| ||||||||||||||||||
 | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Issue 11 Vol I, March 15, 2006 analysis World
Trade Organisation: Where should the Poor go? IT was indeed an illusion to which the trade ministers from the developing countries fell when they agreed at the World Trade Organisation [WTO] in Hong Kong in December last that the poor, particularly the farmers would benefit. Now as America and the European Union press hard for a final agreement, developing countries are feeling the hard pinch. It is not only the economic cost, but also the political upheavals that choke the ministers who signed the draft agreement. It was second in row after July 2004 Agreement that had opened the floodgates of export of agriculture products from the rich North to the poor South.
Agricultural subsidies still stay a contentious issue. The rich countries are unwilling to reduce, the massive agricultural subsidies, some US $ 320 billion per year they provide to multinational agribusiness corporations in the name of farmers. Transnational corporations BASF, Dow, DuoPont, Monsanto and Syngenta and a few dozen others, claim 80 per cent. They dominate the world seed market, agro chemicals, bulk community trading, food manufacturing and processing and food retailing. Much worse they dictate farm policies and guide politics in many of the third world countries as they have massive resources and the backing of the powerful countries - America and European Union. In addition, the royalty of Monaco, a small principality on the Mediterranean Sea, received more than three lakh dollars in 2004 in subsidies from the European Union to support cereal production in northern France. Others get far higher subsidies. Fifty eight French farmers receive more than 27 million dollars a year in subsidies. French farmers continue to receive about a fifth of more than 52 billion dollars in subsidies that the EU pays out every year. And 15 percent of French farming companies take 60 percent of the EU subsidies, while the smaller French farmers receive only 17 percent. Britain's Queen Elizabeth was given more than 700,000 dollars in subsidies in 2004. European commissioner for agriculture Mariann Fischel Boel from Denmark himself is one of the largest beneficiaries. In the Netherlands, minister for agriculture Cees Veerman received 180,000 dollars in subsidies last year. So how could America and EU cut down on subsidies? One cannot understand the enthusiasm, which India’s Commerce Minister Kamal Nath felt that the rich nations had promised to eliminate export subsidies by 2013 although it was for the first time developing countries managed to get a mention of reduction in export subsidies. But he conveniently forgot the difference between the real subsidies and the export subsidies. Export subsidies do not constitute more than one per cent of the total support of US $ 360 billion that the richest trading block – 30 countries forming the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) – provide for agriculture. In any case export subsidies have been steadily declining, from US $ 7.5 billion in 1995 to US $ 3 billion in 2001. Intriguingly the rulers in the developing countries justify the broad consensus at Hong Kong. How could they forget that as long as the agricultural subsidies remain, protecting food and livelihood security in developing countries is not at all possible? And instead of re-opening the 2004 Framework Agreement, poor countries cannot gain anything since the very structure is faulty. The rich countries have a simple policy. They provide heavy doze of subsidy to their big and small farmers and ask the poor countries to cut down these subsidies. This offers only one alternative to the poor south; they reduce the area under food grains, the mainstay of the livelihood and produce labour intensive flowers and other products. In other words, they should ensure their own slavery through mortgaging their food needs to the rich countries. Also, these countries are encouraged to increase commercial farming by big companies. Without linking diversification to the market and measuring it in terms of country’s own needs, the farmers are day in and day out told to diversify. Remember growers have often ploughed back potatoes in Punjab or brought truckloads of tomatoes on to the roads in Jalandhar in sheer desperation. What happened to grape vines in the Malwa belt of Punjab? Diversification cannot be faulty per se, but it has to be linked to market, storage and needs. It can no way replace the food security. Clearly for many third world farmers, opening their own markets to the developed world leads to falling incomes. This leads to social upheaval, malnutrition and poverty as peasant farmers are dislodged from their land. Livelihood and survival are not merely trade issues negotiated in cozy hotel halls. Take the case of Philippines, ever since the world trade round that began taking effect in 1995, it has turned from a net food exporter to importer, with distressing effects on rural communities, including 440,000 jobs lost between 1994 and 2001. Similarly, India is facing a deep agrarian crisis, where more than half its farmers are indebted and nearly 27,000 have committed suicide since 1995. Some experts feel that the crisis is due to corporate agribusiness and export-oriented agriculture, plus removal of import barriers. In short the bad farm policies resulting into steep fall in prices of the farmers’ produce. Spate of suicides in cotton belts of Malwa, in Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Vidharba in Maharashtra tell this tragic tale. One year India is declared surplus in wheat, sugar or cotton and next year it is obliged to import at a heavy cost. So in this kind of situation as prominent economists Dani Rodrik of Harvard University and Robert Wade of the London School of Economics have argued that failure of the current WTO negotiating round would not be a catastrophe. World growth – and particularly the growth of most developing countries – has not been enhanced by the WTO’s existence. The majority of developing countries continue to suffer from crises and stagnating economies. The least developed countries have fallen further behind. These economists assert that those that have done best – India, China and the “tigers” of East Asia – did so by breaking the rules now being forced upon them. They grew rapidly under policies including state intervention, assistance to industry, restrictions on imports and regulated foreign investment. When accompanied by those policies, trade provided a potent fuel to their growth. The WTO has failed to propel economic growth because its model is really geared to increase the power of corporations in the management of the global economy. Experts point out: “Rather than governing just trade, the WTO is better understood as a global corporate power-grab, aiming to impose a one-size-fits-all set of rules on national issues of public services, intellectual property, agriculture, industrial development, and more. Under this flawed model of corporate globalization, not only is economic growth sluggish, but also economic inequality has vastly increased, diminishing prospects for development and the attainment of universal economic human rights.” Land reform, food subsidies for the poor, and sustainable production are core elements of a fair and healthy farming system. But the WTO rules are based on an ideology of food for export, not for eating. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Balochistan
Threatens to Tear Apart Pakistan
There is serious turmoil in Balochistan, irrespective of whether the rest of the country is willing to acknowledge it. The unending turmoil in Balochistan that threatens to tear apart Pakistan is like a festering wound for which President Musharraf has not been able to find a solution. He has already suffered three terrorist attacks and continues to stay under threat. The state has been witnessing the worse form of violence from the state and counter violence from the locals. New York based Human Rights Watch in its latest report charged the government with violating human rights. ‘Backed by helicopter gunships, began operations to put down a rebellion in the town of Miran Shah, the capital of North Waziristan Agency, on March 3. The rebellion began when hundreds of militants seized government buildings in Miran Shah in retaliation for the bombing by the Pakistani military two days earlier of an alleged militant sanctuary in nearby Saidgai. The government reported that 140 people, allegedly all militants, have been killed in the clashes. It has confirmed five military fatalities. The area is now under indefinite curfew.”
The ruthless military operations by Pakistan government is driven by the mindset that there is an Indian hand behind the political unrest. The tribal leaders are seen as getting support from New Delhi. But this ignores the ground realities. Baloch tribal leaders enjoy popular support in their area and given the Baloch tradition, making the people sympathise with Islamabad’s standpoint is difficult. While the religious parties and other conservative forces are still aligned with the central government as was the case in East Pakistan, supporting Islamabad will become increasingly harder as the province gets deeper into a fight. Towards the end in East Pakistan even the conservatives were forced to change sides. This is not meant to suggest that Balochistan is about to break away. Several factors, as experts pointed out, starting with its strategic position are different from East Pakistan’s who were far more volatile and exposed to alternative political ideologies. The army’s standpoint is that the resistance will die its own death. But even if that happens, the scars will be enough to make it fundamentally ungovernable and by the time the conflict ends the smaller provinces’ resentment of Punjab’s domination may have grown hundred-fold. Unfortunately, armed forces do not recognise a hazard unless it is an existential threat. Political analysts assert that for those fighting the establishment, the fight is both military and political. The problem with the political dimension is that it can get out of control before the parties concerned realise it. While the Baloch tribal leaders have lived lavishly on state’s largesse’s, their ability to manipulate the people cannot be undermined and would be sensible to make them partners in development. Clearly, a political agreement and not deployment of military force is the safe way out of the crisis. As Mir Hasil Bizenjo, secretary-general of the National Party said, “Since 1973, two types of political thinking in Balochistan have taken root. One was that democratic struggle should continue and through that Balochistan’s rights should be secured and protected. But the proponents of the other type of thinking advocated an armed struggle as the only solution to get rid of dictatorship. They believed that military rulers and dictators understand that kind of language. The two approaches are different. And the federal government, particularly the military, is playing a significant role in pushing the Baloch people towards militancy. Gen Musharraf has decided that he can herd everyone with the same stick, which is evident from the use of brute force in Waziristan and his attitude towards Sindh with respect to the Kalabagh dam and other sensitive issues, not to mention his policies in Balochistan.” Add to the saber rattling by other important leaders and the cauldron gets indeed hot. Chief of the Balochistan National Party (BNP) Sardar Akhtar Mengal while dismissing Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf’s warning to the provincial leaders found nothing new in such warnings to the sardars. He dared, “Politics and dictatorship are two different things. Therefore, talks or dialogue being part of a political process can only be held in a democratic environment, and the dictatorship will not allow democracy to flourish.” Gen. Musharraf should not be carrying forward the legacy of his predecessors. A massive military operation had been carried out in Balochistan during the 11-year rule of Field Marshal Ayub Khan. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's seven-year-old democratic rule was also no different. Mengal termed the threats as phony as neither had any dictator ever succeeded in eliminating the Baloch people, nor had any Baloch nationalist leader ever succumbed to the pressure of dictators or compromised on the people's national rights. The situation indeed is grim. Despite being rich in resources specially gas which has fetched 500 billion rupees ever since its discovery in 1952, not even its two per cent has been spent on Balochistan. If gas was explored in Balochistan then it’s the right of the Baloch people to be the first beneficiary of this natural resource. It is also the first right of Balochistan as far as its utility is concerned. If gas was not discovered in 1952, then Pakistan would have used some other imported source of energy and its cost would have gone up to trillions of rupees. After the discovery of gas, development took place in the whole of Pakistan. The Saindak project is in Balochistan. Its raw material and mines are in Balochistan. Ironically, its 50 per cent profit is taken by China, 48 per cent by the federal government, and only two per cent is given to the province. The government should have spent at least 50 per cent of the revenue generated from any natural resource on the province of its origin. Gas is supplied to the whole of Punjab, Sindh and the NWFP, but till 1980 people used coal in Quetta because there was no gas supply. Even today a large portion of Quetta is without gas. At heart whichever one looked were the economic issues bothering people. Balochistan is almost half of Pakistan yet it has suffered colossal neglect over the past fie decades or so. For the first time in the country’s history government has built two roads, one is the coastal highway and the other Gwadar-Khuzdar road. It is happening since the rest of the country needs these. On the face of it whatever is happening in Balochistan is not just anti-government, but is also a resistance movement against Punjab. Interestingly Punjab is made to believe that smaller provinces are against it, while the three federating units are made to believe that Punjab and the Punjabis are responsible for all their woes. It is not true. Poverty is rampant in Punjab as well, leaders point out. Actually, it is not an anti-Punjab movement, but it is against the military establishment, because since 1947 either civil bureaucracy or the military has ruled this country. Democracy was never allowed to function properly. If democratic forces had flourished, the people of Punjab would have been powerful. Unfortunately in Pakistan the military has always ruled, either from behind the scene or otherwise, and it never spared anyone. It has not spared the Punjabis either. Mir Hasil Bizenjo believed that the traditional establishment comprising feudals, Sardars and Chaudhris and Islamabad’s establishment (comprising civil and military bureaucracy) are the two biggest monsters of this country. As long as the federating units are not given their proper rights, whatever you may do, it will not change the situation and marginalization of democratic forces by militant and extremists forces will become more prominent. Solution indeed was there. At the political plane a good doze of democracy and speedy social and economic development. Education and modernization is needed to save people from the exploiters and the extremist ideology. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Mirage
of Nuclear Power
It would certainly make India another world power or as some assert it already was and that precisely is the reason why the Indian Prime Minister not even once uttered the word disarmament, much touted and loved in the country by Gandhi to Nehru and to Rajiv Gandhi. “It has been the most bloodstained century in history. In the last nine decades, the ravenous machines of war have devoured nearly one hundred million people. The appetite of these monstrous machines grows on what they feed. Nuclear war will not mean the death of a hundred million people. Or even a thousand million. It will mean the end of life, as we know it on our planet Earth. We have come to the United Nations to seek your support to put a stop to this madness.’’ In June 1988 Rajiv Gandhi was beseeching the UN General Assembly. No longer now. We go by the wishes of the powerful and feel secure with a stockpile of nuclear weapons. Did we not display it at the meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency that now we side with the most powerful and we want nuclear power; energy and bombs and others need not have these? Indeed as Manmohan Singh has repeatedly stated ties with Iran, the latest bug bear for America are civilizational and not decided by small moments like Iran should not have nuclear facilities or not. We would have nuclear weapons as well as nuclear technology. But we do not like any nuisance in the neighbourhood. We could not stop Pakistan from acquiring and spreading the technology for nuclear bombs and neither could America [it perhaps helped Pakistan gain it in some way]. Anyhow India was told to behave at the IAEA meetings and it did to earn a pat or two from the Big Brother and the gains are there for all to see. After all, it is real politics we are dealing with not some daydreamer Mahatma Gandhi or power balancer like Nehru. Those days are gone. Remember! Power only flows from the barrel of the gun or from the nukes. Look at India’s strategic interests. It is true that with the split of nuclear establishment between military and civil, we shall save the military installations from international preying eyes or from IAEA inspections. It may cost us a few billion rupees. It does not matter; we can a few million people more poor. We can get not only raw material and nuclear reactors, but also technology to develop these and meet our growing energy needs. Meanwhile, our deterrent capability could also be developed further. What other strategic interests? Yes, do not forget Pakistan. America is clear more aligned towards India. We have nearly weaned it from that great power. President Gen. Musharraf of America’s frontline state had to beg President Bush to spend at least one night and not behave like bill Clinton. In any case we understand that the USA needs that country in its fight against terrorism. As good friends we understand that. We can forget for the time being Pakistan sponsored terrorism not only in Kashmir, but also in rest of the country. We are assured that America is doing much on that front and also to sort out the tangled web of Kashmir. In the process, if Asia witnesses more of nuclear race, we cannot help. But we do require American help to further strengthen the bonds between India and China? Are we also threatened be our old friend, Russia trusted for over five decades for helping us develop basic industries, defence forces, and in the United Nations and other for on issues like Kashmir where America always supported Pakistan. Remember its use of veto powers for us. It is clear that America needs India more now than India really does. Here is what US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice declared in Washington Times “India plans to import eight nuclear reactors by 2012. If US companies win just two of those reactor contracts, it will mean thousands of new jobs for American workers. We plan to expand our civilian nuclear partnership to research and development, drawing on India’s technological expertise to promote a global renaissance in safe and clean nuclear power.” India h is huge market as Bush pointed with its 300 million strong middle class and that is ever growing. This class would side with America, as it loves its culture and its consumerism and its power. But its Asia strategy also takes into account that there is no Russia- China and India axis of power and the balance of power remains in its hands as super power. Finally, Ms Rice declares, “Our civilian nuclear agreement is an essential step toward our goal of transforming America’s partnership with India. For too long during the past century, differences over domestic policies and international purposes kept India and the United States estranged. But with the end of the Cold War, the rise of the global economy and changing demographics in both of our countries, new opportunities have arisen for a partnership between our two great democracies. As President Bush said in New Delhi this month, “India in the 21st century is a natural partner of the United States because we are brothers in the cause of human liberty.” How sweet is this liberty ask people in Vietnam, Angola, East Timor, Latin America, Nicaragua, Afghanistan and Iraq and many more countries around the globe that had been senselessly bombed to stone age. And there may many more later like Iran, supporter of state terrorism, that rouge country North Korea and then who else? Look America as Ms Rice declares, “First, our agreement with India will make our future more secure, by expanding the reach of the international non-proliferation regime. The International Atomic Energy Agency would gain access to India’s civilian nuclear programme that it currently does not have. Recognizing this, the IAEA’s director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, has joined leaders in France and the United Kingdom to welcome our agreement. He called it “a milestone, timely for ongoing efforts to consolidate the non-proliferation regime, combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen nuclear safety.” We are not afraid of this as we counted as responsible nation. We are now face to face with America that was first to build and used the atomic bomb, it has always adopted a policy of monopoly and exclusion, to keep what was called its “winning weapon”. It refused initially to cooperate with its closest wartime ally, the UK, to help it acquire nuclear weapons. Britain like other countries have gone ahead and built one. As one astute observer of the international weapon programme noted, “The US was the first country to build an atomic bomb. It is the only one to have used them in war. Recognising the enormous power of nuclear weapons, it considered how to protect its nuclear monopoly even before it had built the bomb.” Experts also tell us that for decades, relations among the major nuclear powers have been dictated by their common vulnerability, a condition known as mutual assured destruction. But with the U.S. arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's decays and China's stays small, the era of MAD is ending -- and the era of U.S. nuclear primacy has begun. US efforts to check "proliferation" are hypocritical as well as ineffective. Since the US like other nuclear powers pay only lips sympathy for disarmament are not engaged in any serious effort, the race hots up and every state yearns for the "absolute weapon". The use of force currently against Iraq and now a looming possibility against Iran only serves to make other states consider that if only they had the bomb they would be safe. Iran is being swiftly demonised. Although it has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and denies any military nuclear ambitions, the IAEA has pushed the issue before the Security Council. Condoleeza Rice has already forgotten last year’s election and has asked Congress for $75m to promote democracy in Iran. In other words as British Prime Minister Tony Blair declared,” We have to build strong pro democracy movement and help the opposition in that country. Bush has asked India to be partner in regime change and build democracy not only in Iran, but also in Cuba, North Vietnam, Syria and many more countries. The wisdom of pursuing nuclear primacy must be assessed in the context of the United States' foreign policy goals. The United States is now seeking to maintain its global preeminence, which the Bush administration defines as the ability to stave off the emergence of a peer competitor and prevent weaker countries from being able to challenge the United States in critical regions such as the Persian Gulf and Asia. |
||||||||||||||||||
|
SOUTH
ASIA POST INC. |
||||||||||||||||||
Basic
reasons are not far to seek. Ten years after the WTO came into
existence, and after six ministerial conferences, developing
countries have failed to make the industrialised countries to
concede anything, not even a single dollar from the massive
subsidies.
AFTER
a troubled peace for some 30 years, Balochistan is once again in the throes of a
full-fledged insurgency. Yet the reality has failed to find space in
Pakistan’s mainstream political discourse? The violent and bloody
crescendo has failed to get an adequate response from Pakistani establishment.
The Baloch nationalist has emerged from the shadow of sectarian and
international terrorism to stake his own claim on a system that is threatening
to fall apart. As Pakistan’s respected Herald magazine put it, “For
the past six months, Baloch rebels have been hard at work – 153 out of 156
working days, to be precise – planting mines, firing rockets, exploding bombs
or ambushing military convoys. Their attacks have turned bloody on at least 25
occasions, killing over 40 persons including military and paramilitary
personnel, levies, security agents, government officials and also some
civilians. The Sui airport building has been blown up, gas pipelines and
electricity grids have been repeatedly hit and bomb explosions have taken place
close to the official residences of the chief minister as well as the
governor.” Poor
Balochs are caught between an apathetic government and the cruel feudal sardars.
And
the perceptions in handling Balochistan seem to be somewhat similar to what
happened in Bangladesh (1971). No lesson from history is to be learnt. The
Bengali leadership was clearly not prepared at the time for an independent
state. It lacked the capacity to run a new state as has been demonstrated later
yet a new country was born. Besides India’s military support, Bangladesh
happened due to lack of appreciation of the political situation.
INDIA
and America are strategic partners not only in nuclear technology, but also in
the spread of democracy all across the world. The omniscient President of the
most powerful country has been kind to half embrace the Prime Minister of the
largest democracy and the most ancient civilization. As one mainline
English newspaper in a bold banner headline shouted, it was a meeting of
civilizations. The agreements signed after days and nights of haggling at
many levels where each word was weighed and smelt and endless verbiage uttered
by leaders and written by leader writers and storytellers declared that there
was only light and no tunnel at the end. There are no losers and no gainers in
this historic momentous deal and the famous pat from President Bush on the back
of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh only indicated how much the great commanding
Uncle Sam loves India.