U.K. Poisoning Inquiry Turns to Russian Agency in Mueller Indictments
Investigators in Salisbury, England, inspecting a shopping district in April near where the former Russian spy Sergei V. Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, were found critically ill the previous month. Suspicions have turned toward current or former agents of a Russian military intelligence service.
By Ellen Barry, Michael Schwirtz and Eric Schmitt
July 15, 2018
LONDON — The same Russian military intelligence service now accused of disrupting the 2016 presidential election in America may also be responsible for the nerve agent attack in Britain against a former Russian spy — an audacious poisoning that led to a geopolitical confrontation this spring between Moscow and the West.
British investigators believe the March 4 attack on the former spy, Sergei V. Skripal, and his daughter, Yulia, was most probably carried out by current or former agents of the service, known as the G.R.U., who were sent to his home in southern England, according to one British official, one American official and one former American official familiar with the inquiry, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.
British officials are now closing in on identifying the individuals they believe carried out the operation, said the former American official. At the same time, investigators have not ruled out the possibility that another Russian intelligence agency, or a privatized spinoff, could be responsible.
President Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia are to hold a much-scrutinized meeting on Monday in Helsinki, Finland. For months, Mr. Trump has angrily belittled the special counsel investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. But on Friday, the Justice Department announced a bombshell indictment of 12 G.R.U. officers in the hacking of internal communications of the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton presidential campaign.
The indictment by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, detailed a sophisticated operation, intended to disrupt America’s democratic process, carried out by a Russian military intelligence service few Americans know about. But analysts and government officials say the G.R.U., now known as the Main Directorate of the General Staff, serves as an undercover strike force for the Kremlin in conflicts around the world.
The agency has been linked to Russia’s hybrid war in Ukraine, as well as the annexation of Crimea in 2014. It has been involved in the seizing of Syrian cities on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad. In more peaceful regions, the G.R.U. is accused of creating political turmoil, mobilizing Slavic nationalists in Montenegro and funding protests to try to prevent Macedonia’s recent name change.
The poisoning of Mr. Skripal and his daughter with a military grade nerve agent is a different type of operation, one that falls into the tradition of Russian and Soviet intelligence practices toward traitors. Mr. Skripal served in the G.R.U. for about 15 years but also worked as an informant for MI6, Britain’s foreign intelligence service — a rare betrayal among G.R.U. officers, and one that most likely required laborious effort to mitigate damage to the agency’s networks.
Russian officials have denied their country’s involvement in the poisoning of the Skripals, even as their British counterparts have accused the Kremlin of ordering the attack.
Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, left, and his deputy Edward O’Callaghan at a news conference to announce indictments against 12 Russian military officers who are accused of conspiring to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.CreditT.J. Kirkpatrick for The New York Times
On Sunday, Dmitri S. Peskov, a spokesman for Mr. Putin, dismissed the involvement of the G.R.U. “Russia is in no way involved in this episode,” he said. “We consider this whole thing a major provocation.”
The British investigation seems to be progressing steadily, said Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russian intelligence services at the Institute of International Relations Prague.
“They have a pretty good sense of when these people traveled, they’re going to be doing the full thing of checking the face of everyone on the plane, given that this is the land of CCTV,” Mr. Galeotti said, referring to Britain. “At the very least, they have grainy photographs from CCTV of the people they assume were involved.”
He added that the conclusions of the inquiry would have little impact on the military intelligence service.
“From the G.R.U. point of view, what really matters is the opinion of one man,” he said, “and he already knows what they did or didn’t do.”
Relations between Britain and Russia are now deeply strained. In April, Britain and many of its allies, including the United States, expelled more than 150 Russian diplomats — many of them officers with the G.R.U. — as a protest against the poisoning. Russia retaliated with its own expulsions.
Before ordering the expulsions, Britain privately presented its case against Russia to other governments, including evidence that G.R.U. cyberspecialists had hacked the email accounts of Mr. Skripal’s daughter in 2013. Both Mr. Skripal and his daughter were under surveillance before the attack, and her phone was possibly infected with malware to track her whereabouts, the BBC reported this month.
Mr. Skripal’s final post with the G.R.U. was as a high-level personnel administrator, providing him with extensive knowledge of operations and individual agents. He was arrested in Russia in 2004 and later pleaded guilty to espionage, serving six years of a 13-year sentence before he was released in 2010 as part of a spy swap with the United States.
Mr. Skripal was living in Salisbury, England, before the poisoning attack. He and his daughter, who was visiting him from Russia at the time, have since recovered and are living in hiding. The crime’s repercussions continued last week with the death of a 44-year-old British citizen, Dawn Sturgess, who, the police say, most likely accidentally touched residue of the nerve agent used in the attack.
Investigators removing the bench around which the Skripals were found in Salisbury, England, in March.CreditWill Oliver/EPA, via Shutterstock
From the earliest days of the Skripal investigation, the G.R.U. was a suspect, in part because harsh punishment for traitors is part of the agency’s doctrine.
Viktor B. Suvorov, a G.R.U. officer who defected to Britain in 1978, wrote in a memoir that inductees were shown a gruesome film of a defector, strapped to a stretcher, being slowly rolled into a furnace and burned alive. Though his account was disputed by some of his countrymen, it is beyond doubt that G.R.U. defections were rare.
“Once you’re a member of an elite military force like the G.R.U., there is no leaving it,” said Nigel West, a British intelligence historian who has chronicled the lives of many defectors. “They do not defect. G.R.U. are a military, disciplined elite. They know the consequences.”
During the Soviet era, intelligence services had a protocol around assassinations of agents who betrayed their services. It began with a trial, and the sentencing of the traitor to death in absentia. Then the decision would be distributed to counterintelligence officers stationed at Soviet embassies.
A declassified C.I.A. document from 1964 describes K.G.B. assassination teams known as “combat groups,” which consisted of local agents or undercover “illegal staff” stationed all over the world in preparation for killings, known as “wet jobs.” Rather than carrying out the assassination, agents would often use the sentence as leverage to persuade the individual to become a double agent.
In recent years, the Kremlin has steered clear of direct involvement in criminal acts, preferring hybrid operations that cannot be traced to the government, sometimes carried out by retired operatives like the Russian “volunteers” fighting in Ukraine and Syria, who are often veterans of the G.R.U. special forces.
“Our country has come to the understanding that the government should not be committing crimes,” said Dmitri A. Muratov, director of the editorial board at Novaya Gazeta, an independent newspaper that reports on the security services. Hybrid formations, he said, “are close to the government but not of the government.”
He added, “These formations have infiltrated the political life of the country.”
Russian authorities have never disclosed the extent of the damage Mr. Skripal caused the G.R.U., but there are indications it was significant. In “The Devil’s Counterintelligence Dozen,” a book about Mr. Skripal’s years as a British spy, a Russian espionage expert, Nikolai Luzan, writes that the agent might have compromised as many as 300 Russian intelligence officers.
“When a mole is uncovered in any service, you have a massive operation to nail down everything he had access to,” said Mr. Galeotti, the author of “Spetsnaz,” a book about G.R.U. special forces, adding that many colleagues who worked closely with Mr. Skripal would most likely have had their careers ended as part of the sweep.
People leaving the Russian Embassy in London in March after Britain announced the expulsion of Russian diplomats over the use of a nerve agent on British soil.CreditDaniel Leal-Olivas/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
“If people defected earlier in their career, you might find an entire graduating class benched,” he said.
Even after the swap, he was able to damage the G.R.U.’s infrastructure. In 2012, he visited intelligence officers in the Czech Republic who had long felt vulnerable in the face of Russia’s unusually large intelligence presence in the country. Mr. Skripal, who stayed for a long, boozy lunch, was able to help, said a European official.
“In fact, Skripal was able to describe what types of operations they had, how they cover up their people, how they build their teams,” the official said. “He didn’t have to be concrete, to give up concrete names. It contributed to improving our work.”
Over the months that followed, a number of Russian diplomats were expelled from the Czech Republic on suspicion of spying. Mr. Skripal “may have contributed some part of the puzzle” that led to the expulsions, the official said. “Whether he caused them, nobody can tell you.”
In interviews, several former Russian intelligence agents were skeptical that the G.R.U. was behind the attack on the Skripals, in part because of its audacity.
In Soviet times, their more cosmopolitan K.G.B. colleagues referred to G.R.U. officers as “sapogi,” or boots, suggesting that they were tough and rugged but not sophisticated in their methods, said Yuri B. Shvets, a former K.G.B. agent posted to Washington in the 1980s.
“The G.R.U. took its officers from the trenches,” he said, unlike the K.G.B., which recruited from top universities.
Irek Murtazin, who worked closely with the G.R.U. and now covers military affairs for Novaya Gazeta, said that the agency’s assassinations tended to be unshowy affairs.
“He would have died from a heart attack or a stroke, a car would have run him over or a bum would have beat him up,” Mr. Murtazin said. “There wouldn’t have been any Novichok.”
Assassinations, nonetheless, have long been part of Russian and Soviet intelligence practice, Mr. Galeotti said. “That the G.R.U. kills people abroad has been amply demonstrated in a variety of other cases,” he said. “The G.R.U. tends to be more of a kinetic agency — more a bullet in the head rather than an exotic poison. The ultimate point is, from the G.R.U. point of view, it’s the outcomes that matter.”
Follow Ellen Barry, Michael Schwirtz and Eric Schmitt on Twitter: @EllenBarryNYT, @mschwirtz and @EricSchmittNYT.
Ellen Barry reported from London, Michael Schwirtz from Moscow, and Eric Schmitt from Washington.
Monday, July 16, 2018
Immigration decline costing UK economy billions, says think thank - Independent
July 16, 2018
Immigration decline costing UK economy billions, says think thank
The fall in immigration since Brexit is already costing the UK more than £1bn a year, according to new analysis by an independent think tank.
Global Future, which promotes the benefits of openness, calculates that the loss to the public finances is the equivalent of more than 23,000 nurses or 18,000 doctors.
It also claims that meeting the government’s immigration target of “tens of thousands” will also cost Britain £12bn a year by 2023 – which represents 60 per cent of the funds promised to the NHS by Theresa May as part of a so-called “Brexit dividend“.
The figures are based on forecasts by the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) of the effects on net borrowing and debt under alternative scenarios of high and low migration.
These estimates suggest a surplus of £16.9bn if net migration fell from its peak of 336,000 in the year ending June 2016 to 185,000 by 2021, compared to a surplus of £5.2bn if it fell to 105,000 by 2021.
May refuses to say which taxes will rise to pay for £20bn NHS boost
Government accused of failing to address ‘hostile’ immigration policy
Javid fails to endorse ‘tens of thousands’ immigration target
Global Futures used these estimates to devise what it called a “ready reckoner” of a cost of £150m for every reduction of 10,000 in net migration.
The latest migration figures are due to be released on Monday but net migration had already fallen to 244,000 in the year ending September 2017.
This translates to a cost of £1.35bn every year if net migration remains the same, with even greater losses if it is reduced to less than 100,000 per year.
“Cutting immigration hits our public finances hard,” said Peter Starkings, Global Future’s director.
“The British people may decide that they are happy to pay a bit more tax or see lower investment in our NHS and other public services in return for a reduction in immigration, but that’s a debate we have simply never had.
“What we do know is that the public think immigration has been good for our economy and our culture, and when offered the choice, they routinely choose economic stability over reducing immigration.
“As the government draws up its plans for a post-Brexit immigration policy, they must be honest about the trade-offs at the heart of this debate. This analysis, based on OBR forecasts, shows that lower immigration means lower public investment, higher borrowing, or higher taxes – and meeting the government’s self-defeating target to reduce net migration to tens of thousands a year would blow a giant multi-billion pound hole in the public finances.
“At a time when crucial sectors like our health service are reporting staffing shortages, government should think very carefully about what a restrictive immigration system will do to our country.”
The OBR forecasts assume that migrants and non-migrants will make the same net contributions to public finances if they have the same age and gender.
Other studies reached different results after attempting to take into account other factors such as increased costs to public services and displacement of British workers.
Migration Watch UK, an independent think thank which supports a reduction in immigration, estimated in May 2016 that immigration was costing the UK nearly £17bn a year, although £15.6bn of this was accounted for by non-EEA migrants.
Both Theresa May and her predecessor David Cameron included the pledge to reduce net migration to the “tens of thousands” in their respective Conservative manifestos but failed to hit the target.
Sajid Javid, the home secretary, recently hinted that the UK government may scrap its pledge at a parliamentary panel on immigration.
“I’m not going to get into numbers,” he said. “Clearly the government has been working towards getting net migration down to more sustainable levels, and that objective continues and will continue in a new immigration system as well.”
Immigration decline costing UK economy billions, says think thank
The fall in immigration since Brexit is already costing the UK more than £1bn a year, according to new analysis by an independent think tank.
Global Future, which promotes the benefits of openness, calculates that the loss to the public finances is the equivalent of more than 23,000 nurses or 18,000 doctors.
It also claims that meeting the government’s immigration target of “tens of thousands” will also cost Britain £12bn a year by 2023 – which represents 60 per cent of the funds promised to the NHS by Theresa May as part of a so-called “Brexit dividend“.
The figures are based on forecasts by the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) of the effects on net borrowing and debt under alternative scenarios of high and low migration.
These estimates suggest a surplus of £16.9bn if net migration fell from its peak of 336,000 in the year ending June 2016 to 185,000 by 2021, compared to a surplus of £5.2bn if it fell to 105,000 by 2021.
May refuses to say which taxes will rise to pay for £20bn NHS boost
Government accused of failing to address ‘hostile’ immigration policy
Javid fails to endorse ‘tens of thousands’ immigration target
Global Futures used these estimates to devise what it called a “ready reckoner” of a cost of £150m for every reduction of 10,000 in net migration.
The latest migration figures are due to be released on Monday but net migration had already fallen to 244,000 in the year ending September 2017.
This translates to a cost of £1.35bn every year if net migration remains the same, with even greater losses if it is reduced to less than 100,000 per year.
“Cutting immigration hits our public finances hard,” said Peter Starkings, Global Future’s director.
“The British people may decide that they are happy to pay a bit more tax or see lower investment in our NHS and other public services in return for a reduction in immigration, but that’s a debate we have simply never had.
“What we do know is that the public think immigration has been good for our economy and our culture, and when offered the choice, they routinely choose economic stability over reducing immigration.
“As the government draws up its plans for a post-Brexit immigration policy, they must be honest about the trade-offs at the heart of this debate. This analysis, based on OBR forecasts, shows that lower immigration means lower public investment, higher borrowing, or higher taxes – and meeting the government’s self-defeating target to reduce net migration to tens of thousands a year would blow a giant multi-billion pound hole in the public finances.
“At a time when crucial sectors like our health service are reporting staffing shortages, government should think very carefully about what a restrictive immigration system will do to our country.”
The OBR forecasts assume that migrants and non-migrants will make the same net contributions to public finances if they have the same age and gender.
Other studies reached different results after attempting to take into account other factors such as increased costs to public services and displacement of British workers.
Migration Watch UK, an independent think thank which supports a reduction in immigration, estimated in May 2016 that immigration was costing the UK nearly £17bn a year, although £15.6bn of this was accounted for by non-EEA migrants.
Both Theresa May and her predecessor David Cameron included the pledge to reduce net migration to the “tens of thousands” in their respective Conservative manifestos but failed to hit the target.
Sajid Javid, the home secretary, recently hinted that the UK government may scrap its pledge at a parliamentary panel on immigration.
“I’m not going to get into numbers,” he said. “Clearly the government has been working towards getting net migration down to more sustainable levels, and that objective continues and will continue in a new immigration system as well.”
China's second quarter growth meets expectations at 6.7% =BBC News
July 16, 2018
China's second quarter growth meets expectations at 6.7%
China's economy grew at an annual pace of 6.7% in the three months to June, official data showed, meeting forecasts for the period.
That marked a slight slowdown from a 6.8% expansion recorded in the previous quarter.
The data comes as the government attempts to curb growing debt and as trade tensions with the US escalate.
The US raised the stakes in a trade war last week, listing another $200bn worth of Chinese goods to be hit by tariffs.
Chinese stock markets, which have struggled recently amid the escalating trade dispute between the US and China, traded down slightly on Monday.
How a US-China trade war could hurt us all
US-China trade row: What has happened so far?
"GDP growth eased... on softer global trade and the tightening of financial policy since early 2018," Oxford Economics said in a research note.
It expects slow credit growth and softer real estate activity - along with the "intensifying trade conflict with the US" - to weigh on China's growth in the second half of 2018.
The US slapped tariffs on $34bn of Chinese goods on 6 July, opening the way for a tit-for-tat trade war with the world's second-largest economy.
China retaliated, saying the US had launched the "largest trade war in economic history".
However, Tom Rafferty from the Economist Intelligence Unit said there were also worries about the strength of China's domestic economy.
"The EIU is more concerned about slowing domestic demand within China's economy, with investment persistently weak and consumption also having slowed, and these are much more important drivers of growth than exports," he said in a research note.
China's monthly trade surplus with the US hit a record high of nearly $29bn (£22bn) in June as exports to America remained strong.
US President Donald Trump recently suggested that more than $500bn of Chinese goods could be hit by tariffs. That is almost equal to the value of China's entire goods exports to the US last year.
China's second quarter growth meets expectations at 6.7%
China's economy grew at an annual pace of 6.7% in the three months to June, official data showed, meeting forecasts for the period.
That marked a slight slowdown from a 6.8% expansion recorded in the previous quarter.
The data comes as the government attempts to curb growing debt and as trade tensions with the US escalate.
The US raised the stakes in a trade war last week, listing another $200bn worth of Chinese goods to be hit by tariffs.
Chinese stock markets, which have struggled recently amid the escalating trade dispute between the US and China, traded down slightly on Monday.
How a US-China trade war could hurt us all
US-China trade row: What has happened so far?
"GDP growth eased... on softer global trade and the tightening of financial policy since early 2018," Oxford Economics said in a research note.
It expects slow credit growth and softer real estate activity - along with the "intensifying trade conflict with the US" - to weigh on China's growth in the second half of 2018.
The US slapped tariffs on $34bn of Chinese goods on 6 July, opening the way for a tit-for-tat trade war with the world's second-largest economy.
China retaliated, saying the US had launched the "largest trade war in economic history".
However, Tom Rafferty from the Economist Intelligence Unit said there were also worries about the strength of China's domestic economy.
"The EIU is more concerned about slowing domestic demand within China's economy, with investment persistently weak and consumption also having slowed, and these are much more important drivers of growth than exports," he said in a research note.
China's monthly trade surplus with the US hit a record high of nearly $29bn (£22bn) in June as exports to America remained strong.
US President Donald Trump recently suggested that more than $500bn of Chinese goods could be hit by tariffs. That is almost equal to the value of China's entire goods exports to the US last year.
Trump-Putin summit: 'US foolishness caused Russia tensions' - BBC News
July 16, 2018
Trump-Putin summit: 'US foolishness caused Russia tensions'
President Trump arrived in Finland with First Lady Melania Trump
Donald Trump has said ties with Russia have "NEVER been worse" and blamed US politicians, ahead of his first-ever summit with counterpart Vladimir Putin.
In a tweet the US president denounced his predecessor's "stupidity" and the "rigged" inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The summit is being held in the Finnish capital, Helsinki, later on Monday.
Some US politicians had called for it to be cancelled after 12 Russians were charged with hacking on Friday.
Live updates: Trump-Putin summit
The defendants - all Russian intelligence officers - are accused of launching cyber-attacks on the 2016 presidential campaign of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
But in his tweet, Mr Trump put the blame for the deterioration of relations with Russia squarely on US domestic forces.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!
4:05 PM - Jul 16, 2018
BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says the tweet is likely to alarm White House advisers, already nervous about the risks of giving too much ground to the Russian leader during the talks.
Many in the West have criticised Moscow for what they regard as its destabilising activities in Ukraine. The US, among others, has imposed sanctions on Russia over its annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Why is Trump meeting Putin a big deal?
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
The summit - in which the two leaders will be joined only by their interpreters - comes after a tumultuous European tour that saw Mr Trump criticise allies of the US over trade and military spending.
Trump: I have low expectations for Putin meeting
What are the main sources of tension with Russia?
Russia has been criticised in the US because of its military support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria as well as its actions in Ukraine.
Tensions also are high as a result of accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 election in the US. The allegations are being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Mr Trump has consistently denounced the inquiry as a "witch hunt".
Four intriguing lines in Mueller charges
The 12 Russians indicted on Friday were targeted as part of Mr Mueller's investigation.
They are accused of using keystroke-reading software to spy on the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and hack into the party's computers.
Protesters in Finland have been urging Mr Trump to focus on human rights ahead of his visit.
Top Democrats including party chairman Tom Perez have urged Mr Trump to cancel the talks, saying Mr Putin was "not a friend of the United States".
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain said the summit "should not move forward" unless the president "is prepared to hold Putin accountable".
Russia denies the hacking allegations, and says it is looking forward to the talks as a vehicle for improving relations.
What will be discussed at the summit?
US National Security Adviser John Bolton has said that both sides have agreed the meeting will have no set agenda.
But he said he found it "hard to believe" Mr Putin did not know about the alleged election hacking and the subject would be mentioned.
"That's what one of the purposes of this meeting is, so the president can see eye to eye with President Putin and ask him about it," he told ABC News.
The two leaders will meet at the presidential palace in Helsinki
Mr Trump has also been urged to raise the poisoning of two people in the UK who came into contact with the nerve agent Novichok on 30 June. Investigators believe the incident is linked to the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in March.
Mr Trump elaborated on what would be discussed at the summit during a joint press conference with UK Prime Minister Theresa May last week.
"We'll be talking about Syria," he said. "We'll be talking about other parts of the Middle East. I will be talking about nuclear proliferation."
An uncertain spectacle
By Lyse Doucet, Chief International Correspondent, BBC News, Helsinki
Both leaders will feel they have won simply by meeting with the eyes of the world upon them.
President Putin, still basking in the glory of hosting the World Cup, will project Russian power as he stands shoulder to shoulder with his American counterpart. There is a lot in this for him.
President Trump will again savour the spotlight as the world's self-proclaimed dealmaker. He attacks allies and admires strongmen like the Russian leader.
His penchant for disruptive diplomacy means he could announce unexpected concessions and startle allies and advisers alike.
There could also be some rewards. A dialogue is crucial. Significant issues ranging from a nuclear arms race to wars in Syria and Ukraine deserve their attention.
But with no agenda, little preparation, and a lot of Trumpian unpredictability, no-one can be certain what will actually happen.
What has Mr Trump been doing so far in Europe?
His tour has included a Nato summit in Belgium and a visit to the UK. Neither passed without controversy.
Following the Nato summit, Mr Trump said the allies had pledged to "substantially" raise their defence budgets but other leaders cast doubt on this claim.
The UK visit also had its ups and downs after Mr Trump told a newspaper the US would probably not give the UK a trade deal under the terms of Mrs May's Brexit plans - and then later appeared to backtrack on this position.
He also said Europe was "losing its character" because of immigration from Africa and the Middle East.
On Sunday, just before he departed for Helsinki, Mr Trump described the European Union as a foe on trade.
He told CBS News that European countries were taking advantage of the US and not paying their Nato bills.
Trump-Putin summit: 'US foolishness caused Russia tensions'
President Trump arrived in Finland with First Lady Melania Trump
Donald Trump has said ties with Russia have "NEVER been worse" and blamed US politicians, ahead of his first-ever summit with counterpart Vladimir Putin.
In a tweet the US president denounced his predecessor's "stupidity" and the "rigged" inquiry into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election.
The summit is being held in the Finnish capital, Helsinki, later on Monday.
Some US politicians had called for it to be cancelled after 12 Russians were charged with hacking on Friday.
Live updates: Trump-Putin summit
The defendants - all Russian intelligence officers - are accused of launching cyber-attacks on the 2016 presidential campaign of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
But in his tweet, Mr Trump put the blame for the deterioration of relations with Russia squarely on US domestic forces.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Our relationship with Russia has NEVER been worse thanks to many years of U.S. foolishness and stupidity and now, the Rigged Witch Hunt!
4:05 PM - Jul 16, 2018
BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says the tweet is likely to alarm White House advisers, already nervous about the risks of giving too much ground to the Russian leader during the talks.
Many in the West have criticised Moscow for what they regard as its destabilising activities in Ukraine. The US, among others, has imposed sanctions on Russia over its annexation of Crimea in 2014.
Why is Trump meeting Putin a big deal?
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
The summit - in which the two leaders will be joined only by their interpreters - comes after a tumultuous European tour that saw Mr Trump criticise allies of the US over trade and military spending.
Trump: I have low expectations for Putin meeting
What are the main sources of tension with Russia?
Russia has been criticised in the US because of its military support for President Bashar al-Assad in Syria as well as its actions in Ukraine.
Tensions also are high as a result of accusations of Russian interference in the 2016 election in the US. The allegations are being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Mr Trump has consistently denounced the inquiry as a "witch hunt".
Four intriguing lines in Mueller charges
The 12 Russians indicted on Friday were targeted as part of Mr Mueller's investigation.
They are accused of using keystroke-reading software to spy on the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and hack into the party's computers.
Protesters in Finland have been urging Mr Trump to focus on human rights ahead of his visit.
Top Democrats including party chairman Tom Perez have urged Mr Trump to cancel the talks, saying Mr Putin was "not a friend of the United States".
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain said the summit "should not move forward" unless the president "is prepared to hold Putin accountable".
Russia denies the hacking allegations, and says it is looking forward to the talks as a vehicle for improving relations.
What will be discussed at the summit?
US National Security Adviser John Bolton has said that both sides have agreed the meeting will have no set agenda.
But he said he found it "hard to believe" Mr Putin did not know about the alleged election hacking and the subject would be mentioned.
"That's what one of the purposes of this meeting is, so the president can see eye to eye with President Putin and ask him about it," he told ABC News.
The two leaders will meet at the presidential palace in Helsinki
Mr Trump has also been urged to raise the poisoning of two people in the UK who came into contact with the nerve agent Novichok on 30 June. Investigators believe the incident is linked to the poisoning of a former Russian spy and his daughter in March.
Mr Trump elaborated on what would be discussed at the summit during a joint press conference with UK Prime Minister Theresa May last week.
"We'll be talking about Syria," he said. "We'll be talking about other parts of the Middle East. I will be talking about nuclear proliferation."
An uncertain spectacle
By Lyse Doucet, Chief International Correspondent, BBC News, Helsinki
Both leaders will feel they have won simply by meeting with the eyes of the world upon them.
President Putin, still basking in the glory of hosting the World Cup, will project Russian power as he stands shoulder to shoulder with his American counterpart. There is a lot in this for him.
President Trump will again savour the spotlight as the world's self-proclaimed dealmaker. He attacks allies and admires strongmen like the Russian leader.
His penchant for disruptive diplomacy means he could announce unexpected concessions and startle allies and advisers alike.
There could also be some rewards. A dialogue is crucial. Significant issues ranging from a nuclear arms race to wars in Syria and Ukraine deserve their attention.
But with no agenda, little preparation, and a lot of Trumpian unpredictability, no-one can be certain what will actually happen.
What has Mr Trump been doing so far in Europe?
His tour has included a Nato summit in Belgium and a visit to the UK. Neither passed without controversy.
Following the Nato summit, Mr Trump said the allies had pledged to "substantially" raise their defence budgets but other leaders cast doubt on this claim.
The UK visit also had its ups and downs after Mr Trump told a newspaper the US would probably not give the UK a trade deal under the terms of Mrs May's Brexit plans - and then later appeared to backtrack on this position.
He also said Europe was "losing its character" because of immigration from Africa and the Middle East.
On Sunday, just before he departed for Helsinki, Mr Trump described the European Union as a foe on trade.
He told CBS News that European countries were taking advantage of the US and not paying their Nato bills.
Sunday, July 15, 2018
Intel chief Dan Coats says of cyberattacks, "We are at a critical point" - CBS News
July 13, 2018, 5:27 PM
Intel chief Dan Coats says of cyberattacks, "We are at a critical point"
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned of an impending, potentially devastating cyberattack on U.S. systems, saying the country's digital infrastructure "is literally under attack" and warning that among state actors, Russia is the "worst offender."
Speaking at a scheduled event at the Hudson Institute, he adopted the language of former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet who, in the months ahead of the 9/11 attacks, warned that the "system was blinking red." Coats, citing daily attacks from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, said, "Here we are, nearly two decades later, and I'm here to say the warning lights are blinking red again."
He said the aggressors' targets were diverse, and included businesses, federal, state and local governments, the U.S. military, academic and financial institutions, and critical infrastructure. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security had already detected Russian government actors exploring vulnerabilities in energy, nuclear, water, aviation and manufacturing sectors, he warned.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats YURI GRIPAS / REUTERS
"All of these disparate efforts share a common purpose," he observed, "to exploit America's openness in order to undermine our long-term competitive advantage."
Coats also said there was "no question" that Russia was the "most aggressive foreign actor," and its efforts to undermine American democracy are ongoing, even if they appear to have abated from 2016 levels.
"We are not yet seeing the kind of electoral interference in specific states and in voter databases that we experienced," he said. "However, we realize we are just one click of the keyboard away from a similar situation repeating itself." Russian attempts to stoke social and political tensions on social media platforms, Coats said, were still "aggressive," with new fake accounts continually being created by the Internet Research Agency. Special counsel Robert Mueller indicted the IRA, along with thirteen Russian nationals it employed, in February.
"These actions are persistent, they're pervasive and they are meant to undermine America's democracy on a daily basis, regardless of whether it is election time or not," Coats said. "The warning signs are there. The system is blinking. And it is why I believe we are at a critical point."
As part of an ongoing restructuring process called "Intelligence Community 2025," Coats said, the 17 agencies of the intelligence community would make their own efforts to boost transparency and information-sharing, including by working to eliminate what he called "information silos" between the public and private sector. He also urged all consumers of information to be vigilant about its provenance.
"We need the American people to verify the credibility of the sources of information upon which they base their decisions," he said. "Whether those sources are social media reports, cable news or newspapers, it is essential that we all apply critical thinking to all sources of information."
Coats' stark warning was issued on the same day the Department of Justice announced an 11-count indictment against 12 Russian intelligence officers accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign – and just three days before President Trump is scheduled to hold a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Despite an outpouring of admonishments from Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who said the meeting should be cancelled in light of the DOJ's most recent indictments, the White House said it would proceed.
For its part, hours before the Mueller indictment was issued, the Kremlin again denied ever attempting to meddle. "The Russian state has never interfered and has no intention of interfering in the U.S. elections," said Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov.
Coats, asked by moderator Walter Russel Mead what message he would offer the Russian president, said, "My message would be, 'We know what you're doing," he said. "President Putin, the decisions are up to you...we know what you do and so you make the choice. But if you want to stay in this tit-for-tat, we're going to beat you."
Intel chief Dan Coats says of cyberattacks, "We are at a critical point"
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned of an impending, potentially devastating cyberattack on U.S. systems, saying the country's digital infrastructure "is literally under attack" and warning that among state actors, Russia is the "worst offender."
Speaking at a scheduled event at the Hudson Institute, he adopted the language of former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet who, in the months ahead of the 9/11 attacks, warned that the "system was blinking red." Coats, citing daily attacks from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, said, "Here we are, nearly two decades later, and I'm here to say the warning lights are blinking red again."
He said the aggressors' targets were diverse, and included businesses, federal, state and local governments, the U.S. military, academic and financial institutions, and critical infrastructure. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security had already detected Russian government actors exploring vulnerabilities in energy, nuclear, water, aviation and manufacturing sectors, he warned.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats YURI GRIPAS / REUTERS
"All of these disparate efforts share a common purpose," he observed, "to exploit America's openness in order to undermine our long-term competitive advantage."
Coats also said there was "no question" that Russia was the "most aggressive foreign actor," and its efforts to undermine American democracy are ongoing, even if they appear to have abated from 2016 levels.
"We are not yet seeing the kind of electoral interference in specific states and in voter databases that we experienced," he said. "However, we realize we are just one click of the keyboard away from a similar situation repeating itself." Russian attempts to stoke social and political tensions on social media platforms, Coats said, were still "aggressive," with new fake accounts continually being created by the Internet Research Agency. Special counsel Robert Mueller indicted the IRA, along with thirteen Russian nationals it employed, in February.
"These actions are persistent, they're pervasive and they are meant to undermine America's democracy on a daily basis, regardless of whether it is election time or not," Coats said. "The warning signs are there. The system is blinking. And it is why I believe we are at a critical point."
As part of an ongoing restructuring process called "Intelligence Community 2025," Coats said, the 17 agencies of the intelligence community would make their own efforts to boost transparency and information-sharing, including by working to eliminate what he called "information silos" between the public and private sector. He also urged all consumers of information to be vigilant about its provenance.
"We need the American people to verify the credibility of the sources of information upon which they base their decisions," he said. "Whether those sources are social media reports, cable news or newspapers, it is essential that we all apply critical thinking to all sources of information."
Coats' stark warning was issued on the same day the Department of Justice announced an 11-count indictment against 12 Russian intelligence officers accused of hacking the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign – and just three days before President Trump is scheduled to hold a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Despite an outpouring of admonishments from Republican and Democratic lawmakers, who said the meeting should be cancelled in light of the DOJ's most recent indictments, the White House said it would proceed.
For its part, hours before the Mueller indictment was issued, the Kremlin again denied ever attempting to meddle. "The Russian state has never interfered and has no intention of interfering in the U.S. elections," said Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov.
Coats, asked by moderator Walter Russel Mead what message he would offer the Russian president, said, "My message would be, 'We know what you're doing," he said. "President Putin, the decisions are up to you...we know what you do and so you make the choice. But if you want to stay in this tit-for-tat, we're going to beat you."
Bond markets signal early end to Fed rate rises - Financial Times
July 14, 2018
Bond markets signal early end to Fed rate rises
While the central bank hails strength of US economy, traders are not so sure
Fed chair Jay Powell
Joe Rennison in New York
Bond traders are anticipating that an end to the Federal Reserve’s cycle of monetary policy tightening could come as early as next year, facing down policymakers that expect to raise interest rates for longer.
While the Fed expects to raise rates into next year and potentially the year after — a point that could be reiterated by chair Jay Powell when he gives testimony this week to Congress — current prices in US interest rate markets suggest that the central bank will stop its hiking cycle sooner.
According to the median prediction by policymakers, the Fed policy rate will rise to 3.375 per cent in 2020. In contrast, eurodollar futures suggest rates may plateau in 2019.
The differences come as despite strong corporate earnings growth and positive economic data, investors are factoring in the risk of a slowdown in the economy.
“The markets are telling us that there is a pretty high risk of economic slowdown or recession at the end of 2019,” said Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Capital Management.
The yield on futures expiring in December 2019 stood at 2.97 per cent on Friday, and on futures expiring in March 2020 it was an almost identical 2.975 per cent. The yield falls to 2.96 per cent for December 2020 eurodollar futures.
“The market is saying that the Fed is wrong,” said John Brady, managing director at RJ O’Brien.
This is only the fifth time since 1989 that there has been an inversion in the eurodollar futures yield curve, where longer-term rates are below shorter-dated rates. Each time it has been followed by the Fed pausing its policy tightening.
The Fed has been stressing the strength of the economy in its recent communications but trade concerns have amplified fears that companies may begin to slow capital expenditure, while some analysts say that the boost from tax reform will begin to erode in 2019 as year-over-year growth comparisons will be set at a higher bar.
A second market measure of interest rate expectations, fed funds futures, which are less heavily traded than eurodollar futures, is showing a similar plateau in 2019, although it is not inverted.
Global Economy
Fed sees more Americans returning to workforce
The pattern can also be seen in the difference between two and 10-year Treasury yields, with the 10-year struggling to sustain levels above 3 per cent. When shorter-dated yields rise above longer-dated yields it is seen by many investors as a sign of a coming recession. The spread on Friday between the two Treasury benchmarks stood at just 24 basis points, the lowest level since 2007.
A majority of Fed policymakers expect two more rate rises this year. With further moves early next year, that would put the Fed close to its median estimate of the neutral interest rate, at which monetary policy neither stimulates nor cools the economy. Policymakers are intensely debating whether to push beyond that level or call a halt there.
Complicating deliberations is the Fed’s balance sheet, which some officials think may be artificially flattening the yield curve and making it a less useful indicator than in previous economic cycles.
The size of the balance sheet is still holding down long-term rates, they suggest, but the programme to reduce its holdings, which began in October of last year, may be contributing to an upward drift in short-term rates as investors struggle to digest the increase in supply.
Additional reporting by Sam Fleming
Bond markets signal early end to Fed rate rises
While the central bank hails strength of US economy, traders are not so sure
Fed chair Jay Powell
Joe Rennison in New York
Bond traders are anticipating that an end to the Federal Reserve’s cycle of monetary policy tightening could come as early as next year, facing down policymakers that expect to raise interest rates for longer.
While the Fed expects to raise rates into next year and potentially the year after — a point that could be reiterated by chair Jay Powell when he gives testimony this week to Congress — current prices in US interest rate markets suggest that the central bank will stop its hiking cycle sooner.
According to the median prediction by policymakers, the Fed policy rate will rise to 3.375 per cent in 2020. In contrast, eurodollar futures suggest rates may plateau in 2019.
The differences come as despite strong corporate earnings growth and positive economic data, investors are factoring in the risk of a slowdown in the economy.
“The markets are telling us that there is a pretty high risk of economic slowdown or recession at the end of 2019,” said Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Capital Management.
The yield on futures expiring in December 2019 stood at 2.97 per cent on Friday, and on futures expiring in March 2020 it was an almost identical 2.975 per cent. The yield falls to 2.96 per cent for December 2020 eurodollar futures.
“The market is saying that the Fed is wrong,” said John Brady, managing director at RJ O’Brien.
This is only the fifth time since 1989 that there has been an inversion in the eurodollar futures yield curve, where longer-term rates are below shorter-dated rates. Each time it has been followed by the Fed pausing its policy tightening.
The Fed has been stressing the strength of the economy in its recent communications but trade concerns have amplified fears that companies may begin to slow capital expenditure, while some analysts say that the boost from tax reform will begin to erode in 2019 as year-over-year growth comparisons will be set at a higher bar.
A second market measure of interest rate expectations, fed funds futures, which are less heavily traded than eurodollar futures, is showing a similar plateau in 2019, although it is not inverted.
Global Economy
Fed sees more Americans returning to workforce
The pattern can also be seen in the difference between two and 10-year Treasury yields, with the 10-year struggling to sustain levels above 3 per cent. When shorter-dated yields rise above longer-dated yields it is seen by many investors as a sign of a coming recession. The spread on Friday between the two Treasury benchmarks stood at just 24 basis points, the lowest level since 2007.
A majority of Fed policymakers expect two more rate rises this year. With further moves early next year, that would put the Fed close to its median estimate of the neutral interest rate, at which monetary policy neither stimulates nor cools the economy. Policymakers are intensely debating whether to push beyond that level or call a halt there.
Complicating deliberations is the Fed’s balance sheet, which some officials think may be artificially flattening the yield curve and making it a less useful indicator than in previous economic cycles.
The size of the balance sheet is still holding down long-term rates, they suggest, but the programme to reduce its holdings, which began in October of last year, may be contributing to an upward drift in short-term rates as investors struggle to digest the increase in supply.
Additional reporting by Sam Fleming
Russians relied on bitcoin to finance election hacking, prosecutors say - CBS News
July 13, 2018, 5:56 PM
Russians relied on bitcoin to finance election hacking, prosecutors say
The 12 Russians indicted on Friday for conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 presidential election used well-known tactics to penetrate computer systems. To finance the operation, they relied on bitcoin, federal prosecutors said.
The indictment, which stemmed from the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller, described the activities in a section on money laundering. "The Defendants conspired to launder the equivalent of more than $95,000 through a web of transactions structured to capitalize on the perceived anonymity of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin," the government indictment claims.
Purchases with bitcoin included computer servers and domain registrations. Prosecutors allege they used bitcoin to help conceal their identity.
"The use of bitcoin allowed the Conspirators to avoid direct relationships with traditional financial institutions, allowing them to evade greater scrutiny of their identities and sources of funds," the indictment reads.
They used several "dedicated email accounts" to track the bitcoin transactions. One email account named "gfadel47," received bitcoin payment requests from approximately 100 different email accounts, prosecutors said.
The Russian officers allegedly used fake names, including "Ward DeClaur" and "Mike Long," when purchasing a Malaysian server used to plant malware on networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic National Committee.
"It cost very little money," CNET senior producer Dan Patterson said on CBSN. "What they really invested in was psychological warfare, making sure they could trick people into falling for these spear phishing type of attacks."
Patterson said it was essentially "a very simple attack" that tricked staffers into clicking on emails from rogue accounts. That enabled Russian operatives to steal usernames and passwords and eventually infiltrate the entire network by exploiting security holes in Microsoft Exchange.
He notes it wasn't the first time Russian hackers are believed to have used such tactics.
"They did the same thing in Ukraine," Patterson said, referring to a series of cyberattacks that wreaked havoc on that country's energy grid. "In fact, the Russians probably used Ukraine as a test bed for cyberattacks targeted at the U.S."
Russians relied on bitcoin to finance election hacking, prosecutors say
The 12 Russians indicted on Friday for conspiracy to interfere in the 2016 presidential election used well-known tactics to penetrate computer systems. To finance the operation, they relied on bitcoin, federal prosecutors said.
The indictment, which stemmed from the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller, described the activities in a section on money laundering. "The Defendants conspired to launder the equivalent of more than $95,000 through a web of transactions structured to capitalize on the perceived anonymity of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin," the government indictment claims.
Purchases with bitcoin included computer servers and domain registrations. Prosecutors allege they used bitcoin to help conceal their identity.
"The use of bitcoin allowed the Conspirators to avoid direct relationships with traditional financial institutions, allowing them to evade greater scrutiny of their identities and sources of funds," the indictment reads.
They used several "dedicated email accounts" to track the bitcoin transactions. One email account named "gfadel47," received bitcoin payment requests from approximately 100 different email accounts, prosecutors said.
The Russian officers allegedly used fake names, including "Ward DeClaur" and "Mike Long," when purchasing a Malaysian server used to plant malware on networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic National Committee.
"It cost very little money," CNET senior producer Dan Patterson said on CBSN. "What they really invested in was psychological warfare, making sure they could trick people into falling for these spear phishing type of attacks."
Patterson said it was essentially "a very simple attack" that tricked staffers into clicking on emails from rogue accounts. That enabled Russian operatives to steal usernames and passwords and eventually infiltrate the entire network by exploiting security holes in Microsoft Exchange.
He notes it wasn't the first time Russian hackers are believed to have used such tactics.
"They did the same thing in Ukraine," Patterson said, referring to a series of cyberattacks that wreaked havoc on that country's energy grid. "In fact, the Russians probably used Ukraine as a test bed for cyberattacks targeted at the U.S."
Trump: Low expectations for Putin talks - BBC News
July 15, 2018
Trump: Low expectations for Putin talks
The leaders will reportedly discuss US-Russia relations and national security issues on Monday
US President Trump has said he has "low expectations" for his meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin in Finland on Monday.
But he told CBS News that "nothing bad" and "maybe some good" would come out of the encounter.
He also said he would raise the subject of 12 Russians indicted for alleged hacking during the 2016 US election - but "hadn't thought" about asking for their extradition.
Russia denies the allegations.
There are no extradition arrangements between Russia and the US.
There have been calls in the US for Mr Trump to cancel his meeting with Mr Putin over the indictments, announced on Friday by US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Four intriguing lines in Mueller charges
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
All you need to know about Mueller inquiry
Mr Trump told CBS News he "believed in meetings" and said his meetings with the North Korean and Chinese leaders had been a "very good thing".
"I think it's a good thing to meet. I do believe in meetings. I believe that having a meeting with Chairman Kim was a good thing. I think having meetings with the president of China was a very good thing. I believe it's really good. So having meetings with Russia, China, North Korea, I believe in it. Nothing bad is going to come out of it, and maybe some good will come out," he said.
"I can't tell you what's going to happen, but I can tell you what I'll be asking for. And we'll see if something comes of it," he added.
Mr Trump also repeated his earlier criticism of the Obama administration, which was in power when the alleged hacking of Democratic party officials took place.
"This was during the Obama administration. They were doing whatever it was during the Obama administration," he said.
"The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to be hacked. They had bad defences and they were able to be hacked," he added.
He said he had been told "by a number of people" that hackers had also targeted the Republican party but "we had much better defences", although he added that "this may be wrong".
The US president has taken in a Nato summit and a visit to the UK ahead of his meeting with Mr Putin.
Putin laughs at political chaos in US
Russia has said it is looking forward to the talks.
"We consider Trump a negotiating partner," said Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov. "The state of bilateral relations is very bad. We have to start to set them right."
Russia's foreign ministry has said there was no evidence linking any of the dozen officials named in the US indictments to hacking or military intelligence.
What are the allegations?
The 11-count indictment names the Russians defendants, alleging they began cyber-attacks in March 2016 on the email accounts of staff for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
They are accused of using keystroke reading software to spy on the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and hack into the party's computers.
Who has called for talks to be cancelled?
Top Democrats including party chairman Tom Perez have urged Mr Trump to abandon the talks, saying Mr Putin was "not a friend of the United States".
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain said the summit "should not move forward" unless the president "is prepared to hold Putin accountable".
What's the big picture?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating US intelligence findings that Russians conspired to sway the 2016 election in Mr Trump's favour.
As of Friday, the inquiry has indicted 32 people - mostly Russian nationals in absentia - as well as three companies and four former Trump advisers.
None of the charges allege Trump advisers colluded with Russia to interfere with the presidential campaign.
Why US fears Russia is hacking election
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser, have pleaded guilty to making false statements about their contacts with Russians.
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates were charged with money laundering relating to their political consultancy work in Ukraine.
Trump: Low expectations for Putin talks
The leaders will reportedly discuss US-Russia relations and national security issues on Monday
US President Trump has said he has "low expectations" for his meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin in Finland on Monday.
But he told CBS News that "nothing bad" and "maybe some good" would come out of the encounter.
He also said he would raise the subject of 12 Russians indicted for alleged hacking during the 2016 US election - but "hadn't thought" about asking for their extradition.
Russia denies the allegations.
There are no extradition arrangements between Russia and the US.
There have been calls in the US for Mr Trump to cancel his meeting with Mr Putin over the indictments, announced on Friday by US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Four intriguing lines in Mueller charges
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
All you need to know about Mueller inquiry
Mr Trump told CBS News he "believed in meetings" and said his meetings with the North Korean and Chinese leaders had been a "very good thing".
"I think it's a good thing to meet. I do believe in meetings. I believe that having a meeting with Chairman Kim was a good thing. I think having meetings with the president of China was a very good thing. I believe it's really good. So having meetings with Russia, China, North Korea, I believe in it. Nothing bad is going to come out of it, and maybe some good will come out," he said.
"I can't tell you what's going to happen, but I can tell you what I'll be asking for. And we'll see if something comes of it," he added.
Mr Trump also repeated his earlier criticism of the Obama administration, which was in power when the alleged hacking of Democratic party officials took place.
"This was during the Obama administration. They were doing whatever it was during the Obama administration," he said.
"The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for allowing themselves to be hacked. They had bad defences and they were able to be hacked," he added.
He said he had been told "by a number of people" that hackers had also targeted the Republican party but "we had much better defences", although he added that "this may be wrong".
The US president has taken in a Nato summit and a visit to the UK ahead of his meeting with Mr Putin.
Putin laughs at political chaos in US
Russia has said it is looking forward to the talks.
"We consider Trump a negotiating partner," said Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov. "The state of bilateral relations is very bad. We have to start to set them right."
Russia's foreign ministry has said there was no evidence linking any of the dozen officials named in the US indictments to hacking or military intelligence.
What are the allegations?
The 11-count indictment names the Russians defendants, alleging they began cyber-attacks in March 2016 on the email accounts of staff for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
They are accused of using keystroke reading software to spy on the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and hack into the party's computers.
Who has called for talks to be cancelled?
Top Democrats including party chairman Tom Perez have urged Mr Trump to abandon the talks, saying Mr Putin was "not a friend of the United States".
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain said the summit "should not move forward" unless the president "is prepared to hold Putin accountable".
What's the big picture?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating US intelligence findings that Russians conspired to sway the 2016 election in Mr Trump's favour.
As of Friday, the inquiry has indicted 32 people - mostly Russian nationals in absentia - as well as three companies and four former Trump advisers.
None of the charges allege Trump advisers colluded with Russia to interfere with the presidential campaign.
Why US fears Russia is hacking election
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser, have pleaded guilty to making false statements about their contacts with Russians.
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates were charged with money laundering relating to their political consultancy work in Ukraine.
Theresa May: Trump told me to sue the EU - BBC News
July 15, 2018
Theresa May: Trump told me to sue the EU
Theresa May reveals the advice President Trump gave her over Brexit
Donald Trump told Theresa May she should sue the EU rather than negotiate over Brexit, she has told the BBC.
The US president said on Friday at a joint press conference that he had given her a suggestion but she had found it too "brutal".
Asked by the BBC's Andrew Marr what it was he had said, she replied: "He told me I should sue the EU - not go into negotiations."
She defended her blueprint for Brexit and urged her critics to back it.
PM warns party not to put Brexit at risk
Trump: US-UK trade deal 'absolutely possible'
Why the EU is silent on May's Brexit plan
She said it would allow the UK to strike trade deals with other nations, end free movement of people and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
A White Paper published on Thursday fleshed out details of her plan, which advocates close links with the EU on trade in goods, but not services.
Before the paper was published, Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson resigned, saying it would not deliver the Brexit people voted for in the 2016 EU referendum.
Prime Minister Theresa May and U.S. President Donald Trump hold a joint press conference at Chequers.
Mrs May laughed off the president's legal action suggestion, saying she would carry on with negotiations, but added: "Interestingly, what the president also said at that press conference was 'don't walk away'.
"Don't walk away from those negotiations because then you'll be stuck. So I want us to be able to sit down to negotiate the best deal for Britain.
Leading Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg has called the White Paper a "bad deal for Britain". He says it would lead to the UK having to follow EU rules with no say in how they are made.
Donald Trump told the Sun newspaper Mrs May's proposals would "probably kill" a trade deal with his country.
Hours later, however, he said a US-UK trade deal would "absolutely be possible"
Eyes on the prize
Mrs May urged Brexiteers in her own party to "keep their eye on the prize" of Brexit - and said her plan was the only workable way to deliver it.
Her message comes ahead of crucial Commons votes on trade and customs policy in the coming week. with Tory Brexiteers tabling a series of amendments to the legislation.
"Some people are saying they want to vote in the Trade Bill to keep us in the customs union. I say that's not acceptable, " Mrs May told Andrew Marr.
"That's not what the British people voted for.
"Others are saying that perhaps we cannot have the bill at all. That would be damaging to our 'no deal' preparations.
"So let's just keep our eyes on the prize here. The prize is delivering leaving the European Union in a way that's in our national interest."
Mrs May insists her plans would allow the UK to strike its own trade deals, despite agreeing a "common rulebook" with the EU on cross-border trade.
She said such rules were needed to protect jobs in firms with supply chains that crossed borders and deal with the Irish border issue.
Labour Party chairman Ian Lavery said Mrs May's "so-called plan" did not "stand up to scrutiny".
"No-one - not the public, Parliament or the Conservative party - is happy with Theresa May's offer. This has descended into a shambles," he added.
Theresa May: Trump told me to sue the EU
Theresa May reveals the advice President Trump gave her over Brexit
Donald Trump told Theresa May she should sue the EU rather than negotiate over Brexit, she has told the BBC.
The US president said on Friday at a joint press conference that he had given her a suggestion but she had found it too "brutal".
Asked by the BBC's Andrew Marr what it was he had said, she replied: "He told me I should sue the EU - not go into negotiations."
She defended her blueprint for Brexit and urged her critics to back it.
PM warns party not to put Brexit at risk
Trump: US-UK trade deal 'absolutely possible'
Why the EU is silent on May's Brexit plan
She said it would allow the UK to strike trade deals with other nations, end free movement of people and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
A White Paper published on Thursday fleshed out details of her plan, which advocates close links with the EU on trade in goods, but not services.
Before the paper was published, Brexit Secretary David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson resigned, saying it would not deliver the Brexit people voted for in the 2016 EU referendum.
Prime Minister Theresa May and U.S. President Donald Trump hold a joint press conference at Chequers.
Mrs May laughed off the president's legal action suggestion, saying she would carry on with negotiations, but added: "Interestingly, what the president also said at that press conference was 'don't walk away'.
"Don't walk away from those negotiations because then you'll be stuck. So I want us to be able to sit down to negotiate the best deal for Britain.
Leading Tory Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg has called the White Paper a "bad deal for Britain". He says it would lead to the UK having to follow EU rules with no say in how they are made.
Donald Trump told the Sun newspaper Mrs May's proposals would "probably kill" a trade deal with his country.
Hours later, however, he said a US-UK trade deal would "absolutely be possible"
Eyes on the prize
Mrs May urged Brexiteers in her own party to "keep their eye on the prize" of Brexit - and said her plan was the only workable way to deliver it.
Her message comes ahead of crucial Commons votes on trade and customs policy in the coming week. with Tory Brexiteers tabling a series of amendments to the legislation.
"Some people are saying they want to vote in the Trade Bill to keep us in the customs union. I say that's not acceptable, " Mrs May told Andrew Marr.
"That's not what the British people voted for.
"Others are saying that perhaps we cannot have the bill at all. That would be damaging to our 'no deal' preparations.
"So let's just keep our eyes on the prize here. The prize is delivering leaving the European Union in a way that's in our national interest."
Mrs May insists her plans would allow the UK to strike its own trade deals, despite agreeing a "common rulebook" with the EU on cross-border trade.
She said such rules were needed to protect jobs in firms with supply chains that crossed borders and deal with the Irish border issue.
Labour Party chairman Ian Lavery said Mrs May's "so-called plan" did not "stand up to scrutiny".
"No-one - not the public, Parliament or the Conservative party - is happy with Theresa May's offer. This has descended into a shambles," he added.
Saturday, July 14, 2018
The Trump baby blimp is making the US president 'feel unwelcome' in the UK - Independent
July 14, 2018
The Trump baby blimp is making the US president 'feel unwelcome' in the UK
Posted 2 days ago by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
Donald Trump has been in the UK less than 24 hours and he's already admitted that he "feels unwelcome."
Why on earth would he feel like this?
Surely he's aware that thousands of people will be gathering in central London later to mark his arrival? There will be balloons and everything.
Sadly, for Donald. That's what he has taken an exception to. A balloon.
By now you are probably aware that 20ft 'Trump Baby' blimp will be flown over Parliament Square this morning and the famously-thick-skinned President isn't best pleased.
Speaking to The Sun he said:
I guess when they put out blimps to make me feel unwelcome, no reason for me to go to London.
I used to love London as a city. I haven’t been there in a long time.
But when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?
It's true that Trump's arrival in the UK is mostly being viewed as an unpopular event with protests expected around the capital throughout Friday.
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Kahn has authorised the blimp and Trump continued to criticise the Labour representative and the job that he is doing.
You have a mayor who has done a terrible job in London. He has done a terrible job.
Take a look at the terrorism that is taking place. Look at what is going on in London.
He might not like the current president, but I represent the United States.
Once again, despite a predicted 200,000 people expected to be at the protests, Trump believes that he is still popular amongst the British public.
And when I say that [being unwelcome] I am talking about government because the people of the UK agree with me.
Many people are delighted. I get thousands of notifications from people in the UK that they love the President of the United States.
They want the same thing I want.
Considering that he won't be returning to London for the rest of his trip he would have been hoping to not see the blimp in person but The Hill reports that it will be transported to Scotland where there are plans to fly in at his Turnberry golf course.
However, that is unlikely to happen as local police have already confirmed that they won't allow the blimp to fly.
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Williams said:
Clearly, there is a significant protection operation in place for the president and this includes restrictions to the airspace in the Turnberry area.
We need to ensure there is a balance between protection and public safety and the public's right to peacefully protest.
With that in mind and on this occasion we are unable to grant permission for the balloon to fly in that area, however, we are in discussion with the applicants about possible alternatives
HT The Sun
The Trump baby blimp is making the US president 'feel unwelcome' in the UK
Posted 2 days ago by Greg Evans in news
UPVOTE
Donald Trump has been in the UK less than 24 hours and he's already admitted that he "feels unwelcome."
Why on earth would he feel like this?
Surely he's aware that thousands of people will be gathering in central London later to mark his arrival? There will be balloons and everything.
Sadly, for Donald. That's what he has taken an exception to. A balloon.
By now you are probably aware that 20ft 'Trump Baby' blimp will be flown over Parliament Square this morning and the famously-thick-skinned President isn't best pleased.
Speaking to The Sun he said:
I guess when they put out blimps to make me feel unwelcome, no reason for me to go to London.
I used to love London as a city. I haven’t been there in a long time.
But when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?
It's true that Trump's arrival in the UK is mostly being viewed as an unpopular event with protests expected around the capital throughout Friday.
The Mayor of London, Sadiq Kahn has authorised the blimp and Trump continued to criticise the Labour representative and the job that he is doing.
You have a mayor who has done a terrible job in London. He has done a terrible job.
Take a look at the terrorism that is taking place. Look at what is going on in London.
He might not like the current president, but I represent the United States.
Once again, despite a predicted 200,000 people expected to be at the protests, Trump believes that he is still popular amongst the British public.
And when I say that [being unwelcome] I am talking about government because the people of the UK agree with me.
Many people are delighted. I get thousands of notifications from people in the UK that they love the President of the United States.
They want the same thing I want.
Considering that he won't be returning to London for the rest of his trip he would have been hoping to not see the blimp in person but The Hill reports that it will be transported to Scotland where there are plans to fly in at his Turnberry golf course.
However, that is unlikely to happen as local police have already confirmed that they won't allow the blimp to fly.
Assistant Chief Constable Mark Williams said:
Clearly, there is a significant protection operation in place for the president and this includes restrictions to the airspace in the Turnberry area.
We need to ensure there is a balance between protection and public safety and the public's right to peacefully protest.
With that in mind and on this occasion we are unable to grant permission for the balloon to fly in that area, however, we are in discussion with the applicants about possible alternatives
HT The Sun
Don’t be fooled – Liu Xia’s release is not a sign of China’s softening stance on critics - Hong Kong Free Press
Don’t be fooled – Liu Xia’s release is not a sign of China’s softening stance on critics
14 July 2018 14:30 Kent Ewing5 min read
The photograph of a euphoric Liu Xia, the poet and widow of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, landing in Helsinki on Tuesday for a short layover on her way to freedom in Berlin earlier this week spoke for itself: grinning broadly, her arms spread like a bird in flight, she had finally, after the imprisonment and death of her husband and years of psychological torture under house arrest in Beijing, escaped the clutches of her tormentors.
Her frail body told of her prolonged detention by security forces in China, but her newfound joy and energy showed the strength of her spirit—indeed, of the human spirit, and was an inspiration for all to see.
One cannot help but share in Liu’s happiness and exhilaration and hope that she soon recovers from the clinical depression and physical debilitation that her ordeal has cost her.
But this is no time for celebration. While Liu, 57, is beginning a new life of freedom in Berlin, many other lesser-known dissidents continue to languish in prisons and detention centres in China, and President Xi Jinping’s three-year-long crackdown on human rights lawyers and activists continues unabated.
Indeed, Xi’s purge of hundreds, if not thousands, of putative subversives is the worst such witch hunt since the aftermath of Deng Xiaoping’s military assault on the pro-democracy protesters who occupied Tiananmen Square for nearly two months in the spring of 1989.
And, just in case anyone was inclined to misinterpret the release of Liu as a sign that the Chinese leadership was softening its stance on critics of its authoritarian one-party rule, less than 24 hours after Liu’s arrival in Berlin human-rights activist Qin Yongmin was found guilty of “subversion of state power” by a court in Wuhan and sentenced to 13 years behind bars.
That’s the harshest sentence meted out for subversion by a Chinese court in 15 years and comes on top of the 22 years the 64-year-old Qin has already spent in prison for “counter-revolutionary” activities.
So much for human rights in China.
Looking at the broader picture, it becomes clear that Liu, who spent eight agonising years under house arrest although she was never charged with any crime, is just another pawn in China’s ongoing geopolitical chess match with Western powers, now divided by the aggressively nationalistic policies of United States President Donald Trump.
Caught in a growing trade dispute with the US that is threatening to blow up into a full-on trade war, Xi hopes to curry favour with Germany and, by extension, the European Union with the release of Liu for medical treatment.
But this apparent “humanitarian” gesture, as Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam has so maladroitly characterised it, is in reality a cold diplomatic calculation, offering no promise of better treatment for others bold enough to speak out against the Chinese government on their home turf.
It should be remembered that Liu herself is actually no dissident; she is an accomplished poet and painter who just happened to be married to the man who won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his long campaign to bring about a freer, more democratic China.
Liu Xiaobo’s efforts included lending support to the student-led Tiananmen protests 29 years ago and, more recently, coauthoring Charter 08, a manifesto signed by more than 300 Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists calling for the end of one-party rule and an independent legal system in China.
Liu was arrested in December of 2008, two days before the scheduled official release of the charter, indicted a year later for “inciting subversion of state power” and sentenced to 11 years in prison by a Beijing court on Christmas Day, 2009.
Memorably, a year later, Liu’s Noble Prize was awarded to an empty chair in the Norwegian capital of Oslo—an iconic moment that drew an angry response from the Chinese government, whose foreign ministry had denounced the choice of Liu as a “desecration of the Peace Prize,” and prompted further repression of dissent across China.
Aged 61, Liu died of liver cancer in a hospital in Shenyang one year ago this Friday after being refused treatment abroad, the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to die in custody since German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky in 1938. Liu is rightly regarded as a hero in many places, including Hong Kong, where the anniversary of his death was marked in a solemn ceremony organised by pro-democracy activists, as it was in Berlin and in other cities around the globe.
Liu Xiaobo’s empty chair during the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony in 2010. Photo: VOA via Wikimedia Commons.
Liu’s legacy lives on in these memorials and in the revived spirit of his widow as she starts her new life in Berlin.
It would be unfair, however, to expect Liu Xia to pick up the human-rights mantle that her husband left behind. No doubt, once she has recovered her health, she would be willing, but her two brothers, Liu Tong and Liu Hui, remain in China as additional pawns in the Chinese government’s great geopolitical game.
If Liu speaks out from Berlin, they could very well suffer the consequences back home. Liu Hui, her younger brother, has already spent time in prison on trumped-up fraud charges and would likely be a target for retribution again if his sister lobs anti-China criticisms from her perch in the German capital.
That’s why this feel-good story of the long-suffering Liu Xia’s release winds up, in the end, feeling pretty bad.
14 July 2018 14:30 Kent Ewing5 min read
The photograph of a euphoric Liu Xia, the poet and widow of Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo, landing in Helsinki on Tuesday for a short layover on her way to freedom in Berlin earlier this week spoke for itself: grinning broadly, her arms spread like a bird in flight, she had finally, after the imprisonment and death of her husband and years of psychological torture under house arrest in Beijing, escaped the clutches of her tormentors.
Her frail body told of her prolonged detention by security forces in China, but her newfound joy and energy showed the strength of her spirit—indeed, of the human spirit, and was an inspiration for all to see.
One cannot help but share in Liu’s happiness and exhilaration and hope that she soon recovers from the clinical depression and physical debilitation that her ordeal has cost her.
But this is no time for celebration. While Liu, 57, is beginning a new life of freedom in Berlin, many other lesser-known dissidents continue to languish in prisons and detention centres in China, and President Xi Jinping’s three-year-long crackdown on human rights lawyers and activists continues unabated.
Indeed, Xi’s purge of hundreds, if not thousands, of putative subversives is the worst such witch hunt since the aftermath of Deng Xiaoping’s military assault on the pro-democracy protesters who occupied Tiananmen Square for nearly two months in the spring of 1989.
And, just in case anyone was inclined to misinterpret the release of Liu as a sign that the Chinese leadership was softening its stance on critics of its authoritarian one-party rule, less than 24 hours after Liu’s arrival in Berlin human-rights activist Qin Yongmin was found guilty of “subversion of state power” by a court in Wuhan and sentenced to 13 years behind bars.
That’s the harshest sentence meted out for subversion by a Chinese court in 15 years and comes on top of the 22 years the 64-year-old Qin has already spent in prison for “counter-revolutionary” activities.
So much for human rights in China.
Looking at the broader picture, it becomes clear that Liu, who spent eight agonising years under house arrest although she was never charged with any crime, is just another pawn in China’s ongoing geopolitical chess match with Western powers, now divided by the aggressively nationalistic policies of United States President Donald Trump.
Caught in a growing trade dispute with the US that is threatening to blow up into a full-on trade war, Xi hopes to curry favour with Germany and, by extension, the European Union with the release of Liu for medical treatment.
But this apparent “humanitarian” gesture, as Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam has so maladroitly characterised it, is in reality a cold diplomatic calculation, offering no promise of better treatment for others bold enough to speak out against the Chinese government on their home turf.
It should be remembered that Liu herself is actually no dissident; she is an accomplished poet and painter who just happened to be married to the man who won the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize for his long campaign to bring about a freer, more democratic China.
Liu Xiaobo’s efforts included lending support to the student-led Tiananmen protests 29 years ago and, more recently, coauthoring Charter 08, a manifesto signed by more than 300 Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists calling for the end of one-party rule and an independent legal system in China.
Liu was arrested in December of 2008, two days before the scheduled official release of the charter, indicted a year later for “inciting subversion of state power” and sentenced to 11 years in prison by a Beijing court on Christmas Day, 2009.
Memorably, a year later, Liu’s Noble Prize was awarded to an empty chair in the Norwegian capital of Oslo—an iconic moment that drew an angry response from the Chinese government, whose foreign ministry had denounced the choice of Liu as a “desecration of the Peace Prize,” and prompted further repression of dissent across China.
Aged 61, Liu died of liver cancer in a hospital in Shenyang one year ago this Friday after being refused treatment abroad, the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to die in custody since German pacifist Carl von Ossietzky in 1938. Liu is rightly regarded as a hero in many places, including Hong Kong, where the anniversary of his death was marked in a solemn ceremony organised by pro-democracy activists, as it was in Berlin and in other cities around the globe.
Liu Xiaobo’s empty chair during the Nobel Prize awarding ceremony in 2010. Photo: VOA via Wikimedia Commons.
Liu’s legacy lives on in these memorials and in the revived spirit of his widow as she starts her new life in Berlin.
It would be unfair, however, to expect Liu Xia to pick up the human-rights mantle that her husband left behind. No doubt, once she has recovered her health, she would be willing, but her two brothers, Liu Tong and Liu Hui, remain in China as additional pawns in the Chinese government’s great geopolitical game.
If Liu speaks out from Berlin, they could very well suffer the consequences back home. Liu Hui, her younger brother, has already spent time in prison on trumped-up fraud charges and would likely be a target for retribution again if his sister lobs anti-China criticisms from her perch in the German capital.
That’s why this feel-good story of the long-suffering Liu Xia’s release winds up, in the end, feeling pretty bad.
How Beijing is winning control of the South China Sea - Nikkei Asian Review
How Beijing is winning control of the South China Sea
Erratic US policy and fraying alliances give China a free hand
SIMON ROUGHNEEN, Asia regional correspondent
June 13, 2018 14:04 JST
SINGAPORE -- Even by his outspoken standards, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s account of a conversation he had with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, was startling.
During a meeting between the two leaders in Beijing in May 2017, the subject turned to whether the Philippines would seek to drill for oil in a part of the South China Sea claimed by both countries. Duterte said he was given a blunt warning by China’s president.
“[Xi’s] response to me [was], ‘We’re friends, we don’t want to quarrel with you, we want to maintain the presence of warm relationship, but if you force the issue, we’ll go to war,” Duterte recounted.
A year later, Duterte was asked for a response to news that China had landed long-range bombers on one of the South China Sea's Paracel Islands -- a milestone that suggests the People's Liberation Army Air Force can easily make the short hop to most of Southeast Asia from its new airstrips. “What’s the point of questioning whether the planes there land or not?” Duterte responded.
His refusal to condemn China’s military buildup underlines China's success in subduing its rivals in the South China Sea. Since 2013 China has expanded artificial islands and reefs in the sea and subsequently installed a network of runways, missile launchers, barracks and communications facilities.
These military advances have led many to wonder if Beijing has already established unassailable control over the disputed waters. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have overlapping claims to parts of the South China Sea and its islands – claims that are looking increasingly forlorn in the wake of China’s military buildup.
“What China is winning is de facto control of nearly the entire South China Sea, including all activities and resources in it, despite the other surrounding Southeast Asian states' respective legal rights and entitlements under international law,” said Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea.
At stake is the huge commercial and military leverage that comes with controlling one of the world’s most important shipping lanes, through which up to $5 trillion worth of trade passes each year.
U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis insists that China faces “consequences” for the “militarization” of South China Sea, which he says is being done for “the purposes of intimidation and coercion.”
“There are consequences that will continue to come home to roost, so to speak, with China, if they do not find the way to work more collaboratively with all of the nations,” Mattis said on June 2 at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, a security conference organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Mac Thornberry, chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, added that the U.S. naval presence means China does not have a free hand in the South China Sea.
“I think you will see more and more nations working together to affirm freedom of navigation through the South China Sea and other international waters,” Thornberry told the Nikkei Asian Review.
But what those consequences might be was left unsaid by Mattis, who suggested that there was little prospect of forcing China to give up its growing network of military facilities dotting the sea.
“We all know nobody is ready to invade," he said.
U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis talked up the "Indo-Pacific" strategy in his June 2 speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. (Photo by Simon Roughneen)
Gregory Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the U.S.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, “There is no reasonable basis for the U.S. to use military force to push China off its outposts, nor would any country in the region support such an effort.”
The U.S. pushback so far has included disinviting China from a major Pacific naval exercise. It also continues to carry out so-called freedom of navigation operations, or FONOPs, the most recent of which took place on May 27. This was followed by U.S. military aircraft flying over the Paracel Islands in early June, a move that prompted a countercharge of “militarization'” against the U.S. by China's Foreign Ministry.
China regards the FONOPs as sabre-rattling and “a challenge to [our] sovereignty,” according to Lt. Gen. He Lei, Beijing's lead representative at the Singapore conference.
He restated the government position on troops and weapons on islands in the South China Sea, describing the deployments as an assertion of sovereignty and said that allegations of militarization were “hyped up” by the U.S.
Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana stopped short of endorsing the FONOPs but told the Nikkei Asian Review that “it is our belief that those sea lanes should be left open and free.”
In contrast to Duterte's reluctance to confront China, his predecessor as president, Benigno Aquino, was frequently outspoken about China's increasing control of the sea. He pressed a case against Beijing to an arbitration tribunal in 2013 after a protracted naval stand-off the year before around Scarborough Shoal, a rock claimed by both countries and lying about 120 nautical miles off the Luzon coast.
In mid-2016 the tribunal dismissed China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claim to much of the South China Sea and its artificial island-building and expansion, all of which the tribunal said contravened the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.
Duterte said he would not “flaunt” the tribunal outcome, in contrast with his campaign pledge to assert the country's sovereignty -- he even vowed to ride a jet ski to one of China's artificial islands and plant the Philippine flag there. Manila hopes for significant Chinese investment in roads, rail and ports, as part of Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative, a multicontinent plan outlining China-backed infrastructure upgrades.
Filipino activists rally outside the Chinese Consulate in Manila in February to protest Beijing's continued reclamation activities in the South China Sea. © Reuters
Defense Secretary Lorenzana emphasized in remarks to the media in Singapore that good relations with China remain a priority, regardless of bilateral disputes. “It is just natural for us to befriend our neighbor. We cannot avoid dealing with China, they are near, [and] many Filipinos, including me, have Chinese blood.”
For the Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, there are growing doubts about whether the American navy would protect them in a conflict with China, something Duterte, a brusque critic of the U.S., has questioned publicly.
Mattis, like former President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sidestepped a question on that issue in Singapore, saying, “The reason why public figures do not want to give specific answers is that these are complex issues.”
Shifting US policy leaves Asian allies at sea
US and China trade barbs over South China Sea island-building
American evasiveness is a reminder to the Philippines that the U.S. might not risk war with China over its old ally. “It is debatable whether Filipinos believe that the U.S. will have its back in a conflict with China,” Batongbacal of the University of the Philippines said. “Duterte's repeated statements against the reliability of the U.S. as an ally tends to undermine this further.”
Duterte's reticence has left Vietnam as the sole claimant willing to speak up. Discussing recent developments in the South China Sea, Vietnamese Defense Minister Gen. Ngo Xuan Lich told the Singapore conference, "Under no circumstances could we excuse militarization by deploying weapons and military hardware over disputed areas against regional commitments.”
Lich did not name-check China in his speech, but described “a serious breach to the sovereignty” of another country that “violates international laws, complicates the situation and negatively affects regional peace, stability and security.”
As well as hindering oil and gas projects in waters close to Vietnam, China's navy has for several years harassed Vietnamese fishing boats -- as it does around the Philippines -- and continues to occupy islands seized from Vietnam nearly five decades ago.
In 2014, anti-China riots kicked off across Vietnam after China placed an oil rig in South China Sea waters claimed by Hanoi. In early June there were demonstrations against proposals that protesters claimed will give Chinese businesses favored access in so-called Special Economic Zones in Vietnam.
The Lan Tay gas platform, operated by Rosneft Vietnam, sits in the South China Sea off the Vietnamese coast. China has been hindering Vietnam's oil exploration activities in the sea. © Reuters
Vietnam's response to potential isolation has been a cautious dalliance with the U.S. In late 2016, shortly before the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, American warships docked in Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay naval base, the first such visit since the former antagonists normalized ties in 1995. That landmark was followed in March this year by the arrival of a U.S. aircraft carrier to the central Vietnam city of Danang.
Hanoi recently called for greater Japanese involvement in the region's maritime disputes, perhaps signalling an interest in a wider effort to counter China. But unlike the Philippines, Vietnam, which like China is a single party communist-run state, is not a U.S. treaty ally. Historical and ideological differences mean that there are limits to how closely Vietnam will align with the U.S.
“I think there is a good momentum with defense cooperation with the U.S. But I don't think that it would immediately mean jumping into the ‘American camp,’ whatever it means,” said Huong Le Thu, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
The U.S. has sought to widen the array of countries it hopes will join it in countering China’s rising influence. During his 12-day swing through Asia in late 2017, Trump peppered his speeches with references to the “Indo-Pacific,” dispensing with the long established “Asia-Pacific” label in favor of a more expansive term first used by Japan.
The "Indo-Pacific" was then mentioned throughout the U.S. National Security Strategy published soon after Trump’s Asia trip -- a document that alleged China aims to “challenge American power” and “is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations, and implied military threats to persuade other states to heed its political and security agenda.”
Three days before his Singapore speech, Mattis announced in Hawaii that the U.S. Pacific Command would be renamed the Indo-Pacific Command, describing the expanded theater as stretching “from Bollywood to Hollywood."
Mattis later added some gravitas to the cinematic catchphrase, saying in Singapore that “standing shoulder to shoulder with India, ASEAN and our treaty allies and other partners, America seeks to build an Indo-Pacific where sovereignty and territorial integrity are safeguarded -- the promise of freedom fulfilled and prosperity prevails for all.”
The Trump administration clearly hopes for greater Indian involvement in its efforts to counter China's growing influence. Kori Schake, deputy director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that while “Indo-Pacific isn't yet an established part of the lexicon,” the implications of the term are clear.
“India is an Asian power. The countries adopting the term are encouraging India into greater cooperation in maintaining the maritime commons in the Indian and Pacific oceans,” said Schake, a former U.S. State Department official.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual security conference, in Singapore on June 1. (Photo by Simon Roughneen)
Modi enthusiastically echoed American rhetoric about a “shared vision of an open, stable, secure and prosperous” Indo-Pacific, which he described as “a natural region” -- countering those who wonder if an area stretching from Bollywood to Hollywood might too vast and disparate to be cast into a geopolitical fact on the ground.
But Modi also heaped praise on China, despite its border dispute with India and increasingly close economic ties with Pakistan, India's neighbor and nuclear rival.
“Our cooperation is expanding. Trade is growing. And, we have displayed maturity and wisdom in managing issues and ensuring a peaceful border,” Modi said.
China's foreign ministry described Modi's speech as "positive," while one of its military delegation at the Singapore conference gloated that India and the U.S. "have different understandings, different interpretations, of this Indo-Pacific."
China's first domestically designed and built aircraft carrier © Kyodo
It is perhaps no surprise then that China's rivals in the South China Sea do not yet regard the nascent Indo-Pacific alliance-building as something to pin their hopes on when it comes to control of the sea.
“We are witnessing the great power shift toward Asia-Pacific with the 'Indo-Pacific strategy,' Belt and Road Initiative and a series of country grouping[s] in the region,” Lich said, cautioning that “the outcomes for the region and the world are somewhat yet to be unveiled.”
Lich's Philippine counterpart was even more circumspect, particularly regarding the Indo-Pacific concept. “I have to study it some more,” Lorenzana said. “This is a new construct in this area.”
Nikkei staff writers Mikhail Flores in Manila and Atsushi Tomiyama in Hanoi contributed to this article.
Erratic US policy and fraying alliances give China a free hand
SIMON ROUGHNEEN, Asia regional correspondent
June 13, 2018 14:04 JST
SINGAPORE -- Even by his outspoken standards, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s account of a conversation he had with his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, was startling.
During a meeting between the two leaders in Beijing in May 2017, the subject turned to whether the Philippines would seek to drill for oil in a part of the South China Sea claimed by both countries. Duterte said he was given a blunt warning by China’s president.
“[Xi’s] response to me [was], ‘We’re friends, we don’t want to quarrel with you, we want to maintain the presence of warm relationship, but if you force the issue, we’ll go to war,” Duterte recounted.
A year later, Duterte was asked for a response to news that China had landed long-range bombers on one of the South China Sea's Paracel Islands -- a milestone that suggests the People's Liberation Army Air Force can easily make the short hop to most of Southeast Asia from its new airstrips. “What’s the point of questioning whether the planes there land or not?” Duterte responded.
His refusal to condemn China’s military buildup underlines China's success in subduing its rivals in the South China Sea. Since 2013 China has expanded artificial islands and reefs in the sea and subsequently installed a network of runways, missile launchers, barracks and communications facilities.
These military advances have led many to wonder if Beijing has already established unassailable control over the disputed waters. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have overlapping claims to parts of the South China Sea and its islands – claims that are looking increasingly forlorn in the wake of China’s military buildup.
“What China is winning is de facto control of nearly the entire South China Sea, including all activities and resources in it, despite the other surrounding Southeast Asian states' respective legal rights and entitlements under international law,” said Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea.
At stake is the huge commercial and military leverage that comes with controlling one of the world’s most important shipping lanes, through which up to $5 trillion worth of trade passes each year.
U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis insists that China faces “consequences” for the “militarization” of South China Sea, which he says is being done for “the purposes of intimidation and coercion.”
“There are consequences that will continue to come home to roost, so to speak, with China, if they do not find the way to work more collaboratively with all of the nations,” Mattis said on June 2 at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, a security conference organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Mac Thornberry, chairman of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee, added that the U.S. naval presence means China does not have a free hand in the South China Sea.
“I think you will see more and more nations working together to affirm freedom of navigation through the South China Sea and other international waters,” Thornberry told the Nikkei Asian Review.
But what those consequences might be was left unsaid by Mattis, who suggested that there was little prospect of forcing China to give up its growing network of military facilities dotting the sea.
“We all know nobody is ready to invade," he said.
U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis talked up the "Indo-Pacific" strategy in his June 2 speech at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. (Photo by Simon Roughneen)
Gregory Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the U.S.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said, “There is no reasonable basis for the U.S. to use military force to push China off its outposts, nor would any country in the region support such an effort.”
The U.S. pushback so far has included disinviting China from a major Pacific naval exercise. It also continues to carry out so-called freedom of navigation operations, or FONOPs, the most recent of which took place on May 27. This was followed by U.S. military aircraft flying over the Paracel Islands in early June, a move that prompted a countercharge of “militarization'” against the U.S. by China's Foreign Ministry.
China regards the FONOPs as sabre-rattling and “a challenge to [our] sovereignty,” according to Lt. Gen. He Lei, Beijing's lead representative at the Singapore conference.
He restated the government position on troops and weapons on islands in the South China Sea, describing the deployments as an assertion of sovereignty and said that allegations of militarization were “hyped up” by the U.S.
Philippine Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana stopped short of endorsing the FONOPs but told the Nikkei Asian Review that “it is our belief that those sea lanes should be left open and free.”
In contrast to Duterte's reluctance to confront China, his predecessor as president, Benigno Aquino, was frequently outspoken about China's increasing control of the sea. He pressed a case against Beijing to an arbitration tribunal in 2013 after a protracted naval stand-off the year before around Scarborough Shoal, a rock claimed by both countries and lying about 120 nautical miles off the Luzon coast.
In mid-2016 the tribunal dismissed China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claim to much of the South China Sea and its artificial island-building and expansion, all of which the tribunal said contravened the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS.
Duterte said he would not “flaunt” the tribunal outcome, in contrast with his campaign pledge to assert the country's sovereignty -- he even vowed to ride a jet ski to one of China's artificial islands and plant the Philippine flag there. Manila hopes for significant Chinese investment in roads, rail and ports, as part of Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative, a multicontinent plan outlining China-backed infrastructure upgrades.
Filipino activists rally outside the Chinese Consulate in Manila in February to protest Beijing's continued reclamation activities in the South China Sea. © Reuters
Defense Secretary Lorenzana emphasized in remarks to the media in Singapore that good relations with China remain a priority, regardless of bilateral disputes. “It is just natural for us to befriend our neighbor. We cannot avoid dealing with China, they are near, [and] many Filipinos, including me, have Chinese blood.”
For the Philippines, a U.S. treaty ally, there are growing doubts about whether the American navy would protect them in a conflict with China, something Duterte, a brusque critic of the U.S., has questioned publicly.
Mattis, like former President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sidestepped a question on that issue in Singapore, saying, “The reason why public figures do not want to give specific answers is that these are complex issues.”
Shifting US policy leaves Asian allies at sea
US and China trade barbs over South China Sea island-building
American evasiveness is a reminder to the Philippines that the U.S. might not risk war with China over its old ally. “It is debatable whether Filipinos believe that the U.S. will have its back in a conflict with China,” Batongbacal of the University of the Philippines said. “Duterte's repeated statements against the reliability of the U.S. as an ally tends to undermine this further.”
Duterte's reticence has left Vietnam as the sole claimant willing to speak up. Discussing recent developments in the South China Sea, Vietnamese Defense Minister Gen. Ngo Xuan Lich told the Singapore conference, "Under no circumstances could we excuse militarization by deploying weapons and military hardware over disputed areas against regional commitments.”
Lich did not name-check China in his speech, but described “a serious breach to the sovereignty” of another country that “violates international laws, complicates the situation and negatively affects regional peace, stability and security.”
As well as hindering oil and gas projects in waters close to Vietnam, China's navy has for several years harassed Vietnamese fishing boats -- as it does around the Philippines -- and continues to occupy islands seized from Vietnam nearly five decades ago.
In 2014, anti-China riots kicked off across Vietnam after China placed an oil rig in South China Sea waters claimed by Hanoi. In early June there were demonstrations against proposals that protesters claimed will give Chinese businesses favored access in so-called Special Economic Zones in Vietnam.
The Lan Tay gas platform, operated by Rosneft Vietnam, sits in the South China Sea off the Vietnamese coast. China has been hindering Vietnam's oil exploration activities in the sea. © Reuters
Vietnam's response to potential isolation has been a cautious dalliance with the U.S. In late 2016, shortly before the election of Donald Trump as U.S. president, American warships docked in Vietnam's Cam Ranh Bay naval base, the first such visit since the former antagonists normalized ties in 1995. That landmark was followed in March this year by the arrival of a U.S. aircraft carrier to the central Vietnam city of Danang.
Hanoi recently called for greater Japanese involvement in the region's maritime disputes, perhaps signalling an interest in a wider effort to counter China. But unlike the Philippines, Vietnam, which like China is a single party communist-run state, is not a U.S. treaty ally. Historical and ideological differences mean that there are limits to how closely Vietnam will align with the U.S.
“I think there is a good momentum with defense cooperation with the U.S. But I don't think that it would immediately mean jumping into the ‘American camp,’ whatever it means,” said Huong Le Thu, senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
The U.S. has sought to widen the array of countries it hopes will join it in countering China’s rising influence. During his 12-day swing through Asia in late 2017, Trump peppered his speeches with references to the “Indo-Pacific,” dispensing with the long established “Asia-Pacific” label in favor of a more expansive term first used by Japan.
The "Indo-Pacific" was then mentioned throughout the U.S. National Security Strategy published soon after Trump’s Asia trip -- a document that alleged China aims to “challenge American power” and “is using economic inducements and penalties, influence operations, and implied military threats to persuade other states to heed its political and security agenda.”
Three days before his Singapore speech, Mattis announced in Hawaii that the U.S. Pacific Command would be renamed the Indo-Pacific Command, describing the expanded theater as stretching “from Bollywood to Hollywood."
Mattis later added some gravitas to the cinematic catchphrase, saying in Singapore that “standing shoulder to shoulder with India, ASEAN and our treaty allies and other partners, America seeks to build an Indo-Pacific where sovereignty and territorial integrity are safeguarded -- the promise of freedom fulfilled and prosperity prevails for all.”
The Trump administration clearly hopes for greater Indian involvement in its efforts to counter China's growing influence. Kori Schake, deputy director-general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, said that while “Indo-Pacific isn't yet an established part of the lexicon,” the implications of the term are clear.
“India is an Asian power. The countries adopting the term are encouraging India into greater cooperation in maintaining the maritime commons in the Indian and Pacific oceans,” said Schake, a former U.S. State Department official.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi addresses the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual security conference, in Singapore on June 1. (Photo by Simon Roughneen)
Modi enthusiastically echoed American rhetoric about a “shared vision of an open, stable, secure and prosperous” Indo-Pacific, which he described as “a natural region” -- countering those who wonder if an area stretching from Bollywood to Hollywood might too vast and disparate to be cast into a geopolitical fact on the ground.
But Modi also heaped praise on China, despite its border dispute with India and increasingly close economic ties with Pakistan, India's neighbor and nuclear rival.
“Our cooperation is expanding. Trade is growing. And, we have displayed maturity and wisdom in managing issues and ensuring a peaceful border,” Modi said.
China's foreign ministry described Modi's speech as "positive," while one of its military delegation at the Singapore conference gloated that India and the U.S. "have different understandings, different interpretations, of this Indo-Pacific."
China's first domestically designed and built aircraft carrier © Kyodo
It is perhaps no surprise then that China's rivals in the South China Sea do not yet regard the nascent Indo-Pacific alliance-building as something to pin their hopes on when it comes to control of the sea.
“We are witnessing the great power shift toward Asia-Pacific with the 'Indo-Pacific strategy,' Belt and Road Initiative and a series of country grouping[s] in the region,” Lich said, cautioning that “the outcomes for the region and the world are somewhat yet to be unveiled.”
Lich's Philippine counterpart was even more circumspect, particularly regarding the Indo-Pacific concept. “I have to study it some more,” Lorenzana said. “This is a new construct in this area.”
Nikkei staff writers Mikhail Flores in Manila and Atsushi Tomiyama in Hanoi contributed to this article.
Trump blasts Theresa May in interview a day before meeting - NBC News
Trump blasts Theresa May in interview a day before meeting
The American president did, however, have some nice things to say about Queen Elizabeth II.
by Phil McCausland / Jul.13.2018 / 9:22 AM ET / Updated Jul.13.2018 / 5:15 PM ET
President Trump arrives in UK to meet with Prime Minister May and Queen
JUL.13.201801:23
President Donald Trump continued to attack America's European allies on Thursday — this time aiming at the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Theresa May a day before they are due to meet in London.
British tabloid newspaper The Sun published an interview with Trump on Thursday, where the president blasted May's Brexit negotiations, as well as European immigration policy, NATO and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
Trump said that May’s plan for a "soft Brexit" could scuttle an American trade deal with the U.K. because the island nation would remain too close with the European Union.
"We are cracking down right now on the European Union because they have not treated the United States fairly on trading," Trump said. "No, if they do that, I would say that would probably end a major trade relationship with the United States."
In the interview, Trump insisted that he would have negotiated the deal differently than May, and he said that he had provided the prime minister his "views on what she should do and how she should negotiate."
"I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me. She wanted to go a different route," he said.
Trump trashes UK PM's Brexit plan & then meets her for dinner
JUL.13.201804:59
"I would actually say she probably went the opposite way," Trump said. "If you really look, she probably went the opposite way. And that’s fine. She should negotiate the best way she knows how. But it is too bad what’s going on."
Trump backtracks after criticism of British Prime Minister May
Trump: ‘I didn’t criticize’ Theresa May, says she’s doing ‘a terrific job’
But Trump declined to provide any details about the advice he provided May.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later issued a statement, saying Trump “likes and respects Prime Minister May very much."
She wrote: “As he said in his interview with the Sun she ‘is a very good person’ and he ‘never said anything bad about her.’ He thought she was great on NATO today and is a really terrific person."
The president also praised Boris Johnson, who just resigned as Britain's foreign secretary earlier this week because he did not approve of May’s negotiations over Brexit.
Theresa May addresses Boris Johnson resignation over Brexit plan
JUL.10.201802:06
Trump even asserted that Johnson, a New York-born former mayor of London, "would be a great prime minister."
He said: "I think he’s a great representative for your country."
Trump also spoke on immigration policy in the interview, saying that Europe was losing its identity and culture because of an influx of migrants.
"Allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame," Trump said. "I think it changed the fabric of Europe. And unless you act very quickly it’s never going to be what it was and I don’t mean that in a positive way. So I think allowing millions and millions of people to come in to Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture."
Trump conflated immigration and terrorism in the interview, and he said that Khan, London’s mayor, had done a "terrible job."
Trump also blasted Londoners in general, for protesting his arrival in England, and said that he "used to love London as a city," but added "when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?"
He did, however, praise the Queen Elizabeth II, whom he is scheduled to meet on Friday.
"If you think of it, for so many years she’s represented her country, she’s never really made a mistake," he said. "You don’t see, like, anything embarrassing. She’s just an incredible woman. My wife is a tremendous fan of hers. She’s got a great and beautiful grace about her."
The American president did, however, have some nice things to say about Queen Elizabeth II.
by Phil McCausland / Jul.13.2018 / 9:22 AM ET / Updated Jul.13.2018 / 5:15 PM ET
President Trump arrives in UK to meet with Prime Minister May and Queen
JUL.13.201801:23
President Donald Trump continued to attack America's European allies on Thursday — this time aiming at the United Kingdom's Prime Minister Theresa May a day before they are due to meet in London.
British tabloid newspaper The Sun published an interview with Trump on Thursday, where the president blasted May's Brexit negotiations, as well as European immigration policy, NATO and London Mayor Sadiq Khan.
Trump said that May’s plan for a "soft Brexit" could scuttle an American trade deal with the U.K. because the island nation would remain too close with the European Union.
"We are cracking down right now on the European Union because they have not treated the United States fairly on trading," Trump said. "No, if they do that, I would say that would probably end a major trade relationship with the United States."
In the interview, Trump insisted that he would have negotiated the deal differently than May, and he said that he had provided the prime minister his "views on what she should do and how she should negotiate."
"I would have done it much differently. I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn’t agree, she didn’t listen to me. She wanted to go a different route," he said.
Trump trashes UK PM's Brexit plan & then meets her for dinner
JUL.13.201804:59
"I would actually say she probably went the opposite way," Trump said. "If you really look, she probably went the opposite way. And that’s fine. She should negotiate the best way she knows how. But it is too bad what’s going on."
Trump backtracks after criticism of British Prime Minister May
Trump: ‘I didn’t criticize’ Theresa May, says she’s doing ‘a terrific job’
But Trump declined to provide any details about the advice he provided May.
White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later issued a statement, saying Trump “likes and respects Prime Minister May very much."
She wrote: “As he said in his interview with the Sun she ‘is a very good person’ and he ‘never said anything bad about her.’ He thought she was great on NATO today and is a really terrific person."
The president also praised Boris Johnson, who just resigned as Britain's foreign secretary earlier this week because he did not approve of May’s negotiations over Brexit.
Theresa May addresses Boris Johnson resignation over Brexit plan
JUL.10.201802:06
Trump even asserted that Johnson, a New York-born former mayor of London, "would be a great prime minister."
He said: "I think he’s a great representative for your country."
Trump also spoke on immigration policy in the interview, saying that Europe was losing its identity and culture because of an influx of migrants.
"Allowing the immigration to take place in Europe is a shame," Trump said. "I think it changed the fabric of Europe. And unless you act very quickly it’s never going to be what it was and I don’t mean that in a positive way. So I think allowing millions and millions of people to come in to Europe is very, very sad. I think you are losing your culture."
Trump conflated immigration and terrorism in the interview, and he said that Khan, London’s mayor, had done a "terrible job."
Trump also blasted Londoners in general, for protesting his arrival in England, and said that he "used to love London as a city," but added "when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?"
He did, however, praise the Queen Elizabeth II, whom he is scheduled to meet on Friday.
"If you think of it, for so many years she’s represented her country, she’s never really made a mistake," he said. "You don’t see, like, anything embarrassing. She’s just an incredible woman. My wife is a tremendous fan of hers. She’s got a great and beautiful grace about her."
Trump criticises Obama over US 2016 election hack - BBC News
Trump criticises Obama over US 2016 election hack
14 July 2018
The leaders will reportedly discuss US-Russia relations and national security issues on Monday
US President Donald Trump has criticised the administration of his predecessor Barack Obama over alleged Russian hacking to help him win the 2016 presidential election.
"Why didn't they do something about it?" he tweeted, adding that Mr Obama had been told about it before the vote.
It follows pressure on Mr Trump to cancel Monday's talks with Russia's Vladimir Putin following the indictment of 12 Russians on Friday.
Russia denies allegations of hacking.
Mr Trump is due to meet Mr Putin in the Finnish capital Helsinki.
Russia said it was looking forward to the meeting.
"We consider Trump a negotiating partner," said Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov. "The state of bilateral relations is very bad. We have to start to set them right."
Four intriguing lines in Mueller charges
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
However the hacking allegations have sparked a heated war of words between Washington and Moscow.
US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein insisted that "the goal of the conspirators was to have an impact on the election".
But Russia's foreign ministry said the claims were a "heap of conspiracy schemes" intended to "damage the atmosphere" before Monday's summit.
It said there was no evidence linking any of the dozen officials to hacking or military intelligence.
What are the allegations?
The 11-count indictment names the Russians defendants, alleging they began cyber-attacks in March 2016 on the email accounts of staff for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
They are accused of using keystroke reading software to spy on the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and hack into the party's computers.
Mr Rosenstein said the conspirators used fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0", to release thousands of stolen emails.
They are also accused of stealing the data of half a million voters from a state election board website.
What pressure is there to cancel the talks?
During a joint news conference with UK Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday, Mr Trump said he would "absolutely" ask the Russian president about alleged election meddling.
But top Democrats have urged him to cancel the planned summit altogether following the indictment.
"President Trump should absolutely cancel this meeting with Putin on Monday," said DNC chairman Tom Perez. "He is not a friend of the United States."
"President Trump should cancel his meeting with Vladimir Putin until Russia takes demonstrable and transparent steps to prove that they won't interfere in future elections," said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.
All you need to know about Mueller inquiry
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain said the summit "should not move forward" unless the president "is prepared to hold Putin accountable".
Putin laughs at political chaos in US
What's the big picture?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating US intelligence findings that Russians conspired to sway the 2016 election in Mr Trump's favour.
As of Friday, the inquiry has indicted 32 people - mostly Russian nationals in absentia - as well as three companies and four former Trump advisers.
None of the charges allege Trump advisers colluded with Russia to interfere with the presidential campaign.
18 revelations from Wikileaks emails
Why US fears Russia is hacking election
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser, have pleaded guilty to making false statements about their contacts with Russians.
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates were charged with money laundering relating to their political consultancy work in Ukraine.
14 July 2018
The leaders will reportedly discuss US-Russia relations and national security issues on Monday
US President Donald Trump has criticised the administration of his predecessor Barack Obama over alleged Russian hacking to help him win the 2016 presidential election.
"Why didn't they do something about it?" he tweeted, adding that Mr Obama had been told about it before the vote.
It follows pressure on Mr Trump to cancel Monday's talks with Russia's Vladimir Putin following the indictment of 12 Russians on Friday.
Russia denies allegations of hacking.
Mr Trump is due to meet Mr Putin in the Finnish capital Helsinki.
Russia said it was looking forward to the meeting.
"We consider Trump a negotiating partner," said Kremlin adviser Yuri Ushakov. "The state of bilateral relations is very bad. We have to start to set them right."
Four intriguing lines in Mueller charges
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
However the hacking allegations have sparked a heated war of words between Washington and Moscow.
US Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein insisted that "the goal of the conspirators was to have an impact on the election".
But Russia's foreign ministry said the claims were a "heap of conspiracy schemes" intended to "damage the atmosphere" before Monday's summit.
It said there was no evidence linking any of the dozen officials to hacking or military intelligence.
What are the allegations?
The 11-count indictment names the Russians defendants, alleging they began cyber-attacks in March 2016 on the email accounts of staff for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
They are accused of using keystroke reading software to spy on the chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and hack into the party's computers.
Mr Rosenstein said the conspirators used fictitious online personas, including "DCLeaks" and "Guccifer 2.0", to release thousands of stolen emails.
They are also accused of stealing the data of half a million voters from a state election board website.
What pressure is there to cancel the talks?
During a joint news conference with UK Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday, Mr Trump said he would "absolutely" ask the Russian president about alleged election meddling.
But top Democrats have urged him to cancel the planned summit altogether following the indictment.
"President Trump should absolutely cancel this meeting with Putin on Monday," said DNC chairman Tom Perez. "He is not a friend of the United States."
"President Trump should cancel his meeting with Vladimir Putin until Russia takes demonstrable and transparent steps to prove that they won't interfere in future elections," said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer.
All you need to know about Mueller inquiry
On the Republican side, Senator John McCain said the summit "should not move forward" unless the president "is prepared to hold Putin accountable".
Putin laughs at political chaos in US
What's the big picture?
Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating US intelligence findings that Russians conspired to sway the 2016 election in Mr Trump's favour.
As of Friday, the inquiry has indicted 32 people - mostly Russian nationals in absentia - as well as three companies and four former Trump advisers.
None of the charges allege Trump advisers colluded with Russia to interfere with the presidential campaign.
18 revelations from Wikileaks emails
Why US fears Russia is hacking election
Former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos, a former foreign policy adviser, have pleaded guilty to making false statements about their contacts with Russians.
Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort and his deputy Rick Gates were charged with money laundering relating to their political consultancy work in Ukraine.
Friday, July 13, 2018
China Vows to Retaliate Against the Trump Administration’s Threat of Another $200 Billion in Tariffs - TIME
China Vows to Retaliate Against the Trump Administration’s Threat of Another $200 Billion in Tariffs
Posted: 11 Jul 2018 07:06 PM PDT
(BEIJING) — China’s government vowed Wednesday to take “firm and forceful measures” as the U.S. threatened to expand tariffs to thousands of Chinese imports like fish sticks, apples and French doors, the latest salvo in an escalating trade dispute that threatens to chill global economic growth.
China gave no details, but it has plenty of options to retaliate that could extend beyond additional tariffs on U.S. imports. There are fears that Beijing could attempt to disrupt operations of American automakers, retailers and others that see China as a key market.
The spiraling conflict stems from Washington’s complaint that Beijing steals or pressures companies to hand over technology and concerns that plans for state-led development of Chinese champions in robots and other fields might erode American industrial leadership.
A possible second round of tariff hikes announced Tuesday by the U.S. Trade Representative targets a $200 billion list of Chinese goods. That came four days after Washington added 25 percent duties on $34 billion worth of Chinese goods and Beijing responded by increasing taxes on the same amount of American imports.
The abrupt escalation is “totally unacceptable,” said a Commerce Ministry statement. It said Beijing would take unspecified “necessary countermeasures” to protect its “core interests.”
Asked what Beijing would do, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying gave no details but said, “We will take firm and forceful measures.”
The USTR, the federal agency that oversees international trade policy and negotiations, said it was responding to Beijing’s decision to retaliate instead of changing its policies. President Donald Trump has threatened higher tariffs on more than $500 billion of goods, or nearly all of China’s annual exports to the United States.
The USTR will accept public comments on the latest round of tariffs and hold hearings Aug. 20-23 before reaching a decision after Aug. 31, according to a senior U.S. official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity.
The first U.S. tariff list focused on Chinese industrial products, an attempt to reduce the direct impact on American consumers.
The new list includes vacuum cleaners, furniture, auto and bicycle parts, French doors and plywood. It left untouched U.S.-branded smartphones and laptop computers.
That “will hit the Chinese export sector hard,” said Rajiv Biswas of IHS Markit in a report.
China imports far less from the U.S. than the U.S. imports from China. That means China’s imports of U.S. goods are so small that Beijing “cannot match fresh U.S. tariffs,” said Vishnu Varathan of Mizuho Bank in a report.
China bought $130 billion of U.S. goods last year. Both governments have raised tariffs on $34 billion worth of each other’s goods and already said they are considering additional charges on another $16 billion. That would leave China only $80 billion for further retaliation.
Instead, Beijing has other ways to disrupt American companies’ operations. Regulators can deny or cancel licenses or launch lengthy tax, environmental or anti-monopoly investigations.
Companies are watching U.S. chipmaker Qualcomm Inc., which has waited months for Chinese regulators to decide whether to allow its proposed $44 billion acquisition of NXP Semiconductors. All other major governments have approved the deal.
The economic impact of the conflict already is spreading.
The European Union Chamber of Commerce in China said this week its member companies are rearranging the global flow of their goods to make sure any bound for the United States don’t pass through China.
Members of Congress are increasingly questioning Trump’s tactics. They warned tariffs on imports raise consumer prices and expose U.S. farmers and manufacturers to retaliation.
“Tonight’s announcement appears reckless and is not a targeted approach,” said Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch in a statement.
Envoys from the two sides last met June 3 when Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross visited Beijing for talks with Vice Premier Liu He. They have given no indication when they might meet again.
Chinese leaders have tried without success to recruit support from Europe and other governments. They criticize Trump’s tactics but share U.S. complaints about Beijing’s industrial policies.
Investors had been taking the trade war in stride but Tuesday’s announcement appeared to dent that optimism.
On Wednesday, China’s main stock index lost 1.8 percent and Japan’s market benchmark fell 1.1 percent. Hong Kong’s main index shed 1.3 percent.
The conflict is “far from over,” warned Hannah Anderson of JP Morgan Asset Management in a report, “and the impact will be global.”
London mayor says the UK is not afraid to call out Trump: ‘We think you’re wrong’ - CNBC News
London mayor says the UK is not afraid to call out Trump: ‘We think you’re wrong’
“The great thing about our city is you can have a fraternal and positive relationship with a country and its citizens but disagree in a mature and adult way with the president,” London Mayor Sadiq Khan told CNBC’s Wilfred Frost on Friday morning.
Shortly after arriving in the U.K. on Thursday afternoon, Trump sought to reignite a long-running feud with London’s mayor.
The U.S. president has decided not to tour the U.K.’s capital city during his working visit after hundreds of thousands of Britons vowed to take to the streets to protest against him.
Sam Meredith | @smeredith19
Published July 13, 2018
CNBC.com
President Donald Trump should understand the U.K. will always be prepared to challenge his views in a respectful way — regardless of whether his feelings get hurt, London Mayor Sadiq Khan told CNBC Friday.
“The great thing about our city is you can have a fraternal and positive relationship with a country and its citizens but disagree in a mature and adult way with the president,” London Mayor Sadiq Khan told CNBC’s Wilfred Frost on Friday morning.
“One of the great things about having a best friend as we do with America is we can call you out when we think you’re wrong … I think we shouldn’t be afraid of doing so,” he added.
The U.S. president is currently visiting the U.K. as part of a working visit to meet with Prime Minister Theresa May, Queen Elizabeth II and several other business leaders. He is then expected to travel to Scotland for a weekend of golf.
Long-running feud
Shortly after arriving in the U.K. on Thursday afternoon, Trump sought to reignite a long-running feud with London’s mayor.
“Take a look at the terrorism that is taking place. Look at what is going on in London. I think (Khan) has done a very bad job on terrorism,” Trump told The Sun newspaper in an interview published late Thursday.
“I used to love London as a city. I haven’t been there in a long time … But when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?”
The U.S. president has decided not to tour the U.K.’s capital city during his working visit after hundreds of thousands of Britons vowed to take to the streets to protest against him.
The main “Stop Trump” rally is expected to attract around 70,000 people on the streets of London on Friday.
Khan: Trump’s presidency is ‘interesting’
When asked what one word he would use to describe Trump’s time in office, Khan replied: “Interesting.”
He went onto add: “It is not for me to respond to the tweets President Trump sends or some of the interviews he gives where he mentions me and he talks about me in ways which I find surprising.”
Meanwhile, a “Trump Baby” blimp was seen flying beside U.K. Parliament on Friday morning, after organizers raised more than £30,000 ($40,000) to pay for its manufacture and inflation.
A 20-foot-tall blimp depicting President Donald Trump as a baby in London on Friday July 13, 2018.
CNBC's Hollie Wong
A 20-foot-tall blimp depicting President Donald Trump as a baby in London on Friday July 13, 2018.
Khan has since defended his decision to grant permission for it to be flown as part of a protest against Trump’s visit.
The balloon depicting the U.S. leader as giant baby is tethered to the grounds of Parliament Square Gardens and will be restricted from floating higher than 30 meters (98 feet). It will fly between 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m London time.
“The great thing about our city is you can have a fraternal and positive relationship with a country and its citizens but disagree in a mature and adult way with the president,” London Mayor Sadiq Khan told CNBC’s Wilfred Frost on Friday morning.
Shortly after arriving in the U.K. on Thursday afternoon, Trump sought to reignite a long-running feud with London’s mayor.
The U.S. president has decided not to tour the U.K.’s capital city during his working visit after hundreds of thousands of Britons vowed to take to the streets to protest against him.
Sam Meredith | @smeredith19
Published July 13, 2018
CNBC.com
President Donald Trump should understand the U.K. will always be prepared to challenge his views in a respectful way — regardless of whether his feelings get hurt, London Mayor Sadiq Khan told CNBC Friday.
“The great thing about our city is you can have a fraternal and positive relationship with a country and its citizens but disagree in a mature and adult way with the president,” London Mayor Sadiq Khan told CNBC’s Wilfred Frost on Friday morning.
“One of the great things about having a best friend as we do with America is we can call you out when we think you’re wrong … I think we shouldn’t be afraid of doing so,” he added.
The U.S. president is currently visiting the U.K. as part of a working visit to meet with Prime Minister Theresa May, Queen Elizabeth II and several other business leaders. He is then expected to travel to Scotland for a weekend of golf.
Long-running feud
Shortly after arriving in the U.K. on Thursday afternoon, Trump sought to reignite a long-running feud with London’s mayor.
“Take a look at the terrorism that is taking place. Look at what is going on in London. I think (Khan) has done a very bad job on terrorism,” Trump told The Sun newspaper in an interview published late Thursday.
“I used to love London as a city. I haven’t been there in a long time … But when they make you feel unwelcome, why would I stay there?”
The U.S. president has decided not to tour the U.K.’s capital city during his working visit after hundreds of thousands of Britons vowed to take to the streets to protest against him.
The main “Stop Trump” rally is expected to attract around 70,000 people on the streets of London on Friday.
Khan: Trump’s presidency is ‘interesting’
When asked what one word he would use to describe Trump’s time in office, Khan replied: “Interesting.”
He went onto add: “It is not for me to respond to the tweets President Trump sends or some of the interviews he gives where he mentions me and he talks about me in ways which I find surprising.”
Meanwhile, a “Trump Baby” blimp was seen flying beside U.K. Parliament on Friday morning, after organizers raised more than £30,000 ($40,000) to pay for its manufacture and inflation.
A 20-foot-tall blimp depicting President Donald Trump as a baby in London on Friday July 13, 2018.
CNBC's Hollie Wong
A 20-foot-tall blimp depicting President Donald Trump as a baby in London on Friday July 13, 2018.
Khan has since defended his decision to grant permission for it to be flown as part of a protest against Trump’s visit.
The balloon depicting the U.S. leader as giant baby is tethered to the grounds of Parliament Square Gardens and will be restricted from floating higher than 30 meters (98 feet). It will fly between 9:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m London time.
Just wait – Trump's trade war will soon have fallout - Guardian
Just wait – Trump's trade war will soon have fallout
Barry Eichengreen
As with Brexit, the economic effects of uncertainty over tariffs will take time to appear
Fri 13 Jul 2018 19.16 AEST Last modified on Fri 13 Jul 2018 19.35 AEST
An employee welds the joint on a steel pipe at the SAW Pipe Mills
Donald Trump’s trade war, which began with steel and aluminium tariffs, may end up having wider economic fallout. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images
Donald Trump’s phony, blowhard’s trade war just got real.
The steel and aluminium tariffs that the Trump administration imposed at the beginning of June were important mainly for their symbolic value, not for their real economic impact. While the tariffs signified that the US was no longer playing by the rules of the world trading system, they targeted just $45bn of imports, less than 0.25% of GDP in an $18.5tn US economy.
On 6 July, however, an additional 25% tariff on $34bn of Chinese exports went into effect, and China retaliated against an equivalent volume of US exports. An angry Trump has ordered the US trade representative to draw up a list of additional Chinese goods, worth more than $400bn, that could be taxed, and China again vowed to retaliate. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on $350bn worth of imported motor vehicles and parts. If he does, the EU and others could retaliate against an equal amount of US exports.
Could Trump's tariff race shift the global economic balance?
Mohamed El-Erian
We are now talking about real money: nearly $1tn of US imports and an equivalent amount of US export sales and foreign investments.
The mystery is why the economic and financial fallout from this escalation has been so limited. The US economy is humming along. The purchasing managers’ index was up again in June. Wall Street has wobbled, but there has been nothing resembling its sharp negative reaction to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. Emerging markets have suffered capital outflows and currency weakness, but this is more a consequence of Federal Reserve interest rate hikes than of any announcements emanating from the White House.
There are three possible explanations. First, purchasing managers and stock market investors may be betting that sanity will yet prevail. They may be hoping that Trump’s threats are just bluster, or that the objections of the US Chamber of Commerce and other business groups will ultimately register.
But this ignores the fact that Trump’s tariff talk is wildly popular with his base. One recent poll found that 66% of Republican voters backed Trump’s threatened tariffs against China. Trump ran in 2016 on a protectionist vow that he would no longer allow other countries to “take advantage” of the US. His voters expect him to deliver on that promise, and he knows it.
Second, the markets may be betting that Trump is right when he says that trade wars are easy to win. Other countries that depend on exports to the US may conclude that it is in their interest to back down. In early July, the European commission was reportedly contemplating a tariff-cutting deal to address Trump’s complaint that the EU taxes American cars at four times the rate the US taxes European vehicles.
But China shows no willingness to buckle under US pressure. Canada, that politest of countries, is similarly unwilling to be bullied; it has retaliated with 25% tariffs on $12bn of US goods. And the EU would contemplate concessions only if the US offers some in return – such as eliminating its prohibitive tariffs on imported light pick-up trucks and vans – and only if other exporters like Japan and South Korea go along.
Third, it could be that the macroeconomic effects of even the full panoply of US tariffs, together with foreign retaliation, are relatively small. Leading models of the US economy, in particular, imply that a 10% increase in the cost of imported goods will lead to a one-time increase in inflation of at most 0.7%.
This is simply the law of iterated fractions at work. Imports are 15% of US GDP. Multiply 0.15 by 0.10 (the hypothesised tariff rate), and you get 1.5%. Allow for some substitution away from more expensive imported goods, and the number drops below 1%. And if growth slows because of the higher cost of imported intermediate inputs, the Fed can offset this by raising interest rates more slowly. Foreign central banks can do likewise.
Still, one worries, because the standard economic models are notoriously bad at capturing the macroeconomic effects of uncertainty, which trade wars create with a vengeance. Investment plans are made in advance, so it may take, say, a year for the impact of that uncertainty to materialise – as was the case in the UK following the 2016 Brexit referendum. Taxing intermediate inputs will hurt efficiency, while shifting resources away from dynamic hi-tech sectors in favour of old-line manufacturing will depress productivity growth, with further negative implications for investment. And these are outcomes that the Fed cannot easily offset.
So, for those who observe that the economic and financial fallout from Trump’s trade war has been surprisingly small, the best response is: just wait.
• Barry Eichengreen is professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former senior policy adviser at the International Monetary Fund.
Barry Eichengreen
As with Brexit, the economic effects of uncertainty over tariffs will take time to appear
Fri 13 Jul 2018 19.16 AEST Last modified on Fri 13 Jul 2018 19.35 AEST
An employee welds the joint on a steel pipe at the SAW Pipe Mills
Donald Trump’s trade war, which began with steel and aluminium tariffs, may end up having wider economic fallout. Photograph: Bloomberg via Getty Images
Donald Trump’s phony, blowhard’s trade war just got real.
The steel and aluminium tariffs that the Trump administration imposed at the beginning of June were important mainly for their symbolic value, not for their real economic impact. While the tariffs signified that the US was no longer playing by the rules of the world trading system, they targeted just $45bn of imports, less than 0.25% of GDP in an $18.5tn US economy.
On 6 July, however, an additional 25% tariff on $34bn of Chinese exports went into effect, and China retaliated against an equivalent volume of US exports. An angry Trump has ordered the US trade representative to draw up a list of additional Chinese goods, worth more than $400bn, that could be taxed, and China again vowed to retaliate. Trump has also threatened to impose tariffs on $350bn worth of imported motor vehicles and parts. If he does, the EU and others could retaliate against an equal amount of US exports.
Could Trump's tariff race shift the global economic balance?
Mohamed El-Erian
We are now talking about real money: nearly $1tn of US imports and an equivalent amount of US export sales and foreign investments.
The mystery is why the economic and financial fallout from this escalation has been so limited. The US economy is humming along. The purchasing managers’ index was up again in June. Wall Street has wobbled, but there has been nothing resembling its sharp negative reaction to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930. Emerging markets have suffered capital outflows and currency weakness, but this is more a consequence of Federal Reserve interest rate hikes than of any announcements emanating from the White House.
There are three possible explanations. First, purchasing managers and stock market investors may be betting that sanity will yet prevail. They may be hoping that Trump’s threats are just bluster, or that the objections of the US Chamber of Commerce and other business groups will ultimately register.
But this ignores the fact that Trump’s tariff talk is wildly popular with his base. One recent poll found that 66% of Republican voters backed Trump’s threatened tariffs against China. Trump ran in 2016 on a protectionist vow that he would no longer allow other countries to “take advantage” of the US. His voters expect him to deliver on that promise, and he knows it.
Second, the markets may be betting that Trump is right when he says that trade wars are easy to win. Other countries that depend on exports to the US may conclude that it is in their interest to back down. In early July, the European commission was reportedly contemplating a tariff-cutting deal to address Trump’s complaint that the EU taxes American cars at four times the rate the US taxes European vehicles.
But China shows no willingness to buckle under US pressure. Canada, that politest of countries, is similarly unwilling to be bullied; it has retaliated with 25% tariffs on $12bn of US goods. And the EU would contemplate concessions only if the US offers some in return – such as eliminating its prohibitive tariffs on imported light pick-up trucks and vans – and only if other exporters like Japan and South Korea go along.
Third, it could be that the macroeconomic effects of even the full panoply of US tariffs, together with foreign retaliation, are relatively small. Leading models of the US economy, in particular, imply that a 10% increase in the cost of imported goods will lead to a one-time increase in inflation of at most 0.7%.
This is simply the law of iterated fractions at work. Imports are 15% of US GDP. Multiply 0.15 by 0.10 (the hypothesised tariff rate), and you get 1.5%. Allow for some substitution away from more expensive imported goods, and the number drops below 1%. And if growth slows because of the higher cost of imported intermediate inputs, the Fed can offset this by raising interest rates more slowly. Foreign central banks can do likewise.
Still, one worries, because the standard economic models are notoriously bad at capturing the macroeconomic effects of uncertainty, which trade wars create with a vengeance. Investment plans are made in advance, so it may take, say, a year for the impact of that uncertainty to materialise – as was the case in the UK following the 2016 Brexit referendum. Taxing intermediate inputs will hurt efficiency, while shifting resources away from dynamic hi-tech sectors in favour of old-line manufacturing will depress productivity growth, with further negative implications for investment. And these are outcomes that the Fed cannot easily offset.
So, for those who observe that the economic and financial fallout from Trump’s trade war has been surprisingly small, the best response is: just wait.
• Barry Eichengreen is professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former senior policy adviser at the International Monetary Fund.
China industrial park explosion kills 19 - BBC News
July 13, 2018
China industrial park explosion kills 19
The blast occurred at a plant which makes chemicals for the food and pharmaceutical industries
An explosion at an industrial park in China's Sichuan province has left 19 people dead and 12 others injured, officials say.
In a statement quoted by Reuters, the authorities in Jiang'an county said the blast happened at a chemical plant run by Yibin Hengda Technology.
Photos on Chinese social media showed a huge fire and plumes of smoke rising from the facility.
It is not clear what caused the explosion.
According to Xinhua the fire, which broke out on Thursday evening, had been put out early on Friday. Those injured in the blast were in a stable condition.
Authorities have begun an investigation, the news agency said.
The cause of the blast is not yet known
Yibin Hengda makes chemicals for the food and pharmaceutical industries.
According to local media reports, the three-storey buildings of the factory burnt down to their steel frames and nearby buildings had their windows shattered.
The accident follows previous high-profile disasters at chemical plants in China.
In 2015, 173 people died in an explosion at a chemical warehouse in the north-eastern port city of Tianjin.
An official investigation into the blast found that corruption, political connections and official collusion allowed corners to be cut and safety systems to be overridden.
China industrial park explosion kills 19
The blast occurred at a plant which makes chemicals for the food and pharmaceutical industries
An explosion at an industrial park in China's Sichuan province has left 19 people dead and 12 others injured, officials say.
In a statement quoted by Reuters, the authorities in Jiang'an county said the blast happened at a chemical plant run by Yibin Hengda Technology.
Photos on Chinese social media showed a huge fire and plumes of smoke rising from the facility.
It is not clear what caused the explosion.
According to Xinhua the fire, which broke out on Thursday evening, had been put out early on Friday. Those injured in the blast were in a stable condition.
Authorities have begun an investigation, the news agency said.
The cause of the blast is not yet known
Yibin Hengda makes chemicals for the food and pharmaceutical industries.
According to local media reports, the three-storey buildings of the factory burnt down to their steel frames and nearby buildings had their windows shattered.
The accident follows previous high-profile disasters at chemical plants in China.
In 2015, 173 people died in an explosion at a chemical warehouse in the north-eastern port city of Tianjin.
An official investigation into the blast found that corruption, political connections and official collusion allowed corners to be cut and safety systems to be overridden.
Why Brussels is keeping quiet on May's White Paper - BBc News
July 13, 2018
Why Brussels is keeping quiet on May's White Paper
Katya Adler
Europe editor
@BBCkatyaadler on Twitter
PM Theresa May has set out her plans for Brexit - but EU bigwigs are in no hurry to comment for now
Even the president of the United States now sees fit to weigh in on the Brexit path Theresa May is taking.
Donald Trump has said, amongst other things, that if the prime minister is successful in her plan - formalised on Thursday in a White Paper - then that would make a future trade deal with the US far less likely.
So how come key player Brussels remains so uncannily quiet about the paper?
Brussels badgered the UK for months and months and months about coming up with a detailed proposal on how it envisions the future EU-UK relationship after Brexit. Now they have it, surely they have an opinion about it?
As far as official responses go, the most we got from Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, was that he and his colleagues now need time to analyse the White Paper in detail.
On the one hand: fair enough. It is a very dense document.
But I feel the EU is hiding behind the paper's 98 pages of Brexit tech-talk.
In private, EU diplomats make no secret at all of their rejection of large chunks of the White Paper.
Plan 'delivers the Brexit UK voted for' - May
Trump: Brexit plan could kill US trade deal
Brussels has said since the beginning of Brexit negotiations that the UK can't pick and choose the "best parts" of EU membership and walk away from the rest when it leaves. Yet that's exactly how the White Paper is interpreted in EU circles.
There is no way Michel Barnier will accept it as is.
Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, must calculate the best time to criticise the White Paper
For Theresa May to get that "deep and special" access to the EU in trade terms, Brussels will certainly expect more concessions. But EU leaders are biding their time. Trying to calculate not if, but when, and how to get their criticisms across.
They're very aware of the febrile political atmosphere in the UK and think if they make a quick comment or criticism of the White Paper, they'd be adding fuel to the fire.
So if the EU is so keen for a soft Brexit - (of course we know, deep down, it would prefer no Brexit at all) - what concessions is Brussels prepared to make now to help shore up the prime minister's position in the political maelstrom at home?
Worryingly few, is the answer if you're a fan of Theresa May or her White Paper.
The EU still believes it holds pretty much all the cards in Brexit negotiations. I don't expect real whiffs of EU concessions before the last minute of the 11th hour this autumn.
Can Theresa May hang on till then? And if she can, is she politically strong enough to strike a deal with Brussels and then sell it back home?
Frankly, no one knows - and in the meantime, Brussels is stepping up contingency plans for a no-deal Brexit. Not because the EU or Downing Street wants that - they really do not - but because the time allotted under EU law for a withdrawal agreement to be agreed and signed off by both parties is fast running out.
In the meantime, EU diplomats try to sound upbeat: the White Paper is a great springboard from which to re-start face-to-face Brexit negotiations, they say.
Those talks begin again behind closed doors on Monday.
Why Brussels is keeping quiet on May's White Paper
Katya Adler
Europe editor
@BBCkatyaadler on Twitter
PM Theresa May has set out her plans for Brexit - but EU bigwigs are in no hurry to comment for now
Even the president of the United States now sees fit to weigh in on the Brexit path Theresa May is taking.
Donald Trump has said, amongst other things, that if the prime minister is successful in her plan - formalised on Thursday in a White Paper - then that would make a future trade deal with the US far less likely.
So how come key player Brussels remains so uncannily quiet about the paper?
Brussels badgered the UK for months and months and months about coming up with a detailed proposal on how it envisions the future EU-UK relationship after Brexit. Now they have it, surely they have an opinion about it?
As far as official responses go, the most we got from Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, was that he and his colleagues now need time to analyse the White Paper in detail.
On the one hand: fair enough. It is a very dense document.
But I feel the EU is hiding behind the paper's 98 pages of Brexit tech-talk.
In private, EU diplomats make no secret at all of their rejection of large chunks of the White Paper.
Plan 'delivers the Brexit UK voted for' - May
Trump: Brexit plan could kill US trade deal
Brussels has said since the beginning of Brexit negotiations that the UK can't pick and choose the "best parts" of EU membership and walk away from the rest when it leaves. Yet that's exactly how the White Paper is interpreted in EU circles.
There is no way Michel Barnier will accept it as is.
Michel Barnier, the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, must calculate the best time to criticise the White Paper
For Theresa May to get that "deep and special" access to the EU in trade terms, Brussels will certainly expect more concessions. But EU leaders are biding their time. Trying to calculate not if, but when, and how to get their criticisms across.
They're very aware of the febrile political atmosphere in the UK and think if they make a quick comment or criticism of the White Paper, they'd be adding fuel to the fire.
So if the EU is so keen for a soft Brexit - (of course we know, deep down, it would prefer no Brexit at all) - what concessions is Brussels prepared to make now to help shore up the prime minister's position in the political maelstrom at home?
Worryingly few, is the answer if you're a fan of Theresa May or her White Paper.
The EU still believes it holds pretty much all the cards in Brexit negotiations. I don't expect real whiffs of EU concessions before the last minute of the 11th hour this autumn.
Can Theresa May hang on till then? And if she can, is she politically strong enough to strike a deal with Brussels and then sell it back home?
Frankly, no one knows - and in the meantime, Brussels is stepping up contingency plans for a no-deal Brexit. Not because the EU or Downing Street wants that - they really do not - but because the time allotted under EU law for a withdrawal agreement to be agreed and signed off by both parties is fast running out.
In the meantime, EU diplomats try to sound upbeat: the White Paper is a great springboard from which to re-start face-to-face Brexit negotiations, they say.
Those talks begin again behind closed doors on Monday.
Trump: Brexit plan 'will probably kill' US trade deal - BBC News
July 13, 2018
Trump: Brexit plan 'will probably kill' US trade deal
Mr Trump's interview comes as protesters - both anti and pro-Trump - prepare to march on Friday
Donald Trump has said the UK will "probably not" get a trade deal with the US, if the prime minister's Brexit plan goes ahead.
He told The Sun the PM's plan would "probably kill the deal" as it would mean the US "would be dealing with the European Union" instead of with the UK.
Downing Street has not yet reacted to Mr Trump's remarks.
Theresa May has been making the case for a US free trade deal with Mr Trump, on his first UK visit as president.
She said Brexit was an "unprecedented opportunity" to create growth in the UK and US.
Mr Trump also said that former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson - who disagrees with the PM on Brexit and resigned this week - would make a "great prime minister", adding "I think he's got what it takes".
In his interview, he also renewed his criticism of London Mayor Sadiq Khan over last year's terror attacks in London, saying he had done "a terrible job".
It comes ahead of a day of planned, and widespread, anti-Trump protests across the UK, including one in Parliament Square which involves a giant inflatable of Mr Trump as a baby. Some pro-Trump events are also taking place.
The US president and his wife, Melania, were given a red carpet reception at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire on Thursday evening.
They were at a black-tie dinner with Mrs May as news broke of his interview with the newspaper, which said it was conducted while he was in Brussels.
After it was published, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the president "likes and respects Prime Minister May very much", adding that he had "never said anything bad about her".
Mays greet Trumps for UK black-tie dinner
Mr Trump - who has been a long-time supporter of Brexit - told The Sun that the UK's blueprint for its post-Brexit relations with the EU was "a much different deal than the people voted on".
He said the Brexit proposals Mrs May and her cabinet thrashed out at the PM's country house Chequers last week "would probably end a major trade relationship with the United States."
"We have enough difficulty with the European Union," he said, saying the EU has "not treated the United States fairly on trading".
'I told May how to do it'
He also said Mrs May had not listened to his advice on how to do a Brexit deal, saying: "I would have done it much differently.
"I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn't agree, she didn't listen to me. She wanted to go a different route," he said.
Tom Newton Dunn, the Sun journalist who interviewed Mr Trump, said the US president seemed "sensitive" and knew about the "Trump baby" inflatable.
"He's really quite stung by the criticism he's been getting," said Mr Newton Dunn. "He knew all about the baby blimp. I think it hurt him."
The Sun journalist who interviewed Donald Trump says the president "really cares" what people in Britain think of him.
The BBC's political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, said Mr Trump's interview had "driven a bulldozer" through Mrs May's claim that the UK would be able to get decent trade deals with the wider world, while sticking to the EU rules.
But Foreign Office minister Sir Alan Duncan said things had "moved on" since Mr Trump's interview - which was carried out before he arrived in the UK - and the mood at Thursday night's dinner was "fantastically positive and did focus a lot on trade".
The government does not see Mr Trump's behaviour as "rude", said Sir Alan, adding: "Donald Trump is a controversialist. That's his style."
Trump raises questions over Brexit plans
How we're welcoming Donald Trump to the UK
Queen and US presidents through history
And Chancellor Philip Hammond said he is sure there will be "very positive" talks between Mr Trump and the PM later today.
Protesters near Blenheim Palace making their feelings known on Thursday
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan defended his decision to allow the giant Trump baby inflatable to fly over London, saying: "The idea that we limit the right to protest because it might cause offence to a foreign leader is a slippery slope".
And, responding to Mr Trump's criticism of his response to terrorism, Mr Khan said it was "interesting" that he "is not criticising the mayors of other cities" which have also experienced terror attacks.
Meanwhile, Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry said the PM "should be standing up to [Mr Trump]" after he "slagged her off", instead of holding his hand.
Mr Trump briefly held Mrs May's hand as they went up the stairs
Mr Trump's comments came on the same day the UK government published its proposal for its long-term relationship with the EU.
The plan is aimed at ensuring trade co-operation, with no hard border for Northern Ireland, and global trade deals for the UK. Mrs May said the plan "absolutely delivers on the Brexit we voted for".
But after ministers reached an agreement on the plan at Chequers a week ago, leading Brexiteers Boris Johnson and David Davis resigned from the cabinet.
Reality Check: The rules on protest balloons
'Trump Baby' balloon banned from Turnberry
Why US presidents love the home of golf
Some of Mr Trump's supporters and protesters have been explaining their motivation
Mrs May and Mr Trump are watching a joint counter-terrorism exercise by British and US special forces at a military base.
The pair will then travel to Chequers - the PM's country residence in Buckinghamshire - for talks also being attended by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
Extra security is in place to police protests planned for the second day of Mr Trump's visit.
The president and first lady will travel to Windsor on Friday afternoon to meet the Queen, before flying to Scotland to spend the weekend at Mr Trump's Turnberry golf resort. This part of the visit is being considered private.
Trump: Brexit plan 'will probably kill' US trade deal
Mr Trump's interview comes as protesters - both anti and pro-Trump - prepare to march on Friday
Donald Trump has said the UK will "probably not" get a trade deal with the US, if the prime minister's Brexit plan goes ahead.
He told The Sun the PM's plan would "probably kill the deal" as it would mean the US "would be dealing with the European Union" instead of with the UK.
Downing Street has not yet reacted to Mr Trump's remarks.
Theresa May has been making the case for a US free trade deal with Mr Trump, on his first UK visit as president.
She said Brexit was an "unprecedented opportunity" to create growth in the UK and US.
Mr Trump also said that former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson - who disagrees with the PM on Brexit and resigned this week - would make a "great prime minister", adding "I think he's got what it takes".
In his interview, he also renewed his criticism of London Mayor Sadiq Khan over last year's terror attacks in London, saying he had done "a terrible job".
It comes ahead of a day of planned, and widespread, anti-Trump protests across the UK, including one in Parliament Square which involves a giant inflatable of Mr Trump as a baby. Some pro-Trump events are also taking place.
The US president and his wife, Melania, were given a red carpet reception at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire on Thursday evening.
They were at a black-tie dinner with Mrs May as news broke of his interview with the newspaper, which said it was conducted while he was in Brussels.
After it was published, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said the president "likes and respects Prime Minister May very much", adding that he had "never said anything bad about her".
Mays greet Trumps for UK black-tie dinner
Mr Trump - who has been a long-time supporter of Brexit - told The Sun that the UK's blueprint for its post-Brexit relations with the EU was "a much different deal than the people voted on".
He said the Brexit proposals Mrs May and her cabinet thrashed out at the PM's country house Chequers last week "would probably end a major trade relationship with the United States."
"We have enough difficulty with the European Union," he said, saying the EU has "not treated the United States fairly on trading".
'I told May how to do it'
He also said Mrs May had not listened to his advice on how to do a Brexit deal, saying: "I would have done it much differently.
"I actually told Theresa May how to do it but she didn't agree, she didn't listen to me. She wanted to go a different route," he said.
Tom Newton Dunn, the Sun journalist who interviewed Mr Trump, said the US president seemed "sensitive" and knew about the "Trump baby" inflatable.
"He's really quite stung by the criticism he's been getting," said Mr Newton Dunn. "He knew all about the baby blimp. I think it hurt him."
The Sun journalist who interviewed Donald Trump says the president "really cares" what people in Britain think of him.
The BBC's political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, said Mr Trump's interview had "driven a bulldozer" through Mrs May's claim that the UK would be able to get decent trade deals with the wider world, while sticking to the EU rules.
But Foreign Office minister Sir Alan Duncan said things had "moved on" since Mr Trump's interview - which was carried out before he arrived in the UK - and the mood at Thursday night's dinner was "fantastically positive and did focus a lot on trade".
The government does not see Mr Trump's behaviour as "rude", said Sir Alan, adding: "Donald Trump is a controversialist. That's his style."
Trump raises questions over Brexit plans
How we're welcoming Donald Trump to the UK
Queen and US presidents through history
And Chancellor Philip Hammond said he is sure there will be "very positive" talks between Mr Trump and the PM later today.
Protesters near Blenheim Palace making their feelings known on Thursday
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan defended his decision to allow the giant Trump baby inflatable to fly over London, saying: "The idea that we limit the right to protest because it might cause offence to a foreign leader is a slippery slope".
And, responding to Mr Trump's criticism of his response to terrorism, Mr Khan said it was "interesting" that he "is not criticising the mayors of other cities" which have also experienced terror attacks.
Meanwhile, Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry said the PM "should be standing up to [Mr Trump]" after he "slagged her off", instead of holding his hand.
Mr Trump briefly held Mrs May's hand as they went up the stairs
Mr Trump's comments came on the same day the UK government published its proposal for its long-term relationship with the EU.
The plan is aimed at ensuring trade co-operation, with no hard border for Northern Ireland, and global trade deals for the UK. Mrs May said the plan "absolutely delivers on the Brexit we voted for".
But after ministers reached an agreement on the plan at Chequers a week ago, leading Brexiteers Boris Johnson and David Davis resigned from the cabinet.
Reality Check: The rules on protest balloons
'Trump Baby' balloon banned from Turnberry
Why US presidents love the home of golf
Some of Mr Trump's supporters and protesters have been explaining their motivation
Mrs May and Mr Trump are watching a joint counter-terrorism exercise by British and US special forces at a military base.
The pair will then travel to Chequers - the PM's country residence in Buckinghamshire - for talks also being attended by Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt.
Extra security is in place to police protests planned for the second day of Mr Trump's visit.
The president and first lady will travel to Windsor on Friday afternoon to meet the Queen, before flying to Scotland to spend the weekend at Mr Trump's Turnberry golf resort. This part of the visit is being considered private.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
