Apple is to start making iPhones in the southern Indian state of Karnataka, the state's government has said.
Ministers said Apple would start an initial manufacturing operation in the state, whose capital is the tech hub Bangalore, in April.
The tech giant has a 2% share of India's mobile phone market, well behind South Korean rival Samsung.
Apple has yet to officially confirm the plan, saying only that it is keen to "invest significantly" in India.
But Priyank Kharge, minister of information technology and biotechnology in Karnataka, told the AFP news agency: "We have an understanding with Apple and we expect them to start manufacturing in Karnataka by the end of April."
Reports said the plant is being set up by Taiwanese manufacturing company Wistron Corp.
Despite the low percentage of sales, Apple has almost half of the market for premium phones, which start at around $450 an item, and its sales are growing fast.
Apple has held a series of meetings with government representatives at both state and national level and is understood to be pressing for concessions before going ahead with such a move.
Apple's biggest manufacturing partner is Taiwanese giant Foxconn, which runs the biggest iPhone factory in the world in China.
Apple is currently unable to set up its own branded stores in India, which has a raft of rules to curb the activities of foreign companies.
Rising sales
For it to be able to sell direct to customers in India, Apple would have to source 30% of the components of its products locally.
Earlier this week, Apple reported its first rise in sales in nine months after strong Christmas sales of the iPhone 7.
The firm had suffered three quarters in a row of falling revenues as mounting competition, particularly from Chinese rivals, hit sales of the iPhone.
Analysis: Shilpa Kannan, India business reporter, Delhi
Indian media has been speculating about Apple for a while. The iPhone is much coveted as a status symbol in the country, but it's very expensive for most people.
They range from $194 for a 16GB version to the top end iPhone 7Plus which costs about $1,164.
The bulk of rival smartphones on the market in India cost about $100-$120. But the hope is that manufacturing locally will bring iPhone prices down.
I spoke to Karnataka's information technology minister, Priyank Kharge, who said there was a fierce competition among Indian states to woo Apple to set up a manufacturing facility.
Although Apple is officially saying only that it will invest heavily in India, he confirmed that the tech giant has declared an intention to first start assembling the phones there and then move on to manufacturing.
And by getting Apple to set up in Karnataka, he hopes says it should help promote to region's ambition to become a location for high-end manufacturing.
Sunday, February 5, 2017
Theresa May to tackle shortage of affordable rental homes
Theresa May will this week put Generation Rent at the heart of her plans to "fix the broken housing market" with plans to increase the number of affordable rental homes.
Ditching David Cameron's plan to turn "Generation Rent into Generation Buy", the Prime Minister will instead focus on dealing with the high cost of renting in an admission that the UK's booming housing market has left home ownership out of reach for millions of people.
The Government is to change planning rules to enable councils to build more rental homes, and will launch a consultation on how to encourage developers to build more affordable private rented properties. It will also announce new measures to ensure families have better access to long-term tenancies.
"We understand people are living longer in private rented accommodation which is why we are fixing this broken housing market so all types of home are more affordable," said Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary.
The Government has pledged to build one million new homes in the UK by the end of the decade.
On Tuesday, it will publish a white paper setting down how it will achieve that - through a mix of new measures from encouraging councils to build more homes to plans for a new generation of prefab homes.
Mr Javid said high rents had to be dealt with, as well as increasing supply of new homes.
Britain's housing crisis has proved a boon for private landlords, with the average couple in the private rented sector now spending roughly half of their salary on rent each month.
The plans to boost rental supply is a direct reversal of Mr Cameron's approach to the crisis.
The former prime minister wanted to relax the rules forcing councils to build a certain proportion of affordable homes to rent, arguing that it was blocking the construction of new homes with developers reluctant to invest in properties which take years to turn a profit.
Ms May has also scrapped her predecessor's flagship Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme, which offered first-time buyers the opportunity to purchase a home with a Government-backed loan worth up to 95% of the value of the property.
The Government has a huge task ahead if it is to achieve its ambitious housebuilding targets.
In the year to April 2016, 190,000 homes were built in the UK - and Mr Javid says the Government needs to build at least 250,000 homes a year for the rest of the decade to hit its target.
Speaking to Sky News last month, Mr Javid said Britain's housing crisis was the "biggest social issue" facing the Government, with homes now costing an average of eight times earnings in England and rents becoming cripplingly expensive.
Ms May has made housing one of her top priorities in her domestic agenda in a bid to help more people on to the housing ladder and into affordable rented homes.
But getting housing projects off the ground in the UK is notoriously difficult as local communities often opposed to new development, a trend dubbed as "nimbyism" - not in my backyard.
The Communities Secretary said he was determined to face down political opposition amid warnings of a backlash over plans to encourage councils to increase the number of homes being built in local areas, which could in turn see some pockets of green belt used for housing.
"I am not pretending it is always going to be easy, but the opposition I am concerned about most of all is what happens if we don't make these reforms," Mr Javid told Sky News.
"The opposition of young people and others out there that are looking for decent homes - either to rent or buy; what would happen if their political leaders fail them - and that is certainly not going to happen with this government."
Ditching David Cameron's plan to turn "Generation Rent into Generation Buy", the Prime Minister will instead focus on dealing with the high cost of renting in an admission that the UK's booming housing market has left home ownership out of reach for millions of people.
The Government is to change planning rules to enable councils to build more rental homes, and will launch a consultation on how to encourage developers to build more affordable private rented properties. It will also announce new measures to ensure families have better access to long-term tenancies.
"We understand people are living longer in private rented accommodation which is why we are fixing this broken housing market so all types of home are more affordable," said Sajid Javid, the Communities Secretary.
The Government has pledged to build one million new homes in the UK by the end of the decade.
On Tuesday, it will publish a white paper setting down how it will achieve that - through a mix of new measures from encouraging councils to build more homes to plans for a new generation of prefab homes.
Mr Javid said high rents had to be dealt with, as well as increasing supply of new homes.
Britain's housing crisis has proved a boon for private landlords, with the average couple in the private rented sector now spending roughly half of their salary on rent each month.
The plans to boost rental supply is a direct reversal of Mr Cameron's approach to the crisis.
The former prime minister wanted to relax the rules forcing councils to build a certain proportion of affordable homes to rent, arguing that it was blocking the construction of new homes with developers reluctant to invest in properties which take years to turn a profit.
Ms May has also scrapped her predecessor's flagship Help to Buy mortgage guarantee scheme, which offered first-time buyers the opportunity to purchase a home with a Government-backed loan worth up to 95% of the value of the property.
The Government has a huge task ahead if it is to achieve its ambitious housebuilding targets.
In the year to April 2016, 190,000 homes were built in the UK - and Mr Javid says the Government needs to build at least 250,000 homes a year for the rest of the decade to hit its target.
Speaking to Sky News last month, Mr Javid said Britain's housing crisis was the "biggest social issue" facing the Government, with homes now costing an average of eight times earnings in England and rents becoming cripplingly expensive.
Ms May has made housing one of her top priorities in her domestic agenda in a bid to help more people on to the housing ladder and into affordable rented homes.
But getting housing projects off the ground in the UK is notoriously difficult as local communities often opposed to new development, a trend dubbed as "nimbyism" - not in my backyard.
The Communities Secretary said he was determined to face down political opposition amid warnings of a backlash over plans to encourage councils to increase the number of homes being built in local areas, which could in turn see some pockets of green belt used for housing.
"I am not pretending it is always going to be easy, but the opposition I am concerned about most of all is what happens if we don't make these reforms," Mr Javid told Sky News.
"The opposition of young people and others out there that are looking for decent homes - either to rent or buy; what would happen if their political leaders fail them - and that is certainly not going to happen with this government."
Donald Trump: Aliens have 'no constitutional rights' to enter US
The US Department of Justice is formally appealing against a federal judge's ruling which suspended President Donald Trump's travel ban, arguing aliens have "no constitutional rights" to enter the United States.
Judge James Robart had questioned the constitutionality of his controversial executive order, which blocks citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.
The federal government's request, filed with the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, asks for the judge's order to be lifted.
It warns thwarting enforcement of the executive order is harming the public and it is necessary "to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism".
The appeal adds it is a basic principle that "an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application".
A panel of three judges will decide whether to uphold Mr Robart's order or suspend it pending a full appeal.
"We'll win. For the safety of our country, we'll win," Mr Trump told reporters.
Thousands of travellers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen have been scrambling to catch flights to America since immigration restrictions were temporarily halted nationwide on Friday night.
Those who have valid visas or green cards are being urged to travel immediately.
President Trump has promised to overturn the "ridiculous" ruling and even launched a personal attack on Mr Robart, describing him as a "so-called judge" in a series of ill-tempered tweets.
Judge James Robart had questioned the constitutionality of his controversial executive order, which blocks citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.
The federal government's request, filed with the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, asks for the judge's order to be lifted.
It warns thwarting enforcement of the executive order is harming the public and it is necessary "to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism".
The appeal adds it is a basic principle that "an alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application".
A panel of three judges will decide whether to uphold Mr Robart's order or suspend it pending a full appeal.
"We'll win. For the safety of our country, we'll win," Mr Trump told reporters.
Thousands of travellers from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen have been scrambling to catch flights to America since immigration restrictions were temporarily halted nationwide on Friday night.
Those who have valid visas or green cards are being urged to travel immediately.
President Trump has promised to overturn the "ridiculous" ruling and even launched a personal attack on Mr Robart, describing him as a "so-called judge" in a series of ill-tempered tweets.
RBS to pay £340m bonus pot as it posts ninth successive loss
The state-backed Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) is finalising plans to pay about £340m in bonuses to employees for last year, even as it prepares to announce one of its biggest annual losses since its 2008 bailout.
Sky News has learnt that RBS, which is just over 70%-owned by the Government, has disclosed proposals for the bonus pot during recent discussions with UK Financial Investments (UKFI), which manages the taxpayer's stake in the bank.
The number has yet to be formally approved by ministers - with Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, expected to be consulted - but if given the go-ahead, it would be the ninth year in a row that bonuses at the bank have fallen.
It would also mark the first time since the financial crisis that Lloyds Banking Group will have paid out a bigger sum in bonuses than RBS.
Insiders said this weekend that Lloyds was expected to award approximately £390m in variable pay to employees, reflecting an improved financial performance during 2016.
In total, that would mean that the two big lenders part-owned by taxpayers will pay more than £700m in bonuses for last year - a controversial sum at a time when Theresa May, the Prime Minister, has signalled a desire to help millions of "just about managing" families across Britain.
Nevertheless, with Lloyds now almost wholly owned by private sector investors once again, and RBS's bonus pot continuing to decline, people close to UKFI suggest that any fallout from the bonus awards will be manageable.
RBS has slashed bonus payouts since its 2008 rescue by taxpayers, when it forked out £1.4bn in a single year in discretionary awards.
Last year, RBS awarded just over £370m in bonuses, down from more than £400m the year before.
With a ninth consecutive annual loss about to be announced, the declining pay pool reflects RBS's retrenchment from higher-paying investment banking activities as well as a regulatory clampdown on the way bankers are remunerated.
Labour politicians are unlikely to pass up the opportunity, though, to attack the Government's management of the RBS shareholding, particularly as it braces for a settlement with US authorities over the mis-selling of mortgage-backed securities prior to the 2008 financial crash.
Last month, RBS said it would take an additional £3.1bn charge for settling various investigations into its conduct on those matters, taking the total it has set aside to £6.7bn.
It is also facing pressure to resolve the fate of a network of more than 300 branches which were to have been rebranded under the name Williams & Glyn but which have now attracted complicated takeover interest from Santander UK and CYBG.
While the loss that RBS reports on February 24 will be small by comparison with the £24bn loss it announced for 2008, the figure will nevertheless be substantial: by one measure, it made a loss of £2.5bn in the first nine months of 2016, and its full-year deficit could be more than £5bn, according to analysts.
RBS has been pushing to gain clarity over the size of a DoJ penalty in recent months, partly in order to enable Ross McEwan, chief executive, to focus on other areas of transformation during 2017.
Allocating the charge to its 2016 results will allow it to create a clearer picture of progress in its financial performance during the next 12 months.
Mr McEwan has repeatedly sought to defuse the row over pay at RBS by scrapping annual bonuses for senior executives and waiving a number of payments to him since he replaced Stephen Hester in 2013.
Sources said that UKFI was likely to insist again on a £2000 limit being imposed on cash bonuses for staff at RBS and Lloyds.
RBS declined to comment on Saturday, while UKFI could not be reached for comment.
Sky News has learnt that RBS, which is just over 70%-owned by the Government, has disclosed proposals for the bonus pot during recent discussions with UK Financial Investments (UKFI), which manages the taxpayer's stake in the bank.
The number has yet to be formally approved by ministers - with Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, expected to be consulted - but if given the go-ahead, it would be the ninth year in a row that bonuses at the bank have fallen.
It would also mark the first time since the financial crisis that Lloyds Banking Group will have paid out a bigger sum in bonuses than RBS.
Insiders said this weekend that Lloyds was expected to award approximately £390m in variable pay to employees, reflecting an improved financial performance during 2016.
In total, that would mean that the two big lenders part-owned by taxpayers will pay more than £700m in bonuses for last year - a controversial sum at a time when Theresa May, the Prime Minister, has signalled a desire to help millions of "just about managing" families across Britain.
Nevertheless, with Lloyds now almost wholly owned by private sector investors once again, and RBS's bonus pot continuing to decline, people close to UKFI suggest that any fallout from the bonus awards will be manageable.
RBS has slashed bonus payouts since its 2008 rescue by taxpayers, when it forked out £1.4bn in a single year in discretionary awards.
Last year, RBS awarded just over £370m in bonuses, down from more than £400m the year before.
With a ninth consecutive annual loss about to be announced, the declining pay pool reflects RBS's retrenchment from higher-paying investment banking activities as well as a regulatory clampdown on the way bankers are remunerated.
Labour politicians are unlikely to pass up the opportunity, though, to attack the Government's management of the RBS shareholding, particularly as it braces for a settlement with US authorities over the mis-selling of mortgage-backed securities prior to the 2008 financial crash.
Last month, RBS said it would take an additional £3.1bn charge for settling various investigations into its conduct on those matters, taking the total it has set aside to £6.7bn.
It is also facing pressure to resolve the fate of a network of more than 300 branches which were to have been rebranded under the name Williams & Glyn but which have now attracted complicated takeover interest from Santander UK and CYBG.
While the loss that RBS reports on February 24 will be small by comparison with the £24bn loss it announced for 2008, the figure will nevertheless be substantial: by one measure, it made a loss of £2.5bn in the first nine months of 2016, and its full-year deficit could be more than £5bn, according to analysts.
RBS has been pushing to gain clarity over the size of a DoJ penalty in recent months, partly in order to enable Ross McEwan, chief executive, to focus on other areas of transformation during 2017.
Allocating the charge to its 2016 results will allow it to create a clearer picture of progress in its financial performance during the next 12 months.
Mr McEwan has repeatedly sought to defuse the row over pay at RBS by scrapping annual bonuses for senior executives and waiving a number of payments to him since he replaced Stephen Hester in 2013.
Sources said that UKFI was likely to insist again on a £2000 limit being imposed on cash bonuses for staff at RBS and Lloyds.
RBS declined to comment on Saturday, while UKFI could not be reached for comment.
Tehran to test-fire missiles in defiance of fresh US sanctions
Iran is to launch missiles as part of a military exercise despite US sanctions over a test firing last weekend.
The Revolutionary Guards' Sepahnews website said it would show their "complete preparedness to deal with the threats" and "humiliating sanctions" from Washington.
"Different types of domestically produced radar and missile systems, command and control centres, and cyber warfare systems will be used in this exercise," it said.
The missiles to be launched - according to a list published on the Guards' website - will only be very short-range, up to 47 miles (75km).
President Trump imposed new sanctions on Friday after Iran tested medium-range missiles last Sunday and because of its support for Yemeni rebels.
:: Donald Trump puts Iran 'on notice' over ballistic missile test
The sanctions, which affect 13 people and 12 companies, came after the US said Iran was "officially on notice" after the test.
Writing on Twitter before unveiling the penalties, Mr Trump said: "Iran is playing with fire - they don't appreciate how 'kind' President Obama was to them. Not me!"
The new US defence secretary, James Mattis, labelled Iran "the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world", but said America had no plans to increase troops in the region.
Despite the new penalties, it does not mean the US has abandoned the lifting of sanctions agreed after Iran halted its nuclear programme.
That deal was seen as one of President Obama's key international achievements, but Mr Trump has spoken of his disdain for the agreement.
The US government has warned the new sanctions will not be the last.
Iran is poised to hit back with restrictions of its own against American companies and individuals.
"In response to the new move by the United States of America and as a reciprocal action, (Iran) will impose legal limitations for some American individuals and companies that have had a role in the creation and support of extreme terrorist groups in the region," the foreign ministry said.
The country has also retaliated against the US travel ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries, which includes Iran.
It has barred US wrestlers from this month's prestigious Freestyle World Cup competition.
The Revolutionary Guards' Sepahnews website said it would show their "complete preparedness to deal with the threats" and "humiliating sanctions" from Washington.
"Different types of domestically produced radar and missile systems, command and control centres, and cyber warfare systems will be used in this exercise," it said.
The missiles to be launched - according to a list published on the Guards' website - will only be very short-range, up to 47 miles (75km).
President Trump imposed new sanctions on Friday after Iran tested medium-range missiles last Sunday and because of its support for Yemeni rebels.
:: Donald Trump puts Iran 'on notice' over ballistic missile test
The sanctions, which affect 13 people and 12 companies, came after the US said Iran was "officially on notice" after the test.
Writing on Twitter before unveiling the penalties, Mr Trump said: "Iran is playing with fire - they don't appreciate how 'kind' President Obama was to them. Not me!"
The new US defence secretary, James Mattis, labelled Iran "the single biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world", but said America had no plans to increase troops in the region.
Despite the new penalties, it does not mean the US has abandoned the lifting of sanctions agreed after Iran halted its nuclear programme.
That deal was seen as one of President Obama's key international achievements, but Mr Trump has spoken of his disdain for the agreement.
The US government has warned the new sanctions will not be the last.
Iran is poised to hit back with restrictions of its own against American companies and individuals.
"In response to the new move by the United States of America and as a reciprocal action, (Iran) will impose legal limitations for some American individuals and companies that have had a role in the creation and support of extreme terrorist groups in the region," the foreign ministry said.
The country has also retaliated against the US travel ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries, which includes Iran.
It has barred US wrestlers from this month's prestigious Freestyle World Cup competition.
Friday, February 3, 2017
Obama's last money shower for the UN: some $9.2 billion
EXCLUSIVE: In its last year in office, the Obama Administration showered at least some $9.2 billion on the United Nations and its sprawling array of organizations, according to a document recently posted on the State Department website.
The total is gleaned from a document that summarizes U.S. government spending for international organizations, and is about 20 per cent higher than the $7.7 billion figure given out by State for 2010, before the Obama Administration abruptly quit providing any overall tally for its U.N. support.
The overall U.S. bill for international organizations of every stripe is just under $10.5 billion, meaning that U.N. organizations absorb about 88 per cent of such U.S. government spending.
The new tally includes nearly $360 million for the controversial United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA, which is regularly accused of inculcating violent anti-Israel attitudes and even abetting terrorist attacks on Israel, which it strongly denies.
That is nearly a 50 per cent jump over the $238.3 million UNRWA got from the U.S. in 2010.
(Last week, the Trump Administration froze a last-minute, $221 million donation by the Obama Administration that was intended for the Palestinian Authority.)
The UNRWA numbers, along with all the rest of the U.N. donations, are likely to come under fierce scrutiny in the weeks ahead, both from the Trump Administration, which wants to take a tough look at aligning its U.N. spending with national interests, and from Congress, which is frustrated by U.N. bloat and inefficiency, and often maddened by its anti-Israel biases.
At the same time, U.N. appeals for funds, especially humanitarian money to deal with a swamp of international crises and conflicts, are still on the rise. On Jan. 31, for example, UNICEF announced a new, $3.4 billion appeal, including $1.4 billion slated for Syria and surrounding countries, that the agency says will target some 535 million children next year.
But from a U.S. point of view, “there is a new sheriff in town,” noted Robert Wexler, a former Democratic congressman from Florida and a U.N. supporter who testified on Feb. 1 , along with some sharp U.N. critics, before a subcommittee hearing of the House Foreign Relations Committee.
The hearing focused on the U.N.’s anti-Israel biases, and specifically on UNRWA, whose recent alleged misdeeds were laid out in detail by Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based U.N. Watch, who told the legislators that “the U.S. Congress is the one reliable force that can hold the U.N. to account.”
That is, if the figures they see can be believed. Critics are already noting that the State Department figures for U.N. support are less than the full story-- at least $500 million in contributions to the U.N.-sponsored Green Climate Fund, which Congress had opposed, are missing—and State itself admits that “not all Executive Branch agencies provided information for inclusion in this report.”
With the Green Climate Fund money included, the 2016 figure would amount to a nearly 26 per cent hike in U.N. support over 2010 levels. (Another $500 million donation to the Green Climate Fund was also blocked at the last minute by the Trump Administration.)
“This report was probably put together in hurried fashion,” observes Brett Schaefer, an expert on U.N. funding at the conservative Heritage Foundation. He notes that its appearance was likely prompted by a congressional spending resolution last December that demanded such figures once again be made public.
The State Department website now includes similarly disorganized spending numbers for 2015—when overall spending on international organizations hit $10.8 billion—and links to more organized reports on spending that stretch back to 2007.
CLICK HERE FOR THE DOCUMENTS
Pulling exact totals out of the State Department paperwork is a daunting task, as it does not separate U.N. organizations and other international organizations that the U.S. voluntarily and involuntarily funds. In some cases, getting the numbers also involves analyzing ostensibly non-U.N. grants where the money is then returned, via partnerships, to U.N. organizations.
The tallies, however, are virtually guaranteed never to match with their U.N. equivalents. The State Department figures cover the government’s fiscal year: October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. U.N. Secretariat biennial budgets run from January 1 to December 31 each year. U.N. annual peacekeeping budgets are prepared on a cycle from July 1 to June 30. Other U.N. organizations may also vary.
Thus, for 2014—the latest year covered on a U.N. website for its top inter-agency coordinating body—total U.S. contributions to the U.N. alone are tallied at $10.067 billion.
The State Department report for fiscal 2014 lists total U.S. contributions to all international organizations at about $7.4 billion.
The U.S. spent about $2.6 billion on U.N. peacekeeping in fiscal 2016, according to the State Department. That would be 32.7 percent of the $7.9 billion U.N. peacekeeping budget for July 2016 to June 30 2017—much more than the 28.57 per cent it is assessed for its peacekeeping “dues,” and which many U.S. legislators already consider greatly excessive.
(The same $2.6 billion would be 31 per cent of the previous 2015-2016 peacekeeping budget of $8.3 billion.)
Whatever the truth of the numbers, all of that money is likely to come under the skeptical microscope of the Trump Administration, which is contemplating a tough review of any U.N. spending that it deems outside the national interest—including steep cuts to “voluntary” funding beyond U.S. dues-paying minimums.
UNRWA in particular may face harsh scrutiny. A foretaste was provided at the Feb. 1 subcommittee hearing, where UN Watch in particular singled out the agency in a 130-page report entitled Poisoning Palestinian Children.
The UN Watch document cites more than 40 Facebook pages that it claims were “operated by school teachers, principals and other employees” of UNRWA, which it charges “incite to terrorism or anti-Semitism.” UNRWA has vigorously denied such charges in the past.
UN Watch director Neuer claimed before the legislators that the UNRWA indictment was only part of a “vast infrastructure the U.N. has constructed to demonize Israel.”
There are plenty of other targets in the State Department tallies. To name one: $67.9 million was spent in 2016 for the United Nations Population Fund, which has become an automatic piñata when pro-life Republican Administrations are in power, and the opposite under Democrats.
In 2010, the Obama Administration gave the Population Fund $51.4 million, according to the State Department, which means the figure has been boosted by nearly a third.
But two years earlier, the number was zero. And in his first week in office, President Trump announced restoration of the so-called Mexico City Policy for global health assistance that cuts U.S. funding for non-government organizations that offer abortion counselling or advocate for abortion rights in foreign countries. Like most U.N. organizations, the Population Fund is dependent on local organizations to carry out its family planning work.
The fuel for many other impassioned battles can be seen in the State Department numbes. In 2010, for example, the International Organization for Migration, devoted to “humane and orderly migration,” got $272.8 million from the U.S.
In 2016, now a full-fledged U.N. agency, it got $477.2 million, much of it in response to the Syria crisis—upheaval which, in turn, has helped prompt a rethinking of immigration policies by the Trump Administration.
The total is gleaned from a document that summarizes U.S. government spending for international organizations, and is about 20 per cent higher than the $7.7 billion figure given out by State for 2010, before the Obama Administration abruptly quit providing any overall tally for its U.N. support.
The overall U.S. bill for international organizations of every stripe is just under $10.5 billion, meaning that U.N. organizations absorb about 88 per cent of such U.S. government spending.
The new tally includes nearly $360 million for the controversial United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, or UNRWA, which is regularly accused of inculcating violent anti-Israel attitudes and even abetting terrorist attacks on Israel, which it strongly denies.
That is nearly a 50 per cent jump over the $238.3 million UNRWA got from the U.S. in 2010.
(Last week, the Trump Administration froze a last-minute, $221 million donation by the Obama Administration that was intended for the Palestinian Authority.)
The UNRWA numbers, along with all the rest of the U.N. donations, are likely to come under fierce scrutiny in the weeks ahead, both from the Trump Administration, which wants to take a tough look at aligning its U.N. spending with national interests, and from Congress, which is frustrated by U.N. bloat and inefficiency, and often maddened by its anti-Israel biases.
At the same time, U.N. appeals for funds, especially humanitarian money to deal with a swamp of international crises and conflicts, are still on the rise. On Jan. 31, for example, UNICEF announced a new, $3.4 billion appeal, including $1.4 billion slated for Syria and surrounding countries, that the agency says will target some 535 million children next year.
But from a U.S. point of view, “there is a new sheriff in town,” noted Robert Wexler, a former Democratic congressman from Florida and a U.N. supporter who testified on Feb. 1 , along with some sharp U.N. critics, before a subcommittee hearing of the House Foreign Relations Committee.
The hearing focused on the U.N.’s anti-Israel biases, and specifically on UNRWA, whose recent alleged misdeeds were laid out in detail by Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based U.N. Watch, who told the legislators that “the U.S. Congress is the one reliable force that can hold the U.N. to account.”
That is, if the figures they see can be believed. Critics are already noting that the State Department figures for U.N. support are less than the full story-- at least $500 million in contributions to the U.N.-sponsored Green Climate Fund, which Congress had opposed, are missing—and State itself admits that “not all Executive Branch agencies provided information for inclusion in this report.”
With the Green Climate Fund money included, the 2016 figure would amount to a nearly 26 per cent hike in U.N. support over 2010 levels. (Another $500 million donation to the Green Climate Fund was also blocked at the last minute by the Trump Administration.)
“This report was probably put together in hurried fashion,” observes Brett Schaefer, an expert on U.N. funding at the conservative Heritage Foundation. He notes that its appearance was likely prompted by a congressional spending resolution last December that demanded such figures once again be made public.
The State Department website now includes similarly disorganized spending numbers for 2015—when overall spending on international organizations hit $10.8 billion—and links to more organized reports on spending that stretch back to 2007.
CLICK HERE FOR THE DOCUMENTS
Pulling exact totals out of the State Department paperwork is a daunting task, as it does not separate U.N. organizations and other international organizations that the U.S. voluntarily and involuntarily funds. In some cases, getting the numbers also involves analyzing ostensibly non-U.N. grants where the money is then returned, via partnerships, to U.N. organizations.
The tallies, however, are virtually guaranteed never to match with their U.N. equivalents. The State Department figures cover the government’s fiscal year: October 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. U.N. Secretariat biennial budgets run from January 1 to December 31 each year. U.N. annual peacekeeping budgets are prepared on a cycle from July 1 to June 30. Other U.N. organizations may also vary.
Thus, for 2014—the latest year covered on a U.N. website for its top inter-agency coordinating body—total U.S. contributions to the U.N. alone are tallied at $10.067 billion.
The State Department report for fiscal 2014 lists total U.S. contributions to all international organizations at about $7.4 billion.
The U.S. spent about $2.6 billion on U.N. peacekeeping in fiscal 2016, according to the State Department. That would be 32.7 percent of the $7.9 billion U.N. peacekeeping budget for July 2016 to June 30 2017—much more than the 28.57 per cent it is assessed for its peacekeeping “dues,” and which many U.S. legislators already consider greatly excessive.
(The same $2.6 billion would be 31 per cent of the previous 2015-2016 peacekeeping budget of $8.3 billion.)
Whatever the truth of the numbers, all of that money is likely to come under the skeptical microscope of the Trump Administration, which is contemplating a tough review of any U.N. spending that it deems outside the national interest—including steep cuts to “voluntary” funding beyond U.S. dues-paying minimums.
UNRWA in particular may face harsh scrutiny. A foretaste was provided at the Feb. 1 subcommittee hearing, where UN Watch in particular singled out the agency in a 130-page report entitled Poisoning Palestinian Children.
The UN Watch document cites more than 40 Facebook pages that it claims were “operated by school teachers, principals and other employees” of UNRWA, which it charges “incite to terrorism or anti-Semitism.” UNRWA has vigorously denied such charges in the past.
UN Watch director Neuer claimed before the legislators that the UNRWA indictment was only part of a “vast infrastructure the U.N. has constructed to demonize Israel.”
There are plenty of other targets in the State Department tallies. To name one: $67.9 million was spent in 2016 for the United Nations Population Fund, which has become an automatic piñata when pro-life Republican Administrations are in power, and the opposite under Democrats.
In 2010, the Obama Administration gave the Population Fund $51.4 million, according to the State Department, which means the figure has been boosted by nearly a third.
But two years earlier, the number was zero. And in his first week in office, President Trump announced restoration of the so-called Mexico City Policy for global health assistance that cuts U.S. funding for non-government organizations that offer abortion counselling or advocate for abortion rights in foreign countries. Like most U.N. organizations, the Population Fund is dependent on local organizations to carry out its family planning work.
The fuel for many other impassioned battles can be seen in the State Department numbes. In 2010, for example, the International Organization for Migration, devoted to “humane and orderly migration,” got $272.8 million from the U.S.
In 2016, now a full-fledged U.N. agency, it got $477.2 million, much of it in response to the Syria crisis—upheaval which, in turn, has helped prompt a rethinking of immigration policies by the Trump Administration.
Uber boss Travis Kalanick quits Trump business advisory group
Uber's boss has quit Donald Trump's business advisory council in a move aimed at distancing the ride-sharing app from the President's policy agenda.
Travis Kalanick confirmed the U-turn in a memo to Uber employees, having taken to Twitter five days previously to insist he would keep the role, saying then: "I'm going to use my position on Pres economic council to stand up for what's right."
He had faced a backlash in the US with a boycott campaign, under the #deleteuber hashtag, gathering momentum despite his public opposition to the President's travel restrictions on people from seven mainly-Muslim countries and limits on refugees.
Mr Kalanick had even announced a $3m legal fund and pledged full earnings compensation for any driver who could not work because of the ban, saying it "is against everything @uber stands for".
The change of heart on his membership of the council came from the leaked memo, which read: "Joining the group was not meant to be an endorsement of the president or his agenda but unfortunately it has been misinterpreted to be exactly that."
He said he had spoken to the President to inform him of the decision, on what was the eve of the council's first meeting.
:: Travel ban could hit LA bid for 2024 Olympics
It was formed by Stephen Schwarzman, chairman and chief executive of the private equity group Blackstone.
Other members include the leaders of Wal-Mart, General Motors, Tesla, the Cleveland Clinic and Pepsi.
It had already been announced that Disney boss Bob Iger would not be able to attend the White House event because of a diary clash.
The council's self-described mission is to "provide direct input to the president from many of the best and brightest in the business world in a frank, non-bureaucratic, and nonpartisan manner."
One of the most high-profile members to confirm his attendance was Elon Musk - the founder of Tesla and SpaceX - who said he would be offering "suggestions" for changes to the temporary immigration policies.
Another of the companies to say it has been affected by the travel ban is the Cleveland Clinic.
A spokeswoman for the medical services firm said its chief executive, Toby Cosgrove, would be attending the meeting as it was a "good opportunity" to talk directly to the President about his agenda.
Travis Kalanick confirmed the U-turn in a memo to Uber employees, having taken to Twitter five days previously to insist he would keep the role, saying then: "I'm going to use my position on Pres economic council to stand up for what's right."
He had faced a backlash in the US with a boycott campaign, under the #deleteuber hashtag, gathering momentum despite his public opposition to the President's travel restrictions on people from seven mainly-Muslim countries and limits on refugees.
Mr Kalanick had even announced a $3m legal fund and pledged full earnings compensation for any driver who could not work because of the ban, saying it "is against everything @uber stands for".
The change of heart on his membership of the council came from the leaked memo, which read: "Joining the group was not meant to be an endorsement of the president or his agenda but unfortunately it has been misinterpreted to be exactly that."
He said he had spoken to the President to inform him of the decision, on what was the eve of the council's first meeting.
:: Travel ban could hit LA bid for 2024 Olympics
It was formed by Stephen Schwarzman, chairman and chief executive of the private equity group Blackstone.
Other members include the leaders of Wal-Mart, General Motors, Tesla, the Cleveland Clinic and Pepsi.
It had already been announced that Disney boss Bob Iger would not be able to attend the White House event because of a diary clash.
The council's self-described mission is to "provide direct input to the president from many of the best and brightest in the business world in a frank, non-bureaucratic, and nonpartisan manner."
One of the most high-profile members to confirm his attendance was Elon Musk - the founder of Tesla and SpaceX - who said he would be offering "suggestions" for changes to the temporary immigration policies.
Another of the companies to say it has been affected by the travel ban is the Cleveland Clinic.
A spokeswoman for the medical services firm said its chief executive, Toby Cosgrove, would be attending the meeting as it was a "good opportunity" to talk directly to the President about his agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)