Tag: Perspective Opinion EDITORIAL

                                 By Lt-Gen Bhopinder Singh (retd)

Given the insipidities and banalities of diplomatic-speak, ‘do more’ is as direct an expression of dissatisfaction that the US can convey to Pakistan, given the American compulsions.

The slyest foreign policy warrior, Henry Kissinger, propounded the term ‘constructive ambiguity’ to describe the language of diplomacy that seeks to disguise, retain and still suggest the actual intent in a construct-of-words that are generally palatable (allowing some concessions), yet, allude to future necessity of actions towards a certain goal. The art of diplomatic wordsmithing has been tested to its limits in the Indian subcontinent, given the irascible tempers and the evolving narrative that besets the tempestuous fundamentals in the trilogy of the US-Pakistan-India equations.

In 1971, as National Security Adviser, Henry Kissinger had underlined the US position and bias in the Indo-Pak war by stating, “We’re in the position where a Soviet stooge, supported with Soviet arms, is overrunning a country that is an ally of the United States.” The cold war binaries had cemented the Pakistani status as a ‘major non-NATO ally’, and then the annexation of Afghanistan by the USSR in 1979 had led to the largest covert joint operation in history, ‘Operation Cyclone’, — the US and the murky General Zia-led Pakistani establishment funded, trained and supplied manpower and weaponry to mujahideen.

Later, the end of cold war and the disintegration of the USSR ensured the selfish and thoughtless withdrawal of interest and bankrolling in the region by the US. However, the kettle of intrigues and virulent religiosity was kept boiling by the shadowy Pakistani-ISI to fertilize the environment into a breeding ground for terrorists, who today haunt the subcontinent, and beyond.

Like in Afghanistan, the US, after achieving its limited objectives in the Gulf wars, left a festering trail of destruction and chaos for the germination of the uber-intolerant and militant pan-Islamism that manifested in the unprecedented tragedy of 9/11, which recalibrated the global equations, thereafter. The decades-old cold war wiring in the US-Pakistan-India underwent a sudden relook and the inter-nation expectations, conversations and transactions underwent a complete re-haul.

The Pakistanis, under General Musharraf, were embarrassingly coerced into joining the global ‘war on terror’ as George W Bush threatened Pakistan with bombing, ‘into the stone age’, should it fail to cooperate. Expected reluctance emanated from the sudden retraction from the consistent Pakistani position, e.g. treating terror organizations as ‘state assets’ and the principle of ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan — the half-hearted Pakistani commitment soon exposed its machinations as a double-dealing ‘ally’. The ‘taking out’ of Osama bin Laden from Abbottabad, continuing drone attacks on to Pakistani territories and the parallel warming of the Indo-Afghan ties further vitiated the US-Pakistani equation. It led the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to specifically ask the Pakistanis to ‘do more’ and ‘squeeze’ out terror networks by famously stating, “You can’t keep snakes in your backyard and expect them only to bite your neighbors. Eventually, those snakes are going to turn on whoever has them in the backyard.” The subtext of subsequent US-Pakistan conversations, have remained fixated on the expression of ‘do more’, much to the irritation of Pakistanis.

In the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had maintained his line of fire, saying, “Pakistan is a very very vital problem and really vital country for us because they have nuclear weapons and they have to get a hold of the situation.” Nearly one year into his presidency, Trump’s insistence on Pakistan to change its tracks has found expression in a persistent and forceful ‘do more’.

Perforce, the US has to maintain a functional working relationship with Pakistan to sustain its operations, manpower and assets in Afghanistan and within the Pakistani narrative. The expansive import of ‘do more’ within the context of diplomatic language suggests both a perfunctory acknowledgement of efforts by the Pakistanis (critical to retain engagement), and yet clearly points to insufficiency of efforts on account of doing the needful. Often, Trump’s bluster results in a brazen statement, like: “We are paying Pakistan billions and billions of dollars; at the same time, they are housing the very terrorists that we are fighting. But that will have to change.”

This leads to an equally jarring counter-narrative from the Pakistanis who decry the American hypocrisy and selective amnesia to remind the US of its historical support for jihadism in the 80s. However, the fact that the playing field, cards and the essential game of the 21st century have evolved but the Pakistanis remain fixated to the dynamics of the earlier times, that is haunting the Pakistanis the most.

‘Do more’ is also contextualized to future aid as the promised $250 million in military aid to Pakistan is withheld, subject to further evidence of Pakistani actions. The chorus for ‘do more’ was echoed by US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in October when he reiterated that Pakistan must do more to eradicate militants in its country.

In November, the commander of the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan, Gen John Nicholson continued to lament, “Haven’t seen any change yet in their behavior”, and earlier this month, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis goaded the Pakistanis to “redouble” efforts and urged for the “need to move forward with issues at hand.” Given the banalities of diplomatic-speak, ‘do more’ is as direct an expression of dissatisfaction that the US can convey to Pakistan. With the ongoing specter of a free-run for the internationally designated terrorists, seminaries spewing hatred, state supporting extremist ideologues and the still selective action against terror organizations, the pressure from the Americans to ‘do more’ will remain relentless and cryptic. India needs to reassure and satisfy itself with the American pressure of ‘do more’ as its implied context is deeply suggestive, perceptive and conducive to the change required in the situation in Pakistan.

“Lives of great men all remind us, we can make our lives sublime, and, departing, leave behind us, footprints on the sands of time.” -Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

“The efforts of these three giants changed the course of history in their countries, and indeed, the world. We must nurture inspiration today to understand what it means to be part of a much more diverse and challenging America, where our challenges will grow daily to preserve the hard-fought victories won against those would want to preserve the status quo. Just as how communities across America are inspired, daily, by King’s, Mandela’s and Gandhi’s approach to inclusion, brotherhood, peace and nonviolence, we must likewise take counsel”, says the author.

Being unjustly plucked from family and society and being tossed in jail for bogus crimes designed to silence them were but mere stepping stones to their individual journeys to greatness for these divine titans. When others would have been broken, they became more resolved to fight oppression and injustice, and inspired the world, making it a better place. We must forever cherish their examples of courage and purpose.

As we celebrate the holidays, and the good things of life, we must pause, and pay tribute to the true people and real icons who made happiness and progress possible in America. The most revered in America is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. His life and legacy remind us of the universality of the message of love, peace, brotherhood and the principles of truth and justice. In a letter from Birmingham City Jail, April 1963, Dr. King taught us, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

Dr. King was strongly influenced by Mahatma Gandhi’s doctrine on nonviolence. Globalization of thought has existed from time immemorial. In March 1936, Mahatma Gandhi shared, “I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as old as the hills. All I have done is to try experiments in both on as vast a scale as I could.” Yet, he defined the soul of human existence.

Similarly, Nelson Mandela was a South African anti-apartheid icon and revolutionary leader who broke the shackles of the color barrier to become President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. He was also inspired by Gandhi’s and King’s common philosophy. After serving 27 years in prison by his oppressors, he became the country’s first black head of state and the first elected in a fully representative democratic election. His government focused on dismantling the legacy of apartheid by tackling institutionalized racism and fostering racial reconciliation. He conquered the evil system of apartheid by his monumental sacrifices.

Mandela’s teachings will also live on long after his death. He taught us that, “It always seems impossible until it’s done… Never, never and never again shall it be that this beautiful land will again experience the oppression of one by another… The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall… Difficulties break some men but make others, No axe is sharp enough to cut the soul of a sinner who keeps on trying, one armed with the hope that he will rise even in the end…. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same… I am not a saint, unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.”

So how does this relate to you? New York is a microcosm of America. Our portals are graced by the entry of many different people, whose blood, sweat and tears, oftentimes unrequited, provide the foundations for growth. Its strength is its diversity, in excelsis. The hero who opened that door widest in America is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Be grateful for that.

Yes, it was Dr. King who not only brought together people of color, but also welcomed people from around the world, from all races and walks of life, to follow his dream and work for equality and justice. The celebration of his life is a timely reminder of the ideals for which he stood. Not for a day, but for the rest of our lives, if we are to truly and collectively live the American dream!

To live the dreams and hopes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela, communities must unite for a common cause, and unite and participate in meaningful pursuits.

One of the pillars of Mahatma Gandhi’s teachings was to attain freedom and build unity by integrating the principles of Truth and using peaceful methods to advocate self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Our efforts to gain political inclusion have initiated the integration effort, and will continue the process of assisting our fellow human beings, our brothers and sisters.

We must demystify archaic traditions of caste, class and consciousness, and help our neighbors to see us as just another person passing this way but once, and if we stop to help a brother or sister, it must be seen as just that-humanity. If we work together, we will realize our transformative collective potential.

When we build bridges of understanding with our neighbors, we need to address the issues that suppress and divide us. We must applaud and promote service to our brothers and sisters, not detract from them. Service costs money, sacrifice and time. We need to develop our civic consciousness, overcome our petty prejudices and narrow mindedness, and make a difference in the fabric of America. Colloquially, you must rid yourselves of the crab mentality, stop pulling each other down, and criticizing each other. Uplift and progress, not stagnate and destroy.

The efforts of these three giants changed the course of history in their countries, and indeed, the world. We must nurture inspiration today to understand what it means to be part of a much more diverse and challenging America, where our challenges will grow daily to preserve the hard-fought victories won against those would want to preserve the status quo. Just as how communities across America are inspired, daily, by King’s, Mandela’s and Gandhi’s approach to inclusion, brotherhood, peace and nonviolence, we must likewise take counsel.

My fervent hope is that we will understand the issues and get involved to strengthen and empower ourselves, our neighborhoods, our families and communities before it is too late. Walk a few steps in the imprints they left us…just follow the path…it’s already marked out for you!

(The author is a civil rights activist and community advocate. As President of the Baldeo Foundation and Liberty Justice Center, he has continued to fight for equal rights, dignity and inclusion in the decision-making process. He can be contacted at the Baldeo Foundation: (718) 529-2300)

“There’s a lot of work our teachers and principals are doing every day to put us on the path to Equity and Excellence for All, and put our children on the path to success. I look forward to all the work we have ahead of us, and continuing to update you on these reforms and the progress we are making”, says the author.

As an educator for 52 years, I know that all of our schools’ most important work happens in the classroom.

In my first four years as New York City Schools Chancellor, we’ve invested in our classrooms through our Equity and Excellence for All agenda – our belief that every child, no matter what zip code they live in or where their parents were born, deserves a great education.

By any measure, our schools are the strongest they’ve been, with record-high graduation rates, record-high numbers of students going on to college, record-low dropout rates, and improving test scores. We’re building on this progress with 3-K for All, Computer Science for All, and Community Schools. Many of our investments in classrooms across the City – particularly in training teachers and improving classroom instruction – are less splashy and often overlooked, but are just as critical to our vision of Equity and Excellence for All.

Here are a few of those “under the radar” investments that are making an impact in our classrooms:

80 minutes of teacher training. Nearly four years ago, one of the first things I did was set aside 80 minutes at every school every week for teacher training. This is a game-changer for schools and the children and families we serve.

During the 80 minutes, teachers learn how to use new cutting-edge resources; plan for upcoming lessons; and look closely at students’ performance on tests and essays to figure out what they’re teaching well and what they need to do better.

Passport to Social Studies. Since I was a child and my father read Spanish books with me about the history of Spain (his native country), Social Studies has always been my favorite subject. Unfortunately, it was not seen as a priority in schools, but it has to be. We must prepare students to be thoughtful, productive citizens, and they absolutely have to understand history, civics and current events.

Last school year, we released a brand-new Social Studies curriculum, the Passport to Social Studies. I’m happy to say it’s now in over 70 percent of our elementary and middle schools, and I’m excited to see that number grow as more schools focus on Social Studies.

Investments in middle school. If we get middle school right, students can find hobbies and passions, and start carving their path to college and careers. We need to make the investments to reach them and get them ready for high school, college, and beyond.

We now provide an after-school seat for ever middle-school student, and also started a program called “Teen Thursdays,” where 7th-grade students can visit many local cultural institutions. It’s not a given that kids and families feel welcome at their local museums and cultural centers; programs like this connect our students and parents with their City in a new way. We’re also homing in on middle school math through our Algebra for All initiative – making sure students get the math instruction they need in 5th grade and middle school so they’re ready to take on advanced math courses in high school.

Collaboration over competition. I’ve always been a believer in collaboration over competition. It is shameful when a school has great things that are helping kids and doesn’t share those resources. Last school year, we tapped into that collaborative spirit and brought the “co-located campus initiative” to 20 campuses across all five boroughs.

Participating schools are on a single bell schedule so all students on the campus can share AP and enrichment courses, increasing access to more rigorous coursework. Teachers come together for shared professional development, there are family welcome centers to encourage all parents to get involved, and there have even been campus-wide proms. By coming together, schools that would have been siloed are sharing best practices and strengthening campus culture – and students are benefiting.

Family engagement. None of our instructional work can achieve its potential without a strong partnership between families and schools, and increasing family engagement is a central priority.

We’ve increased the number of evening parent-teacher conferences to make them more convenient for families – resulting in a 40 percent increase in conference attendance – and provided additional training to parent coordinators on engaging parents in their school communities. We’re looking at creative new ways to get more families involved in their children’s education, like FaceLab, a robotics and technology course taught by parent volunteers, and the Family English Initiative, an English proficiency course that parents and students take together.

These “under the radar” efforts – and many like them – are making a real impact for children and families across the City. There’s a lot of work our teachers and principals are doing every day to put us on the path to Equity and Excellence for All, and put our children on the path to success. I look forward to all the work we have ahead of us, and continuing to update you on these reforms and the progress we are making.

(The author is the New York City Schools Chancellor)

“Edison Mayor Mr. Lankey must understand if Keith Hahn running against him for the post of mayor in the recently concluded elections can agree to a formal apology to the Indo-American community for the racial slurs called in the Municipal Complex of Edison; what is stopping Lankey’s administration to do the same?”, asks the author who has been vociferously exhorting the community to protect their self -respect as Indo-Americans and demand an unconditional apology for the racial slurs from Lankey.

It is very unfortunate that for more than a decade our community leaders controlling various political, cultural, business and religious organizations and individuals elected to various public offices in New Jersey with community support and money has been evading the issue of “Apology” for the Racial slurs called for the Indo-American community in the Municipal Complex of Edison; “Indians are cockroaches, animals, illegal & go home”. Till today these are the worst ever called Racial Slurs for any community in over 200 years history of America.

The Edison Councilman Ajay Patil in an exchange of numerous e-mails since Oct 31, 2017 to Nov. 22, 2017 with him and Mayor Lankey on this issue says that he is not the part of the Edison administration, so he cannot call for an apology! And more over there is no need for Mayor Lankey to tender an Apology. He is joined by Mayor Lankey’s financial supporter; Nilesh Dasondi an ex-convict with dubious dealings and business interest in Edison. Dasondi had actively/aggressively written on social media that Mr. Lankey was not the Mayor at that time so why his administration should give any apology for the Racial Slurs! As usual owners of Edison based IBA that parade themselves on the streets of Edison in the name of India day parade; are least concerned about this issue.  Unfortunately, Mayor Lankey also has not responded at all because some individuals from our own community do not want an apology for the Racial Slurs.

Edison Mayor Mr. Lankey must understand if Keith Hahn running against him for the post of mayor in the recently concluded elections can agree to a formal apology to the Indo-American community for the racial slurs called in the Municipal Complex of Edison; what is stopping Lankey’s administration to do the same? This is immaterial whether he was the Mayor or not when this unfortunate incident happened. He should not listen to his Councilman Ajay Patil who may have under cover business interest with his financial supporter Nilesh Dasondi because they do not reflect the views of the majority Indo-American community living in various parts of New Jersey and USA. The community has been hurt emotionally and mentally because of these racial slurs. Especially those like my family members and other community members that was present at the Edison Municipal Complex on that fateful day, those racial slurs still haunt us and frighten us that it can happen again because the Edison administration has not come forward with even a formal apology. That sends a racially biased message that they do not care about human dignity and rights of Indo-American community living in Edison and other parts of New Jersey and USA.

For Mayor Lankey and his supporters it may be an old issue that does not mean that the issue was settled. Look at the history in the case of Japanese comfort girls patronized by US Army, Chinese Rail road workers in USA, the communists in USA- all got formal Apologies for the wrongs done to them from the head of the state, years after the actual incidents. In the case of Jewish Holocaust; Germany gave an apology & still paying pension to the survivors in Germany & Europe. The Jews on their own even after almost 70 years of WW2 are still hunting Nazi’s; putting them on trial and confiscating their assets.

Mayor Lankey must understand that most recently, even  Canadian PM Justin Trudeau on May 18, 2016 gave a formal “full apology” for the Komagata Maru incident in the House of Commons to the Indian Community. The Komagata Maru incident happened in 1914 when 376 passengers from Punjab, British India were denied entry in to Canada. This was one of several incidents in the early 20th century in which exclusion laws in Canada and the United States were used to exclude immigrants of Asian origin.

Our community leaders especially those elected to various public offices must understand the gravity of the “Racial Slurs” issue. By demanding an apology for the worst ever called Racial Slurs; they are demanding racial equality to uphold the human dignity of the Indo-American community living in USA. They can learn from similar incidents like when Jack Cafferty former CNN commentator made a comment, “Chinese are goons & Thugs”. American-Chinese lead by their community leaders seized the CNN HQ in Atlanta and CNN had to make an apology and gave undisclosed amount to settle the case.

In yet another incident when Don Imus called the Rutgers American African women Foot Ball Team “Nappy Headed Hose”, the African-American community lead by their leaders forced Imus to resign from CBS & for more than 2 years could not find a job despite making huge donations to African-American organizations. This was the same Don Imus who was counted among 25 most influential people in America in 2007.

With this letter on behalf of Indo-American community living in various parts of New Jersey and USA; I appeal to our community leaders, elected individuals and various organizations to do the right thing to uphold their own, honesty, ethics, morality and credibility by demanding a formal apology from Edison administration for the racial slurs called for Indo-American community. They must rise above their self-interest and must respect “Community First”.

(The author is a New Jersey based community activist. He can be reached at davemakkar@yahoo.com)

On December 1, 1955 Park Rosa was arrested for refusing to move to the back of a bus and give her seat to a white passenger in Montgomery, Alabama which triggered a wave of protests December 5, 1955 that reverberated throughout the United States. (Editor)

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”-Martin Luther King Jr.

Guyanese, and all West Indians, can proudly lay claim to a great American-Shirley Chisholm. Born in Brooklyn, New York, on November 30, 1924, Chisholm was the oldest of four daughters to immigrant parents Charles St. Hill, a factory worker from Guyana, and Ruby Seale St. Hill, a seamstress from Barbados. She was one of America’s greatest catalysts of change, decades ahead of her time.

“You must be the change you want to see in the world.” – Mahatma Gandhi.

There is a little bit of Shirley in all of us, some more than others. In 2006, I got more involved in the struggle to change the system, include the voices of the oppressed and exploited, confronting treachery and evil in America, and striking at the root of evil-with my blood, sweat and tears! Serphin Maltese, a 30-year entrenched incumbent who was the powerful Chairman of his Party and cronies introduced a bill to legalize racial profiling in NY State to make minorities official second class citizens. He got the required support from hypocritical Democrats for the perverse idea to become law-even beholden minority Assembly members who were also so-called political brokers in Queens.

These opportunists put their narrow, selfish interests above disenfranchised minorities to protect and advance their own self-interests at their constituents’ expense and peril. This bill was going to put us back to the Jim Crow era in NY State, and eviscerate the civil rights and liberties previous generations fought so hard to forge.

“The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”- John F. Kennedy.

I realized that although I was a lawyer, I could not make the necessary changes. I would be bound to follow the law, like all others in both law enforcement and the judicial system. Our hands would be tied, and generations would be trapped by a racist, bigoted law that was going to put social, economic and political development hundreds of years back to the pre-civil rights era. Inspired by the doctrine of the great martyrs and leaders, I had to launch a campaign to defeat institutional injustice, raise awareness about the putrid issues they stood for, and ensure that, win or lose, our children were not going to be officially relegated to and stereotyped as official second class citizens. Only political courage and change could bring about a solution.

“I was made, by the law, a criminal, not because of what I had done, but because of what I stood for, because of what I thought, because of my conscience.” (Statement during trial, 1962)-Nelson Mandela

Consequently, I embarked on a political pilgrimage. Although I was the only Democratic candidate, I sought, but did not get the backing of the Queens Democratic Organization. In fact, other Democratic officials hypocritically crossed party lines to support Maltese. I was treated like a pariah, and shunned from institutional politicians, but embraced by regular folks. I always put people above politics, and progress over dysfunction. I championed bread and butter issues like better education, health care, housing, public safety, jobs, wages, government services, civil rights and became a loud voice for change. Thankfully, that law was never passed.

My inspiration came from Shirley Chisholm.

This phenomenal leader broke barriers by becoming the first Black woman elected to the U.S. Congress. In her seven terms as Representative from New York, she fought for education and social justice, was a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus and the first major-party Black candidate to run for U.S. President.

As a trailblazer, Shirley Chisholm paved the way for so many of us today, whether we are running for office or advocating at the grassroots level. She once famously said, “I don’t measure America by its achievement but by its potential.”

Unbossed and Unbought, the title of her autobiography, exemplified her outspoken advocacy for women and minorities during her seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, overcoming what she aptly termed the “double handicap” for being both black and female. Her ideas were uplifting, her efforts were iconic, and she dared to buck and change the system for others. America has become a much better place because of the blood, sweat and tears of people like her.

 “The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.”- Abraham Lincoln

In 1964, Chisholm became the second African American in the New York State Legislature. In 1968, after court-ordered redistricting created a new, heavily Democratic district in her neighborhood, Chisholm won a seat in Congress, where she introduced more than 50 pieces of legislation and championed racial and gender equality, the plight of the poor, and ending the Vietnam War. She was a co-founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus in 1971, and in 1977 became the first black woman and second woman ever to serve on the powerful House Rules Committee.

Inevitably, discrimination hampered Chisholm’s quest for the 1972 Democratic Party presidential nomination. She was blocked from participating in televised primary debates, and after taking legal action, was permitted to make just one speech. Still, her impact was substantial. She entered 12 primaries and garnered 152 of the delegates’ votes (10% of the total), despite an under-financed campaign and contentiousness from the predominantly male Congressional Black Caucus.

When she left Washington in 1983, she said she did not want to go down in history as “the nation’s first black congresswoman” or, as she put it, “the first black woman congressman…I’d like them to say that Shirley Chisholm had guts,” she said. “That’s how I’d like to be remembered.”

Those of us who have fought the system to make changes to uplift our fellow beings and bring progress for generations to come, can take counsel from and relate to this extraordinary and courageous woman.

(The author is a civil rights activist and community advocate. As President of the Baldeo Foundation and Liberty Justice Center, he has continued to fight for equal rights, dignity and inclusion in the decision-making process. He can be contacted at the Baldeo Foundation: (718) 529-2300)

BY Albert Baldeo

“Our country has been the leading provider of humanitarian aid for refugees” -Elizabeth Esty

“I believe in the promise of America. Being a Cuban refugee, having come here when I was eight, I know that this is a shining city on the hill” -Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

“I have been a foreigner all my life, first as a daughter of diplomats, then as a political refugee and now as an immigrant in the U.S. I have had to leave everything behind and start anew several times, and I have lost most of my extended family”-Isabel Allende

The recent attack on immigrants and minorities by the Trump administration to end temporary protected status and send 60,000 Haitians back to suffering and pain in their country-the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, is the latest in an alarming trend. Haiti cannot provide for them, and this decision is inhumane and unconscionable. This status was extended to Haitians, as America has done in the past with several other countries, after a destructive earthquake hit the island nation in 2010. With its poor economy, infrastructure and resources, Haiti is incapable of repatriating tens of thousands of people.

Conscious of, and humbled by, its people’s suffering, the Haitian government had asked the Trump administration to extend the protected status. After all, America has a conscience. Haitians are the second-largest group of foreigners with temporary status. The protection is extended to people already in the United States who have come from countries severely affected by natural disasters or armed conflict that prevents their citizens from returning or prevents their country from adequately receiving them.

Roughly 40,000 people who lost their homes in the earthquake still live in camps for the displaced, and a cholera epidemic killed thousands of people in the aftermath of the earthquake. Struggling to recover from the earthquake, they relied heavily on the money expatriates send to them back home to survive, but that lifeline will now be cut from them. Moreover, the decision to end the program will uproot the lives of Haitians who have been in the United States for years, most of whom live in Florida, home to roughly two-thirds of Haitian TPS enrollees. Haitians sent home will face dire conditions, including lack of housing, inadequate health services and unemployment. It will precipitate double hardship.

Indeed, a permanent legislative solution must be found within the 18-month grace period. The move means that the Haitians given temporary protected status, or TPS, may remain until July 22, 2019, but could face deportation after that date. This is unconscionable, and a more humane solution must be found.

El Salvador has the largest group of Temporary Protected Status beneficiaries in the United States, nearly 200,000 people.  The Department of Homeland Security is scheduled to announce next month whether it will rescind or renew protection for that country, which is plagued with gang violence and high unemployment. The protection applies to Salvadorans who were in the United States without permission on February 13, 2001, and was granted after deadly earthquakes destroyed their home country. Protections for Nicaraguans ended last month, and similar protections for Hondurans loom large. These countries’ citizens living in here need help and humanitarian consideration also.

Others who now benefit include people from Nepal, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and the Trump administration must not continue to err on the side of cruelty and hostility to these nationals. That’s not the America we want, nor is that the America we have been!

(Albert Baldeo is a civil rights activist and community advocate. As President of the Baldeo Foundation and Liberty Justice Center, he has continued to fight for equal rights, dignity and inclusion in the decision-making process. He can be contacted at the Baldeo Foundation: (718) 529-2300)

“The smog that choked millions did not stop at the India-Pak or India-Nepal borders. Nor at the borders of Indian states. What matters for India is not merely electoral victories for PM Modi, but what he does with the power he wields. Instead of tilting at windmills, why does he not start with “swacch” air? To do that he needs an integrated plan that is greener and yet equitable for the farmer, the worker, the urbanite and the entrepreneur”, says the author.

Toxic smog lingered over North India in the first half of November, dissipating after showers and strong winds. The air quality in New Delhi and the NCR remains poor as Particulate Matter (PM 2.5) hovers above safe limits. First to be blamed were farmers of Punjab and Haryana, although stalk burning after paddy harvesting is done across many states, and in Pakistan. Climate experts later argued that the crisis was exacerbated by a sandstorm in Arabia, well to India’s west.

The political drama that followed reflects lack of accountability among Indian leaders. The chief ministers of Delhi, Haryana and Punjab commenced a blame-thy-neighbor game. Arvind Kejriwal sought meetings with the other two hoping to escape being pilloried, normal for any mishap in Delhi even though both the Lieutenant-Governor and the Union government plead before the Supreme Court that he has no powers. Punjab CM Capt Amarinder Singh only wanted the PM to convene a meeting as he needed thousands of crores to coax his farmers to not burn stubble. The CM of Haryana, ML Khattar met Kejriwal after some dithering. But PM Modi was not seen or heard. What “baat”, if any, was in his “mann” could only be deciphered from his intervention at the East Asia Summit in the Philippines on November 14, or at election rallies in Gujarat. There was naturally no mention of the crisis across North India.

But the issue is broader than a tri-state squabble. The pollution levels in PM Modi’s own constituency, Varanasi, at the far end of UP were equally hazardous. Senator Sherry Rehman, senior leader of Pakistan People’s Party and friend of the late Benazir Bhutto, bemoaned in The Express Tribune that “half of Pakistan is enveloped in a nasty toxic smog”. She argued that these weather vagaries were attributable to climate change which was costing Pakistan 6 per cent of GDP. Quoting a UNDP report, she warned that Pakistan, already water stressed, would be dry by 2025 if it did not stop diverting 90 per cent of its waters to crops. She sensibly linked water, climate, energy and agriculture.

The Union government announced that the National Thermal Power Corporation is to now buy stubble from farmers for power generation. The question arises why this was not done after a similar crisis last year, when besides the odd-even scheme and the shutting of schools, no long-term solution was put in place. As usual, the National Green Tribunal rushed in where angels feared to tread, assuming the role of executive, and in effect, even stalling whatever little the Delhi Government was planning to do.

Coincidently, nearly 200 nations converged on Bonn for the review of action on “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) under the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. Ironically, India and China having come on board at Paris on President Barack Obama’s urging by giving up their standard developing country chant that “polluters pay”, now found themselves left holding the baby as President Trump walked out of the accord. Fortuitously, US withdrawal is not implementable before November 4, 2020 — a day after the next US presidential election. The leadership of climate change action thus falls on Europe and the big emitters, India and China. Germany, the biggest European economy and host at Bonn, conceded that it would be unable to meet its commitment to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to 40 per cent below the 1990 level, by 2020. That is due to its reliance on coal for power production due to its decision to abandon nuclear power generation after the Fukushima nuclear disaster as well as its strong growth and low oil prices.

UN climate chief Patricia Espinosa lamented that “we need more action, more ambition and we need it now”. That is, indeed, necessary if the world has to ensure that global temperatures do not exceed 2 degree Celsius above the mean pre-industrial age temperature. The pledges at Paris were, unfortunately, voluntary and the current trajectory of global warming can lead to the melting of ice-sheets by the end of this century and their disappearance from Greenland and Antarctica. The consequent rise in sea levels and climate change leads paleo-climatologist Lee Kump to conclude that the rate at which we are discharging carbon dioxide is 10 times the level when mass extinction occurred during the pre-dinosaur stage which killed 90 per cent of life in the ocean and 75 per cent on land.

India and China succeeded, along with 137 nations of the G-77 plus China, to make developed countries concede that acceptance by developing nations of voluntary commitment at Paris was contingent on the developed nations cutting emissions and providing finance for adaptation and mitigation by the developing world. At Paris, developed nations promised $100 billion by 2020 to help dispense green technologies. Canada and the UK formed this time at Bonn a 19-nation alliance to phase out coal power by 2030.

Nuclear power, once considered the answer to clean energy, is being abandoned by the developed world. Two new reactors — Westinghouse’s AP1000 and Areva’s EPR — are about to be commissioned in China and Finland, respectively. They are considered proofed against natural disasters, terror attacks or even missile hits. India will have to choose a middle path between reducing dependence on thermal power and choosing renewables plus nuclear power. The obvious conclusion is that India needs to reassess its relations with China and Pakistan as climate change is a shared threat and a cause for collaboration that rises above narrow nationalistic divisions.

Senator Sherry Rehman has framed the issue well. The smog that choked millions did not stop at the India-Pak or India-Nepal borders. Nor at the borders of Indian states. What matters for India is not merely electoral victories for PM Modi, but what he does with the power he wields. Instead of tilting at windmills, why does he not start with “swacch” air? To do that he needs an integrated plan that is greener and yet equitable for the farmer, the worker, the urbanite and the entrepreneur. His Gujarat model, as is now being argued, is skewed in favor of the last.

(The author is a former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs)

An unseemly row has erupted over Padmavati. No film can, and no film maker is obliged to appease the sentiments of a billion plus population. Instead, of providing safe passage to the release of Padmavati, several BJP-ruled states have joined hands with obscure outfits and self-appointed custodians of culture and history. The UP CM’s demand to postpone Padmavati’s release because it will disturb the law and order situation is self-defeating. He is giving undue credit to a Bollywood film. The UP CM has a responsibility to maintain law and order rather than give in to hooligans from fringe elements. ‘Film will hurt religious sentiments’ is an alibi the politicians have misused for too long. This is a smokescreen to hide bigoted attitudes.

As if the Padmavati row was not bad enough, the government has placed itself on the wrong side of the film fraternity. Even before the Goa film festival could kick start, the government has pressed the delete button by dropping two films, duly selected by the eminent members of the jury who were handpicked by the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. Besides, Nude, which was to be the opening film of the Indian Panorama section, S Durga has also been axed. The unwarranted and undemocratic decision has forced three members of the jury, including well-known filmmaker and the jury head Sujoy Ghosh to resign.

Even if it is conceded that these films contain some provocative content, how could I&B ministry overlook the fact that festival films are for evolved audiences who are intelligent enough to put things in proper perspective and context. Even otherwise, the right to reject a film, once cleared by the CBFC, must rest with the viewers. Much to the chagrin of those who champion artistic liberty, scuttling filmmakers’ right of expression has almost become a habit with the Centre. Creative freedom has been virtually under siege. Be it the IFFI row or the never-ending fracas over Padmavati, the government stance remains cussed; inexplicable and inexcusable. Cine enthusiasts who will be flocking to Goa seek a widening of horizons not myopic interpretation of cinematic values.

(Tribune India)

Donald Trump’s transactional diplomacy during his East Asia tour has only created confusion

“Mr. Trump’s “Indo-Pacific dream” may not appear to be much of a dream for most countries in the region. In 2006, Mr. Trump had said he was waiting for a housing market crash, and boasted about his ability to profit from a falling market. Conflicts in Asia, in the west and the east, could appear to be good opportunities for profit from the realtor’s perspective”, says the author.

Parsing Donald Trump’s statements and Twitter posts through his 12-day, five-nation tour of Asia — the longest for a U.S. President in 25 years — to decipher a new American strategy towards the region can be taxing unless the idea is to cherry-pick and substantiate pre-existing notions.

‘Terrific’ China

One can read resistance to China’s expansive ambitions in euphemisms such as ‘freedom of navigation’ and condemnation of ‘predatory’ economic practices, used along with America’s commitment to democracy, human rights, and free trade. When you read them alongside the U.S.-Philippines commitment to “share best practices” to prevent illegal drug use, which is a “problem afflicting both countries”, and Mr. Trump’s desire to be friends with the “short and fat” ruler of North Korea, the emerging picture could appear confusing, if not outlandish.

In his interactions with reporters as he travelled back, Mr. Trump gave an overview of the “terrific” tour and the new friendships that he has developed, how he enjoyed the unprecedented reception in Beijing, conversations with the “terrific” President Xi Jinping and the special honor he received at the Forbidden City. What topped the list of achievements for him were the business deals — he put the figure at $300 billion and hoped that it would exceed $1 trillion in the coming months, though the actual numbers remain unclear. He said security partnerships with these Asian partners have also been enhanced.

Ahead of his travel, the White House had said his speech at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) CEO summit in Vietnam would elucidate his vision for the Indo-Pacific region, a term that the Trump administration has started using in a clear acknowledgment of India’s prominence. Administration officials had been emphatic that his speech would demonstrate the U.S.’s continuing commitment to the region. His speech did not live up to the build-up, and may have actually added to the nervousness among traditional U.S. partners. Recalling the U.S.’s historical ties to the region, Mr. Trump said it is time the terms of engagement between these countries and the U.S. changed. In his reckoning, the U.S. has been taken advantage of by all countries and global institutions, particularly the World Trade Organization (WTO). But he would not blame other countries or their leaders for this situation; it was all the fault of the U.S. administrations that preceded him.

“Those days are over,” he declared. He was there “to offer a renewed partnership with America,” the basis of which would be “bilateral trade agreements with any Indo-Pacific nation that wants to be our partner and that will abide by the principles of fair and reciprocal trade… I call it the Indo-Pacific dream.”

What does he mean?

The U.S. has trade deficits with all the five countries that Mr. Trump visited, and he told four of them that the U.S. would not tolerate this — putting China, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam in the same basket on this count. In the case of the Philippines, which has a small surplus with the U.S., the relationship is less about trade, he said, but more for “military purposes… it’s called the most prime piece of real estate from a military standpoint.”

What are the implications of Mr. Trump’s statement that “those days are over?” First, America offers these countries technology, capital and access to its market. Second, America offers a security guarantee and a predictable world order based on multilateral trade and security pacts. China has also been a beneficiary of this system, and the rise of China has added additional buoyancy for neighboring countries. The friction between China and its neighbors heightened as Beijing’s ambitions grew after the 2008 financial crisis. Vietnam, Philippines, Japan, and South Korea started to gravitate more towards the U.S., which was itself alarmed by the assertiveness of China. The Obama administration announced the Pivot to Asia strategy in response. Kurt Campbell, an Obama official who is credited with drafting the policy, described it as “a multifaceted approach that will involve a strong security component, working with allies, working constructively with China, a commercial dynamic that is about not shipping U.S. [jobs], but U.S. exports and services to Asia; a commitment to building institutions to multilateralism; bringing other partners into Asia, like Europe, working closely with Europe.”

Like Mr. Trump, Barack Obama also wanted to open the Asian markets for American companies, but there was a broader blue print at play. Mr. Trump has knocked it down to a one-point agenda: buy our goods and services. His statement that countries in the “region [should] be strong, independent, and prosperous, in control of their own destinies, and satellites to no one,” is a call for ending multilateralism. More than a newfound respect for the autonomy of these countries, it reflects American disinterest.

Mr. Trump also told his Asian hosts that they were free to pursue their interests solo, as he would pursue his. He hinted that America is washing its hands of any leadership role, making it clear that it could cut a deal with China on its own, regardless of its potential impact on other countries. China is the biggest trading partner of South Korea, Japan and Vietnam. Speaking after Mr. Trump at APEC, Mr. Xi presented a case for multilateralism and open trade. China is also willing to offer technology, capital and market access, on its terms under the Belt and Road Initiative.

Security concerns

Now, what is America offering for the security of these Asian partners? Mr. Trump asked them all to join hands with the U.S. in stopping North Korea’s nuclear adventurism. But that apart, he told Japan, Vietnam and South Korea to buy “our weapons”.

“We make the best,” he told them and cited how Saudi Arabia was using them effectively. In one Twitter post during the tour, he also gave a carte blanche to the Saudi Arabian regime to chart regional politics.

Mr. Trump’s “Indo-Pacific dream” may not appear to be much of a dream for most countries in the region. In 2006, Mr. Trump had said he was waiting for a housing market crash, and boasted about his ability to profit from a falling market. Conflicts in Asia, in the west and the east, could appear to be good opportunities for profit from the realtor’s perspective.

We may be looking for a strategy that does not exist, perhaps. American economist Lawrence Summers, now a Harvard professor, and a key player in the American-led globalization over the last three decades, described the challenge before America: “…(we) confuse a strategy with a wish list. Our strategy is that it is very important that they open their markets, that it is very important that they cooperate with us on this security issue… Well, that is a good wish list… And I do not think we yet have a strategy for thinking about the management of the global economic system that is appropriately respectful of the scale and achievements of the Chinese economy.”

(Author is a senior journalist with The Hindu. He can be reached at varghese.g@thehindu.co.in)

 By Luo Zhaohui

“The Xi Jinping Thought on major country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics is highly innovative and consistent. One of the important concepts is to forge a new form of international relations featuring mutual respect, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation. The other one is to build a community with a shared future for mankind, to build an open, inclusive, clean, and beautiful world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security, and common prosperity. In line with the world trend, President Xi’s thought on diplomacy follows the tide of the times and will further strengthen China’s interaction with the rest of the world”, the author says.

The 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) has successfully concluded in Beijing, but the heated discussion and interpretation of it continue both in China and abroad. People show strong interests in its far-reaching influence on China and the world, as well as China-India relations.

I believe that the influence is positive, and I would like to highlight my optimism in the following three aspects.

First, I am optimistic about China’s development and its future. One important political judgment in the 19th CPC National Congress is that Socialism with Chinese Characteristics has crossed the threshold into a new era. China is the second largest economy in the world. Over the past five years, China has made historical progress and deepened its reform and opening-up. With an average annual economic growth of 7.2 per cent, China’s average contribution to the global economic growth exceeds 30 percent annually. More than 60 million people have been lifted out of poverty. People are talking about high-speed train, Alipay, bicycle-sharing and online shopping with great interest. In the early stage of China’s reform and opening-up, we formulated a “three-step” roadmap of development. The first step is to address the subsistence problem, followed by preliminarily building a moderately prosperous society as the second step. These two goals have been successfully accomplished in advance. At present, we are in the decisive stage of the third step for building a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2020 when the CPC celebrates its centenary anniversary.

In the meantime, the principal contradiction in Chinese society has changed. This is another important political judgment made in the 19th CPC National Congress. It has evolved from the contradiction between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and the backwardness of social production, to the one between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life. It indicates that we need to focus on addressing development’s imbalances and inadequacies, and shift the economy from high speed growth to improvement in quality and effect of development. With this, we will be better placed to focus on green development and environmental protection, and to promote well-rounded human development and all-round social progress.

The great practice of China’s reform and opening-up and the great era we are in call for the great theories and ideas emerged in the Congress. The 19th CPC National Congress has endorsed the Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era as the guiding ideology that the CPC adheres to on a long-term basis.

The Thought will guide China to realize its blueprint. The Party Congress has drawn up a two-step approach to develop China into a great modern socialist country by 2050 when China celebrates its centenary anniversary, building on the foundation created by the moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2020. At the first stage from 2020 to 2035, socialist modernization will be basically realized. At the second stage from 2035 to 2050, we will build China a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful.

“China attaches great importance to “China-India relations. There will be a series of institutional dialogues between the two countries. We need to set long-term goals for our relations such as Free Trade Agreement, the Treaty of Good Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation between China and India, “early harvest” on the boundary issue and alignment of the Belt and Road Initiative with India’s development strategies. I firmly believe that China and India can move at the same pace towards the same direction. We need to enhance mutual trust and focus on cooperation, while properly managing differences, in a bid to promote China-India relations to a new level.”

Second, I am optimistic about China’s interaction with the rest of the world. China has been deeply integrated into the world and long adhered to the fundamental national policy of opening up. President Xi Jinping attaches great importance to and directly participates in China’s external exchanges. Over the past five years, President Xi has made 28 foreign trips to 56 countries. China has hosted APEC, G20, BRICS Summit and the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation. Earlier this year, President Xi’s speech on globalization and free trade at the World Economic Forum in Davos was very inspiring. He is the super diplomat of China and the great contributor to world peace and development.

The Xi Jinping Thought on major country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics is highly innovative and consistent. One of the important concepts is to forge a new form of international relations featuring mutual respect, fairness, justice, and win-win cooperation. The other one is to build a community with a shared future for mankind, to build an open, inclusive, clean, and beautiful world that enjoys lasting peace, universal security, and common prosperity. In line with the world trend, President Xi’s thought on diplomacy follows the tide of the times and will further strengthen China’s interaction with the rest of the world.

A prosperous and stable China in itself is a contribution to world peace and development and will provide more opportunities for world prosperity, progress, and mutually beneficial cooperation. In the coming 15 years, China’s market will further expand. It is projected that China will import $24 trillion worth of goods and attract $2 trillion of foreign direct investment. China’s total outbound investment will reach $2 trillion. Next November, Shanghai will host the first China International Import Expo.

To realize the blueprint and achieve greater progress, China needs a stable international and regional environment and order. In this context, China must stay committed to its independent foreign policy of peace, upholding the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, and promoting good neighborliness and friendship. China is opposed to zero-sum game and never seeks hegemony.

After the 19th CPC National Congress, China’s diplomacy has already taken on a new look. Russian and the US leaders visited China successively. President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang will attend several multilateral meetings respectively and visit some neighboring countries. China-ROK and China-Japan relations have also made progress.

Third, I am optimistic about the prospect of China-India relations. The new thought and blueprint have emerged in the 19th National Congress. President Xi and Prime Minister Modi reached important consensus during their meeting in September in Xiamen. Against the aforesaid backdrop, I am optimistic about China-India relations. Both China and India are developing countries and face common tasks of developing economy and improving people’s well-being. At a critical stage of deepening reform and advancing modernization, both countries need to foster a favorable external environment. China and India are neighbors that cannot be moved away. We live under the same sky. As important members of BRICS and the SCO, China and India are committed to advancing globalization and multi-polarity, and upholding democracy in international relations. We believe that the New India initiative proposed by Prime Minister Modi and the Chinese Dream are closely connected and can be synergized as well.

In recent days, some media have been covering the concept of “Indo-Pacific Strategy” and speculating that the emerging multilateral cooperation is against China. I have a different opinion. As a saying goes, if you want to create an opponent, you will have an opponent. We should get rid of the cold war mentality. In fact, it is in the interests of all parties and in the trend of globalization to enhance closer Indo-Pacific ties from a geographical and economic perspective. Above all, China cannot be contained. We are fully confident about it.

China attaches great importance to China-India relations. There will be a series of institutional dialogues between the two countries. We need to set long-term goals for our relations such as Free Trade Agreement, the Treaty of Good Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation between China and India, “early harvest” on the boundary issue and alignment of the Belt and Road Initiative with India’s development strategies. I firmly believe that China and India can move at the same pace towards the same direction. We need to enhance mutual trust and focus on cooperation, while properly managing differences, in a bid to promote China-India relations to a new level.

(Author is Chinese Ambassador to India)

Even after a year of painful demonetization, the government is struggling to smoke out black money. Contrary to its expectation, almost the entire black money stash found demonetization an easy way to blend in the banking system and thereby earn interest. Even the attempt to curb counterfeit notes through the move failed. The other two principal promises — choking terror funding and ushering in the era of digital economy — did not exactly take-off. FM Jaitley’s assertion that demonetization has reduced stone pelting in J&K is, at best, an oversimplification of a complex issue. Admittedly, the removal of old currencies from the system did accelerate digital payment transactions. The tempo, however, quickly went down soon after re-monetization. Later, the GST encouraged small businessmen to dump digitation and resort to cash to escape the tax net.

Demonetization, however, did nudge people towards greater compliance. But, this would be more out of the coercive pressure of the tax inspector, which is not an easy sentiment. This fear has already robbed “household savings” of millions of families by forcing women to disclose their small reserves, and thereby, killed the Indian culture of micro-savings. Thus, demonetization destroyed the informal financial cushion that often came in handy at times of a family crisis. Lifetime savings of Gurkha regiment retirees in Nepal became worthless. Similarly, Indian currencies kept as valued forex by millions of citizens in neighboring Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Myanmar became worthless paper, thereby eroding trust in the Indian rupee. Imagine, if the US were to do the same with the dollar.

Undoubtedly, PM Modi’s stated intent behind demonetization had initially been well-received by the people, who patiently endured it for more than 50 days. Its socio-economic costs, however, have been enormous. Most of those who lost jobs or shut their small business units due to the currency squeeze were from extremely vulnerable background. Many people also lost their lives due to this futile experiment. Whatever be the government’s self-congratulatory sales pitch, for many Indians it has been a jolt from which they will take a long time to recover.

(Tribune India)

“China seeking “great power relationship” is nothing but a desire for the US to accept them as the only “other” in a bipolar engagement. Trump has frequently praised Xi in the past, even calling him “King of China”, perhaps in line with his penchant for authoritarian rulers, assuming he can flatter them for a shortcut to strategic compromise. Trump would seek China to compel DPRK to accept nuclear restraint, if not disarmament; balance bilateral trade; and end Chinese predatory trading practices and poaching of intellectual property. Xi will tactically yield some ground but is unlikely to kowtow fully”, says the author.

This week focus returns to Asia as two major summits — Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and East Asia Summit (EAS) — are held in Vietnam and the Philippines, respectively. India is not a member of the first, though desirous of joining it. PM Narendra Modi shall interrupt relentless campaigning in Gujarat to attend the latter on November 12. US President Donald Trump, combining bilateral visits to Japan, the Republic of Korea (ROK), China, Vietnam and the Philippines with attending both summits, heightens interest, particularly as earlier he was skipping the EAS. Chinese President Xi Jinping, newly endorsed for a second five-year term by the 19th Party Congress, attending the APEC Summit completes the Asian drama.

The US State Department announced that Trump’s focus would be on neutralizing nuclear threat from the Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK), promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific (euphemism for contesting Chinese corralling of two- thirds of South China Sea, via artificial island building) and reciprocal trade, i.e., balancing the huge US trade imbalances with China, Japan and ROK. Trump is also expected to reassure allies and partners concerned over perceived US retreat from the region. Essentially, the summits this year are a power play between the US and China and a contest between two alternative visions of growth and governance. The Western liberal, democratic and free trade model is posited against the Chinese model, fine-tuned by President Xi, of economic success through centralized and authoritarian management underpinned by nationalism minus civil liberties and elective government.

The 19th Chinese Party Congress has allowed Xi to consolidate power and perhaps become the most powerful leader since Mao Zedong, with allies and followers controlling important institutions. Significantly, no clear successor is visible, thus breaching injunction by Deng Xiaoping, father of the Chinese economic miracle that his successors would only hold two five-year terms. Among the seven-member standing committee of the politburo, the de facto Chinese cabinet, is Wang Huning — professor, ideologue and adviser to all post-Deng presidents. He devised the “Three Represents” of President Jiang Zemin, recommending party reach out to private business and professionals and is now behind “Xi Jinping Thought” embedded in the constitution. He has, over decades, provided intellectual ballast to Chinese rulers’ view that social and economic change can only be accomplished by centralized and authoritarian rule, while freezing political evolution. The Tiananmen Square uprising by students in 1989 was taken by them as confirming its validity. Xi has added an anti-graft edge, thus enhancing his own “legitimacy”, which in Chinese tradition is called the “Mandate of Heaven”. Ensuing public support has enabled him to purge potential rivals or dissenters.

At the 19th Congress, President Xi reiterated his “China Dream” to make the nation a “basically modernized nation” by 2035 and a “rich and powerful socialist nation” by 2050. The 21st century continental and maritime Silk Route, called the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), is the next step to achieve this. It is imagined as a Sino-centric network for trade and investments to rival, if not supplant, existing post-World War II architecture created by the West under US leadership.

The Xi-Trump summit thus assumes importance. China seeking “great power relationship” is nothing but a desire for the US to accept them as the only “other” in a bipolar engagement. Trump has frequently praised Xi in the past, even calling him “King of China”, perhaps in line with his penchant for authoritarian rulers, assuming he can flatter them for a shortcut to strategic compromise. Trump would seek China to compel DPRK to accept nuclear restraint, if not disarmament; balance bilateral trade; and end Chinese predatory trading practices and poaching of intellectual property. Xi will tactically yield some ground but is unlikely to kowtow fully.

Asian neighbors of China, concerned over Trump’s erratic and vacillating policy making, must devise alternative strategies, assuming Trump will, at best, henceforth, be an off-shore balancer. In a Pew Research Centre poll, only 24 per cent Japanese trust Trump compared to 78 per cent giving thumbs up to former President Barack Obama. PM Shinzo Abe is hewing a path by not allowing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to collapse, inviting 11 members, minus the US which quit, to a meeting before Trump’s visit. He has also resurrected and elevated to political level the 2007 meeting of Australia, India, Japan and the US, dubbed the Quad — a gathering of major regional democracies, expandable to include others later. As a swing power, India must use these emerging China-containing mechanisms as, indeed, alternative groupings, where China and India share space, for instance BRICS, etc.

Meanwhile, authoritarianism is spreading globally like a pandemic. Polls in India indicate a vast majority preferring a “strong” ruler. The play book is almost identical, despite differences in political and historical contexts. Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman in Saudi Arabia or President Xi in China or PM Modi in India use anti-corruption crusades to purge rivals, isolate opponents and bolster public image. Trump himself operates beyond the confines of own party and the Congress, sustained by social media. Nationalism becomes the handmaiden to suppress dissent and demoralize, or even silence media. Differences of power use or abuse are obliterated between authoritarian rulers straddling different political systems.

An Atlantic Council study predicts Indo-Pacific as globally the most economically dynamic region by 2050. With a fundamental power shift underway, the study concludes a “Trans-Pacific century” has already begun. China’s BRI, advances in Artificial Intelligence, Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank, renewal energy advances and rededication to futuristic industries is its path to growth and rapid power accrual. The BJP-led Modi government, meanwhile, expends energy on eliminating opposition and constant electioneering, implementing ambitious, but poorly conceived schemes like demonetization and now GST, corralling media, exulting in selective positive economic news and soaring stock market.

The bubble may be more than in share prices and reality has been known to prick it inopportunely. PM Modi has a narrowing window to close ranks domestically and realize his challenge is without, not within. Unless he self-corrects soon, like Rajiv Gandhi in 1984 when China under Deng Xiaoping had only a four-year head-start over India, his would be a wasted mandate.

(The author is a former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs)