 |
|
Now intrusions Loose talk |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Trade talks fail A serious blow to Doha round ONLY an incorrigible optimist could have expected a better outcome from world trade talks that collapsed in Geneva on Tuesday. The on-again, off-again Doha round began seven years ago and has often seen the US and Europe justifying the high levels of their farm subsidies and the developing countries, fearing cheaper imports ruining the lives of their poor farmers, denying market access to the developed countries by sticking to their high tariff barriers.
Cash for votes
Silenced voice
Feud over farm aid ISI causing concern
in the US Chinese success in Taiwan could see them turn towards India
|
Now intrusions INCREASING violations of ceasefire on the India-Pakistan Line of Control (LoC) have been causing concern. Compounding the violations are reports of Pakistani intrusion into the Indian territory. This has forced Defence Minister A.K. Antony to warn the neighbouring country that India is prepared to meet any situation arising out of such unfriendly conduct. He has asked Pakistan to respect the ceasefire which, incidentally, was unilaterally declared by that country about four years ago. While an occasional firing across the LoC due to misunderstanding of each other’s position is understandable, the frequency with which it occurs gives rise to fears that there is some method in the madness. The installation of a civilian government in Pakistan was thought of as the best thing that could have happened to improve India-Pakistan relations. However, things have not been moving in the desired direction. This gives rise to speculation that forces which cannot countenance any improvement in bilateral relations have been trying to vitiate the atmosphere. As has been noted in these columns, there are agencies like the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) which function independently of the Pakistan government. Since they work in a cloak-and-dagger manner, their ways remain inscrutable to the common people. In the Pakistani context, it is not necessary for its army to agree to whatever the government does on the defence front. For all one knows, the army may also be resenting the fact that power is no longer in the hands of a uniformed person. Such agencies and forces can be expected to do everything possible to scuttle any efforts to bring the two nations closer. Despite provocations from across the border, India has been consistently pursuing its peace agenda vis-à-vis Pakistan. It continues to repose faith in the composite dialogue with Pakistan as it believes that there are no bilateral problems which cannot be solved through dialogue. It is India’s persistence that enables drawing up of one confidence-building measure after another. But the efforts will come to a naught if Pakistan is unable to control those who instigate the jehadis to cross over to India with a view to stepping up terrorist activities. It should heed Mr Antony’s warning and take steps to end violations of ceasefire and intrusions.
|
|
Loose talk AT a time when the country is fighting a grim battle against the scourge of terrorism, all political parties are expected to sink their petty differences and present a united front against the common enemy. However, some leaders have different ideas. Prominent BJP leader Sushma Swaraj decided to be at her irresponsible worst and alleged that the bomb blasts in Bangalore and Ahmedabad were a conspiracy to divert attention from the “cash-for-votes” scandal which rocked the Lok Sabha during the trust vote. Not content with dropping this bombshell, she even added in good measure that this was no off-the-cuff remark. This was an immature attempt at politicising a matter of great national interest which did not behove even a small-time politician, leave alone a leader of the stature of former Union Minister Sushma Swaraj who is today a leading light of the BJP. No wonder there is a stunned silence even in the party itself and no major leader has come forward to back her “well thought-out” but wild and careless allegation. Most of them have obliquely expressed their disapproval by saying that “we have nothing to say”. As far as the NDA allies are concerned, they have been unsparing in their criticism. The only people who will be pleased with this outburst would be terrorists who relish all public display of fissiparous behaviour by politicians. Instead of virtually accusing the UPA government of stagemanaging the attacks in the two BJP-ruled states, Ms Swaraj should have appreciated the gravity of the situation and offered to work with the government in combating the menace. That is what her senior colleague, Mr Atal Bihari Vajpayee, had done during the 1971 war with Pakistan under Mrs Indira Gandhi’s leadership. If that kind of statesmanship was far beyond her, she should have at least done some service to the nation merely by keeping silent. By opening her mouth and putting her foot in it, she has trivialised her own and her party’s credentials. |
|
Trade talks fail ONLY an incorrigible optimist could have expected a better outcome from world trade talks that collapsed in Geneva on Tuesday. The on-again, off-again Doha round began seven years ago and has often seen the US and Europe justifying the high levels of their farm subsidies and the developing countries, fearing cheaper imports ruining the lives of their poor farmers, denying market access to the developed countries by sticking to their high tariff barriers. The nine-day consecutive Geneva talks were doomed as the US and India, backed by China, could not afford to agree on the “special safeguards mechanism”. Under this mechanism, developing countries can raise their tariffs if imports rise above a certain level. The aim is to protect farmers in developing countries from competition by the rich world’s prosperous and highly subsidised farmers. President George Bush spoke to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the telephone to seek a breakthrough. The recent bonhomie over the nuclear deal notwithstanding, India stuck to its stand and was supported by 100 other countries. Any softening of India’s stand would have exposed the UPA government to the charge of buckling under US pressure. The hawk-eyed Leftists were keenly watching the developments. The outgoing US President, too, is under pressure from the US farm lobby and he cannot afford to retreat in an election year. The collapse was inevitable. WTO Director General Pascal Lamy is trying to salvage useful bits from the talks’ wreckage and resuscitate the dying Doha round. But the fact is that the political will to carry forward global trade liberalisation talks is flagging, especially as energy security is threatened, growth is faltering and rising inflation is turning countries inward and protectionist. The dominant view is: “no deal is better than a bad deal”. Bilateral trade deals are proliferating as global trade agreement hopes fade. The failure at Geneva is bound to cast its shadow on other global issues like global warming, fuel and food crises. |
|
There are basically two types of people. People who accomplish things, and people who claim to have accomplished things. The first group is less crowded.
|
Cash for votes
THE whole drama of confidence vote in Parliament on the nuclear deal reminded me of what transpired during the 2000 US Presidential election between Gore and Bush. During the counting, the votes cast in the State of Florida had assumed decisiveness for victory. Gore wanted all the votes to be recounted as a short sample had shown that many invalid votes had been counted in favour of Bush, and a total recount would have put Gore as the winner. Bush naturally opposed. The matter landed in the Supreme Court and was heard by all nine judges of the US Supreme Court. Five judges stopped further recounting (the other four dissenting) resulting in Bush being declared elected. It was shocking to the public — more so as later scrutiny of votes under public information laws revealed that had recounting been allowed, Bush would have lost. The disillusioned minority judges castigated thus: “It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today’s decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.” (emphasis supplied) I believe that similarly watching the goings-on in Parliament the average person’s reaction would be the same with regard to the credibility and political morality of the politician — hardly anyone will believe that voting has been influenced by any brilliant speeches or rational arguments in favour of or against the deal. It is openly said that money power and all kinds of allurements have determined the decision of some parliamentarians. Shivers run through one’s spine when you are told that the price of an MP’s vote had gone up to Rs 25 crore coupled with the bizarre story of Rs 1 crore currency notes being flaunted in Parliament as the alleged part of bribe money. Such is the unabashed effrontery that neither of the major parties saw any embarrassment in wooing the leader of a small group with promises of a Chief Ministership or a Central cabinet post when both these offices were denied to him by these very parties because he was involved in a murder case (though later acquitted) or involved in cases of corruption for selling his vote years back. Though till the last all TV channels were showing a margin of one or two votes in favour of the government, the actual margin turned out to be of 19 votes (as predicted by managers of the UPA). Still more surprising is that the BJP, which claims to be disciplined and rides on a moral pedestal, had eight of its members vote for the UPA. Other parties’ members also crossvoted. Can one honestly say that these worthies had sudden pangs of conscience? Such an excuse if given even to children would invoke an immediate response: “Tell that to the marines”. I am not saying whether these allegations are true or not — but does not the bizarre manner in which this debate and voting on such a crucial matter took place lead to the resultant loss of faith in the political system? Of course, the Opposition, especially the Left, must share the blame for the situation developing thus. The main contours of the deal were always known. Why is it that the Left did not make a crucial issue of it two years back when there was no doubt that apart from other pitfalls, the deal would make us privy to any unilateral action the US takes against Iran? It is not difficult to make a guess. The Left was basking in the reflected glory of exclusive briefing being given by the highest in the government. The gentlemanly silence by the Prime Minister made the arrogance by the Left unbearable as is now spelt out by the PM in his reference to the Left: “They wanted me to behave like a bonded slave”. But the Left in its own dreamland chose to ignore reality and continued with its arrogant posture till suddenly it fell flat when it found its closest ally Mulayam Yadav become its fiercest enemy. But by then it was too late. The result? An ugly loss. In the wake of shady deals witnessed, some are suggesting a change in election law so that only national parties defined in terms of votes obtained on an all-India basis (say 5 - 7 per cent) should be allowed to contest Parliament seats. This would be undemocratic and would also be unconstitutional as violative of Article 14. If this had been the law we would not have had stalwarts like Nath Pai, Kamath, Madhu Dandavate, Chitta Basu and Madhu Limaye adorn our Parliament. As it is, the
BJP, a so-called national party, has had the maximum defections. The CPM has further wounded itself by expelling Speaker Somnath Chatterjee from the party. It seems obvious that the Politburo does not appreciate the position of the Speaker. We know he is one of the oldest members of the CPM alive — and we also notice the irony that the decision-making comrades were possibly in kindergarten or nursery classes when Mr Chatterjee was an established leader of the CPM. The party has ignored the well-established position of a Speaker, even if he continues to be a formal member of the party. Everybody has praise for his fair, nonpolitical approach. The Speaker represents the whole House, as Pt Nehru, while unveiling the portrait of Speaker Patel on March 8, 1958, had said: “The Speaker represents the House. He represents the dignity of the House, the freedom of the House and because the House represents the freedom and liberty. Therefore, it is right that that should be an honoured position, a free position and should be occupied always by men of outstanding ability and impartiality.” Would Politburo in deference to the public opinion withdraw its expulsion order? Of course, the unanimous advice to the Speaker is to carry on his duties as a Speaker for the full term. There is unanimity about his impartial functioning and raising the level of debate. But for him the proceedings of no confidence would have ended in a
fiasco.
|
Silenced voice
It was just any regular melodious morning when I woke up to the sound of music on my mobile and hurriedly readied my daughter for school. Sometime in between the morning chores, I “graduated” to songs on MTV while we rushed through. This is a ritual I follow every morning and the music plays on till I leave the house. Small wonder then that I was addicted to Voice of India, the programme that made Ludhiana-boy Ishmeet Singh a star in a matter of a few months. That evening, while channels aired shocking news of his sudden death in the Maldives, I could not help but go back to the days when he was on television. I remembered how I, my husband and my daughter would wait for the appointed time every weekend. While enjoying music was top priority, we were curious to see who was sent packing from the show. In fact, in the last few weeks of the show before Singh was crowned king after a neck-and-neck run-up to the final with Harshit Saxena of UP, our bedroom had become a battleground. My husband, from UP, staunchly supported Saxena’s claim for the title. My five-year-old, in the opposite camp, had taken a fancy for Ishmeet. Asked to choose between the two warring parties, I joined my daughter’s camp and we cheered every time Ishmeet took to the stage. One weekend the producers chose to begin the show with tarot card readers giving predictions for the contestants. It was all in the spirit of the game. So, when she termed Ishmeet’s career in music as short-lived with only small gains, there was no reason for worry since we were the winning team. Saxena, she said, would lose out in the short-run but gain on a long-term basis. And, yes, Ishmeet went on to win the Voice of India title and also my little girl’s heart. Everytime we sat to watch the programme, she would repeatedly seek a promise to take her to meet Ishmeet whenever he came to Chandigarh. In all earnestness, I promised her that she would meet him. She even asked a couple of my friends to find out his mobile number to just speak to him. Some things, however, are just not meant to be. My friends never did manage to get his number. Despite his visits to Chandigarh, I never could take her to meet Ishmeet. He was a hero when he came and I thought, in the fitness of things, to let the Ishmeet-euphoria die down before we meet him. Nineteen-year-old Ishmeet drowned in a pool. His fame, indeed, was short-lived just like the tarot-card reader had predicted. While the Ishmeet-euphoria had died down a couple of weeks after his “coronation”, he too died a few months later. In the midst of this tragedy, one thing survived and will forever live on — my unfulfilled promise to my
daughter. |
Feud over farm aid International
talks aimed at ushering in a new era of free trade collapsed in Geneva Tuesday during a bitter split between developed and developing countries over the future shape of global commerce. The failure of the talks after nine days of intense negotiations underscored what is likely to be the biggest challenge in coming years to expanding world trade: the reluctance of emerging juggernauts such as India and China to risk their newfound success by offering rich nations greater access to the hundreds of millions of consumers rising out of poverty in the developing world. High-level delegations from the United States and the European Union showed fresh willingness at the World Trade Organization talks to make concessions that would have gradually curbed the subsidies and tariffs they have long employed to protect first-world farmers. But India and China dug in their heels, insisting on the right to keep protecting their farmers while accusing the United States and other rich countries of exaggerating the generosity of their concessions. “The breakdown of these talks is bad news for the world’s businesses, workers, farmers and most importantly the poor,” said Thomas Donohue, president of the Washington-based U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “It’s ironic that this blow ... came from two of the chief beneficiaries of worldwide trade. India and China are emerging powers, but with great power comes great responsibility. They missed an opportunity to show leadership as key players in the global trading system.” The result is what most experts concede is at least a temporary mothballing of the Doha Round of trade talks, so named because a group of nations agreed to work towards dramatic new cuts in subsidies and trade tariffs in Qatar’s capital of Doha back in 2001. The talks have floundered for the past seven years. The WTO meeting of more than 35 nations in Geneva that ended on Tuesday had been described by officials as a “do or die” moment for the round, with the lack of agreement postponing the $50 billion to $100 billion injection such a deal was expected give the global economy. The sense that the failed talks may not get another chance anytime soon is linked to the pending exit of the pro-trade Bush administration, rising opposition to farm concessions in Europe and an upcoming changing of the guard of several key trade officials. Some analysts said the spread of free trade for now is likely to shift toward more modest bilateral agreements, or the expansion of regional trading blocs such as South America’s Mercosur and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Yet even bilateral deals have recently faced stronger resistance during a growing global wave of protectionism, including in the United States, where free trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea and Panama are being held up by opposition in Congress. “We are heading toward the fragmentation of the global trading system into individual trading blocs – regional and bilateral – which offer no guarantee for the economic benefits we have seen in the post-War era,” said Randall Soderquist, senior trade program associate for the Center for Global Development. The talks in Geneva at times took on a highly charged, personal tone that immediately cast the negotiations as a power struggle between the developed and developing worlds. Within 24 hours of landing in Geneva nine days ago, Brazil’s Foreign Minister Celso Amorim infuriated first-world negotiators, comparing their efforts to hype their proposed trade concessions to Nazi propaganda. His comments drew sharp reprimands, particularly from Washington’s top negotiator, U.S. Trade Ambassador Susan C. Schwab, the daughter of Jewish Holocaust survivors. Yet Brazil would later show far more flexibility than India or China, casting the Asian nations as the principle holdouts. Schwab said negotiators were “so close” last week in reaching an agreement. But the talks fell apart over the insistence by developing nations to reserve the right to protect their farming sectors against sudden surges in cheap food imports. India’s chief negotiator and commerce minister, Kamal Nath, may have played the biggest role in undoing the talks, repeatedly blocking attempts by developed nations to win greater access to India’s burgeoning market. Nath’s inflexibility was cheered as heroic in India, where his refusal to offer major concessions to rich nations was being portrayed as a classic David-vs.-Goliath case. “I kept saying `No I don’t agree’ at every point,” Nath said in a telephone interview from Geneva Tuesday. “I come from a country where 300 million people live on 1 dollar a day and 700 million people live on 2 dollars a day. So it is natural for me, and in fact incumbent upon me, to see that our agricultural interests are not compromised. You don’t require rocket science to decide between livelihood security and commercial interests.” Opposition to the talks had been building in India since June, when 35 farmers groups from across that nation gathered at a conference in New Delhi to discuss the implications of the trade negotiations with trade and food policy activists. They called upon wealthy nations to remove their farm subsidies, saying such assistance to first-world farmers denies a level-playing field to subsistence-farmers nations such as India. The US and Europe did offer up what several experts described as the most significant concessions to reduce agricultural protections they have ever made. They were offered in the hopes that developing nations would respond by reducing barriers for such manufactured goods as US cars and German chemicals. Instead, their offers were dismissed as not nearly enough.
Faiola reported from Madrid, and Lakshmi reported from New Delhi
|
|
ISI causing concern in the US WASHINGTON – In a demonstration of growing US frustration, the CIA’s deputy director flew to Islamabad earlier this month to warn Pakistani officials that they need to do more to address dangerous ties between the country’s spy agency and al-Qaida-linked militants who are growing in power in Pakistan’s tribal areas and elsewhere in the country, a US official has said. Pakistan’s powerful Inter Services Intelligence agency has long been accused of arming, training and sponsoring the Taliban and affiliated Islamist extremists, first in Afghanistan and more recently in Pakistan, and of using them as proxies for spying in Afghanistan and violence in the disputed territory of Kashmir. But the visit by Stephen Kappes marked a significant escalation of those US concerns, and was done in advance of this week’s visit to Washington by Pakistani Prime Minister Yusaf Raza Gillani, according to one senior US official who confirmed the trip. The official said Kappes travelled to Islamabad in mid-July as part of a small delegation headed by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A Pakistani official who declined to discuss details also confirmed Kappes’ trip to Islamabad, which was first reported on The New York Times website Tuesday night. Mullen met with Pakistani military leaders to stress the need for more cooperation in the fight against al-Qaida and the Taliban in the country’s tribal areas, amid signs that they are launching more attacks in neighboring Afghanistan. Kappes, a long-time and much-respected veteran of the clandestine side of the CIA, met separately with Gillani, President Pervez Musharraf, influential army chief of staff and former ISI head Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani and the current head of the ISI, Lt. Gen. Nadeem Taj, the US official said. Gillani downplayed US concerns about ties between the ISI and the militants, and said that the intelligence group was operating under tight supervision by the newly elected civilian government. “The ISI ... has very good relations with the United States,” Gilani said in response to a question at an event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations. “It is under the prime minister, so it will do whatever I want it to do.” Several US counterterrorism officials, however, said in interviews this week that they are deeply skeptical of Gillani’s assurances, and that they believe he and his new government lack any real authority to tell the powerful ISI and its military leaders what to do. All of the officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the diplomatic sensitivity of Kappes’ visit. Kappes’ meetings were not the first time that US officials have confronted Pakistan over the ties between the ISI and the Taliban. But US officials said they were worried that the relationship has intensified in recent years, in part because Pakistan feels threatened by archrival India’s aggressive efforts to establish a presence in Afghanistan.
By arrangement with
|
|
Chinese success in Taiwan could see them turn towards India THE real danger in East Asia is not a swift and bold move by China to overwhelm Taiwan; it is not a despotic Kim Il Jong launching his army across the 38th parallel; and it is not just a resurgent China seeking dominance in the region. The real danger is of all these happening simultaneously. Perhaps the the US can restrain Kin Il Jong in Korea; perhaps the the US can repulse an invasion by China of Taiwan; what the US may be unable to do is ward off both invasions when launched jointly. History has shown that world politics can change suddenly, that peace can quickly turn into war, that preparedness for war must never be taken lightly. In this regard, China has been planning actively for an invasion of Taiwan for the last 30 years. Sino-Russian exercises were held off the western and eastern coasts of Korea last year. A joint pincer movement by Russia and China, as allies of North Korea, cannot be ruled out in the future, as they attempt to capture South Korea. A simple ruse can cause a war, while international condemnation can be contained and vetoed by China and Russia at the UN. Remember that Russia gifted South Korea back to the US after World War II, and continued to assist North Korea during the Korean War, alongside China. While the invasion is in swing, a heavy push by China onto Taiwan will have the US reeling. Basically, a joint invasion on the Korean peninsula and the island of Taiwan will have the US scrambling and running wild. While China is already cozying up to Russia – pre-1962 cold war allies – the US has no nation of similar or equal strength in the region that they could bring into the war in East Asia. Would they ask India to invade Tibet? Would India agree? The possible scenario sounds like quite a nightmare. The gamble of China will be that they will win one of the two battles, if not both, with China focusing harder on Taiwan. That will be victory enough for them and Russia, both of who wish to see USA’s influence decline in the world. What is the the US planning in such an event? I think they are mostly hoping this won’t happen. Chinese Generals know that a victory in Taiwan is not easy, nor is one in Korea. But, with China’s close proximity to these battlefields, with the US being able to reach there only if they extend themselves, the ability of Chinese forces to sustain themselves is much greater, as much as their turnaround time for setup and refueling is shorter. Correspondingly, while the US will be pushed to the limit, Chinese forces will stand a good chance to grab that edge in one battle zone or the other, even while their preference will be Taiwan. Russia will not weep for USA. Russia’s cold war with the the US has not ended – it has just taken a different shape. A joint Sino-Russian invasion of South Korea is not untenable. the US might have considered this eventuality in their planning, but they are not really prepared for it, and dread the possibility. As it is, observers worry that the US will let Taiwan fend for itself: that, in a protracted Chinese assault on Taiwan, the US will stumble, its resolve weaken, and its internal politics divide the nation, allowing China to ultimately walk into Taipei. That, in itself, is a dangerous eventuality. Once the war starts, there will be people from everywhere in the US wondering why the US is fighting someone else’s war. They will forget that the US promised to defend Taiwan. At the last minute, they will sell Taiwan, such that their own soldier sons may live. What a pity! O, hang down your head, Tom Dooley! But, here’s the real fear in the aftermath. Should China succeed in Taiwan, it will turn its 1000 missiles and 12 army divisions currently pointed in Taiwan’s direction to other locations, many of which could end up on India’s border in Tibet. This will further raise the stakes for a future joint Sino-Pak invasion of India, to fulfill what Mao Tse Tung could not fulfill in 1971. India could lose Arunachal and large chunks of Ladakh/Kashmir in that encounter while making gains only in Sindh. Thus, India’s security depends to a great extent on the US, for which the the US must stay committed to the fount of righteousness. Democracy, liberty, and religious freedom must not be allowed to slide in the world. India’s partnership with the US is indispensable.
The writer is an associate professor at the University of Hawaii at Manoa |
|
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
