Skip to main content

March towards isolationism (hindu )

Trump’s hostile stance on key issues is changing the terms of diplomacy

It was a diplomatic double whammy by the U.S. last week when President Donald Trump virtually held the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and the Group of 7 industrialised states (G7) hostage. The President’s near-repudiation of NATO’s key principles at the Brussels meet and the Paris Climate Accord at Taormina, Italy is the clearest sign yet of the diametrically opposite pathways the U.S. and its European partners have been traversing of late. The big difference, of course, is that the U.S. under Mr. Trump insists on going it alone; while Europe now has no option but to find its own feet. The normally circumspect German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, did not conceal her utter disappointment over the deepening rift among the Western allies on her return from the summit in the Sicilian town. She even implored the constituents of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) to remain prepared for greater global engagement, given the uncertain future that lies ahead. Notwithstanding the divisions that surface frequently in transatlantic relations, the security umbrella under NATO has been an article of faith in Europe’s post-war partnership with Washington. But Mr. Trump refused last week to reaffirm a commitment to the mutual defence clause, a reassurance his counterparts had hoped would allay their apprehensions over the extent of U.S. isolationism. However, to their dismay, he upbraided them on their supposed failure to contribute to NATO’s finances.

Washington remained equally unyielding at Taormina, both on the commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to advance global trade. A mere reference in the final G7 communiquĂ©, to the promotion of multilateralism, was the only concession the other Western allies could extract from the U.S. President. That was enough for diplomats to put a positive spin on their otherwise fruitless efforts to prevent Mr. Trump from walking away without a categorical endorsement of the 2015 Paris Accord. As the country responsible for the world’s second-largest volume of carbon dioxide emissions, the U.S.’s refusal to cooperate risks encouraging other countries to lower their own treaty obligations. Some of Mr. Trump’s advisers sense an opportunity for Washington to renegotiate more favourable terms by remaining within the accord. Mr. Trump himself has indicated that he may pull the U.S. out of it. Meanwhile, the Earth has registered the highest temperatures on record in the past three successive years, a trend which portends the dangers of global warming. The warming of the planet by more than half-a-degree Fahrenheit between 2013 and 2016 was the largest temperature increase in a three-year time span since temperatures began getting recorded in 1880. Of the 17 hottest years on record, 16 have occurred since 2000. So far, the anti-establishment mood of recent years has largely coalesced around the opposition to immigration and globalisation in national elections. Mr. Trump’s hostile stance in the two forums last week has placed it on a wider canvas.

×

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NGT terminates chairmen of pollution control boards in 10 states (downtoearth,)

Cracking the whip on 10 State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) for ad-hoc appointments, the National Green Tribunal has ordered the termination of Chairpersons of these regulatory authorities. The concerned states are Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Uttarakhand, Kerala, Rajasthan, Telangana, Haryana, Maharashtra and Manipur. The order was given last week by the principal bench of the NGT, chaired by Justice Swatanter Kumar. The recent order of June 8, 2017, comes as a follow-up to an NGT judgment given in August 2016. In that judgment, the NGT had issued directions on appointments of Chairmen and Member Secretaries of the SPCBs, emphasising on crucial roles they have in pollution control and abatement. It then specified required qualifications as well as tenure of the authorities. States were required to act on the orders within three months and frame Rules for appointment [See Box: Highlights of the NGT judgment of 2016 on criteria for SPCB chairperson appointment]. Having

High dose of Vitamin C and B3 can kill colon cancer cells: study (downtoearth)

In a first, a team of researchers has found that high doses of Vitamin C and niacin or Vitamin B3 can kill cancer stem cells. A study published in Cell Biology International showed the opposing effects of low and high dose of vitamin C and vitamin B3 on colon cancer stem cells. Led by Bipasha Bose and Sudheer Shenoy, the team found that while low doses (5-25 micromolar) of Vitamin C and B3 proliferate colon cancer stem cells, high doses (100 to 1,000 micromolar) killed cancer stem cells. Such high doses of vitamins can only be achieved through intravenous injections in colon cancer patients. The third leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, colon cancer can be prevented by an intake of dietary fibre and lifestyle changes. While the next step of the researchers is to delineate the mechanisms involved in such opposing effects, they also hope to establish a therapeutic dose of Vitamin C and B3 for colon cancer stem cell therapy. “If the therapeutic dose gets validated under in vivo

SC asks Centre to strike a balance on Rohingya issue (.hindu)

Supreme Court orally indicates that the government should not deport Rohingya “now” as the Centre prevails over it to not record any such views in its formal order, citing “international ramifications”. The Supreme Court on Friday came close to ordering the government not to deport the Rohingya. It finally settled on merely observing that a balance should be struck between humanitarian concern for the community and the country's national security and economic interests. The court was hearing a bunch of petitions, one filed by persons within the Rohingya community, against a proposed move to deport over 40,000 Rohingya refugees. A three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, began by orally indicating that the government should not deport Rohingya “now”, but the government prevailed on the court to not pass any formal order, citing “international ramifications”. With this, the status quo continues even though the court gave the community liberty to approach i