Inside the White House and its war room devoted to the Supreme Court nomination fight, little has changed since the news broke Thursday afternoon that Christine Blasey Ford might eventually testify about her sexual assault allegation against Brett Kavanaugh, according to one White House aide and one person familiar with the confirmation process.

For the past four days, former law clerks to Kavanaugh, White House lawyers and a handful of other aides have been prepping Kavanaugh for a potential public hearing next week and running through tough questions that could come up before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Story Continued Below

Kavanaugh told committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) in a letter Thursday that he would attend the hearing scheduled for Monday.

Now the major outstanding questions include the time, date, and parameters of Ford’s testimony — her lawyer said Thursday she is willing to testify, but not Monday — as well as President Donald Trump’s response to it.

So far, the president has taken a measured and muted tone to the hour-by-hour changes in the Kavanaugh confirmation process since Ford came forward to accuse Kavanaugh of assaulting her when they were both in high school. Trump has tweeted about the Supreme Court position only once this week and expressed openness to hearing Ford’s story.

“I really want to see her. I really would want to see what she has to say,” Trump said on Wednesday. “If she doesn’t show up, that would be unfortunate.”

At the same time, he has gone to great lengths to stress the greatness of Kavanaugh’s character and has called him an extraordinary man with an unblemished record who’s been treated unfairly. His comments have increased in their frequency, aides and allies say, as he’s become more confident that Kavanaugh will end up being confirmed.

Still, it remains to be seen whether Trump will maintain that calm posture throughout the weekend and during two campaign-style rallies in Nevada and Missouri, followed by two days in Bedminster, N.J., at his golf club, especially as the pressure builds toward a potential vote next week on Trump’s second Supreme Court pick.

The president views his judicial nominations as a core part of his legacy and one that binds him to the evangelical and conservative parts of his base to ensure their loyalty. With the midterms just weeks away, the president and his team are attuned to the balancing act of pleasing the base without alienating female voters.

White House counsel Don McGahn has urged the president to maintain his current stance and has successfully argued that much of the confirmation process is the purview of the Senate, not the White House.

“I think Trump understands that this is the moment when the nominee needs to be front and center and not the president,” said the person familiar with the confirmation process.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in announced North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has requested to hold another summit with US President Donald Trump soon in order to move along Pyongyang’s process of denuclearisation.

So what will it take for North Korea to finally give up its nuclear weapons, and what concessions are the United States willing to make to achieve that goal?

Pyongyang’s desires

On Thursday, Moon hinted he is aware of Kim’s demands of Trump, but he refused to give details saying the matter should be discussed between the US and North Korean leaders.

Complete relief from punishing international economic sanctions are without doubt at the top of the communist state’s list. 

Among possible Pyongyang demands are the permanent end to “provocative” military exercises between the US and South Korea, which North Korea says amount to invasion practice.

Then there’s the full withdrawal of about 28,500 American forces from South Korea, along with its vast battery of advanced weaponry, possibly even its own nuclear weaponry.

Another demand could be the US officially ending the Korean War. On Thursday, Moon announced the two Koreas wish to make a declaration formally concluding the 1950-53 conflict by the end of 2018. 

Other than that, however, there are scant details about what Pyongyang’s demands are, or what concrete steps it would take to fulfill Kim’s commitment to Trump in June.

As a concession to the US, Pyongyang refrained from displaying its most advanced ballistic missiles during a huge military parade marking its 70th anniversary as a nation earlier this month. North Korea also has returned what it says are remains of fallen American soldiers from the decades-old war.   

But according to leaked US intelligence findings published in July, North Korea has so far shown it does not intend to completely give up its nuclear programme.

In a report published in late August, the UN nuclear watchdog also said it has not seen any indication North Korea’s nuclear activities have ceased despite its pledges.

In light of those reports, experts have warned the US not to grant North Korea premature concessions.

Nevertheless, Kim has already made the Trump administration back off from military exercises and from the “Libyan model” of rapid denuclearisation, observers say.

The Trump administration has also pulled back from criticising Kim’s human rights record, and looked “the other way” while China relaxes sanctions implementation against Kim’s regime. 

“The North Koreans are in the game to get, not to give,” Daniel Russel, a former US senior diplomat for East Asia, told Reuters news agency in July.

Trump’s demands

According to reports, the Trump administration has insisted that North Korea take a unilateral, complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation, known as CVID.

So far, there are no indications that Pyongyang has agreed to such demand.

The North Koreans said they want both sides to take a series of simultaneous steps as a “shortcut” to a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.

Korea analysts say Kim will hold on to his “last card” – the nuclear programme – until he gets concrete concessions from the United States.

“It’s going to be very difficult … because the details need to be worked out by the experts,” Robert Kelly from Busan Univeristy in Seoul told Al Jazeera.

In August, Trump said he believed North Korea had taken specific steps towards denuclearisation, indicating his willingness to hold another meeting with Kim.

The US president, however, did not give details about what specific steps North Korea had already taken to justify a second meeting.

UN nuclear inspectors are also not allowed into North Korea, so Trump’s claim cannot be independently verified.

On Wednesday, North Korea said it is “prepared” to “permanently” close down one of its main ballistic missile facilities in the presence of foreign experts.

But there are those who expressed scepticism over Kim’s latest promise, which analysts pointed out falls short of the US demand of complete abandonment of its nuclear and ballistic missile programme. 

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said he was concerned the latest summit between Kim and Moon would undermine US efforts to impose “maximum pressure” on the North.

“While North Korea has stopped testing missiles and nuclear devices, they have NOT moved toward denuclearisation,” Graham wrote on social media.

There has been a fall by almost one-quarter in the number of attacks by armed groups worldwide last year.

That is one of the conclusions of the US State Department’s latest annual survey of global terrorism

But Iran will not welcome another of the survey’s highlights. The Americans single out the Iranians as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism.

Iran is accused of intensifying many conflicts especially in Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen and continued backing groups such as Hezbollah.

The US government says Hezbollah fighters based in Lebanon have gone from strength to strength, emboldened by their battlefield experience in Syria.

In addition, the US accuses Iran of undermining legitimate governments and American interests in the Middle East.

So, what now for the so-called “global war on terror”?

Presenter: Hashem Ahelbarra

Guests:

Ibrahim Fraihat – associate professor of conflict resolution, Doha Institute for Graduate Studies

Hamed Mousavi – professor of political science, University of Tehran

Hillary Mann-Leverett – former US State Department negotiator

Source: Al Jazeera News

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) on Thursday mocked the sexual assault allegation a California woman made against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, joking that the latest update had brought new allegations against Abraham Lincoln.

“Did y’all hear the latest, late-breaking news from the Kavanaugh hearings?” Norman said, joking that was the reason he was running late for a candidates’ debate. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg came out that she was groped by Abraham Lincoln.”

Story Continued Below

The South Carolina lawmaker’s comments were made during opening remarks at the debate in Rock Hill, S.C.

Christine Blasey Ford accused Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were both in high school. Ford said Kavanaugh drunkenly groped her and pinned her down on a bed while a friend watched during a house party in the 1980s. Kavanaugh has denied the allegations.

Norman’s comment comes as Republicans are aiming to continue with confirming Kavanaugh. Both Ford and Kavanaugh have been asked to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday. Ford’s attorney on Thursday said she is “prepared to testify next week” but does not believe a Monday hearing is possible.

Norman is running for re-election in South Carolina’s 5th district against Democrat Archie Parnell, who is facing his own controversy. Parnell refused to withdraw from the race after admitting earlier this year that in the 1970s, he physically abused his ex-wife.

The district had been targeted by Democrats who believed they could flip the seat.

Koh Kong, Cambodia – “I’m Cambodian, I’m not illegal here,” said Se Say Hieng, one of the last remaining villagers who refuses to leave land that now belongs to China’s Union Development Group.

Construction on a port and resort city in Koh Kong, southwest Cambodia, began in 2008, and while it appears to have stalled, villagers claim that authorities have continued threatening and harassing them as they refuse to leave the leased land.

UDG was granted a 99 year lease on 20 percent of Cambodia’s coastline, deep within one of the country’s largest protected areas, for a pittance – less than $100 per hectare each year. A royal decree was needed to make it available for development.

The area leased is more than three times the size of the legal limit for land concessions, villagers and rights groups have said.

Even if a project involves kicking people off their traditional lands, or destroying the world’s most important ecosystems, I don’t think it would give Chinese financiers or corporations much pause at all.

Bill Laurance, professor focused on conservation

The project has raised alarm over the implications it has for Cambodia’s sovereignty, environmental damage and human rights.

The United Nations reported in 2012 that thousands of villagers had already been evicted. Local civil rights group Licadho said some homes were burned and forcibly dismantled.

“Since the Chinese came here in 2008, there are always problems,” Say Hieng explains.

Cambodia’s close relationship with China has coincided with a crackdown on political and human rights. 

The tilt towards authoritarianism has alienated western donors, but Prime Minister Hun Sen has been happy to replace them with China’s coffers. The arrangement has raised concerns that Beijing is taking advantage of Cambodia.

Say Hieng and her husband live in one of four houses still standing along the southern coast of Botum Sakor National Park. 

They lost their farmland to UDG years ago, but still run a motorbike repair shop out of their home.

When asked why she has chosen to fight the Cambodian government and a multi-billion dollar Chinese company, Say Hieng responds modestly.

“We lived here for so long, 24 years,” she said. 

“I’m here to show that this place still belongs to me and the company can’t just force people to leave without the owner’s permission.”

Thousands of other families, however, took compensation and moved out.

Say Hieng said she and the other remaining villagers – just four families are left – are threatened regularly. 

On May 22, the court called her in and said authorities would tear her house down within two weeks.

“Before I was scared I couldn’t sleep, but it’s been so long it’s become a normal thing,” she said.

“The court is just like that,” her husband added.

When negotiations began, Hieng said the company refused to compensate families for more than five hectares of land and only acknowledged one home per family.

Nhen Moeun’s late husband, Prak Thon, was one of the first to move to the area, Pouy Japon, in 1980.

He built his family home and helped construct the town’s pagoda.

Thon’s grave lies beside his home, despite the fact his wife was ordered repeatedly not to bury him there.

The pagoda remains standing, but is boarded up – the monks were forced to leave.

Some families who agreed to relocation deals said they have buyers’ remorse.

The compensation, they claim, was offered with threats and coercion.

“My husband never negotiated. He was 100 percent staying here until he died. I’m not afraid,” said Moeun who believes it’s her duty to continue her husband’s legacy of resistance.

Around 184 families in Moeun and Say Hieng’s village protest against the company on a daily basis, demanding their land back.

The villagers who accepted compensation have set up camp on the road to their old village. 

While they occasionally rally in the capital Phnom Pen, the families man the shelter almost constantly.

Their makeshift centre is complete with hammocks and coolers full of drinks, as women play cards.

Across the road is a sign: “We the 184 families ask the government to please do what was promised.”

Inside the camp, villagers tell stories of how the company and government cheated them. They claim they were promised five hectares of land in the relocation site, but only received two and a half. 

They also complain the land they have been given on hilly, forested terrain is unusable for farming.

A visit to the relocation site confirms that the area is unsuitable for farming, and many of the homes are already falling apart.

Rayo Nguyen, an environmental activist with Mother Nature Cambodia, said the last time he visited the area, he camped out in a tent.

When security guards confronted him, he told them he was a tourist who had missed the last boat to the nearby islands. 

“They told me they were afraid the Chinese would be angry. I said, ‘I am Cambodian, this is my land’.” 

Plans for a deep-water port, airport, and fully functioning mini-city resort are reportedly still in the works, but a recent visit by Al Jazeera revealed construction is not under way.

A large pier stretches out into the ocean, ending abruptly in open water. There are no boats docked or workers on site. 

On the way to the resort is a giant lake, created by damming a small river. The lake appears to serve no purpose other than scenery.

Signs forbid bathing or fishing.

Besides preventing Cambodians from using their natural resources, the damming process flooded surrounding farmland.

Multiple golf courses have already been built on the property, with more under construction. 

Two apartment complexes are set back from the main road leading up to the resort, possibly to house workers.

The main resort has a casino, a long stretch of a sandy beach, and empty luxury hotels. 

Sand is not native to the region.

The only people in sight were labourers tending to the gardens. 

Bill Laurance, a professor at Australia’s James Cook University focused on conservation, said he does not regard Chinese investors as reliable development partners.

“Even if a project involves kicking people off their traditional lands, or destroying the world’s most important ecosystems, I don’t think it would give Chinese financiers or corporations much pause at all,” he said. Laurance also said Chinese companies have built and abandoned mega-projects before.

“In Australia, for example, a big Chinese developer suddenly dropped an [$5.8bn] project to build a giant casino and hotel complex in Cairns, completely stranding local businesses, government, and people that had invested enormous energy to promote and support this project,” he explained.

A proposed Chinese-built port in Darwin has apparently also stalled.

Bates Gill, a professor of Asia-Pacific security studies at Macquarie University in Sydney, said some of the “structural realities” of Chinese investment seem to result in a higher tolerance for risk.

Gill said Chinese developers tolerate this risk because they are not as interested in economics as they are in political influence.

“Infrastructure and building projects are really about political favours and patronage – including the possibilities of bribery and influence-buying,” he said.