Indo-Pak peace will give boost to both our economies
The first decade of the 21st century was a period that witnessed many ups and downs in the India-Pakistan relationship. The period between 1999 and 2002 witnessed a high level of tension between the two countries due to a number of developments Kargil in 1999, the inconclusive Agra Summit of 2001, and the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001, resulting in the mobilisation of a million troops on the border. This ended in 2002, resulting in a thaw in the relationship, leading to former Prime Minister A B Vajpayee extending the "hand of friendship" to Pakistan. Pakistan responded by announcement of the ceasefire on the LoC which still holds.
Both countries had tried everything including wars and mobilisation of troops to force the other to accept its version of a Kashmir settlement. They failed in this. But the rising middle classes in both countries desired peace for continued growth.
This necessitated an alternative strategy for a solution of the Kashmir dispute which would satisfy the people of Kashmir, India and Pakistan.
The major features of the draft Kashmir agreement involved a gradual demilitarisation as the situation improved, self-governance and a joint mechanism involving Kashmiris from both sides as well as the presence of Pakistani and Indian representatives in some form or other. The purpose was to improve the comfort level of Kashmiris.
If you were to measure the level of progress made and the confidence generated between the two sides as a result of the peace process, you only had to look at the joint statement on the irreversibility of the peace process on 18 April, 2005 in New Delhi under the leadership of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and former President Pervez Musharraf.
. The concept of national security includes economic and political stability, and a settlement with India on honourable terms will strengthen Pakistan's national security.
While Musharraf may not be on the scene presently, national interest does not change radically over a period of two or three years.
Coming to the Mumbai terrorist attack, the best way to tackle this issue is to deny the terrorists the satisfaction of disrupting the peace process. Such types of attacks prove that there are extremist elements who do not wish India-Pakistan relations to be normalised.
India and Pakistan do wish to have friendly, cooperative and good neighbourly relations with one another. We are not destined to live as adversaries forever. The press and particularly the electronic media can play an important role in promoting peace The economic benefits that regional cooperation can bring to each other are tremendous. Hence, sooner we make peace with one another the better.
Libya badly needs the help of United Nations
United Nation's duty is to protect people against atrocity crimes. UN should today focus attention on Libya. The government here is failing in its sovereign duty and hence the people of this place need the help of international community.
At one stage Arab regimes were politically exhausted and morally bankrupt. It was the UN that provided the moral compass and intellectual leadership with the Arab Human Development Report, written mainly by Arabs themselves. Libya was also elected to the UN's main human rights watchdog.
A principle called Responsibility to Protect or R2P was formulated by UN under its secretary-general Kofi Annan. R2P was Annan's most precious achievements. UN applies R2P when the state itself is the perpetrator of atrocity crimes, when the security forces, meant to protect their people, are instead let loose in a killing spree by predatory ruler. This is the situation that Libya is facing. Not satisfied with 42 years of autocratic rule, the erratic Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is using deadly violence to crush and kill his people in open revolt against his brutal regime. He has vowed to fight to the last drop of his blood.
R2P provides the normative tool of choice and political cover to deal robustly, promptly and effectively with the threat that Gaddafi poses to his people. Doing so will also help both the UN and the West to cleanse their conscience of the stain of being passive spectators in some similar situations in the past.
R2P is narrow - it applies only to the four crimes of ethnic cleansing, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes - but deep: there are no limits to what can be done in responding to these atrocity crimes. Libya is the perfect opportunity to convert the noble sentiments and words of R2P into meaningful action through deeds.
The crisis in Libya has escalated to beyond the point of return. Calls for restraint are no longer enough. When Gaddafi says that the protesters deserve to die and his son - he who has cultivated an international image of moderation - warns of a river of blood, the world must meet the challenge, not duck it yet again. It is high time UN implemented R2P in Libya.
For Gaddafi's trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) to be morally credible, it must be backed by criminal investigations of the foreign banks that have parked his ill-gotten gains in violation of global anti-corruption agreements, and public shaming of Africans who elected Libya to the Human Rights Council and westerners who armed his thugs.
Non-violent resistance can overcome dictatorship
The rebellion in Libya was a violent one and unlike the protesters in Tunisia or Egypt, those in Libya quickly gave up pursuing non-violent change and became an armed rebellion.
Which is more effective - violent or non-violent resistance? Research shows that non-violent resistance is much more likely to produce results, while violent resistance runs a greater risk of backfiring.
At Philippines, the regime of Ferdinand Marcos fell in 1986 owing to People Power movement, a non-violent pro-democracy campaign.
A surveyor found that between 1900 and 2006 over 50% of the non-violent movements succeeded, compared with about 25% of the violent insurgencies.
Why? Non-violent movements tend to draw a wider range of participants, which gives them more access to members of the regime, including security forces and economic elites, who often sympathise with or are even relatives of protesters.
Oppressive regimes need the loyalty of their personnel to carry out their orders. Violent resistance tends to reinforce that loyalty, while civil resistance undermines it. When security forces refuse orders to, say, fire on peaceful protesters, regimes must accommodate the opposition or give up power - precisely what happened in Egypt.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak tried hard to use armed thugs to try to provoke the Egyptian demonstrators into using violence, after which he could have rallied the military behind him. But he failed and that was the end of his regime.
But where Mubarak failed, Muammar Gaddafi succeeded. What began as a peaceful movement became, after a few days of brutal crackdown by his militiamen, an armed but disorganised rebel fighting force. These rebels are unlikely to succeed without direct foreign intervention.
If the other uprisings across the Middle East remain non-violent there are chances of democracy prevailing over there. That's because, with a few exceptions - most notably Iran - non-violent revolutions tend to lead to democracy.
According to a research, from 1900 to 2006, 35% to 40% of authoritarian regimes that faced major non-violent uprisings had become democracies. For the non-violent campaigns that succeeded, the figure increases to well over 50%.
The good guys don't always win, but their chances increase greatly when they play their cards well. It has been proved that non-violent resistance can overcome dictatorship.
We should learn from Japan Many are dead, injured or missing following the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan. But there is no information on damage to other life forms.
The pressure and force caused by tsunamis and earthquakes could destroy coral reefs, fish populations, mangroves and other aquatic life. Natural disasters could be devastating not just for people but also for non-humans. What happened in Japan ought to concern us. As human beings we are not divorced from the ecosystems in which we live. No human can survive without an ecosystem to cater to his needs.
One feels shocked to see the images of devastation and suffering streaming out of Japan. The damage in terms of human lives has been shocking. This was the worst earthquake in Japan's recorded history, followed by a tsunami originating close to Japanese shores that was even more devastating.
But the credit must go to successive Japanese administrations and to civil society itself for keeping the damage to a limit. The Japanese have drawn their lessons from the past disasters. They have the most sophisticated earthquake early warning systems to an extensive tsunami warning sensor network; from building codes that keep such exigencies in mind to thorough disaster management plans at every administrative level. Yet the scale of the tragedy is colossal and Japan badly needs the support of rest of the world. India too should help in whatever capacity it can.
India must also learn a lesson from Japan. The Indian subcontinent is prone to dangerous earthquakes with five having taken place in the past two decades. A survey indicates that a big part of the country is at some risk of experiencing an earthquake, and several major metropolitan centres fall in high-risk zones. The World Health Organisation has rated India's disaster preparedness fairly well, but there is a difference between adequate policies and effective implementation. For instance, very few institutions here offer any training in earthquake engineering or integrate it with civil engineering.
Development of better building codes, strict enforcement of existing ones, creation of disaster management plans and response bodies from the local level to the central, streamlining of the relevant administrative machinery with funding and jurisdiction clearly demarcated - these are all measures the government must take, and soon. A thorough safety audit must be conducted of Indian nuclear plants - to test whether they can withstand the severest possible earthquakes.
We have to take all these measures as a kind of precaution.
The first decade of the 21st century was a period that witnessed many ups and downs in the India-Pakistan relationship. The period between 1999 and 2002 witnessed a high level of tension between the two countries due to a number of developments Kargil in 1999, the inconclusive Agra Summit of 2001, and the attack on the Indian Parliament in 2001, resulting in the mobilisation of a million troops on the border. This ended in 2002, resulting in a thaw in the relationship, leading to former Prime Minister A B Vajpayee extending the "hand of friendship" to Pakistan. Pakistan responded by announcement of the ceasefire on the LoC which still holds.
Both countries had tried everything including wars and mobilisation of troops to force the other to accept its version of a Kashmir settlement. They failed in this. But the rising middle classes in both countries desired peace for continued growth.
This necessitated an alternative strategy for a solution of the Kashmir dispute which would satisfy the people of Kashmir, India and Pakistan.
The major features of the draft Kashmir agreement involved a gradual demilitarisation as the situation improved, self-governance and a joint mechanism involving Kashmiris from both sides as well as the presence of Pakistani and Indian representatives in some form or other. The purpose was to improve the comfort level of Kashmiris.
If you were to measure the level of progress made and the confidence generated between the two sides as a result of the peace process, you only had to look at the joint statement on the irreversibility of the peace process on 18 April, 2005 in New Delhi under the leadership of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and former President Pervez Musharraf.
. The concept of national security includes economic and political stability, and a settlement with India on honourable terms will strengthen Pakistan's national security.
While Musharraf may not be on the scene presently, national interest does not change radically over a period of two or three years.
Coming to the Mumbai terrorist attack, the best way to tackle this issue is to deny the terrorists the satisfaction of disrupting the peace process. Such types of attacks prove that there are extremist elements who do not wish India-Pakistan relations to be normalised.
India and Pakistan do wish to have friendly, cooperative and good neighbourly relations with one another. We are not destined to live as adversaries forever. The press and particularly the electronic media can play an important role in promoting peace The economic benefits that regional cooperation can bring to each other are tremendous. Hence, sooner we make peace with one another the better.
Libya badly needs the help of United Nations
United Nation's duty is to protect people against atrocity crimes. UN should today focus attention on Libya. The government here is failing in its sovereign duty and hence the people of this place need the help of international community.
At one stage Arab regimes were politically exhausted and morally bankrupt. It was the UN that provided the moral compass and intellectual leadership with the Arab Human Development Report, written mainly by Arabs themselves. Libya was also elected to the UN's main human rights watchdog.
A principle called Responsibility to Protect or R2P was formulated by UN under its secretary-general Kofi Annan. R2P was Annan's most precious achievements. UN applies R2P when the state itself is the perpetrator of atrocity crimes, when the security forces, meant to protect their people, are instead let loose in a killing spree by predatory ruler. This is the situation that Libya is facing. Not satisfied with 42 years of autocratic rule, the erratic Colonel Muammar Gaddafi is using deadly violence to crush and kill his people in open revolt against his brutal regime. He has vowed to fight to the last drop of his blood.
R2P provides the normative tool of choice and political cover to deal robustly, promptly and effectively with the threat that Gaddafi poses to his people. Doing so will also help both the UN and the West to cleanse their conscience of the stain of being passive spectators in some similar situations in the past.
R2P is narrow - it applies only to the four crimes of ethnic cleansing, genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes - but deep: there are no limits to what can be done in responding to these atrocity crimes. Libya is the perfect opportunity to convert the noble sentiments and words of R2P into meaningful action through deeds.
The crisis in Libya has escalated to beyond the point of return. Calls for restraint are no longer enough. When Gaddafi says that the protesters deserve to die and his son - he who has cultivated an international image of moderation - warns of a river of blood, the world must meet the challenge, not duck it yet again. It is high time UN implemented R2P in Libya.
For Gaddafi's trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) to be morally credible, it must be backed by criminal investigations of the foreign banks that have parked his ill-gotten gains in violation of global anti-corruption agreements, and public shaming of Africans who elected Libya to the Human Rights Council and westerners who armed his thugs.
Non-violent resistance can overcome dictatorship
The rebellion in Libya was a violent one and unlike the protesters in Tunisia or Egypt, those in Libya quickly gave up pursuing non-violent change and became an armed rebellion.
Which is more effective - violent or non-violent resistance? Research shows that non-violent resistance is much more likely to produce results, while violent resistance runs a greater risk of backfiring.
At Philippines, the regime of Ferdinand Marcos fell in 1986 owing to People Power movement, a non-violent pro-democracy campaign.
A surveyor found that between 1900 and 2006 over 50% of the non-violent movements succeeded, compared with about 25% of the violent insurgencies.
Why? Non-violent movements tend to draw a wider range of participants, which gives them more access to members of the regime, including security forces and economic elites, who often sympathise with or are even relatives of protesters.
Oppressive regimes need the loyalty of their personnel to carry out their orders. Violent resistance tends to reinforce that loyalty, while civil resistance undermines it. When security forces refuse orders to, say, fire on peaceful protesters, regimes must accommodate the opposition or give up power - precisely what happened in Egypt.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak tried hard to use armed thugs to try to provoke the Egyptian demonstrators into using violence, after which he could have rallied the military behind him. But he failed and that was the end of his regime.
But where Mubarak failed, Muammar Gaddafi succeeded. What began as a peaceful movement became, after a few days of brutal crackdown by his militiamen, an armed but disorganised rebel fighting force. These rebels are unlikely to succeed without direct foreign intervention.
If the other uprisings across the Middle East remain non-violent there are chances of democracy prevailing over there. That's because, with a few exceptions - most notably Iran - non-violent revolutions tend to lead to democracy.
According to a research, from 1900 to 2006, 35% to 40% of authoritarian regimes that faced major non-violent uprisings had become democracies. For the non-violent campaigns that succeeded, the figure increases to well over 50%.
The good guys don't always win, but their chances increase greatly when they play their cards well. It has been proved that non-violent resistance can overcome dictatorship.
We should learn from Japan Many are dead, injured or missing following the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan. But there is no information on damage to other life forms.
The pressure and force caused by tsunamis and earthquakes could destroy coral reefs, fish populations, mangroves and other aquatic life. Natural disasters could be devastating not just for people but also for non-humans. What happened in Japan ought to concern us. As human beings we are not divorced from the ecosystems in which we live. No human can survive without an ecosystem to cater to his needs.
One feels shocked to see the images of devastation and suffering streaming out of Japan. The damage in terms of human lives has been shocking. This was the worst earthquake in Japan's recorded history, followed by a tsunami originating close to Japanese shores that was even more devastating.
But the credit must go to successive Japanese administrations and to civil society itself for keeping the damage to a limit. The Japanese have drawn their lessons from the past disasters. They have the most sophisticated earthquake early warning systems to an extensive tsunami warning sensor network; from building codes that keep such exigencies in mind to thorough disaster management plans at every administrative level. Yet the scale of the tragedy is colossal and Japan badly needs the support of rest of the world. India too should help in whatever capacity it can.
India must also learn a lesson from Japan. The Indian subcontinent is prone to dangerous earthquakes with five having taken place in the past two decades. A survey indicates that a big part of the country is at some risk of experiencing an earthquake, and several major metropolitan centres fall in high-risk zones. The World Health Organisation has rated India's disaster preparedness fairly well, but there is a difference between adequate policies and effective implementation. For instance, very few institutions here offer any training in earthquake engineering or integrate it with civil engineering.
Development of better building codes, strict enforcement of existing ones, creation of disaster management plans and response bodies from the local level to the central, streamlining of the relevant administrative machinery with funding and jurisdiction clearly demarcated - these are all measures the government must take, and soon. A thorough safety audit must be conducted of Indian nuclear plants - to test whether they can withstand the severest possible earthquakes.
We have to take all these measures as a kind of precaution.
No comments:
Post a Comment