US President Donald Trump on Friday discussed with Saudi King Salman efforts to resolve the month-long dispute between Qatar and four Arab states, the White House said.

Speaking from Air Force One by phone, Trump emphasized the need to cut all funding for terrorism and discredit extremist ideology.

The two leaders underscored the importance of following through on commitments from the Riyadh Summit, according to a readout from the White House.

The Anti-Terror Quartet (ATQ) — comprising Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and Bahrain — cut ties with Qatar over allegations it funds extremist groups and is allying with Iran. Qatar denies this.

King Salman congratulated Trump on the victory over Daesh in Mosul.

An Indonesian priest in Papua has joined rights activists in filing a judicial review of the country’s treason law in the Constitutional Court.

They said the right to freedom of expression is being abused by authorities who slap treason charges against people for simply taking part in peaceful demonstrations.

The activists want the court to clarify what provisions in the law justify the charge and whether they are constitutional.

The law is used as a tool by the government to suppress the voices of Papuans protesting against injustice and rights abuses, said Father John Djonga.

“Ordinary Papuans stage demonstrations to protest abuses by the state apparatus, as well as lack of health and education services, but they are later arrested and charged with treason,” he told ucanews.com on July 13.

Their lawyer, Yusman Conoras, said the government is applying the law in a very discriminatory way.

“In Jakarta, every day there are people demonstrating and it is treated casually. However, if in Papua people hold rallies, they are considered separatists, “he said.

Over-repressive measures are dangerous because they trigger and foster resentment, he said.

According to the Setara Institute for Democracy and Peace 2,214 civilians and 489 political activists in Papua were victims of rights abuses last year, many of whom were arrested during demonstrations.

The leader of the northeastern Spanish region of Catalonia reshuffled his Cabinet on Friday, Jul. 14 to strengthen the regional government, which wants to hold a referendum on independence from Spain promised for Oct. 1, The Associated Press reports.

Spain’s government says the vote is unconstitutional and has pledged to prosecute officials who take formal steps to hold it.

Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont told reporters that he is replacing three councilors in charge of security, presidency and education, as well as the Cabinet secretary, in order to “reinforce” the regional government.

The officials “took the decision of stepping aside,” Puigdemont said.

Spanish media reported that the changes came following internal divisions about the feasibility of holding a referendum. Earlier this month, Puigdemont replaced another close aide who had voiced doubts publicly.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy called the changes “a purge” and “one more sign of the authoritarian drift” of Puigdemont’s government.

“Today those in doubt are being purged in favor of radicalism,” the conservative leader said. “What kind of dialogue do they seek with this behavior?”

Catalonia and Spain have been at loggerheads for years because of the regional government’s plans to hold a secession vote. Spain’s central government has challenged in the Constitutional Court nearly every measure taken by the Catalan government and has succeeded in blocking most of them.

The latest has been a draft law that would enable the ruling nationalist Catalan parties to declare independence from Spain within 48 hours of winning the referendum no matter what the turnout is for the vote.

The law was described by Rajoy as “authoritarian delirium.” It needs to be approved by regional lawmakers first, before central authorities can challenge it through the Constitutional Court.

Catalonia, whose capital is Barcelona, represents a fifth of Spain’s gross domestic product.

Polls consistently show the 7.5 million Catalans are evenly divided on independence, but a majority supports holding a referendum.

By Mihir S Sharma*

In the three years since Narendra Modi was swept to power with an unprecedented mandate, the conduct of India’s foreign policy has been given a new energy. Mr Modi has been an indefatigable traveller, and his administration has sought to build or repair relationships with many of India’s neighbours and partners.

It is difficult to claim that any grand strategy underlies this energy, which seems rather to respond to the demands of the moment than anything else; but it could well be argued that Mr Modi sees foreign policy essentially as an extension of his immediate domestic priorities. These can be summarised as the following: first, to ensure fewer constraints on the development of India’s economy, and the creation of more jobs in the formal sector to employ the country’s ever-increasing population of young people; and second, to raise India’s profile and inculcate a new sense of pride in nationhood.

It is the first of these two priorities that is of concern here. Under Mr Modi’s administration, economic relations have taken on a primacy in foreign policy. On his visits to various countries, he has stressed his government’s efforts to improve the business climate in India, and has determinedly pitched for an increase in foreign investment. There has been much talk of improving bilateral trade ties with a series of trading partners – though sadly little action.

Yet even this rhetorical emphasis on bilateral trade ties is not present when the Modi government’s approach to multilateral trade is examined. Here, in fact, it is easy to see this government as moving backward when compared even to its predecessor, led by Dr Manmohan Singh.

Signs of this backsliding were visible early on in Mr Modi’s term, when commerce ministry negotiators single-handedly held up the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) trade facilitation agreement, in an attempt to get the rest of the world to agree to India’s right to stockpile enormous amounts of grain as part of the public distribution system (PDS). This was sold as a right-to-food issue, but in fact emerged from Mr Modi’s conviction that public procurement of grain was an essential tool to ensure his continued popularity in rural areas. It was clear at that very point, just a few months into the new government, that multilateral trade negotiations were not to be considered a priority.

Subsequent developments were even more disquieting. Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman made it clear that the burst of trade agreements that had been negotiated, signed or initiated over the previous decade or so would need to be reviewed. Partly this was a product of concerns openly raised by various stakeholders over India’s free-trade agreements (FTA) with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), which some claim ‘benefited’ India less than it did the other parties to the agreement. In a sign that Mr Modi’s government preferred bilateral to multilateral deals, there has been little movement on pushing this FTA forward into new domains such services, and instead efforts have been made to rework bilateral investment treaties with dozens of countries.

It is certainly undeniable that movement on other multilateral agreements has been stalled. Negotiations with the European Union (EU) have broken down on various issues to do with protectionist impulses from India’s automotive and dairy sectors as well as demands for concessions from the big information technology companies. Since, instead of this complex multilateral enterprise the Modi government has shown a preference for dealing with individual governments, some hope attached to post-Brexit contact between New Delhi and London – though that, too, seems unlikely to prosper in the immediate future thanks to both sides being fairly intransigent on the question of migration. India wants more and easier visas as part of any deal, and the Conservative government in Whitehall is mindful of the fact that many of its voters supported Brexit precisely because they wished for less migration into the UK.

India has, of course, never been particularly enthusiastic about the great plurilateral trade deals that seemed to be becoming a feature of the global order under the previous dispensation in the US. It had no intention of joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the commerce ministry even claimed erroneously the TPP was likely to make little difference to Indian exports. This cynical approach may seem to be validated by the rise of Donald Trump, and his dramatic denunciation of such deals – which he followed up by taking the US out of the TPP. But it would be unwise to declare the era of mega trade negotiations over. Even the TPP may have a surprising afterlife – once domestic consensus is achieved in so many countries over regulatory harmonisation and behind-the-border changes, it would be futile to expect that it would have no influence on future negotiation.

Indeed, it is reported that discussions for the plurilateral trade deal known as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RECEP), to which India is a party, have begun to feature some of the aspects of the TPP in terms of regulatory issues that New Delhi is least comfortable with. In general, New Delhi’s generally negative positions at RCEP negotiations has led to much publicised comments from foreign diplomats about the possibility that RCEP might even move forward without Indian participation.

The Modi government’s preference for bilateral trade discussions over multilateral or plurilateral trade deals is a reflection, perhaps, of the prime minister’s penchant for personal diplomacy, as well as a certain smugness in the New Delhi establishment about the indispensability and bargaining power of a fast-growing India. But the larger arguments, from India’s point of view, in favour of multilateral and plurilateral deals have not lost any force in the past three years, however much they may have been ignored.

India needs to embed itself in a world trading system that has gone on without it. It needs behind-the-border international deals in order to force its own antiquated regulations and systems to change. And it is far more likely to get a good deal by taking the initiative at the WTO or in forums like the RCEP than through sporadic and inconsistent bilateral negotiations. Hopefully, in the two years that remain of his term, Mr Modi will expand his notion of economic diplomacy sufficiently.

* Mihir S Sharma
Columnist, Bloomberg View and Business Standard; and Fellow, Observer Research Foundation (ORF), New Delhi

State security forces in Rwanda have summarily killed at least 37 suspected petty offenders and forcibly disappeared four others since April 2016, Human Rights Watch said in a report. Most victims were accused of stealing items such as bananas, a cow, or a motorcycle. Others were suspected of smuggling marijuana, illegally crossing the border from the Democratic Republic of Congo, or of using illegal fishing nets.

The 40-page report, “‘All Thieves Must Be Killed’: Extrajudicial Executions in Western Rwanda,” details how military, police and auxiliary security units, sometimes with the assistance of local civilian authorities, apprehended suspected petty offenders and summarily executed them. Two men were killed by civilians after local authorities encouraged residents to kill thieves. In all the cases Human Rights Watch documented, the victims were killed without any effort at due process to establish their guilt or bring them to justice, and none posed any imminent threat to life that could have otherwise justified the use of lethal force against them.

“Rwandan security forces are carrying out a brutal campaign of cold-blooded murder in the Western Province,” said Daniel Bekele, senior director for Africa advocacy at Human Rights Watch. “Fighting petty crime or offenses by committing murder doesn’t build the rule of law, but only reinforces a climate of fear. The Rwandan authorities should immediately halt the killings and bring those responsible to justice.”

Human Rights Watch conducted interviews in Rwanda with 119 witnesses, family members and friends of victims, government officials, and others. Human Rights Watch also released photographs of some of the victims.

On July 5 and 6, 2017, Human Rights Watch shared its findings with five local authorities in Rubavu and Rutsiro districts, the areas where Human Rights Watch documented the killings. The officials denied that any extrajudicial executions had occurred, although one said that people had been killed while crossing the border from Congo because of a “security issue.” Human Rights Watch also shared its findings with senior government officials in the capital, Kigali, but has not received a response.

These killings occurred in advance of Rwanda’s presidential elections, scheduled for August 4. President Paul Kagame, who has been in power since 2003, is running against two opponents, both of whom have complained of harassment, threats, and intimidation since announcing their candidacy.

The executions, some in front of multiple witnesses, are rarely discussed in Rwanda. Given Rwanda’s strict restrictions on independent media and activists, no local media outlets have reported the killings, and local human rights groups are afraid to publish information on such issues.

The killings and enforced disappearances appear to have been part of a broader strategy to spread fear, enforce order, and deter any resistance to government orders or policies, Human Rights Watch said.

In one example, Fulgence Rukundo, a father of two, was detained by a local government official and six soldiers at his home in the village of Munanira in Rubavu district in the early morning of December 6. Witnesses said he was questioned about a stolen cow, then taken to a community meeting with the district mayor. “When the meeting was finished, the soldiers walked Fulgence to a small field near a banana plantation,” one witness said. “There were many of us following; some were primary students. We wanted to see what would happen… A soldier told him to stand up and walk, and another soldier told us to leave. At that moment, I heard three shots.”

More than 40 people interviewed said they had participated in community meetings in Rubavu and Rutsiro districts at which military officers or local government officials declared that thieves would be arrested and killed.

The last month was recorded as the warmest June ever in many parts of the world. Last year, 2016, was the warmest year in the modern temperature record. Our planet is constantly heating up. This poses direct threats to humans, like extreme weather events and global sea-level rise, but scientists are concerned that it may also affect our well-being indirectly via changes in biodiversity.

The variety of life, from plants and animals to microorganisms, is the basis of many services ecosystems provide to us, for example clean drinking water or food. Today, ecologists are challenged by the question: what does a warmer world mean for biodiversity? More species, less species, or no change?

A team of ecologists from the German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv), Leipzig University, and the University of Minnesota found that climate warming can both increase and decrease biodiversity, and that the direction of the effect depends on how much biodiversity there is in the first place. In a long-running field experiment in Cedar Creek, Minnesota, the researchers established more than 30 different meadow plots, some with only one plant species (monocultures), and others with up to 16 different plant species. Then, they warmed the meadows with heating lamps to approximately 3°C above the ambient temperature. Subsequently, the researchers recorded how this affected nematodes, little worms that live in the soil in high abundance and of which many different species exist. Nematodes play important roles for several ecosystem functions, for example they help to make the soil fertile which is crucial for plant production.

When the researchers warmed the monoculture plots, the diversity of nematodes substantially declined. However, when they warmed the plots with a high number of different plant species, the number of nematode species increased.

Dr Madhav P. Thakur, the lead author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the iDiv research centre and the Leipzig University, said: “The story is simple; you need biodiversity to conserve biodiversity in a warmer world”.

That’s not, however, the end of the story. The researchers also report the limitation of biodiversity in rescuing biodiversity in a warmer world. While they did find a greater number of nematode species in the warmed plots with high plant diversity, those nematode species were also more closely related, or in other words, more similar, to each other.

“The reason was that these species had all been selected for a common characteristic, namely tolerance to a warmer environment”, Thakur explained.

“This increase in similarity can have implications for how well biological communities can respond to future environmental changes, potentially limiting the “insurance” effect inherent in a higher numbers of species,” said Dr Jane Cowles, a co-author and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Minnesota.

What will be the consequences for the stability of our planet’s ecosystems? The authors encourage future research to solve this puzzle.

The monoculture meadow created for the experiment resembled meadows found in intensively managed agricultural land. These new research findings therefore support conservationists who are advocating for maintaining species-rich ecosystems and farmland to sustain biodiversity, and thus human well-being, in a warmer world. This may help to prevent negative effects of climate warming, although likely with some limitations.

Unabated climate change would bring devastating consequences to countries in Asia and the Pacific, which could severely affect their future growth, reverse current development gains, and degrade quality of life, according to a report produced by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

Under a business-as-usual scenario, a 6 degree Celsius temperature increase is projected over the Asian landmass by the end of the century. Some countries in the region could experience significantly hotter climates, with temperature increases in Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the northwest part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) projected to reach 8 degree Celsius, according to the report, titled “A Region at Risk: The Human Dimensions of Climate Change in Asia and the Pacific.”

“Risk of plummeting into deeper poverty”: Susantono

These increases in temperature would lead to drastic changes in the region’s weather system, agriculture and fisheries sectors, land and marine biodiversity, domestic and regional security, trade, urban development, migration, and health. Such a scenario may even pose an existential threat to some countries in the region and crush any hope of achieving sustainable and inclusive development.

“The global climate crisis is arguably the biggest challenge human civilization faces in the 21st century, with the Asia and Pacific region at the heart of it all,” said Bambang Susantono, ADB Vice-President for Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development. “Home to two-thirds of the world’s poor and regarded as one of the most vulnerable region to climate change, countries in Asia and the Pacific are at the highest risk of plummeting into deeper poverty — and disaster — if mitigation and adaptation efforts are not quickly and strongly implemented.”

“Asian countries hold Earth’s future in their hands”: Schellnhuber

“The Asian countries hold Earth’s future in their hands. If they choose to protect themselves against dangerous climate change, they will help to save the entire planet,” said Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, PIK Director. “The challenge is twofold. On the one hand, Asian greenhouse-gas emissions have to be reduced in a way that the global community can limit planetary warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius, as agreed in Paris 2015. Yet even adapting to 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature rise is a major task. So, on the other hand, Asian countries have to find strategies for ensuring prosperity and security under unavoidable climate change within a healthy global development. But note that leading the clean industrial revolution will provide Asia with unprecedented economic opportunities. And exploring the best strategies to absorb the shocks of environmental change will make Asia a crucial actor in 21st-century multilateralism.”

More intense typhoons and tropical cyclones are expected to hit Asia and the Pacific with rising global mean temperatures. Under a business-as-usual scenario, annual precipitation is expected to increase by up to 50% over most land areas in the region, although countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan may experience a decline in rainfall by 20-50%.

Coastal and low-lying areas in the region will be at an increased risk of flooding. Nineteen of the 25 cities most exposed to a one-meter sea-level rise are located in the region, 7 of which are in the Philippines alone. Indonesia, however, will be the most affected country in the region by coastal flooding with approximately 5.9 million people expected to be affected every year until 2100.

Economic impacts can be significant

Increased vulnerability to flooding and other disasters will significantly impact the region — and the world — economically. Global flood losses are expected to increase to $52 billion per year by 2050 from $6 billion in 2005. Moreover, 13 of the top 20 cities with the largest growth of annual flood losses from 2005-2050 are in Asia and the Pacific: Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Tianjin, Zhanjiang, and Xiamen (PRC); Mumbai, Chennai-Madras, Surat, and Kolkata (India); Ho Chi Minh City (Viet Nam); Jakarta (Indonesia); Bangkok (Thailand); and Nagoya (Japan).

Climate change will also make food production in the region more difficult and production costs higher. In some countries of Southeast Asia, rice yields could decline by up to 50% by 2100 if no adaptation efforts are made. Almost all crops in Uzbekistan, meanwhile, are projected to decrease by 20-50% by 2050 even in a 2 degree Celsius temperature increase (Paris Agreement scenario). Food shortages could increase the number of malnourished children in South Asia by 7 million, as import costs will likely increase in the subregion to $15 billion per year compared to $2 billion by 2050.

Marine ecosystems, particularly in the Western Pacific, will be in serious danger by 2100. All coral reef systems in the subregion will collapse due to mass coral bleaching if global warming increases by 4 degree Celsius (global business-as-usual scenario). Even with a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature increase, 89% of coral reefs are expected to suffer from serious bleaching, severely affecting reef-related fisheries and tourism in Southeast Asia.

Effects on health and on migration

Climate change also poses a significant risk to health in Asia and the Pacific. Already, 3.3 million people die every year due to the harmful effects of outdoor air pollution, with the PRC, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh being the top four countries experiencing such deaths. In addition, heat-related deaths in the region among the elderly are expected to increase by about 52,000 cases by 2050 due to climate change, according to data from the World Health Organization. Deaths related to vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue may also increase.

A business-as-usual approach to climate change could also disrupt functioning ecosystem services, prompting mass migration — mostly to urban areas — that could make cities more crowded and overwhelm available social services.

Moreover, a warmer climate for the region could endanger energy supply. Climate change can exacerbate energy insecurity through continued reliance on unsustainable fossil fuels, reduced capacities of thermal power plants due to a scarcity of cooling water, and intermittent performance of hydropower plants as a result of uncertain water discharges, among other factors. Energy insecurity could lead to conflicts as countries compete for limited energy supply.

Investment decisions can help to stabilize our climate

To mitigate the impact of climate change, the report highlights the importance of implementing the commitments laid out in the Paris Agreement. These include public and private investments focused on the rapid decarbonization of the Asian economy as well as the implementation of adaptation measures to protect the region’s most vulnerable populations.

Climate mitigation and adaptation efforts should also be mainstreamed into macro-level regional development strategies and micro-level project planning in all sectors, in addition to the ongoing renewable energy and technology innovation efforts in urban infrastructure and transport. The region has both the capacity and weight of influence to move towards sustainable development pathways, curb global emissions, and promote adaptation, the report concludes.

ADB approved a record $3.7 billion in climate financing in 2016 and has committed to further scale up its investments to $6 billion by 2020.

By Jim Garamone

U.S. service members helped France celebrate Bastille Day Friday as they led the military parade down the famed Champs Elysees under the eyes of French President Emmanuel Macron and President Donald J. Trump.

“The ties between the United States and France stretch back almost as far as our shared history as democratic republics,” Trump said in a written statement. “We have remained joined in common purpose ever since.”

From World War I on, the United States and France together weathered the bloody 20th century.

“Today, our two countries stand taller, and more united, than ever,” the president continued. “From Africa to the Middle East to Central Asia, we are fighting to destroy the terrorist organizations that threaten all civilized peoples and that continue to exact a terrible toll on the French people, including one year ago today. Together, we will eradicate their ideology.”

The president was referring to the terror attack on Bastille Day last year in Nice that killed 86 people.

‘Great Day for a Flyover’

It was a deliriously beautiful day with temperatures in the 70s under a cloudless sky. “A great day for a flyover,” said Navy Capt. Greg Hicks, the special assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former helicopter pilot. And he proved to be right as the U.S. Air Force Thunderbirds in their distinctive F-16 Fighting Falcons flew from the Arc de Triomphe to the Obelisk of Luxor in the Place de la Concorde, flanked by two U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptors.

Hicks attended the event because his boss, Marine Corps Gen. Joe Dunford and his wife, Ellyn, were special guests of French Defense Chief Army Gen. Pierre de Villiers.

Dunford noted earlier that there is hardly a combat zone in the world where French and American service members are not working together. The American military is working closely with French forces in West Africa, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and in the Pacific. France is a charter member of NATO, and French Air Force Gen. Denis Mercier commands Allied Command Transformation in Norfolk, Va.

The parade down the Champs-Elysees is an annual event and this year the theme was “Operational Together.” It highlighted the close relationship among all the French security services and with the Americans. While France is America’s oldest ally — the United States would not have won the Revolution without French sailors winning the Battle of the Chesapeake against the English in 1783 — the modern version of the alliance dates to World War I. The 2017 Bastille Day Parade was almost exactly 100 years from when 14,000 American soldiers arrived in France as part of the American Expeditionary Force.

The American contingent leading the parade included troops from the Army’s 1st Infantry Division. The soldiers of the flag detail carried vintage 1903 Springfield rifles and were dressed in the uniform worn by World War I troops, with flat helmets, wool uniforms with choker necks and puttees.

The division flag carried battle streamers from Catigny, St. Michel and the Meuse-Argonne — World War I battles where the division lost almost 5,000 killed in action and a further 18,000 wounded. During the Great War, American divisions had 28,000 personnel assigned.

Other American soldiers marching in the parade were members of the 173rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, the 7th Army Training Center and the 10th Combat Aviation Brigade. Airmen from U.S. Air Forces Europe, sailors from U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Marines from U.S. Marine Forces Europe marched with soldiers showcasing the joint force of today.

The American soldiers in World War I fell in on French weapons and vehicles, and the military parade featured a Schneider tank from 1917 next to today’s armored combat vehicle and a 1917 Saint Chamond tank next to today’s Leclerc main battle tank. Following them in a long line, historic transporters, trucks, bridge units and ambulances drove along next to their modern-day counterparts.

The World War I vehicles almost looked quaint. “You have to remember that in 1917, those were cutting-edge weapon systems,” said a French major in the press area. “They would have been very familiar to American forces arriving in France.”

The parade was a straight shot down the Champs-Elysees — one of the most famous streets in the world. While it was the first time Americans had the honor of leading the parade, it was not the most famous American military march in Paris.

Four days after the liberation of Paris on Aug. 25, 1944, the entire U.S. Army 28th Infantry Division marched down the Champs-Elysees as a show of Allied unity. French leader Gen. Charles De Gaulle and U.S. Army Gen. Omar Bradley took the salute of the division. The 28th marched all the way through the city and was in combat later that day.

U.S. forces killed Abu Sayed, the head of Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-Khorasan, in a strike on the group’s headquarters in Kunar province, Afghanistan, July 11, Chief Pentagon Spokesperson Dana W. White said Friday in a statement.

“The raid also killed other ISIS-K members and will significantly disrupt the terror group’s plans to expand its presence in Afghanistan,” she said.

ISIS leaders chose Abu Sayed to lead the group, which is an affiliate of ISIS, after Afghan and U.S. forces killed the previous ISIS-K leaders – Hafiz Sayed Khan in late July 2016, and Abdul Hasib, in late April this year, White said.
Afghan and U.S. forces launched a counter-ISIS-K offensive in early March to drive fighters from Nangarhar province, which borders Kunar to the south, and send a clear message to ISIS that there is no sanctuary for their fighters in Afghanistan, she said.

Ankara and Moscow have reportedly thrashed out the much-talked-over purchase of Russia’s S-400 advanced anti-missile system, Bloomberg reports. The deal will allegedly see two batteries being delivered to Turkey as well as a technology transfer.

The parties to the deal, which has been in the works since November 2016, have finally agreed on the price of the contract, which should amount to $2.5 billion, the magazine reported Wednesday, citing an anonymous Turkish official.

However, no timeframe has been set as to the signing of the deal yet, as the countries are still discussing the technical aspects, the official told Bloomberg, adding that he expects the negotiations to last for about a year.

One of the cornerstones of the agreement, according to the Turkish official, is that it envisions not only transfer of the state-of-the-art complexes but also that of technology. In addition to the two S-400 batteries, which would be manufactured in Russia and supplied to Turkey, the deal would enable Ankara to assemble two missile systems on its own.

For now, it’s not clear how much time will pass for the systems to be installed on Turkish soil once the deal is finalized, the unnamed official said, noting that Moscow doesn’t have any spare missile systems in stock and will have to embark on their construction first.

READ MORE: Turkey ‘in talks to buy Russian S-400 anti-missile system’ after snubbing China deal

He suggested that to speed up the delivery Moscow might take away a missile system from a batch bound for another customer and send it to Turkey instead. The official did not specify the country, however.

Russia had previously secured contracts with India and China to procure S-400 anti-missile systems.

The systems would be incompatible with NATO equipment stationed in Turkey, a long-time NATO member. Air base in Incirlik serves for US forces as a storage site for its tactical nuclear weapons and has been used by NATO to launch attacks against Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria. The potential problems with the missile systems integration into the NATO infrastructure sparked concerns among its member-states. However, Turkish defense minister Fikri Işık said in March that Ankara did not plan to fit the missile systems into the existing NATO infrastructure.

Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that while Moscow does not currently produce the systems abroad, he did not rule out the possibility of its happening in the future.

Traditional Catholics and evangelical Christians have much in common, the latest example of which happened yesterday.

Following an event on July 11th where U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions addressed the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), ABC News, NBC News, and CNN smeared ADF, portraying it as a hate group. I quickly came to the defense of ADF (click here), and just as quickly came words of gratitude from ADF founder Alan Sears and ADF president Michael Farris.

The Catholic-Evangelical alliance began in the 1980s when Paul Weyrich and Rev. Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority. It was formalized in the 1990s when Catholic theologian Father Richard John Neuhaus and evangelical leader Chuck Colson came together to bridge the differences between the two faith communities, focusing on their common interest in defending traditional moral values and religious liberty.

The alliance was further strengthened when Christian Coalition president Ralph Reed and Family Research Council president Gary Bauer reached across the pew in the 1990s to embrace Catholics.

The big moment came in 2004 when Catholics such as Deal Hudson and myself found common ground with evangelicals such as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family. It was values voters who carried the reelection of President George W. Bush in 2004. Today we have evangelicals such as Rev. Jerry Falwell Jr. and Rev. Franklin Graham working with Catholics.

There is much work to be done. Most important, we must push for religious liberty, with a concentration on religious exemptions. We must also fight for the rights of the unborn, as well as the dispossessed, and stand up to those who seek to bully us. We will not be intimidated by anyone.

It won’t be easy to impeach Donald Trump. No president in American history has ever been convicted on articles of impeachment.

Only two presidents so far have been impeached by the House and had that impeachment go to the Senate for trial. The first was Andrew Johnson, in 1868, when the Senate came one vote short of convicting him. The next was 131 years later, in 1999, when Bill Clinton’s impeachment went to the Senate. 50 Senators voted to convict Clinton, 17 votes short of what was needed.

What about Richard Nixon? He resigned early in this process, before the House had even voted on articles of impeachment. And then his successor, who had been his vice president, Gerald Ford, gave Nixon a full and unconditional pardon for any crimes he might have committed against the United States while president.

This isn’t to say Trump couldn’t or won’t be impeached. Only that it’s a long and drawn-out process.

It all revolves around Article I Sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution, and rules in the House and the Senate implementing those provisions.

Step 1. It starts in the House Judiciary Committee, when a majority of the member vote in favor of what’s called an “inquiry of impeachment” resolution.

Step 2. That resolution goes to the full House of Representatives where a majority has to vote in favor. And then votes to authorize and fund a full investigation by the Judiciary Committee into whether sufficient grounds exist for impeachment.

Step 3. The House Judiciary Committee investigates. That investigation doesn’t have to be from scratch. It can rely on data and conclusions of other investigations undertaken by, say, the FBI.

Step 4: A majority of the Judiciary Committee members decides there are sufficient grounds for impeachment, and the Committee issues a “Resolution of Impeachment,” setting forth specific allegations of misconduct in one or more articles of impeachment.

Step 5: The full House then considers that Resolution and votes in favor of it – as a whole or on each article separately. The full House isn’t bound by the Committee’s work. The House may vote to impeach even if the Committee doesn’t recommend impeachment.

Step 6: The matter then goes to the Senate for a trial. The House’s Resolution of Impeachment becomes in effect the charges in this trial.

Step 7: The Senate issues a summons to the president, who is now effectively the defendant, informing him of the charges and the date by which he has to answer them. If the president chooses not to answer or appear, it’s as if he entered a “not guilty” plea.

Step 8 is the trial in the Senate. In that trial, those who are representing the House – that is, the prosecution – and counsel for the president, both make opening arguments. They then introduce evidence and put on witnesses as in any trial. Witnesses are subject to examination and cross-examination. The trial is presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court – who has the authority to rule on evidentiary questions or may put such questions to a vote of the Senate. The House managers and counsel for the president then make closing arguments.

Step 9: The Senate meets in closed session to deliberate.

Step 10: The Senate returns in open session to vote on whether to convict the president on the articles of impeachment. Conviction requires a two-thirds vote by the Senate. Conviction on one or more articles of impeachment results in removal from office. Such a conviction also disqualifies the now former president from holding any other public office. And it doesn’t bar additional legal proceedings against that former president, and punishment.

So there you have it–the 10 steps that must all take place to impeach the president.

It may come in handy.

It is time for an urgent clarion call.

Given the retrograde pits inhabited by our ruling politicians and the avaricious over-reach of myopic big-business bosses, the self-described pillars of our society must step up to reverse the decline of our country. Here is my advice to each pillar:

1. Step up, lawyers and judges of America. You have no less to lose than our Constitutional observances and equal justice under law. A few years ago, brave Pakistani lawyers marched in the streets in open protest against dictatorial strictures. As you witness affronts to justice such as entrenched secrecy, legal procedures used to obstruct judicial justice, repeal of health and safety protections and the curtailment of civil liberties and access to legal aid, you must become vigorous first responders and exclaim: Stop! A just society must be defended by the courts and the officers of the court – the attorneys.
2. Step up, religious leaders, who see yourselves as custodians of spiritual and compassionate values. Recall your heroic forebears who led non-violent civil disobedience during the repression of civil rights in the Nineteen Sixties – as with the leadership of the late greats Martin Luther King Jr. and William Sloane Coffin. Champion the Golden Rule for those who don’t believe that ‘he who has the gold, rules.’
3. Step up,business people – large and small. Some of you are enlightened and motivated enough to stand tall against the cruel, monetized minds that are harming low-paid workers, cheating consumers, denying insurance to patients, avoiding or evading taxes, swindling investors and undermining communities across the country.

You have good examples from history, including those business leaders who recently quit the US Chamber of Commerce over the necessity to confront climate change or the 150 business leaders who issued strong support for the successful Legal Services Corporation for low-income Americans that Trump’s budget would eliminate entirely.

4. Step up, academic professors and teachers,and protect your students from politicians intent on undermining the public school system and turning its budgets into cash cows for commercial vendors. You can help the cause by demanding that practical civic skills and experience become part of the curriculum. You can demand that Trump’s increasingly bloated war budget not be funded at the expense of our children’s education and deteriorating physical facilities. You can point out waste and administrative bureaucracy to strengthen this already compelling University professors can establish active brain trusts to educate the public and rebut the avalanche of fake news and political insults.
5. Step up,doctors and nurses, in whose trust is placed the lives of millions of people. Polls show over half of you want full Medicare for all with free choice of physician and hospital. This should come as no surprise since it is much more efficient, eliminating much of the bookkeeping and lengthy billings that drain your time away from practicing healthcare. Above all,Medicare for all saves lives and prevents trauma and disease when people can afford early diagnoses and treatment.

Already prominent economists, business magnates like Warren Buffett and over 60 percent of Americans want single payer. Your strong voices together can sober up those politicians in Congress hell-bent on coarse pullbacks that will make the present situation even worse and more perilous. Imagine our elected, well-insured, representatives pushing a huge tax cut for the rich, at the expense of hospitals and clinics and big time reductions in Medicaid.

6. Step up, public relations professionals, who can take an active role in facilitating a public conversation on the need for important social services and reforms that improve their implementation.
7. Step up, veterans, including high-ranking military, national security and diplomatic retirees, who can advocate for waging peace instead of reckless wars of aggression and other armed force violations of US and international law. Some people incorrectly think that veterans monolithically support all military interventions. But no one knows the horror of war better than those soldiers who have fought them (A large majority of soldiers in Iraq wanted us to get out of that disastrous quagmire in a January 2005 poll).

Over 300 retired generals, admirals and national security officials openly opposed Bush/Cheney’s criminal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Veterans For Peace makes eloquent arguments for waging peace. Now is the time to learn from their experience, stand for smart diplomacy and avoid succumbing to provocations and the boomeranging impacts of Empire.

8. Step up,members of the media, both corporate and public. Give voice to the vast civil society and citizen groups that are vital to our democracy. They have long been practicing and strengthening democratic practices. Allow their voice of reason, sanity and evidence-based proposals to reach millions of Americans.
9. Step up,scientists and technologists. You must strongly organize against the corrosive effect of medieval myths about the natural world and habitat-destroying toxins pouring from unaccountable industry.Champion the necessity of science for the people, not for militarism and a global arms race.

Urge the restoration of the acclaimed, non-partisan Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) in Congress that Newt Gingrich and his Republicans terminated in 1995, plunging Congress into ignorant darkness and costly, wrongful budgeting.

10. Step up, students. Show the country your earnest idealism, supported by knowledge and your hope for a brighter future.Fight for tuition-free education, reform of student debt gouging and for an ecologically-benign economy that will work for you and the planet. Really get out the vote for next year!
11. Step up, leaders of the vast number of charity and service clubs. Without a sense of justice, there will be less charitable resources for ever-increasing needs.

Many of you have the moral authority to speak truth to the power of the one percent, and resist attempts to diminish support to those vulnerable members of our society who most need it.

In times of crisis, routines must be replaced with urgent awakenings, bringing out the better angels and wisdom from these underachieving pillars of the American community. A few leaders can take the first steps and many more will follow your example. Stand tall in support of justice in these trying times.

The Russian Supreme Court in April declared that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were an “extremist” organization, prohibited its missionary activities, and declared that the Witnesses’ 396 Kingdom Halls were to be handed over to the state. The Witnesses have appealed that decision and a final hearing on their case will be take place on Monday.

Because of the appeal, the government has not yet implemented all the aspects of the original decision, and Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses are hopeful for a positive result, either there or later at the European Court of Human Rights. But the Russian government action has already had a serious impact on the community.

Taking their cue from the Russian government, Russians have attacked Witnesses more often—with the number of such attacks up by 750 percent between the month before and the month after the court decision — and expressed more hostility toward the Witnesses — almost 80 percent of Russians said they did not approve of the group according to one recent poll (watchtower.sharefile.com/share?#/view/s5b411ea64c64abcb and novayagazeta.ru/news/2017/07/13/133434-bolshinstvo-oproshennyh-levada-tsentrom-rossiyan-podderzhali-zapret-svideteley-iegovy).

Not all Russians have fallen victim to this official campaign. According to a report in Novaya gazeta today, for example, one policeman asked Witnesses who continue to engage in missionary activity to do so somewhere other than on his beat but then relented and allowed them to go ahead (novayagazeta.ru/articles/2017/07/13/73105-bog-prosto-esche-ne-doigral).

More seriously, Jehovah’s Witnesses deprived of access to their Kingdom Halls have created house churches that resemble in some ways the underground religious groups that existed in Soviet times. But they are doing so with many modern touches: many rely on laptops and even read the Bible on kindles.

Some Russian Witnesses are thinking about emigrating given the crackdown against them in Russia today, but most say that they “do not want to leave the country because of the ban. We love Russia. We love the Russian language. [And] we love these people,” the Witnesses say.

In the words of one Russian Witness, “Witnesses don’t take up arms, they do not participate in wars and meetings. We will struggle but by purely legal methods. I don’t understand why they are banning us. But it seems to me,” he said, “that those who are doing the banning don’t know the answer either.”

What is obvious, however, is that Vladimir Putin has chosen to attack religious groups that he believes Russians won’t defend and that the West will not stand up for, going after the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Pentecostals, and thus create precedents for moving against denominations as well.

While some in Russia and in the West have spoken out in defense of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, not enough have, perhaps because they do not yet fully understand how serious the challenge Putin is posing by his campaign against the Jehovah’s Witnesses, first to members of that denomination, then to followers of other religions and finally to all people of good will.

I’ve always been a little skeptical that there’d be a smoking gun about the Trump campaign’s alleged collusion with Russia. The latest news about Donald Trump, Jr., however, is tantalizingly close.

The short version of the story, revealed by emails the New York Times obtained, is that the president’s eldest son was offered “some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary” and “would be very useful to your father.”

More to the point, the younger Trump was explicitly told this was “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.” Donald, Jr.’s reply? “I love it.”

Trump Jr. didn’t just host that meeting at Trump Tower. He also brought along campaign manager Paul Manafort and top Trump confidante (and son-in-law) Jared Kushner.

We still don’t have evidence they coordinated with Russian efforts to release Clinton campaign emails, spread “fake news,” or hack state voting systems. But at the very least, the top members of Trump’s inner circle turned up to get intelligence they knew was part of a foreign effort to meddle in the election.

Some in Washington are convinced they’ve heard enough already, with Virginia senator (and failed VP candidate) Tim Kaine calling the meeting “treason.”

Perhaps. But it’s worth asking: Who’s done the real harm here? Some argue it’s not the Russians after all.

“The effects of the crime are undetectable,” the legendary social critic Noam Chomsky says of the alleged Russian meddling, “unlike the massive effects of interference by corporate power and private wealth.”

That’s worth dwelling on.

Many leading liberals suspect, now with a little more evidence, that Trump worked with Russia to win his election. But we’ve long known that huge corporations and wealthy individuals threw their weight behind the billionaire.

That gambit’s paying off far more handsomely for them — and more destructively for the rest of us — than any scheme by Putin.

The evidence is hiding in plain sight.

The top priority in Congress right now is to move a health bill that would gut Medicaid and throw at least 22 million Americans off their insurance — while loosening regulations on insurance companies and cutting taxes on the wealthiest by over $346 billion.

As few as 12 percent of Americans support that bill, but the allegiance of its supporters isn’t to voters — it’s plainly to the wealthy donors who’d get those tax cuts.

Meanwhile, majorities of Americans in every single congressional district support efforts to curb local pollution, limit carbon emissions, and transition to wind and solar. And majorities in every single state back the Paris climate agreement.

Yet even as scientists warn large parts of the planet could soon become uninhabitable, the fossil fuel-backed Trump administration has put a climate denier in charge of the EPA, pulled the U.S. out of Paris, and signed legislation to let coal companies dump toxic ash in local waterways.

Meanwhile, as the administration escalates the unpopular Afghan war once again, Kushner invited billionaire military contractors — including Blackwater founder Erik Prince — to advise on policy there.

Elsewhere, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and other architects of the housing crash are advising Trump on financial deregulation, while student debt profiteers set policy at the Department of Education.

Chomsky complains that this sort of collusion is often “not considered a crime but the normal workings of democracy.” While Trump has taken it to new heights, it’s certainly a bipartisan problem.

If Trump’s people did work with Russia to undermine our vote, they should absolutely be held accountable. But the politicians leading the charge don’t have a snowball’s chance of redeeming our democracy unless they’re willing to take on the corporate conspirators much closer to home.

The two countries need to pause and think through every step they take, lest they get caught in an unending cycle of conflict.

By Manoj Joshi

China has insisted that the Doklam stand-off is unlike any other India-China border dispute. Responding to Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar’s remark that the two countries had peacefully resolved such border issues in the past, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang reiterated, on July 12, that this problem was different.

Does this mean Beijing’s response to the current stand-off will also be different than in the past?

It is difficult to predict just what the Chinese might do. Geng did give an indication, though, remarking, in the context of Kashmir, that China “stands to play a constructive role to improve the relations between Pakistan and India”.

On July 13, India politely declined the offer.

A few days ago, a Chinese scholar suggested that Beijing could respond to India’s intervention in Doklam plateau by stepping into Jammu and Kashmir on behalf of Pakistan. Many in India may be surprised to know this but the official Chinese position on Kashmir is that it’s a dispute that needs to be resolved by India and Pakistan. As recently as May this year, the Chinese foreign ministry declared, “China’s position on the issue of Kashmir is clear and consistent. It is an issue left over from history between India and Pakistan, and shall be properly addressed by India and Pakistan through consultation and negotiation.”

China shares this stand with most countries, including the United States. Abandoning it could be a serious setback for India since China is a veto-wielding member of the United Nations Security Council. Any possible escalation, however, may not be so much military as political.

Another casualty could be the Sikkim-Tibet border agreement. China maintains that the border has been settled by the Convention of 1890. India has not said much – and that is significant. Referring to the Indian foreign ministry’s June 30 statement on the Doklam stand-off, a Chinese spokesman complained that it “completely left out the Convention Between Great Britain and China Relating to Sikkim and Tibet of 1890 which clearly defined the China-India boundary alignment in areas where the incident happened”.

Indeed, the June 30 statement does not mention the convention. It merely refers to an “agreement that the trijunction boundary points between India, China and third countries will be finalised in consultation with third countries”.

In an interview earlier this month, former National Security Adviser and Special Representative for talks with China Shivshankar Menon said, “In 2012 the SRs [Special Representatives] had a broad understanding that trijunctions will be finalised in consultation with the third country concerned. This latest incident and statements saying this is Chinese territory are contrary to that understanding.” He was referring to the Special Representatives appointed by both countries to help resolve the border disputes.

In other words, India does not accept China’s contention that the Sikkim-Tibet border is settled. Perhaps, Indian strategists reckon that since much of the 4,000-km China-India border is disputed anyway, why not add this 220-km stretch to it, especially since this encompasses the strategically important trijunction.

Actually, there is a great deal of difference in the place names and understandings of the border. The location of the trijunction itself is disputed. India believes it is at Batangla, while China and the 1890 Convention put it at Mount Gipmochi, 8 km to the south-east as the crow flies. Compounding the problem is that even the location of Gipmochi is under question, with the confusion about a place called Gymochen: some databases identify them as the same place and others as different places about five kilometres apart.

Getting back

And when it comes to the question of borders, there’s a clear possibility that the war of words will not stop at the Sikkim and Kashmir issues, and may go all the way to the mother of them all – India’s recognition of Tibet as a part of China.

Tibet, the Sino-Indian border negotiations, the defeat of 1962, are all linked with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s sworn enemy – Jawaharlal Nehru. There is nothing that the party would like more than to upend Nehru’s legacy to the country, be it good or bad. The recognition of China’s sovereignty over Tibet, the border negotiations that yielded nothing, are all in the minds of the party faithful, linked to the malign influence of Nehru on India.

Is it a coincidence that ever since it came to power, the Modi government has encouraged the Tibetan government-in-exile? The Sikyong (Prime Minister) of the government-in-exile Lobsang Sangay was invited to attend Modi’s swearing in as prime minister. More recently and, indeed, in the middle of the Doklam crisis, a photograph surfaced of Sangay hoisting a Tibetan flag on the shores of the Pangong Lake which is on the border between Ladakh and Tibet.

So if Beijing can abandon its old position on Jammu and Kashmir, New Delhi may well riposte by “de-recognising” its acceptance, most recently in 2003 by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, that the Tibet Autonomous Region is a part of China.

Such an eventuality could well lock India and China in an unending cycle of conflict. Thus, it is imperative that the two countries pause and think through every step they take to deal with the current stand-off.

Historical grievances

It is difficult to apportion blame for this turn of events for they are layered upon a sense of historical grievances.

In Beijing’s case, there is the exaggerated narrative of the so-called century of humiliation, when it was overcome by western powers. However, even as China was reeling from western aggression in late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was imposing its will on states such as Tibet and Xinjiang. Today, China speaks of its “ancient” claim to the Doklam region. The claim is fictitious because there were no Chinese in the Indo-Tibetan frontier region until recently.

The Indian grievances relate to the manner in which they were played on the Sino-Indian border. The Chinese have kept shifting the goalposts at will, sometimes making one set of claims, sometimes another. And overlaying this is the Sino-Indian war of 1962 which, the noted scholar John Garver said was about teaching India to respect the power of “new China.” But, he observed, as a commentary and warning on Chinese policy, that had war not occurred, “‘China’s Tibet’ would today face less threat from India”. As it is, Britain forced India’s hand on Tibet by acknowledging Chinese “suzerainty” over it through their agreement of 1906, then undid this by signing the 1914 convention that gave rise to the McMahon Line. Finally in 2008, Britain junked its fictitious “suzerainty” formulation and accepting that Tibet was, indeed, a part of China.

And while we ponder over these imponderables, let’s get one thing clear. The Indian action in the Doklam plateau is not about helping little Bhutan, but in protecting its own national interest. The contentious ridge, which lies roughly at a right angle to the Sikkim-Bhutan border, is also called Zomperi or Jampheri. In the past, Chinese patrols have visited it regularly, on foot after parking their vehicles near Doka La. What triggered the current stand-off was China’s attempt to lay a road towards a Bhutanese outpost on the ridge, which overlooks a sliver of Bhutanese territory, and beyond to the Siliguri Corridor. Bhutan’s security will not be affected if it gives away Doklam in an exchange of territory with China. India, however, will find it difficult to live with the Chinese overlooking a sensitive part of its territory.

This article originally appeared in Scroll.

By Georgi Gotev

(EurActiv) — Energy guru Igor Yusufov shared his views with EURACTIV.com on the first bilateral meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and his US President Donald Trump at the G20 summit, as well as on the global gas and oil business.

Igor Yusufov has more than 30 years’ experience in the oil and gas industries. In 2001–2004 Mr Yusufov served as minister of energy for the Russian Federation. In 2011 Mr Yusufov started private investment activity through Fund Energy, which he founded. Fund Energy was recently renamed ‘Energy’.

He spoke to EURACTIV’s Senior Editor. Georgi Gotev.

What was discussed between presidents Putin and Trump, according to your information, in terms of energy challenges?

“Politics is the most concentrated expression of the economy.” That’s what the leader of the Russian Revolution Vladimir Lenin wrote more than a hundred years ago. And although he is not the most popular author now, I believe that with regard to the evaluation of what seems to be a purely political discussion, his quote is absolutely appropriate.

You could object to me: neither Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov nor Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has mentioned an energy agenda for this first full-time meeting between the US and Russian presidents. But the gist of the matter is that the close acquaintance and the first talks of the presidents of the two energy superpowers have set a constructive tone for solving the most important problems facing Russia and the United States in the field of the economy in general and energy in particular.

At the same time, we should bear in mind that in addition to the energy agenda of the bilateral dialogue, in which I was directly involved in the early 2000s as Russian energy minister, the energy component is visibly or invisibly present both in the Syrian problem and in the Ukrainian one. And the inexplicable fabrications about the alleged involvement of Russia in the pre-election campaign in the United States affect the energy industry in the most direct way: after all, they became one of the reasons for the next sanction hysteria, because of which ExxonMobil, in particular, cannot resume mutually beneficial cooperation with the leading Russian Oil and gas company Rosneft.

President Trump made it clear in Warsaw that he wants the US to sell LNG in Europe, one of the aims being to take some of Russia’s market share. But Russia says its gas is cheaper. Does it mean Russia disregards potential US competition?

We respectfully acknowledge the US president’s stated intention to export liquefied natural gas to Poland and, possibly, through a gas hub, to neighbouring countries. The same was said by Polish President Andrzej Duda after Poland signed a contract for a one-time delivery of LNG, the contract volumes were not specified. Poland annually consumes about 15 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas, of which 10 bcm are currently supplied by Gazprom. In 2015, in the city of Świnoujście, an LNG terminal with a capacity of 5 bcm per year was launched. In June 2016, the Polish government announced plans that the LNG terminal, as well as a gas pipeline that would connect Poland with the Norwegian shelf, would ensure Poland’s independence from gas supplies “from the East” by 2022.

Meanwhile, it is necessary to once again carefully consider the economic aspect of supplies of American LNG to Europe. Of course, the diversification of such supplies, envisaged by all EU directives, is ideologically understandable. But, based on the calculations of the experts of the Energy Corporation that I lead [former Fund Energy, www.fundenergy.ru], I want to assume that the US is taking the path of a very risky financial competition with Russia. After all, our gas does not need to be liquefied and then de-liquefied, and it comes in the cheapest mode of transport – a pipeline.

I am convinced that the US intention to start direct deliveries of LNG to Poland and the countries of Central Europe does not mark either the beginning of a trade war or the appearance of a new factor in the potential aggravation of Russian-American relations. Let me remind you that President Vladimir Putin, at a press conference following the results of the G20 summit in Hamburg, qualified such statements as an expression of “healthy competition that benefits everyone”. Thus, the head of the Russian state emphasised our support for the idea of an open market, including the energy market, and shared the US commitment to “open and fair competition”. This position, in particular, was repeated during the discussion at the G20 session by US President Donald Trump.

Already in the course of two US-Russia energy summits in 2002 and 2003, experts and business representatives of the two countries proceeded from the assumption that the supply of gas and oil from the United States, which in those years was considered in purely theoretical terms, could only make sense if they were coordinated with traditional suppliers, among which Russia occupied and occupies a key place. I am convinced that such consultations, in which all traditional suppliers can be involved, could help establish long-term stability in the energy markets.

So Russia has nothing to fear in connection with the widely announced US plans. Our country has always been a conscientious and scrupulously punctual gas supplier to European markets, which, of course, does not exclude the appearance of such alternative supply routes. We are for healthy and politically unmotivated competition.

The Nord Stream 2 project is an obvious example of where the interests of Russia and the US clash. What do you think the modus vivendi should be?

Allow me to quote in this regard President Putin who, at the press conference I mentioned in Hamburg, noted that Russia “can and should use its competitive advantages in fair and honest competition” in the hydrocarbon trade, and these advantages will be confirmed and will materialise as a result of the success of Nord Stream 2. I fully agree with this opinion, especially since the supply through this pipeline is also likely to be much cheaper than the gas that will twice undergo an expensive technological liquefaction-recovery procedure, and moreover, will also be transported across the ocean.

Russia will soon host [on 24 July in St. Petersburg] a meeting of OPEC and non-OPEC nations. The goal is clearly the support of oil prices, but how do you think it can be achieved? [Six ministers from OPEC and non-OPEC nations including Kuwait, Venezuela, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Oman will meet discuss the current situation in the oil market look for ways to cap rising production to help support oil prices.]

An important new aspect of the next meeting of the Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee to oversee compliance with the reduction of crude oil production, which will be held in St. Petersburg on 24 July, will be an invitation to two countries – Libya and Nigeria, to participate in voluntary capping. [Both Nigeria and Libya were given exemptions to the supply cut, under which OPEC, Russia and other non-OPEC producers are voluntarily reducing their output.]

Experts from Corporation Energy noted the immediate reaction of the markets: world oil prices rose immediately after this OPEC message. The reason is obvious: for example, in recent months the volume of daily oil production in Libya for the first time in 4 years has exceeded 1 million barrels, whereas in early 2017 this country produced no more than 690,000 barrels of oil per day.

The reaction of the exchanges, in our opinion, means that the market has believed in the possibility of expanding the regime for capping oil production. As a person who stood at the origins of the design and implementation of the first such capping, agreed at the 177th OPEC session in 2001, I affirm that the potential expansion of the number of countries in the OPEC + deal is extremely important, since only by collective efforts of large oil producers it is possible to convert such cuts into a constantly operating market instrument for maintaining price stability.

And if we take into account the reports of the expert centres, some of whom assess the implementation of the OPEC reduction regime, for example, in May by as much as 106%, then we undoubtedly have reason for some optimism.

Let me remind you that based on the first experience gained in 2001, on 30 November 2016, at the OPEC summit, a decision was taken to reduce the cartel’s oil production to 1.2 million barrels per day, with specified quotas for each of the countries. Later, 11 other independent producers joined the deal. The total agreement provides for the reduction of oil production by 1.758 million barrels per day from the October level, starting from January 2017. On 24-25 May 2017, OPEC countries and independent oil producers met, and the parties agreed to extend the agreement for another nine months, until the end of the first quarter of 2018, on current terms.

There are different views as to the future of the OPEC + process. For example, the Minister of Oil of Iran, Bijan Namdar Zangane, whom I know since I was Minister of Energy of Russia, does not exclude the extension of oil production capping after March 2018. In turn, the Minister of Energy, Industry and Mineral Resources of Saudi Arabia Khaled al-Faleh believes that OPEC and independent parties to the deal may consider increasing quotas at a regular meeting in Vienna on 30 November.

My opinion, based on the calculations of the experts from Corporation Energy, is as follows: the prospects for further oil production cuts, including those involving Libya and Nigeria, in the long term, depend on the willingness of the US to enter into a dialogue with Russia and other major producers as well as consumers in Europe and Asia. Having established such a dialogue following the example of formats already existing within the framework of the bilateral energy dialogue, oil producers could outline the prospects for establishing and maintaining fair prices for oil both for them and for consumers. Another direction of this broad dialogue, advocated by the analysts of Energy Corporation, will be the geography of oil supplies, which will be called upon first to cover regions that are characterised by increased indices of industrial growth.

The first meeting of Presidents Putin and Trump took place in this context not just as the acquaintance of the leaders of the energy superpowers. This meeting laid the practice of constructive dialogue on a wide range of issues, in which energy will definitely be part of the next round of consultations. And Energy Corporation, until recently known in the world as Fund Energy, is ready to make its expert and organisational contribution to this crucial dialogue by all means.

By Chithra Purushothaman*

Saudi Aramco, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s (KSA) energy giant, with an estimated worth of $2 trillion, is preparing for its Initial Public Offer (IPO) in late 2018. It has proposed a five per cent public offering, worth around $100 billion, making it one of the biggest IPOs in history. The Saudi government hopes that the measure would provide substantial relief to the company which is grappling with declining revenues due to low international oil prices.

Thus far, attempts by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to increase oil prices by cutting down production — by 1.2 million barrel per day – have not succeeded. Moreover, with the US shale oil (and gas) entering the world market, the price of oil is not expected to rise in the near future. Moreover, due to the increasing emphasis on clean energy resources amidst concerns over climate change, there is no guarantee that oil will retain its share in the global energy market going forward. This is not good news for Saudi Arabia, which owns a fifth of the world’s oil with proven reserves totalling 266 billion barrels.1

The fall in oil prices has affected Saudi Arabia’s revenue earnings. In the wake of declining oil revenues, the country’s budget deficit reached 13.6 per cent of GDP in 2016. Riyadh is trying to keep its budget balanced by cutting down on subsidies and borrowing money. These measures may not be sufficient in the long run if oil prices continue to remain low. For Saudi Arabia to balance its budget, oil prices have to be maintained at around $70-80 per barrel.

Saudi Aramco holds a privileged position in Saudi Arabia, given that oil exports account for 87 per cent of the Kingdom’s budget revenue, 90 per cent of its export earnings and 42 per cent of its GDP.2 Aramco finances social programmes like schools, hospitals, sports complexes and stadiums. It also pays 20 per cent royalty on revenues to the government.3 Hence, selling off some shares of this main revenue earner is seen as a viable solution for the Kingdom to manage its rising budget deficit.

Vision for the future

That KSA has taken cognizance of the changing dynamics of the energy market is evident from the comprehensive plan that it has developed in 2016 called ‘Saudi Vision 2030’. The Vision’s aim is to address the Kingdom’s pressing economic challenges by diversifying the economy away from its over-dependence on oil.4 The document suggests giving the private sector a greater role in the economy, by increasing its share from the current 40 per cent of GDP to 65 per cent. Further, the Vision aims to localise the work force in the oil and gas sector from the current 40 to 75 per cent; double the production of gas; set up a national gas distribution network; and build a competitive renewable energy sector based on public-private partnership. The launch of the King Salman Renewable Energy Initiative in April 2017 is the first step in this regard.

The Kingdom is aiming for a six-fold increase in non-oil revenues by 2030. At the same time, it aspires to transform Saudi Aramco from ‘an oil producing company into a global industrial conglomerate.’5 To that end, Aramco’s ownership would be transferred to a Public Investment Fund, turning the latter into the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund with its assets increasing from Saudi Arabian Riyal (SAR) 600 billion ($162 billion) to over SAR seven trillion ($1.89 trillion).

With the expected succession of Prince Mohammed bin Salman to the throne, several more changes are anticipated in the Saudi oil industry. Saudi Arabia’s earlier energy policy, which was entirely driven by the need to boost global demand for (Saudi) oil and ward off competition from non-OPEC countries, is being transformed. The IPO of Saudi Aramco is indicative of the new policy that would be at the core of any transformation.

Interestingly, the partial divestment of Aramco would also mean that the company, which has the reputation of being one of the most secretive national companies in the world, will have to disclose at least some details of its crude oil reserves, earnings and revenues to financiers interested in buying its shares. A new tax code introduced in March 2017 lowered Saudi Aramco’s tax rate to 50 per cent, as against 85 per cent earlier.6 Reports note that the tax rate is key to determining the valuation and dividend policy of the company. However, there is no clarity as yet as to where the shares of the company would be listed, although efforts are underway to make it more attractive to potential investors.

What does this mean for India?

When the news of the potential disinvestment in Saudi Aramco broke in 2016, India’s Oil and Gas Minister Dharmendra Pradhan stated that India is interested in becoming a ‘cornerstone investor’ in Aramco as and when it floats its shares.7 Besides, if Riyadh gives New Delhi a stake in the company, it would be an indication of its intention to further strengthen bilateral ties.8 Getting a stake in Aramco would also mean getting a share of profits from one of the world’s largest and most profitable companies.

On its part, Saudi Arabia is also keen to invest in India’s downstream (refinery and petrochemical) sector, which is expected to grow at an annual rate of 12 per cent. In its quest to leverage India’s growing energy market, the Kingdom has already shown interest in buying stakes in several Indian refineries, including the newly planned Indian Oil Corp (IOC)-led 1.2 million barrels per day oil refinery on the west coast, which would also be the world’s largest refinery. Both countries are planning several joint ventures in the downstream sector.

Another factor that could work in favour of India getting Aramco shares would flow from Riyadh’s strategy to give a stake to those countries that are the largest markets for its oil. Despite the falling demand for oil globally, India is expected to be one of the largest importers and consumers of oil, at least in the medium term. Hence, the strengthening of ties between the two countries, which are among the world’s largest exporters and consumers of oil, respectively, through an enhanced energy partnerships could prove to be a win-win for both India and Saudi Arabia.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India. Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/saudi-aramco-ipo_cpurushothaman_130717

• 1. John Kemp, ‘Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves: How big are they really?’ Reuters, at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-oil-kemp-idUSKCN0ZL1X6
• 2. Central Intelligence Agency, The World Fact Book, ‘Middle East: Saudi Arabia’, at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sa.html
• 3. Clifford Krauss, ‘Tax on Saudi Aramco oil profits is cut to prepare for IPO’, The New York Times, March 27, 2017, at https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/27/business/energy-environment/saudi-aramco-oil-tax-rate-ipo.html
• 4. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Vision 2030, at http://vision2030.gov.sa/en
• 5. Ibid.
• 6. Anjli Raval, ‘Saudi government slashes tax rate for Aramco ahead of IPO’, Financial Times, March 27, 2017, at https://www.ft.com/content/63eac076-320b-3238-92c3-b39c5d371fe2?mhq5j=e2
• 7. ‘India could invest in Aramco IPO to strengthen ties’, Hindustan Times, May 23, 2017, at http://m.hindustantimes.com/business-news/india-could-invest-in-aramco-ipo-to-strengthen-ties/story-rNN0Du0Ek0UmTDF1xx5C4K.html
• 8. Dmitry Zhdannikov and Ernest Scheyder, ‘India could invest in Aramco IPO to strengthen ties’, Reuters, May 23, 2017, at http://in.reuters.com/article/india-oil-aramco-idINKBN18I2DJ

Homelessness is more visible and varying definitions prevent global comparisons; experts debate if the problem is even solvable.

By Joseph Chamie*

People openly live on the streets of the world’s major urban centers – from Cairo to Washington, DC – a disconcerting reminder of homelessness. While some maintain homelessness is a solvable problem, others conclude that the condition is an enduring feature of modern urban landscapes.

Homelessness was once considerably less visible. In 1950, for example, 70 percent of the world’s population of 2.5 billion was spread out across rural areas. Housing problems, far removed from urban centers, were largely unnoticed. Today, most of the world’s population of 7.6 billion, 55 percent, is concentrated in urban centers, in close proximity to the politically influential and economically well-to-do.

Based on national reports, it’s estimated that no less than 150 million people, or about 2 percent of the world’s population, are homeless. However, about 1.6 billion, more than 20 percent of the world’s population, may lack adequate housing.

Obtaining an accurate picture of homelessness globally is challenging for several reasons. First, and perhaps most problematic, is variations in definitions. Homelessness can vary from simply the absence of adequate living quarters or rough sleeping to include the lack of a permanent residence that provides roots, security, identity and emotional wellbeing. The absence of an internationally agreed upon definition of homelessness hampers meaningful comparisons. The United Nations has recognized that definitions vary across countries because homelessness is essentially culturally defined based on concepts such as adequate housing, minimum community housing standard or security of tenure.

Second, many governments lack resources and commitment to measure the complicated and elusive phenomenon. Authorities confront a dynamic situation with frequent changes in housing status, and many communities have not established accurate trends of homelessness.

Third, homelessness is often considered embarrassing, a taboo subject, and governments tend to understate the problem. Obtaining accurate numbers is difficult, especially in developing countries. In Moscow, for example, officials report that the homeless number around 10,000, while non-government organizations claim that as many as 100,000 live on the streets. Also, in the Philippines capital of Manila, reported to have the largest homeless population of any city in the world, estimates vary from several million to tens of thousands. In the world’s billion-plus populations, China and India, reported numbers of homeless are 3 million and 1.77 million, respectively, rates of 0.22 percent and 0.14 percent – on par with levels reported by many wealthy developed countries. Given their levels of socioeconomic development, the Chinese and Indian rates of homelessness appear unduly low.

Fourth, many of the homeless are reluctant to be enumerated or registered. Homeless youth often avoid authorities who may contact parents or place them in foster care. Some parents may not wish to be labeled as homeless out of fear of losing custody of children. Also, some homeless persons, especially those suffering from mental disorders or substance abuse, fear arrest or confinement at a medical facility for treatment.

Acknowledging that national definitions of homelessness vary and the limitations in available data and statistical measures, the highest levels of homelessness, typically double-digit rates, are in the least developed nations, failing states and countries in conflict or suffering from natural disasters. Haiti, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and Syria, have large numbers of internally displaced persons, many living in makeshift temporary housing, shantytowns or government shelters.

Homelessness rates reported in most developed countries, including those in shelters and on the streets, are comparatively low. The proportions of homeless among OECD countries, for example, are below 1 percent. The highest rate, nearly 1 percent, is in New Zealand, where more than 40,000 people live on the streets or in emergency housing or substandard shelters.

Ten countries, including Italy, Japan and Spain, report homeless rates of less than a 10th of 1 percent. While rates in wealthy developed nations are small, they represent large numbers of homeless persons, more than 500,000 in the United States and more than 100,000 in Australia and France.

Trends in homelessness among OECD countries with available data are mixed. In recent years rates of homelessness are reported to have increased in Denmark, England, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and New Zealand, while decreasing in Finland and the United States.

National levels of homelessness are typically lower than those of their major cities. For example, while the US rate of homelessness is 0.17 percent, the rate in its capital, Washington, DC, is more than seven times higher at 1.24 percent. The majority of homeless in the United States, 60 percent, are male, with rates nearly twice as high as those of women.

Causes of homelessness across countries are multifaceted, though some  factors stand out, including shortages of affordable housing, privatization of civic services, investment speculation in housing, unplanned and rapid urbanization, as well as poverty, unemployment and family breakdown. Also contributing is a lack of services and facilities for those suffering from mental illness, alcoholism or substance abuse and displacement caused by conflicts, natural disasters and government housing policies. In some cases, too, homelessness leads to alcoholism, substance abuse and mental illness.

In many countries the prices to buy or rent homes are relatively high and rising faster than wages. Urban “gentrification” leading to rising property values and rental rates push low-income households into precarious living arrangements including slums, squatter settlements and homelessness.

Even people with jobs sometimes cannot afford adequate housing on minimum wages. One recent study, for example, found that nowhere in the United States can someone who works 40 hours a week at the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour afford a one-bedroom apartment at fair market rent. To afford a one-bedroom apartment at the average fair market rate without paying more than 30 percent of one/s income, a person must earn at least $16.35 an hour.

In many cities, growing homelessness is straining resources for social workers and shelters. When officials try to open new facilities or provide services for the homeless, they encounter financial constraints as well as resistance from the public and private enterprises in many neighborhoods, which consider homelessness burdensome and bad for business.

Measures to keep the homeless away, on the move and out of sight include laws banning loitering, noise projection, panhandling, and public feedings/services for the homeless, panhandling or begging; restrictions on camping, sleeping in vehicles; or sitting or standing in public places; limits for can and bottle refunds; and studs, spikes and arms in the middle of benches. Law enforcement officials and security personnel generally lack mandates or specialized training to address homelessness. The only recourse is ordering people move on to another locale.

Many international agreements, declarations and development goals have been adopted stressing the basic human right to adequate, safe and affordable housing. Also, there are no shortages of reports, policy recommendations and efforts to address homelessness including public housing schemes for the poor, giving stable housing first to the homeless, land and agrarian reform, promulgation of laws that protect women’s right to adequate housing, creation of shelters in urban centers, and integrated rural development to prevent involuntary migration to cities.

However, the continuation of homelessness, especially among the wealthy countries, reflects denial and the lack of political will to address poverty and many other issues. Homelessness men, women and children will likely remain an accepted feature of modern urban life for the foreseeable future.

*Joseph Chamie is an independent consulting demographer and a former director of the United Nations Population Division. 

The decision to invite the leaders of all the ten ASEAN countries for India’s Republic Day in January 2018 is surely a new template. (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam are the members of ASEAN). Showcasing India’s cultural diversity and military prowess would help to rekindle India’s age old ties with ASEAN countries and instil confidence about India’s position as a friend and potential ally.

It is not that leaders of ASEAN countries have not been invited for India’s Republic Day celebrations in recent years. The Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhyono was the chief guest in 2011. In 2012, the then Thai Prime Minister Ms. Yingluck Shinawatra was the chief guest.

ASEAN countries have indicated through various India-ASEAN Summits, meetings and deliberations that they would like India to play a greater role in Asian affairs and enhance its engagement with the ASEAN countries. These and similar ideas were echoed by several academics at the 9th Delhi Dialogue meeting held in New Delhi in the first week of July 2017. India’s External Affairs Minister( EAM), Ms. Sushma Swaraj while inaugurating the Delhi Dialogue also spoke of the centrality of ASEAN when she affirmed,” India places ASEAN at heart of its ‘Act East Policy’ and center of its dream of an Asian century. Future focus areas of cooperation between ASEAN member states and India have been described by the EAM in terms of 3Cs- ‘Commerce, Connectivity and Culture’.

According to the External Affairs Ministry, 2017 marks 25 years of dialogue partnership, 15 years of summit-level interaction, and five years of strategic partnership between India and ASEAN. Several activities, both in India and through Indian missions in ASEAN member-states, are proposed to be organised over the coming months to celebrate this partnership.

EAM in her address also highlighted the close cultural links India had with the South East Asian countries. She articulated,” The ancient Hindu epics of Ramayana and Mahabharata are embedded in the cultural matrix of South East Asia. Our contacts are also evident in the spread of other religions, notably Buddhism, Islam and Christianity, which came to the region from India. Ancient trade routes have linked India with Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia. The close ethnic and cultural links between the North-Eastern states of India with South East Asia are still alive.”

However, India also has cultural links with other ASEAN countries. One such country which has so far remained distant from India’s vision of both Looking and Acting East, is the Philippines. It is not well known that the two countries have a shared cultural heritage that stretches from India to the Philippines. Indologist Juan Francisco has traced the journey of the Ramayana from India to the Philippines and other parts of Southeast Asia. In his book titled, From Ayodhya to Pulu Agamaniog: Rama’s Journey to the Philippines, which has a foreword by the then Indian Ambassador Shyamala B. Cowsik, Francisco brings out the story, as also the characterisation of Lord Rama and the Ramayana in the Philippines, one that is distinct from that in other South East Asian countries (Francisco, 1994). He also highlights that many words of the Sanskrit language find themselves in the many dialects of the Philippines. Archaeological evidence discovered in different parts of the country, which inspired Francisco, suggest that there was an exchange of religious ideas from India to the Philippines. A golden statue of goddess Agusan could be a representation of goddess Shakti. Other golden artefacts discovered in the Tabon caves also suggest that trade between the two countries was active and the historical links are traced to the 9th and 10th centuries. However, these linkages remain confined in pages of history books and in the minds of a few. The EAM in her address also missed out this country, when she alluded to India’s historical ties with ASEAN countries.

It is estimated that there are about 60,000 to 70,000 Indians in the Philippines. The diaspora is comprised of both early settlers (Sindhi and Punjabi traders who moved to the Philippines after the British Annexation of Sindh and Punjab in 1843 and 1849) as well as young professionals associated mainly with the business process outsourcing industry. The presence of Indian pharmaceutical companies in the Philippines as well as the establishment of joint ventures has also helped to bring in business representatives, especially since the 1990s. In addition, there is a large number of educated civil servants working in the UN agencies and international organisations including the ADB, IRRI and others. Indian diaspora can also make a major contribution to boosting India’s ties with the Philippines.

India joins Philippines fight against terror

The Philippines, given that there are terror networks in its Southern areas, with some links to the Al Qaeda, has also been a close ally of the US in its war against terror, especially after the 9/11 attacks. Despite President Duterte’s confusing foreign policy articulations regarding both USA and China, the U.S. Embassy in Manila has been quoted in the Diplomat (http://thediplomat.com/2017/06/us-terror-aid-to-philippines-signals-enduring-defense-ties-under-duterte/) that over the past decade alone, Joint United States Military Assistance Group (JUSMAG) has delivered and programmed 7.3 billion Philippine pesos ($147 million) of military equipment to the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to enhance counterterrorism capabilities.

On May 24, 2017 armed fighters, believed to be associated with the Abu Sayyaf group belonging to the IS, laid siege to the city of Marawi in southern Philippines. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law on the province a day after the deadly siege of Marawi, a mainly Muslim city of about 200,000 people. Fighting has been going on for the past seven weeks, leaving dead several dozens of civilians and soldiers.

India, acting Eastwards, has recently rushed aid of USD 500,000 or 25 million pesos which is about Rs. 3.2 crores to the Philippines for relief and rehabilitation of the people in it’s South. This aid by India though small in comparison to the relief of USD 1 billion pledged exactly two years ago in June 2015 for Nepal’s rehabilitation, post the devastating earthquake, is a step in the right direction. Moreover, for this present man-made crisis, this aid by India to the Philippines is the largest, surpassing even the aid of 15 million pesos provided by China. Undoubtedly, Philippines and other ASEAN countries must be active partners in India’s fight against terrorism. By acting on its own statement, India has demonstrated that it has the political will to Act East. After all, it was at the 13th India ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur in November 2015, when Prime Minister Modi stated, “Terrorism has emerged as a major global challenge that affects us all here. We have excellent bilateral cooperation with ASEAN members. And, we should see how we can enhance our cooperation at the regional and international level, including through support for adoption of Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism”.

The recent announcement of inviting the leaders of ten ASEAN countries and the special aid to the Philippines indicate a significant spin in India’s foreign policy. In January 2018, when ASEAN leaders come to India, to join our Republic Day celebrations, India must not only showcase its wealth of historical and cultural linkages with them, including far-off Philippines, but also include them as partners in our fight against all manifestations of terror. In a region in which India’s footprint is still evolving, will India’s ‘Act East policy’ be impacted positively by these small, yet paradigmatic shifts?

*Dr. Reena Marwah, Senior Fellow, Indian Council of Social Science Research, currently based at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies, India