The Prognosis:

Political leaders are driven by four considerations national interests, domestic audience or vote bank, party ideology and personal convictions. While there is normally a strong overlap between party ideology and personal convictions, in situations where there is a tussle between the two, it is the latter that prevails in the case of strong, charismatic leaders. Both Narendra Modi and Donald Trump belong to this category. Also, international relations are need driven and ideology of the visionary sort plays little role. Further, in international realpolitik the stronger party calls the shots. Given this back drop, one can well imagine that the Modi  Trump Summit will be shaped by the latter’s compulsions, predilections and if one may add, idiosyncrasies.

2. True to his background, the issue foremost on Trump’s agenda will be US business interests. This was best illustrated recently by the whopping $ 3 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia and the supply of $7.5 billion worth of jets to Qatar in spite of their well known role in financing Islamist terrorism. As such, India will be expected to facilitate American FDI, place orders for mega defense deals and reduce protectionist barriers for US imports. The deal to supply 22 unarmed Guardian surveillance drones announced recently is a case in point; also, the proposed joint production of F-16 fighter jets in India. In fact, in his speech to the NRIs, Modi had stressed upon the business opportunities that India’s 1.3 billion strong market offers American industry and the steps taken by his government to make India a top investment destination.

3. Secondly, Trump would be interested in promoting American interests in the region and will look forward to cooperation from India in this regard. Counter terrorism operations and intelligence sharing would fall in this area. Additionally, Trump’s best option to counter China both in Af Pakistan as also in the South China Sea is to use India as a bulwark against Chinese expansionism. One can expect greater intelligence sharing as well as some support to India’s concerns.

4. From Modi’s viewpoint the expected takeaways would be greater US pressure on Pakistan so as to curb its sponsorship of terrorism in Kashmir, easing restrictions on H1B visas so as to safeguard the interests of India’s IT sector, transfer of high end defense technology, support for NSG membership, revitalization of the US India nuclear deal. As was pointed out by an American CEO after Modi’s meet with American industrialists, the Indian side has taken the right preparatory steps. Coincidentally, two nations which are often at odds with American interests and policy have provoked India on the eve of the summit China by denying Indian pilgrims access to Mansarovar and Iran by exhorting Muslims all over the world to support Kashmiri insurgency.

This affords a convenient opportunity for Modi to leverage towards greater American support in India against its two belligerent neighbours. Modi’s visit to Israel next month and that country’s warm response shall also enlist the support of the powerful Jewish lobby in India’s cause. The personal chemistry between these two strong willed leaders will have a strong bearing on the outcome and if all goes well one can expect some kind of a tacit understanding on how the Kashmir problem can be solved to India’s advantage. If so, one can legitimately expect some decisive action by the Indian government next month. The Indian home Minister too had hinted earlier this week that peace will dawn soon in the Valley.

5. India will do well to avoid at this stage any emphasis on the two thorny issues that may bedevil the negotiations US walkout from the Paris climate agreement and the restrictions on H1B visas. Both these issues are dear to Trump supporters and are likely to be red rags to the bull, to use a rather impolitic expression.

The Aftermath:

On the face of it, the Modi-Trump Summit went on expected lines. India avoided the twin thorny issues of H1B visas and climate change  an understand able tactic looking to Trump’s irascible unpredictability. India also refrained from pursuing its agenda on the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Security Council membership. There was thus a complete accommodation of American sensitivities on India’s part.

There was talk of freedom of navigation in the south east Asian region that was an outcome of the convergence of interests of the two countries visa vis Chinese expansionism there. There was an expression of their common concern for stability and orderly governance in Afghanistan.

The above would suggest that both sides were keen to avoid ruffling feathers of the other party. The concessions to each other’s interests was also reciprocal. Thus the US got the order for drones and the prospects of Westing house building nuclear reactors to India and Lockheed Martin F-16 jets. To the delight of Indian media, the US State Department designated Syed Salahuddin at global terrorist. Both these announcements came just prior to the meeting between the two leaders. From there on the one on one meeting between the two followed by the delegation level talks did not reveal any further surprises.

Thus on the surface it was a meeting between the two leaders did not alter the status quo ante in any significant manner. One can assume that the high point of the summit the personal meeting was inconsequential and to that extent Modi’s trip failed to deliver. But this would be a facile assumption, even unwarranted, given the emphasis by both leaders on curbing radical Islamic terrorism, mentioning safe havens afforded by Pakistan to terrorists and all but terming that country a terrorist state. Given the sensitive nature of the issue any headway or breakthrough in this regard would understandably be kept under wraps. Perhaps the real takeaway for India could not have been spelt out overtly in the joint statement or press meets. Behind the oblique reference to turbulence in the “Indian Valley of Kashmir” and the Pak sponsored terrorism there in the presser and the joint statement may lie the real gains of Modi’s trip to the US. If this is really so, then with Kashmir burning like never before we can expect some really decisive action by the Indian government in the coming months. And that may well sound the death knell of Kashmiri separatism.

 –  Dr Pradeep Bajpai

After a historical win, what are the challenges for this political newbie?

Emmanuel Macron is man on mission; surely people are disillusioned with the mainstream political parties. The change is sweeping the world and popular elections are throwing huge surprises. Post victory announcement, he has promised his cheering supporters he would fight to heal France’s divisions. As far as newspaper headlines go, describing Macron’s success, Metro’s “Le Big Mac” is possibly the most eye-catching. This is a big win – a huge win – for the 39-year-old former banker and virtual political newbie who will now become France’s youngest leader since Napoleon Bonaparte.

“What does Emmanuel Macron mean for France?”

Responses were euphoric but not particularly precise. “Hope” was a word I heard a lot; “something new”. But when I asked about his political programme, eyes went blank. And this is where the Big Mac comes in. Except that France has bought the burger without really knowing what’s in it.

This world economic and political power and key EU player is about to be presided over by a politician whose

person, party and policies are pretty much unexplored. That’s quite a gamble. One Macron issue that people are very clear on, though, is that he is not Marine Le Pen. That may seem screamingly obvious but it is largely the key to his electoral success. French voters desperately wanted change to stubbornly high youth unemployment rates, social inequality, a stagnant economy and the persistent terror risk.

They were keen on kicking out the old guard the traditional center-left and center-right parties that have governed France for decades – but they clearly favored “safe” change over a new French revolution, offered to them by the far left and the far right. More than 20 million voted for Macron, but millions of others did not vote or spoilt their ballots The fear and disgust in mainstream France at the very idea of Marine Le Pen as their national figure-head was palpable. Many Macron votes were simply by virtue of him not being her. And yet she still garnered one in three presidential votes on Sunday. Millions more stayed away or spoiled their ballots.

Macron is known as the French establishment’s anti establishment figure. This suggests it will now be quite a challenge to win over large sections of the French public. yes, he’s promised a new, dynamic France: socially just yet business-friendly, neither left- nor right-wing. But can he really dance at so many weddings all at the same time?

Marine Le Pen’s failure to win the presidency does not magically erase the social, economic and political reasons so many voters flocked to her in the first place. These sociopolitical divisions will become screamingly obvious in France now as it heads towards parliamentary elections. The EU too should exercise caution before popping another champagne bottle. If one Macron policy is well publicized, it’s his passionately Europhile credentials.

The president-elect is calling for EU reform but has conveyed a consistently pro European message, EU flags waved alongside the French tri color through- out his presidential campaign. He chose to make his first stage appearance after the election heralded by the tones of the EU anthem, Beethoven’s Ode to Joy. Brussels is cock-a-hoop that Eurosceptic nationalists have now been defeated at the polls in Austria, the Netherlands and France, with negligible chances of success for them in Germany this autumn.

But, and it’s a big but, the fact that populist politicians from the far right (and in some countries like France also the far left) have performed strongly in elections shows there is no blank cheque for the status quo. Voters expect change at home and in the EU. Emmanuel Macron promises to be a mixed blessing for Brussels. His reform proposals for deeper Eurozone integration will horrify German taxpayers for starters. Irresistible charm of France’s new leader is good or bad for Brexit? His commitment to EU unity will also worry the UK ahead of the start of formal Brexit negotiations. He’s promised to be tough. But is Emmanuel Macron flexing muscles he doesn’t yet have on the domestic and EU front?

Macron’s party was established just over a year ago and many of its candidates had little or no political experience. With all the ballots counted, Macron’s LREM and MoDem won 32.3% of the vote. The center right Republicans had 21.5%, while the far-right National Front (FN) had 13.2%, followed by the far-left La France Insoumise (France Unbowed) on just over 11%. The Socialists, previously France’s ruling party and their allies won just 9.5%. But turnout was sharply down, at 48.7% compared with 57.2% in the first round in 2012, which analysts said reflected a sense of resignation among Macron’s opponents.

There can be no disputing the extraordinary achievement of Emmanuel Macron. yes, he has certainly had luck but he has also foreseen with uncanny clarity how  with the right moves at the right places at the right times  the map of French politics was waiting to be redrawn. If the projections from the first round are sustained, then the change that is about to happen to the National Assembly is as big as the one that occurred in 1958 when Charles de Gaulle brought in the Fifth Republic.

Scores, hundreds, of new MPs will be arriving who have never set foot in a debating chamber of any kind, let alone the country’s legislature. It is all liable to bring a rush of blood to the head, and the greatest danger right now for Macron and En Marche is hubris. The victory is no doubt spectacular but so far it has all been electoral, phase two of the Macron master plan – actual reform – is the next challenge. And bigger.

What are the challenges for Macron?

He needs a majority to push through the changes that he promised in his campaign, which include: Budget savings of €60bn (£51bn; $65bn) in the next five years, Cutting the number of public servants by 120,000 & Reforming the lab-our market and generous state pension schemes, bringing them into line with private schemes But the pessimism in the country is reflective in the turnout was low, despite claims that President Macron had re energized the voting public. He has already left an impression around the world, in particular for standing up to US President Donald Trump on issues like climate change. After the projections were announced, a government spokesman said voters had shown they wanted to move fast on major reforms. President Macron must have to unite the nation and bring optimism in the people of France that under his leadership, the country is in safe hand.

François Baroin, head of the Republicans, said the low turnout testified to the “deep divisions in French society” and was “extremely worrying”. FN leader Marine Le Pen blamed her party’s poor performance on the low turnout, saying France’s electoral system, which favors larger parties, needed to be reformed. FN leader Marine Le Pen said the electoral system led to low turnout

“This catastrophic abstention rate should raise the question of the voting rules which keep millions of our compatriots away from the polling stations,” she said. Socialist leader Jean Christophe Cambadélis, who lost his seat in the first round, warned voters against giving LREM an absolute majority next Sunday. He said it would result in “virtu- ally no real opposition and we will have a National Assembly without any real counterbalance, without a democratic debate and not worthy of that name”. Elsewhere, German Chancellor Angela Merkel who, like Mr Macron, has a pro-EU stance congratulated him on the “great success” of his party. It was a “vote for reforms”, tweeted (in German) her spokesman, Steffen Seibert.

Who was eliminated?

The first round saw some political heavyweights knocked out. Most of the big-name casualties were Socialists. Besides party leader Cambadélis, eliminated in Paris, their ill-fated presidential candidate Benoît Hamon lost in yvelines, just west of Paris. Other prominent Socialists knocked out included: Matthias Fekl (ex-interior minister), Aurélie Filippetti (ex-culture minister) and Elisabeth Guigou (previously European affairs minister, justice minister, social affairs minister).

Prominent first-round casualties were Jean-Christophe Cambadélis, Benoît Hamon and Henri Guaino, The ex-leader of the Greens, Cécile Du flot, a former housing minister, was eliminated in Paris. Two prominent FN politicians party campaign manager Nicolas Bay and Jean-Lin Lacapelle were knocked out. And the big losers among the centre-right candidates were Senegalese-born Rama yade and Henri Guaino, a former top aide to ex-President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Mr Guaino had fallen out with former Republican colleagues before the vote, and castigated voters in his central Paris constituency. “The electorate… just makes me want to throw up,” he said. He labelled them “egotistical bobos (bohemians)” and conservative Catholic “bourgeoisie” like those who supported the Vichy French Pétain regime in World War Two.

Macron has shown tremendous maturity in dealing with the delicate issues like country’s NATO participation despite USA bulling its European allies. The Russian President Putin visit to France was gracefully conducted by Mr Macron. French President personal equation with German Chancellor is likely to consolidate European Union. However handling Mr Donald Trump will be a challenge for Mr Macron. The new world order has China and India as the two major players. President Emmanuel Macron must balance west and east world to take his country forward.

– BY Opinion Express News Desk

The UK has seen some incredible developments over the past few years. No sooner had PM Cameron won the public vote in 2015 that he declared the date for the EU referendum, otherwise known as Brexit. At that time, I had advised the politicians that for the UK, Brexit was the right choice and indeed in my view, the British electorate would choose that as their preferred option. On Thursday June 23, 2016, the British electorate did exactly as I had predicted and voted to leave the EU. This set into motion a series of events that have hitherto never happened before. Within hours PM Cameron stepped down as the Prime Minister. He really had no choice since he backed the ‘remain’ campaign which obviously failed.

Of course, this led immediately to the selection of the next Conservative Party leader and therefore the new PM of UK. And what a battle that turned  out to be with the likes of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Theresa May all throwing their hats in the ring. The victor as we now know was PM T May.

The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats also lost their leaders at the same time and we had several months when every major party in the UK was scrambling to select their new leader. In the end the Labour Party chose MP Jeremy Corbyn and the Liberal Democrats MP Tim Farron.

The stage was set to action Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The first step in the process of the UK is leaving the EU. Months of turmoil with opposition politicians playing all the games they could, to if not halt the process, to slow it down to a crawl. In the end, PM May put the opposition to the sword in a parliamentary vote, and guess what, the Article 50 Bill passed in Parliament by a margin of 498 to 114. So much so for the defiant opposition that crumbled in the wake of ground reality, that being that the British public would not stand for any politician who stood in the way of the decision they had made.

Under normal circumstances one would have thought that the matter was settled and the British government should just get on with the task in hand. However, modern politics is no longer that straight forward. The opposition which has a majority in the upper house (House of Lords) declared that they would do everything to frustrate the process and by so doing, undermine the negotiating strength of the British Government for Brexit. The European bureaucrats in Brussels were loving this, knowing they also wanted to make life hard for Britain as well. As it turned out, most of the leading economic indicators continued to be favourable to the British economy. The doom merchants were being proven wrong as Britain continued to outshine most of its European partners.

having already lost one referendum for independence wanted to instigate another one. The SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon saw an opportunity of the Brexit vote and used that to promote her favourite policy for independence. However, the continuous sniping by British opposition politicians finally pushed PM May to decide enough was enough. PM May out foxed not only the opposition, and the media, but her own party members when she declared The Scottish National Party (SNP) that she wanted a snap election to take place on 8th June 2017. In the UK, we have what is called a ‘Fixed Parliament Act’. In effect, it means an election take place every 5 years. If you want one earlier, then Parliament must vote by 2/3rd majority for it to take place. Generally speaking, this would mean getting the opposition to vote with the Government of the day. Of course, when PM May threw this gauntlet down she knew that the main opposition had no choice but to back her call for an early election. Namely, how on

The state of play for the main political parties is as follows:

earth can any opposition run timid from an election? Even when it knows it’s in a bad way, political expediency means the Labor Party had no choice but to say yes.

trend in voting intentions of the British electorate. It does not take a genius to conclude that short of a minor miracle, the Labor Party will be defeated with devastating ease. They say that on cur- rent polling the seat sharing might look like: Con=388, Lab=177, LDem=7 and UKIP=0. The SNP in Scotland = 56. In my view, there is much that can still happen. As they say a week in politics is a long time.

This is of course just an exercise in playing with numbers. My interpretation is kept simple. The Conservative Party will win with ease and have a significant majority to get most of its legislation through the next Parliament. They will have 5 years in which to cement in their advantage subject to their policies working out and the public don’t get tired of the leadership.

The Labor Party will be crippled to such a degree that either it will have to dump its current unpopular leader, Jeremy Corbyn and get in a centrist like David Miliband (yes you read that correctly) or the Party as it stands will have to split. One faction (supported by most of its MPs) will try to galvanize the center ground in politics whilst the other faction will turn into a far left party with its dedicated core voters synchronized with its far-left ideology. What we can say is that unless the Labor Party takes some very tough decisions, and quickly, it won’t get into power in Britain for a good decade and maybe even longer. Make no bones, this is now crunch time for the Labor Party, it’s very existence is now in question and if it fails then don’t be too surprised if a Center Left Party emerges of a coalition of colors to challenge the incumbent Government.

what does all this mean for uK and India relations?

The answer in simple, there is a huge opportunity to reset the relation- ship so it is fit for the 21st Century. Britain is no longer an imperial power with an Empire to govern. It is a small island, be it a very important and influential island, just off the coast of Eu- rope. The fact that UK will be free of the EU means anything and everything is now on the table for discussions. The fact that India has emerged as an established 21st century powerhouse means it can demand, and it will get, what it needs. Be that from the UK or a host of other countries around the world lining up to cost with the new India under the stewardship of its internationally popular leader, PM Narendra Modi.

Both these countries, linked by history of course, find themselves in very similar situations. To face the 21st Century with new found freedom, new opportunities and renewed self confidence. Deals are there to be made in the interest of both. India finds itself in a powerful position that it has not seen for thousands of years. I have no doubt that these two old partners will find a new working relationship based on respect and shared values.

Europe on the other hand is in dire straits. The free for all immigration policies of the past decade are now catching up with devastating consequences. The majority of European politicians live in their ivory towers. They hide behind politically correct rhetoric and platitudes ignoring the plight of their own people and the surge of negativity being unleashed from the silent majority via the new social media networks. The establishment elite can no longer control in- formation flow and the diet of misinformation it depended upon to hoodwink the electorate. The news media that has failed to properly scrutinize the so called politically correct rhetoric is also coming in for some legitimate roasting. When politicians fail their electorate, the media ignore the truth for want of being PC – then it’s only a matter of time before the inevitable happens. And this we have witnessed in France with the far-right leader Maria Le Pen being elevated to new heights of being able to challenge for the French presidency. Think about it, in a major European country like France there is a huge proportion of people so disenfranchised that they are willing to vote for the very extreme far-right group. That means at the very grass roots millions of citizens are shouting, enough is enough, ignore us at your peril.

Brexit does not make the British electorate racist. The French have not suddenly become racist. And we can say that for most European countries now. What we see and experience is a cry for help from a sizeable silent majority. Unfortunately, the downside being that many of us who are classified as immigrants end up getting the brunt of these failed political policies.

The challenge for the EU is to accept its mistakes and correct them urgently. In my view, they won’t do that with the resultant outcome, massive street wide public disturbances on a regular basis. In 2017/18, we will see the streets of Europe resemble war zone, and folks that is no exaggeration.

In the upcoming British elections, win for the Conservative Party is clear and so on 9th June a new era beacons and I for one would hope that for India and UK, it means a much more productive relationship that safe guards each country not only on the economic front, but also from the advances of extremism and terrorism.

The Labor Party in Britain has increasingly moved towards the Islamic community in particular towards the Pakistani community. It seems it is now very much reliant on the Pakistani community for votes en masse to ensure it secures some of their seats. This has created a situation whereby it is now seen by many as anti-Hindu and anti-Jew. Both of these communities are looking at the Conservative party as a natural home for them in the knowledge that at least there are some aspects of shared values and goals. The Labor Party born from the Unions is also seen to be edging ever closer to some militant unions and with that many of moderate voters feel left out. We see many of these voters begin to move away from the Labor Party in favor of the Conservatives. What is even more surprising is that the working class roots of the Labor Party also feel that they have been abandoned by their own party. We have seen a size- able proportion of this group voting for Brexit as well as UKIP (very much the right of right party in the UK). For India one could conclude easily that a defeat for the Labor Party is the best option. The Conservatives offer the best choice for the best partnerships now and for the future. I would not be too surprised if PM Modi builds on the excellent relations he forged with PM Cameron and can now enhance those with his interaction with PM May.

With Brexiton its way, and with the General Election on 8th June, I see my glass to be full, half with new found freedom and half with new opportunities for the new millennial. This is a time to forge stronger bonds to protect the economy, but to stand firm against the disease of extremism and terrorism that affects both our countries.

 – OE News Bureau

Gurdwaras in Manchester extended a helping help and offered shelter to those affected and stranded by Tuesday’s deadly Manchester Arena blast.

“Sikh Temples in Manchester, UK offering food & accommodation. They are open for ALL people. #PrayForManchester #ManchesterArena #England,” tweeted Harjinder S Kukreja along with the address of the four Sikh temples located in the vicinity. The gurdwaras are Sri Guru Gobind Singh Gurdwara Educational & Cultural Center located at 57 Upper Chorlton Rd, Manchester M16 7RQ; Gurdwara Sri Guru Harkrishan Sahib located at 12 Sherborne St, Manchester M3 1FE, Dasmesh Sikh Temple located at 98 Heywood St, Manchester M8 0DT and Central Gurdwara Manchester located at 32 Derby St, Manchester M8 8Ry.

The locals in the area also took to Twitter to offer shelter to those affected. In what could be described as one of the worst terror attacks in Britain, at least 22 people were killed and dozens of other injured as a suspected suicide bomber carried out a carnage during an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester.

The explosion occurred near the foyer area of the arena in what is being reported as a “nail bomb attack”.

A man found dead at the scene is thought to be the probable suicide bomber, according to reports.

Last, England saw such a deadly terror attack was in 2005 when on July 7, terrorists carried out a series of coordinated suicide bomb attacks in central London which targeted civilians using the public transport system during the  rush hour. Fifty-two people were killed and over 700 more were injured in the attacks.

Also, in 2009, the Manchester police had thwarted a major terror bid to attack Manchester’s Arndale shopping centre on the busy Easter bank holiday weekend.

With up to 90,000 shoppers in or near the shopping center at the time, police believe an attack would have killed hundreds and maimed thousands.

A student identified as Abid Naseer, 29, who plotted the mass suicide bomb attack was jailed for 40 years in 2015.

 – OE News Bureau

Between the 16th-18th centuries, Brazil and Goa, both out- posts of the Portuguese imperialist outreach, had exchanges, which found reflection in the flora and fauna, food and dress as well as folk traditions of Brazil. The interesting similarities between folk traditions of ‘Boi Bumba’ in the north of Brazil and the Poikam Kudharai’ of South India draw attention to the strong under currents of cultural and popular exchanges that have taken place in the centuries by gone.Both are large developing countries, stable, secular, multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, large democracies as well as trillion-dollar economies, hence although the two countries are divided by geography and distance, they share common democratic values and developmental aspirations.

Considering the frequent Bilateral Interactions between India and Brazil in the recent years, India-Brazil bilateral relations are in a state of clearly discernible upswing, the Prestigious Awards, Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding for 2006 and Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development for 2010 conferred on President Lula of Brazil confers the shared vision of India and Brazil on an common ideology .

The constructive exchange of VVIPs, Ministerial and official-level visits in recent years clearly define the strengthening of bilateral relationship in various fields and forging of close cooperation and coordination in the multilateral arena, be in IBSA, BRICS, G-4, BASIC, G-20 summits and the recent BRICS Summit in Goa, India 2016 . An evolving bilateral order to name a many important few , the visits from India since vice President S. Radhakrishnan (1954), Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (1968), Prime Minister Narasimha rao (1992 for earth Summit), President K.R. Narayanan (1998), ,President Pratibha Patil (2008) and Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh (June 2012-for Rio+20 summit)., Shri Pranab Mukherjee, Minister of External Affairs (Feb 2008), Shri P. Chidambaram, Finance Minister from India (Nov 2008) ,Shri Jairam Ramesh, Honorable Minister of environment & Forests (to attend the BASIC Ministerial ), Mr. Jyotiraditya Scindia, Minister for State for Commerce and Industry (September 2010, April 2011), Mr. Sharad Pawar, Minister of Agriculture, Food and Civil Supplies, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution )and other dignitaries and the honorable visits from Brazil to India since Celso Amorim, Foreign Minister of Brazil (April, July 2007 and September 2009) and as Defense Minister in February 2012, Minister of Industry and Foreign trade Mr. Miguel Jorge (March and October 2008) and Minister of Defence Nelson Jobin (March 2010),Foreign Minister Mr. Antonio Patriota visited India for IBSA Ministerial and Brazil-India JCM in December 2011 and VVIP visits of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1996),President Lula (2004, 2007 & 2008) ,President Dilma Rousseff in March 2012 to attend the 4th BRICS Summit and bilateral trade Summit and President temer in BrICS Summit on 2016 ,culminated in signing of the important Bilateral Agreements, MOUs , Extradition Treaty, Cooperation in Tourism, Space, S&T, Air Services, Oil and Natural Gas, Audio-Visual Co-production, Academic Exchanges, Infrastructure, Hunger and Poverty, Civil Defense and Humanitarian Assistance, Agriculture and Allied Sectors, Plant Health Protection, Human Settlements, Biotechnology, Technical Cooperation, Education, Metrology and Gender Equity.

On a sufficing visionary notes on the economic and commercial relations between the two countries and its bilateral trade crossing US $ 10 Billion in 2012 mark, states a historical note which includes – India’s imports: US$ 5,577 billion on Crude oil, copper sulfates, soya oil, Raw sugar, denatured alcohol, other minerals of copper and its concentrates, asbestos, valves, motor pumps, airplanes, wheat, precious and semi-precious stones and India’s exports: US$ 5,043 billion on Diesel oil, coke of coal, lignite or peat, equipment’s related to wind energy, engineering and electrical equipment, cotton and polyester yarns, naphtha, pigments, medicines and chemicals. Brazil is the most important trading partner of India in the entire LAC (Latin America and Caribbean) region. India and Brazil bilateral trade has increased substantially in the last two decades. However, the most impressive change is taking place now as the trade is becoming more diversified both geographically as well as qualitatively. In 2011 about two third of our bilateral trade of US$ 9.2 billion was oil products, whereas in 2012 this proportion has become less than half in our bilateral trade of US$ 10.6 billion.

India and Brazil have formed a bi- lateral trade Monitoring Mechanism (TMM) for periodic consultations. India signed a framework agreement with Mercosur in June 2003. the India Mercosur PTA entered into force on 1st June 2009 under which 450 items from each side will have duty reductions of 10% to 100%. Efforts are underway to broaden and deepen the India-Mercosur PTA and to link it, under IBSA to SACU as well.

India has also welcomed many Brazilian students under ITEC programme for training in communications, management and defense.

On the Cultural arena, The Brazilian interests in India are vast. Recently, the Brazilian Consulate in Mumbai organised a Brazilian Latin festival in Mumbai under the guidance of our versatile Consul General of Brazil in Mumbai, Ms Rosimar Suzano to portray the Cultural metamorphosis of Brazilian music as a Yogic fervor, performing arts and philosophy. on an extended note, a similar thread was woven too by Ms Suzano and the Ambassador to Brazil in India Mr Nunes on the 194th Anniversary of Brazilian National Day in Mumbai on 7th September 2016 , emphasizing on Sports and its bilateral connections with India during the curtain raiser of the Rio Olympics in Brazil 2016, where the Indian Contingent had a considerably large sports persons. Few of them from Maharashtra were specialty felicitated on the National Day of Brazil in association with Nena records and Productions and Mr Manish Tewari of ITV Networks (India News and News X TV Channels), India.

Nena Records and Productions, India and Brazil encompassed daily large segments in covering the numerous organizations, teaching Yoga all over Brazil in Ramakrishna Mission, ISKCON, Satya Sai Baba, Maharishi Maharshi Yogi and Bhakti Vedanta Foundation along with the wide coverage of sports segments of Brazilian and Indian athletes in Rio Olympics 2016 as special added episodes on Rio Olympics 2016.

Mahatma Gandhi is highly regarded in Brazil and the government and NGOs are trying to circulate the philosophy of non-violence among students, youth and even police. Statues of Mahatma Gandhi have been installed in Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Londrina. The Brazilian cultural troupe had given splendid performances in India in 2008 and a large group of Indian artists gave several popular performances in several Brazilian cities in May-June 2011 in association with ICCR ( Indian Council of Cultural Research Ministry of Tourism Government of India )

the airing of the ‘telenovela’ and the popular Indian TV series ‘ Caminho Das Indias ‘(Paths to India) by the influntial O Globo television made a great impact in enhancing the consciousness of India in the Brazilian public mind and greatly contributed to the warmth and friendliness in the common masses of Brazil.

the Indian Association in Sao Paulo along with the Indian community of PIos /NrIs numbering 2000 in Brazil mainly comprising of professionals and businessmen, scientists/researchers in agriculture, physics regularly conduct bilateral events to further the bond between the two countries. A majority of them lives in Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Manaus. the Indian Consulate General in Sao Paulo, the industrial and commercial hub of Brazil, was opened in 1996. the Brazilian embassy has been functional in India since 1949 and has Consulate General in Mumbai.

The Recent breakthrough on the 8th BRICS Summit 2016 marks a major step forward to the spirit of the Goa Declaration. the outcomes of the meetings of BRICS Labor and employment Ministers held on June 9 last year in Geneva and on September 27-28, 2016 in New Delhi, India and Brazil today initiated the text of the Social Security Agreement in Brasilia. the text establishes the rights and obligations of nationals of both countries and provides for equal treatment of the nationals of both countries and unrestricted payment of pensions even in the case of residence in the other contracting state (benefits export principle).

the SSA between India and Brazil once brought into force by early 2018,after completion of the ratification process in the respective counties will favorably impact the profitability and competitive position of Indian and Brazilian companies with foreign operations in either country by reducing their cost of doing business abroad. the SSA will also help promote more investment flows between the two countries. The Indian delegation was led by K. Nagaraj Naidu; Joint Secretary (Economic Diplomacy) of the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India and the Brazilian delegation was led by Mr. Benedito A. Brunca, Secretary (Social Security Policies), Ministry of Finance, Government of Brazil.

After holding wide ranging talks in the BRICS Summit in Goa with Brazilian President Michel Temer, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India deeply appreciated Brazil’s support to its actions in combating terror, noting both countries will work for early adoption of the Comprehensive Convention Against International terrorism (CCIT) by the UN. In the talks, Temer supported New Delhi’s bid for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and conveyed to Modi that Brazil will work with other member countries of the elite bloc to facilitate India’s entry into it.

Modi said he has sought greater market access and investment opportunities for Indian products and companies in Brazil and was “thankful” for Temer’s “positive consideration”. Talking about Brazil’s priority to reviving the domestic economy, Modi said India can be a valuable partner in it. He welcomed Brazilian companies to come and invest in India and to forge long-term commercial partnerships. the two leaders also met a group of Ceos of top companies from both countries to explore ways to deepen economic engagement to progress in opening new areas of co- operation on drug regulation, agricultural research and cyber security issues. President temer and PM Modi also agreed to intensify and strengthen their coordination in important international fora and resolved to work closely at the United Nations, the G-20, G-4, WTO, BRICS and IBSA

on the the visit of the Brazilian delegation to Mumbai on Oct 2016 on a mission to explore new vistas for trade, commerce and investment, spearheaded Ms. Rosimar da Silva Suzano, Consul General of Brazil in Mumbai at the International Business round table organized by World trade Center Mumbai, All India Association of Industries, Apex Brasil and Ministry of Foreign Affairs Brazil at the World Trade Center Mumbai, confined that, “Brazil’s trade with India has immense scope for expansion which currently accounts for 1.21% of India’s total trade. the total trade between India and Brazil is at USD 6.69 billion in 2015-16. The market opportunities exist in the areas of food and drinks (coffee, tea, fruits, cocoa, and confectionary products), home and building (woods), machinery and equipment (vehicles and auto parts), mineral products and chemicals. Brazil has recently launched a new infrastructure Program, ‘Crescer’ (meaning ‘grow’) which will focus on concession, privatization and public-private partnerships, Brazil and India should rather look for complementarities and synergies between their respective markets and mind-sets in order to in- crease and upgrade their business potential. For more business to take place there should be more people to people exchanges. I am a strong believer of people-to-people relations to cement long-term and sustainable partnerships as under the ‘Make in India’ initiative, India is undergoing a series of reforms that are in the process of enhancing the competitiveness of the country.

Ms. Lara Gurgel, representing Apex- Brasil, said, “India and Brazil share a special relationship and tremendous opportunities lie between them especially in natural resources besides agriculture, food processing, oil & gas, mining, textile, spinning and with the successful conclusion of the 8th BRICS Summit in Goa, member countries should work towards the success of BRICS. Both Ms Suzano and Ms Gurgel appreciated the growth at a rate of 7.6 percent which is possible first and foremost by providing concession in freight costs.. they also emphasized on the technology segment which India requires and can be fulfilled through collaborative efforts with Brazil.

Adding further on the bilateral tie ups of India and Brazil, Rosimar Da Silva Suzano, Consul General of Brazil (Mumbai) stated that, “The BRICS, gave powerful impetus to the identification and development of specific bilateral and joint projects in strategic sectors such as agriculture, renewable energy, science and technology and paved sustainable and inclusive solutions to the global problems”,

Ms. Suzano while addressing a seminar on ‘BRICS-Challenges and opportunities’ organised jointly by Center for Latin American Studies, Goa University in collaboration with International Centre, Goa, emphasized, “that a stronger BRICS equals a more equitable world order as no country can by itself respond to today’s challenges, by pooling capabilities, resources and ideas over shared concerns BRICS is giving the world its contribution, at the same time ensuring its members a fair stake in the decision making process. She also recalled that 2008 global financial crisis confirmed the realization among the emerging economies that they should have a voice in the decision-making mechanisms put in place at the Bretton Woods Conference in the aftermath of the II World War that no longer met the demands of a globalized world economy. She advocated more reforms in global financial institutions and more investment in infrastructure in BRICS and emerging economies. With the New Development Bank (NDB), BRICS will have funds to finance infrastructure projects at the BRICS countries or in other emerging third world countries”

Describing Brazil as a proactive member of the BRICS, Ms. Suzano said, ‘Brazil saw BRICS as a window of opportunities not to be missed, and went on to recall that since inception, her country saw BRICS as an ideal space for dialogue, and consensus, identification of convergences and expansion of contacts and cooperation in specific sectors amongst its members. She said to handle issues of the global agenda the vision that is BRICS shall be open to constructively cooperate and engage with third countries as well as international and regional organizations. She also lauded the role of initiatives such as cultural exchanges, civil society dialogue and parliamentary meetings as having potential to generate new ideas of global governance and come up with inclusive solutions.

“BRICS offered a forum for deliberation and collective position taking a space to create a positive agenda and search for common ground within the international scene, an arena for intra co-operation in a gamut of subjects and sectors .Being an ardent supporter of multilateralism, she added ,”Brazil believes in the partnerships in different groupings”. the consul general said BRICS should have a collective response towards inter state wars, climate change and natural disaster. She admitted that BRICS has helped Brazil improve its bi- lateral trade to a great extent.

“At a time when the bilateral trade was mere 500 million dollars in 2005, it reached 11.5 billion dollars in 2014, despite the country’s economy being in doldrums,” she added.

to conclude on all the visionary and strong developments on Trade , Business , Economic and Cultural elevations, positive developments and ongoing growth between India and Brazil the visa issues need to be in- formed too to further the Indo Brazilian ties which states that under a bilateral agreement, diplomatic and official passport holders are exempted from visa for a stay of maximum of 90 days. And although there are no direct flights between India and Brazil, convenient connections are however available via Europe (London, Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam), the US (New York and Chicago) and via Dubai. A Point to be pondered for an easy ‘Air viability’ for the Business and Corporate sectors of both Brazil and India for a smooth direct travel radar.

 – Carlyta Mohini (The writer is a leading Indo Brazilian Columnist on International Diplomatic issues and Politics, World Trade /Tourism/Heritage/Music and Global Fusion Vocalist (ICCR) /Songwriter)

BEIJING: The US move to create a naval base in northern Australia close to the South China Sea can actually mean more dollars in the Indian kitty, and put more strategic and business opportunities in New Delhi’s way, sources said. The first piece of evidence has come by way of Australia’s decision to selluranium to India.

The US move will provide a sense of protection to East Asian countries including Japan, who have serious conflicts with China but buy vast amounts of Chinese goods. The new found protection will encourage East Asia to reduce its dependence on China for goods and enhance economic ties with India, sources said.

“Japan, Vietnam and Indonesia will feel more secure. India and Indonesia can get together to control the Malacca Straits, which is the route though which 90% of Chinese goods to East Asia passes,” Subramanian Swamy, Janata Party president and a widely regarded China expert, told TNN.

There are signs that China is jittery about the US move to station 2,500 US marines in the Northern Territory of Australia within five years. Beijing on Thursday warned Australia it might get “caught in the crossfire” if it allows the US to exercise its naval might in the waters around it. Washington’s move has put the US navy within easy sailing reach of Vietnam, which is involved in a serious territorial dispute over oil rich islands in the South China Sea.

The move will also bring some relief to the ONGC, which is one of the foreign companies involved in exploring oil along with Vietnamese oil firms in the South China Sea. China has bitterly criticized India on the move and asked ONGC to withdraw.

When it comes to exporting to East Asia, India cannot replace China, which has a wide range of goods to offer, Uday Bhaskar, director of the National Maritime Foundation, said.

“But there is a strategic review of the bilateral relation with India by the US, EU and Japan, wherein Indian markets are being recognized as an important driver of trade in the region,” Bhaskar added.

India will need to retool its export basket if it seriously wishes to compete with China as a provider of goods in East Asia, he said.

The US move can also mean massive savings in investments being made by the Indian defense agencies on the India China border, Abhijit Iyer Mitra, research officer at the Institute of Conflict Studies in New Delhi, said.

“This is God sent. The more US ramps up its military presence in South China Sea, the more it will divert Beijing’s attention from India,” he said.

“It can actually mean a big saving on investments being made on the China border. But I doubt if our defense establishment would make the best of the opportunity. They are too attached to big budget,” he said.

 – OE News Bureau

As President Barack Obama’s budget aimed at rebuilding the country’s economy, emerging ‘from the worst recession in generations’, looks at India as ‘one of the most important and promising emerging markets in the world’.

Obama’s proposed $3.7 trillion spending plan for 2011 hopes to ‘win the future by out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building our global competitors and creating the jobs and industries of tomorrow’, according to the White House.

‘India is one of the most important and promising emerging markets in the world, and represents a tremendous opportunity for US firms to expand their output of goods and services,’ the budget proposal presented Monday said.

‘On the margins of the president’s trip to India in November, trade transactions were announced or showcased exceeding $14.9 billion in total value with $9.5 billion in US export content and that would support an estimated 53,670 jobs,’ the White House noted.

These cross border collaborations, both public and private, underpin the expanding US-India strategic partnership, contributing to economic growth and development in both countries, it said. Notable examples include the sale of commercial and military air- craft, gas and steam turbines and precision measurements instrumentation. The budget proposals said the emergence of a global market place that includes the growing economies of China, India and other developing counties creates an opportunity for America to export US goods and services to new customers.

‘With 95 percent of the world’s customers as well as the globe’s fastest growing markets beyond our borders, we must compete aggressively to spur economic growth and job creation,’ the budget said. Obama’s third annual budget says that it can reduce projected deficits by $1.1 trillion over the next decade, enough to stabilise the nation’s fiscal health and buy time to address its longererm problems, the New York Times said citing a senior administration official.

Two-thirds of the reductions that Obama claims are from cuts in spending, including in many domestic programmes that he supports.Among the reductions for just the next fiscal year, 2012, which starts Oct 1, are more than $1 billion from airport grants and nearly $1 billion from grants to states for water treatment plants and similar projects. Public health and forestry programmes would also be cut. With Republicans in charge of the House, Obama’s budget is more a statement of his priorities and philosophy than an actual template for federal spending and tax policy, the Times noted.

 – Arun Kumar  (Arun Kumar can be contacted at arun.kumar@ians.in)

Just when oil markets appeared to be calming, crude oil prices surged as the potential for more oil shipment disruptions spread across the Middle East and North Africa.With Libya’s oil exports almost entirely halted for the last several days, renewed unrest in Oman, Iran and Iraq rattled oil traders. An interruption of shipments from any of those countries would further tighten oil supplies, even as Saudi Arabia has rushed to fill the vacuum of Libyan supplies by pumping more oil from its fields.

The worries about the oil supply rippled through other markets, with stock markets turning lower on concerns that the higher cost of energy would slow economic recovery. Gold prices also surged on the latest reports, and indexes on Wall Street declined sharply, with the Dow Jones industrial average down more than 1.3 percent. The Saudi Arabian benchmark stock index fell 6.8 percent.In the latest sign that the political contagion was spreading, demonstrators in Oman on Tuesday tried to block a major road leading to the industrial port town of Sohar. Protesters in recent days have set fire to at least one police station and two government office buildings in the normally stable Persian Gulf country, which is ruled by a family dynasty and is the largest non OPEC oil producer in the Middle East.”To have protests in Oman, which had previously been seen as a sleepy gulf kingdom, heightens concerns that nowhere is immune from the contagion affects,” said Helima L. Croft, a director and senior geopolitical analyst at Barclays Capital. “Every day we seem to have a new country with a new problem.”

Oman produces 860,000 barrels of oil daily, almost 1 percent of world supplies, and its production has been rising in recent years with investments from Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Repsol and other international companies. Its importance is magnified by the fact that its crude is of such quality that it can be blended by most refineries around the world, although most of its exports now go to China and Japan. Oman straddles the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic route through which 40 percent of the world’s oil tanker traffic crosses. On the other side of the strait lies Iran, another major producer, where there were reports on Tuesday that security forces had used tear gas to disperse protesters in Tehran. Iran, with approximately 10 per- cent of the world’s oil reserves, exports about 3.7 million barrels a day.

The price of light sweet crude rose to $99.63 a barrel while Brent crude rose 3.24 percent to $115.42. Oil jumped above $100 a barrel in after-hours trading in New York. The national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline rose by nearly a penny on Tuesday to just over $3.37, which is 20 cents higher than a week ago.

In testimony on Capitol Hill, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said that it would take a sustained increase in oil prices to push up consumer inflation significantly and threaten the economy. “Currently the cost pressures from higher commodity prices are being offset by the stability in unit labor costs,” he added.The rising tensions across the region sent the Saudi Arabian stock market into a tailspin, with Saudi shares suffering the biggest daily decline in more than two years despite rising oil prices. The Saudi index fell 6.8 percent, to its lowest close since July 2009.

Refiners around the world have been hoping that Iraq, as violence ebbed, would again become a major oil producer, with production stabilising at 2.3 million barrels a day. But over the weekend rebels bombed the country’s largest refinery, reducing the refinery’s capacity to refine petroleum products by 75,000 barrels a day. The attack came less than three weeks after a terrorist attack on a pipeline leading to a second refinery north of Baghdad.Greg Priddy, an oil analyst at the Eurasia Group, a political risk consultancy, said it was “highly unlikely” that output in another major producer in the region would be shut off. But he said that markets were jittery because “if the Saudis are going to make up for the shortfall in Libya, their spare capacity is thinner.”

He added, “Another major country going out completely would use most of their spare capacity, and that is really what the market is worried about.”

Saudi Arabia has a total production capacity of 12.5 million barrels a day, and currently produces nine million barrels after increasing its output by several hundred thousand since the beginning of the year. Saudi officials say they are ready to pump what it takes to fill any supply gap, but much of its 3.5 million barrel excess capacity contains sour crudes that do not easily replace the Libyan sweet crude European refineries in particular desire to produce diesel. In Libya, major oil operations in the eastern part of the country remained under the control of rebel forces. While foreign operators withdrew most of their foreign workers, local Libyan employees can still produce some crude. Oil experts say at least one million of the country’s 1.6 million barrels a day of production has been shut down.

Little if any oil can be shipped out of Libya because most ports were closed. Meanwhile, storage tanks were filling up rapidly. Oil traders said one major oil company cargo ship was supposed to berth this week, but no one was at the port to deliver an oil shipment, and shipping companies were reluctant to send ships into the Libyan ports.

Most fields in Libya are operated by a combination of the National Oil Company, which owns 50 percent of the fields, and international consortium, which share the other half.

The Arabian Gulf Oil Company, the largest subsidiary of the Libya National Oil Corporation, claims it had broken off from its mother company. It said it would honor its contracts but would divert the funds to the opposition, not to Tripoli.Arabian Gulf’s Hamada field had been shut, and output at Nafoora, Sarir and Misla had dropped to under half of maxi- mum capacity.The company was still exporting crude at the Tobruk terminal, according to a re- port by PFC Energy, a consulting firm, but Arabian Gulf has stated that with only sporadic loading operations, it could reach its maximum storage capacity within two weeks, even with the drastically reduced production levels.Arabian Gulf officials “have claimed that the company’s export revenues will no longer be controlled by its parent company,” PFC Energy said in the report, “but have not been able to confirm how those revenues would be managed by the subsidiary or potentially channelled to Libya’s opposition.”Eni, the Italian oil giant and largest foreign operator in Libya, evacuated most of its employees and their families last week. The company’s fields were still producing 120,000 barrels a day of oil and natural gas, about half their capacity before the re- volt began. The company declined to say which fields it had shut down and which were still in operation, citing safety concerns. Eni still has 21 Italian employees in Libya, a spokesman said.

(Courtesy: Clifford Krauss & Jad Mouawad, The New York Times..)

Indian Jew Noshir Gowadia is a sacrificial lamb like Bernie Maddoff whom the Israeli’s sacrificed by saying beat this guy he stole $75 billion where as the fact is they stole $4 trillion from US Banking system. With total control on US Congress, Justice system, Media, Banking & big Businesses Israelis have been manipulating every thing including their sales of Military Technology to China for last 5 decades.

Here are few statements from various news papers. Please feel free to send it to Israeli slaves US Congress posing as friend of India supplying free arms to Pakistan so that Israeli’s can sell their junk at inflated prices by bribing main political parties of India namely Zionist Christian Sonia’s Congress & Zionised BJP. At the same time their Israeli Masters are selling most sophisticated Military Technology after stealing from America to China another hostile neighbor of India.

“Every time we discover a new program in the Third World arms proliferation game, we always find that the Israelis have got some hand in it,” says a senior analyst with the U.S. State Department’s Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, who spoke to the Washington Report on condition of anonymity. “Israeli scientists helping with a Third World arms program [are] about as inevitable as ants at a picnic.”

Larry M. Wortzel, a former U.S. military attache in Beijing and now an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said the Israel China arms channel has flowed for more than 50 years. “It grew and grew, and the United States just winked at a number of serious transfers,” he said.

CIA Director R. James Woolsey in a written testimony to US Senate: “We believe the Chinese seek from Israel advanced military technologies that the U.S. and Western firms are unwilling to provide,” Woolsey also informed the Senate that Israel has been selling military technology to China for over a decade, and that the sales may amount to “several billion dollars.”

Israeli Defense Ministry Director David Ivry: Israel has been selling arms to China but refused to describe the arms sold or their value.Early in 1992, Robert Gates now Defense Secretary, then director of the CIA, charged that China had illegally obtained ballistic missile secrets from the American-made ”Patriot” ground-to-air missile system, which figured prominently in defending both Israel and Saudi Arabia during the Gulf war. While Patriot missiles deployed to Saudi Arabia had U.S. crews, however, some of the Patriots in Israel were manned by Israeli crews. Gates said Israel was suspected of sup- plying China with these secrets, thereby making public suspicions that had circulated within the Pentagon since allegations of technology theft against Israel were formally raised immediately after the end of the Gulf war.

Not long after the Patriot brouhaha subsided, Israel again was denying charges that it illegally exported U.S. technology to the communist regime in Beijing. This time, the suspicions revolved around the ill-fated Lavi fighter. Israel spent more than $1 billion in U.S. aid on the aircraft, which was based on the U.S. F-16 Falcon. After Israel ditched the pro-gram at Washington´s insistence, intelligence reports said Tel Aviv was selling the F-16 avionics technology to China for in- corporation into that country´s new F10 ground attack fighter.

The Cox report confirmed the suspicion in 1999, stating, “Significant transfers of U.S. military technology have also taken place in the mid-1990s through the reexport by Israel of advanced technology transferred to it by the United States, including avionics and missile guidance useful for the PLA´s F-10 fighter.”

South Africa acknowledged that, in the late 1970s, it created six nuclear bombs with the technical assistance of Israel. Further it said they developed an inter- mediate-range ballistic missile called the “Jericho II.” Which can deliver a nuclear, biological or chemical warhead more than 900 miles away was developed with Israeli help.

So indictment and sentencing of Indian American JEW Noshir Gowadia for allegedly sending military secrets to China, Germany, Israel and Switzerland is a big joke.

 – Dev Makkar

India Inc has come down on heavily on US Prez’s protectionist policy

United States’ President Barack Obama’s proposal to reform tax structure, scrapping incentives for American companies outsourcing services to other nations, has been lambasted as a protectionist move by Indian business chambers. ‘Say no to Bangalore and yes to Buffalo,’ seems to be the latest mantra of United States President Barack Obama as he struggles to bring the ailing American economy back on track.

Meeting one of his major election promises, Obama on Monday the announced end of years of tax incentives to those US companies which create jobs overseas in places like Bangalore. Instead, the incentives would now go to those creating jobs inside the US, in places like the Buffalo city bordering

Canada in upstate New York.?”We will stop letting American companies that create jobs overseas take deductions on their expenses when they do not pay any American taxes on their profits,” Obama said at White House announcing the international tax policy re- form. Obama said he wants US companies to remain most competitive in the world. “But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to overseas tax havens,” he argued.

Announcing a set of proposals to crack down on illegal overseas tax evasion, close loopholes, and make it more profitable for companies to create jobs in the US, Obama said his series of tax re- forms would save $210 billion in the next 10 years.

The impact of proposed tax reforms on India, which has become a hub for global IT companies, might be marginal, said the National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom). ”

As far as India goes, global companies that earn profits here are subject to a tax rate of 33.9 per cent (including surcharge and cess) and the impact of the proposed reforms on them would be marginal. The tax reforms announced yesterday have only been proposed and there will be ex- tended debate on them before they can be implemented, as it requires existing laws to be changed,” it said in a written statement. The chamber is still evaluating the likely impact of the tax proposal.

India Inc believes the move by the Barack Obama administration to reduce tax breaks for US firms that ship jobs overseas will hit American companies more than impact on the Indian outsourcing industry.

“It’s a more US-US issue rather than one aimed at stopping outsourcing, or off- shoring, or anything to do with India,” said Som Mittal, president of the National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom), a representative body for the industry.

“If you look at Indian companies operating in the US, or elsewhere, they work there and pay taxes there. Hence, it is not about stopping outsourcing, or offshoring, but just to collect taxes,” Mittal said.

His comments came after President Barack Obama said on Monday that the current US tax system gave US-based multinationals that shipped jobs to places like India an unfair advantage over other domestic rivals and wanted corrective steps. “It’s a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India, than if you create one in Buffalo, New York,” Obama said, explaining why he intended to close tax loopholes and crackdown on overseas tax havens.

“I want to see our companies remain the most competitive in the world. But the way to make sure that happens is not to reward our companies for moving jobs off our shores or transferring profits to over0seas tax havens.” According to a McKinsey-Nasscom study, the Indian software and outsourcing industry employs some two million people, earning total revenues worth $52 billion, of which nearly $48 billion comes from exports.

The Confederation of Indian Industry also felt that the remarks were more in the nature of posturing and that it was not intended at curbing outsourcing of work by US firms to Indian companies. “It’s an internal issue. It will only reduce their competitiveness,” said Hari Bhar tia, vice president of the chamber. “It is a populist posture. Perhaps his (Obama’s) intention was not the same. However, it sends a wrong message.”?Joining the chorus, another industry

body Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) said that even though the move was expected, the developed world should not resort to protectionism in recessionary times as it might not help the recovery process. “The US is going through a deep recession, and we understand the steps taken by them to rewrite their tax code. However, the CII does not want protectionism to be the order of the day,” said Secretary general Chandrajit Banerji. In fact, an early economic recovery in the US would help both the nations, given that India was a net investor in the US, Banerjee added.

Meanwhile, Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (Ficci) termed the proposed move a retro- grade step, forcing business concerns to take measures to restrict their economic activities in one region and not in the other. “In any case, several US corporations have come and set up operations in India because of the several advantages our country has to offer. Our large and growing market, large pool of skilled manpower, reasonable labour costs make investing in India an attractive proposition. While this move would certainly have some impact on US investments abroad and into India, in the long run this would only run counter to the interest of US corporations desirous of cost-efficient operations across the globe,” said Ficci president Harsh Pati Singhania.

The delegation was told the “Buy America” clause or moves to reduce the tax breaks for US companies that create jobs offshore was neither intended for India nor impact its software and out- sourcing industry. Infosys Technologies, India’s second largest software and outsourcing company, also felt that the US proposal was aimed at closing corporate tax loopholes and crack down on overseas tax havens.

 – OE News Bureau

Raging Battle

Parable of the Family with an Orphan: A large family takes in an orphan. The house is already crowded so the orphan must share an attic room with a child too weak to protest the intrusion. The parents give each of the two children half of the room but ask each child to share a beautiful cabinet, treasured by both. The parents take a long trip, leaving their strongest son in charge. When the parents leave, other children in the family attack the orphan and try to get him to leave. The weakest child, in particular, fights unfairly. He waits for the orphan to sleep and then attacks him. The orphan wakes up each time and hurts the weak child; he also takes over more of the room, including the beautiful cabinet.

As the orphan continues to take over more of the room, the weak child continues to take revenge. The strongest son tries to bring peace and sometimes succeeds for short periods. The basic problem, however, is that each child believes that he should have the entire attic room to himself.

Finally, the parents return. They realize that they made a mistake by leaving home while there was such a difficult situation in the attic. They don’t just ask the two children to stop fighting, however. Instead, they take immediate action.

The parents decide that the boys need temporary separation, something constructive to keep them busy, and careful supervision. The parents work with the two boys to build shelves and cabinets down the middle of the room, with private storage space for each boy on each side. They install plumbing so each side of the room has plenty of fresh water. Finally, when the crisis is over, the parents set up a way for the boys to share the beautiful cabinet.

The parents do more than just provide better space, however. They provide the love, kindness, and super vision that each child needs to do well. They also make sure that the other children support the solution.

Each boy reverts to his old behavior a few times, but the parents remove his privileges each time and the old behaviors stop. Besides, each boy becomes too busy pursuing his own goals to be distracted by fighting.

They lived happily ever after…with a few disagreements here and there.

The “large family” is the United Nations. The “orphan” is Israel. The “other children” are the Arab states. The “weakest son” is the Palestinian people. Attacking the orphan unfairly means “terrorist attacks.” The “attic room” is the territory of Palestine before the United Nations carved Israel into it. The “beautiful cabinet” is Jerusalem.

The “strongest son” is the United States. Alas, there are no wise parents to super vise the boys. The UN Security Council has not been able to perform this essential role. The “strongest son,” there- fore, must work with the “other children” to implement peace. If the “strongest son” and the “other children” work together effectively, then peace will spread throughout the entire family.

Recently, this has not happened. Instead, extremist Palestinians have engaged in bombings when Israelis agreed to work on peace. Extremist Israelis have engaged in assassinations or other acts of aggression when Palestinians agreed to work on peace. Israelis are swiftly completing a wall between Israel and Palestinian territory, but the wall is not on the 1967 border. Rather, it snakes into Palestinian territory to unlawfully take land and water rights from 200,000 Palestinians. Extremists from both sides have destroyed the peace process.

The Palestinian people are allowing extremists to lead them. The Israeli people are allowing extremists to lead them. As the violence keeps increasing, wisdom from any quarter would be welcome.

A SHORT HISTORY OF CONFLICT

After World War II, the United Nations gave land to the Jewish people of the world so they could live together in peace. This land, Israel, includes holy places for the Jewish religion and is surrounded by Muslim countries. Palestinian Muslims lived on the land at the time that the United Nations gave it to the Jewish people.

Portions of the land given to the Jewish people, or taken over by them when they won wars against Arab states, are also holy for Muslims. Certain portions of Jerusalem controlled by Israel, called “East Jerusalem,” are very important to Muslims. For religious reasons, Palestinian Muslims believe that they must gain control of East Jerusalem as part of any lasting peace settlement.

Further, Palestinians view themselves as living in an occupied nation, where invaders (Israelis) have placed them under military rule. To fight back, Palestinians have built a terrorist network to attack innocent Israeli civilians. Israelis feel they must continue to control Palestinians with military force to protect themselves against more terrorist attacks.

Palestinian View: Palestinians feel that they are not a free people because Israeli soldiers stop them at checkpoints be- tween cities. Many Palestinians, there- fore, must get Israeli approval each day to go to work, return home, go to the hospital, get groceries, or visit their own families. After a terrorist attack, soldiers sometimes refuse to let Palestinians through the checkpoints to get to work or other essential places, infuriating Palestinians even more. Further, Israelis control much of the Palestinian water supply and give Palestinians less access to water than they need. Palestinians feel humiliated and abused by the Israelis.

Another issue causing Palestinians great anger is that Israelis have continued to build settlements in Palestinian territory, illegally converting even more Palestinian territory into Israeli territory. Palestinians see the settlements as a sign that Israelis do not want peace.

In March and April of 2002, Israeli soldiers attempted to destroy Palestinian terrorist networks and attacked several of the largest Palestinian cities. In addition to attacking the terrorists, the Israeli soldiers destroyed much of the Palestinian government, including records, equipment, buildings, electricity supplies, water supplies, roads, and more. Palestinians see the attack as an Israeli attempt to keep them from ever having an independent state. In addition, representatives of international relief agencies, as well as Palestinians, accuse Israel of committing war crimes during this attack.

Palestinian Demands: Palestinians want Israel to comply with international law and retreat to the borders that existed in 1967. Palestinians express this demand as four key conditions for peace, in-

A Separate Palestinian state (with the same borders as were in 1967),

1. Palestinian control of East Jerusalem,
2. Ending Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory, and
3. Freedom of Palestinian refugees to return to their home-Land

Isralis have occasionally discussed supporting a separate Palestinian state, but insist that it must be in the distant future. In addition, Israelis may not be willing to give up actual control of Palestinian territory for security reasons, even if Palestinian territory is eventually called an “independent state.” Meanwhile, Israelis have continued to place Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, expanding Israeli territory at Palestinian expense. Palestinians no longer regard Israel as sincere in its negotiations for a separate state.

Regarding control of East Jerusalem, Ehud Barak, former leader of Israel, offered to negotiate the control of East Jerusalem. This is something no other Israeli leader had offered and something the Israeli people did not want offered. In fact, Barak was removed from power partly because of the offer and was replaced by Ariel Sharon. Although Barak had offered to negotiate control of East Jerusalem and make other concessions, Palestinians were angry that all of the key conditions they considered essential for?lasting peace had? not been offered.?Israelis were angry because they were told? that most of the key conditions for peace had been offered and that Arafat had refused to negotiate.

Regarding the third Palestinian?condition for peace, ending occupa?tion of Palestinian territory, Israelis?seem willing to do this–as long as Palestinian borders are redefined so that?Israel can continue to control Palestinian movements through checkpoints between cities?and other means. In other words, Israelis are willing to end the appearance of occupation but they are not willing to reduce their control over the Palestinians.

Barak may have offered real independence to Palestinians, but Israelis and Palestinians disagree about what Barak actually offered. The specific offer of restoration of Palestinian land has remained secret, so it is difficult to determine which side is correct. Palestinians claim that Barak’s offer to return Palestinian land was not sincere and would have continued Israeli control of land between major Palestinian cities. Israelis claim that the Barak offer did not break up the Palestinian land and that Arafat’s refusal to negotiate the offer means that he will never accept peace.

Much of the current conflict rests with the different views of what was offered. Additional information on the offer and dis- agreements is provided here.

At about the same time as Barak’s offer, Sharon deliberately provoked Palestinians by an act viewed by Muslims as extreme disrespect to their religion. Terrorist attacks by the Palestinians started in large measure in response to Sharon’s actions. Israelis were then angry by Arafat’s refusal to negotiate in good faith and by the resumption of terrorist attacks.

In short, Israelis believe that Barak offered Palestinians their land back and that Palestinians then responded with extreme violence. Palestinians believe that Barak offered no real freedom and that Israelis deliberately insulted their religion (Sharon’s visit) and killed Palestinian protesters during negotiations.

The fourth demand of the Palestinians, for Palestinian refugees to have their land back, has not been solvable. If all of the Palestinians who lost their homes to the Israelis were allowed to return, then Israel would have more Palestinians than Israelis–ending Israel as a Jewish state. Israelis have not been willing to consider this as an option. Some Palestinians, however, vow to continue fighting until all Palestinian refugees can return to their former homeland. Negotiators have proposed that Israel allow Palestinian refugees to return to the West Bank and Gaza, but not to Israel. According to international law, the West Bank and Gaza are Palestinian territories and should be under the control of the Palestinians, not the Israelis.

Palestinian Compromise: If Israel re- treats to 1967 borders and provides Palestinians with complete independence, will Palestinians stop terrorist attacks? As of March of 2006, the answer is “probably not.” Although many Palestinians simply want an independent nation, others, such as the powerful Hamas organization, consider all of the territory called “Israel” to be part of Palestine. Hamas leaders have vowed to continue their terrorist campaign until their demands are met, including the destruction of Israel. Further, when Arafat failed to accept Barak’s offer of a separate Palestinian state, many Israelis concluded that Arafat did not want peace.

Arafat did not make a serious effort to stop Palestinian terrorism against Israelis.

International law is on the side of those who advocate for two independent states sharing the land that was called “Palestine” before 1948. However, recent violence against each side has been so vicious that the majority of people may be more interested in revenge than negotiations.

Israeli View: Israelis view Palestinian militants as terrorists who will not compromise to gain peace. Palestinian extremists have, in fact, engaged in terrorist acts against Israeli civilians when peace negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians seemed (to the Israelis) to be moving forward fairly. Because Palestinian terrorists attacked at key times, moderate Israeli leaders have been replaced by more extreme Israeli leaders who do not want to compromise. Israeli leaders do not trust Palestinian leaders to negotiate peace. Israelis do not feel safe enough to reduce their control of Palestinian territories.

Israeli Demands: Israelis want the Palestinians to stop the terrorist attacks. Israelis have four key conditions for peace, including:?l Palestinian borders that ensure continuing Israeli security from Palestinian at- tacks, not the 1967 borders,

l Israeli control of all of Jerusalem,

l Enough Israeli control within Palestinian territories to allow Israel to destroy terrorist networks, and

l Prevention of Palestinian refugees from returning to their homelands

By comparing the Israeli demands with the Palestinian demands, one can see that the two sides are unlikely to find peace, the demands are completely contradictory. In addition, many Israelis believe that Israel is entitled to all of the Palestinian territories. Every time a com- promise is reached, Israeli and Palestinian extremists work against it often with violence.

Israeli Compromise: If Palestinians stop their terrorist attacks on Israelis, will Israelis retreat to 1967 borders and allow Palestinians complete independence? As of March of 2006, the answer is “definitely not.” Although a majority of Israelis are willing to have their military leave the Palestinian territories, a power full minority consider all of the territory currently called “Palestinian” to be part of Israel. They do not want to compromise or pull back. Instead, they want to keep expanding Israeli settlements into Palestinian territories.

Sharon, before entering a coma, began reducing the settlements. However, when Sharon talked about an independent state of Palestine, he meant a Palestinian state that is still under the control of Israel. Past proposals have, in fact, allowed Israel to maintain control over a new Palestinian state. Palestinians have not found such Israeli offers of “independence” acceptable. Now that Hamas won the last Palestinian election, Palestinians may be even less likely to compromise.

A Road to Peace: With hate so intense on both sides, and demands of each side so completely incompatible, peace will re- quire very powerful outside intervention. The United States and Arab Nations, especially Saudi Arabia, need to join forces. Perhaps an international group, with the United States and Saudi Arabia as leaders, needs to negotiate where to put borders to ensure Israeli security and also Palestinian land integrity. Left to them-selves, neither Israelis nor Palestinians can make a lasting agreement on borders. If an international group negotiates the borders, it will also need to determine how to separate the two sides. International forces will probably need to stand between Palestinians and Israelis for a long, long time. Israelis and Palestinians may even need a physical wall to separate them.

Israelis have destroyed much of the government and infrastructure of the Palestinians. The Palestinians will need a great deal of outside support to rebuild themselves into a separate nation. Without such support, the world will be facing “another Afghanistan” where anarchy will again breed terrorism.

Muslim nations will need to play a strong role in helping to build a new Palestine without terrorism. Muslim nations will need to help mentor new Palestinian leaders who do not support terrorism. Palestinians will need another type of leadership, other than Hamas, to build a new strategy for long-term peace.

The United States will need to use its influence to help Israel shape a new strat- egy also. Israel has had to mobilize for war, justifiably, since its beginning. It has had little peace. However, Israel elected a leader, Sharon, who was associated with a massacre of Palestinians in Lebanon. Electing a man known for brutality does not say much for the peace strategy of the Israeli people. If an international group in- sures Israel’s security, Israel will need a different kind of leadership, as well as a new strategy for long-term peace. Acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmer is following Sharon’s path and Sharon is un- likely to return to leadership.

An outside group will also have to determine how to allocate water rights fairly between the Palestinians and Israelis. Without outside intervention, water wars are likely to erupt, even if the land borders are settled peacefully.

What ideas do you have to move us to- ward a lasting peace? It is very important to realize that the Muslim religion teach- es peace and tolerance, not terrorism and war. In fact, the Muslim religion does not allow a person to commit suicide or hurt innocent people, even during war.

Methods of Fighting: The Palestinian people, led by Yasser Arafat until his death in 2004, are outraged by Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. The Israeli leadership is continuing to use military y force against protesters. Israel has one of the most advanced military forces in the world and the Palestinians have a very limited military capability. Most of those dying in the conflict have been Palestinians.

The method of fighting for each side is quite different. The Palestinians have no army and have used bombs against civilian men, women, and children to try to make the Israelis afraid for their personal safety. They expect the Israelis to respond to the bombings by attacking the Palestinian people. When Israel does this, Palestinians hope that other countries will then help the Palestinian people and protect them from the Israelis.

The Palestinian bombers almost always die in the attacks, so the Israeli military then kills Palestinians suspected of planning the attacks. The Israeli military has killed or seriously injured many Palestinian civilians while pursuing terrorists. In addition, Israelis have damaged a great deal of Palestinian proper ty during chases.

In short, each side is responding to the other by killing civilians-men, women, and children who are not part of the military. Each side is killing for revenge, as well as to meet its own goals. Each side is trying to convince the rest of the world that it is acting with high morality. Each side is creating a climate of violence and terror for their own children and grandchildren.

This is not a matter of two nations at war, however, since the Palestinians do not yet have a separate state. Israelis have the ability to kill or drive away most of the Palestinians, while the Palestinians do not have that power against the Israelis. This unequal contest may turn out badly for all of us unless the USA and others intervene effectively. If Palestinians continue to use terrorism to try to achieve their goals, and if Israel continues to use military force against the Palestinian people to combat terrorism, many other nations may find themselves involved against each other regarding the conflict.

The Water Issue: A concern of the Israelis, Palestinians, and Arab nations in the region is the water issue. Mikhail Gorbachev (former Premier of the Soviet Union) and Shimon Peres (former Prime Minister of Israel) noted that “More than anywhere else, the Middle East exemplifies the perils and possibilities created by the water crisis.”

“In the past 10 years the various states in the Middle East have spent billions to acquire arms instead of building water pipelines or finding ways to conserve, clean and use water more efficiently on a shared, regional basis.”

“We all know that deserts create poverty, and that poverty often leads to war  especially when everyone is armed to the teeth. But missiles in an armed desert can’t carry water any more than mine- fields can stop pollution from crossing borders.”

“The alternative to another round of conflict, this time over water instead of land, is cooperation. Desalinization or joint management is cheaper than launching wars for rivers.”

A recommendation by Jad Isaac of the Applied Research Institute, Jerusalem, in- cludes a confidence building measure by the Israelis. He emphasizes that Gaza and West Bank Palestinians do not have sufficient access to water now and suggests that negotiations for peace include Israel making sufficient water available to the two areas.

Role of the USA: What is the role of the USA in this? Palestinians claim that the fighting has expanded partly because the USA has not influenced the Israeli government to use more restraint. The Israelis claim that the conflict has expanded because Palestinian leadership has not stopped the terrorism.

A plan was developed by a group of experts, led by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, to find a path to peace. The leaders of the Israelis, Palestinians, and the United States accepted the plan. The plan requires for each side to stop attacking the other side and for each side to try to help the other side achieve what it wants most, one step at a time. However, both the Palestinians and Israelis have continued the fighting instead of actually following the plan.

Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia then proposed a plan in April (2002) that has the support of neighboring Arab states and is consistent with the Mitchell plan. It has the interest of the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians. It includes full normalization of relationships with Israel by all Arab states and recognition of Israel as a state by all Arab states. In return, Israel must pull out of Palestinian territories, back to 1967 borders. It allows for compromise and negotiation on return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have asked the USA to help broker a peace process. Intervention by the USA did seem essential to gain a lasting peace, but now that the conflict has escalated, much more than the USA may be needed for an effective intervention.

The Bush administration is focused on combating terrorism, a method of fighting associated with Arafat. Arafat has not been very convincing in trying to stop terrorism. Evidence suggests that instead trying to stop it, he may have supported terrorism.

To complicate the situation even more, Israel has been accused of committing war crimes against Palestinians and will not let the United Nations investigate to see if the accusations are true. Allegations against Israel are being made by international humanitarian agencies who tried to render aid to wounded Palestinians.

Consensus seems to be growing that a slow, step by step process, such as recommended by the Mitchell plan, will no longer work. Trust between the Israelis and Palestinians has been destroyed and the Mitchell plan requires trust by both sides. Something quite different may be needed. See “A Road to Peace” above.

Why Do Palestinians Fight This Way?:

Why are Palestinians killing civilian Israeli men, women, and children when the Qur’an specifically prohibits killing non- combatants? Why are they doing this when they know that such deaths harden the hearts of the Israeli people and will make it unlikely for Palestinian children or grandchildren to ever have peace? Why are Palestinians planting the seeds of suffering for their own children and grand- children?

The short answer is that the Palestinians are exhausted, desperate, and very angry because of the Israeli occupation of their land. They also lack a leader who is focused on long-term peace.

Why Do Israelis Fight This Way?: Why are Israelis supporting military actions against civilians and occupying land that is not theirs? Why are Israelis allowing their armies to do this when they know that such actions harden the hearts of the Palestinian people and will make it un- likely for Israeli children or grandchildren to ever have peace?

The short answer is that the Israelis are exhausted, desperate, and very angry be- cause of the terrorist attacks. They also lack a leader who is focused on long-term peace.

US and Isreal are most trusted allies? A chronological look at the evidence

There is a big debate going on in the Jews around the world, there is a striking convergence of opinion concerning the relationship between the US and Israel. The new US President and his administration is trying to balance both Israel and Arab interest by keeping channel of communications open to all players having interest in Middle East.

Supporters of the PLO – synonymous with “supporters of a Palestinian state”, because the PLO will run any such state – are convinced that the US is an ally of Israel. Some believe the US employs Israel in order to expand the American empire, and others – echoing the claims of that infamous forgery, “The Protocols of Zion” – believe that history’s greatest superpower, the US, is actually the pawn of tiny Israel. Either way, they are agreed that the US and Israel are supposedly ‘a team.’

Supporters of Israel naturally disagree with supporters of the PLO about most things but not on this point, as they also believe that the US is a friend of Israel – perhaps its only real friend. Whereas those who are pro-PLO are especially infuriated by perceived US support for Israel, those who are pro-Israel are deliriously grateful for the same (especially so in the case of Zionist Jews).

Given that across the spectrum of those politically mobilized on this issue, from one pole to the other, everybody appears to have the same opinion on this, casual observers are naturally drawn into agreement as well, creating a crushing consensus all over the world: the US is an ally of Israel.

But is it true?

Let us first ask: what is an ally? My dictionary defines ‘ally’ as “one who is associated with another as helper.”

Everybody knows that the US says it supports Israel. But actions speak louder than words. What is the evidence of US actions? In this piece I provide a chronological list of relevant US policies over the years.

I am hoping that this piece will begin a debate. It is not finished, and the research relevant to its claims is ongoing. I shall be updating the piece as I gather more data. But I have already assembled quite a lot, below, and what I have is certainly sufficient to challenge the common view. I believe, in fact, that what I have presented below is already sufficient to refute the common view many times over, and the compilation of these documented facts came as a big eye-opener. Hopefully this documentation will begin a serious debate on this question, rather than an automatic assumption based on official claims of US support for Israel – which claims are cheaply, and therefore easily, made.

It is important to remember that what is examined here is the behavior of the US foreign policy Establishment, which is secretive. The evidence therefore speaks to what is, and has been, the true position of the US ruling elite with regard to Israel and the Jewish people. It does not speak to the position of the American people, many of whom, I believe, will be outraged to find that, as I document on next pages, the US specializes in attacking Israel. In fact the section on 1947-48 contains dramatic evidence that ordinary Americans tend not to favor the anti-Jewish policies of the US ruling elite.

CHRONICLE OF CONFLICT

MAPPING THE CONFLICT

The chronology already goes up to the year 2005, but I have yet to complete the research on some of the missing years in between.

The 1930’s – Negative – The US Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.

1939-1945 Negative BThis year’s material is divided into the following sections:

Introduction

1. The general policy of the Allies towards the plight?of the Jews
2. No US visas for European Jews trying to escape the Nazislaughter
3. The allies refused to sabotage Hitler’s Final Solution by military means

1945 – Negative – After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.

1947-48 – Mixed to Negative – Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it re- versed itself and implemented policies de- signed to destroy Israel.

1949-1953 – Negative – In Israel’s hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel’s mortal enemies.

1955 – Mixed – The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.

1955-1965 – Positive (in one regard only) – Israel indirectly gets some US weapons.

1958 – Negative – Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US doesnothing.

1964 – Mixed – The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?

1964-1967 – Negative – Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.

1967 – Negative – After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.

1967-70 – Negative – The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.

1970 – Positive – Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic ef for t to make Israel withdraw from the territories.

1973 – Positive – The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

1973-1975 – Negative – The US sup- ported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.

1975 – Negative – The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.

1977 – Negative – Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a ‘government in exile,’ and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.

1978 – Negative – When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back.

1979 – Negative – Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of anti-Semitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

1981 – Negative – The US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections.

1982-1983 – Negative – The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis.

1985 – Negative – 1985 includes more material than other years, so we have di- vided it into subsections.

1. Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests.
2. Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti (respectively, the Italian prime minister and foreign minister) committed political suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The US was behind them.
3. Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust
4. Who was in charge of US covert operations in 1985?

1987-1988 – Negative – The ‘First Intifada’ was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed ‘under- dogs.’

1989 – Negative – With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the ‘only solution’ to the Arab- Israeli conflict.

1991 – Negative – Bush Sr.’s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.

1994 – Negative – Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat’s henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.

1996-1997 – Negative – The United States exerted such strong pressure on the Netanyahu government (including threats) that, even though Netanyahu had been elected on an anti-Oslo platform, he had the necessary cover to betray the Israeli public that had elected him.

2005 – Negative – Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.

( Prashant Tewari inputs from R. Jerry Adams, Ph.D., Evaluation and Development Institute and Francisco Gil-White)