PRESIDENT WILSON ON THE WAR AGAINST GERMANY, 1917.

From the outbreak of the war president Wilson hoped to preserve American neutrality and from his vantage point, do what he could to bring about peace. As early as May 10, 1915, he addressed several thousand foreigners, after neutralization ceremonies, and made one of his most famous and controversial pronouncements.

In 1916, Wilson was re-elected president by a slender margin, no doubt on the basis of the slogan “he kept us out of war.” With this justification he directed a note to the belligerent government that would at least give them an honourable excuse to begin negotiations.

This failing he called congress together and delivered his carefully prepared address on “peace without victory”,  which was really directed at the people of warring countries. But he couldn't maintain his proud neutrality much longer. Just at this time the German government returned to unrestricted submarine war, and Wilson was obliged to appear again before congress with his proposal to break off relations with the German government.

And so on April 2, 1917, he asked  a hushed Congress, in a joint session, to declare that a state of war existed between the United States and Germany.

Akshara Bhargava

ISRAEL-GAZA CRISIS

Israel-Gaza crisis is a part of the Israel-Palestinian conflict that began in the twentieth century. The key issues of conflict are mutual recognition, borders, security, water rights, control of Jerusalem, Israeli settlement and Palestinian freedom of movement. Since 2006, the Palestinian side has been fractured by conflict between the two major factions: Fatah, the traditionally dominant party, and its later electoral challenger, Hamas.

In 2007, the majority of both Israelis and Palestinians preferred a two-state solution as a means of resolving the conflict. However mutual distrust and disagreements over basic issues are deep, as is the reciprocal scepticism about the other side’s commitment to upholding obligations in any eventual agreement. A hallmark of the conflict is the level of violence witnessed for virtually its entire duration. Casualties have not been restricted to the military, with a large number of fatalities in civilian population on both sides.

A number of legal issues concerning the conflict have arisen during course of the fighting. Various human rights groups have argued that both Palestinian rocket attacks and Israeli targeted destruction of homes of Hamas and other militia members violate international humanitarian law and might constitute war crimes.

The question is that if Hamas is a responsible, democratically elected political organization and wishes to serve the people, why does it violate the ceasefire, thereby provoking Israel to attack Gaza? Hamas-a terrorist organization elected in a democratic country-is of great harm to Gaza. Its motive is surely non-humanitarian as it wants to establish an Islamic state solely and wipe out the Jews.

The media reports on this issue have been very biased, showing Israel as a protector and Gaza as a destroyer. If Israel has the right to defend itself by launching air strikes that have destroyed Palestinian homes and schools, then surely Palestine has the right to protect them from the brutal and escalating Israeli violence.

Sambhavi Ganesh

HAS OBAMA'S VISIT THIS JANUARY MARKED THE BEGINNING OF A NEW ERA IN INDO-US RELATIONS?

India and the United States share a language but are separated by everything else.
These days, media is quite excited about the bubbling effervescence of Modi-Obama chemistry.
Now most of this excitement is due to the so called break through on the Indo-US nuclear deal
A close survey of the civil nuclear deal reveals that no such agreement was signed and even the negotiations were left to private companies. But it remains unclear if the agreement will persuade U.S. companies to invest. Despite all the talk about Obama’s pivot to India and the two countries being natural partners, Washington and Delhi maintain distinct interests, some of which overlap but most of which don't. Let us assume that the talks work out but even then the reactors, which India is going to purchase from American companies, are not operational in any part of the world today -  meaning that we do not have any idea of the associated risk.

Mycle Schneider, an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy, said, in a DW interview, that there is no real market for foreign nuclear companies in India, unless they bring their own funding. He added that the recent announcement is more about presenting both countries as equal partners than it is about the vision of a future blooming Indian nuclear export industry.
According to a survey the cost of the energy produced by US reactors will cost around 2000US$, while the cost of energy from the reactors which are operational in our country today cost 500US$ per megawatt.

All this will only help the dying US economy at the cost of expenditures by India, which we, as tax payers, pay.  This goes to show that India has kneeled before the pressure from American companies.  Apart from these favours that we have extended towards the United States of America, only two days after Obama’s  visit, White House’s Press sScretary John Ernst refused to consider Afghan Taliban a terrorist group, which continuously plans terror attacks in India - directly contradicting the statement of Barack Obama, in which he considered all terrorist groups the same.

India wants the United States to apply its considerable pressure on Pakistan to get it to stop these activities. But Pakistan, not India, remains Washington’s vital ally in the region. Washington needs Pakistan’s back for U.S. operations in Afghanistan and will not push Islamabad too hard on matters important to India, such as suspending support for alleged extremist groups or convicting the perpetrators of attacks.This, in turn, limits Indo-US relations.
After all, it was only a year ago that US diplomats were expelled from New Delhi amid widespread public outrage over the treatment of an Indian diplomat (Devyani Khobragade) in New York; that the then Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi, was still banned from entering the United States."
Thus US President Barack Obama's visit to India was more "symbolism" than substance amid "long-standing divisions".


Ankur Dhir

INTERNATIONAL YOGA DAY

Owing to the efforts of the Indian Prime Minister, 21st June has been declared as International Day of Yoga by the United Nations (UN). But with this declaration also came a number of controversies. The day is looked upon as a symbol of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Hindutva agenda. While that may or may not be true, the day’s validity lies in the fact that there are 177 countries sponsoring it and the decision was accepted unanimously in the UN, which is historic. During an era when the world runs on the principle of majoritarianism, a unanimous vote is significant.
Furthermore, the debate over the “ownership” of Yoga is not going to lead anywhere because, in the present day and age, nothing remains untouched by external cultural influences. From cuisines to art forms, everything has elements borrowed from other cultures that has enhanced their beauty. Yoga, today, has Indian roots along with having Western versions, because of the contribution of those like Indra Devi, and therefore cannot really belong to just one country - was never even intended to as its underlying objective is to liberate oneself. Unacceptable remarks by a select few send a wrong message about a group, as a whole, further widening the gap between them and others. Controversies surrounding the day only serve to highlight the tremendous, albeit unnecessary, importance placed on trivial issues, instead of focusing on bigger issues of morality and humanity.

All the same, merely assigning a single day to celebrate yoga and launching nation-wide preparations for the same, particularly for all government officials and students, is not going to be enough. Instead it should be performed voluntarily. To conclude, diversity requires a degree of compromise, respect, acceptance and peace from all stakeholders; otherwise, we will never be able to concentrate on matters that affect humanity as a whole.

Deepanshi Sharma

INDIA-KOREA 'ECO'-FRIENDLY RELATIONS!

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had embarked on another official visit to South Korea, after those to China and Mongolia. It was a visit that is not discussed often, but bears great significance as both the countries are up to celebrate this special friendship that dates back two thousand years ago.
History says that an Indian princess of the Kingdom of Ayodhya married a Korean king Kim Suro. Hence, such historic relations have strengthened further in the recent years.

Korea is emerging as an indispensable partner and friend that India cannot risk losing on its path towards growth and prosperity.
As one of the four Asian Tigers, South Korea has transformed itself dramatically from a country that was devastated by wars to one of the most advanced economies in a very short span of time.
The Korean companies such as Hyundai, LG, Samsung have become household names in India and have changed the everyday lives of Indian people. Both countries have taken advantage of this visit to remove all possible roadblocks or obstructions to India- South Korea economic cooperation.
As a manufacturing powerhouse, South Korea is considered to be an imperative partner that could provide significant support for India's attempt to increase manufacturing.
As a matter of fact, South Korean companies have already made large investments in the Indian manufacturing sector, and it is expected to increase only.
Defense manufacturing is another sphere where both, India and South Korea look to expand ties.

On the whole, economic relations and cooperation between these two countries will be profitable for both of them and  will also contribute to the Asian economy.

Shivani Malhotra

LALIT MODI AND THE RECENT CONTROVERSY

The NDA government  recently celebrated its first anniversary by claiming a corruption-free record, but the first blemish has emerged. The main issue in the present controversy relates to the propriety of the external affairs minister’s involvement in facilitating Lalit Modi’s request to British immigration authorities to let him travel to Portugal to attend to his wife’s serious illness.
Foreign minister Sushma Swaraj has so far enjoyed an impeccable career. But she committed an impropriety by coming to the aid of Lalit Modi, who is wanted for questioning on foreign exchange violations amounting to Rs. 425 crore from the time he was the chief of cricket’s Indian Premier League (IPL). He has a blue-corner notice pending against him at Indian ports and airports. However, citing ‘humanitarian grounds’, Swaraj turned to British Labour MP Keith Vaz, and the British High Commissioner in India to plead his case.

The   ‘humanitarian’ argument is specious. Lalit Modi had maintained that he needed to be present by his wife’s side because he had to sign ‘ consent papers’ for her surgery. But Portuguese laws do not stipulate any such compulsory procedure. Equally suspicious is the explanation trotted out by her supporters, that she not only acted out of the goodness of her heart but also because of her unalloyed nationalism: She rushed to provide succour to an Indian citizen in distress.
This Lalit Modi affair, which has embarrassed the Modi administration and the BJP for shining the torch on controversial close ties of former IPL Czar's with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj has many lessons for the government.  It is obvious that even ministers as senior as Sushma Swaraj have been unable – or unwilling – to understand conflict of interest issues. While Swaraj may have helped Lalit Modi to get his travel documents from the UK government purely out of humanitarian considerations, surely she could not have been unaware of the fact that her spouse and daughter had connections to him.

The Prime Minister must thus put in place rules for his ministers and bureaucrats so that when there is a conflict of interest involved, they must either be disclosed or they must distance themselves from these decisions.


Noble Ssrivastava 

COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS

The Commonwealth consists of 53 sovereign states and dominions that are united by voluntary sharing of the institution of monarchy, and by the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It stands on common principles – the sovereignty of the Crown coupled with individual autonomy, full and equal membership, and the right to freely join and leave the organization. 

The crown- The Queen is the symbol of free association between the members, whether they have monarchical systems or not - she is the Head of the commonwealth. The office has no powers or activities attached to it; nor does the Queen have any ministers to advise her. There is no question of sovereignty in this symbolic existence, except in countries like the UK, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and some other island nations, where she is the supreme head of state. For the heads of other governments, she is simply a living symbol with whom they have no direct political relationship. 

Individual autonomy- Republic nations have recognized the King(Queen) as the head of the Commonwealth. Although the Queen has no privileges and duties, this recognition of a status isn’t in any way undermining the national identity of the member countries. A former Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Robert Menzies said ‘it was a cynical error to suppose that when the first republican entered the Commonwealth door, the old sentiment flew out of the window’. 

Full and equal membership- From a rich white club of six members, the Commonwealth had grown, by the end of the 1960s, to 31 members. The most significant political landmark for the Commonwealth is the Indian decision to remain a member when it became a republic. So great was the emphasis upon the unity of the monarchy that it was debated whether a republic could continue to be a commonwealth member. India’s addition disposed off any doubts about the compatibility of nationalism and dignity with Commonwealth membership. The then Commonwealth had welcomed her with open arms. Had India not decided so, it is doubtful if any significant addition would have been made to the Commonwealth membership among other Asian, African and Caribbean countries. By the accession of India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka during 1947-48, the Commonwealth became, in the words of a former Prime Minister of Pakistan, ‘a multi-racial, a multi-cultural and a multi lingual Commonwealth.’ 

Free entry- The Commonwealth’s two most recent additions, Mozambique and Rwanda, have no historical ties to the British Empire; and there are more nations on the waiting list to join. 

Some countries have been suspended or expelled for being authoritarian and undemocratic, while some others have chosen to withdraw membership, such as Gambia, whose President Yahya Jammeh described it as a “neo-colonial institution”.

I have to be fair and mention that the Commonwealth has worked extensively in helping to bring an end to the injustice of apartheid in South Africa and aiding Sierra Leone to return to stability. It has brokered agreements between troubled neighbours in Africa, helped calm tensions during contested elections in fragile democracies, and advised small states in international negotiations and at the UN. An advantage of the organization is that it provides a chance for the smaller states to voice their opinions on the international stage. The less formal setting of the Commonwealth enables them to discuss issues that the UN might not consider significant. 

Sambhavi Ganesh