Home » Entries posted by admin (Page 172)
Students at a Hong Kong university last night sealed the exits to search for undercover police as they fortified barricades, setting the stage for another round of violent clashes. At the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, one of three barricaded by pro-democracy demonstrators, scores of students prepared for confrontation with riot police by stockpiling makeshift weapons including petrol bombs. Pictures of suspected undercover police were passed around by students and on-the-spot searches carried out amid heightened paranoia that authorities were planning to break the campus sieges that began earlier this week. The developments came as China’s President Xi Jinping warned that protests threaten Hong Kong’s “one country, two systems” principle governing the semi-autonomous city. In rare comments on the violence, Mr Xi said “stopping violence and controlling chaos while restoring order is currently Hong Kong’s most urgent task,” in comments reported across Chinese state media. Protesters make molotov cocktails while camped out at the city’s Polytechnic University Credit: AFP Protesters calling for political reform and a change in leadership again paralysed Hong Kong on Thursday, forcing schools to suspend classes, public transport to halt, and some shops to close. Protesters at Poly University were last night bedding in as an increasingly tense atmosphere fell across the campus. In the kitchen of a canteen, young protesters cracked eggs to make omelettes as others organised the washing up. “The atmosphere in the kitchen is happier, but outside in the frontline it is different,” said one of the protesters who identified himself as Mr Luk, 40. “In the kitchen, we put up a happy smile, because then the food tastes better.” He added “These kids now, they are fighting for something that our generation used to have.” “When we first got here, we didn’t even know each other. Even now, we don’t know each others names,” a protester identified as “Queen” said. “But it’s our sense of community and frustration at the government that brought us together. I guess we have to thank Carrie [Lam, the Hong Kong chief executive] for that.” Protests kicked off in June against an extradition proposal that many worried would send suspects to face unfair trials in mainland China, where the ruling Communist Party controls the courts – 99.9 per cent of cases end in conviction. Demonstrations have since taken on an anti-China bent, with protesters targeting people and businesses perceived to be pro-Beijing and thus against the protest movement. They’ve also gone after police, whom protesters meet day and night on the frontlines, as city leaders tasked the force with handling the unrest, rather than make concessions to de-escalate tensions. On Thursday, an influential state-backed Chinese newspaper tweeted saying the Hong Kong government was expected to announce a weekend curfew, later deleting it after its editors said there was “not sufficient” information to back up the report. The Hong Kong government later also dismissed the rumours, calling them “totally unfounded” in a statement. Aside from setting fire to road barricades to disrupt traffic and deter police, protesters have started burning toll booths, buses, and even people. On Monday, a masked man in black poured gasoline and lit on fire a man who was arguing on a footbridge with protesters; he remains in hospital after suffering burns to 40 per cent of his body. On Thursday, China also issued new guidelines for “patriotic education,” aimed specifically at young people to forge a stronger national identify, and love and loyalty for the motherland and the ruling Communist Party.
November 14, 2019Read More
WASHINGTON — Days after President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to withdraw 1,000 U.S. troops from Syria, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saw a way to turn it around.The businessman in Trump had focused on the Syrian oil fields that, if left unprotected, could fall into the hands of the Islamic State group — or Russia or Iran. So Milley proposed to a receptive Trump that U.S. commandos, along with allied Syrian Kurdish fighters, guard the oil.Today, 800 U.S. troops remain in Syria.”We’re keeping the oil,” Trump told reporters Wednesday before his meeting with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. “We left troops behind, only for the oil.”That is a far cry from where Trump was last month, when he ordered the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from northern Syria. But now, for the second time in less than a year, the Pentagon has softened the president’s initial decision.”I credit Milley with convincing the president to modify his Syria decision,” said Jack Keane, the former Army vice chief of staff, who spoke several times with Trump and Milley last month during the frenzied days of the president’s zigzagging Syria policy.Nearly three years into the Trump presidency, the Pentagon is learning how to manage a capricious president whose orders can whipsaw by the hour. Top Defense Department officials have acquired their education the hard way, through Trump’s Twitter bullying of Iran and North Korea, letdown of allies in Syria, harsh attacks on the Atlantic alliance and public support for commandos the military has charged with war crimes. Trump, top Pentagon officials say, is unpredictable, frustrating and overly focused on spectacles like military parades.But there is much these officials like about the president.They are happy with the annual budget boost he gave them — to $716 billion this year from $585 billion in 2016 — and are pleased he has done away with what they considered micromanaging by Obama White House officials. Trump has also given commanders in combat zones a far freer hand to conduct raids. And among a big portion of the rank and file, those service members who mirror Trump’s conservative base, he remains very popular.In many ways, the U.S. military remains the part of the government most responsive to the president across a large and fractious administration, because civilian control of the armed forces is embedded in the Constitution and the psyche of every soldier. But for Trump, the other side of that coin is that the military respects the coequal branches of government, as Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman demonstrated in recent days when, against the wishes of the president, he testified in the House impeachment proceeding.New Freedom, and New FalloutOnce Trump took office, he gave the Pentagon and military commanders more running room. He allowed the Pentagon to speed up decision-making so the military could move faster on raids, airstrikes, bombing missions and arming allies in Iraq, Syria and elsewhere. The Pentagon, after eight years of chafing at what many generals viewed as the slow decision-making and second-guessing by the Obama White House, at first embraced the new commander in chief.But with the new freedom came repercussions. Trump deflected blame onto the Pentagon if things went wrong. After a botched raid in Yemen in January 2017, which led to the death of Chief Petty Officer William Owens, a member of the Navy SEALs known as Ryan, Trump appeared to blame the military — a stunning departure from previous presidents, who as commanders in chief have traditionally accepted responsibility for military operations that they ordered.”They explained what they wanted to do, the generals, who are very respected,” Trump told Fox News after the raid. “And they lost Ryan.”On another issue important to the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Mark T. Esper and the Army secretary, Ryan McCarthy, have reached out quietly to Trump in recent days to ask that he not interfere in several war crimes cases. Defense Department officials are concerned that presidential pardons could undermine discipline across the ranks. The Army, for instance, is prosecuting a Green Beret, Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, in the killing of a man linked to the Taliban in Afghanistan; Trump has indicated he may pardon him. “I do have full confidence in the military justice system,” Esper told reporters.And in the case of Syria, the Pentagon gave Trump an unexpected gift in return: the U.S. commando raid that led to the death of the Islamic State leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, which so elated the president that he tweeted the news as soon as U.S. troops were out of harm’s way.The next day, Trump triumphantly mentioned Milley four times during his 48-minute news conference on the raid, calling him “incredible” for his work and thanking him by name before any other senior administration officials.Commanders have also learned to carefully parse their comments, wary of having their words construed as subtle criticism of the president.During a news conference, Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., the head of the U.S. Central Command, declined to repeat Trump’s assertion that the Islamic State leader was “whimpering” before he detonated his suicide vest after U.S. troops raided his compound.But McKenzie backed up Trump’s characterization of al-Baghdadi as a coward. “He crawled into a hole with two small children, blew himself up,” the general said. “So, you can deduce what kind of person it is based on that activity.”Defense Department officials also make sure to speak more frequently about how important it is to get NATO allies in Europe to “pay their fair share,” echoing Trump’s more transactional view of how that alliance should proceed. By emphasizing payment, rather than simply saying that the Pentagon wants European governments to bolster their own internal military budgets — a more accurate description of NATO policy — U.S. officials couch something they wanted anyway in language that will appeal to the president.On the Korean Peninsula, the United States and South Korea have continued to conduct joint military exercises despite Trump’s announcement that such “war games” be suspended pending nuclear negotiations with North Korea. Stopping the exercises completely, Defense Department officials say, would hurt military readiness in the event the United States does end up at war with the North. The military now conducts them at a smaller scale level and no longer makes them public.In Afghanistan, Gen. Austin S. Miller, the commander of the war effort there, is preparing to shrink the U.S. presence. Trump has said he wants all the troops withdrawn, but has given no timetable. Miller now has plans that could reduce the number of U.S. forces in Afghanistan to 8,600 troops, from roughly 12,000 to 13,000 — a move, U.S. officials say, that will allow Trump to say in his 2020 reelection campaign that he is bringing the troops home. But it will leave what commanders consider an adequate number on the ground.Clashes Over SyriaThe relationship between Trump and the military has been the most fraught over Syria policy.The problems began last December, when Trump first tried to bring what were then 2,000 U.S. troops home from Syria and Jim Mattis, his first defense secretary, resigned in protest. In the storm that followed — Republicans, Democrats and some of Trump’s own advisers said he was pulling out of the fight before the Islamic State was defeated for good — Trump backtracked and agreed to leave some 1,000 U.S. forces. But over the past year, Pentagon officials let them operate almost in secret to avoid calling attention to the fact that Defense Department officials had talked the president out of his initial order.In early October, after a phone call with Erdogan, Trump signaled he had had enough, and announced he was pulling out those remaining troops. Once again there was another outcry from Republicans, Democrats and Trump’s own national security advisers, who said he was paving the way for a Turkish offensive against the United States’ longtime allies, Kurdish fighters, who had carried the brunt of the fight against the Islamic State. In particular, the military did not want to abandon the Kurds.”The idea of walking away from that sacrifice, that is something that really bothers,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. “You want to salute and follow the orders of the duly elected political authorities, but you also don’t want to betray the sacrifice of your comrades. That puts the military, at least their hearts, in a tough place.””The decision to betray the Kurds punches a huge hole in the current way we fight terrorists which is by, with and through allies,” said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., who is on the Armed Services Committee and a former senior Pentagon official.Milley, along with Esper, looked quickly at how to yet again make the case to Trump that U.S. forces still had work to do in Syria. The military’s Central Command had drafted two alternate plans.One proposal would have kept a small force to help control a small swath of the border between Iraq and Syria, about 10% of the area. Another option would try to keep control of a larger part of the country — more than half of the area the U.S. and Kurdish fighters currently controlled.But after Trump told Milley he wanted to keep the oil fields, the Pentagon quickly “operationalized” a new plan wrapped around using U.S. forces and their Kurdish allies to protect the oil and to keep it from falling into the hands of the Islamic State, officials said. From Brussels, where he was attending a NATO meeting, Esper was on the phone with Milley completing details of the new plan.Milley, for his part, has been advised by friends to maintain a low profile, and not to appear to be contradicting Trump’s decisions or strategy. Known for long monologues, Milley has also learned to be concise with Trump, offering clear opinions but allowing the president to dominate the conversation.By the end of October, Trump was on board with the Pentagon plan. At Game 5 of the World Series, he was in one of the luxury boxes at Nationals Park surrounded by Republican members of Congress and top aides. The conversation turned to Syria.Trump talked about how he was revising his plans for Syria, repeatedly telling lawmakers that U.S. forces would remain there. Why? Because America was “keeping the oil.”Senior military and Defense Department officials say that in some cases, it is simply a matter of talking in a way that will appeal to Trump, while prosecuting a similar national security policy as they did under President Barack Obama.”The Pentagon has figured out that they can couch things to manage Trump’s biases in some ways,” said Derek Chollet, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration. “Don’t make it about saving the Kurds, make it about saving the oil.”At the moment, the Pentagon is left trying to continue the strategy in a patchwork fashion, with Milley’s move to keep U.S. troops in Syria helping Kurdish fighters protect oil fields the latest piece.This article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company
November 14, 2019Read More
The attack at Saugus High School in California on Thursday is at least the 11th this year on a high school or college campus, which have resulted in at least six deaths.
November 14, 2019Read More
The European Union-sponsored resolution was approved by consensus Thursday with a bang of the chairman’s gavel. The resolution condemns North Korea’s ongoing “gross violations of human rights,” including those a U.N. commission of inquiry says may amo…
November 14, 2019Read More
President Trump’s alleged misconduct, the behavior that has occasioned the impeachment inquiry against him, is corruption. It is that he used the power of his office for personal benefit, manipulating the delivery of congressionally apportioned military aid to Ukraine in an ultimately failed effort to coerce Kyiv to do oppo research on a potential electoral opponent.Though foreign policy provides the setting for this charge, it is not its substance. The scandal here is not about Trump administration policy toward Russia and Ukraine — not really. The president is not facing impeachment because he was too dovish toward Moscow.But at the first public impeachment hearing against Trump on Wednesday, testimony from House Democrats and multiple witnesses repeatedly suggested otherwise. Listen to these testimonies in a vacuum and you might be forgiven for coming away convinced the problem here is that Trump wants to let Russia march across Europe and straight on to Cleveland.”In 2014, Russia invaded the United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation’s embrace of the West and to fulfill Vladimir Putin’s desire to rebuild a Russian empire,” House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said in his opening statement, thus raising from the beginning the specter of Trump’s suspiciously insufficient opposition to Putin.Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent was more explicit. “The United States has very clear national interests at stake in Ukraine,” he announced, likening Ukrainians fighting Russian forces to American revolutionaries taking on the redcoats. Kent’s introduction was far more policy statement than testimony about the actions of the president. He gave an extensive apologia for U.S. military aid to Ukraine “to fight Russian aggression in the defense, energy, cyber, and information spheres,” concluding that we “cannot allow our resolve to waver, since too much is at stake.”Acting U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor spoke likewise. “Ukraine is a strategic partner of the United States … on the frontline in the conflict with the newly aggressive Russia,” he argued, insisting as a matter of principle that “we must support Ukraine in its fight against its bullying neighbor. Russian aggression cannot stand.”Taylor described registering objections with various administration officials about how Russian imperialism would be emboldened if U.S. material support for Kyiv were to waver. “The message to the Ukrainians and the Russians we send with the decision on security assistance is key. With the hold, we have already shaken their faith in us,” he said, adding, “I also said I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with the political campaign.””I also said.” But whether Trump “with[e]ld security assistance for help with the political campaign” is the matter at hand. How the United States should react to Russian aggression is not the question.There would be no impeachment inquiry without the allegation of a campaign-related quid pro quo. The abuse of power is the whole thing. Though certainly very important in its own right, in the narrow purview of this investigation, the policy is irrelevant. If Trump did what he is accused of doing, it was corrupt (and, yes, impeachable) no matter one’s opinion of the military aid. (Indeed, I oppose the aid allotment for reasons I’ll discuss in a moment but nevertheless agree the president should be impeached if he delayed it for personal political advantage.)And there is no reason to believe Trump’s apparent bribery attempt was shaped by a uniquely weak stance on Russian aggression. As Barbara Boland helpfully chronicles at The American Conservative, Trump has provided lethal aid to Ukraine that his predecessor steadily declined to offer. The Obama administration made a compelling case against “inject[ing] more weapons and engag[ing] in tit-for-tat,” especially at risk of “get[ting] into a proxy war with Russia,” administration officials explained at the time.”The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-NATO country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” Obama himself argued in an Atlantic interview which summarized his position as: “Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.” Obama was correct. As we’ve seen over and over in the Middle East, dumping American guns into a conflict does not move it toward resolution. Obama made the right call here — it is wildly reckless and counter to U.S. interests to escalate conflict with Russia over Ukraine. Arguably, it’s not in global interests either, given that Washington and Moscow alike have nuclear arsenals capable of destroying the world.More to the immediate point, though, military aid to Ukraine is a Trump policy, and only a 1-year-old policy at that. The president didn’t withhold these funds because he’s soft on Russia, and this inquiry doesn’t depend on that anyway. Impeachment hinges on whether Trump was corrupt, a question we can settle regardless of Russia policy.Want more essential commentary and analysis like this delivered straight to your inbox? Sign up for The Week’s “Today’s best articles” newsletter here.More stories from theweek.com The coming death of just about every rock legend The president has already confessed to his crimes Why are 2020 Democrats so weird?
November 14, 2019Read More
Satellite images shared exclusively with NPR show North Korean fighters and helicopters massed at a single airbase. It could be another sign of escalating tensions.
November 14, 2019Read More
A State Department investigation Thursday faulted the US pointman on Iran over the removal of an employee of Iranian origin, voicing alarm about discussion of her ancestry. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo agreed to consider disciplinary action against …
November 14, 2019Read More
The day after the first public impeachment hearing, Speaker Nancy Pelosi used the word “bribery,” mentioned in the Constitution’s impeachment clause, to describe President Trump’s conduct.
November 14, 2019Read More
It’s a first step in what Rohingya victims see as their best — and perhaps only — opportunity to hold the perpetrators of these acts accountable.
November 14, 2019Read More
The EU on Thursday launched a legal case against Britain for failing to nominate a commissioner, in the midst of a British election campaign already dominated by Brexit. The European Commission, the EU’s executive arm “has today sent a letter of forma…
November 14, 2019Read More
The U.S. Federal Reserve will not make policy based on day to day developments in U.S.-China trade policy or on Britain’s exit from the European Union, a U.S. central banker said on Thursday, in part because businesses do not make their decisions that way either. “For me, it’s not about the ups and downs on a given day, or even within a given day, around negotiations whether on trade, or on Brexit or anything else, because those tend to move around quite a bit,” New York Fed President John Williams said at a conference on monetary policy and global uncertainty at the San Francisco Fed. Monetary policy can take a year to work its way into the economy, he said, so the Fed has to take a longer view.
November 14, 2019Read More
Recent Comments