Senators Mark Warner and John Cornyn Urge US To Waive Sanctions Against India

October 29, 2021 Staff ReporterNation India, Nation USA 0

Two US Senators have urged President Joe Biden to waive Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) sanctions against India for buying military arms from Russia.

US Senators and India Caucus Co-Chairs Mark Warner and John Cornyn sent a letter to President Biden encouraging him to waive CAATSA sanctions against India. India signed a $5.43-billion deal with Russia for the purchase of five S-400 surface to air missile systems during the 19th India-Russia Annual Bilateral Summit in New Delhi on October 5, 2019, for long-term security needs.

Washington had indicated that the Russian S-400 systems may trigger CAATSA sanctions.

“While India has taken significant steps to reduce its purchases of Russian military equipment, it has a long history of purchasing arms from the Soviet Union, and later Russia. In 2018, India formally agreed to purchase Russian S-400 Triumf air-defence systems after having signed an initial agreement with Russia two years prior. We are concerned that the upcoming transfer of these systems will trigger sanctions under the CAATSA, which was enacted to hold Russia accountable for its malign behaviour,” the letter read.

The Senators said that while they shared the administration’s concern regarding the purchase and the continued Indian integration of Russian equipment, such transactions between New Delhi and Moscow were declining.

“As such, we strongly encourage you to grant a CAATSA waiver to India for its planned purchase of the S-400 Triumf surface-to-air missile system. In cases where granting a waiver would advance the national security interests of the U.S., this waiver authority, as written into the law by Congress, allows the President additional discretion in applying sanctions,” they wrote.

“We share your concerns regarding the purchase and the continued Indian integration of Russian equipment, even with these declining sales. We would encourage your administration to continue reinforcing this concern to Indian officials, and engaging with them constructively to continue supporting alternatives to their purchasing Russian equipment,” the senators added.

The History Of US Presidential Visits To The Vatican

October 29, 2021October 29, 2021 Claire Giangravé At RNSNation USA, Religion 0

On Friday (Oct. 29), Pope Francis is set to hold a highly anticipated private audience with President Joe Biden at the Vatican. It will be the first in-person meeting between the pontiff and the Catholic head of state since Biden’s election.

Biden is the 14th U.S. president to meet a pontiff at the Vatican, and the Eternal City is bubbling with speculation over what the two are likely to discuss. The meeting is expected to be cordial, focusing on what the two have in common, but historically the relationship between the Vatican and the Oval Office has often been tense — even occasionally hostile.

From public reprimands to diplomatic faux pas, Religion News Service takes a look back at the history of meetings between popes and U.S. presidents.

More than a hundred years ago, on Jan. 4, 1919, President Woodrow Wilson became the first American head of state to meet with a pope at the Vatican, during a European tour in the aftermath of World War I, which had left the continent in shambles and rife with tensions.

The pontiff at the time, Pope Benedict XV, had spoken fervently against war and in 1917 wrote a letter “to the Heads of State of the Belligerent Peoples,” which outlined a plan for peace and reconstruction for Europe and beyond. In January of 1918, Wilson pronounced his 14 points for the establishment of a new postwar world. Some observers at the time suggested Wilson felt as if the frail Italian pontiff had stolen his thunder by releasing his vision first.

The first encounter between a U.S. president and a pope was also a meeting of two global visions for peace, at times opposing and sometimes aligned. The evolving contours of these visions would go on to define the relationship for a century.

Eisenhower and Pope John XXIII: ‘That was a beaut!’

President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Pope John XXIII met at the Vatican in December 1959. John XXIII, known as “the good pope” for his affable and gregarious attitude, tried to learn a few words in English to put the president at ease. Despite his efforts, the elderly pope stumbled through his English and at the end of the speech ironically quipped “that was a beaut!” in Italian. The president, accompanied by his family, burst out laughing along with everyone present, blessing the papal annals with some rather playful pictures of the historic event.

Kennedy and Pope Paul VI: To kiss the ring or to not kiss the ring?

The first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy faced significant scrutiny back home for how he would handle his July 1963 meeting with Pope Paul VI. Anti-Catholic sentiment remained strong in the U.S., and even before his visit, cartoons popped up showing Kennedy bowing to the pope in Rome. The media at the time questioned whether the U.S. president would follow Catholic protocol and bow to kiss the pope’s ring.

Instead, Kennedy and Pope Paul VI exchanged a firm handshake during their meeting and spoke in English. Five months after the visit, Kennedy was fatally shot. People close to the pope said he “wept uncontrollably” at the news and later publicly condemned Kennedy’s assassination.

Johnson and Pope Paul VI: American egos and Vietnam

President Lyndon B. Johnson’s visit to the Vatican on Dec. 23, 1967, came as the Catholic Church prepared to celebrate Christmas, but according to witnesses, it was less than jolly. Paul VI made his objection to the Vietnam War heard during the meeting, with some claiming he slammed his fist on the table in anger. Johnson made sure to leave a lasting impression — literally — gifting the pope a bronze bust of himself.

Nixon and Pope Paul VI: From amicable to acrimonious

President Richard Nixon met with Pope Paul VI at the Vatican twice. The first time, in March 1969, the two discussed the ongoing war in Vietnam and the possibility for peace. Nixon praised the pope for his words, stating they were “a source of profound inspiration” and promising to make do on his peace-building efforts.

When they met again on Sept. 28, 1970, as the Vietnam War continued to escalate, the encounter was “less than pleasant, even acrimonious,” according to Peter Hebblethwaite’s biography of Pope Paul VI.

Ford and Pope Paul VI: A divided Europe, a divided world

With Europe increasingly divided by the Cold War, the meeting between President Gerald Ford and Pope Paul VI focused on how to promote unity. The two met at the Vatican on June 3, 1975. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was also in attendance.

During the brief encounter, the pope encouraged the U.S. to leverage its now established position of leadership for unity. They also addressed the rising tension between Israel and Egypt, with the pope promoting a “peaceful coexistence” between Christians and Muslims. The Middle East would increasingly became a point of contention in U.S.-Vatican diplomacy.

Carter and Pope John Paul II: Bookish alliances

In 1979, Pope John Paul II became the first pope to visit the White House. A year later, on June 21, 1980, he met with President Jimmy Carter in the papal library at the Vatican.

During the meeting, Carter condemned the Soviet Union’s expansion in the Middle East, especially its invasion of Afghanistan. John Paul II directed the president’s attention to finding a resolution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

At the end of the meeting, the pope gifted Carter with a leather-bound copy of the Bible for the president to read. Seeing that the text was in Latin, Carter jokingly told the pope, “It would be easier for you than me!”

Reagan and Pope John Paul II: The ‘bromance’ that defeated communism

A number of books and films have been made documenting the synergy between President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II, a relationship many argue contributed to the defeat of communism and the Soviet Union. The two met twice at the Vatican and twice in the United States.

When Reagan and John Paul II met for the first time at the Vatican on June 7, 1982, they already had much in common. In 1981, they both survived assassination attempts, and they viewed their meeting as a divine sign that they had a purpose to fulfill. “God saved us both,” John Paul II reportedly said, “so that we can do what we are about to do. How else can it be explained?”

The meeting, which lasted 50 minutes, marked the first time a pope and a president spoke alone behind closed doors. The two had exchanged a flurry of letters in the months leading up to the meeting, addressing the future of Europe and an end to the escalating nuclear tensions.

For the next six years, the Reagan and John Paul II partnership reshaped Europe amid the tumult of the Cold War, revealing the potential of a union between two global and moral superpowers. Two years after the meeting, the Holy See and the United States established official diplomatic relations.

H.W. Bush and Pope John Paul II: Failing papal appeals for peace

President George H.W. Bush met with Pope John Paul II twice at the Vatican — in 1989 and 1991 — but both times the shadow of war hung over the encounters. John Paul II’s appeals for peace had become louder after the U.S. engaged in the First Gulf War, which the pope had described as “an adventure with no turning back.”

“The dignity of America,” the pope said before the cameras at their second Vatican meeting, “the reason she exists, the condition for her survival; yes, the ultimate test of her greatness: to respect every human person, especially the weakest and most defenseless ones, those as yet unborn.”

Clinton and Pope John Paul II: Roast beef and culture wars

President Bill Clinton met with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican on June 2, 1994. The two had met three times before in the United States, where the contentious question of abortion hung over the meetings. The pope called on the “responsibility of the great American nation, which always upheld the ethical values at the base of every society.” Clinton gifted the pope artwork representing an olive branch, promising “joint efforts to promote the central role of the family in society.”

Bush, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI: Failure to launch

No president has visited the Vatican more often than President George W. Bush, who made four trips to the Eternal City, plus a fifth meeting with the pope just outside Rome.

On May 28, 2002, Bush had his first encounter with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican, just months after the attacks on the World Trade Center. The pope failed in convincing Bush to halt the U.S. invasion in Iraq and chastised the war in a following meeting in June 2004.

Despite the tensions, Bush praised the pope and said “being in his presence is an awesome experience.” On their last meeting at the Vatican, Bush awarded Pope John Paul II the Medal of Freedom.

Bush also met with Pope John Paul II’s successor, Benedict XVI, at the Vatican in both 2007 and 2009. Their conversations centered mostly on tensions in the Middle East, and their differing views on Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict overshadowed common agreement on abortion.

Obama and Pope Benedict XVI: Lessons on star quality and bioethics

The meeting between President Barack Obama and Pope Benedict XVI at the Vatican on March 27, 2014, lasted roughly 40 minutes. As cameras flashed furiously before them, Obama told the pope, “Your holiness, I’m sure you’re used to having your picture taken,” adding that he was “getting used to it.”

To underline his opposition to abortion and contraception, Benedict XVI gifted Obama with a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which Benedict once headed, on bioethics titled “Dignitatis Personae” or “The Dignity of Persons.”

The two met again in March 2014, where they discussed “the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection,” according to the official Vatican statement on the meeting.

Trump and Pope Francis: The walls, the bridges and the frown

Tensions had already formed before Pope Francis and President Donald Trump met at the Vatican on May 24, 2017. Only a year before, the bridge-building pope had seemed to criticize Trump’s intentions to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, stating “a person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian.”

Trump pushed back against the papal jab on Twitter, describing the pontiff’s remarks as “disgraceful.” The Vatican meeting culminated with a photo capturing one of the pope’s most infamous frowns.

After the short meeting, the mood seemed to lighten slightly, with Trump thanking the pope and telling him, “I won’t forget what you said.” Pope Francis gifted the president a copy of his “green” encyclical on the environment, “Laudato Si’.” But in 2020, Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreements.

Biden Is Confident As $2T Plan Edges Closer To Deal

October 25, 2021October 30, 2021 Staff ReporterEconomy, Nation USA 0

A deal within reach, President Joe Biden and Congress’ top Democrats edged close to sealing their giant domestic legislation, as they worked to scale back the measure and determine how to pay for it. The bill, which was originally proposed at a $3.5 trillion figure and contained funding for paid family leave, education and climate programs, has been paired with a $1 trillion infrastructure bill, which received widespread bipartisan support when it passed the Senate earlier this summer.

“I do think I’ll get a deal,” Biden told CNN’s Anderson Cooper on Thursday night during a Town Hall Meeting, strongly signaling his belief that progressives and moderates, two wings of the Democratic caucus that have been at odds with one another, are reaching an accord on the Build Back Better bill, a sweeping bill that aims to expand the social safety net.

Biden’s town hall capped off what has been the most momentous week of negotiation in months, with the president acquiescing to losing some key programs from his initial $3.5 trillion wish list, in order to meet those moderates calling for less government spending. The acknowledgement of the concessions could send a signal to Democrats that a deal on the package, which has been whittled from Biden’s $3.5 trillion wish list to just under $2 trillion, is imminent.

The two pieces of legislation crucial to Biden’s agenda have been stalled as moderates and progressives have haggled over the price tag of the Build Back Better bill — which requires no Republican support thanks to the Senate’s budget reconciliation process — and the order in which both bills would be passed.

“We’re down to four or five issues,” Biden said of the ongoing negotiations, but did not detail what those issues are. “I think we can get there. It’s all about compromise,” Biden said, adding: “Compromise has become a dirty word, but … bipartisanship and compromise still has to be possible.”

In order to reach an accord, the size of the sweeping 10-year spending plan has been whittled down to somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 trillion, and President Biden laid out Thursday evening what’s in it — and, importantly, what’s not. For instance, the paid leave provision has been reduced to four weeks from the originally proposed 12 weeks. “It is down to four weeks,” Biden confirmed. “The reason it’s down to four weeks is I can’t get 12 weeks.”

Biden also noted that it might be a “reach” to include dental and vision coverage in Medicare, a progressive priority opposed by moderate Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., one of the key centrist senators in the caucus. Though Biden detailed Manchin’s opposition to a number of the bill’s programs, including that he “has indicated that they will not support free community college,” another of the bill’s provisions, the president called him “a friend.”

“Joe is not a bad guy,” Biden said. “He is a friend. He has always at the end of the day come around and voted.” Biden noted that “one other person” indicated they would not support the free community college provision, and said that Democrats are looking into expanding Pell grants to help bridge the gap. “It’s not going to get us the whole thing,” Biden said, but noted that he would be forging ahead with his free college education plans in the coming months.

“I’m gonna get it done,” Biden pledged. “And if I don’t, I’m going to be sleeping alone for a long time,” referring to his wife, first lady Dr. Jill Biden, an educator and staunch education advocate. Of fellow moderate Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Biden also had kind words – “She’s as smart as the devil” – praising her support for some of the bill’s economic proposals.

He did, however, note that Sinema is “not supportive where she says she won’t raise a single penny in taxes on the corporate side and on wealthy people.” Biden said that in an evenly divided Senate, every senator’s vote is crucial: “Look, in the United States Senate, when you have 50 Democrats, every one is the president.”

President Biden noted the importance of combatting climate change, calling it “the existential threat to humanity” and pledging that he will debut his plans to get to “net zero emissions” at the upcoming United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP26, in Glasgow, Scotland, at the end of the month.

Biden touted the fact that on his first day in office, he rejoined the Paris climate accord, and said that he is “presenting a commitment to the world that we will in fact get to net zero emissions on electric power by 2035 and net zero emissions across the board by 2050 or before.” “But we have to do so much between now and 2030 to demonstrate what we’re going to do,” he pledged. The president also said that corporations must pay their fair share of taxes. The U.S., Biden said, is “in a circumstance where corporate America is not paying their fair share.”

“I come from the corporate state of the world: Delaware,” Biden said. “More corporations in Delaware than every other state in the union combined. Okay? Now, here’s the deal, though. You have 55 corporations, for example, in the United States of America making over $40 billion, don’t pay a cent. Not a single little red cent. Now, I don’t care — I’m a capitalist. I hope you can be a millionaire or billionaire. But at least pay your fair share. Chip in a little bit.”

Bided added that corporate leaders know “they should be paying a little more” in taxes. “They know they should be paying a little more than 21% because the idea that if you’re a school teacher and a firefighter you’re paying at a higher tax rate than they are as a percentage of your taxes.”

Biden met at the White House on Friday with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer joined by video call from from New York, trying to shore up details. The leaders have been working with party moderates and progressives to shrink the once-$3.5 trillion, 10-year package to around $2 trillion in child care, health care and clean energy programs.

Pelosi said a deal was “very possible.” She told reporters back at the Capitol that more than 90% of the package was agreed to: The climate change components of the bill “are resolved,” but outstanding questions remained on health care provisions.

No agreement was announced by Friday’s self-imposed deadline to at least agree on a basic outline. Biden wants a deal before he leaves next week for global summits in Europe. Pelosi hoped the House could start voting as soon as next week, but no schedule was set.

Sticking points appear to include proposed corporate tax hikes to help finance the plan and an effort to lower prescription drug costs that has raised concerns from the pharmaceutical industry. Democrats are in search of a broad compromise between the party’s progressives and moderates on the measure’s price tag, revenue sources and basic components.

At the White House, the president has “rolled up his sleeves and is deep in the details of spreadsheets and numbers,” press secretary Jen Psaki said. Vice President Kamala Harris sounded even more certain. On a visit to New York City, she said tensions often rise over final details but “I am confident, frankly — not only optimistic, but I am confident that we will reach a deal.”

India Vaccinates One Billion People Against Covid

October 25, 2021October 30, 2021 Staff ReporterHealth, Nation India 0

Reaching a milestone, in India’s efforts to vaccinate all, 1 Billion (100 crore) jabs milestone shows the power of India’s collective effort, reports here suggest. India completed the administration of 100 crore doses of the Covid-19 vaccine on October 21, 2021, in just about nine months since the start of the vaccination drive.

PM Narendra Modi tweeted: “The journey from anxiety to assurance has happened and our nation has emerged stronger, thanks to the world’s largest vaccination drive.”

Observing that India has achieved a “difficult but extraordinary” target of 100 crore Covid vaccine doses, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday cautioned people to remain vigilant and not become careless, and urged them to continue wearing masks, saying that weapons are not thrown away while the battle is on.

Addressing the nation, the Prime Minister said, “Yesterday, on October 21, India has achieved the difficult but extraordinary target of 1 billion – 100 crore – vaccine doses. Behind this achievement is the power (kartavyashakti) of 130 crore countrymen; so this success is the success of India, the success of every countryman.”

This has been a tremendous journey in dealing with Covid-19, especially in comparison with how things stood in early 2020. Humanity was dealing with such a pandemic after 100 years and no one knew much about the virus. We remember how unpredictable the situation appeared then, as we were faced with an unknown and invisible enemy mutating rapidly.

“When the biggest pandemic of 100 years came, questions started arising about India. Will India be able to fight this global pandemic? From where will India get the money to buy so many vaccines from other countries? When will India get the vaccine? Will the people of India get the vaccine or not? Will India be able to vaccinate enough people to stop the pandemic from spreading? There were various questions, but today the 100-crore vaccine doses are answering every question,” the Prime Minister said.

Describing the achievement of 100-crore vaccine doses as a new chapter in India’s history, Modi said, “The country started the campaign of ‘Free vaccine, vaccine for everyone’, by taking everyone along… There was only one mantra that if the disease does not discriminate, then there cannot be any discrimination in the vaccination. Therefore, it was ensured that the VIP culture did not dominate the vaccination campaign.”

It has been a truly bhagirath effort involving multiple sections of society. To get a sense of the scale, assume that each vaccination took just two minutes for a healthcare worker. At this rate, it took around 41 lakh man-days or approximately 11,000 man-years of effort to reach this landmark.

For any effort to attain and sustain speed and scale, the trust of all stakeholders is crucial. One of the reasons for the success of the campaign was the trust that people developed in the vaccine and the process followed, despite various efforts to create mistrust and panic.

There are some among us who only trust foreign brands, even for simple everyday necessities. However, when it came to something as crucial as the Covid-19 vaccine, the people of India unanimously trusted “Made in India” vaccines. This is a significant paradigm shift.

The vaccine drive is an example of what India can achieve if the citizens and the government come together with a common goal in the spirit of Jan Bhagidari. When India started its vaccination programme, there were many people who doubted the capabilities of 130 crore Indians. Some said India would take three to four years. Some others said people will not come forward to get vaccinated. There were those who said there will be gross mismanagement and chaos in the vaccination process. Some even said that India will not be able to manage supply chains. But just like the Janata Curfew and subsequent lockdowns, the people of India showed how spectacular the results can be, if they are made trusted partners.

In early 2020, when Covid-19 was rampaging across the world, it was clear to us that this pandemic will have to be eventually fought with the help of vaccines. We started preparing early. We constituted expert groups and started preparing a roadmap right from April 2020.

Till today, only a handful of countries have developed their own vaccines. More than 180 countries are dependent on an extremely limited pool of producers and dozens of nations are still waiting for the supply of vaccines, even as India has crossed 100 crore doses.

I am optimistic that the success achieved in the world’s largest vaccination drive will further spur our youth, our innovators and all levels of government to set new benchmarks of public service delivery, which will be a model not only for our country, but also for the world.”

The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) illuminated 100 monuments with tri-color across the country as India achieved the landmark milestone of administrating 100 crore COVID vaccinations. The world is witnessing the largest and fastest vaccination drive in India against the pandemic. ASI gesture was a mark of respect and gratitude towards corona warriors who have contributed relentlessly in the fight against the pandemic.

House Holds Trump Ally Steve Bannon In Contempt

October 25, 2021October 30, 2021 Mary Clare Jalonick At APNation USA 0

The US House of Representatives voted to hold Steve Bannon, a longtime ally and aide to former President Donald Trump, in criminal contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena from the committee investigating the violent Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection. The vote was 229-202.

Nine Republicans voted with all 220 Democrats to pass the resolution: House Select Committee Vice Chair Liz Cheney, Reps. Adam Kinzinger, Nancy Mace, Fred Upton, Peter Meijer, John Katko, Brian Fitzpatrick, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, and Jaime Herrera Beutler. Rep. Greg Pence — the brother of former Vice President Mike Pence, who was presiding over the electoral vote count on January 6 — did not vote.

In a rare show of bipartisanship on the House floor, the committee’s Democratic chairman, Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, led the floor debate along with Republican Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, one of two Republicans on the panel. Still, the vote Thursday was 229-202 with all but nine GOP lawmakers who voted saying “no.”

The House vote sends the matter to the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, where it will now be up to prosecutors in that office to decide whether to present the case to a grand jury for possible criminal charges. It’s still uncertain whether they will pursue the case — Attorney General Merrick Garland would only say at a House hearing on Thursday that they plan to “make a decision consistent with the principles of prosecution.”

The partisan split over Bannon’s subpoena — and over the committee’s investigation in general — is emblematic of the raw tensions that still grip Congress nine months after the Capitol attack.

Democrats have vowed to comprehensively probe the assault in which hundreds of Trump’s supporters battered their way past police, injured dozens of officers and interrupted the electoral count certifying President Joe Biden’s November victory. Lawmakers on the panel say they will move swiftly and forcefully to punish anyone who won’t cooperate with the probe.

“We will not allow anyone to derail our work, because our work is too important,” Thompson said ahead of the vote. Republicans call it a “witch hunt,” say it is a waste of time and argue that Congress should be focusing on more important matters.

Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, leading the GOP opposition on the floor, called the probe an “illicit criminal investigation into American citizens” and said Bannon is a “Democrat party boogeyman.”

Cheney and Illinois Rep. Adam Kinzinger are the only two Republicans on the Jan. 6 panel, and both have openly criticized Trump and his role in fomenting the insurrection while the majority of House Republicans have remained silent in the face of Trump’s falsehoods about massive fraud in the election. Trump’s claims were rejected by election officials, courts across the country and by his own attorney general.

The Jan. 6 committee voted 9-0 Tuesday to recommend the contempt charges after Bannon missed a scheduled interview with the panel last week, citing a letter from Trump’s lawyer that directed him not to answer questions. The committee noted that Bannon did not work at the White House at the time of the attack, and that he not only spoke with Trump before it but also promoted the protests on his podcast and predicted there would be unrest. On Jan. 5, Bannon said that “all hell is going to break loose.”

Lawmakers on the panel said Bannon was alone in completely defying its subpoena, while more than a dozen other subpoenaed witnesses were at least negotiating with them.

“Mr. Bannon’s own public statements make clear he knew what was going to happen before it did, and thus he must have been aware of — and may well have been involved in — the planning of everything that played out on that day,” Cheney said ahead of the vote. “The American people deserve to know what he knew and what he did.”

Now the responsibility to prosecute Bannon falls on US Justice Department. There’s still considerable uncertainty about whether the department will pursue the charges, despite Democratic demands for action. It’s a decision that will determine not only the effectiveness of the House investigation but also the strength of Congress’ power to call witnesses and demand information.

While the department has historically been reluctant to use its prosecution power against witnesses found in contempt of Congress, the circumstances are exceptional as lawmakers investigate the worst attack on the U.S. Capitol in two centuries. Even if the Justice Department does decide to prosecute, the case could take years to play out — potentially pushing past the 2022 election when Republicans could win control of the House and end the investigation.

Ambassador Sandhu Acknowledges Deep Appreciation In US For India Reaching 1 Billion COVID Vaccinations

October 25, 2021 Staff ReporterHealth, Nation India 0

Indian Ambassador to the US, Taranjit Singh Sandhu, has said that there is “very strong and deep appreciation” in the United States as India achieved the one billion COVID-19 vaccinations milestone.

Speaking at Public Affairs Forum of India’s 8th National Forum 2021 on Thursday, Sandhu said: “It is a very proud moment for us and I can tell you that there is very strong and deep appreciation in the US that we have crossed the one billion landmark and all through the vaccines manufactured in India.”

India attained the milestone of administering 100 crore COVID-19 vaccines on Thursday morning. Several world leaders congratulated India on this achievement.

India’s COVID-19 vaccination drive was launched on January 16, 2021. Initially, the vaccination was opened for Health Care Workers (HCWs) only.

From February 2, front line workers were made eligible for vaccination. These included state and Central Police personnel, Armed Force Personnel, Home Guards, Civil Defence and Disaster Management Volunteers, Municipal workers, Prison Staff, PRI Staff and Revenue workers involved in containment and surveillance, Railway Protection Force and election Staff.

The vaccination drive was expanded from March 1 to include persons above 60 years of age and those above 45 years with associated specified 20 comorbidities.

It was further expanded to all people above 45 years of age from April 1. From May 1 all persons above 18 years of age were made eligible for COVID-19 vaccination.

Talking about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s last month visit to the US, Sandhu said the visit was a “testament to the enduring strength of our partnership”.

“My focus here is to share perspective on India-US relationship that has emerged as the most imp bilateral partnership and this was predicted by President Biden in 2006,” he said.
“Last month, PM Modi visited the US for his 1st bilateral face-to-face summit with President Biden and first in-person QUAD Leaders’ Summit. It was a landmark visit during which he identified 5 T’s that define the partnership — tradition, talent, trade, technology & trusteeship,” he added.

US, India To Cooperate In Fighting Cybercrimes, Telemarketing Fraud

October 25, 2021 Staff ReporterMedia, Nation India 0

The United States and India have agreed to expand their cooperation in fighting cybercrimes, telemarketing fraud and enforcing consumer protection, the US Justice Department said on Thursday.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Arun G. Rao of the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, together with colleagues from the Consumer Protection Branch and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), met this week with Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) officials in New Delhi to further strengthen law enforcement cooperation.

During the meeting, they discussed means for combating emerging crime trends, including fighting rising telemarketing fraud.

“In their meetings, the parties affirmed their shared commitment to strengthen cooperation in combating crime, specifically with respect to efforts to investigate and prosecute cyber-enabled financial frauds and global telemarketing frauds, including international robocalls and communications,” the Justice Department said in a statement.

They additionally discussed the need for continued cooperation in tackling emerging technology-based crimes through faster information exchange and evidence sharing, with a view to ensure security and protection of citizens of both jurisdictions, the department added.

“While I’m Alive, I’ll Keep Speaking” Journalist Rana Ayyub’s Fight to Expose the Truth in India

October 25, 2021October 25, 2021 Billy Perrigo At TIMEMedia, Nation India, Women 0

For the last several months, every time Rana Ayyub’s phone or doorbell rings, she has felt a pang of fear. Could this be the day the Indian government finally throws her in prison—or worse?

In early October, Ayyub was rushed to the hospital in the middle of the night with a suspected heart attack. She remembers screaming to doctors in her hospital bed: “I’m dying.” The scare turned out to be a palpitation, and she was prescribed blood pressure medication. “It happened because I was fearful of my life,” Ayyub, 37, says in a phone interview with TIME two weeks later. “I was just tired of this existence.”

Ayyub is one of India’s most famous journalists, and a thorn in the side of the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. She rose to prominence after she self-published Gujarat Files, a 2016 book about the 2002 violence in the state of Gujarat that left at least 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus dead. Ayyub’s work accused Modi, then chief minister of Gujarat, and his allies of being complicit in the anti-Muslim violence and included undercover audio recordings of politicians in India’s now-ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. (Modi has never been formally charged and has said his government used its “full strength” to “do the right thing.”)

Since then, Ayyub has struggled to find editors at mainstream Indian publications willing to publish her work. This summer, she joined the American newsletter platform her Substack. She also writes a regular column for the Washington Post, and has occasionally written for TIME, including a TIME cover story in April highlighting the Modi government’s mismanagement of the country’s devastating second wave of COVID-19. And for the past several months, she has endured an escalating campaign of intimidation from Indian authorities and supporters of the ruling party.

“Of all the cases of journalists we work on around the world, at the moment Rana is one of my top concerns,” says Rebecca Vincent, the director of international campaigns at rights group Reporters Without Borders (RSF). “The hate she’s facing has been escalating for years but it’s so intense at the moment. We have a history of journalists being killed with impunity in India, and frankly it’s very possible that could be repeated. When I receive urgent calls from Rana, my immediate instinct is concern for her life.” The Indian government should know, Vincent says, that the world’s eyes are watching out for Ayyub’s safety. “If something happens to her, it will be very obvious where it came from and why,” she says.

Although India is often called the world’s largest democracy, U.S.-based nonprofit Freedom House downgraded India from “free” to “partly free” in March, citing a decline in civil liberties since Modi came to power in 2014, including the intimidation of journalists and activists. Independent journalists, especially women, face particularly intense harassment, abuse and rape threats.

In 2017, prominent journalist Gauri Lankesh, known for her outspoken criticism of the Hindu nationalist government, was shot dead in Bangalore. RSF notes that India “is one of the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists trying to do their job properly” and the group’s annual World Press Freedom Index ranks India at 142 out of 180 countries.

Modi’s government set up a committee in 2020 to improve India’s ranking; the committee said in March that the RSF methodology lacked transparency and identified a “Western bias” in the index. (India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting did not reply to a request for comment.)

Ayyub is used to living on the edge. In 2018, for example, BJP supporters shared on social media a pornographic video doctored to include Ayyub’s face in an attempt to discredit her. For more than four years, she has received a barrage of anonymous death and rape threats on her social media. But for the last several months, she has been the victim of a campaign of intimidation by Indian authorities that has taken even her by surprise.

In June, the Uttar Pradesh police opened an investigation into Ayyub and other Muslim journalists after they tweeted a video showing a violent attack against a Muslim man. Police and government officials said the man’s claim was faked and police accused Ayyub and several others of attempting to “create animosity between Hindus and Muslims,” saying they did “not make an attempt to establish truth in the case.” In a statement at the time, the Uttar Pradesh government said it placed “absolute sanctity to rule of law, civil liberties and freedom of expression” and the investigation was not lodged “due to any witch-hunt.”

In June, the central government’s Income Tax Department sent Ayyub a summons, investigating her income in relation to her fundraising for COVID-19. (During the height of India’s pandemic earlier this spring, she traveled the country distributing humanitarian aid that she had raised funds for via her online following.) Shortly after, the Enforcement Directorate began investigating Ayyub’s foreign sources of income. Ayyub describes the accusations as baseless. She says she has been followed in the street by mysterious cars, and that she has been forced to disclose to authorities confidential information and emails, including with her editors. On Sept. 27, she filed an appeal against the Income Tax Department, where her case is pending. (The department did not respond to TIME’s request for comment.)

After an experience being tailed by an unknown car for 90 minutes in Mumbai, Ayyub wrote a letter for one of her family members to publish in the event of her death. “It just says that in case anything happens to me, I don’t want you to let my death go in vain,” she says. “I want the future generation of journalists, writers, activists to know that even if my life is short-lived, it’s a fight worth fighting. While I’m alive, I’ll keep speaking.”

Press freedom is under growing threat around the world. In October, the Nobel Committee awarded the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize to journalists Maria Ressa of the Philippines and Dmitry Muratov of Russia, editors-in-chief of independent publications who have each faced state-sanctioned intimidation for daring to stand up to authoritarian regimes. Ayyub has spoken to Ressa and gathers strength from knowing that others like her are going through similar trials. She welcomes the recognition for Ressa and Muratov, and sees parallels between their countries and India. (The Philippines is ranked at 138 on the World Press Freedom Index, while Russia is at 150.) “It has given so many of us the courage to fight,” she says of the Nobel Peace Prize going to embattled journalists. “It felt like it was for each one of us.”

But Ayyub is no editor-in-chief. She is a single journalist working mostly alone, without institutional support, and largely for international publications. This makes her particularly vulnerable, but also more determined. “If anything, what they are doing to me has made me realize that my words count, and they are having an impact,” she says.

After Ayyub’s heart scare in early October, her 75-year-old father suggested the family leave the country. His daughter refused. “I love this country more than I can ever explain,” she told TIME. “If I hated it, I would have left a long time ago. Our forefathers, our freedom fighters, fought the British to give us this independent India, this grand idea of a democracy. And I’m fighting for this very idea.”

Focus On China, US At UN Climate Change Conference

October 25, 2021 Staff ReporterEnvironment, Global 0

For two weeks in early November, the nations of the world will gather in Glasgow, Scotland, to negotiate updates to the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, the landmark agreement in which more than 190 countries pledged to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

With temperatures rising and extreme weather occurring across the globe, all eyes at the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference will be on China, the leading producer of greenhouse gases, and the United States, the largest emitter both historically and on a per capita basis.

Keeping an eye on the results of the conference will be Phillip Stalley, the endowed professor of environmental diplomacy in DePaul University’s Grace School of Applied Diplomacy. Stalley’s research centers on building diplomatic bridges in environmental policy across the globe, with a special focus on China’s evolving approach to environmental diplomacy. He’s the author of “Foreign Firms, Investment, and Environmental Regulation in the People’s Republic of China.”

In this Q&A, Stalley discusses the upcoming climate conference and the roles of the U.S. and China.

With recent studies affirming the dire climate situation, what do you anticipate the U.S. and China — the two largest climate polluters — will say at the Glasgow conference?

A recent report by Chatham House estimates that, even if countries implement their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) under the original Paris Agreement, we still have a less than 5% chance of keeping global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, which is the stated goal of Paris. Without stronger action, the fires, floods and other extreme weather we have all witnessed recently will be a lot worse.

The key question for Glasgow and beyond is whether China and the U.S. can be convinced to offer more ambitious climate targets in their NDCs. For instance, China currently has its “30-60” pledge, which refers to its twin goals of peaking emissions before 2030 and achieving carbon neutrality by 2060. Neither is consistent with the 2 degree target. The hope is that China, either in Glasgow or in the not too distant future, will move forward its peak dates and offer a specific cap for its total energy-related CO2 emissions, rather than just a peak year.

On the U.S. side, some of the biggest questions involve implementation and finance. President Joe Biden has pledged to slash U.S. emissions in half by 2030, but given Republican opposition, can he pass the domestic legislation necessary to achieve that goal? In terms of finance, Biden recently announced he will work with Congress to provide $11.4 billion to aid developing countries fighting climate change. If the U.S. wants other countries to do more, it will need to prove it can contribute more to the $100 billion climate finance goal agreed to in Paris.

Will other countries be willing to listen to a new U.S. administration talk about the need for climate action now when the U.S. only a few years ago left the Paris Climate Accord?

It is certainly true that the U.S.’s uneven track record undermines its credibility in international negotiations and inhibits its ability to influence other countries. U.S. diplomats will struggle in Glasgow if Biden cannot get the infrastructure and budget bills through Congress, both of which provide extensive funding for programs to combat climate change.

It’s worth noting, however, that U.S. state and municipal governments also play an important role in climate change diplomacy. After former President Donald Trump announced America’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Accord, governors from roughly two dozen states formed the U.S. Climate Alliance, pledging to abide by the Paris targets. Additionally, despite the Trump administration’s public stance against climate regulations, more coal power was retired during his four years than were in former President Barack Obama’s second term.

Are there other types of non-traditional diplomacy and advocacy that could help persuade the U.S. and China to take action around climate change?

There are many opportunities for non-traditional diplomacy to exert influence on both countries’ approach to climate change. This is evident, for instance, in Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent announcement that China will stop supporting coal power projects overseas. The reasons for this decision are complex and include commercial considerations, but part of the explanation is that Beijing was facing a great deal of pressure, from not only foreign governments, but also activists, experts and NGOs across the world. Beijing’s decision represents a victory for all the diplomats and activists who have been fighting for years to stop the funding of overseas coal.

Biden Delays Release Of JFK Assassination Files

October 25, 2021 Staff ReporterNation USA 0

The White House said on October 22^nd that it would delay the release of long-classified documents related to the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy. President Joe Biden wrote in a statement that the remaining files “shall be withheld from full public disclosure” until December 15 next year — nearly 60 years after Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas, Texas in 1963.

In 2017, former president Donald Trump released several thousand secret files on the assassination, but withheld others on national security grounds. The White House said the national archivist needs more time for a review into that redaction, which was slowed by the pandemic.

Biden also said the delay was “necessary to protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations” and that this “outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure.”

The assassination of the 46-year-old president was a “profound national tragedy” that “continues to resonate in American history and in the memories of so many Americans who were alive on that terrible day,” the statement said.

A 10-month investigation led by then-Supreme Court chief justice Earl Warren concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine who had lived in the Soviet Union, acted alone when he fired on Kennedy’s motorcade.

But the Commission’s investigation was criticized for being incomplete, with a Congressional committee later concluding that Kennedy was “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.”

U.S. law requires that all government records on the assassination be disclosed “to enable the public to become fully informed.” The National Archives has released thousands of documents to the public as part of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, informally known as the JFK Act. The files are accessible online.

“Temporary continued postponement is necessary to protect against identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure,” the president said.

Biden said some documents will be released on Dec. 15 of this year, but not earlier “out of respect for the anniversary of President Kennedy’s assassination,” which took place Nov. 22, 1963. The remaining documents will undergo an “intensive 1-year review” and be released by Dec. 15, 2022.

Under the 1992 John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act, all assassination records should have been publicly disclosed within 25 years – or by October 2017 – but postponements were allowed in instances that national security concerns outweighed the public interest in disclosure. The National Archives notes about 88 percent of the records have been released since the late 1990s.

Earlier this month, some members of Congress wrote to Biden urging him to fully release all of the JFK files, including 520 documents that remain withheld from the public and 15,834 documents that were previously released but are partially or mostly redacted. The letter was signed by Democratic Reps. Anna Eshoo of California, Steve Cohen of Tennessee, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, Sara Jacobs of California, Joe Neguse of Colorado and Raul Grijalva of Arizona.

“Democracy requires that decisions made by the government be open to public scrutiny,” the lawmakers wrote. “Yet excessive secrecy surrounding President Kennedy’s assassination continues to inspire doubt in the minds of the American public and has a profound impact on the people’s trust in their government.”

India Slips To 101st Spot In Global Hunger Index 2021

October 20, 2021October 25, 2021 Staff ReporterFinance/Economy, Nation India 0

India slipped to 101st position in the Global Hunger Index (GHI) 2021 of 116 countries and is behind neighbors Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. In 2020, India was ranked 94th out of 107 countries.

The report, prepared jointly by Irish aid agency Concern Worldwide and German organization Welt Hunger Hilfe, termed the level of hunger in India “alarming”. India’s GHI score has also decelerated — from 38.8 in 2000 to the range of 28.8 – 27.5 between 2012 and 2021.

The GHI score is calculated on four indicators — undernourishment; child wasting (the share of children under the age of five who low weight for their height); child stunting (children under the age of five who have low height for their age) and child mortality (the mortality rate of children under the age of five).

The share of wasting among children in India rose from 17.1% between 1998-2002 to 17.3% between 2016-2020, according to the report. “People have been severely hit by COVID-19 and by pandemic related restrictions in India, the country with highest child wasting rate worldwide,” the report said.

However, India has shown improvement in other indicators such as the under-5 mortality rate, prevalence of stunting among children and prevalence of undernourishment owing to inadequate food, the report said.

A total of only 15 countries — Papua New Guinea (102), Afghanistan (103), Nigeria (103), Congo (105), Mozambique (106), Sierra Leone (106), Timor-Leste (108), Haiti (109), Liberia (110), Madagascar (111), Democratic Republic of Congo (112), Chad (113), Central African Republic (114), Yemen (115) and Somalia (116) — fared worse than India this year.

A total of 18 countries, including China, Kuwait and Brazil, shared the top rank with GHI score of less than five, the GHI website that tracks hunger and malnutrition across countries reported last week.

According to the report, the share of wasting among children in India rose from 17.1 per cent between 1998-2002 to 17.3 per cent between 2016-2020, “People have been severely hit by COVID-19 and by pandemic related restrictions in India, the country with highest child wasting rate worldwide,” the report said.

Neighboring countries like Nepal (76), Bangladesh (76), Myanmar (71) and Pakistan (92), which are still ahead of India at feeding its citizens, are also in the ‘alarming’ hunger category.

However, India has shown improvement in indicators like the under-5 mortality rate, prevalence of stunting among children and prevalence of undernourishment owing to inadequate food, the report said.

Stating that the fight against hunger is dangerously off track, the report said based on the current GHI projections, the world as a whole — and 47 countries in particular — will fail to achieve even a low level of hunger by 2030.

“Although GHI scores show that global hunger has been on the decline since 2000, progress is slowing. While the GHI score for the world fell 4.7 points, from 25.1 to 20.4, between 2006 and 2012, it has fallen just 2.5 points since 2012. After decades of decline, the global prevalence of undernourishment — one of the four indicators used to calculate GHI scores — is increasing. This shift may be a harbinger of reversals in other measures of hunger,” the report said.

Food security is under assault on multiple fronts, the report said, adding that worsening conflict, weather extremes associated with global climate change, and the economic and health challenges associated with Covid-19 are all driving hunger.

“Inequality — between regions, countries, districts, and communities — is pervasive and, (if) left unchecked, will keep the world from achieving the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) mandate to “leave no one behind,” it said.

India’s wholesale price index (WPI)-based inflation remained in double-digits for the sixth consecutive month in September, though at 10.66% it was lower than 11.39% in August.

Food inflation contracted 4.69% in September compared with a 1.29% fall a month ago, while that of manufactured products rose to 11.41% from 11.39% in August.

The sharp contraction in food prices was mainly due to easing vegetable prices though price of pulses continued to spike at 9.42%. Retail inflation in September also slowed to a five-month low of 4.4% due to moderating food prices.

Fuel’s a concern

The inflation in the fuel and power basket was 24.91% in September, against 26.09% in the previous month. The rise in crude petroleum and natural gas prices was 43.92% in September over 40.03% in the previous month.

Fuel is likely to keep pinching in the days ahead. After two days of lull, petrol and diesel prices were again hiked by 35 paise per litre on Thursday, sending retail pump prices to their highest ever level across the country. This is the 13th time that petrol price has been hiked in two weeks while diesel rates have gone up 16 times in three weeks.

Corporations Influence Policy Through Nonprofit Donations

October 20, 2021October 20, 2021 University of California, Berkeley Haas School of BusinessBusiness, Nation USA 0

Newswise — In 2003, the Coca-Cola Foundation announced a $1 million donation to the American Association of Pediatric Dentistry, supposedly to “improve child dental health.” Shortly after receiving the gift, the children’s dental group changed its stance on sugary beverages, no longer calling them a “significant factor” in causing cavities, but instead saying the scientific evidence was “not clear.”

Coincidence? A study co-authored by Berkeley Haas researchers provides the first convincing evidence that not only do nonprofits change their stances in response to corporate donations, but that government agencies change their rules alongside them.

“If it had no impact, why would corporations do it?” said study co-author Matilde Bombardini, associate professor of Business and Public Policy at the Haas School of Business. “The bigger question has been whether you have evidence showing that impact.”

Published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, the paper shows that corporate influence peddling through nonprofit donations is effective in influencing policy. The authors include Francesco Trebbi of Berkeley Haas, Marianne Bertrand of Chicago Booth, Raymond Fisman of Boston University, and Brad Hackinen of Western University Ivey School of Business (Canada).

Influencing rules and regulations

The thousands of government rules and regulations governing corporate behavior may seem obscure at times, but they have direct impact on people’s lives, Bombardini says. “They cover the environment, highways, aviation, health—issues that are very, very close to consumers and workers.”

As policies are hashed out, nonprofits often play an important role, balancing corporate interests by speaking on behalf of citizens and the environment. But what happens when they start speaking on behalf of their corporate donors instead? The researchers scraped data for hundreds of thousands of rules, proposed rules, and comments posted by the federal government since 2003 and compared those rules with detailed data on corporate foundations grants filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

Similarities in language

They found a direct correlation between donations and the likelihood that nonprofits spoke up about a rule: A nonprofit was 76% more likely to comment on a proposed rule in the year after it received a donation from a corporation commenting on the same rule. And frequency wasn’t the only thing connected to money. The researchers used natural language processing to compare comments from the donor companies and the nonprofits, and found that after a nonprofit received a donation, the language it used in its comments was significantly closer to the language used by the company.

In addition, the language the government used in describing how and why the rule changed also became more similar to the corporate line—implying that regulators weighted the comments by the nonprofit more heavily in their deliberation process. “At a minimum, regulators are paying more attention to what the firm has to say, and devoting more time towards discussing the same kinds of issues the firm was discussing in their letters,” said Bombardini.

Adding transparency

While it certainly appears that companies are “buying” favorable comments to help their case, the researchers allow that it’s possible they are just funding nonprofits that already agree with them, allowing the nonprofits more resources for public advocacy. That distinction hardly matters in the outcome, however. “Either way, they are distorting the information policy makers receive,” said Bombardini. “If officials are looking for signals from different players in society, and the message from the nonprofit and the firm are the same, they might weight that position more heavily, not realizing that the two are linked.”

In order to counteract that distortion, the researchers propose a simple rule requiring all nonprofits to disclose any donations they receive from corporations that could be potentially affected by a rule on which they are commenting. Such a guideline wouldn’t necessarily lead regulators to discount the nonprofits’ points of view, but it might cause them to take it with a grain of salt, properly weighting its value. “We’re not saying all of these donations are nefarious—there might be a good reason why a nonprofit adopts a certain view,” said Bombardini. “We are advocating to make it all more transparent, so the public and the agencies know where the funding is coming from.”

Democrat-Led States Have Stronger Response To COVID-19, Improving Health Outcomes

October 20, 2021October 20, 2021 Binghamton University, State University of New YorkHealth, Nation USA 0

Newswise– States with Democratic leaders tended to have responded more strongly to COVID-19 and have seen a lower rate of the spread of the virus, according to new research led by faculty at Binghamton University, State University of New York.

Binghamton University Professor of Political Science Olga Shvetsova and her colleagues wanted to gain a clearer understanding of how politics affect COVID-19 outcomes. The researchers used data on public health measures taken across the United States to build an index of the strength of the COVID policy response. They combined this index with daily counts of new COVID cases, along with political and other variables that they thought were relevant to the dynamics of the COVID-19 pandemic and governments’ response to it. Using this dataset, they assessed the effects of policies on the observed number of new infections and the difference between the policies adopted in Republican-led and Democrat-led states.

This study connects the aggregate strength of public health policies taken in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the U.S. states to the governors’ party affiliations and to the state-level outcomes. Understanding the relationship between politics and public health measures can better prepare American communities for what to expect from their governments in a future crisis and encourage advocacy for delegating public health decisions to medical professionals.

“The state governments led by Democrats, on average, took stricter measures than the state governments led by Republicans, and the states with stricter measures had the virus spread much slower,” said Shvetsova.

The difference between the policies made in Democrat-led states and those made in Republican-led states corresponded to an about 7-8 percent lower rate of the spread of the virus.

According to the researchers, these conclusions reinforce the findings of previous studies that application of public health policy was politicized for COVID-19, and this affected health outcomes.

“The main lesson of this research is that better public health requires a less partisan approach to the making of public health policies,” said Shvetsova.

Additional researchers and institutions on the study included: Andrei Zhirnov from the University of Exeter, Frank Giannelli from Rutgers University, Michael Catalano, and Olivia Catalano.

The paper, “Governor’s party, policies, and COVID-19 outcomes: Further Evidence of the Effect,” was published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

Post Afghanistan, US-Pakistan Relations Stand On The Edge Of A Precipice

October 18, 2021October 20, 2021 Madiha Afzal At BrookingsGlobal, News, USA 0

With the Taliban back in power in Afghanistan, Pakistan may have come closer to achieving its long-sought “strategic depth” with respect to its western neighbor, with a Pakistan-friendly government in Kabul. But the Taliban’s victory is also seriously testing Pakistan’s long fraught bilateral relationship with America. For the last 20 years, U.S.-Pakistan relations have been defined by the needs of the U.S. war in Afghanistan. With that war having ended with an outcome as ignominious as a Taliban takeover, the relationship is at a clear crossroads. The outlook isn’t positive. Here’s where things stand.

The Mood In Washington

In Washington, where policymakers have been grappling with the fallout from the sudden Taliban takeover of Kabul in August and the scrambled evacuation that followed, the focus has shifted to identifying the mistakes made in the war in Afghanistan. Washington is taking a hard look at where things went wrong — and Pakistan, given its long history with the Taliban, is part of that equation.

In congressional hearings a couple of weeks ago on Afghanistan, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley said that “we need to fully examine the role of Pakistan sanctuary” in understanding how the Taliban prevailed. In September, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken similarly said during his congressional hearing that “This is one of the things we’re going to be looking at in the days, and weeks ahead — the role that Pakistan has played over the last 20 years.” He added that the U.S. government would also be looking at “the role we would want to see [Pakistan] play in the coming years and what it will take for it to do that,” signifying that a review of how to engage Islamabad in the future was ongoing.

In the Senate, 22 Republican lawmakers have proposed a bill calling for Afghanistan’s new Taliban government to be sanctioned, along with governments that have supported the Taliban. The bill also calls for a report that will include “an assessment of support by state and non-state actors, including the government of Pakistan, for the Taliban between 2001 and 2020,” that also looks at the provision of “sanctuary space, financial support, intelligence support, logistics and medical support, training, equipping, and tactical, operation or strategic direction.”

What Pakistan Is Saying

Pakistan’s Senate in turn displayed “alarm” over the bill moved in the U.S. Senate, which Pakistan’s media termed an “anti-Pakistan” bill. Pakistan argues that it is being scapegoated for U.S. military and Afghan leadership failures — while ignoring its own support of the Taliban. It has not officially recognized the new Taliban regime, but it has been concertedly pitching engagement with it, with government officials making the case in speeches, op-eds, and interviews.

In his speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan went beyond calls many have made for humanitarian relief and financial liquidity to avoid economic collapse in Afghanistan, to saying that “we must strengthen and stabilize the current government, for the sake of the people of Afghanistan.” (Pakistan also points out that instability and violence in Afghanistan will spill over into Pakistan.)

But Pakistan faces a credibility issue, and its call for the world to engage with the Taliban may have found more takers if it had not given the Taliban sanctuary or support over the last 20 years. As it is, these calls only highlight Pakistan’s long-standing ties with the Taliban. And Pakistan’s stance seems to argue for international support before the Taliban fulfill promises they have made regarding girls’ education and human rights.

What America Wants From Pakistan

America wants to ensure that Pakistan doesn’t formally recognize the Taliban government, and that it exercises its leverage over the Taliban to get the group to make concessions on women’s rights and girls’ education, and to form an inclusive government. (So far, the Taliban’s interim cabinet is all male, and beyond some diversity of ethnicity, entirely non-inclusive.)

Going ahead, America also wants to continue to cooperate with Pakistan on certain counterterrorism matters — especially now that it is limited to “over the horizon” operations in Afghanistan. General Frank McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command, alluded to that in his congressional testimony: “Over the last 20 years we’ve been able to use what we call the air boulevard to go in over western Pakistan and that’s become something that’s vital to us, as well as certain landlines of communication. And we’ll be working with the Pakistanis in the days and weeks ahead to look at what that relationship is going to look like in the future.” The general was referring to air lines of communication (ALOCs) and ground lines of communication (GLOCs) that Pakistan provided to the U.S. over the last 20 years.

Recent Engagement From The Biden Administration With Pakistan

The Biden administration’s engagement with Pakistan to date — pre- and post-withdrawal — has focused almost exclusively on Afghanistan. Central Intelligence Agency Director William Burns visited Pakistan in September, ostensibly to discuss counterterrorism cooperation as well as other matters. Blinken and Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi had their first in-person meeting on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York, and the focus was on Afghanistan.

The readout of the meeting from the State Department was unmistakably bare bones and focused singularly on Afghanistan, but Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ longer readout also noted Pakistan’s “desire for a balanced relationship with the United States that was anchored in trade, investment, energy and regional connectivity.” This imbalance revealed a disconnect in their views of the relationship.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman visited Pakistan last week. In an interview in India just before the visit, she said: “It’s for a very specific and narrow purpose, we don’t see ourselves building a broad relationship with Pakistan. And we have no interest in returning to the days of hyphenated India, Pakistan.” While in Pakistan, where she met Qureshi; Pakistan’s chief of army staff, Qamar Javed Bajwa; and the Pakistani national security adviser, Moeed Yusuf, Sherman was more diplomatic.

She noted that “Afghanistan was at the top of our agenda, but we also discussed our cooperation in other areas, including the climate crisis, geoeconomics and regional connectivity, and ending the COVID-19 pandemic” and added that “the United States believes that a strong, prosperous, democratic Pakistan is vitally important for the region and indeed for the wider world.”

Hanging over these meetings is the fact that Biden has not yet called Khan since he took office in January. The glaring lack of a phone call is a topic of considerable discussion in Pakistan.

Warning Signs

Many in Pakistan watching this phase of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship are evoking the end of the Soviet-Afghan war, when the U.S., after having allied with Pakistan to fund and arm the mujahideen that Pakistan trained to fight the Soviets, looked away from the region. America eventually sanctioned Pakistan for its nuclear weapons program.

Over the last 20 years, Washington’s needs in Afghanistan defined the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, even if that meant Washington sometimes had to turn a blind eye to Pakistan’s sanctuary for the Taliban. Now, after the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Washington has little incentive to gloss over what it has long seen as Pakistan’s double game or to broaden ties. Washington’s attention is now east of Pakistan: on its relationships with India and other countries to counter China.

In this environment, U.S.-Pakistan relations face a reckoning.

The U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan might have been a moment of opportunity to rethink a bilateral relationship that has been defined for much of the last 40 years by Pakistan’s western neighbor. But in early August, I wrote that the relationship between America and Pakistan stood in an uneasy limbo as the U.S. was withdrawing from Afghanistan; and that there would be “little to no appetite in Washington to engage with Pakistan on other matters going ahead if Afghanistan was embroiled in violence or in Taliban hands.”

The latter outcome has come to pass. Warning signs are flashing red for the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, and it’s safe to say that the scope for cooperation has narrowed. Sherman may not have been engaging in diplo-speak on Pakistan while in India, but she may have given away where the Biden administration is leaning for now on Pakistan: limited engagement on Afghanistan, and little else.

(Madiha Afzal is a Fellow – Foreign Policy, Center for Middle East Policy, Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology)

Is Sonia Gandhi Returning To Lead Congress Party Actively?

October 18, 2021October 20, 2021 adminNation India, Women 0

In her address to the powerful Congress Working Committee on Saturday, October 16, 2021, Congress president Sonia Gandhi indulged in some plain speak, saying she is a “full-time and hands-on party president”. Reacting to comments by some G-23 leaders that the party needs an active president, Sonia said, “I am, if you will allow me to say so, a full-time and hands on Congress President.”

“In the last two years, a large number of our colleagues, particularly the younger ones have taken on leadership roles in taking party policies and programmes to the people — whether it be the agitation of farmers, provision of relief during the pandemic, highlighting issues of concern to youth and women, atrocities on Dalits, Adivasis and minorities, price rise, and the destruction of the public sector,” the Congress president said during her opening address.

She added, “Never have we let issues of public importance and concern go unaddressed. You are aware that I have been taking them up with the Prime Minister as have Manmohan Singh and Rahul ji. I have been interacting with like-minded political parties regularly. We have issued joint statements on national issues and coordinated our strategy in Parliament as well.”

She further said, “I have always appreciated frankness. There is no need to speak to me through the media. So let us all have a free and honest discussion. But what should get communicated outside the four walls of this room is the collective decision of the CWC.”

Kapil Sibal, one of the G 23 leaders, had said during a press conference last month: “In our party, at the moment, there is no president, so we don’t know who is taking these decisions. We know and yet we don’t know.”

On the eve of the meeting, several Congress leaders, including members of the Group of 23 who have been seeking sweeping changes in the party structure, argued that the party should not go in for polls now.

Gandhi, while referring to organizational elections for electing a new president, said, “The entire organization wants a revival of the Congress. But this requires unity and keeping the Party’s interests paramount. Above all, it requires self-control and discipline.”

She added, “I am acutely conscious of the fact that I have been interim Congress President ever since the CWC, asked me to return in this capacity in 2019. We had thereafter, you may recall, finalized a roadmap for electing a regular President by June 30th 2021. But the second wave of Covid-19 overtook the country and this deadline was extended indefinitely by the CWC in its meeting held on May 10, 2021. Today is the occasion for bringing clarity once and for all. A Schedule for full-fledged organizational elections is before you.”

Leading upto the first meeting of the Congress Working Committee (CWC) in five months on Saturday, the chances of the party announcing organizational elections, including to the post of party president, seemed bleak. On the eve of the meeting, several Congress leaders, including members of the Group of 23 who have been seeking sweeping changes in the party structure, argued that the party should not go in for polls now and should focus on the forthcoming Assembly elections in five states.

“There is again election in some states. There will be continuously elections in one or the other state or group of states till 2024. I think the party’s priority should be to win these elections or consolidating our position, instead of thinking of these issues. There are challenges before the party and there are bigger challenges before the nation… There are issues of democratic values, the issue of weaker sections, unemployment… economy is in a very bad shape. All these things are very dear to the Congress. I think we should focus on these issues and on winning elections in the states. Everybody realises this… But anyway, if the party feels there should be elections, we are ready for elections also,” CWC member Harish Rawat told The Indian Express.

Some of the leaders of the G-23, however, added that the CWC can decide the timeline for holding the membership drive, which was last held in 2016-17, in the run up to the organisational elections.

“We have not had a membership drive for five-six years. So how can we hold organisational elections? We will have to hold the membership drive first. But the coming Assembly elections are the priority. We can discuss the schedule (for organisational elections). But first the membership drive will have to begin at some point of time,” a G-23 leader said.

Need For Management Of Perception About India:” V. Muraleedharan Tells Diaspora

October 18, 2021October 20, 2021 Ajay GhoshCommunity, Media, Nation India 0

“India is fully democratic. Judiciary is independent. Media is free. There is no substance to the claims that the media is controlled by the government,” declared India’s Minister of State for External Affairs Shri V. Muraleedharan on October 12th at the Mill River Hotel in Stamford, CT.

The visiting Indian leader from the ruling BJP Party was responding to a question raised by this writer about the “intimidation, influence and control” on the media by the government and about the negative image portrayed by the Western media due to the short-sighted and communalistic policies and programs of the ruling BJP.

Shri Muraleedharan urged for a “management of perception” to change the way India is being portrayed by the Media and appealed to the NRIs to be the “ambassadors of India” to help reshape the image outside of India. “I am here to listen to you. Want to make sure your suggestions are heard and implemented,” Muraleedharan said.

The young leader from the state of Kerala and elected from to India’s Upper House of Parliament from the state of Maharashtra was addressing the representatives of the Diaspora during a Reception and Interactive session organized by the Consulate of India in New York and the GOPIO – CT Chapter. Stating that the Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi calls himself a sewak of every Indian, Muraleedharan said, “The role of the Ministry of External Affairs is to care for the Diaspora. And my visit today is for the purpose of benefitting the Indian Diaspora,” he told the audience.

Shri Muraleedharan, who officially took charge as Minister of State for External Affairs and Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs in May 2019, is visiting the United States to address the United Nations. He took the opportunity to travel to Connecticut to “listen” directly to the Diaspora and address their concerns. “I’ve been in charge of the External Affairs Ministry for the last 2 years. I was feeling that there is a need for interaction with the Diaspora. And this forum is a place where people have an opportunity to share their problems and concerns,” he told the audience. While assuring the community that he has listened to the concerns of the Diaspora, he will address each one of them and find an amicable solution.

On Press Freedom in India, the Minister categorically denied that Government is interfering with or “controlling” the media. “Allegations that the Indian media is controlled by the government doesn’t have any substance to it,” he said. Pointing to the fact that there are several media who are openly critical of the government, he asked the audience, “If the freedom for the media is restricted, how can the media be allowed to be critical of the Government? How could the media publish the stories of the bodies floating in the Ganges during the peak of the Pandemic, even though the situation is far from what was reported?” He described such allegations as totally false and there is a need for the “management of perception.”

The event was led by Dr. Thomas Abraham, Chair of GOPIO International and GOPIO – CT leadership including President Ashok Nichani, Exec. VP Prasad Chintalapudi, Secretary Prachi Narayan, Treasurer Biru Sharma, and Joint Secretary Meera Banta. Several past presidents Sangeeta Ahuja, Shailesh Naik, Shelly Nichani and Anita Bhat.

Among others who attended the Reception and the Interactive Session with the Honorable Minister Shri V. Muraleedharan, included, Deputy Consul General of Indian in New York, Dr. Varun Jeph; Consul for Community Affairs at the Indian Consulate Mr. A.K.Vijayakrishan; CT Assemblyman Harry Arora, several community organizations including Milan cultural Association President Suresh Sharma; Past President of the Federation of Indian Associations of New York, New Jersey and CT, Andy Bhatia; CT Tamil Sangam President Shivakumar Subramaniam and past president Uma Sekhar; CT Telugu Association Past President Rao Yelamachali; Malayalee Association of Southern Connecticut President T.P. Sujanan; GOPIO Media Council Chair Nami Kaur; Sabinsa Corporation President Dr. Asha Ramesh; and former Provost and Vice President of Academic affairs of GOPIO, Dr. Rupendra Paliwal.

In his introductory remarks by Dr. Thomas Abraham, welcoming Minister V. Muraleedharan said, “After the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs was merged with the External Affairs Ministry, Cabinet Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar and his associate Minister Shri Muraleedharan have been dealing with Diaspora affairs. Minister Muraleedharan, we are so pleased that you took some time off your busy schedule at the UN to join us and interact with us.”

Dr. Abraham provided a brief history of GOPIO International, which was formed at the First Global Convention of People of Indian Origin in 1989 in New York, which has now grown into a Pan-Indian community organization for NRIs and PIOs with over 100 chapters spread in 35 countries. “We at GOPIUO are a partner with Indian missions abroad to protect India’s interest around the world.

Drawing the attention of the Minister to some of the issues faced by the NRI/PIO community, Dr. Abraham said, “We campaigned for Dual Nationality and the govt. came up with PIO Card and later on with the OCI card. We asked for voting rights for Indian citizens living outside India. Although voting rights are given, there has been very little participation because of the requirements of physical voting in India. The Election Commission has recommended Proxy Voting, but not implemented yet.”

He urged the government of India to appoint at least two Members of Parliament in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, representing the 32 million people of Indian origin living outside India, more than half of them Indian citizens.

Other issues raised during the meeting included, violence against Indians in South Africa; post pandemic issues of Indian workers in the Middle East; Challenges for NRIs to open and operate banking accounts in India and the technical problems faced while submitting application for OCI Cards, removing travel restrictions to India for people of Indian origin who are citizens outside India and issues relating to OCI card holders doing business in India, but are treated as foreigners in some areas where changed government rules such as the Biodiversity Act are affecting them. “We also suggest some initiatives through ICCR for sending cultural troupes to PIO countries for India’s 75th Celebration next year.”

Dr. Abraham introduced Deputy Consul General at the Indian Consulate Dr. Varun Jeph, whom he described as a medical professional, “Dr. Jeph, and has joined the mission only last month and has already reached out all community organizations.”

The ministry of external affairs wants to offer opportunities for every Indian abroad the right to vote, the Minister Muraleedharan said. However, the practical aspect of this major issue has several challenges. Pointing to the fact that Indians are spread over more in almost all 193 countries and coordinating the efforts and ensuring that all those who are eligible are given the opportunity to vote has been a major challenge, while assuring the Diaspora that he will address the issue and follow with the concerned officials.

On Cronoa related travel restrictions, the Minister said, the situation is evolving. We want that every Indian should be given the opportunity to travel to India. However, it’s based on international civil aviation authority and that commercial flight operations have not started to the full yet. In order to attract foreign tourists to India, the Government has announced that the there will be no charges for visa for the first five lakh Visa applicants to India, Muraleedharan said.

Responding to a question of NRIs not being allowed to own properties in India, he assured “you need not be worried” and said that he is not aware of any law in any state, including in the state of Andhra Pradesh that the properties of NRIs are going to be taken away by the state.

Muraleedharan said, the 75th anniversary of India’s Independence is “a celebration of Indians across the globe so I don’t think that you need to come to India to participate in that. All our Missions are organizing the events and I urge every Community organization to take the lead so that every Indian is involved in the celebration of the 75th year of India’s Independence.”

“I am here to listen to you. Want to make sure your suggestions are heard and implemented” V. Muraleedharan Tells Community Representatives During Interactive Session In Connecticut

October 15, 2021October 18, 2021 Ajay GhoshCommunity, Nation India 0

“I am here to listen to you. Want to make sure your suggestions are heard and implemented,” India’s Minister of State for External Affairs Shri V. Muraleedharan during a Reception and Interactive session with the Indian Diaspora on October 12^th at the Mill River Hotel in Stamford, CT. Stating that the Prime Minister of India, Shri Narendra Modi calls himself a sewak of every Indian, Muraleedharan said, “The role of the Ministry of External Affairs is to care for the Diaspora. And my visit today is for the purpose of benefitting the Indian Diaspora,” He told the audience.

“India is fully democratic. Judiciary is independent. Media is free. There is no substance to claims that the media is controlled” by the government, declared Shri V. Muraleedharan, who is visiting the United States to address the United Nations.

Muraleedharan, who officially took charge as Minister of State for External Affairs and Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs in May 2019, took the opportunity to travel to Connecticut to “listen” directly to the Diaspora and address their concerns. “I’ve been in charge of the External Affairs Ministry for the last 2 years. I was feeling that there is a need for interaction with the Diaspora. And this forum is a place where people have an opportunity to share their problems and concerns,” he told the audience. While assuring the community that he has listened to the concerns of the Diaspora, he will address each one of them and find an amicable solution.

The event was jointly organized by the Consulate of India in New York and GOPIO – CT, led by GOPIO-CT President Ashok Nichani, Exec. VP Prasad Chintalapudi, Secretary Prachi Narayan, Treasurer Biru Sharma, and Joint Secretary Meera Banta. Several past presidents including Sangeeta Ahuja, Shailesh Naik, Shelly Nichani, and Anita Bhat joined in at the reception.

Drawing the attention of the Minister on some of the issues of the NRI/PIO community, Dr. Abraham said, “We campaigned for Dual Nationality and the govt. came up with PIO Card and later on with the OCI card. We asked for voting rights for Indian citizens living outside India. Although voting rights are given, there has been very little participation because of the requirements of physical voting in India. The Election Commission has recommended Proxy Voting, but not implemented yet.”

He urged the government of India to appoint at least two Members of Parliament in the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, representing the 32 million people of Indian origin living outside India, more than half of them Indian citizens.

The ministry of external affairs wants to offer opportunities for every Indian abroad the right to vote, the Minister said. However, the practical aspect of this major issue has several challenges. Pointing to the fact that Indians are spread over more in almost all 193 countries and coordinating the efforts and ensuring that all those who are eligible are given the opportunity to vote has been a major challenge, while assuring the Diaspora that he will address the issue and follow with the concerned officials.

On Press Freedom in India, the Minister categorically denied that Government is interfering with or “controlling” the media. “Allegations that the Indian media is controlled by the government doesn’t have any substance to it,” he said. Pointing to the fact that there are several media who are openly critical of the government, he asked the audience, “If the freedom for the media is restricted, how can the media be allowed to be critical of the Government? How could the media publish the stories of the bodies floating in the Ganges during the peak of the Pandemic, even though the situation is far from what was reported?” He described such allegations as totally fals and there is a need for the “management of perception.”

Muraleedharan said, the 75^th anniversary of India’s Independence is “a celebration of Indians across the globe so I don’t think that you need to come to India to participate in that. All our Missions are organizing the events and I urge every Community organization to take the lead so that every Indian is involved in the celebration of the 75th year of India’s Independence,”

Connect TheUNN for the latest news…!

India’s Economy To Grow By 8.3%, Making It 2nd Fastest Growing-Major Economy

October 13, 2021October 18, 2021 Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy, Global 0

India’s economy is expected to grow by 8.3 per cent this fiscal year, according to the World Bank, making it the second-fastest-growing major economy. The Bank’s Regional Economic Update released on Thursday said that after the “deadly second wave” of Covid-19 in India “the pace of vaccination, which is increasing, will determine economic prospects this year and beyond”. “The trajectory of the pandemic will cloud the outlook in the near-term until herd immunity is achieved,” it cautioned.

According to the Update issued ahead of the Bank’s annual meeting next week, India’ gross domestic product (GDP) — which shrank by 7.3 per cent (that is, a minus 7.3 per cent) under the onslaught of the pandemic last fiscal year — is expected to record the 8.3 per cent growth this fiscal year, which will moderate to 7.5 per cent next year and 6.5 per cent in 2023-24. Of the major economies, China is ahead with its economy expected to grow by 8.5 per cent during the current calendar year after the Bank revised it upwards from the 8.1 per cent projection in April.

China’s growth rate is projected to come down to 5.4 per cent next year and 5.3 per cent in 2023. Last year, it grew by 2.3 per cent. For the entire South Asia region, the Bank’s Update estimates the GDP growth to be 7.1 per cent this year and the next. Maldives’ tiny economy of $3.8 billion, which had the steepest fall of 33.6 per cent last calendar year is expected to recover and record a growth of 22.3 per cent this year. Next year it is expected come down to 11 per cent and 12 per cent in 2023.

Bangladesh, which recorded a growth of 5 per cent last fiscal year, is expected to grow by 6.4 per cent this year and 6.9 per cent the next.

Pakistan’s economy that grew by 3.5 last fiscal year, is expected to grow by 3.4 per cent this year and 4 per cent next year.

For Sri Lanka, the Bank expects a growth of 3.3 per cent this calendar year compared to a shrinkage of 3.6 per cent last year and to grow by 2.1per cent next year and 2.2 per cent the following year.

Bhutan, which had a negative growth of 1.2 per cent the last fiscal year, is expected to reach 3.6 per cent this fiscal year and 4.3 per cent the next.

Nepal’s growth is expected to rebound from last fiscal year’s 1.8 per cent to 3.9 per cent this fiscal year and 4.7 per cent the next.

The Bank said, “The Covid-19 pandemic led India’s economy into a deep contraction in FY21(fiscal year 2020-21) despite well-crafted fiscal and monetary policy support.”

It said that growth recovered in the second half of the last fiscal year “driven primarily by investment and supported by aunlocking’ of the economy and targeted fiscal, monetary and regulatory measures. Manufacturing and construction growth recovered steadily.”

Although significantly more lives were lost during the second wave of the epidemic this year in India, compared to the first wave in 2020, “economic disruption was limited since restrictions were localised,” with the GDP growing by 20.1 per cent in the first quarter of the current fiscal year compared to the first quarter of 2020-21, the Update said. It attributed the spurt to “a significant base effect” (that is, coming off a very big fall in the compared quarter), “strong export growth and limited damage to domestic demand.”

Looking ahead, the Bank’s Update said that “successful implementation of agriculture and labour reforms would boost medium-term growth” while cautioning that “weakened household and firm balance sheets may constrain it.” “The Production-Linked Incentives scheme to boost manufacturing, and a planned increase in public investment, should support domestic demand,” it said.

The extent of recovery during the current fiscal year “will depend on how quickly household incomes recover and activity in the informal sector and smaller firms normalises.” Among the risks, it listed “worsening of financial sector stress, higher-than-expected inflation constraining monetary-policy support, and a slowdown in vaccination.”

Taking stock of the pandemic’s effects, the Bank said, “The toll of the crisis has not been equal, and the recovery so far is uneven,leaving behind the most vulnerable sections of the society – low-skilled, women, self-employed and small firms.” But it said that the Indian government has taken steps to strengthen social safety nets and ease structural supply constraints through agricultural and labour reforms deal with the inequality.

It said that the government continued investing in health programs “have started to address the weaknesses in health infrastructure and social safety nets (especially in the urban areas and the informal sector) exposed by the pandemic.” (IANS

Majority Republicans Want Trump To Retain Major Role; 44% Want Him To Run Again

October 13, 2021October 18, 2021 Pew ResearchNation USA 0

Two-thirds of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they would like to see former President Donald Trump continue to be a major political figure for many years to come, including 44% who say they would like him to run for president in 2024, according to a Pew Research Center survey of U.S. adults conducted Sept. 13 to 19.

About one-in-five Republicans (22%) say that while they would like Trump to continue to be a major political figure in the United States, they would prefer he use his stature to support another presidential candidate who shares his views in the 2024 election rather than run for office himself. About a third of Republicans (32%) say they would not like Trump to remain a national political figure for many years to come.

How we did this The share of Republicans who say Trump should continue to be a major national figure has grown 10 percentage points – from 57% to 67% – since a January survey that was conducted in the waning days of his administration and in the immediate wake of the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

Views among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are essentially unchanged over this time period. Today, 92% of Democrats say they would not like to see Trump continue to be a major national political figure in the future, while just 7% say they would like to see this. Among Republicans, views on whether Trump should continue to be a major political figure or run for office in the next presidential election vary by age, education and ideology.

For example, 72% of Republicans with some college experience or less (who make up a clear majority of Republicans) say Trump should be a major figure, with half saying he should run for president in 2024. By contrast, a narrower majority (54%) of Republicans with a college degree or more say Trump should remain a prominent figure, including just 28% who say he should run for office in the next presidential election.

Among conservative Republicans, there is widespread support for Trump remaining a national political figure: Three-quarters prefer this, including 49% who say he should run for president again in 2024. Moderate and liberal Republicans are more divided: 51% say he should play an ongoing political role, with 33% saying he should run for president himself in 2024; 47% say he should not continue to play a major political role. Nearly two-thirds of Republicans say their party should not be accepting of elected officials who criticize Trump

A 63% majority of Republicans say their party should be not too (32%) or not at all (30%) accepting of elected officials who openly criticize Trump, according to the new survey. Just 36% of Republicans say the GOP should be very (11%) or somewhat (26%) accepting of officials who do so. By contrast, about six-in-ten Democrats say the Democratic Party should be very (17%) or somewhat accepting (40%) of Democratic elected officials who openly criticize President Joe Biden.

Majorities of Republicans and Democrats alike say their party should be accepting of elected officials who agree with the other party on important issues. Two-thirds of Democrats say the Democratic Party should be accepting of Democratic officials who agree with the GOP on important issues. A slimmer majority of Republicans (55%) say the GOP should be accepting of officials who agree with Democrats on some important issues. The survey also asked about the acceptability of elected officials from one party calling their counterparts in the other party “evil.” A majority of Democrats (57%) and about half of Republicans (52%) say their parties should be not too or not at all accepting of officials who do this.

About four-in-ten Democrats (41%) say their party should be accepting of elected officials in their own party who call GOP officials evil, with 13% saying their party should be very accepting of this. Among Republicans, 46% say their party should be accepting of officials who call their Democratic counterparts evil, including 18% who say the party should be very accepting of these officials. The share of Republicans who say their party should be accepting of elected officials who openly criticize Trump has declined since March. Today, 36% of Republicans say it is at least somewhat acceptable for Republican elected officials to openly criticize Trump, down from 43% earlier this year.

There has also been a decline in the share of Democrats who say their party should be accepting of Democratic elected officials who openly criticize Biden. A narrow majority of Democrats (57%) say this is acceptable, down from 68% in March.

Journalists Who Took On Putin And Duterte Win 2021 Nobel Peace Prize

October 13, 2021October 13, 2021 Nerijus Adomaitis, Andrew Osborn And Karen LemaGlobal, Media 0

(Reuters) – Journalists Maria Ressa and Dmitry Muratov, who braved the wrath of the leaders of the Philippines and Russia to expose corruption and misrule, won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, in an endorsement of free speech under fire worldwide. The two were awarded “for their courageous fight for freedom of expression” in their countries, Chairwoman Berit Reiss-Andersen of the Norwegian Nobel Committee told a news conference.

“At the same time, they are representatives of all journalists who stand up for this ideal in a world in which democracy and freedom of the press face increasingly adverse conditions,” she added. “Free, independent and fact-based journalism serves to protect against abuse of power, lies and war propaganda.” Muratov dedicated his award to six contributors to his Novaya Gazeta newspaper who had been murdered for their work exposing human rights violations and corruption.

“Igor Domnikov, Yuri Shchekochikhin, Anna Politkovskaya, Stas Markelov, Anastasia Baburova, Natasha Estemirova – these are the people who have today won the Nobel Prize,” Muratov said, reciting the names of slain reporters and activists whose portraits hang in the newspaper’s Moscow headquarters. In an interview with Reuters in Manila, Ressa called the prize “a global recognition of the journalist’s role in repairing, fixing our broken world”.

“It’s never been as hard to be journalist as it is today,” said Ressa, a 35-year veteran journalist, who said she was tested by years of legal cases in the Philippines brought by the authorities over the work of her Rappler investigative website. “You don’t really know who you are until you are forced to fight for it.”

FIRST FOR JOURNALISTS IN 86 YEARS

The prize is the first Nobel Peace Prize for journalists since the German Carl von Ossietzky won it in 1935 for revealing his country’s secret post-war rearmament program.

Muratov, 59, is the first Russian to win the peace prize since Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. Gorbachev himself has long been associated with Muratov’s newspaper, having contributed some of his Nobel prize money to help set it up in the early post-Soviet days when Russians expected new freedoms.

Ressa, 58, is the first individual winner of a Nobel prize in any field from the Philippines. Rappler, which she co-founded in 2012, has grown prominent through investigative reporting, including into large scale killings during a police campaign against drugs. In August, a Philippine court dismissed a libel case against Ressa, one of several lawsuits filed against the journalist who says she has been targeted because of her news site’s critical reports on President Rodrigo Duterte.

She was one of several journalists named Time Magazine Person of the Year in 2018 for fighting media intimidation, and her legal battles have raised international concern about the harassment of media in the Philippines, a country once seen as a standard bearer for press freedom in Asia. In Moscow, Nadezhda Prusenkova, a journalist at Novaya Gazeta, told Reuters staff were surprised and delighted. “We’re shocked. We didn’t know,” said Prusenkova. “Of course we’re happy and this is really cool.”

Russian journalists have faced an increasingly difficult environment in recent years, with many being forced to register as agents of foreign states, a designation that invites official paperwork and public contempt.”We will leverage this prize in the interests of Russian journalism which (the authorities) are now trying to repress,” Muratov told Podyom, a journalism website. “We will try to help people who have been recognised as agents, who are now being treated like dirt and being exiled from the country.”

SPOTLIGHT

Reiss-Andersen said the Nobel committee intended the award to send a message about the importance of rigorous journalism at a time when technology has made it easier than ever to spread falsehoods. “We find that people are manipulated by the press, and … fact-based, high-quality journalism is in fact more and more restricted,” she told Reuters.

It was also was a way to shine a light on the difficult situations for journalists, specifically under the leadership in Russia and the Philippines, she added. “I don’t have insight in the minds of neither Duterte, nor Putin. But what they will discover is that the attention is directed towards their nations, and where they will have to defend the present situation, and I am curious how they will respond,” Reiss-Andersen told Reuters. The Kremlin congratulated Muratov. “He persistently works in accordance with his own ideals, he is devoted to them, he is talented, he is brave,” said spokesman Dmitry Peskov.

The award will give both journalists greater international visibility and may inspire a new generation of journalists, said Dan Smith, director of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. “We normally expect that greater visibility actually means greater protection for the rights and the safety of the individuals concerned,” he told Reuters. The Nobel Peace Prize will be presented on Dec. 10, the anniversary of the death of Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, who founded the awards in his 1895 will.

Nobel Peace Prize Winner’s Work Important In Fight For Press Freedom, Says Colleague

October 13, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Media 0

When Max Pensky hosted courageous Philippine journalist Maria Ressa for a talk as part of Binghamton University’s Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention (I-GMAP), little did he know that he would wake up the next day to find out that Ressa had just been named the latest Nobel Prize winner.

“In recognizing Maria, the Nobel committee now sees that anti-democratic leaders who want to muzzle press freedom don’t just use the old tools – arrests, detention, death threats, closing media outlets,” said Pensky. “Now they depend on social media, too. Maria’s courageous work in the Philippines calls out strongman Rodrigo Duterte and Facebook for using fake news, troll armies, and online harassment, combined with “old school” government intimidation, in a new, toxic mix. Maria’s award is for letting the world know how this actually works in her own country, and warning us that we all have to face it if we want press freedom of our own.”

“This year’s Nobel Peace Prize is important and timely. Freedom of the media is now, as stated by the President of the Norwegian Nobel Committee Berit Reiss-Andersen, challenged all over the world. The committee highlights this by choosing two particularly significant examples in very dissimilar situations, both developing in authoritarian directions. The prize hopefully strengthens the possibilities of the two journalists and their colleagues to continue to work according to the high editorial standards they have set for themselves and that genuine news coverage requires.

From a peace perspective, accurate and reliable news coverage is central for assessing the dangers of war, civil war, and repression, as well as for peace negotiations and making the right decisions. In a world full of fabricated news, it is particularly important to protect independent reporting.

This year’s prize expands on Nobel’s idea of giving the prize to efforts contributing to “fraternity among nations.” Media now has a different significance than in 1901 when the first prize was awarded. Correct, autonomous reporting is always central for peace and security within and among nations.”

1 In 3 Americans Open To Abolishing Or Limiting Supreme Court

October 13, 2021October 13, 2021 Annenberg Public Policy CenterNation USA 0

Newswise — As the Supreme Court’s fall term begins, a new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania finds that more than a third of Americans say they might be willing to abolish the Supreme Court or have Congress limit its jurisdiction if the court were to make decisions they or Congress disagreed with.

The nationally representative survey conducted in September found sharp increases in the proportion of Americans willing to consider getting rid of or reining in the nation’s highest court. The survey found that 34% of Americans said “it might be better to do away with the court altogether” if it “started making a lot of rulings that most Americans disagreed with.” And 38% said that when Congress disagrees with the court’s decisions, “Congress should pass legislation saying the Supreme Court can no longer rule on that issue or topic.”

“Respect for judicial independence appears to be eroding,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC). “The willingness of more than 1 in 3 Americans to entertain the idea of abolishing the court or stripping jurisdiction from it is alarming.”

The findings are consistent with trends in other recent surveys that posed related questions. Gallup reported in September that the Supreme Court’s approval rating plunged to 40%, a new low, from 49% in July. A Marquette Law School Poll in September found the court’s approval rating falling to 49% from 60% in July.

The Annenberg Civics Knowledge Survey was conducted September 7-12, 2021, among 1,008 U.S. adults. The survey was conducted for APPC by SSRS, an independent research company, and has a margin of error of ± 4.0 percentage points at the 95% confidence level.

A turbulent year

The findings follow a contentious year with increased media coverage of the powers, functions, and prerogatives of the three branches of government. Among the past year’s events were a pandemic in which legislatures and courts grappled with health and safety restrictions; a disputed election and unsuccessful efforts to overturn the results in the courts, including the Supreme Court; and Supreme Court rulings on controversial issues, including a ruling that rejected efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and the court’s refusal to review the Covid-19 vaccine mandate for students and employees at Indiana University. Just before the September survey was fielded, the Supreme Court refused, 5-4, to block a Texas law restricting abortion access.

In recent months, four justices have made public statements defending the independence of the court. One justice, Stephen Breyer, was nominated by a Democrat, President Bill Clinton, and three by Republicans: Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas, who were nominated by President George H.W. Bush, and Amy Coney Barrett, nominated by President Donald Trump.

In September, following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Texas abortion law, Barrett appeared before an audience in Kentucky at the 30th anniversary of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she said, according to the Louisville Courier Journal. “Judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties,” she added.

‘Do away with’ the Supreme Court

Abolish the court: One-third of respondents (34%) strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement “If the Supreme Court started making a lot of rulings that most Americans disagreed with, it might be better to do away with the Court altogether.” That is a significant increase from the last time we asked this question, in 2019, when 20% agreed. From 2005 to 2018, those who agreed ranged from 17% to 23%.

Jurisdiction stripping: 38% strongly or somewhat agreed with the statement “When Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court’s decisions, Congress should pass legislation saying the Supreme Court can no longer rule on that issue or topic.” That is significantly higher than the 28% who agreed when the question was asked in 2018. The response was 22% to 23% from 2007 to 2013.

What motivates Supreme Court justices

Personal and political views: Asked to think about individual Supreme Court justices, 59% of Americans said the justices set aside their personal and political views and make rulings based on the Constitution, the law, and the facts of the case. That is about the same as in 2020 (56%), and significantly higher than in 2019 (49%).

Party leanings: Over a third of Americans (37%) say that justices are more likely to make rulings that reflect the political leanings of the presidents who nominate them – that justices nominated by Democratic presidents are more likely to make liberal rulings and justices nominated by Republicans are more likely to make conservative rulings, regardless of the Constitution, the law, and the facts of the case. The response is about the same as in the prior two years.

Civics knowledge and the high court

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Constitution Day Civics Survey, part 1 of this Civics Knowledge Survey, which was conducted in August and released in advance of Constitution Day (September 17), found that a growing number of Americans correctly named the three branches of government and the freedoms protected by the First Amendment. This year, 56% of Americans named all three branches, which is a new high in the survey and significantly higher than the 51% in 2020 and 39% in 2019.

But the survey also found that a sizable number of Americans misunderstood other basic facts about government. While 61% knew that when the Supreme Court rules 5-4 in a case “the decision is the law and needs to be followed,” a third of respondents (34%) said the decision is either sent back to the federal court of appeals to be decided or to

Congress for reconsideration.

An analysis of the Supreme Court survey data by Ken Winneg, Ph.D., APPC’s managing director of survey research, finds that taking a high school civics course has a significant indirect effect on protecting the Supreme Court. Using path modeling, we found that people who said they took a high school civics course are more likely to have higher levels of civics knowledge. Those who have higher levels of civics knowledge are more likely to disagree with statements calling for abolishing the court or having Congress strip the court of some of its jurisdiction.

This analysis is compatible with findings reported in a 2008 article by Jamieson and Bruce Hardy in the journal Daedalus, which found that high school civics predicts increased knowledge; increased knowledge predicts increased trust in the judiciary; and with increased trust comes “a heightened disposition to protect judges from impeachment for popular rulings and the judiciary from stripped jurisdiction. Trust also increased the belief that the Supreme Court should be retained in the face of unpopular rulings.”

The Annenberg Public Policy Center was established in 1993 to educate the public and policy makers about communication’s role in advancing public understanding of political, science, and health issues at the local, state, and federal levels.

Finally Heeding To Protest Worldwide, Ashish Mishra Sent To 3-Day Police Custody

October 13, 2021 Staff ReporterNation India 0

India’s Union Minister’s son Ashish Mishra, accused of running over farmers in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri triggering violence that claimed eight lives earlier this month, was sent to police custody for three days on Monday, October 11th

Ashish Mishra, was arrested last week after nearly 12 hours of questioning in connection with the Lakhimpur Kheri violence. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, Chinta Ram remanded Ashish to three-day police custody after the prosecution sought a 14-day remand noting that the accused had not yet cooperated in the matter and had been unable to satisfactorily answer queries about his location at the time of the crime.

Ashish is named as a prime accused in one of the two FIRs in the case, which says he was seated on the left front seat of a Mahindra Thar, which was the first of the three SUVs that mowed down protesters in the area on October 3. The FIR also says that Ashish was carrying a gun and escaped into the fields firing shots. It adds that Ashish was accompanied by 15-20 persons and rammed into protesting farmers under a “planned conspiracy.”

Although Ashish and his father Ajay Mishra have claimed to be absent from the crime scene, the former has been unable to prove his whereabouts at the time of the crime that killed eight people—five of them allegedly mowed down by the SUVs and the rest allegedly lynched to death by angry agitators.

Ashish was named in an FIR following allegations that he was in one of the vehicles in the convoy that mowed down four farmers at the anti-farm law protest site in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri, where they were protesting UP Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya’s visit on October 3. Meanwhile, BJP sources have stated that Prime Minister Narendra Modi will take a final call on MoS Ajay Mishra’s resignation once the police probe is completed. Senior party leaders have pointed out that the Union Minister has denied his son’s involvement in the incident and that the police have not found any evidence against him.

Facebook Whistleblower Testimony Should Prompt New Oversight

October 13, 2021 Staff ReporterEconomy, Media, Nation USA 0

‘I think we need regulation to protect people’s private data,’ influential Democrat says in wake of Frances Haugen revelations. Testimony in Congress this week by the whistleblower Frances Haugen should prompt action to implement meaningful oversight of Facebook and other tech giants, the influential California Democrat Adam Schiff told the Guardian in an interview to be published on Sunday.

“I think we need regulation to protect people’s private data,” the chair of the House intelligence committee said.

“I think we need to narrow the scope of the safe harbour these companies enjoy if they don’t moderate their contents and continue to amplify anger and hate. I think we need to insist on a vehicle for more transparency so we understand the data better.”

Haugen, 37, was the source for recent Wall Street Journal reporting on misinformation spread by Facebook and Instagram, the photo-sharing platform which Facebook owns. She left Facebook in May this year, but her revelations have left the tech giant facing its toughest questions since the Cambridge Analytica user privacy scandal.

At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Haugen shared internal Facebook reports and argued that the social media giant puts “astronomical profits before people”, harming children and destabilising democracy via the sharing of inaccurate and divisive content. Haugen likened the appeal of Instagram to tobacco, telling senators: “It’s just like cigarettes … teenagers don’t have good self-regulation.”

Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut, said Haugen’s testimony might represent a “big tobacco” moment for the social media companies, a reference to oversight imposed despite testimony in Congress that their product was not harmful from executives whose companies knew that it was.

The founder and head of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, has resisted proposals to overhaul the US internet regulatory framework, which is widely considered to be woefully out of date. He responded to Haugen’s testimony by saying the “idea that we prioritise profit over safety and wellbeing” was “just not true”.

“The argument that we deliberately push content that makes people angry for profit is deeply illogical,” he said. “We make money from ads, and advertisers consistently tell us they don’t want their ads next to harmful or angry content.” Schiff was speaking to mark publication of a well-received new memoir, Midnight in Washington: How We Almost Lost Our Democracy and Still Could.

The Democrat played prominent roles in the Russia investigation and Donald Trump’s first impeachment. He now sits on the select committee investigating the deadly attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, by Trump supporters seeking to overturn his election defeat – an effort in part fueled by misinformation on social media. In his book, Schiff writes about asking representatives of Facebook and two other tech giants, Twitter and YouTube, if their “algorithms were having the effect of balkanising the public and deepening the divisions in our society”.

Facebook’s general counsel in the 2017 hearing, Schiff writes, said: “The data on this is actually quite mixed.” “It didn’t seem very mixed to me,” Schiff says. Asked if he thought Haugen’s testimony would create enough pressure for Congress to pass new laws regulating social media companies, Schiff told the Guardian: “The answer is yes.”

However, as an experienced member of a bitterly divided and legislatively sclerotic Congress, he also cautioned against too much optimism among reform proponents. “If you bet against Congress,” Schiff said, “you win 90% of the time.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal Keeps Progressive Voices Together To Obtain Equity For All Americans

October 7, 2021October 13, 2021 Ajay GhoshNation, Profile, Women 0

The strong group of Progressives in the US House of Representatives, led by the lone Indian American Congresswoman wants assurances that the spending plan, is certain to be supported by the entire Democratic caucus both in the Senate and the House

On Friday, October 1^st, after President Joe Biden met with the Democratic lawmakers on the Hill, Representative Pramila Jayapal, the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), highlighted her group’s growing prominence and leverage in Capitol Hill politics: “In the House,” she said, “everybody is a Joe Manchin.”

Progressives claimed victory after a planned infrastructure vote was delayed following their united front to oppose the $1 trillion bill without assurances about the fate of the accompanying Democratic spending plan last week. The move highlighted the growing power of leftwing Democrats, and sent a strong message to the rest of their party: You can’t get one bill without the other. West Virginia senator Manchin and his fellow holdout Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona might hold the cards in the 50-50 US Senate, but in the lower chamber at least the progressives were in the driving seat.

The strong group of Progressives in the US House of Representatives, led by the lone Indian American Congresswoman want assurances that the spending plan, which forms the core of Biden’s domestic policy agenda, includes ambitious spending on universal pre-K, childcare funding, tuition-free community college, home health care, and climate change prevention, is certain to be supported by the entire Democratic caucus both in the Senate and the House. Despite Democratic leadership’s attempts to push through the infrastructure bill alone, the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) vowed to withhold their votes unless they got assurances about the larger spending bill.

For weeks, progressive lawmakers in Congress have been threatening to sink the bipartisan infrastructure bill if they were not given certain guarantees about a larger social spending bill. And for weeks, many of their colleagues thought they were bluffing. “The progressive movement has not had this type of power in Washington since the 1960s,” says Joseph Geevarghese, Executive Director of Our Revolution, a political group that grew out of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ first presidential campaign.

The move illuminated how the newly powerful progressive movement can shape the way Biden’s agenda moves through Congress, with the power to delay or even block some moderate priorities. The progressive movement has been building in influence and organizing capacity since 2016, when Sanders’ insurgent presidential campaign breathed new life into the grassroots left. The progressive caucus has frequently threatened to withhold votes over ideological differences with more moderate Democrats, but usually failed to actually stop a major agenda item. Now, the once-fledgling progressive wing of the Democratic party has become a political force strong enough to resist the will of moderates and its own party’s leaders.

The CPC is larger and stronger than ever before, emboldened by an organized network of leftwing organizations like Our Revolution that have been creating outside pressure on all lawmakers in the party. But CPC members were also in sync with the President, who supported the goal to pass the Build Back Better plan alongside the infrastructure bill. Aides to influential progressives said they had not been pressured by either House leadership or the White House to support infrastructure without the spending bill.

The fact that the progressive position is in line with Biden’s agenda strengthened the caucus’s resolve. That unity comes after a concerted effort by both sides during the 2020 Democratic primary to bridge the party’s internal divisions: Biden moved to the left on some issues like climate and childcare, while progressives accepted that he would never support Medicare for All. That hard-won alignment, progressives say, is why they’re fighting so hard to protect the President’s Build Back Better Plan, which includes ambitious spending on many of their longstanding policy goals. “This is not a progressive agenda. We are fighting for the ‘build back better’ agenda, which is the President’s agenda,” Rep. Ilhan Omar, the whip of the CPC, told reporters on Thursday.

Senate Democrats could, in theory, pass the bill without any Republican support due to a legislative loophole allowing them to advance budgetary issues with a simple majority. But garnering support from all 50 Democratic Senators depends in large part on the votes of the two most moderate Senate Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, both of whom have said that the $3.5 trillion spending framework is too high. Politico reported on Thursday that Manchin told Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer this summer he wouldn’t support a reconciliation bill exceeding $1.5 trillion—news that could mean that Democrats have to shave roughly $2 trillion in spending from the existing package.

Acknowledging that her party held the House by only a small margin, Jayapal noted that every member wielded make-or-break powers. And by flexing their muscles and forcing House speaker Nancy Pelosi to push back a planned vote on the trillion-dollar infrastructure bill, the group was signaling it was no longer on the fringe of the Democratic caucus, but front and center, guiding its direction.

Jayapal, who was born in India and immigrated to the US four decades ago at the age of 16, has been a key architect in the rise of the progressives during Biden’s presidency. The unofficial coach to the so-called “Squad” of neoteric young women elected to Congress in 2018, including its most prominent members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar, she has spent much of the summer defending the administration’s ambitious infrastructure and social agendas.

At the same time she made it clear that the 96-member CPC would hold firm in the face of pressure from Manchin and other Senate and House moderates to reduce the price tag of the agenda, as proved when Thursday’s vote was delayed. It is that tenacity that has helped her emerge as a key player in the infrastructure and $3.5tn social package negotiations, and by extension an influential figure in the future successes or failures of Biden’s wider manifesto.

She said on Friday she had been in almost constant contact with the White House and Democratic congressional leaders. “We are making sure we’re holding up the women who need childcare, the families who need childcare, unpaid leave, the folks who need climate change addressed, housing, immigration,” she told reporters.

The congresswoman released the following statement following her meeting with President Joe Biden at the White House last week: “I want to thank President Biden for inviting us to the White House and for continuing to fight for his visionary Build Back Better agenda that people throughout this country want, need, and deserve. We had a very productive and necessary conversation about the urgent need to deliver long-overdue investments — not only in roads and bridges, but also in child care, paid leave, health care, climate action, affordable housing, and education.

“As I did yesterday with Speaker Pelosi, I reiterated what I have consistently said: progressives will vote for both bills because we proudly support the President’s entire Build Back Better package, but that a majority of our 96-member caucus will only vote for the small infrastructure bill after the Build Back Better Act passes. This is the President’s agenda, this is the Democratic agenda, and this is what we promised voters when they delivered us the House, the Senate, and the White House. We agree with President Biden that, ‘We can do this. We have to do this. We will do this.’ We remain strongly committed to continuing these discussions so we are able to deliver these two important bills to his desk.”

Jayapal’s supporters credit her communication skills combined with a hard-nosed determination for maneuvering her caucus into its new authoritative role. She told reporters last week that her message for anybody doubting that the group would block the infrastructure bill unless the social package passed was: “Try us.”

“Pramila has turned the CPC into a strong political force by keeping everyone informed, having people talk through the issues and then make real commitments,” the Massachusetts senator and fellow progressive Elizabeth Warren told the New Republic. “That force is now being felt when the leadership promised that all the pieces would move together. The CPC is holding that leadership accountable.”

“There’s sometimes frustration, but we’re all part of the Democratic party, this is the Democratic agenda, it’s the president’s agenda and we’re excited to be fighting for the same thing. I’ve been here four and a half years. I still find it strange, but things only happen here when there’s urgency and some reason for people to be at the table. We’ve seen more progress in the last 48 hours than we have seen in a long time.”

‘Pandora Papers’ Indicts At Least 380 Indians

October 7, 2021October 13, 2021 Staff ReporterFinance/Economy, Global 0

A massive investigation from more than 600 journalists across the globe sheds new light into the shadowy world of offshore banking and the high-powered elites who use the system to their benefit.

The exposé, dubbed the “Pandora Papers,” shows how the world’s wealthy hide their money and assets from authorities, their creditors and the public by using a network of lawyers and financial institutions that promise secrecy. It’s built on a trove of 11.9 million records leaked to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), which in turn shared them with partner media outlets such as The Washington Post and The Guardian for help conducting the large-scale investigation.

“These are secretive, confidential documents from offshore tax havens and offshore specialists who work to help rich, powerful and sometimes criminal individuals create shell companies or trusts in a way that often helps either obscure assets or in some cases even help avoid paying taxes,” senior ICIJ reporter Will Fitzgibbon told NPR’s Weekend All Things Considered. Pandora Papers, the most voluminous leak of offshore financial records ever, reveal how individuals and businesses set up complex multi-layered trust structures for estate planning, in jurisdictions that are loosely regulated for tax purposes, but characterized by air-tight secrecy laws.

King Abdullah II, who rules Jordan, spent more than $100 million on lavish properties in the U.S. and Europe while his country fell deeper into political turmoil, The Washington Post reported. A woman suspected of being in a years-long relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin became the owner of a pricey Monaco apartment days after reportedly giving birth to his child, the paper also found.

Those are two of more than 300 current or former politicians who appear in the Pandora Papers, the journalists said. Among them are 14 sitting country leaders, including President Luis Abinader of the Dominican Republic, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. According to reports, there are at least 380 persons of Indian nationality in the Pandora Papers. Of these, The Indian Express has so far verified and corroborated documents related to about 60 prominent individuals and companies. These will be revealed in the coming days.

In February 2020, following a dispute with three Chinese state-controlled banks, Anil Ambani told a London court that his net worth was zero. Records in the Pandora Papers investigated by The Indian Express reveal that the chairman of Reliance ADA Group and his representatives own at least 18 offshore companies. Set up between 2007 and 2010, seven of these companies have borrowed and invested at least $1.3 billion.

A financial advisor and his company were barred by SEBI from trading in the stock market for a year and fined for insider trading in Biocon Ltd shares. What the marker regulator did not know is that the same advisor is the ‘Protector’ of a trust set up by a company owned by Biocon Executive Chairperson’s husband. Indian cricket superstar Sachin Tendulkar, along with members of his family, figures in the Pandora Papers as Beneficial Owners of an offshore entity in the British Virgin Islands which was liquidated in 2016. Sachin, with wife Anjali Tendulkar and father-in-law Anand Mehta are named as BOs and Directors of a BVI-based company.

Captain Satish Sharma, Congress leader, friend of the Gandhi family, and a former Union Minister who passed away in February this year, had offshore entities and properties abroad, the Pandora Papers show. At least 10 members of Sharma’s family including his wife Sterre, children and grandchildren are among the beneficiaries of a trust, the Jan Zegers Trust — a declaration Sharma never made to the Election Commission while filing poll nomination papers.

A month before fugitive diamond jeweller Nirav Modi fled India in January 2018, his sister Purvi Modi set up a firm in the British Virgin Islands to act as a corporate protector of a trust formed through the Trident Trust Company, Singapore. Records investigated by The Indian Express show that the firm, Brookton Management Ltd, was set up in December 2017 to act as the corporate protector of The Deposit Trust. These documents of the new firm and the trust set up by Purvi are part of the Pandora Papers.

Bollywood actor Jackie Shroff was the prime beneficiary of a trust set up in New Zealand by his mother-in-law, records in the Pandora Papers investigated by The Indian Express reveal. He also made “substantial contributions” to this trust, which had a Swiss bank account and owned an offshore company registered in the British Virgin Islands, records show. According to the memorandum concerning the trust, Shroff’s son Jai Shroff (Tiger Shroff) and daughter Krishna Shroff were the beneficiaries, besides Claudia Dutt, the mother of Shroff’s wife Ayesha

‘White House Did Not Roll Out Red Carpet For Narendra Modi’

October 7, 2021October 13, 2021 Ritu Jha At Indica NewsNation India, Nation USA 0

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the United States last month looked more like a goodwill gesture than a business trip, a number of experts told the media. Beyond the optics, they pointed out, there was much work to do to bring the two countries closer. In Washington DC where he stayed for three days, Modi maintained an uncharacteristically low profile. He met President Joe Biden, a handful of CEOs, leaders from Japan and Australia and adopted one-on-one meetings. Despite the photo-ops and the invites and long walks, some uncomfortable questions propped up their heads.

“I hope his White House visit includes honest conversations about how the Modi government can ensure India’s democracy remains a democracy for all of its people,” said US Representative Andy Levin (Democrat, Michigan). Others pointed to Biden and Harris stressing on threats to democracy globally and underlining the values of Mahatma Gandhi. In the realm of trade and economy, too, Silicon Valley voices were not exuberant in their praise of the visit. A number of them pointed out that India currently has no trade agreement with the United States of America.

In April 2018, the United States launched an eligibility review of India’s compliance with the General System of Preferences (GSP) market access criterion. In March 2019, it was decided that India no longer meets the GSP eligibility criteria and India’s GSP status was revoked. Termination of GSP benefits removed special duty treatment for $5.6 billion of exports to the US, particularly affecting India’s export-oriented sectors such as pharmaceuticals, textiles, agricultural products, and automotive parts. The United States and India continue holding discussions to address trade issues and to prepare a limited trade deal. Kanwal Rekhi, founder and managing director, Inventus Capital Partners said the sudden rise of China has put India in an awkward position.

“China is five times the size of India and has spent lavishly building its military,” Rekhi pointed out. “India is unable to match that. China and India have a 2100 mile unsettled border and China has toyed with India from time to time and uses Pakistan to pin India down. India needs time to build its economy to stand up to China. India does have nuclear capability and as such ultimate security. India needs Quad to balance China and the US needs a heftier partner than Japan to take on China. The moment is right and it is imperative that India overcome its traditional hesitancy and form a firmer partnership to maintain its independence.”

Vish Mishra, venture director at Clearstone Venture Partners, said in his view the main purpose of this visit was to build goodwill with President Joe Biden who is a bit more reserved than his predecessors Donald Trump and Barack Obama. Mishra said he was expecting more, beyond the optics such as Modi citing Harris’s India heritage and inviting her to visit India. “Given that there have been many advance visits by the US defense and commerce Secretaries as well as Mr Kerry to India, leading up to Mr Modi visit, I would surmise that the security and trade dialogs are on-going. And I did not see any agreements or MoUs being signed,” Mishra pointed out. “What I really find missing is US not appointing its new ambassador to India. Hopefully this will happen post Modi’s visit,” Mishra said.

He pointed out that Modi’s meeting with the five CEOs represented five major sectors critical to India. Adobe for technology, Qualcomm for 5G, General Atomics for energy and space, First Solar for renewal energy, and Blackstone for Capital investment.

“They all look at India favorably and are doing business there already,” Mishra said. “From my observations, Stephen Schwarzman, Blackstone’s CEO, turned out to be the biggest champion and booster for India. He was unabashed in his praise for India, declaring that he has already invested $60 billion in India and plans to another $40 billion in the near term. Shantanu Narayen, the Adobe CEO, was equally bullish about India, citing Adobe’s investment in India for a very long time. “The White House did not roll out the red carpet for Modi and I don’t think this was an expectation on either side,” Mishra said. “More work needs to be done from both sides. However, in the meanwhile, trade and investments will continue to rise between private sectors from both countries. In addition, India will see more investments from other countries as well.”

Dinsha Mistree, fellow at the Hoover Institution and Stanford Law School, called Modi’s visit a promising start. “India and the US need to form a stronger relationship,” Mistree said. “On the matter of a trade agreement, there are still a multitude of issues that negotiators will have to get through. Also, both sides — and particularly leaders in the US — still have to vocalize support for an agreement. Not much will happen without that kind of buy-in. Hopefully the value of a trade deal will be recognized during Biden’s and Modi’s respective tenures.”

Mistree said that there were a number of sticky points. “If the agreement is being made on purely economic grounds, then the US is going to want access to industries that are heavily protected in India. Consider agriculture, for example. The US wants to sell agricultural goods in India, but Modi will find it difficult to open up agriculture to foreign competition,” he said. “One just has to look at the ongoing farmer protests from the recent attempts at domestic liberalization to realize how politically problematic such a move would be to allow outside competition.”

He added: “Also, don’t forget that there are upcoming state elections in Punjab and Uttar Pradesh in 2022. And apart from opening up traditionally protected markets, India will probably be pressed to change policy on various IP matters, and will have to address labor and environmental issues. “If, on the other hand, the US recognizes a security dimension or some other strategic interest in a trade agreement with India, then we might see a deal where India gains access to US markets without having to reciprocally open its own markets.”

He said India has been pushing for a preferential trade agreement for years, but under Biden it would only come as part of a broader security arrangement, if at all. “Personally speaking, I think that the US should agree to a preferential deal with India,” Mistree said. “What often gets lost among the quid-pro-quo aspects of these negotiations is the long-term value of bringing the US and India closer together. “Stronger trade relations could help both sides recognize our shared values and interests and might provide a springboard for working together on a number of other issues. Hopefully we will see some movement, but I fear we are still far away.”

Fumio Kishida To Be Japan’s Next Prime Minister

October 7, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal 0

Japan’s former foreign minister Fumio Kishida, a longtime stalwart of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), is all set to become the country’s next prime minister after he was elected party president on Wednesday, last week. Kishida, 64, beat the head of Japan’s COVID-19 vaccination program, 58-year-old Taro Kono, in a runoff poll among LDP lawmakers and rank-and-file party members, winning by 87 votes.

Kishida was installed as LDP leader after a deal among party power-brokers—despite what many political observers say is his lack of personal appeal and much broader public support for Kono. Kishida was supported by one of the LDP’s largest factions, but only led Kono by one vote in the first round of party voting. Yoshikazu Kato, a director of a Tokyo-based research and consulting firm Trans-Pacific Group (TPG), believes Kishida’s team was able to secure more votes with help from supporters of ultraconservative candidate Sanae Takaichi—who was vying to become Japan’s first female prime minister.

Takaichi came in third and was eliminated from the race in the first round, along with moderate party executive Seiko Noda who fell to fourth. “Kishida and Takaichi, both of them, and both of their teams, have already decided if things have gone to the second round what they are going to do,” Kato tells TIME. “This is the secret to why Kishida accomplished such a big win.”

Ultimately, Kishida may have been more palatable to the LDP’s conservative elders, than Kono—who is more liberal and supports legalizing same-sex marriage and phasing out nuclear power, observers say.

Kato adds that Kishida was the first candidate to join the race to succeed Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, who had bowed out from the leadership race earlier this month amid anger over his government’s COVID-19 response. “From the beginning until today, Kishida has been very consistent and confident, and very much ready for what happens next,” he says.

Since the LDP dominates the lower house of the National Diet, Japan’s legislature, Kishida is virtually guaranteed to become prime minister next month. The LDP’s new leader is also expected to secure the party another four years in power in the general elections this fall. The main opposition party—the Constitutional Democratic Party (CDP)—has struggled to poll above 10%.

Tougher on China?

Observers say Japan’s incoming leader will have to address long-standing issues such as the aging population and threats brought on by China’s increasing assertiveness in the region, on top of helping the country recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Tokyo’s diplomatic ties with Beijing have also been strained. Japanese leaders have spoken out in support of Taiwan, and criticized increased Chinese incursions into territory around islands in the East China Sea that are claimed by both Japan and China.

Kishida, a nine-term member of the House of Representatives, was in charge of foreign affairs for more than four years under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Japan’s longest-serving foreign minister. He had met with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi several times—which Kato believes may bode better ties between the two countries.

Although he has advocated continuing dialogue with China, Japan’s top trading partner, Kishida has promised to take a harder line militarily and supports boosting Tokyo’s defense budget amid the threat posed by Beijing. However, Kato says, “Kishida is not pro-China or anti-China, but he is a person who can talk.”

Kishida advocates ‘new capitalism’

On Japan’s economy, Kishida says the country needs a “new capitalism” to help narrow a wealth gap that has grown with the COVID-19 pandemic. He has called for a major stimulus package, as well as setting aside of $90 billion to fund scientific developments and renewable energy. He has also advocated moving away from the deregulation of business that began in the early 2000s.

While the economy grew faster than expected after Suga announced he would not continue his term, its continued recovery may be slowed by the surge of coronavirus infections in July and August.

Regarded by political peers as a moderate, Kishida will have to win back the public’s support and improve the approval ratings of the government to do this. However, Kishida’s personality could make it harder for him to get his message across to the Japanese public, says Kato—especially compared with the more forthright Kono.

Kingston, of Temple University, says attending to Japan’s wealth inequality will help improve the LDP’s image, which will boost its chances of maintaining power when the general election comes in November. Kishida has to “hit the ground running,” Kingston says. “He has to deliver. He has promised these things.”

During 16 Years Of Leading Germany, Angela Merkel Made Europe More Resilient

October 7, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Women 0

Germany’s election on Sept. 26 ended without a clear winner, but one thing at least is certain: Angela Merkel will soon exit the political stage she has occupied for the past 16 years, kick starting much debate about her legacy for Germany, and for the world.

Comparisons with her mentor and predecessor Helmut Kohl, who led Germany through reunification, are as inevitable as they are unfair. Her critics say that, though a formidable historical figure, she has accomplished nothing that can equal the leadership of Kohl. But the demands of their eras were entirely different. To understand that is to recognize Merkel’s lasting achievement.

In 1990, a heady sense of opportunity in both West and East Germany created the public support that Helmut Kohl needed to take on one of the most ambitious and complex global governing challenges since the end of World War II. Over the Merkel era of the past 16 years, by contrast, Germans (and Europeans generally) have needed a thoughtful, flexible problem-solver to guide them through a debt emergency, a surge of migrants from the Middle East, and the deadliest global pandemic in a century. In the process, Angela Merkel helped save the European Union. That’s an accomplishment that deserves lasting respect.

Convinced that a strong and cohesive E.U. would be good for her country, the German Chancellor bridged the gaps and cut the deals, sometimes over the objections of her own finance minister, that helped Europe’s most deeply indebted countries survive the 2010-2012 sovereign debt crisis. Merkel kept her word that Germany would lead the way in coping with the 2015-2016 surge in migrants by welcoming more than one million desperate people into her country. In response to the pandemic and the need for a bold economic recovery plan, she shifted German opinion on the need for common European debt.

All of these decisions remain highly controversial. Her critics say they have fed public cynicism about the E.U. and fueled the populism that has threatened in recent years to poison its politics. But without Angela Merkel, and her willingness to take on more costs and risks so that others could take less, the E.U. might have lost much more than Britain.

Her leadership has also been good for most Germans. Some 70 percent now say they’re happy with their economic circumstances. Much of that success might have happened without her, powered by new opportunities for Germany to export to China after it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, and by cheap labor provided by workers from the former Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe, which joined the E.U. just a year before Merkel became chancellor.

But Merkel’s ability to manage emergencies has helped keep Germany’s economic engine humming, and one of the results is a surge in the number of jobs across Germany, especially for women. Unemployment is now near its lowest point of the Merkel era. In addition, a balanced budget law enacted in 2009 has helped keep public debt low.

There is much more Merkel could have done, to be sure. By balancing its books, Germany has invested far less than it might have in the transition from carbon-based to renewable energy. While some credit Merkel for using Japan’s 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster to transition Germany away from nuclear power, the country’s carbon emissions remain high by European standards.

Though Merkel remains popular, her party doesn’t. She leaves with an 80 percent approval rating even as her party is in historic decline. The vote share of the center-right alliance she led slid from 41.5 percent in 2013 to 33 percent in 2017. In the Sept. 26 election, the CDU-CSU fared even worse, securing just over 24 percent and finishing narrowly behind their center-left rivals the SPD. Whoever emerges as the next chancellor will be seen by most Germans as a pale shadow of her leadership.

Not only is Merkel a tough act to follow in Germany, there is no one else now in Europe who can match her tenacity and resilience either. In particular, French President Emmanuel Macron, facing a re-election campaign next year, inspires too much mistrust, including in France, to inherit Merkel’s ability to guide combative European leaders toward agreement. Fortunately, Merkel has strengthened Europe itself by showing other leaders that compromise is possible for the good of all. That makes future crises less likely – a legacy worth celebrating

Decline In White Population And Increased Diversity In America

October 7, 2021 Staff ReporterCulture, Nation USA 0

America’s white population is declining and aging, while the share of Latinos or Hispanics, Asians, and people who identify as two are more races is increasing. These are some of the findings in new analysis from Brookings Senior Fellow Bill Frey, who joins the Brookings Cafeteria to talk about America’s changing demographics and the implications.

Also on this episode, Tony Pipa, a senior fellow in the Center for Sustainable Development, highlights the work of local elected leaders and private sector leaders in the U.S. who are prioritizing action on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Listen to this segment also on SoundCloud.

The current growth of the population ages 65 and older, driven by the large the baby boom generation, is unprecedented in U.S. history. As they have passed through each major stage of life, baby boomers (between ages 55 and 73 in 2019) have brought both challenges and opportunities to the economy, infrastructure, and institutions.

These key findings from the report were updated in June 2019 with the latest available data.

Demographic Shifts

The number of Americans ages 65 and older is projected to nearly double from 52 million in 2018 to 95 million by 2060, and the 65-and-older age group’s share of the total population will rise from 16 percent to 23 percent.¹

The older population is becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. Between 2018 and 2060 the share of the older population that is non-Hispanic white is projected to drop from 77 percent to 55 percent.²

Despite the increased diversity in the older adult population, the more rapidly changing racial/ethnic composition of the population under age 18 relative to those ages 65 and older has created a diversity gap between generations.

Older adults are working longer. By 2018, 24 percent of men and about 16 percent of women ages 65 and older were in the labor force. These levels are projected to rise further by 2026, to 26 percent for men and 18 percent for women.³

Many parts of the country—especially counties in the rural Midwest—are aging in place because disproportionate shares of young people have moved elsewhere.

Positive Developments

Education levels are increasing. Among people ages 65 and older in 1965, only 5 percent had completed a bachelor’s degree or more. By 2018, this share had risen to 29 percent.⁴

Average U.S. life expectancy increased from 68 years in 1950 to 78.6 years in 2017, in large part due to the reduction in mortality at older ages.⁵

The gender gap in life expectancy is narrowing. In 1990, a seven-year gap in life expectancy existed between men and women. By 2017, this gap had narrowed to five years (76.1 years versus 81.1 years).⁶

The poverty rate for Americans ages 65 and older has dropped sharply during the past 50 years, from nearly 30 percent in 1966 to 9 percent today.⁷

Challenges

Obesity rates among adults ages 60 and older have been increasing, standing at about 41 percent in 2015-2016.⁸

Wide economic disparities are evident across different population subgroups. Among adults ages 65 and older, 17 percent of Latinos and 19 percent of African Americans lived in poverty in 2017—more than twice the rate among older non-Hispanic whites (7 percent).⁹

More older adults are divorced compared with previous generations. The share of divorced women ages 65 and older increased from 3 percent in 1980 to 14 percent in 2018, and for men from 4 percent to 11 percent during the same period.¹⁰

Over one-fourth (26 percent) of women ages 65 to 74 lived alone in 2018. This share jumped to 39 percent among women ages 75 to 84, and to 55 percent among women ages 85 and older.¹¹

The aging of the baby boom generation could fuel more than a 50 percent increase in the number of Americans ages 65 and older requiring nursing home care, to about 1.9 million in 2030 from 1.2 million in 2017.¹²

Demand for elder care will also be driven by a steep rise in the number of Americans living with Alzheimer’s disease, which could more than double by 2050 to 13.8 million, from 5.8 million today.¹³

The large share of older adults also means that Social Security and Medicare expenditures will increase from a combined 8.7 percent of gross domestic product today to 11.8 percent by 2050.¹⁴

Policymakers can improve the outlook for the future by reducing current gaps in education, employment, and earnings among younger workers.

When Will India’s Quest For A Seat UNSC Be Realized?

October 7, 2021October 7, 2021 Kalyani ShankarEditorial/Opinion, Global 0

Though the United States and other countries talk of reforms in the United Nations, the world body’s reform movement has been at a snail’s pace. India has been in quest of a place at the UN high table for a long. The issue has arisen again during last week’s bilateral meeting in Washington between US President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

India has been lobbying for the Security Council’s expansion and has staked its claim for a place. At least four American Presidents — George Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and now Joe Biden — have openly declared their support to India’s candidacy. In November 2010, Barack Obama said he looked forward to India becoming a permanent member of a reformed UNSC. Trump, too, backed India’s claim. Now, Joe Biden has joined the list, also reiterating his support for India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers Group. However, no sign of UN reforms so far. India was elected as a non-permanent member of the powerful Security Council for two years in June 2020. She served eight two-year terms earlier.

As a UN founder member, we have a strong case. India has the world’s second-largest population and is the world’s largest democracy. The country has been consistent in its contribution to the UN peacekeeping missions and has sent close to 200,000 troops, including an all-women force in 2007. Should India become a permanent member, it would have the ability to shape a range of global institutions and regimes. Last September, frustrated at the snail’s pace of the reform movement, Modi, while addressing the UNGA, asked, “Till when do we have to wait?”

Currently, the Council does not represent the developing world and global needs — with the importance of policy resting with the Permanent Five (P-5) – US, UK, Russia, China, and France. Any one of them could sabotage any proposal with their veto power. Four out of the five permanent members back India’s claim to UNSC. They have bilaterally expressed support for its candidature. But none of the P-5 is in any hurry to relinquish their veto-wielding seat on the Council. India, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, and Japan are solid contenders for permanent membership of the Council, forming a G-4 pressure group.

The story of India’s claim to the Council goes back to Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s time. His critics, then and now, accuse him of sacrificing India’s national interest on the grounds of international morality. Reports claim that back in 1950, the US quietly sounded New Delhi about replacing Taiwan on the Council. Nehru demurred and suggested that it should go to the People’s Republic of China. Similarly, he is reported to have declined Soviet Russia’s modest proposal in 1955. Nehru wrote to his sister Vijayalakshmi Pandit, “India, because of many factors is certainly entitled to a permanent seat in the Security Council but we are not going in at the cost of China”. He obviously did not visualize China’s future growth.

Going by the trend, the world body is not in a hurry for reform. Though the US and other countries talk of reform, it is not a priority for the UN. Every UN Secretary General has pleaded for reform. Former SG Kofi Annan (2015) has aptly said if the UNSC does not appoint new permanent members, its primacy may be challenged by some of the new emerging countries. He noted that the Council has thus become an organization that can pass strong resolutions against weak countries and weak resolutions against solid countries. This indicates the helplessness of the UN in dealing with P-5 on the subject.

This brings us to whether the UN has performed its role in the past 75 years. Critics point out that several authoritarian rulers have used conventional weapons against innocent citizens on the UN watch. Moreover, the UN resolutions are non-binding. The World Body was supposed to prevent conflicts and war, yet over 80 clashes have started since its inception. The US Presidents, from Bush to Trump, have all criticized the UN for its functioning. UN is also facing a resource crunch because members, including the US, do not pay their contribution in time.

Despite all complaints and criticism, the UN is currently the only international organization where leaders from different countries come together to work out some of the world’s problems. It takes time to build a world body like the UN. Instead of destroying it, it should be reformed. That is why India is lobbying for its rightful place in the UN sooner than later. Who will reform the UN is indeed a question mark, which needs to be answered by the P-5.

Under BJP Regime, India’s External Debt Rises To $571 Billion

October 7, 2021 Staff ReporterEconomy, Nation India 0

India’s external debt for the quarter ended June 2021 increased on a year-on-year as well as on sequential basis, official data showed last week. The external debt during the period under review rose to $571.3 billion from $555.2 billion reported for the quarter ended June 2020.

On a sequential basis, at end-June 2021, the external debt recorded an increase of $1.6 billion over $569.7 billion reported for end-March 2021 period. “The external debt to GDP ratio declined to 20.2 per cent at end-June 2021 from 21.1 per cent at end-March 2021,” the RBI said in a statement.

“Valuation gain due to the appreciation of the US dollar vis-a-vis Indian rupee was placed at $1.7 billion. Excluding the valuation effect, external debt would have increased by $3.3 billion instead of $1.6 billion at end-June 2021 over end-March 2021.”

According to the RBI, commercial borrowings remained the largest component of external debt, with a share of 37.4 per cent, followed by non-resident deposits at 24.8 per cent, and short-term trade credit 17.4 per cent. “At end-June 2021, long-term debt (with original maturity of above one year) was placed at $468.8 billion, recording an increase of $0.2 billion over its level at end-March 2021.” (IANS)

India, The QUAD And AUKUS

October 7, 2021October 7, 2021 Tanvi Madan At LawfareEditorial/Opinion, Global 0

India’s external affairs minister S. Jaishankar earlier this week tweeted about his separate meetings with his Australian and French counterparts. That hadn’t been the plan—there was supposed to be a meeting of their trilateral on the U.N. General Assembly sidelines. However, that meeting was an early casualty of the rollout of AUKUS, the new Australia-U.K.-U.S. security partnership, which upset Paris. Although Delhi has not explicitly endorsed or criticized the arrangement, it is on balance likely to be seen positively by India.

Delhi’s relative silence about AUKUS does not signify a lack of interest. The development involves three of India’s closest partners in the Indo-Pacific (Australia, France, and the U.S.), and a fourth emerging partner in that region (the U.K.). India sees these countries as helpful in preserving a favorable balance of power and rules-based order in the region and globally. And India will see AUKUS and the subsequent family feud through the lens of their effect on these Indian objectives.

The Indian strategy to achieve these goals has involved building its capabilities and partnerships, encouraging the U.S. to remain engaged in the region, welcoming the efforts of like-minded Indo-Pacific and European partners, and building coalitions with these partners. AUKUS is likely to have a net positive effect on these efforts—though the transatlantic tension that its rollout has generated will also elicit some concern in Delhi. Thus, while India will have to navigate the awkward extended family dinner in the short term, it will not lose sight of the medium- and long-term benefits.

The Potential Benefits

The pros from India’s perspective include the signal AUKUS sends about its members’ perceptions, priorities, power and presence in the Indo-Pacific. Delhi has deep concerns about Chinese actions and intentions in the region. The ongoing border crisis and fatal military clash last year brought Sino-Indian relations to their worst point in decades. Given these circumstances, Delhi watches the U.S. and other countries’ stance on China very closely. And, notwithstanding the emphasis on competition with China from two consecutive U.S. administrations and the hardening of the U.S.’s attitudes on China, Delhi worries about the possibility of American commitment to the region waning or a reversion to a more accommodating position on China. There has been even more concern about Canberra reverting to its more sanguine approach to China.

In this context, AUKUS is beneficial for India because it reflects continued and intensifying U.S. and Australian concerns about China. Moreover, it is designed to increase their capabilities in the region (which will also, consequently, increase the cumulative capabilities of the Quad). And this, in turn, will bolster both the Australian and the American ability to deter China or to respond in the event of a crisis. In this way, it supplements the Quad’s efforts. One question for the future is whether India will perceive and seize opportunities for new kinds of defense and security engagement with AUKUS members that the arrangement may offer.

This is related to another advantage that India might see with AUKUS. In recent years, Indian policymakers and analysts have, on balance, gone from worrying about too much U.S. presence and interest in the Indian Ocean to worrying about Washington paying too little attention to this region. AUKUS could ease this concern, as will the enhanced American rotational deployments and other activities envisaged by the recent AUSMIN discussions. Given increased Chinese forays into the region, the Indian government will likely see this as a positive outcome that matters more than lingering concerns among some officials or analysts about an increased U.S. presence.

There is an additional benefit from India’s perspective in that AUKUS conveys the U.K.’s seriousness about its tilt to the Indo-Pacific. Moreover, this involvement will be in ways that broadly complement India’s interests and efforts. It also signals that the British view of the China challenge has evolved. Given that London has had a more accommodating view of China—as have other European partners—than India would prefer, AUKUS could also be a platform that helps socialize the U.K. even further to the acuteness of the China challenge. Here, too, AUKUS could pull in the same direction as the Quad, which reportedly will conduct a maritime exercise with the British navy next month.

Another potential benefit could be the leverage the AUKUS rollout gives India in both the diplomatic and defense trade realms, particularly with France. Paris will probably double down on its efforts to secure arms deals with India—for commercial and political economic reasons and maybe even to get one over on the U.S. This goes beyond platforms like fighter aircraft. Specifically, India has an indigenous program to develop nuclear-powered submarines and is leasing a nuclear-powered submarine from Russia, with reports that it is considering leasing a second. Some Indian commentators have raised the question of whether France’s reaction to AUKUS could make Paris (or even the U.S.) more willing and able to help Delhi in this realm in addition to or in place of Russia. While France’s interest might raise concerns among arms control experts, this might not be unwelcome to those in the U.S. interested in reducing India’s dependence on Russia.

The Complications

France’s unhappiness with AUKUS has complicated the situation a bit from India’s perspective. On the one hand, Delhi recognizes that different coalitions will form based, in part, on different tiers of threat perceptions of China. Its own multitude of trilaterals (as well as participation in the Quad) reflects this understanding. Moreover, Delhi, too, has found European partners to be less concerned about China than it would like—and that has set limits to the depth of its own cooperation with them in certain sensitive realms.

On the other hand, Delhi will be chagrined by the family feud sparked by the lack of AUKUS consultation with France, which seems only to help Beijing. Paris’s discontent feeds China’s narrative about U.S. unreliability and supports China’s efforts to drive wedges between European and Indo-Pacific partners and forestall their collaborative efforts. Delhi will be less concerned about arguments that AUKUS angst will affect Paris’ commitment to the Indo-Pacific—it believes this is motivated by resident power France’s own interests in the region. Indian policymakers will be more concerned about any adverse impact on U.S.-Europe cooperation on issues like technology or developing resilient supply chains.

And Delhi might worry about what persisting strains might mean for its efforts to work collaboratively with like-minded partners in domains such as maritime security. The Quad members, for instance, had participated in a French-led naval exercise in the Bay of Bengal earlier this year. And the Australia-France-India trilateral focuses on this issue. Delhi might also be concerned about any fallout related to U.S.-French collaboration in multilateral institutions. Recently, this has often benefited Indian interests, and, at the U.N. Security Council, even directly helped India when China has backed Pakistan. Delhi wants these partners to be proactively involved in helping shape international rules, norms and standards, as well as the leadership of these organizations—and not have them hold back or have to pull them along.

Lingering Questions

There have been some questions raised by Indian commentators about AUKUS and its rollout. One is what the U.S. treatment of Afghanistan and France says about American reliability. Others have countered that AUKUS might signify greater U.S. investment and commitment in the Indo-Pacific, at least, and demonstrate that Washington is willing to make hard choices toward that goal.

Some have also questioned why India hasn’t received a similar offer. Others, however, rightly have pointed out that India is not an ally—by choice—and cannot expect that it will always have access to the same technology. An ally like Australia is also much more likely to join U.S. efforts in certain contingencies such as a Taiwan Strait crisis. It’s also worth pointing out that the U.S. has taken similarly unprecedented steps for non-ally India—the U.S.-India civil nuclear deal, most significantly—and given Delhi access to military equipment that only Washington’s closest allies operate.

Others have wondered whether AUKUS signals a dilution of interest in India or the Quad, particularly within the White House. However, the Biden administration has spent more time engaging India than any previous U.S. administration in its first eight months in office, including taking time to explain its perspective on AUKUS to Indian policymakers (Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently spoke with his Indian counterpart). Furthermore, the other actors involved also thought it important to brief India on their perspective. Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison called Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and the Australian High Commissioner to India hosted a press conference on AUKUS. Modi and French President Emmanuel Macron talked as well, with the latter promising that France was “strongly committed” to the Indo-Pacific.

The Biden administration and Morrison government have also not diluted or done away with the Quad these past few months but rather doubled down on it. There’s been an elevation to the leaders’ level, two summits, ministerial and senior officials’ meetings, concrete initiatives, cooperation on a broader range of issues, and even some institutionalization in the form of working groups, sherpas, and established processes.

One additional concern expressed has been that AUKUS “might weaken strategic cooperation under the Quad … and reduce the quadrilateral grouping to dealing with just climate change, COVID vaccines and the like.” This is a departure from the usual criticism in India that Delhi has been cooperating too much with the U.S. in this regard. Indeed, India has itself been reluctant to securitize the Quad, particularly in a visible fashion. And the Quad has collectively decided to focus on areas that help build resilience in the region and demonstrate that the grouping can deliver practical solutions to regional problems. That does not preclude—nor has it precluded—the security dimensions of the four countries’ cooperation, as the ongoing MALABAR exercise and technology cooperation makes clear. It certainly has not precluded a further deepening of bilateral U.S.-India defense and security ties.

Indeed, as mentioned above, AUKUS could actually help the Quad. It could even take some of the pressure off the grouping, by attracting Chinese ire. It might make the four-country grouping relatively more palatable to ASEAN in comparison. And, as another non-Quad venue for security collaboration, AUKUS could also reduce the pressure on India and Japan to undertake commitments or activities on the defense and security front that they are unable or unwilling to sign on to. This potentially increases the freedom of action—or strategic autonomy—of these members and other like-minded countries in the region.

Some of these aspects might become clearer over the course of the current Quad summit or at least in Modi’s bilaterals with his Quad counterparts. He will seek to better understand AUKUS and its implications for the region. India will also be hoping that the Macron-Biden call was a sign of things to come and AUKUS hasn’t done lasting damage to collaborative efforts in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. At the end of the day, India wants to see its various partners and like-minded coalitions pulling in the same direction. Thus, it will do what it can to soothe ruffled feathers. Finally, Indian officials will assess what opportunities have opened up for India particularly with France, which it considers relatively more reliable as a defense trade partner, and with the U.S. and Australia, which are in better alignment regarding China.

Modi Returns To India, As 4 Million-Strong Diaspora’s Importance Comes To Fore

September 29, 2021October 7, 2021 Staff ReporterCommunity, Nation India, Nation USA 0

The importance of the Indian diaspora has come to the fore in India-US relations with both Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Joe Biden highlighting this factor as part of the strengthening relationship between the world’s largest and oldest democracies.

President Biden during his bilateral meeting with PM Modi mentioned that “there are more than 4 million Indian-Americans who are participating in the journey of progress of America.” PM Modi responded by saying: “As I look at the importance of this decade and the role that is going to be played by this talent of Indian-Americans, I find that this people-to-people talent will play a greater role and Indian talent will be a co-partner in this relationship and I see that your contribution is going to be very important in this.”

The diaspora factor was also very evident at PM Modi’s meeting with US Vice President Kamala Harris. He told Harris “between India and the US, we have very vibrant and strong people-to-people connections, you know that all too well,” referring to her Indian roots. “More than 4 million people of Indian origin; the Indian community is a bridge between our two countries, a bridge of friendship and their contribution to the economies and societies of both our countries is indeed very praiseworthy,” the Prime Minister pointed out.

With Indian-Americans playing a crucial role in the technology sector it was only natural that at least two of the five top CEO’s that PM Modi held a one-on-one meeting with in Washington, were Indian-Americans. His meeting with Vivek Lall, Chief Executive of General Atomics Global Corporation, focused on strengthening the defence technology sector in India. Lall appreciated the recent policy changes to accelerate defence and emerging technology manufacturing in India. The company makes state-of-art drones which is a technology that India urgently requires to counter the growing threat from China in this field.

The discussion with Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen centred around the software technology company’s ongoing collaboration and future investment plans in India. Discussions also focused on India’s flagship programme Digital India, and use of emerging technologies in sectors like health, education and R&D. India with its huge market and skilled manpower offers an alternative investment destination for US tech giants at a time when they are decoupling from an increasingly aggressive Communist China and looking to set up alternative supply chains.

In this backdrop, the Prime Minister met Cristiano Amon, CEO of leading computer chip maker Qualcomm to present the investment opportunities in India’s telecommunications and electronics sector. This included the recently launched Production Linked Incentive Scheme (PLI) for Electronics System Design and Manufacturing as well as developments in the semiconductor supply chain in India. Strategies for building the local innovation ecosystem in India were also discussed.

Similarly, he took up the issues of cutting-edge solar equipment with the CEO of renewable energy major First Solar. (IANS)

Modi Visit To US Leads To “A New Chapter In The History Of US-Indian Ties”

September 29, 2021October 7, 2021 Staff ReporterNation India, Nation USA 0

“I think that the relationship between India and the United States, the largest democracies in the world, is destined to be stronger, closer and tighter, and I think it can benefit the whole world,” President Joe Biden said at the Oval Office about the face-to-face bilateral meeting between President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, held on Sept. 24, 2021. “And, I think that’s begun to come to pass and today we’re launching a new chapter in the history of US-Indian ties and taking on some of the toughest challenges we face together, starting with a shared commitment to ending the Covid pandemic,” the President asserted.

Modi echoed the sentiments. “Today’s bilateral summit is important. We are meeting at the start of the third decade of this century,” said Prime Minister Modi. “Your leadership will certainly play an important role in how this decade is shaped. The seeds have been sown for an even stronger friendship between India and USA,” he added. “The Prime Minister and I are going to be talking today about what more we can do to fight Covid-19, take on the climate challenges that the world face(s), and ensure stability in the Indo-Pacific, including with our own Quad partners,” President Biden detailed.

“Of course our partnership is more than just what we do. It’s about who we are. It’s rooted in our shared responsibility to uphold democratic values, our joint commitment to diversity, and it’s about family ties, including 4 million Indian-Americans who make the United States stronger every single day,” President Biden said, a statement certain to gladden the hearts of the community. Modi extolled the 4 million-strong Indian-American talent and its contribution to the U.S. economy, and said such People-to-people exchanges would continue to grow. “I thank you for the warm welcome accorded to me and my delegation. Earlier, we had an opportunity to hold discussions and at that time you had laid out the vision for India-US bilateral relations. Today, you are taking initiatives to implement your vision for India-US relations,” Modi said.

Biden also mentioned Gandhi Jayanti which will be celebrated Oct. 2 to recognize Mahatma Gandhi’s birth. “As the world celebrates Mahatma Gandhi’s birthday next week, we’re all reminded that his message of nonviolence, respect, tolerance matters today maybe more than it ever has,” said Biden. In his comments, Modi, responding to President Biden’s reference to Oct. 2 birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, emphasized the philosophy of ‘Trusteeship” of the planet that Gandhi espoused.

The U.S.-India relationship was crucial for the two countries and the world, during this decade, to implement this principle of Trusteeship, Modi said, While President Biden has spoken with Prime Minister Modi on the phone a number of times and has been in virtual summits, this was their first in-person meeting. They both attended the virtual summit of The Quad on March 12, 2021, and the Leaders Summit on Climate Change on April 22. Top Biden administration officials have been visiting India regularly – Defense Secretary Austin Lloyd to New Delhi from March 19-21; Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry to New Delhi- April 6 to 8 and again September 11 to 14; and Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to New Delhi July 27-28.

Others who made the trek to New Delhi include Deputy National Security Advisor for Cyber and Emerging Technology Anne Neuberger from August 31 to September 1; and CIA Director Bill Burns after U.S. forces withdrew from Afghanistan. Visits of senior Indian officials to the U.S. over the past few months have included External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar to Washington DC from May 26 to 29; and Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla to Washington DC from September 1 to 3.

Thanking the President for a “warm welcome, the Indian leader harked back to past interactions, “I recall our interactions in 2014 and 2016. That time you had shared your vision for ties between India and USA. I am glad to see you are working to realize this vision,” Modi said. He said he is confident that together the two countries could tackle the problems besetting the world. Modi predicted that the cooperation between the two countries would be ‘transformative’ for the world.

The seeds have been sown for Indo-U.S. cooperation, Modi noted. The tradition, the democratic values that both countries are committed to, and the importance of these traditions will only increase further, Modi predicted. Technology, he said, would be the driving force in today’s world – technology for the service of humanity. And in that context, trade would play a big part. U.S.-India trade, Modi said, was complimentary, with each country having things that the other country needs.

Prime Minister Modi Meets With Vice President Kamala Harris

September 29, 2021October 7, 2021 Staff ReporterNation India, Nation USA, Women 0

In what can be considered a historic moment, American Vice President Kamala Harris, the first Indian-American in the history of this country to occupy that position, held a one-on-one meeting Sept. 23, 2021, with India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi who was visiting the United States for bilateral, multilateral and United Nations General Assembly meetings from Sept. 22-25.

Harris praised India for stepping forward to help other countries with vaccines at the outset of the pandemic. Prime Minister Modi praised the leadership of the new administration in overcoming challenges besetting the country.

“India, of course, is a very important partner to the United States. Throughout our history, our nations have worked together, have stood together to make our world a safer and stronger world,” Harris said in her opening remarks at the White House meeting. “Early in the pandemic, India was a vital source of vaccines for other countries. When India experienced a surge of COVID in the country, the United States was very proud to support India in its need and responsibility to vaccinate its people,” the Vice President said.

The bilateral discussions between the two delegations, were “substantive” and lasted more than an hour, Foreign Secretary Harsh V. Shringla said at a press briefing later on. Subjects discussed ranged from Covid-19, climate change, terrorism, education exchange, technology cooperation, space and cyber technologies in particular. In the context of terrorism, Shringla said, Vice President Harris recognized the terror elements operating from Pakistan. She noted that both U.S. and India had been the victims of terrorism for decades, and urged Pakistan to restrain terror elements active within its borders.

Modi’s comments lauded the work of the new administration. “President Biden and yourself, you took up the leadership of the United States in a very challenging atmosphere and challenging times, but within a very short period of time, you have had many achievements to your credit, whether that be COVID, climate, or the Quad. On all these issues, the United States has taken very important initiatives,” said Modi.
Harris welcomed India resuming vaccine exports, and expressed admiration for the 1 million a day vaccines being administered in that country. On the issue of the climate crisis, she said, “I know that India and you take this issue quite seriously. The President and I believe very strongly that the United States working together with India can have not only a profound impact on the people of our respective nations, but on the world itself,” Harris said.

And as it relates to the Indo-Pacific, “the United States, like India, feels very strongly about the pride of being a member of the Indo-Pacific, but also the fragility and the importance and strength as well of those relationships, including maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific,” she said.

Neither leader mentioned China by name although it is concern over that Asian giant’s potential ambitions in the Indian and Pacific oceans that has led to The Quad coming together.

Harris also addressed the issue of human rights, saying, “it is imperative that we defend democratic principles and institutions within our respective countries and around the world and that we maintain what we must do to strengthen democracies at home. And it is incumbent on our nations to, of course, protect democracies in the best interest of the people of our countries,” she said.

The two leaders also dwelt on the personal connection that Harris has to India where her mother immigrated to the U.S. and where the Vice President’s extended family lives. “I know from personal experience and from my family of the commitment of the Indian people to democracy and to freedom and to the work that may be done and can be done to imagine and then actually achieve our vision for democratic principles and institutions,” Harris said.

Modi recalled their past telephone conversation when the Biden administration came into office in January this year. “We had a detailed discussion at that time. And the way you spoke to me so warmly and so naturally, I will always remember that. Thank you so much,” said Modi, adding that it felt “like a family, the sense of kinship and so warmly you extended a helping hand, the words that you chose when you spoke to me… I will always remember that…”

“Between India and the U.S., there are very vibrant and strong people-to-people connections that we have. You know that all too well. More than 4 million people of Indian origin, the Indian community is a bridge between our two countries — a bridge of friendship. And their contribution to the economies and societies of both our countries is indeed very praiseworthy,” Modi said, and her election to the high office was “such an important and historic event.”

“I am completely confident that under President Biden and your leadership, our bilateral relationship will touch new heights,” Modi asserted, adding that people in India were waiting to welcome Harris, extending her a special invited to visit India.

The Quad Is “A Force For Global Good” Says Modi

September 29, 2021October 7, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal 0

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and leaders from US, Australia and Japan attended the first in-person summit of Quad leaders and said that the four democracies would act as a “force for global good” and ensure peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific as well as the entire world.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi along with his counterparts from the US, Australia and Japan on September 24 attended the first in-person summit of Quad leaders hosted by U.S. President Joe Biden and said that he firmly believed that the grouping of four democracies would act as a “force for global good” and ensure peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific as well as the entire world.

In November 2017, India, Japan, the U.S. and Australia gave shape to the long-pending proposal of setting up the Quad to develop a new strategy to keep the critical sea routes in the Indo-Pacific free of any influence, amidst China’s growing military presence in the strategic region.

Prime Minister Modi, in his speech called it a ‘historic meeting: promising that The Quad was going to be a “force for global good,” and will work for peace and stability. He recalled the four countries came together the first time after the major Tsunami destroyed so many coastlines in the Indo-Pacific, and now it is coming together as Covid is threatening the world, and “we have come together for humanitarian reasons.”

Opening the summit, Mr. Biden said the four democracies have come together to take on common challenges from COVID-19 to climate. “This group has democratic partners who share world views and have common vision for the future,” he said. “We know how to get things done and are up to the challenge,” he added. In a short and crisp opening address, Prime Minister Modi said that he was confident that “our participation in Quad will ensure peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific as well as the entire world”.

The four countries have common democratic values, Modi said, and have decided to take a positive approach on issues ranging from supply chain to Covid-19. ‘The Quad’ as it is referred to, was scheduled to touch upon a variety of subjects like 5G technology, climate change, critical infrastructure, supply chains and regional security. Afghanistan as well as North Korea’s ballistic missile launches were also expected to be important subjects of discussion. Senior Biden officials over the days leading up to the Quad summit, have been trying hard to word the message from the The Quad saying it “stands for something and not against something; it is not targeting any one country.”

The officials have also emphasized that The Quad does not have a military or security dimension to it. But its history says otherwise. Initiated in 2007 by then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or The Quad aimed to achieve the goal of peace and security in the region. However, the same year, the Quad nations, joined by Singapore took part in naval exercises, but then broke up when Australia withdrew from formal discussions in 2008. President Donald Trump revived The Quad in 2017. The group held its first foreign ministerial meeting in New York on September 26, 2019.

President Biden has now elevated the partnership from a ministerial level engagement to a summit, with a virtual meeting taking place March 12, 2021, where the four leaders discussed COVID-19, climate change, and security challenges like North Korea. After the first meeting, the Quad announced the launch of three senior-level working groups: the Quad Vaccine Experts Group, the Quad Climate Working Group and the Quad Critical and Emerging Technology Working Group.

According to officials, the Sept. 24 meeting of the The Quad would result in new initiatives on space; sharing information on illegal fishing and on issues associated with maritime domain awareness; taking steps to help monitor climate change and promote a variety of issues associated with estuaries and fisheries; a “robust” cybersecurity effort which is already underway with the State Department but which will be enhanced to the leader level; taking steps to bolster critical infrastructure resilience against cyber threats; and advancing a very high-level group on specific capabilities and technologies.

Japan’s business publication Nikkei reported last week that a draft of the Quad summit joint statement would “agree to work toward creating a safe supply chain for semiconductors.” Speaking at the UN on Tuesday, Biden has said that the Quad would be elevated to meet challenges in emerging technologies, among others. India’s goals of inviting hi-tech manufacturing mesh with the US and the Quad plans. Other critical issues like vaccine deliverables and health cooperation, green shipping, and infrastructure are also part of The Quad’s cooperation agenda.

Multiple Protests Held As Modi Speaks At UN

September 29, 2021 Staff ReporterCommunity, Nation India 0

Several separate protests were held outside the UN on Saturday, September 25^th as Prime Minister Narendra Modi addressed the United Nations General Assembly. The groups were separated from each other in enclosures put up with police barriers, advocating different causes.

While observers said it was “shameful” that President Biden failed to publicly address widespread persecution of religious minorities in India when he met with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi Friday, more than 100 members of interfaith and human rights groups spoke out as Modi addressed the United Nations General Assembly. Speakers condemned the egregious human rights violations and murders of religious minorities in India under a government that openly supports Hindu supremacy.

The rally was sponsored by 21 organizations under the banner of Coalition to Stop Genocide in India, including Ambedkar International Center, Ambedkar King Study Circle, Black Lives Matter, Coalition Against Fascism in India, Dalit Solidarity Forum, New York City Democratic Socialists’ Racial Justice Working Group, Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations of North America, Hindus for Human Rights, Indian American Muslim Council, India Civil Watch International, International Commission for Dalit Rights, Jewish Voice for Peace, MICAH Faith Institute, Muslim Community Network, National Coalition against Caste Discrimination in the USA, NY Sikh Council, New York State Council of Churches, SALAM, Students Against Hindutva Ideology, and Voices Against Fascism in India.

Another group comprising of 100 Khalistan supporters waving yellow flags and carrying portraits of Simranjit Singh Mann, the president of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar), came in support of the Khalistan movement. The organizers of the other protests disowned the Khalistanis and said they were not associated with them, pointing to the barriers separating them from that group.

Another protest was organized by a local gurdwara in support of the farmers’ agitation in India focused solely on the agriculturists’ issues. They stationed themselves far from the Khalistanis and an organizer said that they did not have anything to do with that protest and distinguished themselves with green turbans.

The Hindus for Human Rights (HHR) organized yet another protest that was sandwiched between the Congress and Khalistani protests. An organizer said that they were not associating themselves with the Khalistanis and their enclosed barrier next to that group’s was assigned by the police.

HHR protested against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and other laws and regulations, as well as what they called human rights violations and detention of activists in India.

They were joined by a representative of the New York State Council of Churches, a protestant organization that also lists the World Council of Churches among its members. Its executive director, Peter Cook, a protestant pastor who said he had been deported from India, asserted that his organization opposed the CAA even though it gave citizenship rights to Christians fleeing persecution, because it “pits Christians against Muslims”.

The Khalistani protesters, who were not allowed by the police to demonstrate outside India’s mission to the UN, drove past it in cars flying their flags and raising slogans. Supporters of Kashmiri separatists and Pakistanis, who held protests in the previous years, were not seen this time.

“As religious people, we have a responsibility to build an inclusive multi racial democracy. So when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu comes to New York in the name of perverting my religious tradition, Judaism, it is a way of creating religious oppression, and it is important for me to stand here. And when Indian Prime Minister Modi comes here, we organize in solidarity to demand that we build a world not on theocratic or fascist principles,” said Brad Lander, New York City Councilmember and comptroller elect.

Hindu Pandit Sanjai Doobay said: “As Hindus, we salute the light, ‘Shubham Karoti Kalyanam.’ As Muslims, ‘Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.’ And the Christian Bible says God said, ‘Let there be light, and there was light.’ If we are together, our light will always be brighter. We will pray for that light, for that peace. Mr. Modi, your Hindutva is not my Hinduism. You are not Hindu. A Hindu is a brother or sister of Humanity.”

“As Christians, we grieve for many Hindus who watch their faith being co-opted and distorted by nationalist government using Hinduism to oppress people of other faiths,” declared Rev. Peter Cook, New York State Council of Churches. “In Jesus’ name, I condemn the government of any country which uses the dominant faith of its people to destroy democracy and deny the freedom and human rights of religious minorities. In this spirit, we call on the Modi government to stop distorting Hinduism to give tacit approval to the burning and desecration of churches, mosques and temples.”

The Indian Overseas Congress, USA, an advocacy organization that promotes democracy, human rights, and equal justice together with its supporters and friends, held a protest rally in front of the United Nations, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi was delivering his address to the General Assembly.

“Although we have no issues with a Prime Minister of India visiting the U.S. or the U.N. and promoting better bi-lateral relations or promoting world peace, it is imperative to let him know at the same time that we do not approve of his misgovernance in dealing with COVID epidemic or undermining the democratic institutions,” said George Abraham, Vice-Chairman of the IOCUSA. “If there is to be genuine economic progress and social development in India, political tranquility and social harmony is a prerequisite without which there would be very little hope for the future. Let us, at the minimum, raise our voices, no matter how feeble it may be, because one day our next generation might ask where you have been when India took a turn towards authoritarianism and fascism,” Abraham added.

“I am glad to state that IOCUSA stands firmly behind India’s farmers who have been denied their rightful voice and concerns to be heard by the Modi government which has pushed a set of bills through the parliament for the benefit of the crony capitalists and to the detriment of our farmers” Mr. Mohinder Singh Gilzian, President of the IOCUSA said. “We want Modi to know that the NRI voice will continue to be raised in support of their protest unless and until he resolves these issues,” Mr. Gilzian added.

Secretary General Harbachan Singh referring to the plight of the farmers suggested that a Prime Minister should not abuse his power or shirk his responsibility and torture peaceful farmers protesting for their legitimate concerns by not heeding to their concerns.” It is claimed that this is perhaps the largest and the longest peaceful protest rally in the history of the world.

The protesters carried slogans and chanted examples to point out the failures of the Modi government, e.g. “Anti-Narendra Modi isn’t anti-national,” “We are all Indians. Stop discrimination based on religion, caste and language”, “Protect India’s constitution”, “IOCUSA supports democracy, freedom, and human rights”,” IOCUSA supports India’s farmers”, “IOCUSA -proud supporter of pluralistic India” and so forth.

Mr. Mohinder Singh Gilzian, President of the IOCUSA, Mr. Harbachen Singh, Secretary-General, Mr. George Abraham, Vice-Chairman, Mr. John Thomas, Ms. Sophia Sharma, General Secretary, Vice-President, Ms. Leela Maret, President, Kerala Chapter, Mr. Amar Singh Gulshan and President, Haryana Chapter were among those who took part in the protest.

India Joins Allies To Push For UNSC Reforms

September 29, 2021 ARUL LOUISGlobal 0

United Nations– India and its three allies in the quest for Security Council reform have called for a determined push for the adoption of a text for conducting the negotiations and to set a time-frame for the changes.The foreign ministers of the G4 group “expressed their strong determination to work towards launching text-based negotiations without further delay in the IGN (Intergovernmental Negotiations), on the basis of a single document, with a view to its adoption in the General Assembly,” according to their joint statement issued after a meeting on Wednesday.

They also “decided to intensify dialogue with all interested Member States, including other reform-minded countries and groups, in order to seek concrete outcomes in a definite time-frame,” the statement said. The reform process known as the Intergovernmental Negotiaitons (IGN) has been crippled by its failure to adopt a negotiating text on which to base the discussions and proceed.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and Foreign Ministers Carlos Alberto Franco Franca of Brazil, Heiko Maas of Germany and Motegi Toshimitsu of Japan met on the sidelines of the high-level meeting of the Assembly to evaluate the progress of the negotiations for reforms and map out future strategy.

The four countries work together for reforming the Security Council and support each other for permanent seats on a reformed body. A small group of countries known as United for Consensus (UfC) has blocked the IGN from adopting a negotiating text so the reform process can proceed. The UfC is led by Italy and includes Pakistan.

The Security Council last underwent changes in 1965 and since then the membership of the UN has increased from 117 to 193 with many of the new members coming from Africa, where the UN has most peacekeeping operations. The four ministers “expressed their strong support to the Common African Position (CAP) as enshrined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration” of the African Union.

The documents call for expanding the Council to give African nations two permanent seats.

The ministers said that it was essential “to reform the Security Council through an expansion of both categories, permanent and non-permanent seats, to enable the Security Council to better deal with the ever-complex and evolving challenges to the maintenance of international peace and security, and thereby to carry out its duties more effectively.”

The permanent membership of the Council is stuck at five — giving the leaders of the winning side in World War II a grip on its agenda — often leading to its immobilisation because of their veto powers. (IANS)

Taliban’s Quest For Legitimacy – And A Seat At The United Nations

September 29, 2021 Thalif DeenGlobal 0

When the Taliban captured power back in 1996, one of its first political acts was to hang the ousted Afghan President Mohammed Najibullah in Ariana Square in Kabul. The newly-installed government played a triple role: judge, jury and hangman, all three rolled into one. Fast forward to August 15, when the Taliban, in its second coming, assumed power ousting the US-supported government of Ashraf Ghani, a former official of the World Bank, armed with a doctorate in anthropology from one of the most prestigious Ivy League educational institutions: Columbia University. In a Facebook posting, Ghani said he fled to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) seeking safe haven because he “was going to be hanged” by the Taliban.

If that did happen, the Taliban would have earned the dubious distinction of being the only government in the world to hang two presidents. But mercifully, it did not. Ghani, however, denied that he had bolted from the presidential palace lugging several suitcases with millions of dollars pilfered from the country’s treasury. Meanwhile, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan during 1996-2001, only three countries recognized its legitimacy: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE.

But now 20 years later, the first four countries most likely to provide legitimacy to a Taliban government may include China and Russia (two permanent members of the Security Council), along with Iran and Pakistan, while others could follow. At a meeting of the 15-member Security Council on August 30, a resolution condemning the “deplorable” terrorist attack on the Kabul airport, was backed by 13 countries, with two abstentions: China and Russia. But since they didn’t exercise their vetoes, the resolution was adopted 13-2.

Predictably, Taliban has now pledged a new era and a promise to cooperate with the Americans, perhaps as part of a strategy to gain international legitimacy– and eventually a seat in the UN General Assembly, a seat now held by the ousted Ghani government. Still, its sordid past—including public floggings and executions, enforced disappearances and violations of basic civil liberties—may come back to haunt the Taliban.

Dr. Simon Adams, Executive Director of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), told IPS there is no evidence that Taliban version 2.0 will be any different from the original Taliban, despite their attempts to convince the world that this time around they will be more user-friendly. For decades, he pointed out, the Taliban have been responsible for war crimes, and when they last ruled Afghanistan, they perpetrated crimes against humanity.

Last time they were in government, Taliban forces systematically persecuted the country’s vulnerable Hazara minority and stripped millions of women and girls of their universal human rights. The Taliban have not changed, he argued. Beyond the glare of TV cameras and press conferences, Taliban fighters are already carrying out summary executions and evidence has already emerged of a recent massacre of Hazara men, said Dr Adams.

As an armed extremist group, as perpetrators of atrocities and as a state power, the Taliban stand in direct opposition to everything that the United Nations stands for. “They belong in handcuffs, not sitting in the UN General Assembly hall”, he declared. James M. Dorsey, Senior Fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute, told IPS there is no doubt that the Taliban will claim Afghanistan’s UN seat once they form a government.

They cannot do so before that. In terms of the International Criminal Court (ICC), there is equally no doubt that the Taliban have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. “The problem is they are in good company: China, Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, just to name a few”. Asked why the US wants to deal with a Taliban government that is not legally recognized by Washington, Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken said the US has been “engaged with the Taliban for some time diplomatically going back years in efforts, to try to advance a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Afghanistan”. “Going forward, we will judge our engagement with any Taliban-led government in Afghanistan based on one simple proposition: our interests, and does it help us advance them or not?”.

“If engagement with the government can advance the enduring interests we will have in counterterrorism, the enduring interest we’ll have in trying to help the Afghan people who need humanitarian assistance, in the enduring interest we have in seeing that the rights of all Afghans, especially women and girls, are upheld, then we’ll do it,’ said Blinken, leaving the door open for a political relationship with the Taliban government.

He said if a future Taliban government upholds the basic rights of the Afghan people, if it makes good on its commitments to ensure that Afghanistan cannot be used as a launching pad for terrorist attacks “directed against us and our allies and partners, and in the first instance, if it makes good on its commitments to allow people who want to leave Afghanistan to leave, that’s a government we can work with” “If it doesn’t, we will make sure that we use every appropriate tool at our disposal to isolate that government, and as I said before, Afghanistan will be a pariah,” he declared.

Samir Sanbar, a former UN Assistant Secretary-General, who served under five different secretaries-generals, told IPS: “I do not recall (the former) Taliban government seeking recognition or claiming a seat during the 1996 General Assembly session, attended by U.S. President Bill Clinton”. But he did remember the former Permanent Representative of Afghanistan seeking a U.N. job. “If the Taliban decides to claim the Afghan seat, the UN’s Credentials Committee will have to review that claim”. Sanbar said the Taliban delegation would also need U.S. visas to visit New York, which would require the blessings of the Biden administration.

He also pointed that the UAE may not recognize the current Taliban, as it did in 1996, because it is now hosting the ousted Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. Sanbar said it will be interesting to watch what happens at the upcoming 76th session of the General Assembly which opens on September 21.

Thalif Deen, Senior Editor at the UN Bureau of Inter Press Service (IPS) news agency, is the author of a newly-released book on the United Nations titled “No Comment – and Don’t Quote Me on That.” Published by Amazon, the book is mostly a satire peppered with scores of anecdotes– both serious and hilarious. The link to Amazon via the author’s website follows: https://www.rodericgrigson.com/no-comment-by-thalif-deen/

Center-Left Parties Defeat Merkel’s Party In German Elections

September 29, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal 0

Germany’s center-left Social Democrats won the biggest share of the vote in a national election Sunday, narrowly beating outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel ‘s center-right Union bloc in a closely fought race that will determine who succeeds the long-time leader at the helm of Europe’s biggest economy. Media reports here suggested, Germany is embarking on a potentially lengthy search for its next government after the center-left Social Democrats narrowly beat outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right bloc in an election that failed to set a clear direction.

SPD leader Olaf Scholz said he had a clear mandate to form a government, while his conservative rival Armin Laschet remains determined to fight on. The Social Democrats’ candidate Olaf Scholz, the outgoing vice chancellor and finance minister who pulled his party out of a years-long slump, said the outcome was “a very clear mandate to ensure now that we put together a good, pragmatic government for Germany.”

The two parties have governed together for years. But Mr Scholz says it is time for a new coalition with the Greens and liberals. Preliminary results gave his party a narrow election win over the conservatives who suffered their worst-ever performance. Despite getting its worst-ever result in a federal contest, the Union bloc said it too would reach out to smaller parties to discuss forming a government, while Merkel stays on in a caretaker role until a successor is sworn in.

Election officials said early Monday that a count of all 299 constituencies showed the Social Democrats received 25.9% of the vote, ahead of 24.1% for the Union bloc. No winning party in a German national election had previously taken less than 31% of the vote. Armin Laschet, the governor of North Rhine-Westphalia state who outmaneuvered a more popular rival to secure the nomination of Merkel’s Union bloc, had struggled to motivate the party’s base and suffered a series of missteps. “Of course, this is a loss of votes that isn’t pretty,” Laschet said of results that looked set to undercut by some measure the Union’s previous worst showing of 31% in 1949. But he added that with Merkel departing after 16 years in power, “no one had an incumbent bonus in this election.”

Laschet told supporters that “we will do everything we can to form a government under the Union’s leadership, because Germany now needs a coalition for the future that modernizes our country.” Both Laschet and Scholz will be courting the same two parties: the environmentalist Greens, who were third with 14.8%; and the pro-business Free Democrats, who took 11.5% of the vote. The Greens traditionally lean toward the Social Democrats and the Free Democrats toward the Union, but neither ruled out going the other way.

The other option was a repeat of the outgoing “grand coalition” of the Union and Social Democrats that has run Germany for 12 of Merkel’s 16 years in power, but there was little obvious appetite for that after years of government squabbling. “Everyone thinks that … this ‘grand coalition’ isn’t promising for the future, regardless of who is No. 1 and No. 2,” Laschet said. “We need a real new beginning.” The Free Democrats’ leader, Christian Lindner, appeared keen to govern, suggesting that his party and the Greens should make the first move. “About 75% of Germans didn’t vote for the next chancellor’s party,” Lindner said in a post-election debate with all parties’ leaders on public broadcaster ZDF. “So it might be advisable … that the Greens and Free Democrats first speak to each other to structure everything that follows.”

Baerbock insisted that “the climate crisis … is the leading issue of the next government, and that is for us the basis for any talks … even if we aren’t totally satisfied with our result.” Due to Germany’s complicated electoral system, a full breakdown of the result by seats in parliament was still pending. Germany’s leading parties have significant differences when it comes to taxation and tackling climate change. Foreign policy didn’t feature much in the campaign, although the Greens favor a tougher stance toward China and Russia.

Whichever parties form the next German government, the Free Democrats’ Lindner said it was “good news” that it would have a majority with centrist parties. “All of those in Europe and beyond who were worried about Germany’s stability can now see: Germany will be stable in any case,” he said. In two regional elections also held Sunday, the Social Democrats looked set to defend the post of Berlin mayor that they have held for two decades. The party was also on course for a strong win in the northeastern state of Mecklenburg Western-Pomerania. For the first time since 1949, the Danish minority party SSW was set to win a seat in parliament, officials said. Likely coalitions in Germany will either see the SPD or CDU/CSU forming a government with the Green Party, which took 14.8% of the votes, or the liberal Free Democratic Party (FDP), with 11.5%.

The party had campaigned on a message of stability for the country after Merkel, seen as a steady pair of hands over the past nearly 16 years, steps down. But it is now coming to terms with what it itself called a bitter night of losses. Merkel’s own seat in northeast Mecklenburg-Vorpommern has flipped to the Social Democrats after the outgoing chancellor held it for 31 years. Merkel, who over 16 years cemented her position as one of the world’s most successful political leaders, will stay in job until a coalition deal is negotiated — and that could take months. After Merkel’s election win in September 2017, it took more than five months for a government to be formed.

Merkel, who has won plaudits for steering Germany through several major crises, won’t be an easy leader to follow. Her successor will have to oversee the country’s recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, which Germany so far has weathered relatively well thanks to large rescue programs.

Biden Loses Ground With On Issues, Personal Traits And Job Approval

September 29, 2021 Pew ResearchNation USA 0

It’s been a very rough last two months for President Joe Biden, plagued by a disastrous end to the war in Afghanistan and the Delta variant of the coronavirus rampaging through the unvaccinated. Those twin developments have badly eroded Americans’ view of the President, according to new Gallup numbers released this week. Biden’s job approval now sits at just 43% while a majority — 53% — disapprove of how he has handled his duties.

It’s been a rapid descent for Biden. As late as June, 56% approved of how he was doing while only 40% disapproved. The decline began in July (50% approve/46% disapprove) and in August roughly the same number approved (49%) as disapproved (48%). The decline in Biden’s numbers is almost entirely attributable to independents souring on him. In June, 55% of those not affiliated with either party approved of how Biden was handling the presidency. Today that number sits at just 37%. As Gallup’s Megan Brenen notes: “Two-thirds of Biden’s slide among independents since he took office has occurred in the past three months.” (Partisans have been remarkably consistent; Roughly 9 in 10 Democrats approved of Biden’s presidency while single-digit percentages of Republicans feel the same.)

Biden’s struggles of late put him in company he would prefer not to keep: Only Donald Trump — at 37% — among recent presidents had a lower approval rating at this point of their presidency. Both Barack Obama (52%) and George W. Bush (51%) had the approval of a majority of the country in September of their first year in the White House.

Biden’s polling ebb could not come at a worse time for his presidency. Right now, Congress is embroiled in a series of critical fights — most notably over a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill and a $3.5 trillion budget bill, which, taken together, form the crux of Biden’s entire first-term agenda. There’s also consternation — and confusion — over raising the debt limit and funding the government.

All of these crises would be more manageable for Biden if he was in a stronger position with the American public. If, say, he was at 55% or even 60% approval, Biden’s ability to cajole warring moderate and liberal forces in the House would be significantly higher. All politicians are aware of the leverage I(or lack thereof) that a president has over them — and act accordingly.

The other purely political problem that Biden’s declining numbers creates is that Democrats in swing districts and states start to get very jumpy when they see the incumbent president of their party struggling in the polls. History tells us that the first midterm election for a president’s party is usually tough for his party in Congress. And that goes double when the president’s approval rating is below 50% — as Biden’s is now. What that likely leads to is individual Democratic members looking for ways to break with Biden in hopes of convincing their voters that there is some significant distance between themselves and Biden. (Side note: This attempted distancing almost never works.) All of it is bad for Biden and his party in Congress. The confluence of his faltering poll numbers with the single most critical week, legislatively speaking, of his presidency creates a vicious cycle that makes a positive outcome for Democrats less and less likely.

With his administration facing multiple challenges at home and abroad, President Joe Biden’s job approval rating has fallen sharply in the past two months. Fewer than half of U.S. adults (44%) now approve of the way Biden is handling his job as president, while 53% disapprove. This marks a reversal in Biden’s job ratings since July, when a 55% majority approved of his job performance and 43% disapproved. Since spring, public confidence in Biden has declined across several issues. In March, majorities expressed confidence in him across six of seven dimensions, including his handling of the public health impact of the coronavirus, and foreign and economic policies. Today, about half still express confidence in his handling of the coronavirus and the economy – but majorities have little or no confidence in him in four other areas.

Positive evaluations of several of Biden’s personal traits and characteristics have shown similar decreases. Compared with March, fewer adults say Biden cares about people like them, and fewer describe him as standing up for his beliefs, honest, a good role model and mentally sharp. While opinions about Biden remain sharply divided along partisan lines, the decline in his public standing has come among members of both parties. On his job rating, for example, there has been a 13 percentage point decline in the share of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who approve of Biden’s performance (from 88% in July to 75% today); only 9% of Republicans and GOP leaners approve, down from 17% two months ago.

The new survey by Pew Research Center, conducted Sept. 13-19 among 10,371 adults on the Center’s nationally representative American Trends Panel, finds that Biden is not the only political leader in Washington whose job ratings have fallen. Just 27% of Americans approve of GOP congressional leaders, down 5 percentage points since April. The decline in approval ratings for Democratic leaders in Congress has been even larger, from 50% to 39%.

There also are signs that the public is generally becoming more pessimistic: Just 26% say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country, down from 33% six months ago. And while views of current economic conditions remain lackluster – 26% rate them as excellent or good – expectations for the economy over the next year have become more negative than they were in the spring.

Currently, 37% of Americans say economic conditions will be worse a year from now, while 29% say things will be better; 34% expect little change. In March, more said economic conditions would improve (44%) than get worse (31%) over the next year, while 24% said conditions would be about the same as they are now. As has been the case since he took office, Biden draws more public confidence for his handling of the public health impact of the coronavirus than other issues.

About half (51%) are very or somewhat confident in his handling of the coronavirus outbreak, but that is down from 65% in March. The shares expressing confidence in Biden’s handling of economic policy, foreign policy and immigration policy also have declined. Biden continues to draw less confidence for unifying the country than on dealing with specific issues; only about a third (34%) are confident he can bring the country closer together, a 14 percentage point decline since March.

Assessments of Biden’s personal traits also have become less positive. While majorities say he stands up for what he believes in (60%) and cares about the needs of ordinary people (54%), larger shares described Biden in these terms six months ago (66% and 62%, respectively). Biden receives his least positive assessments for being mentally sharp. Currently, 43% say this describes Biden very or fairly well, an 11-point decline since March.

Other important findings from the survey:

Majority favors admitting Afghan refugees into the U.S. A 56% majority favors admitting thousands of Afghan refugees into the U.S. while 42% are opposed. There are sizable partisan differences in these attitudes: More than twice as many Democrats (75%) as Republicans (35%) favor admitting refugees who fled Afghanistan. The Biden administration continues to receive negative ratings for its handling of the situation in Afghanistan. Only about a quarter of adults (24%) say the administration has done an excellent or good job in handling the situation with the country; 26% say it has done only fair, while nearly half (48%) rate its performance as poor.

About half favor each of the congressional infrastructure proposals. As congress prepares to take up a pair of infrastructure proposals, more Americans view each one positively than negatively. However, a quarter or more say they are not sure about the proposals (respondents are given the option of saying they are not sure).

About half of adults (51%) say they favor the bill passed by the Senate last month that would provide $1.2 trillion in funding over the next 10 years for infrastructure improvements, including roads, bridges and internet upgrades. Just 20% oppose the bill, while 29% say they are not sure.

A comparable share (49%) favors a proposed $3.5 trillion, 10-year package that includes funding for universal pre-K education, expanding Medicare, reducing carbon emissions and other projects. A quarter oppose the spending package, while a quarter are unsure.

Broad support for raising taxes on large businesses, high-income households. About two-thirds of Americans (66%) favor raising taxes on large businesses and corporations, including 37% who say taxes should be raised “a lot.” A somewhat smaller majority (61%) says tax rates should be raised on household income over $400,000; 26% say these tax rates should be raised a lot, while 35% favor raising them a little.

Rising prices a leading economic concern. A majority of adults (63%) say they are very concerned about rising prices for food and consumer goods. That is larger than the shares citing other economic issues – employers being unable to hire workers (42% very concerned), people facing eviction or foreclosure (35%) or people who want to work being unable to find jobs (29%). Republicans are more likely than Democrats to cite rising prices and a shortage of workers as top concerns; Democrats are more likely to be very concerned over evictions and foreclosures and people who want to work struggling to find jobs.

Hindu Group In India Threatens To Demolish Churches In BJP-Ruled Northern State

September 29, 2021September 29, 2021 A C MichaelCommunity, Nation India 0

The onslaught on citizens of minority faith continues in Madhya Pradesh. Individuals claiming to be members of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) say they are preparing to demolish churches in the Jhabua district on Sunday, 26thSeptember. Auxiliary Bishop Paul Muniya, of the Protestant Shalom Church in Jhabua, led a delegation to District Collector, the highest government official, and submitted a memorandum addressed to the President of India, Shri Ram Nath Kovind, seeking his urgent intervention to ensure the safety and security of Christians and to stop the anti-Christian violence. He has also appealed to the state’s governor and chief minister to intervene and diffuse the situation.

Located in western Madhya Pradesh, bordering Baroda, this district had witnessed similar unrest when Azad Prem Singh, a local leader of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) or World Hindu Council, had demanded the closure of all churches in the area earlier this year. Although Singh focused on Jhabua and surrounding tribal-dominated districts, the continued escalation of communal threats could have repercussions across the country, particularly in states like Madhya Pradesh which have enacted the anti-conversions laws.

However, far from helping the cause of the minorities under threat, a District Revenue official has directed the Christian priests to present themselves before him and explain the nature of their religious activities and has even sought details of their appointment as priests. The official letter also asked priests to certify if they themselves were converted through allurement or force while threatening to initiate legal proceedings against any illegal conversions, if detected.

Bishop Muniya, while addressing the media, expressed his anguish and concern over what appears to be the local administrators siding with the perpetrators responsible for harassing Christians who number a mere four percent of the one million population of the district. “If there is an illegal structure, let the administration take action. Why are private individuals and organizations issuing such threats?” the Bishop asked. He also sought to know if the same yardstick would be applied to other religious structures in the district and the state.

Father Maria Stephan, PRO of Bhopal Catholic Archdiocese feels both the revenue and police administration of the district are biased against Christians. “Christians are peace-loving citizens. We are seeking judicial remedies to ensure peace and harmony in our society. We have no objection to sharing any official details about our work and personnel to the government provided the intention is right.”

President of UCF, Dr. Michael Williams, while expressing concern and distress over the situation in Jhabua, has appealed to the Prime Minister and Home Minister to help put a stop to this targeted violence. “The very fabric of our secular nation is being stretched by a few who do not respect the Constitution of India. Such people are the real anti -nationals and must be dealt with as strictly under law as possible. This intolerance has no room in our country”, he added.

FIACONA Is Grateful to Biden, Harris For Emphasizing Need For Democratic Values In India

September 29, 2021 Staff ReporterCommunity, Nation India, Religion 0

The Federation of Indian American Christian Organizations (FIACONA) has expressed gratitude to Vice President Harris for telling Prime Minister Modi, “I know from personal experience and from my family, of the commitment of the Indian people to democracy and to freedom, and to the work that may be done and can be done, to imagine and then actually achieve our vision for democratic principles and institutions”. “While we greatly applaud the Vice President’s powerful testimony and her heartfelt remarks, we also feel that Mr. Modi may not have understood the gravity of what she was trying to convey to him,” a statement issued by FIACONA said. “It is not the first time that Mr. Modi and his team have completely missed the point of suggestions coming from American leaders, including the then Vice-President Biden and President Obama on past occasions,” FIACONA pointed out.

FIACONA has urged the President Biden and Vice President Harris “to be more direct and explicit in expressing that India should not and could not afford to go down the path of religious nationalism at the expense of pluralist democratic principles that values Christian and other religious segments of the population. Should Modi and his party choose to continue down this path of religious nationalism despite warnings from leaders of the free world, there is no reason to assume that India would end up any better than Pakistan, Sri Lanka, or Myanmar in that region, thus jeopardizing the stability and commerce in the Indo-Pacific region.”

In a statement issued here, FIACONA pointed out that, India is going through unprecedented challenges under Prime Minister Modi’s watch. “We are concerned that some of those challenges have the potential to cause civil unrest in many parts of the Union where it has seriously undermined the democratic values and institutions in the name of religious majoritarianism.” Reports indicate that Modi’s hardline Hindu nationalist policies have seriously threatened the fundamentals of a multi-faith, multi-linguistic, and multi-racial equilibrium among different sections/regions of the Union. These aggressive domestic policies of the government of the Union of India headed by Modi are already stifling growth and threaten stability in many parts of India. Only those who are aligned with the hardcore Hindu nationalism, both in India and abroad refuse to acknowledge this fact, FIACONA stated.

“A continued push for aggressive domestic policies by the Hindu nationalists would have far-reaching implications not only within the Union of India but also across the region. It has the potential to adversely impact the US business interests in the region as well,” FIACONA cautioned. “The United States cannot afford to make similar strategic mistakes over and over. Ignoring the tell-tale signs of an increasingly radicalized society, or the deterioration of liberal democratic values in a country like India just to achieve short-term strategic goals will only turn out to be an expensive mistake for the US in the long run,” FIACONA warned.

Urging the US policymakers “to take serious cognizance of the style of functioning and perceived goals of the governments in member countries instead of just accepting their talking points however rationale it may sound,” FIACONA stated, “The safety and security of over 100 million Christians and their continued existence in the Union of India without daily harassment from Hindu nationalist vigilante groups (supported and encouraged by Mr. Modi’s party officials) are inextricably tied to the respect for democratic values by successive governments there.”

FIACONA urged “the Biden Administration is direct and honest with their Indian counterparts in saying that the Union of India must stop sliding down its current path. Measures need to be taken to ensure that. The Hindu nationalist leaders must be told publicly in unambiguous terms that there will be consequences for continuing to encourage and lead India down the path of religious radicalism and vigilantism. They need to be told that all kinds of rationale and false narratives offered to the International community by the Modi government must stop.”

U.S. Is On An Era Of Relentless Diplomacy-Biden At UN

September 24, 2021September 29, 2021 Staff ReporterNation, Nation USA 0

Biden called the next 10 years a “decisive decade for our world” that will determine the global community’s future, and declared the planet stands at an “inflection point in history.”

Detailing his new approach to engage the world, Joe Biden, President of the United States told leaders of the world at the &6^th annual session of the United Nations General Body on September 21, 2021that the United States is committed to working with the world in leading humanity out of the major problems that we have to confront, including the Covid 19 Pandemic and Climate Change. Speaking at the world body for the first time as president, Biden used the world stage to outline his administration’s aspirations for cooperation with the nation’s allies and called on nations to work together against COVID-19, climate change, human rights violations, and “new threats” from emerging technology.

Biden used his address to describe a world where American civic leadership, rather than military power, acts as the driving force to resolve persistent problems like coronavirus, climate change, and cyberwar. Sharing his vision for leading the United States into a new era of diplomacy as he sought to reassure allies — some freshly skeptical — he was moving past the “America First” era of foreign policy, his predecessor had advocated for in the past four years. And while he didn’t single out China as the dominant global threat, he insisted the US would seek to counter rising autocracies while avoiding “a new Cold War.” Biden called the next 10 years a “decisive decade for our world” that will determine the global community’s future, and declared the planet stands at an “inflection point in history.”

It was an altogether different message from his predecessor, whose mix of isolationism and confrontation caused deep rifts with other nations. Instead, Biden delivered a more traditional address hailing the United Nations’ mission of multilateralism and proclaiming a new chapter was beginning after he decided to end the war in Afghanistan. Biden said the U.S. “will lead on all of the greatest challenges of our time, from COVID to climate, peace and security, human dignity and human rights, but we will not go it alone.” The approach is a departure from that of the Trump administration, which embraced an “America first”-style of diplomacy that put nationalism ahead of multilateral efforts.

The global community’s response to pressing challenges like the climate crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic will “reverberate for generations yet to come,” Biden argued. But he said these challenges must be addressed with technological innovation and global cooperation, not war.”We’ve ended 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan, and as we close this period of relentless war, we’re opening a new era of relentless diplomacy, of using the power of our development aid to invest in new ways of lifting people up around the world,” Biden said.

The speech was a return to many of the themes Biden has spoken about since entering the White House in January, framing the future of global relations as democracy versus autocracy and emphasizing the US’ plans to strengthen relationships with its allies. That commitment is something many European nations are questioning in the wake of a diplomatic kerfuffle with the French over a new security partnership with the United Kingdom and Australia that cost the US’ longest ally billions in a deal for submarines. Foreign capitals have also questioned the mostly unilateral decision by the Biden administration to pull out of Afghanistan by the end of August after 20 years of war, leading to a chaotic withdrawal.

Biden did not address the submarine issue in his speech, but did defend his decision to leave Afghanistan. “As we close this era of endless war we are opening an era of endless diplomacy,” he said. Biden said the US is turning its focus to the Indo-Pacific region and is “fixing our eyes on devoting our resources to the challenges that hold the keys to our collective future.” The President said those challenges include: “Ending this pandemic, addressing the climate crisis, managing the shifts in global power dynamics, shaping the rules of the world on vital issues like trade, cyber and emerging technologies, and facing the threat of terrorism as it stands today.”

As a part of that shift in attention, the President made clear that he will be looking to use American diplomatic and scientific skills over military power as crises pop up around the globe. U.S. military power must be our last resort, not our first, and should not be used in response to every problem we see in the world, Biden said. Indeed, many of our greatest concerns today cannot be solved or even addressed by force of arms. Bombs and bullets cannot protect against Covid-19 or its future variants.”

“I stand here today for the first time in 20 years with the United States, not at war. We’ve turned the page,” Biden said. Despite some fears from its allies, Biden said the U.S. is committed to working with partners around the world to address challenges together, and stressed the importance of working through multilateral institutions such as the United Nations. “It is a fundamental truth of the 21st century that in each of our countries and as a global community, our own success is linked to others succeeding as well. To deliver for our own people we must also engage deeply with the rest of the world,” Biden said.

Biden pointed to the US shipping more than 160 million Covid-19 doses to countries around the world and putting more than $15 billion toward the global Covid response. He added that he would be announcing additional Covid-19 commitments on Wednesday at the US-hosted global Covid-19 summit. “We’ve lost so much to this devastating pandemic that continues to claim lives around the world and impact so much on our existence. We’re mourning more than 4.5 million people, people of every nation, from every background. Each death is an individual heartbreak. But our shared grief is a poignant reminder that our collective future will hinge on our ability to recognize our common humanity and to act together,” Biden said.

He stressed the urgent need to act to combat the climate crisis and noted his administration had pledged to double the public international financing to help developing nations tackle the climate crisis. Biden said he would work with Congress to double that number again, which would “make the United States the leader in public climate finance.” Biden urged countries around the world to “bring their highest possible ambitions to the table” when world leaders gather in Glasgow later this year for the COP 26 UN Climate Change Conference.

He pointed to the goal he set out earlier this year to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about half from 2005 levels in 2030. Last week, Biden announced the US and European Union had launched a global pledge to reduce emissions of methane by nearly 30% by the end of the decade. The President said the US would continue to uphold the “long-standing rules and norms that have formed the guardrails of international engagement for decades that have been essential to the development of nations around the world.”

UN Chief Warns China, US To Avoid Cold War

September 24, 2021September 29, 2021 Edith M. Lederer At APGlobal 0

“We need to re-establish a functional relationship between the two powers,” U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres

Warning of a potential new Cold War, the head of the United Nations implored China and the United States to repair their “completely dysfunctional” relationship before problems between the two large and deeply influential countries spill over even further into the rest of the planet. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke to The Associated Press this weekend ahead of this week’s annual United Nations gathering of world leaders — a convening blemished by COVID, climate concerns and contentiousness across the planet.

Guterres said the world’s two major economic powers should be cooperating on climate and negotiating more robustly on trade and technology even given persisting political fissures about human rights, economics, online security and sovereignty in the South China Sea. “Unfortunately, today we only have confrontation,” Guterres said Saturday in the AP interview. “We need to re-establish a functional relationship between the two powers,” he said, calling that “essential to address the problems of vaccination, the problems of climate change and many other global challenges that cannot be solved without constructive relations within the international community and mainly among the superpowers.”

Two years ago, Guterres warned global leaders of the risk of the world splitting in two, with the United States and China creating rival internets, currency, trade, financial rules “and their own zero-sum geopolitical and military strategies.” He reiterated that warning in the AP interview, adding that two rival geopolitical and military strategies would pose “dangers” and divide the world. Thus, he said, the foundering relationship must be repaired — and soon. “We need to avoid at all cost a Cold War that would be different from the past one, and probably more dangerous and more difficult to manage,” Guterres said.

The so-called Cold War between the Soviet Union and its East bloc allies and the United States and its Western allies began immediately after World War II and ended with the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. It was a clash of two nuclear-armed superpowers with rival ideologies — communism and authoritarianism on one side, capitalism and democracy on the other.

The U.N. chief said a new Cold War could be more perilous because the Soviet-U.S. antipathy created clear rules, and both sides were conscious of the risk of nuclear destruction. That produced back channels and forums “to guarantee that things would not get out of control,” he said. “Now, today, everything is more fluid, and even the experience that existed in the past to manage crisis is no longer there,” Guterres said. He said the U.S.-Britain deal to provide Australia with nuclear-powered submarines so it could operate undetected in Asia “is just one small piece of a more complex puzzle … this completely dysfunctional relationship between China and the United States.”

The secretly negotiated deal angered China and France, which had signed a contract with Australia worth at least $66 billion for a dozen French conventional diesel-electric submarines. In the wide-ranging AP interview, the secretary-general also addressed three major issues that world leaders will be confronting this week: the worsening climate crisis, the still-raging pandemic and Afghanistan’s uncertain future under its new Taliban rulers. They took power Aug. 15 without a fight from the government’s U.S.-trained army as American forces were in the final stage of withdrawing from the country after 20 years.

What role will the United Nations have in the new Afghanistan? Guterres called it “a fantasy” to believe that U.N. involvement “will be able all of a sudden to produce an inclusive government, to guarantee that all human rights are respected, to guarantee that no terrorists will ever exist in Afghanistan, that drug trafficking will stop.” After all, he said, the United States and many other countries had thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan and spent trillions of dollars and weren’t able to solve the country’s problems — and, some say, made them worse.

Though the United Nations has “limited capacity and limited leverage,” he said, it is playing a key role in leading efforts to provide humanitarian aid to Afghans. The U.N. is also drawing the Taliban’s attention to the importance of an inclusive government that respects human rights, especially for women and girls, he said. “There is clearly a fight for power within different groups in the Taliban leadership. The situation is not yet clarified,” he said, calling it one more reason why the international community should engage with the Taliban.

While former U.S. president Donald Trump was wedded to an “America First” policy, President Joe Biden — who will make his first appearance as chief executive at the General Assembly’s high-level meeting Tuesday — has reaffirmed U.S. commitment to multilateral institutions. Guterres said Biden’s commitment to global action on climate, including rejoining the 2015 Paris climate agreement that Trump withdrew from, is “probably the most important of them all.”

He said there is “a completely different environment in the relationship” between the United Nations and the United States under Biden. But, Guterres said, “I did everything — and I’m proud of it — in order to make sure that we would keep a functional relationship with the United States in the past administration.” Guterres also lamented the failure of countries to work together to tackle global warming and ensure that people in every country are vaccinated.

Of the past year of COVID-19 struggles, he said: “We were not able to make any real progress in relation to effective coordination of global efforts.” And of climate: “One year ago, we were seeing a more clear movement in the right direction, and that movement has slowed down in the recent past . So we need to re-accelerate again if we are not going into disaster.” Guterres called it “totally unacceptable” that 80% of the population in his native Portugal has been vaccinated while in many African countries, less than 2% of the population is vaccinated. “It’s completely stupid from the point of view of defeating the virus, but if the virus goes on spreading like wildfire in the global south, there will be more mutations,” he said. “And we know that mutations are making it more transmissible, more dangerous.”

He again urged the world’s 20 major economic powers in the G20, who failed to take united action against COVID-19 in early 2020, to create the conditions for a global vaccination plan. Such a plan, he said, must bring together vaccine-producing countries with international financial institutions and pharmaceutical companies to double production and ensure equitable distribution. “I think this is possible,” Guterres said. “It depends on political will.”

The secretary-general said rich, developed countries are spending about 20% of their GDP on recovery problems, middle income countries about 6% and the least developed countries 2% of a small GDP. That, he says, has produced frustration and mistrust in parts of the developing world that have received neither vaccines nor recovery assistance. The divide between developed countries in the north and developing countries in the south “is very dangerous for global security,” Guterres said, “and the cold war is very dangerous for the capacity to bring the world together to fight climate change.”

UN Urges World Leaders To Do More To Curtail Warming

September 24, 2021September 29, 2021 SETH BORENSTEINEnvironment, Global 0

Pressure keeps building on increasingly anxious world leaders to ratchet up efforts to fight climate change. There’s more of it coming this week in one of the highest-profile forums of all — the United Nations.

For the second time in four days, this time out of U.N. headquarters in New York, leaders will hear pleas to make deeper cuts of emissions of heat-trapping gases and give poorer countries more money to develop cleaner energy and adapt to the worsening impacts of climate change. “I’m not desperate, but I’m tremendously worried,” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told The Associated Press in a weekend interview. “We are on the verge of the abyss and we cannot afford a step in the wrong direction.”

So on Monday, Guterres and United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson are hosting a closed-door session with 35 to 40 world leaders to get countries to do more leading up to the huge climate negotiations in Scotland in six weeks. Those negotiations in the fall are designed to be the next step after the 2015 Paris climate agreement. And all this comes after Friday, when U.S. President Joe Biden convened a private forum on climate to coax leaders to act now. “We are rapidly running out of time,” Guterres said at Biden’s forum. “There is a high risk of failure” of negotiations in Glasgow.

This week’s focus on climate change comes at the end of another summer of disasters related to extreme weather, including devastating wildfires in the western United States, deadly flooding in the U.S., China and Europe, a drumbeat of killer tropical cyclones worldwide and unprecedented heat waves everywhere. Achieving some kind of success in emission-cut pledges or financial help during the week of U.N. sessions would ease the path to an agreement in Glasgow, just as early announcements of pollution curbs did in 2015, especially those from China and the United States, experts said. Now those two nations are key again. But, Guterres said, their relationship is “totally dysfunctional.”

Nigel Purvis, a former U.S. State Department climate negotiator and CEO of the private firm Climate Advisers, said the political forces going into Glasgow don’t look as optimistic as they did four months ago after a Biden virtual climate summit. But, he says, there is still hope. Countries like China, the world’s top carbon emitter, have to strengthen their Paris pledges to cut carbon pollution, while rich nations like the United States that did increase their emissions promises need to do more financially to help poorer countries.

“The Glasgow meeting is not shaping up to be as well politically prepared as the Paris conference was in 2015,” Purvis said. And Pete Ogden, vice president of the United Nations Foundation for Energy and Climate, cited “worrying mistrust between nations at a time when greater solidarity is needed.” As the world’s leaders gather, activists, other government leaders and business officials gather in New York City for Climate Week, a giant cheerleading session for action that coincides with the high-level U.N. meeting. And throughout the week the push is on the rich nations, the G-20, to do more.

“It is true that the G-20 countries bear the biggest part of the responsibility for carbon emissions. And in that regard, of course it is absolutely crucial that we see them accelerating in a very important way their actions,” U.N. climate conference chief Patricia Espinosa said Friday as her agency announced that emission pledges for the Scotland conference were falling far short of the Paris goals. The most stringent one seeks to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times. That translates to about 0.4 degree Celsius (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) from now because of warming that’s already happened.

A UN report on Friday showed that current pledges to cut carbon emissions set the world on a path toward 2.7 degrees Celsius (4.9 degrees Fahrenheit) of warming since the pre-industrial era. That shoots way past even the weaker Paris goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). “That is catastrophic,” Guterres said in the interview. “The world could not live with a 2.7-degree increase in temperature.” The overall goal is to have net-zero carbon emissions by the middle of the 21st century. That refers to a moment when the world’s economies are putting the same amount of carbon dioxide into the air as plants and oceans take out of it, thus not adding to global warming.

Guterres is pushing for rich nations to fulfill their longtime pledges of $100 billion a year in climate aid to poor nations, with at least half of that going to help them cope with the impacts of global warming. So far, the world is falling about $75 billion a year short, according to a new study by Oxfam. Funding to cope with climate change’s impacts fell 25% last year for small island nations, “the most vulnerable of the vulnerable,” he said. Under the Paris agreement, every five years the nations of the world must come up with even more stringent emission cuts and more funding for the poorer nations to develop cleaner energy systems and adapt to climate change.

While the leaders convene for the U.N. meetings, activists, business leaders and lower-level government officials will be part of the cheerleading in a “climate week” series of events. Planners include big name corporations announcing billions of dollars worth of commitments to fighting climate change, lots of talk by big names such as Bill Gates about climate solutions, and even all seven late-night U.S. talk show hosts focusing on climate change Wednesday night. “You’ve got the world leaders there, and so you can remind them about climate and get them focused on it” said Helen Clarkson, CEO of The Climate Group , which is coordinating climate week.

What counts most is what happens in six weeks in Glasgow, says Jonathan Overpeck, dean of environment at the University of Michigan, “But,” he said, “the more that can be agreed upon early, the easier it will be to get the commitments that are needed to put an end to climate change. … We’re not yet on an emissions reductions path that is safe for our planet and its people.”

Modi, Joe Biden To Discuss Ways To Combat Terrorism

September 24, 2021September 29, 2021 Staff ReporterNation India, Nation USA 0

Cementing bilateral ties, stabilization of Afghanistan, counterterrorism, Indo-Pacific and climate change are expected to be on the agenda when Prime Minister Narendra Modi goes on a three-day visit to the US this week.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Joe Biden, during their bilateral meeting on September 24 in Washington, are expected to discuss ways to stem radicalization and combat terrorism, Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla said on Tuesday, September 21, 2021. Modi and Biden are also expected to discuss ways to bolster defence and trade ties between the two countries, he added. “PM Modi and President Biden expected to discuss ways to stem radicalisation and combat terrorism. They are also expected to discuss ways to bolster defence and trade ties. Regional developments are also expected to figure in bilateral meeting,” Shringla said.

He added, “Modi and Biden will review the robust and multifaceted ties between the India and the US. They will also deliberate on ways to further enrich India-US global partnership.” As per a tentative schedule, PM Modi’s visit will take place between September 22-27. During his trip, the Prime Minister is expected to visit both Washington and New York.

PM Modi, Joe Biden to discuss ways to fight ‘common enemy terrorism’, says senior US official here in DC, adding that they would discuss ways to working together to fight a common enemy of terrorism. During a briefing, the official said: “This will be the first face-to-face meeting [of President Biden] with Prime Minister Modi on Friday, and it will be an opportunity to really step up from the perspective of our global partnership with India, working together to defend a free and open Indo-Pacific and our two countries were both essential in the global fight against COVID-19. And by taking conservative action to deal with the climate crisis. “

Biden will host Modi for their first in-person bilateral meeting at the White House on September 24. Later on the same day, Modi is expected to participate in the first in-person Quad — India, US, Australia, and Japan — leaders’ summit in Washington on September 24 being hosted by US President Joe Biden at the White House. Apart from addressing the crisis unfolding in Afghanistan, the two sides will also be working on an ambitious agenda concerning the Indo-Pacific region.

A statement by White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that “President Biden is looking forward to welcoming to the White House Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, and Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga of Japan.” Modi will later address the General Debate of the 76th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on September 25 in New York. This will be Modi’s first visit to the United States since President Joe Biden assumed charge early this year. The two have met virtually on at least three occasions – the Quad summit in March, the climate change summit in April, and the G-7 summit in June this year.

Modi was supposed to travel to the UK for the G-7 summit where he could have met Biden, but had to cancel the trip due to the second Covid-19 wave across India. Centre says it will resume vaccine export, ahead of Modi’s US visit India will resume the export of Covid-19 vaccines in October to fulfil the country’s commitment to the WHO-supported COVAX programme, union health minister Mansukh Mandaviya announced on Monday. “The surplus supply of vaccines will be used to fulfil our commitment towards the world for the collective fight against Covid-19,” he said.

Meanwhile, India expects a supply of 300 million doses of the Covid vaccines in October from different makers, the minister added. Separately, news agency Reuters report that India could receive 43.5 million doses of Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose vaccine next month. India had stopped vaccine exports in April amidst the devastating second wave, allowing it to accelerate the vaccination of its population but derailing the COVAX program that supplies vaccines to low- and middle-income countries. COVAX depends on the Serum Institute of India-made AstraZeneca doses to meet its goals.

The decision to resume exports comes ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US, where he will address the UN General Assembly as well as sit with fellow leaders of the Quad group. Vaccine distribution is to be on the agenda at both the UN meet and Quad summit. PM is to address the UN on September 25. At the Quad summit, the leaders will review the “vaccine initiative” announced in March, the ministry of external affairs had said. Reports say, a plan to distribute vaccine doses to Indo-Pacific nations, largely by leveraging India’s production capabilities, is on the agenda.

Following the Quad virtual summit, the US said it will provide financial support to help Hyderabad-based Biological E to produce a billion doses of the Covid vaccine by the end of 2022. Modi’s visit to the US is his first visit abroad in six months—the prime minister had visited Bangladesh in March for the 50th anniversary celebrations of Bangladesh’s emergence as a separate country. Modi was supposed to visit Europe in May but the trip was called off after India was hit by a particularly brutal second wave of covid-19 infections.

The US statement said that the “Biden-Harris Administration has made elevating the Quad a priority, as seen through the first-ever Quad Leaders-level engagement in March, which was virtual, and now this Summit, which will be in-person. Hosting the leaders of the Quad demonstrates the Biden-Harris Administration’s priority of engaging in the Indo-Pacific, including through new multilateral configurations to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

Immigration Overhaul Won’t Be Part of the $3.5 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

September 23, 2021 Staff ReporterImmigration, Nation USA, Travel 0

The Senate’s wonk-in-chief has once again shown who’s really in charge as lawmakers try to push $3.5 trillion in spending through an arcane budget rule. On Sunday, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough foiled Democrats’ efforts to include long-sought changes to immigration laws in the enormous spending package winding its way through Congress. Democrats have been moving forward with plans to tuck a sweeping immigration overhaul into the package and pass it along partisan lines with only Democratic votes . But MacDonough stepped in with a polite but pointed piece of advice to lawmakers: This is too big of a change to take advantage of the budget trick known as reconciliation; the bill being considered, she wrote, carries “tremendous and enduring policy change that dwarfs its budgetary impact.”

In other words, she said, lawmakers cannot squeeze giving eight million immigrants a pathway to legal citizenship into a legislative loophole that allows lawmakers to conduct budget revisions without a super-majority 60 votes. In the most routine of times, the rule is a way for staff to reconcile Senate and House edits of the budget without re-running the entire legislative tape from the beginning. This year, it’s already been used to shepherd a $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package. Now, Democrats were looking to use the same loophole to insert into a $3.5 trillion follow-on provisions that would have opened the door for legal status to immigrants who came to the country illegally as children, those who were granted entry for humanitarian reasons, farmworkers and other essential workers like those in hospitals, nursing homes and grocery stores.

The setback was not unexpected. “I always knew this would be a long process,” said Sen. Robert Menendez, the Senate’s highest-ranking Latino who has been advocating for the package of immigration changes. “I and my Democratic colleagues intend to continue working until we get to yes with the Parliamentarian.” The budget trickery Democrats are planning to use has very specific rules, including a requirement that the tool be employed only to deal with federal spending and revenue. Those limits have thwarted earlier efforts to slip things into budget bills: earlier this year, Democrats were not allowed to tack an increase to the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour onto the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief bill, and in 2017 Republicans’ were unable to use a tax-cuts package to end a ban on churches playing politics while keeping their tax-exempt status. Democrats had considered trying to use the process to advance a voting-rights bill, but ultimately saw that as unlikely to win MacDonough’s approval.

MacDonough has been persuaded to change her mind before. Last year, Sens. Chuck Grassley and Ron Wyden—the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee—argued that part of Sen. Josh Hawley’s proposal to leave the World Trade Organization was inappropriate for a vote because it had not gone through their panel. MacDonough initially sided with Hawley but two weeks later changed her ruling. But that’s very much the exception and far from the norm.

MacDonough has already handed Senate Democrats a big win, issuing an advisory earlier this year that they could reopen a budget bill to fold in a package to spend $1.9 trillion along party lines to ease pandemic woes. In the past, lawmakers were given one chance per budget year to send things into law with just 51 votes, but MacDonough said they could treat themselves to multiple bites of the legislative apple if they treated the add-ons as amendments to the budget. Absent that, they’d have to wait until the new budget year opens on Oct. 1.

As the presiding officer of the Senate, Vice President Kamala Harris can, of course, overrule the Parliamentarian. The last time it was done was in 1975, when Vice President Nelson Rockefeller presided over a change in the number of votes to end a filibuster from 66 to 60 in a fully-staffed Senate. Democrats could also fire MacDonough, and there’s more-recent precedent for this. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott did so in 2001 to pass the Bush-era tax cuts through the loophole now in question.

White House Chief of Staff Ron Klain says the Biden team isn’t looking at those options, though it’s worth noting that President Gerald Ford didn’t know Rockefeller was going to go rogue on the rostrum. There is nothing that gives Biden or his deputies any power over what Harris does in her twin role as the Senate’s chief. But it’s tough to imagine Harris unilaterally going against the norms of a body where she served as a Senator for four years and where Biden served for 36.

Absent any drastic action, Democrats’ immigration reforms face an uncertain future. In 2013 , the Senate passed a massive and comprehensive immigration bill with 14 Republicans supporting it. But of those original 14, just five remain in the Senate: Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida. In fact, those last two helped write the bill and—in a sign of how the Republican Party has changed in recent years—Rubio had to distance himself from it during his 2016 race for the White House, calling it a mistake.

That bill never had a chance at a vote in the then-Republican controlled House, and that was before President Donald Trump made immigrant-bashing a central plank to both of his White House runs. Any hope of passing changes to the nation’s immigration laws with Republican votes now is almost zero. Trump may be gone, and this weekend’s rally in support of the insurrection he inspired may have been a failure, but the mark he leaves on this country is not fading any time soon.

The World’s Oceans Shapes The Fate Of The Superpowers

September 23, 2021September 23, 2021 Bruce Jones At BrookingsEnvironment, Global 0

For centuries, oceans were the chessboard on which empires battled for dominance. But in the nuclear age, air power and missile systems dominated our worries about security, and for the United States, the economy was largely driven by domestic production, with trucking and railways that crisscrossed the continent the primary modes of commercial transit. All that has changed, as nine-tenths of global commerce and the bulk of energy trade is today linked to sea-based flows. A brightly-painted 40-foot steel shipping container loaded in Asia with twenty tons of goods may arrive literally anywhere else in the world; how that really happens and who actually profits by it show that the struggle for power on the seas is a critical issue today.

Now, in bright, closely observed prose, Bruce Jones conducts us on a fascinating voyage through the great modern ports and naval bases of this era—from the vast container ports of Shanghai and Hong Kong to the vital naval base of the American 7th fleet in Hawaii to the sophisticated security arrangements in the port of New York. Along the way, the book illustrates how global commerce works, that we are amidst a global naval arms race, and why the oceans are so crucial to America’s standing going forward.

As Jones reveals, the three great geopolitical struggles of our time—for military power, for economic dominance, and over our changing climate—are playing out atop, within, and below the world’s oceans. The essential question, he shows, is this: who will rule the waves and set the terms of the world to come?

Bruce D. Jones directs the Project on International Order and Strategy of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, where for four years he was also vice president. He has lived and worked in Asia, Africa, and Europe, including serving with UN operations in Kosovo and the Middle East. He has documented the changing dynamics of world power in several previous books about international affairs. He has been a senior advisor to the World Bank and has lectured or been a nonresident fellow at Princeton, Stanford, Yale, and New York University.

“Jones has managed to write an important book about foreign policy without delivering an impenetrable tome. He handles his reporting deftly, keeping the reader engaged as he roams from a Cold War-era submarine base beneath a Norwegian mountain, recently reactivated in anticipation of conflicts in the Arctic, to the bridge of a missile-equipped command vessel in the Pacific. And he deftly diagrams the connections between economic policy and national security.” —Wall Street Journal

“[To Rule the Waves] revives an old strategic tenet: Who rules the oceans rules the world. Traveling around the world, Jones examines the geopolitics of ocean power. Along the way, he looks into the history of standardized shipping, courtesy of the multimodal container, and delves into what are likely to be future patterns of energy use. The author’s points are well taken . . . knowledgeable.” —Kirkus Reviews

“This is nothing short of a masterwork of illumination. What is truly driving our world beneath the surface? Jones has rendered with brilliant clarity a breathtaking body of knowledge on the deep currents shaping the century ahead—strategic, environmental, and violent. This is Sapiens for the seas; there is true knowledge on every page.” —Evan Osnos, winner of the National Book Award and author of The Age of Ambition, Joe Biden, and Wildland

“Bruce Jones vividly shows how what happens on the oceans determines so much of what happens on land—from the massive fleets of container ships that make possible our world economy to the growing seaborne rivalry that is adding to the tensions between the United States and China. In lively prose, he also takes readers on a remarkable voyage around the world, from a submarine base carved deep into a fjord in northern Norway, to the world’s largest container port on reclaimed land off Shanghai, to a tiny island in the Red Sea that is a flashpoint in world affairs. Along the way we meet a diverse cast of characters who ride the global waves.” —Daniel Yergin, Pulitzer Prize–winning author of The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations, The Quest, and The Prize

“A brilliant, compelling, and clear-eyed view of the central challenge the US confronts in the new dynamics of great power competition. In To Rule the Waves, Bruce Jones provides a wonderfully accessible, highly readable assessment of the maritime components of the new geopolitics. This masterful analysis is a must read for anyone interested in geopolitics and American strategy.” —General David Petraeus, US Army (Ret.); former commander of the surge in Iraq, US Central Command, and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan; and former director of the CIA

“To Rule the Waves is fascinating for its fresh perspective and engaging prose. I learned a great deal, as will anyone who wants to understand the enormous challenges that confront NATO, the EU, and the West as a whole.” —Javier Solana, former secretary-general of NATO and former EU high representative for common foreign and security policy

“Bruce Jones’s book takes us on a fascinating journey that connects history, geopolitics, trade, and climate change from the unique perspective of the oceans. His insightful exposé of the many challenges of our interconnected, global world reveals the tensions between the great powers today.” —Susana Malcorra, co-chair of the board, International Crisis Group; former UN deputy secretary-general; former Argentinian foreign minister; and former chair of the WTO Ministerial Conference

“The world’s oceans will remain a central arena of competition between the United States and China for decades. In this sweeping analytical history, Bruce Jones explains why. With engaging prose and fresh assessments, he weaves a narrative about how navies, commercial transportation, digital cables, energy, and climate change interact to make control of the oceans the main source of struggle among the superpowers. Both as writing and analysis, To Rule the Waves is a masterpiece.” —Michael McFaul, Stanford University

India Critical Of New York Times Article on India’s Covid Response

September 23, 2021 Staff ReporterMedia, Nation India 0

Addressing a media briefing on the prevailing Covid situation in the country, the director general of the Indian Council of Medical Research, Balram Bhargava, Sept. 16 termed a recent New York Times article on India’s Covid response as “provocative” and “attention-seeking.”

The article published in New York Times had claimed that the “ICMR tailored its findings to fit Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s optimistic narrative despite a looming crisis.” Responding to a question, Bhargava said, “This is a provocative and attention-seeking article published at a time when India is doing good and our vaccination drive is also excellent. It is aimed at diverting attention. All the issues raised are dead ones and probably do not merit any attention.”

“We greatly value journalistic and editorial freedom. But at the same time we must also realize that all of us, including the Union government and the state governments, are fully engaged in fighting the pandemic and all our energy and time is devoted to that,” said Union Health Secretary, Rajesh Bhushan.”We cannot afford to get diverted by things that can be addressed at a later date, or which are not a priority from the public health point of view,” Bhushan added. Condemning the article, NITI Aayog member (Health) V.K. Paul said, “We condemn such distorted and out of context reporting. This is not desirable.”

Several Indo-Canadians Elected To Parliament, As Trudeau Returns To Power

September 23, 2021 Staff ReporterCommunity, Nation 0

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s gamble to seek a majority by calling a snap election did not pay off as he had expected, although he is returning to power in Canada as its Prime Minister after the elections were announced on Tuesday, September 21, 2021. That is Trudeau’s third federal election win, however his critics say the ballot was a waste of time. The Liberals led by Trudeau received essentially the most seats of any get together. Trudeau’s Liberals had been elected in 156 seats one less than they received in 2019, and 14 short of the 170 needed for a majority within the Home of Commons, based on Canadian media stories.

The main opposition Conservative Party ended up with a tally of 122 seats one up from the dissolved House. This is Trudeau’s third federal election win, but his critics say the poll was a waste of time. As many as 17 Indo-Canadians were elected to the Canadian Parliament during the elections held on Monday, September 20^th. The Jagmeet Singh-led New Democratic Party (NDP) will again hold the balance of power as it increased its tally from 24 to 27. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh also retained his Burnaby South seat in British Columbia. Among the 17 Indo-Canadian winners are Jagmeet Singh, former Minister Tim Uppal and three current Cabinet Ministers Harjit Singh Sajjan, Bardish Chagger and Anita Anand. Defense Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan again won from Vancouver South by beating Sukhbir Gill of the Conservative Party.

The Liberals’ Anand was declared the winner in Oakville with an almost 46 per cent vote share; a big improvement for Canada’s vaccine minister. Anand was a rookie MP after profitable in 2019 when she was appointed, Metropolis Information Toronto reported. She rapidly grew to become in control of the nation’s efforts to safe COVID-19 vaccines and was usually on the marketing campaign path with Trudeau, it stated. “I am simply ecstatic, she stated, thanking the volunteers who had labored extraordinarily laborious as a crew for 5 weeks straight,” she was quoted as saying by the Oakville Information. Chagger, Minister of Diversity, too retained her Waterloo seat as did Public Service Minister Anand her Oakville seat.

In British Columbia, three-time Liberal Party MP Sukh Dhaliwal retained his Surrey-Newton seat by beating fellow Punjabi Avneet Johal of the NDP. Two-time Liberal Party MP Randeep Singh Sarai also won the Surrey Centre seat by beating Sonia Andhi of the NDP. In Quebec, the sitting Indo-Canadian Anju Dhillon retained her Dorval Lachine LaSalle seat. In Alberta, Jasraj Singh Hallan retained the Calgary Forest Lawn seat, but his fellow Conservative MP Jag Sahota lost to fellow Sikh George Chahal of the Liberal Party. Uppal is back once again after retaining the Edmonton Mill Woods seat for the Conservative party. He is the brother-in-law of Congress MLA from Jalandhar Cantt, Pargat Singh.

In Ontario, the Punjabi-dominated city of Brampton again re-elected all the four sitting Indo-Canadian MPs, Maninder Sidhu, Ruby Sahota, Sonia Sidhu and Kamal Khera, against fellow Indo-Canadians Naval Bajaj, Medha Joshi, Ramandeep Brar and Gurprit Gill, respectively. The winners belong to Trudeau’s Liberal Party. Chandra Arya too retained the Napean seat in Ontario. Lawyer Iqwinder Gaheer, who won the Mississauga-Malton seat for the Liberal Party, will be one of the youngest MPs to go the House of Commons in Ottawa. Sitting Conservative Party MP Bob Saroya was another known Indo-Canadian face to lose on Monday.

Modi To Visit US Next Week- Quad Summit

September 15, 2021September 24, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Nation India, Nation USA 0

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit the United States from September 23 to 25 to participate in the Quad Summit and to address the United Nations General Assembly, reports here suggested. Modi, who will be making only his second visit abroad since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic last year, is also expected to hold a bilateral meeting with US President Joe Biden in Washington.

Modi will join Biden and his Australian and Japanese counterparts, Scott Morrison and Yoshihide Suga at the White House on September 24 – six months after their first virtual Quad Summit on March 12, when the four leaders of the Quad hold their first in-person summit, signaling Washington’s focus on the Indo-Pacific region in the face of China’s growing economic and military clout, PTI reported. Known as the ‘Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the representatives for the four-member nations — US, India, Australia and Japan — have met periodically since its establishment in 2007.

Modi will then travel to New York, where he will address the 76th session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on Saturday morning. On September 25, Mr. Modi is scheduled to be the first speaker at the U.N. The theme for the general debate is: “Building resilience through hope to recover from COVID-19, rebuild sustainably, respond to the needs of the planet, respect the rights of people and revitalize the United Nations.”

The general debate is being held partly virtually this year owing to the COVID-19 situation. Modi is one of about 109 leaders to address the General Assembly in person, while 60 will deliver virtual addresses, PTI reported. The situation in Afghanistan and ensuring a free and open Indo-Pacific in the face of continuing concerns about China’s aggression across the region are expected to be in focus during the first-ever in-person Quad Summit. Among other issues expected to figure prominently in the Quad Summit are ways to given fresh impetus to the ambitious Quad vaccine partnership, which was announced in March and envisages the distribution of one billion doses of Covid-19 vaccines across the Indo-Pacific, and the situation in Afghanistan following the Taliban takeover on August 15.

“The Biden-Harris administration has made elevating the Quad a priority, as seen through the first-ever Quad leaders-level engagement in March, which was virtual, and now this summit, which will be in-person,” White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said. Hosting the Quad leaders demonstrates the US administration’s “priority of engaging in the Indo-Pacific, including through new multilateral configurations to meet the challenges of the 21st century,” she added. They will also discuss partnering on emerging technologies and cyberspace, she said. “President Joseph R Biden, Jr will host the first-ever Quad Leaders Summit at the White House on September 24. President Biden is looking forward to welcoming to the White House Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, and Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga of Japan,” Psaki said.

The deliberations at the Quad Summit are expected to shape the approach of the four countries on the crucial issue of any recognition of the Taliban set up in Kabul. The four leaders will also exchange views on global issues such as critical and emerging technologies, connectivity and infrastructure, cyber security, maritime security, humanitarian assistance, and disaster relief, climate change, and education. In New Delhi, the Ministry of External Affairs said the four leaders will review progress made since their first virtual Summit on March 12 and discuss regional issues of shared interest. The Summit would provide a valuable opportunity for dialogue and interactions among the leaders, anchored in their shared vision of ensuring a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific region, the MEA said in a press release on Tuesday.

Australian Prime Minister Morrison said, “The Quad represents four great democracies working in partnership for an Indo-Pacific region that is open, inclusive, resilient, and anchored by shared principles.” Biden’s Indo-Pacific coordinator, Kurt Campbell, said in July the long-planned in-person meeting should bring “decisive” commitments on vaccine diplomacy and infrastructure. Psaki said the Quad Leaders would “be focused on deepening our ties and advancing practical cooperation on areas such as combating COVID-19, addressing the climate crisis, partnering on emerging technologies and cyberspace, and promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific.”

The Quad meeting comes after Biden’s image has taken a battering over the chaotic US withdrawal from Afghanistan. US officials have said ending America’s longest war will allow the administration to divert resources and attention to tackling China-related issues. India has insisted the world community’s approach to Afghanistan should be in line with UN Security Council resolution 2593 which demands Afghan soil must not be used for sheltering, training, planning or financing terrorist acts, and specifically raises the activities of proscribed groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

Former ambassador Arun Singh, who served as India’s envoy to the US during 2015-16 and is a member of the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB), said: “The scheduling of the in-person Quad Summit is a deliberate signal that the US attaches importance to this structure for building relationships with India, Australia and Japan.” Senator Bill Hagerty, a Republican, and former U.S. ambassador to Japan welcomed the plan to host the Quad leaders. “Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal debacle made India’s neighborhood more dangerous & raises legitimate questions for Japan and Australia as well, so it’s good we will be hosting Quad partners soon,” he said on Twitter. “We must repair & renew our alliances, and this one is key.”

Modi last visited the United States two years ago, in September 2019, when Donald Trump was the President to address the “Howdy, Modi!” event in Houston, Texas. PM Modi’s “Abki Baar, Trump Sarkar” call at the event didn’t go down well the Democratic Party at the time. And now, reaching out to Biden-led Democratic administration could be quite “an effort.”

John Kerry Lauds India’s Efforts To Address Climate Change

September 15, 2021September 24, 2021 Staff ReporterEnvironment, Global 0

The US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry congratulated India for its ambitious climate targets and said that India has demonstrated that economic development and clean energy can go hand-in hand.

The US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry on Monday, September 13^th congratulated India for its ambitious climate targets and said that the developing country in the Global South has demonstrated that economic development and clean energy can go hand-in hand. Kerry also met External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and Union Power Minister RK Singh to discuss climate goals. India and the US have a major opportunity to work together on climate change in a way that will expand bilateral trade and investment in clean energy products and services, US presidential envoy for climate John Kerry said on Monday.

John Kerry along with Indian officials announced the Climate Action and Finance Mobilization dialogue, one of the two main tracks of the US-India Agenda 2030 Partnership that US President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Modi announced at the Leaders Summit on Climate in April this year. The CAFMD has three parts – the first being the climate action segment under which the US and India would develop proposals to curb emissions, Kerry said. The second was finance mobilization which would focus on attracting capital and technologies for India to scale up its renewable energy generation to its announced generation target of 450 GigaWatts. Over the past months, six of the largest banks in America had publicaly committed to investing a minimum of $ 4.16 trillion in the next 10 years to make the transition happen, the US envoy said. The third was climate adaptation and resilience that included efforts like extending India’s forest cover, he said.

The CAFMD is part of the India-US Climate and Clean Energy Agenda 2030 Partnership launched at the Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021 by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Joe Biden. A second strand is the US-India Strategic Clean Energy Partnership (SCEP), helmed by Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas and Housing and Urban Affairs Hardeep Singh Puri on the Indian side and the US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm. Puri and Granholm launched the revamped SCEP virtually last week. Commending India for its goal to produce 450 GW of energy from renewable sources by 2030, Kerry said “India is a world leader in demonstrating that economic development and clean energy is not a zero sum choice … you can have it both at the same time.”

Last month, India’s Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav spoke to Kerry on the phone and tweeted afterwards that they “discussed at length how the largest and oldest democracies can set examples for other countries on Climate Action. India stands committed to working with the US on Clean Energy”. On another front of the war on climate change, India’s Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Hardeep Singh Puri worked with US Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on developing clean energy, the other track of the India-US partnership.

On Thursday, Puri and Granholm co-chaired the first ministerial meeting of revamped India-US Strategic Clean Energy Partnership (SCEP) “to advance the climate and clean energy goals of both countries”. India’s Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry said: “The two sides announced addition of a fifth Pillar on Emerging Fuels, which signals joint resolve to promote cleaner energy fuels. A new India-US Task Force on Biofuels was also announced to build on the scope of work on cooperation in biofuels sector.

This is Kerry’s second visit to India as Biden’s point-person on climate change, a priority area for the President. Announcing the visit, the State Department said: “The Special Envoy’s travel will bolster the US’ bilateral and multilateral climate efforts ahead of the 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which will be held October 31 to November 12 in Glasgow.”

A Day To Reflect: 20 Years After The 9/11 Attacks

September 15, 2021September 24, 2021 Scott Neuman At NPRGlobal, Nation USA 0

Twenty years to the day after 9/11 terror attacks, Americans nationwide and the world reflected on the events that forever changed their country.

Twenty years to the day after a pair of hijacked airliners destroyed the World Trade Center towers and another plane punched a gaping hole in the Pentagon and a fourth passenger jet crashed in a Pennsylvania field after passengers sought to regain control from hijackers, Americans nationwide reflected on the events that forever changed their country. Nearly 3,000 people were killed on Sept. 11, 2001. The event not only sparked enormously costly and largely unwinnable wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but also spawned a domestic war on terrorism, rewriting the rules on security and surveillance in the U.S., the repercussions of which continue to reverberate.

To commemorate the day, hundreds of people on Saturday gathered in Lower Manhattan at the National September 11 Memorial & Museum on the spot where the World Trade Center’s twin towers once stood. Three presidents — President Biden, former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton — and their wives attended. They wore blue ribbons and held their hands over their hearts as a procession marched a flag through the memorial and stood somberly side by side as the names of the dead were read off by family members and stories and remembrances were shared.

The president and first lady also met with former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his partner, Diana Taylor, according to the White House. They greeted FBI Director Christopher Wray, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the New York congressional delegation, and many other current and former state and local officials as they arrived at the memorial. Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York City at the time of the attacks, also attended the ceremony. At a ceremony at Shanksville, Pa., former President George W. Bush remembered the day that “the world was loud with carnage and sirens. And then silent with voices.”

Bush lamented the current era of political division, seemingly alluding to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. “We have seen growing evidence that the dangers to our country can come, not only across borders, but from violence that gathers within,” Bush said. “There is little cultural overlap between violent extremists abroad and violent extremists at home … [but] they are children of the same foul spirit, and it is our continuing duty to confront them.” Also in Shanksville, where a hijacked plane crashed after passengers fought back, Vice President Harris called the site “hallowed ground.”

United Flight 93 taught us “about the courage of those on board, who gave everything. About the resolve of the first responders, who risked everything. About the resilience of the American people,” she said. Echoing Bush, Harris said that in the days after the attacks, “we were all reminded that unity is possible in America. We were reminded, too, that unity is imperative in America. It is essential to our shared prosperity, our national security, and to our standing in the world.”

At ground zero in New York City, the national anthem was performed in a solemn ceremony, and then, in what has become an annual tradition, a moment of silence was observed at 8:46 a.m., when American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north tower. The names of the victims were read allowed by family members, who shared anecdotes and remembrances of their loved ones. Another moment of silence was observed at 9:03 a.m., when United Flight 175 hit the south tower, 9:59 a.m., when the south tower collapsed, and 10:28 a.m., when the north tower of the World Trade Center came down. More than 2,600 people were killed in and around the World Trade Center buildings. At the Pentagon, 184 died, and 40 more were killed in Pennsylvania.

Among those who attended the ceremony in Manhattan was Bruce Springsteen, who with an acoustic guitar and harmonica, took the dais to perform “I’ll See You In My Dreams.” The New York Police Department pipes and drums band also played “Hard Times Come Again No More,” a U.S. folk song dating from the 1850s. Biden made no remarks on Saturday in New York, but speaking on Friday, he said that in the days after the attacks in 2001, “we saw heroism everywhere — in places expected and unexpected.”

“We also saw something all too rare: a true sense of national unity,” the president said. A moment of silence was also observed at 9:37 a.m., marking when American Airlines Flight 77 careened into the west face of the Pentagon. A ceremony there was hosted by Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark Milley. The Bidens also attended a wreath-laying ceremony at Shanksville, and another later in the day at the Pentagon in northern Virginia. At the Pentagon, linked hand to hand, the Bidens, Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff bowed their heads as they observed a moment of silence.

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump released a video message Saturday morning, largely lambasting Biden’s handling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Trump, who visited Shanksville on Friday, visited a police precinct and fire department in New York City on Saturday, and is scheduled to deliver ringside commentary at a boxing match at a casino in Hollywood, Fla. In London, acting ambassador to the United Kingdom Philip Reeker attended a special changing of the guard at Windsor Castle, at which the U.S. national anthem was performed. Reeker said Americans would be “forever grateful” for the “enduring friendship” between the two countries.

The 20th anniversary of the attacks comes just weeks after the chaotic final withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan, ending America’s longest war. Following the 2001 attacks, then-President Bush ordered “boots on the ground” in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to root out al-Qaida and hunt for the mastermind of the attacks, Osama bin Laden. The war passed to his successor, Obama. Under Obama’s watch, bin Laden was located in Pakistan and killed in a covert U.S. military operation. But the war dragged on. The Trump White House negotiated directly with the Taliban for a complete withdrawal of U.S. forces, which was completed last month.

However, as U.S. troops were leaving, the Taliban were also gaining the upper hand against American-trained Afghan security forces, resulting in the quick collapse of the Afghan government. Some families of the victims of 9/11 had asked Biden not to attend the 20th anniversary memorial events unless he ordered the declassification of documents they say will show that Saudi Arabian leaders lent material support to bin Laden.

The World & Its Response To Terrorism Have Changed Since 9/11

September 15, 2021September 24, 2021 Ryan Lucas At NPRGlobal, Nation USA 0

In the last 2 decades, US poured money and resources into protecting the U.S. from another terrorist attack, even as the nature of that threat continuously evolved.

In the fall of 2001, Aaron Zebley was a 31-year-old FBI agent in New York. He had just transferred to a criminal squad after working counterterrorism cases for years. His first day in the new job was Sept. 11. “I was literally cleaning the desk, I was like wiping the desk when Flight 11 hit the north tower, and it shook our building,” he said. “And I was like, what the heck was that? And later that day, I was transferred back to counterterrorism.” It was a natural move for Zebley. He’d spent the previous three years investigating al-Qaida’s bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. And he became a core member of the FBI team leading the investigation into the 9/11 attacks. It quickly became clear that al-Qaida was responsible.

The hijackers had trained at the group’s camps in Afghanistan. They received money and instructions from its leadership. And ultimately, they were sent to the U.S. to carry out al-Qaida’s “planes operation.” President George W Bush gave an address in front of the damaged Pentagon following the Sept. 11 terrorist attack there as Counselor to the President Karen Hughes and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stand by. As the nation mourned the nearly 3,000 people who were killed on 9/11, the George W. Bush administration frantically tried to find its footing and prevent what many feared would be a second wave of attacks. President Bush ordered members of his administration, including top counterterrorism official Richard Clarke, to imagine what the next attack could look like and take steps to prevent it.

“We had so many vulnerabilities in this country,” Clarke said. We had a very long list of things, systems, that were vulnerable because no one in the United States had seriously considered security from terrorist attacks. At the time, officials were worried that al-Qaida could use chemical weapons or radioactive materials, Clarke said, or that the group would target intercity trains or subway systems. “We had a very long list of things, systems, that were vulnerable because no one in the United States had seriously considered security from terrorist attacks,” he said. That, of course, quickly changed. Security became paramount. And over the next two decades, the federal government poured money and resources — some of it, critics say, to no good use — into protecting the U.S. from another terrorist attack, even as the nature of that threat continuously evolved.

The response to keeping the U.S. secure takes shape The government built out a massive infrastructure, including creating the Department of Homeland Security, all in the name of protecting against terrorist attacks. The Bush administration also empowered the FBI and its partners at the CIA, National Security Agency and the Pentagon to take the fight to al-Qaida. The military invaded Afghanistan, which had been a haven for the group. The CIA hunted down al-Qaida operatives around the world and tortured many of them in secret prisons. The Bush administration also launched its ill-fated war in Iraq, which unleashed two decades of bloodletting, shook the Middle East and spawned another generation of terrorists.

On the home front, FBI Director Robert Mueller shifted some 2,000 agents to counterterrorism work as he tried to transform the FBI from a crime-fighting first organization into a more intelligence-driven one that prioritized combating terrorism and preventing the next attack. Part of that involved centralizing the bureau’s international terrorism investigations at headquarters and making counterterrorism the FBI’s top priority. Chuck Rosenberg, who served as a top aide to Mueller in those early years, said the changes Mueller imposed amounted to a paradigm shift for the bureau.

“Mueller, God bless him, couldn’t be all that patient about it,” Rosenberg said. “It couldn’t happen at a normal pace of a traditional cultural change. It had to happen yesterday.” It had to happen “yesterday” because al-Qaida was still plotting. Overseas, its operatives carried out horrific bombings in Bali, Madrid, London and elsewhere. In the U.S., al-Qaida operative Richard Reid was arrested in December 2001 after trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with a bomb hidden in his shoe. More plots were foiled in the ensuing years, including one targeting the Brooklyn Bridge. Over time, the FBI and its partners better understood al-Qaida, its hierarchical structure, and how to unravel the various threads of a plot.

That stemmed to large degree, Zebley says, from the U.S. getting better at pulling together various threads of intelligence and by upping the operational tempo. “If you have a little thread that could potentially tell you about a terrorist plot, not only were we much better at integrating the intelligence, but we did it at a pace that was tenfold what we were doing before,” he said. But critics warned that the government’s new anti-terrorism tools were eroding civil liberties, while the American Muslim community felt it was all too often the target of an overzealous FBI.

The digital world helps transform terrorism By the early days of the Obama administration, the U.S. had to a large extent hardened the homeland against 9/11-style plots. But the terrorism landscape was evolving. At that time, Zebley was serving as a senior aide to Mueller. Each morning, he would sit in on the FBI director’s daily threat briefing. “I was thinking about al-Qaida for years leading up until that moment,” he said. “And now I’m sitting in these morning threat briefings and I’m seeing al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb in North Africa, al-Shabab. … One of my first thoughts was ‘the map looks very different to me now.’ ”

Ultimately, AQAP — al-Qaida’s branch based in Yemen — emerged as a significant threat to the U.S. homeland. That became clear in November 2009 when U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. A month later, on Christmas Day, a young Nigerian man tried to blow up a passenger jet over Detroit with a bomb hidden in his underwear. It quickly emerged that both men had been in contact with a senior AQAP figure, an American-born Yemeni cleric named Anwar al-Awlaki.

“My sense when I first heard about him was ‘well, he’s some charismatic guy, born in the U.S., fluent English speaker and all that. But how big a threat could he be?” said John Pistole, who served as the No. 2 official at the FBI from 2004 until 2010 when he left to lead the Transportation Security Administration.

“I think I failed to recognize and appreciate his ability to influence others to action.” Awlaki used the internet to spread his calls for violence against America, and his lectures and ideas influenced attacks in several countries. Awlaki was killed in a U.S. drone strike in 2011, a move that proved controversial because he was an American citizen. A few years later, a different terrorist group emerged from the cauldron of Syria and Iraq — the Islamic State, or ISIS, a group that would build on Awlaki’s savvy use of the digital world. “When ISIS came onto the scene, particularly that summer of 2014, with the beheadings and the prolific use of social media, it was off the charts,” said Mary McCord, who was a senior national security official at the Justice Department at the time.

Like al-Qaida more than a decade before, ISIS used its stronghold to plan operations abroad, such as the coordinated attacks in 2015 that killed 130 people in Paris. But it also used social media platforms such as Twitter and Telegram to pump out slickly produced propaganda videos. “They deployed technology in a much more sophisticated way than we had seen with most other foreign terrorist organizations,” McCord said. ISIS produced materials featuring idyllic scenes of life in the caliphate to entice people to move there. At the same time, the group pushed out a torrent of videos showing horrendous violence that sought to instill fear in ISIS’ enemies and to inspire the militants’ sympathizers in Europe and the U.S. to conduct attacks where they were. “The threat was much more horizontal. It was harder to corral,” said Chuck Rosenberg, who served as FBI Director James Comey’s chief of staff.

People inspired by ISIS could go from watching the group’s videos to action relatively quickly without setting off alarms. “It was clear too that there were going to be attacks we just couldn’t stop. Things that went from left of boom to right of boom very quickly. People were more discreet, the thing we used to refer to as lone wolves,” Rosenberg said. “A lot of bad things could happen, maybe on a smaller scale, but a lot of bad things could happen more quickly.” Bad things did happenEurope was hit by a series of deadly one-off attacks. In the U.S., a gunman killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla., in 2016. A year later, a man used a truck to plow through a group of cyclists and pedestrians in Manhattan, killing eight people. Both men had been watching ISIS propaganda.

Christian Leaders Unite To Issue Stark Warning Over Climate Crisis

September 15, 2021September 15, 2021 Staff ReporterEnvironment, Global, Religion 0

Pope Francis, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and the archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, call on the world population – “whatever their beliefs or worldview” – to “listen to the cry of the Earth and of people who are poor.”

Global Christian leaders have joined forces to warn that the world is facing a critical moment as the climate crisis threatens the future of the planet. In an unprecedented joint declaration, Pope Francis, the leader of the Roman Catholic church, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of the Orthodox church, and the archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, who is the leader of the global Anglican communion, call on the world population – “whatever their beliefs or worldview” – to “listen to the cry of the Earth and of people who are poor”.

Their statement says: “Today, we are paying the price [of the climate emergency] … Tomorrow could be worse.” It concludes: “This is a critical moment. Our children’s future and the future of our common home depend on it.” The faith leaders have asked people to pray for world leaders ahead of Cop26, the global environment summit in Glasgow this autumn, and for individuals to make “meaningful sacrifices for the sake of the planet, working together and taking responsibility for how we use our resources”.

People with “far-reaching responsibilities” should lead the transition to just and sustainable economies. They said: “We stand before a harsh justice: biodiversity loss, environmental degradation and climate change are the inevitable consequences of our actions, since we have greedily consumed more of the Earth’s resources than the planet can endure. But we also face a profound injustice: the people bearing the most catastrophic consequences of these abuses are the poorest on the planet and have been the least responsible for causing them.”

The world is “already witnessing the consequences of our refusal to protect and preserve [the planet]. Now, in this moment, we have an opportunity to repent, to turn around in resolve, to head in the opposite direction. We must pursue generosity and fairness in the ways that we live, work and use money, instead of selfish gain.”

For the sake of today’s children, “we must choose to eat, travel, spend, invest and live differently, thinking not only of immediate interest and gains but also of future benefits. We repent of our generation’s sin.” They said this was the first time the three faith leaders “feel compelled to address together the urgency of environmental sustainability”. The pope, who is planning to make a brief appearance at the Cop26 summit in November, has highlighted the problem of climate breakdown and environmental sustainability since becoming pope in 2013. In 2015, he issued a powerful encyclical, Laudato Si’, which emphasized overconsumption, corporate greed and individual responsibility.

UN Condemns Taliban’s Brutal Crackdown On Protests

September 15, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal 0

The United Nations has condemned the Taliban for what its “increasingly violent response” to dissent, weeks after the group’s rapid takeover of Afghanistan. Demonstrations have taken place across Afghanistan since the fall of Kabul on 15 August, demanding respect for women’s rights and greater freedoms. Taliban fighters have used batons, whips, and live ammunition against protesters, the UN said in its report. “We call on the Taliban to immediately cease the use of force towards, and the arbitrary detention of, those exercising their right to peaceful assembly and the journalists covering the protests,” a spokeswoman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said in a press statement.

Taliban fighters swept across Afghanistan in August, capturing provincial centers and eventually the capital Kabul itself in less than two weeks. The US then led an airlift from the capital’s international airport, evacuating more than 120,000 people before pulling out its own forces on 31 August. The Taliban takeover follows two decades of US military operations in Afghanistan, after American and allied forces ousted the group from power in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks.

UN spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani criticised the Taliban’s crackdown on demonstrations in a press briefing last week. Demonstrations have grown since 15 August, she said. But on Wednesday the Taliban banned unauthorized gatherings, and they ordered telecommunications companies to shut off mobile internet in Kabul. It is crucial the group listen to Afghan women and men on the streets “during this time of great uncertainty”, she said.

The press statement also noted the deaths of at least four people – including a boy – and the violent dispersal of demonstrators in recent weeks. It also criticized violence against journalists. Reporters told the BBC this week they had been beaten, detained and flogged by the Taliban when they tried to cover the protests. The UN report comes amid growing concerns about Afghanistan in the wake of the Taliban takeover. The UN’s World Food Programme said 93% of households in the country were not eating enough food. A drought has exacerbated supply problems, causing the loss of some 40% of the wheat crop.

The Wall Street Journal reports that aid workers fear the entire population could fall into poverty within months. And UN body UNESCO warns that the country faces a “generational catastrophe” in education, after two decades of progress for children – especially girls. Unconfirmed reports suggest the Taliban plan to hold a ceremony to inaugurate their new government on Saturday, after announcing its leadership this week. It is the day the US will hold events to mark the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.

Close to 3,000 people died that day. Islamist militant group al-Qaeda masterminded the attack, led by Osama Bin Laden – who was at the time in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban. Ken McCallum, director general of the UK intelligence agency MI5, has told the BBC that the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan has likely “emboldened” UK terrorists. President Joe Biden had initially set 11 September 11 as the deadline for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, before the Taliban takeover forced the US to speed up its withdrawal.

South-South & Triangular Cooperation To Help Achieve UN’s Development Goals

September 15, 2021September 15, 2021 Adel Abdellatif At IPSEconomy, Global 0

The 2021 high-level commemoration of the United Nations Day for South-South Cooperation, organized ahead of the opening of the seventy-sixth session of the United Nations General Assembly, provided an opportunity to discuss Southern solidarity in support of a more inclusive, resilient and sustainable future while effectively responding to the global COVID-19 crisis across the global South. The 2021 United Nations Day for South-South cooperation presented the opportunity for stakeholders to highlight concrete follow-up to the twentieth session of the High-level Committee on South-South Cooperation (HLC), which took place from 1 to 4 June 2021 in New York. “South-South and triangular cooperation must have a central place in our preparations for a strong recovery”, says Secretary-General António Guterres, reminding us that “we will need the full contributions and cooperation of the global South to build more resilient economies and societies and implement the Sustainable Development Goals”.

The General Assembly High-level Committee (HLC) on South-South Cooperation met in June to review progress made in implementing the Buenos Aires Action Plan (BAPA+40) and other key decisions on South-South cooperation. This HLC session considered follow-up actions arising from previous sessions and hosted a thematic discussion on “Accelerating the achievement of the SDGs through effective implementation of the BAPA+40 outcome document while responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and similar global crises”. The HLC hosted 75 member states – including a Head of State and Ministers from around the world – as well as 23 intergovernmental organizations, 25 UN entities, civil society and the private sector. More than 400 people participated during side events which HLC Bureau Members took the lead in organizing on issues of importance to the South.

Deliberations focused on actions arising from the Report of the Secretary-General to the nineteenth session, which proposed concrete ways to enhance the role and impact of the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation, as well as the key measures taken to improve the coordination and coherence of UN support to South-South cooperation. In terms of important messages and statements, Member States highlighted that COVID-19 has taught the world that South-South development cooperation is critical to an effective response to emergencies.

South-South cooperation was strongly reaffirmed as the means to support countries’ national development priorities, alignment with the SDGs, and the acceleration of achievement toward the 2030 Agenda. South-South cooperation was also recognized as an effective approach to accelerate and deepen the efforts to build back better, healthier, safer, more resilient and sustainable. It was emphasized that over the past decade, the world has witnessed the increase in the scale, scope, and diversity of approaches of South-South and triangular cooperation.

Countries of the Global South have strengthened institutional capacities for cooperation by formulating and implementing national development policies, strategies, and agencies, and by developing information and performance management systems for data gathering, expertise and technology mapping, and impact assessment. With the strengthening of national capacities on South-South and triangular cooperation there is opportunity to collect and exchange evidence of how much South-South and triangular cooperation is being done, how it benefits people, and how to create institutional mechanisms to help countries align South-South collaboration with their national and regional agendas.

As the world fights the COVID-19 pandemic and strives to build back better, international development organizations must offer innovative, timely responses to remain relevant. This includes new forms of coordination based on more “coherent” and “integrated support” capable of unleashing change on the ground. Traditionally, South-South and triangular cooperation has taken place among governments on bilateral terms. As development becomes more dynamic in nature and unprecedented in scale, South-South and triangular cooperation is now used to source innovation from wherever it is.

Also highlighted was that South-South and triangular cooperation is increasingly recognized as an important complement to North-South cooperation in financing for sustainable development. UNOSSC will continue to promote, coordinate and support South-South and triangular cooperation globally and within the UN system. It will also continue to support governments and the UN system to analyse and articulate evolving and emerging trends, dynamics and opportunities in South-South cooperation.

In response to Member States requests, UNOSSC consistently demonstrates strong convening power across the UN system and serves as secretariat of UN Conferences including BAPA+40. UNOSSC has developed research networks at the global level, compiling evidence of good practices in South-South cooperation toward achievement of the SDGs, and created a global network of think tanks on South-South and triangular cooperation. UNOSSC also offers the South-South Galaxy platform for sharing knowledge and brokering partnership. The Office also manages a number of South-South cooperation trust funds and programmes. Given UNOSSC’s mandate to support South-South and triangular cooperation globally and within the UN system, the Secretary-General requested UNOSSC to coordinate the preparation and launch of the UN System-wide Strategy on South-South and Triangulation Cooperation for Sustainable Development with the engagement of the UN Inter-Agency Mechanism for South-South and Triangular Cooperation, and other stakeholders.

The Strategy’s objective is to provide a system-wide policy orientation to UN entities in order to galvanize a coordinated and coherent approach to policy, programmatic and partnership support on South-South and triangular cooperation and increase impact across UN activities at all levels: national, regional and global. Implementation is governed by each entity individually, based on its own mandate and programme of work. UNOSSC is also currently developing its 2022-2025 Strategic Framework. It is an opportunity for the Office to catalyze the use of South-South and triangular cooperation to accelerate the speed and scale of action towards achieving the SDGs.

For example, the Office aims to offer a platform whereby: (i) countries of the Global South can exchange knowledge, develop capacities, and transfer technologies to address their own development priorities as well as coordinate and co-design solutions to shared development challenges; (ii) UN agencies, programs, and funds can strengthen their support to SSTC at the global, regional and country levels. No country is too poor to contribute to South-South cooperation for development, and no country is too rich to lean from the South. All partners have important elements to contribute. So, it follows that triangular cooperation is an important element of our work.

The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare severe and systemic inequalities. The pandemic has also highlighted the importance of the digital revolution. Building institutional capacity in sub-Saharan Africa and LDCs through South-South and triangular cooperation is essential for countries to fully harness digital transformation and recovery. Triangular cooperation is a flexible platform where partners can mobilize different funding capacities in support of developing countries’ priorities. Triangular cooperation demands horizontality and shared governance approved by all parties. It is based on a clear respect for national sovereignty and the seeking of mutual benefit in equal partnerships.

Recovery from pandemic requires additional support, innovative development solutions and arrangements between public and private sectors. We must facilitate opportunities to expand development cooperation and its processes and to improve the effectiveness of multilateral cooperation. Fostering multi-dimensionality and multi-stakeholders approaches is the way forward to enhance development impact.

During the June HLC Member States highlighted that in the COVID and post-COVID era, the below priority areas for triangular cooperation could be considered: 1) health, 2) data infrastructure, 3) manufacturing capacity and supply chain for relevant medical material and equipment, as well as treatment; 4) solar energy and reducing carbon footprint; 5) a coalition for disaster resilient initiatives; and 6) currency swap arrangements from international financial institutions.

India Is Largest Troop Contributor To UN Peacekeeping

September 15, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Nation India 0

Highlighting the importance of the UN peacekeeping missions, Union Minister of State for External Affairs Meenakshi Lekhi Sept. 8th informed the member states that India is the largest troop contributor to the peacekeeping operations since their inception. Addressing the UNSC Open Debate on “UN Peacekeeping Operations: Transitions,” Lekhi said, “India is the largest troop contributor to the UN peacekeeping operations in cumulative terms since their inception, having deployed more than 250,000 peacekeepers across 49 UN missions. This bears testimony to India’s commitment towards contributing a reliable, well-trained and highly professional peacekeeping force.”

“As of today, nearly 5,500 Indian peacekeepers are deployed across nine UN missions,” she said. India takes pride in the fact that the first-ever all-women peacekeeping contingent was from India and stationed in Liberia, Lekhi added. “Due to their dedication, professionalism and motivation, the all-female FPU proved to be strong, visible role models, gaining world-wide attention and illustrating the significant contribution that women can make towards global peace and security.” She said that UN Peacekeeping Missions have been playing an important role in bringing about peace and stability in countries of deployment, despite numerous operational challenges. “One of the major operational challenges that continue to hamper peacekeeping operations has been the transition phase from peacekeeping to peacebuilding,” Lekhi noted.

“The drawdown of a UN Peacekeeping Operation and its reconfiguration into a minimal modified UN presence represents a critical phase for the success of a UN Peacekeeping Mission. For the host country, on one hand this signals progress towards political stability and new development opportunities, but on the other hand, it also presents a real risk of the country relapsing into conflict.” Lekhi stated that the transition of peacekeeping operations and peacebuilding depend on several factors, including the way such transitions are envisaged, planned and executed by the UN. “To be successful, this critical phase needs the active collaboration of all stakeholders.”

The minister offered several observations for better transition from peacekeeping to peacebuilding. “First, effective mandate delivery of the UN peacekeeping missions is critical to achieve the benchmarks for transition. The peacekeeping missions should be given clear, focused, sequenced, prioritized and practically achievable mandates, and most importantly, these should be matched by adequate resources.” Secondly, she said it is important that mission transitions are well planned, taking into account the objective assessment of various factors in the host country. “The drawdown of a peacekeeping mission should not be driven by the temptation for austerity. The cost of relapsing is always much higher than the short-term savings.”

“Third, the primary responsibility to protect civilians across its territory lies with the host state. The Council should encourage and support the efforts of the host state towards the effective implementation of a national plan for civilian protection.” Lekhi stated that political stakeholders should strive for the creation of political and administrative institutions that improve governance, inclusiveness, and provide equal political opportunities for women, youth as well as the marginalized and the underprivileged. “Peacekeeping and peacebuilding are not mutually exclusive. It is important to actively support the post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery initiatives of the host states,” she added.

Biden Unveils Plan As US Records Over 40 Million Covid Cases

September 15, 2021 Staff ReporterNation USA 0

On the heels of the escalating Covid Delta variant crisis, President Joe Biden today announced the launch of a new aggressive six-pronged battle plan that will impact an estimated 100 million Americans and companies and organizations across the country. The New York Times noted that, “The sweeping actions are the most expansive Mr. Biden has taken to control the pandemic since he assumed the presidency in January, and will affect almost every aspect of American society.”

Meanwhile, reports suggest, the total number of Covid-19 cases in the US topped 40 million on last week, as per data from the Johns Hopkins University. US Covid-19 case count rose to 40,003,101, with a total of 648,935 deaths as of Monday last week, showed the data, Xinhua news agency reported.

California topped the state-level caseload list, with 4,421,247 cases. Texas confirmed the second most cases of 3,706,980, followed by Florida with 3,352,451 cases, New York with 2,304,955 cases, and Illinois with more than 1.5 million cases. Other states with over 1 million cases include Georgia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, New Jersey, Tennessee, Michigan and Arizona, according to the university’s tally. The US remains the nation worst hit by the pandemic, with the world’s most cases and deaths, making up more than 18 per cent of the global caseload and nearly 14 per cent of the global deaths. US Covid-19 caseload reached 10 million on November 9, 2020, crossed 20 million on January 1, 2021, and exceeded 30 million on March 24.

Biden told the nation during a special address last week that all federal government employees and contractors will be required to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19. In addition, all private businesses with 100 or more employees must require their employees to be vaccinated or undergo weekly testing. Employers will be required to offer paid time off for vaccination. About 17 million health care workers in hospitals, clinics, and other facilities that accept Medicare and Medicaid payments must get vaccinated. Employees of Head Start early childhood education and other federal education programs must get vaccinated, and he urged all governors to require vaccination for school district employees.

It is estimated that this new requirement will cover about 80 million workers, and businesses that do not comply could face substantial fees up to $14,000. President Biden is also calling on large entertainment venues such as sports arenas, large concert halls, and other venues where large groups of people gather to require patrons be vaccinated or show a negative test for entry. The President also announced several actions to increase testing, including mobilizing industry to expand easy-to-use testing production, making at-home tests more affordable, and expanding free pharmacy testing. Masking will still be required for interstate travel through January 18, 2022, and fines will double for those not in compliance.

“President Biden is implementing a six-pronged, comprehensive national strategy” to combat COVID-19, the White House announced Thursday. Detailed on the White House website on a page titled “PATH OUT OF THE PANDEMIC” and subtitled “PRESIDENT BIDEN’S COVID-19 ACTION PLAN,” President Biden lays out six strategies. Each strategy employs specific federal government tactics, ranging from “requiring” employee and employer behaviors to actions that Biden is “calling on” states and employers to take:

Vaccinating the Unvaccinated:

“Requiring All Employers with 100+ Employees to Ensure their Workers are Vaccinated or Tested Weekly”
“Requiring Vaccinations for all Federal Workers and for Millions of Contractors that Do Business with the Federal Government”
“Requiring COVID-19 Vaccinations for Over 17 Million Health Care Workers at Medicare and Medicaid Participating Hospitals and Other Health Care Settings”
“Calling on Large Entertainment Venues to Require Proof of Vaccinations or Testing for Entry”
“Requiring Employers to Provide Paid Time-Off to Get Vaccinated”

Further Protecting the Vaccinated:

“Providing Easy Access to Booster Shots for All Eligible Americans”
“Ensuring Americans Know Where to Get a Booster”

Keeping Schools Safely Open:

“Requiring Staff in Head Start Programs, Department of Defense Schools, and Bureau of Indian Education-Operated Schools to be Vaccinated”
“Calling on All States to Adopt Vaccine Requirements for All School Employees”
“Providing Additional Funding to School Districts for Safe School Reopening, Including Backfilling Salaries and Other Funding Withheld by States for Implementing COVID Safety Measures”
“Using the Department of Education’s Full Legal Authority to Protect Students’ Access to In-Person Instruction”
“Getting Students and School Staff Tested Regularly”
“Providing Every Resource to the FDA to Support Timely Review of Vaccines for Individuals Under the Age of 12”

Increasing Testing & Requiring Masking:

“Mobilizing Industry to Expand Easy-to-Use Testing Production”
“Making At-Home Tests More Affordable”
“Expanding Free, Pharmacy Testing”
“Continuing to Require Masking for Interstate Travel and Double Fines”
“Continue to Require Masking on Federal Property”

Protecting Our Economic Recovery:

“New Support for Small Businesses Impacted by COVID-⁠19”
“Streamlining the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan Forgiveness Process”
“Launching the Community Navigator Program to Connect Small Businesses to the Help They Need”

Improving Care for those with COVID-19:

“Increasing Support for COVID-Burdened Hospitals”
“Getting Life-Saving Monoclonal Antibody Treatment to Those Who Need It”
“Expanding the Pool of Health Care Professionals Providing Treatment by Deploying Federal Monoclonal Antibody Strike Teams”

Will The Taliban Regime Survive?

September 8, 2021September 15, 2021 Vanda Felbab-Brown At BrookingsGlobal, Nation USA 0

That the Taliban is back is power in Afghanistan on the 20th anniversary of 9/11 is immensely painful to the United States, NATO, and many Afghans. In 2001, the U.S. overthrew the Taliban regime to defeat al-Qaida, a goal it largely accomplished. But the U.S. also sought to vanquish the Taliban and leave behind a pluralistic, human-rights-respecting, and economically-sustainable Afghan state. It failed in those objectives. There were plenty of mistakes and problems with the international efforts, but most importantly the United States never succeeded in inducing good governance in Afghanistan or persuading Pakistan to stop its multifaceted support for the Taliban. Afghan leaders constantly put their parochial and corrupt self-interests ahead of the national one. The misgovernance rot hollowed out even the Afghan security forces which the U.S. spent 20 years constructing at the cost of some $88 billion. But will the Taliban be able to maintain itself in power? The answer depends on how it handles and prevents armed opposition to its rule and manages the country’s economy and relations with external actors.

Armed opposition

The most significant threat to the Taliban regime could come from within. The Taliban’s success as an insurgency rested on its ability to remain cohesive despite NATO efforts to fragment the group. But the group’s challenge of maintaining cohesiveness across its many different factions of varied ideological intensity and material interests is tougher now that it is in power. The factions have disparate views about how the new regime should rule across just about all dimensions of governance: inclusiveness, dealing with foreign fighters, the economy, and external relations. Many middle-level battlefield commanders — younger, more plugged into global jihadi networks, and without personal experience of the Taliban’s mismanaged 1990s rule — are more hardline than key older national and provincial leaders.

Besides juggling those different views on policy, the Taliban will also need to ensure that its key commanders and their rank-and-file soldiers retain enough income not to be tempted to split off. Indeed, a key element of the Taliban’s blitzkrieg this summer was its bargaining with local militias and national powerbrokers, promising them that the Taliban would allow them to maintain some access to local economic rents, such as mining in Badakhshan and logging in Kunar.

Possible defections of Taliban factions or foreign fighters in Afghanistan could boost the Taliban’s principal rival, the Islamic State Khorasan (ISK), whom the Taliban has battled for years. The ISK cannot currently bring the Taliban regime down. But it could become an envelope for any future defections. Already, core ISK elements are former Taliban commanders whom the group’s prior leader, Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour (killed by the United States in 2016), expelled because they were too brutal, too sectarian, and too independent. ISK provides several other significant challenges to the Taliban.

In areas that it has ruled in recent years and during its 1990s regime, the Taliban’s principal claim to performance-based (as opposed to ideology-based) legitimacy has been its ability to deliver order and suppress crime and conflict — a brutal order, but a tight and predictable one. If it fails to prevent bloody ISK urban attacks, like the one that killed 13 U.S. service members and over 160 Afghans on August 26, that claim will weaken. Persisting violence would also deter China’s economic investments in Afghanistan, as it did (along with Afghanistan’s corruption) over the past decade. Yet the Taliban wants and needs Chinese money.

Frequently attacking Afghanistan’s Shia Hazara minority, ISK has sought to instigate a Sunni-Shia war in Afghanistan, something Mullah Mansour wanted to avoid. If the Taliban fails to control these attacks, its improved relations with Iran could deteriorate — something all the more likely if the attacks set off runaway sectarian fighting that sucks in Taliban factions. If the Taliban does not prevent the leakage of anti-Shia terrorism into Iran — from Taliban factions, foreign fighters, or ISK — Iran could attempt to activate its Fatimiyoun units in Afghanistan. The Fatimiyoun are Afghan Shia fighters, numbering the tens of thousands, whom Iran trained and deployed to fight in Syria and Libya. Having returned to Afghanistan, they could battle the Taliban’s rule. These future threats are far more potent than the currently small, weak, divided, and encircled anti-Taliban opposition of Ahmad Massoud and Amrullah Saleh in the Panjshir Valley.

Governance

In its shadow governance, the Taliban effectively delivered order and enforcing rules, such as ensuring that teachers showed up to teach when it allowed schools to operate and that government employees did not steal supplies from clinics. The Taliban also got much political capital from delivering swift, not corrupt, and enforced dispute resolution (and from protecting the poppy economy.) And it has excelled in taxing economic activity in Afghanistan, legal and illegal — from NATO supply trucks to government aid programs, drugs, and logging.

But it has no experience with or technocratic capacity for delivering or even just maintaining other existing services such as electricity or water delivery, let alone tackling complex issues like setting macroeconomic policies or addressing droughts. To maintain service delivery and at least stumble through those higher-level policy challenges, it needs technocrats and foreign assistance, both advisory and on the ground, such as in the form of humanitarian NGOs. If its rule centers on purges and revenge, of which distressing reports have emerged, the technocrats will continue to flee. The Taliban can only pressure them so much to work under duress.

Moreover, if the Taliban rules very brutally, international actors will maintain sanctions on the group and perhaps intensify them. Countries and businesses seeking to legally engage with the Taliban’s Afghanistan would be deterred from doing so. Unless humanitarian exceptions from the sanctions are guaranteed, even NGO work could grind to a halt.

The Economy and the region

Currently, the Taliban regime faces the loss of billions of dollars that had been allocated to Afghanistan — from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the U.S., and the European Union — while the country’s central bank reserves held in the U.S. were frozen by the U.S. government. The country’s illegal and informal economies can only offset a part of those losses. The Taliban cannot simply double its poppy economy — the global market is already saturated with opioids, including synthetic ones. Banning poppy cultivation, to deliver on its promise to make Afghanistan drug free, would be enormously explosive socially. Beyond immiserating already desperately poor people hit by COVID-19, drought, and economic contractions in a country where 90% of people live in poverty and 30% are acutely food insecure, such a ban would also eliminate income for Taliban middle-layer commanders and rank-and-file fighters.

Even without a ban, the Taliban will struggle to find jobs for the many now-unemployed soldiers of the Afghan security forces whom the United States paid. Even if half of the nominal force were “ghost soldiers” or are dead and, say, only 150,000 soldiers actually fought, they are now a loose force without income for themselves and their families. They melted before the Taliban; but in time they may resort to banditry or be tempted to join old or new militias, if only to get economic rents.

And preserving the Taliban’s income from trade with Iran, China, and Central Asia, which has brought the group hundreds of millions of dollars in informal taxes, depends on whether the Taliban can accommodate Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow’s principal counterterrorism interests, which they judge far more important than any economic opportunities Afghanistan offers. If terrorism leakages are extensive, only Afghanistan’s trade with Pakistan may survive. Moreover, outside of the West, only China and the Gulf countries have potentially deep aid pockets for anything beyond humanitarian issues. Iran is bankrupt. Pakistan has been providing military and intelligence aid, but its own economy hovers in and out of dire straits.

Pakistan may find its triumphalism over the Taliban’s victory souring quickly. Now in power, the Taliban will be eager to loosen Pakistan’s yoke from its neck and deepen the diversification of its external relations. The Afghan Taliban’s victory may give a boost to Pakistan’s own Taliban militants. Other countries will continue to seek to enlist Pakistan as a broker to moderate the Taliban’s behavior and be dissatisfied when Islamabad doesn’t succeed.

Western engagement

These various challenges ahead do not mean that the West can easily topple the Taliban regime through sanctions or induce it to preserve the political pluralism and human and women’s rights as they existed — at least formally — over the past 20 years. Propped up by illicit and informal economies and taking advantage of deep divisions among international actors, brutal regimes can exist for years even with shattered economies — see North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, or Myanmar. Blanket Western sanctions and isolation will only worsen the terrible suffering of the Afghan people. Instead, the West’s bargaining and engagement with the Taliban should focus on specific demands, such as reducing the most debilitating repression, and center on discreet and specific punishments and inducements for concrete policy actions in what will be a long, complicated, iterative, and turbulent process.

“We Will Live With The Scars Of 9/11 Forever”

September 8, 2021September 15, 2021 Haven Daley And Jocelyn Gecker/Ap NewsEditorial/Opinion, Global, Nation USA 0

Twenty years later, Jack Grandcolas still remembers waking up at 7:03 that morning. He looked at the clock, then out the window where an image in the sky caught his eye — a fleeting vision that looked like an angel ascending. He didn’t know it yet, but that was the moment his life changed. Across the country, it was 10:03 a.m. and United Flight 93 had just crashed into a Pennsylvania field. His wife, Lauren, was not supposed to be on that flight. So when he turned on the television and saw the chilling scenes of Sept. 11, 2001, unfolding, he was not worried for her. Then he saw the blinking light on the answering machine.

Lauren had left two messages that morning, as he slept with the phone ringer off in the bedroom. First, with good news that she was taking an earlier flight from New Jersey home to San Francisco. Then she called from the plane. There was “a little problem,” his wife said, but she was “comfortable for now.” She did not say she would call back, Grandcolas recalls. She said: “I love you more than anything, just know that. Please tell my family I love them too. Goodbye, honey.” “That moment I looked over at the television and there was a smoldering hole on the ground in Pennsylvania. They said it was United Flight 93,” said Grandcolas, 58. “That’s when I dropped to the ground.” All 44 people on board were killed. Lauren was 38 years old and three months pregnant with their first child. She had traveled East to attend her grandmother’s funeral in New Jersey, and then stayed a few extra days to announce the pregnancy — a little “good news to lift the spirits of her parents and sisters after burying their grandmother,” Grandcolas said.

Flight 93 was the fourth and final plane to be highjacked on Sept. 11 by four al-Qaida terrorists on a suicide mission aimed at the Capitol in Washington, D.C. Passengers and crew members used seatback phones to call loved ones and authorities and learned of the first two attacks, on the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Realizing their hijacking was part of a broader attack, they took a vote to fight back and try to gain control of the plane. It was a heroic act that spared countless more lives. “What they did was amazingly dramatic,” Grandcolas said. It was “a selfless act of love to conquer hate.” Outlines of the plan were relayed in phone calls and captured on the cockpit voice recorder, though many families will never know the specific roles their loved ones played.

Grandcolas believes that Lauren was involved. A hard-charging advertising sales consultant with a big heart and a zest for life, Lauren was athletic and outgoing and trained as an EMT because she wanted to be able to help people “Lauren was a doer, she was not going to sit there idly,” he said. He imagines her taking part in the planning of how to wrest control of the plane, gathering intelligence and knowing that time was running short. “She would have been tapping her watch to say, ‘We’ve got to do something fast.’” For years, Grandcolas bristled at the term “9/11 anniversary.” An anniversary is something to celebrate. But the 20th anniversary is an important one, Grandcolas said, adding that he plans to travel to Pennsylvania to visit the Flight 93 National Memorial for the first time since 2003.

Grandcolas attended the first two annual memorials at the Pennsylvania crash site and then stopped, finding it too painful. Instead, in years thereafter, he would spend Sept. 11 doing things Lauren loved, like going for a bike ride or a quiet walk on the beach. “Every year it’s a gut punch,” he said in an interview near his home in Pebble Beach, Calif. “We will live with the scars the rest of our lives.” Grandcolas struggled with depression and survivor’s guilt in the aftermath of the tragedy. With the help of therapy, he came to see Lauren’s message from the plane as meant to reassure him and her family and “to let us know that she was OK with what was transpiring.” That unworldly image he saw in the sky the morning of Sept. 11 took on new meaning as he healed: “It didn’t dawn on me until later that the vision was Lauren.” He would hear her voice in times of struggle, telling him to get up and keep living his life.

Grandcolas eventually remarried and moved out of the home he and Lauren had bought in San Rafael, California. Today, he’s semi-retired from his career as an advertising executive. He is writing a book about the grieving process that will be a tribute to his unborn child. It will be published in April, when the child would have turned 20. On the 20th anniversary, Grandcolas finds himself thinking back to how the country came together after 9/11, which he sees as a stark contrast to the division plaguing America today. “This country was united from sea to shining sea, and today, maybe now, would be a good time to let the divisiveness drop,” he said.

PM Modi Likely To Visit US In September

September 8, 2021 Staff ReporterNation India, Nation USA 0

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to travel to Washington DC and New York in the United States around September end, reports said on Saturday. If the plan materialises, this will mark Modi’s first official visit to the US ever since Biden took the charge of the country. Even as preparations are underway for PM Modi’s visit to the US, no official confirmation has been issued so far. If the schedule works out as per ongoing discussions, the window of opportunity that is being explored is September 22-27, said sources. The last time PM Modi came to the US saw a great fanfare amidst the growing public friendship display of former President Trump and Modi. This time, however, with President Joe Biden at the helm there may not be such an outward display of star-studded show, but many experts expect to have some significant steps taken towards strengthening the relationships between the two countries.

This will be Modi’s first in-person meeting with Biden. The two have met virtually on at least three occasions — the Quad summit in March, the climate change summit in April, and the G-7 summit in June this year. Modi was supposed to travel to the UK for the G-7 summit where he could have met Biden, but had to cancel the trip due to the second Covid-19 wave across India. With the situation in Afghanistan unfolding rapidly, Modi’s visit is significant. Besides meeting Biden, he is expected to have important meetings with the top echelons of the US administration.

Modi last visited the US in September 2019, when then US President Donald Trump had addressed the Howdy Modi event — the Prime Minister’s “abki baar Trump sarkar” line had not gone down well with the Democratic party’s establishment. Two years since, it will be an effort to reach out to the Democratic establishment, which has been quite vocal about the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir. On the strategic side, the two sides will work on an ambitious agenda on the Indo-Pacific – with the Chinese challenge being one of the shared concerns. In this context, an in-person Quad leaders’ summit is being planned in Washington DC, around the same time as Modi’s visit. But Japanese PM Yoshihide Suga’s decision on Friday to step down after a one-year tenure has put a spanner in the works. Sources said that while an in-person summit for all the Quad leaders looks like a remote possibility, a “hybrid format” could be an option, where at least two leaders – Modi and Biden – join in person, while Australia’s Scott Morrison and Japan’s Suga join virtually.

According to reports, after Washington, PM Modi will visit New York to attend the annual high-level United Nations General Assembly session. India is a non-permanent member of the UN security council and its month-long presidency has just ended. Afghanistan, which has plunged into crisis following the Taliban takeover, will be the key topic at the UNGA this time. In a bid to give shape to the PM’s agenda, Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla has met top Biden administration officials in Washington DC, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Deputy Secretary Wendy Sherman, and held substantive discussions with them on the strategic bilateral ties and regional and global issues like the current situation in Afghanistan. The Biden administration has made cooperation with India a key aspect of its overall foreign policy priorities in the Indo-Pacific, a region that has witnessed growing Chinese military assertiveness.

The United States has been seeking to convene the in-person summit of Quad leaders to advance practical cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, as well as to send a strong signal about Washington’s commitment to the group. In March, President Biden organized the first summit of Quad leaders in the virtual format that promised to fight for an Indo-Pacific region that is free, open, inclusive, anchored in democratic values and not constrained by coercion, sending an apparent message to China. In Washington, while talking to reporters, foreign secretary Shringla indicated that there is a possibility of a Quad meet.

“I mean, look, I can’t comment on that, but the fact of the matter is that if there is a summit, Prime Minister has already said that he would, he would be happy to attend that summit. I think other leaders have also said that they will be ready so it all it’s all a question of, you know, getting the leaders together and going ahead,” he said. “If the leaders come in they would come because of this (Quad) meeting, as you know the UNGA is this time is a truncated version, it’s a hybrid version. Very few heads of state and government will actually attend it. So, attending that meeting in person is not a great priority. But then again, I mean, it’s a fluid situation so let’s see how that goes,” he added.

Why Is Japan’s Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga Resigning

September 8, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal 0

Yoshihide Suga is bowing out as prime minister of Japan, amid increasing anger over his government’s handling of COVID-19 in the wake of the Tokyo Olympics. He announced Friday that he will not seek re-election as leader of the Liberal Democrat Party (LDP) at the end of September. Suga, 72, became prime minister just one year ago after long-serving Prime Minister Shinzo Abe stepped down over health concerns. He said during a party meeting Friday on that he wanted to focus on the coronavirus pandemic instead of continuing on as the head of the LDP. With a general election upcoming in the fall, Suga’s resignation paves the way for a new leader of the world’s third-largest economy.

Why is Suga stepping aside after just a year in office?

Suga’s popularity has plummeted over his handling of the coronavirus pandemic; Japan is currently battling its largest wave of the virus since the pandemic began. “Suga’s insincere and ambiguous comments and actions on containing the pandemic every single day have made Japanese citizens very frustrated,” says Yoshikazu Kato, a research fellow at the Rakuten Securities Economic Research Institute in Tokyo. “The public nowadays basically does not trust the government at all.” Suga hoped the Olympics would help boost his popularity, but despite a record medal count for Japan, his ratings sank even lower. The number of COVID-19 cases has surged to all-time highs in recent weeks in Japan, due to the more contagious Delta variant. The Japanese public, angry over Suga’s decision to hold the international event in the midst of a pandemic, has increasingly ignored government pleas to stay at home. Support for the Prime Minister was below 30% in both July and August, according to polls by local media.

“Suga has long been under pressure due to criticism of his coronavirus response and a host of other issues,” says Kristi Govella, the Deputy Director of the Asia Program at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “But the ground really shifted over the last couple of weeks and his support from within the party eroded quickly.” Experts say that LDP members began to worry that having Suga as party leader could cost them seats in the general election, which must be held before the end of November. “My guess is that he was persuaded” to step aside, says Jeff Kingston, the Director of Asian Studies at Temple University Japan.

Who will be Japan’s next prime minister?

Fumio Kishida, a frontrunner to win the Liberal Democratic Party’s (LDP) leadership election and become Japan’s next prime minister, is pictured on Sept. 14, 2020 in Tokyo, Japan. Eugene Hoshiko–Pool/Getty Images Japan has a parliamentary system, and the LDP and its allies have a strong majority in the lower house of the legislature, the National Diet—which means whomever wins the LDP leadership race will become the next prime minister. However, the new leader will have only a few weeks before he or she will have to face Japanese voters in a general election. Despite Suga’s deep unpopularity, the LDP still dominates politics in Japan, so whomever is picked in the party leadership election is likely to win a four-year term in office.

Several contenders have already indicated they were interested in running for LDP leadership. With Suga gone, even more candidates may emerge, and it’s unclear who is likely to come out on top, observers say. Former Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida—who had already said that he would challenge Suga for the party’s presidency—is currently the frontrunner, but that could change quickly as others enter the race, Govella says. Kingston says that although Kishida really wants the job and has made some big promises, like a huge coronavirus stimulus package, he has “zero charisma.” “He’s just an unimpressive guy,” says Kingston. A recent poll by Nikkei Asia found that Taro Kono, a former foreign minister and the country’s vaccine czar, and Shigeru Ishiba, former secretary-general of the ruling party, were ranked as top choices for the LDP’s next presidency. But Kingston says Kono’s is involvement with the vaccination drive—which many in Japan perceived as too slow to start—may hurt his chances, and it’s not clear if Ishiba wants the job.

Japan’s Internal Affairs and Communications Minister Sanae Takaichi has expressed interest in running for the LDP’s top spot, and former defense minister Tomomi Inada has indicated her interest in the past. Kato, of the Rakuten Securities Economic Research Institute, says that although some experts believe Takaichi might be Japan’s first female Prime Minister, she’s unlikely to win this round. Observers have also named Shinjiro Koizumi, the country’s charismatic environment minister and son of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi as a possible contender, but Kingston says the 40-year-old politician is “just too young.” “Suga’s resignation opens up the race. A lot of people who were hanging back… now, these people are probably going to be reconsidering,” says Kingston.

What does this mean for Japan?

Suga served as his predecessor’s cabinet secretary for eight years before he became prime minister. His decision to step aside marks the end of an era for Japan. “Suga’s resignation actually means the end of the longest administration in Japanese constitutional history—Abe’s administration,” Kato says. Despite uncertainty over who will take over the LDP from Suga, experts say that the change in leadership might not be all that significant. “I think there are signs that the LDP is going to retain its majority, but they figure they’ll do better under a fresh face, rather than Suga who’s been looking pretty weary lately,” says Kingston. Says Govella: “Despite Suga’s departure, we are likely to see a great deal of continuity in Japanese politics given the dominance of the LDP and the need for the next prime minister to focus on Japan’s coronavirus response.” (Courtesy: TIME)

While Abandoning Afghanistan!

September 8, 2021September 8, 2021 Mathew Joys, Las VegasEditorial/Opinion, Global 0

“What happened in Vietnam?” – we had been hearing the question on different platforms for so many years. On U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam in 1975, many political analysts said China or the Russians would take it over; even now, we are blaming it as America’s humiliating military defeat. “The U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001 because the country’s Taliban rulers at the time hosted Osama Bin Laden along with other Al Qaeda leaders who plotted the Sept.11 attacks on America. Since then, Islamist terrorist groups, particularly the far more radical Islamic State, have established other footholds worldwide, from Mozambique to the Philippines to West Africa.”

When U.S. troops withdrew from Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport within the stipulated time, the nation’s most prolonged war cost was more than $ 2.3 trillion. During the last 20 years, more than 2,400 U.S. service members have been killed in Afghanistan alone. World astonished to hear that even while retrieving, thirteen U.S. soldiers were killed in the latest suicide bombing in Kabul Airport. Taliban’s praise of China is aimed at gaining recognition for their government at the international level by establishing links with power like China. China and Pakistan are now the only countries in the region that fully support the Taliban.

According to diplomats, the Taliban decided to end trade with India due to pressure from the two countries. Whether all other hypothesis is right or wrong, this development is a real threat to India in the days ahead. Though we are doubtful about China, America is still stronger in technology, manufacturing, and military power. China is not ready to replace the U.S. in the region unless Pakistan pushes them to do so. Generally, it is criticized that the U.S. could have remained involved in Afghanistan, including by helping the country to maintain stability and combat terrorism and violence, The Taliban infiltration began after the United States began withdrawing from Afghanistan. First, they conquered each of the provinces. The American-trained Afghan fighters had to look on helplessly. Eventually, the militants took over. Not only did the militants take power on the soil they had fought for 20 years to drive out the militants, but they also took the lives of 13 American soldiers before withdrawing from there.

Have you ever heard the old sarcasm on U.S.: “They nurtured terrorist organizations by giving U.S. dollars to Pakistan to fight terrorism. American soldiers were shot dead with guns provided by the United States. When the U.S. was sifting through Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden, Pakistan hid him in their base and made the U.S. play a monkey. Unaware that Bin Laden was hiding in the next room, Hillary Clinton went to Pakistan, blamed India, and befriended Nawaz Sharif. She said a poor developing country was seeking permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council. Sharif and his group laughed at Hillary’s joke. How about American intelligence” if that was the actual story, the U.S replied promptly later.

The story remains the same even after 21 years, US went to overthrow militants and terrorists in Afghanistan, but now left by handing over power to them only!. (Do not try to teach new tricks to old dogs, or democracy to Islamic conservatives.) We may be hearing more about the foolish things that happened on our quick withdrawal, leaving so many supporters helpless in the terrorists’ hands and leaving many weapons, bomber planes, and ammunition with the enemy..

The whole world knows that the Taliban captured Kabul, but they have no power to speak. Terrorist organizations like ISK, more potent than them, are growing in Afghanistan. Pakistan will be ready to help them. This is where the importance of USA or NATO needs to be highlighted; America is burdened with more challenges and responsibilities, including the refugees and terrorists being spread everywhere!

Assemblyman Sterley Stanley, First South Asian From Middlesex County In The New Jersey General Assembly

September 4, 2021September 15, 2021 Ajay GhoshCommunity, Nation USA, Profile 0

New Jersey’s Asian population has experienced remarkable growth within the last decade. According to census data released earlier this month, about 1.05 million New Jersey residents, slightly more than 11% of the state’s population, identified as either partially or entirely Asian. This striking 44% increase from the 725,726 who identified as Asian in the 2010 census prompts the question of whether the state government has changed to reflect new demographics. In fact, Asian candidates would need to win seven more seats in the Assembly and two or three more in the Senate for their representation to align with the state’s demographics. Nonetheless, there are those in the state government already leading the way to greater representation. Most recently, Assemblyman Sterley Stanley (D-Middlesex) joined State Sen. Vin Gopal (D-Monmouth) and Assemblyman Raj Mukherji (D-Hudson) as the third Indian American to be elected to the state legislature.

Stanley won his 18^th District Assembly seat in a Special Election in January 2021, becoming the first South Asian to represent Middlesex County in the New Jersey Legislature. Stanley defeated fellow Democrat, Edison Councilman Joe Coyle by a vote of 189-136, a 58%-42% margin, according to the Middlesex County Democratic Organization. The seat became vacant when former Assemblywoman Nancy Pinkin resigned after being sworn in as the new Middlesex County Clerk.Endorsed by the Middlesex County Democratic Organization, Assemblyman Stanley was sworn in on January 27th, 2021. Stanley serves as a member of the Assembly Committee On Law And Public Safety and as a member of the Assembly Committee On Health. “I am honored to serve the residents of the 18th district and eager to roll up my sleeves to address the needs of our wonderful, diverse district and state,” Stanley said in a statement after being sworn in as an Assemblyman. “The events of the past year have shown us the danger of divisive forces, but they have also shown us the strength and necessity of collaboration. Truly listening to one another will allow us to better understand the issues and each other and to develop and implement nuanced, detailed solutions that reflect every community’s situation.”

Prior to being selected to fill the seat, Stanley served two terms as an East Brunswick Councilman. While on the East Brunswick Council, he advocated for fiscal responsibility, economic redevelopment and community building programs. The 54-Year-old Stanley was re-elected to his East Brunswick Council seat by 5,137 votes in 2020 against Republican Suzanne Blum and served as Council President in 2019 and 2020. During his time as councilman, the council and mayor’s administration “stabilized East Brunswick taxes without a reduction in services; re-established the East Brunswick Regional Chamber of Commerce; strengthened community relations with law enforcement; maintained a strong relationship with the public school district; and focused on delivering ratables through redevelopment.” Stanley won the Democratic primary this past June and will run in the general election in November 2021 for a full two-year term. The 18th District has the highest percentage of Asian Americans of any legislative district in the state, and Middlesex, Stanley’s home county, has the largest Asian population in the state, at 237,945 residents. In addition to East Brunswick and Edison, the 18th District includes Helmetta, Highland Park, Metuchen, South Plainfield And South River – all Middlesex municipalities. NJ State Assembly Speaker Craig Coughlin, while welcoming Stanley into the Assembly Democratic Caucus, stated, “Sterley is a true and dedicated public servant who distinguished himself as a two-term East Brunswick Councilman and he makes history as the first South Asian Assemblyman from Middlesex County. I look forward to working with Assemblyman Stanley as we seek to advance our shared priorities of protecting the middle class and our most vulnerable residents.”

Stanley was born in the State of Karnataka, India and immigrated to Brooklyn, NY at a young age. For the last 21 years, he has called East Brunswick his home. While living there, he has worked in the finance industry as a title and life insurance agent, as well as a mortgage broker. Stanley is a proud father of three children and has been actively involved in the Middlesex County community, previously serving as a Trustee of the Lighthouse Christian Fellowship Church in East Brunswick and as President of the Fox Meadow Condominium Association. State Sen. Patrick Diegnan (D-South Plainfield) was among those who had supported the then East Brunswick Councilman Sterley Stanley for the Assembly Seat. “I’m supporting Sterley Stanley,” he said. “He’s a good guy and he works with me all the time.” At a February 8^th meeting, the East Brunswick town council honored Stanley’s four years of local service. At the meeting, Stanley stated that one of his proudest achievements as Council President was helping to ensure that the governing body functioned as a cohesive unit. “We might have had differences of opinion and we have differences in the way we solve things, but at the end of the day, we all got together and did what was best for the Township,” Stanley said. “I feel honored now to not just represent East Brunswick, but the whole 18th District, and all seven towns that are there,” he said.

Stanley said he looks forward to applying everything he has learned in the last four years on the council and everything he has achieved in the township and bring it to the State level. “It is a true privilege to represent the people of District 18 and The State Of New Jersey,” said Stanley. “I am committed to serving the residents and I look forward to working with my Assembly colleagues to best address the needs of this wonderful, diverse district and state. It is important, to me, to ensure all voices are heard so that we can work together in harmony and maintain a strong, united community.” During his time as Councilman, Stanley’s efforts to help establish a redevelopment agency were well received by the public. Through town halls and other outreach efforts, he has always encouraged residents to actively participate in the process and prioritized working with them. In another collaborative initiative, he worked with the East Brunswick Police Department to strengthen dialogue around cultural diversity within the community. Stanley is generally committed to “establishing open lines of communication” and to strengthening the relationships between state legislators and each town’s administration, municipal chairs and committee persons. He intends to “always be available to listen to their issues and provide support,” hoping to “work at the state level to promote transparency and community engagement.”

“Our main streets are the backbone of our community and I will work to move past the current economic crisis to ensure that local businesses thrive,” Stanley declared. “I will help with identifying areas in need of redevelopment and take action to bring more responsible economic growth to create local, sustainable, good-paying jobs, while ensuring the same access to opportunity for all by enacting legislation that builds bridges for all.” “The issues we confront are not simple, but I deeply believe that they are not insurmountable if we understand their complexity and commit to respecting the perspectives that our fellow community members and leaders bring to the table.”

Ending 20-Years-Old War, All American Troops Leave Afghanistan

September 1, 2021September 8, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Nation USA 0

The last US military planes have left Afghanistan, Commander of US Central Command, Gen. Frank McKenzie announced Monday, August 30th at the Pentagon. The US departure marks the end of a fraught, chaotic and bloody exit from the United States’ longest war.”I’m here to announce the completion of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the end of the military mission to evacuate American citizens, third country nationals, and vulnerable Afghans,” McKenzie told reporters. “The last C-17 lifted off from Hamid Karzai International Airport on August 30th, this afternoon, at 3:29 p.m. East Coast time, and the last manned aircraft is now clearing the airspace above Afghanistan.”

Nearly 20 years after the US invaded Afghanistan to avenge the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, and strike at al Qaeda and the Taliban, which hosted Osama bin Laden, another American administration is leaving the country in the control of Taliban militants who still maintain close ties to al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. President Joe Biden said the mission was accomplished years ago, with the killing of Osama bin Laden and the degrading of Al Qaeda. He said he would no longer put American troops in the middle of a civil war.

The US will only engage with the Taliban government if it is in “our vital national interest”, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said. He said Washington will not work with the Taliban “on the basis of trust or faith” but on what it does with respect to its commitments for free travel for Afghans, protecting the rights of different groups including women, and preventing terror groups from gaining a stronghold. “Any legitimacy will have to be earned,” he said. The departure marks the first time in nearly two decades that the US and its allies have not had troops on the ground in Afghanistan and — after $2 trillion in spending and nearly 2,000 US troops killed in action — the pullout raises questions about the utility of a war that saw the service of parents and then their grown children.

With no US diplomats remaining in the country a senior State Department official said that they expected the US Embassy in Kabul to suspend embassy operations upon the end of the military retrograde but said “that doesn’t mean that we are suspending any commitments to American citizens in Afghanistan, to at risk Afghans, to the Afghan people.” Even as Biden pulls the US from the country, Afghanistan looks likely to shadow him politically and engage him militarily — on Monday, White House officials said the President is continuing the hunt for terrorists in the country, telling his military commanders to “stop at nothing” to avenge the deaths of 13 US service members at Kabul airport last week.

Enter your email to sign up for CNN’s The Point with Chris Cillizza. More than 122,000 people have been airlifted from Hamid Karzai International Airport since July, Pentagon spokesman John Kirby told reporters, including 5,400 Americans. A senior State Department official said the department believes there are fewer than 250 American citizens currently in Afghanistan who may wish to leave, as US officials stressed a Taliban commitment to let Afghans leave the country after the US and allies’ withdrawal. The State Department official put the number of American citizens who have left the country through evacuation flights or other means closer to 6,000. In the 24 hours leading up to Monday morning, 26 military C-17 aircraft lifted off from Kabul carrying 1,200 evacuees, according to Gen. Hank Taylor, the deputy director of regional operations for the Joint Staff, who spoke alongside Kirby at a Pentagon briefing earlier Monday.

In total, 28 flights departed from Kabul airport in that 24-hour window, Taylor said.

In the same 24-hour period, the US conducted a drone strike that killed multiple civilians, including children, the Kabul airport was targeted by rocket fire, and military officials continued to warn of active, specific threats to the evacuation effort. The “threat stream is still real. It’s still active, and, in many cases, it’s still specific,” Kirby said at the Monday morning briefing when asked if another attack on the airport was still likely. Taylor added that military operations were continuing with a focus on the security of the US troops in Kabul, and the military would have capability to evacuate Afghans until the very end.

“We’re taking it very seriously and we will right up until the end,” Kirby said.

Along with the military exit, the US is pulling out all diplomatic representation, leaving open the question of whether it will formally recognize the Taliban as the rulers of Afghanistan. The formal military and diplomatic “retrograde” is ending even as the US leaves behind Americans, some of whom did not want to leave and others who may have already left, according to State Department officials, as well as vulnerable Afghans who worked for the US military and now face possible Taliban retaliation. That tragically unfinished business will become part of the broader political challenge that Biden faces as he enters the second half of his first year in office. The airlift, which started as a seemingly haphazard and hastily organized effort, was scarred by the deaths of 13 service members last week and the death sentence hanging over Afghan translators who helped US troops and diplomats but were unable to escape the country. In addition, Biden’s decision to leave will be shadowed by questions about whether and how well the threat of terrorism emanating from Afghanistan has really been addressed.

The President has already committed to prolonging some US engagement with Afghanistan, telling his military commanders that they should “stop at nothing” to make ISIS pay for the service members’ deaths. I can tell you that the President has made clear to his commanders that they should stop at nothing to make ISIS pay for the deaths of those American service members at the Kabul airport,” Psaki said at a White House press briefing. Former President Donald Trump had praised withdrawing US troops from Afghanistan, while knocking his successor’s timeline for doing so. Though the former President offered his support of President Joe Biden’s plans to bring home American troops, he urged his successor to draw an end to America’s longest war well before the September 11 deadline that Biden set last week.

Trump said that while leaving Afghanistan is “a wonderful and positive thing to do,” he had set a May 1 withdrawal deadline and added that “we should keep as close to that schedule as possible.” “I wish Joe Biden wouldn’t use September 11 as the date to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan, for two reasons. First, we can and should get out earlier. Nineteen years is enough, in fact, far too much and way too long,” Trump said, adding: “September 11 represents a very sad event and period for our Country and should remain a day of reflection and remembrance honoring those great souls we lost.” Trump is the latest former commander in chief to weigh in on Biden’s plan, with both former Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama having spoken to Biden ahead of his announcement last week. Obama praised Biden’s decision to end the nearly 20-year war, which has spanned all four administrations.

US forces finally withdrew from Afghanistan on Monday, a day ahead of the deadline set by Joe Biden, bringing to an end a deployment which began in the wake of the September 11 attacks two decades ago. The end of the Western military presence – the UK had already pulled out its remaining troops – also concluded the airborne evacuation effort from Kabul, leaving Afghans wanting to escape the Taliban facing an uncertain future. For the 38 million Afghans that remain in the country, there is significant uncertainty over what kind of rule the Taliban will impose. Will they bring back the harsh rules and punishments that characterised their last spell in charge of the country. Many Afghans look at Taliban rule in rural areas and fear that they have not changed, but that they’ve somehow got even worse.

The Taliban proclaimed “full independence” for Afghanistan after the US withdrawal.

The new regime in Afghanistan faces pressure to respect human rights and provide safe passage for those who wish to escape its rule following the passage of a UN Security Council resolution. The council adopted a resolution in New York – with Russia and China abstaining rather than wielding their vetoes – in what the UK hopes is a step towards a unified international response. But the resolution effectively acknowledges that it is now up to the Taliban to decide whether people can leave Afghanistan. The UK’s ambassador to the UN, Dame Barbara Woodward, stressed that “a co-ordinated approach will be vital to counter any extremist threat emanating from Afghanistan”. The humanitarian situation also needs to be urgently addressed – with complete access for UN agencies and aid organizations – and the progress made on human rights in the 20 years since the US-led coalition became involved in Afghanistan must also be protected, she said.

“Today’s resolution is an important step towards a unified international response to the situation in Afghanistan,” Dame Barbara said. “We will continue to build on this to ensure the council holds the Taliban accountable on its commitments. The Taliban will be judged by the international community on the basis of their actions on the ground, not their words.”

In India, Hindu Support For Modi’s Party Varies By Region And Is Tied To Beliefs About Diet And Language

September 1, 2021September 8, 2021 Jonathan Evans At Pew ResearchCommunity, Culture, Nation India 0

India’s ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), is sometimes said to prioritize Hindu interests. Hindus were the religious group most likely to say they voted for the BJP in the country’s most recent parliamentary election, but there are vast differences in how Hindus from different regions voted, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey of nearly 30,000 Indian adults. These regional political differences are connected to Hindu attitudes on a range of issues including language, diet and religious observance.

How we did this In 2019, roughly half of Hindu voters (49%) supported the BJP, giving the party a majority in the Lok Sabha – India’s lower house of parliament – and allowing Prime Minister Narendra Modi a second term to lead the country. Among Hindus, the BJP received some of its highest vote shares in the Northern (68%) and Central (65%) regions of the country, which include India’s capital, Delhi, and its most populous state, Uttar Pradesh. By comparison, 46% of Hindu voters in the East and just 19% in the South say they voted for the BJP, according to the Center’s survey.

In the South, significant shares of Hindu voters (20%) say they instead supported the Indian National Congress (INC), which has led the country for most of the years since its independence. Regional parties, including the Telangana Rashtra Samithi and the Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party, also received significant vote shares among Southern Hindus (both 11%). Southern states tend to have higher per capita income and have experienced faster economic growth than most Northern and Central states. Differences in voting patterns between Southern Hindus and those who live in the Northern and Central regions are part of broader regional differences among Hindus in India. For example, Hindu nationalist sentiments appear to have a smaller foothold in the South. Nationally, 64% of Hindus in India say being a Hindu is very important to being truly Indian. But while this share is as high as 83% in the Central region, it falls to 42% in the South.

A closely related sentiment is the importance of the Hindi language to national identity: The majority of Hindus in the Central (87%) and Northern (71%) regions say that speaking Hindi is very important to being truly Indian, while just 27% of Southern Hindus say this. Among the dozens of commonly spoken Indian languages, Hindi is the most widespread. However, while it is often spoken in the Northern and Central parts of the country, it is far less common in the South. Views on the connection between the Hindu religion, Hindi language and Indian identity are highly correlated with support for the BJP – a party that has supported making Hindi the national language and has enacted laws (such as restricting cow slaughter) that are seen as favorable to Hindus.

Indeed, attitudes about cow slaughter and beef consumption mark another division between the South and other regions of the country. Many Hindus consider cows sacred animals, but there are mixed views about whether eating beef disqualifies a person from being a Hindu. Most Hindus in the Northern and Central regions (both 83%) say someone who eats beef cannot be Hindu, compared with half of Southern Hindus. And attitudes about beef and Hindu identity are correlated with support for the BJP: Hindus who say they voted for the BJP are more likely than other Hindu voters to say someone who eats beef cannot be Hindu (77% vs. 66%). Southern Hindus also differ in their religious observance. For instance, while 92% of Hindus in the Central region say religion is very important in their life, the share is substantially lower among Southern Hindus (68%). More religious Hindus tend to support the country’s ruling party: About half of Hindus who say religion is very important in their lives (52%) voted for the BJP in 2019, compared with around a third of Hindus (32%) who say religion is less important in their lives.

Views of the BJP differ along other religious lines in India, too. Among minority religions analyzed in the Center’s report, Jains appear to be the only group who strongly embrace the BJP. While the survey did not include enough Jain voters to report how they voted in the 2019 election, 70% of Jains said in a separate question that they feel closest to the BJP, regardless of whether they voted in the last election. Meanwhile, other religious groups showed less support for the ruling party: Fewer than a third of Buddhists (29%), Muslims (19%), Sikhs (19%) and Christians (10%) say they voted for the BJP in the 2019 parliamentary election.

Many voters from minority religions opted to vote for parties other than the BJP or INC. For example, 14% of Buddhists say they voted for the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), a national party focused primarily on the welfare of lower castes and minority religions; 89% of Buddhists are members of Scheduled Castes. Support for regional parties is also tied to religion. For instance, 16% of Sikhs say they voted for Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) in 2019. SAD is a regional party representing Punjabi interests; according to the most recent national census, conducted in 2011, 77% of India’s Sikhs live in Punjab.

It’s Not Just Afghanistan — Americans Are Losing Faith In Biden On Many Issues

September 1, 2021September 4, 2021 Harry Enten, CNNNation USA 0

President Joe Biden’s approval rating is at its lowest point in his presidency. In the average of polls, he stands at about 47%. That’s a steady decline from the beginning of this month (51%), last month (52%) and beginning of June (54%). It would be easy to assign Biden’s decline to the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, but, as the data shows, Biden has been trending downward for a while. The truth is that he is losing ground on a number of key issues. The coronavirus pandemic, for example, had been one of Biden’s best issues. He was trusted more than former President Donald Trump to handle it in poll after poll during last year’s election. Trump likely would have won in 2020 had people trusted him more.

Biden’s approval rating on the coronavirus had consistently been in the 60s for the first six months of his presidency. That declined to the high 50s in July and has been sunk to the 50s in the month of August. Biden’s overall approval rating has declined at a similar rate to his coronavirus pandemic approval rating. The problem for Biden is that people are reacting to what they see on the ground. Coronavirus cases and hospitalizations are the highest they’ve been since the beginning of the year, as the Delta variant has taken hold in the US. More people fear catching the coronavirus than they have since the beginning of the spring when vaccines became widely available. Most Americans think the worst of the virus is still ahead of us, which is a shift from earlier this year.

Biden’s also seen his numbers on the economy drop. During August, Biden’s average approval rating on the economy has been just 47%. That’s down from the 51% it averaged during the month of July. Again, this drop can be assigned to a reaction to real world events. Consumer sentiment declined greatly during the first half of August, according to the University of Michigan. The decline of Biden’s economic approval rating should be worrying to him. As I noted previously, Biden’s economic approval rating has been closely tied to his overall approval rating. Right now, both of them are at 47% in the average of polls. Worse for Biden is that the economy is viewed as the second most important problem (behind the coronavirus), according to Gallup. It shouldn’t be surprising, therefore, that a drop in Biden’s economic approval rating coincides with a drop in his overall approval rating.

Biden’s declining approval ratings on the coronavirus and economy has been punctuated by how Americans see him handling the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. In July, before the troop withdrawal, Biden averaged a 58% approval rating when it came to getting the troops out of Afghanistan. Biden’s average approval rating on Afghanistan stands at a mere 34% today. You rarely see anything close to a 24-point drop on a president’s handling of an issue in such a short period of time. The fact that three big issues are going against Biden at the same time makes it difficult to figure out what is driving his overall approval rating down. It’s probably all three to some degree. Indeed, the entire mood of the country has taken a dive recently. Just 33% of the country say the country is going in the right direction in an average of recent polling.

This 33% is notable because optimism in the country under Biden had been reaching levels it hadn’t seen in a long time. At the beginning of last month, 43% of Americans agreed the country was going in the right direction. The last time 43% said the country was going in the right direction was back in 2009. The current 33% is much more like the readings we saw on this metric during the Trump administration. The big question going forward is how do American minds change from here. An issue for Biden is that even when the last American troops leave Afghanistan that probably won’t change people’s perceptions on the coronavirus or the economy. Still, the fact that Biden’s ratings have shifted as much as they have over the last month may be an indication that Biden’s once stable ratings are more susceptible to shifting around that was previously thought.

Independents’ Views On The Economy Pose A Political Risk To Joe Biden

September 1, 2021 Staff ReporterNation USA 0

Unless you’re a die-hard political science nerd, the date of Aug. 16 probably means nothing to you. I know that I missed it as Kabul fell, Americans struggled to get fellow citizens and allies in the 20 years of war in Afghanistan out of the country and the Dow here at home dropped by almost 1 percentage point in one day of trading on Wall Street. But on that day, by a margin of 0.1%, President Joe Biden’s job approval number, for the first time as President, dropped below 50% in the FiveThirtyEight poll of polls. In other words, it was the first crack in what had to that point suggested Biden had the support of at least half of the country he was leading. And it’s one of those moments when any leader expecting to slide into re-elect mode as early as November of next year starts to get worried.

On its own, the polling slip was—and remains—inconsequential. But it does speak to a humming concern among some Democrats that Biden’s popularity isn’t absolute. The very narrow dip suggests that a break from the Donald Trump-era bombast was welcome for many Americans, but may be insufficient to guarantee a re-election. The economy is on pace to have its strongest calendar-year showing since 1984. But voters don’t believe it: An AP poll from June found 54% of Americans think the economy is in poor shape. If that economic reality isn’t matched with voters’ perceptions, it could leave Democrats in control of the White House, the House and the Senate while holding a rich but rancid bag. The quick collapse of Afghanistan, coming so close to the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, hasn’t helped Biden’s standing. New polling from USA Today, released just Tuesday, found three-quarters of Americans expect Afghanistan to once again become a safe haven for those who would launch terror attacks against the United States. The bombing outside Hamid Karzai International Airport’s Abbey Gate today will do nothing to counter those persistent fears that two decades of Americans’ work in that country have been for naught.

But if you dig a little deeper and a little closer to home, it’s less the implosion half a world away and more the worries around the corner in Americans’ own neighborhoods that are hurting Biden. In particular, independent voters—those who align with neither party—are skittish. In April, 61% of indies approved of Biden’s job performance, according to NBC News’ polling . That figure now stands at 46%. His handling of COVID-19 during that same period among the same independent voters collapsed from 81% to 52%. And his handling of the economy fell from 60% to 45%. Without independents, Biden couldn’t have won in 2020. That bloc, which accounted for 26% of the vote, broke for Biden last year by a 13-point margin.

If the electorate next year looks like it did in 2018, the last midterm vote, independents will account for an even larger chunk. Three years ago, as Democrats took control of the House, indies were 30% of the electorate and broke to Team Blue by 12 points. Democrats at the moment have a razor-thin eight-seat advantage in the House, an upper hand that disappears in an instant if redistricting goes as many Democrats expect. In fact, gerrymandering four Southern states alone could hand Republicans the gavel again in the House. The Senate is split evenly at 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie in Democrats’ favor.

History isn’t on Team Blue’s side. In fact, the party that controls the White House typically takes a slagging in its first at-bat under a new President. Democrats picked up a net 41 House seats during Trump’s one midterm test. Republicans picked up 63 seats in Barack Obama’s first electoral report card, and 54 during Bill Clinton’s. (The one notable outlier was 2002, when George W. Bush’s post-9/11 polling glow had even the most partisan Democrats biting their tongue and waving Old Glory. Republicans in that year picked up eight House seats.)

That’s why the White House is so eager to land the ongoing talks about a net $4 trillion in new infrastructure spending. An accord among feuding Democratic factions seems to have been reached this week with some procedural votes that set up a fall passage of twin infrastructure bills. The White House plans to sell them hard. But they also need to be very careful in how they pitch the spending: pumping that much cash into an economy could feed real and perceived fears of inflation .

Both impressions about the state of the economy can be true . While college-educated workers have been able to make the transition to working from home, less-educated workers have seen their jobs in sectors like services and hospitality evaporate. The disappearance of some 8 million jobs during the pandemic has disproportionately hit racial minorities, new college grads and women, especially single mothers who have returned to home to provide childcare. Layer the political coalitions of both parties over this landscape and it’s immediately clear why Democrats have a looming crisis unless they can convince their allies that the recovery has been equitable. First, though, the need to buoy their party’s leader into personal recovery mode. After all, FiveThirtyEight’s meta-poll has him with less than 1 percentage point to spare before he becomes more unpopular than popular.

U.S. Legally, Morally Obligated To ‘Clean Up The Mess’ In Afghanistan, WVU Researcher Says

September 1, 2021September 1, 2021 Karen Culcasi At West Virginia UniversityEditorial/Opinion, Nation USA 0

A West Virginia University researcher who has worked with refugees and women in the Arab world believes the United States has a legal and moral obligation to aid the Afghan population after the Taliban’s takeover. The Taliban’s leadership has stated it would protect women’s rights, but Karen Culcasi is doubtful of that and fears for the safety of women and girls in Afghanistan.

QUOTES

“Women and girls are being drastically affected by the (U.S.) withdrawal. The Taliban, which the U.S. overthrew in 2001, had oppressed women so severely since the early 1990s that the 2001 U.S. invasion was justified, in part, to ‘liberate’ women and girls from their power. While the U.S. and NATO’s 20 years in Afghanistan was violent, oppressive and led to the deaths of over 100,000 Afghan civilians, police, and soldiers, the overthrow of the Taliban did greatly improve women’s rights. Job opportunities and political representation increased for women, while child marriages and maternal mortality declined. Improvements in education were profound. Approximately 900,000 boys were in school in 2001 and as of early 2021, there are 9.2 million children in school, of which 39% are girls.

“But with the Taliban back in Kabul, women and girls are at risk of being shrouded back into their homes and denied educational opportunities. The Taliban has recently pledged to allow girls to go to school and that they will be ‘inclusive’ in their governance, but these are just words. “In addition to women and girls, there are some 300,000 Afghans who were employed by the U.S. government and whose lives are now in danger. In 2009, the U.S. began to issue Special Immigrant Visas for Afghans whose safety was threatened because of their association with the U.S. But the process of issuing the visas has been slow and has benefited only a tiny fraction of those Afghans.

“As this catastrophe continues to unfold, we need to be asking some serious philosophical questions about the value of U.S. military and neo-imperial actions in Afghanistan (and across the globe) and about the U.S.’s responsibility to protect marginalized people. But in the immediate, we need to act quickly to issue visas and to help Afghans to seek safety in Iran, Pakistan and the U.S. The U.S. is legally obligated to help refugees and morally obligated to clean up the mess we have made.” – Karen Culcasi, associate professor, Geology, Eberly College of Arts and Sciences

Pandemic Politics and the End of the Old International Order

September 1, 2021September 1, 2021 Thomas Wright and Colin KahlEducation, Global, Health 0

The COVID-19 pandemic killed millions, infected hundreds of millions, and laid bare the deep vulnerabilities and inequalities of our interconnected world. The accompanying economic crash was the worst since the Great Depression, with the International Monetary Fund estimating that it will cost over $22 trillion in global wealth over the next few years. Colin Kahl and Thomas Wright’s Aftershocks offers a riveting and comprehensive account of one of the strangest and most consequential years on record. Drawing on interviews with officials from around the world and extensive research, the authors tell the story of how nationalism and major power rivalries constrained the response to the worst pandemic in a century. They demonstrate the myriad ways in which the crisis exposed the limits of the old international order and how the reverberations from COVID-19 will be felt for years to come.

The COVID-19 crisis is the greatest shock to world order since World War II. Millions have been infected and killed. The economic crash caused by the pandemic is the worst since the Great Depression, with the International Monetary Fund estimating that it will cost over $9 trillion of global wealth in the next few years. Many will be left impoverished and hungry. Fragile states will be further hollowed out, creating conditions ripe for conflict and mass displacement. Over two decades of progress in reducing extreme poverty was erased, just in the space of a few months. Already fragile states in every corner of the globe were further hollowed out. The brewing clash between the United States and China boiled over and the worldwide contest between democracy and authoritarianism deepened. It was a truly global crisis necessitating a collective response—and yet international cooperation almost entirely broke down, with key world leaders hardly on speaking terms.

Meanwhile, international institutions and alliances already under strain before the pandemic are teetering, while the United States and China, already at loggerheads before the crisis, are careening toward a new Cold War. China’s secrecy and assertiveness have shattered hopes that it will become a responsible stakeholder in the international order. Aftershocks is both a riveting journalistic account of one of the strangest years on record and a comprehensive analysis of the pandemic’s ongoing impact on the foundational institutions and ideas that have shaped the modern world. This is the first crisis in decades without a glimmer of American leadership and it shows—there has been no international cooperation on a quintessential global challenge. Every country has followed its own path—nationalizing supplies, shutting their borders, and largely ignoring the rest of the world.

The international order the United States constructed seven decades ago is in tatters, and the world is adrift. None of this came out of the blue. Public health experts and intelligence analysts had warned for a decade that a pandemic of this sort was inevitable. The crisis broke against a global backdrop of rising nationalism, backsliding democracy, declining public trust in governments, mounting rebellion against the inequalities produced by globalization, resurgent great power competition, and plummeting international cooperation.

And yet, there are some signs of hope. The COVID-19 crisis reminds us of our common humanity and shared fate. The public has, for the most part, responded stoically and with kindness. Some democracies—South Korea, Taiwan, Germany, New Zealand, among others—have responded well. America may emerge from the crisis with a new resolve to deal with non-traditional threats, like pandemic disease, and a new demand for effective collective action with other democratic nations. America may also finally be forced to come to grips with our nation’s inadequacies, and to make big changes at home and abroad that will set the stage for opportunities the rest of this century holds. But one thing is certain: America and the world will never be the same again.

Praise for Aftershocks

“COVID-19 has fundamentally changed the international order, and Aftershocks is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what that means for the future. Written by two of America’s leading strategists, this ambitious and engaging book puts the pandemic in historical context and makes an important case for how, in the wake of this crisis, we can build a better international system.” —Madeleine K. Albright

“Colin Kahl and Tom Wright are two of our nation’s leading analysts of geopolitics and American foreign policy. Aftershocks will provide a vital first take on the global response to COVID-19, the worldwide consequences of the pandemic, and what it all means for the future of international order.” —Susan Rice

“US Physician Larry Brilliant once said, ‘Outbreaks are inevitable. Epidemics are optional.’ Aftershocks is a timely, gripping, and necessary call to action, showing the steps governments, international organizations and citizens must take to provide a more reliable and sustainable security for us all.” —Samantha Power

“If you want to understand how and why the pandemic is reshaping the international order and revealing the dangers of unchecked nationalism, Aftershocks is the place to start. Informed by history, reporting, and a truly global perspective, this is an indispensable first draft of history and blueprint for how we can move forward.“ —Ben Rhodes

“A timely, insightful and sobering book by two of the most astute current observers of the United States role in international affairs. The analysis should give everyone who cares about the conduct of American foreign policy pause for thought. Their recommendations offer a critical path forward for future U.S. Administrations.” —Fiona Hill

“The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated and exposed the pre-existing conditions of an already-fading international order. I can’t think of two better observers to help us understand this profound moment of transition, or what it means for American strategy, than Colin Kahl and Tom Wright. Aftershocks promises to be an extraordinarily valuable book, as important as it will be timely.” —William J. Burns

New York has her first ever woman Governor

August 27, 2021September 23, 2021 Staff ReporterNation USA, Profile, Women 0

Kathy Hochul was sworn in as New York’s first-ever female governor of the state of New York, on August 25, 2021, as the state prepares to move on from the decade-long tenure of the embattled Andrew Cuomo. After Cuomo’s resignation became official at 11:59 p.m.. At 12:01 a.m, by the state’s chief judge, Janet DiFiore, Hochul has sworn as first woman Governor of New York. Tuesday in the State Capitol in Albany.

“I’ll tell New Yorkers I’m up to the task. And I’m really proud to be able to serve as their governor and I won’t let them down,” she said. Hochul’s ascent to the top job was a history-making moment in a capital. Where women have only recently begun chipping away at a notoriously male-dominated political culture. Kathy Hochul, serving as New York’s lieutenant governor, has catapulted into the national spotlight when Gov. Andrew Cuomo abruptly announced his resignation amid a growing sexual harassment scandal 2 weeks ago.

A more formal ceremonial swearing-in took place Tuesday at 10 a.m. Along with Hochul’s family members and the state’s two other top politicians, Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie and Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, in attendance as she took the oath of office. “This is an emotional moment for me. But it is one that I’ve prepared for,” the first woman Governor of New York said afterward. The trio of top politicians in Albany has for decades been known as the “three men in a room,” famous for cutting closed-door deals on legislative and budget matters. With Hochul joining Stewart-Cousins in top posts, the dynamic now becomes two women and a man.

For the first time, a majority of the most powerful figures in the New York state government will be women, including state Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, Attorney General Letitia James, and the chief judge, DiFiore. The state Assembly is led by a man, Speaker Carl Heastie. Hochul, the first woman Governor of New York said she was meeting with the pair right after the swearing-in. And told reporters she’d also spoken with President Joe Biden and they discussed a “number of issues”. “He pledged his full support for my administration,” she said. Also, Hochul said that she is ready to lead New York, which is still battling the Covid pandemic. Also is in the midst of a fragile economic recovery.

Hochul, the first woman Governor of New York, 62, is the ninth woman currently serving as a governor across the United States, which ties a record set in 2004. Also, she made her first formal address as governor Tuesday afternoon. There she laid out her priorities, including a mask mandate and a vaccine requirement for all school personnel. Along “with an option to test out weekly, at least for now” .“As someone who has served at all levels of government and is next in the line of succession. I am prepared to lead as New York State’s 57th Governor,” she said. Cuomo’s resignation comes after an independent investigation. It has overseen by state Attorney General Letitia James. Thus concluded there was credible evidence he’d sexually harassed at least 11 women.

In his farewell remarks, Cuomo struck a defiant tone, saying the attorney general’s report that triggered his resignation has designed to be “a political firecracker on an explosive topic, and it did work. Also, there was a political and media stampede,” he said. Cuomo’s resignation won’t end his legal problems. Also, an aide who said Cuomo groped her breast has filed a complaint with the Albany County Sheriff’s Office. Separately, Cuomo was facing a legislative investigation into whether he misled the public about COVD-19 deaths in nursing homes to protect his reputation as a pandemic leader. Even, improperly got help from state employees in writing a book that may net him $5 million.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday said, he spoke to Hochul and he has “full confidence” that she will create a “professional and capable administration.” New York’s junior U.S. senator, Kirsten Gillibrand said that Hochul will be an “extraordinary governor.” “She understands the complexities and needs of our state having been both a congresswoman and having been lieutenant governor for the last several years,” Gillibrand said.

“She is ready and able and capable of being an extraordinary first woman Governor of New York. Also, I look forward to supporting her and helping her as she turns towards governing our state, in a very difficult and challenging time,” the senator said. In 2011, Hochul has elected to Congress in a largely Republican district that spanned from Buffalo to Rochester, according to the Times profile.

Hochul became the first Democrat to represent the district in 40 years. And her victory has viewed as a referendum on Republican plans led by Paul Ryan, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, to bankrupt Medicare, according to her campaign website. After Hochul has defeated in her campaign for reelection to Congress in 2012. she has tapped by Cuomo to be his running mate during his first reelection campaign as governor.

Hochul will need to quickly build her own team of advisers to steer the administration for at least the next 16 months. Hochul, who said she didn’t work closely with Cuomo. And hasn’t aware of the harassment allegations before they became public. Then he has vowed no one will ever call her workplace “toxic”. “I have a different approach to governing,” Hochul said Wednesday. Adding, “I get the job done because I don’t have time for distractions, particularly coming into this position.”

Biden Is Firm On Aug. Deadline For US troops Withdrawal

August 27, 2021September 23, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Nation USA 0

President Biden said on Tuesday that this week that he still expects to meet the August 31st deadline to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. But that he was working with the Pentagon to develop contingency plans in the event that operations need to be extended.

Speaking from the White House, President Biden said that the timeline depended on the Taliban’s continued cooperation in allowing people to access the Kabul airport. Biden said he asked the Pentagon and the State Department to prepare contingency plans. And that is to stay in Afghanistan longer if it becomes necessary. But that he was mindful of the increased risk of military conflict. “We are currently on a pace to finish by August the 31st. The sooner we can finish, the better,” Biden said. “Each day of operations brings added risk to our current US troops in Afghanistan

While promising to bring all Americans home, Biden told American’s awaiting US troops leave Afghanistan “we will get you home”. During a statement at the White House, the president pledged to evacuate every American that wants to leave the country. They planned to evacuate them along with those who have aided US troops in Afghanistan in their anti-terrorism operations.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Wednesday that there are approximately 1,500 people who may be Americans left in Afghanistan, adding that when evacuation operations began, there was a population of as many as 6,000 American citizens in the country who wanted to leave.

Blinken said the US has “evacuated at least 4,500 American citizens and likely more”. Since August 14, and more than 500 had evacuated on the last day alone. “Over the past 24 hours we’ve been in direct contact with approximately 500 additional Americans. Meanwhile, provided specific instructions on how to get to the airport safely,” he said speaking at the State Department. Since mid-August, the U.S. has evacuated or aided in the evacuation of about 82,000 people on U.S. military and coalition flights, the official said on Wednesday.

The United States is using 18 commercial aircraft to help transport people who have evacuated from Afghanistan. Moving them from temporary locations after they have landed from Kabul, the Pentagon said on Sunday. The move highlights the difficulty Washington is having in carrying out the evacuation of U.S. citizens and at-risk Afghans following the Taliban’s swift takeover marking the third time the U.S. military has employed civilian aircraft. Biden has faced criticism at home and abroad for his handling of then US troops withdrawal from Afghanistan after the Taliban rapidly took control of the country, sending Americans and Afghans who aided the war effort scrambling to leave the country and escape the hard-line group.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has blamed Biden’s breach of Trump’s agreement with the Taliban. This is for the current situation of US troops left Afghanistan. Last year, Trump agreed with the Taliban not to clash with the U.S. military. And allow terrorists to establish a safe haven, and negotiate with Afghan leaders to form a new government. In addition, Trump had promised the Taliban that he would slowly withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan if the Taliban ever breach the agreement. Pence reiterated that Biden’s breach of contract and withdrawal of US troops without any precaution was severe misconduct.

Analysts have for years warned that the American withdrawal would destabilize Afghan forces trained at great U.S. expense and still heavily reliant on U.S. airpower and intelligence gathering, current, and former officials said. Withdrawal of US troops also would risk damaging the morale of Afghan units who had fought alongside U.S. And coalition forces for two decades and would be left to face a resurgent Taliban on their own. A public threat assessment in April warned that Afghan forces “will struggle to hold the Taliban at bay if the coalition withdraws support.”

Meanwhile, an internal State Department memo last month warned top agency officials of the potential collapse of Kabul soon after the U.S.’s Aug. 31 troop withdrawal deadline in Afghanistan, according to a U.S. official and a person familiar with the document. The classified cable represents the clearest evidence. Yet that the administration had warned by its own officials on the ground that the Taliban’s advance was imminent. And Afghanistan’s military may be unable to stop it. The cable, sent via the State Department’s confidential dissent channel, warned of rapid territorial gains by the Taliban. And the subsequent collapse of Afghan security forces, and offered recommendations on ways to mitigate the crisis. Also, speed up an evacuation, media reports stated.

The cable, dated July 13, also called for the State Department to use tougher language in describing the atrocities being committed by the Taliban, one of the people said. In all, 23 U.S. Embassy staffers, all Americans, signed the July 13 cable, reports stated. The U.S. official said there was a rush to deliver it, given circumstances on the ground in Kabul. The cable has sent to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Director of Policy Planning Salman Ahmed. Very few people in the country are safe right now. American allies are a target. They are considering the women who went to work or school as a threat. Children are at risk. And Christians—who already had to practice their faith in secret—now face even greater persecution.

Joe Biden Poll Drops- Mishandling Of Afghanistan Withdrawal

August 27, 2021September 23, 2021 Staff ReporterNation USA 0

Since the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan, President Joe Biden’s approval rating has dropped by 7 points, to 46%, according to an August 16 Reuters/Ipsos poll—the lowest since he took office. Biden poll averages from two other trackers, 538 and Real Clear Politics, have also dropped below 50% for the first time in his term. There even seems to be waning support for withdrawal itself, which the majority of Americans supported.

Biden’s approval rating hitting the lowest point in his presidency this week at less than 50 percent. A Hill-HarrisX poll conducted August 20 to August 21 released data on Monday that showed Biden poll stood at 49 percent, The Hill reported. According to some reports, quoting a new poll, the Biden poll has plummeted to just 41 percent. And it is following the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan. 55 percent of people surveyed in a USA Today-Suffolk University poll disapproved of President Biden’s job while in office and 41 percent approved meanwhile.

Nearly two-thirds of the people (62 percent) said they disapproved of Biden’s handling of the withdrawal of the US military from Afghanistan, The Hill reported. Only 26 percent said they approved of the withdrawal. Meanwhile, 12 percent said they were undecided on the topic. And about 82 percent of those surveyed said the issue was either “very” or “somewhat” important to them.

In April, a Morning Consult/Politico survey found that 69% of voters supported Biden’s self-imposed September 11 deadline to leave Afghanistan. A Morning Consult poll released August 16 found that number had dropped 20 points, to 49%.

As the U.S. looks ahead to the 2022 midterm elections, and even the 2024 presidential election. The analysts point out that, his approval ratings will have a serious impact on the elections. Biden’s allies will point to his achievements in helping the nation. For example, recover from a once-in-a-century pandemic that spawned an economic crisis. This is done by hoping that voters will care more about that than a controversial move abroad. Republicans will seize on the Taliban’s takeover after Biden’s messy retreat from Afghanistan to cast doubt on Biden’s portrayal of himself as an experienced statesman with deep foreign policy credentials who would bring competence back to the White House.

The withdrawal of the US army from the US war in Afghanistan could become an indelible stain on Biden’s legacy. And remains the most pressing issue for voters in the midterm elections next year. Or it could fade from voters’ minds in the coming months and years as they focus more on the COVID-19 pandemic and economic issues. Pollsters and experts say it is too early to tell. But what is clear, they say, is that after early months of success on vaccinations and legislation. Biden has reached the most difficult moment of his presidency so far.

“I don’t think they were counting on coronavirus getting worse. So that was already one kind of front in the battlefield that they were having to deal with,” says Lydia Saad, Director of U.S. Social Research at Gallup. “And now suddenly they’ve got [Afghanistan]… It’s a challenging environment”. Republican pollster Frank Luntz argues that if Americans are left behind in Afghanistan. Then the situation could be as catastrophic for Biden as the Iranian hostage crisis was for Jimmy Carter in 1979, which many believe cost him reelection. “The American image and reputation abroad are taking a hit every single day,” Luntz says.

“His honeymoon with voters has slowly been ending over the last 30 days”. Dritan Nesho, chief pollster and CEO at HarrisX, told Hill. “Now, the mishandled Afghanistan pullout, which voters view as a crisis of Biden’s own making. Despite an overwhelming majority agreeing to pull US troops out of the county, has put Biden poll approval underwater.”

The other key question is whether voters will forgive the execution of the withdrawal of the US invasion of Afghanistan. To reward the larger goal of ending a 20-year war. “We’re getting out of an unpopular war abroad”, says Larry Sabato, founder, and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “We’re getting out of it in a messy fashion, but we’re getting out of it.” “I’m not saying Biden will be boosted by it,” Sabato says, “but I am saying, if he is hurt by it, it will be temporary and this will be replaced by other issues that go to the heart of American life, like the pandemic [and] the economy.”

This is ultimately what Biden’s allies hope. “I think Kabul falling [to the Taliban] quickly just confirmed for the voters what they already thought, which is, ‘This is a forever war. We don’t want any more money and troops there. We can’t make any more difference that we’ve already tried. And we need to take care of the home,’” says Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who advised Biden’s presidential campaign. “I think the focus for voters, and particularly blue-collar voters and older voters, is more around surging COVID. Not only this but also the shaky economy, getting kids safely back to school, rising crime rates. So things like that I think will push it out, no matter what the CNN or Fox coverage is.”

Afghan Withdrawal Focus Of Kamala Harris’ Asia Visit

August 27, 2021September 23, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Nation USA 0

Kamala Harris’ first trip to Asia as vice president was meant to signal the United States’ staunch commitment to partners. They are in the Indo-Pacific region in the face of a rising China. Instead, Harris’ three-day stop in Singapore quickly turned into a platform for the media to question her on the U.S.’ reliability as a security partner as Washington’s chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan continued.

US Vice President Kamala Harris arrived in Singapore on Sunday, kicking off her trip to Southeast Asia where she is expected to offer reassurances of Washington’s commitment to the region. The vice-president’s visit comes just days after the chaotic withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan and the subsequent takeover of the country by the Taliban. The return to power of the hardline Islamists in the conflict-ridden country has dented the United States’ credibility and cast a shadow over its resolve to defend its values.

The trip also provides Harris, an Asian-American whose mother was of Indian origin, a forum to assert herself directly in foreign affairs. The longtime district attorney and former senator are largely untested in diplomacy and foreign policy.

Before leaving on the 1^st ever Asia visit, Harris said Friday that the nations she will visit “are the seat of the Indo-Pacific region. We have interests there that relate to both security interests, economic interests, and, more recently, global health interests.” In prepared remarks to rolling cameras, both Harris and Singapore’s Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong focused on cooperation on COVID prevention and regional stability, but in an open question and answer session that followed, reporters focused on Afghanistan, not the intended themes of Harris’ trip. The Singaporean leader revealed that his government had offered Washington a tanker transport plane. It is in support of efforts to evacuate thousands of Americans and their allies from Afghanistan.

Singapore’s prime minister told Vice President Kamala Harris that the rest of the world will be watching closely to see what the US does next on the world stage following its chaotic retreat from Afghanistan.

First US VP in Vietnam

Harris is scheduled to arrive in Hanoi late Tuesday, becoming the first US vice president to visit Vietnam. She will hold government meetings in Vietnam. Also, attend the opening of a Southeast Asian branch of the US Centre for Disease Control. However, her visit to the communist country has particularly criticized for being tone-deaf. As the US struggles to evacuate Americans and Afghan allies out of Kabul. Visuals of the chaotic US evacuation from Kabul last week drew comparisons. It is with a similar image of Saigon in 1975. Where US helicopters ferried the last evacuees from the embassy roof. “A particular high priority is making sure that we evacuate American citizens, Afghans who worked with us. Also Afghans at risk, including women and children,” Harris told reporters before her departure.

During her visit to Vietnam, Harris is planning to hold a virtual meeting with ASEAN health ministers. And cite the launch of a regional office of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Gregory Poling, a senior fellow for Southeast Asia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He said showing a commitment to the region on the pandemic is key for Harris’ trip. “I think on COVID, the administration realizes that this is the singular issue,” he said. “If they’re not seen as leading vaccine distribution in the region. Then nothing else they do in Asia matters. Or at least nothing else they do is going to find a willing audience”.

The U.S. has provided more than 23 million vaccine doses to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Also, tens of millions of dollars in personal protective equipment, laboratory equipment, and other supplies to fight the virus.

Shashi Tharoor Cleared By Delhi Court In Sunanda Pushkar Death Case

August 27, 2021August 28, 2021 Staff ReporterCommunity, Nation India 0

In a big relief for Congress MP Shashi Tharoor, a Delhi court Aug. 18 discharged him in the Sunanda Pushkar death case. Special judge Geetanjali Goel said, “The accused is discharged.” The order was pronounced in the presence of Tharoor, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa appearing on behalf of Tharoor, and additional public prosecutor Atul Shrivastava.

Tharoor, who attended the court proceedings virtually, thanked the court for discharging him of all offenses. “It had been seven and half years and it was a torture. I’m so grateful,” he said. Tharoor had been accused of subjecting his late wife to cruelty and abetting her suicide by Delhi Police, which had filed a detailed chargesheet in the matter. Pushkar’s body was discovered in a room of a five-star hotel in the capital on January 17, 2014. An FIR was registered by police a year later, on January 1, 2015, against unknown persons for murder. Tharoor was later booked under IPC Sections 498-A (subjecting a woman to cruelty) and 306 (abetment to suicide).

After the pronouncement of the judgment, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for Tharoor, said that the charges of abetment of suicide and cruelty levelled by police against his client were “absurd and preposterous”. “I am delighted to hear the pronouncement of discharge for Dr Shashi Tharoor. It was a long battle of seven years. Ultimately, justice has prevailed. He had faith in the judicial system right from the beginning. I had always advised Dr Tharoor not to make any public statement as the matter was sub judice… Even the most essential ingredients of the offences were not present in this case,” he said. Earlier on April 29, May 19 and June 16, the order was deferred due to the pandemic impacting the judicial work. The order pronouncement was adjourned again on July 2, after the court received an application from the prosecution seeking one week’s time to file written submissions.

Pushkar was found dead on the evening of Jan. 17, 2014. Initially, Delhi police investigated the same as a murder, with an FIR registered under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), charging Tharoor under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (cruelty by husband). Shrivastava had argued that before her death, Pushkar had sustained injuries on her body, and they were reflected in the post-mortem report. He submitted that 27 tablets of Alprax were found in her room, although it was not clear as to how many pills she had consumed

Who Are The Taliban, And What Do They Want?

August 27, 2021August 28, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Nation USA 0

It was surprising, because until taking up arms just a year before, many of the fighters had been little more than religious pupils. Their very name meant “students.” The Taliban, they called themselves. A quarter-century later, after outlasting an international military coalition in a war that cost tens of thousands of lives, the onetime students are now rulers of the land. Again. Here is a look at the origin of the Taliban; how they managed to take over Afghanistan not once, but twice; what they did when they first took control — and what that might reveal about their plans for this time.

When did the Taliban first emerge?

The Taliban arose in 1994 amid the turmoil that followed the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan in 1989. The group was rooted in rural areas of Kandahar province, in the country’s ethnic-Pashtun heartland in the south. The Soviet Union had invaded in 1979 to prop up the Communist government in Afghanistan, and eventually met the fate of big powers past and present that have tried to impose their will on the country: It was driven out.The Soviets were defeated by Islamic fighters known as the mujahedeen, a patchwork of insurgent factions supported by a U.S. government only too happy to wage a proxy war against its Cold War rival. But the joy over that victory was short-lived, as the various factions fell out and began fighting for control. The country fell into warlordism, and a brutal civil war. Against this backdrop, the Taliban, with their promise to put Islamic values first and to battle the corruption that drove the warlords’ fighting, quickly attracted a following. Over months of intense fighting, they took over most of the country.

How did the Taliban rule?

In 1996, the Taliban declared an Islamic Emirate, imposing a harsh interpretation of the Quran and enforcing it with brutal public punishments, including floggings, amputations and mass executions. And they strictly curtailed the role of women, keeping them out of schools. They also made clear that rival religious practices would not be tolerated: In early 2001, the Taliban destroyed towering statues known as the Great Buddhas of Bamiyan, objects of awe around the globe. The Taliban considered them blasphemous, and boasted that their destruction was holy. “It is easier to destroy than to build,” observed the militants’ minister of information and culture. There was a framework of a modern government, including ministries and a bureaucracy. But at the street level, it was religious edict, and the whim of individual commanders, that dictated everyday life for Afghans. They did not control the entire country, however. The north, where many of the mujahedeen commanders had taken up occupancy, remained a bastion of resistance.

What does Taliban rule mean for women?

The Taliban were founded in an ideology dictating that women should play only the most circumscribed roles in society. The last time they ruled, they barred women and girls from taking most jobs or even going to school. And women caught outside the home with their faces uncovered risked severe punishment. Unmarried women and men seen together also faced punishment. After the Taliban government was toppled by an American-led coalition, women made many gains in Afghanistan. But two decades later, as the U.S. negotiated a troop withdrawal agreement with the Taliban, many Afghan women feared that all of that ground would be lost. And as the militants take power, there have been ample signs that those fears are well-grounded.

In just one example, Taliban fighters entered a bank in Kandahar during fighting in July and ordered nine women working there to leave and said that male relatives should take their place, Reuters reported. And in the northern city of Kunduz this month, the city’s new Taliban rulers ordered women who had worked for the government to leave their jobs and never return. “It’s really strange to not be allowed to get to work, but now this is what it is,” one of the bank workers in Kandahar said.

Why did the U.S. invade Afghanistan?

When they were in power, the Taliban made Afghanistan a safe harbor for Osama bin Laden, a Saudi Arabia-born former mujahedeen fighter, while he built up a terrorist group with global designs: al-Qaida. On Sept. 11, 2001, the group struck a blow that rattled the world, toppling the World Trade Center towers in New York and damaging the Pentagon in Washington. Thousands were killed. President George W. Bush demanded that the Taliban hand over al-Qaida and bin Laden. When the Taliban balked, the United States invaded. Unleashing a heavy airstrike campaign, and joined by former mujahedeen groups within the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance coalition, the U.S. and its allies soon toppled the Taliban government. Most of the al-Qaida and Taliban officials who survived fled to Pakistan. Twenty years later, some of those same Taliban officials were among the delegation that struck a deal for the United States to leave Afghanistan, and they will number among the country’s new rulers.

What happened to the Taliban after their 2001 defeat?

With the shelter and assistance of Pakistan’s military — the same force receiving heavy financial aid from the United States to help hunt down al-Qaida — the Taliban reformed as a guerrilla insurgency. The U.S. began pouring resources into a new war in Iraq, and American officials told the world that Afghanistan was well on its way to becoming a Western-style democracy with modern institutions. But many Afghans were coming to feel that those foreign institutions were just another way for corrupt leaders to steal money. In the countryside, the Taliban began gaining ground, and support, particularly in rural areas. Their numbers grew — some fighters were intimidated into joining, others happy to volunteer, almost all of them better paid than local policemen. And the group found a rich recruiting vein among the Afghan diaspora in Pakistan, from families who had fled previous violence as refugees and were brought up in religious schools.

“Six years after being driven from power, the Taliban are demonstrating a resilience and a ferocity that are raising alarm,” The Times reported in 2008, noting that “a relatively ragtag insurgency has managed to keep the world’s most powerful armies at bay.” The Taliban weathered the storm when President Barack Obama vastly expanded the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, up to around 100,000 troops in 2010. And when the Americans began drawing down a few years later, the insurgents began gaining ground again. It was a campaign of persistence, with the Taliban betting that the United States would lose patience and leave.

They were right. More than 2,400 American lives later, $2 trillion later, tens of thousands of Afghan civilian and security forces deaths later, President Donald Trump made a deal with the Taliban and declared that American forces would leave Afghanistan by mid-2021. President Joe Biden endorsed the approach, and presided over an uncompromising troop withdrawal even as the Taliban began gobbling up whole districts, and then cities. This week, just nine days after the Taliban seized their first provincial capital, the insurgents walked into the capital, Kabul. Taliban rule of Afghanistan has resumed.

What will the Taliban do next?

Taliban leaders have so far seemed to avoid inflammatory rhetoric, and have called on commanders to rule fairly and avoid reprisals and abuse. They have issued assurances that people will be safe. The early days of Taliban control have, in fact, seemed restrained in some places. But enough reports of brutality and intimidation have surfaced to send waves of refugees to Kabul ahead of the group’s advance. And now, the capital’s airport has become a scene of desperation and chaos, as thousands of Afghans try to flee the country at any cost. In Kunduz, the first major provincial capital to fall to the Taliban, residents were unconvinced by promises of peace from their new rulers.“I am afraid, because I do not know what will happen and what they will do,” one resident said. “We have to smile at them, because we are scared, but deeply we are unhappy.”

How Drugs Funded The Taliban’s 20-Year War With The US

August 27, 2021August 28, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal 0

Where did the Taliban find funds to sustain themselves over a two-decade war with the US? With the Americans gone and the Afghan opposition collapsed, what military assets do the Taliban have?

In returning to power in Kabul over the weekend, the Taliban demonstrated both the success of a lightning military offensive against Afghanistan’s then government, as well as their remarkable resilience in the face of onslaughts by the world’s most powerful military for 20 years.

When they were driven out of Kabul in November 2001, the Taliban had been in power for a little over five years, and in existence for only seven. What makes them the fighting force that outlasted the United States in its longest ever war, and defeated the Afghans who received equipment and training worth over $80 billion from the Americans? Where have the Taliban found the funds to sustain themselves over a two-decade war with an adversary with almost limitless resources? Flourishing drug trade In a May 2020 report, the United Nations Security Council estimated that “overall Taliban annual combined revenues range from $300 million to upwards of $1.5 billion per annum”. It said that while the figures for 2019 were lower, officials “were careful to note that the Taliban used resources effectively and efficiently and were not experiencing a cash crisis”.

The primary source of the Taliban’s funds has been the drug trade, as report after report has shown over two decades. Their income suffered in recent years because of the “reduction in poppy cultivation and revenue, less taxable income from aid and development projects, and increased spending on “governance” projects”, the UNSC report said. However, “while heroin cultivation and production have provided the bulk of Taliban revenue for many years, the emergence of methamphetamine in Afghanistan is giving impetus to a major new drug industry with significant profit margins,” the report noted.

According to the report, “interdiction of methamphetamine was first recorded by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in 2014 (9 kg) and has continued on a sharp upward trajectory, with 650 kg interdicted in the first half of 2019”. Methamphetamine, the report said, “was stated to be more profitable than heroin because its ingredients are low-cost and it does not require large laboratories”. The Taliban, it said, “were reported to be in control of 60 per cent of methamphetamine laboratories in the key producing provinces of Farah and Nimruz”.

The report quoted officials as saying “the system of heroin smuggling and taxation organised by the Taliban…stretched across eight of Nangarhar’s southern districts from Hisarak to Dur Baba, on the border with Pakistan”. “In each district, smugglers paid a tax to district Taliban commanders of 200 Pakistan rupees (approximately $1.30), or its equivalent in afghanis, per kilogram of heroin. Smugglers were provided documentation by each Taliban commander certifying payment of tax before proceeding to the next district and repeating the same process. Afghan officials stated that the smuggling routes thus helped to financially empower each district Taliban commander.”

In a report published last year, UNODC said “Afghanistan, the country where most opium is produced, which has accounted for approximately 84 per cent of global opium production over the past five years, supplies markets in neighbouring countries, Europe, the Near and Middle East, South Asia and Africa and to a small degree North America (notably Canada) and Oceania.” In September 2020, Radio Free Europe reported on a confidential report commissioned by NATO, which concluded that the Taliban “has achieved, or is close to achieving, financial and military independence”, which “enables [it] to self-fund its insurgency without the need for support from governments or citizens of other countries”. Besides the illicit drug trade — overseen by Mullah Muhammad Yaqoob, the son of Taliban founder Mullah Muhammad Omar, a shadowy figure who is expected to play an important role in the new government — the Taliban had “expanded its financial power in recent years through increased profits from illegal mining and exports”, the report said.

It estimated that the militant movement earned “a staggering US $1.6 billion” in the year ending March 2020. Of this, $ 416 million came from the drug trade; over $ 450 million from the illegal mining of iron ore, marble, copper, gold, zinc, and rare earth metals; and $ 160 million from extortion and taxes in the areas and on the highways it controlled. It also got $ 240 million in donations, largely from Persian Gulf nations. To launder the money it earned, it imported and exported consumer goods worth $ 240 million. The Taliban also own properties worth $ 80 million in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the report said. Weapons from Pak and loot The Taliban do not appear to have had any dearth of weapons to fight the Afghan and US forces. Support from Pakistan has always been key, but the Taliban did not rely on any single source of arms and ammunition.

Journalists such as Gretchen Peters, Steve Coll, and others have repeatedly pointed to the support of the ISI and Pakistan army to the Taliban, directly and through the Haqqani network, a sprawling Islamist mafia based in Pakistan’s tribal areas and in Afghanistan, comprising fighters, extremist religious schools, and shady businesses with powerful connections to Arab countries in the Gulf and in Pakistan. American leaders and generals have openly accused Pakistan of diverting to the Taliban funds that it received to fight against the fundamentalist movement.There are other players too. In September 2017, then Afghan Army Chief General Sharif Yaftali told the BBC that he had documents to prove that Iran was “supplying weapons and military equipment to the Taliban in western Afghanistan”.

A November 2019 report by the US Defense Intelligence Agency noted that since “at least 2007, Iran has provided calibrated support — including weapons, training, and funding — to the Taliban to counter US and Western influence in Afghanistan, combat ISIS-Khorasan, and increase Tehran’s influence in any post-reconciliation government”. Beyond these external avenues, the Taliban has also been able to arm itself with the weapons and ammunition that the US has provided to the Afghan forces over the years. America’s Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR), a Congress-backed watchdog, noted in an analysis in 2013 that nearly 43 per cent of the firearms — 2,03,888 of the 4,74,823 — provided to the Afghan forces were unaccounted for. “Given the Afghan government’s limited ability to account for or properly dispose of these weapons, there is a real potential for these weapons to fall into the hands of insurgents, which will pose additional risks to US personnel, the ANSF, and Afghan civilians,” the analysis said.

US military assets with Taliban No figures are available for what kind of American military assets, and in what numbers, have fallen into Taliban hands. The US Government Accountability Office said in a report in 2017 that between 2003 and 2016 the US funded 75,898 vehicles, 5,99,690 weapons, 208 aircraft, and 16,191 pieces of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance equipment for the Afghan forces. In the last few years, 7,000 machine guns, 4,700 Humvees, and over 20,000 grenades have been given to the Afghan forces, SIGAR data show. SIGAR’s July quarterly report mentioned that the Afghan Air Force had a total of 167 aircraft, including jets and helicopters that were “usable/in-country” as of June 30. This included 23 A-19 aircraft, 10 AC-208 aircraft, 23 C-208 aircraft, and three C-130 aircraft, besides 32 Mi-17, 43 MD-530, and 33 UH-60 helicopters.

On August 17, two days after the Taliban took control of Kabul, White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan said, “We don’t have a complete picture, obviously, of where every article of defence materials has gone but certainly, a fair amount of it has fallen into the hands of the Taliban.” Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans, conflict analysts specialising in modern-day weaponry and military tactics who have worked for websites such as Janes, Bellingcat and NK News, have used open-source intelligence to track the equipment that is proven to have fallen into Taliban’s hands. According to them, the Taliban now possess two warjets, 24 helicopters, and seven Boeing Insitu ScanEagle Unmanned Vehicles that were with the Afghan forces earlier. Additionally, according to them, between June and August 14 the Taliban captured 12 tanks, 51 armoured fighting vehicles, 61 artillery and mortar, eight anti-aircraft guns, and 1,980 trucks, jeeps, and vehicles, including over 700 Humvees.

All of this — in addition to the fact that the forces of the erstwhile Afghan government have surrendered everywhere in the country and the old Northern Alliance opposition is a shadow of its former self — makes the Taliban more powerful than it ever was. It is now “much more militarily powerful”, Jonathan Schroden, a military operations analyst who directs the Countering Threats and Challenges Program at the CNA Corporation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and analysis organization based in Arlington, Virginia, told The Indian Express. “It effectively converts them from a lightly armed guerrilla movement to a pseudo-conventional army.” According to Dr Schroden, among the military equipment that the Taliban now has, the D-30 howitzers are probably the most lethal. “It is concerning both as a waste of US taxpayer money and as a potential source of weapons for the myriad terrorist groups that have ties to the Taliban,” he said. And “there is a non-zero possibility of groups like al-Qaeda or the Pakistani Taliban getting their hands on some of the weapons.”

The Afghanistan Tragedy: Will There Be An End To Endless Wars?

August 27, 2021August 28, 2021 George AbrahamEditorial/Opinion, Global 0

“Many of these bureaucrats in Washington who are the true architects of these infamous wars have little in common with the folks who are sent to these godforsaken places to fight these unseen enemies. They are part of the elite society, mostly come with Ivy League credentials and live in their multi-million abodes in Washington suburbs.

Most of them might not have served a single day in the United States armed forces, and some of the older ones might even have gotten away with waivers during the time of the draft. At the end of the day, it is either those boys from the Midwest who believe that it is their duty to serve their country and honor its flag or the poor black and Latino kids who are hoping to build a better life after completing their service in the Military are the ones who fall prey to these odious designs of the so-called establishment.”

As the tragedy in Afghanistan unfolds before our very eyes, the question is whether this could have been avoided? There is no doubt that this shameful exit by the United States has not only tarnished the reputation of the superpower but put thousands of Afghan lives in danger. There is little doubt that the current administration has failed miserably in executing a proper exit strategy. History will harshly judge those who have authored and run such an ill-conceived plan. Who are the victims of this unfolding strategy? The United States went to Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda that has planned and staged the attacks on the World Trade Center that killed around 3000 Americans on September 11, 2001. There is no doubt that American intervention prevented more such episodes from the Afghan soil in the U.S., and the chief strategist of the 9/11 attack, Bin Laden, was pursued and eliminated.

However, the United States got bogged down in this protracted struggle with the Taliban, who found a haven in Pakistan for their hit and run attacks. Therefore, this was a fight lost by the United States that had no patience to outlast the enemy’s will. Taliban once boasted that “NATO has watches, but we have the time,” The truth is that the Taliban simply waited out the NATO forces and the American resolve to recapture Kabul in lightning speed that may have shocked the bureaucrats in Washington. The infantile justification by Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor to the President, that this chaos was inevitable is symptomatic of the mindset of the Washington establishment that is so detached from reality and back to their business as usual.

George W. Bush, who initiated the foray into Afghanistan, was never content with one war. Instead of focusing on eliminating the Taliban, which was dubbed as a terrorist organization, and securing the freedom for the people of Afghanistan from these regressive and evil elements reminiscent of medieval times, he started another war in Iraq that ended in disaster. Along with destabilizing the entire Middle East paving the way for the creation of a Caliphate by ISIS, American invincibility that was seen at the initial stages of the Afghan invasion was not only lost, but the American people simply got tired of these endless wars. Many of these bureaucrats in Washington who are the true architects of these infamous wars have little in common with the folks who are sent to these godforsaken places to fight these unseen enemies. They are part of the elite society, mostly come with Ivy League credentials and live in their multi-million abodes in Washington suburbs. Most of them might not have served a single day in the United States armed forces, and some of the older ones might even have gotten away with waivers during the time of the draft.

At the end of the day, it is either those boys from the Midwest who believe that it is their duty to serve their country and honor its flag or the poor black and Latino kids who are hoping to build a better life after completing their service in the Military are the ones who fall prey to these odious designs of the so-called establishment. Making war has become the primary business for many of these bureaucrats who are part of this military-industrial complex. People like Dick Cheney, who has never served in the Military, are prime examples who promoted wars and stood to profit. To them, these young men and women who are sent to these battlefields to die or permanently scarred for life are only of peripheral interests. Thousands of others who are caught up in the crossfire and lost their lives are simply collateral damages.

President Dwight Eisenhower once gave the nation a dire warning. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” He called the military-industrial complex a formidable union of vested interests and a threat to democratic government. Take, for example, the folly of continuing to provide billions of dollars in funding to the Pakistan government while allowing bases for Afghan insurgents and actively supporting their mission. According to various reports, the Pakistani Military was also engaged in providing training and tactical support to terrorist groups crossing the border and creating havoc in Kashmir. How could the United States justify supporting the counter-insurgency funding for Pakistan while the country remained a factory for brainwashing young minds with fundamentalist ideology and turn them loose to commit horrendous crimes across the globe?

Taxpayers of the United States indeed have lost Trillions of dollars fighting these regime-changing wars. Still, all is not lost for these conniving bureaucrats who represent potent lobbies and special interests in the Capitol. Washington suburbs have become the most expensive real estate on American soil today as these folks continue to rake in riches while the rest of the country is undergoing economic hardships and facing an uncertain future. ‘Powell doctrine,’ named after the four-star general Colin Powell, said that “war should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support; we should mobilize the country’s resources to fulfill that mission and then go in to win”.

The precipitous withdrawal from Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan runs contrary to that principle, and Powel himself may have violated the spirit of his own proclamation with his WMD speech at the United Nations while promoting the invasion of Iraq. Obviously, people have lost control of their ‘greatest democracy.’ Once again, they are reeling from a shameful and disheartening scenario in Kabul as thousands who risked their lives supporting U.S. policies are stranded and fearing for their lives simply as the result of terrible decision-making in Washington. In the meantime, the powerful establishment may be plotting for yet another conflict somewhere around the world in the name of ‘promoting democracy and freedom’! (George Abraham is a former Chief Technology Officer at the United Nations)

India Is Critical Of UNSC’s “Selective Approach To Tackle Terrorism”

August 27, 2021August 28, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Nation India 0

India has called upon the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) not to “take a selective, tactical or complacent view” of terrorism saying groups such as Lashkar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and the Haqqani Network still operate with impunity. It said some countries continue to “undermine or subvert our collective resolve”, and the unfolding events in Afghanistan remain a cause of global concern.

“Let us always remember that what is true of Covid is even more true of terrorism: none of us are safe until all of us are safe,” Indian external affairs minister S Jaishankar said in an impassioned plea comparing the scourge of terrorism to Covid-19, the pandemic that has killed millions around the world. The minister was participating in a UNSC briefing on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, specially the Islamic State.

This was the second UNSC meeting he chaired since Wednesday, when he had presided over an open debate of the council on peacekeeping. “We are happy to note that a very strong substantive, clear press statement has been adopted by the council today that outlines, many of the key concerns, especially the need to ensure a strict check on terror financing and bringing the perpetrators of terror attacks to justice,” the minister said to reporters after the UNSC meeting, adding, “During our deliberations today all Security Council members with one voice, endorsed a zero tolerance approach to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. We are clear that there cannot be double standards and distinctions are really made at our collective peril.” On Afghanistan, the minister reiterated what he said on Wednesday that India, like other countries, was focused on getting back its citizens safely and that India’s ties with the future dispensation in Kabul will be guided by its historic ties with the people.

The press statement specifically condemning specific terrorist incidents around the world and the spread of IS. Making a larger point, it also urged member countries “to ensure that all measures undertaken to counter the financing of terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international refugee law”.

During his remarks at the UNSC briefing, the minister did not name any country, as he went on to reiterate an eight-point plan that he had first laid out for the Security Council in January, that had called for not to justify or glorify terrorism as has been done by Pakistan, not to distinguish between good or bad terrorists, which has also been done by Islamabad, and, in a thinly veiled reference to China, not to block and hold up designation of terrorists and entities without any reason. The minister recalled India’s long involvement in countering terrorism as a country that has suffered more than its fair share of terrorist incidents to express “solidarity with victims and their families all over the world who have suffered, and continue to suffer, from the scourge of terrorism”.He added: “We must never compromise with this evil.”

In spite of the progress made to tighten the legal, security, financing and other frameworks to combat terrorism, terrorists are constantly finding newer ways of motivating, resourcing and executing acts of terror, the minister said, adding, “Unfortunately, there are also some countries who seek to undermine or subvert our collective resolve to fight terrorism. This cannot be allowed to pass.” Jaishankar was pointing to Pakistan’s continued support for terrorism, which came under fresh scrutiny as the Taliban recaptured Afghanistan operating from sanctuaries across the border.

Taliban Captures Power In Afghanistan As US Withdraws Troops Thousands Await Evacuation From Afghanistan, While Biden Criticized For Chaos, Violence, Fear and Defeat In America’s Longest War In History

August 19, 2021August 27, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Nation USA 0

The final collapse of the 20-year western mission to Afghanistan took only a single day as Taliban gunmen entered the capital, Kabul, on Sunday, August 15^th while President Ashraf Ghani fled the country, and the US and other coalition countries abandoned their embassies in panic.

As the Taliban took control of the city and installed themselves in the presidential palace, thousands of Afghans and foreign nationals surged on to the tarmac at Kabul airport seeking a place on a flight out of the country. Meanwhile, Abdul Ghani Baradar, the Taliban leader freed from a Pakistani jail at the request of the US less than three years ago, has emerged as an undisputed victor of the 20-year war.

The Taliban have showed off containers full of weapons and military hardware seized from the Afghan military as American forces withdraw from the country and the militants march across the country. District after district has fallen to the Taliban. The militants have seized 120 districts since May 1, according to an ongoing assessment by the Long War Journal. The map is a moving patchwork, but at last count the Taliban controlled 193 districts and contested 130, while 75 were under the control of the government or are undetermined, according to the publication, which reports on the global war on terror and is a project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a hawkish Washington think tank.

Questions will be asked as to how the whole country has in effect been overrun in a matter of weeks when the Taliban have 80,000 troops in comparison with a nominal 300,699 serving the Afghan government. It is a tale of two armies, Patrick Wintour writes, one poorly equipped but highly motivated ideologically, and the other nominally well equipped, but dependent on NATO support, poorly led and riddled with corruption.

Thousands of Afghans rushed into Kabul’s main airport Monday, some so desperate to escape the Taliban that they held onto a military jet as it took off and plunged to their deaths. At least seven people died in the chaos, U.S. officials said, as America’s longest war ended with its enemy the victor.

The crowds came while the Taliban enforced their rule over the capital of 5 million people after a lightning advance across the country that took just over a week to dethrone the country’s Western-backed government. There were no major reports of abuses or fighting, but many residents stayed home and remained fearful after the insurgents’ takeover saw prisons emptied and armories looted.

Congressional outcry over the Biden’s administration’s handling of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s takeover of the country has been swift. Criticism of the administration was bipartisan: Republicans were scathing about the White House’s actions, and Democrats, while acknowledging that President Biden was carrying out the policies of his predecessor, criticized the haphazard manner of the U.S. withdrawal.

A resolute U.S. President Joe Biden said he stood “squarely behind” his decision to withdraw American forces and acknowledged the “gut-wrenching” images unfolding in Kabul. Biden said he faced a choice between honoring a previously negotiated withdrawal agreement or sending thousands more troops back to begin a third decade of war.

“After 20 years, I’ve learned the hard way that there was never a good time to withdraw U.S. forces,” Biden said in a televised address from the White House. The president said American troops should not be fighting and dying in a war “that Afghan forces are not willing to fight for themselves.” He warned the Taliban not to interfere with the evacuation efforts.

Across Afghanistan, the International Committee of the Red Cross said thousands had been wounded in the fighting. Security forces and politicians handed over their provinces and bases without a fight, likely believing the two-decade Western experiment to remake Afghanistan would not survival the resurgent Taliban. The last American troops had planned to withdraw at the end of the month.

“The world is following events in Afghanistan with a heavy heart and deep disquiet about what lies ahead,” United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said.

A defiant President Joe Biden rejected blame for chaotic scenes of Afghans clinging to U.S. military planes in Kabul in a desperate bid to flee their home country after the Taliban’s easy victory over an Afghan military that America and NATO allies had spent two decades trying to build.

At the White House, Biden called the anguish of trapped Afghan civilians “gut-wrenching” and conceded the Taliban had achieved a much faster takeover of the country than his administration had expected. The U.S. rushed in troops to protect its own evacuating diplomats and others at the Kabul airport.

But the president expressed no second thoughts about his decision to stick by the U.S. commitment, formulated during the Trump administration, to end America’s longest war, no matter what.

Afghan President Ashraf Ghani slipped out of his country Sunday in the same way he had led it in recent years — a lonely and isolated figure. Ghani quietly left the sprawling presidential palace with a small coterie of confidants — and didn’t even tell other political leaders who had been negotiating a peaceful transition of power with the Taliban that he was heading for the exit.

Abdullah Abdullah, his long-time rival who had twice buried his animosity to partner with Ghani in government, said that “God will hold him accountable” for abandoning the capital.

Ghani’s destination was not immediately known. In a social media post from an unknown location, he wrote that he left to save lives. “If I had stayed, countless of my countrymen would be martyred and Kabul would face destruction and turn into ruins that could result to a human catastrophe for its six million residents” Ghani wrote.

A bipartisan group of senators, led by Democratic Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, have called on the Biden administration to take swift action to protect endangered Afghan women.

“We strongly urge you to create a humanitarian parole category specifically for women leaders, activists, human rights defenders, judges, parliamentarians, journalists, and members of the Female Tactical Platoon of the Afghan Special Security Forces and to streamline the paperwork process to facilitate referrals to allow for fast, humane, and efficient relocation to the United States,” the 47 senators said in a letter sent to Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas.

Sen. Shaheen, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, said in a statement the images of Afghan civilians at the airport pleading to be evacuated are “seared into our minds. Dire conditions on the ground persist today and without swift, decisive action from the administration, Afghan civilians will suffer or die at the hands of the Taliban,” she continued.

She called for an immediate expansion of the refugee program for Afghan women seeking asylum. “A failure to act now will seal their fate, and the generation of girls who grew up with freedoms, education and dreams of building their country’s future will die with them.”

Senate’s $3.5 Trillion Budget Proposal Has Plan for Pathway to Citizenship

August 19, 2021August 27, 2021 Staff ReporterBusiness, Economy, Immigration, Nation USA 0

Democrats have passed a $3.5 trillion framework for bolstering family services, health, and environment programs through the Senate early Aug. 11, advancing President Joe Biden’s expansive vision for reshaping federal priorities just hours after handing him a companion triumph on a hefty infrastructure package, according to the Associated Press.

Lawmakers approved Democrats’ budget resolution on a party-line 50-49 vote, a crucial step for a president and party set on training the government’s fiscal might at assisting families, creating jobs and fighting climate change. Higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations would pay for much of it. Passage came despite an avalanche of Republican amendments intended to make their rivals pay a price in next year’s elections for control of Congress.

House leaders announced their chamber will return from summer recess in two weeks to vote on the fiscal blueprint, which contemplates disbursing the $3.5 trillion over the next decade. Final congressional approval, which seems certain, would protect a subsequent bill actually enacting the outline’s detailed spending and tax changes from a Republican filibuster in the 50-50 Senate, delays that would otherwise kill it.

Senate Budget Committee chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., once a progressive voice in Congress’ wilderness and now a national figure wielding legislative clout, said the measure would help children, families, the elderly and working people — and more.

The Senate turned to the budget minutes after it approved the other big chunk of Biden’s objectives, a compromise $1 trillion bundle of transportation, water, broadband and other infrastructure projects. That measure, passed 69-30 with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell among the 19 Republicans backing it, also needs House approval.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., assured progressives that Congress will pursue sweeping initiatives going beyond the infrastructure compromise. The budget blueprint envisions creating new programs including tuition-free pre-kindergarten and community college, paid family leave and a Civilian Climate Corps whose workers would tackle environmental projects.

Millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally would have a new chance for citizenship, and there would be financial incentives for states to adopt more labor-friendly laws. According to thehill.com, the budget resolution package asks lawmakers to chart a pathway to citizenship for millions of people while investing in border security.

The package does not specify how many people or which groups would be covered by the legislation, instead directing the committee to provide “lawful permanent status for qualified immigrants.” A summary of the bill also states it will provide green cards “to millions of immigrant workers and families.”

House Democrats have floated a plan that would cover not only Dreamers brought to the U.S. as children but also migrant farmworkers, workers deemed essential during the pandemic and those who already hold Temporary Protected Status after being unable to return to their countries, said thehill.com report. In all, Democrats could make around 10 million people eligible for a path to citizenship.

As India Turns 75, Prime Minister Modi Unveils $1.35 Trillion Infrastructure Plan

August 19, 2021August 27, 2021 Staff ReporterCommunity, Economy, Nation India 0

India will soon launch a $1.35 trillion national infrastructure plan that will boost the country’s economy, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced on August 15 as part of the Independence Day celebrations.

Soon after he unfurled the national flag to mark nation’s 75th Independence Day at the historic Red Fort here, Modi addressed the nation, saying the infrastructure plan will create job opportunities for millions of Indian youth. “It will help local manufacturers turn globally competitive and also develop possibilities of new future economic zones in the country,” he said.

India’s economy, pummeled by the coronavirus pandemic, contracted 7.3% in the fiscal year that ended in March. Economists fear there will be no rebound similar to the ones seen in the U.S. and other major economies.

In his 90-minute speech, Modi also listed his government’s achievements since 2014 and hailed India’s coronavirus vaccination campaign. “We are proud that we didn’t have to depend on any other country for COVID-19 vaccines. Imagine what would have happened if India didn’t have its own vaccine,” he said.

India has given more than 500 million doses of vaccines but its vaccination drive has been marred by its slow pace. About 11% of eligible adult Indians have been fully vaccinated so far.

Modi also said India was committed to meeting targets for the reduction of its carbon footprint. He said his government would invest more in electric mobility, solar energy and “green hydrogen” — which does not emit carbon dioxide — as part of its goal to make India energy independent by 2047.

Modi began his speech by praising India’s athletes who took part in the recently concluded Tokyo Olympics. India won one gold, two silver and four bronze medals at the games.

On Saturday, Modi announced that Aug. 14 will be observed as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day.

In his eighth address to the nation on Independence Day since 2014, Modi said, “There is no dearth of political will in taking up reforms. Today, the world can see that there is no dearth of political will in India. The world is a witness to how India is writing a new chapter of governance,” the prime minister said.

During his nearly one and half hours speech, Modi made several important announcements like the National Hydrogen Mission, Rs 100 lakh crore PM Gati Shakti Infrastructure to make a foundation for holistic infrastructure and admission for girls in ‘Sainik Schools’.

“We are set to present the PM Gati Shakti’s National Master Plan in the near future which will make a foundation for holistic approach in infrastructure construction. During the 75 weeks of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav, new 75 Vande Bharat Express trains will be launched and will connect every corner of the country,” he said.

Talking about Jammu and Kashmir, Modi said that the Delimitation Commission has been formed in J&K and the government is making preparations for Vidhan Sabha elections. “Ladakh, too, is walking its road towards development. On one hand, Ladakh is witnessing the creation of modern infrastructure, while on the other, ‘Sindhu Central University’ is going to make Ladakh a center of higher education,” he said.

In a veiled attack on Pakistan and China, Modi said, “In the post-pandemic time, world will see a new world order with two major challenges – terrorism and expansionism – and India is fighting and effectively responding to both.

“Talking about infrastructure, Modi said, “From new waterways to connecting new places through sea-planes, work is undergoing at rapid speed. Indian Railways, too, is undergoing a change to modernize itself. It is our collective responsibility that we walk ahead in the 75th year of India’s Independence believing in India’s abilities. We have to work together on next-gen infrastructure, world class manufacturing, connecting-edge innovations and new age technology.”

Talking about the agriculture sector, the prime mnister said, “In the next few years, we will have to increase the collective power of India’s small farmers. We have to provide them with new facilities. They must become the nation’s pride.

“It is time we apply scientific research and suggestions in our agriculture sector. We need to reap all its benefits. It will not just provide food security to the nation, but will also increase food production. In this decade, we will have to work dedicatedly to provide a new economy in rural India. Today, we are witnessing our villages getting transformed,” he said.

Modi also listed several key initiatives of his government like the ‘Har Ghar Jal’ Mission in which over 4.5 crore families started receiving piped water within two years of launch of programs.

“In the last seven years, crores of poor have received benefits of several initiatives. The needy have benefited from Ujjwala to Ayushman Bharat and others…Today we see our villages changing rapidly. In the past few years, facilities like road, electricity have reached villages. Today the optical fiber network is providing the power of data to villages,” he said.

In his speech, Modi mentioned that malnutrition has been a barrier in the development of poor women and poor children. “We have, thus, decided to give nutrient-added rice to the poor. By 2024, from ration shops to mid-day meals, all rice being provided to the poor will be fortified,” he said.

The prime minister also lauded the efforts of doctors, nurses, paramedical staff, cleaning workers, and vaccine makers for diligently serving people during the Covid pandemic.

India needs to “hand hold” the disadvantaged sections of society, PM Narendra Modi said during his Independence Day address delivered from the Red Fort on Sunday, highlighting the government’s decision to extend OBC reservations in medical colleges through the all-India quota system and the new constitutional amendment that empowers states to identify OBC beneficiaries.

“We need to provide hand holding to the backward categories… Along with the concern of fulfilling basic needs, reservation is being ensured for Dalits, backward classes, Adivasis and the poor from general category,” he said. “By formulating a law in Parliament, the right to make their own list of OBCs has been given to the states,” he said.

India needs to achieve “saturation”, or 100% coverage, on welfare programs such as bank accounts for the poor, health cover under Ayushman Bharat and Ujjwala scheme.

Modi Is The First Indian PM To Chair A UNSC Debate

August 19, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Nation India 0

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has become the first Indian PM to chair a meeting of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on maritime security, which saw unprecedented high-level participation from other countries On August 9th.

India decided to focus on all aspects of maritime security in a holistic manner as one of its signature events during its current presidency of the UNSC during August. India took a responsible yet consensus-building approach by initiating consultations amongst all UNSC members from several months in advance. A concept note was prepared that incorporated ideas of all.

Prime Minister Modi’s five-point principles, which called on the UNSC to develop a roadmap for international maritime security, were welcomed by all participants.

India’s role as a “net security provider” in the Indian Ocean was reiterated. PM’s vision on SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) and IPOI (Indo-Pacific Oceans’ Initiative) was discussed in the UNSC.

Russian President Vladimir Putin were among several world leaders who are reported to have participated in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting on maritime security conducted at the initiative of Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Monday, August 9, 2021.

Prime Minister Modi presided over the meeting being convened under India’s presidency. Last year, the Russian president had for the first time participated in a UN event in a video format – on September 22, the recording of his speech was aired during the UN General Assembly along with speeches of other leaders, TASS reported.

Other dignitaries who had participated in the event held via video conferencing are the President of Niger Mohamed Bazoum, the President of Kenya Uhuru Kenyatta, Prime Minister of Vietnam Pham Minh Chinh, the President of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Felix Tshisekedi and the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

The MEA statement said that the meeting, through video conferencing slated for 5.30 pm IST, will focus on ways to effectively counter maritime crime and insecurity and strengthening coordination in the maritime domain.

The UN Security Council has discussed and passed resolutions on different aspects of maritime security and maritime crime. However, this will be the first time that maritime security will be discussed in a holistic manner as an exclusive agenda item in such a high-level open debate.

“Given that no country alone can address the diverse aspects of maritime security, it is important to consider this subject in a holistic manner in the United Nations Security Council. A comprehensive approach to Maritime Security should protect and support legitimate maritime activities while countering traditional and non-traditional threats in the maritime domain,” the MEA said.

Earlier, PV Narasimha Rao as PM attended an UNSC meeting on January 31, 1992. Atal Bihari Vajpayee as EAM had attended the UNSC meeting on September 29, 1978, when he had advocated for Namibian independence in the UNSC.

In Efforts To Control Media, India Considers Single Law To Supervise All Media

August 19, 2021 Staff ReporterMedia, Nation India, Technology 0

The Union government is considering a super legislation for all traditional and digital media companies so as to ensure a level playing field and to give it an upper hand in controlling and supervising the media on all platforms. The idea is to have an umbrella law that will cover print and electronic media, digital media, cinema, even so-called over-the-top or OTT platforms such as Netflix and Hotstar, government officials familiar with the matter said.

According to one of the officials, the new law will draw elements from the Cable Television Network Act, Cinematograph Act, Press Council Act, and the new digital media guidelines. “The space is evolving,” added this person. “There is a need for platform-wise self-regulation. But at the same time, the technology is converging, the viewers and readers are converging. Earlier, different platforms were using different technologies, but now increasingly we are seeing them move towards a similar approach.”

The process, however, is still at a discussion stage. Amit Khare, secretary, information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry, did not respond to HT’s request for comments. The new law may have been borne from the realisation that while print media has the Press Council, digital news media does not have a corresponding body.

The I&B ministry has already amended the Cable Television Network Act and proposed draft amendments to the Cinematograph Act to ensure they are not at odds with the new social media and intermediary guidelines and digital media code of ethics, which were notified by the government under the Information Technology Act in February to bring hitherto unregulated digital platforms under a three-tier grievance redressal system.

The new IT guidelines require platforms to appoint grievance redressal officers in case of OTT and digital news media platforms, institute a three-tier mechanism for grievance redressal with an inter-ministerial committee at its apex and give the I&B ministry takedown powers over the content circulated online. The government’s oversight mechanism, however, will also including members from industry bodies such as Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, Confederation of Indian Industry and the Press Council. The rules have been challenged in court by several media companies.

To create a balance between the regulation of online and offline platforms, the government on June 17 amended the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994, to mandate that the earlier ad-hoc structure of self-regulation now be mandated under law, with a similar three-tier structure .

According to an official at the I&B ministry, there are around 900 channels which are already part of a system of self-regulation and the amendment just added builds on that. The amendment, notified in a gazette notification issued on June 17, states that cable TV channels under the programme rules must have self-regulation by broadcasters themselves, regulation by the self-regulating bodies of the broadcasters, and an oversight mechanism by the central government. Broadcasters also have to acknowledge complaints within 24 hours of being filed.

Similarly, amendments have been proposed to the Cinematograph Act, 1952, that will enable the introduction of a broader age-related classification, grant the central government the ability to ask the central board of film certification (CBFC) to re-examine a film, and curb piracy in the industry. The proposed amendments to the Act will introduce an age classification system akin to the one specified under the new intermediary and digital media guidelines. They also grant the government powers to ask the CBFC to re-examine a film on the grounds of national security and threat to public order.

Supreme Court lawyer and co-founder of Cybersaathi, NS Nappinai, said a common legal framework would be a good move “but the government should also be cognisant of existing frameworks and see if a complete overhaul is needed”.

Eric Garcetti Nominated As US Envoy To India

August 19, 2021 Lauren Kim, Cornell UniversityNation India, Nation USA, Profile 0

President Joe Biden has nominated Eric Garcetti, the current Los Angeles Mayor, to be the succeeding ambassador for India. The excitement in the Indian American community was undeniable, with news and celebrations circulating around Southern California and reaching social media platforms.

Prior to his nomination’s announcement, Garcetti assured the reporters at a Los Angeles Media Roundtable that he has deep-rooted connections to India and claimed that his experience visiting India as a teenager had influenced his life. As a U.S. college student at Columbia University, Garcetti managed to continuously keep in touch with his culture and traditions by studying Hindi and Urdu. He even expressed his regrets for not being able to study Buddhist studies abroad in Bodhgaya due to his school council responsibilities.

The student council member at Columbia University, later on, became mayor in 2013, becoming Los Angeles’ first Jewish and its second elected Mexican American mayor. Not only is his ethnic background unique when compared to previous mayors, but his youthful 42 years of age is also a characteristic that distinguishes him from the rest. In 2017, he easily won his re-election as well as voter approval for the extension of his term to 2022. Although he received voter approval, enabling him to carry out his mayor duties for another extra year, he has decided to respond to the task of assisting India as the next ambassador instead.

A commonality Garcetti has pointed out between the governments of the U.S. and India is the urgent response to climate change. Beginning from 2019, the nominee leads the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group as the chairperson, along with the former mayor of New York City Michael Bloomberg as president of the board. The organization consists of 98 cities, with at least six being Indian cities, around the world, incorporating one-twelfth of the world’s population and one-quarter of the global economy. Garcetti promises that he has “engaged very extensively with Indian leaders, chief ministers, and urban leaders around climate change and as much as I can around Covid now.”

When asked about what he will take from Los Angeles to his new job, Eric Garcetti responded by expressing his hopes of prioritizing what he can bring from India to the United States. He states that there are lots of similarities between our challenges and opportunities that take place in various areas such as Hollywood and Bollywood, or the digital economy where both California and India are big leaders. He goes on to say that he “would hope to bring the culture of Los Angeles to potential service abroad.” With California producing 85% of the produce for America, there is a large potential for building agricultural connections, which is principal in the Indian tradition.

Many are looking forward to the nomination in hopes of improving U.S.-India relations and are reassured given Garcetti’s previous responsibilities with the nation’s second-largest city and his numerous political connections.

India Day Parade in New York Throws Light On Sympathizers of Farmer’s Issue in India

August 19, 2021August 19, 2021 Harbachan Singh, Secretary-General, IOCUSACommunity, Economy, Nation India 0

The India Day Parade held on August 8, 2021 by a local group in Hicksville in Long Island, New York, brought to the fore the issue of the Indian Farmers and their ongoing struggle. Hundreds of Indian Overseas Congress USA members joined by others raised the issue of the Farmer’s agitation in Delhi in the parade. It should be recalled that the Indian government had, essentially in 2020, hastily passed unfair legislation on the marketing of crops that the farmers did not ask for and which would deter them from making a livelihood in marketing their products under the newly legislated conditions.

Since the issue relating to the Farmer’s plight was central to the concerns of the Indian diaspora which had gathered, this prohibition would prevent them from venting their sentiments and showing support to the cause of the farmers, as a result of which it left them no choice but to stay put at the location and voice their bitter disappointment over the unfair and undemocratic imposition of conditions which prevented them from participating in celebrating the joyous occasion of the Independence Day of India while at the same time expressing serious concern on the inaction of the sitting government to resolve the issue.

“Indian Overseas Congress, USA threw its support behind the cause of the protesting farmers in India and objected to the heavy-handed approach of the India Day Parade organizers in Long Island to stifle dissent,” said President Mohinder Singh Gilzian. “This celebration is about freedom, and it is a fundamental right of people to express one’s opinion without fear of repercussions.”

“The Government of India’s stonewalling to the concerns of the farmers is not what one expects from a true democracy,” said George Abraham, Vice-Chairman of the IOCUSA. ” the current government is only interested in protecting the interests of the crony capitalists” Mr. Abraham added.

Secretary-General Harbachan Singh pointed out that after almost ten months of a peaceful demonstration by the farmers in a gathering which is said to be so large and prolonged that it broke not only records in India’s recent history but perhaps the world – way more than 600 people had also lost their lives. Both the demonstrators and their families back home are not only suffering both physically and economically under the Covid-19 pandemic but also acutely enduring the record-breaking severe cold, floods and burning hot weather conditions.”

Chants to the Prime Minister to settle the issues of the farmers were loud and incessant. Even the heavy downpour of rain could not drown out their thunderous voices and their strong punches into the air. At the same time, solemn allegiance to Mother India was repeatedly orchestrated by all with fervent respect and love. Chairman of Punjab Chapter Satish Sharma, President of Punjab Chapter, Gurmit S. Gill, President of Haryana Chapter Amar Singh Gulshan, President of Kerala Chapter Ms. Leela Merat, and other IOCUSA leaders also addressed the gathering.

US Ready To Work With Taliban If People’s Rights Are Respected: Blinken

August 19, 2021August 19, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal 0

The United States is willing to work with the Taliban if they respect “basic rights” of its people – of women and girls, specifically – and do not harbor terrorists, secretary of state Antony Blinken said in an interview to CNN on Sunday.

Missing from the list is the insistence on a peaceful, negotiated settlement after the Taliban’s swift return to power. “A future Afghan government that upholds the basic rights of its people and that doesn’t harbour terrorists is a government we can work with and, and recognise,” Blinken said in response to a question if the Biden administration would ever consider recognising the Taliban-led government.

“Conversely, a government that doesn’t do that, that doesn’t uphold the basic rights of its people, including women and girls… that harbors terrorist groups… that have designs on the United States… that’s not going to happen,” he said.

When and if in government, they might need assistance from the international community and support of the international community, the secretary said, adding, “none of that will be forthcoming, sanctions won’t be lifted, their ability to travel won’t happen” if they are not sustaining the basic rights of the Afghan people and if they revert to supporting or harboring terrorists who might strike the US.

A negotiated, peaceful and political settlement has been a key part of the world’s wishlist – certainly for the US, India and the UN Security Council – for recognizing and working with the Taliban, along with respect to basic rights and severing all ties with terrorists.

During a visit to India in July, Blinken said at a news conference, “There’s only one path (for the Taliban to seek international recognition), and that’s at the negotiating table to resolve the conflict peacefully and to have an Afghanistan emerge that is governed in a genuinely inclusive way and that’s representative of all its people.”

A US representative to the UN Security Council was more forthright during a briefing of the body on August 6. “We will not accept a military takeover of Afghanistan,” said Ambassador Jeffrey DeLaurentis of the US permanent mission to the UN.

India’s Supreme Court Is “Bothered” By Pegasus Scandal, Says It Is “Serious”

August 10, 2021August 19, 2021 Staff ReporterNation India 0

Describing the allegations of surveillance through the use of the Pegasus spyware as “serious”, the Supreme Court on August 5th wondered why no one had filed an FIR if there was reason to believe that phones had been hacked. It also pointed out that the allegations first surfaced in 2019.

Chief Justice of India N V Ramana who, along with Justice Surya Kant, was hearing eight petitions seeking an independent probe into the matter, said: “No doubt, the allegations are serious, if the reports are true.” The Chief Justice of India’s Supreme Court, while stating that he was not getting into facts of each and every case, said: “You know there are provisions under the Telegraph Act, IT Act etc to file complaints. These are the things which bother us.”

Replying to the query on why no one had filed an FIR, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for senior journalists N Ram and Shashi Kumar as well as the Editors Guild of India, said: “We did not have access to materials.” The petitions, he said, had information about multiple cases of spyware infiltration.

Sibal drew the court’s attention to proceedings initiated by WhatsApp against NSO in a California court. He said according to the court order, Pegasus once activated causes the target device to connect with the malware. The malware, he said, is then enabled and data is transferred.

“Pegasus is a rogue technology and infiltrates lives without our knowledge. All that it requires is a phone and it enters into our lives and then hears and surveys every movement. It’s an assault on privacy, human dignity and the value of our republic,” Sibal said, adding that “it penetrates into our national Internet backbone”.

He said the government, in its statement in the Parliament, had not disputed that Indians were among those targeted, “If the Government of India knew this was happening, why did it not take action against NSO Technologies? Why did they not lodge an FIR? This is about the privacy and safety of Indians,” he said.

The bench did not issue notice to the Centre and instead asked the parties to first supply copies of their petitions to the government counsel after which it would hear the matter again on August 10. “Somebody should appear for the government to take notice,” it said, making clear that the question of issuing notice will be considered after hearing from the government as well.

The bench indicated that most of the petitions were based on news reports and should have had something more for the court to set the legal process in motion. “You all know that there is a prima facie material, as well as credibility of reports, on the basis of which we can order an inquiry etc. Unfortunately, from what I read from the writs, this matter came to light in May 2019. I don’t know if any effort was made. Persons who have filed the writ petitions are knowledgeable persons having resources. They should have made more effort to bring forth more material… Some of the petitioners who have filed the pleas are not affected and some claim their phones are hacked. But they have not made efforts to file a criminal complaint,” the CJI said.

This led to exchanges in the courtroom with senior advocates representing the petitioners making their submissions on the pleas. Appearing for two journalists whose names figured in the alleged Pegasus target list, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar said there is no provision in the IT Act, 2000 for filing an FIR.

The criminal remedy in the Act, Datar said, relates to infringement of privacy in relation to bodily parts while the identity of the hacker needs to be known in civil remedy for damages. “Privacy is about the privacy of one’s bodily area. So there are no provisions for me to file an FIR… Someone has definitely accessed my computer and remedy is damages, and for this we should know who did (it). We need to know if the allegations are true,” he said.

Referring to the Aadhaar judgment, Datar said the Supreme Court had stated that privacy permeates all through Part 3 of the Constitution. Urging the bench to take cognizance, he said: “Today 300 people have come to light. Who else will take cognizance of this apart from the judiciary? We don’t know if it is 300 or 3000 individuals.” He said this can be taken up as a class-action case.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for academician Jagdeep Chhokar, said: “These media organizations enjoy a very high degree of credibility. A whistle-blower released the numbers… These numbers are of judicial and Constitutional authorities. Mr Chhokar is an academician, and for a private citizen to find a spyware installed on his phone is equal to war against a citizen by the government,” he said.

Asked if he had filed any FIR, Divan said “no” and “this case requires an independent probe by a fact-finding committee” under a bureaucrat of the highest level, preferably the Cabinet Secretary.

“My question is if you know the phone is hacked, then why wasn’t an FIR lodged. That is the only question,” The CJI told Senior Advocate Meenakshi Arora who appeared for Rajya Sabha MP John Brittas. Arora said that former IT Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had said in Parliament that no unauthorized interception was done. “If you have said in 2019 that you have not done, and now it is known that it has been done, there is a need to investigate”, she said.

“You all know that there is a prima facie material, as well as credibility of reports, on the basis of which we can order an inquiry etc. Unfortunately, from what I read from the writs, this matter came to light in May 2019. I don’t know if any effort was made. Persons who have filed the writ petitions are knowledgeable persons having resources. They should have made more effort to bring forth more material… Some of the petitioners who have filed the pleas are not affected and some claim their phones are hacked. But they have not made efforts to file a criminal complaint,” the CJI said.

Ebrahim Raisi And India’s Bet On Iran The U.S. Afghanistan pullout and other geopolitical shifts are aligning New Delhi with Tehran.

August 10, 2021August 10, 2021 C. Raja Mohan At FOREIGN POLICY (FP)Global, Nation India 0

The presence of Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar at the inauguration of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in Tehran this week might simply be a matter of protocol and an unremarkable expression of mutual goodwill. But as Afghanistan descends into crisis following the withdrawal of U.S. forces, New Delhi’s long-term calculus on the regional balance of power is nudging it toward stronger strategic cooperation with Tehran.

Iran appears eager to reciprocate. When Jaishankar was in Tehran last month on his way to Moscow, Raisi received him—making him the first foreign minister of any country to get that opportunity—and signaled Iran’s interest in stepping up cooperation with India. And in recent weeks, New Delhi and Tehran have intensified consultations on the rapidly evolving situation in Afghanistan.

Drawing India and Iran closer are common concerns about the Taliban’s Sunni extremism and their possible return to power in Kabul now that the United States is ending its military presence. So is the shared determination to prevent Pakistan’s hegemony over Afghanistan, which would not only profoundly alter the geopolitics of South and Central Asia, but have repercussions in West Asia as well.

On the flip side, New Delhi and Tehran have divergent perceptions on the U.S. role in the region. India’s strategic partnership with the United States has deepened in recent decades—at the same time as the confrontation between Washington and Tehran has escalated. Similarly, India’s relations with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have intensified in recent years, while Iran and its Gulf Arab neighbors have increasingly been in conflict. India has also gotten closer than ever before to Israel, even as the hostility between Jerusalem and Tehran has intensified.

For New Delhi, managing the many contradictions in the Middle East is part of growing up as a geopolitical actor. India has begun to transcend the easy certainties of the post-independence decades, when its foreign policy framed the Middle East in simple binaries between Western imperialism versus the developing world, Israeli Zionism versus pan-Arabism, Islamism versus secular rule.

India needs a strong regional partner—and in New Delhi’s calculus, Tehran is that partner.

India’s Middle East policy was also shaped by the need to prevent Pakistan from mobilizing the region in the name of Islam in its disputes with India. Supporting Arab nationalism and promoting developing-world solidarity across political and religious lines, New Delhi hoped, would help counter Pakistan’s efforts to leverage pan-Islamism.

Since the end of the Cold War, India has worked to develop reasonable relations with most countries in the Middle East. The sole exception today is Turkey. India is deeply disturbed by the new alignment among Turkey, Pakistan, and Qatar to support the Taliban. New Delhi is also acutely conscious of the larger support for political Islam by these three countries and its implications for India’s own stability and security. If Afghanistan comes under the Taliban’s sway, the experience of the last episode of Taliban rule suggests there will very likely be an intensification of Islamist militancy in India’s Kashmir region and the rest of the country.

Unsurprisingly, then, New Delhi has taken a strong diplomatic stance against the violent overthrow of the current political order in Kabul, even as it has opened contact with the Taliban. To reinforce its political position on the ground—and to be of any consequence in Afghanistan—India needs a strong regional partner. In New Delhi’s calculus, Tehran is that partner.

But New Delhi and Tehran have not always been on the same page about Afghanistan. In the 1970s, India watched warily as Iran and Pakistan both sought to destabilize Afghanistan and draw it away from Soviet influence, ultimately triggering the Soviet invasion and occupation. After the Iranian revolution, the new regime in Tehran was preoccupied with the Iran-Iraq War and its growing conflict with the Gulf Arab states, which left it with little time and resources for Afghanistan.

But once the war with Iraq ended, Iran began to pay closer attention to Afghanistan again, which at the time was embroiled in a civil war that followed the Soviet occupation. After the Taliban gained control of Afghanistan in 1996 and began to target Shiite and Persian-speaking minorities as part of their harsh Sunni ideology, Iran joined hands with Russia and India to support the so-called Northern Alliance fighting Taliban rule.

It does not seem likely that a return of the Taliban to power would reinstate the old Indian-Iranian-Russian coalition. Moscow, this time around, is giving the Taliban the benefit of a doubt and otherwise focused on working closely with Islamabad. China, which has good relationships with Pakistan and Russia and a deteriorating one with India, also seems open to an early normalization of the Taliban.

All these realignments leave Iran as the most important potential partner for India in Afghanistan, not least to help with geographic access for the delivery of civilian and military assistance to the Afghan government. While the shortest route from India to landlocked Afghanistan is through Pakistan, Islamabad has been unwilling to facilitate New Delhi’s overland access. Instead, India has long looked to Iran as the gateway to Afghanistan and from there to Central Asia. These efforts aren’t new: Since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, successive Indian governments have invested in alternative access to Afghanistan through Iran.

The government of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has therefore devoted special attention to transportation infrastructure linking Iran with Afghanistan. India is helping build out Chabahar port on Iran’s southeastern coast and is now promoting Chabahar as a viable option for connecting Central Asia and Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea via Iran—as an alternative to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. New Delhi and Tehran are also interested in exchanging notes on the turbulent Baluchistan region that straddles Iran and Pakistan along the Arabian Sea and reaches into Afghanistan.

But any cooperation between India and Iran will be constrained by multiple factors. Although both countries share apprehensions about the Taliban’s ideological orientation, Iran of course shares their intense anti-Americanism. Tehran has maintained close contacts with the Taliban not only as a hedge against the group’s return to power but also as a useful instrument to push U.S. forces out of its neighborhood. At the same time, Iran is preparing to counter the Taliban if they begin to express their Sunni extremism. India has a lot less flexibility than Iran on the Taliban, given the group’s alignment with a hostile Pakistan.

India hopes that a Raisi-led Iran will be able to de-escalate tensions with the United States and de-conflict ties with its Gulf Arab neighbors.

India has struggled to shield its evolving Iran relationship from Washington’s maximum pressure campaign against Tehran. New Delhi has been less willing than Beijing and Moscow to skirt U.S. sanctions—for example, by taking Iranian oil shipments. Meanwhile, Tehran has kept up continuous pressure on New Delhi to increase its distance from Washington on Iran-related issues.

Iran’s potential support for the Kabul government against the Taliban could also be a mixed blessing for Kabul. Over the last few years, Iran has developed the Fatemiyoun Brigade, which is composed of Afghan Shiite fighters and has been deployed in Syria. Earlier this year, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif offered the services of the brigade to the Afghan government, but Kabul worries about inflaming the sectarian passions in the country. New Delhi is conservative by instinct in these matters and would prefer traditional forms of support to Kabul or a broad-based anti-Taliban coalition rather than the sectarian militias.

To be sure, the Taliban themselves give a sectarian dimension to the conflict in Afghanistan. But the Iranian use of a Shiite brigade to intervene in Afghanistan could trigger support for other groups from various Middle Eastern powers, notably the Gulf Arab states. New Delhi, however, would like both Tehran and the Gulf Arabs to see the long-term threats to their own stability from the Taliban rather than viewing the group through the lens of sectarian conflict. The Taliban’s triumphalism at having successfully resisted the United States will give a big boost to Islamist groups seeking to overthrow governments across the region.

India has not forgotten that Iran, which shares borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan, has always been a critical factor in the region’s geopolitics. From the 1950s until the 1970s, the shah’s Iran had the big strategic ideas about economic modernization, connectivity, and regional integration between the Middle East and the subcontinent. It was only after the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan that Pakistan, with its weaponization of Islamist extremism, became the main external driver of Kabul’s unfortunate destiny.

India’s recent high-level contacts with Iran have raised hopes in New Delhi that Raisi’s close ties with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei might bring greater coherence to Iran’s regional policies. India also hopes that a Raisi-led Iran will be able to de-escalate tensions with the United States and de-conflict ties with its Gulf Arab neighbors. In fact, back-channel talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia that have been going on since April could, according to some accounts, be close to a breakthrough. Skeptics will raise an eyebrow at those hopes. But as the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates, New Delhi has no choice but to build on the few options it has with Iran—and manage the consequences.

(C. Raja Mohan is the director of the National University of Singapore’s Institute of South Asian Studies and a former member of India’s National Security Advisory)

Why WHO Wants The World To Hold Off On Booster Dose?

August 10, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Health, Science 0

The World Health Organization (WHO) has called upon wealthy nations to halt their plans for administering booster doses till at least end of September in order to ensure enough vaccine availability for the less developed and poor nations.

The agency said the halt should last at least two months, to give the world a chance to meet the director-general’s goal of vaccinating 10% of the population of every country by the end of September.

“We need an urgent reversal from the majority of vaccines going to high-income countries, to the majority going to low income countries,” WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a press briefing.

The request is part of Ghebreyesus’ plan to vaccinate 40% of the world by December, according to his senior advisor, Dr. Bruce Aylward.

According to WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the world needs “an urgent reversal from the majority of vaccines going to high-income countries, to the majority going to low income countries” in order for at least 10% of each country’s population to be vaccinated by end of September and 40% of the world’s population by December.

While booster doses are now accepted as a reality as most vaccines’ efficacy wanes after some months, very few countries have started administering booster shots given that even the first two doses of double-dose vaccines have not yet been given. Countries that have started administering boosters include Dominican Republic, which is not exactly in the club of wealthy nations and has a population of less than Delhi’s. Israel is another country to have announced its decision to administer booster doses to its geriatric population. In the US, the San Francisco Department of Public Health and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital have said they would allow booster dose of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, which is a single shot vaccine.

Experts have blamed cornering of vaccines by high income countries for the vaccine inequity. High-income countries administered around 50 doses for every 100 people in May, and that number has since doubled, according to WHO. Low-income countries have only been able to administer 1.5 doses for every 100 people.

The European Union (EU), with a population of around 448 million, has ordered enough vaccines to inoculate each EU resident with 6.9 doses. The UK has ordered 8.2 doses per citizen. The US, with a population of 328 million, has ordered enough to administer each of its citizens with 4.6 doses. The case of Canada is even more glaring — for a population of around 38 million, it has ordered enough doses to administer each citizen with 10.5 doses.

Contrast that with countries like Haiti, which only recently received its first batch of vaccines, to administer the first dose. The African Union, on the other hand, has ordered just enough to administer 0.4 doses per citizen.

Added to that is the export restrictions that were imposed by several wealthy nations on vaccines, many of which were being manufactured there. In cases like that of India, the country’s prioritization for vaccinating its own population first coupled with production capacity constraints that have still not been resolved has led to India not being able to fulfil its global obligations for vaccine supply.

Attempting To Intimidate Critics, Modi Gvt. Locks Rahul Gandhi ’s Twitter Account

August 10, 2021 Staff ReporterMedia, Nation India 0

The Twitter account of senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was ‘temporarily’ locked on last week, a day after a photograph he had posted with the family of the nine-year-old Dalit rape victim was taken down by the microblogging site.

The action came after the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) issued a notice to Twitter India, asking the social media platform to remove the tweet which revealed the identity of the rape victim.

“Shri @RahulGandhi’s Twitter account has been temporarily locked & due process is being followed for its restoration,” the Congress tweeted. “Until then, he will stay connected with you all through his other SM platforms & continue to raise his voice for our people & fight for their cause. Jai Hind!”

“Based on a complaint by the BJP, the Twitter account of Rahul Gandhi has been locked. Instead of giving justice to the 9-year-old Dalit girl, the BJP and the Narendra Modi government are far too preoccupied in intimidating Twitter as also illegally chasing Rahul Gandhi. Had PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah used this time in ensuring justice for the Dalit girl…Delhi would have been a safer place,” Congress communication department head Randeep Surjewala told the media.

The girl, who has not been named by authorities and belonged to the Dalit community, one of Hinduism’s most oppressed castes, was found dead near a Delhi crematorium on Sunday night, Ingit Singh from Delhi Police’s South West District told NBC News over the telephone. Her whole body was burnt apart from her ankles and feet, he added.

Four men were arrested on suspicion of rape and murder in the death of a 9-year-old girl, whose killing has brought into focus both rampant sexual violence and caste prejudice in the country. Four men, including the crematorium’s priest, were arrested early Monday on suspicion of rape, murder and destruction of evidence, Singh said.

“The brutality from this incident is barbaric beyond words,” Yogita Bhayana, founder of the women’s rights group People Against Rapes in India, said. “And the saddest part is incidents like these are not rare. We see cases where Dalit women are killed, raped, and tortured daily. … Only a few come to the limelight.”

There are 200 million Dalits in India, out of a population of 1.3 billion, according to the most recent government census. Rahul Gandhi visited the girl’s family and offered his condolences and support to the family last week, seeking action for those behind the heinous crime.

On 75th Independence Anniversary, India Elected President of UN Security Council

August 5, 2021August 10, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal, Nation India 0

“It is a singular honor for us to be presiding over the Security Council the same month when we are celebrating our 75th Independence Day,” India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador T S Tirumurti said here on August 1st.

India on Sunday assumed the presidency of the United Nations Security Council for the month of August and is set to organize key events in three major areas of maritime security, peacekeeping and counter-terrorism.

Tirumurti, who will preside over the Council this month, said in a tweet that during its presidency India will organize three high-level meetings focusing on maritime security, peacekeeping, and counterterrorism.

“India has just assumed the presidency of The UN Security Council on 1st August. India and France enjoy historical and close relations. I thank France for all the support which they’ve given us during our stint in the Security Council,” he further added.

As part of its new role, India will decide the UN body’s agenda for the month and coordinate important meetings on a range of issues. “Security Council will also have on its agenda several important meetings including Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and the Middle East. Security Council will also be adopting important resolutions on Somalia, Mali, & UN Interim Force in Lebanon,” TS Tirumurti said.

Meanwehile, Pakistan has expressed concerns about India holding such an important role on the most important and powerful body of the United Nations. India will obviously use its SC Presidency to promote its own narrative on various issues, including terrorism and UN reform,” Ambassador Munir Akram told Dawn. “We will watch its conduct carefully and ensure that no moves that are against Pakistan’s core interests are allowed to succeed,” he said.

According to The Hindu, India will organize a ministerial-level meeting titled “threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts” at the end of August. India is seeking to enhance coordination between the UN and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the money laundering and terror financial watchdog which has kept Pakistan on its increased monitoring list.

The FATF had announced on June 25 that Pakistan would continue to remain on its increased monitoring list till it addressed the single remaining item on the original action plan agreed to in June 2018 as well as all items on a parallel action plan handed out by the watchdog’s regional partner — the Asia Pacific Group — in 2019.

India’s External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said that at the Council “India will keep the international spotlight firmly focused on the task of combatting” terrorism, the pandemic and climate change, which are global challenges that transcend national boundaries.

S Jaishankar took to Twitter to mark the occasion, and said that India will always be “voice of moderation, an advocate of dialogue and a proponent of international law.” Apart from meeting on maritime security, peacekeeping and counter-terrorism, India will also be organizing a solemn event in memory of peacekeepers.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be the first Indian PM to preside over a meeting of the UNSC, Former permanent representative of India to the United Nations, Syed Akbaruddin said.

“In 75 plus yrs, this is the first time our political leadership has invested in presiding over an event of UNSC. It shows that leadership wants to lead from the front. It also shows that India&its political leadership are invested in our foreign policy ventures. Although this is a virtual meeting, it’s still a first meeting of the sort for us. So, it is historic. The last time an Indian PM was engaged in this effort was the then PM PV Narasimha Rao in 1992 when he attended a UNSC meeting,” Syed Akbaruddin added.

Flagging concern over ‘a dangerous and worrying trend in global terrorism’ as increasing number of children are being recruited for terrorism-related activities’, India at a UNSC debate on children and armed conflict in June had said there is a need for a more coordinated approach in implementing the child protection and counter-terrorism agendas.

In January at a UNSC meeting, India had pointed out that preventing terrorists from accessing financial resources was crucial to successfully countering the threat of terrorism. Earlier at the debate on ‘Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by Terrorist Acts’ hosted by Tunisia to mark 20 years of the landmark resolution in the global fight against terrorism after the 9/11 terror attacks, India had proposed an eight-point Action Plan for an effective response to international terrorism.

Anchored in its non-aligned and independent foreign policy guided by values of democracy, respect of law and its mission to build a fair and equitable international system, India’s tenure as a non-permanent member of the UNSC is much awaited among the international community.

Guided by the “Five S’s”, as set out by Prime Minister Narendra Modi viz. Samman (Respect), Samvad (Dialogue), Sahyog (Cooperation) and Shanti (Peace), and Samriddhi (Prosperity), India’s overall objective during its tenure in the UN SC has been the achievement of N.O.R.M.S: a New Orientation for a Reformed Multilateral System.

India’s Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla in his meeting with UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres earlier this month had listed maritime security, peacekeeping and counter-terrorism as India’s priorities during its upcoming presidency.

This will be the country’s first presidency during its 2021-22 tenure as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. India began its two-year tenure as a non-permanent member of the UNSC on January 1, this year.

Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill Moves Forward in US Senate

August 5, 2021August 10, 2021 Staff ReporterFinance/Economy, Nation USA 0

The US Senate has voted to move forward on a bipartisan infrastructure bill after weeks of negotiations last week, clearing a key procedural hurdle on a bill that includes $550 billion in new spending for infrastructure projects around the country, media reports here said.

In the 67 to 32 vote, 17 Republicans including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined Democrats to advance the bill. The proposal includes some of President Biden’s top domestic priorities and provides billions of dollars in funding for bridges, roads, broadband internet, clean water, public transit and more over the next five years. It encapsulates so-called “hard” infrastructure and is separate from Democratic efforts to pass a $3.5 trillion package for so-called “soft” infrastructure, which includes policies like Medicare expansion and universal child care.

“This deal signals to the world that our democracy can function, deliver, and do big things,” President Biden said in a statement before the vote. “As we did with the transcontinental railroad and the interstate highway, we will once again transform America and propel us into the future.”

The long-awaited text of a nearly $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure package has come to be realized after several months of negotiations and a month after President Biden and a bipartisan group of senators first announced such a deal.

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act focuses on investments in roads, railways, bridges and broadband internet, but it does not include investments that Biden has referred to as “human infrastructure,” including money allocated for child care and tax credits for families. Democrats are looking to address those priorities separately. The package calls for $550 billion in new spending over five years.

The bipartisan bill would be funded by unspent emergency relief funds, corporate user fees and strengthened tax enforcement for crypto currencies, among “other bipartisan measures,” the White House said. The bill would also use roughly $53 billion from states that returned unused enhanced federal unemployment money.

Former President Trump has termed the “so-called bipartisan bill” terrible, and vowed to primary GOP Senators who vote for it.

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said the final product, just over 2,700 pages long, will be “great for the American people.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Senate will consider amendments this week and a final vote could be held “in a matter of days.”

“It’s been decades since Congress passed such a significant standalone investment,” the New York Democrat said, “and I salute the hard work done that was here by everybody.”

Here’s a look at what’s included in the agreement:

Transportation

Roads, bridges, major projects: $110 billion

Passenger and freight rail: $66 billion

Public transit: $39 billion

Airports: $25 billion

Port infrastructure: $17 billion

Transportation safety programs: $11 billion

Electric vehicles: $7.5 billion

Zero and low-emission buses and ferries: $7.5 billion

Reconnect communities: $1 billion

Other infrastructure

Broadband: $65 billion

Power infrastructure: $73 billion

Clean drinking water: $55 billion

Resilience and Western water storage: $50 billion

Environmental remediation: $21 billion

How would they pay for it?

According to a recent fact sheet from the White House released a few days before the final legislation was unveiled, the package will be financed through a combination of funds, including repurposing unspent emergency relief funds from the COVID-19 pandemic and strengthening tax enforcement for cryptocurrencies.

Goals of the plan

Back in June, the White House shared a fact sheet with the aims of the package: Improve healthy, sustainable transportation options for millions of Americans by modernizing and expanding transit and rail networks across the country while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Repair and rebuild roads and bridges with a focus on climate change mitigation, resilience, equity and safety for all users, including cyclists and pedestrians.

Build a national network of electric vehicle chargers along highways and in rural and disadvantaged communities.

Electrify thousands of school and transit buses across the country to reduce harmful emissions and drive domestic manufacturing of zero emission vehicles and components.

Eliminate the nation’s lead service lines and pipes, delivering clean drinking water to up to 10 million American families and more than 400,000 schools and child care facilities that currently don’t have it, including in tribal nations and disadvantaged communities.

Connect every American to reliable high-speed internet.

Upgrade the power infrastructure, including by building thousands of miles of new, resilient transmission lines to facilitate the expansion of renewable energy, including through a new grid authority.

Create a first-of-its-kind Infrastructure Financing Authority that will leverage billions of dollars into clean transportation and clean energy.

Make the largest investment in addressing legacy pollution in American history.

Prepare more infrastructure for impacts of climate change, cyberattacks and extreme weather events.

After Ruthlessly Killing Protesters For Months, Myanmar’s Military Leader Crowns Himself Prime Minister

August 4, 2021August 5, 2021 Staff ReporterGlobal 0

Six months after seizing power from the elected government, Myanmar’s military leader on Sunday, August 1st declared himself prime minister and said he would lead the country under the extended state of emergency until elections are held in about two years.

“We must create conditions to hold a free and fair multiparty general election,” Senior Gen. Min Aung Hlaing said during a recorded televised address. “We have to make preparations. I pledge to hold the multiparty general election without fail.”

He said the state of emergency will achieve its objectives by August 2023. In a separate announcement, the military government named itself “the caretaker government” and Min Aung Hlaing the prime minister.

The state of emergency was declared when troops moved against the elected government of Aung San Suu Kyi on Feb. 1, an action the generals said was permitted under the military-authored 2008 constitution. The military claimed her landslide victory in last year’s national elections was achieved through massive voter fraud but offered no credible evidence.

The military government officially annulled the election results last Tuesday and appointed a new election commission to take charge of the polls.

The military takeover was met with massive public protests that has resulted in a lethal crackdown by security forces, who routinely fire live ammunition into crowds. As of Sunday, 939 people have been killed by the authorities since Feb. 1, according to a tally kept by the independent Assistance Association for Political Prisoners. Casualties are also rising among the military and police as armed resistance grows in both urban and rural areas.

Moves by The Association of Southeast Asian Nations to broker a dialogue between the military government and its opponents have stalled after an agreement at an April summit in Jakarta to appoint a special envoy for Myanmar.

Min Aung Hlaing said that among the three nominees, Thailand’s former Deputy Foreign Minister Virasakdi Futrakul was selected as the envoy.

“But for various reasons, new proposals were released and we could not keep moving onwards. I would like to say that Myanmar is ready to work on ASEAN cooperation within the ASEAN framework, including the dialogue with the ASEAN special envoy in Myanmar,” he said. ASEAN foreign ministers were expected to discuss Myanmar in virtual meetings this week hosted by Brunei, the current chair of the 10-nation bloc. Myanmar is also struggling with its worst COVID-19 outbreak that has overwhelmed its already crippled health care system. Limitations on oxygen sales have led to widespread allegations that the military is directing supplies to government supporters and military-run hospitals.

At the same time, medical workers have been targeted by authorities after spearheading a civil disobedience movement that urged professionals and civil servants not to cooperate with the government.

Min Aung Hlaing blamed the public’s mistrust in the military’s efforts to control the outbreak on “fake news and misinformation via social networks,” and accused those behind it of using COVID-19 “as a tool of bioterrorism.”

A Targeted Window Of Opportunity For U.S. Multilateral Leadership

August 4, 2021August 5, 2021 John R. Allen & John McArthur At BrookingsGlobal 0

It’s not often that a line-item foreign policy budget decision can be low-cost, high-impact, and send positive ripple effects throughout the international system. Fortunately, the Biden administration is currently facing just such an option, nested within debates over UN reform and the UN Development System. Specifically, a $34 million annual commitment would signal a new era of U.S. global leadership engagement toward ending the COVID-19 pandemic, tackling climate change, and promoting inclusive and resilient national recovery strategies in more than 160 countries around the world.

The context is the recently renovated UN Resident Coordinator (RC) system, which supports country-level coordination of the UN family of 34 distinct organizations—ranging from the World Health Organization to UNICEF to the World Food Program—working with 162 countries, mostly emerging markets and developing economies. As the UN Development System’s most senior representatives in each country, reporting directly to the UN secretary-general, RCs are responsible for driving integrated UN support to local efforts tackling the interwoven economic, social, and environmental challenges of sustainable development.

When current UN Secretary-General António Guterres and Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed took office in 2017, one of their foremost priorities was to streamline efforts across the vast network of development-focused UN agencies, funds, and programs helping countries pursue the Sustainable Development Goals, the Paris Climate Agreement, and other key global accords. In 2018, UN member states agreed to a new strategy for integrating UN support in relevant countries, anchored in a pivotal update of the UN Resident Coordinator role. Previously, the RC function was managed by the United Nations Development Program, one of the larger UN entities. As of 2019, the RC role was repositioned to lead more independently between UN entities, under the auspices of the secretary-general and oversight of the deputy secretary-general.

By most accounts, the initial years of the overall reform process have registered some important successes. A recent independent assessment highlighted the new RC system as a particularly important step forward, especially in the context of ensuring integrated UN country team responses to the COVID-19 crisis. There are also early signs of improved support to help countries tackle the longer-term practical challenges of advancing sustainable development.

Despite the progress, there is one key problem. The new system is not properly funded.

In 2018, Secretary-General Guterres proposed an annual RC system budget of $281 million, including $154 million of “assessed” contributions, meaning funding commitments that countries agree to make mandatory and to share based on ability to contribute. The United States, for example, currently funds 22 percent of the UN secretariat’s assessed contributions, as the largest national contributor. A 22 percent share of $154 million would imply roughly $34 million of predictable U.S. annual support for the RC system serving 162 countries.

These numbers are tiny in the context of the aggregate UN system budgets, which add up—when counting all forms of contributions—to more than $56 billion per year. This multi-billion aggregate is in turn modest again when mapped to a global scale of 8 billion people: it works out to roughly $7 per person per year for the entire UN system.

Amid its own multi-trillion dollar domestic recovery budgets, why wouldn’t the U.S. government support such a targeted effort to improve multilateral efficiency on shared global interests like ending the pandemic, tackling climate change, and promoting inclusive economic recovery for all? The quick history is that the previous administration made “voluntary” contributions to the initiative, but rejected discussion of any increase in assessed UN contributions, whatever the purpose. The current administration has signaled a much stronger desire to support UN efforts, especially on issues aligned with its own priorities, but the RC system does not yet seem to have risen to the front burner of U.S. political attention.

It’s a timely moment for this to change. It is widely understood in UN circles that a shift in U.S. policy stance could unlock the global stalemate and help deliver effective and reliable development system reform. More broadly, it would send a vivid signal to American allies and potential partners that the country is willing to pay its fair share to help update multilateral efficiencies in advancing local sustainable development priorities in countries around the world. This is entirely consistent with the administration’s theme of “Building Back Better.” It also promotes U.S. security interests, by directly helping the UN reduce many underlying risks for conflict across diverse geographies.

The consequences of a lack of U.S. support also need to be considered. Not only would it put key UN reforms in jeopardy at a crucial moment. It would also risk signaling to the world that, even under the most fiscally progressive of administrations, the U.S. is no longer willing to work with other countries on relatively low-cost, high-impact international reforms to help other countries promote their own sustainable development ambitions. This would be penny-wise, pound-foolish policy symbolism in the extreme. In the end, this is about the kind of values-based multilateralism that should characterize U.S. and American leadership. If the U.S. doesn’t close this gap, others might—with quite different motivations for making this type of commitment.

As a final point, the U.S. has impressive partners leading the UN system right now. Over the past four and a half years, the UN secretary-general and deputy secretary-general have carried a major weight on the world’s behalf to keep the embers of international cooperation burning. They have both just signed on to a second five-year term. We applaud their dedicated ongoing leadership as humanity stands at a pivotal moment in charting the future of global cooperation. The U.S. can demonstrate support of this leadership team and make a relatively easy—yet decisive—contribution by committing to fund its ongoing fair share of the RC system. This can form a keystone in modernizing multilateral efforts toward sustainable development for all.

Indian-American Nominated By Biden As Envoy For Religious Freedom

August 4, 2021 Staff ReporterNation USA, Religion 0

President Joe Biden has nominated an Indian-American, Rashad Hussain, as the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, and if approved by the Senate he will be the first Muslim to head US diplomacy for advancing religious liberties.

Making the announcement on Friday, the White House said that Biden is appointing a Pakistani American Khizr Khan to be a member of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USICRF), along with two others.

The USICRF publishes the annual report of religious freedom around the world as it advocates for religious freedom around the world and designates violators of religious liberties.

Hussain is the Director for Partnerships and Global Engagement at the National Security Council has worked as a Senior Counsel in the Justice Department’s National Security Division.

Like many Biden appointees, Hussain is an alumnus of President Barack Obama’s administration in which he served as the US special envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the US special envoy for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications.

“Rashad also spearheaded efforts on countering antisemitism and protecting religious minorities in Muslim-majority countries,” the White House said.

Hussain, who has a law degree from Yale University and a master’s in Arabic and Islamic Studies from Harvard University, has also worked with the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.

The position of Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom was set up by the Congress within the State Department with the mandate to “advance the right to freedom of religion abroad, to denounce the violation of that right, and to recommend appropriate responses by the US Government when this right is violated.”

Khan is a lawyer who is the founder of the Constitution Literacy and National Unity Project. His son, US Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in action in Iraq.

As one of the speakers at the Democratic Party’s National Convention that nominated Hillary Clinton as the party’s nominee for president in 2016, Khan criticised the Republican Party candidate Donald Trump saying he “consistently smears the character of Muslims.”

Trump made a snide comment suggesting that because of that religion, the captain’s mother did not speak at the convention and it evoked strong criticism for attacking “Gold Star” parents ï¿½ as the parents of military personnel killed in action are reverentially called in the US.

An Indian American, Anurima Bhargava, is a member of the USICRF as one of the three members appointed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Three others are appointed by the leader of the Senate.

The Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC), a Washington, D.C. based advocacy group dedicated to safeguarding India’s pluralist and tolerant ethos today commended President Biden’s administration for nominating Mr. Rashad Hussain to serve in key religious freedom role at the U.S. Department of State. “IAMC also welcomes the appointment of Mr. Khizr Khan and Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)” a statement issued by the group stated.

Welcoming the nomination and new appointments, Syed Afzal Ali, President of IAMC said: “The deep experience of Mr. Rashad Hussain and Mr. Khizr Khan in advocating for rights of minorities will further bolster religious freedom for all people, especially in India, where Muslims and Christians are facing continuous persecution due to their faith.”

“While IAMC welcomes the latest nominations and appointments, more needs to be done by President Biden’s administration to ensure that human rights and religious freedom is part of its broader diplomacy. It is in the US interest to have geopolitical stability around the world, and especially in South Asia. IAMC is eager to help the incoming Ambassador and the two USCIRF appointees in addressing the issues of minorities in India.”

Secretary Blinken’s Assessment Of Indian Democracy Is Not Compatible With Ground Reality

August 4, 2021August 5, 2021 Koshy GeorgeEditorial/Opinion, Nation India, Nation USA 0

“The most remarkable democratic election in the world, in many ways , is here in India” Blinken told a press conference. As a pravasi Indian I wish these were true statements and I want India to be known this way among the nations of the world. Blinken either believes this to be true or he was ignoring the truth for the sake of international diplomacy. Since there is no freedom of the press in India only polished news comes out.

Blinken would have simply gone with a political argument ignoring the reality on the ground. Either way, based on the facts on the ground Blinken was either misguided or as the UCA (United Catholic Asian) news quotes it was Blinken’s blinkered vision of India to suit Modi. These words would have been soothing for the ears of Mr. Modi and his party.

However, this does not give justice to hundreds of Christians and other minorities who sacrificed their lives due to the quest of the ruling party to declare India as a Hindu state. The poor departed souls must have been churning in their graves when they hear such statements. The injustices suffered by the 84-year-old Fr. Stan Sway alone should have been reason enough for Mr. Blinken to have been more cautious in his statements about human rights and respect for democratic principles by the government of India.

According to Reuters, on July 23, 2021 a senior State Department official said that U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken will raise human rights issues with officials in India when he visits the country next week. If Secretary Blinken was aware of human rights violations in India, how can he take an about-turn stand after 12 hours of air travel to India? USCIRF (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom) recommends India as one of the Countries of Particular Concern (CPC) as India is listed by Open doors as the tenth most violators of human rights in the world. Now Secretary Blinken will have to accept or reject the recommendations of the State Department’s own report by the bureau of democracy human rights and labor.

We hope and pray that Secretary Blinken will have the wisdom to do the right thing. Of course, no one is happy about such a rating for India, but due to the stubborn stand of several nationalists in the Modi administration, this may be the only medicine for them to respect the basic human rights and religious freedom of minorities.

India had a good beginning after the independence which adopted the principles of pluralism and secularism. However, the evils of the caste system and the supremacy ideologies of the majority squeezed out any decency that was left in the political system in India by the ruling majority of the Modi government.

The current government has been suppressing all kinds of freedom in India including individual and press freedoms. Anyone criticizing any act of the government is termed as anti-national and they will be jailed indefinitely without the chance for a bail hearing. Such atrocities are unheard of in a decent democracy. What is the basis for Secretary Blinken’s assessment that India is a remarkable democracy? Facts on the ground state otherwise. All he needs is to talk to anyone of the church leaders in India to find the real situation.

Is the election process in India rigged? Don’t know for sure unless there is a reliable process for recounts or investigations. The EVM (electronic voting machines) in India are always under the control of the government where chances for abuses are real. However, without blaming anyone, we should go back to paper ballots as adopted by many civilized nations.

Who ever may be ruling India we must have peace and harmony. This is possible only if the ruling majority respects the interests of the minority. Citizens to follow religious faith of their choice in India has become a challenge under Prime Minister Modi’s watch. If India has to prosper, she has to get rid of the caste system. We appeal to the government of India not to pass any more laws that hurt the interest of the minorities. In the meantime, until India reverses all its unjust laws, US State Department must include India in the list of CPC nations to encourage India to go back to her roots and give all Indians the same rights and privileges under the law.