Former US&nbsp;Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Monday anti-government protests in Hong Kong were "not an internal" Chinese matter and that the United States should offer at least moral support to the demonstrators.

The retired US&nbsp;Marine general, speaking at a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York, said the United States should generally side with those standing up for human rights, which he said included the Hong Kong protesters.

"When people stand up for those (rights), I just inherently think we ought to stand with them, even if it's just moral," said Mattis, who abruptly resigned as Pentagon chief in December over disagreements with President Donald Trump's foreign policy.

"This is not an internal matter," Mattis said in remarks likely to irritate Beijing, which has denounced the sometimes violent protests and accused the United States and Britain of fomenting unrest in the former British colony.

Trump has previously described the protests as riots but has also called on China to end the discord in a "humanitarian" way. He said a crackdown could make his efforts to end a damaging trade war with China "very hard."

Mattis said China's effort to pass a law to allow people in Hong Kong to be extradited to mainland China was in breach of the "one country, two systems" formula under which British control of Hong Kong was ended in 1997.

"They said it would be two systems, and the extradition law was a violation of that," said Mattis, who is promoting a new memoir about his role in the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although the extradition bill was withdrawn last week after months of unrest, the mass protests in streets and public places across Hong Kong continue, having grown into a broader pro-democracy backlash against the Chinese government.

Protesters marched outside the US&nbsp;consulate in Hong Kong over the weekend, urging Trump to help "liberate" the city. Hong Kong police fired tear gas to disperse the crowds.

"We have to be careful: We don't want to say we're going to land the 82nd Airborne Division in Hong Kong to do this," he said. "But morally? Yeah, I think we have to stand with them."

In his nearly two years as defence secretary, Mattis had tried to forge a relationship with the Chinese military, worried that tense relations between the two countries could boil over into conflict.

SURPRISED AT TALIBAN TALKS

Mattis resigned from Trump's administration a day after Trump's plans to withdraw US&nbsp;troops from Syria became public. His resignation letter was widely seen as a sharp critique of Trump's approach to national security, including what Mattis saw as a failure to value American allies around the world.

Although there had been speculation that Mattis might enter the political arena, he has since declined to share his views on Trump, saying it is inappropriate for military figures to pontificate on politics.

Mattis also said he was surprised by the news last weekend that Trump had invited Afghanistan's Taliban leaders for peace talks in the United States.

Trump said he cancelled the talks after the insurgent group claimed responsibility for an attack in Kabul that killed an American soldier and 11 other people.

"I salute people who try to bring wars to an end," Mattis said. The Taliban, however, had repeatedly failed to break with al Qaeda, the militant group behind September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, he said.

"The Taliban was offered: If you break with al Qaeda, we have no problem with you," Mattis said. "President (George W.) Bush offered that, President Obama offered that, President Trump has offered that, and they've declined. So yes, I was very surprised that we were at that point."

Asked on Monday whether he had confidence in Trump's leadership, he said only that he had "great confidence" in American voters and in the US Constitution.

"If we will employ our constitutional checks and balances correctly, this big experiment will continue," Mattis said.

Former US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Monday anti-government protests in Hong Kong were "not an internal" Chinese matter and that the United States should offer at least moral support to the demonstrators.

Former US Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said on Monday anti-government protests in Hong Kong were "not an internal" Chinese matter and that the United States should offer at least moral support to the demonstrators. The retired US Marine general, speaking at a Reuters Newsmaker event in New York, said the United States should generally side with those standing up for human rights, which he said included the Hong Kong protesters. "When people stand up for those (rights), I just inherently think we ought to stand with them, even if it's just moral," said Mattis, who abruptly resigned as Pentagon chief in December over disagreements with President Donald Trump's foreign policy. "This is not an internal matter," Mattis said in remarks likely to irritate Beijing, which has denounced the sometimes violent protests and accused the United States and Britain of fomenting unrest in the former British colony. Trump has previously described the protests as riots but has also called on China to end the discord in a "humanitarian" way. He said a crackdown could make his efforts to end a damaging trade war with China "very hard." Mattis said China's effort to pass a law to allow people in Hong Kong to be extradited to mainland China was in breach of the "one country, two systems" formula under which British control of Hong Kong was ended in 1997. "They said it would be two systems, and the extradition law was a violation of that," said Mattis, who is promoting a new memoir about his role in the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although the extradition bill was withdrawn last week after months of unrest, the mass protests in streets and public places across Hong Kong continue, having grown into a broader pro-democracy backlash against the Chinese government. Protesters marched outside the US consulate in Hong Kong over the weekend, urging Trump to help "liberate" the city. Hong Kong police fired tear gas to disperse the crowds. "We have to be careful: We don't want to say we're going to land the 82nd Airborne Division in Hong Kong to do this," he said. "But morally? Yeah, I think we have to stand with them." In his nearly two years as defence secretary, Mattis had tried to forge a relationship with the Chinese military, worried that tense relations between the two countries could boil over into conflict. SURPRISED AT TALIBAN TALKS Mattis resigned from Trump's administration a day after Trump's plans to withdraw US troops from Syria became public. His resignation letter was widely seen as a sharp critique of Trump's approach to national security, including what Mattis saw as a failure to value American allies around the world. Although there had been speculation that Mattis might enter the political arena, he has since declined to share his views on Trump, saying it is inappropriate for military figures to pontificate on politics. Mattis also said he was surprised by the news last weekend that Trump had invited Afghanistan's Taliban leaders for peace talks in the United States. Trump said he cancelled the talks after the insurgent group claimed responsibility for an attack in Kabul that killed an American soldier and 11 other people. "I salute people who try to bring wars to an end," Mattis said. The Taliban, however, had repeatedly failed to break with al Qaeda, the militant group behind September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, he said. "The Taliban was offered: If you break with al Qaeda, we have no problem with you," Mattis said. "President (George W.) Bush offered that, President Obama offered that, President Trump has offered that, and they've declined. So yes, I was very surprised that we were at that point." Asked on Monday whether he had confidence in Trump's leadership, he said only that he had "great confidence" in American voters and in the US Constitution. "If we will employ our constitutional checks and balances correctly, this big experiment will continue," Mattis said.

US should side with Hong Kong protesters, says ex-Pentagon chief Mattis

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-economic-crisis-countrys-debts-liabilities-exceed-the-size-of-its-gdp-245554">Pakistan</a> on Thursday carried out night training launch of&nbsp;surface to surface ballistic missile Ghaznavi in Balochistan.

The director-general of Pakistan military operations tweeted out a video of the missile test which was carried out at night.

The missile has a reported distance capability of 290 kilometres.It can deliver multiple types of warheads.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Pakistan successfully carried out night training launch of surface to surface ballistic missile Ghaznavi, capable of delivering multiple types of warheads upto 290 KMs. CJCSC &amp; Services Chiefs congrat team. President &amp; PM conveyed appreciation to team &amp; congrats to the nation. <a href="https://t.co/hmoUKRPWev">pic.twitter.com/hmoUKRPWev</a>
— DG ISPR (@OfficialDGISPR) <a href="https://twitter.com/OfficialDGISPR/status/1166955085924130816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 29, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

These tests are a last-ditch effort by Pakistan to try and internationalise Jammu and Kashmir — something it has failed to do multiple times over the last few weeks.

Pakistan has closed its airspace form August 28 to August 31, and now it seems clear as to why this decision was taken.

The airspace closure was probably in light of the reported missile tests.

Pakistan had issued a notice to airmen that the Sonmiani base in Balochistan has been activated and all ships were asked to steer clear due to an incoming missile.

Reports indicate that Pakistan had informed India about the missile tests on August 26, keeping with the confidence-building measures adopted between the two countries in 2005.

According to the agreement, both countries are supposed to inform each other about missile tests three days before the actual testing.But, the Indian government seems unperturbed by the possible missile tests.

The tests have reportedly been attributed to the huge pressure on Imran Khan from anti-India elements within his country to take some sort of action.So the missile tests are nothing but a continuation of the Pakistan government's false call for help.

Pakistan on Thursday carried out night training launch of surface to surface ballistic missile Ghaznavi in Balochistan. The director-general of Pakistan military operations tweeted out a video of the missile test which was carried out at night.

Pakistan on Thursday carried out night training launch of surface to surface ballistic missile Ghaznavi in Balochistan. The director-general of Pakistan military operations tweeted out a video of the missile test which was carried out at night. The missile has a reported distance capability of 290 kilometres.It can deliver multiple types of warheads. Pakistan successfully carried out night training launch of surface to surface ballistic missile Ghaznavi, capable of delivering multiple types of warheads upto 290 KMs. CJCSC & Services Chiefs congrat team. President & PM conveyed appreciation to team & congrats to the nation. pic.twitter.com/hmoUKRPWev — DG ISPR (@OfficialDGISPR) August 29, 2019 × These tests are a last-ditch effort by Pakistan to try and internationalise Jammu and Kashmir — something it has failed to do multiple times over the last few weeks. Pakistan has closed its airspace form August 28 to August 31, and now it seems clear as to why this decision was taken. The airspace closure was probably in light of the reported missile tests. Pakistan had issued a notice to airmen that the Sonmiani base in Balochistan has been activated and all ships were asked to steer clear due to an incoming missile. Reports indicate that Pakistan had informed India about the missile tests on August 26, keeping with the confidence-building measures adopted between the two countries in 2005. According to the agreement, both countries are supposed to inform each other about missile tests three days before the actual testing.But, the Indian government seems unperturbed by the possible missile tests. The tests have reportedly been attributed to the huge pressure on Imran Khan from anti-India elements within his country to take some sort of action.So the missile tests are nothing but a continuation of the Pakistan government's false call for help.

After failure at diplomatic front, Pakistan test-fires Ghaznavi missile

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-economic-crisis-countrys-debts-liabilities-exceed-the-size-of-its-gdp-245554">Imran Khan</a> is on a desperate mission to draw international attention to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/imran-khan-saudi-crown-prince-discuss-kashmir-issue-third-time-246030">Kashmir,</a> and to satisfy the jihadi elements within his own country.

After failed diplomatic efforts, threats of nuclear war Pakistan is reportedly going to test its Ghaznavi surface-to-surface missile from a flight test range in Balochistan.

The test will be tracked at the national development complex ground control station in Sindh.

These tests are a last-ditch effort from Pakistan to try and internationalise Kashmir — something it has failed to do multiple times over the last few weeks.

Now Pakistan had closed its airspace for the period from August twenty-eight to August thirty-first, and now it seems clear as to why this decision was taken.

The airspace closure was probably in light of the reported missile tests.

Pakistan had issued a notice to airmen that the Sonmiani base in Balochistan has been activated and all ships were asked to steer clear due to an incoming missile.

Reports also indicate that Pakistan had informed India about the missile tests on August twenty-sixth, keeping with the confidence-building measures adopted between the two countries in 2005.

According to the agreement, both countries are supposed to inform each other about missile tests, three days before the actual testing.

The Indian government, however, seems unperturbed by the possible missile tests.

The tests have reportedly been attributed to the huge pressure on Imran Khan from anti-India elements within his country to take some sort of action.

So the missile tests are nothing but a continuation of the Pakistan government's false call for help.

Imran Khan is on a desperate mission to draw international attention to Kashmir, and to satisfy the jihadi elements within his own country. After failed diplomatic efforts, threats of nuclear war Pakistan is reportedly going to test its Ghaznavi surface-to-surface missile from a flight test range in Balochistan.

Imran Khan is on a desperate mission to draw international attention to Kashmir, and to satisfy the jihadi elements within his own country. After failed diplomatic efforts, threats of nuclear war Pakistan is reportedly going to test its Ghaznavi surface-to-surface missile from a flight test range in Balochistan. The test will be tracked at the national development complex ground control station in Sindh. These tests are a last-ditch effort from Pakistan to try and internationalise Kashmir — something it has failed to do multiple times over the last few weeks. Now Pakistan had closed its airspace for the period from August twenty-eight to August thirty-first, and now it seems clear as to why this decision was taken. The airspace closure was probably in light of the reported missile tests. Pakistan had issued a notice to airmen that the Sonmiani base in Balochistan has been activated and all ships were asked to steer clear due to an incoming missile. Reports also indicate that Pakistan had informed India about the missile tests on August twenty-sixth, keeping with the confidence-building measures adopted between the two countries in 2005. According to the agreement, both countries are supposed to inform each other about missile tests, three days before the actual testing. The Indian government, however, seems unperturbed by the possible missile tests. The tests have reportedly been attributed to the huge pressure on Imran Khan from anti-India elements within his country to take some sort of action. So the missile tests are nothing but a continuation of the Pakistan government's false call for help.

After failed diplomatic efforts and nuke threats Pakistan to test ballistic missile

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has admitted to the failure of his country's stance on Kashmir and its diplomacy, stated <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/pakistan-turns-into-nightmare-for-minorities-nadeem-nusrat-159052">Voice of Karachi (VoK) Chairman Nadeem Nusrat</a> on Monday.

"Imran Khan is not more than a puppet of Pakistan's military establishment who talks at the behest of his masters in GHQ (Pakistan Army Headquarter). Pakistani premier admits that Pakistan has been isolated at the international stage by saying that if some of the Muslim countries are not with us (Pakistan) today due to economic or other reasons, they will be with us in the future," Nusrat said in a press statement.

The Voice of Karachi Chairman further said that Kashmir has been at the forefront of Pakistan's foreign policy since its inception.

"The military establishment of Pakistan and its notorious intelligence agency ISI spent billions of rupees from the national exchequer to create militant organisations, Kashmir committees, and Kashmir Desks in their embassies in the name of Kashmir's freedom struggle. The failed domestic and foreign policies of Pakistan headed by the military establishment have turned the country into a chaos-like situation," he said.

Nusrat categorically rejected Imran Khan`s claim that it was his government's policy to have peaceful relations with other countries, including India and Afghanistan.

He said that the reality is that the terror outfits involved in deadly attacks in Afghanistan and India are enjoying impunity under the present government of Imran Khan.

&nbsp;"The sincerity of Pakistan to have peace with its neighbours can be measured with no change seen in using terror as a tool of its foreign policy and strategic depth in the region," he added.

The Mohajir leader outlined the plight of the minorities in Pakistan including the Mohajirs, Baloch, Pashtun and people of Gilgit Baltistan.

The VoK chairman added that Islamabad has been "violating the basic rights of its ethnic and religious minorities, the superior judiciary has become the tool of military establishment and violation of the constitution by Army generals is a normal routine in the country.

"There are over a hundred million Mohajirs, Balochs, Pashtuns and other ethnic entities who are facing near-genocide at the hands of Pakistani security forces whose majority hails from the country`s Punjab Province only," the statement said.

The VoK leader claimed that both Karachi and Mohajirs have been deprived of even the fundamental rights by successive civilian and military governments.

"Pakistan has also systematically disenfranchised Karachi's population through blatant gerrymandering and manipulation in census figures, leaving Karachi with negligible presence in the national and provincial legislatures," he said.

"Those who stand up to this inhuman treatment become the victim of unlawful arrests, brutal torture in custody, enforced disappearances, and even extrajudicial executions. Pakistan's Punjabi-dominated security forces have extrajudicially killed over 25,000 Mohajirs since 1992 in Karachi and other Mohajir-majority cities in Pakistan`s Sindh Province," the statement also said.

The horrific state of human rights in Pakistan's largest and most resourceful province, Balochistan, is another source of concern where ethnic Balochs have been demanding greater control over their province`s land and resources.

"The state authorities have responded to this demand by carrying out a brutal military operation that very often uses American-supplied F-16 jet fighters. As per accounts of some local Baloch human rights organizations, Pakistani security forces have killed tens of thousands of Balochs in the last few years, and even more, have become the victim of enforced disappearances," the statement said.

"Another sensitive geostrategic region in South Asia is Pakistan`s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province which shares around 1,500 miles-long border with Afghanistan. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistani military establishment has turned the KP province into a haven for almost every extremist Islamist group in the world. Pakistani intelligence officials and religious clerics have recruited and trained hundreds of thousands of young Pashtuns from this impoverished region in the last few decades and shipped them to wage jihad in almost every part of the world. The Taliban was also conceived in a religious seminary in KP," the statement pointed out.

The KP Province has been facing a brutal military crackdown for years, which has left millions of people displaced, Nusrat added.

&nbsp;Those indigenous secular forces who have dared to stand up to Pakistan's Punjabi-dominated military are facing unlawful imprisonment, false charges, and enforced disappearances, he said.

The disputed territories of Gilgit and Baltistan are facing similar levels of persecution where the Pakistani military officials are trying to change the demography by turning the indigenous population into a minority.

Those standing up to this tyranny face enforced disappearances or unlawful imprisonment," the statement said.

"Siege and search operations, unlawful arrests, denial of the universal right of due process, curb on media, freedom of expression and association, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial executions are a routine in Karachi, Balochistan, KP, and Gilgit-Baltistan. Persistent denial of human rights in all these territories is brewing a profound sense of deprivation which could turn into a serious law and order crisis," the statement also read.

"The world must ask every Pakistani leader raising Kashmir issue: Is Pakistan willing to stop its state-sponsored terrorism against non-Punjabi ethnic groups and grant them greater autonomy? Until Pakistan treats its own religious and ethnic entities with dignity and rights they ethically and lawfully deserve, it has no moral ground to plead the Kashmir issue anywhere in the world," the VoK chairman reiterated.

The Mohajir leader further said that the world community must take serious notice of the continuous threats of nuclear war coming from Pakistan's civilian and military leadership.

The immature statements and warmongering would further escalate the tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

He said that both India and Pakistan should start the dialogue process without any delay to resolve all the outstanding issues between the two countries.

"Kashmir, however, is not the only burning issue in the region. Without resolving the longstanding grievances non-Punjabi ethnic groups are facing in Pakistan, peace, and stability will remain an elusive goal in South Asia," Nusrat said.&nbsp;

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has admitted to the failure of his country's stance on Kashmir and its diplomacy, stated Voice of Karachi (VoK) Chairman Nadeem Nusrat on Monday.

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has admitted to the failure of his country's stance on Kashmir and its diplomacy, stated Voice of Karachi (VoK) Chairman Nadeem Nusrat on Monday. "Imran Khan is not more than a puppet of Pakistan's military establishment who talks at the behest of his masters in GHQ (Pakistan Army Headquarter). Pakistani premier admits that Pakistan has been isolated at the international stage by saying that if some of the Muslim countries are not with us (Pakistan) today due to economic or other reasons, they will be with us in the future," Nusrat said in a press statement. The Voice of Karachi Chairman further said that Kashmir has been at the forefront of Pakistan's foreign policy since its inception. "The military establishment of Pakistan and its notorious intelligence agency ISI spent billions of rupees from the national exchequer to create militant organisations, Kashmir committees, and Kashmir Desks in their embassies in the name of Kashmir's freedom struggle. The failed domestic and foreign policies of Pakistan headed by the military establishment have turned the country into a chaos-like situation," he said. Nusrat categorically rejected Imran Khan`s claim that it was his government's policy to have peaceful relations with other countries, including India and Afghanistan. He said that the reality is that the terror outfits involved in deadly attacks in Afghanistan and India are enjoying impunity under the present government of Imran Khan. "The sincerity of Pakistan to have peace with its neighbours can be measured with no change seen in using terror as a tool of its foreign policy and strategic depth in the region," he added. The Mohajir leader outlined the plight of the minorities in Pakistan including the Mohajirs, Baloch, Pashtun and people of Gilgit Baltistan. The VoK chairman added that Islamabad has been "violating the basic rights of its ethnic and religious minorities, the superior judiciary has become the tool of military establishment and violation of the constitution by Army generals is a normal routine in the country. "There are over a hundred million Mohajirs, Balochs, Pashtuns and other ethnic entities who are facing near-genocide at the hands of Pakistani security forces whose majority hails from the country`s Punjab Province only," the statement said. The VoK leader claimed that both Karachi and Mohajirs have been deprived of even the fundamental rights by successive civilian and military governments. "Pakistan has also systematically disenfranchised Karachi's population through blatant gerrymandering and manipulation in census figures, leaving Karachi with negligible presence in the national and provincial legislatures," he said. "Those who stand up to this inhuman treatment become the victim of unlawful arrests, brutal torture in custody, enforced disappearances, and even extrajudicial executions. Pakistan's Punjabi-dominated security forces have extrajudicially killed over 25,000 Mohajirs since 1992 in Karachi and other Mohajir-majority cities in Pakistan`s Sindh Province," the statement also said. The horrific state of human rights in Pakistan's largest and most resourceful province, Balochistan, is another source of concern where ethnic Balochs have been demanding greater control over their province`s land and resources. "The state authorities have responded to this demand by carrying out a brutal military operation that very often uses American-supplied F-16 jet fighters. As per accounts of some local Baloch human rights organizations, Pakistani security forces have killed tens of thousands of Balochs in the last few years, and even more, have become the victim of enforced disappearances," the statement said. "Another sensitive geostrategic region in South Asia is Pakistan`s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province which shares around 1,500 miles-long border with Afghanistan. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Pakistani military establishment has turned the KP province into a haven for almost every extremist Islamist group in the world. Pakistani intelligence officials and religious clerics have recruited and trained hundreds of thousands of young Pashtuns from this impoverished region in the last few decades and shipped them to wage jihad in almost every part of the world. The Taliban was also conceived in a religious seminary in KP," the statement pointed out. The KP Province has been facing a brutal military crackdown for years, which has left millions of people displaced, Nusrat added. Those indigenous secular forces who have dared to stand up to Pakistan's Punjabi-dominated military are facing unlawful imprisonment, false charges, and enforced disappearances, he said. The disputed territories of Gilgit and Baltistan are facing similar levels of persecution where the Pakistani military officials are trying to change the demography by turning the indigenous population into a minority. Those standing up to this tyranny face enforced disappearances or unlawful imprisonment," the statement said. "Siege and search operations, unlawful arrests, denial of the universal right of due process, curb on media, freedom of expression and association, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial executions are a routine in Karachi, Balochistan, KP, and Gilgit-Baltistan. Persistent denial of human rights in all these territories is brewing a profound sense of deprivation which could turn into a serious law and order crisis," the statement also read. "The world must ask every Pakistani leader raising Kashmir issue: Is Pakistan willing to stop its state-sponsored terrorism against non-Punjabi ethnic groups and grant them greater autonomy? Until Pakistan treats its own religious and ethnic entities with dignity and rights they ethically and lawfully deserve, it has no moral ground to plead the Kashmir issue anywhere in the world," the VoK chairman reiterated. The Mohajir leader further said that the world community must take serious notice of the continuous threats of nuclear war coming from Pakistan's civilian and military leadership. The immature statements and warmongering would further escalate the tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. He said that both India and Pakistan should start the dialogue process without any delay to resolve all the outstanding issues between the two countries. "Kashmir, however, is not the only burning issue in the region. Without resolving the longstanding grievances non-Punjabi ethnic groups are facing in Pakistan, peace, and stability will remain an elusive goal in South Asia," Nusrat said.

Pakistan isolation on Kashmir a huge setback to its foreign policy: Nadeem Nusrat

Sri Lanka's parliament has blocked a visiting UN human rights expert from meeting with judges hearing war crimes cases, citing fears of foreign interference in the judicial system.

Clement Voule, an envoy of the United Nations Human Rights Council, travelled to the South Asian nation to discuss civil rights protections in Sri Lanka.

But opposition leader Mahinda Rajapakse told parliament on Tuesday that Voule's plans to meet with senior judges overseeing cases concerning military excesses during the former strongman's tenure amounted to foreign interference.

On Wednesday parliament speaker Karu Jayasuriya said he had "intervened and stopped the meeting".

"I thank the opposition for bringing this to my notice, I have taken timely action," Jayasuriya added.

Sri Lanka faced international censure for its human rights record under Rajapakse, who was toppled in January 2015 elections.

Forces under his command were accused of killing up to 40,000 Tamil civilians in the final months of the island's 37-year war against Tamil separatists that ended in May 2009.

Rajapakse's administration resisted global pressure to examine allegations of major human rights violations during his tenure. His successor President Maithripala Sirisena came to power on a pledge to investigate wartime atrocities but has refused calls for an international probe.

UN expert Voule has so far met Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya in the presence of foreign ministry officials. He is due to leave Sri Lanka on Friday.

Sri Lanka's parliament has blocked a visiting UN human rights expert from meeting with judges hearing war crimes cases, citing fears of foreign interference in the judicial system.

Sri Lanka's parliament has blocked a visiting UN human rights expert from meeting with judges hearing war crimes cases, citing fears of foreign interference in the judicial system. Clement Voule, an envoy of the United Nations Human Rights Council, travelled to the South Asian nation to discuss civil rights protections in Sri Lanka. But opposition leader Mahinda Rajapakse told parliament on Tuesday that Voule's plans to meet with senior judges overseeing cases concerning military excesses during the former strongman's tenure amounted to foreign interference. On Wednesday parliament speaker Karu Jayasuriya said he had "intervened and stopped the meeting". "I thank the opposition for bringing this to my notice, I have taken timely action," Jayasuriya added. Sri Lanka faced international censure for its human rights record under Rajapakse, who was toppled in January 2015 elections. Forces under his command were accused of killing up to 40,000 Tamil civilians in the final months of the island's 37-year war against Tamil separatists that ended in May 2009. Rajapakse's administration resisted global pressure to examine allegations of major human rights violations during his tenure. His successor President Maithripala Sirisena came to power on a pledge to investigate wartime atrocities but has refused calls for an international probe. UN expert Voule has so far met Chief Justice Jayantha Jayasuriya in the presence of foreign ministry officials. He is due to leave Sri Lanka on Friday.

Fearing foreign interference, Sri Lanka blocks UN meeting with judges 

In The Trump Universe, Policies Are Made On A Daily Basis. Has Trump's Style Of Working Left US Government Exposed? A Policy A Day Over Twitter Is Not How Most World Leaders Function. But Then US President Trump Is Not Any World Leader. His Tenure Has Been Shrouded With Overlooking Advisors, Changing Foreign Policy Decisions At A Drop Of A Hat And Being Distrustful Of Allies And Global Forums. Has Trump Left The U.s. Government Handicapped? Is There A Method To The Madness? Here's A Report

Gravitas: Trump's Foreign Policy Full Of Contradictions?

WION Exclusively in conversation with Sameer Patil; Fellow, Gateway House

US politicians and international allies scrambled Friday to make sense of President Donald Trump's momentous foreign<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/us-backed-forces-expel-is-from-east-syria-hub-184123"> policy decisions for Syria </a>and Afghanistan — epic reversals that prompted Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to quit.

Trump's historic moves to pull out of<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/syria-calls-us-french-turkish-forces-withdraw-immediately-168468"> Syria </a>and slash troop numbers in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/south-asia/us-troops-withdrawal-will-not-have-security-impact-on-afghanistan-presidential-spokesman-185677">Afghanistan </a>run counter to years of US doctrine in the region and set the stage for a cascading series of events that could well result in more bloodshed across a scarred region.

While many Americans —and not just his supporters — lauded Trump's decision, fed up after years of costly and spiralling conflicts, politicians of every stripe were tripping over each other to voice their condemnation.

"Reducing the American presence in Afghanistan and removing our presence in Syria will reverse... progress, encourage our adversaries, and make America less safe," said Republican Congressman Mac Thornberry, a Trump ally who heads the House Armed Services Committee.

In the Pentagon, no one seemed to know what comes next.&nbsp;

"We are referring all questions to the White House," one spokeswoman said when asked about the momentous Afghanistan withdrawal.

Mattis, who was seen as a voice of moderation and widely trusted by allies, resigned Thursday after telling Trump he could not abide the Syria decision.

It leaves vulnerable to Turkish attack thousands of Kurdish fighters the Pentagon has spent years training and arming to fight the Islamic State group.

'No surprise'&nbsp;

In Afghanistan, the Taliban welcomed Trump's partial pull out, with a spokesman saying the group was "more than happy."

Bill Roggio, an Afghanistan expert and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told AFP the Trump administration's Middle East policy is in disarray.&nbsp;

"I do not know what its policy is, specifically with respect to what was known as the War on Terror," he said.&nbsp;

"Until Trump articulates a policy, it appears isolationism has won the day."

Trump campaigned on a pledge of "America First" and vowed to limit US engagement overseas, so his action on Afghanistan and Syria aren't bolted from the blue, and many observers were pleased with his actions.&nbsp;

Just weeks before Mattis announced a surge of troops in Afghanistan in August 2017, polls showed Americans were weary of war and lacked confidence that Washington had any winning strategy.

A Morning Consult-Politico poll at the time showed only 23 per cent of people thought the US was "winning" in Afghanistan; 38 per cent thought it was "losing."

"Trump ran on a platform of non-intervention, 'no more stupid wars,' and promised to get out of the nation-building business," Daniel Davis, a retired army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow at the Defense Priorities military think tank, told AFP.

"That, in general terms, is his policy, which is fundamentally sound."

In March, Trump said he wanted to bring troops home "soon" from Syria and last year, when he agreed to boost the US troop presence in Afghanistan, he said he was doing so against his own instincts.

"Getting out of Syria was no surprise," Trump tweeted on Thursday.&nbsp;

"I've been campaigning on it for years, and six months ago, when I very publicly wanted to do it, I agreed to stay longer," he added, noting that it was "time to come home" and "time for others to finally fight."

'Strategic mistake'&nbsp;

Trump claims IS has been defeated territorially in Syria, even though thousands of fighters remain and still hold small pockets of land.

His withdrawal from Syria abruptly ends American influence in the war-ravaged country and gives the Turks an opening to attack US-backed Kurds.&nbsp;

Trump reportedly made the decision during a phone call last week with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

By ceding Syria, Trump is also yanking a keystone of his own administration's foreign policy: to push back against Iran, which supports President Bashar al-Assad and is seeking to expand regional influence.

"This is a huge strategic mistake that I hope the president will reconsider," Jack Keane, a retired general, told Fox News.

"If he does not, I believe with some degree of confidence that he will come to regret this decision."

Keane has been one of the names in the Washington rumour mill to replace Mattis.&nbsp;

He went on to warn that Trump was repeating the "mistakes" of President Barack Obama, who for years drew withering criticism from Republicans for pulling US troops out of Iraq, only to see the emergence of IS.

Trump's withdrawal orders, meanwhile, rattled Europe.&nbsp;

French Defense Minister Florence Parly said there was still "has a job to finish" in Syria and called on the US to discuss its withdrawal with other members of a coalition fighting IS.&nbsp;

Britain's junior defence minister Tobias Ellwood had contradicted Trump on Wednesday, retweeting his message that the jihadists had been defeated in Syria with the words: "I strongly disagree.

"It has morphed into other forms of extremism and the threat is very much alive," he wrote.

US politicians and international allies scrambled Friday to make sense of President Donald Trump's momentous foreign policy decisions for Syria and Afghanistan — epic reversals that prompted Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to quit.

US politicians and international allies scrambled Friday to make sense of President Donald Trump's momentous foreign policy decisions for Syria and Afghanistan — epic reversals that prompted Defense Secretary Jim Mattis to quit. Trump's historic moves to pull out of Syria and slash troop numbers in Afghanistan run counter to years of US doctrine in the region and set the stage for a cascading series of events that could well result in more bloodshed across a scarred region. While many Americans —and not just his supporters — lauded Trump's decision, fed up after years of costly and spiralling conflicts, politicians of every stripe were tripping over each other to voice their condemnation. "Reducing the American presence in Afghanistan and removing our presence in Syria will reverse... progress, encourage our adversaries, and make America less safe," said Republican Congressman Mac Thornberry, a Trump ally who heads the House Armed Services Committee. In the Pentagon, no one seemed to know what comes next. "We are referring all questions to the White House," one spokeswoman said when asked about the momentous Afghanistan withdrawal. Mattis, who was seen as a voice of moderation and widely trusted by allies, resigned Thursday after telling Trump he could not abide the Syria decision. It leaves vulnerable to Turkish attack thousands of Kurdish fighters the Pentagon has spent years training and arming to fight the Islamic State group. 'No surprise' In Afghanistan, the Taliban welcomed Trump's partial pull out, with a spokesman saying the group was "more than happy." Bill Roggio, an Afghanistan expert and senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told AFP the Trump administration's Middle East policy is in disarray. "I do not know what its policy is, specifically with respect to what was known as the War on Terror," he said. "Until Trump articulates a policy, it appears isolationism has won the day." Trump campaigned on a pledge of "America First" and vowed to limit US engagement overseas, so his action on Afghanistan and Syria aren't bolted from the blue, and many observers were pleased with his actions. Just weeks before Mattis announced a surge of troops in Afghanistan in August 2017, polls showed Americans were weary of war and lacked confidence that Washington had any winning strategy. A Morning Consult-Politico poll at the time showed only 23 per cent of people thought the US was "winning" in Afghanistan; 38 per cent thought it was "losing." "Trump ran on a platform of non-intervention, 'no more stupid wars,' and promised to get out of the nation-building business," Daniel Davis, a retired army lieutenant colonel and senior fellow at the Defense Priorities military think tank, told AFP. "That, in general terms, is his policy, which is fundamentally sound." In March, Trump said he wanted to bring troops home "soon" from Syria and last year, when he agreed to boost the US troop presence in Afghanistan, he said he was doing so against his own instincts. "Getting out of Syria was no surprise," Trump tweeted on Thursday. "I've been campaigning on it for years, and six months ago, when I very publicly wanted to do it, I agreed to stay longer," he added, noting that it was "time to come home" and "time for others to finally fight." 'Strategic mistake' Trump claims IS has been defeated territorially in Syria, even though thousands of fighters remain and still hold small pockets of land. His withdrawal from Syria abruptly ends American influence in the war-ravaged country and gives the Turks an opening to attack US-backed Kurds. Trump reportedly made the decision during a phone call last week with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. By ceding Syria, Trump is also yanking a keystone of his own administration's foreign policy: to push back against Iran, which supports President Bashar al-Assad and is seeking to expand regional influence. "This is a huge strategic mistake that I hope the president will reconsider," Jack Keane, a retired general, told Fox News. "If he does not, I believe with some degree of confidence that he will come to regret this decision." Keane has been one of the names in the Washington rumour mill to replace Mattis. He went on to warn that Trump was repeating the "mistakes" of President Barack Obama, who for years drew withering criticism from Republicans for pulling US troops out of Iraq, only to see the emergence of IS. Trump's withdrawal orders, meanwhile, rattled Europe. French Defense Minister Florence Parly said there was still "has a job to finish" in Syria and called on the US to discuss its withdrawal with other members of a coalition fighting IS. Britain's junior defence minister Tobias Ellwood had contradicted Trump on Wednesday, retweeting his message that the jihadists had been defeated in Syria with the words: "I strongly disagree. "It has morphed into other forms of extremism and the threat is very much alive," he wrote.

Trump's foreign policy in spotlight after military withdrawals

In the first-ever Interaction between Bhutanese Prime Minister Lotay Tshering and New Delhi, Tshering has expressed his appreciation to Prime Minister Modi for the telephonic call to felicitate him on election victory and said that he is committed to strengthening the special bond of friendship and cooperation shared by the two countries.&nbsp;

India's Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale was on a visit to Bhutan from 18th to November 20. This was the first ever high-level govt visit from India to Bhutan ever since the new govt took charge.&nbsp;

The Bhutanese PM told FS Gokhale that, “Our foreign policy should not change every five years with a change in government".

According to Ministry of the external affairs press release, the Foreign Secretary conveyed that "India attaches the highest priority to further expanding its unique ties of friendship and cooperation with Bhutan, based on the priorities of the Royal Government of Bhutan." The two sides discussed all aspects of bilateral relations, including high-level exchanges, economic and development co-operation, hydro-power co-operation and people to people ties. &nbsp;

Lotay Tshering became the new PM of Bhutan on 7th November. This year both the countries are marking the Golden Jubilee year of establishing diplomatic ties and several commemorative activities are being jointly organized.&nbsp;

Foreign Secretary also called on foreign Minister Lyonpo Dr Tandi Dorji and met Foreign Secretary of Bhutan Ambassador Sonam Tshong. He had an audience with the King of Bhutan Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck His Majesty Jigme &amp; &nbsp;the Fourth King of Bhutan Singye Wangchuck.

Bhutan's Doklam area was the centre of a tiff between China and India in 2017 after Chinese forces sought to occupy the area by building a road. During the standoff, Bhutan had conveyed to the Chinese side that the construction of the road inside Bhutanese territory is a direct violation of the agreements and affects the process of demarcating the boundary between both the neighbours.

Though both New Delhi and Bejing finally managed to cool of the tensions, it is a precarious peace.

In the first-ever Interaction between Bhutanese Prime Minister Lotay Tshering and New Delhi, Tshering has expressed his appreciation to Prime Minister Modi for the telephonic call to felicitate him on election victory and said that he is committed to strengthening the special bond of friendship and cooperation shared by the two countries.

In the first-ever Interaction between Bhutanese Prime Minister Lotay Tshering and New Delhi, Tshering has expressed his appreciation to Prime Minister Modi for the telephonic call to felicitate him on election victory and said that he is committed to strengthening the special bond of friendship and cooperation shared by the two countries. India's Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale was on a visit to Bhutan from 18th to November 20. This was the first ever high-level govt visit from India to Bhutan ever since the new govt took charge. The Bhutanese PM told FS Gokhale that, “Our foreign policy should not change every five years with a change in government". According to Ministry of the external affairs press release, the Foreign Secretary conveyed that "India attaches the highest priority to further expanding its unique ties of friendship and cooperation with Bhutan, based on the priorities of the Royal Government of Bhutan." The two sides discussed all aspects of bilateral relations, including high-level exchanges, economic and development co-operation, hydro-power co-operation and people to people ties. Lotay Tshering became the new PM of Bhutan on 7th November. This year both the countries are marking the Golden Jubilee year of establishing diplomatic ties and several commemorative activities are being jointly organized. Foreign Secretary also called on foreign Minister Lyonpo Dr Tandi Dorji and met Foreign Secretary of Bhutan Ambassador Sonam Tshong. He had an audience with the King of Bhutan Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck His Majesty Jigme & the Fourth King of Bhutan Singye Wangchuck. Bhutan's Doklam area was the centre of a tiff between China and India in 2017 after Chinese forces sought to occupy the area by building a road. During the standoff, Bhutan had conveyed to the Chinese side that the construction of the road inside Bhutanese territory is a direct violation of the agreements and affects the process of demarcating the boundary between both the neighbours. Though both New Delhi and Bejing finally managed to cool of the tensions, it is a precarious peace.

Our foreign policy should not change every five years with change in government: Bhutan PM to India

India has expressed regret that the work of the Human Rights Council is getting more contentious and difficult, as it voiced concern over instances of politicisation of human rights as a foreign policy tool.

India's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Tanmaya Lal mentioned that though the Human Rights Council continues to expand with growing number of resolutions and decisions, greater frequency of meetings and special sessions, the effectiveness of its work is, however, not always clear.

"While a very comprehensive normative framework of human rights treaties and Covenants has evolved, the work of the Human Rights Council and its associated procedures and mandates is, regrettably, getting more contentious and difficult," Lal said at the UN General Assembly session on Report of the Human Rights Council Friday.

He said more broadly, the global situation today is a troubled one, with growing concerns about the multiple challenges posed to the spirit of multilateralism due to ineffectiveness of the global governance mechanisms to find commonly acceptable solutions.

"The reasons for many of the difficulties surrounding the discussions on the human rights agenda are not hard to find. They flow from the often very divergent priorities and concerns of member states in terms of their levels of development, social and cultural contexts and governance systems," he said.

Lal noted that while the global discourse on human rights continues to evolve, fundamental contradictions remain. The relative prioritisation of the individual versus State, national sovereignty versus international norms and universal versus culture-specific approach, all evoke differing opinions.

"Constraints on national capacities to implement certain rights, instances of politicisation of human rights as a foreign policy tool, and perceived intrusiveness beyond mandated activities remain areas of concern," he said.

He further said while the work of the Human Rights Council continues to expand with growing number of resolutions and decisions, greater frequency of meetings and special sessions, the effectiveness of its work is, however, not always clear.&nbsp;

"There is also a proliferation of special procedures both on thematic and country-specific situations. Their effectiveness is also constrained by lack of, and opacity of funding, lack of a balanced representation in staffing, mistrust on some of them clearly exceeding their mandates and politicising their approach. Country-specific procedures have largely been counter-productive," he said.

"Instances of such mechanisms and offices operating on their own without any mandate and producing clearly biased documents only further harm the credibility of United Nations??," Lal said.

In June this year, India had rejected then Human Rights High Commissioner Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein's report on Kashmir in which he had called for an independent international probe into the human rights situation in Kashmir.&nbsp;

Lal had said then that the "so-called" report reflects the "clear bias of an official who was acting without any mandate whatsoever and relied on unverified sources of information."&nbsp;

Lal had said the report "was not even found fit to be considered by the membership of the forum where it was submitted."

At the Friday session, Lal pointed out that the palette of human rights ranges from individual to collective on one hand, and from civil and political, to economic and social and cultural rights to the right to development on the other.&nbsp;

"Agreement on not only the prioritisation and the interpretation of various rights but on the best way to promote and protect human rights, including in situations of possible gross and systematic violations, often remains elusive, especially if it clashes with the idea of sovereignty of nation states," he said.

Describing terrorism as one of the worst forms of violation of human rights, Lal said India has had to face repeated terrorist attacks on innocent people, emanating from beyond its borders, thinly veiled reference to Pakistan.&nbsp;

He said despite terrorism being acknowledged as one of the foremost global challenges, any meaningful collective response to address this menace continues to be thwarted by some.

He stressed that the human rights agenda must be pursued in a fair and equal manner with objectivity, respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, non-selectivity and transparency.

"For the success of our collective and common cause or promoting and protecting human rights, our emphasis at the Human Rights Council and Treaty bodies, and Special Procedures and the OHCHR ?should not be confrontational but instead focus on achieving the desired results from a more inclusive, participatory and positive approach through dialogue and capacity building," he said.

India has expressed regret that the work of the Human Rights Council is getting more contentious and difficult, as it voiced concern over instances of politicisation of human rights as a foreign policy tool.

India has expressed regret that the work of the Human Rights Council is getting more contentious and difficult, as it voiced concern over instances of politicisation of human rights as a foreign policy tool. India's Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Tanmaya Lal mentioned that though the Human Rights Council continues to expand with growing number of resolutions and decisions, greater frequency of meetings and special sessions, the effectiveness of its work is, however, not always clear. "While a very comprehensive normative framework of human rights treaties and Covenants has evolved, the work of the Human Rights Council and its associated procedures and mandates is, regrettably, getting more contentious and difficult," Lal said at the UN General Assembly session on Report of the Human Rights Council Friday. He said more broadly, the global situation today is a troubled one, with growing concerns about the multiple challenges posed to the spirit of multilateralism due to ineffectiveness of the global governance mechanisms to find commonly acceptable solutions. "The reasons for many of the difficulties surrounding the discussions on the human rights agenda are not hard to find. They flow from the often very divergent priorities and concerns of member states in terms of their levels of development, social and cultural contexts and governance systems," he said. Lal noted that while the global discourse on human rights continues to evolve, fundamental contradictions remain. The relative prioritisation of the individual versus State, national sovereignty versus international norms and universal versus culture-specific approach, all evoke differing opinions. "Constraints on national capacities to implement certain rights, instances of politicisation of human rights as a foreign policy tool, and perceived intrusiveness beyond mandated activities remain areas of concern," he said. He further said while the work of the Human Rights Council continues to expand with growing number of resolutions and decisions, greater frequency of meetings and special sessions, the effectiveness of its work is, however, not always clear. "There is also a proliferation of special procedures both on thematic and country-specific situations. Their effectiveness is also constrained by lack of, and opacity of funding, lack of a balanced representation in staffing, mistrust on some of them clearly exceeding their mandates and politicising their approach. Country-specific procedures have largely been counter-productive," he said. "Instances of such mechanisms and offices operating on their own without any mandate and producing clearly biased documents only further harm the credibility of United Nations??," Lal said. In June this year, India had rejected then Human Rights High Commissioner Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein's report on Kashmir in which he had called for an independent international probe into the human rights situation in Kashmir. Lal had said then that the "so-called" report reflects the "clear bias of an official who was acting without any mandate whatsoever and relied on unverified sources of information." Lal had said the report "was not even found fit to be considered by the membership of the forum where it was submitted." At the Friday session, Lal pointed out that the palette of human rights ranges from individual to collective on one hand, and from civil and political, to economic and social and cultural rights to the right to development on the other. "Agreement on not only the prioritisation and the interpretation of various rights but on the best way to promote and protect human rights, including in situations of possible gross and systematic violations, often remains elusive, especially if it clashes with the idea of sovereignty of nation states," he said. Describing terrorism as one of the worst forms of violation of human rights, Lal said India has had to face repeated terrorist attacks on innocent people, emanating from beyond its borders, thinly veiled reference to Pakistan. He said despite terrorism being acknowledged as one of the foremost global challenges, any meaningful collective response to address this menace continues to be thwarted by some. He stressed that the human rights agenda must be pursued in a fair and equal manner with objectivity, respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal affairs of States, non-selectivity and transparency. "For the success of our collective and common cause or promoting and protecting human rights, our emphasis at the Human Rights Council and Treaty bodies, and Special Procedures and the OHCHR ?should not be confrontational but instead focus on achieving the desired results from a more inclusive, participatory and positive approach through dialogue and capacity building," he said.

India expresses concern over politicisation of human rights as foreign policy tool

US midterm polls 2018: How Democratic US House could alter foreign policy

It's been a year of hits and misses in foreign policy terms. India is struggling to reinforce its credentials in its own neighbourhood against a resurgent China. &nbspThe United States, under Donald Trump, conveys only incoherence. Ties with Russia are under strain as Moscow moves closer to China and Pakistan. &nbspHere's a look at four years of PM Modi's foreign policy.

In politics, as in diplomacy, gestures matter. &nbspSo when Russia's president Vladimir Putin personally saw off Narendra Modi in Sochi on Monday night, it conveyed much about the nature of their talks and the depth of the relationship. &nbsp&nbsp

"We can proudly say that the partnership that we had begun has already grown into a large tree of privileged, strategic partnership," PM Modi in Sochi.

But the fact also remains that the India-Russia relationship is struggling for relevance. Bilateral trade between both the countries is low at around $7 billion. India is diversifying its arms purchases away from Russia to ensure our strategic autonomy. &nbspother hiccups in the relationship are Russia's proximity to China.

On the 4th anniversary of the Modi government, it's clear that managing relations with China will remain India's major challenge. &nbspModi's informal summit with China's president Xi Jinping in Wuhan last month may have helped clarify the doubts and the lack of trust. &nbspBut China's growing power and status imply there will be difficulties ahead no matter what the two leaders may believe.&nbsp

"The two leaders underscored the importance of maintaining peace and tranquility in the India-China border regions. They decided that they will strengthen communications between the two militaries in order to build trust and understanding," Vijay Gokhale, Foreign Secretary, India.&nbsp

It doesn't help that Modi's reach out to Donald Trump last year has not given any political direction to the relationship. Trump has taken aim at India's small trade surplus with the US, he has cracked down on immigration and H-1b visas which has hit Indians, new sanctions on Iran will force up oil prices and complicate India's position. &nbsp

Trump has been harder on Pakistan for its support of terrorism but there is no sign that he's willing to hit them where it hurts the most. Pakistan continues to back terror groups in India and is seen to be working alongside China to undermine India in the region. &nbspDebt-laden Sri Lanka is beholden to China, so is the Maldives, so could Nepal and Bangladesh in a few years from now.

How Delhi manages the contradictions of being the big guy in the region without being seen as big brother is a challenge. &nbspYet there's no doubt Modi has single-mindedly moved to heighten India's profile in the world. &nbspIndia is seen and noticed but minus economic heft, will not get a seat at the high table.&nbsp

On the 4th anniversary of the Modi government, it's clear that managing relations with China will remain India's major challenge

It's been a year of hits and misses in foreign policy terms. India is struggling to reinforce its credentials in its own neighbourhood against a resurgent China. &nbspThe United States, under Donald Trump, conveys only incoherence. Ties with Russia are under strain as Moscow moves closer to China and Pakistan. &nbspHere's a look at four years of PM Modi's foreign policy. In politics, as in diplomacy, gestures matter. &nbspSo when Russia's president Vladimir Putin personally saw off Narendra Modi in Sochi on Monday night, it conveyed much about the nature of their talks and the depth of the relationship. "We can proudly say that the partnership that we had begun has already grown into a large tree of privileged, strategic partnership," PM Modi in Sochi. But the fact also remains that the India-Russia relationship is struggling for relevance. Bilateral trade between both the countries is low at around $7 billion. India is diversifying its arms purchases away from Russia to ensure our strategic autonomy. &nbspother hiccups in the relationship are Russia's proximity to China. On the 4th anniversary of the Modi government, it's clear that managing relations with China will remain India's major challenge. &nbspModi's informal summit with China's president Xi Jinping in Wuhan last month may have helped clarify the doubts and the lack of trust. &nbspBut China's growing power and status imply there will be difficulties ahead no matter what the two leaders may believe. "The two leaders underscored the importance of maintaining peace and tranquility in the India-China border regions. They decided that they will strengthen communications between the two militaries in order to build trust and understanding," Vijay Gokhale, Foreign Secretary, India. It doesn't help that Modi's reach out to Donald Trump last year has not given any political direction to the relationship. Trump has taken aim at India's small trade surplus with the US, he has cracked down on immigration and H-1b visas which has hit Indians, new sanctions on Iran will force up oil prices and complicate India's position. Trump has been harder on Pakistan for its support of terrorism but there is no sign that he's willing to hit them where it hurts the most. Pakistan continues to back terror groups in India and is seen to be working alongside China to undermine India in the region. &nbspDebt-laden Sri Lanka is beholden to China, so is the Maldives, so could Nepal and Bangladesh in a few years from now. How Delhi manages the contradictions of being the big guy in the region without being seen as big brother is a challenge. &nbspYet there's no doubt Modi has single-mindedly moved to heighten India's profile in the world. &nbspIndia is seen and noticed but minus economic heft, will not get a seat at the high table.

Four years of Modi government: A look at India's foreign policy

By:&nbsp;Charles Hermann*

The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a May 8 announcement by President Donald Trump. The decision reverses a hard-won agreement that President Barack Obama negotiated with European allies, Russia, Iran and other nations in 2015.

This is hardly Trump’s first foreign policy turnaround.

The president plans to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, something no sitting U.S. president has ever done. He also scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership, relocated the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and decreed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum.

All of these decisions have triggered vehement criticism.

But is Trump really such an outlier? As a scholar of American foreign policy, I know that many American presidents have reoriented international relations.

Some of those policies succeeded. Many faced opposition. Ultimately, though, my research shows that what matters more to U.S. national security is how those presidents responded when their foreign policy shifts failed.

From Truman to Bush

History has sometimes redeemed foreign policy shifts that seemed radical at first blush.

In 1947, President Harry Truman, a Democrat who stumbled into the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died in office, asked Congress to authorise major military and economic assistance to Greece, Turkey and other countries where Communism was making inroads.

In the end, the “Truman Doctrine” – which held the U.S. should provide political, military and economic assistance to all nations under threat from authoritarianism – became a cornerstone of U.S. policy. Republicans in Congress, who wanted to enact steep federal budget cuts, opposed Truman’s request. Critics on the left said the U.S. should not assist non-democracies.

Three decades later, President Jimmy Carter paid a steep political price for agreeing to return the Panama Canal – at the time owned and operated by the U.S. – to Panama. Polls showed that a majority of respondents opposed the agreement.

The Senate approved the Panama Treaties by one vote. Several lawmakers who supported Carter subsequently lost their seats. In 1980, California governor Ronald Reagan – who criticised Carter’s return of the canal – handily defeated him for the presidency. Today, it seems logical that the Panama Canal belongs to Panama.

Another major shift in foreign policy occurred in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. President George H.W. Bush had to decide whether the U.S. should support the reunification of Communist East Germany with democratic West Germany.

European allies, vividly remembering that Germany had caused two global wars earlier that century, objected strenuously to reunification. So did Russian President Mikael Gorbachev. U.S. newspapers editorialised caution.

President Bush prevailed. A single, democratic Germany entered NATO. It is now the leader of democratic Europe.

Carter’s risk-taking

Presidents who upend foreign policy do so for different reasons.

Truman was responding to an international crisis. Carter saw himself as an outsider elected to transform America’s global role. Bush wanted to end the Cold War. Some presidential changes are designed to boost approval with core supporters.

Trump’s own policy shifts are probably driven by a variety of such factors.

Whatever his motivation, in my experience the most critical question now is: What happens if a Trump policy goes badly?

History confirms that the wrong reaction can be dangerous.

Take the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, when some 50 U.S. diplomats were detained at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage.

After diplomatic negotiations failed to obtain their release, President Carter’s advisors presented him with several options, including levying sanctions, blockading Iran or attempting a rescue mission estimated to risk significant casualties.

Carter’s chose the rescue attempt, illustrating a well-researched insight into human decision-making: When people experience loss, they will take substantial risks in an attempt to recover.

The Iran hostage rescue mission was aborted almost immediately after several helicopters failed to reach the refueling point. Two other aircraft collided, killing eight men and badly burning four others.

Bush’s escalation

George W. Bush’s behavior during the Iraq War demonstrates another kind of potentially dangerous behavior, called escalation of commitment.

When people find that their initial idea is not working well, they must either double down or change course. Regardless of how bad the news, many opt to increase their commitment.

By 2006, the U.S. faced losing the war initiated against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. Fifty-seven percent of voters that year disapproved of Bush’s performance. Roughly the same percentage favored withdrawing from Iraq.

Many of Bush’s top military advisors urged him to reduce military involvement in Iraq and turn most combat over to Iraqi forces. Instead, in 2006, he changed his field commander and “surged” U.S. combat troops. The surge achieved some success, but the war continued.

What will Trump do?

I have identified two forces that help presidents avoid these dangerous decision-making behaviors.

The first is strong, independent-minded advisers. During the Cuban missile crisis, when Soviet offensive missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced an agonising decision. Should he do air strikes, an invasion or a blockade?

More than a dozen Kennedy advisers vigorously debated the strengths and weaknesses of each possible response. Their willingness to criticise, question and speak out may have saved the U.S. from nuclear war.

Trump, on the other hand, famously demands loyalty of his advisers. Those who question his decisions risk losing their position.

Presidents can also avert crises by flexibly responding to changing facts on the ground.

For example, in 1983, President Reagan ordered U.S. Marines to return to an international peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which had descended into civil war. Reagan thought neutral troops could restore order.

Instead, the Marines became targets. More than 200 died when their barracks were bombed on October 23, 1983. So Reagan recalculated, pulling out U.S. troops.

In Trump’s Iran decision, I perceive an unwillingness to re-evaluate policy choices when outside evidence contradicts his original cost-benefit analysis.

When Trump first threatened to scrap the multinational agreement, he assumed the other signatories would agree to re-impose sanctions on Iran, as the U.S. will.

But European countries strongly oppose that idea. They even said they would refuse to renew their sanctions. Still, Trump’s analysis did not change.

Presidential history strongly warns of danger for this White House. Inevitably, some of this president’s policies will fail. Attempts to save them could take the U.S. down a deadly path.

*Charles Hermann, Senior Professor, and Brent Scowcroft Chair Emeritus, Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M University

(This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/presidents-often-reverse-us-foreign-policy-how-trump-handles-setbacks-is-what-matters-most-now-95580">original article</a>.)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Many presidents have radically changed US foreign policy. Truman created his own doctrine. Carter gave up the Panama Canal. But a presidential historian sees danger in Trump's decision-making style

By: Charles Hermann* The United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, according to a May 8 announcement by President Donald Trump. The decision reverses a hard-won agreement that President Barack Obama negotiated with European allies, Russia, Iran and other nations in 2015. This is hardly Trump’s first foreign policy turnaround. The president plans to meet with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, something no sitting U.S. president has ever done. He also scrapped the Trans-Pacific Partnership, relocated the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and decreed tariffs on imported steel and aluminum. All of these decisions have triggered vehement criticism. But is Trump really such an outlier? As a scholar of American foreign policy, I know that many American presidents have reoriented international relations. Some of those policies succeeded. Many faced opposition. Ultimately, though, my research shows that what matters more to U.S. national security is how those presidents responded when their foreign policy shifts failed. From Truman to Bush History has sometimes redeemed foreign policy shifts that seemed radical at first blush. In 1947, President Harry Truman, a Democrat who stumbled into the presidency when Franklin Roosevelt died in office, asked Congress to authorise major military and economic assistance to Greece, Turkey and other countries where Communism was making inroads. In the end, the “Truman Doctrine” – which held the U.S. should provide political, military and economic assistance to all nations under threat from authoritarianism – became a cornerstone of U.S. policy. Republicans in Congress, who wanted to enact steep federal budget cuts, opposed Truman’s request. Critics on the left said the U.S. should not assist non-democracies. Three decades later, President Jimmy Carter paid a steep political price for agreeing to return the Panama Canal – at the time owned and operated by the U.S. – to Panama. Polls showed that a majority of respondents opposed the agreement. The Senate approved the Panama Treaties by one vote. Several lawmakers who supported Carter subsequently lost their seats. In 1980, California governor Ronald Reagan – who criticised Carter’s return of the canal – handily defeated him for the presidency. Today, it seems logical that the Panama Canal belongs to Panama. Another major shift in foreign policy occurred in 1989, with the fall of the Berlin Wall. President George H.W. Bush had to decide whether the U.S. should support the reunification of Communist East Germany with democratic West Germany. European allies, vividly remembering that Germany had caused two global wars earlier that century, objected strenuously to reunification. So did Russian President Mikael Gorbachev. U.S. newspapers editorialised caution. President Bush prevailed. A single, democratic Germany entered NATO. It is now the leader of democratic Europe. Carter’s risk-taking Presidents who upend foreign policy do so for different reasons. Truman was responding to an international crisis. Carter saw himself as an outsider elected to transform America’s global role. Bush wanted to end the Cold War. Some presidential changes are designed to boost approval with core supporters. Trump’s own policy shifts are probably driven by a variety of such factors. Whatever his motivation, in my experience the most critical question now is: What happens if a Trump policy goes badly? History confirms that the wrong reaction can be dangerous. Take the Iran hostage crisis of 1979, when some 50 U.S. diplomats were detained at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran hostage. After diplomatic negotiations failed to obtain their release, President Carter’s advisors presented him with several options, including levying sanctions, blockading Iran or attempting a rescue mission estimated to risk significant casualties. Carter’s chose the rescue attempt, illustrating a well-researched insight into human decision-making: When people experience loss, they will take substantial risks in an attempt to recover. The Iran hostage rescue mission was aborted almost immediately after several helicopters failed to reach the refueling point. Two other aircraft collided, killing eight men and badly burning four others. Bush’s escalation George W. Bush’s behavior during the Iraq War demonstrates another kind of potentially dangerous behavior, called escalation of commitment. When people find that their initial idea is not working well, they must either double down or change course. Regardless of how bad the news, many opt to increase their commitment. By 2006, the U.S. faced losing the war initiated against Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. Fifty-seven percent of voters that year disapproved of Bush’s performance. Roughly the same percentage favored withdrawing from Iraq. Many of Bush’s top military advisors urged him to reduce military involvement in Iraq and turn most combat over to Iraqi forces. Instead, in 2006, he changed his field commander and “surged” U.S. combat troops. The surge achieved some success, but the war continued. What will Trump do? I have identified two forces that help presidents avoid these dangerous decision-making behaviors. The first is strong, independent-minded advisers. During the Cuban missile crisis, when Soviet offensive missiles were discovered in Cuba, President John F. Kennedy faced an agonising decision. Should he do air strikes, an invasion or a blockade? More than a dozen Kennedy advisers vigorously debated the strengths and weaknesses of each possible response. Their willingness to criticise, question and speak out may have saved the U.S. from nuclear war. Trump, on the other hand, famously demands loyalty of his advisers. Those who question his decisions risk losing their position. Presidents can also avert crises by flexibly responding to changing facts on the ground. For example, in 1983, President Reagan ordered U.S. Marines to return to an international peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, which had descended into civil war. Reagan thought neutral troops could restore order. Instead, the Marines became targets. More than 200 died when their barracks were bombed on October 23, 1983. So Reagan recalculated, pulling out U.S. troops. In Trump’s Iran decision, I perceive an unwillingness to re-evaluate policy choices when outside evidence contradicts his original cost-benefit analysis. When Trump first threatened to scrap the multinational agreement, he assumed the other signatories would agree to re-impose sanctions on Iran, as the U.S. will. But European countries strongly oppose that idea. They even said they would refuse to renew their sanctions. Still, Trump’s analysis did not change. Presidential history strongly warns of danger for this White House. Inevitably, some of this president’s policies will fail. Attempts to save them could take the U.S. down a deadly path. *Charles Hermann, Senior Professor, and Brent Scowcroft Chair Emeritus, Bush School of Government & Public Service, Texas A&M University (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: After Iran deal turnaround, how Trump handles setbacks is what matters now

Romania's president called on the prime minister to resign on Friday (April 27) after she endorsed a secret deal to move the country's embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, overstepping her powers on foreign policy.

The head of state cannot dismiss the premier but President Klaus Iohannis' call could trigger a no-confidence vote, something Prime Minister Viorica Dancila should easily survive given her party's robust majority in parliament.

Any decision on embassy relocation rests with the president, who said he was not consulted about that or the state visit Dancila paid to Israel this week along with the leader of her Social Democrat party, Liviu Dragnea.

Dancila has said the memorandum she approved was confidential and could not be made public yet.

Iohannis - who has the final say in foreign policy matters - said moving the embassy to Jerusalem, which is not widely recognised as Israel's capital due to competing sovereignty claims by the Palestinians, has said the move could break international law.

Dancila has yet to comment on his call for her to resign.

Romania would be the first EU country and one of very few countries in the world to relocate its embassy following U.S. President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December.

The Romanian foreign ministry had said the memorandum was only the start of a wide consultation process and that it sought to identify the best way for Romania to position itself.

It added Romania's position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian situation "has traditionally been a balanced one, including ... bilaterally recognising the Palestinian state."

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "at least half a dozen" countries were considering moving their embassies to Jerusalem. The U.S. Embassy is due to relocate on May 14.

The head of state cannot dismiss the premier but President Klaus Iohannis' call could trigger a no-confidence vote, something Prime Minister Viorica Dancila should easily survive given her party's robust majority in parliament

Romania's president called on the prime minister to resign on Friday (April 27) after she endorsed a secret deal to move the country's embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, overstepping her powers on foreign policy. The head of state cannot dismiss the premier but President Klaus Iohannis' call could trigger a no-confidence vote, something Prime Minister Viorica Dancila should easily survive given her party's robust majority in parliament. Any decision on embassy relocation rests with the president, who said he was not consulted about that or the state visit Dancila paid to Israel this week along with the leader of her Social Democrat party, Liviu Dragnea. Dancila has said the memorandum she approved was confidential and could not be made public yet. Iohannis - who has the final say in foreign policy matters - said moving the embassy to Jerusalem, which is not widely recognised as Israel's capital due to competing sovereignty claims by the Palestinians, has said the move could break international law. Dancila has yet to comment on his call for her to resign. Romania would be the first EU country and one of very few countries in the world to relocate its embassy following U.S. President Donald Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital in December. The Romanian foreign ministry had said the memorandum was only the start of a wide consultation process and that it sought to identify the best way for Romania to position itself. It added Romania's position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian situation "has traditionally been a balanced one, including ... bilaterally recognising the Palestinian state." Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that "at least half a dozen" countries were considering moving their embassies to Jerusalem. The U.S. Embassy is due to relocate on May 14.

Romania's president calls on PM to quit over Israel embassy move

China today commended Nepal's new Left Alliance government for adopting an independent and balanced policy towards its neighbours.

"China, Nepal and India are important neighbours to each other. We hope the three sides can work together, have some sound interactions and achieve common development," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lu Kang told a media briefing here.

The Left Alliance of the CPN-UML, led by K P Sharma Oli and CPN-Maoist Centre, led by Prachanda, had in December secured 174 seats in the 275-member Parliament in the historic provincial and parliamentary polls.

Known for his pro-China stance, 65-year-old Oli was elected as the prime minister. He had earlier served as Nepal's prime minister from 2015 to 2016 during which Kathmandu's ties with New Delhi had strained.

To a question about Oli's assertion to follow independent and balanced foreign policy, Lu said China "commend the Nepali government's commitment towards independent foreign policy."

China also "support Nepal developing friendly and positive relations with its neighbours," Lu added.

Oli, who had publicly criticised New Delhi for interfering in Nepal's internal matters and accused it of toppling his government, after his sweeping poll victory said his party would forge a partnership with India to move forward the country towards the path of economic prosperity.&nbsp;

China today commended Nepal's new Left Alliance government for adopting an independent and balanced policy towards its neighbours

China today commended Nepal's new Left Alliance government for adopting an independent and balanced policy towards its neighbours. "China, Nepal and India are important neighbours to each other. We hope the three sides can work together, have some sound interactions and achieve common development," Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lu Kang told a media briefing here. The Left Alliance of the CPN-UML, led by K P Sharma Oli and CPN-Maoist Centre, led by Prachanda, had in December secured 174 seats in the 275-member Parliament in the historic provincial and parliamentary polls. Known for his pro-China stance, 65-year-old Oli was elected as the prime minister. He had earlier served as Nepal's prime minister from 2015 to 2016 during which Kathmandu's ties with New Delhi had strained. To a question about Oli's assertion to follow independent and balanced foreign policy, Lu said China "commend the Nepali government's commitment towards independent foreign policy." China also "support Nepal developing friendly and positive relations with its neighbours," Lu added. Oli, who had publicly criticised New Delhi for interfering in Nepal's internal matters and accused it of toppling his government, after his sweeping poll victory said his party would forge a partnership with India to move forward the country towards the path of economic prosperity.

China 'hails' Nepal's foreign policy

The United States President Donald Trump&#39;s son, Donald Trump Jr, is coming to India with business and foreign policy in mind.

The executive vice-director of Trump Organisation is scheduled to arrive in India on his maiden visit on Tuesday.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
US President Donald Trump&#39;s son <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DonaldTrumpJr?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DonaldTrumpJr</a> arrives in Delhi. He is on a week-long visit to India. <a href="https://t.co/3hnjPSBBZ7">pic.twitter.com/3hnjPSBBZ7</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/965776965578960896?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

During the week-long trip, Donald Trump Jr&nbsp;will not only endorse his luxurious residential project-Trump Towers, but he is scheduled to deliver a speech on foreign policy in India.

Trump Jr&nbsp;will meet with Indian investors and business leaders in Kolkata, Mumbai, Pune and Gurugram respectively, The Washington Post reported.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/DonaldTrumpJr?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#DonaldTrumpJr</a> met real estate developers at <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Delhi?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Delhi</a>&#39;s Oberoi Hotel. <a href="https://t.co/Chve4YeuWe">pic.twitter.com/Chve4YeuWe</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI/status/965848746742435840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 20, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The eldest son of Donald Trump has already advertised himself prior to his visit.

Full-page advertisements in Indian newspapers on Monday invited prospective investors to buy into the Trump Organisation&#39;s project in Gurugram to join Donald Trump Jr at a dinner later this week.

&quot;Trump has arrived. Have you?&quot; read the advertisement, inviting buyers to book their apartments in Trump Towers by Wednesday &quot;for a conversation and dinner&quot; with Trump Jr on Friday. An advertisement in newspapers on Sunday read, &quot;Trump is here. Are you invited?&quot;

Trump Jr&nbsp;will also deliver his maiden speech in India where he will speak on &quot;Reshaping Indo-Pacific Ties: The New Era of Cooperation&quot; at a global business summit on Friday.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who will also be present, will speak at the summit on the topic of &quot;Preparing India for the Future&quot;.

In the US, some experts have pointed out the conflict of interests during Donald Trump Jr&#39;s India visit.

&quot;The planned speech by Trump Jr&nbsp;has renewed conflict of interest concerns, with some questioning why the US President&#39;s son will be lecturing on foreign policy while simultaneously trying to hawk his family business&#39;s lavish new condominiums,&quot; The Washington Post reported.

&quot;News that the Trump Organisation would be offering buyers in the Trump Tower the chance to meet the president&#39;s son sparked criticism of potential conflict of interest, and the fact that Trump Jr&nbsp;will be giving a foreign policy speech while on a private business trip complicates the matter further&quot;, The Washington Post quoted ethics expert as saying.

Trump Jr&nbsp;will also visit Kolkata, where the construction of a project with 137 luxury units will begin soon.

Talking about his trip earlier this month, Trump Jr&nbsp;said, &quot;India is such an incredible country and our brand has enjoyed tremendous success in the region for many years. This trip is a celebration of all we have achieved, including the launch of the Trump developments in Kolkata and Delhi which have been underway for many months.&quot;

According to business partners in India, many units in the Trump Towers are selling about 30 percent per square foot higher than the current market rates. Trump Jr.&#39;s visit to India is expected to reinforce the trend.

India is Trump Organisation&#39;s biggest international market, with four real estate projects underway in Mumbai, Pune, Kolkata, and Gurugram.

Trump Jr&#39;s visit to India comes after his sister, Ivanka, visited Hyderabad in November last year to attend the Global Entrepreneurship Summit&nbsp;(GES).

Trump Jr will also give a speech — 'Reshaping Indo-Pacific Ties: The New Era of Cooperation' — on foreign policy at a global business summit on Friday

The United States President Donald Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr, is coming to India with business and foreign policy in mind. The executive vice-director of Trump Organisation is scheduled to arrive in India on his maiden visit on Tuesday. US President Donald Trump's son #DonaldTrumpJr arrives in Delhi. He is on a week-long visit to India. pic.twitter.com/3hnjPSBBZ7 — ANI (@ANI) February 20, 2018 × During the week-long trip, Donald Trump Jr will not only endorse his luxurious residential project-Trump Towers, but he is scheduled to deliver a speech on foreign policy in India. Trump Jr will meet with Indian investors and business leaders in Kolkata, Mumbai, Pune and Gurugram respectively, The Washington Post reported. #DonaldTrumpJr met real estate developers at #Delhi's Oberoi Hotel. pic.twitter.com/Chve4YeuWe — ANI (@ANI) February 20, 2018 × The eldest son of Donald Trump has already advertised himself prior to his visit. Full-page advertisements in Indian newspapers on Monday invited prospective investors to buy into the Trump Organisation's project in Gurugram to join Donald Trump Jr at a dinner later this week. "Trump has arrived. Have you?" read the advertisement, inviting buyers to book their apartments in Trump Towers by Wednesday "for a conversation and dinner" with Trump Jr on Friday. An advertisement in newspapers on Sunday read, "Trump is here. Are you invited?" Trump Jr will also deliver his maiden speech in India where he will speak on "Reshaping Indo-Pacific Ties: The New Era of Cooperation" at a global business summit on Friday. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who will also be present, will speak at the summit on the topic of "Preparing India for the Future". In the US, some experts have pointed out the conflict of interests during Donald Trump Jr's India visit. "The planned speech by Trump Jr has renewed conflict of interest concerns, with some questioning why the US President's son will be lecturing on foreign policy while simultaneously trying to hawk his family business's lavish new condominiums," The Washington Post reported. "News that the Trump Organisation would be offering buyers in the Trump Tower the chance to meet the president's son sparked criticism of potential conflict of interest, and the fact that Trump Jr will be giving a foreign policy speech while on a private business trip complicates the matter further", The Washington Post quoted ethics expert as saying. Trump Jr will also visit Kolkata, where the construction of a project with 137 luxury units will begin soon. Talking about his trip earlier this month, Trump Jr said, "India is such an incredible country and our brand has enjoyed tremendous success in the region for many years. This trip is a celebration of all we have achieved, including the launch of the Trump developments in Kolkata and Delhi which have been underway for many months." According to business partners in India, many units in the Trump Towers are selling about 30 percent per square foot higher than the current market rates. Trump Jr.'s visit to India is expected to reinforce the trend. India is Trump Organisation's biggest international market, with four real estate projects underway in Mumbai, Pune, Kolkata, and Gurugram. Trump Jr's visit to India comes after his sister, Ivanka, visited Hyderabad in November last year to attend the Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES).

Donald Trump Jr in India, to have dinner with Trump Tower buyers

The United States&#39; top diplomat defended his country&#39;s foreign policy record on Wednesday, saying progress had been made in the last year to rein in North Korea&#39;s nuclear ambitions and to counter the &quot;immense challenges&quot; posed by Russia, China and Iran.

In an opinion piece in the New York Times, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said some 90 percent of Pyongyang&#39;s export earnings had been cut off by a series of international sanctions after the Trump administration &quot;abandoned the failed policy of strategic patience&quot;.

Tensions have escalated dramatically on the Korean peninsula this year after the isolated but nuclear-armed regime staged a series of atomic and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) tests -- and as US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un traded personal insults.

Washington wants North Korea to abandon its nuclear programme and has spearheaded three rounds of UN sanctions against the isolated regime, restricting crucial exports of coal, iron, seafood and textiles from the cash-starved state.

Pyongyang has hit out at those sanctions, calling the latest round &quot;an act of war&quot;, and has vowed to never give up its nuclear programme.

In his piece Tillerson said &quot;a door to dialogue remains open&quot; for Pyongyang but warned &quot;until denuclearization occurs, the pressure will continue&quot;.

At the same time he called on China -- Pyongyang&#39;s only major ally -- to &quot;do more&quot; to pressure North Korea.

Trump&#39;s administration has been dogged by allegations his campaign team colluded with Russia to help him win last year&#39;s election.

Addressing relations with Moscow, Tillerson said the Trump administration had &quot;no illusions about the regime we are dealing with&quot; and that they were &quot;on guard against Russian aggression&quot;.&nbsp;

But he added that Washington needed to &quot;recongize the need to work with Russia where mutual interests intersect&quot; citing Syria civil war where the two countries have backed opposing sides but pushed for peace talks.

On Iran he struck a less conciliatory tone.

&quot;The flawed nuclear deal is no longer the focal point of our policy toward Iran,&quot; he warned. &quot;We are now confronting the totality of Iranian threats.&quot;

He also defended his cuts to the State Department and USAID budget, saying they were designed to &quot;address root problems that lead to inefficiencies and frustrations&quot;.

Critics say Tillerson&#39;s first year in office has seen scores of key diplomatic posts go unfilled, embassies hampered by cuts and many veteran staff leave the foreign service altogether.

Tillerson said some 90 percent of Pyongyang's export earnings had been cut off by a series of international sanctions after the Trump administration 'abandoned the failed policy of strategic patience'

The United States' top diplomat defended his country's foreign policy record on Wednesday, saying progress had been made in the last year to rein in North Korea's nuclear ambitions and to counter the "immense challenges" posed by Russia, China and Iran. In an opinion piece in the New York Times, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said some 90 percent of Pyongyang's export earnings had been cut off by a series of international sanctions after the Trump administration "abandoned the failed policy of strategic patience". Tensions have escalated dramatically on the Korean peninsula this year after the isolated but nuclear-armed regime staged a series of atomic and intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) tests -- and as US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un traded personal insults. Washington wants North Korea to abandon its nuclear programme and has spearheaded three rounds of UN sanctions against the isolated regime, restricting crucial exports of coal, iron, seafood and textiles from the cash-starved state. Pyongyang has hit out at those sanctions, calling the latest round "an act of war", and has vowed to never give up its nuclear programme. In his piece Tillerson said "a door to dialogue remains open" for Pyongyang but warned "until denuclearization occurs, the pressure will continue". At the same time he called on China -- Pyongyang's only major ally -- to "do more" to pressure North Korea. Trump's administration has been dogged by allegations his campaign team colluded with Russia to help him win last year's election. Addressing relations with Moscow, Tillerson said the Trump administration had "no illusions about the regime we are dealing with" and that they were "on guard against Russian aggression". But he added that Washington needed to "recongize the need to work with Russia where mutual interests intersect" citing Syria civil war where the two countries have backed opposing sides but pushed for peace talks. On Iran he struck a less conciliatory tone. "The flawed nuclear deal is no longer the focal point of our policy toward Iran," he warned. "We are now confronting the totality of Iranian threats." He also defended his cuts to the State Department and USAID budget, saying they were designed to "address root problems that lead to inefficiencies and frustrations". Critics say Tillerson's first year in office has seen scores of key diplomatic posts go unfilled, embassies hampered by cuts and many veteran staff leave the foreign service altogether.

Tillerson defends foreign policy record at year's end

In November, the&nbsp;Charles Koch Foundation&nbsp;announced&nbsp;that it would provide nearly $4 million in grants to Harvard University and MIT to train the next generation of foreign policy professionals. It&rsquo;s part of the foundation&rsquo;s effort to steer US foreign policy away from its emphasis on military intervention and big Pentagon budgets.

Yes, that&rsquo;s right: Charles Koch.

He&rsquo;s the same fellow profiled in Jane Mayer&rsquo;s devastating critique of how right-wing billionaires have injected their anti-government toxins into the American bloodstream. In&nbsp;Dark Money, Mayer describes how Charles and his brother David have funded organizations that have promoted tax cuts for the wealthy, an anti-regulatory agenda that trashes the environment in favor of energy companies (like Koch Industries) and Tea Party formations that want to shrink government to the point of non-existence.

The Kochs subscribe to a radical, right-wing version of libertarianism according to which nothing should stand in the way of free enterprise. No surprise that the Kochs&rsquo; philosophy helps their own bottom line. They spent nearly a million dollars in support of George W. Bush and other Republicans in 2000, and then&nbsp;benefited hugely&nbsp;from the Bush administration&rsquo;s preferential treatment of energy companies (not to mention the tens of millions of dollars in government contracts they secured since 2000). Even during the Obama years, their efforts at the federal and state level to &ldquo;get government off their backs&rdquo;&nbsp;helped&nbsp;to&nbsp;double their fortune, from $19 billion each in 2008 to $41 billion each in 2016.

MAINSTREAM CREDIBILITY

The Kochs are disgusting in many ways. But they can&rsquo;t be faulted for being inconsistent in their hatred of government,&nbsp;all&nbsp;government. Most right-wing deficit hawks employ a national-security exception when they try to defund all parts of the government except the Pentagon. But the Kochs at least treat defense spending like all other government spending. In this case, it even goes against their pecuniary interests. The&nbsp;Kochs made&nbsp;around $170 million&nbsp;between 1996 and 2011&nbsp;from defense contracts. In the grand scheme of things, of course, $10 million a year is a rounding error for billionaires.

Their anti-war and anti-intervention philosophy has meant that the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank started and funded by the Kochs, has taken consistently&nbsp;good positions&nbsp;on foreign policy over the years. But the Cato Institute, even with its huge budget and swank downtown headquarters, has always been a little off to the side in the Washington policy community. The Kochs crave mainstream credibility.

So that&rsquo;s why the Charles Koch Foundation is providing money to Harvard and MIT &mdash; the very definition of mainstream credibility &mdash; to encourage anti-interventionist thinking in academia. The two people who will administer the program are thoughtful critics of US militarism: Harvard&rsquo;s Steven Walt and MIT&rsquo;s Barry Posen.&nbsp;Walt and John Mearsheimer&nbsp;wrote a&nbsp;perceptive essay&nbsp;in&nbsp;Foreign Affairs&nbsp;in 2016 laying out the argument for &ldquo;offshore balancing,&rdquo; a grand strategy of&nbsp;scaling back US military commitments overseas that Posen&nbsp;also supports.

I have a lot of respect for Walt and Posen. I have also worked with folks at Cato on various foreign policy initiatives. But in the current political climate, when the Trump administration is launching an all-out assault on federal programs and a&nbsp;Koch-supported tax bill&nbsp;is on its way to becoming law, should progressives welcome the few crumbs that the Kochs are throwing in the direction of anti-war initiatives?

THE KOCHS AND TRUMP

As a candidate for president, Donald Trump made some noises about opposing military interventions and reducing the Pentagon&rsquo;s footprint overseas. Thanks largely to his senior advisor Steve Bannon, Trump also came to embrace the radical anti-government positions that right-wing libertarians favor.

But Charles and David Koch actively disliked Trump; a third brother, Bill, supported the Republican nominee. As the 2016 campaign heated up, rumors circulated of a&nbsp;Koch-funded&nbsp;anti-Trump campaign&nbsp;and of&nbsp;Charles Koch&nbsp;even supporting Hillary Clinton. Those turned out to be false. The Kochs didn&rsquo;t activate their network to support Trump, but they also didn&rsquo;t rule out cooperation.

Indeed, a number of Koch-friendly politicians and operatives were&nbsp;embedded in the campaign, from Mike Pence (Trump&rsquo;s running mate) to Corey Lewandowski (Trump&rsquo;s campaign manager, fired in June 2016). Marc Short, Pence&rsquo;s communications advisor and then Trump&rsquo;s legislative director, once headed up Freedom Partners, a Koch-funded organization. &ldquo;The vacuum in Trump not having his own network is filled by people who&rsquo;ve been cultivated for years by the Koch network,&rdquo;&nbsp;Richard L. Hasen,&nbsp;a UC Irvine law professor&nbsp;told&nbsp;the&nbsp;Los Angeles Times.

It wasn&rsquo;t long after the administration took office that the&nbsp;Koch brothers&nbsp;began to investigate&nbsp;how the Trump team could advance their agenda. They welcomed Trump&rsquo;s pullout from the Paris Climate Agreement, the various environmental regulations that the administration rolled back and the&nbsp;congressional effort&nbsp;to kill&nbsp;the Affordable Care Act.

By May, the brothers&nbsp;identified Trump&rsquo;s tax plan&nbsp;as something they could get behind &mdash; in a big way. As the fight intensified in Congress, the Koch network was going all out. Tim Phillips, president of the Koch-affiliated Americans for Prosperity,&nbsp;told&nbsp;The&nbsp;Boston Globe: &ldquo;It&rsquo;s the most significant federal effort we&rsquo;ve ever taken on.&rdquo; The Koch network has pooled $400 million for the next two years of political work, and it&rsquo;s applying a good chunk of that to getting the tax bill passed. It&rsquo;s been a full-court press&nbsp;with op-eds&nbsp;and $8 million in&nbsp;attack ads.

So, let&rsquo;s dispense with the notion that the Kochs can be relied on to fund a big-tent effort against Trump. They don&rsquo;t like his positions on immigration, marijuana or criminal justice reform. But they&rsquo;re eager to exploit Trump as a &ldquo;useful idiot&rdquo; in their campaign to pillage the commonwealth.

AGAINST THE GLOBALISTS

It&rsquo;s easy for me to take a principled stand against taking money from the Kochs. They haven&rsquo;t offered me any. But here are some reasons why others might think twice about taking their anti-war resources.

The ideological reason: A progressive anti-war position is part of a larger internationalist program that supports global peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction, robust environmental programs, transnational anti-poverty efforts and human rights mechanisms that hold countries and individuals accountable. The Kochs aren&rsquo;t interested in any of that.

All of the prescriptive elements of the progressive internationalist agenda require strong states. The Kochs believe that the invisible hand of the free market will solve all problems, without any state guidance or interference. In the same way that Margaret Thatcher didn&rsquo;t believe in society, only individuals, the Kochs don&rsquo;t really believe in the international community. The only transnational force that has any import for them are transnational corporations. Their anti-war funding thus comes with some serious (if often hidden) ideological strings attached.

The monetary reason:&nbsp;So far, the Charles Koch Foundation has shelled out less than $15 million to support programs at educational institutions to look at a less militaristic foreign policy. That&rsquo;s a pittance compared to what it&rsquo;s spending on efforts to unravel Obamacare or get Trump&rsquo;s tax plan passed. It&rsquo;s also about what the Kochs make every year off the US military. Perhaps if Koch Enterprises announced that it was divesting from all military-related activities, their charitable giving would have more impact.

The educational reason: As Jane Mayer points out in&nbsp;Dark Money, the Kochs have funded programs at universities to shift academic discourse away from liberal and progressive thinking. Their funding of programs on &ldquo;law and economics,&rdquo; for instance, has helped to shift the legal profession toward more laissez-faire thinking. And it&rsquo;s not as if the Kochs have been particularly transparent about their methods. Jane Mayer&nbsp;quotes&nbsp;a&nbsp;Koch advisor, George Pearson: &ldquo;Traditional gifts to universities, he warned, didn&rsquo;t guarantee enough ideological control. Instead, he advocated funding private institutes within prestigious universities, where influence over hiring decisions and other forms of control could be exerted by donors while hiding the radicalism of their aims.&rdquo;

The legitimacy reason: The Kochs have been trying to give the appearance of being transpartisan. They have collaborated with progressives on sentencing reform, though as Mayer points out they&rsquo;re probably more interested in getting reduced sentences for corporations than for the poor. They work with the Negro College Fund, but the money&nbsp;goes toward demonstrating&nbsp;how &ldquo;principled entrepreneurship, economics, and innovation contribute to well-being for individuals, communities, and society.&rdquo;

The term &ldquo;well-being,&rdquo; as Mayer details, was something the Kochs came up with to put a smiley face on funding that otherwise destroys communities, social welfare programs and the environment. Even if their new foreign policy funding doesn&rsquo;t come with such strings, it still helps with the image makeover of the Kochs.

So, even though Walt and Posen, not Charles Koch, will be administering the funds at Harvard and MIT, the program could well be the thin edge of the wedge. If the Kochs decide to pour money into foreign policy, they could successfully untether the anti-war position from its internationalist foundations.

If such arguments prove successful, the United States will scale back its military presence, but the world won&rsquo;t become any safer as a result. Overall global military spending might&nbsp;increase&nbsp;to compensate for US retrenchment. US allies &mdash; South Korea, Japan &mdash; might decide to acquire their own nuclear weapons programs if the US nuclear umbrella becomes frayed. Absent a strong international security framework, other countries will inevitably fight each other for the mantle of US hegemonic authority.

The Kochs don&rsquo;t care. They welcome global anarchy because they think they&rsquo;ll be able to profit by it. Perhaps Walt and Posen believe that they are successfully using Charles Koch toward their own end of constructing a more realist US foreign policy. But the Kochs, with billions of dollars at their disposal, are more likely to be the ones manipulating, not being manipulated.

&nbsp;

This <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/north_america/david-charles-koch-tax-bill-donlad-trump-us-politics-latest-news-88176/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">article</a> was first published in the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/" rel="nofollow" target="blank">Fair Observer</a>

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

The anti-war movement needs money, and the Koch brothers have it. But it comes with strings attached.

In November, the Charles Koch Foundation announced that it would provide nearly $4 million in grants to Harvard University and MIT to train the next generation of foreign policy professionals. It’s part of the foundation’s effort to steer US foreign policy away from its emphasis on military intervention and big Pentagon budgets. Yes, that’s right: Charles Koch. He’s the same fellow profiled in Jane Mayer’s devastating critique of how right-wing billionaires have injected their anti-government toxins into the American bloodstream. In Dark Money, Mayer describes how Charles and his brother David have funded organizations that have promoted tax cuts for the wealthy, an anti-regulatory agenda that trashes the environment in favor of energy companies (like Koch Industries) and Tea Party formations that want to shrink government to the point of non-existence. The Kochs subscribe to a radical, right-wing version of libertarianism according to which nothing should stand in the way of free enterprise. No surprise that the Kochs’ philosophy helps their own bottom line. They spent nearly a million dollars in support of George W. Bush and other Republicans in 2000, and then benefited hugely from the Bush administration’s preferential treatment of energy companies (not to mention the tens of millions of dollars in government contracts they secured since 2000). Even during the Obama years, their efforts at the federal and state level to “get government off their backs” helped to double their fortune, from $19 billion each in 2008 to $41 billion each in 2016. MAINSTREAM CREDIBILITY The Kochs are disgusting in many ways. But they can’t be faulted for being inconsistent in their hatred of government, all government. Most right-wing deficit hawks employ a national-security exception when they try to defund all parts of the government except the Pentagon. But the Kochs at least treat defense spending like all other government spending. In this case, it even goes against their pecuniary interests. The Kochs made around $170 million between 1996 and 2011 from defense contracts. In the grand scheme of things, of course, $10 million a year is a rounding error for billionaires. Their anti-war and anti-intervention philosophy has meant that the Cato Institute, the libertarian think tank started and funded by the Kochs, has taken consistently good positions on foreign policy over the years. But the Cato Institute, even with its huge budget and swank downtown headquarters, has always been a little off to the side in the Washington policy community. The Kochs crave mainstream credibility. So that’s why the Charles Koch Foundation is providing money to Harvard and MIT — the very definition of mainstream credibility — to encourage anti-interventionist thinking in academia. The two people who will administer the program are thoughtful critics of US militarism: Harvard’s Steven Walt and MIT’s Barry Posen. Walt and John Mearsheimer wrote a perceptive essay in Foreign Affairs in 2016 laying out the argument for “offshore balancing,” a grand strategy of scaling back US military commitments overseas that Posen also supports. I have a lot of respect for Walt and Posen. I have also worked with folks at Cato on various foreign policy initiatives. But in the current political climate, when the Trump administration is launching an all-out assault on federal programs and a Koch-supported tax bill is on its way to becoming law, should progressives welcome the few crumbs that the Kochs are throwing in the direction of anti-war initiatives? THE KOCHS AND TRUMP As a candidate for president, Donald Trump made some noises about opposing military interventions and reducing the Pentagon’s footprint overseas. Thanks largely to his senior advisor Steve Bannon, Trump also came to embrace the radical anti-government positions that right-wing libertarians favor. But Charles and David Koch actively disliked Trump; a third brother, Bill, supported the Republican nominee. As the 2016 campaign heated up, rumors circulated of a Koch-funded anti-Trump campaign and of Charles Koch even supporting Hillary Clinton. Those turned out to be false. The Kochs didn’t activate their network to support Trump, but they also didn’t rule out cooperation. Indeed, a number of Koch-friendly politicians and operatives were embedded in the campaign, from Mike Pence (Trump’s running mate) to Corey Lewandowski (Trump’s campaign manager, fired in June 2016). Marc Short, Pence’s communications advisor and then Trump’s legislative director, once headed up Freedom Partners, a Koch-funded organization. “The vacuum in Trump not having his own network is filled by people who’ve been cultivated for years by the Koch network,” Richard L. Hasen, a UC Irvine law professor told the Los Angeles Times. It wasn’t long after the administration took office that the Koch brothers began to investigate how the Trump team could advance their agenda. They welcomed Trump’s pullout from the Paris Climate Agreement, the various environmental regulations that the administration rolled back and the congressional effort to kill the Affordable Care Act. By May, the brothers identified Trump’s tax plan as something they could get behind — in a big way. As the fight intensified in Congress, the Koch network was going all out. Tim Phillips, president of the Koch-affiliated Americans for Prosperity, told The Boston Globe: “It’s the most significant federal effort we’ve ever taken on.” The Koch network has pooled $400 million for the next two years of political work, and it’s applying a good chunk of that to getting the tax bill passed. It’s been a full-court press with op-eds and $8 million in attack ads. So, let’s dispense with the notion that the Kochs can be relied on to fund a big-tent effort against Trump. They don’t like his positions on immigration, marijuana or criminal justice reform. But they’re eager to exploit Trump as a “useful idiot” in their campaign to pillage the commonwealth. AGAINST THE GLOBALISTS It’s easy for me to take a principled stand against taking money from the Kochs. They haven’t offered me any. But here are some reasons why others might think twice about taking their anti-war resources. The ideological reason: A progressive anti-war position is part of a larger internationalist program that supports global peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction, robust environmental programs, transnational anti-poverty efforts and human rights mechanisms that hold countries and individuals accountable. The Kochs aren’t interested in any of that. All of the prescriptive elements of the progressive internationalist agenda require strong states. The Kochs believe that the invisible hand of the free market will solve all problems, without any state guidance or interference. In the same way that Margaret Thatcher didn’t believe in society, only individuals, the Kochs don’t really believe in the international community. The only transnational force that has any import for them are transnational corporations. Their anti-war funding thus comes with some serious (if often hidden) ideological strings attached. The monetary reason: So far, the Charles Koch Foundation has shelled out less than $15 million to support programs at educational institutions to look at a less militaristic foreign policy. That’s a pittance compared to what it’s spending on efforts to unravel Obamacare or get Trump’s tax plan passed. It’s also about what the Kochs make every year off the US military. Perhaps if Koch Enterprises announced that it was divesting from all military-related activities, their charitable giving would have more impact. The educational reason: As Jane Mayer points out in Dark Money, the Kochs have funded programs at universities to shift academic discourse away from liberal and progressive thinking. Their funding of programs on “law and economics,” for instance, has helped to shift the legal profession toward more laissez-faire thinking. And it’s not as if the Kochs have been particularly transparent about their methods. Jane Mayer quotes a Koch advisor, George Pearson: “Traditional gifts to universities, he warned, didn’t guarantee enough ideological control. Instead, he advocated funding private institutes within prestigious universities, where influence over hiring decisions and other forms of control could be exerted by donors while hiding the radicalism of their aims.” The legitimacy reason: The Kochs have been trying to give the appearance of being transpartisan. They have collaborated with progressives on sentencing reform, though as Mayer points out they’re probably more interested in getting reduced sentences for corporations than for the poor. They work with the Negro College Fund, but the money goes toward demonstrating how “principled entrepreneurship, economics, and innovation contribute to well-being for individuals, communities, and society.” The term “well-being,” as Mayer details, was something the Kochs came up with to put a smiley face on funding that otherwise destroys communities, social welfare programs and the environment. Even if their new foreign policy funding doesn’t come with such strings, it still helps with the image makeover of the Kochs. So, even though Walt and Posen, not Charles Koch, will be administering the funds at Harvard and MIT, the program could well be the thin edge of the wedge. If the Kochs decide to pour money into foreign policy, they could successfully untether the anti-war position from its internationalist foundations. If such arguments prove successful, the United States will scale back its military presence, but the world won’t become any safer as a result. Overall global military spending might increase to compensate for US retrenchment. US allies — South Korea, Japan — might decide to acquire their own nuclear weapons programs if the US nuclear umbrella becomes frayed. Absent a strong international security framework, other countries will inevitably fight each other for the mantle of US hegemonic authority. The Kochs don’t care. They welcome global anarchy because they think they’ll be able to profit by it. Perhaps Walt and Posen believe that they are successfully using Charles Koch toward their own end of constructing a more realist US foreign policy. But the Kochs, with billions of dollars at their disposal, are more likely to be the ones manipulating, not being manipulated. This article was first published in the Fair Observer (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: When bad money supports good foreign policy

I was going to Rohingya refugee camps in Balukhali from Cox&rsquo;s town in a battery run three-wheeler locally called &ldquo;auto&rdquo;. Six people can commute in such vehicle. All my co-passengers were locals of this rural area, and it was understood from their discussion that they had no or primary level of education. Surprisingly, I found them discussing Rohingya crisis and the discussion included geopolitics in their own style. The driver of the three-wheeler also joined the discussion.

The time was early September. In the discussion, I found them to be very angry with China for its indirect support to Myanmar in the atrocities against Rohingya people. &ldquo; China er jonnoi Burma er ato sahosh barse&rdquo; was the gist of their discussion in Bangla meaning &ldquo;Myanmar is so arrogant for China&rsquo;s support&rdquo;.

A few days later when the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Myanmar and reportedly told Suu Kyi that India was with Myanmar, I witnessed how the anger against China just turned into anger against India. People were no longer concerned about China. It seemed to me that it was expected to them that China would side&nbsp;with Myanmar but they did not expect India to support Myanmar against Bangladesh.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Anti-Chinese sentiment could have grown rapidly in Bangladesh due to China&rsquo;s continued support to Myanmar government as Rohingya sentiment has been very high in Muslim majority Bangladesh.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Anti-Chinese sentiment could have grown rapidly in Bangladesh due to China?s continued support to Myanmar government as Rohingya sentiment has been very high in Muslim majority Bangladesh. " target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

The news that PM Modi said India was with Myanmar went viral on Bangladesh&rsquo;s social media. I found many people who were never critical of India were critical&nbsp;this time. Added to the injury, the BJP government also expressed their interest to deport Rohingya refugees who took shelter in India.

One Bangladeshi newspaper carried a report that some Rohingya refugees were pushed from India to Bangladesh through Satkhira border. There was a backlash in Bangladesh following this report. At the same time, in Assam, BJP reportedly carried out campaign to deport what they call &ldquo;illegal Bangladeshis&rdquo; there. There was an uproar in Bangladesh after local newspapers reported on this false claim of the Assam BJP.

And recently, when news circulated that India abstained from voting in a UN resolution on Rohingyas while Pakistan voted in favour of it, there was also uproar on Bangladeshi social media.

As I extensively covered Rohingya crisis and visited different parts of the country to work on varies reports in the last few weeks, it seemed to me that India missed an opportunity in the Rohingya crisis. Anti-Chinese sentiment could have grown rapidly in Bangladesh due to China&rsquo;s continued support to Myanmar government as Rohingya sentiment has been very high in Muslim majority Bangladesh. However, the wrong policy of the Modi government on the Rohingya issue has helped grow anti-Indian sentiment in Bangladesh instead.

There was another crucial aspect. The Bangladeshi Opposition parties have been criticising the government for putting all its eggs in one basket, i.e. depending on India in the foreign policy matters. When India turned its back on Bangladesh, during one of the biggest crises, the anti-Indian quarter got fuel and it is at all time high in Bangladesh.

There might be some equations of the Modi government to take this policy on Rohingya crisis. We have heard that this is due to India&rsquo;s &ldquo;Go East&rdquo; policy. The Modi government might have a fear that growing Chinese influence in East Asian nations might cause problems to India in the coming days and Myanmar is the gateway for India to establish ground in other East Asian nations.

It also might have fear about its North East and its huge investment in Rakhine state. China might be benefited in any tension between India and Myanmar. It has the real fear of insurgents in North East of India getting direct support from Myanmar.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>As India has strong influence both on Suu Kyi and her party and on Bangladesh, it could easily meditate the Rohingya crisis.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=As India has strong influence both on Suu Kyi and her party and on Bangladesh, it could easily meditate the Rohingya crisis. " target="_blank">&nbsp;</a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

However, the way Modi government dealt the crisis was a real disaster. Many Bangladeshis believe that the Modi government&rsquo;s Rohingya policy was the result of its anti-Muslim mindset. There were many discussions on different platforms in Bangladesh that India would not take the same policy if Rohingyas are not Muslims. Many also pointed out that the Modi government does not have the same policy for refugees of other religious groups like Tibetan and Tamil refugees.

As India has strong influence both on Suu Kyi and her party and on Bangladesh, it could easily meditate the Rohingya crisis. Even if it could not successful, any such attempt would help grow anti-Chinese sentiment in Bangladesh. However, siding with a country against a friendly nation who helped smashed insurgents in its North East can never constitute a smart foreign policy.

In my opinion, after Doklam crisis which alarmed Bhutan of its national security and forced it to rethink about its full dependency on India, the Rohingya crisis is another foreign policy mistake of the Modi government. I fear that these might be two historical mistakes for India. They have potentials to end India&rsquo;s strong influence on these two neighbouring nations.

(Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

India missed an opportunity to win over Bangladesh from China by siding with Myanmar on Rohingya issue.

I was going to Rohingya refugee camps in Balukhali from Cox’s town in a battery run three-wheeler locally called “auto”. Six people can commute in such vehicle. All my co-passengers were locals of this rural area, and it was understood from their discussion that they had no or primary level of education. Surprisingly, I found them discussing Rohingya crisis and the discussion included geopolitics in their own style. The driver of the three-wheeler also joined the discussion. The time was early September. In the discussion, I found them to be very angry with China for its indirect support to Myanmar in the atrocities against Rohingya people. “ China er jonnoi Burma er ato sahosh barse” was the gist of their discussion in Bangla meaning “Myanmar is so arrogant for China’s support”. A few days later when the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Myanmar and reportedly told Suu Kyi that India was with Myanmar, I witnessed how the anger against China just turned into anger against India. People were no longer concerned about China. It seemed to me that it was expected to them that China would side with Myanmar but they did not expect India to support Myanmar against Bangladesh. Anti-Chinese sentiment could have grown rapidly in Bangladesh due to China’s continued support to Myanmar government as Rohingya sentiment has been very high in Muslim majority Bangladesh. × The news that PM Modi said India was with Myanmar went viral on Bangladesh’s social media. I found many people who were never critical of India were critical this time. Added to the injury, the BJP government also expressed their interest to deport Rohingya refugees who took shelter in India. One Bangladeshi newspaper carried a report that some Rohingya refugees were pushed from India to Bangladesh through Satkhira border. There was a backlash in Bangladesh following this report. At the same time, in Assam, BJP reportedly carried out campaign to deport what they call “illegal Bangladeshis” there. There was an uproar in Bangladesh after local newspapers reported on this false claim of the Assam BJP. And recently, when news circulated that India abstained from voting in a UN resolution on Rohingyas while Pakistan voted in favour of it, there was also uproar on Bangladeshi social media. As I extensively covered Rohingya crisis and visited different parts of the country to work on varies reports in the last few weeks, it seemed to me that India missed an opportunity in the Rohingya crisis. Anti-Chinese sentiment could have grown rapidly in Bangladesh due to China’s continued support to Myanmar government as Rohingya sentiment has been very high in Muslim majority Bangladesh. However, the wrong policy of the Modi government on the Rohingya issue has helped grow anti-Indian sentiment in Bangladesh instead. There was another crucial aspect. The Bangladeshi Opposition parties have been criticising the government for putting all its eggs in one basket, i.e. depending on India in the foreign policy matters. When India turned its back on Bangladesh, during one of the biggest crises, the anti-Indian quarter got fuel and it is at all time high in Bangladesh. There might be some equations of the Modi government to take this policy on Rohingya crisis. We have heard that this is due to India’s “Go East” policy. The Modi government might have a fear that growing Chinese influence in East Asian nations might cause problems to India in the coming days and Myanmar is the gateway for India to establish ground in other East Asian nations. It also might have fear about its North East and its huge investment in Rakhine state. China might be benefited in any tension between India and Myanmar. It has the real fear of insurgents in North East of India getting direct support from Myanmar. As India has strong influence both on Suu Kyi and her party and on Bangladesh, it could easily meditate the Rohingya crisis. × However, the way Modi government dealt the crisis was a real disaster. Many Bangladeshis believe that the Modi government’s Rohingya policy was the result of its anti-Muslim mindset. There were many discussions on different platforms in Bangladesh that India would not take the same policy if Rohingyas are not Muslims. Many also pointed out that the Modi government does not have the same policy for refugees of other religious groups like Tibetan and Tamil refugees. As India has strong influence both on Suu Kyi and her party and on Bangladesh, it could easily meditate the Rohingya crisis. Even if it could not successful, any such attempt would help grow anti-Chinese sentiment in Bangladesh. However, siding with a country against a friendly nation who helped smashed insurgents in its North East can never constitute a smart foreign policy. In my opinion, after Doklam crisis which alarmed Bhutan of its national security and forced it to rethink about its full dependency on India, the Rohingya crisis is another foreign policy mistake of the Modi government. I fear that these might be two historical mistakes for India. They have potentials to end India’s strong influence on these two neighbouring nations. (Disclaimer: The author writes here in a personal capacity).

Opinion: India missed an opportunity to counter China on Rohingyas

There is unprecedented turbulence in the world today. India is required to skillfully and nimbly navigate its way through these volatile and precarious circumstances and promote its national interests.&nbsp;

Till the cold war lasted, from the end of the Second World War till the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world was divided into two more or less neat sets of powers that were aligned against each other. In spite of the tension, there were certainty and continuity in the world order. There was a large array of countries which were non-aligned but their predilections to choose between the two groups of countries was quite evident.

The whole edifice of international relations, however, came tumbling down with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the United States as the single dominant power in the world. India which was feeling stifled because of its perceived closeness to the Soviet camp quickly grasped the opportunity and decisively reached out to the West. Some specific actions in this regard included the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel, and launch of &nbsp;the &#39;&#39;Look East Policy.&#39;&#39; These decisions were motivated by India&#39;s desire to take benefit of the technological and innovative prowess of Israel, and rejuvenate its economy and strategic heft by reaching out to the Asian Tigers and cub economies which had started performing strongly from the early &#39;80s.

This display of increased strategic autonomy and independence of action by India became visible in the nuclear tests conducted by the Vajpayee government in 1998. These culminated in the India-US civil nuclear deal, the framework for which was signed in July 2005 and which crossed the final hurdle with the approval of the unique waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group in September 2008.&nbsp;

India&#39;s relations with the US and the West were further strengthened when President Barack Obama declared, during his first visit to Delhi in 2010, US support for India&#39;s membership in an expanded UN Security Council. &nbsp;

India&#39;s vigorous reach out to its partners in all corners of the globe received a huge impetus with the advent of the Modi led NDA government in May 2014. While giving special priority to the neighbouring states, P-5 countries and the middle rung powers, Modi has not neglected Africa or comparatively smaller players.&nbsp;

The United States received special attention by Prime Minister Modi. This resulted in Obama becoming the first US president to visit India twice during his tenure. He was also the first US President to be the Chief Guest at India&#39;s Republic Day Celebrations in January 2015. As Modi declared during his Address to the US Congress in June 2016, a strong India is in the interest of USA and also that India has overcome the &#39;&#39;hesitations of history&#39;&#39; in forging closer and stronger ties with America. While earlier there might have been a concord of values between the two democracies, today there is also a strong convergence of interests.

India has also reached out to Russia to bring the partnership on a more robust and substantive plane. The India-Russia summits in 2016 at Goa and in 2017 at St Petersburg have imparted a huge fillip to bilateral ties. In addition to promoting political and strategic understanding to jointly fight terrorism, concrete steps have been taken to promote collaboration in nuclear energy, defence acquisition and to joint production of state of the art defence equipment, fossil fuels, and space research.&nbsp;

India, however, needs to accept the fact that Russia&#39;s ties with Pakistan are warming. Also, Russia has reached out to the Taliban with the intention of engaging it in finding a solution to Afghanistan security issue. While sensitizing Russia on India&#39;s concerns on both these issues at every available opportunity, India should continue to strengthen and expand its partnership with Russia.

While India&#39;s relations with most neighbours have improved and witnessed an upward trend, those with China and Pakistan have visibly come under increased stress. With Pakistan, the fundamental bottleneck is the latter&#39;s support for terrorism. Relations can get better only when Pakistan abjures the use of terrorism as an instrument of its foreign policy.

With China, India has taken several initiatives to improve ties, only to be met with rebuff. China looks upon India as its strategic adversary and sees it&nbsp;as the only power which can challenge its rise to dominance in Asia and globally. It is in a hurry to attain the Middle Kingdom status which it feels it has lost because of the &#39;&#39;century of national humiliation&#39;&#39; and due to unequal treaties imposed on it by foreign powers. &nbsp;

The Doklam standoff is only a symptom. It is not the cause of tense relations between India and China. While India feels that there is adequate space - political, strategic and economic - for the two countries to grow and realise their potential, China considers it to be a zero sum game. China would like to scuttle and stunt India&#39;s growth at every possible step. Only this can explain its decision to abort India&#39;s membership of UNSC, of NSG, to block proscribing Azhar Masood as a terrorist by UN, and its use of most abusive and insulting language against India in the Doklam face off episode.&nbsp;

On the contrary, India has conducted itself civilly. A new matrix of ties with China will have to be worked out in the coming days because irrespective of the manner in which the Doklam issue is resolved, relations between India and China will never be the same. It cannot continue to be business as usual.

India has reached out proactively to a number of increasingly important middle powers like Japan, Germany, France, UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Singapore, Vietnam and others to create a web of partnerships that are mutually beneficial to India as well as to these countries.

In addition to promoting India&#39;s influence and voice in international affairs, one of the significant objectives of Modi&#39;s foreign policy is to harness the strengths of its foreign partners to India&#39;s benefits. The goal is to promote India&#39;s economic development through getting help in technology, capital, management practices, and professional training. &nbsp;India&#39;s foreign policy initiatives are now closely tied to major national initiatives, such as &nbsp;Make in India. Smart Cities, Skill India, Digital India, Clean India, among others.

In addition, Modi visited several other countries, such as Mongolia, Fiji and Central Asia which have thus far not received the desired attention although they are strategically and economically important for India.&nbsp;

Today the Atlantic Order has ceased to be the predominant framework in which international relations are conducted. Notwithstanding the fact that overall GDP of China might overtake that of USA in the coming years, the salience of USA will, however, continue to dominate world events. America&#39;s supremacy is still strongly grounded in technology, innovation and military prowess. China has a long way to go to be recognised as a super power. It still does not have the network of collaborative alliances, built on a similar set of ideology that the USA and the West continue to be a part of.

Today India has evolved from a non-aligned state of the Cold War years to a multi-aligned state, wherein it seeks to maintain robust and vibrant ties with a wide and diverse array of global powers. This shift in diplomatic postures has become indispensable for India to promote its security interests, territorial integrity and in fostering economic development.&nbsp;

India has evolved from a non-aligned state of the Cold War years to a multi-aligned state, wherein it seeks to maintain robust and vibrant ties with a wide and diverse array of global powers.

There is unprecedented turbulence in the world today. India is required to skillfully and nimbly navigate its way through these volatile and precarious circumstances and promote its national interests. Till the cold war lasted, from the end of the Second World War till the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the world was divided into two more or less neat sets of powers that were aligned against each other. In spite of the tension, there were certainty and continuity in the world order. There was a large array of countries which were non-aligned but their predilections to choose between the two groups of countries was quite evident. The whole edifice of international relations, however, came tumbling down with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the United States as the single dominant power in the world. India which was feeling stifled because of its perceived closeness to the Soviet camp quickly grasped the opportunity and decisively reached out to the West. Some specific actions in this regard included the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel, and launch of the ''Look East Policy.'' These decisions were motivated by India's desire to take benefit of the technological and innovative prowess of Israel, and rejuvenate its economy and strategic heft by reaching out to the Asian Tigers and cub economies which had started performing strongly from the early '80s. This display of increased strategic autonomy and independence of action by India became visible in the nuclear tests conducted by the Vajpayee government in 1998. These culminated in the India-US civil nuclear deal, the framework for which was signed in July 2005 and which crossed the final hurdle with the approval of the unique waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers Group in September 2008. India's relations with the US and the West were further strengthened when President Barack Obama declared, during his first visit to Delhi in 2010, US support for India's membership in an expanded UN Security Council. India's vigorous reach out to its partners in all corners of the globe received a huge impetus with the advent of the Modi led NDA government in May 2014. While giving special priority to the neighbouring states, P-5 countries and the middle rung powers, Modi has not neglected Africa or comparatively smaller players. The United States received special attention by Prime Minister Modi. This resulted in Obama becoming the first US president to visit India twice during his tenure. He was also the first US President to be the Chief Guest at India's Republic Day Celebrations in January 2015. As Modi declared during his Address to the US Congress in June 2016, a strong India is in the interest of USA and also that India has overcome the ''hesitations of history'' in forging closer and stronger ties with America. While earlier there might have been a concord of values between the two democracies, today there is also a strong convergence of interests. India has also reached out to Russia to bring the partnership on a more robust and substantive plane. The India-Russia summits in 2016 at Goa and in 2017 at St Petersburg have imparted a huge fillip to bilateral ties. In addition to promoting political and strategic understanding to jointly fight terrorism, concrete steps have been taken to promote collaboration in nuclear energy, defence acquisition and to joint production of state of the art defence equipment, fossil fuels, and space research. India, however, needs to accept the fact that Russia's ties with Pakistan are warming. Also, Russia has reached out to the Taliban with the intention of engaging it in finding a solution to Afghanistan security issue. While sensitizing Russia on India's concerns on both these issues at every available opportunity, India should continue to strengthen and expand its partnership with Russia. While India's relations with most neighbours have improved and witnessed an upward trend, those with China and Pakistan have visibly come under increased stress. With Pakistan, the fundamental bottleneck is the latter's support for terrorism. Relations can get better only when Pakistan abjures the use of terrorism as an instrument of its foreign policy. With China, India has taken several initiatives to improve ties, only to be met with rebuff. China looks upon India as its strategic adversary and sees it as the only power which can challenge its rise to dominance in Asia and globally. It is in a hurry to attain the Middle Kingdom status which it feels it has lost because of the ''century of national humiliation'' and due to unequal treaties imposed on it by foreign powers. The Doklam standoff is only a symptom. It is not the cause of tense relations between India and China. While India feels that there is adequate space - political, strategic and economic - for the two countries to grow and realise their potential, China considers it to be a zero sum game. China would like to scuttle and stunt India's growth at every possible step. Only this can explain its decision to abort India's membership of UNSC, of NSG, to block proscribing Azhar Masood as a terrorist by UN, and its use of most abusive and insulting language against India in the Doklam face off episode. On the contrary, India has conducted itself civilly. A new matrix of ties with China will have to be worked out in the coming days because irrespective of the manner in which the Doklam issue is resolved, relations between India and China will never be the same. It cannot continue to be business as usual. India has reached out proactively to a number of increasingly important middle powers like Japan, Germany, France, UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Singapore, Vietnam and others to create a web of partnerships that are mutually beneficial to India as well as to these countries. In addition to promoting India's influence and voice in international affairs, one of the significant objectives of Modi's foreign policy is to harness the strengths of its foreign partners to India's benefits. The goal is to promote India's economic development through getting help in technology, capital, management practices, and professional training. India's foreign policy initiatives are now closely tied to major national initiatives, such as Make in India. Smart Cities, Skill India, Digital India, Clean India, among others. In addition, Modi visited several other countries, such as Mongolia, Fiji and Central Asia which have thus far not received the desired attention although they are strategically and economically important for India. Today the Atlantic Order has ceased to be the predominant framework in which international relations are conducted. Notwithstanding the fact that overall GDP of China might overtake that of USA in the coming years, the salience of USA will, however, continue to dominate world events. America's supremacy is still strongly grounded in technology, innovation and military prowess. China has a long way to go to be recognised as a super power. It still does not have the network of collaborative alliances, built on a similar set of ideology that the USA and the West continue to be a part of. Today India has evolved from a non-aligned state of the Cold War years to a multi-aligned state, wherein it seeks to maintain robust and vibrant ties with a wide and diverse array of global powers. This shift in diplomatic postures has become indispensable for India to promote its security interests, territorial integrity and in fostering economic development.

The milestones of Indian Foreign Policy @ 70

Top US diplomat John Kerry will fly to Brussels and London on Monday for talks with Washington&#39;s key allies in the aftermath of Britain&#39;s vote to leave the European Union. 
 
US officials travelling to Rome with the secretary of state told reporters on the flight that two stops had been added to his European itinerary at the last moment. 
 
&quot;Tomorrow we&#39;ll go to Brussels and then on to London,&quot; one official said. 
 
Washington was dismayed last week when British voters chose to leave the European Union, a decision that triggered global economic uncertainty and fears other EU members will follow suit. 
 
President Barack Obama had made clear his concern about the Brexit referendum, and now US officials are scrambling to try to stop the political crisis harming Western unity. 
 
Kerry arrived in Rome today on a planned visit to have lunch with Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni and a working dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 
 
But officials on his flight said that on Monday he would fly on to the EU headquarters in Brussels for crisis talks with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. 
 
Mogherini had been expected to meet Kerry in Rome today, but she was busy dealing with the fallout of the dramatic vote, which stunned European and world leaders. 
 
From Brussels Kerry will continue to London to see Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and other officials from outgoing British Prime Minister David Cameron`s government. 
 
The two senior diplomats are expected to hold a joint news conference before Kerry leaves to return to Washington. 
 
Obama and Kerry have been at pains to insist the vaunted &quot;special relationship&quot; between Washington and London will survive what US officials view as the Brexit debacle.But Washington foreign policy experts are all but unanimous in assessing that the White House will increasingly turn to core EU allies to defend its interests on the continent. 
 
Obama himself, on a visit to London last month, warned British voters that their nation would go &quot;to the back of the queue&quot; for a US trade deal if they voted &quot;out.&quot; 
 
US officials are also keen to help London`s divorce from Brussels go through smoothly without further inflicting further damage on skittish world financial markets. 
 
But they, like many EU capitals, are also concerned not to allow Brexit to serve as an inspiration for eurosceptic forces in other members such as Italy or The Netherlands. 
 
The London visit will be the first by a senior US official since Thursday`s dramatic referendum, when voters demanded Britain leave the world`s richest trading bloc.&nbsp; 
 
Kerry&#39;s trip had originally been planned as an opportunity to meet Netanyahu and discuss regional security and the stalled Israel-Palestinian peace process. 
 
But US officials played down the chance of any concrete progress, insisting that the pair meet regularly and that no new initiative would be on the table.&nbsp; 
 
(AFP)

London visit will be the first by John Kerry after the referendum when voters demanded Britain leave the world's richest trading bloc

Top US diplomat John Kerry will fly to Brussels and London on Monday for talks with Washington's key allies in the aftermath of Britain's vote to leave the European Union. US officials travelling to Rome with the secretary of state told reporters on the flight that two stops had been added to his European itinerary at the last moment. "Tomorrow we'll go to Brussels and then on to London," one official said. Washington was dismayed last week when British voters chose to leave the European Union, a decision that triggered global economic uncertainty and fears other EU members will follow suit. President Barack Obama had made clear his concern about the Brexit referendum, and now US officials are scrambling to try to stop the political crisis harming Western unity. Kerry arrived in Rome today on a planned visit to have lunch with Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni and a working dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But officials on his flight said that on Monday he would fly on to the EU headquarters in Brussels for crisis talks with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. Mogherini had been expected to meet Kerry in Rome today, but she was busy dealing with the fallout of the dramatic vote, which stunned European and world leaders. From Brussels Kerry will continue to London to see Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and other officials from outgoing British Prime Minister David Cameron`s government. The two senior diplomats are expected to hold a joint news conference before Kerry leaves to return to Washington. Obama and Kerry have been at pains to insist the vaunted "special relationship" between Washington and London will survive what US officials view as the Brexit debacle.But Washington foreign policy experts are all but unanimous in assessing that the White House will increasingly turn to core EU allies to defend its interests on the continent. Obama himself, on a visit to London last month, warned British voters that their nation would go "to the back of the queue" for a US trade deal if they voted "out." US officials are also keen to help London`s divorce from Brussels go through smoothly without further inflicting further damage on skittish world financial markets. But they, like many EU capitals, are also concerned not to allow Brexit to serve as an inspiration for eurosceptic forces in other members such as Italy or The Netherlands. The London visit will be the first by a senior US official since Thursday`s dramatic referendum, when voters demanded Britain leave the world`s richest trading bloc. Kerry's trip had originally been planned as an opportunity to meet Netanyahu and discuss regional security and the stalled Israel-Palestinian peace process. But US officials played down the chance of any concrete progress, insisting that the pair meet regularly and that no new initiative would be on the table. (AFP)

Top US envoy Kerry heads to Britain amid Brexit crisis

foreign-policy

Foreign Policy, News on Foreign Policy, stories on Foreign Policy, articles on Foreign Policy, Foreign Policy stories at Wion, Foreign Policy news, Foreign Policy latest news