Read Users' Comments (0)

Read Users' Comments (0)

Bangladesh

Read Users' Comments (0)

Read Users' Comments (0)

The world’s high table now seats only countries belonging to the G-7 and NATO groupings, which acting in concert advance the economic and political interests of the well heeled and economically developed nations of the world. These nations have the common underlying fabric of western European culture binding them together. Japan is the only exception, being non-European. But Japan, way back in the mid 1800’s in the aftermath of the Meiji restoration determined to Westernise, and after its post-WWII resurgence became an “honorary white” nation. Nothing symptomised this better than the fact that Japanese were officially designated just that in apartheid South Africa. And the Japanese were quite comfortable with that status.

The post Cold War era has seen the economic and political rise of a host of nations, Brazil, China and India being foremost among them. Since 2000 and the advent of Vladimir Putin, Russia with soaring oil prices has made impressive economic gains. The new South Africa, based equally on the industrial inheritance of the robust but unequal and exploitative apartheid regime and the bounty of nature, now finds itself as an advancing economic power. Unlike Nigeria which has frittered its oil wealth and has been looted by its native kleptocracy, South Africa has been a relative symbol of responsible government and probity in public life. Each one of these nations is now a major economic player and already has larger GDP than many in the G-7. Together, in the next couple of decades they will outstrip the G-7.

With the advent of new world economic and political powers, logic would demand that the global high table be expanded. But there is an inherent problem with exclusive clubs. Expansion means they become less exclusive and with it goes the attendant risk that some already members will become less important. On the other hand those who get admitted will find that their admittance has made the club somewhat less exclusive. Groucho Marx captured this paradox when he said: “I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.” If the G-7 were to remain an exclusive and powerful club, then the only way to ensure it would be to relegate some of the present members like Italy and Spain to some lesser league. Similarly, if the UN Security Council were to become a truly representative and powerful body, then Britain and France might have to be seen out and countries like Brazil and India brought in. Neither Britain nor France have the global economic reach of Germany, till this year the world’s leading exporting nation. 

Britain’s global power status is kept afloat by leased US nuclear submarines and missiles.

But this is not happening nor is it likely to happen in a hurry. In the meantime the world is changing. So the countries knocking on the doors are trying new diplomatic combinations, and these are many. On the basis of economic potential, and thanks to Jim O’Neill, the Goldman Sachs head of global economic research who coined the now familiar and catchy acronym, the BRICs, Brazil, Russia, India and China have come together to form a forum called just that. Phonetically BRICs has a constructive ring about it and works well. On the other hand it could have just as well been CRIBs, which in English means a cot for a baby and in the colloquial as discards on a card table.

But the fact of the matter is that there is nothing of binding commonality between these four countries. Brazil is far in the west and is a middle income and middle industrialised country with vast natural resources and a land mass to boot. Like Russia. Russia however is still a colossal military and nuclear power with a global reach. But the Russian main is in Europe and it is largely a Westernised country. China and India are low income Asian countries with gargantuan populations and an entirely different set of problems. But they are the giant economies of the future. Not only do they have not many cultural affinities but also are locked in a difficult territorial dispute. Then China is a totalitarian one party and repressive state, and does not have in place market economy structures with liberal labour laws and stringent environmental regulations in place like the other BRICs. So would these countries ever have come together if Jim O’Neill did not conjure up them as a group?

Now there is a veritable cornucopia of alphabet soups being conjured up. There is BASIC – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – which was very much in the news in Copenhagen as a ginger group that forced the western and industrialised nations, including Russia, to water down their growth constricting agenda. 

India, Brazil and South Africa as democratic, fast growing and non P-5 countries are coming together, presumably to force an expansion of the UN Security Council? China, already in the P-5 is opposed to any new permanent membership of the UNSC which includes Japan. There is already in existence a RIC’s grouping consisting of Russia, India and China that view with askance the meddlesome activities in Central Asia and the blatant partisanship of the USA in the Middle East.

Last week I was in a conference funded by the German foreign ministry for a GIBSA grouping to somehow inveigle Germany into the equation. Of late the new Hatoyama government in Japan has been signalling desire for a life outside the US umbrella and would like to have a grouping built around democratic countries like Japan, India and Australia. Nearer home there is BIMSTEC, or Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Srilanka and Thailand Economic Co-operation. And so it goes on.

Clearly the world is in a churn. The new global players are clearly unhappy with the management of the global system. What we need is a true power shift that reflects the emerging economic, political and military realities. But the multitude of agendas only serves to preserve the status quo – for the foreseeable future. Only when Brazil, Russia, India, China, South America, Japan and Germany, give or take some, come together and determine what the future world system must be, can we expect a new world order.

Source--http://www.groundreportindia.com/2010/05/alphabet-soup.html

Read Users' Comments (0)

The uprising in Tibet is the latest in a long series of developments in India’s neighbourhood that has exposed India’s congenital inability and lack of desire to get itself to be counted as even a small player, forget a major one, in the region.

The ongoing protests against Chinese oppression in Tibet have seen India bend twice over backwards like a little nation so that the Chinese are not annoyed at all. All the cacophony about “morality” that accompanies other developments to influence India’s response - national interest be damned - is conspicuous by its almost total absence. This time, it is neither morality nor national interest which is determining India’s official and even media response to what China has been doing in Tibet for 60 years.

This time, it is an unashamed, unacknowledged acknowledgement of the utter relative weakness, not economic but military, that India has allowed itself to sink into vis a vis China. It is that unaddressed asymmetry and the terrifying fear of a Chinese retaliation to forcefully settle their long held claim over Arunachal Pradesh which has forced the country into pushing its lofty moral stances under a very dirty rug,

But, weakness somehow manages to find the strangest of moral ruses. There are voices comparing Tibet with, would you believe it, Kashmir and even the North East to justify the prostration to the Chinese! We conveniently like to forget many inconvenient truths. Had India wanted, for example, it could have claimed Myanmar with nearly the same justification that China has claimed and taken Tibet.

Tibetans do not claim Arunachal Pradesh; the Chinese do, on their behalf! The Dalai Lama has been driven out of his country by the invading Chinese; in Indian Kashmir, Kashmiri Hindus have been driven out by fellow Kashmiri and Pakistani Muslims! But, for the most dishonest of “moral” reasons, we gag the Dalai Lama and praise the Chinese who use the foulest of words for this apostle of peace to avoid talking to him; we pretend that homeless Kashmiri Pandits don’t exist and give enormous respect, time, importance, understanding and sympathy to the masters of AK47 wielding killers fielded by Pakistan to usurp Kashmir.

Last year, when the military junta in powerless Myanmar was facing a revolt from monks, ‘conscience keepers’ of India were up and awake, berating India for not taking the side of the monks. Very few were then concerned that India had already lost much ground to an aggressive and focused China and that any abrupt reaction against the junta would drive Myanmar almost totally into the arms of that country. It did not matter to them that the Chinese were working steadily to get a very easy route through Myanmar into the plains of Assam, to cut off and capture most of Arunachal Pradesh, whenever they decide to, with ease. All that mattered to them was the “morality” of supporting democracy in Myanmar and the unacceptability of supporting military dictatorship. National interest? That is all bunkum, said one illustrated TV personality.

Exactly the opposite happened when the Musharraf, the General responsible for occupying parts of Kargil, overthrew a democratically elected government in a military coup. Then there was no moral outcry, no calls to break ties with the military regime that had launched an attack on India and show solidarity with the forces of democracy. On the contrary, the practical voice which was most heard was that we had to do business with whoever was in power in Pakistan. The moral brigade was in fact the first to forgive the General and begin a long lasting “love affair’” with him. Was all this due to an enlightened understanding of national interest or was it because of something more fundamental and disturbingly so?

Ever since India gained Independence thanks mainly to the moral force of Mahatma Gandhi’s words and actions rather than any conventional force, India has fancied itself as a global moral voice, a sort of continuation of the Mahatma’s legacy. Gandhi’s morality and non violence had no space for “weakness” at all. It was the unusual actuation of great, uncompromising strength which did not need any weapons. Indeed, in retrospect, it is clear that that was the only strength which could have defeated the British; militarily there was just no chance.

In Independent India, unfortunately, somewhere that concept has got seriously distorted. The reality of global power play of nations has simply not been grasped fully in its harsh, violent and ambitious dimensions, despite many rude wake-up calls. There is a peculiar paralysis when it comes to talking about and with strength.

In fact, in India, we weirdly hyphenate strength with immorality; it is not something to be sought or flaunted. Unfortunately, that has become our national ethos. Being macho might be fine for the Americans and the Chinese, but that is not the arrogant path that India should tread. On the flip side, great virtue is associated with weakness, as if only the weak and the meek tread the moral path. Perhaps that is true, for the weak often have little choice, as confronting the strong will lead to only one result. You can keep calling the possession and use of strength by any uncharitable epithet to justify your weakness; if you succumb to it, as India has done almost always done since 1947, except in 1971, the moral part is nothing more than a camouflage to fool you own countrymen and even yourself!

Why has this state come about? Is it because at some level we are still in the mental frame that we got into to drive the British out of the country? Then the moral question was straightforward: the colonial foreigner had no right to rule over this vast land. He knew that too.

However, for an independent country aspiring to be one of the great nations of the world, the questions are many more and far more complex. Morality cannot be the determinator that will make an aggressor see your reason. Nor is it a workable tool to take a practical view of the globe in which countries fight essentially by the rules of the jungle when it comes to the crunch. Only the fittest have survived till now; there is every reason to believe that might will continue to be almost always right in future too.

The Americans know this elementary stuff. So do the Chinese, who are working furiously to ensure that they too get securely into the “right” lane of might which the US has made all its own. Indians, despite being thrice as many as Americans and almost as many as Chinese on this planet, just don’t seem to get it. We want to continue to make believe that we are in a separate lane all of our own and claim that our weak moral lane is the right one which will not be challenged by those in the lanes of might! This strategy is probably the only practical one which will work for, say, Fiji, Mauritius, Tonga, Cuba and the like. Not for a country that is almost a sub continent.(जरा सोचिये )_

This raises another question. Does India have no world view commensurate with its size and strategic importance? Has India not yet woken up to its role, responsibility and power as India the nation? Does it still continue to think small and react like those hundreds of pre-British era kingdoms whose tiny world view virtually ended at the boundaries of their little kingdoms? Or does India still view itself as the age old spiritual and cultural entity it has been rather than the huge political reality that it is today in a world whose map has been, and will continue to be, shaped by power and force, no matter what Indian “delusionists” may tell you?

India’s internal political, bureaucratic and social dynamics are clearly dominated by forces trying to cut up the country into smaller and smaller “estates” and groups whose vested interests they champion as supreme, no matter what happens to the country. The few voices trying to take a larger, holistic national view are invariably drowned out by the force, even blackmail, of small pressure groups fiercely protecting their small turfs.

That is another reason why there is very little serious national political debate, awareness and interest in matters related to foreign policy and India’s engagement with its neighbours. Whatever little there is, is concerned mostly about the effect that any action or response will have on the many constituencies that we have created in babudom and the society. This is the effete and self destructive “soft power” that India projects to the world, garnished with immoral morality.

India is the prime real estate that has been most invaded and attacked in the history of all of mankind. It should, therefore, have logically been most alive to and concerned about the challenges that it faces or may face in future to its standing, interests and even existence. It was the country's economic prosperity and its riches that had repeatedly attracted invaders in the past. Emboldened by the total lack of organized vision and strength, and the prevalence of petty and destructive internal divisions, they were able to achieve easy victories, often with a smaller force.

With so many historical lessons to learn from, including those received after Independence, India should have been fully committed to addressing the mistakes of the past so that history does not repeat itself. But, it is a matter of serious concern that nearly the same weaknesses continue to mark national response to the challenges that the country faces from its aggressive and hostile neighbours, forget the rest of the world.

When are we going to learn what we should have learnt many years ago? Even as China demonstrates its unflinching resolve to aggressively protect its national interest and bullies us into meek submission, there is nothing to suggest that we are even thinking about where we have gone wrong to find ourselves so belittled again, and where we should go from here.

The paralysis appears to be almost complete and irreversible. Perhaps it will take the US to get India to show some movement and spine befitting its size and potential strength. It will do that not because of any moral love for India, but because it will see for India in America’s national interest what India should have seen on its own!

Read Users' Comments (0)

Read Users' Comments (0)

Read Users' Comments (0)

पाक-अफ़ग़ान सीमा पर अमरीका ने तालेबान समेत चरमपंथी संगठनों के ख़िलाफ़ अभियान छेड़ रखा है. मुख्य संघर्ष क्षेत्र नक्शे में दिखाए गए हैं
इस्लामिक चरमपंथ के ख़िलाफ़ लड़ाई में अमरीका ने अफ़ग़ानिस्तान-पाकिस्तान सीमा को नई फ़्रंटलाइन घोषित किया है. कुछ इलाक़ें है जिन्हें चरमपंथियों ने अपना गढ़ बना लिया है. सेना और चरमपंथियों के बीच लगातार वहाँ संघर्ष होता रहता है. प्रमुख इलाक़ों पर नज़र

हेलमंद, चाघई

हेलमंद प्रांत के दक्षिणी मैदानी इलाक़ों में अफ़ग़ानिस्तान सरकार का दबदबा कम ही रहा है. ये तालेबान का मुख्य गढ़ बनकर उभरा है. कुछ दूर पाकिस्तान सीमा पर ब्लूचीस्तान का दूरगामी नोशकी-चाघई इलाक़ा है.
अफ़ग़ान सीमा के पास बारामचा से तालेबान चरमपंथी गतिविधियाँ नियंत्रित करता है. हेलमंद में ब्रितानी सैनिकों का अड्डा है और अतिरिक्त अमरीकी सैनिकों को भी यहाँ तैनात किया गया है.

कंधार, क्वेटा

कंधार को तालेबानी लहर का आध्यात्मिक गढ़ माना जाता है. तालेबान नेता मुल्ला उमर ने इसे मुख्यालय बनाया था जब 1996 में तालेबान सत्ता में आई थी. लादेन समेत अल क़ायदा के नेता भी इसी जगह को तरजीह देते थे.
इसलिए कंधार पर क़ब्ज़ा प्रतिष्ठा का सवाल रहा है. अफ़ग़ानिस्तान में सबसे पहले आत्मघाती हमले कंधार में 2005-06 में हुए थे. हामिद करज़ई पर भी यहाँ हमला हो चुका है
अफ़ग़ान सरकार इस बात में सफल रही है कि उसने कंधार के किसी अहम हिस्से पर तालेबान का क़ब्ज़ा नहीं होने दिया. गठबंधन सेना के भी यहाँ अड्डे हैं. लेकिन ग्रामीण इलाक़ों में तालेबान का दबदबा है ख़ासकर पाक सीमा के पास.
अधिकारियों का कहना है कि कंधार सीमा के पास और पाकिस्तान के ब्लूचिस्तान प्रांत की राजधानी क्वेटा का इस्तेमाल तालेबान छिपने के लिए करता आया है. कुछ लोग मानते हैं मुल्ला उमर कंधार या हेलमंद में छिपे हैं.

स्वात

उत्तर पाकिस्तान में बसी स्वात घाटी में लंबे समय तक ब्रितानी समय की क़ानून व्यवस्था लागू थी लेकिन 90 के दशक में एक अदालत ने इसे ग़ैर क़ानूनी करार दे दिया था.इसके बाद स्वात में इस्लामिक क़ानून लागू करने के लिए स्वात और मालाखंड में हिंसक अभियान शुरु हो गया.
हालांकि 1994 में इस हिंसा का ख़ात्मा कर दिया गया था लेकिन 9/11 हमलों के बाद ये अभियान फिर शुरु हो गया. और इसमें वज़ीरिस्तान, बाजौड़ और दीर ज़िले के चरमपंथी भी शामिल हो गए.
अप्रैल 2009 में सरकार और स्थानीय तालेबान के बीच समझौते के तहत स्वात में शरिया क़ानून लागू हो गया लेकिन समझौते के मुताबिक चरमपंथियों ने हथियार नहीं डाले. चरमपंथियों ने इसी दौरान अपनी पहुँच बुनेर तक बना ली यानी इस्लामाबाद से करीब 100 किलोमीटर दूर. अफ़गान सीमा से सेट दीर ज़िले में चरमपंथियों की मौजूदगी भी अंतरराष्ट्रीय सेना के लिए ख़तरा बनी हुई थी.
स्वात से तालेबान का हटाने के लिए पाकिस्तानी सेना ने 2009 में बड़ा अभियान चलाया. सेना का कहना है कि उसने बहुत सारे इलाक़ों से तालेबान को खदेड़ दिया है. स्वात के मिंगोरा शहर पर मई पर कब्ज़ा कर लिया गया था.

ज़ाबुल

ज़ाबुल कंधार के उत्तर में स्थित है और रिपोर्टों के मुताबिक चरमपंथी इस इलाक़े का इस्तेमाल विशेष परिस्थितियों में करते हैं. वर्ष 2002 में तालेबान चरमपंथी अमरीकी अभियान के बाद भाग रहे थे तो वे ज़ाबुल के ज़रिए ही अफ़ग़ानिस्तान में दोबारा घुसे थे.
ज़ाबुल के ज़रिए अफ़गानिस्तान के ग़ज़नी, उरुज़गान और कंधार इलाक़ों तक पहुँच बनाई जा सकती है. इस इलाक़े में बहुत कम गठबंधन सेना के सैनिक मौजूद हैं. चरमपंथियों के कारण यहाँ के हाईवे पर अधिकारी या राहतकर्मी यात्रा नहीं करते.

कुर्रम, औरकज़ई, खाइबर

पाक-अफ़गान सीमा से अफ़ग़ानिस्तान की राजधानी काबुल (56 कीलोमीटर की दूरी) पर अभियान चलाने के लिए कुर्रम सबसे अच्छी जगह है. लेकिन ये शिया बहुल इलाक़ा है जो धार्मिक कारणों से तालेबान के विरोधी रहे हैं. इसलिए तालेबान यहाँ गढ़ नहीं बना पाया है.

दक्षिण वज़ीरिस्तान

पाकिस्तान के फ़ाटा का कबायली ज़िला दक्षिण वज़ीरिस्तान अफ़ग़ानिस्तान के बाहर इस्लामिक चरमपंथियों का पहला गढ़ माना जाता है. तोरा-बोरा से निकाले गए चरमपंथियों ने 2001 के बाद यहीं शरण ले थी. दक्षिणी वज़ीरिस्तान के पूर्वी हिस्से में महसूद कबीले के लोग रहते हैं और मुख्य कमांडर बैतुल्ला महसूद रहे हैं. हालांकि वे ज़िंदा है या नहीं इसे लेकर संशय की स्थिति बनी हुई है. वे पाकिस्तान में सबसे बड़े चरमपंथी संगठन के नेता माने जाते हैं. महसूद ने 2006 में तहरीक तालेबान पाकिस्तान संगठन बनाया था.

Read Users' Comments (0)

When the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington released the Global Hunger Index (GHI) in October 2008, India’s rank was dismal in 66th position out of 88 countries.

The GHI of India was 23.70, sand witched between 23.53 of Burkina Faso and 23.83 of Zimbabwe, the 65th and 67th rank holders respectively. In fact, India’s performance on hunger elimination during the last 18 years was stated to be ‘lack luster’ by IFPRI, because the index declined only marginally from 32.5 in 1990 to 23.7 in 2008. Except Bangladesh with GHI of 25.7 (rank 70), other neighbouring countries Pakistan 21.7 (61), Nepal 20.57 (57) and Sri Lanka 15.0 (40) were better than India.

That population pressure was not the cause for higher index was proved by highly populated China with GHI of only 7.07 in 15th rank, when compared to India’s 23.7 ranked at 66. South East Asian countries are much better than India with regard to GHI ranks: Malaysia – 10, Thailand – 23, Indonesia – 27, Vietnam – 32 and Philippines – 35.

There is no comparison between India and Ethiopia in terms of geographical area, population, economic growth, but it is most depressing that India, especially one of its States, endowed with all richness both natural and human resources, should get placed along with Ethiopia, a poor Nation with many negative features reflecting on the very existence of people.

Pathetically most Ethiopians have limited resources to reduce poverty, hunger, diseases and are shelter less, while India has absolutely no reason to host nearly 250 million people who do not get square meals each day and go hungry for prolonged period leading to unreported starvation deaths. India boasts of few richest people, according to the USA’s Forbes magazine, in business/corporate sectors, high economic growth, sufficient food production, but ironically abject poverty and acute ‘hunger’ coexists with miserable situation.

With a staggering population profile, Indian States also present a grim scenario of people below poverty line (BPL), with as high as 40% in Orissa, between 32% to 35% in Chattisgarh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand. Even Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh have population BPL at 25%; other States recorded BPL below 20%, with Punjab being the lowest in BPL of 5.5%.

However, the level of BPL does not always reflect on India State Hunger Index (ISHI). For instance, even though the BPL was the highest recorded (40%) in Orissa the ISHI was only 23.7 (ranked 66, similar to India rank), whereas Madhya Pradesh with 33.5% BPL recorded the highest ISHI of 30.9, the extremely alarming category, hence ranked between Chad (rank 81) and Ethiopia (82). Even the first ranked Punjab within India with ISHI of 13.64 is in fact between Nicaragua (GHI, 12.80) and Ghana (GHI, 13.93) ranked 33 and 34 respectively.

Based on GHI in 88 countries, IFPRI categorized India under ‘serious (HI 10.0 to 19.9) to alarming (20.0 to 29.9) to extremely alarming’ (>30.0) Nations. The implications are clear on the policies to eliminate hunger. Thus, Madhya Pradesh achieved the dubious distinction of being placed under extremely alarming group along with Ethiopia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Niger, Burundi, Eritrea and Congo, ranks 82 to 88. Punjab, Kerala, Haryana and Assam come under ‘serious’ hunger group, whereas 12 States namely Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Karnataka, Orissa, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Chattisgarh, Bihar and Jharkhand with increasing order of ISHI between 20.0 to 29.9 fall under ‘alarming’ hunger group.

According to IFPRI three factors contribute to hunger index, namely proportion of population under nourished (PUN), prevalence of under weight in children under five years age (CUW) and proportion of children dying before the age of five i.e mortality rate (CM). During 2001-2006, PUN was 20% in India as compared to 47% in Zimbabwe and 15% in Burkina Faso, but in child under weight India fared badly with 42.5% as against 35.2% and 14.0% in Burkina Faso and Zimbabwe respectively.

The child mortality was higher in B.faso 20.4% than in Zimbabwe 10.5% and India 7.6%. Thus, Asia’s one of the giant Nations India has to share with relatively small African Nations in view of the factors that reflected on overall GHI. Many Indian States are responsible for this dismal position, the worst being Madhya Pradesh.

What made the State to mimic Ethiopia? Although the PUN (23.4%) and CM (9.4%) in Madhya Pradesh was less than Ethiopia (46.0% and 12.3% respectively), but in terms of under weight children below five years Madhya Pradesh with 59.9% surpassed even Ethiopia’s 34.6%. In fact, Madhya Pradesh is the only place in the entire world with such high percentage of underweight children, the two other States being Jharkhand (57.1%) and Bihar (56.1%). On this account India ranks first with highest underweight children (43.5%), followed by Yemen Republic (41.3%).

If food production of Madhya Pradesh and Ethiopia were to be compared, then the former would be at much higher pedestal than Ethiopia. Then why are the poor children of Madhya Pradesh exposed to acute malnutrition worse than even their counterparts in Ethiopia?

The answer lies not in total food production in the State which is adequate, but in accessibility to the poorest of the poor reflecting on faulty distribution system and total lack of humanitarian concern on food security and child welfare. Affected children deserve not only sympathy but remedial measures to provide robust health. This is the duty of the Governments.

As reported recently in Uttar Pradesh, the life of children below five years in Madhya Pradesh is in extreme danger, as also in other States. The alarming bells have already been rung on the state of the health of the poorest of poor children, but the concerned ministries at the Center and State seem to be so insensitive that the scenario does not show improvement. It is any body’s guess as to how many children are going to lose their lives for the fault of those governing the country.

They have the right to live but not allowed by the cankerous system plaguing the Nation. Ethiopia may be utterly helpless but not India which lacks strong will to make the Nation totally hunger-free. Each child mortality should be viewed as a future asset as youth and Nation builder lost due to ignorance and indifference to the very fundamentals of hunger among the budding children. Extra ordinary steps are needed to rescue India as a whole on hunger front with unprecedented political will.

Read Users' Comments (0)

From the perspective of the international negotiations on climate change, the most significant outcome of the recently concluded G8 Summit at L’Aquila, Italy, was the acknowledgement in the declaration of the essential scientific fact that global average temperature above pre-industrialisation levels should not exceed 2°Celsius. This has at least brought the United States, a non-signatory to the Kyoto Protocol in spite of being the highest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, on board. Hopefully, it will now undertake emission reductions at Copenhagen for the Protocols second commitment period beyond 2012.

However, the Waxman-Merkey Bill (H.R. 2454), recently passed by the House of Representatives, may belie that hope. The very weak caps that it proposes on U.S. domestic GHG emissions by 2050 (17 per cent of 2005 levels, which are themselves about 17 per cent above the UNFCCC baseline of 1990 levels) are a matter of concern. From the perspective of developing countries, however, there are other serious issues that emerge from the various declarations at the Summit. The unwarranted controversy around India signing the Major Economies Forum (MEF) declaration (see The Hindu, July 28) has had the unfortunate effect of the more substantive issues being ignored.

For instance, even as it endorses a global emissions reduction by 50 per cent by 2050, the G8 declaration is totally non-specific about targets for the developed countries (the Annex-1 countries). The espoused reduction by 2050 is only by 80 per cent and that too is non-committal as it speaks only of supporting such a goal. This is significantly lesser than the 85 per cent global cut from the 2000 levels (equivalent to over 90 per cent cut for the Annex-1 countries) that the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for.

More pertinently, the base year has been deliberately left ambiguous. This is significant because world emissions have grown by about 1.1 per cent every year during the 1990s and by about 3 per cent a year from 2000-08. Further, while the IPCC calls for peaking by 2015 and the G8 declaration speaks of peaking as soon as possible, there is no indication of the peaking year. Even as it mentions robust aggregate and individual mid-term reductions, it has not even specified what mid-term is, let alone targets for it.

According to a recent paper in Nature by Malte Meinhausen and others, with a 50 per cent reduction in global GHG emissions by 2050 (from the 1990 levels), there is a 12-45 per cent probability of exceeding the 2°C warming. An illustrative plausible scenario predicts a 29 per cent chance of exceeding 2°C. A 50 per cent cut from 2000 or present levels would, obviously, mean a higher probability of exceeding 2°C.

For the scenarios considered, the papers method yields a 53-87 per cent probability of overshooting the 2 limit if the global emissions in 2020 are still more than 25 per cent above the 2000 levels. To contain the warming under 2°C with 75 per cent chance, the estimated emission budget till 2050 is 1000 giga (billion) tonnes of CO{-2} and the world has already emitted nearly 284 Gt during 2000-06. The danger of the worlds emissions exceeding the 2000 levels by 25 per cent in 2020 thus remains real unless the Annex-1 countries adopt drastic reduction targets for 2020 and 2050.

Indeed, the G8s failure in stating its mid-term emission targets shows its lack of seriousness in reducing emissions. This failure elicited criticism from none other than the U.N. Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon. Much more, he said in his statement on July 9, needs to be done if governments are to seal the deal on a new climate agreement in Copenhagen. Welcoming the agreement by the G8 on its goal of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, he added: For this to be credible, however, we need ambitious mid-term targets [of 25-40 per cent below the 1990 levels], and clear baselines … It is disappointing to note that thus far, the mid-term targets announced by the developed countries [of 10-15 per cent] … are not in this range. In fact, the G5 declaration had demanded a 40 per cent cut by 2020 from the 1990 levels.

Also, the approach to achieve the ambitious target of reducing the developed countries emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 is largely through market mechanisms despite the serious imperfections in them. This agenda is elaborated in Para 69 of the statement: We support flexible, economically sound market-based approach to emission reductions … With a view to … facilitate action under the global post-2012 agreement, we commit to … Support the development, reform and enhancement of project, programmatic and policy-based offset mechanisms, including Kyoto Protocols Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) … [and] Work with others to further develop market mechanisms under the Copenhagen agreement to possibly including sectoral trading and sectoral crediting mechanisms, to enhance the participation of emerging economies and developing countries in the market ...

Taking as an illustrative example the proposals mooted by the U.K. to meet the G8 target of reducing emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, George Monbiot of The Guardian strongly criticised the proposed offset-based emission reductions. Apparently, under its new policy on carbon reduction, the U.K. proposes to meet half of this commitment through offsets. That is, it would reduce domestic emissions only by 40 per cent. If all the Annex-1 countries were to buy reductions to this extent from the developing countries, the latter would end up cutting their current emissions by 60 per cent while the former cut only by 40 per cent, he pointed out. Further, the last part of the above quote is, in fact, indicative of an attempt to push sectoral efficiency and energy intensity (carbon footprint) standards and establish new mechanisms of sectoral carbon credits and trading in them.

Unfortunately, given the visible tendency in China and India to seek maximum monetary inflows through the CDM, and the undue importance India is giving to domestic trading in credits under its mitigation programmes, the G5 declaration has refrained from emphasising the inadequacy of market mechanisms and rejecting the idea of sectoral norms. Considering that the G5 declaration was issued a day before such a position could have pre-empted the G8 statement in this regard. The MEF declaration to which G5 is a party, in fact, has gone further to actually endorse this faulty premise. It says: Financing to address climate change will derive from multiple sources, including public and private funds and carbon markets (emphasis added).

There is also an element of contradiction in the various declarations from the perspective of the developing countries. Take for instance the burden sharing principle of the UNFCCC (Art. 4.7), namely access to and transfer of low-carbon and other renewable technologies, financing and capacity building. While the G5 declaration has stressed this, there is no firm commitment in this regard in the declarations involving the G8. More importantly, in none of the declarations to which the G5 is a party, including the G5 Declaration on Trade, has the key issue of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), which has proved to be the key barrier to the availability and transfer of technologies relevant to climate change, has been flagged. On the contrary, the G8 declaration says: [W]e stress the role of an efficient system of IPRs to foster innovation.

While, surprisingly, the MEF declaration does not refer to the WTO, both the G5 and the G8+G5 declarations have endorsed the WTO regime and reaffirmed their commitment to maintain and promote open markets and reject all protectionist measures in trade and investment that are incongruous to the WTO. This would, in particular, imply acceptance of the TRIPS regime even for low-carbon and renewable energy technologies.

As regards the issue of financing mitigation measures in developing countries, the G5 declaration says: [W]e express our interest in continuing to consider proposal to establish international financing arrangements, including Mexicos Green Fund [MGF] proposal and to set financing goals so that developed countries will contribute a set percentage of their annual GDP, in addition to their contributions to ODA, among others, to ensure adequate, predictable and continuous financial resources …

But in the G8s response there are only platitudes. Its declaration, in particular, mentions the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the World Banks Climate Investment Funds as the only appropriate funding instruments. The MEF, on the other hand, has only agreed to further consider proposals for … international funding arrangements, including the MGF. In sum, therefore, the G8 Summit has delivered precious little on climate change for the developing countries even as the developed countries have hailed the consensus on the 2°C limit as a major achievement.

The G8 summit has delivered precious little on climate change for the developing countries even as the developed countries have hailed the consensus on the 2°C limit as a major achievement.

Read Users' Comments (0)

पॉइंट्स अत शोर्ट

1. Swami Vivekananda who introduced Yoga and Vedanta to America.
2. he introduced Eastern thought at the World's Parliament of Religions.
3. Despite being one of the pioneers and founding members of the Non-Aligned Movement, India developed a closer relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War
4. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, India began to review its foreign policy in a unipolar world
5. closer ties with the European Union and the United States.
6. Clinton and Bush administration, relations between India and the United States blossomed
7. over common concerns regarding growing Islamic extremism
8. slight downturn in India-U.S. relations following the election of Barack Obama as the President of the United States in 2009.
9. Obama administration's desire to increase relations with China
10. After Indian independence until the end of the cold war, the relationship between the two nations has often been thorny.
11. Barack Obama's protectionist views on dealing with the economic crisis.
12. Dwight Eisenhower was the first U.S. President to visit India in 1959.
13. John F. Kennedy's period as President, he saw India as a strategic partner against the rise of communist China.
14. From 1961 to 1963 there was a promise to help set up a large steel mill in Bokaro that was withdrawn by the U.S.
15. 1965 and 1971 Indo-Pakistani wars did not help their relations.
16. Atal Bihari Vajpayee became Indian Prime Minister, he authorized a nuclear weapons test in Pokhran, which got the immediate attention of the US.
17. In March 2000, President Bill Clinton visited India
18. He had bilateral and economic discussions with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee
19. During the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the , President George W. Bush chose India as the country to control and police the Indian Ocean sea-lanes from the Suez to Singapore.
20. The tsunami that occurred in December 2004 saw the U.S. and Indian navies to work together
21. An Open Skies Agreement was made in April 2005
22. Air India purchased 68 U.S. Boeing aircraft, which cost $8 billion.
23. After Hurricane Katrina, India donated $5 million to the American Red Cross and sent 2 plane loads
24. U.S. base in the Indian Ocean, Diego Garcia
25. Major items exported by India to the U.S. include Information Technology Services, textiles, machinery, ITeS, gems and diamonds, chemicals, iron and steel products, coffee, tea, and other edible food products.
26. Major American items imported by India include aircraft, fertilizers, computer hardware, scrap metal and medical equipment.
27. In July 2005, President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh created a new program called the Trade Policy Forum
28. interaction of companies from both countries regarding new policies related to Indian media and broadcasting.
29. The Foreign Policy magazine reported that even though Foreign Policy Staff of the previous administration had recommended India as a "key stop"
30. India's National Security Adviser, M.K. Narayanan, criticized the Obama administration for linking the Kashmir dispute to the instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan
31. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a close aide of India's main opposition party the BJP, said that if the United States continues with its anti-outsourcing policies, then India will "have to take steps to hurt American companies in India.
32. Obama administration cleared the US$2.1 billion sale of eight P-8 Poseidons to India
33. strengthening of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and has pressurized India to sign the agreement.
34. Shyam Saran, "warned" the United States that India would continue to oppose any such treaty as it was "discriminatory".
35. U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen encouraged stronger military ties between India and the United States

Read Users' Comments (0)

Forced out of power in Afghanistan in 2001, the Taliban remains an oppressively domineering militia outside the bounds of civilised, humane conduct. By abducting and killing the Indian telecom engineer, K. Suryanarayana, without giving Indian officialdom any space for negotiating his release, the Taliban reinforced its image as a beyond-the-pale outfit rooted in obscurantism in the name of religion. According to one report,

Suryanarayana was shot dead when he attempted to flee captivity; his body was found beheaded.

But irrespective of the immediate circumstances surrounding the tragedy, the Taliban had really no intention of sticking to the deadline it set for the withdrawal of all Indians working in Afghanistan. The 24-hour deadline itself was unrealistic, a clear indicator that the plan behind the abduction was to shock and awe the people of India — not wrest any concessions. From the beginning, the Taliban seemed intent on forcing India to disengage itself from any form of cooperation with the changed order in Afghanistan. Significantly, the killing came within weeks of a high-profile visit to India by President Hamid Karzai. Last year, Maniappan Raman Kutty was killed within a couple of months of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to Afghanistan and within days of India awarding the Indira Gandhi Peace Prize to Mr. Karzai. By all accounts, the Taliban appears to resent India's growing involvement in the development of Afghanistan's infrastructure, and its repeated endorsement of the leadership of Mr. Karzai. Following the United States-led invasion in 2001, New Delhi ended its deep association with the Northern Alliance; since it was not involved in the military action, the Taliban did not identify it as an "enemy." However, the situation has changed over the past two years on account of the personal rapport Mr. Karzai has built with the Indian leadership. For the Taliban, India is now a collaborator — and a soft target.

From the Indian perspective, a close relationship with Afghanistan is desirable. Among other things, it helps to neutralise Islamabad's clout in the region. Sections within the Pakistan establishment have used the Taliban as a weapon against India. A committed relationship with the Karzai Government has its strategic advantages, but New Delhi must take care not to be perceived as embodying an extension of American interests in Kabul. Without being seen as succumbing to vile acts of terrorism, India should re-evaluate its current policy of close identification with specific political factions within Afghanistan. However much security measures are strengthened for the 2,000 Indian nationals working in Afghanistan, there can be no protection against the threat of abduction from free-roaming outlaws. The challenge before India is to increase its stake in the long-term development of Afghanistan and strengthen people-to-people contacts without appearing to take sides in the political factional wars in that country.

Read Users' Comments (0)