The planned investment, worth about $53 million from each backer, would give the two investors strategic exposure to one of Korea’s five licensed won-based cryptocurrency exchanges. Coinone is expected to use the funds to expand digital asset services beyond spot trading, with particular emphasis on products that can link regulated securities markets with blockchain-based settlement infrastructure.

The transaction is being structured largely through new share issuance, allowing fresh capital to enter Coinone rather than merely transferring ownership between existing shareholders. That approach is important for the exchange, which has faced intense competition from larger platforms while regulators examine market concentration, governance standards and investor protection rules across the country’s virtual asset sector.

Coinone remains a recognised name in Korea’s crypto market, but it operates in a trading landscape dominated by Upbit and Bithumb. Together, the two largest platforms account for the overwhelming majority of domestic crypto volume, leaving smaller exchanges under pressure to find strategic partners, stronger balance sheets and differentiated business lines. Coinone, Korbit and Gopax have struggled to match the scale, liquidity and brand strength of the two leaders.

For OKX, the investment offers a route into one of Asia’s most active yet tightly supervised digital asset markets. Korea has a large retail crypto trading base, high mobile adoption and deep familiarity with digital finance. At the same time, its rules for exchanges, banking partnerships, anti-money laundering checks and token listings remain demanding, making local partnerships more practical than a direct market entry.

Korea Investment & Securities’ participation gives the deal a domestic financial-sector anchor. The brokerage’s involvement points to growing interest among mainstream financial institutions in digital assets, particularly where crypto infrastructure intersects with regulated investment products. Its presence could also help Coinone build credibility as tokenised securities and stablecoin-linked services move from policy debate to commercial planning.

Stablecoins are emerging as a major focus for Korean policymakers and financial firms. Draft frameworks have examined reserve backing, issuer licensing, bankruptcy protection and the treatment of foreign-issued tokens. Any exchange seeking to distribute or support won-linked stablecoins would need to meet strict requirements around custody, disclosure, redemption and transaction monitoring.

Tokenised securities present a separate but related opportunity. Korea has been working to formalise rules for blockchain-based issuance and trading of securities, opening a path for financial firms to experiment with fractional ownership, faster settlement and programmable compliance. Coinone’s planned expansion into this area would require coordination with securities firms, custodians, banks and regulators, making the Korea Investment & Securities partnership commercially significant.

The investment also reflects a wider consolidation trend. Binance’s earlier move into Gopax, Mirae Asset’s interest in Korbit-related opportunities and Hana Bank’s move into Dunamu’s shareholder base show that crypto infrastructure is no longer being treated only as a speculative trading venue. Larger financial groups are positioning for a future in which digital assets, payments and securities platforms converge under stronger regulation.

Coinone’s challenge will be to convert new capital into sustainable market share. Competing on trading fees alone may not be enough against Upbit and Bithumb, which benefit from scale, liquidity and network effects. A more viable path could involve institutional services, stablecoin settlement, tokenised investment products and corporate digital asset solutions.

Regulatory approval and final documentation remain central to the transaction. Earlier discussions around Coinone drew caution from parties involved, with no binding agreement confirmed at that stage. The latest investment plan indicates that negotiations have advanced, though the strategic value of the deal will depend on execution, ownership terms and the pace at which Korea finalises digital asset legislation.

For OKX Ventures, the stake fits a wider investment focus on on-chain capital markets, real-world asset tokenisation and infrastructure that improves settlement efficiency. Coinone offers an established local licence, a recognised brand and access to Korean won trading rails. For Coinone, the partnership brings capital, global market links and a stronger foundation for product expansion.

The deal comes as Korea’s crypto sector faces both opportunity and scrutiny. Retail trading remains active, but regulators are pushing exchanges to strengthen internal controls, listing standards and customer safeguards. Operational lapses at major platforms have sharpened calls for tighter oversight, while financial institutions are lobbying for clearer rules that allow regulated participation.

Arabian Post – Crypto News Network

The article OKX deepens Coinone digital asset push appeared first on Arabian Post.

Washington’s push to regulate digital assets has entered a sharper phase after Senator Bernie Moreno accused major banks of trying to block stablecoin competition as Congress prepares for a decisive test of the CLARITY Act this week.

Moreno, a Republican from Ohio and one of the Senate’s most vocal crypto advocates, said the “banking cartel” was “in full panic mode” over legislation that could reshape the relationship between conventional finance and digital money. His intervention followed an intensified lobbying drive by banking groups seeking tighter restrictions on rewards and incentives linked to payment stablecoins.

At the centre of the dispute is H. R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, which is scheduled for consideration by the Senate Banking Committee on May 14. The measure seeks to define when digital tokens fall under securities law, when they should be treated as commodities, and how crypto platforms should register with federal regulators. The House of Representatives passed the bill in July 2025 by a bipartisan vote of 294 to 134, but its Senate path remains politically fragile.

The fight has narrowed around stablecoins, digital tokens generally pegged to the dollar and backed by reserves such as Treasury bills, cash or bank deposits. Crypto firms argue that stablecoins can lower payment costs, accelerate settlement and expand access to financial services. Banks counter that poorly drafted rules could encourage deposit flight from regulated lenders into lightly supervised crypto instruments, reducing the credit available to households and businesses.

Banking groups have asked senators to strengthen language preventing crypto firms from offering interest-like payments on stablecoin holdings. They argue that any loophole allowing rewards, rebates or incentives equivalent to yield would create deposit-like products outside the banking system. Crypto advocates say the industry is not trying to recreate bank accounts, but to build a faster payments infrastructure that can compete with legacy settlement networks.

A compromise under discussion would bar passive yield on idle stablecoin balances while permitting rewards linked to actual payment activity. That distinction has become the fulcrum of the Senate debate. For the crypto industry, allowing transaction-based rewards is essential to preserving commercial use cases. For banks, the wording could still open a channel for platforms to attract funds away from insured deposits.

Moreno’s language reflects growing frustration among pro-crypto lawmakers who believe banks are using financial stability arguments to protect incumbency. His comments also signal how digital asset regulation has moved from a niche policy issue to a broader contest over consumer deposits, payment rails and the future structure of finance.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott has put the bill on the committee calendar as Republicans seek to deliver a market-structure framework before election-year politics make cross-party compromise harder. The legislation would expand the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s role in overseeing digital commodity spot markets while preserving Securities and Exchange Commission authority over assets that meet securities-law tests.

Democratic support remains the decisive variable. Several Democrats have raised concerns over illicit finance, investor protection and potential conflicts of interest linked to crypto policy. Any Senate floor vote would need broader bipartisan backing, particularly given the political sensitivity of digital assets under President Donald Trump, whose administration has embraced a more crypto-friendly posture.

The banking industry’s resistance also comes after stablecoin regulation moved ahead through separate legislation. The earlier GENIUS Act created a federal framework for payment stablecoins, including reserve and oversight requirements. The CLARITY Act goes further by addressing market structure, token classification, exchange registration and the boundaries between securities and commodities regulation.

Global regulators are watching the Senate debate closely. Central bankers in Europe and the United Kingdom have warned that dollar-backed stablecoins could create cross-border stability risks if they grow quickly without common standards. Their concerns centre on convertibility during market stress, the quality of reserves and the possibility that payment activity could migrate outside traditional banking channels.

Digital asset companies see the bill as a turning point after years of enforcement-driven oversight. Coinbase, Circle and other major crypto firms have argued that clear rules would allow compliant platforms to operate without constant legal uncertainty. Market participants also view the measure as a signal that Washington may be moving from regulatory confrontation towards formal integration of crypto into the financial system.

Arabian Post – Crypto News Network

The article Stablecoin fight sharpens before Senate vote appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Dr. Gyan Pathak

BJP won the West Bengal election with the most recognizable face leading from the grassroots to the state level against Mamata led TMC is Suvendu Adhikari. He also defeated TMC supremo CM Mamata Banerjee from Bhabanipur Vidhan Sabha constituency. Naturally, he is seen as the most suitable candidate for Chief Minister post by common people, but not by the BJP’s state and central leadership, many of them betrayed some unspecified internal discomfort ever since the election results were announced on May 4. Suvendu Adhikari himself have contributed in the internal discomfort by making some rash statements, of which the most damaging to the party, both domestically and internationally, was his saying that he will work for the Hindus of Nandigram, because they have voted for him, while Muslims voted for TMC.

Apart for Bhabanipur Vidhan Sabha Constituency, Suvendu also won Nandigram Vidhan Sabha Constituency. He had defeated Mamata Banerjee from Nandigram in 2021, after he had switched over to BJP from TMC. He was a minister and deputy in the CM Mamata led government until he left her in 2020. After winning in 2021, he became leader of the opposition in the West Bengal Vidhan Sabha, and continuously opposed Mamata and her government. He was the chief architect of an escalated anti-establishment sentiment against Mamata, which ultimately unseated her from the power in 2026.

BJP’s central and state leadership recognize his contribution in party’s win, but they have been feeling a deep discomfort too on account of his statements. For example his recent statement in relation to his win in Nandigram has just reversed Modi’s “Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas” (With all, development for all) slogan to “Jo Hamare Sath, Hum Uske Saath” (Who is with us, we are with them). He did not stop at that. He continued – We had said to save Hindus and the Constitution. I talked about nationalist Muslims. You all sloganeered – Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas. Then Suvendu said with folded hand – We will not say all that from now.

When everybody is criticizing Mamata Banerjee for saying that she will not resign from the Chief Minister’s post, the BJP leadership is busy in assessing the pros and cons of not making Suvendu chief minister of the state, chiefly on account of the internal discomfort that Suvendu has created by his statements. Choosing a chief minister who says that he will work for those who votes for him, is not only unethical but also against Modi’s slogan of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas”. It is also against the Constitution of India. How can BJP legitimately choose a person a chief minister who says he will work for the community who voted for him, referring a community that not voted for him?

What goes in favour of Suvendu Adhikari is that he has strong backing of some central BJP leaders. He has also the largest support base in the state from the grassroots level to the state level rank and file in comparison to any other state BJP leader. Therefore, the central leadership will run a risk if they antagonize him by not making him chief minister of the state.

However, there are many BJP leaders who do not like Suvendu Adhikari to be chief minister of the state on account of his arrogance. They are lobbying that he must not be made chief minister of the state. This has made to rethink the central leadership before announcing any name for the post of chief minister. A legislative party meeting is scheduled to be held on May 8 in the evening, which will decide its chief minister, in the presence for central BJP leadership.

In the meantime, an RSS-BJP lobby is asserting that Suvendu is new entrant in the party, and hence he must not be made chief minister. Some old RSS-BJP leader should be made chief minister of the state. They have proposed several names for the post. One of the suggestions made before the central BJP leadership is that a woman should replace the woman chief minister Mamata Banerjee. This suggestion has some attraction because PM Narendra Modi and the BJP has always been talking about Nari Shakti, and recently they tried to push Women’s Reservation Bill in the Lok Sabha.

The most important issue before the central BJP leadership is that how to keep the Bengali diverse electorate in favour of the party until the Lok Sabha election 2029. Reversing “Sabka Sath, Sabka Vikas” may prove counterproductive for the party. Many BJP leaders in the state and at the central level have already distanced themselves from Suvendu’s statement of working for those who voted them.

The other point of consideration for the central BJP leadership is that a West Bengal chief minister typically needs support beyond its core vote bank on account of cultural diversity in the state. Aggressive communal messaging may be beneficial during elections, but is not good during party’s rule. BJP leadership also wants not to give any political tool in the hands of TMC supremo Mamata in the state, INDIA bloc across India, and to the International community. They may like a less controversial face as chief minister, but then there is a risk of stiff opposition from the Suvendu Adhikari’s support base among BJP’s rank and file. (IPA Service)

The article Selecting Chief Minister Of West Bengal Is A Delicate Task For BJP Leadership appeared first on Latest India news, analysis and reports on Newspack by India Press Agency).

The article Selecting Chief Minister Of West Bengal Is A Delicate Task For BJP Leadership appeared first on Arabian Post.

Hoskinson, who co-founded Ethereum before building Cardano through Input Output Global, said in an interview that he had been excluded from key conversations despite Cardano’s sustained engineering output. His remarks landed as development metrics showed Cardano ahead of several larger-profile networks in cumulative code activity, adding weight to a long-running grievance among its supporters that the project’s technical work receives less attention than rival ecosystems.

Token Terminal’s code-commit tracker places Cardano at about 477,800 all-time commits, ahead of Ethereum at about 423,900 and XRP at about 409,800 among tracked blockchain projects. The metric measures public repository updates and is often used as a rough indicator of developer activity, though it does not by itself establish user adoption, revenue strength or institutional demand. Cardano-focused outlets and community accounts have treated the ranking as evidence that the chain remains one of the sector’s most active engineering environments, even as ADA has struggled to command the same market narrative as Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana or XRP.

Hoskinson’s complaint reflects a broader tension inside crypto as regulation, exchange listings, exchange-traded fund speculation and lobbying access increasingly shape market perception. Ethereum retains the deepest developer ecosystem, the largest decentralised finance footprint and broad institutional recognition. XRP has benefited from its payments narrative, a large retail base and years of legal and regulatory attention. Cardano, by contrast, has often positioned itself as a research-driven blockchain that prioritises formal methods, peer-reviewed design and slower execution.

That deliberate approach has cut both ways. Supporters argue that Cardano’s engineering discipline makes it more resilient and better suited for long-term financial infrastructure. Critics counter that the network has often lagged rivals in decentralised finance liquidity, stablecoin depth, venture backing and headline application growth. Total development activity is therefore an important signal, but not a complete answer to questions about market traction.

The latest debate also comes as Cardano advances several technical initiatives intended to address long-standing concerns around scalability and usability. Hydra, its layer-2 scaling framework, is moving towards version 2.0 after work on simplifying the protocol and reducing operational friction. The project is designed to improve transaction throughput and lower costs while preserving Cardano’s security model. Parallel work on Leios aims to strengthen base-layer performance, while Mithril and other infrastructure tools are intended to make node operation, synchronisation and application development easier.

Midnight, a privacy-focused partner chain associated with the Cardano ecosystem, has also become central to Hoskinson’s 2026 strategy. The network uses zero-knowledge technology and a dual-token model built around NIGHT and DUST, with the stated aim of giving users programmable privacy without turning the system into a traditional privacy coin. Its backers argue that privacy, identity and selective disclosure will become essential for real-world blockchain adoption, especially in financial services and enterprise settings.

Regulation remains the largest external variable. Hoskinson has criticised legislative approaches that, in his view, risk classifying major networks such as Cardano, Ethereum and XRP as securities from launch. His position places him in the middle of a policy battle over how decentralised networks should be assessed, what disclosures token projects should make, and whether Washington’s crypto framework will favour older, better-connected players.

Arabian Post – Crypto News Network

The article Cardano code push deepens access row appeared first on Arabian Post.

Police in San Francisco arrested a 20-year-old man after a Molotov cocktail was thrown at the home of OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman, in an attack that was followed within an hour by threats against the company’s headquarters, according to police statements and OpenAI. No injuries were reported, but the episode has sharpened concerns over the security risks facing senior technology executives as arguments over artificial intelligence grow more heated.

Officers said they were called at 4:12am on Friday, April 10, after an unknown male allegedly threw an incendiary device at a residence in the North Beach area, setting an exterior gate alight before fleeing on foot. Police later received another call about a man threatening to burn down a separate building elsewhere in the city. Officers recognised him as the same suspect and detained him. OpenAI said the targeted home belonged to Altman and that the second incident involved threats at its headquarters.

Authorities had not, at the time of the initial reports, publicly released the suspect’s name, filed charges or set out a clear motive. That left investigators to piece together whether the incident was driven by personal grievance, ideological hostility towards artificial intelligence, or a broader mental health crisis. The absence of injuries prevented the case from becoming a mass-casualty event, but it did little to soften the seriousness of an attack involving a crude firebomb aimed at one of the most visible figures in the global AI industry.

OpenAI responded by confirming Altman’s home had been targeted and by thanking the San Francisco Police Department for what it described as a swift intervention. The company said it was assisting the investigation and focused its public remarks on employee safety after the headquarters threat. That wording suggested a deliberate attempt to reassure staff and investors without inflaming an already charged public argument over the pace, power and governance of advanced AI systems.

Altman’s prominence helps explain why the incident is resonating far beyond San Francisco. He has become one of Silicon Valley’s central voices on both the promise and the dangers of artificial intelligence, speaking frequently about productivity gains, scientific advances and the need for safety guardrails. His profile rose further after the 2023 boardroom crisis at OpenAI, when he was briefly removed as chief executive before being reinstated within days under a reworked governance structure. That dramatic episode cemented his status as both a corporate leader and a lightning rod in the debate over who should control powerful AI models.

The attack also lands at a moment when the politics of AI have become more combustible. Developers, regulators, academics and campaign groups have been clashing over how quickly frontier systems should be deployed, how transparent companies should be about risks, and whether commercial competition is outrunning public safeguards. Those disputes have typically unfolded through lobbying, court action, open letters and fierce online exchanges. Friday’s violence marked a far more dangerous turn, bringing to the surface the possibility that rhetorical escalation around AI can spill into criminal acts aimed at people and property.

Security specialists have long warned that technology executives now face a threat environment once more commonly associated with politicians, judges and high-profile financiers. The combination of intense online visibility, polarising public narratives and fast-moving misinformation can make senior figures symbolic targets. In Altman’s case, his association with ChatGPT and the wider scramble for generative AI dominance has placed him at the centre of disputes over jobs, copyright, surveillance, misinformation and even existential risk. That breadth of criticism does not explain an individual act of violence, but it does form the backdrop against which such an incident is being interpreted.

For OpenAI, the incident adds another layer of pressure at a time when the company is already under close scrutiny over governance, competition and safety. A physical attack on its chief executive’s home, combined with threats at its offices, is likely to intensify internal reviews of executive protection, office access and crisis procedures. It may also deepen a wider industry shift towards heavier security around senior leadership, particularly for companies building systems that attract unusually intense public fascination and fear.

The article Attack on Altman home sparks alarm appeared first on Arabian Post.

Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence company xAI has sued Colorado in federal court, opening a fresh front in the widening US battle over how far states can go in policing the use of advanced algorithms in decisions affecting jobs, housing, education, healthcare and finance. The complaint, filed on April 9, seeks to block enforcement of Colorado’s Senate Bill 24-205 before it takes effect on June 30, arguing that the law violates constitutional protections for speech, is too vague to enforce fairly and places an unlawful burden on interstate commerce.

At the centre of the dispute is Colorado’s attempt to create one of the broadest state-level frameworks in the country for limiting what the law calls “algorithmic discrimination”. The statute requires developers of “high-risk” AI systems to use reasonable care to protect consumers from foreseeable discriminatory effects, disclose material risks to deployers and the attorney general, and publish public statements describing how such risks are managed. It also places obligations on deployers, including impact assessments, annual reviews, consumer notices and a route for human review of adverse decisions where technically feasible.

xAI says those requirements would force it to redesign or constrain Grok, its flagship model, in ways that amount to compelled speech on politically contested issues. Reuters reported that the company argues the measure would require Grok to reflect Colorado’s views on diversity and discrimination rather than what xAI describes as an objective output. In the complaint, xAI goes further, saying the statute leaves key terms such as “high-risk artificial intelligence system”, “algorithmic discrimination” and “historical discrimination” so open-ended that developers cannot know with confidence what conduct is required and what conduct is prohibited.

The filing also reflects a larger commercial and political campaign against a patchwork of state AI rules. xAI argues that a company with no offices in Colorado should not have to reshape products developed and deployed elsewhere merely because a Colorado resident may be affected by their use. That line of attack fits with broader industry lobbying for a single national framework, and it comes as the White House has pushed for federal legislation that would give developers more certainty and could pre-empt competing state regimes.

Colorado, for its part, has presented the law as a consumer-protection measure aimed at high-stakes decisions where biased or opaque automated systems can cause measurable harm. The attorney general’s office says the law is designed to guard against algorithmic discrimination in consequential decisions involving education, employment, financial services, essential government services, housing, insurance and legal services. It also requires businesses to tell consumers when they are interacting with an AI system. These provisions place Colorado well ahead of most states, which have tended to regulate narrower slices of AI risk rather than impose a broad cross-sector framework.

Yet resistance to the statute has not come only from Silicon Valley. Governor Jared Polis signed the bill in May 2024 with reservations, and lawmakers later delayed implementation from February 1, 2026, to June 30, 2026 through Senate Bill 25B-004. That postponement followed concern among businesses, policymakers and legal advisers that the original regime was too burdensome, too ambiguous and too difficult to operationalise without further revision. Legal and policy analysts have since pointed to draft overhaul efforts and working-group proposals that would narrow or replace parts of the existing framework, underscoring that Colorado itself has been wrestling with how much regulation is practical.

That tension explains why the case matters beyond Musk’s company. Supporters of Colorado’s approach see a test of whether states can step in when Congress has failed to establish binding nationwide safeguards for AI systems that influence life-changing outcomes. Critics see a warning that poorly defined rules may chill development, raise compliance costs and expose developers to uncertain liability before technical and legal standards have matured. The lawsuit places those competing visions squarely before a federal judge at a moment when lawmakers in Washington are still struggling to translate broad concern about AI harms into durable legislation.

The article xAI challenges Colorado’s AI bias rules appeared first on Arabian Post.

Walsh, widely known in the industry as Willie Walsh, is currently director general of the International Air Transport Association and is due to take up the IndiGo role by August 3, 2026, after his IATA term ends on July 31, subject to regulatory and security clearances. Before leading IATA, he served as chief executive of British Airways and later of International Airlines Group, the parent company of British Airways, Iberia and other carriers. That background gives IndiGo a chief executive with experience spanning pilots’ operations, legacy airline restructuring, international expansion and trade-body advocacy.

The leadership change is significant because it follows a difficult period for IndiGo, whose rapid growth has also exposed strains in operations and staffing. Reuters reported that Elbers resigned after regulatory scrutiny linked to the airline’s handling of pilot rest and duty rules, following thousands of flight cancellations in December. Rahul Bhatia, IndiGo co-founder and managing director of promoter group InterGlobe Enterprises, had stepped in on an interim basis. Bringing in Walsh suggests the board wanted an external figure with global credibility and enough independence to steady operations while preserving the carrier’s long-term growth plans.

For IndiGo, the choice is also about scale. The airline holds roughly 65 per cent of the domestic market, according to Reuters, making it not merely a successful low-cost carrier but the central force in the country’s aviation market. That dominance has helped it build a strong cash-generating base at home, yet it also raises the pressure to prove it can translate domestic strength into a broader international network without letting reliability slip. Walsh arrives as the airline is trying to balance fleet growth, customer service, regulatory compliance and overseas ambition in a market where passengers are increasingly price-sensitive but also less tolerant of disruption.

His appointment may reassure investors and lessors who value experience at a time when the global airline industry is still dealing with supply-chain bottlenecks, aircraft delivery delays, engine issues and fluctuating fuel costs. At IATA, Walsh has spent the past several years commenting on exactly those pressures, from safety and profitability to cargo demand and trade shifts. That does not automatically make him an easy fit for IndiGo’s low-cost, execution-heavy culture, but it gives him a broad vantage point over how airlines are adapting to tighter margins and uneven global demand.

There is, however, another side to the appointment. Walsh’s career has been built largely in full-service and multi-brand international airline groups rather than in a pure low-cost model of the kind that made IndiGo successful. Critics may ask whether a leader shaped by European consolidation and global lobbying is the right match for a carrier whose reputation rests on fast turnarounds, tight cost control and consistent domestic execution. Supporters will counter that IndiGo is no longer a straightforward low-cost story. As its aircraft orders grow and its international reach deepens, the airline needs a chief executive who can negotiate complex regulation, manage global partnerships and command authority well beyond its home market.

Walsh’s own profile could become an asset as IndiGo tries to sharpen its identity from dominant domestic operator to more influential international player. He began his career as a cadet pilot at Aer Lingus in 1979 and later ran both Aer Lingus and British Airways before taking charge of IAG. That trajectory matters because IndiGo is moving into a stage where fleet strategy, global slots, bilateral rights and premium long-haul competition matter more than they did when the airline was focused chiefly on the home market. Boardrooms, regulators and suppliers all know Walsh, and that can give IndiGo added leverage as it pushes outward.

The article Walsh takes cockpit at IndiGo appeared first on Arabian Post.

By T N Ashok

NEW YORK: For seven decades, American diplomats danced around Kashmir with the precision of tightrope walkers, carefully avoiding any gesture that might suggest the United States had chosen sides in South Asia’s most intractable territorial dispute. Maps were scrubbed of political meaning. Statements were lawyered into studied neutrality. From Truman to Obama, the message was consistent: Kashmir is for India and Pakistan to resolve.

That era ended this week—not with a White House address or State Department briefing, but with a map. Buried inside a trade graphic released by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, accompanying the newly announced India-U.S. Trade Framework, was a cartographic statement of rare clarity: Jammu and Kashmir depicted in its entirety as Indian territory, including regions administered by Pakistan since 1947.

There was no fanfare, no press conference, no carefully parsed explanation. The map simply appeared—vetted, approved, published—as part of a document celebrating a landmark $500 billion trade agreement between Washington and New Delhi.

For Pakistan, the message could not have been starker. For India, it was validation without triumphalism. For the region, it marked the moment when America’s economic and strategic priorities finally aligned its cartography with reality.

The Kashmir conflict has outlasted the Cold War, survived four India-Pakistan wars, and defied countless mediation attempts. Its origins trace to the chaotic partition of 1947, when Maharaja Hari Singh, ruler of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, acceded to India after armed tribal militias from Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province invaded his territory. Indian troops secured roughly two-thirds of the state; Pakistan consolidated control over the remainder, creating what it calls Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan—and what India describes as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.

The defining mistake came in 1948. Despite holding a military advantage, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took the dispute to the United Nations, accepting a ceasefire that froze the front lines. That decision—rooted in faith in international institutions and fear of escalation—ensured Kashmir would never be resolved on the battlefield but endlessly replayed in diplomacy, insurgency, and terrorism.

The 1972 Shimla Agreement between Indira Gandhi and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was supposed to end it. Both countries committed to bilateral resolution and respect for the Line of Control. Pakistan, having just suffered a devastating military defeat and lost East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), appeared to accept reality. It didn’t last.

For Pakistan’s military establishment, Kashmir has never been merely territorial—it is existential. The dispute serves as the foundational justification for the army’s dominance over civilian politics, the rationale for outsized defense budgets, and the glue binding national identity to perpetual confrontation with India.

Over decades, Islamabad shifted tactics from diplomacy to deniability. The late 1980s saw the rise of a Pakistan-backed insurgency in Indian-administered Kashmir, followed by cross-border militancy, proxy warfare, and attacks that brought the nuclear-armed neighbours to the brink multiple times.

Today, that institutional obsession is embodied in Army Chief Asim Munir, who has eclipsed Pakistan’s elected leadership to become the country’s de facto power broker. His recent visits to Washington were widely interpreted as attempts to revive Pakistan’s strategic relevance, particularly as America disengages from Afghanistan and refocuses on great-power competition with China.

Yet on Kashmir, Washington did not oblige. Munir received polite audiences and transactional pleasantries. What he didn’t get was the one thing Pakistan has sought for decades: American doubt about India’s territorial claim.

In Washington’s bureaucratic machinery, maps are not accidents. They are vetted by lawyers, cleared by policy staff, and approved at senior levels. Every border, every shading, every territorial designation carries diplomatic weight.

Which makes the Trade Representative’s map all the more significant. Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Trade Representative behind the document, authorized a quiet revolution in American positioning. By depicting Kashmir as Indian territory in official U.S. government materials, the map effectively closed the door on Pakistan’s long-running effort to internationalize the dispute.

The timing amplifies the message. The India-U.S. Trade Framework represents far more than commerce—it signals India’s emergence as a pillar of American strategy in the Indo-Pacific. With bilateral trade targeted at $500 billion and expanding into manufacturing partnerships, technology cooperation, and supply-chain integration, India is no longer just a market. It is a geopolitical counterweight to China and an indispensable partner in reshaping global economic architecture.

Pakistan, by contrast, offers diminishing returns. Asim Munir, who prided himself before the Pakistan political hierarchy as supremo with his proximity to Trump, has now turned into a Toast from the Toast he enjoyed at White House luncheon, not too long ago. Such successes don’t endure for long.

The contrast between how Washington treats New Delhi and Islamabad has rarely been so stark. While Asim Munir was “toasted at the White House,” as one Indian analyst put it, the substantive outcomes were thin. President Trump’s apparent warmth toward Pakistan’s army chief is transactional, not transformational—focused on narrow counterterrorism cooperation and potential (though problematic) access to rare earth deposits in violence-wracked Balochistan.

Those resources, however, are neither vast nor easily exploitable, controlled in practice by military-linked networks even as Baloch insurgents intensify attacks on infrastructure and Chinese interests. Pakistan’s utility to Washington is limited, conditional, and shrinking.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi secured what Pakistan has sought and failed to obtain for generations: American alignment with India’s territorial claims, embedded not in rhetoric but in official documentation.

The symbolism is unmistakable. Munir, the shadow prime minister who arrived in Washington seeking strategic rehabilitation, left with handshakes but no substantive shift in American policy. Modi, without travelling to Washington at all, received cartographic recognition that fundamentally altered the diplomatic landscape.

It’s a volte face without drama. What makes this moment remarkable is its subtlety. There was no presidential statement on Kashmir, no public rebuke of Pakistan, no diplomatic grandstanding. Instead, the United States embedded its position inside a trade narrative—where it could be dismissed as technical boilerplate yet remain unmistakable to those who understand how Washington signals policy. This is diplomacy by stealth, but no less consequential for it.

For seven decades, American presidents navigated Kashmir with caution. Truman backed UN internationalization. Eisenhower proposed partition plans that India rejected. Kennedy tried leveraging the 1962 China war for concessions. Nixon tilted toward Pakistan during the Bangladesh crisis. Clinton called Kashmir “the most dangerous place in the world” but backed India during the 1999 Kargil conflict. Obama explicitly ruled out mediation.

Each administration calibrated its approach based on Cold War calculations, South Asian crisis management, or counterterrorism imperatives. None redrew the map. Until now. Why does the silence matter now, so significantly? That much of the international media missed or underplayed this shift reflects how Kashmir has become background noise—a dispute so familiar that only explosions register anymore. Quiet signals, even consequential ones, are easily overlooked. But in South Asia, quiet signals endure.

For Islamabad, the message is uncomfortable: decades of lobbying, UN resolutions, and international appeals have failed to move Washington’s cartography. For New Delhi, it represents validation of a position long dismissed by Pakistan as illegitimate occupation. For the region, it suggests that American policy has finally aligned its maps with its economic and strategic priorities.

The Kashmir dispute will not vanish. It will remain contested, militarized, and unresolved. Insurgency may flare; diplomatic tensions will persist. But the era in which Pakistan could plausibly hope that external powers would question India’s sovereignty over the territory appears to be closing.

The map seems like a Big Thank You from White House for closing finally the $530 bn deal that had been in the works for so long contested hotly on agricultural access on one side and technological access on the other.

In the cold calculus of great-power competition, gestures carry weight. The map is, in effect, Washington’s quiet thank-you to New Delhi for committing to a trade framework that reshapes economic geography in the Indo-Pacific and provides alternatives to Chinese manufacturing dominance.

It is also a message to Beijing, which has long used Pakistan as a counterweight to India and invested heavily in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor running through Pakistan-administered Kashmir—territory that both India and the United States now, through this map, implicitly reject as legitimately Pakistani.

The shadow prime minister who came seeking strategic renewal left empty-handed. The elected prime minister who didn’t even need to ask received what Pakistan has demanded for seventy-seven years—and was denied. This time, the tectonic plates of South Asian geopolitics shifted not with an earthquake but with a cartographer’s pen. Not with a bang. But with a map. (IPA Service)

The article India Have Reasons To Be Happy At Big U.S. Switch On The Status Of Kashmir appeared first on Latest India news, analysis and reports on Newspack by India Press Agency).

The article India Have Reasons To Be Happy At Big U.S. Switch On The Status Of Kashmir appeared first on Arabian Post.

The push sets up a high-stakes test for digital-asset regulation on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers have spent years grappling with how to oversee trading platforms, stablecoins and decentralised finance without stifling innovation. Republicans argue that the absence of clear federal rules has driven investment offshore and left consumers exposed, while many Democrats say guardrails around consumer protection, financial stability and illicit finance remain insufficient.

At the centre of the debate is a package that would assign clearer jurisdiction between market regulators, establish registration and disclosure standards for crypto intermediaries and create a framework for dollar-linked stablecoins. Banking Committee leaders say the legislation is ready for floor consideration and that delay risks prolonging regulatory uncertainty. “We’ve negotiated in good faith and reached a point where the Senate should weigh in,” the committee chief said, according to people briefed on the discussions.

Democrats counter that process matters as much as pace. Members aligned with the Agriculture Committee, which oversees derivatives markets and has cultivated a reputation for bipartisan deal-making, say talks are still active on enforcement powers and the treatment of decentralised protocols. Their concern is that a rushed vote could lock in provisions that are difficult to amend later, particularly if party-line margins narrow options for revisions.

Industry groups and major exchanges have intensified lobbying as the vote approaches, warning that the United States risks ceding leadership to Europe and parts of Asia that have already enacted comprehensive crypto regimes. Executives argue that clarity would unlock institutional participation and reduce the patchwork of state-level rules. Consumer advocates respond that past failures in the sector show why speed should not trump scrutiny, pointing to losses from platform collapses and fraud.

The political calculus is complicated by the Senate’s narrow margins and the need for at least some Democratic support to clear procedural hurdles. While Republicans can advance the bill through committee and set it on the calendar, final passage typically demands cross-party backing to avoid extended floor fights. Some Democrats from states with growing fintech footprints have signalled openness, provided changes address anti-money-laundering controls and the role of banking regulators.

Behind the scenes, negotiators are weighing whether amendments can bridge the gap. Proposals under discussion include tighter reserve requirements for stablecoin issuers, clearer authority for federal agencies to police misconduct and phased implementation to give regulators time to build capacity. Supporters say such tweaks could attract swing votes without reopening the entire package.

The Agriculture Committee’s stance underscores the split strategy. Its leaders maintain that a bipartisan version remains achievable and warn that bypassing that work could undermine durability. Legislation passed on narrow lines, they argue, is more vulnerable to reversal under future Congresses or legal challenge. Banking Committee Republicans dismiss that risk, noting that years of talks have already yielded concessions and that perfect consensus may be unrealistic.

Market participants are watching closely. Prices across major digital assets have tended to react to legislative signals, reflecting expectations about compliance costs and market access. Analysts caution, however, that any short-term volatility will hinge on the bill’s details rather than the vote itself, especially provisions affecting custody, capital requirements and the classification of tokens.

Arabian Post – Crypto News Network

The article Republicans push crypto vote amid Democratic doubts appeared first on Arabian Post.

For years, the cryptocurrency debate has centred on price. Every discussion returned to charts, volatility, and market speculation. The fixation on value swings has distracted from a much more important story.

The future of digital finance is not about price movement. It is about infrastructure.

Regulated stablecoins are emerging as the foundation of a new global financial system. They combine the trust of established currencies with the speed and efficiency of blockchain technology, and they are moving from the fringes into the heart of the monetary system.

Across Europe, the UK, and the United States, regulators are finalising frameworks that bring stablecoins firmly within the financial mainstream. These rules represent a turning point. They legitimise a technology once treated as an outsider and open the path to large-scale adoption.

Stablecoins were once seen as tools for traders to escape volatility. They are now becoming the rails of the next generation of payment systems. This evolution marks a structural shift in how money circulates and how economies connect.

Ethereum’s creation laid the foundation. Its designers envisioned a decentralised computer that could execute transactions automatically and transparently. From that vision grew an ecosystem now managing hundreds of billions of dollars. For years, it operated separately from traditional finance, using only native tokens.

Stablecoins changed that. By linking blockchain tokens to real-world currencies, they enabled a bridge between decentralised and traditional systems. Anyone with an internet connection could access dollar-based assets directly, bypassing banks and intermediaries.

The growth has been extraordinary. Leading issuers have become some of the most profitable businesses in existence, achieving this in an uncertain regulatory climate. The period of ambiguity is now ending, replaced by clearer and more consistent oversight.

Europe’s MiCA regulation and the US GENIUS Act establish comprehensive standards for issuance and supervision. The shift in tone is remarkable. Policymakers once viewed stablecoins as speculative risks. Now they are recognised as strategic financial tools.

In Washington, legislators see stablecoins as a way to strengthen the dollar’s influence. Because most are backed by US Treasuries, every token issued increases demand for government debt. This supports both the dollar’s global position and America’s fiscal strength.

Such alignment between public policy and private innovation is rare. Stablecoins are reinforcing the dollar’s role while offering new efficiencies for global markets.

Regulation, however, comes with complications. Under MiCA, issuers and intermediaries cannot pay interest to holders, ensuring all returns from the reserves go to the issuer. The US framework takes a more flexible approach. While issuers themselves cannot pay interest, affiliated platforms can. This distinction is already shaping competition in the market.

Yield offerings on regulated dollar tokens have drawn the attention of banks, which are lobbying for tighter boundaries. They see the risk of losing traditional advantages as the digital finance model expands.

Meanwhile, established financial institutions are entering the sector at speed. Banks, asset managers, and payment companies are developing their own blockchain systems. Many are opting for private networks that prioritise compliance and control. These systems are efficient but centralised.

Public blockchains provide a different model. They are open, transparent, and accessible to anyone. Both approaches will compete for adoption in the years ahead, defining how much openness the future financial system allows.

Central banks remain part of the contest. They continue to explore digital currencies, but progress has been slow. Stablecoins are already operational, regulated, and used globally. As this gap widens, the private sector gains the advantage. Governments have built the guardrails but have yet to lead with their own innovation.

The result is likely to be a hybrid system. Central banks will continue issuing base money, while regulated private issuers provide programmable layers for settlement and payments.

The model mirrors the evolution of the internet, where closed systems gave way to open networks.

The benefits are substantial. Stablecoins enable instant global transfers, automated financial contracts, and real-time treasury management. They streamline cross-border trade, corporate finance, and remittances.

Beyond payments, tokenisation opens entirely new frontiers. Financial logic can now be encoded in software, allowing self-executing contracts and decentralised risk management. Artificial intelligence systems can deploy capital within preset parameters. These innovations are already in practice, not distant speculation.

The speculative era defined the first decade of cryptocurrency. The next will be about structure, regulation, and scale.

Stablecoins sit at the centre of this new phase. They are transforming digital finance from an experiment into an operational part of the global economy. What began on the fringes of technology is now forming the foundation of modern money.

The transition is underway. The challenge for established financial institutions isn’t whether to engage, but how fast they can adjust to a system already being rebuilt around them.

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Stablecoins are redefining global finance appeared first on Arabian Post.

By K Raveendran

When Google announced that Visakhapatnam would be home to its $15 billion project to build the company’s first artificial intelligence hub in India, the news landed like a thunderclap across the southern states. For Andhra Pradesh, it was nothing short of a jackpot — a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rewrite the state’s economic and technological future. But elsewhere, the announcement was received with clenched teeth and forced smiles. The jubilation in Visakhapatnam was matched by muted agony in Chennai, Bengaluru, and Thiruvananthapuram — each of which had been quietly confident that they, not a coastal city known more for its beaches than its bandwidth, would be Google’s chosen one.

The symbolism of the selection has not been lost on anyone. Visakhapatnam, or Vizag as it is fondly called, is now set to become India’s newest tech lodestar, a place that will host one of the world’s most ambitious AI research and development centres. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu has wasted no time calling it a ‘vote of confidence’ in the state’s digital readiness, even describing it as the ‘New India’s Silicon Shore’. His government, which has long been seeking to diversify Andhra’s industrial portfolio beyond agriculture and port-based industries, suddenly has a global validation it could not have bought with any amount of lobbying.

But success stories have their shadow sides, and in this case, the shadows fall heavily on Google’s neighbouring states. For Karnataka, which has long prided itself as the undisputed technology capital of India, the loss was unexpected and painful. Bengaluru has been the natural home of all things digital for decades. It has hosted the crème de la crème of global IT giants, from Microsoft and Amazon to Meta and IBM. Yet, this time, the seemingly obvious choice lost out. The murmurs in the city’s business circles suggest that congestion, rising costs, and infrastructural fatigue may have tilted the balance against Bengaluru. Google, known for its penchant for planned expansion and work-life balance, might have preferred Vizag’s relative quiet and expansive geography over Bengaluru’s chaos.

Tamil Nadu, however, has taken the blow more personally. The irony is difficult to miss: Sundar Pichai, the man at the helm of Google, is a Tamil by birth, and yet his company chose to set up its most high-profile Indian investment in Andhra Pradesh, bypassing his home state. Opposition parties in Tamil Nadu have weaponised this irony with glee. They accuse Chief Minister M. K. Stalin of failing to make Tamil Nadu competitive enough to attract marquee investments, even from a son of the soil. In political rallies and social media exchanges, the refrain has been relentless: “Even Pichai ditched his own land.” The narrative has touched a raw nerve in a state that prides itself on its legacy of education, science, and entrepreneurship.

Stalin has tried to soften the blow by citing the ongoing expansion of Foxconn’s manufacturing operations in Tamil Nadu as evidence that the state remains a major investment magnet. He reminded critics that the Taiwanese giant’s investment of Rs 15,000 crore in Tamil Nadu is no small feat. But Foxconn’s own clarification that the investment is not new — only an extension of earlier commitments — has punctured the argument. The perception, as always in politics, has mattered more than the fact. Tamil Nadu finds itself caught between pride and envy: proud that one of its sons heads Google, envious that his biggest Indian investment has landed just across the border.

Kerala’s reaction has been subtler but no less telling. The state government, which rarely misses a chance to highlight its achievements as an emerging knowledge economy, finds itself nursing a quiet disappointment. The irony here is sharper still: Thomas Kurian, the CEO overseeing the Google AI hub project, is a Malayali. For years, Kerala has positioned itself as the thinking state — literate, skilled, globally connected. The government’s digital evangelism, its startup missions, and its rhetoric of ‘brain over brawn’ had created a belief that it was only a matter of time before the big tech boys came calling. But when they finally did, they went to a different door. Vizag’s triumph is, by extension, Thiruvananthapuram’s embarrassment.

The choice of Visakhapatnam thus tells a bigger story about India’s tech geography being redrawn. For too long, India’s digital power map has been dominated by a few southern cities — Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad, and to some extent Pune. Google’s decision signals a possible decentralisation of that concentration. It suggests that global investors may now be looking beyond traditional clusters, seeking new frontiers where infrastructure can be built afresh rather than wrestled out of crowded megacities. For Andhra Pradesh, it is a validation of the government’s patient efforts to rebuild its post-bifurcation identity around technology and sustainability. The creation of a tech corridor anchored in Vizag may well become a model for second-tier cities aspiring to leapfrog into global relevance.

Industry watchers note that the choice of Vizag aligns with Google’s new-age expansion philosophy — one that prioritises environmental sustainability, digital inclusiveness, and social infrastructure over mere brand geography. The company reportedly found in Vizag a rare mix of coastal connectivity, renewable energy availability, and untapped urban potential. It is also said that the state government offered an unusually attractive policy package, including long-term land leases, tax incentives, and custom-built digital infrastructure support. In contrast, older metros like Bengaluru and Chennai, already burdened by overpopulation and policy fatigue, might not have matched that enthusiasm.

There is also a subtle political subtext. The Modi government at the Centre has been pushing aggressively for development beyond traditional metros as part of its “Viksit Bharat 2047” vision. The selection of Vizag fits neatly into that narrative — a story of tier-two India rising to global prominence. Though Google insists its decision was purely based on merit and logistical factors, political optics are rarely irrelevant in such mega investments. Andhra’s ability to align its pitch with the national narrative of regional empowerment may have helped it clinch the deal.

Meanwhile, in the boardrooms of Chennai, Bengaluru, and Thiruvananthapuram, the post-mortems continue. The irony of two southern sons — Sundar Pichai and Thomas Kurian — choosing a neutral territory between their home states for India’s most ambitious AI project is not lost on anyone. It reminds that corporate decisions, however emotionally interpreted, are seldom sentimental. They follow logic, opportunity, and sometimes, the winds of change. (IPA Service)

The article Google’s AI Hub: Visakhapatnam’s Jackpot, South India’s Heartburn appeared first on Latest India news, analysis and reports on Newspack by India Press Agency).

The article Google’s AI Hub: Visakhapatnam’s Jackpot, South India’s Heartburn appeared first on Arabian Post.

For decades, the Muslim Brotherhood has loomed large in the Western imagination, often described as the ideological mothership of global Islamism. To many policymakers in Washington, London, or Brussels, the name alone has become shorthand for a wide spectrum of Islamist activity. Yet, this perception is increasingly divorced from reality. The Brotherhood, fractured and in disarray since its downfall in Egypt, no longer commands the sweeping influence it once aspired to. At the same time, treating the movement as irrelevant risks ignoring its enduring ideological legacy and the dangers posed by its offshoots and imitators.

The Muslim Brotherhood was once a formidable force, especially in the mid-20th century, when Egyptian exiles and migrants spread its ideas far beyond Cairo. By the 1980s, its international leadership attempted to centralize authority through a body known as the “International Organization.” But infighting, regional rivalries, and divergent priorities eroded cohesion.

Branches in the Gulf, North Africa, and even Jordan increasingly charted their own paths. In Sudan, Hassan al-Turabi forged a distinct Islamist vision. In Jordan, Hamas created deep fissures within the local Brotherhood. By the time Egypt’s short-lived Brotherhood government was toppled in 2013, the organization had already lost much of its grip. Competing leaderships sprouted in Doha, Istanbul, and London, and newer factions declared the “old guard” irrelevant.

Today, remnants of the Brotherhood resemble abandoned franchises—still recognizable in name but lacking unified command, structure, or strategy. Even the death in 2022 of Ibrahim Mounir, a senior Brotherhood figure in London, passed with barely a whisper among Islamists in Europe and North America.

Yet, paradoxically, in the West the Brotherhood still commands an outsize focus. Policymakers, journalists, and analysts routinely invoke its name as though it were the mastermind behind every Islamist group. This is misleading. Other networks – Salafis, Deobandis, Barelvis, Jamaat-e-Islami, Qatari and Turkish state Islamism, as well as Khomeinists – play equally significant or even greater roles in shaping Islamist politics across the United States and Europe.

Ignoring these other actors has serious consequences. For instance, South Asia’s Deobandi movement, from which the Taliban emerged, operates seminaries and organizations across America, often under the radar of federal scrutiny. Radical Barelvi groups like Dawat-e-Islami, implicated in violence from France to South Asia, run some of the wealthiest mosques in the US. Yet, Western security establishments remain fixated on the “Brotherhood brand”, leaving other dangerous networks to flourish.

The irony is that Arab governments themselves long ago recognized the peril of the Brotherhood. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Algeria, and the Gulf states – save for Qatar – have all cracked down on the movement, often harshly. Algeria’s “Black Decade” in the 1990s, triggered by the Brotherhood-linked Islamic Salvation Front’s electoral gains, descended into a civil war that left more than 200,000 people dead. Entire villages were wiped out; thousands disappeared into state prisons. For Algerians, the idea of treating the Brotherhood as a harmless “charity movement” is laughable.

In contrast, Western governments have often extended legitimacy to Brotherhood-linked groups under the banner of “community engagement” or “interfaith dialogue”. Despite repeated warnings, including the UK’s 2015 internal review led by Sir John Jenkins, the Brotherhood continues to operate openly in Britain, Europe, and North America through charities, NGOs, student associations, and lobbying groups. These networks provide social services but also spread ideological influence, shaping Muslim communities and lobbying against Western interests.

Even if the Egyptian movement is a shadow of its former self, its ideological children remain potent. Hamas, originally nurtured by the Brotherhood, continues to wage war against Israel while maintaining support networks across the West. Brotherhood-trained ideologues such as Sayyid Qutb still inspire generations of activists who may no longer call themselves “Brotherhood” but embody its vision. American groups like the Muslim American Society or Muslim Youth of North America, while not centrally controlled from Cairo, continue to employ Brotherhood-style indoctrination practices under distinctly American guises.

In this sense, what exists today is not a global Brotherhood conspiracy but a patchwork of Qutbist and Islamist movements – often independent, sometimes competing, but still drawing intellectual and strategic sustenance from the Brotherhood’s legacy.

The West must move beyond lazy shorthand. To treat every Islamist group as “the Muslim Brotherhood” is both inaccurate and dangerous. It blinds policymakers to the very real threats posed by Jamaat-e-Islami in South Asia, Dawat-e-Islami in the West, or Khomeinist proxies raising funds for Hezbollah. It allows dangerous networks to avoid scrutiny while the “Brotherhood debate” endlessly consumes political oxygen.

At the same time, dismissing the Brotherhood as entirely inconsequential would be equally naïve. Its ideological DNA – totalitarianism cloaked in religious legitimacy – remains deeply embedded across Islamist currents worldwide. From Algeria’s scars to Hamas’s ongoing terror, the consequences of underestimating this movement are plain.

The Muslim Brotherhood today is less a centralized empire than a faded logo – yet one whose ideas continue to animate Islamist activism in new forms. The real danger lies not in Cairo’s collapsed leadership but in the decentralized, Western-rooted networks inspired by Brotherhood thought and nurtured by decades of political accommodation.

For policymakers, the task is urgent: stop treating the Brotherhood as the singular menace, and start mapping the full spectrum of Islamist movements operating on Western soil. To ignore this complexity is to repeat the mistakes of the past, ensuring that while the Brotherhood may be weakened, its ideological heirs continue to erode democratic societies from within.

The article Muslim Brotherhood’s Fading Empire and Its Dangerous Heirs appeared first on Arabian Post.

India has engaged with Washington over the U. S. decision to impose a one-time $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications, warning that the move threatens the mobility of skilled professionals and could strain bilateral trade ties.

The External Affairs Ministry affirmed it would continue talks with relevant stakeholders in the United States, emphasising that talent exchange has underpinned innovation and growth in both economies. The government noted that the new rule may disproportionately affect Indian nationals, since they constitute a significant share of the H-1B pool.

The White House announced that the fee will apply only to fresh petitions filed from September 21, 2025 onwards, not to renewals or existing visa holders. The administration framed this shift as part of efforts to prevent misuse of the visa system and prioritise higher-wage, high-skilled cases.

India’s reaction underscores deep concerns within its technology sector—many firms rely on U. S. operations staffed via H-1B sponsorship. Analysts estimate that the fee hike could reduce IT margins by 4–13 percent depending on visa intensity, while Indian IT stocks saw steep declines following the announcement.

At the same time, India is navigating friction on trade. U. S. tariffs levied on Indian goods—particularly a 50 percent cumulative duty tied to India’s oil imports from Russia—are already under scrutiny in bilateral talks. Officials assert that the visa and trade issues will be addressed as interconnected elements of the broader U. S.–India partnership.

During meetings on the sidelines of the U. N. General Assembly, India’s Foreign Minister and Commerce Minister held discussions with their U. S. counterparts, reinforcing that continued engagement is essential to manage tensions. The Indian side has also said that relevant domestic departments are evaluating options concerning the impact of the tariffs.

Despite the pushback, some U. S. industry figures support the new fee. Leaders at firms such as Nvidia, OpenAI and Netflix have welcomed the shift as a mechanism to prioritise high-value talent. Others, including JPMorgan’s CEO, have warned it risks driving skilled workers to competing nations. U. S. medical associations are lobbying for exemptions, arguing that the steep cost could impede physician recruitment, particularly in underserved areas.

India’s Finance Ministry has called for heightened monitoring of the economic fallout, citing possible impacts on remittance inflows and service exports. The ministry has described the short term as manageable but warned of long-term risks if the regime remains in place.

Within India’s tech industry, there has been a strategic pivot. Companies have invested over $1 billion in onshore training and hiring in the U. S., reducing dependence on H-1B deployment. Industry bodies argue that this shift could help absorb the shock should visa access tighten further.

Still, experts caution that such mitigation has limits. Smaller firms and startups that depend on cross-border talent mobility may feel the squeeze most acutely. Some analysts suggest that alternative destinations, including Canada, South Korea and the UK, may be more appealing to Indian professionals seeking global opportunities.

The article India Pushes Back as U.S. Rolls Out $100,000 H-1B Application Fee appeared first on Arabian Post.

/India Press Agency/

By Nitya Chakraborty

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has stepped into his 75th year on Wednesday, September 17.His birthday is being celebrated by the BJP nationally. The significance is much more as PM’s 75th birthday celebrations have coincided with the centenary programmes on the founding of the RSS in 1925.On October 2 this year, Vijaya Dasami day, RSS celebrations will reach its peak with the address by the RSS supremo Mohan Bhagwat.

On this birthday, Narendra Modi’s second in command Home Minister Amit Shah has paid his tribute to PM by writing in The Times of India “Having worked alongside PM Modi for decades, I have deeply felt that his personality is beyond that of a politician – it embodies a mission driven leader dedicated to the nation’s welfare. For him, India’s rise and India’s well being are not just ideals, but guiding principles”

Swapan Dasgupta, the official intellectual of the BJP writing in the ToI says “The biggest transformation brought about by Modi since he assumed charge is to convert the underpinning of mental submissiveness that defied India into self confidence”. Dasgupta says” Modi is in the tradition of India’s great resistance heroes from Maharana Pratap and Chhatrapati Shivaji to Swami Vivekananda and Subhash Chandra Bose. All these stalwarts, in their own distinctive ways, tried to create an authentic India, proud, creative and able to look at the world with the pride that should behove the inheritor and upholder of one of the world’s greatest civilisations”

Interestingly, there was no mention of Mahatma Gandhi, Vallabhai Patel or Jawaharlal Nehru. This may be the BJP’s latest way of looking at Narendra Modi’s role.. Both Amit Shah and Swapan Dasgupta have judged Narendra Modi from their Party perspective, but how is Modi as a PM and a political visionary to lead the nation of 1.44 billion people in 2025 when India is facing such turbulence both in domestic and global sphere?

First let us have a small recap of the rise of Narendra Modi. Modi was born in a comparatively poor family in Vadnagar town of Mehsana district of Gujarat. He started taking interest in RSS activities from his school years and by 1972, when he was 22, he became a RSS pracharak as a full time worker. In 1985, he was transferred to the BJP organisation as the RSS leadership saw his potential. In the next16 years it was a rise and rise for Modi in leadership.

Finally, in 2001, he was named Gujarat Chief Minister replacing Keshubhai Patel. From then on, he led the BJP three more times to election victory in Gujarat and finally moved to the national capital after he took power as the Prime Minister after 2014 Lok Sabha polls. Since then, he led the BJP to victory in 2019 and 2014 elections. Narendra Modi has completed more than eleven years of tenure as PM now. He will be completing 15 years when the term of present Lok Sabha ends in May 2029.

From the perspective of the BJP, RSS and the right wing forces of the country, Modi is an asset. He is the most charismatic and adored political leader in the country right now who can take on the Congress led opposition. During his tenure, the RSS has expanded in a big way nationally and BJP is claiming itself as the biggest political party of the world with a membership of 14 crore and active workers totalling 2 crore. Under Narendra Modi’s tenure, the BJP along with its allies are in power in 21 states limiting the Congress rule to only three states. RSS supremo Mohan Bhagwat may be suspicious about Narendra Modi’s burgeoning power and authoritarian style, but he will continue to support Modi to rule as RSS has never in its long history enjoyed so much powers in influencing the policies at the centre and the states.,

RSS is getting all help from the Prime Minister in their mission of founding the base of Hindu Rashtra. Step by step, the measures have been taken to erode the role of the constitutional bodies. The central agencies like the ED, CBI and the IT department have been converted into handmaids of the political objectives of the centre and the ruling party. The Election Commission of India, the constitutional body, is acting at the bidding of the Home Ministry on the issue of implementing the SIR. As of now, the Supreme Court is the only constitutional body which is still fighting to defend the core values of our constitution against the attacks by the Modi government.

In the third term of Narendra Modi government, there are concerted moves to make the federalism redundant and convert the governance into one party rule. In the proceedings of Parliament also, the same intolerance is being shown by the ruling party members. Prime Minister is backing it. PM Modi is talking of Sabka Vikash but in reality, the minorities are getting no protection from the BJP led state governments. India, the largest democracy functioning in the world has been identified by the global press bodies as one of the countries having lowest level of press freedom.

As regards economy, PM Modi has not done too badly. The economy is expected to record 6.5 per cent growth or more in the fiscal year 2025-26, but the problem is the fruits of growth are not being properly distributed. The MSME sector has been affected adversely as a result of imposition of 50 per cent tariff by the Trump administration. The sector is yet to get the needed relief. The inequality in earnings is on the rise and this creating social tensions.

Narendra Modi has a high tech mind and he has done well in bringing about digitization in a large number of services in the government and the business systems. This has been a commendable step. Certainly, there has been a resurgence of Indian spirit of innovation. Start ups are going through trial and error method but there has been a revival of animal spirit among the young entrepreneurs. This is sure to pay dividends in the coming years.

Narendra Modi is an authoritarian, he loves power. He has his unilateral style of functioning. He is a 24×7 politician. Since he has no family, he can keep out of family corruption. But under his patronage, a powerful Hindutva-corporate nexus has grown which is helping BJP with funds before the elections. This nexus gets substantial part of the government contracts. So the corruption has got a sophisticated dimension — it is not on the old style of lobbying in ministries. The all out funding by the big corporates to the BJP for the elections has eroded the level playing field in the Indian politics. The Congress and the other opposition parties are no match to the BJP in terms of financial resources. This is one of the biggest threats to the proper functioning of Indian democracy.

Narendra Modi has three years eight months more to complete his present third terms. The fate of Indian democracy and the institutions will depend on how he deals with them in the coming months. The opposition parties led by the INDIA bloc has to do their best to function as the guardian of Indian constitution and democratic functioning in the coming days. The authoritarianism of the present PM can only be challenged by the united mobilization of the anti-BJP political forces. For both PM and the opposition, the task is set. (IPA Service)

The article Decoding Prime Minister Narendra Modi As A Political Leader On His 75th Birthday appeared first on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article Decoding Prime Minister Narendra Modi As A Political Leader On His 75th Birthday appeared first on Arabian Post.

By T N Ashok

NEW YORK: Trump’s 50% tariffs on Indian exports took effect from Wednesday as there has been no resolution to the dispute over Russian oil buys in by India. In a move that has stunned global markets and rattled one of America’s most strategically important partnerships, President Donald Trump on Wednesday imposed punishing 50% tariffs on Indian exports, doubling a levy he first set at 25% earlier last month.

The sharp escalation comes as Trump seeks to weaponize trade in his broader global economic war and punish India for continuing to buy discounted Russian crude — a practice New Delhi has repeatedly defended as both legal and essential to its energy security. The decision could trigger the proposed Indi-US trade to rise by 2030 to worth $530 billion annually, rewriting the script on Indo-U.S. ties that had, until recently, appeared to be warming under Trump’s second term.

Trump’s order applies across a broad swath of Indian exports to the U.S., including textiles, pharmaceuticals, auto components, IT services, and agricultural products, many of which depend on the U.S. as their primary market.

“This is economic leverage,” Vice President JD Vance said on NBC’s Meet the Press last Sunday, defending the move. “India cannot bankroll Russia’s war machine through oil purchases and expect American markets to remain open. We’re going to make it harder for the Russians to get rich from their oil economy.”

Trump himself was more blunt. “Modi made a bad deal for India. They’re buying dirty Russian oil. America doesn’t like it. And if they want access to our market, they’ve got to play by our rules,” he told reporters at the White House.

India, the world’s third-largest oil consumer, has become one of Moscow’s biggest buyers of crude since the Ukraine war erupted in 2022. Oil Minister Hardeep Singh Puri has consistently argued that India will buy from “wherever it’s cheapest” to shield its economy from global price shocks.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, addressing a rally in Ahmedabad earlier this week, avoided mentioning the U.S. directly but struck a defiant note: “India will not bow to external pressures. Our duty is to protect the sovereignty of the nation and the livelihood of our farmers, workers, and small businesses. We will buy what we must to keep our economy strong.”

That line echoed Modi’s nationalist stance — framing economic self-interest as sovereignty defense. It plays well domestically, particularly as India prepares for another election cycle where the ruling BJP cannot afford to appear subservient to Washington.

Trump’s 50% tariff could affect as much as 35 billion annually of India’s present level of $ 87 billion. Indian export revenues, according to trade analysts in New Delhi. Industries most exposed include: Textiles & Apparel: India’s largest export segment to the U.S. faces obliteration in price-sensitive markets. Pharmaceuticals: Indian generics, which account for 40% of U.S. prescriptions, may become uncompetitive. Ironically, this could hurt American consumers by raising drug prices. Auto Components & Engineering Goods: Already squeezed by global supply chain shifts, they will lose cost advantage. IT Services & Outsourcing: Tariffs on service exports may push American companies to reconsider their heavy reliance on Indian firms like Infosys and TCS.

India has not formally announced retaliatory measures but senior Commerce Ministry officials confirmed that “all options are on the table”, including blocking American agricultural imports — wheat, corn, soybeans, and dairy.

Such a step could devastate U.S. farmers, many of whom form Trump’s political base in swing states. “If India slams the door, we’re in trouble,” said a soybean exporter from Iowa. Wisconsin too gets affected. Indian officials are also quietly weighing curbs on U.S. tech giants operating in India — Amazon, Google, Meta — and restrictions on defense purchases.

One of the most overlooked consequences could be in healthcare. Indian pharmaceutical companies supply nearly 70% of the bulk drugs used in American generics. “If tariffs remain in place, American consumers will see higher drug prices within months,” warned a senior executive at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories. “This will hurt the U.S. more than India because patients will pay the price.” Hospitals and insurers in the U.S. are already lobbying Congress to push back against Trump’s tariff regime, fearing political backlash from voters facing rising medical costs.

The timing of Trump’s trade war with India is complicated by old controversies. Opposition leaders in New Delhi have revived the Rafale fighter jet scandal, pointing to how Modi’s government allegedly steered a lucrative defense offset deal toward Anil Ambani’s now-embattled Reliance Defence.

Congress leaders argue that India is being squeezed twice — first through questionable defense deals that favoured cronies, and now by an American president using trade as a weapon. The BJP dismisses these charges as political theatre, but the overlap of corporate scandals and geopolitical pressures adds fuel to the fire.

For Washington, the tariff escalation is not just about oil. It is also about sending a message to allies: the U.S. will punish anyone who undercuts sanctions on Russia. But the move risks alienating a partner the U.S. has long considered indispensable in countering China in the Indo-Pacific. India is a member of the Quad alliance with the U.S., Japan, and Australia, and hosts American military exercises.

“This is short-term punishment that could have long-term strategic costs,” said Ashley Tellis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment. “India will now hedge harder with Russia and China, undermining the very purpose of U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy.”

For Modi, the crisis presents both political danger and opportunity. His nationalist message of standing up to foreign pressure resonates at home. Yet, the Indian economy — already slowing due to high interest rates and weak global demand — cannot easily absorb the tariff shock. “India is being forced into a corner,” said Arvind Panagariya, former chief economic adviser. “If exports to the U.S. collapse, growth will suffer, jobs will be lost, and the political cost for Modi could be severe.”

Diplomatic talks are still ongoing, with trade negotiators from both sides meeting in Washington next week. But insiders say the mood is grim. “Trump has made up his mind. He wants India to stop buying Russian oil completely,” said one U.S. official. “Until that happens, the tariffs stay.”

For India, the dilemma is existential: give up cheap Russian oil and risk energy inflation at home, or lose access to its most critical export market. As Modi thundered in Gujarat, the message was clear: India will not bend. Trump, never one to blink, seems equally determined. Caught in between are millions of workers, farmers, and consumers in both nations, facing the fallout of a geopolitical fight dressed up as an economic one.

For two decades, the U.S. and India have touted their partnership as a natural alliance — the world’s oldest democracy and its largest democracy, bound by shared values and strategic interests. Now, with Trump’s tariffs in place, that bond faces its severest test yet.

The coming months will determine whether Washington and New Delhi can salvage the relationship — or whether Trump’s trade war will drive India further into Russia’s and China’s orbit, reshaping the global order in ways no one intended. (IPA Service)

The article Trump Administration Looking For Surrender By Narendra Modi As 50 Percent Tariffs Take Effect appeared first on Arabian Post.

The U. S. House of Representatives has approved the GENIUS Act, the inaugural federal regulatory framework targeting fiat‑backed stablecoins, with a decisive 308–122 bipartisan vote on 17 July 2025. With Senate approval secured in June by a 68–30 margin, the legislation now advances to President Trump’s desk for signature, anticipated as early as tomorrow.

The GENIUS Act mandates that issuers—including banks, credit unions, fintech firms, and select non‑bank entities—maintain one‑to‑one reserves in cash or low‑risk assets such as U. S. Treasury bills, with mandatory monthly public disclosures of reserve composition. It also institutes anti‑money laundering controls, requires issuance organisations to obtain licences from federal or state financial regulators, and prohibits paying interest directly to stablecoin holders.

The legislation forms part of a broader “Crypto Week” effort in the House, which also included passage of the CLARITY Act—allocating oversight of digital asset classification between the SEC and CFTC—and the Anti‑CBDC Surveillance State Act, barring the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency. Both now await Senate consideration.

Advocates argue that the GENIUS Act addresses long-standing regulatory uncertainty, providing market stability and consumer safeguards within a $260 billion-plus stablecoin ecosystem. Senior figures from institutions such as JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, Walmart, and Amazon have reportedly expressed interest in issuing stablecoins under the new regime. Market sentiment reflects optimism: crypto‑linked equities and assets rose when the House vote was finalised, with Bitcoin nearing record highs above $119,000.

Nonetheless, critics highlight significant concerns. Consumer advocates emphasise that stablecoins remain outside FDIC protection and could pose redemption risks or obscure hidden fees. Others express unease over potential weak guardrails: the SEC’s Paul Atkins cautioned that regulatory innovation must still ensure sufficient market safeguards.

Ethics debates spotlight former President Trump’s extensive ties to the crypto industry, including investments in World Liberty Financial and a meme coin touted as generating over $300 million in related revenues. Opponents claim this raises conflict‑of‑interest questions and risks favouring Trump‑linked enterprises, though the White House has asserted asset segregation via a family trust.

In Congress, both Democratic and Republican proponents defended the legislation for delivering much‑needed structure. Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer remarked that introducing “some rules of the road” was preferable to having none. Opposing voices like Rep. Maxine Waters cautioned that the law might “signal tolerance for corruption” without closing presidential exemptions from conflict‑of‑interest prohibitions. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats, including Richard Blumenthal, criticised the bill’s failure to eliminate loopholes or demand stronger consumer protection standards.

Beyond federal oversight, the GENIUS Act introduces a layered supervisory model: federal agencies will regulate larger issuers and interstate entities, while state regulators handle smaller players—those issuing under $10 billion annually. The legislation sets out implementation timelines, including one‑year deadlines for rule‑making and an 18‑month effective date, with a three‑year transition period before enforcement on custody and transaction restrictions.

Industry stakeholders anticipate dramatic market growth. Scott Bessent, Treasury secretary, projected the stablecoin market could swell from around $195 billion to over $2 trillion following the GENIUS Act’s implementation. Christian Catalini of the MIT Cryptoeconomics Lab predicted fierce competition as banks and fintechs join traditional issuers with consumer trust bolstered by regulation.

The crypto sector, stung by past regulatory setbacks under the prior administration’s enforcement actions, now views the GENIUS Act as a turning point. Major players like Circle and Coinbase backed the measure after directing substantial lobbying resources toward lawmakers. Jennifer Nolan, head of the Blockchain Association, described it as a “defining moment in the evolution of U. S. digital asset policy”.

With presidential signature expected imminently, the GENIUS Act is poised to redefine the U. S. approach to stablecoins—ushering in regulated issuance, enhanced transparency, and heightened institutional involvement. Its progress also spotlights ongoing debates about market oversight, political influence, and financial stability in an increasingly digital economy.

Arabian Post – Crypto News Network

The article US House Green‑Lights First Stablecoin Regulation appeared first on Arabian Post.

Coinbase, headquartered in the United States, has secured a place among Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential Companies of 2025, hailed for reshaping the landscape of digital finance and regulatory engagement. This accolade reflects a marked shift in how cryptocurrency firms are perceived by mainstream institutions.

With over 108 million users and more than $400 billion in custodial assets, Coinbase stands as the largest US-based crypto exchange. Analysts attribute significant weight to its aggressive advocacy efforts in Washington DC and its proactive approach to regulatory compliance, positioning the company as a key policy driver for the digital asset space.

Coinbase’s stock has mirrored its growing stature—rising approximately 42 per cent year-to-date and briefly touching $382 per share following the US Senate’s passage of the GENIUS stablecoin bill on 17 June. Market watchers note that its inclusion in the S&P 500 in May reinforces its transition from niche crypto exchange to mainstream financial institution. That move not only provides visibility to traditional investors but also signals regulatory confidence.

The cardinals of Coinbase’s ascent include its push for firm regulatory frameworks: it recently secured a MiCA license from Luxembourg’s Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier, enabling full European market operations. Plans are underway to establish its EU headquarters in Luxembourg, marking a strategic foothold in the continent.

Another bold initiative is Coinbase’s application to the US Securities and Exchange Commission to launch tokenised stock trading. If approved, this service could see the platform rival fintech peers such as Robinhood and Webull, offering fractionalised equity products under one roof.

Financially, Coinbase reported over $2 billion in trailing annual revenue and maintained $420 billion in assets under custody as of Q1 2025, up from $310 billion the preceding year. These figures, alongside institutional-tailored offerings such as Coinbase Prime, have caught the attention of Bernstein analysts, who raised their COIN price target by 50 per cent in light of this recognition.

Despite its successes, Coinbase’s journey has not been without hurdles. A May cyber-extortion attempt linked to stolen customer data resulted in an estimated cost of up to $400 million, though the company managed to contain the breach and refused to submit to ransom demands. This incident followed growing scrutiny from blockchain investigators concerning vulnerabilities and scam-related losses attributed to the platform. Still, the US SEC dismissed its enforcement action in February 2025, signalling regulatory progress.

Beyond its core operations, Coinbase wields significant influence in shaping public policy. Its 2024 lobbying campaign played a central role in positioning cryptocurrency as a campaign issue in the US election cycle. Time again underscored its impact, quoting: “Coinbase led a massive lobbying campaign … helping cement crypto as a voting issue,” and framing the company as “a key driver of the industry’s policy efforts in Washington D.C.”.

Looking ahead, industry observers anticipate further advances as Coinbase expands tokenised equity offerings and solidifies its role in institutional-grade products. These efforts, coupled with sustained lobbying presence and international expansion, point to a future where digital assets underpin new investment paradigms.

Arabian Post – Crypto News Network

The article Coinbase Emerges as Global Financial Disruptor appeared first on Arabian Post.

The U.S. Senate has enacted the GENIUS Act, the first-ever federal framework for regulating dollar‑pegged stablecoins, with a decisive 68–30 bipartisan vote on 17 June 2025. Eighteen Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the legislation, which now advances to the House and is expected to reshape Washington’s digital asset rules.

The bill mandates that stablecoin issuers back tokens with liquid assets such as U.S. Treasuries, require regular financial disclosures and adhere to anti‑money‑laundering measures. It grants banks the authority to issue stablecoins, while explicitly restricting executive branch officials and legislators from sharing in their profits—a direct response to concerns over conflicts of interest.

A surge in crypto-sector investment in political campaigns appears to have shifted momentum. Industry spending topped $119 million in support of pro‑crypto congressional candidates during the 2024 cycle. Lobbyists then intensified efforts to engage Democratic lawmakers, viewed as essential for reaching the 60-vote threshold in the evenly divided Senate.

Internal communications among Democratic operatives reveal strategic alignment with crypto backers. In a private group chat described in reporting by the Lever, coalition members acknowledged that, despite ethical concerns, opposing the industry would be “political suicide.” One member reportedly observed that any amendment targeting Trump‑family conflicts would be “DOA,” suggesting token amendments offered for optics rather than impact.

Legislators including Senator Elizabeth Warren have voiced misgivings, arguing that the bill inadequately shields consumers or addresses risks associated with big‑tech or foreign‑issued stablecoins. She contends it grants too much leeway to the likes of former President Donald Trump’s crypto ventures, such as the Trump memecoin and World Liberty Financial.

The crypto lobby’s efforts have extended beyond campaign funding to retention of influential political operatives. Coinbase, for instance, recently appointed veteran Democratic strategist David Plouffe to its advisory board, joining a roster of insiders from both parties. Observers note this reflects crypto’s emerging status as a “politically competitive” constituency.

The political dynamic has shifted decisively. As AP reports, Democrats are balancing distrust of Trump-linked crypto enterprises with newfound recognition of the sector’s electoral influence. Backing the GENIUS Act became for many a strategic necessity, notwithstanding deep ideological resistance to deregulation.

The Senate vote occurred amid broader legislative discussions. The CLARITY Act—aimed at clarifying agency jurisdiction across the SEC and CFTC—is under consideration in the House Financial Services Committee. Some lawmakers propose merging the stablecoin and authority-defining bills, though others caution it could delay the GENIUS Act’s passage.

Crypto industry leaders view the GENIUS Act as a critical precursor to more comprehensive legislation. Ledger’s Head of Global Policy, Seth Hertline, described the Senate’s action as “a political bellwether” for the sector’s broader legislative agenda.

The bill’s passage also intersects with Trump’s personal crypto interests. His family’s stablecoin projects have sparked accusations of profiteering and lobbying for relaxed oversight. Critics warn that current legislative safeguards fall short of preventing conflicts of interest.

The next phase lies in the House, where Republican leadership must reconcile the Senate’s GENIUS Act with its own STABLE Act or integrate it into broader regulatory plans. Some Republicans advocate adding provisions to limit central bank digital currency initiatives, though such measures may complicate Senate approval.

Major stablecoin issuers such as Tether and Circle —together controlling over $200 billion in supply—stand to gain regulatory clarity and legitimacy if the GENIUS Act becomes law. Recent moves by major corporates, including JPMorgan’s planned stablecoin on Coinbase’s Base chain and indications that Amazon and Walmart are exploring token issuance, signal growing private‑sector enthusiasm.

As the House deliberates, questions remain whether the Senate’s bipartisan vote marks the start of a fully fleshed-out U.S. crypto regulatory regime—or the culmination of a high-stakes battle between policy integrity and political pragmatism.

Arabian Post – Crypto News Network

The article Crypto Lobbying Spurs Democratic Support for Stablecoin Bill appeared first on Arabian Post.

Major corporations Walmart and Amazon are understood to be mulling the launch of their own stablecoins as part of a broader trend among retailers and tech companies seeking to streamline payment systems and reduce transaction costs. With the U.S. Congress advancing the GENIUS Act—legislation to regulate stablecoin issuance—the moment now appears opportune for these private-sector experiments.

Both Walmart and Amazon are reportedly evaluating the regulatory environment and potential use cases for proprietary stablecoins. Sources suggest these could be integrated with payment platforms, loyalty schemes and digital marketplaces. Such a move would allow these companies to bypass conventional card rails and intermediaries that currently levy high fees on merchants and slow settlement times.

Walmart’s ongoing fintech ambitions align with the exploration of stablecoin applications. The retailer has already lobbied for regulatory changes aimed at bringing greater competition into credit card networks, indicating a broader shift towards alternative payment mechanisms. Amazon, though in the preliminary assessment stage, is also understood to be considering whether a branded stablecoin might enhance the convenience of online transactions.

The GENIUS Act currently under Senate review is central to this evolution. It delineates a framework for “permitted payment stablecoin issuers” and mandates reserve requirements, redemption rules and federal oversight. While enabling banks, non-banks and subsidiaries to issue stablecoins, it permits notable flexibility across different sectors.

Critics are already voicing concerns. Legislators such as Senator Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Maxine Waters caution against allowing large non-financial firms to enter the payments landscape, fearing an erosion of banking safeguards and potential intensified corporate dominance. Academic voices, including law professor Hilary Allen, warn that Big Tech’s entry into finance could “entrench corporate power” and compromise consumer data privacy.

A key sticking point lies in a proposed amendment to prohibit non-financial corporations from issuing stablecoins unless they meet stringent criteria around financial stability, data protection and consumer welfare. This amendment would cover tech behemoths like Amazon, Meta and Apple. In contrast, proponents argue that allowing these companies in could foster innovation and enhance market competition.

Merchant industries are lobbying hard for clarity. The Merchants Payments Coalition argues that a stablecoin framework could disrupt the dominance of established payment networks and deliver substantial cost savings. Stakeholders have highlighted how cross-border payments could benefit from low-cost, near-instant settlement, echoing the broader fintech industry’s embrace of stablecoins as programmable rails for digital commerce.

Opposition remains robust, however. Critics warn that unbridled stablecoin issuance by non-financial corporations could introduce systemic risks. The GENIUS Act’s provisions are aimed at managing these risks through requirements for reserves, transparency, anti-money laundering compliance and state-federal coordination. Still, there is unease that enforcement mechanisms may not sufficiently address deep-seated concerns over financial stability and consumer safety.

Proponents believe stablecoins could transform how commerce operates, by speeding up settlements, reducing fees and enabling more fluid integration across digital platforms. With adoption driven by both large merchants and smaller enterprises, the innovation rather than consolidation of money systems could mark a significant shift.

Walmart and Amazon appear poised to test these boundaries. As the GENIUS Act moves closer to a Senate floor vote, the exact role that private-sector stablecoins will play remains uncertain. The decision by Congress to permit non-bank issuers is a strategic pivot, opening regulatory pathways that could redefine how money flows through the global payments ecosystem.

Arabian Post – Crypto News Network

The article Tech Giants Weigh Launching Dollar-Pegged Coins appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Nitya Chakraborty

The high level delegations of United States of America and China concluded their two day trade talks in London on Tuesday agreeing to take forward the course of negotiations for further promoting steady and healthy development of economic and trade ties between the two largest economies of the world. Both Chinese and U.S. sources underlined that the London talks were based on the guidelines set through phone conversations between President Trump and President Xi Jinping on June 5 as also the understanding arrived at the earlier meeting in Geneva last month.

In fact following the Geneva meeting last month, the Chinese side made lot of complaints that the U.S, agencies have been violating many of the principles agreed to at the Geneva meeting and this was hampering the proper implementation of the Geneva understanding. Chinese President’s office communicated this to the President Trump’s office and finally Trump spoke directly to President Xi Jinping on June 5 and discussed a few guidelines for trade discussions scheduled in London on June 9 and 10.

Now this London agreement based on that June 5 guidelines set by the two Presidents will be taken forward for further finetuning at the next meeting to be scheduled soon. U.S. sources say that the areas of discussions are so vast and the items are so many that a full fledged deal will take a few more rounds.US sources have hinted that the Trump administration is really keen in arriving at an early deal with China. So, the U.S. side will abide by the London agreement in the interests of normal trade relations between both the countries.

According to a latest survey released by the American Chamber of Commerce in China, although tariffs pose rising challenges to US companies in China, most companies are not planning to exit China, with none reporting shifting production back to the US. Chinese sources say that China is maintaining strategic patience in talks with the U.S. officials as there are some structural trade conflicts and these require time consuming discussions.

On Monday morning, China released the trade data for the first five months of 2025. China’s total goods imports and exports in yuan-denominated terms rose to 17.94 trillion yuan ($2.5 trillion) in the first five months of 2025, up 2.5 percent year-on-year, official data showed Monday.

The continuous growth in foreign trade underscores the resilience of the world’s second largest economy, with supply chain and industry chain remaining competitive in response to the world market demand, despite global headwinds highlighted by unilateralism, a Chinese expert said.

“Since the beginning of this year, China’s economy has continued to recover and improve. Under external pressure, the country’s goods trade has maintained strong resilience. By May, China’s imports and exports continued their growth trend, with the growth rate accelerating notably after the high-level China-US economic and trade talks,” said Lü Daliang, a GAC spokesperson, Xinhua reported on Monday

While China’s foreign trade generally saw a positive growth, uncertainties remain, as reflected in some trade figures. Media reported that last month, goods exports rose 6.3 percent year on year, while imports went down 2.1 percent. China-US trade decreased by 8.1 per cent year on year basis to1.72 trillion yuan during the first five months of 2025, according to Chinese customs data.

Li Changan, a professor at the Academy of China Open Economy Studies at the University of International Business and Economics, told the Global Times on Monday that data from May shows that while China’s foreign trade remained generally stable, some fluctuations did occur, likely linked to the trade tensions.

“China’s import and export growth accelerated significantly following recent high level trade talks between China and the US in Geneva. This suggests a rebound in foreign trade after the joint statement, partially offsetting the negative impact of the trade dispute and helping maintain overall trade stability,” Li said, adding that challenges persist as businesses expect more predictability in world trade.

The trend in China-US trade data was “expected,” as even though China and the US reached an agreement to significantly reduce reciprocal tariffs during the Geneva talks in May, US tariffs on Chinese goods remain high, prompting Chinese foreign trade companies to made adjustments by exploring alternative markets to reduce their reliance on the US, Huo Jianguo, a vice chairman of the China Society for World Trade Organization Studies in Beijing, told the Global Times on Monday.

The United States and China have a substantial trade relationship, with China being a major trading partner and a significant export market for the US. In 2024, total US-China trade in goods reached an estimated $582.4 billion, with US exports to China at $143.5 billion and imports from China at $438.9 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $295.4 billion. China is the third-largest export market for the US, behind Canada and Mexico.

It is interesting that Chinese policy makers are making special efforts to woo the European Union in both political and trade areas by taking advantage of the current fissures in US-EU relations. The idea is to project China as a defender of multilateral trading as also WTO norms as against the unilateralism being followed by the US President Donald Trump.

However, there have been many setbacks to China-EU relations also. This month, the EU has taken steps to restrict Chinese medical devices from participating in its public procurement market, which was firmly opposed by the Chinese side. Recently, negative hype against China has increased in Europe. Following the “China spy” case and the so-called lobbying scandal related to Huawei, the Czech Republic openly accused China of launching a cyberattack against it, and the EU and NATO followed suit. Even after a major power outage in Europe, solar power inverters produced in China were questioned by some for “cybersecurity risks.”

In the recent days, China and Europe have conducted intensive diplomatic interactions. President Xi Jinping spoke with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz respectively, Vice Premiers He Lifeng and Liu Guozhong visited Europe successively, the Danish and Dutch foreign ministers visited China successively, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke with the German and Polish foreign ministers. Vice Premier He Lifeng is currently in London on an official visit to the UK. He will be having intensive discussions on trade and political issues with the British Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

The European Parliament and China have decided to simultaneously and comprehensively lift restrictions on mutual exchanges, further sending a positive signal for expanding exchanges between the two sides. It’s reported that European Council President Antonio Costa and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will also visit China in July to hold meetings with Chinese leaders.

Chinese experts say that such setbacks are not unexpected taking into account the policies of EU members but still cooperation and collaboration are possible. China is interested in that. Over the past 50 years since establishing diplomatic relations, China and the EU have formed a strong economic symbiotic relationship, with annual trade increasing from $2.4 billion to $785.8 billion – a growth of over 300 times. Both sides have engaged in productive multilateral coordination and cooperation in areas such as climate change.

Both Chinese and EU sources say these collaborations have not only brought tangible benefits to nearly 2 billion people on both sides but have also made significant contributions to maintaining global stability and prosperity. In the current complex international situation, the China-EU relationship holds even greater strategic significance and global influence.

The Chinese perception is that the development of China-EU relations demonstrates that the two sides can fully respect each other, engage in equal dialogue, complement each other’s strengths, and achieve mutual success. The world is changing, but the fundamental fact that cooperation between China and the EU far outweighs competition, that consensus far exceeds differences, and that opportunities far exceed risks remains unchanged. (IPA Service)

The article U.S.-China Trade Talks In London Form The Basis Of Early Agreement On Contentious Issues appeared first on Arabian Post.

By K Raveendran

Strong signs of undercurrents are emerging in the aviation space between India and the Gulf. There is renewed tussle over landing rights — the coveted permissions that determine which airlines get to fly where, how often, and with how many seats. For years, this battleground has been tilted in favour of Gulf-based giants, particularly Emirates and later Etihad, both of which have entrenched themselves so deeply in the India-Gulf sector that they dominate passenger volumes, especially among the vast Indian expatriate population in the Gulf. But recent movements suggest that the terrain may be shifting again, albeit not necessarily in India’s favour, raising concerns about whether past missteps are being repeated or even institutionalized.

The first wave of this dominance came during the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) years, a period that aviation experts and political observers often recall with unease. During this time, India’s aviation rights — especially in the high-demand Gulf sector — were offered up with a generosity that baffled many. The most glaring beneficiary was Emirates, which capitalised on India’s fragmented aviation policy and the aggressive diplomacy of Dubai government. The role of Praful Patel, then Union Civil Aviation Minister, and N. Chandrababu Naidu, then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, has often come under scrutiny for facilitating deals that disproportionately benefited Gulf carriers. The underlying implication, often whispered but never proven in courts, was that kickbacks were exchanged for each seat Emirates filled on its India routes — a suggestion that continues to fester in the collective memory of Indian aviation policy circles.

At that time, Emirates enjoyed a distinct monopoly, owing largely to the fact that it was the sole UAE-based carrier of international standing. With Dubai’s rise as a global aviation hub and Emirates’ unmatched marketing muscle, the airline quickly scaled up its footprint in India, locking in prime time slots and lucrative routes with little resistance. In effect, Emirates became the default choice for millions of Indians flying to the Gulf and beyond, eclipsing the capacity and visibility of Indian carriers like Air India. This asymmetry didn’t just result in a business setback for Indian aviation — it triggered a slow bleeding of India’s aviation sovereignty. The profits, the passenger data, the traffic, and the global prestige of being a gateway carrier all accrued to Emirates, while Indian airlines floundered under the weight of policy paralysis and state apathy.

Things became even more complicated when Etihad entered the fray. As Abu Dhabi’s flagship carrier, Etihad’s arrival introduced a new axis of influence in the India-Gulf aviation theatre. Where earlier it was just Emirates leveraging its ties with Indian authorities to expand its rights, now both Emirates and Etihad were competing not just with each other but also for the same slice of the Indian aviation pie. The diplomatic equation thus had to be recalibrated. No longer could Dubai’s interests automatically translate into Emirates’ gain. Abu Dhabi, backed by the UAE federal structure, began asserting its claim, demanding equitable treatment for Etihad.

India, in turn, found itself in a quagmire. Granting more rights to one Gulf emirate risked offending the other. But instead of revisiting its entire bilateral framework or strengthening Indian carriers to hold their ground, Indian policymakers chose the path of least resistance: acquiescing to more requests from both sides. The result was that foreign carriers ended up with the lion’s share of rights, while Indian carriers, with limited international ambitions and fleet capacity at the time, were left watching from the sidelines.

Fast forward to today, and the script seems eerily familiar. Both Emirates and Etihad are once again lobbying for increased landing rights and additional seat allocations. This comes at a time when the dynamics of the aviation industry have evolved significantly. There is renewed focus on strategic aviation corridors, a post-pandemic surge in travel, and a stronger realisation globally that aviation is not just commerce — it is a soft power instrument. Yet despite all this, India appears to be on the verge of conceding even more ground. That this is happening without a thorough review of how previous concessions impacted national interests is particularly disheartening.

A disturbing undertone to this situation is the re-emergence — or rather, the persistence — of the very individuals who were instrumental in the original giveaways. These actors, once thought to have exited the stage after presiding over what some call the ‘Great Indian Aviation Surrender,’ are now reappearing in various roles, emboldened by their earlier success and perhaps by the lack of accountability. The risk here is not just the erosion of market share but the institutionalization of a defeatist approach to aviation diplomacy, where India negotiates from a position of weakness rather than asserting its growing economic and geopolitical clout.

However, the new player that adds an unexpected twist to this ongoing narrative is IndiGo. As India’s largest airline by a considerable margin, IndiGo is no longer content with its domestic dominance. It wants in on the Gulf bonanza, and it is using its size, efficiency, and growing international aspirations to demand a bigger seat at the table. This changes the calculus considerably. For the first time in years, there’s an Indian private player with both the appetite and the capacity to challenge Gulf airlines on their turf. IndiGo’s entry into the fray has the potential to reshape the competitive landscape — provided, of course, the government aligns national policy with corporate ambition.

To avoid repeating past mistakes, India must initiate a root-and-branch review of its bilateral air service agreements. The country needs a clear aviation doctrine — one that articulates when, how, and under what conditions foreign airlines may operate in India. This doctrine must prioritize Indian interests, encourage domestic capacity building, and align with broader national objectives. It must also be shielded from short-term political compulsions and the influence of lobbying networks that have historically undermined strategic policymaking. (IPA Service)

The article Renewed Race For Gulf-India Aviation Sector Trophy As Stakes Increase Further appeared first on Arabian Post.

By K Raveendran

India is intensifying its diplomatic offensive against Pakistan, with efforts now underway to push for Islamabad’s re-listing on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) grey list. This renewed push, backed by an unusually strong expression of support from the Trump-led U.S. administration, marks a strategic escalation by New Delhi to hold Pakistan accountable for its continued complicity in cross-border terrorism.

The FATF grey list—formally known as jurisdictions under increased monitoring—had previously included Pakistan from 2018 to 2022, subjecting the country to intense scrutiny over money laundering and terror financing channels. That four-year period saw Islamabad scrambling to implement a raft of financial reforms under international pressure, and it significantly hindered Pakistan’s access to foreign investments, loans, and development assistance. The delisting in 2022 had been a diplomatic and economic breakthrough for the embattled South Asian nation, offering a lifeline to its already floundering economy and enabling renewed engagement with global financial institutions. India now appears determined to reverse that gain.

The push to bring Pakistan back into the FATF’s crosshairs gained urgency after the Pahalgam terror attack. Though Islamabad has denied any involvement, Indian officials have furnished fresh intelligence to key FATF member states, including details of financial trails that allegedly connect the perpetrators of the attack to Pakistan-based funders. According to sources within India’s Ministry of External Affairs, the dossier includes satellite imagery, intercepted communications, and transaction records indicating cross-border flows of money tied to extremist activities in Jammu and Kashmir. The objective is clear: to demonstrate that Pakistan has failed to uphold its commitments to counterterror financing, thus justifying a return to the FATF’s increased monitoring regime.

The effort is likely to gain momentum thanks to renewed geopolitical alignments. In a notable departure from recent U.S. ambiguity on South Asia, President Donald Trump has publicly backed India’s right to “defend itself against terrorism in all forms” following the Pahalgam incident.

India’s current lobbying at FATF headquarters in Paris is reportedly being conducted in coordination with France, Germany, and the United States—countries that have previously expressed frustration over Pakistan’s half-hearted implementation of terror financing reforms. Indian diplomats are said to be building a case that Pakistan’s apparent relapse into enabling or overlooking terror financing activities represents not just a regional threat, but a global one, especially in light of concerns over the Taliban’s resurgence in Afghanistan and the growing instability across the broader Middle East. FATF’s next plenary meeting is scheduled for June and sources suggest that India is working against that timeline to ensure the issue of Pakistan’s compliance status is placed high on the agenda.

This strategy comes at a particularly vulnerable time for Pakistan, whose economy is teetering under the weight of inflation, currency devaluation, and dwindling foreign reserves. The country’s current standby arrangement with the International Monetary Fund expires in mid-2025, and negotiations for a fresh bailout are expected to be arduous. Any move to reinstate Pakistan on the FATF grey list would severely complicate these negotiations, likely resulting in tougher loan conditions or delays in disbursement. Moreover, the reputational damage from being tagged as a jurisdiction with deficient anti-money laundering controls would deter private investors and further chill foreign direct investment at a time when Islamabad is desperate to attract capital. The implications are not merely financial—such a move could also stoke political instability in a nation already grappling with intense domestic upheaval and ongoing civil-military tensions.

Islamabad insists it has fully complied with all 34 action items mandated by FATF during its previous grey listing and continues to maintain a robust framework to combat money laundering and terror financing. Pakistani officials have also accused India of exploiting multilateral platforms to advance a “narrow geopolitical agenda” and warned that such actions could inflame regional tensions. Nevertheless, the diplomatic reality is that Pakistan’s credibility remains shaky in many quarters, particularly after past instances where it was found to be dragging its feet on implementing key reforms or failing to prosecute UN-designated terrorists operating on its soil.

As the FATF prepares for its mid-year session, the stakes are escalating. Even as some member states may be wary of politicising what is supposed to be a technocratic body, the precedent of 2018—when India successfully lobbied for Pakistan’s grey listing amid concerns over terror financing—suggests that political will and diplomatic coordination can outweigh technical ambiguity. With India’s economy surging and its global clout rising, it finds itself in a much stronger position today to influence multilateral forums than it did seven years ago. Moreover, the global security environment, shaped by the Israel-Gaza war, the Ukraine conflict, and resurgent jihadist activity in Africa and Asia, has put terrorism back at the forefront of international concern, creating a receptive climate for India’s arguments.

By targeting Pakistan’s financial credibility, India is not merely responding to a terror attack—it is seeking to reshape the strategic balance in South Asia. A weakened Pakistan, constrained by financial oversight and international suspicion, would have limited capacity to fund proxy groups. At the same time, India’s actions send a signal to other adversaries and regional players that it will pursue a multi-pronged response—including economic and diplomatic tools—to acts of terror emanating from across its borders. (IPA Service)

The article India Has Stronger Case To Get Pakistan Back On The FATF Grey List appeared first on Arabian Post.

President Donald Trump has affirmed that Chinese-made electronics, including smartphones and laptops, will not be exempt from U.S. tariffs, signaling a continuation of his administration’s protectionist trade policies. Despite a temporary 90-day pause on certain tariffs, Trump clarified that these products remain subject to existing levies and may face additional duties under national security considerations.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced that electronics will be reclassified under semiconductor tariffs within the next one to two months. This move aligns with the administration’s broader strategy to reduce dependence on foreign nations, particularly China, for critical goods. The total tariff on Chinese imports currently stands at 145%, combining a 10% baseline, a 125% reciprocal tariff, and a 20% levy linked to fentanyl-related concerns.

The administration is also initiating a Section 232 investigation into semiconductor imports, citing national security risks. This probe could lead to new tariffs aimed at bolstering U.S. manufacturing in critical tech sectors. The investigation targets reliance on East Asian chip suppliers, including Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, Japan, and China. While such probes typically take 270 days, the timeline may be expedited.

China has responded with retaliatory measures, including additional tariffs of 34% on U.S. goods and export controls on certain rare earth elements. These actions have intensified the trade dispute, affecting global supply chains and market stability. The volatility from policy reversals has caused significant turbulence in financial markets, with the S&P 500 down over 10% since Trump’s term began.

Critics argue that the administration’s tariff approach is chaotic and economically harmful. Senator Elizabeth Warren has condemned the strategy, stating it discourages investment in the U.S. Analysts from Jefferies suggest the exemption reflects both financial market volatility and lobbying by major U.S. firms, adding that the administration is attempting to maintain policy credibility while pursuing its goal to rebuild the U.S. industrial base.

The article Trump’s Tariff Agenda Targets Chinese Tech Amid Trade Tensions appeared first on Arabian Post.

A 17% plunge erased a staggering $589 billion in value in a single day, only for the stock to roar back almost 9% the next session.

The culprit? A Chinese AI start-up, DeepSeek, that sent Silicon Valley into full-on existential crisis mode.

Let’s break down the four major takeaways from this AI-fuelled rollercoaster and what it means for investors.

1. AI isn’t a one-horse race

Wall Street had a full-fledged panic attack at the mere thought that someone other than Nvidia might be doing impressive things in AI. The idea that the US might not have an absolute AI monopoly rattled investors, but competition breeds innovation. The AI revolution isn’t a zero-sum game where only one company gets to profit.

DeepSeek’s breakthrough should serve as a wake-up call: the AI gold rush is global. Smart investors should be watching who else is making moves, not just clinging to the Nvidia narrative. If anything, this week’s sell-off was an overreaction, and the bounce-back proves that Nvidia isn’t suddenly doomed.

2. Volatility is normal

A 17% drop followed by a 9% surge? That’s a full-blown stock market soap opera. But if you’re in AI stocks, buckle up. The market is hypersensitive to any news, rumours, or existential threats (real or imagined).

For long-term investors, this means opportunities. Every panic-driven sell-off creates a buying window, and every euphoric rally invites caution. The key is to stay disciplined, not reactionary. AI’s dominance isn’t a question of “if” but “which companies will lead.” Nvidia remains the heavyweight champ—for now—but the challengers are stepping into the ring.

3. US-China AI tensions are a mega-theme

DeepSeek’s rise isn’t just about innovation, it’s about geopolitics. The US has tried to choke China’s AI ambitions by restricting chip exports, yet here we are: a Chinese start-up rattled the biggest AI stock in the world. This fight isn’t over.

Investors need to recognize that AI is the new arms race. US firms will throw more money, more lobbying, and more hype at staying ahead. Meanwhile, China will push ahead despite restrictions, creating global AI rivalries that move markets in a way we haven’t seen since the early days of Big Tech.

So, don’t bet against AI, but also don’t assume US dominance is untouchable. Nvidia’s comeback proves the market is still bullish on its leadership—for now. But smart investors will be watching the next moves from China, Washington, and Silicon Valley very, very closely.

4. Get advice

If this week has taught us anything, it’s that the AI sector is high-stakes, high-speed, and high-risk. You don’t want to be making investment decisions based on headlines alone. With AI stocks, timing matters. Strategy matters. And getting expert financial advice isn’t a luxury—it’s a necessity.

Long-term trends may favour AI, but short-term swings can be brutal. Whether you’re doubling down on Nvidia, diversifying into emerging AI plays, or wondering if this is all just another hype cycle, talking to a financial adviser who actually understands tech markets is the smartest move you can make.

This week was a gut check for AI investors. If you can’t handle a little turbulence, maybe AI stocks aren’t for you. But if you see opportunity in chaos, this sector is where the action is.

And let’s be honest—if you’re not paying attention to AI, what are you even doing?

Nigel Green is deVere CEO and Founder

The article Nvidia, Deepseek and the AI reality check: 4 takeaways for investors appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Nitya Chakraborty

Leftwing Democratic senator Bernie Sanders is a veteran self proclaimed socialist who has been consistently fighting for drastic cut in the budget of the U.S. military since his election as a young senator from Vermont decades ago. In the November elections, he won his seat for the fourth time for another six year term. The maverick senator has all through opposing the high allocations of the US funds to the war efforts supporting Israel and Ukraine. However, all his efforts failed and the massive funds inflows continued.

But this time, he has got unusual support from his political enemy Elon Musk, the richest man in the world and a key adviser to the President elect Donald Trump. Musk has been made co-chair of the Department of Government Expenditure along with Vivek Ramaswamy which is primarily meant to cut the unnecessary government expenditure in the departments. While the new Trump government may use the recommendations to do away with a large number of jobs, one focus-that is n cutting to size Pentagon that Musk is stating, has got big approval from Bernie Sanders.

In fact, Trump also has mentioned in his recent interviews how Pentagon’s present high budget is a big waste and this can be drastically reduced. Elon Musk has gone far ahead and he is saying some the things which Sanders has been saying for the last two decades. Musk is mentioning of military having excessive funds engaging in endless wars.

“Today in America, 60% of our people live paycheck to paycheck, 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and 21.5 million households are paying more than 50% of their income on housing,” Sanders began. “We have one of the highest rates of childhood poverty of almost any developed country on Earth, and 25% of older adults are trying to survive on $15,000 a year or less. “In other words, the United States has fallen far behind other major countries in protecting the most vulnerable, and our government has failed millions of working families.

“But while so many Americans are struggling to get by, the United States is spending record-breaking amounts of money on the military. In the coming days, with relatively little debate, Congress will overwhelmingly pass the National Defense Authorization Act, approving close to $900 billion for the Department of Defense. When spending on nuclear weapons and ‘emergency’ defense spending is included, the total will approach $1 trillion. We now spend more than the next nine countries combined.

In an interview with ‘Politico’, Sanders says “I don’t often agree with Elon Musk, but he is right when he says the Pentagon ‘has little idea how its annual budget of more than $800 billion is spent.’” “Very few people who researched the military-industrial complex doubt there is massive fraud, waste and cost over-runs in the system,” Sanders continued. “Defense contractors routinely overcharge the Pentagon by 40%, and sometimes more than 4000%.

“In October, RTX–formerly Raytheon–was fined $950 million for inflating bills, lying about labour and material costs, and paying bribes to secure foreign business. In June, Lockheed Martin was fined $70 million for overcharging the Navy for aircraft parts, the latest in a long line of similar abuses. As a result of massive consolidation in the industry, a large portion of the Pentagon budget now goes to a handful of huge defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, RTX, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman.” The contractors spend their billions of defense dollars on dividends and stock buybacks–$61 billion—to rich investors while pocketing $57 billion in profits since 2022, he added.

“These companies–like the drug companies, insurance companies, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry–spend millions on campaign contributions and lobbying. In the recent election cycle, defense contractors spent nearly $251 million on lobbying and contributed almost $37 million to political candidates. Surprise, surprise! Most members of Congress vote for greatly inflated military budgets with few questions asked.”

The military-industrial-complex costs lives, too, which is another reason Sanders opposes the military money bill. “When contractors said they couldn’t ramp up production” of more planes, ammo and bombs for Ukraine “without more taxpayer support, Congress repeatedly appropriated emergency funding, with roughly $78.5 billion going to buy equipment and services from the major defense contractors.

“They jacked up prices… Lockheed Martin and RTX raised the price of the Javelin missile system from about $263,000 per unit just before the [Ukraine] war to $350,700 this year. Similar price hikes took place for Patriot missiles and other weapons. Make no mistake: Every time a contractor pads its profit margins, fewer weapons reach the frontlines. The greed of these defense contractors is not just costing American taxpayers; it’s killing Ukrainians.

“The United States needs a strong military, but we do not need a system designed to make huge profits for a handful of giant contractors. We do not need to spend almost a trillion dollars on the military, while half a million Americans are homeless and children go hungry.”

“In this moment in history, it would be wise for us to remember what [President] Dwight D. Eisenhower, a former five-star general, said in his farewell address in 1961: ‘In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.’”

Actually, what Ike originally planned to say, his papers reveal, was he called the combine “the military-industrial-congressional complex.” Then he crossed out “congressional.” “What Eisenhower said was true in 1961. It is even more true today,” Sanders concluded. (IPA Service)

The article Can Bernie Sanders And Elon Musk Jointly Bring Down U.S. Military Budget? appeared first on Arabian Post.

Several key figures from the Trump family and its network gathered at a high-profile cryptocurrency event in the Gulf region, where the convergence of digital currencies and the ever-growing market for crypto investments was on full display. The event, widely attended by industry leaders, investors, and political figures, provided a platform to discuss the emerging landscape of cryptocurrency, with a particular focus on Bitcoin, blockchain technology, and their future within global markets.

As the world navigates the evolving world of cryptocurrencies, the Gulf has become a hotspot for discussions around Bitcoin’s potential and the rising interest among both investors and political figures in the region. The event served as a reflection of broader global trends, where prominent political and business figures are increasingly aligning themselves with the digital currency space. For the Trump family and its allies, this marks an intensified involvement in the ever-growing crypto economy, a sector that has captured the attention of major global investors.

Donald Trump’s family members and political allies, including former White House officials and business partners, were seen attending various sessions during the gathering. These figures have been closely linked with the cryptocurrency movement for years, and their participation at the Gulf event highlights the increasing intersection between the digital currency world and high-profile political figures. Their presence not only signals a growing interest in the sector but also indicates how crypto has evolved from a niche technology to a mainstream financial asset.

The Trump family’s involvement in crypto aligns with broader Republican Party figures, some of whom have advocated for fewer regulations and a more lenient approach to crypto markets. Trump himself, while not overtly endorsing cryptocurrency in public statements, has repeatedly shown an interest in economic policies that benefit digital assets, often commenting on the need for more favorable conditions for businesses in the U.S. crypto space.

This growing alignment between the Trump family and cryptocurrency advocates has led to discussions regarding how the family’s network could further influence digital asset regulations. It is an environment that is ripe for policy lobbying and potential investment opportunities, making it a key area of focus for those gathered at the Gulf conference.

The Gulf region, particularly countries like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, has increasingly emerged as a global center for cryptocurrency innovation and regulation. These nations have been proactive in cultivating a crypto-friendly environment, with numerous free zones and financial hubs aimed at attracting digital asset companies and investors. Their push to position themselves as leaders in the digital finance sector is evident through initiatives aimed at creating regulatory frameworks that are conducive to cryptocurrency ventures.

For the Trump family and its allies, the event in the Gulf represents not just an opportunity to network, but also a deeper engagement with the region’s cryptocurrency potential. A number of Gulf-based investors have been vocal about their interest in Bitcoin, often citing its promise as a store of value amidst global economic instability. This is a view that aligns closely with statements made by key Trump allies, who see Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation and a safeguard for the future of financial systems.

While the Trump family’s direct involvement in crypto investments remains largely speculative, many members of their political network are increasingly vocal in advocating for the integration of cryptocurrency into mainstream financial markets. At the Gulf gathering, several key figures in the Trump camp discussed the potential for digital currencies to be integrated into broader financial systems, from asset management to cross-border payments, and even within the governance structures of central banks.

The event also highlighted the expanding role of cryptocurrency in global political and economic spheres. From the Trump family’s interactions with regional investors to the broader geopolitical implications of a burgeoning crypto economy, it is clear that the Gulf is positioning itself as a critical player in the digital finance space. For countries seeking to diversify their economies and establish dominance in future technologies, cryptocurrencies present an undeniable opportunity.

This expansion of crypto’s influence has not gone unnoticed among policy-makers. With growing calls for clearer regulations to protect both investors and the integrity of the financial system, the Gulf event also shed light on the regulatory challenges that come with rapid crypto adoption. Many industry leaders, alongside political figures, are discussing the importance of establishing global standards that could guide the industry in its growth while ensuring that digital currencies do not pose systemic risks to the financial ecosystem.

The Gulf event also served as a backdrop to discussions about the broader economic implications of cryptocurrencies, especially Bitcoin. As more global corporations and governments consider how to integrate digital assets into their financial systems, the Trump family’s growing involvement signals a broader shift in how political figures engage with the crypto industry. This is not just about investment but also about shaping the future of digital finance through favorable policies and regulatory measures.

As the cryptocurrency market continues to mature, it is clear that the involvement of key political figures, such as those from the Trump family, will play a crucial role in influencing both the regulatory landscape and the direction of investment in digital assets. The event in the Gulf was a clear demonstration of the growing interconnections between political figures, investors, and the rapidly evolving world of cryptocurrencies.

Arabian Post – Crypto News Network

The article Trump Family and Allies Eye Crypto Boom at Gulf Event appeared first on Arabian Post.

Donald Trump’s longtime business associate, Thomas Barrack, is capitalizing on deep connections with Gulf states as the family-run Trump Organization benefits from a thriving real estate market. Barrack, who has cultivated ties across the Middle East for decades, has played a pivotal role in linking Trump’s business interests with opportunities in the region, particularly in property development.

Trump’s investments, including luxury properties in the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, have seen significant attention from buyers in Gulf nations. These developments align with a broader strategy to position the Trump brand as a luxury marker in key global markets. The region’s appetite for high-end real estate, boosted by rising oil revenues and economic diversification strategies, has provided fertile ground for the Trump Organization’s ventures.

Barrack, a private equity veteran and former chairman of Colony Capital, has built a reputation as a dealmaker in the Gulf, fostering relationships with influential leaders. His role as a Middle East intermediary became especially prominent during Trump’s presidency, a period that saw heightened U.S.-Gulf cooperation. Critics argue that Barrack leveraged his political proximity to secure deals favorable to Trump enterprises, raising questions about conflicts of interest.

Beyond Barrack’s efforts, the Trump Organization has actively promoted its brand through alliances with local developers in the region. Dubai’s DAMAC Properties, for example, has collaborated with the Trumps on two golf courses and a series of branded villas. These ventures have not only expanded the organization’s footprint but have also underscored the brand’s appeal among Gulf elites.

As Gulf states pursue transformative projects like Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, which includes futuristic cities such as NEOM, Trump-branded properties are poised to align with these ambitious goals. High net-worth individuals in the Gulf continue to gravitate toward U.S.-based luxury real estate, often tied to high-profile figures such as Trump, amplifying their international investments. Observers note that this trend reflects a broader cultural affinity for conspicuous consumption and international prestige.

However, this proximity to Gulf wealth has sparked scrutiny. Barrack faced legal challenges in the U.S. over accusations of lobbying for the United Arab Emirates without registering as a foreign agent, though he was acquitted of these charges. While his acquittal removed a legal hurdle, critics remain skeptical about his role in facilitating deals that intertwine Trump’s personal interests with U.S. diplomacy. Advocacy groups have pointed out how such overlapping interests could erode public trust in governance.

Barrack’s influence extends beyond business, as he has shaped U.S.-Gulf relations during key moments, often advocating for policies beneficial to Gulf leaders. During Trump’s presidency, this included supporting Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and maintaining close ties with UAE’s Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed. These relationships, analysts suggest, have bolstered Trump’s standing in Gulf business circles, creating pathways for future collaborations.

Meanwhile, the Trump Organization is also benefitting domestically from Gulf-driven investments in U.S. properties. A surge in high-value purchases, including in cities like Miami and New York, has spotlighted Middle Eastern buyers seeking diversification away from regional economies. Gulf investors often favor luxury brands, with Trump properties ranking high on their lists.

Despite these successes, Trump’s brand faces reputational challenges. Investigations into the former president’s handling of classified documents and ongoing legal disputes have cast a shadow over his business ventures. Still, Barrack’s enduring ties to Gulf leaders may insulate some of these concerns, ensuring continued patronage.

The intersection of business and politics remains a focal point, with critics urging transparency and ethical boundaries to prevent undue influence. For the Trump Organization, the Gulf represents both opportunity and controversy—a region where luxury, diplomacy, and business blend in a complex narrative.

The article Trump Adviser Leverages Gulf Ties for Real Estate Gains appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Nitya Chakraborty

The interim Government of Bangladesh which took office on August 8 this year completed its first one hundred days on November 16. On this occasion, head of the interim Government Dr. Muhammad Yunus in a televised address to the nation on Sunday urged the people to keep patience and promised road map for elections soon after the carrying out of the electoral reforms. He emphasized that the government wants to create an election system that will be followed for ages.

The indications from his official address suggest that the national elections may be delayed by a few months but certainly not long and it may be possible to hold elections by the end of 2025. But significantly in an interview with the Qatar based news agency Al Jazeera the same day, Dr. Yunus said that the elections could be held anytime before four years. The release of the Al Jazeera interview has created a big furore in Dhaka political circles.

The most upset is the Bangladesh Nationalist Party(BNP) which is the most organized political party in Bangladesh now with experience of ruling the government twice. The party is best prepared to fight the elections at this stage since the others are disorganized and the anti-discriminatory students body who led the mass upsurge is deeply divided on the issue of the formation of a political party. The BNP wants that the elections should be held after the electoral reforms panel submits its report to the Government. The task of Constitutional reforms should be left to the newly elected Parliament.

The BNP has a love hate relationship with the head of the government Dr. Muhammad Yunus. The party is ready to tolerate Dr. Yunus up to a point since he is vehemently anti- Awami League and supported by a major section of the students body. But with Donald Trump winning the US presidential elections and taking over power on January 20 next year, the BNP knows that the Dr. Yunus’s days are numbered and this is the right time to lobby for early elections.

BNP’s acting chairman and former Prime Minister Begum Zia’s son Tarique Rahman has returned to Dhaka after his political exile in the West. Tarique was the main man who was lobbying with the western governments, especially the UK and the USA in favour of the BNP during the Sheikh Hasina regime and also afterwards. He was constantly travelling from London to Washington to lobby with the U.S. congressmen. This intensified after Trump victory and under his leadership, BNP was able to establish some links with pro-Trump advisers who are directly connected to the South Asia policy.

On Saturday, Tarique made the BNP position clear when addressing a meeting of BNP he said his party would not tolerate any incompetence of the interim government. ‘Despite numerous dissatisfaction shortcomings of this interim government, the people wish to maintain their trust. But does the government want that?’ he asked.BNP secretary general Mirza Fakhrul Alamgir said that the necessary electoral reforms have to be expedited and the elections should be held early.

Apart from campaigning, the BNP has started putting international pressures for holding early elections, especially on the USA and China, the two principal powers active in Dhaka political circles. A four member BNP delegation visited Beijing from November 7 to 16 and held discussions with the Chinese Communist Party leaders. The BNP leaders strongly aired the party’s views on holding early elections and how the BNP is interested in strengthening relations with China.

Not to be left behind, the US charge de affairs in Dhaka Megan Bouldin invited a delegation of BNP for discussions on November 14. The BNP delegation was led by the BNP secretary general Mirza Alamgir and they discussed about the latest situation in Bangladesh. The issue of electoral reforms and early elections came up. BNP expressed their views strongly. The party, worried at Trump’s possible stance to the Yunus government mentioned that BNP always worked for expanding relationship with US administration unlike Awami League government and the party will be doing so if it comes to the government again.

At the other levels of Bangladesh politics, interim head Dr Yunus has announced once again that his government will seek extradition of Sheikh Hasina from India to Bangladesh for trial. Bangladesh is also approaching Interpol for sending red notice to Hasina. All these moves are being publicly announced with full knowledge that the extradition is a difficult and log term process and India can defy it on the basis of existing legal provisions.

A fresh development is that the law ministry has moved the High Court for the deletion of ‘Socialism’ from the constitution which Sheikh Hasina incorporated. Some of the so called radical students activists belonging to various fringe groups, have kept silent on this interim government move. Dr. Yunus wants to keep out Awami League from the discussions on the proposed electoral reforms. He and many of the interim govt members are in favour of keeping Awami League out of elections. But BNP wants Awami League participation with some riders. The party delegation has conveyed that both to the Chinese and U.S. Governments. All in all, Dhaka is a political theatre of utter confusion.

The 24 member interim government consisting of the various components of the anti-Hasina struggle is well aware of the uncertainty over the future of Dr. Muhammad Yunus’s tenure after Trump takes over on January 20, 2025. Lisa Curtis, a key member of the Trump advisory board on South Asia policy has made some critical observations on Bangladesh government’s functioning. Recently, all the political parties including the underground Awami League are anxiously waiting for the Trump regime to officially take over. The final game will start only after January 20 in Bangladesh. (IPA Service)

The article Decoding Bangladesh Politics After 100 Days Of Interim Government appeared first on Arabian Post.

By K Raveendran

Recent interventions by the Supreme Court into actions taken by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) have underscored mounting concerns about systemic issues within the country’s chief market regulator. SEBI’s actions in several high-profile cases—particularly its record of imposing significant penalties and its alleged tendency to either delay or condone infractions by key market players—are sparking renewed questions about the agency’s decision-making processes and effectiveness. With SEBI Chief Madhabi Puri Buch herself now under scrutiny, facing allegations of misconduct and questionable financial dealings, public and judicial attention to the organization’s governance has intensified.

Several recent cases illustrate these issues, highlighting potential lapses in SEBI’s enforcement of financial regulations. In one of the most notable instances, the Supreme Court overturned SEBI’s imposition of a ₹25 crore penalty on Mukesh Ambani and dismissed its case against Reliance Investment Holdings over alleged breaches of takeover rules dating back to a transaction in 1994. Another court decision last year ordered SEBI to refund ₹300 crore to the National Stock Exchange (NSE) over a controversial co-location policy that allowed brokers to install servers within SEBI premises, thereby gaining faster access to market data. Such rulings cast a critical light on SEBI’s oversight, revealing a troubling pattern of decisions that not only appear inconsistent but sometimes exhibit leniency toward powerful interests.

SEBI’s recent decisions reveal a disconnect between the regulator’s stated mission of protecting investors and its apparent leniency in enforcing policies against major market players. For critics, SEBI’s response to these rulings from the Supreme Court has done little to restore confidence; rather, the regulator’s stance in recent cases has only reinforced scepticism regarding its independence and integrity. SEBI’s leadership, meanwhile, has sought to portray these judicial setbacks as rare anomalies, asserting that its policy framework is both transparent and rooted in law. However, analysts and some former SEBI officials argue that these cases point to a broader, more systemic problem with SEBI’s internal processes and decision-making, especially under the current administration.

Criticism has particularly centred on SEBI’s perceived lapses in enforcing regulations, especially in cases involving influential corporate figures or entities. The Supreme Court’s criticism of SEBI’s handling of the Mukesh Ambani case has not only called into question the regulatory rigor of the organization but has also led to discussions about whether SEBI’s approach disproportionately impacts smaller firms and individual investors. By failing to demonstrate consistent, fair enforcement across cases, critics argue that SEBI risks undermining trust in India’s capital markets, where transparency and accountability are crucial for attracting foreign investment. For some market participants, SEBI’s selective enforcement of rules has created a perception that the organization is overly deferential to the interests of the powerful.

Beyond the specific rulings, SEBI’s approach to oversight has also faced challenges on procedural and operational grounds. Among the issues brought to light by recent Supreme Court decisions is SEBI’s long-standing reliance on reactive, rather than proactive, measures. The organization has often acted only when crises emerge, rather than working preemptively to detect and address potential market distortions. This passive approach, they contend, is ill-suited to an era where complex, high-frequency trading and technological advancements pose ever-evolving risks to market stability. As India’s capital markets grow more interconnected with global finance, the absence of robust, forward-looking oversight mechanisms is seen as increasingly untenable.

SEBI’s decisions have not only faced judicial scrutiny but have also attracted criticism from within the financial sector. Market participants have voiced similar concerns about SEBI’s perceived unwillingness to address conflicts of interest and potential biases. SEBI’s structure as an independent board, while designed to insulate it from political pressures, has been criticized for lacking adequate accountability mechanisms. Calls for greater transparency in SEBI’s decision-making process have gained traction amid recent controversies, with experts arguing that the organization’s opaque procedures contribute to suspicions of favouritism and selective enforcement. By shielding key regulatory decisions from public scrutiny, SEBI risks further eroding the credibility of its oversight and alienating investors.

The Supreme Court’s rulings against SEBI have also revived discussions about the role of the regulator’s leadership in shaping policy direction and enforcement standards. Madhabi Puri Buch, who was appointed as SEBI’s first woman chairperson, initially garnered support for her promises of reform and modernization. Yet her tenure has increasingly been marred by accusations of impropriety and lack of oversight. Reports alleging irregular financial dealings and accusations of failing to uphold fiduciary duties have complicated her position, raising questions about the adequacy of SEBI’s internal controls and governance structures. While Buch has dismissed these allegations as baseless, critics argue that the charges underscore deeper governance issues within SEBI, where decision-making appears concentrated and potentially susceptible to conflicts of interest.

Further compounding SEBI’s woes is the perception that the regulator has often overlooked serious infractions by influential corporations while rigorously pursuing less powerful market participants. Analysts point to SEBI’s treatment of certain high-profile cases as evidence that enforcement actions are influenced more by political considerations and corporate lobbying than by objective legal standards. Such practices, they argue, risk creating a two-tier regulatory system where rules apply selectively, thereby undermining the regulator’s mandate to ensure a fair, level playing field.

Unless SEBI can demonstrate a more consistent, transparent approach to rule enforcement, investor confidence in India’s capital markets may suffer. In a landscape where market integrity is paramount for sustaining economic growth, SEBI’s perceived failures have broader implications for the country’s economic aspirations. A regulatory environment marred by selective enforcement and favouritism risks deterring both domestic and foreign investment, ultimately slowing the pace of financial development. (IPA Service)

The article Supreme Court Strictures Show How SEBI’s Failures Span Both Commissions And Omissions appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Nitya Chakraborty

Three months after the installation of the interim government in Bangladesh headed by chief adviser Dr. Muhammad Yunus, the politics of the 18 crore-nation has landed in fresh turmoil after the win of the Republican candidate Donald Trump in the just concluded November 5 presidential elections. Only six days have passed since the victory of Trump, but it has stirred the Bangladesh political establishment so much that talks are on in Dhaka’s diplomatic circles that Dr. Yunus may resign. The question is only when?

It is known to everyone dealing with the with the South Asian advisers of Trump that the President-elect has a distaste for Dr. Yunus who is known in Washington DC as Hillary Clinton’s man. Already, in his Diwali message, just a few days before the polls, Trump made his position clear by mentioning that Bangladesh is in chaos and there are attacks on the Hindus which he would not have allowed if he were the President. This was a sufficient signal to Dr. Yunus to understand what Trump meant.

Now in the last few days after November 5 poll results, the Awami League workers have got back their mojo. The significant thing that Sheikh Hasina, currently in exile in New Delhi, sent her message on Trump’s victory signing as the Prime Minister, and this was allowed by the Indian government. The fact is that Sheikh Hasina was forced to leave within 15 minutes on August 5 and she could not sign her resignation letter, though she was ready to do so after being advised by her son and daughter, who feared otherwise she would be killed there itself.

This got confirmed after the Bangladesh president Sahabuddin said publicly that his office could not trace any resignation letter from Hasina. This infuriated the supporters of the anti-discriminatory students body and they demanded the removal of the President. Though the President still remains, as the Bangladesh army chief strongly defended him, uncertainty lingers.

The immediate fallout of the Trump victory on the Awami League is that the organization, which till recently was lying low as the important leaders were hiding and many of the offices were burnt after August 5, as also functionaries and former MPs killed, suddenly started organising and the cryptic messages went to the core base of supporters that the turnaround was near. On November 10, the Awami League’s students wing gave a call for a public meeting in memory of the students movement martyr Noor Hussain at 3 PM at the central place in Dhaka. This was an instance of courage and resistance, as it was known that they would not be allowed to hold the rally.

Sure, the rally could not take place after large number of arrests and beating of the workers who dared to come. But this got the Yunus-led establishment worried since they did not expect even token emergence of Awami League after the student movements fury against them before or after August 5. More than the consolidation within Bangladesh, the Awami League has made some headway overseas. Awami League’s overseas base is still strongest in UK and USA, and they are flush with funds also. Senior AL leaders are lobbying in US with the South Asia advisers of Trump and they are getting good response. The BNP overseas body is also lobbying in Washington, but so far, they are much behind the Awami League. Things will take definite shape on Bangladesh policy of the Trump government shortly after Trump officially takes over on January 20 next year.

In Dhaka, in the last few days, intense battles took place among the components of the political parties and the student leaders who comprise the advisory team. Both BNP and Jamaat-E-Islami demanded more representation on the advisory board. The Anti-Discrimination League students’ body also demanded more positions. Originally, it was decided that six new advisors will be inducted. But finally, three advisors were inducted making the total number of advisors to 24. These three were sworn in on November 10. They are Mahafuj Alam, a Jamaat supporter who was already working with Dr. Yunus as one of the assistants, industrialist Sheikh Bahar Uddin and film-maker Mostofa Sarwar Farooki.

The selection has led to widespread furore and the students body has reacted in a wild manner. A leading students body leader Sarjis Alam said last night that even lackeys of the fallen government are getting berth as advisers. The BNP is also feeling disappointed. The interim government is now trying to do its best to distract the attention of its supporters to the proposed actions against the Awami League leaders, including Sheikh Hasina. The officials said that Bangladesh government would soon approach Interpol for issuing red corner notice to Sheikh Hasina for repatriation to Bangladesh from India. Further on December 10, the Dhaka court will hold the hearing on the probe by the police relating to murder accusation against Sheikh Hasina.

On the diplomatic front in Dhaka, the U.S. Embassy is not active now as their earlier activities were related to promoting Dr. Yunus and his government. So that is going to change. So Megan Bouldin, who assumed charge as the deputy chief of the US mission in Dhaka in August this year after regime change, is not meeting the political leaders as was the case earlier. But the Chinese ambassador Yao Wen is most active. China has big economic interests in Bangladesh. Many big projects are continuing. China’s main interest now is to ensure that the Yunus government officially announces its decision to join RCEP. The commerce ministry of Bangladesh approved the proposal and sent it to the foreign ministry and PMO last month, but no official announcement has been made. China is worried.

As regards India, the scenario is at last looking better after a low dip in India-Bangladesh relations after August 5. In the emerging political scenario in Bangladesh following Trump’s win, even if Dr. Yunus stays in his position, he will be more amenable to India’s position. Dr. Yunus desperately wants to meet the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the BIMSTEC meet later this month. Whatever be the final shape of Trump’s Bangladesh policy, Trump will keep Narendra Modi in the loop and that will be a big relief for India at the moment. (IPA Service)

The article Bangladesh Interim Head Dr. Muhammad Yunus Is On His Way Out By March Next appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Nitya Chakraborty

The U.S. Presidential elections on November 5 have assumed unusual significance in the shaping up of the future of Bangladesh which is presently ruled by an interim government headed by the Nobel Laureate Dr. Muhammad Yunus. In the last two weeks, hectic activities were on in both Dhaka as well as in Washington DC and New York by all the contending parties- the chief adviser Dr. Yunus, the main opposition and the aspirant for heading the post election government BNP and the disgraced, now politically shunned ousted ruling party Awami League to explain their respective viewpoints on the Bangladesh developments to the US political establishment covering both the ruling Democratic Party and the opposition Republicans.

Dr. Yunus did his lobbying" 94357 target="_self">lobbying at official level in New York during his visit to United Nations, from September 24 to September 27 mostly with the US administration including President Biden and the secretary of state Antony Blinken. He had no meeting with any important official of Trump camp. Dr. Yunus depended on his friends in the Democratic Party, especially the Clintons and he went back convinced that he had managed all the support that was needed from the U.S. Government.

Dr. Yunus’s main contender Awami League was not sitting idle. The AL, despite its ouster in Bangladesh and attacks by the present ruling establishment has the largest support base in overseas, especially in the USA and UK and its Bangladeshi diaspora with active AW supporters with high connections, were mobilized soon after Dr. Yunus’s return to Dhaka, to lobby with both the Democratic Party establishment as also the campaign committee of Donald Trump.. Sources say that the AL lobby did not get response from the Kamala Harris camp but they got very good response from the Trump’s advisers. It is not clear whether the AL people could hold a meeting with Trump himself, but certainly they were happy with the initial reaction of the advisers.

The narrative is this. Trump camp knows that Dr. Yunus is a protégé of Hillary Clinton and Trump hates Hillary the most. Even now, in private talks, he calls Hillary a witch and ‘that nasty woman’. The AL leaders harped on this and made the Trump advisers take an anti-Yunus position. . Things will move only after the elections results are out on November 5 night. The political observers of the Bangladesh politics based in Washington believe that if Trump wins, certainly, Dr. Yunus will be in trouble just because he is Hillary’s man but for no other reasons. The AL league wants that Trump should ensure the observance of free and fair elections with the participation of Awami League.

The present main political party in Bangladesh BNP has also lobbied both with the Biden administration and Trump campaign committee. They have sought for early elections in Bangladesh. They have contested the argument of Dr. Yunus that the elections can be held only after the implementation of reforms in tree key areas. They feel that the elections can be held while the reforms are on.

As regards India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has a big political stake in the outcome of the presidential elections on November 5. The Modi government is not comfortable with some of the views of the Democratic Presidential nominee Kamala Harris. She is a committed human rights lawyer and her friends in the Democratic Party are anti-Modi. Further BJP as a party is working for Trump presidency in 2024. In USA, the Overseas Friends of BJP is the party wing of its supporters.. Apart there are strong VHP units and Hindu organisations which have close ties with the BJP. PM Modi is a darling to them, many of whom are Gujaratis.

According to a census published in 2023, the US’ 4.4 million Indians now outnumber the Chinese diaspora in the country. Moreover, they’re not just influential on the political scene. 25 of the 500 largest American companies are headed by Indians, including Microsoft, YouTube, Google and Adobe, compared with just 11 a decade ago. The rise of this diaspora is a recent development, coinciding with the arrival of Indian engineers in Silicon Valley from the 2000s onwards. In the US, Indians are the best-paid and most highly educated migrants.

In 2020 presidential elections, estimates made by Indian organisations show that 74 per cent of the Indian Americans voted for the Democratic Party despite high campaign by BJP dominated Indian diaspora with – ‘ Phir Ekbar Trump Sarkar’ in the podium at Houston in 2019. This time, in 2024 elections, the BJP government is feeling it more necessary for them for Trump to win. Accordingly all instructions have been given and the pro-BJP Indian organisations are campaigning for Trump though finally all BJP loyalists may not vote for Trump. Ram Madhav the RSS strongman is in charge of the BJP’s Indian diaspora activities in US.

In sum, Bangladesh politicians and the interim government will be anxiously waiting for the installation of the next President on January 21 , 2025.. If Kamala Harris is elected that does not mean that she will follow fully Biden and Clintons policies in supporting Dr. Yunus. Harris has her own mind. She can review policies also. Not just as President, as a human rights lawyer also, she will judge the situation in Bangladesh. As regards Trump occupying White House again, the only surety is Dr. Yunus will be bundled out but the next step is unpredictable. (IPA Service)

The article Shunned By Biden Administration, Awami League Lobbying With Donald Trump appeared first on Arabian Post.

The article How US Election Could Reshape Bangladesh’s Political Landscape  appeared first on Arabian Post.

Qatar Airways has solidified its global presence by purchasing a 25% stake in Virgin Australia, marking a significant move in its bid to expand its footprint in the Asia-Pacific region. The Gulf-based carrier’s acquisition was announced on Tuesday, following an agreement with Bain Capital, the U.S. private equity firm that owns the majority stake in the Australian airline. This investment signals Qatar Airways’ strategic ambitions to leverage the Australian market while bolstering Virgin Australia’s competitive edge in the aviation industry.

The acquisition comes as Virgin Australia seeks to recover from its challenging financial history. Having previously entered voluntary administration during the pandemic, Virgin Australia was restructured under Bain Capital’s ownership, focusing on a leaner business model. The airline is now positioning itself for growth, and Qatar Airways’ investment is expected to inject fresh capital into its operations, aiding in recovery and expansion efforts.

Qatar Airways, which is known for its vast global network and premium service, views this partnership as an opportunity to enhance its services to and from Australia. The Gulf airline has long sought greater access to the Australian market, one of the most competitive and lucrative aviation sectors in the world. By securing a stake in Virgin Australia, Qatar Airways gains an ally in navigating the regulatory and operational complexities of expanding services to Australian cities, including Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane.

While Virgin Australia’s domestic market share is strong, the airline has faced stiff competition from rival Qantas. The Australian aviation market, dominated by Qantas domestically and internationally, offers limited space for competing carriers. Virgin Australia has typically targeted the budget-conscious traveler, but the tie-up with Qatar Airways suggests that it may look to differentiate itself with an upgraded premium offering. Qatar Airways is known for its luxury service standards, and its involvement could lead to a redefined experience for Virgin Australia’s passengers.

This move is not Qatar Airways’ first attempt to break into the Australian market. The airline has been active in lobbying for more flight routes to Australia, seeking to operate more than the currently approved services under Australia’s strict bilateral air service agreements. Australian regulators have maintained a cautious approach in granting additional air traffic rights, particularly given Qantas’ dominant position. However, with this partnership, Qatar Airways may now benefit from Virgin Australia’s existing infrastructure, potentially allowing it to expand its reach without the need for extensive regulatory approvals.

Industry experts suggest that Qatar Airways’ investment aligns with a broader trend in the aviation sector, where carriers are seeking partnerships to weather market volatility. The global airline industry has undergone significant shifts due to the pandemic, with many companies looking for strategic alliances to survive and thrive in the post-pandemic world. Virgin Australia’s restructuring and focus on core markets make it an attractive partner for Qatar Airways, which is always looking to diversify its revenue streams and increase its influence in key markets.

As part of the acquisition agreement, Virgin Australia will retain operational independence, continuing to manage its fleet, staff, and branding. Bain Capital will also retain a majority stake, with its representatives remaining actively involved in the airline’s governance. Qatar Airways’ role is expected to be that of a strategic partner, offering financial support, technical expertise, and perhaps most importantly, access to its extensive network of international destinations.

Analysts believe that Qatar Airways’ involvement could also open up more long-haul routes from Australia to the Middle East, Europe, and beyond. Virgin Australia’s limited long-haul capacity has been one of its weaknesses, particularly compared to Qantas, which dominates the international space with its extensive network. Qatar Airways, with its globally recognized hub in Doha, can offer Virgin Australia passengers access to a wide range of destinations, providing new travel opportunities for both leisure and business travelers.

The timing of the deal is significant, as the global aviation industry is recovering from the pandemic’s devastating effects. Passenger demand is rebounding, but airlines face new challenges, including rising fuel costs and the need for more sustainable practices. Qatar Airways has been at the forefront of adopting fuel-efficient aircraft and promoting greener operations, and its partnership with Virgin Australia could bring similar advancements to the Australian carrier.

While this acquisition has drawn attention from industry watchers, it also highlights the growing trend of consolidation and partnership within the airline industry. As carriers face increasing competition and mounting operational costs, collaborations like this one are seen as vital for survival and growth. For Qatar Airways, the stake in Virgin Australia is more than just a financial investment – it is a strategic step towards expanding its reach in one of the world’s most competitive aviation markets.

The announcement has also prompted speculation about how this partnership could impact Virgin Australia’s relationship with other global alliances. Virgin Australia has historically partnered with several international carriers, including Delta Air Lines and Singapore Airlines, to provide international connectivity. Qatar Airways is a member of the oneworld alliance, which raises questions about whether Virgin Australia will eventually move towards joining a global airline alliance, potentially enhancing its ability to compete on the world stage.

The article Qatar Airways acquires strategic stake in Virgin Australia appeared first on Arabian Post.

Coinbase’s recent lobbying efforts have intensified, reflecting a broader strategy to sway U.S. regulatory landscapes in favor of the cryptocurrency sector. Over the past two years, the cryptocurrency exchange has channeled a significant portion of its lobbying budget, with 74% of its total spending during this period aimed at influencing policy and legislative outcomes. Despite these efforts, the exchange’s attempts to elevate cryptocurrency issues during high-profile political events have met with limited success.

In a notable instance, Coinbase, through its advocacy group Stand With Crypto Alliance, actively sought to bring cryptocurrency discussions into the spotlight during the Harris-Trump debate. Just five days before the debate, the Alliance issued a petition to ABC News, urging that the candidates address cryptocurrency-related topics. The petition highlighted the presence of 52 million cryptocurrency investors in the United States and appealed for a direct inquiry into the candidates’ positions on digital currencies and their role in the economy.

However, the debate did not feature any questions regarding cryptocurrency. This oversight has underscored the challenges faced by cryptocurrency advocates in gaining substantial traction within the political discourse. Both major political parties, while acknowledging the growing influence of digital assets, have expressed reservations about the cryptocurrency industry’s political engagement and policy proposals.

On one hand, some Democrats have raised concerns about the potential for cryptocurrencies to facilitate illicit activities and undermine financial regulations. The party has been cautious about embracing crypto technologies, emphasizing the need for stringent oversight and regulatory frameworks to prevent misuse. This cautious stance reflects a broader apprehension about the potential risks associated with decentralized financial systems.

Conversely, Republicans have shown interest in fostering innovation and economic growth through digital currencies. However, the party’s support is tempered by concerns over regulatory clarity and the potential for overreach that might stifle innovation. The mixed feelings within the Republican camp highlight the ongoing debate about balancing technological advancement with regulatory oversight.

The juxtaposition of these political perspectives presents a challenging environment for Coinbase and other cryptocurrency advocates. Despite their significant lobbying investments and organized campaigns, gaining a unified and supportive stance from both political parties remains an elusive goal. The complexity of cryptocurrency regulations and the varied interests of stakeholders contribute to the difficulties in advancing a cohesive policy agenda.

In addition to these political hurdles, the cryptocurrency industry faces broader regulatory uncertainties. Financial regulators and lawmakers continue to grapple with the implications of digital currencies, leading to a fragmented approach to regulation. This regulatory uncertainty creates challenges for companies like Coinbase, which must navigate a complex landscape of rules and policies while attempting to influence legislative outcomes.

Coinbase’s lobbying strategy, while aggressive, highlights the broader trend of increasing investment in political advocacy by technology and finance sectors. As companies seek to shape policy environments that are favorable to their business models, the influence of lobbying efforts has become more pronounced. This trend reflects a growing recognition of the importance of political engagement in achieving business objectives and securing favorable regulatory conditions.

The article Coinbase’s Lobbying Surge Faces Mixed Results in Political Arena appeared first on Arabian Post.

Banking regulators in the United States, including the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), are expected to release significant revisions to bank capital requirements this month. These changes, which aim to strengthen the resilience of the financial system, are part of the larger “Basel III endgame” framework. The upcoming rules are targeted at banks with over $100 billion in assets, with the intention of bolstering their ability to withstand future financial crises.

The planned regulations will eliminate the use of banks’ internal risk models in favor of standardized models, addressing longstanding concerns about inconsistencies in how banks evaluate their risk exposure. If implemented, the new capital requirements will be phased in over three years, beginning in July 2025. However, the proposal has met with significant resistance from the banking industry, which argues that the regulations could lead to reduced lending capacity, stifling economic growth and affecting consumer credit availability.

The proposed revisions represent a culmination of years of efforts by regulators to tighten capital standards in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Banks have faced increasing scrutiny from both regulators and lawmakers over the adequacy of their capital buffers. Stress tests conducted by U.S. authorities have consistently shown that the nation’s banking system remains well-capitalized, but concerns linger about whether current rules are sufficient to safeguard against future economic shocks.

Among the major changes expected is the implementation of higher capital buffers for banks, particularly those with significant trading operations. This would affect major Wall Street firms, including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup. These institutions could be required to hold substantially more capital against their trading assets, which has drawn criticism from the financial sector. The American Bankers Association (ABA) and other industry groups have argued that excessive capital requirements could reduce profitability and hamper their ability to finance economic activity.

Despite these objections, proponents of the new rules, including key regulatory figures, have emphasized the importance of ensuring that banks are prepared for a range of potential crises. Federal Reserve officials have expressed confidence in the banking system’s current stability but have stressed that more stringent capital requirements would reduce the likelihood of taxpayer-funded bailouts in the future. They have also pointed to the Basel III guidelines as an international standard, which the U.S. must comply with to maintain financial stability on a global scale.

Opponents within the banking sector are mounting an aggressive lobbying campaign to delay or modify the rulemaking. They argue that the proposed rules do not take into account the economic impact of stricter capital standards, especially at a time when inflation and interest rate hikes are already placing significant pressure on the industry. Large banks, which are likely to be most affected by the new regulations, have voiced concerns that they will be forced to cut back on lending activities to meet the higher capital requirements.

The pushback has been particularly vocal from some of the biggest players in the financial industry, who warn that the new capital rules could lead to reduced lending to businesses and consumers. The ABA, in a statement, expressed support for strong capital requirements but urged regulators to strike a balance that does not stifle economic growth. They argue that while the banking sector remains resilient, overly stringent capital rules could inadvertently weaken it by making credit more expensive and difficult to obtain.

At the heart of the debate is the balance between financial stability and economic growth. Regulators believe that higher capital buffers will protect the economy from future crises, ensuring that banks can absorb losses without threatening the broader financial system. On the other hand, industry critics argue that the proposed rules may do more harm than good, reducing banks’ ability to lend at a critical time for the economy.

The article US Set to Roll Out Major Bank Capital Rule Overhaul This Month appeared first on Arabian Post.

Cryptocurrency firms have dramatically escalated their lobbying efforts, pouring millions of dollars into influencing lawmakers and regulators. Companies like Coinbase, Binance.us, and Ripple have taken the lead in boosting their expenditures, signaling their desire to shape policies favorable to the industry amid increasing regulatory scrutiny. The shift comes as governments worldwide consider tightening oversight on the cryptocurrency sector, sparking a significant uptick in corporate interest in political advocacy.

Coinbase, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchanges, has made a significant leap in lobbying expenses, increasing its spending by an astounding 3,475% over six years. What was once a modest $80,000 expenditure in 2017 ballooned to $2.86 million by 2023. This surge reflects Coinbase’s growing efforts to secure a regulatory environment that can support its expanding operations, as the company navigates a complex web of rules and policies affecting everything from trading to taxation.

Similarly, Binance.us, a major player in the U.S. cryptocurrency market, has also seen a steep rise in its lobbying spending. The company increased its expenditure by 656.25%, moving from $160,000 in 2021 to $1.215 million by 2023. Binance.us’s aggressive move comes as the exchange seeks to stabilize its position in a market where the regulatory landscape remains uncertain. With U.S. lawmakers ramping up discussions about crypto-related regulations, Binance.us’s efforts to engage with policymakers have become crucial to its future operations.

Ripple, a company well known for its association with the XRP cryptocurrency, has followed a similar trajectory in its lobbying efforts. Ripple’s lobbying expenditure rose by 1,780%, from $50,000 in 2017 to $940,000 in 2023. The increase comes at a time when Ripple has been embroiled in legal battles with U.S. regulators, particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which has accused the company of offering unregistered securities through XRP. As Ripple continues to contest these allegations, its heightened lobbying efforts aim to sway policymakers and create a more favorable legal framework for its business model.

This surge in lobbying comes as the crypto industry faces mounting regulatory pressures. The SEC, alongside other regulatory bodies like the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has intensified its efforts to bring digital assets under more stringent oversight. This has led to a series of lawsuits and enforcement actions, targeting everything from unregistered securities to anti-money laundering compliance. In response, crypto firms have recognized the need for a seat at the table to advocate for clearer, more predictable regulations that can foster innovation while protecting consumers.

The industry’s lobbying efforts are not limited to the United States. Across the globe, companies are ramping up their political advocacy to influence the developing legal frameworks around cryptocurrencies. In the European Union, the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation has been a central focus, as it promises to set out a comprehensive framework for the issuance and trading of cryptocurrencies within the bloc. Meanwhile, in Asia, countries like Singapore and Japan have been tightening their regulatory regimes to prevent fraud and promote transparency in the crypto markets.

While some lawmakers have voiced concerns about the rapid growth of the crypto sector and the risks it poses to financial stability, others have embraced the industry’s potential for innovation. Many policymakers acknowledge that blockchain technology, the foundation of cryptocurrencies, could revolutionize sectors such as finance, supply chain management, and even voting systems. As a result, crypto firms are leveraging this enthusiasm to advocate for regulations that support growth while addressing concerns over security, fraud, and environmental impact.

In the U.S., the legislative landscape remains fragmented, with various states adopting differing approaches to regulating cryptocurrencies. For instance, Wyoming has passed several crypto-friendly laws, establishing itself as a hub for blockchain innovation, while New York has imposed stricter regulations through its BitLicense framework. This patchwork of state-level regulations has led many in the industry to push for comprehensive federal legislation that can provide uniformity and clarity. Lobbyists representing crypto companies are playing a key role in shaping the conversations surrounding these potential regulations.

The influence of crypto lobbying is also reflected in the formation of industry groups aimed at coordinating efforts to shape policy. The Blockchain Association and the Chamber of Digital Commerce are two such organizations that have become prominent voices in the ongoing debate over cryptocurrency regulations. These groups, backed by some of the largest crypto firms, work to ensure that the industry’s interests are represented in policy discussions, advocating for regulations that can strike a balance between innovation and oversight.

Critics of the industry’s lobbying efforts argue that the massive influx of spending could undermine efforts to protect consumers and prevent financial crime. They caution that crypto firms, by spending millions to influence lawmakers, may push for regulations that prioritize industry growth over public safety. This concern has been exacerbated by the collapse of several high-profile crypto platforms, including the bankruptcy of major exchanges and fraudulent schemes that have resulted in significant losses for investors. Regulatory bodies have stressed the importance of maintaining a strong enforcement presence to ensure that the crypto sector operates transparently and adheres to the highest standards of security and compliance.

The article Crypto lobbying efforts surge as companies push for influence appeared first on Arabian Post.

UBS Group AG’s push against increased capital requirements has been firmly rejected by Swiss Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter. Despite the bank’s substantial lobbying efforts, Keller-Sutter has maintained her stance, indicating that the proposed new regulations will proceed as planned.

UBS has been advocating for more leniency regarding capital requirements, arguing that the proposed rules could impose undue constraints on its operations and profitability. The lobbying campaign has included high-profile meetings and extensive dialogue with policymakers, aiming to influence the Swiss government’s decision on financial regulations.

However, Keller-Sutter’s response has been unequivocal. She emphasized that the government is committed to strengthening financial stability and ensuring that large financial institutions are adequately capitalized to withstand potential economic shocks. Her firm position reflects a broader trend among regulators worldwide, who are increasingly focusing on enhancing the resilience of the banking sector.

The debate over capital requirements is part of a larger global discussion about financial regulation following the 2008 financial crisis. Regulators and financial institutions continue to grapple with finding the right balance between maintaining financial stability and supporting economic growth. UBS’s lobbying efforts highlight the tension between these objectives, as banks seek to mitigate regulatory burdens while regulators aim to protect the financial system.

Keller-Sutter’s decision underscores Switzerland’s commitment to upholding stringent financial standards. The country has long been a global financial hub, and its regulatory policies often set a precedent for other nations. The Finance Minister’s stance signals a firm resolve to prioritize financial stability over industry lobbying.

The implications of this decision are significant for UBS and the broader banking sector. If the new capital requirements are implemented, UBS may need to adjust its financial strategies to comply with the regulations. This could involve raising additional capital, altering its investment strategies, or adjusting its business operations to align with the new requirements.

UBS’s lobbying efforts are not an isolated case. Financial institutions worldwide regularly engage in lobbying to influence regulatory policies that affect their operations. The effectiveness of such campaigns can vary, depending on the political climate, regulatory environment, and the strength of the arguments presented.

Keller-Sutter’s firm position has been met with both support and criticism from various stakeholders. Supporters argue that strong capital requirements are essential for preventing future financial crises and protecting the stability of the global financial system. Critics, however, contend that excessive regulatory constraints could stifle innovation and economic growth.

As the debate continues, the focus remains on how best to balance regulatory demands with the needs of the financial sector. UBS’s lobbying efforts reflect the ongoing negotiation between regulators and financial institutions over the future of banking regulations. The outcome of this issue will likely have far-reaching implications for the financial industry, both in Switzerland and globally.

Swiss Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter’s rejection of UBS’s lobbying against increased capital requirements emphasizes the Swiss government’s commitment to maintaining rigorous financial standards. The resolution of this issue will be closely watched by financial institutions and regulators alike, as it could shape the future of banking regulation in Switzerland and beyond.

The article Swiss Finance Minister Dismisses UBS’s Capital Requirement Lobbying appeared first on Arabian Post.

Aviation industry leaders, ACI World and Airbus, have announced a significant partnership to accelerate the decarbonization of global aviation. The collaboration aims to support the aviation sector’s commitment to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, aligning with global climate goals.

ACI World, representing airports worldwide, has a history of environmental initiatives and has been a key player in reducing aviation-related carbon emissions. Their Airport Carbon Accreditation program has been instrumental in driving airports towards more sustainable practices. The partnership with Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer, brings together extensive industry knowledge and resources to address the critical issue of aviation emissions.

The collaboration will focus on several strategic areas, including the development and implementation of innovative technologies, sustainable aviation fuels (SAFs), and more efficient operational practices. Airbus, known for its advancements in aircraft technology, will leverage its expertise to support airports in their transition to greener operations. This includes exploring the potential of hydrogen-powered aircraft and electric aviation technologies.

A significant component of the partnership involves advocacy and policy support. ACI World and Airbus will work with governments and regulatory bodies to promote policies that encourage the adoption of sustainable practices across the aviation industry. This includes lobbying for incentives for the use of SAFs and investments in sustainable infrastructure at airports.

The partnership also emphasizes the importance of collaboration among all aviation stakeholders. ACI World has called for continued cooperation between airlines, airports, and manufacturers to ensure a cohesive and comprehensive approach to decarbonization. By aligning efforts, the industry can more effectively reduce its environmental impact and contribute to global sustainability goals.

ACI World Director General Luis Felipe de Oliveira highlighted the urgency of the initiative, stating that the aviation industry must act now to ensure a sustainable future. He emphasized that achieving net zero emissions by 2050 requires immediate and coordinated action across the industry. Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury echoed these sentiments, noting that the partnership with ACI World represents a significant step towards a more sustainable aviation sector.

This partnership follows a series of commitments from the aviation industry to address climate change. ACI World has previously set ambitious targets for its members, and this collaboration with Airbus further solidifies its commitment to environmental stewardship. The initiative also aligns with the broader goals of international bodies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

As the aviation industry continues to recover from the impacts of the global pandemic, the focus on sustainability has become increasingly important. The partnership between ACI World and Airbus not only aims to reduce carbon emissions but also to promote economic recovery through sustainable growth. By investing in green technologies and practices, the industry can create new opportunities for innovation and job creation.

The collaboration is expected to yield significant advancements in sustainable aviation, setting a benchmark for the industry. With the combined efforts of ACI World and Airbus, the path towards a decarbonized aviation sector looks promising, paving the way for a greener and more sustainable future.

____________________________________

This article first appeared on Greenlogue and is brought to you by Hyphen Digital Network

The article ACI and Airbus Collaborate to Decarbonize Aviation appeared first on Arabian Post.

By P. Sudhir

The formation of a Modi-led NDA coalition government has led to expectations in some circles that this will be a government which will face serious constraints in going ahead with the BJP/RSS’s authoritarian-communal-corporate agenda. Some of these expectations are exaggerated. The fact that the BJP has lost its majority and confined to 240 seats in the Lok Sabha may check or slow down certain aspects of the agenda which Modi and the RSS/BJP were aiming to implement in the third term of Modi’s rule.

Constitutional changes, which could further attenuate the democratic system, undermine the secular principle and reinforce authoritarian centralism, may be difficult to achieve now. But the thrust of the Modi regime in terms of its economic policies, subversion of institutions and authoritarian drive will see no qualitative change.

The Modi regime’s confrontationist stance towards the opposition and contempt for parliamentary norms was displayed at the outset of the convening of parliament. On the issue of electing the new speaker, the government refused to offer the deputy speakership to the opposition, thereby thwarting a consensus on the matter.

Within days of the swearing-in of the new government, we have been reminded that the architecture of an authoritarian-repressive regime is very much in place. The chief minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, who was given bail by a lower court saw that bail being nullified by the High Court. In order to make sure that Kejriwal does not come out of jail, the CBI has brazenly effected another arrest in the same case when he was produced in court. Fourteen years after a case was lodged against writer Arundhati Roy, the Lt. Governor of Delhi has given sanction for her prosecution under the UAPA.

From July 1, the three criminal codes which have replaced the earlier criminal procedure and penal laws will come into effect. Many of the provisions in these codes are going to impose more restrictions on the democratic rights of citizens and enhance police powers to proceed against citizens, including more draconian powers to punish offences like sedition.

With Amit Shah being reappointed as the home minister, the central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate, CBI and other agencies can be expected to carry on with their work of targeting the opposition and also any other persons or entities which are seen as hostile or needs to be intimidated into submission.

Many of the laws adopted in the last phase of the previous government such as the Telecom Act and the IT Act Rules are going to come into force now. The Telecom Act 2023 has been partially notified on June 26. This allows the government to stop transmission of any message on the internet in the name of public safety during the public emergency. Ten central agencies are empowered to intercept telecom communication provided they have the home secretary’s permission to do so.

Big business was unstinting in its support for BJP and Narendra Modi in the run-up to the elections. The stock market, which had tumbled when the results came that BJP had lost its majority, shot up again when the announcement was made about Modi-led NDA government. Nirmala Sitharaman, in her first statement after reappointment as the finance minister, has stated that the next generation reforms will be taken up immediately. Big business is busy lobbying the finance minister with their demands for the union budget.

The ushering in of the third Modi government is a signal that the pro-corporate, neo-liberal policies will continue with full vigour. One can expect privatisation moves like the National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP) to be unrolled further. The nature of the allied parties in government like the Telugu Desam Party and the JD(U) indicate that there would be no resistance to the economic policies.

There will be no let-up in the pursuit of Hindutva politics and targeting of the minorities has also become clear in the first few days after the Modi government was sworn into office. There have been a number of incidents targeting Muslims, particularly in the BJP-ruled states. In Chhattisgarh, three cattle transporters were attacked and killed by a mob in Arang, near Raipur. Their only crime being that they were cattle traders. In BJP-ruled Madhya Pradesh, in Mandla district, eleven people were arrested on charges of having beef stored in the refrigerators in their homes. Subsequently, the local administration demolished eleven houses of the accused persons on the pretext that they were illegal encroachments. In Jodhpur in Rajasthan, there was a communal clash and 51 people were arrested. Creating communal polarisation and targeting of minorities are part of the generic politics of the Hindutva forces and there will be no restraint or check on this by the central government.

What must be recognised is that BJP is the dominant force in the coalition and the two major allies – the TDP and JD (U) – are neither interested nor in a position to assert any political or policy position. As far as the TDP is concerned, its leader Chandrababu Naidu, is focused on consolidating his position in Andhra Pradesh and his approach to the centre is confined to the funds and packages he can negotiate for his priority projects in Andhra Pradesh. The JD(U), on its part, does not have anything beyond the horizons of Bihar, where it hopes to consolidate its position keeping an eye on the assembly election due next year. This reality must be kept in mind when working out the opposition strategy.

There is no doubt that the fight against the Modi government’s policies and the exposure of its misdeeds can be carried out in a better fashion in parliament given the increased strength of the opposition. But it is more important to build up the resistance to the Modi regime’s authoritarian attacks on democracy and its attacks on the people’s livelihood through the neo-liberal policies by organising struggles and mass protests.

Here, the role of the Left is important because it is the most firm and consistent opponent of neo-liberal policies and the Hindutva ideology. While on the broader issues of defence of the constitution, democracy and federalism, the INDIA bloc and the wider opposition unity will have to play a major role, the Left has to play the key role in mobilising the people in their day-to-day struggles and linking up these struggles to the overall opposition to the neo-liberal policies and making alternative policies a credible platform. The various mass organisations and democratic forums associated with Left will have to build the widest united actions.

The main lesson to be drawn from the Lok Sabha verdict is that some political space has opened up for intensifying the resistance to the Hindutva-corporate nexus. (IPA Service)

The article Narendra Modi 3.0 Govt Remains The Same In Its Pursuit Of Hindutva-Corporate Agenda appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Nitya Chakraborty

The first five phases of polling for the 2024 Lok Sabha elections are over by now, with only 115 seats out of the total of 543 remaining for voting in the next two phases. The results will be out on June 4. In the last few days, all top leaders of the BJP, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have announced in public meetings and a series of interviews in TV channels and newspapers that the BJP has already crossed the magic figure of 272 — the majority mark — and in the next two phases, it will cross 300 plus. Home Minister Amit Shah has even mentioned the figure of 310-plus for BJP in the first five phases.

As regards the INDIA bloc, their own feedback from the first five phases has given them big hope that the polling trends are going against the NDA, and they are nursing the feeling that the NDA will lose majority. Rahul Gandhi is prominently declaring in poll meetings that the INDIA bloc is forming the new government at the centre after June 4.Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has talked of convening a meeting of the INDIA bloc parties after June 4 to decide on the next course of action. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin has invited on June 3 all INDIA bloc leaders to be in Delhi in the DMK office to attend the birth anniversary programme of his father M K Karunanidhi and also discuss the situation. Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee said in her campaign that BJP’s Lok Sabha tally will not cross 200 seats in 2024 elections.

So what is the real scenario emerging on June 4? On Wednesday, the well-known U.S. political scientist and risk consultant Ian Bremmer told NDTV in an interview that BJP will get between 295 and 315 seats, meaning BJP will get majority on its own. Lot of global companies and investment banks operating in India have carried out surveys in the last few weeks. Whatever I have been able to gather from my sources in the financial sector, the initial reports were highly favourable to the BJP; however, after the fifth phase, the updated reports talked of uncertainty. My sources say that a top US investment company has indicated to its headquarter the possibility of a hung Lok Sabha, but eventually leading to a weak government led by Narendra Modi.

Among the top investment analysts who know India, I have faith in Ruchir Sharma, who has extensively travelled in Indian districts during the current poll campaigning. I agree with few of his observations which I also noted during my travels in the southern states as also in Uttar Pradesh in the last few months. First, there is no wave: neither in favour of Narendra Modi, nor in favour of the opposition. This is a major positive factor for INDIA bloc, because both the 2014 and 2019 Lok Sabha polls witnessed a big Modi wave.

Secondly, local and regional issues dominated more in the states, mainly in the southern and eastern states. In the northern states, the emotive issues including Ram Mandir are present among the voters, but other live issues like unemployment, poor health facilities, high prices of essential commodities are also being taken into consideration. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent speeches aimed at demonising the Muslims, and terming the Congress as anti-Hindu party, may not succeed in full consolidation of Hindu votes in the remaining 115 seats as desired by the PM and the BJP.

The third point is my own. Regional parties opposing BJP as part of the INDIA bloc have done much better in the first five phases of Lok Sabha elections. It is the Congress which failed to take full advantage of the anti-BJP mood in the constituencies where the Party is fighting the BJP on behalf of the INDIA bloc. Lack of adequate financial resources affected the organisational preparation of the Congress against the BJP’s financial and organisational muscle power.

Let us look back at the post Lok Sabha election scenario after 1996 and 2004 polls. In 1996, the BJP got 161 seats and the Congress got 140.BJP led by Atal Behari Vajpayee formed the Government at the Centre which fell after 13 days. The opposition led by the Janata Dal formed the government then but it also fell in 1998. In 2004 polls, the Congress got 145 and the BJP 138. The UPA was formed by the Congress and the UPA lasted two terms under the prime ministership of Dr. Manmohan Singh.

As regards 2024 Lok Sabha elections, the scenario is a bit different; it can not be a repeat of either the 2004 or the 1996 post poll scenario. The moot issue is how many seats the BJP will lose out of 303 the party got in 2019 polls. The BJP got maximum in 2019 under Modi wave; its tally has certainly to go down and its down number will decide the course of formation of the next government. The BJP has to lose at least 80 seats in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls for facilitating the formation of an alternative government at the centre. Any BJP tally over 240 will facilitate the formation of a government by the NDA led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Let me explain. After 2014 Lok Sabha elections, the BJP had 282 seats and the NDA had a total of 336; meaning the other NDA parties together got 54 seats altogether. In the 2019 elections, the BJP got 303 seats and the NDA seats totalled 353 meaning the non-BJP NDA parties got 50 seats altogether. In 2024 elections, the number of NDA partners will go down but it can be between 25 to 30.So this figure will have to be added to the BJP tally to arrive at the total NDA figure.

If BJP gets 220 or less and the NDA figure of 25 to 30 is added that comes to 245 to 250 — 22 below the majority figure of 272. BJP-led NDA may be the largest alliance and invited by the President to form the government and face confidence vote. The support from the other parties like YSRCP and BJD will be crucial then. Both these parties may get a total of 20 seats, if not more. These parties support may help the NDA government to continue, if Narendra Modi wants such a government to run.

But for INDIA bloc, the continuing fighting between the PM and the Odisha Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik in the present election campaign gives a ray of hope that Naveen may consider snapping ties with the BJP and extend support to the INDIA bloc, if there is a hung Lok Sabha. A bit of lobbying with Naveen by the INDIA bloc leaders, especially M K Stalin and Mamata Banerjee, will be needed. As regards Jagan Mohan Reddy, he will decide his strategy after assessing the final results. He will see which party is the real threat to his YSRCP in Andhra Pradesh.? Certainly BJP-TDP combination will emerge as a bigger threat to his political domination. In national politics, Jagan can never be in the same camp with Chandrababu Naidu, who is now in NDA. Jagan has every reason not to support NDA after Lok Sabha elections.

So taking a total view, INDIA bloc has still some chances of coming to power after 2024 Lok Sabha elections. For ensuring that, the BJP’s tally has to be brought down to the level of 220; the Congress should do its utmost to annex seats from the BJP in the constituencies the party is fighting; and lastly, the regional leaders of INDIA bloc should be in touch with Jagan and Naveen. Only then, the INDIA bloc can wait for June 4 with some bout of optimism. (IPA Service)

The post NDA Losing Majority In 2024 Lok Sabha Polls Is A Distinct Possibility Now first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article NDA Losing Majority In 2024 Lok Sabha Polls Is A Distinct Possibility Now appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Girish Linganna

The US President, Joe Biden, is facing political challenges as he attempts to navigate the demands of both the Israel lobby and its critics. This has led to perceptions of his weakness and ineffectiveness. With the election just six months away, Biden is struggling with a significant foreign policy issue.

On Monday (6th of May), White House spokesman John Kirby expressed concerns about operations in Rafah that could potentially endanger over a million innocent people. Kirby also highlighted Biden’s belief that the hostage deal offered the best solution to prevent such risks while ensuring the release of the hostages.

Several days have passed, and the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are still conducting an operation in the southern Gazan city of Rafah, with no visible progress towards reaching a resolution.

According to analyst Hasan Unal, this incident reflects the complex relationship between the White House and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Unal argues that President Joe Biden faces the difficult task of trying to satisfy both pro-Palestine factions within his party and the right-wing leadership in Israel. To delve into the strategic and humanitarian consequences of these recent developments, Professor Hasan Unal, an expert in political science and international relations at Bashkent University, participated in a discussion on Sputnik’s Fault Lines program on Wednesday (8th May) as reported by Sputnik a Russian Media House.

Israel may have preferred if Hamas had rejected the proposed deal, as recent reports indicated that the Palestinian group had accepted a proposal facilitated by the US, Egypt, and Qatar. Unal suggests that Hamas accepting the deal would have provided justification for Israel, particularly the Netanyahu government, to carry out a military operation in Rafah. However, as Hamas accepted the proposal, it has put Israel in a challenging position. Unal sees this as a tactical victory for Hamas.

Unal clarified that despite Hamas’ tactical victory, it does not necessarily mean that Israel will be deterred. He emphasized that the United States holds significant leverage over Israel, possibly more than any other country in the world. While the Israeli lobby carries substantial influence in the United States, it is important to note that the United States itself wields significant power and influence over Israel.

He highlighted historical instances where the United States exerted pressure on Israel. For example, he mentioned the Suez Crisis of 1956, during which the US, along with the Soviet Union and international authorities, called on Israel to halt its occupation of Egyptian territory in the Sinai Desert. Additionally, Unal cited the US’s role in pushing for a compromise during the signing of the Camp David Accords in 1978 and former President Ronald Reagan’s directive for Israel to cease its bombing of Beirut in 1982. These incidents demonstrate the United States’ past efforts to rein in Israeli actions through diplomatic means.

In 1991, US Secretary of State James Baker achieved a delay in granting loan guarantees to Israel. This delay was contingent upon Israel agreeing to temporarily halt its construction of settlements or colonies in Gaza and the West Bank, which were deemed illegal. However, both Baker and former President George H.W. Bush encountered strong opposition from organizations like AIPAC and other pro-Israel interests due to this decision.

AIPAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. It is a prominent lobbying group in the United States that advocates for strong U.S.-Israel relations and supports Israel’s policies and interests. After losing his bid for reelection the following year, President George H.W. Bush, along with subsequent U.S. leaders, has displayed limited inclination to confront or oppose Israel.

According to host or the program moderator, Jamarl Thomas, President Biden’s attempts to appease Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have seemingly yielded little favor for him. The US president finds himself in a challenging position, torn between an unhappy base and an Israeli leadership that appears to view him with disdain (or contempt), as reported by Sputnik.

Thomas pointed out that while distressing images of babies hanging out of buildings during the attack were circulating, President Biden delivered a speech that Thomas found deeply problematic. He criticized Biden for invoking the Holocaust in his speech, implying that referencing historical events from many years ago does not justify or excuse the ongoing genocide and tragic situations, such as babies hanging out of buildings, that were unfolding at the same time.

Thomas argues that President Biden is in a difficult position, trying to please both sides but ending up losing support from both. Israel and the Israel lobby view any pressure Biden puts on them as a rejection of their interests, while some members of his own party criticize him for being too aligned with Israel.

Unal agreed that President Biden is not skilled at managing the situation and seems confused about what steps to take. Unal also stated that Israel does not view the Biden administration as a serious entity. Unal further commented on the role of multipolarity in the conflict, highlighting that other global powers are now significantly involved in the situation, which is unprecedented. He specifically noted China’s increased interest in the Middle East, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue, which was not as prominent in the past.

Beijing recently facilitated a meeting between officials from Hamas and Fatah with the aim of fostering reconciliation between the two major Palestinian groups. Similarly, Moscow hosted a similar summit in February, emphasizing the importance of resolving the longstanding Palestine-Israel conflict and garnering support from Arab nations.

Fatah is a political party and a major Palestinian nationalist movement. It was founded in 1959 and is considered one of the key factions within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). Fatah is led by the Palestinian President, currently Mahmoud Abbas.

During a period in April when Israel and Iran engaged in reciprocal attacks, it was reported that the United States urged China to leverage its influence in order to dissuade Tehran from retaliating following an attack on its consulate in Damascus. Analysts pointed out that this incident highlights the increasing influence of Moscow and Beijing, while the leader of the United States faces challenges in projecting global power effectively. (IPA Service)

The post President Biden Facing His Biggest Diplomatic Challenge In Dealing With Gaza War first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article President Biden Facing His Biggest Diplomatic Challenge In Dealing With Gaza War appeared first on Arabian Post.

More than two years ago, Telangana chief minister K Chandrashekar Rao (KCR) had invited Sunil Kanugolu to his farmhouse near Hyderabad to discuss the possibility of hiring him to handle the elections. Kanugolu had just finished working for the Tamil Nadu elections and was ready to take up his new assignment. The meeting went on for days, not going anywhere, and finally he decided not to work for KCR. A few days later, shocking everyone, Kanugolu joined the Congress as chairman of election strategy committee of the AICC and took on the same KCR.

Today, KCR must be regretting his decision not to take Kanugolu on board. Perhaps, it is one of his biggest mistakes in the last few years.

After joining the Congress, Kanugolu started working on both Telangana and Karnataka Assembly elections. Last May, he delivered his home state of Karnataka to Congress in a high decibel election, thus, proving his mettle.

He was simultaneously working on Telangana where the Congress had sunk so low, almost hitting the rock bottom. The party was spiritless and lacking any hope. The warring factions had made the situation worse.

Kanugolu took it as a challenge and told the party bosses including Rahul Gandhi that they could defeat KCR, which then sounded outlandish.

The BJP was threatening to push the Congress to third position, occupying the second place. Congress was nowhere in the game.

Working quietly, believing in his methods, Kanugolu first put the house in order. Like Karnataka, he started setting the narrative, putting KCR on back foot. An alarmed KCR took it personally and sent the police after Kanugolu. His office in Hyderabad was raided and all equipment seized. Kanugolu was even summoned by the police for questioning. An unfazed Kanugolu set up a new office and continued his work.

Today, Kanugolu is beaming with joy and KCR is down in the dumps. That’s Sunil Kanugolu for you.

It is his typical style — no airs, no media, no photos, no big talk, no hangers on, almost a recluse — Kanugolu has emerged as one of the most influential figures in the Congress, directly advising Rahul Gandhi on the matters of elections.

A man of no exuberance and show off, there is not even a trace of ego in his personality.

Telangana is his best performance so far. He was also involved in the Assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. Certainly, Karnataka was tough. But Telangana was more complicated. Realising that more vote share for the BJP will help KCR to stay in power, Kanugolu first tried to limit BJP’s influence in the state. Later, he managed to pursue YSR’s daughter YS Sharmila not to field candidates in Telangana. Sharmila, who was driven by vengeance, had vowed to humble KCR who had dared to arrest her. TDP chief Nara Chandrababu Naidu also withdrew from the contest in Telangana making Kanugolu’s job much easier. Pushing BJP to the bottom, he made it a direct fight with KCR, preventing fragmentation of the votes.

His strategy and perseverance have now paid off handsomely. Kanugolu is also credited with strategising Rahul Gandhi’s ‘Bharat Jodo Yatra’ from Kanyakumari to Kashmir last year.

According to him, Kanugolu worked seven days a week to stop KCR in its tracks. Being a recluse has helped him immensely as he can avoid the temptation of being heard or seen in the public.

When the Telangana police called him for questioning, Kanugolu walked past the waiting media contingent unnoticed. Later, media realised that bearded, bespectacled man in rolled up sleeves and faded jeans, who entered the office smiling at them, was Kanugolu.

“It has always helped me. My style is simple. We have to win. I need no publicity and no laurels. Those who matter know who I am. I am not worried about the others,” he said. A man of principles and integrity, he can withstand any situation and always fair in his judgments.

With this emphatic win, Kanugolu has climbed the ranks of the party, making himself indispensable for the Congress.

Sunil Kanugolu, a native of Bellary in Karnataka, hails from a well-known family there. Born and brought up in Chennai, he did his higher studies from the USA and working for a global management consulting firm, McKinsey.

After returning to India, Kanugolu was involved in political strategies in Gujarat and led the Association of Billion Minds (ABM). He was also one of the key strategists for Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections. He has handled the highly successful BJP campaign in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly polls in early 2017.

He was associated with MK Stalin and oversaw its brilliant campaign during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections in which the DMK-led alliance won 38 of the total 39 seats. After his one-time colleague Prashant Kishor of IPAC, joined the DMK camp to strategise the campaign, Kanugolu left the Stalin camp and moved to Bengaluru.

Speaking to New18, Kanugolu had expressed his desire to take a break from the routine election strategies for some time. But then Tamil Nadu chief minister Edappadi K. Palaniswami persuaded him to advise him on government policies and elections. With his brilliant work, EPS won 75 seats in the 2021 Assembly elections.

Last year, a leading English newspaper had carried a picture of his brother thinking that it is Kanugolu.

A man of culture, Kanugolu believes in long-lasting relationships and going the extra mile to help his friends in need. A foodie, whom his close friends jokingly call a “militant meat eater”, Kanugolu stays away from political skulduggery and lobbying for anyone.

A man of few words with a lot of experience, knowledge and achievements, Sunil Kanugolu has come a long way in just 10 years.

In a Kalvakuntla (Kalvakuntla Chandrashekhara Rao) versus Kanugolu (Sunil), the other ‘K’ has won.

With inputs from News18

The post Man believed to be behind Congress success in Telangana first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article Man believed to be behind Congress success in Telangana appeared first on Arabian Post.

By James M Dorsey

Israel’s options are central to discussions about the day after the guns fall silent in Gaza. Absent from the debate is what Palestinians want. Also absent is any discussion of funding for Gaza’s reconstruction, although the assumption is that oil-rich Gulf states will step up to the plate.

The significance of Palestinians’ wants is magnified by the fact that Israel has no good options, particularly if it fails to or cannot destroy Hamas’ political and military infrastructure.

While none of the options hold out the prospect of Palestinian elections, some have been already been rejected by Palestinians and Arab states; others could be acceptable to Palestinians on an interim basis.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken returned to Israel and the Middle East on Friday to discuss the objectives and conduct of Israel’s assault on Gaza, containing the Gaza war, the rescue of hostages held in Gaza by Hamas and other groups, and potential arrangements for the day after.

Palestinian acceptance of those arrangements is key to the stability and sustainability of any post-war structure, even if it is temporary.

A 10-page concept paper dated October 13 and prepared by Israel’s intelligence ministry listed three options under discussion. Despite its labelling, the ministry is not a decision-making body, even if the options are in line with statements by senior Israeli officials and various segments of the Israeli public, and one was reportedly adopted in Israeli lobbying efforts. Moreover, the ministry does not control Israel’s intelligence services that report to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or the military command.

The concept’s three problematic options include the creation of a homegrown Palestinian administration in Gaza that has no links with Hamas and/or other Palestinian militants. No Palestinian is likely to offer himself forward as willing to take over on the back of Israeli tanks, even though Abu Dhabi-based Mohammed Dahlan, a controversial former Palestinian Gaza security chief with close ties to the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Israel, appeared to leave the door open to his possible return to the Strip.

Without taking Dahlan’s potential ambitions into account, the paper described the option of a homegrown administration as the “most dangerous alternative” because it could “lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state,” or new, more militant groups.

The return to Gaza of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ West Bank-based Palestine Authority. Dominated by Al Fatah, Hamas’ archrival, the Authority was expelled from Gaza in 2007 by Hamas, a year after the group won Palestinians’ last election. Like the first option, the paper counselled against a return of the Authority, which is deeply unpopular on the West Bank, because it would constitute “an unprecedented victory of the Palestinian national movement, a victory that will claim the lives of thousands of Israeli civilians and soldiers and does not safeguard Israel’s security.”

In addition, the Authority would likely reject taking charge of Gaza unless its mandate was linked to a definitive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

An Israeli foreign ministry’s options paper suggested that doubts about the Authority and the Authority’s concerns could be addressed by a multinational force and a US-led contact group that would help the Authority govern the Strip. Surprisingly, to make this work, the paper, drafted by the ministry’s policy planning department, appears to suggest a dramatic revision of Israeli policy.

Less surprisingly, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen ignored the paper that argues the government would have to drop its efforts to separate Gaza from the West Bank and embrace a two-state solution, involving the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel.

A poll conducted by the Palestine Centre for Policy and Survey Research in Gaza and the West Bank in September suggested that exiled Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh would rout by a large margin Mr. Abbas and Marwan Barghouti, a popular imprisoned Al-Fatah leader convicted in Israel on murder charges, in an election.

Yet, when asked who Gazans would want to see as the candidate to succeed Abbas, Haniyeh and Barghouti were neck-to-neck at 24 versus 23 per cent.

Barghouti is widely seen as a potential successor to 87-year old Abbas if Israel releases him. Even so, 37 per cent described Hamas as the “most deserving” representative of the Palestinians compared to 26 per cent who attributed that accolade to Al-Fatah.

Gazan attitudes towards a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict appeared uncompromising with 75 per cent rejecting a one-state solution in which Israeli Jews and Palestinians enjoy equal rights and 65 per cent opposing a two-state solution.

Moreover, 51 per cent of Gazans and 54 per cent of West Bankers favoured armed struggle rather than peaceful protest or negotiations to break the deadlock in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sixty-seven per cent supported attacks on Israeli civilians in Israel.

While Israelis hardliners will see the poll as confirmation of their assertion that Gaza equals Hamas and justification of the indiscriminate bombing of the Strip, more moderate voices caution that Israeli policy has created a stark choice.

The intelligence ministry’s favoured and most controversial option involves the permanent transfer of Gaza’s 2.3 million inhabitants to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, which has been denounced by Palestinians and rejected by Egypt as a third ethnic cleansing reminiscent of the 1948 and 1967 expulsions and displacements of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.

Despite Netanyahu’s insistence that the intelligence ministry’s proposal is not being considered by the government, the notion of a transfer has been echoed in statements by senior Israeli officials and segments of the public.

Furthermore, Czech and Austrian leaders privately put forward, at Netanyahu’s behest, the idea of Egypt absorbing Gazan Palestinians in exchange for the cancellation of the country’s US$165 billion foreign debt in discussions on the sidelines of last month’s European summit. Germany, France, and Britain rejected the proposition.

Other proposals emerging in the debate about the day after the Gazan war include depopulating northern Gaza by pushing all the Strip’s residents into the southern half of the territory so that Israel can create an uninhabited buffer zone.

Leaving aside legal and moral implications, the problem with this proposition is that it would aggravate conditions for Palestinians already living in one of the world’s most densely populated territories in an even tighter space that would retain a border with Israel. As a result, it would likely perpetuate rather than reduce Israeli perceptions of the Gaza security threat.

While Arab states may be tempted to return Gaza to Arab control, like the Palestine Authority, they are unlikely to want to shoulder responsibility on the back of Israeli tanks without solid indications that the force’s presence would be linked to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In addition, many Palestinians feel abandoned as much by Arab states as they do by the rest of the international community.

Moreover, Arab condemnations of the Israeli assault on Gaza notwithstanding, Arab states appear in no rush to be seen as forcefully striving to end the carnage. The Arab League, which groups the world’s 22 Arab states, has scheduled a meeting to discuss the Gaza crisis for November 11 rather than immediately.

Arab states appear to either hope Israel will bow to international pressure by then, even though there is no indication that is likely, or privately want to see Israel successfully eradicate Hamas.

Countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have cracked down on Hamas in the past. They see Hamas’ survival as potentially emboldening other militants such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, as well as legitimising Iranian support for non-state allies.

At the bottom line, a return to Gaza of the Palestine Authority buffeted by a multi-national force that includes an Arab contingent, may be the most logical post-war scenario. (IPA Service)

By arrangement with the Arabian Post

The post Israel In Gaza: Only Limited Options Available When The Guns Fall Silent first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article Israel In Gaza: Only Limited Options Available When The Guns Fall Silent appeared first on Arabian Post.

Are you ready to change your neighborhood for the better and fight for the things that matter to you? To focus your efforts and get the best results, you need a good campaign plan.

We’ll show you how to make a personalized plan step by step in this blog post. Find out what makes a plan work, how to set goals that matter, and how to put your plan into action so that it works.

With our help, you’ll be able to confidently share your advocacy with our advocacy plan example. Let’s jump right in!

Define Your Goals and Objectives

When you’re an advocate, you need to plan ahead. Set clear goals right away to stay focused and get the most out of your efforts. Think about what you want to accomplish and make smart choices to make the best use of your time and resources.

A clear plan tells you what to do, whether you’re trying to change policies, make people more aware, or get a group to work together. Take a step back and write down your goals before you start lobbying.

Research Laws, Rules, and Stakeholders 

There’s more to political campaigns and promotion than just TV ads, radio spots, and convincing speeches. Still, it covers a wider area that is more concerned with where the party stands in the election market.

You need to know a lot about the laws, rules, and people who have a stake in the matter and can affect your efforts. Whether you’re running for mayor or the top office, you need to know how to pay for your campaign, get people to vote, and run ads.

Find allies and opponents, such as media outlets and interest groups. With this knowledge, you can get past problems and take advantage of chances to win over voters and reach your goals.

Identify Key Allies

It’s important to have friends in everything you do, but especially when you’re trying to reach your goals. Finding and getting to know important friends can mean the difference between success and failure.

So, who could be your friend? Someone who shares your interest, a coworker whose skills match yours, or a friend who is there for you could be that person.

For a partnership to be strong, there must be trust and clear communication. Spend time on these connections; you never know when they’ll come in handy!

Make a Success Timeline

Developing a timeline is crucial for success. It helps map out steps and milestones to achieve goals. Whether starting a project or launching a business, sufficient financial resources are needed.

Include fundraising efforts in your timeline to gather the necessary capital. Plan events or seek donations from supporters for an effective fundraising strategy. Understand the steps to stay on track and achieve success.

Set Milestones and Track Progress

To reach your goals, you need to set targets and keep track of your progress. Specific milestones break down bigger goals into smaller, more manageable pieces. They can be used to finish a work job, learn a new skill, or reach a personal goal.

Keeping track of your growth not only lets you enjoy your successes but also helps you find problems. With regular check-ins, you can make changes to stay on track with your main goal.

Come Up With Innovative Strategies to Raise Awareness

It’s harder than ever to get people to care about important problems. We need to be creative if we want to make a difference and bring about change. Putting on pop-up events in odd places is a fun and interactive way to bring attention to a problem.

Another idea is to work with artists to make social media ads that stand out. More people can have unique and interesting experiences when they use virtual reality or augmented reality.

Research Funding Opportunities for Your Cause

Getting money is a very important part of making your idea come true. There are opportunities for study funding for people who plan well and make a strong case.

Fundraising and planning are the best duo! There are resources and tools out there to help you succeed with your fundraising, whether you’re just starting out or want to take it to the next level.

Develop a Strategy for Communicating With Decision Makers

For event planning to go well, communication must be clear. First, figure out who the important decision-makers are and how they like to be contacted, such as by phone, email, or in person.

Send a short, clear letter highlighting the event’s development and possible problems. Create a good communication plan to connect with others and make sure the event goes well.

Determine How You’ll Measure Objective Achievement

People have different ideas of what it means to be successful. You should be able to describe what it looks like in your own way. Clear and specific ways to tell if you’ve done what you set out to do will help you measure your success in reaching your goals.

Make sure it can be measured, like meeting a goal, reaching a milestone, or seeing a certain result. If not, it’s simple to lose track of your work. Spend some time thinking about what success means to you and then set goals that match that.

Set Defined Results Evaluation and Monitoring Goals

From the start of the project, make sure you have clear goals to check and keep track of its growth. This makes sure that everyone knows what’s going on and gives them a way to track progress.

Being able to see where things are going wrong and fix them is easier when you have clear goals. Without them, projects can get off track and not meet their goals. Make sure your goals are clear before you start a new project or check on an old one.

Preparing Your Advocacy Plan Example Is Important!

Supporting an advocacy cause is a rewarding journey. As you prepare your advocacy, define goals and research relevant laws and stakeholders.

Be being proactive and mindful throughout your advocacy plan, you can make a meaningful difference. Take action now!

Did you enjoy reading this article? Keep coming back for more articles on community, government, and more.

The article A Step-By-Step Guide to Creating an Effective Advocacy Plan Example appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Dr. Gyan Pathak

Concerns expressed during the final three days hearing on petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Electoral Bond Scheme case were too serious to be resolved immediately, and hence the Bench hearing the case decided not to announce the verdict instantly at the conclusion of hearing on November 2, but reserved it. In course of hearing the issue of political funding in India was found to be more complex that it was previously presumed.

It can therefore be argued safely that irrespective of the final verdict, there will remain miles to go for evolving a better transparent and cleaner system than the present Electoral Bond Scheme being implemented by PM Narendra Modi led government, that goes on enriching the ruling BJP and impoverishing the entire opposition making the elections neither free nor fair by denying the opposition of a level playing field.

The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, and Justices Sanjiv Khanna, B R Gavai, J B Pardiwala, and Manoj Mishra, has clearly revealed their mind that the Electoral Bond Scheme was flawed. The court remarked that while it was not asking the government to go back to a cash-based system, it was asking the scheme to be made in a proportional, tailor-made manner which took care of the serious deficiencies arising out the current scheme. Various aspects of the scheme with its complexities were brought before the Bench, which included its impact on transparency, and the potential for corruption.

Ever since the scheme was introduced in 2018 by PM Modi led government, it remained one of the most controversial topics in the country. The government said that under the scheme identity of the donor would not be revealed to any one, which was contrary to their claim that the scheme was a transparent and clean method of political funding. The claim of transparency was even false, which was clear in the Centre’s assertion that citizens have known right to know the source of funding, on which the Bench said that it was difficult to agree upon. On the other hand, the Banks and the Government have access to the record of the donor purchasing the bonds. It makes the ruling establishment privileged while the opposition are made to remain in the dark. Moreover, the information regarding the donors are kept purportedly for auditing purposes and to ensure that only legitimate sources of funding are used. This gives the government enough scope to manipulate donors and the amount they want from them.

The scheme was challenged in the Supreme Court by several petitioners, including the Congress leader Jaya Thakur and the Communist Party of India (Marxist). They contended that the scheme violated the citizen’s right to information and the principle of free and fair election. They pointed out how the scheme favours the ruling party and enables corporate lobbying and quid pro quo.

It was claimed by the government that electoral bonds were designed to reduce the use of black money in political funding, and increase in funding of political parties which can help strengthen political democracy by providing parties with the resources they need to run effective campaigns. However, just contrary is the ground reality.

The petitioners challenging the scheme submitted before the Bench hearing the case that keeping citizens in dark about the source of funding of a political party and they don’t know who is funding which party, and they are unable to take informed decisions regarding their votes. It breeds corruption.

Moreover, they argued that electoral bonds could be misused to funnel illegal money into political parties, especially the ruling political party. For example, a company could donate money to a political party in exchange for favourable government contracts. Additionally, electoral bonds make it difficult to hold political parties accountable for their finances leading to corruption and nepotism.

During the hearing it came to light that after the introduction of this scheme political parties could get donations even from shell companies, or even any other company even loss-making one, which defeats the very purpose of the scheme.

Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the scheme not only violates citizen’s right but also promote corruption by allowing companies to give kickbacks to parties in power, while Kapil Sibal argued it to be unconstitutional, undemocratic and unfair.

It should be noted that electoral bonds generated donations worth Rs 9,188 crore in the last 6 years. BJP bagged 57 per cent (Rs 5,272 crore) of the total donation, according the ADR data. Congress received only Rs 952 crore. The seven nation parties including the Congress and 24 state parties received only Rs 16,437 crore.

Obviously, the chief beneficiary of the scheme is the ruling BJP at the Centre. However, in the last six years, the Supreme Court of India declined to stay the scheme twice in 2019 and 2021. In the meantime, six chief justices came in the Supreme Court.

During the final hearing on Thursday November 2, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court have flagged “serious deficiencies” in the electoral bond scheme, and also directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to submit within two weeks complete information on each and every donor and contributions received by political parties through Electoral Bonds till September 30, as it reserved the judgment in a batch of petitions challenging the validity of the scheme. The report has to be submitted by ECI confidentially after collating the required information from all political parties that have received funds since 2018.

In all these circumstances one can see that the complexities and concerns regarding political funding in the country could continue further irrespective of the Supreme Court’s final verdict on Electoral Bonds Scheme. Democracy in the country needs to be freed from the shackles of money and muscle power. Can Supreme Court lead the way though its verdict? It remains a million-dollar question. (IPA Service)

The post Concerns Expressed Were Too Serious In The Electoral Bond Case first appeared on Latest India news, analysis and reports on IPA Newspack.

The article Concerns Expressed Were Too Serious In The Electoral Bond Case appeared first on Arabian Post.

Something is dangerously wrong in a world where the price of crude oil can drop 5.6% in a single session, as it did last night in New York. My short idea on crude oil three days ago and the dissection of the Dubai property cycle was savaged by critics who assured me that I did not understand that Saudi Arabia’s command is Biden’s demand and that the laws of economics, let alone gravity have been repealed in the thrice resurrected Palm Jebel Ali. This may well be true as my IQ is more Densa than Mensa but the proof of the pudding lies in the tasting and God knows that the only taste/verdict that matters is price action.

So my friends who have forgotten the ghastly 70%+ fall in crude oil prices in Jul-Dec 2008 and June 2014 to Feb 2016 or the endgame of the last speculative, parabolic rise in property/off-plan tulips should be immediately awarded an MBA or Masters (and Mistress?) of Bubbleology and Amnesia. There are some traumas that the human brain has evolved since the dawn of time to forget before it can heal and greed, stupidity and high octane leverage are intrinsic to the human condition.

It may be the reggae music that is the spiritual soundtrack of my life but Rasta Matt has no positive vibrations about the global credit cycle and has no intention of jammin till the jam is through as Bob Marley is with the Lord Jah on Mount Zion, the high times and dreadlocks at Penn happened in a galaxy long long time ago and General Darth Vader and his Undertaker/caretaker PM rules the country my great grand uncle founded 76 years ago while the former captain of Sussex is the new Lord Voldemort, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.

We were assured by the Sultans of Swing that Brent was headed to 100 but it is now 86.3 and the short call makes Densa laugh all the way to the bank unless Putin destroys the trade tonight by lobbying nukes on Kiev and engineers history’s biggest short squeeze in black gold. The omens are unmistakable now. Gasoline demand has plunged to its lowest level in 25 years. Inventories are building up in the Cushing storage hub for WTI. China’s diesel demand is in the pits. The spot grapevine in Rotterdam is positioned for a glut. The job market is cooling. The Fed’s interest rate shock has injected HIV into the bloodstream of the credit market and this makes the fall in junk bond spreads another datapoint that vindicates my call – Chart HYG’s price action in the past week.

Oil has tanked $10 even though Riyadh and Moscow announced that their output cut will continue as a New Year present for the global economy. It is not about supply any longer bro. The fit has hit the shan and demand destruction is now Wall Street’s new Baba Yaga, witch of the dark forest. I am backward but I’m damned if I did not grasp the message of backwardation in Brent futures spreads flash to me last week and hence I warned my friends in Dubai that oil was set to plunge, which is exactly what is happening in real time.

Could you be loved? Don’t let them fool ya…

The article Gasoline demand plunges to 25-year low appeared first on Arabian Post.

Union Minister and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Smriti Irani, at a press conference on Wednesday, raised questions over the organisers and meetings of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi during his United States (US) tour on June 4.

“…The question that has been left unanswered by the Congress party is – Is it true that Rahul Gandhi met Sunita Vishwanath (picture in the tweet below, left) during his trip to the US?…When it is clear to every Indian what George Soros intends to do, why is Rahul Gandhi hobnobbing with those who are funded by Soros?”

She further asked: “It is also evident that this is not the only Soros connection. Even in Bharat Jodo Yatra in Karnataka, the Global Vice President of the Open Society Foundation funded by George Soros, was found accompanying Rahul Gandhi.”

Irani added: “What is extremely distressing is the link with the Islamic Circle of North America. Those in the public domain who will research how the registration process for NRI interaction with Rahul Gandhi in New York ensued will find contact of Tazeem Ansari – he has an organisational link with Jamaat-e-Islami….”

 

#WATCH | Union Minister Smriti Irani says, “…The question that has been left unanswered by the Congress party is – Is it true that Rahul Gandhi met Sunita Vishwanath during his trip to the US?…When it is clear to every Indian what George Soros intends to do, why is Rahul… pic.twitter.com/GhWoCjkTBS— ANI (@ANI) June 28, 2023

The event dated June 4 in New York was coordinated by one Tanzeem Ansari, the Amir Outreach Committee of Muslim Community of New Jersey (MCNJ).

MCNJ is led by a Pakistan-born national Imaam Jawad Ahmed and he is a prominent face in the US Islamist circle. He frequents the events of Jamaat front Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), which tows Pakistan’s propaganda against India in the name of human rights. ICNA is a leading Jamaat front with several chapters and linkages with radical groups and terror organizations. The group is notoriously found to be promoting and glorifying Pakistan State sponsored terrorist such as Hizbul Mujahideen chief Syed Salahuddin.

The event was co-hosted by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act (UAPA)-imposed anti-India lobbying group Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC).

Since its inception, IAMC has been relentlessly targeting India on pretexts of human rights, religious freedom, and even via spreading fake news to stir communal disharmony in India.

IAMC’s mastermind Shaik Ubaid is a Jamaat-groomed member who was associated with the ICNA as its Secretary General in the 1990s. He was also the editor of ICNA’s magazine “The Message International” which glorifies Pakistan-sponsored terrorists against India.

IAMC’s current Executive Director Rasheed Ahmed is also an important figure of the whole nexus. He was Executive Director of another Jamaat-backed and Muslim Brotherhood (MB) group Islamic Medical Association of North America (IMANA).

During the dreaded COVID-19 wave in 2021, IMANA was among many Jamaat and MB fronts that exploited India’s goodwill and raised millions of dollars in the name of providing help. IMANA is also led by Ex-Pak Army/ Naval officials.

IMANA also works closely with other charitable groups such as Al-Khidmat, Helping Hand for Relief & Development (HHRD), Human Concern International (HCI) which are linked to terror groups like Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).

It is important to note that organizations like IAMC and ICNA comprise a much-larger nexus of the Jamaat and collaborates with the Global Muslim Brotherhood which is banned in many countries.

With inputs from News18

The post BJP questions Rahul’s ‘links’ to George Soros, Jamaat-e-Islami first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article BJP questions Rahul’s ‘links’ to George Soros, Jamaat-e-Islami appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Rahil Nora Chopra

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi is expected to return to India on June 18.Soon after his arrival, crucial decisions will be taken to kick-start a major overhaul in the party’s organisational structure. According to sources, Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has already framed the groundwork and the Congress Working Committee may be announced by this month’s end. The buzz is that KC Venugopal, Shashi Tharoor, Digvijay Singh, Tariq Anwar, Randeep Surjewala, Salman Khurshid, Pramod Tiwari, Rajeev Shukla, Imran Pratapgarhi, Syed Naseer Hussain, Alka Lamba, Jitu Patwari, Deependra Singh Hooda, Pawan Khera and Amrinder Singh Brar are likely to have a place in the CWC. In addition, the CWC may see the addition of new members and reshuffles aimed at reinjection of fresh energy to fight for 2024. The existing CWC has 25 permanent invitees along with several special invitees and chiefs of frontal organisations such as Mahila Congress, Youth Congress, among others. Congress had also amended its constitution to provide 50 per cent reservation for Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), women, youngsters, and minorities in its working committee. The party had also raised the number of CWC members to 35 from the earlier 25.

WITH 80 LOK SABHA SEATS, PARTIES STEP UP ‘MISSION UP’ FOR 2024

In Uttar Pradesh, BJP and Samajwadi Party have geared up for their respective preparations for 2024 Lok Sabha elections. In a bid to galvanise the party cadres and to attain the politics of social justice, Samajwadi Party has instructed its leaders, especially the backward cell, to carry out the village-level meetings to sensitise people about the importance and need for caste census for inclusive growth. Moreover, SP has also devised an ambitious plan to have a constituency-specific poll strategy for the 2024 parliamentary elections in Uttar Pradesh, and as part of that, has started drawing information such as performance of MPs on each seat, particularly those won by rival parties. The SP wants its leaders to look up the specific expectations of the people, apart from general ones such as inflation, unemployment etc. Meanwhile, the BJP is anxious to repeat its 2019 performance for which UP is crucial. The saffron party has started organising surveys and outreach campaigns in the state. With BSP registering its worst UP assembly elections defeat in terms of seats, winning only one seat in the 403-member House and garnering just 12.8 % votes, the party is planning to focus more on Dalit and Muslim votes in UP. BSP Chief Mayawati is mainly bothered about her core Dalit vote since Congress began restructuring. The Congress’s national president, Mallikarjun Kharge, and its UP chief, Brijlal Khabri, are both Dalits. Congress has also set its focus on Dalit votes, who were traditional voters for the Congress before the formation of the BSP.

NITISH THINKS LOK SABHA 2024 ELECTIONS CAN BE HELD AHEAD OF SCHEDULE

In an attempt to bring the opposition parties on board against the incumbent BJP in the next year general elections, a conclave of like-minded political parties will be held on June 23 in Patna, likely to be presided by Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. Over 20 political parties will attend the meeting. During a programme of the rural works department in which he laid the foundation stone and inaugurated 5,061 projects worth Rs6,680.67crore via video conferencing, Nitish Kumar has hinted towards a possible preponing of the 2024 Lok Sabha polls. Kumar asked the officials to complete the work before the polls. Grand Alliance (GA) leaders in Bihar asserted that the early Lok Sabha election issue can be the agenda during the Opposition unity meet on June 23. Almost all leaders barring Odisha chief minister Biju Patnaik and his Telangana counterpart K Chandrashekhar Rao would be attending the meeting.

SHINDE’S FRONT-PAGE ANTICS IRKS FADNAVIS, BJP TOP BOSSES IN DELHI

After a front-page advertisement published in Maharashtra newspapers with the tagline: “Modi for India, Shinde for Maharashtra,” the central leadership of the BJP intervened and carried out a strict warning to Eknath Shinde, the current Chief Minister of Maharashtra, sources said. What left the BJP leadership annoyed was the fact that the advertisement was put out by the Shinde-headed Maharashtra government and had left out deputy chief minister Fadnavis, the face of the saffron party in the state. The advertisement showcased images of just Modi and Shinde and it has a reference to a survey done and indicated that the popularity rating of the chief minister was more than that of his deputy. The survey claimed that 26.1 per cent of the people of Maharashtra wanted Shinde as chief minister while 23.2 per cent wished to see Fadnavis as the next chief minister. The following day, another advertisement appeared in newspapers bearing pictures of Shinde and Fadnavis waving. It indicated that the Sena-BJP alliance was preferred by 46.4 per cent of the people in comparison to the Opposition’s 34.6 per cent. While BJP leaders in Delhi were worried about the development as it showed that ties between the leaders of Maharashtra — Fadnavis and Shinde were not amicable They are anxious that it could harm the party in the Lok Sabha polls next year, followed by the Assembly elections.

CONGRESS PROMISES FIVE GUARANTEES TO POLL-BOUND MADHYA PRADESH

Much on the lines of the Karnataka success story, in Madhya Pradesh too, the Congress has rolled out five guarantees in the BJP-ruled central Indian state where the Assembly elections are slated to take place later this year. AICC general secretary Priyanka Gandhi along with party leader Kamal Nath offered a Narmada Pooja at Gwarighat in Jabalpur, before addressing a mammoth rally. Priyanka made the announcement that if the party came to power in the state, her promise included facilities such as every woman would avail a monthly allowance of Rs 1,500. She also promised 100 units of free electricity to every household, besides an additional 200 units of power at half the rate. LPG cylinders would be given for Rs 500 if the Congress came to power. Priyanka also guaranteed that the party would waive farmers’ loans and re-introduce the old pension scheme for government employees. Meanwhile, 400-car cavalcade from Madhya Pradesh’s Shivpuri to Bhopal – a distance of about 300 km — marked the return of a BJP leader to the Congress, which he left during the 2020 rebellion led by Jyotiraditya Scindia. Baijnath Singh, who holds political clout in Shivpuri, had followed Mr Scindia into the BJP during the 2020 Madhya Pradesh Congress rebellion that toppled the Kamal Nath government and brought the BJP back to power. Mr Scindia, who led the rebellion, is now Union Civil Aviation minister. Baijnath, it is evidently had been lobbying hard for a BJP ticket in the run-up to the Assembly polls. But with no ray of hope of getting one, he decided to rejoin the Congress. (IPA Service)

The post Updated Congress Working Committee: Names Of Members By June End first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article Updated Congress Working Committee: Names Of Members By June End appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Girish Linganna

In what could be a significant turning point in global geopolitics, the United States is reportedly contemplating extending an invitation to India to join the NATO Plus security arrangement. This move, a first of its kind, comes as the US seeks to strengthen its alliances and partnerships to counterbalance the growing influence of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) across the Indo-Pacific region.

As the United States considers the possibility of extending a NATO+ membership to India, the geopolitical landscape promises an intriguing shift. The potential move, a decisive break from historical precedents, could significantly reshape the balance of global power, stirring a potent cocktail of opportunities, challenges, and substantial diplomatic manoeuvring.

NATO Plus, presently designated as NATO Plus 5, is a security arrangement that brings together the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and five aligned nations – Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, and South Korea. This alliance is engineered to bolster global defence cooperation. Its extension to include India would imply a smoother exchange of intelligence between these countries, and quicker access for India to cutting-edge military technology.

The proposition to include India in the NATO Plus comes from the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This committee, formed in January 2023, though it lacks authority to draft or amend laws, has been tasked with making recommendations to legislative committees by the end of the year. The bipartisan committee, consisting of both Republican and Democratic representatives, has put forth a series of recommendations aimed at enhancing global security and deterring the CCP’s aggression across the Indo-Pacific region.

The committee advocates for bolstering ties with allies and security partners, including India, as a means to win the strategic competition with the CCP. Additionally, it calls for economic sanctions against China in the event of an attack on Taiwan, arguing that such measures would be most effective if key allies such as G7, NATO, NATO Plus 5, and Quad members were to join in. In effect, the committee is lobbying for a united front against the potential aggression of the CCP.

For decades, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been an emblem of shared defence and democratic values, primarily among North American and European nations. However, the evolving geopolitical climate, marked by emerging powers and intricate alliances, has compelled the US to reassess its global strategy. Offering a NATO+ membership to India is a testament to this reassessment.

The move is a strategic outreach that reflects the US’s recognition of India’s growing importance on the global stage. It underscores the American vision of expanding the democratic front against growing authoritarian tendencies around the world. Furthermore, it indicates a strategic pivot to Asia in response to China’s rising influence.

However, such a step is not devoid of challenges. The US must tread carefully, considering the repercussions this could have on its relations with Pakistan, a long-time ally in South Asia, and China, a significant global competitor. It must also take into account Russia’s response, given its historically close ties with India.

India, the world’s largest democracy and a fast-growing economy, has traditionally pursued a policy of non-alignment and strategic autonomy. Its diplomatic stance, characterized by balanced relationships with major global powers, has allowed it to navigate complex international dynamics while maintaining its sovereignty and strategic interests.

A NATO+ membership, while symbolically significant, might prompt India to reassess its diplomatic posture. Acceptance could further strengthen its strategic partnership with the US and other NATO members, enhancing its defence capabilities and global standing. It could also provide a platform to influence global norms and policies. However, India would have to weigh these advantages against potential strains in its relations with Russia and China.

India, a key member of the Quad grouping, which also includes the US, Australia, and Japan, has been gaining an increasing amount of attention within the American establishment. As the South Asian giant continues to grow in influence, particularly in a multipolar world beset with geopolitical tensions like the recent Russia-Ukraine war, the idea of inviting India to the NATO Plus platform seems to be gaining traction.

However, the question remains as to how the Indian Prime Minister would respond to such an invitation. It is beyond the scope of this article to speculate on the Prime Minister’s likely response due to lack of current, verified information. The geopolitical implications of this move are broad, complex and will depend largely on the specific terms of the invitation, India’s own strategic objectives, its relations with other countries in the region, and its historical non-alignment policy.

India’s Prime Minister, known for his pragmatic approach to international relations, will likely respond with measured caution. The government’s stance will be determined by a careful analysis of the potential benefits, risks, and the larger implications for India’s strategic autonomy.

An outright refusal of the offer may not take place under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as it could potentially strain relations with the US and other NATO countries. However, an immediate acceptance is equally unlikely given the potential repercussions on India’s relations with Russia, China, and even its non-aligned partners. Hence, the Prime Minister may opt for a nuanced response, keeping the door open for negotiations while preserving India’s strategic autonomy.

The proposal of NATO+ membership for India signals a potential shift in the global order. If it materializes, it could mark the beginning of a new era of alliances, one that moves beyond the traditional North Atlantic focus.

However, such a move would undeniably provoke reactions, both positive and negative, from various corners of the world. It could potentially amplify US-India ties, but at the same time, it might strain the dynamics within the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) grouping. A decision of this magnitude could also invite apprehensions from neighbouring countries like Pakistan and stimulate a response from the China-Russia axis.

The potential inclusion of India in NATO Plus represents a significant shift in global security dynamics. It demonstrates a keen recognition of India’s growing geopolitical clout, as well as an acknowledgment of the increasingly multipolar nature of the world. Moreover, it reflects the US’s strategic vision of establishing a stronger network of allies and partners to counterbalance the influence of the CCP in the Indo-Pacific region.

However, the real-world implications of such a move remain to be seen. It will be contingent on a multitude of factors, including the response of India’s leadership, the reaction of other countries in the region, and the evolving geopolitical situation. As the strategic dance continues, the world will be watching closely to see the next moves in this high-stakes game of geopolitics. (IPA Service)

The post What Will Be India’s Response To US’s Bid To Offer NATO+ Membership first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article What Will Be India’s Response To US’s Bid To Offer NATO+ Membership appeared first on Arabian Post.

US President Joe Biden’s scandalous son Hunter Biden, who has earlier met with State Department official on behalf Gabriel Popoviciu, a corrupt Romanian real estate tycoon in exchange for US$1 million when Joe Biden was vice president in 2016, has been now working for Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), a hardcore Islamist political party in Bangladesh and been vigorously pushing several agendas set by BNP.

A review of emails and documents on Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop reveal a March 2016 meeting with then-US ambassador to Romania Hans Klemm on the topic of a corruption case against Gabriel Popoviciu. According to information, Popoviciu made more than US$1 million in wire payments to Hunter Biden from November 2015 to June 2017 as he battled corruption charges in his home country. Being a paid lobbyist of Gabriel Popoviciu, Hunter Biden met twice with Ambassador Hans Klemm, first in November 2015 and again in March 2016.

Emails show, at that time, Hunter Biden was a consultant for a law firm named Boies Schiller Flexner and worked with lawyers from the firm to lobby the US embassy in Bucharest to intervene in Gabriel Popoviciu’s case. Law firm Boies Schiller partner Christopher Boies told Biden in a September 1, 2015 email that his law partner – whom he never identified—was “best friends” with the newly appointed ambassador to Romania, Hans Klemm.

According to US Congress Oversight report, Gabriel Popoviciu’s first wire payment amounting to US$59,900 was sent to Hunter Biden on November 9, 2015. Four days after that, Hunter Biden and Boies Schiller partner Michael Gottlieb discussed a meeting with Ambassador Hans Klemm and provided him reports about the Popoviciu case, which they said showed the corruption charges were bogus. The emails indicate that Biden attended the meeting, and Biden’s calendar shows a meeting with Klemm at Lapis restaurant in Washington, DC, on March 30, 2016.

Emails show that Hans Klemm was receptive to the reports and arranged meetings for the Biden consortium with Romanian officials. On May 17, 2016, Gottlieb contacted Klemm to seek help in meeting with Romania’s anti-corruption service, the DNA. Gottlieb wrote to Hunter Biden and others that “the USEMB [US Embassy] has primed this for us”.

Neither Hunter Biden nor Boies Schiller registered as lobbyists for Gabriel Popoviciu, who was ultimately convicted of bribery in 2017 and sentenced to seven years in prison.

It may be mentioned here that the lobbying" 94357 target="_self">Lobbying Disclosure Act requires individuals to disclose their lobbying" 94357 target="_self">lobbying activity to Congress, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act requires them to disclose lobbying" 94357 target="_self">lobbying on behalf of foreign nationals to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Commenting on this Republican Congressman Darrell Issa who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee said: “the Justice Department’s disinterest in Hunter Biden’s lobbying" 94357 target="_self">lobbying shows there is one set of rules for the president’s family and one for everyone else”.

Earlier the Washington Free Beacon in a report said that Hunter Biden and lawyers from Boies Schiller hatched a plan in 2014 to meet with State Department officials on behalf of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company whose owner was accused of bribery. A Boies Schiller partner wrote to Biden that she would arrange State Department meetings and conduct other activity “right up to the line” where the firm would have to register as a lobbyist.

For several years, Hunter Biden has connections with a consulting-cum-lobbyist firm named Blue Star Strategies, which had earlier registered its work for the Ukrainian company Burisma under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Through the same company Hunter Biden also crafted a plan to lobby the State Department on behalf of the Chinese private equity firm BHR Partners.

On January 17, 2022, Bangladesh’s State Minister for Foreign Affairs M Shahriar Alam told reporters that Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) has spent US$3.75 million for a US lobbyist firm as part of their anti-Bangladesh campaign.

The BNP hired US lobbyist firms called Akin Company Associates, Blue Star Strategies and Rasky Partners while Jamaat signed agreements with an organization named ‘Peace and justice’.

According to information obtained from the US, BNP spent US$2.7 million annually from February 2015 to April 2017. It spent US$120,000 per month in retainer fees.

According to information obtained by this newspaper, Blue Star Strategies was hired by BNP through Abdus Sattar, an UK-based leader of the party in August 2018. Agendas behind appointing Blue Star Strategies by BNP were to “promote the goals of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) for the upcoming [2018 general elections] elections in Bangladesh”. In addition, Blue Star Strategies also developed a strategy “that educates officials, policy influencers and the media [in the United States] about the BNP and its interests in free and fair elections” and drafted a “narrative to communicate the BNP’s goals”.

The contract was signed by Abdus Sattar as an individual – but the documentation suggests that he was acting on behalf of the BNP. In the section of the form which states that the name of the “foreign principal” was Abdul Sattar, it is confirmed that he is a “foreign political party”, meaning, Bangladesh Nationalist Party.

In addition, in the section of submitted documentation asking for details “if the foreign principal is a foreign political party”, Blue Star Strategies stated: “Bangladesh Nationalist Party, 28, 1 VIP Rd, Dhaka 1205, Bangladesh”.

The documents confirmed that there were payments made to Blue Star Strategies which totaled at least US$278,582 over a two-year period. An amount of US$10,000 was paid to Blue Star Strategies in August 2018, another payment of US$197,790 in September 2018 and US$70,792 between March to September 2019.

The last payment was made from an account at the Singapore-based Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd. It may be mentioned here that BNP’s acting chairman Tarique Rahman and his business partner Giaus Uddin Mamun were also banking with the Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC).

As part of the same contract with Blue Star Strategies, another lobbyist firm named Rasky Partners was paid US$86,627 by Blue Star Strategies to work with it in lobbying for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Humaiun Kobir, BNP National Executive Committee Member, Secretary of International Affairs and Advisor to the Acting Chairman has been coordinating BNP’s connections with Rasky Partners.

In January 2015, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP sent a proposal to UK-based lawyer Toby Cadman stating that “Akin Gump is pleased to offer to support the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (‘BNP’) in Washington, DC. by providing legal services (including policy analysis) as described below.” It went onto say, its services would include “facilitating dialogue between the BNP and politicians in Washington (including in relation to the forthcoming election) and lobbying" 94357 target="_self">lobbying in relation to war crimes trials taking place in Bangladesh, trade policy and trade negotiations, human rights abuses in Bangladesh, and the general relationship between the United States and Bangladesh”. It may be mentioned here that Toby Cadman played a key role behind 2021 sanctions on Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), imposed by the US Department of Treasury.

In February 2015, the US firm submitted a document confirming that it was undertaking work for the BNP on the basis of a “formal written contract”, and appended the proposal sent to Toby Cadman, as the agreed contract.

In 2007, during the state of emergency, another lobbyist firm namely Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP was hired by the BNP to “advance restoration of a democratic government and expedite elections in Bangladesh”.

The documents submitted by the US firm noted that the “Name and title of the official with whom registrant deals with” was Khaleda Zia. It was paid US$160,000 by BNP.

Similarly, Jamaat-e-Islami hired two lobbyist firms through an organization named Organization for Peace & Justice (OPJ), which is based and incorporated in New York. According to documents submitted by Jamaat-e-Islami’s lobbyist, OPJ is a Jamaat-e-Islami group. “Sympathizers of the Jamaat-e-Islami party serve as directors of the Organization for Peace & Justice, Inc. The mission is to prevent party members from being prosecuted by a politically motivated and government-influenced Tribunal”.

In 2018, OPJ, hired Husch Blackwell Strategies, LLC to ensure that “the United States Government policies, while currently supportive of political stability and democracy, development, and human rights in Bangladesh, do not shift in any manner contrary to the interests of Jamaat-e-Islami, nor create an environment where JI is defined as a security threat within Bangladesh or on an international scale”. The submitted documents suggest that OPJ was acting for the Jamaat as the lobbyist as the form confirmed OPJ as being a “foreign political party”.

In 2014, OPJ hired Cassidy and Associates which “engaged in educational meetings about human rights violations and provided strategic advice in an effort to prevent members of Jamaat-e-Islami Party from being prosecuted and executed by a politically motivated and government influenced tribunal”. It paid a total of US$285,952 [from April to June 2014 US$50,000; from February to July 2015 US$75,915; from August 2015 to January 2016 US$50,037 and US$110,000].

Between 2011 and 2013, Mir Masum Ali, who then lived in the United States, and was the Project Director of media and publications of Muslim Ummah of North America (MUNA) – an organization that attracts US-based supporters of the Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh paid a total £370,000 to the same law firm, Cassidy and Associates, to lobby on “Bangladeshi war crimes tribunal and political opposition matters”.

Mir Masum Ali is the brother of Jamaat-e-Islami leader and executed war criminal Mir Quasem Ali. He paid US$210,000 in 2011, US$140,000 in 2012 and US$20,000 in 2013.

In 2011, another organization named Institute for US Bangladesh Relations hired Cassidy and Associates and paid the firm US$210,000, whereas this organization was connected to executed war criminal Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury and Pakistani spy agency Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI).

While BNP has been frantically trying to hire Hunter Biden as its lobbyists, it finally has succeeded in reaching an agreement with him through William B Milam. Milam is an influential figure of the Democratic Party and a retired diplomat who runs an organization named ‘Right to Freedom’ jointly with an individual named Mushfiqul Fazal Ansarey – a former Assistant Press Secretary of then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia.

Mushfiqul Fazal Ansarey, a diehard anti-India and anti-Hindu individual with affiliations with jihadist groups and Pakistani spy agency has been making frantic bids with the direct collaboration of William B Milam in pushing the United Nations as well as the US Department of State in unseating Awami League government through undemocratic process. Earlier the duo pursued the United Nations as well as the US Department of State in bringing more politicians and civil-military officials from Bangladesh under fresher sanctions using Global Magnitsky Act.

Ansarey has been working as the “Permanent Correspondent” of an illegal website named ‘Just News’, with active collaboration of William Bryant Milam (William B Milam), an American diplomat, who is known as the Senior Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC., has been making desperate bids both in the Capitol in Washington DC and the UN Headquarters in New York City, with the agenda of misleading key policymakers in Washington and the UN against Bangladesh and ruling Awami League and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina. It may be mentioned here that ‘Just News’ does not have any existence in Bangladesh.

According to a credible source, Ansarey spends thousands of dollars every week socializing with key individuals in the US, while he also is seen having lunch and dinner with those individuals, where most of the time he is accompanied by William B Milam.

Although Mushfiqul Fazal Ansarey succeeded in getting press accreditation in the White House and the United Nations claiming as the “US Correspondent” of an illegal website, a vernacular tabloid daily in Dhaka has also been terming Ansarey as its “Permanent Reporter in the United Nations” and the White House. This vernacular tabloid has also been prominently publishing anti-Awami League propaganda materials sent by Ansarey on a regular basis.

It may be mentioned here that, on October 27, 2020, at the persuasions of William B Milam and Mushfiqul Fazal Ansarey, ten US Senators sent a letter to then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin calling for sanctions against RAB officials. In the United Kingdom, the Guernica 37 Chambers law offices made a formal submission to the British Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in August 2021 recommending sanctions for 15 current and former senior RAB officers. On August 31, 2021, the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission held a virtual hearing on enforced disappearances in Bangladesh where several witnesses suggested taking punitive action. Bangladesh Foreign Ministry was not apprised of the case of letters sent by the US Senators, as it was later alleged that the Bangladesh High Commissioner in Washington DC was actually a former leader of BNP’s student wing.

At the directives of BNP’s fugitive and convicted leader Tarique Rahman, William B Milam and Mushfiqul Fazal Ansarey also maintain deeper contact with controversial Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.

After months of frantic bids, Bangladesh Nationalist Party has finally succeeded in reaching into a lobbyist arrangement with Hunter Biden through Blue Star Strategies. Although the amount of “lobbyist fees” offered by BNP to Hunter Biden remains unknown, according to a number of sources, the son of US President Joe Biden has been assigned to accomplish three goals – to obstruct Awami League from holding the next general election without participation of BNP; to exert pressure on Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in holding the next general election under direct supervision of Washington; and to stop import of goods from Bangladesh if the next general election is held without BNP. It was also learnt from sources that at the request of Muhammad Yunus, Hillary Clinton also has been trying to influence US President Joe Biden through a number of key officials, including Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

In addition to its ongoing lobbyist efforts and recent arrangements with Hunter Biden, Bangladesh Nationalist Party has hired a New York-based PR firm in running full-page ads for consecutive five days in The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal with “appeal” of obstructing the general election in Bangladesh, once the ruling Awami League moves ahead with the election and schedule of it is announced. Bangladesh Nationalist Party also is looking for hiring journalists and columnists in a number of major publications in the US, while Tarique Rahman plans to do similar propaganda in a number of major newspapers in Britain. For such propaganda efforts, BNP has been building a huge fund with contributions from wealthy leaders of the party as well as Jamaat-e-Islami, while family members of executed or convicted war criminals would also contribute to it.

The article Hunter Biden works in favour of Islamist party in Bangladesh appeared first on Arabian Post.

By James M Dorsey

With Saudi-hosted talks to end Sudan fighting producing minimal results and Arab states supporting rival forces, de-escalation in the Middle East faces a major test. So does Gulf states’ ability to employ dollar diplomacy to persuade poorer Arab brethren to align with the policies of countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. In Sudan, the stakes are high.

Gulf states fear four weeks of fighting between the Sudanese army headed by Army General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the dissident Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, a.k.a. Hemedti could spark a broader war in the Red Sea that threatens their maritime and strategic interests. The most US and Saudi mediators were able to achieve in days of talks in the port city of Jeddah between the army and the RSF was “a declaration of commitment to protect the civilians of Sudan” rather than a halt to the fighting.

A US State Department official said the declaration would “guide the conduct of the two forces so that we can get in humanitarian assistance, help begin the restoration of essential services like electricity and water, to arrange for the withdrawal of security forces from hospitals and clinics, and to perform the respectful burial of the dead.”

The World Health Organisation (WHO) last week put the number of killed in the fighting at 604, many of them civilians. It said 51,000 had been wounded and 700,000 displaced.

The mediators hope that they can leverage the declaration to achieve agreement on a 10-day ceasefire to implement it. That in turn, officials said, could create the basis for a longer halt to the fighting. Officials said implementation of the declaration would be monitored with overhead imagery, satellite data, social media analysis, and on the ground reporting from Sudanese civil society members.

In an indication of the multiple obstacles, the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva narrowly passed a motion tabled by the United States and Britain to increase monitoring of human rights abuses in Sudan. Arab and African nations either opposed the motion or abstained because of Saudi and Sudanese lobbying against it.

Saudi Arabia asserted that the motion could jeopardise the Jeddah talks while Sudanese ambassador Hassan Hamid Hassan charged that the council was interfering in Sudan’s internal affairs.”What’s happening in Sudan is an internal affair and what the SAF (Sudanese Armed Forces) are doing is a constitutional duty to all armies in all countries in the world,” Hassan said.

Progress in the Jeddah talks was hampered by the fact that they are conducted by representatives of the two commanders rather than by Al-Burhan and Hemedti themselves.

Signalling that days of talks had not brought the two sides any closer together, the negotiators, the army’s Rear Admiral Mahjoub Bushra Ahmed Rahma and Brigadier General Omer Hamdan Ahmed Hammad, Hemedti’s brother, did not shake hands after signing the document on humanitarian assistance. Moreover, with both sides convinced that they have the upper hand, neither has an incentive to implement a long-lasting halt to the fighting. So far, neither the army nor the RSF has abided by several earlier ceasefires.

No external player – Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, the United States, and Russia – wants to prolong the conflict even if most of the players backed the army and the RSF in their efforts to stymie a transition to civilian rule after mass anti-government protests toppled President Omar al-Bashir in 2019.Yet, Egypt, dependent on Gulf financial and economic aid, and the United Arab Emirates have long-standing ties to opposing parties in the Sudanese conflict even though Cairo and Abu Dhabi insist that they have not taken sides.

Cairo’s view of Sudan drives Egyptian support for Al-Burhan and the Sudanese army as an indispensable ally in its long-running dispute with Ethiopia over the controversial Renaissance Dam. Egypt has described the giant hydroelectric project on the Blue Nile in northern Ethiopia as an existential threat because of its potential to control the river’s flow, so vital to life in the country.

The UAE has long worked with Hemedti, who sent mercenaries to fight in the Saudi-led Yemen and has positioned himself as a bulwark against Islamists who dominated the Al-Bashir government and are believed to be influential in the military. The UAE also facilitates Hemedti’s lucrative gold exports through Dubai. At the same time, the UAE has kept its lines open to the army and Al-Burhan.

Last year, Sudan’s DAL conglomerate signed a US$6 billion agreement, backed by Al-Burhan, Sudan’s de facto ruler, with two UAE companies, AD Ports and Invictus Investment, to build a port in Abu Amama on the Red Sea. The port would be a key node in an Emirati Red Sea string of strategic outposts.

Last week, Al-Burhan supporters demanded the expulsion of Emirati diplomats in retaliation for the UAE’s backing of Hemedti, the general’s rival.

Arab media reported that the UAE, amid fears of a breakdown of the Jeddah talks and an escalation in the fighting, has sought to financially entice Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to back away from his support for Al-Burhan.

Grappling with economic turmoil that has seen official inflation shoot up to nearly 34 percent and the local currency halve in value over the past year, Al-Sisi last month visited the UAE in search of new funding, days before the Sudan fighting erupted.

The UAE’s effort to reportedly buy off Egyptian support for Al-Burhan would backtrack on its recent shift from unconditional support to demanding economic reform and enhanced transparency in return for its generosity. The effort also harks back to when Gulf states poured money into economic black holes in exchange for loyalty.

With the Renaissance Dam in mind, that may be, for Egypt, a high price to pay. (IPA Service)

By arrangement with the Arabian Post

The post Sudan Tests The Limits Of Middle Eastern De-Escalation, Dollar Diplomacy first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article Sudan Tests The Limits Of Middle Eastern De-Escalation, Dollar Diplomacy appeared first on Arabian Post.

The post Rahul backs Siddaramaiah amidst intense lobbying first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article Rahul backs Siddaramaiah amidst intense lobbying appeared first on Arabian Post.

The post Parameshwara joins race, claims support of 50 MLAs first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article Parameshwara joins race, claims support of 50 MLAs appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Prabhat Patnaik

Except in war-time, capitalism invariably seeks to control inflation by creating a recession; and this is so even when the inflation has been caused by an autonomous increase in capitalists’ profit-margins which are downward inflexible and hence would not be reduced by a recession. This strategy is pursued because a recession invariably lowers the demand for primary commodities and hence their prices; this serves to lower inflation. Likewise a recession increases the unemployment rate and thereby reduces the bargaining strength of the employed workers, which means that the workers do not get wage increases to compensate them for the rise in their cost of living; this also serves to lower the rate of inflation.

If we think of three claimants on the output produced in a capitalist economy, namely the capitalists, the workers and the suppliers of primary commodities in the form of food and current inputs, then inflation can be said to arise because the claims on output of the three together exceed the output itself. Anti-inflationary policy under capitalism invariably consists therefore in lowering the shares of the latter two groups, and not of the capitalists, by lowering their bargaining strength through a recession.

It is significant that even liberal American economists, who concede that the workers have been the victims of the current inflation, still recommend controlling money wage increases, that is, further increasing the burden on the workers, as the means of controlling inflation. Since this is the logic of capitalism and the liberal economists’ outlook is confined exclusively to capitalism, they see capitalism’s way of controlling inflation as the only possible way. And it is also clear from this that capitalism’s motivation for controlling inflation lies not in any sympathy for the workers being squeezed by it (for then it would not be seeking to control inflation at their expense), but in the fact that inflation hurts financial interests; the real value of the assets held by the financial oligarchy is lowered by inflation.

I mentioned above two groups at the expense of whom inflation is sought to be controlled under capitalism. But if one of these groups succeeds in resisting a squeeze upon itself, then the system needs to squeeze the other group even more drastically for controlling inflation; and for doing so it would need to impose an even more drastic recession. This is exactly what seems to be happening at present.

On April 2, the OPEC+ countries, consisting of the 13 OPEC members and 11 other non-OPEC oil-producing countries that include Russia, decided to curtail their oil output by 1 million barrels per day from May onwards until at least the end of the current calendar year. This cut comes over and above the cut announced by OPEC+ in October last year to the tune of 2 million barrels per day. That cut had occurred despite massive lobbying by the United States against it. Joe Biden, the US president, had sent several of his cabinet ministers to Saudi Arabia, a leader of OPEC and a close ally of the US, and had even visited that country in person, to persuade it to avoid such a course of action; but to no avail. Even against the present cut the US had exerted immense pressure, but again to no avail. These output cuts in short are testimony to the decline in US hegemony that has taken place of late.

The argument given by OPEC+ for the announced curtailment in output is that the demand for oil is getting reduced because of the recession. In other words, they argue that when there is a reduction in demand for oil, the producers are better off if output rather than the price is curtailed, which indeed is what they are enforcing. Their argument can be understood as follows: suppose there is a 10 per cent reduction in demand at the going price; if output is curtailed by 10 per cent, then the price remains unchanged, and their total revenue also falls by 10 per cent. But if they let the output remain unchanged and let the price fall until demand and supply are equalised, then the fall in price will be more than 10 per cent, and therefore the revenue will fall by more than 10 per cent. This is because the demand for oil is price-inelastic (indeed this is exactly what price-inelasticity of demand means). Incidentally, it is this price-inelasticity of the demand for oil which makes oil multinationals raise their profit margins and hence prices whenever they think they can get away with it.

The producers therefore are better off by curtailing output when there is a recession-induced reduction in demand than by keeping output unchanged and letting the price adjust to equate demand with supply. This is the OPEC+ argument for cutting output; and already even before the output cut has come into effect, there is a 6 per cent increase within a week in the price of crude oil in anticipation of it. Even the equity prices of some oil multinationals have also started going up.

If oil prices are kept up through cuts in crude output then the effect of an engineered recession in bringing down the inflation rate is correspondingly reduced. This means that the extent of recession will have to be even greater, in order to enforce an even greater restraint on the real wages of workers and on the share of other non-oil raw material and food producers. But the share of non-oil raw material and food producers in output being already rather low, the brunt will have to be borne by the wage earners. The point is: will the working class in the capitalist world, especially in the advanced capitalist countries allow this to happen? To the extent that they do not, the recession that is the capitalist panacea for inflation will have to be even greater.

The resistance of the working class however is not just to a squeeze on real wages; it is also to greater unemployment. And if the recession becomes too deep, that will provoke significant working class action. Europe is already racked by a wave of strikes; in fact no major European country is currently free of significant strike-struggles. If the recession deepens then the working class, under the pincer attack of inflation and unemployment, will become even more militant.

But that is not all. If the recession deepens then banks would become further stressed. Already there is considerable stress being experienced by the banking system in the advanced capitalist world, with two American banks having gone down. With a deepening recession and the ensuing defaults on bank-loans, matters will become even more serious.

All this points to an important fact. A whole set of conditions underlie the apparently smooth functioning of capitalism, and if the fulfilment of any of these conditions is impaired, then it sets off a chain reaction that seriously threatens the stability of the entire system. The hegemony of the US-led metropolitan imperialism over the world economy is one of these conditions. Because this hegemony has been so pervasive, so taken for granted, most analysts even fail to notice its relevance; but a crack in it, such as the relative assertiveness of Saudi Arabia that we are witnessing of late, the fact of its no longer toeing the American line, is seriously threatening the stability of the system.

World capitalism has been in a crisis for a long time, ever since the collapse of the housing bubble in 2008. It is a hallmark of the crisis that attempts to resolve it in one form simply give rise to a crisis in some other form. The original manifestation of the crisis was in the form of a stagnation; even establishment economists like Lawrence Summers the former US treasury secretary have now started talking of a “secular stagnation”. But the attempt to overcome this stagnation by pumping in extraordinarily cheap credit to the system over a long period of time, and then by running enormous fiscal deficits in the wake of the pandemic, brought on the current inflation. The Ukraine war, a fall-out of the effort to maintain western hegemony over the world, accentuated this inflation. And now the effort to curb this inflation is threatening western hegemony over the world, as well as the control exercised by metropolitan capital over its domestic working class. What we are witnessing in short is a coming apart of the conjuncture that underlay the stability of neoliberal capitalism. (IPA Service)

Courtesy: People’s Democracy

The post Oil Output Cut By OPEC+ Countries Is A Testimony To Decline In Us Hegemony first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article Oil Output Cut By OPEC+ Countries Is A Testimony To Decline In Us Hegemony appeared first on Arabian Post.

By Dr. Gyan Pathak

What is ‘understanding’ an utterance and what is ‘misunderstanding’? The answer is obvious – if someone understands exactly the same as to what was uttered is ‘understanding’ and if someone derives any other meaning is ‘misunderstanding’. Congress MP Rahul Gandhi’s conviction for two years of imprisonment with a fine of Rs 15,000 is clearly a case of ‘misunderstanding’ his utterance which was in fact targeted against Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a public servant who love to be called himself Pradhan Sevak of the Country, but not understood as such by one complainant BJP MLA and former minister of Gujarat Purnesh Modi and Chief Judicial Magistrate of Surat H H Varma.

At the end, the damage has been done. Lok Sabha secretariat has disqualified the Congress member from Wayanad of Kerala  state from membership as a result of the conviction and  the politico-legal war  will follow making  the functioning of  the Parliament, which is in session, impossible. But still, it is necessary to go into the details of what actually was the complaint and how the learned CJM arrived   at his’ bizarre’ decision as the noted lawyer Kapil Sibal said.

The complainant believed that Rahul Gandhi offended him and the judicial magistrate found that complainant was true in his submission, found Rahul Gandhi guilty of criminal defamation under section 499 and 500 of IPC and awarded him the sentence on March 23, 2023. Here, no amount of logic can justify that both the complainant and the judicial magistrate really understood Rahul’s utterance, and hence the judgement based on misunderstanding of an utterance is not a judgement at all but merely a decision from the seat of judgement.

Before going into merit and demerit of the case one needs to understand what constitute a meaning of an utterance keeping always in mind that no one is free to derive meaning other than what was really said, or else it would be a grave error leading to misunderstanding. Though there are many theories to understand the true meaning of an utterance – such as in semantics, semiotics, philosophy of language, metaphysics, metasemantics, psychological theories, logical theories, correspondence theory, coherence theory, constructive theory, consensus theory, and pragmatics theory in linguistics etc – one does not need to go through all of them to know the meaning of Rahul’s utterance.

Moreover, there is no need, and no one could be compelled, even by a judgement of a court, that Rahul Gandhi didn’t actually target PM Modi but  another Modi who was even unknown to Rahul Gandhi, as the complainant complained and the judicial magistrate believed. Had they known the simple fact that an utterance cannot be divorced from its context, they could not have landed into such a grave misunderstanding.

Let us put the matter straight. Rahul’s utterance came during an election rally in Karnataka on April 13, 2019. One can recall, at that time there were several fugitives, surnamed Modi who had committed offence and fled even outside the country while PM Narendra Modi were ruling the country. There were also allegations against PM Modi and his government that they had been supporting their favourite business persons and industrialists and BJP leaders were resorting to even nepotism.

A language and its usage are decided by the context in which they are uttered and no one has power over it. It was therefore but natural of a leader in opposition to ask questions or raise probing fingers on the leader of the ruling establishment who had come on the promise of making the country free of corruption, but increasing number of fraudsters were becoming fugitives with overt and covert support of the ruling establishment. Modi himself was alleged for corruption and lobbying for a favourite industrialist in the Rafale deal.

Rahul Gandhi had said, “Achha, ek Chhota sa sawaal, in sab ke naam, in sab choron ke naam, Modi Modi Modi kaise hai? Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. Aur abhi thoda dhoondenge to aur bahut saare Modi niklenge.” (OK, one small question, in the name of all these, in the name of all thieves, how it come Modi Modi Modi? Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. If search a little more many more Modi would come out.)

Meaning and target was clear, in which the complainant was not referred to even remotely. And no one has right to derive meaning whatever one like to, since such derivation lead us into a domain of “misunderstanding.” Gujarat court has fist derived wrong meaning and then convicted the utterer who did not mean that for which he was convicted. It is a judicial wrong.

Now come to legal point of view regarding meaning of an utterance and when it becomes a defamation. Even by simply going through the Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, in which defamation was legally defined and it was also explained what does not constitute defamation, it is clear that a general statement for many cannot be termed defamation for an individual, more so when one is not remotely referred to. For example, if one says that Man is selfish, or Money is theft, he can not be convicted on complaint of a person that he was defamed by labelling him selfish or thief.

Moreover, no person can be held guilty of defamation when one asks a question to the audience, for an answer or for consideration of a burning issue. Rahul Gandhi has a right to campaign, and bring issues to electorate for their consideration while exercising their vote. It is a common thing in democracy that the opposition and ruling establishment trade charges with each other while addressing electorate appealing them to exercise their voting rights carefully.

It must also be noted that the complainant is a BJP leader and former minister of Gujarat. Though he had filed the case on April 16, 2019, he had given a second though to his action, and was himself convinced that filing the case was his over-reaction. However, he was not allowed to withdraw the case. Consequently, last year he had reportedly sought a stay from the High Court of Gujarat which was granted on March 7, 2022.  However, he again went to High Court on February 16, 2023, seeking vacation of the stay which was granted. Trial then resumed on February 27, 2023, before the new CJM HH Varma who gave his judgement on March 23, 2023, with lightning speed.

The whole issue does not seem to be fair, but a judge has a right to deliver a judgement, even a wrong one, that could be challenged in the appellate higher courts who has responsibility to correct the errors in the judgement. There might be much more in this issue than what has appeared on the surface.

Another issue of the very desirability of the defamation law in a democracy is under question. In democracy, a critical view of a political party or leader against others must not be considered defamatory.  (IPA Service)

The post A Gross Misunderstanding Of Language Led To Rahul’s Conviction first appeared on IPA Newspack.

The article A Gross Misunderstanding Of Language Led To Rahul’s Conviction appeared first on Arabian Post.