Daily Excelsior... Editorial

EDITORIAL

By Mritunjay Prakash

The UN General Assembly is scheduled to discuss the existing anti-hijacking laws, and evolve a mechanism to make them more stringent. It is likely that amendments envisaged will be acceptable to the member countries as all of them face the threats. In 1970 the UN Secretary General U Thant, said that hijackers should be prosecuted in the name of the peoples of . . ...more

National non-mission
for farmers

Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

Moon eclipses Shashi

By Pallab Bhattacharya

Not even the most hardcore Indian optimist with knowledge of international political and economic scenario could have given Shashi Tharoor a chance to win the race for the post of UN Secretary General. His pulling out of the race after the fourth Straw poll and the certainty of South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon are therefore not surprising. The fact that Moon has eclipsed Shashi reflects more global realities than any shortcoming on India's candidate .......more

EDITORIAL

Lexicon of terror
in our times

It is not for nothing that certain dates and words have become synonymous with terror, murder and torture across the globe. There is 9/11 that woke the United States up to the consequences of terrorism and fiddling with it in any manner. On the home turf our calendar is virtually blood-stained. However, 13/12 stands out when the terrorists had made an attempt to storm the Parliament House drawing India and Pakistan close to another war. In London, 7/7 is in the same category. We don't mention their years for the simple reason that we know them only fully well as never-to-be-forgotten disasters. In the State the gory saga had begun in 1989 when a political activist was murdered for the first time in Srinagar. What is to be regretted is that nobody seems to be learning. It is strange that even those who have moved behind the official security cover strive to strike a sentimental chord with the persons braying for their blood. However, we are not on the subject of conduct or the lack of it on the part of anybody. We just wish to focus on the new word list that the terrorism has drawn and defined. Mr Shashi Tharoor (he ran for the coveted post of Secretary-General of the United Nations only recently) made a passing reference to the topic in one of his columns. Long ago Ms Marguerite Feitlowitz had dealt with the theme in one of her acclaimed books. However, she had centred on the doings of a dictatorship in Argentina in the late 1970s and early 1980s. She has referred to quite a few words that the survivors of that era in Argentina dread even these days: capucha (hood), interrogacion (questioning), terapia intensiva (intensive therapy) and parrilla (grill for cooking meat) among others. Her inquiries were related to a brutal and repressive State apparatus the like of which Adolf Hitler had created earlier in Nazi Germany. The terrorism that haunts the world today was to raise its ugly head later. In fact, in our vicinity Pakistan has mixed it with the blatant State patronage to generate trouble in our country. That is why our experts have described it as a "proxy war" that Pakistan had first fought in Punjab and is now engaged in this State. With his might challenged by 9/11 United States President George W. Bush has perhaps enriched the dictionary of terror as no other global leader has done. His spontaneous angry reactions have at times left the concerned citizens stunned. However, he is least worried in his single-minded pursuit of the people who have made a dent in the US's image of invincibility. He has promised his country that he will "smoke them out, get them running and bring them to justice." Mr Bush has been defined by some as "the greatest simplifier of our times". Such standing has got a boost with his instant remark after the Heathrow conspiracy that America and other free nations are at "a war with Islamic fascists." Before that the US President had answered a question about what drove the terrorists in the following style: "Some call this evil Islamic radicalism, others, militant Jihadism, still others, Islamo-fascism. Whatever it's called the ideology is very different from the religion of Islam. This form of radicalism exploits Islam to serve a violent, political vision: the establishment, by terrorism and subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom." This is a well-reasoned argument the like of which seems to have impressed the European Union as well.

The EU perhaps is alone in walking a tightrope through the minefield of words and bullets. It has involved experts on Islam, religion and linguistics to formulate a "common vocabulary" while talking about radical Islam. It has already prepared a preliminary document the preamble to which says: "Unintended stigmatisation resulting from an ill-considered choice of words may have serious negative psychological effects and thus contribute to the process of radicalisation." The 25-member grouping has urged its members "to ensure that they do not inadvertently and inappropriately impose a sense of identity solely linked to religious affiliation." It has struck a note of warning to European governments and officials to desist from using religious language and debate that "may discredit the efforts of mainstream Muslims to curb extremist interpretations of Islam." The EU does not want to go by conventional dictionaries. Instead its bid is to place the expressions in their cultural, political and historical context. For the moment it has circulated for discussion three terms: "Islamist", "fundamentalist" and "jihad". Although it argues that "Islamist terrorism" ("ist", according to it, "links terrorism to a distinct political ideology, not to a religion as a whole, and might therefore be preferable") should be used instead of "Islamic terrorism" it does feel that it is too thin a difference to be obvious to an average European. Therefore, it has given at least two alternatives: "a reference to the name of the group or individual responsible for a terrorist attack, or the location of a terrorist attack" and "terrorism that invokes an abusive interpretation of Islam". The EU has rejected the use of "fundamentalism" because it feels: "The term refers to beliefs and convictions which do not always have immediate political repercussions and when it is coupled into 'Islamic fundamentalism' it could be offensive to Muslims." Likewise it has veered around to the view that the "misuse" of the expression jihad can cause offence. The purpose of the exercise "is not to be politically correct" but to reduce "incitement to radicalisation."

On the other hand, as a recent report from Poonch has revealed, the terrorists have been preparing their own glossary. Their decoded messages have shown the following twisting of popular terms: "aloo" (grenade), "atta" (explosive), "khanzir" (evil --- a reference to Mr Bush and 9/11), "biwi" (Kalashnikov), "shadi" (gun), "rani" (machine gun), "zameen doz" (improvised explosive device) and "milk powder" (RDX). Senior Army officers have stated that these are among "over 1000-1200 code words" that are part of the terrorists' lexicon. In sharp contrast, the sane world is busy in finding correct phrases to nail the terrorism by preventing the misuse of the name of Islam. There is no doubt that it will have the last word. We know in this country from times immemorial that the good has always triumphed over the bad.

Hijacking crime against humanity

By Mritunjay Prakash

The Pilots Associations and a number of countries have also called for steps to prevent hijacking. There was a Hague Convention in 1970 dealing with the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft where the contracting States undertook to make hijacking punishable by severe penalties. They also agreed that hijacking should be included as an extraditable offence in those treaties to which they were already parties, as also in treaties to be signed by them in future. Article 7 of the Convention imposes an obligation on all parties ratifying it "without exception whatsoever and whether or not the offence was committed in its territory, to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution."

The Montreal Convention of 1971 to discourage acts of violence against civil aircraft sought to extend the possibility of criminal action against hijackers. Article 11 of the Convention states that the contracting parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connexion with criminal proceedings brought in respect of the offences. The International Civil Aviation organization has suggested a new chapter to be added to the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation with the same objective.

The question of extradition of the hijacker acquires importance in view of the fact that in most cases of international hijacking the culprit is outside the territory of the country from, or to, which the aircraft was flying. He is also outside the territory of the State where the aircraft is registered. The hijacker ensures this by either forcing the pilot to divert the plane from its normal route or by making his safe exit a condition for the freeing of the aircraft or those aboard it. As the hijacker often seeks asylum in order to prevent his return to any of the countries which may put him on trial, it is necessary to find out what the position is in international law for dealing with such a claim for asylum. This question is closely linked with the liability of the hijackers to be extradited.

Initially international law did not recognize any right of the individual. The stress on human rights during recent years has, however, sought to give legal protection to individuals. Article 14 of the Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. It is further provided that the right of asylum may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purpose and principles of the United Nations.

There is, however, no obligation for a State to grant asylum. Every country has absolute discretion in deciding which alien to admit. It is; however, open to a country to impose limitations upon this freedom by treaties. A UN General Assembly Resolution known as a Declaration on Asylum provides, inter alia, that it shall rest with the State granting asylum to evaluate the grounds for the grant of asylum.

Although there is no obligation in international law for a country to grant asylum, there is also nothing to prevent it from granting asylum in case it so decides. The constitutions of some countries, including those of Russia and China, contain express provisions about the right to asylum in certain events. Article 22 of the American Convention on Human Rights of 1969 provides that every person has the right to seek, and be granted, asylum in a foreign territory, in accordance with the legislation of the State and international conventions. At the same time, the article provides that in no case should an alien be deported or returned to the country if in that country his right to life or personal freedom is in danger of being violated because of his race, nationality, religion, social status, or political opinions.

The question, therefore, arises whether hijackers can avoid extradition on the ground that they are political offenders. Before dealing with some of the judicial pronouncements on the subject, it may be pertinent to refer to a concrete instance of hijacking related to the Palestine Liberation Organization.

In 1974 there was a hijacking of a Lufthansa plane at Rome. The hijackers sought asylum in Kuwait. Italy made a demand to Kuwait for return of the hijackers. Kuwait, however, had no extradition treaty with Italy. It also took the stand that the whole affair was political in character.

At the same time Kuwait announced that it proposed to surrender the culprits to the PLO to stand trial. This was unlike the normal stand taken with regard to political offenders, according to which a State refuses to surrender them for trial. Kuwait and Arab spokesmen also made it clear that the offences for the trial of which the hijackers were to be surrendered were not so much the crime of hijacking itself as for crimes against the Arab movement. Hijacking, it was said, was counter-productive and thus an offence against Arab interests.

In the early fifties, three Yugoslavs, who were members of the crew, deviated their aircraft from Yugoslavia to Switzerland. While dealing with the question as to whether they could claim exemption from extradition, the Federal Tribunal of Switzerland observed that those who do not wish to submit to a totalitarian regime had no alternative but to escape it by flight abroad and that the spirit of justice ascribed a political character to such a flight. INAV

National non-mission for farmers

Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala

The National Commission for Farmers has said that efforts must be made to improve the productivity of Indian farmers. Investment in irrigation and power should be increased and quality inputs like those of fertilizers and seeds should be made available. Efforts must be made to educate Indian farmers about the requirements of global trade in agricultural commodities so that they may be able to benefit from the opportunities in exports. Our farmers can win in the global marketplace by producing goods of world quality at cheap prices. This is correct. The question, however, is this: will this provide benefits to our farmers? Say our farmers are able to produce wheat at the price of Rs 6 per kilo against Rs 10 presently and capture the world markets. This success means that our farmers would be producing the cheapest wheat in the world which, in turn, implies they would be paying lowest wages to their workers. Our victory in the world markets is based on our paying low wages which is synonymous with poverty for our farmers.

The second suggestion is to establish an Indian Trade Organization which will try to establish a 'Livelihood Box' in the WTO negotiations. There will be provision in this Box for developing countries to impose quantitative restrictions or high import tariffs on import of items on which the livelihood of a large number of our farmers depends. The argument is correct. But this is unlikely to succeed considering the obstinate attitude of the industrial countries in the Doha Round of the WTO negotiations. It is like asking for the moon. Secondly, this strategy is defensive. It assumes that our farmers will not be able to stand in global competition and ever need the protection of a Livelihood Box. That is like the mother appointing a bodyguard for her child who is tormented by thugs in the street. Such protection kills the development of the fighting capacities of the child. This strategy is acceptable in the short run where parallel measures have been taken to enable our farmers stand in competition. But the Commission proposes this measure as a long term strategy. Commission does not provide such a road map for dismantling the Livelihood Box and enabling our people to play in the world marketplace without the crutches of protection.

Third suggestion is to prevent imports of cheap agricultural commodities under the provisions of the WTO or Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). The Commission has pointed out that imports of cheap apples from China and Australia have hurt the farmers of Himachal Pradesh and that of cheap pepper from Sri Lanka has hurt those of Kerala. It has recommended that the government should not sign any FTAs that allow cheap imports of such sensitive commodities. The Commission's suggestion is in the right direction but it does not solve the basic problem of our farmers. We engage in give-and-take under the WTO or FTAs. Foreign countries get chance to sell their goods in India and we get a similar opportunity abroad. Particularly important for us are the opportunities in areas such as outsourcing, online provision of legal and medical services, exports of software and movies etc. The implementation of the Commission's recommendations will certainly provide relief to our farmers but also bring about retaliation by foreign countries and hit at the exports of our service and manufacturing sectors. The gains by our farmers will become loss for these sunrise sectors. The Commission does not deal with this aspect in its report. It considers foreign trade in agricultural commodities as standing alone in isolation. It is like the mother telling the child to study for long hours and ignoring that her eyes are becoming weak. Similarly the Commission asks for protection for Indian farmers but ignores the adverse effects of this move on other sectors. In the result the recommendations of the Commission are likely to be ignored by the Government due to opposition from other export-oriented sectors.

The fourth suggestion is to establish a Price Stabilization Fund. Agricultural commodities have witnessed steep rise and fall in prices due to natural calamities or surge in imports or exports. Such a Fund can provide assistance when the prices fall and recover the same when the prices rise. The suggestion is in the right direction but it does not solve the basic problem. The prices of agricultural commodities are showing a long term decline during the last 2-3 decades. The Price Stabilization Fund can smoothen the ups and downs of this secular decline but it cannot reverse it. The Indian farmer will continue to die due to declining long term prices. The Fund will only ensure that he is killed slowly by halal instead of quickly by jhatka. The Commission has not dealt with measures to prevent such a long term decline in prices.

The fifth suggestion is to establish a safety net for the farmers to provide them relief from the negative consequences of globalization. The Government should provide housing, education, food and nutritional supplements, health and education to the farmers. The implication is that the farmers must first be pushed into the poisonous chamber of global trade and then provided with oxygen masks to stem the ill-effects of the same. It would be better to think of measures to face globalization itself. Furthermore, the benefit of Government-led Safety Net is likely to accrue more to the Government employees running these schemes and less to the farmers just as the Primary Health Centers serve the government employees working there more than the people.

The commission should have dealt with the basic problem of agriculture. Surely, globalization will impact our farmers adversely. But the same globalization will benefit our workers in manufacturing and service sectors. It was necessary to make an overall assessment of the gains and losses from the same. The Commission should have suggested that we should abandon globalization and adopt the path of protection if it was found that on the whole globalization is harmful for our people. On the other hand, the Commission should have suggested measures to remove our large population from agriculture and redeploy them in manufacturing and services it was found that on the whole globalization is beneficial for our people. Unfortunately the Commission does not recognize this tradeoff. Instead it has taken the easy way out of suggesting that we adopt protectionism within the WTO. This suggestion will not work even if it is legally tenable. It will be opposed by our manufacturing and service sectors. The final result will be that the Government will ignore the suggestions to provide protection to our farmers because of this opposition. On the other hand, the suggestions for increasing productivity of our farmers will be implemented. These latter measures will benefit our urban- and foreign consumers. The conditions of our farmers will continue to deteriorate as previously.

Moon eclipses Shashi

By Pallab Bhattacharya

Moon has maintained his lead all along in the series of straw polls and the last one among the 15 members of the UN Security Council only reaffirmed his telling supremacy. The seasoned South Korean politician not only won the positive votes of 14 members but also the nod of all veto-holding permanent members. Tharoor, on the other hand, managed to get 10 encourage votes, three discourage votes and one did not give any opinion. The United States is reported to have given a discourage vote for Tharoor which amounts to vetoing his candidature.

Unlike the elections of Kofi Annan, Boutros Boutros Ghali and Javier Perez de Cuellar, the battle this time has been free from controversy, barring last-minute reports in British media that South Korea had announced liberal doses of financial aid to buy votes for Moon.

The election of the South Korean Minister clearly brings to focus the high profile the country, a long-standing ally of the US and a key economic power of the world, enjoys in international scene.

South Korea, which is next door to Russia and China, has not only been a US ally during the Cold War years but moved beyond that after the collapse of Soviet Union, broadening its political and economic relations.

South Korea's strategic location in the geo-politics of East Asia gives it a key status. The country occupies an important place in the US policy of containing as well as engaging China with the letter's rising economic and military might that have implications not only for the region but beyond.

South Korea is the next door neighbour of North Korea whose ambition to acquire nuclear weapons has caused anxiety across the world.

South Korea has not remained merely an American ally or protector of Washington's interests in East Asia. As the US stand on Moscow following the demise of communism changed and as Washington's ties with Beijing went from strength to strength, South Korea too sought to cement its economic ties with China and Russia.

It is a measure of maturity of South Korean foreign policy that it has refrained from toeing the hardline US posture towards North Korea on the latter's nuclear issue and suggested dialogue and moderation to solve the problem, apparently to keep China, which has strong clout with North Korea and is hosting the six-nation talks on the subject since 2003, in good humour. It is keeping China's sensibilities in mind that Seoul is not enthusiastic about India becoming a full member of an East Asian grouping.

South Koreans have worked hard to hold on to their distinct political and cultural identities despite the influence of their neighbours China and more recent aggressive inclinations of Japan.

The economic growth of South Korea has been a phenomenon at times described as the "Miracle of the Hanging River". Using export as the engine of growth, South Korea's outward-oriented economic development played a key role in its radical economic transformation, resulting in the rise of its Gross National Income from 2.3 billion dollars in 1962 to 680 billion dollars in 2004. The liberalization policy pursued by South Korea after Japan and the later joined in the course by ASEN and China is one of the main reason for turning East Asia and the South East Asia into a happening place economically.

Notwithstanding being an ally of the Washington, South Korea's biggest trading partner today in China. South Korea's largest export market is China (19.6 per cent) as compared to the US (16.9 per cent). As far as South Korea's exports are concerned, China is the second most important supplier (13.1 per cent) ahead of US (12.8 per cent), as per figures for 2005.

South Korean companies have been moving outward, partly for relocating labour-intensive industries as also for globalization of operations on the lines of multinational corporations. South Korean business groups like LG, Samsung, Hyundai, Daewoo and Dainia Telecommunications have an active business presence and are expanding their businesses.

The areas of strongest development are semiconductor, consumer electronics, automobile and shipbuilding. This clearly shows the level of competency achieved by South Korea in science and technology. In fact, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had drawn attention of the Indian scientific community last week at a function in Mumbai and said South Korea, as also China, has "leap frogged" ahead of India in its mastery over science and technology.

South Korea emerged as the fifth largest investor in India over a period of ten years. The investment in India has been mainly focused on electronics, automobiles, fast moving consumer goods and chemicals. Products of major South Korean companies like Samsung, LG and Hyundai are household names in India and they are expanding production facilities in India and smaller companies are focussing on technical collaborations.

South Korean steel major POSCO has proposed to invest 12 billion dollars in an integrated steel plant in Orissa to produce 12 million tons steel every year in what would be the single largest overseas investment by South Korea.

- PTI Feature