scholarly journals Indo-US Strategic Partnership and Regional Politics

2018 ◽  
Vol III (I) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Mujahid Hussain ◽  
Syed Umair Jalal ◽  
Muhammad Bilal
Keyword(s):  
South Asian ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Strategic Partnerships ◽  
Regional Politics ◽  
The Us ◽  
Mutual Interest ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Security Structure

The United States and India relationship has changed from offense to more extensive engagement since 2004. 0With mutual interest and potential of both, the US and India relationship has matured into a strategic partnership through mutual atomic cooperation. This paper investigates the cost and advantage of the strategic partnership of India and the US and the effect on the South Asian balance of power in the backdrop of PakUS relationships. It additionally concentrates on the security structure of the neighborhood, and challenges for the US to keep up strategic partnerships with the opponents India and Pakistan.

US Strategic Propensity towards India in Perspective of Nuclear Bonding: Security Apprehensions for South Asian Region and Pakistan

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asifa Jahangir ◽  
Furqan Khan
Keyword(s):  
South Asian ◽  
World Order ◽  
Balance Of Power ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
The South ◽  
Asian Region ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Face ◽  
Technology Control ◽  
South Asian Region

The Indo-US strategic bonding is shifting the security dynamics of the South Asian balance-of-power in Indian favour. From the signing of 123 US-India Nuclear Deal to the facilitation in becoming a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), the US has clearly designated India as an instrumental element in the American grand strategy of devising a ‘new world order’. As a result, India has grabbed the opportunity of alleviating its status as a credible regional and global power. In this regard, the US tilt towards India is significantly paving grounds for a strategic imbalance in the South Asian region, thus creating challenges for Pakistan. Therefore, this paper argues that the growing bonhomie between the US and India is a destabilizing factor in the region which reinforces Pakistan’s fast falling into the Chinese orbit; thereby cementing the old friendship into a new strategic partnership. This dynamic certainly gives China and Pakistan an incentive to work together so as to keep the value of Pakistan’s nuclear deterrence alive. In an effort to expand the horizon on the subject, the paper is dedicated to critically examine the existing cooperation between India and the US while equally foreseeing the possible implications for the region in the face of such destabilizing cooperation. More importantly, based on qualitative data, this paper explores how Indo-US strategic partnership is directly impacting Pakistan and its strategic partnership with China; thereby explaining how the growing relationship between the US and India has undermined the traditional balance-of-power in the South Asian region?

scholarly journals India’s Role as a Determinant in Pakistan-US Relations (2005-2015)

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 285-293
Author(s):  
Iftikhar Ahmad Yousafzai ◽  
A. Z. Hilali
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Asian ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Space Technology ◽  
Missile Defense ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Us ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Defense Production

The United States adopted a policy of de-hyphenation in its relations with India and Pakistan in the post-09/11 period which continued to be operational in the period 2005-2015. This policy apparently meant that the United States would deal each of the two South Asian adversaries, India and Pakistan. The main reason for this phenomenon was that the policy-makers in the US saw India as a heavy-weight to counter the rising economic, political and military power of China in Asia. Pakistan could not be fitted in this strategic calculus. The United States changed its previous position on Kashmir and instead of calling for resolving this issue according to the United Nations resolutions, it stressed on bilateral negotiations. Similarly, the United States endorsed Indian stance that Pakistan was backing terrorist outfits that perpetrated acts of terrorism in India. Strategic partnership between The US and India extended cooperation in civil nuclear technology, missile defense, space technology and defense production. No such cooperation could be extended to Pakistan. Permanent membership in the UN Security Council for India was endorsed despite Pakistan’s objections.

The effects of US–China competing strategies in Asia-Pacific on India and Pakistan rivalry in the South Asian region

2021 ◽  
pp. 205789112110211
Author(s):  
Zafar Khan
Keyword(s):  
South Asian ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
Grand Strategy ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
The South ◽  
Reduced Pressure ◽  
The Us ◽  
Belt And Road ◽  
Modernization Process ◽  
The One

This article primarily focuses on how the increasing US–China competing strategies in Asia-Pacific affect the policies of South Asian rivals India and Pakistan when, on the one hand, the US as part of its offshore balancing grand strategy has been increasing its strategic partnership with India through the transfer of emerging technologies in terms of military modernization process, and on the other hand, China and Pakistan have improved their geo-economic and geostrategic partnership as part of the Chinese grand strategy via the Belt and Road Initiative while enabling Pakistan to produce effective countermeasures against its potential adversary. The article presumes that, in doing so, such competing strategies frame a quadrangle setting comprising of US and India to deter and contain China on the one hand and China and Pakistan to produce countermeasures and try to create a balance to potentially prevent the risk of conflict in South Asia out of such competing strategies at the quadrangle order conceived here. However, in fact, neither the US nor rising China would desire such a possibility of conflict otherwise unintendedly occurring from the intense US–China competing strategies while affecting the policies of the South Asian rivals. The article concludes that the shaping of this quadrangle framework may bring both opportunities and challenges for the South Asian rivals. It also concludes that the more intense the competition between the US and China becomes, the more intense its implications could be on the South Asian rivals, while the reduced tension between China and the US, although unlikely, would have reduced pressure on India and Pakistan relations as well.

Promoting allyship among South Asian and Arab Muslims toward Black and Latino/a Muslims in American Islamic centers

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nausheen Pasha-Zaidi ◽  
Meg Aum Warren ◽  
Yvonne Pilar El Ashmawi ◽  
Neneh Kowai-Bell
Keyword(s):  
South Asian ◽  
South Asians ◽  
The United States ◽  
Muslim Americans ◽  
Social Categories ◽  
Islam In America ◽  
The Us ◽  
Racial Dialogue ◽  
Muslim Communities ◽  
Black And Latino

Increased social justice awareness in the United States and shifting demographics are giving birth to a more diverse and egalitarian generation. Improving relations across social categories has been a key topic in di-versity, equity, and inclusion work, but less emphasis has been placed on cross-racial allyship within mi-nority populations. While allyship in racial contexts is often perceived as a White versus non-White issue, this binary position erases the diversity that exists within communities of color. A dichotomous approach to allyship that positions White heterosexual males as the primary holders of privilege does not address the disparities that exist within and across minoritized communities. While Arabs and South Asians are minori-ties in the US on a macrolevel, they often hold privileged positions in Islamic centers and other Muslim spaces—even though Black Americans make up a larger percentage of the Muslim population. Additional-ly, there is an increasing number of Latino/a Muslims in the US, but they are often invisible in larger con-versations about Islam in America as well as in discourse among Muslim Americans. In this chapter, we explore the concept of allyship and how South Asian and Arab Muslims can support and advocate for Black and Latino/a Muslims in American Islamic centers. We also discuss Islamophobia in the US as well as the anti-Blackness and racism that exists within Muslim communities and provide suggestions on how Islamic centers can serve as spaces of allyship and cross-racial dialogue.

scholarly journals The comparison of vaccine hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination in China and the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taoran Liu ◽  
Zonglin He ◽  
Jian Huang ◽  
Ni Yan ◽  
Qian Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Discrete Choice ◽  
Choice Experiments ◽  
The United States ◽  
Discrete Choice Experiments ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost

AbstractObjectivesTo investigate the differences in vaccine hesitancy and preference of the currently available COVID-19 vaccines between two countries, viz. China and the United States (US).MethodA cross-national survey was conducted in both China and the US, and discrete choice experiments as well as Likert scales were utilized to assess vaccine preference and the underlying factors contributing to the vaccination acceptance. A propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to enable a direct comparison between the two countries.ResultsA total of 9,077 (5,375 and 3,702, respectively, from China and the US) respondents have completed the survey. After propensity score matching, over 82.0% respondents from China positively accept the COVID-19 vaccination, while 72.2% respondents form the US positively accept it. Specifically, only 31.9% of Chinese respondents were recommended by a doctor to have COVID-19 vaccination, while more than half of the US respondents were recommended by a doctor (50.2%), local health board (59.4%), or friends and families (64.8%). The discrete choice experiments revealed that respondents from the US attached the greatest importance to the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines (44.41%), followed by the cost of vaccination (29.57%), whereas those from China held a different viewpoint that the cost of vaccination covers the largest proportion in their trade-off (30.66%), and efficacy ranked as the second most important attribute (26.34%). Also, respondents from China tend to concerned much more about the adverse effect of vaccination (19.68% vs 6.12%) and have lower perceived severity of being infected with COVID-19.ConclusionWhile the overall acceptance and hesitancy of COVID-19 vaccination in both countries are high, underpinned distinctions between countries are observed. Owing to the differences in COVID-19 incidence rates, cultural backgrounds, and the availability of specific COVID-19 vaccines in two countries, the vaccine rollout strategies should be nation-dependent.

scholarly journals On the ethics of doctors in capitalist countries

1981 ◽  
Vol 62 (5) ◽  
pp. 80-83
Author(s):  
S. Ya. Chikin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Surgical Intervention ◽  
The United States ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Us Congress ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost

In 1977, the US Congress published statistics on the operation of surgical clinics in many cities in the country. These materials cannot be read without a shudder. They once again proved that American doctors are no different from businessmen in their passion for profit. The report's conclusion was very sad. He testified that up to three million unjustified surgeries are performed annually in the United States. Naturally, they are not undertaken for the sake of the patient's health, but in order to present a more weighty bill to the patient, because the cost of the simplest surgical intervention is now estimated at at least $ 1000.

scholarly journals Foreign lobbying as an instrument of defense cooperation between Poland and the United States

Baltic Region ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-22
Author(s):  
V. N Konyshev ◽  
E. M. Skvortsova
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Party System ◽  
Technological Development ◽  
The United States ◽  
Strategic Partnership ◽  
European Security ◽  
Additional Advantage ◽  
The Us ◽  
Defence Cooperation ◽  
The Baltic

Defence cooperation between Poland and the United States significantly affects the security agenda of Russia, the Baltic region, and Europe as a whole. On the one hand, Poland intends to become a key partner of the US in ensuring European security. On the other hand, it has ambitions to take the leading position in the security area among the Baltic States. The Polish leadership sees an additional advantage in expanding military cooperation with the United States, regarding it as a jumping board to accelerating its economic and technological development. This article examines a mechanism underlying defence cooperation between the US and Poland, i.e. lobbying Poland’s interests in another state. This allows Warsaw to actively promote its interests in the US. The research methodology employed includes the periodisation of Polish lobbying activities in the US and an empirical study of lobbying based on analysis of original documents, many of which have been analysed for the first time. It is shown that, under the existing party system, Poland will not abandon strategic partnership with the United States, primarily in security and defence. Over the study period, Poland quickly gained experience in promoting its interests in the US through direct lobbying, showing flexibility in negotiations, relying on the two-party support in the US Congress, successfully coordinating the activities of its governing bodies and various corporations which are submitted to tight state control.

Abstract 18272: The Increasing Proportion of Acute Myocardial Infarction Represented by the Uninsured: a Growing Financial Burden in the United States

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Bethany Doran ◽  
Yu Guo ◽  
Jinfeng Xu ◽  
Sripal Bangalore
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Acute Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Financial Burden ◽  
Insurance Coverage ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Us ◽  
Hospital Stays ◽  
Nationally Representative ◽  
The Cost

Introduction: Under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, insurance coverage will markedly increase with the Congressional Budgetary Office estimating the number of insured to increase by approximately 13 million in 2014 and 25 million in 2016. However, approximately 31 million non-elderly US citizens are expected to remain without health insurance in 2016. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains a source of significant morbidity and mortality, as well as cost to society. No prior studies have examined temporal rates of uninsured among patients presenting with an AMI using a nationally representative database. Hypothesis: We tested the hypothesis that the proportion of uninsured individuals with AMI and cost of uninsured to society will vary by year. Methods: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), which contains estimates from approximately 8 million hospital visits and information related to number of discharges, aggregate charges, and principal diagnoses of all patients discharged in the US. We calculated the percentage of acute myocardial infarction by insurance status, and the sum of all charges of hospital stays in the US adjusted for inflation. Results: The cost to society due to acute myocardial infarction in the uninsured increased substantially from 1997 to 2012, with total cost in 1997 of $852,596,272 and $3,446,893,954 in 2012 after adjustment for inflation. In addition, although rates of AMI decreased in the general population (from 268.6/100,000 individuals in 1997 to 193.8/100,000 individuals in 2012), the proportion of individuals with AMI who were uninsured increased (from 3.83% in 1997 to 7.37% in 2012). Conclusions: The proportion of those experiencing AMI who are uninsured is rising, as is cost to society. It remains to be seen what the effects of expanding health insurance will have on the rate of AMI as well as proportion of AMI represented by the uninsured.

Recognizing barriers to entry of biosimilars in the United States market and highlighting the solutions

2020 ◽  
pp. 174113432097215
Author(s):  
Arpit Bana ◽  
Priti J Mehta
Keyword(s):  
Patent Protection ◽  
Reference Product ◽  
Market Competition ◽  
The United States ◽  
Living Cells ◽  
Barriers To Entry ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The U.S

Drugs that are procured from living cells and are used to treat acute and chronic diseases are called biologics, whereas biosimilars are the drugs which are highly similar but not identical to the original reference product. The main advantage of these drugs is that they are highly targeted with great therapeutic activity and can be used for multiple indications. Despite all the advantages biologics are still extremely costly. The main purpose of developing and introducing biosimilars was and is to increase market competition leading to a decrease in the cost of the biologics. However, until now the cost of the treatment has not decreased in the US market because there are many barriers to the entry of biosimilar in the US market which are discussed in this article. In this article, we argue that the barrier or hurdle in the US market entry of the biosimilars is not only limited to patent protection or exclusivity but other less discussed barriers are also there which are to be discussed. Due to these barriers till June 10, 2020, only 9 biosimilars are available commercially in the US market out of the 27 biosimilars approved for marketing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). We argue that the introduction of these biosimilars in the US market is essential for increasing market competition and thus decreasing the overall treatment cost for both the government and the payers. In this article, we are also providing perspective on the possible solutions to reduce these barriers and to encourage the entry of biosimilar in the US market.

An economic analysis of axitinib and sorafenib for second-line treatment of cytokine-refractory patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma in the United States (US).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15601-e15601
Author(s):  
Ipek Özer-Stillman ◽  
Apoorva Ambavane ◽  
Paul Cislo
Keyword(s):  
Economic Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Administrative Claims ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Cost Difference ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cost

e15601 Background: Cytokines are a first-line treatment option for a subset of advanced RCC patients in the US. After progression on cytokines, NCCN guidelines recommend targeted agents, such as axitinib and sorafenib. Subgroup analysis of post-cytokine patients in the phase III AXIS trial found that axitinib increased median progression free survival (PFS) compared with sorafenib (12.0 vs. 6.6 months, p<0.0001), while overall survival (OS) showed no difference (29.4 vs. 27.8 months, p=0.144). An economic analysis for this subgroup was conducted from a US healthcare payer perspective. Methods: A cohort partition model with monthly cycles was constructed to estimate direct medical costs and health outcomes, discounted at 3.0% per annum, over cohort lifetime. Patients were apportioned into 3 health states (progression-free, progressed and dead) based on OS and PFS Kaplan-Meier curves for the post-cytokine subgroup in the AXIS trial. Active treatment was applied until progression, followed by best supportive care (BSC) alone thereafter. The wholesale acquisition costs were based from RedBook. Adverse event (AE) management costs were obtained from published studies. AE rates and utility values were informed by the AXIS trial. Administrative claims data from MarketScan Database were analyzed to estimate costs for BSC and routine care of second-line advanced RCC patients. Results: The total per-patient lifetime costs were estimated to be $242,750 for axitinib and $168,880 for sorafenib and most of the cost difference (84%) was due to the higher total medication cost of axitinib. The cost difference was sensitive to dose intensity and length of treatment. The difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for axitinib versus sorafenib was minor (1.3 versus 1.2) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for axitinib compared with sorafenib was $683,209/QALY. Conclusions: For cytokine-refractory advanced RCC patients, axitinib resulted in an ICER > $650,000/QALY versus sorafenib due to high drug costs and lack of OS benefit, indicating that axitinib may not present good value for money as 2nd line treatment when compared to sorafenib in the US.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document