India underlines ‘substantive agenda' to mend strained ties with US over tariffs, Russia oil
This is to assuage concerns that India is gravitating towards the non-western partners — External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar is headed to Moscow and Chinese Foreign minister Wang Yi is likely to come to India next week, and NSA Ajit Doval was in Moscow to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi is likely to travel to Tianjin in China for the SCO leaders' summit on August 31-September 1.
Responding to questions on the future of Indo-US relations on Thursday, Ministry of External Affairs' official spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said: 'India and the United States share a comprehensive global strategic partnership anchored in shared interests, democratic values, and robust people-to-people ties.'
'This partnership has weathered several transitions and challenges,' he said, alluding to the challenges posed by US President Donald Trump's imposition of 50% tariffs on India — 25% because of high tariffs and 25% for buying Russian energy.
'We remain focused on the substantive agenda that our two countries have committed to and we hope that the relationship will continue to move forward based on mutual respect and shared interests,' he said.
The MEA spokesperson said, 'The India–U.S. defence partnership, underpinned by foundational defence agreements, is an important pillar of the bilateral partnership. This robust cooperation has strengthened across all domains… We are expecting a U.S. Defence Policy Team to be in Delhi in mid-August. The 21st edition of the joint military exercise — Yudh Abhyas — is also expected to take place later this month in Alaska. Both sides remain engaged to convene the 2+2 Intersessional meeting at the working-level towards the end of the month.'
It is not usual to give out such details of upcoming activities, especially in the defence and strategic sectors, in advance.
This announcement is significant since it gives out the message that India is not closing its doors of engagement with Washington DC.
This comes at a time when preparations are underway to schedule a visit by Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the US in the last week of September. The MEA spokesperson, when asked, said that no decision has been taken yet on the PM's visit.
Sources said that the ostensible reason is to attend the United Nations General Assembly in New York, but a key objective will be to meet US President Donald Trump, iron out the issues on trade and arrive at a common ground on tariffs. This will also give an opportunity for the two leaders to announce a trade deal.
However, for this to fructify, a lot of moving parts and a series of things have to fall in place.
There has to be movement on two fronts — the Russia-Ukraine war and the Indo-US trade deal. Negotiations are underway on both fronts and Delhi is closely following the meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on August 15 to discuss a resolution to the war in Ukraine.
Modi has already spoken to Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the last few days. A resolution to the conflict is in India's interest, sources said, and it has been conveyed to both leaders.
On the trade deal front, Indian and American negotiators had been close to sealing a deal, but the US President was not happy about the deal that was agreed between the interlocutors.
So, the negotiators have to discuss the terms of the deal further, and they have to offer new terms, as red lines have been drawn. But the two sides are focused on the new goal for bilateral trade – 'Mission 500' – aiming to more than double total bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030.
Now, to schedule the visit, as a first step, the Indian side has reached out to the UN headquarters for a speaking slot for the Prime Minister at the UN General Assembly, and, as of now, that has been scheduled on September 26 morning. Trump is slated to speak on September 23.
Now, if the PM's visit takes place, it will give an opportunity to speak at the UNGA and then hold a bilateral meeting with Trump and other world leaders.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
2 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Waiting for US citizenship? Immigration authorities to now scrutinize applicants' good moral character
In an effort to tighten access to U.S. immigration benefits, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a major policy shift, restoring a stricter and more comprehensive assessment of the 'good moral character' (GMC) requirement for foreign nationals seeking American citizenship. "Among other eligibility factors, aliens applying for naturalization must demonstrate that he or she has been and continues to be an individual of good moral character (GMC). Evaluating GMC involves more than a cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing. It entails a holistic assessment of an alien's behavior, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character," the policy memorandum, issued on August 15, read. The policy highlights that while certain offenses—such as murder, aggravated felonies, torture, or genocide—remain permanent and unconditional bars to naturalization, officials must now also assess evidence of rehabilitation and reformation in other cases. Read more: Trump's DOJ ramps up push to strip naturalized Americans of citizenship In fiscal 2024 (year ended Sept 30), 8.18 lakh foreign nationals acquired US citizenship. Mexicans led with as many as 1.07 lakh becoming American citizens (13% of the total), this was followed by Indians, with a little over 49,000 (or 6% of the total) acquiring US citizenship. Positive attributes and contributions such as sustained community involvement and contributions in the US; family caregiving, responsibility, and ties in the US; educational attainments; stable and lawful employment history and achievements; length of lawful residence in the US, compliance with tax obligations and financial responsibility in the US will carry greater weight. Read more: US tightens family immigration policy with stricter vetting and interview rules What are key features of the policy? As per the policy published by the USCIS, the officers must account for positive attributes and not simply the absence of misconduct. "In evaluating whether or not an alien has met the requirement of establishing GMC, the officer must take a holistic approach in evaluating whether or not an alien seeking naturalization has affirmatively established that he or she has met their burden of establishing that they are worthy of assuming the rights and responsibilities of United States Citizenship," according to the document. USCIS will place greater emphasis on the applicant's positive attributes and contributions in GMC determinations. These positive factors include, but are not limited to: • Sustained community involvement and contributions in the United States. • Family caregiving, responsibility, and ties in the United States. • Educational attainment. • Stable and lawful employment history and achievements. • Length of lawful residence in the United States. • Compliance with tax obligations and financial responsibility in the United States. Any hope for applicants with past 'wrongdoing'? However, there is a glimmer of hope for applicants with a record of past 'wrongdoing.' Under the new guidelines, USCIS officials will consider concrete evidence of rehabilitation—such as repayment of taxes, adherence to court-ordered conditions, or testimonials from community members. Such proof may still support a determination of good moral character, despite a negative history, as long as no permanent bar is in place.
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
A conservation manual, drafted by the ordinary citizen
In his Independence Day addresses delivered from the Red Fort, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been exhorting fellow citizens to preserve the memory of those who overthrew colonial rule. Even as his reminders have been timely, his tactics — enumerating a few freedom fighters' names and including some of their words in his speeches — are as well-worn as the Archaeological Survey of India's (ASI) approach to conserving the nation's built heritage. With a few exceptions, the ASI has largely been content with selecting monuments, isolating them, repairing them and occasionally polishing them. Given the enormity and complexity of India's past and the risk of large sections of it fading from our collective consciousness, it is time to articulate a more thoughtful and holistic approach to the conservation of ASI monuments. Acknowledging that the current frameworks informing conservation are the result of certain historical circumstances is important. Driven by a conviction that edifices, if properly analysed, can unlock histories of communities and thus allow for governing them more effectively, colonial officers located and catalogued pillars, rock-cut caves, stupas, temples, mosques, citadels, water reservoirs, and other edifices, promulgated historical preservation laws, and prescribed procedures for maintaining their structural integrity. John Marshall's Conservation Manual (1923) advocated extensive repair of ancient monuments and reshaping their immediate surroundings into gardens. Marshall's handbook continues to inflect the preservation of about 3,600 ASI sites, along with new laws, amendments, and provisions of international agreements. Notwithstanding these efforts, field surveys, audit reports, and court rulings establish that many protected monuments are falling apart. Recommendations of a conservation policy enunciated in 2014 are being irregularly followed. Not surprisingly, the government has begun to invite corporations to adopt monuments. A road map for conserving monuments Studying the writings of modern India builders is one way to begin articulating a new approach to conserving monuments. Consider lessons provided by Sarvodaya, Mahatma Gandhi's transcreation of a collection of essays by John Ruskin, a Victorian art critic. His rendering accentuated the art critic's advocacy of improving the social condition of all individuals irrespective of their backgrounds, discussed the importance of all vocations, and endorsed his admiration of craftspersons and their labour, even as it critiqued Ruskin's valorisation of Britain's imperial ambitions. Might the lessons that Gandhi learned and promoted inspire the ASI's new conservation manual to propose the following: when an edifice is conserved not only is its structural fabric to be tended, but the lives of all those who live around it and visit it are to be improved; and interpretive materials at an edifice should enable visitors to appreciate its builders' sophistication, inventiveness, and resilience. Conservation is a shared concern of contemporary practitioners of diverse disciplines including translators, health-care professionals, wildlife biologists, mycologists, and economists. By convening dialogues among and between these experts at various venues, listening to how they comprehend terms such as repair, preservation, and restoration and observing how audiences respond to them, the ASI can identify more principles of their new conservation manual. Translators today are attentive to the style and mood that the authors of source texts have sought to nurture and are grasping how sentences are formed and meanings generated in unalike languages. They are recognising that connotations change over time. Thus, their outputs are intricate works in dialogical relationships with assorted pasts, and not obsequious reproductions of texts initially written in other languages. Can such viewpoints inspire the ASI conservation manual to recommend that archaeologists acknowledge their distance between the deep past and contemporary moment and make their physical interventions of a monument's fabric clearer for visitors to discern? Contemporary translators sophisticated thinking of a particular language aptness to render anew a certain text may also be used to inform a clause in the new manual: that periodic reviews be undertaken of the aptness of preservation materials to ensure that they do not harm historical fabrics. Varied perspectives are important Humans preserve themselves by saving memories. Listening to divergent perspectives allows memories to be exercised and sustains their propagation. Such insights should inspire the ASI to study how visitors are using protected monuments today and craft conservation principles thereafter. One way to do so would be to offer visitors opportunities to participate in open-ended conversations about their experiences. Wildlife biologists are also thinking about protection. They reason that supporting a range of interactions occurring among and between sundry biotic and abiotic elements in an ecosystem and exchanges between networks are more efficacious strategies for restoring waning populations than safeguarding individual animals. Following this line of reasoning, might the ASI conservation manual recommend that archaeologists pay more attention to linkages between monuments and water bodies, fields, deserts, forests and settlements around them and deliberate whether certain boundary walls may be dismantled. Mycologists have found that fungi are far from unsettling sights. Fungi are powerful agents that break down organic matter, form mutually beneficial relationships with plants including helping them access nutrients, cause diseases in humans but also provide medicines, and help produce food. Such discernments can stimulate the ASI's manual to encourage the conservation of thousands of small, half-forgotten ancient monuments strewn across the country. Old city walls, cisterns, cenotaphs and dovecotes can have multiple benefits for communities living around them including securing neighbourhoods, recharging ground water aquifers, bringing visitors who might boost local economies, providing habitats and creating public spaces. Finally, contemporary economists' findings may also be generative. They have shown that value is produced by how things work and not just by their appearance. Following this dictum, the conservation manual may propose that it is more important for archaeologists to restore a haveli's natural ventilation systems than to regularly repaint its façade. Emphasising a particular resource's scarcity is another way in which value is created. Thus, further research should be undertaken to advance our knowledge of what makes ASI monuments sites of national significance. The new knowledge be used to justify larger budgets for their protection. The economic concept of creative destruction as an impetus for growth may also be utilised. For example, it can guide the transformation of old temples submerged in the reservoirs of large dams into laboratories for developing and testing technologies to document underwater sites and forge innovative alliances between historians, geologists and marine biologists. The citizen's role In a country as diverse as ours, conservation's meaning and value are always going to be positional and contested. Thus, all of us as ordinary citizens can help shape a new conservation manual by becoming more aware of our own locations and actions. We can also assist by further educating ourselves. Learning to read the language of the stones that monuments are built of, will allow us to listen to stories they tell and amplify largely silenced voices. We will also be able to glean builders' biases and use monuments as mirrors to confront our prejudices. Ultimately acquiring such literacy will empower us to discover India as a monument without walls and preserve ourselves as we shape a new future. Nachiket Chanchani is an Associate Professor in the Department of the History of Art at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, U.S.
The Hindu
2 minutes ago
- The Hindu
New start: on the Alaska summit and the Ukraine war
The much-anticipated summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Anchorage, Alaska, did not yield a breakthrough on the Ukraine war but appeared to narrow the gaps between their positions on how to end the conflict. While Ukraine was the most contentious issue on the agenda, the summit was significant for several reasons. Relations between the world's two largest nuclear powers have been defined by hostility and mutual distrust. A stable, predictable relationship and the prospect of a new arms control pact — hinted at by Mr. Putin — are critical not just for stability in Eastern Europe but also for broader global stability. Yet, rebuilding Russo-American ties is inconceivable without peace in Ukraine. All sides in the Ukraine war publicly claim that they are committed to peace, but they differ sharply on how to achieve it. Ukraine and its European partners have called for an immediate ceasefire, a demand reiterated by Mr. Trump before meeting Mr. Putin. Russia has resisted calls for a ceasefire, insisting instead on a comprehensive peace agreement that addresses what Mr. Putin calls the conflict's 'root causes'. Mr. Trump appeared to endorse the Russian line when he said 'the best way to end the horrific war' is to go directly to a peace agreement. While the downside of the summit was its failure to deliver a breakthrough, the positive side is that it opened a diplomatic path that could lead to conflict resolution. Mr. Trump, who claimed that he and Mr. Putin agreed on 'many points', spoke with European, NATO and Ukrainian leaders after the meeting. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is expected to visit the White House on Monday to discuss Mr. Putin's proposal. Mr. Trump also suggested that it is now 'up to Zelenskyy' to strike a deal with Russia, 'a very big power'. Russia has consistently made three core demands to end the war — recognition for the Ukrainian territories it has annexed and Ukraine's 'neutrality' and 'demilitarisation'. Post-summit reports suggest that Mr. Putin is open to freezing the war along the frontlines in the south (Zaporizhzhia and Kherson) provided Russia retains full control of Donbas (Donetsk and Luhansk). A settlement could also involve Russian withdrawal in the northeast (Kharkiv). Ukraine has so far said that it would not concede land for peace. The challenge before Mr. Trump is to sustain the talks aimed at narrowing the differences further to reach a workable compromise. While it makes perfect sense to end the war on practical terms, Mr. Trump should not impose an agreement on Kyiv. Peace would prevail in Eastern Europe only if Ukraine's security concerns are addressed and it is provided with credible assurances that Russia would not invade it again.
