|
Sunday, 30 October 2011
A saint in our midst (Sunday Guardian)
Activists ‘Halt’ India Plant (The Diplomat)
By Madhav Nalapat
Two months before it was due to generate 1,000 MW of electricity – and after costing by some estimates $3.1 billion – India's Kudankulam Nuclear Plant has had regular work on it virtually halted as a blockade of roads by protesters continues.
For months, a coalition of activists from Australia, Germany, the Scandinavian countries and Canada have swarmed across the 27 villages in Kudankulam. A few locals (interestingly most of them Christians) have joined in with the protests, which have been called over claims by environmentalists that there’s a risk of a disaster at the plant that would make Fukushima look like a picnic.
The Catholic Church in India, in particular, has a long tradition of its clergy getting involved in anti-nuclear activities, and Kudankulam appears simply a continuation of their allergy to India going the nuclear route. It’s an attitude that for decades has been shared by the bulk of the international community, notably China, the United States and EU, all of which have sought at points to pressure India to downsize its nuclear programme.
In fact, the Kudankulam nuclear power plant (which when all units were operating was expected to generate 4,000 MW of power) is touted by Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) scientists as being one of the safest in the world. They point to a host of safety features, including a ‘core-melt catcher,’ which in the event of a core melt would catch the fuel in a massive tank of water. There’s also an innovative filtering system to sift out any debris in the seawater used for cooling the reactor, and a 5 kilometre ‘sterile zone’ around the reactor where population growth will be restricted.
None of this has had any impact on the activists, who appear determined that India go the way of Germany, which in a panic reaction to Fukushima has ordered that all its nuclear power plants will be phased out, a decision that’s already leading to power shortages in the country. And, while China is speeding ahead with its nuclear power plans, Japan appears to be having second thoughts.
Still, planners point out that India has – given the existing mix of technologies – no option but to go in for a large-scale nuclear power programme if it’s to avoid polluting the planet on the scale China is presently doing. Given that Prime Minister Singh and his Man Friday Montek Ahluwalia (now Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission) have from the start been less than enthusiastic about an acceleration of India's indigenous nuclear power programme, foreign collaboration is the only option.
However, although tentative deals have been reached with France and the US in addition to Russia (which is building the Kudankulam plant), the fact is that neither of the first two options seems likely to operationalize, at least so long as Barack Obama remains president of the United States. Obama has long been viewed as sceptical of India's nuclear programme, and his administration has front-loaded so many conditions on cooperation that such a partnership seems stillborn.
As for the French, there’s a world of difference between Jacques Chirac and Nicholas Sarkozy. While the former pursued a Gaullist policy of independence from Washington, Sarkozy is in the ‘poodle’ mould of Tony Blair, not venturing farther than the United States wants him to go. Also, French nuclear firm AREVA has depended on Japanese suppliers for a number of parts, and after Fukushima, these too are being nudged away from India by their government. It will be a while, therefore, before we see whether the enthusiasm of India-based Western activists for stopping work on nuclear plants continues if a French or US, rather than Russian, project is involved.
Six years since the ‘historic’ Singh-Bush nuclear deal was announced in Washington, there has been very little to show for the 2008 IAEA ‘clean waiver’ to India to import nuclear materials and technologies. Indeed, the IAEA has itself gone back on its decision, by subsequently insisting (under pressure from the Obama administration) that only countries that have signed the NPT will have access to such technologies. Thus far, the Indo-US deal has failed to give any extra advantages to India, despite the Sonia Gandhi-led United Progressive Alliance government practically abandoning India's quest for self-sufficiency via the use of thorium, and its mothballing of critical nuclear facilities (such as the CIRUS reactor) and the placing of most of the rest under stringent international inspections and safeguards.
Unless heir apparent Rahul Gandhi , who is said to have been whispering in Singh’s ear over Kudankulam, gives up his infatuation for advice from international NGOs, or a Republican takes over the White House, it would appear that India’s nuclear quest is entering quicksand. Good news for the coal industry and for those dealing in technologies relating to that resource.
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Qatar becomes a convention haven (PO)
By M D Nalapat
The past four days have been spent in Doha, the stylish capital of the State of Qatar, which hosted the 9th Doha Interfaith Conference at the Sheraton Doha. Two years ago, your columnist had been to Geneva, to attend the International Interfaith Dialogue sponsored by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which was held in Geneva. The Saudi organisers did a first-class job at the Dialogue, ensuring that the arrangements were such as to ensure both comfort as well as convenience to the participants. However, the Swiss city was a nightmare. The Intercontinental Hotel in Genevaneeds the attention of the geriatric ward of a hospital for structures. Its rooms are tiny and services slow and rudimentary. Of course, because of the partiality of the UN bureaucracy towards Geneva (and other European cities),the hotel is usually filled with guests. The price of the rooms is more than double that charged by the Sheraton in Doha, a much bigger and better hotel.
Sadly, many in Asia have an inferiority complex towards Europe, which is why so many Asian businesspersons buy overpriced European companies. An example is India’s Lakshmi Mittal, who purchased the steel company Arcelor for a huge sum, only to lose more than $12 billion dollars since then. Mittal has followed in the footsteps of several from Asia, especially the Japanese, who have overpaid for European assets in a manner that can only be described as “recklessly romantic”. They have been reckless in their spending because of their romantic view of Europe, a perspective that these days is far from the reality of a continent that sees Asia only as a market for its produce rather than as a partner, the way North America is. Because this fascination with Europe is so widespread, it is understandable that the Saudi organisers of the Interfaith Conference chose Geneva. However, that fact made it a nightmare to get visas, with Swiss embassies across the globe reluctant to give even 10-day single-entry visas to the participants from the developing world. This despite the fact that citizens of poorer countries have more than $ 2 trillion of illegal funds parked in Swiss banks, half of which is accounted for by nationals from India and their foreign relatives.
In contrast to the visa hassles of the Swiss authorities, this columnist (who was one of those invited by the Doha International Centre for Interfaith Dialogue (DICID) to participate in the October 24-26 meeting, did not have even a photocopy of his Visa on Arrival when he landed at Doha airport. However, that was no problem. The officer manning Immigration made a few clicks on his computer after scanning the passport, and smilingly stamped on it to indicate entry. In these days of electronic communication, paper visas are an anachronism. However, except for some of the GCC countries, this columnist has not had the benefit of such visas when he travels. Paper visas are a must in the US and the EU, despite their technological prowess, plus the fact that these days, bio-identification is commonplace. Once the eyes have been photographed and fingerprints taken, that ought to be enough to gain entry, rather than squander time, effort and paper on a visa. In the case of the Swiss visa, this involved a two-hour visit to the Swiss embassy in New Delhi, where the staff had the temperament of Doberman Pinschers and the giving of a 10-day single-entry visa was treated as a big favour rather than as the insult that it represented.
Hopefully, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon will stop his officials from holding almost all their major conferences in Europe, especially in Switzerland, and encourage his team to hold them in more convenient locations. Qatar would be a good choice. Just five years ago, Kuwait was the most dynamic and progressive of the GCC countries. However, it seems to have suddenly lost its elan and become conservative and un-inviting. In contrast, Qatar has worked hard at becoming an international “Intellect Hub”, not least by nurturing the Al Jazeera television news channel, which has become among the best in the world, including in the English language. Although the substantial presence of Europeans in the channel means that some of its news reports are skewed in the same direction as reports from EU outlets in France, Germany or the UK, yet very often the channel offers a perspective that is far less biased than that preferred by CNN or BBC, who are very selective in what they highlight. For example, neither is paying attention to the widespread looting and murder-taking place in Libya after the murder of Colonel Kadhafi. Nor do they mention the immense destruction of lives and infrastructure by NATO bombardment of Libya. These days, many millions are suffering the loss of electricity, water and essential supplies because of the dislocation caused by the NATO-induced conflict between two groups of Libyans.
The 300,000 Qatarese are a polite and hospitable people, fully reflecting the ancient traditions of the Arab world. They treat outsiders with respect, avoiding the condescension shown in some GCC locations towards guests from the Third World. More than two hundred major international conferences take place in Qatar each year, which is why the sheikhdom has achieved an international profile that is much bigger than its size warrants. In the streets of Doha, there is none of the restiveness found in Cairo, although here too a few from Egypt were of the view that changes needed to be made in the governance structure, as they are attempting to do in Egypt. Indeed, Egyptians and Palestinians seem to be the most ardent change agents within the GCC, constantly talking of political reform, wherever they be located. In contrast, guests from the Subcontinent go about their daily lives unconcerned by such thoughts. Of course, they are South Asian and not Arab the way Egyptians and Palestinians are, and hence will not have the passion for local events that the latter possess.
Qatar is paying a lot of attention to education, and the 21st century has seen the setting up of Education City, where universities from abroad have been given facilities. However, the colonial hangover is clear from the fact that these institutions are from North America or Europe, when the direction of growth is shifting eastwards. Qatar would do well to have a “Look East” policy, thereby giving up its reliance on just the West in all matters educational.
The Arab world is a young world, which is why luck ran out for Hosni Mubarak and Colonel Kadhafi, who have both held high office for four decades. The majority of the population in both countries do not remember a time without Kadhafi and Mubarak. The mistake both made was to indulge their sons. It was when Mubarak sought to make his son Gamal the next President of Egypt that the military silently changed sides and backed those who sought his removal. In the case of Kadhafi, it was his following the advice of his Europe-obsessed sons that led to his downfall. The Libyan leader surrendered his WMD and his intelligence assets, thereby making him helpless in the face of NATO. Interestingly, there are numerous reports of his having bribed several EU leaders, including some in France. These must be relieved that the man is dead, killed in a brutal fashion after a French jet bombed his convoy, forcing him onto the deadly streets of a city awash with irregular forces commissioned to hunt him down. Interestingly, Qatar was the GCC state that gave total backing to the NATO operation. These days, a major conference is taking place in Doha, where the subject of discussion is the future of Libya. It is no secret that the “Free Libya” media operates from Qatar, as do several members of the National Transitional Council. Whether it was a wise decision to get so deeply involved in the Libyan civil war will become clear in the years ahead. For now, Qatar is enjoying its newfound prominence, as one of the intellectual centres of the Arab world.
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=122111
The past four days have been spent in Doha, the stylish capital of the State of Qatar, which hosted the 9th Doha Interfaith Conference at the Sheraton Doha. Two years ago, your columnist had been to Geneva, to attend the International Interfaith Dialogue sponsored by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, which was held in Geneva. The Saudi organisers did a first-class job at the Dialogue, ensuring that the arrangements were such as to ensure both comfort as well as convenience to the participants. However, the Swiss city was a nightmare. The Intercontinental Hotel in Genevaneeds the attention of the geriatric ward of a hospital for structures. Its rooms are tiny and services slow and rudimentary. Of course, because of the partiality of the UN bureaucracy towards Geneva (and other European cities),the hotel is usually filled with guests. The price of the rooms is more than double that charged by the Sheraton in Doha, a much bigger and better hotel.
Sadly, many in Asia have an inferiority complex towards Europe, which is why so many Asian businesspersons buy overpriced European companies. An example is India’s Lakshmi Mittal, who purchased the steel company Arcelor for a huge sum, only to lose more than $12 billion dollars since then. Mittal has followed in the footsteps of several from Asia, especially the Japanese, who have overpaid for European assets in a manner that can only be described as “recklessly romantic”. They have been reckless in their spending because of their romantic view of Europe, a perspective that these days is far from the reality of a continent that sees Asia only as a market for its produce rather than as a partner, the way North America is. Because this fascination with Europe is so widespread, it is understandable that the Saudi organisers of the Interfaith Conference chose Geneva. However, that fact made it a nightmare to get visas, with Swiss embassies across the globe reluctant to give even 10-day single-entry visas to the participants from the developing world. This despite the fact that citizens of poorer countries have more than $ 2 trillion of illegal funds parked in Swiss banks, half of which is accounted for by nationals from India and their foreign relatives.
In contrast to the visa hassles of the Swiss authorities, this columnist (who was one of those invited by the Doha International Centre for Interfaith Dialogue (DICID) to participate in the October 24-26 meeting, did not have even a photocopy of his Visa on Arrival when he landed at Doha airport. However, that was no problem. The officer manning Immigration made a few clicks on his computer after scanning the passport, and smilingly stamped on it to indicate entry. In these days of electronic communication, paper visas are an anachronism. However, except for some of the GCC countries, this columnist has not had the benefit of such visas when he travels. Paper visas are a must in the US and the EU, despite their technological prowess, plus the fact that these days, bio-identification is commonplace. Once the eyes have been photographed and fingerprints taken, that ought to be enough to gain entry, rather than squander time, effort and paper on a visa. In the case of the Swiss visa, this involved a two-hour visit to the Swiss embassy in New Delhi, where the staff had the temperament of Doberman Pinschers and the giving of a 10-day single-entry visa was treated as a big favour rather than as the insult that it represented.
Hopefully, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon will stop his officials from holding almost all their major conferences in Europe, especially in Switzerland, and encourage his team to hold them in more convenient locations. Qatar would be a good choice. Just five years ago, Kuwait was the most dynamic and progressive of the GCC countries. However, it seems to have suddenly lost its elan and become conservative and un-inviting. In contrast, Qatar has worked hard at becoming an international “Intellect Hub”, not least by nurturing the Al Jazeera television news channel, which has become among the best in the world, including in the English language. Although the substantial presence of Europeans in the channel means that some of its news reports are skewed in the same direction as reports from EU outlets in France, Germany or the UK, yet very often the channel offers a perspective that is far less biased than that preferred by CNN or BBC, who are very selective in what they highlight. For example, neither is paying attention to the widespread looting and murder-taking place in Libya after the murder of Colonel Kadhafi. Nor do they mention the immense destruction of lives and infrastructure by NATO bombardment of Libya. These days, many millions are suffering the loss of electricity, water and essential supplies because of the dislocation caused by the NATO-induced conflict between two groups of Libyans.
The 300,000 Qatarese are a polite and hospitable people, fully reflecting the ancient traditions of the Arab world. They treat outsiders with respect, avoiding the condescension shown in some GCC locations towards guests from the Third World. More than two hundred major international conferences take place in Qatar each year, which is why the sheikhdom has achieved an international profile that is much bigger than its size warrants. In the streets of Doha, there is none of the restiveness found in Cairo, although here too a few from Egypt were of the view that changes needed to be made in the governance structure, as they are attempting to do in Egypt. Indeed, Egyptians and Palestinians seem to be the most ardent change agents within the GCC, constantly talking of political reform, wherever they be located. In contrast, guests from the Subcontinent go about their daily lives unconcerned by such thoughts. Of course, they are South Asian and not Arab the way Egyptians and Palestinians are, and hence will not have the passion for local events that the latter possess.
Qatar is paying a lot of attention to education, and the 21st century has seen the setting up of Education City, where universities from abroad have been given facilities. However, the colonial hangover is clear from the fact that these institutions are from North America or Europe, when the direction of growth is shifting eastwards. Qatar would do well to have a “Look East” policy, thereby giving up its reliance on just the West in all matters educational.
The Arab world is a young world, which is why luck ran out for Hosni Mubarak and Colonel Kadhafi, who have both held high office for four decades. The majority of the population in both countries do not remember a time without Kadhafi and Mubarak. The mistake both made was to indulge their sons. It was when Mubarak sought to make his son Gamal the next President of Egypt that the military silently changed sides and backed those who sought his removal. In the case of Kadhafi, it was his following the advice of his Europe-obsessed sons that led to his downfall. The Libyan leader surrendered his WMD and his intelligence assets, thereby making him helpless in the face of NATO. Interestingly, there are numerous reports of his having bribed several EU leaders, including some in France. These must be relieved that the man is dead, killed in a brutal fashion after a French jet bombed his convoy, forcing him onto the deadly streets of a city awash with irregular forces commissioned to hunt him down. Interestingly, Qatar was the GCC state that gave total backing to the NATO operation. These days, a major conference is taking place in Doha, where the subject of discussion is the future of Libya. It is no secret that the “Free Libya” media operates from Qatar, as do several members of the National Transitional Council. Whether it was a wise decision to get so deeply involved in the Libyan civil war will become clear in the years ahead. For now, Qatar is enjoying its newfound prominence, as one of the intellectual centres of the Arab world.
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=122111
Monday, 24 October 2011
Tell the PLA to get off (Sunday Guardian)
 |
Chinese police officers try to stop a group of anti-Japan protesters marching in Wuhan, Central China on Monday. AP/PTI
The Mao-era People's of Republic of China (PRC) is very different from the country as it had been during the Deng era. The Great Helmsman saw conflict as a good way to resolve a situation. And while his internal battles, such as the Cultural Revolution or the Great Leap Forward, were disasters for his people, his external interventions — in Korea, India and Vietnam — proved to be successes.
The United States got such a shock in Korea that it has never afterwards seriously challenged the Chinese. As for India, the years of neglect of the armed forces under Jawaharlal Nehru fused with the lack of command ability of Lt.Gen. B.M. Kaul to craft a disaster on all fronts where the PLA challenged the Indian Army in 1962, a conflict which cast a continuing shadow over Sino-Indian relations.
Since then, Beijing has pursued a policy designed to box in India by converting Pakistan into a nuclear and missile power. It has sought to outflank India across its periphery, using its superior resources and diplomatic clout. Beijing's policy on India is largely set by the PLA, an institution that shares with its Pakistani counterparts a desire to see the country contained, if not broken up. While Mao indulged the PLA, making it his central pillar of authority, Deng Xiaoping was wiser, confining the people in uniform to the periphery and stressing the importance of peaceful resolution of conflicts. Had Rajiv Gandhi been given a second term in office rather than get blown up, the odds are that he would have come to an agreement with China on the basis of the Zhou Enlai formula of 1961, which is the legalisation of the status quo. Unfortunately, none of his successors had the chemistry that Rajiv enjoyed with Deng Xiaoping, ties that continue to the next generation. When Priyanka Vadra was in Beijing, she had a long meeting with Deng Rong, the daughter of the patriarch.
Sadly, since Deng passed on, his successors have not been strong enough to ensure that the PLA confine itself to military matters, so that since then it has interfered in policy matters unrelated to their field. Deng's successor, Jiang Zemin, lavished attention and resources on the PLA, promoting an unprecedented number of officers to higher positions, including star ranks. Hu Jintao has done the same in his decade of control as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), while successor Xi Jinping (who takes over next year) has familial links with the PLA, his musical wife being a senior officer in the military. Thus, the Mao-era tradition of the PLA being at the core of the CCP is likely to continue. This is bad news for India, a country that — together with Japan and the US — comprises the Axis of Evil of the PLA.
Weeks ago, Chinese spokespersons responded with hysteria when referring to an Indian public sector company's oil agreement with a Vietnamese entity. Pressure and blandishments have worked in the past in preventing several Indian overseas oil deals from fructifying. Clearly, there are those in our petroleum sector who are willing to sell out the national interest in the interest of foreign players, for a price that allows them and their families to live in luxury thereafter. It is to the credit of Jaipal Reddy that this has not happened with the Vietnamese deal, which is as good for both sides as the several mysteriously aborted deals (in Africa and Myanmar) were in the past. Had Hanoi signed an agreement with a New Zealand or a Belgian entity, the PLA would have not been as frisky as it has been over the Indian deal.
Since then, military-linked blogs have been fuming with threats and curses, while even official Chinese media has solemnly threatened war in case India goes ahead with extracting oil from the South China Sea. Clearly a case of the PLA seeking to scare the Indian establishment into a retreat from its commitments, a stance that will be substantially helped by the numerous Macau bank accounts of prominent Indian politicians.
| |
| T |
o claim the South China Sea as wholly belonging to the PRC is as ridiculous as averring that the Indian Ocean belongs in its entirety to India. Since 1949, Beijing has used fact and fiction to claim huge territories, including Arunachal Pradesh. What would be its reaction were Delhi to claim Tibet, on the ground that the Maharaja of Kashmir was "Tibet Adhipati", a title mentioned even in the Instrument of Accession? Clearly, the PLA needs to be told where to get off. China has the potential to have $300 billion in trade with India over the next ten years, a crucial factor of it is not to suffer massive regression in growth. But there is no reason why India ought to accept the destruction of its handicrafts and small industry in the face of an uncontrolled flood of imports from China, if the PLA continues to call the shots on policy towards China's most important neighbour, and seeks to prevent India from accessing resources in international waters.
http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analysis/tell-the-pla-to-get-off |
Saturday, 22 October 2011
Massacre of innocents in Libya (PO)
By M D Nalapat
Since the collapse of the USSR caused the Cold War to end, the NATO powers have been responsible for the death and maiming of hundreds of thousands, beginning with the many afflicted by the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq after Operation Desert Storm. These had zero effect on Saddam Hussein and his family, but caused havoc within the vulnerable sections of the Iraqi population, who had to do without medicines and other necessities of life.
Although several within the UN protested at the genocidal nature of the sanctions, the US, France, Germany and the UK refused to dilute them sufficiently to allow the vulnerable within Iraq to subsist. “They ought to be taught a lesson for accepting a man like Saddam Hussein as their president”, was the rationale offered to this correspondent in Washington by a Clinton administration official. That the people of Iraq had no say in either the coming to power of Saddam Hussein or his continuance in office mattered little to this individual, who spoke approvingly of the way then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had “faced down the softies in the UN bureaucracy who wanted the sanctions to be lifted”. The multitude who perished as a result of Albright, Blair and other champions of the Iraq sanctions regime will press on their conscience on the Day of Judgment.
But clearly not before. Whether it is Henry Kissinger of “Bomb SE Asia” fame or Albright (who may yet be given the Nobel Peace Prize), they travel the world as champions of human rights, in yet more evidence of the fact that history is always written by the stronger side. And now they have been joined by Nicholas Sarkozy of France and David Cameron of the UK, who - along with Hillary Clinton - are responsible for the situation in Libya. Reports from the field speak of hundreds of presumed “Kadhafi loyalists” being shot or tortured, most because of tribal and other rivalries than because of the colonel. In both Sirte as well as Bani Walid, hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed by the ceaseless bombardment of both towns by the Sarkozy-appointed
“Transitional Council” forces. Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-Moon is a noble personality, committed to human rights. Perhaps because his staff in Libya are (because of their allegiance to NATO) not giving him the correct picture about the situation there, Mr Ban has been silent about the way in which so-called “ Kadhafi loyalists” are being hunted down and killed in cities and towns across Libya. Some estimates claim that at least 9000 have been killed in this way, while others give higher figures. Although their UN mandate was to “protect civilians”, NATO forces from the start took sides in the civil war, and actively participated in the destruction of lives and property of those whom its spies denounced as “pro- Kadhafi “. More than $800 million in infrastructure has been destroyed by NATO bombing, yet there is no talk of restitution, there is talk only of French, British and US companies getting oil contracts at concessional rates. As for BBC and CNN, which used to be hysterical about the “loss of civilian lives caused by Kadhafi “, these days they tiptoe in silence across the graveyard that much of Libya has become. They seem to believe that the thousands of NATO-supplied rockets and artillery shells fired into so-called pro- Kadhafi areas have the miraculous quality of killing only military personnel, when in fact each such projectile is putting at risk dozens of innocent civilians. Today, Libya has become a hell, with much of the country going without sanitation, electric power or employment. However, any complaint is met by detention as a suspected “ Kadhafi loyalist”. Interestingly, most of the anti- Kadhafi fighters are also against the NATO powers, which is why they are ensuring the concealment of large quantities of lethal weaponry supplied to them by NATO to kill the other side.
These will get used in the years ahead, against the very countries that supplied them in the first place. A few days ago, Hillary Clinton was in Libya in a bid to recover these weapons. She failed, because those she is dealing with have no control over the actual fighters, who control territory in Libya the way warlords once did in Afghanistan, and still do in some parts of that ravaged country. As in Afghanistan, NATO has armed those who will in the future strike them Why does the International Court not take suo motu action against the killings in Libya of so-called “pro- Kadhafi “ elements? Because it has never been international. In effect, the Court is controlled by NATO powers, who use it to diplomatically intimidate foes while ignoring the misdemeanours of themselves and their friends. This has been facilitated by the fact that so many so-called “international” institutions are headquartered within Europe. Why should a single continent (and a small one at that) have a monopoly over the numerous global institutions, including the IAEA, the WHO, the ILO, the International Court of Justice and so many others? Such a location makes it impossible for 99% of the people of the poorer countries to access them, for Europe is a high-cost destination to which visas are only sparingly given. Had such institutions been located in poorer countries, then they would have been much more accessible to the world’s poor. US Presidential candidates from the Republican Party are demanding that their country stop giving funds to the UN. The reality is that the UN spends more (directly and through the expenditure of its well-paid staff) in the US than it gets from that country. Hence hopefully funds will indeed be cut, thereby ensuring that the UN Headquarters move to another country, one that is more representative of the majority of the global population. A good candidate would be Mauritius, in the Indian Ocean.
Nearly two years ago, this columnist was invited to the International Interfaith Dialogue meeting in Geneva. This is an initiative of the Muslim World League, which has been tasked by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to promote dialogue between people of different faiths. Not only was the hotel in Geneva prohibitively expensive (although the rooms were such that even ordinary hotels in India offered more amenities) but the Swiss embassy in New Delhi gave only a 10-day visa, thereby making it clear that they did not want any Third World trash ( such as this columnist) lingering around in their country or in their continent. Fortunately, the next conference is being held in a country that is more friendly to those of average income than Switzerland. As yet, countries in Asia have not retaliated for the barriers on movement of people, goods and services to Europe. Rather, Asia has become the only expanding market for high-cost (and low value) luxury goods from France, Italy and Germany. Over the coming years, Asian countries need to coordinate their trading decisions, the way the EU does, so that retaliation can take place over transparent efforts to block Asian goods from European markets, even if (and especially if) these be cheaper and better than local alternatives.
That Asian countries are beginning to understand the importance of a unified stance is becoming clear from a very healthy development, which is the discussion now taking place between India and Pakistan over trade. Both countries are natural partners of each other, and economists estimate that more than 2 million jobs can be created were trade barriers to get lifted between Delhi and Islamabad, 40% of which will be in Pakistan. In an era of economic turmoil, it is important to gain synergy wherever it can be found, and India-Pakistan is one of the last holdouts to better traderelations. This year, India is expected to sign a Free Trade Agreement with ASEAN, and soon afterwards, with the EU, once that grouping drops its insistence on a one-sided pact that gives all the pain to India and all the gain to its manufacturers. As NATO will soon find in Libya, trade is a much better way of getting geopolitical benefits than bombings and barrages.
It should not be forgotten that it was an oil company - Unocal – that bankrolled the Taliban. In Libya as well, it is French banks and NATO oil companies that have led the charge against Muammar Kadhafi, who negotiated much fairer agreements with them than they liked. The use of military power to seize assets, the way it has happened in Iraq and now Libya, will soon come back to bite the NATO oil companies. Winning a war on the battlefield is easy. Holding back the civilian population is not. And in both Libya and Iraq, the people of these two ancient civilisations will ensure that efforts at grabbing their resources by force will fail. Peace is not simply the best way, it is the only way to Prosperity through Equity.
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=120945
Since the collapse of the USSR caused the Cold War to end, the NATO powers have been responsible for the death and maiming of hundreds of thousands, beginning with the many afflicted by the sanctions regime imposed on Iraq after Operation Desert Storm. These had zero effect on Saddam Hussein and his family, but caused havoc within the vulnerable sections of the Iraqi population, who had to do without medicines and other necessities of life.
Although several within the UN protested at the genocidal nature of the sanctions, the US, France, Germany and the UK refused to dilute them sufficiently to allow the vulnerable within Iraq to subsist. “They ought to be taught a lesson for accepting a man like Saddam Hussein as their president”, was the rationale offered to this correspondent in Washington by a Clinton administration official. That the people of Iraq had no say in either the coming to power of Saddam Hussein or his continuance in office mattered little to this individual, who spoke approvingly of the way then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had “faced down the softies in the UN bureaucracy who wanted the sanctions to be lifted”. The multitude who perished as a result of Albright, Blair and other champions of the Iraq sanctions regime will press on their conscience on the Day of Judgment.
But clearly not before. Whether it is Henry Kissinger of “Bomb SE Asia” fame or Albright (who may yet be given the Nobel Peace Prize), they travel the world as champions of human rights, in yet more evidence of the fact that history is always written by the stronger side. And now they have been joined by Nicholas Sarkozy of France and David Cameron of the UK, who - along with Hillary Clinton - are responsible for the situation in Libya. Reports from the field speak of hundreds of presumed “Kadhafi loyalists” being shot or tortured, most because of tribal and other rivalries than because of the colonel. In both Sirte as well as Bani Walid, hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed by the ceaseless bombardment of both towns by the Sarkozy-appointed
“Transitional Council” forces. Secretary-General of the UN Ban Ki-Moon is a noble personality, committed to human rights. Perhaps because his staff in Libya are (because of their allegiance to NATO) not giving him the correct picture about the situation there, Mr Ban has been silent about the way in which so-called “ Kadhafi loyalists” are being hunted down and killed in cities and towns across Libya. Some estimates claim that at least 9000 have been killed in this way, while others give higher figures. Although their UN mandate was to “protect civilians”, NATO forces from the start took sides in the civil war, and actively participated in the destruction of lives and property of those whom its spies denounced as “pro- Kadhafi “. More than $800 million in infrastructure has been destroyed by NATO bombing, yet there is no talk of restitution, there is talk only of French, British and US companies getting oil contracts at concessional rates. As for BBC and CNN, which used to be hysterical about the “loss of civilian lives caused by Kadhafi “, these days they tiptoe in silence across the graveyard that much of Libya has become. They seem to believe that the thousands of NATO-supplied rockets and artillery shells fired into so-called pro- Kadhafi areas have the miraculous quality of killing only military personnel, when in fact each such projectile is putting at risk dozens of innocent civilians. Today, Libya has become a hell, with much of the country going without sanitation, electric power or employment. However, any complaint is met by detention as a suspected “ Kadhafi loyalist”. Interestingly, most of the anti- Kadhafi fighters are also against the NATO powers, which is why they are ensuring the concealment of large quantities of lethal weaponry supplied to them by NATO to kill the other side.
These will get used in the years ahead, against the very countries that supplied them in the first place. A few days ago, Hillary Clinton was in Libya in a bid to recover these weapons. She failed, because those she is dealing with have no control over the actual fighters, who control territory in Libya the way warlords once did in Afghanistan, and still do in some parts of that ravaged country. As in Afghanistan, NATO has armed those who will in the future strike them Why does the International Court not take suo motu action against the killings in Libya of so-called “pro- Kadhafi “ elements? Because it has never been international. In effect, the Court is controlled by NATO powers, who use it to diplomatically intimidate foes while ignoring the misdemeanours of themselves and their friends. This has been facilitated by the fact that so many so-called “international” institutions are headquartered within Europe. Why should a single continent (and a small one at that) have a monopoly over the numerous global institutions, including the IAEA, the WHO, the ILO, the International Court of Justice and so many others? Such a location makes it impossible for 99% of the people of the poorer countries to access them, for Europe is a high-cost destination to which visas are only sparingly given. Had such institutions been located in poorer countries, then they would have been much more accessible to the world’s poor. US Presidential candidates from the Republican Party are demanding that their country stop giving funds to the UN. The reality is that the UN spends more (directly and through the expenditure of its well-paid staff) in the US than it gets from that country. Hence hopefully funds will indeed be cut, thereby ensuring that the UN Headquarters move to another country, one that is more representative of the majority of the global population. A good candidate would be Mauritius, in the Indian Ocean.
Nearly two years ago, this columnist was invited to the International Interfaith Dialogue meeting in Geneva. This is an initiative of the Muslim World League, which has been tasked by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to promote dialogue between people of different faiths. Not only was the hotel in Geneva prohibitively expensive (although the rooms were such that even ordinary hotels in India offered more amenities) but the Swiss embassy in New Delhi gave only a 10-day visa, thereby making it clear that they did not want any Third World trash ( such as this columnist) lingering around in their country or in their continent. Fortunately, the next conference is being held in a country that is more friendly to those of average income than Switzerland. As yet, countries in Asia have not retaliated for the barriers on movement of people, goods and services to Europe. Rather, Asia has become the only expanding market for high-cost (and low value) luxury goods from France, Italy and Germany. Over the coming years, Asian countries need to coordinate their trading decisions, the way the EU does, so that retaliation can take place over transparent efforts to block Asian goods from European markets, even if (and especially if) these be cheaper and better than local alternatives.
That Asian countries are beginning to understand the importance of a unified stance is becoming clear from a very healthy development, which is the discussion now taking place between India and Pakistan over trade. Both countries are natural partners of each other, and economists estimate that more than 2 million jobs can be created were trade barriers to get lifted between Delhi and Islamabad, 40% of which will be in Pakistan. In an era of economic turmoil, it is important to gain synergy wherever it can be found, and India-Pakistan is one of the last holdouts to better traderelations. This year, India is expected to sign a Free Trade Agreement with ASEAN, and soon afterwards, with the EU, once that grouping drops its insistence on a one-sided pact that gives all the pain to India and all the gain to its manufacturers. As NATO will soon find in Libya, trade is a much better way of getting geopolitical benefits than bombings and barrages.
It should not be forgotten that it was an oil company - Unocal – that bankrolled the Taliban. In Libya as well, it is French banks and NATO oil companies that have led the charge against Muammar Kadhafi, who negotiated much fairer agreements with them than they liked. The use of military power to seize assets, the way it has happened in Iraq and now Libya, will soon come back to bite the NATO oil companies. Winning a war on the battlefield is easy. Holding back the civilian population is not. And in both Libya and Iraq, the people of these two ancient civilisations will ensure that efforts at grabbing their resources by force will fail. Peace is not simply the best way, it is the only way to Prosperity through Equity.
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=120945
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)