U.K. Parliament Recesses As Boris Johnson Reels From String Of Defeats - NPR

Enlarge this image

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, seen at a joint news conference Monday with Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar in Dublin. Johnson has suffered a rough couple of weeks, as lawmakers scuttled first his attempt to maintain a hard Brexit deadline — then, his attempt to call a snap general election. Charles McQuillan/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption

Charles McQuillan/Getty Images

The bad days just keep on coming for Boris Johnson.

On Monday, less than a week after lawmakers roundly rejected the British prime minister's plan to leave the European Union with or without a deal, Johnson's fallback plan suffered much the same fate: Members of Parliament voted a second time to shoot down his call for an early general election, sending his political fortunes staggering as the lawmaking body embarks on a five-week suspension.

Beginning Tuesday, Parliament is out of session until Oct. 14. The legislative recess, which Johnson requested late last month, means lawmakers will return to work with precious little time before the Oct. 31 deadline to leave the EU — though now that Parliament has enacted a law forcing him to ask the EU for a delay if there's no deal in place, it's unclear just how likely it is they'll make that deadline.

In the meantime, Johnson has plenty to stew on.

In the past week, a defection cost his Conservative-led coalition its working majority in Parliament; lawmakers — including 21 of his fellow Conservatives — voted down his bid to plow ahead with Brexit; his own brother, Jo Johnson, stepped down from Parliament, citing a tension "between family loyalty and the national interest"; and his secretary of state for work and pensions, Amber Rudd, resigned from his cabinet and lambasted his punitive expulsion from party membership of Conservatives who had voted against him as "an assault on decency and democracy."

The string of stinging defeats was capped Monday with his failure to obtain the votes necessary to call a snap election next month. He had hoped that positive polls promised a big victory in the election, which would allow him to shore up his support in Parliament. But to call that election, he needed the approval of two-thirds of lawmakers, or more than 430 votes. Instead, he got just 293.

"I want an election, we're eager for an election, but as keen as we are, we are not prepared to inflict the disaster of a no-deal on our communities, our jobs, our services, or indeed our rights," said Johnson's counterpart in the opposition, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Now, Johnson is faced with a teeming array of angry lawmakers, many of whom have vehemently objected to his controversial decision to suspend Parliament. In the final chaotic moments before their formal departure Tuesday, some members of the body displayed their displeasure on the chamber floor with signs reading "Silenced."

pic.twitter.com/Tvtk2yHhMq

— Rosie Duffield MP (@RosieDuffield1) September 10, 2019

The speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, criticized the move to suspend Parliament, as well.

"It is not typical," said Bercow, who stunned the House of Commons by announcing his decision to step down Oct. 31 after 10 years as speaker. "It is not standard. It's one of the longest for decades and it represents — not just in the minds of many colleagues, but huge numbers of people outside — an act of executive fiat."

It is unclear how Johnson plans to proceed at this point. Despite the law against a no-deal Brexit, he has made quite clear he has no intention of requesting another delay from the EU. In fact, last week he outright vowed that he would not do so, telling reporters that he'd rather be "dead in a ditch."

If Johnson follows through on that pledge, another showdown with Parliament — as well as a legal challenge — could be in the offing. Several lawmakers have already warned him against it.

"Be careful," Ian Blackford, leader of the opposition Scottish National Party, told Johnson. "You occupy the highest office in the land. And what you're demonstrating to the people of the United Kingdom is that the law doesn't matter."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/10/759285001/u-k-parliament-recesses-as-boris-johnson-reels-from-string-of-defeats

2019-09-10 09:15:00Z
52780370598444

UK Parliament is now suspended as Brexit crisis boils over: Here's what could happen next - CNBC

Demonstrators gather outside Houses of Parliament for a protest on 03 September, 2019 in London, England to oppose the prorogation of the U.K. Parliament.

NurPhoto | NurPhoto | Getty Images

With the U.K Parliament now shuttered for five weeks and the recent political turmoil throwing up more questions than answers, analysts have been busy contemplating what could happen next in Britain as it approaches its Brexit deadline.

The shutdown of Parliament — known as prorogation — will see lawmakers reconvene on October 14. The suspension marks the end of one parliamentary session before the start of the next, and it's usual for it to take place at this time of year.

However, the current shutdown, which began in the early hours of Tuesday, is more controversial than most due to its extended length and because it comes at a period of high anxiety in U.K. politics over the direction of Brexit.

It's fair to say the U.K.'s political establishment has been in tumult since the divisive 2016 referendum on EU membership. It has culminated in Parliament's three-time rejection of the existing Brexit deal on offer, but also the dismissal of a no-deal Brexit.

This summer, Parliament saw the arrival of a new prime minister in July determined for the U.K. to leave the EU on October 31 "come what may."

What just happened?

That divide between Prime Minister Boris Johnson's government and Parliament was thrown into sharp relief in a dramatic week full of intrigue, votes and resignations.

In the last seven days, lawmakers seized control of parliamentary business, voted to block a no-deal Brexit and to force the prime minister to ask for a further delay to the departure (legislation that hastily became law on Monday) as well as twice rejecting Boris Johnson's bid to bring about a snap election that could strengthen his hand.

Johnson was dealt further blows with key resignations from his government, including that of his own brother who said he was torn between "family loyalty and national interest."

Now Parliament is suspended for five weeks and will reconvene just days before an EU Council summit on October 17 which is just over two weeks from the currently proposed Brexit departure date.

Here's a brief guide to what could (and what is meant to) happen next:

Brexit on October 31?

As it stands, the U.K. is still due to leave the EU on October 31 whether it has a deal or not. A majority of Parliament voting to block a no-deal Brexit does not mean that it won't still happen.

For starters, the EU would have to agree to granting another delay to the U.K.; and there are already grumblings from the continent that the U.K. has not presented valid reasons for requesting more time. Johnson could also ignore the law requiring him to ask for more time.

Ignoring a no-deal Brexit

Despite Parliament voting to block a no-deal Brexit and passing a law, Johnson has repeatedly said he would still try to take the U.K. out the EU on October 31.

In fact, he has said he would rather "die in a ditch" than ask the EU for more time and some believe he could launch a legal challenge to the no-deal Brexit legislation, also known as the "Benn Law."

"Johnson is expected to challenge the Benn Law in the Supreme Court," analysts Joseph Lupton and Olya Borichevska at J.P. Morgan said in a note Monday.

"He also may send a letter to the EU to encourage it not to grant an extension. Those strategies are unlikely to succeed on their own merits, but could further Johnson's pre-election signalling of a hard-line, no compromise Brexit on October 31."

More talks?

Johnson has insisted he wants a deal and would use the time that Parliament is suspended to continue last-ditch talks with Brussels to get over the major stumbling point of the Irish "backstop."

This is seen as an insurance policy designed to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland if the U.K. and EU can't agree a trade deal in a post-Brexit transition period (only envisaged if there is a deal). As it stands, the backstop would keep Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K. in a customs union with the EU, making it very unpopular with Brexiteers in Parliament.

The BBC reported Monday that the government could be considering a compromise over the Irish "backstop" in that it could be applicable to Northern Ireland only, potentially placating Brexiteers — albeit at the expense of lawmakers bent on keeping the U.K. indivisible in terms of law.

Election before 2020?

Although opposition parties defeated Johnson's bids to hold an early election (his Conservative Party still leads opinion polls) most did so because they wanted to see the threat of a no-deal Brexit dissipate.

The legislation to block a no-deal Brexit was not enough for many lawmakers, however, with several opposition parties wanting to see the departure date delayed before agreeing to a snap election (Johnson needs two-thirds of Parliament to approve a snap vote).

With Parliament also suspended now until October 14 and the no-deal Brexit legislation in place, most Brexit watchers now see a snap election as likely to happen in November, after a possible delay to the departure date.

Deal by October 31?

With speculation that Johnson's government could be considering the proposal of a compromise over the "backstop" policy, some experts believe that a deal could still possibly be passed before October 19.

Goldman Sachs' base case scenario says "there is no pre-Brexit general election and a Brexit deal is struck and ratified by the end of October," according to its European Economist Adrian Paul.

"In substance, we think that deal is unlikely to look very different from the Brexit deal already negotiated between the EU and the U.K. — a deal that was repeatedly rejected under PM May's premiership."

Still, Goldman Sachs notes that a delayed departure could lead to a November election in which either the one-issue Brexit Party could do well leaving "the path open to a 'no deal' Brexit early next year."

Second referendum?

Alternatively, opposition parties could unite to try to bring about a second referendum. "The potential for the Liberal Democrats or the SNP (Scottish National Party) to accrue influence in a minority government led by the Labour Party after a November general election preserves a path to a second referendum," the Goldman analysts noted.

Goldman has revised down the probability on a "no-deal" Brexit from 25% to 20% and the probability of "no Brexit" from 30% to 25%.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/10/uk-parliament-is-now-suspended-what-happens-next-with-brexit.html

2019-09-10 08:56:27Z
52780370598444

Why Trump is taking flak for inviting the Taliban to Camp David - Fox News

Another historic Camp David summit was not to be.

We didn’t learn until late Saturday that President Trump planned to meet with Taliban leaders at the Maryland retreat to finalize a peace deal for Afghanistan. That news came through presidential tweets announcing that the secret session had been canceled, in the wake of a Taliban attack whose victims included an American soldier.

This is one of those rare instances when Trump is drawing criticism from some of his allies on the right as well as his harshest critics on the left. Just about everyone seems relieved that the agreement collapsed at the last minute.

And the plan to use Camp David, where Jimmy Carter famously negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, is bringing an extra measure of passion to the debate.

PERFECT STORM: MEDIA POUND TRUMP OVER ‘SHARPIE-GATE’ HURRICANE MAP

Simply put, it is hard for many Americans to stomach that the Taliban, who harbored Osama bin Laden in the runup to 9/11, would be given a civilized welcome by a president of the United States in those storied cabins--especially with the anniversary of that terrible day approaching.

It may well have been a bad idea for several reasons. But I will say this: Many people have a hard time understanding why, 18 years later, the United States still has troops in a country torn by civil war. And Trump ran for the White House as an opponent of endless wars.

No one wants to allow brutal terrorists to again operate with impunity in Afghanistan—but few want American troops bogged down there for decades.

The New York Times, which has by far the most detailed reporting on the episode, said it has “all of the characteristic traits of the Trump presidency — the yearning ambition for the grand prize, the endless quest to achieve what no other president has achieved, the willingness to defy convention, the volatile mood swings and the tribal infighting.”

The Washington Post says that when the top U.S. negotiator asked for a summit meeting in D.C., “Taliban leaders said they accepted the idea — as long as the visit came after the deal was announced.

“That would become a fundamental dividing point contributing to the collapse of the talks. Mr. Trump did not want the Camp David meeting to be a celebration of the deal; after staying out of the details of what has been a delicate effort in a complicated region, Mr. Trump wanted to be the dealmaker who would put the final parts together himself, or at least be perceived to be.”

SUBSCRIBE TO HOWIE'S MEDIA BUZZMETER PODCAST, A RIFF OF THE DAY'S HOTTEST STORIES

These and other news outlets agree that the maneuvering highlighted the divisions between Mike Pompeo, the secretary of State, and John Bolton, the national security adviser. Pompeo, according to the Times, increasingly tried to isolate Bolton, the leading opponent of the deal.

The tentative agreement would have the U.S. withdrawing its remaining 14,000 troops over 16 months in exchange for counterterrorism assurances from the Taliban. Bolton has argued that Trump could pull out 5,000 troops without a deal. But what incentive do the Taliban have make concessions if the American troop presence is being slashed anyway? And how come the Afghan government isn’t in on these talks?

Lindsey Graham and retired generals David Petraeus and Jack Keane counseled Trump against the meeting, as did (according to CNN) Mike Pence. (Trump called it fake news that he overruled the VP and other advisers, saying the "Dishonest Media likes to create the look of turmoil in the White House." He also tweeted that "we have been serving as policemen in Afghanistan.")

Rep. Liz Cheney tweeted, “Camp David is where America’s leaders met to plan our response after al Qaeda, supported by the Taliban, killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. No member of the Taliban should set foot there. Ever. The Taliban still harbors al Qaeda. The President is right to end the talks.”

I wonder whether the car bombing that killed the American soldier is the entire reason for Trump’s pullback. After all, it’s routine to hold peace talks while wars are raging unless there’s a cease-fire. Perhaps the president thought the death would just galvanize the deal’s opponents.

But what rankles most of all is the venue. The Vietnam peace talks were held in Paris. The two summits with Kim Jong-un were in Singapore and Hanoi. The summit meeting with Vladimir Putin was in Helsinki. To invite the terroristic Taliban to Camp David, whatever the negotiating details, is really hard to swallow.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/why-trump-is-taking-flak-for-inviting-the-taliban-to-camp-david

2019-09-10 08:33:40Z
52780375859632

Stephen Colbert Outraged Over Trump's Plan to Meet the Taliban - The Daily Beast

Stephen Colbert began his Late Show monologue Monday night with what was likely the most consequential of the many tweets Donald Trump posted over the weekend.

“Unbeknownst to almost everyone, the major Taliban leaders and, separately, the President of Afghanistan, were going to secretly meet with me at Camp David on Sunday,” the president tweeted out of the blue on Sunday evening.

“Yes, Donald Trump invited the Taliban to Camp David the weekend before 9/11,” the host said. Struggling to make an analogy, Colbert finally concluded, “There’s nothing that’s like that. That is only that. Nothing else is like that.”

“Does Donald Trump not know what 9/11 is?” Colbert asked in disbelief before cutting to the infamous clip of Trump referring to the “7/11” attacks. “Ah, 7/11, way to use the old Slurpee, sir.”

Of course, when Trump announced the existence of the meeting he simultaneously revealed that he had canceled it, tweeting, “What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?”

“Uh, the Taliban?” Colbert responded.

From there, the host went on to note that Trump “wanted the praise for a diplomatic achievement that he didn’t achieve,” adding, “Clearly he’s a shoo-in for the Nobel Participation Prize.”

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.thedailybeast.com/stephen-colbert-outraged-over-trumps-plan-to-meet-the-taliban-days-before-911

2019-09-10 05:44:00Z
52780375859632

Ireland 'highly skeptical' of UK ideas for contentious Brexit backstop issue - CNBC

Ireland's finance minister warned that the country's government remains "highly skeptical" about proposals advocated by Britain's prime minister to avoid the need for infrastructure on the U.K.'s border with Ireland after Brexit.

U.K. premier Boris Johnson had visited Dublin Monday for talks with his Irish counterpart, Leo Varadkar, and insisted that trusted trader schemes and electronic pre-clearances of goods were areas in which there was "a lot that can be done" to resolve a problem that bedevilled his predecessor Theresa May: how to reconcile an open border between the Republic of Ireland and the U.K., while allowing Britain to strike independent trade deals in the future.

But Varadkar's finance minister Paschal Donohoe, speaking to CNBC at Ireland's U.K. embassy after a day of investor meetings in the City of London, argued that the British leader's suggestions do not respond to the "unique needs of the Irish border," and that was why the Irish government has "stood so firmly behind the principle of regulatory alignment, and the backstop."

The so-called "Irish backstop" forms an element of Theresa May's negotiated exit deal with Brussels, and is designed to protect the continued openness of the border between the Republic of Ireland in the south and the separate nation, Northern Ireland, that forms part of the United Kingdom, in case further talks between the U.K. and EU do not find a long-term, operable resolution to the issue.

The open border and freedom of movement between the two countries were key tenets of a 1998 peace deal that heralded the end of ongoing violence in the region.

The backstop

But the European Union's rules that are designed to protect the integrity of its single market do not allow for goods, services or people to travel frictionlessly into its territory outside the framework of a trade agreement. The regulatory requirements contained in those kinds of agreements can make it difficult for a third country like the U.K., under such a regime, to operate the kind of fully independent trade policy that the current British leader considers a crucial benefit to be derived from Brexit.

To make that possible, the U.K. would typically need goods to be checked at Britain's frontier with Europe. But Johnson in Dublin insisted this was not an acceptable consequence.

"The U.K. will never, ever institute checks at the border, and I hope our friends in the EU would say the same," Johnson told Varadkar.

But the British leader has said previously he is confident about his ability to win from EU leaders certain concessions that might avoid the need for the contentious insurance policy altogether. He has vowed the U.K. will then be able to discard — or "bin" — the backstop, which was a major reason many lawmakers in his Conservative Party previously refused to endorse May's deal in three separate parliamentary votes.

Johnson voted against the deal twice before voting for it on the third occasion.

The current prime minister's critics say his government has failed to provide specific alternatives to the Irish backstop in the weeks since he took office. And speaking outside the Irish leader's residence Farmleigh House on Monday morning, Johnson continued to be coy about the particulars.

"There are an abundance of proposals that we have, but I don't think it's entirely reasonable to share them with you today," he told assembled journalists.

In response Donohoe, during his interview with CNBC, backed Varadkar's earlier stated position that Ireland was not prepared to "replace a legal guarantee with a promise."

The finance chief said the Irish would listen to new proposals, but these kinds of alternative arrangements had been previously examined and found wanting.

"If anyone does believe that there are ideas that could take the place of the backstop then of course we are open to engaging with those ideas."

Donohoe reiterated an oft-stated Irish government view that if proponents of the "alternative arrangements" Johnson mentioned Monday were so confident in their operability, then they should first ratify the backstop and the withdrawal agreement, then push for them during that transition period, rather than risk the entire agreement by insisting on them now.

Theresa May's withdrawal agreement negotiated with the EU had included a lengthy transition period during which the U.K. would continue to operate under EU rules. The intention of negotiators on both sides was for that period to offer businesses some continuity and to provide the U.K. and Irish governments more time to find workable solutions to the border challenges.

British politicians in favor of a swift Brexit dislike the idea that the U.K. will have to abide by EU rules after Brexit, and could be forced to rely too heavily on European goodwill to allow the introduction of new arrangements that would automatically render the backstop unnecessary.

But internal government documents leaked to the website Politico earlier this month and written by U.K. technical advisory groups tasked with examining "alternative arrangements" to the Irish backstop found that "trusted trader schemes" — whereby firms get pre-approval to move goods back and forth across the border without checks — had proven to be a "popular facilitation" among surveyed businesses, but would likely still require some form of border infrastructure in order to work.

The same government technical advisors acknowledged there were various options that might address individual challenges stemming from the border's necessarily open status, but that "every facilitation has concerns and issues" and that the "complexity of combining them into something more systemic and as part of one package is a key missing factor at present."

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson welcomes Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (not pictured) outside 10 Downing Street ahead of bilateral talks on 05 September 2019 in London, England.

WIktor Szymanowicz | NurPhoto | Getty Images

One solution that Irish and European government officials posited in the past would have required Northern Ireland to submit to a different regulatory environment to the rest of the U.K.; a backstop specific to Northern Ireland alone. But Theresa May's government had categorically refused to allow this because of its implications for U.K. unity, and had negotiated hard to make the backstop applicable to the entire U.K. in the face of fierce EU opposition.

May had relied on votes from a small Northern Irish political party, the Democratic Unionists, to maintain a parliamentary majority after she lost ground in a 2017 election. But Johnson no longer enjoys that majority, and lost six out of six parliamentary votes in the past week before the legislature was suspended for five weeks on Monday night.

Some senior government ministers have hinted publicly that a backstop that only applies to Northern Ireland may now be the best option left open to Downing Street, if Johnson is to fulfil his promise of leaving the world's largest trading bloc by Oct. 31.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/10/ireland-highly-skeptical-of-uk-ideas-for-contentious-brexit-backstop-issue.html

2019-09-10 07:04:34Z
52780370598444

Gen. David Petraeus: Camp David Taliban meeting 'symbolism would've been troubling' but Trump was right to ... - Fox News

Former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus [Ret.] said the symbolism of hosting Taliban officials at the Camp David presidential retreat would've been troubling -- but that President Trump made the right call in the end.

The president was right to call off the summit at the compound in the mountains near Thurmont, Md., especially given the fact the U.S. is very close to remembering the 18th anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks, Petraeus said Monday on "The Story."

"I think the symbolism of that [meeting] would've been a bit troubling," he said.

PETRAEUS PRAISES TRUMP, CALLS OUT NATO, NORTH KOREA AND CHINA

"Remember, that was where the decision was made to invade Taliban in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As you reflect on that, certainly, again, I think the president very much made the right call."

Of the Taliban keeping its word following a negotiated deal with the U.S., Petraeus said there was some concern among those at the Pentagon.

More from Media

"A number of us, as it was noted, expressed reservations," he said. "I know there were reservations elsewhere in the Department of Defense and in uniform," he said.

"The Taliban certainly hadn't slowed down the violence whatsoever," he added. "There are very grave reservations... about whether they could even do what they've said they would do, which is to keep Al Qaeda and now the Islamic State from establishing a sanctuary in Afghanistan again, as they had a sanctuary when the Taliban ran the country when the attacks for 9/11 were planned."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Petraeus, former commander of CENTCOM, added the Taliban was not acting in "good faith" ahead of what was supposed to be a summit with Trump.

"They refused to reduce the level of violence even as we were negotiating with them in good faith," he said.

"They have refused to actually negotiate with the actual democratically-elected government of President Ashraf Ghani -- with elections coming up which they also did not want to see."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/david-petraeus-trump-taliban-meeting-camp-david-afghanistan

2019-09-10 04:26:05Z
52780375859632

After projectile launch, North Korea says it's willing to resume talks with the US - CNN

The JCS said they received warnings of the twin launches at 6:53 am and 7:12 am Korean time. They are believed to have flown a maximum of 330 kilometers (205 miles).

"Our military is observing the situation and maintaining readiness," the JCS sad. A senior US administration official said the US is monitoring the situation and consulting with allies. Japan's Defense Ministry said in a statement that its territory was not threatened.

The launches happened just hours after a top North Korean diplomat working on nuclear negotiations with the United States said Pyongyang would be open to resuming talks with Washington.

The envoy, Choe Son Hui, said in a first-person statement published by North Korean state media that North Korea is willing "to sit with the US side for comprehensive discussions of the issues we have so far taken up at the time and place to be agreed late in September."

"I believe that the US side will come out with a proposal geared to the interests of the DPRK and the US and based on the calculation method acceptable to us," Choe said, referring to North Korea by an acronym for the country's formal name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

After more than a year of refraining from missile tests, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's regime has conducted 10 launches since May including Tuesday's. Most of those are believed to be short-range missiles, and experts say they have shown impressive technological advancements.

In August, two projectiles were launched. A US official confirmed then that North Korea launched short-range ballistic missiles, and said they appear to be similar to other recent launches.

The previous four rounds of launches by North Korea were believed to be short-range missile tests, which Pyongyang is barred from conducting under United Nations Security Council resolutions.

US President Donald Trump has played down the tests when speaking about North Korea publicly. At one point he referred to them as "very standard."

Trump said that Kim had only agreed to stop testing long-range ballistic missiles -- the type that can reach the US mainland -- and nuclear weapons.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that Kim hasn't yet violated his commitment to Trump, but the US is "disappointed that he is continuing to conduct these short-range tests. We wish that he would stop that."

"But our mission set at the State Department is very clear: to get back to the table, to present a mechanism by which we can deliver ... a full, completely denuclearized and verified denuclearized North Korea."

Analysts say the short-range missiles being tested threaten US troops deployed in northeast Asia and citizens living in US-allied countries like South Korea and Japan. And weapons experts have warned that the advanced technologies being tested on the short-range missiles could eventually be applied to long-range weapons.

The missile tests also come at a time of increasing friction between Japan and South Korea, two key US allies in the region. Seoul announced last month that it would abandon a military intelligence sharing agreement, a change which former military and defense officials say will slow down decision making and make the movement of information less efficient.

In an interview with CNN's Kristie Lu Stout on Monday, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono said that his country, South Korea and the US needed to form a united front in dealing with the threat from North Korea. "Right now, the major threat is coming from North Korea and I think we really need to be watertight among the US, Japan and South Korea," he said.

"And as South Korea's defense minister said, there are some countries who would be happier if this alliance or relationship falls apart. We shouldn't have that happening," he added.

CNN's Yoonjung Seo and David Culver contributed reporting

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/09/world/north-korea-projectiles-launch/index.html

2019-09-10 03:14:00Z
52780377375007