Objectives and Goals

The NPP 2000 emphasised a series of important measures including an increase in the monetary compensation for sterilization, introduction of ‘population education in the Indian education system, increase in the usage of mass media in rural areas to increase awareness about family planning and contraceptives etc and thus sought to promote responsible and planned parenthood on a voluntary basis, aiming to freeze the population figures at the 1971 level until 2001 till the farthest extent possible. Broadly, the NPP 2000 can be summed up into three main objectives: short, middle and long term objectives.

Short term objectives:

1. To address the unmet needs for contraception, healthcare infrastructure and health personnel.
2. To provide integrated service delivery in consonance with the guidelines of WHO.

Middle term objectives:

1. To control the population through intersectoral operational strategies which include intersectoral collaboration between health and education to prevent problems like adolescent pregnancy and thus bring down the total fertility rate.

Long term objectives:

1. To achieve a stable population by the year 2045 by attempting to satisfy the economic needs of the present generation but in a manner that sustains natural resources and the environment for future generations.

The following goals were formulated to be achieved in the first decade after the introduction of the National Population Policy in 2000:

1. To address the unmet needs for basic reproduction (contraception), child health services, supplies and infrastructure (health personnel).
2. To make school education up to age 14 free and compulsory and reduce dropouts at primary and secondary school levels to below 20 per cent for both boys and girls.
3. To reduce the infant mortality rate to below 30 per 1,000 live births.
4. To reduce the maternal mortality rate to below 100 per 100,000 live births.
5. To achieve universal immunization of children against all vaccine-preventable diseases.
6. To promote delayed marriages for girls, not earlier than age 18 and preferably after 20 years of age.
7. To achieve universal access to information/counselling, and services for fertility regulation and contraception with a wide basket of choices.
8. To achieve 80 per cent institutional deliveries and 100 per cent deliveries by trained persons.
9. To achieve 100 per cent registration of births, deaths, marriages and pregnancies
10. To prevent and control communicable diseases, especially AIDS and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
11. To promote vigorously the small family norm.
12. To integrate Indian Systems of Medicine (ISM) in the provision of repro­ductive and child health services, and in reaching out to households.

In order to achieve these goals, certain promotional and motivational measures were also undertaken.

Current Outlook

Despite all the efforts and steps taken towards population control and family planning, the programme has failed to deliver any kind of desired results. According to a UNICEF report, in India, 67,385 births happen in a day. The reasons for the programme’s failure can be attributed to several reasons including large size of the population in the reproductive age group, higher fertility due to unmet needs of contraception, higher desire for fertility due to high infant mortality rate, ignorance of the rural masses about birth control techniques and the preference of a male child etc.

The post NATIONAL POPULATION POLICY OF INDIA appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Democrat President Joe Biden’s decision to end support of the six-year-long Yemen war, and reassess American arms sales that began under his tenure as Vice President is surprisingly not what is making the headlines around the world this week. Jamal Khashoggi is a name that is familiar not just in journalistic circles but elsewhere too. Khashoggi was a Washington Post Saudi journalist who was killed in 2018 in Turkey. Following Khashoggi’s gruesome murder at the Saudi Embassy, fingers were instantly pointed at Saudi Arabia, and rather spectacularly on Mohammed Bin Salman, a.k.a, MBS. The Trump administration refused to publish a report linking MBS to the murder, despite the American legislature passing an act calling on intelligence services to provide evidence tying MBS to Khashoggi’s killing. However, matters are a bit different under the Democrat White House. Biden, who made it abundantly clear that his administration is not going to base their Middle East Policy on Saudi Arabia, unlike his predecessors, has finally called for the publication of the long blocked report in the public domain. What remains to be seen is how this is going to alter the relationship between the Americans and their strategically important partner in the Middle East.

Jamal Khashoggi had enjoyed a long and distinguished career in the Saudi Kingdom. He was known to have enjoyed close relations with the Royal family and often acted as an official spokesperson for them. . Khashoggi’s relationship with the ruling family and Saudi Arabia was redefined when King Salman’s son Mohammad Bin Salman started accumulating power and was soon made the Crown-Prince, set to inherit his father’s position. It is during this time Khashoggi distanced himself from the helm of power and became a critic of MBS and his policies often calling out the government and central political figures for imposing severe and autocratic policies. Despite his staunch stance, which fell well within the journalistic standards, no one foresaw what would befall Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi, having had come to terms with the threat looming over him, had relocated to the United States, in the form of a self-exile and had been a regular contributor to the Washington Post. Khashoggi in the summer of 2018 had travelled to Turkey in search of marital bliss. Tragically, before he could tie the knot, Jamal Khashoggi was reported missing from the Saudi embassy in Turkey and later pronounced dead.

Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia were extremely warm under the Trump administration. However, the defining feature in this relationship wasn’t the two heads of state, rather the shots were called by Mohammad Bin Salman, and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. The two young and like-minded individuals forged a close relationship in the second part of the decade, mainly due to their shared business mindset. In fact, Trump on Kushner’s urgings decided to make his first official overseas visit to Saudi Arabia. From the very onset of his Presidency, Trump cultivated a very close relationship with the Saudi Kingdom making it the fulcrum of his Middle-East policy, and viewing the country as an important ally against America’s long Middle East rival, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The relationship was further strengthened through the Trump Administration’s decision to increase arms sales to Saudi Arabia, whilst backing its campaign in the Yemen war.

Despite Trump and Kushner obviously viewing their Saudi counterparts as their bosom companions, it was still an utter shock to see Trump adopt an ambiguous stance towards the killing of Washington Post Journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Trumps’ decision to blatantly believe what the Crown-Prince had to say, shook the Congress and American Intelligence Services, as the CIA itself concluded with medium-high certainty that Mohammad Bin Salman was aware of and directly involved in the killing of Jamal Khashoggi.

In 2018, the United States Senate, unanimously passed Resolution 69, which recognised that the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has, in recent years engaged in concerning behaviour, which includes its conduct in the civil war in Yemen, the apparent detention of the Prime Minister of Lebanon, suppression of dissent in the Kingdom and of course the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. The resolution explicitly recognises the misleading statements issued by the Saudi government, and that the fact the recent actions have undermined trust and confidence in the long-standing friendship between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The following resolution having been passed unanimously proved that the United States Senate was ready to take up its role in shaping foreign policy which it had long abdicated in favour of the executive. Despite the directness and consensual adoption of the resolution, it fell short of having any effect on American foreign policy. Owing simply to the fact that the Trump Administration actively suppressed its publication and wrote a blank cheque to the Saudi Government.

The United States turned a new page under the Biden Administration, as it seeks to calibrate American ties with the Gulf country. From the inception of Biden’s bid for the Presidency, he has portrayed a hard stance against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. During his campaign trails, he has gone to the extent of calling the country a ‘pariah’ state. In the short time that he has been in office, he has already reduced arms sales to the country, and the report presented to the Congress a few days ago by the Biden-Harris Administration was the proverbial last nail in the coffin. However, it is still early to determine the exact ramifications the report will have on the American-Saudi relationship and more importantly on the Kingdom’s de facto ruler MBS himself. The Biden administration may seem to be on a war footing undeterred by policies followed by their predecessors, but they have been extremely strategic. Apart from the incessant repetition by the White House Press Office, that decision would be taken keeping in mind that current relationship the two states share, Joe Biden prior to releasing the report also spoke to King Salman, the current head of state. Another anomaly that we see, is a dearth of White House officials rushing to the press to give insights into what the publication of the report means for the Saudis.

In the past few years, it has been evident to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and the intelligence services that Mohammed Bin Salman, wasn’t the top choice to be the leader of America’s closest ally in the Middle East. However, America’s top choice, Muhammad bin Nayef Al Saud, who served as the interior minister and was responsible for successfully countering the Al-Qaeda in the Kingdom, now lives in Canada in exile. The release of the report has just provided ammunition to the gun lying uncocked with the US Congress. Since the report by the Biden-Harris administration, we have already seen the imposition of the ‘Khashoggi Ban’, which is a new VISA policy, that sets new restrictions pursuant to section 21(a)(3)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The largely unanswered question that remains is how the American officials aim to publicly cooperate with a man who they have held responsible for an act of such nature. A possible divorce driven by public sentiment, or even a temporary souring of relations between the two countries could be a blessing in disguise for the IS and Al-Qaeda. However, another international actor set to benefit is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ramifications of Joe Biden’s decision to halt arms sales to the Saudis were evident when Iran-backed Houthis rebels were quick to capitalise on this and decided to advance on several fronts. However, in the near future, we need to consider the possibility that America’s decision to distance itself from Riyadh, could very well open doors for China, Russia and may even push the Saudi officials to develop closer ties with the Israelis.

The release of the report, along with growing opposition to the Yemen war and President Biden’s insistence on speaking with King Salman, instead of his son MBS, has heralded a new era in US-Saudi relations. An era that is marked with a host of strategic calculations on the part of the United States, that are aimed at keeping Saudi Arabia at an arm’s length, while being able to exploit its strong position in the Middle East. Like many other acts of geopolitical significance that are often ignored in the hope of a natural solution, I fear this is not applicable in this case. Khashoggi’s death has stirred up feelings against the Saudi Kingdom and the leadership which could very well be directed towards America if they fail to act decisively in the near future.

The post JAMAL KHASHOGGI MURDER: SAUDI-US RELATION RECALIBRATION appeared first on WISER WORLD.

There is no denying the fact that the United Kingdom had a significant impact on the European Union’s Foreign Policy. Brexit, in terms of the Middle East, the UK has shared the same concerns as the leadership in Brussels. This has included securing the flow of oil, ensuring non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and combating radical groups. However, cooperation with continental Europe has not always been the UK’s top priority when it came to Foreign Policy. As seen most notably in 2003 when the British government, under Labour Prime Minister joined the US-led coalition in invading Iraq, abasing strong criticism from Germany and France. To analyze Great Britain’s withdrawal from the confederacy, we look at three specific effects.

EU’s Loss of Power — Brexit & Middle East

We have already established the centrality of the British in the European Union’s economic development, foreign policies, and trade activities. Given the UK’s heightened power with the confederation, Brexit has not only left a gaping wound within the EU but has also shown the fragility of the union. Cracks within the European Union are so evident that political experts and heads of state, have entertained the possibility that the confederation may eventually break down completely. Since the Brexit referendum, there have been various right-wing discussions across European countries. The most glaring example of this is Poland. There has been a set of disagreements between the Polish government and the European Commission over contentious judiciary reforms.

The seriousness of the disagreements between the two entities is reflected through the words of the European Council President Donald Tusk who said, “The Matter is dramatically serious. The risk is deadly serious. Polexit is possible.” A similar situation of contention has developed between Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s Hungarian right-wing government, which has been at odds with the EU, ever since the union voted overwhelmingly to label Orban’s government as a “systemic threat to the rule of law”. Given the current state of the Union, a weaker and inward-looking Europe is predicted to be less involved in the Middle East. The nature of Europe’s dealings with actors in the Middle East will significantly be altered as it strikes to bargain with authoritarian figures in maintaining border security and stability while paying lip service to its values and ideals. In terms of seeing the actual effects of Europe’s or the UK’s dealings with the states of the Middle East, post-Brexit, it will be interesting to see if the EU still enjoys its power to promote its values of the rule of law and democracy, given the significant erosion in soft power after the Brexit.

UK’s Interventionist Policy

The second aspect that we focus on is the prediction that the United Kingdom may adopt an interventionist policy following Brexit — Even though, in regards to the Middle East, historically the UK has followed an independent foreign policy. Breaking away from the European Union, grants the country freedom from its regional commitments to mainland Europe and could lead to a more pragmatic and self-interested approach to its dealing with Middle Eastern states.

With the UK adopting a more selective role in the region, it is expected that the country will pursue short term goals over long term goals. This might include its interests in fighting terrorism and promoting UK business, rather than focusing on establishing a peace process in states like Syria. This however does not mean that the British will overlook the peace process completely. Being an important stakeholder in the Middle East Peace Process is vital for the country to maintain its relevance and influence in the region. If anything, a post-Brexit future may be the most ideal time for Britain to assert itself in the Middle East region, especially as the EU could be further weakened by Britain’s future departure and its internal problems. In terms of the business expansion in the Middle East, the Global Risk insight has predicted that the country will extensively focus on the Gulf region, along with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Regional and International Actors

Given the probability of the EU adopting a more inward-looking policy and the UK following a more self-interested pattern in its interactions with Middle Eastern Actors, there is a possibility that this could result in a greater role for global powers such as China, to develop strategic partnerships and political alliances with the countries in the region. There could also be an increased role of regional actors in combating security dilemmas and economic issues through the involvement of the Gulf Cooperation Council. In terms of the Council, the GRI has predicted that blocks such as the GCC will step-in to essentially develop security and economic frameworks to address regional issues. However, this seems a bit too idealistic given the current political issues the Middle East is plagued with, and the splintering of various member states into their network groups, such as the Saudi-Emirati Coordination Council.

Conclusion

From our discussion on the effects of Brexit, it is clear that the process has not only redefined relations between the Middle East, the United Kingdom and the European Union and reshuffled the intentional economy, but also has the potential of significantly altering Europe’s and the UK’s relations individually with other international actors. There exists tremendous insecurity and anxiety in markets around the world, as experts stand by to see the effects of these changes. A great amount of diffidence can be felt in the case of both the EU and the UK, as both remain unsure of how Joe Biden, the President-elect of the United States of America might react to the current situation. Had the Brexit deal gone through under Trump we could have expected him to adopt a more pro-British stance, but with Biden, the ball can be in anyone’s court. Only time will truly tell.

Featured Image: AFP/Getty Images

The post 3 MAJOR EFFECTS OF BREXIT ON THE MIDDLE EAST appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Rise of Genghis Khan — Invasions and Conquests

His conquests included the Western Xia Dynasty, Jin Dynasty, Qara Khitai, Khwarazmid Empire, Georgia, Kievan Rus, Volga, Bulgaria and other territories spanning many, many more kingdoms and all of this took him only 21 years. The Mongol Empire by the time of his death in 1227, spanned over 12 million square kilometers, effectively more than twice the size of Alexander’s empire.

At its height in 1279, it spanned to over 23 million square kilometers, more than four times the size of Alexander’s empire. It stretched all the way from the Gulf of Finland in the far west, the Arabian Gulf in the far south to the East China Sea in the far east. The routes and trails of his conquests are a matter of debate but he probably went from Mongolia to Manchuria, Korea, Xinjiang, Kazakhstan, the Aral Sea, the Caspian Sea and then to northern Iran in those 21 years.

It is particularly interesting to estimate how many kilometers of traveling would those conquests be per year, on an average. Considering the fact that he managed to conquer around 571,428 square kilometers of land on an average per year, during his entire 21 years of conquest, it roughly amounts to around 1,565 square kilometers on an average per day and 65 square kilometers on an average per hour.

Of course, he didn’t acquire new territories every day throughout that time but when he did, he vanquished an unbelievable number of kingdoms in record time. In doing so, Khan is estimated to have killed around 40 million people or roughly 10% of the world’s population at that time. Being an adherent of a nomadic Mongolian faith called Tengrism, he spared no one and massacred Muslims, Christians, Buddhists and Jews alike. In fact, he is said to have reduced two-thirds of Iran’s population, all by himself.

In contrast, Alexander conquered roughly 530,000 square kilometers of land on an average per year during his 10 years of conquest. That amounts to around 60 square kilometers of territory gained per hour. The numbers are surprisingly pretty close for both of them.

But then, Genghis Khan was probably a greater victor overall because his life was much harder than Alexander’s and he was able to become the ruler of all the Mongols despite very humble origins, and he ultimately became the founder of the world’s largest contiguous empire, which, unlike the British Empire, only took 21 years to create in that day and age.

An interesting fact about Ghengis Khan

An interesting fact about Ghengis Khan discovered in recent times is that, according to a historical genetics paper published in 2003, one in every two hundred men are direct descendants of him. So believe it or not, you and me both could very well be a descendant of this great conqueror and astonishing figure of human history.

I am the flail of god. Had you not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.

Genghis Khan

Featured Image: Artstation/@Thahn Tuan

The post THE BRUTAL BRILLIANT MONGOL LEADER: GENGHIS KHAN appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The previous weekend’s protests were the second time the French public took to the streets in the last month. There has been a sudden call for action amongst the citizenry, mainly due to two reasons. The first being the unwarranted beating of Micheal Zecler, who by profession is a music composer. Zecler was kicked and punched for several minutes by three officers at his studio in Paris on the 21st of November. Over and above the ‘intentional violence’ charge, all four officers have been accused of forgery. A charge that is related to the police report filed after the incident, which stated that police officers acted in the following manner after they smelled cannabis and the fact that Mr. Zecler had resisted being searched. According to the prosecutor, the police officers involved agreed that they had acted out of panic, after Micheal Zecler, resisted them in the cramped surroundings of his office. The incident immediately caught the public’s attention. President Emmanuel Macron himself described the incident as “unacceptable” and “shameful”, demanding quick government proposals on how to rebuild trust between police and citizens.

In terms of the broader topic of contention between the authorities and the general public, we see a great amount of dissatisfaction resulting from the Micheal Zecler case, however, this dissatisfaction soon turned into frustration, which in turn led to a call for action after the French parliament tabled a security bill. Article 24 of which makes it a criminal offence to publish images of on-duty police officers with the intent to harm their “physical and psychological integrity”. Advocates of the proposed bill say that the legislation aims at protecting police officers from harassment and targeting on social media. On the other hand, a majority of the French population believes that media freedom and the citizens’ right to film police action must not be impeded, as the French police are under intense scrutiny and have received severe backlash, after the Zecler case.

In response to the recent protests and strong criticism, the government has received. Macron’s ruling party said that they plan to rewrite the article that curbs rights to circulate images of police officers. President Emmanuel Macron himself has acknowledged the fact that people of color are more likely to be stopped by police for ID checks than white. To deal with this problem he proposed setting up a platform for citizens to log unwarranted searches. The President’s recent remarks have, however, not settled well with the police unions, who have strictly denied the statement by the President. What remains to be seen is if the steps proposed by the ruling party and the President will be enough to pacific the people, so at the draw to a close the string of protests around the country, and more importantly to see if the steps will be enough from a substantive point of view.

Featured Image By: United World

The post PARIS PROTESTS AGAINST MACRON’S SECURITY LAW appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Current State

Abiy’s government that refused to comment in the early stages of the conflict, recently asserted that its troops have successfully conquered territories, winning key battles, and are now marching undeterred towards Mekelle, where the TPLF has a stronghold and battle-hardened history. The war has pitted the central government against one of the most heavily militarized states that constitute Ethiopia. The TPLF occupied the helm of power for a long time within the Ethiopian political system, up until power was assumed by the current Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed two years ago. While commenting on its recent actions the government claimed that the TPLF has turned renegade and is holding power in Tigray illegally, while both sides have blamed the other for an unconstitutional assault on rights, and creating a situation that has stirred up a global humanitarian situation.

Countries in the African region in the past week have expressed their concern that the current situation could set off a spark that may result in an all-out civil war, which could play a highly destabilizing role, affecting the Horn of Africa, which is the continents most fragile regions. The Tigray who leaders have been blamed for plotting against the government and subsequently purchasing heavy machinery in an effort to prepare for a war with Ahmed’s government have voiced their discontent with the central government, in saying that the Tigray population has been unfairly treated, ousted from top government jobs while being used a scapegoat for Ethiopia’s failures under the current administration. In an attempt to break free of the autocratic shackles of the government, Tigray held its elections in September in defiance of Abiy’s government. However, the following move did not yield the results that the Tigray leaders were expecting, instead, it acted to bolster the belief of Abiy Ahmed’s government, towards the need to bring the entire region under their control, leading them to vote in favor of establishing a temporary government in the region.

Refugee Crisis

As the war continues an obvious result of the instability and uncertainty has been the increasing number of Ethiopian citizens fleeing the conflict in the Northern region of the country and moving into Sudan. With numbers reaching close to 10,000, aid officials providing services on the ground believe that the numbers are going to significantly increase in the coming days. The gravity of the situation and the poor conditions prevalent in the region were described by the Sajjad

Mohammad Sajid, the United Nations Humanitarian Chief in Ethiopia, in what he described as long lines appearing outside bread shops of hungry children and women, while supply laden trucks are stuck at the border. Considering that such movement of refugees hasn’t been recorded in the region in the last two decades, and also recognizing the lack of resources in the hands of governments, the United Nations High Commission for Refugees has issued an official warning for a humanitarian crisis.

More than 27,000 have now crossed into Sudan through the Hamdayet border in Kassala State, the Lugdi in Gedaref State, and a new location further south at Aderafi border where Ethiopian refugees started crossing over the weekend. Recent ground reports indicate that refugees have been pouring into Sudan, exhausted from the long trek. The UNHCR along with partner agencies is moving to support the Sudanese government in its response, ramping up humanitarian assistance at the borders as the need continues to grow at an exponential rate. In the last week itself, the UNHCR has relocated close to 2,500 refugees, and with this constant and immediate need to keep relocating refugees, there seemed to have emerged a shortage of spaces or sites where these vulnerable refugees can be relocated to.

In Tigray, the lack of electricity, telecommunication, and no access to food and cash has been a major roadblock in delivering humanitarian assistance in the region. After nearly two weeks of conflict, reports of larger numbers of internally displaced grow daily, while the lack of access to those in need, coupled with the inability to move goods to the region, remain major impediments to providing assistance. The current Ethiopian crisis has been a major cause for the Eritrean refugee population of nearly 100,00 in Tigray, who are majorly reliant on assistance from UNHCR and partners. The potential for further displacement of refugees inside the country is increasingly a real possibility. The humanitarian situation as a result of this crisis is growing rapidly. UNHCR reiterates its call for peace and urges all parties to respect the safety and security of all civilians in Tigray.

What next?

The pandemic and the postponement of the general elections acted as a blessing for the Ethiopian government, who were able to use these unusual circumstances to sideline opposition leaders while also cracking down on critics, and most importantly producing an election environment that they can be comfortable with. For now, it seems, that Ahmed’s government will try and keep a lid on future confrontations with the Tigray leaders, while simultaneously try and curtail the budget of the region, in an attempt to squeeze out, what the government has termed as a rogue.

Featured Image Source: Google Images | Image By: CSIS

The post ETHIOPIAN POLITICAL TURMOIL – WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? appeared first on WISER WORLD.