New Delhi: The CBI will question Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Sunday in its probe into the excise policy scam, a move that has escalated the AAP-Centre faceoff and became a fresh rallying point for opposition unity push ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
As opposition leaders like the Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge and JD(U) supremo and Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar expressed solidarity with Kejriwal on Saturday and renewed calls to speed up opposition unity efforts to take on the BJP, officials said the CBI may ask the AAP chief about the policy formulation process, especially of the “untraceable” file which was earlier slated to be put before the Delhi Council of Ministers.
Kejriwal is being summoned as a witness and is not an accused in the excise policy case in which his former deputy Manish Sisodia was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) on February 26. Sisodia was last month arrested by the Enforcement Directorate(ED) and is in judicial custody.
The chief minister on his part said the Aam Aadmi Party(AAP) has emerged as a ray of hope for the country and claimed that is the reason why efforts are being made to trample it.
In his first reaction after being served a notice by the CBI to appear before it at 11 am on Sunday, Kejriwal said he will be present before the probe agency.
Addressing a press conference here, he said no other party has been targeted in the last 75 years as the AAP. He also alleged that the agencies were torturing people to extract false confessions.
Asserting that if he was “corrupt” then no one in the world was “honest”, Kejriwal also claimed that BJP leaders were demanding his arrest and that if the saffron party had “ordered” the probe agency to arrest him, it cannot refuse doing so.
Kejriwal said he will sue the CBI and ED officials for alleged perjury and filing false affidavits in courts.
Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju took a jibe at Kejriwal over his sue CBI and ED remarks, saying the AAP leader will file a case against the court if convicted.
It is alleged that the Delhi government’s excise policy for 2021-22 to grant licences to liquor traders favoured certain dealers who had allegedly paid bribes for it, a charge strongly refuted by the AAP. The policy was later scrapped.
Kejriwal also wrote to his Tamil Nadu counterpart M K Stalin, saying democracy in India is being dealt blows every single day and the country’s federal structure is in grave danger. “It is a foregone conclusion that democracy in India is suffering from blows every single day.”
Sources said that Kharge telephoned Kejriwal, and stressed the need for opposition parties to unite against the BJP ahead of the 2024 general elections.
Kharge is learnt to have expressed solidarity with Kejriwal, they said.
Nitish Kumar said Kejriwal will reply to “all the actions” initiated against him at an “appropriate time”.
“People know what is happening against him (Kejriwal). He is a well-regarded person and he has done a lot of developmental work in his state. He will reply to all the actions that have been initiated against him at the appropriate time”, the Bihar chief minister told reporters in Patna.
“This is the reason that we are making efforts to unite more and more parties in the country against the BJP-led central government. We will make all efforts and work unitedly.”
Kumar met Kejriwal in Delhi on Wednesday in his attempt to forge an alliance of opposition parties against the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) at the Centre before the 2024 general election.
In his reply to a letter from Stalin, Kejriwal noted that “every tenet” of the India’s Constitution stands compromised, be it liberty, equality, secularism, or fraternity.
Making a strong pitch for opposition unity ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the DMK supremo recently said there should be collective effort towards ensuring federalism, equality and social justice.
The AAP alleged that the Centre was “misusing” probe agencies to “harass” its leaders and preparing to arrest Kejriwal.
It also alleged that the Centre was “scared” of the AAP and their aim was to finish the party.
Addressing a press conference, senior AAP leader and Delhi Cabinet minister Atishi asserted Kejriwal was the only politician speaking out on the issue of corruption, which was why efforts were being made to stifle his voice.
As the political slugfest intensified, the BJP claimed that Kejriwal was trembling with fear following the CBI summons to him, and said he should take a lie detector test if he had nothing to be afraid of.
At a press conference, BJP national spokesperson Gaurav Bhatia also slammed the AAP leader for attacking the central government over the summons and said it was not the time for rhetoric but accountability.
Delhi Police will deploy over 1,000 security personnel, including paramilitary forces, outside the CBI headquarters to ensure the safety of Kejriwal, officials said.
Security will also be tightened outside the AAP office in Rouse Avenue, they said.
An adequate number of barricades will also be placed on the streets at both these places to ensure AAP workers and supporters do not create any trouble, they said.
Officials said the CBI may also quiz Kejriwal on the statements of other accused where they have indicated the manner in which policy was allegedly influenced to favour some liquor businessmen and the ‘South liquor lobby’.
In addition, the agency may also seek his role in the formulation of the excise policy and his knowledge about alleged influence being cast by the traders and ‘South lobby’ members, the officials said.
Kejriwal may also be asked if he was involved in the formulation of the policy before it was given approval, they said.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) communications in-charge Vijay Nair’s bail plea in connection with the money laundering case related to the Delhi excise policy scam.
Nair was only the media and communications in-charge of the AAP and had no role in the drafting, framing, or implementing of the excise policy in any manner, his counsel argued saying thatA he was being “victimised” for his political background.
After Nair’s counsel’s submissions, Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma issued notice to the ED and listed the matter for the next hearing on May 19.
A Delhi court had, on February 16, denied bail to Nair and four others.
Observing that “allegations are quite serious”, special judge M.K. Nagpal of the Rouse Avenue Court had, apart from Nair, denied bail to Sameer Mahendru, Abhishek Boinpally, Sarath Chandra Reddy, and Benoy Babu.
He held that there is enough incriminating evidence to show the entire “modus operandi” adopted by the accused persons for the commission of offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
On the allegations and role of Nair, the court had said, “Though he was only the media and communication in charge of AAP, it has been revealed during the investigation of this case that he was actually representing the AAP and GNCTD in different meetings that took place with the stakeholders in liquor business at different places. His participation in the meetings in this capacity is to be viewed in light of the facts that he was residing in the official accommodation allotted to a senior Minister of the AAP and once he is even alleged to have represented himself as an OSD in the Excise Department of GNCTD and further that none from the Government or AAP officially participated in these meetings.”
Beijing: China on Wednesday waded into controversy over French President Emmanuel Macron’s comments in which he called for greater “European sovereignty” by not following the US policy over China and Taiwan.
“The question we need to answer, as Europeans, is the following: Is it in our interest to accelerate (a crisis) on Taiwan? No,” Macron was quoted as saying in the interview after his recent visit to China during which he held extensive talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing and later Guangzhou.
“The worst thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the US agenda and a Chinese overreaction,” Macron said.
The comments were made last Friday before China launched large-scale combat drills around Taiwan that simulated sealing off the island in response to the Taiwanese president’s trip to the US last week.
Macron’s comments raised questions over the EU’s relationship with both the US and China.
“We have noticed that President Macron’s view that Europe should insist on strategic autonomy and avoid getting involved in group confrontations has attracted some criticism, especially from the United States. We are not surprised by this,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin told the media here while responding to the controversy over the French President’s comments.
“What we want to tell you is that some countries do not want to see other countries become independent, and always want to coerce other countries to obey their will,” he said.
“But adhering to strategic autonomy will win more respect and more friends, while coercion and pressure will only result in more resistance and opposition,” Wang said.
He said Macron paid a successful visit to China and the two sides reached important consensus, injecting new impetus into deepening China-France and China-EU cooperation.
Stop driving Europe away from the United States, dismayed central and eastern European officials fumed on Tuesday as French President Emmanuel Macron’s comments continued to ripple across the Continent.
Macron jolted allies in the EU’s eastern half after a visit to China last week when he cautioned the Continent against getting pulled into a U.S.-China dispute over Taiwan, the self-ruled island Beijing claims as its own, imploring his neighbors to avoid becoming Washington and Beijing’s “vassals.”
The comments rattled those near the EU’s eastern edge, who have historically favored closer ties with the Americans — especially on defense — and pushed for a hasher approach to Beijing.
“Instead of building strategic autonomy from the United States, I propose a strategic partnership with the United States,” Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said Tuesday before flying off to the U.S., of all places, for a three-day visit.
Privately, diplomats were even franker.
“We cannot understand [Macron’s] position on transatlantic relations during these very challenging times,” said one diplomat from an Eastern European country, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to freely express themselves. “We, as the EU, should be united. Unfortunately, this visit and French remarks following it are not helpful.”
The reactions reflect the long-simmering divisions within Europe over how to best defend itself. Macron has long argued for Europe to become more autonomous economically and militarily — a push many in Central and Eastern Europe fear could alienate a valuable U.S. helping keep Russia at bay, even if they support boosting the EU’s ability to act independently.
“In the current world of geopolitical shifts, and especially in the face of Russia’s war against Ukraine, it is obvious that democracies have to work closer together than ever before,” said another senior diplomat from Eastern Europe. “We should be all reminded of the wisdom of the first U.S ambassador to France Benjamin Franklin who rightly remarked that either we stick together or we will be hanged separately.”
Macron, a third senior diplomat from the same region huffed, was freelancing yet again: “It is not the first time that Macron has expressed views that are his own and do not represent the EU’s position.”
Walking into controversy
In his interview, Macron touched on a tense subject within Europe: how it should balance itself against the superpower fight between the U.S. and China.
The French president encouraged Europe to chart its own course, cautioning that Europe faces a “great risk” if it “gets caught up in crises that are not ours, which prevents it from building its strategic autonomy.”
Macron said he wants Europe to become a “third pole” to counterbalance China and the U.S. in the long term | Pool photo by Jacques Witt/AFP via Getty Images
It’s a stance that has many adherents within Europe — and has even worked its way into official EU policy as officials work to slowly ensure the Continent’s supply lines aren’t fully yoked to China and others on everything from weapons to electric vehicles.
Macron said he wants Europe to become a “third pole” to counterbalance China and the U.S. in the long term. An imminent conflict between Being and Washington, he argued, would put that goal at risk.
Yet out east, officials lamented that the French leader was simply treating the U.S. and China as if they were essentially the same in a global power play.
The comments, the second diplomat said, were “both ill-timed and inappropriate to put both the United States and China on a par and suggest that the EU should keep strategic distance to both of them.”
A Central European diplomat flatly dismissed Macron’s stance as “pretty outrageous,” while another official from the same region chalked it up to an attempt “to distract from other problems and show that France is bigger than what it is” — a reference to the protests roiling France amid Macron’s pension reforms.
The frustration in Central and Eastern Europe stems in part from a feeling that the French president has never made clear who would replace Washington in Europe — especially if Russia expands its war beyond Ukraine, said Kristi Raik, head of the foreign policy program at the International Centre for Defence and Security, a think tank in Estonia, a country of about 1.3 million people that borders Russia.
It’s an emotional point for Europe’s eastern half, where memories of the Soviet era linger.
“We hear Macron talking about European strategic autonomy, and somehow just being completely silent about the issue, which has become so clear in Ukraine, that actually European security and defense depends very strongly on the U.S.,” Raik said.
Raik noted, of course, that European countries, most notably Germany, are scrambling to update their militaries. France has also pledged large increases in its defense budgets.
But these changes, she cautioned, will take a “very long time.”
If Macron “wants to be serious in showing that he really aims at a Europe that is capable of defending itself,” Raik argued, “he also should be showing that France is willing to do much more to defend Europe vis-à-vis Russia.”
[ad_2]
#Europes #eastern #claps #Macron
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
There’s an Emmanuel Macron-shaped shadow hovering over this week’s U.S. visit by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki.
In contrast to the French president — who in an interview with POLITICO tried to put some distance between the U.S. and Europe in any future confrontation with China over Taiwan and called for strengthening the Continent’s “strategic autonomy” — the Polish leader is underlining the critical importance of the alliance between America and Europe, not least because his country is one of Kyiv’s strongest allies in the war with Russia.
“Instead of building strategic autonomy from the United States, I propose a strategic partnership with the United States,” he said before flying to Washington.
In the U.S. capital, Morawiecki continued with his under-the-table kicks at the French president.
“I see no alternative, and we are absolutely on the same wavelength here, to building an even closer alliance with the Americans. If countries to the west of Poland understand this less, it is probably because of historical circumstances,” he said on Tuesday in Washington.
Unlike France, which has spent decades bristling at Europe’s reliance on the U.S. for its security, Poland is one of the Continent’s keenest American allies. Warsaw has pushed hard for years for U.S. troops to be stationed on its territory, and many of its recent arms contracts have gone to American companies. It signed a $1.4 billion deal earlier this year to buy a second batch of Abrams tanks, and has also agreed to spend $4.6 billion on advanced F-35 fighter jets.
“I am glad that this proposal for an even deeper strategic partnership is something that finds such fertile ground here in the United States, because we know that there are various concepts formulated by others in Europe, concepts that create more threats, more question marks, more unknowns,” Morawiecki said. “Poland is trying to maintain the most commonsense policy based on a close alliance with the United States within the framework of the European Union, and this is the best path for Poland.”
Fast friends
Poland has become one of Ukraine’s most important allies, and access to its roads, railways and airports is crucial in funneling weapons, ammunition and other aid to Ukraine.
That’s helped shift perceptions of Poland — seen before the war as an increasingly marginal member of the Western club thanks to its issues with violating the rule of law, into a key country of the NATO alliance.
Warsaw also sees the Russian attack on Ukraine as justifying its long-held suspicion of its historical foe, and it hasn’t been shy in pointing the finger at Paris and Berlin for being wrong about the threat posed by the Kremlin.
“Old Europe believed in an agreement with Russia, and old Europe failed,” Morawiecki said in a joint news conference with U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris. “But there is a new Europe — Europe that remembers what Russian communism was. And Poland is the leader of this new Europe.”
That’s why Macron’s comments have been seized on by Warsaw.
According to Poland’s PM Mateusz Morawiecki, Emmanuel Macron’s talks of distancing the EU from America “threatens to break up” the block | Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images
“I absolutely don’t agree with President Macron. We believe that more America is needed in Europe … We want more cooperation with the U.S. on a partnership basis,” Marcin Przydacz, a foreign policy adviser to Polish President Andrzej Duda, told Poland’s Radio Zet, adding that the strategic autonomy idea pushed by Macron “has the goal of cutting links between Europe and the United States.”
While Poland is keen on European countries hitting NATO’s goal of spending at least 2 percent of gross domestic product on defense — a target that only seven alliance members, including Poland, but not France and Germany, are meeting — and has no problem with them building up military industries, it doesn’t want to weaken ties with the U.S., said Sławomir Dębski, head of the state-financed Polish Institute of International Affairs.
He warned that Macron’s talks of distancing Europe from America in the event of a conflict with China “threatens to break up the EU, which is against the interests not only of Poland, but also of most European countries.”
[ad_2]
#Polands #Morawiecki #plays #Europes #antiMacron #Washington
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
For Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, next month’s election is of massive historical significance.
It falls 100 years after the foundation of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s secular republic and, if Erdoğan wins, he will be empowered to put even more of his stamp on the trajectory of a geostrategic heavyweight of 85 million people. The fear in the West is that he will see this as his moment to push toward an increasingly religiously conservative model, characterized by regional confrontationalism, with greater political powers centered around himself.
The election will weigh heavily on security in Europe and the Middle East. Who is elected stands to define: Turkey’s role in the NATO alliance; its relationship with the U.S., the EU and Russia; migration policy; Ankara’s role in the war in Ukraine; and how it handles tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean.
The May 14 vote is expected to be the most hotly contested race in Erdoğan’s 20-year rule — as the country grapples with years of economic mismanagement and the fallout from a devastating earthquake.
He will face an opposition aligned behind Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, nicknamed the “Turkish Gandhi,” who is promising big changes. Polls suggest Kılıçdaroğlu has eked out a lead, but Erdoğan is a hardened election campaigner, with the full might of the state and its institutions at his back.
“There will be a change from an authoritarian single-man rule, towards a kind of a teamwork, which is a much more democratic process,” Ünal Çeviköz, chief foreign policy adviser to Kılıçdaroğlu told POLITICO. “Kılıçdaroğlu will be the maestro of that team.”
Here are the key foreign policy topics in play in the vote:
EU and Turkish accession talks
Turkey’s opposition is confident it can unfreeze European Union accession talks — at a standstill since 2018 over the country’s democratic backsliding — by introducing liberalizing reforms in terms of rule of law, media freedoms and depoliticization of the judiciary.
The opposition camp also promises to implement European Court of Human Rights decisions calling for the release of two of Erdoğan’s best-known jailed opponents: the co-leader of the pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party Selahattin Demirtaş and human rights defender Osman Kavala.
“This will simply give the message to all our allies, and all the European countries, that Turkey is back on track to democracy,” Çeviköz said.
Even under a new administration, however, the task of reopening the talks on Turkey’s EU accession is tricky.
Turkey’s opposition is aligned behind Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, nicknamed the “Turkish Gandhi” | Burak Kara/Getty Images
Anti-Western feeling in Turkey is very strong across the political spectrum, argued Wolfango Piccoli, co-founder of risk analysis company Teneo.
“Foreign policy will depend on the coherence of the coalition,” he said. “This is a coalition of parties who have nothing in common apart from the desire to get rid of Erdoğan. They’ve got a very different agenda, and this will have an impact in foreign policy.”
“The relationship is largely comatose, and has been for some time, so, they will keep it on life support,” he said, adding that any new government would have so many internal problems to deal with that its primary focus would be domestic.
Europe also seems unprepared to handle a new Turkey, with a group of countries — most prominently France and Austria — being particularly opposed to the idea of rekindling ties.
“They are used to the idea of a non-aligned Turkey, that has departed from EU norms and values and is doing its own course,” said Aslı Aydıntaşbaş a visiting fellow at Brookings. “If the opposition forms a government, it will seek a European identity and we don’t know Europe’s answer to that; whether it could be accession or a new security framework that includes Turkey.”
“Obviously the erosion of trust has been mutual,” said former Turkish diplomat Sinan Ülgen, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Europe think tank, arguing that despite reticence about Turkish accession, there are other areas where a complementary and mutually beneficiary framework could be built, like the customs union, visa liberalization, cooperation on climate, security and defense, and the migration agreement.
The opposition will indeed seek to revisit the 2016 agreement with the EU on migration, Çeviköz said.
“Our migration policy has to be coordinated with the EU,” he said. “Many countries in Europe see Turkey as a kind of a pool, where migrants coming from the east can be contained and this is something that Turkey, of course cannot accept,” he said but added. “This doesn’t mean that Turkey should open its borders and make the migrants flow into Europe. But we need to coordinate and develop a common migration policy.”
NATO and the US
After initially imposing a veto, Turkey finally gave the green light to Finland’s NATO membership on March 30.
But the opposition is also pledging to go further and end the Turkish veto on Sweden, saying that this would be possible by the alliance’s annual gathering on July 11. “If you carry your bilateral problems into a multilateral organization, such as NATO, then you are creating a kind of a polarization with all the other members of NATO with your country,” Çeviköz said.
A protester pushes a cart with a RRecep Tayyip Erdoğan doll during an anti-NATO and anti-Turkey demonstration in Sweden | Jonas Gratzer/Getty Images
A reelected Erdoğan could also feel sufficiently empowered to let Sweden in, many insiders argue. NATO allies did, after all, play a significant role in earthquake aid. Turkish presidential spokesperson İbrahim Kalın says that the door is not closed to Sweden, but insists the onus is on Stockholm to determine how things proceed.
Turkey’s military relationship with the U.S. soured sharply in 2019 when Ankara purchased the Russian-made S-400 missile system, a move the U.S. said would put NATO aircraft flying over Turkey at risk. In response, the U.S. kicked Ankara out of the F-35 jet fighter program and slapped sanctions on the Turkish defense industry.
A meeting in late March between Kılıçdaroğlu and the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara Jeff Flake infuriated Erdoğan, who saw it as an intervention in the elections and pledged to “close the door” to the U.S. envoy. “We need to teach the United States a lesson in this elections,” the irate president told voters.
In its policy platform, the opposition makes a clear reference to its desire to return to the F-35 program.
Russia and the war in Ukraine
After the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Turkey presented itself as a middleman. It continues to supply weapons — most significantly Bayraktar drones — to Ukraine, while refusing to sanction Russia. It has also brokered a U.N. deal that allows Ukrainian grain exports to pass through the blockaded Black Sea.
Highlighting his strategic high-wire act on Russia, after green-lighting Finland’s NATO accession and hinting Sweden could also follow, Erdoğan is now suggesting that Turkey could be the first NATO member to host Russian President Vladimir Putin.
“Maybe there is a possibility” that Putin may travel to Turkey on April 27 for the inauguration of the country’s first nuclear power reactor built by Russian state nuclear energy company Rosatom, he said.
Çeviköz said that under Kılıçdaroğlu’s leadership, Turkey would be willing to continue to act as a mediator and extend the grain deal, but would place more stress on Ankara’s status as a NATO member.
“We will simply emphasize the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO, and in our discussions with Russia, we will certainly look for a relationship among equals, but we will also remind Russia that Turkey is a member of NATO,” he said.
Turkey’s relationship with Russia has become very much driven by the relationship between Putin and Erdoğan and this needs to change, Ülgen argued.
Turkey brokered a U.N. deal that allows Ukrainian grain exports to pass through the blockaded Black Sea | Ozan Kose/AFP via Getty Images
“No other Turkish leader would have the same type of relationship with Putin, it would be more distant,” he said. “It does not mean that Turkey would align itself with the sanctions; it would not. But nonetheless, the relationship would be more transparent.”
Syria and migration
The role of Turkey in Syria is highly dependent on how it can address the issue of Syrians living in Turkey, the opposition says.
Turkey hosts some 4 million Syrians and many Turks, battling a major cost-of-living crisis, are becoming increasingly hostile. Kılıçdaroğlu has pledged to create opportunities and the conditions for the voluntary return of Syrians.
“Our approach would be to rehabilitate the Syrian economy and to create the conditions for voluntary returns,” Çeviköz said, adding that this would require an international burden-sharing, but also establishing dialogue with Damascus.
Erdoğan is also trying to establish a rapprochement with Syria but Syrian President Bashar al-Assad says he will only meet the Turkish president when Ankara is ready to completely withdraw its military from northern Syria.
“A new Turkish government will be more eager to essentially shake hands with Assad,” said Ülgen. “But this will remain a thorny issue because there will be conditions attached on the side of Syria to this normalization.”
However, Piccoli from Teneo said voluntary returns of Syrians was “wishful thinking.”
“These are Syrians who have been living in Turkey for more than 10 years, their children have been going to school in Turkey from day one. So, the pledges of sending them back voluntarily, it is very questionable to what extent they can be implemented.”
Greece and the East Med
Turkey has stepped up its aggressive rhetoric against Greece in recent months, with the Erdoğan even warning that a missile could strike Athens.
But the prompt reaction by the Greek government and the Greek community to the recent devastating earthquakes in Turkey and a visit by the Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias created a new backdrop for bilateral relations.
A Turkish drill ship before it leaves for gas exploration | Adem Altan/AFP via Getty Images
Dendias, along with his Turkish counterpart Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, announced that Turkey would vote for Greece in its campaign for a non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council for 2025-26 and that Greece would support the Turkish candidacy for the General Secretariat of the International Maritime Organization.
In another sign of a thaw, Greek Defense Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos and Migration Minister Notis Mitarachi visited Turkey this month, with Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar saying he hoped that the Mediterranean and Aegean would be a “sea of friendship” between the two countries. Akar said he expected a moratorium with Greece in military and airforce exercises in the Aegean Sea between June 15 and September 15.
“Both countries are going to have elections, and probably they will have the elections on the same day. So, this will open a new horizon in front of both countries,” Çeviköz said.
“The rapprochement between Turkey and Greece in their bilateral problems [in the Aegean], will facilitate the coordination in addressing the other problems in the eastern Mediterranean, which is a more multilateral format,” he said. Disputes over maritime borders and energy exploration, for example, are common.
As far as Cyprus is concerned, Çeviköz said that it is important for Athens and Ankara not to intervene into the domestic politics of Cyprus and the “two peoples on the island should be given an opportunity to look at their problems bilaterally.”
However, analysts argue that Greece, Cyprus and the EastMed are fundamental for Turkey’s foreign policy and not much will change with another government. The difference will be more one of style.
“The approach to manage those differences will change very much. So, we will not hear aggressive rhetoric like: ‘We will come over one night,’” said Ülgen. “We’ll go back to a more mature, more diplomatic style of managing differences and disputes.”
“The NATO framework will be important, and the U.S. would have to do more in terms of re-establishing the sense of balance in the Aegean,” said Aydıntaşbaş. But, she argued, “you just cannot normalize your relations with Europe or the U.S., unless you’re willing to take that step with Greece.”
[ad_2]
#2023s #important #election #Turkey
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
Not all Republican leaders are behind this approach. John Bolton, Trump’s third national security adviser who’s weighing his own presidential run, said unilateral military operations “are not going to solve the problem.” And House Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Mike McCaul (R-Texas), for example, is “still evaluating” the AUMF proposal “but has concerns about the immigration implications and the bilateral relationship with Mexico,” per a Republican staff member on the panel.
But the eagerness of some Republicans to openly legislate or embrace the use of the military in Mexico suggests that the idea is taking firmer root inside the party. And it illustrates the ways in which frustration with immigration, drug overdose deaths and antipathy towards China are defining the GOP’s larger foreign policy.
Nearly 71,000 Americans died in 2021 from synthetic-opioid overdoses — namely fentanyl — far higher than the 58,220 U.S. military personnel killed during the Vietnam War. And the Drug Enforcement Agency assessed in December that “most” of the fentanyl distributed by two cartels “is being mass-produced at secret factories in Mexico with chemicals sourced largely from China.”
Democrats, meanwhile, are allergic to the Republican proposals. President Joe Biden doesn’t want to launch an invasion and has rejected the terrorist label for cartels. His team argues that two issued executive orders already expanded law-enforcement authorities to target transnational organizations.
“The administration is not considering military action in Mexico,” National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said. “Designating these cartels as foreign terrorist organizations would not grant us any additional authorities that we don’t already have.” Instead, Watson said the administration hopes to work with Congress on modernizing the Customs and Border Protection’s technologies and making fentanyl a Schedule I drug, which would impose the strictest regulations on its production and distribution.
Gen. Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs chair, told Defense One in an interview last month that invading Mexico was a bad idea. “I wouldn’t recommend anything be done without Mexico’s support,” he said, insisting that tackling the cartel-fueled drug trade is a law enforcement issue.
But should a Republican defeat Biden in 2024, those ideas could become policy, especially if Trump — the GOP frontrunner — reclaims the Oval Office.
As president, Trump considered placing cartels on the State Department’s terrorist blacklist. He also asked about using missiles to take out drug labs and cartels in Mexico, according to former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who wrote in his memoir that he rejected the idea at the time.
But Trump backed away from the move because of the legal complications and fears that bombing Mexico could lead to increased asylum claims at the southern border.
Now a candidate, Trump is reviving his hawkish instincts toward the drug lords. He has already vowed to deploy U.S. special forces to take on drug cartels, “just as we took down ISIS and the ISIS caliphate.”
In one policy video released by his campaign, Trump said that if reelected, he would “order the Department of Defense to make appropriate use of special forces, cyber warfare, and other overt and covert actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure and operations.”
And during a recent presidential rally speech in Waco, Texas, Trump compared the number of deaths from fentanyl overdoses to a kind of military attack.
“People talk about the people that are pouring in,” Trump said. “But the drugs that are pouring into our country, killing everybody, killing so many people — there’s no army that could ever do damage to us like that still.”
Other 2024 candidates side with Trump. Using military force on cartels without Mexico’s permission “would not be the preferred option, but we would absolutely be willing to do it,” entrepreneur and conservative activist Vivek Ramaswamy said in an interview. What the cartels are doing “is a form of attack” on the United States, he added.
Ramaswamy also said he backs an authorization for the use of military force for “specific” groups: “If those cartels meet the test for qualifying as a domestic terrorist organization for the purpose of freezing their assets, I think that qualifies them for the U.S. president to view them as an eligible target for the use of authorized military force.”
Asa Hutchinson, the former Arkansas governor and among the more moderate foreign policy voices in his party, openly supports the foreign terrorist organization label for the cartels. “They meet the definition,” he said weeks before announcing his entrance into the 2024 field this month.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador is openly against any U.S. military involvement in his country to take on the cartels. “In addition to being irresponsible, it is an offense to the people of Mexico,” he said in March.
But Waltz, who serves on the House Armed Services Committee, noted that Colombia’s government was initially resistant to the idea of U.S. military support, too, until both the Clinton and Bush administrations said they were going to send help anyway. “It was only once we delivered some tough messages that they started to shift,” he said, noting attitudes in Bogotá changed as the situation worsened in the country.
Furthermore, Waltz contends that U.S. law enforcement is “overwhelmed by the magnitude of the problem by the capability of the cartels.” America should use military cyber weapons to disrupt cartel communications and money flow, he suggested, adding: “If we need some drone support along the border, that’s not something that a law enforcement agency can do, that’s something the military needs to help with.”
But current and former U.S. foreign policy and military officials, including Republicans, say there are glaring problems with the military proposals. “If you thought Iraq was a bad situation, wait until you invade a country on our border,” a House Republican congressional aide said. “Our grandchildren will be dealing with this.”
They cite two main concerns.
The first is that U.S. Northern Command assesses that 30 to 35 percent of Mexican territory is ungoverned, giving space for the drug cartels to roam free. Should the U.S. launch military operations in Mexico, a crush of people would find their way to U.S. ports of entry seeking asylum and their claims would be stronger by fleeing an active war zone involving U.S.-labeled terrorists.
“You’ve just legitimately made it harder to send thousands of people back,” the House GOP staffer said.
The second issue is that while using force against drug cartels might impact the supply side of the fentanyl crisis, it doesn’t address demand. And past examples of the U.S. military working with a nation to combat drug groups, like in Colombia, were successful, in part, because the host country was committed to the fight and conducted the operations.
There are other complications, such as what the terrorist label would mean for people selling drugs online or shipping them — would a FedEx delivery person be jailed? — and how to stop the sheer volume of imports to Mexico. The Mexican Navy can’t intercept it all, and U.S. forces asked to assist may only catch a small fraction more of what comes into the country.
Still, Republicans see military options as a last-ditch effort to address the crisis roiling Mexico and the United States, and they will continue offering suggestions until a president agrees with them.
“The worst thing we can do is continue to do nothing,” Waltz said.
Meridith McGraw and Natalie Allison contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#GOP #embraces #foreign #policy #Bomb #Mexico #stop #fentanyl
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Hyderabad: The Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) is the new nodal agency, of the newly launched Cool Roof policy, the state government announced here on Saturday.
Commissioner and Director Municipal Administration (CDMA) N Satyanarayana issued orders.
The DTCP will be in charge of implementing effective policies across urban local bodies (ULBs) statewide. However, the GHMC (Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation) and HDMA (Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority) will not come under DTCP.
The CDMA will share ULB-wise targets where its respective municipal commissioners will work on a target-based approach to ensure effective implementation of the Cool Roof policy.
The municipal commissioners have been asked to ensure that building applicants comply with the policy. The occupancy certificate will be issued only after thorough verification.
Gurugram: Haryana Chief Minister Manohar Lal Khattar on Saturday said that the state government is implementing a Zero Drop Out policy to ensure that no child in the state remains out of school by next year.
“Taking this initiative ahead, about 48 lakh children in the age group of 6 to 18 years are being tracked to know the status of their education,” Khattar said while addressing the students, parents and teachers at the inaugural ceremony of Satya School in Sector 49, Gurugram.
He further said that under this scheme, two schools in each of the 135 blocks of the state i.e a total of 270 PM-SHRI schools will be opened by next year.
“Education will be imparted according to the National Education Policy in these schools. The government has set a target to implement National Education Policy across the country by 2030 but in Haryana, it will be fully implemented by 2025,” he said.
The Chief Minisyter said around 5.5 lakh digital tablets were distributed to the students of classes X to XII to connect the children of government schools with technology. On the other hand, education is being imparted through smart classrooms in government schools in Haryana, he added.
Rakesh Bharti Mittal, Chairman of Satya School said, “Our Children are the hope of a better, progressive and happy tomorrow. We believe that every child is a born star with infinite innate potential, and education is a means to unleash that potential. Aligned with the National Education Policy of India, our students will be nurtured in a holistic learning environment and equipped with skills to take on the challenges of the fast-changing world.”
Srinagar, Apr 07: The School Education Department Friday said that there shall be no carrying of bag for the students of classes upto the preschool.
It also said that the weight of school bags for students of classes I and II shall not have more than 1.5 KGs.
According to the news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO), Director of School Education Kashmir (DSEK) has said, “The weight of the school bags as per the policy should be 1.5Kg for students of Classes I and II, 3Kg for Classes Ill and IV.”
The circular issued by the DSEK reads that the weight of school bags for classes VI and VII shall be 4Kgs and 5KGs for classes VIII and IX followed by 5.5 KGs for class X.
DSEK said, “In compliance to the directions passed in a Public Interest Litigation, School Education Department had made the amendment to JK School Education Act 2002 by inserting Rule 8A, which mandates School Heads to regulate weight of school bags and mandated Government to cancel affiliation and recognition of the school violating provisions of Rule 8A.
It also said that the rules that shall be added as Rule 8A include, “No homework is assigned to students of classes up to 2nd standard.”
The director also said that no formal books are prescribed at Nursery, LKG and UKG levels.
“However, students of these classes may be provided a maximum of two notebooks or work books to be kept in the teacher’s custody in the school itself,” it reads.
The circular also states that students of pre-primary level are not asked to carry any bag except light carrier for Lunch box.
“No Schools should prescribe any other subjects except Language and Arithmetic for class 1st and 2nd, Language, Environmental Science (EVS) and Arithmetic for class 3rd to 5th; and Language, Social Science, Mathematics and Science for class 6th and 7h, or as prescribed by the affiliating authority,” it reads.
DSEK further said that the students shall not be asked to bring additional books and extra material to school.
The circular reads, “Government may cancel affiliation and recognition of the school violating the provisions of rule 8A.”—(KNO)
