Connect with us

Americas

US diplomacy of re-engagement continues: From ‘intent’ to withdrawal from Paris Agreement to ‘COP23’

Abhishek Trivedi

Published

on

In a major setback decision taken by Trump administration on June 1, 2017, showing his intention to withdraw in future from the Paris accord has diplomatically pushed the world community one step back in climate negotiation regime as almost all major players in climate regime have registered their disappointment with this decision. Joint statement by France, Germany,and Italy says the deal can not be renegotiated, while other countries reaffirm commitment to carbon reduction. China sees the USA withdrawal as an unfortunate development, and implications of it will be global. In the words of UN Secretary-General that “The decision by the United States to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change is a major disappointment for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote global security.” However, Secretary-General has shown his confidence in the US including cities, states,and businesses within the US that will continue to demonstrate vision and leadership by working for the low-carbon, resilient economic growth that will create quality jobs and markets for21st-century prosperity.The Secretary-General also looks forward to engaging with the American government and all actors in the United States and around the world to build the sustainable future.

The letter sent to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres by the US representative to the UN Nikki Haley reads as:

“The is to inform the Secretary-General, in connection with the Paris Agreement, adopted on December 12, 2015 (“the Agreement”), that the United States intends to exercise its right to withdraw from the Agreement. Unless the US identifies suitable terms for reengagement, the US will submit to the Secretary-General, in accordance with Article 28, paragraph 1 of the Agreement, formal written notification of its withdrawal as soon as it is eligible to do so. Pending the submission of that notification, in the interest of transparency for parties to the Agreement, the United States requests that the Secretary-General inform the parties to the Agreement and the States entitled to become parties to the Agreement of this communication relating to the Agreement.”

Interestingly, it must be noted that Article 28, paragraph 1 of the Paris Agreement does nowhere suggest that a State party to the Agreement can circulate such type of ‘written notification showing its intent to withdraw from the Agreement.’ Article 28, Paragraph 1 reads as “At any time after three years from the date on which this Agreement has entered into force for a Party, that Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notification to the Depositary.”

It is clear from the language of Article 28, paragraph 1, that under the terms of the accord, no State can withdraw until November 2020 and cannot even formally notify the UN of its intention to leave until 2019. So the communication serves only for Donald Trump to remind the world that he is seeking ‘suitable terms for re-engagement.’The United States accepted the Paris Agreement on 3 September 2016, and the Agreement entered into force for the United States on 4 November 2016. Therefore, according to Article 28, paragraph 1, US will not be eligible to withdraw from the Agreement till November 4, 2019.

The USA’ ‘suitable terms’ for re-engagement

The US in his written submission to the Secretary-General highlighted that,unless it identifies ‘suitable terms for reengagement,’ it will submit to the Secretary-General aformal written notification of its withdrawal as soon as it is eligible to do so. Now, it is far from theclarity that what would be the suitable terms for theUS to make it re-engage again in climate change negotiation regime. Till now, there is no explicit indication, neither from the USA official statement including press release nor its submission to the UN Secretary-General, that on what ‘suitable or most favourable’ terms Trump administration will agree for reengagement that will, perhaps, be more in tune with his popular political slogan ‘make America great again.’However, there might be four possible speculative ways in which theUSA could establish different terms for participation. These may include:

That US could seek to renegotiate few aspects of the Agreement itself. Though several countries have made it clear that the Agreement is ‘irreversible.’ In this background, this option would hardly work for the USA. However, theoffice of UN Secretary-General welcomes any effort to re-engage in the Paris Agreement by the United States.  Secretary-General has also shown his interest in engaging with the American government and all other actors in the US. Meanwhile, Secretary-General of the UNFCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) said that the Paris Agreement remains a historic treaty signed by 194 and ratified by 147 countries. Therefore, it can not be renegotiated based on the request of single Party. However, Secretary-General (UNFCC) showed her interest in engaging in dialogue with the United States government regarding the implications of this decision of withdrawal.

That US could also seek to modify its ‘nationally determined contribution,’ i.e., the US emission target. The media-note also appears to be addressing this issue when it refers to the Administration’s support to “climate policy that lowers emissions while promoting economic growth and ensuring energy security.”The US further affirms that it will continue to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and technology breakthroughs, given the importance of energy and security in many nationally determined contributions.

That, thirdly, US could seek ‘more favourable’ terms within the Paris-related guidelines that are still being negotiated for reporting and review. Such guidelines are due to be completed in 2018. It is perhaps this reason that the media note states that the US will continue to participate in the Paris-related negotiations, to protect US interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration.” And possibly,for this reason, US has shown his intention to walk out only from the Paris accord, not also from the UNFCC convention.

That US might also seek improved terms of negotiation outside the framework of the agreement, such as bilateral or multilateral energy-related cooperation. As it is perhaps precisely indicated from the media-note that the US will “work with other countries to help them access and use fossil fuels more cleanly and efficiently, and deploy renewable and other clean energy sources.

Continuation of policy of re-engagement in COP23

COP23/CMP13 was decided to be hosted in Germany and presided over by Fiji from November 6 to November 17, 2017. In its opening joint plenary meeting held on November 6, US retreated its earlier position regarding withdrawal from the Paris accord unless it finds suitable terms for renegotiation. US said that “the US will withdraw from the Paris Agreement unless he can identify terms for reengagement that are more favourable to the American people.” “The Administration’s position remains unchanged.” Again, in the closing joint plenary session held on the last day of the conference,i.e., November 17, 2017, US said that U.S. participation in COP-23, including negotiations at this session relating to the Paris Agreement, does not indicate a change in the U.S. position.

One more political-cum-legal aspect to note here in COP23 that theUS has very smartly carried on its monetary diplomacy for future climate negotiation. The US has made it clear in very explicit terms that the financial pledges made under by the last administration are not legally binding. Moreover, with regard toeconomic matters, and in particular the $100 billion collective finance goal, the US has already taken a position that the finance goal is aspirational in nature, is not legally binding, and does not create rights or obligations.And it remains a domestic decision of the US or any other country for that matter.

As Trump administration said in media note that it will continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through innovation and technology, and enhance resilience activities where mutually beneficial to its broader foreign policy, economic development, and national security objectives, it reaffirms its endeavor to work closely with other countries to help them access to clean and efficient renewable energy sources. Here, US seems to be more in futuristic diplomatic engagement on climate issues, to bargain either bilaterally or multilaterally, perhaps outside of the UN Climate negotiation regime. From here, it would be not easy to assess which way US position will be tumbled precisely.

However, keeping in mind the dangerous multi-dimensional ramifications and impacts of climate change on the existence of human being and their future survival, it becomes imperative for the world community including USA to come together and address the multi-faceted issues of climate change taking place around the world. The USA must take the lead in tackling climate issue since it also emits world most substantial greenhouse gases. In addition to that, US also possesses themore financial capability, technological access, and infrastructure facilities along with thecapacity to mitigate greenhouse gases.

Abhishek Trivedi is pursuing his LL.M. degree in International Law from Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University-an International University established by SAARC Nations, New Delhi. His fields of interest and research in academics are Public international law, Law of International Organization, Human Rights law, Conflict of laws, commercial arbitration and International Environmental Law

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Americans’ Self-Contradictory Views of Socialized Healthcare

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

On December 3rd, Gallup bannered “Government Favored to Ensure Healthcare, but Not Deliver It” and reported that 57% of Americans say “It is government’s responsibility to see that all have healthcare” but only 40% of Americans want a “government-run” healthcare system to be available to everyone who wants it. In other words: many Americans want other Americans to be forced into corporate and non-profit — privately run — healthcare. Lots of Americans are irrationally rabid against any sort of socialism, even the democratic types of socialism that exist in many European countries such as Sweden, where the quality of healthcare has been proven in international studies to be superior to America’s, and where the per-person cost of healthcare is around half as high as in America. The healthcare industry and its executives and its lobbies and its paid-off politicians have plenty of libertarian fools in America who, by their political participation, make life worse for all other Americans by effectively blocking socialization of the healthcare function. Gallup’s December 3rd poll also found this mental illness, libertarianism, to be especially common among Republicans: Whereas 65% of Democrats endorse universal availability of a government-run healthcare system, just 13% of Republicans do. So, Republican voters are terrific for the drug companies and the rest of the ‘health’care (actually sickness) industries.

Gallup has polled Americans on many questions about healthcare policy. One poll they published 16 May 2016, titled “Majority in U.S. Support Idea of Fed-Funded Healthcare System”, reported that 58% of Americans wanted “Replacing the ACA [Obamacare] with a federally funded healthcare program providing insurance for all Americans.” Only 37% opposed it. A tiny 5% had no opinion. Perhaps that was a high-water mark for the American public’s support of socialization of the healthcare function in America.

On 20 November 2014, Gallup headlined “Majority Say Not Gov’t Duty to Provide Healthcare for All” and reported that, “For the third consecutive year, a majority of Americans (52%) agree with the position that it is not the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that all Americans have healthcare coverage. Prior to the start of Barack Obama’s presidency in 2009, a majority of Americans consistently took the opposite view” (that it’s not government’s responsibility to see that all have healthcare). But if it’s “not the federal government’s responsibility to ensure that all Americans have healthcare coverage” (presumably meaning for all basic healthcare, but not for vanity medical services such as “tucks” and other non-health-related medical services), then even life-saving medical care, and also essential preventive care (which lowers overall medical costs), will be available only to people who can pay for it; other people will just have to die, unless they can find someone (perhaps a relative) who is willing to pay. Of course, this type of system — the “Greed is good” system — will also mean that people die young and that disability-rates, and associated incapacity at work, will be high, and all of this will lower economic productivity. Welcome to the United States! (Of course, it’s lots better than places such as Honduras.)

Is it likely that majorities really do want single-payer, but not from the government? Hardly: a gratuitous addition of stockholders’ profits into the costs for providing essential and economic-productivity-enhancing healthcare services that everyone should have access to if it’s really needed (lawfully prescribed etc.) won’t just distort the incentives to medical-services providers (and so reduce both health and economic productivity), but it will also waste the money of medical consumers (government or otherwise). But what about having ‘non-profit’ firms provide the single-payer services, instead of the democratically accountable government doing that? Non-profits cut out profits, and so eliminate the distortions that stockholders’ wants introduce into the providing of any services (wants such as stockbrokers have, who pump the investments that pay them the highest commissions, which necessarily harms their investors). However, the top executives even of ‘non-profit’ firms can pay themselves whatever their friends who sit on their board of trustees will approve; and so a ‘non-profit’ provider, too, can be, at least to that extent, a scam. (And, of course, in an entirely free market, there is no regulation, and therefore scams will be routine; so, only crooks would want that, anyway. But all the propaganda in the U.S. praises “a free market.”)

These are reasons why the countries that have the highest life-expectancies, and therefore the best health-outcomes, are the same as the countries that have socialized basic healthcare services, paid for normally entirely through taxes and provided to all citizens as a basic human right instead of as a privilege that’s available only to individuals who can afford it. (Of course, “tucks” and such get charged extra to the patient.) The United States has by far the costliest health care in terms of not only what Americans pay for it but in terms of healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP, and yet the U.S. has the lowest life-expectancy of all OECD countries; the U.S. has the most-free-market healthcare, and also the worst healthcare, among all of the economically developed countries — all (except the U.S.) of which provide guaranteed basic healthcare services to all citizens: essential services free as a right, not charged as a privilege. America’s combination of the worst healthcare plus the by-far-costliest healthcare is no coincidence; and healthcare profits in America are the world’s highest; so, the present American system is terrific for those stockholders (whose firms hire the lobbyists and their politicians who write America’s healthcare-laws). Because basic healthcare in the United States is a privilege instead of a right, the U.S. is the only economically developed nation that does not have universal coverage, health insurance for 100% of its citizenry, healthcare as a guaranteed right instead of dependent upon the patient’s ability-to-pay. When Barack Obama entered the White House, the uninsured rate was 14.6%; when he left office it was 10.9%; the insured rate when he started was 85.4%, and it was 89.1% when he left office. His repeated promises of “universal coverage” were blatant lies. His plan was in no way designed for “universal coverage”; that promise was a lie from the very outset.

In the OECD’s “Health at a Glance 2015” (which covers 44 nations), the United States scored at or near the bottom for almost all indicators of healthcare-quality, including: Life expectancy, Access to care, Quality of care, Doctors per capita, and Hospital beds per capita. We were by far the highest on Pharmaceutical expenditure per capita. Oddly, three nations, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary, were exceptionally high in both their heart-disease death-rates and their cancer death-rates; plus their life-expectancies were even lower than America’s, and their most carefully medically calculated measured “Quality of care” rankings were also generally as bad as the United States. However, in the latest calculated year, which is shown there, which was 2013, “Health expenditure per capita” (p. 165) was U.S. $8,713; Switzerland $6,325; UK $3,235; Czech Republic $2,040, Slovak Republic $2,010; and Hungary $1,719. So, America’s was over four times as high as the healthcare costs of some of the other countries in its class — i.e. in the overall worst class. Generally the top-performing nations were: Japan, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, and Switzerland. Switzerland was the second-highest in cost-of-care ($6,325), right below the United States. Norway was third-costliest, $5,862. Sweden was fifth-costliest, $4,904. Japan was 14th-costliest, $3,713. Finland was 17th-costliest, $3,442. Italy was twentieth-costliest, $3,077. The average OECD cost for all the 44 nations was $3,453, which was less than half of America’s obscene $8,713. Whether Obamacare changes any of those U.S. rankings is too early to tell. However, the U.S. is such an extreme “outlier” so that our healthcare system would need to be replaced root-and-branch in order to be competitive with any other nation’s in terms of delivering value-for-the-money, instead of rip-off (which is its existing outlier status — unparalleled by any other country’s, for delivering lousy value). It is so bottom-of-the-barrel, that it is below the barrel. This is by far the world’s most-free-market healthcare system, but our government spends more per-capita on it than do other nations’ governments that pay almost all of their citizens’ healthcare costs. Wow! In fact, as shown in the chart “9.3. Health expenditure as a share of GDP, 2013 (or nearest year)” on page 167 of that OECD report, the U.S. is the only country where the private sector pays more of the nation’s healthcare costs than does the public sector, the government. America is a libertarian’s paradise. No other nation comes anywhere close to that degree of non-governmental providing of the healthcare function. Every other nation has socialized the healthcare-function to a vastly higher extent than the U.S. has. That’s how corrupt America is.

Lots of other countries are more corrupt in the pettier forms of corruption such as bribery, but perhaps few match America’s higher-level, and far more complex, systemic corruption. It benefits only the super-rich, and their lobbyists and other agents.

Continue Reading

Americas

Trump’s Troubles Enter A New More Dangerous Phase

Frank Vogl

Published

on

Surprisingly, it snowed in Washington, but the temperature rose in the White House. So far, the array of investigations centering on president Donald Trump have been prologue. Now, Chapter One is starting to be written.

The president is alarmed. He Tweets in the middle of the night. “No collusion,” is his daily favorite phrase, with “witch hunt” a close second.

He claims that all alone, free of legal advisors, he has written replies to questions from Special Counsel Robert Mueller about Russian involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign and that this ends the Mueller-Trump discourse. Nobody believes the president.

No lawyer would ever allow a client to freelance written answers to investigators. Moreover, the Mueller questions did not relate to what in time may be the central issue of impeachment hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives: Obstruction of justice.

Four distinct threats

As I have previously reported, there are multiple parallel sources of danger for Trump. Right now, he faces four distinct, yet overlapping threats to his political and business fortunes:

  1. More indictments of former Trump friends by Special Counsel Mueller.
  2. A series of high-profile court sentences of former Trump associates who have pleaded guilty to assorted crimes.
  3. A host of investigations to be launched by various committees of the House of Representatives, now that the Democrats have the majority there.
  4. The determination of New York State’s newly elected attorney-general, Letitia James, to go after Trump after she noted in her victory speech: “New Yorkers, we can spot a con man.”

Mueller takes aim

Washington is awash with rumors that Special Counsel Mueller, who has already issued over 30 indictments against individuals related to his investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign, is about to bring charges against more Trump associates, including just possibly Donald Trump Jr.

Mueller has been investigating whether the Trump campaign was involved in the timing in late 2016 of the publication by Wikileaks of torrents of damaging e-mails from the Hilary Clinton campaign.

A central figure in the inquiry is Roger Stone, an old friend of Trump, and a former partner of Paul Manafort, the one-time 2016 Trump campaign manager, who now faces jail. James Corsi, an associate of Stone, has publicly stated that he expects to be indicted soon. Wikileaks is believed to have obtained the information from Russian hackers.

Related to this inquiry is the pursuit by Mueller of all the events that surrounded a meeting at Trump Tower with Russians said to have close Kremlin ties, involving Manafort, Donald Trump Jr. and his brother-in-law Jared Kushner, for the express purpose of securing damaging information on Hilary Clinton.

A volcano of bad publicity

Meanwhile, Trump cannot escape a volcano of bad publicity as his former key associates face judgement in the courts.

On December 12, Michael Cohen, Trump’s former top business lawyer will be sentenced after reaching an extensive plea agreement with prosecutors, which includes the revelation that he lied to Congress about the dealings of the Trump organization in Russia – Cohen now says he was negotiating with top Moscow officials  until June 2016 about building a Trump tower building there and he continuously kept Donald Trump and his family informed. Until now, Trump has always said he had no dealings with the Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Cohen has also provided information to prosecutors about the hush money payments he made just before the election for Trump to cover up alleged affairs with two women.

On December 18, Michael Flynn, the former White House national security chief and former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor, will face court sentencing after having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his various dealings with Russians in 2016.

And, then on February 9, Paul Manafort, who was found guilty by a jury on various charges of fraud and tax evasion, while he also entered into a plea agreement on charges related to the presidential campaign. Now, Mueller has suddenly announced the plea deal is invalid as he claimed Manafort has consistently lied and Mueller will provide full details to support this claim in the courts before long.

Manafort’s deputy as campaign manager and his former business colleague, Rick Gates, is still cooperating with Mueller and his sentencing date has yet to be set. It seems likely that this may coincide with the conclusion of the Mueller investigation and the finalizing of a comprehensive report.

Attempts by the new acting U.S. attorney-general, Matt Whitaker, to stop the public release of the report would likely be challenged by prominent politicians in both houses of Congress and add to the sense of White House crisis.

Trump’s worst nightmare

Indeed, Congressional investigations may prove to be the worst of all of Trump’s impending nightmares. There are many targets and many members of Congress keen to take aim.

They will go after Whitaker himself, who seems to have been selected by Trump solely on the basis of his many previous public statements deriding the Mueller investigation and whose qualifications as America’s top law enforcer are questionable.

Plans are taking shape for a host of investigations led by the Democratic Party majority in the House of Representatives, including: the alleged unethical conflict-of-interest activities of several of Trump’s cabinet members.

These include the secretaries of Interior, Commerce, Environment and possibly Treasury, and the business profits made by the firms that are still controlled by Trump’s daughter Ivanka and her husband, Jared Kushner, despite both of them being on the government’s payroll as White House advisors.

There is also the issue of expenses for security that the U.S. government has as Donald Trump Jr. travels the world promoting the Trump brand – his trip to India alone is said to have involved around $100,000 in taxpayer cash.

And, of course, there will be several House investigations, including public hearings, which explicitly relate to the alleged multiple connections between the Trump 2016 campaign and Russians, including Trump business dealings.

Letitia James enters the stage

Now, as the curtain goes up on the made-for-Broadway drama, “The Decline and Fall of Donald Trump,” so Letitia James enters the stage.

The first African-American woman to be New York state’s leading prosecutor declared as her election victory was announced: “We can spot a carnival barker. I will shine a light into every dark corner of his real estate dealings, and every dealing.”

It is just plain old good politics for Ms. James to secure as much publicity as she can by targeting Trump and her sights will be on the tax returns that the president refuses to make public, the international sources of funding that the Trump organization has tapped over the years, as well as alleged fraud by the Trump foundation.

All of these events combined will dominate Washington politics for months to come. As the facts emerge and as Trump’s troubles mount, so the number of Democratic Party politicians to announce plans to run for president in the 2020 elections will multiply — but that’s another story.

The original version of this article was first published by TheGlobalist on November 21, 2018 and subsequently by SALON.com – this is an updated article.

Continue Reading

Americas

Shapers of America: The Role of George H. W. Bush in Foreign Policy Making

Published

on

Authors: Srimal Fernando and Pooja Singh*

The sad news on Friday of Former US President George .H. Bush’s death at the age of 94 spread all over the world in no time. His lasting legacy on the US political system and his accomplishments during his presidency from 1989 to 1993 touches nearly everyone. Former President Obama also paid tribute, saying: “America has lost a patriot and humble servant in George Herbert Walker Bush” While our hearts are heavy today, they are also filled with gratitude”.

In 1989 when Vice President Bush assumed power, his foreign Policy strategy was unfamiliar to the world. For the next four years, his administration tried to make the best out of the bad, often impossible task to change the course of United States (US) relations with former Soviet Union (USSR) and Warsaw bloc nations. Apart from diplomatic efforts his Presidency focused on economic diplomacy.  The signing the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) transformed trade ties with the trading bloc. Former President Bush addressing one of his key speeches on trade, in 6 February 1989 e stated, “We don’t want an America that is closed to the world. What we want is a world that is open to America”

Bush senior was a modern American Foreign policy architect credited for ending of the Cold War. Hence looking back it was a moment for celebration and pride when George Bush was chosen as Vice President during Regan’s two-termed presidency.  It was apparent as President Bush laid out policy approach of overcoming numerous national security and diplomatic challenges. However, his major foreign policy   problems from the start had been the Soviet Union (USSR) and integration of East European nations into the European Union (EU). It took full four years and turned to be as one of the most rigorous consultative processes in the US- USSR relations. In fact, soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the meeting was held between George Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev on the Mediterranean island of Malta. The collaborative diplomacy between the two superpowers with considerable negotiations between Bush and Gorbachev in reducing the nuclear warheads during the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) -1 and 2 had its cost. Having the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) as the prime subject of summit and the arrangement took nine years in taking the real shape.  Comparatively START -1 was the main understanding since the marking of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty by Reagan and Gorbachev in 1987. The idea behind conducting a summit on START is to lessen the percentage of nuclear weapons of both the United States (US) and the USSR by about 35 percent in more than seven years down the line.

During this period, there was intense debate about the meaning and scope of new foreign ties with Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS ) states, East European nations and the expansion of NATO agenda over the former Warsaw led nations. A crucial element in these changing pictures was US’s shift on the status question with former Soviet Union (USSR) nations, after the collapse of the former Soviet Union in 1991.

Unexpected summer of 1990 turned out to be a testing time for his presidency on the Iraqi invasion by Saddam Hussein. The question was much concern and caused debate. Hence, the events in the oil rich Kuwait attracted considerable global attention. On 17 January 1991 early in the morning where the allied forces launched their first attack that included in excess of 4,000 bombings owned by coalition aircrafts and   a month later on 24th February a large scale invasion pushed by the allied forces liberated Kuwait. The US led Gulf war and liberation of Kuwait was highly sensitive issue and wreaked Bush’s Presidency. In 1992, President Bush of the Republican Party lost to Bill Clinton of Democratic Party in Presidential elections.

Over the decades after retirement from Presidency, there has been an opposing view on his presidency. In 2011 it was another turning point in US political history where Bush seniors son George. W Bush junior   became the 43rd President, which only happened twice after John Adam’s son who also served as US president. During his presidency, Bush senior along with Clinton toured tsunami-hit nations. In 2011 the much-loved peoples President was honored with the Medal of Freedom, the most astounding US non-military personnel respect granted by then President Obama.

It is a powerful reminder of the manifold ways his presidential influence go beyond the scope of America and well beyond the first world nations essentially shaping   global foreign policy   mandate. When America fell silent on the sad demise of George H. W. Bush, many Americans and the international community might have felt they lost a hero. Yet Bush’s legacy represents the aspirations, the hopes of the American people and the global community. Perhaps these beliefs and values can build a more tolerant and respectful global society in the near future.

*Pooja Singh, a scholar of Masters in Diplomacy, Law, Business at Jindal School of International Affairs, India.

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy