Afghanistan, Tripoli, Gaza, Chernobyl, Lebanon: a litany of horror. Armed with his camera, photojournalist Sergey Ponomarev has documented some of the most devastating stories of conflict and human suffering of the last decades. His latest exhibition, “A Lens on Syria,” is now showing at the Imperial War Museum (IWM) in London, a visual testimony to a war that – at the last count a year ago – has killed 400,000 civilians and created 4.9 million refugees. “I was there before the war,” Ponomarev explains. “I was fascinated by the culture and roots of this nation… It’s a beautiful land. “I’m just really sorry that they’re destroying that with their fighting.” Taken in 2013 and 2014, the images in the first part of the exhibition – “Assad’s Syria” – are works of art as well as documents of that destruction. Despite their often ugly content, the aesthetic quality of the photographs – the use of color, the play of light and shade, the flawless framing – is hard to ignore. Benjamin Lowy: The photographer documenting war with a cell phone “I’m always using light, using color, using metaphors, but I never try to interfere in the reality unfolding,” says Ponomarev. “I never stage images.” “Reality will give you more surprises… you will see striking or beautiful events happen in front of you.” He takes very few images, spending much of his time waiting rather than clicking. Most photographers shoot everything they see, a fixer once told him, “You’re unusual.” “But I know what kind of frame I want and I wait until I see it,” he says. “And I try to be as invisible as I can.” While many Western journalists have gained access to the country with rebel groups, Ponomarev, a Russian national, was only able to enter with a visa from the Syrian government. For him, it was “an opportunity to… get something unique from inside the government zones.” One of the most striking images in the exhibition shows an election portrait of President Bashar al-Assad hung on a destroyed shopping mall in the Khalidiya district of Homs soon after it was retaken by government forces in 2014. Palmyra's ancient Triumphal Arch resurrected in London's Trafalgar Square “If there is a portrait of Assad, it means this zone is controlled by (him),” Ponomarev explains. “They hang that as a sign of victory.” For most Westerners, however, “this picture tells a death toll.” Another image on display was taken in Palmyra in 2014. It shows the ancient Arch of Triumph, destroyed by ISIS the following year. Ponomarev says he was one of the last Western journalists in Palmyra before it was taken by ISIS. “I keep this photo in my flat, the only photograph (of mine) that I keep there, because that’s a heritage that’s now destroyed.” Ponomarev became a freelance photojournalist in 2012 after working for Associated Press in Russia. Since then, he has been awarded some of the biggest prizes in international photography, including the Pulitzer Prize in 2016 for his work with colleagues at The New York Times documenting the lives of refugees arriving in Europe. Forty-six of the photos he took on that trip are on display in the second part of this exhibition in an installation titled “The Exodus.” Many of them have never been shown in public before. In a darkened room, a compelling, sometimes distressing, story of flight is played out on a large screen, each image appearing for a few seconds before giving way to the next – a never-ending narrative of the human search for refuge. Ponomarev sees this narrative as the direct consequence of wars such as the Syrian conflict, and the layout of this two-part exhibition invites the visitor to draw the same conclusion. Back in the first room we see Syrians apparently going about their normal lives – shopping, baking bread, relaxing at a café, praying. Saving the giant panda population through photography The war was there, but people continued with their lives, recalls Ponomarev. “There might be an explosion just in the next block, and on the other side of the street… there’s a normal busy street buzz and a traffic jam and people will live normally.” In the next room, the visual signifiers of conflict become harder to miss: explosions, soldiers, rubble and the look of fear in the eyes of civilians. Any semblance of normality has gone. Who would not flee from this tide of destruction, the exhibition seems to ask, before presenting us with the desperate stories of those who did just that – but were met with violence and fenced-up borders after reaching Europe’s shores. Ponomarev is inspired by the work of photojournalists such as James Nachtwey and Sebastiao Salgado, who “went as deep as they could and tried to reveal the hardships of mankind.” Yet he’s also aware that the power of photography has been depleted by the constant stream of images that we are fed in what he calls a “digital millennium.” Sebastiao Salgado: Inside the world of coffee farming “We are overwhelmed by imagery and images don’t have the same effect as before,” he says. “Photographers now will never stop wars.” But Ponomarev believes there are positives too. “We don’t need words anymore (to tell stories) – images are an international language of storytelling.” The story told in this exhibition is of a conflict that is both continuing and beginning to pass into history. The images on display are “historical documents,” Ponomarev says, as well as reminders of a current, and very pressing, crisis. This juxtaposition of the contemporary and the historical is welcomed by the museum, which opened in 1917 in the midst of the First World War. By engaging with contemporary conflict, “we’re continuing what we started to do 100 years ago,” says Hilary Roberts, curator of the exhibition. Vincent Laforet: On Leaning out of helicopters for the perfect shot And war will always be a compelling subject. “War is such an extreme human experience,” says Roberts. “People have the urge to either bear witness – and the camera is a very good way of doing that – or they seek insight and understanding.” And Ponomarev’s images offer just that. Reflecting on the experience of reporting from war zones, he unsurprisingly selects a visual metaphor. “There’s only black and white in conflict zones,” he says, “only life and death, enemy and friend.” Perhaps that was his experience, but the images he has created are rich with nuance and bear witness to a complex reality that is filled with shades of gray. “Sergey Ponomarev: A Lens on Syria” runs until September 3 at the Imperial War Museum in London. It is part of the museum’s broader season, “Syria: A Conflict Explored.”


Editor’s Note: Scott C. Yates, a writer and inventor, is the CEO of a content writing service. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. On Sunday, November 2, it will again be the end of Daylight Saving Time Scott Yates: Stop the clock-changing madness and move to permanent Daylight Saving Time He says extending Daylight Saving Time could save energy and reduce heart attacks Yates: Let's try to get at least 31 states to form a pact to keep Daylight Saving Time On Sunday, November 2, it will again be the end of Daylight Saving Time. Many of us will be muttering to ourselves as we wander around resetting all of our various clocks – on the thermostat, clock radio and stove, among other places. Sure, you’ll get an extra hour of sleep by turning back the clock by an hour in the fall. But if you have a regular day job, you’ll be commuting home in the dark instead of in daylight come the following day. Why do we do this every fall? And why do we dial forward the clock by an hour every spring? Daylight Saving Time has been around for a good part of 20th century, but there’s no really good reason why we should continue with the status quo. The U.S. government started moving into and out of “Daylight Saving Time” during World War I to copy the Germans, who said they were doing it to save fuel. When the war ended, the U.S. government wisely repealed the law since it proved unpopular. During WWII, it came back – again with the notion that it would somehow conserve resources. After the second war, the U.S. converted factories from making bombs to making cars and consumer products. The GIs came home. But Daylight Saving Time just stuck around. Numerous polls show that people want to stay in Daylight Saving Time year round, or at least just stick with either Standard or Daylight time and stop switching clocks around. Two states, Arizona and Hawaii, already keep their clocks the same all year long. We may have reached a tipping point to end the clock-changing madness. First, the U.S. Department of Energy issued a report in 2008 that examined the impact of extended Daylight Saving Time. A four-week extension would save approximately 0.5% of electricity per day for the country. Put in perspective, it’s enough energy to power 100,000 households for a year. The second strong case for staying in Daylight Saving Time year round is that we can save lives. A recent study shows the switching of clocks in the spring causes a 25% jump in heart attacks in the few days following the switch, confirming earlier research that point out the shift in time can disrupt the quality of sleep and biological rhythms. Taking away an hour of sleep and jolting you awake in the predawn darkness is simply bad for your health, especially if you are elderly or have a heart condition, researchers noted. So here’s the question: If you have a chance to save lives and save electricity, would you do it? Sure you would, right? But you haven’t, and neither have I. Why? Maybe because we’re all a little too sleep deprived and discombobulated to do something after all that clock-changing. Last year, a member of the Missouri legislature proposed moving the state to permanent Daylight Saving Time if 19 other states would join its effort. The state House voted to approve the measure, HB340, but it didn’t go anywhere in the Senate. The idea is smart and worth revisiting. The hard part is how to get this more traction. Here’s an alternative proposal: Legislatures pass a bill whereby if at least 31 other states pass similar bills, their state will then switch to permanent Daylight Saving Time. With Arizona and Hawaii already in, that adds up to two-thirds, or 33, states. Thirty-three is the number of states needed to pass a constitutional amendment, and while this is not a constitutional issue, it seems like a good standard to meet. So how can we convince all these local governments to take on this initiative? We need help from students, who can create interdisciplinary projects combining science, math, social studies and government, to show why we need to get rid of this outdated concept. If we all pitch in a little, we’ll be able to save energy and lives. In short, it’s about time. Read CNNOpinion’s new Flipboard magazine. Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.


Coastal Highway 1 in Maine is dotted with over 60 lighthouses Watch out for mountain goats and bighorn sheep on Going to the Sun Road in Montana Salt air and slow speed get you onto island time on the Florida Keys' Overseas Highway A great road is a great road, but if you’re riding a motorcycle, you’re looking for something special: twisties, vistas, turnouts, that perfect stretch of smooth tarmac, and biker-friendly stops that make getting there most of the fun. Here are Lonely Planet’s 10 best roads across America for an unforgettable motorcycle journey: 1. Pacific Coast Highway (Hwy 1): 1700 miles from Astoria, Oregon, to San Juan Capistrano, CaliforniaThis undisputed champion of road trips presents beaches, cliffs, redwood forests, sleepy seaside towns, hot tub B&Bs, and world-class dining along a ribbon of winding, undulating road that (between RVs) can provide thrilling sport riding and contented cruising. Stop at the frequent turnouts, and don’t miss wild Olympic Peninsula, rustic Big Sur, Hearst Castle, bikini-clad Malibu, or biker-friendly Seattle, San Francisco, and San Diego. 2. Appalachian Mountains: 770 miles from Front Royal, Virginia, to Deal’s Gap, North CarolinaThis four-in-one magic mountain ride begins with Skyline Drive in Virginia, a 105-mile run along the ridge of the Shenandoah National Park, conveniently connected with the Blue Ridge Parkway for 469 miles of smooth roads and sweeping blacktop. Ride east to Tellico Plains along the Cherohala Skyway (Hwy 28) descending into Tennessee backcountry. Loop back via Hwys 360 and 72 to Deal’s Gap, and take on the internationally famous 11 mile Tail of the Dragon and whip through those 318 curves for some bragging rights. 3. River Road, (FM 170): 120 miles from Terlingua to Candelaria, Big Bend, Texas Farm to Market 170 is all smooth heavenly pavement along the Rio Grande through the Big Bend’s Chihuahuan Desert ecosystem with its mountains, canyons, badlands, and stunted forests, and even grandma’s Buick can handle the 17 mile off-road loop through the Valley of the Gods. But if you’ve got a dual-sport, you’re going to be in heaven. Once it reopens (progressing well at the time of writing), you’ll be able to ride on a boat over the Rio Grande at the Boquillas Crossing for a short jaunt for lunch on the Mexican side of the border. 4. Going to the Sun Road: 50 miles in Glacier National Park, MontanaBefore this two-hour, 50-mile ride over Logan Pass was completed, it took visitors several days to get through the park, which speaks of its height and contortions. Watch out for mountain goats and bighorn sheep, and pull over at the Jackson Glacier Overlook to take in the most spectacular scenery in the park. 5.  Beartooth Highway, (US 212): 68 Miles in Yellowstone National Park, WyomingSquiggle along for a couple of hours over the highest highway in the Northern Rockies as it twists and turns its way up to 10,947 feet at Beartooth Pass in Wyoming. Stop to take in views of glacier-laden peaks, alpine plateaus dotted with lakes, waterfalls, and lush forests in one of the most rugged areas in the lower 48 states. 6. Highway 12:  124 miles between Bryce Canyon National Park and Capitol Reef National Park, UtahTake a psychedelic sunset ride into fantastical sandstone rock formations, canyons, deep blue lakes, and pine forests and all the curves you might expect. Swish along to the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Boulder Mountain, and Red Canyon in Dixie National Forest. 7. Coastal Highway 1:  170 miles from Kittery to Bucksport, MaineDetours, not twisties, along Maine’s 3478 miles of coastline is the point here. The oldest highway on the east coast is dotted with over 60 lighthouses, countless cute towns, antique shops, lobster shacks, and almost 50 peninsulas to explore. The highway connects with many other scenic routes, including a ferry ride to Nova Scotia. 8. Overseas Highway (Hwy 1), Florida, 100 miles from Key Largo to Key WestPut your sun screen on and cruise out onto a narrow stretch of road made of bridges atop a living reef in the turquoise Straits of Florida sandwiched between the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. Join the margarita-saturated tourists in tropical paradise and enjoy the biker-friendly atmosphere. Salt air, sea food, and slow speed get you onto island time in no time flat. 9. Route 66: 2200 miles from Chicago to Santa MonicaOn just about everybody’s bucket list is Route 66. Ride all 2200 miles of this history lesson smothered in kitsch, or just grab a slice or two, like the pies you’ll find in endless supply at the many biker-friendly stops between Chicago and Santa Monica. 10. The Great River Road (Hwy 61): 2,552 miles from Itasca State Park, Minnesota to Jackson, LouisianaGRR 61 is a single route created in 1938 to highlight the 10 states bordering the great Mississippi River from its headwaters in Minnesota to its termination in Louisiana’s Cajun Country. Local riders from all 10 states flock to ‘their” section of the road, whether it’s lined with meadows, cypress swamps, thick forests, limestone cliffs, or wildlife refuges. Industrial areas are easily avoided. Carla King is an adventure travel writer who specializes in riding cranky indigenous motorcycles around the world. She is author of the Motorcycle Misadventures series of books and live internet dispatches from the road. Wherever she is, you can always find her at CarlaKing.com. Originally published as “The USA’s 10 best motorcycle roads” © 2012 Lonely Planet. All rights reserved.


Why would the pontiff, known for being a reformer, take such an un-modern stance? Delia Gallagher, CNN Vatican Correspondent, looks at his statements Pope Francis’ resounding no to women becoming priests may come as a surprise considering the popular narrative of him as a reformer who seeks to bring change to the Roman Catholic Church. Often seen as wanting to overturn the conservative thrust of recent pontificates, Francis has shown himself to be squarely on the side of Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI when it comes to women’s ordination. “The final word is clear,” he said Tuesday when asked about women’s ordination during an in-flight press conference returning from Sweden, “it was said by St John Paul II and this remains.” “Forever?” the journalist asked. “Never, ever?” “If we carefully read the declaration of St. John Paul II it goes in that direction, yes,” Francis replied. In August, Francis had raised hopes for those in favor of women’s ordination when he created a special commission to study women deacons in the Catholic Church. Like priests, deacons are also ordained, so the thinking went that if Francis allows women deacons, he might also allow women priests. Related article Pope Francis creates commission to study history of female deacons But not so fast. For Francis, the question is twofold. One, he subscribes to the Catholic Church’s long tradition of male priesthood because Jesus chose men as his apostles and because of their theological understanding that a priest, “acts in the person of Christ,” so must be male. This is what Francis was reaffirming by quoting St. John Paul II. Two, he does not like “clericalism,” or the emphasis on the power and privilege of priesthood. He has spent a large part of his three years as Pope speaking out against arrogant priests who are more concerned with power than service. So the last thing he wants to do is add women to that group. “Women in the Church must be valued, not clericalized,” said the Pope in 2013 in an interview with Italian daily, La Stampa. Pope says definitive No to women's ordination #PapalPlanePresser pic.twitter.com/WwsvH7b7WA For him, the idea that the only position worth having in the Catholic Church is that of a priest is mistaken. In this vein, he has continually highlighted the importance of lay people and women in leadership positions throughout the Church. Although he has yet to make any major female appointments, he has created a new Vatican office for Laity, Family and Life, in which lay people can hold leadership positions. Proponents of women’s ordination, however, argue that real decision-making in the Catholic Church is done by bishops and cardinals, all of whom must be priests. They argue that gender should not matter in roles of authority in the Catholic Church. Related article This is a revolutionary pope But it is precisely on this point that Pope Francis disagrees: gender does matter for him and in fact is the reason he thinks women should have other roles besides priesthood. “The way of viewing a problem, of seeing anything, is different for a woman compared to a man. They must be complementary, and in consultations it is important that there are women,” the Pope said in May, 2016 to the International Union of Superiors General. For a modern pope, it may seem a decidedly un-modern stance, but the difference between men and women is a cornerstone of Francis’ thinking and at the heart of his no to women priests.


O'Malley's trip is his latest effort to court communities his campaign says are underrepresented Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and, though it lacks electoral college representation, it participates in both parties' primaries Martin O’Malley is 2016’s first presidential candidate to visit Puerto Rico, where he’ll hope to pick up Democratic primary delegates both on the island and in diasporas like Florida as well. The former Maryland governor is making a one-day swing through the island, designed to highlight his position on two issues: Allowing Puerto Rico to declare bankruptcy and helping fund health care there by requiring the federal government to offer hospitals the same Medicare payment rates that U.S. states receive. Lagging far behind Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in the polls, O’Malley’s trip is his latest effort to court communities his campaign says are underrepresented – like Friday’s tour of a Haitian cultural center in Miami. It will be O’Malley’s fourth visit to Puerto Rico the last two years. Republican former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush went to Puerto Rico in April, but he wasn’t yet a declared candidate for president. O’Malley will “highlight he inequitable treatment that Puerto Rican citizens receive and to bring the magnifying glass of a presidential campaign to highlight issues of injustice in our hemisphere,” said Gabi Domenzain, the campaign’s public engagement director. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and, though it lacks electoral college representation, it participates in both parties’ primaries – in March for the GOP and in June for the Democrats. RELATED: O’Malley outlines criminal justice reform plan O’Malley will meet with two of its political leaders: Pedro Pierluisi, a Democrat who is Puerto Rico’s non-voting “resident commissioner” in Congress, and Jaime Perello, the speaker of Puerto Rico’s House of Representatives. Related video Who is Martin O'Malley? O’Malley will call for the island to be allowed to declare bankruptcy amid a $73 billion public debt crisis. He’ll also tour an assisted living facility to highlight the health care crunch the country faces amid lower Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. Its Medicare Advantage program also faces an 11% cut next year, while a Medicaid grant might not be renewed. O’Malley’s trip comes as Democratic presidential contenders heavily court Latino populations. RELATED: Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton support bankruptcy rights for Puerto Rico Clinton on Friday visited Miami to call on Congress to ends its embargo of Cuba – setting up a clash with Republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio by taking the position in the city they call home. She, O’Malley and Sanders have all also advocated overhauls of the U.S. immigration system, drawing contrasts with Republicans on an issue key to the Latino community which could be key in several 2016 election swing states. Clinton has not yet visited Puerto Rico, but she tweeted her support for the island’s effort to resolve its debt crisis.


Merkel's trip to Russia comes as Berlin-Moscow relations at a low The pair discussed Syria and Ukraine, along with reports of a crackdown on gay men in Chechnya German Chancellor Angela Merkel has raised reports of the detention and abuse of gay men in Chechnya with Russian President Vladimir Putin, urging the leader to protect the rights of minorities across the country. The first report on the issue was published on April 1 by the major Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, which claimed that more than 100 men had been detained or disappeared in Chechnya on suspicion of being homosexual, and that some of them had been killed. Related article Gay Chechen men tell of torture, mass arrests A number of witnesses and victims gave CNN horrific accounts of torture, saying that hundreds of gay men were being rounded up by authorities and held in appalling conditions in least three detention centers. “We’ve heard some very negative reports about how homosexuals are treated in Chechnya, and I asked Mr. Putin to use his influence to ensure the rights of such minorities,” Merkel told reporters after meeting with Putin in the Russian city of Sochi. Chechnya is one of several semi-autonomous republics within Russia. Being gay is considered by many in the Muslim-majority republic to be shameful, and in Chechnya the practice of so-called honor killings – murder by family members to expunge shame – is widespread. In April a Chechen government spokesman called the allegations of a crackdown “an absolute lie,” and denied that gay men exist in the republic. Merkel also stressed the importance of civil rights to Putin, including the right to demonstrate and the right for NGOs to operate freely. Russia has passed a series of laws in recent years that has made protesting nearly impossible and has clamped down on NGOs that voice opposition to the Kremlin or that receive foreign funding. Putin was also asked by a reporter for his response to a spate of attacks on Russian opposition figures in recent weeks. Putin’s main political opponent, Alexey Navalny, was reportedly hit in an acid attack this week, as were several other activists. Putin responded by saying that law enforcement agencies were working within the law and that victims had access to the justice system. “The law enforcement agencies in Russia are acting in a much more mitigated way than many of our partners in Western Europe.” He also shot down allegations of Russian interference in the US and European elections. There have been concerns of Russian meddling in upcoming European polls, including the French vote on Sunday and Germany’s election in September. “We never interfere in the political processes of other countries, and we would very much appreciate it if no one interfered in our political life. Unfortunately, for many years we have seen the opposite: Influence on political processes in Russia, through so-called non-governmental organizations and directly,” he said in response to a reporter’s questions, without giving specific examples. “You referred to the example of the United States, which has not been confirmed by anyone and is nothing but rumors used in a domestic political struggle in the United States.” The leaders did not speak explicitly about sanctions at the press conference after their meeting, but they both said they were committed to the Minsk agreements aimed at bringing an end to the Ukraine crisis, despite slow progress. Merkel has openly backed the European Union’s decision to place sanctions on Russia following Moscow’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine in 2014. She has been the lead mediator in talks with Russia over Crimea. The agreements involve a ceasefire, and pulling weapons and pro-Russian forces out of the area. They were brokered by Merkel and French President Francois Hollade. The EU sanctions – as well as US sanctions – on Russia have been a thorn in the Kremlin’s side. Moscow has lobbied world leaders to drop the restrictions that have taken a toll on the country’s economy, already sluggish on low oil prices. Gernot Erler, Germany’s top Russia policy official, said earlier that Merkel would reiterate Berlin’s position that sanctions against Russia could be lifted swiftly if Moscow adhered to the Minsk agreements, according to the Berliner Zeitung newspaper. Merkel conceded that the political process had been slow, but brushed off suggestions by reporters that it should be scrapped and replaced with a new instrument. “Our objective is that Ukraine will get access to its own border, but before that, a ceasefire then a political solution should be found,” she said. “We need implementation and (some) sides need to step up.” The two leaders also discussed the Middle East – their governments stand on opposing sides of the Syrian war. Putin is the most powerful ally of embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, while Merkel has openly called for Assad’s ouster. Erler, the German official, acknowledged earlier that a peace deal for Syria was no longer possible without Russia, which he described as “the savior of Assad.” He suggested that Merkel might push Putin to allow other foreign countries to take part in future negotiations. Russia is currently holding ceasefire talks with warring factions in Syria’s war. It is working only with Turkey and Iran on the deal. “We have to acknowledge that all previous peace efforts have failed. The UN Special Envoy, Staffan de Mistura, has not made any progress. But also the ceasefire talks initiated by Russia have not led to any tangible results,” Erler told Berliner Zeitung. Merkel’s trip comes as Berlin-Moscow relations remain stuck at a low over the Ukraine crisis and Syrian war. But the visit to Russia – Merkel’s first in two years – appears to mark a thaw in relations. Putin and Merkel, both stalwart leaders in their countries, have kept regular communications open over the years. Both speak each other’s language and have overseen periods of expanded Russian-German trade relations. But that closeness didn’t come immediately. Putin was infamously accused of trying to intimidate Merkel in her early years as Chancellor, when he brought his dog – a large black Labrador named Koni – into a bilateral meeting and press conference in 2007. CNN’s Nadine Schmidt contributed to this report.


People in Iran and Iraq are recovering from the deadliest earthquake in the world this year. More than 450 people are dead after a 7.3-magnitude quake rocked the border area of Iran and Iraq on Sunday. Thousands are injured. The Iranian Red Crescent Society is distributing blankets, tents and canned food to those affected. The World Health Organization (WHO) has dispatched a response team and two ambulances to Iraq, along with trauma and surgical kits. You can help by clicking the take action button below:


Draft decision by UNESCO body refers to Jerusalem holy site only by Muslim name Israeli leader says decision is like saying "Egypt has no connection to the Pyramids" Israel has suspended ties with UNESCO, the UN body in charge of preserving culture and history, after a draft decision that Israel says ignores Judaism’s ties to the religion’s holiest site. The draft decision notes the importance of Jerusalem to all three monotheistic religions – Christianity, Judaism and Islam – but makes no mention of why the city is significant to Christians or Jews. A subsidiary body of UNESCO’s Executive Board passed the resolution Thursday in Paris. It refers to Jerusalem’s holiest site – known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif, or Noble Sanctuary – only by its Muslim name. The draft decision, which largely criticizes Israel’s actions in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, was proposed by a group of Arab countries and drew harsh rebukes from Israel and the United States. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the move as absurd, saying: “To say that Israel has no connection to the Temple Mount and the Western Wall is like saying that China has no connection to the Great Wall of China or that Egypt has no connection to the Pyramids. By this absurd decision, UNESCO has lost what little legitimacy it has left.” In a letter from Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett following the vote, Israel announced it will freeze all professional activities with UNESCO. US State Department spokesman Mark Toner also criticized the decision. “We are deeply concerned about these kinds of recurring, politicized resolutions that do nothing to advance constructive results on the ground. And we don’t believe they should be adopted,” Toner said. The United States stopped funding UNESCO in 2011 over the organization’s acceptance of a Palestinian bid for full membership. Washington had contributed $80 million a year to the organization before then. In April, UNESCO passed a similar decision that Israel and other countries also harshly criticized. This week’s resolution, put forward by Arab countries including Egypt, Algeria and Qatar, was adopted by a 24-6 vote, with 26 abstentions. The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs lauded the decision. “Palestine will continue to defend the rights of our people through all available legal and diplomatic avenues, including UN organizations,” a ministry statement said. “Our peaceful agenda will not be derailed by propaganda, nor will our tolerance and adherence to international law by altered by fallacies and cynical spin.” To Jews and Christians, the Temple Mount is the site of the foundation stone on which Adam was created and the site where Abraham came to sacrifice his son Isaac. To Jews, it is also the site of the First and Second Temples. To Muslims, it is the site where the Prophet Mohammed ascended to heaven on his miraculous “night journey.” Responding to Israel’s criticism in a statement, UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova suggested she wasn’t pleased with the decision. “The outstanding universal value of the City, and the reason why it was inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage list, lies in this synthesis, which is an appeal for dialogue, not confrontation,” Bokova said. “When these divisions carry over into UNESCO, an organization dedicated to dialogue and peace, they prevent us from carrying out our mission.” Bennett, the Israeli education minister, welcomed Bokova’s statement but said it wasn’t enough, calling on UNESCO to cancel the decision. “Words are important, but they are not a replacement to the actions of the organization she heads.” The draft decision will go before a full plenary of the UNESCO Executive Board on Tuesday. It will either be adopted unanimously, or be the subject of further debate and a possible vote. CNN’s Andrew Carey and Abeer Salman contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: David Heyman is a co-founder of Smart City Works, a business accelerator. He is a former computer software engineer who has served in senior positions at the White House, US Department of Energy, and most recently as assistant secretary for policy at the US Department of Homeland Security. The views expressed are his own. David Heyman: Securing cyberspace must be a preeminent focus from day one for America's next president We must come to grips with new murky world where bright familiar lines between espionage and aggression don't exist, he says There is so much at stake in the election this year – immigration, jobs, health care and the future of the Supreme Court. But there is another, immediate concern. When you cast your vote Tuesday, consider that the next president may well be the first to face a new kind of warfare when he or she takes office: cyberwar. Pernicious, pervasive and yet potentially undetectable, cyberwar will take the shape of the theft of vast amounts of intellectual property, causing great damage to America’s economic vitality in the process. It will include denial of service attacks masked as internet outages, power shortages and other disruptions to society. And it will take the form of covert information operations that seek to tear at the roots of our democracy. This is no longer unimaginable. Indeed, it may well already be underway in the form of a low-intensity conflict with Russia. How do we know America is under attack? Bombs in our cities?  Missile attacks? An invasion?  No. The cyberattack last month that took down major US websites, as well as the recent suspected Russian hacks on the US election system, are examples of a new era of ill-defined cyberviolence in today’s massively interconnected world. The incidents, perhaps unappreciated by those who see conflict principally in terms of bullets and bombs, are warnings of what we may expect in digital life and warfare in the 21st century. For as long as nation states have been in conflict with each other, they have sought advantages against their adversaries through information operations – through the collection of tactical information, the dissemination of propaganda, and more recently through exfiltration, manipulation and exploitation of an adversary’s most vital information. Of course, all major powers, including the United States, engage in information operations in various contexts today. But last month’s attack on the US, and the exploitation of connected devices to take down parts of the internet, reflect a new clear and present danger to our emerging online world of connected lives and things. What the hackers did is relatively simple and seemingly mundane, but the implications are great. In the case of recent internet outages, hackers “weaponized” hundreds of thousands everyday devices – DVRs, webcams and other common products – with malware code to attack and shut down sites that support and sustain our economy like Twitter and Paypal. In addition, hackers have sought to infiltrate the Illinois State Board of Elections, the Arizona election system and elsewhere, and to steal or manipulate information vital to our upcoming election – voter registration data, key campaign emails of individuals and of the Democratic National Committee. The Department of Homeland Security has now reportedly had requests for security assistance from no fewer than 46 states and 35 counties and local election agencies as election officials scramble to prevent damage. But the damage – in terms of loss of confidence in our democratic institutions – has already been done. And we are still not out of the woods.  While there are a number of protections inherent in the US election infrastructure that make it relatively difficult to attack the way we vote, targeted intrusions against individual voter registration databases, i.e. against who gets to vote, are still possible. In terms of the way we vote, US voting procedures and practices are decentralized; they have been delegated to state and local governments and are run by around 8,000 independent local jurisdictions. The varied nature of each jurisdiction’s voting systems and technologies makes it so that an attacker would have to tailor an attack to each and every system in each and every jurisdiction – very hard. Plus, the vast majority of voting machines are not even connected to the internet, and there are numerous processes for outside observers – the media, campaign officials and third parties – to audit and validate results.  So changing votes or the outcome of a national election is unlikely. But suppressing voting in targeted districts is a concern. Illicit access to the nation’s voter rolls makes possible the manipulation or deletion of voter data and could potentially see disruption in the availability of these databases, which could impact a voter’s ability to vote on Election Day. This is critical because as everyone knows, only registered voters can vote. If your voter registration file is hacked, however, and your name or address data is changed, or your record is deleted, then when you present yourself to vote, your record may not be found or may not match and you will be turned away. Worse, if something like this is reported and lines begin to form, and rumors begin to spread, it may suppress additional voting as busy and already frustrated voters may simply choose to avoid voting altogether. In a tight election, like Bush v. Gore in 2000, an attack like this in a handful of targeted tipping point districts – think key cities in Pennsylvania or North Carolina – could be the difference between a candidate winning or losing a national election. In the world of geopolitics and security, this is regime change by other means – overthrowing, in effect, the will of the people by way of a cyberattack. Beyond the November election, though, these attacks are a warning of how conflict may occur in the future. In the 21st century, information has become the lifeblood of business and of our economy; databases have become a critical asset class for commerce. Not surprisingly, as these assets have become increasingly prevalent and valuable, they have become more attractive targets to criminals as well.  And that’s precisely what we are seeing – dramatic increases in identity theft, ransomware attacks and intellectual property theft, causing significant financial loss to individuals and businesses and our economy. Against this backdrop, we see a parallel transformation in the nature of warfare. Instead of conventional military attacks – i.e., adversaries focusing primarily on physically destroying their opponent’s military forces and infrastructure – nation states are increasingly launching cyberattacks against the very databases and information systems that make our infrastructure and world smarter, that sustain our economy, that bolsters our security, that maintains our democracy, and that improve how we live our lives. Related article Hackers are putting U.S. election at risk This is warfare in the information age. If you can shut down the electric grid in Ukraine, or destroy centrifuges in Iran, or sabotage an election by manipulating data – data that runs the grid, the centrifuges, or the way we vote – you have a new attack vector: information bombs. Make no mistake, Russia’s likely attack on our election is a warning shot; it is a clear message for our next president that securing cyberspace must be a preeminent focus from day one. The next president will be the first president of the digital age, and will need to lead the nation through one of the most dramatic transformations in human history, disrupting all aspects of how we live and work, at the speed of light. As such, we will need a cyberpolicy, legislative, economic and security agenda that pervades every element of the president’s activities over the next four years. The president’s advisers, staff, and Cabinet must be single-minded about this shift. We must come to grips with a new murky and uncertain world where bright familiar lines between espionage and aggression, and between black and white notions of war and peace, don’t exist.  We must understand that as we move ever more deliberately into ubiquitous connectivity, we move equally from splendid isolation to uncertain integration, and vulnerability, as well. With that in mind, we will have to ensure that the fundamental nature of our humanity and the fabric of our society is not torn apart by the distillation and subjugation of human activity through pervasive, remote, anonymous and autonomous connectivity, and potentially surveillance, too. Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook There is much that must be done. For a start, we must ensure that the global community establishes normative behavior for how we govern ourselves in cyberspace. In addition, we must put in place clear legal and judicial frameworks to prevent and minimize hacking, cybercriminal safe havens, cyberviolence and the current ambiguity in rules of the road that may unwittingly lead to state conflict. And we must also build our digital and physical infrastructure with the requisite security and resilience baked in at all levels of cyberspace – chip, device, network, and cloud – to protect against emerging threats, while developing a new model for deterrence that not only thwarts Russian and other state cyberaggression, but other malicious actors as well. There are also institutions so vital to the functioning of our democracy that as they go digital we must protect them akin to how we protect critical physical infrastructure. Our election system is one such example. We will be electing a president who will begin his or her term in the midst of a new form of conflict and an emerging digital world that will define the next generation. The one thing we can and must each do in support of the next president – and in defense of our nation under attack today – is to vote. Don’t let Russia or anyone take away that right, or your voice in our democracy. Vote. And in the actions of each of us, we begin to help shape and secure the nation for all of us.


At least 27 passengers were injured when an Aeroflot flight from Moscow to Bangkok, Thailand, hit severe air turbulence on Monday. Twenty-four Russians and three Thais were hurt, with some suffering serious fractures and bruising, when the plane unexpectedly hit an “air hole” during its approach to Suvarnabhumi Airport, according to the statement from Russian Embassy in Bangkok. “Some injured passengers were not wearing seat belts. All victims were taken to a local hospital with various injuries, mostly fractures and bruises. Some require surgery. Fifteen people remain hospitalized,” the embassy said. The Airport Authority of Thailand said in a press release that 30 passengers had been injured during the flight, with 27 individuals transferred to Samitivej Srinakarin hospital in Bangkok, while three chose to seek their own treatment. It added that the Boeing 777 was traveling with 318 passengers and 14 crew and that it was struck with turbulence as it flew over Myanmar. Rostik Rusev, who is from Ukraine but lives in Hackensack, New Jersey, was on the flight and told CNN the turbulence was so bad it threw passengers out of their seats. “It lasted for about 10 seconds, the plane was being thrown everywhere,” Rusev told CNN. Instagram post not found. Post has been removed or is no longer public. “There was blood on the ceiling, people with broken noses, babies who were hurt. It was horrible. It came out of nowhere. It was like driving a car and a tire suddenly bursts. “The aircraft personnel couldn’t have been more professional and courageous. They were heroes in everything they were doing.” Rusev also provided CNN with a photograph showing blood on an overhead compartment, which, he says, was the result of people being thrown out of their seats and hitting the ceiling. An “air hole” is an area of low pressure air where there differential causes the plane to drop, according to Richard Quest, CNN’s airline and aviation correspondent. He said it can also be the result of air currents shifting, crossing the jet stream or storms in the area. However, Quest said “air holes” are not dangerous to the aircraft – only those who aren’t wearing seat belts when the plane travels through the air pockets. Another passenger, Margarita Vladimir, told CNN that the journey had been mostly peaceful, but as passengers were visiting the toilet and preparing for landing, the turbulence erupted. “We saw so many people getting seriously hurt. There were broken legs, arms, bruised faces,” she said. In a video she provided to CNN, the aftermath could be seen. One passenger had fallen to the floor and was being comforted by a passenger seated across the aisle. Others on the flight looked disorientated. As the footage panned to the galley, a man could be seen propped up against the emergency door with a gash to his head. Vladimir said that she suffered only scratches and bruises on her arms and shoulder but her child was hit in the head so they were taken to the hospital for assessment. She says they’ve been given the all clear but that there are still people from the flight who remain at the medical facility. Aeroflot issued a statement explaining the circumstances surrounding the incident, which occurred about 40 minutes before landing, saying that this type of turbulence known as “clear sky turbulence” is difficult to prepare for as “it does not occur in clouds but in clear skies with good visibility.” The flight operator cited this as the reason passengers were not warned to return to their seats before adding that around 750 cases of clear sky turbulence occur  globally each year. Russian officials were at hospitals in the Thai capital providing translation and counseling assistance. CNN’s Tomas Etzler in Moscow contributed to this report.


"I mean, in China, if this would've happened the people would get a bullet through their head within 24 hours," Trump said. "As far as I'm concerned it's spying, it's espionage," Trump added. Donald Trump strongly condemned WikiLeaks in a 2010 interview, calling its actions “spying” and “espionage” and saying its members would be shot within 24 hours if they were in a country like China. Those comments are a sharp contrast to Trump’s current position on WikiLeaks, which published leaked documents from prominemt Democratic officials during the election. During a rally in October of last year, Trump exclaimed “I love WikiLeaks.” Just this week, Trump cited the group’s founder, Julian Assange, who claimed in an interview that Russia was not involved in hacking during the U.S. election. CNN’s KFile reported on Wednesday that Trump called WikiLeaks “disgraceful” and said “there should be like death penalty or something” in another December 2010 interview. During the interview with Fox Business Network’s “Follow the Money,” Trump, who was considering a run for president, brought up WikiLeaks on his own accord as an example of a decline of America’s prestige. At the time, WikiLeaks was publishing classified material leaks to them by Pfc. Chelsea Manning, who was then known as Pfc. Bradley Manning. “You look at WikiLeaks, I mean, in China, if this would’ve happened the people would get a bullet through their head within 24 hours and here in this country we’re embarrassed, everybody’s embarrassed,” Trump said. “We’re calling the leaders of other countries horrible names – how do you go back and negotiate with people with that. That’s just not the way life works. As far as I’m concerned it’s spying, it’s espionage.” “They should try that young – they call him private first class – I call him private last class. They should try that young private and they should frankly either put him in jail for the rest of his life or maybe get the death penalty,” continued Trump. “You know, in the old days if you were a spy and that’s what he is you’d get the death penalty.” During a rally in October of this year Trump exclaimed “I love WikiLeaks.” The organization was at the time leaking emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and had previously released emails from the Democratic National Committee. The president-elect has questioned the assessment from the U.S. intelligence community that the Russian government was behind the hacks, and cited Assange’s denial of Russian involvement on Twitter. Trump took to Twitter today to combat claims that he agreed with Assange, writing, “The dishonest media likes saying that I am in Agreement with Julian Assange - wrong. I simply state what he states, it is for the people…to make up their own minds as to the truth. The media lies to make it look like I am against “Intelligence” when in fact I am a big fan!”


White House officials are discussing asking foreign visitors to share social media information and phone contacts It is not clear how such a policy would be implemented Amid the chaos and confusion of President Donald Trump’s new executive order on immigration and refugees, sources tell CNN that White House policy director Stephen Miller spoke with officials of the State Department, Customs and Border Patrol, Department of Homeland Security and others to tell them that the President is deeply committed to the executive order and the public is firmly behind it – urging them not to get distracted by what he described as hysterical voices on TV. Related article Inside the confusion of the Trump executive order and travel ban Judge halts implementation of Trump immigration order Miller also noted on Saturday that Trump administration officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose all websites and social media sites they visit, and to share the contacts in their cell phones. If the foreign visitor declines to share such information, he or she could be denied entry. Sources told CNN that the idea is just in the preliminary discussion level. The social media posts calling for jihad by San Bernardino terrorist Tashfeen Malik – made under a pseudonym and with strict privacy settings – are part of this discussion. How such a policy would be implemented remains under discussion. More protests against Trump’s immigration order Miller praised the State Department on Saturday, sources tell CNN, but argued that the government needs to do better job of making sure the people who come into the US embrace American values. White House press secretary Sean Spicer did not respond to a request for comment. Already, Politico reported in December, the US government had quietly begun asking that foreign visitors provide their social media accounts voluntarily. The Obama administration had previously approved asking for much more information from people on terror watch lists, The Intercept reported in 2014. Trump’s executive order bars citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for the next 90 days and suspends the admission of all refugees for 120 days. Trump’s unilateral moves, which have drawn the ire of human rights groups and prompted protests at US airports, reflect the President’s desire to quickly make good on his campaign promises. But they also encapsulate the pitfalls of an administration largely operated by officials with scant federal experience. It wasn’t until Friday – the day Trump signed the order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspending all refugee admission for 120 days – that career homeland security staff were allowed to see the final details of the order, a person familiar with the matter said. The result was widespread confusion across the country on Saturday as airports struggled to adjust to the new directives. In New York, two Iraqi nationals sued the federal government after they were detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport, and 10 others were detained as well. Trump on Sunday defended his recent executive order on extreme vetting, saying in a statement: “We will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do while protecting our own citizens and voters.” He added: “This is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe.” He said his first priority “will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all of those who are suffering.” CNN’s Eric Bradner, Evan Perez, Pamela Brown, Kevin Liptak, Jeremy Diamond and Steve Almasy contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Nic Robertson is CNN’s international diplomatic editor. The opinions in this article belong to the author. It should be one of the proudest moments in British-Irish history. Tuesday, April 10, marks the 20th anniversary of Good Friday Agreement that ended three decades of sectarian bloodletting. I was there when that deal was made. I felt the warm euphoria and relief of the negotiators as they emerged that morning to bask in the magnitude of their achievement. Today, their triumph appears sullied: mired not only by its own limitations, but by Brexit, which is polluting the violently toxic brew negotiators thought they had placed a lid on 20 years ago. The peace deal was no easy concession. More than 3,500 people were killed in what euphemistically became known as “The Troubles.” Generations of anger and resentment, dating back centuries, had to be overcome. On that final night, I waited outside the drab concrete and brick building, tramping the crisp, frost-encrusted grass, trying to stay warm, all the while wondering if there would be a thaw inside, or would the night once again leave patience of the island’s citizens unrewarded. Related article The EU is not ready for life without the UK With the help of President Bill Clinton’s envoy, mediator Sen. George Mitchell, and the backing of the British and Irish governments, Northern Ireland’s deeply divided Protestant and Catholic politicians finally agreed: The majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom. A substantial number of people in Northern Ireland – and the majority in the Republic of Ireland – wanted a united Ireland. Unionists and Republicans had agreed to disagree and as a result share power in a Northern Ireland Assembly – known as Stormont – to run the province. So weary were residents of a life lived in fear of bombs and paramilitary killings that more than 80% of the population turned out for a referendum on the peace deal, with more than 70% endorsing it. By any measure, this was progress. Yet today, there still isn’t even genuine agreement over what to call the deal. Protestant politicians prefer the Belfast Agreement; Catholic leaders call it the Good Friday Agreement. The most remarkable achievement of the talks involved two of the most reviled men at opposing ends of the conflict: former Irish Republican Army paramilitary commander Martin McGuinness and the staunchest of Unionists, the Rev. Ian Paisley. These most arch of rivals overcame extreme personal hatred to share the two top Assembly jobs: deputy first minister and first minister. So warm was their relationship, in later years they were often referred to as the “Chuckle Brothers.” Both have since died of natural causes, and their political tribes almost as distant as they ever had been. But last January, a political scandal caused Northern Ireland’s power-sharing agreement to collapse. As a result, the province has been without a government for 15 months. What pulled the Assembly down was a lack of trust; what keeps it apart is the essence of the peace deal – to accept each other’s differing identities. Paradoxically, that’s the peace deal’s biggest flaw: the fundamentals required to bring communities together just didn’t happen. The province’s deeply sectarian school system continues: close to 95% of pupils attend either Catholic of Protestant schools, issuing yet more generations imbued with a segmented view of society. And its politics remained polarized: Catholic or Protestant, rather than Labour or Conservative, like in mainland UK. Belfast’s infamous “Peace Wall” has grown longer since the peace deal, ostensibly so people can feel safer. Of course, peace deals acting as nothing more than a stop gap is nothing new. The Dayton Agreement in 1995 that ended three years of ethnic killing in Bosnia froze the front lines, but didn’t bring divided communities back together. Northern Ireland’s deal also lacked the cementing effect of truth and reconciliation, whereby victims got to hear details – even apologies – for acts against them. A decade ago, I sat with an elderly couple in a Catholic housing estate outside Belfast. We listened to the last words of their son, recorded by the IRA before he was killed, following a confession – beaten out of him – that he was an informer. In a quarter century of reporting from Northern Ireland, it was one of my more painful experiences. Tears poured from the couple’s eyes as their son’s interrogation concluded with a spoon banging on cooking pot, signaling that he was being taken away to be killed. The question that struck me then and still does to this day: how could those pains – and the fears around them – ever be purged without an honest accounting or even an apology, as happened in South Africa, by all sides for the acts of evil that were carried out? In all the years since the deal, the IRA, the multiple Protestant paramilitaries known as Loyalists, Northern Ireland’s police nor the British state have ever comprehensively owned up to their past misdeeds. Some have been able to forgive the atrocities visited upon their loved ones. But for many, outstanding injustices grow like clots, clogging Ireland’s arteries to recovery. Into all of this, Brexit has blasted in. The open border between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland that underpinned the peace deal is in question, just when such doubt is least needed. To restore the Stormont power-sharing assembly requires a heavy dose of certainty and none of the ambiguity of Brexit: the politics of which both sides believe they can use as leverage to their own advantage. Once the UK leaves the EU, the 310-mile border that snakes through some of the island’s most rugged and inhospitable terrain will become the EU’s only land border with the UK. It currently has upwards of 400 crossings. Related article UK and EU strike Brexit transition deal The way it operates today is vital to the economies on both sides of the border and has become a big political issue south of the border too. The Irish prime minister cannot afford a deal that disadvantages Ireland. In an effort to placate all sides, British Prime Minister Theresa May has promised the Irish government an open border; the EU regulatory alignment to avoid such a customs border; the Democratic Unionist Party that props her up in Westminster no border whatsoever in the Irish Sea; and the British electorate an exit from the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union. The EU doubts she can deliver on all four promises simultaneously and has demanded she lay out the legal framework for a fallback deal that effectively puts Northern Ireland outside the rest of the United Kingdom’s customs framework. As of this moment, such a proposition could be a deal breaker. The DUP has made clear anything that differentiates Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom won’t get their vote, likely leaving May short of a majority and the UK short of a Brexit deal. The stakes could not be higher. Today, the threat of a return to violence is very real. Even before Brexit re-opened the Pandora’s Box of political demons along the border, paramilitaries on both sides are active. Police are responding daily to attacks, bomb threats – both fake and real. And gunmen still stalk some streets, executing punishment shootings, much as the IRA did in its hay day. Yet for all the cooling, there may be reason for hope. The tail end of troubles seen in the rear-view mirror of an insanely popular Northern Irish TV sit com “Derry Girls” shows that plenty of people are ready to laugh at the quirky nature of their lives. Since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement came in to being, its architects have toured the world, touting their success and telling others in conflicts how they, too, can arrive at peace. At stake now not just the validity of this message, but the UK’s place in the world as a problem-solver, rather than a catalyst for drama.


Editor’s Note: John D. Sutter is a columnist for CNN Opinion who focuses on climate change and social justice. Follow him on Snapchat, Twitter and Facebook or subscribe to his email newsletter. Bye-bye, dirty fossil fuels. The clean-energy era is here. That’s the promise of the Paris Agreement on climate change, which 132 countries, including the United States, have ratified or accepted, pledging to make the air less deadly and to prevent the most catastrophic consequences of global warming. US President Donald Trump could undermine all of that. Senior White House officials reportedly will meet this week to discuss withdrawing from the accord. A decision is likely before late May, according to White House press secretary Sean Spicer. That’s when the US will attend the Group of 7 meeting in Italy. It remains unclear if Trump might try to “cancel” the accord, as he pledged to do on the campaign trail. The United States could not actually nullify the global agreement on its own, and withdrawing from the agreement would take one to four years, depending on the approach. But that may not matter much. The White House says it wants to revive coal, oil and natural gas production, all of which pollute the atmosphere, contributing to the likelihood of mass extinction, worsening droughts, deadlier heat waves, flooded coastal cities and other climate disasters. Because the Paris Agreement does not levy sanctions or fines against countries that fail to meet their pollution-reduction pledges, it’s possible the Trump administration could choose to remain in the agreement while basically polluting as usual. Either tactic – defection or de facto not caring – could weaken the pact, potentially leading other nations to defect. The United States, after all, is the second biggest annual climate polluter, after China, and helped negotiate the Paris deal. Yet, for all those caveats, this is also true: The Paris Agreement is bigger than Donald Trump. Some policy experts say it can and should survive, with or without the United States. One reason for optimism: The rest of the world gets it. US officials “stand completely alone on being climate deniers,” Jennifer Morgan, executive director of Greenpeace International, told me. “If you look at the speeches from Paris, all the heads of state who came – all – and even fossil fuel providers, identified this as a real, science-based issue that they’re working to solve together.” For evidence of this rhetorical shift, look no farther than Vladimir Putin’s 2015 comments, as relayed by The New York Times: “Climate change has become one of the gravest challenges humanity is facing,” Putin said in Paris. “Caused by global warming, hurricanes, droughts, floods and other anomalies are the source of economic damage.” China, too, has expressed steadfast support for climate action. “The Paris Agreement is a hard-won achievement which is in keeping with the underlying trend of global development,” President Xi Jinping said in January at the World Economic Forum. “All signatories should stick to it instead of walking away from it as this is a responsibility we must assume for future generations.” Trump, meanwhile, has denied the scientific consensus that humans are causing warming, primarily by burning fossil fuels and otherwise pumping heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. The United States’ relative isolation is one factor that could keep the Paris Agreement from becoming the Kyoto Protocol, Morgan said, referencing the 1997 climate agreement that was abandoned by the George W. Bush administration. “We’re in a very different place than we were under the Bush years when they pulled out of Kyoto, which I remember well,” she told me. “The depth of the commitment to shift and transform economies was much thinner. … The risks of climate change [today] are much more deeply understood and felt, unfortunately. “It’s not a problem of tomorrow. It’s a problem of today.” The Trump administration could choose to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, but it wouldn’t be able to start that process until November 2019, three years after the agreement “came into force,” to use UN-speak. The Paris Agreement stipulates there is a one-year delay from that point, which would put withdrawal in late 2020. Another option – and a more drastic one – would be for the United States to withdraw from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a 1992 treaty that is the foundation for the 2015 Paris Agreement. Getting out of that would take one year, and it likely would be regarded as an even bolder slap in the face of countries that are trying to do something about climate change. “Certainly it would be a far, far wiser thing to do for the [Trump] administration to stay in the [Paris Agreement] regime – both because climate change is a very important phenomenon and a very important issue; but even independent of climate change, for the US to de facto walk away would produce all kinds of significant collateral damage,” said Todd Stern, the Obama administration’s special envoy for climate change, who now is a visiting lecturer at Yale Law School. “There are tons and tons of countries all over the world, big and small, who care a whole lot about climate change, who are invested in the Paris Agreement,” he continued, “and who would be very upset if we were to walk away.” Looking at “nature’s math” offers a grimmer picture. There’s only so much carbon the world can pump into the atmosphere before we’re assured of screwing up the targets set in the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit warming to 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. By some calculations, we’re only five, 10 or perhaps 20-some years away from those red lines if the world keeps polluting at the same staggering rate. So any new pollution is a very big deal. While it’s unclear if the United States alone could upset the Paris goals in a single presidential term, “there is no chance of limiting warming to no more than 2 degrees Celsius unless US emissions fall much more than our Paris pledge calls for, along with similar cuts for all other nations,” said John Sterman, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management. “[A] cascade of defections from Paris,” he added, “would be a fatal blow to the prospects to liming warming to no more than 2 degrees, and there would be climate catastrophes that come with that.” Working with Climate Interactive, where he is a senior adviser, Sterman calculated that the United States pulling out of the Paris Agreement, and canceling many Obama-era climate regulations, including the Clean Power Plan, would increase global temperatures on the order of a few tenths of a degree by 2100. That assumes, however, the rest of the world keeps making aggressive cuts. “Assuming that all nations, including the US, aggressively cut emissions, would yield 1.9 degrees Celsius [of warming] by 2100,” he said. “But if the US does nothing, then expected warming rises to 2.2 degrees Celsius by 2100.” Those figures count on action that’s bolder than what’s been pledged to date. Current pledges made as part of the Paris Agreement, including US commitments, put the world at about 3.4 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100, according to Sterman and Climate Interactive. If the entire agreement fell apart and global emissions continued at their current clip, the planet could expect 4.2 degrees of warming. That could be truly catastrophic. At 6 degrees of warming, for instance, “most of the planetary surface would be functionally uninhabitable,” according to Mark Lynas, author of “Six Degrees.” There are some unknowns in these calculations, Sterman stressed, including what states like California and cities like New York will do on their own to fight climate change, absent any federal action. “But the implications are clear,” Sterman wrote in an email. “To have any chance of limiting warming to no more than 2 Celsius, all nations, including the US, must aggressively cut emissions.” He added, “There’s no time to waste.” The American public appears to agree. Nearly seven in 10 registered voters in the United States say the country “should participate in the international agreement to curb global warming,” according to a November 2016 survey from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Some of them soon will take to the streets in support of climate research and action. On Earth Day, April 22, scientists are expected to assemble in Washington to protest, among other things, “the mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue.” One week later, on April 29, climate activists plan to hit the streets again. They’re marching for “jobs, justice and the climate.” If the Trump administration scrapped the Paris Agreement, said Morgan, from Greenpeace International, it would show “disrespect for other countries that have identified this as a priority, and a lack of understanding for how important that agreement is for the safety and security of people in the Untied States.” “Does it mean the end of climate action?” she asked. “Absolutely not. You live to fight another day.”


Prime Minister hopes bill will close borders from refugees illegally entering the country Humanitarians: This bill is a "severe and entirely unnecessary step" in Australia's refugee policy Refugees who make the harrowing journey by sea to Australia might want to think twice about that perilous voyage. They won’t be allowed to settle if a new law gets passed. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has introduced a new piece of legislation that would prevent refugees and asylum-seekers from ever settling in the country if they came by boat. The announcement, which has come three years after the prime minister vowed to close the door to refugees who were smuggled by boat, has been blasted as a “severe and entirely unnecessary step” by one humanitarian group. At a press conference Sunday, Turnbull decided to send an “absolutely unflinching, unequivocal message” by proposing a ban on refugee settlements should they arrive by boat. He said the law would be fairer to refugees going through the visa application process. “A generous humanitarian program, a harmonious multicultural society, depends on the Australian government being in control of its borders,” he said. ” And it depends on us sending a united and concerted answer to the people smugglers, that if they seek to bring people to Australia, those passengers will never settle in this country.” Related video Amnesty International: Australia abusing refugees Turnbull, who said his country already accepted thousands of refugees, said the policy would affect any asylum seekers taken to a regional processing facility in Nauru or Papua New Guinea since July 19, 2013. Asylum-seekers who tried to make it by boat to Australia under the age of 18 would be exempt from the policy. Since 2012, refugees arriving in Australia by boat have been transferred to offshore centers in small Pacific nations such as Nauru and Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, to make it clear they would not be settling in Australia. Australian leaders have in the past defended the policy as necessary to stop people drowning at sea, despite multiple reports of abuses at the country’s offshore camps. Turnbull urged Labor Leader Bill Shorten, the head of the opposition, to back the bill because of it is “entirely consistent with his party’s public stated position.” Amy Lamoin, the head of policy and advocacy for UNICEF Australia, blasted the Turnbull’s proposed ban in a statement Sunday as “not a reasonable, necessary or proportionate measure” and one that “squarely punishes refugees more than it creates a credible warning to people smugglers.” Instead, Lamoin urged Turnbull to consider a regional approach to the resettling refugees that creates “safe migration pathway,” addresses the underlying causes for displacement and a sets up a victim-centered approach to dealing with refugees. “It is difficult to see that the lifetime ban has a legitimate aim,” Lamoin said. CNN’s Bex Wright contributed to this report.

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's proposed refugee settlement ban


The suspect in Monday's shooting is believed to have committed suicide, police say Three men injured in shooting at Islamic center in Zurich, Switzerland A man suspected of injuring three people in a shooting at an Islamic center in the Swiss city of Zurich was found dead near the site of the attack, police said Tuesday. The suspect in Monday’s shooting – a man in his 20s – is believed to have committed suicide, “but for now this is only an assumption,” Zurich police spokesman Peat Jost said. With the body’s discovery, police no longer are looking for anyone in connection with the attack, Jost said. Police said a gunman in dark clothing walked into the Islamic center in central Zurich around 5:30 p.m. Monday and opened fire on a group of worshippers standing in a prayer room, injuring three men. At least some of the three were injured seriously, police said. The gunman fled, and police blocked off the area, not far from the central train station. It was not immediately clear when the suspect’s body was found. The victims are aged 30, 35 and 56. Police have not disclosed any potential motive or released the suspect’s name. US President-elect Donald Trump tweeted about the attack, lumping it in with two other incidents occurring on the same day: the truck crash in Berlin and the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey in Ankara. Trump called all three terror attacks. CNN’s Emma Lacey-Bordeaux contributed to this report.

the suspect in the Zurich Islamic center shooting


Trump-Cruz battle dominates first debate of 2016 Cruz and Trump are neck and neck in Iowa as Republicans gather for main debate Trump has raised questions about Cruz' citizenship as Iowa polls tighten Donald Trump and Ted Cruz clashed Thursday in their sharpest – and most personal – encounters of the campaign season. “I guess the bromance is over,” Trump told CNN’s Dana Bash after the debate. The 2.5-hour event sponsored by Fox Business Network was filled with testy exchanges between the seven candidates on stage. Cruz and Trump are battling for first place in Iowa with less than three weeks until the state’s caucuses, though the businessman has a commanding lead nationally. And with pressure mounting for someone to emerge as an establishment alternative to Trump and Cruz, sparks flew between Marco Rubio and Chris Christie. The much-anticipated Trump vs. Cruz showdown took a few minutes to materialize — but when it did, it packed a punch. Cruz forcefully responded to Trump’s accusations that he isn’t eligible to be president because he was born in Canada – a controversy that Trump has only recently embraced. Related video Fox Business GOP debate in 90 seconds “Back in September, my friend Donald said he had his lawyers look at this in every which way,” Cruz said. “There was nothing to this birther issue.” He added: “Since September, the Constitution hasn’t changed. But the poll numbers have.” READ: 6 takeaways from the debate While there has been plenty of animosity between Trump and most of his rivals, the billionaire businessman and Cruz have been on largely friendly territory for much of the campaign season. That’s changed, however, as the polls in Iowa tighten ahead of the February 1 caucuses. Trump, hoping to eat into the senator’s support in Iowa, has repeatedly questioned whether Cruz, whose mother was a U.S. citizen, is a natural born citizen. But in his attack against Trump on Thursday, Cruz noted that some of the more extreme theories on the topic would conclude that someone can only become president if both parents were born in the United States. Under that standard, Cruz noted, Trump himself would be ineligible for the presidency because his mother was born in Scotland. “On the issue of citizenship, Donald, I’m not going to use your mother’s birth against you,” Cruz said. Trump shot back: “Because it wouldn’t work.” It wasn’t just Trump who put Cruz on the defensive. In the final moments of the debate, Rubio slammed his fellow senator for hiding behind the pretense of conservative values. Related video Rubio to Cruz: We all saw you flip your vote In one of his strongest moments of the evening, Rubio listed a string of issues on which he said Cruz had flip-flopped, including immigration and ethanol subsidies. “That is not consistent conservatism,” he says. “That is political calculation.” When Cruz shot back, “I appreciate you dumping your oppo research file on the debate stage,” Rubio was ready with a sharp retort: “It’s your record.” Opinion: Who won the Trump-Cruz smackdown? Trump was more dominant Thursday than in previous debates. In one of the most memorable exchanges of the night, Trump responded to Cruz’ recent accusation that the businessman “embodies New York values.” Related video Cruz, Trump debate 'New York values' Asked to explain what that meant, Cruz said New Yorkers tend to hold “socially liberal” views, and its residents tend to revolve around “money and media.” “Not a lot of conservatives come out of Manhattan,” he said. Trump was ready with an emotional response. He recalled seeing the World Trade Center towers collapse on September 11, 2001. The resilience of New Yorkers in the aftermath, Trump said, revealed the true spirit of New York. “I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York,” Trump said. “The people in New York fought and fought and fought. We saw more death and even the smell of death and it was with us for months.” Having clearly won the moment, Trump added: “We rebuilt downtown Manhattan and everybody in the world watched and everybody in the world loved New York and loved New Yorkers. And I have to tell you, that was a very insulting statement that Ted made.” Cruz also had sharp words for The New York Times for publishing a story this week that said Cruz failed to properly disclose large loans he received during his Senate campaign. Related video Ted Cruz deflects NYT 'hit piece' Asked about the controversy, Cruz quickly retorted: “Thank you for passing on that hit piece on the front page of The New York Times.” “The entire New York Times attack is that I disclosed that loan on one filing with the United States Senate … but it was not in the second filing with the FEC,” Cruz said. “Yes, I made paperwork errors … but if that’s the best hit the New York Times has got, they better go back to the well.” GOP debate winners and losers Christie and Rubio also tussled on stage, as the two men touted their conservative bona fides. Rubio accused Christie of being on the same page as President Barack Obama on issues such as gun control, Common Core and support for Planned Parenthood. Related video Sen. Rubio and Gov. Christie's heated exchange “Unfortunately, Gov. Christie has endorsed many of the ideas that Barack Obama supports,” the Florida senator said. Christie deftly responded, pointing to an infamous moment in a past debate when Rubio accused Bush of attacking him only because someone had instructed the former Florida governor to do so. It appears that “same someone has been whispering in old Marco’s ear, too,” Christie said. He pushed back on Rubio’s accusations as he touted his executive experience in the New Jersey governor’s mansion. “This is the difference between being a governor and being a senator … when you’re a senator, what you get to do is just talk and talk and talk,” Christie said. “Two years ago, he called me a conservative reformer that New Jersey needed. That was before he was running against me.” New York Daily News to Cruz: ‘Drop Dead, Ted’ The candidates also sparred over Trump’s controversial proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S. The idea triggered waves of criticism but many of Trump’s supporters say it holds merit in light of the growing threat of ISIS. “We have to stop with political correctness,” Trump said, insisting he would not change his mind on the issue. Bush repeatedly called on Trump to “reconsider,” warning that the idea makes it “impossible” to build a coalition with other Arab countries necessary to defeat ISIS. Related video Bush: Trump's ban makes it impossible to take out ISIS “All Muslims? Seriously? What kind of signal does that send to the rest of the world?” Bush said. Others, including Kasich and Christie, said they were on board with at least temporarily not allowing Syrian refugees into the country. “I’ve said from the beginning, we should take no Syrian refugees of any kind,” Christie said. And coming on the heels of Obama’s new executive actions on gun control, several candidates offered impassioned defenses of Second Amendment rights. “I am convinced that if this president could confiscate every gun in America, he would,” Rubio said. Christie, meanwhile, blasted the actions as inconsistent with democracy. “That’s not a democracy, that’s a dictatorship,” he said. Fact-checking the candidates’ claims Earlier Thursday, Carly Fiorina dominated a smaller, less-glamorous debate stage when she joined two other low-polling candidates to discuss everything from national security to technology and Hillary Clinton. Fiorina’s candidacy has largely been defined by memorable debate performances. And even though she was dropped from the prime-time stage at the debate, she still delivered. Right out of the gate, she dealt a sharp personal attack on Clinton, the Democratic front-runner. “I’m not a political insider. I haven’t spent my lifetime running for office,” the former Hewlett-Packard CEO said. “And unlike another woman in this race, I actually love spending time with my husband.” Minutes later, Fiorina turned to Trump. “Despite Donald Trump’s bromance with Vladimir Putin … Russia is our adversary,” she said. Who is Larry Tribe and why did Trump and Cruz talk about him?


Chris Coons said Donald Trump rejected a requested meeting with the President of Ukraine Coons linked Trump's decision to questions about the GOP nominee's relationship with Russia Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko says he and Donald Trump missed a chance to meet this week due to scheduling problems – a different version of events than put forward by a Democratic senator. Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said Wednesday that Poroshenko sought a meeting with the GOP nominee during the United Nations General Assembly in New York but was ignored. “Earlier this summer, I led a bipartisan delegation to Eastern Europe. We visited Ukraine in particular, and I know President Poroshenko of Ukraine was seeking a meeting with Donald Trump while he was in New York meeting with the president of Egypt, and was rejected,” the Delaware Democrat told CNN “New Day” host Chris Cuomo. But Poroshenko says that’s not how it happened. “We don’t have any refusal,” the Ukrainian president said in an interview on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria GPS,” chalking it up to a scheduling conflict during a crammed few days of meeting with 22 heads of state. Poroshenko said he didn’t take the lack of a meeting with Trump as a snub, citing bipartisan support in for his country in Congress. Earlier Wednesday a Ukrainian official confirmed to CNN that Poroshenko’s office requested a meeting with both Trump and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton but only received a response from Clinton, who agreed to the meeting. A message left with Trump’s campaign Wednesday was not immediately returned. Trump did meet Monday with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, during which the two discussed “the strategic bilateral relationship between the US and Egypt,” according to a Trump campaign statement after the meeting. Clinton’s meeting with Poroshenko took place just a few minutes before Trump met with el Sisi a short distance away. Before that meeting the Democratic nominee said she was looking forward to talking about the challenges Ukraine faces, primarily “the very real problems and threats from Russian aggression.” Clinton added that she was “anxious to know how we can be supportive of those efforts.” Coons – a vocal supporter of Clinton for president – was quick to link Trump’s decision not to meet with Poroshenko to positive comments Trump has made about Russian President Vladimir Putin and his country, a primary geopolitical antagonist to Ukraine. “Donald Trump’s statements about Ukraine and Putin suggest a dangerous lack of familiarity with Putin’s actual record of invading a neighboring country and a dangerous lack of respect for or familiarity with our NATO treaty alliances,” he said. Coons continued, “In meetings I had with heads of state in recent days here in New York City, they all expressed real concern or questions about Donald Trump’s readiness or fitness to serve as president.” Trump’s rhetoric on Ukraine and Russia throughout the US presidential election has prompted criticism and scrutiny, even from members of his own party. The GOP nominee has praised Putin as “a leader far more than our President has been a leader,” and suggested that the United States shouldn’t automatically come to the defense of NATO allies in Eastern Europe who are threatened by an increasingly aggressive Russia if those countries don’t adequately fund their own militaries.


Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine's book shows how the Democratic Party has moved left over the past 24 years compared to Bill Clinton and Al Gore's effort Twenty-four years after Bill Clinton published “Putting People First,” Hillary Clinton is about to produce her own policy tome: “Stronger Together: A Blueprint for America’s Future.” The 249-page book, which was co-written with her running mate, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, is set to be published on Sept. 6 by Simon and Schuster (list price $15.99), the day after Labor Day, the traditional kick-off of the fall campaign. The book – which includes policy prescriptions on everything from strengthening the economy to defeating ISIS – is intended to provide a contrast with Donald Trump, whose campaign has been light on policy details. But when read alongside the book that her husband and Al Gore published in 1992, it offers a glimpse into the many ways that the Democratic Party has drifted to the left over the past quarter-century on everything from crime to trade, from Social Security and welfare to Israel and the Middle East. Bill Clinton’s “Putting People First” declared: “We need to put more police on the streets and more criminals behind bars” (p. 71). Hillary Clinton’s book, by contrast, calls for reforming the criminal justice system, expanding the use of body cameras, and ending “the era of mass incarceration.” “We should work together to pursue alternative punishments for nonviolent offenders where appropriate,” write Clinton and Kaine. “We don’t want to create another ‘incarceration generation’” (p. 198). Bill Clinton and Gore promised to “support a North American Free Trade Agreement” (p. 156), a pledge he made good on in the White House. The Clinton-Kaine book, by contrast, promises to “review” trade agreements like NAFTA that are “already on the books” and promises to oppose the controversial Asian trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). “[W]e oppose the TPP – and that means before and after the election,” write Clinton and Kaine. The Democratic Party has also moved to the left on the issue of Social Security – a shift that is reflected in Clinton’s book. Bill Clinton’s book promised to “protect the long-term solvency of Social Security” (p. 140). Hillary Clinton’s book, by contrast, promises to reject “years of mythmaking claiming we cannot afford Social Security and that the only solution is to cut the benefits on which 90 percent of Americans seniors rely.” (p. 87). Clinton and Kaine propose expanding Social Security for “those who need it most and who are treated unfairly by the current system – including women who are widows” (p. 88) Clinton calls for paying for this expansion of Social Security benefits by “asking the wealthiest to contribute more” (p. 88). As part of his effort to move the Democratic Party to the center, Bill Clinton made welfare reform a cornerstone of his 1992 presidential bid. “No one who can work should be able to stay on welfare forever,” wrote Clinton and Gore in their book. (p. 164). Hillary Clinton’s book is silent on this front. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is another area where the Clinton books diverge. In 1992, Bill Clinton and Al Gore wrote “We oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state” (p. 123). Writing in 2016, Clinton and Kaine say in their book “… we refuse to give up on the goal of two states for two peoples.” (p. 125). One area where Hillary Clinton’s book comes off as more moderate than her husband’s is on the issue of health care, a contentious issue that both Clintons wrestled with in the White House. Bill Clinton’s book proposed creating a health standards board that would establish an annual health budget for the nation to limit both public and private expenditures. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, does not propose capping national health spending. Instead, she proposes letting people over 55 to buy into Medicare, supporting efforts across 50 states to create a government-run public option, and providing a new “progressive, refundable tax credit of up to $5,000 per family” to help with out-of-pocket health-care costs.


This is the first time Malaysia has blamed North Korea for Kim's murder Diplomatic relations have soured between the two countries For the first time, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak has directly accused North Korea of murdering Kim Jong Nam. It comes amid a deepening diplomatic row over the February killing of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s half-brother at Kuala Lumpur International Airport 2. “What we are facing now is the result of their action in assassinating their own citizen in Malaysia, on Malaysian soil, using a strictly banned chemical weapon,” Najib told state media agency Bernama Wednesday. A press official for Najib confirmed the comments to CNN. North Korea has repeatedly denied any involvement in Kim Jong Nam’s murder. Kim died on February 13, fewer than 20 minutes after two women wiped his face with the highly toxic VX nerve agent, according to Malaysian police. Who was Kim Jong Nam?The world’s most mysterious family treeWhy would North Korea want him dead?Security footage appears to show moment of attackSuspect in death of Kim Jong Nam seen wearing ‘LOL’ shirt North Korea’s history of secret killings and kidnappings Who was Kim Jong Nam?The world’s most mysterious family treeWhy would North Korea want him dead?Security footage appears to show moment of attackSuspect in death of Kim Jong Nam seen wearing ‘LOL’ shirt North Korea’s history of secret killings and kidnappings The ensuing investigation into Kim’s murder has severely damaged diplomatic relations between the two countries. A new low was reached Tuesday when North Korea barred Malaysian nationals inside the country from leaving. Malaysia swiftly followed suit. Until Wednesday, only South Korea’s intelligence agency had publicly linked North Korea to the killing, which it said was carried out on the orders of leader Kim Jong Un. Najib’s comments could complicate efforts to secure the return of 11 Malaysian nationals held in North Korea. They include four embassy staff members, their families and two UN employees – a man and a woman who work for the World Food Programme, according to the UN. Malaysia says their 11 citizens are free to live their daily lives but are not free to leave. Malaysia believes three people wanted for questioning in connection to Kim’s murder are holed up in the North Korean embassy in Kuala Lumpur. Police say North Korea is not complying with its request to question them. Only two people, a woman from Vietnam and another from Indonesia, have been formally charged with Kim’s murder. Authorities from both countries have said the women believed they were participating in a prank TV show, but Malaysian authorities do not believe that’s true. A third North Korean who was in custody was released after investigators determined there wasn’t enough evidence to charge him. He was then deported back to North Korea. Malaysia is seeking four other suspects in relation to the killing, all North Korean men who are believed to be back in Pyongyang. Police said Tuesday North Korea had not responded to requests to hand them over. They have requested assistance from Interpol, the international police service. CNN’s Zahra Ullah and journalist Salhan K. Ahmad contributed to this report


The assist surely wasn’t intentional, but Donald Trump has provided Al Gore with a heck of an ending for “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power,” adding a sense of urgency to this dutiful follow-up to the documentary that officially wedded Gore, Hollywood and environmental activism, “An Inconvenient Truth.” It’s hardly a spoiler that the hopeful notes that Gore sounds during this decade-later sequel about climate action – including his efforts to smooth the way for the Paris Climate Accords – are delivered a conspicuous setback by Trump’s decision to pull out of the agreement. In terms of rallying the faithful, it’s hard to think of anything that would do more to call attention to the film and Gore’s 25-year crusade. Related: Al Gore: ‘Not even a president can stop the climate movement’ Working with new directors, Bonni Cohen and Jon Shenk, but hitting many of the same themes, the movie follows Gore around the globe – India, Silicon Valley, Greenland, the Philippines – as he meets with leaders and presses the case about the threat of climate change, as he seeks to educate activists. It’s a variation of the presentation he delivered in the earlier film, presented with alternate amounts of humor, exasperation, faith and flashes of anger. Gore also finds support close to home, from the mayor of Miami (he visits when the tide has risen, flooding the streets) to the mayor of a conservative Texas town that has aggressively moved toward renewable energy. Yet while it’s interesting to see these exchanges, there’s no escaping how climate science has been politicized. As a consequence, the main danger with the film – and indeed, all similar fare – is the perception these efforts risk simply preaching to the choir. In an opening sequence, Gore has a terse exchange with Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe during testimony before a Senate committee in 2007, emblematic of the science denialism that has complicated the debate and frustrated the goal of spurring a public-policy shift. If “Inconvenient Truth” felt groundbreaking, the sequel comes on the heels of a wave of documentary films exploring aspects of the topic, from Leonardo DiCaprio’s “Before the Flood” to the recent Netflix project “Chasing Coral,” about disappearing ocean reefs. As celebrity climate warriors go, Gore was a pioneer, and he’s inevitably cast as the hero in this story, working behind the scenes to help pave the way for the Paris accord. But there’s no questioning his commitment to the cause – “a mission,” he says, “that I have dedicated myself to.” Viewed in concert with the original, that sense of genuine dedication is one of the more enduring aspects of “An Inconvenient Sequel.” And while Gore paints a fairly rosy longterm picture based on the progress he sees, the great unknown is whether he’ll feel motivated to do a third film a decade from now, and not incidentally, how high average temperatures and the sea level will be by then. “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” opens in limited release in the U.S. on July 28.