Skip to main content

Warm in Washington: Modi in U.S. (hindu )

PM Modi and President Trump exceed the muted expectations for their first meeting

Ahead of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first meeting with President Donald Trump, concern had grown about the future course of the bilateral relationship, particularly whether Mr. Trump would maintain his predecessors’ commitment to its strengthening. These worries rested on Mr. Trump’s rewriting the equation with Europe, reversing the American stand on China and in West Asia. They were also fuelled by his harsh words on trade tariffs, immigrants and climate change, an issue on which he specifically targeted India. Mr. Modi and Mr. Trump have put many fears to rest, their meeting marked by personal bonhomie. This was reflected in Mr. Modi’s attempt to engage Mr. Trump’s family, perceived to be an important power centre in the White House. He invited his daughter Ivanka Trump to an entrepreneurship summit in India. Her husband Jared Kushner was a part of the delegation-level talks. Importantly, the India-U.S. joint statement has exceeded expectations, with an emphasis on the need for Pakistan to stop attacks on India launched from its soil, and for China to forge its Belt and Road Initiative taking into account India’s concerns on territorial and sovereignty issues. Equally important has been the continuity in the India-U.S. strategic partnership goals, albeit with a softening of the tone on China’s actions in the South China Sea. Mentioning North Korea, West Asia and Afghanistan, the statement talks of a “growing strategic convergence” between the two countries and a shared vision on world affairs. That neither side brought up the phrase “shared values” or took questions from the media may be seen as a departure from past meetings, but it is not a divergence from the views and preferences of both leaders. It may even indicate further convergence between them.



However, while the two leaders were able to establish a common understanding of global issues, the joint statement indicates that many bilateral issues are yet to be resolved. The insertion of an entire section titled “Increasing Free and Fair Trade” is a veiled attempt at putting the Trump administration’s concerns on bilateral trade on the front burner — for example, with references to “balancing the trade deficit”, “protecting innovation”, and “increasing market access” in areas where American industry has been most critical of Indian policy. While these bilateral issues were articulated, others were not brought up, including India’s concerns on the immigration process and H1B visa curbs, and Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, which will leave India’s climate change financing handicapped. It is to be hoped that these will be raised in the near future. All things considered, a good beginning appears to have been made during Mr. Modi’s maiden meeting with Mr. Trump. It is now for them to tackle the more substantive bilateral issues.

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