Thursday, April 13, 2017

In Major Reversal, Trump Says China ‘Not Currency Manipulators’ - NBC News

POLITICS APR 12 2017, 5:51 PM ET
In Major Reversal, Trump Says China ‘Not Currency Manipulators’
by ANDREW RAFFERTY

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he no longer believes China manipulates its currency, a complete shift from the position he repeatedly took during his 2016 campaign.
"They're not currency manipulators," Trump told the the Wall Street Journal during an Oval Office interview.
The reason he changed his mind, the president said, was because China has stopped manipulating its currency in recent months and the accusations could jeopardize U.S. negotiations with China to deal with the nuclear threat from North Korea.

DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpg
Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into..

DJT_Headshot_V2_bigger.jpg
their country (the U.S. doesn't tax them) or to build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don't think so!
Trump's flip flop comes just days after the president hosted his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, at Mar-a-Lago in southern Florida.
Throughout the campaign, Trump repeatedly said he would instruct his Treasury Secretary to label China "a currency manipulator." And as recently as 10 days ago, he told the Financial Times that China was the "world champion" of currency manipulators.
The official label would need to be included in a semiannual Treasury report expected this month.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a longtime critic of how the Chinese government values its currency, released a statement saying Trump is giving China "a green light to steal our jobs and wealth time and time again." 
"The best way to get China to cooperate with North Korea, is to be tough on them with trade, which is the number one thing China's government cares about," Schumer said. 
Trump also signaled in the interview with the Journal that he may be willing to change his position on re-nominating Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen next year. 
Trump had accused Yellen of keeping interest rates low for political reasons under President Barack Obama. But on Wednesday he said he likes a low-interest rate policy. 
"I think our dollar is getting too strong, and partially that's my fault because people have confidence in me. But that's hurting — that will hurt, ultimately," Trump said. 

He said Yellen was "not toast" and he would consider renominating her next year. 

Russia challenges US to prove chemical attack in Syria - Independent

Russia challenges US to prove chemical attack in Syria
'If our colleagues at the UN try to avoid this investigation, this will signify that they are reluctant to find out the truth'
More differences of opinion than areas of common ground were established during Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's chilly joint press conference in Moscow on Wednesday, where the counterparts doubled down on their countries' positions on Syria and interpretation of the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack.
Following talks that also involved Vladimir Putin, Tillerson announced that "There is a low level of trust between our two countries," and things only got more tense from there.
"With respect to Russia's complicity or knowledge of the chemical-weapons attack, we have no firm information to indicate that there was any involvement by Russian forces into this attack," Tillerson said. 
"What we do know, and we have very firm and high confidence in our conclusions, that the attack was planned and carried out by the regime forces at the direction of Bashar al-Assad."
Not only did Lavrov categorically dispute this interpretation of events, saying Russia was "not convinced" by the US' evidence that sarin gas was deliberately used, but called for an "honest investigation" into the attack that he suggested would reveal the US and UN were bluffing if it did not come to pass.
"There were no signs that would support the statement, the allegation that chemical agents were used there at all," Lavrov said. "We are 100% sure that if our colleagues at the UN, as well as The Hague, try to avoid this investigation, this will signify that they are reluctant to find out the truth, but we will insist that the truth will be found."
While the US has put responsibility for the attack that killed more than 80 people squarely with Assad, Russia believes it was the work of terrorists, with Putin claiming more chemical attacks are on the way in Syria designed to frame the Assad regime.


Wednesday, April 12, 2017

Choice of Pro-Immigration Economic Adviser Riles Trump’s Base - New York Times

Choice of Pro-ImmigrationEconomic Adviser Riles Trump’s Base

By ALAN RAPPEPORT
APRIL 12, 2017
WASHINGTON — The choice by President Trump of a pro-immigration economist to lead his Council of Economic Advisers is stirring a backlash among his most ardent supporters who worry it is an abandonment of the tough stance he took on the issue during the campaign and the latest in a string of broken promises.
Mr. Trump had already disappointed some of his base supporters by intervening in Syria with a military strike last week and by delaying a tough stance on trade with China and Mexico. He expressed the idea via Twitter on Tuesday morning that he’d be willing to offer the Chinese government a more favorable trade deal if they helped the United States with North Korea. Now there is growing unease that immigration is the next area where he will go soft.
To these supporters, the appointment of Kevin A. Hassett, announced late last Friday afternoon, as his top White House economist is another sign that the president is succumbing to the swamp he promised to drain.
Like most economists, Mr. Hassett believes that immigration spurs economic growth. At times he has pilloried Republicans for becoming the “Party of White,” arguing in 2010 that Republicans like then-Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona “have too often appeared hostile to immigrants.” In 2013, Mr. Hassett said the United States should double its intake of immigrants.
Mr. Hassett, who currently works at the American Enterprise Institute, is a widely respected conservative economist who previously advised prominent Republicans like Senator John McCain and Mitt Romney.

But for those who backed Mr. Trump because of his promises to build a wall and deport illegal immigrants, such notions are heresy.
“It would be nice considering how important the immigration issue has been to Trump to have gotten an economist to this position who was at least not a booster for higher immigration,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration think tank.
Mr. Trump’s right-wing media supporters are also up in arms. Breitbart, the website that was formerly run by Steven K. Bannon, the president’s chief political strategist, said Mr. Hassett’s appointment showed that the “corporatist, business-first” was muscling out the “populist, America-first” that got Mr. Trump elected. Commenters on the conservative website Infowars were similarly appalled, with some lamenting, “We have been sold a false bill of goods.”
And some leaders of the white nationalist “alt-right” movement also interpreted the move as a sellout. “This is yet another betrayal, just like breaking his promise to deport all illegal immigrants and to repeal President Obama’s executive amnesties,” said Jared Taylor, the editor of the online magazine American Renaissance who spoke highly of Mr. Trump during the campaign.
Mr. Taylor said the choice of Mr. Hassett combined with the recent airstrikes in Syria make it “very hard to believe anything he says.”
The controversy follows decades of grappling within the Republican Party over how to address immigration. After some party leaders considered a more inclusive approach, Mr. Trump ratcheted the party to the right as a candidate when he painted immigrants as criminals who were stealing American jobs and depressing wages.

Such pronouncements amplified voices within the Republican Party who have been fearful about both illegal and legal immigration. Last month, Representative Steve King, an Iowa Republican who is a strong supporter of Mr. Trump, caused an uproar when he said, “You cannot rebuild your civilization with somebody else’s babies.”
Some Republicans in the Senate, including Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have also been focusing on limiting legal immigration. Mr. Cotton has proposed legislation that would narrow the scope of the permanent resident “green card” system and reduce access to visas.
On Tuesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions traveled to the border with Mexico and laid out a tougher approach the administration will be taking with people who sneak into the country. Those measures include federal prosecutions.
But despite his tough tone as a candidate, Mr. Trump has shown some signs of moderation as president. He said he welcomed immigrants who love the country and bring valuable skills and strong work ethics. And he has yet to unravel President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for the so-called “Dreamers,” as Mr. Krikorian ruefully noted.
Economists who have been wary of the recent wave of anti-immigrant sentiment are hopeful that Mr. Hassett will be an influential voice in the administration to encourage a more welcoming approach.
On Wednesday a group of 1,470 economists, both conservative and liberal, are sending a letter to Mr. Trump and congressional leaders urging them to consider policies that allow more immigrants into the country legally. They contend that the economic benefits outweigh the costs. (Mr. Hassett did not sign the letter.)

“Immigration is really not a debatable issue,” said James Miller, who led President Ronald Reagan’s Office of Management and Budget and signed the letter. “Immigration is a good idea if you control it the right way.”
Mr. Hassett declined an interview after his appointment was announced. A White House spokeswoman, Lindsay Walters, dismissed the negative reaction, pointing to his decades of experience in economics, and said, “The president is confident he will work tirelessly to improve the economy for all Americans and looks forward to welcoming him onboard following his confirmation.”
It remains unclear, however, how much influence Mr. Hassett will actually have. Mr. Trump broke with recent tradition and removed the council’s chairman from a cabinet-level position. He has also expressed skepticism about economics in the past by casting doubt on official government employment statistics and expert opinions about the health of the economy.
For those reasons, some who have been critical of Mr. Trump are tempering their optimism about Mr. Hassett.
“He might be a sign of some stability, but no one knows if the president is going to listen to him so it’s premature to says it is encouraging,” said Austan Goolsbee, who was chairman of Mr. Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers. “Regarding his critics, there is not a single reputable economist they could find in either party that would support their worldview.”

Pressure Grows as Hungary Adopts Law Targeting George Soros’s University - New York Times

Pressure Grows as Hungary Adopts Law Targeting George Soros’s University

By PALKO KARASZ
APRIL 11, 2017
LONDON — Pressure is mounting on Hungary’s right-wing government after it adopted a law that would effectively shut down Central European University, an institution founded by the Hungarian-American philanthropist George Soros shortly after the fall of Communism.
An American official and a United Nations expert on Tuesday joined European Union officials in expressing grave concern about the law, which was rushed through Parliament by the government of Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
Tens of thousands of protesters poured into the streets of Budapest on Sunday to urge President Janos Ader not to sign the law, but on Monday he did just that.
The new law requires, among other things, that foreign-accredited universities provide higher education services in their own countries — meaning the United States in the case of Central European University.
Observers say the law is part of a clampdown on free expression and an effort to create a powerful enemy — in this case, Mr. Soros, a financier who embodies, for Mr. Orban, the influence of global capitalism.

“Almost the only success story the government has at home, I think, is that it built a fence and is not letting in migrants,” said Andras Loke, president of the board of Transparency International’s branch in Hungary, referring to Mr. Orban’s hard-line policy on refugees. “That is to say the people like it, and they say, ‘Finally, somebody has done it.’”
Mr. Orban has also embraced the term “illiberal democracy,” essentially arguing that majority rule is more important than minority rights. “Here is a government that proclaims itself as illiberal, and if it says it’s illiberal, liberals are its natural enemy, especially if they are backed by funds the government has no control over,” Mr. Loke said, referring to organizations funded by Mr. Soros.
The Soros Foundation and later the Open Society Foundations, both founded by Mr. Soros, have financed projects in Hungary and the region in areas like health care and the study of democracy. Some of the organizations have found themselves — unwillingly — at the center of attention and framed as part of the opposition.
In pointing out corruption and the erosion of freedoms under Mr. Orban’s government, nongovernmental organizations are simply doing what they have always done, said Zsuzsanna Szelenyi, an opposition lawmaker who in the 1990s was a member of Fidesz, Mr. Orban’s conservative political party. “They don’t see themselves as opposition or political organizations, but as civil rights defenders.”
In the last two years, Ms. Szelenyi said, the government has advanced a “conspiracy theory” arguing that Mr. Soros, who “embodies global capital, has been exerting his influence, through his money, in the entire world.”
Criticism of the law aimed at the university, which has nearly 1,800 students from more than 100 countries and about 370 faculty members, came from several directions on Tuesday.

David Kaye, the United Nations special rapporteur for freedom of opinion and expression, said it was “likely to violate the central precepts of academic freedom in a free society.”
An American official, Hoyt Brian Yee, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, also raised concerns, telling Reuters that the law focused on “this important American-Hungarian institution.”
Members of the European Commission, the European Union’s executive body, are to discuss the subject on Wednesday in Brussels. They are also expected to talk, more broadly, about efforts by Mr. Orban’s government to curb the authority of the European Union in areas like immigration and the economy.
Vera Jourova, the European Union’s commissioner for justice, said on Monday that, while the law seemed neutral on its face, it was clearly aimed at one university — a criticism that Mr. Kaye echoed on Tuesday.
“The law must be general, but this is a rather legalistic approach,” Ms. Jourova told reporters, warning that Hungary had also moved “to decrease the power and the influence of civil society” and to inhibit “political pluralism,” or the free expression of multiple and competing positions.
Ms. Jourova offered her support to groups resisting the law. “I’m happy to see that the people there are courageous, open, vocal and visible,” she said, a reference to the protests.

But the criticism, especially from Europe, appeared to do little to persuade many Hungarians. Streets and public transportation were full of billboards saying “Let’s Stop Brussels.” The government has turned to nationalist speech in recent years to resist the European Union in areas like migration policy.
“I myself do not believe that any administrative steps or infringements or other measures taken by the European Commission in relation or against some member state will help a lot,” Ms. Jourova said, acknowledging that governments in some member states often ignore legal steps taken by Europe for as long as possible.
To a large extent, it “must be the people” who push back against illiberalism, she said.
In Hungary, the protests have continued, though on a smaller scale than over the weekend. A few hundred people gathered in front of the presidential palace Monday night to support the university, and another rally was planned for Wednesday night.
The country’s top official in charge of education, Laszlo Palkovics, traveled to Brussels, where the European Union has its headquarters, on Tuesday to clarify Hungary’s position with Europe. In a statement from his ministry, he said, “We trust that Brussels will not assist the deceptive Soros campaign and will be capable of forming an objective and unbiased opinion that is free of political interests.”
Michael Ignatieff, Central European University’s president and rector, and a scholar of human rights, said in a statement on Monday: “As I have said before, we are willing to sit down with the Hungarian government to find a solution to enable C.E.U. to stay in Budapest and operate as we have done for 25 years. However, academic freedom is not negotiable. It is a principle that must form the basis of any future agreement.”
Mr. Orban’s government seems unmoved by the criticism. His allies are not hiding their contempt for Mr. Soros.

“George Soros’s thinking on migration is sharply opposed to that of the Hungarian government,” Lajos Kosa, head of Fidesz’s bloc in Parliament, said Tuesday on a morning television show. “We are saying, ‘Let’s stop migration,’ and Soros is saying, ‘Let in as many as possible.’ And he will do everything — including money and energy — to destabilize and weaken those governments who oppose his thinking.”
Follow Palko Karasz on Twitter @karaszpalko.
James Kanter contributed reporting from Brussels.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Twitter Drops Lawsuit Against U.S. Government Over Anti-Trump Account - TIME

Posted: 07 Apr 2017 11:05 AM PDT

(SAN FRANCISCO) — Twitter Inc on Friday dropped a lawsuit it filed the previous day against the U.S. government, saying the government had withdrawn a summons for records about who was behind an account critical of President Donald Trump.
A lawyer for the social media company, Mark Flanagan, wrote in court papers that a U.S. Justice Department lawyer told Twitter about the withdrawal of the summons on Friday and that the demand “no longer has any force or effect.”
It was not immediately clear why the government had withdrawn the summons or whether it had closed an investigation it said it was conducting. The Justice Department, which defends federal agencies in court, declined to comment. The Department of Homeland Security, which issued the summons, had no immediate comment.

Twitter cited freedom of speech as a basis for not turning over records about the account, @ALT_uscis. The people behind the account have not disclosed their identities, but the use of “ALT” with a government agency acronym has led many to assume government employees are behind such tweets.
The lawsuit said the account “claims to be” the work of at least one federal immigration employee.
The acronym U.S. CIS refers to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, and the account describes itself as “immigration resistance.” Trump has vowed to build a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico and has promised to deport millions of illegal immigrants.
Following Trump’s inauguration in January, anonymous Twitter feeds that borrowed the names and logos of more than a dozen U.S. government agencies appeared to challenge the president’s views on climate change and other issues. They called themselves “alt” accounts.
A Twitter spokesman declined to comment beyond the court papers.
The lawsuit gave Twitter a chance to assume a favorite role as a defender of free speech, offering a respite for a company that has struggled recently to expand its audience, excite investors or attract new revenue streams.
On Thursday, Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said in a statement that the summons was a waste of resources to try to uncover an anonymous critic, and he called on the Homeland Security inspector general to investigate who directed the “witch hunt.”

United Airlines video: Man dragged off flight so staff could take his seat, leaked email reveals - Independent

United Airlines video: Man dragged off flight so staff could take his seat, leaked email reveals

In a letter to employees, United Airlines' parent company chief executive Oscar Munoz revealed the company had been trying to make room for four employees of a partner airline, which resulted in four passengers being told to get off the flight from Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport to Louisville.
After the plane was fully boarded, the company’s “gate agents were approached by crew members that were told they needed to board the flight”, the message leaked to ABC said.
"We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions," Mr Munoz said.
"He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent."
Mr Munoz said he was “upset” by the incident, but added that employees had “followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this”.
The airline had at first asked for volunteers to give up their seats for the airline staff, offering $400 (£322) and then when no one came forward $800 (£645) per passenger. When no one agreed to leave the flight, United selected four passengers at random.
Three got off, but the fourth refused, saying he had patients he needed to treat.
Three city aviation department security officers, got on the plane and after two officers tried to reason with the man, a third pointed at the man “basically saying, 'Sir, you have to get off the plane,”' said Tyler Bridges, a passenger whose wife, Audra D Bridges, posted a video on Facebook.
One of the security officers could be seen grabbing the screaming man from his window seat, across the armrest and dragging him down the aisle by his arms.
Other passengers on Flight 3411 are heard saying, “Please, my God,” ''What are you doing?“ ''This is wrong,” ''Look at what you did to him“ and ”Busted his lip.“
“We almost felt like we were being taken hostage,” said Tyler Bridges. “We were stuck there. You can't do anything as a traveller. You're relying on the airline.”
Chicago's aviation department said the security officer who grabbed the passenger had been placed on leave.
“The incidence on United Flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department,' the department said in a statement.
After a three-hour delay, United Express Flight 3411 took off without the man aboard.
Airlines are allowed to sell more tickets than seats on the plane, and they routinely overbook flights because some people do not show up.
It is not unusual for airlines to offer travel vouchers to encourage people to give up their seats, and there are no rules for the process. When an airline demands that a passenger give up a seat, the airline is required to pay double the passenger's one-way fare, up to $675 (£544) provided the passenger is put on a flight that arrives within one to two hours of the original. The compensation rises to four times the ticket price, up to $1,350 (£1,088), for longer delays.
When they move passengers onto other flights, airlines are required to give those passengers a written description of their compensation rights.
Last year, United forced 3,765 people off oversold flights and another 62,895 United passengers volunteered to give up their seats, probably in exchange for travel vouchers. That is out of more than 86 million people who boarded a United flight in 2016, according to government figures. United ranks in the middle of US carriers when it comes to bumping passengers.
ExpressJet, which operates flights under the United Express, American Eagle and Delta Connection names, had the highest rate of bumping passengers last year. Among the largest carriers, Southwest Airlines had the highest rate, followed by JetBlue Airways.

Malicious apps can take the simple movement and work out how to access people's most private details - Independent


Malicious apps can take the simple movement and work out how to access people's most private details
People's passwords could be exposed with just a tilt of their phone, according to a new study.
Research from Newcastle University shows that PINs and passwords can be found just by watching how a phone moves when it is being held. And they warn that same information could be used by malicious websites and apps, to gain access to the most personal parts of people's lives.
In the study, researchers were able to guess a password just by watching the movement of a device. They had 70 per cent accuracy on the first guess, and 100 per cent by the fifth.
And there appears to be no easy way of solving the issue, which could compromise the smartphones and tablets that contain much of our personal lives.
Lead author Dr Maryam Mehrnezhad, a research fellow in the School of Computing Science, said: "Most smartphones, tablets, and other wearables are now equipped with a multitude of sensors, from the well-known GPS, camera and microphone to instruments such as the gyroscope, rotation sensors and accelerometer.
"But because mobile apps and websites don't need to ask permission to access most of them, malicious programs can covertly 'listen in' on your sensor data and use it to discover a wide range of sensitive information about you such as phone call timing, physical activities and even your touch actions, PINs and passwords."
The sensors needed are in most phones. But there is no uniform way of managing them, and so no easy way to solve them, according to the findings in the International Journal of Information Security.
Dr Mehrnezhad said: "More worryingly on some browsers we found that if you open a page on your phone or tablet which hosts one of these malicious codes and then open, for example, your online banking account without closing the previous tab, then they can spy on every personal detail you enter.
"And worse still, in some cases, unless you close them down completely, they can even spy on you when your phone is locked.
"Despite the very real risks, when we asked people which sensors they were most concerned about we found a direct correlation between perceived risk and understanding.
"So people were far more concerned about the camera and GPS than they were about the silent sensors."
All of the major browser providers, like Google and Apple, have been informed of the problem, the researchers said. But none has been able to come up with  a way of keeping passwords secure.

Independent

Monday, April 10, 2017

U.S. to hold accountable those who commit crimes against 'innocents' - Reuters

U.S. to hold accountable those who commit crimes against 'innocents'
Monday, April 10
By Crispian Balmer and Steve Scherer | LUCCA, ITALY
The United States will hold responsible anyone who commits crimes against humanity, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Monday, days after the U.S. military unexpectedly attacked Syria.
Tillerson is in Italy for a meeting of foreign ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) major industrialized nations, with his counterparts from Europe and Japan eager for clarity from Washington on numerous diplomatic issues, especially Syria.
Before the April 7 missile strikes on a Syrian airbase, U.S. President Donald Trump had indicated he would be less interventionist than his predecessors and willing to overlook human rights abuses if it was in U.S. interests.
But Tillerson said the United States would not let such crimes go unchallenged. "We rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world," he told reporters while commemorating a 1944 German Nazi massacre in Sant'Anna di Stazzema.
Trump ordered his military to strike Syria in retaliation for what the United States said was a chemical weapons attack by President Bashar al-Assad's forces which killed scores of civilians, including many children.
European ministers are eager to hear whether Washington is now committed to overthrowing Assad, who is backed by Russia. They also want the United States to put pressure on Moscow to distance itself from Assad.
By Crispian Balmer and Steve Scherer | LUCCA, ITALY
The United States will hold responsible anyone who commits crimes against humanity, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said on Monday, days after the U.S. military unexpectedly attacked Syria.
Tillerson is in Italy for a meeting of foreign ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) major industrialized nations, with his counterparts from Europe and Japan eager for clarity from Washington on numerous diplomatic issues, especially Syria.
Before the April 7 missile strikes on a Syrian airbase, U.S. President Donald Trump had indicated he would be less interventionist than his predecessors and willing to overlook human rights abuses if it was in U.S. interests.
But Tillerson said the United States would not let such crimes go unchallenged. "We rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world," he told reporters while commemorating a 1944 German Nazi massacre in Sant'Anna di Stazzema.
Trump ordered his military to strike Syria in retaliation for what the United States said was a chemical weapons attack by President Bashar al-Assad's forces which killed scores of civilians, including many children.
European ministers are eager to hear whether Washington is now committed to overthrowing Assad, who is backed by Russia. They also want the United States to put pressure on Moscow to distance itself from Assad.
Tillerson, who travels to Russia after the two-day G7 gathering, said at the weekend that the defeat of Islamic State remained the U.S. priority, while the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said that "regime change" in Syria was also a priority for Trump.
The mixed messages have confused and frustrated European allies, who are eager for full U.S. support for a political solution based on a transfer of power in Damascus.
"The Americans say they agree, but there's nothing to show for it behind (the scenes). They are absent from this and are navigating aimlessly in the dark," said a senior European diplomat, who declined to be named.
Italy, Germany, France and Britain have invited foreign ministers from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Qatar to sit down with the G7 group on Tuesday morning to discuss Syria. All oppose Assad's rule.

SENSITIVE ISSUES
The foreign ministers' discussions in Tuscany will prepare the way for a leaders' summit in Sicily at the end of May.
Efforts to reach an agreement on statements ahead of time - a normal part of pre-meeting G7 diplomacy - have moved very slowly, partly because of a difficult transition at the U.S. state department, where many key positions remain unfilled.
Some issues, such as trade and climate change, are likely to be ducked this week. "The more complicated subjects will be left to the leaders," said an Italian diplomat, who declined to be named because he was not authorized to speak to the press.
However, the foreign ministers will talk about growing tensions with North Korea, as the United States moves a navy strike group near the Korean peninsula amid concerns over Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions.
They will also discuss Libya. Italy is hoping for vocal support for a United Nations-backed government in Tripoli which has struggled to establish its authority even in the city, let alone in the rest of the violence-plagued north African country.
The Trump administration has not yet defined a clear policy and Rome fears Washington may fall into step with Egypt and Russia, which support general Khalifa Haftar, a powerful figure in eastern Libya.
The struggle against terrorism, relations with Iran and instability in Ukraine will also come up for discussion, with talks due to kick off at 4.30 p.m. (10.30 a.m. ET) on Monday.

(Reporting by Crispian Balmer and Steve Scherer; editing by Andrew Roche)

U.S. Reroutes Warships Toward Korean Peninsula in Show of Force - New York Times

U.S. Reroutes Warships Toward Korean Peninsula in Show of Force

By ERIC SCHMITT
APRIL 9, 2017
WASHINGTON — The commander of American forces in the Pacific has ordered an aircraft carrier and several other warships toward the Korean Peninsula in a show of force by the Trump administration just days after North Korea tested another intermediate-range missile.
The officer, Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., the head of the military’s Pacific Command, diverted the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson and its wing of fighter jets from a planned series of exercises and port calls in Australia, the command said in a statement. The Vinson and three guided-missile destroyers and cruisers steamed out of Singapore on Saturday for their new mission in the Western Pacific.
Rerouting the naval armada is President Trump’s latest escalation in force against a potential adversary. Mr. Trump ordered a cruise missile strike last week against a Syrian military air base in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government that killed scores of civilians.
At a meeting last week at Mr. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, he joined with President Xi Jinping of China in warning of the increasing menace posed by North Korea’s advancing nuclear weapons program. Asked on Sunday why the Navy ships were being redirected toward the Korean Peninsula, the president’s national security adviser, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, said it was a “prudent” step to take.
“North Korea has been engaged in a pattern of provocative behavior,” General McMaster said on “Fox News Sunday.” “This is a rogue regime that is now a nuclear-capable regime. The president has asked to be prepared to give him a full range of options to remove that threat to the American people and to our allies and partners in the region.”
The White House said in a statement on Sunday that Mr. Trump had spoken to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan the day before on many issues, including the North Korean nuclear threat.
Military and intelligence officials said the timing of the ship movements was also intended to anticipate a milestone event coming up on the Korean Peninsula: the anniversary on Saturday of the birth of Kim Il-sung, North Korea’s founder and the grandfather of the country’s current leader, Kim Jong-un. North Korea has a history of testing missiles and generally taking provocative actions during such events.
By dispatching the Vinson, the United States is signaling to the North Koreans that even as it focuses on Syria, it has not forgotten about them.
Administration officials said the strike by 59 cruise missiles on Syria might have strengthened Mr. Trump’s hand as he called on the Chinese to put more pressure on North Korea. Although officials noted that North Korea poses different, and in some ways more daunting, challenges than Syria, the parallel of a rogue government that possesses weapons of mass destruction was not lost on the Chinese.
Mr. Xi told Mr. Trump during their meetings at Mar-a-Lago that he agreed that the threat posed by North Korea had reached a “very serious stage,” Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson said.
Speaking on Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Mr. Tillerson expanded on what the rest of the world should take away from the missile strikes in Syria: “The message that any nation can take is if you violate international norms, if you violate international agreements, if you fail to live up to commitments, if you become a threat to others, at some point, a response is likely to be undertaken.”
Mr. Tillerson continued: “In terms of North Korea, we have been very clear that our objective is a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. We have no objective to change the regime in North Korea; that is not our objective.”
North Korea, however, has stepped up its provocations. A day before Mr. Trump met with Mr. Xi, Pyongyang tested an intermediate-range ballistic missile. South Korean and American specialists said the missile tested on Wednesday, which the South Korean military said flew a mere 37 miles, was probably a modified version of either the Scud-ER or Pukguksong-2, or perhaps a new missile — even an early version of an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Analysts have said that as North Korea was developing its first submarine-launched ballistic missile last year, it accumulated technology incrementally, with a series of tests in which projectiles flew only short distances or exploded soon after launching.
The United States has been conducting an electronic and cyberwarfare campaign aimed at sabotaging Pyongyang’s missile tests in their opening seconds. But it was impossible to determine whether that program affected the launch last week.
Asked how close North Korea was to developing a weapon that could reach the United States, Mr. Tillerson said on ABC: “The assessments are, obviously, somewhat difficult, but clearly, he has made significant advancements in delivery systems. And that is what concerns us the most.”
Mr. Tillerson added: “The sophistication around their rocket launch programs, their sophistication around the type of fueling that they use, and they’re working their way towards the test of an intercontinental ballistic missile. And these are the kinds of progress that give us the greatest concerns.”
Before the summit meeting last week, Mr. Trump sought to increase pressure on China, saying that it was time for Beijing to rein in its Communist ally. In an interview with The Financial Times published on April 2, he said, “If China is not going to solve North Korea, we will.” But he did not say how.
In the meetings between Mr. Xi and Mr. Trump, the Chinese made no new offers about how to deal with Mr. Kim’s government, according to an American official.
Michael R. Gordon contributed reporting.

Why I can no longer get behind a President I admired for so long - Independent

For so long I thought Donald Trump could do no wrong – but he's lost my support after these Syrian air strikes
Why I can no longer get behind a President I admired for so long
* Max Benwell
* @max_benwell
I first began to support Donald Trump when he forced Barack Obama to release his birth certificate in 2011. It was groundbreaking – no other sitting president had ever been made to do it. But then again, Obama was like no other president.
But with the air strikes in Syria, everything has changed. Trump isn't the president I thought he was. I just wish I had the chance to realise my mistake sooner.
Before he entered the White House, Trump had been accused of ripping off business partners, discriminating against ethnic minorities, and defrauding students. He had also declared corporate bankruptcy several times, and oversaw the financial collapse of multiple casinos.
So you can imagine my excitement five years later when he launched his presidential campaign and, in his first mesmerising speech, called Mexican people rapists.
I thought I’d always support Trump. I was with him when he called Rosie O’Donnell a "fat pig" and said Heidi Klum was “no longer a 10”. I didn’t have a problem when he suggested a female interviewer was on her period because she asked him tough questions. I was fine when he told people to watch a woman’s sex tape, even though it didn’t exist.
I wasn't going to stop supporting Trump just because he mocked a disabled reporter on stage. What am I, a snowflake? And I was ok when he said Obama founded Isis, and suggested that someone should assassinate Hillary Clinton. This is politics, after all.
Trump has been a president of firsts. He was the first president to call for a foreign adversary to hack an opponent’s emails. The first to call for a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the country. The first to compare America to Putin’s Russia, which murders journalists and opposition leaders. And the first to attack the grieving parents of a Muslim American soldier who died saving his unit.
The world needs someone who can get stuff done, and Trump has shown he can do anything, to anyone – whether it’s a female contestant on The Apprentice, a female contestant on Miss Universe, a female producer, or a female colleague – according to the women who have accused him.
That said, I didn’t like it when Trump was caught boasting about sexually assaulting women. His "grab them by the pussy" remarks concerned me, not just because I have a mother, but a sister too. I respect and love women. However, I still supported him because he wasn’t Hillary Clinton. When I heard she had used a private email server, I don't think I've ever been as shocked in my life. She is truly, a "nasty woman".
When Trump became president, my loyal support only grew. I didn’t mind when he lied about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. He had my full support when he falsely claimed Obama wiretapped him. And when he recently defended Bill O'Reilly, who has been accused of sexual harassment by multiple women, I saw no wrong at all.
No matter what he did, I had the President's back. But last night’s air strike in Syria changed everything. For me, it was the first – and final – straw.
Everyone has their own personal principles. Your "red lines", so to speak. Mine are as follows: you can do whatever you want. You can ban all refugees coming to America. You can try to cut healthcare benefits that keep millions of Americans alive, and roll back the regulations designed to protect millions from climate change. You can be sexist, racist and brag about sexually assaulting women. But don't bomb an airfield used by a dictator for attacks on his own people. How can you support someone after that?
I thought he was going to be great. But in the end, he disappointed us all, and after showing so much promise. He crossed a line. And that’s why I can no longer support Donald Trump.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

This Is Why Australia Hasn't Had a Recession in Over 25 Years - Bloomberg

This Is Why Australia Hasn't Had a Recession in Over 25 Years

Australia is close to seizing the global crown for the longest streak of economic growth thanks to a mixture of policy guile and outrageous fortune. But the nation is creaking under the weight of its own success.
While growth is being underpinned by population gains and resource exports to China, failure to spur productivity has meant stagnant living standards and electoral discontent; a property bubble fueled by record-low interest rates has driven household debt to levels that threaten financial stability; and a timid government facing political gridlock could lose the nation’s prized AAA rating as early as May because of spiraling budget deficits.
Australia’s last recession -- defined locally as two straight quarters of contraction -- occurred in 1991 and was a devastating conclusion to eight years of reform designed to create an open, flexible and competitive economy. But it also proved cathartic, paving the way for a low-inflation, productivity-driven expansion.
As momentum started waning, China’s re-emergence as a pre-eminent global economic power sent demand for Australian resources skyrocketing, helping shield the nation from the worst of the global financial crisis. But the post-crisis return of the boom proved ephemeral, failing to boost government coffers and pushing the local currency higher, eroding competitiveness and driving another nail into the coffin of a fading manufacturing sector.
“There’s no country on Earth that’s derived more benefit from the rapid growth
and industrialization of China over the last 30-odd years than Australia,” said Saul Eslake, an independent economist who’s covered Australia for over three decades. “After the end of the mining-investment boom, high immigration is helping us avoid a statistical recession, but it’s also contributing to other problems” like soaring property prices and household debt.
Outside post-war Japan, the modern economic growth record is held by the Netherlands, stretching from 1980 to 2008 and fueled by the discovery of North Sea oil. Ian Harper, an economist who sits on the board of the Reserve Bank of Australia, says the nation’s two key drivers are best summed up by how it coped following the collapse of Lehman Brothers Inc. -- the crisis that saw the Netherlands finally succumb to recession.
“We benefited from the Chinese stimulus, we benefited from the exchange rate being allowed to depreciate, we benefited from direct intervention in the financial markets, we benefited from government spending,” said Harper. “That’s good management and good luck.”
Australia also didn’t have a huge jobless spike -- as in 1991 -- that would’ve precipitated housing foreclosures and threatened the banks. “Had housing prices collapsed we would’ve been in much deeper doo-doo,” said Harper.
It was very different almost 30 years ago. Australia was a basket case, with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew warning it risked becoming “the poor white trash of Asia.”
A 17-year stretch of reform driven by Labor titans Bob Hawke and Paul Keating ensued. Starting with the currency’s free float in 1983, it included financial deregulation, tax reform, slashing tariffs, ending centralized wage fixing and creating a private pension system. When Labor lost office in 1996, Liberal leader John Howard took up the cudgels, making the RBA officially independent, returning the budget to surplus and liberalizing labor laws. The introduction of a goods and services tax in 2000 was the last major successful reform.
From then on, Howard would turn fiscally flippant as cash rained from the China-driven spike in commodity prices, allowing him to spend hard while keeping the budget in surplus.
The Labor government that succeeded Howard in late 2007 was widely hailed for its response to the global financial crisis a year later, steered by Treasury officials whose anti-crisis program was forged in the fires of 1991: get cash directly to households to spend and maintain confidence. Yet from that success, Labor would stumble on climate policy and then vacate the policy field altogether.
The current Liberal government has followed suit: avoiding tough decisions for fear of electoral backlash, then being pilloried for failing to tackle problems like a budget deficit that both sides have promised to fix since 2010. As a result, ratings agencies are now circling Australia’s top credit score ahead of the treasurer’s next budget in May.
The nation has seen four changes of prime minister since 2010 -- compared with just three leaders from early 1983 to late 2007 -- raising questions about whether its politics can still produce reformist administrations. But this has happened before. Australia had five leaders between 1966 and 1972 after just three between 1941 and 1966. Simply put, following periods of dominant leadership, the system takes some time to rebalance.
In the economy, time is less forgiving. A record-low 1.5 percent cash rate designed to steer Australia from mining investment back toward services is creating problems of its own. Sydney house prices have more than doubled since 2009 and Melbourne’s have also soared, sending private debt to a record 187 percent of income. The RBA frets that anemic wage growth will force heavily indebted households to slash consumption, which could prove disastrous given their spending accounts for more than half of gross domestic product.
Australia’s banking regulator further tightened lending curbs Friday to try to cool investor demand for residential property that’s helped drive up prices. Data released hours later showed investor lending increased 6.7 percent in February from a year earlier, the fastest growth in 12 months.
While China’s demand for resources should keep Australia’s growth ticking over for many years yet, much of the spoils are going to overseas investors now that the mining boom’s investment phase is done. As iron ore prices surged from 2004 in response to Chinese steel demand, cash poured into new Western Australian mines and, together with associated industries, mining employed about 10 percent of the workforce.
Australia has since become the developed world’s most dependent economy on China, which buys a third of its exports, compared with just 2 percent back in 1991. But iron ore prices have more than halved since 2011, when the local dollar hit a post-float record of $1.10. The Aussie would hover at or above parity with the greenback for the next two years.
The currency’s strength then saw off the car industry: two of the three manufacturers in 2013 said they were quitting Australia, with the last following suit the next year. While the currency would eventually retreat to the 70s, the damage had been done. Worse still, the trillion-dollar windfall from the boom had been spent, not saved, leaving no cash to plug yawning budget deficits or build much-needed infrastructure for an expanding population that would also support growth.
So while Australia’s ability to avoid recession is lauded, it’s also been argued it missed the cleansing fires of a slump to shake out areas of excess such as housing. Serious casualties of 2008 such as the U.S. and U.K. are now at or near full employment and growing robustly having cleared out their dead wood.
RBA’s Harper disagrees. Economists, at least since John Maynard Keynes, have been “raised on a steady diet of stabilization policy” because its alternative is “extremely destructive” due to the indiscriminate nature of recessions, he says.
“Central banks have published data -- well look at Andy Haldane’s work at the Bank of England -- just estimating the economic cost of downturns, particularly financial market collapses relative to the cost of intervention,” he said. “And you pretty soon see that this is a good bargain, being stabilized.”
There’s also debate on consecutive quarters of contraction as a definition of recession. Eslake says his preferred measure is whether unemployment has risen by 1.5 percentage points or more in 18 months or less. “It doesn’t really give any false signals,” he says of his measure, which occurred in Australia during the financial crisis.
Head Start
In truth, Australia pretty much has a healthy starting point of 2.5 percent expansion each year: about 1.5 percent from population growth and 1 percent from increased resource-export volumes due to the mining investment.
Australia’s then-Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson highlighted the approaching growth record in a 2014 speech, when he put the Netherlands’ expansion at 26.5 years. That’s one year away from where Australia stands now. However, OECD data shows the Dutch grew from the fourth quarter of 1980 through the second quarter of 2008, or 27 and 3/4 years.
Eslake has crunched his own numbers and found that once OECD data is taken to two decimal points, the Netherlands had a technical recession in 2003 and so is already behind Australia. His analysis also has the Dutch tying with Austria, and includes Taiwan.
As for Australia’s recession risk, slumps have traditionally come from the RBA slamming on the brakes to try to rein in inflation -- as before 1991 when interest rates hit 18 percent. Given low wage growth and weak inflation, that seems less likely now.
Bob Gregory, a professor at Australian National University in Canberra who specializes in the labor market and has studied the economy for almost half a century, shares Eslake’s skepticism about two negative quarters to define recession. He instead focuses on full-time employment as a share of population, a measure which has been sliding markedly.
“What’s happening in Australia now is a long, drawn out, sort of slow recession,” said Gregory, who was on the RBA board from 1985 to 1995. “Nothing dramatic is happening, but each year it’s not quite so good as it was the year before.”

U.S. to Move Carrier Strike Group Closer to Korean Peninsula - NBC News

NEWS APR 9 2017, 12:25 AM ET
U.S. to Move Carrier Strike Group Closer to Korean Peninsula
by COURTNEY KUBE  and PHIL HELSEL
The U.S. military has ordered an aircraft carrier group to move closer to the Korean Peninsula in response to recent provocations by North Korea, a U.S. defense official said Saturday.
Adm. Harry Harris ordered the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group to travel north from Singapore to the Western Pacific Ocean, Pacific Command said in a news release.
The U.S. official said the strike group will provide a show of presence in the region. North Korea since March has twice carried out ballistic missile tests in defiance of United Nations resolutions. North Korea has conducted five suspected nuclear tests, including two last year.
Dave Benham, a spokesman for U.S. Pacific Command, said moving the carrier strike group was a "prudent measure to maintain readiness and presence in the Western Pacific."
"The number one threat in the region continues to be North Korea, due to its reckless, irresponsible, and destabilizing program of missile tests and pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability," Benham said.
Related: Trump's Options for North Korea Include Placing Nukes in South Korea
The move comes after U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced a change in approach to curb North Korea's ambitions for its weapons programs.
In South Korea last month, Tillerson said "the policy of strategic patience has ended." He said military option is on the table if the North Korea elevates the threat of its weapons program.
The decision to move the carrier group also comes days after the United States launched a Tomahawk missile strikeagainst a Syrian government airbase in response to a chemical weapon attack allegedly carried out by the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in that country's civil war.
The Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group will leave Singapore and head to the Western Pacific Ocean, the Pacific Command said.
The strike group includes a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier, aircraft, two guided missile destroyers and a guided missile cruiser, the military said. It deployed around 7,500 sailors when it left port in San Diego on Jan. 5. The strike group has participated in numerous exercises with Japan's Maritime Self Defense Force and the South Korean navy, the military said.

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Now Donald Trump Must Fight The War He Isn't Ready For - Huffington Post

Now Donald Trump Must Fight The War He Isn't Ready For
He needs a Syrian strategy fast from his understaffed Defense and State departments.
At 4:40 a.m. local time Friday in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, Donald Trump became a war president.
On his order, 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles blasted off the destroyers USS Ross and USS Porter, arced over the Syrian coastline and headed 40 miles inland. The 20-foot-long missiles skimmed over the landscape at 550 mph. As they approached the Shayrat airfield, home to Syria’s 50th Air Brigade, guidance systems pinpointed each target: The missiles carrying 1,000-pound high explosive warheads went for the two main runways, underground bunkers and hardened shelters. Other Tomahawks armed with warheads each carrying 166 lethal bomblets destroyed aircraft, fuel and ammunition depots, and other “soft” targets with red-hot jagged shrapnel and concussive force.
It was a highly technical and tightly coordinated operation, for which the military has long planned and practiced, and it appears to have been carried out flawlessly.
But giving the nod to one $94 million missile strike bought Trump far more than a presidential moment at a temporary lecturn at Mar-a-Lago, where he announced the attack Thursday night. He seemed to have a premonition that things would change earlier in the week when he acknowledged, “I now have responsibility” for Syria.

Now he really does. What comes next is the difficult and perhaps impossible job of managing the rest of this war, a conflict that has killed at least 470,000 people over six years, including 55,000 children. Syrian President Bashar Assad battles bands of murderous and heavily armed fighters, backed by Russia and Iran, as well as dwindling ranks of “moderate” rebels supported by the United States in an uneasy coalition with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others.
The horrendous chemical attack by Syrian government forces on Tuesday caught the Trump administration ill-prepared. Candidate Trump had campaigned on an “America First!” commitment to keeping the United States far away from nasty foreign conflicts. As a result, there is no obvious public support for deepening the American military role in Syria with additional ground troops. The effort to train and equip enough regional forces to topple the Assad regime has failed. The Trump White House has no strategy to direct its next military steps and lacks the senior staffs at the Pentagon and State Department critical to devising new war management plans. At the Defense Department, in particular, only one of 53 key civilian officials ― Secretary Jim Mattis himself ― has been nominated and confirmed and is at work.

While candidate Trump boasted of having a secret plan to “destroy ISIS,” the radical Islamist militia fighting in Iraq and Syria, President Trump has given no sign of having such a plan. And yet now he’s offered a direct challenge to Assad’s regime. For all the world to see, the U.S. just pivoted from fighting ISIS to taking on Assad and his allies, Russia and Iran. Last week, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson remarked that it was up to “the Syrian people” to decide Assad’s fate. On Thursday, he declared that the way forward in Syria required “an international community effort” that “would lead to Assad leaving.”
That change in goals is causing considerable angst in Washington.
“We now need a comprehensive strategy with clearly-defined purpose and objectives for how we achieve our national security goals in Syria and the region,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) said in a statement Friday. “We can’t pour resources and risk the lives of our troops in a new military conflict without a clear and comprehensive strategy and full consideration of the long-term ramifications,” Rep. Elizabeth Esty (D-Conn.) agreed. “The consequences of a misstep are grave,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).
As in most national security crises, there isn’t much time. Tillerson heads to Moscow next week for critical meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Assad’s strongest political and military ally. Putin’s initial reaction to the U.S. airstrikes was mild. He temporarily suspended participation in a communications link that enables U.S. and Russian air controllers to avoid potential air collisions over Syria. Presumably, he too is watching for Trump’s next steps.
A clear-cut, thoughtful and practical strategy for Syria would have to consider to what degree Washington will now treat Moscow as a diplomatic colleague or a military foe in Syria; whether more U.S. airstrikes will help or hurt diplomatic initiatives to work toward a ceasefire; whether additional U.S. airstrikes or ground troops, beyond the roughly 800 Americans already deployed in Syria, are committed; and how to avoid clashes with Russian aircraft and ground troops already operating there.
Among the purely military options, for instance, is setting up “safe zones” for refugees inside Syria ― an idea that candidate Trump supported. But planning for safe zones has foundered on issues such as what forces would guard these zones on a daily basis, how to sort out actual civilian refugees from suicide bombers or militia fighters, and which combat troops would defend the zones from a concerted regime attack backed by Russian and Iranian forces.
All that is difficult enough. But the non-military aspects of the situation are more challenging.
“Much more of the heavy lifting is about the diplomatic piece than the military piece,” Christine Wormuth, senior Pentagon official for strategy and plans during the Obama administration, told The Huffington Post. “All the factors that were in place during the Obama administration that made finding a solution to this terrible conflict so difficult remain in place today,” she said.
Managing opponents like Russia and Iran, while keeping friendly allies in line, will demand extraordinary diplomatic finesse, Wormuth said. That’s without even addressing the question of who would govern Syria post-Assad. Not to mention the job of helping rebuild the country after the war.
Syria is “a horrible, intractable mess,” Wormuth said.
The Trump administration will find the new fight it launched with the Tomahawks “considerably harder” to wage without a full supporting staff, she warned.
The secretary of state, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the national security adviser “are working 24/7, I’m sure, but they can’t do everything,” Wormuth said. “They need senior lieutenants to carry out some of this.”


North Korean Defector Tells Lester Holt ‘World Should Be Ready’ - NBC News

EXCLUSIVE NEWS APR 3 2017, 7:01 AM ET
North Korean Defector Tells Lester Holt ‘World Should Be Ready’
by LESTER HOLT  and ALEXANDER SMITH

SEOUL, South Korea — A senior North Korean defector has told NBC News that the country's "desperate" dictator is prepared to use nuclear weapons to strike the United States and its allies.
Thae Yong Ho is the most high profile North Korean defector in two decades, meaning he is able to give a rare insight into the secretive, authoritarian regime.
According to Thae, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un is "desperate in maintaining his rule by relying on his [development of] nuclear weapons and ICBM." He was using an acronym for intercontinental ballistic missiles — a long range rocket that in theory would be capable of hitting the U.S.
"Once he sees that there is any kind of sign of a tank or an imminent threat from America, then he would use his nuclear weapons with ICBM," he added in an exclusive interview on Sunday.
Thae was living in London and serving as North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Kingdom when he and his family defected to South Korea and were announced to the world in August.
He was not directly involved in North Korea's weapons program but believes his country "has reached a very significant level of nuclear development."
North Korea is estimated to have upward of eight nuclear weapons but has not demonstrated the ability to attach them to a long-range rocket, an ICBM, capable of hitting the U.S.
Analysts are unsure exactly how close the regime is to achieving this aim, but a senior official told NBC News in Januarythat his government was ready to test-fire an ICMB "at any time, at any place."
Adm. Scott Swift, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, told NBC News that American officials were particularly troubled by this latest threat.
"They have the nuclear capability — they've demonstrated that," he said. "And then, where they're going with the miniaturization of that, whether they can actually weaponize a missile, that's what's driving the current concern."
Thae's interview with NBC News comes against a backdrop of rising tensions surrounding North Korea, which has significantly increased its missile and nuclear tests under Kim's rule.
President Donald Trump told the Financial Times newspaper on Mondaythat "something had to be done" about North Korea. This came after Defense Secretary James Mattis said the country "has got to be stopped" and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said military action was "on the table."
"It does feel more dangerous — I'll give you three reasons," according to Adm. James Stavridis, an NBC News analyst and dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Massachusetts. "One is [Kim's] own precarious situation in command of the nation. Number two is the instability in South Korea. We've just seen the South Korean president indicted, arrested, and incarcerated."
"And, number three, a new and more aggressive American foreign policy coming from Washington," he added.
Some analysts have warned that military action against the country might be very difficult and even disastrous. An invasion could risk a retaliatory strike against U.S. allies of Japan and South Korea, whose capital, Seoul, is just 50 miles from the border.
Nonetheless, Thae warned America and its allies to be prepared.
"If Kim Jong Un has nuclear weapons and ICBMs, he can do anything," he said. "So, I think the world should be ready to deal with this kind of person."
He added that "Kim Jong Un is a man who can do anything beyond the normal imagination" and that "the final and the real solution to the North Korean nuclear issue is to eliminate Kim Jong Un from the post."
Kim came to power in 2012 and has defined his strongman premiership by the pursuit of a nuclear weapon that can hit the U.S. He has conducted more missile tests than in the rest of the country's history combined, and three of North Korea's five nuclear tests came under his watch.
According to Thae, Kim is obsessed with obtaining nukes because he saw what happened to Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, both of whom abandoned their countries' weapons of mass destruction programs and then were overthrown by Western-backed forces.
Many analysts agree that Kim sees a nuclear weapon — and the retaliatory threat it poses — as an insurance policy against a similar strategy being pursued against him.
"That's why Kim Jong Un strongly believes that only a nuclear weapon can guarantee his rule," Thae said.
According to the former diplomat, the world should look to Kim's past actions to see what he is capable of. The young leader has reportedly been responsible for purges and executions of top officials and even members of his own family.
Last month, according to U.S. and South Korean intelligence officials, he masterminded the assassination of his own half-brother, Kim Jong Nam, at an airport in Malaysia.
"Kim Jong Un is a person who did not even hesitate to kill his uncle and a few weeks ago, even his half-brother," Thae said. "So, he is a man who can do anything to remove [anyone in] his way."
Since his defection Thae has been making media appearances and giving talks denouncing North Korea's controlling and often brutal society. For this reason he believes he could be the next victim.
"I am already a marked man," he said. "Kim Jong Un wants to eliminate any person or any country which poses a threat to him. And I think I am really a great threat to him."
Thae was the highest-ranking North Korean official to abandon the regime and enter public life in South Korea since the 1997 defection of Hwang Jang Yop, who was responsible for crafting "Juche" — North Korea's state ideology, which blends elements of Marxism with ultra-nationalism.
He made the decision to switch sides, he said, after his two sons began asking questions about why North Korea did not allow the internet, why there was no proper legal system and why officials were executed without trial.
His sons also complained they were being mocked by their British friends.
"All of my family members were a little bit frightened, you know, on that day," he said of the moment he decided to escape. "But I always told them that we have to try to be as peaceful as possible. We should carry the normal faces and normal feelings so that our plan of defection should not be noticed by anyone in the embassy."
This came at a high price, however. He was able to escape with his wife and children — but he fears his brother and sister in North Korea have been punished for his actions.
"Our freedom here is achieved at the cost of the sacrifice of my family members left in North Korea," he said. "When a defection of my level happens, the North Korean regime usually sends the family members of high officials, defectors, to remote areas or labor camps and, to some extent, even to political prison camps as well."
This fate is not unique. More than 100,000 people are believed to have been detained in North Korea's notorious gulags, where they are subjected to forced labor, torture and executions — treatment the United Nations said was "strikingly similar" to the atrocities of Nazi Germany.
Families are taken away by the country's secret police for arbitrary crimes such as "gossiping" about the state.
This is all part of the dictatorship's attempt to restrict information reaching North Korean families from the outside world. Most people cannot use the internet or access foreign media — Kim's attempt to maintain the pretense that his country is prosperous and the Western world is failing.
In all, North Korea "remains one of the most repressive states in the world," according to Human Rights Watch.
But according to Thae, the mask is slipping. More and more, North Koreans are able to watch South Korean films, giving them a true picture of their far more prosperous neighbor.
"I'm absolutely sure that once North Korean people are educated enough, then they may stand up," according to the former ambassador. "North Korean population now knows well that South Korea is democratic, the society and economy here are very well."
This, Thae said, "has already made the North Korean population not believe what the regime has been teaching and has been brainwashing them."
He added: "I think this is really a great change in people's mind, because they do not believe in the government's propaganda system."
In this shift may even lie the seeds of fundamental change in North Korea, according to Thae.
"I think that is very important. And once the people do not believe in what the leadership is saying, then there is a great possibility for possible uprising: what happened in Soviet Union, what happened in communist system in Eastern Europe," he said.
"Because when the people in those Eastern European countries knew that the Western Europe were much better than Eastern Europe — the democratic society was much better than communist society and one-party system — all of a sudden people stood up against the system," he added. "These things could also happen in North Korea."
Thae said that he and other defectors can play a crucial part removing Kim.
"Every day I am living in order to accelerate the speed of my return home," he said. "I think defectors like me, we should all unite together to bring down Kim Jong Un's regime."

Donald Trump's biggest fans desert him over Syria air strikes - Independent

Donald Trump's biggest fans desert him over Syria air strikes
The decision to launch air strikes on Syria marks a major U-turn from the president's previous policies
* Andrew Griffin
* @_andrew_griffin
* Friday 7 April 2017
In what was a quick and extreme U-turn from previous positions, Mr Trump ordered US missile launches at an air base in the country, in response to a chemical weapons attack. It represented a break from many of Mr Trump’s campaign positions, primarily a promise that he would focus on “America first” and oppose intervention elsewhere in the world.
That has led supporters to abandon the president, saying they would no longer support or vote for Mr Trump. Many accused him of conducting the same policies that would have been instituted by Hillary Clinton, while others suggested that he had lied or was having his decisions made by other parts of the US state.
“I guess Trump wasn’t ‘Putin’s puppet’ after all, he was just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet,” wrote Paul Joseph Watson, a British vlogger who works at Alex Jones’s Infowars website. “I’m officially OFF the Trump train.”
Mr Watson said that he would instead divert his attention to Marine Le Pen, the French far-right politician who he said “tried to warn Trump against this disaster”. He then sent another tweet directly to Mr Trump that read: “Americans didn’t vote for you to intensify Hillary’s disastrous foreign policy” and included a link to one of Ms Clinton’s speeches.
Cassandra Fairbanks, a prominent Trump supporter and online activist, also said that she might stop supporting Mr Trump. She said that she was “trying to remain hopeful”, but that “this is too far”.
“I am devastated,” she wrote. “This isn’t who we voted for.”
Many other less prominent Twitter users scalded Mr Trump for having opposed intervention in the past and now having committed to it. They suggested that Mr Trump was in fact in the service of what they see as the “deep state”, and wasn’t the anti-establishment figure that he portrayed himself as during the election.
Former Ukip leader Nigel Farage, who has been one of Mr Trump’s most prominent cheerleaders since his election, suggested that the decision to support intervention was a concern.
Mr Trump had suggested in old tweets that he thought attacking Syria would be a move a president would make when they were losing support. He said that Mr Obama was only considering launching similar attacks because his polling numbers were low – though his approval ratings were higher than Mr Trump's now historically low numbers.
Others pointed to old tweets from Mr Trump’s supporters, including Sean Hannity. He had criticised Obama for playing golf after suggesting air strikes on Syria – a criticism that is now being made of Mr Trump.
Mr Trump said that he decided to launch the air strikes after seeing horrifying videos and images from the aftermath of the chemical attack in Syria. At least 80 people were killed in that incident, including many children.
“Tonight I call on all civilised nations to join us in seeking to end this slaughter and bloodshed in Syria and also to end terrorism of all kinds and all types,” Mr Trump said in a press conference announcing the air strikes.

Friday, April 7, 2017

Clinton called for strikes against Syrian airfields - ABC News

Clinton called for strikes against Syrian airfields
* By ADAM KELSEY
Apr 6, 2017, 7:44 PM ET

Hours before the U.S. launched airstrikes against Syria, former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clintonspoke out Thursday about how she would respond to Tuesday's chemical attack in Syria, promoting U.S. action to prevent further attacks with civilian casualties.
Speaking at the Women in the World summit in New York City, Clinton said that the U.S. "should have been more willing to confront [Syrian President Bashar al-Assad]," before Russia got involved in the country's civil war and with Iran's participation limited to ground-based assistance.

White House, Pentagon discussing possible military action against Syria; Assad's future uncertain


Sarin gas used in Syria chemical attack, Turkey's health ministry says


"Assad had an air force and that air force is the cause of most of the civilian deaths as we’ve seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days," said Clinton. "I really believe we should have and still should take out his airfields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them."
ABC News' Liz Kreutz contributed to this report.

Darth Vader was on Air Force One's TV as President Trump moved to bomb Syria - Independent

Darth Vader was on Air Force One's TV as President Trump moved to bomb Syria
* Christopher Hooton
* @christophhooton
* Friday 7 April 2017 11:13 BST


A photo has been taken on Air Force One of President Donald Trump next to Darth Vader, with Rogue One being shown on one of the plane's screens as Trump travelled to his "Winter White House" Mar-a-Lago, where he announced a missile strike on Syria.
The POTUS spoke briefly to press, who had presumably put on the Star Wars film while waiting - an interesting choice of film which sees Vader plotting to dominate the universe with powerful superweapons.
Syrian troops were killed last night in the US missile strikes on a government airbase thought to be the source of a devastating chemical attack.
Trump ordered the firing of 59 cruise missiles, leading Russia to suspend a memorandum with the US that prevented incidents and ensured flight safety.
Under the memorandum, signed after Russia launched an air campaign in Syria in September 2015, Russia and the US had exchanged information about their flights to avoid incidents in the crowded skies over Syria - where Russia has several dozen warplanes and batteries of air-defense missiles.
A statement from the Russian Foreign Ministry read: "The very presence of US troops and other countries on the territory of Syria, without the consent of the Government or the decision of the UN Security Council is a gross, obvious and unwarranted violation of international law.
"If before it was due to the task of combating terrorism, now there is a clear act of aggression against a sovereign Syria. US Actions taken today further destroy the Russian-American relations."


Rupert Murdoch’s Sky takeover reportedly gets EU approval - Independent

Rupert Murdoch’s Sky takeover reportedly gets EU approval
Last month, Culture Secretary Karen Bradley said that she had concerns relating to media plurality and the combined company’s commitment to broadcasting standards
* Josie Cox Business Editor
* Friday 7 April 2017 13:17 BST
Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox has reportedly been given the green light to take over European broadcaster Sky, paving the way for the creation of a media empire that will span two continents and take on major emerging rivals.
The former struck a preliminary deal to snap up the 61 per cent of Sky that it does not already own in December last year.


The offer of £10.75 a share in cash, valuing the deal at £11.7bn, was at the time backed by Sky’s independent directors but became subject to intense scrutiny on concerns that a deal might breach competition rules.
Speaking in March, Culture Secretary Karen Bradley said that she had concerns relating to media plurality and the combined company’s commitment to broadcasting standards. The deal has been referred to regulator Ofcom.
If it goes ahead, the takeover would come five years after Mr Murdoch's last tilt at taking full control of the business through News Corporation and will likely strengthen the position of James Murdoch – who is both chief executive of Fox and chairman of Sky – in his father’s media empire.

Thursday, April 6, 2017

What to Know About Bill O’Reilly and the Sexual Harassment Allegations Against Him - People.com



Posted: 04 Apr 2017 02:59 PM PDT

Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly is under increasing fire after The New York Times reported that five women were paid a collective $13 million for agreeing not to file lawsuits or speak publicly about allegations that he harassed them. The revelations were the latest headache for Fox News, coming just months after cable network’s CEO and chairman Roger Ailes stepped down amidst similar claims.
Since the Times report over the weekend, one more woman has come forward with sexual harassment allegations against Ailes, and at least 13 advertisers have pulled ads from O’Reilly’s top-rated cable news show, The O’Reilly Factor. “We value our partners and are working with them to address their current concerns about the O’Reilly Factor,” Fox News said in a statement. The network said the canceled ad buys were shifted to other programming. 21st Century Fox has previously said O’Reilly “denies the merits of these claims.” 21st Century Fox has previously said O’Reilly “denies the merits of these claims.”

Here’s everything you need to know about the allegations and the ongoing fallout.

Who has come forward against Bill O’Reilly and what have they said?

In total, five women have said they were paid either by O’Reilly or Fox News to settle harassment allegations, The Times reports, agreeing not to pursue legal action or publicly discuss the incidents. (Two of these women had already come forward).
The women named in the Times report are Rachel Witlieb Bernstein and Andrea Mackris, who were former producers on his show, and Rebecca Gomez Diamond, Laurie Dhue, and Juliet Huddy, former on-air personalities at Fox News and Fox Business Network. All except Bernstein’s involved sexual harassment claims.
All of these women either worked with O’Reilly or appeared on his show. The settlements took place between 2002 and 2016.
Since the The Times report, another woman, Fox News contributor Julie Roginsky, has filed a harassment claim against Fox News and Ailes, but the allegations don’t involve O’Reilly.

How have Fox News and Bill O’Reilly responded?

O’Reilly’s show aired Monday night for the first time since the story broke, but he did not address the allegations. In a statement posted on his website April 1, O’Reilly wrote that his fame has made him susceptible to lawsuits, but that no complaints have ever been filed against him internally to the company’s human resources department, even anonymously.
“The worst part of my job is being a target for those who would harm me and my employer, the Fox News Channel,” O’Reilly said. Noting that he is a father who would never purposely harm his children, he continued: “Those of us in the arena are constantly at risk, as are our families and children. My primary efforts will continue to be to put forth an honest TV program and to protect those close to me.”
21st Century Fox referred PEOPLE to Fox News, which did respond to a request for comment.
In a statement to The Times on Saturday, 21st Century Fox said: “Notwithstanding the fact that no current or former Fox News employee ever took advantage of the 21st Century Fox hotline to raise a concern about Bill O’Reilly, even anonymously, we have looked into these matters over the last few months and discussed them with Mr. O’Reilly. While he denies the merits of these claims, Mr. O’Reilly has resolved those he regarded as his personal responsibility. Mr. O’Reilly is fully committed to supporting our efforts to improve the environment for all our employees at Fox News.”

What has the backlash been for O’Reilly’s show?

The number of companies pulling ads from O’Reilly’s show continues to grow. As of Tuesday evening, at least 13 companies, including BMW, Hyundai, and Mercedez-Benz had pulled advertisements from The O’Reilly Factor.
“The controversy around The O’Reilly Factor program and allegations made against Bill O’Reilly are matters that we take seriously and will continue to monitor,” a spokeswoman for the pharmaceutical company Sanofi U.S. told PEOPLE in a statement. “We do not endorse the behavior or opinions of program hosts or the content.”
Donna Boland, a spokeswoman for Mercedes-Benz USA, called the allegations “disturbing.”
“Given the importance of women in every aspect of our business, we don’t feel this is a good environment in which to advertise our products right now,” she said.
This article originally appeared on People.com