Planned Indian Mega-Port Could 'Wipe Out' Isolated Tribe
The government aims to build a shipping terminal, airport, military base, power plant, and city of some 650,000 people on Great Nicobar Island, which lies a thousand miles from mainland India near the Indonesian island of Sumatra. According to a new report from Survival International, the $9 billion project would eradicate much of the rainforest on which the Shompen depend, while outsiders would introduce infectious diseases to which the Shompen have little or no immunity.
In February, 39 genocide experts wrote to the Indian government, warning that if the port project proceeds, 'it will be a death sentence for the Shompen, tantamount to the international crime of genocide.'
Environment Minister Bhupendra Yadav has said the project 'will not disturb or displace' the Shompen. But the Indian government has not sought the tribe's free, prior, and informed consent, in violation of national and international law, according to the new report.
Only 300 Shompen live on the Great Nicobar Island, most of whom have no contact with the outside world. Great Nicobar is part of a chain of islands that is also home to the Sentinelese people, another isolated tribe. Earlier this month, an American influencer was arrested for attempting to make contact with the Sentinelese.
Caroline Pearce, head of Survival International, said that if Indian officials are going to prosecute an influencer for trying to reach the Sentinelese, 'they cannot justify building a city of 650,000 people on the island of their uncontacted neighbors the Shompen.'
In War-Torn Sudan, a Gold Mining Boom Takes a Human Toll
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
23 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The convictions that count are the ones that sometimes sting
I bring up Goldberg's essay not only to recommend it but also because I was struck by the question with which he introduced it: 'What principle do you hold,' he challenged his readers, 'that is against your self-interest or political desires?' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up It's a cogent and revealing test. It obliges anyone who answers the question to think about whether they embrace their convictions as a matter of principle or merely because they're convenient. Anyone can defend the freedoms or prohibitions that serve their own purposes. The truer test of ideological and moral seriousness is whether you adhere to your principles even when doing so cuts against your interests, tastes, or partisan loyalties. Advertisement This isn't an ivory-tower abstraction. American history is rich with examples of people who upheld principle at real personal cost. John Adams, though a patriot who hated British rule, risked his career to defend the redcoats accused in the Boston Massacre, convinced that even despised defendants deserved counsel and a fair trial. Justice John Marshall Harlan, raised in a Kentucky family of enslavers, broke with his social milieu to insist in his lone dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that 'our Constitution is color-blind.' And in 1960, Richard Nixon, urged by allies to contest an election marred by serious irregularities, refused to plunge the nation into turmoil, saying the country's stability mattered more than his own ambition. I have tried to meet that test in my own writing — with what success, I leave others to judge. For instance, I defend the right even of Holocaust-deniers to spread Advertisement I have sometimes put a version of Goldberg's question to candidates in a primary election: Can you name a position you take that is clearly opposed by most of your party's base? Rarely have I gotten a substantive answer. Most politicians duck the question, unwilling to announce that they uphold an unpopular position on principle — even though doing so would be pretty strong evidence that their convictions were genuine. What makes this problem worse is the increasingly common belief that only those who agree with us are legitimate participants in American life. Too many on the right write off their opponents as anti-American, while too many on the left see theirs as irredeemably bigoted or authoritarian. If you begin from the premise that dissenters are not merely wrong but illegitimate, then there is no reason to extend to them the rights or freedoms you claim for yourself. But that mind-set drains principle of all meaning. Defending free speech only for your allies is like championing religious liberty only for your own faith: That's not upholding a principle — it's wielding a partisan cudgel, something that has become endemic in contemporary American life. So much of what bedevils our civic discourse these days, Goldberg writes, begins with 'the premise that America is defined by our politics and, therefore, the people with the wrong politics are not Americans.' Which is why Goldberg's challenge ought to be posed more often. A principle that only applies when it's easy isn't much of a principle at all. So, readers, I'll put the same question to you: What principle do you hold that runs against your own interest or desire? Please give it some thought and share your reflections. In a future column, I'll share some of the more intriguing and noteworthy responses. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Budweiser Stock (BUD) Looks Merrier as it Makes Trump-Friendly U.S. Investment Pledge
President Trump is likely to have raised a glass today to Budweiser-owner Anheuser-Busch InBev (BUD) after it revealed plans to invest $15 million in its facility in St. Louis. Elevate Your Investing Strategy: Take advantage of TipRanks Premium at 50% off! Unlock powerful investing tools, advanced data, and expert analyst insights to help you invest with confidence. Shares in BUD were 1% higher in pre-market trading. Domestic Brew Although that figure by itself is unlikely to pop any corks in the White House, it does show that AB InBev is making good on its previously announced $300 million commitment to boosting U.S. manufacturing. It also follows its announcement earlier this month of a new $9 million investment in its Baldwinsville, NY brewery and a $17 million investment in its Houston brewery. This, of course, has been one of the key pillars of Trump's tariff strategy – to increase domestic making of stuff and having American workers do the hard graft. The funds, announced today, will support supply chain infrastructure to transport domestically grown ingredients to the company's St. Louis, Missouri brewery and help deliver beer brands including Budweiser and Bud Light to consumers. Tariff Defense AB said it has invested nearly $2 billion over the last five years in 100 facilities across the U.S., but the onus on manufacturing in the States has no doubt been spurred on by the strategy of the Trump administration. In order to avoid crippling tariffs, a number of high-profile firms have committed to ramping up U.S. spending, from tech giants such as Apple (AAPL) and Nvidia (NVDA) to motor manufacturer Honda (HMC) and pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca (AZN). Budweiser has previously said it was boosting investments in key brands and ramping up efforts to grow at-home consumption, as spending elsewhere – including in bars – remains pressured. In the first quarter AB InBev said overall volumes declined by 1.9%, impacted by weak demand in China and Brazil. However, it added that North America and Europe showed 'resilience', with top and bottom-line growth. Is BUD a Good Stock to Buy Now? On TipRanks, BUD has a Strong Buy consensus based on 7 Buy ratings. Its highest price target is $90. BUD stock's consensus price target is $78.83, implying a 28.07% upside.
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
Trump's trade policies are helping India-China ties — but they aren't resetting them
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi wrapped up his two-day trip to India on Tuesday — the latest sign of warming ties between Beijing and New Delhi. During his visit, Wang said India and China should "view each other as partners and opportunities rather than adversaries or threats," according to a readout from the Chinese Foreign Ministry translated by Google. In the readout, Wang also said the meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in October 2024 marked a "restart" in China-India relations. Contrast that with the souring of U.S.-India relations over the past few months. U.S. President Donald Trump went from giving bear hugs to Modi in February, to labeling India the "tariff king" six months on, slapping India with one of the highest duties, and accusing it of fueling Russia's war in Ukraine through oil purchases . The rift raises the question: Is India, a country that has enjoyed strong diplomatic relations with Washington, now drawing closer to Beijing? Ivan Lidarev, visiting senior fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, told CNBC that India is indeed moving toward Beijing, but pointed out that the cooling of U.S.-India ties is just one factor. India and China ties had warmed after Xi and Modi met in October last year on the sidelines of the BRICS summit, where the two sides had agreed to deescalate tensions along their disputed border. "President Trump's policy toward India, and actually toward China, to some extent, has accelerated this process," Lidarev said. Trump slapped high tariffs on India for buying oil from Moscow, but said last week after his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin that he has no immediate need to consider retaliatory tariffs on countries such as China for doing the same. Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at Washington-based think tank Wilson Center, told CNBC's " Squawk Box Asia " Wednesday that with friction in the U.S.-India relationship, New Delhi is more inclined to hedge against the uncertainty in its relations with the U.S. by trying to "open things up "with China. Lidarev pointed out, "On the U.S. side, there is no change in public perception of India, but on the Indian side, there is a very big change in public perceptions. I think that many Indians are very unhappy with U.S. behavior. They believe that India has been mistreated. They're outraged by the tariffs and by what they see as American attempts to twist India's hand." Thawing China-India ties In a sign of warming ties, China's Wang called on Modi on Tuesday, extending to him an invitation from Xi to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Tianjin at the end of August. Modi has accepted the invitation. A trip would mark the Indian prime minister's first visit to China in seven years. Direct flights from India to mainland China , which have been suspended since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, are set to resume. Both sides also agreed to reopen border trade at three designated trading points. Indian media reported on Wednesday that China agreed to lift curbs on exports on fertilizers, rare earths and tunnel boring machines. Separately, several Indian companies have pursued partnerships with Chinese companies earlier this year, The Economic Times reported in July. Indian conglomerates Reliance and Adani Group have, likewise, reportedly been pursuing deals with Chinese companies , with Adani Group founder Gautam Adani visiting companies like battery maker Contemporary Amperex Technology in June. Tactical, not strategic reset However, the move toward Beijing does not signify a fundamental reshaping of India's relationships in the Indo-Pacific, experts said. Chietigj Bajpaee, senior research fellow for South Asia at Chatham House, told CNBC that the China-India relationship is undergoing a "tactical rather than strategic reset." " None of the fundamental grievances in the bilateral relationship have been resolved," he highlighted. Bajpaee noted that the border dispute has not been resolved, and there are some fault lines that are still present in the relationship, including water disputes and China's "all-weather" relationship with Pakistan. That was seen in the border conflict in May between India and Pakistan, in which the latter claimed that Chinese-made J-10C Pakistani fighters shot down India's French-made Rafale fighter jets. Pakistan had procured the J-10Cs back in 2021, in response to India buying 36 Rafales in 2015. Similarly, Li Mingjiang, associate professor at Singapore's S Rajaratnam School of International Studies said the current detente is more of a "tactical pause." He noted that both sides — referring to Beijing and New Delhi — have strong incentives to manage tensions, but because of the unresolved tensions, the easing is likely to be short term in nature. In his view, the broader Indo-Pacific landscape is still defined by competition and hedging. To be sure, India still does have a deep relationship with the U.S., with the two nations having a "Comprehensive and Global Strategic Partnership" with cooperation in defense, technology, and clean energy . India was also designated a "major defense partner" by the U.S. in 2016. When asked if India will remain the U.S.' counterweight to China, Li said it's unlikely that New Delhi would abandon that role. He added that both countries share "enduring strategic interests" in limiting Beijing's regional dominance, and that current tariff pressures are mainly related to the Russia-Ukraine war. "If that conflict winds down, Washington and New Delhi may find it easier to smooth over trade frictions," Li said.
