Author: Anshuman Rawat

Global nuclear summit largely fails to make the world a safer place

Hopelessly hijacked by North Korea’s rocket launch plans, the recent Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul failed to move beyond a symbolic solidarity against nuclear proliferation.

The biggest nuclear meeting in the world, the March 26-27 summit saw prominent heads of states representing around 80% of the world’s population and 90% of the global economy. But the high-profile attendance produced no binding requirements, focused on matters not on its agenda, and failed to address issues urgently in need of attention, analysts said.

The summit’s goal is to combat nuclear terrorism and strengthen the security of fissile material — material used in reactors and explosives to generate a chain reaction of nuclear fission. But it fell so far short of its goal that some critics warn that the 2014 summit in the Netherlands could well be the last.

Delegates politely applauded progress such as Italy’s pledge to dispose of its fissile material. But by the second day, the agenda had veered off course when Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda urged the international community to demand that North Korea abandon the planned April launch of a satellite that many believe is a cover for a missile test.

Many nations supported Japan’s call, but the fact remains that North Korea’s weapons programme was off the table during the summit itself.

Noda’s decision to ignore diplomatic and summit protocol reflected Japan’s frustration with the failure of the six-party talks between the two Koreas, the US, Russia, China and Japan to denuclearise the Korean peninsula, said Professor Srikanth Kondapalli at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University, in an interview with Asia360 News.

North Korea walked out of the talks three years ago after the United Nations Security Council condemned its launch of a long-range rocket. Within weeks of abandoning the talks, North Korea had conducted a nuclear test.

This type of behaviour certainly makes Pyongyang a nuclear threat, along with Iran. However, neither of these nations was invited to the summit.

The one thing the summit got right was choosing Seoul as a venue, analysts said, given the risks of nuclear proliferation in North Asia.

“Asia is the most likely region in the world to witness cascading nuclearisation in the near future,” said Robert E Kelly, an assistant professor in the political science and diplomacy department of Pusan National University in Busan.

“If North Korea does halt its nuclear programme, it would become difficult for South Korea and Japan to avoid going nuclear themselves in future. Nuclear weapons matter more in Asia than any other part of the world,” he told Asia360 News.

Pakistan, another nuclear trouble spot, was ignored by the summit.

“When the first summit in Washington was conceived, it was of everyone’s knowledge, though not stated publicly, that the idea was to keep Pakistan’s nuclear stock away from terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda,” Rajiv Nayan, senior research associate at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, told Asia360 News.

But, he added: “Pakistan is not even being discussed at a nuclear security summit, despite the revelation about the relationship between the Pakistani establishment and terrorists like the late Osama bin Laden.”

Nayan concluded that the US and other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) nations had attempted to shield Pakistan from criticism due to its importance to their “war against terror”.

In addition to failing to confront rogue nuclear states, the summit secured only slight progress on problems outlined in its charter.

While the US and Russia have made recent progress in cutting nuclear stockpiles, India, China, Japan and South Korea remain at odds over how best to reduce their own inventories.

China has expressed a strong will to reduce its nuclear warheads. It is believed to possess at least 200 warheads although Beijing maintains it only has a “handful” of nuclear weapons.

As Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Kondapalli points out: “When countries are debating the starting point itself, how much hope can there be of reaching the destination any time soon?”    AR

There have been some setbacks but the Indian government will continue to push for economic reform

(3 February 2012) — India is a nation of shopkeepers. Retailing accounts for 15% of its gross domestic product, employs 40 million people, and at US$450 billion, is one of the top five retail markets in the world. No wonder global retail giants want to get a foot in the door.

But the country is also keen to protect its millions of small retailers. Politicians and the public are divided on whether letting major foreign retailers into the market would destroy jobs or boost the wider economy. The government, led by economic reformer Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, believes that retail liberalisation is a necessity. Opposition parties disagree — perhaps playing to local fears of jobs losses. Single-brand retailers like Ikea were, until recently, required to set aside 49% of their equity for local investors. For now, the big multi-brand retailers, such as Walmart and Carrefour, are entirely barred.

Just last week, the government announced its decision to formally clear the decks for full equity ownership — up from the earlier 51% investment cap — in the single-brand retailing sector. This would set the stage for global single-brand retail firms to proceed with investments in the country.

“Globally, single-brand retail follows a business model of 100% ownership and global majors have been reluctant to establish their presence in a restrictive policy environment,” the department of industrial policy and promotion said when announcing the move. But foreign firms still have to meet 30% of their sourcing needs through local suppliers.

For Ikea, this requirement is an obstacle to the company’s expansion into India and needs reviewing, company chief executive, Mikael Ohlsson told the Financial Times.

Single-brand retail accounts for 25-30% of the US$26 billion organised-retail market in India and will grow to about US$20-25 billion in five years, according to Technopak Advisors, a retail consultancy firm.

Other reforms

In the past year, India has liberalised foreign investment regulations in many of its key sectors. The foreign ownership limit in public-sector refineries, for example, has been raised to 49% from 26%. The government also decided to allow commodity exchanges up to 26% in foreign direct investment (FDI) and 23% in foreign indirect investments, provided no single entity holds more than 5% of the stake.

Sectors like credit information companies, industrial parks, and construction and development projects have also been opened up to more foreign investment. Keeping India’s civilian nuclear ambitions in mind, India has also allowed 100% FDI in the mining of titanium, a mineral abundant in the country.

Also, in another major announcement, the government of India on January 17 announced that foreign airlines will soon be allowed to acquire a stake of up to 49% in domestic carriers — leading to the likes of AirAsia expressing an interest in launching an Indian subsidiary.

And on January 26, the government removed a mandatory clause that investments once announced, cannot be cancelled for three years. Foreign firms will be encouraged to look more closely at investing in India if they know their investments will not be tied up for a minimum period of time.

The slew of reforms would give the impression of a reform-obsessed government on overdrive. But the truth is more restrained. The recent decision to allow 100% FDI in single-brand retail is part of a wider government effort to push its economic liberalisation programme, which began in 1991.

Riding on measures by the government and the central bank, overall FDI into India  in 2011 was US$26 billion compared with US$19 billion in 2010.  And according to a recent Ernst & Young report, FDI in India is set to soar, even as investors struggle to come to terms with a lack of transparency, poor infrastructure and policy paralysis. The report also noted that overseas investment in Asia’s third-largest economy rose for the first time in three years in 2011, as global investors put their faith in rising salaries, an expanding middle class, and a large and cheap labour force.

An opportunity?
Despite the progress, liberalisation of the multi-brand retail sector remains a thorny issue because of the size of the market and the potentially wide-ranging social impact. Any decision on multi-brand retail would affect much of India, from the man on the street to the conglomerates. Foreign multi-brand retail giants would be able to sell to most of Indian’s 1.2 billion people.

Small-shop owners, who account for more than 90% of India’s US$450 billion retail sector, oppose the entry of foreign players. They fear that they would be put out of business.

Supporters of liberalisation, such as the former US ambassador to India Timothy Roemer, believe that opening the sector to foreign investors would create millions of jobs for local Indians. Infrastructure would improve, food prices would drop and there would be more opportunities for associated small and medium enterprises as well.

During a meeting with global retail heads at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Indian Commerce Minister Anand Sharma told delegates that the desired 51% foreign ownership of multi-brand outlets “could not be implemented because of the compulsions of coalition politics and also partisan opposition. It is just a pause. The decision has only been put on a temporary halt”.

This is the first time US and German retail executives have met Indian ministers after the government was forced to suspend its plans last December. The government has reportedly restarted the consultation process with political and economic stakeholders, in a fresh attempt at opening up multi-brand retail to foreign investment.

With sagging consumer demand in the developed economies, India is fast becoming one of the most attractive untapped markets for the global retail giants.

High-profile arrest galvanises Bangladesh’s 1971 war crimes trial

DHAKA (20 January 2012) — Dancing broke out in the streets of Bangladesh after the prominent arrest of a man the state prosecutor alleges is “the mastermind” of war crimes commited during Bangladesh’s 1971 liberation war, when it seceded from Pakistan.

The development is “a significant step forward in the trial of those accused of crimes against humanity”, said Syed Badrul Ahsan, executive editor of news daily The Daily Star.

“Now that Ghulam Azam has been taken into custody, our expectations of a proper, fair and full trial of the war criminals of 1971 take a newer, happier dimension,” Ahsan wrote in his January 18 column.

Azam denies the charges, and his supporters say the case against him is politically motivated.

Azam, 89, was chief of the religious Jamaat-e-Islami party and later a leader of the political opposition in Bangladesh. He was arrested on charges of orchestrating crimes against humanity during the war — including murder, arson, rape and looting. His hearing will start on February 15.

He is also alleged to have created and led pro-Pakistan militias like the Peace Committee (Shanti Committee), Razakar, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams, which  carried out numerous murders and rapes during the nine-month war.

“He was the mastermind of all crimes against humanity during 1971,” state prosecutor Syed Haider Ali alleged in an AFP report.

Media reports described people coming out in the streets on January 13, a holiday in Bangladesh, dancing and chanting “we want capital punishment for Ghulam Azam”.

Wheelchair-bound Azam applied for bail on health grounds but this was rejected by the International Crimes Tribunal, the government-constituted court conducting the trial.

Azam is one of the most high-profile Islamists to have been arrested since the Awami League government set up the tribunal on March 25, 2010, as part of its 2008 election promise to bring all war criminals to trial. In November 2011, another Jamaat-e-Islami leader, Delawar Hossain Sayedee, became the first of seven suspects to face the tribunal on charges relating to the 1971 war.

But the 1971 war crimes trial is proving to be a challenge for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, as many of the key defendants are also her bitter political enemies. Jamaat-e-Islami is a key constituent of a political alliance led by former prime minister and opposition leader Khaleda Zia. Two leaders in Zia’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) face similar charges. Both the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami have rejected the tribunal as a government “show trial”.

Worryingly for the government, many international rights groups have also expressed similar views about the tribunal.
New York-based Human Rights Watch and other similar groups have asked the government of Bangladesh to clarify the definition of “charges” and to allow the accused to question the tribunal’s impartiality — not allowed under Bangladeshi law.

Law Minister Barrister Shafique Ahmed on January 16 reiterated that the war crimes trials are fair and up to international standards.

“We want to ensure fair justice, so nobody should doubt the prosecution of the war crimes trial. I want to assure that it’ll be of international standard,” he said at a roundtable in Dhaka organised by Bangladesh based inter-governmental organisation, the Centre on Integrated Rural Development for Asia and the Pacific.

“I request the international community not to be misled by false allegations by lobbyists engaged by those accused in the war crimes trial,” he said, adding that nobody would be prosecuted for political revenge.

“Anyone who is questioning the International Crimes Tribunal is questioning the national judicial system [of Bangladesh] and therefore, the very sovereignty of the country,” Professor Mizanur Rahman, chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, told the roundtable.

The war crimes trial is not an ordinary trial, but an act that might define the future of the nation, Rahman said. Warning the liberal voices of Bangladesh, he said that “if you fail to complete the trial, darkness will never end and nobody will come to protect you”.

Azam went into exile after Pakistani soldiers surrendered to a joint force led by India on December 16, 1971. He was a permanent resident of England until 1978, when he returned to Bangladesh on a Pakistani passport. He maintained Pakistani citizenship until 1994 because the Bangladeshi government refused to grant him citizenship.

India’s main opposition party shoots itself in the foot by taking in graft-tainted politician

NEW DELHI (13 January 2012) —The opposition Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) decision to admit a corruption-tainted politician to its ranks ahead of the February elections in the state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) has significantly damaged its prospects in the upcoming elections. And the man in the centre of the controversy has now left the party too.

Babu Singh Kushwaha, who was wooed by the BJP in a bid to draw support for the party at the upcoming elections, asked the BJP party chief Nitin Gadkari on January 7 — four days after his induction — to put his party membership on hold until he cleared his name of all corruption charges.

Political experts see the “offer” by Kushwaha, who was expelled from both UP’s ruling Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) government and the BSP in November 2011 over allegations of misappropriation of federal government funds, as BJP’s attempt to wriggle its way out of the controversy.

BJP had hoped that Kushwaha, who commands substantial influence over the “backward” caste community that he belongs to, would help the party garner votes in the caste-based electoral politics of UP. Kushwaha’s community, which forms 9% of the votes in the state, is known to vote en bloc along caste lines.

But the decision by the party president Nitin Gadkari was met with reservations by senior leaders who were against the party becoming associated with a tainted person — especially when the party was projecting itself as a serious anti-corruption political force in the country.

Many other BJP leaders from UP expressed displeasure with the decision, with Uma Bharti, who is entrusted with leading the UP election campaigning, announcing to her intention to take a pause in her responsibilities on January 6.

Sensing the BJP’s troubles, the Congress party, the biggest constituent of the ruling federal coalition government, went on an immediate offensive against their rivals.

“The Youth Congress exposed him [Kushwaha] and his corrupt practices. He approached Congress and pleaded to take him in the party and save him. But, we refused and said, we would not save you. You will be sent to jail,” Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi said at an election rally in the eastern UP district of Gorakhpur on January 6. The BJP soon started facing derision in media reports too.

Senior political commentator Seema Mustafa, writing in the Daily News & Analysis a leading English daily, said that “the BJP has twisted its knickers by quietly bringing in a couple of nasty, corrupt ministers kicked out by the BSP”. Amid mounting criticism and the fear of likely political reversal in the politically vital state of UP, the BJP eventually, and ironically, reached out to Kushwaha to bail it out.

Unfortunately for the BJP, the matter did not end with the “resignation” of Kushwaha from the party.

Ramashish Rai, former youth wing leader of the party, alleged that a backroom financial deal was involved in the admission of Babu Singh Kushwaha into the BJP.

“Kushwaha had a deal with some leaders of the party and it seems monetary help was taken from him for contesting elections,” Rai claimed while talking to reporters in UP’s capital Lucknow on January 9.

A day later, Team Anna, the group leading India’s anti-corruption movement, decided it would no longer differentiate between the BJP and its original target, the Congress Party. It said it would hold both parties to equal account in upcoming elections in five states.

Many analysts believe that the Kushwaha fiasco has done irreparable damage to the BJP’s chances in the UP elections. With less than a month to go before voting, there may not be enough time to come up with a political platform other than the “anti-corruption” ticket.

Over 110 million voters of Uttar Pradesh will vote for a new legislature in a seven-phase poll staggered between February 8 and March 4 this year. The term of the present State Legislature is set to expire on May 20.

The battle over Muslim voters in Uttar Pradesh intensifies

NEW DELHI (20 January 2012) — The race is on to win over the pivotal Muslim vote in the key Indian state of Uttar Pradesh (UP) ahead of the February-March elections, as politicians dangle the carrot of affirmative action.

Politicians are tripping over themselves to propose the inclusion of Muslims in the ‘reservation’ scheme, a largely caste-based affirmative action programme meant for historically marginalised social groups.

Law minister Salman Khurshid of the ruling Congress Party has proposed a 9% reservation of federal government jobs and university admissions for Muslims, to be carved out of the existing 27% for Other Backward Classes (OBC).

Mulayam Singh Yadav, chief of the state’s second biggest Samajwadi Party (SP) has also announced an 18% reservation for Muslims outside of the existing OBC reservation if his party was voted into power.

He also promises a commission to “survey the backwardness of Muslims” in the northern Indian state, he wrote to influential Syed Ahmed Bukhari, head cleric of Delhi’s Jama Masjid.

“I want to ask from where this 9% and 18% will come,” Nitin Gadkari, president of principal opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said at an election rally on January 17. “The game of reservation on religious grounds that is being played by the Congress and SP would one day prove to be dangerous not only for UP, but for the entire country,” he added.

The election commission is investigating whether Khurshid violated the poll code of conduct. India’s election code prevents the government from starting projects close to the polls that could bestow an unfair advantage. It also prevents politicians from making populist announcements to earn more votes.

The Congress Party has distanced itself from Khurshid’s reservation statement, describing it as his personal opinion.

Still, the opposition BJP has launched a campaign called “OBC bachao aandolan”: Agitation to save OBC. Three senior party leaders have been touring the backward constituencies of the state claiming that Congress was passing on their jobs to the Muslims.

“If the government wants to introduce reservation on the basis of religion, it should first declare India as a Hindu country. This is bad politics that Congress is indulging in for increasing its vote banks,” BJP leader Uma Bharti said.

The pot was first stirred by the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA), which proposed a 4.5% quota for minorities within the OBC reservation quota just before the announcement of the UP election dates. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi had also challenged the SP chief to reveal his stand on the issue. The Congress’ objective, it appears, was to split the Muslim and OBC vote, which generally goes to the SP.

The Muslim vote, which forms about 18% of UP’s electorate, has always been a pivotal factor in the state’s politics and influences results in more than 100 of the 403 legislative assembly seats of the state. In 70 of these seats, Muslims comprise 20% of the electorate; they make up 30-45% of the electorate in 36 other seats in the state.

The latest polls suggest that at least 50% of Muslims are likely to continue voting for the SP.

India’s law minister apologises for public spat with election commission

NEW DELHI (17 February 2012) — Law Minister Salman Khurshid avoided a showdown with his own government and the Election Commission (EC) by apologising for imprudent remarks he made during a public rally for the ongoing provincial elections in Uttar Pradesh (UP).

On February 11, while speaking in support of his wife who is contesting the Farrukhabad region of UP as a Congress Party candidate, Khurshid promised to include Muslims in the Hindu-majority country’s affirmative action programme.

The EC viewed the remarks as an inappropriate attempt to influence Muslim voters and a violation of election laws that bar political parties from campaigning on the promise of new policy incentives after election dates have been announced. But even after the EC’s censure, a defiant Khurshid said at another rally that he would continue to fight for Muslim inclusion in the programme even “if they [the EC] hang me”.

The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) SY Quraishi said that the tone and gist of Khurshid’s remarks were “utterly contemptuous and dismissive” of the EC and “damaging to the level-playing field” in the UP election. Quraishi sought an “immediate and decisive” intervention by the president.

The EC’s appeal to the president was prompted by a complaint filed against Khurshid by India’s principal opposition party, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). The BJP also demanded Khurshid’s dismissal. The president forwarded the letter to the prime minister who called on Khurshid to clarify his position.

The pressure to apologise to the EC piled on Khurshid, who also holds the minorities affairs portfolio, when Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee said he disapproved of Khurshid’s statement. The influential minister’s intervention came amid growing worry in the Congress Party that Khurshid’s controversial statements would spark a clash between the EC and the government.

Finding himself alienated, Khurshid wrote a letter to the EC on February 13 and apologised for his remarks, saying, “It has never been my intention to transgress the law and undermine the election code of conduct. I have great respect for the commission and the decisions it takes and has taken.”

Although the EC decided to put a lid on the issue, the opposition BJP seemed in no mood to let go.

“Khurshid should publicly apologise to the nation and to the Election Commission on the issue,” BJP spokesperson Prakash Javdekar said in a news conference on February 14.

Analysts believe that the BJP’s interest in extending the controversy lies in the fact that the affirmation action programme has the potential to polarise voters along religious lines in UP. Sectarian politics has always helped the BJP win bulk votes from its key constituency, the majority Hindu community in the state.

The Congress Party, meanwhile, is relieved that Khurshid’s spat with the EC may be blowing over. But there is also a view in the party that while Khurshid could have avoided defying the EC publicly, the commission’s decision to write to the president was also an unnecessarily extreme step.

Muslims form 18% of the UP electorate and the Congress Party has been trying hard to woo them through promises of affirmative action in employment and other areas. The election results on March 4 will show if Khhurshid’s controversy had a detrimental effect on his party’s chances.