk of him picking a judge who’s great-looking but ideologically horrifying to his base.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Trump’s short list has been whittled even further, and is now focused on three U.S. appeals court judges: Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Raymond Kethledge. The paper says a “central tension” in the process is whether to base the decision primarily on their work, or on their biography and personal chemistry with Trump.
Kavanaugh is seen as the frontrunner. He’s a former Kennedy clerk with a long record of judicial rulings. One person also noted to Politico that the photo of him being sworn in to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit “looks all-American” — which seems like a not very subtle way of expressing why Amul Thapar, Mitch McConnell’s favorite candidate and the only minority on Trump’s list, didn’t make the final cut.
Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy to be a judge to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images
Trump reportedly asked Marie Louise Gorsuch to stand next to her husband during his nominating speech, and was delighted by the couple’s appealing image. But there’s a problem with the telegenic white people in the Kavanaugh picture: One of them is President George W. Bush. Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashley, is close to the Bush family, having served as W.’s personal secretary for years. Brett Kavanaugh is also a protégé of Ken Starr; he wrote much of the graphic report on Bill Clinton’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky and led the investigation into the death of Vince Foster. Trump’s hatred of the Clintons might triumph over his hatred of the Bushes.
Barrett is a more controversial pick, as she’s a clearer threat to Roe v. Wade, but that might make her more appealing to Trump. The Catholic judge had a previous run-in with Dianne Feinstein, the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, who remarked during her confirmation hearing that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” Feinstein was accused of applying a religious test, and the incident could help fire up the base.
As the Washington Post noted she’s also “young (46), good on her feet, telegenic, unmistakably conservative and, with seven children, has the kind of family you want sitting behind you during tense confirmation hearings.” But that might not be good enough for Trump. A source tells Politico she performed poorly in her interview. Also, the president is said to be looking for someone with a degree from Harvard or Yale, and Barrett went to Rhodes College and Notre Dame Law School.
If personal chemistry with Trump winds up being the determining factor, the nomination could go to Kethledge, the dark horse pick. A source said Kethledge and Trump hit it off during their interview, and the president “loved” him. While he does not hail from the Ivy League, he went to the University of Michigan, one of the most well-respected public schools, for his undergraduate and law degrees.
While there is little publicly available commentary on the attractiveness of Kethledge and his family compared to the other contestants, he has other qualities that seem appealing to Trump: a Midwestern background, a passion for hunting and fishing, and a book on leadership co-authored with West Point graduate and veteran Michael Erwin. Here’s a quote from an interview in which Kethledge describes how they came to write a book about the importance of solitude:
Maybe a month later, Mike and I were having beers in an Irish pub in Ann Arbor. He mentioned a speech that Bill Deresiewicz had given at West Point about solitude and leadership. I talked about my barn office in northern Michigan, in a forested area overlooking Lake Huron. I have no internet connection, the HVAC is a wood stove, and my workspace is a simple pine desk. I told Mike that I get an extra 20 IQ points from being in that office.
He was in the office when he learned he was on Trump’s list of 25 potential Supreme Court nominees:
I was up in my barn office, actually working on a chapter for this book. The landline phone rang. It was my wife, calling from the gym, where she was on a treadmill. She said, “I just saw you on TV! You’re on Trump’s list!”
That was how I heard the news. It was distracting. I really had to get that chapter done in the short time I had up there. So I thanked my wife for letting me know, and went back to work. Fortunately my cellphone doesn’t work up there.
That’s exactly the kind of anecdote Trump would love to share at Monday’s dramatic nomination ceremony.
Though, Steve Bannon claims the media has it all wrong. He suggests that Trump, the former reality-show and beauty pageant host, is making his Supreme Court picks based on a rigorous study of their judicial temperament, while the stodgy lawyers and politicians who previously occupied the Oval Office went mainly by personality.
“I think President Trump is conducting a search built on the principles he established during his first Supreme Court selection — written opinions and the thinking behind them matter most,” the fired White House chief strategist told the Journal. “Past Republican presidents focused on biography and interviews.”
Wednesday, July 4, 2018
President Trump Pressed Aides About an Invasion of Venezuela, Says a U.S. Official - TIME
President Trump Pressed Aides About an Invasion of Venezuela, Says a U.S. Official
By JOSHUA GOODMAN / AP 5:34 AM EDT
(BOGOTA) — As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?
The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.
In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.
The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.
The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.
But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.
Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.
The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.” Trump then went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn’t want a military solution, according to the official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure.
Eventually, McMaster would pull aside the president and walk him through the dangers of an invasion, the official said.
Taken together, the behind-the-scenes talks, the extent and details of which have not been previously reported, highlight how Venezuela’s political and economic crisis has received top attention under Trump in a way that was unimaginable in the Obama administration. But critics say it also underscores how his “America First” foreign policy at times can seem outright reckless, providing ammunition to America’s adversaries.
The White House declined to comment on the private conversations. But a National Security Council spokesman reiterated that the U.S. will consider all options at its disposal to help restore Venezuela’s democracy and bring stability. Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S., Canada and European Union have levied sanctions on dozens of top Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself, over allegations of corruption, drug trafficking and human rights abuses. The U.S. has also distributed more than $30 million to help Venezuela’s neighbors absorb an influx of more than 1 million migrants who have fled the country.
For Maduro, who has long claimed that the U.S. has military designs on Venezuela and its vast oil reserves, Trump’s bellicose talk provided the unpopular leader with an immediate if short-lived boost as he was trying to escape blame for widespread food shortages and hyperinflation. Within days of the president’s talk of a military option, Maduro filled the streets of Caracas with loyalists to condemn “Emperor” Trump’s belligerence, ordered up nationwide military exercises and threatened with arrest opponents he said were plotting his overthrow with the U.S.
“Mind your own business and solve your own problems, Mr. Trump!” thundered Nicolas Maduro, the president’s son, at the government-stacked constituent assembly. “If Venezuela were attacked, the rifles will arrive in New York, Mr. Trump,” the younger Maduro said. “We will take the White House.”
Even some of the staunchest U.S. allies were begrudgingly forced to side with Maduro in condemning Trump’s saber rattling. Santos, a big backer of U.S. attempts to isolate Maduro, said an invasion would have zero support in the region. The Mercosur trade bloc, which includes Brazil and Argentina, issued a statement saying “the only acceptable means of promoting democracy are dialogue and diplomacy” and repudiating “any option that implies the use of force.”
But among Venezuela’s beleaguered opposition movement, hostility to the idea of a military intervention has slowly eased.
A few weeks after Trump’s public comments, Harvard economics professor Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister, wrote a syndicated column titled “D Day Venezuela,” in which he called for a “coalition of the willing” made up of regional powers and the U.S. to step in and support militarily a government appointed by the opposition-led national assembly.
Mark Feierstein, who oversaw Latin America on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, said that strident U.S. action on Venezuela, however commendable, won’t loosen Maduro’s grip on power if it’s not accompanied by pressure from the streets. However, he thinks Venezuelans have largely been demoralized after a crackdown on protests last year triggered dozens of deaths, and the threat of more repression has forced dozens of opposition leaders into exile.
“People inside and outside the administration know they can ignore plenty of what Trump says,” Feierstein, who is now a senior adviser at the Albright Stonebridge Group, said of Trump’s talk of military invasion of Venezuela. “The concern is that it raised expectations among Venezuelans, many of whom are waiting for an external actor to save them.”
By JOSHUA GOODMAN / AP 5:34 AM EDT
(BOGOTA) — As a meeting last August in the Oval Office to discuss sanctions on Venezuela was concluding, President Donald Trump turned to his top aides and asked an unsettling question: With a fast unraveling Venezuela threatening regional security, why can’t the U.S. just simply invade the troubled country?
The suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, including U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and national security adviser H.R. McMaster, both of whom have since left the administration. This account of the previously undisclosed conversation comes from a senior administration official familiar with what was said.
In an exchange that lasted around five minutes, McMaster and others took turns explaining to Trump how military action could backfire and risk losing hard-won support among Latin American governments to punish President Nicolas Maduro for taking Venezuela down the path of dictatorship, according to the official. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the discussions.
But Trump pushed back. Although he gave no indication he was about to order up military plans, he pointed to what he considered past cases of successful gunboat diplomacy in the region, according to the official, like the invasions of Panama and Grenada in the 1980s.
The idea, despite his aides’ best attempts to shoot it down, would nonetheless persist in the president’s head.
The next day, Aug. 11, Trump alarmed friends and foes alike with talk of a “military option” to remove Maduro from power. The public remarks were initially dismissed in U.S. policy circles as the sort of martial bluster people have come to expect from the reality TV star turned commander in chief.
But shortly afterward, he raised the issue with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, according to the U.S. official. Two high-ranking Colombian officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing Trump confirmed the report.
Then in September, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, Trump discussed it again, this time at greater length, in a private dinner with leaders from four Latin American allies that included Santos, the same three people said and Politico reported in February.
The U.S. official said Trump was specifically briefed not to raise the issue and told it wouldn’t play well, but the first thing the president said at the dinner was, “My staff told me not to say this.” Trump then went around asking each leader if they were sure they didn’t want a military solution, according to the official, who added that each leader told Trump in clear terms they were sure.
Eventually, McMaster would pull aside the president and walk him through the dangers of an invasion, the official said.
Taken together, the behind-the-scenes talks, the extent and details of which have not been previously reported, highlight how Venezuela’s political and economic crisis has received top attention under Trump in a way that was unimaginable in the Obama administration. But critics say it also underscores how his “America First” foreign policy at times can seem outright reckless, providing ammunition to America’s adversaries.
The White House declined to comment on the private conversations. But a National Security Council spokesman reiterated that the U.S. will consider all options at its disposal to help restore Venezuela’s democracy and bring stability. Under Trump’s leadership, the U.S., Canada and European Union have levied sanctions on dozens of top Venezuelan officials, including Maduro himself, over allegations of corruption, drug trafficking and human rights abuses. The U.S. has also distributed more than $30 million to help Venezuela’s neighbors absorb an influx of more than 1 million migrants who have fled the country.
For Maduro, who has long claimed that the U.S. has military designs on Venezuela and its vast oil reserves, Trump’s bellicose talk provided the unpopular leader with an immediate if short-lived boost as he was trying to escape blame for widespread food shortages and hyperinflation. Within days of the president’s talk of a military option, Maduro filled the streets of Caracas with loyalists to condemn “Emperor” Trump’s belligerence, ordered up nationwide military exercises and threatened with arrest opponents he said were plotting his overthrow with the U.S.
“Mind your own business and solve your own problems, Mr. Trump!” thundered Nicolas Maduro, the president’s son, at the government-stacked constituent assembly. “If Venezuela were attacked, the rifles will arrive in New York, Mr. Trump,” the younger Maduro said. “We will take the White House.”
Even some of the staunchest U.S. allies were begrudgingly forced to side with Maduro in condemning Trump’s saber rattling. Santos, a big backer of U.S. attempts to isolate Maduro, said an invasion would have zero support in the region. The Mercosur trade bloc, which includes Brazil and Argentina, issued a statement saying “the only acceptable means of promoting democracy are dialogue and diplomacy” and repudiating “any option that implies the use of force.”
But among Venezuela’s beleaguered opposition movement, hostility to the idea of a military intervention has slowly eased.
A few weeks after Trump’s public comments, Harvard economics professor Ricardo Hausmann, a former Venezuelan planning minister, wrote a syndicated column titled “D Day Venezuela,” in which he called for a “coalition of the willing” made up of regional powers and the U.S. to step in and support militarily a government appointed by the opposition-led national assembly.
Mark Feierstein, who oversaw Latin America on the National Security Council during the Obama administration, said that strident U.S. action on Venezuela, however commendable, won’t loosen Maduro’s grip on power if it’s not accompanied by pressure from the streets. However, he thinks Venezuelans have largely been demoralized after a crackdown on protests last year triggered dozens of deaths, and the threat of more repression has forced dozens of opposition leaders into exile.
“People inside and outside the administration know they can ignore plenty of what Trump says,” Feierstein, who is now a senior adviser at the Albright Stonebridge Group, said of Trump’s talk of military invasion of Venezuela. “The concern is that it raised expectations among Venezuelans, many of whom are waiting for an external actor to save them.”
China to impose $34bn tariffs before the US as trade dispute escalates - Guardian
China to impose $34bn tariffs before the US as trade dispute escalates
Both sides made 6 July tariff threat but 12-hour time difference gives Chinese edge
Julia Kollewe
Wed 4 Jul 2018 19.37 AEST
A Chinese flag in front of containers at the Yangshan Deep-Water Port
There had been hopes that the US and China might step away from the measures but neither side has backed down. Photograph: Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images
China is poised to fire the opening salvo in an escalating trade dispute with the US by bringing in 25% tariffs on $34bn of US goods a day earlier than Washington.
Both sides have threatened to impose similarly sized tariffs on 6 July but because of the 12-hour time difference, the Chinese tariffs on US imports ranging from soybean to stainless steel pipes will take effect earlier.
Chinese officials are preparing to implement them from midnight Beijing time on 6 July, Reuters reported. That is noon on Thursday in Washington and 5pm UK time.
The US will implement a 25% tariff on $34bn of Chinese imports – on 818 product lines ranging from cars to vaporisers and “smart home” devices – on Friday.
There had been hopes that the US and China might step away from the measures but neither side has backed down. Economists have warned that the tariffs will damage economic growth and cost jobs, and could escalate into a full-blow trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
Last month the Mercedes-Benz maker Daimler became the first major company to issue a profit warning on the back of the trade dispute. The German firm makes Mercedes SUVs in the US and ships them to China, its biggest market.
Donald Trump has threatened to escalate the conflict by imposing further tariffs on up to $200bn of Chinese goods, if Beijing retaliates on Friday.
China’s stock market fell sharply on Wednesday as traders worried about the escalating trade dispute. The benchmark Shanghai Composite index dropped 1% to finish the day at 2,759 points, its lowest closing point since March 2016.
US markets are closed for Independence Day following a move lower on Tuesday.
Michael Hewson, the chief market analyst at CMC Markets UK, said: “In a holiday shortened US session before the 4 July holiday, US equity markets finished lower on the day as trade concerns kept investors cautious.
“Sharp moves in the Chinese currency prompted speculation that Chinese authorities were manipulating the rate in order to offset some of the worst effects of US tariffs.”
Both sides made 6 July tariff threat but 12-hour time difference gives Chinese edge
Julia Kollewe
Wed 4 Jul 2018 19.37 AEST
A Chinese flag in front of containers at the Yangshan Deep-Water Port
There had been hopes that the US and China might step away from the measures but neither side has backed down. Photograph: Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty Images
China is poised to fire the opening salvo in an escalating trade dispute with the US by bringing in 25% tariffs on $34bn of US goods a day earlier than Washington.
Both sides have threatened to impose similarly sized tariffs on 6 July but because of the 12-hour time difference, the Chinese tariffs on US imports ranging from soybean to stainless steel pipes will take effect earlier.
Chinese officials are preparing to implement them from midnight Beijing time on 6 July, Reuters reported. That is noon on Thursday in Washington and 5pm UK time.
The US will implement a 25% tariff on $34bn of Chinese imports – on 818 product lines ranging from cars to vaporisers and “smart home” devices – on Friday.
There had been hopes that the US and China might step away from the measures but neither side has backed down. Economists have warned that the tariffs will damage economic growth and cost jobs, and could escalate into a full-blow trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
Last month the Mercedes-Benz maker Daimler became the first major company to issue a profit warning on the back of the trade dispute. The German firm makes Mercedes SUVs in the US and ships them to China, its biggest market.
Donald Trump has threatened to escalate the conflict by imposing further tariffs on up to $200bn of Chinese goods, if Beijing retaliates on Friday.
China’s stock market fell sharply on Wednesday as traders worried about the escalating trade dispute. The benchmark Shanghai Composite index dropped 1% to finish the day at 2,759 points, its lowest closing point since March 2016.
US markets are closed for Independence Day following a move lower on Tuesday.
Michael Hewson, the chief market analyst at CMC Markets UK, said: “In a holiday shortened US session before the 4 July holiday, US equity markets finished lower on the day as trade concerns kept investors cautious.
“Sharp moves in the Chinese currency prompted speculation that Chinese authorities were manipulating the rate in order to offset some of the worst effects of US tariffs.”
Is North Korea secretly continuing its nuclear programme? - BBC News
Is North Korea secretly continuing its nuclear programme?
By Andreas Illmer
BBC News
2 July 2018
Reports that North Korea is continuing its weapons programme, despite pledges to denuclearise, have cast doubt on its sincerity in peace talks.
The recent reports, based on US intelligence leaks, suggest the country is still upgrading its nuclear enrichment sites, among other activities. So what's actually going on?
What are the allegations?
Here's what has been reported across US media:
North Korea's only official nuclear enrichment site at Yongbyon is being upgraded.
The country is stepping up enrichment at two or more secret sites besides Yongbyon.
Pyongyang continues to produce more mobile launch vehicles for its ballistic missiles.
It has also expanded missile production of solid fuel engines which are more mobile and easier to launch.
How reliable are these reports? They are "only" reports but they are deemed accurate by respected North Korea watchers.
The information is based on multiple unnamed sources from the US intelligence community as well as the 38 North study of satellite images of the Yongbyon site.
Skip Twitter post by @nktpnd
Ankit Panda
✔
@nktpnd
In summary: centrifuges spin at Yongbyon, Kangson, and another facility; KN15 TELs continue to roll out; the Hamhung solid-fuel shop expands considerably.
We shouldn't be surprised; these are in line with Kim's New Year's Day directive on warhead/ballistic missile production.
10:29 AM - Jul 2, 2018
How serious are they?
"None of that activity is in violation of any agreements made at the Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un," explains Vipin Narang, MIT professor for political science and specialist on nuclear proliferation.
In the declaration wrapping up that summit, Pyongyang merely agreed to work towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, something it sees as a phased process.
Details of the process still remain to be worked out by the two sides.
"This was never going to be unilateral and immediate," says Mr Narang. "So Kim Jong-un is free to continue operating the existing sites."
To trust or not to trust, that is the question
Yet the reports that the North is continuing its nuclear activity is still seen as undermining the spirit of the summit and casts doubt on Pyongyang's sincerity to denuclearise.
"The bigger picture here is that North Korea's nuclear programme continues as directed by Kim Jong-un in his speech in January, where he urged the continued production of warheads and ballistic missiles," explains Ankit Panda, editor at The Diplomat magazine.
What were the results of the Trump-Kim summit?
North Korean propaganda changes its tune
N Korea still poses major threat - Trump
What is the biggest news?
Solid fuel engines are more mobile and hence a big step for Pyongyang. Together with the mobile launchers, it means that North Korea can fire missiles from sites that can be quickly set up and not be detected ahead of time by South Korea or the US.
Yet the biggest revelation has been the details about North Korea's secret enrichment sites. So far, Pyongyang has only ever admitted to one enrichment site: Yongbyon.
Solid fuel and mobile launchers would be a major step for Pyongyang
It's been a longstanding suspicion though that there are more, secret sites. An exclusive NBC report based on US intelligence sources confirmed and named one such site and says there is at least one more secret enrichment site.
"You can imagine a North Korean strategy where - without a full disclosure of all their facilities - they can offer to shut down some of the known sites in order to get sanctions relief," explains Mr Narang.
"At the same time they would clandestinely push ahead at the secret sites."
A sacred mountain and other ideologies
On board the train to Korea's music festival for peace
Inside the North Korean place that ‘doesn’t exist’
Why is timing important?
The information coming from the US intelligence sources is presumably something they have known for quite some time. Mr Trump is likely to have been briefed about that very information in the run-up to the Singapore summit.
So why is it now being leaked to the media?
"The sheer number of leaks on nuclear activity makes it look like an authorised attempt to get that intel out into the public sphere," says Mr Abrahamian.
Experts believe there are two reasons why the US intelligence community might have chosen to disclose its information at this point in time.
Scenario one would be "to counter the narrative coming from the White House that it's 'mission accomplished' and that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat," explains Mr Narang.
It may therefore "constrain Trump a bit so he can't claim successes that have not yet be reached", agrees Mr Abrahamian. "It gets the foreign policy community riled up and increases pressure on Trump not to be soft on the [North] Koreans."
The other scenario would be that it's in fact co-ordinated by the Trump administration to generate leverage. By revealing the extent of US intel, Washington can put pressure on North Korea to admit to its secret sites and operations.
The leaked intel could be a way to say 'Mr Kim, we're watching you'
"The assumption was always that we would let the North Koreans disclose their own sites and check that against the list the US intelligence community maintains," explains Mr Panda. "Immediately you would have a sense of whether or not the North Koreans are negotiating in good faith.
"Now that we have put out what we know about the covert enrichment sites, we can see if the North Koreans will choose to disclose those or not."
Will the pressure work?
What remains is the bigger question of whether post-Singapore summit, this kind of pressure will really be able to steer Pyongyang into line.
The flurry of recent reports of North Korea's continued nuclear and military efforts suggest the country is intent on maintaining its nuclear and ballistic capabilities and even to continuing to produce them.
"It could be that Pyongyang is calculating that no matter what, China is already off the maximum pressure campaign of sanctions against North Korea. And the US really can't sustain it without China," warns Mr Narang.
"Kim Jong-un might simply say 'I've done what I have to in order to break the maximum pressure campaign' - and I think he might be right."
By Andreas Illmer
BBC News
2 July 2018
Reports that North Korea is continuing its weapons programme, despite pledges to denuclearise, have cast doubt on its sincerity in peace talks.
The recent reports, based on US intelligence leaks, suggest the country is still upgrading its nuclear enrichment sites, among other activities. So what's actually going on?
What are the allegations?
Here's what has been reported across US media:
North Korea's only official nuclear enrichment site at Yongbyon is being upgraded.
The country is stepping up enrichment at two or more secret sites besides Yongbyon.
Pyongyang continues to produce more mobile launch vehicles for its ballistic missiles.
It has also expanded missile production of solid fuel engines which are more mobile and easier to launch.
How reliable are these reports? They are "only" reports but they are deemed accurate by respected North Korea watchers.
The information is based on multiple unnamed sources from the US intelligence community as well as the 38 North study of satellite images of the Yongbyon site.
Skip Twitter post by @nktpnd
Ankit Panda
✔
@nktpnd
In summary: centrifuges spin at Yongbyon, Kangson, and another facility; KN15 TELs continue to roll out; the Hamhung solid-fuel shop expands considerably.
We shouldn't be surprised; these are in line with Kim's New Year's Day directive on warhead/ballistic missile production.
10:29 AM - Jul 2, 2018
How serious are they?
"None of that activity is in violation of any agreements made at the Singapore summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un," explains Vipin Narang, MIT professor for political science and specialist on nuclear proliferation.
In the declaration wrapping up that summit, Pyongyang merely agreed to work towards denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, something it sees as a phased process.
Details of the process still remain to be worked out by the two sides.
"This was never going to be unilateral and immediate," says Mr Narang. "So Kim Jong-un is free to continue operating the existing sites."
To trust or not to trust, that is the question
Yet the reports that the North is continuing its nuclear activity is still seen as undermining the spirit of the summit and casts doubt on Pyongyang's sincerity to denuclearise.
"The bigger picture here is that North Korea's nuclear programme continues as directed by Kim Jong-un in his speech in January, where he urged the continued production of warheads and ballistic missiles," explains Ankit Panda, editor at The Diplomat magazine.
What were the results of the Trump-Kim summit?
North Korean propaganda changes its tune
N Korea still poses major threat - Trump
What is the biggest news?
Solid fuel engines are more mobile and hence a big step for Pyongyang. Together with the mobile launchers, it means that North Korea can fire missiles from sites that can be quickly set up and not be detected ahead of time by South Korea or the US.
Yet the biggest revelation has been the details about North Korea's secret enrichment sites. So far, Pyongyang has only ever admitted to one enrichment site: Yongbyon.
Solid fuel and mobile launchers would be a major step for Pyongyang
It's been a longstanding suspicion though that there are more, secret sites. An exclusive NBC report based on US intelligence sources confirmed and named one such site and says there is at least one more secret enrichment site.
"You can imagine a North Korean strategy where - without a full disclosure of all their facilities - they can offer to shut down some of the known sites in order to get sanctions relief," explains Mr Narang.
"At the same time they would clandestinely push ahead at the secret sites."
A sacred mountain and other ideologies
On board the train to Korea's music festival for peace
Inside the North Korean place that ‘doesn’t exist’
Why is timing important?
The information coming from the US intelligence sources is presumably something they have known for quite some time. Mr Trump is likely to have been briefed about that very information in the run-up to the Singapore summit.
So why is it now being leaked to the media?
"The sheer number of leaks on nuclear activity makes it look like an authorised attempt to get that intel out into the public sphere," says Mr Abrahamian.
Experts believe there are two reasons why the US intelligence community might have chosen to disclose its information at this point in time.
Scenario one would be "to counter the narrative coming from the White House that it's 'mission accomplished' and that North Korea is no longer a nuclear threat," explains Mr Narang.
It may therefore "constrain Trump a bit so he can't claim successes that have not yet be reached", agrees Mr Abrahamian. "It gets the foreign policy community riled up and increases pressure on Trump not to be soft on the [North] Koreans."
The other scenario would be that it's in fact co-ordinated by the Trump administration to generate leverage. By revealing the extent of US intel, Washington can put pressure on North Korea to admit to its secret sites and operations.
The leaked intel could be a way to say 'Mr Kim, we're watching you'
"The assumption was always that we would let the North Koreans disclose their own sites and check that against the list the US intelligence community maintains," explains Mr Panda. "Immediately you would have a sense of whether or not the North Koreans are negotiating in good faith.
"Now that we have put out what we know about the covert enrichment sites, we can see if the North Koreans will choose to disclose those or not."
Will the pressure work?
What remains is the bigger question of whether post-Singapore summit, this kind of pressure will really be able to steer Pyongyang into line.
The flurry of recent reports of North Korea's continued nuclear and military efforts suggest the country is intent on maintaining its nuclear and ballistic capabilities and even to continuing to produce them.
"It could be that Pyongyang is calculating that no matter what, China is already off the maximum pressure campaign of sanctions against North Korea. And the US really can't sustain it without China," warns Mr Narang.
"Kim Jong-un might simply say 'I've done what I have to in order to break the maximum pressure campaign' - and I think he might be right."
FAA declines to regulate more legroom for airline passengers - NBC News
FAA declines to regulate more legroom for airline passengers
Group called FlyersRights says passenger space on flights is dangerously confined and could hinder emergency evacuations.
by Dennis Romero, Tom Costello and Associated Press / Jul.04.2018 / 11:01 AM ET / Updated 11:03 AM ET
FAA refuses to regulate plane seating
JUL.04.201801:13
The Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday that even though America's collective waistline is expanding, airlines are free to keep putting passenger room on a diet.
The agency was responding to a legal challenge by the group FlyersRights, which argued that current seatback-to-seatback measurements could hinder passengers' evacuation during emergencies.
"The FAA has no evidence that there is an immediate safety issue necessitating rulemaking at this time," the agency wrote in a letter responding to the court challenge.
Speaking to NBC News, FlyersRights staff attorney Andrew Applebaum responded: "Over the last 20 years the average American passenger has grown taller and larger and that makes it more difficult for passengers to evacuate from the airplane."
The group seeks to "establish a moratorium on further seat size shrinkage" on passenger jets, Applebaum said. Economy class space from seatback to seatback has been reduced from 35 inches to 28 inches on some planes. Seat width has not seen similar reductions.
The FAA does not regulate these dimensions, but it has set a 90-second standard for emergency evacuation with half the exits blocked.
In response to FlyersRights' court challenge, plane manufacturers submitted to the court videos of evacuation drills that show packed planes being emptied within the 90-second limit. However, the travelers' group says some of those exercises were conducted decades ago, when the average American was smaller.
"We observed that the passengers, the test subjects, were younger and smaller than the the average American," Applebaum said.
The Centers for Disease Control has recently said that 70 percent of adults in the United States are now overweight or obese.
Hollywood actor maimed in kidnapping, ransom plot, indictment says
The manufacturers' imagery, FlyersRights claims, is unrealistic, doesn't show the entire evacuation procedure, and does not depict anyone reaching for carry-on bags, which have increased in number as baggage fees have swept the industry.
In an affidavit submitted to the court, FAA safety engineer Jeffrey Gardlin countered that real-world crash- and emergency landings from the last three years also prove that passengers — overweight and otherwise —can escape safely.
The "Miracle on the Hudson," U.S. Airways Flight 1549 in January 2009 — immortalized by Hollywood in the Tom Hanks movie "Sully" — was held up as a modern example of "an effective and timely evacuation," according to a conclusion by the National Transportation and Safety Board. All 155 people on board escaped to safety.
Exit door size, which is regulated, is one reason passengers usually make it out during modern emergencies, Gardlin stated. But he also argued that the size of a passenger doesn't make a crucial difference in exit times.
The FAA decision was a response to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which had ordered the agency to take a second look at regulating seat size and passenger room. The court challenge had taken the form of a rule-making petition by FlyersRights, which says it might appeal the FAA's decision.
In the meantime the advocacy group says it is drafting a letter in response to the FAA's stance.
A bill passed by the House of Representatives in April would force the FAA to establish some minimum passenger room measurements, but it would leave the specific numbers up to the agency. It's currently being weighed by the Senate.
"Lives are at stake here," said Applebaum. "We need to make sure that the FAA and the manufacturers are actually testing full scale demonstrations."
Group called FlyersRights says passenger space on flights is dangerously confined and could hinder emergency evacuations.
by Dennis Romero, Tom Costello and Associated Press / Jul.04.2018 / 11:01 AM ET / Updated 11:03 AM ET
FAA refuses to regulate plane seating
JUL.04.201801:13
The Federal Aviation Administration said Tuesday that even though America's collective waistline is expanding, airlines are free to keep putting passenger room on a diet.
The agency was responding to a legal challenge by the group FlyersRights, which argued that current seatback-to-seatback measurements could hinder passengers' evacuation during emergencies.
"The FAA has no evidence that there is an immediate safety issue necessitating rulemaking at this time," the agency wrote in a letter responding to the court challenge.
Speaking to NBC News, FlyersRights staff attorney Andrew Applebaum responded: "Over the last 20 years the average American passenger has grown taller and larger and that makes it more difficult for passengers to evacuate from the airplane."
The group seeks to "establish a moratorium on further seat size shrinkage" on passenger jets, Applebaum said. Economy class space from seatback to seatback has been reduced from 35 inches to 28 inches on some planes. Seat width has not seen similar reductions.
The FAA does not regulate these dimensions, but it has set a 90-second standard for emergency evacuation with half the exits blocked.
In response to FlyersRights' court challenge, plane manufacturers submitted to the court videos of evacuation drills that show packed planes being emptied within the 90-second limit. However, the travelers' group says some of those exercises were conducted decades ago, when the average American was smaller.
"We observed that the passengers, the test subjects, were younger and smaller than the the average American," Applebaum said.
The Centers for Disease Control has recently said that 70 percent of adults in the United States are now overweight or obese.
Hollywood actor maimed in kidnapping, ransom plot, indictment says
The manufacturers' imagery, FlyersRights claims, is unrealistic, doesn't show the entire evacuation procedure, and does not depict anyone reaching for carry-on bags, which have increased in number as baggage fees have swept the industry.
In an affidavit submitted to the court, FAA safety engineer Jeffrey Gardlin countered that real-world crash- and emergency landings from the last three years also prove that passengers — overweight and otherwise —can escape safely.
The "Miracle on the Hudson," U.S. Airways Flight 1549 in January 2009 — immortalized by Hollywood in the Tom Hanks movie "Sully" — was held up as a modern example of "an effective and timely evacuation," according to a conclusion by the National Transportation and Safety Board. All 155 people on board escaped to safety.
Exit door size, which is regulated, is one reason passengers usually make it out during modern emergencies, Gardlin stated. But he also argued that the size of a passenger doesn't make a crucial difference in exit times.
The FAA decision was a response to the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, which had ordered the agency to take a second look at regulating seat size and passenger room. The court challenge had taken the form of a rule-making petition by FlyersRights, which says it might appeal the FAA's decision.
In the meantime the advocacy group says it is drafting a letter in response to the FAA's stance.
A bill passed by the House of Representatives in April would force the FAA to establish some minimum passenger room measurements, but it would leave the specific numbers up to the agency. It's currently being weighed by the Senate.
"Lives are at stake here," said Applebaum. "We need to make sure that the FAA and the manufacturers are actually testing full scale demonstrations."
Amesbury: Two collapse near Russian spy poisoning site - BBC News
July 4, 2018
Amesbury: Two collapse near Russian spy poisoning site
Police have cordoned off a number of areas including Muggleton Road in Amesbury
A man and woman feared to have been exposed to an unknown substance are in a critical condition, prompting police to declare a major incident.
The pair, in their 40s, were found unconscious in what was thought to be in a drugs-related incident in Amesbury, Wiltshire, on Saturday.
Further tests on the substance are being carried out to identify it.
Amesbury is about 10 miles from Salisbury, where a former Russian spy and his daughter were poisoned.
Sergei Skripal and daughter Yulia were poisoned with Novichok, a suspected military nerve agent, in March.
Police said they are "open-minded" about the cause after a couple were found at a house in Muggleton Road, Amesbury.
Image caption
Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury was one of a number of areas cordoned off overnight
While it was not clear whether a crime had been committed, the force said, a number of places in Amesbury and Salisbury known to have been frequented by the couple had been cordoned off.
Russian spy: What happened to the Skripals?
"It was initially believed that the two patients fell ill after using possibly heroin or crack cocaine from a contaminated batch of drugs," Wiltshire Police said.
"They are both currently receiving treatment for suspected exposure to an unknown substance at Salisbury District Hospital," it added.
The couple are believe to have attended a family fun day at Amesbury Baptist Church on Saturday afternoon before they were found unconscious in the property.
Roy Collins, church secretary, said "nobody else has suffered any ill-effects" from attending the community event and "there was nothing going on that was nefarious".
"There have been no reports of any other incidents," he said.
"We are all quite puzzled and shocked - naturally the connection with Salisbury and recent events there mean there is a heightened public interest."
Parked outside the red brick Amesbury Baptist Centre are three police cars and four or five officers standing around with one jotting something down in a notepad.
There are no forensic tents, and it all feels like a very low key operation.
It doesn't feel like a Hazchem or Hazardous Chemical incident. It's not Skripal part two.
It does seem like an incredible coincidence for another incident like this to occur, it may just be the police being cautious or there could be something more to it.
Local resident Jake Murphy said he was watching the football on Tuesday night when "all these police cars appeared".
"I didn't know what was happening," he said.
Justin Doughty, who lives opposite the police cordon, said none of the residents have been "told anything by the police".
"We would have thought the police would have been more forthcoming and keep us in the loop."
A government spokesman said ministers were "being kept up to date about the incident in Amesbury".
Wiltshire's Police and Crime Commissioner Angus Macpherson said the police had worked hard at "containing any risk that might be there".
"There's no reason to think it's connected with matters of last month," he said.
"I haven't seen anything in this incident yet that I would consider to be an overreaction in terms of previous incidents, it all seems fairly textbook."
Public Health England said it did not believe there was a "significant health risk" to the wider public, although its advice was being continually assessed.
The hospital was "open as usual" and advised patients to attend routine appointments unless contacted and advised to do otherwise.
Amesbury: Two collapse near Russian spy poisoning site
Police have cordoned off a number of areas including Muggleton Road in Amesbury
A man and woman feared to have been exposed to an unknown substance are in a critical condition, prompting police to declare a major incident.
The pair, in their 40s, were found unconscious in what was thought to be in a drugs-related incident in Amesbury, Wiltshire, on Saturday.
Further tests on the substance are being carried out to identify it.
Amesbury is about 10 miles from Salisbury, where a former Russian spy and his daughter were poisoned.
Sergei Skripal and daughter Yulia were poisoned with Novichok, a suspected military nerve agent, in March.
Police said they are "open-minded" about the cause after a couple were found at a house in Muggleton Road, Amesbury.
Image caption
Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury was one of a number of areas cordoned off overnight
While it was not clear whether a crime had been committed, the force said, a number of places in Amesbury and Salisbury known to have been frequented by the couple had been cordoned off.
Russian spy: What happened to the Skripals?
"It was initially believed that the two patients fell ill after using possibly heroin or crack cocaine from a contaminated batch of drugs," Wiltshire Police said.
"They are both currently receiving treatment for suspected exposure to an unknown substance at Salisbury District Hospital," it added.
The couple are believe to have attended a family fun day at Amesbury Baptist Church on Saturday afternoon before they were found unconscious in the property.
Roy Collins, church secretary, said "nobody else has suffered any ill-effects" from attending the community event and "there was nothing going on that was nefarious".
"There have been no reports of any other incidents," he said.
"We are all quite puzzled and shocked - naturally the connection with Salisbury and recent events there mean there is a heightened public interest."
Parked outside the red brick Amesbury Baptist Centre are three police cars and four or five officers standing around with one jotting something down in a notepad.
There are no forensic tents, and it all feels like a very low key operation.
It doesn't feel like a Hazchem or Hazardous Chemical incident. It's not Skripal part two.
It does seem like an incredible coincidence for another incident like this to occur, it may just be the police being cautious or there could be something more to it.
Local resident Jake Murphy said he was watching the football on Tuesday night when "all these police cars appeared".
"I didn't know what was happening," he said.
Justin Doughty, who lives opposite the police cordon, said none of the residents have been "told anything by the police".
"We would have thought the police would have been more forthcoming and keep us in the loop."
A government spokesman said ministers were "being kept up to date about the incident in Amesbury".
Wiltshire's Police and Crime Commissioner Angus Macpherson said the police had worked hard at "containing any risk that might be there".
"There's no reason to think it's connected with matters of last month," he said.
"I haven't seen anything in this incident yet that I would consider to be an overreaction in terms of previous incidents, it all seems fairly textbook."
Public Health England said it did not believe there was a "significant health risk" to the wider public, although its advice was being continually assessed.
The hospital was "open as usual" and advised patients to attend routine appointments unless contacted and advised to do otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
