mediavigil

Energy Policies Adverse Impact Climate

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 08:27:00 +0000

International Energy Agency shared early excerpts of the World Energy Outlook 2009 to inform the climate change negotiations leading into Copenhagen that continuing with today’s energy policies would lead to severe climate change impacts. It noted that if right policies put in place promptly, this could help to achieve 450 ppm but some wondered whether it will be adequate.

Meanwhile developing countries are opposed to “the concerted efforts to put the Kyoto Protocol aside. There has to be come comparability between the US and EU commitments. Now there is uncertainty regarding law, scope and nature of commitments, said Shyam Saran, the PM’s Special Envoy on Climate Change in Bangkok. He explained that their proposal for funding sources in the form of assessed contributions from developed countries was based on the experiences of the Group of G-77 and China. He said financing provided through existing institutions outside the Convention has been inadequate and he highlighted the need for a compliance mechanism for monitoring how developed countries implement their financial commitments.

Saran noted that 40% reduction (by developed countries) is a rather reasonable target for 2020. Most missed their targets for the first commitment period. We need significant cuts in the second commitment period. The National Action Climate plan (to cut emissions) sets out national actions and not international obligations.
Historical responsibility is an integral part of determining the equitable basis on which a new climate change relationship can be fashioned. The Kyoto is a valid legal document and the negotiations taking place right now have nothing to do with bringing in another protocol. We are not only focusing on carbon emissions, we have a much broader agenda in terms of climate action plan. We don't see that scale of resources (to fund mitigation measures in developing and least developed countries) being made available. We need to look at the IPR regime to make (climate change) technologies, public good. To talk about any deviation from business as usual and not talk about how this is to be supported by technology and finance is simply not saleable. There are commitments, which have to be undertaken by the developed countries and appropriate actions to be taken by the developing countries. Its not on an equal level.

Supporting the Indian stance, China’s Climate Change Envoy, Yu Qing-tai said that ”Ëveryone is born equal” and it was “politically and morally incorrect and unacceptable” that someone who was born Chinese had only a limited entitlement to atmospheric space. There is a concerted effort to put an end to Kyoto Protocol. It is clear that our partners in developed world are not interested in entering into serious discussions on targets for emission reduction".

New multilateral institutions on the lines of the World Bank to manage funding for countries to adapt to gobal warming should not be “donor-driven, to reflect the priorities of the donor community. We are talking about entitlements, not aid," Saran said.

He cited a German colleague saying, “Some 60-70% of such technologies are already available,” he said. “We need a zero-tariff regime on these and eco-friendly goods.
There was an ëxtraordinary responsibility”to spread these technologies as well as a global mechanism to adapt them to different regions, which is why India was advocating regional innovation centres."

Venezuela has emphasized that “99% of the text” reflects proposals by developed countries on market mechanisms and stressed that the text should better reflect proposals by developing countries. South Africa, China and India, Venezuela and Singapore stressed that this subparagraph of the BAP addresses “various approaches,” not just markets.

The US noted that it is uncertain “what the configuration of Copenhagen might be regarding the fate of the Kyoto Protocol” and suggested addressing such uncertainty by adding language that: “the COP shall take decisions necessary to enable the applicability of the CDM under this agreement.”

Algeria noted that countries wishing to use the CDM could ratify the Protocol.
The EU clarified that their intention is “not to step away from the Protocol,” but to build on it. It explained that their preferred outcome from Copenhagen would be an integrated instrument that incorporates key elements from the Protocol, including:
binding QELROs; robust reporting consistent with Protocol Articles 5, 7 and 8; strong compliance; and the flexibility mechanisms. It stressed the intention to: strengthen the legally binding framework for all parties; retain the CDM; and integrate new market mechanisms as voluntary tools for developing countries to engage in cost-effective mitigation. He noted efforts by the EU, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand and others to consolidate their proposals on new mechanisms and provide streamlined text.

Brazil stressed that for his country, the continuity of the Protocol is one of “the key aspects of the Copenhagen outcome” and noted that selectively picking elements from the Protocol would weaken the entire regime.

India has proposed the establishment of a new financial mechanism under Convention Article 11 (financial mechanism). It said only funding channeled through the financial mechanism should count towards the fulfillment of Annex II parties’ financial obligations. Japan and US cautioned against creating new bureaucratic
organizations, noting the need to reconsider the role and scope of the existing funds under the Convention and Protocol in order to avoid duplication. US clarified that their proposal for a global climate fund envisaged new arrangements and not the
creation of a new institution.

G-77 and China stressed that the group’s mandate is to consider the “full, sustained and effective implementation of the Convention,” particularly implementation of Convention Articles 4.1(c) and 4.5 (technology transfer) and urged parties not to
digress from this mandate.

China and India stressed the importance of deep emission reductions by Annex I parties in the second commitment period for “a strong and robust carbon price.”
INDIA warned that the proposed new mechanisms would “flood the market” with cheap credits. China identified the need to define the concept of supplementarity to avoid “mainstreaming” offsetting, specifying that the figure can be further discussed but that it should be below 50%. India proposed that caps on the use of offsets could be scaled according to Annex I countries’ circumstances, such as historical responsibility or sustainable lifestyles.

Interestingly, Norway, the Russian Federation, New Zealand noted that where emission reductions take place is irrelevant for the atmosphere. While the EU recognized the importance of supplementarity and domestic action, it emphasized the role of mitigation potential in determining the amount of emission reductions to be achieved through offsetting, and identified the need to “let the market play.”

Heated discussions on the fate of the Kyoto Protocol also surfaced during the day both in contact groups and in informal consultations. Some of those participating in the AWG-LCA subgroup on various approaches to mitigation commented on the
proposal by the US to introduce language that would include the CDM in an agreement reached under the AWG-LCA. “The US interest in the CDM is obviously welcome news,” remarked one delegate. “I am increasingly worried about the Protocol,” said
another: “If we start discussing the CDM under the AWG-LCA, it means that the AWG-KP will just die - and I don’t want the blood of the Protocol on my hands,” he explained. “It seems that many developed countries are ready to finish off the Protocol,” opined another.

The divide between developed and developing countries on the fate of the Protocol became more evident under the AWGKP in the evening when a small group convened to discuss the legal implications of the Protocol being submerged under a new agreement. Several developing countries stressed that the question was political rather than a legal one, and opposed any discussions implying that the Protocol would cease to exist in the future. Several developing country delegates, in fact,
reportedly walked out of the meeting after expressing this view.

The financial and economic crisis has led to delay in the investments in polluting
technologies. Consequently, CO2 emissions is expected to fall in 2009 by as much as
3% - steeper than at any time in the last 40 years, finds the International Energy
Agency's new study. This would lead to emissions in 2020 being 5% lower – even in the
absence of additional policies -- than the IEA estimated just twelve months ago. The
economic downturn has thereby created an opportunity to put the global energy
system on a trajectory to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at 450 parts per million
(ppm) of CO2-equivalent, in line with an increase in global temperature of around 2
degrees Celsius.

The IEA 450 ppm Scenario sees the use of fossil fuels peak before 2020, and energyrelated CO2 emissions just 6% higher in 2020 than in 2007. Relative to a Reference Scenario of current policies, emissions in 2020 would need to be reduced by 3.8 gigatonnes (Gt) worldwide to achieve the 450 Scenario. 1.6 Gt of this reduction occurs in OECD countries, while policies and measures in China – already being considered by the Chinese government – account for 1 Gt of emissions reductions, more than anywhere else. This underlines the leading role China will play in the global combat against climate change.

To achieve this energy revolution, incremental investment of USD 10 trillion will be
necessary between 2010 and 2030 in the energy sector - equivalent to 0.5% of global
GDP in 2020, rising to 1.1% of GDP in 2030. Yet fuel savings across industry,
transport and buildings total USD 8.6 trillion between today and 2030, similar to the
additional investment in these sectors.

In 2020, the energy sector in non OECD countries would need to make USD 200
billion of extra investments in clean power, energy-efficiency measures in industry
and buildings and next-generation hybrid and electric vehicles. For this, developing
countries will need some financial support from OECD countries. OECD domestic
investment needs amount to a further USD 215 billion in 2020. But the benefits, in
terms of energy savings, reduced fuel imports and air quality improvements offset
much of this extra cost, not to mention the fact that this will help to avoid extreme
climate change.

The IEA 450 scenario is the energy pathway to Green Growth. Yet we need to act urgently and now. Every year of delay adds an extra USD 500 billion to the investment needed between 2010 and 2030 in the energy sector.

The WEO-2009 excerpt sets out, for key countries and regions (including the United
States, Japan, the European Union, Russia, China and India), the energy
transformation that each might undertake, sector by sector, if the world were to adopt a 450ppm trajectory. It also describes the current trends in energy use and emissions in a fully updated Reference Scenario, detailing the implications of current policies.

The entire WEO 2009 will be launched in London on 10 November 2009 and contains
substantially more climate analysis and provides a comprehensive set of results, by sector and by region, for both the Reference Scenario and the 450 Scenario, and analyses the international financial flows and mechanisms that might underpin a post-2012 agreement.

BRICs, a new economic block

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:01:00 +0000

BRICs is an acronym that refers to the fast growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first coined and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001. Of late BRICs has organized themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, like the European Union has done and are seeking to form a "political club" or "alliance" to convert "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout"

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is an intergovernmental mutual-security organization which was founded in 2001 by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Except for Uzbekistan, the other countries had been members of the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996.

Departure Statement by the PM Dr Manmohan Singh on his visit to Russia on June 15, 2009 in New Delhi

At the invitation of the President of the Russian Federation, His Excellency Mr. Dmitry Medvedev, I am leaving today to attend the BRIC and SCO Summits being hosted by Russia in Yekaterinburg.

The countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) together account for 40% of the world’s population and 40% of global Gross Domestic Product. The BRIC grouping has the potential to lead global economic growth. In fact, global economic recovery is closely linked to the success of the BRIC economies. India is among the fastest growing BRIC economies, and we are ready to play our part in coordinating international efforts to overcome the ongoing financial and economic slowdown. BRIC countries also have a role to play in promoting the principle of multilateralism in international affairs, and in the reform of institutions of global governance, including the United Nations, to reflect contemporary realities. From these points of view, the convening of the first stand-alone summit of BRIC countries is a significant development.

I will also be attending the Summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) for the first time. India has been an observer of the SCO since 2005. My decision to attend the Summit is a reflection of the high regard we have for Russia’s Presidency of the SCO, and our desire to intensify our engagement with countries of our extended neighbourhood in Central Asia. There are issues which concern both of us, such as the fight against terrorism and extremism and cooperation in areas of energy security, infrastructure development, agriculture, transportation, science and technology and education. India and the SCO stand to gain considerably from each other through such cooperation.

During my visit, I look forward to meeting and exchanging views with the other world leaders who will be present in Yekaterinburg.

MIsuse of Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 08:45:00 +0000

Note: Procedural Establishments Under The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives protection to a person who is still a Public Servant at the time the prosecution is launched, and also when he is no longer a public servant. This is to protect the Public Servant from a case being filed against him after his retirement. When the government servant or the employee is not removable from his office without the sanction of the Central Government, then the same is necessary. Sanction under this section is not necessary before a Public Servant could be prosecuted for an offence of bribery under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There are three facets in the consideration of the protection given by Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. to the acts done by public officers. (i) The act complained attaches to it the official character of the person doing it; (ii) The official character or status of the accused gave him an opportunity of doing the act, and (iii) The offence is committed at a time when the accused was engaged in his official duty.

"Nutan Thakur" wrote:

The Lavalin Case- Rethinking over section 197 CrPC

Pinarayi Vijayan is the state Secretary of the Kerala CPI(M) and is also the member of the Central Polit bureau, which is the highest decision making body of the Party. The 19th Congress of the CPI(M) had elected a 87 member Central Committee, which on April 03, 2008 elected a 15 Member Polit Bureau. Pinarayi Vijayan is a member of both these.

The other members of this Polit Bureau include such stalwarts as the General Secretary Prakash Karat along with his wife Brinda, Sitaram Yechury, Biman Basu, Manik Sarkar, the two CPI(M) Chief ministers Buddhadev Bhattacharya and V S Achuthanandan along with others. He is thus among the most important members of the CPI)M).

The so-called Lavalin case relates to memorandum of understanding (MoU) Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) signed with SNC-Lavalin, a Canadian company in August 1995. During the initial period of the contract, G. Karthikeyan of the Congress Party was the Minister for Electricity. Later during further contracts in February 1997 Pinarai Vijayan was the Minister for Electricity.

Later the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) found that Lavalin was only a consultant intermediary and not the original equipment manufacturer and that the supply of goods and services was made by other firms at a much higher cost leading to excess expenditure. According to the CAG, various avoidable (and at times deliberate) failures on the part of the Board and the government to properly execute the deal resulted in heavy losses to the government of an amount nearly Rs 25 crores.

On 16 January 2007, Kerala High Court ordered a CBI enquiry into the scandal. On February 19, 2008, the CBI informed High court of Kerala that the investigation was progressing and hinted at the complicity of former Electricity Ministers Pinarayi Vijayan and G. Karthikeyan.

On 21 January 2009, the CBI filed a progress report on the investigation in the Kerala High Court where it named Pinarayi Vijayan as the 9th accused. A total of 11 persons have been arraigned.

As per CBI's version Vijayan, while serving as Electricity Minister between May 1996 and October 1998, colluded with K. Mohanachandran, Principal Secretary (Power) in a criminal conspiracy already in motion in the matter of awarding supply contracts of the projects to Lavalin.

The investigations revealed that the supply contract for renovation and modernisation of the Panniyar, Shengulam and Pallivasal hydel projects was given to SNC Lavalin at an exorbitant rate and the per MW cost for the same was the highest. This caused a loss to the Government of Kerala with corresponding wrongful. Thus CBI requested an order for prosecuting Vijayan.

Thus came the question of Prosecution. As per our statues, section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with prosecution of Judges and public servants. Section 197(1) states that when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the concerned government.

There are two important Supreme Court judgements in this regards, both exactly opposite to each other. While in the state of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nath Singh, the Supreme Court has ruled that a public servant cannot be given the protection of sanction under Section 197 CrPC if he is facing allegations of indulging in criminal offences.

The Court said that forgery, criminal conspiracy, cheating and taking gratification cannot form part of official discharge of duty by a public servant saying-''A public servant, however, is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities,''. The apex court also noted, "It is no part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the code is therefore no bar."

At the same time, in another case related to some senior police officers of Maharashtra another bench of the SC had held the prosecution of these officers under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) illegal, on the ground that the accused cannot be prosecuted without proper prior sanction.

The CPI (M) leadership and the workers, both at the Center and in the state of Kerala have refused to take this prosecution lightly decided to fight it out. While the Press Statement in its statement dated June 8, 2009 said that the CBI case "is politically motivated" and that "it is unfortunate that the Governor of Kerala decided to grant permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation to initiate prosecution proceedings" , the workers on the street took the message wholeheartedly and went for a heavy rampage and large-scale ransacking and violence.

Previously Vijayan had also issued threats of retaliation and punishment to K. Gopalakrishnan, Editor, Mathrubhumi Malayalam for having played a lead role in exposing and pursuing the Lavlin case.

Thus all these efforts are being made to save a person who is primarily being seen as an accomplish in a criminal case where he has supposedly misused his official position to cause heavy losses to the State exchequer. This from a party that has always boasted of belonging to the toiling masses- the workers and the peasants. But more important than the individuals, it is the basic legal postulate that I want to harp upon. Do we really need section 197 of the CrPC?

Isn't this provision of law being misused persistently or is being used selectively for political ends? For the same criminal acts, the governments and the authorities go by different yardsticks. Against some they grant the prosecution sanction while for others they withhold it for years.

From all this, it seems that this provision of section 197 CrPC is primarily being misused or is being used for specific purposes. At least, it shall be scrapped for cases related with forgery, misappropriation, cheating, misuse of official positions for wrongful gains etc. This is something that is immediately required.

Dr Nutan Thakur
Editor,
Nutan Satta Pravah
Lucknow

In China, Bicycles Are Back

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:32:00 +0000

Of all the things that have changed in China over the past 30 years, transportation has undergone one of the most obvious of transformations. Where city streets once swarmed with bicycles, they are now full of automobiles. Cars clog intersection and expressways. Their exhaust clouds the sky and the air is full of the sound of horns. But zipping through the congestion is the vanguard of another transportation revolution: vehicles that use no gas, emit no exhaust and are so quiet they can surprise the unwary pedestrian.

In China, electric bicycles are leaving cars in the dust. Last year, Chinese bought 21 million e-bikes, compared with 9.4 million autos. While China now has about 25 million cars on the road, it has four times as many e-bikes. Thanks to government encouragement and a population well versed in riding two wheels to work, the country has become the world's leading market for the cheap, green vehicles, helping to offset some of the harmful effects of the country's automobile boom. Indeed, as engineers around the world scramble to create eco-friendly, plug-in electric cars, China is already ahead of the game. Says Frank Jamerson, a former GM engineer turned electric-vehicle analyst: "What's happening in China is sort of a clue to what the future will be."

Right now the future buzzes along at a sedate pace. Government regulations limit the top speed of e-bikes to about 12 mph. But manufacturers are building bigger and bigger machines with speed regulators that are easily removed. E-bikes that are basically pedal-powered machines with an electric boost are common in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, but e-scooters with heavier motors and top speeds of around 30 mph, fast enough to rival mopeds, are growing in popularity.

The e-bike boom owes much to Chinese policy. The government made developing e-bikes an official technology goal in 1991. Major Chinese cities have extensive bicycle lanes, which means riders can avoid the worst of rush-hour congestion. In cities such as Shanghai, local governments have drastically raised licensing fees on gas-powered scooters in recent years, effectively driving hoards of consumers to e-bike manufacturers.

The relative simplicity of the machines and their components has encouraged a huge number of e-bike companies to open in China. In 2006 there were 2,700 licensed manufacturers, and countless additional smaller shops. Rising to the top of the heap is not easy. Leading manufacturer Xinri (the name means "new day") was founded in 1999 by Zhang Chongshun, an auto parts factory executive who recognized the potential of the field. In its first year Xinri built less than 1,000 bikes; last year it churned out 1.6 million.

Xinri's Zhang puts in thousands of miles on the road a year, visiting as many as six cities a day to investigate local market conditions. But ultimately what makes Xinri successful is that electric bikes have hit a sweet spot in the Chinese economy. As Chinese grow richer, they want more convenient means of transportation. But not everyone can afford a car. "Motorcycles are too dangerous, cars are too expensive, public transportation is too crowded and pedal bikes leave you too tired," says Hu Guang, Xinri's deputy general manager. "So people buy e-bikes."

The company's ads show Jackie Chan riding an e-bike alongside a model in a glamorous European capital. Reality is much more mundane. E-bikes are commonly used by migrant laborers who schlep across town from their quarters in the suburbs to work sites across town, with their drills and saws strapped to their bike racks. Police stations are often fronted by a row of blue and white patrol e-bikes. Delivery workers from McDonald's and KFC haul plastic cases stuffed with Big Macs and fried chicken to office parks. "At first, I picked an e-bike because I couldn't stand the sickening smell of gas from my scooter," says Zhang Dengming, 50, a construction supervisor in Shanghai. "But after awhile, I realized that e-bikes are actually much safer than motorcycles, and better for the environment. Although e-bikes are generally slower than gas scooters, I find them fast enough for my daily commutes. Their price, which is typically just over 2,000 renminbi ($290) is also more acceptable, so I don't feel as bad when they get stolen."

Last year Chinese bought about 90% of the 23 million e-bikes sold worldwide. Experts say that next regions to likely embrace e-bikes are Southeast Asia, where gas-powered scooters are popular, and India, where rising incomes mean personal transportation is starting to be in reach of hundreds of millions. Japan has seen steady annual sales of about 300,000 for several years, and in the cycle-crazy Netherlands e-bikes are beginning to take off. In the U.S., where bikes are still overwhelmingly used for recreation rather than transportation, e-bike sales are expected to break 200,000 this year, or about 1% of China's sales.

E-bikes weren't always so popular on the mainland. Early models were even slower than today's; range was limited and batteries died in less than a year. Now they can travel as far as 100 km on a full charge, more than enough for a day's riding. But batteries remain the weak point. Most e-bikes rely on lead-acid batteries, cheap century-old technology unsuitable for the growing demands of daily commuting. "The battery is the key limiting factor," says Jonathan Weinert, a transportation expert who wrote his doctoral dissertation on electric bikes in China.

While lead-acid batteries are improving, Weinart says that electric bikes will create a larger market for lithium-ion batteries — a newer, lighter technology whose development is key for the future of electric vehicles. Already Giant, the world's largest manufacturer of pedal bicycles but a small player in the Chinese e-bike market, has made headway in northern Europe selling high-end e-bikes that use lith-ion batteries. "To the extent that the electric bike industry can help get battery costs down, test the technology and get it in the market, that may lead" the development of electric vehicles with more than two wheels, Weinert says.

Chinese market leaders like Xinri and Yadea have partnered with top schools like Tsinghua and Peking universities to improve battery technology. And like a slew of other Chinese companies, some e-bike makers are already working on electric cars. Yadea plans to create electric cars for special uses such as shuttling sightseers at tourist destinations. At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Xinri provided e-bikes and an electric car for use by police at the Bird's Nest stadium.

Electric cars will require more powerful recharging stations than the standard wall outlets used to juice up bikes. But when four-wheeled technology becomes road-ready, it will find a willing customer base in China. "The Chinese have a hundred million people on electric bikes," says Jamerson. "That means a hundred million potential customers" for electric cars. When he worked at GM, which filed for Chapter 11 on June 1, Jamerson said he once suggested the company give away an electric bike with every new car, just to get customers used to the idea of a means of transportation you plug in every night. His bosses thought he was joking. When the electric revolution final comes, China's e-bike makers could have the last laugh.

By Austin Ramzy / Beijing

—with reporting by Jessie Jiang/Beijing and Natalie Tso/Taipei

Source:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904334,00.html

Giving in to prior restraint

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 07:28:00 +0000

Is civil society mounting enough of a fight against the extraordinary powers Mr Raja's ministry is arming itself with? The rules being framed for the IT (Amendment Act) 2008 are ominous, says SEVANTI NINAN

This article is an expanded version of a column which appeared in the Hindu, on June 7, 2009 titled, “In the name of national security”.

After 26/11 when the Information and Broadcasting Ministry tried to come up with sweeping restrictions on TV channels in the interests of national security there was the predictable outcry and the government backed down very quickly.

Why then is there not enough of an outcry when websites are affected, for the same reason? Particularly over the way rules are being framed for the IT (Amendment) Act of 2008? The powers they give the Government to block websites amount to prior restraint, permitting blocking without informing the affected party, or giving him/her a chance to be heard. Obviously it has been done to deal with terrorism, and it could be argued that you will not be seeking permission from a non-state actor when you are seeking to track him by intercepting his email or blocking the websites he uses to spread his message. But civil liberties can end up being curtailed in the name of combating terror, and individual privacy can be violated the same way. Both are endangered as the new government goes about putting teeth into the amended IT act.

The controversial Mr A Raja does not just preside over telecom, which the country’s biggest industrialists are interested in. He also presides over the lawmaking which governs the use of the Internet in India. Surely that is something which deserves at least as much media vigilance as the awarding of telecom licences to companies?

Last year, a few weeks after the Mumbai attacks in November, a Bill which had been sitting around in a Standing Committee since 2006 was hastily passed, without much debate in parliament. The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 seeks to give teeth to existing laws on information technology and cyberspace. Last month, shortly before Mr Raja began his second stint, the Department of IT posted on the Internet the results of its labours in drafting rules for this Act. Since the devil is in the details, the import of the Act resides in the rules. These are still at the draft stage, you are invited to send your comments to the Government of India, which does this feedback exercise to show how democratic it is. http://www.mit.gov.in/default.aspx?id=969.

Here, then, is a idiot’s guide to what Mr Raja and his men are proposing to do, in the name of national security, safe internet use, and suchlike.

a) Intercept email, under section 69 of the Act.

Who can give orders for such interception? Technically only the Union Home Secretary or the Home Secretary at the state level, but in unavoidable circumstances also a joint secretary. In further unavoidable circumstances---in an emergency (not defined) in a remote area (not defined)---a security officer of the rank of an inspector general of police can order the interception. They have to get it okayed in a week’s time by a home secretary or joint secretary or cease intercepting.

What about laws protecting privacy? This provision circumvents those in the name of security.

b) Block websites and web content, under section 69A.

A designated officer of joint secretary-level is empowered to handle requests for blocking from departments or individuals. He submits the request to an inter-ministerial comittee of joint secretaries, including one from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. In an emergency, scrutiny by just the designated officer will do, and the final permission has to come from the Secretary, Department of Information Technology. What can be the basis for a request to block? The Sovereignty or Integrity of India, the Defence of India, the Security of the State, Friendly Relations with Foreign States, Public order, and, for "preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above." Apart from the fact that all of the above are open to interpretation, do note the 'preventing incitement' bit. In case somebody thinks you might provoke someone to do something, they can block your website.

What about a right to be heard before the blocking? There is none. The job of Secretary, Department of Information Technology, suddenly becomes a pivotal one in the matter of freedom of expression. He has the final say in any blocking.

Review of the decision? A committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary, GOI, needs to meet at least once in two months for that. As a CERT IN official said at a recent meeting when questioned about the inordinately long time taken for a review, "Bahut cases hote, saab. Cabinet Secretary khali nahin baithe hota." His point was that overall there is a four-level scrutiny, and that so far blocking of web pages or sites has been very rare indeed, three to four cases in the last five years.

c) Monitor and collect traffic data relating to a website, in the name of ensuring cyber security, and foiling cyber security incidents. Under section 69B.

d) Set up an Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN), whose constituency “shall be the Indian cyber community,” under section 70B (1)

If you plough through all the citizen-friendly sounding stuff that this team is supposed to do, you will hit upon this clause: “For carrying out its functions prescribed in section 70 (B) of the Act, CERT-IN may seek information and give directions for compliance to the service providers, intermediaries, data centres, body corporate and any other person, as may be necessary.” This innocuous body can order your service provider to cough up any data it wants. And what level of officer can do this? Any officer of CERT-In, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India. Again the defence is that this clause only relates to cyber security. The rules empowering CERT-IN are drafted by the organisation itself. Talk of giving yourself powers because you are making the rules!

e) Define the liability of Network Service Providers, under section 79.

This is a section for which the rules have not yet been posted, because there is hectic lobbying going on by industry. It seeks to protect the companies that operate in India as Network Service Providers from being liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by them. They are not liable so long as they “do not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of the transmission, and select or modify the information contained in the transmission, and so long as they observe due diligence while discharging their duties under this Act.” But once they come to know of data posted on their servers which could be interpreted as violating the “integrity of India, defence of India, friendly relations with foreign States” bits and do not remove it, they become liable.

Who will be defined as a network service provider? What will be defined as due diligence? What will be the definition of an intermediary? Industry is lobbying with CERT-IN on these issues. Sachin Pilot is the minister in charge.

But is civil society mounting enough of a fight to protect privacy, and prevent web content blocking without a prior right to be heard? Is it doing enough to oppose the extraordinary powers Mr Raja's ministry is arming itself with?

Because given the way we handle technology, actions officially ordered do not end up have the restricted impact they are supposed to. Back in 2003 when there was an attempt at Internet censorship through the blocking of a discussion group on the Web, the Internet Service Providers went beyond the targeted blocking they were asked to do. An organisation in Meghalaya which advocates seccession had set up this group, and the request for blocking it came from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Had the service providers quietly blocked this one discussion group, nobody might have noticed. But they had never received such a request before and three of them (Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Data Access and Sify) wrote back immediately to DoT to say that since their infrastructure made it technically impossible to block just one group they had ("as per your directive") blocked all of Yahoo Groups, thousands of them. Predictably, there was a huge outcry.

And it achieved the opposite of what it set out to do because it sent the curious rushing to a little-visited discussion group. Despite being blocked, the page could be accessed through an anonymizer site on the Net whose express purpose is to allow people to circumvent blocks. Censorship does stay quiet in this country, which is a great thing. Nor does it achieve its objective. See what this attempt did for Kynhun.BriU Hynniewtrep, the Meghalaya discussion group, seeking a separate state for the Khasis. Its membership grew from 25 or so before the censorship, to 214 after it. The year-old group had meandered along unnoticed, with an average of three postings a month. Post ban, it got 23 in four days.

Censorship does stay quiet in this country, which is a great thing. But the point to remember about governments is that where arbitrary powers are concerned, they never stop trying to exercise them.

(This article also draws upon an earlier column available at http://www.hindu.com/mag/2003/10/12/stories/2003101200180300.htm)

Source: The Hoot

Obama reinforces presumed religious identities

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:28:00 +0000

Marieme Helie Lucas asks, 'Where are women and secularists of Muslim countries in Obama's speech in Cairo?' (WLUML Networkers/SIAWI)

It is beyond doubt that many people around the world, of various political opinions and creeds, will feel relieved after the speech the President of the USA delivered in Cairo today. It is apparently a new voice, a voice of peace, quite far from Bush's clash of civilisations. But is it so?

I presume that political commentators will point out the fact that Obama equates violence on the part of occupied Palestinians to violence on the part of Israeli colonizers, or that he has not abandoned the idea that the United States should tell the world how to behave and fight for their rights, or that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is reduced to a religious conflict, or that he still justifies the war in Afghanistan, etc...

All those are important issues that need to be challenged. However, what affects me most, as an Algerian secularist, is that Obama has not done away with the idea of homogeneous civilisations that was at the heart of the theory of the 'clash of civilisations'. Moreover, his very American idea of civilisation is that it can be equated to religion. He persistently opposes ' Islam and the West' (as two entities/civilisations), ' America and Islam'(a country vs. a religion); he claims that 'America is not at war with Islam'. In short 'the West' is composed of countries, while ' Islam' is not.

Old Jomo Kenyatta used to say of British colonizers: “When they came, we had the land, they had the Bible; now we have the Bible, they have the land.” Obama's discourse confirms this: religion is still good enough for us to have, or to be defined by. His concluding compilation of monotheist religious wisdom sounds as if it were the only language that we, barbarians, can understand. These shortcomings have adverse effects on us, citizens of countries where Islam is the predominant and often the state religion.

First of all, Obama's discourse is addressed to 'Islam', as if an idea, a concept, a belief, could hear him; as if those were not necessarily mediated by the people who hold these views, ideas, concepts or beliefs. As Soheib Bencheikh, former Great Mufti of Marseilles and now Director of the Institute of High Islamic Studies in Marseilles, used to say: “I have never seen a Qur'an walking in the street...”

Can we imagine for one minute that Obama would address himself to '’Christianity' or to 'Buddhism'? No, he would talk to Christians or Buddhists – to real people, keeping in mind all their differences.

Obama is essentialising Islam, ignoring the large differences that exist among Muslim believers themselves, in terms of religious schools of thought and interpretations, cultural differences and political opinions. These differences indeed make it totally irrelevant to speak about 'Islam' in such a totalizing way. Obama would not dare essentialise, for instance, Christianity in such a way, ignoring the huge gap between Opus Dei and liberation theology...

Unfortunately, this essentialising Islam feeds into the plans of Muslim fundamentalists whose permanent claim is that there is one single Islam – their version of it – one homogeneous Muslim world, and subsequently one single Islamic law that needs to be respected by all in the name of religious rights. Any study of the laws in 'Muslim' countries show that these laws are pretty different from one country to the other, deriving not just from different interpretations of religion, but also from the various cultures in which Islam has been spreading on all continents, and that these supposedly Muslim laws are rooted, as well, in historical and political factors including colonial sources*, which are obviously not divine .

This is the first adverse consequence of Obama's essentialising Islam and homogenising Muslims: as much as he may criticize fundamentalists – who he calls 'a minority of extremists' – he is using their language and their concepts. This is unlikely to help the cause of anti-fundamentalists forces in Muslim countries.

It follows suite that Obama talks to religions, not to citizens, not to nations or countries. He assumes that anyone has to have a religion, overlooking the fact that in many instances, people are forced into religious identities. In more and more 'Muslim' countries, citizens are forced into religious practice **, and pay for dissent with their freedom and sometimes with their lives. It is a big blow to them, to their human rights, to freedom of thought and freedom of expression, that the President of the USA publicly confirms the view that citizens of countries where Islam is the main religion are automatically Muslims (unless they belong to a religious minority).

Regardless of the fact that one is a believer or not, citizens may choose not to have religion as the main marker of their identity; for instance, they may choose to give priority or prominence to their identity as citizens. Many citizens of 'Muslim' countries want to leave religion in its place and divorce it from politics. They support secularism and secular laws, i.e. laws democratically voted for by the people, changeable by the will and vote of the people; they oppose unchangeable, ahistorical, supposedly divine laws, as a process that is alien to democracy. They oppose the political power of clerics.

Obama is claiming to defend democracy, democratic processes, and human rights. How can this fit with addressing whole nations through their supposed, hence imposed, religious identities? Where is the place for secularists in Obama's discourse – for their democratic right to vote in laws rather than have laws imposed upon them in the name of God, for their human right to believe or not to believe, to practice or not to practice? Secularists simply do not exist. They are ignored. They are made invisible. They are made 'Muslims'. Not just by our oppressive undemocratic governments, but by Obama too... And when he talks of his own fellow citizens, these ‘Seven million American Muslims', has he asked them what their faith is or is he assuming faith based on geographical origin?

In this religious strait-jacket, women's rights are limited to their right to education, and Obama distances himself from arrogant westerners by making it clear that women covering is not seen by him as an obstacle to their emancipation – especially if it is 'their choice'... Meanwhile, Iran is next door, with its morality police that jail women whose hair slips out of the aforementioned covering, in the name of religious laws. And what about Afghanistan or Algeria where women were abducted, tortured, raped, mutilated, burnt alive, killed for not covering***?

At no point does he raise the issue of who defines culture, who defines religion, who speaks for 'the Muslims' – and why they could not be defined by individual women themselves, without clerics, without morality police, without self-appointed, old, conservative, male, religious leaders – if their fundamental human rights were to be respected. Obviously, Obama trades women's human rights for political and economic alliances with 'Islam'... 'Islam' definitely owns oil, among other things.

No, this discourse is not such a change for an American President: Obama remains within the boundaries of the clash of civilisations/religions. How can this save us from the global rise of religious fundamentalism, which this discourse was supposed to counter? He claims that “as long as our relationship is defined by differences, this will empower those who sow hatred.../... promote conflict...”, but the only thing he finds we have in common is “to love our families, our communities, our God...” Muslim fundamentalists will not disown such a program. In God we trust....

04 June 2009

By Marieme Helie Lucas

Source: WLUML Networkers/SIAWI

*For example, from 1962 to 1976, the source for Algerian laws on reproductive rights was the 1920 French law; or, in 1947, the source for the Pakistani law on inheritance was the Victorian law that the UK itself had already done away with.

** One Malaysian state made daily prayers compulsory; Algerian courts condemned to prison non-fasting citizens in 2008; Iranian courts still jail women for 'un-Islamic behaviour'.

A NEW BEGINNING: OBAMA

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:11:00 +0000

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
(Cairo,Egypt)

________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 4, 2009

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON A NEW BEGINNING

Cairo University
Cairo, Egypt

1:10 P.M. (Local)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning; and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. And together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I'm grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. And I'm also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalaamu alaykum. (Applause.)

We meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world -- tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of coexistence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. All this has bred more fear and more mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles -- principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Now part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I'm a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and at the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam -- at places like Al-Azhar -- that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities -- (applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. (Applause.)

I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President, John Adams, wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, they have served in our government, they have stood for civil rights, they have started businesses, they have taught at our universities, they've excelled in our sports arenas, they've won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- kept in his personal library. (Applause.)

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. (Applause.)

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. (Applause.) Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words -- within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum -- "Out of many, one."

Now, much has been made of the fact that an African American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. (Applause.) But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores -- and that includes nearly 7 million American Muslims in our country today who, by the way, enjoy incomes and educational levels that are higher than the American average. (Applause.)

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state in our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That's why the United States government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab and to punish those who would deny it. (Applause.)

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations -- to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. (Applause.) That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

And this is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes -- and, yes, religions -- subjugating one another in pursuit of their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; our progress must be shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice; we went because of necessity. I'm aware that there's still some who would question or even justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: Al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Now, make no mistake: We do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We see no military -- we seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and now Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

And that's why we're partnering with a coalition of 46 countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths -- but more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent is as -- it is as if he has killed all mankind. (Applause.) And the Holy Koran also says whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. (Applause.) The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism -- it is an important part of promoting peace.

Now, we also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who've been displaced. That's why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend on.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. (Applause.) Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future -- and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. And I have made it clear to the Iraqi people -- (applause) -- I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. And that's why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all of our troops from Iraq by 2012. (Applause.) We will help Iraq train its security forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter or forget our principles. Nine-eleven was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year. (Applause.)

So America will defend itself, respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own. (Applause.)

For decades then, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It's easy to point fingers -- for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought about by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: The only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security. (Applause.)

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. And that is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience and dedication that the task requires. (Applause.) The obligations -- the obligations that the parties have agreed to under the road map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them -- and all of us -- to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That's not how moral authority is claimed; that's how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have to recognize they have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, recognize Israel's right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)

And Israel must also live up to its obligation to ensure that Palestinians can live and work and develop their society. Just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be a critical part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

And finally, the Arab states must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state, to recognize Israel's legitimacy, and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. (Applause.) We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have been shed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of the three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra -- (applause) -- as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed, peace be upon them, joined in prayer. (Applause.)

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is in fact a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

I recognize it will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude, and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It's about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons. And that's why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. (Applause.) And any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I'm hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy. (Applause.)

I know -- I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: No system of government can or should be imposed by one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere. (Applause.)

Now, there is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: Governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments -- provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they're out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. (Applause.) So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Barack Obama, we love you!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind and the heart and the soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it's being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there's a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of somebody else's faith. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld -- whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. (Applause.) And if we are being honest, fault lines must be closed among Muslims, as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That's why I'm committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit -- for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We can't disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

In fact, faith should bring us together. And that's why we're forging service projects in America to bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That's why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action -- whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue -- the sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights. (Applause.) I know –- I know -- and you can tell from this audience, that there is a healthy debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. (Applause.) And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now, let me be clear: Issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, we've seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

I am convinced that our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons. (Applause.) Our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity -- men and women -- to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. And that is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams. (Applause.)

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence into the home. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and change in communities. In all nations -- including America -- this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we lose control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities -- those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradictions between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies enormously while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.

And this is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf states have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century -- (applause) -- and in too many Muslim communities, there remains underinvestment in these areas. I'm emphasizing such investment within my own country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas when it comes to this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America. (Applause.) At the same time, we will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in online learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a young person in Kansas can communicate instantly with a young person in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs. We'll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops. Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world that we seek -- a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.

I know there are many -- Muslim and non-Muslim -- who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort -- that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There's so much fear, so much mistrust that has built up over the years. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country -- you, more than anyone, have the ability to reimagine the world, to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort -- a sustained effort -- to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It's easier to start wars than to end them. It's easier to blame others than to look inward. It's easier to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There's one rule that lies at the heart of every religion -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. (Applause.) This truth transcends nations and peoples -- a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the hearts of billions around the world. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us: "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."

The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."

The Holy Bible tells us: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God." (Applause.)

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you. Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.)

END
2:05 P.M. (Local)

RELEASE AUNG SAN SUU KYI

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Tue, 26 May 2009 08:52:00 +0000

STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR RELEASE OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI

We, women’s groups, students’ groups, health groups, democratic rights’ groups, civil society organizations and concerned individuals express our deep distress at the recent political developments in Burma.

On 14 May 2009, Nobel Laureate Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, 63, who has been under house arrest for 13 of the past 19 years was transferred to the notorious Insein Jail in Rangoon by the Burmese military junta, State Peace and Development Council (SDPC) and is being ttried at special court on trumped-up charges of violating the terms of her house arrest. Her current six-year term under house arrest was to come to an end on 27 May, 2009.

Diplomats and journalists are being prevented from attending the trial. Clearly, this is an attempt to preemptively sabotage the election scheduled by the SPDC itself in 2010. It is also an attempt to crush the spirit of Daw Suu and other pro democracy voices from Burma, and persist with a regime that is best known for its brazen suppression of human rights of the people of Burma all over the country.

As progressive, pro democracy voices from India, we condemn this and demand the immediate and unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all the political prisoners.

We urge the SPDC to recognize the demand of the people of Burma and their freedom to choose their own leader and government.

Leaders and governments the world over have issued statements condemning the utterly undemocratic and inhuman treatment meted out to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi by the Burmese Government. However, India, the largest democracy in the world and significant neighbour has unfortunately chosen to remain silent.

The Government of India must break its silence and call for the immediate and unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. India must stand for democratic rights and demonstrate its sincerity at this critical time. It must stand up for Daw Suu whom it honoured the prestigious ‘Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding’ in 1993.

Sd/-

Shri Surendra Mohan, Former MP, New Delhi

Shri Prabhash Joshi, Veteran Journalist, New Delhi

Shri Kuldip Nayyar, Journalist and Former MP, New Delhi

Justice Rajinder Sachar, PUCL, New Delhi

Nandita Haksar, Human Rights Lawyer

Vani Subramanian, Saheli Women's Resource Centre

New York Times gives a spin on UN process on financial crisis

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:39:00 +0000

UNITED NATIONS — The route out of the financial crisis — at least in the view of Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, a ranking Sandinista and the fractious president of the United Nations General Assembly — should be lined with all manner of new global institutions, authorities and advisory boards.

How many? Nine, to be exact and they are (take a deep breath) the Global Stimulus Fund, the Global Public Goods Authority, the Global Tax Authority, the Global Financial Products Safety Commission, the Global Financial Regulatory Authority, the Global Competition Authority, the Global Council of Financial and Economic Advisers, the Global Economic Coordination Council, and the World Monetary Board.

Their formation was included in the agenda Mr. d’Escoto unveiled this month for a pending United Nations summit meeting on the economic crisis. But member countries were having a hard time reshaping his proposals into something workable. By the start of the weekend, the extended haggling had been reduced to whether the summit meeting, originally scheduled for next Monday through Wednesday, should be postponed until the end of June because no compromise agenda was in sight.

The problem boils down to competing visions of what role the United Nations should play in the global financial crisis.

Everyone basically agreed that the United Nations should serve as the voice of the poorest nations, and that its many tentacles provided an excellent source for collecting data on the impact of the meltdown. While most General Assembly members seek attention from existing global institutions for their economic distress, however, they are not agitating for a reversal of the institutions’ market-economy bent.

To Mr. d’Escoto, a priest and former Nicaraguan foreign minister, the world financial crisis demonstrates the need for something closer to a revolution, both to mend the deep wounds opened by capitalist excess and to prevent future calamity.

He wants the General Assembly to be anointed the leader in reformulating the world’s economic institutions. (The draft document suggested an open-ended process, steered by Mr. d’Escoto.)

“If the new financial system and architecture is going to be put together, and these rules of the game are going to affect everyone, as the crisis has affected everyone, the proposed solution and new rules of the game should be legitimate for everyone,” said Paul Oquist, Mr. d’Escoto’s senior adviser for the conference, and a Nicaraguan official. “It is the General Assembly that offers that in a universal vein.”

Sitting beneath portraits of Fidel Castro of Cuba, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, among others, Mr. Oquist also said that the meltdown of 2008 proved that no state or states had a monopoly on financial wisdom. That statement, at least, attracts a consensus here.

But Mr. d’Escoto’s critics, and they are legion, accuse him of trying to Sandanista-ize the world or having serious delusions of grandeur. They say that proposals like levying an international tax on all financial transactions or replacing the dollar as the international reserve currency are well beyond the role of the United Nations.

A compromise document that eliminated many of the most radical changes is now under consideration, with few of the proposed global institutions surviving.

The diplomatic standoff started with a breach of etiquette: traditionally, before any conference, the General Assembly president appoints a couple of ambassadors as “facilitators” who consult widely and then propose a working document.

But this time, the plan, envisioning the United Nations in a supporting role, proved insufficiently sweeping for Mr. d’Escoto, so he tossed aside the entire draft and supplanted it with one of his own. To lend it an aura of respectability, his aides point out repeatedly that the president got many of his ideas from a distinguished panel of experts led by an American economist and Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz.

Star-studded panels of experts clog the corridors around here, so nobody faults Mr. d’Escoto for that defense. But many ambassadors noted dryly that member countries were usually given the chance to discuss such recommendations before their insertion into official documents.

United Nations members had expected the conference to provide a role for not-so-rich nations in proposing solutions to the crisis, but several ambassadors said they had searched in vain for that amid the starring role for Mr. d’Escoto and his team. “The idea is to involve everyone in dealing with the problem,” said Maged A. Abdelaziz, the Egyptian ambassador. “Too much is being asked of the Secretariat, and nothing from the member states.”

May 25, 2009

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/25/world/25nations.html?ref=world

Financial balance of terror

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Sun, 17 May 2009 12:51:00 +0000

Upcoming UN General Assembly's International Conference on the Global Economic and Financial Crisis and its Impact on Development is planned to address the current situation which is constitutes a “ticking time bomb”. The UN is convening a three-day summit of "world leaders" from June 1-3, 2009 at its New York headquarters "to assess the worst global economic downturn since the Great Depression."

This august assemblage is entitled the "UN Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development" (UNCWFECID)। Its worthy aim is to "mitigate the impact of the crisis" and "initiate a needed dialogue on the transformation of the international financial architecture..."The Conference’s outcome document probably would propose something radical on the debt and financial architecture। One reason for hope was that the shock of the crisis had led people to discuss such things openly and to consider solutions that would not have been possible two years ago.

Nirupam Sen, Special Senior Adviser to the Assembly President, said the Conference was supposed to be Asia-centric। It was clear that the current problems were global in scope and could not be solved by North-to-North arrangements, or by a few countries only. Unless addressed holistically, universally and in substance, the problems could not have an optimal solution. He said that the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) had predicted a minus 3.9 per cent economic growth worldwide.

Trade was being hindered by the fact that credit channels remained blocked, he explained, adding that it was up to the United Nations to deal with that. There was an urgent need to reform governance of the financial system. The Conference was expected to deal with global stimulus, financing to protect the most vulnerable and the issue of Special Drawing Rights and monitoring, among other concerns.

Responding to correspondents’ questions about the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Sen said that double majority voting was among a series of measures that were on the table. There was no question that countries such as China, India, South Africa, Indonesia and Brazil were interested in reform of IMF. That institution still exercised “economic technical apartheid” with counter-cyclical prescriptions for developed countries and pro-cyclical prescriptions for developing countries, even as late as October 2008.

Addressing financial outflows from developing countries to the developed world, he said the net outflow had increased to $500 billion, exceeding aid inflows. In the current crisis, the debt sustainability mechanisms that were in place did not work.

Asked about increasing criminality because of the crisis, or whether the Iraq war had contributed to the crisis, Sen answered that criminality might not be the result of the crisis, but its cause, owing to the criminal behaviour of hedge fund managers, for instance. The crisis had multiple causes. The Conference’s concern was to isolate the fundamental causes in order to enable the United Nations to do something about reforming the international financial system, so that future crises might be mitigated or even prevented.

Answering questions about IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), he said those issues had come to the table during the G-20 meeting and in Washington, D.C. SDRs were tradable rights, a credit. Today, IMF “emitted” SDRs based on the amount of shares held by shareholders of IMF, a system which had been established a long time ago. Rich countries held the greatest proportion of those quotas. China, India and Brazil had less weight than Belgium, for example. Although $250 billion was being created by IMF, most of that money did not go to the developing countries. The power to create new liquidity must belong to the world as a whole.

Michael T। Clark, Senior Adviser to the UN General Assembly, President Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann said, There was a mutual interdependence; the United States needed China to hold onto the dollar reserves, while China needed the United States to preserve the value of the dollar। They both were in a “financial balance of terror”. The question of how to respond to the call for a new design for regulating the global financial system did not yet have a good answer, but there was a great urgency to solve the problem.

Earlier, on March 26, 2009, Commission of Experts on Reform of International Finance and Economic Structures presented the panel’s preliminary findings to the General Assembly। Speaking at a Headquarters press conference, Stiglitz said the Commission’s forthcoming report would contain suggestions on reforms that, due to the severity of the crisis, had suddenly become relevant। “The nature of this crisis has opened up opportunities for change that I think would not have been conceivable even a few months ago,” said the Nobel Prize-winning economist, describing the second-day of dialogue between Governments as “lively”. There would be no recovery from the global economic crisis without a plan involving the developing world, said Joseph Stiglitz, Chairman of the Commission.

Experts on the Commission, convened by Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, President of the General Assembly, include economists, policymakers and practitioners chosen from around the world for their understanding of the international financial system। They were tasked with reviewing the complexities of the system and exploring ways to secure “a more sustainable and just global economic order”, according to a description on the Assembly President’s website. During the press conference, Stiglitz withheld comment on the stimulus package put forward by President Barack Obama of the United States, saying only that the Commission had also recommended a large stimulus, but with an emphasis on involving all countries. “A particular proposal is that 1 per cent of the stimulus package be spent on providing assistance to developing countries.” It was “absolutely imperative” that all advanced industrialized countries make available resources to help nations lacking their own resources.

Accompanying Stiglitz was Jan Kregel, Senior Scholar at the Levy Economic Institute of Bard College and Rapporteur of the Commission, who added later that the 1 per cent in developed-country funds should be given directly to developing nations and not through an intermediary like the World Bank, which had itself proposed a “vulnerability fund” for developing nations. Without financial resources, development policies targeted at poor countries became “incoherent”, making it ever more important for both developed and developing countries to work together.

The 22-member Commission also includes leading veterans of financial crises, including Zeti Akhtar Aziz, Governor of the Central Bank of Malaysia, whom Stiglitz described as among those who had “earned their battle stripes” in helping to manage the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98. She also provided expertise on Islamic finance, which was centred on “non-exploitative lending”, and was the antithesis of American-style financing.

“One of the characteristics of the American financial market is that they discovered that there was money at the bottom of the pyramid and worked hard to ensure it didn’t remain there,” he quipped। “There has been a shortage of, you might say, ethics guiding lending practices।” The Commission would push for a comprehensive regulatory system focused more intensely on large, “systemically significant” institutions and countries. The new regulations would be propped up by incentives encouraging good risk behaviour and policies that would keep banks from becoming “too big to fail”, which, if it occurred, would leave the public with an enormous burden ‑‑ as had occurred with the failure of financial juggernauts in the United States. He went on to say that, because the reforms were meant to apply across different countries, the Commission’s report would make room for ways to implement the proposed regulatory system without opening avenues for regulatory arbitrage ‑‑ the practice of exploiting price differences of identical financial instruments in different markets.

One way to extend credit to poorer nations was through an improved credit system, built on a system of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) pioneered by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) after the Second World War, he said। China’s call today for the replacement of the United States dollar as the world’s standard reserve currency had lent impetus to the revival of that notion, so that SDRs could function as a type of global reserve currency। SDRs were a potential claim on the usable currencies of countries belonging to the IMF, but the system had never been fully established. Admitting that the IMF’s SDR system was not problem-free, he said better rules were needed on how to distribute SDRs.

The Commission’s full report would lay out the options by which a new reserve fund might be set up, discuss who had the rights to draw from the reserve and for what purpose. The report would also contain suggestions on ways to conduct a smooth transition to the new system, possibly building on the Chiang Mai Initiative of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), created to manage regional short-term liquidity problems. He said that, by his own optimistic estimates, the proposed new reserve system could be implemented as early as next year, although more conservative economists might not agree। The idea had long been discussed in academic circles, and policymakers had many templates to choose from.

He explained also that a large reserve of dollars in the hands of developing countries meant that poorer nations were lending “trillions of dollars” to the United States at close to zero interest rates when they themselves had huge needs। The problem with a single currency reserve system was that, no matter what currency formed the basis, countries would accumulate that currency in large reserves, forming a kind of “rainy-day fund”। Such behaviour had become particularly exaggerated following the Asian financial crisis ‑‑ after the emergency had led to the near-depletion of reserves in some of the countries involved ‑‑ and carried a downward, or deflationary, effect on the world economy because reserve-rich countries did not spend as much as they could। The Commission would design a system to take such flaws into account। Asked when he thought the crisis would end, he said he expected the economy to be “anaemic” for a long time। More to the point, there was great uncertainty about whether a recovery would be gradual, a robust upturn or otherwise. Returning to his theme of inclusiveness, he added: “In the United States we look at our own data. But we work within a global economy […] and one of our points is that, to have a global robust recovery, you have to bring in the developing countries. Right now we’re not doing that and they’re just beginning to be hit.”

Nepal Crisis

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Thu, 14 May 2009 11:09:00 +0000

Unified Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist (UCPN-M)leader and Nepal’s Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal (Prachanda) announced his resignation on May 4, 2009 after President Ram Baran Yadav of Nepalese Congress party reinstated the army chief Rookmangud Katwal who sacked by him.

Nepal's Supreme Court on May 14 issued a show-cause notice to the government on its decision to sack Army Chief Rukmangad Katawal for allegedly defying its orders. A single bench of Justice Bharatraj Upreti issued the order on a writ filed by an advocate demanding to scrap the government's decision to sack Katawal and asked it to reply within 15 days.

On May 13, a writ was filed in the court arguing how the decision of Council of Ministers (on May 4) to relieve Katawal from the Army Chief position and appointing Lt. General Kul Bahadur Khadka as the Acting Army Chief was unconstitutional.

President Ram Baran Yadav had refused to accept the Cabinet's decision and asked Gen Katawal to remain as the Army Chief, which led to the resignation of Prime Minister Prachanda.

The show cause notice comes at a time when the Maoists were blocking the Parliament proceedings, asking Yadav to withdraw his decision to reinstate army chief Katawal.

Meanwhile, China on May 12 disputed an Indian news report that it had interfered in Nepal's internal affairs and caused political upheaval.

The report "is sheer unfounded rumor," Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu told a regular press conference in Beijing. "The Chinese government always adheres to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries."

The Times of India reported on May 9: "While India was inviting popular opprobrium in Nepal trying to prevent Maoist Prime Minister Prachanda from sacking the army chief, China at the same time sent messages to Prachanda pledging support for doing just the opposite."

The article also said that "according to sources monitoring events in Nepal during those crucial days, China reportedly told Prachanda to stick to his guns and they would support him. "

While Madhesi coalition is crucial for the Nepali Congress-Communist Party Nepal-Unified Marxist Leninist coalition to form a new government, proposed to be under the leadership of Madhav Kumar Nepal, on May 14, the Madhesi Janadhikari Forum, whose support is critical for the formation of a new Nepali government decided to form a new government under its own leadership.

Who is Baitullah Mehsud?

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 09:06:00 +0000

The Taleban have pushed the security forces out of Waziristan, the vanguard of the struggle against the Soviet invasion. "On my first trip to the area, one of the first landmarks pointed out to me was the site of an ambush over half a century earlier when Mehsud tribesmen surrounded and annihilated a 300-member British force in the last days of the Raj" writes Syed Shoaib Hasan of BBC News referring to Waziristan tribal region in Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan.

Baitullah Mehsud heads the Pakistan's of the Tehrik-i-Taliban entered into a ceasefire with Pakistani authorities on 8 February 2005 that ended in July 2005Sirajuddin, son of legendary Jalaluddin Haqqani who defeated the Soviet forces heads the Afghan Taleban's command.

Mehsud was offered US$20 million for his cooperation in the ceasefire which he declined and told Pakistani authorities that they should use the pay-out to "compensate families who had suffered during the military operation". Pakistan government paid $500,000 as 'compensation' to Mehsud's commanders. Earlier, he was formally appointed 'Emir' of Waziristan by Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar. In February 2008, Mehsud announced that he had agreed to another ceasefire with the government of Pakistan. US government has placed Mehsud on "a classified list of militant leaders whom the C.I.A. and American commandos were authorized to capture or kill."

Barack Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke says Mehsud is a "terrible man". Since Obama came to power, a number of Mehsud's senior commanders have been killed in US drone attacks. Mehsud has threatened tto launch two suicide bomb attacks every week and strike inside US if they do not stop.

It is being said that he has gone on record saying he wants to "eradicate the White House, New York, and London."

Secret Bank Accounts

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 09:01:00 +0000

In most recent times I first heard Joseph Stiglitz, currently Chairman, UN Task Force on Global Financial Crisis (set up in November 2008 by President, UN General Assembly) raise the issue of secret back accounts in the presence of Somnath Chatterjee, Speaker, Lok Sabha at Mavlankar Hall, New Delhi while delivering Tenth D T Lakdawala Memorial Lecture titled "Crises Today and the Future of Capitalism" and free market fundamentalism on December 20, 2008. Stiglitz said: “Self-regulation is an oxymoron. Banks said they knew how to manage risk and needed no regulation. What they knew was how to create risk. There is so much of blame to go around that they can all lay claim to it.”

What was stated by Stiglitz was articulated in the backdrop of the the global financial crisis and certain European actions. On March, 2008, the 27 Finance Ministers of the European Union (EU) displayed renewed determination to crack down on tax havens that trade in secrecy and facilitate tax dodging at the expense of honest taxpayers around the world. The Ministers discussed measures to strengthen information exchange, limit secrecy, and increase pressure on countries like Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and Singapore that too often help tax dodgers avoid paying their fair share.

Compelling members of US Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to say, "We applaud the EU's leadership, and call on the United States to strongly support the EU tax haven effort, and begin work with other international groups like the G-8 to combat offshore tax abuses. The U.S. Congress should also advance the worldwide clampdown on tax havens by enacting the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act. "Each year, in the United States alone, offshore tax evasion produces an estimated $100 billion in unpaid taxes that could help pay for health care, education, and more. It's time to put an end to offshore tax dodging that robs the U.S. Treasury of needed funds. "

Earlier, Stiglitz had called for an end to bank secrecy in November, 2006, at Columbia University, New York.

Stiglitz connected the issue to concerns about globalization he has addressed in several books. He said, “We are now facing in globalization a really interomesting challenge that we have global companies who are trying to shape legal structures that allow them safe havens in one way or another so that they can get the protections they want when they are operating in Ecuador and every other country but that they can when they misbehave retreat to the Caymans Islands, to other places and be relatively immune from prosecution.”

Elsewhere he has said, “It was so clear that the reason $500 billion is in the Cayman Islands is not because the Cayman Islands provides a better climate for banking than New York City. You might be able to grow better sugar cane in the Cayman Islands, but not -- why is it better for banks? There’s clearly only one reason why banking goes on in the Cayman Islands. It is because it is a place where people can avoid taxes, regulations of all kinds. The question is, ‘Why is it that we pass regulations to stop certain behavior but we clearly condone, allow for these tax havens to continue?’ When I say ‘allow it,’ it really is an active position.”
Caymans, 45,000 people, 600 banks, World’s fifth largest financial center

Now while the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) has released an interim report outlining action to bring back Indian wealth hoarded in secret Swiss bank accounts and other tax havens if BJP led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) forms the government after the elections, the Communist Party of India (Marxist)[CPI(M)] says, "The BJP led Government did nothing to review the tax avoidance treaty (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) with Mauritius during its tenure despite repeated demands by the CPI (M)."

Even prior to the release of the Swiss Accounts Task Force Report, Sucheta Dalal, a senior business journalist wrote on April 7, 2009 "it is a fact that Indian money in Swiss banks is staggeringly high and could range from $500 billion to $1,400 billion (Rs70,00,000 crore)." She added, Ever since the Reserve Bank of India allowed Indians to invest $200,000 abroad, these bankers could solicit business openly. Contrary to what has been said, people and politicians do not have to make a detour to Switzerland to open, withdraw or transfer money from their accounts.

S Gurumurthy, the leading chartered accountant says, "there are countries which help the generation of black money by their laws, and Switzerland is the most important of them. The Western nations felt that the financial system is getting destabilised because of the generation of black money. Black money in the West is not as much flight of capital as it is evasion of taxes. In India, it is both black money and flight of capital.

Given below is a statement by Lal Kishanchand Advani, NDA's Prime Ministerial candidate made on 17 April 2009. He has written to the UPA government in April 2008 about the secret back accounts in Switzerland.

On 29 March 2009, I had addressed a press conference in New Delhi and raised the important issue of vast amounts of Indian wealth stashed away in secret Swiss bank accounts and other tax havens around the world. The press conference was held against the backdrop of the G-20 Summit in London on 2 April, where the issue of illicit funds parked in tax havens was scheduled to be discussed. The country expected Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, who represented India at the G-20 Summit, to put across India’s concerns and expectation forcefully at this global forum. Disappointingly, he only paid lip service to the issue. In contrast, it was the OECD (Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development) group of rich nations that were most vociferous in demanding an end to banking secrecy in countries like Switzerland.

At my New Delhi press conference, I had stated that a future BJP-led government at the Centre, if elected, would bring India’s sovereign wealth back from foreign shores and use it for various ambitious developmental projects. I had also announced the formation of a Task Force to recommend specific steps that a future government may take to translate our promise into reality.

I am pleased to announce that the Task Force has submitted its recommendations in the enclosed interim report. I sincerely thank members of the Task Force — Shri S. Gurumurthy (Chartered Accountant and investigative writer, Chennai); Shri Ajit Doval (Security expert, New Delhi); Dr. R. Vaidyanathan (Professor of Finance, Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore); and Shri Mahesh Jethmalani (Senior lawyer, Mumbai) — for the outstanding work they have done.

The interim report of the Task Force is useful for four important reasons. Firstly, it has placed the problem of India’s wealth hoarded in secret bank accounts abroad in the context of a larger global menace, which western nations have now resolved to fight due to their own internal compulsions. Hence, it has rightly pointed out that India should become an active player in the global crusade against banking secrecy and tax havens.

Secondly, the Task Force has correctly asserted that the “fact of the loot” cannot be questioned although there may be debate on the “maths of the loot”. Based on studies conducted abroad, the Task Force has mentioned that the Indian wealth in Swiss bank accounts and other tax haven may be in the range of $500 billions [Rs 25 lakh crores] and $1.4 trillions [Rs 70 lakh crores]. The credibility of these estimates is reinforced by the figure of $11.5 trillions (Rs. 575 lakh crore) officially given by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), a group of rich countries, at the G-20 Summit in London early this month as the amount of global wealth parked in various tax havens.

Thirdly, the Task Force has highlighted the casual approach of the Congress-led UPA government in taking up this important issue at appropriate international fora. Spokesmen of the Congress party have even mocked at the BJP’s effort in this regard. My appeal to voters is simple: Punish the Congress that has no political will to fight corruption and crime money. The word “corruption” does not even figure in the Congress party’s manifesto!

Fourthly, the Task Force has recommended specific measures as part of the Global and National Strategies to bring back Indian money from tax havens abroad.

The important recommendations made by the Task Force are:

Global Strategy

Step I: Creating a powerful public opinion in India is a pre-requisite for global response to India's requirements in regard to unveiling banking secrecy. The world respects powerful domestic opinion on global issues. India must first realize that this is the ideal time to act and join the global crusade against secret banks and tax havens. In the absence of a broad national consensus on the issue, only a determined leader with a committed team can create the strong national will needed for undertaking this serious agenda overcoming all attempts to impede the effort. Those who do not support the move should be seen as supporters of black economy.

Step II: India should stop being a silent spectator to the G-20 efforts against secret banking and tax havens. It must become an active player and forthwith change the perception that it is not against secret banking and tax havens.

Step III: India must immediately and effectively urge the German government to provide the details of the Indian names from the LGT bank’s secret records. The BJP, if voted to power, must send a special emissary to Germany, which is willing to give the details of Indian names in the LGT bank’s secret records.

Step IV: India must strive for a coordinated global and multilateral effort, which is the only solution to undo the regime of banking secrecy.

Step V: India has special needs beyond what the West is seeking to break banking secrecy. India should work with the West to get the OECD rules on internationally agreed tax standards. That global coercive action is working is seen from that fact that the G-20 threat to blacklist Switzerland and other tax havens is already beginning to yield results.

Step VI: We recommend that India appoint a special ambassador with adequate knowledge of tax havens and secret banking issues to work with the G-20 specifically for framing India-friendly rules.

National Strategy

Collection of travel information about persons visiting Switzerland and other tax havens. This should start with cabinet ministers and other high-profile political personalities.

Monitoring tax havens that have high transaction frequency with India.

India to become a full-fledged member of the Financial Action Task Force.

Use of financial intelligence sharing for security purposes. Illegal money is a potential source of undermining national security. Therefore, we recommend that Indian intelligence agencies should be specifically tasked to collect intelligence on this count.

Legislative support: Just as the Obama Administration is planning specific anti-tax haven laws, India should also target tax havens and secret destinations like Switzerland operating in India. We recommend that stricter laws should place the onus of proving their innocence on the accused if a prima facie case is made out.

High Level Task Force: We recommend that the Government of India should constitute a high level Task Force with representatives from Finance Ministry, National Intelligence Agencies, Ministry of Law, RBI, SEBI, Economic Intelligence Units, Central Vigilance Commission, CBI and other experts to collect and process the information and start legal action wherever feasible. As large-scale kickbacks are reported from purchases made by some of the Ministries like Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Civil Aviation etc., their representatives could also be co-opted wherever necessary.

The history of the illicit wealth holders should be brought out: We recommend that when India is able to unveil the banking secrecy through information sharing arrangement, it should get the names and amounts not just as of today but for the entire economic history of the account-holders.

Responsding to the Swiss Accounts Task Force Report of the BJP, the Polit Bureau of the CPI(M) has issued the a statement BJP’s Swiss Accounts Task Force Report: A Self Goal Given below is the statement of the CPI (M)released on 18 April 2009.

Mr. L.K. Advani released a report of a task force constituted to recommend measures to bring Indian funds illegally stashed away in Swiss banks and other tax havens, yesterday in Mumbai. This BJP’s task force report quotes (page 8) from a study by Washington based Global Financial Integrity: “The GFI study shows that during the period from 2002 to 2006, annually $27.3 billions were stashed away from India”. If this is true, then nearly $55 billion worth of illicit transfers occurred in the two year period, 2002 to 2004, under the BJP-led NDA Government itself, in which Mr. Advani was the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Minister. What did he do to prevent such illegal transfers when he was in power?

The BJP’s task force has arrived at a total figure of Rs. 25 lakh crore of Indian wealth being held in tax havens on the basis of the following argument: “So the amount of Indian black wealth secreted away in the last 60 years – estimated at from $500 billions [Rs 25 lakh crores] to $1400 billions [Rs 70 lakh crores] – does not seem to be wide off the mark, if the GFI estimate for the 5-year period 2002-06 is considered.” Going by the BJP’s estimate, around $ 164 billion or over 30% of the total stock of illicit money would have been accumulated during the six years of NDA rule!

The task force report is nothing but a hoax to cover up for the misdeeds of the erstwhile BJP led Government. The BJP led Government did nothing to review the tax avoidance treaty (Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement) with Mauritius during its tenure despite repeated demands by the CPI (M). The Mauritius route remains to be the largest conduit for the evasion of capital gains tax and corporate taxes, as far as India is concerned. Mauritius accounts for 44% of cumulative FDI inflows into India from April 2000 to November 2008. In contrast, the US and the UK accounts for only 8% and 7% of India’s FDI inflows. It is clear that foreign companies are using the Mauritius route to evade Indian taxes. The BJP’s task force is completely silent on this aspect.

The BJP task force report (page 16) mentions about Participatory Notes and claims: “Actually the Indian rules permit a Switzerland in India. How can India call for action against Switzerland when it permits a mini-Switzerland in India?” However, FII investment through the non-transparent Participatory Notes was permitted without any restriction during the NDA rule too, so much so that by the end of its tenure in 2004, investments under the PN route accounted for nearly 50% of total FII inflows. What credibility does the BJP has to criticize these policies today?

The CPI (M) and the Left Parties have been consistent in demanding a thorough review of the tax avoidance agreements with Mauritius and other countries, banning of Participatory Notes and restoration of the long-term capital gains tax which was abolished by the BJP led NDA Government in 2004 in order to encourage the speculators. It is another matter that the Congress led UPA Government, given its proclivity to appease speculative financial interests, did precious little to salvage the situation.

The global financial meltdown and economic crisis has brought the issue of tax evasion by corporates, financial entities and the super-rich into sharp focus. Governments across the world are taking steps to crack down on tax havens like British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands etc. The Swiss Banks are being asked to disclose information on their account holders in order to track down assets built through tax evasion. The Indian Government, however, has so far remained impervious to this growing global concern. In a press release dated 23rd February (much before this issue appeared on BJP’s radar) the CPI (M) had demanded: “It is imperative that the UPA government demand from Swiss banks and from banks in tax havens details of accounts of Indians. In the case of India, it is not only a case of tax evasion but also of funds being illegally stashed abroad, or, used for money laundering. If the government is serious about stopping black money and raising resources to meet the growing economic crisis, it must take steps to bring back the unaccounted, or, ill-gotten wealth of Indians abroad”.

CPI (M) reiterates the following policy steps prescribed in the Election Manifesto (page 15):

Effective taxation of speculative capital gains by restoring Long-Term Capital Gains Tax and increasing Securities Transaction Tax

Launching a drive to unearth black money, especially those stashed in Swiss Banks and other offshore tax havens

Plugging the Mauritius route; Reviewing Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with Mauritius and other countries

Prohibiting Participatory Notes used by the Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and discouraging speculative finance

Reversing moves towards Full Capital Account Convertibility
---------------------
Congress on 20 April, 2009 invited the BJP to a serious debate on black-money stashed abroad. "Capital flight from India is a serious issue and should be debated seriously. But Mr L K Advani's data is very shaky and is based on mostly bogus sources," Congress Election Coordinator and former Union Minister Jairam Ramesh told PTI.

Ramesh said the Global Financial Integrity (GFI) report of the Washington-based Center for International Policy was the only credible source of information for the BJP task force. While the GFI report arrives at a figure of USD 100 billion for "illicit financial flows" from India between 2002-2006, several Indian economists Ramesh has interacted with on the issue suggest that the report talked only about the gross outflows. "If net outflows are matched with the capital account, there is a negative net outflows," Ramesh said. Ramesh further said he asked GFI study author Dev Kar on the route through which capital flight is taking place. "He (Kar) said categorically that all this (illegal outflows) are because of under-invoicing of exports and over-invoicing of imports", Ramesh said. The study covered the period 2002-2006 when "we had both the NDA and UPA governments. What did BJP do then?," he added.

Nearly USD 55 billion worth of illicit transfers occurred in the two year period, 2002 to 2004, under the BJP-led NDA Government itself, in which Mr Advani was the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Minister. What did he do to prevent such illegal transfers when he was in power?," asks CPI (M).

So far Sonia Gandhi has not spoken on this subject.

Opening the veins & arteries of nation states

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 08:05:00 +0000

On April 18, 2009 Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez publicly handed President Barack Obama a copy of Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent by Eduardo Galeano, a book on the exploitation of Latin America. Galeano, a Uruguayan journalist, explains how Europe, and later the United States were responsible for the obliteration of indigenous people by Spanish conquistadors to the destructive cycles of foreign debt, investment and capitalism, Galeano lays out the Latin American saga from 1492 to the 20th century. "This brilliant text has set a new standard for historical scholarship of Latin America. It is also an outstanding political economy, a social and cultural narrative of the highest quality, and perhaps the finest description of primitive capital accumulation since Marx", wrote Monthly Review, a widely respected publication since May 1949.
"Obama is a centrist Democrat. He never really pretended to be anything else. And he's moving towards a kind of a centrist position. He's very popular in Europe, not so much because of him, but because he's not Bush. So there is the kind of rhetoric that the European leaders and, in fact, the European population tend to accept. In fact, you know, even in the Middle East, where you'd think people would know better, they accept the illusions. And they are illusions, because there's nothing to back them up. So, yes, he is different from Bush", said Noam Chomsky.
On April 14, 2009 Chomsky, a world-renowned linguist, philosopher, social critic, and Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology was interviewed by Amy Goodman of "Democracy Now" wherein he also referred to the conditions in India and China. India and South Asia too has suffered like Lation America but one wonders whether there is a book that open the veins and arteries of the South Asian subcontinent.

Chomsky says, "There's a lot of talk about China and India, and it's real, they're changing, but they're just not in the same league. I mean, both China and India have enormous internal problems that the West doesn't face. You get kind of a picture of this by looking at the Human Development Index of the United Nations. The last time I looked, India was about 125th or something. And I think China was about eightieth. And China would be worse, I think, if it wasn't such a closed society. In India,
you sort of get better data, so you can see what's happening. China is kind of closed. You don't see what's going on in the peasant areas, which are in turmoil, you know. They have environmental problems. They have huge—hundreds of millions of people are kind of like at the edge of starvation.

We don't have—you know, we have problems, but not those problems. And even the industrial growth, which is there—you know, for part of the population, there's been improvement. But when you take, say, India, where we know more, in the areas where high-tech industries developed—and it's pretty impressive. I've visited some of the labs in Hyderabad. You know, it's as good or better than MIT. But right nearby, the rate of peasant suicides is going up, very sharply, in fact. And it's the same source. It's the neoliberal policies, which privilege a certain sector of the population and a certain—and let the rest take care of themselves."

Politics of English language & Common School System

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 08:15:00 +0000

One was outraged to note that the leader of the opposition chose to address the Lok Sabha and the nation on a crucial issue of national importance such as Indo-US Nuclear deal not in Hindi but in English. Where was the need for the use of English language in the Lok Sabha by the most ardent nationalist leader? It is understandable why a senior politician from UP gets perturbed by the growing trend of unnecessary, inappropriate and uncalled use of English language in our country.

Although one disagrees with Samajwadi Party on almost all issues ranging from its support for Indo-US Nuclear deal to its impudent promotion of industrialists like Anil Ambani and its dynastic politics but on the issue of language underlined in its manifesto, one is compelled to agree with it because there is an echo of what was recommended by a Government of India’s high-powered committee under Dr D.S. Kothari, the then chairman of University Grants Commission to frame a national policy which would give shape and direction to newly independent India’s school education system.

The Kothari Commission Report on Education (1964-66) is still regarded as the most in-depth study of primary and secondary education in Indian history. The Kothari Commission advocated a common school system. According to the commission the characteristics of a common school system include--publicly funded schools open to all children irrespective of caste, creed, community, religion, economic condition or social status, no tuition fee is charged and providing free instruction for all in the mother tongue at the primary level, particularly for linguistic minorities; active encouragement of teaching in regional languages at the secondary level and discontinuance of state aid to schools imparting education other than in the medium of mother tongue/ regional language

The National Education Policies of 1986 and 1992 endorsed the Kothari Commission’s recommendation of a common school system across the country. However the recommendation has never translated into action. In 1990, the apex Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE), which appraises the extent to which the National Education Policy is implemented by the Central and state governments and other agencies appointed a committee to review NEP 1986. The CABE constituted Acharya Ramamurti Committee which noted that the common school system proposal was not making any headway because of the constitutional protection given to minorities to establish and administer their own educational institutions is incompatible with a common school system, public schools and privately managed English medium schools, schools charging capitation fees and those offering expensive coaching have proliferated.

What is noteworthy is that quite like other political parties Samajwadi Party neither did anything to promote common school system when it was in power nor does it promise to do so now. Therefore, mere insistent and valid criticism on misplaced emphasis on English language is not sufficient. Almost all the advocates of Hindi including the stalwarts in Hindi journalism and politicians of Hindi heartland have either sent their children to English schools or wish to do so.

In such a backdrop, Dalit thinkers are absolutely right in demanding English education because at least since 1757 English language seems to have determined as to who is an oppressor and who is the oppressed. In fact it is sad but it appears to be true that they who know English are Upper Castes and they who do not are Dalits. English as a medium of education must be eliminated in favour of mother tongue but opposing it without advocating common school system is manifestly insincere and dishonest because no developed or developing country has ever achieved Universal Elementary Education or, for that matter, Universal Secondary Education, without a strong state-funded and state-regulated Common School System. It is indeed an irony that such an equitable public school system has been prevalent in some form or the other in several European countries, USA and Canada but not in India where it is needed the most.

However, it must be mentioned that in 2006, Bihar Chief Minister called for the Common School System to be implemented by the central government in order to ensure quality and non-discriminatory education to all. Bihar, said he, is the first state to have constituted a commission on common school system. Since then reiterating the recommendations of Kothari Commission, the Common School System Commission has submitted its 313-page report in June 2007 and almost two years have passed but one is not aware of steps taken by Bihar Government to act on its recommendation calling “for a legislation underpinning the Common School System.” If it happens it would be a trendsetter beyond empty posturing on English language as a medium of education.

Manmohan Singh at G-20 summit

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:08:00 +0000

(US President with Indian Prime Minister)

PM’s opening statement to the press on the conclusion of the G-20 summit

April 2, 2009
London

1. We met in London at a significant moment for the world economy and therefore for the world as a whole. I am grateful to Prime Minister Gordon Brown for the initiative that he has taken to host this second Summit of leaders of the G-20, and for the excellent arrangements that were made for our meetings.

2. The purpose of this Summit meeting was to take forward the search for solutions to the economic crisis facing the global economy today. The world is going though the worst recession since the Great Depression. We have fared much better than others though we are also affected. This is a global crisis requiring global solutions.

3. Earlier today and yesterday evening, we discussed various ways in which the crisis can be addressed. All countries have used monetary policy. An effective fiscal stimulus is also being resorted to by all major economies. There was agreement that credit flows to developing countries also must be restored. There was also agreement that we must tackle the crisis in a way which does not create other problems for the future. For instance, protectionism or restrictions on the free flow of trade and persons would be counter productive. Nor can development be halted or sacrificed in the search for solutions to the financial crisis. Hence the need for special attention to the needs of developing countries.

4. I was happy to note that our views received wide acceptance and support.

5. We emphasised the need to make good the decline that has taken place in capital flows to developing countries by providing adequate resources to the international financial institutions. I am happy to say that the G-20 have agreed to expand the resources of the IMF and the ADB and to also bring forward the quota review in the IMF. The leaders have also agreed to a fresh issue of SDRs. These are positive decisions. Together they involve a massive provision of $ 1.1 trillion tar emerging market economies. India does not need IMF funding but we have been in favour of expanding IMF resources as this will help developing countries that need assistance. It will restore confidence about emerging markets.

6. We also discussed and agreed on broad direction for improvements in regulatory and supervisory structure for the world’s financial system. These will take time to take effect but they are very important. They will be carried forward by the Financial Stability Forum (FSF) and the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, the two key standard setting bodies. India is now a member of both bodies. Broadening representation in these bodies is an important improvement. The directions of the reform of financial regulation and supervision that have been agreed are in line with our own thinking in India.

7. This meeting has shown the utility of the G-20 Leaders’ process, and we took forward to the next Summit meeting of G-20 leaders in the second half of the year, and to the early implementation of what has been agreed today. There is a continuing need to redefine the role of our institutions of global economic governance to deal with the problems of today and to reflect contemporary realities.

8. As you know, I also had an opportunity to meet Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday, where we reviewed our bilateral relationship and discussed ways of taking India-UK relations forward. India and the UK enjoy a close partnership in diverse fields of human endeavour. We are determined to and confident of carrying this partnership forward.

9. Earlier this afternoon I met with President Barack Obama of the United States of America. This was our first meeting and was marked by exceptional warmth and cordiality. We reviewed our bilateral relations. I thanked President Obama for all that he has done in the US Senate and outside in the past few years to make possible the transformation of India-US relations, and to bring to fruition our civil nuclear initiative. Today we discussed several positive and constructive steps to take the India-US global partnership forward.

10. We discussed regional and global issues, including the threat that terrorism emanating from our nei9hbourhood poses to all free societies, and the international efforts that are required to deal with this problem. We had a significant convergence of views and approaches in this regard. President Obama informed me of the new comprehensive US strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. I welcomed his clear enunciation of the problems and the goals. India will continue to play a constructive role, working to build peace and stability in our periphery.

11. I leave London satisfied that my bilateral and other meetings have been productive and useful, and that the 0-20 Leaders Summit has shown a way forward. The process of overcoming the global crisis will not be easy. Given the goodwill and the meeting of minds among leaders that was possible in London over the last two days, the world has a basis to begin solving the crisis. The international community can and must work together to do so.

PM’s remarks at the official dinner hosted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown on the occasion of the G-20 meeting

April 1, 2009
London

“I would like to begin by thanking Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Government of the UK for the warm welcome we have received and for the excellent arrangements made for the meeting. I would also like to welcome President Barack Obama to his first meeting of this Group.

The problems facing the world economy are well known and need no elaboration. The only point to note is that the downturn is much deeper than we though when we met in Washington D.C. in November last year, and the prospects of a recovery have receded to 2010 at best. This is the worst recession in sixty years and is generating negative expectations which threaten a downward spiral if not corrected. The pain is being felt both in industrialised countries and in developing countries.

A global crisis requires global solutions. In Washington D.C. we pledged to take action to revive the world economy and also to bring about basic reform of the financial sector to reduce the likelihood of similar severe crises in future and to build institutions that can intervene more effectively if we do. We have made considerable progress in several areas, but I believe much more needs to be done.

The world is looking to us to show that we can act cooperatively in a manner commensurate with the scale of the crisis. As we deal with the immediate problems, we must also be careful not to sacrifice the gains of openness of trade, direct investment and immigration. It will be a test of the leadership of the G-20 whether we can craft a strategy that meets all these objectives.

There can be no doubt that restoration of the banking system in the industrialised countries to full functionality is precondition for successful revival of the global economy. This is primarily a task for the Governments of the individual countries concerned. It is a task that will require commitment of resources on an unprecedented scale. The IMF has estimated that the write down of toxic assets needed may be as high as $2.8 trillion in the US and $1.4 trillion in Europe and Japan. Many Governments, most recently the United States, have made large commitments of resources to deal with the problem of tainted assets and also to recapitalise the banking system. More may well be needed.

A rescue effort on this scale will place a huge burden on tax payers and this has given rise to considerable public anger, which is entirely understandable. However, it has to be explained to tax payers, and also their elected representatives, that anger at the irresponsible, and even morally reprehensible behaviour on the part of managements of financial institutions, should not come in the way of efforts to resurrect the system.

I recognise that this is ultimately a political problem that has to be handled by each national government. This Summit can help by sending a clear message that the problem affects many industrialised countries and has to be tackled if we want to bring about an economic revival and tackle unemployment. The main reason why we can expect to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression is that governments know a great deal more about the role of contra-cyclical policies and they are also willing to act. However, contra-cyclical policies will not have their full expansionary effect if credit does not flow to where it should. We have to explain to the public that reviving the banks is important not for the banks, as is sometimes perceived by the public, but for the economy, for employment, and for global prosperity generally.

Active contra-cyclical policy must be a priority item on our agenda and global markets are looking to see if we are united on this issue. We have seen a massive contraction in consumer demand in industrialised countries arising from the wealth effect of the decline in house prices and in stock market values. This is compounded by uncertainty about future employment prospects. The emergence of excess capacity in several sectors is bound to discourage private investment. Some contraction of demand in countries where current account deficits were too high was to be expected. Ideally this should have been offset by expansion in surplus countries. For whatever reason, this orderly adjustment could not be brought about. We are now seeing a contraction that has overshot and contra cyclical stimulus is therefore necessary in all countries.

Most industrialised countries, and also developing countries, have responded by using monetary policy fairly aggressively to counter the downturn. They have also resorted to a fiscal stimulus to varying degress. I recognise that it is not easy to determine the level of fiscal stimulus that is appropriate for different countries in different circumstances. But we do know that expansionary policies are most effective when they are coordinated. I hope the Summit will give a clear signal that we are willing to act in a coordinated, or at least in a credible concerted manner, to ensure that the downslide is minimised.

The International Monetary Fund had estimated that a discretionary fiscal stimulus of about 2 per cent of GDP in 2009 would be needed, in addition to the operation of automatic stabilisers. This was to be followed by a similar order of stimulus in 2010 to achieve the objective of moving from an unavoidable decline of around 1% in 2009 to a modest positive growth of about 2% in 2010.

Available information suggests that whereas the actual stimulus of the G-20 countries in 2009 is approximately equal to the Fund target, what is currently planned for 2010 may be too little. Many observers have also commented that the modest global recovery projected for 2010 may be over optimistic. I recognise that there are time lags in the system and the effects of actions already taken may be felt only in the coming months, but it does seem that the risks lie in doing too little rather than too much, and we are not doing enough to ensure recovery in 2010.

If we cannot agree to do more, we should at least send a clear message that we will watch developments carefully in 2009 and act speedily to do more if necessary. The IMF should be tasked with monitoring developments in this area and reporting back periodically.

Let me now turn to the steps needed to ensure the revival of growth in the developing countries. These countries have suffered a double shock. They have seen a collapse in world trade, with an unprecedented decline of almost 9 per cent in trade volume in 2009. They have also suffered a massive decline of private capital flows estimated by the Institute of International Finance at close to $700 billion in 2009, with little prospect of a significant revival in 2010. To some extent, financial protectionism, built into the conditions for assisting banks in industrialised countries, may have encouraged this trend, though there are of course many other factors.

We in India have been fortunate in having weathered the global downturn better than many others. Our growth rate, which was close to 9% in the previous 5 years, will fall below 7% in 2008-09. Like other countries, we have made aggressive use of both monetary and fiscal policy, with a total fiscal stimulus or expansion of the fiscal deficit above the planned level of almost 4 percentage points of GDP in 2008-09. We hope to be able to achieve a similar growth rate in 2009-10, with continuing reliance on monetary and fiscal policy. We recognise the importance of fiscal sustainability and it is our firm intention to return to a fiscally sustainable path after 2010. The additional fiscal stimulus we have undertaken will raise our debt to GDP ratio by a few percentage points above what it would otherwise have been, but this is relatively modest compared to what would have happened had our banks suffered a financial crisis. Effective regulation of the banking system has gained us much more than any additional strain imposed by temporary fiscal expansion. Besides, since most of the fiscal stimulus will be directed to increased investment in infrastructure, it will in the medium term contribute to growth and thus help reduce the debt ratio automatically.

Expansionary policy at home in an environment where exports are weak and private capital flows have dried up would normally lead to pressure on the balance of payments. In our case this has been partly offset by the fall in oil prices, but even so, India’s current account deficit in 2009-10, is likely to be about 1.4. per cent of GDP. We expect to be able to finance this without difficulty and in any case our strong foreign exchange reserves position enables us to cope with any shortfall in capital flows we may experience.

While India will be able to manage, many other developing countries may not be in the same position and this is where the international community can help. We must ensure that countries hurt by the massive withdrawal of private capital that has taken place, which is unlikely to be reversed in 2010, are able to rely upon an increased flow of resources from the international financial institutions. This will help these countries to maintain a higher level of demand than would otherwise be possible and thus help global revival.

There are several steps we can take which will demonstrate our willingness to help.

We must declare our resolve to increase the resources available with the IMF substantially, by around $500 billion over the next two years. This can be done initially through bilateral arrangements, an expansion of the NAB and other borrowing by the Fund. However, we should also signal that these are interim steps pending an increase in Fund quotas. The next quota review, normally due in 2013, should be advanced as much as possible, and we should aim at a doubling of IMF quotas at the very least.

In addition to increasing resources with the IMF, we should also signal that the conditions associated with the use of Fund resources are made more appropriate and flexible. Unless this is done, countries will prefer to build foreign exchange reserves which would be counter-productive in current circumstances.

We should also agree on a fresh allocation of SDRs of around $250 billion. This would provide the developing countries with about $80 billion of usable resources at a time when liquidity is exceptionally tight.

We support the sale of a part of the Fund’s gold to support concessional lending to low income countries thorough the Fund’s concessional windows.

The multilateral development banks can play an important role in maintaining the flow of resources to developing countries over the next two years. As an immediate step, we must endorse a 200% increase in the capital of the Asian Development Bank which can be approved by its Board of Governors in May.

The World Bank should also expand its lending in the next two to three years in a manner which helps to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of private capital flows. By directing its lending to infrastructure development and recapitalisation of the banks, it would help to support contra-cyclical policy in a manner which stimulates an early resumption of growth in these economies. To perform this role, the Bank’s present single borrower limits need to be urgently reviewed. Its debt to capital ratio also needs to be made more liberal.

We must also take concrete steps to revive trade finance which has been badly hit in part, I regret to say, because of financial protectionism. Export credit agencies can expand their lending. The IFC pool to support trade finance can be substantially expanded, with bilateral assistance from countries in a position to contribute.

An issue of vital concern to developing countries is the rise of protectionist sentiment in the industrialised world. This phenomenon is not surprising, given the downturn in economic activity and the rise in unemployment. However, it will be a test of leadership whether we can persuade the public that we must not repeat past mistakes. We know that the Great Depression was as deep and prolonged as it was because countries resorted to protectionism which triggered retaliatory protectionist responses, leading to a downward spiral.

Leaders of the developing countries have struggled to overcome the doubts and fears of our public to persuade them of the merits of integrating with the global economy. I believe we had substantial success in this effort, and the open economy has brought prosperity to an ever widening circle, in both developing and industrialised countries. These hard won gains will be destroyed if industrial country markets are not kept open in these difficult times. I must emphasise that this is an area where leadership must come from the industrialised countries. I hope the Summit communiqué will contain firm commitment of our intentions to keep our markets open.

Let me now turn to issues of longer term reform of the global financial system. The crisis we have experienced has drawn attention to some basic flaws in the functioning of the banks and other parts of the financial system which enabled a dangerous build up of risks. This experience shows that it is not enough to rely on light regulation of the financial system, combined with market enforced discipline and enlightened managements using in house risk management techniques. We have to move to stronger regulation and improved supervision if we are to prevent a repeat of the crisis. Valuable work has been done by the working groups set up to chart the broad directions of reform in this area. We should endorse the recommendations emerging from this work and entrust the recently expanded Financial Stability Forum and the expanded Basel Committee on Banking Supervision to prepare detailed proposals which can then be used by national regulators to align our national regulations with the new global standards. I think we all agree on the need to expand the perimeter of regulation to cover the non-banking sector, the need to redefine capital requirements to avoid pro-cyclicality, the need to avoid a build-up of excessive leverage and the need to subject systemically important institutions to supervision by a college of supervisors. We should also endorse sharing information and bringing tax havens and non-cooperating jurisdictions under closer scrutiny.

In addition to improving regulation in our individual countries, we also need to develop an effective early warning system which can spot a build up of risks which would threaten global financial stability. This task must be assigned to the IMF in consultation with the expanded FSF. The IMF is the logical institution to deal with this task but I must add that its capacity to undertake even-handed surveillance needs to be greatly strengthened if it is to perform the task well. This is ultimately connected with the governance and accountability of the institution.

The world has changed greatly since the multilateral institutions were established and the role of these institutions needs to be redefined and their mandate suitably revised. The representation of the developing and emerging market countries in the decision making levels of these institutions also needs to be improved. Better representation is essential if the institutions are to have the legitimacy they need to play their role in an increasingly integrated world in which actions taken in one country affect many other countries.

These are longer term issues of institutional reform which we must address once the immediate priorities of crisis management are handled.”

Excerpts from the MANIFESTO of Key Political Parties

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:20:00 +0000

Excerpts from the MANIFESTO of the CPI (ML)

The Government has tightened the stranglehold of MNCs on Indian agriculture, locking farmers into a debt trap, and opened up agriculture, forcing our farmers to compete with heavily subsidised farmers of the West and leaving them at the mercy of global price fluctuations. As a result of the UPA Government’s refusal to reverse these killer policies, farmers in Vidarbha (Maharashtra), Andhra Pradesh, Punjab and Wynad (Kerala) continue to reap the harvest of suicides.
In spite of Vidarbha suicides being linked with the failure of seed MNC Monsanto’s Bt.cotton, the Indian Government has allowed Monsanto to conduct field trials of GM crops. Clearly the UPA Government is quite willing to risk our health and environment and sacrifice farmers’ lives in order to protect the interests of MNCs. The Manmohan regime’s Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture has signed away India’s own independence in agricultural research.
Even as labour laws and workers’ rights are blatantly violated, the Unorganised Workers’ Social Security Act excludes large sections of workers in informal and contractualised jobs and, in the absence of any fund commitment by the Government, fails to provide any effective ‘social security.’

The kind of Congress monopoly that existed at the Centre till 1977 has become a thing of the past and the ruling classes have been forced to reconcile themselves with this new political reality. With single-party domination becoming elusive, the ruling classes would now like to impose a two-party or two-coalition system.

This ruling class design to subject the polity to a duopoly of the UPA and NDA must be frustrated. But a rag-tag ‘third front’ that offers no policy alternative and is crowded by forces with dubious track record cannot face this challenge. Only a powerful Left and democratic camp drawing its strength from the struggles and aspirations of the Indian people for a better tomorrow can be the most effective bulwark against the ruling classes’ attempt to regiment the polity.

The 14th Lok Sabha had the biggest ever representation of the CPI(M) and its Left Front partners, but any hope that this would lead to a powerful Left assertion in national politics and strengthening of the Left and democratic camp was belied. The CPI(M)-led Left allowed itself to be shackled programmatically to the Congress-led UPA for most part of the UPA government’s tenure. The CPI(M) failed to demarcate itself over the issue of SEZ, a sinister pretext for corporate landlordism, and the SEZ Act 2005 was allowed to be passed without any protest. Worse still, the CPI(M)-led government in West Bengal became infamous for the most coercive attempts to acquire agricultural land in the name of industrialisation and SEZ.

The growing derailment and degeneration of the CPI(M)-led regimes in West Bengal and Kerala has come as a shock to the well-wishers of the Left even as it has emboldened the Congress and other rightwing forces all over the country to try and tarnish the image of the Left. Any real advance towards an effective third front to take on both the UPA and NDA calls for a rejuvenation of the Left movement and this in turn cannot be achieved without a firm and sustained struggle against the lapses and blunders and mistaken priorities and policies of the Left in power.

At the same time, the CPI(ML) also recognises the need and possibility of forging broader unity on issues of common concern. In Bihar, the CPI(ML) has taken initiative to unleash united action of diverse Left forces against the misrule of the NDA government in the state and in this election it has been possible to ensure seat adjustment among the three parties in Bihar.

Ending agrarian crisis and peasant distress:
• India should walk out of the WTO-sponsored Agreement on Agriculture
• Thoroughgoing land reforms and lowering of land ceiling
• Subsidised agro inputs for small and medium farmers and regulation of prices of all inputs
• Vastly enhance public investment in agriculture and infrastructure and arrange for comprehensive crop insurance
• Zero-interest credit for farmers; a new Debt Relief Act to be enacted to curb usury
• Procurement guarantee at fair MSP (minimum support price)
• Ban on forward/futures trading in agricultural produce
• Scrapping of SEZ Act
• No to forcible acquisition of agricultural land
• No to introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops without a rigorous and transparent scientific evaluation; immediate stop to all field trials of GM crops
More jobs, Enhanced Purchasing Power
• Expand NREGA to provide at least 200 days of employment
• Enact a law for Urban Employment Guarantee on the lines of NREGA
• Enlist all poor in the BPL list, ensure that the poor are given 50 kilograms of grains at the rate of Rs.2 per kg and 5 litres of kerosene at the rate of Rs. 2 per litre every month, expand and strengthen the PDS system
• Extend provisions of 6th Pay Commission on minimum wages to unorganised sector workers and NREGA workers and guarantee daily minimum wages of Rs. 200
• Regularise all contract workers and para-employees
• Enact comprehensive welfare legislation for Agricultural Workers
• Increased Public Spending
• An end to the privatisation and contractualisation of health services and higher investment in public health,
• Ensure safe drinking water and sanitation for all
• Ensure compulsory universal primary education for all
• Enhanced expenditure on rural infrastructure
• Guaranteed housing for rural and urban poor
Checks on Corporates and MNCs
• Seeks details of money stashed by Indian corporates in Swiss banks and reclaim the same, recovery of unpaid loans defaulted by big business houses
• Confiscation of assets and nationalisation of enterprises of fraudulent corporations
• Punishment for corporations guilty of pesticide poisoning and recovery of damages from them under the principle of “polluter pays”
• Reverse the trend of FDI relaxation and corporate penetration in retail, insurance and other sectors, impose strict curbs on foreign capital
• No to sops, subsidies, tax waivers etc. for corporates

Excerpts from the MANIFESTO of Indian National Congress

The Major Accomplishments: 2004-2009

• It has launched the National Rural Health Mission which has already made a positive impact by improving the quality and accessibility of primary health care in villages. More children are now being delivered under the care of trained health professionals. Around six and a half lakh women have been trained and posted as accredited social health activists (ASHAs).

The Work Programme: 2009-2014
• we will enact a National Food Security Act
The Indian National Congress pledges to enact a Right to Food law that guarantees access to sufficient food for all people, particularly the most vulnerable sections of society. The Indian National Congress pledges that every family living below the poverty line either in rural or urban areas will be entitled, by law, to 25 kgs of rice or wheat per month at Rs 3 per kg. Subsidised community kitchens will be set up in all cities for homeless people and migrants with the support of the Central government.
• We will guarantee health security for all
The National Rural Health Mission has already begun to make a noticeable impact and will be implemented with an even greater sense of urgency. The Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) introduced by the Congress-led UPA Government offers health insurance for poor families. Expenditure on health is a major cause of indebtedness, particularly in rural areas. The Indian National Congress pledges that every family living below the poverty line will be covered by the RSBY over the next three years. Every district headquarters hospital will be upgraded to provide quality heath facilities to all.
• We will ensure comprehensive social security to those at special risk
The Indian National Congress will ensure a comprehensive cover of social security to all persons who are at special risk including (i) single-woman headed households; (ii) disabled and the elderly; (iii) urban homeless; (iv) released bonded workers; (v) members of primitive tribal groups; and (vi) members of designated “most backward” dalit communities.
• We will be make quality education affordable to everyone
India today has one of the largest educational loan programmes in the world. Over the past five years, over fifteen lakh students have received loans totaling more than Rs 26,000 crores and are pursuing various professional courses.
The Indian National Congress now pledges that all students admitted to any recognized course in any recognized college/university will be provided, on a need basis, either a scholarship or an educational loan without collateral repayable over a very long period.

In order to ensure quality school education for all children, we have already made a beginning by approving the setting up of one model school in every block of the country. Every year, over the next five years, we will add one more model school in every block.

The Indian National Congress pledges to focus more sharply on outcomes and achievement levels in education and not just on enrolment. It also pledges a major programme for training of teachers and improving the physical environment in schools.

A massive expansion in higher education has been undertaken in the past two years—8 new IITs, 7 new IIMs, 5 new Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, 30 new Central Universities, 20 new Indian Institutes of Information Technology and 374 new colleges in educationally-deprived districts. The Indian National Congress pledges to ensure that these expansion plans are implemented fully with their twin focus on excellence and affirmative action.

• We will ensure energy security for our country

The last two years have seen a very sharp turnaround in the addition to power generating capacity. This momentum will be maintained and it will be ensured that the country adds at least 12,000-15,000 mw of capacity every year through a mix of sources—coal, hydel, nuclear and renewables. Rural electrification and reduction in distribution losses will be given the highest priority. The Indian National Congress promises a very significant increase in the share of nuclear power, both through domestic and imported technology which has now been made possible by the civil nuclear agreements. The pace of oil and gas exploration will be intensified. India’s oil diplomacy will be pursued aggressively. The Indian National Congress will implement a scheme to supply energy to poor families at affordable prices.

Third Front – a recipe for chaos
There is also the so-called Third Front, a grouping of opportunistic parties. These parties have neither consistency nor clarity. They have neither competence nor commitment. This Front, grounded in the politics of convenience, is nothing but a platform for personal ambitions. It speaks of “alternative polices” without spelling out what these alternatives are. Parties of the Third Front do one thing when they are in power and quite another when they are rejected by the people.

The Left Parties, who are prime movers behind the so-called Third Front, supported the Congress-led UPA government for over four years. They attempted to exercise authority without taking on any responsibility. At every step, they violated the discipline, restraint and sobriety so very essential for running a coalition smoothly. At every step, the Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh, briefed them on all important issues. The Left Parties withdrew their support on the issue of the civilian nuclear agreement even though it had been negotiated and concluded on our own terms. They adamantly refused to listen to reasoned arguments that convincingly demonstrated that the agreement was in India’s supreme national interest.

The Left Parties and their present partners pride themselves on being secular. On the contrary, it may be recalled that they had actively aligned with the BJP in the past. They are, in fact, responsible for the electoral growth of the BJP.
As past experience has shown, the Third Front is a recipe for political instability. Lacking a natural national anchor, it is a recipe for chaos, not cohesion.

Excerpts from the MANIFESTO of the CPI (M)

The CPI(M) constantly demanded increased allocations in agriculture, education and health in keeping with the promises in the CMP.

For all its supposed concern for the aam admi, the UPA government worked overtime to pamper the super rich. The government flaunts a 8.6 per cent growth in GDP for four consecutive years till 2008. What does this growth mean? Till 2007, India recorded the fastest growth rate of billionaires in the world. Four out of the ten richest people in the world are Indians.

We are a country with rich natural resources, skilled manpower and scientific and technological prowess. Yet, predatory crony capitalism has condemned us to be a society with some of the worst human development indicators in the world:

• 230 million people are undernourished

• More than half of India’s women are anaemic

• 40 per cent of children under three years are underweight

• 2,19,000 habitations have no access to clean drinking water

• 39 per cent of adult population is illiterate

• 77 per cent of the population spends less than Rs. 20 a day

• The share of wages in the organised industrial sector is among the lowest in the world

Under the Congress-UPA dispensation:

• The agrarian crisis continues. Suicides by farmers have not abated.

• The public distribution system has been further enfeebled. The BPL category excludes large sections of the poor. 52 per cent of the agricultural labour households are excluded from the PDS. Allocations for the APL category have been drastically cut.

The food policy is callous and inhuman. Three crore tonnes of foodgrains lie in the godowns but the government refuses to undo the cut in the allocations to the states.

The Manmohan Singh government promoted policies favouring big business and big corporates, both Indian and foreign. SEZs were designed to help these interests grab large tracts of land and they were given a bonanza of tax sops.

The backdoor entry of FDI in retail trade is jeopardising the livelihood of lakhs of small shopkeepers and traders. There has been rampant privatisation of health and education systems, thus depriving the common people of health and education facilities. Allowing FDI in real estate and encouragement of real estate speculation has led to land grabbing and a massive increase in land prices in and around urban areas. It has become impossible for the poor and the middle classes to own a decent home.

The Congress-led government has promoted public-private partnerships in various infrastructure projects whereby the public sector bears all the costs and the private party reaps all the profits. The Hyderabad Metro, now mired in the Satyam-Maytas scandal, is one such glaring instance.

The rights of workers and employees have been curtailed. The EPF rate of interest was reduced to 8.5 per cent. The government has promoted contractualisation and casualisation of labour. Ignoring the recommendations of the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector and the Standing Committee on Labour, the
government passed an Act in parliament which makes a mockery of the rights and protection for workers of the unorganised sector.

The fiscal stimulus packages announced by the government have been grossly inadequate and mainly aimed at providing tax concessions to bail out big corporates. Even such concessions have not been linked to any conditionalities to protect the workers from lay-offs and retrenchment. No measures have been undertaken so far to protect the peasantry from price crashes and import competition. The Centre has ignored the plightof the overseas migrant workers and not included them in the stimulus package. The only way to come out of the crisis is by creating demand and new jobs. This requires massive public investment in employment generation, rural development, agriculture, social sectors and infrastructure. This is exactly what the government has refused to undertake.

CORRUPTION

The ruling alliance vitiated the parliamentary democratic system by large scale use of money, bribery and intimidation to purchase and encourage defections from the opposition to win the vote of confidence in July 2008. Earlier, in 1993, faced with a no-confidence motion, the Narasimha Rao government had bribed opposition members of Parliament. The Congressled government, however, took this to new and sordid heights.

The government displayed complete contempt for Parliament by extending the July 2008 special session till the end of December, and doing away with the winter session altogether. Thus, the number of Parliament sittings in 2008 were reduced to a mere 46. Misuse of public institutions and investigative agencies was also the norm under this government.

The Satyam-Maytas scandal is a shocking example of how crony capitalism is leading to institutionalised corruption. The patronage given to the Satyam-Maytas combine by the Congress government in Andhra Pradesh involves lucrative contracts and transfer of thousands of acres of land. Special Economic Zones have become the instruments for large scale transfer of land to corporates depriving the farmers and the rural poor of their meagre landed assets.

ROLE OF CPI(M) AND LEFT VIS-À-VIS UPA GOVERNMENT

The CPI(M) and the Left acted as sentinels of the people’s interests vis-àvis the UPA government. At least two major legislations – the NREGA and the Forest Tribal Rights Act – would not have come about in the present form without the CPI(M)’s intervention.

The Left parties made crucial interventions in NREGA legislation which have proved to be of great benefit to the people. These include: (1) the deletion of a clause which gave Government the right to terminate the programme if it so wanted; (2) to ensure that it be made a universal right for anyone who was willing to do manual work and not limited to BPL families alone as suggested by the Government; (3) a special provision to ensure that at least one-third of the beneficiaries are women; and (4) to ensure more flexibility in the type of projects that may be taken up through the introduction of a clause that gives State Governments the scope to make suitable project proposals.

It was the sustained intervention by the Left and particularly the CPI(M) that led to the enactment of the Scheduled Tribes and other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act. Here again without the Party’s intervention, the Act in the present form would not have been possible.

The interventions by the CPI(M) and the Left resulted in (1) change in the cut-off year from 1980 to December 2005; (2) inclusion of other traditional forest dwelling communities as beneficiaries; (3) increase of land ceiling from 2.5 hectares to 4 hectares; (4) inclusion of expanded rights to minor forest produce; (5) expanded role of gram sabhas and panchayats; (6) right to development projects in forest areas within a limited area; and (7) securing equal rights of women.

Similarly, the CPI(M) intervened to modify the Patents Amendments Act of 2005 to protect the interests of the country with regard to the provision of less expensive generic drugs for the people. The Left did not allow dilution of the Right to Information legislation. It is due to the continuous pressure of the CPI(M) and the Left that there was increased allocation for education even though it did not attain the 6 per cent of GDP mark promised in the CMP.

The role played by the CPI(M) and the Left in the past five years led to the protection of financial sector from the ravages of speculative finance capital.

• The Left protected the banking sector by not allowing the Banking Regulation (Amendment) Act which would have facilitated the takeover of Indian private banks by foreign banks.

• The Left defended the insurance sector by preventing any legislation to increase FDI in the insurance sector from 26 to 49 per cent.

• Pensions of lakhs of government employees were protected by the Left’s decision to oppose the Pension Fund Regulatory Act which would have led to pension funds of government employees being privatized and put in the stock market.

The CPI(M) and the Left firmly defended the public sector and national sovereignty.

• The integrity of the ‘navaratna’ PSUs was protected by the Left which did not agree to the disinvestment of shares in BHEL.

• To protect the interests of lakhs of small shopkeepers and traders, and workers employed by them, the Left opposed the opening up of the retail trade to MNCs and prevented their full-fledged entry.

• To protect the farmers’ interests, the Left did not support the Seed Bill which could not be passed in the Parliament.

• To protect the integrity of the educational sector, the Left stopped the passage of the Bill to allow foreign educational institutions and universities to be set up in India.

• To protect the interests of the working class, the Left prevented the introduction of anti-labour laws.

All through the four years when the CPI(M) and the Left supported the government, the CPI(M) worked assiduously to protect national sovereignty and to prevent implementation of some of the worst aspects of the neo-liberal policies which would have harmed the people’s economic interests and livelihood.

The country requires alternative policies. Pro-people economic policies; provision of social equity; consistent secularism; genuine federalism; and an independent foreign policy. The CPI(M) appeals to all democratic and secular forces to support such alternative policies. For this, an alternative political platform is required. The CPI(M) will work for the creation of a non-Congress, non-BJP government which will strengthen democracy, ensure equitable economic development and social justice.

Tragedy of history

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:38:00 +0000

Hanna Schmitz in ‘The Reader’ is responsible for the death of hundreds of Jews, but why do we sympathise with her?

THOUGH her provocative portrayal of the ex-Schutzstaffel (SS) guard Hanna Schmitz in The Reader won Kate Winslet the Oscar, it is fair to assume that Academy voters also took into account her work in Revolutionary Road. All this speaks volumes about her persistence, warmth and commitment to work.

Bernhard Schlink’s novel The Reader (1995), on which the movie is based, tackles the problem of the inability of succeeding generations of Germans to respond to the tragedy of the Holocaust. The ideology of mass murder has a history and a context in all its perversity and evil.

Set in 1958, in the city of Heidelberg, the novel/film begins with the short and passionate affair between a 15-year-old schoolboy, Michael, and a 36-year-old tram conductress, Hanna Schmitz, who has him read to her from the classics before making love. She hides from him the fact that she cannot read or write, but he knows. The nude scenes are deeply aesthetic and coherent to the theme of dichotomy of passion and indifference. Then Hanna Schmitz disappears suddenly, only to be discovered by Michael eight years later at a war crimes trial.

Kate Winslet (Hanna Schmitz) and David Kross (Michael) in a still from the film.

She, along with a few others who had worked as SS guards, are held guilty of allowing Jews in their custody to die. When asked if she is the author of the report on the fire that killed the Jews, Hanna Schmitz does not deny it. Michael is confused and horrified that she regards the public exposure of her illiteracy far worse and humiliating than her involvement with the Nazi programme.

During the trial it is revealed that Hanna Schmitz had the terminally ill Jews read to her before sending them to the gas chambers. Michael conjectures that she probably wanted to make their last days bearable; or did she send them to their death so that her illiteracy remained a secret? Hanna Schmitz’s true guilt is her illiteracy, which becomes an allegory for the contemporary misunderstanding of the Holocaust. She is convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
A German fate

Michael is left thinking: “I wanted simultaneously to understand Hanna’s crime and to condemn it. But it was too terrible for that. When I tried to understand it, I had the feeling I was failing to condemn it as it must be condemned. When I condemned it as it must be condemned, there was no room for understanding.... I wanted to pose myself both tasks – understanding and condemnation. But it was impossible to do both… the pain I went through because of my love for Hanna was, in a way, the fate of my generation, a German fate.”

It is at the Natzweiler-Struthof concentration camp that Michael meets an old man who gives him his reasons for the complicity of those behind the Holocaust tragedy: “An executioner is not under orders. He’s doing his work, he doesn’t hate the people he executes, he’s not taking revenge on them, he’s not killing them because they’re in his way or threatening or attacking them. They’re a matter of such indifference to him that he can kill them as easily as not.”

In the novel, Bernhard Schlink asks himself and the reader: “What should our second generation have done, what should it do with the knowledge of the horrors of the extermination of the Jews? We should not believe we can comprehend the incomprehensible, we may not compare the incomparable, we may not inquire because to make the horrors an object of inquiry is to make the horrors an object of discussion, even if the horrors themselves are not questioned, instead of accepting them as something in the face of which we can only fall silent in revulsion, shame and guilt. Should we only fall silent in revulsion, shame and guilt? To what purpose?”

The story derives its significance from the complex notions of justice and responsibility that it throws up in the court scene, a location for the conflict between ethics and duty. The public prosecutor asks Hanna Schmitz to explain why she had allowed more than 300 mothers and children to perish in the fire when the church in which the Jews were locked up had come under heavy aerial bombardment.

She replies that as a guard on duty, she could not possibly open the doors of the church to allow the prisoners to escape. She reasons that it never occurred to her to unlock the doors of the blazing church; her sense of duty prevails over any pity or sense of ethics and humanitarian rationale. Her inability to see the reasons for her persecution seems justified when seen in the light of the controversy over Hannah Arendt’s article, Eichmann in Jerusalem. In 1963, Hannah Arendt’s articles for The New Yorker on Adolf Eichmann’s trial in an Israeli court provoked a heated discussion among Western intellectuals, including Irving Howe and Alfred Cazin.

Both the characters, the philosopher and the heroine of The Reader, carry the same first name. It is for this reason that the movie becomes intellectually challenging, when seen in the light of Hannah Arendt’s philosophy on “the banality of evil”. Why do we sympathise with Hanna Schmitz?

Her persecution goes down well with the Jewish lobby and those who hold a traditional view of ethics and morality. But seen in terms of her sense of duty, the crime begins to take on another shade of the responsibility of action.

Within the ambit of one’s duty lies the question of behaviour according to the demands of the job in hand even if it means death for some. This is the central paradox of any discussion on the philosophical issue of ethics and duty. It is commonly held that the commitment of an evil deed must involve an evil heart or a criminal temperament.

But within Hannah Arendt’s concept of the “banality of evil” this is not the case. You can very well commit a culpable deed without having a streak of wickedness. Hannah Arendt argues, “It is, I think, a simple fact that people are at least as often tempted to do good and need an effort to do evil as vice versa.”

Hanna Schmitz has no pleasure in cruelty, but has acquired the faculty of shutting her mind to it. This is regimentation under a strict bureaucracy. She lacks a criminal mind, as did Eichmann. The fact that Hanna Schmitz passionately enjoys her teenage paramour reading to her from the classics and that she permits him to make love to her only after she has relished the reading shows that her reprehensible act does not come from an evil mind.

Eichmann’s involvement in the deportation of hundreds of Jews to the gas chambers does not give him any pangs of conscience; it is the result of a deep-seated desire to fulfil the demands of an assignment. Personal feelings or the sense of morality are not permitted to interfere with the sense of duty.

All his life, he had shown an acute sense of law and morality that dominated his every action. When it came to organising the deportation, he single-mindedly saw to it that the job in hand reached its conclusion. To Hannah Arendt, it was more a case of thoughtlessness than a “monstrosity”, an incapacity to “think from the point of view of others.”

In a deeply regimented totalitarian state, individualism amounts to inconsequential actions. What if one revolts? One’s removal will not mean the arrival of another rebel. It would end in a more controlled autonomy under a harsher bureaucratic system that co-opts more pliable recruits into the system. And in such a system, one confronts two kinds of people, intellectuals who have the conviction and the mind to rebel, and the others who consider themselves as “normal” and value conformism and obedience to the rules of the state.

Hannah Arendt, therefore, agrees with Immanuel Kant who “defined judgment as the faculty which always comes into play when we are confronted with particulars”. There are no rules that can be applicable to circumstances that in a particular situation appear unique. At the human level, the choices we make determine our destiny and define our ideological stance. Rules are too conventional and narrow in scope to cover the paradoxes and ironies of our existence.

In order not to reveal to the world that she is an illiterate, Hanna Schmitz refuses to admit that she is not the author of the order made out against the prisoners. This lie would cost her a lifetime in prison followed by suicide. But to the end she remains adamant that her actions were in coherence with her sense of duty. She donates her meagre wealth to the Jewish cause before dying, but nowhere is there any repentance. Justice and responsibility are after all not all that unambiguously simple concepts to deal with.

SHELLEY WALIA
Frontline

Fifteenth Lok Sabha election process underway

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:25:00 +0000

The term of the 14th Lok Sabha will expire in the normal course on 1st June, 2009. The upcoming parliamentary elections for the 15th Lok Sabha in the 543 parliamentary constituencies in five phases from 16th April to 13th May.

Counting will take place on the 16th of May, which is expected to be completed on the same day.

Most likely the new government would be in place in the first week of June because the new parliament will be constituted before the 2nd June, 2009.

Prior to the annoucement, the Election Commission of India held a meeting with the representatives of all recognized National and State parties on 3rd February, 2009. It the election planning with the Chief Secretaries, Directors General of Police and Chief Electoral Officers of all States to review the over all preparedness of the election machinery in the country.

The extents of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies in all States (except Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Manipur and Nagaland) have recently been re-determined by the Delimitation Commission set up under the Delimitation Act, 2002. By a Presidential Notification issued on 19th February, 2008, the Delimitation Orders of the Delimitation Commission have been made effective from the same date in all the States, NCT of Delhi and Union Territory of Puducherry (except the six States indicated above and Meghalaya and Tripura).

In respect of the States of Meghalaya and Tripura, the 2 from 20th March, 2008. Thus the present Delimitation Commission’s orders took effect General Elections to the Lok Sabha for 499 out of 543 Parliamentary Constituencies in all the States, NCT of Delhi and Union Territory of Puducherry (except Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Manipur and Nagaland) and to the State Legislative Assemblies of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Sikkim will be held on the basis of the newly delimited constituencies.

Hyderabad court to hear SEBI's plea on Satyam

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:51:00 +0000

Hyderabad, Feb 18 (ANI): A city court in Hyderabad will hear a petition filed by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) to question Satyam Computers former Chief Financial Officer, Vadlamani Srinivas and sacked Price Waterhouse auditors S Gopalakrishnan and Talluri Srinivas.

On Tuesday, the sixth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate reserved orders for Wednesday after hearing arguments over SEBI's petition.

Earlier, the SEBI had interrogated Ramalinga Raju, former chief of embattled Satyam Computer Services Limited, and his brother, Rama Raju.

Meanwhile, Minister of Corporate Affairs Prem Chand Gupta said the government has ordered the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the accounting fraud in IT major Satyam Computer Services Ltd.

"While the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) under his ministry had been given three-months to wrap up its probe into the Satyam scam, no time frame has been set for CBI," Gupta said.

He refused to launch an investigation into accounts of the companies audited by Price Waterhouse, the statutory auditors for Satyam.

Andhra Pradesh Police on Monday issued an order recommending a CBI probe into the scam. (ANI)

Emerging Indo-Iran relations despite US factor

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:20:00 +0000

Witnessing the legacy of over 6000 years at an unusual national seminar on “Iran during 30 years of Islamic Revolution” on February 11, 2009 at the Ho Chi Minh conference hall in the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi in Indo-Iran relationship was a crucial occasion.

The presence of Seyed Mahdi Nabizadeh, Ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Iran to India at the inaugural session underlined its significance who referred to the Indo-Iran Commission', which was established in 1983. This commission signed seven MoUs in November 2008. He added, "Natural gas from Iran to India through Pakistan is a venture which may change the face of regional politics in South Asia. It should not be characterized solely by economic factors."

The highpoint of the relationship came when a path-breaking strategic partnership between India and Iran when Tehran Declaration was signed for enhanced bilateral co-operation in 2001. The declaration was signed by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Iranian President Syed Mohammad Khatami, stressed the importance of a comprehensive convention against international terrorism at the United Nations, an initiative taken by New Delhi.

In 2003 India and Iran signed seven accords, including a landmark New Delhi Declaration although problems remained on the Iranian proposal for a gas pipeline to India through Pakistan. The Delhi Declaration, signed by Vajpayee and Iranian President Syed Mohammed Khatami, said the two sides agreed that ‘the combat against international terrorism should not be based on double standards. States that aid, abet and directly support international terrorism should be condemned'. Khatami said the memorandum of understanding outlining a roadmap for strategic cooperation covered all fields and that interests of both sides would be taken care of. India and Iran agreed that the Iraq crisis should be resolved peacefully under the UN auspices. The two sides called on the international community to remain committed towards speedy reconstruction and development of Afghanistan.

The two countries resolved to work for an early finalisation of a Comprehensive Convention against International Terrorism at the UN, an initiative spearheaded by New Delhi. In a significant step, the two countries agreed to explore opportunities for cooperation in defence. The agreements included cooperation in science and technology, roadmap for strategic cooperation, vocational training, urban water management and cultural exchange programme. India-Iran initiative to develop the Chahbahar port in Iran and to link it by road to Afghanistan commenced a welcome trend of investment in infrastructure development.

In 2005 India and Iran signed an $18-billion gas deal that opened up the possibility of establishing a foothold in the Persian Gulf oil and gas reserves. India planned to buy five million tonnes of Iranian gas annually for 25 years. The agreement cemented a three-way Asian energy tie-up involving Iran, India and China. China's state-run oil company Sinopec is operating the Yadavaran field, with a 50 per cent shareholding, along with Iran, which has a 30 per cent stake.

From 2001 to mid 2005, the relationship between both the countries was reaching its zenith.

But India’s vote in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) against Iran brought the relationship to its nadir because US made such an action as a condition for US-India’s nuclear deal, which was given the final seal of approval by President Bush during the July 2005 visit of the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to Washington. US had all along disapproved the Iran-India energy deal. In September 2005, India chose to vote alongside the US and European Union in referring Iran to the United Nations Security Council. India again voted against Iran in 2006.

In 2008, India launched an Israeli spy satellite into orbit. The launch was the second commercial mission on behalf of another country that has been carried out by the Indian Space Research Organisation. It is being claimed that the launch was an "important milestone" in the commercialisation of India's 45-year-old space programme, which put an Italian satellite in orbit in April 2007 for a fee of $11m. India is eager to compete against the US, Russia, China, the Ukraine and the European Space Agency in providing commercial satellite launch services, a market worth about $2.5bn a year. The Israeli press reported that the satellite will improve Israel's ability to monitor Iran's military activities. It is considered to be one of the most advanced spy satellites that India has put into orbit to date.

While acknowledging that Indo-US nuclear deal and its adverse impact on relation with Iran was a foreign policy disaster, he said, Iran has the third largest reserve of oil and second largest reserve of gas but the India-Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline but it remains in the pipeline, Ambassador Rajiv Sikri, a former Secretary in the Indian Ministry of External Affairs and a member of the executive committee of Indian Association for Central & West Asian Studies (IACWAS) said that there is no denying that India needs to be solicitous and sensitive to Iran’s concerns but Iran too needs to do the same. He pointed out that India was aware of the secret talks that were underway between US and Iran. However, although he did not elaborate, the fact is that US had rejected Iran’s offer of May 4, 2003 that covered every trouble spot in the Middle East region. For instance it included Iran’s offer to end its support to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and pressure them to cease attacks on Israel. On Hizbollah, its most reliable partner in the Arab world, it had offered to support the disarmament of the Lebanese militia and transform it into a purely political party.

Iran had offered to open up the nuclear programme completely to intrusive international inspections in order to alleviate any fears of Iranian weaponisation. It would sign the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran did sign it later. It also offered extensive American involvement in the programme as a further guarantor and goodwill gesture. On terrorism, Teheran offered full cooperation against all terrorist organisations – above all, Al Qaeda. On Iraq, Iran would work actively with the U.S. to support political stabilisation and establishment of democratic institutions. Iran offered to accept the Beirut declaration of the Arab League, the Saudi peace plan from March 2002 in which the Arab states offered to make peace collectively with Israel, recognising and normalising relations with the Jewish state in return for Israel’s agreement to withdraw from all occupied territories and accept a fully independent Palestinian state, an equitable division of Jerusalem, and an equitable resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem. Iran had proposed that it would formally recognise the two-state solution and consider itself at peace with Israel.

Iran wanted the members of the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organisation, an Iranian terrorist organisation based in Iraq, handed over to in return for Al Qaeda operatives it held.

The U.S. and Iran had no diplomatic relations. Switzerland looked after their “interests” in both capitals.

US State Department has been for a more diplomatic approach dealing with Iran but Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield were the stumbling blocks.

Sikri welcomed the offer made by Barak Obama to start talks with Iran. He concluded that India relations with both Iran and US. The same holds true for Iran but he added a rider that countries and civilizations must blend religious and national elements by factoring in the historical heritage. He submitted that the relations between Iran and India stablized and he referred to the visit of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last year. An Iranian official, A A Abbaszadeh responded to him saying, better relations are in mutual interest not only from economic point of view but also from the sub-continental perspective.

There were questions raised about the possible outcome of the upcoming Iranian and Indian elections that too can set the tone of the future relations.

Although the author missed the opportunity of hearing his presentation, during lunch one heard Prof. Mushirul Hasan, vice chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia University telling some of his official that public money meant for books etc should not be wasted on sumptuous feasts and got sense of his sanity. The seminar was organised by IACWAS and Jamia in association with Indo-Iran Society.

Much meaning might not be attributed to the choice of venue of the meeting as Ho Chi Minh conference hall but it also seemed significant. Hồ Chí Minh was a Vietnamese Communist revolutionary and statesman who was Prime Minister and President of the Vietnam (North Vietnam). Ho led the independence movement in his country and established Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1945 and defeating the French Union in 1954. He remained as the highly visible figurehead president until his death in 1969. Perhaps it reflected the remnants of an ideology that helps one understand the world in a context.

P.S: Analysts note that the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s nationalist prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, was largely orchestrated by American and British intelligence agencies. It saw power shift from a democratically-elected government to the US-backed Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, whose reign continued until 1979 when fundamentalist cleric Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to be religious and political leader of the world’s first Islamic republic. It is 30 years since the revolution that overthrew the Shah in Iran, and pretty much 30 years since the Islamic Republic and the American republic last had a real conversation. There is now, with the election of President Barack Obama, a chance to change that. Both sides should take it. The future of the wider Middle East depends on it.

Obama, in his inaugural speech and in an interview with an Arab TV station last week, said the US would extend its hand if Iran unclenched its fist. No doubt launch by Iran of a space satellite – using long-range ballistic technology it could use to carry warheads – was not quite what he had in mind. Iran was a conundrum long before it embarked on nuclear research its neighbours and the west fear could lead to a bomb.

Now, Obama is setting no preconditions – even if he has made clear the US and its allies are determined to prevent Iran becoming nuclear-armed.

Gaza: The Case for Middle East Peace

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 07:41:00 +0000

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan (L) talks flanked by Israeli President Shimon Peres during a debate called "Gaza: The Case for Middle East Peace" on the second day of the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 29, 2009. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan stormed out of an impassioned debate with Israeli President Shimon Peres about the Gaza war at the Davos forum. Erdogan said he would not come back to Davos after being cut off by the moderator because of time constraints on the debate.

In Davos, Switzerland, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey walked off the stage after an angry exchange with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, during a panel discussion on Gaza at the World Economic Forum on 29 January, 2009, and vowed never to return to the annual gathering.

Erdogan apparently became incensed after he was prevented by the moderator from responding to remarks by Peres on the recent Israeli attack. The panel was running late and Peres was to have had the last word, participants said.

Panel discussions at Davos are strictly restricted to one hour, but Erdogan insisted on responding to Peres. Red faced, and with one hand grasping the arm of the moderator, David Ignatius of the Washington Post, Erdogan turned to the Israeli president.

" Peres, you are older than me," he said. "Your voice comes out in a very high tone. And the high tone of your voice has to do with a guilty conscience. My voice, however, will not come out in the same tone."

Resisting efforts by Ignatius to end the session, Erdogan continued, saying to Peres, "When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill."

Eventually, the prime minister gathered up his papers and departed from the stage, saying, "And so Davos is over for me from now on."

Peres pointed a finger at the departing Erdogan and told him that Turkey would have reacted the same way had rockets been falling on Istanbul, participants said. But the Israeli president called Erdogan five minutes later to apologize for any misunderstanding, saying that his words had not been directed at the prime minister personally, the semi-official Anatolian Agency reported.

In a news conference immediately following the panel discussion, Erdogan said that he was particularly upset with Ignatius, who he said had failed to direct a balanced and impartial panel.

By all accounts, the discussion of the Gaza incursion was a lively one, with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, joining Peres and Erdogan. For the most part, participants said, Peres was alone in defending the Israeli role in Gaza, which is why he was given the final 25 minutes to speak. Earlier, Erdogan had spoken for 12 minutes about the sufferings of the Palestinians.
While Erdogan has strongly criticized the Israeli military action in Gaza, his country and Israel have long enjoyed close diplomatic relations. With its strong relations with the militant group Hamas, which seized control of Gaza in 2007, Erdogan's Justice and Development Party has played an increasingly important role mediating among Israel, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan clashed with Shimon Peres, whose voice had risen as he made an impassioned defence of Israel's actions, jabbing his finger. Erdogan said Peres had spoken so loudly to conceal his "guilt".

He accused the moderator of not allowing him to speak and said he did not think he would return to Davos.

The Turkish PM stressed later that he had left the debate not because of his disagreements with Peres but because he had been given much less time to speak than the Israeli leader. Turkey is one of the few Muslim countries to have dealings with Israel, but relations have been under strain since the Islamist-rooted AK Party was elected to power in 2002. Erdogan was cut off as he attempted to reply to Peres.

the Turkish Prime Minister had made an address himself, describing Gaza as an "open-air prison".

When the audience applauded Peres, he said: "I find it very sad that people applaud what you said. You killed people. And I think that it is very wrong."

The moderator, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, had given him a minute to reply, then asked him to finish, saying that people needed to go to dinner.

"I do not think I will be coming back to Davos after this because you do not let me speak," Erdogan shouted before marching off the stage in front of Peres, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and an elite audience of ministers and international officials.
Peres had told the audience Israel was forced on to the offensive against Hamas by thousands of rockets and mortars fired into Israel.

"The tragedy of Gaza is not Israel, it is Hamas," the Israeli leader said.
"Why did they fire rockets? There was no siege against Gaza. Why did they fight us, what did they want? There was never a day of starvation in Gaza."

He argued that Erdogan would have reacted in the same way if rockets had hit Istanbul.
More than 1,300 Palestinians and 14 Israelis were killed during the three-week conflict which began on 27 December.

Erdogan later complained that he had been allowed to speak for just 12 minutes compared with 25 for Peres.

"I did not target at all in any way the Israeli people, President Peres or the Jewish people," he said.

"I am a prime minister, a leader who has expressly stated that anti-Semitism is a crime against humanity."

Reading the Satyam Scam

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:23:00 +0000

“Earlier industrialists and then defence contracts financed political parties. Nowreal estate does, especially in the states because chief ministers have easier access to it. The kickbacks are huge” – CharlesCorrea (Interview, Times of India,10 September 2008). From "Maytas, Hyderabad Metro and the Politics of Real Estate" in the EPW which notes "In the 10 days since the revelation of the massive fraud at Satyam, there has been much speculation that the holes in the software company’s books were caused by the promoters’ links with Maytas, the infrastructure company that in recent years has become the favourite of the government of Andhra Pradesh. This article puts under the magnifying lens the award in 2008 of the massive Rs 12,000 crore contract to Maytas to build and operate the Hyderabad Metro."

Reading the Satyam Scam

Will the truth ever come out? What is this sham of corporate governance?

In a confession that led to his arrest and turmoil in corporate India, B Ramalinga Raju, the former chairman of Satyam Computer Services, India’s fourth largest information technology company, stated that he had manipulated accounts to inflate
revenues and profits. The result was a collapse in the value of the company’s stock and dissolution of its board. Raju’s confessionessentially stated that having doctored the firm’s accounts formany years, he was left with hugely overstated cash reserves and understated liabilities that amounted to a shortfall of more than Rs 7,000 crore in the company’s balance sheet. This was impossibleto fill without the infusion of resources from outside. When his effort to get Satyam to “takeover” two companies owned by his family – Maytas Properties and Maytas Infra – in order to fill this
hole with real assets failed because of shareholder resistance, he decided to reveal the fraud.

There could be many explanations for why this high profile company in an industry that has reported consistently strong revenue growth, export expansion and profitability, and is supported by the State with special tax benefits, chose to inflate profits that must have already been favourable by overall industry
standards. One allegation that has surfaced is that this was part of an effort to inflate stock values and the wealth of the promoters. Another allegation that is reportedly being investigated is that the manipulation of accounts followed the siphoning of resources from the company to expand the wealth of promoters, who had a relatively small and declining shareholding in Satyam. Speculation aside, the actual details of what transpired at Satyam Computer Services prior to the confession will
emerge only after much time, if at all they will.

One problem is that it is difficult to accept the former chairman’sconfession at face value, because it implicitly suggests that Satyam was performing much worse than other leading IT companies. Satyam was undertaking activities similar to these companies and like them had leading Fortune 500 companies among its clients. Its billing and its costs could not have been very different. So it does not seem surprising that the audited balance sheet of the company showed that the ratio of profits before tax to total income in Satyam in the financial year ending March 2008 was 27.8%, as compared with 32.3% in the case of Infosys, 23.1% in TCS, 23.1 and 19.2% in the case of Wipro. Yet
we are being told to believe that Satyam’s profit figureswere hugely exaggerated leading to the gaping hole in its balance sheet.

The big question is to what extent the Satyam scam is linked to the explosive growth under the current Congress ruled government of Andhra Pradesh of the Maytas companies, which have emerged as the favoured contractors of the state government and have bagged projects worth over Rs 30,000 crore in irrigation, ports, and the Hyderabad Metro. While Satyam was projected by the previous Telugu Desam Party government in Andhra Pradesh as well, there is no question that Maytas has become what it is
during the Congress regime. Since the award of large government contracts almost always involves payoffs, the moot question is how much of the hole in Satyam was created by the extraction of resources to fuel Maytas’ growth. As the detailed discussion in the article on Hyderabad Metro elsewhere in this issue reveals,
there is much to suspect in the favours showered on Maytas. The Satyam trail then would lead to the mainstream political parties and the incentive to hush up the story will be strong.

Whatever the actual scam, an issue that needs examining is why conventional monitoring and disciplining mechanisms failed in this case, permitting accounting fraud over a long period. To start with, this huge fraud, which also involved declaring cash
reserves that did not exist, was completely missed by a high profile board, which even agreed to allow the promoters to use these nonexistent reserves to buy two unrelated companies in which the latter have a major stake. The board included distinguished
independent directors, who, according to reports, were being paid huge fees for their professional services. This gives rise to the criticism that the practice of managements paying independent directors could lead them to take a “soft” view of matters and nottake their monitoring role seriously. Given the fact that the board
of directors is the institutional form through which the top management is disciplined, especially in a firm like Satyam, where there are a large number of investors other than the promoters who collectively own a very large share of equity but individually do not have an influential holding, the board ought to have exercised
its functions, vis-a-vis the top management, the promoters, and the other shareholders, in the best tradition of business ethics. There is reason to believe that it failed in this respect.

A related failure was the inability of the firm’s auditors, Price Waterhouse Coopers, one of the big four, to detect manipulation of this magnitude. As has been noted, the search for large fee incomes and the competition between auditors to increase market share results in a situation where auditors take the claims of their large clients and the documents they produce at face value and do not carry out the minimal checks which would possibly have revealed the fraud at Satyam, whatever it may be. Here again, the fact that the monitor is paid by the monitored seems to be a major source of the problem.

Hence, these and other failures of the regulatory mechanism need to be investigated as well. It must lead to comprehensive reform that ensures that we do not have other Satyams because of the weaknesses of the institutional and regulatory environment.

Economic & Political Weekly EPW january 17, 2009

Largest investor fraud ever in US: EU reviews fund rules

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:01:00 +0000

Bernard Lawrence Madoff, an American businessman, and former chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange who founded the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960 and was its chairman until December 11, 2008, when he was charged with perpetrating what may be the largest investor fraud ever committed by a single person. He is under house arrest until his indictment with a deadline of February 11, 2009.

On December 10, 2008 Madoff allegedly told his sons, Andrew and Mark, that the asset management arm of his firm was a giant Ponzi scheme--as he put it, "one big lie." They then passed this information to authorities. The following day, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrested Madoff and charged him with one count of securities fraud. Five days after his arrest, Madoff's assets and those of the firm were frozen and a receiver was appointed to handle the case. According to federal charges, Madoff himself admitted that his firm has "liabilities of approximately US$50 billion." Banks from outside the U.S. have announced that they have potentially lost billions in U.S. dollars as a result. Some investors, journalists and economists have questioned Madoff's statement that he alone is responsible for the large-scale operation, and investigators are looking to determine if there were others involved in the scheme.

Madoff's firm, which is in the process of liquidation, was one of the top market maker businesses on Wall Street (the sixth-largest in 2008), often functioning as a "third-market" provider that bypassed "specialist" firms and directly executed orders over the counter from retail brokers. The firm also encompassed an investment management and advisory division that is now the focus of the fraud investigation.[9]
Madoff was also a prominent philanthropist who served on the boards of nonprofit institutions, many of which entrusted his firm with their endowments. The freeze of his and his firm's assets significantly affected businesses around the world and a number of charities, some of which, including the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, the Picower Foundation, and the JEHT Foundation, have been forced to close as a consequence of the fraud.

EU reviews fund rules in light of Madoff scandal
Tue Jan 20, 2009

By Huw Jones

BRUSSELS, Jan 20 (Reuters) - European Union mutual fund rules may be tightened in light of the Madoff scandal to ensure investors can recover their assets held by custodians, EU diplomats said on Tuesday.

French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde asked EU finance ministers on Tuesday to review the rules, known as undertakings in collective investment in transferrable securities or UCITS.

They oversee the EU's 6 trillion euro ($7.8 trillion) mutual funds sector.

"Developments in the Madoff case have brought to light a particular problem," she said in a letter to the ministers.

Prosecutors say Bernard Madoff of the United States ran a $50 billion Ponzi scheme, paying off earlier investors with money from later ones, in a scam that has devastated investors including European banks.

Lagarde said protection afforded to investors differed from one country to another in the EU due to different ways the UCITS rules were being applied.

The French call is widely seen as an attack on the application of the UCITS rules by neighbouring Luxembourg, a major funds centre in Europe.

"There is no difference between the French and Luxembourg legislation as far as this point is concerned," Luxembourg's prime minister and finance minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, told reporters on Monday evening.

Under EU law, assets in a fund must be entrusted for safekeeping to a depository, which is under strict obligation to return them when requested.

In some EU states, such an obligation has not been made explicit on sub-custodians or banks that are allowed to play the role of custodian, Lagarde said.

"There is a need to harmonise the interpretation of this obligation to reimburse depositors," a French diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy told finance ministers he would not "sit idly by" and would supplement the rules, if needed, his spokesman said.

"If there is a need to supplement the principles or provide greater clarity, the (European) Commission will take the lead and move forward with the necessary actions," the spokesman added.

McCreevy will consult national market watchdogs, in the first instance, before deciding what changes are needed.

The EU has just adopted a reform of UCITS dealing with its fund management aspects.

Lagarde said the Madoff case had "highlighted the difficulty of locating securities, identifying the owners and determining the respective responsibilities to each link in the chain of ownership".

The Commission will propose a draft law at the end of 2009, known as the directive on legal certainty of securities holdings and transactions, as a further step to safeguard investor funds.

An international convention aimed at protecting individual titles to assets could also reflect lessons learned from the Madoff scandal, EU diplomats said.

In December, French market regulator Autorite des Marches Financiers (AMF) said French mutual funds had incurred losses of about 500 million euros due to Madoff's scheme. (Editing by Dale Hudson)

Reuters 2008

Posthumous Editorial by Lasantha Wickramatunge

krishnagreen@gmail.com (Gopal Krishna) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 16:46:00 +0000

And Then They Came For Me
No other profession calls on its practitioners to lay down their lives for their art save the armed forces and, in Sri Lanka, journalism. In the course of the past few years, the independent media have increasingly come under attack. Electronic and print-media institutions have been burnt, bombed, sealed and coerced. Countless journalists have been harassed, threatened and killed. It has been my honour to belong to all those categories and now especially the last.

I have been in the business of journalism a good long time. Indeed, 2009 will be The Sunday Leader's 15th year. Many things have changed in Sri Lanka during that time, and it does not need me to tell you that the greater part of that change has been for the worse. We find ourselves in the midst of a civil war ruthlessly prosecuted by protagonists whose bloodlust knows no bounds. Terror, whether perpetrated by terrorists or the state, has become the order of the day. Indeed, murder has become the primary tool whereby the state seeks to control the organs of liberty. Today it is the journalists, tomorrow it will be the judges. For neither group have the risks ever been higher or the stakes lower.

Why then do we do it? I often wonder that. After all, I too am a husband, and the father of three wonderful children. I too have responsibilities and obligations that transcend my profession, be it the law or journalism. Is it worth the risk? Many people tell me it is not. Friends tell me to revert to the bar, and goodness knows it offers a better and safer livelihood. Others, including political leaders on both sides, have at various times sought to induce me to take to politics, going so far as to offer me ministries of my choice. Diplomats, recognising the risk journalists face in Sri Lanka, have offered me safe passage and the right of residence in their countries. Whatever else I may have been stuck for, I have not been stuck for choice.

But there is a calling that is yet above high office, fame, lucre and security. It is the call of conscience.

The Sunday Leader has been a controversial newspaper because we say it like we see it: whether it be a spade, a thief or a murderer, we call it by that name. We do not hide behind euphemism. The investigative articles we print are supported by documentary evidence thanks to the public-spiritedness of citizens who at great risk to themselves pass on this material to us. We have exposed scandal after scandal, and never once in these 15 years has anyone proved us wrong or successfully prosecuted us.

The free media serve as a mirror in which the public can see itself sans mascara and styling gel. From us you learn the state of your nation, and especially its management by the people you elected to give your children a better future. Sometimes the image you see in that mirror is not a pleasant one. But while you may grumble in the privacy of your armchair, the journalists who hold the mirror up to you do so publicly and at great risk to themselves. That is our calling, and we do not shirk it.

Every newspaper has its angle, and we do not hide the fact that we have ours. Our commitment is to see Sri Lanka as a transparent, secular, liberal democracy. Think about those words, for they each has profound meaning. Transparent because government must be openly accountable to the people and never abuse their trust. Secular because in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society such as ours, secularism offers the only common ground by which we might all be united. Liberal because we recognise that all human beings are created different, and we need to accept others for what they are and not what we would like them to be. And democratic... well, if you need me to explain why that is important, you'd best stop buying this paper.

The Sunday Leader has never sought safety by unquestioningly articulating the majority view. Let's face it, that is the way to sell newspapers. On the contrary, as our opinion pieces over the years amply demonstrate, we often voice ideas that many people find distasteful. For example, we have consistently espoused the view that while separatist terrorism must be eradicated, it is more important to address the root causes of terrorism, and urged government to view Sri Lanka's ethnic strife in the context of history and not through the telescope of terrorism. We have also agitated against state terrorism in the so-called war against terror, and made no secret of our horror that Sri Lanka is the only country in the world routinely to bomb its own citizens. For these views we have been labelled traitors, and if this be treachery, we wear that label proudly.

Many people suspect that The Sunday Leader has a political agenda: it does not. If we appear more critical of the government than of the opposition it is only because we believe that - pray excuse cricketing argot - there is no point in bowling to the fielding side. Remember that for the few years of our existence in which the UNP was in office, we proved to be the biggest thorn in its flesh, exposing excess and corruption wherever it occurred. Indeed, the steady stream of embarrassing expos‚s we published may well have served to precipitate the downfall of that government.

Neither should our distaste for the war be interpreted to mean that we support the Tigers. The LTTE are among the most ruthless and bloodthirsty organisations ever to have infested the planet. There is no gainsaying that it must be eradicated. But to do so by violating the rights of Tamil citizens, bombing and shooting them mercilessly, is not only wrong but shames the Sinhalese, whose claim to be custodians of the dhamma is forever called into question by this savagery, much of which is unknown to the public because of censorship.

What is more, a military occupation of the country's north and east will require the Tamil people of those regions to live eternally as second-class citizens, deprived of all self respect. Do not imagine that you can placate them by showering "development" and "reconstruction" on them in the post-war era. The wounds of war will scar them forever, and you will also have an even more bitter and hateful Diaspora to contend with. A problem amenable to a political solution will thus become a festering wound that will yield strife for all eternity. If I seem angry and frustrated, it is only because most of my countrymen - and all of the government - cannot see this writing so plainly on the wall.

It is well known that I was on two occasions brutally assaulted, while on another my house was sprayed with machine-gun fire. Despite the government's sanctimonious assurances, there was never a serious police inquiry into the perpetrators of these attacks, and the attackers were never apprehended. In all these cases, I have reason to believe the attacks were inspired by the government. When finally I am killed, it will be the government that kills me.

The irony in this is that, unknown to most of the public, Mahinda and I have been friends for more than a quarter century. Indeed, I suspect that I am one of the few people remaining who routinely addresses him by his first name and uses the familiar Sinhala address oya when talking to him. Although I do not attend the meetings he periodically holds for newspaper editors, hardly a month passes when we do not meet, privately or with a few close friends present, late at night at President's House. There we swap yarns, discuss politics and joke about the good old days. A few remarks to him would therefore be in order here.

Mahinda, when you finally fought your way to the SLFP presidential nomination in 2005, nowhere were you welcomed more warmly than in this column. Indeed, we broke with a decade of tradition by referring to you throughout by your first name. So well known were your commitments to human rights and liberal values that we ushered you in like a breath of fresh air. Then, through an act of folly, you got yourself involved in the Helping Hambantota scandal. It was after a lot of soul-searching that we broke the story, at the same time urging you to return the money. By the time you did so several weeks later, a great blow had been struck to your reputation. It is one you are still trying to live down.

You have told me yourself that you were not greedy for the presidency. You did not have to hanker after it: it fell into your lap. You have told me that your sons are your greatest joy, and that you love spending time with them, leaving your brothers to operate the machinery of state. Now, it is clear to all who will see that that machinery has operated so well that my sons and daughter do not themselves have a father.

In the wake of my death I know you will make all the usual sanctimonious noises and call upon the police to hold a swift and thorough inquiry. But like all the inquiries you have ordered in the past, nothing will come of this one, too. For truth be told, we both know who will be behind my death, but dare not call his name. Not just my life, but yours too, depends on it.

Sadly, for all the dreams you had for our country in your younger days, in just three years you have reduced it to rubble. In the name of patriotism you have trampled on human rights, nurtured unbridled corruption and squandered public money like no other President before you. Indeed, your conduct has been like a small child suddenly let loose in a toyshop. That analogy is perhaps inapt because no child could have caused so much blood to be spilled on this land as you have, or trampled on the rights of its citizens as you do. Although you are now so drunk with power that you cannot see it, you will come to regret your sons having so rich an inheritance of blood. It can only bring tragedy. As for me, it is with a clear conscience that I go to meet my Maker. I wish, when your time finally comes, you could do the same. I wish.

As for me, I have the satisfaction of knowing that I walked tall and bowed to no man. And I have not travelled this journey alone. Fellow journalists in other branches of the media walked with me: most of them are now dead, imprisoned without trial or exiled in far-off lands. Others walk in the shadow of death that your Presidency has cast on the freedoms for which you once fought so hard. You will never be allowed to forget that my death took place under your watch. As anguished as I know you will be, I also know that you will have no choice but to protect my killers: you will see to it that the guilty one is never convicted. You have no choice. I feel sorry for you, and Shiranthi will have a long time to spend on her knees when next she goes for Confession for it is not just her owns sins which she must confess, but those of her extended family that keeps you in office.

As for the readers of The Sunday Leader, what can I say but Thank You for supporting our mission. We have espoused unpopular causes, stood up for those too feeble to stand up for themselves, locked horns with the high and mighty so swollen with power that they have forgotten their roots, exposed corruption and the waste of your hard-earned tax rupees, and made sure that whatever the propaganda of the day, you were allowed to hear a contrary view. For this I - and my family - have now paid the price that I have long known I will one day have to pay. I am - and have always been - ready for that. I have done nothing to prevent this outcome: no security, no precautions. I want my murderer to know that I am not a coward like he is, hiding behind human shields while condemning thousands of innocents to death. What am I among so many? It has long been written that my life would be taken, and by whom. All that remains to be written is when.

That The Sunday Leader will continue fighting the good fight, too, is written. For I did not fight this fight alone. Many more of us have to be - and will be - killed before The Leader is laid to rest. I hope my assassination will be seen not as a defeat of freedom but an inspiration for those who survive to step up their efforts. Indeed, I hope that it will help galvanise forces that will usher in a new era of human liberty in our beloved motherland. I also hope it will open the eyes of your President to the fact that however many are slaughtered in the name of patriotism, the human spirit will endure and flourish. Not all the Rajapakses combined can kill that.

People often ask me why I take such risks and tell me it is a matter of time before I am bumped off. Of course I know that: it is inevitable. But if we do not speak out now, there will be no one left to speak for those who cannot, whether they be ethnic minorities, the disadvantaged or the persecuted. An example that has inspired me throughout my career in journalism has been that of the German theologian, Martin Niem”ller. In his youth he was an anti-Semite and an admirer of Hitler. As Nazism took hold in Germany, however, he saw Nazism for what it was: it was not just the Jews Hitler sought to extirpate, it was just about anyone with an alternate point of view. Niem”ller spoke out, and for his trouble was incarcerated in the Sachsenhausen and Dachau concentration camps from 1937 to 1945, and very nearly executed. While incarcerated, Niem”ller wrote a poem that, from the first time I read it in my teenage years, stuck hauntingly in my mind:

First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If you remember nothing else, remember this: The Leader is there for you, be you Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim, low-caste, homosexual, dissident or disabled. Its staff will fight on, unbowed and unafraid, with the courage to which you have become accustomed. Do not take that commitment for granted. Let there be no doubt that whatever sacrifices we journalists make, they are not made for our own glory or enrichment: they are made for you. Whether you deserve their sacrifice is another matter. As for me, God knows I tried.

Following Lasantha Wickramatunge's murder, the Sunday Leader carried this posthumous editorial authored by him