2017: The year the US lost its mojo

violence shows no signs of slowing down.

ADVERTISING

WA Sales Manager

Ram Naidu 0435 581 571

National Sales

Vivek Trivedi 02 9262 1766

Advertising Assistant Charuta Joshi 02 9279 2004

Indian Link is a fortnightly newspaper published in English. No material, including advertisements designed by Indian Link, may be reproduced in part or in whole without the written consent of the editor. Opinions carried in Indian Link are those of the writers and not necessarily endorsed by Indian Link. All correspondence should be addressed to Indian Link

Level 24/44 Market St, Sydney 2000 or GPO Box 108, Sydney 2001

Ph: 02 9279-2004 Fax: 02 9279-2005

Email: info@indianlink.com.au

BY PAWAN LUTHRA

Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America in January this year. His elevation to the top job, and actions in it, have taken the world by surprise - to put it lightly. Known for his “bombastic” style of management, with more experience in reality TV than tactful diplomacy, Trump has set the United States down a path where it may face difficulty in maintaining its global leadership on a wide variety of issues.

Twice already this century, the US has been at war: first in Afghanistan in 2001, in retaliation to the terrorist attacks on US soil, and the follow-up, the 2003 war against Iraq, which has been seen by those who should know as unwanted and wrong. Not only has this war cost US taxpayers over $2 trillion, but more significantly, thousands of lives have been lost. With a proxy war in Syria looming, this propensity for

Trump burst onto the international scene in a year when the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a group that works to promote nuclear disarmament around the world. And yet, under Trump, the possibility of a nuclear war with North Korea has increased exponentially, and the long-standing nuclear deal between US and Iran faces the likelihood of standing no more. In the Qatar-Saudi Arabia diplomatic rift, while Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson attempted to bring about reconciliation, the President himself lauded the Saudis for their “hard but necessary” move. Under his leadership, the US appears more content with confrontation rather than negotiation. His latest announcement of recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital has been rebuked by almost all the international leaders, including the UK Prime Minister, the Turkish President, the French President, the Saudi King and even the Pope.

President Trump has blasted the United Nations, semantically criticising them as “not a friend of democracy… not a friend to freedom…not a friend to the USA” and withdrawing his country from UNESCO. Subsequently, while the US has been acting like a bull in a china shop, China is increasingly seen around the world as a power to be dealt with - extending to its rivals an economic embrace through its One Belt, One Road policy, meeting international environment preservation targets, and creating alliances with Russia to increase its influence in the World Trade Organisation. Why is this important?

With economic might comes the ability to influence other geo-political situations, as one nation (and one nation only) sees fit. China is Africa’s largest trading partner and experts believe that Africa carries an enormous diplomatic weight in shifting the political influence away from a US- and a Western-worlddominated world order.

Without question, the United States’ mojo has diminished in the first year of Trump’s presidency, and with three years before the next election, its influence seems to be heading in only one direction. What India must do in response, is adjust its global aspirations - caught politically, diplomatically, at times ethically and of course geographically, between these two giants.

NOT QUITE A ‘DEMON’?

APARAJITA GUPTA’s piece questioning the efficacy of India’s demonetisation drew some sharp reactions

Raghbjha wrote: This is a highly one-sided article that chooses to portray what it wants to portray and ignores the rest. So, all the data on the amount of suspicious deposits in some bank accounts, the number of shell companies closed, the ease of passage to the GST and many others are all irrelevant, according to the author of this article. Also, the article chooses to ignore the fact that the government prepared the economy for the demonetisation through opening up of Jan Dhan accounts and giving tax dodgers a chance to come clean. All this happened before demonetisation. The appropriate counterfactual for assessing the impact on economic growth is what the growth would have been had there been no demonetisation - not the actual rate of economic growth. In any case, growth picked up after one quarter of decline. Future growth will be faster, cleaner and more sustainable and inclusive.

Prakash Mehta wrote: This is a biased article on demonetisation in India due to many reasons. First, ordinary people had several opportunities to open up bank accounts (including Jan Dhan accounts) in which they could deposit their old currency notes. Second, those who had dodged taxes were given a generous opportunity to come clean, declare their assets, pay their dues and become part of the legitimate economy. Hence, the only people whose wealth positions were adversely affected by demonetisation were the dishonest. Others were affected only temporarily and to the extent that they had to stand in queue to withdraw cash and/or deposit money. Second, black money in the Indian economy has come down substantially. More than 300,000 shell companies that were being used for money laundering have been closed. Hundreds of thousands of suspicious deposits into bank accounts have been identified and will be pursued. A strong benami law and a regulatory authority for real estate are functional. Third, the tax base of the economy has gone up sharply as numbers of both direct and indirect tax payers have gone up. This will enable the government to spend more on health, education and infrastructure, among other things. Fourth, digitisation of the economy has rapidly expanded.

Fifth, the shrinking of the informal economy has meant that the country could adopt the GST which has led to the creation of a unified Indian market for the first time since Independence.

WHO WORE IT BETTER?

We asked who looked better in the Delpozo dress, Hillary Swank or Sonam Kapoor?

Vishal Gupta wrote: Dress ki bhi gharwapsi ho gayi… from hot to sanskari