The United States has warned its citizens they could face arbitrary action by authorities when they visit China, urging them to “exercise increased caution”.
The travel advisory update by the State Department on Thursday follows the detentions of two Canadians in China last month and came amid heightened diplomatic tensions in the wake of the arrest in Canada of a top executive in Chinese telecoms giant Huawei.
The guidance, which maintained the warning at “Level 2”, stopped short of discouraging visits but warned about extra security checks and increased police presence in Xinjiang and Tibet, two minority-dominated regions where Beijing has sought to impose strict control.
While the language was largely the same as earlier, it warned of “arbitrary enforcement of local laws”, sudden prohibitions on exiting the country and harassment of US citizens of Chinese heritage.
Rising tensions
The warning comes after the detentions by Chinese authorities in December of Canadians Michael Kovrig, a former diplomat and an adviser with the International Crisis Group (ICG) think-tank, and businessperson Michael Spavor.
China says both men were suspected of endangering state security. Earlier on Thursday, China’s top prosecutor said the two Canadians had “without a doubt” violated the law.
Tensions between the North American countries and China increased after Canadian police in Vancouver arrested Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei, on December 1 at the request of the United States.
US prosecutors have accused her of misleading banks about transactions linked to Iran, putting the lenders at risk of violating Washington’s sanctions.
Meng’s arrest shook fincnail markets over concerns it would exacerbate US-China tensions as the countries seek to negotiate their way out of a bitter trade dispute which has seen Washington slap tariffs on $250bn worth of Chinese goods, and Beijing responding in kind.
China’s own warning
In its previous travel advisory for China issued in January last year, the State Department urged US citizens to “exercise increased caution” in the country because of “the arbitrary enforcement of local laws and special restrictions on dual US-Chinese nationals”.
The latest advisory repeats that warning but also warns about China’s use of “exit bans” that would prohibit US citizens from leaving the country, sometimes keeping them in China for years.
Beijing last year appeared to hit back at Washington’s travel advice by issuing its own guidance to Chinese coming to the US, warning of the risk of mass shootings and the high cost of healthcare as well as robberies, searches and seizures by customs agents, telecommunications fraud and natural disasters.
“Public security in the United States is not good. Cases of shootings, robberies, and theft are frequent,” China’s embassy in Washington said in the alert published in July 2018 to its website.
“Travellers in the United States should be alert to their surroundings and suspicious individuals, and avoid going out alone at night.”
Despite rising political friction, the two countries remain among the top sources of visitors to each other, with China by far the largest provider of foreign students to the US.
The US has given Level 2 travel warnings to nearly 60 countries since last January.
It’s a tale as old as Twitter. Another celebrity has announced a break from social media after becoming the target of negative comments from “fans.” This time, it’s Will Poulter, who was most recently seen in Netflix’s Black Mirror: Bandersnatch.
Poulter plays Colin Ritman in the interactive film about a programmer who is adapting a choose-your-own-adventure novel into a video game, set in the 1980s. Since the movie dropped last Friday (December 28), the actor has been taunted online about his appearance.
Poulter took to Twitter (where else?) to release a statement about his decision to “take a step back” from the platform. “I’d like to say a heartfelt thank you to everybody who has watched Bandersnatch and for their responses (whatever they may be) to the material we created,” he began. “I accept all criticisms and it’s been a delight to learn that so many of you enjoyed what many people worked very hard to produce!”
He went on to note that we all need to find a “balance” with our social media usage as the platforms fluctuate between being positive and negative spaces. “It’s a balance I have struggled with for a while now and in the interest of my mental health I feel the time has come to change my relationship with social media.”
Poulter continued by expressing his gratitude for the supportive messages he’s received — possibly aimed at those who have asked for a Colin romance loop — and shouted out a few organizations he will continue to support on social media, including one anti-bullying campaign.
“I hope that this shift to reduce my personal expression and increase the focus on issues that matter will result in a better outcome for everyone,” he wrote before concluding with a nod to his movie. “This is not the end. Consider it an alternative path.”
Let’s all use this as a reminder that we, too, can decide to use social media for good or for bad, and selecting either option will help determine the path we’re on. You know, assuming free will exists.
Six months after his historic summit with Kim Jong-un in Singapore, US President Donald Trump has still not succeeded in his goal of getting the North Korean leader to relinquish his nuclear weapons.
But after both leaders used the New Year’s holiday to declare their willingness to meet again, a second summit may be in the works that could deliver real results – though they may look different from what Trump initially promised.
There was something different about Kim’s New Year’s address this year. Delivered from a leather armchair in what looked to be his library, it seemed designed to cast away old images of North Korea as a pariah state with an authoritarian leader at the helm. Instead of addressing a large crowd from a podium, a suited Kim spoke directly to the camera from a book-lined room.
The speech had more white doves than fire and fury, with Kim renewing his commitment to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula and saying that he was ready to meet Trump again “anytime” – even as he warned that Pyongyang may take an alternative path if US sanctions and pressure continued. In response, the US president welcomed on Twitter Kim’s promise not to make, use, test or sell any more nuclear weapons, expressing that he was also ready for a second meeting.
But missing from Trump’s tweet and embedded in Kim’s address were the same demands that have left both countries at a deadlock in nuclear negotiations – that the US lift sanctions, cease all joint military drills with South Korea and agree to an official end to the 1950-1953 Korean War – reminding the world that real progress on denuclearisation is still an elusive goal.
“Remember, despite all the meetings and negotiations since the beginning of 2018, North Korea has not yet made a single meaningful step toward denuclearisation,” said Ryu Yongwook, a professor of International Relations at the National University of Singapore.
WATCH: Kim ready to meet Trump but asks US not to test North Korea (2:18)
North Korea’s long-term goals
A second summit is also unlikely to bring the results Trump once hoped for, since his original goal of removing all nuclear weapons from North Korea no longer seems to be on the table.
“[Kim’s] New Year’s Day address suggests that he is posturing for arms control talks, and not denuclearisation talks with Washington,” said Duyeon Kim, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and columnist for Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
A more realistic expectation, according to Duyeon Kim, is that a second summit will produce a “real nuclear deal” whereas Singapore generate little more than photos and good feelings. Both countries need a roadmap outlining the “quid pro quo, with timetables” of denuclearisation, he added. This would give some accountability to both sides and make sure the signposts of progress are clearly marked, so either side will know when the other is holding up their end of the bargain.
But it’s doubtful another meeting would rid the peninsula of nuclear weapons. Analysts say it’s likely that North Korea’s long-term goals, which extend past any one US administration, are to be recognised as a responsible nuclear-weapons state that will promise not to use or sell their arms.
And they may be willing to walk away from any talks that don’t offer this.
“If the US doesn’t give the North what they ultimately want and under their terms, then I imagine Pyongyang will continue perfecting its nuclear weapons technology and developing its economy,” said Duyeon Kim.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un meet three times in 2018 [File: Pyongyang Press Corps Pool via AP]
The Moon factor
The question then is what North Korea wants, and whether the US feels it’s in their interest to deliver.
Pyongyang’s “wish list” seems to include some form of sanctions relief, according to Professor Tai Wei Lim, a research fellow at Singapore’s East Asia Institute.
Kim is eager to improve the North’s ailing economy, which is suffering under US sanctions and shrank by 3.5 per cent in 2017. One way Kim hopes to fix that is by “kickstarting” the country’s economy through cooperation and joint projects with South Korea.
Kim likely realises the need to act fast on this, while South Korean President Moon Jae-in is still in power. Moon has made a goliath effort to bring North Korea out of its shell and into the international community, risking his own reputation to keep diplomacy alive. In September, Moon took South Korea‘s top business moguls with him to Pyongyang, a carrot to show Kim what’s possible if he cuts his nuclear programme. If a less sympathetic, more conservative South Korean president is elected in 2022, that door might close for another five years.
But North Korea has proven before that it is willing to throw away talks and take the hard road. In 2008, six-party talks involving China, the two Koreas, Japan, Russia and the US fell apart when North Korea declined to allow inspectors into the country.
With Beijing’s support, North Korea could be prepared to sit tight until the potency of US sanctions erodes over time.
INSIDE STORY: Is North Korea’s timeline denuclearise for real? (25:25)
Will they compromise?
For his part, Trump could be more interested in a compromise than he once was. A professor of international studies at Yonsei University in Seoul, who asked not to be named for his connection to the issue, believes the US is less concerned about North Korea’s nuclear weapons than some experts imagine.
“What they care about is missiles that can reach the US mainland,” the professor said. “If they remove the intercontinental launching abilities but [North Korea] keeps some of the weapons, I think that will be enough.”
Kim’s New Year’s speech appeared to show North Korea’s willingness to shed its image as a rogue state and join the international community. Under Moon’s guidance, Kim is eager to reform his country and its outdated economy – but only on his terms. For his part, Trump is equally keen to produce a tangible outcome with a second summit – but there seems to be little public appetite for a repeat of Singapore.
With Trump promising full denuclearisation and Kim clinging to a nuclear weapons programme long seen as a means to guarantee his country’s security, real progress will rely on both leaders’ willingness to compromise.
Acting agency chiefs and those with deep business ties complicate governing, as Democrats seize investigative power.
President Donald Trump’s Cabinet is increasingly stocked with temporary stand-ins and Washington insiders with deep ties to the industries they regulate, complicating Trump’s ability to govern as he approaches the most perilous period of his presidency and opening up his advisers to conflict-of-interest investigations by resurgent Democrats.
As of Thursday, at least four key Cabinet-level agencies — the Defense Department, the Health and Human Services Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department — are being led by former corporate executives or industry lobbyists.
Story Continued Below
Meanwhile, Trump’s Cabinet is more unsettled than any time since he took office two years ago. The heads of the EPA and the Interior and Defense departments, as well as the attorney general and the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, are all serving in an acting capacity while Trump searches for permanent replacements or waits for the Senate to confirm his picks. That’s not to mention Mick Mulvaney, who is serving as acting White House chief of staff while also running the Office of Management and Budget.
“This is unprecedented,” said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit that advised the Trump transition team as it set up the government. “Fundamentally, permanent leadership is required to be able to run the government effectively.”
Lawyers, government watchdogs and veterans of past administrations warn that Trump’s reliance on acting officials and former lobbyists could unleash a litany of potential problems.
Controversial decisions made by acting secretaries could be challenged in court by injured parties who dispute the legitimacy of the appointed department head, as hasalready happened with acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker. Temporary leaders may not be equipped to respond to a major crisis like a terrorist attack or take the lead in implementing crucial policy directives.
And House Democrats have already signaled that they intend to investigate Cabinet secretaries’ potential conflicts of interest, likely subjecting agency leaders to contentious oversight hearings and an explosion of document requests.
“I definitely see this as the swamp times 10,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a watchdog group. “I have been doing this for 30 years, and I can’t remember a time when we’ve had so many agencies being run by people who are coming from the industries they regulate or are recipients of multibillion-dollar contracts.”
Facing a new Democratic majority in the House and the looming conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, the Trump administration has often had difficulty recruiting top-tier candidates for high-level jobs, according to people familiar with the matter.
One lawyer who represents people seeking jobs in the government said a client recently turned down an administration job because the person “was not eager to be constantly sitting in a House hearing room.”
Trump, for his part, has signaled that he isn’t concerned about being surrounded by so many acting Cabinet secretaries. Late last month, the president said acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan might stay on for a “long time,” though an administration official confirmed to POLITICO on Thursday that the administration was considering former Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, among others, for the job. The New York Times first reported that Webb was in contention for the position.
Trump’s decision to force Defense Secretary James Mattis to depart at the beginning of this month, instead of allowing him to stay on until the end of February as he originally planned, created a leadership gap at the department unlike any seen since the George H.W. Bush administration.
The Defense Department has not had an acting secretary since 1989, according to Anne Joseph O’Connell, a law professor at Stanford University who tracks federal vacancies. Even when they are pushed out, departing defense secretaries traditionally stay on until their successors are confirmed by the Senate, in order to ensure the department has a permanent leader who can manage high-stakes global and domestic conflicts.
“It’s part of a pattern of either conscious or negligent inattention to staffing top positions in the government,” O’Connell said.
Even though he has regularly expressed frustration with key members of his Cabinet, from former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to Mattis, Trump has also praised his current crop of top advisers, arguing that he has assembled a great team. The president is particularly high on current Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, whom he views as a loyal defender.
Yet White House officials have privately expressed deep annoyance with the ethical lapses of some in Trump’s Cabinet, including now-former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, whose last day was Wednesday. Aides believed that the constant negative stories about Zinke, as well as former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and former HHS Secretary Tom Price, became a distraction, and they pushed for Trump to fire them.
But for now, at least, aides said they expected the wave of departures to slow.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who has lost favor with the president and faced a slew of allegations about financial conflicts of interest, had been seen as the next Cabinet secretary to go. However, the sheer number of high-level vacancies is seen as making Ross’ future in the administration more secure for the time being.
Still, the loose network of outside groups who probe conflict-of-interest and ethics concerns see Ross as a case study for how they might conduct oversight of other top Trump administration officials. One person closely tracking the issue, for example, called the Campaign Legal Center’saggressive investigations into problems with Ross’ financial disclosures a “roadmap” for House Democrats.
In addition to Ross, House Democrats are expected to keep a close eye on the potential conflicts of interest of at least four other agency leaders: HHS Secretary Alex Azar, acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and Shanahan, the acting defense secretary.
Azar is the former president of drug giant Eli Lilly’s U.S. operations. Wheeler, who Trump announced last year would be his nominee as full time head of the EPA, is a former lobbyist for the coal industry. Bernhardt is a former lobbyist for the oil and natural gas industries. He took over for Zinke in an acting capacity.
Shanahan, who stepped in as acting defense secretary this week, is a former longtime Boeing executive. The Defense Department announced this week that he would recuse himself from any Pentagon matters related to Boeing.
The president’s decision to tap lobbyists and former industry executives to lead major departments, even on a temporary basis, appears to conflict with his repeated promises during the campaign to “drain the swamp” and limit the influence of vested interests in government decision making.
“We have to break the cycle of corruption, and we have to give new voices a chance … so that we can have a government that works again and can function properly,” Trump said during a 2016 campaign speech in Colorado in which he outlined lobbying restrictions.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
Shortly after Trump became president, he signed anexecutive order mandating that, for a period of two years from the date of employment, government officials could not “participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.”
But the administration’s critics have alleged that the White House has loosely enforced that provision.
For example, Wheeler lobbied for Murray Energy, a major coal producer and significant opponent of environmental regulations during President Barack Obama’s time in office. (Wheeler has complained before about press descriptions of him as a former coal lobbyist, noting other clients such as cheesemaker Sargento.)
Wheeler lobbied Congress on Murray’s behalf, but disclosures indicate that he did not directly lobby the EPA for the coal company. Photosleaked in December 2017 show Wheeler attending a meeting earlier that year between CEO Robert Murray and Energy Secretary Rick Perry. Murray used the meeting to pass along an “action plan” of deregulatory actions for the Trump administration to use to help the coal industry.
Once at the EPA, Wheeler didrecuse himself from any “particular matters” involving Murray and other former clients. But that narrow category applies to the agency’s specific permitting or enforcement actions that involve Murray, not the coal company’s deregulatory wish list, such as rolling back carbon dioxide and mercury rules for coal-fired power plants — two issues he oversees as acting head of the EPA.
Trump, for his part, insists that he has kept his promise to “drain the swamp.”
“From the day I took the oath of office,” he said during a White House event last year, “I’ve been fighting to drain the swamp, and sometimes it may not look like it, but believe me, we are draining the swamp.”
Alex Guillén and Daniel Lippman contributed to this report.
/2018%2F12%2F20%2F62%2Fb513abaed4764acb83aca2cc4cede1cd.aeccf.jpg)
/2018%2F12%2F18%2F44%2F201e35ff505341c1bdfacef32a1ad65a.83ff6.jpg)
/2018%2F12%2F12%2F27%2F9d296392c16a48e486f3707daafd3b07.c1a1f.jpg)
/2018%2F12%2F06%2F6d%2Fa7aaf1780a754394b78ecf0d706da977.c670e.jpg)
/2018%2F12%2F04%2F31%2F90bd1cb7be4140109d95c2389014d3a2.1c2be.png)
/2018%2F11%2F29%2F3a%2F5739bac2367f4a2287b558c959c600cd.6f70e.jpg)
/2018%2F11%2F26%2F0b%2F6d2fbc1e1e194f259347c164940612ff.257cf.jpg)
/2018%2F11%2F20%2F94%2F285774ddd71b4c2fad6a57f7a5329c9c.a60f6.jpg)
/2018%2F11%2F19%2F97%2F1ec10e844d334708be24dfe48d9a10d2.80bb7.png)
/2018%2F11%2F16%2F57%2F155a75fc945d43bcbdb773c51b43158a.80606.png)
/2018%2F11%2F16%2F77%2Fadccfb5c836a4ce991129f2478c436c2.64fc3.png)
/2018%2F11%2F12%2Fd5%2F9f457c2b86c14c79947b5fba0bc111fe.8a11e.png)
: 8pm/et @NBAonTNT 
Miguel Sanchez
Daily Trends Hunter 