Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi offered a thinly veiled criticism of China, even while insisting on closer relations with Beijing, during a speech Friday in Singapore.  Speaking at the annual Shangri-La Dialogue defense conference, Modi called for the Indo-Pacific region to embrace freedom of navigation, territorial integrity, and respect for all nations, regardless of their size.  "We will promote a democratic and rules-based international order in which all nations, small and large, count as equal and sovereign," the Indian prime minister said. "We will work with others to keep our seas, space and airways free and open."  While those comments did not specifically mention China, Modi's remarks are seen as a reference to Beijing's increasingly assertive behavior toward its smaller neighbors in disputed areas of the South China Sea. Modi also implicitly criticized the United States. He slammed growing protectionism, presumably a reference to recent tariffs imposed by U.S. President Donald Trump. He also said nations should keep their commitments — a possible reference to Trump's decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal.  India has grown close with the U.S., especially as China projects its growing military power beyond its shores.  The U.S.-India relationship, Modi said, "has resumed new significance in the changing world." An important aspect of that partnership is "a shared vision of an open, stable, secure and prosperous Indo-Pacific," he added.  For decades, India has embraced a non-aligned status, which means it does not choose sides between world powers. In keeping with that position, Modi warned against a "return to great power rivalries."  The Indian prime minister also insisted that "Asia and the world will have a better future when India and China work together in trust and confidence, sensitive to each other's interests." India is the world's largest democracy. It has the world's seventh-largest economy. Within a decade, it is expected to pass China to become the world's most populous country. The annual Shangri-La Dialogue defense conference probably lasted: - Several hours - Several days - not enough information - Three weeks
Several days

(Question)
China’s Defense Ministry said Thursday that a U.S. decision to disinvite China from a major international maritime exercise is “unconstructive.” A ministry statement said despite the decision, China will continue playing a role in “maintaining peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.” The United States announced its move Wednesday, saying Beijing’s “destabilizing behavior” in the South China Sea is inconsistent with the principles of the U.S.-led drill. “China’s continued militarization of disputed features in the South China Sea only serve to raise tensions and destabilize the region,” read a statement from Lt. Col. Christopher Logan, a Pentagon spokesman. The statement said that disinviting China from the 2018 RIMPAC is an “initial” response to Beijing’s South China Sea activities. It did not specify what other steps may be taken. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said China’s activity in the South China Sea was for self-defense and that it was a “much smaller scale” than what the United States had done in Hawaii and Guam. “We hope that the U.S. will change such a negative mindset,” he said at a joint news conference with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Since 2014, China has taken part in RIMPAC, the world’s largest international maritime drill, which is held every two years in Hawaii. It’s a reflection of expanding U.S.-China military ties, despite tensions over Beijing’s construction of man-made islands in the South China Sea, some of which have been militarized. "We have strong evidence that China has deployed anti-ship missiles, surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, and electronic jammers to contested features in the Spratly Islands region of the South China Sea. China's landing bomber aircraft at Woody Island has also raised tensions," the Pentagon statement said. "We have called on China to remove the military systems immediately and to reverse course on the militarization of disputed South China Sea features," the statement added. "We believe these recent deployments and the continued... Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi probably believes that: - it was not a smart move for the US to un-invite China from the 2018 RIMPAC - the US is overreacting - not enough information - the US is just as guilty as China in militarizing islands
(Answer)
it was not a smart move for the US to un-invite China from the 2018 RIMPAC

Ques: I am currently waiting for peer reviews of two books I’ve worked on: one sole-authored, one co-authored. We don’t talk much about the experience of waiting for reviews, and it’s not something that appears to have been researched. Yet it’s something everyone doing academic work has to go through and it may be bad for our mental health. I’m finding it particularly difficult at the moment because a lot rides on these reviews. The sole-authored book, which is on a contentious topic, has already had one set of reviews. Reviewer 1 was utterly damning, saying “I couldn’t find anything to praise”. Luckily, Reviewers 2 and 3 were more measured, offering both praise and constructive criticism, and their input helped me to revise and strengthen the typescript. However, in the process, my editor and I realised that we needed further reviews from people with a particular kind of specialist knowledge. My editor approached around ten potential reviewers, but only one agreed to do the job. So I’m gibbering – what if that person agrees with Reviewer 1? The co-authored book is in a contentious format. My co-authors and I decided that I would be the person to liaise with publishers, as I have form in this process. The last time I liaised with academic publishers for a co-authored book was in the early 2000s, and I’d forgotten how heavily responsible it makes me feel. Fortunately, I’ve found a publisher that is interested and has sent the book out for reviews, to two professional academics and two students. This is great – and terrifying – but at least there are four reviewers. Even so, what if they all think it’s rubbish? In many ways I love the peer review system. I welcome feedback on my writing, and I’m not at all averse to constructive criticism. I am by no means arrogant enough to think I can write a good book without input from others. Yet peer review, as a process, is fraught with uncertainty. Comments may not be constructive, or may not come at all. They may be positive, or negative, or in between, or a mixture. Who did the author and their co-authors decide that they should liaise with? - not enough information - editors - reviewers - publishers
Ans:
publishers