The current political crisis in Goa and “third world treatment” to the Indian cricket team in Australia have one similarity i.e. their connection with Mr. Sarad Power and both have been rescued by the present BCCI chief cum Agriculture minister cum NCP supremo in recent time. But the other imperceptible correlation between both of them is that like Indian cricket team’s frequent imbroglio with Australian players, Goa is also notoriously famous for plunging into political disasters too often. It always occupies disproportionate space in mainstream media compared to its size - of course due to wrong reasons.
In this perspective, The DNA writes, “marred by frequent by-elections caused by hung assembly verdicts and hunger for power, Goa has seen imposition of President's Rule twice and 16 Chief Ministers in the last twenty years.” Recent political instability will add to that list. The things started with the withdrawal of support of three NCP and one independent M.L.A from the present Congress led coalition government of the state. With all kind of conspiracy theories and negotiating efforts on work, the government was finally saved with the promise to accommodate the dissenting members. But, the larger question remains unsolved. Though coalition governments aren’t new to India after two decades of its practice, Goa is a unique enigma in Indian polity. Here in last five years, defection of MLAs, partisanship by Governor and nepotism are norms. N.Ram of The Hindu writes, “as MLAs of Goa who have only a small constituency to nurse, develops their political base independent of their party, defections become the norm. Often, denial of a ministerial berth is the reason for a member to withdraw support to the government causing instability.” Barring this geographical limitation, blatant misuse of constitutional prerogative is another reason for this volatility. Especially for the last few years; Governor, S.L.Jamir’s role has raised serious questions about the sanctity of this constitutional post. Even this time BJP alleges the Governor of playing to the tune of present incumbent Digambar Kamat’s government. The BJP has questioned the constitutional validity of the decision of Mr. Jamir to suddenly prorogue the State Legislative Assembly on the recommendation of the Digambar Kamat Cabinet ahead of the passage of an appropriation Bill, which is seen as a bailout tactics for buying more time to the Congress government. “For, the normal practice is to adjourn the House sine die and to prorogue it after a gap of several days. In his anxiety to buy the minority Kamat Government time, Jamir short-circuited the normal procedure and straight away prorogued the house. Which means Kamat is no longer obliged to summon another session of the assembly for several months”, writes The Free press Journal. Also the Anti-defection law passed by the parliament, which empowers the speaker of the house to decide on the disqualification issue, gives the leverage to the speakers of Goan assembly for its blatant misuse in recent time. As an example, when Pratapsinh Rane was in power in Goa in 2005, two defected BJP M.L.A.s were inducted as cabinet ministers in Rane’s government with a flagrant violation of Anti-defection law. Even the induction defied the 91st amendment act, which lays down specific provision for restricting floor crossing by legislatures. K.V.Prasad in The Hindu writes, “The decision of the Congress to reward two former Bharatiya Janata Party legislators with ministerial berths in Pratapsinh Rane Government in Goa is perhaps the first calculated move by a political party to circumvent the anti-defection law.” And an irony these political tricks aren’t restricted to a specific party but practiced across board.
Though the present political crisis in Goa has been solved for the time being, it will be naïve to think that it is subsided forever. Rather, it will continue taking inspiration from the Indian cricket team, which is now more in news for controversies than the game. But let’s hope just like the true cricketing spirit, one day Goan politician will follow ethical line in the name of true political spirit- though the probabilities seem to be too bleak.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
CHINA AND INDIA’S ECONOMIC INTEREST IN SUDAN
With the advent of globalization, the nuances of diplomacy are determined more by trade relations than human values. This is illustratable by the relationship of countries like India and China with Sudan. Though the International community repeatedly accuses Sudan of gross human right violations, still it doesn’t deter China and India to reach for Sudan’s natural resources to feed their burgeoning energy need. Rather, both these countries are busy wooing Sudan for acquiring maximum share of its oil field.
China has distinct economic interest in Sudan as it imports seven percent of its crude oil from this country. More significantly, this oil constitutes 47% of total Sudanese productions. United Nations Commodity Trade Database (UNCOMTRADE) says that China represents 64% of Khartoum’s trade volume. Also, Chinese National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has invested $4 billon in Sudan’s different oil fields with 42% stake in Sudan’s major oil company i.e. Great Nile Petroleum Company. China’s economic interest is not limited to petroleum only, rather it eyes for other natural resources like natural gas, gold, silver, chrome, asbestos etc. With rising investment, China emerges as the largest foreign investor in Sudan.
China is pursuing “Trade for Aid” policy in Africa and Sudan is part of this diplomatic design. In a visit to Sudan, Chinese premier Hu Jintao waived debt amount of $80 million and sanctioned $13 million interest free loan for Sudan. These aid amounts are largely utilized in up gradation of oil blocks from which Chinese draws oil.
Barring oil, China sees Africa as a lucrative market for its arm trade and Sudan in particular provides greatest opportunity for its arms market. Sudan’s arm forces have the strongest Chinese colour in this region. Even Ken Bacon of ‘Refugees International’ spotted evidence of Chinese weapons in Darfur conflict. It is believed that, China sold $100 million arms to Sudan in between 1996 to 2003. Chinese made military trucks, t-62 light tanks, F-7 fighters, Y-8 transport aircrafts, FC-2 fighters are now part of Sudanese arsenal. With no sign of diffusion to Sudanese ethnic conflict, the prospects for Chinese arms trade will increase in near future.
When China is vigorously pursuing its trade relations with Sudan, India isn’t sitting idle; rather in accordance with its “Look Africa” policy, India is proactively wooing African nations not only for furthering its economic interests but also to get their crucial support for getting permanent seat in Security Council. From this perspective, Sudan is at the top of its agenda, which is fathomable by Indian president’s visit to Sudan in 2003. The agreements signed during this visits are bilateral agreement on the promotion and protection of investment, agreement on the avoidance of double taxation treaty and memorandum of understanding on communication and information technology. Barring this, India is concentrating on Sudanese oil blocks. ONGC Videsh ltd. has 25% stake in Sudan’s biggest oil consortium. Government of India has also decided to invest $750 million for expansion of refinery sector in Sudan.
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) in its report states that the volume of trade with Sudan is around $120million in 2002, with a positive trade balance of $99million for India; making it the sixth largest exporter of commodities to Sudan. The statistics shows that there is 100% growth in bilateral trade between India and Sudan, which gives fillip to bilateral trade relationship. There is also a beeline of Indian companies like ITI, TCIL, and Konkan Railways, which are interested to exploit the Sudanese market. FICCI predicts that there is great potential for Indian industries to participate in areas such as railways, shipping, automobile, power generation, telecommunications, agricultural equipments, and pharmaceuticals and IT etc.
With India and China taking Economics as radar for determination of their foreign policy, Sudan will experience least international pressure to end the conflict from this part of the world.
China has distinct economic interest in Sudan as it imports seven percent of its crude oil from this country. More significantly, this oil constitutes 47% of total Sudanese productions. United Nations Commodity Trade Database (UNCOMTRADE) says that China represents 64% of Khartoum’s trade volume. Also, Chinese National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) has invested $4 billon in Sudan’s different oil fields with 42% stake in Sudan’s major oil company i.e. Great Nile Petroleum Company. China’s economic interest is not limited to petroleum only, rather it eyes for other natural resources like natural gas, gold, silver, chrome, asbestos etc. With rising investment, China emerges as the largest foreign investor in Sudan.
China is pursuing “Trade for Aid” policy in Africa and Sudan is part of this diplomatic design. In a visit to Sudan, Chinese premier Hu Jintao waived debt amount of $80 million and sanctioned $13 million interest free loan for Sudan. These aid amounts are largely utilized in up gradation of oil blocks from which Chinese draws oil.
Barring oil, China sees Africa as a lucrative market for its arm trade and Sudan in particular provides greatest opportunity for its arms market. Sudan’s arm forces have the strongest Chinese colour in this region. Even Ken Bacon of ‘Refugees International’ spotted evidence of Chinese weapons in Darfur conflict. It is believed that, China sold $100 million arms to Sudan in between 1996 to 2003. Chinese made military trucks, t-62 light tanks, F-7 fighters, Y-8 transport aircrafts, FC-2 fighters are now part of Sudanese arsenal. With no sign of diffusion to Sudanese ethnic conflict, the prospects for Chinese arms trade will increase in near future.
When China is vigorously pursuing its trade relations with Sudan, India isn’t sitting idle; rather in accordance with its “Look Africa” policy, India is proactively wooing African nations not only for furthering its economic interests but also to get their crucial support for getting permanent seat in Security Council. From this perspective, Sudan is at the top of its agenda, which is fathomable by Indian president’s visit to Sudan in 2003. The agreements signed during this visits are bilateral agreement on the promotion and protection of investment, agreement on the avoidance of double taxation treaty and memorandum of understanding on communication and information technology. Barring this, India is concentrating on Sudanese oil blocks. ONGC Videsh ltd. has 25% stake in Sudan’s biggest oil consortium. Government of India has also decided to invest $750 million for expansion of refinery sector in Sudan.
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) in its report states that the volume of trade with Sudan is around $120million in 2002, with a positive trade balance of $99million for India; making it the sixth largest exporter of commodities to Sudan. The statistics shows that there is 100% growth in bilateral trade between India and Sudan, which gives fillip to bilateral trade relationship. There is also a beeline of Indian companies like ITI, TCIL, and Konkan Railways, which are interested to exploit the Sudanese market. FICCI predicts that there is great potential for Indian industries to participate in areas such as railways, shipping, automobile, power generation, telecommunications, agricultural equipments, and pharmaceuticals and IT etc.
With India and China taking Economics as radar for determination of their foreign policy, Sudan will experience least international pressure to end the conflict from this part of the world.
A Deadly Dilemma: Pakistan after Benazir
“There is no law and certainly, no order in my country. What happened last week has shaken every Pakistani. Benzir Bhutto was no ordinary person; she served as prime minister twice and returned to Pakistan in an effort to restore democracy in our country. In her assassination, I have lost a friend and a partner in democracy.”
These are the words of Nawaz Sharif, president of PML(N) and Benazir’s arch political rival in Pakistan, which speaks volumes about the turmoil created in Pakistan following Benazir’s assassination last December. Benazir, for all her flaws, had always been seen as a liberal force with a democratic vision for her country. Undeterred by the security threats, her return to Pakistan showed her determination to move Pakistan towards a democratic future. Her assassination has created a vacuum that has made Pakistani politics murkier, more volatile and unpredictable. It undermines the credibility of President Musharraf, who faces widespread resentment over his recent imposition of emergency. It’s setback to the U.S. design of establishing a democratic government under Musharraf, which will lend some credibility to the present military regime. Above all, Benazir’s murder has implications for the unity of Pakistan.
The adulatory public response that greeted Benazir on her return had given the world community hope that exists in Pakistan a large constituency for the restoration of democracy. The U.S. had intended that she would become prime minister under Musharraf to create a military-backed popular political front to contain the growing fundamentalist forces in the country. Seeing the rising unpopularity of Musharraf, his confrontation with the judiciary, which finally led to the imposition of emergency, and the growing wave of anti-Americanism in Pakistan, the U.S. was desperate to put a democratic government in place. After Benazir’s assassination, these hopes have been dashed and Pakistan’s very future is at stake. But it’s the people of Pakistan who are the ultimate victims of these developments. They suffered the loss of a popular leader in 1977 when Zia-ul-Haq toppled Zulfikar Bhutto’s government, they witnessed another military coup in Musharraf’s takeover of power from Nawaz Sharif’s elected government, and they the real victims of Benazir’s murder.
With the death of Benazir, the people of Pakistan face renewed uncertainty. Her demise has created a leadership crisis in the Pakistan People’s Party, the country’s only pan-national party. While Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir’s widower who was nicknamed Mr. Ten percent for his alleged record of corruption while his wife was in office, doesn’t have the political muscle or moral stature to command public support, Benazir’s son Bilawal at 19 is too young and inexperienced to shoulder the responsibility. Though there is wide public support for PPP and the next election scheduled for February may see the party emerge victorious, it is questionable whether PPP can lay out a roadmap for full democracy in Pakistan in Benazir’s absence. According to reports, the U.S. finalized a deal to sell F-16 fighter planes with Musharraf just two days after Benazir’s death. It suggests that the US still sees Musharraf as its best bet in their war against terror. The
Americans have their own logic as they fear that in the absence of Musharraf and the military in control, Pakistan’s nuclear wealons may fall into the hands of Islmaic radicals.
The reasoning is not completely irrational. In the last six decades, Pakistan’s military is not only core component of the political and economic system but has grown into a state within a state. Dr. Ayesha Sidique, a military analyst describes in her book “Military Inc.” Pakistan military has permeated every aspect of the Pakistani economy. The military has a presence in the steel, sugar, cement, fertilizer and cereal industries with large stakes in the financial sector as well. It underscores the near impossibility of rooting the military out of economic and political power in Pakistan. In the circumstances, any hope of a Pakistan under complete civilian control can remain just that - a hope, particularly when the country has lost its most popular and charismatic leader.
With the demise of Benazir; Islamic fundamentalism will gather more force inside the country. With all kinds of conspiracy theories about the assassination doing the rounds, there is a strong likelihood that fundamentalist forces, who saw her as a potential threat to their designs, might have eliminated Benazir. They may now succeed in expanding their base in Sindh and Baluchistan, two provinces where people feel neglected due to the dominance of Punjab in Pakistani politics and the army. The murder of Benazir, who hailed from Sindh province, may add to this frustration, stoking the flames of Sindhi nationalism.
The uncertainties of Pakistani politics have expectedly impacted the economy. The Karachi stock market plummeted by nearly 5% on December 31 indicating investors fears over the possibility of a prolonged political impasse hurting Pakistan’s economic growth prospects. Pakistan registered 7.9% GDP growth in 2006-07, according to the government’s economic survey and the KSE has been one of Asia’st-performing stock markets in recent years. The widespread rioting that followed Benazir’s demise when cost the economy several billion dollars in property damage and lost business. But it is the poor, who will suffer the most. Battered by rising inflation (9.3% according to Asian Development Bank Report-2006), continued business uncertainty will only render their jobs, and livelihoods, ever more precarious.
Sadly, all these developments have revived fears that Pakistan could become a failed state. Its suspension from the Commonwealth, the presence of a foreign investigative agency to probe Benazir’s death and the constant fear of a spillover of the US campaign against the Taliban into its North West province all call into question the very sovereignty of the nation. As the destinies of the countries in South Asia are intertwined, Benazir’s assassination will have negative impact on the whole region. This is evident from the reactions of neighbouring India and Afganistan. AS the country plunges into a deeper crisis, Pakistan will find itself alienated from the international community, including from regional grouping like SAARC, OIC etc.
Pakistan’s predicament is the consequence of endemic corruption in public life, the cynicism and violence it breeds, the enduring power of the landowning elites, the repeated imposition of martial law to restore order, the use of non-state actors as instruments of foreign policy and the rise of armed Islamic militias who seek to impose their medieval vision of society as the solution to Pakistan’s myriad problems.
Pakistan could thus be on the brink of civil war. But, just like every cloud has a silver lining, there is still hope for Pakistan. This lies in the sustained struggle for democracy led by the middle class intelligentsia. Encouraged by judicial activism with former chief justice Iftikhar Choudhary in the vanguard, this movement has sustained itself through the country’s most difficult times. Led by the legal community, NGOs and human rights activists like Asma Jahangir, today’s struggle reflects the determination of ordinary Pakistani people to free themselves of this dangerous circle of violence. In the end it is democracy, the rule of law and economic policies that promote equitable growth that will break this deadly cycle. Despite her shabby record in office it was this vision of a better, more humane Pakistan that inspired Benazir to return from exile. Her violent death only underscores the urgency of that message.
These are the words of Nawaz Sharif, president of PML(N) and Benazir’s arch political rival in Pakistan, which speaks volumes about the turmoil created in Pakistan following Benazir’s assassination last December. Benazir, for all her flaws, had always been seen as a liberal force with a democratic vision for her country. Undeterred by the security threats, her return to Pakistan showed her determination to move Pakistan towards a democratic future. Her assassination has created a vacuum that has made Pakistani politics murkier, more volatile and unpredictable. It undermines the credibility of President Musharraf, who faces widespread resentment over his recent imposition of emergency. It’s setback to the U.S. design of establishing a democratic government under Musharraf, which will lend some credibility to the present military regime. Above all, Benazir’s murder has implications for the unity of Pakistan.
The adulatory public response that greeted Benazir on her return had given the world community hope that exists in Pakistan a large constituency for the restoration of democracy. The U.S. had intended that she would become prime minister under Musharraf to create a military-backed popular political front to contain the growing fundamentalist forces in the country. Seeing the rising unpopularity of Musharraf, his confrontation with the judiciary, which finally led to the imposition of emergency, and the growing wave of anti-Americanism in Pakistan, the U.S. was desperate to put a democratic government in place. After Benazir’s assassination, these hopes have been dashed and Pakistan’s very future is at stake. But it’s the people of Pakistan who are the ultimate victims of these developments. They suffered the loss of a popular leader in 1977 when Zia-ul-Haq toppled Zulfikar Bhutto’s government, they witnessed another military coup in Musharraf’s takeover of power from Nawaz Sharif’s elected government, and they the real victims of Benazir’s murder.
With the death of Benazir, the people of Pakistan face renewed uncertainty. Her demise has created a leadership crisis in the Pakistan People’s Party, the country’s only pan-national party. While Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir’s widower who was nicknamed Mr. Ten percent for his alleged record of corruption while his wife was in office, doesn’t have the political muscle or moral stature to command public support, Benazir’s son Bilawal at 19 is too young and inexperienced to shoulder the responsibility. Though there is wide public support for PPP and the next election scheduled for February may see the party emerge victorious, it is questionable whether PPP can lay out a roadmap for full democracy in Pakistan in Benazir’s absence. According to reports, the U.S. finalized a deal to sell F-16 fighter planes with Musharraf just two days after Benazir’s death. It suggests that the US still sees Musharraf as its best bet in their war against terror. The
Americans have their own logic as they fear that in the absence of Musharraf and the military in control, Pakistan’s nuclear wealons may fall into the hands of Islmaic radicals.
The reasoning is not completely irrational. In the last six decades, Pakistan’s military is not only core component of the political and economic system but has grown into a state within a state. Dr. Ayesha Sidique, a military analyst describes in her book “Military Inc.” Pakistan military has permeated every aspect of the Pakistani economy. The military has a presence in the steel, sugar, cement, fertilizer and cereal industries with large stakes in the financial sector as well. It underscores the near impossibility of rooting the military out of economic and political power in Pakistan. In the circumstances, any hope of a Pakistan under complete civilian control can remain just that - a hope, particularly when the country has lost its most popular and charismatic leader.
With the demise of Benazir; Islamic fundamentalism will gather more force inside the country. With all kinds of conspiracy theories about the assassination doing the rounds, there is a strong likelihood that fundamentalist forces, who saw her as a potential threat to their designs, might have eliminated Benazir. They may now succeed in expanding their base in Sindh and Baluchistan, two provinces where people feel neglected due to the dominance of Punjab in Pakistani politics and the army. The murder of Benazir, who hailed from Sindh province, may add to this frustration, stoking the flames of Sindhi nationalism.
The uncertainties of Pakistani politics have expectedly impacted the economy. The Karachi stock market plummeted by nearly 5% on December 31 indicating investors fears over the possibility of a prolonged political impasse hurting Pakistan’s economic growth prospects. Pakistan registered 7.9% GDP growth in 2006-07, according to the government’s economic survey and the KSE has been one of Asia’st-performing stock markets in recent years. The widespread rioting that followed Benazir’s demise when cost the economy several billion dollars in property damage and lost business. But it is the poor, who will suffer the most. Battered by rising inflation (9.3% according to Asian Development Bank Report-2006), continued business uncertainty will only render their jobs, and livelihoods, ever more precarious.
Sadly, all these developments have revived fears that Pakistan could become a failed state. Its suspension from the Commonwealth, the presence of a foreign investigative agency to probe Benazir’s death and the constant fear of a spillover of the US campaign against the Taliban into its North West province all call into question the very sovereignty of the nation. As the destinies of the countries in South Asia are intertwined, Benazir’s assassination will have negative impact on the whole region. This is evident from the reactions of neighbouring India and Afganistan. AS the country plunges into a deeper crisis, Pakistan will find itself alienated from the international community, including from regional grouping like SAARC, OIC etc.
Pakistan’s predicament is the consequence of endemic corruption in public life, the cynicism and violence it breeds, the enduring power of the landowning elites, the repeated imposition of martial law to restore order, the use of non-state actors as instruments of foreign policy and the rise of armed Islamic militias who seek to impose their medieval vision of society as the solution to Pakistan’s myriad problems.
Pakistan could thus be on the brink of civil war. But, just like every cloud has a silver lining, there is still hope for Pakistan. This lies in the sustained struggle for democracy led by the middle class intelligentsia. Encouraged by judicial activism with former chief justice Iftikhar Choudhary in the vanguard, this movement has sustained itself through the country’s most difficult times. Led by the legal community, NGOs and human rights activists like Asma Jahangir, today’s struggle reflects the determination of ordinary Pakistani people to free themselves of this dangerous circle of violence. In the end it is democracy, the rule of law and economic policies that promote equitable growth that will break this deadly cycle. Despite her shabby record in office it was this vision of a better, more humane Pakistan that inspired Benazir to return from exile. Her violent death only underscores the urgency of that message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)