#Strength in India Claim to UN Security Council | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

implexis · 3 years ago

Text

1951

Jan 3 Asian and Arab nations are trying for a peaceful settlement in Korea.

Jan 10 A committee of 100 Republicans say that the United Nations has failed and urges the US to quit the organization.

Jan 17 Working their way southward, Chinese and North Korean forces recapture Seoul.

Jan-Feb At a dinner party in New York City, Margaret Sanger, age 72, meets biologist Gregory Pincus. He tells her that it might be possible to create the birth control pill she has been dreaming about. To do it, he says, he would need significant funding.

Feb 1 The UN General Assembly declares China the aggressor in the Korean War since the end of December 1950. .

Feb 26 The US Constitution is amended to limit presidents to two terms.

Mar 7 General Matthew Ridgway has been army commander in Korea since late December when, in Tokyo, Douglas MacArthur, over-all commander of the UN forces, told him, "The Eighth Army is yours, Matt. Do what you think best." Ridgway has planned a new offensive, and MacArthur flies to Korea for some showmanship. He upstages Ridgway at a news conference, announcing falsely that he, MacArthur, had "just ordered a resumpton of the offensive."

Mar 14 United Nations forces recapture Seoul.

Mar 14 In the United States, a Gallup Poll shows Truman's public approval rating at 26 percent. United States deaths in Korea are around 50,000. Many in the US think the President has been too weak vis-à-vis the Communists, but also, according to a Gallop Poll the previous month, 49 percent of those polled thought the war was a mistake. Truman has defied those calling for more money to be spent on the military. He has endeavored instead to maintain the nation's strength through a balanced budget.

Mar 15 Ridgway's forces have turned the war around and have been advancing against Chinese and North Koreans, and today Ridgway and his troops retake what is left of the city of Soeul. Morale in Washington DC is said to be reviving.

Mar 30 India considers Kashmir as its territory but holds only half of it. Pakistan and China hold other parts. Pakistan claims the part that India holds, Jammu-Kashmir, because a majority of the people there are Muslim. The UN Security Council passes Resolution 91 which calls for a free and impartial plebiscite in Jammu-Kashmir and demilitarization of the State prior to the plebiscite.

Apr 1 In Greece, women are given the right to vote.

Apr 5 Ethel and Julius Rosenberg receive the death penalty for having conspired to commit espionage.

Apr 9 General MacArthur has defied President Truman. Truman wants a ceasefire in Korea with Korea divided as before at the 38th parallel. MacArthur has written a letter to the Republican House Minority Leader, Joseph Martin, criticizing Truman. Men around President Truman agree that MacArthur is a problem, and the armed services Joint Chiefs of Staff decide unanimously that MacArthur should be relieved of his command.

Apr 11 President Truman fires General MacArthur.

Apr 12 In Europe, MacArthur's dismissal is considered good news. In the US, Republicans meet and call for Truman's impeachment. The Chicago Tribune agrees. Senator Nixon demands that MacArthur be reinstated. In New York, two thousand longshoremen protest MacArthur's firing.

Apr 20 President Truman appears at a big-league game to open the baseball season and is loudly booed.

May 14 The government of South Africa removes the right of people of mixed race ("colored") to vote.

Jun 13 The Communists propose negotiations for Korea. UN troops have driven north of the 38th parallel and are ordered to hold their positions. Fighting is now to become skirmishes over outposts and hills been lines, shellings, aircraft bombing by US forces and small unit actions and a lot of talk by the world's political figures.

Jun 18 The French have defeated a major Viet Minh campaign, the Viet Minh having lost 10,000 killed and wounded, and they withdraw from the Red River Delta.

Jun 25 Truman says he does not want a wider war and says that he is ready to see the war end with a division of the two sides at the 38th parallel.

Jul 5 William Shockley extends on the transistor invented in 1947 by inventing the junction transistor, bringing Silicon to what will become known as Silicon Valley.

Jul 10 In Korea, armistice negotiations begin while violence at the front continues. Facing each other on a line that runs east and west across Korea are 459,000 Communist troops, more than half of whom are Chinese forces. On the UN side are approximately 554,000. South Korea has 273,000 in the field, the US 253,000, and the rest are from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, France, Britain, Greece, India, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, the Philippines, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, and the Union of South Africa.

Jul 16 Riad Bey al-Solh, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, has been assassinated in Amman, where rumors were circulating that Lebanon and Jordan were discussing a joint separate peace with Israel.

Jul 19 Pakistan has not agreed on conditions for a plebiscite in Jammu-Kashmir. Prime Minister Nehru tells Pakistan to stop its war talk, that India is not concentrating troops on Pakistan's border and wants peace.

Jul 20 Abdullah, the Hashimite King of Jordan, a moderate toward Israel, is in Jerusalem to give a eulogy at the funeral of Riad Bey al-Solh. He is shot while attending Friday prayers at the Dome of the Rock in the company of his grandson, Prince Hussein.

Jul 24 India makes Sheik Mohammad Abullah, leader of the area's largest political party, the prime minister of Jammu-Kashmir and agrees to Jammu-Kashmir autonomy within India.

Aug 1 China is burdened economically by its participation in the Korean War and by China's recent civil war, but a majority of Chinese are proud to see their country "standing up" to the "imperialist" powers. Meanwhile, since October 1950, the Communist government has executed around 28,000 "counter-revolutionaries."

Sep 9 India has been hoping to ward off Chinese control over Tibet. So too has the United States, which has been sending arms there through Calcutta. On this day, Chinese troops march into and take control of Tibet's capital city, Lhasa.

Sep 5 In Korea, the UN command have decided to chastise the Communist side for its failures at the negotiating table and it launches a limited offensive, with the objective of taking higher ground in mountainous territory. In fighting for what is called "Bloody Ridge," an estimated 15,000 North Koreans and 2,700 UN soldiers have been killed, wounded or captured.

Sep 13 The North Koreans have moved from Bloody Ridge to what will become known as Heartbreak Ridge. US commanders decide to take Heartbreak Ridge also. Soon to be labeled by the Americans as a fiasco.

Sep 19 Yours truly begins a three-year enlistment in the Marine Corps.

Sep 20 At the close of their conference in Ottawa, all twelve members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization accept Greece and Turkey as fellow members – a move that does not please the Soviet Union, while in the US some ask where the Soviet Union is going to strike next, in Asia or Europe.

Sep 26-28 Ash from a forest fire in Canada turns the sun blue for Europeans.

Oct 25 In Korea, truce talks reconvene. The fighting for Heartbreak Ridge is at an end. United Nations forces have suffered over 40,000 casualties. The Communist forces have suffered more, some of it from air power, which has blasted and burned their high ground bare. A lot of high ground in Korea is without vegetation.

Oct 26 In Britain, conservatives do well in elections and Winston Churchill is re-elected Britain's prime minister.

Nov 10 In the United States people can now dial directly for coast-to-coast telephone calls.

Nov 11 Hard times in Argentina have created a tense presidential campaign in Argentina. One candidate has been arrested and another shot. Eva Perón has claimed that anyone not voting for Peron is a traitor. Her husband, Juan Perón, is re-elected.

Dec 24 Another colony ends. Libya becomes a constitutional monarchy, the constitution proclaiming "by the will of God" a democratic and sovereign state that guarantees national unity, domestic tranquility, secures the establishment of justice, guarantees the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity, and that promotes economic and social progress and the general welfare, "trusting in God, Master of the Universe."

Dec 31 Japan's Gross National Product is half that of West Germany's and a third that of Britain, but production in Japan has surpassed its prewar level.

to 1950 | to 1952

0 notes

piyushani · 6 years ago

Text

"Role of citizens in International Diplomacy: Indo-Israel Relations"

This was prepared as part of the application process for World Governance expedition organised by Vision India Foundation.

Role of citizens in international diplomacy is a recognized global concept often referred as “Citizen Diplomacy” or “Track-two diplomacy”, but in recent years the rising connectivity and movement of people, ideas and goods through internet, tourism and employment opportunities have given it greater role in international relation. Citizens are now in position to reshape and sometimes to outdone the efforts of professional diplomats. Indo-Israel relation is result of the relationship between citizens despite the fact that India didn’t recognize Israel for quite a long time. This relation of India and Israel is the greatest example of citizen diplomacy which was substantially backed by government’s effort at the crucial juncture.

Indian Jew community is at the core of the India-Israel relation and the major force of citizen diplomacy. The recent address by Prime Minister Modi to the community in Israel witnessed the role and importance of the community in shaping the relationship between the two countries. Surely, the initiative of the community is taken forward by others through different channels. Now, the positive interaction among the common people, researchers and corporates have strengthened the ties to the level where it is being touted as ‘match made in heaven’. It can be claimed with confidence that this relationship is our heritage due to the historical absence of Anti-Semitism in Indian society, a great example of how the behaviour of individuals and society could shape international relations.

Realising the importance of citizen’s role Prime Minister Netanyahu has announced an I2I framework for the relationship which is individual to individual created through innovation and idea sharing. A relationship builds through an exchange of citizens is strongest and mutually beneficial. The base of this approach already exists in this relationship, the need is to take it ahead. Few suggestive steps are listed here:

· Israel should create space for student/entrepreneur exchange focussed on second and third tier cities of India. It will create a larger pool of people committed to create a positive contribution.

· India should create an encouraging environment where students/entrepreneur from Israel can visit India and establish business/startups to utilize the opportunity of growing Indian market.

· Frequent exchange of faculty to the large pool of universities in both nations.

Individuals in collaboration can help to create synergy among the efforts of two nations at international forums such as response to terrorism, effort towards safe & peaceful neighbourhood, India’s claim to permanent seat to UN security council and several other issues. The strength of diaspora of both the countries is well recognized at international level and involving them to achieve a common goal can produce a result beyond imagination. They can be a force to reckon with at the international level. Track-two diplomacy is crucial considering the background that drawing closer to Israel is all about performing a balancing act. We need to have good terms with every country in the region such as Iran, currently Israel’s greatest foe.

Citizen diplomacy has the capacity to fill the gap of realpolitik. Both the countries are creating the positive environment to strengthen this through various platforms such as India-Israel Industrial R&D and Technological Innovation Fund, India-Israel CEO forum, India-Israel Innovation Bridge, Indo-Israeli Agriculture Project etc.

Indian citizens have immense opportunity to learn and benefit from this relationship specially the approach to handle challenges adopted by Israel as nation and society which is reflected in Moshe speech in front of Prime Ministers of both the country where he concluded with the commitment to visit India again. Such strong Individuals will be at the core of citizen role in taking this relationship ahead.

#diplomacy / foreign policy #israel #india #citizendiplomacy

1 note · View note

worldpolitics2017-blog · 7 years ago

Text

America: From Riches to Rags

Rome, Qing, Britain and now the US? As one wakes up, even in London, to a cup of Starbucks coffee and opens up one’s silver Apple computer, it’s difficult to imagine a world where the US is no longer the economic and political superpower. But even the greatest empires in the world eventually wane, and one must wonder how the downturn of the once “shining city upon a hill” will impact the rest of the world. On one hand, the decline of the once sought after US dollar and US’ involvement in the global economy could equate to the continued growth and strengthening of other potential superpowers, most notably China and India. On the other hand, as the world loses its leviathan, the responsibility of policing the world will fall upon international organizations and other rising world powers, who are unable or uninterested in filling the role.

Today, only 50% of children and young adults in America will reach the standard of living their parents had in the 1980’s, a direct result of the West’s loss of power to Eastern countries such as China and India. Although the United States’ GDP is still considerably higher than China’s, China’s imminently mobilized population and their increasing growth rate will push its GDP to higher than the United States’ by 2050. As the US economy continues to contract, more and more production and manufacturing opportunities will be shifted overseas to China and India, allowing them to take advantage of their massive populations to fuel further economic growth. As this development continues, China has a chance to once again become the world’s largest exporter.

Additionally, although the USD is currently the most powerful form of currency -- with 65% of dollars being used in transactions outside of the US -- as US’ involvement in the world’s economy diminishes, so will the value of the dollar. As the USD becomes destabilized, the dollar will slowly be replaced by the Euro and the Chinese Yuan, the other two official reserve currencies identified by the IMF. As this trend continues, the relative strength of both of these currencies will increase replacing the once dollar centric financial system. This shift will especially benefit China, which proposed adopting a single global currency over USD in 2009 as they feared that if the US enters another recession, the trillions China holds in USD as bonds will become worthless due to inflation. This inverse relationship between the power of the USD and other currencies means that the shrinking of the US economy benefits those that trade in other currencies.

Besides China, the decline of the US could open the doors for India to become another economic powerhouse. The Big Four, Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon, have been relentlessly used as examples of US’ continued economic strength despite claims of its fall. However, by the end of 2017 India will exceed the US in number of software developers, and this figure is predicted to increase by a whopping 90% by 2018. Unlike China and the US, India has an arsenal of millions of young and hungry engineers. Even today, US hallmark IT companies, like IBM, have more employees in India than the US. As of 2016, India has already overtaken the US as the center for R&D investments. The name recognition and symbol for innovation could easily shift from Silicon Valley to Mumbai in the wake of US’ decline. After all, everyone is replaceable.

But are other nations or institutions able or willing to assume the role of the global policeman? America’s rise as a superpower in the twentieth century was largely due to its victories in WWII and the Cold War, with its growing military being considered the strongest in the world. However, the military’s unsustainable expansion also led to its eventual decline. The Bush era display of American military strength through involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq have come at a cost of an estimated $6 trillion. As such, the 2008 Obama campaign ran on a platform of withdrawing from such expensive and unrewarding wars and the 2016 Trump administration on inward policies, reflecting the American public’s disinterest in their country’s role as the world police.

The decline of US power has significantly decreased the White House’s political influence, leading to political upheavals like the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s continued use of chemical weapons against his people and Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea. While international institutions have the potential to become the new world watchman due to their increasing political and economic strength, it is presently unable to fill the role of the US. The UN Security Council’s was largely ineffective in Rwanda and Sierra Leone because the world’s hegemons had little incentives in these areas, and while the UN was effective in restoring security in Korea, its success is attributed to the US and European interests at the time. Due to the superior nature of hegemonic states’ influence to international organizations, the decline of the US and the absence of another world police will have negative consequences on the preservation of world peace.

Nevertheless, past US foreign involvement was also the result of self-interest, such as its invasions of Vietnam, Grenada, and Panama. While the UN Security Council was unable to prevent the US from invading Iraq in 2003, the European Union was able to enlist the cooperation of powerful states such as Germany in the 2008 global financial crisis, giving hope to the future abilities of such establishments. Therefore, the decline of the US and rise of international institutions may decrease much needed foreign interventions, but it will ultimately lead to fairer involvement in the future, encompassing the interests of all nations.

Ultimately, the slowing economic growth of the US will open the doors for other countries to experience similar growth, so they too have the opportunity to chase the “Chinese Dream” or “Indian Dream”. However, the end of a unipolar world will create greater political dependence on other actors to identify and resolve conflicts, which has proven to be a costly and criticized responsibility. Nevertheless, America’s decline will equalize the economic and political playing field, allowing other countries to rise. America, your 15 minutes of fame are up!

- Nomuka, Sahitya, and Sarah

7 notes · View notes

labourpress · 8 years ago

Text

Jeremy Corbyn speech at Chatham House

Jeremy Corbyn, Leader of the Labour Party, speaking at Chatham House, said:

***Check against delivery***

Chatham House has been at the forefront of thinking on Britain’s role in the world. So with the General Election less than a month away, it’s a great place to set out my approach: on how a Labour Government I lead will keep Britain safe, reshape relationships with partners around the world, work to strengthen the United Nations and respond to the global challenges we face in the 21st century.

And I should say a warm welcome to the UN Special Representative in Somalia, Michael Keating, who is here today.

On Monday, we commemorated VE Day, the anniversary of the victory over Nazi Germany in Europe.

VE Day marked the defeat of fascism and the beginning of the end of a global war that claimed seventy million lives.

General Eisenhower, supreme commander of the Allied forces in 1944, went on to become Republican President of the United States during some of the most dangerous years of the Cold War in the 1950s.

In his final televised address to the American people as President, Eisenhower gave a stark warning of what he described as “the acquisition of unwarranted influence by the military-industrial complex.”

“Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry”, he said, “can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defence with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”

Sadly, in the more than half a century since that speech, I think it’s clear that Eisenhower’s warning has not been heeded.

Too much of our debate about defence and security is one dimensional. You are either for or against what is presented as “strong defence”, regardless of the actual record of what that has meant in practice.

Alert citizens or political leaders who advocate other routes to security are dismissed or treated as unreliable.

My own political views were shaped by the horrors of war and the threat of a nuclear holocaust. My parents met while organising solidarity with the elected government of Spain against Franco’s fascists during the Spanish civil war.

My generation grew up under the shadow of the cold war. On television, through the 1960s and into the seventies, the news was dominated by Vietnam. I was haunted by images of civilians fleeing chemical weapons used by the United States.

I didn’t imagine then that nearly fifty years later we would see chemical weapons still being used against innocent civilians. What an abject failure. How is it that history keeps repeating itself?

At the end of the cold war, when the Berlin Wall came down we were told it was the end of history. Global leaders promised a more peaceful, stable world.

It didn’t work out like that.

Today the world is more unstable than even at the height of the cold war. The approach to international security we have been using since the 1990s has simply not worked.

Regime change wars in Afghanistan Iraq, Libya, and Syria – and Western interventions in Afghanistan, Somalia and Yemen - have failed in their own terms, and made the world a more dangerous place.

This is the fourth General Election in a row to be held while Britain is at war and our armed forces are in action in the Middle East and beyond.

The fact is that the ‘war on terror’ which has driven these interventions has failed.

They have not increased our security at home – just the opposite.

And they have caused destabilisation and devastation abroad.

Last September, the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee published a report on David Cameron’s Libyan war.

They concluded the intervention led to political and economic collapse, humanitarian and migrant crises and fuelled the rise of Isis in Africa and across the Middle East.

Is that really the way to deliver security to the British people?

Who seriously believes that’s what real strength looks like?

We need to step back and have some fresh thinking.

The world faces huge problems. As well as the legacy of regime change wars, there is a dangerous cocktail of ethnic conflicts, of food insecurity, water scarcity, the emerging effects of climate change.

Add to that mix a grotesque and growing level of inequality in which just eight billionaires own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion poorest people.

And you end up with a refugee crisis of epic proportions affecting every continent in the world. With more displaced people in the world than since the Second World War.

These problems are getting worse and fuelling threats and instability.

The global situation is becoming more dangerous.

And the new US President seems determined to add to the dangers by recklessly escalating the confrontation with North Korea, unilaterally launching missile strikes on Syria, opposing President Obama’s nuclear arms deal with Iran and backing a new nuclear arms race.

A Labour Government will want a strong and friendly relationship with the United States. But we will not be afraid to speak our mind.

The US is the strongest military power on the planet by a very long way. It has a special responsibility to use its power with care and to support international efforts to resolve conflicts collectively and peacefully.

Waiting to see which way the wind blows in Washington isn’t strong leadership. And pandering to an erratic Trump administration will not deliver stability.

When Theresa May addressed a Republican Party conference in Philadelphia in January she spoke in alarmist terms about the rise of China and India and of the danger of the West being eclipsed.

She said America and Britain had to ‘stand strong’ together and use their military might to protect their interests.

This is the sort of language that led to calamity in Iraq and Libya and all the other disastrous wars that stole the post-Cold War promise of a new world order.

I do not see India and China in those terms. Nor do I think the vast majority of Americans or British people want the boots of their young men and women on the ground in Syria fighting a war that would escalate the suffering and slaughter even further.

Britain deserves better than simply outsourcing our country’s security and prosperity to the whims of the Trump White House.

So no more hand holding with Donald Trump.

A Labour Government will conduct a robust and independent foreign policy - made in Britain.

A Labour Government would seek to work for peace and security with all the other permanent members of the United Nations security council – the US, China, Russia and France.

And with other countries with a major role to play such as India, South Africa, Brazil and Germany.

The ‘bomb first, talk later’ approach to security has failed. To persist with it, as the Conservative Government has made clear it is determined to do, is a recipe for increasing, not reducing, threats and insecurity.

I am often asked if as prime minister I would order the use of nuclear weapons.

It’s an extraordinary question when you think about it – would you order the indiscriminate killing of millions of people? Would you risk such extensive contamination of the planet that no life could exist across large parts of the world?

If circumstances arose where that was a real option, it would represent complete and cataclysmic failure. It would mean world leaders had already triggered a spiral of catastrophe for humankind.

Labour is committed actively to pursue disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and we are committed to no first use of nuclear weapons.

But let me make this absolutely clear.

If elected prime minister, I will do everything necessary to protect the safety and security of our people and our country.

That would be my first duty.

And to achieve it, I know I will have to work with other countries to solve problems, defuse tensions and build collective security.

The best defence for Britain is a government actively engaged in seeking peaceful solutions to the world’s problems.

But I am not a pacifist.

I accept that military action, under international law and as a genuine last resort, is in some circumstances necessary.

But that is very far from the kind of unilateral wars and interventions that have almost become routine in recent times.

I will not take lectures on security or humanitarian action from a Conservative Party that stood by in the 1980s – refusing even to impose sanctions - while children on the streets of Soweto were being shot dead in the streets, or which has backed every move to put our armed forces in harm’s way regardless of the impact on our people’s security.

Once again, in this election, it’s become clear that a vote for Theresa May could be a vote to escalate the war in Syria, risking military confrontation with Russia, adding to the suffering of the Syrian people and increasing global insecurity.

When you see children suffering in war, it is only natural to want to do something.

But the last thing we need is more of the same failed recipe that has served us so badly and the people of the region so calamitously.

Labour will stand up for the people of Syria. We will press for war crimes to be properly investigated. And we will work tirelessly to make the Geneva talks work.

Every action that is taken over Syria must be judged by whether it helps to bring an end to the tragedy of the Syrian war or does the opposite.

Even if ISIS is defeated militarily, the conflict will not end until there is a negotiated settlement involving all the main parties, including the regional and international powers and an inclusive government in Iraq.

All wars and conflicts eventually are brought to an end by political means.

So Labour would adopt a new approach. We will not step back from our responsibilities.

But our focus will be on strengthening international co-operation and supporting the efforts of the United Nations to resolve conflicts.

A Labour Government will respect international law and oppose lawlessness and unilateralism in international relations. We believe human rights and social justice should drive our foreign policy.

In 1968, Harold Wilson’s Labour Government signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

As prime minister, I hope to build on that achievement.

Labour’s support for the renewal of the Trident submarine system does not preclude working for meaningful, multilateral steps to achieve reductions in nuclear arsenals.

A Labour Government will pursue a triple commitment to the interlocking foreign policy instruments of: defence, development and diplomacy.

For all their bluster, the Tory record on defence and security has been one of incompetence and failure.

They have balanced the books on the backs of servicemen and women.

Deep cuts have seen the Army reduced to its smallest size since the Napoleonic wars.

From stagnant pay and worsening conditions, to poor housing.

The morale of our service personnel and veterans is at rock bottom.

And as the security threats and challenges we face are not bound by geographic borders it is vital that as Britain leaves the EU, we maintain a close relationship with our European partners alongside our commitment to NATO and spending at least 2 per cent on defence.

That means working with our allies to ensure peace and security in Europe. We will work to halt the drift to confrontation with Russia and the escalation of military deployments across the continent.

There is no need whatever to weaken our opposition to Russia’s human rights abuses at home or abroad to understand the necessity of winding down tensions on the Russia-Nato border and supporting dialogue to reduce the risk of international conflict.

We will back a new conference on security and cooperation in Europe and seek to defuse the crisis in Ukraine through implementation of the Minsk agreements.

We will continue to work with the EU on operational missions to promote and support global and regional security.

This means our Armed Forces will have the necessary capabilities to fulfil the full range of obligations ensuring they are versatile and able to participate in rapid stabilisation, disaster relief, UN peacekeeping and conflict resolution activities.

Because security is not only about direct military defence, it’s about conflict resolution and prevention, underpinned by strong diplomacy.

So the next Labour Government will invest in the UK’s diplomatic networks and consular services.

We will seek to rebuild some of the key capabilities and services that have been lost as a result of Conservative cuts in recent years.

Finally, while Theresa May seeks to build a coalition of risk and insecurity with Donald Trump, a Labour Government will refocus Britain’s influence towards cooperation, peaceful settlements and social justice.

The life chances, security and prosperity of our citizens are dependent on a stable international environment.

We will strengthen our commitment to the UN. But we are well aware of its shortcomings, particularly in the light of repeated abuses of the veto power in the UN Security Council.

So we will work with allies and partners from around the world to build support for UN reform in order to make its institutions more effective and responsive.

And as a permanent member of the Security Council we will provide a lead by respecting the authority of International Law.

To lead this work, Labour has created a Minister for Peace who will work across the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

We will reclaim Britain’s leading role in tackling climate change, working hard to preserve the Paris Agreement and deliver on international commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

Labour will re-examine the arms export licensing regulations to ensure that all British arms exports are consistent with our legal and moral obligations.

This means refusing to grant export licences for arms when there is a clear risk that they will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law.

Weapons supplied to Saudi Arabia, when the evidence of grave breaches of humanitarian law in Yemen is overwhelming, must be halted immediately.

I see it as the next Labour’s Government task, as my task, to make the case for Britain to advance a security and foreign policy with integrity and human rights at its core.

So there is a clear choice at this election.

Between continuing with the failed policy of continual and devastating military interventions, that have intensified conflicts and increased the terrorist threat.

Or being willing to step back, learn the lessons of the past and find new ways to solve and prevent conflicts.

As Dwight Eisenhower said on another occasion:

If people “can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man's intelligence would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution.”

And in the words of Martin Luther King “The chain reaction of evil – hate – begetting hate, wars producing more wars – must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark days of annihilation”.

I believe we can find those solutions.

We can walk the hard yards to a better way to live together on this planet.

A Labour Government will give leadership in a new and constructive way, and that is the leadership we are ready to provide both at home and abroad.

Thank you.

20 notes · View notes

prasanththampi · 5 years ago

Video

youtube

Annamalai University MBA Assignment 2019-20 answer sheets provided Whats...

1.1 PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT 1. Management is said to have universal application. How do you justify the Universality of Management? Give examples to illustrate your arguments. 2. “The importance of strategic planning is now fully realized by the Indian corporate sector than before”- Discuss 3. Explain about the personal challenges involved in becoming a manager and a leader in today's turbulent environment. 4. Without effective management the resources will remain as resources cannot be converted into productive utilities - Do you agree? Give reasons. 1.2 INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTING 1. “Cost volume profit analysis is an important analysis which is commonly applied by the irresponsive of industries”. Do you accept? What are your comments towards this statement? Discuss. 2. Inflation is a key factor and it must be duly considered while preparing all sorts of budgets”. Do you agree? Justify your stand with your valuable inputs. 3. “There is a vast amount of practical gap on application of accounting practices between Domestic and International Accounting”. Comment on this with your valuable supportive arguments. 4. “Several issues are existing in International Financial statement Analysis and at the same time many meaningful unlocking tools are there”. What is your opinion? Comment on this. 1.3 INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS 1. Do you find any correlations among Oil, Gold and exchange rates in terms of their price change? Explain the interaction among them in the international market survey. 2. Compare the benefits of liberalization with globalization, which influence the economic growth of India in last two decades. 3. Whether under developed countries in WTO succeed their demands? Justify your views with strong reasons. 4. Can you say that the modern theory of HECKSHER & OHLIN applies to the Indian Economy in the post or pre-liberalization? Illustrate with supporting data. 3 1.4 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT 1. "Knowledge of International Business Environment is essential for the players of International Business" - Elaborate with an example of multinational company. 2. "When is the time deemed to be the essence of the contract in performance of contract and with what consequences? Pinch out the rules of law relating to the time and place of performance in modern business environment. 3. “The effect of country’s political system on its business environment and economic development”-Discuss 4. “India’s competitive advantage in industries like IT, Textiles, Gems and jewellery –Strength and Threats”. Illustrate the statement. 1.5 FOREIGN POLICY OF INDIA 1. “Trends in foreign trade and the composition of imports and exports along with its composition over the past years” – Discuss 2. Discuss India’s participation in UN peace keeping and its claim for a permanent seat in the Security Council 3. Analyse the relevance of non-alignment in the post cold war period 4. In what way India’s foreign policy is instrumental/detrimental for the promotion of India’s international trade? Illustrate your answer

0 notes

courtneytincher · 5 years ago

Text

India’s Rising Power Mutes Criticism of Modi’s Kashmir Crackdown

(Bloomberg) -- If Prime Minister Narendra Modi was worried about a frosty reception in the U.S. after his crackdown on India’s Muslim-majority region of Kashmir, President Donald Trump was quick to put those fears to rest.“Border security is vital to India,” Trump said alongside Modi, as the two spoke at a huge gathering of around 50,000 Indian-Americans on Sunday. “We understand that.”The high-level acknowledgment from the world’s most powerful political leader comes as Modi -- who will address the United Nations General Assembly on Friday -- continues an unprecedented security crackdown in the tense Himalayan region of Jammu and Kashmir. On Aug. 5 he abolished 70 years of regional autonomy and placed its citizens under widespread restrictions including an extended communications blackout. It also follows India’s push to strip millions of people -- mostly Muslims -- of their citizenship in the country’s northeastern state of Assam, near Bangladesh.Trump’s comments, although not explicit approval, are symbolic of the quiet acceptance of India’s policies which have attracted little international criticism. India’s actions have been compared to what China is doing in its own restive mostly-Muslim border region of Xinjiang. But few countries other than Pakistan and China, which both have territorial claims in disputed Kashmir, have criticized New Delhi -- a stark contrast to the 22 states that signed a letter criticizing China’s crackdown against Muslim minority Uighurs, which has seen as many as 1 million citizens placed in “re-education camps.”Nations want to keep Modi onside as they recognize India’s rising strategic importance in Asia as a counterweight to Beijing. There’s also the size of its market, including billions in arms purchases, and the fact that criticizing New Delhi risks aligning with Pakistan, which is widely accused of sponsoring terrorist groups in the region.“There is little diplomatic upside to directly challenging India,” said Paul Staniland, an associate professor at the University of Chicago. “India is an important economic and strategic partner, or potential partner, for countries ranging from France to the U.S. to the Gulf states. It’s also clear that the government of India won’t be rolling back its policy anytime soon, and many countries are leery of seeming to back the Pakistani line.”‘Grave Concern’Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party has long campaigned on removing Kashmir’s special status, and moved swiftly to enact its plans following a sweeping election victory in May. Pledging economic development and the eradication of corruption, the government made the state subordinate to New Delhi and paved the way for people from outside the state to purchase land -- a move that’s raised fears of an attempt to change the ethnic makeup of the state.But despite the prolonged detention of political leaders and the deployment of 10,000 extra Indian paramilitary forces, Kashmir’s turmoil has generated only muted global responses. A group of United Nations experts urged India to revoke its communications blackout, while Human Rights Watch has condemned the arbitrary detention of thousands.“India’s sudden decision has brought our lives to a standstill,” said Javed Ahmed, a 30-year-old fruit seller in the Kashmiri capital of Srinagar, in an interview in late August. “It is about taking our resources and changing this land forever.”The Prime Minister’s office didn’t respond to calls or an email.A separate group of United Nations experts has expressed “grave concern” over a citizenship drive in Assam, where 1.9 million people -- mostly Muslims -- are at risk of being stripped of their national identity over concerns they are Bangladeshis from across the border. Indian Home Minister Amit Shah has previously called illegal migrants “termites,” and the UN experts warned the registration process “may exacerbate the xenophobic climate while fueling religious intolerance and discrimination in the country.”One reason Modi’s Kashmir move has not provoked more global outcry, said Kashish Parpiani, a fellow with Observer Research Foundation, is the image India has successfully presented to the rest of the world.“India’s status as a rising free-market, rancorous democracy known for soft power exports like yoga and Bollywood lend it a benign character,” Parpiani said. “Whereas China often acquires the ire of the international community owing to the common narrative surrounding its efforts to build an Orwellian authoritarian system.”Important AllyModi wasn’t always beyond reproach. In 2005, he was denied a U.S. visa after deadly anti-Muslim riots rocked the state of Gujarat when he was chief minister in 2002, although he was officially cleared of blame. Some now want to prevent the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation from giving Modi an award over abuses in Kashmir and Assam.Modi has avoided the same type of international criticism China has received because what’s happening in Kashmir is simply nowhere near as bad as China’s abuses in Xinjiang, said Sameer Patil, a former assistant director at India’s National Security Council Secretariat and now International Security Studies Programme fellow at the Mumbai-based Gateway House.“India is considered an important ally by western countries, therefore there would be a muted response to what India is doing, but the actions don’t really match up,” Patil said. “The other thing that’s important to understand is the strength of India’s market. Just as China has utilized its market size as leverage, India has also started to think this is something which ought to be used for foreign policy objectives.”India has also skillfully handled the Trump administration, agreeing to significantly reduce Iranian oil imports, for example, while reacting forcefully after Trump offered to mediate the Kashmir dispute.“The Modi government has managed Trump and his administration quite well, knowing when to flatter and when to push back,” said, Ian Hall, an international relations professor at Australia’s Griffith University. “Washington understands that India matters, because India complicates Beijing’s calculations, not just in South Asia, but across the Indo-Pacific.”To contact the reporters on this story: Iain Marlow in Hong Kong at [email protected];Archana Chaudhary in New Delhi at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Brendan Scott at [email protected], Ruth PollardFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

September 23, 2019 at 10:00PM via IFTTT

#Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

0 notes

sufredux · 5 years ago

Text

Israel and the Post-American Middle East

Was the feud between U.S. President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, first over settlements and then over Iran, a watershed? Netanyahu, it is claimed, turned U.S. support of Israel into a partisan issue. Liberals, including many American Jews, are said to be fed up with Israel’s “occupation,” which will mark its 50th anniversary next year. The weakening of Israel’s democratic ethos is supposedly undercutting the “shared values” argument for the relationship. Some say Israel’s dogged adherence to an “unsustainable” status quo in the West Bank has made it a liability in a region in the throes of change. Israel, it is claimed, is slipping into pariah status, imposed by the global movement for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS).

Biblical-style lamentations over Israel’s final corruption have been a staple of the state’s critics and die-hard anti-Zionists for 70 years. Never have they been so detached from reality. Of course, Israel has changed—decidedly for the better. By every measure, Israel is more globalized, prosperous, and democratic than at any time in its history. As nearby parts of the Middle East slip under waves of ruthless sectarian strife, Israel’s minorities rest secure. As Europe staggers under the weight of unwanted Muslim migrants, Israel welcomes thousands of Jewish immigrants from Europe. As other Mediterranean countries struggle with debt and unemployment, Israel boasts a growing economy, supported by waves of foreign investment.

Politically, Netanyahu’s tenure has been Israel’s least tumultuous. Netanyahu has served longer than any other Israeli prime minister except David Ben-Gurion, yet he has led Israel in only one ground war: the limited Operation Protective Edge in Gaza in 2014. “I’d feel better if our partner was not the trigger-happy Netanyahu,” wrote the New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd four years ago. But Netanyahu hasn’t pulled triggers, even against Iran. The Israeli electorate keeps returning him to office precisely because he is risk averse: no needless wars, but no ambitious peace plans either. Although this may produce “overwhelming frustration” in Obama’s White House, in Vice President Joe Biden’s scolding phrase, it suits the majority of Israeli Jews just fine.

Netanyahu’s endurance fuels the frustration of Israel’s diminished left, too: thwarted at the ballot box, they comfort themselves with a false notion that Israel’s democracy is endangered. The right made similar claims 20 years ago, culminating in the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Anti-democratic forces exist in all democracies, but in Israel, they are either outside the system or confined in smaller parties, Jewish and Arab alike. There is no mechanism by which an outlier could capture one of the main political parties in a populist upsurge, as now seems likely in the United States. Under comparable pressures of terrorism and war, even old democracies have wavered, but Israel’s record of fair, free elections testifies to the depth of its homegrown democratic ethos, reinforced by a vigorous press and a vigilant judiciary.

Israel is more globalized, prosperous, and democratic than at any time in its history.

Israel is also more secure than ever. In 1948, only 700,000 Jews faced the daunting challenge of winning independence against the arrayed armies of the Arab world. Ben-Gurion’s top commanders warned him that Israel had only a 50-50 chance of victory. Today, there are over six million Israeli Jews, and Israel is among the world’s most formidable military powers. It has a qualitative edge over any imaginable combination of enemies, and the ongoing digitalization of warfare has played precisely to Israel’s strengths. The Arab states have dropped out of the competition, leaving the field to die-hard Islamists on Israel’s borders. They champion “resistance,” but their primitive rocketry and tunnel digging are ineffective. The only credible threat to a viable Israel would be a nuclear Iran. No one doubts that if Iran ever breaks out, Israel could deploy its own nuclear deterrent, independent of any constraining alliance.

And what of the Palestinians? There is no near solution to this enduring conflict, but Israel has been adept at containing its effects. There is occupied territory, but there is also unoccupied territory. Israel maintains an over-the-horizon security footprint in most of the West Bank; Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation fills in most of the gaps. The Palestinian Authority, in the words of one wag, has become a “mini-Jordan,” buttressed by a combination of foreign aid, economic growth, and the usual corruption. By the standards of today’s Middle East, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains stable. It is prosecuted mostly at a distance, through maneuvering in international bodies and campaigns for and against BDS. These are high-decibel, low-impact confrontations. Yossi Vardi, Israel’s most famous high-tech entrepreneur, summarizes the mainstream Israeli view: “I’m not at all concerned about the economic effect of BDS. We have been subject to boycotts before.” And they were much worse.

Every political party in Israel has its own preferred solution to the conflict, but no solution offers an unequivocal advantage over the status quo. “The occupation as it is now can last forever, and it is better than any alternative”—this opinion, issued in April by Benny Ziffer, the literary editor of the liberal, left-wing Haaretz, summarizes the present Israeli consensus. It is debatable whether the two-state option has expired. But the reality on the ground doesn’t resemble one state either. Half a century after the 1967 war, only five percent of Israelis live in West Bank settlements, and half of them live in the five blocs that would be retained by Israel in any two-state scenario.

In the meantime, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates are all shaking hands with Israel, sometimes before the cameras. Israel and Russia are assiduously courting each other; still farther afield, Israel’s relations with China and India are booming. The genuine pariah of the Middle East is the Syrian regime, which never deigned to make peace with Israel. This last so-called steadfast Arab state is consumed from within by a great bloodbath; its nuclear project and massive stocks of chemical weapons are a distant memory.

The only credible threat to a viable Israel would be a nuclear Iran.

Israel faces all manner of potential threats and challenges, but never has it been more thoroughly prepared to meet them. The notion popular among some Israeli pundits that their compatriots live in a perpetual state of paralyzing fear misleads both Israel’s allies and its adversaries. Israel’s leaders are cautious but confident, not easily panicked, and practiced in the very long game that everyone plays in the Middle East. Nothing leaves them so unmoved as the vacuous mantra that the status quo is unsustainable. Israel’s survival has always depended on its willingness to sustain the status quo that it has created, driving its adversaries to resignation—and compromise. This is more an art than a science, but such resolve has served Israel well over time.

THE SUPERPOWER RETREATS

Still, there is a looming cloud on Israel’s horizon. It isn’t Iran’s delayed nukes, academe’s threats of boycott, or Palestinian maneuvers at the UN. It is a huge power vacuum. The United States, after a wildly erratic spree of misadventures, is backing out of the region. It is cutting its exposure to a Middle East that has consistently defied American expectations and denied successive American presidents the “mission accomplished” moments they crave. The disengagement began before Obama entered the White House, but he has accelerated it, coming to see the Middle East as a region to be avoided because it “could not be fixed—not on his watch, and not for a generation to come.” (This was the bottom-line impression of the journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, to whom Obama granted his legacy interview on foreign policy.)

If history is precedent, this is more than a pivot. Over the last century, the Turks, the British, the French, and the Russians each had their moment in the Middle East, but prolonging it proved costly as their power ebbed. They gave up the pursuit of dominance and settled for influence. A decade ago, in the pages of this magazine, Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, predicted that the United States had reached just this point: “The American era in the Middle East,” he announced, “. . . has ended.” He went on: “The United States will continue to enjoy more influence in the region than any other outside power, but its influence will be reduced from what it once was.” That was a debatable proposition in 2006; now in 2016, Obama has made it indisputable.

Israel faces all manner of potential threats and challenges, but never has it been more thoroughly prepared to meet them.

There are several ways to make a retreat seem other than it is. The Obama administration’s tack has been to create the illusion of a stable equilibrium, by cutting the United States’ commitments to its allies and mollifying its adversaries. And so, suddenly, none of the United States’ traditional friends is good enough to justify its full confidence. The great power must conceal its own weariness, so it pretends to be frustrated by the inconstancy of “free riders.” The resulting complaints about Israel (as well as Egypt and Saudi Arabia) serve just such a narrative.

Israel’s leaders aren’t shy about warning against the consequences of this posture, but they are careful not to think out loud about Israeli options in a post-American Middle East. Israel wants a new memorandum of understanding with the United States, the bigger the better, as compensation for the Iran nuclear deal. It is in Israel’s interest to emphasize the importance of the U.S.-Israeli relationship as the bedrock of regional stability going forward.

But how far forward is another question. Even as Israel seeks to deepen the United States’ commitment in the short term, it knows that the unshakable bond won’t last in perpetuity. This is a lesson of history. The leaders of the Zionist movement always sought to ally their project with the dominant power of the day, but they had lived through too much European history to think that great power is ever abiding. In the twentieth century, they witnessed the collapse of old empires and the rise of new ones, each staking its claim to the Middle East in turn, each making promises and then rescinding them. When the United States’ turn came, the emerging superpower didn’t rush to embrace the Jews. They were alone during the 1930s, when the gates of the United States were closed to them. They were alone during the Holocaust, when the United States awoke too late. They were alone in 1948, when the United States placed Israel under an arms embargo, and in 1967, when a U.S. president explicitly told the Israelis that if they went to war, they would be alone.

After 1967, Israel nestled in the Pax Americana. The subsequent decades of the “special relationship” have so deepened Israel’s dependence on the United States in the military realm that many Israelis can no longer remember how Israel managed to survive without all that U.S. hardware. Israel’s own armies of supporters in the United States, especially in the Jewish community, reinforce this mindset as they assure themselves that were it not for their lobbying efforts in Washington, Israel would be in mortal peril.

But the Obama administration has given Israelis a preview of just how the unshakable bond is likely to be shaken. This prospect might seem alarming to Israel’s supporters, but the inevitable turn of the wheel was precisely the reason Zionist Jews sought sovereign independence in the first place. An independent Israel is a guarantee against the day when the Jews will again find themselves alone, and it is an operating premise of Israeli strategic thought that such a day will come.

ISRAEL ALONE

This conviction, far from paralyzing Israel, propels it to expand its options, diversify its relationships, and build its independent capabilities. The Middle East of the next 50 years will be different from that of the last 100. There will be no hegemony-seeking outside powers. The costs of pursuing full-spectrum dominance are too high; the rewards are too few. Outside powers will pursue specific goals, related to oil or terrorism. But large swaths of the Middle East will be left to their fate, to dissolve and re-form in unpredictable ways. Israel may be asked by weaker neighbors to extend its security net to include them, as it has done for decades for Jordan. Arab concern about Iran is already doing more to normalize Israel in the region than the ever-elusive and ever-inconclusive peace process. Israel, once the fulcrum of regional conflict, will loom like a pillar of regional stability—not only for its own people but also for its neighbors, threatened by a rising tide of political fragmentation, economic contraction, radical Islam, and sectarian hatred.

Israel is planning to outlast the United States in the Middle East.

So Israel is planning to outlast the United States in the Middle East. Israelis roll their eyes when the United States insinuates that it best understands Israel’s genuine long-term interests, which Israel is supposedly too traumatized or confused to discern. Although Israel has made plenty of tactical mistakes, it is hard to argue that its strategy has been anything but a success. And given the wobbly record of the United States in achieving or even defining its interests in the Middle East, it is hard to say the same about U.S. strategy. The Obama administration has placed its bet on the Iran deal, but even the deal’s most ardent advocates no longer claim to see the “arc of history” in the Middle East. In the face of the collapse of the Arab Spring, the Syrian dead, the millions of refugees, and the rise of the Islamic State, or ISIS, who can say in which direction the arc points? Or where the Iran deal will lead?

One other common American mantra deserves to be shelved. “Precisely because of our friendship,” said Obama five years ago, “it is important that we tell the truth: the status quo is unsustainable, and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.” It is time for the United States to abandon this mantra, or at least modify it. Only if Israel’s adversaries conclude that Israel can sustain the status quo indefinitely—Israel’s military supremacy, its economic advantage, and, yes, its occupation—is there any hope that they will reconcile themselves to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. Statements like Obama’s don’t sway Israel’s government, which knows better, but they do fuel Arab and Iranian rejection of Israel among those who believe that the United States no longer has Israel’s back. For Israel’s enemies, drawing the conclusion that Israel is thus weak would be a tragic mistake: Israel is well positioned to sustain the status quo all by itself. Its long-term strategy is predicated on it.

A new U.S. administration will offer an opportunity to revisit U.S. policy, or at least U.S. rhetoric. One of the candidates, Hillary Clinton, made a statement as secretary of state in Jerusalem in 2010 that came closer to reality and practicality. “The status quo is unsustainable,” she said, echoing the usual line. But she added this: “Now, that doesn’t mean that it can’t be sustained for a year or a decade, or two or three, but fundamentally, the status quo is unsustainable.” Translation: the status quo may not be optimal, but it is sustainable, for as long as it takes.

As the United States steps back from the Middle East, this is the message Washington should send if it wants to assist Israel and other U.S. allies in filling the vacuum it will leave behind.

0 notes

whittlebaggett8 · 6 years ago

Text

Pulwama, Balakot, and Azhar Underscore India’s China Conundrum

China’s placement on Pakistan and India must no longer shock anybody in India.

The China issue carries on to haunt Indian international policy as the Masood Azhar situation not too long ago underscored. Final week China once once again blocked a go to designate Pakistan-centered Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) main Azhar as a worldwide terrorist at the UN Protection Council, underlining categorically its overseas coverage priorities.

When New Delhi expressed “disappointment” at the United Nations Stability Council Resolution 1267 Sanctions Committee staying unable to appear to a decision on the go to sanction Azhar “on account of a member positioning the proposal on hold,” Beijing saw no have to have to reassess its position on the issue. The latest go to designate Azhar a world terrorist was made by France with the backing of the United States and Britain in the wake of the Pulwama attacks that killed 40 Indian protection staff and claimed openly by JeM. This was the fourth time Beijing blocked the shift at the UN Sanctions Committee, thereby frequently annoying Indian tries to provide Azhar to account.

Despite Pulwama, China experienced indicated that it was not likely to alter its position on Azhar. Its international ministry spokesperson experienced prompt prior to the UNSC move that “China will undertake a responsible mind-set and carry on to take part in discussions.” The United States had also cautioned China that the failure of the UNSC shift to designate Azhar a terrorist, would “run counter” to the shared goal of the two countries of hoping to realize peace and security in the area. India experienced managed to get, with some problems, the BRICS nations to name Pakistan-based teams like the Lashkar-e- Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed and the Haqqani community in a joint declaration condemning terror last yr in September. But following its current block, China taken care of that it didn’t contradict its BRICS situation as that declaration was towards terror teams and not persons.

Savoring this write-up? Click on below to subscribe for whole access. Just $5 a thirty day period.

Throughout the check out of Pakistani foreign minister to China before this 7 days, Beijing certain Pakistan of powerful guidance to guard its territorial integrity even as Islamabad lifted the “rapidly deteriorating” scenario in Kashmir. This was the initially-ever China-Pakistan Foreign Minister-level strategic dialogue which saw Chinese state councillor and international minister, Wang Yi appreciating Islamabad’s efforts to ease tensions with India adhering to the terror attack in Kashmir’s Pulwama. He built it obvious that “no matter how points improve in the entire world and in the location, China will firmly support Pakistan in upholding its sovereign independence and territorial integrity and dignity.”

Although some in India browse too a lot into the Wuhan summit in between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the reality stays that China has had a regular tactic on Azhar. India has also been ready to express to Beijing that it is getting to be progressively isolated in its help for Pakistani terror. The most up-to-date shift at the UNSC 13 international locations co-sponsoring the Proposal from Azhar. Apart from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, which are long-lasting UNSC customers, there were 10 other international locations which co-sponsored the proposal – Germany, Poland, Belgium and Equatorial Guinea as well as Japan, Australia, Italy, Bangladesh, Maldives and Bhutan.

China’s posture on Pakistan and India must no extended surprise any person in India. Nevertheless they do and several in India still proceed to blame New Delhi for these turn of functions. There are voices in India which go on to recommend that difficulties this sort of as Masood Azhar and the Nuclear Suppliers Team are trivial and India should dismiss these in the broader desire of maintain balance in its ties with China. There is no Indian desire important more than enough, according to some, which ought to make India stand up to China and offend Chinese sensitivities, authentic or imagined.

It is this attitude which above the past many many years produced guaranteed that India cede ground to China on challenge soon after problem, thereby frittering away all its bargaining power. We would not discuss of Taiwan and Tibet, we would not upgrade our navy, we would not develop sturdy protection partnership with other like-minded nations around the world – all since our Chinese brethren would get offended. In return China continues to focus on India and the pattern carries on. China’s political, economic and diplomatic expense in Pakistan suggests that it would be very complicated for India to break that iron bond in the brief to medium time period. Unless of course India adopts a crystal clear-eyed lengthy-expression China plan, there will be quite a few additional setbacks in the offing. India undoubtedly needs to create on its strengths but it should really also realize and identify its friends. As an emerging power, India requirements to demand from customers demanding reciprocity from Beijing and though participating China, in no way lose sight of the larger fact that is shaping Chinese technique in the direction of India. And this is a truth of India’s rise.

The post Pulwama, Balakot, and Azhar Underscore India’s China Conundrum appeared first on Defence Online.

from WordPress https://defenceonline.com/2019/03/20/pulwama-balakot-and-azhar-underscore-indias-china-conundrum/

#Balakot #India-China relations #JeM at UNSC 1267 #Masood Azhar #Pulwama #Technical hold on Azhar #Th

0 notes

visionmpbpl-blog · 7 years ago

Photo

New Post has been published on http://www.visionmp.com/explosion-reportedly-shook-buildings-in-china-and-in-russia/

North Korea says 6th nuke test was H-bomb, 'perfect success'

Tokyo: North Korea announced it detonated a thermonuclear device on Sunday in its sixth and most powerful nuclear test to date, a big step toward its goal of developing nuclear weapons capable of striking anywhere in the US. The North called it a “perfect success” while its neighbors and other countries including India condemned the blast immediately.

Though the precise strength of the explosion has yet to be determined, South Korea’s weather agency said the artificial earthquake it caused was five to six times stronger than tremors generated by its previous tests. It reportedly shook buildings in China and in Russia.

The test was carried out at 12:29 p.m. local time at the Punggye-ri site where North Korea has also conducted past nuclear tests. Officials in Seoul put the magnitude at 5.7, while the U.S. Geological Survey said it was a magnitude 6.3. The strongest artificial quake from previous tests was a magnitude 5.3.

North Korea’s state-run television broadcast a special bulletin on Sunday afternoon to announce the test. It said leader Kim Jong Un attended a meeting of the ruling party’s presidium and signed the go-ahead order. Earlier in the day, the party’s newspaper ran a front-page story showing photos of Kim examining what it said was a nuclear warhead being fitted onto the nose of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

US President Donald Trump said Sunday on Twitter that the North’s “words and actions continue to be very hostile and dangerous” to the US. He called it “a rogue nation which has become a great threat and embarrassment to China, which is trying to help but with little success.”

China is by far the North’s biggest trading partner, but Trump on Sunday appeared to be more critical of South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who has attempted to reach out to the North.

“South Korea is finding, as I have told them, that their talk of appeasement with North Korea will not work, they only understand one thing!” Trump tweeted.

Sunday’s detonation builds on recent North Korean advances that include test launches in July of two ICBMs that are believed to be capable of reaching the mainland United States. Pyongyang says its missile development is part of a defensive effort to build a viable nuclear deterrent that can target U.S. cities.

China’s foreign ministry said in a statement that the Chinese government has “expressed firm opposition and strong condemnation” and urged North Korea to “stop taking erroneous actions that deteriorate the situation.”

South Korea held a National Security Council meeting chaired by Moon. Officials in Seoul also said U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster spoke with his South Korean counterpart for 20 minutes about an hour after the detonation.

Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe called the test “absolutely unacceptable.”

The nuclear test is the first since Trump assumed office in January. Trump has been talking tough with the North, suggesting it would see fire, fury and power unlike any the world had ever witnessed if it continued even verbal threats.

Nuclear tests are crucial to perfect sophisticated technologies and to demonstrate to the world that claims of nuclear prowess are not merely a bluff.

The North claimed the device it tested was a thermonuclear weapon — commonly called an H-bomb. That could be hard to independently confirm. It said the underground test site did not leak radioactive materials, which would make such a determination even harder.

0 notes

itsnelkabelka · 8 years ago

Text

Speech: Foreign Secretary's speech at Raisina Dialogue, New Delhi

Good afternoon.

It’s a great honour to be speaking here at the second Raisina Dialogue and fantastic to be back in India.

I have come on several official trips now as well as various family weddings and we always try to remember to bring something for our Sikh relatives who live in both Delhi and Mumbai can you guess what it is; that’s right – we tend to bring a bottle of whisky, Black Label whisky to add to the astonishing 1.5 billion litres of whisky that are consumed every year in this country and why do we bring a bottle of scotch – to our relatives in Mumbai and Delhi - normally black label though I have just bought something called green label.

I hope it isn’t crème de menthe the reason my friends is that this wonderful country still sets a tariff of 150 per cent on whisky imports and I believe this matters.

Though I have no particular desire to attack Indian whisky tariffs. I think the time has come to stick up for free trade to make the case once again for the immense benefits of a globalised economy where we learn from each other and trade freely with each other and that case needs setting out here now and I believe I am perhaps the man to do it because I belong to a select group of people who are not always approved of by the global elites.

In the pages of good left liberal papers I am denounced as…wait for it…a populist because I was involved in a movement opposed to what I see as the undemocratic nature of the EU, and we were successful and so I am bracketed with various other leaders around the world who are said to be populist people who come to power on the tide of a sort of pitchfork wielding rebellion against the conceit of the ruling classes and so I want to stick up not for the populists, they can take care of themselves - we populists have pretty thick skins. I want to stick up for those who vote for them because they aren’t bad people.

They may feel worried about the security of the world, or about terrorism. They feel that they aren’t allowed to hold widespread opinions, and that they are being sneered and disapproved of. They look at this great glittering globalised economy and they see some people getting very rich indeed and they wonder why their own families aren’t keeping pace and they fear that they will be the first generation not be overtaken, in prosperity, by their own children, and so I say that these people should not be dismissed, or patronized, but nor should we draw the wrong conclusions, about the wave of populism.

The answer is not to put up barriers or weaken trading systems the answer is to give them jobs and a sense of respect and to show how trade can work for both sides how fair exchange benefits everyone is not zero sum.

The answer is for great nations such as India and Britain to tackle their concerns together not to go back to the world of the 1930s with strong men in power everywhere with autarkic and beggar thy neighbour policies of tariffs and other barriers to trade.

You may remember Lord Copper of the Beast, in Evelyn Waugh’s satirical novel scoop, published in 1936 who personally briefs a young reporter about his world view, and the coverage he wants to see. “The policy of the Beast is for strong, mutually antagonistic governments everywhere,” he says.

Well, that is not my policy, and it is not our policy. We believe still in military cooperating in the UK, and we believe in NATO as the cornerstone of our defence and we are one of the few countries in the alliance to meet the target of spending two per cent of our GDP and we have shown our commitment to our collective security in sending a battalion to Estonia as part of Nato’s enhanced forward presence.

We support the UN in holding to account the regimes of such men as Bashar al Asad and by the way we were the first P5 country to call for India to join the Security Council as well as the Nuclear Suppliers Group.

Like India we know the threats of terrorism - and I can tell you that some of my wife’s family were there that night in Mumbai in 2008 when the appalling attacks took place - and we are already working together to tackle those threats with ever greater intelligence sharing and we have some of the most formidable intelligence capabilities in the world; and we have no inhibitions in sharing our most advanced technology with India.

Take the Hawk jet trainer – a world beating aircraft, designed and made in Bangalore by Hindustan aeronautics, in alliance with BAe systems; and I know Mr Jaishankar said this morning, he thought Europe was in danger of shrinking from the world. I am here to tell you in the nick of time, this is not the UK’s ambition.

We have reach, we have just decided to restore our military presence east of Suez with a £3 bn commitment over ten years and a naval support facility in Bahrain We have a commitment to the whole world.

The Royal Air Force has just sent Typhoon fighters to Japan and South Korea on Exercise Eastern Venture, showing that Britain remains one of a handful of countries able to deploy air power 7,000 miles from our shores.

We have ambition. Our Strategic Defence and Security Review makes clear that the Royal Navy’s new aircraft carriers will be present in Asian waters.

The Five Power Defence Arrangement – which joins Britain with Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand – remains the only permanent and multilateral defence pact in Asia.

Twice a year, British forces exercise alongside our allies in South-East Asia.

And as our naval strength increases in the next ten years, including two new aircraft carriers, we will be able to make a bigger contribution. In the Indian Ocean, we have a joint UK-US facility on Diego Garcia – an asset that is vital for our operations in the region.

We’re also a member of the UN Command on the Korean Peninsula; while in Brunei we have a deployable garrison of British Gurkhas.

And like this country we have our principles, a similar approach to the world.

When it comes to the tensions in the South China Sea. We are in favour of the rules based order. Britain takes no position on the merits of the competing claims.

But we do take a view on how they are pursued.

We oppose the militarisation of the South China Sea and we urge all parties to respect freedom of navigation and settle their disputes peacefully in accordance with international law.

We regard last year’s ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague as binding on both China and the Philippines.

Indeed, may I respectfully say to our Indian friends that we believe in respecting all such judgments as binding.

We believe India can be a vital force for stability in this region, the keystone of a giant natural arch, created by the Indian ocean running from Perth in the east to Cape Town in the west.

This is the vast hinterland in which India rightly seeks to influence events and we support Prime Minister Modi in his ambition for India to rejoin the neighbouring geographies. Imagine how wonderful it would be if the nations of south Asia, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan, could break down the barriers of mistrust and make the most of their economic opportunities.

And that is why security matters. Because without trust between countries; without freedom of the sea lanes, 25% of world trade goes through the Straits of Malacca; without a rules based international order, we will find our world reverting to that uncertainty of the 1930s.

When trade declined and we know the consequences of this, and it is declining, as a share of GDP, for the first time since the 1990s, and that is partly why I am so excited by the opportunities presented to the UK today. Because as our Prime Minister Theresa May said yesterday, we believe we can strike a new and healthy relationship with the European Union, supportive of the EU.

And as I have said before, we can be outside the main body of the cathedral, but still be a flying buttress, based on free trade and intergovernmental cooperation but allowing us, for the first time in 44 years, to campaign for free trade not just because it is in Britain’s interest but because it has lifted billions out of poverty in the last 50 years and has been the single greatest engine of human progress and that is because free trade and economic interpenetration are of massive mutual benefit and it is a cliché but it is true that Britain and India achieve together what they might never manage to pull off individually.

It is an astonishing fact that India invests more in the UK than it invests in the rest of the EU put together. I need hardly tell you that the biggest manufacturing employer in Britain is an Indian company, which makes beautiful Jaguars in Castle Bromwich I in the West Midlands, and then sells them back to India.

You may have heard that curry restaurants in Britain manage to employ more people than the ship-building, coal mining and steel industries combined, which may explain the struggle that some Britons now have with their waistline.

But I don’t want you to think we are just sitting around crunching poppadoms. We Brits are here too. There are four JCB factories here in India. We have British scientists teaming up with Indian counterparts to fight superbugs.

One in 20 private sector jobs in India is in a UK-owned company, and our trade is growing by 3 per cent a year. But when you consider that this is a country where there are 800 m people under the age of 35 you can see the scale of the opportunity because the population of Ireland is less than 4 million and Britain somehow does more trade with Ireland than with the whole of India.

Prime Minister Modi has laid out an exciting plan for an $830bn infrastructure plan and it is time for British engineers and surveyors and planners and consultants and architects and lawyers and bankers, and I hope they are here today, to step up to the plate and o take part in this incredible development and break down these barriers.

And that is why the time is coming when we need to turbo charge this relationship with a new free trade deal. We can’t negotiate it now. But we can sketch it out in pencil.

And so let us go back to the whisky with which I began.

It is an extraordinary fact that no-one can deny, that even though Scotland is incontestably the home and progenitor of Scotch, the only place in the world where the water trickles through the peaty glen in exactly the right way; to turn into liquid fire even though whisky is itself a Gaelic word uisge beatha. Does anyone know what it means? H2o – water of life.

The total share of Scotch whisky – the authentic whisky – in the Indian market, the biggest single market in the world, is something like 4 per cent netting the UK only £80m a year in exports.

Now imagine if we could just double or treble that – by removing those pesky tariffs and giving the Indian consumer more money to spend on other things to a mere 8 per cent. Think of the boost to the morale of the Indian whisky drinker and the boost to Scottish industry.

And then think how wonderful systematically it would be if we could have zero tariffs on Indian products such as those electric cars or buses that we are now seeing on the streets of London.

This is not the time to put up walls and barriers.

This is the time to tear these barriers down.

We may be leaving the EU, and we may be taking back control of our borders. But my Indian friends, that does not mean we want to haul up the drawbridge or deter Indian talent from our country.

I am proud to say that the UK economy, the fastest growing major economy in Europe, is the most diverse on earth.

With the biggest tech sector in our hemisphere; with the biggest banking sector – indeed 40 per cent of all foreign exchange transactions take place in London. More dollars are bought and sold in London than in New York.

The most visited museums in the world, in fact there are more visitors to the British Museum than to some EU countries, which I won’t name, such is my diplomatic finesse.

We have the best universities in the world – Cambridge alone has produced more Nobel prize winners than every university in China and Russia added together and multiplied by two.

Of the kings, queens, presidents and prime ministers of the world, 1 in 7 was educated in Britain, and that is a ratio we want to keep, and we are improving on.

There are more Chinese students than any other city in the world (other than China, which clearly has a lot) and why do they come because we welcome talent.

And it is by being open, and by breaking down barriers that we will in the long term create the good jobs, and good incomes, that offer real hope and comfort to our electors.

And so let’s work together. Not to ignore or condemn the voices of populism, but to understand and address their concerns Britain and India are united by our values, and by our approach to the problems of the world.

And it is by working together to improve our security that we will allow the freedom and openness that will drive our prosperity.

from Announcements on GOV.UK http://ift.tt/2jwpO8J via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Announcements on GOV.UK

0 notes