# data[].attributes.body
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/10/why-the-northwest-passage-probably-wont-be-ready-for-shipping-any-time-soon/?utm_term=.3850129142e2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
BEIJING -- My first contact with the U.S. was in November 1971. Since then, I've been watching the evolution of the China-U.S. relationship. The past 45 years have witnessed three phases in its development. During the Cold War, the China-U.S. relationship was built on a common strategy vis-à-vis Soviet hegemony. Its foundation was quite stable. The Soviet threat was a unifying factor.

In the aftermath of the Cold War, the China-U.S. relationship was bolstered by growing economic and trade ties. In 1991, China-U.S. bilateral trade volume amounted to $25.3 billion. In 2012, the figure went up to $500 billion. Tremendous growth of China-U.S. economic and trade cooperation proved to be a solid foundation for our bilateral relationship.

The year 2013 marked a new phase of the China-U.S. relationship supported by triple pillars: cooperation to deal with global challenges, bilateral economic trade and investment cooperation and military-to-military exchanges and security cooperation.

The new phase of the China-U.S. relationship is one of simultaneous friction and cooperation, a "new normal," as the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi described at his press conference on March 8. "There is both cooperation and friction between us," he said. "This might be the normal state of affairs."

Undoubtedly, we're seeing more and more friction between China and the U.S. on a range of issues, such as the South China Sea, cybersecurity, trade disputes, human rights and intellectual property rights. China and the U.S. have different histories, cultures and political systems and are at different stages of development. Naturally, they may have differences. In 2010, Chinese GDP overtook that of Japan to become the second-largest economy in the world. This fact added a new dimension to the China-U.S. relationship: rivalry between an established power and a rising power.
DigitalGlobe high-resolution imagery of the Subi Reef in the South China Sea, a part of the Spratly Islands group. (DigitalGlobe via Getty Images)
The year 2016 is a very sensitive year for the China-U.S. relationship, because this is the election year in the U.S.. The presidential candidates may have a big mouth and say whatever they deem helpful to their campaign. Other sensitive issues include U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and the Democratic Progressive Party's victory in the election in Taiwan. How to best manage the China-U.S. relationship is a major challenge to both China and the U.S..

There are two competing agendas in the relationship: cooperation and friction. If the cooperation agenda fails to move forward, the friction agenda may take over. That would be a very bad scenario. Given the importance of China-U.S. relations to world peace and development, this scenario would be bad not only for our two countries, but also for the whole world. Therefore, to advance the cooperation agenda is the best way to manage the China-U.S. relationship.

To advance the cooperation agenda, we have first to identify the convergent interests between China and the U.S.. In 2016, what is the most important convergent interest between the two countries? Economy. If you read Premier Li Keqiang's government work report and watch the U.S. economic performance in the 4th quarter of 2015, you can see that economic growth tops the agenda of both the Chinese and American governments.

On Jan 27, when President Xi Jinping met with Secretary of State John Kerry in Beijing, Xi pointed out: "I've emphasized several times, when China and U.S. strengthen cooperation, we can do big things for the benefit of the world." President Xi is right. Look at the Paris Climate Change Agreement, the Iranian nuclear deal and the U.N. Security Council's resolution on North Korea -- China-U.S. cooperation played a pivotal role in each.

Sluggish economic growth is a major issue facing both China and the U.S., as well as the rest of the world. If we want to give a strong boost to economic growth, we must, first of all, further grow China-U.S. cooperation.

What can China and the U.S. do in this area? Two things come to my mind:

1. To speed up and conclude BIT negotiation.

China and the U.S. are negotiating a bilateral investment treaty. If concluded, this treaty will be another milestone in China-U.S. economic cooperation, taking our economic cooperation to a higher stage. Chinese companies, both public and private, are going global. The U.S. is one of their most coveted investment markets. The Chinese economy is going through a restructuring process. To fix the problem of pollution and upgrade the Chinese industry, American companies can do a lot in China. BIT will open up a new phase of China-U.S. economic and investment cooperation and give a push to China's badly needed economic reform.

2. To work together to ensure the success of the G20 Summit scheduled for Sept. 4-5 in Hangzhou.

China-U.S. cooperation can play a crucial role in making this summit a success, which is very important to boost confidence and stimulate growth.

It takes two to tango. China and the U.S. have to take every opportunity to strengthen cooperation in the economic area for the benefit of the two countries and the global economy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Here's What's on the Table for the China-U.S. Relationship This Year

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BEIJING -- My first contact with the U.S. was in November 1971. Since then, I've been watching the evolution of the China-U.S. relationship. The past 45 years have witnessed three phases in its development. During the Cold War, the China-U.S. relationship was built on a common strategy vis-à-vis Soviet hegemony.

# data[].attributes.body
http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/04/news/economy/g20-xi-jinping-china/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/07/republicans-up-pressure-over-iran-ransom-amid-admission-us-paid-1-7b-in-cash.html
Iran owes 1.7 Billion dollars to America. Reasons now being shared with the public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USA TODAY launches Poll Tracker charting 2016 presidential race

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New interactive shows trends over time in national and state presidential polls.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
USA TODAY launches Poll Tracker charting 2016 presidential race

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New interactive shows trends over time in national and state presidential polls.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NOTE: An executive order is a directive from the president that has much of the same power as a federal law. And like a federal law, Congress can pass a new law to override an executive order, subject to a presidential veto. (Read more under "Background")
(CBS, Dallas/Fort Worth) AP - Sidestepping Congress, President Barack Obama announced on Thursday steps he will take to shield up to 5 million immigrants illegally in the United States from deportation, defying Republican lawmakers by using . (See "Background" below questions for explanation of executive orders/executive action)

Obama, in a video released on Facebook, said he would make his announcement from the White House at 7 p.m. (Central) on Thursday, then would travel to Las Vegas to promote the plan Friday.

He said while everyone agrees the immigration system is broken, Washington has allowed the problem "to fester for too long." "What I'm going to be laying out is the things that I can do with my lawful authority as president to make the system better, even as I continue to work with Congress and encourage them to get a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that can solve the entire problem," Obama said.

As many as 5 million people in the country illegally would be spared from deportation and made eligible for work permits. But the eligible immigrants would not be entitled to federal benefits - including health care tax credits - under the plan, officials said Wednesday.

Obama was to speak at Las Vegas' Del Sol High School, a school with a large population of non-English speaking students where he unveiled his blueprint for comprehensive immigration legislation in 2013.

Republicans are vehemently opposed to the president's likely actions, with some conservative members threatening to pursue a government shutdown if Obama follows through on his promises to act before the end of the year.

A wide-ranging immigration bill passed the Democrat-controlled Senate last year, but stalled in the Republican-led House. Obama vowed [he would] change the immigration system using his own authority [] by the summer but delayed the measures until after the midterm elections, in part because of concerns from some Democrats facing tough races [that they would lose if he took this action on his own].

Democrats still lost control of the Senate in the midterm balloting.

One official familiar with the administration's planning said the beneficiaries of Obama's new would be treated in the same manner as those immigrants who were shielded from deportation and who became eligible for work permits under an Obama in 2012. The 2012 executive action deferred deportations for immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children.... Those immigrants covered by the 2012 action, called Dreamers by their advocates, can obtain work permits but are not eligible for food stamps, federal welfare benefits or disability benefits under the SSI. They also are ineligible for tax credits under Obama's health care law, though they can buy health coverage at full price on the exchanges created by the law. They may be eligible for public benefits provided by some states, however.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Wednesday that Obama's will be comprehensive and include border security measures. He said he believes that immigration changes that Obama will announce are not only legal but needed in light of inaction by Congress on immigration. ...

House Speaker John Boehner's spokesman criticized Obama's plans, noting that the president himself has said in the past that he is not "emperor" and is limited in his ability to act on his own.

"If 'Emperor Obama' ignores the American people and announces an amnesty plan that he himself has said over and over again exceeds his Constitutional authority, he will cement his legacy of lawlessness and ruin the chances for congressional action on this issue - and many others," the spokesman, Michael Steel, said.

Astrid Silva, an organizer for the liberal group Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, said the president "has a duty to keep his promise and use his full legal authority to take action where Congress has failed." The group said the White House has been in touch with Nevada activists about the trip.

...By timing his announcement for the Friday before Thanksgiving, with Congress on recess all of next week, President Obama gives the public some time to react to his announcement before Congress has a chance to respond.
From an Associated Press report. Reprinted here for educational purposes only. May not be reproduced on other websites without permission from CBS Local Dallas Fort-Worth. Visit the website at dfw.cbslocal .com.
Questions

NOTE TO STUDENTS: This is a controversial issue for many Americans. Be polite to those with whom you disagree when discussing these types of issues and always give the other person a chance to explain his/her point of view. Also, learn how to recognize when it is no longer productive to discuss an issue on which you strongly disagree.

1. Various news reports state that President Obama will sign executive orders; others refer to them as executive actions. The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable.
a) What is an executive order? Be specific.
b) What is an executive action?

2. What executive orders will President Obama give on the millions of immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally?

3. Why is President Obama essentially giving millions of illegal immigrants amnesty by executive order?

4. President Obama had promised he would use executive orders on immigration by the end of the summer. Why did he wait until the middle of November?

5. a) How did Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner's spokesman refer to President Obama in relation to this announcement?
b) Read the "Background" and check out the "Resources" below. What do you think of the spokesman's assertion? Is it fair or out of line? Explain your answer.

6. Consider what President Obama said, in his own words:

October 2010: In an interview on Univision:

"My cabinet has been working very hard on trying to get it done, but ultimately, I think somebody said the other day, I am president, I am not king," Obama told Univision in October 2010, when asked why he had yet to achieve comprehensive immigration reform.

March 2011: Remarks by the President Univision Townhall:
(see the video below under "Resources")

"America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don't have a choice about that. That's part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. ... With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed .... [W]e've got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President."

"I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books .... Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that's not how our system works. That's not how our democracy functions. That's not how our Constitution is written."

January 2013: Pres. Obama Defends Deportation Record:

"I'm not a king. My job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law," Obama told Telemundo. "When it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we've got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can't simply ignore the law."

Do you think these remarks contradict President Obama's actions announced on Thursday? Explain your answer.

7. Senator John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas, is the Senate Republican Whip, and the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and Border Security. In a Nov. 20 commentary he wrote:

Though the president promised he would tackle immigration reform with Congress during his first year in office, his record has instead been a series of empty promises and unilateral policy changes that have produced disastrous results. Because of his decisions to bypass the legislative branch and the rule of law, we have seen thousands of deportable criminals, including many with violent records, released from immigration detention. We also saw a genuine humanitarian crisis unfold along our southern border, as tens of thousands of Central American minors - motivated at least in part by President Obama's non-enforcement of U.S. immigration law - made a treacherous journey in order to cross illegally into the United States.

The likely results of President Obama's unilateral action are all too predictable. A new amnesty program would send an even louder message to the world that the United States does not enforce its laws. It would prompt more people in Central America to pay smugglers, human traffickers, and drug cartels for transportation through Mexico. It would also harm legal immigration by pushing those who have followed the rules to the back of the line.

So I would ask the president: Why would we want to again encourage young people to make one of the most dangerous migration journeys anywhere in the world? Why would we want to empower the brutal criminals who control Mexico's smuggling networks? And why would we want to unfairly punish those seeking to immigrate legally?

a) Are these fair questions? Explain your answer.

b) Senator Cornyn also wrote in is commentary:

Failing to get his way in Congress does not give President Obama the right to go around Congress. The American people strongly oppose his executive amnesty... (Read Sen. Cornyn's entire commentary at: nationalreview.com/node/393061/print)

Do you agree with these assertions? Do you think President Obama is overstepping his presidential authority? Explain your answer.

Free Answers - Sign-up here to receive a daily email with answers.

Background
ON EXECUTIVE ORDERS:
Various news reports state that President Obama signed executive orders; others refer to them as executive actions. The difference is:

A presidential executive order is a issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President under his statutory or constitutional powers.

Executive orders are legally binding and published in the Federal Register, though they also can be reversed by the courts and Congress.

The terms executive action and executive order are not interchangeable.

Executive actions are any informal proposals or moves by the president. The term executive action itself is vague and can be used to describe almost anything the president calls on Congress or his administration to do. But most executive actions carry no legal weight. Those that do actually set policy can be invalidated by the courts or undone by legislation passed by Congress.

Executive memoranda are similar to executive orders in that they carry legal weight allowing the president to direct government officials and agencies. But executive memoranda are typically not published in the Federal Register unless the president determines the rules have "general applicability and legal effect." (from about .com)

"America does not stand still, and neither will I," Obama said. "So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm going to do," he said.

So how is an executive order different from a law? According to USA.gov, the federal government's official website, "presidents use executive orders to direct and manage how the federal government operates."

The executive order is a directive from the president that has much of the same power as a federal law. And like a federal law, Congress can pass a new law to override an executive order, subject to a presidential veto.

With the Democrats controlling the Senate, the chance of a successful veto of an executive order would be slim at best. For its part, the Supreme Court can overrule an order in the same way it would find a law unconstitutional.

In historical terms, there have been significant decisions made via executive order or its ancestor, the presidential proclamation.

President Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War using a presidential proclamation, and two orders comprised Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.

President Franklin Roosevelt established internment camps during World War II using Executive Order 9066. Roosevelt also used an executive order to create the Works Progress Administration. ( blog.constitutioncenter.org)

...How far-reaching have Obama's orders and actions been and how do they compare to what other presidents have done?

On immigration, the president has signed orders to halt the deportation of those who came to the U.S. when they were young, those who care for children and those who haven't committed crimes. He's also started to allow some relatives of U.S. service members living here illegally to stay. There's more to come...

Obama has also signed far reaching orders on climate change in November 2013 - forcing power plants to cut their emissions by 30 percent by 2030 - which will be much discussed in this year's elections.

The president has instigated 23 separate executive orders on gun control...

Through his executive powers, Obama has slowly extended the rights for same-sex couples

and raised the minimum wage for federal workers to $10.10. (from a July 10 washpost blog post)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
President Obama announces executive action on Immigration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NOTE: An executive order is a directive from the president that has much of the same power as a federal law. And like a federal law, Congress can pass a new law to override an executive order, subject to a presidential veto.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Economic Scene

Is there actually a case for the Wall?

Donald Trump's boast to build a "big, beautiful" wall along the southern border clearly provided a lift to his candidacy, arguably delivering him the Republican presidential nomination. Along with his promise to deport millions of immigrants who are living in the United States without legal authorization, it remains the leitmotif of his campaign, despite occasional bursts of softer rhetoric.

Mr. Trump is not wrong that immigration from Mexico and other countries in the poorer south over the last quarter-century has injured some American workers who competed with immigrants in the job market. It is not his concern alone; similar fears are shared by organized labor and others on the left of the political spectrum. Improbable as this may sound, the question he raises is legitimate.

But even looking at a best-case situation, the answer is still straightforward: No. Even if you care only about the workers most hurt by new immigrant labor, Mr. Trump's proposals simply aren't worth the cost.

In an article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives scheduled to be published this fall, Gordon H. Hanson and Craig McIntosh of the University of California, San Diego, lay out the most obvious reason walling off Mexico would be pointless: Mexicans aren't coming anymore.

Those arriving in the 1980s and 1990s were born in the 1960s and 1970s, when Mexico's fertility rate was as high as seven children per woman. Mexico was hit by repeated macroeconomic crises. To Mexicans growing up at the time, the prospect of a job in the prosperous American economy of that era was worth braving the Arizona desert and the Border Patrol.

Mexico is a different country today. It is older. Since 1970, fertility rates have declined to just above the replacement rate of 2.1. Its labor supply is growing at about the same pace as that in the United States. And though Mexico is still much poorer, it is no longer prone to crises and unemployment spikes every couple of years.

"The completion of the demographic transition in most of the Western Hemisphere leaves one to wonder whether the benefits of continued U.S. enforcement spending will justify its costs," Professors Hanson and McIntosh concluded.

Of course, this won't settle the argument to the satisfaction of Mr. Trump's angry base of white working-class men. And perhaps the demographic analysis has blind spots. What about unauthorized immigrants from Africa and the Middle East, where fertility rates remain high, conflicts frequent and job prospects poor?

They might not be stopped with a literal wall - they are more likely to arrive legally and overstay their visa. But don't they justify spending more on immigration enforcement?

I can't think of anybody among the ranks of top immigration experts who would make for a better adviser to the Trump campaign than George J. Borjas. Over a long and prolific career, Mr. Borjas, a prominent Harvard economist, has written innumerable papers and books making a case for fewer immigrants and more restrictive immigration policies.

He has advocated a points system to favor more highly skilled migrants, arguing that the quality of immigrants deteriorated since national quotas were abolished in 1965. That opened the door to Mexicans and others of less schooling and skill, more likely to rely on public benefits. Perhaps most uncomfortably for those on the left, he forcefully makes the case that immigration hurts less-skilled Americans, those in most direct competition against low-wage immigrants from south of the border.

But even Mr. Borjas's dire conclusions about the damage inflicted by immigration on American-born workers makes a weak case for tougher border controls.

Image

United States Border Patrol agents guided detained immigrants through the brush last month in Roma, Tex. Credit John Moore/Getty Images

Mr. Borjas is not advising Mr. Trump. But he has waded into the political arena, once advising Pete Wilson, a Republican governor of California who ran a successful uphill battle for re-election in 1994 by proposing to bar illegal immigrants from schools and other government services.

Mr. Borjas acknowledges that the immigration surge to the United States from 1990 to 2010 produced a net benefit to the economy - $50 billion a year, according to a report to be published one of these days by the National Academies of Science. Still, he notes, none of this went to workers. Workers who dropped out of high school, he states, lost big.

Professor Borjas's economic research, outlined in his 2014 book "Immigration Economics" (Harvard University Press) and reiterated in his coming "We Wanted Workers" (W. W. Norton), concluded that the two-decade immigration binge cut the wages of American-born high school dropouts over the long term by 3.1 percent. This penalty, which takes into account how businesses would react by investing more in enterprises that could profit from the new immigrant labor, amounts to about $900 a year.

This analysis has been criticized by other scholars for making assumptions that make the picture look bleaker than it really is. For instance, it assumes that undocumented immigrants without a high school diploma are perfect substitutes for American workers without a high school diploma, an implausible proposition on language grounds alone.

But my argument is blunter: 3.1 percent, so what?

This is not to be callous. Of course $900 makes a difference to a worker making less than $30,000 a year. Nonetheless, a pay cut of 3.1 percent for 10 percent of the American work force seems modest compared with the price tag of ramping up immigration enforcement. What's more, there are probably cheaper and more effective policies available than walls and police officers on the border.

Today immigration enforcement costs $30 billion a year and, by Mr. Trump's own account, the border still feels like Swiss cheese. Should that be doubled? Quadrupled? What about the cost of finding and deporting 11 million people who have made their lives in the United States, in many cases having children who have a legal right to stay?

More significantly, perhaps, is the immense cost to the immigrants themselves - measured in lost opportunities to achieve a better life. This may be of no concern to Mr. Trump's supporters. But it is worth pondering the cost to Mexican stability - and its knock-on effect on the United States - had Mexico suffered through the many crises of the 1980s and 1990s without the escape valve of migration.

And for all Mr. Trump's charges about immigrants becoming public charges, living at taxpayers' expense, noncitizens are barred by law from most means-tested federal programs. While their children benefit from public education, most of those children are United States citizens, and their education is an investment that will pay off down the road, when they grow up to pay their share of taxes.

American immigration policy over the last couple of decades may look like a mess. Still, "if we could turn back the clock," Mr. Hanson said, "I'm not sure we would have done things differently."

And if economics teaches us anything, it is that much of the money could have been better spent on something else.

Instead of a new wall, how about an expanded earned-income tax credit? Or how about more training for low-skilled workers? "Where should immigration policy be among the options to help workers with stagnant wages?" Mr. Hanson asked. "I think it should be pretty far down the list."

For all his skepticism about the benefits from immigration, this is something even Mr. Borjas might agree with.

"Maybe we have to think about immigration in broader terms," he told me. "Maybe the discussion should not be just about who gets a green card but about how the benefits of immigration could be more evenly distributed. That would clarify what is at stake."

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page B1 of the New York edition with the headline: Thinking of a Wall, and Money Better Spent. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Crumbling Case for a Mexican Border Wall

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Economic Scene Is there actually a case for the Wall? Donald Trump's boast to build a "big, beautiful" wall along the southern border clearly provided a lift to his candidacy, arguably delivering him the Republican presidential nomination.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html
This article is about the current political battle between Trump and Clinton.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/23/us/politics/hillary-clintons-new-emails-release-state-department.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
His valedictory Asia tour, which moved on to Laos later in the day, is unfolding amid diplomatic slights and great power rivalries that reflect the unstable nature of the world Obama will bequeath to his successor in January.

New players

The controversies reflect the way international politics is now a stew of many competing, rising or resurgent powers that see fewer reasons to simply fall into line behind the United States than was the case following World War II and the Cold War. And it may suggest that foreign leaders are now just as interested in who will sit in the Oval Office next as they are in Obama as he heads for the exit.

Obama is not only confronting regimes in Russia, China and North Korea that are at times openly hostile to Washington -- or at least willing to make clear they don't want to play by its rules -- but over the long weekend, he got headaches from allies as well, notably Turkey and the Philippines.

"Who is he?," the fiery new President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, asked Monday at a news conference, referring to Obama. The Southeast Asian leader warned he would lash out if the US President raised extrajudicial killings in the Philippines' new war on drugs in an anticipated meeting in Laos.

"I am a president of a sovereign state. And we have long ceased to be a colony of the United States," Duterte continued. " Son of a b****, I will swear at you."

It was a stunning show of disrespect for an American president. And though Obama shrugged off the comments from the "colorful" leader during his own news conference Monday, the White House later canceled his meeting with Duterte, conferring instead with the President of South Korea. Duterte later apologized for any offense caused.

Asian troubles

Duterte is not the first erratic president of the Philippines, but his unpredictability and willingness to fan latent colonial resentment against the US represents an unwanted disruption for the White House at the end of Obama's tenure.

It comes in a regional cauldron where Beijing is making aggressive moves in the South China Sea and Southeast Asian nations are increasingly important to US efforts to rein in the rising power.

Obama had hoped to spend his final journey to Asia as president talking up the highlights of his pivot to the region. The fact sheet the White House put out at the conclusion of the G20 touted the economic progress under the eight years of the Obama presidency. And in one key outcome of the summit, he and Chinese President Xi Jinping formally agreed that both their nations would join the Paris Climate Agreement committing to cutting carbon emissions.

But that bright spot aside, his trip to China has offered reminders that since Obama took office in 2009 -- and especially since Xi emerged as a nationalist leader after taking office in 2012 -- Sino-US relations have worsened.

At the start of his trip, a logistical spat over missing airline airplane stairs needed for Obama to reach the red carpet at Hangzhou airport and verbal altercations between US and Chinese officials grabbed headlines.

At one point, a White House official warned a Chinese counterpart against restricting access of pool reporters under the wing of Air Force One, noting that it was, after all, a US plane. "This is our country," the man yelled back.

Obama shrugged off that incident, too, acknowledging that disagreements over press access often arise with China but contending that they were not emblematic of the US-China relationship.

The Republican hoping to succeed Obama, however, took a much dimmer view of the episode.

"Can you believe that the Chinese would not give Obama the proper stairway to get off his plane - fight on tarmac!" Donald Trump tweeted.

Beijing said that an "unprofessional" American press had "hyped" up the incident.

"China has warmly and friendly welcomed all the leaders who are attending the G20 summit, why would we cause problems to the American delegations on purpose?" said Hua Chunying, China's foreign ministry spokesperson.

Either way, the flap served as a symbol of the tensions over issues of sovereignty that can occur between an ascending authoritarian state and an established democratic superpower used to getting its own way -- clashes that some analysts fear could play out on a geopolitical stage in years to come.

Frosty ties

Another country that has expanded its power base by thumbing its nose at the United States -- Russia -- also grabbed the spotlight during the G20 summit. Obama and President Vladimir Putin were pictured on Monday locked in an unfriendly stare, clearly with little love lost between them.

"Typically, the tone of our meetings are candid, blunt, businesslike -- and this one was no different," was how Obama described it to reporters.

He referred to "gaps of trust" over Syria, warned that the US has "more capacity" both "offensively and defensively" when it comes to cyber espionage and stressed that the US has no intention of easing sanctions against Russia over its action in Ukraine.

The tough talks were a reminder that the "reset" of Russia relations that Obama pioneered at the start of his administration is now but a memory, while Putin has also taken advantage of chaos in the Middle East to reinstate Russian influence with Syria and Iran.

Turkish tensions

Obama also invested significant first-term political capital in improving relations with another foreign leader he met at the G20 -- President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey -- with whom tensions were on display in their joint appearance.

Even though Obama bemoaned the "terrible attempted coup" that failed to topple Erdogan in July, the Turkish President did not shy away from raising differences with the US in front of the press.

"All forms of terrorism are bad. All forms of terrorism are evil," Erdogan said, then mentioned the names of a Kurdish group with which the US is allied in Syria but is regarded by Ankara as a terrorist organization.

As he headed to Laos, Obama professed to being undeterred by the unpredictable unfriendly international environment at the end of his presidency.

"I think we all to have recognize these are turbulent times. A lot of countries are seeing volatile politics," he said at his news conference. "But then when you look back over the course of eight years, actually you find out things have gotten better.

"I tell my staff when they feel worn out sometimes that better is always good," he added. "It may not be everything that needs to get done, but if it's better than before we started, we'll take it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
obama at g20: president suffers slings and arrows of restive world - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama's rough reception on the world stage

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
His valedictory Asia tour, which moved on to Laos later in the day, is unfolding amid diplomatic slights and great power rivalries that reflect the unstable nature of the world Obama will bequeath to his successor in January.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
HANGZHOU, China - The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being rescued from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a harrowing reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel house.

But the reaction was more muted in Washington, where Syria has become a distant disaster rather than an urgent crisis. President Obama's policy toward Syria has barely budged in the last year and shows no sign of change for the remainder of his term. The White House has faced little pressure over the issue, in part because Syria is getting scant attention on the campaign trail from either Donald J. Trump or Hillary Clinton.

That frustrates many analysts because they believe that a shift in policy will come only when Mr. Obama has left office. "Given the tone of this campaign, I doubt the electorate will be presented with realistic and intelligible options, with respect to Syria," said Frederic C. Hof, a former adviser on Syria in the administration.

The lack of substantive political debate about Syria is all the more striking given that the Obama administration is engaged in an increasingly desperate effort to broker a deal with Russia for a cease-fire that would halt the rain of bombs on Aleppo.

Those negotiations moved on Sunday to China, where Secretary of State John Kerry met for two hours with the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, at a Group of 20 meeting. At one point, the State Department was confident enough to schedule a news conference, at which the two were supposed to announce a deal.

But Mr. Kerry turned up alone, acknowledging that "a couple of tough issues" were still dividing them.

Image

Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov of Russia at the Group of 20 meeting in Hangzhou, China, on Sunday. Credit Yuri Kochetkov/European Pressphoto Agency

"We're not going to rush," he said, "and we're not going to do something that we think has less than a legitimate opportunity to get the job done."

Mr. Kerry said he would stay in China another day to keep trying. But his boss, Mr. Obama, voiced skepticism.

"If we do not get some buy-in from the Russians on reducing the violence and easing the humanitarian crisis, then it's difficult to see how we get to the next phase," the president said after a meeting with the British prime minister, Theresa May, in Hangzhou.

Whatever progress Mr. Kerry has made, officials said, could easily be unraveled by external events, whether a new offensive by Turkey or the Nusra Front - which until recently had publicly aligned itself with Al Qaeda - or intensified bombing raids by the government of President Bashar al-Assad. And it is clearer than ever that if Mr. Kerry's latest attempt at diplomacy falls short, there is no Plan B.

Mr. Obama, officials said, has become increasingly skeptical about one of the major fallback options advanced by officials in the administration: expanding military aid to rebels vetted by the United States to put more pressure on Mr. Assad to compromise. With Nusra fighters playing a more dominant role in the rebellion, they said, the president has deepened his resistance to providing the rebels with more powerful weapons.

In October, Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, proposed enforcing a partial no-fly zone over Syria to create safe zones for civilians in places like Aleppo. She has said little about the plan in recent months, and people familiar with her thinking say she now acknowledges that the complexity of the battlefield - with Russian planes flying raids - would make it far more difficult.

Mrs. Clinton, these people said, would be open to other measures to ground Mr. Assad's Air Force. They did not offer details, but officials in the Obama administration, including 51 State Department employees who signed a "dissent channel" memo on Syria, have pressed privately for the United States to carry out airstrikes to hit Mr. Assad's planes on the ground and their runways.

In another election season, these are the kinds of questions that would be hotly debated. But the foreign policy debate has instead revolved mainly around the fitness of the Republican nominee, Mr. Trump, to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton, analysts said, has other reasons for not being drawn out on Syria.

"A clear imperative for the Clinton campaign is to stay as close as possible to President Obama," Mr. Hof said. "That means neither looking for, nor emphasizing, areas of disagreement, such as Syria."

And yet, Mrs. Clinton's aides say, Syria remains a priority for her. At a private fund-raiser in the Hamptons last week, Mrs. Clinton delivered, unprompted, a lengthy policy prescription for what to do in Syria, including a gentle critique of the Obama administration for not pursuing her original proposal of a no-fly zone, according to a person who attended and described her remarks on the condition of anonymity.

The views of Mrs. Clinton - and Mr. Trump, for that matter - are critical. As Andrew J. Tabler, an expert on Syria at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, noted, "Everyone in the region is just waiting for the next U.S. administration."

In the meantime, Mr. Kerry is persevering with his diplomacy, while the situation in Syria is growing ever murkier. A particular point of contention is the central role that the Nusra Front has played during the pitched battles against the Syrian military.

The Nusra fighters are commingled with rebels supplied by the C.I.A. and other Arab nations. The Russians have used the presence of Nusra fighters to justify airstrikes around Aleppo, saying the city is an important front in its campaign against terrorism.

The fact that the Nusra Front was not a party to past cease-fire agreements, allowing the group to continue its attacks on Syrian government troops during the fragile pauses in violence, has given added fuel to the Russian argument.

The "marbling" of the various rebel groups with more extremist groups has been a sticking point in the negotiations. American officials insist that they give no support to Nusra fighters despite the group's name change and split with Al Qaeda.

"Nusra is Al Qaeda," Mr. Kerry said. No name change, he said, "hides what it really is."

The Russians have been pressing their advantage in recent months, bolstering Mr. Assad's military as it claims more territory from the C.I.A.-backed rebels and the Nusra Front and gaining leverage as the diplomacy proceeds at a glacial pace.

Still, both the United States and Russia have shown an inclination to dial back the temperature of a proxy war that, for the first time since Afghanistan in the 1980s, has seen fighters backed by the C.I.A. in a direct confrontation with the Russian military.

"The four-way fight in eastern Syria is heating up, and our forces are right in the middle, in this instance some actually on the ground," said Robert S. Ford, a former American ambassador to Syria.

Military analysts say Vladimir V. Putin, the Russian president, would recognize the folly in waging an open-ended war in Syria, and in having to prop up Mr. Assad indefinitely. Russia's military successes in Syria since the campaign began last year, they said, could be solidified by a political settlement, and Moscow could gradually extricate itself from direct military involvement.

Some outside analysts see Mr. Kerry's determination to broker a cease-fire as driven by their assessment that the Russian offensive has reversed the fortunes of Mr. Assad's military, sending the American-vetted rebels into retreat and owning a shrinking patch of territory in northern Syria. The back and forth of the conflict continues, with insurgents making major gains against the government in central Hama Province over the weekend.

Any "cleareyed" interpretation of Mr. Kerry's actions, said Michael Kofman, an expert on Russia at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, would read this as a public admission that the United States is bowing out of continuing the proxy war against the Syrian Army, seeing a negotiated agreement as "the best means of saving what little is left of the moderate opposition."

If he fails, though, Mr. Obama will be left with little more than the news release his national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, issued last week, in which the White House took credit for achieving its goal of taking in 10,000 refugees from Syria, more than a month ahead of schedule - but only a small fraction of the five million Syrians who have fled their country.

Mark Landler reported from Hangzhou, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington. Amy Chozick contributed reporting from New York, and Anne Barnard from Beirut, Lebanon.
Follow The New York Times's politics and Washington coverage on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the First Draft politics newsletter.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: U.S. Urges Truce in Syria Despite a Stall in Policy. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
U.S. Presses for Truce in Syria, With Its Larger Policy on Pause

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
HANGZHOU, China - The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being rescued from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a harrowing reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel house.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abid Riaz Qureshi is a lawyer at the Latham & Watkins law firm in Washington, specializing in health care fraud and securities violations, according to the White House. Obama nominated him Wednesday to serve on the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

"I am pleased to nominate Mr. Qureshi to serve on the United States District Court bench," Obama said in a statement. "I am confident he will serve the American people with integrity and a steadfast commitment to justice."

Muslim-American activists hailed the President's move.

"The nomination of Abid Qureshi to fill a seat on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia sends a message of inclusion that is welcomed by the American Muslim community and by all Americans who value diversity and mutual respect at a time when some seek division and discord," said Nihad Awad, the National Executive Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Obama has made diversity a priority in his judicial nominations. He's appointed more women, African-Americans and Hispanics to the federal bench than his predecessors, and also worked to name judges with a wider array of work experience.

But the Senate has been slow in confirming Obama's nominees, and halted any progress on judicial nominations until after Obama's term ends in January, including Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

That makes it unlikely Qureshi will be confirmed in the months left of Obama's tenure, unless lawmakers take up his nomination in a lame duck session.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
obama nominates first muslim-american to be a federal judge - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama nominates first Muslim federal judge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abid Riaz Qureshi is a lawyer at the Latham & Watkins law firm in Washington, specializing in health care fraud and securities violations, according to the White House. Obama nominated him Wednesday to serve on the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Apache Has High Hopes for New Oil-Field Discovery in Texas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apache says it has discovered the equivalent of at least two billion barrels of oil in a new West Texas field that has the promise to become one of the biggest energy finds of the past decade.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/americas/brazil-rousseff-impeachment-explainer/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The briefing, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was confirmed to CNN by congressional aides who attended. The additional payments were delivered to Iran in Swiss francs, Euros and other currencies.

It's sure to stoke more criticism from Republicans, who had already sharply denounced the $400 million transfer as "ransom."

That cash payment was made in January on the same day Iran released four American prisoners and formally implemented the nuclear deal. The money was flown in a plane to Iran on wooden pallets stacked with various currencies to resolve a dispute between the two countries stemming from a failed arms deal made before the Islamic Revolution in 1979 that toppled the Shah.

When the nuclear deal was implemented in January, the Obama administration announced that it agreed to pay $1.7 billion to settle the decades old dispute, although officials didn't say when or how the payments were made until now.

The administration has dismissed the notion that the payments amounted to a "ransom."

"We do not pay ransom," Obama said last month. "We didn't here, and we won't in the future."

"We announced these payments in January. Many months ago," Obama added. "They were not a secret. It wasn't a secret. We were completely open with everybody about it."

Dawn Selak, a spokesperson for the Treasury Department, sounded a similar note Wednesday.

"As we announced at the beginning of this year and was widely reported at the time, the United States in January agreed to pay Iran $1.7 billion to settle a long-standing legal claim at the Hague," Selak said. "The form of those principal and interest payments -- made in non-U.S. currency, in cash -- was necessitated by the effectiveness of U.S. and international sanctions regimes over the last several years in isolating Iran from the international financial system."

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce introduced a measure Tuesday to censure the Obama administration for the payments.

Sen. Marco Rubio also introduced legislation that would prohibit those kinds of payments to Iran. The Florida Republican said the bill, "The No Ransom Payments Act," "will prevent this president or any future president from paying ransoms and ensure that American victims of Iranian terrorism are paid first, before the regime in Tehran can claim settlements."

"The Obama administration's ransom payment has become a source of bragging rights and extensive propaganda from the Iranian regime," Rubio wrote in an editorial published Wednesday in the Tampa Bay Times.

"The payments were made within hours of the hostages being released, and the plane carrying the hostages was not allowed to leave Tehran until the plane with the ransom payment arrived," the senator added. "Payments conditioned on the release of hostages are ransom payments, no matter what other dispute they are intended to settle."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
administration confirms two more payments to iran

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Administration confirms two more payments to Iran, totaling $1.3 billion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The briefing, first reported by the Wall Street Journal, was confirmed to CNN by congressional aides who attended. The additional payments were delivered to Iran in Swiss francs, Euros and other currencies. It's sure to stoke more criticism from Republicans, who had already sharply denounced the $400 million transfer as "ransom."

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/09/07/poll-tracker-latest-presidential-polls/89951916/

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/iran-cash-payments-congress-hearing/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Friday evening Nov. 13, Maya Vidon-White, like many Parisians, was dining with friends. But the moment she learned that Kalashnikov-wielding terrorists were attacking the Bataclan concert hall, she grabbed her camera, hopped on her scooter and sped to the scene.

Ms. Vidon-White, 48, a French war photographer who has spent more than a decade covering conflicts in Israel, Indonesia and Africa, instinctively began to look for victims. As the wounded began to pile up at a makeshift emergency center at a square near the concert hall, she recalled, she spotted a man lying on the pavement.

The man, Cédric Gomet, 30, an employee of the French television channel TV5Monde, was an avid guitarist with a fondness for tattoos, and had been attending the concert when he was shot in the head. He was lying on his side in his underwear, his face caked with blood, in an agonizing pose. She aimed her camera. When a nearby fire engine opened its doors, and he was momentarily bathed in light, she clicked.

Now, Ms. Vidon-White has unwittingly found herself at the center of a court case in France that has pitted press freedom and the journalistic imperative to document an important news event against the moral and legal prerogative to protect the dignity and privacy of terrorism victims.

Her photograph of Mr. Gomet, who died in the 24 hours after the attacks, was published in VSD, a glossy weekly magazine known for its lurid celebrity stories. One month after she took it, Ms. Vidon-White, who was working as a freelancer for the Washington-based United Press International news agency, was informed by the Paris prosecutor's office that she had broken the law.

The case stands as a vivid example of how, in this age of Islamic State terrorism, journalists across the world are grappling with ethical questions of how to cover attacks. They are balancing the requirements of covering breaking news and conveying reality, however disturbing, with the desire to avoid sensationalism and respect the boundaries of victims, survivors and their families.

It also shows the complex legal pitfalls and contradictions in an age of global communication. Images zoom across the borders of states and societies with widely varying laws and sensibilities regarding privacy, potentially opening journalists to prosecution in ways they can hardly anticipate.

American law does not have nearly as broad a conception of dignity as a protected legal interest as Europe does. It does allow lawsuits for invasion of privacy. But that is generally defined as public disclosure of private facts offensive to a reasonable person that are not newsworthy.

In Germany, which has a strong right-to-privacy culture, distributing or broadcasting the photographs of victims, with their faces visible, is illegal without their permission or, if the victims are dead, without the permission of their families.

But exceptions can be made if a photograph is deemed to be in the public interest. Comparatively looser media codes in Britain and Spain also call for journalists to get consent from those they are photographing, with the caveat that the public interest can trump the right to privacy.

The laws regarding privacy are particularly strict in France.

Prosecutors have accused Ms. Vidon-White and VSD of breaching the Guigou law, named for former Justice Minister Élisabeth Guigou. It forbids the publication of photographs of survivors of violent crimes, including terrorist attacks, without their permission, on the ground that to do so "seriously infringes" their right to human dignity.

Ms. Vidon-White is also named in a lawsuit against VSD. Mr. Gomet's family and partner are demanding 43,592 euros, or more than $49,000, in damages, including legal fees.

Lawyers for Ms. Vidon-White, who is the sister-in-law of a staff editor for The International New York Times in Paris, and VSD counter that the case should be dismissed. Under the Guigou law, only the survivor of a crime can file a criminal complaint, they say, and Mr. Gomet was dead when the article was published.

In April, Vincent Tolédano, Ms. Vidon-White's lawyer, asked the Paris criminal court to throw out the case, and the court will issue its decision on May 20.

"The prosecutor is trying to turn the court into a cathartic forum for victims to grieve," Mr. Tolédano said. "But that is the realm of psychology or the hospital, not a court of law."

What's more, Ms. Vidon-White and her lawyer noted, she had not published the photo herself, or had any contractual link to VSD, or received any payment from VSD.

They argue that Ms. Vidon-White did not know that the agency had sold her photograph to the French photo agency Maxppp, which then sold it to VSD, which published it on Nov. 17 in a full-page spread with the headline "A Rock Concert Rocked by a Veritable Blood Bath."

The magazine did not name Mr. Gomet but juxtaposed his photograph with the harrowing account of a Bataclan massacre survivor, also named Cédric, who described the sound of screams as he escaped from the hall. (Ms. Vidon-White did not know Mr. Gomet's name when she filed the photograph, so her photograph did not identify him.)

Associated Reporters Abroad, a Berlin-based freelance group that Ms. Vidon-White was working for at the time of the attacks, said French prosecutors were overzealously trying to "show to the grieving public - and the family of the victim - that they were taking action after the terror attacks, and twisting French law to do so."

Jabeen Bhatti, the managing editor of Associated Reporters Abroad, said the prosecution against Ms. Vidon-White was a slippery slope that threatened press freedom. "What's next: prosecuting reporters for interviewing victims?" she asked.

But Jean Sannier, a lawyer for Mr. Gomet's family, countered that their despair was magnified by the publication of a photograph that he said was "voyeuristic" and jarringly graphic, cruelly showing Mr. Gomet's suffering. He accused Ms. Vidon-White of eroticizing a dying terrorism victim, barely clothed and lying on the street.

"The photograph is vulgar and indecent, and it would have been more powerful if you couldn't see the face," he said. "Cédric's parents were forced to see their son in agony, the impact of the bullet, his face covered in blood, almost alone. It is simply terrible."

Moreover, he said, it was deeply irresponsible that VSD had implied that Mr. Gomet was alive when he was in fact dead.

He called for the government to tighten the Guigou law so that it would protect the dead.

"A dead victim deserves the right to dignity and privacy as much as one who was alive," he said. "Cédric did not have the time to file a complaint. But does that mean he should be victimized twice?"

The Guigou law was passed in 2000 to help buttress victims' rights. It was given impetus after two survivors of a bomb explosion on a train at the St.-Michel metro station in Paris in 1995 sued the magazine Paris Match after being photographed - one partly clothed, the other visibly shaken - saying their privacy had been breached.

In 1997, a Paris appeals court threw out that case, citing press freedom under the European Convention on Human Rights. The Guigou law, legal experts say, is an attempt to rebalance media freedom with privacy rights.

Ms. Vidon-White said she had just been doing her job.

"My job is to show reality, and it doesn't always please people," she said. "I wanted to convey the impact of the attacks and how France has been hurt." She added, "I live here, too."

Reporting was contributed by Benoît Morenne, Raphael Minder, Katarina Johannsen and Adam Liptak.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A12 of the New York edition with the headline: Paris Massacre Case Pits Press Freedom Against Victims' Rights. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Photo of Paris Massacre Victim Sets Off Press Freedom Case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Friday evening Nov. 13, Maya Vidon-White, like many Parisians, was dining with friends. But the moment she learned that Kalashnikov-wielding terrorists were attacking the Bataclan concert hall, she grabbed her camera, hopped on her scooter and sped to the scene.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/26/analysis-string-if-terror-attacks-europe-likely-continue/87578584/
This is explaining how terrorism in Europe is spreading rapidly without decrease. Terrorism is beginning to come to North America.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/about.html

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.wptv.com/news/state/senate-blocks-zika-funding-bill
This article is about how the U.S. Senate blocked funding for the bill fighting against the Zika virus.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politics/how-hillary-clinton-could-win/index.html

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/us/politics/poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Asked by CNN's Michelle Kosinski about his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the President described it as "candid" and "blunt" focusing mainly on Syria and Ukraine.

Mr. Obama called the discussion on Syria "productive" about what a real cessation of hostilities would actually look like.

"We have had some productive conversations about what a real cessation of hostilities would look like that would allow us both... to focus our attention on common enemies."

Obama added that currently the gaps have not been closed in negotiations between Russia and the US in a way that they think would "actually work." Obama urged Kerry and Lavrov to work together in the coming days to get aid to those in need.

Obama and his Russian counterpart Putin met Monday as talks between their governments on ending violence in Syria ended without an agreement.

Meanwhile, Putin told reporters that a deal with the US to "ease tensions in Syria" may come "within a few days," according to Russia's state news agency TASS.

"Against all odds we have a certain rapprochement and understanding of what we might do to ease tensions in Syria and achieve mutually acceptable solutions," TASS quoted Putin as saying.

As for further details on the agreement, Putin said, "It is early now to speak of any parameters of our agreements, but I hope very much that the agreements will be reached, and I have the grounds to believe that this may happen within a few days," according to TASS.

The two leaders conversed on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit here for ninety minutes, a senior US official said, and worked to clarify gaps in negotiations over on the Syrian crisis. The pair also discussed Ukraine and Russia's cyber intrusions, the official said.

The exchange came after talks between Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov failed to result in a Syria ceasefire agreement. They had been working to negotiate a plan that would have boosted military cooperation between the two nations in an effort to better target terrorists and prevent civilian deaths.

Negotiators failed to work through differences, and the talks have ended for now. Following Obama's meeting with Putin, an official said the leaders indicated a desire for Kerry and Lavrov to reconvene deliberations in the coming days.

"It was constructive," a US official said after the meeting, noting that all differences were not resolved. The official spoke anonymously to discuss a private conversation.

"It's clear now what our respective positions are," the official said. "And we'll see in coming days whether on Syria we can reach a near-term agreement. If we cannot get the type of agreement we want, we will walk away from that effort."

Differences between the two sides are technical, the official indicated, suggesting the divide was at a level that Obama and Putin wouldn't negotiate themselves.

"President Obama and President Putin were not going to get down into the weeds of the language of an agreement and the implementation associated with the agreement," the official said.

Photos of the session distributed by the Kremlin show the two leaders and aides, including Kerry and US National Security Adviser Susan Rice, seated around a table. The presidents appeared in congenial moods, with one photo showing Putin smiling broadly.

Both Russian and US officials said the meeting -- which was held in a conference room at the G20 summit site here -- lasted longer than planned, and that leaders spent the bulk of their meeting discussing Syria.

Cautious optimism

On Sunday, cautious optimism prevailed that a deal could be struck between Washington and Moscow, long at odds over policy in Syria. Kerry and Lavrov had been working "around the clock" to come to an agreement, Obama told reporters.

Russian forces have aligned with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to target US-backed opposition fighters that Moscow and Damascus claim are terrorists. The campaign has spurred a humanitarian crisis and caused millions of Syrians to flee for Europe.

The US hopes to align with Russia to identify terrorist targets, including ISIS and the Nusra Front, a group formerly tied to al-Qaeda. Officials hope a ceasefire will help advance talks on a political transition that would lead to the resignation of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad.

Any deal to end widespread suffering in Syria was likely to be met with doubt after past settlements, including a ceasefire agreed to in February, failed -- a fact Obama acknowledged on Sunday.

"Given the failure of previous cessations of hostilities to hold, we approach it with some skepticism," Obama said.

But he insisted any work toward easing the deeply troubling humanitarian crisis was valuable.

"It is worth trying," he said. "To the extent that there are children and women and innocent civilians who can get food and medical supplies and, you know, get some relief from the constant terror of bombings, that's worth the effort."

Russia and the US

A deal on Syria could place US-Russia ties in a firmer position as Obama prepares to leave office. Deep divides over Syria have marred Obama's relationship with Putin, adding to a litany of discord between the US and Russia that's driven relations to their lowest level since the Cold War.

This week's interaction between the two men could be a final attempt to salvage what's become one of the most acrimonious relationships on the global stage. Putin's persistent support for the Syrian regime, Moscow's moves in Ukraine and the charge that Russia may be meddling in the US presidential contest have built a deeply antagonistic dynamic between the two leaders.

Obama said on Sunday that Russian participation was essential.

"Our conversations with the Russians are key because, if it were not for the Russians, then Assad and the regime would not be able to sustain its offensive," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
barack obama: 'gaps of trust' hamper syria deal with russia - cnnpolitics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer, and James Masters

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama: 'Gaps of trust' hamper Syria deal with Russia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Asked by CNN's Michelle Kosinski about his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the President described it as "candid" and "blunt" focusing mainly on Syria and Ukraine. Mr. Obama called the discussion on Syria "productive" about what a real cessation of hostilities would actually look like.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The G20 summit in China may not have produced many policy breakthroughs, but world leaders did agree on one thing: the danger of rising income inequality.

Politicians from a wide range of ideological backgrounds emphasized the importance of sharing the benefits of growth more evenly in the global economy.

The mantra was repeated by President Obama, as well as his counterparts from Britain and China. Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, echoed with her own message of inclusive growth.

Obama used a news conference to address families and workers who feel the economy is not working for them.

"We have to do more to grow wages faster, to shrink inequality faster, to give everybody a shot at opportunity and security in a changing economy," Obama said.

"That should be the way forward for the G20 -- to make sure that the benefits of trends like globalization and technological progress are shared broadly by more workers and families," he continued.

Related: Obama's last summit: Does the G20 still matter?

It's not difficult to see why leaders are concerned: Populism is on the rise in many developed economies, threatening to scupper free trade deals that have been decades in the making, and straining existing ties.

People on low wages, with lower qualifications or skills, were the driving force behind the Brexit vote that will lead to the U.K. leaving the European Union after more than 40 years.

In the U.S., the Democratic and Republican nominees for president have both spoken out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP.

Related: Business must lead reboot of global economy

The best medicine against this thinking, world leaders suggest, is more equitable growth.

"Countries should deploy proven tools to reduce excessive inequality and raise economic prospects, particularly for low income groups and workers," Lagarde said.

Related: Trade troubles haunt G20 leaders at China summit

Theresa May, who became Britain's prime minister after the Brexit vote, said that world leaders must find a way to "boost free trade and build a fairer economy that truly works for all."

While world leaders offered plenty of words on the topic, they were short on practical solutions and proposals.

But even Xi Jinping, who as the head of China's Communist Party, is perhaps more insulated from populist sentiment, said the benefits of economic activity must be shared.

"We hope to send the signal to the world, that the G20 belongs not only to its members but also to the whole world," he said. "Our goal is to ensure that growth and development will benefit all countries and the overwhelming majorities of their peoples equitably."

CNNMoney (New Delhi) First published September 5, 2016: 9:56 AM ET

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
World leaders: We must tackle income inequality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Politicians from a wide range of ideological backgrounds emphasized the importance of sharing the benefits of growth more evenly in the global economy. The mantra was repeated by President Obama, as well as his counterparts from Britain and China. Christine Lagarde, the head of the International Monetary Fund, echoed with her own message of inclusive growth.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(by James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal) - As of Monday morning a handful of governors were vowing to resist Obama administration plans to resettle Syrian refugees in their states. As of Tuesday morning, CNN put the count at 27, with only seven governors, all Democrats, saying their states will welcome the Syrians. President Obama likely helped catalyze this cross-country revolt with a dreadful performance in a press conference yesterday at Antalya, Turkey.

The president came off as impassive as he discussed last week's attacks in Paris. He turned prickly under repeated questioning about his own underestimation of the Islamic State-which he denied, even when a reporter mentioned his January 2014 dismissal of the group as "the jayvee team."

But he got passionate when the subject turned to Republicans who disagree with him on the refugee question:

When I hear folks say that, well, maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims; when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which a person who's fleeing from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution-that's shameful. That's not American. That's not who we are. We don't have religious tests to our compassion. . . .

When Pope Francis came to visit the United States, and gave a speech before Congress, he didn't just speak about Christians who were being persecuted. He didn't call on Catholic parishes just to admit to those who were of the same religious faith. He said, protect people who are vulnerable.

And so I think it is very important for us right now-particularly those who are in leadership, particularly those who have a platform and can be heard-not to fall into that trap, not to feed that dark impulse inside of us.

But Yahoo! News's Michael Isikoff last week reported that the administration is in fact on the verge of imposing just the sort of "religious test" the president claims to disavow:

The Obama administration is moving to designate the Islamic State's murderous attacks on the Yazidi in Iraq an act of "genocide," an extremely rare move intended to ratchet up international pressure against the terror organization, administration officials tell Yahoo News.

The action, which sources say could be announced by Secretary of State John Kerry in the next few weeks, has been pushed by top officials at the human rights and religious freedom offices at the State Department.

The Yazidi are a religious minority whose faith "incorporates elements of Christianity and Islam."

"A genocide designation would have significant policy implications for American efforts to restore property and lands taken from the minority groups and for offers of aid, asylum, and other protections to such victims," the Hudson Institute's Nina Shea writes for National Review. Christians are not being considered for the genocide designation, Shea notes, although they are "also among the most vulnerable religious minority groups that have been deliberately and mercilessly targeted for eradication by ISIS."
So Obama's objection is not to "religious tests" per se, but to favorable treatment of Christians. It is of a piece with his February speech to the National Prayer Breakfast, in which he bizarrely lectured Christians to get off their "high horse" and remember the Crusades, while also claiming that ISIS and other Muslim terrorists are "betraying" Islam.
Apprehension about admitting Muslim Syrian refugees is motivated by fear. It is "The Return of Republican Islamophobia," according to the title of a piece yesterday by New York magazine's Jonathan Chait. He writes that "figures like Ted Cruz and Jeb Bush are calling for the United States to admit only Christian refugees, thereby positioning the United States as indifferent to ISIS's primary victims," by which he means Muslims. So are Yazidis secondary victims and Christians tertiary ones, or the other way around? Chait doesn't say.

But a phobia is an irrational fear, and the attacks in Paris are nothing if not a reminder that fear of Islamic terrorism is rational. The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that one of the Paris attackers came in as part of the wave of Syrian refugees:

Authorities in France and Greece have said that fingerprints taken from the remains of a suicide bomber outside France's national sports stadium, the Stade de France, match the prints of a man who entered Europe via the Aegean island of Leros on Oct. 3.

Whoever the man was, he posed as one of the many refugees fleeing Syria's war-including the violence of Islamic State-to enter Europe through its lightly controlled frontier in the Aegean Sea.

Greek authorities on islands such as Leros, Lesbos and Chios have confronted thousands of arrivals every day in recent months as refugees and other migrants make the short sea crossing from Turkey in inflatable boats. Short of staff and equipment, Greek police carry out only a simple procedure that involves taking people's data and fingerprints, and sometimes asking them a few questions, before giving them permission to travel onward, deeper into Europe.

Upon his arrival in Leros, the Paris assailant was checked against police databases under his Syrian identity, Greek officials say. Nothing was found. Police on Leros didn't spot that the passport was fake. A black market in Syrian passports has sprung up in Turkey as migrants try to gain the easiest possible entry into Europe, which has treated Syrian war refugees as more deserving of shelter in European Union countries than many other nationalities.

Reuters reported Tuesday that "German police have detained an Algerian man in a refugee reception centre in connection with the attacks in Paris."

The Obama administration plans to admit some 10,000 Syrian refugees next year. At Saturday's debate, Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley both said they'd like to make it 65,000. "Accommodating 65,000 refugees in our country today, people of 320 million, is akin to making room for 6½ more people in a baseball stadium with 32,000," said O'Malley.
The problem, however, is not one of numbers. If even a handful of terrorists were among the 10,000 or 65,000 admitted, that would be enough to cause carnage and serious disruption. As the president himself observed during yesterday's press conference: "When you're talking about the ability of a handful of people . . . who are willing to die, they can kill a lot of people."
Proponents of admitting Syrian refugees acknowledge the importance of vetting them. "Even as we accept more refugees-including Syrians-we do so only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks," Obama said in his opening statement yesterday. In the debate, Mrs. Clinton said that "we should go to 65 [thousand] but only if we have as carefully screening and vetting process as we can imagine, whatever resources it takes."

In an interview on Mondy with radio host Hugh Hewitt, New Jersey's Gov. Chris Christie-one of those who've said their states won't accept refugees-made the obvious point in response:

"I do not trust this administration to effectively vet the people who are proposed to be coming in, in order to protect the safety and security of the American people."

We have no specialized knowledge here, but it seems to us that Gov. Christie easily has the better of this argument. To put it mildly, administrative competence has not been the hallmark of this administration. Obama has presided over, among other things:

the abuses at the Internal Revenue Service

the Chinese hacking of millions of federal employees' private records

and the scandal at the Veterans Administration.

His administration could not even design a properly functioning website for its central ideological vanity project, the federal health-insurance exchange.
It seems crazy to place one's faith in its ability to do better even than the Greeks in vetting refugees.
USA Today points out that the governors have little formal authority to keep the feds from resettling refugees in their state:

"The one thing I feel very comfortable saying is there is absolutely no constitutional power for a state to exclude anyone from its territories," said Stephen Legomsky, a Washington University of St. Louis law professor and former chief counsel of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Obama administration. . . .

The Refugee Act of 1980 requires the State Department to maintain "an effective and responsive liaison" with governors and mayors, but doesn't give governors any formal role in resettlement.

"Most of these resettlement decisions are partnerships with churches and private organizations that are offering to resettle," said Anna Law, a political scientist at Brooklyn College who's studied the history of state efforts to limit immigration. "I think this is political posturing. The decision to admit refugees is made at the federal level. Whether these refugees are admitted to the United States, that is not their call."

It's certainly political, but resistance from governors in a majority of states-including 11 states Obama carried in 2012, and including one Democrat, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, who is seeking a U.S. Senate seat-it's more than posturing. This is not just a national-security crisis but a developing political crisis for the president and his party.
Published November 17, 2015 in James Taranto's "Best of the Web" at The Wall Street Journal website. Reprinted here Nov. 19, 2015 for educational purposes only. Visit the website at wsj .com.
Questions

1. The purpose of an editorial/commentary is to explain, persuade, warn, criticize, entertain, praise or answer. What do you think is the purpose of James Taranto's editorial? Explain your answer.

2. What is the main idea of the editorial?

3. Mr. Taranto concludes by quoting Anna Law, a political scientist at Brooklyn College who's studied the history of state efforts to limit immigration, who said, "I think this is political posturing. The decision to admit refugees is made at the federal level. Whether these refugees are admitted to the United States, that is not their call."

Mr. Taranto observes:

It's certainly political, but resistance from governors in a majority of states-including 11 states Obama carried in 2012, and including one Democrat, Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire, who is seeking a U.S. Senate seat-it's more than posturing. This is not just a national-security crisis but a developing political crisis for the president and his party.

Do you agree with his assertion? Explain your answer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(by James Taranto, The Wall Street Journal) - As of Monday morning a handful of governors were vowing to resist Obama administration plans to resettle Syrian refugees in their states. As of Tuesday morning, CNN put the count at 27, with only seven governors, all Democrats, saying their states will welcome the Syrians.

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/17/world/syria-little-boy-airstrike-victim/
Syrian war-and its adversive effects on casualties