Re: Superpower Syndrome: Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
09 Oct 2009, 17:23 HRS IST
Ind, Russia to develop new hypersonic cruise missile
STAFF WRITER 15:32 HRS IST
New Delhi, Oct 9 (PTI) India and Russia have agreed to develop and
induct a new hypersonic version of their joint venture 290-kilometre-
range BrahMos cruise missile by 2015.
A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in this regard was signed between
the two sides last month, in which they agreed on the final parameters
for the new version of the cruise missile, Defence Ministry sources
said.
The new missile, they said, will be known as 'BrahMos-2' and will have
a speed of over 6 Mach (around 6,000 kilometres per hour) with a
striking-range of 290 kilometres.
The range of the missile will not be extended as the Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR), to which Russia is a signatory, does
not allow it to help other countries to develop missiles with ranges
above 300 kilometres, they said.
...and I am Sid Harth
Sid Harth
Producers of Nehru-Edwina film yet to respond to govt's
STAFF WRITER 21:41 HRS IST
suggestion for changes
New Delhi, Oct 9 (PTI) The producers of the proposed film on the
relationship between first Prime Minister Jawarharlal Nehru and Edwina
Mountbatten, wife of British-ruled India's last Viceroy, are yet to
respond to Indian government's suggestion for the changes in the
script.
The changes suggested by the Informnation and Broadcasting Ministry
relate to some sequences involving Nehru and Edwina which the
producers of "Indian Summer" were asked to tone down.
Highly-placed sources in the Ministry today said that as per rules,
scripts of foreign films are shown to a panel of experts and once it
is cleared by them, the producers are asked to sign an agreement which
says that they will stick to the changes suggested in the script by
the panel.
bademiyansubhanallah
Anti-nuke Obama won't allow India to expand weapons programme
Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN 10 October 2009, 10:18am IST
WASHINGTON: Just hours before the Nobel Committee announced the Peace
award for Barack Obama citing his work in nuclear weapons elimination,
the American President transmitted to the US Congress a letter which
in effect promised that his administration was working with other
countries not to support enhancement of India’s nuclear weapons
programme.
Such a Presidential letter, or ''certification'' is required every six
months under section 204 of the US-India Civilian Nuclear Cooperation
Act, but Obama’s punctilious reporting to the Congress of the US
meeting its obligation is among the factors that mark him out to be a
staunch anti-nuclear weapons advocate.
Section 204 (a) of what the Obama White House formally calls the ''US-
India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement
Act'' requires the U.S President to certify to Congress that ''it is
the policy of the U.S to work with members of the Nuclear Suppliers
Group (NSG), individually and collectively, to agree to further
restrict the transfers of equipment and technology related to the
enrichment of uranium and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel'' to
India.
(Section B of the act says the President ''shall seek to achieve, by
the earliest possible date, either within the NSG or with relevant NSG
Participating Governments, the adoption of principles, reporting, and
exchanges of information as may be appropriate to assure peaceful use
and accounting of by-product material.'')
Distilled from the legalese is the commitment that the US — and the
NSG — will not allow India to in any way enhance its weapons-making
capability riding on the civilian nuclear deal.
While some Indian critics expect Obama to be a thorn in the prospects
of a muscularly nuclear India, the fact is as a senator Obama voted
for the US-India nuclear deal — which implicitly recognizes India as a
nuclear weapons power. Since then, as President, he has not questioned
India’s status as a nuclear weapons power.
But working toward abolishing nuclear weapons seems to be an article
of faith with him, although he concedes that it may not be
accomplished in his lifetime.
''We cannot tolerate a world in which nuclear weapons spread to more
nations and in which the terror of a nuclear holocaust endangers more
people. And that's why we've begun to take concrete steps to pursue a
world without nuclear weapons, because all nations have the right to
pursue peaceful nuclear power, but all nations have the responsibility
to demonstrate their peaceful intentions,'' Obama said after the Nobel
award, echoing remarks he has made frequently in the past, starting
with his landmark address in Prague last year.
That speech appears to have impressed the Nobel grandees. In its
statement, the Nobel committee said it ''attached special importance
to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.''
Obama though is conscious of his limitations in carrying through his
vision both in the face of geo-political complexities and a hard-line,
militaristic, entrenched domestic constituency that believes ardently
in a tough nuclear posture.
''Some of the work confronting us will not be completed during my
presidency. Some, like the elimination of nuclear weapons, may not be
completed in my lifetime,'' Obama said post-award. ''But I know these
challenges can be met so long as it's recognized that they will not be
met by one person or one nation alone.''
chhotemianinshallah
Perils On Way to Being a Super-power
October 9th, 2009 Praveen Bose
Leaders, both business leaders and political leaders, are often seen
patting themselves for taking India perilously close to being a super
power.
But, not in political terms or economic terms. But, as a super power
for providing IT services for businesses around the world. Wealth
creation is what the leaders speak of when they speak of their
achievement. Buts, has it translated into proportional rise in
welfare?
Just as in achieving anything, there are sacrifices of many, maybe in
their thousands or even lakhs, on the way to being a great nation or
economy. On the path to becoming an IT services super power, there are
tears and curses of a million young hearts.
The onsite-offshore model was fine when you had to manage the show
with bachelors and bachelorettes. But, over time, they have grown up.
“My husband’s away,” said a melancholic friend. “He will be away for
two months.”
Only a couple of months ago he had returned from a nine-month stint
onsite. Then, she had been with him. But, this time he was asked to
pitch in for a colleague whose visa had fallen victim to fickle-minded
foreign relations.
How much longer are we going to play deaf to the cries of the
thousands? Perhaps, till the tears start to wash away the cash piles
of the industry.
Maybe a 3D hologram of the individual who is away if it can be
transmitted over the several time zones in realt time, or perhaps 3D
fax???
An army of unhappy citizens is not what a country needs. Alexander
could not go on with his conquests and was forced to return to
Macedonia because of an army of imhappy, homesick soldiers
Sid Harth
Why Human Rights Groups Targeted?
By Gladson Dungdung
09 October, 2009
www.Countercurrents.org
The Police Officer of the CID Special Branchi, Francis Induwar was
abducted, beheaded and thrown on the roadside on Ranchi-Jamshedpur
highway by the Maoists, which was condemned strongly by the civil
society, Human Rights Groups and other non-state actors. Ironically,
when the news of brutal killing came up, the Home Ministry and the
Media suddenly became proactive in condemning and alleging the Human
Rights Activists rather than nailing down the Maoists. The opinions
were manufactured such a way, which give sense that Induwar lost his
life not because of the Maoists but the Human Rights Activists. The
Union Home Minister P.Chidambaram even threatened to the Human Rights
Groups by saying that the Human Rights Groups have to choose, which
side they are. He also questioned, "Why are human rights groups silent
now when Naxals attack innocents?" However, he said, “Human rights
groups need to speak more strongly against the Naxals.”
After hearing the heartbreaking news, one of my friends told me that
Francis Induwar was not protected by the police department because he
belongs to the Adivasi (Indigenous) community. One can assume it as a
biased statement but it seems to be true because the similar
allegations were made by Sunita Induwar the wife of the deceased. She
said, “Nothing was done to protect my husband and I was not even
informed by the Police Department about the death of my husband. I
only came to know about it through the Media.” What does it mean? What
was the whole department doing? Doesn’t it give a clear picture about
what was happening inside of the Police Department?
The story does not end here. The chairman of the Special Branch
Association, Ram Sevak Ray alleges, “The Senior Police Officers were
not serious on the matter, they did not visit to the areas and even
after five days of kidnapping the Special Branch was not allowed to
conduct a meeting in Ranchi because the senior officers were not
concerned about it.” The fact is, Francis Induwar was abducted on 30th
of September and he was beheaded on October 6, which means he was
almost alive for 6 days. But the police department and the government
did not do much to save him. Being a Human Rights Activist, I condemn
the brutal killing of the sincere police officer, demand for adequate
compensation to the family and a high level inquiry so that all the
perpetrators can be brought to justice.
However, the government must inform to the people that in what
circumstances, the Police Officer Francis Induwar had to pay the price
of his life? What kind of actions had been taken by the police
department and the government to save him? Why did the Police
department fail in tracing him even after 6 days? Why did the
intelligence fail? And are only the Maoists responsible for the brutal
killing of Induwar or he had to face such heinous act because the
department, which he belongs to is failure, inactive, insincere,
incapable and unjust?
The State, the Media and the Middle Class often allege that the Human
Rights Groups do not speak out strongly when the Naxalites and
Terrorists commit such heinous crime against humanity but they raise
their eyes only against the state because they get money from the
external actors to do so? As far as the Human Rights Violation is
concerned, the Human Rights Groups have always stood up against it.
The People are unaware about the work of Human Rights Groups merely
because the Media don’t carry the press statements issued by these
Groups regularly condemning the human rights violation committed by
the State and non-State Actors, which also happened in the case of
Francis Induwar therefore the Media is also responsible for
manufacturing the opinion against the Human Rights Activists. All the
allegations against these groups are baseless.
The interesting question is why the State is afraid of the Human
Rights Activists who merely possess pen, paper and mouth? Indeed, the
government of India is not afraid of the Human Rights Activists but it
is afraid of the big boss (United Nations) as it has signed and
ratified the numbers of UN Protocols, Conventions and Covenants but
failed to implement these. Therefore, the Human Rights Activists have
exposed the government of India in front of the International
Community several times. Secondly, the government attempts to bury the
impunity enjoyed by the law enforcement agencies, Ministers and the
politicians but unable to do so. Finally, the government also wants to
hide the inactiveness, insincerity, incapability, ineffectiveness and
inefficiency of the legislative, the executive and the judiciary but
the Human Rights Groups do not let it go that’s why the state targets
them so that they lose the patience and shut up their mouth.
In fact, the state wants to whither away from the responsibility of
dealing with the economic, social, cultural, developmental and
political issues therefore it attempts to fix the responsibilities on
others. There are some serious questions need to be address before
alleging the Human Rights Activists. Whose lands have been illegally
grabbed, forcefully acquired without compensating them and handed over
to the multinationals? Where from those millions displace masses come?
Why millions of men, women and children are without nutritious food,
education and health facilities? Why the perpetrators not brought to
justice for grabbing the money of NREGA and other Welfare schemes
meant for the poor?
According to the Human Development Report 2009, the quality of life in
India continues to be appalling with the country ranked poorly at 134
among 182 countries, 4 lack children die within 24 hours of their
birth and 40 percent children under 3 are malnourished. Who are these
children? Obviously, they don’t come from the family of sunglasses,
shining faces appearing in the television channels and AC lover holy
cows but these are the children of Adivasis, Dalits and marginalized
communities. Who is responsible for the pathetic condition of these
people? Is it the Human Rights Activists or the State? Why should not
the Human Rights Activists stand with them? Is it a crime to demand
justice in India? Would it have been possible to delivery justice to
the victims of Gujrat riot, several fake encounters and torture
without intervention of the Human Rights Groups?
The rulers have made the system unethical, bias and double standard.
Irony is they also justify it. For instance, when a member of the
Gandhi family like Priyanka becomes sympathizer of Nalini (a murderer
of late Rajiv Gandhi the former Prime Minister of India) is portrayed
as Messiah of the people meanwhile the curing the Adivasis of
Chhatishgarh makes a humanitarian Dr. Vinayak Sen as the Maoists’
supporter. In another case, the politicians like Sibu Soren saying
Naxalites as his brothers and sisters does not make him the
sympathizer of the Maoists but when a Human Rights Activists like
Sandeep Pandey demands justice for the victims of fake encounters
comes under the purview of the Naxals’ supporters. Similarly, the
state head of Gujara, Narendra Modi is made hero for killing more than
2000 Muslims but when a Human Rights Activist, Teesta Setalvad demands
justice for the victims makes her anti-state. What kind of democracy
it is?
However, the real Human Rights Activists would never justify any kind
of cold-blooded murder, torture or ill-treatment committed either by
the State or non-State Actors. Therefore, the Government, the Media
and the Middle Class must not manipulate the public opinion, should
not manufacture the consent and stop portraying the Human Rights
Activists as supporters of the Naxalites and Terrorists. The Human
Rights Activists raise their voices only when the state violates or
does not enforce, ensure and protect the Human Rights guaranteed under
the Constitution of India, embodied in the UN Conventions, Covenants
and Protocols signed and ratified by the Government of India and
enforced in the Court. The human rights violation by the non-state
actors takes place only when the state is inactive, ineffective and
unjust, which also should not be justified.
But as far as the issue of Naxalism is concerned, it will not be
addressed through the blame games. The problem deepens by creating
wrong perception. The public perception was built up during the NDA
government, that every man with the long beard and each woman with the
Burka is Terrorist. The same theory is being applied to the Adivasis
that every man and woman with the black faces, having traditional
weapons and living close to the nature is Naxalite. This kind of
opinion building is injustice to the community. The root causes of
Naxalism lies on economic, social and cultural injustices therefore
tackling these issues lies the solution. But who bothers about it as
either way the sufferers are only the Indigenous People who are always
unwelcome in India due to their race.
Gladson Dungdung is a Human Rights Activist and Writer from Jharkhand.
He can be reached at gladsonh...@gmail.com
bademiyansubhanallah
We didn't relate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan to our Venki
TNN 8 October 2009, 11:27pm IST
VADODARA: Vadodara's Venki wins Nobel' in bold letters on The Times of
India's front page is the first thing one noticed after walking into
Convent of Jesus and Mary (CJM) on Thursday.
The newspaper article, photocopied and put up on the school's notice
board, personified the pride, every person associated with the school
has been feeling. Standing next to the notice board was principal
Sister Delphin D'souza, her smile refusing to leave.
She was busy all day meeting streams of visitors, alumnus and media
persons, all of who wanted a share of the pie of Venkatraman's school
days memories.
This has been the atmosphere in the Alma Mater of Venkatraman
Ramakrishnan, who did his school, city and the country honour by
winning the Nobel prize for Chemistry with two others.
Even the phone at the school has been buzzing non-stop with old
teachers calling in to confirm the news. Overjoyed friends and
classmates have been pouring in, each one with old memories to share.
School management was busy scanning through old files and registers to
dig schooling details about the scientist.
A beaming D'souza said, "Everyone here knew him as Venki, so it was
hard to relate to him when his full name flashed on the news. When we
read that he was a MS University graduate, we instantly knew that he
was a boy from our school."
Similar was the reaction of many of Venkatraman's childhood friends
and school teachers who woke up to the newspapers and television
channels talking about professor Venkatraman sharing the Nobel honour
for chemistry with two others. They all know him as Venki, and his
full name didn't register in their minds.
An e-mail from an alumni Gyan Bhanot from USA sent to the school,
telling them of Venki's achievement spread cheers in the corridors.
"Though staffers and teachers have changed, many of us knew him though
his old teachers and classmates," D'souza added.
Venki's standard four class teacher Erekian Fernandes, 75, who
underwent a cataract operation recently proudly said, "There are some
children I don't forget and he is one of them. His name is right here
in my head. So, when I heard the news, my spontaneous reaction was Oh,
he is my student, I have taught him'. For me, he was a brilliant and
humble student with sparks of a genius," shared Fernandes.
Josephine Lobo, his English teacher in class six, said, "He was one
student who always knew all the correct answers. Venki came across as
a soft-spoken, obedient, well-mannered and intelligent pupil."
bademiyansubhanallah
MSU plans to establish chairs in Venki's honour
TNN 8 October 2009, 11:23pm IST
VADODARA: MS University (MSU) has been flooded with proposals by
teachers and classmates to institute awards and establish chairs in
honour of their former student Venkatraman Ramkrishnan.
In fact, vice-chancellor Ramesh Goyal is planning to invite
Venkatraman for the annual convocation ceremony as the chief guest.
Goyal, who reached Vadodara on Thursday evening, also hosted a small
get-together at his house to celebrate Venkatraman's achievement. "I
have been out of town since the news of former MSU student being
awarded the Nobel Prize came in. This is a proud moment for all of us
and each one at the university wants to launch academic activities in
Venkatraman's honour," said Goyal.
Venkatraman pursued his bachelor's programme in physics from MSU's
science faculty. He graduated in 1971.
"There are plans to establish chairs in honour of our student and we
will invite him as the chief guest at the annual convocation this
year," Goyal said.
Goyal also shared that he is getting ideas from the varsity,
academicians as well as retired teachers. "We will have to plan
things, come up with concrete steps and take up ideas which are
feasible. One will also require funds to give shape to these ideas,"
he added.
bademiyansubhanallah
Grouchy Tiger, Misread Dragon
SWAGATO GANGULY8 October 2009, 12:00am IST
News headlines can be confusing. When talking about China, for
example, they can alternate between wake-up-and-smell-the-Mandarin
because at 60, the People's Republic of China is everywhere and
alarmist reports which suggest that this seemingly unstoppable
juggernaut has us squarely in their sights. What are we to make of all
this? More important, how can we retain equanimity in the face of this
media assault?
Whether Indians talk about an accommodating or aggressive stance
towards China, it's clear that China manages to push our buttons. The
West had its China moment during the Korean war of 1950-53, when the
Chinese intervened on the side of North Korea and fought US and UN
forces aiding South Korea to a standstill. On that occasion, it was
all too easy to revive images of the ''yellow peril'' initially used
to describe the supposed threat posed by 19th century Chinese
immigrants to the US and the West to indicate the nature of the
challenge from China.
In 1911 G G Rupert, an influential religious figure in America,
published a book named `The Yellow Peril; or, Orient Vs Occident',
which claimed that China, India, Japan and Korea were attacking
Britain and the US, but Jesus Christ would stop them. Influenced by
pan-Asian philosophies which also set up an artificial divide between
Oriental and Occidental cultures (famously criticised by Edward Said),
India stood with China in the first flush of independence and
nationhood. But the shock of the 1962 war made Indians internalise
'yellow peril' images as well, which exaggerated both the malignity
and the potency of the Chinese challenge.
Internalising the yellow peril can lead to two sorts of reactions
among Indians, which may coexist in schizophrenic ways. First there's
defeatism, which suggests that in any contest between the two nations
India will inevitably be squeezed out. Among the Indian Left, this
translates into the doctrine that China is always right and India is
always wrong.
Then there's an exaggerated assertiveness, which plays up routine
incidents and incursions across a border that's yet to be defined. If
one were to ask whose fault it is that the two nations haven't yet
been able to arrive at a common definition of the border, the blame
can't be laid entirely at Beijing's door. In 1980, when Deng Xiaoping
was ushering in China's second revolution by radically reorienting
internal policies, he also came up with the reasonable proposal that
the Indian border should be settled roughly along the lines of actual
territorial control. This meant that in return for Indian recognition
of Chinese control over Aksai Chin in the west, Beijing would be
willing to abandon claims over Arunachal Pradesh in the east.
New Delhi rejected the offer outright. If, instead, it had probed
Beijing's offer and a settlement had eventually been arrived at, that
could have radically overhauled India-China relations. A settlement of
the border issue would not only have reduced huge pressure on the
Indian armed forces, New Delhi could have persuaded Beijing not to
offer a crutch to Islamabad in every circumstance, substantially
reducing Islamabad's incentive to export jihad to India. The
subcontinent would have been a different place.
Would New Delhi lose much from such a deal? During the 1962 war
Chinese forces speedily established dominion over the Aksai Chin
plateau, an almost uninhabited desert area over which no Indian
administration has historically exercised much jurisdiction. China
also occupied Arunachal Pradesh which is populated, but Chinese forces
withdrew from the area (that's why it's in Indian hands today). Aksai
Chin links two of China's most troubled provinces, Tibet and Xinjiang.
While it holds no value for India, it's of great strategic importance
to China. The chances of New Delhi ever being able to persuade Beijing
to hand over Aksai Chin are zilch.
Why, then, the insistent Indian claim over Aksai Chin? The answer to
that question shows up the pitfalls of territorial nationalism (which
we call jingoism when exhibited by other nations). The Indian
government published official maps during 1953-54 which showed a
clearly defined and unambiguous boundary. This boundary includes the
Aksai Chin. But the Chinese have never agreed to this definition.
To be sure, it's quite possible that Beijing may not be willing to
make the kind of concessions today that Deng offered in 1980 for the
sake of a secure border. But there's a lesson here too. China has by
now far outstripped India in terms of national resources and power.
And that's not just through exercising dictatorship, as many in India
like to believe. Taiwan is a democracy which has done even better than
China. And the Chinese are unable to subdue or bully tiny Taiwan, even
though they have a far greater interest in that country than they do
in subcontinent-sized India.
We have to admit that the Chinese (or Taiwanese) got certain economic
policies right, such as the attention they paid to education, health
and labour-intensive industry. Although India cannot follow exactly
the same growth strategy as China, greater attention to these sectors
would get India places too. Not to mention that China, and the world,
would treat it with greater respect.
bademiyansubhanallah
Congratulations, but...
9 October 2009, 12:00am IST
Congratulations are in order. Venkatraman ''Venky'' Ramakrishnan, an
Indian-born structural biologist has shared this year's Nobel Prize
for chemistry with two others. Ramakrishnan who is currently
affiliated to the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK
shares the honour with Thomas Steitz of Yale University and Ada Yonath
of Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. Ramakrishnan, who hails
from Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu, took his graduate degree from MS
University in Vadodara before exploring better prospects abroad. An
accomplished scientist, he is also one of the rare few to have
maintained close ties with Indian institutes of research and learning
even after many years on foreign shores.
By any standards, this is an achievement that deserves a hearty round
of applause. Predictably, the Indian media has gone to town with this
happy story. But even as we rightly celebrate Ramakrishnan's moment of
glory, it is imperative that we place his success in perspective.
Let's get this straight: this is an individual achievement,
Ramakrishnan's. His is another classic case of Indians achieving
spectacular success when unshackled from the system here that often
stymies merit.
Make a quick mental list of Indian success stories, which are at par
or above global standards of excellence, in the recent past in the
sciences or even in the humanities. You are bound to notice that many
of those who feature on this list are those who have left India's
shores, and flourished elsewhere. Be it Ramakrishnan, Subramanian
Chandrasekhar or Amartya Sen, talented individuals have done very well
for themselves when they have had access to an environment that
provides ample opportunities, nourishes excellence and has mostly
banished a stifling bureaucracy.
Indians are no less talented than people elsewhere in the world. But
they are often boxed in by a system that is overstretched, riven by
petty politics and is plain indifferent to merit. Beating the system
here is a project for brave hearts. When excellence is not
incentivised, it is only natural that those who seek to rise above
limitations and don't want to navigate systemic pitfalls and loopholes
at every step seek greener pastures. We often complain about the brain
drain while ourselves having created the conditions for it. If India
is to earn its place in the league of advanced nations, it must focus
on creating an environment that promotes learning as well as
entrepreneurship at every level. It's not impossible but this task
requires a vision and drive that don't appear currently to be in
sufficient supply among our leaders.
6 Comments
If we want to blame the system and the leaders for our perceived
problems, we can always do it even if India 'earns its place in league
of advanced nations' as you put it. No matter how developed the | Read
By vikram on 09/10/2009 at 11:18 pm
A nice comment. The commentator`s fuming is understandable. But, one
can not deny the fact that scientific temper was created in all those
Western Countries barring Switzerland, by absolute necessit| Read
By M.Govindarajan on 09/10/2009 at 08:42 pm
Your comment is apt. Individual excellence thrives in centres of
excellence. Our research centres are still plagued by bureacratic
systems which promote a chosen few who seem to run some kind of estab|
Read
By Pramod Ekbote on 09/10/2009 at 02:58 pm
chhotemianinshallah
Press Release from Chinese Delegation: The 13th Meeting Between the
Chinese and Indian Special Representative on Boundary Question
(August 8 2009)
From August 7 to 8, the 13th Meeting between the Chinese and Indian
Special Representative on Boundary Question was held in New Delhi,
India. Chinese Special Representative, State Councilor Dai Bingguo met
with his counterpart, Mr. Narayanan, India’s National Security
Advisor. During his stay in India, State Councilor Dai also met with
Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the Indian Congress Party and Prime
Minister Singh.
In a friendly and candid atmosphere, the two Special Representatives
had an in-depth exchange of views on resolving the boundary question.
Both agreed to press ahead with the framework negotiations in
accordance with the agreed political parameters and guiding principle
so as to seek for a fair and reasonable solution acceptable to both.
Prior to that, both should work together to maintain peace and
tranquility in the border areas.
During the talks, the two sides exchaned in-depth views on the further
development of China-India Strategic and Cooperative Partnership, as
well as regional, international and global issues of mutual interest.
The Chinese side pointed out that the Chinese Government and people
value the strategic and cooperative partnership between China and
India, the largest two developing nations with a combined population
accounting for 40 percent of the world’s total. Friendly coexistence,
mutual beneficial cooperation and shared progress between the two
neighbours will contribute not only to the people of the two countries
but also Asia and the whole world. China and India have no other
option than living in peace and developing side by side. China stands
firmly committed to working with India to press ahead with the
bilateral ties.
The Chinese side believes that both countries need to promote the
relationship with a higher and strategic perspective and continue to
uphold the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. China and India
should endeavor to build the strategic mutual trust. Both need to
expand the common interests and cooperation bilaterally and on
regional and global affairs. Both should take concrete steps to
enhance people-to-people and cultural interactions so as to nurture
the mutual understanding and friendship between the two peoples. For
the questions left over from history,the two countries should work to
seek for a fair and reasonable mutually acceptable solution through
peaceful and friendly negotiations.
For the future development of the bilateral ties, the Chinese side
made the following suggestions. The two countries need to maintain the
momentum of high-level exchanges, well celebrate the 60th anniversary
marking the establishment of the diplomatic relations between the two
countries, especially the China Festival and India Festival in each
other’s country in 2010. Both countries should strengthen mutually
beneficial cooperation in the economic field and trade, fully tap the
potential for cooperation and properly handle frictions and questions
thereof and stand side by side against trade protectionism so as to
ensure the sustained and healthy development of bilateral economic
ties. The two neighbours should enhance people-to-people and cultural
exchanges, those between the youth, academic institutions, media and
localities in particular, and deepen defence cooperation and continue
the defence and security talks. China and India should also intensify
the coordination and cooperation on major international issues,
especially the global efforts in response to world financial crisis,
climate change, energy and food security so as to promote evolution of
international system that is in favor of developing nations.
The two sides also exchange views on the situation in South and
Northeast Asia.
chhotemianinshallah
bademiyansubhanallah
China tells US to back off after Dalai award
AP 11 October 2009, 01:59am IST
BEIJING: China accused the US of meddling in its domestic affairs
after American lawmakers recognised the Dalai Lama with an award for
his efforts
to improve human rights.
“We urge some members of the US Congress to respect the history and
the facts, recognise the true face of Dalai Lama, stop using the Tibet
issue to interfere in China’s internal affairs,” foreign ministry
spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said in a statement posted on the ministry’s
website.
bademiyansubhanallah
China can learn from India on opening up media: Murdoch
Saibal Dasgupta, TNN 9 October 2009, 07:04pm IST
BEIJING: News Corp. Chief Executive Rupert Murdoch on Friday urged the
Chinese government to further open up the media market to competition
from foreign companies. He seemed to suggest that China could learn
from India’s experience in opening up the media market.
"India, which is far, far earlier in the economic development cycle,
has been more welcoming of competition and so Bollywood has come to
influence Hollywood, financially and creatively,” he told the first-
ever World Media Summit in Beijing while comparing the media market of
India and Japan.
Japanese media companies have not made much impact outside the
country’s borders because Japan’s market is closed to foreign
competition, Murdoch said while presenting the case of India and Japan
markets as contrasting examples.
In India, the government’s "willingness to allow international
companies in to the domestic television market have prompted local
companies to improve their production quality,” he said. "The great
winners are the people of India, who have much pride in their global
success and a choice of programs unimaginable a decade ago,” he said.
Chinese President Hu Jintao opened the summit urging the global media
to promote world peace and development besides contributing to the
goal of creating a harmonious world with lasting peace and common
prosperity. He was speaking to the assembled gathering of 300
executives and journalists representing over 170 media outlets from
around the world.
"The media should use their distinctive assets and advantages to
convey the messages of peace, development, cooperation, mutual benefit
and tolerance," he said. The media also had a role in brining about a
recovery in the global financial crisis, he said.
Li Congjun, president of Xinhua News Agency, which organized the
summit said the media should use its "accurate, objective, fair and
balanced news and information services to popularize ideologies
pursuing peace, development and cooperation”
The media also had a role to "promote sound and sustained growth of
the world economy, facilitate common development of all civilizations
and accelerate human progress and social development," Li said.
Murdoch urged China's government to allow its media companies to take
advantage of the opportunities in new media by addressing copyright
piracy and a lack of competition in the domestic market that he said
could impede their expansion.
"China will ultimately decide its own fate, but unless the digital
door is opened, opportunities will be lost and potential will not be
realized," he said. "The digital renaissance offers China an
opportunity to exercise leadership," Murdoch said.
chhotemianinshallah
Mainstream, Vol XLVII, No 43, October 10, 2009
Chidambaram’s Dud Blows Up Strategic Deterrent
Sunday 11 October 2009, by V. Sudarshan
Even though the Atomic Energy Commission certified that the dud
thermonuclear device tested during Pokhran-II in May 1998 was no dud,
the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, and R. Chidambaram, the
AEC Chairman in 1998 and currently Scientific Adviser to the Prime
Minister, felt compelled to step out on September 24 to mount a fresh
defence of their untenable claim. This was necessary because the
previous attempt by the AEC did not find any purchase in the media. It
was left to Chidambaram, who, peers and associates say, was an
extremely reluctant nuclear bomb tester, to make his case.
Chidambaram made a power point presenta-tion so abstruse, esoteric and
arcane to a general audience that most of the reporters of the event
failed to convey even a half-way accurate picture. He did not present
any relevant scientific data for his disbelieving peers to pore over.
It is another matter that the gobbledygook he produced did not make
any scientific sense to those scientists who watched the proceedings
with great interest.
What is of relevance, however, is that Chidambaram, who worked under
P.K. Iyenger, who has questioned the efficacy of the thermonuclear
test, asked the press: “We do not understand, how, without knowledge
of the design and, therefore without knowledge of the fusion-fission
break-up and quantity of thermonuclear material in the device, and its
isotopic composition, he (Iyengar) has tried to calculate the
efficiency of the fusion burn.” (Pokhran-II: “No scientific basis for
doubts”, The Hindu, September 25) Considering that Iyengar has been
for the most part a DAE insider and at the core of the Pokhran-I team,
who knows the test site like the back of his hand, its geological
features, the shaft depths and various other parameters, and as
someone who no doubt knows and interacts with other scientists in the
establishment he has long served and headed, and given the innate
curiosity a scientist has, it would have been prudent for Chidambaram
not to ask a question that is so completely naïve. But then again,
considering that Chidambaram believes he can create thermonuclear
bombs of up to 200 kilo tonnes from half-baked data from just one
botched thermonuclear test, his assertion about Iyengar is not even
half as naïve.
In 1995, when the Narasimha Rao Government was contemplating nuclear
tests, a thermo-nuclear device was part of the plans. Between then and
1998 is just three years.
It would, of course, have been far simpler for Chidambaram to provide
data in camera to Iyengar so that the matter could be set at rest
without further damaging the rapidly eroding credibility of the DAE
and its style of management.
After all, Iyengar has never been a security risk. It cannot be that
once he retired he instantly turned into some sort of untouchable or
that his expertise, gained over a lifetime of proven scientific
achievements, became suddenly worthless.
Consider, for example, what happened in Chidambaram’s Mumbai
exposition. It was an absurd stratagem where a highly technical and
complex subject was presented at a press conference where most of the
media obviously did not follow closely the implications of the mumbo-
jumbo uttered by the scientists. There was thus no scope for seeking
clarifications over what was said, or even challenge the assertions
that were made. You asked a question and got more mumbo-jumbo for
answer.
For example, Chidambaram’s breathtaking explanation of the lack of the
crater after the thermonuclear explosion: he said the thermo-nuclear
device was emplaced in pink granite. It would, of course, be logical
to assume that shock waves would travel through granite and produce
accurate readings. But we know that the purpose of the press
conference was not to provide clarity.
The point is: the studied refusal to take on board valid scientific
criticism and analysis will surely lead to more idiosyncratic
functioning of the kind that Chidambaram represents. Given the fact
that Chidambaram has systematically and deliberately refused to sit
with Iyenger and clear the giant nuclear mushroom-sized clouds over
the efficacy of the device, his throwaway line deserves to be
discussed in some detail.¨
Iyenger told this reporter that so beset was he by doubts of the
efficacy of the thermonuclear device that was tested on May 11, 1998
that he dashed off a paper with his arguments on why he thought the
device underperformed to then National Security Adviser, Brajesh
Mishra, who promised to take it up with Chidambaram and arrange a
meeting where it could be sorted out.
Subsequently, there was no response from the National Security
Adviser. When Iyengar ran into Mishra quite by chance at an event both
were attending, Iyengar asked Mishra what the delay was about. Mishra
responded: “He (Chidambaram) doesn’t want to meet you. The chemistry
(between you two) seems to be wrong.” “What has chemistry got to do
with this?” asked Iyengar, and made the point that “these are
technical issues and personal chemistry doesn’t come into it”. Mishra
responded: “He (Chidambaram) doesn’t want to meet you.” There the
matter rested for some time, and later efforts to broker such a
meeting involving Raja Ramanna as an intermediary also bore no fruit.
Mishra clearly felt disinclined to push Chidambaram to sort out the
doubts or get to the bottom of the matter on which India’s deterrence
against China rested. And obviously Chidambaram had more than a
sneaking suspicion that he might get caught out if he took on Iyenger
and therefore, it could be argued, is afraid of the repercussions of
being totally exposed.
Bharat Karnad in India’s Nuclear Policy (Praegar Security, 2008) deals
with this aspect of what amounts, clearly, to a most serious
dereliction of responsibility on the part of the then National
Security Adviser.
“Even when the military’s doubts about unproven and untested nuclear
weapons are conveyed to the government, it has had little effect,” he
writes (pages 69-70). Karnad quotes Ved Malik, the Chief of Army Staff
in the period of the 1998 tests. Malik recalled that Iyengar, who was
then waging a relentless campaign for additional testing, met with him
and gave him technical reasons why he thought the thermo-nuclear
device did not work and more testing was needed.
“Troubled by what he had been told Malik conveyed the former nuclear
chief’s misgivings to National Security Adviser Brijesh Mishra.”
Karnad asked Mishra about this. “Mishra states that the BJP Government
had no choice but to believe R. Chidambaram, the AEC Chairman at that
time.” “Who am I to go and say (these tests did not work),” says
Mishra, “and….I will appoint a commission to enquire into whether the
scientists are telling the truth or not?” Mishra was being rhetorical,
of course, but clearly acknowledged the possibility that the
scientists may not have been telling the truth. So, is Chidambaram
lying? Did Mishra want to get to the truth? With Chidambaram at the
helm of sensitive nuclear affairs, what must really be going on in the
DAE? Did the national interest lie in pampering the ego of Chidambaram
or in removing even the faintest shadow of doubt that the
thermonuclear device underperformed? There was a mountain of credible
skeptical analyses that piled up even as Mishra deliberately took the
side of Chidambaram in a manner that did not serve the interests of
the nation.
His reaction to skepticism is the textbook example of how not to
behave in a moment of such crisis. Surely there were other ways he
could have handled the situation. Iyenger, Mishra was able to fob off
far more easily than K. Santhanam of the DRDO, who, along with other
people in the control room and the instrumentation room, knew near
instantaneously that the thermonuclear test failed miserably.
But Chidambaram refused to acknowledge the reality staring him in the
face and had it conveyed to New Delhi that the tests succeeded. The
DRDO data that came in and was analysed also showed conclusively that
the thermonuclear part of the test failed. Santhanam submitted a 50-
page report to Brajesh Mishra towards the end of 1998, with the
approval of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, making certain recommendations. Mishra
knew he could not ignore Santhanam’s report the way he ignored
Iyengar’s repeated efforts. Mishra called for a meeting to discuss it.
“Mishra recalled he had convened a meeting to clear the suspicions and
doubts that arose in the minds of some, particularly Santhanam, about
the yield of the TN test.” (“No voice vote over result”, Mail Today,
September 16) In just one cursory meeting Mishra disposed of a hugely
complex scientific subject that goes to the heart of India’s future
defence requirement.
Apparently Abdul Kalam kept his own counsel at the meeting even though
the damning report was prepared with his consent. Chidambaram
disagreed with Santhanam’s contention. Mishra agreed with Chidambaram.
End of the meeting.
It is simply bizarre the way the then National Security Adviser
handled the issue. Santhanam, being in a minority of one, was
effectively shouted down. The then AEC Chairman was against testing.
He believed he could do it through computer simulation alone and
advocated signing the CTBT even without tests.
Karnad writes in India’s Nuclear Policy (page 68) that when Narasimha
Rao latched on to Chidambaram’s “simulation option and ruled out
resumption of nuclear tests in 1995” “the BARC council—the highest
decision-making body in the nuclear council” sent a “unanimous note”
to Chidambaram “challenging his view and demanding new tests”. Is it
even remotely possible that this man, this reluctant nuclear weapons
tester, who claimed he could do it without conducting tests, failed?
But one thing is for sure: the more Chidambaran tries to explain his
miraculous non-working thermonuclear weapon the less likely it is that
the people will believe him. That is the simplest equation of state
that we can derive from this particular dud thermonuclear device. And
we certainly don’t need more tests to prove it. Not even computer
simulations, thankfully.
(Courtesy: The New Indian Express)
chhotemianinshallah
Mainstream, Vol XLVII, No 43, October 10, 2009
Reasserting Nuclear Option: Need of the Hour
Sunday 11 October 2009, by From NC’s Writings
In the midst of all the demonstration of mourning for Princess Diana
to those for Mother Teresa, came Prime Minister Gujral‘s refreshing
reiteration of India‘s nuclear policy. On September 8, addressing in
New Delhi a high-powered seminar of nuclear scientists including the
representative from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at
Vienna, Gujral has categorically repeated the well-known official
position of India with regard to nuclear energy, which Parliament
under Indira Gandhi had asserted with the sole dissenting voice of
M.R. Masani. This keeps the country‘s nuclear option open while
asserting that India on its own has no policy for the use of nuclear
weapons.
Since then, particularly in the last few years of open-door market
reforms of the economy, there was the apprehension that the firm stand
on the nuclear energy question might be diluted so that some dubious
routes could be found to sign the NPT particularly its more stringent
version, the CTBT. When Prime Minister Gujral was found to have chosen
Dr Bhabani Sengupta to join his staff, this fear was heightened as
Sengupta was long known to have favoured the NPT, if not the CTBT. But
the policy was not changed, though Sengupta had to quit the
government. Further, it was known that this country having refused to
sign the NPT, has been in effect debarred from receiving nuclear know-
how from the advanced industrial countries of the West. Despite all
the confusion over his coming meeting with President Clinton, the
Prime Minister has reiterated India‘s long-standing position on the
question of nuclear weapons option. This will be reassuring to his
countrymen more than anything else that he could possibly have no
route open now to yield on this point to the US which has long made it
the key issue for practically every US statesman and publicist
descending from Washington.
Prime Minister Gujral‘s statement was expected as a response to
Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif‘s public disclosure the day
before that Pakistan possessed the nuclear option as well—an admission
which was so long officially evaded in Islamabad. In a sense, the
decks are now cleared with both sides frankly stating their respective
positions, and the negotiation for durable peace between the two
countries could now proceed frankly and without equivocation. The
candid recognition of this ‘‘subcontinental reality’’ will certainly
help to clear the air for a realistic understanding of each other‘s
position and may help towards a better understanding between the two—
the goal to which Prime Minister Gujral is already committed.
For long, it was widely known in this country that Pakistan was
setting up its own nuclear weapons installations despite all the noise
about the Pressler Amendment. It is generally believed in New Delhi
that the Chinese Government has throughout been helpful to Pakistan on
this score; it is even suggested that the Chinese help has been
crucial for Pakistan on this issue. Obviously, the question of nuclear
deterrence is now the order of the day, since both India and Pakistan
have more or less conceded that they would go in for the nuclear
weapons deterrance if necessary. There is nothing to hide in this
stand: rather it is a clear-cut unambiguous stand which may be helpful
to both sides. It is true at the beginning there would be plenty of
noise over these official disclosures, but the more realistic among
the diplomats of both the countries can no doubt make use of these
definite positions. Whether India and Pakistan would from now on start
speaking as responsible nuclear-weapons powers, it is for the seasoned
diplomats on both sides to take up the quest for peace and start
building an enduring edifice of good neighbourliness. But, as it is
said, once the decks are cleared, talks can proceed with a touch of
realism without rancour.
As for the public opinion at home, Prime Minister Gujral is well aware
of the fact that an overwhelmingly large section of the public favours
a foreign policy based on the nuclear strength. This was the reason
why Indira Gandhi had such a large amount of support after the Pokhran
explosion. Since then the constituency has grown if one were to take a
look at the stand of different political parties. The US pressure on
New Delhi for signing the NPT has hardly yielded any result, a point
which the great-power nuclear club could never understand. In this
country, the US is the most unsuited among the nuclear powers of the
West to put pressure on India to desist from the nuclear bomb. The
fact that the heinous crimes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
perpetrated by no other power but the US—the strange isolation in
nuclear guilt—has made Washington the least suited to propagate the
virtues of nuclear chastity among the countries of Asia. If one had
analysed objectively the response to the Chinese and the Indian
assertions in the direction of nuclear advance, it would be clear that
despite the knowledge of the deadly powers of the nuclear weapon, the
fact that Asian countries are not at all disarmed in this sphere has
hardly produced any adverse reaction. There may be some concern in
this country about the Chinese nuclear technology, but this is nothing
compared to the resentment and hostility roused by the Cold War
nuclear rivalry that dominated the world. Lately, after the collapse
of the Soviet Union, the manner in which the Western powers have
treated the question of dismantling the nuclear weapons could only
result in worse bitterness, although the obvious humiliation has been
covered by diplomatic exchanges.
Today, there has cropped up a body of opinion in our country—and
perhaps in Pakistan too—which swears by nuclear non-proliferation.
Massive propaganda literature on the part of this tribe of do-gooders
has flooded the country, and one hears many voices in the media which
pleads for nuclear non-proliferation. However, if one takes a wider
view of the situation, it will be clear that all these strenuous
intellectual exercises have hardly touched the fringe of public
opinion in this country. The fact that powerful nuclear giants have
been trying pressurise India to submit to the NPT and now the CTBT is
having its reverse effects. There can be no nuclear globalisation
unless and until the big nuclear powers are forced to shed their own
primary and solemnly assure the world public that they themselves
would abjure formally and irrevocably their nuclear superiority over
the others. This is a point which our pious crusaders against
nuclearism have to bear in mind. Unless and until they join in open
crusade against the US nuclear hegemony in the world, all their good
work for spreading the message of de-nuclearised peace would go in
vain.
One would expect Prime Minister Gujral to explain this dispassionately
to President Clinton should the question be raised once again during
their expected meeting.
(Mainstream, September 13, 1997)
chhotemianinshallah
Mainstream, Vol XLVII, No 43, October 10, 2009
Chinese Threat on Border and India’s Defence Preparedness
Sunday 11 October 2009, by Amitava Mukherjee
Notwithstanding the assertion made by S.M. Krishna, the Indian
External Affairs Minister, that the India-China boundary happens to be
one of the most peaceful of our borders, continued Chinese incursions
along the Line of Actual Control and the series of strategic moves
being undertaken by Beijing in regard to its relations with some
smaller countries of the subcontinent, point to a sinister Chinese
design of encircling India. It appears that Beijing still rues its
decision of voluntarily withdrawing from the 90,000 sq km of Indian
territory it had occupied in 1962 and has been harbouring a desire to
make up the loss at an opportune moment.
China wears an inscrutable mask and India has so far been unable to
see through it as it did in 1962. China is now India’s largest trading
partner and the amount of transaction between the two countries
touched a whopping $ 52 billion last year. This has possibly given
India a comforting idea that China would never choose to go for an all-
out war in spite of the fact that the Chinese Army has been carrying
on incursions into Indian territories not just in the western and
central sectors but in Sikkim too where the border is now undisputed.
But the Government of India is trying to keep the people in the dark
about some serious moves of the Chinese Army. Recently they penetrated
deep inside Ladakh and painted the word China on rocks and boulders in
an area which is not very far from the Pangong-Tso lake, a highly
sensitive point near the international boundary. But long before there
were reports that China had built a helipad in an area in the
Arunachal Pradesh sector which, in fact, belongs to India. There is
nothing new about the Chinese presence in Ladakh as the People’s
Liberation Army (PLA) has often been violating the boundary in the
Pangong-Tso lake which is situated in the neighbourhood of the Chushul
mountains acoross the Changla Pass in the northeast of Leh. Forty per
cent of this lake belongs to India while the rest sixty per cent is
Chinese domain. But China’s patrol boats often penetrate deep into
Indian waters and they sometimes willingly barge into Indian naval
vessels. Intelligence reports, quoted by the national as well as
regional media, have pointed out quite sometime back that China has
built its own road network inside Ladakh.
The Government of India is well aware of the Chinese moves along the
border and in recent past it has, on quite a few occasions, hurriedly
moved Army units away from the Jammu and Kashmir border and posted
them along the boundary with China. This happened sometime ago when
Beijing had suddenly increased the strength of its Army near a
mountain ridge which is very close to the trijunction of India, Bhutan
and China. But the most inexplicable side of the whole story is the
hush-hush atmosphere which India prefers to drape over the whole
issue.
A.K. Antony, the Indian Defence Minister, was perfectly right when he
had voiced his concerns sometime back about the unsatisfactory state
of communication network on the Indian side of the border. He had
reasons to do so as China has not only been strengthening its
communication system in the area but trying to attract some smaller
subcontinental countries in such a type of patron- client relationship
which would go a long way towards putting India in a disadvantageous
position.
This forms China’s policy of ‘encirclement’, a diplomatic-military
initiative Beijing has been practising for a long time. In line with
this, China has been gradually pushing its outposts nearer to the
Indian border, the most important example being Xigatse, the second
most important city of Tibet which has been put on the Golmud-Lhasa
extended railway line. Xigatse has now become a bustling centre of not
only trade and commerce but Chinese espionage activity as well. So far
as Nepal is concerned, in addition to the Kodari highway, which was
built with Chinese assistance in 1960, a second highway connecting
Nepal and Tibet has come up. Although the Maoists are no more part of
the Nepalese Government, yet there are valid reasons to believe that
the bashing of Indian priests by the Maoists at the Pashupatinath
temple may have had Chinese blessings.
China is now one of the most important patrons of Pakistan in
international politics and in return Pakistan has allowed Beijing to
open at least four link roads from the Karakoram Highway one of which
will connect the Gwadar deep- sea port which China has built for
Pakistan. In the world energy market Beijing is now in brisk business
of securing energy supplies most of which pass through the Persian
Gulf. By using the Gwadar port China gets an automatic access to the
Persian Gulf where it has substantially increased its naval strength
in recent times. For Myanmar, it has developed the Irrawady corridor
thereby creating a netwok of roads, rails and waterways. This corridor
is extremely important for China as it would give its landlocked areas
an access to the Bay of Bengal where Beijing is rapidly increasing its
naval strength. In competition India has also agreed to invest $ 100
million for upgrading the Sittwe port and developing the Kaladan river
system of Myanmar. However, in matters of respective bilateral
relations China has left India way behind. Beijing’s relations with
the Myanmar military junta are extremely cozy and it has always stood
up for Yangon to block sanctions against the junta in international
organi-sations. China has already secured rights for free use of
Myanmar’s river systems. Due to this facility it has been able to
build up surveillance stations on the Coco Island near the Andamans.
That India has recognised the probable Chinese threat from the sea
becomes clear from New Delhi’s decision to upgrade its naval station
in the Andamans.¨
The military threat from China is real. The numerical strength of its
Army is 2.5 million, more than double that of India, while the range
of its missiles is more than its Indian counterparts. Quite a good
number of Chinese missiles in Tibet carry nuclear warheads. This year
China’s defence expenditure has increased by 14.9 per cent. This would
push up Beijing’s defence budget to $ 70.2 billion, an increase of $
9.1 billion from the previous year. While India lags far behind in
this respect, China now stands very near to Japan, Russia and the UK
in respect of military spending. Chinese experts are always at pains
to point out that their country spends only about 1.5 per cent of its
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for defence. But China’s GDP has been
growing by more than 10 per cent annually. It has no staggering
inflation and its currency is stable.
This has enabled China to build its war industry. China now not only
produces arms and ammunitions for its own use but supplies them to a
good number of other countries also. They include, apart from
Pakistan, Sudan, Egypt, Tanzania, Albania, Iran, Iraq and Sri Lanka.
In 2007 China successfully carried out its anti-satellite test. It has
acquired technology for construction of aircraft carriers, for
carrying out air-to-air refuelling and for developing anti-tank
missiles. While its MiG- 33 is much superior to the accident prone
MiG-21 which the Indian Air Force uses, it has also developed a multi-
role fighter aircraft christened CAC-J7 which is widely used not only
by Pakistan but Myanmar and Bangladesh as well. Another very important
arsenal rolling out of China is the basic jet trainer-cum-light attack
aircraft, a product of the Hongdu Aviation Industry. Its export
variety is called K-8 in Pakistan which uses it extensively and has a
45 per cent share in its joint production with China. China’s
participation in the production of the Jalalat class missile fast
attack naval craft in the Pakistan Navy Dockyard at Karachi is too
well known. Nowadays Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Bangladesh use
large numbers of patrol boats, fast attack crafts and vessels for
amphibious operations either designed or built by China. India’s
presence in this field is minimal, the only noteworthy example being
the Hindustan Shipyard-built 1890 tonne patrol vessel “Shaurya” which
is used by the Sri Lankan Navy.
China now considers itself a great power and a clash of interests with
India is inevitable. It looks upon the Asia-Pacific region as its
hegemony. As a consequence it s likely to come into conflict with
India’s “look East” policy. So there are enough grounds, strewn all
over, for escalation of tension between India and China, the most
important of them being the unresolved border question with Beijing
not accepting the Line of Actual Control and the Mcmahon Line. New
Delhi recognises the danger and therefore it has recently decided on a
series of steps like stationing of Sukhoi-30 aircraft at Tejpur,
revival of abandoned airfields in Ladakh, posting of two Army
divisions for the defence of Tawang and building of all-weather roads
upto the farthest Army post in the border. Defence experts, however,
opine that due to the Pakistan-centric defence policy pursued so long,
not an illogical thing either, India’s defence preparedness has to be
improved considerably to meet the Chinese might in the extreme heights
of the Himalayas.
Unfortunately the biggest impediment before such an important task is
the attitude and self-deception of the Indian ruling class. Although
George Fernandes, the Defence Minister during the NDA regime, always
voiced concern about Chinese intentions, he did not get sufficient
support from other members of the Vajpaiyee Cabinet. Manmohan Singh,
the present Prime Minister, is also advising restraint with respect to
the attitude towards China. Obviously he is trying to sweep every
uncomfortable information beneath the carpet. Manmohan Singh has
reasons to do so as he is in the best position to know how unprepared
his government is to match China force by force.
Some honest confessions are also emerging. Sometime back Admiral
Sureesh Mehta, the former Naval Chief, was honest enough to admit the
inadequacies of the Indian Navy. The other day Air Chief Marshal P.V.
Naik, the incumbent Chief of the Indian Air Force, has said that the
IAF is only one-third the size of its Chinese counterpart. But the
political tribe is desperate to hide its failure.
Indira Gandhi always tried to keep herself posted with latest indepth
information about the security affairs of her country. The same should
be expected from Manmohan Singh. If he is honest enough he should ask
explanations from Pranab Mukherjee, the Defence Minister for a large
part of the previous UPA Government, about infra-structural
development along the LAC and inade-quacies of the armed forces. What
has now prompted A.K. Antony and the Naval as well as Air Chiefs to
admit serious drawbacks about India’s defence preparedness?
Let Manmohan Singh be reminded of a hilarious assumption by the people
of Sikkim. The condition of the road from Gangtok to Nathu La is
atrocious. But local drivers who ply their vehicles along this road
proffer a different reason for this. In the event of a war in the
Nathu La sector the Indian side will be vanquished and swept aside by
the Chinese Army within a few days. The Indian Army and the Government
of India know this. So they do not repair the road to Gangtok in the
hope that bad roads might ultimately turn out to be the only defence
against the might of Beijing, the drivers point out.
chhotemianinshallah
Mainstream, Vol XLVII, No 37, August 29, 2009
Whither India: The Way Up or the Way Down?
Monday 31 August 2009, by P K Chatterjee
The Indian National Congress is back in power at the Centre. The small
regional parties have practically disappeared from the scene. The
Trinamul Congress party is a regional party and a shadow of the
Congress itself. This government can safely be assumed to last for the
next five years. The Congress has won much larger number of seats than
all other parties and is the largest single party in the Lok Sabha.
This government can safely be called a Congress Government, because
the constraints which were there in the last government have
disappeared. There was a great deal of euphoria in the media and a
rosy picture of growth in GDP with industrial advancement had been
painted. But there are shadows of doubts over the high hopes for all-
round prosperity for the people being trumpeted by the Congress netas
and the press.
Swami Vivekananada said: “According to the Upanishads, the present is
determined by our past actions and the future by the
present.” (Complete Works, Vol 1, p. 10) The Congress has ruled India
from the Day of Independence, August 15, 1947, to 1996 with a short
break from 1977 to 1980 which was the period immediately following the
Emergency. Therefore it will be useful to recall, in short, the
history of this rule so that we may get an idea of what we, the common
people, can now really expect. The bright side has already been
highlighted by our media and is being done every day. Therefore,
recalling the other side, which is not so bright, or at times really
murky, may make us a little circumspect about the present and the
future being propagated.
First of all, the larger number of seats won by the Congress may not
be by virtue of their enhanced popularity. The National Election Watch
(NEW), an NGO comprising of 1200 NGOs and other organisations and some
individual citizens, has found that in this election three hundred
“crorepaties” have been elected as against only 154 in the previous
election. The Congress leads with 137 crorepaties as against 58 for
the BJP and 14 and 13 for the Samajwadi Party and BSP respectively.
The NEW has also found, after elaborate investigation, that use of
money to purchase votes has increased sharply compared to the previous
election. (The Times of India, New Delhi, May 18, 2009)¨
Now back to the past.
British Prime Minister Atlee had said in the British Parliament that
the Indian National Congress would be the successor to the British,
and in real fact the Congress has ruled India just like the successor
to the colonial British. Although the Congress leaders preached
equality, social and political, they practised the opposite. The
government the party gave to the people was in every way exactly
similar to the colonial government of the British. Even the luxurious
and ostentatious style of living of the Ministers was similar to the
British in India.
Dr B.R. Ambedkar said in the Constituent Assembly:
…What does democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognises
liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. ……… They
form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one from the
other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy. Liberty cannot be
divorced from equality, equality cannot be divorced from liberty.
Without equality, liberty would produce the supremacy of the few over
the many...
This was a very correct, laudable and inspiring statement coming from
a top leader of the country in charge of drafting the Constitution
which would be the machine to bring these sentiments into effect. He
must have been fully aware that openness, public accountability and
answerability of the government were essential requirements for
attaining those objectives that he professed. But he introduced a
Constitution for India which was completely bereft of those essential
requisites. It was, by and large, only an adaptation of the British
enacted Government of India Act, 1935 which governed India from 1936
to 1947. The draft Constitution was mainly, by and large, the
handiwork of the bureaucrats in the Legislative Department of the
Government of India. Dr Ambedkar was silent about the absence of these
basic requirements in the Constitution essential for attainment of the
fundamental rights he himself provided in Part III of the
Constitution. Nor did any top leader of the Congress party in the
Constituent Assembly speak a single word on this gaping lacuna in the
Constitution. No one raised a single voice to say that without
accountability Part III of the Constitution would be of very little
benefit to the common man and this was amply demonstrated during Mrs
Indira Gandhi’s Prime Ministership. Continuation of the colonial
system, however, showed its effects almost immediately after
independence.
All our democratic Congress leaders, disciples of Gandhiji, started
living in luxurious bungalows in colonial British style at the expense
of the taxpayers. Gandhiji had said that after independence the
Viceregal Lodge should be made into a hospital. Instead, the Congress
only changed its name into Rashtrapati Bhavan, and Babu Rajendra
Prasad started living there with all the colonial paraphernalia.
Jawaharlal Nehru occupied the palace used by the British Commander-in-
Chief. Each one of the Congress leaders occupied palatial colonial
bungalows, lived in lordly style and moved about in huge luxury cars
at government expense. The anticlimax was that much fanfare was made
in the press that our national leaders were drawing nominal salaries
at great personal sacrifice. Even the bureaucrats continued with the
life-style enjoyed in the British colonial days at the expense of the
taxpayers. The Congress rulers did not realise that the British
Government was the owner of the revenues, the Congress party was only
a trustee of the revenues. It was the people who owned the revenues of
the country. The judicial system, already weak and corrupt in the
British days, became more inefficient, dilatory and corrupt. Nepotism
and favouritism became so rampant that if Mr Nepot, by some miracle,
was reborn in India, even he would have died of shame.¨
In 1835 Lord Macauley in his address to the British Parliament said:
…………I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and have
not seen one person who is a begger, who is a thief. Such wealth I
have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such
calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country unless
we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and
cultural heritage, and therefore I propose that we replace her old and
ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that
all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own,
they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture and they will
become what we want them, a truly dominated nation. (Lawyers Update,
Part 5,
May 2009, page 28)
The colonial British succeeded. They broke the moral backbone of our
nation. The Congress leadership only carried on that tradition instead
of striving to revive the native culture. The slavish mentality of the
people, born out of poverty and lack of proper education that was
nourished by the British, continued during the entire period of
Congress rule.
Hero worship was enjoyed by the netas. In the sixties of the last
century, I had on one Sunday morning met Mrs Aruna Asaf Ali, who used
to live in a second floor flat on Asaf Ali Road. I lived in Daryaganj,
a walking distance from her house, and met her off and on. One morning
she said that a couple of days ago a huge public meeting was held in
the Ramlila Ground where a rostrum was newly constructed. Mrs Asaf Ali
was present with Jawaharlal Nehru at that meeting. She said:
……..After the meeting poor common people, men and women, crowded below
the rostrum to have a close look at Nehru. Young and old villagefolk,
old men and women were jostling to come closer and some touched his
feet. I saw a look of awe and tears in the eyes of these men and women
as if they were looking at a deity. ………Is this the freedom we fought
for, undergoing extreme privation and sacrificing all our comforts and
family life? Thousands and thousands of young lives were sacrificed to
achieve this. Is this the equality we promised to the country?
The Congress has throughout maintained this “ruler-and-ruled” colonial
style of functioning inherited from the British. “India must be ruled
from palaces,” Lord Cornowallis had said and the Congress continued
the tradition.
Parliamentary democracy succeeds only on a strong and functionally
effective party system. A political party, to be strong and effective,
must have an ideology shared by its members, its leadership must be
strong and honest. Thirdly, it must have strong internal discipline.
To attain these objectives the country also needs a free-and-fair
election system. The Congress and of course all the other political
parties in India today have no ideology to follow, the only objective
is to devise means for enhancing the strength of their vote-banks. The
internal discipline in the Congress party is further weakened by
dynastism and sycophancy. The volume of corruption amongst the
Congressmen disillusioned and disheartened even Gandhiji who had
suggested dissolution of the party after independence so that
politicians stood on their own feet. But the party bosses overruled
him.¨
The Nehru era, which started on August 15, 1947, ended in May 1964
with his demise. Lal Bahadur Shastri succeeded him for a very short
period as the Prime Minister, but he too died prematurely. Mrs Indira
Gandhi became the Prime Minister in 1966. Very soon thereafter the
Congress party was split into two. Senior leaders like Kamaraj, Atulya
Ghosh, Nijalingappa etc. remained with the party called Congress (O)
and a very large section, with Mrs Indira Gandhi as its leader,
separated and called itself Congress-I or Indira. The original
Congress gradually disappeared from the political scene.
It was during the long rule from 1966 to 1984 with a small gap of
about three-and-a-half years; the weakness in the Congress was amply
demonstrated. The internal democracy in the Congress party, which
existed in the Nehru era, disappeared, weakening the very foundation
of parliamentary democracy.
In England a strong Prime Minister like Margaret Thatcher was forced
to resign by the party because of her mishandling of the Faulkland
issue. The British press reported that she was seen in tears after
tendering her resignation. The lapse on the part of Margaret Thatcher
was much less in gravity than the Emergency proclamation and the
oppression unleashed thereafter by Mrs Gandhi. The Congress party
members were entirely neutralised and cowed down. In more recent times
Tony Blair was forced to resign from the Prime Minister’s Office by
his party for his role in the Iraq episode for playing second fiddle
to the Americans and failing to keep the British Parliament fully
informed. He tried his best to avert, but did not succeed.
In contrast we can recall the sycophancy publicly demonstrated by the
Congress netas in front of Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s official residence, 10
Janpath, New Delhi, vividly publicised on the television screen on the
day when Mrs Sonia Gandhi took the decision to nominate Dr Manmohan
Singh as the Prime Minister after the 14th election to the Lok Sabha.
The basic principle of parliamentary democracy, that the leader of the
political party is only the first amongst the equals, was banished by
the Congress party since the Prime Ministership of Mrs Indira Gandhi
and that culture apparently still continues in the Congress. Stability
of a government is not a mere periodicity, and prosperity of the
country does not mean the affluence of a few.
The consequence of this basic weakness is exemplified by the reaction
of our Congress Government to the arrogant and insolent behaviour of
an American airline’s petty security officer towards Dr A.P.J. Abdul
Kalam, the former President of this country, and that too after four
months of the occurrence and only after an uproar by the Opposition in
Parliament. Can we imagine what would have been the reaction of the US
Government if the same episode had happened in the reverse, and a
petty recalcitrant Indian Airlines security officer had meted the same
kind of insult to Bill Clinton, a former American President? Would the
American Government have sat over the insult silently for several
months and issued a show-cause notice to the Indian Airlines only
after a hue and cry was raised in the American Senate? Or if this had
happened with a dignitary or highly respected national figure of
Britain?
More demoralising is the news published in the Mail Today (July 22,
2009), in the front page. An excerpt is quoted here:
………. New details about the case reveal that a Security Official at the
Indira Gandhi International Airport had filed a formal report giving
extensive details of Dr Kalam’s humiliating body search in his own
country before leaving for the US on the night of April 21.
The report was sent to the Union Home Ministry and the Bureau of Civil
Aviation Security (BCAS) of the Civil Aviation Ministry.
But, raising the possibility of connivance with the foreign airline,
the two Ministries simply buried the case, perhaps knowing that the
former President would not go public on the issue.
No comments are necessary.
A few words about economic prosperity in the near future, so much
fanfared by our Congress Government and the media, may not be out of
place. A Hungarian millionaire, George Soros, wrote in the Atlantic
Monthly in February 1997:
Although I have made a fortune in the financial markets, I now fear
……..that the spread of market values into all areas of life is
endangering our open and democratic society. The main enemy of the
open society, I believe, is no longer the Communists, but the
capitalist threat. The blind faith in the wisdom and honesty of the
free market is causing havoc………
In India, the Satyam episode is a clear proof of the correctness of
the statement by Soros. A thorough probe may reveal worse frauds in
many more apparently respectable business establishments.
Another grievance of an ordinary Indian citizen is that the Congress
party has done nothing worthwhile so far to wipe out or even minimise
criminalisation of politics in India. Bribing or intimidating voters
to get elected is perhaps the worst crime by a politician against
parliamentary democracy.
The Bhura Committee report in October 1993 after the bomb outrage in
Bombay said:
This could not have happened without these elements having been
protected by the functionaries of the concerned Government departments
specially Customs, Income Tax, Police and others……..
[para 2.1]
It further said:
The investigation into the Bombay Blast cases have revealed extensive
linkages of the underworld in the various Governmental agencies,
political circles, business sector and the film world……. [para 6.2
(iv)]
More than fifteen years have gone by since the Bhura Committee report.
Organised crimes are more frequent now and more widespread. Bomb
blasts have taken place in Delhi Itself recently and in various other
places. Even foreign terrorists are organising crimes in India today.
The allegations of killing innocent people by the dishonest police in
fake encounters are more numerous now than before.¨
What has been unleashed against the Naxalites and Maoists in West
Bengal by the combined wisdom of the CPM and the Congress can only be
called “state terrorism”. The whole episode has been bolstered with
great media publicity and TV coverage as if the Army and the police
have achieved a heroic victory. After watching some TV coverage of
this episode I was reminded of a line from a poem by Kazi Nazrul
Islam: “Mosha mere oi garaje kaman, biplab mariachhi ….” (“after
killing mosquitoes the cannon roars, I have killed a revolution)”;
translation is mine—P.K.C.)
After intensive agitation of Medha Patkar and others over deprivation
of all means of livelihood to thousands and thousands of poor
peasants, artisans and other small professional and other people due
to the raising of the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam in Madhya
Pradesh, a Group of Central Ministers (GoM) led by Mrs Meira Kumar
toured the region on a fact-finding visit. Their report, which was
published, stated:
(a) Alternative land for cultivation could not be provided to
thousands of uprooted peasants.
(b) Full cash compensation promised to be paid in the alternative was
not received by thousands of uprooted peasants and others because the
cash provided for that purpose was grossly insufficient. Even for
those who received cash, the amount was inadequate and even that
inadequate sum was paid only after the poor people paid bribes to the
corrupt bureaucrats.
(c) Thousands of uprooted peasants and other people were left
destitute.
A huge number of these unfortunate people became Naxalites.
The bulk of the Naxalites in Andhra, Bihar, Orissa, West Bengal and
elsewhere comprise of such poor people who were victims of greed and
oppression. They were left without remedy due to corruption in the
State Police and the administration. This class of Naxalites has
originated and multiplied during the fifty years of Congress rule at
the Centre and in almost all the States in India after independence.
Risings of these aboriginals, the tribals, of the Scheduled Caste and
the poorest was inevitable. The standard of their living was sub-
human, and could safely be termed as “animal existence”. This was a
shame for any civilised government. Hence sending the Army and armed
police of the State Government to subdue their uprising, instead of
giving them their legitimate dues as citizens of the country, is
surely anything but heroism.
Hence, the prospect of a long spell of Congress rule may not fill the
hearts of many with delight and expectation for a bright and
prosperous future for the people. The Mittals and Ambanis and Tatas
and Birlas may join the ranks of the richest people in the world, but
the teeming millions of Indians living in perpetual poverty will not
be touched by these facts. Gandhiji said:
………… The contrast between the palaces of New Delhi and the miserable
hovels of the poor labouring class nearby, cannot last one day in a
free India in which the poor will enjoy the same power as the richest
of the land. A violent and bloody revolution is a certainty one day,
unless there is a voluntary abdication of riches and the power that
richness gives and sharing them for the common good…..
Perhaps the combined wisdom of the CPM and Congress netas will not
appreciate what Gandhiji had said. They will learn the hard way when
the opposite reaction comes with equal force.
The author is a Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India.
chhotemianinshallah
India likely to test-fire BrahMos supersonic missile in Dec
PTI
Sunday, October 11, 2009 13:33 IST
New Delhi: To add more teeth to the country's underwater weapons
delivery capabilities, India is planning to test-fire the 290-km range
BrahMos supersonic cruise missile from an undersea platform off the
coast of Orissa soon.
The test-firing is planned to be carried out in mid-December and will
prove the Indo-Russian joint venture BrahMos cruise missile's
capability to be fired from submarines, Defence Ministry sources said
here.
Underwater weapon-delivery platforms are considered to be the most
potent second strike capability and the addition of nuclear capable
BrahMos in its submerged arsenal is expected to provide more strength
to India's 'no first strike' nuclear policy.
India has developed significant underwater weapon delivery platforms
in the recent past including an indigenously-built nuclear submarine
INS Arihant and successfully test-fired the nuclear capable 700 km
range K-15 Shaurya missile early this year. The Navy is also expecting
to receive a Russian-made Akula-II class 'Nerpa' nuclear submarine on
lease by early next year.
The test-firing of the BrahMos is likely be done from a pontoon at
Integrated Test Range in Balasore on Orissa coast from a DRDO
facility. The same pontoon was used for carrying out the test-firing
of the 700-km range K-15 'Shaurya' Submarine Launched Ballistic
Missile early this year, the sources said.
A ring will have to be fitted in the existing pontoon for fitting-in
the BrahMos, which has a relatively smaller diameter than the K-15
SLBM, the sources said.
The under-water cruise missile will have the same capabilities as its
earlier variants and would be able to strike at both land and sea-
based targets, they added.
The Indian Navy also wants that its second line of Project 75A
submarines should have the capability of firing the BrahMos. The Navy
had released the Request for Information (RFI) in September last year
for acquiring six submarines as a follow-on order of theScorpene
submarines.
BrahMos has been developed jointly by India and Russia and has been
inducted in the Army and Navy already. the IAF is also working on
integrating the missile on its Su-30MKI air superiority aircraft.
The two countries have also signed an agreement for developing the
hypersonic version of the missile, which currently flies at a speed of
2.8 mach.
chhotemianinshallah
India's obsession with the US, Pak & China
Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr
Monday, October 5, 2009 22:30 IST
this columnFrom the failed summit at Agra in 2001 between prime
minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf
to the joint statement issued by the two leaders on the sidelines of
the 2004 Saarc summit in Islamabad, it seemed that the BJP-led NDA
government could think of nothing else but Pakistan. The whole foreign
policy approach was Pakistan-oriented.
Even closer ties with the United States were seen as a part of India's
Pakistan policy.
From July 2005 when prime minister Manmohan Singh and the then US
president George W Bush issued a joint statement which talked about
the India-US civil nuclear deal to October 2008 when the US Congress
passed the required legislation, the Indian political class and media
did nothing but speak ad nauseam about the pros and cons of the issue.
Pakistan again occupied the whole Indian mind space from November 26,
2008 when alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists attacked Mumbai.
Politicians and media were grappling with the question of finding the
right response to Pakistan-based Islamist terrorism. For the last few
weeks, it is China that has become a nightmare for the Indian media
and policy wonks dealing with foreign policy.
The curious thing is that despite the time and energy Indians dealing
with such matters spend thinking and arguing about Pakistan, the US
and China, there is no clarity about relations with these three
countries. Secondly, it sometimes appears that India has strategic
concerns only with these three and no one else. Is it possible to do
better than indulge in these obsessive-compulsive responses which do
not befit an emerging global power like India?
Will it be easier to deal with Pakistan if India were to pay attention
to relations with Bangladesh? Compared to the irreconcilable issues
which plague relations with Islamabad, the problems with Dhaka are
solvable. Yet, the Indian establishment refuses to consider the
possibility of improving ties with Bangladesh, which could serve as a
benchmark for the problem-ridden Indian-Pakistan relations.
If Pakistan is India's obsession in south Asia, then it is China that
seems to be the sole trouble for India in the whole of Asia. India has
no time for Association of South-East Asian Nations (Asean) group,
which is a hugely influential group on India's eastern front.
If India were to become an important strategic player in the Asean
region, then it could have a subtle impact on India-China relations.
India's relations with Japan and South Korea could be leveraged as
well in dealing with Beijing. The possibilities aren't even considered
in New Delhi.
The US is India's weak point. Both in the government and outside, the
idea of dealing with America is overwhelming. The India-US civil
nuclear deal is seen as a gift from Washington and not as recognition
of India's enhanced status.
There is a sense of diffidence when it comes to dealing with the US.
There is the strong feeling that India cannot do much on its own on
the world stage if the US were not to be on its side. There is also
the perception that the US is a key player in India-Pakistan as well
as India-China relations. The assumptions are of course totally
mistaken.
The pathetic aspect of this obsession is that India's foreign policy
vision remains nebulous when it has to define its position with regard
to the wide world. India's economic potential remains constricted
because it is so US-focused, and its neighbourhood relations are
disabled by its concerns with Pakistan and China.
It should be possible for the next generation of politicians,
policymakers and entrepreneurs to break out of the caged thinking of
the present and reach out to the open horizons of Asia, Africa, Europe
and Latin America. India cannot hope to be a big power if it cannot
get rid of its fixations.
chhotemianinshallah
The taming of the US
Venkatesan Vembu
Friday, October 9, 2009 15:44 IST
During the US presidential election campaign last year, when 'Obama
mania' was sweeping the world, policy wonks in China were observing
the faraway electoral race with some mild trepidation. Their concerns
were rooted in two perceived realities: First, front-runner Obama was
a Democratic candidate, whereas Republican presidents, with their free-
trade agenda, have traditionally been good for China. Second, Chinese
leaders felt that if the charismatic Obama were to be elected as the
first black president of the US, he would have the capacity to change
the world's perceptions about US for the better, which would work to
China's disadvantage as it competes for power and influence around the
world.
Now, however, Chinese leaders will presumably have no more reason to
be wary of Obama's 'halo effect'. For one thing, the Obama of today,
after barely nine months in office in a hyperpartisan political
environment, is a mere shadow of the inspirational, lyrical man who
campaigned on lofty promises to unite America and heal the world. His
domestic political appeal is rapidly diminishing; and, as a recent
parody on the Saturday Night Live show noted with some exaggeration,
if he has accomplished anything at all, the world is yet to hear of
it.
Additionally, earlier this week, Obama faced the first defining test
of his mettle to determine whether he would stand his ground, or yield
to China on an issue that has more symbolic than substantive
significance -- a White House photo-opportunity with the visiting
Tibetan leader Dalai Lama.
Obama's response was to signal his extreme sensitivity to Chinese
sentiments by declining to meet the man whom Chinese leaders
respectfully call "the jackal in a monk's robe". In so doing Obama
became the first US president in 18 years to not receive the spiritual
leader who fled Tibet for India following the Chinese invasion of
1959, and represents Tibetan aspirations for an autonomous homeland.
(To be fair, Obama plans to make some critical concessions to Indian
sensitivities as well -- in the choice of the menu for the state
banquet he will host in Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's honour later
this month. Obama will likely pass up his favourite dish of shrimp and
scallops in hot garlic butter in favour of a more traditional meat
dish that might better suit the culinary interest -- and digestive
capabilities -- of the septuagenarian visitor.)
At one level, Obama's genuflective gesture towards China, which comes
barely a month ahead of his planned visit to that country, is being
projected as a "pragmatic" move that's intended to secure China's
goodwill on a whole range of issues where its support is critical.
These include the nuclear crises involving North Korean and Iran
(where China's leverage with both countries and its vote in the UN
Security Council are decisive factors), reviving global economic
growth (for which Chinese spenders need to do some heavy lifting), and
even climate change (given China's dubious reputation as the world's
biggest polluter).
The 'deal' marks the translation into action of the new US "vision for
a China partnership" that was outlined just last month by US deputy
secretary of state James Steinberg. In the opaque but upbeat language
of diplomacy, the new policy is called "strategic reassurance".
As Steinberg outlined it, strategic reassurance rests on a "core, if
tacit, bargain": China's "arrival" as a prosperous and successful
power would be welcomed; in turn, China "must reassure the world that
its rise will not come at the expense of security and well-being of
others." Bolstering that bargain, Steinberg added, "must be a priority
in the US-China relationship."
For all the spin that is put on it, however, Obama's action
symbolically represents, as nearly as any single event may, China's
'taming' of the US, on account of the latter's economic enfeeblement
at the present moment -- and its heavy indebtedness to China.
America's current predicament is, of course, not Obama's fault: After
all, these were problems he inherited from the previous
administration. But by starting off his engagement with China with
what is perceived (and not just by an inflamed, reflexively critical
Republican right-wing) as a weak-kneed response, Obama has set a
precedent that may compel him to walk on the eggshells of Chinese
sensitivities for a long time.
The question that arises is this: How far will the Obama
administration's policy of "strategic reassurance" with China go in
placating Chinese sensitivities? What happens when China's
"sensitivities" conflict with the interests of other countries? These
aren't academic questions: As a militarily overstretched, economically
enfeebled America strikes "bargains" that effectively pass the Asian
baton to China, it bodes ill for the interests of other players.
A tribal proverb from Kenya, from where Obama's father hailed, notes
that when elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. Much the same fate
awaits Asian grasslands when elephants work out strategic bargains.
chhotemianinshallah
Historic Mandate, Historic Turning Point or More of the Same? Gail
Omvedt on Elections 2009
Guest post by GAIL OMVEDT
The 2009 Lok Sabha elections in India were projected to be a
historical turning point just as the 2008 Presidential elections in
the U.S. were a turning point. But the nature of that expected
turning point was very different.
Five years ago, even two years before the elections, no one in the
U.S. would have expected that a “Black” man with two Muslim names and
one African name could have been elected President of the United
States. Yet it happened, and it happened not simply because Barack
Husain Obama ran a brilliant campaign and is proving the most
effective president in dealing with the economic and social crises
besetting the world today, but also because of the racial
transformation the U.S. has undergone in recent decades.In India, the
2009 elections have seemed to project an equally significant turning
point. Throughout the election campaign, it appeared as if the two
major “national” parties, the Congress and the BJP, were losing their
hold, that a coalition would be formed based on regional leaders, that
a “hung parliament” was in the offing. Even the most optimistic pro-
Congress prediction – emerging from Meghnad Desai of the U.K. – had
seen the Congress emerging as the largest party but with only 160
seats. At the same time, what most Indians have termed “identity
factors” (caste, religious affiliation, region) seemed to be emerging
as of primary importance. Symbolizing these were a host of “OBC”
leaders representing different regions, and above all Mayawati, the
Dalit woman leading the Bahujan Samaj Party. Of all the contending
non-Congress, non-BJP leaders, she was the one who captured major
national and international attention, whether favorable or unfavorable
(Newsweek described her as “Anti-Obama”, others more
sympathetically). She was obviously compared to the U.S. President
Obama, as representing aspirations of the sections of society
previously considered most “low”, deprived, “untouchable.”
We know now, or seem to know, that this has not happened. “Regional”
leaders have been sidelined; Mayawati’s BSP “has failed,” the Congress
has emerged as the single largest party, practically capable of
forming the government on its own, humbling previously dissident
allies like Sharad Pawar’s National Congress Party, rejecting the help
of Mulayam’s SP and similar smaller parties, apparently able to form
the government. The CPI(M) – experienced as “fascist” in West Bengal,
opposing every kind of “liberalization” at the centre while courting
capitalists in its Bengal stronghold – has suffered the worst blow in
history. Most of the “national” and “international” commentators have
been breathing a sigh of relief, and not only because the Congress now
appears “free” of its Left allies’ demands. Even more than the demise
of the Left, the commentators have been celebrating the apparent
demise of regional/caste/religion-based politics. Three examples from
The Indian Express of 17 May will illustrate this:
“Celebrate the defeat of opportunism, obfuscation and obscurantism…the
era of votebank politics as we have known it is over” (Pratap Bhanu
Mehta)
“2009 is a historic election. It ends the idea that our politics will
fragment” (editorial).
“Politics of aspiration has won over politics of grievance….The Indian
voter has always rejected arrogance and pomposity but has sometimes
been forgiving towards those with whom she might have found affinity
of caste, religion or ethnicity. By junking that, the voter has now
shown new maturity” (Shekhar Gupta).
Gupta’s politically correct use of “she” is amusing, given the lack of
significant progress in putting women representatives in the Lok
Sabha. Aside from this, it is clear that “votebank politics” and
similar phrases are but code-words to say that caste issues, the
problems of religious minorities, and questions of linguistic-national
identity seemed to be overcome: one again a “national” party, with a
rhetoric primarily of development (“inclusive development” is the
codeword), has re-established itself. This is the celebration we are
confronted with in most national “analysis”.
Yet, aside from the Left’s debacle, the celebration is hogwash. Two
“regional” leaders remain, proudly holding to their own states,
perhaps more unconcerned about the central government than the centre
is concerned about them. Nitish Kumar in Bihar, Naveen Patnaik in
Orissa, show the continuing force of regional (linguistic)
nationalism. In Punjab, in spite of the fact that after the shoe-
throwing incident forced Congress to withdraw Tytler and Sajan Kumar
from New Delhi, in spite of the fact that the Badal family controlling
the Shiromani Akali Dal (the main current representative of Sikh
nationalism) was notorious for treating the region as its fiefdom, the
SAD actually polled a larger percentage of votes in 2009, its best
since 1966 when Punjab was reorganized on a linguistic basis.
In Maharashtra, Raj Thackeray’s Maharashtra Navnirman Sena – which
might be described as the distorted, “goonda” face of national-
linguistic Marathi/national sentiment, won over a lakh votes in every
one of Mumbai’s six constituencies. The result was to split the BJP-
Shiv Sena opposition votes and give the victory to Congress in five
constituencies; only Priya Dutt won by a larger margin than the votes
of the MNS. In Tamilnadu, Congress continues to depend on “Dravidian”
parties in Tamilnadu; it has no significant presence of its own. In
Andhra, the Telegu Desum Party and the new, Kapu-based party of
Chiranjiivi, remain significant deciders in the voting. Finally, in
Kashmir, if the apparently high voting in 2008 was call“vote for
democracy”, the 2009 overall percentage of about 26% in the Valley
should be called, according to one commentator, a “vote against
[Indian] democracy.”
In one of the more perseptive analyses, Atul Kohli challenged the idea
of a “historic mandate” to Congress and summed up the situation as
follows:
“more than half the voters continue to vote for parties other than the
two main ones….the electorate has not switched away from voting for a
variety of local parties based on caste, class, religion and
charismatic individuals. The underlying fragmentation of the
electorate is real and continues” (Indian Express, 19 May)
And the BSP is far from being a failure, even if the hype had been
raised too high. It has gained in seats since 2004, and is now – with
6.09%% of the national vote – the third largest party in India, after
Congress (29.02%) and BJP (19.2%). It has increased its seats from 19
to 21 – in contrast to the Left (decline from 59 to 24) and BJP
(decline from 138 to 116). Congress may look good in terms of seats
won, but this is solely due to the “first past the post” electoral
system. The long-term decline of India’s major “national” party has
not been arrested (see Appendix).
Caste and linguistic-national (“regional”) identities are linked.
Caste-conscious political analysis has always stressed that the centre
represens Brahmanic control; the states a non-Brahman, even anti-
Brahman, “dominant” caste control. This is true in varying ways,
since caste itself has its regional-linguistic specifics. Nitish Kumar
has not only given development; he also represents a nonBrahman
politics. Naveen Patnaik, in turn is a Kayastha (Karan in Oriya
terminology; and the conflict between Kayasthas and Brahmans is a
historic one throughout India: the Kayasthas represented a “shudra”
intelligentsia that rose to power by providing services to Muslim
rulers equal to those of Brahmans. In Maharashtra, for example, the
“Thackerays” are Kayasthas, and Bal Thakre’s father, Prabodhankar
Thakre, was a part of the nonBrahman movement of his day.
Sikhism, in turn, the domimamt force in the Punjab, has had a strong
anti-Brahman streak from the beginning, continuing in spite of the
problems of Jat Sikh “dominance.”.
And what of Mayawati? Most of her dalit supporters are now saying
that “sarvajan” politics has failed; what they mean by this is the
much celebrated alliance with Brahmans (who constitute approximately
12% of the area’s population. But with the BSP the problem is
different. Not only Mayawati, but her Dalit supporters have continued
to use the term “dalit” and to see things in terms of “dalit”. This
emphasis on Dalits (as opposed to OBCs or “bahujans”) is a problem of
the last decade or two. Mayawati’s party is after all the Bahujan
Samaj Party, and was built deliberately by Kanshiram to unite Dalits
with the “ex-shudra” castes and with religious minorities. He himself
– when he came to Maharashtra and other southern states after the
first BSP victory in UP in 1993 – was ready to court the Kunbi-
Maratha, knew that Shivaji had been taken as a shudra until he bought
off Brahmans enough to get a “ksatriya” coronation, and brought, along
with Ambedkar, the names of Jotirao Phule, Shahu Maharaj, and Periyar
to national attention. Kanshiram was also interested in a program of
alternative development, which has had historical roots in the
approaches of Phule and Shahu Maharaj.
In other words, the BSP was – before Mayawati – the only political
party in India to consciously project itself as a broad, national,
party of the majority oppressed castes and religious groups. BAMCEF –
the name of Kanshi Ram’s first organization, Backward and Minority
Classes Employees Federation – expressed this. BSP still has the
potentiality of becoming this – a national opposition party
representing what Maharashtrians call a “Phule-Ambedkarite”
alternative developmental ideology that would contrast with the
“Gandhi-Nehruvian” standard developmentalism of Congress. (This would
also have its regional/national specifics: Basava-Ambedkar in
Karnataka, for instance; Periyar-Iyothee Thass-Ambedkar in
Tamilnadu). But the BSP has failed to project any genuine political-
ideological alternative in the last few years. Should it do so, it
would be a potentially much more forceful alternative as a national
party.
“OBC” politics, as we have noted, is linked to the question of
“regionalism,” or national-linguistic sentiment not only in India but
at a subcontinental level. There are today many movements going on
directed towards some kind of autonomy in the region, within India and
on India’s borders. Tibet (with echoes in regions of HImachal Pradesh
in India), Kashmir, the former Khalistani/Punjabi movement (which
echoes in Punjab-Pakistan), the Madhesi movement in Nepal which has
its social structural similarities to Bihar, the autonomy/independence
movements in Nagaland, Mizoram, even Manipur, the currently defeated
movement of Tamils in Sri Lanka with its links to Tamilnadu in India.
All of these movements have had tremendous force, but they all of
these have so far been articulated separately, without any effort at
communication among themselves. The possibilities – “spectre” in
Marx’s terminology – haunting India and the other existing “nation-
states” of the subcontinet is that of a political force that might
pose an alternative federalism, a genuine decentralization, a
stripping of the gross powers of the centre in India and neighboring
countries. National-linguistic sentiments up to now have often taken
a distorted form, have sometimes been connected with regressive social
forces. For example, the desire for a separate identity for Sikhs has
been expressed in terms of forcing dress codes on women. If such
distortions are overcome, and an alternative federalism is posed to
unite the different linguistic nationalities, it would have tremendous
implications not only for India but for the entire south Asian region
— and for the neighboring areas of China and Russia as well.
APPENDIX
Year Cong BJP BSP
——————————————–
1952 45.00 03.10
1957 47.80 05.90
1962 44.70 06.40
1967 40.80 09.40
1971 43.70 07.40
1977 34.50 —–
1980 42.70 —–
1984 48.10 07.40
1989 39.50 11.50
1991 36.50 20.10
1996 28.80 20.29 3.64
1998 25.72 25.38 4.66
1999 28.3 23,75 4,16
2004 26.44 22.16
2009 29.02 19.12 6.98
Responses
Barack Husain Obama ran a brilliant campaign and is proving the most
effective president in dealing with the economic and social crises
besetting the world today,
This is unbelievable. Obama has basically called all the vultures from
Wall Street and given the keys to Treasury to these vultures. And
here, Gail Omvedt is telling obama is the most effective president in
dealing with economic crisis.
Effective in opening everything for the wall street vultures who
themselves created this crisis.
Obamaniacs are not much different from Gipper aka Reagan. He told
Facts don’t matter, Facts are silly little things.
By: jason on July 3, 2009
at 6:11 PM
I could not agree more that reading the recent electoral results as a
defeat of ‘regionalism’ and ‘caste-based thinking’ is dangerous
because it sidelines the very real issues animating a variety of
movements throughout India. A couple of months ago I read something by
Ram Guha in Outlook that basically said that Congress was the only
‘honourable’ party because of its storied history in the nationalist
struggle (and implicitly because it defines itself as a ‘unifiying’
party). Sweeping the legitimacy of regional parties is the other side
of this type of argument.
But at the same time, I wonder if Mayawati (and previous low-caste
political success stories in the ‘heartland’ like Lalu Prasad) are the
right people to lead this promised re-making of the South Asian
political landscape. The criticisms of corruption and poor governance
in UP and Bihar must be taken seriously, and the world must be given
evidence that this new kind of power centre can indeed work to uplift
people. Right or wrong (I’m by no means familiar with statistics in
these regions), the PERCEPTION was that UP wasn’t governed well, which
is why Rahul Gandhi was so successful there this year.
By: Mircea on July 4, 2009
at 2:58 AM
अधिकांश राजनीतिक पंडित 2009 के चुनाव को जिस झाडू मार भाषा में
व्याख्यायित कर रहे हैं और जल्दी से बताना चाहते हैं कि इसबार का
चुनाव ऐतिहासिक क्षण था और वे चूंकि इस ऐतिहासिक क्षण के साक्षी हैं तो
वे भी महान हैं। असल में तथाकथित महानता का यह मध्यवर्गीय पाखंड
है,वर्चुअल आनंद है। इसबार का लोकसभा चुनाव नव्य उदार प्रौपेगैण्डा के
पैराडाइम के आधार पर लडा गया और उसी पैराडाइम को आधार बनाकर ओबामा ने
अमरीका में सदर का चुनाव लडा था। चर्चा इस पक्ष पर होनी चाहिए कि इसबार
के चुनाव के प्रौपेगैण्डा का नव्य उदार पैराडाइम क्या है, सन 1971
लोकसभा चुनाव में जिस तरह स्व.श्रीमती इदिरागांधी ने रेडियो का जमकर
इस्तेमाल किया था ठीक वैसी ही आक्रामक पद्धति का इसबार टीवी समाचार
चैनलों का इस्तेमाल किया गया। सुनियोजित ढंग से कांग्रेस के द्वारा
समाचार चैनलों के टॉक शो और समाचारों के समय का देशभर में प्रबंधन किया
गया। साथही यह भी सुनिश्चित किया गया कि मनमोहन सिंह सरकार के खिलाफ किसी
भी किस्म का गंभीर प्रचार और मूल्यांकन चैनलो से प्रसारित नहीं हो पाए।
बडे ही कौशल के साथ नव्य उदार आर्थिक नीतियों पर किसी भी किस्म की बहस
को टाल दिया गया और मान लिया गया कि यह चुनाव नव्य उदार आर्थ्रिक
नीतियों पर जनता की मुहर है। यह पहला ऐसा चुनाव है जिसकी कोई एक
देशव्यापी अंतर्वस्तु नहीं है। कांग्रेस को संगठित दल और विपक्ष को
विभाजित और अक्षम दलों के नीतिहीन मोर्चे के रूप में पेश किया गया। टीवी
चैनलों का अधिकांश समय गैर जरूरी मुददों पर ही खर्च हुआ।चैनलों में
सामाजिक, आर्थिक क्षय के आख्यान एकसिरे से वैसे ही गायब थे जैसे ओबामा
के प्रचार अभियान में गायब थे। टीवी प्रचार ने भय ,अस्थिरता और असुरक्षा
का वातावरण बनाया जिसका तानाबाना समझने में विपक्ष असफल रहा। नव्य उदार
प्रचार मॉडल में तथ्यहीनता,सत्य का अनादर या अनुपस्थिति, बडबोलापन और
नकली उम्मीदें होती हैं, ये सभी लक्षण ओबामा के प्रचार में थे और तकरीबन
ये ही लक्षण कांग्रेस के टीवी प्रचार में भी थे। चुनावों का मूल्यांकन
करते समय हमारा ध्यान प्रचार अभियान के बुनियादी लक्षणों पर केन्द्रित
होना चाहिए न कि मूल्यनिर्णय पर।कांग्रेस की जीत हुई है किंतु बहुमत
कांग्रेस को नहीं मिला बल्कि उसने अन्य दलों का सहयोग लेकर सरकार बनायी
है,व्यापक प्रचार के बावजूद कांग्रेस को मात्र 206 सीटें मिली हैं। यह
टीवी प्रचार की सीमा का भी संकेत है। वोटों का सामाजिक गणित अभी यह संकेत
नहीं देता कि अस्मिता राजनीति का समापन हो गया है बल्कि संकेत यही हैं कि
अस्मिता की राजनीति सिर्फ चुनाव में हारी है। सामाजिक गणित में नहीं।
कांग्रेस ने टेलीविजन के जरिए नव्य उदारतावाद पर सहमति निर्मित करने की
कोशिश की थी जिसके यथेष्ट परिणाम सामने नहीं आए हैं,शक्तिशाली भारत और
सम़द्ध भारत के नारे के तहत आर्थिकमंदी को छिपा लिया गया ऐसा किस तरह
किया गया इस पहलू पर ज्यादा विचार करना चाहिए। विमर्श का नव्य उदार
पद्धतिशास्त्र क्या है इसे खोलने की जरूरत है। कांग्रेस ने
प्रतीकात्मक तौर पर बायनरी अपोजीशन के पद्धतिशास्ृत्र का जमकर
इस्तेमाल किया है उसे खोलने की जरूरत है। नव्य उदार प्रचार अभियान की
पर्तों को खोले बिना इस चुनाव के राजनीतिक और विचारधारात्मक परिणामों के
बारे में तर्कपूर्ण अनुमान लगाना संभव नहीं।साथ ही वाम दलों की पराजय को
अलग करके कोई संतुलित समझ नहीं बन सकती।
By: जगदीश्वर चतुर्वेदी on July 4, 2009
at 7:13 AM
The analysis is sound one as it addresses the given complexity of the
verdict which will serve as raw material for a long time to grasp the
hidden depths of Indian polity.Such open systems of analysis are rare
in Indian mainstream media.Those who were involved in the intensive
political campaign did not miss the reading of the mood of the
voter.national sentiment as it was long ignored had shown itself
asserting strongly even during the 22 jul 08 trust vote.At that time
people had begun to see Dr. Manmohan Singh as a vote catcher
campaigner.He would have left a more distinct mark if spared from his
heart surgery. The more notable fact is the capturing of the emerging
mood which then got reflected in the campaign slogans.The whole of
national sympathy did not translate in votes for congress because of
organizational streamlining of the congress was still an unfinished
task.Bihar and Orissa are two glaring examples.The second major fact
is the miracle of collective wisdom in action. Nobody was capable of
driving such a powerful and unforgettable lesson to divisive politics
of communal BJP and her sibling.The bewildered BJP is now speaking
many different languages as Mr. Advani has himself admitted.The third
point is the absence of national opposition has been underlined as the
recent democratic exercise has shown it is only congress having
recognizable national presence.BJP claim of being the other pole has
illusive substance.
chhotemianinshallah
Posted by: Ahilan Kadirgamar | September 23, 2009
The End or Future of Capitalism and Ending Obama’s War
Last night I heard a public conversation between the Marxist
Geographer David Harvey and Alexander Cockburn the editor of
CounterPunch and columnist with The Nation. The conversation titled,
‘The End or Future of Capitalism’ was hosted by The Center for Place,
Culture & Politics. Cockburn opened the conversation by speaking
about the lack of vision in the Left. Harvey argued that the
capitalist system was facing tremendous stress and that a different
path of economic development had to be envisioned. Harvey continued
on the end of capitalism as one needing analysis in terms of how this
crisis arose with the problem of accumulation and realization of
surplus, and poses the question of what is to be done? Central to
Harvey’s argument is that the mounting stress seen at the centre of
the capitalist system in the last three decades is the culmination of
the inability to sustain the two and a half percent compounded
accumulation that has been a characteristic of global capital over the
last couple hundred years. That the capitalist system is unable to
find productive investments for the two and a half percent
accumulation rate leading to repetitious and aggravating crises in the
unproductive bubbles in financial assets.
I stood in line when the floor was open, but much to my disappointment
the moderator had brought the conversation to an end before I could
ask my question, and so I am going to ask it here. Both Harvey and
Cockburn talked about the urgency of the moment and the need for
provocative questions from the Left. But what is the more urgent
question to ask at this moment? Is it the end or future of
capitalism? Or is it the end or future of the American Empire? The
two may well be related and even two sides of the same coin, but the
question for me is influenced by the urgency of the situation in our
region; the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The relatedness of the
two questions also leads me to ask what would be the consequence of
the tremendous stress at the centre of the capitalist system on the
wars fought at the periphery of Empire? And in turn, what is the
impact of the tremendous stress of the wars on the periphery for the
hegemonic centre of the capitalist system?
Harvey mentioned the lunacy of the financial bailout package of $700
billion that was pushed through with a three page proposal by Treasury
Secretary Paulson last year and approved with little questioning by
much of Congress and for that matter by Obama. Harvey characterized
it as a financial coup by Wall Street, evident of the relationship
between class power and state power in the US. And as I thought of my
question about the American empire, there is an eerie similarity with
the lunacy of the decision on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, with
the massive destruction and massacre of the hundreds of the
thousands. The Congressional Research Service puts the financial cost
as follows: “Congress has approved a total of about $864 billion for
military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid,
embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations
initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF)
Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle
(ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF).”
What seems to be the madness of such decisions whether they be in
relation to finance capital or the military establishment, ultimately
relate to state power in the US. An interesting article in the Nation
recently talks about the increasing militarization of US foreign
policy and development aid. If Wall Street has set the destructive
course for capitalism the Pentagon is competing to chart the
corresponding course for Empire.
The urgency of the daily deaths and destruction in the escalation of
war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, will see another discussion titled
‘Ending Obama’s War’ initiated by the South Asia Solidarity Initiative
(SASI) which I am a member of and co-hosted by The Centre for Place
Culture and Politics at the very same auditorium of last night’s
public conversation. ‘Ending Obama’s War’ will be held on Oct 7th,
the eighth anniversary of the beginning of the war in Afghanistan.
Some may question the characterization of ‘Obama’s War’ and for them I
would point to Obama’s policy statement on March 27th.
Code Pink has put out a video on Barbara Lee, the only voice to oppose
the vote in both chambers of Congress (98-0 and 420-1) on
authorization for use of military force in Afghanistan in September
2001. Not only is this symptomatic of the fragility of dissent in the
US, it is reflective of the depth of the Bush Regime’s “war on terror”
which will outlast the of end Obama’s war, unless there is a
rethinking in the United States with perhaps a reversal of the votes
in Congress, where only one vote is against ending the use of military
force in Afghanistan!
Harvey in his talk dismissed the rhetoric of “re-regulation” and the
need to think of abolishing the financial practices and the derivative
markets that have aggravated the global financial crisis. There might
be a parallel to the war discourse in the US today, which is in the
realm of re-calibrating military operations, about increasing or
decreasing troops and not about abolishing war. There are increasing
calls from the Left in the US for full withdrawal from Afghanistan and
to allow regional diplomacy to address the situation, but as to
whether the American Leviathan or the Pentagon will allow that as much
as Wall Street will accept abolishing finance capital’s ponzi schemes
pose a fundamental challenge to the people of the United States. And
indeed, the possibilities of regional diplomacy as an alternative to
the wars and militarisation in South Asia are also contingent on the
problems that emerge out of improving US-India relations.
Code Pink replays Barbara Lee’s intervention in the courageous No
vote: “as we act let us not become the evil that we deplore”. And at
home in Sri Lanka, where the recent discourse has been about the
victory in the local “war on terror”, that has indeed become the case
where the “terror” that was deplored, seems to have been taken over
from the Tigers to become the motivating theme of the Rajapaksa
Regime. And this weekend as Lankan dissenters remember the political
activist Rajani Thiranagama slain twenty years ago by the LTTE,
Nandita Haksar is to speak on ‘Resistance and the Politics of Fear’.
All this to say, that as we oppose Empire, we must also oppose the
repressive politics of local states and reactionary non-state forces.
That would be a return to the people-centred politics in solidarity
with the peoples in Empire’s periphery ravaged by the manoeuvrings of
the financial and military establishments at the centre of Empire.
bademiyansubhanallah
Only 12 of 73 China border roads are ready
Rajat Pandit, TNN 12 October 2009, 12:30am IST
NEW DELHI: Even as India upgrades airstrips in eastern Ladakh and
Arunachal Pradesh to strategically counter China’s massive build-up of
military infrastructure along the border, here’s a grim reality check:
Its road construction projects are still enmeshed in debilitating
delays.
The latest status report holds that only 12 out of the 73 roads
earmarked for construction along the unresolved 4,056-km Line of
Actual Control with China have actually been fully completed till now,
say sources.
Construction of the 73 all-weather roads, measuring a total of 3,808
km, was approved by the government well over three years ago in a
belated move to match China’s scorching infrastructure development in
the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Lack of mandatory environmental
clearances, bureaucratic hurdles and delays in allocation of funds
are, however, proving to be major roadblocks in completion of the
roads.
‘‘The slow progress is a major concern. If more resources and faster
clearances are not forthcoming, then the 2012 deadline for these roads
will not be met. In India, other considerations often take priority
over strategic ones,’’ said a senior officer.
This when the armed forces as well as the high-level China Study Group
have repeatedly emphasised the need to bolster road connectivity and
telecommunication links along the LAC to ensure troops, artillery and
other equipment can be swiftly moved to the forward areas if required.
The 73 roads cover all the three sectors of the LAC — western
(Ladakh), middle (Uttarakhand, Himachal) and eastern (Sikkim,
Arunachal) — and include more east-west lateral links as well as
better access routes to strategic peaks and valleys.
Twenty-seven of them fall in Arunachal, 19 in Uttarakhand, 14 in J&K,
seven in Himachal and six in Sikkim. While the home ministry and ITBP
is tasked with the construction of 27 of these roads, the defence
ministry’s Border Roads Organisation has 15. The other 12 have been
allocated to CPWD and state PWDs. The defence establishment finally
got some reason to cheer recently when four road links in eastern
Ladakh — Lukung-Phobrang-Chartse, Chisumle-Demchok, Koyul-Chisumle-
Zarsar and Korzok-Chumar — got environmental clearances after a long
delay.
‘‘Our troops often have to trek long distances to reach their border
posts. Some of our rudimentary roads even stop 60 to 70-km short of
LAC. Moreover, the closest rail link is around 100 km away. China, in
contrast, has highways and metal roads coming right up to its claim
lines,’’ said an officer.
China, which has built several air, road and rail links all along the
LAC, can in fact mobilise upwards of two divisions (30,000 soldiers)
at their ‘‘launch pads’’ in three weeks now compared to the three-four
months it would have taken just a few years ago.
bademiyansubhanallah
No Indian university among world's best 100, Harvard tops the list
PTI 8 October 2009, 10:37pm IST
LONDON: None of the Indian universities figure among the top 100
varsities of the world, with America and UK dominating the scene, says
a report published on Thursday.
America's Harvard University has retained its top position in 2009
while UK's Cambridge University has moved up from third to second
position. Yale University of US has slipped one position to third.
According to the QS/Times Higher Education rankings, the University
College London (UCL) leapfrogged Oxford University as the latter
slipped from fourth to joint fifth position along with Imperial
College, London.
Overall, the UK still punches above its weight, second only to the US,
the report said. It has four out of the top 10 slots and 18 in the top
100.
The number of Asian universities in the list of top 100 has increased
from 14 to 16. The University of Tokyo, at 22, is the highest ranked
Asian university, ahead of the University of Hong Kong that stands at
24.
Leading UK universities said institutions in Japan, South Korea and
Hong Kong were "snapping at the heels" of western institutions,
arguing they need more funding to compete on the global stage.
However, there has been a significant fall in the number of North
American universities in the top 100, from 42 in 2008 to 36 this
year.
The rankings are based on an international survey of 9,000 academics
who assessed the institutions' research facility, teaching quality and
ability to recruit staff and students abroad.
"The broad message of these tables is clear - the leading UK research
universities are held in high esteem internationally but countries
like China and Korea, which are investing massively in their best
institutions, are snapping at our heels" Wendy Piatt, director general
of the Russell Group of universities said.
Piatt said the UK was less well-funded than its competitors and if
public spending cuts hit budgets they would be under increasing
pressure.
Universities are currently arguing for improved funding in a
forthcoming review of the student finance system, to be launched by
the government within weeks. They are calling for fees to be increased
to safeguard the quality of teaching.
The top 10 Universities are: Harvard (US), Cambridge (UK), Yale(US),
UCL, London (UK), Imperial College, London and Oxford (both UK, joint
5), Chicago (US), Princeton (US), MIT, Massachusetts (US) and
California Institute of Technology (US).
bademiyansubhanallah
Over 71% schools have less than 3 teachers
SEETHALAKSHMI S, TNN 30 September 2009, 04:02am IST
BANGALORE: Even as Right to Education Bill holds out the promise of
education for all children, there's a huge stumbling block. Altogether
4.17 lakh primary schools in India have one or at best two teachers.
And that's 54% of all primary schools in the country.
Worse, the number of primary schools with three or less number of
teachers is as high as 5.49 lakh -- that's a staggering 71.5%. The
report of the working group on elementary education and literacy for
the 11th Five-Year Plan submitted to HRD ministry has said that
schools across the country are woefully short of teachers.
Though there has been an impressive increase in the number of primary
and upper primary school teachers in India in the past two decades,
the imbalance in teacher allocation between states, districts and
within districts, between rural and urban areas continues to be a
major concern, sources said.
The increase in upper primary teachers is relatively higher in rural
areas of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh and Rajasthan. In most states, the percentage increase in
upper primary teachers is more than that of primary teachers. Also,
irrational allocation of primary teachers among schools and between
rural and urban areas is a major issue in many states. Yet another
major issue is small schools with very few teachers.
Outdated training: The working group has also pointed out that teacher
training programmes have continued to be oriented towards mono-grade
teaching situations.
Teaching-learning materials used in these small schools are also not
geared to teaching in multi-age and multi-grade settings. The need of
the hour is to examine and ensure that teachers working in these
schools receive proper orientation on teaching in such contexts and
conditions. There is a need to take a fresh hard look at our training
programme, including content, duration, method and frequency too. It
is desirable to have a comprehensive evaluation of teacher training in
all states, the sources said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Cost of right to education: Rs 1.78 lakh crore
Akshaya Mukul, TNN 29 September 2009, 02:41am IST
NEW DELHI: After the euphoria comes the real test. The cost of
implementing the historic Right to Education Act over the next five
years by Centre and states works out to a whopping Rs 1.78 lakh
crore.
The new law will come into force from the next academic year and since
right to education is now a fundamental right, it is mandatory on the
part of the government to provide what is demanded.
HRD ministry sources say the total demand of Rs 1.78 lakh crore when
finetuned will only work out roughly to just one-third of the
staggering amount. They said that nearly Rs 50,000 crore can be
provided to the kitty by the Centre and states from the Sarva Shiksha
Abhiyan fund. This brings the demand down to Rs 1.28 lakh crore. The
ministry expects that in the 12th Plan nearly Rs 60,000 crore will be
allocated to SSA. But this will still leave the effective demand to Rs
68,000 crore. Then again, Centre will have the tough task of
persuading the states to step forward to share the cost of fulfilling
the commitment.
On Friday, HRD ministry sent the proposal to the finance ministry and
a copy to the 13th Finance Commission for early perusal. But sources
expect a long winter of discussion and negotiation with states,
finance ministry and Planning Commission before it can be finalised.
The focus of discussion will be the funding pattern of RTE. Currently,
SSA is funded by the Centre and states in the ratio of 60:40. It will
be 50:50 by the 12th Plan.
In case of RTE, chief ministers are already gearing up to do a
collective bargaining. Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh
Chauhan has written to PM Manmohan Singh demanding that the funding
pattern for RTE should be 90:10 between Centre and states. He has
circulated the letter to other CMs as well. Earlier, Orissa CM Naveen
Patnaik had demanded a 75:25 funding pattern for RTE between Centre
and states. Bihar has also said it cannot bear the extra burden since
it is already shelling out 25% of its annual budget on education.
The demand for additional Rs 68,000 crore will go towards improving
the infrastructure in schools, student-teacher ratio and in hiring
more teachers. While SSA has a student-teacher ratio of 40:1, RTE
stipulates a ratio of 30:1. The RTE law stipulates that from class one
to class five, if a school has 60 children there should be two
teachers, for 61 to 90 children there should be three teachers, and
for 91 to 120 children there should be four teachers. There are
similar stipulations in case of buildings, working days, play
material, games and sports equipment.
bademiyansubhanallah
Comment: Set Them Free
24 September 2009, 12:00am IST
If HRD minister Kapil Sibal is supposed to be championing much-needed
reforms in the educational sector, that isn't evident in his handling
of the IITs. The current impasse between his ministry and striking
faculty in India's premier engineering colleges is a good illustration
of the problems that arise when government is too closely involved
with the functioning of academic institutions. The IITs are considered
a symbol of modern India's scientific and technical prowess. Students
graduating from these prestigious institutions draw substantial
salaries. Alumni rule the roost in boardrooms from New Delhi to New
York. To see the teachers responsible, in large part, for the enviable
reputation of the IITs reduced to agitating against the government for
better pay is scandalous.
IITs will be unable to maintain their status as premier educational
institutions if they cannot attract and retain the best faculty
available. Sibal has argued that since the government funds the IITs,
and is answerable to Parliament, teachers should be satisfied with
what they're getting. But that fails to take into account the fact
that many of the teachers in the IITs have passed up more lucrative
opportunities in order to pass their knowledge on to future
generations.
The solution is for the government to scale back its investment in the
IITs. Currently, the IITs receive all their funding from the
government, which gives it the power to micro-manage the functioning
of the institutions. The stand-off over compensation is only one way
in which ham-handed, and unnecessary, government intervention in the
operation of the IITs has manifested itself. Let's not forget that IIT
alumni have deep pockets and are willing and eager to give back to
their alma mater, if they only had the chance. The government should
step back and allow the IITs to raise a share of their own funds.
Government funds may be constrained, as Sibal has pointed out. But you
can't build great institutions on a shortage mentality. IITs could
easily leverage their brand value to raise more resources.
As it stands, less than 2 per cent of world publications in science
and technology originate out of India. That situation is unlikely to
improve without better incentives, which includes higher salaries, and
operational autonomy. India cannot become the global centre for
research and development that it aspires to be without high quality
manpower. That's what the government ought to focus on. If that
involves mobilising funds from the private sector as well as foreign
investment, so be it. Let's not pull out old ideological chestnuts to
forestall that.
bademiyansubhanallah
US F1 student visas fall 25%
ISHANI DUTTA GUPTA, ET Bureau 11 October 2009, 09:53pm IST
NEW DELHI: It's official. There were less F1 student visas for the US
issued across India in financial year 2009 (Oct 08-Sep 09) than the
previous FY08. In fact, 25,860 issuances in FY09 actually translates
into a whopping 25% decline over 34,510, which was the number issued
last year.
Most experts and consultants feel that the fall in numbers of Indian
students choosing to go to the US for higher studies is because of the
fall in financial aid offered by institutions rather than any visa
strictures.
"The US student visas are streamlined now and the reason for less
students going to the US from India is probably because educational
institutions are offering less financial aid in view of the economic
slowdown. In fact, endowments in US colleges have been hit in a big
way," says Poorvi Chothani, Mumbai based immigration lawyer and
founder and principal member of law firm LawQuest.
The influential Open Doors report published annually by the Institute
of International Education (IIE) with support from the US Department
of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, which is
scheduled to be published next month, will provide a detailed break-up
of the numbers of international students at colleges and universities
in the US.
"Till 2007-08, India remained the leading sending country of origin of
international students to the US. This was for the seventh consecutive
year, with an increase by 13% to 94,563.
However, this year, in view of the slowdown, there could be a
different trend," feels Ajit Motwani. India director of IIE.
And even as most experts agree that lower financial aid and
scholarships are the reason for the drop in number of Indian students
going to the US, many are hoping that as the recovery kicks in the
numbers will improve.
"Going to the US for higher education is an investment decision and in
India we’re now seeing all the markets reviving and investors coming
back. I think that next year, the number of students going to the US
will again increase as many are now making decisions to go and doing
the required paperwork," says Mumbai-based education consultant Karan
Gupta.
And even in FY 09, many students have received substantial funding in
a range of disciplines to study in America. "We have had success with
several students receiving substantial funding as well. Many students
who went on to pursue some new disciplines such as fashion marketing,
neuroscience, pastoral studies, petroleum engineering, imaging
sciences, oceanography and global development economics received
financial assistance. In general, students applying for research
programmes continue to receive funding despite the drop this year,"
says Shevanti Narayan, country co-ordinator at the US-India
Educational Foundation.
bademiyansubhanallah
'Improving ties with Pak key to India overtaking China'
Press Trust Of India
Chicago, October 11, 2009
First Published: 16:06 IST(11/10/2009)
Last Updated: 16:07 IST(11/10/2009)
Improving relationship with Pakistan is key to India overtaking China
and "revolutionising" the 21st century to emerge as a global power,
former US President Bill Clinton has said.
"...if that one thing (improving ties with Pakistan) could be done by
India, it would revolutionise the 21st century in ways no one can
imagine," Clinton said at the PAN-IIT conference in Chicago.
"Try to find a way to keep making progress with the Pakistanis,"
Clinton said.
He stated this when asked by an audience member what India must do to
become a superpower and gain more influence at the UN and G-20.
"If you did not have to raise defence spending 20 per cent a year and
these countries could be working together I think you will grow faster
than China," he said.
Clinton said the idea that the Chinese are going to dominate the 21st
century is not necessarily true. "It depends mostly what you do and if
you can continue to plough money into the development of the poor and
reduce inequalities in India."
Clinton, who has time and again volunteered to help India and Pakistan
resolve the issue of Kashmir, suggested going for the IIT model as the
model of the future "and not the standoffs of 1971 or the fights over
Kashmir or whatever."
bademiyansubhanallah
Nuclear capable Prithvi-2 missiles successfully test-fired
Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, October 12, 2009
First Published: 10:37 IST(12/10/2009)
Last Updated: 12:10 IST(12/10/2009)
India on Monday morning successfully testfired in quick succession two
nuclear-capable 'Prithvi-II' surface-to-surface missiles with a range
of 350 km from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Chandipur, about 15
km from Balasore.
Alternate Name: P-2, SS-250
Class: SRBM
Basing: Road mobile
Length: 9.00 m
Diameter: 1.10 m
Launch Weight: 4000-4600 kg
Payload: Single warhead, 500-1000 kg
Warhead: nuclear, HE, submunitions
Propulsion: Single-stage liquid
Range: 250 km
Status: Operational
The two indigenously developed missiles were test fired successfully
at 10:28 am and 10: 33 am, from mobile launchers as part of user
trials by the army, defence sources said.
The trajectories of the missiles were tracked by a battery of long-
range, multi-function radars and electro-optic telemetry stations at
different locations for post-launch analysis, the sources said.
Scientists of the Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO)
supervised the test-firing with logistic support from the ITR
personnel here. Naval ships were anchored near the impact points in
the Bay of Bengal. The nuclear-capable Prithvi-II missile has already
been inducted by the armed forces and is handled by the army units
attached to the strategic force command's special group, they said.
bademiyansubhanallah
China and the chop factory
I put down my cell phone and ignored the laptop. In the age of
broadband in the capital of the third-biggest economy with more
netizens than the population of USA, it was once again time to switch
on the fax machine, dig into a drawer and pull out my prized
possession: a red plastic chop (seal).
When I stamp it on a letter faxed to an unknown, unnamed official, it
prints a red circle with a five-point red star in the centre.
Hindustan in Chinese and Hindustan Times in English is scripted in red
inside the circle.
As a journalist in India, where the media routinely communicates over
SMS and cell phone to officials including chief ministers and police
commissioners, I didn’t know how to operate a fax machine.
I had queued at a window of the Public Security Bureau and paid 200
yuan (Rs 1,400) to choose the design from an official book soon after
I landed in Beijing last April and heard that the official Chinese
seal, a centuries-old practice, is still more important than
signatures. After the rubber stamp, a Chinese fax machine could be the
next most important asset in the age of Blackberries.
Last week, Beijing hosted a world media summit. The editors who flew
in for a few days heard grand statements about a more open and hi-tech
China compared to the reality in which a resident foreign reporter
operates daily. As I wrote this blog, soon after stamping and faxing
yet another letter for interview permission, the State-run Xinhua
agency posted a commentary headlined: Clarion call for media
responsibility, co-op in brave new world’.
“It is an ever-changing world…those who rest content will be left
behind in this information renaissance,’’ Xinhua said.
I await an official information renaissance in my world, where it is
futile to even ask for a government spokesperson’s name. The
spokesperson officially doesn’t exist or if he or she exists, the
media doesn’t deserve to know. Instead of communicating with people, I
am always told to address the fax for interview permission or
questions for comments, to a faceless department.
Government ministries with media affairs departments and English-
speaking staff in Beijing can build higher Walls than officials in
remote and less developed provinces. They first lecture you to ‘follow
the procedure’ and send a fax. The procedure ends there. If you are
lucky, somebody will call back and say the relevant department got the
fax, before the relevant department forgets to do anything with it.
But veteran China journalists point out that covering China today is
actually easier. Travel restrictions on foreign journalists eased just
before the Beijing Olympics. From December 1, officials in south
China’s pioneering special economic zone of Shenzhen could face
penalties including dismissal if they do not respond to media
requests, according to reports in the Chinese media last month. “We
are determined to change the random, passive and disorderly situation
surrounding government press releases,’’ Su Huijun, a media official
in Shenzhen was quoted saying.
The Shenzhen experiment will be a milestone in a nation where the
ministry of national defense with a double-digit budget got its first
spokesman only last year, long after first acquiring nuclear weapons
and fighter jets.
(3 votes, average: 5 out of 5)
Posted by Reshma Patil on Sunday, October 11, 2009 at 6:02 pm
bademiyansubhanallah
The Hindi Chini bhai-bhai Day
The three earnest Chinese boys from Peking University that produces
China’s top intellectuals, bent over a mike and sang Jashn-e-bahara
from the Bollywood movie Jodhaa Akbar. They mumbled and fumbled,
skipped long words and didn’t look up from the lyrics they read
through spectacles. One of them even wore a tie.
It was the most endearing performance that afternoon inside an 11th
floor room full of more Chini than Hindi people last week. Welcome to
Hindi Divas (Hindi Day) in Beijing. The lead singer Siddharth alias
Hua Liyu, who only listens to Chinese and Hindi music later told me
that he thinks the Mughal Emperor Akbar was ‘wonderful’.
I had never celebrated September 14 as Hindi Day in India to mark the
ascendance of Hindi as an official language. But in China, after weeks
of tracking the talk about strained relations between the two
neighbours, it took on a special meaning to watch the Hindi-Chini boys
from Beida or Peking University apologise that they had little time to
practise their song. A Chinese girl called Chandrima from China Radio
International (CRI) sang aa ja re from the movie Noori (1979) and
several Chinese students made Hindi speeches.
And what did we Indians do? We sheepishly struggled to keep up with
the fluent, pure Hindi of most of the Chinese Hindi students, teachers
and staff of the CRI. We ducked in corridors for a break when we
couldn’t keep up with the Hindi speeches and exchanged notes on what
the Chinese would think of our Mumbai and Delhi-style Hindi.
The Chinese professors politely kept a straight face when the Indian
speakers desperately searched for Hindi words and ended up blurting
out profuse Hinglish. Aapke help ke liye thanks (thanks for your help)
or bahut inspiring shabd (very inspiring words) and is puraskar ke
recipient hain (the winner of this award). Three of the professors and
Hindi but Chini writers honoured by the Indian Embassy that day were
1925 and 1930-born pioneers of the language in China.
Later, while the Hindi and Chini swooped on the plates of samosas, I
chatted (in Hinglish, I confess) with Li Mino or Vivek who spent 11
months as part of his Hindi course in New Delhi. He managed to spend a
month working for a call-centre where the Indians sweated over
Mandarin scripts during calls to China.
Vivek won a Hindi essay prize that Day, and told the audience how he
watched Ghajni in India, ate roti, sabzi, dal, chawal (bread,
vegetables, rice, lentils) with his hands and made a lasting
friendship with an Indian family overnight on the Rajdhani train. He
pitched an Akshaye Kumar line from the movie Namastey London. Tumhe
pehli bar dekhte hi mujhe tumse pyaar hua tha (I loved you at first
sight). But it was Li’s parting shot that really hit home: Jai Hindi,
Jai Hind!
(6 votes, average: 4.17 out of 5)
Posted by Reshma Patil on Sunday, September 27, 2009 at 9:36 pm
bademiyansubhanallah
Borderline boredom
25 Comments
An English newspaper affiliated to the Communist Party of China’s
mouthpiece, the People’s Daily, has a fascination for polls. The
website of the Global Times is asking readers — until November 2010 —
‘which country or region do you think is the most dangerous?’
When I checked on Sunday morning, India with 8.5 per cent votes was
more dangerous than North Korea and just one percentage ahead of the
closed East Asian state. The US topped the charts with 27 per cent
votes, followed by Japan with 16.7 per cent votes. China was third
with 13 per cent votes.
Last I heard, the Indians in Beijing were making harmless incursions
with the Chinese, like celebrating iftaar around a Taj Mahal ice
sculpture, where Chinese waiters wearing skull caps filled bowls of
kheer (vermicelli and date pudding). Everybody discussed the mutton
biryani, not the border. The Chinese girls went home jingling free
bangles on hands etched with henna.
Over the weekend, the Indians dressed up and played dandiya. On
Monday, they have planned a Hindi Day with Chinese Hindi speakers at
the India Culture Centre. Both the Indians and Chinese in Beijing are
now suffering borderline boredom and want to move on to other topics.
In June, the Global Times had asked Chinese readers if India poses a
threat and over 90 per cent polled said yes. Last Friday, the same
paper included Jawaharlal Nehru and Rabindranath Tagore in China’s 60
most influential foreigners chosen by readers and academicians from
200 nominees. The only mention about Nehru in the article blandly said
‘leaders from the Third World like Nehru, Tito and Ho Chi Minh also
formed close relationships with China’. Last week, the Indian media in
Beijing was invited for a surprise meeting with rarely accessible and
clearly worried foreign ministry officials. They insisted that China
does not pose a threat to India, but were nervous about letting us
report their words.
A boundary affairs official who said the media reports made her
‘anxious’ and ‘tense’ offered her business card but pleaded, ‘please
don’t come to me for official comments.’’
“Why not write about the splendid culture and civilisation?’’ an
official suggested at one point. Speaking of culture, about 99,352
Chinese tourists visited India last year. “We may not be able to
maintain last year’s growth,’’ Shoeb Samad, the tourism director who
organised the iftaar, told HT. But he blamed the recession and not
strained relations.
On moving on, India’s ambassador S Jaishankar drove home the big
picture about what India and China need to sort out next. EXCERPTS
from his September 15 speech to Indian and Chinese businessmen in
Beijing:
“There’s no inevitability about further growth, which will clearly
require sustained efforts. When trade was insignificant, we naturally
had no trade issues. If we face some problems today, this should not
be a source of discouragement since it, after all, arises from a more
substantial engagement.
While trade volumes have been impressive, from the Indian perspective,
the prospect of large and recurring trade deficits is a natural source
of concern. Nowhere else are our exports so dominated by commodities
and raw materials.
Our Chinese friends are well aware of our concerns on market access
here. It cannot be that Indian industry is competitive everywhere in
the world except in China. More balanced and equitable trade would
certainly enhance broader support for the relationship in India.
Sourcing equipment from China for projects in India, particularly in
the infrastructure sector, has been a recent development. This too has
generated its challenges. Even in the short time I have been here, a
number of companies – both Chinese and Indian – have mentioned
difficulties in executing such work. I have personal experience in
working with many of India’s other major economic partners. I cannot
recall their investments and projects requiring such large manpower
support from home. Possibly, their business models were based more
heavily on collaborating with local Indian capabilities.
I believe that businesses in both countries need to pay greater
attention to finding methodologies that are not just competitive but
harmonious as well. After all, India has a tradition of
entrepreneurship, a history of industrial labour and a vibrant civil
society. An India-specific approach will have to be thought through by
Chinese companies. I hope that we can both appreciate that we have a
vested interest in the success of the other”.
(8 votes, average: 4.13 out of 5)
Posted by Reshma Patil on Sunday, September 20, 2009 at 6:32 pm
25 Responses to “Borderline boredom”
Jay Says:
September 21st, 2009 at 1:49 am
Surprizingly all of the surveys conducted by Chinese media exhibit
more than 80% approval for the loaded question of the day. The Chinese
media had whipped up frenzy against India in crudely worded articles
and those are still on display on the People’s Daily website as well
as on the Global Times site. This is not surprizing because the
Communists always distract public attention in hard times by conjuring
up external threats. So it will be Japan on Monday, Philippines on
Tuesday, America on Wednesday; but I have to admit that in the case of
India it might be abiding.
Nehru was mentioned because he gave them Tibet on a platter and
refused to fight. It was Nehru who introduced Chou En Lai to the world
stage at Bandung. Tagore’s meetings in Hangzhou were so badly
disrupted by Communists that he refused to have any more public
meetings after that event.
sms Says:
September 21st, 2009 at 9:53 pm
You’re kidding right? The Chinese media barely mentions India. On the
other hand you have the Indian media claiming chinese troops are
shooting into India, effectively claiming china is engaging in a act
of war…
Jay Says:
September 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 am
SMS, maybe you haven’t seen the online editions of Chinese
newspapers!!!
sms Says:
September 23rd, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Then why don’t you point me to some? I’ve read the editorials.
Anything else you wanna share?
Jay Says:
September 24th, 2009 at 4:13 am
And you missed the rhetoric?
sms Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 3:21 am
I don’t see how 2 editorials means “Chinese media had whipped up
frenzy against India”. As I said before the Chinese media barely
mentions India, however, if you’re that sensitive to two editorials
then you have other problems to deal with.
Jay Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 6:33 am
SMS I don’t think you know how to count. Had you just visited the
People’s Daily website and seen the most commented on pieces you would
have noticed that they are more than two. Add to that other sites like
Global TImes, China Daily, Shanghai Daily, China Youth Daily, and the
CCTV etc. etc.
Niether I nor Indians are sensitive about anything that the state
controlled Chinese media spouts; on my part I think that the Chinese
public are very unlucky to be shackled in this manner in the 21st.
century. The Chinese may claim a 5000 year history, but I wish in that
period they has also enjoyed 24 hours of democracy. The Chinese people
deserve better and I am sure they will overcome. My good wishes.
sms Says:
September 25th, 2009 at 10:31 pm
I think I can count pretty well. The most commented section on
People’s Daily shows 3 articles on India. 2 editorials that I
mentioned, written more then 3 months ago on June 11th in response to
the deployment of 60,000 Indian troops and one on the 19th while one
more was written last week in response to the recent China bashing in
the Indian media.
One of the China Daily editorial is actually a reprint from the Global
Times:
http://www.english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6676088.html
Other sites have reprints of those editorials.
You however have continued to insist yet neglect to back up your claim
on how the chinese media has “whipped up frenzy against India” while
“distract public attention in hard times by conjuring up external
threats” even though the chinese media barely mentions india. Instead
you quib about China not enjoying 24 hours of democracy (no doubt
excluding the KMT days) and on about china claiming 5000 years of
history, which are straw man arguments.
Jay Says:
September 27th, 2009 at 8:39 am
SMS you started out by saying there were only 2 articles and now you
say there are atleast three. There are several others in the People’s
Daily itself. Look for articles written by Li Hongmei and other
unsigned articles. You can also look up the Chinese military websites.
If these articles were written in June, it just goes to prove my
point, that it was a jingoist Chinese media which started the fracas.
Infact last year People’s Daily had put official propaganda articles
on Tibet which painted India in a very bad light. In the People’s
Daily last week I read a very badly written article about Indian text
books portrayal of China. That article was totally incorrect and not
supported by any references. These things might seem unusual to you,
but there is nothing new in all this propaganda. I really don’t know
if KMT meets the definition of democracy.
manjiri Reply:
September 27th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Hi Reshma,
loved reading your blog.
I need to know few things about beijing reg accomodation, schools,etc
as we may be trasferred to beijing. Maybe this is not the right place
to ask about these. Please ………….if you can suggest few websites where
i can gather some information about beijing.
sms Reply:
September 29th, 2009 at 2:55 am
“SMS you started out by saying there were only 2 articles and now you
say there are atleast three.”
There were two when this conversation started last week. The third one
as I said was in regards to the current china bashing in the indian
media which seems to have “whipped up frenzy” as you say.
“If these articles were written in June, it just goes to prove my
point, that it was a jingoist Chinese media which started the fracas.”
Your point is moot. You’ve never explained your claim how the chinese
media has “whipped up frenzy” as the 2 articles were responding to
India troop deployments that heightened tensions.
I searched for the people’s daily article on Indian books and it says
they were sourced from some bbs column not an actual article. I don’t
even know why you add military websites into the equation or a
supposed article from last year. Regardless once again you continue to
avoid backing up your claim on how the chinese media started the
“fracas” with 2 editorials in response to Indian troops being deployed
to the india-china border.
Jay Reply:
September 29th, 2009 at 8:44 am
The article in the People’s Daily had a credit for a contributor on a
BBS; but it was published anonymously in the People’s Daily. What was
the reason for publishing a poorly researched and unsubstantiated
article in the People’s Daily?
I would advise you to do a simple search on Chinese Newspaper websites
and see the number of articles. They are certainly more than the two
you mentioned. Here are six to start with and then you can do your own
research.
http://www.english.people.com.cn/90002/96417/6758363.html
http://www.english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90851/6676088.html
http://www.english.people.com.cn/90002/96417/6682302.html
http://www.english.people.com.cn/90001/90782/6745967.html
http://www.china.globaltimes.cn/top-photo/2009-06/436320.html
http://www.china.globaltimes.cn/diplomacy/2009-06/436504.html
I am not even mentioning articles where Zhan Lue has asked for India
to be destroyed.
And thanks for accepting that KMT was not the epitome of democracy.
I hope you can now report your findings to the Politbureau of the CCP
and ask them to stop the media war.[
Jay Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 7:08 am
SMS, I just wrote about the articles that I had read and I am not in
the business of compiling articles written by the Chinese media. I
read them for all they are worth and forget about them. The article in
the People’s Daily on Indian text books was sourced from a BBS? I
think a fact check is required. Obstinacy and obtuseness don’t go hand
in hand with careful analysis. There was not just one article on
Tibet. It was a feature prominently displayed for months on China
Daily and Renmin Ribao along with a video. Infact if you read all the
articles in the Chinese media and the military websites are also
important you can see that India is painted pretty negatively.
You can have a different opinion even if its contrary to facts.
sms Says:
October 1st, 2009 at 7:15 am
You’re absolutely write, you are not in the business of compiling
articles, however it would be nice for you to back up your claims. On
the other hand I can observe first hand the “frenzy” whipped up by the
Indian media, case in point the always delightful TOI:
Jay Reply:
October 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 am
If Chinese do anti-India things they will be reported. China is a
major nuclear proliferator. It has provided Nuclear weapons to
Pakistan. It is the main guardian of North Korea and benfactor of
Iran. Its role in the Sudanese genocide.
Jay Says:
October 1st, 2009 at 9:38 am
SMS, this has nothing to do with your original claim that there were
only 2 articles in the Chinese media. Lets stick to that contention;
My point was that it was the Chinese media which started it and I
proved it conclusively.
The Indian media is one of the most free on this planet and they have
quoted the Times published from UK. They report events and things as
they happen and don’t function by government diktat . The Chinese
media on the other hand is totally controlled by a dictatorial regime
and is the mouthpiece of the Communist Party. That is a very important
difference.
It is also well known how the Chinese government ‘whips up” sentiments
of the “patriotic Chinese” against French, Japanese, Americans.
Indians and Australians from time to time. It seems like the Communist
regime is at war with every democratic country in the world….or maybe
its their way of ensuring their own survival……like I said
earlier……..who knows and who cares.
sms Reply:
October 1st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
“My point was that it was the Chinese media which started it and I
proved it conclusively.”
You didn’t prove anything as the 2 editorials were IN response to
Indian troop deployment.
“That is a very important difference. ”
You’re right, and the constant china bashing proves it.
“It is also well known how the Chinese government ‘whips up”
sentiments of the “patriotic Chinese” against French, Japanese,
Americans. Indians and Australians from time to time.”
Then were is the “whipped up” crowd of brainwashed chinese heckling at
india? Oh right there isn’t because as I stated nobody cares about
indian affairs and the chinese media rarely mentions india.
Jay Reply:
October 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 am
That is clever backtracking when you know you’ve lost face.
Every article or editorial will have a cause and it will have an
effect. There are ways to write neutral editorials and conduct neutral
polls. An incidently these article were random samples. If you look
deeply into the Chinese media from at least the last year, you will
find that it was the Chinese media which was whipping up the passions.
What was the Chinese Media doing to the French during the Olympics
last year. Were Carre Four outlets attacked in China or not?
What were they doing to Japanese in June 2005? Were Japanese
businesses in China attacked or not?
India has thousands of newspapers and atleast a hundred TV news
channels all of whom are independent . They report news, they don’t
manufacture it.
In China however the Central Propaganda Department forces the
Newspapers to write editorials to its liking and plants stories.
I wish you would know more about your own country, but unfortunately
you don’t have a voice and to the Chinese Communist Party you don’t
matter.
sms Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
“They report news, they don’t manufacture it.”
Gold just gold. Especially with the recent “reports” of chinese
military firing at indian border patrols.
sms Reply:
October 4th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
“That is clever backtracking when you know you’ve lost face.”
I’m not sure you know what face means. You’ve now completely ignored
your original claim of the chinese media fanning anti-indian rhetoric
(still haven’t given proof as well) and is instead shifting focus to
the French and Japanese.
In that regard, during the olympics the media was actually ordered to
suppress reports of the olympic relay because of government fears it
would provoke people. In fact, reports of the London relay that was
attacked by protesters and parts of the Paris weren’t even reported
and people were angry the government was suppressing the reports.
The Japanese demonstrations resulted because of the Japanese
government’s plan to deny their aggression in WWII and also their PM’s
insistence on going to their War Shrine that also contain war
criminals. The demonstations were the result of those actions not
because of the media manufacturing anti-Japanese sentiments,
incidentally demonstrations in S. Korea were much the same, which as
you know has a free press.
Jay Says:
October 1st, 2009 at 9:49 am
SMS, if the Chinese should stop voicing negative opinions about others
if they don’t like the reports about their opinions. Or maybe they
should question their government about the restricted media access
given to them. Stop programming them and stop exercising mind
controlled. The Chinese need to be free from government censorship.
Jay Says:
October 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am
And let the TOI report be a lesson in journalism to you. It accurately
references the report of the Times of UK unlike the Chinese media
reports which are drawn out of thin air and with contributions
attributed to anonymous bloggers. Contrast the professionalism with
the amateurishness of the Chinese propaganda sheets!
You can keep burning with “patriotic fervour” and also with envy,
jealousy and hatred but that won’t turn a nihilistic China into the
world’s biggest democracy!
Jay Says:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:49 am
SMS
Fact: you said there were only 2 articles in the Chinese press, I
proved to you there were more than two. I also showed you how fettered
the Chinese Press is by the Propaganda division of the Communist
Party. You can keep ignoring reality. You have chosen to ignore the
assault on Japanese businesses. Most people believe that the Japanese
have made a clean breast of their past and that China keeps harping on
historical issues to divert attention. The Chinese government whipped
up that issue and when they realized that the same public sentiment
could turn on them, they decided to back out. The attacks on the
French businesses had to be controlled because China did not want a
Western Boycott. Chinese government plays to the domestic audience,
they are not bothered about their image. Incidently the French have
every right to protest human rights violations in China. They have
democracy, something that China has never had since its existence on
this planet.
Jay Says:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Gold just gold. Especially with the recent “reports” of chinese
military firing at indian border patrols.
The government may deny it, but the reporters did report news. There
are many times that the governments deny things that actually happen.
If you have a problem with that you can sue the newspaper, be prepared
to prove them false though. Its a free country unlike China.
Jay Says:
October 5th, 2009 at 10:55 am
SMS,
Stick to your 2 articles stand. Don’t try to dilute the issue by
digressing.
Sid Harth
Indo-US relations will suffer if India tests nuke weapon: NYT
STAFF WRITER 21:46 HRS IST
Betwa Sharma
New York, Oct 12 (PTI) India should not give into the pressure from
some of its nuclear scientists to carry out an atomic test and if it
does it would be a huge setback to its relations with the US and for
the battle against terrorists, the New York Times said today.
In an editorial 'Just say No', the influential US paper said Indian
nuclear scientists are trying to bully their government into testing a
nuclear weapon.
"That would be a huge setback ? for India's relations with Washington,
for the battle against terrorists, and for global efforts to halt the
spread of nuclear weapons... Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is
resisting. He must continue to resist," the newspaper said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Column
India and China: Talk peace for mutual benefit
By M.V Kamath
October18, 2009
Till about the 1950s India did not really have any foreign policy
experts. The one supposed expert was Jawaharlal Nehru, well-read, well-
travelled and reportedly knowledgeable about world affairs. In VK
Krishna Menon, who became his Defence Minister he had a fellow expert
who had spent a life-time in Britain, was in close touch with British
political leaders and on those grounds considered a man to be trusted
in the formulation of policies concerning international relations.
Their concepts were largely Anglo-centric. Nehru had travelled thro’
Europe and even visited Moscow. He was well aware of Nazism, Fascism
and the evils of Imperialism and had great sympathy for China’s fight
against western colonialism.
Even when the Civil War was still being waged in China, in a broadcast
in 1946 Nehru spoke of “China, that mighty country with a mighty past,
our neighbour (which) has been our friend through the ages whose
friendship will endure and grow”. He was soon to learn that friendship
with China is a chimera, a thing of Nehru’s fertile imagination. Time
and again, after Mao came to power (and India was the second nation to
extend diplomatic recognition to it) he consistently dismissed Nehru
and his colleagues as “running dogs of imperialism”. China showed
little respect either for Nehru or for India. Despite India’s efforts
to please China and to plead its case—against the will of the US and
its allies—for rightful permanent membership of the UN Security
Council, China showed no gratitude.
When in 1945 India itself was offered Permanent Membership of the
Security Council, it was Nehru who declined the honour, maintaining
that China deserved it more. Friendship with China has invariably been
a one-way street, An excellent study of Sino-Indian relations up to
the mid-sixties is Sudhakar Bhat’s India and China published in 1967,
reading which should relieve us of our delusions. If Shri MK Narayanan
wants to know “why there is so much hype” in the Indian media over
alleged Chinese military incursions into India territory, he should
remember the resounding slap on India’s face in 1962 administered by
Mao Tse-tung to teach India “a lesson”, while India was singing “India-
China, bhai bahai”.
Since when India has sounded frightened of China as a child is of a
menacing ghost. The Indian psyche has been deeply hurt and it will
remain so for a long time. Never mind at what cost China grew to be a
power. Never mind China’s disdain of India. The first Chinese attack
against post-independence India was when its troops stormed the thinly
manned Indian police outpost in NEFA in August 1957—exactly fifty
years ago—and killed two Indian frontier policemen. To mention all
these is not to promote enmity towards China. It is to face grim
reality. One respects the Government of India’s desire not to sound
provocative, but for that reason do we have to be supine towards
Beijing all the time? And refuse to learn from history?
God alone knows how strongly India wants peace. India has never
consciously gone to war against any nation in its long and turbulent
past. It has respect for all people, all religions, all cultures. From
Nehru onwards India has been respectful of China’s traditions and rich
past. But it behoves the Government of India not to be seen as
frightened and consequently attempting to stop all mention of hurt
done to India. That reflects poorly on us. Two things must always be
kept in mind: India wants peace not just to placate any country—
including Pakistan—but for its own sake. India has to be politically
alert. What one wants to know is whether Delhi is underplaying the
Chinese threat. Is it true that President Pratibha Patil has dropped
her plans to undertake an official visit to China? Is it true that at
a closed door session, two senior RAW officials said Chinese
incursions should not be overlooked as China had ‘bigger designs’?
Word is being passed that our Air Force is a third of China’s. A war
with China, in any eventuality is illogical, irrational and
unrewarding.
According to The Times of India (September 17) China’s Foreign
Ministry, in response to a questionnaire sent it by the paper has said
that the relationship between China and India is stable and that “the
mutual trust is growing”. The Ministry’s response reportedly goes on
to say that the time is now actually favourable for resolving the
border dispute once and for all. Beijing’s indication that it is
inclined towards settling the decades old territorial row is welcome.
But in Delhi there reportedly are two views on how to deal with China
resulting in a high-level meeting of officials being postponed. On the
one hand, Sino-Indian trade relations are increasing by leaps and
bonds. On the other, doubts are being expressed about China’s
intentions. It is not enough for China to say that mutual trust
between it and India is growing and for India’s External Affairs
Minister SM Krishna to declare that the country’s border with China is
peaceful.
China must show with deeds and not merely with words that when it
speaks of “mutual trust”, it means it. Sending troops to paint a few
rocks in red along the Ladakh border sends wrong signals. When Indian
Army Chief General Deepak Kapoor says that there have been several
border violations by Chinese troops in the past few months, are we to
ignore him? Can the Indian media be blamed if it interprets these
events as a sign of Chinese hostility? If a couple of television
channels have gone bonkers in recent times it only reflects the fears
and sentiments of the average Indian. Shouldn’t the Government come
clean on where it stands, clearly and unequivocally, instead of
constantly blaming the media? The media, surely, would be most willing
to help in the process of reconciliation, if that has been worked out
between Delhi and Beijing.
What is intriguing is that, judging from media reports nobody really
knows where India stands. There are many ways to push India into a
corner and Sino-Pakistan relations in the matter of nuclear weapons
and missiles are only too well known. Also known is the fact that
China has been investing huge amounts of money in countries like
Nepal, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. How come we have estranged even Sri
Lanka which is next door to us? When China attacked India in 1962,
India felt betrayed, not just by China itself, but by its own leaders.
VK Krishna Menon had to resign under ignominious circumstances and
Nehru’s death was hastened. The Prime Minister never was the same
again. After all the India-China bhai bhai euphoria, India came a
cropper. The unspoken message that the Indian media is sending is that
let not there be repetition of 1962. One slap on the face is enough.
Another slap may not be taken lightly.
(The writer is former editor of Illustrated Weekly and a senior
columnist.)
Sid Harth
Venki Ramakrishnan miffed at emails from India
13 Oct 2009, 2110 hrs IST, PTI
NEW DELHI: Nobel laureate Venkatraman Ramakrishnan has expressed
disenchantment with people from India "bothering" him "clogging" up
his email box Venkatraman Ramakrishnan and dubbed as "strange" their
sudden urge to reach out to him.
"All sorts of people from India have been writing to me, clogging up
my email box. It takes me an hour or two to just remove their mails,"
he said.
He said the deluge of emails had buried important communications from
colleagues or from journals concerning papers we have in press.
"Do these people have no consideration? It is OK to take pride in the
event, but why bother me?" the 57-year-old Indian-American scientist
wondered in an email interview said.
"There are also people who have never bothered to be in touch with me
for decades who suddenly feel the urge to connect. I find this
strange," said Ramakrishnan, who shared this year's Nobel Prize for
Chemistry with two others.
He expressed anguish over "all sorts of lies" published about him in a
section of the media that he went to school and pre-Science in
Chidambaram, the Tamil Nadu temple town where he was born in 1952.
"People I don't know, for example a Mr Govindrajan, claim that they
were my teachers at Annamalai University which I never attended, since
I left Chidambaram at the age of three," Ramakrishnan clarified.
Ramakrishnan said that it was a good thing if his winning the Nobel
Prize encouraged people to read about the work, read books and take
interest in science.
"But I, personally, am not important. The fact that I am of Indian
origin is even less important. We are all human beings, and our
nationality is simply an accident of birth," he said.
On reports that he has been shortlisted for a job in India,
Ramakrishnan said he was in no mood to leave his laboratory in
Cambridge where he was enjoying his work.
"Nobody has approached me about an offer to work in India. However, I
can categorically state that if they did so, I would refuse
immediately," he said.
He was reacting to questions about reports that his name was being
considered for the post of Director of the country's premier lab
Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology.
"I cannot imagine a more enjoyable place to work than in the
Laboratory of Molecular Biology where I work," he said citing a
"variety of professional and personal reasons" for continuing the work
at Cambridge.
Ramakrishanan said he was a visiting professor at the Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore, to which he makes trips for a couple of weeks
every other year.
Sid Harth
Chinese interference an assault on India: BJP
Agencies
Posted: Tuesday , Oct 13, 2009 at 1925 hrs
New Delhi:
BJP on Tuesday objected to Chinese government’s statement against
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh, and said
India should take up this “assault on the country’s sovereignty”
strongly at the diplomatic fora.
“These are direct assaults by China on India’s sovereignty. Of late,
the dimension of these diplomatic aggressions and physical incursions
have increased. Government of India should take a strong stand on the
matter and take up this issue with China,” senior BJP leader Arun
Jaitley said.
China on Tuesday expressed “strong” dissatisfaction over Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh about ten days
ago for electioneering.
“We demand the Indian side address China’s serious concerns and not
trigger disturbance in the disputed region so as to facilitate the
healthy development of China-India relations,” Chinese Foreign
Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu said.
BJP spokesperson Rajiv Pratap Rudy described this statement as “strong
and to a great extent, disrespectful”.
“We share an unfenced border with China, which does not recognise the
McMahon line. It is occupying 35,000 sq km of land in Kashmir. There
have been repeated incursions in Sikkim, Kashmir and Arunachal
Pradesh,” he said.
BJP demanded that the Prime Minister should himself send a strong
reply to China.
chhotemianinshallah
bademiyansubhanallah
Xinjiang unrest: man sentenced to death
Ananth Krishnan
BEIJING: A Chinese court on Saturday sentenced to death a man from the
Han Chinese majority ethnic group for his role in a race brawl that
sparked July’s mass riots in China’s Xinjiang region.
The ethnic violence in the Muslim-majority Xinjiang, which claimed at
least 197 lives and left more than 1,000 injured, was believed to have
been triggered by racial violence between Han Chinese and Uighurs in a
factory in southern Guangdong province.
Uighurs, an ethnic Turkic-speaking Muslim group, are one of 55
minority groups in China and are native to Xinjiang. The June 26
factory brawl in Shaoguan city left two Uighurs dead.
One Han Chinese man was sentenced to death by a local court for his
role in the violence while another was given life imprisonment,
China’s State-run Xinhua news agency reported. Nine others were given
prison terms between five to eight years. Three Uighur factory workers
were also convicted, and given prison terms from five to six years.
The violence reportedly began when a Uighur worker “was found chasing
a Han woman intern” in the factory, the Shaoguan court was told.
chhotemianinshallah
File photo of Pak PM Yousuf Raza Gilani (L) with Chinese President Hu
Jintao in Beijing. AP/PTI Photograph (1)
India objects to Chinese activities in PoK
STAFF WRITER 12:50 HRS IST
New Delhi, Oct 14 (PTI) Hitting back at China, India today took
objection to its engagement in projects in Pakistan occupied Kashmir
(PoK) and asked it to cease such activities taking "long-term view" of
India-China relations.
A day after China objected to the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh to Arunachal Pradesh, External Affairs Ministry took a strong
view of President Hu Jintao's remarks that China will continue to
engage in projects with Pakistan inside Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
"Pakistan has been in illegal occupation of parts of the Indian state
of Jammu & Kashmir since 1947. The Chinese side is fully aware of
India's position and our concerns about Chinese activities in Pakistan
occupied Kashmir," External Affairs Ministry spokesman Vishnu Prakash
said in a statement.
"We hope that the Chinese side will take a long term view of the India-
China relations and cease such activities in areas illegally occupied
by Pakistan," he said.
chhotemianinshallah
India signs nuclear pact with Argentina
STAFF WRITER 16:47 HRS IST
New Delhi, Oct 14 (PTI) India and Argentina today signed an agreement
in civil nuclear cooperation and nine other pacts with a desire to
establish strategic partnership.
The agreements were signed after wide-ranging talks between Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh and Argentine President Cristina Fernando de
Kirchner here.
The Agreement for Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy
was signed by Vivek Katju, Secretary (West) in the Ministry of
External Affairs and Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Talana.
Argentina became the seventh country with which India has signed a
civil nuclear agreement after the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group
lifted a 34-year-old ban on nuclear commerce in September last year.
India has already signed similar pacts with the US, France, Russia,
Kazakhstan, Namibia and Mongolia.
chhotemianinshallah
PM has every right to campaign in Arunachal: Pranab
STAFF WRITER 15:42 HRS IST
Kolkata, Oct 14 (PTI) Rejecting China's claims over Arunachal Pradesh,
India today made it clear that the state is an integral part of the
country and its Prime Minister has every right to visit it.
"Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India and the just-concluded
Assembly election has proved that it was held under the Indian
Constitution," Union Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee told a press
conference at WBPCC headquarters here after a party state secretariat
meeting.
Mukherjee said that just a few months back people of the state had
sent their representatives to Parliament under the Indian
constitution.
It was therefore appropriate that the Prime Minister of the country
should visit Arunachal Pradesh as leader of the Congress party for
election campaign, he said.
"I too visited Arunachal Pradesh for campaigning and we consider it as
our legitimate right.
chhotemianinshallah
96 pc Chinese against 'frequent' Indian visits to AP
STAFF WRITER 16:4 HRS IST
Beijing, Oct 14 (PTI) Upping the ante on Arunachal Pradesh, a leading
Chinese official newspaper today said that an "overwhelming majority"
of its web users were against the "frequent" visits to the "disputed
area" by Indian leaders.
An online poll conducted yesterday by 'huanqiu.com', the website of
the Global Times' Chinese edition, showed that an overwhelmingly
majority of users were against the visits.
"About 96 per cent of the over 6,000 respondents agreed that they felt
agitated by the frequent visits by Indian leaders to the disputed
area, while about 2 per cent disagreed and 2 per cent said they didn't
care," said the paper, a sister publication of the ruling Communist
Party's mouthpiece, People's Daily.
The paper's rather unusual step of carrying out an online survey came
a day after China again raked up its claim over Arunachal Pradesh,
questioning Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit there on October 3.
chhotemianinshallah
US calls for greater contact with China military
STAFF WRITER 12:44 HRS IST
Beijing, Oct 14 (AFP) The United States called today for more
interaction with China's military, as the two nations try to build
trust over defence issues amid US concerns about Beijing's rapid
military buildup.
"More still needs to be done to ensure that our defence and military
establishments both have greater... interaction with one another," US
Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell told reporters.
The two nations also need to develop "rules of the road for how we
cooperate in the future", he said on a trip to Beijing that comes two
weeks after China showed off military weaponry in a National Day
parade.
Campbell, whose visit is partly aimed at laying the groundwork for US
President Barack Obama's visit to China next month, was due to meet
Chinese defence officials later today.
"It is incumbent on the United States and China to take steps...
Sid Harth
Now, China PM Wants to Meet Manmohan Singh
Beijing | Oct 14, 2009
In the midst of a war of words between the two countries, Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao today expressed his desire to meet his Indian
counterpart Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in
Thailand next week.
Premier Wen conveyed his wish during a meeting with Petroleum Minister
Murli Deora, who was on a visit here to attend a Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation (SCO) meet, sources said.
The Chinese leader's remarks comes a day after Beijing raked up its
claim over Arunachal Pradesh questioning Prime Minister Singh's visit
there on October 3 and India hitting back today on Chinese plans to
involve in projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
New Delhi has maintained that Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of
India and the Prime Minister has a right and responsibility to visit
the state. In a strongly-worded statement, it also asked China to
cease from activities in PoK taking a "long-term view" of Sino-India
relations.
During the meeting with Wen, Deora put up India's case for
participating in the SCO's Tashkent-based Regional Counter-Terrorism
Structure along with the six-nation security grouping's full members.
India along with Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia has an observer status in
the SCO, which comprises China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
Sid Harth
An Insecure Dragon
China may not indulge in any ground action till the visit of President
Barack Obama to China next month is over. What it might do after
Obama's visit is a matter which needs close monitoring.
B. Raman
Also In This Story
For The Record'
Our Concerns About Chinese Activities In POK''
We hope that the Chinese side will take a long term view of the India-
China relations, and cease such activities in areas illegally occupied
by Pakistan'
MEA
As the time approaches for the proposed visit of His Holiness the
Dalai Lama to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh next month to declare open a
hospital built with contributions from the Tibetan exile community,
China has stepped up its rhetoric against India. The recent visit of
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Arunachal Pradesh to canvass for the
candidates of his party in the just concluded elections to the State
Assembly of Arunachal Pradesh on October 12 has been used as a pretext
for the renewed criticism of the Indian policy on Arunachal Pradesh.
Dr.Manmohan Singh's visit to Arunachal Pradesh has been projected as
his visit to the so-called Southern Tibet.
China never fails to bring on record its protests and concerns over
the visits of Indian leaders to Arunachal Pradesh for whatever
purpose. The fact that it has done so after the recent electoral visit
of Dr.Manmohan Singh should not, therefore, have been a matter of
surprise and undue concern. What is disturbing is the kind of language
used by a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Office in commenting on
the visit and the even stronger language used by the "Global Times",
in an editorial on the subject on October 14, 2009. The Global Times
is a sister publication of the Party-controlled People's Daily.
The fresh campaign against India on the subject was triggered off by
the comments of a spokesperson of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.Ma
Zhaoxu, the spokesperson, was quoted by the Global Times as saying on
October 13 that China was "seriously dissatisfied" by the visit of
the Indian Prime Minister, who was accused of "ignoring China's
concerns by visiting southern Tibet". The Global Times quoted the
spokesperson as saying further as follows:
"China and India have not reached any formal agreement on the border
issue.We demand that the Indian side pay attention to the serious and
just concerns of the Chinese side and not provoke incidents in the
disputed region, in order to facilitate the healthy development of
China-Indian relations."
There has been a difference in the translation into English of the
spokesperson's remarks by the BBC and the Global Times. While the BBC
quoted the spokesperson as telling India "not to trigger disturbances
in the disputed region", the Global Times spoke of the spokesperson
telling India " not to not provoke incidents in the disputed region."
The editorial of the Global Times titled "Indian PM's visit a
provocative move" described the Indian Prime Minister's visit as a
"provocative and dangerous move" and alleged that the visit was
designed to put the area under India's de facto administration. It
accuses India of encouraging the "immigration of more than one
million Indians to the region" and warns:
"India, however, will make a fatal error if it mistakes China's
approach for weakness. The Chinese government and public regard
territorial integrity as a core national interest, one that must be
defended with every means......The disputed border area is of
strategic importance, and hence, India's recent moves – including
Singh's trip and approving past visits to the region by the Dalai Lama
– send the wrong signal. That could have dangerous consequences."
The text of the editorial is annexed.
The conventional wisdom is that since any military confrontation could
affect China's economic development and its aspirations of rising as a
major power on par with the US, Beijing will restrict itself to angry
rhetoric and will not indulge in any ground action in the Arunachal
Pradesh area. This wisdom has some validity, but overlooks the fact
that China is feeling increasingly insecure in its peripheral areas
because of the recent violent uprisings by the Tibetans last year and
the Uighurs this year. Its increasing nervousness and feelings of
insecurity in its border areas could lead to irrational and
unpredictable reflexes vis-a-vis the Arunachal Pradesh issue.
We should avoid countering China's renewed rhetoric with our own
rhetoric. While maintaining our cool, we should press ahead with the
construction of the infrastructure in the Arunachal Pradesh area and
strengthening our defensive capabilities there without talking about
them from the roof-top. We should not advise His Holiness not to visit
Tawang. When he visits Tawang, we should pay close attention to his
personal security. The period before and after the visit of His
Holiness to Tawang should call for extra vigilance from our side.
China may not indulge in any ground action till the visit of President
Barack Obama to China next month is over. What it might do after
Obama's visit is a matter which needs close monitoring.
B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt.
of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical
Studies, Chennai. He is also associated with the Chennai Centre For
China Studies.
ANNEXURE
Global Times editorial of October 14, 2009
Indian PM's visit a provocative move
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh made another provocative and
dangerous move by visiting the East Section of the China-India
Boundary, which India calls Arunachal Pradesh, on October 3 ahead of a
local legislative election.
The visit is designed to put the area, a disputed border region
between China and India, under the de facto administration of India.
China has completed land border demarcation with all of its
neighboring countries but India.
Territorial disputes stand as a seemingly intractable issue between
the two largest emerging economies in the world.
Though in similar developmental circumstances, China and India seem to
have more confrontations than common ground.
In the past decades, more than 10 rounds of negotiations held at
various levels and through different mechanisms
The 120,000 square kilometers of the so-called Arunachal Pradesh,
around the size of South China's Fujian Province, is at the center of
the controversy. India currently occupies 90,000 square kilometers of
the area.
Over the years, India has intensified its effective control over the
area by encouraging the immigration of more than 1 million Indians to
the region, and applying for loans from international bodies for
public facilities projects in the region.
India is also increasing military deployment, along with sophisticated
equipment, in the area. India's hawks are dangerously fanning public
sentiment fearing a "China threat."
China favors peaceful resolution of territorial disputes through
negotiation and consultation with its neighbors.
In the past the Chinese government has sought to build consensus in
border negotiations through making concessions in exchange for
reciprocal action.
China has maintained that same approach with India. India, however,
will make a fatal error if it mistakes China's approach for weakness.
The Chinese government and public regard territorial integrity as a
core national interest, one that must be defended with every means.
A stable border is crucial to the economic development of both China
and India.
The disputed border area is of strategic importance, and hence,
India's recent moves – including Singh's trip and approving past
visits to the region by the Dalai Lama – send the wrong signal. That
could have dangerous consequences.
Furthermore, India's actions add to the difficulties that have stalled
negotiations on the region in the past.
It looks as if a breakthrough in talks is unlikely to happen any time
soon.
Also In This Story
For The Record
'Our Concerns About Chinese Activities In POK'
'We hope that the Chinese side will take a long term view of the India-
China relations, and cease such activities in areas illegally occupied
by Pakistan'
MEA
Daily Mail
Oct 14, 2009 08:19 PM
2 "China may not indulge in any ground action till the visit of
President Barack Obama to China next month is over. What it might do
after Obama's visit is a matter which needs close monitoring."
Such pronouncements sound more knowledgeable than they are. No one
knows whether China just wants to maintain tensions on the border or
plans an actual military incursion. If they attack, Mr.Raman will say
"I told you so." If they do not attack, what he said will be
forgotten. The fact remains that India has to be fully prepared all
the time irrespective of all such journalistic punditry.
Anwaar
Dallas, United States
Oct 14, 2009 05:00 PM
1 classical case of empty vessels making more noise.
priya
delhi, India
Sid Harth
China Diplomacy Indian PM visit to southern Tibet sparks China's ire
Source: Global Times [03:12 October 14 2009] Comments By Zuo Xuan
The Foreign Ministry of China said Tuesday that it was "seriously
dissatisfied" by the visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to
a disputed Himalayan region, marking the latest tense exchange between
the two neighbors over border areas claimed by both.
Ma Zhaoxu, spokesman of the ministry, accused the Indian leader of
ignoring China's concerns by visiting southern Tibet, an area roughly
the size of Austria.
"China and India have not reached any formal agreement on the border
issue," Ma said. "We demand that the Indian side pay attention to the
serious and just concerns of the Chinese side and not provoke
incidents in the disputed region, in order to facilitate the healthy
development of China-Indian relations."
Singh traveled to the area of southern Tibet, which India calls
Arunachal Pradesh, earlier this month to woo residents there ahead of
an 'assembly election' Monday.
"Well, regardless of what others say, it is the government of India's
stated position that Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India.
We rest at that," Indian Foreign Minister S M Krishna said later that
day, adding that New Delhi was "disappointed and concerned" over
China's objection.
An online poll conducted Tuesday by huanqiu.com, the website of the
Global Times' Chinese edition, indicated that an overwhelmingly
majority of users were against the visit.
About 96 percent of the over 6,000 respondents agreed that they felt
agitated by the frequent visits by Indian leaders to the disputed
area, while about 2 percent disagreed and 2 percent said they didn't
care.
Ma Jiali, a senior researcher on South Asia at the China Institutes of
Contemporary International Relations, told the Global Times that
Singh, as a head of government, sets bad precedents with his visit.
"The repeated visits by Indian leaders can make others believe the
area is part of India and solidify the existing strategies they have
applied to control the area, such as using administrative jurisdiction
in the area and courting sympathy from the international community,"
Ma said.
China and India share a long border spanning more than 4,000
kilometers, with about 125,000 square kilometers of disputed
territory.
On its western end is the Aksai Chin region, an area the size of
Switzerland that sits between the Chinese autonomous regions of
Xinjiang and Tibet. The eastern border, between Myanmar and Bhutan,
comprises the southern Tibet area.
The two countries fought a brief but bloody border war, partly over
southern Tibet, in 1962, and while trade between the two has since
flourished, the border disputes have never been resolved. Mistrust
remains close below the surface and appears to have resurfaced in
recent months.
Agencies contributed to this story
Sid Harth
Chinese president meets Pakistani PM on advancing bilateral links
Source: Xinhua [17:39 October 13 2009]
Chinese President Hu Jintao (R) meets with Pakistani Prime Minister
Yousuf Raza Gilani at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, capital
of China, Oct. 13, 2009.
Chinese President Hu Jintao met Tuesday in Beijing with Pakistani
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, and the two sides vowed to further
deepen bilateral links.
Hu said China-Pakistan relations have maintained a momentum of sound
development since the new government came into office in Pakistan.
China and Pakistan are friendly neighbors joined by mountains and
rivers, Hu said. Since the two countries established diplomatic links
more than half a century ago, they have always shared mutual respect,
mutual trust, mutual support and mutual assistance no matter how the
international situation and their domestic conditions changed.
The two countries have developed an all-weather friendship and carried
out all-dimensional cooperation, the Chinese president said.
He said China-Pakistan relations enjoy solid social basis and strong
vigor. Further reinforcing and advancing China-Pakistan relations are
not only in conformity with the basic interests and common will of the
two peoples, but also of great significance for maintaining and
promoting peace, stability and development in the region.
China has always attached priority to its relations with bordering
countries, Hu said, expressing the willingness to join hands with
Pakistan to further enhance mutual trust at strategic level, deepen
cooperation in all dimensions so as to jointly open up an even
brighter future for China-Pakistan strategic cooperation.
Hu noted trade and economic cooperation makes an important part of
China-Pakistan relations.
"We are glad to witness the smooth progress of a number of major
cooperative projects under the joint efforts of both sides, such as
the Neelum-Jhelum hydro-electric project and the Karakorum Highway
(KKH) upgrading project," Hu said.
Noting that the two countries signed an agreement on service trade of
China-Pakistan free trade zone in the beginning of this year, Hu said
the agreement opened up broad prospect for bilateral trade and
economic cooperation.
The president said China places importance on trade and economic
cooperation with Pakistan, expressing the willingness to advance China-
Pakistan trade and economic cooperation to achieve greater fruits on
the basis of equality, mutual benefit, win-win cooperation and
practical and orderly operation.
He expressed appreciation on Gilani's consistent effort to uphold
China-Pakistan friendship and his focus on developing bilateral links.
"I appreciate your comment that no matter how the international
situation has changed, the peoples of China and Pakistan are always
joined in hearts and hands," Hu said.
Gilani arrived in Beijing Monday evening for a four-day visit to
China.
Hu said Gilani, like his late farther Alamdar Hussain Gilani, is an
old and good friend of China. Hu recalled that in the 1950s, late
Alamdar Hussain Gilani met with late Chinese leaders Mao Zedong and
Zhou Enlai when visiting China. In the 1990s, Gilani visited China in
the capacity of Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan.
Gilani thanked Hu for recalling the warm memory of his late father and
his contact with older generation of Chinese leaders. He conveyed
congratulations from the Pakistani people and President Asif Ali
Zardari to China for the 60th anniversary of the founding the People's
Republic of China.
Gilani said Pakistan and China share a time-tested and all-weather
friendship which has taken root deep in the hearts of the two peoples.
Pakistan treasures and appreciates the firm support that China lent to
it, Gilani said. He emphasized that Pakistan-China friendship and
their strategic cooperative partnership constitute an important factor
for peace and stability in the region.
Gilani expressed the willingness to conduct closer cooperation,
reinforce traditional friendship, push forward practical cooperation
in various fields and advance major cooperative projects for greater
progress.
Gilani also expressed the wish to strengthen cooperation with China on
the anti-terrorism front as terrorist attacks killed scores of people
in Pakistan this month. He said Pakistan will continue to adopt
forceful measures to secure the safety of Chinese institutes and
personnel in the country.
Gilani said Pakistan will continue to strengthen mutual support with
China on regional and international issues. He asked China to play its
important role in maintaining peace and stability in South Asia.
Gilani reiterated that the government of Pakistan will continue to
firmly support China's stance on issues concerning its core interests,
including issues related to Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang.
During the current Beijing trip, Gilani met with Chinese officials in
charge of overseas investment, coal mining and water conservation
Tuesday morning.
During his visit, Gilani is scheduled to met with Chinese Premier Wen
Jiabao and Jia Qinglin, head of China's top political advisory body.
It was Gilani's first visit to China since becoming prime minister in
March.
Gilani told reporters at airport upon leaving for China that the
change of governments won't affect bilateral relations between
Pakistan and China.
He said the two countries have brotherly relations, which were
strengthened during the tenures of former prime ministers Zulfiqar Ali
Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto. He said his visit will boost cooperation
between the two countries in defense, social, economic and cultural
sectors.
Gilani launched a China Culture Week in Islamabad last month to mark
the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of
China.
Beijing and Islamabad have developed an all-weather friendship since
the two countries established diplomatic links in 1951.
Leaders of the two countries have maintained frequent exchanges of
visits in recent years. President Hu Jintao visited Pakistan in
November 2006. President Zardari paid his first visit to China only
one month after assuming office in 2008. Zardari visited China twice
in 2009.
Gilani is to leave Beijing for home Thursday after attending a meeting
of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization(SCO), which groups China,
Russia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.
Pakistan is one of the four observers of the SCO, together with
Mongolia, India and Iran.
Sid Harth
Diplomacy China, Russia sign 12 agreements during Putin's visit
Source: Xinhua [21:45 October 13 2009]
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (2nd R, front) and Russian Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin (2nd L, front) sign the joint communique of the 14th
regular prime ministers' talks between China and Russia, at the Great
Hall of the People in Beijing, capital of China, Oct. 13, 2009.
China and Russia signed 12 agreements, including agreements on natural
gas and oil, as the premiers of the two countries held their 14th
regular meeting in Beijing on Tuesday.
The signing ceremony was overseen by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and
his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin after their talks in the Great
Hall of the People in downtown Beijing.
Prior to their talks, Wen hosted a red-carpet welcome ceremony for
Putin, who is on his first official visit to China since taking office
in May 2008.
The agreements include a framework agreement on Russia's export of
natural gas to China, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on high-
speed train and an agreement on mutual notification of ballistic
missiles and launch of carrier rockets.
Wen and Putin also reached consensus on cooperation in various fields.
They agreed to enhance political trust, address each other's core
interests and major concerns, and support each other's efforts to
safeguard sovereignty, security and territorial integrity.
They agreed to deepen trade on machinery and electronic products and
oppose trade protectionism.
With regard to energy cooperation, they agreed to work together to
make sure the oil pipeline, running from Skovorodino, Russia, to
China's northeastern city of Daqing, could be completed by the end of
2010 and start stable oil supply in 2011.
They said the two countries decided to launch the west and east lines
of the gas project simultaneously in a bid to start supplying gas
between 2014 and 2015.
They agreed to enhance cooperation between localities by implementing
an outline of regional cooperation between Northeast China and the
Russian Far East Area and Eastern Siberia.
The two sides also agreed to step up coordination in international
affairs to deal with the global challenges, jointly promote the
establishment of a new international financial order and improve
representation of the developing countries and emerging economies.
During his talks with Putin, Wen said Putin's visit at the 60th
anniversary of the establishment of Sino-Russian ties is of great
significance.
Bilateral relations have become stable and mature since the forging of
diplomatic ties 60 years ago and particularly the establishment of the
Russia-China strategic cooperative partnership in 1996, Wen said.
The level of political mutual trust, strategic and practical
cooperation between the two countries has been improved continuously
and yielded many achievements, effectively advancing the development
of bilateral ties and positively influencing world peace and
development, he said.
The Sino-Russian relations are role models of relations between
neighboring countries and relations between big powers, said Wen,
adding that China is willing to work with Russia to make greater
achievements in the future.
Putin warmly congratulated the 60th anniversary of the founding of New
China, saying China has achieved great success in various areas in the
past 60 years.
Russia and China have become genuine and comprehensive strategic and
cooperative partners in recent years, he said.
The two sides have carried out cooperation in politics, economy and
international affairs with mutual trust, and the bilateral economic
cooperation has withstood the test of the global financial crisis,
Putin said.
Later Tuesday, Wen and Putin also met with the business people who
attended a China-Russia economic forum.
Before the forum, Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Dejiang and his Russian
counterpart Alexander Zhukov attended the signing of deals worth 4
billion U.S. dollars between financial institutions and enterprises of
the two countries.
"China-Russia trade has seen fruitful results and has brought tangible
benefits to the two countries," said Wen.
Wen hoped the business people from the two countries should take the
opportunities and make joint efforts to tackle the global economic
downturn.
Sid Harth
Chinese military parade shows peaceful security, not threat Source:
Global Times [22:25 October 13 2009]
Illustration: Liu Rui
By Ding Gang
If some Westerners still hardly recognize the rise of China, then the
most unacceptable issue for them is the development of China's
military power.
This attitude can be refl ected from Western coverages of China's
National Day parade on October 1.
The parade introduced China's new weapons and equipment, but Western
media did not forget to remind the audience that China is a "communist
country" that is demonstrating its rapidly growing military power.
The Financial Times reported, "Turn on the television news next
Thursday and on display will be the sort of images from China that
used to capture the imagination in the days of the Soviet Union."
Discussing Western psychology toward the Chinese military parade,
Joshua Dominick, an American who is engaged in international cultural
exchange in China, explained that those Americans who experienced the
Cold War might feel "panic" and associate the parade with negative
impressions generated in that era.
Based on the Cold War mentality, Westerners are enjoying the peace
brought by the development of Chinese military power, but are still
worrying about Chinese military strength. The problem lies neither in
whether China has nuclear bombs, nor in whether China has advanced
weapons such as Dongfeng 21 missiles and cruise missiles.
The problem is that they consider China's form of government
"aberrant" and do not really recognize China under the leadership of
the Communist Party of China.
"Red China" was an American bogeyman for many years, and China's lack
of multi-party democracy still seems a "different species" to many
Westerners.
China certainly would not give up developing its army and equipment,
or stop the parade just because of the above-mentioned Western ideas.
Even if China stops the military parade, the Western Cold War
mentality would hardly vanish.
Chinese military development in the past decades did not take other
countries' feeling into consideration. If China had done so, I am
afraid nothing would have been achieved.
On the contrary, to eliminate their prejudice, we can only rely on
further development, which also includes Chinese military development.
After having watched the parade, Kato Yoshikazu, a Japanese writer
living in China, commented that it was like "lü" (to comb) the CPC's
60 years governing history. The verb he used, "lü," literally means to
hold a strip-shaped object and to move along and touch something.
If Westerners can learn from Kato and "comb" the 60 years of Chinese
military history, they shall understand China's object is to protect
instead of to conquer.
Only when Chinese people were living peaceful lives could the current
development be achieved. Meanwhile, with the development of China, a
peaceful environment can be further ensured in East Asia, Asia and
even the whole world.
In the past, China was weak and vulnerable, thus neither Asia nor the
world could develop in harmony. Security and harmony could never have
been realized if Chinese military power had stayed the same as in the
1950s.
The development of the Chinese military and hardware is normal. Any
prosperous country in the world will strengthen its national defense
at the same time. And any country with a flourishing economy and
wealthy people will naturally have more advanced national defense
capabilities.
This is normal practice. China is not, and should not be considered
as, an exception.
We do not expect a high degree of recognition of Chinese military
development from Westerners. However, we do hope that there will be
more foreigners like Kato to "comb" Chinese history and Chinese
military history. Only by doing so can they stop looking at China
through a Cold War perspective.
The author is a senior editor of the People's Daily
Sid Harth
National Magazine | Oct 12, 2009
More Suns In The Thar?
Santhanam has put the government in a quandary: do we or do we not
retest?
Pranay Sharma
Doubts over the success or failure of Pokhran-II had always been
brushed away in the Indian scientific establishment as nothing more
than a “storm in a teacup”. But ever since former Defence Research &
Development Organisation (DRDO) scientist K. Santhanam asserted that
the H-bomb tested on May 11, 1998, had “underperformed”—most recently
in an extensive interview to Outlook last week—the storm has spiralled
out of the cup, compelling political leaders and strategic experts to
renew the debate on whether or not India should foreclose its option
of conducting further tests.
“The government is now in a Catch-22 situation,” former foreign
minister K. Natwar Singh, who left the Congress a few years back, told
Outlook. “Now, they will be damned if they do, damned if they don’t.”
His comment pins down the dilemma before the ruling Congress-led UPA
coalition government: Pokhran-II was the baby of its main political
rival, the BJP-led NDA; and on it lies the onus—whether credit or blame
—for conveying the impression that India possesses the technology to
produce the thermonuclear or H-bomb. However, the UPA can’t play the
blame game—for that could bolster those who want India to conduct one
or two tests to ensure it possesses the requisite bomb technology.
“Irrespective of what comments Santhanam has made about the H-bomb, I
agree that we mustn’t sign CTBT.”—Yashwant Sinha, former foreign
minister
For one, a nuclear test could jeopardise the Indo-US civil nuclear
deal, which is premised on India refraining from another Pokhran.
Complicating the situation is the push American president Barack Obama
is likely to give to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). This is
because Pokhran-II saw India declare a unilateral moratorium on more
nuclear tests, convinced as it was that its design for the H-bomb
didn’t require further validation. Should India now lift the
moratorium to undertake one or two nuclear tests, as Santhanam has
recommended, the window of opportunity available to India is till such
time the CTBT comes into force.
Santhanam’s disclosure has decidedly cast doubt over the political
establishment. This is reflected in former foreign minister and BJP
leader Yashwant Sinha’s recollection of May 11, 1998. “We were all
waiting eagerly at the prime minister’s residence at 7, Race Course
Road to hear the outcome of the tests,” he recalls. “We were told by
the team that the tests were successful. Nothing was said about any of
the tests failing.” Though describing the former DRDO scientist as a
“responsible person”, Yashwant says he himself isn’t a nuclear expert
to judge the veracity of Santhanam’s claims. He adds, “There’s a new
government in office now. If they think the tests, which were
conducted by a BJP-led government, were not successful, they should
raise doubts.”
This apart, Yashwant says India shouldn’t foreclose the option of
conducting further tests by signing the CTBT. He argues that there’s
inequity in the nuclear world order and unless the P-5 (US, UK,
Russia, China and France) agree to stop all tests, India shouldn’t
either. “Irrespective of Santhanam’s comments on the thermonuclear
test, I’d agree with him that we shouldn’t sign the CTBT,” Yashwant
declares.
“Scientists must sort out their differences. We mustn’t sign CTBT,
but our moratorium on testing must continue.”—A.B. Bardhan, CPI
general secretary
The Communists were never ecstatic about Pokhran-II. The controversy
Santhanam has stoked prompts CPI general secretary A.B. Bardhan to
tell Outlook, “If there are differences of opinion among the
scientists, they should sit together and sort it out. But India
shouldn’t sign the CTBT, though our moratorium on nuclear testing
should continue.” Congress spokesperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi,
understandably, is not very bullish about the government evolving a
consensus among scientists on Pokhran-II. He says, “The Congress
believes in national unity, continuity and consistency on issues of
foreign policy and security concerns. The government has already
clarified and the Congress-led UPA endorses that view. It’s our duty
not to present a divided house only to make temporary gains.”
There’s no denying that Santhanam’s comments have rattled the
political establishment. The government fielded two scientists, R.
Chidambaram and S.K. Sikka, to pick holes in Santhanam’s thesis. There
have also been concerted attempts at maligning him—he has been
portrayed as the “logistics” man rather than an “insider” on Pokhran-
II. This is aimed at not only protecting India’s nuclear reputation,
but also pursuing policies formulated post Pokhran-II.
“The H-bomb is about how many more people you can kill. It’s a
political, not a scientific decision.”—Arundhati Ghose, former
diplomat
Before Pokhran-II, in the mid-1990s, India had strong objections to
signing the CTBT, believing it was discriminatory and didn’t address
the goal of “universal elimination” of nuclear weapons. But post
Pokhran-II, many in the establishment thought New Delhi could sign the
CTBT, subject to certain conditions. As former Indian diplomat
Arundhati Ghose, who played a key role in the CTBT negotiations in
Geneva, says, “When we rejected it, we were not a nuclear power;
today, we are. But we should relax and still not rush into signing the
treaty.”
Ghose says India should sign only after ensuring all countries sign
and ratify the treaty, and with their clear acceptance of India
enjoying the same rights as the other five nuclear weapon states. Nor
should there be loopholes for some to conduct tests with yields too
low to be detected (Russia and China are doing that) and yet
preventing others from testing. “There should also be a firm
commitment on universal elimination of all nuclear weapons within a
given time-frame,” she adds.
“The government is in a Catch-22 situation. They’ll be damned if they
test again, and damned if they don’t.”—K. Natwar Singh, former foreign
minister
But haven’t Santhanam’s comments changed the scenario? She says the
scientist has raised doubts about India’s fusion, not fission
technology. “So the credibility of India’s nuclear arsenal is not
really being questioned. Whether or not to have a thermonuclear bomb
has more to do with the glorification of nuclear weapons technology.
Basically, what’s being discussed is: how many more people can you
kill? This is a political, not a scientific, decision.” She says she
fails to understand why the scientists would lie to the government.
“If one of them had not worked properly, we could have conducted six
more tests at that time, since we knew sanctions would be imposed on
us in any case.”
As the debate rages on, most agree that Santhanam’s disclosures have
created a new scenario for the government—it may not conduct further
tests, but it’s unlikely to rush into signing the CTBT, as and when it
feels the US heat.
Daily Mail
Oct 07, 2009 11:42 PM
4 We do not have a missile that can reach most of China. H bomb is
lighter and can be carried farther in to China.
Giriraj Sharma
indianapolis, United States
Oct 07, 2009 01:49 PM
3 The point is that the tests have shown our nuclear weapon
capability. The present controversy is about the number we can kill
with bomb A or B. How does it matter? We have proven that we possess
nuclear weapons and we don't need to test further.
murali gopal p.
Delhi, India
Oct 05, 2009 11:05 AM
2 I think the govt. has stated its intentions clearly so far.NO CTBT,
NPT,FMCT. Anyway USA has yet to ratify it.They have not done it for
almost 20 years now. We need much more time.Review in 2040 in
Parliament.A single vote against it in Parliament means Rest In
Peace.The PM should inform Mr Obama in november09.
devindra sethi
noida, India
Oct 04, 2009 09:14 AM
1 Our nuclear capability is now suspect. Still I subscribe to the
official view that we desist from further testing, wasting scarce
resources. Our national motto is 'Satyameva jayate'. Let us hope that,
in the event of a nuclear war, Dharma will win, as in the case of the
righteous Pandavas, however pointless that win was.
R. NARASIMHAN
CHENNAI, INDIA
Sid Harth
Opinion
Blind Spot
In our obsession with the West or “catching up” with China we ignore,
and are ignorant of, countries that have much to teach us, countries
that we simply do not have any excuse for being behind on key human
development parameters
Umair Ahmed Muhajir
The recent release of the latest United Nations Human Development
Report contains little that should surprise anyone: India continues to
languish at the 134th rank among nations, a mere 48 places from the
bottom. Despite slow and steady progress on this front over the last
three decades, no-one can deny that India’s low position on the list
is unacceptable, nor that the country’s efforts cannot be bettered.
(Indeed, for those who wonder about the increasing sway of Naxalites
in the country, or who believe that the Maoist insurgencies are simply
a law-and-order issue, the Report should be required reading.) In a
word, the Report is depressing, but entirely along expected lines
where India is concerned.
The more interesting aspect for me is the light this sort of report
casts on the extent to which India -- more accurately the urban
Indians who are able to do most of the talking in India’s name --
remains West-centric in its thinking, and colonial in its assumptions.
Ask anyone about India’s development (human or otherwise), and the
benchmarks one is likely to be presented with are Western ones, or of
countries that have successfully transformed themselves into advanced
capitalist economies on the Western model (such as Japan, South Korea,
and most pertinently for the contemporary Indian imagination, China).
There is nothing wrong with the aspiration to match “the
best” (although one wishes there was more clarity on what exactly is
sought to be matched, beyond the impossibly vague generalities of
“development”), but our obsession with the West and the neo-West of
rising China, means that we ignore, and are ignorant of, other
countries around the world, countries that have much to teach us, and
countries that we simply do not have any excuse for being behind on
key human development parameters. The preoccupation also means that
the India’s developmental priorities and even its political discourse
become skewed. The breathless media coverage of the opening of the
Bandra-Worli “sealink” earlier this year in Mumbai is a case in point.
It is easy to see why Mumbai residents should have welcomed a new and
impressive (and long overdue) bridge route that drastically shortens
travel time in the city; it is more difficult to see why the sealink
should have been celebrated as a point of national pride, even, if one
of the Mumbai commuters interviewed by Outlook was any indication, a
sign that India was catching up with China and others at the vanguard
of modernity.
This mindset has important consequences: by ignoring all but a handful
of the 133 countries that outrank India in the UN’s Report, we are
effectively ignoring the fact that there are dozens and dozens of
countries that have managed to make greater progress on several key
parameters of development than India has, and often under extremely
challenging conditions. Simply put, our benchmarks should not only be
limited to China or “the West”, or to “first world” countries:
instead, India should be asking itself how it has come about that the
Sudan has a higher female adult literacy rate than India; the Congo a
higher adult literacy rate; Pakistan and Bangladesh slightly higher
life expectancies; and dozens of so-called “third world” countries
higher human development rankings.
The point isn’t one of national shame or hand-wringing at the notion
that a country like [Fill-in-the blank] is doing better than India. It
is, in fact, precisely the opposite: rather than ignoring all but the
wealthiest countries, or by using developing countries in a
condescending and offensive way, as means to evoke shame
(“Botswana?!”), India needs to learn from the world. From the likes of
Egypt (ranked 123 in the Report), Costa Rica (54), Venezuela (58), El
Salvador (106), and Brazil (75), from Laos with its higher life
expectancy, Bolivia with its lower probability of not surviving to the
age of 40, and from East Timor with its lower percentage of
underweight children below the age of 5. I’m not holding my breath:
although Indians love to express indignation at the ignorance of
(e.g.) the average American when it comes to foreign countries,
Indians don’t fare any better. It is rare indeed to encounter even
affluent or well-educated Indians who know anything at all about South
America or Eastern Europe, or who are even curious about these
regions. Africa simply exists as a place where bad things happen.
But clearly, countries such as those mentioned above must be doing
something better than India is, and its time we took them seriously
enough to learn from them. A worldview that is hung up on “catching
up” with China and “the West” is one that sees “development” in terms
of global prestige and national self-image -- not social justice. In
seeking to frame the issues in terms of a supposedly inevitable
ascension to global power status in the future, we are in the process
of making today a casualty.
Umair Ahmed Muhajir, 31, is a lawyer based in New York City. He blogs
at qalandari.blogspot.com
Daily Mail
Oct 14, 2009 08:55 PM
6 Muhajir is spot on on all he says. India is in a miserable state. On
the HDI, little Bhutan, this tiny Himalayan nation, clocks a notch
above us at 131. India also lags behind the Republic of the Congo,
Botswana, and Bolivia (this last often called Latin America’s poorest
nation). The Occupied Territories of Palestine (torn by conflict for
60 years) are also ahead of us. Sri Lanka, devastated by war for over
two decades, still logs in at 104 -- 28 rungs above India. Vietnam
suffered horrendous devastation in the 20-year war waged by the United
States. Decades after, its agriculture is yet to recover from lethal
bombing, and the destruction of its vegetation from deadly poisons.
Yet Vietnam clocks in at 114 wile China stands at 94.
For India, over a third live on less than $1.25 a day and over two-
thirds on less than $2 a day.
East Asia was the poorest region in the world in 1981. In China the
number of people surviving on less than $1.25 a day in 2005 prices
dropped from 835 million in 1981 to 207 million in 2005. A quarter of
a century ago, the report states, “China’s incidence of poverty
(measured by the percentage below $1.25 per day) was roughly twice
that for the rest of the developing world; by the mid-1990s, the
Chinese poverty rate had fallen well below average.”
i) On the Global Hunger Index (GHI), a measure of poverty & hunger,
India ranks way down at 96 among 119 developing countries included in
the report of the Washington Food Institute (Rediffusion News, 12 Nov
2007). Even Nepal is four notches higher at 92, Pakistan 88, Myanmar
68, Sri Lanka 69, China 47.
The report warned "India's GHI indicates alarming levels of hunger.
The lack of improvement in India's GHI
ii) According to a UNICEF report (Apr 2006), 40% of the world's
malnourished children are Indians
While overall child malnutrition has declined, 1 in 2 Indian rural
children still go hungry.
70% of the children are anaemic. 6000 children die a day.“
According to the first-ever India State Hunger Index (ISHI), Madhya
Pradesh has the most severe level of hunger in the country, followed
by Jharkhand and Bihar. Punjab and Kerala scored the best on the
index. The ISHI measures hunger on three leading indicators and
combines them into one index. The three indicators are prevalence of
child malnutrition, rates of child mortality, and the proportion of
people who are calorie deficient.
When Indian states are compared to countries in the 2008 Global Hunger
Index, Madhya Pradesh ranks between Ethiopia and Chad. Punjab, the
best-performing state, ranks below Gabon, Honduras, and Vietnam.
iii) India has the largest number of illiterates in the world. Amartya
Sen wrote there are not enough primary schools and facilities
available are often limited. Teachers go absent, most when the
children are from lower castes. There’s a sharp class division between
teachers and poorer families.
iv) Half the women are anaemic. India leads the world in the number of
women dying in childbirth – 117,000 in 2005. This means a maternal
mortality ratio of 450 deaths per 100,000 live births. The Pakistan
figure is 320, Sri Lanka 58 and China 45 (one tenth of India’s).
v) 17,000 farmers committed suicide in 2006 and the total for the
decade 1997-2006 was 166,000.The total had exceeded 180,000 by 2008.
_______________________
Yet Indian elites nurse the delusion that India is some sort of global
power when it cannot execute projects like the Commonwealth Games. The
Games chief, Fennel, has expressed grave concern about the building
delays and appointed an independent committe to monitor performance
monthly.
Nobody had to supervise Britain and Australia when they staged the
last two Games. And Korea and China organised the Olympics in
spectacular style. Everything in Inda is sub-standard, shoddy and
fails to inspire confidence.
Eddie
London, United Kingdom
Oct 14, 2009 07:35 PM
5 >>although one wishes there was more clarity on what exactly is
sought to be matched
reduction in % of population living on less than $2/day and $1/day.
>>Cuban health service is light years ahead of US and on par with European countries we could learn from their system
Right....is that why Indian doctors fly to Havanna to advance their
careers? while everyone else clamors for a swallow of the torrent of
innovative medical devices, pharmaceuticals and therapies that flow
out of Cuba?
Cuban medical system consists of touching the hem of Castro's garment
which allegedly leads to healing!
Augustus AAA
Pune, India
Oct 14, 2009 11:57 AM
4 Rs.1.5 crores! - for a PG seat in Radiology! 1.5 followed by seven
zeroes!
Rs.1.3 crores! - for a PG seat in Orthopaedics!
Imagine! Can YOU pay Rs. 20000 Every single Day for FULL three years
to get a post graduate degree? Are you out of your mind?
And - Is it REALLY worth the price? This is After your already
spending princely sums of money and valuable time, for MBBS!
Where did things go so horribly wrong, and who are the anti-nationals,
ruthlessly gaining from this?
WHY do we Indians still have to manage with a pathetic doctor-
population ratio of 1:1800, ( 1 : 400 in the UK and 1 : 300 in
Germany)? Why do we not even THINK of training more doctors for
unforeseen natural calamities like a swine flu or a mass casualty?
ANTICIPATED DOCTOR SHORTAGE :
A DEVELOPING India in 2025, is going to require vastly more doctors -
because Indian doctors will also be attracted by the massive shortage
that is predicted in the developed countries ( underline )!
India is also projected to be the future diabetic capital of the
world, not to mention TB, HIV, heart disease and a variety of other
disease!
In 1994, the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association)
predicted a SURPLUS of 165,000 doctors by 2000. This turned out not
only to be a bad prediction, but probably intended to protect the
careers of the existing doctors. Unless more medical students begin
training soon, the supply of physicians will begin to shrink in about
10 years when doctors from the baby boom generation retire in large
numbers.
And these doctors will be from those scarce ones trainedfrom Indian
private medical colleges.
REASONS FOR SHORTAGE IN INDIA :
Historically, strikes by medical students in the 70's and 80's against
increasing medical seats, coupled with the government lifting the ban
on Indian doctors working abroad, guaranteed the huge shortage of
doctors.
This acute shortage lead, in the 90's, to a huge premium for seats in
the available 'private' medical colleges. This coincided with
allegations of huge sums of corruption money to the Medical Council of
India ( MCI ), responsible for granting recognition to private
colleges. While whole districts go without even a single specialist!
DOCTOR-PRIVATE COLLEGE-MCI PROTECTIONIST NEXUS/MAFIA :
For Indians, becoming a doctor ( or any other training ) is a means to
get a fortune, rather than a profession. While a doctor in the west
may earn 2 or 3 times the Per Capita Income of his country, an Indian
doctor expects to earn 100 times the PCI!
Look at private medical colleges - Most of them (unethically)
manipulate figures of infrastructure and patients in order to gain
points for recognition.
SRM College ( private ) / Out patients : 1,000 PD / 16 MS ortho
seats / 1.5 C per seat,
General Hospital ( govt.) / Out patients : 12,000 PD / 3 MS ortho
seats/ 1 L per seat
These figures can be interpreted in either of these TWO ways :
1. The chances of getting a seat in a private medical college is far
in excess of getting one in a government college ( with vastly better
infrastructure )
2. The government colleges are deliberately not being allocated more
seats, since that will harm the prospect of the MCI making money.
The MCI also discourages Dip.N.B courses, since that too harms its
earning potential. The chief of the corrupt MCI, of two decades,
called Ketan Desai, is worth 2000 crores already! While politicians
PROMISE medical colleges in every district, 99% of this is NOT
converted to REALITY because of this obstructionist body called MCI.
Most district hospital infrastructure is not used to provide any
training.
COMPARE this with the situation in western countries, where PG courses
are available EVEN in their district hospitals ( where the clinical
material is hardly good in comparison with those in our government
hospitals).
GENDER INEQUALITY IN MEDICAL EDUCATION ( AS WITH OTHER JOBS ) :
There is a huge gender bias here, as everywhere else. The number of
female medical graduates today far exceeds the fertile imagination of
any androphobic of 10 years ago! For almost 2 out of 3 medical seats
are taken by females in the western world today! Much of this bias is
defended on the illogical ground that it 'takes a woman doctor to
treat a woman!' Unless males wake up to this bias, ( along with the
way society is structured against them ), this will not change!
This is in keeping with the male-phobic trends in society, relegating
men to menial jobs, while staking claim on managerial jobs. The
justification is a grudge against males for the progress they have
made as a gender.
http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/news/ city/chennai/ HC-upholds-
govts-decision- not-to-admit- boys-in-nursing- course-/articles how/
4912815. cms
http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/health/ 8077083.stm
( WAKE UP, MALE DOCTORS! SPEAK UP! )
The poor educational infrastructure is not limited to medicine alone.
For example, even though it takes just a few months to train a pilot,
most Indian pilots demand a pay far in excess of one lakh a month.
What has gone wrong with our education system as a WHOLE? Will the
government sit up and take notice?
Partha persistent spammer
chennai, India
Oct 14, 2009 08:14 AM
3 Cuban health service is light years ahead of US and on par with
European countries we could learn from their system.
JayKay Chraborty
Kolkatta, India
Oct 14, 2009 04:07 AM
2 Umair A. Muhajir:"The point isn’t one of national shame or hand-
wringing at the notion that a country like [Fill-in-the blank, like
Botswana?] is doing better than India..."
**The author has hit the nail on the head, and had given a food for
thought to the powers that be in India about the pressing needs for
the country, failing which the day is not far when the maoists/naxals
would carry the fight for the oppressed and the poors, right into the
gated enclaves of comfort and security. It's high time they should
stop living in their fools paradise, beating their own trumpets of
India Shining, and get their acts together to stem the rot. I hope
'Outlook' will post more such meaningful articles than the page three
type stories in this post and also hope that the author will
proactively take up the burning issues at every forum to bring about a
perceptble change in the minds of the powers that be in India, instead
of the laissez faire capitalism, business as usual attitude...
-email: goo...@gmail.com
Shyamal Barua
kolkata, India
Oct 14, 2009 12:05 AM
1 I agree with Mr Muhajir. How, China and Japan, became industrialized
nations, only they are the witness of. Japan, not too long after
becoming a world naval power, fought the second world war, and China
went through countless social upheavals, before she progressed on the
path of Deng Xiaoping. The challenge with Mr Xiaoping was how to keep
the nation of China united. We forget, that we are not China, when it
comes to similarities to paths of development. In a nation of one
billion people, the ratios comparing one measurement of development to
it's opposite, is extremely large. So, as India has one of the largest
number of Billionaire's in the world, so does she have the largest
number of poor. Are we tackling this perception, so that this remains
a perception no longer? Has India not tried everything politically, to
right the wrong of poverty? What still needs to be done?
Aditya Mookerjee
Belgaum, India
Sid Harth
How to counter China on Arunachal Pradesh
October 14, 2009 14:09 IST
India should avoid countering China's renewed rhetoric on Arunachal
Pradesh. Instead we should be vigilant and quietly strengthen
infrastructure and our defences, writes strategic affairs expert B
Raman.
As the time approaches for the proposed visit of the Dalai Lama
[ Images ] to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh next month to open a
hospital built with contributions from the Tibet [ Images ]an exile
community, China has stepped up its rhetoric against India. The recent
visit of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] to Arunachal Pradesh
to canvass for the candidates of his party in the just concluded
elections to the state assembly on October 12 has been used as a
pretext for the renewed criticism of the Indian policy on Arunachal
Pradesh. Dr Manmohan Singh's visit to the state has been projected as
his visit to the so-called Southern Tibet.
China never fails to bring on record its protests and concerns over
the visits of Indian leaders to Arunachal Pradesh for whatever
purpose. The fact that it has done so after the recent electoral visit
of Dr Singh should not, therefore, have been a matter of surprise and
undue concern. What is disturbing is the kind of language used by a
spokesperson of the Chinese foreign office in commenting on the visit
and the even stronger language used by the Global Times, in an
editorial (external link) on the subject on October 14. The Global
Times is a sister publication of the Chinese Communist Party-
controlled People's Daily.
The fresh campaign against India on the subject was triggered off by
comments of a spokesperson of the Chinese foreign ministry Ma Zhaoxu,
who was quoted by the Global Times as saying on October 13 that China
was 'seriously dissatisfied' by the visit of the Indian prime
minister, who was accused of 'ignoring China's concerns by visiting
southern Tibet'. The Global Times quoted the spokesperson as saying
further as follows: 'China and India have not reached any formal
agreement on the border issue. We demand that the Indian side pay
attention to the serious and just concerns of the Chinese side and not
provoke incidents in the disputed region, in order to facilitate the
healthy development of China-Indian relations.'
There has been a difference in the translation into English of the
spokesperson's remarks by the BBC and the Global Times. While the BBC
quoted the spokesperson as telling India 'not to trigger disturbances
in the disputed region', the Global Times spoke of the spokesperson
telling India 'not to provoke incidents in the disputed region'.
The editorial of the Global Times titled 'Indian PM's visit a
provocative move' described the visit as a 'provocative and dangerous
move' and alleged that the visit was designed to put the area under
India's de facto administration. It accuses India of encouraging the
'immigration of more than one million Indians to the region' and
warns: 'India, however, will make a fatal error if it mistakes China's
approach for weakness. The Chinese government and public regard
territorial integrity as a core national interest, one that must be
defended with every means....The disputed border area is of strategic
importance, and hence, India's recent moves -- including Singh's trip
and approving past visits to the region by the Dalai Lama -- send the
wrong signal. That could have dangerous consequences."
The conventional wisdom is that since any military confrontation could
affect China's economic development and its aspirations of rising as a
major power on par with the US, Beijing [ Images ] will restrict
itself to angry rhetoric and will not indulge in any ground action in
the Arunachal Pradesh area. This wisdom has some validity, but
overlooks the fact that China is feeling increasingly insecure in its
peripheral areas because of the recent violent uprisings by the
Tibetans last year and the Uighurs this year. Its increasing
nervousness and feelings of insecurity in its border areas could lead
to irrational and unpredictable reflexes vis-a-vis the Arunachal
Pradesh issue.
We should avoid countering China's renewed rhetoric with our own
rhetoric. While maintaining our cool, we should press ahead with the
construction of the infrastructure in Arunachal Pradesh and
strengthening our defensive capabilities there without talking about
them from the roof-top. We should not advise the Dalai Lama not to
visit Tawang. When he visits Tawang, we should pay close attention to
his personal security. The period before and after his visit should
call for extra vigilance from our side.
China may not indulge in any ground action till the visit of US
President Barack Obama [ Images ] to China next month. What it might
do after Obama's visit is a matter which needs close monitoring.
B Raman
Discussion Board
Speak less, make big stick
by Bodh Ramdeo on Oct 14, 2009 09:18 PM |
Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh are two totally different issues.
The Indian Govt(then administered by Britain) signed a legally binding
Treaty with the Sovereign Govt of Tibet, while Aksai Chin was occupied
forcefully by China and then was "ceded" to them by Pakistan, which
did not have legal title to the territory and therefore not theirs to
'cede' in the first place.
A great US president once said "speak softly and carry a big stick"-
Indians might learn a something from him.
How about countering RRaaajj over Bombai?
by Kumar on Oct 14, 2009 09:17 PM |
He is more dangerous than foreign enemies.
Countering the Chinese over Arunachal
by Sudarshan Nityananda on Oct 14, 2009 05:45 PM |
Most of us seem to forget that the real gap between us and China
militarily is their possession of ICBMs with long range. Our counter
to this lies at least 2 years away , in the form of nuclear
submarines.
Because of this,B Raman's advice is overall in the right direction,
but no harm will be done if we occasionally counter China with their
activities in POK, their occupation of Aksai Chin etc.
If we are to accept their occupation of Aksai Chin, we should counter
it with a demand to close the Arunachal issue in favour of India,
maybe with a few minor adjustments.
For the long term, we should offer China citizens easier access to
Tawang and in returm ask for visa free access to Buddhist sites in
China.
India's response
by Atul Chandra on Oct 14, 2009 05:36 PM |
We must noway lose sight of our goal: Prosperity for our people with
dignity.
If we get into a fight we shall definitely lose years of growth, but
may gain in dignity(?).
China is troubled over Arunachal because of Dalai Lama and not because
it wants AP. Dalai can trigger breakup within China.
India can make Dalai keep a low profile in A.P. while be alert to any
actions from China.
Once the moment passes, rest shall be more manageable.
Well
by upendra singh on Oct 14, 2009 05:34 PM |
It is other way round. The rhetoric is by India and china has to
counter it. Dalai lama was given permission to visit Tawang after
almost 50 years (excluding one or two visits in between) to add up to
the rheotiric. May be India wants to do away with its army personnel,
what else.
stop conversions in Arunchal pradesh
by Raghuveer B on Oct 14, 2009 05:33 PM |
shameless missonaries underleadership of sonia are converting hindus
of Aruncahal .. stop conversions and rest would take place
Raise Free Tibet and Taiwan issues
by Indian on Oct 14, 2009 05:12 PM |
Raise Free Tibet and Taiwan issues
Re: Raise Free Tibet and Taiwan issues
by paki mullah on Oct 14, 2009 05:24 PM
who will? our shit scared netas and babus?
Just change the name China with Bihar
by ravi indian on Oct 14, 2009 05:09 PM |
You will get enough hit and ideas from all across. Because Bihar and
Raj Thakrey are the most attractive word for rediff.
Chinese are losers
by Wilfred Felixraj on Oct 14, 2009 05:05 PM |
China is a country locked on all sides with problems
With North and South Korea(indirectly with USA),
With Taiwan
With India
With Japan
With Russia
With Tibet(Still considering Tibet as independent country)
Chinese cannot move the all the Airforce or Army to Ladakh or
Arunachal Pradesh to fight the formidable indian Army and IAF since
they have a huge coast to gaurd and enemies to deal with.So Whatever
comes out of chinese idiots(leaders) mouth is a crap and they have no
capablity to deal with our military.
CHINESE BULLY
by Rajesh Vyas on Oct 14, 2009 05:02 PM |
Let us not overeact to the Chinese postures. Let us be ready to
counter any eventuality thrown up by the Chinese Bully.
CHINA
by pradyumna gurjalwar on Oct 14, 2009 04:48 PM |
Today's INDIA facing all these problems ONLY bcse of CONG & NEHRU-
GANDHI family. CONG used all its POWER & TACKTIES to counter against
RSS n not against COUNTRIES real ENEMY CHINA & PAK. for PAK they fear
the lost of MUSLIMS votes. they hide TRUTH always...but at any day it
will come to PEOPLE n they shall realise how they done.If SARDAR
VALLABHAI PATEL become a PM of INDIA in 1947 today's picture of INDIA
would be diffrent. the latest fact comes that NEHRU himself was not
attended the FUNARAL of PATEL n also avoiding his central ministers n
even then PRESIDEN Dr.Rajendraprasadji but he refuses n attended that
funeral. this is the real storry of NEHRU n GANDHI family.the same
happened with LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI...both PATEL n SHASTRIJI were TRUE
NATIONALIST..but their REAL HISTORY did not came infront of people.
Dont Worry
by shriniket bapat on Oct 14, 2009 04:34 PM |
Show them Chandni Chowk to China, they will evacuate Tibet in 48 hrs,
so simple !!!!!!!!
If
by mahesh kash on Oct 14, 2009 04:29 PM |
Rahul Gandhi goes and sleeps at the Tawang piligrimage all problems
will be solved.
Re: If
by hiral joshi on Oct 14, 2009 04:31 PM
Great suggestion!! and later he can collect a Nobel Peace prize in the
year 2010.
MAKE YOUR ARMED FORCES STRONG AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
by astro on Oct 14, 2009 04:20 PM |
STEPS TO CHALLENGE CHINESE IMPERIALISM
by Red on Oct 14, 2009 03:49 PM |
1. Repeat the bloody nose given to the Chinese PLA in 1967 and 1988 so
that they run away into their heartland forever.
2. Hit the Han mainland with missiles/nukes (Beijing, Shanghai and
other major cities) where it hurts the chinese economy.
3. Recruit Tibetan Army and let them fight the Chinese PLA to liberate
Tibet, Qingdhao, Sichuan from China to form a Unified Tibet..
4. Recognise Unified Tibet, Taiwan and Sinkiang as independent
countries immediately.
5. Launch a media/cyber war on China. Indian media and Indians can
help here big time.
6. Blockade all oil supplies to China via the Indian ocean/bomb all
routes to and fro throu Karakoram highway connecting Pakistan.
7. Print fake chinese currency and drop them on Chinese cities to
devalue the Yuan and raise inflation to unimaginable levels.
Re: MAKE YOUR ARMED FORCES STRONG AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
by shubasrikrishna on Oct 14, 2009 04:54 PM
what bloody nose did we give them in 1967 and 1988. Can you clarify???
Maybe you were in astro world. come to the ground man. be
practical....
Re: MAKE YOUR ARMED FORCES STRONG AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
by pradyumna gurjalwar on Oct 14, 2009 04:52 PM
these r BEST suggestions n i appriciate you.but is these GUTS r with
our GOVT. n NEHRU-GANDHI family.
Re: MAKE YOUR ARMED FORCES STRONG AS SOON AS POSSIBLE
by greatguy on Oct 14, 2009 05:28 PM
Good idea.
China always correct, we lost Arunachal in 1962 indo-china war
by Krishna Reddy on Oct 14, 2009 04:19 PM |
It is not fair for India to claim Arunachal pradesh after losing it to
China in 1962 war. Manmohan might have obtained Visa from china to
visit Arunal Pradesh.
Truth always bitter
Forward | 'Report abuse' disabled by moderator
Message deleted by moderator
Message deleted by moderator
Message deleted by moderator
Re: China always correct, we lost Arunachal in 1962 indo-china wa
by Edward Teller on Oct 14, 2009 04:32 PM
..."we" lost Arunachal..is what you say; Who is that "we"?. YOu spak
like a traitor[you ARE a traitor] and write such crap here inthis
forum? If you are not happy[assuming you are an Indian and staying in
India], please get out of the country and live whereever.
Re: Re: China always correct, we lost Arunachal in 1962 indo-chin
by hiral joshi on Oct 14, 2009 04:34 PM
Krishna Reddy is probably a Maoist-a chineese agent. Such people
should be traced and picked up by ATS and dropped into war zones of
Kashmir Valley.
Re: Re: Re: China always correct, we lost Arunachal in 1962 indo-
by pradyumna gurjalwar on Oct 14, 2009 04:54 PM
Yes Hiralal u told TRUTH.
Message deleted by moderator
Re: China always correct, we lost Arunachal in 1962 indo-china wa
by greatguy on Oct 14, 2009 05:30 PM
krishna you ba.....d
How to counter China
by Raghavan on Oct 14, 2009 04:14 PM |
First and foremost,we should shift the focus from the Maoists-for, the
Maoists are our own people;they are only helping the tribals in
protecting their mineral rich lands from exploitation by the
internatonal sharks of industries aided by a coterie here;shifting the
focus will release 75000 paramilitary forces for active combat in
protecting our borders.We stop exploitation of the tribals in the name
of development, then the Maoists challenge will disappear
auomatically.Instead,it is time we take the challenge of China
seriously.
Re: How to counter China
by hiral joshi on Oct 14, 2009 04:21 PM
Maoists are doing nothing sort of what you wrote. Maoists are plain
criminals who are claiming to be poor tribals but still spend money to
buy arms and kill people. So there should not be any sympathy towards
Maoist. Regarding land being mineral rich, its a property of nation
and not any individual or a group of people. at the most these tribal
can bargain for greater price of their land but cant have whole
society for ransome. Tribals have many educated leaders and if they
are really their well-wishers they can easily make benefits for
tribals during land sale etc. But these tribal leaders on the contrary
has wested intrests and these are the roots of Naxalism.
Re: Re: How to counter China
by Raghavan on Oct 14, 2009 04:45 PM
Hiral Joshi,
I am only suggesting a temporary measure in talking of shifting of
focus-for we cannot afford to lock up 75000 paramilitary soldiers in
trying to wipe out the Maoists when the Chinese are posing an imminent
threat to our territorial integrity.As for the mineral rich tribal
lands being national property, there is no legal dispute.But there is
moral dispute in over exploitation of our Mother Earth for driving
economic growth
Re: Re: How to counter China
by Sriram R on Oct 14, 2009 05:17 PM
Cone on Hiral. Do not behave like a typical middle class with their
selfish mentality. If we had shown the same zeal in tackling
corruption as we show in tackling Naxalism then there would have been
no Naxalism in the first place. As far as I can see the corrupt babus
and netas are a greater threat to the country than the Naxals.
Appreciate
by VICTORY GEORGE on Oct 14, 2009 04:12 PM |
I appreciate your information. But Indians are slaves and lazy
people.They deserve this because still they are voting for Gandhis
Message deleted by moderator
Message deleted by moderator
Has India won all these wars? You decide!
by Red on Oct 14, 2009 04:07 PM |
1. 1948 War with Pak: India defeated Pak, yet we lost 33% of Kashmir
to Pak. (Thanks to Sardar Patel's pressure on Nehru, 67% of Kashmir
remained with India). Nehru was impotent.
2. 1950 change of neighbour: Our neighbour Tibet was replaced by
China. (China occupied Tibet and Nehru did nothing).
3. 1962 war with China: India lost even though we had military
superiority (Air force was never used when China had no airforce). We
lost another 33% of Kashmir (Aksai Chin) to China. Nehru was impotent.
4. 1965 war with Pak: India defeated Pak and occupied 33% of Pak. Yet
we gave it back free of charge without forcing Bhutto to renounce
Kashmir.
5. 1971 war with Pak: India won with Pak and created Bangladesh (coz
of American war ships in Bay of Bengal). Indira should have reunited
Bangladesh with India)
6. 1967 and 1988 war with China: India gave a bloody nose to China.
Yet China continued to claim Arunachal and made India accept Tibet as
part of China.
7. 1999 Kargil war with Pak: India slept while Pak occupied Kargil.
India regained Kargil after USA pressured Pak to head back to LOC.
8. 2003-08 Terror attacks on India: India Congress govt stands
impotent while the war has move to cities.
9. 2009 Incursions by China: India Congress govt stands impotent and
covers up chinese occupation of Ladakh areas.
What is our nehru-gandhi dynasty doing now to prevent the break up of
India by China by 2012 or 2020?
Re: Has India won all these wars? You decide!
by hiral joshi on Oct 14, 2009 04:26 PM
Just Yesterday Rahul baba preached that we are giving too much
importance to Pakistan. He is saying dont pay attention to them and
let them do whatever they want. Let them grab our land. We should only
look at sensex, GDP and TV channels showing Soniaji and Rahul Baba.
I agree with the essence of your post.however we did not grab 33% of
Pak but may be around 10-12% area of Pak in 1965 war. This area was
very fertile land in Punjab and occupying this area would have solved
our problem of water scarcity in Rajsthan.
Re: Has India won all these wars? You decide!
by Dinesh Agarwal on Oct 14, 2009 05:22 PM
answer to last question -
NOTHING A BIG NO
I am differ to you on point no 5 (re: Bangladesh)
Your Assessment are very true, Thanks A lot
Stopping agresssion
by jacksparrow on Oct 14, 2009 04:06 PM |
P.Chidambaram and Mr.Antony should start a trip to US,UK,South
africa,Indonesia,Somalia,Kenya and report the Chinese plan to all
these countries and pressurize China to stop all the plans of its
intrusion within 2067 ,and then we can have a sumit in Geneva and
return to India and follow Sathyagraha in the borders of Pakistan and
China ....
prepare first than say something
by shakeel khan on Oct 14, 2009 04:04 PM |
My Dear Indians let compare ourselves with china and prepare
accordingly first than say something otherwise we will loose again as
in 1962 be realistic do,nt be oshtrich in sand
How to counter China on Arunachal Pradesh?
by kumar s on Oct 14, 2009 04:00 PM
Should conduct some international events like Common Wealth Games in
Arunachal Pradesh. Just like shining India campaign, Give a feeling to
the world it is the India’s land of raising sun
Re: How to counter China on Arunachal Pradesh?
by VICTORY GEORGE on Oct 14, 2009 04:05 PM
Good idea. Agressiveness is key to the success. Lets always remember
that we are also nuclear state. so no country can underestimate untill
and unless we make them to do so.
Re: How to counter China on Arunachal Pradesh?
by hiral joshi on Oct 14, 2009 04:32 PM
Very good idea.
Tibet is ours!
by Vivek Iyer on Oct 14, 2009 03:57 PM |
Tibet is ours!! We must now help Taiwan & Xingang gain independence
from the oppressive Chinese...
Time to raise Tibet and Taiwan isues
by Indian on Oct 14, 2009 03:56 PM |
India shold now change its policy towards Free Tibet and Taiwan,
Should help Free Tibet movement. Start giving a different Visa to
Tebatens just like China is doing for Kasmiris. Time to hit below the
belt.
Re: Time to raise Tibet and Taiwan isues
by Manjunath ML on Oct 14, 2009 05:04 PM
My dear Indians....Requesting everyone not to purchase any product of
china....humble request
How to counter China on Arunachal Pradesh?
by sushil sarandkar on Oct 14, 2009 03:42 PM |
UPA govt. please wake up. Dont make the same mistake made by nehru in
1948 which led to loss of POK tp us. When you people are going to take
strict action against china? Our PM is too soft on China & Maoist
activities in the country.
Dalai Lama is Ours So Tibet is ours
by sudhir kumar on Oct 14, 2009 03:19 PM |
Dalai Lama is Ours So Tibet is ours this is worrying china so much
that they have gone mad
Re: Dalai Lama is Ours So Tibet is ours
by Dinesh Agarwal on Oct 14, 2009 05:27 PM
I mean let we make a mentalassalyumforchine
Re: Dalai Lama is Ours So Tibet is ours
by Dinesh Agarwal on Oct 14, 2009 05:26 PM
let we make a mentalassalyumforthem
care a dam china...
by Mukund Narvekar on Oct 14, 2009 03:12 PM |
jo ukhadnahai ukhad do.....Arunachal paradesh is our, we have he right
to move any part of india. bloody today they are having problem with
PM visit of AP, tommow they will say stop holding Democratic election
there, they after tommow will say stop celebrating 15th August....who
the hell chines are to tell us....are we inians n india is puppet in
chinas hand....indian policy makers need to understand that china
always think aording to it national interest, n our thinker n
politicians has to understand n have to tak strong action whe it comes
to national interest of india,,,
JAI HIND
Message deleted by moderator
Re: care a dam china...
by sushil sarandkar on Oct 14, 2009 03:39 PM
I am agree with you.
Re: care a dam china...
by Vellupillai Prabhakaran on Oct 14, 2009 03:46 PM
jo ukhadnahai ukhad do.....Arunachal paradesh is our, we have he right
to move any part of india. , tommow we will stop holding Democratic
election there, they after tommow will stop celebrating 15th
August....who the hell indians are to tell us....are we china in china
is puppet in indias hand....indian policy makers need to understand
that china always think aording to it national interest, n your
thinker n politicians has to understand it or else we will tak strong
action whe it comes to national interest of china,,,
China eyes Arunachal...
by sush kocher on Oct 14, 2009 03:11 PM |
China shall rule the world; sooner than later, if not checked TODAY.
They have a history of changing history to suit their expansionist
communist philosophy. And they will not step back even a step. China
has never lost; it never will for plenty of reasons.
We need to attac
k on various fronts, foras, and a military expedition should not be
ruled out just because they have nukes. But in india, today courtesy
coalition Govts, we can do precious little. Look at Sri lanka - how
they secured their nationhood,irrespective of int'l howling; ditto
goes for Israel. India has lost - Tibet, large parts of Kashmir, and
many areas of north-east are cradles of anti-national forces fully
aided and abetted by China. The Ghandian policy just will not do; the
Chinese are very different and need to be tackled with full force and
might- diplomatic, military, economic,culturally, socially. But does
the indian leadership have guts? No, they don't. We are sooner than
later going to get swallowed up by the chinese dragon; because of many
reasons; but first and foremost is economic - China wants and outlet
into the Indian Ocean. Give it to them cleverly or they will snatch
it.
Its quite possible that we organise an int'l road/rail corridor from
Bay of Bengal to Mainland China and give them a commercial offer of
useage. Their goal would have been achieved to a large extent; and we
would have avoided war; it would also create thousands of jobs .
Bhutan and Tibet would also stand to gain using this.
Students to China please note the facism of China
by chodagam rao on Oct 14, 2009 03:09 PM |
All Indian students atleast from here afterwards stop going to China
for studies
dfsdf
by Arun Premraj on Oct 14, 2009 03:04 PM |
US-China-Pak are all on the same team.. too bad for India ..
US favors china now n overlooks pak's actions..
only india is left voicing concerns with no one to listen
Message deleted by moderator
Friendly ties with China are essential
by Indian Guru on Oct 14, 2009 03:03 PM |
People of India don't have any enemity with PRC nor people of PRC have
enemity with India. People of India don't have any enemity with PAK
nor people of PAK have enemity with India. It was politics by the
British then and politics by our administrators today that is cause of
conflict.
So why fight and waste time. Its better to take responsibility to
educate people at the village and grass root level, so that the
political scenario and ideology changes.
China and Arunachal Pradesh
by sridharan r on Oct 14, 2009 03:01 PM |
If China can use strong and threatening language over the PM's visit
to Arunachal Pradesh which is very much part of India, we should not
meekly accept it; instead, a very polite and strong assertion of our
territorial right over Arunachal Pradesh is necessary. Our Govt. must
also review its stand on Tibet and de-recognise Tibet as part of
China. On the strategic side, the author has given a good advice for
the Govt. to follow.
Play Test Cricket with China!
by Jai Singh on Oct 14, 2009 02:58 PM |
One match at Itanagar and other one at Beijing. Winner merges the
states in his own country. "Lagan" Formula in practice but be
careful.
Re: Play Test Cricket with China!
by shubasrikrishna on Oct 14, 2009 04:59 PM
why not table tennis instead ???
there is a good chance they will beat us in cricket. They have already
started beating us in Hockey...
We can tackle it By Gandhian way
by rajeev kulshrestha on Oct 14, 2009 02:58 PM |
We can tackle it By Gandhian way
People should discard the chinese Goods at any cost.
Throw these Chineese Item and burn the holy in each districts than
they will understand
Re: We can tackle it By Gandhian way
by Gyati Gambo on Oct 14, 2009 03:08 PM
Good suggestion..
Re: Re: We can tackle it By Gandhian way
by SUDESHKUMAR DJV on Oct 14, 2009 03:25 PM
this is the best and only suggestion..but people again like fools end
up using thier product....without any vision on national interest
either, or about Intl issues....
India's concern : Northern ARUNACHAL PRADESH (TIBET)
by RedIndian Cowboy on Oct 14, 2009 02:58 PM |
...India should allow DALAI LAMA to DECLARE INDEPENCE Northern
ARUNACHAL PRADESH (TIBET)
.....Mr GOBI SINGH - donot be afraid
Re: India's concern : Northern ARUNACHAL PRADESH (TIBET)
by Gyati Gambo on Oct 14, 2009 03:09 PM
Good idia..
STOP SALE OF CHINESE GOODS IN INDIA.
by sunil pujari on Oct 14, 2009 02:57 PM |
I appeal to all patriotic Indians to stop using or buying Chinese
goods . Ban all things chinese . Stop bilateral cultural exchanges
till China accepts India's rights.
Lets go the Indian way
by Indian Guru on Oct 14, 2009 02:56 PM |
Hide repliesLets counter China in Indian way..Pyaar aur Mohabath.
I'm getting tension.not b'cos of china but b'cos our meek lead
by Indian on Oct 14, 2009 02:55 PM |
I'm getting tension..not b'cos of china but b'cos our meek leaders.
China do/say whatever. its his business/strategy but kind of reply our
leaders are giving -- looks like cowards wary of their own problem and
don't want to come out..
what's problem with our leaders... all countries small or big play
foul against our country/people and we are not sending right reply/
signal..At the end I'm worried even our PM has to take visa from china
to go to Arunachal..
Note to our leaders: don't behave such that we feel shame and pity for
ourselves.. We may not have ICBM missile like china but we can die for
our country any time to save our land/people...So believe on us and
give right reply to china with arrogance & attitude..and if required
get ready for fight rather than waiting...
Students to China please note the facism of China
by chodagam rao on Oct 14, 2009 03:09 PM |
All Indian students atleast from here afterwards stop going to China
for studies
dfsdf
by Arun Premraj on Oct 14, 2009 03:04 PM |
US-China-Pak are all on the same team.. too bad for India ..
US favors china now n overlooks pak's actions..
only india is left voicing concerns with no one to listen
Message deleted by moderator
Friendly ties with China are essential
by Indian Guru on Oct 14, 2009 03:03 PM |
People of India don't have any enemity with PRC nor people of PRC have
enemity with India. People of India don't have any enemity with PAK
nor people of PAK have enemity with India. It was politics by the
British then and politics by our administrators today that is cause of
conflict.
So why fight and waste time. Its better to take responsibility to
educate people at the village and grass root level, so that the
political scenario and ideology changes.
China and Arunachal Pradesh
by sridharan r on Oct 14, 2009 03:01 PM |
If China can use strong and threatening language over the PM's visit
to Arunachal Pradesh which is very much part of India, we should not
meekly accept it; instead, a very polite and strong assertion of our
territorial right over Arunachal Pradesh is necessary. Our Govt. must
also review its stand on Tibet and de-recognise Tibet as part of
China. On the strategic side, the author has given a good advice for
the Govt. to follow.
Play Test Cricket with China!
by Jai Singh on Oct 14, 2009 02:58 PM |
One match at Itanagar and other one at Beijing. Winner merges the
states in his own country. "Lagan" Formula in practice but be
careful.
Re: Play Test Cricket with China!
by shubasrikrishna on Oct 14, 2009 04:59 PM
why not table tennis instead ???
there is a good chance they will beat us in cricket. They have already
started beating us in Hockey...
We can tackle it By Gandhian way
by rajeev kulshrestha on Oct 14, 2009 02:58 PM |
We can tackle it By Gandhian way
People should discard the chinese Goods at any cost.
Throw these Chineese Item and burn the holy in each districts than
they will understand
Re: We can tackle it By Gandhian way
by Gyati Gambo on Oct 14, 2009 03:08 PM
Good suggestion..
Re: Re: We can tackle it By Gandhian way
by SUDESHKUMAR DJV on Oct 14, 2009 03:25 PM
this is the best and only suggestion..but people again like fools end
up using thier product....without any vision on national interest
either, or about Intl issues....
India's concern : Northern ARUNACHAL PRADESH (TIBET)
by RedIndian Cowboy on Oct 14, 2009 02:58 PM |
...India should allow DALAI LAMA to DECLARE INDEPENCE Northern
ARUNACHAL PRADESH (TIBET)
.....Mr GOBI SINGH - donot be afraid
Re: India's concern : Northern ARUNACHAL PRADESH (TIBET)
by Gyati Gambo on Oct 14, 2009 03:09 PM
Good idia..
STOP SALE OF CHINESE GOODS IN INDIA.
by sunil pujari on Oct 14, 2009 02:57 PM |
I appeal to all patriotic Indians to stop using or buying Chinese
goods . Ban all things chinese . Stop bilateral cultural exchanges
till China accepts India's rights.
Lets go the Indian way
by Indian Guru on Oct 14, 2009 02:56 PM |
Lets counter China in Indian way..Pyaar aur Mohabath.
I'm getting tension.not b'cos of china but b'cos our meek lead
by Indian on Oct 14, 2009 02:55 PM |
I'm getting tension..not b'cos of china but b'cos our meek leaders.
China do/say whatever. its his business/strategy but kind of reply our
leaders are giving -- looks like cowards wary of their own problem and
don't want to come out..
what's problem with our leaders... all countries small or big play
foul against our country/people and we are not sending right reply/
signal..At the end I'm worried even our PM has to take visa from china
to go to Arunachal..
Note to our leaders: don't behave such that we feel shame and pity for
ourselves.. We may not have ICBM missile like china but we can die for
our country any time to save our land/people...So believe on us and
give right reply to china with arrogance & attitude..and if required
get ready for fight rather than waiting...
Sid Harth
http://www.selvesandothers.org/article13033.html
The India-China Relationship - What We Need to Know?
Tuesday January 31st, 2006, by Pratyush Chandra
Every ‘bold’ and ‘independent’ step by a ‘third world’ government is
seen as congenitally progressive and even anti-imperialist. Any ‘third
world’ alliance is welcomed on the ground that it will develop multi-
polarity in the ‘unipolarising’ world. Today, in India at least the
middle class “progressives” have the tendency to visualise every
dinner party between Delhi, Peking and Moscow to be progressive and a
step against imperialism. While trivialising the very notion of
imperialism as a world system, this nostalgia for an “anti-
imperialist” statist cooperation has made our “progressives”
remarkably moody - the Indian state’s apparently contradictory,
adulterous relationship with the US hegemony seems to negate the
promise revived by Manmohan’s courting of Putin or the Chinese
leadership. The simultaneity and intensity of all these relations put
our “progressives” totally out of mind, making them giddy.
They must be really sick, if they come to feel the potentiality of
anti-imperialism in business ties, as recently in the partnership
between ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) and the China National Petroleum
Corporation (CNPC) for jointly bidding for promising projects. This
particular partnership is definitely significant not only for the
energy supplies to India and China, but also perhaps for global energy
politics. But to consider it as challenging the global hegemonies is
undoubtedly a maddening extrapolation.
It is true that India and China both are major players in the world
market, and the global polity cannot be understood by ignoring their
activities. But it must be admitted that their position is largely, if
not solely, dependent on the cheap labour-force and its vast reserve
army (regimented by the informalisation of labour markets along with
the statist integration of ‘labour aristocracy’). Their
underdevelopment has been a boon in this global rise of these
economies. It has carried the segmentation of labour market to an
unprecedented level, along with a multiple diversification of the
demand structure. These are the gifts of the “differential of
contemporaneousness”, as Sidney Pollard would call it. [1] Do we want
to term this rise as “progressive”?
Further, the Indo-Chinese “collaboration to compete” is already in
place in various international and regional trade, business and
political forums, both struggling against the protectionist west and
claiming low labour and environment standards as their comparative
advantages. Even though global capital on the whole - western and
indigenous capital and multi-nationals - is effectively using these
advantages for its expansion, its identitarian heterogeneous
configuration forces a competition that requires cornering of each
other through shifting coalitions.
With regard to the Sino-India cooperation, three points are very
important. Firstly, its political manifestation need not exactly
pattern with the economic. In fact, all international alliances and
cooperation in the phase of neoliberalism tendentially seek to
‘depoliticise’ the economic management. Are we not used to frequent
statements from businessmen and politicians that call for not mixing
‘national’, ‘pragmatic’ economic interests with politics? However,
“depoliticization is highly political” - it puts the economic
management beyond the effects of political uncertainties that mar
political systems today, especially democracy. In effect, this means
putting economic instruments beyond the possibility of democratic
control, beyond any reciprocal effects of the social fallouts of
capitalist competition and collaboration. [2] There is a high
probability that we will see political and border conflicts between
India and China intensifying with the increasing economic cooperation.
In fact, the reformist China has been very efficient in depoliticising
its international relations and also its labour market, by carving a
near-ideal panopticon (Bentham’s “confinement house”) out of the
Chinese society, as “mechanism of discipline, secure management of a
multitude and extraction of labour”. [3] Only a rampant
depoliticization of all economic relations - i.e., by forcing labour
to surrender - China could achieve its “global rise”. The said Indo-
China cooperation is developing in this context.
Secondly, any global intervention on the basis of this cooperation
will be more of a competitive-collaborative character designed to
redistribute the booties gained in the areas where they compete, or
more exactly for the “division of the rest of the world”, left by the
“great powers”. They collaborate to compete, and their collaboration
in the energy sector, where cartelisation is an inherent tendency, is
exactly of this nature.
If we see counter-hegemony in India-China partnership, can we call the
formation of OPEC as progressive, or anti-imperialist? OPEC was
constituted by five oil-producing countries in 1960 to stabilise their
own income against the earlier system of royalty arbitrarily fixed by
the oil concessions. “The royalty rates ...were exclusively geared to
the extent of political domination of international oil companies and
their governments with respect to this particular oil region.” [4]
OPEC was formed as a collective body of rentiers to negotiate with
Occidental companies, linking the oil rent system to oil price.
However, at the time some did call it anti-imperialist, but
considering its relationship with the non-OPEC ‘third world’ it hardly
seems so. The collaboration of the OPEC countries individually and
collectively with the global hegemony has been quite pronounced except
over division of oil income, which is more like a conflict between
landlords and capitalists, or an intra-capitalist class conflict, as
there are local oil companies too. Further, there is hardly any
political unanimity within OPEC except on oil dealings.
Similarly, the Sino-Indian collaboration internationally will be
geared towards regions and sectors where they are unable to compete
individually, and this collaboration does not require any mutual
‘political’ understanding, except a level of trust required for any
business relationship. And, of course, a ‘political’ collaboration is
required to the extent that it facilitates their collaborative
business to fructify.
It is here that the last and most important aspect or implication of
the ‘outward-oriented’ Sino-Indian relationship resides. The
fruitfulness of this relationship as a rule will be determined by and
will lead to an intensified intervention in the regions of this
collaborative landing. It is nothing but chimera to imagine a peaceful
Asia under the unlikely leadership of China and India. Particularly in
the energy sector, the conflict between the ‘Indo-China nexus’ and
OPEC will become more direct and intensive, which will be similar to
the conflict between the West and OPEC, that of between ‘oil rentiers’
and oil companies. Nothing can prevent India and China, not even the
ideology of “Asian Continentalism”, from collaborating with the West
on the basis of this commonality of business interests, which does not
take much time in getting politically translated into either active
collaborationism or neutrality, or even armed conflicts (when intra-
class conflicts intensify).
In some regions, the interventionist collaboration between India and
China is already politically visible. In Sudan and other African
oilfields, Chinese and Indian businesses have been remarkably
coordinating with highly conflicting local hegemonies to stabilise
their own interests, tempering and tampering the global aid and
‘humanitarian’ regime for these ravaged economies to their advantage.
Further, these interventions are not totally devoid of militaristic
component, as India (and China, too) has been involved in training
local military personnel and supplying arms. In sharply fragmented and
divided societies such interventions cannot have any other purpose but
“neo-colonial”.
In South Asia, where India knows that any slackening on its part in
any field can give the Chinese a tremendous advantage, and China is
aware of the near impossibility of shaking off the Indian hegemonic
influence on the region, the collaboration between them acquires a
different level of intensity. Both require stabilising local polities
and curbing any ‘nationalist’ hostilities for safe intrusion and
spreading. More important in the region is to facilitate market
integration and capital flow, for which infrastructure too should be
provided for. China and India are aware of the futility of trying to
negate each other in the region. Any attempt to shutting off each
other is bound to fail and result into greater instability, as both
have groomed their political agencies in all the regional societies
for many years now.
Moreover, the nature of capitalist regulation from the firm level to
the industry level, further up to the economy and to the global level
has changed. It has transformed the character of “the division of the
world between capitalist associations and great powers”. The corporate
structure has intensified competition within a firm among diverse
stakeholders and shareholders for greater share in profit. The same
struggle is every moment transformed into greater collaboration that
constitutes the firm. Similarly the “division of the world” is
increasingly fluidised. Particular (national) capitals compete for
attracting more and more profit, but they need to collaborate to
compete with others or even to go on competing among themselves. The
presence of India and China in South Asia and elsewhere too has
acquired this dimension. They compete with one another, collaborate to
compete with others, and collaborate with others to compete with one
another. We cannot take one of these moments to be all defining as
most analysts do when they analyse the rise of these two “Asian
Powers”. Their analysis on the basis of one set of events is always
negated by another, and they find India’s alliances with competitive
powers contradictory.
Footnotes
[1] Sidney Pollard (1992), Peaceful Conquest: The Industrialization of
Europe, 1760-1970, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[2] Peter Burnham (2000), “Globalization, Depoliticization and
‘Modern’ Economic Management”, in Werner Bonefeld & Kosmos Psychopedis
(ed.), The Politics of Change: Globalization, Ideology and Critique,
Palgrave, New York.
[3] Massimo de Angelis (2002), “Hayek, Bentham and the Global Work
Machine”, in Ana C Dinerstein & Michael Neary (ed.), The Labour
Debate: An Investigation into the Theory and Reality of Capitalist
Work, Ashgate, Hampshire.
[4] Cyrus Bina (1985), The Economics of the Oil Crisis: Theories of
Oil Crisis, Oil Rent and Internationalization of Capital in the Oil
Industry, Merlin Press, London.
Sid Harth
India, China and the Asian axis of oil
Siddharth Varadarajan
The new Sino-Indian partnership could serve as the foundation for an
Asian Energy Union and much more.
IN LESS than a year, India and China have managed to confound analysts
around the world by turning their much-vaunted rivalry for the
acquisition of oil and gas assets in third countries into a nascent
partnership that could alter the basic dynamics of the global energy
market.
At stake is not just the issue of joint acquisition, although the most
important of the agreements signed in Beijing on January 12 during the
visit of Petroleum and Natural Gas Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar
envisages ONGC Videsh Ltd (OVL) and the China National Petroleum Corp.
(CNPC) placing joint bids for promising projects elsewhere.
Rather, the prospects for Sino-Indian cooperation across the length of
the hydrocarbon chain could pave the way for the creation of an Asian
energy market and architecture — an Asian axis of oil — with major
geopolitical consequences for the United States.
The international market for hydrocarbons is not a free market and has
never been one. There is a suppliers' cartel — the Organisation of
Petroleum Exporting Countries — and a well-organised market driven
primarily by demand in the advanced industrial economies of the world,
all members of the OECD. Trade is conducted in dollars, which
effectively ensures that countries around the world hold their foreign
reserves primarily as greenbacks. And prices are set on the basis of
Western benchmark crudes like West Texas Intermediate and Brent,
neither of which represent anything but a small fraction of the oil
that is extracted and traded internationally. So strong is the
monopsonist power of the U.S. and Europe that oil exported to Asia
from the Persian Gulf costs as much as $2 a barrel more.
Into this dismal equation must be added two further constants. First,
the role of speculators who trade in oil futures on the New York
Mercantile Exchange and International Petroleum Exchange and who have
propelled oil prices to absurdly high levels. Secondly, the huge and
growing U.S. military presence in Asia that underpins the petro-dollar-
unipolar system and is a major source of instability and violence. The
position of Asia couldn't be more abject. A continent that hosts the
world's largest producers and fastest growing consumers of energy is
forced to play second fiddle, relying on institutions, trading
frameworks, and armed forces from outside the region in order to trade
with itself. Such a situation makes for unstable politics and bad
economics, not to speak of atrocious geography. Central Asia is close
to China and Iran but the U.S. has spent the better part of a decade
trying to make sure pipelines carrying oil and gas from there only go
westward. Gas pipelines connecting Iran to India make financial sense
but the threat of U.S. sanctions means this project might not get off
the ground. If the 21st century is to be an `Asian century,' Asia's
passivity in the energy sector has to end.
Objective circumstances favour change. Central Asia has emerged as a
major producer and India and China are two of the fastest growing
economies in the world. Traditional suppliers, too, have much to gain
from an Asian market, especially if this means greater stability and
predictability in prices. Saudi Arabia may like high prices but not
prices that are "unreasonably high." It is not a coincidence that the
first overseas tour of King Abdullah is to China, India, Pakistan, and
Malaysia and that his agenda, at least in Beijing and New Delhi,
involves important energy-related initiatives like the proposed oil
reserve facility on Hainan island.
For the new India-China energy partnership to work, however, both
countries must be prepared to invest the political capital necessary.
There are traditional suspicions to contend with, besides the fact
that commercial cooperation between companies, even if publicly owned,
can run into practical difficulties on the ground. Individual deals
will still be contested and should not be the cause of unnecessary
heartburn, the recent reports of Myanmar offering gas to China being a
case in point. There is also the negative role of the U.S., which sees
India as the weakest link in the emerging Asian chain. Today,
Washington is trying actively to divert New Delhi away from the task
of creating new regional architecture by dangling the nuclear carrot
and the promise of world power status in alliance with itself. India
will have to resist these allurements if the Asian project is to go
anywhere.
At the core of the new Sino-Indian energy partnership is the proposal
for OVL and CNPC to place joints bids for facilities in third
countries. Last December, the two companies successfully bought the al-
Furat oilfields in Syria and are today reportedly working on an
acquisition in Russia's Udmurtia Republic. There were bitter fights in
the past — in Kazakhstan, for example, OVL lost out to the Chinese —
and there are some areas where China will outshine India simply
because of its deeper pockets and greater strategic élan. A case in
point is the China National Overseas Oil Corp. decision earlier in
January to purchase the Akpo field in Nigeria weeks after the Manmohan
Singh Government vetoed OVL's proposed acquisition of the lucrative
field as too "risky." However, the scope for synergy between the two
countries is tremendous.
Though some Western analysts are dismissive of Chinese and Indian
efforts to acquire "equity oil" — why buy the field when you can
always buy the oil on the spot market, they ask — it is this element
of the partnership that is likely to prove most irksome to established
oil majors in the first instance. Both Chinese and Indian oilmen see
the advice against equity oil as self-serving, given that similar
counsel could easily be given to the Western oil majors making the
same energy acquisitions around the world. As Mr. Aiyar told Ma Kai,
chairman of China's powerful National Development and Reforms
Commission, shortly before the two men signed their MoU, "When
companies from the two sides submit a joint bid, no project would be
beyond our reach." Senior Chinese oil executives enthusiastically
reciprocated these sentiments. "We should go forward together and
bid," Chen Geng, president of the China National Petroleum Corporation
(CNPC), told Mr. Aiyar. "Otherwise it is the third party which wins."
Apart from acquiring equity oil and gas, there are other areas where
companies from the two countries are planning to cooperate. The
Chinese have pioneered oil recovery technology, which helps maintain
production at ageing oilfields such as Dagang and Daqing at levels far
higher than Indian fields of comparable vintage. The Chinese side also
excels in basin evaluation and drilling rigs. Indian companies have an
advantage in IT-enabled exploration and production services. There is
scope to work together but this would mean the Indian security
establishment being less paranoid about the involvement of Chinese
expertise in domestic, particularly offshore, energy locations. The
two countries also need to join hands to develop new energy transport
mechanisms, including pipelines within the region and the use of
backhaul cargoes in very large crude carriers (VLCCs) and swaps to
jointly source crudes from distant sources such as West Africa and
Venezuela.
Asian oil market in euros?
Above all, India and China need to keep in mind the big picture — the
evolution of an Asian market for crude and products with long-term
supply contracts and stable prices, and, eventually, an Asian Energy
Union. As Mr. Aiyar pointed out in a lecture to Chinese energy
specialists in Beijing, the European Union started life as a coal and
steel union before growing eventually into a full-fledged economic and
political community. Could energy play the same role in Asia with
India and China serving as sheet anchors in the way France and Germany
did in Europe? With India and China committed to building strategic
petroleum reserves, South Korea offering to work on an `Inter-Asia Oil
and Gas Transportation System,' and Iran planning its own hydrocarbon
bourse, such an idea is no longer far-fetched.
Linked to an Asian oil market is the billion euro question of non-
dollar denominated energy trade. Asian countries collectively hold
more than two trillion dollars worth of foreign reserves, the
overwhelming share of which is in dollar-denominated instruments.
Prudential norms suggest the diversification of the Asian reserve
portfolio is overdue. In China, the State Administration of Foreign
Exchange (SAFE) has signalled its intention to explore the more
"efficient use" of the country's forex reserves and in India,
commentators like S. Venkitramanan (see `Playing it Safe — Lessons
from China's reserves management,' The Hindu Business Line, January
23, 2006) have suggested the RBI start thinking along similar lines.
One way to sustain this shift would be to consider yen or euro-based
trading in energy. The economic dynamism of Asia for the foreseeable
future suggests what is needed is a strategic rather than tactical
change in the composition of reserves. The huge and unsustainable
deficits being run by the U.S. are undermining the "oil standard" that
has been central to the hegemony of both the dollar and Washington for
more than three decades. Relying on the dollar for energy trade will
hurt Asia's producers and consumers alike in the long run. An Asian
oil market trading in European euros. Now surely that's a good recipe
for a multipolar world?
chhotemianinshallah
chhotemianinshallah
chhotemianinshallah
China arms for Naga rebels
OUR CORRESPONDENT
Kohima, Oct. 14: The Centre today said the NSCN (Isak-Muivah) has been
procuring arms from China. At the same time, it disclosed that the
Constitution could be amended as a part of the “political package” to
be offered to the outfit by November.
Union home secretary G.K. Pillai, who is on a two-day visit to
Nagaland, said the government had information that some top NSCN (I-M)
leaders “have gone to China” and that the neighbouring country had
been supplying sophisticated arms to the Naga militants.
The senior bureaucrat was speaking to reporters here after holding
consultative meetings with top government officials and leaders of
various civil organisations.
Replying to a query, he, however, said there was no concrete report of
any camp being set up by the outfit in that country.
The home secretary was quick to add that India was not worried about
China. “We don’t have to worry about China. We will handle China,” he
asserted.
Pillai was here to seek the opinions and views of all sections of Naga
people and incorporate the same in the “political package” before
finalising it. He said the Centre’s cabinet committee on political
affairs would review the package before it was placed before the NSCN
(I-M).
The home secretary said the government was working out a mechanism to
hammer out a solution that would be “honourable and acceptable to both
the Centre and the Naga people” through negotiation. “We are not
offering any conditional package to the NSCN (I-M). It is upto them to
accept it or not,” he added.
He said Naga group had not asked for an economic package in its
proposals submitted to the Centre and that monetary aspect would not
be included in the “political package.”
Pillai said the “political package” would be offered to the NSCN (I-M)
and ruled out talks with any other Naga outfit in the immediate
future.
He said to evolve a consensus on the “political package,” the Centre
was holding broad-based discussions with all Naga civil societies,
tribal hohos and other principal organisations from Nagaland, Manipur,
Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.
Pillai skirted the contentious issue of integration of all Naga-
inhabited contiguous areas under one administrative umbrella, saying
the “political leadership” in New Delhi would take a call on it.
He said once the “political package” was placed before the NSCN (I-M),
all substantive issues would be discussed and that the Centre was
prepared for an open discussion on all aspects of the Naga problem. He
said there had been a decline in violence in Nagaland but the state
government had failed to curb extortion. The Centre has discussed the
matter with the Neiphiu Rio government.
“The state government should have the will to act against anti-social
activities,” he said.
During his stay here, Pillai met Rio and his cabinet colleagues, top
security officials, civil officials, the Naga Hoho, the Naga Mothers’
Association, the Naga Students’ Federation, the Eastern Nagaland
People’s Organisation, the Eastern Nagaland Students’ Federation and
other leading Naga organisations.
In the evening, he met the army top brass at 3 Corps headquarters at
Rangapahar in Dimapur.
bademiyansubhanallah
India hits back at China: What about Tibet, PoK?
Seema Guha / DNA Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:26 IST
New Delhi: Despite international calls for lowering tension in the
region, temperatures continued to rise with India slamming both China
and Pakistan on Wednesday. In four statements, the government gave
enough indication that Chinese provocations will not go unanswered,
with the ministries of external affairs, home, finance and defence
coming into the picture.
In apparent retaliation to Chinese criticism of prime minister
Manmohan Singh's visit to Arunachal Pradesh earlier this month, the
ministry of external affairs warned Beijing against going ahead with
its massive hydel projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). So far,
the protests against China's $1.5 billion investment plans in PoK have
been directed at Pakistan. This may be the first time China is being
warned directly.
At another interaction, the vice-chief of the Indian Air Force, Air
Marshal PK Barbora, quietly brought out the T-word: Tibet. Barbora
talked about Chinese buildup in Tibet and suggested they had no
business talking about India's infrastructure upgradation in the
border areas.
"I haven't said anything about the Chinese having constructed any
airfields on their side in the Tibet area. I don't think they should
say anything about our construction or improvement in infrastructure
in the north-east or in the Ladakh area," Barbora said on the
sidelines of a function to launchjoint India-Oman air force exercises.
On another occasion, finance minister Pranab Mukherjee rubbished
China's objections to Manmohan Singh's visit to Arunachal. The prime
minister had a constitutional right to do so as the state was an
"integral part" of India, he said. "I too visited Arunachal Pradesh
for campaigning and considered it as a legitimate right. It's proper
action on our part," he added.
Home minister P Chidambaram, on a visit to Kashmir, slammed Pakistan,
saying that terrorism in the valley was directly related to
infiltration from across the border. "One can see a desperation on the
part of Pakistan and PoK authorities to infiltrate into India," he
told reporters. The home minister also ruled out business visas for
Chinese workers and said they would have to go for employment visas.
"We do not need semi-skilled or unskilled workers from China. We have
enough workers in India", he said.
China, for its part, continued its verbal attacks, with The People's
Daily, the Communist party mouthpiece, accusing India of "hegemonic"
ambitions in South Asia and "provoking" China over the border dispute.
"If India really wants to be a superpower, such a policy is short
sighted and immature," the editorial said.
Analysts in Delhi saw the flurry of strong statements on Wednesday as
a tit-for-tat response to China's repeated efforts to flag Arunachal
Pradesh as disputed territory. But they also felt that the government
was responding to domestic voices, particularly the BJP's, which have
been hitting out at India's "soft'' reaction to unending provocations
from China and Pakistan.
On Wednesday, BJP spokesperson Ravi Shankar Prasad attacked the
government for adopting a "soft tone and tenor'' towards China and
described its responses as "timid''.
Keeping its domestic constituency in mind, the government appears to
have made a dramatic and well-thought-of turnaround in strategy. For
it was not just the foreign office that protested on Wednesday, but
also the home minister, the finance minister and the air force brass.
But Tibet is India's trump card and much will depend on how New Delhi
finally uses this. Those who want India to take a tough stand on Tibet
believe that the only way to do so would be to support Tibetan
independence from China, or suggest greater autonomy within. The
problem is India has always recognised Tibet as a part of China.
China has already protested the Dalai Lama's visit to Arunchal Pradesh
next month. But India appears unperturbed. The Dalai Lama's office on
Wednesday confirmed the dates for the week-long trip from November
8-15. The Tibetan leader will fly to Tawang on November 8 and remain
in the monastery town till the morning of the 12th. That afternoon he
will travel to Bomdila, which was overrun by the People's Liberation
Army in the 1962 war. The Dalai Lama will be there for two nights for
spiritual teachings and a lecture and leave for Itanagar, the capital
of Arunachal, on the 14th. He will take a flight back to Delhi on the
15th.
The visit is sure to escalate tensions with China. Analysts believe
that the intemperate language used by the Chinese foreign office
spokesman against the prime minister on Tuesday was triggered by
anxiety and anger over the Dalai Lama's journey to Tawang, the
monastery town the Chinese claim on behalf of the Tibetans.
In fact, a major roadblock in the boundary talks between the two
countries is Tawang.
China, meanwhile, continued to ratchet up its animosity to India.
bademiyansubhanallah
Cong in Arunachal wants more surveillance on China activities
PTI Thursday, October 15, 2009 15:18 IST
New Delhi: As the war of words between India and China over the border
issue escalates, the Congress in Arunachal Pradesh today demanded
"improved infrastructure" in the state to ensure better surveillance
over Chinese activities.
"No forces on earth can alienate Arunachal Pradesh from India,"
Congress MP from the state Takam Sanjoy said, also seeking a review of
India's "defence strategy" for the eastern sector.
"The Chinese forces have made several incursions into the state in the
recent months and we request the Centre to strengthen the existing
infrastructure in the forward locations to ensure better surveillance
and preparedness," he said.
China's objection to prime minister Manmohan Singh's recent visit to
Arunachal led to a war of words between the two countries.
Angry over Chinese objection on Singh's visit, India yesterday
objected to China's engagement in projects in Pakistan-occupied
Kashmir (PoK) and asked it to stop such activities taking a "long-term
view" of India-China relations.
The Arunachal West MP said Chief Minister Darjee Khandoo and
parliamentarians from the state will meet the prime minister on Monday
to demand better infrastructure in the bordering state.
"The people of the state must feel secured. For strategic reasons, we
need better surveillance," Sanjay said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Can India douse the Chinese dragon's fire?
DNA Wednesday, October 14, 2009 22:33 IST
Mumbai: Govt must try aggressive diplomacy
This protest by China must not be viewed as against a person or any
political party, but against the entire nation. The Chinese have
chosen to comment close to the polling day, shows their dishonourable
intentions. They certainly wanted to throw the election process into
disarray and confuse voters, by asserting their claim on the Indian
state. The whole game plan is to weaken India. We can't let them get
away with it and must take this issue strongly. On an issue that
concerns India's sovereignty, all parties must unite and come forward
together, to authorise the government to take stringent measures. A
war is not the solution to this, India must try out strong and
aggressive diplomacy, to prevent such pin-pricks in future. We must
send a clear message to both China and Pakistan.
--Manoj Dharpawar
China's expressing dissatisfaction over prime minister Manmohan
Singh's recent visit to Arunachal Pradesh is not the first incident of
its kind. First there were incursions by the Chinese army into Indian
territory, then military personnel wrote the word 'China' on some
rocks. We must not forget that we fought a war with China in 1962.
India was humbled in the skirmish and had to beat a hasty retreat. The
Chinese realise that India is no longer a weak power. We are growing
as a military and an economic power in Asia. Moreover, our robust
parliamentary democracy, makes it insecure, hence it seeks to
undermine our sovereignty. But at the same time, if attacked by China,
it would be very difficult to thwart the offensive. Composite dialogue
seems to be the only way out to resolve the situation.
--Hardik Dan
Timing makes it suspect, bares their evil motives
The timing of China's protest seems suspicious. While the prime
minister visited the frontline state early this month, the Chinese
protested on the eve of the polls. This only showcases their malicious
objectives. I don't understand why China has to make a hue and cry
about it suddenly. The nation probably perceives India as a weak
entity. This is evidenced from the army intruding into Indian
territory, hopefully the incursions don't snowball into a major
conflict. We should use diplomacy to resolve the dispute and avoid
blowing it out of proportion and giving it undue importance. If
required we need to show China that we won't take this lightly. Their
sudden claim that an area in Arunachal Pradesh is part of its
territory is absurd.
--Prakash Sangh
Democracy and eco reforms have threatened neighbour
I feel China is the real culprit and is trying to capture Indian
territory by unfair means. China has never been a supporter of
democracy, be it in their own country orother nations in the
neighbourhood. Since they want control over the north-eastern region,
which is rich in natural resources, it is opposing positive
developments like construction of dams there. While it perceives India
as a weaker power, it is wary of the economic might of India. China
feels that if India becomes too powerful, it will be a threat to its
monopoly in Asia. War is something both countries must avoid at any
cost right now. But if it happens, India can definitely thwart the
attack. India should ignore the illogical comments made by the Chinese
media and politicians.
--Nishita Shah
Arunachal claim, to tighten control over Tibet
In 1995, India and China signed an agreement, which stated that no
party would make territorial claims on areas populated by citizens of
both countries. China's recent outburst expressing "strong
dissatisfaction" over Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's visit to
Arunachal Pradesh is against that agreement.
China's claim over Arunachal Pradesh is still disputed,since it has
raised objections to the boundary demarcated by the British. The
colonial powers had delineated the McMohan Line in 1914. India and
China had 13 rounds of diplomatic dialogue, but haven't come to any
resolution. China refuses to share maps of the border, except for some
areas.
Tawang, located in Arunachal Pradesh, which houses the oldest Buddhist
monastery, is very important to China. China wants to completely
assimilate the Tibetan people and alter their history to suit its
designs and bolster its claims over Tibet territory. The Tibetan icon
- the Dalai Lama also remains a bone of contention. While India is
highly supportive of him, China heaps abuse and scorn on the Buddhist
religious figure.
--Maroof Raza, defence analy
Negotiations hold key to resolve conflict
The relations between China and India are complex. Both are the most
populous countries in the world and are keen to play a larger role in
world affairs. China has cooperated with us on occasions, but also
bared its belligerent agenda before us. I can't say whether China is
jealous of India, but the state's economic might combined with its
military prowess is making it insecure. This is a common phenomenon
among countries which share a disputed border. India must do
everything to secure its borders and at the same time it must engage
its diplomatic machinery. We must negotiate with the Chinese. I don't
think there is need to take any rash measure on this issue. However it
is time to convey the right message in a peaceful manner.
--B Venkatesh Kumar, prof, Tata Institute of Social Science
bademiyansubhanallah
Why did China time its comment on Manmohan Singh's Arunachal visit to
coincide with assembly polls in the state?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009 21:50 ISTTen days ago, PM Manmohan Singh
campaigned for the Congress in Arunachal Pradesh, announcing a
deadline for the completion of various infrastructural schemes under
the Rs24,000-crore package he had unveiled for the state last year.
On October 13, when the state went to the polls, China expressed
"strong" dissatisfaction over Singh's visit. Chinese foreign ministry
spokesman Ma Zhaoxu demanded that the Indian side address China's
serious concerns and not trigger disturbance in the disputed region,
so as to facilitate the healthy development of Indo-Chinese relations.
That China's statement came on the very day of the election - when
Arunachal Pradesh saw a massive 72% voter-turnout - is no
coincidence.
India reacted strongly to the Chinese "objection", with external
affairs minister SM Krishna saying Arunachal Pradesh is an inalienable
part of India, and China's remarks do "not help" the process of talks
on the boundary issue.
The timing of the Chinese statement raises doubts about Beijing's
intentions. Why do you think China timed its comment on Manmohan
Singh's Arunachal Pradesh visit to coincide with the assembly polls in
the state?
bademiyansubhanallah
Laying claims
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 22:26 IST
Indians are known to take credit for or at least joy in any
achievement by any person with even the remotest Indian connection,
from Sunita Williams who went up in space to a third generation
American kid who wins the spelling bee.
Many explanations are given for this need to claim kinship with such
achievers and in the final analysis, one could say the basis lies in
the Indian saying: Vaisudeva kutumban, or the world is one family. The
uncharitable would say it is the deep need to bask in reflected glory.
But our new Nobel Laureate of Indian origin, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan,
is not amused. It is not that he is being ungrateful; it is just that
he feels the claims are excessive and unwarranted.
To say nothing of being bothersome -- his email inbox is getting
clogged with messages from strangers, mostly from India, wanting to
establish some kind of connection with him. The net result is that his
work-related emails have got buried in the avalanche. And
Ramakrishnan is a serious gentleman, involved in minute and time-
consuming scientific work.
He is also a bit of a rarity in today's world -- a true boffin of the
old sense it seems who is unwilling to be seduced by all the media
hoopla around him. Immediately after being awarded the Nobel, he
pointed out to reporters they would never have heard of him had he not
been given this honour. The implication is clear: his research into
ribosomes was significant even before this honour was conferredupon
him.
Ramakrishnan is particularly angry with the good citizens of
Chidambaram claiming ownership since he left that town when he was
three and with people at Annamalai university who say they have taught
him. For the record, he studied at MS University in what was then
Baroda.
Yet, is it also possible that while Ramakrishnan is right, he is being
a tad churlish? It is true that random people, hangers-on, lion-
hunters and name-droppers are trying to jump on to his bandwagon. But
it is also true that many people will be genuinely happy for him and
proud as well.
His outburst however serves as reminder to all of us who fall into the
worst kind of jingoism trap when we try to give India's great and
ancient civilisation credit for anything of note done by any person
with an Indian connection. People like Ramakrishnan hold up a mirror
to our insecurities.
bademiyansubhanallah
Chinese checkers
Wednesday, October 14, 2009 22:25 IST
The contretemps over the Chinese protest on the prime minister's visit
to Arunachal Pradesh seems to be escalating. China rarely lets go of
an opportunity to stake its provocative position on the state and
India has to respond in strong language.
The latest round of Chinese statement and Indian counter-statement
comes in the wake of Manmohan Singh's visit to Arunachal Pradesh on
October 3 as part of the state assembly poll campaign. The interesting
fact is that the Chinese woke up to Singh's visit long after it was
over and protested on Tuesday when large numbers of locals turned up
for the polling. Maybe Arunachalis were sending out a message to China
that they were definitely part of India.
The Chinese are indeed playing to their home crowd and India cannot
but respond. External affairs minister SM Krishna and finance minister
Pranab Mukherjee have once made clear the official position that
Arunachal Pradesh is an integral part of India. India has also
protested against China setting up businesses in Pakistan occupied
Kashmir (POK) and has made it clear that it will not issue any
business visas to Chinese visitors.
This verbal skirmish should be also seen in the context of recent
events concerning the two countries. Chinese troops have entered India
and while these have been played down by the Indian government as
"normal" and no more than what happened last year, there are fears
that these could get out of hand. Subsequently came China's decision
to give a visa to Kashmiris on a separate piece of paper rather than
on an Indian passport, a definite provocation. The list of irritants
is just growing.
The border talks between national security advisor MK Narayanan and
China's Dai Bingguo have gone through 13 rounds. Border talks do not
get resolved in a jiffy and both sides have taken care to ensure that
the other parts of the relationship -- trade, investment, tourism --
continue as normal.
It is unrealistic to expect China to alter its stance over Arunachal
Pradesh but that is not likely to change the position on the ground
nor influence India in any way. The success of the elections in
Arunachal is a vindication of India's stand. The PM visited Arunachal
Pradesh as part of the democratic process -- the Chinese must
understand that.
Needlessly making provocative statements will not augur well for
bilateral relations.
bademiyansubhanallah
India says it is opposed to construction of dam in China
STAFF WRITER 19:25 HRS IST
New Delhi, Oct 15 (PTI) Firing a fresh salvo, India today said it was
opposed to construction of a dam by China on Brahmaputra river and
that it was verifying whether such a project is being pursued despite
denials.
In the wake of a media report that China has begun constructing a dam
on the river, External Affairs Ministry said India has conveyed,
during meetings over last three years, that such a project may have
significant impact on the socio-economic condition of people living
downstream.
"The Indian side has taken up with the Chinese side reports about the
construction of a large-scale dam or diversion project in the
Brahmaputra," ministry spokesman Vishnu Prakash said while referring
to the meeting of Expert-Level Mechanism set up in November 2006.
chhotemianinshallah
Relations with India 'real key' to global order: US
STAFF WRITER 18:32 HRS IST
New Delhi, Oct 15 (PTI) The US today said its partnership with India
is the "real key" to global order and the invitation to Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh for the first state visit to Washington during Obama
Administration reflects the very high priority accorded to the
country.
Under Secretary of State William Burns, who met External Affairs
Minister S M Krishna here, said he was very optimistic about the
prospects of further progress in relationship between two countries in
the months and years ahead.
"It's no accident but Prime Minister Singh's visit will be the first
state visit to Washinghton during Obama Administration. That reflects
the very high priority that President (Barack) Obama, Secretary
(Hillary) Clinton and the entire Administration attaches to our
relationship with India," he told reporters.
Sid Harth
India and China in a tit-for-tat spat
New Delhi is objecting to Chinese projects in Pakistani-controlled
Kashmir after Beijing protested a visit by India's premier to
Arunachal Pradesh state, portions of which China claims.
Pakistani Premier Yusaf Raza Gillani, left, and ChinaÂ’s President Hu
Jintao, seen here in Beijing this week, approved joint projects in
disputed Kashmir, annoying India. (Takuro Yabe / Pool Photo /
Bloomberg / October 13, 2009)
By Mark Magnier
October 15, 2009
Reporting from New Delhi - In the latest chapter of a simmering spat
with China involving border disputes, long-standing mistrust and
domestic electoral politics, India's Foreign Ministry on Wednesday
called on Beijing to halt work on all projects in Pakistani-controlled
Kashmir.
The demand followed an announcement Tuesday by the leaders of China
and Pakistan that their nations would upgrade a cross-border highway
and that China would lend full support to a hydroelectric venture.
Both projects are in the Pakistani-controlled portion of Kashmir,
which India claims.
India and China have eyed each other warily since at least 1962, when
they fought a monthlong border war that the Chinese in effect won.
China has long been allied with Pakistan, which in turn has fought
three major wars with India over the last six decades.
The latest Indian salvo at Beijing followed a protest Tuesday by China
after India's prime minister visited the northeastern state of
Arunachal Pradesh, portions of which Beijing claims, and allegations
that Chinese troops fired into India and crossed the border, leaving
"China" painted in red ink on rock faces.
China has begun to issue visas -- on paper separate from their
passports -- to Indian citizens from Arunachal Pradesh and disputed
Jammu and Kashmir, perhaps suggesting that the states are not really
part of India. New Delhi has threatened to tighten visa rules for
Chinese working in India and to discontinue granting them business
visas in favor of the more restrictive work visas.
The Chinese construction projects and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh's visit to Arunachal Pradesh were anticipated and hardly
surprising. In fact, given that there are mechanisms in place to
address border disputes, the protests may be a bit of posturing on
both sides for domestic consumption, analysts said.
"I don't think it will have any long-term impact," said Rukmani Gupta,
a research fellow at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies in
New Delhi. "Still, these escalating protests are hardly conducive to
the dialogue process."
Singh's visit had nothing to do with territory but a lot to do with
the prime minister shoring up his governing Congress Party's position
leading up to elections early this week in Arunachal Pradesh and two
other states; the results are expected by the end of the month.
"Congress has to keep winning state elections; there's no
international objectives," said R. Hariharan, a retired military
intelligence specialist. "They [the Chinese] don't really understand
that on the other side. They have no elections."
The two nations have conducted 13 rounds of talks over three decades
to try to resolve their border disputes. These stem in part from the
1962 war but more fundamentally from demarcations made during the
British Empire that India recognizes and China does not.
Another factor in the recent rise in tensions, say analysts, is the
Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, who lives in northern
India. He plans to visit next month an Arunachal Pradesh site revered
by Tibetan Buddhists.
Beijing is deeply suspicious of the Dalai Lama, particularly after
deadly protests erupted in March 2008 among ethnic Tibetans across
China's Tibetan plateau.
"The Chinese have always been very touchy on things like the Dalai
Lama," said K. Shankar Bajpai, a former Indian ambassador to China and
now chairman of the Delhi Policy Group think tank. "We see our support
for him as an act of kindness to a refugee. They view it as our trying
to use him as an instrument of policy, which is not true. There's a
tendency there to see the world as you view it."
In recent years, China has worked hard to settle lingering border
disputes with Russia and other neighbors to better focus on domestic
growth and stability. However, there's been little progress along the
2,100-mile border with India.
In part this is a reflection of geography, some observers said.
Because the Chinese-Russian border is largely uninhabited, the two
sides were able in many cases to split the difference. The disputed
Indian border regions have populated communities, infrastructure and
Indian voters.
Despite their differences, the neighbors have sought to build
confidence. Last year, senior Indian military officers visited Tibet
and the Chinese city of Chengdu. And two-way trade has grown more than
20% annually and is expected to reach $60 billion next year, a
thirtyfold increase since 2000, although it's weighted heavily in
China's favor.
"This is all a bit of a power play," Hariharan said. "The issues can't
be resolved in the short term."
Anshul Rana in The Times' New Delhi Bureau contributed to this
report.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
chhotemianinshallah
Precursor to PM's US visit: India notifies separation plan in IAEA
Indrani Bagchi, TNN 16 October 2009, 02:12am IST
NEW DELHI: In the run-up to PM Manmohan Singh's first state visit to
Washington in the Obama administration, India has notified its
separation plan in the IAEA, which formally separates India's civilian
and military nuclear establishments. The plan, which was announced in
March 2006, has passed muster at IAEA and India's safeguards agreement
is now officially operational.
This is likely to help along the negotiations for the reprocessing
agreement that is currently under way between India and US. But more
than that, this will silence many non-proliferation critics in the new
US administration who have been looking at the delay in notifying the
safeguards agreement as an example of Indian dithering.
After the second round of talks, sources said the two sides are closer
to an agreement, and officials are hopeful of this being achieved when
Singh goes to Washington. While there has been some agreement, a
number of issues on the agreement will have to be referred to the
political level. A number of these nuclear issues will come up for
discussion during US undersecretary Bill Burns' visit to India, which
began on Thursday.
But weeks before the Washington visit, Indian officials continue to
search for that Big Idea which will distinguish the Obama-India
relationship from the Bush-India one. There are few accomplishments to
boast of, so the visit will mainly focus on the future.
As a quick follow-up to the Bill Burns visit here this week, which is
another prep, NSA MK Narayanan will be travelling to Washington
towards the end of next week for talks on security and the
reprocessing agreement.
Post 26/11, counter-terrorism has emerged as a strong area of
cooperation, a synergy that was cemented during Chidambaram's visit to
the US last month. Therefore, the US is expected to commit to giving
technical expertise in building India's version of a national counter-
terrorism centre.
But apart from this, India doesn't want the visit to be dominated by
areas like defence, because the government is much happier keeping the
focus of the visit on big developmental issues. Taking off from Hilary
Clinton's visit, the big announcements during the Singh visit will
most likely be in health, agriculture and climate change.
There is a possibility of setting up a green research and development
centre in India with help from the US, while environment minister
Jairam Ramesh has spoken of a US-style Environment Protection Agency.
On the nuclear front, a formal announcement of two nuclear sites for
US companies -- in Mitri Vidi in Gujarat and Kovada in Andhra Pradesh
-- is expected. But India also wants to push for a pruning of the
Entities List, and opening up of dual-use exports to India, which
remains a problem, even after the nuclear deal.
If mangoes made it to the US during the Bush visit, could India
persuade the US to help save the tiger? Sources said, during his
recent visit, Jairam Ramesh had held several meetings on this issue,
and it's possible that a China-type deal may be envisaged -- US helps
fund the "save the tiger" initiative, and India gifts a tiger to the
US. Many years ago, the Chinese did a similar deal -- for the panda.
bademiyansubhanallah
India's developing mutliple-warhead missile
Pinaki Bhattacharya
New Delhi, October 16, 2009
This one is on the lines of free-market commercials: Ask for one and
get at least four free! The difference is that it is not a shirt or a
pair of jeans. It's a single rocket capable of delivering multiple
warheads - even non-conventional nuclear systems - at different
targets.
The country is on the verge of getting one as the Defence Research and
Development Organisation (DRDO) is validating technologies that will
help India deploy multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles
(MIRV) on its missiles.
Currently, the country has missiles that can deliver only one warhead
at a time. The defence research establishment has confirmed that it
has made significant progress over the past few years in developing an
indigenous technology for the single-rocket-multiplewarhead system. In
another three-four years, this ultimate war machine will be ready.
The DRDO says the platform for re-entry vehicles would be different
from the indigenously developed Agni series of missiles. Since it
would be precision device, sources said the guiding system would
require a high degree of accuracy to offset even a small circular
error of probability or a negligible deviation from the intended
target.
Another reason for this overbearing inclination for detail and
accuracy is that the destructive potential of smaller warheads on
multiple vehicles is low. Hence, these warheads will have to hit the
intended targets at the accurate point and optimise the damage. That
apart, the scientists will have to miniaturise the size of the
warheads and develop a superior guidance system.
The MIRV system is not a new concept. Senior analyst G. Balachandran
of the Institute of Defence Studies and Analyses said the technology
was conceived in the early 1960s by the US to enhance the limited
capacity of its nuclear submarines carrying ballistic missiles.
It triggered a major escalation of the arms race between the US and
Russia (then USSR) in the Cold War period. The Soviets retaliated by
developing a similar technology but placing the warheads on larger
rockets. This enabled them to put more warheads into one missile.
Eventually, the two countries signed several strategic arms limitation
agreements, reducing the number and weight of the warheads.
The Indian MIRV could also kick up a storm on whether it is against
the principle of "nuclear restraint" that guides the country's nuclear
doctrine.
Senior journalist Praful Bidwai, also an anti- nuclear activist, said
the move would "escalate a disastrous arms race with China". In 2002,
China successfully tested its first MIRV - to offset the advantage the
US enjoyed with its American National Missile Defence System.
Bidwai said China would surely view the Indian development as threat.
"It also strikes at the root of the concept of minimum, credible
deterrence as multiple warheads on a missile would surely hike the
Indian arsenal manifolds." But Balachandran and Air Commodore
(retired) Jasjit Singh, who is now the director of the Centre for Air
Power Studies, begged to differ.
"Escalation is a condition that the other party denotes on the basis
of its perception. If a single missile delivers multiple warheads, it
actually reduces the number of launch vehicles," Singh explained.
Prominent strategic analyst K. Subrahmanyam said the multiple warheads
would increase the survival chances of the weapons in case of a
nuclear attack.
Courtesy: Mail Today
chhotemianinshallah
Chinese PM wants to meet Manmohan Singh in Thailand
STAFF WRITER 17:50 HRS IST
New Delhi, Oct 16 (PTI) Amid recriminations on border issues, Chinese
premier Wen Jiabao has shown keen interest in meeting Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Thailand next
week.
He indicated his interest to Petroleum Minister Murli Deora who met
the Chinese leader during his visit to Beijing to attend a Shanghai
Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meet on Wednesday.
"He (Jiabao) asked if Manmohan Singh will be going to Thailand next
week to which I replied yes. Twice or thrice he said he is looking
forward to meeting Manmohan Singh (in Thailand)," Deora told reporters
here after his return.
Singh will be travelling to Thailand on October 24 to attend the ASEAN
Summit.
China's objection to Singh's recent visit to Arunachal led to a war of
words between the two countries.
...and I am Sid Harth
chhotemianinshallah
Intensified need to address border issue with China
STAFF WRITER 16:58 HRS IST
New Delhi, Oct 16 (PTI) In the backdrop of war of words over Arunachal
Pradesh, India has said the recent developments have intensified the
need for the two countries to resolve the outstanding issues with
"more seriousness and determination".
Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said the boundary issue between India
and China is "one of the most complicated" border disputes in the
world and both countries are determined to resolve it.
"We must take a realistic view that there are differences, there are
differences when it comes to perceiving the Line of Actual Control
(LoAC) in the border areas. And there are differences also in terms of
conflicting territorial claims," she told All India Radio.
Sid Harth
Reuters Editors
Our editors & readers talk« Previous Post05:30 October 8th, 2009
Transparency and the role of media in China
Posted by: David Schlesinger
The following is the text of a speech to be given to the Xinhua World
Media Summit on October 9. David Schlesinger is the Editor-in-Chief of
Reuters.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
It is my great honour to address this gathering here today in Beijing.
Reuters association with China began in the 19th century, when the
agency began supplying financial and commodities information to
clients here.
By the 1930’s, Shanghai was our Asian headquarters.
Today, our offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong provide vibrant
newsgathering for our global clients who demand information about this
vital economy and provide centres for Chinese clients whose need for
reliable and instant information about the world’s finances is
intense.
From the beginning, Reuters Chinese name was important. 路透社 – the 透
that is the key second character is part of several important words,
each of which is central to our mission
“Penetrating”, “thorough” and “transparent” – these are the concepts
that we bring to our reporting; these are the concepts that media in
China as elsewhere in the world must strive for.
The financial crisis of the beginning of the 21st century has proven
again that the Media’s role in providing the transparency necessary
for a healthy market economy is vital.
While this concept has been part of Reuters name and our mission for
more than a century and a half, the world of course is much different
from when we moved reports using carrier pigeons and the telegraph.
The old world of national markets, operating within limited and
largely ring- fenced pools of capital is dead. In the 21st century,
financial markets are global and integrated– but still fiercely
competitive.
Investments shift, at the touch of a trading keyboard, from one market
to another, and from one asset class to another. No national
government any longer has complete control of economic policy, and no
company, person or organisation has unchallenged access to available
capital. Financial markets are global.
Commenting on the challenges this environment creates for China’s
financial sector, Premier Wen Jiabao has said:
“It is a long-term task to build a capital market that is transparent,
efficient, rational in structure, perfect in function and safe in
operation.”
Efficiently informed and transparent financial markets are also
healthy, sound, orderly and internationally competitive financial
markets. These were the lessons of the 1997 Asian crisis, and are once
again the lessons of the current global crisis.
The role of financial media is central to delivering the objectives of
informed and transparent financial markets, as well as the social
stability that depends upon economic success.
For China, the increasing internationalisation of financial markets
has at least two dimensions relevant to financial information.
First, Chinese markets participants and investors need to be
efficiently informed about foreign markets, while second, their non-
Chinese counterparts overseas need to be efficiently informed about
China.
Mutual benefit and success depend upon this reciprocal relationship.
It is noteworthy, for example, that China has permitted more Chinese
funds to invest in international equities than it has permitted
foreign investors to invest in the Chinese stock market.
Accurate and comprehensive information about foreign financial markets
is therefore particularly critical for markets professionals in China.
To provide some examples about the increasing global linkage of
financial markets news:
US consumption data has become a reliable proxy indicator of the
volume of China’s exports, with direct relevance to stock market
prices in China.
Likewise, the announcement by China last November that it was to
launch a 4 trillion yuan stimulus package caused sharp rises on stock
markets not only in China, but all around the world.
Recent news that China has been taking action against polluting metals
smelters caused prices on the London Metals Exchange to soar.
Even a seemingly low-key announcement such as China offering subsidies
to producers of solar power equipment can cause major stock market
rises for shares in non-Chinese companies active in this field.
The integration of China into global financial markets presents
numerous challenges for financial media, on which the financial
markets depend. But it also presents some challenges for Chinese
policy makers to create the optimal conditions in which financial
media can operate to respond efficiently to the needs of both Chinese
and non-Chinese markets professionals and investors.
Let me respectfully suggest a few areas where China could take steps
to facilitate the quality of financial information and reinforce the
contribution of financial media:
•Greater discipline around the public release of official statistics:
Economic statistics are, of course, of critical relevance to financial
markets. Still too frequently in China, rumours about statistics
circulate for several days before their official release. Often the
rumours later turn out to have been correct. Those “insiders” with
access to the rumours enjoy unfair trading advantages over those who
do not.
The correct policy response is not to punish the media for reporting
the rumours, but instead to ensure that the processes and safeguards
around the release of statistics are tightened. Indeed, where rumours
are influencing the market, the financial media has a duty to report
them –as rumours– so that the market as a whole, and not just a
section of insiders, is informed, understands why the market is moving
in a particular direction, and can take appropriate action to
safeguard their investments.
It might, for example, be advisable to shorten the time span between
the production of the statistics, and/or limit still further those
with privileged access to the data before it is released.
•Enhancing the information disclosure policies of government
ministries and official agencies that originate information relevant
to financial markets.
There has already been some good progress here, with many more high-
level news briefings and press conferences by ministerial agencies
than there used to be.
I also welcome the initiatives of those government departments that
have adopted web release of their information.
I applaud those that have gone one step further to alert reporters to
news announcements with helpful text messages. But there is still
further to go in extending these examples of best more widely until
they become the norm across government.
•Aligning the treatment of Chinese and Foreign Journalists
It is important to gain greater recognition and acceptance of the
important role of foreign financial journalists in China. There
continues to be insufficient recognition and understanding of the
important role that they have in underpinning China’s own economic
goals of maximising foreign investment in China.
Journalists working for foreign media are still too often excluded or
granted a lower level of access at key meetings.
As Chinese financial journalism professionalises further, I look
forward to mutually beneficial competition. I also look forward to
Chinese nationals having full careers within foreign media
organisations in China. My fervent wish is that one day soon Reuters
financial news editor in China will be a Chinese national – one step
on that person’s path to be global editor in chief!
Addressing this gathering just a few days after China’s 60th National
Day, it’s important to reflect not only on the challenges but on the
progress China has made.
When I was Reuters China bureau chief from 1991 to 1994, there was
almost no transparency; statistics could not be relied on; interviews
were rare; the state of the economy was a mystery.
Today we report on China’s economy with the same intensity and
professionalism as we report on any G7 economy. Our clients demand
that, and, increasingly, we are able to provide that.
It is important to note as well that transparency must be a reciprocal
virtue.
The news media must also be transparent about its standards and its
methods.
This has been particularly true during the current financial turmoil –
the media industry was in its own crisis at the same time as it was
reporting on the financial downturn; our sources and our readers were
in crisis, too, and this meant that our stories were watched extremely
carefully and people were quick to complain about anything they didn’t
like.
I am proud that most of our reporting was excellent, but those times
when we didn’t get it right it was vital to correct our errors swiftly
and publicly.
Maintaining our trust with our audience is fundamental to our mission
as a news service. Reporting truthfully, reporting accurately,
correcting errors, obeying our standards are all vital and can’t be
compromised, especially not in the heat of a major and complex story.
We’ve learned important lessons from this period.
One lesson was that our standards needed to be constantly examined and
sometimes strengthened.
Another is that transparency is rewarded by trust.
This year we put our entire 500+ page Handbook of Journalism free
online for anyone and everyone to read and comment on – we welcome
that scrutiny from around the world.
Where our standards are good and we live up to them, we want the
attendant praise.
Where we need to improve, or where we fail to live up to our ideals,
we want the criticism.
That should be the attitude that we in the media should strive for.
I believe Journalism at its best is a mirror, exposing back to society
a true and brutally honest picture of what is going on.
When we fail at that, when our picture is not clear or at all
distorted, we deserve to be criticised. We must strive to be that
perfect mirror.
But for societies and economies to truly work, to be effective and to
be healthy, they need to look into that mirror unflinchingly and
honestly.
That is where the virtue of transparency comes in.
That is why companies and government departments and government
officials need to be ready to be open. That is why they need to take
interviews and to reveal figures. That is why the instinct for secrecy
needs to be resisted.
That is why all involved need to help the media help society, by
accepting that while openness, transparency and accountability may
lead to momentary discomfort and sometimes embarrassment, they are
ultimately worthwhile and, in fact, are a precondition to a truly
healthy, stable and successful system.
Similarly, a commitment to these practices is also a precondition for
China’s development of healthy, sound and internationally competitive
financial markets that protect domestic investors and encourage
foreign investors to place their capital.
Thank you.
Post a comment (9) October 8th, 2009 1:36 pm GMT
Transparency in Chinese Media:
1. Government decides what is true and what is false.
2. Media reports what government orders.
3. All other information censored.
4. People who defy censor are arrested.
5. People who are related to people who defy censor are arrested.
6. People who spread censored information are arrested.
7. Anyone who complains about censorship is arrested.
8. Any westerner who complains about censorship is called “Biased
western liar” (and if they are in china, are arrested).
9. Chinese forums monitored and flooded by pro-china posts (much like
this one probably will)
10. Chinese people look at Chinese media, and realise what a perfect
happy nation they live in!
- Posted by Anon
October 8th, 2009 2:53 pm GMT
Transparency is sorely needed, not just in financial matters. Just to
give a simple example. On the Visa Application Form for travel to
China, applicants are asked to disclose whether they suffer from HIV
and other infectious diseases with the assurance that an answer of
“yes”, applicants “do not lose eligibility”. However, unbeknown to
most applicants, the current Chinese Implementation Rules for exit and
entry of aliens specifically forbid entry to China by aliens suffering
from HIV and infectious diseases. So applicants who honestly disclose
their medical status, such as Hepatitis B, are denied a visa, often
without any official explanation.
- Posted by Stephen Wong
October 8th, 2009 3:04 pm GMT
This is a great article. As someone who actually lives in China I can
say that the Chinese media is every bit as free as impartial as the US
media.I know that is not saying much but consider the steps China has
taken to align itself with international expectations while the so
called “developed” countries remain stagnant and even show signs of
media censorship on many issues. Just look up the phrase “media
blackout” or “censored news” to get an idea. China is becoming an
admired leader in our world and the naysayers are running out of
steam. I am glad to finally see China get some praise on reuters on
something besides economic performance.
- Posted by jay
October 8th, 2009 3:48 pm GMT
[...] more here. Posted by Chris Roush [...]
- Posted by Talking Biz News » The importance of financial journalism
to markets
October 8th, 2009 7:37 pm GMT
I agree whole heartedly with Jay. Well thought out and written speech,
with a good build-up and wind-down and pentameter. It says a great
deal. It is actually transparent and therefore carries huge
credibility.
Maybe the Chinese Premier can teach us a lesson or two about financial
stability !
God speed.
- Posted by Casper
October 8th, 2009 7:38 pm GMT
So if Chinese Media is so great, how come they dont allow the Dali
Lama’s prayer broadcast, or perhaps the freedom to express corruption
and opression, perhaps religious diversity?
Did you think of that?
Maybe because its NOT TRANSPARENT, and if you live and think that, you
probably failed as a person in your own country
- Posted by Ian
October 9th, 2009 7:03 am GMT
I’m sorry but who’s media IS transparent? Who doesn’t censor and
omit??
At least state media is a reflection on democracy. Corporate media is
anti-democratic by very nature..
Even here at Reuters there is censorship and omission.
No the real problem with media is when it is presented as fact, when
all it can be is the personal opinion of a journalist and/or editor we
know nothing about, and who usually are not even the ones who present
it to us! Why? Because newsreaders make it look more official than
just one person’s opinion, edited by a business manager for the
purpose of making money in a highly monopolized advertising market.
Real news should be an expense for democracy, not a profit for the
private entertainment industry.
EVERY country needs democratic media.
- Posted by brian
October 9th, 2009 7:56 am GMT
Anon, give it time, you can’t go from a tricycle to a private jet in
one generation:
“It is a long-term task to build a capital market that is transparent,
efficient, rational in structure, perfect in function and safe in
operation.”
After having read this speech, I realized how silly some of my
comments/opinions have been elsewhere and lately. That just proves the
basic rule of opinion – be careful of what you say if you haven’t
actually visited or lived ‘the’ experience. That’s why journalists
sometimes have opinions too, not just zombie facts, mostly to their
peril.
Stephen, get real, what would you do if you were in their position.
Try Saudi, the first leg of your medicals are local, wait till your
land there…
Ian, I will be callous, maybe those monks should start doing and
honest day’s work and stop sitting and pottering around. There is
censorship everywhere, even in the US, hence you are not subjected to
endless and incessant prayer sessions of some religions, in their eyes
totally valid and normal and acceptable, on the Cartoon Network.
This is a speech that is most probably being delivered as we write,
not an article that is up for a Nobel Prize.
- Posted by ANON
October 14th, 2009 4:12 pm GMT
If you hate a government, you call it “censorship”. If you love it,
you call it “moderation”. Just as not every comment is approved for
post here.
- Posted by Ming Chen
Sid Harth
Changing China
Giant on the move
08:33 October 15th, 2009
How cheap is cheap?
Posted by: George Chen
That was the most frequently asked question among bankers and private
equity experts attending a recent forum in Hong Kong, as they swapped
strategies about how to pick up stressed assets during the financial
crisis.
When Lehman Brothers collapsed a year ago, everyone shared the same
view: The global financial crisis was just beginning.
But one year on, many global markets have bounced off the bottom and
some have recovered quite nicely. The Shanghai benchmark index, for
instance, has gained more than 50 percent since the beginning of this
year. As a result, views among bankers and top investment strategists
about ongoing risks to the business outlook have started to diverge.
“Valuation is still a big threat,” said Michael Kim, a former senior
Carlyle executive who founded MBK Partners after leaving the U.S.
buyout giant.
“If a W-shaped recovery is going to happen, I think it will be a
tremendous buying opportunity,” said Kim, referring to the possibility
of a “second dip” market correction.
Andy Xie, former chief Asia economist at Morgan Stanley who earned his
reputation in the financial industry as one of the most bearish
analysts in Asia, forecast that a “second dip” in China’s market could
occur next year.
“Markets will come down seriously, and China needs to increase money
spending again, then you will see another rally,” said Xie, adding
that speculative hedge funds could earn big profits in the subsequent
rally.
But not everyone expects or is eager to see “a second dip”, especially
those dealmakers who have already jumped onto the deal flow and
believe they have successfully bet on the quick recovery early this
year.
“How cheap is cheap? I think the price level is now reasonable, and in
fact we already missed the bottom level, which was the time when
Lehman Brothers went bankrupt,” said one forum delegate.
Another financial industry executive, who explained his outlook on
valuations to reporters at the forum, said: ”To those who missed the
chance to take advantage of the recovery in this round to buy some
cheap assets early this year, they will definitely tell the public
that the valuation is not yet cheap because they haven’t bought
anything yet.
“To those who bought something early this year, now is the time for
them to defend their investments so they keep saying prices will rise
soon.”
He smiled, and posed a question for other dealmakers: ”How greedy is
greedy?”
Photo caption: A man sitting at the Exchange Square in Hong Kong.
REUTERS/George Chen
Sid Harth
Changing China
Giant on the move
12:50 October 14th, 2009
That’s right, Grandpa Wen!!
Posted by: Lucy Hornby
China’s propaganda machine and Internet are once again agog over
Premier Wen Jiabao, whose public comforting of Chinese earthquake
victims last year cemented his reputation for having a common touch.
China’s Communist Party rarely admits mistakes, but Wen got kudos for
facing up to his.
Wen, a trained geologist, mixed up his rock types while giving
feedback to a Beijing middle school teacher, who had failed to
encourage a student while Wen was sitting in on some classes this
weekend.
Xinhua included the mistake when quoting his remarks.
Wen corrected the error and issued a public apology via Xinhua —
giving new meaning to the term “official correction.”
But even the apology was not without some spin. The Beijing News said
an alert reader had noticed the error and alerted Xinhua, but the
subsequent article by the state news agency said Wen himself had
spotted the flub.
File photo: REUTERS/Jason Lee
bademiyansubhanallah
Climate, WTO, Nukes: The heat's on India
SHANKAR RAGHURAMAN, NITIN SETHI, INDRANI BAGCHI, TOI Crest 17 October
2009, 10:56am IST
This is largely unfamiliar territory for India. For much of its 62-
year independent existence, it has prided itself on being on the
morally correct side of international debates and battles. Rarely has
India been branded a 'bad boy' in the comity of nations.
The Pokhran N-test dealt Gandhi's India a knock, but apart from that,
the world's largest democracy has had a generally shining record of
good behaviour.
Today, India finds itself in danger of being cast as a bit of a
villain on the international stage. On three separate fronts - climate
change talks, world trade negotiations, and the campaign to ban
nuclear tests - India is seen to be standing stubbornly in the way of
treaties that are considered by their proponents to be not just
desirable, but also morally just. Ironically, it's the US that's
heading the pressure group on each front, at a time when Indo-US
bonhomie is at an all-time high.
Much of the action will play out in one of the cleanest cities of the
world where people cycle to work and the living is easy. The much-
awaited, much-feared climate change talks begin in the Danish capital
of Copenhagen from December 7. Like Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, India
will find itself on the horns of a dilemma: should it align with the
firefighters or keep the fires of its economy roaring? How to balance
national interest against international expectation?
It's difficult to recall a time when India has simultaneously been
faced with such serious policy challenges all at the same time. They
are fraught with wide-ranging implications: domestic and global,
economic and political, short and long term.
Do they, collectively, represent a trident at India's throat? And how
is New Delhi responding to the mounting pressure? Is it beginning to
wilt? There are subtle hints that it's reviewing long-held, hard-line
positions. The question is, are these shifts coming from a position of
weakness, or of strength? Are we trying to make a virtue out of our
weakness?
India circa 2009 is quite different from what it was 25 years ago. The
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) - which was more anti-US than anti-USSR -
is as good as dead. And while New Delhi continues to champion the
cause of the weak and the meek, it is eager to prove that is has
outgrown its G-77 days. Clearly, it would much rather be seated at the
high table of major economies such as G-20 or G8+5. As one senior
minister, who didn't wish to be identified, told TOI Crest, "Do you
want to have breakfast with the US, EU, China, Japan and Russia, or
with the likes of Sudan, Moravia and Azerbaijan? We don't want to be
identified as an underdeveloped or developing nation anymore."
Spiderman's uncle once told him, with great power comes great
responsibility. Today, India is learning to walk the tightrope between
protecting its sovereign interests and living up to its new-found
status as an emerging superpower with broader responsibilities. In
keeping with its growing importance, there's a game-changing shift
underfoot, to be seen less as deal breaker and more as deal maker. In
the same spirit, its compass has been reset to point to pragmatism
rather than principle, from what is desirable to what is achievable,
from the "morally just" to the pragmatic.
Based on the old wisdom that there is little to lose from a stalemate,
developing countries have traditionally tended to hold out until the
last minute in the hope of extracting whatever they can from a deal.
But the 'high-table syndrome' - critics prefer 'trap' - has forced
India to concede ground outside of negotiations.
India's negotiators will tell you this is realpolitik. That trade-offs
are good for India so long as the gains outweigh the losses. Indeed,
the dramatic growth story of the last decade has ensured no deal can
be sanctified without getting New Delhi on board. While there's a
danger of Manmohan Singh's government being politically massaged into
making asymmetrical compromises, the upside is that it now has the
leverage to shape global policies that serve national interests. The
geopolitical consequences of the economic downturn have forged new
equations in a restructured power matrix.
Said a veteran at crucial international negotiations, "We not only
need to keep ourselves relevant, but also enlarge our circle of
influence." Nobody will say this openly, but there is another fear
that's forcing New Delhi's hand: as the balance of power tilts
eastward, the government would rather not take positions that isolate
India and clears the field for China. Truth is, India is more
comfortable with an Anglo-Saxon/Washington consensus than a world
order dominated by Beijing.
The most pressing of the three issues clearly is the climate change
negotiation in Copenhagen under the aegis of the United Nations. There
is global consensus that the planet cannot afford to walk away from
the December debate without a meaningful agreement on who will do how
much to reduce future emissions of carbon dioxide, the biggest
challenge the world faces in terms of global warming.
India's stated position from the time the problem was recognised has
been that the industrialised West with its energy-intensive lifestyles
is almost entirely responsible for the mess the planet finds itself
in, and must, therefore, shoulder the onus of setting things right.
Not only should the developed world commit itself to large cuts in
emission levels, it should also be willing to fund clean technologies
that fast-growing countries like India and China urgently need to
prevent their own future emissions from growing exponentially.
Of late, though, there are signs that New Delhi may be willing to bend
just a bit. The overall position remains that "India is not part of
the problem, it is part of the solution" , but the emphasis appears to
have shifted from apportioning blame to seeking solutions. Signals are
being sent out that India may agree to certain mitigation efforts
based on its own funding, and that these efforts will be open to
monitoring by international agencies - a radical departure from its
earlier position.
On the trade negotiations front, New Delhi is no longer reiterating
what the previous commerce minister, Kamal Nath, had turned into a
defiant slogan - "No deal is better than a bad deal" . That chant was
aimed at keeping developed countries on the back foot, holding them
firmly responsible for the failure of talks because of their refusal
to adequately cut agricultural subsidies.
As in the case of climate change, the shift seems to be driven by the
desire not to be seen as the deal-breaker . The mini-ministerial
meeting of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) held in Delhi early in
September was the most obvious indication that India wished to present
itself as a country earnestly working towards a consensus.
Moreover, officials have started talking a more nuanced language,
arguing that we have to be 'pragmatic' about these things. A
multilaterally negotiated deal, they point out, is better than a
situation in which developing countries are left to deal bilaterally
with the more developed and powerful. Hence, the argument goes, the
world and developing countries in particular cannot afford to get to
the end of the 2010 deadline for the Doha round of trade talks without
a deal.
In both cases - climate change talks and trade negotiations - there
also appears to be a greater willingness in the Indian establishment
to appreciate the fact that the West is domestically under greater
pressure not to yield much ground at a time when it is in recession.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is not quite in the same
ballpark as climate change or WTO. For one, there is no deadline
staring India in the face. Despite that, pressure is beginning to
mount. That's because Nobel Peace laureate Barack Obama seems really
keen on ensuring that the US ratifies the treaty. If and when that
happens, India and eight other countries, including China, Pakistan
and Israel, will have to decide whether they want to continue to hold
out or fall in line and ratify the treaty. The other eight holdouts
are most likely to ratify, so India risks being isolated.
Traditionally, India has refused to even consider ratifying the CTBT,
a terse "not now, not ever" summing up its position. But here too,
there are indications of a more conciliatory stance emerging -
especially if there are guarantees that its strategic interests won't
be hurt. Rather than refusing to sign, the focus may shift to
bargaining for cast-iron guarantees.
While less urgent than climate change talks or WTO, the pressure to
toe the line on CTBT has an uncomfortably direct US connection. The
celebrated civil nuclear deal between the two countries - which took
considerable time and trouble to clear - will make it domestically
awkward for Washington and New Delhi to be in an adversarial
situation. There are critics at home, both in the US and in India, who
are just waiting to crow "we told you so".
That's a complication Prime Minister Manmohan Singh will be acutely
aware of. He recognises that any sign of softening to US bullying will
give the Opposition the ammunition it needs. On the other hand, taking
a hard line could strain relations with a valued ally.
There are no easy options here, but when you're leading a country
that's home to more than one in every six human beings on the planet,
the pressure comes with the job.
bademiyansubhanallah
NPT and Obama: How long can India hold out?
Indrani Bagchi, TOI Crest 17 October 2009, 07:01am IST
"To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will
immediately and aggressively pursue US ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty." US President Barack Obama, Prague,
April 5, 2009 "Nations with nuclear weapons have the responsibility to
move towards disarmament and those without have the responsibility to
forsake them." Obama, at the UN, September 24, 2009, while chairing a
summit of the 15-member UN Security Council which unanimously adopted
a resolution calling on countries that had not signed the Nuclear
Proliferation Treaty (like India) to join as "non-nuclear weapons
states" and to "comply fully with all their obligations… pending
their accession to the Treaty" . The resolution also asked all states
to refrain from conducting nuclear tests, and to sign and ratify the
CTBT.
Even as New Delhi went into a frenzy over the mere thought that Barack
Obama might indirectly be seeking to "pressure" India to sign the Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the real killer arrow was still in the
American quiver, virtually forgotten but still enormously potent - the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which is expected to knock on
India's door yet again soon and with much greater purpose.
The intent was clear in Prague this April when Obama pledged to secure
US ratification of CTBT which India once famously rejected with four
eloquent words: "Not now, not ever." If he succeeds in his mission,
pressure is certain to mount on India and eight other countries -
including Pakistan, Israel and China - that have still not ratified
the treaty. The other eight are expected to fall in line once US
ratifies, leaving India with perhaps little option but to sign.
Obama's reiteration, at the UN, of his non-proliferation and
disarmament policy has stirred the coals of strategic debate once
again. How long can India hold out? As policy wonks went into a
huddle, a few things got clear and have, in turn, reshaped the debate.
To begin with, NPT - regarded by India as "discriminatory" - is not
seen as the real threat. Within hours of Obama's grandstanding on NPT,
Manmohan Singh clarified that he had been assured by Washington that
the president's resolution was "not directed against India" and would
not affect the India-US nuke deal.
The real challenge is CTBT which Obama , it is reckoned, would like to
push through if only to burnish his disarmament credentials and live
up to the Nobel Peace Prize that's fallen into his lap. At the same
time, the assessment among India's nuclear pundits is that the
situation has changed - and changed dramatically - since the feisty
"not-now-not-ever" stance. India has tested once more in the period
since - Pokhran II - enhancing its nuclear weapons capability.
The game-changer has been the civilian nuclear technology agreement
with the US which will open up N-technology while keeping its weapons
intact. Globally, India is now perceived to be inside the tent, a part
of the global solution to nuclear proliferation issues. So while NPT
is a no-no for New Delhi, at least in its present form, CTBT can leave
room for manoeuvre.
Less than a day after Obama piloted the UNSC resolution through,
India's permanent representative to the UN, Hardeep Puri shot off a
strongly-worded letter to the president of the Security Council.
"Nuclear weapons are an integral part of India's national security and
will remain so, pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear
disarmament . We remain committed to a voluntary , unilateral
moratorium on nuclear testing. We do not subscribe to any arms race,
including a nuclear arms race. We have always tempered the exercise of
our strategic autonomy with a sense of global responsibility. We
affirm our policy of nofirst-use of nuclear weapons." (Please see box,
'ABC of NPT and CTBT' .)
Hamid Ali Rao, India's top diplomat at the Conference on Disarmament,
had, earlier in May, said as much: "We will not accept obligations not
in keeping with or prejudicial to our national security interests , or
which hinder our strategic programme , our R&D and our three-stage
nuclear programme."
All of this could be compromised, feel officials, if it were to sign
the CTBT without certain guarantees. No one is quite spelling out the
guarantees as that would show India's hand prematurely, but New Delhi
may want the US to share the results of US tests (at least some key
aspects).
India will almost certainly not sign the CTBT before the US ratifies
the treaty in the Senate. In 1999, a Republican-majority Senate held
up ratification of CTBT, and that had let India off the hook then. Ten
years on, the Senate is Democrat-led , but the Obama administration is
still six to seven votes short of the required 67.
As US nuclear expert Ashley Tellis explained to TOI-Crest , "The
Senate's position will evolve only after the publication of the
Nuclear Posture Review, scheduled for the year-end . If it indicates
the US needs a new generation of nuclear weapon, then the debate is
likely to veer towards whether the administration can guarantee new
warheads without further testing."
Second, said Tellis, there are serious questions about the monitoring
mechanism of CTBT, which basically means - can countries cheat? Tibor
Toth, secretary general of CTBT Organisation (CTBTO) claims the
international monitoring system (IMS) is now sophisticated enough to
be able to detect even the smallest test on land or water . But the
IMS is not yet foolproof.
Finally, Obama might be bluntly told by the US Senate to first get the
signatures of India, China, Pakistan and Israel before it ratifies the
treaty. That's the point at which the US would be forced to enter, as
Tellis said, a "delicate discussion with India ." That would also
become the starting point for negotiations with the US for which New
Delhi is now preparing.
Arundhati Ghose, India's permanent representative at the UN and chief
negotiator on CTBT in the 1990s, and the protagonist of its "not-now-
not-ever" stance, acknowledges that the situation has since changed
and India's posture can't be the same today. Asked what assurances
India needed to get if it were to sign the CTBT, she told TOI-Crest ,
"While the negotiations were going on in the 1990s, the P-5 nations
(five nuclear powers) would meet every morning for their own
negotiations. Later we found these were part of negotiations to swap
data among them and we suspect an unwritten agreement among them to
conduct hydronuclear tests (tiny yield underwater nuclear tests that
may not be detected by the IMS) and share the results." These are the
kind of things that India could demand access to, she suggests.
Shyam Saran, special envoy to the PM on nuclear matters, has also
indicated that the Indian position might evolve. At a speech in
Brookings Institution (in the US) earlier this year, Saran said, "It
is our conviction that if the world moves categorically towards
nuclear disarmament in a credible time-frame , then Indo-US
differences over the CTBT would probably recede into the background."
This effectively puts the ball in the US court.
At the same time, India is changing the terms of the CTBT debate from
it being "discriminatory" to whether signing it can ensure India's
national security interests. It's a shift that's happening at a
glacial pace. What if things move fast at the US Senate, requiring
India to speed up its response?
It's possibly in anticipation of this that Department of Atomic Energy
secretary Anil Kakodkar and scientific advisor to the government R
Chidambaram have sought to scotch doubts about the efficacy of Pokhran
II - loudly voiced by scientist K Santhanam - and come out openly on
the veracity of India's nuclear tests and its simulation capability.
The signal is India does not need more tests - at least not for now.
This is being read as the first steps taken by the government to put
its nuclear czars on record, a lesson learnt the hard way during the
nuclear deal.
India could learn from China. For decades China avoided the global
nuclear regime, calling it an instrument of western hegemony, while it
proliferated with impunity to Pakistan, North Korea and Iran. India's
reputation is saintly by comparison. But after signing the NPT in 1992
as a nuclear weapons state, China drank up the entire alphabet soup of
non-proliferation regimes, signing CTBT, FMCT, MTCR and so on.
Suddenly, it looked not just good but was gleefully shoving non-
proliferation mantras down an enraged India's throat. India's
diplomatic stance - which has always had a strong moral component to
it - sets it apart from the Chinese, but in the amoral world of global
realpolitik it's also a handicap. Now with assured supply of
technology and fuel, it is better off. If New Delhi were to pull the
right strings it could make the right music.
The ABC of NPT and CTBT
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
A treaty between 189 countries, it prohibits manufacture or transfer
of nuclear weapons, but allows peaceful use of nuclear energy under
strict monitoring . The five permanent members of the UN Security
Council -- US, Russia, UK, China and France - are recognized as having
nuclear weapons (Nuclear Weapons States), while others cannot develop
or acquire them. Countries that already have nuclear weapons, are
supposed to destroy them once they sign the NPT - as South Africa, for
instance , did. India, Pakistan and Israel are the only countries that
have refused to sign the treaty; North Korea withdrew from the treaty
in 2003. Iran is a signatory, but has been accused of violating it.
India's objection: NPT arbitrarily divides nations into nuclear haves
and have-nots .
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
Adopted by the UN general assembly in 1996, 150 countries have
ratified it while 32 have signed but not ratified including the US. It
calls for a total ban on nuclear tests, whether peaceful or military.
It can come into force only after all 44 countries mentioned in its
Annex II ratify it. Of these, 35 have signed and ratified, nine (among
them, China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel and the United States)
have signed but not ratified, and three (India , North Korea and
Pakistan) who have not signed it at all. India's objection: the
Nuclear Weapons States conducted over 2000 nuclear tests over the past
50 years, and have over 30,000 nuclear weapons in stockpile. Until
they disarm, it is discriminatory to ask India not to conduct tests.
Nobel Peace Laureate Obama is keen that US ratifies CTBT, but he needs
a two-thirds majority (67 votes) in the Senate, and that won't be
easy. The conservative/hawkish constituency doesn't want the US to
foreclose its options, particularly the testing of a new generation of
nuclear weapons. All the countries that haven't signed/ratified are
likely to point at one another and say, you ratify first, then we'll
do it.
bademiyansubhanallah
422 and counting... Think tanks boom in India
Praveen Dass, TOI Crest 17 October 2009, 11:05am IST
When it's time to put our thinking caps on, theorise , conceptualise
and speculate, we're among the best. Punditry is more than just an
ancient calling for Indians, with the country being home to 422
recognised think tanks.
According to a study by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program at
the University of Pennsylvania, this tally puts India second only to
the US, which is home to over 2,000 such institutions that research
and analyse important public issues. Many of the US think tanks,
sometimes referred to as 'idea factories' , are hugely influential in
determining US government policy. But experts say that India barely
invites comparison with the US here.
Most Indian think tanks focus on development concerns, says the
report, but less than 15 per cent study security issues and foreign
policy. Most top American and European think tanks significantly
influence policy in these fields, and also serve as talent hubs. The
American 'revolving door' model, where think tanks contribute to
government appointments and vice versa, is notable. Condoleezza Rice
is a recent example.
Strategic affairs guru K Subrahmanyam says that only as a nation
begins to look outward will it devote more resources to such fields.
He explains that most US think tanks were set up after World War II,
when America ascended the world stage as a superpower.
Many problems plague Indian think tanks, according to the survey. Most
appear to be lacking in funds and autonomy, with the government a
principal funder.
Most are also too academic-oriented . B Raman, a think tank head, also
questions the motivation of many Indian outfits, saying they are more
interested in organising conferences than producing meaningful
research.
Sanjaya Baru of the International Institute of Strategic Studies,
London, agrees and points a finger at an Indian bureaucracy
traditionally averse to external inputs on foreign policy and
security . He contrasts this with economic policy-making , the only
field where the government has made use of outside expertise -
Manmohan Singh being a good example. But all other areas have remained
closed to outside expertise and advice for the most part.
Baru says that virtually no information is made available by the
Indian government . Subrahmanyam recalls a chat with UK think tank
Chatham House's head in the '80s, where he pointed out that while
western think tanks did not get funding from governments they got
access to government information. In India, think tanks got some
government funding but no information. "Nothing much has changed in
the last two decades," he says. "Bureaucrats still retain power by
withholding information."
Most Indian outfits are too poorly funded and stuffed with far too
many retired government greybeards to serve as talent shops. Both
major reasons Baru and Subrahmanyam tick for bright young scholars not
joining think tanks here, unlike in the West. Which begs the question,
can Indian think tanks serve as long-term incubators of fresh ideas
and policy alternatives?
There may yet be hope. Data from think tank research is often used to
support debates within governments. Kanti Bajpai of Oxford University
lists this "rationalising function" as a key aspect of think tank
influence - even in hidebound India, citing a well-known example
involving Subrahmanyam.
An influential article by Subrahmanyam , then a think tank head, added
greatly to momentum that led to India's military role in the creation
of Bangladesh in 1971. India's nuclear weapons policies are also
highlighted as being principally shaped by scholars and experts. But
these are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Bajpai also underlines the latitude and detachment that a think tank
environment offers for comprehensive long-term research. No civil
servant, however smart or well intentioned, is likely to get such
leeway in government service. Think tanks also often play devil's
advocate and voice researched , contrarian opinions. This is a vital
function in any liberal democracy.
Further, for being in the ideas business , Indian think tanks don't
spread the word, says Bajpai. Liberally seeding relevant circles - the
media, lawmakers , peers - with their research is the key to making
some impact, he stresses.
But others grumble that funds to run such outfits are still hard to
come by. India's rising economic profile gives hope, though. All
experts are optimistic that this would soon lead to corporate houses
liberally funding more research. If the government opened up to
receiving inputs, this ideal scenario would be complete. But as think
tanks know only so well, not all scenarios play out perfectly. India's
think tanks clearly have a long way to go beyond just making up the
numbers on global listings, however impressive.
bademiyansubhanallah
IIMs get govt go ahead to set up campuses abroad
TNN 17 October 2009, 12:44am IST
NEW DELHI: The government on Friday handed twin Diwali gifts to the
IIMs. It gave the prestigious management schools the go-ahead to set
up campuses abroad. It also agreed to leave the appointment of the
board and director of an IIM to a collegium the composition of which
is to be decided by IIMs themselves.
IIMs have been asked to decide the composition of the collegium by
January 2010.
Announcing the decisions after his meeting with directors of IIMs, HRD
minister Kapil Sibal said that the number of board members in each IIM
will also be brought down to 13. "The collegium will suggest the names
for appointment of the board members and the directors. The
composition of the collegium will be restricted to 13 members," he
said .
The greenlight for foreign campuses marks a major shift since the
UPA-1. The proposal by IIM-Bangalore to set up a campus in Singapore
became a contentious issue during the tenure of former HRD minister
Arjun Singh who said that the management schools were mandated to
focus on the country.
Sibal justified the significant departure saying IIMs should be a
global brand. He also said that though their prime responsibility was
national, they could become an international brand. "Both can go hand
in hand," he said.
The HRD minister said while it was for IIMs to take the final decision
on how they want to set up campuses abroad, he suggested they should
come together to do it. In case the proposal of IIMs is accepted,
Sibal said, their memorandum of association would be amended.
In the meeting with Sibal, the IIM directors accepted his suggestion
on the collegium. This would mean that the Bhargava committee's
recommendation of a pan-IIM board would not be implemented. Sibal said
the IIMs were not very enthusiastic with the idea of a pan-IIM board
but they had accepted it.
The IIM directors expressed satisfaction with the new pay structure
and promised to evolve a Performance Related Incentive Scheme. Each
IIM has also agreed to come up with a vision document early next year
for the next five years. Sibal asked the B-school directors to
emphasise on affirmative action and look for ways to give more
representation to women.
To bridge the gap between the old IIMs -- all big brands now -- and
the new IIMs, Sibal suggested that the new ones be mentored by old
ones. Just this year, six new IIMs will be set up. Sibal also felt
that IIMs should have a flexible system under which a student can
pursue certain credits from any IIM other than the institute he is
admitted to.
In the meeting, the IIMs agreed to produce more post-doctoral fellows
and give more importance to research. The B-schools would be provided
enhanced IT facility as each of them would get one gigabyte
connectivity, Sibal said.
bademiyansubhanallah
Chinese incursion at IIM-A too
Kumar Manish, TNN 5 October 2009, 03:43am IST
AHMEDABAD: For all the sound and fury between India and China over
border incursions, some 60 students at India’s premier B-school Indian
Institute of Management-Ahmedabad (IIM-A) are quietly learning
Chinese.
These are final year students of the flagship course Post Graduate
Programme (PGP), who have smelt an opportunity in the neighbouring
country’s booming economy. They are plodding through the hieroglyphics
to pick up business Chinese as they feel it adds value to their CVs. A
teacher of the language has also been imported from China’s Xinjiang
University to run the elective course.
In fact, with China’s phenomenal economic growth and re-orientation
towards a market economy, Chinese language and understanding its
culture are becoming increasingly appealing to management graduates
world-wide.
Final year PGP student Rohan Suri says, “China is going to be a
booming economy globally in the next 10 to 15 years. It has been
expanding its business reach and partnering with companies across the
globe. Business ties with India will also grow tremendously in the
coming times. A basic knowledge of Chinese language, like introducing
oneself, exchanging pleasantries and understanding their culture ethos
will help us in business relations with them.”
Business Chinese is an elective course with five sessions. Final year
student and member of media cell at IIM-A, Anirban Tarafdar, adds, “A
growing number of international corporate firms are setting up their
base in Shanghai and Hong Kong among other Chinese cities which makes
their language an attractive proposition to learn. In any culture,
understanding specific etiquette requirements is important in business
dealings and also to strengthen bonds with them.”
Some major Chinese companies that are considered big players in the
job market globally are China Mobile, Bank of China, Gome Electrical
Appliances Holdings, Lenovo Holdings, PetroChina and Shanghai Pudong
Development Bank among others.
Recently, major private equity firms like Carlyle Group, Bain Capital
and TPG have signed deals with Chinese companies. Private equity
players are one of the major recruiters at the IIM-A campus.
chhotemianinshallah
We need to resolve boundary issue with China: Nirupama Rao
New Delhi, Oct 17 (IANS) The recent tension between India and China
"intensifies the need" for the two sides "to sit down and resolve" the
border issue, Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said.
"In fact, the focus that has been given to both the incursions and
also to the Arunachal Pradesh issue, I think only intensifies the need
for the two sides to really sit down to resolve these issues with even
more seriousness and determination," Rao said in an interview
broadcast on All India Radio Thursday night.
India's top diplomat, who was the envoy in Beijing before taking up
her present assignment, added that both governments understood that "a
peaceful relationship between India and China is not only good for the
two countries but it is good for this region, it is good globally
also".
In recent weeks, the relations between the two Asian giants have been
strained. It started with reports in the Indian media reports on
alleged incursions by Chinese troops on the disputed Himalayan border.
This led to combative reports in the media of both countries.
This week, China's protest to the visit of Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh to Arunachal Pradesh, a northeastern province over which the
Beijing claims ownership,
led to strong reactions from India.
The Indian foreign office reiterated that Arunachal Pradesh was an
integral part of India.
India also lodged a protest over reports of China helping in projects
in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. On Thursday, India said that it would
check if China is building a massive dam on Brahmaputra river in
Tibet, which would adversely affect the downstream population here.
"But whatever it is, we must take a realistic view that there are
differences, there are differences when it comes to perceiving the
line of actual control in the border areas. And there are differences
also in terms of conflicting territorial claims," Rao said, adding
that it was "one of the most complicated boundary questions that exist
anywhere in the world".
India says China is in illegal occupation of about 38,000 sq km of
Jammu and Kashmir, in addition to the territory ceded by Pakistan.
China claims 90,000 sq km of Indian territory along the Arunachal
Pradesh border.
The foreign secretary admitted "there was still a lot of ground that
we have to cover in terms of narrowing differences and building more
understanding", but felt that progress was being made, "albeit slowly
but it is being made surely".
She said the special representatives deputed to discuss the border
issue had held 13 meetings so far.
Asserting that dialogue was the only way out, she quoted India's first
prime minister, saying, "I remember our first prime minister,
Jawaharlal Nehru, speaking to parliament in 1962 saying 'we cannot
march to Peking' and I am quoting his words".
On a question on Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh, she added
that India regarded him as a spiritual figure who does not indulge in
political activities on Indian soil.
"He is a religious figure and he does not indulge in political
activities on Indian soil and he is our guest in India and he is free
to visit any part of our country," Rao said.
Indian PM likely to meet Chinese premier in Bangkok
New Delhi, Oct 17 (IANS) With China expressing interest, there is a
likelihood of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh meeting with Chinese
Premier Wen Jiabao on the sidelines of the ASEAN summit in Bangkok
this month, official sources said Friday.
India and China are perceived to have had a strained few weeks, with
the governments issuing statements and demarches to each other on
points of contention, mainly on disputed territory.
Petroleum Minister Murli Deora, who led India's delegation to the
heads of government meeting of the Shangai Cooperation Organisation in
Beijing earlier this week, said that he was informed by Premier Wen
Jiabao about his interest in meeting with Manmohan Singh.
"He asked if the prime minister will be going to Thailand next week,
to which I replied yes. Twice he said he is looking forward to meeting
Manmohan Singh," Deora told reporters here Friday.
Singh will be travelling to Thailand to attend the ASEAN summit on Oct
24.
Official sources said there was a good possibility of a meeting
between Singh and Wen taking place on the sidelines of the summit, as
has happened at various other multilateral fora.
It would mark an intensification of contacts in the coming weeks, with
Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi arriving in India this month to
participate in a trilateral meeting with his Indian and Russian
counterparts. The Chinese minister will arrive Oct 26 for the meeting
to be held the next day, said an official spokesperson.
The trilateral meeting is to discuss issues of regional importance and
"touch upon various issues of mutual concern and mutual interest in
the bilateral relationship", Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao said in an
interview to All India Radio.
In November, Zhou Yongkang, a senior member of the Standing Committee
of the Communist Party of China, will be visiting India, China's envoy
Zhang Yan told the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Rajnath
Singh Friday.
The BJP quoted the ambassador as telling Rajnath Singh that this would
be "the most important visit of any Chinese leader after President Hu
Jintao (who came) to India in 2006".
Zhang called on the BJP president days after the main opposition party
urged the Indian government to take a hardline stand vis-a-vis Beijing
in the wake of tensions between the two countries.
Northeast frets, but India can do little on China's Brahmaputra dam
New Delhi, Oct 17 (IANS) While concerned officials of Assam and
Arunachal Pradesh have asked for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's
intervention, India may not be able to make much noise over China's
hydro project on the Brahamaputra in Tibet, said officials.
Sources said Friday that it was India's assessment that the Zangmu
hydropower project would be a "run of the river" hydro project, which
will not violate any international laws.
On Thursday, External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Vishnu Prakash
said, in response to a media report, that India will be trying "to
ascertain whether there are recent developments that suggest any
change in the position conveyed to us by the government of China".
The spokesperson said at earlier meetings of India-China experts on
trans-border river issues "the Chinese side has categorically denied
that there is a plan to build any such large-scale diversion project
on the Brahmaputra river".
According to the sources, India will be inquiring about the Zangmu
project at the next bilateral meeting of water experts.
China's reported plans to build a dam across the Brahmaputra river and
divert water to its arid provinces have been opposed by the Assam and
Arunachal Pradesh governments.
"Large-scale diversion of water would adversely hit the state's
economy and could even lead to environmental problems and affect the
surface water table in the (Indian) northeast," Assam Chief Minister
Tarun Gogoi said Friday.
The 2,906-km long Brahmaputra is one of Asia's largest rivers that
flows the first stretch of 1,625 km in Tibet region, the next 918 km
in India and the remaining 363 km through Bangladesh before converging
into the Bay of Bengal.
"We are going to seek the prime minister's intervention to ensure that
China does not construct the dam. It would have devastating impact on
Assam," the chief minister said.
"It would be a gross violation of international protocol if China
arbitrarily constructs the dam," Congress MP from Arunachal Pradesh
Takam Sanjay said.
Experts feel that a dam on the Brahmaputra would have a cascading
impact in the northeast and even in Bangladesh.
"We are worried as many areas in Assam and Arunachal Pradesh and even
Bangladesh would go dry if the Chinese went ahead with their plans.
This move would severely affect water flow to the region which in turn
would adversely affect agriculture," said Sapna Devi, a geologist.
According to media reports, China was planning to divert 200 billion
cubic metres of water to feed the Yellow River in an attempt at easing
acute water shortage in Shaanxi, Hebel, Beijing and Tianjin.
The Brahmaputra is the lifeline for a vast majority of the people in
Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Bangladesh. Most of them depend on the
river to irrigate their fields, fishing and transportation of goods.
Agriculture forms the backbone of the economies in Assam and Arunachal
Pradesh with nearly 80 percent of the 28 million people in the two
states eking out a living through farming.
There has been no official reaction from Beijing to India's concern
about damming the Brahmaputra.
IANS
Sid Harth
Russia’s Leaders See China as Template for Ruling
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY
Published: October 17, 2009
MOSCOW — Nearly two decades after the collapse of the Communist Party,
Russia’s rulers have hit upon a model for future success: the
Communist Party.
Or at least, the one that reigns next door.
Like an envious underachiever, Vladimir V. Putin’s party, United
Russia, is increasingly examining how it can emulate the Chinese
Communist Party, especially its skill in shepherding China through the
financial crisis relatively unbowed.
United Russia’s leaders even convened a special meeting this month
with senior Chinese Communist Party officials to hear firsthand how
they wield power.
In truth, the Russians express no desire to return to Communism as a
far-reaching Marxist-Leninist ideology, whether the Soviet version or
the much attenuated one in Beijing. What they admire, it seems, is the
Chinese ability to use a one-party system to keep tight control over
the country while still driving significant economic growth.
It is a historical turnabout that resonates, given that the Chinese
Communists were inspired by the Soviets, before the two sides had a
lengthy rift.
For the Russians, what matters is the countries’ divergent paths in
recent decades. They are acutely aware that even as Russia has endured
many dark days in its transition to a market economy, China appears to
have carried out a fairly similar shift more artfully.
The Russians also seem almost ashamed that their economy is highly
dependent on oil, gas and other natural resources, as if Russia were a
third world nation, while China excels at manufacturing products
sought by the world.
“The accomplishments of China’s Communist Party in developing its
government deserve the highest marks,” Aleksandr D. Zhukov, a deputy
prime minister and senior Putin aide, declared at the meeting with
Chinese officials on Oct. 9 in the border city of Suifenhe, China,
northwest of Vladivostok. “The practical experience they have should
be intensely studied.”
Mr. Zhukov invited President Hu Jintao, general secretary of the
Chinese Communist Party, to United Russia’s convention, in November in
St. Petersburg.
The meeting in Suifenhe capped several months of increased contacts
between the political parties. In the spring, a high-level United
Russia delegation visited Beijing for several days of talks, and
United Russia announced that it would open an office in Beijing for
its research arm.
The fascination with the Chinese Communist Party underscores United
Russia’s lack of a core philosophy. The party has functioned largely
as an arm of Mr. Putin’s authority, even campaigning on the slogan
“Putin’s Plan.” Lately, it has championed “Russian Conservatism,”
without detailing what exactly that is.
Indeed, whether United Russia’s effort to learn from the Chinese
Communist Party is anything more than an intellectual exercise is an
open question.
Whatever the motivation, Russia in recent years has started moving
toward the Chinese model politically and economically. After the fall
of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia plunged into capitalism
haphazardly, selling off many industries and loosening regulation.
Under Mr. Putin, the government has reversed course, seizing more
control over many sectors.
Today, both countries govern with a potent centralized authority,
overseeing economies with a mix of private and state industries,
although the Russians have long seemed less disciplined in doing so.
Corruption is worse in Russia than China, according to global indexes,
and foreign companies generally consider Russia’s investment climate
less hospitable as well, in part because of less respect for property
rights.
Russia has also been unable to match China in modernizing roads,
airports, power plants and other infrastructure. And Russia is
grappling with myriad health and social problems that have reduced the
average life expectancy for men to 60. One consequence is a
demographic crisis that is expected to drag down growth.
The world financial crisis accentuated comparisons between the
economies, drawing attention to Moscow’s policies. In June, the World
Bank projected that China’s economy would increase by 7.2 percent in
2009, while Russia’s would shrink by 7.9 percent.
Politically, Russia remains more open than China, with independent
(though often co-opted) opposition parties and more freedom of speech.
The most obvious contrast involves the Internet, which is censored in
China but not in Russia.
Even so, Mr. Putin’s political aides have long studied how to move the
political system to the kind that took root for many decades in
countries like Japan and Mexico, with a de facto one-party government
under a democratic guise, political analysts said. The Russians tend
to gloss over the fact that in many of those countries, long-serving
ruling parties have fallen.
The Kremlin’s strategy was apparent in regional elections last week,
when United Russia lieutenants and government officials used strong-
arm tactics to squeeze out opposition parties, according to
nonpartisan monitoring organizations. United Russia won the vast
majority of contests across the country.
Far behind was the Russian Communist Party, which styles itself as the
successor to the Soviet one and has some popularity among older
people. The Russian Communists have also sought to build ties to their
Chinese brethren, but the Chinese leadership prefers to deal with Mr.
Putin’s party.
The regional elections highlighted how the Russian government and
United Russia have become ever more intertwined. State-run television
channels offer highly favorable coverage of the party, and the courts
rarely if ever rule against it. United Russia leaders openly
acknowledged that they wanted to study how the Chinese maintained the
correct balance between the party and government.
“We are interested in the experience of the party and government
structures in China, where cooperation exists between the ruling party
and the judicial, legislative and executive authorities,” Vladimir E.
Matkhanov, a deputy in Russia’s Parliament, said at the Suifenhe
meeting, according to a transcript.
United Russia praises the Chinese system without mentioning its
repressive aspects. And the party’s stance also appears to clash with
repeated declarations by Mr. Putin, the former president and current
prime minister, and President Dmitri A. Medvedev that Russia needs a
robust multiparty system to thrive.
The two endorsed the results of Sunday’s local elections, despite
widespread reports of fraud, prompting opposition politicians to call
their words hollow.
Sergei S. Mitrokhin, leader of Yabloko, a liberal, pro-Western party
that was trounced, said the elections revealed the Kremlin’s true
aspirations. And the China talks made them all the more clear, Mr.
Mitrokhin said.
“To me, the China meeting demonstrated that United Russia wants to
establish a single-party dictatorship in Russia, for all time,” he
said.
Throughout recent centuries, Russia has flirted with both the West and
East, its identity never quite settled, and analysts said that under
Mr. Putin, the political leadership had grown scornful of the idea
that the country had to embrace Western notions of democracy or
governing.
That in part stems from the backlash stirred in the 1990s, after the
Soviet fall, when Russia faced economic hardship and political chaos,
which many Putin supporters say the West helped to cause.
Dmitri Kosyrev, a political commentator for Russia’s state news agency
and author of detective novels set in Asia, said it was only natural
that the Kremlin would cast its gaze to the East.
“When they discovered that there was a way to reform a formally
socialist nation into something much better and more efficient, of
course they would take note,” Mr. Kosyrev said. “Everyone here sees
China as the model, because Russia is not the model.”
Sid Harth
Darkness on the Edge of Monotown
By LEON ARON
Published: October 16, 2009
Washington
VIEWED from the outside, things have been going quite well for Russia
recently. The United States has scrapped, at least for now, the plan
to base missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Germany and Russia seem to have overcome opposition in Europe to their
Nord Stream pipeline, despite fears that it will solidify Russia’s
dominance of the European natural gas supplies. Oil prices have
recovered from the disastrously low — for Russia — levels of last
winter. And, far from buckling under pressure from the United States
over sanctions against Iran, Russian leaders felt confident enough to
concede almost nothing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during
her visit to Moscow this week.
Yet on the inside the country remains dangerously close to a serious
breakdown of authority. In addition to the Muslim North Caucasus,
which is already barely governable, the most vulnerable places are the
company towns, which could catalyze a nationwide explosion of
political turmoil.
Products of Stalinist industrialization, an estimated 460 company
towns grew around a single plant or factory. Hence their Russian
designation: “monotowns” (monogoroda). Most were erected, often by
prison labor, in the middle of nowhere and in complete disregard for
long-term urban viability, not to mention the needs and conveniences
of the workers and their families. In addition to being the single
employer, these “town-forming enterprises” are responsible for
providing all social services and amenities, from clinics and schools
to heat, water and electricity, for populations of 5,000 to 700,000.
(There are also more than 1,000 similar but smaller “workers’
settlements.”)
These crumbling monotowns seem frozen in the 1930s or ’50s; the fat
years of 2000 to 2008 have passed them by. Worse yet, many of these
places were among the first victims of the plunge in industrial output
last year, when production fell by almost 20 percent — a rate of
decrease unseen since 1941 and 1942, the years of the Nazi onslaught.
As a result, the “town-forming enterprises” have begun laying off or
furloughing workers, and salaries have been cut, delayed or unpaid for
months.
For most Russian workers, there are unemployment benefits from 850
rubles to 4,900 rubles ($29 to $167) per month. (For those in the
severe climate zones of the Far East, Far North and some regions of
Siberia, the payments are as much as twice these amounts.) As many as
two-thirds of the unemployed seem to be unaware they are even eligible
for these payments, so of the estimated 6.5 million unemployed in
Russia (nearly 10 percent of the work force) in July, only 2.194
million registered for benefits. And not one of the many reports about
or from the monotowns that I have read so much has mentioned
unemployment benefits as a source of sustenance.
At the same time, the local administrations in many regions have been
of little help, having been bled dry by recentralization efforts
during the presidency of Vladimir Putin that redirected 70 percent of
local revenues to Moscow. As a result, some grocery stores have been
forced to stop offering credit to customers who have not been paid for
months. In particularly hard-hit monotowns, people are reported to be
eating potato peels and spending their days foraging in forests for
roots and berries to consume or sell for a pittance.
In Pikalevo, a monotown of 22,000 near St. Petersburg, citizens grew
desperate after the shuttering of their plant, which produced cement,
aluminum and potash. There were no prospects for work; people were
without assistance of any kind. A resident told a reporter over the
summer: “We are eating — excuse me — grass. It’s shameful.” But when
the town’s heat and hot water were shut off in May — the cement
company had stopped paying the bills — it was the last straw. After an
occupation of the mayor’s office brought no relief, angry Pikalevians
blocked a major highway.
A few days later, Prime Minister Putin traveled by helicopter to
Pikalevo. Russian crisis management techniques haven’t changed much
since the days when czars threw boyars off the Kremlin walls to be
torn, limb from limb, by rebellious hoi polloi below. With national
television cameras rolling, Mr. Putin berated the local
administration, plant managers and the plant’s owner, Oleg Deripaska,
formerly Russia’s richest man, whose BaselCement conglomerate is now
almost $30 billion in debt. He then ordered them to sign a pledge to
reopen the plant. “I did not see you sign!” Mr. Putin barked at Mr.
Deripaska. “Come here and sign!” (“And return the pen!” Mr. Putin
snapped afterward.)
Of course, neither Mr. Deripaska nor the local government will be able
to keep an all-but-bankrupt enterprise open for long. And while the
Kremlin’s iron grip on the national news media has helped keep the
monotowns out of the spotlight, Mr. Putin’s very public intervention
in Pikalevo is likely to encourage more protests across the country.
This could be catastrophic: after all, a quarter of the urban
population — 25 million people — live in monotowns and produce up to
40 percent of Russia’s G.D.P. And these struggling workers embody
Russia’s work force: largely immobile, because the lack of affordable
housing makes it impossible to seek employment elsewhere, and sadly
inflexible, thanks to their overdependence on these paternalistic,
enterprise-based social services, part of what President Medvedev has
denounced as the “Soviet-style social sphere.” Indeed, the monotowns
seem more and more a bellwether of the national trend toward deepening
impoverishment and further job losses.
According to the World Bank, this year the number of Russians below
the poverty level has grown by 7.5 million to 24.6 million, or 17
percent of the population. An additional 21 percent, or almost 30
million, have incomes less than 50 percent over the poverty level.
Together, that’s 4 out of 10 Russians. The Federation of Independent
Trade Unions predicts that up to 400,000 more Russians may become
unemployed in the next three months, while the World Bank projects
that the unemployment rate there will reach as high as 13 percent by
the end of the year.
Moscow has only one obvious option: increase its financial assistance
to the monotowns many times over. But there are numerous impediments
to making this happen. First, with the memories of the
hyperinflationary 1990s still fresh in everyone’s mind, the Kremlin is
wisely reluctant to print money and will instead try to stretch its
remaining hard currency reserves to plug the growing budget deficit.
Second, though Russia already plans to raise $17 billion by issuing
Eurobonds and to borrow billions more from the World Bank, the money
will not materialize until next summer at the earliest. The other
Group of 20 nations are themselves too strapped for cash — and too
politically skittish — to produce an emergency assistance package.
Finally, even if the needed money was miraculously available today, it
would take some time to disperse such enormous amounts among the
hundreds of monotowns. Which is why the government’s mid-August
decision to appropriate 10 billion rubles, or $340 million, for
assistance to just half of the communities was not only too little but
is too late.
There may, in fact, be nothing that can be done to prevent these
ticking time bombs from exploding. And as the Iranian protests
recently proved, in an age of cellphone cameras and the Internet, one
demonstration in one monotown could ignite a wave of nationwide
protests that Russia’s news media could not cover up, its riot police
could not properly contain and its government may not be able to
survive.
Certainly, this crisis sends a message of utmost urgency to a country
still groggy from the oil-boom intoxication of the past eight years:
go back to the decentralization and democratization reforms of the
1990s and early 2000s — or face the political, economic and social
calamity of the monotowns on a national scale.
In fact, President Medvedev recently outlined a strategic reform
agenda to break Russia of its “humiliating dependence” on oil and gas
exports and transform an economy incapable of invention and innovation
into a world leader in “new technologies.”
Just as helpful for the country’s stability and progress would be the
next item on Mr. Medvedev’s agenda: developing a political system that
is “open, flexible and internally complex.” This would be a Russia far
different from the one that Vladimir Putin bequeathed to Mr. Medvedev
— a nation stripped of the much-needed shock absorbers of democracy,
including an uncensored news media, a responsible and viable political
opposition in the national Parliament and genuine local self-
governance.
Mr. Medvedev should act on these plans decisively, now, or else no
foreign policy advances or new gas pipelines will prevent the disaster
of the monotowns from consuming all of Russia.
Leon Aron, the director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise
Institute, is the author, most recently, of “Russia’s Revolution:
Essays 1989-2006.”
Sid Harth
In Moscow, Clinton Urges Russia to Open Its Political System
By MARK LANDLER
Published: October 14, 2009
KAZAN, Russia — On a day that took her from an elite Moscow university
to this bustling city in Russia’s Muslim hinterland, Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton paid tribute on Wednesday to religious
tolerance, while also challenging Russia’s leaders to open their
political system and allow more dissent.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton spoke at Moscow State
University on Wednesday.
In a speech to nearly 1,000 students at Moscow State University, Mrs.
Clinton spoke far more forcefully about human rights and the rule of
law than she did on a trip to China earlier this year. Russia, she
said, could best fulfill its potential by protecting basic freedoms.
“That’s why attacks on journalists and human rights activists are such
a great concern, because it is a threat to progress,” she said. “The
more open Russia will become, the more Russia will contribute.”
As if to illustrate that point, Mrs. Clinton then traveled from Moscow
to Kazan, the 1,000-year-old capital of Tatarstan, a Russian republic
where Muslims, Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics live together
peacefully, with none of the violent separatism that afflicts places
like Chechnya.
Mrs. Clinton was met by Tatarstan’s longtime president, Mintimer S.
Shaimiev, who showed her around a mosque and an Orthodox cathedral,
both of which are within the walls of Kazan’s version of the Kremlin.
Mr. Shaimiev is no democrat, but he played up his ecumenical
credentials.
“This is a multiethnic place,” he told her as she gazed at a
shimmering chandelier in the mosque. “There are plenty of mixed
marriages.”
Mrs. Clinton praised Mr. Shaimiev for being “someone who is well known
for fostering religious tolerance.”
The three-hour side trip to Tatarstan captured the ambitions and
limitations of Mrs. Clinton’s approach to being secretary of state,
nine months into her tenure. It was driven, her aides say, by her
desire to get out of capital cities, to places where she could mingle
with people.
But the stop in Kazan had a rushed feel to it, and Mrs. Clinton has
little time these days for even brief forays. Minutes after her plane
took off from Kazan, she holed up in her cabin to take part, by secure
telephone link, in the White House’s latest meeting on Afghanistan.
Mrs. Clinton has managed to keep encounters with students on her
schedule. Her talk in Moscow drew noisy applause, and she was asked
questions about issues like the American role in the global economic
crisis and the dispute between the United States and Russia over
Georgia.
Asked to name the book that had made the biggest impact on her, she
singled out “The Brothers Karamazov.” The parable of the Grand
Inquisitor in Dostoyevsky’s novel, she said, speaks to the dangers of
certitude.
“For a lot of reasons, that was an important part of my thinking,”
Mrs. Clinton said. “One of the greatest threats we face is from people
who believe they are absolutely, certainly right about everything.”
From there, it was a short rhetorical leap for Mrs. Clinton to
encourage Russia to open its political system.
She even struck an implicit blow for diversity when she cut the ribbon
on a statue of the poet Walt Whitman at the university. Local gay
activists protested because one of the Russian officials on hand to
honor Whitman, a gay icon, was Moscow’s mayor, Yuri M. Luzhkov, who
has made hostile statements about homosexuals and banned gay pride
parades in the city.
For her part, Mrs. Clinton noted that in his writing Whitman
celebrated the similarities between Russians and Americans.
Yet Mrs. Clinton’s emphasis was on the new rather than the old. She
told the students that they symbolized a new Russia, one that produced
innovators like Sergey Brin, who was born in Moscow and helped to
start the Internet search giant Google. And she praised President
Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia for charting a vision of the country’s
future based on technological innovation rather than mineral wealth.
Mrs. Clinton’s visit underscores the Obama administration’s growing
attachment to Mr. Medvedev, Vladimir V. Putin’s handpicked choice to
succeed him as president. Last month, the White House made much of Mr.
Medvedev’s support for its tough stance toward Iran.
After Mrs. Clinton’s meeting on Tuesday with the foreign minister,
Sergey V. Lavrov, in which he ruled out threatening Iran with
sanctions, she went to see Mr. Medvedev at his dacha outside Moscow.
American officials said that Mr. Medvedev was unstinting in his
support for the administration.
But on a visit to Beijing on Wednesday, Mr. Putin told reporters that
he believed that it was too early to consider tough sanctions against
Iran, suggesting that threats would poison negotiations.
Sid Harth
China Signs Deal for Gas in Trade Talk With Putin
Pool photograph by Kota Kyogooku
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, center, and Prime Minister
Wen Jiabao of China, third from right, clapped after a signing
ceremony for a natural gas deal at the Great Hall of the People in
Beijing on Tuesday.
By EDWARD WONG
Published: October 13, 2009
BEIJING — China and Russia announced $3.5 billion worth of trade
agreements on Tuesday and reaffirmed their commitment to a huge
natural gas deal that would give the Chinese an important new Russian
source of supply, once the final details on pricing are negotiated.
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Prime Minister Wen
Jiabao of China toasted during a signing ceremony for a natural gas
deal at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Tuesday.
The agreements, signed by Prime Ministers Vladimir V. Putin and Wen
Jiabao, came on the second day of Mr. Putin’s trip to China, which
both countries have portrayed as a reflection of their increasingly
close collaboration.
The natural gas deal was called a “framework” by Alexei Miller, the
chief of Gazprom, the Russian state-run gas exporter, which made the
deal with the China National Petroleum Corporation, China’s largest
oil and gas producer.
The deal calls for the supply of nearly 2.5 trillion cubic feet of gas
per year via two potential routes originating from Siberia. China has
one of the fastest-growing economies and has been searching for new
sources of energy. It has focused on Central Asian nations and Russia
as potential suppliers of large amounts of natural gas.
Russian and Chinese officials did not give any estimates of the worth
of the gas deal, if it was to be put into effect.
Gazprom said in 2006 that Russia would supply natural gas to China via
two pipelines, but no contract has been signed because the state-run
enterprises in the two countries have failed to agree on pricing. The
agreement reached Tuesday appeared to be an affirmation of the deal
from 2006, but did not contain the crucial mechanisms needed for the
actual trade to start.
Mr. Miller said that a price formula in the potential gas contract
would be based on Gazprom’s experience in gas exports and principles
of international trade, according to The Associated Press.
Xinhua, the Chinese state news agency, gave few details on the gas
trade agreement or other economic deals reached between the nations.
Its report on the meeting between Mr. Putin and Mr. Wen contained only
broad statements stressing the cooperation between Russia and China.
“The bilateral economic cooperation has withstood the test of the
global financial crisis,” the Xinhua report said, citing Mr. Putin.
Earlier on Tuesday, the two countries signed trade deals worth a total
of $3.5 billion, according to Aleksandr Zhukov, the Russian deputy
prime minister. About 40 deals were made, including a pair of $500
million bank deals, he told reporters.
Mr. Putin and Mr. Wen were also expected to discuss other foreign
policy issues considered crucial to both countries.
Keith Bradsher contributed reporting from Hong Kong.
Sid Harth
Warmer Ties for Russia, China With Big Gas Deals
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 15, 2009
Filed at 1:16 a.m. ET
BEIJING (AP) -- Russia and China are closing in on a mammoth energy
deal which could insure that Beijing has the fuel to run its factories
and cities and Moscow has a vast new market for its natural gas
empire.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday wrapped up a three-
day visit to the Chinese capital, during which Russia signed dozens of
commercial pacts worth $3.5 billion and set the framework for a
separate, multibillion-dollar agreement to build two natural gas
pipelines to China from gas fields in Russia's Far East.
Together, those pipelines would be capable of supplying China with 68
billion cubic meters (2.4 trillion cubic feet) of natural gas
annually, representing a whopping 85 percent of the gas China
currently consumes.
Once the energy partners agree on a final price and the pipelines are
built, China could become Russia's single biggest customer for natural
gas.
The agreement highlights the determination of both nations to
diversify their economies and seek new customers and vendors. It also
reflects a political desire by both to steer a course independent of
Western powers and especially the United States.
But many experts say the deal doesn't necessarily signal that China
and Russia are preparing to forge a major new strategic alliance.
''I don't buy this idea that China is Russia's future,'' said Chris
Weafer, chief analyst at the Moscow-based Uralsib bank. ''The key
relationship always has been and will be Europe.''
Lilit Gevorgyan, an analyst for London-based IHS Global Insight, said
the Sino-Russian relationship, though closer in recent years, remains
primarily based on economic needs.
''Of course the size of the deal will increase the importance of the
relationship, but I wouldn't say that it's deliberately designed to
shift the attention of Russia's foreign strategic goals from West to
East,'' she said.
''Russia is reeling from the recession's impact. It's cash-strapped.
Siberia has a very scarce population and lots of natural resources --
something that's reversed in China. So it's only a logical marriage of
two economic powers,'' she said.
Russia and China have a long history of mutual suspicion and tensions,
and 50 years ago they split bitterly over interpretations of Communist
ideology. In recent years, their relationship has warmed but they
remain divided by geography, culture and a preference in both capitals
for acting independently.
China has historically looked inward, although that is changing, while
Russia has turned to Europe, with which it shares long-standing
economic and cultural ties.
Still, Russia is the world's biggest energy producer and neighboring
China is the world's second-largest energy consumer after the United
States. Both see themselves as rivals to Washington and all three are
permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. Political forces are
clearly driving Beijing and Moscow closer.
''There's more than pragmatism here,'' said Gilbert Rozman, a
Princeton University professor who has studied Sino-Russian relations.
''There's national identity. They both want to change the world
order... They have strong views about how they can pressure the U.S.
and the West so I think there are very important motives driving the
two together.''
The energy agreement signed Tuesday between Russia's Gazprom and China
National Petroleum Company sets a framework for final price
negotiations. Russian officials have predicted they could sign a final
pact next June, with the first gas deliveries possibly starting around
2014 or 2015.
China, however, may not be in a hurry to close the deal.
Alexander Nazarov, oil and gas analyst at the Metropol investment bank
in Moscow, said there could be a lot more haggling ahead. ''So far
it's just a love letter, not a marriage contract,'' he said.
''Russia is keener to get on with this than China is,'' said Weafer.
He noted that China already produces about 76 billion cubic meters of
natural gas each year, and only consumes about 80 billion cubic
meters, with most of the rest coming from Australia as liquefied
natural gas. So there are no gas shortages.
But Beijing is gradually replacing coal and other energy sources with
cleaner-burning gas, Weafer said, meaning China can afford to take its
time in negotiating gas deals.
In addition, China is building a 4,000-mile (6,500-kilometer) pipeline
to bring 30 billion cubic meters of gas annually from Turkmenistan in
Central Asia, undercutting Russia's near-lock on gas supplies in that
former Soviet region.
That pipeline will ensure that China has some leverage with Russia's
Gazprom.
''China is playing the long game,'' Weafer said.
Some experts say Moscow may feel pressure to lock up the Chinese
market as long-term prospects for growth of Russian gas exports to the
European Union nations look bleak, as the EU strives to diversify
energy sources and supply routes.
Russian gas shipments to Europe have been interrupted several times in
recent years due to financial disputes between Russia and Ukraine,
which has pipelines that Russia needs to get its gas to Europe. Russia
supplies about one quarter of the European Union's natural gas, and
some officials have accused Moscow of using the threat of gas cutoffs
as a diplomatic weapon. Last January, Russia ignited a Europe-wide
uproar as it cut gas supplies for nearly two weeks.
With its economy hit hard by the global financial crisis and the
government suffering from a liquidity crunch, Russia also badly needs
Chinese investment to explore and develop prospective energy fields.
More than half of gas Russia has promised to supply to China is slated
to come from yet-unexplored gas fields in eastern Siberia, which would
require a multibillion dollar investment.
Russia, meanwhile, is not putting all its hopes into China. Moscow is
also courting foreign energy companies from the U.S. and Europe as
partners in development of the vast natural gas fields of the northern
Yamal peninsula in Siberia.
''Ideally, for Russia, they would like to have energy and trade deals
with both east and west,'' Weafer said. ''And ultimately do deals with
India as well. It's always been Russia's strategy not to over-rely on
any one relationship.''
Sid Harth
October 14, 2009 , 5:34 pm
America the Hegemon
By Eric Etheridge
Charles Krauthammer has got a cure for what ails America.
Americans need to “accept our role as hegemon,” he writes in the
current issue of the Weekly Standard. “And reject those who deny its
essential benignity.”
In practice, embracing your inner hegemon probably sounds something
like this:
Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to
fighting terrorism around the world, for victory in the wars this
country fights, for democracy and human rights, and for a strong
American military that is needed in the dangerous world in which we
live.
That’s from the mission statement of the new Liz Cheney/William
Kristol vehicle, the Keep America Safe foundation, which pledges “to
provide information for concerned Americans about critical national
security issues.”
In practice, embracing your inner hegemon most assuredly doesn’t sound
like anything Barack Obama says or does. The president, writes
Krauthammer, is dithering in Afgahnistan, unilaterally retreating in
Europe, backing the wrong side in Honduras, and squandering the “the
prize” that is Iraq.
In his lengthy essay — “Decline is a Choice: The New Liberalism and
the end of the American ascendancy” — Krauthammer says the question of
the moment is whether America is in decline. But it is not, he says, a
question that can be “answered yes and no.”
There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption
that somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory,
the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is
inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a
condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world
that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the
position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance.
Decline — or continued ascendancy — is in our hands. . . .
Facing the choice of whether to maintain our dominance or to
gradually, deliberately, willingly, and indeed relievedly give it up,
we are currently on a course towards the latter. The current liberal
ascendancy in the United States — controlling the executive and both
houses of Congress, dominating the media and elite culture — has set
us on a course for decline. And this is true for both foreign and
domestic policies. Indeed, they work synergistically to ensure that
outcome.
For Krauthammer, not surprisingly, the way of the New Liberals is
dangerous.
Do we really want to live under unknown, untested, shifting
multipolarity? Or even worse, under the gauzy internationalism of the
New Liberalism with its magically self-enforcing norms? This is
sometimes passed off as “realism.” In fact, it is the worst of
utopianisms, a fiction that can lead only to chaos. Indeed, in an age
on the threshold of hyper-proliferation, it is a prescription for
catastrophe.
Heavy are the burdens of the hegemon. After the blood and treasure
expended in the post-9/11 wars, America is quite ready to ease its
burden with a gentle descent into abdication and decline.
“Decline is a choice,” Krauthammer concludes. “More than a choice, a
temptation. How to resist it?”
First, accept our role as hegemon. And reject those who deny its
essential benignity. There is a reason that we are the only hegemon in
modern history to have not immediately catalyzed the creation of a
massive counter-hegemonic alliance — as occurred, for example, against
Napoleonic France and Nazi Germany. There is a reason so many
countries of the Pacific Rim and the Middle East and Eastern Europe
and Latin America welcome our presence as balancer of power and
guarantor of their freedom.
And that reason is simple: We are as benign a hegemon as the world has
ever seen.
So, resistance to decline begins with moral self-confidence and will.
But maintaining dominance is a matter not just of will but of wallet.
We are not inherently in economic decline. We have the most dynamic,
innovative, technologically advanced economy in the world. We enjoy
the highest productivity. It is true that in the natural and often
painful global division of labor wrought by globalization, less
skilled endeavors like factory work migrate abroad, but America more
than compensates by pioneering the newer technologies and industries
of the information age. . . .
Nothing is written. Nothing is predetermined. We can reverse the
slide, we can undo dependence if we will it.
Krauthammer’s call to hegemon has been met by a number of critical
responses. Writing at the American Conservative, Daniel Larison says
that the essay “makes the preposterous claims that Obama has been
proposing a series of ’strategic retreats’ and that so-called New
Liberalism aims to undermine U.S. hegemony.”
This is rather like the imaginary “apology tour” Obama has been on
these past few months — it hits all the right ideological notes for
the people making the charge, but it is pure fantasy. . . .
One thing that does concern me is that turning the old “weakness”
smears around on the GOP will not encourage intelligent re-thinking on
foreign policy and national security, but will instead foster a
redoubling of the worst aggressive instincts that Republicans
currently have. If everyone comes to accept that Bush weakened
American power, which he did, the conclusion some national security
conservatives will reach is that Bush weakened America by not being
hard-line and aggressive enough. In this mad interpretation, the
failure of the Bush years was not found in plunging us into an
intractable, unnecessary war, harming allied interests with blank
checks of support or encouraging reckless allies into self-destructive
action, but in failing to follow through. This is also the rationale
for the flurry of attacks against Obama, who has more or less
maintained second-term Bush status quo on most aspects of foreign
policy. If doing the same things as the Bush administration in its
second term can be redefined as Obama’s “New Liberalism,” the more
aggressive interventionists and hawks on the right can claim that they
are guardians of a “conservative” foreign policy, which allows them to
promote the self-serving, albeit completely absurd, idea that everyone
except for them favors “weakness” and “retreat.”
What is a little amusing about the Krauthammer argument against Obama
is that it obsesses over symbolism and superficial appearances while
ignoring substance, which is one of the standard complaints against
Obama. Bush used triumphalist, self-congratulatory rhetoric, but
bungled the execution of many policies to the detriment of the United
States. Obama has so far mostly eschewed the national self-
congratulation and public displays of moral preening, but now what
bothers Obama’s critics here is that he is not showy and superficial
enough. For example, Fred Hiatt is worried that delaying a meeting
with the Dalai Lama, a meeting which is pretty much purely for show,
will send discouraging signals to dissidents everywhere despite
Hiatt’s own admission that the administration is apparently interested
in making substantive gains on their political rights.
At Time, Joe Klein says “there are one or two sort of true sentences”
in Krauthammer’s essay. “The most important is this one: ‘[T]he
ultimate purpose of [the New Liberalism's] foreign policy is to make
America less hegemonic, less arrogant, less dominant.’ ”
Well, two out of three ain’t bad. Barack Obama would probably argue —
as would most foreign policy centrists — that the goal of his foreign
policy would be to make the United States dominant in a more effective
way: at the center of multilateral efforts to bring international
miscreants under control. This can happen militarily, as it is being
done on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. It can also happen through a
US-led international sanctions regime, as has been very effective in
sending a tough message to North Korea (with the strong support from
China and Russia) — which may well bear fruit before long. Or it can
happen through US-led efforts to bring peace to the Middle East and a
strong multilateral deterrence posture, including many regional
players, to counteract Iran’s possible nuclear ambitions. . . .
“In the end,” writes Klein, “the real problem with Krauthammer’s rant
is this: he really doesn’t want us to be exceptional.”
He wants us to be more brutal, more like other historically powerful
countries, more like the Russians in Afghanistan or the British in
Mesopotamia. His position on Iraq tips his hand, as he excoriates
Obama for having “… almost no interest in garnering the fruits of a
very costly and very bloody success — namely, using our Strategic
Framework Agreement to turn the new Iraq into a strategic partner and
anchor for U.S. influence in the most volatile area of the world. Iraq
is a prize — we can debate endlessly whether it was worth the cost —
of great strategic significance that the administration seems to have
no intention of exploiting in its determination to execute a full and
final exit.”
A prize! Sounds sort of like Churchill in his most demented colonial
moments: India, the jewel in the crown! (The fact that a duly elected
Iraqi government wants us to leave is ignored.)
Krauthammer’s sort of imperialism — a brutal and patronizing neo-
colonialism — has never sat well with the American people. And it
doesn’t work in the world. It was, in fact, the cause of the marked
decline in American moral authority and power over the past eight
years–including the near-destruction of our Army — that people like
Krauthammer refuse to acknowledge. That disaster is being rectified
now, from Robert Gates’s various decisions to scuttle unnecessary
weapons systems and use those resources to bolster our troops in the
field, to Hillary Clinton’s efforts to transform our hidebound and
ineffective foreign aid disbursements, to Barack Obama’s more
judicious decision-making about when to use force, when to sanction,
when to negotiate. Those decisions may not prove wise in every
instance, but they are being made with an intelligence and
consideration that never attended the sledgehammer fecklessness of the
last President, whose policies Krauthammer so admired.
At Think Progress, Matt Yglesias calls Krauthammer’s article
“fantastically silly.”
Krauthammer’s central conceit ever since the end of the Cold War has
been that bold acts of will can prolong the “unipolar moment”
indefinitely. And he’s just wrong. He’s always been wrong, he
continues to be wrong, and this interpretation of world affairs will
always be wrong. It’s a remarkably elementary mistake that seems to
evince no understanding of how the United States came to be the
dominant global player in the first place. As if he thinks we’re top
dog and nobody cares about Australia or Finland is because we just
have more of a bad-ass attitude. Those are, however, actually some
pretty bad-ass countries. They’re just, you know, small so nobody
cares. If China and India were richer, we’d look small to them!
The main practical consequence of Krauthammer-style policies for
international relations is to speed the spread of nuclear weapons.
Having us behave in an alarming manner increases the desire of
regional powers to acquire nuclear weapons and decreases the extent to
which other great powers are inclined to collaborate with us on
preventing nuclear proliferation.
At the Washington Post, Ezra Klein says the end of unipolarity doesn’t
have to be a bad thing, and that the choice is up to us.
You can think of the transition away from a world in which America is
the sole superpower in one of two ways: American decline, which is the
label my colleague Charles Krauthammer attaches to it. Or global
betterment, which is how my colleague Fareed Zakaria thinks of it. I’m
with Zakaria on this one, but in fact, I think Krauthammer should be,
too.
Central to the nationalist’s lament is that having a huge, rich,
stable country like America has been very good for the world. It’s led
to technological progress and economic improvement and relative peace
and all the rest of it. The reasons for that are no secret: America’s
riches allowed it to invest in innovation. Its wealth allowed it to
trade. Its economic ties gave it a strong interest in global
stability. All this was good for America, yes, but also good for other
countries that benefited from our rise.
All this, however, also applies to a strong, rich, stable China, or
India, or integrated European union. If China begins churning out
doctors and one of them cures cancer, we’ll be able to buy the drug.
If India emerges as a massive new market with the disposable income to
purchase increasingly high-end goods, that will mean profits for our
companies. If Brazil has an incentive to keep a lid on Latin American
instability because they don’t want to see their region written off as
a trading partner, that’s good for American interests.
But all this requires America itself to view these entities as
cooperative, rather than competitive, players on the world scene. If
we’re fearful of China and India and try to slow their rise, and they
mature with the recognition that America is more adversary than enemy,
the end result is that we simply have much more powerful competitors.
In that case, the end of unipolarity is bad, but it’s bad because we
made it into a bad thing, not because it had to be one.
Dow 10,000, Goldman $3 Billion: Welcome to the 'Bush Recovery'
From 1 to 25 of 118 Comments
1. October 14, 2009
5:42 pm
Ms. Cheney is quite busy of late trying to rehabilitate the family
name.
— Steven M.
2. October 14, 2009
6:38 pm
I like how he threw Honduras in there. That’s an excellent tip-off
that “hegemon” is slang for “oligarchy” and “status-quo” backer.
— Scott
3. October 14, 2009
7:15 pm
Sorry, but we have to put away the tanks, planes, and other macho
playthings for a while - our national bank account is overdrawn (by a
lot), and we look like a bunch of overfed buffoons.
If this was a family and not a nation, our car would’ve been towed
away by the repo men a long time ago, and we’d be living in a homeless
shelter by now. It’s hard to throw your weight around when your
pockets are empty.
Let China be the world’s policeman for a while. Look where it got us…
— exRepub
4. October 14, 2009
7:41 pm
Dear God, I had heard the Cheney and Kristol were putting together a
new think tank and now apparently they’ve got conservative mouthpiece
Krauthammer talking for them. Didn’t this bunch get us in enough
trouble with the horrible Project for the New American Century? A
needless war, 4,000 Americans and countless dead, innocent Iraqi
citizens and criminal acts committed in our name. Haven’t these people
inflicted enough damage on the world already? Obama was given the
Peace Prize as a repudiation to these failed doctrines and these
people want a redo? What could they be thinking?
— Judith
5. October 14, 2009
7:44 pm
Matt Yglesias is right.. Charles Krauthammer’s imperial delusions,
and foreign policy prescriptions based on them, are indeed
“fantastically silly”.
The Krauthammer’ article does not really merit the serious analysis
that Eric Etheridge provides; but that analysis is such a conclusive
demolition job that, in a rational world, we would never be troubled
by Krauthammer’s toxic nonsense again. I fear, though, that in the
real world we have not yet heard the last of it.
— Mike
6. October 14, 2009
7:46 pm
The neo-cons are right, “America rules the world and we will just
again as soon as we borrow another $100 billion from China to pay this
month’s light bill.
— Roger
7. October 14, 2009
8:03 pm
“There is a reason that we are the only hegemon in modern history to
have not immediately catalyzed the creation of a massive counter-
hegemonic alliance”
Ooh, let me guess. Is it because even cowboy Bush wised up and told
Cheney to go [blank] himself?
— Walter G
8. October 14, 2009
8:04 pm
Keep America Safe will make the case for an unapologetic approach to
fighting terrorism around the world..
Fighting terrorism needs to be rephrased as “establishing rule of
civil law” to find realistic answers to the cause. In the Af-Pak
scenario, US can be fighting there for centuries.
The realistic option is enable democracy to flourish and open up trade
in Indian sub-continent. This alone can create economic conditions for
engendering civil law.
— N J Ramesh
9. October 14, 2009
8:42 pm
These people seem unable to learn with past mistakes, to say nothing
of History.
Big stick, gun boat diplomacy is all they seem to obsess about,
meanwhile waving tiresome frayed slogans of “freedom” (whose?) and
“democracy” (yeah, right…) that nobody believes anymore when coming
from America. It would be tedious to list the dozens of times US
politicians supported bloodthirsty savage dictators on the name of
“Freedom and Liberty”. Pinochet anyone?
Come to think it reminds me of Orwell’s “Ministry of Love”…
On the bright side at least we non-Americans would know very clearly
what kind of evil to fear if the neo-Republicans take power yet again.
— Pete
10. October 14, 2009
9:27 pm
Well I’ve been hearing about a multipolar world since 1968, it’s a
nice thought, but I don’t see much evidence of it. I think the US has
a leadership role whether it wants it or not. The real question is:
what kind of leadership?
— mike livingston
11. October 14, 2009
9:30 pm
It may be a bit unfair, but I hear in Krauthammer’s lament an echo of
the militaristic claptrap purveyed by Paul Ludendorff.
If Krauthammer et al would see the world through other peoples’ eyes
( “Travel”, said Mark Twain, “is fatal to prejudice”. That applies to
philosophical journies too ), they might rethink the advisability of
being a hegemon in a multi-polar world. Mao was wrong, in the end:
power in fact comes out of the end of a checkbook - and ours is kind
of thin at the moment.
— Gerard>
12. October 14, 2009
9:32 pm
Krauthammer assumes, like so many conservatives, that we start, right
now, with a blank slate. America has baggage. Iranians, who have just
suffered a coup, wouldn’t bring in an American invasion if we paid
them (they look next door and see the results such magnanimity had in
Iraq). Central America, the Muslim Worlds, Africa, and most of Asia
have little reason to trust us. Regaining that trust involves not
presuming that we have the authority or ability to do what we think is
best for everyone. Krauthammer conservatives can’t see what’s really
happening because they desperately need to believe that America is
still liked (unless it involves giving our president the Nobel Prize).
— DOS
13. October 14, 2009
9:34 pm
Someone should ask Mr. Krauthammer who’s going to pay for all this.
Not the rich; we most sured-ly can’t tax them!
And the Chinese ain’t gonna pony up anymore; heck they’re trying to
unload as many greenbacks as they can!
This is pure nonsense. I would expect better of a syndicated
editorialist.
— Neal Jettpace
14. October 14, 2009
9:39 pm
Why do people continue to use “treasure” when referring to money in
articles attempting to put on an air of righty-realism? It’s not
treasure, its capital. There is none of it buried anywhere, there is
nothing to be looted. It sounds ridiculous.
— m
15. October 14, 2009
9:41 pm
Charles really has gone off the deep end. I look at him, I read what
he writes, and one image comes to mind: Dr. Strangelove.
— Bwana
16. October 14, 2009
9:41 pm
America should lead by encouraging all nations to partner with one
another.
— Roy
17. October 14, 2009
9:43 pm
So, do you really think Krauthammer wanted somebody to stand up and
salute, or just to get attention?
This polemic has an almost adolescent scent to it — or should I saw,
in consideration of Krauthammer’s style, that it is jejeune?
This extended rave, and inappropriately personal tone of his attacks
on Obama (a trait he shares with dear Liz Cheney) does make me wonder
how he treats his younger siblings. Some months ago, it was
Krauthammer who wrote that Obama might actually have both the
intellect and the personality to be first-class.
— Helen
18. October 14, 2009
9:44 pm
Former Senator William Fulbright’s book “The Arrogance of Power” is
as relevant for us as when he wrote the book in response to this
country’s unwise military intervention in the Vietnam war. The United
States has historically opposed any single nation attempting regional,
let alone, global hegemony.. Opposing such hegemony was one of the
primary motivations for this country’s fully justified opposition to
Japanese attempts at hegemony in Asia, Germany’s in Europe and the
Soviet Union in Europe.
While this country tried for decades to impose political and economic
hegemony over the western Hemisphere, these policies were
substantially modified by the Good Neighbor policies of Herbert Hoover
and Franklin D Roosevelt’s administrations, as well as many successive
presidencies.
Trying to impose a pax Americana on the rest of the world, explicitly
rejected by president Kennedy at the height of the cold war, is
morally unjustified and would be a foolish overextension of power.
Trying to achieve global hegemony would arouse resentment from most
countries, entirely nullifying the efforts by president Obama to
restore this nation’s standing among other nations.
— indepthinker
19. October 14, 2009
9:44 pm
Krauthammer is one of the best minds commenting on the reality of
today’s world.
One of the great myths providing unstable support for Obama’s
dreamworld of multilateral action is the belief that the other
countries are willing participants in supporting democracy and
opposing tyranny.
You need only recite the list of trouble spots–North Korea, Iran.
Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Myanmar…and go back a decade to Bosnia,
Ruwanda–earlier to WWII, etc., to understand that aside from Great
Britain, Canada and Australia/New Zealand, the rest of the world
prefers inaction. China and Russia have no problem acting in support
of Iran
Krauthammer recognizes that when we join the “coalition of the
unwilling” then oppression, poverty and despair take over. Years ago,
Alistair Cooke wrote a perceptive article regarding Iraq, comparing
the world’s inaction to Munich in the 30’s. We tend to forget that the
war in Iraq didn’t begin until almost 2 years after 9/11.
The smarmy comments regarding Krauthammer conveniently ignore the
intelligence and reasoning behind his thoughts. As Obama waffles on
sending 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan–whatever happened to
his March 27th “Plan”?–we await some forthright statement from our
“allies”.
— Lionel Libson
20. October 14, 2009
9:45 pm
America does not need to apologize for being a superpower. It does
not need to act humble. But it does need to be smart. Clumsy exercises
of power do nothing to enhance our standing. We need tyrants to fear
us even if that involves sabre rattling that upsets the elites in the
world. If we ever become like a European nation, unable to stand for
anything, the blood and treasure we have sacrificed will have been for
naught.
— LouisM
21. October 14, 2009
9:45 pm
The United States can be either well liked and powerful,
or hated and powerful. Which option would you like to see Mr
Krauthammer?
— Blu3star
22. October 14, 2009
9:45 pm
You had me until you quoted Ezra Klein. Who? This is a young man with
no accomplishments of any kind, and no particular insights to offer.
You are better off quoting the next person you pass on the street.
Klein is a laughingstock.
— RowerinVA
23. October 14, 2009
9:47 pm
The problem with being a hegemon is that it’s frightfully expensive
in terms of blood and treasure, and those who agitate for and benefit
from hegemonic status are never around when the bill comes due. How
many young people have to die to provide vicarious thrills to the
likes of these?
— resident native
24. October 14, 2009
9:48 pm
“America more than compensates by pioneering the newer technologies
and industries of the information age”
Half of the pioneers are foreign born, of course. God help us if they
start taking their advanced degrees back home.
And it’s no wonder, as long as the best and the brightest here can
make ridiculous amounts of quick money pushing paper around on Wall
Street, why do something hard like make the world a better, more
enlightened, more productive place?
We don’t value such accomplishments nearly as much as we should, it’s
sad we prefer to keep score by net worth.
Regardless, in the end, the real accomplishments are what matter, and
we’ll be succeed or fail based on what we can build and discover. As
we should be well aware of by now (put probably aren’t to a sad
degree), it’s easy come, easy go.
— Brent
25. October 14, 2009
9:49 pm
i love how all the time’s articles that critique other essays are all
in the same format: paragraph of the essay, two sentences of times’
critique, and continue into oblivion. why don’t you just write a
normal critique and spend the effort doing so. it’s easy to just cut
and paste.
— Mitchel Lint
chhotemianinshallah
The Underlying Size of U.S. Economy 4 comments
by: Cynicus Economicus October 18, 2009
Cynicus Economicus
This I would like to start this post with a hypothetical item of
government spending, such as building an extension to a government
building, and track some of the money that might be spent. The example
uses the US, but the principles apply to any country. The reason for
this example will become apparent later, and may be a little
disturbing.
As soon as the money for the extension is approved, there will be a
surge in economic activity. Project management groups will be formed,
an architect firm hired, contractors will be tendering, and medical
suppliers will be preparing for large orders. In this case, I will
just track some of the spending as it passes to the firm of
architects. Depending on the nature of the contract, money will
eventually start being passed to the architect firm, and that money
will arrive in the firm's bank account. Once in the account, the money
will be used for a range of purposes, such as the cost of operations,
cost of office space, and legal and other services. All of these
economic activities will be partially supported by the government
expenditure. For the next movement of the money, I will concentrate on
the salary paid to the workers in the firm, and in particular one of
the architects.
Let us imagine that one of the the less senior architects is a man who
works on the project for 6 months, and all of his pay is therefore
coming from the hospital extension project. We might imagine that the
architect is an average type of individual in a professional
occupation, and that he is married with a young family and earns
$100,000 per year. We can therefore imagine his spending, with his
income covering a mortgage, payment on a car loan, and fairly large
expenditure on consumer items, and consumption of services like trips
to restaurants. All of these will be paid with government money. If we
just consider the example of expenditure on consumer items, we might
think of a toy purchase for one of the architects. He will visit a
store, and we can imagine that he spends $50 on a toy for his
daughter's birthday.
The $50 originates in government money for the extension, and it now
lands in the till of the retailer selling the toys. The retailer then
banks the money, and the money will then be utilised for a range of
purposes. If we imagine that the toy has a $25 mark-up, then $25 of
the money will be used to reorder the toy. The toy is made by a
company based in the US, but with manufacturing overseas in China. As
such, some of the money will be used to pay for the manufacturing in
China, and we will just imagine that $10 covers the cost of
manufacturing a replacement. That means that £15 will go to the US
company, and will pay for the operations of the company and profit,
with $10 'leaking out' of the US economy into the Chinese economy.
As with the architect firm, the $15 that goes arrives in the US toy
company will contribute to staff salaries, pay for the costs of the
office, pay for business expenses and so forth. If we imagine one of
the office staff, part of the pay of the person will come from the
sale of the toy, and that money has come from the architect, and that
money has come from the building project, and that money has come from
government expenditure. The money for the building extension is
rippling through the economy creating activity. Whilst the headline
amount of the money diminishes at each level, the money is utilised
many times over in multiple transactions.
What I am (I hope) showing, is the way in which the money spent by
government generates economic activity way beyond the headline figure
of the actual expenditure. Each of the activities that the money
generates, as the money use multiplies throughout the economy, is
recorded in the GDP figures. It is a very complex process to track,
and economists have great difficulty in trying to work out how much
government spending increases activity throughout the economy. For
example, one review of academic literature (see note 1) identifies
that different fiscal expenditure in different situations and
countries can lead to multipliers of between zero and four.
It is actually quite easy to see why the multiplier effects of
government spending are so difficult to calculate. For example, the
spending of government money on infrastructure such as a steel bridge
might have very different effects according to the individual economy.
If the economy has a strong steel industry, then the multiplier will
likely be much greater, as otherwise a large portion of the
expenditure will rapidly 'leak out' of the economy to pay for the
purchase of the steel from overseas suppliers.
What we are therefore left with is a big question mark over how much
activity each $1 of government expenditure might generate within the
US economy. In light of the estimates of between zero and four, I will
proceed on the basis of a multiplier of three, as the study cited
suggests higher multipliers occur in larger economies. Furthermore, a
large proportion of the US economy is based upon services, which again
suggests a high multiplier. This means that the US might even have a
multiplier of four, but I will stay with three as a more conservative
estimate.
Having come this far, you may be wondering what all of this means, and
why I am discussing this in so much detail. The reason is relatively
straightforward. I want to give a (very, very) rough estimate of the
real size of the US economy - the size if there were no borrowing from
overseas. When we see that way that government spending multiplies in
the economy, it is apparent that borrowing money from overseas
(translated into government spending) will inflate the GDP figures
more than the headline borrowing figures suggest.
Starting with the basics, the US economy for 2009 will produce about
$14 trillion of GDP, the federal deficit is expected to be something
like 12% of GDP for 2009 overall, and according to the Congressional
Budget Office the deficit for the fiscal year (just ended)was $1.4
trillion. In order to isolate the effects of overseas borrowing, it is
necessary to find out how much debt has been sold overseas. I naively
thought that I might find these figures relatively easily, but this
has proved to be problematic (see note 2). For example, I searched the
Treasury website, and only found an 'estimate' of the overseas
holdings of US government debt. Likewise, the St. Louis Federal
Reserve (an excellent resource normally) only offers the following
chart, for overseas federal debt holdings:
According to the chart, overseas holdings of federal debt have
increased in the first six months of 2009 by $305.3 billion, making an
annualised rate of overseas accumulation of US debt of around $600
billion (assuming that overseas investors continued to buy US debt at
the same rate). It might be noted that the fiscal year in the US does
not match the calendar year, so there is some more fudge in the
numbers. However, we might make an approximation on the total amount
of GDP that is actually due to the multiplier effect, by multiplying
the figure by 3, which gives us $1.8 trillion.
Now at this stage, it would be normal to then minus the $1.8 trillion
from the overall size of the economy ($US 14 trillion). The first
problem is that some of the borrowed money will be servicing interest
payments on previous borrowing ($182 billion), such that it will not
create activity. The second problem is that there is the question of
how much private borrowing is sourced from overseas lenders, in
particular consumer borrowing. I have tried to identify how much of
this borrowing originates from overseas, but have been unable to come
up with any firm figures. I will therefore just take a guess at the
impacts of these two factors and raise the overall total to $2
billion, implying something like $127 billion of consumer credit
provided by overseas lenders (remember the multiplier of 3), an
extremely conservative guess.
With the current figure of $14 trillion, the correction to remove the
activity resultant from overseas borrowing would mean that the real
size of the economy is just $12 trillion. In other words, something
like 17% of the US economy is funded by overseas borrowing. You may
note that there is a large amount of 'fudge factor' in all of this,
and comments and critiques are therefore welcomed (especially from
those who are more numerate than myself - which is most people).
What does this mean?
As I have frequently pointed out, measurement of GDP is flawed in any
economy that has a net accumulation of debt, for the very reason that
the activity in the economy includes debt activity derived from
overseas borrowing. The problem becomes particularly acute when
measuring the ratio of debt to GDP, as the activity from debt is
included in GDP. Even more curious is the idea of GDP growth, when a
country is accumulating debt, but nevertheless economists are
predicting 'growth' for 2010.
The real concern is the question of what would happen if the overseas
lenders were to stop lending. In this event, the US economy would
quickly revert to its real size, and that would be significantly
smaller than today. The results of any halt in credit provision for
the US are extremely worrying, as support for a large percentage of
the economy would disappear. The result would be that unemployment
would explode upwards, government could not operate at current levels,
and the shock would likely precipitate a broader collapse in the
economy.
The problem that is faced by the government is that for the years
preceding the economic crisis, the economy was also being flattered by
a combination of overseas borrowing for government expenditure, but in
combination with consumer borrowing that originated in overseas
credit. I am guessing that, if it were possible to strip out the
effect of borrowing for the three years preceding the crisis, the same
kind of results would emerge. In other words, I believe the problem is
structural, meaning the current level of the economy can not be
sustained. As such that there is no possibility in the near term of
achieving anything near pre-crisis economic conditions unless
creditors continue to fund the US at current levels.
This is improbable.
One reason is that the printing of money by the Federal Reserve and
size of deficits are already alarming creditors such as China, with
China giving implicit threats to stop lending. A devaluation of the
$US might provide a solution to the problems by eventually return the
US economy to its true size and wealth relative to other countries.
However, ongoing $US devaluation will just accelerate the point at
which overseas creditors refuse further lending. In other words, it
will precipitate a crisis before the adjustment is completed. In the
event of no further credit, the US would face the prospect of rapidly
transitioning to the real size of the economy.
The only solution that I can see is for the US to first freeze the
growth in borrowing, and to then implement a clear and binding plan to
reduce borrowing aggressively over the short to medium term, with a
clear plan for a return to surplus in five years time. This plan would
give confidence to overseas creditors, and allow a more orderly
transition to the real size of the economy. Such a plan would be very,
very painful, as the economy would still shrink dramatically. However,
it would be less painful than the sudden collapse that might take
place if overseas lenders were to stop lending.
The problem is that, at present, there are no such plans. Instead,
deficits stretch to the horizon, overseas creditors express their
doubts, and the $US is steadily sinking. In other words, my very rough
estimates may be put to the test.
Note 1: Spilimbergo, A., Symansky, S., Blanchard, O., Cottarelli, C.,
& Hall, W. (2009) 'Fiscal policy for the crisis', Centre for Economic
Policy Research, Paper No. 7130, January 2009.
Note 2: I used the Treasury website here, and downloaded the document
titled 'Ownership of Federal Securites'. Actually getting firm numbers
on actual sales of new debt is very difficult, and news reports, for
example, seem to focus on debt type and/or sales to particular
countries. A fairly tpical example is the following report:
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Net foreign purchases of long-term
securities increased to $28.6 billion in August from $15.3 billion in
July, the Treasury Department said Friday. Net foreign purchases of
long-term U.S. securities were $ 32.9 billion. Of this, private
investors purchased $21.3 billion and foreign official institutions
bought $11.6 billion. U.S. residents purchased a net $4.3 billion of
long-term foreign securities. China's holdings of Treasurys slipped
$3.4 billion to $797.1 billion in August. So far in 2009, China has
increased its holdings of Treasurys by $57.5 billion.
chhotemianinshallah
America's Multiple Choice Economy
by: Steven Hansen October 18, 2009
Pick the correct answer from the list of true facts:
The preliminary numbers for retail sales for September 2009 show:
a 5.7% decline YoY
a 1.7% MoM decline
a 0.5% increase MoM if autos are excluded
a 10% decline in auto sales
Even though all the answers are correct, I will go with none of the
above. You notice I tend to run with a lot of graphs and charts as I
think it is easier for most to understand through graphics rather than
data sets.
Retail sales are seasonal. The only true comparisons are through
unadjusted figures – YoY. MoM comparisons require adjustments which
during recessionary cycles have to be considered suspect.
The graph above compares a normal year (2007), to a beginning
recession year (2008), to a recession ending year (2009). Notice
optically how the yellow bar representing 2009 relates to the other
bars representing 2007 and 2008.
Optically, September looks like the best month of 2009 as I see less
of a difference between a normal year and 2009. I would not suggest
this represents a recovery, but on the other hand this data gives you
a warm feeling that we have bottomed. And this comes in a month after
cash-for-clunkers, which moved auto sales which would have occurred in
September into August.
This consumer spending is one of the most important data points. From
my perspective, it is telling us a lot about how unemployment is
impacting spending.
Logically it seems consumer spending should not be able to recover
from the levels it is currently at due to unemployment. But I know
from past recessions that when consumer spending does improve – it is
driven by the employed wage earner who realizes he is not going to
lose his job.
Unemployment this week improved slightly. There is no evidence yet
that employment levels are rising – and that is a key end of recession
marker.
Non-manufacturing jobs, which now make up 91% of non-farm employment,
began to increase in February 2002 just three months after the.2001
recession officially ended.
The problem is the way the NBER defines a recession. It is clear that
employment is not a concern as they feel that once the economy begins
to re-expand – jobs follow.
We know this is true. But we also know at some level with employment –
there must be a tipping point. At some point, we will not be able to
expand as the weight of people not working (as a percent of
population) is currently at 1980's levels).
However, we are nowhere near historical employment lows as a percent
of population. There are more than enough employed to drive growth.
Even with our current methodology for establishing unemployment, the
U-3 (headline) unemployment would have to rise to 20% to approach our
post WWII lows employment / population ratios.
Our economy can expand with high unemployment.
Just imagine how much better it could expand if we were targeting
creating real long term jobs with our stimulus money.
Note: I have been on an airplane for the last 29 hours, and my
computer decided to crash (I keep my data on memory sticks so nothing
lost). But my efforts this week are less than I would have preferred
as I lost time installing programs while traveling.
Additional Economic Data This Week
The green shoots that the economy is expanding can be seen on this
rail car count graphic. But for some reason, this positive growth in
transport is not manifesting itself as strongly in the manufacturing
data.
The New York Fed's October 2009 survey of manufacturers in their
region which showed a slight increase in new orders (this is very good
subjective survey, but this is not based on quantitative data). The
Philly Fed's same report for their region also shows positive new
orders, but you need a microscope to really see any growth.
September 2009 Industrial production showed a slight increase MoM of
0.7%. It was in durables, and coming after cash-for-clunkers – I would
not assume this is real growth. Also, I would worry the seasonal
adjustment factors are suspect because we are in a trough of a
recession. We need to wait until next month to see how the data
trends.
Overall, I would suggest you need to look hard for signs of
improvement in manufacturing from the Federal Reserve reports. This
recovery still remains very sluggish. No significant signals are
appearing which would indicate an impending decline either.
There was a slight 0.2% increase in the consumer price index for
September 2009. Overall, it appears the upward trend in prices are now
beginning to take hold.
The rate of new mortgage applications decreased slightly this week and
remained in the lower end of the range they have been in since April.
The four week moving average of all mortgage loan application volume
(which includes refinancing) increased 5.6% WoW. The average interest
rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgage decreased 13 basis points to
5.02%. Based on the significant rise in long term treasuries, I would
expect a big increase next week also.
The Economic Cycle Research Institute (ECRI) released their Weekly
Leading Index which again gained slightly on its all-time high.
Lakshman Achuthan, Managing Director at ECRI added:
Such a pronounced, pervasive and persistent upswing in the WLI and its
components assures that this economic recovery can overcome any
obstacles in the months ahead. Industrial Production numbers are very
much in line with our April forecast that recession would end over the
summer
chhotemianinshallah
Nearly 50 years on, we're still fighting
C UDAY BHASKAR18 October 2009, 02:37am IST
India and China, often referred to as the elephant and the dragon, are
currently embroiled in a mini-war of words over the status of
Arunachal Pradesh, the state that was at the core of the brief October
1962 border war between the two Asian giants. On October 20, 47 years
ago, global attention was focused on the unfolding Cuban missile
crisis and the eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation between US president
John F Kennedy and his Soviet counterpart Nikita Khruschev. That was
the time China, with Chairman Mao at the helm, decided to teach India
a ‘lesson’.
The Chinese military advance into India through NEFA, now known as
Arunachal Pradesh, threw India into disarray. Those who lived through
that time will recall India’s deep humiliation. The Indian psyche was
irrevocably scarred. Prime Minister Nehru never recovered from what
was perceived as Chinese perfidy and died a broken man in mid-1964.
Since that bloody October, a complex territorial-cum-border dispute,
relating to the interpretation of the McMahon line, continues to
fester.
Almost 47 years to the day, the war of words over Arunachal Pradesh is
once again becoming animated. It began with the Chinese foreign office
in Beijing taking the first provocative step by issuing a protest over
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s October 3 visit to the state. The
protest was seen to be aimed at drawing attention to Arunachal’s
disputed status. The fact that Beijing chose to protest on the very
day that the state went to the polls has been differently interpreted
in India.
New Delhi, which was initially surprised by the strident tone adopted
by Beijing, responded in an uncharacteristically firm manner. On
October 14, the Indian Foreign Office advised China to ‘cease’ its
activities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, given its ‘disputed’ status.
This statement was issued soon after the Pakistani prime minister
Yousuf Raza Gilani was assured by Chinese president Hu Jintao when he
visited Beijing that China would provide assistance for the Karakoram
highway and the Neelam-Jhelum hydroelectric project in PoK.
The war of words does not augur well for the bilateral relationship.
But, as has been often pointed out, 2009 is not 1962. This is not the
first time that Arunachal Pradesh has come onto the radar. It may be
recalled that in November 2006, on the eve of Hu Jintao’s visit to
India, ambassador Sun Yuxi reiterated the Chinese claim in a manner
seen as unnecessarily provocative. Again, in early 2008, when Prime
Minister Manmohan Singh visited Arunachal after a visit to China,
Beijing protested, but only informally.
This time, the protest has been public and strident and the semi-
official media has adopted a harsh and critical tone. On October 14,
an editorial in the People’s Daily titled ‘Indian hegemony continues
to harm relations with neighbors’, noted the following: "India pursued
a foreign policy of ‘befriend the far and attack the near’. It engaged
in war separately with China and Pakistan and the resentment still
simmers. If India really wants to be a superpower, such a policy is
shortsighted and immature."
There is little doubt that over the last year, a hawkish faction
within the Chinese establishment has been adopting a progressively
anti-India posture. This has ranged over issues such as Arunachal
Pradesh or India’s emergence regionally and globally as a country to
watch. The People’s Daily editorial’s gratuitous reference to
‘befriending the far and attacking the near’ is reminiscent of the
shrill anti-India rhetoric that once dominated official Chinese
discourse. The 2008 India-US rapprochement over the nuclear issue is
one of the many drivers of current Chinese anxiety and ire.
China is India’s most important interlocutor and the need for both
sides to recognize the complex and contested inheritance of a troubled
past is self-evident. The link between territoriality and sovereignty
is very acute for states undergoing socio-economic transformation and
complex politico-cultural transition. After October 1962, the two
countries did not have an agreed border because vast tracts of land
are deemed ‘disputed’.
"The boundary question is an issue left over by history, sensitive and
complicated, which needs to be resolved with more patience and wisdom.
It is dialogue rather than story-making that would solve the issue."
Sagacious advice, recently rendered by ambassador Zhang Yan, China’s
plenipotentiary in Delhi.
Even so, for reasons it knows best, Beijing has publicly chosen to wag
a finger at the Indian prime minister over Arunachal Pradesh,
eliciting a predictable response. The Indian political leadership
which has been perceived as being needlessly unctuous towards the
dragon has picked up the gauntlet. But the war of words cannot be
allowed to escalate. The elephant and the dragon can co-exist if they
can harmonize the differences in their national narratives about
territoriality in the appropriate manner and forum.
The writer is former director of Institute for Defence Studies and
Analyses
chhotemianinshallah
China's model creates economic miracle
www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-18 09:35:26
BEIJING, Oct. 18 -- As celebrations of its achievements over the
past 60 years subside, China can look forward to its next milestone:
surpassing Japan as the world's second largest economy before the year
is out. Another target reached ahead of schedule - and further
evidence that China is emerging from the financial crisis as the big
winner.
Based on past records, and taking into account China's expected
growth rate over the next two decades, China will overtake the United
States to become the largest economy in the world within five years
measured in purchasing power parity-terms, and within 20 years
measured in nominal terms.
It could be even sooner. These predictions are based on the
assumption that the US economy will grow 3 percent per year and the
Chinese economy 9 percent per year, assuming constant nominal exchange
and inflation rates for both countries.
But if the yuan continues to appreciate against the dollar as it
has done in the past decade, and/or if China's domestic inflation rate
is higher than that of the US, China will gain ground even quicker.
Much will depend on China's ability to adjust its economic growth
model in the face of huge environmental pressures. China had become
the largest producer of many key industrial and agricultural products
by 2007, including rolled steel (566 million tons), coal (2.5 billion
tons), chemical fertilizers (58 million tons) and personal computers
(121 million, or 30 percent of the world's output).
It produces two-thirds of the world's photocopiers, microwaves and
shoes, 60 percent of mobile phones and 75 percent of toys. In 2009,
China may well overtake the US to become the world's largest consumer
and producer of motor vehicles. This huge leap in production and
consumption has caused serious damage to the environment.
But one of the opportunities brought about by the financial crisis
- and subsequently declining exports - is that Chinese companies have
been forced to increase their competitiveness by moving up the
technological ladder. Many are rebalancing their geographical
distribution and becoming more efficient in their use of resources and
energy.
Also to China's advantage - in the short term at least - are the
depressed oil and material prices, which has helped China sustain high
economic growth as it is the largest importer of such commodities.
The gradual shift away from an economy reliant on low-cost exports
will be tough but China has a clear national strategy to become a
powerful world business leader. The government has been supporting and
fostering a large number of gigantic State-owned industrial groups.
These selected groups have been allowed to grow rapidly in size and
profitability domestically, and then encouraged by the State to expand
globally.
State-owned banks are providing strong financial support for them
to make foreign acquisitions and deepen foreign market penetration.
Through capturing market share and making acquisitions overseas, they
are competing directly with, or working alongside, the world's most
powerful transnational corporations.
There have been unforeseen setbacks. China National Offshore Oil
Corporation failed in a bid to acquire Unocal in 2005, and in June
2009 the Chinalco-Rio Tinto deal came to a sorry end for the Chinese.
China has learnt from these disappointments. Recent overseas
successes include Sinopec's US$7.5 billion acquisition of the Canadian
oil company Addax in August and Minmetals' US$1.38 billion purchase of
Australia's Oz Minerals in June. Chinese firms have embarked on their
new Long March in the global economy - and they will come back
stronger after every defeat.
For all the criticisms of its political structure and one-party
rule, China has time and again demonstrated to the rest of the world
that its political and economic model can be an effective tool for
economic success.
The key to this model is not down to its capacity to copy from the
Western development model, but to its ability to take the advantages
of the Western model and modify them to suit the reality of Chinese
culture and society.
In doing so, China has successfully combined the advantages of the
State and market, public and private ownership, capitalism and
socialism. This model boils down to Deng Xiaoping's pragmatism and
experimentalism of economic, social and political reforms: a Socialist
Market Economy with Chinese Characteristics.
The resilience of the Chinese economy during the worst months of
the financial crisis has added significant weight to this development
model and provided a further boost to Chinese confidence.
The author is professor of Economics and head of the School of
Contemporary Chinese Studies at the University of Nottingham in the
UK.
(Source: China Daily)
Editor: Wang Guanqun
Sid Harth
Chinese economy expected to grow 9% in Q3: Experts
www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-18 20:20:30
BEIJING, Oct. 18 (Xinhua) -- China's economic recovery is gaining
speed and the growth rate is expected to hit 9 percent in the third
quarter, economists and analysts observed.
Q3 GDP EXPECTED TO GROW 9 PERCENT
"China's economic stimulus plan has produced positive effects,"
said Zhao Jinping, a researcher with the Development Research Center
of the State Council, or Cabinet.
He expected the country's gross domestic product (GDP) in the
third quarter to rise 9 percent from a year earlier, up from 7.9
percent for the second quarter and 7.1 percent for the first half
year.
"With the recovery of the world economy and trade environment,
foreign trade, although still weak, will play a less negative role in
the country's economy," Zhao said.
According to the General Administration of Customs, China's
foreign trade continued to fall in September, but the rate of decline
slowed. The total value of imports and exports for September was
218.94 billion U.S. dollars, down 10.1 percent from the same month
last year, but up 14.2 percent from August.
"China's economic growth is very likely to exceed 9 percent. The
strong rebound was based on the relatively low basis in the third
quarter of last year," said Wang Tongsan, a senior researcher with
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the government's top think-tank.
Zhuang Jian, a senior economist with the Asian Development Bank,
gave a relatively prudent forecast, but his estimate was also between
8.5 and 9 percent. He expected an even faster economic growth rate in
the fourth quarter.
"The accelerating growth was propped up by China's proactive
fiscal policy and moderately loose monetary policy. China's economy is
recovering at a speed not seen in other countries," Zhuang said.
Several institutions have also painted a rosy outlook for China's
economic growth in the third quarter.
According to a recent report by the Bank of Communications,
although China's consumer price index (CPI) and producer price index
(PPI) will continue to go down in the third quarter, the decline will
be narrowed and the country's GDP growth rate is expected to reach 9
percent.
Forecast from the U.S. investment bank Goldman Sachs is even
bolder. The bank expected a close to 9.5 percent GDP growth for China
in the third quarter.
It also predicted China's real economy would keep the momentum for
recovery and the country was to see an end to deflation.
"Although it is still too early to draw the conclusion that China
has steered itself out of the crisis, the momentum remains strong, and
the four-trillion yuan (585 billion U.S. dollars) stimulus plan will
continue to play a crucial role in stimulating consumption and
enhancing infrastructure," Zhuang Jian said.
ECONOMIC RESTRUCTURING URGED
Thanks to the large-scale stimulus plan launched in the second
half last year, Chinese economic recovery is well on track.
The Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) of China's manufacturing
sector rose to 54.3 percent in September, up 0.3 percentage points
from a month earlier, indicating a good performance of the country's
industrial sector.
According to China National Energy Administration, China's power
consumption in September also continued to rise at a faster rate.
Power consumption rose 10.24 percent from the same month last year to
322.41 billion kilowatt hours last month.
Fixed-asset investment increased in the first eight months by 33
percent from a year earlier, and the growth rate was 0.1 percentage
point higher compared to the first seven months of this year.
Despite the achievement in economic recovery, Zhao Jinping said
uncertainties remained in the world economy and some stimulus policies
were yet to produce effects, so the stimulus plan should not be ended
or weakened.
Besides, some economists said, as the stimulus plan was kept as an
expedient measure rather than long-term policies, the government
should step up efforts to restructure the economy to solve its deep-
rooted deficiencies.
Among the three economic engines - consumption, investment and
export, the latter two have always been dominant forces in propping up
the economy. Declining demands in the weakening international market
amid the financial crisis reveals the drawback of China's economic
structure -- too much dependence on foreign markets.
Zhuang Jian said: "The current stimulus plan was led by
investment, fixed investment in particular. This might cause problems
if not dealt with properly. Given the foundation and momentum for the
recovery was still not solid, if we continue the investment-oriented
policies, the industrial structure may remain unbalanced and the
investment wasted."
"Weak domestic consumption is the key problem that makes the
foundation for recovery fragile. Expanding domestic consumption will
be the focus in restructuring the economy," Zhao Jinping said.
Most economists see no threat from inflation despite the sharp
increase of loans. New yuan-denominated loans in the first nine months
stood at 8.67 trillion yuan, 5.19 trillion yuan more than the same
period last year, according to the people's Bank of China, the central
bank.
"However, there are still no sign of inflation as both CPI and PPI
are still minus, but the government should improve the stimulus
package and deal with the problems in the economic development
properly," said Zhuang.
China's GDP is expected to grow about 8.3 percent year on year for
2009, and there will be no significant inflationary pressure this year
or in 2010, according to a report released earlier this month by the
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Sid Harth
Geo-Strategic Chessboard: War Between India and China?
2009 October 17
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Since 1947, India has not fully pledged itself to any camp or global
pole during the Cold War and as a result was a founding member of the
Non-Aligned Movement (N.A.M.). Since the post-Cold War era that
position has eroded. New Delhi has been gradually moving away from its
traditional position, relationships, and policies in the international
arena for over a decade.
India has been vied for as an ally in the “Great Game” that is
underway, once again. This round of the “Great Game” is, however,
being played under a far broader spectrum than the one played between
Britain and Czarist Russia. In question is the Indian power
relationship with two geo-political entities: the first is the
“Periphery” and the second is “Eurasia.”
The Periphery and Eurasia: Vying for India on a Geo-Strategic
Chessboard
Physical geography alone does not form or carve or determine
geographic entities. The activity of people also is of critical
importance to this process. Geographic units, from blocs and countries
to regions, must be understood as a product of people interacting in
socio-economic and political terms. The geographic entities that are
subject herein are social constructions. In this conceptual context,
Eurasia itself can be defined as a geo-political player and entity.
In a physical sense, Eurasia as a geographic landmass and spatial
entity is neutral, just as are other geographic regions or units, and
carries no meaning or value(s). Eurasia in socio-political terms as an
active player, however, is altogether different. Herein, it is this
active and politically organized Eurasia that is a product of the anti-
hegemonic cooperation of Russia, China, and Iran against the status
quo global order of the Periphery that is the Eurasia being addressed.
The Periphery is a collective term for those nations who are either
geographically located on the margins of the Eurasian landmass or
altogether geographically outside of the Eurasian landmass. This
grouping or categorization of geo-political players when described are
namely the U.S., the E.U., and Japan. In almost organic terms these
players at the broader level strive to penetrate and consume Eurasia.
This objective is so because of the socio-economic organization and
political mechanisms (all of which serve elitist interests) of the
Periphery. Aside from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan, the Periphery
includes Australia, Canada, South Korea, Singapore, and Israel.
It is in this tugging match that India is centred. It is also in this
geo-strategic bout that India has adopted a pragmatic policy of open
opportunism. Yet, New Delhi has also been steadily moving towards a
stance favouring the Periphery against Eurasia.
India’s historically warm relationship with Iran has been tainted
because of negotiations with the U.S. and E.U. and New Delhi’s
relationship with China appears cordial on the surface, but it is
fragile and double-edged. Although Russia and India maintain
cooperation in regards to the purchase of Russian military hardware by
India, this relationship too is in question regardless of continued
Russian weapons supplies.
State policy, in turn influenced or controlled by local elites, is
also pivotal to the formation of the larger geographic entities being
addressed. The ruling circles and elites of India are pragmatic
opportunists and their is no question in this. This characteristic,
however, is a trademark of almost all elitist circles and is not
unique to Indian elites alone. The position of the Indian elites,
however, is noteworthy because they can flex their muscles and they
can play both sides.
New Delhi Caught between Alliances?
As stated, New Delhi has been walking a pragmatic path between the
emerging Eurasian pole and between the more established Peripheral
pole. The Eurasian pole was originally formed out of a reluctant
necessity for survival against the thrust of the Periphery by Moscow.
As the Russian-initiated Eurasian-based alliance gains global momentum
it is also working to cultivate an end to Eurasian rivalries.
Since 2003, the lines of cooperation with the U.S., Britain, Germany,
and France have been shifting and continuously restudied by Moscow,
Beijing, Tehran, and their other allies, such as Kazakhstan, Belarus,
and Tajikistan. The U.S., Britain, Germany, France and their shared
proxies, NATO and the European Union, have been trying to obstruct the
solidification of a united Eurasian entity. This is where India is
key.
A factor that has obstructed Eurasian cooperation, with the inclusion
of India, is the mutual suspicions of the Eurasians and, in general
terms, their underlying resource rivalries. Due to these factors, the
Eurasians appeared to be working together and alternatively to be
keeping the lines of cooperation open with both the Periphery. A case
in standing of this schizophrenic policy is what was once called the
“Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis” that clasped Russia on one side and France
and Germany on the other. This Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis flexed its
muscles in international relations and at the U.N. during the Anglo-
American march to war against Iraq in 2003.
India and the Encirclement of China
New Delhi is not a constituent of the Periphery. Nor does India fully
trust the nations of the Periphery. India does,, however, appear to
favour the Periphery. This can be attributed to the demographic nature
of global resource competitions and long-standing Sino-Indian
cleavages and tensions. The tensions and cleavages between China and
India have also been capitalized on by the Periphery just as the Sino-
Soviet split was by Henry Kissinger during the Cold War to keep China
and the Soviet Union divided.
Due to tensions with China the Indian ruling establishment still holds
onto a vision about a showdown with the Chinese. Both states are
demographic dinosaurs and are competing between themselves and with
the status quo Peripheral Powers for resources. Despite the fact that
it is the nations of the Periphery that are disproportionately
exploiting a far larger share of global resources, in the eyes of many
in New Delhi the perception is that it is far easier to reduce the
effect of global resource competitions by working to eliminate China
rather than competing with the Periphery. It is these two reasons that
are the basis for the formation of Indian animosity to Beijing.
An encircling military ring that involves India has been created
around China. New Delhi has been involved in the framework of military
cooperation with the Periphery aimed at China. Under this framework,
India has joined Japan, the U.S., and Australia in forming a de facto
“Quadrilateral Coalition” to neutralize China through the
establishment of a ring of containment that could see a naval blockade
form in the event of a war around the borders of China. [1]
In a war between China and an outside power, cutting off Chinese
energy supplies would be central to defeating Beijing. Without any
fuel the military hardware of the People’s Liberation Army would be
rendered useless. It is from this standpoint that India is building
its naval strength and cooperating militarily in the Indian Ocean and
the Pacific with the Periphery. It is also with Chinese energy
supplies, Indian naval expansion, and the encirclement of China in
mind that the Indian military has prepared to introduce, by 2014, what
it calls “Indigenous Aircraft Carriers” (IACs), each with with two
takeoff runways and one landing strip for up to 30 military aircraft.
[2]
China, as well as Iran, also has a direct border with NATO-garrisoned
Afghanistan, which can be used as a military hub against the more
vulnerable western flank of China. In this regard, the massive
American-led NATO military build-up in Afghanistan is monitored with
the utmost suspicion by Beijing and Tehran. In many senses, the
Periphery is moving or pushing inwards towards the heart of Eurasia.
The encirclement of China also parallels the rings of military
alliances and bases created around Russia and around Iran. China also
faces the threat of a missile shield project in East Asia just as the
European core of Russia faces one in Eastern Europe and Iran faces one
via such countries as the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, Israel, and
Turkey in the Middle East.
Playing all sides to get New Delhi its Place in the Sun?
The 2006 meetings between George W. Bush Jr. and Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh, including the Indo-U.S. nuclear cooperation agreement,
are examples of the “divide and conquer” game the White House and its
allies are playing. India is not passive in this game and is an active
player too. The trilateral summits held between Russia, China, and
India represent the opposite push to bring India fully into the
Eurasian coalition of Moscow and Beijing. The U.S. has also been
trying to obstruct the creation of a trans-Asian energy grid in Asia
or a trans-Eurasian energy grid that would involve both sections of
Europe and Asia within a single framework. One of these projects is
the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline and another is the building of
pipelines from the former Soviet Union to China.
Moreover, India has nurtured military ties with Russia, China, and
Iran on one hand and the U.S., NATO, Australia, Israel, and Japan on
the other hand. This is evident from the joint naval exercises held in
April, 2007 between India and China off Qingdao and the joint Indian,
U.S., and Japanese trilateral military exercise in the Pacific Ocean.
[3] Yet, India has not been neutral. India has also upgraded its
missile arsenal so that it can target deeper into Chinese territory.
All in all, New Delhi has tilted in favour of the Periphery. At first
glance, this is reflected by the fact that India is the only Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO) observer member that has not applied
for full membership within the Eurasian bloc and through New Delhi’s
growing ties with NATO. India’s course also became clearer after an
important trilateral conference between Russia, China, and India in
2007 that saw India diplomatically refuse Chinese and Russian demands
to rebut America and reject full cooperation. In this regard, Indian
officials have said that they do not want to compromise their
strategic flexibility. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India has also
degenerated the situation further and expand the rift between India on
one side and Russia, Iran, and China on the other.
An Expanded Missile Arsenal for India
New Delhi has also been working to upgrade its military capabilities
to match those of the U.S., Russia, and China. The process involves
the possession of inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM),
submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), and ballistic missile
defence (BMD) capabilities. The Times of India reported on May 13,
2008 that Indian military scientists predicted that India would posses
all three capabilities by 2010 or 2011:
By 2010-2011, India hopes to gatecrash into a very exclusive club of
countries, which have both ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles)
and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) as well as BMD
(ballistic missile defence) capabilities.
Only the US and Russia strictly qualify for this club as of now, if
all the three capabilities — ICBM, SLBM and BMD — are taken together,
with countries like China not too far behind.
Top defence scientists, on the sidelines of the annual DRDO awards on
Monday, told TOI [Times of India] they were quite confident India
would have ICBMs and SLBMs, even though their strike ranges would be
much lesser than American, Russian or Chinese missiles, as also a
functional BMD system soon after the turn of this decade. [4]
The nature of such a military build-up must be questioned. Who is it
aimed at and what are its primary objectives? Are these capabilities
meant to act as a deterrence or are they part of something more? These
are important questions.
The United States Directly Threatens China
The answer to the Indian military build-up is embodied in two parts.
One element to this answer is the military dogma of the U.S. towards
China. The U.S. attitude is clarified in a May 2008 interview given to
the Voice of America by Admiral Timothy J. Keating after a new Chinese
submarine base was discovered, which was called a threat to U.S.
interests in Asia. Admiral Keating is the American flag officer
comanding U.S. forces in East Asia and the Pacific under United States
Pacific Command (USPACOM), one of the highest military posts in the
U.S. military.
Agence France-Presse (AFP) reported on May 12, 2008:
China’s new underground nuclear submarine base close to vital sea
lanes in Southeast Asia has raised US concerns, with experts calling
for a shoring up of alliances in the region to check Beijing’s growing
military clout.
The base’s existence on the southern tip of Hainan Island was
confirmed for the first time by high resolution satellite images,
according to Jane’s Intelligence Review, a respected defence
periodical, this month.
It could hold up to 20 submarines, including a new type of nuclear
ballistic missile submarine, and future Chinese aircraft carrier
battle groups, posing a challenge to longstanding US military
dominance in Asia.
China should not pursue such “high-end military options,” warned
Admiral Timothy Keating, the top commander of US forces in Asia, in an
interview with the Voice of America last week.
He underlined America’s “firm intention” not to abandon its dominating
military role in the Pacific and told Beijing it would face “sure
defeat” if it took on the United States militarily.
(…)
He said Washington should “tighten” its alliances in Asia to check
China’s growing military might and develop “interoperability”
capabilities among allies such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the
Philippines and Singapore, as well as Indonesia and Malaysia.
James Lyons, an ex-commander of the US Pacific Fleet, said the United
States needed to reestablish high-level military ties with the
Philippines as part of efforts to enhance US deterrence in the wake of
China’s naval expansion.
He said “operational tactics” used against the former Soviet Union
during the Cold War should be applied against China.
He suggested US leasing a squadron of F-16 fighter jets and navy
vessels to the Philippines, where Washington once had naval and air
bases, as part of the deterrence strategy.
“We don’t need a permanent base but we need access,” Lyons said,
suggesting also that Japan play a more “meaningful” role in protecting
critical sea lanes in the region.
“Again the Soviets, we raised that deterrence equation and we won the
war without firing a shot basically … there is no cheap way out and we
have to improve our posture in the Western Pacific along with our
allies,” he said.
Richard Fisher, an expert of China military affairs at the
International Assessment and Strategy Center, a US think tank,
expected US confrontation with China as Beijing modernized its nuclear
ballistic missile submarines, referred to in military jargon as SSBNs.
[5]
What James Lyon suggests as an ex-military officier about using Japan
as a counter-balance against China is clearly being applied to other
nations in Asia. In addition, without India using Japan or a whole
coalition of other Asian states carries far less weight against China,
especially one supported by Russia. India is clearly key in the U.S.
geo-strategy for dealing with China and in general for Eurasia.
The Hindustani Wild Card: India as a Eurasian Wedge against China?
To obstruct the unification of Russia, Iran, and China the Bush Jr.
Administration in 2004 intensified the venture of using India as a
Eurasian wedge or counter-weight to China. The U.S. aim is to
eventually undermine the coalition between Russia, China, and Iran by
using India or alternatively to use India as a spearhead against the
Chinese. This latter tactic would be similar to the strategy used by
the U.S. government in relation to Iraq and Iran, which resulted in
the Iraq-Iran War in 1980.
In this Iraq-Iran War model both Baghdad and Tehran were seen as
enemies by U.S. strategists and the aim was to get both Middle Eastern
republics to neutralize one another. Henry Kissinger summed this U.S.
policy by saying the point was for both the Iraqi and Iranian sides to
destroy one another. The same scenario could happen and be applied to
India and China. The realization of this confrontational project has
already been announced by the Indian military. What has long been
thought has become public and that is that the Indian military has
been preparing for war against Beijing. This is the second element to
the question about the Indian military build-up.
The Hindustan Times reported on March 26, 2009:
The Indian military fears a [sic] ‘Chinese aggression’ in less than a
decade. A secret exercise, called ‘Divine Matrix’, by the army’s
military operations directorate has visualised a war scenario with the
nuclear-armed neighbour before 2017.
“A misadventure by China is very much within the realm of possibility
with Beijing trying to position itself as the only power in the
region. There will be no nuclear warfare but a short, swift war that
could have menacing consequences for India,” said an army officer, who
was part of the three-day war games that ended on Wednesday.
In the military’s assessment, based on a six-month study of various
scenarios before the war games, China would rely on information
warfare (IW) to bring India down on its knees before launching an
offensive.
The war games saw generals raising concerns about the IW battalions of
the People’s Liberation Army carrying out hacker attacks for military
espionage, intelligence collection, paralysing communication systems,
compromising airport security, inflicting damage on the banking system
and disabling power grids. “We need to spend more on developing
information warfare capability,” he said.
The war games dispelled the notion that China would take at least one
season (one year) for a substantial military build-up across India’s
northeastern frontiers. “The Tibetan infrastructure has been improved
considerably. The PLA can now launch an assault very quickly, without
any warning, the officer said.
The military believes that China would have swamped Tibet with
sweeping demographic changes in the medium term. For the purposes of
Divine Matrix, China would call Dalai Lama for rapprochement and
neutralise him. The top brass also brainstormed over India’s options
in case Pakistan joined the war to. Another apprehension was that
Myanmar and Bangladesh would align with China in the future
geostrategic environment. [6]
Although the materialization of a war against China is not a
guaranteed event, war preparations are being made against the Chinese.
The disturbances within the borders of China in Xinjiang and Tibet and
in Myanmar (Burma), which is important to Chinese energy security,
that are so widely advertised in the name of democracy and self-
determination in the U.S. and E.U. are part of an effort to
destabilize and weaken China. It is also in this context that India is
involved with operations, such as supporting the Tibetan government-in-
exile of the Dahali Lama, that have been destabilizing China.
The Australian military has also announced it is expanding its
military in preparation for a forecast major war in the Asia-Pacific
region. [7] Japan has also been expanding its military, while Tokyo
has been preparing itself to join a NATO-like sister-alliance in the
Asia-Pacific that would include Australia, the U.S., and South Korea
and be directed against China, Russia, and North Korea. [8] Myanmar
and Laos can be targeted too by this military build-up and NATO-like
alliance as can the other Southeast Asian states of Indo-China,
specifically Vietnam and Cambodia, if they change their policies.
The Strategic Ties of New Delhi and Tel Aviv: Indo-Israeli Military
and Space Cooperation
On January 21, 2008 a new chapter in Indo-Israeli strategic
cooperation was unveiled; India launched a Israeli spy satellite,
known as TecSAR (TechSAR) or Polaris, into space via an Indian space
rocket at the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in Sriharikota, Andhra
Padesh. [9] The Israeli satellite was bragged to be mainly aimed
against Iran by Israeli sources. [10] Israel’s spy satellite launched
by India has greatly enhances Israel’s intelligence-gathering
capabilities against Iran, Syria, and Lebanon.
The satellite launch by New Delhi has revealed that the Indian
government has little reservations in assisting in any Israeli or
Anglo-American military ventures in the Middle East against Iran and
its allies. Tehran immediately voiced its strong and official
disapproval to India for aiding Israeli military objectives against
Iran’s national security. The Israeli satellite launch was delayed
several times. The Jerusalem Post and one of its noted reporters,
Yaakov Katz, published an article that claimed that the delayed space
launch of the Israeli satellite was a result of strong Iranian
pressure on the Indian government. [11]
Politicians in India opposed to Indo-Israeli military and space
cooperation denounced the Indian government’s attempts to present the
launch as merely “business as usual” by hiding the military
implications and objectives behind an act with underlying hostile
intentions against Iran. The Indian government officially argued to
the Indian people that the satellite launch was just a commercial
transaction between Tel Aviv and New Delhi, but the military
implications of the deal reveal that India is no longer neutral in
regards to Tehran. The fact that the Israel spy satellite has been
described by Tel Aviv as a means to confront Tehran and Damascus
(officially described as “enemy states”) is an omission in itself that
New Delhi is knowingly an accomplice to hostile acts against Iran and
Syria.
The satellite launch was shrouded in complete secrecy by the Indian
government. The Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) which had
always announced all its space launches as a symbol of national pride
kept silent for the Israeli satellite launch. Large numbers of
different Indian groups and people across India condemned the secrecy
behind the mission and cited it as a sign of guilty by the Indian
government. People’s Democracy, the official mouth piece of the
Communist Party of India-Marxist (CP-M), complained that the citizens
of India had to learn about the details of the launch from Israeli
news sources. [12]
The Israeli spy satellite was built by Israel Aerospace Industries,
which has major business interests in regards to India. On February
18, 2008 Israel Aerospace Industries, and the Tata Group signed a
corporate agreement with Israel Aerospace to cooperate and jointly
develop military hardware and products through a memorandum of
understanding. [13] Like a tell-tale sign this agreement was announced
less than a month after the launch of the Israeli spy satellite built
by Israel Aerospace Industries. The Tata Group and its companies also
have corporate agreements with Boeing, Sikorsky Aircraft, and the
European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), which are all
competing against Russian arms manufacturers.
Indian cooperation with Israel extends all the way into the realm of
nuclear politics and policy. On September 17, 2008 at the headquarters
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna a vote was
almost unanimously cast for a IAEA resolution urging all Middle
Eastern states to abandon making nuclear bombs. In a case of irony,
the only state that voted against the IAEA resolution was Israel,
which accuses Iran and Syria of pursuing nuclear weapons. Tel Aviv
voted against the IAEA resolution, while Tehran and Damascus voted for
the it and the U.S., Canada, Georgia, and India all in support of
Israel abstained.
New Delhi Deepens ties with the U.S., NATO, and Israel
In military terms, there is a real strategic “American-Indian-Israeli
Axis.” New Delhi’s strategic ties with the U.S., NATO, and Israel have
been deepening. The strategic axis formed by the U.S., India, and
Israel has also been denounced by various political parties and
figures across the political landscape of India.
Firstly, the geo-strategic rationale for an alliance between the U.S.
and India is the encirclement or containment of the People’s Republic
of China. The other rationale or intentions of such cooperation are
the neutralization of Russia as a player in Central Asia and the
securing of energy resources for both the U.S. and India. In this
project, the U.S. sees India as a natural counter-weight to China. The
U.S. also has used India in its objective of trying to isolate Iran.
In regards to Tel Aviv, Israel sees India as part of a broader
periphery. This broader or so-called “new periphery” was imagined and
utilized as a basis of geo-strategy by Tel Aviv after 1979 when the
“old periphery” that included Iran, which was one of Israel’s closest
allies, buckled and collapsed with the 1979 Iranian Revolution. [14]
In this context, Israel’s “new periphery” has been conceptualized
against both the Arab World and Iran (or compounded as the Arabo-
Iranian World). This is why the Israeli relationships with India,
Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Turkey are important, and in
some cases full fledged alliances. [15]
Likewise NATO and India also have shared interests in Afghanistan and
Central Asia, which India sees as part of its own periphery or “near
abroad.” These shared interests and the mutual animosity to Chinese
energy interests in Central Asia has brought India and NATO, led by
the U.S., into the same camp. NATO also sees India in its strategy to
become a global military alliance. In addition, dealing with Pakistan
is also another shared commonality between NATO and India.
The Project for “Greater South Asia” and Indian Ambitions in its “Near
Abroad”
As Hindu means everything beyond the Indus and Hindustan the “land
beyond the Indus” in ancient Iranian, the word “Industan” can be used
to talk about the land and basin around the Indus River. Hereon, this
term will be used to refer to the geographic area adjacent the Indus
to India’s western flank. [16] This area includes Pakistan and can be
extended to include Afghanistan and the former Soviet republics of
Central Asia. Although Industan may not be exactly an accurate
definition for the area beyond Pakistan, Industan still fits well,
especially in light of Indian geo-political thinking. That is why the
term will be used.
Industan, is part of India’s “near abroad” or periphery, and in a
sense even a part of an expanded periphery that emerged with the
dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is with this in mind that India
established its first military base, at Ayni, on foreign soil in
Tajikistan. [17] The converging interests of the U.S. and India are
clear in the U.S. State Departments re-definition of Central Asia as a
part of “Greater South Asia.” Greater South Asia is the
conceptualization of Central Asia as a region within South Asia, which
is synonymous with the Indian sub-continent. The concept of Greater
South Asia is part of the project to bring the former Soviet republics
of Central Asia into the orbits of the U.S. through cooperation with
India, as a regional gendarme.
Turning to Pakistan, India has a shared interests with the U.S. and
NATO in the subjection of Pakistan. Pakistan would cease to be a
client state of the U.S. or a manageable state, because of a likely
revolution that would occur in the scenario of a broader war in the
Middle East against Iran or a far larger Eurasian war involving China
and Russia. Nuclear weapons in the hands of such a revolutionary
government in Islamabad would be a threat to Indian national security,
NATO operations in Afghanistan, and Israel. It is in the shared
interests of the U.S., NATO, Israel, and India to neutralize such a
strategic and tactical threat from emerging in Pakistan. This is why
NATO has underpinned the objective of balkanizing Pakistan and why the
U.S. has talked about taking over Pakistani nuclear facilities via the
U.S. military. The subjection of Pakistan is also territorially and
militarily to the advantage of New Delhi, because it would eliminate a
rival and allow India to gain territory that in the view of many
Indians was lost with the partition of India in 1947.
The Naval build-up in the Indian Ocean and the Geo-Politics of the Sri
Lankan Civil War
To the southern borders of Eurasia is the Indian Ocean. The Indian
Ocean is the scene of major international rivalries and competition
(s). Sri Lanka is also a front in these rivalries. It is in this
context that India is part of a major naval build-up running from the
coastline of East Africa and the Arabian Sea to the waves of Oceania.
Aside from the fleets of the U.S. and its NATO allies that have large
presences in the Indian Ocean, the naval fleets of Iran, India, China,
Japan, and Australia are also all being expanded in league with this
trend of militarization. Also, India and China are working to release
large nuclear submarine fleets into the Indian Ocean and the Pacific
Ocean. The naval encirclement of Eurasia and the naval expansion of
China are also reasons why U.S. Navy ships have been repeatedly caught
violating Chinese waters and illegally surveying Chinese territory.
[18]
The water around the Arabian Peninsula all the way around from the
Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman, and the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea
(Arabian Gulf) carries large fleets of ships either belonging to the
U.S., NATO, or their allies. At any point the U.S. and its allies can
stop international shipping in these waters. The problem of piracy in
these waters is very closely linked to their militarization and is a
justification for militarization. This is one of the reasons that the
Gulf of Aden and the waters off the Horn of Africa, where Somalia is
located, have seen the deployment of the naval forces of Russia,
China, and Iran as a strategically symmetric move. [19]
It should be noted that relations between Sri Lanka and India started
to unravel in 2009. The Sri Lankan government has accused the Indian
government of supporting the Tamil Tigers drive to create a Tamil
state by dividing Sri Lanka. Much of this has to do with the geo-
strategic struggle between the Periphery and Eurasia in the Indian
Ocean.
In this regard, India is not only working against Chinese interests in
the Indian Ocean, but it is also actively cooperating with the U.S.
and its allies. In the scenario of a conflict between Eurasia and the
Periphery or between China and India the maritime route that passes by
Sri Lanka would be vital to the Chinese military and Chinese energy
security. For this reason Sri Lanka has joined the SCO as a “dialogue
partner” under the protective umbrella of Russia, China, and their
allies. Not only has Sri Lanka joined the SCO, but it also hosts a
Chinese port in a pivotal point in the Indian Ocean and near the
borders of India that has put Colombo at odds with New Delhi.
Arms Manufacturer and Nuclear Rivalry in India
Since the end of the Cold War there has been a drive to push out
Russian arms manufacturers out of the Indian market by Anglo-American,
Franco-German, and Israeli military contractors. France and Israel
have also been traditionally the second and third largest weapon
sources for India after Russia. Russian manufacturers have been
competing fiercely against military manufactures based in France,
Germany, Israel, Britain, and the U.S. to remain as New Delhi’s top
arms suppliers.
In addition, the elites in New Delhi have been putting their weight
behind Russia’s rivals in India. India has become one of the most
significant markets for Israeli military hardware and has replaced the
void left to Israeli weapons exporters by the loss of the South
African arms market that was caused by the collapse of Apartheid in
1993. Additionally, Israel has moved on to replace France as the
second largest provider of military hardware to India. [20] This is
while France in 2006 and 2008 has made headway in nuclear cooperation
agreements with India, following the 2005 Indo-U.S. nuclear deal. [21]
India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA): “Superalignment” or “Counter-
Alignment?”
In addition, the U.S. is trying to use the India-Brazil-South Africa
(IBSA) Dialogue Forum, a loose trilateral alliance of go-between
states, against China, Venezuela (and its Latin American bloc that can
be called the Bolivarian Bloc), Russia, and Iran. In reality and
simplistic terms the IBSA powers are rising, second tier global
players. They originally appeared to be engaging in a policy of
“superalignment,” the cultivation of strategic relations with all
major powers and blocs, as opposed to “counter-alignment.” A global
web of alliances, counter-alliances, cross-cutting, and intersecting
alliances are beginning to come into view, just like the environment
in Europe and the Middle East on the eve of the First World War.
Despite the fact that Italy was a member of the Triple Alliance, along
with Germany and the Austro-Hungarians, it decided to side with the
Triple Entente after secret negotiations and promises that were never
honoured by Britain and France. There are circles in Moscow, Beijing,
and Tehran that believe that India could act treacherously just as
Italy did by not honouring its obligations to its allies Vienna and
Berlin. These suspicions also see this as a possibility even if India
entered the SCO as a full member and joined the Chinese-Russian-
Iranian coalition in Eurasia.
In the frankest words, India, Brazil, and the Republic of South Africa
are benefiting from the compounded friction between the U.S., France,
Britain, Germany, China, Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. To clarify, the
reason that this friction is best described as compounded is because
the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente work as two
separate sub-units and sometimes align with the interests of opposing
powers. This is also true about cooperation between Iran, Venezuela,
Russia, and China. In Eurasia, Russia and Iran sometimes work as a
pair, while Russia and China or China and Iran do so at other times.
This trend in regards to the Eurasians, however, is changing as the
cohesion between Russia, China, and Iran increases.
This behaviour is observable in the positions of both India and Brazil
on Kosovar Independence. Both the foreign ministers of India and
Brazil, Celso Amorim and Pranab Mukherjee, made a joint statement in
Brasilia about the declaration of independence by Kosovo by announcing
that India and Brazil were studying its legal ramifications under a
wait-and-see policy of the “evolving situation” as Pranab Mukherjee
called it. [22]
The Case of Elitism: Where the Indian Elites Stand
On April 2, 2009 the Group of Twenty (G-20) met in London in regards
to the global economy and declared that New Delhi would have a bigger
role in the global economy. The question about “India’s place in the
sun” that is often mentioned in international studies about its
emerging status as a global power is not really about India as a
nation-state or even the interests of its general population, but is
really a question about the position of its ruling and economic
classes or its elites (a small minority that make decisions on behalf
of the majority) and their place within the global power structure and
the international elitist compact that is forming through neo-liberal
globalization.
Part and parcel of this enterprise is what appears to be India’s
demands for a greater role, or share, for its elites in the global
economy through some form or another of expanded interlocking
directorships. Interlocking directorships is a term used to describe
when the members of the board of directors or managing body of one
corporation also serve as members of the board of directors or
managing body of other corporation. This is very frequent amongst
elitist circles and a way for them to maintain a monopoly on their
power. It is these interlocking directorships that are uniting global
elites and the impetus for global amalgamation.
India has always had indigenous elites, who in numerous cases worked
hand in glove with the British during the period of the British Raj.
Starting from the colonial period, borrowing from a term used by the
Canadian political economist Wallace Clement, most the Indian
indigenous elites became “comprador elites.” Comprador elites are any
elite groups that represent or manage the interests of “parasite
elites” or foreign elites, which in the case of the British Raj would
have been the British elites. A modern example of a comprador elite
would be the Indian chief executive officers (CEOs) of Indian
subsidiaries of foreign-controlled corporations, such as PepsiCo India
and Monsanto India.
Moving on, the British could not rule most of India without these
elites and therefore cooperated with them. London made sure that the
Indian elites would be fully integrated into the British Empire by
involving them in the administration of India, sending them to British
schools, and making them Anglophiles or lovers of all things British.
Britain would also grant the Indian elites their own economic fiefdoms
in return for their cooperation. The relationship was very much
symbiotic and in reality the Indian elites were the biggest supporters
of the British Empire and opposed Indian independence. It is only when
the Indian elites were offended by London, because of the denial of
their requests to have a status within the British Empire like the
Dominions, such as Canada and Australia, that the Indian Independence
Movement gained momentum.
With Indian independence many of the comprador elites became
indigenous elites, in the sense that they were serving their own
interests and no longer serving British interests in India. Yet, some
comprador elites remained who served British economic interests. For a
period of time after Indian independence there were tensions between
the Indian indigenous elites and both the comprador elites and their
parasite elite backers in London as the indigenous elites moved into
the former niches of the British. This does not mean that there were
not those within the indigenous elites that made agreements or
compromises with the British for the post-independence period.
As time passed and the Cold War supposedly ended, the Soviet Union
fell apart, neighbouring China accepted capitalism, and a push for
unipolarity accelerated the different types of elites in India started
cooperating even more. More specifically, the indigenous elites of
India and foreign elites in the U.S. and E.U. started collaborating,
with the comprador elites helping interlock the indigenous and foreign
sides even more. The state of elitist modus vivandi, living together
in uneasy post-independence armistice, was gradually evolving into
broader cooperation. For example, in the financial sector the
comprador elites, indigenous elites, and parasite elites have worked
together to erode state control of the banking system that has
resulted in the mushrooming and growth of private and foreign banks in
India starting in the 1990s.
Enter Dr. Manmohan Singh: The Economic Origins for New Delhi’s
Strategic Shift?
The Indian shift away from non-alignment and its strategic
partnerships is deeply connected to the unseen regime change in New
Delhi that was initiated with the restructuring of the Indian economic
policy. 1991 was a year of change for India. It was also the year that
President George Bush Sr. declared that the “New World Order” was
beginning to emerge and also the same year as the Gulf War and the
collapse of the Soviet Union.
A common denominator between 1991 and India in the late-2000s is Dr.
Manmohan Singh, the current head of the Indian government. Dr. Singh
received his doctorate (PhD.) as an economist from Oxford University
and also attended Cambridge University. He is a former ranking officer
of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in India. His positions
included Deputy for India on the IMF Committee of Twenty on
International Monetary Reform (1972-1974), IMF Associate (1976-1980,
1982-1985), Alternative Governor for India on the IMF Board of
Governors (1982-1985), and Governor for India on the Board of
Governors of the IMF (1991-1995). Several of these positions coincided
with appointments within the government and national cabinet of India.
This also includes the position of Dr. Singh as the Governor of the
Reserve Bank of India (1982-1985).
Dr. Singh was one of the faces behind the restructuring of the Indian
economy in 1991, in league with the IMF. He was appointed as the
Indian Finance Minister in 1991 by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao,
a man accused with corruption, during a financial crisis that was
brought about by IMF policies. India was nearly bankrupted during this
period of reforms and state assets surrendered to domestic and foreign
private investors. The economic policies of establishing a truly self-
sufficiently Indian economy were abandoned and privatization became
wide spread. Economic liberalization pushed aside the long-term goals
of eliminating poverty in India and providing high standards of
living. The Indian agricultural sector was also infected by foreign
multi-national corporations through the so-called “Green Revolution.”
Before being appointed to the post of Indian Finance Minister, Dr.
Singh was decisive in creating the financial crisis in India through
coordination with the IMF. The policies of Dr. Singh by design also
left India without enough reserves to meet its financial commitments.
India was also deprived of the means to improve its economy by IMF
policies The origins of these policies became obvious when Indian
civil servants starting complaining of sloppy, American-style, and non-
British spelling, writing, and grammar in Indian government finance
documents and papers. As a result Indian national assets and wealth
were siphoned off and foreign control, including that of the Bank of
England, of Indian finances began. 1996 spelled the death of the Rao
Administration in India because of the backlash of economic
liberalization and the unpopularity of the government.
With the economic shifts of 1991 began the road down the path to
political shift. On May 22, 2004 the IMF’s man in New Delhi, Dr.
Singh, returned to office to became the Prime Minister of India. This
time political reforms including turning India’s back on the Non-
Alignment Movement (N.A.M.), Iran at the IAEA, and Russia’s aim to
realize the Primakov Doctrine were on the table.
India and the Manufactured “Clash of Civilizations” in Eurasia
In many Indian circles the colonial bonds with London are still strong
and there are views that New Delhi, or at least the Indian elites, are
natural members of the Anglo-American establishment. There is also a
taint of racial theory attached to these views with links to the caste
system and the Indian elite’s Aryan self-concepts. Huntington’s “Clash
of Civilizations” notion and Mackinder’s geo-strategic population
model are factors behind these views too. Resource competition,
demographics, and economic competition are seen as fuel that will
inevitably draw India and China into a clash for supremacy in Asia.
Is it primarily because of geography, amongst other factors, that
Indian Civilization (labeled as Hindu Civilization in regards to
Huntington’s model) is said to have a conflicting relationship or
affiliation with Chinese Civilization (labeled as Sinic Civilization
by Huntington’s model) and Islamic Civilization? This theory is short-
sighted; if true where are the centuries of fighting between Chinese
and Indian civilization? For the most part both lived in peace. The
same applied to Islamic Civilization.
A clash is not the natural ends of interaction between different
civilizations or societies. Interaction is always based initially on
trade and it is the form of economic trade and the aims of either
party that can result in a clash. Foreign powers that utilize a “Clash
of Civilizations” scheme do so because of the economy of control. A
mere reading of Anglo-American strategic doctrine and observations of
Anglo-American practices brings this to light.
A historical look will prove this to be wrong and actually illustrates
that Indian Civilization really overlaps with both Islamic
Civilization and Chinese Civilization. Moreover, it is wrong to
categorize the conflict between Pakistan and India as a conflict
between all Muslims and the nation-state of India or even any of the
internal fighting amongst Muslims and non-Muslims in India. Vedicists
(one of the proper names for Hindus) and Muslims, as well as several
other religions lived together in relative peace until the the start
of British involvement in India. [23] The animosity between Pakistan
and India is a synthetic construct where local elites and foreign
powers worked together, not only to divide territory, but to control
local groups that have lived together for hundreds of years by
alienating them from one another.
Why a “Clash of Civilizations” in Eurasia?
By extension of the utilization of the “Clash of Civilizations”
notion, which predates Samuel P. Huntington, India and Vedicism are
depicted as enemies by the Pakistani elites as a means of domestic
distraction and to direct internal tensions about social inequality
and injustice towards an outside source. The outside enemy, the
“other,” has always been used domestically to distract subject
populations by local leaders. In the case of the Indian sub-continent
certain native circles have jointly invested in continuing the British
policy of localized conflict as a means of monopoly.
In an over simplistic understanding, even if one were to use
Huntingon’s model to explain who benefits from civilizational conflict
because of global civilizational rivalry, it would have to be the
civilization with the most relationships due to the fact that it has
the most rivals to put down. In relation to trade a civilization with
the most relationships would also be in a position to initiate the
most clashes because it can afford to burn some of its bridges (or cut
ties) and is in a position to initiate clashes between other
civilizations.
Under a system of cooperation and fair-trade conflict of a grand scale
would not happen, but under a competitive international system pushing
for monopoly this is a direction being taken by the status quo. This
is where critics of global capitalism lament about the unnatural
nature of capitalism. This system, however, is not a system of
capitalism. It is fitting to apply a new term at this point:
ubercapitalism. Ubercapitalism is a system where the framework of
regulation, taxation, and law are controlled and directed by elites
for their own benefits. In Marxist-Leninist terms the state is an
agent of elite interests. Even the capitalist concept of laissez-fair
commerce is violated and disregarded because the state and the
business environment are controlled by these elites.
If there was fair-trade between these so-called civilizational
entities there would be no need for clashes, but this by itself does
not mean that there would altogether be no conflict. Ideology, faith,
and hubris are also factors, but in most cases ideology and faith have
been manipulated or constructed to support the economic structure and
to justify conflict and hierarchy. A lack of fair-trade or control
over finite resources necessitates manufactured conflict; this is the
only way the players controlling wealth can retain their positions.
Despite the talk about a “Clash of Civilizations” the most natural
path of social evolution is one of relative peace and cooperation. The
conceptualization of Latin America, India, Israel, the so-called West,
China, the Muslim countries, the Orthodox Christian countries, and the
Buddhist nations as different or distinct civilizations is also a
fallacy in itself and very abstract. Distinctions do exist, but they
are far less than the similarities and not enough to support
Huntington’s civilizational model.
New Delhi’s Trajectory: A Reversion to the British Raj?
Is reverting to the status quo of the British Raj? India has moved
beyond a policy of superalignment. India’s elites believe that to
achieve their place in the sun they must buy into the socio-economic
and political agenda of the so-called, “Core countries” — the global
financial power holders of the Periphery. India’s commitment to the
Non-Alignment Movement (N.A.M.) is also dead all but in name. The
foreign policy course that Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru had charted for
India has been abandoned.
Internally, for the last two decades India has been colonizing itself.
Communities and ethnic groups have been played agains one another.
These are both cases where local and foreign elites are working hand-
in-hand. The ruling elites, with the aid of the Indian government, are
appropriating all forms of recourses, rights, and property from
countless people to fuel the so-called economic liberalization process
with no regard for their fellow citizens. Water and national assets
are being privatized and virtual slave labour is, once again, being
institutionalized — everything that Mahatma Gandhi and his follower
worked hard to eliminate. The free trade deals being struck by the
U.S. and E.U. with India are a part of this process and have been
integrating India into the global economic order.
Hand-in-hand with India being part of a global economic order goes the
domination of Eurasia. India is on a serious path of militarization
that will lead New Delhi towards conflict with China. In such a war
both Asian giants would be losers and the U.S. and its allies the real
winners.
Due to their flexibility the Indian elite may still change course, but
there is a clear motion to exploit and mobilize India in Eurasia
against its neighbours and the major powers of Eurasia. This is the
true meaning, intent, nature, and agenda behind the so-called “Clash
of Civilizations” in Eurasia. The threat of a nuclear war between
China and India is real in the words of the Indian military, but what
is important to realize is that such a confrontation is part of a much
larger series of wars or a wide struggle between the powers of Eurasia
and the nations of the Periphery, led by the United States.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Reseach Associate of the Centre for
Research on Globalization (CRG) specializing in geopolitics and
strategic issues.
NOTES
[1] Indrani Bagchi, India-Japan strategic talks begin, The Times of
India, March 23, 2007.
[2] India to lay keel of new aircraft carrier on Saturday, Russian
News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), February 26, 2009.
[3] Pallavi Aiyar, India to conduct naval exercises with China, The
Hindu, April 12, 2007.
[4] Rajat Pandit, Going ballistic: India looks to joing elite missile
club, The Times of India, May 13, 2008.
[5] China’s new naval base triggers US concerns, Agence France-Presse
(AFP), May 12, 2008.
[6] Rahul Singh, Indian Army fears China attack by 2017, The Hindustan
Times, March 26, 2008.
[7] Commonwealth of Australia, Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific
Century: Force 2030, 2009.
[8] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Military Alliance: Encircling
Russia and China, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), May 10,
2007.
[9] India launches Israeli satellite in boost to space business,
Agence France-Presse, January 20, 2008.
[10] Yossi Melman, Satellite launch bolsters ability to spy on Tehran,
Haaretz, January 21, 2008.
[11] Yaakov Katz, Iran delayed satellite launch, The Jerusalem Post,
January 22, 2008.
[12] Israeli Satellite Launch: Harmful Course, People’s Democracy,
vol. 32, no. 6, February 10, 2008.
[13] Sandeep Dikshit, Tata-Israel Aerospace Industries ink memorandum
of understanding, The Hindu, February 18, 2008.
[14] Johan Nylander, Israel drops Indian venture under ‘US pressure,’
Agence France-Presse (AFP), July 6, 2009.
[15] Aaron S. Klieman, Israel and the World After 40 Years
(Washington:Pergamon-Brassey’s International Defense Publishers,
1990), p.92, pp.168–9, p.236.
[16] Infra. n.23.
[17] Sudha Ramachandran, India makes a soft landing in Tajikistan,
Asia Times, March 3, 2007.
[18] Jane Macartney, China accuses US naval ship of illegal surveying,
The Times (U.K.), March 10, 2009; Chris Buckley, China says U.S. naval
ship broke the law, Reuters, March 10, 2009.
[19] Atul Aneja, Iran, China will begin counter-piracy patrols, The
Hindu, December 22, 2008; Russia, China conduct anti-piracy exercises
in the Gulf of Aden, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA
Novosti), September 18, 2009.
[20] Klieman, Israel and thr World, Op. cit.
[21] Amelia Gentleman, France and India agree on atom deal, The New
York Times, February 20, 2006; India-France nuclear accord provides
opening for Areva, The New York Times, September 30, 2008.
[22] Kosovo legal issues being studied: Brazil, India, Agence France-
Presse (AFP), February 19, 2008; World split on Kosovo issue, Agence
France-Presse (AFP), February 19, 2008.
[23] Sanatana Dharma or Vedic Dharma (Vedicism) is the proper name for
Hinduism. The terms Hindu and Hinduism are misnomers, just as
Mohammedan and Mohammedanism are misnomers for Muslims and Islam. The
term Hindu is originally a geographic definition used by the ancient
Iranians to label all the peoples living in the lands of the Indus
Valley or east of the Indus River regardless of religious affinity or
faith. The term Hindu was later adopted by the Arabs who conquered
Sassanid Iran and then expanded towards the the Indian sub-continent.
As the Altaic peoples, such as Mongolian and Turkic-speaking tribes,
migrated westward in Eurasia they also adopted the term through
interaction with both the Iranians and the Arabs. At this time in
history and up to the rule of the Mugal Dynasty in India the term
Hindu started gaining popular and recurrent usage, but was still used
as an ethnographic term and not a religious identification label. The
Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, and Vidicists of India were all
called Hindus. It was during the colonial era that the British, who
ruled India, coined the English-language term/word Hinduism and
assigned the already existing and ancient Iranian term/word Hindu in
1830 to describe and designate the faiths and peoples of India
belonging to Vedicism. Hindus are in reality all the people of India.
The term Hindi, also used to label Indians and one of the main Indic
languages, comes from Hindustani which also reflects the geographic
nature and origins of the term Hindu; Hindustan means land of India
and Hindustani people of India.
Sid Harth
Saturday, October 17, 2009
United States, China, Russia and others are linked together in a small
financial world.
The Financial Times of London peppered its front page with jitter-
making headlines this weekend:
Bank of America reports $1bn loss; Six charged in $20m insider trade
case; and US budget deficit hit a record $1,400bn, for example.
BoA difficulties contrast with the wildly positive (for the investment
bank, at least) news about Goldman Sachs, along with the expectation
of huge bonuses for its employees. See Reference 1, below.
China is the largest foreign holder of United States T-bills. Recent
news, however, is that "China's US-debt holdings have dropped." The
blurb is from China Daily (10/17/09). Demand for long-term US assets
rose in August,with investors from other countries "buying $28.6
billion more in assets than they sold." To quote:
China cut its US Treasury-bill reserve by $3.4 billion to $797.1
billion in August . . . Japan, the second largest holder of the US
government debt, however, has boosted its Treasury securities from
$724.5 billion in July to $731 billion.
President Obama appears to be committed to a temporarily high deficit
to serve as part of the fix to the recent economic crisis. Jobs, the
lagging indicator of the state of our economy, will not start to come
back for some months.
In China the U.S. dollar is, surprisingly, not very weak, Floyd Norris
at the New York Times reports. And a wide range of foreign
currencies are rising against Chinese currency. But remember, China
pegs its currency to the U.S. dollar. Elsewhere, the weak dollar
means bargains for foreign purchasers of US goods and services.To
quote:
There is renewed talk about the weak dollar. But don’t believe it.
Where it really counts, the dollar is not moving at all.
In February, the dollar hit a high against most currencies amid fears
of worldwide recession and a desire for the safety of American
investments. It was then worth 80 euro cents, and 6.82 Chinese
renminbi.
. . . These days it seems to be in the short-term interests of both
countries for China to pursue its current policy. The Americans
desperately want someone to buy all the Treasuries that are being
issued to finance the stimulus program and bank bailouts, and China
wants to do whatever it can to stimulate its own economy.
This week, as the dollar neared 67 euro cents, it was still worth 6.82
renminbi.
The China-USA bargain will hold for the time being. The transaction
appears to be a balanced one for both nations.
Russia is an oil-dependent economy, according to Pravda. The IMF is
predicting that there will be some economic recovery in Russia because
of a rise in oil prices. Predictions are of $60 per barrel until the
end of the year and $75 in 2010. To quote:
The nation’s GDP will drop by 7.5 percent in 2009, which is a larger
number than in the previous report, but a smaller one if compared with
the expectations of the Russian government.
. . . The IMF’s World Economic Outlook said that the Russian economy
would start to grow in 2010. The inflation rate in 2009 will make up
12.3 percent and slide to 9.9 percent in 2010, Interfax reports.
. . . The World Bank expected that Russia’s GDP would return to the
pre-crisis level only at the end of the third quarter of 2012.
Russia and the United States apparently are willing to deal with each
other in a relatively equitable fashion. Secretary of State Clinton
felt comfortable enough recently to urge the Russians to give up "cold-
war thinking."
In America this post's concluding item will bring back some basis
understanding and reality after all the dizzying numbers. The BBC
News reports that Barbra Streisand is holding a great big charity
auction of "her most treasured possessions." Items to be sold are
those that will not fit into her newly consolidated house in Malibu.
The piece concludes:
The auction coincides with the release of Streisand's latest CD, which
debuted at at the top of the US album chart.
The singer is the first artist ever to have had a number one album in
five decades - her first was in 1964.
The proceeds from the sale of her household possessions will benefit
the Streisand Foundation, a charity that promotes humanitarian,
environmental and children's causes.
Some things stay the same. We love our celebrities. They in turn
often develop active lives of giving back in their later years.
Streisand, a Democrat, is no exception. Downsizing and philanthropy
will occupy her energies in the future. We are lucky, however, that
she is still willing to sing for us, too.
References: Current Tweets on the economy:
"Bailout Helps Revive Banks, and Bonuses http://bit.ly/1U12pO," is
from the New York Times (10/16/09).
"Happy days are here again--if you're Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan. By
@KatrinaNation http://bit.ly/vW7OS," is from The Nation Magazine
(10/16/09).
"A smidgen of optimism http://bit.ly/3jnv0G," is by Paul Krugman of
the New York Times (10/16/09).
"Summers challenges Wall Street to accept new regulations : Obama's
top economic adviser challenged financial ins.. http://bit.ly/O9xNg,"
is from The Hill (10/16/09).
Posted via email from Southwest Postings
Posted by Carol Gee at 2:59 PM
Sid Harth
Fareed ZakariaThe Recession’s Real Winner
China turns crisis into opportunity.
Published Oct 17, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Oct 26, 2009
One year ago, the leading governments of the world saved the global
economy. Remember October 2008: Lehman Brothers had disappeared, AIG
was teetering, every bank was watching its balance sheet collapse.
Around the world, credit had frozen and trade was grinding to a halt.
Then came a series of moves beginning in Washington—bank bailouts,
rescue packages, fiscal stimuli, and, most crucially, monetary easing.
It is not an exaggeration to say that these measures prevented a
depression. But the crisis has still fueled a major slowdown that has
affected every country in the world.
The great surprise of 2009 has been the resilience of the big emerging
markets—India, China, Indonesia—whose economies have stayed vibrant.
But one country has not just survived but thrived: China. The Chinese
economy will grow at 8.5 percent this year, exports have rebounded to
where they were in early 2008, foreign-exchange reserves have hit an
all-time high of $2.3 trillion, and Beijing's stimulus package has
launched the next great phase of infrastructure building in the
country. Much of this has been driven by remarkably effective
government policies. Charles Kaye, CEO of the global private-equity
firm Warburg Pincus, lived in Hong Kong for years. After his last trip
to China a few months ago he said to me, "All other governments have
responded to this crisis defensively, protecting their weak spots.
China has used it to move aggressively forward." It is fair to say
that the winner of the global economic crisis is Beijing. (Click here
to follow Fareed Zakaria.)
Almost every country in the Western world entered the crisis ill
prepared. Governments were spending too much money and running high
deficits, so when they had to spend massively to stabilize the
economy, deficits zoomed into the stratosphere. Three years ago,
European countries were required to have a budget deficit of less than
3 percent of GDP to qualify for EU membership. Next year, many will
have deficits of about 8 percent of GDP. The U.S. deficit will be
higher, in percentage terms, than at any point since World War II.
China entered the crisis in an entirely different position. It was
running a budget surplus and had been raising interest rates to tamp
down excessive growth. Its banks had been reining in consumer spending
and excessive credit. So when the crisis hit, the Chinese government
could adopt textbook policies to jump-start growth. It could lower
interest rates, raise government spending, ease up on credit, and
encourage consumers to start spending. Having been disciplined during
the fat years, Beijing could now ease up during the lean ones.
And look at the nature of China's stimulus. Most of U.S. government
spending is directed at consumption—in the form of subsidies, wages,
health benefits, etc. The bulk of China's stimulus is going toward
investment for future growth: infrastructure and new technologies.
Having built 21st-century infrastructure for its first-tier cities in
the last decade, Beijing will now build similar facilities for the
second tier.
China will spend $200 billion on railways in the next two years, much
of it for high-speed rail. The Beijing-Shanghai line will cut travel
times between those two cities from 10 hours to four. The United
States, by contrast, has designated less than $20 billion, to be
spread out over more than a dozen projects, thus guaranteeing their
failure. It's not just rail, of course. China will add 44,000 miles of
new roads and 100 new airports in the next decade. And then there is
shipping, where China has become the global leader. Two out of the
world's three largest ports are Shanghai and Hong Kong.
China is also well aware of its dependence on imported oil and is
acting in surprisingly farsighted ways. It now spends more on solar,
wind, and battery technology than the United States does. Research by
the investment bank Lazard Freres shows that of the top 10 companies
(by market capitalization) in these three fields, four are Chinese.
(Only three are American.) It is also making a massive investment in
higher education.
"For the last decade, as China's economy kept growing at unprecedented
rates, most Western analysts kept discussing when it would crash,"
says Zachary Karabell, the author of a smart new book, Superfusion, on
the Sino-U.S. economy. "Now with China surging ahead through this
crisis, all they can discuss is, when will China stall? It's as if
they see the facts, but they can't quite make sense of them." China's
strange mixture of state intervention, markets, dictatorship, and
efficiency is puzzling. But it's time to stop hoping for China's
failure and start understanding and adapting to its success.
Fareed Zakaria is editor of NEWSWEEK International and author of The
Post-American World and The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at
Home and Abroad.
© 2009
bademiyansubhanallah
China’s Scramble for African Assets May Stumble as Rivals Swoop
By Carli Lourens and John Duce
Oct. 19 (Bloomberg) -- China’s plans to buy into oil fields in Africa
may suffer a third setback in as many months if Exxon Mobil Corp.
succeeds in snapping up drilling rights in Ghana, one of the
continent’s newest oil nations.
Closely held Kosmos Energy LLC said last week it agreed to sell its
stake in Ghana’s Jubilee oil field to Exxon Mobil, which may thwart
ambitions in the same area by Cnooc Ltd., the listed arm of China
National Offshore Oil Corp. While Ghanaian government officials say
the Exxon deal, worth about $4 billion according to a person familiar
with the transaction, has not been officially approved, Chinese
explorers have hit hurdles since July on other oil deals in Angola and
Libya.
At stake is China’s ability to secure fuel for its economy, which
expanded 7.9 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier.
China’s oil companies in Africa are diversifying from construction
projects as a means to gain access to mineral resources, and turning
to strategies that include Western deal structures and local banks. In
the process, it’s competing with some of the world’s biggest oil
companies in the U.S. and Europe also seeking resources in the
region.
“The Chinese are frustrated that they’re not doing more deals,” said
Kobus van der Wath, group managing director of The Beijing Axis, which
advises Chinese companies expanding overseas. “The interest, intent
and general capacity to do deals is far greater.” He estimates non-
financial investments in Africa may climb as high as $3 billion this
year, double the 2008 level.
Secure Supplies
Since Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited seven African nations in 2006
and promised to double aid, establish a $5 billion investment fund and
provide $3 billion in loans, China’s energy companies have announced
plans to spend at least $16 billion on oil and gas fields on the
continent.
“Chinese oil companies are very keen to gain stakes in large oilfields
that are nearing production or are in the development stages,” said
Thomas Grieder, a London-based analyst at market intelligence firm IHS
Global Insight. “The government is keen to secure long-term
supplies.”
China’s economy will need more than 11 million barrels of oil a day in
five years, 38 percent more than last year, according to Paul Ting,
president of New Jersey-based Paul Ting Energy Vision LLC, a Chinese
oil and gas consultant.
On Aug. 27, Cnooc said it will step up exploration and acquisitions to
meet fuel demand in China. Chairman Fu Chengyu said the company
changed its overseas strategy to focus on taking stakes in ventures
rather than buying out companies after failing to acquire Unocal Corp.
in 2005.
Cnooc-Ghana Talks
On Oct. 14, Ghana’s Energy Ministry spokesman Michael Sarpong said
Cnooc was in talks with Ghanaian officials, without giving details.
His comment followed a Wall Street Journal report on Oct. 12 that said
Cnooc was negotiating with Ghana National Petroleum Corp. to bid for
Kosmos’s stake in Jubilee. Xiao Zongwei, a spokesman for Cnooc,
declined to comment on the article, which cited unidentified people.
Ghana National Petroleum, known as GNPC, is “still in discussions”
with Kosmos to acquire the stake, Thomas Manu, its director of
exploration and production, said Oct. 13. “GNPC will acquire the stake
and then consider proposals from other companies” to take on as
partners, he said.
Further south off Angola, Cnooc’s $1.3 billion bid to buy 20 percent
of an oil block from Marathon Oil Corp. may be held up after Marathon
said the Angolan government and other partners have rights of first
refusal. That bid was announced in July with China Petroleum &
Chemical Corp., known as Sinopec.
‘Intense’ Competition
The competition for overseas energy assets is “intense,” Su Shulin,
President of Sinopec Group, said in an interview in Beijing Oct. 15.
“There are opportunities in overseas acquisitions, but there are also
many people looking at them.”
Cnooc’s Xiao declined to comment on reports the deal to sell Marathon
Oil’s stake to Cnooc and Sinopec has been delayed by Angola’s
government. Huang Wensheng, spokesman for Sinopec, said the company
has no information on whether Angola has blocked the deal and declined
to comment further.
Separately, Libya vetoed a C$499 million ($482 million) bid last month
by China National Petroleum Corp., the Asian nation’s biggest oil and
gas company, for Calgary-based Verenex Energy Inc., which has stakes
in the North African country.
China National Offshore Oil expressed interest in Tullow Oil Plc’s oil
finds in Uganda as the U.K. explorer with the most licenses in Africa
started compiling a short list of potential bidders for a stake in a
project in the country.
Lake Albert
Tullow said Sept. 17 the Ngassa oil field in Uganda may be the largest
discovery in the Lake Albert Rift Basin. The Chinese explorer is
interested in investing in the project, according to Brian Glover,
Tullow Uganda’s country manager.
Tullow said about 10 companies had pre-qualified to work on the field.
He was commenting after Dow Jones on Oct. 2 cited an unnamed official
at Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni’s office saying Cnooc had held
talks with Uganda on joining a project. Tamale Mirundi, a spokesman
for Museveni, would neither confirm nor deny talks, while Cnooc’s Xiao
declined to comment.
In West Africa, China Petrochemical Corp., or Sinopec Group, the
nation’s second-largest oil company, acquired Swiss-based Addax
Petroleum Corp. this year for C$8.3 billion ($8 billion), adding oil
reserves in Nigeria, Cameroon and Gabon.
China National Offshore Oil is also among companies in talks to buy 16
production licenses in the West African nation, Olusegun Adeniyi, a
spokesman for Nigeria’s President Umaru Yar’Adua, said in an e-mail on
Sept. 29.
Chinese direct investment in Africa surged 81 percent in the first
half to $552 million from a year earlier, according to an Aug. 18
report by China’s Ministry of Commerce.
In Nigeria, Africa’s biggest oil producer, China’s strategy has
evolved and oil-for-infrastructure deals are “dead,” Gregory Mthembu-
Salter wrote in a September research paper for the South African
Institute of International Affairs.
“The model has been replaced by one in which Chinese energy companies
gain access to the country’s oil resources by buying stakes in
established companies.”
To contact the reporters on this story: Carli Lourens in Johannesburg
at clou...@bloomberg.net; John Duce in Hong Kong at
Jdu...@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 18, 2009 17:23 EDT
bademiyansubhanallah
China growth hits 7pct in first 9 months: official
(AFP) – 1 hour ago
BEIJING — China's economy grew between seven and eight percent year-on-
year in the first nine months of 2009, a senior official with the
country's top economic planning agency said Monday.
Beijing's four-trillion-yuan (586-billion-dollar) stimulus package,
unveiled in November last year, "has played a very good role in the
recovery of the Chinese economy," said Xiong Bilin, a vice director
general of the National Development and Reform Commission.
The economic growth for the first three quarters means "there should
be no problem" in achieving the government's full-year goal of eight
percent, Xiong told a press conference.
China, the world's third-largest economy, is due to announce official
third-quarter gross domestic product data on or about October 22.
The Chinese economy expanded 7.1 percent in the first half from a year
earlier, after growing 6.1 percent in the first quarter and 7.9
percent in the second.
Beijing sees eight percent growth as essential for job creation and
keeping a lid on social unrest.
China enjoyed years of blistering double-digit growth until the global
financial downturn, which crimped overseas demand for Chinese-made
products and slowed the country's rate of economic expansion.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.
bademiyansubhanallah
What is China doing in Guinea?
Are China's investments in Guinea a callous grab for resources, or
much-needed support for a struggling African economy?
Chris Alden guardian.co.uk, Monday 19 October 2009 11.30 BST
Reports that China is financing investments to the tune of $7bn in
military-ruled Guinea in exchange for access to its resources have re-
ignited western fears about Chinese activities in Africa. Portrayed as
a callous grab for resources that ignores the recent killing of
Guinean opposition protesters by government troops, closer analysis of
the situation reveals as much about foreign perceptions of China in
Africa as its does about one of the continent's most significant
economic relationships.
The tragedy of politics in Guinea, a country scarred by decades of
autocratic rule that has produced little in the way of development, is
being played out yet again under the tutelage of Moussa Dadis Camara.
A captain who overthrew the government in December 2008, Camara has
seen his domestic support progressively wither alongside rising
African and international criticism. Faced by the threat of diplomatic
isolation, his government is desperate to demonstrate its capacity to
attract foreign finance – especially after a state-owned Chinese
company, Chinalco, called off a deal in April 2009 to acquire rights
to Guinea's iron ore resources in exchange for large-scale financing
of local infrastructure projects. At the time, the Chinese government
declared it was responding to international "sensitivities" – assumed
to be the African Union's deep unease at the Guinean regime's attempts
to illegally transfer Rio Tinto's licensing rights to Chinese
interests.
The latest claims that the Chinese International Fund – a joint
Chinese-Angolan finance venture based in Hong Kong – has agreed to a
deal in Guinea have yet to be corroborated by Chinese sources, casting
doubt on the veracity of the report (and echoing pre-emptive claims of
multi-billion dollar deals with China by other African governments).
Given the criticism faced by Camara, as well as Chinese business's
growing wariness in operating in African environments, it is strange
that this deal would either be approved by Beijing or – as a private
financial transaction – need that approval. Finally, coming within a
few weeks of the fourth Forum on China-Africa Co-operation in Egypt,
this news from Guinea threatens to crowd out the positive development
message that the Chinese government believes is overwhelmingly the
case with China's engagement in other parts of the continent.
The most significant news on China's role in Africa is that as the
continent's second-largest trading partner and a major investor, it
remains committed to being involved. The onset of the international
financial crisis has underscored the inability of Africa to escape
some of the worst features of any global recession, including the
volatility of the commodity prices that propel African growth, and the
drying-up of sources of credit and investment. The possibility of
longer-term setbacks to the continent's plans for economic recovery
plans cannot be ruled out.
While China has been affected by the global economic crisis, it has
been able to offset some of its worst impacts through financial
prudence. With over $2tn in foreign reserves, the Chinese government
has emerged from the crisis in a unique position. Given its huge
demand for resources, China's need and ability to develop closer
economic ties with Africa are still on track. While some G8 countries
are reneging on their aid commitments to Africa and private financial
institutions are scrambling to rebalance their books, China has
publicly demonstrated its continued commitment towards Africa by
confirming that aid levels will be maintained at the same time that it
has signalled its willingness to invest in stable African economies.
Whereas once Beijing felt it could only gain access to African
resources by working with western-designated "pariahs", today China no
longer seeks new African markets as much as stable, long-term
relationships. The days of the military junta in Guinea are numbered
and, despite its attempts to claim China as a new source of support,
the Chinese government knows this too.
chhotemianinshallah
'India to Tackle Boundary Issue with China Bilaterally'
New Delhi | Oct 19, 2009
Against the backdrop of the war of words with China over Arunachal
Pradesh, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh today said India will "tackle"
the boundary question with the neighbouring country bilaterally.
Singh said this to a delegation from Arunachal Pradesh led by Chief
Minister Dorji Khandu which requested him to review the defence
strategy for the eastern sector in view of incursions by Chinese
troops and other developments.
"The Prime Minister told us not to worry. He said the Centre will
tackle with the situation bilaterally," Congress MP from Arunachal
West Takam Sanjoy, who was part of the delegation, said.
Sanjoy said the Chief Minister requested the Prime Minister to give a
big push to infrastructure development to ensure better surveillance
over Chinese activities.
The delegation also urged Singh to create a para-military force
comprising youths from the state only.
"We demanded formation of Arunachal Scouts comprising only youths from
the state as they are willing to join the forces to defend their
territory," Sanjoy said adding that the delegation also expressed
concern over reports of a dam being constructed by China on river
Brahmaputra.
“We told the Prime Minister that the dam will change the entire course
of the river which will have catastrophic impact on the entire
region,” the MP said.
China, which lays claim over Arunachal Pradesh, recently objected to
the Prime Minister’s visit to the state leading to a war of words
between the two countries.
Besides responding strongly to the Chinese objection, India retaliated
by questioning China’s engagement in projects in Pakistan-occupied
Kashmir (PoK) and asked it to stop such activities taking a “long-term
view” of India-China relations.
The delegation, in its memorandum, also requested Singh to take all
measures to ensure success of the upcoming visit of Tibetan spiritual
leader Dalai Lama to the state next month. China has also objected to
the proposed visit of the Dalai Lama.
chhotemianinshallah
National / Opinion Magazine | Oct 26, 2009
Ground reality: The site of the Pokhran-II blasts opinion
Non-Fissile Doubts
One nuclear lie puts our entire strategic decision-making at stake
P.K. Iyengar
What DAE Says
•Combined yield of Pokhran-II tests was 57 kt: 12 kt for the fission
device; 45 kt for the TN one
•International seismologists got yield wrong because of the geological
nature of Pokhran-II site
•Claims Pokhran-II yield was 4.45 times Pokhran-I, so TN device worked
•Iyengar can’t be sure about his calculations because he doesn’t know
the parameters of the device.
•The radiochemical test of the Pokhran-II site proves its yield
measurements were as expected
•The ratio of Mn54 to Ce144 shows fusion took place in excess of
fission.
***
What Iyengar Says
•If so sure, why doesn’t DAE make public the video recording of the
ground motion during the test?
•If international seismologists got Pokhran-I readings right, they
wouldn’t get Pokhran II wrong, since site geology was more or less the
same
•Pokhran-I yielded 8 kt. So, total yield at 4.45 times works to 36 kt.
Since DAE assigned 12 kt for fission device, leaves only 24 kt for TN
one.
•Says only 10 per cent of LiD fusion material burnt. His formula was
confirmed by S.K. Sikka, then head of the BARC design team.
•Says error margins in the radiochemical residual analysis too large
•Both fission & fusion neutrons produce Mn 54, DAE ratio no
confirmation***
Recent revelations by Dr K. Santhanam, who was the field director
during Pokhran-II, have once again brought into focus doubts regarding
the thermonuclear test of May 11, 1998. Thermonuclear weapons are
crucial to a credible deterrent because they are much lighter than
fission weapons and therefore more suitable for deployment on
missiles. Thus, fission weapons are sufficient only if your deterrence
is restricted to targets located close to you. By contrast,
thermonuclear weapons are not only lighter but also have explosive
powers ranging from tens of kilotons to megatons, all coming largely
from Lithium (Li) which is much cheaper than the plutonium used in the
fission process. True, a thermonuclear explosion has as its trigger a
fission device, but here the quantity of plutonium required is much
smaller than in a purely fission weapon of comparable yield.
Minor variations in the site geology of the ’98 tests couldn’t have
accounted for reduction in yield by half compared to ’74.
The basic design of nuclear devices must be validated through
underground explosions before weaponising, underlining the necessity
of being absolutely sure that the test carried out is beyond any
doubt. Therefore, considering the doubts over the Pokhran-II tests,
what’s at stake is the credibility of our nuclear deterrence and, even
more importantly, of our strategic decision-making process. No one
understands this better than the armed forces, who will be the users
of these weapons. Since it’s they who are responsible for national
security, they must be convinced about the success of our nuclear
tests and our nuclear deterrence—not politicians or bureaucrats. By
all accounts, they don’t seem to be in the loop.
At a press conference on September 24, 2009, the principal scientific
advisor to the government, Dr R. Chidambaram, and the chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), Dr Anil Kakodkar, sought to address
the ‘doubts’ raised by Dr Santhanam about the efficacy of the
thermonuclear (TN) test. Were their clarifications adequate?
First, the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) claims that the combined
yield of the fission and TN devices tested simultaneously was around
57 kilotonnes (kt). Dr Santhanam, who was in charge of the
measurements at the site, claims that the S2 (shaft-2) site in which
the fission device was detonated gave a yield of 25 kt and the TN
device in S1 gave much less. International seismologists, with rich
experience in operating a sophisticated seismic array, all converge on
a total yield not greater than 30 kt. The DAE claims that the fission
device yielded 12 kt and the TN device 45 kt. It isn’t scientifically
possible to reconcile these two claims even though the then NSA
convened a meeting to resolve this issue.
The volume of the disturbed zone is assumed, not measured, thus
resulting in an error of +/-20, not +/-10 per cent.
Santhanam’s revelations confirm that the fission device created, as
expected, a crater similar to that of Pokhran-I. It’s clear that the
shock intensity reaching the ground in the S1 shaft was certainly
weaker and was due to the much lesser yield of the TN device compared
to what is being claimed. Video recording of the ground motion could
confirm the poorer upthrust of ground, but neither the DAE nor the
Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has released this
for the public.
Second, the teleseismic recordings and their analysis from a large
number of stations can’t be ignored. They had reported 8 kt for
Pokhran-I, which was conducted in 1974, and was close to our own
measurements. It’s erroneous to argue that minor variations in the
site geology of the 1998 tests could lower the signals to account for
reduced yield by as much as half (the DAE’s 57 kt as against the 30 kt
of others.)
Third, one of DAE’s estimates was made on the basis of a comparative
study, giving the yield of Pokhran-II relative to that of Pokhran-I.
The rationale for this is that since the location was almost the same,
many of the uncertainties regarding the soil composition etc could be
removed by such a calculation. The Bhabha Atomic Research Centre
(BARC) calculated that the Pokhran-II yield was 4.45 times the Pokhran-
I yield. (Others estimated it to be only 2-3 times.) Taking the
Pokhran-I yield as close to 8 kt, as I know it as its project head,
the total yield of Pokhran-II works to only 36 kt, leaving only 24 kt
for the TN device (since the DAE claims 12 kt for the fission test).
This is closer to the international evaluation, though slightly
higher.
What was the depth the devices were kept at? After Pokhran-I, we
declared it to be 107 m. Why is it a secret for Pokhran-II?
Fourth, the DAE concedes that the TN device consisted of a boosted-
fission trigger and the secondary fusion core. There was also probably
a fission ‘spark-plug’ in the core of the TN device (and I say this
because this would be a sensible, conservative design for a first TN
device; in which case some energy would come from it too. But this
hasn’t been revealed). So, part of the TN yield would have come from
the boosted-fission trigger and part from the fusion burn. In 2000, I
had liberally estimated this ratio to be 1:1. This was later agreed to
by Dr S.K. Sikka as well, who was the scientific head of the BARC
design team. With this number for the thermonuclear burn—12 kt (the
other 12 kt coming from the fission trigger in that 1:1 ratio)—I have
calculated that only around 250 gm of the LiD (Lithium-6 Deuteride)
fusion material would have burnt. I know for sure that the BARC has
the means to make highly enriched Li-6 from 1970. This amount of LiD
translates to a core size of around 4 cm in radius, too small for a
realistic size of an LiD core. It’s more likely that around 2 kg of
LiD (8 cm radius) was used, in which case the burn efficiency would be
around 10 per cent. The core’s shape could have been different from
spherical.
Fifth, the DAE has quoted the radiochemical method as an accurate
method of estimating the yield. However, it depends upon where the
sample came from, and the methodology used. In an unreviewed paper by
BARC published in the BARC Newsletter, where even scales are not
marked on the graphs, they have claimed 50 kt as the yield (for the TN
device), with an error of +/- 10 kt. This error range clearly shows
that the methodology is suspect. In the case of atmospheric
explosions, one could pick the samples from the very centre of the
device and thus be more accurate. For the fusion device, one has to
rely on the activity produced by fusion neutrons. This is difficult
because a good part of the fission neutron spectrum also produces the
same radioactive isotopes, thus complicating the problem. BARC
scientists themselves agree that there are uncertainties regarding the
volume of the disturbed zone which is assumed and not measured, thus
resulting in an error of +/- 20 per cent. I have therefore very little
faith in this radiochemical analysis, a view which is corroborated by
senior retired radiochemists.
For the same amount of energy release, there would be 12 times more
fusion than fission events. The fission product Ce144 (Cerium-144) is
a small fraction of the fission fragments. The fast fission neutrons
and the 14 MeV (million electronic volts) fusion neutrons both produce
Mn54 (Manganese 54). The ratio of Mn54 to Ce144 therefore does not
necessarily prove that fusion has occurred in excess of fission. The
gamma ray spectrum does not prove anything. It only shows that the
detector has good resolution irrespective of how the Mn54 was
produced.
There are other questions to be asked. For example, what was the depth
at which the devices were placed? After Pokhran-I, we immediately
declared the depth to be 107 m, since this had nothing to do with the
design of the device. Why is it that information about Pokhran-II
being kept secret? Secondly, were any measurements made of the tritium
concentration at the site? If the boosted-fission trigger worked, then
the lithium in the LiD would have been converted to tritium by the
neutrons. If the fusion worked as designed, the tritium would have
fused with the deuterium and formed He-4 (helium-4). Therefore, a
large tritium concentration left behind would suggest that the fission
trigger worked, but the fusion part is suspect.
These grave doubts about the efficacy of the TN device should be
cleared before any attempt at weaponisation. It’s imperative that the
government responds to this crisis immediately, with a detailed, if
necessary confidential, review by knowledgeable experts. It’s said
that the AEC has already conducted this review. While the AEC
comprises very distinguished bureaucrats and scientists, I’m sure that
none of them, except Dr Kakodkar, would call himself an expert on
nuclear devices or even nuclear physics. Others argue that it would be
unwise to rake up the issue now, embarrassing as it is for India.
Isn’t it worse to build a nuclear strategy on foundations that are
suspect?
Did anyone measure the tritium concentration? A large concentration
would mean the fission trigger worked, fusion was suspect.
The Pokhran-II controversy also raises issues about the nature of our
policymaking. Plurality of opinions and inputs is essential to the
democratic process and for correctly assessing situations and taking
the right decisions. This ethos is present in most areas; that’s why
we are a nation of committees! But when it comes to strategic matters,
particularly in scientific matters, there’s a deplorable tendency, in
the name of secrecy, to listen to only one opinion. The earlier
statements of Brajesh Mishra, and even Prime Minister Manmohan Singh,
only reinforce this impression. The problem is exacerbated by the
growing interference of politicians in scientific matters, and perhaps
by the growing politicisation of science and scientists. Consequently,
you have an impenetrable nexus, which makes scientific decision-making
impossible.
Before the event: Vajpayee should have referred to experts
Before Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee declared India as a weapon
power and announced no first-use and a unilateral moratorium, he and
his advisors should have satisfied themselves by referring to experts
and not gone entirely by the claims of the two scientists, Chidambaram
and A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, particularly after the DRDO raised doubts.
Instead, those doubts were buried without being given a scientific
hearing. The government also seems to have used those two scientists
to bring about a softening of political opinion on the Comprehensive
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
Weapons design and testing is a specialised field, but it isn’t an
exclusive club. Much of the information is available openly nowadays,
in books and on the internet! Also, there exists sufficient expertise
within the county to do a genuine peer review of the thermonuclear
test, which will be in the best interest of the nation.
In the broader policymaking context, I propose that the government
should immediately form a special advisory group of experts outside of
the administration, and therefore uninfluenced by government, but
having a central advisory role in decision-making in sensitive
strategic areas—like the JASON committee in the US. Of course, it
would be easy for the government to constitute this group in a manner
that serves its own purposes, but it should realise that it is in the
nation’s, and therefore ultimately in the government’s, best interests
that such a group is genuinely expert, independent, and unafraid.
Governments should realise that though they may have strong political
compulsions to act in one manner or another, when it comes to science
and technology, individual opinions and diktats don’t matter, and only
objectivity and an open-minded approach can find the best way forward
for the country. I can foresee that in the near future the government
may have to take decisions on nuclear policies which will have grave
consequences for India’s future.
(The author is a former chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission and
was the project head of Pokhran-I.)
Oct 19, 2009 07:55 PM
3 Like Mr.Santhanam, it appears that the author is also trying to get
out of retirement and hoping that he is invited( in suggesting that
they use experts for deciding nuclear policies).
It must be noted that nuclear policies is as much political decision,
and political parties , whether we like it or not, are the
representatives to decide what is in nation's interest.
Manoj
Hyderabad, India
Oct 17, 2009 07:47 PM
2 Here they start again! The mindless jingos who do not have taste/
test for the real thing.
MANISH BANERJEE
KOLKATA, India
Oct 17, 2009 07:40 PM
1 Here it starts again !
a k ghai
mumbai, India
Sid Harth
China projects Kashmir as a separate country
Indo-Asian News Service
Kathmandu, October 19, 2009
First Published: 15:15 IST(19/10/2009)
Last Updated: 15:22 IST(19/10/2009)
Besides issuing separate visas to Indian passport holders from Jammu
and Kashmir, China is also projecting the disputed territory as an
independent country in other ways.
Visitors to Tibet, especially journalists invited by the Chinese
government, are given handouts where Kashmir is indicated as a country
separate from India.
Media kits providing "basic information" about Tibet - which China
attacked and annexed in the 1950s - says Tibet "borders with India,
Nepal, Myanmar and Kashmir area".
Except the "Kashmir area", the other three are sovereign countries.
Maps too, available in China, Myanmar and Nepal, show an India denuded
of Kashmir.
Also, China's policy of extending assistance to only the government of
a country indicates it considers India's nuclear rival and neighbour
Pakistan to be in control of Pakistan-administered Kashmir by offering
financial assistance to build a dam on the Indus river there.
China, now locked in a row with India, is also asking for the
tightening of the open border between India and Nepal that, it says,
is abetting anti-China activities and demonstrations by Tibetans
crossing into Nepal from India.
Beijing is also indirectly asking for the closure of the seat of the
Dalai Lama, the exiled leader of the Tibetans, in Dharamshala in
India, hinting that such a step would improve India-China relations.
China, which fought a war with India in 1962, says Arunachal Pradesh
belongs to it. India says it is an integral and inalienable part of
India.
On the eve of the Dalai Lama's visit to Arunachal Pradesh in November,
China has been hurrying Nepal to deploy armed security forces along
the border between northern Nepal and Tibet.
Both Nepal's Home Minister Bhim Rawal and Prime Minister Madhav Kumar
Nepal recently visited Mustang, the northernmost district in Nepal to
assess the security plan.
Mustang was once both part of an ancient Tibetan kingdom and later the
base of anti-China guerrilla attacks by Tibet's Khampa warriors.