Aruba's First International Online Newspaper
Follow Us And Stay With Us Because You Deserve To Be Told The Truth

Global News Aruba 

 

GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA

INTERNATIONAL

ASIA - AFRICA - EUROPE - THE AMERICAS -AUSTRALIA

YOUR WEEKLY NEWS REPORTER
ARUBA'S ONLINE NEWSPAPER
PUBLISHED IN AUSTIN TEXAS
" we are grateful to all who contribute to our readers"

2019 - DECEMBER - 2020

 

Mr. Norberto S.B. Tjon Ajong
The Editor in Chief

WORLD VIEWS REPORTS
GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA
AINA
ARUBA'S INTERNATIONAL NEWS AGENCY
 
 
 

IMAGE COURTESY OF PRESS TV

" House Dems Release Impeachment Inquiry Report "

12-5-2019
Editorial Report by Stephen Lendman

Make no mistake. What’s going on is one of the most disturbing political spectacles in US history — one right wing of the one-party state trying to defrock the other wing’s leader for politicized reasons, not legitimate ones.

Daily theater in Washington is unrelated to removing Trump from office because the GOP-controlled Senate opposes the scam.

What’s happening is all about Dems wanting Trump delegitimized and weakened for winning an election he was supposed to lose.

They aim to gain a political advantage in November 2020, hoping to win the White House and Senate, while retaining House control.

The longer the sham drags on with no tangible results, the more it may benefit Trump and Republicans at the expense of Dems, notably because a GOP-controlled Senate impeachment trial, if held, will politicize proceedings to its advantage.

With that outcome in mind, Dems mat cut their losses by abandoning impeachment in favor of meaningless censure and endless Trump bashing as part of their campaign strategy in the run-up to November 2020 elections.

On Tuesday, the House Intelligence Committee released “The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report.”

Without credible evidence, it accuses DJT of obstruction of justice by witness intimidation and tampering, soliciting foreign interference to benefit his reelection campaign, withholding military aid to Ukraine for political reasons, undermining the integrity of the US presidential election process, and endangering national security.

Short of specifically recommending articles of impeachment, the report calls for “mov(ing) forward with an impeachment inquiry,” adding:

“No other president has flouted the Constitution and power of Congress to conduct oversight to this extent (sic).”

“If left unanswered, President Trump’s ongoing effort to thwart Congress’ impeachment power risks doing grave harm to the institution of Congress, the balance of power between our branches of government, and the Constitutional order that the President and every ember of Congress have sworn to protect and defend (sic).”

Late Tuesday, the House Intelligence Committee approved the report along party lines. It moves to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration, hearings to begin Wednesday, followed by members drafting articles of impeachment if things go this far.

Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said the following:

“At the end of a one-sided sham process, Chairman Schiff and the (Dems) utterly failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump,” adding:

“This report reflects nothing more than their frustrations. (It) reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something where there is no evidence.”

The GOP House Intelligence Committee responded to the Dems with its own report, stressing no evidence that corroborates charges by Dems , “no quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or abuse of power,” adding:

The impeachment inquiry “is an orchestrated campaign to upend our political system.”

It’s “trying to impeach a duly elected president based on the accusations and assumptions of unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with President Trump’s policy initiatives and processes.”

Polls show the nation is largely divided on removing Trump from office by impeachment.

On Tuesday, the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) said “(p)olls released before Thanksgiving showed, broadly, that the preceding weeks of televised testimony failed to increase public support for removing Trump from office via impeachment,” adding:

“(I)mpeachment numbers (are) divided…down the middle…”(I)mpeachment is more a political process than a judicial one.”

A Quinnipiac poll noted that a small but significant number of Americans remain undecided on the issue.

Unless bombshell information comes out, highly unlikely but possible, the impeachment scam is going nowhere. It laid an egg.

Based on what’s gone on so far, it may end up hurting Dems and helping Trump’s reelection campaign.

There’s overwhelming just cause to remove him for “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the same true for most of his predecessors, the vast majority of current and earlier congressional members, as well as most bureaucrats involved in foreign policy.

Dems aren’t going anywhere near his real offenses because they share guilt in crimes of war, against humanity, breach of the public trust, and other constitutional violations.

That’s the elephant in the room unaddressed issue, what dirty business in Washington is all about, its criminal class bipartisan.

The world’s leading human rights abuser is responsible for more harm to more people over a longer duration globally than any other nation in world history.

GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA offers factual information and viewpoints that might be useful in arriving at an understanding of the events of our time. We believe that the information comes from reliable sources, but cannot guarantee the information to be free of mistakes and incorrect interpretations. GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA and its Editor in Chief Norberto Tjon Ajong, has no official position on any issue and does not necessarily endorse the statements of any contributor, news reporter, or affiliated news agency.  Contact the source and author and journalist for any further question on any article. or contact [email protected] Read our disclaimer policy for more information.

"Undemocratic Dems Raise the Bar to Exclude Tulsi Gabbard from Debates"

12-6-2019

Editorial Report by Stephen Lendman

So-called US political debates are largely pre-scripted exercises in self-promotion theater without meaningful substance. 

Multiple rounds of presidential debates are far removed from what real debates are supposed to be with ideas freely aired and exchanged, beliefs challenged, truths sought, critical thinking stimulated, opinions formed, and conclusions reached through free and open dialogue and discussion.


Debates should involve all sides given full opportunity to air views and challenge those of others.


Presidential debates operate by their own rules, wanting news and views filtered, dissent marginalized, consent and conformity manufactured, group think sought, the American way promoted, what conflicts with the official narrative silenced.


Rarely do presidential aspirants diverge from standard practice. Tulsi Gabbard is an exception to the rule.


On the wrong side of some issues, she stands tall on most others.


She opposes regime change wars, supports quality healthcare for all, opposes the war on drugs, endorses a woman’s right to choose, stands for equality for all and democracy the way it should be, and wants a new Cold War and nuclear arms race ended.


She called for ecosanity, building a green economy for the 21st century, protecting fundamental human and civil rights, and fixing the US criminal/injustice system.


Her remarks in Dem debates she was allowed to participate in were the only ones worth hearing.


So far, she’s excluded from the next one on December 19, six aspirants alone “qualified,” none representing governance of, by and for everyone equitably, all for dirty business as usual while pretending otherwise.


They include Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.


According to rigged Dem rules, others didn’t reach 4% support in at least four Dem-approved  polls, or at least 6% support in at least two of four early primaries in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada — based on Dem-approved polls.


At least 200,000 unique donors and at least 800 unique ones in 20 states or more are required to qualify.


Gabbard slammed the dirty system, saying “(t)here’s been a lack of transparency in that whole process about which polls are selected, which aren’t, which they’re seeing as qualifying, which ones are actually polling,” adding:

The rigged criteria destroy voter trust. In Iowa and New Hampshire, “they don’t take kindly to seeing how a few people in Washington at the DNC are trying to be the gatekeepers.”


“The DNC and their corporate media partners are essentially trying to hijack this election process away from the responsibility that voters have.”

Wall Street, the military, industrial, security, media complex, and other monied interests demand things this way.

It’s how fantasy democracy in America works, perpetually at war, serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of world peace and the public welfare.


Elections are farcical when held. If able to change dirty business as usual, they’d be banned.

GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA offers factual information and viewpoints that might be useful in arriving at an understanding of the events of our time. We believe that the information comes from reliable sources, but cannot guarantee the information to be free of mistakes and incorrect interpretations. GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA and its Editor in Chief Norberto Tjon Ajong, has no official position on any issue and does not necessarily endorse the statements of any contributor, news reporter, or affiliated news agency.  Contact the source and author and journalist for any further question on any article. or contact [email protected] Read our disclaimer policy for more information.

 

" DUTCHBOY POLITICIAN IS NOT LEADING BY EXAMPLE BUT INSTEAD BY JUDGEMENT UPON OTHERS "

Image Credits Phil Nijhuis, AP

12/2/2019

JUST SAYING:

“ISN'T IT ABOUT TIME THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT TO START FOCUSING FIXING THEIR OWN
CORRUPTION.DOT.GOV ISSUES INSTEAD OF THOSE IN ARUBA. FOR MOST INTELLECTUAL BRILLIANT MINDS LEADING BY EXAMPLE IS THE WAY TO GO INSTEAD OF JUST BY JUDGEMENT UPON OTHERS."

EDITORIAL OPINION:
NORBERTO TJON AJONG
EDITOR IN CHIEF
GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA  - AINA
AN INTERNATIONAL NEWS NETWORK OF INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST AGENCY

November 3nd, 2019

"EU Parliament Calls On Member States To Take Back IS - Children "

Report By Sonja van den Ende
Independent journalist
 

EU countries have to take back IS children with their nationality from camps in Northeast Syria. A large majority of the European Parliament (495 for and 58 against) called on the 28 member states to do so. The EU should play a coordinating role in this, they say. The call is part of a non-binding resolution on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children

Around 1400 children of whom at least one parent is an EU citizen are in Syria and Iraq, said EU Commissioner Julian King (Commissioner of Security) recently. He welcomed the decision of some member states to bring children back and pointed out that the European Commission can be helpful. Because of the risks, the Dutch government, for instance, does not want to take back children from IS fighters. According to the AIVD (Dutch Secret Service), 90 children with a Dutch parent are staying in the Syrian-Kurdish camps in detention (mainly al-Hawl camp in Northern Syria, Hassaka).

"Concerning the children of foreign terrorist fighters held in northeast Syria, the resolution urges all EU countries to repatriate all children with EU nationalities, taking into account their specific family situation," the Parliament expressed.


"For months, European countries have tried to avoid repatriation by looking to have their citizens prosecuted in the region. But only repatriation seems feasible and without serious drawbacks," the letter underlined.
So far Turkey has repatriated ten German nationals, one U.S. citizen and one British terrorist suspect. Ankara has said that suspects are yet to be deported to Ireland, France and other mostly European nations in the coming days.


So far understandable, but the question is can Europe cope with all these children? The majority of the countries where the IS children will go to like the UK, Germany, France, Belgium and the Netherlands have a big problem already with the “migrant children” who are the majority on schools in the large cities, like Berlin, Amsterdam, London and Paris. Where the native population is the minority, the natives send their children to “private” schools and the level of education is very poor in the big cities. There are not enough teachers in the Western European countries. Their profession has come out of “fashion”, due to big problems in the school through the ongoing migration, which is resulting sometimes in crime and radicalization.


Also, the municipality of Amsterdam announced that some police stations are closed in the evenings and at night. Agents from these offices can then be deployed in places where they are more needed and it must reduce the workload in the neighborhoods, Mayor Halsema writes in a letter to the city council. The most important police stations in the city remain open 24 hours a day. There is a shortage of 500 agents for regular police work. The crime in Amsterdam is immense and the Netherlands are being called a “narcotic-state”. So, how to coop with all these problems, when IS children and their mothers return? Imagine all this!


The Dutch municipality of Amsterdam already announced that 16 primary schools in Amsterdam will be closed for at least for one week and some 5400 students were sent home. Education should be part of the de-radicilization of the IS children. Because, even if they are at a young age, they have encountered many atrocities and like I saw recently in a documentary, it’s normal for them, for instance, to behead a bird.


The children of IS are between four and sixteen years old. IS calls them "Ashbal" - "young lions". The children, who fall into the hands of IS, are mistreated for months in training camps and brainwashed to put them in the front lines for the terror organization to fight. What will become of these children, for whom violence and hatred have become everyday normality? Western secret services already warned against the "young lions" of the IS, and regard them as time bombs.


"Ashbal, the child soldiers of the terrorist militia" tells the story of these children, who experienced the so-called Islamic State from within. In Germany, Greece, Belgium and Turkey, the filmmakers of the above-mentioned documentary accompanied them in their everyday lives and questioned them about their experiences and their lives today. The moving accounts give insights into the terrifying IS machine in which children became cold-blooded murderers. They give an idea of the terrorist organization's plans with its young fighters - and they make it clear how urgently these children must be helped to forget the Islamist hate doctrines. Is Europe realizing this, and moreover, are they able to help children, who are already indoctrinated from the age of four?

Conclusion

The Dutch Minister of Justice, Fred Grapperhaus, announced in September 2019that he had turned down US assistance in repatriating ten Dutch women because their return could lead to “direct risks to the national security of the Netherlands” and other European countries, but nothing was said about the “indoctrinated” children. Usually the youngsters will return with their mothers, who also are a grave danger to the European countries, many accounts from camp al-Hawl are confirming this. But the sovereign EU states have no individual say in these matters, they are part of the EU and therefore, the rule and law of the EU is the rule and law of every sovereign state.

GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA offers factual information and viewpoints that might be useful in arriving at an understanding of the events of our time. We believe that the information comes from reliable sources, but cannot guarantee the information to be free of mistakes and incorrect interpretations. GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA and its Editor in Chief Norberto Tjon Ajong, has no official position on any issue and does not necessarily endorse the statements of any contributor, news reporter, or affiliated news agency.  Contact the source and author and journalist for any further question on any article. or contact [email protected] Read our disclaimer policy for more information.

LINK BELOW TO THE BEST PROMOTIONS

Is the Run on the Dollar Due to Panic or Greed?

By Ellen Brown

What’s going on in the repo market? Rates on repurchase agreements (“repo”) should be around 2%, in line with the fed funds rate. But they shot up to over 5% on September 16 and got as high as 10% on September 17. Yet banks were refusing to lend to each other, evidently passing up big profits to hold onto their cash – just as they did in the housing market crash and Great Recession of 2008-09.

Since banks weren’t lending, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York jumped in, increasing its overnight repo operations to $75 billion; and on October 23 it upped the ante to $120 billion in overnight operations and $45 billion in longer-term operations.

Why are banks no longer lending to each other? Are they afraid that collapse is imminent somewhere in the system, as with the Lehman collapse in 2008?

Perhaps, and if so the likely suspect is Deutsche Bank. But it looks to be just another case of Wall Street fattening itself at the public trough, using the funds of mom and pop depositors to maximize bank profits and line the pockets of bank executives while depriving small businesses of affordable loans.

Why the Repo Market Is a Big Deal

The repo market allows banks and other financial institutions to borrow and lend to each another, usually overnight. More than $1 trillion in overnight repo transactions collateralized with U.S. government debt occur every day. Banks lacking available deposits frequently go to these markets to fund their loans and finance their trades.

Legally, repos are sales and repurchases; but they function like secured overnight or short-term loans. They work like a pawn shop: the lender takes an asset (usually a federal security) in exchange for cash, with an agreement to return the asset for the cash plus interest the next day unless the loan is rolled over. The New York Fed currently engages in two types of repo operations: overnight repurchase agreements that unwind the next business day, and 14 day repurchase agreements that unwind after 14 days.

The Fed re-started its large-scale repo operations in September, when borrowing rates shot up due to an unexpectedly high demand for dollars. The Fed said the unusual demand was due largely to quarterly tax payments and Treasury debt settlements. Other factors proposed as contributing to the cash strains include regulatory change and, a decline in bank reserves due to “quantitative tightening” (in which the Fed shrunk its balance sheet by selling some of its QE acquisitions back into the market), as well as unusually high government debt issuance over the last four years and a flight into U.S. currency and securities to avoid the negative interest rate policies of central banks abroad.

Panic or Calculated Self-interest?

The Fed’s stated objective in boosting the liquidity available to financial markets was simply to maintain its “target rate” for the interest charged by banks to each other in the fed funds market. But critics were not convinced. Why were private capital markets once again in need of public support if there was no financial crisis in sight? Was the Fed engaged in a stealth “QE4,” restarting its quantitative easing program?

The Fed insisted that it wasn’t, and financial analyst Wolf Richter agreed. Writing on Wolfstreet.com on October 10, he said the banks and particularly the primary dealers were hoarding their long-term securities in anticipation of higher profits. The primary dealers are the 24 U.S. and foreign broker-dealers and banks authorized to deal directly with the U.S. Treasury and the New York Fed. They were funding their horde of long-term securities in the repo market, putting pressure on that market, as the Fed said in the minutes for its July meeting even before repo rates blew out in mid-September. Richter contended:

They’d expected a massive bout of QE, and perhaps some of the players had gleefully contributed to, or even instigated the turmoil in the repo market to make sure they would get that massive bout of QE as the Fed would be forced to calm the waters with QE, the theory went. This QE would include big purchases of long-term securities to push down long-term yields, and drive up the prices of those bonds ….


Prices were high and yields were low, a sign that there was heavy demand. But the dealers were holding out for even higher prices and even lower yields. … Massive QE, where the Fed buys these types of Treasury securities, would accomplish that.

But that’s exactly what the Fed said it wouldn’t do.

What the Fed was doing instead, it said, was to revive its “standing repo facility” – the facility it had used before September 2008, when it abandoned that device in favor of QE and zero interest rate policy. But it insisted that this was not QE, expanding the money supply. Overnight repos are just an advance of credit, which must be repaid the next day. While $165 billion per month sounds like a lot, repo loans don’t accumulate; the Fed is just making short-term advances, available as needed up to a limit of $165 billion.

In Wall Street on Parade on October 28, Pam and Russ Martens pointed to another greed-driven trigger to the recent run on repo. The perpetrator was JPMorgan Chase, the largest bank in the U.S., with $1.6 trillion in deposits. Quoting David Henry on Reuters:

Publicly-filed data shows JPMorgan reduced the cash it has on deposit at the Federal Reserve, from which it might have lent, by $158 billion in the year through June, a 57% decline. … [T]he data shows its switch accounted for about a third of the drop in all banking reserves at the Fed during the period.

This $158 billion drawdown in JPMorgan’s reserve account is evidently what necessitated the Fed’s $165 billion in new repo offerings. But why the large drawdown?

Henry attributed it to regulatory changes the increased the bank’s required reserves, but according to the Martens, something more was involved. “The shocking news,” they write, is that “According to its SEC filings, JPMorgan Chase is partly using Federally insured deposits made by moms and pops across the country in its more than 5,000 branches to prop up its share price with buybacks.” Small businesses are being deprived of affordable loans because the liquidity necessary to back the loans is being used to prop up bank stock prices. Bank shares constitute a substantial portion of the pay of bank executives.

According to Thomas Hoenig, then Vice Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), in a July 2017 letter to the U.S. Senate Banking Committee:

[If] the 10 largest U.S. Bank Holding Companies [BHCs] were to retain a greater share of their earnings earmarked for dividends and share buybacks in 2017 they would be able to increase loans by more than $1 trillion, which is greater than 5 percent of annual U.S. GDP.

Four of the 10 BHCs will distribute more than 100 percent of their current year’s earnings, which alone could support approximately $537 billion in new loans to Main Street.

If share buybacks of $83 billion, representing 72 percent of total payouts for these 10 BHCs in 2017, were instead retained, they could, under current capital rules, increase small business loans by three quarters of a trillion dollars or mortgage loans by almost one and a half trillion dollars.

Hoenig was referring to the banks’ own capital rather than to their deposits, but the damage to local credit markets is even worse if deposits are also being diverted to fund share buybacks. Banks are not serving the real economy. They are using public credit backed by public funds to feed their own private bottom lines.

The whole repo rigmarole underscores the sleight of hand on which our money and banking systems are built, and why it is time to change them. Banks do not really have the money they lend. To back their loans, they rely on their ability to borrow from the reserves of other banks, generated from their customers’ deposits; and if those banks withhold their deposits in the insatiable pursuit of higher profits, the borrowing banks must turn to the public purse for liquidity. The banks could not function without public support. They should be turned into public utilities, mandated to serve the interests of the people and the productive economy on which the public depends.

This article was first posted on Truthdig.com. Ellen Brown is an attorney, chair of the Public Banking Institute, and author of thirteen books including Web of DebtThe Public Bank Solution, and Banking on the People: Democratizing Money in the Digital Age


GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA offers factual information and viewpoints that might be useful in arriving at an understanding of the events of our time. We believe that the information comes from reliable sources, but cannot guarantee the information to be free of mistakes and incorrect interpretations. GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA and its Editor in Chief Norberto Tjon Ajong, has no official position on any issue and does not necessarily endorse the statements of any contributor, news reporter, or affiliated news agency.  Contact the source and author and journalist for any further question on any article. or contact [email protected] Read our disclaimer policy for more information.

 

- INTERNATIONAL NEWSWIRES -

GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA offers factual information and viewpoints that might be useful in arriving at an understanding of the events of our time. We believe that the information comes from reliable sources, but cannot guarantee the information to be free of mistakes and incorrect interpretations. GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA and its Editor in Chief Norberto Tjon Ajong, has no official position on any issue and does not necessarily endorse the statements of any contributor, news reporter, or affiliated news agency.  Contact the source and author and journalist for any further question on any article. or contact [email protected] Read our disclaimer policy for more information.
Puffy

12-5-2019

China Retaliates Against Hostile US Legislation

by Stephen Lendman 


In late November, House and Senate members unanimously passed the so-called Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act (HKHRDA) of 2019.


Trump signed the measure into law, along with a companion bill, restricting exports of US crowd control devices to Hong Kong police.


The measures are all about US war on China by other means, wanting the country weakened, contained and isolated — politically, economically, financially and technologically.


They’re unrelated to supporting democracy and human rights, notions the vast majority in Washington abhor worldwide, especially at home.


On Monday, spokeswoman for China’s Foreign Ministry, Hua Chunying, said Beijing will suspend US requests for its warships and aircraft to visit Hong Kong.


It’s imposing sanctions on US organizations funded by Washington and/or by corporate and other donors — ones involved in supporting and otherwise manipulating months of Hong Kong violence, vandalism and chaos, in cahoots with the CIA.


Targeted groups include the National Endowment for Democracy that’s mandated to combat it wherever it exists, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, Freedom House, and Human Rights Watch.


According to Sourcewatch, HRW earlier removed prominent international jurist/academic Richard Falk from one of its human rights committees for his vocal criticism of Israeli high crimes.


Along with Amnesty International, HRW is hostile to governments on the US target list for regime change — notably Russia, China, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela, among others.


Law Professor Francis Boyle earlier said “if you are dealing with a human rights situation in a country that is at odds with the United States or Britain, it gets an awful lot of attention, resources (and) publicity” from these and similar organizations.


When it comes to US, UK, or other Western human rights abuses, “it’s like pulling teeth to get them to do something on the situation — because Washington and its allies aren’t on “the official enemies list.”


According to China’s Global Times, if the US “continues to provoke on Hong Kong, it is expected that (Beijing) will take follow-up actions.”


Under China’s “one country, two systems” policy, its authorities won’t permit the US or other countries to try exerting a sphere of influence over the city.


Continue Reading:


Measures announced on Monday are a shot across the bow, the first time Beijing imposed sanctions on US organizations, a show of strength against Washington’s dirty hands all over months of manipulated protests in Hong Kong.


The city is Chinese territory. Its authorities won’t tolerate foreign efforts to undermine its sovereignty.


According to Beijing’s official Peope’s Daily broadsheet, hostile US legislation “seriously violated the international law and the basic norm of international relations, and interferes with China’s domestic affairs,” adding:

Sanctions imposed show “the country’s firm resolution on the Hong Kong issue.”

Organizations like the ones sanctioned are involved in “grubby business in the name of justice. They offer capital and supplies for rioters, and control the protests behind the scene. Releasing malicious promotional materials, they are fanning confrontation, calling black white, and conducting political infiltration.”

“(T)hey are…notorious for their misdeeds in (US) ‘color revolutions’ across the world.”

“(A)ny attempt(s) against the Chinese, including (in) Hong Kong…will be countered resolutely.”


A Final Comment


On Sunday, the South China Morning Post said a US trade deal with China “must include US tariff(s) rollback,” along with scrapping Trump’s vow to impose further tariffs on $156 billion worth of Chinese imports if an agreement isn’t reached by December 15, adding:

“Trade experts and people close to the White House said last month…that signing of a phase one agreement may not take place until the new year as China pressed for more extensive rollbacks of tariffs.”


An unnamed US source said what both sides agreed on “was just the principle that the issues need to be solved through different stages,” adding: 

“But when they got to (phase one details (alone), and how to implement them, the two sides were again not able to reach a consensus.”


In early November, both sides agreed on a limited phase one deal in principle, largely involving large-scale Chinese purchases of US agricultural products, the Trump regime reciprocating by rolling back unacceptable tariffs on Chinese imports.

Both countries are especially world’s apart on major structural issues that won’t likely be resolved no matter how many more rounds of talks are held.



INTERNATIONAL NEWSWIRES

 
 
Puffy Lux

GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA offers factual information and viewpoints that might be useful in arriving at an understanding of the events of our time. We believe that the information comes from reliable sources, but cannot guarantee the information to be free of mistakes and incorrect interpretations. GLOBAL NEWS ARUBA and its Editor in Chief Norberto Tjon Ajong, has no official position on any issue and does not necessarily endorse the statements of any contributor, news reporter, or affiliated news agency.  Contact the source and author and journalist for any further question on any article. or contact [email protected] Read our disclaimer policy for more information.

 
 
 
 

 
Aruba News Papers