 |
|
|
Captain’s free power Cruelty and calamity |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Germany’s Angela
UN’s peace-building task
Breast-beating for the poor
Dateline Washington Nobel for game theorists Europe hails US subsidy cut offer
|
Captain’s free power By defending his government’s decision to give free power to the farm sector and a section of the Scheduled Castes, rather in an undignified way, the Punjab Chief Minister, Capt Amarinder Singh, has placed himself on a slippery ground. There was no need to lock horns with the Prime Minister. The Planning Commission and most economists are with the Prime Minister on the free power issue. The Chief Minister has not given any valid argument in defence of his decision except that he has fulfilled a pre-election promise. He has tried to project himself as a guardian of the farmers’ interests, giving the impression that the Prime Minister is not concerned about the farmers. By re-emphasising his known opposition to the states resorting to populist measures like giving free power and waiving power dues at the party CMs’ conclave in Chandigarh, Dr Manmohan Singh, had conveyed a gentle rebuke to such Congress Chief Ministers as get carried away by the politics of appeasement for short-term political gains. The former professor has tried to teach principles of sound economics to those who have, for years, been schooled only in the politics of survival. It is amazing that a Chief Minister can disregard publicly what the Prime Minister has projected as a policy. The Punjab Government does not seem to know how else it can help farmers. Time and again it has been pointed out that what farmers need more than free power is its assured supply. Power is already heavily subsidised. The state buys power at Rs 6 per unit and used to supply it to farmers at 57 paise per unit. What is the logic behind extending the generosity to big farmers? Power reforms have been shelved. There has been no public investment in power generation for years in Punjab. Transmission losses, including theft of power, are as high as 25 per cent. Moreover, free power leads to over-exploitation of underground water, which is at alarmingly low levels. The Captain does not want to listen to sound advice, nor learn from the experience of Mr Parkash Singh Badal, who lost Assembly elections despite giving free power to farmers. |
|
Cruelty and calamity
A calamity brings out the best and the worst in the man. The recent earthquake too has put on display two facets of human nature. On the one hand, total strangers are helping the quake victims. On the other, militants are up to their usual tricks. They mercilessly slit the throats of 10 persons belonging to a particular community in the Budhal area of Rajouri district on Monday. They could not have chosen a more unfortunate moment to confirm their bestiality. At least this incident should prove to everyone that the terrorists are nothing but cold-blooded killing machines. Had they been human, they would have been moved by the misery strewn all around them by the violent shaking of the earth. But nothing deterred them from plying their lethal trade. It is equally shameful that some persons — like some in New Orleans — have taken to looting shops and establishments in quake-ravaged areas. Perhaps some of these incidents have taken place because the survivors have nothing to eat or to protect them from the harsh elements. But the other lootings have been committed by those who cannot control their urge to hoard something in such times. They must be having strange illusions about their own immortality; otherwise the naked dance of death all around would have stopped them in their tracks. The Indian Army has also suffered heavy losses in Kashmir due to the earthquake. Many of its gallant jawans have been buried in their bunkers. Still, the Army is going out of its way to help the ordinary people. Perhaps this selflessness will remove many misunderstandings which some Kashmiris may have come to nurture about them. In fact, even the nations across the dividing line must change their mindset during this hour of crisis. There has been tragedy on both sides of the LoC. The common enemy can be fought better if the two countries shed their animosity and do all they can to help each other. This is no time to quibble over borders and issues, core or otherwise. |
|
Germany’s Angela Germany has finally got its first woman Chancellor in Ms Angela Merkel, leader of the centre-right Christian Democrats(CDU), following a grand alliance formed between her party and the Social Democrats (SPD) of the outgoing head of government, Mr Gerhard Schroeder. This could be the best arrangement possible after the fractured verdict of the electorate in last month’s elections. Her party-led alliance could do hardly a little better than the ruling party and its allies, though opinion polls had predicted a clear victory for her. Obviously, the voters did not approve of her neo-liberal vision and all that was on her agenda —- healthcare and labour reforms, closer relations with the US, no European Union membership for Turkey, etc. Mr Schroeder has agreed not to be a part of the Merkel government, but his party has got eight key potfolios, including foreign affairs and finance. This indicates that it will not be an easy going for her. It is difficult to believe how she will build a closer relationship with the US, as promised, when the Foreign Ministry will be headed by a representative of the SPD, which sees no merit in her idea. Again, it will not be easy for her to tackle the fast growing unemployment problem when her coalition partners are opposed to any drastic economic reforms. At least 11 per cent of the German workforce has no jobs in a country known as the economic engine of the European Union. Of course, there are areas like the need to reform the cumbersome federal system, which makes the decision-making process very difficult and time-consuming. The Turkish issue, a bone of contention, is no longer as relevant as it was when the election campaign was on. Yet very few experts believe that the Angela Merkel administration will last its full term of four years. It remains a coalition of uncertainties with strong differences among its partners on many key issues. |
|
Life is like playing a violin solo in public and learning the instrument as you go along.
|
UN’s peace-building task One of the outstanding agreements among the UN member-states at last month’s World Summit in New York was on the formation of a Peace-building Commission. The consensus reminded us that 60 years after the founding of the UN the maintenance of peace and security remains its highest goal. Peace-building is an euphemistic term for UN involvement in building a new state from scratch, or reconstructing a war-torn society economically, socially and politically. Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan showed that peace-building includes everything, from organising to holding elections to humanitarian activities, demobilisation, disarmament and organising civic supplies to affected populations. Today, more troops are engaged in UN peacekeeping operations than ever before. Seventyfour thousand Indian troops, military observers and civilian police officers have participated in 41 out of the 60 UN peacekeeping operations since the founding of the UN. At present India contributes to nine out of the 16 ongoing UN peacekeeping missions. About $36.01 billion were spent on peacekeeping operations between 1948 and June 2005. More than 81,000 military and civilian personnel from different UN member-states are currently deployed in UN peacekeeping operations Until the end of the Cold War the UN peacekeeping forces were deployed after the suspension of the conflict, with the consent of states, to facilitate negotiations for settlement by monitoring cease-fires, verifying compliance with interim peace agreements and trying to build confidence between the warring parties. But the collapse of the states and the wars that followed in Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia - and Afghanistan, the example closest to India - showed that this was not enough. Those states had to be rebuilt; peace-building was necessary. This is precisely why Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s high-level panel on threats, challenges and change called for a peace-building commission in 2004. India was represented on the panel by Lieut Gen Satish Nambiar, who commanded the UN Protection Force in Croatia from 1992-03. Rebuilding a state is not just about stopping hostilities; it includes addressing the root causes of the conflict. These causes can be found within states, and range from social and economic inequality to ethnic division and discrimination. Faced with a series of unprecedented conflicts and the absence of conceptual landmarks after 1991, the international community lacked the institutions and the capacity to offer policy guidance and resources for countries emerging from conflict. Only the UN could do it. But the UN lacked the machinery to help countries to make the transition from conflict to lasting peace. Essentially, a body within the UN was needed which could link security with development, steer countries from conflict and put them on the path to economic recovery and stability What will the proposed Peace-building Commission do? The commission will comprise members of the Security Council which can authorise the use of military force to preserve peace and security. The commission will also include countries giving aid, or contributing troops to peacekeeping operations. Together they will devise strategies with regional organisations such as the European Union and the African Union, and international financial agencies such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The commission will also advise the Security Council on the aid a failing state might need for economic reconstruction. A lasting peace involves military and economic factors — it means crafting a concept of “human security” which would tackle not just the military causes of conflict but also their deeper social and economic roots. Poverty, infectious diseases and environmental degradation; war and violence within states; the spread and possible use of nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism; and transnational organised crime are all threats to security. Non-state actors — like terrorists — as well as states are threats to human security as well as state security. The Security Council only deals with the military aspect of a conflict. Once the security aspect of a conflict has been dealt with, the initiative passes on to international donors. Hitherto, the multiplicity of donors meant that there was no agreed strategy or coordination of strategy for economic recovery. Where will the money for peace-building come from? At present, donors plan for short-term projects; everyone is in the dark when political exigencies arise. Alternatively, a change of government in the donor country can leave the country receiving aid high and dry. Predictability of funding could help to make peace sustainable. A voluntary fund will be created that can be replenished and used as necessary. Funds could be disbursed for an operation as it moves from peacekeeping to development. The commission will begin work by the end of 2005. No commission, no matter how well-funded or supported by all Security Council members, could provide instant solutions to emergency situations which require humanitarian relief, military security, community projects to generate employment, disarmament, and preparing for elections all at the same time. But the centrality of peace-building in the UN’s work should be recognised, in the larger interests of promoting peace and security that are essential to help ordinary people out of the economic, social and political mire that characterise collapsed states. Today’s conflict management could be tomorrow’s conflict
prevention.
|
Breast-beating for the poor
I
am no votary of socialism, particularly of our kind. In fact, I am of the view that it is our obsession with this socialism that
held us back nearly for four decades. In our skewed thinking socialism meant that the people should be allowed to set up slums wherever they liked, permitted to steal electricity from the overhead wires in full government view and they should have the privilege of easing themselves on the adjoining footpaths and so on. Yet, despite all the breast-beating that our politics has done for their benefit, it is more or less clear that nobody’s heart bleeds for the poor. Delhi has been developing ever new colonies for its burgeoning population. One of its newest townships is the Dwarka sub-city meant for around a million people. In the good old days, some ruler established a town of twentyfive thousand and left his name by it. Setting up a city of one million certainly needs some doing. Those who have done it deserve appreciation and applause. Sadly, however, the cause of the poor was totally ignored while bringing this conglomerate into being. The powers-that-be behaved as if these poor were non-citizens, not entitled to any civic rights. None realised that they were also socially useful beings. First, quite a few thousand of them had to be around as a labour force to raise nearly two lakh dwelling units. Secondly, our middle class has not reached a stage where vacuum cleaners can take over “jharu-pocha” and dish-washers the “bartan Manjana” chores. So, maids invariably have to be part of our social milieu for another decade or so. Thirdly, somebody has to ply rickshaws, set up fruit/vegetable stalls and provide a plethora of other so-called menial services. Why should such socially relevant people not be catered for? Dwarka looks to be one of the most livable places in the capital now. However, when I shifted here some six years back it had the appearance of a haunted locale as soon as the night fell. There was no habitation within a radius of half a kilometre of my housing society where we lived alone with just construction labourers for company. I saw them cluttered into small make-shift hutments, devoid of any ventilation. Their men and women had to bath together at a common water tap. Their babies had to lie or move about unattended for hours. Their small children passed time rolling junk wheels with a stick. Maid servants came from their far off jhuggis paying through nose. Vegetable sellers and tea-vendors etc got routinely chased away by the police every other day. Being a direct witness to their plight, I often wondered if our politicians’ concern for them was not just about election-deep. In this ethos, one would always remain apprehensive about bulk of the massive money earmarked for our well-intentioned Rural
|
Dateline Washington The 2005 Nobel Peace Prize for Mohamed ElBaradei, who has a history of locking horns with Washington, could be interpreted as a slap in the face for the Bush administration. The Egyptian Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency was the target of an elaborate American espionage plot less than a year ago. The Bush administration was concerned he was being too “soft” on Iran for its nuclear programme. It was revealed in December that the Americans were scrutinising Dr ElBaradei’s phone conversations with Iranian diplomats in the hopes of finding ammunition to prevent him from a third term at the helm of the United Nations nuclear watchdog. As it turned out, the intercepted calls did not produce any evidence of nefarious conduct by Dr ElBaradei, according to three officials who had read them. Some commentators say that by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Dr ElBaradei and the IAEA the Nobel Committee has sent a “message” to Washington. “There is little doubt that the (award) is a direct swipe at the Bush administration,” writes foreign-policy strategist Nancy Soderberg at the liberal blog TPMCafe. “Earlier this year, Washington tried to remove ElBaradei from his post — he had warned that there was no imminent threat in Iraq and pushed the administration toward a more realistic approach toward Iran.” Ms Soderberg says that despite the very real threat that the next terrorist attack could involve weapons of mass destruction, “the Bush administration has spent the last four and a half years undermining the very regimes that could keep Americans safe.” At a press briefing in Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack was asked whether the Nobel Prize for Dr ElBaradei was “a bit of a rebuff” to the US for its “coolness” to the IAEA chief. Mr McCormack responded saying Washington had eventually supported Dr ElBaradei’s bid for a third term as Director General of the IAEA. The wire-tapping was the culmination of months of strained ties between Dr ElBaradei and the Bush administration. In an interview with The Washington Post last fall, Dr ElBaradei said the day the United States invaded Iraq “was the saddest in my life.” In January 2003, the Egyptian diplomat reported that his team of weapons inspectors had found no trace of Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction” — the sole premise under which US President George W. Bush led a coalition into the Iraq war. “The Bush administration was furious,” writes Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Foreign Policy magazine. “Vice President Dick Cheney heaped scorn upon ElBaradei and his inspectors. Of course, ElBaradei’s intelligence ultimately proved to be much more accurate than the Bush administration’s. Everyone now agrees that ElBaradei was correct.” Dr ElBaradei annoyed the Bush administration again in September 2004 when he reported that the traces of highly enriched uranium that US officials claimed was proof of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme could be traced to Pakistan. The findings were contrary to public assertions by Mr Cheney and John R. Bolton, then Under Secretary of State for arms control, who claimed they had irrefutable evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. Mr Bolton, an ardent critic of the United Nations, currently serves as the US Ambassador at the world body’s headquarters in New York. The Norwegian Nobel Committee called Dr ElBaradei “an unafraid advocate” for nuclear nonproliferation “at a time when the threat of nuclear arms is again increasing.” At a press conference in Vienna, Dr ElBaradei said the award sends “a very strong message — ‘Keep doing what you are doing — be impartial, act with integrity,’ and that is what we intend to do.” “The advantage of having this recognition today,” he said, “is that it will strengthen my resolve. The fact that there is overwhelming public support for our work definitely will help to resolve some of the major outstanding issues we are facing today, including North Korea, including Iran and nuclear disarmament… It is a responsibility but it is also a shot in the arm.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called and congratulated Dr ElBaradei. “The United States is committed to working with the IAEA to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology,” she said. The Bush administration has been pressing the agency to recommend Iran to the United Nations Security Council on suspicions that Tehran is pursuing a nuclear weapons programme. The frostiness between Washington and the IAEA still lingers. The future of this relationship will depend a lot on how the agency’s Board of Governors’ votes when it takes up the Iran issue in November. |
|
Nobel for game theorists An American and an American Israeli were awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences on Monday for fostering the understanding of conflict and cooperation as applied to a range of subjects from nuclear arms races to trade and price wars. Oakland, Calif.-born Thomas C. Schelling, 84, an emeritus professor at the University of Maryland and Harvard University, and Robert J. Aumann, 75, an emeritus professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, used “game theory” as way to explain social, political and business interactions. Working separately, the pair have “enhanced our understanding of conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis,” the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences said in its prize citation. Game theory is a branch of mathematics and social science that tries to explain actions and decisions in terms of choices that players might make. It sometimes can show why a counterintuitive choice might be better. Schelling, a political economist, and Aumann, a mathematician, took different approaches in trying to explain why sometimes it was in the best long-term interest of players to foster cooperation rather than confrontation. For example, two countries that trade together could find themselves in conflict over a specific product. Traditional power politics would argue that one country should force the other to bow to its will. But Schelling, in his 1960 book “The Strategy of Conflict,” explained that a party could have long-term success by giving up some short-term advantages, even if that meant worsening its own options. By making concessions, the stronger party could build trust with the other party and that long-term relationship could be more beneficial to both. The work has had an effect on issues such as nuclear proliferation and building so-called confidence steps in the hope of resolving ethnic and social divisions in the Middle East. It also helps explain why housing segregation continues to be a problem, even in areas where residents say they have no extreme prejudice toward another group. Schelling, who worked for the U.S. government on the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II, said at a news conference Monday that his greatest influence had been in nuclear deterrence. His use of game theory explains why no nation would use a nuclear weapon because retribution would be assured. Even today, deterrence probably would prevent nations such as Iran or North Korea from using nuclear weapons, he said. As a mathematician, Aumann’s contribution was to put the power of numerical analysis behind social insights. He showed that peaceful cooperation is often an equilibrium solution in a game played many times. His use of the theory of “repeated games” has become a common framework for analyzing cooperation. “The theory of repeated games enhances our understanding of the prerequisites for cooperation: Why it is more difficult when there are many participants, when they interact infrequently, when interaction is likely to be broken off, when the time horizon is short or when others’ actions cannot be clearly observed,” the academy said. — LA Times-Washington Post |
|
Europe hails US subsidy cut offer Talks on a global trade agreement were given a big boost after months of stalemate, as the US and Europe moved closer to a deal to cut drastically their multibillion dollar farm subsidies. An offer by the Americans on Monday to eliminate agriculture export subsidies by 2010 and reduce trade-distorting payments by 60 per cent was welcomed by European negotiators, although officials were yesterday studying the details. Agricultural subsidies have been a crucial obstacle in the negotiations, with developing countries and non-government organisations demanding reductions in subsidies, which are worth $180bn (£102bn) to US and European farmers. European negotiators know that only if they dismantle export subsidies and reduce domestic payments will developing countries open more of their markets to industrial goods and services. Crucially, Monday’s offer by the US put a series of figures on the table for discussion. It also appeared to vindicate the EU’s strategy, which made an earlier offer to get rid of export subsidies if other sides do the same. The European Commission issued a paper on its position, repeating the offer made to cut trade-distorting subsidies by 70 per cent, and adding details of further proposals. The EU is in a position to do so because of Common Agricultural Policy reforms already agreed. The US proposals build on President George Bush’s offer last month at the United Nations to eliminate all trade barriers and subsidies, but this was widely seen as a ploy, aimed at burnishing Washington’s free trade credentials while embarrassing Europe. Pressure to break the deadlock on farm subsidies has become intense, because the conflict is stalling progress on the entire Doha round of trade liberalisation. Both the party and the White House would be loath to make major concessions now, unless they could claim the EU had made even larger adjustments. Analysts say hard bargaining lies ahead. The issues * WHAT THE US WANTS: The US knows its current trade rules are indefensible and is under pressure to make changes. The government has lost several rulings on international trade issues and needs to reduce a federal budget ballooning in the wake of the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina relief effort. Washington’s pretensions to stand up for the interests of Third World countries are at stake. * WHAT EUROPE WANTS: With reforms to the Common Agricultural Policy agreed, the EU strategy is to challenge other countries to match changes being implemented in Europe. It has offered to eliminate all export subsidies if others do the same. If the big First World nations cut farm subsidies, it is hoped emerging nations will open their markets to European industrial products. * WHAT THE OTHERS WANT: Brazil, India and China have grown in influence and their priority is better market access to Western countries and a reduction in those countries’ agricultural subsidies. The wider grouping of 90 poorer nations has disparate objectives. This is because the poorest often already enjoy tariff-free deals with the EU on which sections of their economies rely. — The Independent |
|
From the pages of December 28, 1909 GOKHALE
ON POLITICAL
The subject of Mr Gokhale's second lecture at Ahmednagar on Sunday last was "Political Agitation, its History and Responsibilities". Tracing the origin of the Congress, Mr Gokhale said it was inaugurated with the desire to secure improvements in the administration, and its steady nationalism. He described the successes and the failures of the Congress, pointing out the causes. Unity depended upon common ideals and aspirations, the desire for co-operation and the instinct of discipline -qualities urgently needed for work. The scheme of work was of a three fold character: first, determining policy or direction; second, extending the basis of popular rights and the principle of working successfully the newly acquired reforms; and, third, constant watch over the rights gained and bringing to the notice of officials the grievances and the complaints of the people.
|
One who knows God as the unborn, without a beginning or an end, and the Supreme Lord of the universe, is considered wise among mortals, and becomes liberated from the bondage of Karma.
—The Mahabharata Living in solitude now and then, repeating God’s name and singing His glories and discriminating between the real and the unreal, these are the means to employ to see him.
—Ramakrishna A man thinks himself happy when he thinks he has set his course toward what he thinks he loves.
—Book of quotations on Happiness Our lives to be beautiful, must be full of thought for others. —Mother Teresa |
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Mailbag | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
