Pakistan says it's close to US trade deal, Washington gives no timeline
"I think we are very close to finalizing a deal with U.S. Our teams have been here in Washington, discussing, having virtual meetings and a committee has been tasked by the prime minister to fine-tune now," Dar said in a discussion at the Atlantic Council think tank in Washington.
"It's not going to be months, not even weeks, I would say (just) days," he said.
Under U.S. President Donald Trump, Washington has attempted to renegotiate trade agreements with many countries that he threatened with tariffs over what he calls unfair trade relations. Many economists dispute Trump's characterization.
The U.S. State Department and Pakistan's foreign ministry, in separate statements after Rubio's meeting with Dar, said the two stressed in their discussion the importance of expanding trade and ties in critical minerals and mining. A post by Rubio on X after the meeting and the State Department's statement mentioned no timeline for finalizing a trade deal.
The Pakistan foreign ministry also said Dar "appreciated the pivotal role" by Trump and Rubio "in de-escalating tensions between Pakistan and India by facilitating a ceasefire." The State Department statement did not mention India.
Trump has repeatedly taken credit for the India-Pakistan ceasefire he announced on social media on May 10 after Washington held talks with both sides. India disputes Trump's claims that the ceasefire resulted from his intervention and trade threats.
India's position is that New Delhi and Islamabad must resolve problems directly with no outside involvement.
An April 22 militant attack in India-administered Kashmir killed 26 men and sparked heavy fighting between the nuclear-armed Asian neighbors in the latest escalation of a decades-old rivalry. India struck Pakistan on May 7 and the two nations exchanged hostilities, killing dozens across three days. The ceasefire was declared on May 10.
New Delhi blamed the April attack on Pakistan, which denied responsibility and called for a neutral investigation. Washington condemned the attack but did not blame Islamabad.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Middle East Eye
3 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Trump denies he gave UK green light to recognise Palestinian state
On his flight back to the US from Scotland on Tuesday, President Donald Trump denied that he gave UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer the green light to recognise a Palestinian state, multiple news outlets reported. Trump told reporters on Air Force One that acknowledging a Palestinian state would be 'rewarding Hamas'. "You're rewarding Hamas if you do that. I don't think they should be rewarded," he said. His comments are a U-turn from what he told Starmer during a meeting on Monday between Starmer and Trump in Aberdeen, and mirror the Israeli foreign ministry's earlier comments on Tuesday. The UK government said they are prepared to recognise a Palestinian state in September at the United Nations General Assembly in response to public anger over Israel using starvation as a weapon of war.
Gulf Today
5 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Billions for arms, rather than troops, won't make us safer
William D. Hartung, Tribune News Service The Pentagon got a whopping $150 billion increase in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by the president July 4. That will push next year's proposed Pentagon budget to more than $1 trillion. Most of that enormous amount will go to weapons manufacturers. A new report by the Quincy Institute and the Costs of War Project at Brown University found that for the period from 2020 to 2024, more than half of the Pentagon budget — 54% — went to private companies. That figure has climbed considerably since the immediate post-Cold War period of the 1990s, when the contractor share was 41%. The surge of spending on the Pentagon and its primary weapons suppliers won't necessarily make us safer. It may just enrich military companies while subsidising overpriced, underperforming weapons systems, even as it promotes an accelerated arms race with China. While weapons firms will fare well if the new budget goes through as planned, military personnel and the veterans who have fought in America's wars in this century will not. The Donald Trump administration is seeking deep cuts in personnel, facilities and research at the Veterans Affairs, and tens of thousands of military families have to use food stamps, a program cut by 20% in the budget bill, to make ends meet. The $150 billion in add-ons for the Pentagon include tens of billions for the Trump administration's all-but-impossible dream of a leak-proof Golden Dome missile defense system, a goal that has been pursued for more than 40 years without success. Other big winners include the new F-47 combat aircraft, and the military shipbuilding industry, which is slated for a huge infusion of new funding. The question of how to allocate the Pentagon's orgy of weapons spending is complicated by the fact that there are now two powerful factions within the arms industry fighting over the department's budget, the traditional Big Five, composed of Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), Boeing, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, and emerging military tech firms such as SpaceX, Palantir and Anduril. The Big Five currently get the bulk of Pentagon weapons spending, but the emerging tech firms are catching up, winning lucrative contracts for military-wide communications systems and antidrone technology. And there will be more such contracts. Even after the public falling out between Elon Musk and the president, the emerging tech firms have a decided advantage, with advocates such as Vice President JD Vance, who maintains close ties with his mentor and political supporter Peter Thiel of Palantir, and dozens of staff members from military tech firms who are now embedded in the national security and budget bureaucracies of the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the tech sector's promises of a new, revolutionary era of defense made possible by artificial-intelligence-driven weapons and other technologies are almost certainly overstated. If past practice tells us anything, it is that new, complex high-tech weapons will not save us. The history of Pentagon procurement is littered with 'miracle weapons,' from the electronic battlefield in Vietnam to Ronald Reagan's 'impenetrable' Star Wars missile shield to networked warfare and precision-guided bombs used in the Iraq and Afghan wars. When push came to shove, these highly touted systems either failed to work as advertised, or were irrelevant to the kinds of wars they were being used in. Just one example: Despite the fact that the Pentagon spent well over $10 billion to find a system that could neutralise improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan, only modest progress was made. Even after the new technology was deployed, 40% of could not be cleared. Technology is a tool, but it is not the decisive factor in winning wars or deterring adversaries. An effective military should be based on well-trained, well-compensated and highly motivated troops. That means taking some of that 54% of the Pentagon budget that goes to contractors and investing in supporting the people who are actually tasked with fighting America's wars.
Gulf Today
5 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Trump's order on homelessness gets it all wrong
Steve Lopez, Tribune News Service President Trump has the answer to homelessness. Forcibly clear the streets. Recently, he signed an executive order to address "endemic vagrancy" and end "crime and disorder on our streets." He called for the use of "civil commitments" to get those who suffer from mental illness or addiction into "humane treatment." This comes after last year's US Supreme Court ruling making it legal for cities to punish people for being homeless, even if they have nowhere to go. There's some truth in what he says, and California's record on housing and homelessness is ripe for criticism. I've watched too many people suffer from addiction and mental illness and asked why the help is so slow to arrive. But I also know there are no simple answers for either crisis, and bluster is no substitute for desperately needed resources. Like a lot of what Trump does, this is another case of grandstanding. In the meantime, the Washington Post reported Thursday that the "Trump administration has slashed more than $1 billion in COVID-era grants administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and is proposing to slash hundreds of millions more in agency grants." As it happens, I was in the middle of a column on the latest Los Angeles homeless count when news of Trump's executive order broke. I had just spent time with two homeless women to hear about their predicaments, and none of what Trump is proposing comes close to addressing their needs, which are tragically commonplace. Namely, they're living in poverty and can't afford a place to live. In his executive order, Trump said that "nearly two-thirds of homeless individuals report having used hard drugs ... in their lifetimes. An equally large share of homeless individuals reported suffering from mental health conditions." I don't know where he got those numbers, but truth and accuracy are not hallmarks of this administration. No doubt, addiction and mental illness are significant factors, and more intervention is needed. But that's more complicated than he thinks, especially given the practical and legal issues surrounding coercive treatment — and it's not going to solve the problem. When the latest homeless count in Los Angeles was released, a slight decline from a year ago was regarded by many as a positive sign. But when Eli Veitzer of Jewish Family Service LA dug into the numbers, he found something both unsurprising and deeply disturbing. The number of homeless people 65 and older hadn't gone down. It had surged, in both the city and county of Los Angeles. "This isn't new this year. It's a trend over the last couple of years," said Veitzer, whose nonprofit provides meals, housing assistance and various other services to clients. "It's meaningful, and it's real, and these people are at the highest risk of mortality while they're on the streets." The numbers from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority showed a 3.4% decrease in the total homeless population in the city, but a 17.6% increase among those 65 and older. The county numbers showed a 3.99% decrease overall, but an 8.59% increase in the 65 and older group. In the city, the increase over two years was from 3,427 in 2023 to 4,680 this year — up 37%. Reliable research has shown that among older adults who become homeless, the primary reason is the combination of poverty and high housing costs, rather than mental illness or addiction. "They or their spouse lost their job, they or their spouse got sick, their marriage broke up or their spouse or parent died," Dr. Margot Kushel of UC San Francisco's Homelessness and Housing Initiative was telling me several hours before Trump's executive order was issued. Her team's landmark study, released two years ago (and covered by my colleague Anita Chabria), found that nearly half the state's homeless residents were 50 and older, and that participants in the study reported a median monthly household income of $960. "The results ... confirm that far too many Californians experience homelessness because they cannot afford housing," Kushel said at the time. Among the older population, Veitzer said, the jump in homelessness comes against the backdrop of federal and local budget cuts that will make it harder to reverse the trend. And harder for nonprofits, which rely in part on public funding, to keep providing group meals, home-delivered meals, transportation, social services and housing support. "Every provider I've talked to in the city of L.A. is cutting meal programs," Veitzer said. "We're going to have to close two of our 13 meal sites, and last year we closed three. We used to have 16, and now we're down to 11." On Wednesday, I went to one of the sites that's still up and running on Santa Monica Boulevard, just west of the 405, and met Jane Jefferies, 69. She told me she's been camping in her vehicle since February when living with her brother became impossible for various reasons. She now pulls into a Safe Parking LA lot each night to bed down. Jefferies said she collects about $1,400 a month in Social Security, which isn't enough to get her into an apartment. At the senior center, she uses her own equipment to make buttons that she sells on the Venice boardwalk, where she can make up to $200 on a good weekend. But that's still not enough to cover the cost of housing, she told me, and she's given up on government help. "All the funding has been cut, and I don't know if it's because a lot of the city and state funding is subsidised by the federal government. We all know Trump hates California," she said. As Veitzer put it: "There's nowhere near enough low-income senior housing in L.A. County. Wait lists open up periodically," with far more applicants than housing units. "And then they close." His agency delivers a daily meal to Vancie Davis, 73, who lives in a van at Penmar Park in Venice. Her next-door neighbor is her son, Thomas Williamson, 51, who lives in his car. Davis was in the front seat of the van when I arrived, hugging her dog, Heart. Her left leg was amputated below the knee two years ago because of an infection, she told me. Davis said she and another son were living in a trailer in Oregon, but the owner shut off the utilities and changed the locks. She said she reached out to Williamson, who told her, "I've got a van for you, so you'll have a place to live, but it's going to be rough. And it is. It's very, very rough." I've heard so many variations of stories like these over the years, I've lost count. The magnitude that exists in the wealthiest nation in history is a disgrace, and a sad commentary on an economic system and public policy that have served to widen, rather than narrow, the inequity gap. On Thursday, Trump's executive order on homelessness grabbed headlines but will do nothing for Jane Jefferies or Vancie Davis and for thousands like them. We know the interventions that can work, Kushel said, but with deep cuts in the works, we're moving in the wrong direction. Davis' son Thomas told Times photographer Genaro Molina about another person who lives in a vehicle and has been a neighbour of theirs in the parking lot. She wasn't there Wednesday, but we'll check back. It's a 91-year-old woman.
