27 March 2004
The Times of India
SECRET SOCIETY
By Siddharth Varadarajan
Even in secrecy-obsessed India , this story takes the cake. Historian Baren Ray, an expert on the politics of pre-Partition India , spent years in the India Office Library, London , studying a series of sensitive colonial documents - the Quarterly Survey of Political and Constitutional Position in British India from 1937 to 1947 - declassified by the British government in 1977.
Given their academic importance, Prof Ray, who began his project in 1988, prevailed upon the ministry of home affairs (MHA) in Delhi to publish a portion of the papers so that the material could become available to a wider body of scholars.
Since the MHA had given him a grant of Rs 20,000 to make prints from the microfilmed documents, he handed over the entire material to North Block for publication.
And then someone in the MHA made the chillingly absurd decision to, in effect, 'reclassify' what the British had unclassified some 20 years earlier.
The documents were simply deemed too sensitive to see the light of day. The promised book never came out and Prof Ray's queries were brushed aside.
Angry at this official censorship, the historian wrote to the ministry: "I feel very strongly that while the ministry is free not to publish the material on its own auspices, with a Freedom of Information Act in force in the country, the government should not stand in the way of my going ahead with doing the needful with these most important documents... (including making) their contents known to concerned scholars in the country."
On November 4 last year, he got a terse reply stating that the material would not be returned to him and that the government had given him a grant of Rs 20,000 on the condition that the material prepared by him would be the property of the MHA.
Sadly for the right to information, this story doesn't have a happy ending. Prof Ray died last month, his academic project unfulfilled, his sequestered historical documents living testimony to the government's contempt for the citizen's right to know.
There may be small signs of change visible on an otherwise bleak horizon - it is now mandatory for electoral candidates to disclose their assets and criminal record, if any, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has been passed - but there are still vast swathes of information that citizens are denied or are simply not entitled to know.
From specific contour details on maps to the 40-year-old Henderson-Brooke report on the 1962 India-China war to data on the implementation of official schemes - the government usually divulges information to citizens on a strictly 'need to know' basis. And for transgressors, there is always the dreaded Official Secrets Act.
The irony is that this culture of official secrecy prevails despite more than three decades of enlightened jurisprudence on the subject.
In 1975, the Supreme Court ruled (State of UP vs Raj Narain): "In a government of responsibility like ours where the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct there can be but a few secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way by their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearings."
Though the Constitution does not include the right to information as a fundamental right, the apex court has read that right to be the key link between the right to free speech and the right to life and liberty.
After a sustained struggle waged by people's organisations in Rajasthan and elsewhere, the right to information finally came on to the legislative agenda in the 1990s. The FOIA is a reality but in the absence of enabling rules, the Act is in limbo.
In any event, right to information campaigners have pointed to the large number of exemptions in the FOIA as symptomatic of the government's reluctance to make a break with past practice.
"The most blatant of these exemptions," says Neelabh Mishra, a Jaipur-based activist closely associated with the right to information movement, "is the list of defence and security organisations at the end of the Act which keeps them out of the purview of the law. It is an irony that while on the one hand the Act provides for giving information within 48 hours where the life and liberty of a person is concerned, on the other it exempts those organisations from its purview that are most often accused of violating civil liberties."
The FOIA also excludes such official bodies as the vigilance and anti-corruption bureaus from its ambit. This, says Mishra, "would obviously only keep the course of various corruption cases under a shroud of secrecy."
Another key problem is that the onus for getting information out lies with citizens who must request it, rather than on official bodies which must proactively release details of their work.
And in the absence of the repeal or amendment of the OSA, there will always be a contradiction between the older, more comfortable imperative to hide information and the newer mandate for transparency and openness.
Which way this contradiction is resolved will depend on the political assertiveness of ordinary citizens.
27 March 2004
India born can be Italy's PM
27 March 2004
The Times of India
India-born can be Italy's PM
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: India is not the only country in the world to allow naturalised citizens —like Sonia Gandhi — the right to aspire for high political office.
A survey of 50 world constitutions by The Times of India found that as many as 32 countries did not reserve their top executive posts for natural-born citizens.
Fourteen countries bar naturalised citizens from high office while the remaining four bar non-native born citizens only from the presidency but not other high office.
Contrary to claims made by BJP-NDA spin doctors, most European countries, including Italy, allow all citizens to run for public office regardless of place of birth or ethnicity.
The only restriction the Italian constitution places on the presidency (Article 84), for example, is that citizens must be at least 50 years old. Thus, an Indian-born Italian citizen could try her luck at the presidency or PM’s office.
The Indian Constitution does not differentiate between natural-born and naturalised citizens when it comes to political rights and explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, sex, caste, origin and place of birth.
Arnold as US prez? Amendment in the works
The US is the only 'established' democracy in our survey to discriminate between the two categories of citizenship.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of its constitution limits eligibility for presidency and vice-presidency to native-born citizens.
The US measure was adopted due to rumours, during the constitution's drafting, of a secret attempt to bring a European royal - most probably the bishop of Osnaburgh, who was the second son of George III, or Prince Henry of Prussia - to serve as constitutional monarch.
The natural-born clause, which John Jay pushed, over the reservations of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, was publicly proclaimed to dispel these fears of a foreign power undermining the new nation.
Last year, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced a constitutional amendment to allow those Americans who have been naturalised citizens for 20 years to run for president.
Also known as the 'Arnie amendment' - since California's Austria-born governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is backing it - the measure is not expected to be enacted soon.
But if it runs aground, it would be because of the American aversion to frequent constitutional changes rather than the fear of 'foreign powers' subverting the US.
Most countries with constitutional bans on naturalised citizens wielding executive power are in Africa, Latin America and the Arab world.
In general, these tend to be countries where either democracy is not well-established or where linguistic and ethnic groups frequently overlap state boundaries, giving rise to an often irrational fear of neighbours making political inroads through migration.
A few years ago, for example, Cote d'Ivoire was plunged into crisis when opposition leader Dramane Ouattara was disqualified because one of his parents was born in neighbouring Burkina Faso.
The TOI survey found that many countries with a strong and often exclusive sense of 'ethnic' identity - like Japan, Turkey and South Korea - did not bother to restrict high office to indigenous citizens.
Pakistan merely stipulates that its president has to be a Muslim (apart from being a citizen). The constitution of the Jewish state of Israel allows foreign-born citizens to become president or PM and does not even specify that they be Jewish.
The Iranian constitution states that the president must be of Iranian origin and nationality but mentions no citizenship qualification at all for its powerful Supreme Leader.
The constitutional requirements for the top job - now held by Ayatollah Khamenei - only include "scholarship", "justice and piety" and the "right political and social perspicacity".
Pramod Mahajan, who mooted the suggestion - aimed at Priyanka and Rahul Gandhi - of barring citizens from high office unless both parents are native Indians probably had Yemen in mind as his model.
The Yemeni constitution stipulates Yemeni parentage of candidates. It also disqualifies citizens who are married to foreigners.
And in case Mahajan wants to make sure even Priyanka's children are kept out, he'll have to look hard for a role model.
Even the Tunisian constitution, which includes a 'native grandparents' clause for prospective presidents insists only that the maternal and paternal grandfathers be Tunisian.
The Times of India
India-born can be Italy's PM
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: India is not the only country in the world to allow naturalised citizens —like Sonia Gandhi — the right to aspire for high political office.
A survey of 50 world constitutions by The Times of India found that as many as 32 countries did not reserve their top executive posts for natural-born citizens.
Fourteen countries bar naturalised citizens from high office while the remaining four bar non-native born citizens only from the presidency but not other high office.
Contrary to claims made by BJP-NDA spin doctors, most European countries, including Italy, allow all citizens to run for public office regardless of place of birth or ethnicity.
The only restriction the Italian constitution places on the presidency (Article 84), for example, is that citizens must be at least 50 years old. Thus, an Indian-born Italian citizen could try her luck at the presidency or PM’s office.
The Indian Constitution does not differentiate between natural-born and naturalised citizens when it comes to political rights and explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, race, sex, caste, origin and place of birth.
Arnold as US prez? Amendment in the works
The US is the only 'established' democracy in our survey to discriminate between the two categories of citizenship.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of its constitution limits eligibility for presidency and vice-presidency to native-born citizens.
The US measure was adopted due to rumours, during the constitution's drafting, of a secret attempt to bring a European royal - most probably the bishop of Osnaburgh, who was the second son of George III, or Prince Henry of Prussia - to serve as constitutional monarch.
The natural-born clause, which John Jay pushed, over the reservations of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, was publicly proclaimed to dispel these fears of a foreign power undermining the new nation.
Last year, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced a constitutional amendment to allow those Americans who have been naturalised citizens for 20 years to run for president.
Also known as the 'Arnie amendment' - since California's Austria-born governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is backing it - the measure is not expected to be enacted soon.
But if it runs aground, it would be because of the American aversion to frequent constitutional changes rather than the fear of 'foreign powers' subverting the US.
Most countries with constitutional bans on naturalised citizens wielding executive power are in Africa, Latin America and the Arab world.
In general, these tend to be countries where either democracy is not well-established or where linguistic and ethnic groups frequently overlap state boundaries, giving rise to an often irrational fear of neighbours making political inroads through migration.
A few years ago, for example, Cote d'Ivoire was plunged into crisis when opposition leader Dramane Ouattara was disqualified because one of his parents was born in neighbouring Burkina Faso.
The TOI survey found that many countries with a strong and often exclusive sense of 'ethnic' identity - like Japan, Turkey and South Korea - did not bother to restrict high office to indigenous citizens.
Pakistan merely stipulates that its president has to be a Muslim (apart from being a citizen). The constitution of the Jewish state of Israel allows foreign-born citizens to become president or PM and does not even specify that they be Jewish.
The Iranian constitution states that the president must be of Iranian origin and nationality but mentions no citizenship qualification at all for its powerful Supreme Leader.
The constitutional requirements for the top job - now held by Ayatollah Khamenei - only include "scholarship", "justice and piety" and the "right political and social perspicacity".
Pramod Mahajan, who mooted the suggestion - aimed at Priyanka and Rahul Gandhi - of barring citizens from high office unless both parents are native Indians probably had Yemen in mind as his model.
The Yemeni constitution stipulates Yemeni parentage of candidates. It also disqualifies citizens who are married to foreigners.
And in case Mahajan wants to make sure even Priyanka's children are kept out, he'll have to look hard for a role model.
Even the Tunisian constitution, which includes a 'native grandparents' clause for prospective presidents insists only that the maternal and paternal grandfathers be Tunisian.
20 March 2004
Powell took us for a ride: India
20 March 2004
The Times of India
Powell took us for a ride: India
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: Two days after the US ambushed India with the decision to upgrade its military relations with Pakistan, the Vajpayee government has come out with an official statement expressing "disappointment at not having been warned in advance by US secretary of state Colin Powell when he was in Delhi on March 16".
External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha with US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"We have seen the statement made in Islamabad by the US secretary of state on March 18 on a prospective notification to the US Congress to designate Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally for the purposes of military-to-military relations," the official spokesperson of the external affairs ministry said on Saturday.
"The secretary of state was in India just two days before this statement was made in Islamabad. While he was in India, there was much emphasis on the India-US strategic partnership. It is disappointing that he did not share with us this decision of the US government," the external affairs ministry said.
As for the substantive part of Pakistan's impending MNNA status, the ministry said, "we are studying the details of this decision, which has significant implications for India-US relations. We are in touch with the US government in this regard."
Apart from External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, Powell met Prime Minister Vajpayee, National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra and Finance Minister Jaswant Singh.
"I think it is fair to say he provided not even a hint of the bombshell he was about to drop as soon as he left our shores," a senior Indian official said.
In general, senior officials insist the designation Pakistan will get will not materially alter matters in the subcontinent.
They even feel it is more in the way of a lollipop for Pakistan, a sweetener to facilitate an even tougher military crackdown on al-Qaeda remnants.
"Musharraf can fling MNNA at MMA," a former foreign secretary joked, referring to the Islamist opposition grouping in Pakistan known for its pro-Taliban stand. "But we end up looking a little sheepish as if we've been taken for a ride by a clever salesman."
Officials are also a little irritated by Powell's apparent promise to consider giving India the same ally status.
"What's the point of saying that when they keep insisting US relations with India and Pakistan are not a zero-sum game? We are not looking for parity."
The Times of India
Powell took us for a ride: India
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: Two days after the US ambushed India with the decision to upgrade its military relations with Pakistan, the Vajpayee government has come out with an official statement expressing "disappointment at not having been warned in advance by US secretary of state Colin Powell when he was in Delhi on March 16".
External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha with US Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"We have seen the statement made in Islamabad by the US secretary of state on March 18 on a prospective notification to the US Congress to designate Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally for the purposes of military-to-military relations," the official spokesperson of the external affairs ministry said on Saturday.
"The secretary of state was in India just two days before this statement was made in Islamabad. While he was in India, there was much emphasis on the India-US strategic partnership. It is disappointing that he did not share with us this decision of the US government," the external affairs ministry said.
As for the substantive part of Pakistan's impending MNNA status, the ministry said, "we are studying the details of this decision, which has significant implications for India-US relations. We are in touch with the US government in this regard."
Apart from External Affairs Minister Yashwant Sinha, Powell met Prime Minister Vajpayee, National Security Adviser Brajesh Mishra and Finance Minister Jaswant Singh.
"I think it is fair to say he provided not even a hint of the bombshell he was about to drop as soon as he left our shores," a senior Indian official said.
In general, senior officials insist the designation Pakistan will get will not materially alter matters in the subcontinent.
They even feel it is more in the way of a lollipop for Pakistan, a sweetener to facilitate an even tougher military crackdown on al-Qaeda remnants.
"Musharraf can fling MNNA at MMA," a former foreign secretary joked, referring to the Islamist opposition grouping in Pakistan known for its pro-Taliban stand. "But we end up looking a little sheepish as if we've been taken for a ride by a clever salesman."
Officials are also a little irritated by Powell's apparent promise to consider giving India the same ally status.
"What's the point of saying that when they keep insisting US relations with India and Pakistan are not a zero-sum game? We are not looking for parity."
18 March 2004
Interview with Eduardo Aninat
18 March 2004
The Times of India
A former finance minister of Chile during that country’s experiment with a Tobin-type tax on short-term capital flows, Eduardo Aninat served as deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from 1999 to 2003. This period saw the IMF involved in controversial macroeconomic "stabilisation" efforts in Africa and Latin America, especially Argentina, which often led to the imposition of huge social costs on the working and middle classes. In an interview with Siddharth Varadarajan , Mr Aninat, who was in Delhi recently, acknowledges the IMF made some mistakes but also says many of the criticisms levelled against the Fund are unfair. Excerpts:
Would you agree that the IMF is suffering from a crisis of credibility? It doesn't predict crises or prevent them, the cures it prescribes are sometimes worse than the disease. After the handling of the Asian financial crisis, there was much introspection in IMF-World Bank circles but then you have the thing in Argentina.
It is true that the Argentine crisis, which was the default during the last days of the de la Rua government, happened in the period I was there, and it is true that in this period, some of the aftermath of the Asian crisis were still ringing in our ears. It is my personal opinion that the problems of Argentina were long in the making, for more than a century. There is a double phenomenon. First, the federal government has never really taken too much hold over the provinces and this underlying fiscal problem has only got compounded through time. Second, Argentina is not yet truly open to the rest of the world in spite of reforms. They have privileged their domestic markets, especially consumption goods. So this double phenomenon makes Argentina a puzzle for development theory. It is as if policymakers for a long time were opting for the wrong road, either fiscal irresponsibility or more and more protectionism.
The kind of reforms the IMF pushes ignores the great social costs involved in bringing about macroeconomic adjustment. Isn't there need to shift paradigm, to ensure poor people do not bear the burden of adjustment?
In the Argentine case, I insist we have to look at very many domestic factors. For example, in the settlement reached last week, there is an opinion that Argentina was already in arrears. So the question is whether the IMF is acting too harsh on Argentina or too soft. Many outside critics say the IMF has been too soft. First, in the 1990s by lending too much. And now, by "accommodating" — that is not my view — too much.
In the mid-1990s, the IMF was full of praise for Argentina's fixed exchange rate of one peso to the dollar. So even as the crisis was brewing during this period, as you put it, isn't it ironic that the IMF considered Argentina one of its great successes?
On the convertibility factor, I would tend to agree with you. That was a policy where personally I always had doubts. I even counselled my old friend (Argentine finance minister Domingo) Cavallo in private to get rid of that at the beginning of the Menem-2 period because it was not effective for the economy. All fixed exchange regimes (expect perhaps in Estonia) have produced more costs than benefits. And in that, the whole world has learned. People are staying out of administered fixed rate regimes because they seem to put undue pressure on the real economy for no benefit.
Malaysia is one of the countries that has taken a different approach from that advocated by the IMF and done well. Its central bank says private companies should not borrow money abroad for projects that do not have foreign exchange earning potential. Is this an approach countries like India should look at?
Statistically, Chile would be like the better case for a similar but not quite IMF-inspired policy and Malaysia is the odd case where they did the opposite to what the IMF was preaching at that time and have done well. The two cases are rarities and the world is in between. As for the deeper content of your question, I do worry about the question of matching, leveraging and hedging. And I think if I can give any counsel to the Indian authorities, it is that the issue of not having mismatches between the assets and liabilities of the banking system and those of companies of Indian registration is important. Particularly focusing on the short-term liability and asset composition in foreign exchange. Because when mismatches develop within short-term assets and liabilities in dollars, sometimes problems tend to accrue.
Didn't Tobin suggest a way out? You keep the benefit of markets setting the exchange rate, but by taxing speculative capital flows, you also reduce volatility. Chile ran a kind of Tobin tax for five years when you were finance minister. What was your experience?
We were the only country to use it in the spirit of Tobin, only we invented it ourselves. But in 1999, we went over it and stopped it because markets had deepened enough. Looking back, we were right because things are going even better for Chile. The fundamental conceptual problem is who judges the speculative component of short-term capital flows? Money that comes in for a plant may include short term money, say for working capital. Is that speculative? One can have methodological problems.
The Times of India
Fund or Foe?
Interview with Eduardo Aninat, former DMD of the IMF
Interview with Eduardo Aninat, former DMD of the IMF
A former finance minister of Chile during that country’s experiment with a Tobin-type tax on short-term capital flows, Eduardo Aninat served as deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from 1999 to 2003. This period saw the IMF involved in controversial macroeconomic "stabilisation" efforts in Africa and Latin America, especially Argentina, which often led to the imposition of huge social costs on the working and middle classes. In an interview with Siddharth Varadarajan , Mr Aninat, who was in Delhi recently, acknowledges the IMF made some mistakes but also says many of the criticisms levelled against the Fund are unfair. Excerpts:
Would you agree that the IMF is suffering from a crisis of credibility? It doesn't predict crises or prevent them, the cures it prescribes are sometimes worse than the disease. After the handling of the Asian financial crisis, there was much introspection in IMF-World Bank circles but then you have the thing in Argentina.
It is true that the Argentine crisis, which was the default during the last days of the de la Rua government, happened in the period I was there, and it is true that in this period, some of the aftermath of the Asian crisis were still ringing in our ears. It is my personal opinion that the problems of Argentina were long in the making, for more than a century. There is a double phenomenon. First, the federal government has never really taken too much hold over the provinces and this underlying fiscal problem has only got compounded through time. Second, Argentina is not yet truly open to the rest of the world in spite of reforms. They have privileged their domestic markets, especially consumption goods. So this double phenomenon makes Argentina a puzzle for development theory. It is as if policymakers for a long time were opting for the wrong road, either fiscal irresponsibility or more and more protectionism.
The kind of reforms the IMF pushes ignores the great social costs involved in bringing about macroeconomic adjustment. Isn't there need to shift paradigm, to ensure poor people do not bear the burden of adjustment?
In the Argentine case, I insist we have to look at very many domestic factors. For example, in the settlement reached last week, there is an opinion that Argentina was already in arrears. So the question is whether the IMF is acting too harsh on Argentina or too soft. Many outside critics say the IMF has been too soft. First, in the 1990s by lending too much. And now, by "accommodating" — that is not my view — too much.
In the mid-1990s, the IMF was full of praise for Argentina's fixed exchange rate of one peso to the dollar. So even as the crisis was brewing during this period, as you put it, isn't it ironic that the IMF considered Argentina one of its great successes?
On the convertibility factor, I would tend to agree with you. That was a policy where personally I always had doubts. I even counselled my old friend (Argentine finance minister Domingo) Cavallo in private to get rid of that at the beginning of the Menem-2 period because it was not effective for the economy. All fixed exchange regimes (expect perhaps in Estonia) have produced more costs than benefits. And in that, the whole world has learned. People are staying out of administered fixed rate regimes because they seem to put undue pressure on the real economy for no benefit.
Malaysia is one of the countries that has taken a different approach from that advocated by the IMF and done well. Its central bank says private companies should not borrow money abroad for projects that do not have foreign exchange earning potential. Is this an approach countries like India should look at?
Statistically, Chile would be like the better case for a similar but not quite IMF-inspired policy and Malaysia is the odd case where they did the opposite to what the IMF was preaching at that time and have done well. The two cases are rarities and the world is in between. As for the deeper content of your question, I do worry about the question of matching, leveraging and hedging. And I think if I can give any counsel to the Indian authorities, it is that the issue of not having mismatches between the assets and liabilities of the banking system and those of companies of Indian registration is important. Particularly focusing on the short-term liability and asset composition in foreign exchange. Because when mismatches develop within short-term assets and liabilities in dollars, sometimes problems tend to accrue.
Didn't Tobin suggest a way out? You keep the benefit of markets setting the exchange rate, but by taxing speculative capital flows, you also reduce volatility. Chile ran a kind of Tobin tax for five years when you were finance minister. What was your experience?
We were the only country to use it in the spirit of Tobin, only we invented it ourselves. But in 1999, we went over it and stopped it because markets had deepened enough. Looking back, we were right because things are going even better for Chile. The fundamental conceptual problem is who judges the speculative component of short-term capital flows? Money that comes in for a plant may include short term money, say for working capital. Is that speculative? One can have methodological problems.
Ally badge for Pak, India stunned
18 March 2004
The Times of India
Ally badge for Pak, India stunned
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: The American designation of Pakistan as a 'major non-Nato ally' (MNNA) on Thursday morning caught India unawares and sent the external affairs ministry more used to basking in the glory of its strategic partnership with the US quite literally reeling.
There was no official reaction but by evening, when the 'feel bad' mood in the government became obvious, the US embassy sent its number two man, Robert Blake, to do some fire fighting in South Block.
The announcement was made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell at a press conference in Islamabad.
"I advised the foreign minister (of Pakistan) this morning that we will also be making notification to our Congress that we will designate Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally for purposes of our future military relations," he said, adding, "President Bush and the American people appreciate the sacrifices Pakistan already has made to keep us all safer from terrorism."
"The timing is bad", a senior Indian official told The Times of India , admitting that Powell gave no indication of the proposed decision in his meetings with PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee and external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha on Tuesday.
Pakistan will join the list of MNNAs , which includes Israel, Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Jordan, Argentina, Bahrain, Thailand and the Philippines , 30 days after Bush notifies Congress in writing.
"In legal terms, I don't think MNNA status will add much to what the US is already doing for Pakistan," the official said, "but it has very strong political significance both domestically, in Pakistan, and in terms of the US administration's future ability to secure various things for Islamabad from Congress. All told," he said, "this is a label that Pakistan will wear proudly."
© Bennett, Coleman and Co., Ltd.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/568705.cms
« Last Edit: March 18, 2004, 02:42:08 pm by nymole »
The Times of India
Ally badge for Pak, India stunned
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: The American designation of Pakistan as a 'major non-Nato ally' (MNNA) on Thursday morning caught India unawares and sent the external affairs ministry more used to basking in the glory of its strategic partnership with the US quite literally reeling.
There was no official reaction but by evening, when the 'feel bad' mood in the government became obvious, the US embassy sent its number two man, Robert Blake, to do some fire fighting in South Block.
The announcement was made by US Secretary of State Colin Powell at a press conference in Islamabad.
"I advised the foreign minister (of Pakistan) this morning that we will also be making notification to our Congress that we will designate Pakistan as a major non-Nato ally for purposes of our future military relations," he said, adding, "President Bush and the American people appreciate the sacrifices Pakistan already has made to keep us all safer from terrorism."
"The timing is bad", a senior Indian official told The Times of India , admitting that Powell gave no indication of the proposed decision in his meetings with PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee and external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha on Tuesday.
Pakistan will join the list of MNNAs , which includes Israel, Egypt, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Jordan, Argentina, Bahrain, Thailand and the Philippines , 30 days after Bush notifies Congress in writing.
"In legal terms, I don't think MNNA status will add much to what the US is already doing for Pakistan," the official said, "but it has very strong political significance both domestically, in Pakistan, and in terms of the US administration's future ability to secure various things for Islamabad from Congress. All told," he said, "this is a label that Pakistan will wear proudly."
© Bennett, Coleman and Co., Ltd.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/568705.cms
« Last Edit: March 18, 2004, 02:42:08 pm by nymole »
Broadcast Cricket: Code Right can be the screen saver
18 March 2004
The Times of India
Broadcast Cricket: Code Right can be the screen saver
By Siddharth Varadarajan
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: The uncertainty surrounding the telecast of the India-Pakistan cricket matches has less to do with the tussle between Doordarshan and Ten Sports than with the absence of an Indian law reconciling market principles—which govern the sale of TV rights—with the right of the public to see “events of national interest’’ free of cost.
Indeed, India is one of the few countries with a vibrant Pay-TV sector not to have a regulatory framework.
In contrast, Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Italy, Germany and South Africa all have broadcast laws covering the telecast of national sporting (or cultural) events. The European Union’s 1997 Television without Frontiers Directive provides the overarching framework for most continental legislation on the subject.
“Each member state may take measures,’’ it says, “to ensure that broadcasters do not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded by that state as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public of the possibility of following such events via live coverage or deferred live coverage on free television.’’
In Britain, the Broadcasting Act (1996) gives the secretary of state for culture, media and sports the power to draw up a list of sporting or other events of national interest. These “listed events’’ include the Olympics, cricket Test matches played in England, the Grand National and the Wimbledon finals.
The British law stipulates that a Pay-TV channel can only broadcast a listed event on an exclusive basis if it secures prior consent from the regulatory Independent Television Commission. Para 13 of the ITC Code on Sports and other Listed Events says, “In deciding whether to give its consent, it may be sufficient for the ITC to establish that the availability of the rights was generally known and no (public) broadcaster had expressed an interest in their acquisition, or had not bid for the rights.’’
If India had an identical law, the fact that DD did not even bother to bid for the India-Pakistan series when the PCB was auctioning the rights last year would clearly stand in Ten Sports’s favour.
However, in a major judgment in 2001 (Regina vs ITC, ex parte TV Danmark 1 Ltd), the Law Lords ruled that EU’s Television without Frontiers Directive sometimes had primacy over the ITC Code. The case concerned the refusal of a Danish Pay TV broadcaster based in the UK to share the feed for a World Cup fixture with Danish public broadcasters who had earlier underbid for the right to telecast the match.
Ruling against the Pay TV broadcaster, Lord Hoffman wrote, “It may be that a regulatory system in which a Pay TV broadcaster has to offer to share the rights with a public broadcaster means that any event which the latter wishes to broadcast will be unattractive to the Pay TV broadcaster and that the value of the rights will be depressed.
“But that is a consequence which inevitably follows from the p ro t e c t i o n s which the (EU) Directive was intended to confer upon the public right of access to such events.’’
What Others Do
• In 2003, Ireland amended its Broadcasting (Major Events TV Coverage) Act of 1999 after BSkyB refused to show an Ireland vs Switzerland football fixture on free-to-air TV.
• The Italians consider the Formula 1 Italian Grand Prix and the San Remo music festivals to be events of national importance which cannot be monopolised by a private broadcaster.
• Danish broadcast law allows a Pay TV channel, which has acquired exclusive rights to a World Cup fixture involving Denmark, to obtain with 14 days an answer to whether the public broadcasters are interested or not.
• The South African Broadcasting Act (1999) says “subscription broadcasting services may not acquire exclusive rights for the broadcast of national sporting events’’. But disputes and alleged underbidding by public broadcaster SABC led the parliament’s sports committee to direct the three main TV companies, including SABC, to come up with ideas on how to broaden access to broadcasts of sports events of national importance.
• The British law stipulates that the addition of any relevant event (to the “listed events’’) shall not affect the exercise of any rights under a contract entered into before that date. Thus, the law prohibits the government from retrospective listing of sporting fixtures as events of national interest.
The Times of India
Broadcast Cricket: Code Right can be the screen saver
By Siddharth Varadarajan
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: The uncertainty surrounding the telecast of the India-Pakistan cricket matches has less to do with the tussle between Doordarshan and Ten Sports than with the absence of an Indian law reconciling market principles—which govern the sale of TV rights—with the right of the public to see “events of national interest’’ free of cost.
Indeed, India is one of the few countries with a vibrant Pay-TV sector not to have a regulatory framework.
In contrast, Britain, Ireland, Denmark, Italy, Germany and South Africa all have broadcast laws covering the telecast of national sporting (or cultural) events. The European Union’s 1997 Television without Frontiers Directive provides the overarching framework for most continental legislation on the subject.
“Each member state may take measures,’’ it says, “to ensure that broadcasters do not broadcast on an exclusive basis events which are regarded by that state as being of major importance for society in such a way as to deprive a substantial proportion of the public of the possibility of following such events via live coverage or deferred live coverage on free television.’’
In Britain, the Broadcasting Act (1996) gives the secretary of state for culture, media and sports the power to draw up a list of sporting or other events of national interest. These “listed events’’ include the Olympics, cricket Test matches played in England, the Grand National and the Wimbledon finals.
The British law stipulates that a Pay-TV channel can only broadcast a listed event on an exclusive basis if it secures prior consent from the regulatory Independent Television Commission. Para 13 of the ITC Code on Sports and other Listed Events says, “In deciding whether to give its consent, it may be sufficient for the ITC to establish that the availability of the rights was generally known and no (public) broadcaster had expressed an interest in their acquisition, or had not bid for the rights.’’
If India had an identical law, the fact that DD did not even bother to bid for the India-Pakistan series when the PCB was auctioning the rights last year would clearly stand in Ten Sports’s favour.
However, in a major judgment in 2001 (Regina vs ITC, ex parte TV Danmark 1 Ltd), the Law Lords ruled that EU’s Television without Frontiers Directive sometimes had primacy over the ITC Code. The case concerned the refusal of a Danish Pay TV broadcaster based in the UK to share the feed for a World Cup fixture with Danish public broadcasters who had earlier underbid for the right to telecast the match.
Ruling against the Pay TV broadcaster, Lord Hoffman wrote, “It may be that a regulatory system in which a Pay TV broadcaster has to offer to share the rights with a public broadcaster means that any event which the latter wishes to broadcast will be unattractive to the Pay TV broadcaster and that the value of the rights will be depressed.
“But that is a consequence which inevitably follows from the p ro t e c t i o n s which the (EU) Directive was intended to confer upon the public right of access to such events.’’
What Others Do
• In 2003, Ireland amended its Broadcasting (Major Events TV Coverage) Act of 1999 after BSkyB refused to show an Ireland vs Switzerland football fixture on free-to-air TV.
• The Italians consider the Formula 1 Italian Grand Prix and the San Remo music festivals to be events of national importance which cannot be monopolised by a private broadcaster.
• Danish broadcast law allows a Pay TV channel, which has acquired exclusive rights to a World Cup fixture involving Denmark, to obtain with 14 days an answer to whether the public broadcasters are interested or not.
• The South African Broadcasting Act (1999) says “subscription broadcasting services may not acquire exclusive rights for the broadcast of national sporting events’’. But disputes and alleged underbidding by public broadcaster SABC led the parliament’s sports committee to direct the three main TV companies, including SABC, to come up with ideas on how to broaden access to broadcasts of sports events of national importance.
• The British law stipulates that the addition of any relevant event (to the “listed events’’) shall not affect the exercise of any rights under a contract entered into before that date. Thus, the law prohibits the government from retrospective listing of sporting fixtures as events of national interest.
15 March 2004
Delhi is not amused with Pervez move
15 March 2004
The Times of India
Delhi is not amused with Pervez move
By Siddharth Varadarajan
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: The election season is finally beginning to have its impact on diplomacy with India on Sunday revisiting the Kashmir as ‘core issue’ controversy by disputing Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf ’s contention — made on Saturday night at the India Today conclave - that the January 6 joint India-Pakistan statement gave primacy to the Kashmir question.
“We have carefully examined the comments” made by Musharraf, the external affairs ministry said in a statement. “The language of the January 6 Islamabad Joint Press Statement is clear and unambiguous. There is no reference to any so-called central or core issue, but to addressing all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir.”
The MEA added that “any unilateral interpretation of the Joint Press Statement is not conducive to building trust, or taking the process forward; nor is public rhetoric, which is also contrary to the understandings and restraints observed since January”.
Musharraf ’s remarks, and India’s reactions to them, underline the dangers inherent in diplomacy being conducted through television before a live audience. Aware that his remarks — and the question and answer session with a gathering of elite Indians — were being seen live in his own country, the Pakistani president doggedly stuck to his guns on the Kashmir issue and said it was India which had made all the concessions. But precisely because his performance was seen live on Indian TV, the Vajpayee government feels compelled to try and set the record straight.
This minor spat couldn’t have been better timed for US secretary of state Colin Powell, who arrives in South Asia on Monday to push along, besides other things, the India-Pakistan peace process.
India also chided Musharraf for “double standards” in describing the attack on his own life as “terrorism” but the ongoing incidents of violence in Kashmir as a “freedom fight”.
The Times of India
Delhi is not amused with Pervez move
By Siddharth Varadarajan
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
New Delhi: The election season is finally beginning to have its impact on diplomacy with India on Sunday revisiting the Kashmir as ‘core issue’ controversy by disputing Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf ’s contention — made on Saturday night at the India Today conclave - that the January 6 joint India-Pakistan statement gave primacy to the Kashmir question.
“We have carefully examined the comments” made by Musharraf, the external affairs ministry said in a statement. “The language of the January 6 Islamabad Joint Press Statement is clear and unambiguous. There is no reference to any so-called central or core issue, but to addressing all bilateral issues, including Jammu and Kashmir.”
The MEA added that “any unilateral interpretation of the Joint Press Statement is not conducive to building trust, or taking the process forward; nor is public rhetoric, which is also contrary to the understandings and restraints observed since January”.
Musharraf ’s remarks, and India’s reactions to them, underline the dangers inherent in diplomacy being conducted through television before a live audience. Aware that his remarks — and the question and answer session with a gathering of elite Indians — were being seen live in his own country, the Pakistani president doggedly stuck to his guns on the Kashmir issue and said it was India which had made all the concessions. But precisely because his performance was seen live on Indian TV, the Vajpayee government feels compelled to try and set the record straight.
This minor spat couldn’t have been better timed for US secretary of state Colin Powell, who arrives in South Asia on Monday to push along, besides other things, the India-Pakistan peace process.
India also chided Musharraf for “double standards” in describing the attack on his own life as “terrorism” but the ongoing incidents of violence in Kashmir as a “freedom fight”.
09 March 2004
Iranian Chief Justice in India for key talks
9 March 2004
The Times of India
Iranian Chief Justice in India for key talks
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Vajpayee on Wednesday will play host to a top Iranian cleric and leading critic of Washington on the nuclear issue, highlighting the tightrope walk India is engaging in.
The US has stepped up its pressure on Tehran for its alleged transgressions of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT).
Indeed, at roughly the same time Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi, chief justice of Iran, starts his parleys with the Indian leadership, the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency will be considering a US resolution which Washington hopes may eventually serve as the trigger for international sanctions against Iran.
Shahroudi, whose influence extends far beyond what his formal title suggests, has in the past called on Tehran to ‘‘resist’’ Washington’s pressure on the nuclear front.
Last August, he hailed a letter written by 500 students of the Technical Sharif University to President Khatami calling on Iran to pull out from the NPT.
Appointed by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, Shahroudi is visiting India at the invitation of the government. Iranian officials say that apart from Vajpayee, the visiting cleric is also slated to meet President Kalam and external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha.
Allied to the ‘conservative’ camp in Iranian politics, Shahroudi last month warned ‘reformers’ close to President Khatami not to do anything to disrupt the elections to Iran’s parliament. The reformers had complained about their candidates being unfailrly disqualified.
In a meeting with the Indian ambassador in Tehran in 2002, Shahroudi called for Iran and India to forge strategic ties against the US, which he said was eyeing the region’s energy resources. Describing the US attack on Afghanistan after 9/11 as ‘‘an act of terrorism’’, Shahroudi said Washington was looking to expand its ‘‘domination of the region’’.
The Times of India
Iranian Chief Justice in India for key talks
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: Prime Minister Vajpayee on Wednesday will play host to a top Iranian cleric and leading critic of Washington on the nuclear issue, highlighting the tightrope walk India is engaging in.
The US has stepped up its pressure on Tehran for its alleged transgressions of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT).
Indeed, at roughly the same time Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi, chief justice of Iran, starts his parleys with the Indian leadership, the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency will be considering a US resolution which Washington hopes may eventually serve as the trigger for international sanctions against Iran.
Shahroudi, whose influence extends far beyond what his formal title suggests, has in the past called on Tehran to ‘‘resist’’ Washington’s pressure on the nuclear front.
Last August, he hailed a letter written by 500 students of the Technical Sharif University to President Khatami calling on Iran to pull out from the NPT.
Appointed by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, Shahroudi is visiting India at the invitation of the government. Iranian officials say that apart from Vajpayee, the visiting cleric is also slated to meet President Kalam and external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha.
Allied to the ‘conservative’ camp in Iranian politics, Shahroudi last month warned ‘reformers’ close to President Khatami not to do anything to disrupt the elections to Iran’s parliament. The reformers had complained about their candidates being unfailrly disqualified.
In a meeting with the Indian ambassador in Tehran in 2002, Shahroudi called for Iran and India to forge strategic ties against the US, which he said was eyeing the region’s energy resources. Describing the US attack on Afghanistan after 9/11 as ‘‘an act of terrorism’’, Shahroudi said Washington was looking to expand its ‘‘domination of the region’’.
06 March 2004
India, Brazil, S Africa bloc forges ahead
6 March 2004
The Times of India
India, Brazil, S Africa bloc forges ahead
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: Describing their emerging partnership as "not just historic but irreversible", India, Brazil and South Africa resolved on Friday to act in concert at all multilateral forums like the UN and the WTO with the aim of advancing an alternative perspective on world affairs.
In a gentle foretaste of what might be in store, their joint statement struck a contrarian note on Washington's approach to the question of WMDs.
The three countries expressed their unhappiness with "serious inadequacies" in "the implementation of and compliance with" both the non-proliferation and disarmament commitments of countries, as much a reference to NPT signatories like Iran and Libya that had clandestine nuclear programmes as to the US, which continues to refine its nuclear arsenal even though the NPT commits it to disarmament.
Speaking to reporters here at the end of the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Trilateral Commission meeting, the foreign ministers of the three countries unveiled an ambitious programme of cooperation that they described as "a shining example of South-South cooperation".
Asked how IBSA looked at the recent set of non-proliferation proposals unveiled by US president - including the controversial Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) - in the light of their stated commitment to multilateralism, Sinha quoted from the joint declaration.
The three countries, he said, wanted questions of non-proliferation and disarmament to be "redressed through appropriate forward looking multilateral actions". He said IBSA would "intensify their cooperation at the IAEA and other forums to ensure unimpeded growth and development of peaceful use of atomic energy under appropriate safeguards".
The 'New Delhi Agenda for Cooperation and Plan of Action', signed by external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha, Brazilian foreign minister Celso Amorim and South African foreign minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, envisages cooperation in fields like health, IT and civil aviation to defence.
Amorim also hailed the decision of industrialists and entrepreneurs - meeting under the aegis of Ficci and CII - to launch a trilateral business forum to facilitate linkages between the private sector in the three countries.
The three countries will work towards the "early reform of the UN to make it more democratic" and have agreed to back each other for permanent seats on a reformed Security Council.
Dlamini-Zuma, however, added the caveat that South Africa would be a candidate only in the context of consensus in Africa. If the African bloc came up with a different name, she hoped India and Brazil would support them.
This para was not there as a formality, said Amorim. "We could make a difference. We could help the Quartet get the roadmap implemented", a reference to the stalled efforts of the UN, the US, Russia, and the EU to get the Israelis to agree to a durable peace with an independent Palestinian state.
The Times of India
India, Brazil, S Africa bloc forges ahead
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: Describing their emerging partnership as "not just historic but irreversible", India, Brazil and South Africa resolved on Friday to act in concert at all multilateral forums like the UN and the WTO with the aim of advancing an alternative perspective on world affairs.
In a gentle foretaste of what might be in store, their joint statement struck a contrarian note on Washington's approach to the question of WMDs.
The three countries expressed their unhappiness with "serious inadequacies" in "the implementation of and compliance with" both the non-proliferation and disarmament commitments of countries, as much a reference to NPT signatories like Iran and Libya that had clandestine nuclear programmes as to the US, which continues to refine its nuclear arsenal even though the NPT commits it to disarmament.
Speaking to reporters here at the end of the India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) Trilateral Commission meeting, the foreign ministers of the three countries unveiled an ambitious programme of cooperation that they described as "a shining example of South-South cooperation".
Asked how IBSA looked at the recent set of non-proliferation proposals unveiled by US president - including the controversial Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) - in the light of their stated commitment to multilateralism, Sinha quoted from the joint declaration.
The three countries, he said, wanted questions of non-proliferation and disarmament to be "redressed through appropriate forward looking multilateral actions". He said IBSA would "intensify their cooperation at the IAEA and other forums to ensure unimpeded growth and development of peaceful use of atomic energy under appropriate safeguards".
The 'New Delhi Agenda for Cooperation and Plan of Action', signed by external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha, Brazilian foreign minister Celso Amorim and South African foreign minister Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, envisages cooperation in fields like health, IT and civil aviation to defence.
Amorim also hailed the decision of industrialists and entrepreneurs - meeting under the aegis of Ficci and CII - to launch a trilateral business forum to facilitate linkages between the private sector in the three countries.
The three countries will work towards the "early reform of the UN to make it more democratic" and have agreed to back each other for permanent seats on a reformed Security Council.
Dlamini-Zuma, however, added the caveat that South Africa would be a candidate only in the context of consensus in Africa. If the African bloc came up with a different name, she hoped India and Brazil would support them.
This para was not there as a formality, said Amorim. "We could make a difference. We could help the Quartet get the roadmap implemented", a reference to the stalled efforts of the UN, the US, Russia, and the EU to get the Israelis to agree to a durable peace with an independent Palestinian state.
04 March 2004
Nigerian 'typo' stumps Pakistan with N-claim
4 March 2004
The Times of India
Nigerian typo stumps Pakistan with N-claim
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: Islamabad's run of disastrous luck on the nuclear front continued on Thursday with Nigeria first making — and then withdrawing — the stunning claim that a top Pakistani General, currently visiting the country, had offered its armed forces "military assistance, including nuclear power".
The claim — made in a Nigerian defence ministry statement about the visit of the chairman of Pakistan's joint chiefs of staff Gen Mohammed Aziz Khan — was reversed within 12 hours with the official spokesman, Bellu Nwachukwu, explaining away the original reference to "nuclear power" as a "typographical error".
While its writ lasted, however, the astonishing Nigerian "typo" sent a jittery Pakistani establishment — already reeling from recent revelations about the clandestine links between Dr AQ Khan and Libya, Iran and North Korea — into a rage. "We are denying it. This is baseless. (Gen Aziz Khan) said nothing of this kind," a Pakistani military spokesman said, angrily.
Nigerian military officials told The Times of India there was no question of any nuclear cooperation with Pakistan and that there had obviously been some "miscommunication".
They said Gen Aziz Khan had boasted of Pakistan's nuclear capability in his meetings with Nigerian defence minister Rabiu Kwankaso and chief of defence staff Gen Alexander Ogumudia and, separately, had offered to help Nigeria produce defence equipment. "But somewhere, these two things seem to have got mixed up. All you people from India and Pakistan speak too fast."
In India, external affairs ministry officials said it was evident there had been a misunderstanding. "It's true that General Musharraf has been trying to suck up to Nigeria because of the latter's opposition to lifting Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth. They have been offering all kinds of things but I don't think even Gen Aziz Khan would be mad enough to offer nukes to Nigeria at this time", an official said.
The bearded Gen Aziz Khan, who holds the same rank as Musharraf, is seen in some quarters as an anti-US, 'jehadi' General. Once close to Musharraf — he was the officer who effectively staged the 1999 coup which overthrew Nawaz Sharif while his boss was airborne — Khan has since been kicked upstairs in a move seen as having been done at Washington's behest.
As soon as the news of Gen Aziz Khan's alleged nuclear offer broke, Nigerian officials assured the Indian high commission in Lagos that there was no truth in the matter.
Nevertheless, the Indian defence attache is set to travel to Abuja on Friday to discuss the matter with the Nigerian defence ministry.
The Times of India
Nigerian typo stumps Pakistan with N-claim
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: Islamabad's run of disastrous luck on the nuclear front continued on Thursday with Nigeria first making — and then withdrawing — the stunning claim that a top Pakistani General, currently visiting the country, had offered its armed forces "military assistance, including nuclear power".
The claim — made in a Nigerian defence ministry statement about the visit of the chairman of Pakistan's joint chiefs of staff Gen Mohammed Aziz Khan — was reversed within 12 hours with the official spokesman, Bellu Nwachukwu, explaining away the original reference to "nuclear power" as a "typographical error".
While its writ lasted, however, the astonishing Nigerian "typo" sent a jittery Pakistani establishment — already reeling from recent revelations about the clandestine links between Dr AQ Khan and Libya, Iran and North Korea — into a rage. "We are denying it. This is baseless. (Gen Aziz Khan) said nothing of this kind," a Pakistani military spokesman said, angrily.
Nigerian military officials told The Times of India there was no question of any nuclear cooperation with Pakistan and that there had obviously been some "miscommunication".
They said Gen Aziz Khan had boasted of Pakistan's nuclear capability in his meetings with Nigerian defence minister Rabiu Kwankaso and chief of defence staff Gen Alexander Ogumudia and, separately, had offered to help Nigeria produce defence equipment. "But somewhere, these two things seem to have got mixed up. All you people from India and Pakistan speak too fast."
In India, external affairs ministry officials said it was evident there had been a misunderstanding. "It's true that General Musharraf has been trying to suck up to Nigeria because of the latter's opposition to lifting Pakistan's suspension from the Commonwealth. They have been offering all kinds of things but I don't think even Gen Aziz Khan would be mad enough to offer nukes to Nigeria at this time", an official said.
The bearded Gen Aziz Khan, who holds the same rank as Musharraf, is seen in some quarters as an anti-US, 'jehadi' General. Once close to Musharraf — he was the officer who effectively staged the 1999 coup which overthrew Nawaz Sharif while his boss was airborne — Khan has since been kicked upstairs in a move seen as having been done at Washington's behest.
As soon as the news of Gen Aziz Khan's alleged nuclear offer broke, Nigerian officials assured the Indian high commission in Lagos that there was no truth in the matter.
Nevertheless, the Indian defence attache is set to travel to Abuja on Friday to discuss the matter with the Nigerian defence ministry.
03 March 2004
Interview with Deepak Nayyar on the ILO's Globalisation report
3 March 2004
The Times of India
There is perhaps no economic phenomenon more universal — and controversial — than globalisation. For its supporters, globalisation is the panacea for all economic ills. For its detractors, it is everything that is wrong with the world. The ILO appointed a world commission to study globalisation in all its aspects . Deepak Nayyar , economist and vice chancellor of Delhi University, was one of its members. In an interview with Siddharth Varadarajan, he argues that the direction globalisation is taking is unsustainable, and that there is need for rethinking:
Your report calls for an “urgent rethink” of the current approach to globalisation. What’s wrong with the approach?
There is a growing concern about globalisation. Immense riches are being generated for a few but the problems of poverty, exclusion and inequality persist. Too few share in its benefits. Too many have no influence in its design or course. Corruption is widespread. We are at a critical juncture. There is a fundamental disjuncture between eco-nomy, society and polity. The economy is becoming increasingly global, while social and political institutions remain largely local, national or regional. These imbalances point to the need for better institutional frameworks if the promise of globalisation is to be realised.
What is new about this report?
For the first time, a group of people from across the world, representing widely disparate interests, concerns and perspectives, has shown it is possible to find common ground on an issue as contentious as globalisation. The debate on globalisation has shifted from a focus on markets to an emphasis on people. It’s also for the first time that a discussion on globalisation has sought to focus on dialogue rather than confrontation and on policies rather than polemics. Another new dimension is that the commission seeks action not only at international level but also at national and local levels. A more inclusive process of globalisation is not possible unless you have both the right rules and institutions at the global level and the right policies at the national level.
This report does not seem very critical of the World Bank or IMF, although the negative social effects of their policies are widely known. Have you pulled your punches?
No, we have not. There are indeed criticisms of policies pursued by the World Bank and the IMF in the report — on conditionality, on structural adjustment, on the failure to control financial volatility or contagion — but without this being a frontal attack on the institutions. Our purpose is to reform the reformers, some of whom are beginning to recognise their mistakes. For instance, Jim Wolfensohn told us the Washington Consensus is dead. That is fine, but we need to be sure the message is heard across the international system as a whole.
Is the economic paradigm pendulum now swinging back in favour of greater regulation?
We appear to have moved from a widespread belief, prevalent in the early 1950s, that the State could do no wrong to a strong conviction, fashionable in the late 1990s, that the State could do no right. These are caricatures. Reality is more complex. For the State and the market are complements rather than substitutes. The role of the State extends beyond regulation of markets or correcting for market failures. There are other important dimensions: Creating the conditions to capture the benefits from globalisation, managing the process of integration into the world economy, providing social protection to the vulnerable in the process of change.
Globalisation is based on the logic that the free mobility of factors of production will benefit all in the long run. Why has enough not been done to ensure free mobility of labour from poor to rich countries?
This is an important question. Globalisation has led to openness in trade, investment and financial flows. It also extends to flows of services, technology, information and ideas across national boundaries. But the cross-border movement of people is highly restricted. This asymmetry is neither an accident nor a coincidence. It is not enough to create fair rules for trade and capital flows. These need to be complemented by fair rules for the movement of people. The time has come to build a multi- lateral framework that provides uniform and transparent rules for the cross-border movement of people.
While globalisation seems to have increased inequalities within most countries and regions of the world, the report seems to suggest India is an exception...
Economic inequalities have increased during the past 25 years as the income gap between rich and poor countries and rich and poor people within countries has widened. This is, in part, attributable to globalisation. India and China have done better than most developing countries by stepping up economic growth and reducing absolute poverty. The creation of initial conditions before the opening up is one reason, while a better management of integration into the world economy is another. However, aggregates conceal the fact that there have been winners and losers. The educated and the rich have benefited from globalisation. But the benefits have not yet reached the majority, in particular the rural poor. Is India, then, an exception to the rule? The answer cannot be the same for everyone. For, the perceptions of people about globalisation, in India as elsewhere, depend on who they are, where they live and what they possess.
The Times of India
Globes Apart
Interview with Prof Deepak Nayyar on the ILO commission's report on Globalisation
Interview with Prof Deepak Nayyar on the ILO commission's report on Globalisation
There is perhaps no economic phenomenon more universal — and controversial — than globalisation. For its supporters, globalisation is the panacea for all economic ills. For its detractors, it is everything that is wrong with the world. The ILO appointed a world commission to study globalisation in all its aspects . Deepak Nayyar , economist and vice chancellor of Delhi University, was one of its members. In an interview with Siddharth Varadarajan, he argues that the direction globalisation is taking is unsustainable, and that there is need for rethinking:
Your report calls for an “urgent rethink” of the current approach to globalisation. What’s wrong with the approach?
There is a growing concern about globalisation. Immense riches are being generated for a few but the problems of poverty, exclusion and inequality persist. Too few share in its benefits. Too many have no influence in its design or course. Corruption is widespread. We are at a critical juncture. There is a fundamental disjuncture between eco-nomy, society and polity. The economy is becoming increasingly global, while social and political institutions remain largely local, national or regional. These imbalances point to the need for better institutional frameworks if the promise of globalisation is to be realised.
What is new about this report?
For the first time, a group of people from across the world, representing widely disparate interests, concerns and perspectives, has shown it is possible to find common ground on an issue as contentious as globalisation. The debate on globalisation has shifted from a focus on markets to an emphasis on people. It’s also for the first time that a discussion on globalisation has sought to focus on dialogue rather than confrontation and on policies rather than polemics. Another new dimension is that the commission seeks action not only at international level but also at national and local levels. A more inclusive process of globalisation is not possible unless you have both the right rules and institutions at the global level and the right policies at the national level.
This report does not seem very critical of the World Bank or IMF, although the negative social effects of their policies are widely known. Have you pulled your punches?
No, we have not. There are indeed criticisms of policies pursued by the World Bank and the IMF in the report — on conditionality, on structural adjustment, on the failure to control financial volatility or contagion — but without this being a frontal attack on the institutions. Our purpose is to reform the reformers, some of whom are beginning to recognise their mistakes. For instance, Jim Wolfensohn told us the Washington Consensus is dead. That is fine, but we need to be sure the message is heard across the international system as a whole.
Is the economic paradigm pendulum now swinging back in favour of greater regulation?
We appear to have moved from a widespread belief, prevalent in the early 1950s, that the State could do no wrong to a strong conviction, fashionable in the late 1990s, that the State could do no right. These are caricatures. Reality is more complex. For the State and the market are complements rather than substitutes. The role of the State extends beyond regulation of markets or correcting for market failures. There are other important dimensions: Creating the conditions to capture the benefits from globalisation, managing the process of integration into the world economy, providing social protection to the vulnerable in the process of change.
Globalisation is based on the logic that the free mobility of factors of production will benefit all in the long run. Why has enough not been done to ensure free mobility of labour from poor to rich countries?
This is an important question. Globalisation has led to openness in trade, investment and financial flows. It also extends to flows of services, technology, information and ideas across national boundaries. But the cross-border movement of people is highly restricted. This asymmetry is neither an accident nor a coincidence. It is not enough to create fair rules for trade and capital flows. These need to be complemented by fair rules for the movement of people. The time has come to build a multi- lateral framework that provides uniform and transparent rules for the cross-border movement of people.
While globalisation seems to have increased inequalities within most countries and regions of the world, the report seems to suggest India is an exception...
Economic inequalities have increased during the past 25 years as the income gap between rich and poor countries and rich and poor people within countries has widened. This is, in part, attributable to globalisation. India and China have done better than most developing countries by stepping up economic growth and reducing absolute poverty. The creation of initial conditions before the opening up is one reason, while a better management of integration into the world economy is another. However, aggregates conceal the fact that there have been winners and losers. The educated and the rich have benefited from globalisation. But the benefits have not yet reached the majority, in particular the rural poor. Is India, then, an exception to the rule? The answer cannot be the same for everyone. For, the perceptions of people about globalisation, in India as elsewhere, depend on who they are, where they live and what they possess.
US marshals are coming to an airport near you?
3 March 2004
The Times of India
US marshals are coming to an airport near you?
By Siddharth Varadarajan
Times News Network
New Delhi: Can't wait till you arrive at JFK in New York to be fingerprinted and photographed front and side? Longing for the chastening embrace of US security procedures even before you touch down?
Relax, help is at hand. If the Bush administration has its way, Statesbound Indian travellers could soon be subjected to passport and baggage checks by US Homeland Security officials especially stationed at Indian airports.
Under a new scheme unveiled by US Customs chief Robert Bonner and reported in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, US agents will seek to review flight manifests and identify suspect passengers who are likely to be turned away once they reach the United States.
The airports initially marked for the privilege are Heathrow and Gatwick in London, Narita Tokyo), CDG (Paris), Frankfurt, Mexico and Schiphol (Amsterdam).
The scheme is similar to the programme run by the US Coast Guard at some foreign ports, where US officials go through cargo containers before they are loaded on Americabound ships. The new airport security programme will kick off in Warsaw, Poland, but Washington hopes to extend it elsewhere in Europe and Asia.
Although United Airlines has not yet resumed its flights into and out of Delhi, Air-India flies passengers to the US direct and so Indian airports too would eventually be expected to sign on to this ‘voluntary' scheme.
A senior official from the ministry of external affairs (MEA) said the level and type of security procedures adopted at Indian airports would be determined by "the threat perception of airlines and on what we find unacceptable".
The MEA official said the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) prescribes the minimum parameters for airport security but then airlines make their own assessment based on the level of threat. El Al, the Israeli carrier, for example, has much stricter security procedures for its flights from India compared to other airlines.
The Times of India
US marshals are coming to an airport near you?
By Siddharth Varadarajan
Times News Network
New Delhi: Can't wait till you arrive at JFK in New York to be fingerprinted and photographed front and side? Longing for the chastening embrace of US security procedures even before you touch down?
Relax, help is at hand. If the Bush administration has its way, Statesbound Indian travellers could soon be subjected to passport and baggage checks by US Homeland Security officials especially stationed at Indian airports.
Under a new scheme unveiled by US Customs chief Robert Bonner and reported in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, US agents will seek to review flight manifests and identify suspect passengers who are likely to be turned away once they reach the United States.
The airports initially marked for the privilege are Heathrow and Gatwick in London, Narita Tokyo), CDG (Paris), Frankfurt, Mexico and Schiphol (Amsterdam).
The scheme is similar to the programme run by the US Coast Guard at some foreign ports, where US officials go through cargo containers before they are loaded on Americabound ships. The new airport security programme will kick off in Warsaw, Poland, but Washington hopes to extend it elsewhere in Europe and Asia.
Although United Airlines has not yet resumed its flights into and out of Delhi, Air-India flies passengers to the US direct and so Indian airports too would eventually be expected to sign on to this ‘voluntary' scheme.
A senior official from the ministry of external affairs (MEA) said the level and type of security procedures adopted at Indian airports would be determined by "the threat perception of airlines and on what we find unacceptable".
The MEA official said the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) prescribes the minimum parameters for airport security but then airlines make their own assessment based on the level of threat. El Al, the Israeli carrier, for example, has much stricter security procedures for its flights from India compared to other airlines.
01 March 2004
India Inc makes inroads in heart of Africa
1 March 2004
The Times of India
India Inc makes inroads in heart of Africa
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: When the government of Madagascar, the former French island colony off the south-east coast of Africa, started scouting around for help to revive its ageing Solima refinery a few years ago, it, naturally, approached Paris.
All it heard, however, was 'Non monsieurs, c'est impossible. If you want a refinery, you'd better buy a new one'.
The World Bank's technical experts, too, went through the rusting plant and declared Solima a lost cause. Just when the government-owned company was about to give up, an oilman who had once worked with Indian engineers in the Gulf suggested a call be placed to India.
The rest, as they say in Francophone Africa, is l'histoire.
Experts from the public sector energy consortium Petroleum India International (PII) travelled to Madagascar on a recce of the sick refinery and concluded it was workable.
Today, the PII's effort at Solima is considered a benchmark in the turnaround maintenance of refineries. The Indian consortium helps run the plant, and has extended its hold on the Madagascar energy market by installing a state-of-the-art LPG bottling plant there.
Better still, Indian majors are well placed to make inroads in traditional oil-rich states like Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, as well as emerging producers like Chad and Cameroon.
Solima is but one example of a quiet revolution that has begun sweeping over those parts of the African continent where French companies once held sway.
And nowhere is this revolution more in evidence than in Senegal, the West African country that is the crown in the jewel of la Francophonie.
Turning dependency theory on its head, Senegal is pulling away from the 'periphery' of the French 'core' and building a relationship with another 'periphery' of the world economy, India.
Last year, India was second only to France as Senegal's most important trading partner. But this year, according to Pierre Goudiaby Atepa, advisor to the Senegalese president, India will actually overtake the former colonial power, thanks to its large puchases of phosphoric acid for the Indian fertiliser industry.
Indo-Senegalese trade stands at about $400 million annually.
France and India may be good friends but that hasn't prevented the French from resorting to dirty tricks to protect their backyard.
Last year, when Senegalese president Abdoulaye Wade decided to award the $15- million World Bank bus building contract to Tata Motors, desperate efforts were made to scuttle the deal.
A whispering campaign was started that Tata's buses would not be as safe and long-lasting as their French competitors. And then the Senegalese transporters' union was instigated to go on strike against the decision.
Under the initial stages of the contract, Tata is to produce 500 buses at the town of Thies. But eventually, the Senegalese-based JV, Senbus, plans to produce some 10,000 buses annually for the West African market.
"The Senegalese realised new Indian buses are half the cost of second-hand European buses", says Balakrishna Shetty, India's ambassador in Dakar.
So pleased are the Senegalese with their new-found India connections that they want other West African countries to turn to Delhi for the technology and investment they once sourced from Paris.
On Monday, the foreign ministers of Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana and Guinea Bissau will meet here with external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha under the aegis of the TEAM-9 initiative, the brainchild of foreign secretary Shashank.
The Confederation of Indian Industry is also playing a key part in sensitising Indian businesses to the opportunities in West Africa.
At an interactive session between Indian businesses and TEAM-9 officials on Friday, however, it became clear that Indians have to overcome their reticence to do business with countries where French is the official language.
The Times of India
India Inc makes inroads in heart of Africa
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
NEW DELHI: When the government of Madagascar, the former French island colony off the south-east coast of Africa, started scouting around for help to revive its ageing Solima refinery a few years ago, it, naturally, approached Paris.
All it heard, however, was 'Non monsieurs, c'est impossible. If you want a refinery, you'd better buy a new one'.
The World Bank's technical experts, too, went through the rusting plant and declared Solima a lost cause. Just when the government-owned company was about to give up, an oilman who had once worked with Indian engineers in the Gulf suggested a call be placed to India.
The rest, as they say in Francophone Africa, is l'histoire.
Experts from the public sector energy consortium Petroleum India International (PII) travelled to Madagascar on a recce of the sick refinery and concluded it was workable.
Today, the PII's effort at Solima is considered a benchmark in the turnaround maintenance of refineries. The Indian consortium helps run the plant, and has extended its hold on the Madagascar energy market by installing a state-of-the-art LPG bottling plant there.
Better still, Indian majors are well placed to make inroads in traditional oil-rich states like Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, as well as emerging producers like Chad and Cameroon.
Solima is but one example of a quiet revolution that has begun sweeping over those parts of the African continent where French companies once held sway.
And nowhere is this revolution more in evidence than in Senegal, the West African country that is the crown in the jewel of la Francophonie.
Turning dependency theory on its head, Senegal is pulling away from the 'periphery' of the French 'core' and building a relationship with another 'periphery' of the world economy, India.
Last year, India was second only to France as Senegal's most important trading partner. But this year, according to Pierre Goudiaby Atepa, advisor to the Senegalese president, India will actually overtake the former colonial power, thanks to its large puchases of phosphoric acid for the Indian fertiliser industry.
Indo-Senegalese trade stands at about $400 million annually.
France and India may be good friends but that hasn't prevented the French from resorting to dirty tricks to protect their backyard.
Last year, when Senegalese president Abdoulaye Wade decided to award the $15- million World Bank bus building contract to Tata Motors, desperate efforts were made to scuttle the deal.
A whispering campaign was started that Tata's buses would not be as safe and long-lasting as their French competitors. And then the Senegalese transporters' union was instigated to go on strike against the decision.
Under the initial stages of the contract, Tata is to produce 500 buses at the town of Thies. But eventually, the Senegalese-based JV, Senbus, plans to produce some 10,000 buses annually for the West African market.
"The Senegalese realised new Indian buses are half the cost of second-hand European buses", says Balakrishna Shetty, India's ambassador in Dakar.
So pleased are the Senegalese with their new-found India connections that they want other West African countries to turn to Delhi for the technology and investment they once sourced from Paris.
On Monday, the foreign ministers of Senegal, Cote d'Ivoire, Chad, Burkina Faso, Mali, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana and Guinea Bissau will meet here with external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha under the aegis of the TEAM-9 initiative, the brainchild of foreign secretary Shashank.
The Confederation of Indian Industry is also playing a key part in sensitising Indian businesses to the opportunities in West Africa.
At an interactive session between Indian businesses and TEAM-9 officials on Friday, however, it became clear that Indians have to overcome their reticence to do business with countries where French is the official language.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
