Dr Sawraj Singh

NORTH Korea has announced that it will withdraw from the six party talks and it will restore the nuclear facilities that have been under disablement process. This is in response to the United Nation Security council’s resolution on its rocket launch. The resolution criticized North Korea and recommended sanctions. North Korea said that this resolution violates its sovereignty. North Korea said that it has the right to defend itself by developing its nuclear capability. It is also going to reactivate the nuclear processing plant which was closed as a part of agreement with the six parties. The six countries engaged in these talks are; Russia, China, U.S., Japan, South Korea and North Korea. Russia and China have expressed regret at the North Korea’s decision and have expressed hope that North Korea will reconsider its decision and join the six party talks.

North Korea’s decision will increase tension in the Korean Peninsula as well as in Asia. The net result of this action will be that Japan and South Korea will move away from China and tilt more towards the U.S.A. India is already following that course. China has become the largest trading partner of Japan, South Korea and India but still these countries are moving closer to the U.S.

Are the rising tensions in the Korean Peninsula related to the growing China’s economy and increasing Chinese influence in the World? First of all, we have to decide if China’s economy is really growing and China’s influence is really increasing on the World economy. Today when most of the World is facing a very serious economic crisis, China has been relatively less affected. In the year 2008, when the American and the European economies experienced negative growth, china still managed to grow its economy about 8%. In the year 2009, most of the countries may not come out of recession but Chinese economy is expected to grow more than 5%. China contributed 40 billion dollars to the IMF’s fund to help the poor countries. China has just announced that it will give 10 billion dollars to the ASEAN to help the Asian countries. When America’s budget deficit has exceeded one trillion dollars, China’s foreign currency reserve is getting close to Two trillion dollars. In the G-20 countries summit in London, it became obvious that China’s economy is relatively stronger than most of the countries and most of the countries of the World are looking at China to lead them out of the present economic crisis. China is now the largest trading partner of Japan, South Korea and India. Even in the American backyard, Latin America, China has become the largest trading partner.

The Western countries are following a dual policy towards China. On the one hand, they want China to help them come out of the present economic crisis but on the other hand, they are very concerned about China’s growing economic clout. Therefore, they are trying to encircle China. They have, with their propaganda, convinced Japan, South Korea and India that the growing Chinese economy will hurt their economies and China is their number one economic competitor. All these countries are ignoring the obvious hat China is their largest trading partner and their objective interests are identical to those of China in changing the western dominated World into a multi polar World. These countries are also taking a big risk because they stand to alienate the third World and be considered Western Trojan horses inside Asia.

North Korea is a very formidable military force and it is a strong ally of China. When North Korea acquires nuclear capability, it will pose a very serious threat to Japan, South Korea and India, the American allies. This could alter the power equations in Asia. Instead of encircling China, these countries will find themselves alienated and isolated in Asia as well as in the third World.

[Sawraj Singh, M.D. F.I.C.S., Chairman Washington State Network for Human Rights]

BACK

Charm and warmth hand in hand

Jyotika J. Thukral writes from Singapore

MANY a times the bounty of nature gets spoiled in human hands. Modern industrial complexes, concrete jungles, hurried highways and speeding traffic, all add to woes and are a solid proof of what man has done to nature on his way to ‘progress’. Then we seek out solitude, somewhere in a corner and take respite from the humdrum life. At times we succeed and at times we fail.

Here is an account how solitude soothes and holiday becomes memorable like those Daffodils in a Wordsworthian way.

This summer when we were looking for a quiet place for a family holiday, our friends suggested Sibu Island Resort, located at the Sibu Tengah Island on the east coast of Johor in Malaysia. They convinced us that it is an unspoilt natural; spot of immense charm. So we decided to take a chance and went for three day trip to this island. We drove down from Singapore up to the Tanjung Leman jetty. The over two hour drive to the jetty was beautiful: roads lined with palm plantations throughout.

The meandering road across rivulets lent their own charm. On arriving at the terminal, we were greeted by the Resort staff that helped us with our luggage. Half an hour journey to the resort in an air-conditioned yacht was not only safe and comfortable, but enjoyable it cut through the blue deep waters of the South China Sea.

The moment we reached the resort, we received a warm welcome from a long line of staff with fruit juice and cold towels. But it was the animals roaming free around the grounds and dancing peacocks, singing birds that were a total delight and especially for our 6-year-old daughter, Mehr who completely fell in love with the place. She had the time of her life feeding the deer, peacocks, rabbits and the goats. The deer are so loving they eat out of your hands. As animals walked free all around, close to the guest huts, the swimming poll, the grassland and along the sea shore, everyone, from manager, to chief chef to Bangladeshi workers, all were part of this little kingdom
Soon we realised we were the only guests at the resort, no wonder we were totally spoilt. The island offers a number of water sports such as snorkelling, fishing, diving, and boating. But since none of us was into these water sports we opted for the jungle trek where we got to walk through the dense tropical rainforest. We also tried our hand at archery with the help of the friendly hotel staff.

The resort has recently reopened after renovation so everything is new and the main menu still under preparation. But the chef had told us that they would cook whatever we wanted, which was great especially because we all were vegetarian. Normally getting vegetarian food is not easy at such places. Executive Chef and one the managers Razif Haron surprised us one evening by offering us an elaborate spread of Indian cuisine for dinner. The restaurant staff was traditionally dressed in Indian way to greet us with big smile and Namste. A special table was laid for our family. Raziff Haron not surprised with new dishes, mostly Indian, but with his warmth and sweet talk. He carries rich experience from several European countries and binds the ability to make guests conformable. He has been a teacher, nature lover and involved chef.

Mehr, the young inhabitant on the land also got to plant a coconut tree with the help of the staff. She got a lot of attention while doing so, photos were taken and we have since received a card and photo of the same.

There are four beaches on the island. The golden sunrise, clear emerald blue sea, soothing tropical breeze and white sandy beaches coupled with the warm and friendly staff made our holiday at Sibu a unforgettable one.

Anyone one who travels to this enchanting place should not miss the jungle walk. This tough but secure walk through the thick jungle for an hour helps you get back to nature.

A big thank you those at the Sibu Island Resort.

BACK

Bailouts may render WTO principles inoperable

An interview with Julius Sen, a research associate at the London School of Economics' International Trade Policy Unit

IN the midst of the current financial crisis, many developed and some developing countries have turned to bailout packages to resuscitate stricken businesses.

These government measures could potentially violate the World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules on subsidies. In fact, some countries, such as Brazil, have already threatened to launch WTO claims against countries that implement them. The Global Subsidies Initiative has spoken to Julius Sen, a research associate at the London School of Economics’ International Trade Policy Unit, for his view on whether the bailout packages violate WTO commitments, and if so, how governments may respond.

GSI: Since the financial crisis began last fall, certain governments such as those in the United States, Canada, Japan and Germany, have offered their banks and/or automobile industries financial bailouts, usually in the form of soft-loans and credit guarantees. Generally speaking, are these bailouts consistent with WTO rules?

Julius Sen: The short answer is no. But there are several issues to be taken into account when analysing the specifics with reference to the application of WTO principles of non-discrimination, broken down into Most Favoured Nation and National Treatment obligations. First of all, what are the specific obligations or commitments of the member concerned? This question is particularly important in the area of financial services, which are subject to the rules of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) agreement and thus slightly different from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) which would apply to the auto sector.

Second, governments can take emergency action for the restructuring of specific sectors, under Article XIX Safeguards, which can include financial assistance of various sorts, but they have to negotiate compensatory concessions with trading partners during the safeguard period, which I don’t think anyone has done.

Third, any grants, concessional loans or other forms of state aid have to be applied in a non-discriminatory fashion (that is for everyone in the market - which obviously has not been the case); should not be trade distorting (which of course they are); and should not have any local content obligations, which would violate the TRIMS agreement on investment conditionalities. And finally, there are European Union rules on State Aid and Competition policy that will also apply to the cases of anyone operating in the EU market, which of course includes U.S. and Japanese automakers and banks. I am not sure what the discussions have been in this area within the EU, but I doubt whether any have actually taken place.

There is an additional possibility that would take state actions completely out of WTO jurisdiction, and that is if these countries treated these rescue packages as part of national security (Article XXI). The concept of legitimate security considerations has never been defined, and is thus flexible to national interpretation.

GSI: In particular, the U.S. government’s 19 December bailouts of automakers Chrysler and G.M. have been criticised for violating WTO subsidies rules. What is your analysis of this view?
JS: I agree that these actions would appear to violate WTO rules at a number of levels, but I am not aware of the full details of how these bailouts were done. Normally, a sector can be identified for restructuring under Article XIX, and during the period of restructuring, concessions have to be offered to all trading partners to make up for their loss of income in that market. In this case, I doubt whether there was any discussion with other WTO members, so there would have been no Article XIX process.

The other level of violation is that this package was only offered to U.S. automakers, not to foreign automakers within the United States. This would appear to violate the rules of non-discrimination and national treatment. And of course these financial concessions will give these automakers an advantage in export markets, including NAFTA markets, so would amount to export subsidies in such cases, which are prohibited under GATT rules. At the same time, the question of whether subsidiaries of U.S. automakers in other countries (such as Vauxhall in the UK, Saab in Sweden and Opel in Germany - all subsidiaries of GM) are entitled to U.S. bailouts, also arises. At present they are not, which has led Saab to file for bankruptcy protection. But it begs the question of how WTO rules apply to complex multinational structures with more or less autonomous subsidiaries.

Furthermore, if new technical standards are introduced to encourage energy efficient models for the U.S. market, and if select U.S. automakers alone are given money to help re-engineer their plants to meet these new standards, and the same concessions are not given to others within the U.S. or that export into the U.S., then this too would probably be a violation of WTO rules.

GSI: WTO Director General Pascal Lamy recently commented that it was too early to tell what impact these measures would have on trade but warned that some “may eventually have negative spill-over effects on other markets or introduce distortions to competition between financial institutions.” Do countries need to wait for these spill-over effects and distortions before commencing WTO claims?
JS: First of all, I’m not sure I agree with the phrasing ‘eventually’ and ‘spill-over’. The situation is in the here and now and is not a remote possibility. For instance, many countries are offering state assistance to meet trade financing requirements for exporters. This would appear to be a prima facie violation of WTO rules under the TRIMS and other agreements, which also has a very real (trade distorting) impact on the competitiveness of global exports, even now. But of course the response is also fully understandable from the perspective of managing the crisis!

WTO rules do not enforce themselves. Member States have to initiate action. At the moment everyone seems prepared to operate a general ‘ceasefire’ in this respect, which means national governments (who alone can bring cases) recognise that everyone is in difficulty and confronting violations will only complicate efforts to find global solutions to the crisis. There are precedents for this, most notably in the Agreement on Agriculture which built in a ceasefire provision for the first decade of its life, precisely to avoid trade wars in an area of extreme sensitivity and complexity.

The problem will arise, most likely, in the United States, where the U.S. government has to take action under law to investigate private sector complaints and to respond through disputes or other policy instruments (such as anti-dumping actions). These are mandatory provisions that could trigger global mayhem in trade. Unfortunately, the U.S. Congress loves to adopt an assertive position on trade issues, which can make life difficult. And remember, under the U.S. Constitution, foreign trade is within the competence of the U.S. Congress alone. The president only exercises negotiating power on behalf of Congress.

SW: The Brazilian ambassador to the WTO, Roberto Azevedo, recently said that his country may contest the eventual trade distortions that will result from bailouts being offered throughout the world. According to Mr. Azevedo, artificial incentives in one country could be hazardous to companies in other countries. What do you think about this assessment?

JS: He is absolutely correct. But given the scale of the crisis, everyone is now bailing out their economies and protecting domestic markets, though of course emerging economies don’t have as much money and therefore can only offer small bailouts compared with the U.S., EU, Japan and China. As mentioned above, perhaps some sort of ceasefire in taking disputes to the WTO is needed, provided everyone agrees to apply their stimulus and recovery packages in a non-discriminatory fashion. This is, however, an exceptionally complex issue and no one is likely to formally agree, because every stimulus package will apply differently and there will be domestic winners and foreign losers in all cases!

SW: Do you think Brazil may have a claim, in particular, against the U.S. for its financial and auto industry bailouts?

JS: Yes. But they would be wise to wait a while before reacting formally. Perhaps negotiating with the United States and others would be more productive because it is probably more important, at this stage, to keep U.S. markets open for imports than it is to fight individual cases.

SW: Some experts suggest that claims such as these will probably never happen. Given the number of countries that have and will be offering bailouts, it has been argued that negotiated settlements are more likely. What’s your opinion?

JS: In a sense I agree. But the problem is the bailouts are not all the same and there are clear winners and losers, and so the burden and benefits will be distributed unevenly. One option is to have a general ceasefire, but the danger is that protectionism and discrimination would revive to an extent that it renders WTO principles inoperable. The second is to fight every violation, but this will only irritate the U.S., EU, Japan and others, making a final solution more difficult. The third option is to negotiate a new WTO provision providing for non-discriminatory bailouts, stimuli, etc. This is possible, but no one really understands the implications in terms of scale of money or market effects, or would know how to start negotiating and how long it would take.

Bilateral negotiations would seem to be the most viable alternative at the moment, but this will work against the weakest countries for which multilateralism offers the best hope. In brief, the whole system is in such a mess at the moment that we will be lucky to escape a trade war, and really anything short of that will look like a success. But of course it will come at a price: the severe erosion of WTO principles. [Courtesy IPS]

BACK

 
Women struggle for equality

Sonia G Handa

WOMEN have been struggling for equality and justice and  to discrimination against them for centuries. They have succeeded to an extent but there is s along way to go. The formal struggle started with the formalizing to mark their struggle for justice and equality  way back in early part of 20th century. This day is today celebrated as International Women’s Day as a reminder of the long arduous  struggle of women to get equal status and justice in society. The very thought of requirement of celebrating and dedicating a day for women indicates that women are still not equal to men. We will have to go on celebrating this day till the time society realizes that women are equal to men.

Inequalities against women still exist at home as well as at workplace all around the world. Half the places she is made to work to share the burden of the household and not for their economic independence. Some women have no control even on the income earned by them. Their achievements are run down and are discouraged to work beyond the housework. Their intellectual growth and economic independence are taken as a threat by the patriarchal society. There is definitely improvement since the time of Clara Zetkin who was instrumental in formalizing a day for women’s struggle for equality and justice. They still face violence at home and outside home. It starts before she is born in the form of foeticide, and continues throughout her life taking crude form female infanticide, domestic violence, rape, dowry, wife beating, verbal abuse etc.

Education is one of the main prerequisites in the empowerment of women. Educating the woman is like educating the family. She will ensure about healthy life for herself and her family. A job or carrier will give her economic independence. Education will give her knowledge about her rights. All this will ensure happy, peaceful and fulfilling life for the women and in turn for the family. This is rightly expressed by Aung San Suu Kyi, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, leader of Burma’s democracy movement, “The education and empowerment of women throughout the world cannot fail to result in more caring, tolerant, just and peaceful life for all.” Economic independence in the form of a job and to have the right in decision making in the financial matters is important. Political participation will ensure the implementation of laws and

In a country like India where women are worshipped as Devi, they are being discriminated against. The discrimination is seen in the falling sex ratio, discrimination at home and in workplace and of course the crime against women which is increasing by the day. She is no longer safe to go to work at odd ours which was evident of the murder cases in the capital Delhi some time back. She is also made to bear the burden of culture in the form of physical violence, when she decides to visit a pub. According to national crime records bureau of India, 1,85,312 incidents of crime against women were reported during 2007 in India. This is 12.5% increase from 2006.

Women are struggling in spite of the odds and are coming out triumphant. They are trying to fit in the diverse roles of a mother, daughter, wife, sister and are doing their best to manage a home and a career. Lot has been accomplished in different fields notwithstanding the odds against them. Recent Pantaloons Femina Miss India-World Pooja Chopra’s mother Neera Chopra is an incredible example, who struggled against all odds and came out glorious. She struggled against abuse, poverty, and once unwanted girl child and made her what she is today.

There is still along way to go. Barbara Bush, wife of former president of United States of America, expressed her desire at Wellesley College Commencement, “Somewhere out in this audience may even be someone who will one day follow in my footsteps, and preside over the White House as the President’s spouse. I wish him well!”

We need more men like Mahatma  Gandhi who believed that woman is the companion of man, gifted with equal mental capacity. Guru Nanak, first guru of the Sikhs, not only rejected the lowly status of women but declared her to be the essence of social coherence and progress, and equal to man in every sphere of life.

Along with the knowledge of the laws which protect women, essential education and economic independence are the prerequisites. The patriarchal attitude and the mindset of the society have to change. They need to be part of decision making at the political level. They need to be concerned about the wider issues along with their individual goals to bring about a change which is really required.

As United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon rightly says : “Changing mindsets and the habits of generations is not Easy. It must involve all of us – individuals, organizations and governments.

BACK