A 23 page Leaders' Statement shows the enormous ground the world's leading economies have covered ... Genuine forward movement on several key issues, says Manmohan Singh...
27 September 2009
The Hindu
India pleased as G20 summit scales new height
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: The G20 inverted an apparently iron law of multilateral summitry — that the significance of a final statement is inversely related to its length — by turning in a bulky communiqué at the end of its summit here on Friday whose genuine heft is likely to be felt in the global economy for years to come.
Whether the new frameworks of oversight, regulation, decision-making and accountability envisaged finally get implemented or not, this much is clear: the world’s leading economies appear to recognise that any reversion to the ‘business as usual, banking as usual’ model of global capitalism which existed prior to last year’s financial meltdown will only perpetuate the current crisis and help trigger fresh instability in the international system.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy described the agreement as a “revolution.” Speaking to reporters at the end of the G20 summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was more guarded. But he highlighted several key issues on which, he said, genuine forward movement had taken place.
Of these, he said, the most important was the designation of the G20 as the “premier forum” for future discussion of international economic issues. “This is an important development broadening the international governance structure,” he said. The change will kick in immediately.
Next year’s G20 summit will take place in Canada, alongside the summit of the G8 whose deliberations will, presumably, be confined to non-economic matters and be far less crucial than the larger, more representative forum.
In line with this diffusion of power, the G20 also agreed to effect a 5 per cent shift in the IMF quota share — used to allocate voting rights — from over-represented countries to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries which are currently under-represented, by early 2011. Dr. Singh told reporters India had wanted more. “As of now, the developing countries quota is about 43 per cent. The four BRIC countries had suggested a rebalancing to the extent of 7 per cent, in which case the developing countries would have more than 50 per cent or nearly that.” But this was not acceptable to the West, which today has a majority quota share.
A further levelling of existing power relations could potentially be ushered in by the G20 decision to set up a mechanism for peer review of each other’s policy frameworks and performance. Much will depend on how the IMF implements its mandate to analyse “in a candid, even-handed and balanced” manner whether policies pursued by individual G20 countries “are collectively consistent with more sustainable and balanced trajectories for the global economy.” But this process will allow for the macroprudential and regulatory policies in the rich countries — which failed to prevent, and even encouraged, the rise of destabilising credit and asset price bubbles — to be the target for international scrutiny in much the same way that developing country fiscal, monetary, trade and structural policies have been for decades. This was a positive development, Prime Minister Singh told reporters, rejecting the suggestion that the autonomy of policymaking in India would be affected. “As far as our domestic policy is concerned, the IMF already reviews it … so I don’t see what more can be done as far as Indian policy is concerned. But the policies of major developed countries within the framework of review by the G20 will give us an opportunity to pick holes in the functioning of their economies.”
27 September 2009
G20 rules out ‘premature withdrawal’ of stimulus
Fossil fuel subsidies, bankers’ pay to come under global scanner, IMF asked to prepare a report by next year on banking system ...
27 September 2009
The Hindu
G20 rules out ‘premature withdrawal’ of stimulus
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: In pitching for a more inclusive structure of global economic governance, the G20 may have set its sights on the future management of the world economy. But the single most important decision taken by the group of leading economies on Friday was to press ahead with the stimulus measures currently being implemented till recovery was certain.
Speaking to reporters here shortly after the end of the group’s summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said it was good that the G20 had agreed that there would be no premature withdrawal of the “trillion dollar” stimulus flowing from its last two summits. Since the global economy had clearly not bottomed out, it was too early to talk of an “exit” from this approach in the short-run. Instead, the communique said a transparent and credible process for withdrawing the “extraordinary” fiscal, monetary and financial sector support should be developed for implementation “when recovery becomes fully secured.”
In terms of strengthening the international financial regulatory system, the G20 agreed to a number of measures that would ensure that there was no return “to the excessive risk taking prevalent in some countries before the crisis.” These include calling on banks to retain a greater proportion of current profits to build capital, imposing tougher regulations on over-the-counter derivatives and reforming compensation practices in the financial sector to support stability.
Excessive pay and bonuses in the sector have encouraged excessive risk taking, the G20 said, pitching for a supervisory structure in which firms with “risky” salary and bonus policies could be forced to implement corrective measures like higher capital requirements in order to offset additional risks. In particular, firms that failed or required public assistance should be forced to modify their compensation structures, the G20 noted in a nod to the controversy in Europe and the U.S. over multimillion dollar bonuses being paid from public funds to executives of bailed out banks.
In another first, the G20 has tasked the IMF with preparing a report by next year on how to get the financial sector to “make a fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burdens associated with government interventions to repair the banking system.” This suggestion, mooted by Germany, is meant to cover proposals like the ‘Tobin tax’ on speculative capital flows.
The battle to recapitalise the World Bank and other regional development banks — a key priority for India — was only partially won with the G20 agreeing to find the necessary resources based on a review of the capital needs of these banks to be completed in the first half of 2010.
The G20 also discussed the important issue of climate change and called for a successful outcome in the forthcoming UN Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations in Copenhagen. But Prime Minister Singh said that this call was more in the way of a “pious wish” since it was not at all clear that the developed countries were willing to implement the emission cuts earlier UN conventions required of them.
Though the Prime Minister did not draw attention to it, the final communiqué also includes a commitment by the G20 for the phasing out of “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” over the medium term, with the interests of poor consumers in the developing world addressed by targeted cash transfers (as Indonesia has been attempting to implement) rather than price distorting subsidies that may lead to excessive consumption. Moreover, “relevant institutions” like the International Energy Agency, the World Bank and OECD have been asked to “provide an analysis of the scope of energy subsidies” and suggest how these could be eliminated, a process that may see India being put in the dock.
That India has a problem with this approach was made clear by the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, Shyam Saran. On September 24, he told reporters here that he was not convinced about the utility of introducing such a subsidy phase-out at the G20. At stake was the interest of India’s poorest consumers, who benefit from affordable kerosene for their cooking and even lighting needs, and farmers who use subsidised diesel. Though India subsidised fossil fuel consumption, post-subsidy prices in relation to the purchasing power of the average citizen were among the highest in the world, he had said. But other Indian officials made light of the G20 formulation, saying the government itself was keen to limit subsidies and move towards cash transfers.
In his remarks to reporters, Prime Minister Singh also highlighted the renewed commitment of the G20 to fight protectionism. The group agreed that this could be realised by working for “an ambitious and balanced conclusion” to the Doha round of trade talks by 2010.
27 September 2009
The Hindu
G20 rules out ‘premature withdrawal’ of stimulus
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: In pitching for a more inclusive structure of global economic governance, the G20 may have set its sights on the future management of the world economy. But the single most important decision taken by the group of leading economies on Friday was to press ahead with the stimulus measures currently being implemented till recovery was certain.
Speaking to reporters here shortly after the end of the group’s summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said it was good that the G20 had agreed that there would be no premature withdrawal of the “trillion dollar” stimulus flowing from its last two summits. Since the global economy had clearly not bottomed out, it was too early to talk of an “exit” from this approach in the short-run. Instead, the communique said a transparent and credible process for withdrawing the “extraordinary” fiscal, monetary and financial sector support should be developed for implementation “when recovery becomes fully secured.”
In terms of strengthening the international financial regulatory system, the G20 agreed to a number of measures that would ensure that there was no return “to the excessive risk taking prevalent in some countries before the crisis.” These include calling on banks to retain a greater proportion of current profits to build capital, imposing tougher regulations on over-the-counter derivatives and reforming compensation practices in the financial sector to support stability.
Excessive pay and bonuses in the sector have encouraged excessive risk taking, the G20 said, pitching for a supervisory structure in which firms with “risky” salary and bonus policies could be forced to implement corrective measures like higher capital requirements in order to offset additional risks. In particular, firms that failed or required public assistance should be forced to modify their compensation structures, the G20 noted in a nod to the controversy in Europe and the U.S. over multimillion dollar bonuses being paid from public funds to executives of bailed out banks.
In another first, the G20 has tasked the IMF with preparing a report by next year on how to get the financial sector to “make a fair and substantial contribution towards paying for any burdens associated with government interventions to repair the banking system.” This suggestion, mooted by Germany, is meant to cover proposals like the ‘Tobin tax’ on speculative capital flows.
The battle to recapitalise the World Bank and other regional development banks — a key priority for India — was only partially won with the G20 agreeing to find the necessary resources based on a review of the capital needs of these banks to be completed in the first half of 2010.
The G20 also discussed the important issue of climate change and called for a successful outcome in the forthcoming UN Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations in Copenhagen. But Prime Minister Singh said that this call was more in the way of a “pious wish” since it was not at all clear that the developed countries were willing to implement the emission cuts earlier UN conventions required of them.
Though the Prime Minister did not draw attention to it, the final communiqué also includes a commitment by the G20 for the phasing out of “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” over the medium term, with the interests of poor consumers in the developing world addressed by targeted cash transfers (as Indonesia has been attempting to implement) rather than price distorting subsidies that may lead to excessive consumption. Moreover, “relevant institutions” like the International Energy Agency, the World Bank and OECD have been asked to “provide an analysis of the scope of energy subsidies” and suggest how these could be eliminated, a process that may see India being put in the dock.
That India has a problem with this approach was made clear by the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on Climate Change, Shyam Saran. On September 24, he told reporters here that he was not convinced about the utility of introducing such a subsidy phase-out at the G20. At stake was the interest of India’s poorest consumers, who benefit from affordable kerosene for their cooking and even lighting needs, and farmers who use subsidised diesel. Though India subsidised fossil fuel consumption, post-subsidy prices in relation to the purchasing power of the average citizen were among the highest in the world, he had said. But other Indian officials made light of the G20 formulation, saying the government itself was keen to limit subsidies and move towards cash transfers.
In his remarks to reporters, Prime Minister Singh also highlighted the renewed commitment of the G20 to fight protectionism. The group agreed that this could be realised by working for “an ambitious and balanced conclusion” to the Doha round of trade talks by 2010.
U.S. committed to nuclear deal, India told
Manmohan Singh on the the nuclear issue, Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan at his post-G20press conference in Pittsburgh ...
27 September 2009
The Hindu
U.S. committed to nuclear deal, India told
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pakistan should give up ‘old attitude’: PM
PITTSBURGH: Notwithstanding its recent sponsorship of a U.N. resolution calling, inter alia, on all countries to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the United States has assured India it remains fully committed to the civil nuclear agreements of 2005 and 2008.
“We have been assured that this is not a resolution directed at India and that the U.S. commitment to carry out its obligations under the civil nuclear agreements that we have signed with it remain undiluted,” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said when asked by reporters here about the U.N. resolution.
India, he said had been “assured officially [about this] by the United States government.”
Asked about what could be expected from the upcoming meeting of the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers in New York, Dr. Singh said that India wanted to normalise relations. “The only obstacle is that Pakistan should give up its old attitude regarding the use of terror as an instrument of state policy,” he added.
The Prime Minister said he hoped that the material India had given Pakistan regarding last November’s terrorist attack in Mumbai would make Islamabad carry forward the investigation and bring to book all the culprits. “If that is done … we will move an extra mile to normalise our relations,” he said. “We are neighbours and as neighbours, we have an obligation to work together.”
On Iran’s recent disclosure about a second enrichment plant, Dr. Singh refused to get drawn into the controversy. As a signatory to the NPT, he said, Iran had the right to the peaceful use of atomic energy and must also carry out all its obligations. “That is the principled position [India] has taken [on the Iranian nuclear issue] in the last five years,” he said.
The Prime Minister denied that American leaders had ever suggested that India scale back its assistance programme in Afghanistan. “The U.S. and European countries have been very appreciative of the role that India has played there],” he said. “We are not supplying any armed forces, we are there to assist the Afghan people in construction and development. We are helping finance some of the most important projects in the area of power, road transport, health and education.”
He was responding to a question about the recent U.S. Army report on Afghanistan by General Stanley A. McChrystal in which he praised India’s assistance but said Indian involvement was also likely to exacerbate regional tension by triggering Pakistani “counter measures.”
27 September 2009
The Hindu
U.S. committed to nuclear deal, India told
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pakistan should give up ‘old attitude’: PM
PITTSBURGH: Notwithstanding its recent sponsorship of a U.N. resolution calling, inter alia, on all countries to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the United States has assured India it remains fully committed to the civil nuclear agreements of 2005 and 2008.
“We have been assured that this is not a resolution directed at India and that the U.S. commitment to carry out its obligations under the civil nuclear agreements that we have signed with it remain undiluted,” Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said when asked by reporters here about the U.N. resolution.
India, he said had been “assured officially [about this] by the United States government.”
Asked about what could be expected from the upcoming meeting of the Indian and Pakistani foreign ministers in New York, Dr. Singh said that India wanted to normalise relations. “The only obstacle is that Pakistan should give up its old attitude regarding the use of terror as an instrument of state policy,” he added.
The Prime Minister said he hoped that the material India had given Pakistan regarding last November’s terrorist attack in Mumbai would make Islamabad carry forward the investigation and bring to book all the culprits. “If that is done … we will move an extra mile to normalise our relations,” he said. “We are neighbours and as neighbours, we have an obligation to work together.”
On Iran’s recent disclosure about a second enrichment plant, Dr. Singh refused to get drawn into the controversy. As a signatory to the NPT, he said, Iran had the right to the peaceful use of atomic energy and must also carry out all its obligations. “That is the principled position [India] has taken [on the Iranian nuclear issue] in the last five years,” he said.
The Prime Minister denied that American leaders had ever suggested that India scale back its assistance programme in Afghanistan. “The U.S. and European countries have been very appreciative of the role that India has played there],” he said. “We are not supplying any armed forces, we are there to assist the Afghan people in construction and development. We are helping finance some of the most important projects in the area of power, road transport, health and education.”
He was responding to a question about the recent U.S. Army report on Afghanistan by General Stanley A. McChrystal in which he praised India’s assistance but said Indian involvement was also likely to exacerbate regional tension by triggering Pakistani “counter measures.”
25 September 2009
Dateline Pittsburgh: So is Twenty the new Eight? Not quite
The G20 is here to stay but don't write the obituary of the G8 yet...25 September 2009
The Hindu
So is Twenty the new Eight? Not quite
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: The White House describes it as part of the process of "creating a 21st century international economic architecture” and analysts around the world have already hailed the G-20 as the worthy successor to the G8 group of leading industrial economies. But when the hype from Pittsburgh settles, one thing is clear: the absence of political coherence in the larger group of twenty means the Group of Eight will remain a useful platform for the United States to try and forge a common stand on key strategic issues, even if the G-20 assumes the mantle of global economic stewardship that the smaller, more exclusive group can no longer credibly or effectively discharge.
“Dramatic changes in the world economy have not always been reflected in the global architecture for economic cooperation”, a White House statement released shortly after President Barack Obama hosted a
banquet for G-20 leaders here Thursday night. “This all started to change today … [as] leaders endorsed the G-20 as the premier forum for their international economic cooperation. This decision brings to the
table the countries needed to build a stronger, more balanced global economy, reform the financial system and lift the lives of the poorest”, the statement somewhat grandiosely asserted.
At the time of going to press, the G-20’s final communiqué had not yet been released, though key elements of the U.S. formulation are believed to have been incorporated. The communiqué is also likely to endorse the continuation of global stimulus measures, the need for rebalancing consumption and savings in major economies, better financial regulation, as well as tying the remuneration of international bankers to the adherence of their banks to prudential norms.
For the U.S., Europe and Japan, the G-20 is a better forum to accommodate the rising aspirations of Brazil, Russia, India and China than the G8 because the majority of the larger group still consists of Western, OECD countries. A truly representative G8, on the other hand, would give the BRIC nations a collective voice roughly equal to the four largest Western economies. The G-20 brings for the U.S. an added advantage: the presence of China and India helps blunt the opposition of Europe to certain structural adjustments in the management of the world economy that America, on balance, favours, such as a change in the composition of the IMF board. Since Europe has a disproportionate presence, reducing its representation there in order to make way for the emerging economies is a low-cost way of getting the latter to support wider U.S.-led initiatives. But on political issues like non-proliferation, the G-20 would never allow the U.S. the kind of latitude it enjoys at the G8, despite the presence of Russia in the smaller grouping.
How does the size of the high table matter? A senior Indian official involved in the climate change issue told The Hindu that the presence of a large Western group which already has many of its positions worked out means a country like India is always forced to go in batting on the back foot. Traditionally, India has tended to serve as the bellwether for developing country positions on a wide range of issues. India works well with G-77-plus-China and is able to leverage this wider alliance during multilateral negotiations. But in forums like the G-20, the West fights back with formulations that seek to chip away at the developing country consensus. This might be harder to do in a smaller setting like a truly representative G8 or even the G8 plus Outreach-5, where India and China do not have to raise their voice in order to be heard.
A case in point is climate change, where the U.S., and to a lesser extent Europe and Japan, have simply refused to implement the prescribed norms of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for binding emission cuts. Yet, in the run up to the Pittsburgh summit, India and China, which have taken on voluntary mitigation targets, found themselves under pressure in the G-20 to “do more”.
Pakistan's response to the UN resolution on nonproliferation
Indian diplomats may be peeved at the fact that UNSC Resolution 1887, passed unanimously on September 24, 2009, takes no note of the exceptional status the country got when the Nuclear Suppliers Group voted to lift its sales ban despite the Indian possession of nuclear weapons.
But for Pakistan, that exemption still rankles.
So while India faulted Obama's resolution for its emphasis on nonproliferation, and its unwarranted advice on the NPT and CTBT, Pakistan confined itself to submitting a list of "Important Points regarding Nuclear Disarmament and Nuclear Non-proliferation".
Among these:
* The need to strengthen the nuclear non-proliferation regime by bringing all states on board in an equitable and realisitc manner.Since Pakistan is currently blocking consensus at the Conference on Disarmament by raising objections to the work plan under which the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty negotiations will begin, it has also flagged this issue as one of its points:
* The imperative to address asymmetries at the global and regional levels, which generate sense of insecurity among States.
* Need for evolving universal and non-discriminatory criteria for international cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including nuclear power generation for energy security.
* UNSC should not prejduge the process at the CD or lay particular emphasis on wo90rk in the CD on any particular issue like the FMCT.You can see the full Pakistani letter by Ambassador Abudllah Hussain Haroon here.
Time not right for ending stimulus: Manmohan
Reclaiming India's traditional mantle as the spokesperson for developing country interests, Manmohan Singh has made a string pitch for continuing the G20's stimulus measures till at least 2010...25 September 2009
The Hindu
Time not right for ending stimulus: Manmohan
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: Making a strong pitch for poor, developing countries that had been hit the hardest by the onset of a financial crisis they had no hand in causing, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the G20 summit here Friday that the stimulus measures being jointly pursued by the group should continue till normalcy returns to the global economy.
Tackling the problem at its root requires a commitment that we will not undertake any premature withdrawal of stimulus, Dr. Singh said in his remarks to the plenary session of the meeting of leading world economies. We must certainly plan for an orderly exit when the time is right but that time is not now. The global economy may now be bottoming out but it is not expected to reach 3 per cent growth until the end of 2010.
India had weathered the crisis relatively well because of the strong stimulus measures it introduced in the second half of 2008-9. However, the fact that some of use have fared relatively well does not mean the crisis has not affected the developing world significantly, the Prime Minister said. The annual GDP growth rate of developing countries had fallen from 6.5 per cent to 1.5 per cent as a result of the crisis, implying a fall in real per capita income.
As a result of this fall, an estimated 90 million people across the developing world are likely to be pushed below the poverty line, he said, adding that lower state revenues would lead to lower levels of public spending on infrastructure, health and education.
As part of a four-pronged rescue strategy for both the world economy and the developing countries, the Prime Minister proposed the continuation of global stimulus measures, increased funding for infrastructure investment to make up for the collapse of developing country exports, and the re-capitalisation of the World Bank to allow for expanded lending. He also emphasized the need to fight protectionist measures.
The G20 had already taken measures to increase the flow of assistance to poor countries but the scale so far was only enough to help them manage their balance of payments at depressed levels of economic activity, the Prime Minister said. They cannot counter the effect of the loss of exports.
Lost exports had to be replaced by expanding other components of domestic demand, especially investment. An obvious area is infrastructure, he said. These investments can be made ahead of requirements and, therefore, are an ideal form of countercyclical activity.
The World Bank was best placed to finance this expansion in infrastructure investment in both the poorest nations as well as emerging economies which were unable to raise money elsewhere because global capital markets had yet to recover. But this could only be done if the capital base of the World Bank and regional development banks doubled.
Acknowledging that the richest countries may baulk at committing additional public resources for such a recapitalization project, the Prime Minister said the quantum of funds needed was small compared to the massive scale of public money used to stabilize the financial system in industrialized countries.
U.S. overshadows G-20 summit with Iran nuclear hype
Iran disclosed the existence of the new enrichment plant to the IAEA on September 21 but that hasn't stopped the Western media from speaking of the "discovery" of the plant by U.S. intelligence agencies. The plant, incidentally, is not a violation of the Iranian safeguards agreement with the IAEA...
25 September 2
The Hindu
U.S. overshadows G-20 summit with Iran nuclear hype
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: Iran’s decision to inform the International Atomic Energy Agency about a new pilot fuel enrichment plant it is building has been seized upon by the United States, and its allies as proof of the danger posed to the world by the Iranian nuclear programme.
Appearing before reporters an hour before the first plenary session of the G-20 group of leading world economies was set to begin here, U.S. President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister accused Tehran of defying the U.N. Security Council and directly challenging the international non-proliferation regime. They called upon Iran to provide the IAEA immediate access to the facility or face new international sanctions.
According to an IAEA spokesperson, Iran informed the agency about the facility on September 21.
Although U.S. officials say Iran had been forced to admit the existence of the new plant because it feared imminent exposure by Western intelligence agencies -- an unverifiable claim that has, nevertheless, been dutifully echoed by the American media – Tehran’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA only obliges it to provide design information not later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into a new facility.
The facility is said to be in the preliminary stage of development, with the introduction of uranium still several months away. Any international inspection of the facility could only come after that point, not before. That is why the IAEA never considered the Natanz facility whose existence was only revealed in 2002 a violation of Iran’s safeguards agreement.
In 2003, Iran agreed to a modified subsidiary arrangement requiring it to inform the IAEA as soon as a decision to construct a new facility was taken. But Tehran withdrew its adherence to the arrangement four years later, in retaliation against UN sanctions.
In March 2009, the IAEA’s Legal Adviser was asked by some member governments to qualify in legal terms Iran’s non-implementation of the new disclosure rules. His reply made it clear that there was considerable ambiguity and the matter was not as clear-cut as the U.S. and its allies claimed it to be. While Iran could not unilaterally withdraw its adherence to the new arrangement, the Legal Adviser said its actions should be seen in proper context. Elaborating, he said that since the old rules had been considered consistent with a country’s safeguards obligations for 22 years, it is difficult to conclude that providing information in accordance with the earlier formulation in itself constitutes non-compliance with, or breach of, the Safeguards Agreement as such.
Though Iran may be on reasonably firm legal ground, the politics of its latest disclosure could swing either ways. Tehran will begin formal talks with the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany on October 1. It is possible that it may use the new facility as a bargaining chip to resist the demand for an end to its enrichment programme. On the other hand, the new facility clearly gives the U.S. an excuse to harden its own stance in the run up to those talks.
25 September 2
The Hindu
U.S. overshadows G-20 summit with Iran nuclear hype
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: Iran’s decision to inform the International Atomic Energy Agency about a new pilot fuel enrichment plant it is building has been seized upon by the United States, and its allies as proof of the danger posed to the world by the Iranian nuclear programme.
Appearing before reporters an hour before the first plenary session of the G-20 group of leading world economies was set to begin here, U.S. President Barack Obama, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister accused Tehran of defying the U.N. Security Council and directly challenging the international non-proliferation regime. They called upon Iran to provide the IAEA immediate access to the facility or face new international sanctions.
According to an IAEA spokesperson, Iran informed the agency about the facility on September 21.
Although U.S. officials say Iran had been forced to admit the existence of the new plant because it feared imminent exposure by Western intelligence agencies -- an unverifiable claim that has, nevertheless, been dutifully echoed by the American media – Tehran’s safeguards agreement with the IAEA only obliges it to provide design information not later than 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material into a new facility.
The facility is said to be in the preliminary stage of development, with the introduction of uranium still several months away. Any international inspection of the facility could only come after that point, not before. That is why the IAEA never considered the Natanz facility whose existence was only revealed in 2002 a violation of Iran’s safeguards agreement.
In 2003, Iran agreed to a modified subsidiary arrangement requiring it to inform the IAEA as soon as a decision to construct a new facility was taken. But Tehran withdrew its adherence to the arrangement four years later, in retaliation against UN sanctions.
In March 2009, the IAEA’s Legal Adviser was asked by some member governments to qualify in legal terms Iran’s non-implementation of the new disclosure rules. His reply made it clear that there was considerable ambiguity and the matter was not as clear-cut as the U.S. and its allies claimed it to be. While Iran could not unilaterally withdraw its adherence to the new arrangement, the Legal Adviser said its actions should be seen in proper context. Elaborating, he said that since the old rules had been considered consistent with a country’s safeguards obligations for 22 years, it is difficult to conclude that providing information in accordance with the earlier formulation in itself constitutes non-compliance with, or breach of, the Safeguards Agreement as such.
Though Iran may be on reasonably firm legal ground, the politics of its latest disclosure could swing either ways. Tehran will begin formal talks with the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany on October 1. It is possible that it may use the new facility as a bargaining chip to resist the demand for an end to its enrichment programme. On the other hand, the new facility clearly gives the U.S. an excuse to harden its own stance in the run up to those talks.
Remember G20, ‘Smoky City’ is where global warming started
A picture of darkness at noon... Downtown Pittsburgh lit by street lights during daytime in 1940. This is the backstory of climate change... 25 September 2009
The Hindu
Remember G20, ‘Smoky City’ is where global warming started
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: Known today for the decimation of its traditional economy by globalisation, this former steel town in western Pennsylvania where the summit of G20 major economies gets under way on Thursday has a darker history that the United States would rather not be reminded of. How dark? Try inky black at mid-morning. Well before its reinvention as an eco-friendly city two decades ago, reportedly the 10th cleanest in the world, Pittsburgh was a great and foul industrial city, manufacturing steel for the United States but greenhouse gases for the rest of the world by the thousands of tonnes.
The steel mills have long gone but the damage they caused to the global atmospheric commons has remained, part of the huge historical burden that the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol had said the West had to discharge by sharply reducing its current emissions.
If the rise of civilization is linked to the harmonious relationship that developed between human beings and their environment in the Indus, Nile and Mesopotamian valleys, the unrestrained emission of greenhouse gases in Pittsburgh (and places like the Ruhr valley in Europe) for more than a century is what future archaeologists of climate change are likely to identify as the beginning of our decline.
Its air heavy with smoke and smog from hundreds of factories, Pittsburgh used to be once described by a local writer as “hell with the lid off”. And that was in 1860. Eighty years later, the situation had actually become worse. The local university library has an excellent archive of photographs of the city the way it was in 1940, its economic heyday. Consider the following exhibit, a street level photograph of the corner of Liberty and Fifth Avenues in downtown, not far from the David Lawrence Convention Center where world leaders will meet on September 25 to discuss the world financial crisis and the need to fight climate change. A street clock tells us the time is 10:55 a.m. but the image reminds us of night time film noir, the city’s smoky darkness punctuated by bright lights from the street and its surrounding buildings.
It was only in 1941 that the first pollution control ordinances in the ‘Smoky City’ were passed but their implementation had to wait for legislation that came only at the end of World War II. Old timers speak of going out in the morning and coming back with soot on their faces. Frank Lloyd Wright was asked once what could be done about Pittsburgh. “Abandon it”, the famous architect famously replied. Since then, of course, a lot has changed. After cleaning up its skies and rivers, the city became a pioneer in ‘green building’, converting disused industrial sites, or ‘brownfields’, into eco-friendly buildings with a very low carbon footprint. The changing nature of the local economy helped, as heavy manufacturing relocated to other parts of the world. The Lawrence Convention Centre is itself a former brownfield and President Barack Obama is likely to point to it as an example of what can be done to combat global warming.
India, China and other countries are resisting the idea of converting the G20 into a forum for discussing climate change when a full-fledged U.N. conference on the subject is being held in Copenhagen this December. Given Pittsburgh’s unique place in modern industrialisation, Indian and Chinese leaders need to remind their American hosts and European partners that the struggle against global warming has a past, a present as well as a future. Apart from sharply cutting current emission levels because they are still among the world’s highest — the U.S. today emits 20 tonnes per capita and the OECD average is 10 tonnes — the West must pay for what it did in the past.
As for the developing countries, they too have a responsibility to cut their own emissions. But these cuts can be more easily brought about if some of the ‘green’ technology Mr. Obama showcases here is made more easily available to them.
Don’t tell us to sign NPT, India tells U.S.
India rejects the big Obama nonproliferation resolution at the UN Security Council, says nuclear weapons are an integral part of national security and pushes for realisitic intermediate measures like a Global No First Use Agreement as a stepping stone towards the final outcome of universal disarmament ...25 September 2009
The Hindu
Don’t tell us to sign NPT, India tells U.S.
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: India’s response to the U.S.-sponsored resolution on non-proliferation may be worded diplomatically but there is no disguising the sharp differences between Washington and New Delhi that have opened up on a host of nuclear issues. These range from the role of the Security Council and the right of countries not to sign treaties to the emphasis on non-proliferation at the expense of disarmament.
At the heart of the Indian stance is a zealous attempt to guard the gains from last year’s granting of special status by the Nuclear Suppliers Group and International Atomic Energy Agency, something the Obama resolution is totally silent about.
The UNSC resolution --- passed at a Summit level meeting convened by President Barack Obama on September 24 --- calling for tightening international controls on the proliferation of nuclear weapons, including universalizing membership of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the immediate adherence to its norms by non-parties. The principal target of the resolution may be Iran, North Korea and those non-nuclear weapon states opposed to greater policing of their activities. But the resolution also effectively calls on India to place all its nuclear facilities under international safeguards, a demand that flies in the face of its de facto nuclear weapons status. A last minute U.S. addition also reaffirms the outcomes of the 1995 and 2000 NPT review conferences which, inter alia, sought to introduce comprehensive safeguards as a condition for nuclear supply, the very requirement the NSG waived for India last September.
In a letter to the President of the Council on September 23, India’s Permanent Representative, Hardeep Puri, said that while New Delhi welcomed the U.S. initiative to convene a summit to consider matters relating to non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, it believes “an excessive focus on non-proliferation does a disservice to the essential principle of the mutually reinforcing linkage between disarmament and non-proliferation”.
U.S. ambassador Susan Rice currently holds the rotating UNSC presidency.
The letter says global efforts preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery were in India's interest “as the infirmities of the non-proliferation regime have had an adverse impact on our security”. After outlining Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s 2008 proposal for a ban on such weapons, the Indian letter calls for intermediate steps like a Global No First Use Agreement and negotiation of a Convention on the Prohibition of the use of Nuclear weapons. It also reiterates India’s moratorium on nuclear testing and its own unilateral no first use commitment.
In a direct answer to the resolution’s call to sign the nonproliferation treaty, the letter says, “[There] is no question of India joining the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of India's national security and will remain so, pending non-discriminatory and global nuclear disarmament”.
G20 considering ‘peer review’ by IMF
We'll know by tommorrow what the G20 decide but the U.S. hosts have floated some ideas...
25 September 2009
The Hindu
G20 considering ‘peer review’ by IMF
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: Though details of official talks at the ‘sherpa’ level are being kept a closely guarded secret by the 19 countries gathered here for the summit of the G20 (the 20th participant being the European Union), the United States is believed to be advocating a greater role for the International Monetary Fund in overseeing the extent to which the leading world economies stick to the path of “balanced and sustainable growth.”
A U.S.-authored draft communiqué leaked by the Reuters news agency is sketchy on the precise nature of this oversight, presumably because many countries are uncomfortable with the idea of tying their national economic policies down in such a way that they lose the ability to respond flexibly to their own domestic problems.
‘No supervision without representation’ is the mantra of the developing world, even though analysts have said the U.S. proposal amounts to nothing more than institutionalising a process of “peer review.” If there is general consensus on the need to restructure the underlying global imbalances which fuelled last year’s financial meltdown, the argument goes, some agency needs to monitor whether the U.S. delivers on its promise of consuming and borrowing less and whether the Chinese come through on their commitment to step up domestic consumption.
The second set of U.S. proposals revolve around the problem of strengthening the Western banking system, which remains seriously undercapitalized and ultra risk averse. For India, China and other major developing countries, this is more of a derivative problem -- pun intended -- in that their own banks, which avoided risky investments, remain sound but their national business climate is subdued because of the credit squeeze emanating from the advanced industrialised countries.
India’s priorities going into the summit are a resumption of credit flows, fighting protectionism and reforming the governance structure and mandate of the international financial institutions. As of now, only the first of these appears to be a priority for the U.S.
25 September 2009
The Hindu
G20 considering ‘peer review’ by IMF
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: Though details of official talks at the ‘sherpa’ level are being kept a closely guarded secret by the 19 countries gathered here for the summit of the G20 (the 20th participant being the European Union), the United States is believed to be advocating a greater role for the International Monetary Fund in overseeing the extent to which the leading world economies stick to the path of “balanced and sustainable growth.”
A U.S.-authored draft communiqué leaked by the Reuters news agency is sketchy on the precise nature of this oversight, presumably because many countries are uncomfortable with the idea of tying their national economic policies down in such a way that they lose the ability to respond flexibly to their own domestic problems.
‘No supervision without representation’ is the mantra of the developing world, even though analysts have said the U.S. proposal amounts to nothing more than institutionalising a process of “peer review.” If there is general consensus on the need to restructure the underlying global imbalances which fuelled last year’s financial meltdown, the argument goes, some agency needs to monitor whether the U.S. delivers on its promise of consuming and borrowing less and whether the Chinese come through on their commitment to step up domestic consumption.
The second set of U.S. proposals revolve around the problem of strengthening the Western banking system, which remains seriously undercapitalized and ultra risk averse. For India, China and other major developing countries, this is more of a derivative problem -- pun intended -- in that their own banks, which avoided risky investments, remain sound but their national business climate is subdued because of the credit squeeze emanating from the advanced industrialised countries.
India’s priorities going into the summit are a resumption of credit flows, fighting protectionism and reforming the governance structure and mandate of the international financial institutions. As of now, only the first of these appears to be a priority for the U.S.
Security Council should stick to mandate, says India
More details from the Indian ambassador's letter to the Security Council on Obama's resolution...
25 September 2009
The Hindu
Security Council should stick to mandate, says India
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: India has argued that non-proliferation obligations arise from treaties to which states are parties and that any question of non-compliance has to be addressed in accordance with those treaties or agreements and not by the Security Council over-reaching its mandate.
In a letter to the U.N. Security Council president aimed at distancing India from the September 24 resolution on non-proliferation, Ambassador Hardeep Puri also insisted that India cannot accept obligations stemming from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) or agreements it has not signed or externally prescribed norms that infringe its sovereignty, national interest and Constitution.
India also emphasised that the International Atomic Energy Agency’s authority to apply safeguards or verify undeclared nuclear activity is not open ended but “is derived from specific safeguards agreements it enters into with member states.” Mr. Puri’s letter noted, in this context, that India had concluded a number of agreements and reciprocal commitments as part of its civil nuclear initiative.
Taken together, the Indian stand represents not just a defence of the country’s status as an exception to the NPT regime but a reversion to its traditional arguments on disarmament. New Delhi had tended not to emphasise these over the past few years, perhaps in keeping with Washington’s approach during the Bush administration. But with Mr. Obama’s team harking back to the non-proliferation agenda of the previous decade, India now feels more comfortable returning to its long-held positions.
More differences
Another indication of further differences brewing over the horizon was provided by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s renewed demand for India and the seven other countries that have not signed or ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to join Washington in making a push for accession.
Speaking at a conference of CTBT state parties to promote the entry into force of the treaty on Thursday, Ms. Clinton said that as the Obama administration worked with the Senate to ratify the CTBT, “we will encourage other countries to play their part ---including the eight remaining Annex 2 countries. Those who haven’t signed should sign. Those, like us, who haven’t ratified, should ratify.”
25 September 2009
The Hindu
Security Council should stick to mandate, says India
Siddharth Varadarajan
Pittsburgh: India has argued that non-proliferation obligations arise from treaties to which states are parties and that any question of non-compliance has to be addressed in accordance with those treaties or agreements and not by the Security Council over-reaching its mandate.
In a letter to the U.N. Security Council president aimed at distancing India from the September 24 resolution on non-proliferation, Ambassador Hardeep Puri also insisted that India cannot accept obligations stemming from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) or agreements it has not signed or externally prescribed norms that infringe its sovereignty, national interest and Constitution.
India also emphasised that the International Atomic Energy Agency’s authority to apply safeguards or verify undeclared nuclear activity is not open ended but “is derived from specific safeguards agreements it enters into with member states.” Mr. Puri’s letter noted, in this context, that India had concluded a number of agreements and reciprocal commitments as part of its civil nuclear initiative.
Taken together, the Indian stand represents not just a defence of the country’s status as an exception to the NPT regime but a reversion to its traditional arguments on disarmament. New Delhi had tended not to emphasise these over the past few years, perhaps in keeping with Washington’s approach during the Bush administration. But with Mr. Obama’s team harking back to the non-proliferation agenda of the previous decade, India now feels more comfortable returning to its long-held positions.
More differences
Another indication of further differences brewing over the horizon was provided by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s renewed demand for India and the seven other countries that have not signed or ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to join Washington in making a push for accession.
Speaking at a conference of CTBT state parties to promote the entry into force of the treaty on Thursday, Ms. Clinton said that as the Obama administration worked with the Senate to ratify the CTBT, “we will encourage other countries to play their part ---including the eight remaining Annex 2 countries. Those who haven’t signed should sign. Those, like us, who haven’t ratified, should ratify.”
24 September 2009
Centre for new war on Maoists
According to a top government official, the Home Ministry's proposal for use of special forces against the Naxalite movement is being considered...
24 September 2009
The Hindu
Centre for new war on Maoists
Siddharth Varadarajan
On board PM’s special aircraft: Riding high on the recent arrest of senior Maoist leader Kopad Ghandy, the Manmohan Singh government is considering a major escalation of its war against Maoist insurgents across the country.
In an interaction with reporters accompanying the Prime Minister to the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, official sources said the Home Ministry’s proposal for the use of special forces, including air power (initially for transportation alone), was being considered by the appropriate committees and no decision had been taken as yet. While a strong case had been made out for the greater use of force against the naxalites, the government was evaluating the downsides of such a strategy. “The question is whether we can calibrate the government’s use of violence,” the sources said.
“You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs… [But] if we end up killing many more tribals in the process, there will be problems.”
By way of illustration, the sources drew attention to the recent report by General Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of the United States forces in Afghanistan, which linked mounting civilian casualties in the war against the Taliban to the use of air power by the U.S. and its allies.
The sources criticised what they said was the media’s unwillingness to focus on the violence perpetrated by the Maoists. “Despite the fact that naxalites have been carrying out the worst atrocities, there is very little public outcry. When Kopad Ghandy is arrested, we see intellectuals are protecting him. But when tribals are killed by the Maoists, the intellectuals and NGOs [are silent.]”
Asked about the need for dialogue with the Maoists, the sources said this had been experimented with between 2004 and 2006. “Today, there are no offers from their side and I am not sure any purpose will be served either.”
Salwa Judum defended
The sources defended the Chhattisgarh government’s controversial Salwa Judum strategy of arming tribals to attack Maoist insurgents and their suspected sympathisers, a strategy that has led to the displacement of thousands of tribals and been questioned by the Supreme Court. “I think the Salwa Judum was a genuine people’s movement and the naxalites were frightened by it. But thanks to NGOs and other extraneous elements, it was undermined and completely destroyed.”
The Prime Minister will halt in Frankfurt for the night before proceeding to Pittsburgh on Thursday. He is accompanied by a high-level delegation including National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan. Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao will join the Prime Minister at the G20 summit.
24 September 2009
The Hindu
Centre for new war on Maoists
Siddharth Varadarajan
On board PM’s special aircraft: Riding high on the recent arrest of senior Maoist leader Kopad Ghandy, the Manmohan Singh government is considering a major escalation of its war against Maoist insurgents across the country.
In an interaction with reporters accompanying the Prime Minister to the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, official sources said the Home Ministry’s proposal for the use of special forces, including air power (initially for transportation alone), was being considered by the appropriate committees and no decision had been taken as yet. While a strong case had been made out for the greater use of force against the naxalites, the government was evaluating the downsides of such a strategy. “The question is whether we can calibrate the government’s use of violence,” the sources said.
“You can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs… [But] if we end up killing many more tribals in the process, there will be problems.”
By way of illustration, the sources drew attention to the recent report by General Stanley A. McChrystal, commander of the United States forces in Afghanistan, which linked mounting civilian casualties in the war against the Taliban to the use of air power by the U.S. and its allies.
The sources criticised what they said was the media’s unwillingness to focus on the violence perpetrated by the Maoists. “Despite the fact that naxalites have been carrying out the worst atrocities, there is very little public outcry. When Kopad Ghandy is arrested, we see intellectuals are protecting him. But when tribals are killed by the Maoists, the intellectuals and NGOs [are silent.]”
Asked about the need for dialogue with the Maoists, the sources said this had been experimented with between 2004 and 2006. “Today, there are no offers from their side and I am not sure any purpose will be served either.”
Salwa Judum defended
The sources defended the Chhattisgarh government’s controversial Salwa Judum strategy of arming tribals to attack Maoist insurgents and their suspected sympathisers, a strategy that has led to the displacement of thousands of tribals and been questioned by the Supreme Court. “I think the Salwa Judum was a genuine people’s movement and the naxalites were frightened by it. But thanks to NGOs and other extraneous elements, it was undermined and completely destroyed.”
The Prime Minister will halt in Frankfurt for the night before proceeding to Pittsburgh on Thursday. He is accompanied by a high-level delegation including National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan. Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia and Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao will join the Prime Minister at the G20 summit.
23 September 2009
India sees battle ahead for future of G20
Before the reform agenda is won, new issues are being raised in the run up to the Pittsburgh summit ... And what better place to parry Western pressure on climate change than the place that used to be called Smoky City? Pittsburgh may be squeaky clean today but global warming is about the GHG overhang generated by 150 years of reckless growth in the West...
23 September 2009
The Hindu
India sees battle ahead for future agenda of G20
With the “green shoots” of global recovery being seen here and there, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh goes to this week’s G20 summit at Pittsburgh in full knowledge that Western talk of an “exit” from the group’s inclusive, expansionary agenda is aimed at aborting the drive for reform of the international financial system.
If all that the West wanted was to return to business as usual, it might have had its way. But Europe, and to a lesser extent the U.S., want to build on the success of the G20 forum to further other agendas such as getting developing countries like India to shoulder a disproportionate share of the responsibility to tackle global climate change.
On guard
In the run-up to Pittsburgh, this chatter about wider issues has served to put India and others on guard.
The first post-crisis summit of the G20 was held in Washington last November and saw the announcement of a joint action plan. At London this April, the projected stimulus package was upped to $1.1 trillion, a commitment against protectionism was made, and the first, half-hearted reform measures adopted such as the expansion of the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
Payback time
For countries like India and China — which have done much to help reflate the global economy by not allowing their domestic growth rates to flag — Pittsburgh is meant to be payback time, a forum where institutional reform of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank is discussed and acted upon. Europe, which today only accounts for 25 per cent of the world economy, has a 40 per cent voting share in the IMF. India and China weigh in at around 3 and 2 per cent respectively.
The situation in the World Bank is only marginally better. The issue, say economists, is not simply one of equity. Rather, they see a link between the unrepresentative character of these institutions and their failure to play their mandated role as global watchdogs of the financial and economic system. One of the lessons from the 2008 meltdown, therefore, was to reform both the structure and mandate of these bodies and not just to reflate the global economy.
But now that the stimulus effects are visible, Europe’s willingness to reduce its vote share and America’s appetite for reforming the international finance game have noticeably reduced. Instead, there is talk of the G20 evolving a common position on climate change so that the forthcoming Copenhagen summit can deliver an appropriate outcome.
At the London meeting of G20 finance ministers, Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) said this task really belonged to the U.N. process, the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
But at Pittsburgh, there is no reason for the BRIC countries to be diffident, so long as they do not dilute their stand that the advanced industrialised countries are the ones who must make deep emission cuts in order to save the planet from catastrophic environmental change.
Good forum
Indeed, since it is essentially the same group of countries whose long-term and short-term recklessness has fouled both the global financial and atmospheric commons, Pittsburgh is as good a forum as any to emphasise the twin burden that Europe and the U.S. must discharge, and that the question of reforming the international financial institutions cannot be sidestepped at any cost.
23 September 2009
The Hindu
India sees battle ahead for future agenda of G20
With the “green shoots” of global recovery being seen here and there, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh goes to this week’s G20 summit at Pittsburgh in full knowledge that Western talk of an “exit” from the group’s inclusive, expansionary agenda is aimed at aborting the drive for reform of the international financial system.
If all that the West wanted was to return to business as usual, it might have had its way. But Europe, and to a lesser extent the U.S., want to build on the success of the G20 forum to further other agendas such as getting developing countries like India to shoulder a disproportionate share of the responsibility to tackle global climate change.
On guard
In the run-up to Pittsburgh, this chatter about wider issues has served to put India and others on guard.
The first post-crisis summit of the G20 was held in Washington last November and saw the announcement of a joint action plan. At London this April, the projected stimulus package was upped to $1.1 trillion, a commitment against protectionism was made, and the first, half-hearted reform measures adopted such as the expansion of the Financial Stability Board and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision.
Payback time
For countries like India and China — which have done much to help reflate the global economy by not allowing their domestic growth rates to flag — Pittsburgh is meant to be payback time, a forum where institutional reform of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank is discussed and acted upon. Europe, which today only accounts for 25 per cent of the world economy, has a 40 per cent voting share in the IMF. India and China weigh in at around 3 and 2 per cent respectively.
The situation in the World Bank is only marginally better. The issue, say economists, is not simply one of equity. Rather, they see a link between the unrepresentative character of these institutions and their failure to play their mandated role as global watchdogs of the financial and economic system. One of the lessons from the 2008 meltdown, therefore, was to reform both the structure and mandate of these bodies and not just to reflate the global economy.
But now that the stimulus effects are visible, Europe’s willingness to reduce its vote share and America’s appetite for reforming the international finance game have noticeably reduced. Instead, there is talk of the G20 evolving a common position on climate change so that the forthcoming Copenhagen summit can deliver an appropriate outcome.
At the London meeting of G20 finance ministers, Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) said this task really belonged to the U.N. process, the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
But at Pittsburgh, there is no reason for the BRIC countries to be diffident, so long as they do not dilute their stand that the advanced industrialised countries are the ones who must make deep emission cuts in order to save the planet from catastrophic environmental change.
Good forum
Indeed, since it is essentially the same group of countries whose long-term and short-term recklessness has fouled both the global financial and atmospheric commons, Pittsburgh is as good a forum as any to emphasise the twin burden that Europe and the U.S. must discharge, and that the question of reforming the international financial institutions cannot be sidestepped at any cost.
22 September 2009
U.S. sees rising Indian influence in Afghanistan as problem
India is damned if it does (help Afghanistan) and damned if it doesn't.... 22 September 2009
The Hindu
U.S. sees rising Indian influence in Afghanistan as problem
Siddharth Varadarajan
In the clearest statement to date of Washington’s reservations about the rising Indian economic and political profile in Afghanistan, the top American general in charge of the war against the Taliban and other insurgents there has said India’s increasing influence in the insurgency-wracked country “is likely to exacerbate regional tensions”.
In his ‘Commander’s Initial Assessment’ on the war in Afghanistan dated August 30, made public on Sunday, General Stanley A. McChrystal said the situation there is “serious” and “deteriorating”. Though a significant section of his report emphasises the need for a change in U.S. strategy and the way U.S. forces deployed there “think and operate”, the section on “external influences” is likely to grate on New Delhi’s ears because of its implication that India ought to scale back its presence in order to placate Pakistani fears about growing Indian influence.
“Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan, including significant development efforts and financial investment. In addition, the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian”, the McChrystal report notes. But it adds: “While Indian activities largely benefit the Afghan people, increasing Indian influence in Afghanistan is likely to exacerbate regional tensions and encourage Pakistani countermeasures in Afghanistan or India”.
India has extended more than $1 billion to Afghanistan in financial and development assistance and is training the Afghan police force and bureaucracy. In recent years, it has been asked by key European countries like Britain and France to step up its assistance even as the U.S. has warned of a negative reaction by Pakistan.
The coy phrase ‘countermeasures’ in the McChrystal report is clearly a reference to Pakistan stepping up its funding of anti-Indian and anti-Afghan (and thus anti-U.S.) insurgent groups and terrorists.
However, in its section on Pakistan, the report only says that insurgent and violent extremist groups based in that country “are reportedly aided by some elements of Pakistan’s ISI”, an assessment far less categorical than what U.S. officials and military commanders have said before in public and private. The report zeroes in on Al-Qaeda’s links to the Haqqani network (HQN) inside Pakistan and says “expanded HQN control could create a favourable environment for AQAM to re-establish safe-havens in Afghanistan”.
The HQN is believed to be behind the bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul in 2007 and the recent assassination of Afghanistan’s deputy chief of intelligence, Abdullah Laghmani, and is widely suspected of enjoying the patronage of the ISI.
Though the McChrystal report falls short of prescribing that India scale back its presence in Afghanistan, the implication is clear: the U.S. is dependent on Pakistani support for the war in Afghanistan, Pakistan’s capacity to use extremists to hurt American interests remains high, and that India should realise its assistance to Afghanistan might provoke Islamabad into taking “countermeasures”.
Gen. McChrystal calls for additional U.S. forces but says “focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely ? Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or ‘doubling down’ on the previous strategy”.
In line with the Pentagon’s view of the damage that mounting civilian casualties have had on the image of the U.S. and Nato forces in Afghanistan, the McChrystal report squarely admits that “pre-occupied with protection of our own forces, we have operated in a manner that distances us — physically and psychologically — from the people we seek to protect. In addition, we run the risk of strategic defeat by pursuing tactical wins that cause civilian casualties or unnecessary collateral damage. The insurgents cannot defeat us militarily; but we can defeat ourselves”.
18 September 2009
India yet to raise proposed ENR ban with U.S.
More evidence of Indian diffidence... 19 September 2009
The Hindu
India yet to raise proposed ENR ban with U.S.
Siddharth Varadarajan
Despite the United States seeking to dilute the waiver India was granted from the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s export rules last year, the Manmohan Singh government is yet to protest or even formally raise the matter with Washington at any level.
India’s baffling silence has led President Barack Obama’s advisors to conclude that their attempts to re-impose an international ban on the sale of enrichment and reprocessing technology and equipment will not adversely affect bilateral relations or the prospects of American companies winning lucrative nuclear and defence contracts, a former Bush administration official involved with the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear deal told The Hindu.
The official said that when he asked the State Department about the wisdom of getting the G-8 to endorse the U.S.-proposed ban on ENR sales to India this July, he was told to keep his concerns to himself since the Indians themselves had not bothered to protest the American move.
A senior official in the Ministry of External Affairs confirmed that India did not raise the ENR issue during Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Delhi, when she met both the Prime Minister and External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna.
“Well, I have a strategic dialogue with my counterpart, I suppose that could be one of the areas,” National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan told The Hindu, when asked about India’s reluctance to complain about continuing American attempts to dilute the NSG’s clean waiver since November 2008. “It hasn’t come up because we have a new team there, we’ll have to sit down and talk about it. I am going [to Washington] in October, I suppose I’ll take it up.”
The Indian leadership’s unwillingness to raise the issue meant Ms. Clinton’s advisers never bothered to brief her properly on the prickly topic. Which helps explains her blunder during a Delhi press conference. As long as ENR transfers to India were safeguarded, she said, the U.S. would regard these as “appropriate.”
But the State Department later clarified that the Secretary of State had wrongly represented the American position and that it was very much the U.S. policy to seek multilateral restrictions on the transfer of ENR items to countries like India, a stand that flies in the face of the letter and spirit of the July 2005 Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement.
16 September 2009
Sign NPT, accept full safeguards, U.S. wants U.N. to tell India
Obama nonproliferation resolution in Security Council has no place for India exception...
16 September 2009
The Hindu
Sign NPT, accept full safeguards, U.S. wants U.N. to tell India
Siddharth Varadarajan
New Delhi: In a measure of how the official line in Washington on India’s nuclear status has changed from the Bush to the Obama administrations, the U.S. is circulating a draft U.N. Security Council resolution calling, inter alia, for all Indian nuclear facilities to be placed under international safeguards and not just those that have been declared “civilian” under the July 2005 Indo-U.S. civil nuclear agreement.
The ostensible rationale for the resolution President Barack Obama would like adopted at the special UNSC session he will chair on September 24 is to demonstrate the seriousness of his stated commitment to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.
But there is a sting in the tail for India: For the first time since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force, the UNSC is going to demand that all states outside the treaty sign it immediately or begin adhering to its provisions.
The only other time the UNSC has adopted such a prescriptive demand for a country or group of countries that never accepted the treaty was in 1998, when it passed resolution 1172 urging India and Pakistan to sign the NPT as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the wake of the nuclear tests both countries conducted in May that year.
Since then, 1172 has been treated by the international community, and the U.S. in particular, as a dead letter as far as India is concerned.
Indeed, the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear agreement, followed by the Indian safeguards agreement at the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers group exemption was meant to underline Washington’s desire to treat as irrelevant India’s non-adherence to the NPT.
Of special concern to India, therefore, is the third operational paragraph of Mr. Obama’s proposed resolution, which says the U.N.: “Calls upon all States that are not Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to join the Treaty so as to achieve its universality at an early date, and in any case to adhere to its terms;”.
For a country like India, that is not a party to the NPT and did not explode a nuclear device prior to 1968, the phrase “to join the treaty… and in any case to adhere to its terms” essentially means it should open up all nuclear facilities for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency so that the latter can ensure that Indian reactors and fissile material stocks are not being used for weapons purposes.
Preambular paragraph 15 also reaffirms “all other relevant non-proliferation resolutions adopted by the Security Council,” an implicit reference to Resolution 1172.
Taken together, these references to India may lack enforceability but they do signal a quiet return to the “roll back” rhetoric and discourse of the Clinton era, before President George W. Bush pushed for India to be made an exception to the requirements of the NPT-related non-proliferation architecture.
Over the past few months, U.S. administration officials have revived the push for NPT universality at various international forums and sought to get the G8 to back a ban on enrichment and reprocessing technology sales to countries like India that have not signed the treaty.
Though these moves have been accompanied by statements of support for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal and the beginning of talks on reprocessing, the repeated foregrounding of the NPT suggests growing American impatience with the Bush administration premise that India’s nuclear credentials warrant it being placed in a category different from Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
Other provisions
The draft resolution also contains a range of other provisions on the CTBT, the permanence of safeguards and so on, as well explicitly requiring that all situations of “noncompliance with non-proliferation obligations” be brought to the UNSC which would then determine whether this non-compliance was a threat to international peace and security.
The only reference the resolution makes to the actual abolition of nuclear weapons is its call for all NPT and non-NPT members to undertake to pursue good faith negotiations on “a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” By clubbing together non-NPT states with all NPT states (i.e. both the nuclear and non-nuclear), this formulation avoids extending de facto recognition to the nuclear weapon status of India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
16 September 2009
The Hindu
Sign NPT, accept full safeguards, U.S. wants U.N. to tell India
Siddharth Varadarajan
New Delhi: In a measure of how the official line in Washington on India’s nuclear status has changed from the Bush to the Obama administrations, the U.S. is circulating a draft U.N. Security Council resolution calling, inter alia, for all Indian nuclear facilities to be placed under international safeguards and not just those that have been declared “civilian” under the July 2005 Indo-U.S. civil nuclear agreement.
The ostensible rationale for the resolution President Barack Obama would like adopted at the special UNSC session he will chair on September 24 is to demonstrate the seriousness of his stated commitment to the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons.
But there is a sting in the tail for India: For the first time since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) entered into force, the UNSC is going to demand that all states outside the treaty sign it immediately or begin adhering to its provisions.
The only other time the UNSC has adopted such a prescriptive demand for a country or group of countries that never accepted the treaty was in 1998, when it passed resolution 1172 urging India and Pakistan to sign the NPT as well as the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in the wake of the nuclear tests both countries conducted in May that year.
Since then, 1172 has been treated by the international community, and the U.S. in particular, as a dead letter as far as India is concerned.
Indeed, the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear agreement, followed by the Indian safeguards agreement at the IAEA and the Nuclear Suppliers group exemption was meant to underline Washington’s desire to treat as irrelevant India’s non-adherence to the NPT.
Of special concern to India, therefore, is the third operational paragraph of Mr. Obama’s proposed resolution, which says the U.N.: “Calls upon all States that are not Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) to join the Treaty so as to achieve its universality at an early date, and in any case to adhere to its terms;”.
For a country like India, that is not a party to the NPT and did not explode a nuclear device prior to 1968, the phrase “to join the treaty… and in any case to adhere to its terms” essentially means it should open up all nuclear facilities for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency so that the latter can ensure that Indian reactors and fissile material stocks are not being used for weapons purposes.
Preambular paragraph 15 also reaffirms “all other relevant non-proliferation resolutions adopted by the Security Council,” an implicit reference to Resolution 1172.
Taken together, these references to India may lack enforceability but they do signal a quiet return to the “roll back” rhetoric and discourse of the Clinton era, before President George W. Bush pushed for India to be made an exception to the requirements of the NPT-related non-proliferation architecture.
Over the past few months, U.S. administration officials have revived the push for NPT universality at various international forums and sought to get the G8 to back a ban on enrichment and reprocessing technology sales to countries like India that have not signed the treaty.
Though these moves have been accompanied by statements of support for the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal and the beginning of talks on reprocessing, the repeated foregrounding of the NPT suggests growing American impatience with the Bush administration premise that India’s nuclear credentials warrant it being placed in a category different from Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
Other provisions
The draft resolution also contains a range of other provisions on the CTBT, the permanence of safeguards and so on, as well explicitly requiring that all situations of “noncompliance with non-proliferation obligations” be brought to the UNSC which would then determine whether this non-compliance was a threat to international peace and security.
The only reference the resolution makes to the actual abolition of nuclear weapons is its call for all NPT and non-NPT members to undertake to pursue good faith negotiations on “a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” By clubbing together non-NPT states with all NPT states (i.e. both the nuclear and non-nuclear), this formulation avoids extending de facto recognition to the nuclear weapon status of India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.
10 September 2009
Ishrat is why encounters need judicial probing
It’s time we stopped rotten elements in the police and security forces from literally getting away with murder... 10 September 2009
The Hindu
Ishrat is why encounters need judicial probing
Siddharth Varadarajan
When the police kill an individual in the course of an “encounter” or operation, the law is quite clear about what must happen next. “The police do not have a right to take away the life of a person”, former Chief Justice A.S. Anand wrote in a 2003 letter to all Chief Ministers in his capacity as head of the National Human Rights Commission. “If, by his act, a policeman kills a person, he commits an offence of culpable homicide … unless it is established that such killing was not an offence under the law.” After citing the two extenuating circumstances available to the police — the right of private self-defence and the use of “reasonable force” if found necessary to arrest the person accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life — Justice Anand noted: “Thus, it is evident that death caused in an encounter, if not justified, would amount to an offence of culpable homicide.”
In reminding state governments about the law, the NHRC was not indulging in some abstract civics lesson. The context was, and remains, the long-standing concern that the police and other security forces tend to abuse their power to shoot and kill, staging “fake encounters” in which individuals accused of being terrorists or criminals are eliminated. Often, the identity of these individuals is never convincingly established, as happened, for example, in the infamous encounter staged by the Delhi Police at the Ansal Plaza shopping mall in 2002.
While the police used to enjoy a certain degree of social sanction for these extra-judicial executions, the frequency and brazenness of recent encounters and the targeting of individuals completely unconnected to terrorism such as Sohrabuddin, Kausar Bi and the five innocent Kashmiris picked up from around Anantnag and killed at Panchalthan in 2000 have led to the growing public and judicial demand for accountability.
At the heart of the matter is the question: who should decide whether the death caused in an encounter is justified or not. No civilised society can entrust this decision to the same force which caused the death in the first place. Indeed, the NHRC’s guidelines on this are very clear. “A Magisterial Inquiry must invariably be held in all cases of death which occur in the course of police action. The next of kin of the deceased must invariably be associated in such inquiry.”
In February 2009, the Andhra Pradesh High Court went one step further in ruling that every encounter resulting in death must lead to the filing of a First Information Report against the concerned police officials that is then acted upon or disposed of depending on the results of an independent investigation. The High Court order has since been stayed by the Supreme Court pending a final hearing in October.
Though an improvement over the pre-existing state of affairs, the NHRC guidelines suffer from two defects. First, most states do not follow them and the commission is powerless to do anything about it. And second, the guidelines do not make it clear that the magisterial inquiry should be conducted by a judicial rather than an executive magistrate like an SDM. Perhaps the NHRC thought it unnecessary to clarify the matter since the principles of natural justice imply the inquiry should be conducted by an authority truly independent of the police, which a member of the executive branch of the state clearly is not. But this is India, where those in authority tend to use every possible means to subvert the rule of law. That is why it is rare for a police encounter to be probed by a judicial magistrate, least of all one who, like Ahmedabad Metropolitan Magistrate S.P. Tamang, is seized with a sense of urgency.
Mr.Tamang’s inquiry into the June 2004 encounter killing of Ishrat Jehan, Javed Sheikh and two as yet unidentified men, ‘Amjad Ali Rana’ and ‘Zeeshan Jauhar’, by the Gujarat police was completed within three weeks of the matter being referred to him. The results of his exertions provide a chilling reminder of the modus operandi of a certain kind of police officer. Unfortunately, they also tell us why it is that state governments are so averse to subjecting the operations of their police forces to independent judicial review.
The Tamang report blows gaping holes in the police version of how the four individuals ended up dead. Though the State government is not obliged to act upon the findings of a magisterial review, and has now obtained a stay from the High Court, it is obvious that a case of murder is indicated. But the Tamag report also questions the claim made by both the Gujarat and the Central governments that Ishrat Jehan and the three other men were Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorists. The question is irrelevant from a legal standpoint because their killing was clearly in cold blood; but the ‘terrorist’ tag is important for the authorities in order to try and save face in the wider court of public opinion.
The only bit of “evidence” linking Ishrat to the LeT is a claim put out by an LeT publication in 2004 describing her as a member of the terrorist group. The affidavit filed by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs duly cites this as proof of her involvement. But it could also be that the LeT’s claim was an opportunistic, dishonest attempt to harvest some glory from the unfortunate death of a young Muslim woman — not unlike Baitullah Mehsud claiming responsibility for the Binghamton shooting in upstate New York this April. The MHA affidavit also cites Ishrat’s association — presumably romantic — with Javed Sheikh, a man with a criminal past. But the fact remains that he was not wanted by the police at the time of his death for any specific terrorist offence.
Every fake encounter hides a story but some are more sensational and sordid than others. The murder of Sohrabuddin and his wife by the Gujarat police is one such example but even their tale appears tame compared to what might be at stake in the Ishrat Jehan case.
According to an investigation conducted by my colleague, Praveen Swami, in 2004 and published in Frontline, the Intelligence Bureau (IB) used an Ahmedabad lawyer sympathetic to the LeT to run the Modi assassination plot (which Ishrat and Javed were alleged to be part of by the Gujarat police) as a sting operation. “The lawyer was instructed to tell Javed Sheikh, a Pune resident who was amongst those killed on June 16 [2004], that the infrastructure was in place to execute an attack on Modi.” How an IB-run sting operation ended up in what the Gujarat police claimed was an encounter but which Mr. Tamang has now established was nothing more than a kidnap-cum-murder is not at all clear. At the very least, it suggests a degree of unhealthy complicity between the Gujarat and Maharashtra police forces, as well as the IB, that only a criminal investigation directly supervised by the Supreme Court will be able to unravel.
While it remains to be seen whether the forces which conspired to murder four young people on the outskirts of Ahmedabad in June 2004 are powerful enough to hush up the case, the lesson to be learned is that every encounter death must be compulsorily reviewed by a judicial magistrate in a time-bound probe. A police force which follows the law should have nothing to fear from such a process. If the magisterial inquiry establishes the veracity of the police version, that is the end of the story. But if it turns out that the killing of an individual by the police (or, by extension, other security forces personnel) was unjustified, the full force of law must be brought to bear on those involved. Apologists for extra-judicial murder claim that such action would demoralise law enforcement. In fact, nothing could be more demoralising to the majority of upright police officers than the sight of some of their colleagues getting away with murder.
01 September 2009
Just give it another push...
On July 1, I tweeted the following, in the context of the Liberhan report on Ayodhya and the fate of the BJP:"With the 'half-pantiyas' teetering on the brink, it's now our turn to say, 'Ek dhakka aur do'... http://bit.ly/hCqBy"The reference to 'dhakka', of course, was the BJP's use of the word in the run up to the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992.
Well, the line went around and now the The Comic Project has turned my words into deeds, updated in the context of the ongoing crisis within the sangh parivar. Thank you!
India mulls over next steps on Pakistan
From Sharm el-Sheikh to Port of Spain, India's 'diplomacy of last resort' continues...
1 September 2009
The Hindu
India mulls over next steps on Pakistan
Siddharth Varadarajan
With Prime Minister Manmohan Singh likely to have another “sidelines” meeting with the President or Prime Minister of Pakistan during the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad at the end of November, India is considering the strategy it should adopt in the interim to make that high-level encounter more meaningful — and less controversial — than the July 16 Sharm el-Sheikh event.
Since Prime Ministers have historically driven India’s Pakistan policy and Dr. Singh is an outlier in his own government on the question of engagement with Islamabad, this strategy is being worked out quietly at the highest level, with the Ministry of External Affairs playing only a limited role.
As matters stand, the two Foreign Secretaries are supposed to meet “as often as necessary,” paving the way for a meeting between the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan during the U.N. General Assembly session later this month.
Under the pre-existing cycle of visits before last November’s terrorist attacks, it is the turn of the Indian Foreign Secretary to visit Islamabad, a point made by the Pakistani side when it extended an invitation to Nirupama Rao soon after the Sharm el-Sheikh summit. But with the Indian security establishment worried about another attack and concerned about Pakistan’s lack of willingness to act against anti-India terrorist groups, New Delhi is in no mood to signal the appearance of ‘normality’ that a visit to Islamabad would convey.
High-level sources confirmed to The Hindu on Monday that Ms. Rao will meet her counterpart, Salman Bashir, only in New York, at most one day before S.M. Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi sit down to take stock of the bilateral relationship. Asked whether more than one meeting between the two Foreign Secretaries might lead to a more fruitful ministerial interaction, an MEA official told The Hindu that what mattered was the content of the meetings and not their frequency. “Meetings are like punctuation marks,” he said. “Just because you have more punctuation doesn’t mean the paragraph is better.”
Though MEA officials insist that the content of the New York meeting would be limited to a discussion on Pakistan’s actions against terrorism, the actual brief is being worked out by the PMO. Dr. Singh appears keen to identify elements which could push Islamabad to do more on the terror front while also advancing other Indian interests. But officials said progress in the Mumbai probe and trial was a key metric, as was a demonstration of Pakistani willingness to act against those still seeking to target India.
1 September 2009
The Hindu
India mulls over next steps on Pakistan
Siddharth Varadarajan
With Prime Minister Manmohan Singh likely to have another “sidelines” meeting with the President or Prime Minister of Pakistan during the Commonwealth summit in Trinidad at the end of November, India is considering the strategy it should adopt in the interim to make that high-level encounter more meaningful — and less controversial — than the July 16 Sharm el-Sheikh event.
Since Prime Ministers have historically driven India’s Pakistan policy and Dr. Singh is an outlier in his own government on the question of engagement with Islamabad, this strategy is being worked out quietly at the highest level, with the Ministry of External Affairs playing only a limited role.
As matters stand, the two Foreign Secretaries are supposed to meet “as often as necessary,” paving the way for a meeting between the Foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan during the U.N. General Assembly session later this month.
Under the pre-existing cycle of visits before last November’s terrorist attacks, it is the turn of the Indian Foreign Secretary to visit Islamabad, a point made by the Pakistani side when it extended an invitation to Nirupama Rao soon after the Sharm el-Sheikh summit. But with the Indian security establishment worried about another attack and concerned about Pakistan’s lack of willingness to act against anti-India terrorist groups, New Delhi is in no mood to signal the appearance of ‘normality’ that a visit to Islamabad would convey.
High-level sources confirmed to The Hindu on Monday that Ms. Rao will meet her counterpart, Salman Bashir, only in New York, at most one day before S.M. Krishna and Shah Mahmood Qureshi sit down to take stock of the bilateral relationship. Asked whether more than one meeting between the two Foreign Secretaries might lead to a more fruitful ministerial interaction, an MEA official told The Hindu that what mattered was the content of the meetings and not their frequency. “Meetings are like punctuation marks,” he said. “Just because you have more punctuation doesn’t mean the paragraph is better.”
Though MEA officials insist that the content of the New York meeting would be limited to a discussion on Pakistan’s actions against terrorism, the actual brief is being worked out by the PMO. Dr. Singh appears keen to identify elements which could push Islamabad to do more on the terror front while also advancing other Indian interests. But officials said progress in the Mumbai probe and trial was a key metric, as was a demonstration of Pakistani willingness to act against those still seeking to target India.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
