Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar has said he aspires to a united Ireland

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar has said he aspires to a united Ireland based on "cross-community support" in remarks released on Tuesday, the UK Press Association reported.

"In terms of a united Ireland, our constitution is clear on this," he said. "Our constitution aspires to there being a united Ireland. I share that aspiration."
But Varadkar made clear that unity between Ireland and Northern Ireland -- which is part of the United Kingdom -- could come about only "by consent."
"When it does come about I would like to see it command a degree of cross-community support," he added.

The remarks, which are likely to provoke criticism from unionist Northern Irish politicians, come just a few weeks after a deal was reached during Brexit negotiations between the UK government and the European Union on the historically sensitive issue of the Irish border.
The question had threatened to derail the talks and brought the controversial issue of a united Ireland to the fore.
The demilitarization of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland was a key element of the Good Friday Agreement, the 1998 deal that ended years of sectarian conflict.

The UK's planned departure from the European Union raised the prospect of a return to a "hard" border, as Northern Ireland would leave the EU while the Republic of Ireland remained in the bloc. But in an agreement reached in December, the UK and EU pledged that there would be no hard border.
Even after the border deal was struck, concerns remained in Dublin over the UK government's handling of the issue. There is also unease that the commitments made by British Prime Minister Theresa May regarding the border may not be as solid as the initial wording suggested, which could strengthen support for Irish nationalism.

Arlene Foster, leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, accused Varadkar of exploiting the Brexit talks to serve his aspirations for a united Ireland.
Jennifer Todd, professor in the School of Politics and International Relations at University College Dublin, said Varadkar's remarks were a direct response to the British government's approach to Brexit negotiations.
Todd said the British government -- under pressure from pro-Brexit lawmakers -- is "asserting an unreformed traditionalist concept of sovereignty over Northern Ireland" and has not listened when the Irish government "tried to say this diplomatically."

But Paul Bew, emeritus professor of politics at Queen's University Belfast and cross-bench peer in the British House of Lords, said that Varadkar's insistence on the need for consent and cross-community support had brought a new, more conciliatory tone to the debate.
"It's not actually provocative, it's meant to be the opposite," Bew said. "What he's doing here is trying to pull back from the irritation he has caused in the unionist community by the stance he took over the past several weeks ... this is an attempt to conciliate."
Building support for Irish unity across both Catholic and Protestant communities in Northern Ireland is "a 50-year project," Bew said. Varadkar's remarks are "a way of saying ... we don't want unity any time soon."

Kim Jong Un Just Flipped The Script On Talks With South Korea, And The Big Question Is Why

North Korea has spent the past year largely ignoring its southern neighbor, but in his New Year’s address Monday, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un said he’s “open to dialogue” with South Korea.

“When it comes to relations between the North and the South, we should lower the military tensions on the Korean Peninsula to create a peaceful environment,” the young despot said in his speech, adding, “Both the North and the South should make efforts.”South Korean President Moon Jae-in has extended his hand several times for talks only to have it rejected by Pyongyang.

South Korean officials have called into North Korea every day for over a year without any response. Officials from the South Korean Ministry of Unification visit the border town of Panmunjom on a daily basis, making calls into North Korea once in the morning and once in the afternoon. No one ever picks up the phone, the Associated Press reported in October.

In July of last year, Moon expressed a strong desire to follow in the footsteps of past liberal South Korean leaders, specifically former President Kim Dae-jung and former President Roh Moo-hyun, who engaged North Korea at historic summits and encouraged cooperation to usher in an era of temporary peace between North and South Korea.

When Moon took office early last year, he promised to restore strained ties between Northand South Korea through dialogue and engagement. Throughout the last year, he repeatedly called for talks with the South’s northern neighbor, urging the North to come to the negotiating table, but North Korea ignored his requests.

But, now the North has suddenly changed its tune, and it’s not immediately clear why.

Some observers suspect that North Korea, confident in its offensive capabilities, may be trying to drive a wedge between the U.S. and its ally on the Korean Peninsula, a key component of the North’s long-term strategy.In his New Year’s address, Kim extended his hand to South Korea, offering to send a delegation to participate in the 2018 Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang, South Korea, a direct response to a request from Moon.

“We have always stated our willingness to talk with North Korea any time and anywhere if that would help restore inter-Korean relations and lead to peace on the Korean Peninsula,” South Korea’s presidential office said in response to Kim’s out-of-the-blue overture. “We hope the two Koreas will sit down and find a solution to lower tensions and establish peace on the Korean Peninsula.”

Some analysts believe that Kim may be trying to weaken international resolve and reduce pressure on his country by convincing South Korea that the North is ready for peace. Others, however, suspect that he may be trying to use talks with the South to eventually start a dialogue with the U.S.It is unclear what Pyongyang’s game is, but Kim Jong Un’s about-face is unquestionably noteworthy.

African Professional Hunters Association

At this year’s annual conference of the African Professional Hunters Association (APHA) held at the 2017 Safari Club International Convention, a participant expressed the opinion that after the “Cecil the lion” incident the world “will not tolerate unethical behavior.” My blood pressure skyrocketed. I said I disagreed with that statement and explained why.

First, I explained there is no “world” in any coherent, meaningful sense of the word, especially as it applies to hunting. Thus, it follows that there is no world opinion on what the world will and will not tolerate, not only pertaining to hunting but pertaining to any human activity. No consistent measurement enables anyone to judge what the world will and will not tolerate. Next I went on to say that the world is incapable of distinguishing ethical from unethical behavior and has no interest in trying to make the distinction—particularly as it applies to hunting.

World Opinion Is Morally BankruptI don’t want to forage into world politics, but I am compelled to write that the world’s grotesque horrors and obscenities of human behavior, well-known to all of us, are ignored, evaded, suppressed and not universally condemned. They are all tolerated. What the world will tolerate, thus, is morally meaningless.

Cecil and the Weaponization of World Opinion
How does the world articulate what it does and does not tolerate? Who decides? If we are to judge the moral competence of the world based on the actions and pronouncements of the United Nations and the European Union, for example, then a strong argument can be made that the world is morally deficient.

What Can We Do?

First, we must reject any notion that the world will be reasonable and informed when it comes to certain types of hunting. Segments of the world have their own agendas. Many factors influence what the world seems to tolerate regarding hunting, among them cowardice, a perverse ideology, greed, corruption, narcissism, moral smugness and condescension toward indigenous populations. Ethical hunting and responsible game management are, regrettably, not the most powerful factors that influence what the world appears to tolerate. Here is my key point: Any tendency of our hunting communities to conform to and appease this abstraction of what the world will tolerate will lead to the end of all hunting.

The assertion that the world will not tolerate unethical hunting behavior is not supported by any evidence. To the contrary, the world is drenched in unethical animal killing—poaching, absurd hunting bans and trophy and trade bans that kill substantial numbers of animals. Such things are not only tolerated but paradoxically supported by powerful organizations and governments. Particularly regarding iconic African big game—lions, elephants, black rhino, leopards—legal hunting kills relatively few. Legal hunting, does, however, provide millions of dollars for local populations, anti-poaching support and habitat development.

The Cecil situation did not prove the world will not tolerate unethical behavior. To the contrary, Cecil proved with unarguable clarity that the world willfully refuses to differentiate between ethical and unethical hunting and tolerates the latter.

Let’s analyze the concepts of world opinion and what the world will tolerate in the specific context of Cecil. I won’t rehash all the details of that hunt but will mention a few key facts: the hunt was legal; Cecil was not drawn out of Hwange Park; there is no legal significance attached to the fact the lion was collared; Cecil was an older male lion and no longer reproduced; the hunt raised considerable funds for local populations and for conservation.

The world did not wait until these facts were determined. Rather, agenda-driven people instantly promoted and disseminated lies. Going back to the 1940s, we may recall the astute words of Winston Churchill, then prime minister of the United Kingdom, saying that a lie will travel half way around the world before the truth gets out of bed. That was certainly the case with Cecil. But the world and its opinion responded to these lies with the enthusiastic intensity of burning heretics at the stake. A dishonest narrative constructed by anti-hunting forces went viral and the facts did not matter. Instead, animal welfare extremists in their “world opinion,” responded venomously like a viper’s strike.

Given what the world tolerates generally, as articulated through international institutions, and the constraints it imposes on legal hunting, we may justifiably draw several conclusions about the morality and consistency of world opinion and the moral weight of what the world tolerates. The world tolerates barbarity and often condemns moral behavior. Thus, world opinion is morally meaningless and bankrupt.

“World opinion” is a mythical creature like the tooth fairy. It can mean anything the speaker wants it to mean. And such ambiguity is the source of its power. Anyone can make the accusation regardless of the facts yet the rhetoric, the accusation, that the world will not tolerate unethical hunting, is powerful. Not every person has the mental agility and knowledge to effectively fight back. Indeed, the accuser is counting on the inability to refute his attack.

The accusation that world opinion is against you is not an offer to discuss and debate the proposition. It is a rhetorical device used to silence you, prevent discussion and force you to submit to the abstraction that the world will not tolerate certain kinds of hunting though no facts support the accusation. Thus, saying the world will not tolerate a Cecil-type hunt or the black rhino hunt created under the auspices of the Dallas Safari Club weaponizes the phrase. It transforms the concept of world opinion into a tool for attacking. I make it clear that the person at the APHA meeting did not have that intent. He merely was expressing what others would likely suggest.

Second, we must develop the skill to analyze the ethical and factual content of the accusatory rhetoric—what is world opinion and how do you identify it—and then use that analysis to refute the accusation.Third, it is vital that we fight back and not allow the aggressive animal welfare extremist movement to frame the issue as us against the world. This helps anti-hunters to be perceived as standing on moral high ground. Hunters have the moral high ground.

Fourth, we hunters must understand that we are in the persuasion business and advocate for hunting. Truth is meaningless unless someone is persuaded that the truth has meaning.Finally, we must persuade the vast majority of Americans that the values and actions of the hunter, including the hunting of Cecil, is, in fact, in harmony with their opinions. We can do so because it is true.

Iran has been rocked by its most significant anti-government protests since a disputed presidential election in 2009

Iran has been rocked by its most significant anti-government protests since a disputed presidential election in 2009.  Six days of unrest across the country have resulted in more than 20 deaths and hundreds of arrests. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei accused the country's enemies of meddling in recent protest rallies. Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, called Tuesday for an emergency U.N. meeting to discuss the crisis.

Here's what the protests are all about: 

It's the economy, stupid?

The unrest started Thursday as a protest over Iran's beleaguered economy. Unemployment is high at 12% and the costs of basic necessities such as dairy products have been spiraling. The protests have since widened to a more general expression of anger over alleged government corruption and discontent with Iran's clerical rulers. There have been calls for Khamenei, the supreme leader, to step aside. 

Where are the protests taking place?

The protests kicked off in the northeast city of Mashad when people took to the streets to convey their disappointment over President Hassan Rouhani's failure to deliver on promised economic prosperity after a nuclear deal with world powers. As news of the protests spread on social media through Telegram and WhatsApp — widely used in Iran — protests erupted in other cities, including Isfahan and the capital Tehran.

How has the government responded?

Security services have used force and tear gas to disperse crowds. At least 21 people have died and 450 have been arrested nationwide, according to Iranian media. Tehran’s Revolutionary Court warned Tuesday that arrested protesters could potentially face the death penalty when they come to trial. Authorities have also tried to slow, and in some cases, block access to the Internet and ban some international calls. At the same time, Rouhani struck a conciliatory tone and said protesters have a right to be heard as long as they do so "according to the constitution."

Without naming a specific country or organization, Khamenei accused Iran’s enemies on Tuesday of meddling in the recent protest rallies.

More: otesters, hits Obama for nuclear deal

How has the White House reacted?

Since the protests started President Trump has taken to Twitter on multiple occasions to let Iran's government know that he is watching closely. He has also expressed solidarity with the protesters and their poor economic prospects. Yet Trump also tried to characterize the protests as a direct result of Iran's foreign policy in the Middle East. "The people are finally getting wise as to how their money and wealth is being stolen and squandered on terrorism," he said in one tweet. On Tuesday, the administration called on Iran to stop blocking Instagram and other social media sites and encouraged Iranians to use special software to circumvent controls, such as virtual private networks, known as VPNs, said Undersecretary of State Steve Goldstein.

What happens next?

Iran's security forces ultimately crushed the 2009 Green Movement, when millions marched in protest over the disputed re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. So far, the current scale of the protests is much smaller, and it is not clear how much public dissent Iran's government is willing to tolerate. 

Trump is considering imposing new sanctions on those responsible for the crackdown on protesters, presidential aide Kellyanne Conway said Tuesday. That comes as Trump faces a congressional deadline this month on whether to certify that Iran is meeting the terms of the 2015 nuclear accord with the U.S. and other nations

Hatch traveled to and from that Utah event with Trump on Air Force One.

President Donald Trump made one thing very clear over the last few months: He badly wanted Utah Republican Orrin Hatch to run for another Senate term.At an event in Utah in December, Trump said this of Hatch:

"You are a true fighter, Orrin. And I have to say, I've gotten to know him very well. I've gotten to know a lot of people very well. You meet fighters and you meet people that you thought were fighters but they're not so good at fighting. He's a fighter. We hope you will continue to serve your state and your country in the Senate for a very long time to come."

Hatch traveled to and from that Utah event with Trump on Air Force One.

At the bill signing event on Trump's tax cut legislation just days before Christmas, Trump called the Utah Republican "the great Chairman Orrin Hatch," adding: "Great job, Orrin. Wow. Orrin is a special person."As far back as March 2017, Trump was actively lobbying Hatch to stay. "His pitch is he needs me," Hatch told CNN's Manu Raju of Trump.

 "Things are going to be just fine."That long and aggressive full court press from the President of the United States makes Hatch's decision, announced Tuesday afternoon, that he wouldn't run for an eighth term all the more intriguing.In the immediate aftermath of the news of Hatch's retirement, White House press secretary Sarah Sanders allowed that Trump was "very sad to see Senator Hatch leave," adding: "The President has the greatest and deepest amount of respect for Senator Hatch."

It's certainly too much to lay Hatch's retirement at the feet of Trump. Hatch, had he run for an eighth term, would have been 89 at the end of that term. He had made very clear -- even before Trump was elected President -- that he was unsure about whether he would run again in 2018.

But it is still worth noting that the Republican President of the United States spent much of the last year urging a prominent Republican senator to run for re-election -- and it didn't work.That's especially important because it's long been suspected -- and reporting bears this out -- that one of the reasons Trump was so gung-ho for Hatch to run again was that he did not want an open seat situation where two-time presidential candidate Mitt Romney could run.

Romney, who has been one of the most consistent and high-profile critics of Trump as a candidate and as president, has been doing the sorts of things back in Utah that someone who wants back into public life would do. Romney has also lived primarily in Utah since losing his second presidential bid in 2012. He won 73% of the vote in Utah in that race. Romney is popular in the state for salvaging the Winter Olympics held in 2002 in Salt Lake City.Should he run -- and most Utah insiders expect him to -- Romney would start the race as the front-runner.

While that doesn't mean he is a lock for the Senate -- Utah's Republican nominating process could open the door to a challenge from Romney's ideological right -- it does suggest that the odds favor Romney at the moment.Here's a very simple way to understand the difference for Trump between Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Mitt Romney.

"This President hasn't even been in office even a year, and look at all the things that he's been able to get done," Hatch said of Trump in late December. "By sheer will in many ways.""Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud," Romney said of Trump in March 2016. "His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. 

He's playing members of the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House, and all we get is a lousy hat."Big. Difference.

There was a time when Romeny and Trump appeared to have mended fences. Trump very publicly considered Romney to be his secretary of state. The two had dinner, which resulted in this very awkward photo: