Tag: roadmap

  • Opinion | Ukraine Needs a Roadmap to NATO Membership ASAP

    [ad_1]

    lithuania russia ukraine war 66556

    This means taking steps to ensure that Ukraine 1) wins this war and reestablishes full control over its internationally recognized 1991 borders; and 2) is fully anchored in the security and economic arrangements that from 1945 until 2014 made Europe a continent of peace, prosperity and cooperation. The transatlantic community can only be stable and secure if Ukraine is secure. Ukraine’s entry into NATO, fulfilling the promise made at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, would achieve that.

    In Vilnius, NATO heads of state and government should offer an unequivocal statement of alliance support for Ukraine and for Kyiv’s aim of regaining sovereignty and territorial integrity within its 1991 borders. They should further underscore their readiness to supply Ukraine weapons — including longer-range missiles such as ATACMS, Western fighter planes and tanks — in sufficient quantities to prevail on the battlefield. This will demonstrate the allies’ unequivocal commitment to Ukrainian victory and send a clear message to Moscow that its military situation in Ukraine will only grow worse the longer the conflict continues.

    In Vilnius, the alliance should launch a roadmap that will lead clearly to Ukraine’s membership in NATO at the earliest achievable date. As with Finland and Sweden, the process can bypass the Membership Action Plan in light of the close and ongoing interactions between NATO and Ukraine. NATO heads of state and government should task the Council in permanent session to develop recommendations on the timing and modalities of an accession process for Ukraine for decision at the next NATO summit in Washington in 2024.

    To enhance Ukraine’s security until it joins NATO, NATO and Ukraine at Vilnius should establish a deterrence and defense partnership under which:

    · the allies will provide all necessary arms, training, equipment, and intelligence and other support to deter or defeat ongoing and new aggression by Russia; and

    · Ukraine will continue to carry out essential steps to expedite its integration into the alliance and its command structures.

    At the Vilnius summit, the allies and Ukraine should upgrade the NATO-Ukraine Commission to a NATO-Ukraine Council. The Council will oversee the deterrence and defense partnership and serve as a crisis consultation mechanism — in the spirit of Article 4 of the Washington Treaty — in the event of a threat to the territorial integrity, sovereignty, or security of Ukraine or any of the NATO member states.

    In Vilnius, the allies should reaffirm their commitment to enhance coordinated measures to meet Ukraine’s urgent needs for military and defense equipment, focusing directly on air defense systems, long-range missiles and necessary ammunition, tanks and advanced combat aircraft.

    To expand practical assistance to Ukraine, the allies should invite Ukraine to assign additional liaison officers at NATO headquarters and commands to support the launch of a joint process of developing a Ukrainian long-term national security strategy, national defense strategy, and national defense posture compatible with NATO standards and planning.

    The allies should also approve the updated Comprehensive Assistance Package to facilitate Ukraine attaining full interoperability with NATO forces and making a comprehensive transition to NATO standards. The focus should be on the transition to Western weapons systems; creation of a modern, NATO-compatible air and missile defense system; creation of a medical rehabilitation system for wounded soldiers, as well as a system for soldier reintegration into civilian life and a comprehensive demining effort.

    Vilnius can be a historic NATO summit. The above steps would bring closer NATO membership for Ukraine and, with it, the elimination of gray zones and ambiguous security situations that have proven to be an invitation to aggression. The result would be a more stable, secure, and prosperous transatlantic community.

    Signed:

    Stephen E. Biegun
    Former U.S. deputy secretary of state

    Hans Binnendijk
    Former director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council; distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council

    Stephen Blank
    Senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute

    Gen. Philip Breedlove (ret.)
    U.S. Air Force, 17th Supreme Allied Commander Europe; distinguished professor at the Sam Nunn School, Georgia Institute of Technology

    Ian Brzezinski
    Former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO Policy; senior fellow at the Atlantic Council

    Dora Chomiak
    Chief executive officer at Razom for Ukraine

    Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.)
    U.S. Army, 12th Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; senior fellow at the UCLA Burkle Center

    Luke Coffey
    Senior fellow at the Hudson Institute

    Andrew D’Anieri
    Assistant director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center

    Larry Diamond
    Senior fellow at the Hoover Institution; senior fellow at Stanford University

    Amb. Paula Dobriansky
    Former under secretary of state for global affairs

    Amb. Eric S. Edelman
    Former under secretary of defense for policy 2005-2009

    Evelyn Farkas
    Executive director of the McCain Institute; former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia

    Daniel Fata
    Former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Europe and NATO; senior advisor, Center for Strategic and International Studies

    Amb. Daniel Fried
    Former assistant secretary of state for Europe and Eurasia; former U.S. ambassador to Poland

    Francis Fukuyama
    Senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

    Melinda Haring
    Nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center

    Amb. John Herbst
    Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine; senior director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center

    Maj. General William C. Hix (ret.)
    U.S. Army

    Lieut. Gen. Ben Hodges (ret.)
    Former commanding general, U.S. Army Europe

    Donald N. Jensen
    Adjunct professor at the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University

    Andrea Kendall-Taylor
    Former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia

    Amb. John Kornblum
    Former U.S. ambassador to Germany

    David Kramer
    Former U.S. assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights, and labor; executive director at the George W. Bush Institute

    Franklin Kramer
    Distinguished fellow and board director at the Atlantic Council; former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs

    Matthew Kroenig
    Vice president and senior director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security

    Jan M. Lodal
    Distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council

    Lieut. Gen. Doug Lute (ret.)
    Former U.S. Army; former U.S. ambassador to NATO 2013-17

    Jane Holl Lute
    Former deputy secretary of homeland security

    Shelby Magid
    Deputy director at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center

    Tom Malinowski
    Former U.S. member of Congress; senior fellow at the McCain Institute

    Nadia McConnell
    President of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation

    Robert McConnell
    Co-founder of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation; director of external relations at the Friends of Ukraine Network

    Amb. Michael McFaul
    Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia; director at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University

    Amb. P. Michael McKinley
    Former U.S. ambassador to Peru, Colombia, Afghanistan, and Brazil

    Amb. Carlos Pascual
    Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine

    Amb. Steven Pifer
    Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine

    Amb. Stephen Sestanovich
    Former U.S. ambassador-at-large for the former Soviet Union 1997-2001; senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations; professor at Columbia University

    Amb. Andras Simonyi
    Former Hungarian ambassador to NATO; nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council

    Angela Stent
    Nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution

    Amb. William B. Taylor
    Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine

    Amb. Alexander Vershbow
    Distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council; former NATO deputy secretary general; former U.S. ambassador to Russia and South Korea

    Amb. Melanne Verveer
    Former U.S. ambassador-at-large for Global Women’s Issues; executive director at the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security

    Alexander Vindman
    Lieutenant Colonel (ret.), U.S. Army

    Amb. Kurt Volker
    Former U.S. ambassador to NATO; former U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations

    Amb. Marie Yovanovitch
    Former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine

    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Ukraine #Roadmap #NATO #Membership #ASAP
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • National strategy, roadmap formed to boost medical tourism: Govt

    National strategy, roadmap formed to boost medical tourism: Govt

    [ad_1]

    Delhi: The Ministry of Tourism has formulated a national strategy and roadmap for medical and wellness tourism in order to boost medical tourism in the country, said Union Minister G Kishan Reddy in Lok Sabha on Monday.

    According to the Ministry of Tourism, the strategy has identified several pillars including developing a brand for India as a wellness destination, strengthening the ecosystem for medical and wellness tourism, enabling digitalization by setting up Online Medical Value Travel (MVT) Portal, enhancement of accessibility for medical value travel, promoting wellness tourism and governance and institutional framework

    The Minister said the central government liberalized the e-Tourist Visa Scheme pursuant to the Cabinet approval on November 30, 2016 and the e-Tourist Visa (eTV) scheme was renamed to e-Visa scheme and at present, it has e-Medical Visa and e-Medical Attendant Visa as sub-categories of e-visa.

    In the case of e-Medical Visa and for e-Medical Attendant Visa, triple entry is permitted and extension may be granted up to six months on case to case basis on the merits of each case by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO)/Foreigners Registration Officer (FRO) concerned. Medical Attendant Visa was co-terminus with the validity of the principal e-Visa holder, the Minister informed.

    Further, as conveyed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, it is coordinating with other Ministries and stakeholders to promote medical value travel in the country. Several rounds of stakeholder consultations have been conducted with line Ministries, Hospitals, MVT facilitators, Insurance Companies and NABH etc to identify the challenges and opportunities in the sector, said the Ministry of Tourism statement.

    [ad_2]
    #National #strategy #roadmap #formed #boost #medical #tourism #Govt

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Lack of clarity blurs KCR’s roadmap for a ‘Third Front’

    Lack of clarity blurs KCR’s roadmap for a ‘Third Front’

    [ad_1]

    Hyderabad: Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao had long been talking of an alternative to both the BJP and Congress and even made efforts to bring regional parties together. But his roadmap has remained ambiguous.

    His move to turn the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS) into Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) to play a key role in national politics may lead to confusion among opposition ranks, especially in the absence of any clarity as to how the party plans to expand to states ruled by opposition parties and what it wants to achieve.

    According to political observers, the public speeches made by KCR, as the Chief Minister is popularly known, in recent weeks indicate that he is trying to put forth an alternative national agenda with strong focus on the Telangana model of development.

    The BRS chief on several occasions stated that he was not looking to form a front of some parties to come to power.

    Stating that the country has seen many fronts in the past, KCR has called for an alternative agenda and a new political force for the country’s development.

    An observer pointed out that there has been a contradiction in what KCR says. On some occasions, he blamed both the BJP and Congress for all the problems faced by the country due to their wrong policies over the last 75 years.

    At times, he also underlined the need to bring like-minded parties together to throw BJP out of power.

    In August last year, he even gave a call for a “BJP-mukt Bharat” by 2024 by throwing out the saffron party from the country and protecting the nation from its “religious madness”.

    The opposition camp has however, remained suspicious about KCR’s real intentions. The Congress party dubbed him ‘B’ team of the BJP.

    “KCR has been impacting the Congress-led UPA umbrella. Barring the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), all the parties he is trying to join hands with were either part of UPA or were considered friendly to Congress,” observed analyst Palwai Raghavendra Reddy.

    The analyst pointed out that KCR wooed parties like DMK, RJD, SP and JMM. This is seen as an attempt to isolate the Congress.

    Last month, the maiden public meeting of BRS at Khammam was attended by the Chief Ministers of Delhi (Arvind Kejriwal), Punjab (Bhagwant Mann) and Kerala (Pinarayi Vijayan) as well as SP chief Akhilesh Yadav and CPI general secretary D. Raja.

    While leaders from other parties praised KCR for taking the initiative of bringing together leaders of various opposition parties, there was no clarity if they are ready to work together. They were also silent on TRS turning into BRS to expand its footprint in various states.

    Political observers say while all the speakers were unanimous on the need for the opposition parties to work together to throw the BJP out of power, they were not clear on how they planned to achieve the goal.

    KCR used the occasion to take the leaders to Yadadri temple to show the renovation works undertaken by his government. The leaders of other parties also attended the inauguration of an integrated office complex in Bhadradri Kothagudem district and KCR also explained to them the Kanti Velugu programme undertaken by his government for free eye screening of 1.5 crore people.

    At the public meeting, he made some promises the BRS would fulfil after coming to power at the Centre or by playing a key role in the formation of the next government.

    KCR was expected to unveil the national agenda of BRS but he told the gathering that this would be done soon. With focus on his slogan of ‘ab ki baar kisaan sarkar’, he gave a glimpse of the agenda.

    There was no clarity on how BRS plans to expand its footprints to states where non-BJP parties are in power.

    KCR is planning another public meeting in Hyderabad on February 17, his birthday. It is scheduled after the inauguration of the new building of the Telangana Secretariat.

    Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin, Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Tejashwi Yadav, JD(U) national president Lalan Singh as representative of Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar have been invited for the inauguration and the public meeting.

    However, political analysts see this as another attempt by KCR to showcase the Telangana model to the state leaders.

    The BRS government which named the new Secretariat complex after Dr B.R. Ambedkar, has also invited his grandson Prakash Ambedkar for the inauguration.

    KCR had earlier stated that the new secretariat building will reflect the pride of Telangana and would stand as a role model for other states.

    “KCR seems to be building a narrative for the Assembly elections scheduled to be held towards the end of the year. By inviting leaders of other parties and by organizing various programmes, he is trying to show that it is the Telangana model of development which everyone in the country is talking about. He apparently believes that this will ultimately help him win another term and at the same time project himself as pan-India leader,” says a senior journalist.

    KCR has been planning a national foray since 2018. After retaining power in Telangana, he held a series of meetings with leaders of various parties including West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee to cobble up together what was proposed to be a federal front.

    However, with the BJP returning to power at the Centre in 2019 with a clear majority, all his hopes were dashed.

    KCR, who often came under attack from Congress for supporting demonetization and even the three controversial farm legislations brought by the Central government, revived his efforts to form an alliance in 2021 after turning a bitter critic of the BJP-led government.

    He visited Punjab, Bihar and Jharkhand to distribute assistance to families of soldiers killed in clashes with Chinese troops during the Galwan face-off and also to the kin of farmers who died during the protests against the three farm laws.

    KCR has been trying to build a narrative around his national aspirations. He is highlighting the failures of the Centre during the last eight years and the achievements of the BRS government during the same period.

    T Raghavendra Reddy believes that KCR and some of his fellow aspirants for the Prime Minister’s post might realise that Congress cannot be wished away from a contest, and the Grand Old Party is the only counterweight to the saffron party across many states.

    “KCR is in a dilemma where he can neither align with Congress nor bring others together without Congress being in the equation,” he said.

    When KCR first mooted the idea of a national alternative, he was targeting both BJP and Congress, blaming them for the problems faced by the country. This stand was not in sync with other regional parties who see BJP as the number one enemy and were not averse to joining hands with the Congress.

    Last year, the BRS chief appeared more critical of BJP than Congress. He had even dropped hints of softening his stand towards Congress by saying the priority of all parties should be to throw out the Narendra Modi government at the Centre.

    However, he subsequently preferred his previous stand of ‘equi-distance’ from both the BJP and Congress. It was for this reason that the BRS stayed away from the meeting of opposition parties called by Mamata Banerjee to discuss the strategy for Presidential elections.

    KCR made it clear that his party will not be part of a meeting where the Congress was invited.

    Since BRS considers Congress as its main opponent in Telangana, KCR did not wish to be seen rubbing shoulders with the leaders of that party at the national level.

    However, in the interest of larger opposition unity, KCR declared support to Yashwant Sinha, the joint candidate of the opposition parties in the presidential election.

    KCR’s son and TRS working president K.T. Rama Rao along with party MPs was present when Sinha filed the nomination.

    Though KCR held a series of meetings last year with leaders of various political parties including Shiv Sena, DMK, RJD, SP and JD (S), no consensus could be reached on forging a front as an alternative to both BJP and Congress.

    The much-awaited meeting between KCR and his West Bengal counterpart did not take place and despite the attempts made in the past KCR could not have Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy on board as both the BJD and YSRCP continue to extend support to the Modi government on key bills in Parliament.

    [ad_2]
    #Lack #clarity #blurs #KCRs #roadmap #Front

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )

  • Delhi HC directs DSLSA to produce roadmap for PLVs in police stations

    Delhi HC directs DSLSA to produce roadmap for PLVs in police stations

    [ad_1]

    New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday directed the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) to produce a roadmap for implementing its scheme to place Para-Legal Volunteers (PLVs) in 50 police stations to aid people in instances involving missing children and crimes against children and how the Supreme Court’s directions will be taken forward in the matter.

    A division bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing a criminal reference to streamline the functioning of the juvenile justice delivery system under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Rules framed therein.

    In September of last year, the Supreme Court had also issued an order directing all State Legal Services Authorities and Legal Services Authorities of Union Territories to develop schemes as soon as possible for the appointment of PLVs in police stations to work on cases.

    It had directed the circulation of the DSLSA’s scheme to be used by the states and UTs as a model for framing the schemes.

    Appearing for the AAP government, advocate Nandita Rao submitted that they are looking after it actively and that they will file a reply before the next date of hearing.

    The court listed the matter for the next hearing on January 31.

    “What more is required is to implement the scheme in letter and spirit. Come up with a roadmap,” Justice Mridul told DSLSA Special Secretary Sushant Chngotra.

    The court said that it is within the mandate of the Juvenile Justice Act and has to be done on a war footing.

    Subscribe us on The Siasat Daily - Google News

    [ad_2]
    #Delhi #directs #DSLSA #produce #roadmap #PLVs #police #stations

    ( With inputs from www.siasat.com )