Tag: china

Eating

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

Zen vs. Modern Mindfulness:

The Difference Between Observing Life and Being It.

Modern mindfulness, as popularized by Jon Kabat-Zinn, has roots in Buddhism, Yoga (originating from India), and Zen philosophy (originating from China). However, despite these shared origins, modern mindfulness and Zen rest on very different foundations — in some ways, they are even philosophically contradictory.

Modern mindfulness often focuses on self-regulation, emotional balance, stress reduction, and improved well-being. Zen, on the other hand, does not aim to improve the self — it seeks to dissolve the self entirely.This contrast becomes especially clear when we look at eating practice.

Key Difference in Eating Practice.

Modern Mindful Eating:Notice taste.Enjoy flavor.Control overeating.Build a healthy relationship with food.

Zen Eating:Drop thinking about taste.Drop enjoyment and dislike.Drop improvement.Disappear into eating itself.

Zen expresses this with the saying:“If you are thinking of taste, you have already left the meal.”Food here is only a metaphor. The teaching points to a deeper Zen principle: the difference between direct experience and mental commentary.

If you are thinking of taste, you have already left the meal.Zen suggests that the moment your mind starts analyzing, judging, or evaluating, you are no longer fully present.Instead of experiencing reality, you are thinking about reality.Presence means direct experience.Thinking about it creates distance from experience.

Zen emphasizes being fully inside the moment, without mental labels such as good, bad, better, worse, interesting, or boring.Life is not meant to be constantly evaluated — it is meant to be lived directly.Like in Meditation.

Zen does not teach discipline — it points to total involvement.Zen is not about forcing control, effort, or self-improvement.It is about being so completely absorbed in what you are doing that there is no separate observer.Not:“I am eating.”But:Just eating.The sense of a watcher fades, leaving only the act itself.

The problem in life is the search for more.The craving for improvement, pleasure, or meaning pulls us away from reality.The mind keeps asking:“Is this good?”“Could this be better?”“What does this mean?”Zen warns: Life is missed while you’re measuring it.When we constantly seek more, we fail to experience what already is.

Even awareness must disappear into the act. If a millipede is aware about its walking and think which leg I have to put first, then next, then next… Walking became impossible.

At first, meditation teaches awareness.But in deeper Zen, even the sense of “I am aware” dissolves.There is:No thinker.No observer.No judge.Only pure experience happening.This is a radical shift from observing life to being life.

Zen teaches that real life happens when the mind stops commenting and experience is allowed to unfold on its own.Like blossoming of a bud.

A Simple Zen Story to Conclude.

A young monk asked his master,:“Master, what is the right way to eat?”.The master replied,: “When hungry, eat. When full, stop.”

The monk said,: “Everyone does that.”

The master answered,: “No. Most people eat while thinking.They eat their memories, their plans, their worries.Very few eat the meal.”

(Imindthemind)

Tariff

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

Tariffs as Weapons: Trump’s Use of Economic Pressure in Global Politics In recent years, global politics has witnessed a shift in how economic tools are used as instruments of power. One of the most prominent examples is U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to international relations, where tariffs and trade threats became tools of political coercion rather than instruments of balanced economic policy. His stance toward the European Union, Denmark over Greenland, and India for its ties with Russia illustrates a broader pattern of using economic leverage to influence the sovereign decisions of other nations. Trump’s trade policy consistently blurred the line between economics and diplomacy. Traditionally, tariffs are imposed to protect domestic industries or address trade imbalances. Under Trump, however, they evolved into punitive measures aimed at pressuring allies and rivals alike. This approach weakened confidence in global trade norms and disrupted long-standing alliances. The European Union became a major target of this strategy. In 2018, the Trump administration imposed tariffs of 25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum imports from the EU, citing national security concerns. These tariffs affected billions of dollars’ worth of European exports. When European leaders supported Denmark’s sovereignty during the Greenland controversy, the backdrop of ongoing tariff pressure reinforced the perception that economic punishment could follow political disagreement. Rather than diplomatic engagement, economic intimidation became the preferred response, undermining principles of mutual respect and international law. India also experienced this coercive approach. In 2019, the United States withdrew India’s benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences, affecting exports worth around 5.6 billion dollars. Trump repeatedly warned of higher tariffs on Indian goods while criticizing India’s defense and energy ties with Russia. Using tariff as a diplomatic tool to influence India’s independent foreign policy decisions, disregarding its historical security partnerships and strategic autonomy. This style of diplomacy sets a dangerous precedent. When tariffs are used as weapons, global trade becomes unstable, smaller economies face disproportionate pressure, and multilateral institutions are weakened. Allies begin to view economic interdependence as a liability rather than a partnership, accelerating fragmentation in the global order. Moreover, such coercive tactics contradict the principles of a rules-based international system. Instead of negotiation and consensus, economic bullying replaces diplomacy, increasing the likelihood of retaliation, trade wars, and long-term economic damage for all parties involved, including the United States. In conclusion, Trump’s use of tariffs as political weapons against the European Union, India, and other nations reflects a confrontational and short-term approach to global leadership. While it may project domestic strength, it erodes trust, strains alliances, and destabilizes international economic relations. Sustainable global leadership requires cooperation, respect for sovereignty, and diplomacy rather than threats disguised as trade policy.Estimated U.S. tariff figures on key countries/regions under the Trump administration’s tariff policy: 1. Canada• Baseline and negotiated tariffs on Canadian goods have varied under Trump-era policies. • Reports indicate tariffs on Canadian imports (non-USMCA goods) at around 35% in some versions of the tariff rollout. 2. Latin American Countries • Latin American nations generally faced the baseline 10% tariff under the broad April 2025 tariff policy. • Specific higher tariffs have not been widely documented for all Latin American countries collectively as of available data, but Brazil has been cited separately (see below). 3. India • Trump announced increased tariffs on Indian imports, with reported bilateral tariffs around 26% to 75%. 25% for not reducing tariff on American goods25% for trade with Russia25% for trade with Iran 4. European Union (and Allies) • Under Trump’s broader tariff strategy, the European Union faced tariffs of around 20% on many traded goods as of mid-2025. • In early 2026 tariff threats tied to political disputes (e.g., Greenland) included 10% tariffs increasing to 25% unless political conditions were met. 5. Denmark (and Related European Allies)• Specifically tied to the Greenland dispute, Denmark and several European allies were targeted with a 10% tariff beginning February 2026, slated to rise to 25% by June 2026 if political conditions were unmet. 6. Iran• While Iran itself is subject to U.S. sanctions and trade restrictions (and not typically part of normal tariff schedules), recent Trump administration announcements included a 25% tariff on imports from any country trading with Iran as a punitive measure.

Summary Table (Approximate Tariff Levels) Country / Region Approx. U.S. Tariff Rate.

Canada ~35% on non-USMCA goods Latin American Countries (general) ~10% baseline

India ~26–75% European Union ~20% (baseline policy)

Denmark (Greenland dispute tariff) 10% rising,to 25%.

U.S:The fading sun

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

Is the United States Losing Its Global Supremacy?

The short answer is that the era of overwhelming, unilateral U.S. dominance is evolving. While the United States remains a preeminent global power, its relative position is being challenged, signaling a shift toward a more multipolar world order.

Evidence of a Shifting Landscape

Multiple indicators point to a relative decline in U.S. influence across key domains:

· Technology and Research: The U.S. edge in foundational innovation is facing pressure. A 2023 report by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) concluded that America’s lead in information technology R&D is narrowing significantly. The report highlighted that U.S. federal funding for R&D as a percentage of GDP has stagnated, while China’s has surged, with the Asian nation now accounting for a larger share of global R&D expenditure than the United States.
· Global Public Perception: International confidence in U.S. leadership has waned. The Pew Research Center’s 2023 Global Attitudes Survey, which surveyed 24 countries, provides stark evidence. The study found that a median of only 31% of respondents expressed confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs. Furthermore, the U.S. image abroad has been impacted by perceptions of its leaders; in the same survey, a median of 80% described the U.S. president as “arrogant” and 65% as “dangerous.”
· Relative Economic and Military Scale: While the U.S. maintains the world’s largest economy and most powerful military, the gap is closing. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), China’s economy, when measured by purchasing power parity, has already surpassed that of the United States. Militarily, the U.S. Department of Defense’s 2023 report on China notes its rapid modernization, making it a “pacing challenge” and the only competitor with the intent and capacity to reshape the international order.

Redefining “Supremacy” in a New Era

Global supremacy today is less about absolute dominance and more about the ability to shape international rules, lead alliances, and exert cultural and economic influence. By this measure, the U.S. retains formidable strengths:

· It is home to the world’s leading innovation hubs (e.g., Silicon Valley).
· It anchors powerful military alliances like NATO.
· Its universities and cultural exports continue to wield significant soft power.

However, the margin of this dominance is shrinking. The rise of other powers, coupled with transnational challenges like climate change and cybersecurity that demand multilateral solutions, has eroded the conditions for unilateral leadership. This has led some allies to question the reliability of the U.S., thereby undermining a key pillar of its strategic influence.

Conclusion: A Transition to a Contested Order

The evidence indicates a clear transition. The post-Cold War period of near-unquestioned U.S. primacy is giving way to a more fragmented and competitive landscape. The United States remains a central and indispensable power, but its supremacy is now contested. Its future influence will depend not on acting alone, but on its ability to reinforce partnerships, innovate consistently, and rebuild confidence to navigate an increasingly multipolar world.

The Tariff war

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment


The U.S. has asked G7 countries to impose tariffs on countries purchasing oil from Russia, asserting that only “unified efforts” that cut off funding to Moscow’s war machine at source can apply sufficient pressure to end “the senseless killing.”
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the United States Trade Representative Ambassador Jamieson Greer were on a call with G7 Finance Ministers on Friday (September 12, 2025) when they reiterated President Donald Trump’s call to the bloc’s partners about imposing tariffs on countries purchasing oil from Russia.
François-Philippe Champagne, Canada’s Minister of Finance and National Revenue, chaired a meeting of G7 Finance Ministers to discuss further measures to increase pressure on Russia to end its war against Ukraine.
G7 is an intergovernmental bloc of rich, industrialised countries comprising the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the U.K. Canada is the head of the rolling G7 presidency this year.
“During today’s call with G7 Finance Ministers, Secretary Bessent reiterated President Trump’s call to our G7 partners that, if they are truly committed to ending the war in Ukraine, they should join the United States in imposing tariffs on countries purchasing oil from Russia,” a U.S. Treasury Department statement said after the call.
The statement did not name any country. But the U.S. has often blamed India and China for purchasing Russian oil even when there are no tariffs on Beijing for it.
“Only with a unified effort that cuts off the revenues funding (Russian President Vladimir) Putin’s war machine at the source will we be able to apply sufficient economic pressure to end the senseless killing,” said Secretary Bessent and Ambassador Greer.
“Thanks to President Trump’s bold leadership, the United States has already taken dramatic action against the purchasers of Russian oil. We are encouraged by the assurances of our fellow G7 nations that they are committed to ending this war, and we are hopeful that they will join us in taking decisive action at this critical time,” the statement added.
The U.S. has doubled tariffs on Indian goods to a whopping 50%, including a 25% additional duty for India’s purchase of Russian crude oil, an action that New Delhi has described as “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable.”
India has been maintaining that its energy procurement, including buying oil from Russia, is driven by national interest and market dynamics.
India and the U.S. have been negotiating a bilateral trade agreement since March. So far, five rounds of negotiations have been completed.
For the sixth round, the U.S. team, which was to visit India last month, deferred its visit due to the imposition of a 50% tariff on Indian goods by Washington.
Trade relations between the two countries have been strained due to the high tariffs. The two countries had earlier announced plans to conclude the first phase of the India-U.S. bilateral trade agreement by the fall of 2025.
A statement from Champagne said, “Russia’s increasingly aggressive stance, including recent bombings in Ukraine and Wednesday’s violation of Polish airspace by Russian drones, and its unwillingness to agree to a ceasefire have prompted this G7 meeting.”
Canada, as part of its G7 Presidency, remains committed to working closely with G7 allies to increase pressure on Russia and support Ukraine’s long-term security and recovery, he said in the statement.
“G7 Ministers agreed to accelerate discussions to further use immobilised Russian sovereign assets to fund Ukraine’s defence, and to explore other mechanisms that would allow further increasing financial support to Ukraine,” it added.
Secretary Bessent and Ambassador Greer also welcomed commitments to increase sanctions pressure and explore using immobilised Russian sovereign assets to further benefit Ukraine’s defence, it said.
On Friday, President Trump, when asked in an interview with ‘Fox and Friends’ what clamping down on his Russian counterpart entails, said: “Look, India was their biggest customer. I put a 50% tariff on India because they’re buying oil from Russia. That’s not an easy thing to do. That’s a big deal and it causes a rift with India.”

from Hindu

Soft power, Hard power and Smart power of America

whisperer2darkness1 Comment

Soft Power, Hard Power, and the Decline of Smart Power: A Look at U.S. Foreign Policy Under Trump

By Nelson Kattikat

In global politics, the strength of a nation is not determined solely by the size of its military or economic might. It is also shaped by how it is perceived, admired, and emulated by others. This distinction lies at the heart of the concepts of hard power, soft power, and their combination — smart power.

Understanding Power in Global Relations

Hard power refers to a country’s ability to influence others through coercive means — primarily military force and economic pressure. It is evident in war, sanctions, and defense alliances. On the other hand, soft power — a term coined by political scientist Joseph Nye — is the ability to shape preferences through appeal and attraction, using culture, political values, education, diplomacy, and humanitarian efforts.

When countries effectively combine both approaches — leveraging military strength when necessary, while also investing in global goodwill and cooperation — they practice what is known as smart power.

Soft Power: America’s Strategic Advantage

For decades, the United States has been a dominant soft power force. Its universities attract the world’s brightest minds. Hollywood films, pop music, and tech giants project American culture globally. Institutions like USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) have provided humanitarian aid and development assistance, enhancing America’s image as a benevolent leader.

USAID, in particular, plays a critical role in soft power diplomacy. By funding education, healthcare, infrastructure, and crisis response in developing countries, the U.S. builds long-term goodwill, influence, and partnerships — without relying on force.

Trump Administration: A Shift Away from Soft Power

Under President Donald Trump, U.S. foreign policy experienced a dramatic shift. His administration emphasized “America First,” prioritizing national interests and reducing foreign commitments. One significant move was the proposal to slash funding for USAID and the State Department — the primary institutions behind America’s soft power strategy.

Though Congress pushed back on some of these cuts, the message was clear: the Trump administration favored hard power and unilateralism over diplomacy and development. He also:

Withdrew from international agreements, like the Paris Climate Accord and the World Health Organization

Imposed tariffs and trade wars, particularly against China and traditional allies

Undermined multilateralism, damaging America’s global credibility

These actions reduced the effectiveness of U.S. soft power, causing allies to question American leadership — while giving room for nations like China to expand their influence in global development and diplomacy.

The Consequences of Undermining Smart Power

By de-emphasizing soft power tools and over-relying on coercion and nationalism, the U.S. under Trump lost ground in global influence. Smart power — which integrates diplomacy, aid, alliances, and military deterrence — was effectively sidelined.

Nations that successfully use smart power, blending hard strength with cultural and moral influence, tend to sustain long-term global leadership. America’s post-WWII dominance was built not just on weapons and wealth, but on the perception that it stood for freedom, opportunity, and partnership.

America’s soft power was the key reason why other countries chose to align with the United States. Many nations were not interested in aligning with China or Russia. However, this situation may change in the future.

Initiatives such as USAID and educational scholarships, including Ph.D. programs, played a role in preventing people from being drawn toward anti-American terrorism. However, the U.S. is now losing that positive image.

In short, when the world’s positive perception of America erodes, so does its influence in the global arena.

Conclusion

Hard power may win wars, but soft power wins hearts. The Trump administration’s retreat from diplomacy and global engagement weakened America’s ability to shape the world on its terms. In an era of rising authoritarian influence and global challenges, restoring smart power — by reinvesting in alliances, diplomacy, and development — remains essential for U.S. leadership.

America: a bad Autocratic leader?

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment

America’s Global Interventions and Nuclear Politics: A Historical and Ethical Critique
By Dr Nelson Kattikat

Introduction

From the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States has intervened globally in ways that have caused mass destruction, political instability, and widespread ethical debate. This article critically examines the historical actions and moral implications of American global policies, particularly in the context of nuclear weapons, regime change, and international law.

  1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Origins of Nuclear Terror

On August 6 and 9, 1945, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of over 200,000 people—many of them civilians. Tens of thousands more suffered long-term effects from radiation. While the U.S. has claimed this action was necessary to end World War II, many historians argue it was a strategic display of power, not a military necessity.

Ethical Question: Does any nation have the moral authority to use weapons of mass destruction against civilians?

  1. Iraq 2003: Invasion Built on Falsehoods

In 2003, the United States and the United Kingdom invaded Iraq, alleging the presence of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (WMDs). These claims were later proven false—even acknowledged by their own governments.

Over 500,000 Iraqis died as a result of the war.

The fall of Saddam Hussein created a power vacuum, contributing to the rise of extremist groups like ISIS.

Iraq remains politically unstable and economically weakened to this day.

Ethical Question: Can the deliberate destruction of a nation based on misinformation ever be justified in the name of peace?

  1. Nuclear Proliferation: The Politics of Double Standards

The U.S. continues to maintain over 5,000 nuclear warheads, yet aggressively opposes the development of nuclear capabilities in other nations. This inconsistency highlights a long-standing double standard:

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligates nuclear powers to disarm, yet key players like the U.S. and Russia continue to modernize their arsenals.

Israel, which possesses nuclear weapons, is not subject to international inspections, while Iran, which has no confirmed nuclear weapons, faces sanctions.

Nations like India, Pakistan, and North Korea have developed nuclear capabilities in response to perceived threats, often citing U.S. aggression as justification.

Ethical Question: Why are nuclear weapons acceptable for some nations but not for others?

  1. Regime Change: Exporting Chaos in the Name of Democracy

The U.S. has a long history of overthrowing foreign governments under the banner of protecting democracy, often replacing them with authoritarian regimes:

Iran (1953): The CIA deposed elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, reinstating the Shah’s monarchy.

Chile (1973): U.S.-backed forces removed President Salvador Allende, leading to a brutal dictatorship under Pinochet.

Libya (2011): NATO intervention led to the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, plunging the country into ongoing civil war.

Ethical Question: What moral authority allows one nation to interfere in the sovereignty of others?

  1. Selective Justice: The Hypocrisy of International Law

International responses to conflicts often reveal a pattern of geopolitical favoritism:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was met with sanctions, global condemnation, and war crimes investigations.

Israel’s repeated military actions in Gaza are met with continued U.S. military aid, amounting to over $3 billion annually.

The UN Security Council grants veto power to five nations (U.S., Russia, China, France, U.K.), often paralyzing global consensus.

Ethical Question: Can international law truly serve justice if it is shaped by the interests of the powerful few?

Conclusion: Rethinking Global Power and Ethics

While American interventions are frequently framed as efforts to promote democracy and protect human rights, historical evidence suggests they often advance strategic and economic interests. A truly just world requires:

Accountability for all nations—powerful or not.

Equality in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Respect for national sovereignty and international law.

A critical, informed global citizenry.

“The law of the powerful will never be the law of justice.”

— Mahatma Gandhi

American Diary

whisperer2darknessLeave a comment


13.2.2025
By Dr. Nelsonkattikat

Modi has arrived in America and will hold discussions with Trump. What topics will they talk about? While some crucial matters will be addressed, it is unlikely that they will discuss issues that could destabilize India-US relations.

Although it is unfortunate that illegal immigrants were reportedly brought back to India in chains, this topic is unlikely to be a priority in discussions. Trump may attempt to bring India under his influence by imposing tariffs on Indian goods, pressuring India to make economic concessions.

India might align with Trump’s stance on ending the Ukraine-Russia war. If Putin does not heed Trump’s advice, there could be pressure on India to halt fuel purchases from Russia. Additionally, there is a possibility of increased India-US cooperation in the energy sector, particularly in renewable energy, nuclear energy, and oil trade.

Countering China’s growing influence will likely be a major topic of discussion. The two leaders might explore strategies related to defense collaboration, Indo-Pacific security, and strengthening QUAD (the strategic alliance of India, the US, Japan, and Australia). Strengthening military cooperation, including defense equipment deals, intelligence sharing, and cybersecurity measures, could also be on the agenda.

The discussions may extend to advancements in space technology, including collaborations on rocket programs, satellite launches, and deep-space exploration. India and the US may also explore partnerships in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, semiconductor manufacturing, and 5G networks.

Trade relations, visa policies for Indian professionals, and cooperation in pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors might also be discussed. Additionally, given India’s increasing role in global geopolitics, there could be conversations about India’s role in Middle Eastern affairs and global supply chain resilience.