English हिन्दी
Connect with us

Latest world news

Now Trump has blood on his hands

Published

on

POINT OF VIEW : A girl holds a sign that reads "We are Syria, Trump killer" during a protest against the US military strike against Syria, in front of the US Embassy in La Paz, Bolivia, Reuters/UNI

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The friendship with Putin is over for now as the US president makes a policy turnaround and bombs Syria, post the deadly chemical attack there by the Assad government

By Sujit Bhar

Those were the days when former US President, Peace Nobel Laureate Barack Obama, so badly wanted to bomb the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. He thought it would be a cool idea to help the ‘rebels’, who were sometimes closing in on and sometimes being bombed by Assad’s forces, by providing strategic air support. Of course, he never thought about boots on the ground.

He sent the planes soaring, and it was then that somebody drove a different type of sense into him: The banned militant group of Muslim Brotherhood had mingled with the rebels and was aiming to drive up Assad’s lawn. Helping the ‘rebels’ would also mean helping this banned group of extremists, giving rise to more problems for the Middle East, the US and for the world.

The fighter jets were ordered back.

Then, shocking the world, Donald Trump assumed the presidency of the US. A known Vladimir Putin admirer and Russia backer, Trump had courageously set his eyes away from Syria. “See no evil,” he said.

But good times never last. Assad had to go and use the deadly Sarin gas on his people, killing at least 85 in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4. Trump, of course, is educated on the evils of chemical weapons, and how even the children—at least two dozen of them—had to suffer immensely, till their bodies were paralysed and their diaphragms collapsed before they died. It was too much, even for Trump.

DASTARDLY ACT: Men gather near bodies, after a suspected gas attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in rebel-held Idlib, Syria, by government forces

DASTARDLY ACT: Men gather near bodies, after a suspected gas attack in the town of Khan Sheikhoun in rebel-held Idlib, Syria, by government forces

 

Sarin is a banned chemical agent and the world’s Sarin stores are being destroyed. Except Assad’s.

In a matter of 24 hours, Trump had made a 180-degree turn and ordered a missile strike against Assad. US destroyers USS Porter and USS Ross, stationed in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, fired 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, wreaking havoc within the Assad administration. That possibly indicated the end of the US’s hands-off policy in the region.

The Pentagon has reportedly said that the missiles targeted “aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defence systems, and radars” located at the al-Shayrat airbase in Syria. This was the first time since 2011, when the Syrian civil war began, has the US taken direct action.

The problem with firing missiles into any populated region is that it also delivers collateral damage, one reason why the US had the hands-off policy in the first place. Now a Syrian news agency reports that nine civilians, including four children, were killed in the strike. There is nobody to verify if those people were actually in the vicinity of al-Shayrat airbase during the strike. But bad news, even if it is fake, does travel fast.

US intelligence, according to reports, had believed that the al-Shayrat airbase was used to launch the chemical attacks. And Trump’s official response did little to dispel doubts of local tragedy. His statement, issued from his Mar-a-Lago holiday estate, said: “Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the airfield in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched. It is in the vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread of chemical weapons.”

That didn’t seem concomitant with general US foreign policy of “protecting” the weak around the world. While it was nearer Trump’s stated position of “protecting the interests of America”, what American interest in a distant airfield these strikes were protecting would be difficult to explain.

So why is Trump scared of assuming a position of strength, in admitting America’s “tradition” of spreading foreign policy throughout its administrations, including its defence and security establishments? Media reports points at his “narrow” thinking, which fails to realise a broader perspective and of greater good.

However, there could be another reason: Russia.

The Trump administration has been in jitters through its connections with Russia and America’s bogeyman Vladimir Putin, president of that Republic. Russia, Assad’s protector, has reacted angrily despite the Pentagon’s pre-strike information to Russia “using its established ‘deconfliction channel’”, as per reports in the media.

But Putin has come out and said the strike was “aggression against a sovereign state in violation of the norms of international law”. Tongue-in-cheek media reports have quoted Russian news agency Sputnik, which quoted Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov as saying that the Russian president thinks this strike was under a “trumped-up pretext”.

Two things emerge. First, Trump has to stick to his stance on Assad. It is understandable that he can well turn around tomorrow and call Assad a good boy. But he has to strike a balance between what he does and what he says, as well as with how he wants to treat Putin.

Secondly – and this can go to Trump’s advantage – Putin may cry himself hoarse over bombing a sovereign nation, but he cannot, in civil society, condone the use of Sarin gas on innocent civilians, especially children. That jeopardises his position around the world.

Technically, while Trump would be on a diplomatic high from these attacks – Democrats would find it hard to find fault in this, especially when Obama failed to take any proactive stance and action on Assad—he could also be pressured from his early view of Putin.

The Cold War seems to have been revived, albeit through a back door.

According to a Pew Research Center report of January this year, when people were asked how much confidence they had in Putin to do the right thing in world affairs, the general trend in Western Europe was an upward one. France was up at 20 percent positive, UK at 20 and Germany and Italy both at 31. These figures have risen sharply since 2016.

On the other hand a March Gallup poll found that Trump’s job approval rating had slumped to 37 percent. It said that 58 percent of Americans didn’t like his presidency.

Not that such polls really make any difference to overall world geopolitics, but if Trump has to take the Congress’ green light for further spending on defence production (he wants a $ 30 billion raise), he will have to play a bit of the game by their rules. Executive orders may try and ban entry into the country (even that the courts have not agreed to), but they surely do not fetch funding from the treasury.

So Trump finally has blood on his hands, and when the Putin towel isn’t around to wipe it on, he will have to learn to live with it. Diplomacy at the top level can’t always be about pontificating from Trump Towers.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Latest world news

PM Modi underlines deep Aus ties at Sydney show for NRIs, Indian Australians

Addressing a gathering of Australians of Indian origin and NRIs based in the country in Sydney, PM Modi recalled his first visit to Down Under and listed the many things that connected the two countries

Published

on

PM Modi underlines deep Aus ties at Sydney show for NRIs, Indian Australians

Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday said Australia and India have always shared common interests including keeping the Indo-Pacific a free, open and inclusive area.

Addressing a gathering of Australians of Indian origin and NRIs based in the country in Sydney, PM Modi recalled his first visit to Down Under and listed the many things that connected the two countries. He noted that India and Australia are keen cricketing nations and shared many more close links from MasterChef and yoga. PM Modi spoke about the sadness many cricket-loving Indians felt on the death of Australian spin wizard Shane Warne.

The PM noted that the Indo-Pacific region faces a number of challenges such as the security of sea lanes of communication, terrorism, climate change and piracy. He said these issues can be addressed through shared efforts.

He said that both he and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wanted to take their ties much closer. PM Modi said he was confident that he would Indo-Australian relations to the next level. There was large scope to identify new areas of complementing each other and increase cooperation between the two nations. This would also happen in closer defence and security ties to ensure open and free communication in Indo-Pacific.

He highlighted the fact that there was high degree of mutual trust between the two countries that had translated into increased co-operation on defence and security matters, which was already visible with the navies of the two countries participating in joint naval exercises.

He stated India’s position in the world as the force of global good. He said that India always had a helping hand whenever there was a disaster. He hailed India as the mother of democracy and as a bright spot for the world’s economy.

Prime Minister Modi and his Australian counterpart renamed the Sydney suburb ‘Little India’ during the mega community event at the Qudos Bank Arena  in Sydney Olympic Park. He also announced that a new consulate will be opened in Brisbane soon.

PM Modi was visiting Australia after nine years after 2014. The organisers of the Tuesday bash, the Indian Australian Diaspora Foundation (IADF), had anticipated a sizeable turnout and were not disappointed by the multitudes welcoming the PM. Special buses had been organized by Modi supporters from Brisbane and Canberra.

Indians comprise 2.8% of the Australian population, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

He also added that the the Indo-Pacific region faces a number of challenges such as security of  sea lanes of communication , terrorism, climate change and piracy. He said that these issues can be addressed through shared efforts. He also added that he could not be satisfied easily.

He said that Prime minister Albanese was same in this regard. He said he was confident that he would Indo-Australian relations to the next level. There was large scope to identify new areas of complementariness and increase cooperation between the two nations. PM Modi said he wants to take India’s relationship with the Australia to the next level which include closer defence and security ties to ensure open and free communication in Indo-Pacific. He highlighted the fact that there was high degree of mutual trust between the two countries that had translated into increased co-operation on defence and security matters.

As a result of which the navies of the two countries are participating in joint naval exercises.

Continue Reading

Latest Politics News

PM Narendra Modi hosts lunch in Papua New Guinea

The lunch, attended by the leaders attending the third India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC) Summit in Papua New Guinea , aimed to foster stronger ties. Dragon fruit, which is native to Central America but is now widely cultivated in various parts of the world, including Papua New Guinea, was the focal point of the menu.

Published

on

Lunch hosted by PM Narendra Modi during his visit to Papua New Guinea

During his official visit to Papua New Guinea, Prime Minister Narendra Modi hosted a special lunch where the star ingredient showcased the unique culinary heritage of the region. The lunch, held in Port Moresby, featured the exotic fruit, ‘pitaya’ or dragon fruit, as a prominent ingredient in the menu, highlighting the growing importance of international culinary exchanges and cultural diplomacy.

The lunch, was attended by the leaders attending the third India-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC) Summit in Papua New Guinea . Dragon fruit, which is native to Central America but is now widely cultivated in various parts of the world, including Papua New Guinea, was the focal point of the menu.

The menu showcased a range of dishes that incorporated the vibrant and flavorful dragon fruit. From refreshing salads to innovative desserts, each dish was meticulously prepared to highlight the fruit’s unique texture and taste. The inclusion of dragon fruit in the menu not only added a visual appeal but also symbolized the diversity and richness of the culinary traditions in both India and Papua New Guinea.

Prime Minister Modi, known for his emphasis on cultural diplomacy, acknowledged the importance of food as a powerful medium for strengthening bonds between nations. He highlighted the significance of showcasing the diverse cuisines and culinary traditions as a means to deepen understanding and appreciation of different cultures.

The inclusion of dragon fruit in the lunch menu also reflected the growing popularity of this exotic fruit in various global cuisines. Dragon fruit has gained recognition for its nutritional value, vibrant colour, and distinct flavour, making it a favourite ingredient among chefs and food enthusiasts. The special lunch hosted by Prime Minister Modi in Papua New Guinea served as a platform to celebrate the fusion of Indian and Papua New Guinean culinary traditions. It provided an opportunity for the dignitaries and officials to engage in cultural exchange and foster a deeper understanding of each other’s heritage.

Continue Reading

India News

Delhi High Court issues notice in BBC defamation case over PM documentary

The documentary, which was aired by the BBC early this year, examined the role of various individuals and organizations during the communal violence that shook Gujarat in 2002. It alleged that several politicians, including the petitioner, played a divisive role and incited violence during the riots.

Published

on

Delhi High Court summons BBC in defamation case over PM documentary

The Delhi High Court has issued notice in a defamation case related to the screening of the documentary on the 2002 Gujarat riots India: The Modi Question by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). The notice was issued in a petition filed by a Gujarat-based NGO which said the documentary portrayed the RSS, BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a defamatory and misleading manner.

The documentary, which was aired by the BBC early this year, examined the role of various individuals and organizations during the communal violence that shook Gujarat in 2002. It alleged that several politicians, including the petitioner, played a divisive role and incited violence during the riots. The documentary also claimed that the state government at the time turned a blind eye to the atrocities committed against religious minorities.

The petitioner contended that the documentary had damaged his reputation and was defamatory in nature. He argued that the content presented by the BBC was biased and aimed at tarnishing his image without providing a fair opportunity for him to present his side of the story. The petitioner sought damages and requested the court to direct the BBC to issue a public apology and withdraw the documentary.

Taking cognizance of the matter, the Delhi High Court has issued notice to the representatives from the BBC to appear before it and respond to the allegations of defamation. The court’s decision reflects its commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and ensuring that all parties involved have an opportunity to present their perspectives.

This case highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and protection against defamation. While the media plays a crucial role in bringing forth important issues and holding those in power accountable, it is also essential to ensure that individuals are not wrongly defamed or subjected to unfair portrayal.

The notice issued by the Delhi High Court to the BBC indicates that the court is taking the matter seriously and will examine the allegations of defamation made by the petitioner. It also sends a message that responsible journalism should be based on thorough research, unbiased reporting, and a fair representation of all viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending

-->

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com