Round The World

New Delhi, 28 October 2009

Copenhagen Meet

OVERCOME RICH-POOR DIVIDE

By Monish Tourangbam

(Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU)

Climate change and its implications are hardly conspiracy theory. Yet the world gets divided between the developed and the developing countries regarding strategies to combat this man-made problem. Climate change can be combated only when countries- rich and poor, big and small realize that co-operation is the only way out. It is a fight to save the one and only planet that we call home -- the earth.  

However, in the international arena where each country comes with its own set of problems and ways to tackle these, it is stating the obvious to say that cooperation is easier said than done. Different nations in the world are at different levels of growth and thus have different perspectives and narratives on the strategy to fight climate change.

The issue has become a battleground of inflexible parties leading to a stalemate in response to a rapidly deteriorating situation. But, cooperation in this case is not a choice but an inevitable necessity and countries at some point of time have to accept their responsibilities and make compromises in dealing with this imminent danger. Climate change knows no boundaries and hence would not take sides before inflicting damage.

This is an unconventional security threat that has to be dealt with differently. Countries that have got used to flexing their muscles in the pursuit of power and influence have got to swallow their egos and work with the smallest of countries. Speaking at the Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank, Maldives President Mohammad Nasheed commented that climate change was a bigger challenge than international terrorism. In meeting this challenge, nations have to learn to either swim together or drown. In the realm of international relations, the world is often and generally projected as an anarchic environment where self-help is the best recourse to increasing one’s power and prestige. But in tackling climate change, one country’s gain does not necessarily translate into another’s loss and vice-versa. To mitigate the effects of climate change, countries should understand that helping others is actually helping the self.

As such, some amount of selfless help is inevitable more so from the developed nations. These countries are in a position to help the developing countries to resort to greener technology. But it seems that the US, even under the leadership of the Nobel Peace Prize winning President Barrack Obama, and the EU are hardly committed in talking about the transfer of funds and technology to the developing countries.

The developed countries seem adamant on binding the emerging economies to international legal instruments with the stated purpose to ensure results. But the former with their rapid industrialization at an earlier stage have been relatively more responsible for global warming and hence they should make amends and lead the way. In this context, they lack the moral authority to give sermons to the developing countries, such as India that are in crucial stages of their developmental processes and hence need to be assured security of their growth.

They intend to legally internationalize the projected domestic targets of the developing countries before funds are guaranteed. On the other hand, the developing countries want to have a concrete knowledge of the funds and the technologies expected from these countries, so as to plan the scale of their projects.

In fact, in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks, countries like India and China have chosen not to amplify their differences. New Delhi and Beijing have signed an initial five-year pact on climate change before these talks. Both the countries essentially agree that the prerequisite for a successful agreement is a very substantial commitment on mitigation by the developed countries, which calls for a 40 per cent reduction in emissions by them by 2020 with 1990 reference levels.

While at the global talks in Copenhagen, countries will seek to agree on a new pact that will replace the Kyoto Protocal expiring in 2012, the prospects appear dim. Demands and counter-demands made by different groups have jeopardized the chances of a pact acceptable to all. If the same dilly-dallying continues, then whatever new pact comes into being would meet the same fate as the Kyoto Protocol. The US did not sign the Protocol in 1997 because it was unwilling to accept any binding cuts unless developing countries accepted the same.

At a meeting held in L’Aquila, Italy this July, the G8 industrialized nations committed to cutting emissions by 80% by 2050. But, probably fearing domestic criticism they are reluctant on coming up with interim near-future targets for 2020. During the same meeting, the G5 group of emerging economies – Brazil, India, China, Mexico and South Africa – refused to back a specific target for developing countries to cut emissions. At the recently held climate talks in Bangkok, senior G77 leaders staged a walkout from a meeting saying that a future without the Kyoto Protocol could not be discussed. Moreover, the African continent seems to be quite unanimous in rejecting efforts being made to make the Kyoto Protocol redundant.

Over-expectations from a blanket agreement that tries to bring all the nations on board have more chances of being tangled in the messy business of ratifications and denials. Pragmatic and small-scale approaches need to be attempted while countries debate for a more international framework. For instance, countries could look at some form of agreements to conserve forests, which could be instrumental in combating climate change. Forests could effectively serve as natural absorbers of greenhouse gases. It is crucial to invest in harnessing nature’s ability to curb climate change.

The idea is to look at agreements that could be easier to clinch and hence bind the countries involved in cooperative projects. This could ease the atmosphere when these countries come together to talk about other agreements on climate change. Intransigence on the part of both the developed and the developing economies is expected during the winter talks. 

Keeping in mind that the developed economies of the West have been largely responsible for the current state of the atmosphere, the West should definitely mend its ways first. According to a data released by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, carbon dioxide emissions from the US has increased by 20.2  per cent between 1990 and 2007 while developing countries have cut down considerably.

Taking an instance from Hindu mythology, Sita knew exactly where the Laxman Rekha was, but the problem with climate change is that the threshold is not seen to most. The effects of climate change are often seen as some probable events in the distant future. As such, the threshold is often oblivious and when it finally comes, it will be too late to do anything. It might just be a point of no return.

Different parts of the globe are seeing effects of climate change in varying degrees. The leaders who are debating this issue at present may not be the victims of drastic changes expected but the hallmark of humanity is the ability to think for future generations. But, alas! Lobby politics and intransigent national interests take precedence over a threat that will test humanity to its highest limits.--INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 14 October 2009

US Foreign Policy

CHINA Vs TIBET ISSUE CRUCIAL

By Hina Pandey

(Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU)

Washington today assigns considerable significance to Beijing’s reaction. This is reflected in the fact that for the first time in 18 years a US President did not meet his Holiness the Dalai Lama, who was in Washington on a five-day visit this October. The Dalai Lama was there to meet Congressional leaders and present the Light of Truth award to Late Julia Taft. He also attended a conference and received human rights award from the Lantos Foundation, in memory of Tom Lantos, a Holocaust survivor and longtime champion of human rights.

While the Chinese have always been skeptical about the Dalai Lama meeting with any foreign Head of State, this time around the opposition may have also been aroused by the timing of the meeting. It so happens that October 7th marks the 59th anniversary of the Peoples Republic of China’s invasion of Tibet (1950) and the Dalai Lama visiting the White House around then would have sent alarming signals to Beijing.

President Obama's decision to reschedule his meeting with the Tibetan monk was taken after Beijing voiced its strong opposition. White House officials were forced to confirm that the meeting would now take place only after Obama met with Chinese premier Hu-Jintao in November. Obviously fearing ruining ties with the Chinese dragon, the current presidency vetoed Congress representatives Nancy Pelosi and Frank Wolf’s suggestion to host the Dalai Lama.

Interestingly, this is not the first time that Beijing has objected to what could have been a possible association of President Obama and the Dalai Lama. In 2007 too, when his Holiness received a congressional gold medal by President Bush, Beijing had opposed the decision. Likewise, Sino-French ties fell to their lowest point after French President Nicolas Sarkozy met with the Dalai Lama in December last year, following which China postponed a summit with the European Union. Early this year Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi made it amply clear that refusing the visits of the Dalai Lama should become one of “the basic norms of international relations” of any country cultivating ties with China.

Clearly, Chinese support is crucial for America’s foreign policy, as put across by Ian Kelly, US State Department spokesperson. The Obama presidency wants to engage China as an important global player, even though it does not want to compromise on human right issue. Does this signal towards Washington’s change in its Tibet policy? In the past it has maintained a fair amount of compassion about the Tibet issues. However, assessed under the light of Beijing’s importance to America’s foreign policy in the future, it seems that there may be a U turn.

Since the early 90's the debate about “rising China" has occupied American strategic literature. The threat of the PRC as a peer competitor, a possible regional authority in Asia and a potential global power in the near future has become more immediate, especially if viewed under the backdrop of the current economic financial crisis. Indeed, of late it has been observed that China is making an attempt to engage with the international community. Combined with its naval modernization and newer space programmes, the PRC certainly has a long-term global objective on its mind.

Today China is competing face-to-face with the US both economically and politically in the world arena. Few instances of it trying to subtly step into Washington’s shoes are: its participation in the first East Asian Summit in 2005, which included member nations as ASEAN States and others such as Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand. Beijing has also pursued ties with Central Asian countries of the former Soviet Union, including Russia, through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

This apart, it is vying with the US for influence and access to energy resources in the Middle East. The PRC President Hu Jintao made an official State visit to Saudi Arabia in February last, to strengthen Sino-Saudi Arabian energy ties. Besides, China’s trade with the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations has steadily increased, touching $32 billion in 2005. Early this January, the Chinese Foreign Minister met his counterpart in Oman, Yousuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, to discuss Beijing’s willingness to improve Sino-Arab cooperation, including efforts to resolve the Palestine-Israel conflict.

Coming back to Tibet, the issue could be viewed as a three-dimensional challenge for America’s foreign policy. The first is to comprehend the real problem, as the issue is highly controversial. The perplexed political status of Tibet, the Dalai Lama’s influence on monks and the Chinese control of religious traditions and media appear to be a major irritant in Sino-US relations.

The present administration needs to make a clear distinction between the Chinese and Tibetan version to find out the sensitivities attached. For any kind of constructive foreign policy success, the US administration must see through the accusations that both the parties have levied against each other. One can not possibly turn a blind eye to the blatant human rights violation by the Chinese in Lahsa and the Tibetan region of China and the constant criticism of the Dalai Lama, despite his being recognized as a peacemaker by the world community. Remember, he received the Nobel peace prize in 1989.

On the other hand, one must closely introspect that notwithstanding violations, China has provided Tibet with extensive economic assistance and development. At least that is what Beijing claims. Chinese officials have adopted plans to increase economic activity in Tibet by 10 per cent per annum and provide substantial subsidies to help its economy.

The second challenge is diplomatic, wherein the administration has to deal subtly with the sensitivities of the issue to engage China constructively, such that Sino-US relations can prosper in spite of disagreements. By now the US must have realized the importance of the Chinese economy, and that it can ill afford to upset Beijing let alone issue any warning. Recall that in 1993 Bill Clinton's administration threatened to suspend normal tariff treatment. Apparently it was a mistake as its economy took precedence over human rights violation and as such no significant action was taken.

The third challenge though domestic has international significance. It is to formulate a consensus-based approach towards Sino-Tibet issue, and at the same time garner more world support for Tibet, which began in 1986-1987, so as to eventually resolve the issue multilaterally. Till now the US has maintained its consistent support to the Dalai Lama's middle approach. It has repeatedly called for change of policies in Tibet and has recognized itself as playing a critical role in fostering ties between the two parties.

Clearly, the American primacy in the 21st century's global and much-integrated world has certainly declined. Combined with this is the emerged multi-polar or “non polar” international  system which demands the policy makers in the White House to carefully extract elements of rising China, such that national interests can be served.

Hence it is in Washington’s interest to engage and cooperate with the PRC. It also turns out to be the safest way out for the American policy makers. And, it is for this purpose that the “Tibet Issue” may be sidelined for sometime in the future. Sadly, for the US China has and shall always takes precedence over human rights violations be it the case of Tibet or any other. –INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 22 October 2009

Maoist Menace

CORRECT THE WRONG DIAGNOSIS

By Prakash Nanda

In imposing their so-called “bandh” in Bihar and Jharkhand mid-October, the Maoists shot dead officials of the public sector undertakings, set ablaze a railway station and took employees as hostages. Few days earlier, they had beheaded, a la Taliban style, police officials in Jharkhand and Maharashtra. Add to this the incidents of seizing the town of Lalgarh in West Bengal, killings of thousands of innocent tribals in Chhattisgarh, hijacking a train with 300 passengers in Jharkhand, deliberately initiating communal riots in Orissa and practicing many a caste riot in Bihar.

No wonder then that for the past three years Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been saying that “the Naxalites/Maoists pose the gravest threat to the country’s internal security.” His Home Minister P C Chidambaram is threatening strong action against them, who the Governments of Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, openly brand as terrorists of the worst type. Even the Armed Forces have sought permission to take appropriate counter-measures against the Maoists if attacked.  

And yet, the PM seems to have a soft corner for the Maoists. Like the typical “human rights jhola- wallas”, he asserted at an election meeting in Maharashtra: “Maoists are not terrorists” and that he would be happy to talk to them. How will he define terrorism, if they are not terrorists? As a good doctor cannot treat a patient without the proper diagnosis of his disease, how can his Government deal with the Maoists if he is unsure of their crime?

For one, let us see whether the universally accepted definitions and understanding of terrorism apply to the Maoists or not. While it is true that “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter” has often haunted the debate on terrorism, we propose to cite those definitions accepted in the United Nations, of which India is a leading member:

• UN Resolution language (1999): “1. Strongly condemns all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, wherever and by whomsoever committed; 2. Reiterates that criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other nature that may be invoked to justify them". (GA Res. 51/210 Measures to eliminate international terrorism).

• UN Security Council Resolution 1566 refers to terrorism as “criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a Government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act”

• On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act”.

·         The UN General Assembly resolution 49/60 titled "Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism," adopted on December 9, 1994, says: “Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them”.

Any honest reading of the above resolutions, which India has never opposed, makes it amply clear that the Maoists are nothing but terrorists. In fact, it may be recalled that while presiding over a task force of nine Maoist-hit States on February 23 2006, the then Special Secretary to the Home Ministry A K Mitra had asserted: “Maoist problem is not a simple problem of law and order. This is a terrorist and inter-State problem”.   

Manmohan Singh invariably cites the usual factors of underdevelopment, corruption in the bureaucracy, police atrocities and exploitation of tribals and the poor contributing to the growing influence of Maoists. But that is one part of the story. He invariably forgets the other part, which is that as is the case in Kashmir and many parts of the North East, people are supporting the so-called revolutionaries in the “Red Corridor” in eastern/central India not out of love and reverence but because of terror and fear.

Maoists and their leaders are flourishing because money, important for them to procure sophisticated weapons, is no longer any problem. Most Maoist leaders have over the past two decades acquired large properties in urban areas with the money that flows into them through extortion, which, according to one estimate, yields some Rs.3, 000 crores annually. And those exhorted are not only the contractors, businessmen, doctors and engineers but also the poor labourers and farmers who are forced to part with a substantial portion of their earnings. They raise funds through extortion or by setting up parallel administrations to collect taxes in rural areas where local Governments and the Indian State appear absent. This is not all. Smuggling of contrabands and wood as well as poppy cultivations also enrich their coffers.

What is worse, the Maoists have strenthened their links with the notorious terrorist groups outside the country, including the LTTE and the ISI. In a series of ariticles, the weekly Blitz of Bangladesh has already exposed how arms are secretly distributed amongst the members of small communist groups and some of the Islamist groups in Bangladesh and how Nepalese Maoists are conspiring to re-begin notorious activities of Naxalites in West Bengal.

According to the paper, “several analysts are seeing hidden cooperation between Al Qaeda and Nepalese Maoists, which helped Maoists in attaining such landslide victory in Nepal. There is reportedly a hidden agreement between the two in allowing Al Qaeda outfits in the South Asian region [in Nepal] to operate without any legal obstacles. Now, after the victory of the Maoists, it is anticipated that activities of the Al Qaeda and other Islamists terror groups will greatly increase. It is also learnt from several sources that, Al Qaeda is patronizing Maoist operatives in Nepal as well as spread of extremist Islamism in the South Asian region under the garb of communism. The international community needs to look into this extremely important issue forthwith and fix appropriate strategies in combating rise and spread of Maoism, Communism or Islamism, for the sake of regional and global security”

It may be recalled that Maoist groups in India took the initiative of forming in 2001 a Coordination Committee of Maoist Parties and Organizations of South Asia, better known as CCOMPOSA, in some secret locations in the jungle of central India. Its members are Naxalite or Maoist outfits from Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. In August 2006, CCOMPOSA held its 4^th conference in Nepal. Obviously with the Maoists emerging as the most important political force there, their fraternal counterpart in India have become more powerful. Recently, a truck loaded with more than 1000 Kg of explosives and large number of detonators was apprehended at the Bihar-Nepal border.

If all these acts do not make Maoists terrorists, what else does? By all means the Government can talk to them, but for the country’s sake, first defeat them. The Maoists have waged a war against the country. Talks now could at best lead a truce. But then truce is no substitute for a lasting peace. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

.           

Economic Highlights

New Delhi, 19 October 2009

Unrealistic Forbes List

MORE PSUs SHOULD FIGURE

By Shivaji Sarkar

Indians were euphoric that 13 companies made it to the Forbes 50 fabulous list, a jump from nine earlier. However, only one public sector navratna company – Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd (BHEL) is on it. Thus, the list would suggest that our navratnas are not real world class jewels and are mere imitation or the poor man’s gold. This would also put a question mark on whether the navratnas are doing well as is claimed.

The concern for 18 navratnas is legitimate. There are 56 mini navratnas too. These are institutions fully funded by the Indian public and have been brought back to health after long nurturing, policy corrections and reduced bureaucratic meddling.

One or two like the national carrier Air India might have gone back to its pre-reform era practices but most are known to do well. Forbes or any such international listings need not be rated too high but still they decide certain standards and corporate try to acquire those standards for greater transparency. Are not the public sector organizations adhering to such norms?

Indians love to criticize themselves. The questions raised above are normal for any average person. The nation does not trust its own system, corporate and officials. Most of them are at fault and have been responsible for much of the morass that has set in. There may be islands but these are ignored. It needs a scrutiny if the public sector has to be given any benefit of doubt.

On the contrary, don’t organizations like Forbes have standards that ignore many aspects? The Forbes would certainly not agree. The list includes only companies with a minimum revenue and marketing cap of $ 3 billion along with a five-year track record of operating profit and return on equity. 

Forbes claims to have evaluated 910 companies. It whittles the candidates down by first looking at each company's five-year track record for revenue, operating earnings and return on capital. Then they look at the most recent results, share-price movements and the outlook for the year ahead. A loss in the last fiscal year knocks the company out. It also makes judgment calls stated to be based on the differences in transparency, accounting and conditions among countries.

Public sector companies certainly have a better track record in maintaining accounting transparency. The audit procedures are often multiple and grueling. So these certainly cannot be knocked out on this important technical aspect. Recent trends have shown that they are top on the priority of job hunters as they have emerged as the best employers.

This apart, Forbes has not made the condition of model employer as being one of the criteria for the selection to fabulous category. Its methodology is strict and adheres to the financial aspect of a company. It also evaluates only on a scale spanning five years and that a company has to continue with a level of performance and would not be awarded for a freak delivery.

It ignores the fact that public sector organisations were set up in this country on the concept of “no loss no profit” so that they could deliver their social goals in an objective manner. The PSUs were initially set up largely in those sectors after Independence where the private sector would not dare to trudge, be it power, steel or heavy industry, metals trade or any such area where the risk factors were unknown and possibly heavy.

The Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) Videsh alone has oil assets of $ 2.1 billion. If its parent ONGC is added to it, it would surpass the $ 3 billion criteria. But ONGC also has to ensure that petroleum prices remain at an affordable rate despite high international prices. So it is not called a fabulous group by the Forbes.

Even now the private sector is riding piggy back on the public sector in many critical areas. In some, wherever the private sector has decided to become partners, like the highway or power distribution, they are charging the nation too exorbitantly.

Alas, the Forbes does not take these into account. In its evaluation, a Shylock would have better rating than a business group sharing the goods with the people – beneficiaries. Forbes needs to re-look at their methodologies.

This does not justify the misadventures, if any, of the public sector organization. The CAG audit and Government’s evaluations not only of the 74 navratna and mini-navratna but of 160 Central Government PSUs recorded a profit of Rs 91,083 crore in 2007-08.  Most of these organizations are also earning profit for over past five years. The investments in the Central PSUs increased by 8.31per cent. These also earned foreign exchange amounting to Rs 74,283 crore.

It is not to say that there was no loss making units. There were 53 such enterprises in addition to the 160. They incurred a loss of Rs 11,274 crore and the list includes closed units of the Fertilizers Corporation of India and Hindustan Fertilizers.

There were some other loss-making units as well such as the Artificial Limbs and Manufacturing Corporation of India (ALIMCO) and the Food Corporation of India (FCI), which have non-financial social objectives. ALIMCO is providing immense services in rehabilitating the physically handicapped and the FCI has the objective of ensuring food security.

The Forbes or any other international listing does not consider this to be an activity. They forget that without such organizations the corporate would not even be able to function and their financial performance would not be so bright. But these organisations would never find place in the Forbes list.

The 13 companies who have found place in the list witnessed a compounded annual growth in profits in excess of 10 per cent over the last four years. It is a very high level of profit taking. Forbes does not also evaluate the impact of such profit taking on the international society. It has many including high prices and inflation.

If Forbes revises its methodology and includes social objectives and appropriate treatment to the labour force, certainly many more Indian public sector companies would find its place in the list. Possible after the Lehman Brothers scandal it needs to do that because now it has been internationally established that mere financial performance does not reveal the entire gamut of activities of a corporate group. The Fabulous 50 list must not only speak about the so-called financial health but also reveal how good the corporate citizen is at the global level.--INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)