Showing posts with label International Relation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Relation. Show all posts

A New Engagement (Editorial abt relation betwwen India and Arab World in context of Libya !!!)


With each passing day, it becomes more certain that Libya's revolution will not be resolved as swiftly and bloodlessly as Tunisia's and Egypt's did. The Gaddafi clan does not mean to go quietly, and with a section of the military backing them to the hilt, the country is teetering on the brink of civil war.

Meanwhile, the Gulf states watch anxiously while scrambling to use a mixture of palliative measures and heavy-handedness to pacify their own restive populaces. The UN continues to condemn the Libyan regime. Iran is subject to democracy pressures itself but jostles for advantage in West Asia and North Africa.

It's a difficult situation for New Delhi. When the people's push for democracy had momentum as it did in Tunisia and Egypt, deciding on a policy was relatively easier. But in the far murkier waters of Libya and the Gulf where the tussle could be a protracted one, calibrating a response becomes far more difficult. Consider the stakes for New Delhi.

The UAE overtook the US in 2008-09 to become India's largest trading partner, a position it continues to hold today. India's energy security calculus revolves around the region as well. Currently, it is the sixth largest net importer of oil in the world - it's expected to be the fourth largest by 2025 - and imports 70% of its oil needs. Of those imports, 70% comes from the Middle East. Factor in the massive Indian diasporas in the Gulf countries and the complexity of the problem becomes clear.

New Delhi's policy of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states has stood it in good stead in the past, and there is no need to abandon it in case of the turmoil roiling the Arab world. However, it does present an opportunity to project New Delhi's soft power, which is considerable in the region. It presents a working democratic model in a sociocultural environment far closer to the Gulf's than western democracies are - and with none of the political baggage of the latter.

Leveraging this soft power will require a multi-pronged effort. A start could be made by helping set up the electoral process in Egypt as the US has already requested, to the extent called for by the Egyptians. Participating in diplomatic, humanitarian and democracy-building initiatives in the region whenever asked for, while deepening civil society engagement - are all options. It will not be an easy process. But it is in New Delhi's interests to start such an engagement and seize the opportunities that open up.


Source-- TOI



Read Users' Comments (0)

Sudan's Secession Crisis


 Can South Part with North without a war ?


Under the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, the 2005 deal that ended the lengthy civil war between the north and the south of Sudan, voters in the south are supposed to vote on January 9, 2011, to decide whether their region should secede and form the world's newest country. 

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCr4AiXzusGRiZTQf4E6zx_Dq_Z7ze3DvE3RkoUL34y6cB2OVP

The civil war, which lasted 22 years and during which an estimated 2.5 million southerners died, was fought over several issues: the central government's long-standing neglect of Sudan's periphery; the excessive concentration of jobs, wealth, and public services in the region known as the Arab triangle, along the northern part of the Nile River valley; the government's brutal attempts to impose Arab culture and Islam on the south, where Christianity and traditional religions prevail; its persistent refusal to grant the south any autonomy (except for a brief period in the 1970s); and its exploitation of the south's resources, particularly its oil, to fill government coffers. 

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which was signed by Omar al-Bashir, the president of Sudan, and John Garang, the leader of the southern rebellion, who was killed in a helicopter crash soon after the deal, was intended to correct some of these problems. It gave the south its own semiautonomous government and an independent standing army and required the upcoming referendum on secession. But now Khartoum's stalling tactics are threatening to delay the vote, with potentially disastrous consequences.

                          India and Sudan
Indo-Sudanese relations have always been characterized as longstanding, close, and friendly, even since the early development stages of their countries. The two nations established diplomatic relations shortly after India became known as one of the first Asian countries to recognize the newly independent African country. India and Sudan also share geographic and historical similarities, as well as economic interests. Both countries are former British colonies, and remotely border Saudi Arabia by means of a body of water. India and Sudan continue to have cordial relations, despite issues such as India's close relationship with Israel, India's solidarity with Egypt over border issues with Sudan, and Sudan's intimate bonds with Pakistan and Bangladesh. 

India had also contributed some troops as United Nations peacekeeping force in Darfur.



Read Users' Comments (0)

INDIA-BANGLADESH RELATIONS

Bangladesh

Read Users' Comments (0)

India – Netherlands Relations


Introduction : Netherlands is one of the largest investor in India today, with
longstanding connections that go back to several centuries.
 
Political Relations : Independent India was, in Dutch eyes, a developing country and a
sturdy democracy, but one struggling at that time, with several political, social and
economic issues. While there were some bilateral visits (Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru in 1957; Crown Princess Beatrix in 1962) the Netherlands was engaged in
rebuilding its economy after World War II in an emerging Europe. The Netherlands’
focus on India increased after the economic liberalization programme gathered
momentum in the 1990s. Prime Minister Wim Kok’s visit to India in November 1999
Dutch government and business circles have, recently begun to move systematically
towards expanding trade, investment and technological cooperation.
The Netherlands is an important player in the global energy market and is a member of
NSG.
Notwithstanding, its staunch position on global non-proliferation regime, it showed
understanding for India’s case for civilian nuclear cooperation and played a constructive
role during the recent NSG deliberations on India’s specific safeguard agreement.
Recent Exchange of High Level Visits between India and the Netherlands
There has been several high level visits from Netherlands to India in the recent past..
These include the second State Visit of HM Queen Beatrix’ second State visit to India,
visit of Dutch PM Balkenende and the visits of Dutch Foreign Trade Minister and Dutch
Minister for Transport, Public Works and Water Management.
From the Indian side, high level visits to Netherlands include the visits of Hon’ble Prime
Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, Hon’ble Minister of S&T Hon’ble Minister of State for
Food Processing Industries Shri Kapil Sibal, , Shri Subodh Kant Sahai, Hon’ble Minister
of Overseas Indian Affairs, Shri Vayalar Ravi, Hon’ble Minister of Law & Justice Shri
H.R. Bhardwaj, President ICCR Dr. Karan Singh, Hon’ble Finance Minister Shri P.
Chidambaram .
Commercial and Economic Relations : Two-way trade with the Netherlands has
shown a growth of over 112.77% during the period 2004-2008 and stood at Euro 3.70
billion during Jan-November 2009. The balance of trade has been in India’s favour for
the past several years. Cumulative Dutch investment in India has grown to nearly USD
4 billion in the period April 2000 till Dec 2009 (provisional), accounting for 5% of total
inflows, making it the fifth largest investor in India.

Most Dutch commercial and financial
giants – Philips, Shell, Unilever (Hindustan Lever in India), KLM,

the three big banks –
ABN AMRO, ING and Rabobank – and others – have had a growing and successful
presence in India.
 
The main Indian exports to the Netherlands are: textiles & garments; electric machinery
& equipment; agricultural products and processed foods, including marine products;
leather goods; cars and other vehicles; organic chemicals; rubber, plastics & works
thereof; mineral and metal products.

The main products imported from the Netherlands
to India are: machinery & equipment; medical and optical instruments; chemicals;
plastics & articles thereof; metal products.
Main Bilateral Treaties and Agreements
Various agreements, which together constitute a comprehensive framework for
bilateral co-operation, are operational between India and the Netherlands. These include
agreements on Air Services (May 1951), Mutual Surrender of Fugitive Criminals (Anglo –
Dutch Treaty of 1898 effected in 1971), Economic and Technical Cooperation (February
1983), Cooperation in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry (June 1984, September 1990),
MoU on Cultural Cooperation (October 2007), Scientific Cooperation (July and
November 1985 respectively), Telecommunication (September 1987), Environmental
cooperation (January 1988), Avoidance of Double Taxation and Prevention of Fiscal
Evasion (July 1988), Promotion and Protection of Investments (November 1995), and
Investment Promotion (February 2004).Social Security Agreement (October 2009).
Multilateral Economic Cooperation
The Netherlands has cooperated closely and effectively with India in
multilateral trade fora such as the WTO, as also within the EU. It has been generally
supportive of India’s positions in particular, on issues such as anti-dumping measures
and attempts to link labour and environment factors with trade.
Culture and Education
There has been a steady flow of educational exchanges for over 50 years, in
fields ranging from Indology to contemporary developmental issues. In a significant
development in November 2008, ICCR announced its decision to support Leiden
University’s proposal for establishment of the first ever long-term Chair on Contemporary
Indian Studies.
The main institutes actively involved in Indian cultural, educational and related
promotional activities in the Netherlands are:

(i) Kern Institute, University of Leiden
(ii) The Institute of Social Studies
(iii) Rotterdam Conservatorium, Rotterdam
(iv) India Institute Amsterdam and Hindi Parishad
NRI/PIO community
28. There are about 20,000 NRIs / PIOs (not including the Dutch-Surinamese-
Hindustani community of Indian origin) in the Netherlands, out of which around 13000
have already obtained Dutch nationality. These NRIs/PIOs are mostly businesspersons
or professionals. In addition, there are about 180,000 Dutch-Surinamese-Hindustani of
Indian origin. They have Dutch nationality and are wholly integrated into the local
society.
Air links with India/convenient travel routes
KLM (Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij) operates daily direct flights to Delhi, Hyderabad and with North-West
Airlines to Mumbai. Several alternative routes via Frankfurt, Moscow, London, Paris, and
Vienna are also available on, inter alia, Air India.
***

Read Users' Comments (0)

Full Text of PM’s Remarks at the G-20 Meeting at Pittsburgh: Plenary Session

Following is the text of the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh’s remarks at the Plenary Session of G-20 Meeting at Pittsburgh:

"Mr. President, let me begin by thanking you for the excellent arrangements made for this Summit and for your warm hospitality.

We have discussed the complex challenges posed by the need to revive the global economy. I would like to focus on what this implies for the developing countries.

We all know that these countries were in no way responsible for the crisis, but in many ways, they are the hardest hit. In the seven years before the crisis, the GDP of the developing countries grew at an average of 6.5 per cent per year. In 2009 it will grow by only 1.5 per cent, implying a fall in real per capita income.

Of course, experience varies across countries. Countries in Asia have generally fared much better. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa and in many other regions have been very badly hit.

India too has been affected but, in common with other Asian countries, we have weathered the crisis relatively well given the circumstances. After growing at 9 per cent per year for four years our economy slowed down to 6.7 per cent in 2008-09. In 2009, despite a drought, which will affect agricultural production, we expect to grow by around 6.3 per cent in 2009-10 and then recover to 7 to 7.5 percent growth next year. This relatively strong performance is partly due to the strong stimulus measures introduced in the second half of 2008-09, which have been continued in the current financial year.

However, the fact that some of us have fared relatively well does not mean that the crisis has not affected the developing world significantly. The fact that the growth of developing countries as a group will fall to 1.5 per cent indicates the extent of the impact.

An estimated 90 million people in the developing world are likely to be pushed below the poverty line. Lower revenues will also lead to lower levels of expenditure on rural infrastructure, health and education. This will not only hurt future growth, but also delay achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Social and political tensions could increase, undermining the national consensus in support of much needed structural reforms and adjustment.

The prospects of convergence, which seemed bright before the crisis, have receded. We must take steps to counter these developments and restore the momentum of growth in the developing world.

First, the problem must be tackled at its root by ensuring the quickest possible return to normalcy in the global economy. This requires a commitment that we will not undertake any premature withdrawal of stimulus. We must certainly plan for an orderly “exit” when the time is right, but that time is not now. The global economy may be bottoming out, but it is not expected to reach 3% growth until the end of 2010.

The depressed state of the global economy translates into a considerable loss of export demand for the developing countries. Exports of non-oil developing countries are expected to decline by about $900 billion in 2009, compared to the previous year. They will remain well below the trajectory earlier projected for several years. This is bound to reduce production, incomes and employment in the developing countries.

The measures taken by the G-20 to increase the flow of assistance will help, and they certainly represent an important achievement in international cooperation. However, the scale of the transfers we have planned will only help the developing countries to manage their balance of payments at depressed levels of economic activity. They cannot counter the effect of the loss of exports.

To resuscitate growth in the developing countries, we have to replace lost export demand by expanding other components of domestic demand. The best option is to expand investment. An obvious area where additional investment is needed in developing countries is infrastructure, including energy, transport and other infrastructure for public services. These investments can be made ahead of requirements and therefore are an ideal form of countercyclical activity.

The World Bank and the other regional development banks can play a major role by financing such investment. They should expand lending for infrastructure development to emerging market countries which have relied on capital markets in more normal times, but will need support in the medium run, till capital markets recover. The poorer, low-income countries had very little access to capital markets. For them, financing on suitable terms may have to be made available for an even longer period.

A strategy of expanding investment demand in developing countries to replace lost export demand will not only help growth in developing countries, it will also contribute to a broader global revival. This is because the import content of investment is typically higher than of exports, which means a significant percentage of the initial increase in demand will spill over into the global economy.

The World Bank has announced that the volume of IBRD lending would be increased to $100 billion over the next three years. This is commendable. However, if the capital base of the IBRD is not expanded, they will have to compress lending at the end of the three year period to less than the pre-crisis level. This is surely not acceptable.

There is, therefore, an overwhelming case for doubling the capital of the IBRD. Similar increases in capital are needed for the other regional development banks also.

I realize there may be hesitation in committing additional public resources for recapitalization. However, we must keep in mind that what is needed for these institutions is small compared to the massive scale of public money used to stabilize the private financial system in industrialized countries. Some additional effort is surely justified to help the developing countries to cope with the spillover effects of a crisis for which they were not responsible.

Finally, Mr. President, a word on trade. The collapse in export markets makes it all the more important that the market access of developing countries is not constrained by protectionism. I recognize that when growth is low, and unemployment is high, it is inevitable that protectionist pressures will arise. It will be a test of the collective political leadership of this Group, whether we are able to resist these pressures in our countries. I am happy to note that the Delhi Ministerial succeeded in reviving momentum for the Doha Round negotiations. I venture to suggest that this is an area where the industrial countries can give a lead to achieve a successful outcome.

We have done a great deal on finance and what remains is easily doable. We need to address the difficult tasks on the trade front which are now more important for the medium term."

Read Users' Comments (0)

Pakistan policy: Sharm-el-Sheikh and after

It has been clear for some years now that India is unable to fully comprehend or address the complexities of a changing Pakistan. Not surprisingly, New Delhi’s policies have floundered, if not failed. Strident debates in the Indian media — frightening in their Manichaean simplicity — reflect a lack of appreciation of the intricacies of the Gordian knot of bilateral relations.

Unlike much of the establishment, however, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh — by pinning Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani to a joint statement at Sharm-el-Sheikh and then by warning the Chief Ministers of Indian states of the dangers of a terrorist attack from Pakistan-based groups — may have addressed part of the core problem: there are multiple Pakistans all of which demand Indian attention. Robust if differentiated, focussed but flexible, multitrack responses must now define India’s policy towards Pakistan’s fragile and fragmented political and social structure.

Not only the deep cleavages within Pakistan’s society but also — surprisingly — the overwhelming popular desire now for better relations with India are revealed in two recent surveys of public opinion in that country, conducted by Gallup Pakistan and by the Pew Research Centre’s Global Attitudes Project which included 24 countries (including Pakistan) and the Palestinian territories. The findings should also serve as a warning to New Delhi of the dangers of “outsourcing” its Pakistan policy to Washington.

Three findings from both surveys stand out. First, as expected, is the high level of anti-Americanism among the Pakistanis. In the Pew survey, 68 per cent of the respondents have expressed a negative opinion of the U.S. Only 16 per cent have a positive view, and 64 per cent consider the U.S. more an enemy than a friend. American President Barack Obama receives the lowest ratings in Pakistan among all 25 nations surveyed as part of the Pew project. The Gallup Poll too reveals the all pervasive nature of Pakistani sentiment against the U.S. Fifty-nine per cent consider the U.S. the greatest threat to the country. Not surprisingly, American policy in Afghanistan receives very little support.

Secondly, both surveys suggest that there is a strong public desire for better relations with India even among those sections which consider their eastern neighbour a major threat. The Gallup Survey suggests that only 18 per cent consider India the greatest threat, and interestingly the figure is the highest among those likely to vote for either the MQM or the ANP and lowest among Sindhi speakers. Women are more likely to be anti-American than anti-India. According to the Pew survey, 69 per cent of the respondents do consider India a major threat, but two-thirds believe it is important for relations between Islamabad and New Delhi to improve. Over a third of those polled believe that having good relations with India is very important. Apprehensions about India are the highest in Punjab, where 70 per cent cite India as the greatest threat to the country, while a majority in Sindh and the NWFP consider the Taliban a bigger threat.

Finally, it seems that there is a process of deep churning within Pakistan’s multiple “societies,” which seems to translate, at the moment, into almost schizophrenic responses on key issues of identity. This is most clearly reflected in attitudes towards the al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and “severe laws” associated with these groups.

instance, in the Pew survey, there is little support for the Taliban and the al-Qaeda. Fifty-seven per cent consider the Taliban and 41 per cent consider the al-Qaeda a serious threat to the country. Forty one per cent in the Gallup poll support military action against the Taliban. And yet there is also considerable support for the harsh punishments imposed by these extremist groups. Seventy-eight per cent favour death for those who leave Islam; 80 per cent support whipping and cutting hands for theft and robbery; and 83 per cent favour stoning adulterers. And yet, 87 per cent of Pakistanis believe that it is equally important for boys and girls to be educated, in contrast to the Taliban’s thinking.

The poll finds that support for suicide bombing remains very low. In terms of credibility of institutions, the army, the media and the judiciary receive high approval while the Inter-Services Intelligence, the police and the national government get much less support.

These findings need to be studied carefully but if they are indeed reflective of real trends, they suggest what has always been intuitively obvious: India’s Pakistan policy has not succeeded because, while remaining a prisoner of past dogmas, it has been unable to respond to the multiple political and social forces in Pakistan that need to be understood and addressed.

The strategic community in India has traditionally been overwhelmingly in support of a policy of aggressively countering Pakistan. These are the Subedars. Only a minority, the Saudagars, has wanted to ignore and benignly neglect Islamabad or integrate it economically. A microscopic few, however, want New Delhi to be proactive in promoting peace, even to the extent of making unilateral concessions. These are the Sufis.

But these strands cannot afford today to remain in opposition to one another. The need of the hour is for the Subedars, the Saudagars and the Sufis to come together and shape a new Pakistan policy. At a time when it has become risky to invoke Mohammad Ali Jinnah, it is still important to recall his original design for the state: Muslim, Moderate and Modern. It is this Pakistan that an Indian strategy must systematically work towards constructing. In the present scenario, Indian policy must have at least the following strands.

First, India needs to build strong defensive and offensive capabilities to deter “asymmetric” attacks by non-state actors which may have the backing of elements of the Pakistani establishment. Nuclear weapons, at the end of the day, will only deter nuclear weapons and, at best, a full-scale conventional war. Doctrines like Cold Start will, however, remain in cold storage until they are able to explicitly demonstrate that diplomatic, political and military benefits outweigh the costs.

Secondly, India must reach out and strengthen all those who have a stake in better India-Pakistan relations and an interest in regional stability through unilateral gestures that do not demand reciprocity. These would include specific initiatives for civil society actors, as well as many others within the business and political community. For instance, New Delhi should consider constructing a preferential trading regime that offers Pakistan’s handicrafts and other local products almost unfettered access to the Indian market. Such a gesture, with some short-term costs, could have far-reaching long-term benefits for India and the region. Similarly, New Delhi could begin by offering a thousand scholarships to young men and women in Pakistan willing to study the humanities or social sciences in India at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

Thirdly, India must systematically seek to weaken, delegitimise and isolate those who are enemies of a moderate Pakistan and, by implication, of a stable subcontinent. This can be done unilaterally or in conjunction with allies. It is unfortunate that sub-continental Islam, built on an ethos of multiculturalism and tolerance, has not been projected with the robustness needed in these difficult times. This “soft power” of South Asian Sufi Islam remains the best weapon against extremism.

Fourthly, Indian policies must be carefully distanced from the present American role in Pakistan or the larger U.S. Af-Pak policy. In the Pew survey, more Pakistanis expressed a willingness to trust Osama bin Laden rather than Mr. Obama to do the right thing in world affairs. Ultimately, we need to understand that India-Pakistan relationship, over the last 62 years, has been about almost everything that matters: history, memory, prejudice, identity, religion, sovereignty, ideology, insecurity, betrayal and much, much more. Ironically, a troubled Pakistan, confused about its identity and its place in the world, may offer a real chance to move beyond conflict and towards real reconciliation. It is an opportunity to finally cut the Gordian knot; a chance India cannot afford to miss.

Read Users' Comments (0)

35 POINTS ON US-India Relationship

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)