• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Разное606
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы1245
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации164
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Транстихоокеанское партнерство
Транстихоокеанское партнерство
TPP Full Text Транстихоокеанское партнёрство (ТТП или ТЭП; Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP) — планируемая к созданию международная торгово-экономическая организация, целью которой является создание зоны свободной торговли в Азиатско-Тихоокеанском регионе. Организация создаётся на основе ...

TPP Full Text

Транстихоокеанское партнёрство (ТТП или ТЭП; Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP) — планируемая к созданию международная торгово-экономическая организация, целью которой является создание зоны свободной торговли в Азиатско-Тихоокеанском регионе. Организация создаётся на основе разрабатываемого торгового соглашения между её участниками.

Данная структура должна стать альтернативой АСЕАН и АТЭС, её создание является продолжением американской политики по сохранению контроля над Тихоокеанской зоной, созданию экономического блока для противостояния растущему влиянию Китая и России.

По прогнозам, доля стран ТТП (вместе с Японией) в мировом ВВП может достигнуть 38—40 % и четверть оборота мировой торговли (при этом лидируя по объёму доли в ВВП, но уступая в обороте мировой торговли торговому блоку АСЕАН+6 при условии участия Китая в АСЕАН).



Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
22 февраля, 05:15

Keith Ellison Supporters Warn Of Fallout If He Loses DNC Chair Race

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); WASHINGTON ― Days after the November election, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party was ascendant. There was no greater sign of its rising stature than the momentum Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota was enjoying in his race to chair the Democratic National Committee. Ellison, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the 2016 presidential primary, was racking up endorsements not only from Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), but establishment figures as well, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers — both of whom backed Hillary Clinton in the primary. But in December, former Labor Secretary Tom Perez jumped into the DNC race. Now, Ellison and Perez are neck-and-neck, with the election days away. The DNC’s 447 voting members will decide the party’s next chair in Atlanta on Saturday.   That has some Ellison supporters worried that their chance to reshape the party is in danger of disappearing. In an attempt to head off Perez, some prominent Ellison supporters argue that failing to elect him would squander a major opportunity to energize the progressive grassroots and heal the wounds of the 2016 presidential primary. “Keith Ellison had incredible support from the quote-unquote establishment side of the party, the progressive side of the party, the grassroots and the elected officials. Nobody was clamoring for another entrance, and yet we got one foisted upon us,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, an organization fighting to expand Social Security benefits. “If Tom Perez were to win, the message that would send to the grassroots, to labor unions that endorsed Ellison before Tom Perez joined the race, [is] that their voices, their muscle, their enthusiasm and turnout doesn’t matter,” Lawson added. Ellison backers acknowledge that the liberal protest movement that has taken shape since President Donald Trump’s inauguration ― not the DNC race ― has become the focus of grassroots energy. A loss for Ellison now could limit the party’s ability to tap into that enthusiasm, but it wouldn’t stop the movement. “If Perez wins, we’re not gonna come out with pitchforks and say, ‘No, no, no,’” said Murshed Zaheed, political director of Credo Action, an online progressive heavyweight that has experienced record growth since Trump’s inauguration. “But people are going to roll their eyes and just keeping doing what they do. It’s going to keep the DNC what it is: an irrelevant, old, stale entity that hasn’t been re-serviced since the Howard Dean days.” (Zaheed noted that he spoke to HuffPost in his personal capacity, since Credo isn’t endorsing in the race.) If Ellison gets in and they don’t take labor and the working class for granted, we’re liable to go back to the party. Chuck Jones, United Steelworkers The role of DNC chair is primarily to raise funds, recruit candidates for office and represent the party to the media. But in the wake of major electoral defeats, the contest to fill the post tends to reflect struggles for power within the party. By encouraging Ellison’s candidacy in November, party leaders appeared to be affirming the post-election analysis of many bitter progressives: that Democrats’ failure to embrace economic populism and grassroots energy had hurt the party in turning out its base and appealing to white Rust Belt voters who voted for Barack Obama, but opted for Trump in 2016. It also was an olive branch to Sanders supporters still reeling from a primary race they felt favored Clinton.  Then, in December, aides to then-President Obama, dissatisfied with Ellison, encouraged then-Labor Secretary Perez to run. His candidacy has since taken off — with the blessing of top figures from the Obama White House. Obama himself praised Perez in comments widely interpreted as an endorsement. Former Vice President Joe Biden and former Attorney General Eric Holder threw their support behind Perez this month. Perez is an unlikely target of progressive opposition, given his strong liberal credentials. He earned widespread praise from unions for turning the Department of Labor, once a minor federal agency, into a powerhouse advocate for workers’ rights. Prior to that, as head of the Department of Justice civil rights division, Perez led the Obama administration’s historic investigations into police abuses. Indeed, many progressives now backing Ellison would have loved to see Hillary Clinton pick Perez as her running mate, and still hope he will run for governor in 2018 in his home state of Maryland. An Unpopular Trade Agreement Perez’s biggest policy difference with Ellison is that he supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the controversial 12-nation trade pact negotiated by Obama. Unfortunately for Perez, TPP is divisive in Democratic circles. Labor unions, environmental organizations and other progressive groups reviled the now-defunct trade deal, and believe Obama’s promotion of it contributed to Democrats’ losses in 2016. Perez has claimed that he supported TPP out of loyalty to the Obama administration. For some Democrats, that explanation is thin. One of them is Chuck Jones, president of United Steelworkers Local 1999 in Indianapolis, which represents workers at the Carrier air-conditioning factory. (Trump famously insulted Jones for publicly disputing estimates of jobs saved by Trump’s deal with Carrier.) Jones voted for Clinton, but many of his union members went from backing Sanders to Trump, because they mistrusted Clinton’s record of support for international trade agreements. Jones said he worries that Perez likewise lacks credibility on trade. “If Ellison gets in and they don’t take labor and the working class for granted, we’re liable to go back to the party,” Jones said. “If they put somebody in like Perez that don’t see it that way, like the TPP — him being for it is a major issue — you’ll start seeing people vote Republican or not voting at all.”  Credo’s Zaheed, who was an aide to former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.), argued that Perez’s election would dismay the party’s progressive base. “If the Democratic Party ... puts one of the biggest promoters of TPP in charge of it, that would send a terrible message to the rank-and-file and the progressive base,” Zaheed said. Ties To Clinton, Obama The focus on Perez’s support for TPP is as much about his proximity to Obama and to Clinton — who backed TPP for years before coming out against it as a presidential candidate — as it is about the candidate himself. Perez was an early and outspoken Clinton proponent during the primary. In his DNC pitch, he has even adopted a version of Clinton’s campaign slogan, declaring himself a “progressive who gets things done.” Progressives wary of the Clinton campaign’s failures and its coziness with the party’s donor class view these connections as burdens, not benefits. But Perez’s ties to Obama have proven even more radioactive. Ellison backers like Zaheed and Lawson resent that those in Obama’s inner circle injected themselves into the DNC race by backing Perez. Obama advisers set up the separate fundraising and organizing arm Organizing for Action, which Zaheed and Lawson blame for undermining the DNC. “The total degradation and deterioration of the party — they are responsible for it,” Zaheed said of Obama and his advisers. “For them to trot out one of their former hands is kind of unseemly, to be honest, and it is not helpful at this point.” Too Radical? Some Perez supporters argue that Ellison would take the party too far to the left for swing voters that Democrats need to win back. Pennsylvania Democratic Party Chair Marcel Groen, for example, told HuffPost in January he wanted a “moderate” DNC chair. Groen endorsed Perez this month. Lawson argued that on the bread-and-butter economic policy issues like opposing trade agreements, protecting Social Security and taking on pharmaceutical companies, Ellison’s record is a strength among voters attracted to Trump’s populism. “There is this elite Democratic-bubble mentality that thinks that you get these centrist-type voters by going with a half loaf — that they want kind of Democratic, kind of Republican,” Lawson said. “That is a complete misreading and always has been a complete misreading.” Likewise, some of Ellison’s critics have implied that his identity as a black Muslim will make it hard for the party to compete among the white working-class swing voters who backed Trump. United Steelworkers local president Jones rejected that notion, noting that he and his members have had no problem voting for Rep. Andre Carson, an Indianapolis Democrat who also is African American and Muslim. “I don’t think Democratic people would not vote for a Democrat because the head of the Democratic Party is black and Muslim,” Jones added. “We’ve got some prejudice-ass people, but I think they would look beyond that.” The Howard Dean Precedent After Democrats got trounced in the 2004 elections, party officials welcomed an outsider. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the progressive favorite in the Democratic primary, won the DNC chairmanship in 2005, despite the opposition of Sen. Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Dean’s tenure from 2005 to 2009, marked by the winning 50-state strategy, is now regarded as one of the most successful in the party’s history. Nearly every candidate in this year’s DNC race has held Dean up as a model, promising to revive his focus on state and local party infrastructure. But Zaheed and other progressives see Ellison as the only candidate providing the party an opportunity to do something similar. “Tim Kaine, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and now Tom Perez? It’s going to be more of the same,” Zaheed said. “It is really the mindset that has made that whole infrastructure stale, old and irrelevant.”  Bringing The Party Together If neither Perez nor Ellison wins an outright majority in the first round of voting, there will be additional ballots until someone gets a majority. That could provide an opening to a dark-horse candidate like South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, or South Carolina Democratic Party Chair Jaime Harrison. Idaho Democratic Party executive director Sally Boynton Brown; media strategist Jehmu Greene; Milwaukee attorney Peter Peckarsky and Ohio activist Sam Ronan also are vying for the post. Perez is clearly aware of the challenges he would face if he wins. And he pledges to court skeptical Sanders supporters. “Tom is committed to unifying the party and rebuilding it from the ground up. That is why he has met with Keith Ellison and other candidates over the last few weeks, because he understands that it will take all of us to unify the party no matter who wins,” Perez campaign spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement. “As we speak, Tom is traveling the country to talk to Democrats who both do and don’t support him to hear and address directly how we can best unify the party,” Hinojosa added. “He’s also met with activists and millennials who tell him they are on the verge of leaving the party because it doesn’t represent them.” This is just one battle in the long war. Jessica Pierce, All of Us Jessica Pierce, an Ellison supporter and activist with All of Us, a progressive group that has threatened to back primary election opponents of Democratic incumbents who cooperate with Trump, said activists would be able to work with Perez. “People will still be prepared to push on Tom,” Pierce said. “And he should be prepared to hear that what people need from Democratic leadership are people who are actually willing to fight and stand up for us.” “We’re in this for the long term,” she added. “We’re not interested in one tactic or one strategy, or one leader. This is just one battle in the long war.” And if Ellison wins, he would have fences to mend, too, according to Symone Sanders, a former press secretary for Sanders’ presidential campaign who now works for the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA, and has not endorsed a DNC candidate. “If Keith wins, he is going to have some real work to do to bring the party together, to cast his vision and to really get down to work,” Sanders said. “And the same thing for Tom Perez.” Sanders warned against viewing Ellison’s election as a cure for bringing unaffiliated progressive activists into the Democratic fold. “They are not just gonna come because he’s the chair,” Sanders said. “Because then, he’s not some progressive outsider any more — he’s the chair of the Democratic National Committee. He’s now an insider.” Sign up for the HuffPost Must Reads newsletter. Each Sunday, we will bring you the best original reporting, long form writing and breaking news from The Huffington Post and around the web, plus behind-the-scenes looks at how it’s all made. Click here to sign up! -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

22 февраля, 01:24

Администрация Дональда Трампа пересмотрит все торговые соглашения с участием США

Официальный представитель Белого дома Шон Спайсер сообщил, что администрация президента США Дональда Трампа планирует пересмотреть торговые соглашения, в которых участвуют США. «Мы посмотрим на них с позиции того, отвечают ли они интересам Америки и американских рабочих, во многих случаях мы будем совершенствовать их»,— цитирует «РИА Новости» господина Спайсера.Представитель Белого дома уточнил, что власти не будут заострять внимание на каком-то отдельном документе. «Это касается не какой-то конкретной страны, мы посмотрим на торговые соглашения или затрагивающие сферу торговли соглашения, которые у нас есть с другими странами, чтобы убедиться, что они соответствуют времени, отвечают передовым технологическим достижениям»,— добавил Шон Спайер. При этом он не стал называть срок пересмотра торговых договоренностей.Напомним, в конце января Дональд Трамп подписал меморандум о прекращении участия страны в Транстихоокеанском…

21 февраля, 12:37

Конец ТТП?

Похоже, следующим в очереди на переосмысление может стать и другое партнерство – Трансатлантическое торговое и инвестиционное (TTIP), которое позволяет транснациональным компаниям даже судиться с властями суверенных по определению государств-участников проекта, отстаивая желательную норму прибыли.

20 февраля, 21:10

Rating Trump’s Yuge Month One

What mattered, and what didn’t.

20 февраля, 19:38

President Donald J. Trump’s First Month: Achieving Results for the American People

After one month in office, President Donald J. Trump is already achieving results for the American people. Jump starting Job Creation: President Trump is looking out for American workers that Washington has left behind. Signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and agreement Hosted the CEO of Intel to announce Intel’s plan to invest $7 billion in a United States factory that will create 10,000 American jobs Signed a Presidential Memorandum to clear roadblocks to construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline Signed a Presidential Memorandum declaring that the Dakota Access Pipeline serves the national interest and initiating the process to complete construction Signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering that all new pipeline construction and repair work use materials and equipment from the United States Signed legislation, House Joint Resolution 38, to block the burdensome Stream Protection Rule from causing further harm to the coal industry Signed legislation, House Joint Resolution 41, to eliminate a costly regulation that threatened to put domestic extraction companies and their employees at an unfair disadvantage Saving Taxpayers Money: President Trump is fighting to save Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars. Saved Americans $700 million on a new batch of F-35 fighters Capped the cost of Boeing’s next-generation Air Force One fleet at millions below that which was agreed to by the Obama administration Restoring Public Safety: President Trump will work to reduce the threats of crime and illegal immigration to public safety. Signed an Executive Order to enhance the safety and security of the United States by, among other things, constructing a wall on the southern border Signed an Executive Order to make sure Federal immigration laws are faithfully enforced throughout the country and that Americans’ tax dollars do not go to jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of immigration laws Signed an Executive Order that directs the Attorney General to develop a strategy to more effectively prosecute people who engage in crimes against law enforcement officers Signed an Executive Order that establishes a task force, led by the new Attorney General, to reduce crime and restore public safety in communities across America Signed an Executive Order that re-focuses the Federal Government’s energy and resources on dismantling transnational criminal organizations, such as drug cartels Getting Government Out of the Way: President Trump understands that excessive regulations stifle job-creation and harm our businesses. Signed an Executive Order instructing Federal agencies “to minimize the burden” of the Affordable Care Act Required that for every new Federal regulation, two existing regulations be eliminated Directed the Commerce Department to streamline Federal permitting processes for domestic manufacturing and to reduce regulatory burdens on domestic manufacturers Signed an Executive Order expediting the environmental review and approval processes for domestic infrastructure projects An America First Foreign Policy: The President’s first priority is the safety and security of the American people. Department of the Treasury sanctioned 25 entities and individuals involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program Signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary of Defense to work with other Cabinet members to develop a plan to defeat ISIS Called or met with more than 30 foreign leaders Draining the Swamp: President Trump has taken action to ensure that all members of his Administration are working for the American people. Signed an Executive Order establishing new ethics commitments for all Executive branch appointees, putting in place a five-year lobbying ban and a permanent ban on lobbying for foreign governments, so appointees serve the American people instead of their own interests Put in place a hiring freeze for Federal civilian employees to stop the growth of a bloated government Keeping His Promise to Defend the Constitution: President Trump promised a Supreme Court justice in the mold of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court because of his consistent record defending the Constitution Helping Women Succeed in Business: President Trump knows the country cannot reach its potential unless every American has a chance to prosper. Launched the United States-Canada Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders President Trump has spent the last 30 days fulfilling promises and helping the American people. He’s looking forward to the many more successful months and years of action to come.

20 февраля, 18:47

President Donald J. Trump's First Month: Achieving Results for the American People

JUMPSTARTING JOB CREATION: President Trump is looking out for American workers that Washington has left behind. President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering the United States to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and agreement. President Trump hosted the CEO of Intel to announce Intel’s plan to invest $7 billion in a United States factory that will create 10,000 American jobs. President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum to clear roadblocks to construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline. President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum declaring that the Dakota Access Pipeline serves the national interest and initiating the process to complete construction. President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum ordering that all new pipeline construction and repair work use materials and equipment from the United States. President Trump signed legislation, House Joint Resolution 38, to block the burdensome “Stream Protection Rule” from causing further harm to the coal industry. President Trump signed legislation, House Joint Resolution 41, to eliminate a costly regulation that threatened to put domestic extraction companies and their employees at an unfair disadvantage. SAVING TAXPAYERS MONEY: President Trump is fighting to save Americans’ hard-earned tax dollars.  After negotiations with Lockheed Martin, President Trump saved Americans $700 million on a new batch of F-35 fighters. Secretary of Defense Mattis has ordered a cost-cutting review of Boeing’s next-generation Air Force One fleet, after President Trump was able to cap the cost at millions below that which was agreed to by the Obama administration. RESTORING PUBLIC SAFETY: President Trump will work to reduce the threats of crime and illegal immigration to public safety. President Trump signed an Executive Order to enhance the safety and security of the United States by, among other things, constructing a wall on the southern border. President Trump signed an Executive Order to make sure Federal immigration laws are faithfully enforced throughout the country and that Americans’ tax dollars do not go to jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of immigration laws. President Trump signed an Executive Order that directs the Attorney General to develop a strategy to more effectively prosecute people who engage in crimes against law enforcement officers. President Trump signed an Executive Order that establishes a task force, led by the new Attorney General, to reduce crime and restore public safety in communities across America. President Trump signed an Executive Order that re-focuses the Federal Government’s energy and resources on dismantling transnational criminal organizations, such as drug cartels. GETTING GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY: President Trump understands that excessive regulations stifle job-creation and harm our businesses. President Trump signed an Executive Order instructing Federal agencies “to minimize the burden” of the Affordable Care Act. President Trump has required that for every new Federal regulation, two existing regulations be eliminated. President Trump directed the Commerce Department to streamline Federal permitting processes for domestic manufacturing and to reduce regulatory burdens on domestic manufacturers. President Trump signed an Executive Order expediting the environmental review and approval processes for domestic infrastructure projects. AN AMERICA FIRST FOREIGN POLICY: The President’s first priority is the safety and security of the American people. Under President Trump’s leadership, the Department of the Treasury sanctioned 25 entities and individuals involved in Iran’s ballistic missile program. President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum directing the Secretary of Defense to work with other cabinet members to develop a plan to defeat ISIS. President Trump has called or met with more than 30 foreign leaders. DRAINING THE SWAMP: President Trump has taken action to ensure that all members of his Administration are working for the American people. President Trump signed an Executive Order establishing new ethics commitments for all Executive branch appointees, putting in place a five-year lobbying ban and a permanent ban on lobbying for foreign governments, so appointees serve the American people instead of their own interests. President Trump put in place a hiring freeze for Federal civilian employees to stop the growth of a bloated government. KEEPING HIS PROMISE TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION: President Trump promised a Supreme Court justice in the mold of late justice Antonin Scalia. President Trump nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court because of his consistent record defending the Constitution. HELPING WOMEN SUCCEED IN BUSINESS: President Trump knows the country cannot reach its potential unless every American has a chance to prosper. President Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau launched the United States-Canada Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders.

20 февраля, 13:25

Месяц с Дональдом. Эксперт о самых ярких указах Трампа

Политолог Михаил Нейжмаков прокомментировал самые резонансные указы Трампа, которые он успел издать со дня своей инаугурации.

20 февраля, 10:32

Конец ТТП?

Транс-тихоокеанское партнерство остается без своего главного «менеджера» – США. // Елена Пустовойтова

20 февраля, 06:00

Trump Declares Victory Over TPP Criminal Group

The TPP was in the works for over 10 years and when we finally got a look at it, it gives everything away to the corporate elite. Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones Infowars on G+ - https://plus.google.com/+infowars/ :Web: http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/ http://www.infowars.net/ :Subscribe and share your login with 20 friends: http://www.prisonplanet.tv http://www.InfowarsNews.com Visit http://www.InfowarsLife.com to get the products Alex Jones and his family trust, while supporting the growth of our expanding media operation. [http://bit.ly/2dhnhbS] Biome Defense™ [http://bit.ly/2bnEj91] Bio-True Selenium™ [http://bit.ly/1WYw8jp] Vitamin Mineral Fusion™ [http://bit.ly/1QYBNBv] Joint Formula™ [http://bit.ly/1nNuR3r] Anthroplex™ [http://bit.ly/1ljfWfJ] Living Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1Iobcj2] Deep Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1DsyQ6i] Knockout™ [http://bit.ly/1Kr1yfz] Brain Force™ [http://bit.ly/1R5gsqk] Liver Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1cOwQix] ProstaGuard™ [http://bit.ly/1mnchEz3] Child Ease™ [http://bit.ly/1xs9F6t] WinterSunD3™ [http://bit.ly/1L3gDSO] Ancient Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1EHbA6E] Secret-12™ [http://bit.ly/1txsOge] Oxy Powder™ [http://bit.ly/1s6cphV] Occu Power™ [http://bit.ly/1rGOLsG] DNA Force™ [http://bit.ly/1nIngBb] X2 Survival Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1kaXxKL] Super Female Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1mhAKCO] Lung Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1mGbikx] Silver-Bullet - Colloidal Silver™ [http://bit.ly/1xcoUfo] Super Male Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1z5BCP9] Survival Shield - Nascent Iodine™ [http://bit.ly/1o4sQtc] Patriot Blend 100% Organic Coffee™ [http://bit.ly/1iVL6HB] Immune Support 100% Organic Coffee™ All available at - http://www.infowarsshop.com/ INFOWARS HEALTH - START GETTING HEALTHY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - http://www.infowarshealth.com/ Newsletter Sign up / Infowars Underground Insider : http://www.infowars.com/newsletter The Alex Jones Show © copyright, Free Speech Systems .LLC 1995 - 2017 All Rights Reserved. May use for fair use and educational purposes

19 февраля, 09:58

Австралия и Новая Зеландия подхватят знамя ТТП

Две страны южного полушария — Австралия и Новая Зеландия — договорились совместно проводить в жизнь договор о Транстихоокеанском партнерстве (ТТП). Премьер-министры двух стран Малколм Тёрнбулл и Билл Инглиш по итогам переговоров выступили с совместным заявлением. В нем говорится, что продвигать ТТП они намерены, даже если США выйдут из соглашения, как обещал новый президент Дональд Трамп. Встреча глав двух соседних государств прошла в новозеландском Квинстауне,

19 февраля, 05:52

Remarks by President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump at Make America Great Again Rally

Orlando Melbourne International Airport Melbourne, Florida 5:46 P.M. EST   MRS. TRUMP:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  Let us pray.  (A prayer is given.)  Good afternoon.  It is my honor and great pleasure to stand here before you as the First Lady of the United States.  (Applause.)  The America we envision is one that works for all Americans and where all Americans can work and succeed -- a nation committed to greater civility and unity between people from all sides of the political divide.   I will always stay true to myself and be truthful to you, no matter what the opposition is saying about me.  (Applause.)  I will act in the best interest of all of you.  I'm committed to creating and supporting initiatives dear to my heart, which will have impact on women and children all around the world.  (Applause.)   My husband is creating a country of great safety and prosperity.  Ladies and gentlemen, I'm proud to introduce the President of the United States, Donald Trump.  (Applause.)     THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  (Applause.)  Thank you all.  I didn’t know that Melania was going to be saying the Lord's Prayer, but I thought that was very beautiful.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you.     It's so great to be here in Florida, my second home, with you.  This is a state I truly love.  This is a state where we all had great victory together.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  It's now been one month since my inauguration, and I am here to tell you about our incredible progress in Making America Great Again.  (Applause.)  And I’m also here to tell you about our plans for the future.  And they're big and they're bold, and it's what our country is all about, believe me.  (Applause.)    I'm here because I want to be among my friends and among the people.  (Applause.)  This was a great movement -- a movement like has never been seen before in our country, or probably anywhere else.  This was a truly great movement, and I want to be here with you, and I will always be with you, I promise you.  (Applause.)  I want to be in a room filled with hardworking American patriots who love their country, who salute their flag, and who pray for a better future.  (Applause.)   I also want to speak to you without the filter of the fake news.  (Applause.)  The dishonest media, which has published one false story after another, with no sources, even though they pretend they have them -- they make them up in many cases -- they just don’t want to report the truth, and they've been calling us wrong now for two years.  They don’t get it, but they're starting to get it, I can tell you that.  (Applause.)  They've become a big part of the problem.  They are part of the corrupt system.   Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln, and many of our greatest Presidents, fought with the media and called them out, oftentimes on their lies.  When the media lies to people, I will never, ever, let them get away with it.  I will do whatever I can that they don’t get away with it.  (Applause.)  They have their own agenda, and their agenda is not your agenda.  (Applause.)   In fact, Thomas Jefferson said, "Nothing can [now] be believed which is seen in a newspaper."  "Truth itself," he said, "becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."  That was June 14th -- my birthday -- (laughter and applause) -- 1807.   But despite all their lies, misrepresentations and false stories, they could not defeat us in the primaries and they could not defeat us in the general election, and we will continue to expose them for what they are.  And, most importantly, we will continue to win, win, win.  (Applause.)    We are not going to let the fake news tell us what to do, how to live, or what to believe.  We are free and independent people, and we will make our own choices.  (Applause.)  We are here today to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.  I hear your demands, I hear your voices, and I promise you I will deliver.  I promise that.  (Applause.)   And, by the way, you've seen what we've accomplished in a very short period of time.  The White House is running so smoothly.  So smoothly.  (Applause.)  And believe me, I -- and we -- inherited one big mess.  That, I can tell you.  But I know that you want safe neighborhoods where the streets belong to families and communities, not gang members and drug deals who are right now, as I speak, being thrown out of the country and they will not be let back in.  (Applause.)  We will have strong borders again.  (Applause.)  And I mean that.  And you've seen it on television.  You've seen it on television.   General Kelly, now Secretary Kelly, he's really doing the job.  You're seeing it.  The gang members -- bad, bad people.  I said it day one.  And they're going out, or they're being put in prison.  But for the most part, get them the hell out of there.  Bring them back to where they came from.  (Applause.)   The fact is, you want great schools for your children, you want good, high-paying jobs for yourselves and for your loved one, and for the future of your families.  You want a health care system -- and, by the way, we are going to be submitting in a couple of weeks a great health care plan that's going to take the place of the disaster known as Obamacare.  (Applause.)  It will be repealed and replaced.  And for those people, the people that are put into rooms where Republicans are talking about the plan, and it wouldn’t matter what they say -- for those people, just so you understand, our plan will be much better health care at a much lower cost, okay?  (Applause.)  Nothing to complain about.  Obamacare, remember, it is a disaster.   You want low-cost American energy also, which means lifting the restrictions on oil, on shale, on natural gas, and on clean -- very clean coal.  We're going to put the miners back to work.  The miners go back to work.  (Applause.)  You want us to enforce our immigration laws and to defend our borders.  You want fair trade deals and a level playing field.  We don’t have a level playing field.  Because you understand that when American workers win, America as a country wins, and wins big.  And every country over the last long period of time has been taking advantage of the stupidity of our politicians.  It's not going to happen any longer.  (Applause.)   You want lower taxes, less regulation, millions of new jobs, and more products stamped with those beautiful, beautiful words: "Made in the USA."  (Applause.)  You want to make it easier for companies to do business in America and harder for companies to leave.  We don’t want companies saying, "Everybody is fired, we're moving to another country, we're going to make the product, sell it across the border, and isn’t wonderful?"  Not going to happen anymore.  We're going to have strong borders.  And when they want to sell that product back across our border, they're going to pay a 35 percent tax.  And you know what?  They're never going to leave.  They will never, ever leave.  (Applause.)  And you've seen that because I've already displayed it for the last two months, even before I got into office.  They're not leaving.  And if they do, they're going to pay a very, very big price for terminating the relationship to our workers. You want a government that serves the people -- not the donors and not the special interests.  In short, you want a government that keeps its promises.  A great spirit of optimism is sweeping -- and you see it -- it's sweeping all across the country.  Look at what's happening to the stock market.  Look at what's happening to every poll when it comes to optimism in our country.  It's sweeping across the country.  And, in fact, every day for the last long period of days, the stock market, meaning companies, have been hitting new highs.  They're going to start hiring.  It's going to be a new day in America.  You're going to be proud again.  (Applause.)     Jobs are already starting to pour back in.  They're coming back in like you haven’t seen in a long time.  Ford, General Motors, Fiat-Chrysler are bringing in and bringing back thousands of jobs, investing billions of dollars because of the new business climate that we are creating in our country.  In Arizona, Intel -- great company -- just announced it will open a new plant that will create at least 10,000 brand-new, beautiful American jobs.  (Applause.)   I've followed through on my promise to withdraw from the job-killing disaster known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- TPP.  We have just terminated our relationship to it.  We're going to have tremendous trade deals all over the world, but they're going to be bilateral or, as we would say, one-on-one.  None of these deals where we get caught in quick sand, where we get mired in and we can't do anything about it, like, by the way, NAFTA and so many others.   And my administration has begun plans to crack down on foreign cheating and currency manipulation, which is killing our companies and really, really hurting our workers.  We're going to end it.  (Applause.)   Within a few days of taking the Oath of Office, I’ve taken steps to begin the construction of the Keystone and the Dakota Access pipelines.  (Applause.)  Anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000 jobs.  And very importantly, as I was about to sign it, I said, who makes the pipe?  Who makes the pipe?  Something this audience understands very well, right?  Simple question.  The lawyers put this very complex document in front.  I said, who makes the pipe?  They said, sir, it can be made anywhere.  I said, not anymore.  So I put a little clause on the bottom:  The pipe has to be made in the United States of America if we're going to have pipelines.  (Applause.)   We believe in two simple rules.  And I can tell you, everybody in this massive -- this is a massive hangar; this is for the big planes.  And, by the way, do you think that one media group back there, that one network, will show this crowd?  Not one.  Not one. AUDIENCE:  Booo -- THE PRESIDENT:  Not one.  They won't show the crowd. You know, coming in on the plane -- and that plane represents so much -- and just so you know, they were close to signing a $4.2 billion deal to have a new Air Force One.  Can you believe this?  I said, no way.  I said, I refuse to fly in a $4.2 billion airplane.  (Applause.)  I refuse.  So I got Boeing in -- and it is actually -- a lot of people don’t know -- the Air Force One project is actually two planes.  Why they need two planes, we'll have to talk about that.  But they have two planes.  But we've got that price down by over a billion dollars.  And I probably haven’t spoken, to be honest with you, for more than an hour on the project.  But I got the generals in, who are fantastic.  I got Boeing in.  But I told Boeing it's not good enough, we're not going to do it -- the price is still too high. On the F-35 fighter jet, we were hundreds of billions of dollars over budget, seven years late.  Great plane.  Lockheed Martin -- a great plane.  So think of it:  They're seven years late, they're hundreds of -- billions of dollars over budget.  Other than that, by the way, the project is going extremely well.  And I got the folks in from Lockheed Martin, who are terrific people and a terrific product, by the way.  I also got Boeing in.  I said, do me a favor, give me a competing offer.  And now they're competing and fighting, and we've gotten hundreds of millions of dollars off the price of a plane that was going to be ordered.   In other words, if my opponent got in, there would have been no calls made to Lockheed and Boeing.  They would have signed contracts.  So they're going to make plenty of money but it's going to be a lot less than they would have made without Trump.  That, I can tell you.  And you might as well know about it -- (applause) -- because nobody talks.  And, by the way, that's for fighter jets -- one of the biggest orders in the history of aviation, the order for the F-35 you've been reading about it -- because it was a disaster under the last administration.  A disaster.  And now we have it running beautifully.   In fact, when the Prime Minister of Japan -- Prime Minister Abe, who's great; great guy -- when he came over, he said, thank you.  I said, for what?  "You saved us many, many millions of dollars on the F-35 fighter jet."  Because when I negotiated, I took our allies into the same negotiation.  So the first thing he did was he thanked me for saving them money, and that's good.  Okay?  That's good.  (Applause.)  I know the media will never thank me, so at least Japan is thanking me, right?  (Applause.)   But we believe in two simple rules:  Buy American and hire American.  We believe in them.  (Applause.)  We've just issued a new order which requires that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, a new director was just approved.  Can you imagine the length of time it's taking the Democrats?  And I actually think it's an embarrassment to them.  But this is getting to be record-setting territory.  These are incredible people.   Scott Pruitt was just approved, just now approved, for the Environmental Protection Agency.  He'll do so good.  (Applause.)  He'll do so good.  But he won’t have projects going 10 and 12 years and then getting rejected.  And they may be rejected, but they'll be rejected quickly.  But for the most part, they're going to be accepted, they're going to be environmentally friendly, and he is going to be a great Secretary.  He will be amazing.  So we're very happy.  That took place yesterday.   That's going to be a big difference, because they were clogging up the veins of our country with the environmental impact statements and all of the rules and regulations.  It was impossible to navigate for companies.  And what did it really mean?  Forget about the companies.  What did it mean?  It meant no jobs.  It meant companies leaving our country and going to foreign countries to do things that they'd rather do here.  So we're going to have a whole big situation.  We are going to unfree all of those companies.  They are going to be -- they're going to have freedom.  They're going to be able to build what they want to build.  It will be environmentally friendly.  And we're going to start producing jobs like you've never seen before.  That's going to happen.  That was a big thing. (Applause.)     We're standing up for the incredible men and women, always, of law enforcement.  (Applause.)  We're standing up.  And I can tell you, the military and law enforcement, they stood up big.  I don’t say for me -- I'm the messenger, folks; I'm the messenger.  They stood up for us in this last election.  We got numbers that nobody believed were possible, from law enforcement and from military -- basically people that where uniforms like us.  Isn't that nice?   And I saw this man on television just now.  You -- I just saw him on television.  He said, "I love Trump.  Let Trump do what he has to do."  That's my guy, right there.  (Applause.)  It's true.  Come here.  Come here.  No, I just -- I'm coming in.  That's okay.  Let him up.  Let him up.  I'm not worried about him.  I'm only worried he's going to give me a kiss.  I'm not worried about anything else.  This guy is so great.  He was one of many people -- they're interviewing people in the line -- and I have to say, there's a tiny group of protestors out there, and they were given as much publicity as this massive room packed with people.  But they interviewed this man.  Come on up here.  Come on up.  This guy is great.  Hop over the fence.  Come on.  He can do it.  This guy is in good shape.  Look at him.  Look at this guy.  Come on.  This guy is great.  Don't worry about it.  No, no, no come here.  They're going to throw -- come on up.  Come on.  Come here.  (Applause.)   This guy -- so he's been all over television, saying the best things, and I see him standing.  Didn’t you get here like at four in the morning? AUDIENCE MEMBER:  I did, sir. THE PRESIDENT:  Say a couple of words to this crowd.  (Applause.)  AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Mr. President, thank you, sir.  We, the people, our movement, is the reason why our President of the United States is standing here in front of us today.  (Applause.)  When President Trump, during the election, promised all these things that he was going to do for us, I knew he was going to do this for us.  (Applause.)   Mr. President, thank you so much, sir.   THE PRESIDENT:  A star is born.  A star is born.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  That's fine. AUDIENCE:  U-S-A!  U-S-A!  U-S-A! THE PRESIDENT:  I wouldn’t say that Secret Service was thrilled with that -- (laughter) -- but we know our people, right?  We know our people.  (Applause.)  He's a great guy.  And so many others.  I see some others, they're being interviewed.  I see them over here.  They started -- they came at four in the morning.  The media will give them no credit.  The media, as I told you, they won't show this crowd.  Look at that -- all the way outside.  This is as big a hangar as you get.  All the way outside, way back to the fences.  Amazing.  I want to thank you.  But I want to thank everybody. So I've directed the Department of Justice to take a firm, firm stance to protect our cops, sheriffs and police from crimes of violence against them.  (Applause.)  We will work with our police, not against our police.  Our police do a great job, and they've never been troubled like they're troubled now.  It's very unfair what's happening.  So we want to cherish our law enforcement, and we will always protect those who protect us.   We’ve directed the creation of a task force for reducing violent crime in America, including our inner cities.  We're going to make our inner cities safe again.  Look at what's going on.  Look at what's happening in Chicago.  Hundreds of shootings, hundreds of deaths.  I'll tell you, what's happening in Chicago and many other places.  Safety is a civil right, and we will fight to make America totally safe again. I’ve ordered the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice to coordinate on a plan to destroy transnational criminal cartels, which are all over the United States, and we are going to stop the drugs from pouring into your country, into your community, into your cities, and poisoning our youth.  We're stopping it.  (Applause.)  We're stopping it.     We’ve taken historic action to secure the southern border, and I’ve ordered the construction of a great border wall, which will start very shortly.  (Applause.)  And I’ve taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country.  (Applause.)   So you probably read where we want to enforce the laws as existing, and so we signed an order a couple of weeks ago, and it was taken over by a court, originally by a judge, and then a -- AUDIENCE:  Booo -- THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah.  It's very sad.  And, you know, the reason is for protection and safety.  So the statute is so plain and so clear.  I said last week -- I was speaking to a great group of sheriffs, the sheriffs group in Washington, and I said, if you have a college education, you can understand it; if you have a high school education, you can understand it; if you were a bad student in high school, you can understand it.  And I was told -- I'll check, but I found it hard to believe -- in an over 30-page decision by the appellate court, three judges -- and you could tell by the way they were reacting, because it was broadcast on television, and everything we do gets a lot of people watching.  So you could tell by the way that phone call went, it wasn’t looking good.  And when they wrote their decision, as I understand it -- maybe I'm wrong -- but they didn’t write the statute they were making the decision about, because every word of the statute is a total kill for the other side.   So I thought I'd read it, and here's what it says.  This is what it says:  "Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or any class of aliens into the United States" -- okay, so essentially, whenever somebody comes into the United States, right -- if it "would be detrimental to the interests of the United States" -- okay, now you know the countries we're talking about, and these were countries picked by Obama; they weren’t even picked -- they were picked by Obama -- "he may" -- so the President may -- "by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary" -- now, because it's old, it should have said he or she, right?  They were not politically correct when they drew this.  In fact, that's the only thing that was actually wrong with it.  He or she -- but I don’t think the women care too much about that, right?  I don’t think so.   By the way, we did very well with women.  (Applause.)  You know, my wife said, when some of these phony polls were put out -- you know, the CNN poll was so far off -- the phony polls.  But when some of these -- she said, what's wrong with you and women?  We did very nicely with women.  We did nicely with a lot of groups that they didn’t think we were going to do so nicely with.  I guess we had to.  That's why we're all here tonight, right?  (Applause.)   So, and it goes, "…and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."  So basically it says the President has the right to keep people out if he feels it's not in the best interest of our country.  Right?  (Applause.)  Unbelievable.  Unbelievable.  And I listened to these judges talk and talk and talk.  So unfair.   So we'll be doing something over the next couple of days.  We don’t give up.  We never give up.  (Applause.)  We had a court that I disagree with, I disagree with big league.  And, by the way, whether you read it or whether you watch it on television, when other lawyers come on many of them can't even understand.  They're saying, how do you come up with that decision?  It cannot be more simple.  So they're ruling on what I just read you, and they don’t even quote it in their ruling -- because you can't, because it's too obvious.  So we will do something next week.  I think you'll be impressed.  Let's see what happens. Here's the bottom line:  We've got to keep our country safe.  You look at what's happening.  We've got to keep our country safe.  (Applause.)  You look at what's happening in Germany.  You look at what's happening last night in Sweden.  Sweden?  Who would believe this?  Sweden?  They took in large numbers.  They're having problems like they never thought possible.  You look at what's happening in Brussels.  You look at what's happening all over the world.  Take a look at Nice.  Take a look at Paris.  We've allowed thousands and thousands of people into our country, and there was no way to vet those people.  There was no documentation.  There was no nothing. So we're going to keep our country safe.  (Applause.)  And we all have heart, by the way.  And what I want to do is build safe zones in Syria and other places so they can stay there and live safely until their cities and their country -- that mess that I was left by Obama and everybody else.  Folks, we were left a mess like you wouldn’t believe.  But we're going to build safe zones.  We're going to have those safe zones.  You know, we do owe $20 trillion, okay?  So we're going to have the Gulf States pay for those safe zones.  They have nothing but money.  And we're going to do it that way, instead of taking massive numbers -- tens of thousands of people -- into our country, and we don’t know anything about those people.   We want people to come into our country, but we want people that love us.  We want people that can cherish us and their traditions of our country.  We want people that are going to be great for our country.  We don’t want people with bad, bad ideas.  We don’t want that.   I've also directed the defense community, headed by General, and now Sec -- oh, you know, he said it -- he said it -- and now Secretary “Mad Dog” Mattis -- (applause) -- to develop a plan to totally destroy ISIS.  (Applause.)  I have ordered the Department of Defense to begin plans for the great rebuilding of the United States military.  (Applause.)  We will pursue peace through strength.  Our military is badly depleted.  You have planes in the military where the father flew them and now the son is flying them, they're so old.  We make the best equipment anywhere in the world.  We're going to start using our best and most modern equipment.  (Applause.)   And we're going to make sure that our veterans have the care they need when they come home.  (Applause.)  We love our veterans.  (Applause.)  We're going to do a great job for our veterans.  Our veterans have been very, very sadly treated.  These are our great, great people.  We owe them so much.  Our veterans are going to be taken care for once and for all.  Our system and our country has let down our veterans.  We are not going to let that go on any further.  You wait until you see what we're going to be doing for our great veterans.  Thank you, veterans, for all -- who's here?  Who's a veteran?  (Applause.)  We're going to take care of our veterans. We're going to downsize the bloated bureaucracy and make government lean and accountable.  We are going to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.  (Applause.)     AUDIENCE:  Drain the swamp!  Drain the swamp!  Drain the swamp! THE PRESIDENT:  I've already imposed -- I'm not sure they're too happy about it -- a five-year lobbying ban on executive branch officials, and a lifetime ban on lobbying for a foreign government.  (Applause.)   And there's another major promise I have kept to the American people:  I’ve nominated a fantastic justice to replace the late, great Justice Scalia.  (Applause.)  His name is Judge Neil Gorsuch.  (Applause.)  And he comes from my list of 20 very, very highly-qualified judges.  He's incredible, and he has an incredible résumé.  He's respected by all.  His education is as good as it can get.  His writings are truly amazing.  He will be a true defender of our Constitution.   So let's tell the Senate Democrats to support his nomination for the good of the country.  Because what's happening with the Democrats -- no wonder they're doing so badly.  No wonder they're doing so badly.  You take a look.  Race after race -- I just want to tell you, in case you didn’t read it -- of course, you're reading the fake news -- but the Democrats were supposed to win the presidency.  That didn’t happen.  They were supposed to take over the Senate.  That didn’t happen.  And they were supposed to take over, potentially, even the House.  It was going to be, four weeks out, the greatest defeat in the modern history of American politics.  And it was -- but it was for the Democrats, not for the Republicans.  (Applause.)   So we have to tell the Democrats -- because they're doing the wrong thing for the American people -- to stop their tactics of delay and obstruction and destruction.  They got to get on with it.   My administration is also pushing ahead strongly with very historic tax reform.  We are working to lower tax rates on the middle class, to reduce tax rates, big league, on businesses, and to make our tax code more fair and very simple for all Americans, so it's understandable by everyone.  (Applause.)   Senate Democrats should work with us to lower taxes and bring back our jobs.  But the Democrats want to increase your taxes very, very substantially.  We're not going to let that happen.  It's also time for the Senate Democrats to take responsibility for Obamacare, and to work with us to replace it with new reforms that reverse this nationwide health care tragedy.  It's a tragedy.  You look at some states -- Arizona -- up 116 percent.  And your deductibles have gotten so high that you can never use it.  Obamacare doesn’t work.  It's become totally unaffordable.  Remember they said to health care -- it's unaffordable.  It doesn’t work.  And I said to the Republicans, I said, you want to do something great politically?  Don't do anything.  Sit back for two years, let it explode; the Democrats will come and beg for us to do something.  But we can't do that to the American people.  We have to fix it, and we will.  (Applause.)  We need members of both parties to join hands and work with us to pass a $1 trillion infrastructure plan to build new roads, and bridges, and airports, and tunnels, and highways, and railways all across our great nation.  You are all part of this incredible movement -- this movement that we talk about so much, that's been written about on the cover of every magazine all over the world.  It's a movement that is just sweeping -- it's sweeping across our country.  It's sweeping, frankly, across the globe.  Look at Brexit.  Look at Brexit.  Much smaller example, but it's still something you can look at.   People want to take back control of their countries, and they want to take back control of their lives and the lives of their family.  (Applause.)  The nation-state remains the best model for human happiness, and the American nation remains the greatest symbol of liberty, of freedom, and justice on the face of God’s Earth.  (Applause.)  And now we have spirit like we've never had before.  It's now that we have our sacred duty, and we have no choice, and we want this choice to defend our country, to protect its values, and to serve its great, great citizens.  (Applause.)  Erasing national borders does not make people safer or more prosperous -- it undermines democracy and trades away prosperity.  We're giving it away.  The so-called global elite have done very well for themselves, but have left working families with shrinking wages, really -- I mean, they are shrinking.  Eighteen years ago, many of you in this room made more money working one job than you're making right now working two and three jobs.  (Applause.)   Instead of peace, we’ve seen wars that never end and conflicts that never seem to go away.  We don’t fight to win.  We fight politically correct wars.  We don’t win anymore.  We don’t win at trade.  We don’t win in any capacity.  We don’t win anymore.  We're going to start winning again, believe me.  (Applause.)   And we have the chance now, working together, to deliver change for the ages -- this will be change for the ages, change like never before; to pursue real peace, real stability and real prosperity.  We want to secure our borders and protect our workers; to rebuild our military and our infrastructure; to fix our schools and restore safety to our neighborhoods; to bring hope and opportunity to our inner cities; to ensure a level playing field for all women in the workforce; to reform our tax code and remove the regulations that undermine growth and innovation; and to replace chasms of distrust with new bridges of opportunity and cooperation.   We must ignore the tired echoes of yesterday’s fights.  We're fighting battles that no longer help us.  We're fighting battles that other people aren’t treating us fairly in the fight.  I'm a NATO fan, but many of the countries in NATO, many of the countries that we protect, many of these countries are very rich countries.  They're not paying their bills.  They're not paying their bills.  They have to help us.  No longer are we chained down by the discredited approaches of the past.  No longer must we listen to those who have nothing to brag about but failure.  New circumstances demand new solutions. Americans have fought and won wars together.  Our heroes have shed their blood together and lost their lives.  Our citizens have raised their children together, fought for justice together, and shared common hopes and dreams from one generation to the next, stretching back to the first day of our American independence. This is our legacy.  It belongs to all of you.  And it belongs to every man, woman, and child in our nation.  (Applause.)   Now is the time to call upon these deep ties in the name of bold action.  Let us move past the differences of party and find a new loyalty rooted deeply in our country.  We are all brothers and all sisters.  We share one home, one destiny, and one glorious American flag.  (Applause.)   We're united together by history and by providence.  We will make America strong again, I promise.  We will make America proud again.  We will make America safe again.  And we will make America great again -- greater than ever before.  (Applause.)   May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.  Thank you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)   END 6:34 P.M. EST

18 февраля, 23:39

Japan must form a bulwark to protect globalisation

From the US withdrawal from the TPP to the Brexit negotiations, the tide of trade policy is turning towards protectionism. This column outlines how this could create a vicious cycle of lower productivity and closed economies, and what Japan, as the world’s third largest economy, can do to prevent it. A combination of trade and investment liberalisation and inclusive policies will enable all citizens to enjoy the fruits of growth under globalisation.

18 февраля, 18:52

Азиатские союзники США не станут помогать американцам в конфликте с Китаем - эксперт

Американские союзники в регионе разобщены и заинтересованы в торговле с Китаем.

17 февраля, 01:05

Remarks by President Trump in Press Conference

East Room 12:55 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much.  I just wanted to begin by mentioning that the nominee for Secretary of the Department of Labor will be Mr. Alex Acosta.  He has a law degree from Harvard Law School, was a great student.  Former clerk for Justice Samuel Alito.  And he has had a tremendous career.  He's a member, and has been a member, of the National Labor Relations Board, and has been through Senate confirmation three times, confirmed -- did very, very well.  And so Alex, I've wished him the best.  We just spoke.  And he's going to be -- I think he'll be a tremendous Secretary of Labor.  And also, as you probably heard just a little while ago, Mick Mulvaney, former congressman, has just been approved -- weeks late, I have to say that.  Weeks, weeks late.  Office of Management and Budget.  And he will be, I think, a fantastic addition.  Paul Singer has just left.  As you know, Paul was very much involved with the anti-Trump, or, as they say, "Never Trump."  And Paul just left and he's given us his total support.  And it's all about unification.  We're unifying the party, and hopefully we're going to be able to unify the country.  It's very important to me.  I've been talking about that for a long time, but it's very, very important to me.  So I want to thank Paul Singer for being here and for coming up to the office.  He was a very strong opponent, and now he's a very strong ally.  And I appreciate that. I think I'll say a few words, and then we'll take some questions.  And I had this time -- we've been negotiating a lot of different transactions to save money on contracts that were terrible, including airplane contracts that were out of control and late and terrible.  Just absolutely catastrophic in terms of what was happening.  And we've done some really good work.  We're very proud of that.   And then right after that, you prepare yourselves and we'll do some questions -- unless you have no questions.  That's always a possibility.   I'm here today to update the American people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my inauguration.  We have made incredible progress.  I don’t think there's ever been a President elected who, in this short period of time, has done what we've done.   A new Rasmussen poll, in fact -- because the people get it; much of the media doesn’t get it.  They actually get it, but they don’t write it -- let's put it that way.  But a new Rasmussen poll just came out just a very short while ago, and it has our approval rating at 55 percent and going up.  The stock market has hit record numbers, as you know.  And there has been a tremendous surge of optimism in the business world, which is -- to me means something much different than it used to.  It used to mean, oh, that's good.  Now it means that's good for jobs.  Very different.  Plants and factories are already starting to move back into the United States and big league -- Ford, General Motors, so many of them.   I'm making this presentation directly to the American people with the media present, which is an honor to have you this morning, because many of our nation's reporters and folks will not tell you the truth and will not treat the wonderful people of our country with the respect that they deserve.  And I hope going forward we can be a little bit different, and maybe get along a little bit better, if that's possible.  Maybe it's not, and that's okay too.  Unfortunately, much of the media in Washington, D.C., along with New York, Los Angeles, in particular, speaks not for the people but for the special interests and for those profiting off a very, very obviously broken system.  The press has become so dishonest that if we don’t talk about it, we are doing a tremendous disservice to the American people -- tremendous disservice.  We have to talk about it to find out what's going on, because the press honestly is out of control.  The level of dishonesty is out of control. I ran for President to represent the citizens of our country.  I am here to change the broken system so it serves their families and their communities well.  I am talking, and really talking, on this very entrenched power structure, and what we're doing is we're talking about the power structure, we're talking about its entrenchment.  As a result, the media is going through what they have to go through to oftentimes distort -- not all the time -- and some of the media is fantastic, I have to say; they're honest and fantastic.  But much of it is not -- the distortion.  And we'll talk about it, and you'll be able to ask me questions about it. But we're not going to let it happen, because I'm here again to take my message straight to the people.  As you know, our administration inherited many problems across government and across the economy.  To be honest, I inherited a mess -- it’s a mess -- at home and abroad.  A mess.  Jobs are pouring out of the country.  You see what’s going on with all of the companies leaving our country, going to Mexico and other places -- low-pay, low-wages.  Mass instability overseas, no matter where you look.  The Middle East, a disaster.  North Korea -- we’ll take care of it, folks.  We're going to take care of it all.  I just want to let you know I inherited a mess.   Beginning on day one, our administration went to work to tackle these challenges.  On foreign affairs, we've already begun enormously productive talks with many foreign leaders -- much of it you've covered -- to move forward toward stability, security, and peace in the most troubled regions of the world, which there are many. We've had great conversations with the United Kingdom -- and meetings -- Israel, Mexico, Japan, China, and Canada.  Really, really productive conversations.  I would say far more productive than you would understand.  We've even developed a new council with Canada to promote women’s business leaders and entrepreneurs.  It's very important to me, very important to my daughter Ivanka.   I have directed our defense community, headed by our great general, now Secretary Mattis -- he’s over there now, working very hard -- to submit a plan for the defeat of ISIS, a group that celebrates the murder and torture of innocent people in large sections of the world.  It used to be a small group, and now it’s in large sections of the world.  They've spread like cancer.  ISIS has spread like cancer.  Another mess I inherited.   And we have imposed new sanctions on the nation of Iran, who’s totally taken advantage of our previous administration.  And they're the world’s top sponsor of terrorism.  And we're not going to stop until that problem is properly solved.  And it’s not properly solved now.  It’s one of the worst agreements I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody.   I’ve ordered plans to begin for the massive rebuilding of the United States military.  I’ve had great support from the Senate.  I’ve had great support from Congress generally.  We've pursued this rebuilding in the hopes that we will never have to use this military.  And I will tell you that is my -- I would be so happy if we never had to use it.  But our country will never have had a military like the military we're about to build and rebuild.  We have the greatest people on Earth in our military, but they don't have the right equipment.  And their equipment is old.  I used it, I talked about it at every stop.  Depleted -- it’s depleted.  It won’t be depleted for long.   And I think one of the reasons I’m standing here instead of other people is that, frankly, I talked about we have to have a strong military.  We have to have strong law enforcement also.  So we do not go abroad in the search of war.  We really are searching for peace, but it’s peace through strength.   At home, we have begun the monumental task of returning the government back to the people on a scale not seen in many, many years.  In each of these actions, I’m keeping my promises to the American people.  These are campaign promises.  Some people are so surprised that we're having strong borders.  Well, that's what I’ve been talking about for a year and a half -- strong borders.  They're so surprised -- "oh, you're having strong borders."  Well, that's what I’ve been talking about to the press and to everybody else.   One promise after another after years of politicians lying to you to get elected.  They lie to the American people in order to get elected.  Some of the things I’m doing probably aren’t popular, but they're necessary for security and for other reasons.  And then coming to Washington and pursuing their own interests, which is more important to many politicians. I’m here following through on what I pledged to do.  That's all I’m doing.  I put it out before the American people.  Got 306 Electoral College votes.  I wasn’t supposed to get 222.  They said there’s no way to get 222; 230 is impossible.  Two hundred and seventy, which you need, that was laughable.  We got 306 because people came out and voted like they've never seen before.  So that's the way it goes.  I guess it was the biggest Electoral College win since Ronald Reagan.   In other words, the media is trying to attack our administration because they know we are following through on pledges that we made, and they're not happy about it for whatever reason.  But a lot of people are happy about it.  In fact, I’ll be in Melbourne, Florida, five o’clock on Saturday, and I heard -- just heard that the crowds are massive that want to be there.   I turn on the TV, open the newspapers, and I see stories of chaos.  Chaos!  Yet, it is the exact opposite.  This administration is running like a fine-tuned machine, despite the fact that I can’t get my Cabinet approved, and they’re outstanding people.  Like Senator Dan Coates whose there -- one of the most respected men of the Senate -- he can’t get approved.  How do you not approve him?  He’s been a colleague, highly respected -- brilliant guy, great guy, everybody knows it -- but waiting for approval. So we have a wonderful group of people that’s working very hard, that’s being very much misrepresented about, and we can’t let that happen.  So if the Democrats, who have -- all you have to do is look at where they are right now -- the only thing they can do is delay, because they’ve screwed things up royally, believe me.  Let me list to you some of the things that we’ve done in just a short period of time.  I just got here.  I got here with no Cabinet.  Again, each of these actions is a promise I made to the American people.  So we’ll go over just some of them, and we have a lot happening next week and in the weeks coming.  We’ve withdrawn from the job-killing disaster known as Trans-Pacific Partnership.  We’re going to make trade deals, but we’re going to have one-on-one deals -- bilateral.  We’re going to have one-on-one deals. We’ve directed the elimination of regulations that undermine manufacturing, and called for expedited approval of the permits needed for America and American infrastructure, and that means plants, equipment, roads, bridges, factories.  People take 10, 15, 20 years to get disapproved for a factory.  They go in for a permit -- it’s many, many years.  And then at the end of the process -- they spend tens of millions of dollars on nonsense -- and at the end of the process, they get rejected.  Now, they may be rejected with me, but it’s going to be a quick rejection.  It's not going to take years.  But mostly, it’s going to be an acceptance.  We want plants built, and we want factories built, and we want the jobs.  We don’t want the jobs going to other countries.   We’ve imposed a hiring freeze on nonessential federal workers.  We’ve imposed a temporary moratorium on new federal regulations.  We’ve issued a game-changing new rule that says for each one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated.  Makes sense.  Nobody has ever seen regulations like we have.  If you go to other countries and you look at industries they have, and you say, let me see your regulations, and they're a fraction, just a tiny fraction of what we have.  And I want regulations because I want safety, I want all environmental situations to be taken properly care of.  It’s very important to me.  But you don’t need four or five or six regulations to take care of the same thing. We’ve stood up for the men and women of law enforcement, directing federal agencies to ensure they are protected from crimes of violence.  We’ve directed the creation of a task force for reducing violent crime in America, including the horrendous situation -- take a look at Chicago and others -- taking place right now in our inner cities.  Horrible.  We’ve ordered the Department of Homeland Security and Justice to coordinate on a plan to destroy criminal cartels coming into the United States with drugs.  We’re becoming a drug-infested nation.  Drugs are becoming cheaper than candy bars, and we’re not going to let it happen any longer.   We’ve undertaken the most substantial border security measures in a generation to keep our nation and our tax dollars safe, and are now in the process of beginning to build a promised wall on the southern border.  Met with General, now Secretary, Kelly yesterday and we’re starting that process.  And the wall is going to be a great wall, and it’s going to be a wall negotiated by me.  The price is going to come down, just like it has on everything else I’ve negotiated for the government.  And we’re going to have a wall that works.  We’re not going to have a wall like they have now, which is either nonexistent or a joke.   We’ve ordered a crackdown on sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal law and that harbor criminal aliens, and we’ve ordered an end to the policy of catch and release on the border.  No more release, no matter who you are -- release.  We’ve begun a nationwide effort to remove criminal aliens, gang members, drug dealers, and others who pose a threat to public safety.  We are saving American lives every single day.  The court system has not made it easy for us.  And we've even created a new office in Homeland Security dedicated to the forgotten American victims of illegal immigrant violence, of which there are many. We’ve taken decisive action to keep radical Islamic terrorists out of our country.  Though parts of our necessary and constitutional actions were blocked by a judge’s, in my opinion, incorrect and unsafe ruling, our administration is working night and day to keep you safe -- including reporters safe -- and is vigorously defending this lawful order.  I will not back down from defending our country.  I got elected on defense of our country.  And I keep my campaign promises.  And our citizens will be very happy when they see the result.  They already are.  I can tell you that. Extreme vetting will be put in place, and it already is in place in many places.  In fact, we had to go quicker than we thought because of the bad decision we received from a circuit that has been overturned at a record number.  I've heard 80 percent -- I find that hard to believe; that's just a number I heard -- that they're overturned 80 percent of the time.  I think that circuit is in chaos and that circuit is, frankly, in turmoil.  But we are appealing that and we are going further.   We're issuing a new executive action next week that will comprehensively protect our country, so we'll be going along the one path and hopefully winning that.  At the same time, we will be issuing a new and very comprehensive order to protect our people, and that will be done some time next week, toward the beginning or middle at the latest part. We've also taken steps to begin construction of the Keystone Pipeline and Dakota Access Pipelines -- thousands and thousands of jobs -- and put new "Buy American" measures in place to require American steel for American pipelines.  In other words, they build a pipeline in this country and we use the powers of government to make that pipeline happen.  We want them to use American steel.  And they're willing to do that, but nobody ever asked before I came along.  Even this order was drawn and they didn't say that.  And I'm reading the order, I'm saying, why aren't we using American steel?  And they said, that's a good idea.  We put it in. To drain the swamp of corruption in Washington, D.C. I've started by imposing a five-year lobbying ban on White House officials and a lifetime ban on lobbying for a foreign government.  We've begun preparing to repeal and replace Obamacare.  Obamacare is a disaster, folks.  It's a disaster.  You can say, oh, Obamacare -- I mean, they fill up our alleys with people that you wonder how they get there, but they're not the Republican people that our representatives are representing.  So we've begun preparing to repeal and replace Obamacare and are deep in the midst of negotiations on a very historic tax reform to bring our jobs back.  We're bringing our jobs back to this country big league.  It's already happening, but big league. I've also worked to install a Cabinet over the delays and obstruction of Senate Democrats.  You've seen what they've done over the last long number of years.  That will be one of the great Cabinets ever assembled in American history.  You look at Rex Tillerson -- he's out there negotiating right now.  General Mattis I mentioned before, General Kelly.  We have great, great people.  Mick is with us now.  We have great people. Among their responsibilities will be ending the bleeding of jobs from our country and negotiating fair trade deals for our citizens.  Now, look, fair trade -- not free -- fair.  If a country is taking advantage of us, we're not going to let that happen anymore.  Every country takes advantage of us, almost.  I may be able to find a couple that don't.  But for the most part, that would be a very tough job for me to do.   Jobs have already started to surge.  Since my election, Ford announced it will abandon its plans to build a new factory in Mexico and will instead invest $700 million in Michigan, creating many, many jobs.  Fiat-Chrysler announced it will invest $1 billion in Ohio and Michigan, creating 2,000 new American jobs.  They were with me a week ago.  You know -- you were here.  General Motors, likewise, committed to invest billions of dollars in its American manufacturing operation, keeping many jobs here that were going to leave.  And if I didn't get elected, believe me, they would have left.  And these jobs and these things that I'm announcing would never have come here.   Intel just announced that it will move ahead with a new plant in Arizona that probably was never going to move ahead with.  And that will result in at least 10,000 American jobs.  Walmart announced it will create 10,000 jobs in the United States just this year because of our various plans and initiatives.  There will be many, many more.  Many more.  These are a few that we're naming. Other countries have been taking advantage of us for decades -- decades and decades and decades, folks.  And we’re not going to let that happen anymore.  Not going to let it happen. And one more thing.  I have kept my promise to the American people by nominating a justice of the United States Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch, who is from my list of 20, and who will be a true defender of our laws and our Constitution -- highly respected, should get the votes from the Democrats -- you may not see that, but he’ll get there one way or the other.  But he should get there the old-fashioned way, and he should get those votes. This last month has represented an unprecedented degree of action on behalf of the great citizens of our country.  Again, I say it -- there has never been a presidency that’s done so much in such a short period of time.  And we haven’t even started the big work that starts early next week.  Some very big things are going to be announced next week.   So we’re just getting started.  We will be giving a speech, as I said, in Melbourne, Florida, at 5:00 p.m.  I hope to see you there.  And with that, I’d just say, God bless America, and let’s take some questions.  Mara.  Mara, go ahead.  You were cut off pretty violently at our last news conference. Q    Did you fire Mike Flynn? THE PRESIDENT:  Mike Flynn is a fine person, and I asked for his resignation.  He respectfully gave it.  He is a man who -- there was a certain amount of information given to Vice President Pence, who is with us today.  And I was not happy with the way that information was given.   He didn’t have to do that, because what he did wasn’t wrong, what he did in terms of the information he saw.  What was wrong was the way that other people, including yourselves in this room, were given that information, because that was classified information that was given illegally.  That’s the real problem.  And you can talk all you want about Russia, which was all a fake news, fabricated deal to try and make up for the loss of the Democrats, and the press plays right into it.  In fact, I saw a couple of the people that were supposedly involved with all of this -- they know nothing about it.  They weren’t in Russia, they never made a phone call to Russia, they never received a phone call.  It’s all fake news.  It’s all fake news. The nice thing is I see it starting to turn, where people are now looking at the illegal, Mara -- and I think it’s very important -- the illegal giving out classified information.  And let me just tell you, it was given out, like, so much.  I’ll give you an example.  I called, as you know, Mexico.  It was a very confidential, classified call, but I called Mexico.  And in calling Mexico, I figured, oh, well, that’s -- I spoke to the President of Mexico, had a good call.  All of a sudden it’s out for the world to see.  It’s supposed to be secret.  It’s supposed to be either confidential or classified in that case.  Same thing with Australia.  All of a sudden people are finding out exactly what took place.   The same thing happened with respect to General Flynn.  Everybody saw this, and I’m saying -- the first thing I thought of when I heard about it is, how does the press get this information that’s classified?  How do they do it?  You know why?  Because it’s an illegal process, and the press should be ashamed of themselves.  But, more importantly, the people that gave out the information to the press should be ashamed of themselves.  Really ashamed. Yes, go ahead. Q    Why did you keep your Vice President in the dark for almost two weeks?  THE PRESIDENT:  Because when I looked at the information, I said, I don’t think he did anything wrong.  If anything, he did something right.  He was coming into office, he looked at the information.  He said, huh, that’s fine, that’s what they’re supposed to do.  They’re supposed to be -- and he didn’t just call Russia.  He called and spoke to, both ways -- I think there were 30-some-odd countries.  He’s doing the job. You know, he was just doing his job.  The thing is he didn’t tell our Vice President properly, and then he said he didn’t remember.  So either way, it wasn’t very satisfactory to me.  And I have somebody that I think will be outstanding for the position, and that also helps, I think, in the making of my decision. But he didn’t tell the Vice President of the United States the facts, and then he didn’t remember.  And that just wasn’t acceptable to me.   Yes. Q    President Trump, since you brought up Russia, I'm looking for some clarification here.  During the campaign, did anyone from your team communicate with members of the Russian government or Russian intelligence?  And if so, what was the nature of those conversations?   THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the failing New York Times wrote a big, long front-page story yesterday.  And it was very much discredited, as you know.  It was -- it’s a joke.  And the people mentioned in the story -- I notice they were on television today saying they never even spoke to Russia.  They weren’t even a part, really -- I mean, they were such a minor part -- I hadn’t spoken to them.  I think the one person, I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to him.  I don’t think I’ve ever met him.  And he actually said he was a very low-level member of, I think, a committee for a short period of time.  I don’t think I ever met him.  Now, it’s possible that I walked into a room and he was sitting there, but I don’t think I ever met him.  I didn’t talk to him, ever.  And he thought it was a joke. The other person said he never spoke to Russia, never received a call.  Look at his phone records, et cetera, et cetera.  And the other person, people knew that he’d represented various countries, but I don't think he represented Russia -- but knew that he represented various countries.  That's what he does.  I mean, people know that.  That's Mr. Manafort, who's, by the way -- who's, by the way, a respected man.  He’s a respected man.  But I think he represented the Ukraine, or Ukraine government, or somebody.  But everybody -- people knew that.  Everybody knew that.  So these people -- and he said that he has absolutely nothing to do and never has with Russia.  And he said that very forcefully.  I saw his statement.  He said it very forcefully.  Most of the papers don't print it because that's not good for their stories.   So the three people that they talked about all totally deny it.  And I can tell you, speaking for myself, I own nothing in Russia.  I have no loans in Russia.  I don't have any deals in Russia.  President Putin called me up very nicely to congratulate me on the win of the election.  He then called me up extremely nicely to congratulate me on the inauguration, which was terrific.  But so did many other leaders -- almost all other leaders from almost all other countries.  So that's the extent. Russia is fake news.  Russia -- this is fake news put out by the media.  The real news is the fact that people, probably from the Obama administration because they're there -- because we have our new people going in place right now.  As you know, Mike Pompeo is now taking control of the CIA.  James Comey at FBI.  Dan Coats is waiting to be approved.  I mean, he is a senator, and a highly respected one.  And he’s still waiting to be approved.  But our new people are going in.   And just while you're at, because you mentioned this, Wall Street Journal did a story today that was almost as disgraceful as the failing New Times’s story yesterday.  And it talked about -- you saw it, front page.  So, Director of National Intelligence just put out -- acting -- a statement:  “Any suggestion that the United States intelligence community” -- this was just given to us -- “is withholding information and not providing the best possible intelligence to the President and his national security team is not true.” So they took this front-page story out of The Wall Street Journal -- top -- and they just wrote the story is not true.  And I’ll tell you something, I’ll be honest -- because I sort of enjoy this back and forth, and I guess I have all my life, but I’ve never seen more dishonest media than, frankly, the political media.  I thought the financial media was much better, much more honest.  But I will say that I never get phone calls from the media.  How do they write a story like that in The Wall Street Journal without asking me?  Or how do they write a story in The New York Times, put it on front page?  That was like that story they wrote about the women and me -- front page.  Big massive story.  And it was nasty.  And then they called.  They said, "We never said that.  We like Mr. Trump."  They called up my office -- we like Mr. Trump; we never said that.  And it was totally -- they totally misrepresented those very wonderful women, I have to tell you -- totally misrepresented.  I said, give us a retraction.  They never gave us a retraction.  And, frankly, I then went on to other things. Go ahead.   Q    Mr. President --  THE PRESIDENT:  You okay? Q    I am.  Just wanted to get untangled.  Very simply, you said today that you had the biggest electoral margins since Ronald Reagan with 304 or 306 electoral votes.  In fact, President Obama got 365 in 2008. THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I’m talking about Republican.  Yes.  Q    President Obama, 332.  George H.W. Bush, 426 when he won as President.  So why should Americans trust --   THE PRESIDENT:  Well, no, I was told -- I was given that information.  I don't know.  I was just given.  We had a very, very big margin.  Q    I guess my question is, why should Americans trust you when you have accused the information they receive of being fake when you're providing information that's fake? THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I don't know.  I was given that information.  I was given -- actually, I’ve seen that information around.  But it was a very substantial victory.  Do you agree with that?  Q    You're the President.   THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, thank you.  That's a good answer.  Yes. Q    Mr. President, thank you so much.  Can you tell us in determining that Lieutenant General Flynn -- there was no wrongdoing in your mind, what evidence was weighed?  Did you have the transcripts of these telephone intercepts with Russian officials, particularly Ambassador Kislyak, who he was communicating with?  What evidence did you weigh to determine there was no wrong doing?   And further than that, sir, you've said on a couple of occasions this morning that you were going to aggressively pursue the sources of these leaks. THE PRESIDENT:  We are. Q    Can we ask what you're doing to do?  And also, we've heard about a review of the intelligence community headed by Stephen Feinberg.  What can you tell us about that? THE PRESIDENT:  Well, first of all, about that, we now have Dan Coats, hopefully soon Mike Pompeo and James Comey, and they're in position.  So I hope that we’ll be able to straighten that out without using anybody else.  The gentleman you mentioned is a very talented man, very successful man.  And he has offered his services, and it’s something we may take advantage of.  But I don't think we’ll need that at all because of the fact that I think that we're going to be able to straighten it out very easily on its own. As far as the general is concerned, when I first heard about it, I said, huh, that doesn't sound wrong.  My counsel came -- Don McGahn, White House Counsel -- and he told me, and I asked him, and he can speak very well for himself.  He said he doesn't think anything is wrong.  He really didn't think -- it was really what happened after that, but he didn't think anything was done wrong.  I didn't either, because I waited a period of time and I started to think about it.  I said, well, I don't see -- to me, he was doing the job.   The information was provided by -- who I don't know -- Sally Yates -- and I was a little surprised because I said, doesn't sound like he did anything wrong there.  But he did something wrong with respect to the Vice President, and I thought that was not acceptable.  As far as the actual making the call -- in fact, I've watched various programs and I've read various articles where he was just doing his job.  That was very normal.  At first, everybody got excited because they thought he did something wrong.  After they thought about it, it turned out he was just doing his job. So -- and I do -- and, by the way, with all of that being said, I do think he's a fine man.   Yes, Jon. Q    On the leaks, sir --  THE PRESIDENT:  Go ahead, finish off, then I'll get you, Jon. Q    Sorry, what will you do on the leaks?  You have said twice today --  THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, we're looking at it very, very seriously.  I've gone to all of the folks in charge of the various agencies, and we're -- I've actually called the Justice Department to look into the leaks.  Those are criminal leaks.  They're put out by people either in agencies.  I think you'll see it stopping because now we have our people in.  You know, again, we don't have our people in because we can't get them approved by the Senate.  We just had Jeff Sessions approved in Justice, as an example.  So we are looking into that very seriously.  It's a criminal act.   You know what I say -- when I was called out on Mexico, I was shocked.  Because all this equipment, all this incredible phone equipment.  When I was called out on Mexico, I was -- honestly, I was really, really surprised.  But I said, you know, it doesn't make sense, that won't happen.  But that wasn't that important to call, it was fine.  I could show it to the world and he could show it to the world -- the President who is a very fine man, by the way.  Same thing with Australia.  I said, that's terrible that it was leaked but it wasn't that important.  But then I said, what happens when I'm dealing with the problem of North Korea?  What happens when I'm dealing with the problems in the Middle East?  Are you folks going to be reporting all of that very, very confidential information -- very important, very -- I mean, at the highest level, are you going to be reporting about that too? So I don't want classified information getting out to the public.  And in a way, that was almost a test.  So I'm dealing with Mexico.  I'm dealing with Argentina.  We were dealing on this case with Mike Flynn.  All this information gets put into the Washington Post and gets put into the New York Times.  And I'm saying, what's going to happen when I'm dealing on the Middle East?  What's going to happen when I'm dealing with really, really important subjects like North Korea?  We've got to stop it.  That's why it's a criminal penalty. Yes, Jon. Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I just want to get you to clarify just a very important point.  Can you say definitively that nobody on your campaign had any contacts with the Russians during the campaign?  And, on the leaks, is it fake news or are these real leaks? THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the leaks are real.  You're the one that wrote about them and reported them.  I mean, the leaks are real.  You know what they said -- you saw it.  And the leaks are absolutely real.  The news is fake because so much of the news is fake.   So one thing that I felt it was very important to do -- and I hope we can correct it, because there is nobody I have more respect for -- well, maybe a little bit -- than reporters, than good reporters.  It's very important to me, and especially in this position.  It's very important.  I don't mind bad stories.  I can handle a bad story better than anybody as long as it's true.  And over a course of time, I'll make mistakes and you'll write badly and I'm okay with that.  But I'm not okay when it is fake.  I mean, I watch CNN -- it's so much anger and hatred and just the hatred.  I don't watch it anymore because it's very good -- he's saying no.  It's okay, Jim.  It's okay, Jim.  You’ll have your chance.  But I watch others too.  You’re not the only one, so don’t feel badly. But I think it should be straight.  I think it should be -- I think it would be, frankly, more interesting.  I know how good everybody’s ratings are right now, but I think that actually would be -- I think that it would actually be better.   People -- I mean, you have a lower approval rate than Congress.  I think that’s right.  I don’t know, Peter, is that one right?  Because you know, I think they have lower -- I heard, lower than Congress.   But honestly, the public would appreciate it.  I’d appreciate it.  Again, I don’t mind bad stories when it’s true.  But we have an administration where the Democrats are making it very difficult.  I think we’re setting a record, or close to a record in the time of approval of a Cabinet.  I mean, the numbers are crazy.  When I’m looking -- some of them had them approved immediately.  I’m going forever, and I still have a lot of people that we’re waiting for. And that’s all they’re doing, is delaying.  And you look at Schumer and the mess that he’s got over there, and they have nothing going.  The only thing they can do is delay.  And you know, I think they’d be better served by approving and making sure that they’re happy and everybody is good.  And sometimes, I mean -- I know President Obama lost three or four, and you lose them on the way.  And that’s okay.  That’s fine. But I think they would be much better served, Jon, if they just went through the process quickly.  This is pure delay tactics.  And they say it, and everybody understands it. Yeah, go ahead, Jim. Q    The first part of my question on contacts.  Do you definitively say that nobody --  THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I had nothing to do with it.  I have nothing to do with Russia.  I told you, I have no deals there.  I have no anything. Now, when WikiLeaks, which I had nothing to do with, comes out and happens to give -- they’re not giving classified information.  They’re giving stuff -- what was said at an office about Hillary cheating on the debates -- which, by the way, nobody mentions.  Nobody mentions that Hillary received the questions to the debates.  Can you imagine -- seriously, can you imagine if I received the questions?  It would be the electric chair, okay?  “He should be put in the electric chair.”  You would even call for the reinstitution of the death penalty, okay?  Maybe not you, Jon. Yes, we’ll do you next, Jim.  I’ll do you next.  Yes? Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  I just want to clarify one other thing. THE PRESIDENT:  Sure. Q    Did you direct Mike Flynn to discuss the sanctions with the Russian ambassador? THE PRESIDENT:  No, I didn’t.  No, I didn’t.   Q    (Inaudible.)  (Off mic.) THE PRESIDENT:  No, I didn’t.   Q    Did you fire him because (inaudible) --  THE PRESIDENT:  Excuse me -- no, I fired him because of what he said to Mike Pence, very simple.  Mike was doing his job.  He was calling countries and his counterparts.  So it certainly would have been okay with me if he did it.  I would have directed him to do it if I thought he wasn’t doing it.  I didn’t direct him but I would have directed him because that’s his job. And it came out that way -- and, in all fairness, I watched Dr. Charles Krauthammer the other night say he was doing his job.  And I agreed with him.  And since then I’ve watched many other people say that. No, I didn’t direct him, but I would have directed him if he didn’t do it, okay?   Jim. Q    Mr. President, thank you very much.  And just for the record, we don’t hate you, I don’t hate you.  If you could pass that along.   THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  Well, ask Jeff Zucker how he got his job, okay? Q    If I may follow up on some of the questions that have taken place so far, sir.   THE PRESIDENT:  Well, not too many.  We do have other people.  You do have other people, and your ratings aren’t as good as some of the other people that are waiting. Q    They're pretty good right now, actually. THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  Go ahead, Jim. Q    If I may ask, sir, you said earlier that WikiLeaks was revealing information about the Hillary Clinton campaign during the election cycle.  You welcomed that at one point. THE PRESIDENT:  I was okay with it. Q    You said you loved WikiLeaks.  At another campaign press conference you called on the Russians to find the missing 30,000 emails.  I’m wondering, sir, if you -- THE PRESIDENT:  Well, she was actually missing 33,000, and then that got extended with a whole pile after that, but that’s okay. Q    Maybe my numbers are off a little bit too. THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, but I did say 30,000, but it was actually higher than that. Q    If I may ask you, sir, it sounds as though you do not have much credibility here when it comes to leaking if that is something that you encouraged in the campaign. THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, fair question.  Ready? Q    So if I may ask you that -- if I may ask a follow-up -- THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, but are you -- let me do one at a time.  Do you mind? Q    Yes, sir. THE PRESIDENT:  All right.  So in one case you’re talking about highly classified information.  In the other case you’re talking about John Podesta saying bad things about the boss.  I will say this:  If John Podesta said that about me and he was working for me, I would have fired him so fast your head would have spun.  He said terrible things about her.  But it wasn’t classified information.   But in one case you’re talking about classified.  Regardless, if you look at the RNC, we had a very strong -- at my suggestion -- and I give Reince great credit for this -- at my suggestion, because I know something about this world, I said I want a very strong defensive mechanism.  I don’t want to be hacked.  And we did that, and you have seen that they tried to hack us and they failed. The DNC did not do that.  And if they did it, they could not have been hacked.  But they were hacked, and terrible things came.  And the only thing that I do think is unfair is some of the things were so -- they were -- when I heard some of those things, I said -- I picked up the papers the next morning, I said, oh, this is going to front page.  It wasn’t even in the papers. Again, if I had that happen to me, it would be the biggest story in the history of publishing or the head of newspapers.  I would have been the headline in every newspaper.   I mean, think of it.  They gave her the questions for the debate, and she should have reported herself.  Why didn’t Hillary Clinton announce that, "I’m sorry, but I have been given the questions to a debate or a town hall, and I feel that it’s inappropriate, and I want to turn in CNN for not doing a good job"? Q    And if I may follow up on that, just something that Jonathan Karl was asking you about -- you said that the leaks are real, but the news is fake.  I guess I don't understand.  It seems that there is a disconnect there.  If the information coming from those leaks is real, then how can the stories be fake? THE PRESIDENT:  Well, the reporting is fake.  Look, look --  Q    And if I may ask -- I just want to ask one other question.   THE PRESIDENT:  Jim, you know what it is?  Here’s the thing.  The public isn’t -- they read newspapers, they see television, they watch.  They don't know if it’s true or false because they're not involved.  I’m involved.  I’ve been involved with this stuff all my life.  But I’m involved.  So I know when you're telling the truth or when you're not.   I just see many, many untruthful things.  And I tell you what else I see.  I see tone.  You know the word “tone.”  The tone is such hatred.  I’m really not a bad person, by the way.  No, but the tone is such -- I do get good ratings, you have to admit that.  The tone is such hatred.   I watched this morning a couple of the networks, and I have to say “Fox & Friends” in the morning, they're very honorable people.  They're very -- not because they're good, because they hit me also when I do something wrong.  But they have the most honest morning show.  That's all I can say.  It’s the most honest.  But the tone, Jim.  If you look -- the hatred.  I mean, sometimes -- sometimes somebody gets --  Q    (Off mic.) THE PRESIDENT:  Well, you look at your show that goes on at 10 o’clock in the evening.  You just take a look at that show.  That is a constant hit.  The panel is almost always exclusive anti-Trump.  The good news is he doesn't have good ratings.  But the panel is almost exclusive anti-Trump.  And the hatred and venom coming from his mouth, the hatred coming from other people on your network. Now, I will say this.  I watch it.  I see it.  I’m amazed by it.  And I just think you’d be a lot better off -- I honestly do.  The public gets it, you know.  Look, when I go to rallies, they turn around, they start screaming at CNN.  They want to throw their placards at CNN.   I think you would do much better by being different.  But you just take a look.  Take a look at some of your shows in the morning and the evening.  If a guest comes out and says something positive about me, it’s brutal.   Now, they’ll take this news conference.  I’m actually having a very good time, okay?  But they’ll take this news conference -- don't forget that's the way I won.  Remember, I used to give you a news conference every time I made a speech, which was like every day.  Q    (Off mic.) THE PRESIDENT:  No, that's how I won.  I won with news conferences and probably speeches.  I certainly didn't win by people listening to you people, that's for sure.  But I am having a good time.  Tomorrow they will say, Donald Trump rants and raves at the press.  I’m not ranting and raving.  I’m just telling you, you're dishonest people.  But -- but I’m not ranting and raving.  I love this.  I’m having a good time doing it.  But tomorrow the headlines are going to be:  Donald Trump Rants and Raves.  I’m not ranting and raving.  Q    If I may just --  THE PRESIDENT:  Go ahead. Q    One more follow-up because --  THE PRESIDENT:  Should I let him have a little bit more?  What do you think, Peter?   Q    Just because of this --  THE PRESIDENT:  Peter, should I have let him have a little bit more?  Sit down.  Sit down.   Q    Just because of the attack --  THE PRESIDENT:  We’ll get it.   Q    Just because of the attack of fake news and attacking our network, I just want to ask you, sir --  THE PRESIDENT:  I’m changing it from fake news, though. Q    Doesn't that undermine --  THE PRESIDENT:  Very fake news now.  (Laughter.)  Q    But aren’t you --  THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, go ahead.   Q    Real news, Mr. President.  Real news.  THE PRESIDENT:  And you're not related to our new --  Q    I am not related, sir, no.  (Laughter.)  I do like the sound of Secretary Acosta, I must say. THE PRESIDENT:  I looked -- you know, I looked at that name.  I said, wait a minute, is there any relation there?  Alex Acosta.  Q    I’m sure you checked that out, sir. THE PRESIDENT:  No, I checked it.  I said -- they said, no, sir.  I said, do me a favor, go back and check the family tree.   Q    But aren’t you concerned, sir, that you are undermining the people's faith in the First Amendment freedom of the press, the press in this country when you call stories you don't like “fake news”?  Why not just say it’s a story I don't like?  THE PRESIDENT:  I do that. Q    When you call it fake news, you're undermining confidence --  THE PRESIDENT:  No, I do that.  No, no, I do that. Q    -- in our news media. THE PRESIDENT:  Here’s the thing.   Q    Isn’t that important? THE PRESIDENT:  Okay, I understand -- and you're right about that except this.  See, I know when I should get good and when I should get bad.  And sometimes I’ll say, wow, that's going to be a great story, and I’ll get killed.  I know what’s good and bad.  I’d be a pretty good reporter -- not as good as you.  But I know what’s good.  I know what’s bad.   And when they change it and make it really bad -- something that should be positive.  Sometimes something that should be very positive, they’ll make okay.  They’ll even make it negative.  So I understand it because I’m there.  I know what was said.  I know who is saying it.  I’m there.  So it’s very important to me.   Look, I want to see an honest press.  When I started off today by saying that it’s so important to the public to get an honest press.  The press -- the public doesn't believe you people anymore.  Now, maybe I had something to do with that, I don't know.  But they don't believe you.   If you were straight and really told it like it is, as Howard Cosell used to say, right?  Of course, he had some questions also.  But if you were straight, I would be your biggest booster, I would be your biggest fan in the world -- including bad stories about me.  But if you go -- as an example, you're CNN -- I mean, it’s story after story after story is bad.  I won.  I won.  And the other thing:  Chaos.  There’s zero chaos.  We are running -- this is a fine-tuned machine.  And Reince happens to be doing a good job.  But half of his job is putting out lies by the press.   I said to him yesterday, this whole Russia scam that you guys are building so that you don't talk about the real subject, which is illegal leaks.  But I watched him yesterday working so hard to try and get that story proper.  And I’m saying, here’s my Chief of Staff, a really good guy, did a phenomenal job at RNC.  I mean, we won the election, right?  We won the presidency.  We got some senators.  We got some -- all over the country, you take a look, he’s done a great job.  And I said to myself, you know -- and I said to somebody that was in the room -- I said, you take a look at Reince, he’s working so hard just putting out fires that are fake fires.  They're fake.  They're not true.  And isn't that a shame, because he'd rather be working on health care.  He'd rather be working on tax reform, Jim.  I mean that.  I would be your biggest fan in the world if you treated me right.  I sort of understand there's a certain bias, maybe by Jeff or somebody -- for whatever reason.  And I understand that.  But you've got to be at least a little bit fair.  And that's why the public sees it -- they see it.  They see it's not fair.  You take a look at some of your shows and you see the bias and the hatred.  And the public is smart.  They understand it.   Okay, yeah, go ahead.   Q    We have no doubt that your latest story is (inaudible).  But for those who believe that there is something to it, is there anything that you have learned over these last few weeks that you might be able to reveal that might ease their concerns that this isn't fake news?  And secondly --  THE PRESIDENT:  I think they don't believe it.  I don't think the public would.  That's why the Rasmussen poll just has me through the roof.  I don't think they believe it.  Well, I guess one of the reasons I'm here today is to tell you the whole Russian thing -- that's a ruse.  That's a ruse.  And, by the way, it would be great if we could get along with Russia, just so you understand that.  Now, tomorrow you'll say, Donald Trump wants to get along with Russia, this is terrible.  It's not terrible -- it's good. We had Hillary Clinton try and do a reset.  We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country.  You know what uranium is, right?  It's this thing called nuclear weapons and other things.  Like, lots of things are done with uranium, including some bad things.  Nobody talks about that.  I didn't do anything for Russia.  I've done nothing for Russia.  Hillary Clinton gave them 20 percent of our uranium.  Hillary Clinton did a reset, remember, with the stupid plastic button that made us all look like a bunch of jerks?  Here, take a look.  He looked at her like, what the hell is she doing with that cheap plastic button?  Hillary Clinton -- that was a reset.  Remember?  It said "reset."  Now, if I do that, oh, I'm a bad guy.  If we could get along with Russia, that's a positive thing.  We have a very talented man, Rex Tillerson, who is going to be meeting with them shortly.  And I told him, I said, I know politically it's probably not good for me.  Hey, the greatest thing I could do is shoot that ship that's 30 miles offshore right out of the water.  Everyone in this country is going to say, oh, it's so great.  That's not great.  That's not great.  I would love to be able to get along with Russia. Now, you've had a lot of Presidents that haven't taken that tact.  Look where we are now.  Look where we are now.  So, if I can -- now, I love to negotiate things.  I do it really well and all that stuff, but it's possible I won't be able to get along with Putin.  Maybe it is.  But I want to just tell you, the false reporting by the media, by you people -- the false, horrible, fake reporting makes it much harder to make a deal with Russia.  And probably Putin said, you know -- he's sitting behind his desk and he's saying, you know, I see what's going on in the United States, I follow it closely; it's got to be impossible for President Trump to ever get along with Russia because of all the pressure he's got with this fake story.  Okay?  And that's a shame.  Because if we could get along with Russia -- and, by the way, China and Japan and everyone -- if we could get along, it would be a positive thing, not a negative thing. Q    Tax reform -- Q    Mr. President, since you --  THE PRESIDENT:  Tax reform is going to happen fairly quickly.  We're doing Obamacare -- we're in final stages.  We should be submitting the initial plan in March, early March, I would say.  And we have to, as you know, statutorily and for reasons of budget, we have to go first.  It's not like -- frankly, the tax would be easier, in my opinion, but for statutory reasons and for budgetary reasons, we have to submit the health care sooner.  So we'll be submitting health care sometime in early March, mid-March.  And after that, we're going to come up -- and we're doing very well on tax reform. Yes. Q    Mr. President, you mentioned Russia.  Let's talk about some serious issues that have come up in the last week that you have had to deal with as President of the United States. THE PRESIDENT:  Okay. Q    You mentioned the vessel, the spy vessel, off the coast of the United States. THE PRESIDENT:  Not good. Q    There was a ballistic missile test that many interpreted as a violation --  THE PRESIDENT:  Not good. Q    -- of the agreement between the two countries.  And a Russian plane buzzed a U.S. destroyer.   THE PRESIDENT:  Not good. Q    I listened to you during the campaign --  THE PRESIDENT:  Excuse me, excuse me, when did it happen?  It happened when -- if you were Putin right now, you would say, hey, we're back to the old games with the United States.  There's no way Trump can ever do a deal with us because the -- you have to understand, if I was just brutal on Russia right now, just brutal, people would say, you would say, oh, isn't that wonderful.  But I know you well enough.  Then you would say, oh, he was too tough, he shouldn't have done that.  Look, of all --  Q    I'm just trying to find out your orientation to those --  THE PRESIDENT:  Wait a minute.  Wait, wait.  Excuse me just one second.   Q    I'm just trying to find out what you're doing to do about them, Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT:  All of those things that you mentioned are very recent, because probably Putin assumes that he's not going to be able to make a deal with me because it's politically not popular for me to make a deal.  So Hillary Clinton tries to reset, it failed.  They all tried.  But I'm different than those people. Go ahead. Q    How are you interpreting those moves?  And what do you intend to do about them? THE PRESIDENT:  Just the way I said it. Q    Have you given Rex Tillerson any advice or counsel on how to deal? THE PRESIDENT:  I have.  I have.  And I'm so beautifully represented.  I'm so honored that the Senate approved him.  He's going to be fantastic. Yes, I think that I've already --  Q    Is Putin testing you, do you believe, sir? THE PRESIDENT:  No, I don't think so.  I think Putin probably assumes that he can't make a deal with me anymore because politically it would be unpopular for a politician to make a deal.  I can't believe I'm saying I'm a politician, but I guess that's what I am now.  Because, look, it would be much easier for me to be tough on Russia, but then we're not going to make a deal. Now, I don't know that we're going to make a deal.  I don't know.  We might, we might not.  But it would be much easier for me to be so tough -- the tougher I am on Russia, the better.  But you know what, I want to do the right thing for the American people.  And to be honest, secondarily, I want to do the right thing for the world. If Russia and the United States actually got together and got along -- and don't forget, we're a very powerful nuclear country and so are they.  There's no upside.  We're a very powerful nuclear country and so are they.  I've been briefed.  And I can tell you, one thing about a briefing that we're allowed to say because anybody that ever read the most basic book can say it:  Nuclear holocaust would be like no other.  They're a very powerful nuclear country and so are we. If we have a good relationship with Russia, believe me, that's a good thing, not a bad thing. Q    So when you say they're not good, do you mean that they are --  THE PRESIDENT:  Who did I say is not good? Q    No, when I read off the three things that have recently happened and each one of them you said they're not good. THE PRESIDENT:  No, it's not good, but they happened. Q    But do they damage the relationship?  Do they undermine this country’s ability to work with Russia? THE PRESIDENT:  They all happened recently, and I understand what they’re doing, because they’re doing the same thing.  Now, again, maybe I’m not going to be able to do a deal with Russia, but at least I will have tried.  And if I don’t, does anybody really think that Hillary Clinton would be tougher on Russia than Donald Trump?  Does anybody in this room really believe that?  Okay. But I tell you one thing:  She tried to make a deal.  She had the reset.  She gave all the valuable uranium away.  She did other things.  You know, they say I’m close to Russia.  Hillary Clinton gave away 20 percent of the uranium in the United States.  She’s close to Russia.  I gave -- you know what I gave to Russia?  You know what I gave?  Nothing. Q    Can we conclude there will be no response to these particular provocations? THE PRESIDENT:  I’m not going to tell you anything about what response I do.  I don’t talk about military response.  I don’t say I’m going into Mosul in four months.  "We are going to attack Mosul in four months."  Then three months later:  "We are going to attack Mosul in one month."  "Next week, we are going to attack Mosul."  In the meantime, Mosul is very, very difficult.  Do you know why?  Because I don’t talk about military, and I don’t talk about certain other things.  You’re going to be surprised to hear that.  And, by the way, my whole campaign, I’d say that.  So I don’t have to tell you -- Q    There will be a response? THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t want to be one of these guys that say, “Yes, here’s what we’re going to do.”  I don’t have to do that. Q    There will be a -- in other words, there will be a response, Mr. President?   THE PRESIDENT:  I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea.  Wait a minute.  I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do in North Korea.  And I don’t have to tell you what I’m going to do with Iran.  You know why?  Because they shouldn’t know.  And eventually you guys are going to get tired of asking that question.  So when you ask me, what am I going to do with the ship -- the Russian ship, as an example -- I’m not going to tell you.  But hopefully, I won’t have to do anything.  But I’m not going to tell you.  Okay. Q    Thanks. Q    Can I just ask you -- thank you very much, Mr. President -- the Trump -- THE PRESIDENT:  Where are you from? Q    BBC. THE PRESIDENT:  Okay.  Here’s another beauty. Q    That’s a good line.  Impartial, free, and fair. THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, sure. Q    Mr. President -- THE PRESIDENT:  Just like CNN, right? Q    Mr. President, on the travel ban -- we could banter back and forth.  On the travel ban, would you accept that that was a good example of the smooth running of government, that fine-tuned --  THE PRESIDENT:  Yeah, I do.  I do.   And let me tell you about the travel --  Q    Were there any mistakes in that? THE PRESIDENT:  Wait, wait, wait.  I know who you are.  Just wait.  Let me tell you about the travel ban.  We had a very smooth rollout of the travel ban, but we had a bad court.  We got a bad decision.  We had a court that’s been overturned -- again, maybe wrong, but I think it’s 80 percent of the time.  A lot.  We had a bad decision.  We’re going to keep going with that decision.  We’re going to put in a new executive order next week sometime.  But we had a bad decision.  That’s the only thing that was wrong with the travel ban.   You had Delta with a massive problem with their computer system at the airports.  You had some people that were put out there, brought by very nice buses, and they were put out at various locations.  Despite that, the only problem that we had is we had a bad court.  We had a court that gave us what I consider to be, with great respect, a very bad decision.  Very bad for the safety and security of our country.  The rollout was perfect. Now, what I wanted to do was do the exact same executive order but said one thing -- and I said this to my people:  Give them a one-month period of time.  But General Kelly, now Secretary Kelly, said, if you do that, all these people will come in, in the month -- the bad ones.  You do agree, there are bad people out there, right?  They’re not everybody that’s like you.  You have some bad people out there.   So Kelly said, you can’t do that.  And he was right.  As soon as he said it, I said, wow, never thought of it.  I said, how about one week?  He said, no good.  You got to do it immediately, because if you do it immediately, they don’t have time to come in.  Now, nobody ever reports that, but that’s why we did it quickly. Now, if would have done it a month, everything would have been perfect.  The problems is we would have wasted a lot of time, and maybe a lot of lives, because a lot of bad people would have come into our country. Now, in the meantime, we’ve vetting very, very strongly.  Very, very strongly.  But we need help, and we need help by getting that executive order passed. Q    Just a brief follow-up.  And if it’s so urgent, why not introduce -- THE PRESIDENT:  Yes, go ahead. Q    Thank you.  I just was hoping that we could get a yes- or-no answer on one of these questions involving Russia.  Can you say whether you are aware that anyone who advised your campaign had contacts with Russia during the course of the election? THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I told you, General Flynn obviously was dealing.  So that’s one person.  But he was dealing -- as he should have been -- Q    During the election? THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, nobody that I know of. Q    So you’re not aware of any contacts during the course of the election? THE PRESIDENT:  Look, look, how many times do I have to answer this question?   Q    Can you just say yes or no on it? THE PRESIDENT:  Russia is a ruse.  Yeah, I know you have to get up and ask a question, so important.  Russia is a ruse.  I have nothing to do with Russia, haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years.  Don’t speak to people from Russia.  Not that I wouldn’t, I just have nobody to speak to.  I spoke to Putin twice.  He called me on the election -- I told you this -- and he called me on the inauguration, and a few days ago.  We had a very good talk, especially the second one -- lasted for a pretty long period of time.  I’m sure you probably get it because it was classified, so I’m sure everybody in this room perhaps has it.  But we had a very, very good talk.  I have nothing to do with Russia.  To the best of my knowledge, no person that I deal with does.   Now, Manafort has totally denied it.  He denied it.  Now, people knew that he was a consultant over in that part of the world for a while, but not for Russia.  I think he represented Ukraine or people having to do with Ukraine, or people that -- whoever.  But people knew that.  Everybody knew that. Q    But in his capacity as your campaign manager, was he in touch with Russian officials during the election? THE PRESIDENT:  I have -- you know what, he said no.  I can only tell you what he -- now, he was replaced long before the election.  You know that, right?  He was replaced long before the election.  When all of this stuff started coming out, it came out during the election.  But Paul Manafort, who’s a good man also, by the way -- Paul Manafort was replaced long before the election took place.  He was only there for a short period of time. How much longer should we stay here, folks?  Five more minutes, is that okay?  Five?   Q    Mr. President, on national security -- THE PRESIDENT:  Wait, let’s see, who’s -- I want to find a friendly reporter.  Are you a friendly reporter?  Watch how friendly he is.  Wait, wait -- watch how friendly he is.  Go ahead.  Go ahead. Q    So, first of all, my name is (inaudible) from (inaudible) Magazine.  And (inaudible).  I haven’t seen anybody in my community accuse either yourself or any of the -- anyone on your staff of being anti-Semitic.  We have an understanding of (inaudible). THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you. Q    However, what we are concerned about, and what we haven’t really heard be addressed is an uptick in anti-Semitism and how the government is planning to take care of it.  There have been reports out that 48 bomb threats have been made against Jewish centers all across the country in the last couple of weeks.  There are people who are committing anti-Semitic acts or threatening to -- THE PRESIDENT:  You see, he said he was going to ask a very simple, easy question.  And it’s not.  It’s not.  Not a simple question, not a fair question.  Okay, sit down.  I understand the rest of your question.   So here’s the story, folks.  Number one, I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life.  Number two, racism -- the least racist person.  In fact, we did very well relative to other people running as a Republican.   Q    (Inaudible.) THE PRESIDENT:  Quiet, quiet, quiet.  See, he lied about -- he was going to get up and ask a very straight, simple question.  So you know, welcome to the world of the media.  But let me just tell you something -- that I hate the charge.  I find it repulsive.  I hate even the question because people that know me -- and you heard the Prime Minister, you heard Netanyahu yesterday -- did you hear him, Bibi?  He said, I’ve known Donald Trump for a long time, and then he said, forget it. So you should take that, instead of having to get up and ask a very insulting question like that. Yeah, go ahead.  Go ahead. Q    Thank you.  I’m Lisa from the PBS -- THE PRESIDENT:  See, it just shows you about the press, but that’s the way the press is.   Q    Thank you, Mr. President.  Lisa Desjardins from the PBS Newshour. THE PRESIDENT:  Good. Q    On national security and immigration, can you give us more details on the executive order you planned for next week, even its broad outlines?  Will it be focused on specific countries? THE PRESIDENT:  It’s a very fair question. Q    And in addition, on the DACA program for immigration, what is your plan?  Do you plan to continue that program or to end it? THE PRESIDENT:  We’re going to show great heart.  DACA is a very, very difficult subject for me, I will tell you.  To me, it’s one of the most difficult subjects I have, because you have these incredible kids, in many cases -- not in all cases.  In some of the cases they’re having DACA and they’re gang members and they’re drug dealers too.  But you have some absolutely incredible kids -- I would say mostly -- they were brought here in such a way -- it's a very, very tough subject. We are going to deal with DACA with heart.  I have to deal with a lot of politicians, don't forget, and I have to convince them that what I'm saying is right.  And I appreciate your understanding on that. But the DACA situation is a very, very -- it's a very difficult thing for me.  Because, you know, I love these kids.  I love kids.  I have kids and grandkids.  And I find it very, very hard doing what the law says exactly to do.  And you know, the law is rough.  I'm not talking about new laws.  I'm talking the existing law is very rough.  It's very, very rough.   As far as the new order, the new order is going to be very much tailored to what I consider to be a very bad decision, but we can tailor the order to that decision and get just about everything, in some ways more.  But we're tailoring it now to the decision.  We have some of the best lawyers in the country working on it.  And the new executive order is being tailored to the decision we got down from the court.  Okay? Q    Mr. President, Melania Trump announced the reopening of the White House Visitors Office.   THE PRESIDENT:  Yes. Q    And she does a lot of great work for the country as well.  Can you tell us a little bit about what First Lady Melania Trump does for the country?  And there is a unique level of interest in your administration, so by opening the White House Visitors Office, what does that mean to you? THE PRESIDENT:  Now, that's what I call a nice question.  That is very nice.  Who are you with? Q    (Inaudible.) THE PRESIDENT:  Good.  I'm going to start watching.  Thank you very much. Melania is terrific.  She was here last night.  We had dinner with Senator Rubio and his wife, who is, by the way, lovely.  And we had a really good discussion about Cuba because we have very similar views on Cuba.  And Cuba was very good to me in the Florida election as you know, the Cuban people, Americans.  And I think that Melania is going to be outstanding.  That's right, she just opened up the Visitors Center -- in other words, touring of the White House.   She, like others that she's working with, feels very, very strongly about women's issues, women's difficulties, very, very strongly.  And she's a very, very strong advocate.  I think she's a great representative for this country.  And a funny thing happens because she gets so unfairly maligned.  The things they say -- I've known her for a long time.  She was a very successful person.  She was a very successful model.  She did really well.  She would go home at night and didn't even want to go out with people.  She was a very private person.  She was always the highest quality that you'll ever find.  And the things they say -- and I've known her for a long time -- the things they say are so unfair.  And actually, she's been apologized to, as you know, by various media because they said things that were lies. I'd just tell you this:  I think she's going to be a fantastic First Lady.  She's going to be a tremendous representative of women and of the people.  And helping her and working with her will be Ivanka, who is a fabulous person and a fabulous, fabulous woman.  And they're not doing this for money.  They're not doing this for pay.  They're doing this because they feel it, both of them.  And Melania goes back and forth, and after Barron finishes school -- because it's hard to take a child out of school with a few months left -- she and Barron will be moving over to the White House.  Thank you.  That's a very nice question. Go ahead. Q    Mr. President. THE PRESIDENT:  Yes.  Oh, this is going to be a bad question but that's okay. Q    No, it's not going to be a bad question. THE PRESIDENT:  Good, because I enjoy watching you on television. Q    Well, thank you so much.  Mr. President, I need to find out from you -- you said something as it relates to inner cities.  That was one of your platforms during your campaign.  THE PRESIDENT:  Fix the inner cities, yes. Q    Fixing the inner cities.  What will be that fix and your urban agenda, as well as your HBCU executive order that's coming out this afternoon?  See, it wasn't bad, was it? THE PRESIDENT:  That was very professional and very good. Q    I'm very professional. THE PRESIDENT:  We'll be announcing the order in a little while, and I'd rather let the order speak for itself.  But it will be something I think that will be very good for everybody concerned.  But we'll talk to you about that after we do the announcement. As far as the inner cities, as you know, I was very strong on the inner cities during the campaign.  I think it's probably what got me a much higher percentage of the African American vote than a lot of people thought I was going to get.  We did much higher than people thought I was going to get and I was honored by that, including the Hispanic vote, which was also much higher.  And, by the way, if I might add, including the women's vote, which was much higher than people thought I was going to get. So we are going to be working very hard on the inner cities having to do with education, having to do with crime.  We're going to try and fix as quickly as possible -- you know it takes a long time.  It's taken 100 years or more for some of these places to evolve, and they evolved many of them very badly. But we’re going to be working very hard on health and health care; very, very hard on education.  And also, we’re going to working in a stringent way, and a very good way, on crime.  You go to some of these inner city places, and it’s so sad when you look at the crime.  You have people -- and I’ve seen this, and I’ve sort of witnessed it.  In fact, in two cases, I have actually witnessed it.  They lock themselves into apartments, petrified to even leave, in the middle of the day.  They’re living in hell.  We can’t let that happen.  So we’re going to be very, very strong. It’s a great question, and it’s a very difficult situation, because it’s been many, many years.  It’s been festering for many, many years.  But we have places in this country that we have to fix.  We have to help African American people that, for the most part are stuck there -- Hispanic American people.  We have Hispanic American people that are in the inner cities, and they’re living in hell. I mean, you look at the numbers in Chicago.  There are two Chicagos, as you know.  There’s one Chicago that’s incredible, luxurious and all, and safe.  There’s another Chicago that’s worse than almost any of the places in the Middle East that we talk about, and that you talk about every night on the newscasts.  So we’re going to do a lot of work on the inner cities.  I have great people lined up to help with the inner cities. Q    Well, when you say -- when you say the inner cities, are you going to include the CBC, Mr. President, in your conversations with your urban agenda, your inner city agenda, as well as your -- THE PRESIDENT:  Am I going include who? Q    Are you going to include the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, as well as --  THE PRESIDENT:  Well, I would.  I tell you what, do you want to set up the meeting?  Do you want to set up the meeting? Q    No, no, no.  THE PRESIDENT:  Are they friends of yours? Q    I’m just a reporter.   THE PRESIDENT:  No, go ahead, set up the meeting. Q    I know some of them, but I’m sure they’re watching right now. THE PRESIDENT:  Let’s go set up a meeting.  I would love to meet with the Black Caucus.  I think it’s great -- the Congressional Black Caucus.  I think it’s great.  I actually thought I had a meeting with Congressman Cummings, and he was all excited, and then he said, oh, I can’t move, it might be bad for me politically, I can’t have that meeting.  I was all set to have the meeting.  You know, we called him and called him, and he was all set.  I spoke to him on the phone.  Very nice guy. Q    I hear he wanted that meeting with you as well. THE PRESIDENT:  He wanted it.  But we called, called, called, called -- they can’t make a meeting with him.  Every day, I walked in, I said, I would like to meet with him.  Because I do want to solve the problem.  But he probably was told by Schumer or somebody like that -- some other lightweight -- he was probably told -- he was probably told, don’t meet with Trump, it’s bad politics.  And that’s part of the problem of this country. Okay, one more.  Go ahead. Q    Yes, Mr. President, two questions -- THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  One question.  Two, we can’t handle.  This room can’t handle two.  Go ahead, give me the better of your two. Q    (Inaudible) it's not about your personality or your beliefs.  We’re talking about (inaudible) around the country, some of it by supporters in your name.  What do you -- THE PRESIDENT:  And some of it -- and can I be honest with you?  And this has to do with racism and horrible things that are put up.  Some of it written by our opponents.  You do know that.  Do you understand that?  You don’t think anybody would do a thing like that.  Some of the signs you’ll see are not put up by the people that love or like Donald Trump, they’re put up by the other side, and you think it’s like playing it straight.  No.  But you have some of those signs, and some of that anger is caused by the other side.  They’ll do signs and they’ll do drawings that are inappropriate.  It won’t be my people.  It will be the people on the other side to anger people like you.  Okay. Go ahead. Q    You are the President now.  What are you going to do about it? THE PRESIDENT:  Who is that?  Where is that?  Oh, stand up.  You can -- Q    What are you going to do about the tensions that have been discussed? THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, I’m working on it.  No, I’m working on it very hard.   Q    Are you going to give a speech? THE PRESIDENT:  No, no, look.  Hey, just so you understand, we had a totally divided country for eight years, and long before that, in all fairness to President Obama.  Long before President Obama, we have had a very divided.  I didn’t come along and divide this country.  This country was seriously divided before I got here.   We’re going to work on it very hard.  One of the questions that was asked -- I thought it was a very good question -- was about the inner cities.  I mean, that’s part of it.  But we’re going to work on education.  We’re going to work on lack -- you know, we’re going to stop -- we’re going to try and stop the crime.  We have great law enforcement officials.  We’re going to try and stop crime.  We’re not going to try and stop, we’re going to stop crime.  But it’s very important to me.  But this isn’t Donald Trump that divided a nation.  We went eight years with President Obama, and we went many years before President Obama.  We lived in a divided nation.  And I am going to try -- I will do everything within my power to fix that.   I want to thank everybody very much.  It’s a great honor to be with you.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  (Applause.)  END    2:13 P.M. EST

15 февраля, 23:00

США, Европа и хомяки

Хомяк обыкновенный – и соглашения о ТТП и ТТИП. Неужели тут есть какая-то связь? Да, представьте себе! Если бы США сумели навязать миру свою систему патентных и авторских прав, с другими странами произошло бы то же, что с хомяками в Западной Европе…

15 февраля, 20:02

Five players to watch

Who's shaping the new trade agenda? Snapshots of Wilbur Ross, Peter Navarro, and more.

14 февраля, 21:32

Гражданам РФ непонятно маниакальное стремление Путина сдать Южные Курилы японцам

Оригинал взят у skurlatov в Гражданам РФ непонятно маниакальное стремление Путина сдать Южные Курилы японцамЯ знаю, почему Путин хочет сдать Южные Курилы японцам, и много по этому поводу написал в ноябре 2004 года, когда патриотической общественности удалось остановить тогдашнюю попытку "лидера нации" пожертвовать российскими национальными интересами ради укрепления "дружбы" с Японией. Но в прошлом году после триумфальной победы на парламентских выборах 18 сентября он решил, что ни один депутат новоизбранной ГосДумы РФ не вякнет против, и под демагогию о жгучей необходимости заключить некий "мирный договор" с дальневосточным соседом отправился в городишко Нагато в гости к "другу" Абэ и предложил "совместное хозяйственное освоение" наших южнокурильских территорий и акваторий. Воспринимая путинское "хождение в Нагато" как проявление слабости-неуверенности, японцы закочевряжились и потребовали признания своего суверенитета над "северными территориями". Абэ втянул Путина в спор-переговоры о статусе Южных Курил. Путин отвечает, что "совместное освоение" и есть компромисс, который-де может устроить японских "партнеров". Однако с точки зрения наших национальных интересов, никакого спора по Южным Курилам быть не должно, и сам факт переговоров о статусе хотя бы пяди нашей территории надо рассматривать как акт государственной измены. И какое-либо "совместное освоение" южнокурильской комнаты Русского дома, которую японцы считают "своей" и готовы разместить в ней военную базу США, когда получат ключи от неё, - мы в гробу видали. Разве я не прав? Если мои слова кому-то кажутся дилетантскими, то вот ниже свидетельства экспертов: Владимир Ардаев (обозреватель РИА Новости). Холивар на островах: Москва и Токио по-разному понимают мирный договор (14-02-2017)Япония по дипломатическим каналам направила протест России по поводу присвоения названий пяти безымянным островам Курильской гряды, часть которых оспаривает Токио. Об этом сообщил журналистам генеральный секретарь японского кабинета министров Ёсихидэ Суга.Речь идет о подписанном накануне распоряжении российского премьера Дмитрия Медведева, согласно которому пять островов Курильской гряды получили названия. Один остров назван в честь министра иностранных дел и председателя президиума Верховного Совета СССР Андрея Громыко, другой — в память о бывшем губернаторе Сахалинской области Игоре Фархутдинове, третий и четвертый — в честь генералов Кузьмы Деревянко и Алексея Гнечко, а пятый получил имя в честь капитана дальнего плавания Анны Щетининой."Это не отвечает позиции нашей страны и вызывает крайнее сожаление", — сказал Суга. При этом, как отмечает японский телеканал NHK, Суга заявил, что правительство его страны будет продолжать вести переговоры с Москвой в рамках политики движения к подписанию мирного договора. Премьер-министр Синдзо Абэ, по его словам, твердо убежден, что такого рода прискорбные события не повлияют на ход этих переговоров.Мужчина читает брошюру "Северные территории" перед началом мероприятия по случаю Дня северных территорий в Токио © AP Photo/ Eugene HoshikoАмериканский "зонтик"Министр иностранных дел Японии Фумио Кисида намерен встретиться со своим российским коллегой Сергеем Лавровым на полях саммита "Большой двадцатки" (G20), который пройдет 16-17 февраля в Бонне.Как сообщает The Japan Times, Кисида рассчитывает, что главам внешнеполитических ведомств удастся договориться об активизации переговоров правительств двух стран о совместной хозяйственной деятельности на южных Курилах. Обе страны рассматривают развитие этой деятельности как путь к заключению мирного договора. Первые официальные переговоры на правительственном уровне намечены на 14 марта — в преддверии запланированного на апрель визита Синдзо Абэ в Россию.Фумио Кисида сообщил об этом на пресс-конференции в Токио во вторник, 14 февраля. В этот же день, выступая в парламенте, он подтвердил, что в случае передачи Японии островов южных Курил на них будет распространяться действие пятой статьи японо-американского Договора о взаимном сотрудничестве и гарантиях безопасности."Согласно договору Японии и США, пятая статья распространяется на все районы Японии", — сказал Кисида, отвечая на вопросы депутатов в бюджетной комиссии нижней Палаты представителей японского парламента.Договор, о котором идет речь, был заключен между США и Японией в 1960 году. Он предусматривает право Соединенных Штатов создавать и использовать на территории Японии военные базы и размещать на них неограниченное количество своих вооруженных сил. Япония обязалась защищать эти базы. Пятая статья говорит о том, что США, в свою очередь, обязаны защищать все японские территории.В ходе завершившегося на днях визита Синдзо Абэ в США Белый дом официально подтвердил, что новая американская администрация намерена выполнять свои обязательства по защите Японии. Это касается и оспариваемых Китаем островов Сэнкаку, которые КНР считает своей территорией и называет их Дяоюйдао.Таким образом, если допустить, что Россия когда-либо согласится на передачу Японии всех или части островов Курильской гряды, на которые претендует Токио, то на них также автоматически распространится действие договора 1960 года — они окажутся под защитой США, и на них могут быть размещены американские военные базы. Одно это обстоятельство делает даже гипотетическую возможность передачи островов неприемлемой для Москвы.Но Япония не намерена подписывать мирный договор с Россией, не получив острова.Обозначение позицийИ Япония и Россия декларируют взаимное стремление к заключению мирного договора через развитие совместной хозяйственной деятельности на южных Курилах. Это не мешает Москве размещать на островах, на которые претендует Токио, свои ракетные комплексы "Бал" и "Бастион", а Японии — напоминать о том, что на островах, если они станут японскими, могут появиться военные базы США.Практически на каждое действие России в районе островов, которые Токио считает "спорными", Япония отзывается возмущением и протестом. Вряд ли подобные шаги ведут к сближению позиций по мирному договору.Россия ведет себя на островах так, как и должна вести себя на своей территории. Раздраженная реакция японской стороны обусловлена теми настроениями, которые бытуют в японском обществе и на которых постоянно пытается играть оппозиция действующему кабинету Абэ, поясняет профессор Института стран Востока, член исполнительного совета Ассоциации историков Второй мировой войны Анатолий Кошкин."Курилы имеют важное стратегическое значение, и размещение там российских ракетных комплексов вовсе не говорит о том, что они предназначены именно против Японии. Наименование безымянных доселе островов вовсе не является демонстрацией или какой-то провокацией — это совершенно естественный шаг в рамках освоения Россией своей территории, могу утверждать это как член Русского географического общества. А господин Фумио Кисида просто вынужден был так отреагировать на этот факт, не дожидаясь демарша оппозиции и возможных протестных акций", — говорит профессор Кошкин.Разница позиций в отношении мирного договора подталкивает обе стороны к тому, чтобы все более жестко и бескомпромиссно эти позиции обозначать, утверждает вице-президент Международного общественного фонда "Экспериментальный творческий центр" Юрий Бялый. По его словам, каждая из сторон стремится продемонстрировать, что достижение компромисса при существующих позициях почти невозможно, а поле для возможных уступок крайне невелико.Позиция Японии, по мнению аналитика, сегодня обусловлена таким немаловажным для нее обстоятельством, как выход США из Транстихоокеанского партнерства."Вчера еще в Токио были уверены, что никаких дополнительных мер в сфере оборонного сотрудничества с Западом принимать не надо, поскольку экономические интересы США и Японии будут автоматически защищаться всей американской военной мощью. Теперь это ставится под вопрос, а значит, нужно усиливать собственный оборонный потенциал и укреплять военное сотрудничество с США. При этом обозначать риски и угрозы такого сотрудничества для своих партнеров по переговорам, чтобы у них не оставалось никаких иллюзий", — говорит Юрий Бялый.Разные целиТокио претендует на южнокурильские острова Итуруп, Кунашир, Шикотан и Хабомаи, поставив передачу их Японии условием заключения мирного договора с Россией, который по окончании Второй мировой войны так и не был подписан. В настоящее время правительства России и Японии активизировали сотрудничество и переговоры по мирному договору, в том числе готовясь обсудить возможность совместной хозяйственной деятельности на южных Курилах, которые Токио считает своими.Позиция Москвы заключается в том, что южные Курилы вошли в состав СССР по итогам Второй мировой войны, и российский суверенитет над ними имеет соответствующее международно-правовое оформление. Ранее президент России Владимир Путин в преддверии переговоров с премьер-министром Японии о территориальном споре в отношении Курильских островов заявил, что Москва "не торгует территориями", назвав ключевой проблему мирного договора между странами. Японию, со своей стороны, во главу угла ставит решение территориальной проблемы, наличие которой Россия не признает.Для России заключение мирного договора с Японией имеет, скорее, символическое значение — учитывая, что Япония не единственная страна, с которой у России нет мирного договора. Токио же видит в этом документе чисто прикладной смысл — как инструмент для расширения своих территорий, считает профессор Кошкин."Мирный договор с Россией для японцев — не что иное, как эвфемизм. Говоря о нем, они всегда подразумевают только одно: передачу им островов, на которые претендует Япония. Позиция Токио такова, что никаких других значимых положений в мирном договоре нет и быть не может, поскольку все остальные проблемы были разрешены шесть десятилетий назад в совместном заявлении от 19 октября 1956 года", — говорит эксперт."Мирный договор между странами всегда полезен обеим сторонам, при этом важно, конечно, на каких условиях он заключен. Однако в нынешних условиях, когда на глазах развеивается иллюзия наступления глобального мира и все отчетливее наблюдается возврат государств к политике национальных интересов, вряд ли стоит переоценивать значение такого документа, как мирный договор", — полагает Юрий Бялый.Виктор Стеценко:Курилы наши - и точка! Сколько можно соп.. суши по этому поводу жевать..18:01 14.02.2017wlad99999:Долой совместную хозяйственную деятельность на наших Курилах!18:06 14.02.2017Юрий Смольянов:На кой хрен нам этот мирный договор, который ничего по сути не значит. А торговать российской территорией просто аморально, какой бы кремлевской администрации это не пришло в голову...18:09 14.02.2017kochergina54:А нельзя как-то им популярнее объяснить, что они не на той стороне воевали во второй мировой и перестать водить их за нос, а сразу дать в нос! Америка вон малышей своих збросила на два их города и сразу как шелковые и претензий нет никаких.Что мы им головы-то морочим? А с Гитлером у нас договор был и что это дало?. Если не можем острова освоить, как некоторые говорят, так не раздавать же? Пусть будут в заначке до лучшей жизни и увеличения населения России, а то попробуй Аляску отбери теперь18:17 14.02.2017Набиюлла Абакаров:Урок Второй Мировой не пошёл им впрок. Изъян в мозгу вышибло у них.18:17 14.02.2017dkksea:Если Япония хочет подписать с Россией мирный договор, то она должна стать самостоятельной страной. Пока она находится под окупацией США. Это же в договоре с США черным по белому написано, что США имеют право распоряжаться территорией Японии. Чего японцы возражают, не пойму. Они хотят острова для США получить. А нам это надо?18:22 14.02.2017surhaj05:Если отдать японии эти острова тогда они захотят и других курильских островов, так дойдут до камчатки. Тогда американцы закроют выход ВМФ России в тихий океан! Если хотите подписывайте мирный договор без никаких оговорок или живите без мирного договора. А нам этот мирный договор с японией по моему ничего не даёт!18:33 14.02.2017 info.klondayk:никаких послаблений, а то их потом как евреев из палестины не выкуришь))))) еще и в прибрежных водах все сожрут подчистую18:38 14.02.2017zaa_stss:Знаем мы вас, дай пальчик, так вы по локоть попытаетесь слопать. Так еще сразу и амеры там окопаются! Вы же по большому счету не договороспособная колония, а пытаетесь позицию показать. Вы уже 70 лет у амеров в одной "позиции", не сложно догадаться в какой.19:12 14.02.2017Вадим Борисович:"Мирный договор"-словосочетание НИ О ЧЕМ. Земля, пропитанная кровью предков,священна и торгу не подлежит. Ошибка или предательство?19:20 14.02.2017v8691:По-моему, хватит уроков! Не нужен нам с ними мирный договор!19:34 14.02.2017

14 февраля, 15:56

Has Abe got Trump's measure? Golf diplomacy puts Japan back on the green

Craig Mark, Kyoritsu Women's University Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe managed to be the first foreign leader to visit then president-elect Donald Trump last November. He was already embarking on his activist personal diplomacy to counter the bellicose rhetoric Trump occasionally aimed at Japan during his election campaign, accusing the country of unfair trade practices and currency manipulation, and threatening tariffs against imports. Trump even implied an end to the US-Japan alliance, stating that Japan, along with other US allies, should develop its own nuclear weapons. But Abe's first official meeting with President Trump last week - the second world leader after British Prime Minister Theresa May - has already achieved Japan's most fundamental diplomatic goal: ensuring the continuity its security alliance with America. The trip follows a successful preliminary visit to Japan the previous week by the US Secretary of Defense James Mattis, and a similarly positive phone call between Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. Mattis praised the country's financial contribution to the hosting of US bases in Japan (around 75%, with most bases in Okinawa) as a "model of cost-sharing". And he issued a statement that the US would continue to defend Japan's claims over the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea (claimed as the Daioyus by China), under the US-Japan Security Treaty. Maintaining the status quo Reassured by his firm endorsement of the value of Japan's contribution to the expense of the alliance, the first stage of Abe's trip to the US produced exactly what was hoped for. In a joint press conference following talks after Abe's arrival in Washington DC, Trump said: We are committed to the security of Japan and all areas under its administrative control and to further strengthening our crucial alliance. The bond between our two nations and the friendship between our two peoples runs very, very deep. This administration is committed to bringing those ties even closer. A joint statement released afterwards confirmed the US remains committed to defending Japan's claims over the Senkaku Islands under Article 5 of the US-Japan Security Treaty, including use of conventional and nuclear military capabilities, if necessary. The controversial relocation of the main US military air base on Okinawa will also continue. While maintaining rights to international freedom of flight and navigation in the East China Sea, Abe and Trump also hoped any actions that would escalate tensions in the South China Sea could be avoided. But, in the first such encounter under the Trump administration, the US Navy has already reported an "unsafe interaction" between one of its reconnaissance aircraft and a Chinese aircraft during a patrol over the South China Sea. And this is despite Trump having followed up his greeting letter to Xi Jinping, where he expressed hope they can work productively together, with his first phone call to the Chinese leader. During the call, he reiterated the USA's long-held adherence to the "One China" policy after all. The problem of trade Before and during the visit, ignoring criticism from opposition parties in Japan, Abe remained uncritical of Trump's controversial - and possibly unconstitutional - immigration ban. Abe is hardly in any position to criticise it, given Japan's own paltry record of accepting refugees. Despite a record number of over 10,000 applications, Japan only accepted 28 refugees in 2016. North Korea's first missile launch test of the year, held in the middle of Abe's US visit, also gave the two leaders an immediate opportunity to display the ongoing strength of the alliance. In a joint news conference, Abe condemned the test as "absolutely intolerable", while Trump declared "the United States of America stands behind Japan, its great ally, 100%." While the defence relationship may have been secured, trade remains the main area of contention. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which Japan strongly supported is now likely to be doomed, due to Trump's condemnation of multilateral trade pacts. Abe hopes Trump's hostile campaign rhetoric against Japan over trade can also be mollified. Appealing to Trump's populist economic nationalism, Abe brought along a plan called the US-Japan Growth and Employment Initiative. Projected to be worth around US$450 billion, it pledges potential investment by Japanese corporations in the US - in infrastructure, energy, and robots. The package, which promises the creation of more than 700,000 jobs in America over ten years, could be incorporated into a potential bilateral trade deal with Japan. At their Washington meeting, Abe and Trump agreed to commence talks on a bilateral trade agreement, in place of the TPP. A new US-Japan economic dialogue group is to be established toward that end, to be led by US Vice President Mike Pence and Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso, who also held their first separate meeting in Washington. As with the TPP though, concluding a bilateral trade treaty is likely to be long, complex, fraught process, particularly over agriculture. Work and play After the formal Washington meetings, Abe flew to Florida with Trump on Air Force One, accompanied by first ladies Melania Trump and Akie Abe, to the president's extravagantly luxurious Mar-a-Largo resort, to play golf for the weekend. The White House stated the cost of Abe's visit to the resort, including golfing fees, would be paid for by Trump as a personal gift. This is a further sign of the apparently warm personal ties that Abe has managed to cultivate; Trump has already accepted an invitation to visit Japan later this year. If Abe returns with US trade relations relatively intact, as well as the military alliance, he will have taken advantage of the erratic and turbulent first weeks of the Trump administration to secure favourable strategic and economic relations. His government is likely to be supported by the Trump administration, as it was by president Barack Obama's, to continue increasing defence spending, and pursuing further constitutional change. In return, Abe is likely to encourage the US to challenge China's recent domination of the South China Sea, and compete with the expansion of Chinese influence into the Indian Ocean region, through its planned massive "One Belt, One Road" land and sea transport infrastructure project. Abe's US visit could, in fact, eventually turn out to have been an important step in reviving his long-held ambition for a "security diamond" between Japan, the US, India and Australia, which he proposed during his first term as prime minister in 2006-2007. These four states may now be more willing to revive this idea for a strategic alliance, but if it does proceed, this could threaten a Cold War-style hegemonic confrontation in the Asia-Pacific region. And it could have potentially catastrophic consequences if armed conflict breaks out over territorial disputes. Abe is one of the most energetic practitioners of diplomacy among modern Japanese prime ministers. By flattering Trump's ego, he has proved adept at handling Trump's inexperience in foreign policy. He has managed to successfully challenge one of Trump's strongest held attitudes, publicly expressed as long ago as 1987, that the US is being exploited by its allies in providing for their military protection. Abe has demonstrated to other world leaders how to approach President Donald Trump: pay the price to strike a deal that panders to corporate interests and geostrategic nationalism of both sides. This first official US visit has thus potentially become Abe's most far-reaching diplomatic achievement so far. That is, if the notoriously temperamental, inconsistent and contradictory Trump can be counted on to stick to his deals. Craig Mark, Professor, Kyoritsu Women's University This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

14 февраля, 15:04

Abe’s men: The new diplomats in charge of a peace treaty with Russia

2017 apparently began rather auspiciously for the ongoing Russo-Japanese rapprochement. At the beginning of the year the parties attempted to pick up exactly where they left off after the “hot spring diplomacy” in Nagato, and held the first round of negotiations on possible joint economic activities on the Kuril Islands. The talks were reportedly held in a cordial atmosphere. A new flavor to Northern Territories Day The latest commemoration of the Northern Territories Day in Japan, usually held on Feb. 7, had a new flavor. This year, its traditional elements – a gathering of the former inhabitants of the islands and a concurrent right-wing protest near the Russian Embassy in Tokyo – were accompanied by the inauguration of a special panel established by the Japanese government as a task force in charge of discussing joint economic activities with Russia on the islands. Why doesn’t Russia return the ‘Northern Territories’ to Japan? It is not only the panel’s institutional value but also its high-ranking makeup that are worth noting. Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida chairs the panel to expedite preparations for official talks with Russia planned in Tokyo in March. The acting chair of the panel is expected to be Minister for Economic Cooperation with Russia Hiroshige Seko, with Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Kotaro Nogami as deputy chair. General support to the panel will be reportedly provided by Shotaro Yachi, one of Prime Minister Abe’s key foreign policy advisors and head of the secretariat of the National Security Council; as well as Deputy Foreign Minister Takeo Akiba and Eiichi Hasegawa, special adviser to the prime minister. Japan Russia’s policy managers reshuffle The panel initiative followed the January reshuffle of ‘relationship managers’ on the Japanese side by Prime Minister Abe and the first round of talks between deputy foreign ministers. Akiba replaced Chikahito Harada as “handler” of foreign ministry-level talks. According to unattributed sources of the Russian media, a possible reason for Harada’s removal was the fact that he had a strained relationship with his Russian counterpart Igor Morgulov. Why Putin refused to accept a 'Hachiko' as a gift from Abe In this light, Akiba’s appointment may have also suggested that the Japanese side maintains a strong commitment to resolving the Kuril dispute in the aftermath of the December summit in Nagato. Furthermore, another rotation took place inside the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with Yasushi Masaki’s appointment as the new head of the European Affairs Bureau and Tadaatsu Mori in charge of its Russian Division. Russia-China territorial settlement as an example Masaki’s experience includes work on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and other economic matters, including international treaties, suggesting a solid negotiation experience with China. As for Mori, apart from his diplomatic track record with Russia, the new head of the Russian Division published a research paper back in 2011, reviewing the Russo-Chinese territorial settlement and making a case for an incremental approach in the Russo-Japanese territorial issue. 100 years after the Bolshevik Revolution: How Russians fled to Japan In 2004, Russia and China settled their border dispute with the former handing over Tarabarov Island and half of the Bolshoi Ussuriski Island on the Amur River to the latter.  An incremental approach, according to Mori, requires a sufficient level of mutual trust, while pragmatism is key to avoiding politicization and building confidence. This research finding appears to be in harmony with the current policy of the Japanese government. The rotation inside the Foreign Ministry of Japan may also represent another hint that the Cabinet of Ministers, known as Kantei, wants to consolidate its influence over negotiations with Russia and make sure internal disagreements between politicians and bureaucrats do not get in the way, as they may have under the previous governments. Japan-U.S. stabilization The U.S. part of Japan’s foreign policy equation has also been positive. Although Donald Trump’s backtracking on the Trans-Pacific Partnership dealt a blow to Tokyo’s perseverance to save the international trade deal, Abe’s February visit to the U.S. was rich in hard currency. Firstly, the prime minister secured pledges about the validity of the U.S.-Japan alliance when it comes to Tokyo’s dispute with Beijing over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. Secondly, Japan and the U.S. established a regular dialogue between Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso and Vice President Mike Pence. In short, post-election fears in Tokyo that Trump’s unpredictability will entail a need for “damage control” and relationship re-building on the Japanese side have not materialized so far. Nor has anything transpired in regard to Washington’s take on the Southern Kuril dispute.  The desirable outcome for Japan would be to simply handle the normalization of ties with Russia without any pressure similar to what the country experienced during the Obama administration. Obstacles to joint activities on the Kurils While both the international and Japanese political environment seems to be conducive for better ties between Moscow and Tokyo, the idea of joint economic ties on the Southern Kurils raises the most questions. Let’s start with the law governing joint activities on the islands. Despite declarative willingness to work together, the positions of both sides remain polar opposites, as Russia wants the cooperation to work under the Russian law, while Japan does not agree with that. Putin-Abe summit ended in favor of Russia - experts Another uncertainty may lie in the recent developments on the disputed islands per se. On the one hand, the creation of the territories of advanced development regime in the Russian Far East included the Kurils and is expected to make the life of foreign investors easier. On the other hand, the Russian equivalent of the Homestead Act, known as “the Far Eastern Hectare”, is likely to restrict the bargaining space over any possible compromise. The program of free distribution of Far Eastern land to Russian citizens is proving quite popular so far and applications by individuals have already been made on the disputed islands as well.   Any hypothetical territorial handover would therefore risk a possible infringement of private property rights of not only the old settlers but the growing number of new ones as well. A year without a breakthrough This is not to say that a compromise is completely impossible, since Russian property authorities are expected to have overriding powers when it comes to projects considered to be of federal significance. However, as it has been noted on numerous occasions, 2017 is a pre-election year in Russia and, in all likelihood, in Japan as well, and such a sensitive period is hardly encouraging bold compromises on either side. Still, the Japanese leader is set to visit Russia in the first half of 2017 and possibly also during the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF) in Vladivostok in September. In light of the above, he is likely to expect some tangible deliverables from those trips. Perhaps, one of those would be the facilitation of air travel to the Kurils for the former Japanese inhabitants of the island. The current visa-free regime is restricted to marine transportation. Despite the roadblocks, Russia and Japan seem to be on the right track to establishing a pragmatic working relationship.

14 февраля, 13:29

Евросоюз готовит иск против США в ВТО

Евросоюз направит иск во Всемирную торговую организацию против США, если президент Дональд Трамп введет налог на импорт товаров, включая ЕС, заявил в интервью Financial Times вице-президент Еврокомиссии по торговле Йирки Катайнен.

17 декабря 2016, 07:11

Заметки к некрологу Транстихоокеанскому партнерству

21 ноября избранный президент Дональд Трамп прекратил мучения марафонцев, продвигавших проект Транстихоокеанского партнерства. Он заявил, что в первый официальный день его президентства США выйдут из Соглашения о Транстихоокеанском партнерстве, которое было подписано в феврале этого года, но еще не было ратифицировано.По условиям Соглашения, если США его не ратифицируют, оно не вступает в силу даже при ратификации всеми остальными сторонами. То есть, заявление Трампа означает одно – попытка создать тихоокеанскую зону свободной торговли на кабальных условиях для всех участников по правилам, диктуемым США, провалилась.Одним из главных видимых «лоббистов» ТТП выступал «Центр стратегических и международных исследований», самая влиятельная в мире негосударственная аналитическая структура, работающая в области безопасности и оборонной политики, негласный хаб, связывающий оборонные структуры стран по второму каналу дипломатии. От CSIS проект формально курировал Майкл Грин, руководитель направления японских исследований.Майкл Грин. Источник: csis.orgДля того, чтобы понять, почему и для чего США вступили в инициативу, которую не они начали (первый вариант Соглашения в 2006 году подписала «Тихоокеанская четверка» – Бруней, Чили, Новая Зеландия и Перу, а США вступили лишь в 2008 году, Япония – и того позже), надо обратиться к их собственным заявлениям.Переговоры по ТТП все эти годы шли в режиме строгой секретности. Соглашение было подписано 4 февраля 2016 года в Окленде, Новая Зеландия. Страны-подписанты: Австралия, Бруней, Вьетнам, Канада, Малайзия, Мексика, Новая Зеландия, Перу, Сингапур, США, Чили, Япония.А в апреле 2016 года CSIS выпустил аналитическую записку по проекту, где предельно четко обозначил цели США в регионе и цель ТТП: «исследования показывают, что в Азии в центре находится неуверенность в связи с растущей мощью Китая, и наши союзники и партнеры рассчитывают на лидерство США в регионе». При этом, указал CSIS, в настоящий момент центр «борьбы за власть и влияние» сместился в Азию, и в таких условиях единственным способом обеспечить лидерство США в регионе и гарантировать способность устанавливать «новые правила региональной торговли и инвестиций» – это Транстихоокеанское партнерство, в котором главными стратегическими партнерами США являются Япония и Южная Корея.Для этой цели необходимо опереться на «три столпа», которые обеспечивали и обеспечивают лидерство США в азиатском регионе. К столпам относятся:1. сеть альянсов и военное присутствие США в Японии и Южной Корее с целью сдерживания потенциальных противников;2. ценности, которые укрепляют поддержку открытого регионального и глобального порядка, основанного на букве закона и ответственности участников. Под ценностями понимаются демократические нормы;3. обязательство расширять торговлю и экономическое взаимодействие (создание привлекательной зоны торговли, куда втягивались бы государства, ранее находившиеся в орбите России).Далее было сказано, что благодаря этим трем столпам стала возможной «победа над Советской империей». Во-первых, военное сдерживание, во-вторых, «распространение демократии в 1980-х годах высушило болота потенциальной коммунистической революции в государствах Азии», и, наконец, новый региональный порядок переманил к себе государства, откалывавшиеся от советского блока. Надо ли гадать, что это deja vu означает, что на месте СССР сейчас находится Китай, а схема работает на сдерживание его роста и экспансии.Дискуссия: а надо ли влезать в ТТП?Все последнее годы нарастали дебаты на тему, а стоит ли государствам на таких жестких условиях ввязываться в эфемерную «зону свободной торговли»? Противостояние было настолько серьезным, что в 2014 году был раздут скандал, в ходе которого CSIS обвинили в том, что он, действуя как иностранный агент, на японские деньги двигал проект Транстихоокеанского партнерства.Наибольшие вопросы вызывало несколько пунктов. Прежде всего, речь шла о привилегии транснациональных корпораций отстаивать свои права в международном суде, обходя судебную систему страны, в которой они ведут инвестиционную и производственную деятельность. То есть права инвесторов ставились выше прав принимающих государств. Эта практика получила название «Разрешение споров между инвестором и принимающей инвестиции страной» (Investor-state dispute settlement, «ISDS») и применяется при малейшем нарушении прав компаний против руководства тех стран, которые нарушили права. Под нарушением прав можно понимать что угодно вплоть до требования утилизировать отходы производства.Споры были настолько жаркими, что CSIS официально выпускал заявления, в которых утверждал, что процедура ISDS вполне рабочая. Так, 29 октября 2014 года CSIS выпустил рабочий документ под названием «Investor-State Dispute Settlement: A Reality Check», в котором было указано, что процедура успешно применялась американскими компаниями в Латинской Америке.Насколько успешно она применялась компаниями в Латинской Америке, можно понять из случая с компанией Renco Group Inc. миллиардера Айры Реннерта (Ira Rennert), которая имела горнодобывающие мощности в Перу (это потенциальный подписант ТТП, кстати). Перу на своей шкуре попробовало, чем обернется ТТП для его потенциальных членов, если они посмеют указывать инвесторам, приносящим деньги в их экономику.В ответ на требование властей снизить загрязнение окружающей среды и убрать свои отходы компания применила механизм ISDS и попыталась отсудить $800 млн. Непосредственным основанием для иска стал отзыв лицензии у завода Doe Run Peru в 2010 году. После пятилетнего разбирательства, 15 июля 2016 года суд Международного центра урегулирования инвестиционных споров (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID)) отказал в удовлетворении иска американского миллиардера. Результат достигнут, хищнику дали по морде, но нервов измотано немало, производство закрыто, рабочие места потеряны, проблема загрязнения окружающей среды не решена.Среди других спорных моментов стоит назвать очень жесткие требования в части интеллектуальной собственности, тарифного регулирования, прав на изготовление генериков лекарств и т.д. и т.п.2 мая 2016 года нидерландское отделение Greenpeace слило в сеть тексты Соглашения, заставив Обаму огрызнуться: «Другие страны должны играть по правилам, которые устанавливает Америка и ее партнеры, и никак иначе. ТТП – как раз то, что позволит нам это сделать… Правила меняются. США, а не страны вроде Китая должны их писать». Вот на такой «дружественной волне» готовилась ратификация документа. О силе противостояния можно говорить уже потому, что стратегия «переориентации на Азию», принятая на вооружение администрацией Обамы, опиралась на Министерство обороны. Оно пропихивало через правительство военную доктрину для АТР, которую написали специалисты CSIS. Дабы не было сомнений в поддержке, Минобороны на своем сайте написало: «Обзор CSIS… отвечает общему подходу Министерства обороны к поддержке переориентации отношения США на АТР. Он поддерживает усилия США по укреплению, усилению и расширению наших альянсов и стимулирует создание сотрудничества в области обороны с региональными партнерами. Его рекомендации созвучны усилиям министерства в части обновления оперативных концепций и военных возможностей с целью обеспечения того, чтобы вооруженные силы в будущем сохранили способность к сдерживанию и доминированию в возможных конфликтах».В общем, лобби более чем мощное. Чем дело кончилосьИ тут Дональд Трамп говорит, что это все пойдет в утиль, а ставка будет сделана на двусторонние партнерские отношения. Дальше происходят еще более интересные вещи. Япония, поспешив, ратифицирует документ 10 декабря. И влипает в крайне щекотливую ситуацию.14 декабря Трамп назначает госсекретарем (внимание!) члена совета попечителей CSIS Рекса У. Тиллерсона, владельца Exxon Mobil Corporation. Для того, чтобы было понятно, надо пояснить, что по правилам, руководство Центром стратегических и международных исследований осуществляет не директор, а совет попечителей. Ситуация с Японией становится еще более щекотливой.Рекс Тиллерсон. Источник: vesti.ruВ тот же день CSIS выпустил аналитическую записку, в которой признал, что не больно-то и надо было, и отказался от дальнейшей борьбы за Транстихоокеанское партнерство. А потом выдал страшно оригинальный «План В»: послать куда подальше всех партнеров по ТТП и удовлетвориться двусторонним соглашением с Японией, которая единственная из всех участников является стратегическим партнером. А потому ей нельзя позволить ударить в грязь лицом. Кстати, своё тоже спасти не помешает, хотя полный комплект двусторонних, и даже трехсторонних соглашений у США имеется.Вот такое печальное окончание. Впрочем, «партнеры» не сильно расстроились, что первая попытка создания зоны свободной торговли без США не вышла. Да, США сами развалили то начинание, которое перехватили и возглавили (что, кстати, очень напоминает общепринятую практику защиты национальных интересов, когда ответственные лица и структуры, завидев угрозу, должны ее зафиксировать, обезвредить, или, если она не обезвреживается, уничтожить… см. специализацию CSIS). Но президент Перу незамедлительно выдвинул свой план, назовем его «План С», - Педро Кучински предложил заменить соглашение о ТТП договором стран Азиатско-Тихоокеанского региона без США, но с привлечением России и Китая. Оправдывая тем самым «пугалки» CSIS о том, что в отсутствие ТТП правила торговли в азиатском регионе будут устанавливать другие региональные союзы. Так что, история продолжается.

09 сентября 2016, 15:24

ГЕОэкономика. Чем грозит мнимое спокойствие мировой экономики?

Мировая экономика, несмотря на внешнее спокойствие, на самом деле продолжает испытывать серьезные трудности в своем развитии. Усилиями мировых Центральных банков острая фаза кризиса 2008 года была купирована. Однако внутренние диспропорции мировой экономики не преодолены. И значит, в любой момент мы можем стать свидетелями очередных неприятных событий. Смогут ли представители крупнейших экономик мира договориться между собой, чтобы как-то исправить ситуацию? Об этом расскажет Александр Кареевский в программе "Геоэкономика".

11 октября 2015, 23:00

«Крупнейшее торговое соглашение США поставит под угрозу российский экспорт»

Российские экспортеры столкнутся с более жесткой конкуренцией в Тихоокеанском регионе из-за создания нового торгового блока во главе с США. Под угрозой могут оказаться поставки алюминия, других металлов, леса, удобрений.

09 октября 2015, 07:04

Программа "Геоэкономика" от 8 октября 2015 года

Лидер президентской гонки в США среди демократов Хиллари Клинтон заявила, что не поддерживает соглашение о Транстихоокеанском партнерстве между США и 11 странами АТР. Верховный лидер Ирана запретил какие-либо переговоры с США. Банк России изучает возможности введения в РФ исламского банкинга. Цены на нефть остаются недалеко от годовых минимумов. Страдают и производители в Латинской Америке. Будьте в курсе самых актуальных новостей! Подписка на офиц. канал Россия24: http://bit.ly/subscribeRussia24TV Последние новости - http://bit.ly/LatestNews15 Вести в 11:00 - https://bit.ly/Vesti11-00-2015 Вести. Дежурная часть - https://bit.ly/DezhChast2015 Большие вести в 20:00 - http://bit.ly/Vesti20-00-2015 Вести в 23:00 - https://bit.ly/Vesti23-00-2015 Вести-Москва с Зеленским - https://bit.ly/VestiMoskva2015 Вести в субботу с Брилёвым - http://bit.ly/VestiSubbota2015 Вести недели с Киселёвым - http://bit.ly/VestiNedeli2015 Специальный корреспондент - http://bit.ly/SpecKor Воскресный вечер с Соловьёвым - http://bit.ly/VoskresnyVecher Поединок - https://bit.ly/Poedinok2015 Интервью - http://bit.ly/InterviewPL Реплика - http://bit.ly/Replika2015 Агитпроп - https://bit.ly/AgitProp Война с Поддубным - http://bit.ly/TheWar2015 Военная программа Сладкова - http://bit.ly/MilitarySladkov Россия и мир в цифрах - http://bit.ly/Grafiki Документальные фильмы - http://bit.ly/DocumentalFilms Вести.net - http://bit.ly/Vesti-net Викторина с Киселевым - https://bit.ly/Znanie-Sila

05 октября 2015, 16:20

США удалось достичь крупнейшего торгового соглашения за 20 лет

Представители США и 11 государств Тихоокеанского пояса достигли соглашения по договору о Транстихоокеанском партнерстве. Как отмечает Bloomberg, эта договоренность является крупнейшей для США за последние 20 лет

01 октября 2015, 23:39

Программа "Геоэкономика" от 1 октября 2015 года

Минэнерго считает, что у российских нефтегазовых компаний есть все шансы вернуться к работе над своими проектами в Иране. Неожиданно выросло число противников выхода Великобритании из состава Европейского союза. Америка не оставляет попытки захватить рынки Европы. Будьте в курсе самых актуальных новостей! Подписка на офиц. канал Россия24: http://bit.ly/subscribeRussia24TV Последние новости - http://bit.ly/LatestNews15 Вести в 11:00 - https://bit.ly/Vesti11-00-2015 Вести. Дежурная часть - https://bit.ly/DezhChast2015 Большие вести в 20:00 - http://bit.ly/Vesti20-00-2015 Вести в 23:00 - https://bit.ly/Vesti23-00-2015 Вести-Москва с Зеленским - https://bit.ly/VestiMoskva2015 Вести в субботу с Брилёвым - http://bit.ly/VestiSubbota2015 Вести недели с Киселёвым - http://bit.ly/VestiNedeli2015 Специальный корреспондент - http://bit.ly/SpecKor Воскресный вечер с Соловьёвым - http://bit.ly/VoskresnyVecher Поединок - https://bit.ly/Poedinok2015 Интервью - http://bit.ly/InterviewPL Реплика - http://bit.ly/Replika2015 Агитпроп - https://bit.ly/AgitProp Война с Поддубным - http://bit.ly/TheWar2015 Военная программа Сладкова - http://bit.ly/MilitarySladkov Россия и мир в цифрах - http://bit.ly/Grafiki Документальные фильмы - http://bit.ly/DocumentalFilms Вести.net - http://bit.ly/Vesti-net Викторина с Киселевым - https://bit.ly/Znanie-Sila

01 сентября 2014, 18:38

Новое слово в науке стратегического прогнозирования

На днях Центр военно-политических исследований МГИМО(У) МИД России подготовил аналитический доклад «Военно-политические аспекты прогнозирования мирового развития». Этот доклад, составленный под редакцией и при ведущей роли директора ЦВПИ профессора А.И.Подберезкина, посвящен методологическим вопросам прогнозирования военно-политической и военно-стратегической обстановки вокруг РФ на долгосрочную перспективу. Данную работу по праву можно назвать новым словом в науке стратегического прогнозирования. Ее наиболее сильной стороной является научная методология стратегического прогнозирования, прежде всего, в военно-политической области. Однако при определенных корректировках эта же методология может быть применена и в других областях, например, в экономике. Надо отметить, что до сих пор стратегические прогнозы в различных областях, как у нас, так и на Западе носили преимущественно интуитивный характер. Они, как правило, основывались на эмпирическом знании определенной группы экспертов и их субъективном видении международной обстановки. В принципе, интуитивные прогнозы не обязательно должны быть ошибочными. Если они разрабатываются грамотными экспертами, то могут вполне адекватно отражать реальность и тенденции политического развития. Однако, такие прогнозы всегда будут иметь оттенок субъективизма и зачастую вести к ошибочным выводам. Так недавно произошло с прогнозом А.Дынкина и В.Барановского, где утверждалось, что в мировом окружении России в 2014 году не произойдет кардинальных изменений[1]. Однако через несколько месяцев последовали события на Украине и ситуация принципиально изменилась. Этот просчет случился именно потому, что данный прогноз основывался на изначально неверной посылке о преобладании тенденции к «потере значения военной силы» в отношениях между ведущими мировыми державами. Более того, абсолютное большинство публикуемых прогнозов, особенно американских, создается в пропагандистских целях, в интересах информационного воздействия на другие государства и народы, а также на аудиторию собственной страны. Целью таких прогнозов является повлиять на общественное сознание, подтолкнуть умонастроения людей в определенном желаемом направлении или дезориентировать потенциальных противников и конкурентов. В таких прогнозах фактура и аналитика носят эклектичный характер и подгоняются под уже заданный результат. Естественно, рассматривать такие прогнозы как основу для реального военного и политического планирования совершенно неуместно. Научный подход к прогнозированию сценариев развития ВПО и СО предполагает, что они должны базироваться на множестве объективных факторов и, прежде всего, на основных тенденциях мирового развития. Как показано в докладе ЦВПИ, выявление этих тенденций должно быть стартовой позицией, отправной точкой составления любого научного прогноза. При этом тенденции мирового развития должны браться не с потолка и не быть отражением субъективных предпочтений и личной фантазии авторов, а выявляться путем использования аналитических методов исследования, базироваться на объективных исходных данных, научном понятийном аппарате с применением системного подхода. По существу, выявление основных тенденций мирового развития должно быть построено на цельной научной теории, отражающей закономерности исторического процесса. В докладе ЦВПИ в основу составления прогноза положена теория развития и взаимодействия мировых цивилизаций. Эта теория появилась уже достаточно давно. У ее основ стояли выдающиеся русские мыслители Н.Я.Данилевский и К.Н.Леонтьев, а на Западе – О.Шпенглер и А.Тойнби. Впервые данную теорию для составления прогноза мирового развития применил в 90-х годах прошлого века консервативный американский политолог Самюэл Хантингтон. В своей нашумевшей книге «Столкновение цивилизаций» он выдвинул концепцию о том, что различные цивилизации, как высшая форма культурной идентичности, приобретают в наше время особую значимость при анализе потенциала международных конфликтов.[2] По словам Хантингтона, «основным источником конфликтов в этом новом мире будет преимущественно не идеология и не экономика». «Наибольшие разногласия среди человечества и преобладающие источники конфликтов будут носить культурный характер», - отмечал он. Далее Хантингтон, утверждал, что, хотя «национальные государства и останутся наиболее влиятельными игроками на мировой арене», но главные конфликты мировой политики будут происходить «между странами и группами стран, принадлежащими к разным цивилизациям». «Столкновение цивилизаций будет доминировать в глобальной политике. Линии противоречий между цивилизациями станут линиями фронта будущего», - предупреждал он[3]. В то же время, Хантингтон, избрав для основы своего прогноза научную теорию, не пошел дальше в применении научной методологии стратегического прогнозирования. Поэтому в целом в его прогнозе проявились элементы субъективизма и внутренние противоречия. Он, например, правильно определил главный водораздел конфликта цивилизаций, как конфликта между Западной цивилизацией и другими цивилизациями. Но убедительно обосновать данный вывод с научной точки зрения он не смог. А это позволило критикам из либерального лагеря сразу же поставить его в целом правильный прогноз под сомнение. Между тем, в докладе ЦВПИ подробно описывается как должен строится научный стратегический прогноз с опорой на «цивилизационную» теорию. Эта методология базируется на строгой логике, предусматривающий иерархический характер прогноза, когда каждый последующий сценарий вытекает из предыдущего. Развитие сценариев происходит в обязательном порядке «сверху вниз», – от вершины, под которой подразумевается общечеловеческая цивилизация, – к локальным цивилизациям и далее к системе международных отношений и военно-политической обстановке вокруг России. При этом на каждом нижестоящем уровне возможно несколько сценариев, что ведет к умножению возможных вариантов развития. Таким образом, численность сценариев развития международных отношений будет больше, чем сценариев развития человеческой цивилизации, а сценариев развития военно-политической обстановки – больше, чем сценариев развития международных отношений. В докладе указывается, что сценарии развития человеческой цивилизации определяются основными тенденциями мирового развития. Эти тенденции носят долговременный, глубинный характер, предопределяемый социально-экономическими процессами, охватывающими весь мир и затрагивающими миллиарды людей. Как таковые, тенденции мирового развития представляют собой явления объективного порядка, то есть не могут быть изменены субъективной волей отдельных личностей, включая даже руководителей мощных мировых держав. Действия этих руководителей, правительств, да и целых государств могут лишь повлиять на скорость данных процессов, а также те формы, в каких эти процессы будут протекать. Однако остановить или перенаправить тенденции мирового развития они не в состоянии. По этим причинам сценарии развития человеческой цивилизации не могут быть многочисленными. По существу, речь может идти об одном – двух, в крайнем случае – трех сценариях такого развития. Количество сценариев нижестоящих уровней увеличивается в несколько раз. Причем на каждом нижестоящем уровне роль субъективного фактора в реализации того или иного сценария возрастает. По ходу исследования методологии стратегического прогнозирования, авторы доклада анализируют возможные сценарии развитии человеческой цивилизации, международных отношений и военно-политической обстановки. Они также предлагают систему классификации этих сценариев. Так, в первую группу они включают «пессимистические» сценарии, которые представляет собой варианты конфронтационного развития человеческой цивилизации. Речь идет о нарастающем напряжении в международных отношениях, которое становится результатом обострения противостояния локальных цивилизаций, их систем ценностей и интересов. В практической политике это проявляется в усилении борьбы за природные ресурсы, транспортные коридоры и активном продвижении своих систем ценностей. По логике таких сценариев основные державы и возглавляемые ими коалиции готовятся к активному применению военной силы во всех ее формах. В докладе эта группа сценариев рассматривается как наиболее вероятная. Вторая группа включает «оптимистические» сценарии, которые подразумевают, что уже во втором десятилетии XXI века в развитии человечества будут доминировать тенденции сотрудничества и кооперации между различными цивилизациями. Будет происходить демилитаризация союзов, коалиций, блоков, сокращение военных расходов. «Позитивность» для России будет означать, что в мире будет создана евразийская военно-политическая коалиция во главе с «российским ядром», куда войдут не только страны ЕврАзЭС, но и, возможно, целый ряд других евразийских государств. Эта коалиция сможет нейтрализовать негативное влияние НАТО. Третья группа сценариев получила условное название «диалектическая», так как включает противоречивые процессы – как позитивные, так и негативные. Среди позитивных сценариев развития международной обстановки авторы выделяют сценарий «партнерские отношения». В основе этого сценария будет лежать упрочение мирового порядка на основе норм международного права, укрепления государственных суверенитетов, роли международных организаций и учета интересов других наций, государств и сообществ. Однако, по мнению авторов, данный сценарий является в настоящее время маловероятным, так как «реальная политика США, НАТО и ЕС свидетельствует, что этот сценарий в лучшем случае может рассматриваться как декларативно-медийный, а в худшем – как проявление целенаправленной информационной политики, ориентированной на маскировку действительных целей». Гораздо более вероятным представляется конфронтационный сценарий, связанный со стремлением США добиться мирового доминирования. С этой целью американцы, по мнению авторов, будут стремиться «окончательно подчинить своим интересам Европу»; «обеспечить нейтрализацию России» как самостоятельного цивилизационного центра Евразии, «способного быть альтернативой США»; обеспечить сдерживание КНР «с помощью объединенных сил Запада (Трансатлантического партнерства) и Востока (Транстихоокеанское партнерство)» и добиться «благожелательного нейтралитета» Индии, Бразилии и других крупных незападных государств. Этот сценарий допускает эскалацию противоборства между Россией и США вплоть до военного столкновения в той или иной форме, за исключением мировой ядерной войны. В конце доклада приводится развернутая характеристика нескольких возможных сценариев развития военно-политической обстановки: сценарий создания евразийской системы безопасности, сценарий геополитической поляризации, сценарий усиления роли геополитики, сценарий евразийской военно-политической интеграции, сценарий сохранения «ядерного сдерживания» в Евразии и сценарий развития стратегического неядерного оружия. Таким образом, доклад содержит много новых идей, весьма актуальных для нынешнего состояния международной обстановки. Подборка и систематизация материала в рамках доклада, сделанные в нем оценки и выводы позволят читателю получить целостную картину современных подходов к методологии стратегического прогнозирования. Доклад адресован как специалистам — политикам, политологам, журналистам, историкам, дипломатам — так и всем интересующимся вопросами военно-политического прогнозирования и планирования. Он также может служить хорошим подспорьем в практической работе министерств, ведомств, других государственных организаций и научных учреждений, занимающихся соответствующей проблематикой. Автор: М.В. Александров [1] Россия и мир: 2014. Экономика и внешняя политика. Ежегодный прогноз / Рук. Проекта – А.А. Дынкин, В.Г. Барановский. М.: ИМЭМО РАН, 2013. С. 89. [2] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, New York, Simon & Schuster, 1996. [3] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations? // Foreign Affairs, vol.72, no.3, Summer 1993 – p. 22   01.09.2014 Tweet Михаил Александровавгуст 2014

02 апреля 2014, 03:11

Битва за Тайвань

Экономическая конкуренция между Китаем и США в Тихоокеанском регионе принимает все более четкие и регламентированные формы. Тайвань сегодня – это государство, за которое одновременно борются и США с проектом Транстихоокеанского партнерства и Китай, предлагающий соглашение об экономическом сотрудничестве. Начиная с 1992 года, экономика Тайваня демонстрирует стремительный рост, превышающий в среднем 4,5% в год. ВВП на душу населения за 20 лет возрос с $ 9116 в 1992-м до $ 19 762 в 2012 году, сделав Тайвань сегодня 28-й самой богатой экономикой в мире и 6-й в Азии. Примечательно то, что Тайвань осуществил переход от диктатуры к демократическому устройству без потери уровня экономического роста, более того, пример Тайваня доказывает, что подобный переход способен в значительной степени увеличить общее благосостояние населения. На протяжении последних 20 лет основным двигателем экономического роста для Тайваня стала международная торговля. В 1992 году общий товарооборот составлял $ 180 млрд – 82% ВВП страны, к 2012 году эта сумма увеличилась до $ 650 млрд – 140% ВВП страны, что сделало Тайвань 19-й экономикой по объему торговли во всем мире. Залогом успеха «экономического чуда» Тайваня стала четкая специализация по производству высокотехнологичной продукции. До 99% экспорта из Тайваня – это продукция индустриального сектора и только 1% приходится на продукцию сельскохозяйственного сектора. Львиная доля экспорта из Тайваня, 70% – это компоненты высокотехнологичных товаров, которые в конечном виде выпускаются под маркой «Сделано в: США, Японии и ЕС». Тайвань производит 94% всех материнских плат и большую часть компьютерных чипов в мире. Помимо этого, Тайвань успешно конкурирует с гигантами отрасли, продвигая такие доморощенные бренды, как Acer и Asus. Тайвань осуществил мечту любой экономики – стать абсолютно незаменимым игроком глобальной производственной цепочки. С другой стороны, такая специализация определяет зависимость Тайваня от международной торговли и общемирового спроса на высокие технологии. Экономическая модель Тайваня определяет высокую степень привязки к другим крупным экономикам региона, в частности к экономике Китая. Роль Китая невозможно переоценить. В 1992 году Китай был лишь 26-м по важности торговым партнером Тайваня, с $ 748 млн торгового оборота. К 2002 году Китай стал 4-м партнером – $ 18,5 млрд. А к 2012 году Китай стал самым главным торговым партнером Тайваня, с общей суммой торгового оборота в $ 121,5 млрд. Соответственно, большая часть экспорта из Тайваня сегодня направляется в Китай. Китай также сегодня является самым важным инвестиционным партнером Тайваня. До 80% прямых иностранных инвестиций (ПИИ) из Тайваня направляются именно в Китай. Через свои инвестиции в производственные мощности Китая Тайвань полноценно включил Китай в свои производственные цепочки, делая экономики стран взаимодополняющими. Помимо значительного увеличения торговых связей с Китаем, Тайвань наращивает экономическое сотрудничество со странами АСЕАН. В 2002 году торговый оборот между Тайванем и странами АСЕАН достигал $ 33 млрд в год, к 2012 году эта сумма увеличилась до $ 88 млрд. Тайвань активно инвестирует в экономики Малайзии, Индонезии, Филиппин, Вьетнама и Таиланда. С 2002 по 2012 годы общая сумма ПИИ увеличилась с $ 503 млн до $ 6 млрд. Тайвань использует особенности каждой из региональных экономик: дешевая рабочая сила Вьетнама для производства технически несложных компонентов, и более продвинутое производство компонентов телекоммуникационной техники и компьютеров на Филиппинах и в Малайзии. Одновременно с ростом влияния экономик азиатского региона и в частности Китая роль США в экономическом развитии Тайваня постепенно падала. В 1992 году товарооборот между США и Тайванем составлял $ 40 млрд, в 2002 году $ 45,5 млрд и $ 56,5 млрд в 2012 году. США опустились с первого места на третье в списке международных торговых партнеров и сегодня составляют чуть меньше 10% общего торгового оборота Тайваня. Сегодня на повестке у Тайваня стоит вопрос стратегического выбора между углублением связей с Китаем и выстраиванием более независимой политической и экономической линии со странами АТР посредством соглашения о Транстихоокеанском партнерстве (ТТП). С одной стороны, Китай, выступая самым главным торговым партнером, предлагает соглашение по экономическому сотрудничеству (ECFA), от которого значительно большую выгоду получает Тайвань. Соглашение ECFA подразумевает многократные раунды переговоров, направленные на двустороннюю либерализацию торговли, увеличение взаимных инвестиций и de facto увеличение взаимозависимости. Еще до ратификации парламентом Тайваня Китай сделал огромное количество уступок, облегчив проникновение тайваньских товаров на свой рынок. По разным оценкам, ратификация соглашения приведет к созданию не менее 260 000 рабочих мест на Тайване и увеличению роста ВВП на 1,7% в год. Значительные уступки Китая по ECFA имеют в большей степени политическое обоснование, нежели экономическое. Конечная цель Китая, которую собственно, Пекин никогда и не скрывал, – это объединение Китая и Тайваня, который после революции 1949 года de facto является независимым государством. С другой стороны, Тайваню предлагается участие в Транстихоокеанском партнерстве – проекте, в значительной степени лоббируемым США. Проект ТТП подразумевает создание большой зоны свободной торговли между странами Тихоокеанского бассейна. Среди участников проекта представители Северной Америки – США, Мексика и Канада, Южной Америки – Чили и Перу, Австралия, Новая Зеландия и ряд азиатских стран. Политическая цель проекта отчасти включает создание противовеса зоне «сопроцветания» Китая. От участия в подобном проекте Тайвань получает значительное приращение потенциальных рынков сбыта своей продукции, а также возможность углубить и расширить производственные цепочки. Безусловно, Китай негативно относится к проекту ТТП, и участию Тайваня в подобного рода проекте для Китая явление крайне отрицательное. Совместить углубление связей с Китаем и развитие транс тихоокеанских связей для Тайваня будет невозможно, и поэтому рано или поздно Тайваню будет необходимо сделать выбор в пользу одной из сторон. Антон Барбашин