allworldsnews

Tag: Politics

  • Brexit: Draft agreement on future dating right for UK, says May

    However The govt insists the united kingdom’s “crimson strains” on fishing had been secure, and the text acknowledges the united kingdom might be “an impartial coastal state” with the rights and obligations that entails.

    A executive source stated the eu had sought after “existing reciprocal get admission to to fishing waters and resources to be maintained” however this were rejected.

    Put Up-Brexit who will lead Europe? The withdrawal settlement – what it all way DUP-Tory deal no longer dead, says Foster

    The SNP’s leader at Westminster, Ian Blackford, said Scotland’s fishing rights had been “thrown overboard like they have been discarded fish”, including, “so much for taking back regulate, more like trading away Scotland’s pursuits”.

    And Sammy Wilson, Brexit spokesman for the DUP, which has been in a trust-and-supply agreement with the government, stated the “non-binding aspirational settlement” were drafted to “assist the prime minister, instead of mitigate the very damaging and dangerous draft withdrawal agreement”.

    Several ECU international locations have raised issues approximately Mrs May’s deliberate assembly with Mr Juncker on Saturday night time, pronouncing that it’s going to not lead to any adjustments within the textual content.

    Germany has reiterated that Angela Merkel wouldn’t attend Sunday’s meeting if the text has no longer been agreed in advance.

    Separately, EU diplomats have stated the Spanish executive “sees the making of a compromise” at the factor of Gibraltar.

    (more…)

  • Brexit vote will probably be honoured, says Diane Abbott

    Diane Abbott Image copyright PA

    Some Other EU referendum isn’t “off the desk” for Labour however could more than likely be won via Go Away again, says Diane Abbott.

    The shadow home secretary said she was once “as certain as any person will also be” that “the referendum vote can be honoured and we will be able to pop out of the ecu subsequent spring”.

    But she repeated her caution that the ones urging a brand new referendum will have to must “be careful what they wish for”.

    “My view is that …Depart may win again,” she advised Nick Robinson’s Political Thinking podcast.

    “And Never best would depart win again however Depart electorate might say: ‘What didn’t you recognize approximately Depart the primary time?’”

    Labour ‘may just form minority government’ Can May get her deal during the Commons? Corbyn: New referendum ‘now not possibility for now’

    at the Labour Birthday Party convention in September, birthday celebration contributors licensed a motion that would keep all options – together with a recent referendum – on the table if MPs are deadlocked over Brexit.

    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has stated he may recognize the end result of the vote – however stated ultimate week that a new referendum used to be “an choice for the future” but “not an option for today”.

    The People’s Vote marketing campaign group, which organised a march in London in October which it mentioned attracted about SEVEN-HUNDRED,000 people, desires a referendum at the final withdrawal deal.

    ‘Not clear’

    But Labour says it would like to see a basic election, if Theresa May loses the “meaningful vote” on her Brexit deal.

    Asked how that could turn up, as the Fastened-Term Parliaments Act way -thirds of MPs may must vote in favour of an election, or undergo a no-trust process, Ms Abbott mentioned: “This Is an generation of items that you simply by no means idea may happen, are happening and whatever the law says, within the finish, Parliament disposes and Parliament proposes.”

    She stated she were an MP via parliamentary “turmoil” below Margaret Thatcher and John Leading however delivered: “i’ve by no means noticed the rest like this and there’s a tiny bit of me which thinks this would all result in a general election. it’s not transparent how that may happen but you can’t escape serious about that.”

    In Advance this week, shadow chancellor John McDonnell recommended Labour may shape a minority executive, and not using a basic election.

    Ms Abbott used to be requested whether or not Labour could ally itself with the DUP – the Northern Ireland Unionist celebration which has been supporting Theresa Would Possibly’s executive in key Commons votes.

    She mentioned: “we would only need to best friend with a bunch of MPs who agreed with us on the issues at stake. At this element, we don’t believe the DUP at the problems at stake, however in this form of parliamentary turmoil you can’t necessarily rule anything else out.

    “I at all times say to my MP colleagues that the folks of Hackney ship me to Parliament to get rid of the Tories and if it’s all approximately getting rid of this Tory govt you do what it takes.”

  • Brexit: Why markets would possibly not bail out the PM’s deal

    Ben Bernanke, George W. Bush, Hank Paulson and Christopher Cox address the US in the week after the collapse of Lehman Brothers Symbol copyright Getty Images

    Financial markets have had a slightly unhealthy Brexit. they’ve taken solace in the fallacious issues and freaked out at ephemera. But there may be so much of talk on the moment that their conniptions might help be sure that Parliament passes Theresa Would Possibly’s withdrawal settlement.

    This is understood as the ‘Tarp’ state of affairs – a reference to the u.s. executive’s so-called Bothered Asset Aid Programme.

    In September 2008, the week that Lehman Brothers collapsed, Hank Paulson, the united states Treasury Secretary, asked a $700bn fund from Congress to fight the banking main issue – a fund to take care of “the illiquid property that are weighing down our economic system and perilous our economy”.

    In Short: he wanted $700bn to assist clean out the financial system and prevent the u.s. economy going into a out of control credit contraction that might cause an financial disaster.

    While he presented the initial draft, it was more or much less a request for blank cheque.

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, the u.s. House of Representatives grew to become him down – 228 votes to 205. Two-thirds of Republican contributors of congress voted by contrast thought from a Republican treasury secretary.

    The Dow Jones stock index fell 7%, its biggest-ever one-day fall.

    Confronted with that market disruption, 33 Republicans and 24 Democrats switched facets and the measure handed in a while afterwards.

    The Tarp situation in Westminster

    The Tarp scenario for Brexit that is circulating in Westminster is that MPs may vote down the regulation first time round. No Doubt, on the moment, it is hard to peer a path for it. However, the scenario is going, if there is a vicious monetary marketplace response, MPs will be cowed into balloting the withdrawal agreement through.

    There are, then again, a number of problems right here:

    First, the us is extra politically delicate to stock indices than we’re. And, even then, the case for voting the law through was once bolstered through a negative set of labour drive statistics that emerged between the first and second votes – the worst upward push in unemployment in 5 years. 2D, it is uncertain what marketplace response could shock MPs enough to modify their minds. so much of MPs get muddled approximately what to make of the converting price of government debt. And That I am doubtful whether our MPs may bear in mind what a large transfer – even a fifteen consistent with cent drop in the price of sterling, say – would mean or how they might react. it is simply now not in our political discourse. 3Rd, from the beginning to the tip of the method, the Tarp law ballooned from three pages to 450. there were tax breaks folded into the bill to buy off individual legislators. Our Parliament’s laws on amending regulation make it harder to add ‘pork’ to bills – but that still makes it much tougher to buy off individual MPs. Fourth, there was also a presidential election taking place and the 2 applicants – Barack Obama and John McCain – each supported the deal. The powers of patronage all went a method. The parties’ current and long term leaders all supported the plan. However it is unclear that anybody top any birthday party within the following couple of years will toughen this plan except Theresa Might. 5Th, if markets be expecting a loss on a primary vote, and anticipate it passing on a 2nd vote, these marketplace reactions might not happen whilst they are useful for parliamentary arithmetic. reckoning on Tarp makes it not likely to occur.

    This consequence remains to be conceivable and manageable – especially if one knows the Tarp scenario less actually.

    in the event you redefine it to a broader notion approximately how MPs might get freaked out through a few information at a few point and vote to accept no matter what deal is obtainable to them, then it becomes much more most likely.

    But perhaps it will be some news from Nissan or Airbus as opposed to the markets. Possibly it would possibly not be financial news at all. and maybe it’ll come while the deal had seemed lifeless in a couple of weeks time, now not between the primary and 2d votes.

    You can watch Newsnight on BBC 2 weekdays 22:30 or on iPlayer. join the programme on YouTube or practice them on Twitter.

  • BBC caller asks Theresa Might for fair referendum resolution

    Video BBC caller asks Would Possibly for ECU fair resolution

    (more…)

  • As tensions rise, U.S. ends refueling of Saudi planes

    The Pentagon said late Friday the U.S. would no longer refuel planes for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition battling Houthi rebels in Yemen, suggesting the Trump administration may be taking concrete step

    The Pentagon said late Friday the U.S. would no longer refuel planes for the Saudi Arabia-led coalition battling Houthi rebels in Yemen, suggesting the Trump administration may be taking concrete steps to end support for the controversial war amid continued reports of high civilian casualties.

    The move also comes at tense time for Washington and Riyadh following the death of U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey last month. The incident has ratcheted up tensions between the two nations and sparked strong calls on Capitol Hill to cut off arms sales and military support for Saudi Arabia, along with imposing possible economic sanctions.

    On Yemen, top administration officials have said recently it’s time to end the conflict and move to a peaceful resolution.

    Both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia over the weekend tried to cast the decision to end refueling as a mutual one, though U.S. officials reportedly believed it was time to end the controversial policy that had faced intense international criticism as reports of civilian carnage rose.

    “We support the decision by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, after consultations with the U.S. government, to use the coalition’s own military capabilities to conduct inflight refueling in support of its operations in Yemen,” Defense Secretary James Mattis said in a statement late Friday night. “The U.S. and the Coalition are planning to collaborate on building up legitimate Yemeni forces to defend the Yemeni people, secure their country’s borders, and contribute to counter Al Qaeda and ISIS efforts in Yemen and the region.”

    “The U.S. will also continue working with the coalition and Yemen to minimize civilian casualties and expand urgent humanitarian efforts throughout the country,” he continued. “Recognizing continued bipartisan interest from Congress, the administration is appreciative of the continued dialogue we have had with key members on this issue and look forward to working together to support the United Nations’ ongoing efforts on this new phase in Yemen.”

    In its own statement, Riyadh said it simply no longer needs America’s help with refueling.

    “Recently the kingdom and the coalition has increased its capability to independently conduct inflight refueling in Yemen,” read a statement released on state-run Saudi television. “As a result, in consultation with the United States, the coalition has requested cessation of inflight refueling support for its operations in Yemen.”

    While it’s unclear exactly what impact the policy change will have on the Saudi-led war in Yemen, what is clear is that the civilian death toll is rising. The Trump administration has repeatedly said it believes the Saudi-led coalition is doing all it can to reduce civilian casualties in the conflict, which is a key part of a broader proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    But new figures show that civilian deaths are going up. Since the start of 2016, Saudi-led coalition airstrikes have killed at least 4,489 civilians, according to figures from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project.

    So far this year, 1,254 civilians have been killed, a rate of about four people each day. Last year, 1,386 civilians were killed, or about 3.79 per day, meaning the frequency of civilian deaths is actually rising, not falling as U.S. officials claim.

    Administration officials have over the past several weeks publicly called for an end to the war.

    “It is time to end this conflict, replace conflict with compromise, and allow the Yemeni people to heal through peace and reconstruction,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said recently.

  • Donald Trump, Emanuel Macron dodge talk of ‘insult’ at Paris meet

    President Trump met Saturday with French President Emanuel Macron in Paris, with both leaders avoiding public talk of Mr. Macron’s “insult” that the U.S. could pose a military threat.

    President Trump met Saturday with French President Emanuel Macron in Paris, with both leaders avoiding public talk of Mr. Macron’s “insult” that the U.S. could pose a military threat.

    They greeted each other with tight smiles at the Élysée Palace after Mr. Trump ruffling feathers upon arrival Friday in France by tweeting that it was very insulting that Mr. Macron said Europe needed stronger military defense against “China, Russia and even the United States.”

    Mr. Macron carefully avoided talking about it. He instead focused on NATO burden sharing, an area where he and Mr. Trump are on the same page and which bolsters his case for stronger French leadership in Europe.

    Mr. Trump played along.

    “We are getting along from the standpoint of fairness and to be fair, we want to help Europe but it has to be fair,” Mr. Trump said when a French reporter asked about the perceived insult. “The burden sharing has been largely on the United States, as the president will say.”

    Mr. Macron stressed the alliance between their countries, including military strikes in Syria and fighting terrorism in Africa.

    Mr. Trump is in France for events marking the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I. More than 60 world leaders are in France for the occasion.

    As soon as Mr. Trump arrived in France on Friday, he called out Mr. Macron.

    “President Macron of France has just suggested that Europe build its own military in order to protect itself from the U.S., China and Russia. Very insulting, but perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the U.S. subsidizes greatly!” tweeted the president.

    In a recent radio interview, Mr. Macron said Europe needed a strong military to defend itself without relying on the U.S. But he also lumped the U.S. in with China and Russia as possible aggressor nations.

    When they met at the Élysée Palace, the official presidential residence, Mr. Macron glossed over the dust-up with Mr. Trump.

    “I do share President Trump’s views that we need better burden sharing with NATO and that’s why I believe my proposals for a European defense are consistent with that,” he said.

    He added, “When President Trump wants to defend one of the states of the United States, he doesn’t ask France or Germany or other government of Europe to finance it.”

    The two leaders early on shared an extremely friendly relationship that was on full display during a state visit in by Mr. Macron to the White House in April.

    The relationship hit the rocks over Mr. Trump’s pullout from the Iran nuclear deal and other policy clashes.

    “Our people are very proud to have you here,” Mr. Macron told Mr. Trump during their meeting.

    Mr. Trump touted their friendship.

    “We have become very good friends over the last couple of years,” he said. “We have much in common in many ways, perhaps more ways than people would understand but we are very much similar in our views.”

  • Trump slams France’s Macron over need for ‘European army’ to defend against Russia, China

    President Donald Trump took to social media Friday to chastise French President Emanuel Macron’s calls for a “true European army” to defend the continent against increasing threats from Russia, China

    President Donald Trump took to social media Friday to chastise French President Emanuel Macron’s calls for a “true European army” to defend the continent against increasing threats from Russia, China and other near-peer adversaries.

    In a Twitter post, Mr. Trump characterized Mr. Macron’s claims as “very insulting” to the long-standing mutual defense agreements between Washington and Paris, as part of the NATO alliance. In the Twitter posting, Mr. Trump also took France and other western European nations to task for not meeting the U.S. demand for NATO members to contribute two percent of their country’s gross domestic product to the alliance’s defense.

    “President Macron of France has just suggested that Europe build its own military in order to protect itself from the U.S., China and Russia. Very insulting,” Mr. Trump wrote. “But perhaps Europe should first pay its fair share of NATO, which the U.S. subsidizes greatly!” he added in the social media posting.

    Mr. Trump’s comments come days before he and Russian President Vladimir Putin are slated to meet with Mr. Macron in Paris, for commemoration ceremonies dedicated to end of World War I. Administration officials indicated Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin would hold a face-to-face meeting on the sidelines of the ceremonies, but that plan was later scrubbed by the White House.

    The young French leader voiced the need for a “true European Army” to fortify the continent’s eastern borders, during an interview with Europe 1 on Tuesday.

    “We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America,” Mr. Macron said, adding European leaders “will not protect the Europeans unless we decide to have a true European army.”

    Citing the Trump administration’s souring view on NATO, particularly its chastising of France, Germany and other alliance members for not paying their fair share toward Europe’s defense, Mr. Macron said western allies on the continent “need a Europe which defends itself better alone, without just depending on the United States, in a more sovereign manner.”

  • CROSSTALK: Trump hitting reset buttons on Russia, China

    There are some truths that I strive to preach, for lack of a better word, in today’s information-culture wars propagated in our corrupt mainstream media. Here are a few: Nationalism is not racism, adh

    ANALYSIS/OPINION:

    There are some truths that I strive to preach, for lack of a better word, in today’s information culture wars propagated in our corrupt mainstream media. Here are a few: Nationalism is not racism, adherence to principles is not hate, masculinity is not toxic and there are only two sexes.

    However, there are obvious truths in geopolitics as well. Chief among these is the fact that standing up to tyranny is not an attempt to maintain “unipolar world” or “dominance.”

    Here are a few facts. The South China Sea is an international waterway that a large part of the world relies on for commerce. There are treaties that China has signed to protect right of passage in that area. However, China has decided to militarize it and seize that region of the world for itself.

    The United States will stand up for these rights of passage. The United States will stand up for our ally, Taiwan. These two facts have nothing to do with an “aggressive” United States that wants to take over the world.

    China wants to take over and be dominant in the world, not America.

    Michael Pillsbury, in his eye-opening book “The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy,” talks of China’s long-term strategy to achieve dominance over the West. “‘The Hundred-Year Marathon’ reveals China’s secret strategy to supplant the United States as the world’s dominant power, and to do so by 2049, the one-hundredth anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic,” reads the intro. He also discusses in-depth the deceit and treachery China has used to achieve its goals in its relations with the United States over the decades.

    President Trump is the first American president to get this obvious fact, and has decided to confront China. He is the first president to use the full weight of American power to achieve this end — economic, military and political — to level the playing field with Beijing, to stop China from cheating on trade, forcing technology transfers and stealing intellectual property from American companies.

    China signed trade agreements, and entered the World Trade Organization, only to cheat.

    Mr. Trump is calling them out. That is not an attempt at American dominance; it is protecting American interests and national security.

    The Kremlin has also completely embraced the new information hybrid warfare. Russian generals have openly discussed using disinformation as the vanguard to kinetic conflict.

    Moscow has also signed agreements, like the INF treaty, the Chemical Warfare treaty and a promise to protect Ukraine’s integrity. They have broken all of them.

    Mr. Trump standing up to Russian deceit is not an attempt at world dominance either; it is protecting American national security.

    As far as a nuclear war goes; Russia does not have the conventional forces to match the U.S. in a sustained conflict outside its borders. No one believes NATO is going to invade the Russian Federation. The only card Moscow has to play therefore is the nuclear card, which it has begun to play often, to maintain its prominence on the world stage.

    We are not going to have a nuclear war. It was possible under President Obama as he was so weak. However, Mr. Trump is rapidly rebuilding our armed forces after the Obama capitulation. He is focusing on modernizing our nuclear deterrent.

    China and Russia have already militarized space. America protecting itself in this arena is again, not an agenda of world dominance; it is protecting American national security.

    The one thing I do agree with Ed Lozansky on is NATO enlargement. I have written about this subject on these pages. Pushing the alliance to Russia’s borders is madness and serves no purpose but to give President Putin an enemy for political use.

    No, President Trump doesn’t need to or will play the “China Card” in an attempt to split Moscow and Beijing. However, he can, and will, continue to confront China in its attempt to dominate the world economically and militarily. That does not mean to say he is reckless; he simply will put America’s interests first.

    The world is simply getting used to this new, real, “reset.”

    Thank God for Donald J. Trump.

    ⦁ L. Todd Wood is a former special operations helicopter pilot and Wall Street debt trader, and has contributed to Fox Business, The Moscow Times, National Review, The New York Post and many other publications.

  • CROSSTALK: US-Russia-China Big Three – or WW III?

    An expected meeting this weekend between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a Paris commemoration of the end of World War I has been thrown into doubt, though a sideline encounter

    ANALYSIS/OPINION:

    An expected meeting this weekend between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at a Paris commemoration of the end of World War I has been thrown into doubt, though a sideline encounter may still take place. A more substantive discussion between the men who control the world’s biggest nuclear arsenals is expected at the G20 Buenos Aires summit later this month, when Mr. Trump will also meet with China’s President Xi Jinping.

    In view of the new reality in the House of Representatives, where the Democrats will definitely unleash a redoubled wave of anti-Trump investigations, many predict that Mr. Trump will have no time or energy to concentrate on foreign policy. However, it is actually in foreign policy where he cannot only turn the tables on his opponents but begin his 2020 re-election campaign — as well as saving all of us from a nuclear holocaust.

    In recent weeks, senior officials of both the Russian and Chinese governments have issued statements that should send chills into everyone. Andrei Belousov, deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, said: “Yes, Russia is preparing for war, I can confirm it. Yes, we are preparing to defend our homeland, our territorial integrity, our principles, our values, our people. We are preparing for such a war.” Mr. Belousov’s words echo Mr. Putin’s own recent promise to use nuclear weapons if necessary: “Any aggressor should know that retribution will be inevitable and he will be destroyed. And since we will be the victims of his aggression, we will be going to heaven as martyrs. They will simply croak and won’t even have time to repent.”

    Similarly, Mr. Xi himself stated in reference to U.S. naval maneuvers in waters claimed by China, “We have to step up combat readiness exercises, joint exercises and confrontational exercises to enhance servicemen’s capabilities and preparation for war.”It is surprising how little attention these dire warnings have generated in the West. To the extent they have been noticed, they were dismissed as belligerent bluster from second-rate powers. To conclude that would be tragically wrong.

    It is a very long time since even U.S. diplomats — much less politicians and journalists — practiced the art of looking at things from “the other guy’s point of view” to understand how other countries might perceive what we regard as reasonable actions. From Russia’s and China’s perspective, there’s nothing reasonable about America’s seeking dominance in areas vital to their security but of negligible to nonexistent U.S. national interest.

    From their vantage point, the U.S. is seeking full-spectrum dominance right up to their borders and littoral waters: ever-increasing sanctions, militarization of outer space, the Arctic, Europe (withdrawal from the INF treaty), Syria, Ukraine, the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, Xinjiang, and elsewhere. Nowhere is there a hint that the U.S. concedes regional security to Russia or China — or really, any other country — of the kind the U.S. has claimed in our neighborhood for almost 200 years.

    Back to what Mr. Trump’s next move might be, there are some who suggest a “triangulation,” in which the U.S. would seek to enlist Russia as a counterweight to China. The pattern would be Henry Kissinger’s counsel to Richard Nixon in “playing the China card” against the USSR.Since, it is suggested, Russia is a declining power it makes sense to get them on our side against a rising China.

    The notion of playing the Russia card against China is an absurd fantasy. First, it’s impossible to woo Russia on the basis of unremitting hostility, threats and insults. That shows no sign of changing with new sanctions kicking in later this month.Second, any hints at a positive shift in U.S. behavior would not be taken seriously by Moscow, which remembers previous broken promises, such as NATO expansion or the ABM treaty abrogation. Third, Moscow has lots of good reasons to get along with a massive neighboring country that is inherently more important to Russia than the U.S. is or ever will be.

    The other option is to realize that a stable global order can only rest on a “troika” of the U.S., Russia and China, and personally on a Trump-Putin-Xi accord. This means abandoning the aspiration of U.S. unipolar, global domination and conceding that other countries have their own security interests as well.

    The remaining alternative is to seek to maintain a unipolar world at all costs. Judging from Mr. Trump’s pre-election pledges and speeches, he appreciates this point but his national security team — composed of the kind of neoconservatives, Bush-era globalists and other Swamp-critters whose disastrous handiwork Trump decried in 2016 — does not. Hence, the warnings cited in the headline.

    The U.S. now has a stark choice. We can go down the current road whose terrible end is all too clear. Or we may hope that the master of the “art of the deal” suggests a different road when he meets with his Russian and Chinese counterparts.

    ⦁ Edward Lozansky is founder and president of the American University in Moscow.

  • U.S, Chinese officials spar over South China Sea engagements

    Top U.S. and Chinese defense officials and diplomats traded rhetorical barbs over ongoing American and allied military operations in the South China Sea, undercutting the message of cooperation and un

    Top U.S. and Chinese defense officials and diplomats traded rhetorical barbs over ongoing American and allied military operations in the South China Sea, undercutting the message of cooperation and unity between the two world powers during bilateral talks held in Washington on Friday.

    Defense Secretary James N. Mattis reiterated Washington’s stance that U.S. fighters, bombers and warships would “continue to fly and sail wherever international law allows” in the South China Sea and elsewhere in the Pacific.

    “We continue to operate in international waters and airspace as all nations are entitled to,” Mr. Mattis said during a press conference at the State Department alongside Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Director of the Office of Foreign Affairs of the Central Commission of the Communist Party of China Yang Jiechi and Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe.

    His comments came after Mr. Yang claimed freedom of navigation through the contested waterways of the South China Sea, or or overflight across its airspace, is not being contested by Beijing, adding that any claim to the contrary and to use such claims as a reason for military action is “unacceptable”

    For his part, Mr. Wei said Washington and Beijing “stand to gain from cooperation and stand to lose from confrontation” in the South China Sea. “Confrontation and conflict … spells disaster for all,” he added.

    “The situation in the South China Sea is trending toward greater stability,” Mr. Wei noted, adding that Beijing continues to “urge the U.S. to play a constructive role” in maintaining that stability.

    Aside from Friday’s press conference at the State Department, Mr. Mattis and Mr. Wei are also scheduled to hold one-on-one talks Friday afternoon at the Pentagon.

    Discussions over a possible meeting between the two defense leaders had been percolating since October, when they held a sideline meeting during a regional national security conference in Singapore. But U.S.-China military relations quickly soured thereafter. Tensions reached a head when the White House nixed a previously scheduled visit by Mr. Mattis to Beijing that month.

    Friday’s meetings at the State Department and Pentagon were part of the second annual U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue. Aside from the South China Sea, both sides sought to reinforce the notion of increasingly positive ties between the two countries.

    “The U.S. is not pursuing a Cold War or containment policy with China,” Mr. Pompeo said, adding “cooperation remains essential on many, many issues” ranging from a denuclearized North Korea to curbing Iranian influence across the globe.

    “The military-to-military relationship is moving forward and maintaining growth, despite some problems” between the U.S. and China, Mr. Wei said. China’s military buildup in the South China Sea “represents a growing force for world peace … and is transparent and for the protection of the Chinese people,” and is not a threat to the interests of the U.S. and its Pacific allies, he added.