Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs by Maheswaran Gnanaprakasam

Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Volume 11 | Issue 5 | May 2013

North Korea Nuclear Standoff:

Diplomacy in Crisis

Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Volume 11 | Issue 5 | May 2013

North Korea Nuclear Standoff:

Diplomacy in Crisis

Editor’s

Note

Dear Readers, Welcome to the May issue of Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine! I believe you will find this issue interesting as it covers a range of issues across the globe. Dr.Kei Koga passionately discusses ASEAN Centrality while Mr.Moeller discusses Non-Proliferation. There are two articles on Sri Lanka and its development after war. Prakash in his cover story discusses North Korean Nuclear crisis. Susan Visvanathan, the sociologist, delves deeply into her ‘Cattle Class’ travels in the ‘perspectives’ section. I hope you will enjoy all the articles, as I did. Nevertheless, I would look forward to your comments. Please mail me at mahesh@diplomacyandforeignaffairs. com. Happy Reading!

the team Editor-in-Chief Maheswaran Gnanaprakasam Consultant Editor Janaki Bahadur Kremmer Director Business Operations Vijay Chand Marketing Manish Jha Design Santosh Head Office S-442, Shakarpur, School Block, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110092 For Queries mahesh@diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com Printed and published by Maheswaran Gnanaprakasam Editor Maheswaran Gnanaprakasam Published from S-442, Shakarpur, School Block, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi – 110092 Editorial Board Professor Greg Battye, Head, School of Creative Communication, University of Canberra, Australia Dr. Kei Koga, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University Ian Taylor, Professor in International Relations and African Politics at University of St Andrews, Scotland and Chair Professor, School of International Studies, Renmin University, China Janaki Bahadur Kremmer, Senior Diplomatic Journalist, Australia Professor Alexander Huang, Director, Dean’s Scholars in Shakespeare Program, George Washington University, Washington DC

Maheswaran Gnanaprakasam Editor-in-Chief Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine Contact: mahesh@diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com Visit us at www.diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com Disclaimer The opinions/ comments from writers are their own and Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs magazine does not endorse the claims made therein.

Takaaki Kojima, Former Ambassador of Japan to Singapore and Australia Joergen Oerstroem Moeller, Former Danish Ambassador to Singapore, Brunei Darussalam, Australia and New Zealand, Visiting Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISAS), Singapore Professor Biman Chand Prasad, University of the South Pacific, Fiji, and Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Pacific Studies Tanut Tritasavit, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore

May 2013 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine |

Contents

12|

[Cover Story] North Korean Nuclear Crisis Son By The Action Of His Father?

The Endgame 04| Non-Proliferation: Or Revival

31|

UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) A Non-Starter?

End Of History And The Clash 08| The Of Civilizations Revisited

34|

Sri Lanka’s Tryst With Peace

Dilemma: Dealing With 16| ASEAN Great Powers In East Asia With Asean Centrality

37|

Sri Lanka And Its Development After War

Economic Integration Of 20| Achieving South Asia

40|

Competitive Learning Communities Australia And Canada In The Race For International Students

Nobel Peace Prize To 24| 2012 European Union - Right Party? Right Cause? Right Time?

43|

Mr. Normal Came, Saw, But Conquered Little: Hollande’s Visit To India

States Look To India For 27| Baltic Enhancing Economic Cooperation

46|

A Sociologist’s View on Travelling “Cattle Class”

| Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

NEW HOLLAND AGRICULTURE.

btsadv.com

SOWING THE SEED OF DEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT AFRICA.

A renowned world leader in agricultural machinery, New Holland Agriculture offers the widest range of equipment to suit the needs of small-scale farms up to large plantations of Africa. Powerful, reliable and easy-to-operate 2WD and 4WD tractors, highly productive combines and a full choice of attachments: all are ready to simplify your operations and to improve your productivity. Why wait? Go to see your New Holland Dealer now. You will discover a new world of quality, technology, support and success. The world of New Holland Agriculture.

New Holland Agriculture (India Plant) Plot No. 3, Udyog Kendra, Greater Noida - 201 306 Dist. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh Tel. : +91 120 3056208

www.newholland.com - www.newhollandindia.co.in

International

Non-Proliferation

The Endgame or Revival

by Joergen Oerstroem Moeller

he Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is more than forty years old. Around 190 nations have joined of which five (The U.S., Russia, China, Britain, and France) are recognized as nuclear-weapons states. Three countries not joined have acknowledged possessing nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel maintains ambiguity, but is widely believed to have such weapons. When the treaty was opened for signature in 1968 it was predicted that 25 or even 30 nations would acquire nuclear weapons over the coming decades. Recent estimates by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that up to 40 countries possess the knowledge to produce them. Compared to this the scorecard is not bad at all. As a whole the treaty has served the world very well, kept the number of nuclear armed countries to a minimum. India stated in 2007 ‘not lack of commitment for nonproliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment’ as the reason for not joining the treaty. April 2009, four years ago, US President Obama announced his vision of peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons and went on to call for strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation. These are commendable goals, but little progress has been registered since. The issue of NPTs future is now getting hot because of the recent nuclear weapon’s test – it’s the third – by North Korea and uncertainty about Iran’s programme. Is it aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons or developing nuclear know-how for peaceful purposes? The first question is whether proliferation constitutes a danger? The argument is sometimes put forward why not ‘us’ when

| Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

other powers have these weapons then? Behind this lies a feeling of insecurity among those not having ‘the bomb’; such insecurity is understandable as long as the world has not forged some kind of global governance. For a strategist or diplomat the relevant point is, however, that things are what they are and the challenge is to go from here into the future with the least risky global system not what could or should have been decided differently in the past.

Proliferation: Two Main Tasks The first one is the obvious one that the larger the number of countries having nuclear weapons, the higher is the risk that one or several may miscalculate and start a nuclear war not deliberately – which is very unlikely – but by a wrong reading and interpretation of opponents intentions. As World War One shows, war may break out even if the involved nations do not really want it because they are be trapped by contingency planning, war plans, inferiority complex, wrong perception of enemy’s intentions, or calculation that they can only win if they strike first. In war games policy makers act rationally, bur as history so clearly reveals this is not the case when psychological stress influences judgments and decisions. War games about World War Two do not lead to the battle of Stalingrad and if so Nazi Germany wins. A similar picture is shown by war games about the Napoleonic War, the battle of Waterloo does not happen and if it does Napoleon wins. The second one is that nuclear weapons may end up in the hands of fanatics not ruling out their use. Mao Zedong chocked his Soviet communist comrades stating no fear of nuclear war – at least not to the extent they did. But he was rational in his own way; China would survive. Genuine fanatics may be ready to die in pursuit of religious fulfillment and feel justified in taking the lives of millions of people seeing themselves acting with God’s

The power balance in the Middle East and adjacent countries like Turkey and Iran is very fragile. Since 1980 there have been three major wars and a number of minor military conflicts blessings. Unfortunately, around the world a number of nationstates with a weak political infrastructure may succumb to fanatics – collapse – and rational regimes may be replaced by irrational ones, ready to use the ‘bomb’ presenting the world with a problem to use an understatement. Seeing the writing on the wall it is high time that rational nations with or without nuclear weapon find out how to stop further proliferation. It is all very well to ask for first best – a nuclear free world – but this is beyond reach for a foreseeable future. Second best is to step in now with effective measures to stop proliferation. If not done and ambitions for first best stand in the way we may all end up with the dilemmas sketched above. And there is writing on the wall triggered off by the behavior of North Korea and Iran. South Korea has contacted the U.S. for openings to produce its own nuclear fuel. On paper this is not tantamount to go for nuclear weapons, but in reality it will wake up sleeping dogs in East Asia asking why South Korea wants to take such a step. North Korea’s 1998 launch of Taepodong-1 missile led to a debate in Japan about its defense policy and in 2006 former Prime Minister Nakasone is on record saying that “There is a need to also study the issue of nuclear weapons”. Taiwan may also reconsider its stance. China will wonder what is going on. Once the dice has start rolling it cannot be stopped.

Middle East Predicament

Suspected North Korean Nuclear Facility

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

International

and what it is namely a fundamental shift in the power balance unilaterally undertaken by Iran. Indeed Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul stated in December 2012 “Turkey will not accept a neighboring country possessing weapons not possessed by Turkey herself. We are not underestimating this matter in any way”. Some people may think that he was referring to Israel, but there are no news about Israel and nuclear weapons, which is the case for Iran – and Iran is a neighboring country sharing a long border and with little love between these two powers having vied for imperial power over centuries. It is an open question what Saudi-Arabia might do if Iran is in possession of the ‘bomb’. The only option that can safely be ruled out is that it will do nothing. Behind this veil lies the possibility of a sinister alliance. North Korea and Iran feel under threat from the U.S. They have watched U.S. foreign policy over the last two decades, listened to U.S. rhetoric, and seen what happened to Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Colonel Gadhafi in Libya. Iran still remembers the coup orchestrated by Britain and the U.S. in 1953 against Mohammad Mossadegh and American support for Saddam Hussein during the war between Iraq and Iran. Decades of American sponsored

sanctions is not easily forgotten. North Korea has since the Korean War 1950-1953 feared the U.S. Both countries draw from this the conclusion that the U.S. means it when speaking about regime change and they see themselves next in line. Their foreign and security policy is steered by one single objective, which is to prevent this from happening. And they see possession of nuclear weapons and capability to deliver such weapons as the most suitable and probably the only way to prevent it. Not surprisingly they have approached each other. It is known that Iranian experts were present at the North Korean test. Last year the two countries signed a scientific and technological cooperation agreement. Little is known about the content, but what is known about their science and technology is that it is geared to produce nuclear technology and ballistic missiles.

Asia and US The American pivot to Asia may play a role. North Korea sees it as threat enhancing U.S. capabilities for possibly enforcing regime change. Iran may see a weaker U.S. in the Gulf auguring a super power vacuum to be exploited. It may be farfetched guess, but it is possible maybe even

The American pivot to Asia may play a role. North Korea sees it as threat enhancing U.S. capabilities for possibly enforcing regime change

NPT Conference Delegates Gather during the Final Plenary Session

| Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul

likely that North Korea’s test was performed not only on its own behalf, but also to test some of Iran’s technology and tell the Iranians whether they are on the right way. Many small things form a total picture. North Korea has restarted its Yongbyon nuclear plant shuttered in 2007. According to news reports it used existing stockpiled nuclear material for the test so one wonders why it needs to restart the Yongbyon plant. It has the bomb, why go for more nuclear material? A clue may be found in other news reports saying that Iran has led it be known that it will keep its nuclear programme inside the limits, which Israel and the U.S. see as the defining line for taking further action. Maybe the explanation is that Iran does not need to step up its production of nuclear fuel if it can get it from North Korea. These may all be speculations – wrong or correct ones, times will tell – but they speak their own language telling that unless global political action is undertaken and time is running out fast the world may become an even more dangerous place where the fear of nuclear weapons in the hands of unreliable regimes or outright terrorists organizations has moved from a bad dream to reality. It is understandable, but unforgiveable forgetting the nexus of nuclear weapons: deterrence – not potential use. This worked with the U.S. versus the Soviet Union and India versus Pakistan. North Korea plays the threat of nuclear retaliation to avoid efforts to enforce regime change. This has worked, but the more uncertain and insecure North Korea feels, communicating this fear to its neighboring countries by enigmatic statements delivered with

Turkey will not accept a neighboring country possessing weapons not possessed by Turkey herself. We are not underestimating this matter in any way a strident voice, the more their anxiety grows that the game has changed from deterrence to potential use. They deter North Korea via the American nuclear umbrella. It only prevents them from building own nuclear weapons as long as they classify the American commitment as credible. The North Korean sabre rattling becomes a question of U.S. credibility instead of North Korea’s intentions. Iran may look at nuclear weapons as a deterrence against American sponsored regime change, but neighboring countries regard them as a potential threat irrespective of whether that is or is not Iran’s intentions. They will therefore consider own nuclear weapons to deter Iran. Proliferation means that nuclear weapons can and will be used as crisis management instrument instead of deterrence: a conceptual shift from avoiding war to gamble on bullying others. Crises are initiated to squeeze concessions out of an opponent. Countries having nuclear weapons will be tempted to do exactly that vis-à-vis neighbouring countries not having these weapons. Therefore proliferation inevitably leads to more crises played out between nations in incongruous positions – one having nuclear weapons, the other side not. These observations reveals why the world is at the threshold where nuclear weapons through deterrence may have worked as a – somewhat repulsive, but none the less effective – peacekeeping instrument to take on a role as a destabilizing armament obscuring nation’s intentions and complicating the diplomatic game of signaling intentions to other countries. n

about the author Joergen Oerstroem Moeller is Visiting Senior Research Fellow at Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS), Singapore. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Singapore Management University & Copenhagen Business School.

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

International

The Disintegration of USSR Brought about a change in the order of International Relations

The End of History and the

la h o

ivili a ion Revi i ed by Dr. Morris M. Mottale

t the end of 1992, the Soviet flag was lowered in the Kremlin and it was replaced by the flag of the Russian Federal Republic. The Soviet Union was dissolved and the international system saw the creation of 16 new states. These states were Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kirgizstan, Belarus, and a state that no one recognized Transnistria. To this last political entity, one should add also, new ones in the Caucasus including, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Nagorno Karabakh.

Yugoslavia & Czech Republick Shortly after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the constituents republics of the Yugoslav Federal Republic broke away, and by 2010 they were Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, and the Republic of Kosovo. By the mid 90â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the Czechoslovak Federation broke up into the Czech Republic and the Republic of Slovakia. In Europe only one state disappeared, East Germany, which was absorbed into West Germany.

South Sudan By the year 2012, the republic of South Sudan declared its

| Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

independence and broke away from the northern part of a country that had been artificially created by the British as they left their empire in 1956. The rise of pan-Islamism and political radicalism saw after a coup in Mali, the creation of another breakaway state centered on the nationalist aspirations of the Tuaregs in Mali. In east Africa, Northern Somalia, also known as Somaliland, formerly a British colony had practically broken away from Somalia itself and was for all purposes an Independent country.

East Timor Farther east in Asia, East Timor became independent after many decades of Indonesian rule; the government in Jakarta gave to them the independence they always sought after the departure of Portugal in 1974. Constant international talks of a Palestinian state had seen instead the creation of two quasi-independent political entities, one on the west bank and one on the Gaza strip.

Arab Peninsula In the Arabian Peninsula, South Yemen and Aden, which had become independent in 1967 breaking away from British rule had joined the Republic of Yemen in the north in 1991, and by 2011, southerners were trying to secede in the wake of revolutions,

assassinations, and terrorism and the presence of Al Qaeda in the eastern parts of the former Peoples Republic of South Yemen. The fall of the Soviet Union ushered also new concepts on the theories and models of international relations. President Bush Sr. had talked about a new world order but it was not a new approach to the evolution of the international system. The term had a pedigree that went back to the period following World War I. Following World War II it had been used by many statesmen in reinterpreting the configuration of power in the international system. Bush Sr.’s new world order saw shortly a debate on the new configuration of power in the wake of the disintegration of the Soviet political block. Francis Fukuyama began the debate by writing a book titled The End of History and the Last Man where he argued that after the demise of the Marxist-Leninist block, Liberalism and liberal capitalism were going to become the common thread in the international system. It was however a perspective that he himself modified later on by noticing that economic development cannot be separated from cultural developments and that by extension, liberal capitalism cannot necessarily be imposed so easily without some of the preconditions that shaped the economic evolution of Western Europe and North America. Though, even in this case one has to point out that the term capitalism is so generic that it can be meaningless if not analyzed in the context of local and national developments. In fact, American capitalism is different from Canadian capitalism as much as German capitalism is different from Italian or Japanese capitalism, though many critical theorists continually harp on the contradictions of an abstract notion of capitalism in the international system, especially in light of the economic crisis that gripped Europe and North America from 2007 onward. Fukuyama’s book elicited many responses, and the most outstanding one was an essay written by Samuel P. Huntington in Foreign Affairs in the summer of 1993. It was subsequently turned into a book. “It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.” He added on “Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase in the evolution of conflict in the modern world.” Huntington’s original essay elicited a widespread response, a lot of which was negative, with leaders and pundits denying its validity, often fearful of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Huntington, in his essay and in his book, identified international conflict in terms of clusters of nations linked by common religious cultural identities. He thus posited a Euro-American civilization, a Latin American, an Orthodox, an Islamic, an African, a Hindu, a Confucian, and a Japanese one. There were countries at that time that he could not necessarily place in one group or another, such as Mexico, Israel, and Turkey.

Kaplan’s thesis had Malthusian overtones but in many ways it was an echo along with Fukuyama’s work and Huntington’s of historicist arguments that had characterized the 18th and 19th century intellectual developments in Western Europe

Is Anarchy on its Way Up? In February of 1994 Robert D. Kaplan wrote an essay for the Atlantic titled The Coming Anarchy which complemented in many respects Huntington’s thesis and contradicted Fukuyama’s model of the new international system. The essay eventually became a book and also came to be matched by another work of Kaplan called The Ends of the Earth. Kaplan’s arguments were drawn from his travelogues during which he noticed that the termination of the Cold War had not brought peace and prosperity but rather environmental degradation, famine, disease, ethnic conflicts and last but not least “mafia states.” From Sierra Leone in West Africa to the Balkans, through the Caucasus and all the way to Cambodia, the expectations of a more decent international system were shattered by the experiences that he reported. Kaplan’s thesis had Malthusian overtones but in many ways

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

International

Francis Fukuyama, Author of The End of History

None of these civilizations, economic or political or cultural alliances are strong enough to impose their will on their real or imaginary competitors

it was an echo along with Fukuyama’s work and Huntington’s of historicist arguments that had characterized the 18th and 19th century intellectual developments in Western Europe. During this period, the rise of nationalism fired by the dynamics of the French Revolution of 1789 brought about notions of race, nation, language, and national missions that in turn were shaped by extrapolations from the Darwinian theory of evolution. These notions shaped perspectives on international relations that saw history often as the unending conflict between nations and civilization struggling for survival and preeminence. Huntington’s arguments are not new, it was very common in the 19th century to talk about French, German, or Russian civilizations. By the time that imperialism came to flourish in Europe and in the World, pan-Germanism, pan-Slavism, matched by pan-Turanianism, pan-Arabism and panIslamism some generations later in the Middle East, shaped the perspectives of intellectuals and literati confronted by Europe’s cultural preeminence.

and political blocks, often opposed or critical of each other, gives some evidence to clashes of civilizations where clusters of nations group against other economic or political blocks. Cases in point could be NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Area, which sees the United States, Canada, and Mexico in one free trade area, as opposed to MERCOSUR which includes the most important economies of South America, Brazil and Argentina. The expansion of the European Union is another example. The Arab League and the OIC, Organization of Islamic Cooperation, are examples of political alliances linked to an Islamic ideological construction. The Ibero-American Summit that sees Portugal and Spain trying to strengthen their political and economic ties with their former Latin American empires is another case in point. The African Union is another example. Kaplan’s arguments about Mafia states and environmental degradation are also valid to some extent since there are states and areas in the international system that fit his paradigmatic image such as Somalia, Afghanistan, and Kosovo.

Old and New Testament Influences: Eschatology

Limitations of Civilizations

The pedigree of these arguments can be even traced back to the Old and New Testament as the end of history in Judeo-Christian theology is linked to eschatology. The same arguments are also to be found in Zoroastrian cosmology and in Gnostic notions of the end of the world. In the Judeo-Christian theological developments, the apocalypse bring on a messianic age which puts an end to history as we know, ushering an age of peace and harmony. For Karl Marx, the end of history meant the fulfillment of a historical trend that saw capitalism as the last age of the socio-economic evolution of mankind and the beginning of a new human community based on radical notions of wellbeing and egalitarianism. Marx posits that this will happen because of the internal contradictions of modern capitalism and the inevitable conflicts between classes. Thus, for Marx, the “end of history” is turned into the mastery of history by a new human community that comes to radically control its own destiny at both the individual and collective levels following revolutionary upheavals. From an empirical and measurable standpoint, the validation of these models is rather problematic. Undoubtedly, capitalism in its many variations has spread from Western Europe to the world at large. Notions of a legal-rational economic system linked to individual liberties and private property and a market economy are certainly more prevalent today than fifty years ago. On the other hand, it is also true that the existence of particular economic

As it is, none of these civilizations, economic or political or cultural alliances are strong enough to impose their will on their real or imaginary competitors. It is interesting to note that even cooperation with the United Nations Security Council is not necessarily successful in controlling or diffusing conflicts in many areas of Africa or the Middle East and Asia. The nature of political instability in the breakdown of law and order for example in many African countries strengthens the case that cooperation between civilizations, international organizations, military alliances, and free trade areas increase trade and social mobility across international lines. Last but not least, instant mass communication do not necessarily imply that internal or external conflicts can necessarily be managed or controlled by states putatively committed to the peaceful resolution of conflicts. n

10 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

about the author Dr. Morris M. Mottale, Professor of International Relations and Comparative Politics, Chair, Department of Political Science, Franklin College, Switzerland

Cover Story

North Korean Nuclear Crisis

on he ion o i a her

by Panneer Selvam Prakash

orth Korean nuclear crisis once again grabbed global media attention. AlJazzera claims this was the first time North Korea crisis was widely discussed in the social media such as Twitter and Facebook. More than sensational news, North Korea crisis has the real crux to discuss as its new supremo trying to prove his citizen that he is capable of handling any crisis in Korean peninsular. What seems unusual about this new crisis in Korean peninsular is swift response from the US, Japan and South Korea. Many scholars presume the US and its allies over evaluating the threat, which otherwise seems normal. Following daily threat from North, Secretary of State John Kerry visited East Asia to build consensus among the allies and to buy Chinese support to constrain DPRK. On his maiden overseas visit, John Kerry met the new Chinese President Xi Jingping to share the US concern about the East Asian security environment, which recently witnessed untoward incident such as, failed launch of Kwangmyongsong-3 unit-2 satellite into orbit on December 2012 and Nuclear weapon test by DPRK on February 2013 etc. China

12 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

firmly committed to the denuclearization of Korean peninsular and pledges to uphold peace and stability of the region. Following the meetings with Mr. Kerry, China’s top diplomat Yang Jiechi said, “China is firmly committed to upholding peace and stability and advancing denuclerisation process on the Korean peninsular.” Further, both sides agree to resolve through peaceful means. Since, North Korea is a major economic and political ally of China, it isn’t clear that Kerry was able to get China onboard to pressure North Korea to abort the dangerous mission. According to Chinese state media report, China would work with Washington-TokyoSeoul to defuse the tension. As the threat seems to be imminent from North Korea, Japan and South Korea which fall within the missile range have already taken precautions measure by setting up PAC-3 system around major cities and Japan deployed Aegis battle ships in Sea of Japan to counter any ballistic attack from North Korea. But, Dr. Andrei Lankov, one of the leading voice on DPRK says, “It is just normal North Korean diplomacy.” For Dr. Lankov,

whenever North Korea believes that its time to start negotiation and in order to get more aid and political concession from the outside world they start manufacturing threat. Moreover, to grab global media attention North Koreans put Seoul and Tokyo on the line fire to look like Korean peninsular on the blink of war. Dr. Lankov call it is just a “normal show;” not the brink of war. If North Korea wants to attack, they will attack without warning. So, the mere daily threat from North Korea will not suffice Korean peninsular at war. Scott Snyder points out “North Korean diplomats frequently employ aggressive rhetoric as well as threat brinkmanship as tactics for extracting additional concession in order to maximize the benefit to Pyongyang.” It is understandable North Korea negotiating from the weaker position uses aggressive rhetoric and “bluster as a signal of defiance against foreign attempts at undertaking coercive diplomacy towards the DPRK. Nevertheless, no one can rule out North Korea’s nuclear and missile capability, which remain fundamental issue disturbing the regional peace and stability.

How Serious is North Korean Threat North Korea poses multidimensional threat to East Asia. These dimensions include, clandestine nuclear weapon, sinking of South Korean naval ships, bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island in 2010 and intrusion of DPRK spy ship into Tokyo’s territorial water, and Pyongyang’s abduction of Japanese nationals and deployment of intermediate and short-range ballistic missiles. In the past, Kim Jong-Il continuously pursued hostile relations with the US-Japan-South Korea alliance and prompted to develop WMD weapons along with ballistic missile as deterrence to the US forces in East Asia. Strategic experts fear that continuing political confrontation between North Korea and US over Korean peninsula lasting several years; can lead to spiraling nuclear attack by North Korea over US forces stationed in Japan or popular cities in Japan. Since 2006, North Korea conducted three underground tests and constantly working on its nuclear weapon capability. According to US Director of National Intelligence report, February 2013 nuclear test was to develop a “smaller and light” warhead.

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Cover Story

At a minimum, the test would provide North Korea ability develop miniature nuclear warheads that can be mounted on long-range missiles. The new report citing Defence and Intelligence Agency (DIA) says that the “North Korea currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivering by ballistic missiles however the reliability will be low.” The US strategic community believes that Pakistan scientist A.Q Khan might have provided North Korea with Chineseorigin nuclear weapon design. The HEU-based device would help North Korea to develop a warhead for the ballistic missiles. It is estimated that North Korea enough plutonium to produce at least half a dozen nuclear weapon. North Korea’s Ballistic missile program started way back in 1990’s and it had the history of successive launch of Ballistic missiles into Sea of Japan. In 1998, North Korea launched a ballistic missile based on Taepondong-1 over Japan. Furthermore on July 5, 2006, North Korea launched six ballistic missiles in a single day to demonstrate its force capability. This missile test is most significant improvement in ballistic missile capability of North Korea, because these launches marked the highest number of missiles ever fired by North Korea in a 24-hour period. The operation of missile launched by using Transporter-ErectorLauncher (TEL), multiple and serial launches of different types of missile within a short period of time and launch before dawn is a indicative of the improvement of North Korea’s capability of missile launch. North Korea itself claimed high priority to ballistic missiles not only to enhance its military capability but also to earn foreign currency. Nodong is designed to carry both conventional or WMD

14 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

warhead with a maximum range of 1000 kilometer, Nodong can over fly South Korea and reach most part of Japan, including US bases, but it cannot reach the United States. According US defence agency North Korea currently possesses around 100 Nodong-1 missiles. Moreover, Nodong missile component is been used as a referring technology in building long-range ballistic missiles like Taepodong. The two stages, long range Taepodong-1 has range of 1500-2000, designed to carry nuclear warhead and could reach all of Japan. The missile that fired by North Korea over North Japan in 1998 is belonging to North Korea’s Taepodong-1 variant. Adding together, North Korea has developed Tapeodong-II two stages with range of 4000-6000 kilometer and had maintained credible ballistic missile force armed with WMD weapons. In addition to its ballistic missile capability North Korea has developed a cruise missile program based on Russian and Chinese technology, and striving to develop anti-ship cruise missiles based on Chinese silkworm anti-ship cruise missiles. Another area of concern is WMD threats; North Korea’s ballistic missiles are quite capable of carrying nuclear, chemical and biological warhead. North Korea is an extremely closed country, detail of its biological and chemical weapons are still unclear. According to Defence white paper of Republic of Korea published in December 2006, North Korea stockpiled approximately 2,500 to 5,000 tons of variety agents, including nerve agents, remain stored in a number of facilities scattered around the country and that North Korea is able to produce biological weapons such as the bacteria of anthrax, small pox and cholera. In 2008, a strong initiative by US, Russia, China,

...the major challenge for the US, China, Japan and South Korea is to bring North Korea to table for discussions

Japan and South Korea pressurized North Korea to dismantle nuclear weapon program, as a first step in renouncing nuclear weapon Pyongyang demolished the cooling tower of a particular nuclear plant as a symbol of resolving the nuclear crisis in East Asia. And it has also agreed to allow six-party country members to visit and inspect their nuclear site. But, in 2009 despite international pressure North Korea proceeded with the launch of Taepondong-2, which resulted UN sanction on North Korea. The North Korean government responded by immediately expelling nuclear inspectors from the country and restarted the nuclear weapon Programme. The non-compliance character of North Korea to international norms should also be taken into account as it may step back any time from its commitments and reactivating its nuclear facilities. Apart from that, possibilities of using chemical and biological warheads are still prevalent to attack the US-Japan-South Korea in case of war. Assuming North Korea is a non-nuclear power may wipe out Korean-Phobia; nevertheless North Korean ballistic missiles are still lethal.

Son by the action of his father? The death of Kim Jong Il placed North Korea at a crossroad in the formulation of its diplomatic and security policy. Following the death of Kim Jon II, The Central Committee of the workers party appointed Kim Jong-Un as the Supreme Commander of armed forces in a sign that he is consolidating his power base. Many western scholars feared that the transition might turn into violent power struggle leading to cross border conflict. However, North Korea and its leadership remain defensive in its approach to the US, South Korea and Japan, until last December when the new leadership decided to test Kwangmyŏngsŏng-3 Unit 2, followed by Nuclear test on February 2013. The United Nation Security Council (UNSC) took quick and unanimous decision to tighten financial restrictions on Pyongyang. The UNSC decision comes just hour after North Korea vow to launch nuclear attack against its aggressors and threatening to pull out from the armistice that ended Korean War.

To show the severity of the situation North Korea discontinued the hotline between North and South Korea, further Pyongyang suspending the operations from the joint-Korean Kaesong industrial zone, “one of the last relics of cooperation between North and South Korea” escalated tension in the region. In the wake of the ongoing crisis, many scholars share the same opinion that under the new leadership of North Korea is aggressively pursuing its ambition over nuclear weaponization program. Kim Jong II’s regime uses nuclear test as a leverage to bully international community for economic and aid. So far, his son Kim Jong Un has not shown any sign of continuing his father ambition. However, as a young leader Jim Jong Un is more willing to shun China as a sole powerful backer. Kim from Seoul University told Reuters “Compared to his father…Kim Jong Un seems to be chanting his own path when it comes to China.” The reason for the recent hiccup in the relationship between North Korea and China started when North Korean began to ignore China’s warning over nuclear tests. In response, China summoned the North Korean envoy after recent nuclear test to lodge strong protest to show dissatisfaction over North Korean’s new move. In the recent North Korean crisis, it is apparent that the North Korea and China political equation is not going well, which might bring temporary instability to the region. As a rational actor North Korea could have to strengthen its relationship with China and South Korea to maintain its status quo to save the face of the new leader Kim Jon Un.

Conclusion From here, the major challenge for the US, China, Japan and South Korea is to bring North Korea to table for discussions. Talking to North Korea is the only viable option to reduce the tension in the region. At the same time, it is the perfect timing to resume the six-party talks immediately and unconditionally to normalize relationship with North Korea. Whenever North Korea is in need of economic concession or aid Pyongyang resorted to the strategy of blackmailing international community with nuclear weapons. Therefore, the new leadership can’t defy the tradition set by his grandfather, then followed by his father Kim Jong Il, now Kim Song Un also have to take the similar position for the survival of the regime. So, international community should show maximum restraint in North Korea to allow diplomacy to play the effective role. n

about the author Panneer Selvam Prakash is presently a research scholar at East Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University and was visiting fellow to JMSDF Staff College, Tokyo

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Asean

ealing

ilemma

i h rea ih

by Dr.Kei Koga

This principle of “ASEAN Centrality” derives from ASEAN’s negative experience in the late 1980s due to the establishment of the Asiaaci c conomic Cooperation (APEC) forum

16 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

o er in en rali

ince the end of the Cold War, ASEAN has engaged the outside world and pursued to play an active security role within East Asia. In 1994, ASEAN created ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), in which regional powers such as the United States, Japan, and China met to discuss security issues in the region and beyond. In 1997, ASEAN+3 was created in order to manage regional issues, especially economics. In 2005, the East Asia Summit (EAS) was established by inviting Australia, India, and New Zealand in addition to the ASEAN+3 member states and in 2011, the membership was expanded to the United States and Russia. In 2010, ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting (ADMM) expanded its membership to include all members from EAS and formed ADMM Plus. By inviting the regional great powers, ASEAN has two objectives: one is to maintain the constant attention of the great powers to ASEAN and the other is to avoid political marginalization from them. To this end, ASEAN attempted to maintain its post-Cold War fundamental principle of regional multilateralism: ASEAN Centrality.

ASEAN Centrality Principle This principle of “ASEAN Centrality” derives from ASEAN’s negative experience in the late 1980s due to the establishment of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum. The APEC was initiated by Australia and Japan and was strongly supported by the United States. However, it became an institutional threat to ASEAN, if fully developed, as it would be replied upon by the regional great powers in shaping regional order and could potentially marginalize ASEAN’s political raison detre in East Asia. In response, ASEAN created the “Kuching Consensus” in 1990, which aimed to limit APEC only as “a consultative forum on economic issue,” and attempted to prevent formal institutionalization of APEC by constraining its functional

expansion. This negative experience led ASEAN to seek ways to prevent political marginalization from the great powers. During the same period, ASEAN was also concerned about the future of great power politics in Southeast Asia in the postCold War era. As the US-Soviet relations relaxed and the Soviet forces withdrew from the Asia Pacific region, the United States also began to militarily disengage from the region. Meanwhile, China and Japan were considered to play a more active political and military role in the region. These strategic uncertainties created a momentum for ASEAN to establish ARF, initially aimed to build confidence among the regional great powers. At the same time, ASEAN created ASEAN Centrality in hopes to avoid political marginalization from these powers by being assured the position of chair or co-chair at any given meeting and maintain influence on the agenda setting and meeting procedure.

The Working Principle This principle worked well due to two main political conditions existing in East Asia. First, there was strategic uncertainty in the region. The level of political and military commitment by the United States fluctuated since the early 1990s: the 1992 collapse of the Soviet Union made the US political and military commitment to Southeast Asia unclear, United States did not bail out the Asian economy after the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis as it was deemed as “crony capitalism,” and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq led the United States to focus more on the Middle East. In this context, ASEAN has become a useful framework in which the potential political power vacuum in Southeast Asia could be filled. In addition, ASEAN became a framework in shaping the regional political outlook instead of balancing and counterbalancing political powers among the member states. Second, the Sino-Japanese political rivalry in East Asia

South China Seas

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Asean

created a better condition for ASEAN Centrality. Since it would be difficult for either Japan or China to be a leader without creating regional blocs, ASEAN could utilize this rivalry to lead East Asian multilateralism. Since 1997 with the establishment of ASEAN+3, Japan, the existing great economic power in Asia, and China, the potential future economic leader in the region and beyond, often had political disputes over the development of the regional economic, political, and security multilateral frameworks in East Asia. The establishment of EAS in 2005 is a case in point. China strongly supported the Malaysian initiative to create a strong political regional framework through EAS by including only ASEAN+3 member states while Japan vigorously supported the Indonesian initiative to include other democratic states such as Australia, India, and New Zealand. As such, the regional great powers could evade direct confrontation by positioning ASEAN in the middle. In short, “ASEAN Centrality” well functions under the condition that there are certain political tensions among regional powers. In this condition, gaining support from ASEAN, which includes all 10 Southeast Asian states, regional powers can dramatically increase their political leverage over their rivals, thus making ASEAN a subject of interest and attention. Nevertheless, this trend has been gradually shifting. Regional powers are now shifting their strategy from competing for the balance of influence to competing for the balance of power in the region. In fact, East Asian security environment began to change in 2009 when China and other regional states started to intensively engage in territorial disputes with each other. The trigger for this intensification at the international level was China’s official territorial claim of the “nine-dash line” (U-shaped line) of the entire South China Sea, which was submitted to the United Nations on May 7, 2009. This claim was made in response to the Malaysia-Vietnam joint submission on May 6, 2009, which was criticized by China and the Philippines. The Chinese counter-claim also invited severe criticism from the Southeast Asian states, including Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and

In short, “ASEAN Centrality” well functions under the condition that there are certain political tensions among regional powers Vietnam. Moreover, there has been an intensification in territorial disputes over the Senkaku Islands between Japan and China. This began in September 2010, when a Chinese fishing boat collided with the Japanese Coast Guard boats. This incident caused public demonstrations in both China and Japan, instigated territorial nationalism, and further strained Sino-Japanese relations. These confrontations have not been quelled, but instead have heightened diplomatic and military tension between China and other claimant states in East China Sea and South China Sea. These powers have shifted their defense doctrines and sought bilateral defense linkages with outside powers. For example, Japan issued a new National Defense Program Guideline in 2010, which asserted the necessity for Japan to cautiously watch (counter) China’s increasing military capabilities. Japan also aimed to strengthen bilateral linkages including the US-Japan alliance and strategic partnership with India as well as trilateral dialogues with US-Australia and US-South Korea. The Philippines sought a strong reassurance of the US defense treaty commitment as well as other defense linkages such as maritime cooperation with India and Japan especially after the 2011 Reed Bank and 2012 Scarborough Reef incidents. Vietnam also attempted to strengthen outside security linkages, as indicated by the 2012 US-Vietnam defense memorandum of understanding (MOU). All of these maneuvers in East Asia indicate that the behavior of regional powers is ultimately based on the “balance of power” logic, balancing and counter-balancing beyond ASEAN’s institutional frameworks.

A China marine-surveillance ship, foreground, is shadowed by a Japanese coast-guard vessel in territorial waters off the Senkaku/ Diaoyu islands in the East China Sea on Friday, Sept. 14, 2012

18 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

Indonesia’s President Yudhoyono, Myanmar’s President Sein and Brunei’s Sultan Bolkiah arrive for a group photo during the ASEAN Summit in Bandar Seri Begawan on April 25, 2013

Moreover, ASEAN also faces internal division. Admittedly, ASEAN has faced this difficulty since its inception in 1967. The expansion of the membership throughout the 1990s has further increased ASEAN’s vulnerability as larger numbers creates difficulty in reaching a consensus in any decision, but particularly on traditional security issues and the internal division has gradually widened. As rivalry of regional powers intensifies, they bypass ASEAN and individually engage with member states in order to strengthen their balancing or counterbalancing acts. This “divide and rule” strategy would likely weaken ASEAN solidarity, which is essential for “ASEAN Centrality”. In fact, this trend was illustrated in the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in July 2012, when ASEAN could not issue a joint communiqué due to disagreements over the description of the South China Sea between the Cambodian chair pressured by China and the Philippines. In this sense, “ASEAN Centrality” is now under pressure both externally and internally.

ASEAN Actions and/or Inactions So, what can ASEAN do? It is true that without economic and military capabilities that match regional powers, ASEAN cannot flex its muscles and pursue power politics. But instead, ASEAN could focus on redefining its affiliated institutions of EAS, ADMM Plus, and expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum (AMF). In fact, ASEAN has not yet lost its comparative advantages in shaping the East Asian security landscape and still attracts several great powers. Japan’s recent diplomatic maneuver illustrates this point. Previously, Prime Minister Abe advocated in his article, “Asia’s Democratic Security Diamond” (December 2012), that Japan should create strategic linkages among “Australia, India, Japan, and the US state of Hawaii” to “form a diamond to safeguard the maritime commons stretching from the Indian Ocean region to the western Pacific.” Though this article did not mention ASEAN as a part of Japan’s strategy, Abe shifted its strategy when he visited the 4 ASEAN states as part of the 40th anniversary of ASEAN-Japan relations in January 2013. His speech, “The Bounty

of the Open Seas,” which was originally planned to be delivered in Indonesia, demonstrated 5 principles for Japan’s diplomacy: democratic values, rule of laws, open economies, cultural exchanges, and human exchanges. Furthermore, Abe placed ASEAN as “a supremely vital linchpin in terms of its importance to our diplomatic strategy.” In addition, ASEAN and India elevated their relations to “strategic partnership” and issued a Vision Statement in December 2012, which further incorporated issues of maritime security and freedom of navigation. These facts indicate that ASEAN and its affiliated institutions still possess comparative advantage in shaping the East Asian security landscape and could become the regional public goods in contributing to maintain regional maritime stability. It would be key for ASEAN to go beyond creating fora for discussion or negotiation within the member states and establish a monitoring mechanism to maintain maritime status quo, as territorial disputes are likely to intensify through fait-accompli strategy of claimant states. This mechanism requires institutional emphasis on preventing threat or use of force over such territorial disputes. Coordinating the existing frameworks of EAS, ADMM Plus, and expanded AMF, can buttress such mechanism by weaving functionalities of various government levels. As many argue, a window of opportunity opens for only a short period of time. It is time for ASEAN to seriously consider these options if it wants to remain its central position in Asian multilateralism. n

about the author Dr.Kei Koga is a Research Fellow at Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University.

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Asia

hieving E onomi n egra ion o o h

by Md. Joynal Abdin

hough South Asia covers 4,488,300 sq kms of the world’s surface area with a population of 1.5 billion, still it has only a negligible share of the world’s total volume of trade. Most of the people of this region are living below the poverty line. Only mutual initiatives towards economic integration can play a vital role in upgrading the standards of living of the poor people. Economic integration in general is a process of removing progressively the discriminations which occur at the national borders. Such discrimination may affect the flow of goods and services and the movement of factors of production either directly or through economic activity via the factor of production.

Opposite Outcomes Academicians have predicted two opposite outcomes, both positive and negative. Negative effects include the possibility that the infant industrial sector may not survive the open market competition or that the sick industries might face ruin. On the other hand, positive effects in the short-run include inland ‘trade-

20 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

creation effects.’ But that must outweigh trade diversion effects in order to achieve beneficial trade liberalization. However, apart from short-run benefits, there are also the long-run benefits such as greater technical efficiency due to greater competition, larger markets, higher consumer surpluses, and more foreign investments. There are five main stages of regional integration such as free trade areas, customs unions, common market, economic union and total economic integration. Such stages are the outcome of policy decisions taken by regional inter-governmental forum and/or supranational institutions in order to affect the depth and breadth of regional integration.

Integ at on and ts ene ts The meaningful integration through increased participation in the global/regional economy generates a lot of benefits. These include: » There is efficient allocation of resources due to the changing

production patterns promoting comparative advantage; » Domestic competition gains international standards of efficiency; » Wider options are available to consumers; » The ability increases to tap international capital markets for smoothing consumption in the face of short-term shocks (as well as to achieve higher long-term growth; and, » There is exposure to new ideas, technologies, and products, etc. Our journey through South Asia Free Trade Arrangement (FTA) and some other existing initiatives to form more FTAs among the member countries created the awareness for economic integration. But we must have to remember that there is a long way to reach the destination. Proper initiatives, commitments and timely actions are required to have success. In south Asia, almost all the countries have some strengths and weaknesses. But all limitations can be overcome, if they share their strengths among themselves. Private sector is the only key player in this Endeavour under the prevailing global economic dispensation.

was a historic action by the South Asian countries to facilitate trade liberalization and later formation of SAFTA. South Asian leaders should realize the importance of an effective SAFTA in the light of European Union (EU).

Actions Towards Economic Integration in South Asia

A. Barriers removing

ROLE DEFINITION BFTAs: Only two bilateral free trade arrangements (BFTAs) are in operation in South Asia namely, India-Sri-Lanka BFTA, and Sri-Lanka-Pakistan BFTA. The proposals for establishing IndiaPakistan BFTA, Pakistan-Bangladesh BFTA and India-Bangladesh BFTA are under consideration. The steps so far are encouraging but not up to the mark for economic integration.

Usually there are three types of problems in trans-border business. These are - tariff barriers, non-tariff barriers and nonroutine barriers. Tariff barriers are getting removed according to the agreement declarations but non-tariff barriers may be more effective in some cases. On the other hand, some new problems are arising day by day. These may be for short period, though those may be more dangerous than any others. These types of problems may be addressed as non-routine barriers. First steps towards economic integration should be to remove all sorts of barriers to international business.

SAFTA through South Asian Preferential Trade Arrangement (SAPTA): Introduction of South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA)

Role of private sector: All arrangements of economic integration are bound to fail if private sector does not play its role effectively. Private sector has to play the final game because they are the doers. They have to guide the government about how they might achieve their expected benefit. They have to bring the problems they face to the notice of the government in doing trans-border business among the signatory states. Government will communicate these problems to be solved by the state concerned. Inputs for any technical or business negotiation have to be supplied by the business community who are actually doers of the job. These inputs can be used as core text of the speech of the ministers concerned in the forum and taking necessary measures to farther advancement.

China, Japan, 14 other Asian nations to start trade talks

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Asia

Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Bhutan have to be connected through functioning roads and transit facility should be ensured B. Negative list A country must think of its own industries but those should not be used as barriers to the major exportable goods from other countries. If any common product is there, market should be opened up to face competition. We must have to remember that open competition increases efficiency. Some may argue that infant or sick industries have to be protected. On this score, we must think about the strategic advantage. If any industry has strategic advantage, it will have to continue; otherwise, it will die even after lots of subsidies. For example, in Bangladesh, the readymade garment (RMG) is the energetic sector from the day it was born in 1980s. But jute remained in infancy since the British period. However, at the same time some jute mills are also making enough profit.

C. Rules of origin Rules of origin must not be more stringent than that prevailing under SAPTA. The Federation of Bangladesh Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FBCCI) therefore advocates nonrestrictive and simplified rules of origin, based on value addition criteria (summation of freight on board (FOB) value of exports - summation of cost insurance freight (CIF) value of imports >or = 30 per cent) to match their industrial capabilities as in SAPTA,

with derogation of 20 per cent value addition for RMG and other such labour incentive exports products.

D. Free Movement of People Till now visa procedures of SAARC countries is very complicated. To facilitate economic integration at first free movement of goods, services, investment as well as people has to be ensured. Primarily visa system should make easier and intra-SAARC connectivity should be ensured.

E. Recommendations The following trade facilitation measures should be implemented as an obligation to ensure enabling trade policy and governance for smooth and speedy movement of goods across the borders which can make FTA effective as well as work to build confidence among the nations, which lead us towards the next step of economic integration: Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Bhutan have to be connected through functioning roads and transit facility should be ensured. More generally, we can say that trucks from any country should have the right to enter any signatory state without prior permission with legal goods. Cross-border trade regulations and documents do and to be harmonized by an end date. A South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)harmonized tariff nomenclature at eight digit level should be created based on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Systems (HS) of the World Customs Organization. There should be online publications of relevant trade regulations and procedures, including fees and charges, in the local language and in English. Simplification of customs procedures do need to aim at

Kick-Off Meeting on the Multilateral Project, between ASEAN and European Union, ‘SEATIDE – (Integration in Southeast Asia: Trajectories of Inclusion, Dynamics of Exclusion)’, to be held at Chiang Mai University

22 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

Members must adopt and notify non-restrictive, locally administered, automatic and transparent import licensing procedures at least for the regional trade cutting the time taken and cost of transactions at each customs point. Regional customs action plan should be implemented. An effective appeal procedure has to be put in place for customs and other agencies’ rulings must be in place. Effective measures should be taken to ensure cosmopolitan environment which will help to ensure more business transactions. Transport and communications infrastructures, port and warehousing facilities must be developed to benchmark levels within a time frame. Direct shipping and air links with necessary support and incentives provided by the respective governments have to be established Bangladesh and other least developed countries (LDCs) must ask for immediate compliance of Articles V, VIII and X of the GATT 1994 by the non-LDCs and notify their transit measures and tariff schedules, NTBs and regulations on rules of origin, labeling requirements, customs clearance and appeal procedures to SAARC Secretariat. Private sector specialists should have facilities to take part in the negotiation for effective dialogue among the states. One ‘problem dealing authority’ can be established to quickly respond to any problems in the field level of operations. They must have to be authorized to take necessary actions according to international law without waiting for political decisions of the government concerned. Non-tariff measures/barriers: Import licensing; Members must adopt and notify non-restrictive, locally administered, automatic and transparent import licensing procedures at least for the regional trade. Instead of Kolkata handling import licensing for Tripura, the licensing office should be opened in Agartala. Technical Regulations and Standards: Member countries must harmonize TBT and SPS measures (on prioritized traded products) to streamline flow of traded goods. The SAARC/Regional Accreditation Body must be established and in the meantime technical regulations and standards conformity assessment certificates issued by the respective designated national public or private sector institution must be accepted. Non-acceptability of conformity assessment certificates of any

particular product, if and when arise, should be resolved by mutual cooperation without restricting its trade. Technical and financial assistance must be ensured for capacity building in this regard. National treatment must be accorded to charges and fees for imported products at the rate applicable for similar domestic products. Fees levied must be limited in amount to the approximate cost of services rendered and should not represent an indirect protection to domestic products or for fiscal purposes. Trade restrictive and discriminatory registration, labeling and testing requirements should be removed by extending most favored nation (MFN) and ‘national treatment’ to imported products. Labeling and testing requirements without any valid scientific grounds must be waived. Customs valuation: Customs valuation must not be used for protective purposes or as barrier to trade. A common interpretation of the GATT/WTO valuation agreement should be adopted to ensure uniformity and standardized implementation of the agreement. Information exchange: Member states must ensure exchange of vital information on the prevention and repression of smuggling, trafficking of narcotics and psychotropic substances, and other customs frauds. All these issues have to be recommended from the private sector to their government concerned for raising the same during international negotiations with the states concerned. Private sector will also have to work as pressure group to the governments concerned so that these recommendations may be implemented as early as possible. n

about the author Md. Joynal Abdin is Progra fficer esearch at S E Foundation, angladesh

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

International

o el ea e ri e o E ro ean nion Righ ar Righ a e Righ Time by Prof. B. Krishnamurthy

lfred Nobel, a Swedish industrialist and inventor, in his guidelines for the peace prize, made it explicit that it should honour the individuals/institutions, who/which “work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” Since its inception in 1901, 92 Nobel Peace Prizes have been awarded to 125 Laureates so far and out of these, organizations have got the award 24 times. For instance, United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) got it in 1965; International Labour Organization (ILO) in 1969; United Nations Peacekeeping Forces in 1988; International Campaign to Ban Landmines

(ICBL) , Jody Williams in 1997; Médecins Sans Frontières in 1999; United Nations (UN), Kofi Annan in 2001; International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) , Mohamed ElBaradei in 2005; Grameen Bank in 2006 and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. in 2007. Interestingly, a couple of organizations have repeated the feat of getting the award more than once: Comité International de la Croix Rouge (International Committee of the Red Cross) was awarded three times in the years 1917, 1944 and 1963 and Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was awarded twice in 1954 and 1981.

From left: European Council President Van Rompuy, European Commission President Barroso, and European Parliament President Schulz with the Nobel diploma, Oslo, Dec. 10, 2012

24 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

...the Nobel Peace Prize Committee clearly mentioned that the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize is being awarded to the EU and its forerunners for their over six decades contribution “to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” European Union This Time For 2012, the European Union (EU) has been chosen for the Nobel Peace Prize amidst welcoming comments and acerbic criticisms. The present attempt is to raise the issues connected with the Union and to try to answer: Whether the EU is the right party to receive the award? Whether it stands for right cause? And, Is it right time for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to choose the EU for this prestigious award? In the Citation of the award the Nobel Peace Prize Committee clearly mentioned that the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize is being awarded to the EU and its forerunners for their over six decades contribution “to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe” and for their achievement to transform Europe “from a continent of war to a continent of peace”. Again, the Committee justified its choice of the Union by maintaining that the work of the EU represents “fraternity between nations”, and amounts to a form of the “peace congresses” to which Nobel refers as criteria for the Peace Prize in his 1895 will. The EU, the only existing example of post-modern polity, is being eulogized as “a unique project that works for the benefit of its citizens and also for the benefit of the world”. José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, while welcoming the award, maintained that the EU remains “the most important ever project for peace“. Herman Van Rompuy, European Council President, joined him by claiming that the EU is “the biggest peacemaker in history“. Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament, pointed out that the Union has blossomed into “a unique project that replaced war with peace, hate with solidarity”. It is quite natural for the leaders of the Union to claim so and to revel in the momentary glory.

Criticisms: Why EU? However, the choice of the EU for the peace prize attracted criticism from different quarters. The objectives of the EU and what it stands for in the continental and international politics are questioned. In an open letter to the Nobel Foundation, Tutu of South Africa, Mairead Maguire of Northern Ireland and Adolfo Perez Esquivel from Argentina, all Nobel peace prize laureates, demanded that the prize money of 8 million kronor ($1.2 million) not be paid out this year, as they felt that the EU “clearly is not one of ‘the champions of peace’ Alfred Nobel had in mind” when he created the prize. They are of the opinion that the EU condones “security based on military force and waging wars rather than insisting on the need for an alternative approach.” The critics have also point out that it is not the right time to honour the EU. The Union’s gross domestic product continues to shrink and a wide variety of indicators are pointing to a

further slump in the economic prospects of Europe. The bloc’s financial disarray is threatening the euro - the common currency used by seventeen of its member states – and in the process, even the structure of the union. The debt crisis has stirred deep tensions between north and south, caused unemployment to soar, sent hundreds of thousands of its citizens into the streets to protest tax hikes and job cuts and is also fueling the rise of extremist movements. Moreover, the European crisis has serious implications on the global economy and other countries expect the EU to urgently undertake certain corrective measures to extricate itself from the present perilous predicament. Besides, Euro-skeptics, who always react ridiculously lowly whenever the Union got some recognition for its monumental work, joined the fray and the Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders, was at his ridiculous best when he asked: “Nobel prize for the EU. At a time Brussels and all of Europe is collapsing in misery. What next? An Oscar for Van Rompuy?”. Nigel Farage, Head of the antiEU, Independence Party of UK, called the peace prize “an absolute disgrace”. In this situation, let us try to find out the answer whether the EU is:

Right Party? While assessing the suitability of the EU for the Nobel peace prize it is imperative to suggest that ‘war’ rather than ‘peace’ is ‘human’. History suggests that war, and not peace, is the “normal” condition of “civilized” human society. In about 5,600 years of recorded human history there have been around 14, 500 wars, or 2.6 a year and of 185 generations of man’s recorded experience … only ten have known unsullied peace and Europe’s contribution to this dubious record of mankind was quite substantial. In the words of John Foster Dulles, Europe “always sat on the powderkeg and was always ready to burst into flames”. In the post-war period, through the efforts of Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman, Europe launched its ‘Peace Mission’ within and with the world at large. The European integration project brought in a remarkable transformation of European politics, the deliberate abandonment and rejection of centuries of machtpolitik and a sincere and serious effort is being made to establish a stable, united Europe with long-lasting peace. The founding fathers of the project hoped that economic integration would make conflict unthinkable and fostered a vision of “an ever closer union” of the states and peoples of Europe. The Union has blossomed into a European family of nations - of prosperous countries sharing their prosperity with less endowed fellow-members.

Right Cause? Scholars consider the EU as a civilian power (François Duchane);

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

International

Nobel Committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland

soft power (Joseph Ney Jr.) and normative power (Ian Manners) and as such, a sui generi or unique power in international politics. The Union remains firm on its stand on ‘No’ to war as an instrument of state policy to achieve foreign policy goals and also fixed this as a criteria for membership of the Union. The leaders of the Union have learnt to keep the narrowly defined national interest under control and to achieve it through common interest. This realization and positive efforts towards achieving it ensured uninterrupted peace and prosperity to the continent and to the world at large. In the international politics and in dealings with the ‘third’ countries, the Union is putting a premium on international organizations, multilateralism and multipolar world order. Again, in its external relations, the EU is busy with its promotional programmes of democracy, respect for human rights, rule of law and good governance. The Union is quite right in establishing a link between human rights and peace, since human rights violations not only result in war but also become cause of war and consequent disturbance of peace. The EU has proved to be a benign patron/mentor and purveyor of grants to the countries belonging to the group of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) and Asian and Latin American (ALA) countries. While the European Community Humanitarian Office provides more than 25 per cent of all humanitarian assistance, the EU member states’ combined efforts contribute a further 25 per cent and thus the Union provides more than half the world’s emergency aid. It is noteworthy that the Union has decided to dedicate the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize money, along with a matching grant, thereby bringing the total amount to 2 million euros (or around $2.5 million) to those children who have lost their opportunity to get proper education due to man-made disasters and conflicts.

Right Time? Again, this is the right time to award the EU, a time when

26 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

whatever it stands for and what ever it achieved so far all these years are being challenged from within and Germany, which always remained the motor of the European integration programme and borne the burden of financing it, is being questioned by its own people. The need of the hour is rededication on the part of the member countries, especially Germany, for the cause of Europe and peace and to reconcile to the idea of going to the rescue of the erred Greece and Spain, thereby saving them, the ‘euro’ and the Union.

Concluding Remarks The Nobel Peace Prize Committee either honours lifetime achievement or promotes a work in progress, and while choosing the EU, it does both. Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjoern Jagland is not quite off the mark with his claim that it “looks backward as well as forward” by recognizing the EU’s historical role in building peace, but it does so at a time when nationalist forces that once tore the continent apart are again on the rise. European nationalism, which had proved a monster, needs to be restricted and restrained. The European ‘project’ deserves to succeed for the welfare and well-being of the Europeans and of the world at large. The EU is worthy of encouragement not only for its past achievements of about sixty years but also for what it is capable of achieving in the decades to come. n

about the author Prof. B. Krishnamurthy, Centre for European Studies, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India

Baltic States

al i

o ndia

for Enhancing Economic Cooperation by Dr.K. B. Usha

stonia, Latvia and Lithuania, together known as Baltic states, that regained independence from erstwhile Soviet Union in 1991, currently look towards India as one of their main destinations in Asia for enhancing economic cooperation. They view India as an emerging global power with an impressive economic growth, vision of technology and innovation, a reliable strategic partner of European Union and a place of potential market

The Ambassador of Estonia to India H.E. Vijlar Lubi submits his credentials to the President of India

and business opportunities. Besides these, India’s credentials as the world’s largest democracy and a shared perception of common cultural roots also give impetus to the Baltic states to enhance economic cooperation with India. The Baltic media reported that India’s economy, according to forecasts, should grow to become the fifth largest in the world by 2025. If this becomes a reality, Indian economy probably will be larger than Germany’s. Therefore, Baltic media suggest, this is the right time to see how Baltic states can establish closer relations with India. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have already taken step towards strengthening bilateral relations and economic cooperation with India. They highlight the fact that their strategically significant geographical location as gateway to Europe, Nordic region and Russia, educated and skilled labour, logistical support, developed infrastructure and all weather ports will provide Indian investors to trade goods in the Baltic region. In order to boost relations with India, Lithuania is the first Baltic country that took initiative by establishing its embassy in India in July 2008. This gave momentum to the diplomatic relation between India and Lithuania that started with a slow pace from 27 April 1992. Lithuania has many reasons to opt India as a significant investment destination. The IndoEuropean background, ancient Indian influences in Lithuania, India’s credibility as an emerging global power and business opportunities are factors attracting Lithuania’s attention to India. Recently on the occasion of presenting letters of credence on 2 April 2013 to the new Lithuanian Ambassador to India, Laimonas Tallat-Kelpsaon, the President Dalia Grybauskaite reiterated the above aspects. In a press release she stated: “India is one of the world’s biggest economies, therefore it is important for Lithuania to look for specific business niches in this country attracting more investments.” The President also noted that “common IndoEuropean roots can be impetus for boosting the interest of Indian entrepreneurs, scientists and artists in Lithuania and enhancing Lithuania’s visibility in India.” History also testifies that Baltic states had a strong fascination towards India and a long tradition of oriental/Indology studies. Indo-European comparative linguistics and mythology studies of the nineteenth century revealed the linkages between Lithuanian language and Sanskrit, the ancient Indian language

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Baltic States

and also between the pre-Christian Lithuanian religion and Hinduism. Lithuania has linkages with ancient Indian civilization and religion. Romuva, the pagan Baltic religion has similarity with Hindu rituals and deities. As philosopher Antanas Andrijauskas observes, “Lithuanians were encouraged to take a deeper interest in the countries of the East not only by the growing ideology of national rebirth but also by widespread theories about the origin of the Lithuanian nation in India and about the closeness of Lithuanian to Sanskrit.” Mahatma Gandhi, Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekanada and such Indian philosophers were familiar to Lithuanians. Gandhian principle of non-violence, i.e., the heritage of India, greatly inspired the Baltic states in regaining independence from the mighty Soviet Union through their peaceful “singing revolution”. Lithuania and India celebrated in 2012 year long events to mark the twenty years of diplomatic relations. During the meeting various cultural, business and academic related programmes have been organised. Diana Mickevicus, Minister Consular in the Lithuanian embassy in India, published a book on India entitled, All of My Indias which discusses about the diversity of India. In a meeting with Indian firms Diana pointed out the advantages

for Indian companies to invest in Lithuania that include Klaepeda port as a main trading point of Indian goods in the Baltic region, fiscal and financial support to investors, free economic zones, industrial parks, world class medical and technical educational facilities at a lesser cost, collaboration with laser technology projects, and so on. There is a great interest in Baltic states on Indian tradition and culture including dance, music, yoga, Ayurvedic system of medicine, etc. In all the Baltic states Iskon (Hare Krishna) movement is very popular. There are Ayurveda and yoga centres in Baltic states. Lithuanian Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs Asta aisgirytŏ ia ienŏ who isited ndia in 2 2 stressed these facts and called for more cultural and academic ties besides trade and commerce. The Minister emphasised that India is Lithuania’s partner in Asia. Indian students’ interests in Lithuanian universities are growing. Lithuanian tourists visiting Goa and Kerala began increasing. Ayurveda is one of the main attractions of Lithuanian tourists in India. Om Prakash Lohia, Honorary Consul of the Republic of Lithuania in India, pointed out that the Indian investors positively evaluated the business climate and infrastructure in Lithuania, and bilateral relations should only

In order to boost relations with India, Lithuania is the first Baltic country that took initiative by establishing its embassy in India in July 2008 grow in the future. According to Lithuanian trade data, bilateral trade in 2009 was $ 117.9 million and in 2010 $ 184 million. In January-November 2011, India-Lithuania bilateral trade stood at $ 200 million. As of mid-April 2013, Indian exports to and imports from Lithuania estimated to Rs.41.49 crores and 70.22 crores. In Lithuania, major items of import from India include pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, textiles and consumer goods. The major items of export to India include machinery and mechanical appliances, high tech optical instruments, base metals and articles of base metal, chemicals, sulphur, lime and cement. Logistics and information technology are some important areas of joint projects between India and Lithuania. Indian Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs) are secured by Lithuanian software. Estonia has opened embassy in New Delhi on 13 February 2013 as a major step towards developing partnership and cooperation with India. Inaugurating embassy in New Delhi, Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet, who was accompanied by a 25 member business delegation told, “Estonia could be

an important link in the trade route between India and Russia and European Union”. Paet emphasized, “Estonia is located in a strategically advantageous place and is a suitable base for business activity towards the Nordic countries, European Union countries, and Russia.” Estonia seeks to intensify Indian investment in logistics, transport and IT sector. The Minister asserted about the advantage of internet in doing business in Estonia where nearly 98% of bank transactions and 90% of income tax returns are done through internet. A double taxation treaty with India is entered into force on 20 June 2012. This treaty came into effect in Estonia from 1 January 2013 and from 1 April 2013, in India. India’s trade with Estonia is modest. In 2011 Estonia’s trade with India was 0.5% of Estonia’s total trade. As of mid-April 2013, India’s trade with Estonia showed export and import amounts of 45 and 21.51 crores respectively. Major items of import from India include pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, textiles, cotton, leather products, tea and metals. Imports from Estonia include copper, iron and steel, paper products and machinery. Latvia sees India as one of the largest markets in the

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Baltic States

Since the re-establishment of diplomatic relations in 1992, India’s cooperation with Baltic states is evolving friendly and warmly in various spheres including diplomatic relations, economy, trade, science, education, culture and parliamentary affairs

world with enormous unrealised potential. On 31 January 2013, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Republic of Latvia hosted a round table discussion entitled Opportunities for Latvia’s Business in India, which was aimed at promoting exchange of information and opportunities for economic cooperation between Latvia and India. The Indian Visa Application Centre was inaugurated in Riga on 30 January 2013. A Centre for Indian Studies and Culture was inaugurated in the University of Latvia on 29 October 2012 under the Chairmanship of Prof. Sigma Ankrava. Latvian leadership also expressed their intension to open embassy in India very soon to enhance bilateral cooperation. As per Indian trade data, bilateral trade between India and Latvia stood at $ 202 million in 2009-10. As of mid-April 2013, India-Latvia trade in terms of export and import is estimated to 37.01 and 9.46 crores. Indian exports to Latvia include tea, coffee, tools, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, garments, iron & steel, etc. Indian imports include chemicals, fertilisers, iron & steel, machinery, etc. Indian investment in Latvia is about $ 1.7 million. There are around 42 registered Indian ventures in Latvia which range from production to marketing to software development. For India, friendly Baltic states act as unsaturated new markets that offer high potential of investment opportunities as members of European Union. Two important cooperation frameworks of the area remain significant concerning the development of economic relation with India: the European Union and the Baltic Sea Region (BSR). India has good relations with EU and many countries in BSR. EU is one of the main sources of investment in India. Bilateral economic data on India’s trade with Baltic states record an increasing trend. Many Indian companies started viewing the prospects of Baltic Sea Region (BSR) as a region advantageous to India to enter into European market. The BSR market itself is an added incentive to Indian investment. BSR is in search of Indian investment in several sectors such as life sciences, engineering and IT & telecom. Indian companies like Indorama, Wipro, Tata Consultancy Services, Larsen & Toubro and Bharat Forge have started investing in the region. Indian government has also begun taking interest in Baltic states. Tourism, construction of infrastructure and engineering technologies, pharmacy, financial services and trade are potential areas of economic cooperation between India and Baltic states. Since Baltic States are members of EU and Lithuania will be taking up the EU presidency in 2013, Latvia in 2015 and Estonia in 2018, these states become significant actors in EU. In view of enhancing mutual cooperation, various

30 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

institutions had been established such as the Centre for LatvianIndian Culture in Riga (1994), Latvian-Indian Friendship Society (1998) and India-Lithuania Forum (2010). In December 2010, an India-Latvia Parliamentary Friendship Group in Latvian Saeima (parliament) was set up. India will be taking measures for expanding Indian operations in this part of European Union. Indian political leadership is currently pursuing negotiations on Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement between India and EU. Global economic crisis, global economic management, sustainable development, climate change, maritime piracy, terrorism, reconstruction of Afghanistan after 2014, etc are some common issues that are concerns of both Baltic states and India. Based on common values, relations between Baltic states and India should be enhanced in the coming years. To conclude, since the re-establishment of diplomatic relations in 1992, India’s cooperation with Baltic states is evolving friendly and warmly in various spheres including diplomatic relations, economy, trade, science, education, culture and parliamentary affairs. Several agreements of cooperation have been signed. Mutual visits have been taking place. Recently, Baltic states, hit hard by the economic and political crisis of Europe, began looking for expanding the horizon of their international relations beyond Europe and towards Asia. They began to consider India as a serious partner. However, in comparison to China’s involvement in the region, India’s presence in the Baltic states seems to be minimal though India projects itself as an emerging global power and attractive destination for foreign investment. Geographic distance and high cost may be some serious challenges that affect the speed and time of enhancing relations. Since Baltic states began showing more interest now in expanding economic relations with India, Indian leadership has also taken Baltic attempts seriously, evolving modest cooperation and trade relations between the two entities has more potential for further enhancement. n

about the author Dr.KB Usha is Assistant Professor in School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

International

UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) by Dr.J Jeganaathan

n a bid to curb illicit global arms trade, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly has adopted the much-awaited Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) with overwhelming vote of153 to 3 with 23 abstentions. It is interesting to note that India, Russia and China abstained whereas Pakistan voted in favor of the treaty. This is a great achievement of civil society organizations such as Oxfam which have been spearheading the campaign to highlight the humanitarian consequences of the illicit and unregulated trade in conventional arms. This article critically reviews the UN ATT from a systemic perspective and also examines the Indian reservations. As per the treaty, the onus is on the supplier or exporter (state) to ensure that the weapons sold are not diverted to perpetrate human rights abuse or genocides. The importers will now have to audit their arms procured with human rights record in consultation with the exporter. From the normative perspective, the treaty is no doubt an indispensible mechanism to reduce human suffering by preventing or regulating the illicit trade of arms, which accounts for a large scale human rights abuses and war crimes. The key focus of this treaty is to regulate

ar er

the international arms ‘transfers’ which includes export, import, shipment and transit. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which studies recent trends in international arms transfers, reports that the volume of international arms trade of major conventional weapons in the period 2008-12 was 17 per cent higher than the period of 2003-07.

UK vs China – China Wins The top five biggest suppliers were western countries such as the USA, Russia, Germany, France and the UK. However, the SIPRI notes that China has replaced the UK of late. Interestingly, the top five biggest recipients were all Asian states accounting for 47 per cent of imports in the same period. Of course, arms flows from west (Europe and US) to east (Asia) in which the SIPRI also underscores the flow of the arms to Africa and Middle East has also increased recently. In this context, the ATT is nothing but yet another normative regulatory mechanism inflicted on developing countries. It is no less than the existing normative arms control regimes such as the Ottawa Treaty and Oslo Process which exhibit

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

International

the same intention but have proved to be inefficient. In general, the Treaty bears no relation to politicosecurity realities but only enables perceived moral policing in international arms trade. It holds the importer liable for human sufferings comes out of disproportionate use of lethal weapons by the importing states and exempts the exporter from any moral obligations. For instance, if India imports attack helicopters from France and uses it against insurgents on its own soil causing widespread human suffering due to collateral damage. In such a piquant situation, the ATT enables France to immediately intervene and probe India on the incident without any political hesitation. This not only infringes on a state’s sovereignty but also will weaken state’s legitimate capacity to fight against errant nonstate actors such as terrorists or armed insurgents.

Universal Appeal Lacking The Treaty therefore lacks universal appeal and fall short of an equitable standard of treatment in arms trade. Although the intention of the Treaty, as clearly explained in Article 1, is to reduce human suffering and to prevent and eradicate the illicit trade in conventional arms and their diversion, the implementation aspects of the Treaty does not outline any independent, nonpartisan mechanism. Rather, it encourages the signatories to voluntarily establish and maintain a national control system. This is mere duplication of the existing arms control mechanisms. It is well known to the world how credible those national regulatory systems are and it only adds extra cost to the importing countries to create and maintain such institutions. Article 6 is the most controversial section of the Treaty, which elucidates the prohibitory rules. One of the rules says that the transfer of arms shall not be authorized if the transfer violate its obligations under measures adopted by the UNSC, in

PGA Side Event to the UN Conference on an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)

32 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

ATT is nothing but yet another normative regulatory mechanism in icted on developing countries particular arms embargoes. This simply aims to deprive or isolate recalcitrant regimes such as Syria or Iran from their defensive capacity. For instance, the EU has operated an arms embargo against China since the 1989 Tiananmen Square incident and as per the Treaty no other signatories shall transfer arms to China. The other important section of the treaty argues that “A state Party shall not authorize any transfer, if it has knowledge at the time of authorization that the arms or items will be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Convention of 1949 or other war crimes defined by international agreements”. It is so ludicrous how a state party would come to know whether ammunitions or munitions received would be used to commit genocide or war crimes unless it is a prejudiced judgment. In the present format the Treaty will not serve its intended purpose unless it is amended to address the new realities and actors of international security.

Indian Misgivings The Indian reservations were well articulated in the UN General Assembly by Amb. Sujata Mehta. However, the Indian argument merely points out the technical loopholes in the treaty that can be rectified or could have been amended during the process. But many third world countries including some of the African countries

US Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates (right) escorts Indian Minister of Defense A. K. Antony

endorsed Indian reservations as legitimate and constructive despite being bullied to vote in favor of the Treaty by the European Union (EU). The EU actually played a strong role in building consensus on the outcome of the Treaty. For the EU, the Treaty provides an equal platform to the old and new exporters, mostly European countries and also sets new normative standards in the arms trade. However, the EU did not vote as a block for unknown reason. Since the majority of the exporters are Europeans, the EU has considerable space to negotiate certain clause among its members and garnered their voice and support. In fact, the ATT was completely patronized by the EU as part of its normative role to build a better world. India has now diversified its source of imports to include many European countries. France and Germany have emerged as key supplier of strategic weapons such as combat aircrafts and careers. Its traditional dependence on Russia, the principal supplier of arms to India, seems waning due to India’s ambitious modernization projects. According SIPRI report, India currently imports 70% of its armament which accounted for 12% of global imports. Alas, India’s imports were 109% higher than that of China, which turned to be the largest exporter mainly to Africa and Pakistan. This sudden spur in imports is due to the need to upgrade armed forces and rectify weapons shortage and also attributes to the inefficiency of domestic indigenous arms industries, which failed to meet India’s defense needs on time. This was even emphasized by the Indian Defence Minister in his recent defense expo held in Bangalore. India needs a ‘Smart Defence’ policy that will regulate and regenerate its armed forces in coping with the global security change. The other important point that India finds missing in the Treaty is Terrorism and non-state actors and it is exactly for this reason that Pakistan voted in favor of it. The ATT has to be seen in the context of the ongoing Arms race in South Asia, especially between India and Pakistan. This would single out

the rationale and scope of the Treaty in the Indian context. It is incomprehensible why India would raise this as an issue because Article 11 of the Treaty, which talks about diversion implicitly, would address this issue in a comprehensive manner.

Perspective on India Has India missed the bus on ATT? There is a strong belief that India has missed the bus to become an acknowledged nuclear power by voting against the NPT, citing the same reservations. Unlike the NPT which India squarely opposed for its structural biases, India’s reservations on the ATT could possibly be accommodated in the existing ATT text through amendments, which can happen only after six years from now. Here is where India’s diplomatic gimmicks lie. This period is very crucial for India’s ongoing military modernization, which is able to be completed in six years and could turn India from the largest importer to exporter guild. It seems that India has reserved its option to negotiate certain terms and conditions of the Treaty to satisfy its supreme national interests as well as its global leadership aspirations. India wants to reserve its rights to use weapons to protect its defense, security and foreign policy interests and therefore India’s decision is intended to strike a balance between its supreme national interests and international norms and values. n

about the author Dr.J.Jeganaathan is Research Fellow at Institute of Peace and Con ict Studies IPCS , ew elhi

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Asia

Sri Lanka’s

i h ea e

by Dr. J Jegan Naathan

ri Lanka, then known as Ceylon achieved political independence on this day in 1948 from the British yoke. Like many other South Asian countries, Sri Lanka celebrates this day as a national day in order to remember their national struggle for freedom. It is also commemorated to revere their freedom fighters and recall their heroic sacrifices. Unlike its neighbours who got the total independence from British, Sri Lanka was granted a dominion status and remained so until it became the Republic in 1972. Today it turns 65 as a nation. It has endured many hard times including the three decade long ethnic conflict that had not only demonised its society but also undermined its political vitality. What does this political Independence mean today to Sri Lanka? Or, what did the political independence mean to it? It may have many meanings, but the real gist is more of political than social. The answer to the fist question lies in the answers to the second one. A cursory view of the history of Sri Lanka’s independence movement is enough to understand the holistic meaning of the political independence, which was fought peacefully yet fiercely by the people of Ceylon, but for the people of Sri Lanka. It did not appear to mean, at least in spirit that independence for certain groups as it has evolved later on. Sri Lanka’s tryst with destiny is intrinsically linked to peace and ethnic harmony. The period between 1948 and 1972 was crucial in shaping Sri Lanka’s political history. During these 24 years the country had prospered economically and also witnessed political progress towards a socialist republic. Although the political powers were not devolved, minorities enjoyed a considerable political space in which they could negotiate their linguistic and cultural rights with the majority rule government. The Bandaranaike-Chelvanayam pact is a political testimony of that time, which intended to give special autonomy to provincial councils in order to address the communal differences between Sinhalese and Tamils. Unfortunately, the pact was abrogated arbitrarily. It appeared the post-independence political process of building a republic nation was swiftly hijacked by extreme ethnonationalism. Similar attempt was also made in India soon after its independence-promulgating Hindi as a national language in order to build a pan-India identity, which ended up abruptly. It also

34 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

reflected the fact that would run parallel to the popular discourseIndependence movement was aimed to assert or establish a single identity based on particular ethnicity supplemented by religion, language and culture. This process of political alienation, cultural castration and linguistic extinction had not only created a polarised polity but also affected the social fabric of the island nation that had just began to embrace modernity. What happened after 1971 is nothing but the effect of this polarised socio-political process characterised by jingoism and ethno-nationalism that had not only distorted the very meaning of political independence but also diluted the spirit of pan-national identity of Sri Lanka. It is high time for the people of Sri Lanka to revisit that pluralistic political culture while reconstructing their socio-political identity.

War for Peace Sri Lanka witnessed one of the longest and brutal civil war in South Asia. The ethnic conflict between the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) and Tamils have devastated the lives and livelihood of Tamils. It also crippled the economy of the country for three decades. Like any war the social impact of all four editions of Elam war between two rivals is immense and difficult to reconcile. As the famous quote by Albert Einstein says that “nationalism is an infantile sickness and it is the measles of the human race” (Einstein, The World As I See It, 1934), the Sri Lanka is severely infected by this nationalism illness. Neither Buddhism, which is considered to be a panacea for all human problems nor the modern political system supposedly built on democratic foundation based on equality, fraternity and liberty have cured this carcinogenic syndrome. Differences lead to disagreements and then to disenchantment, which resulted in destruction. It is believed that survival of one ethno-national identity depend on the annihilation of the other. As a result, both parties were at indefinite war for peace. Can peace be achieved through war? Mahatma Gandhi once said, “There is no way to peace, because peace is the only way”. This holds an in depth meaning to Sri Lanka polity. Thirty years of civil war brought only misery, fear, and distrust to Sri Lankan society. Although the war ended in 2009 with the total annihilation of LTTE, it has left an indelible scar among Tamil

Protests against Sri Lanka in London on Alleged Human Rights Violations during the War Against LTTE

community. Unless that is healed and consoled through political accommodation and reassurance, ethnic reconciliation of Sinhalese and Tamils for a strong and vibrant nation will be a distant dream. The present GoSL has made a remarkable progress in the post-war rehabilitation and reconstruction process despite volley of external criticism and allegations. There is no doubt that security situation in is improving and indeed far better than ever. Facts and statistics speak for themselves. However, the political situation is less satisfactory than had been anticipated. Sri Lankaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s political fundamentals such as freedom, equality and republic need to be strengthened in order to preserve the relative peace achieved through brutal war. Realising the need to repair the social fabric of Sri Lanka, President Mahinda Rajapaksa envisioned and implemented a grand initiative called tri-lingual policy, which is actually a game changer in the long-term for ethnic reconciliation. The people of Northern provinces are returning to normal life in a new politico-security environment that had emerged after the war. There is a sense of mutual realisation among different ethnic communities that war is neither a way for peace nor a solution to their political differences. In nut shell, the Sri Lankan society at large is under reconstruction and renovation. The geopolitical atmosphere has also been in favour of Sri Lanka and it must seize this opportunity to channelize its energy towards an inclusive socio-economic development

Going with the World The other important issue before Sri Lanka is the international criticism or allegations against the GoSL for human rights abuses and war crimes during the final phase of war in 2009. One has

to remember that political reconciliation would be incomplete without the inclusion and participation of Sri Lankan Tamil diaspora. Politics of hatred and divisive will no longer serve the interest of any ethnic group. If the GoSL believes that it is the same Tamil diaspora which is behind the venomous campaign of human rights, then it needs to be addressed through dialogues with those estranged communities. The Tamil diaspora on the other hand has to come to terms with their past. Otherwise, the conflict would perpetuate forever and that would have a devastating impact on the reconciliation process. Nevertheless, as a member of comity of nations as well as a part of international community, Sri Lanka has inherent obligation to accountability on human rights issues for its own good. Instead of evading those human rights responsibilities, it would be better to go with world community by effective implementation the recommendations of Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC). This would help them in the long-term especially maintaining the civil-military relationship. Besides, cooperation on accountability issues could also galvanise

The present GoSL has made a remarkable progress in the post-war rehabilitation and reconstruction process despite volley of external criticism and allegations May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Asia

As a war ravaged country for three decades over ethnic identity politics, the people of Sri Lanka can no longer afford such con ict anymore support from the international community to negotiate with Tamil diaspora, which constitutes a key factor in the reconciliation process. As far as India-Sri Lanka relations is concerned, both the countries need to realise that they are in a different environment, which requires fresh thinking and understanding. Sri Lanka can benefit more from India through stronger economic cooperation and deeper political understanding. It is quite obvious that the

Tamilnadu factor in India-Sri Lanka relations is merely emotional and if they let the trade happens across the strait, then would definitely dispel the fear and mistrust between the communities. This is very essential in addressing the fisherman issue between the two countries. However, both the countries need to work in tandem to enhance the physical and psychological connectivity. For that to happen Sri Lanka has to ensure a cordial atmosphere in which minorities are allowed to trade and travel free. Therefore, the benefits of cooperation with the rest of the world on issues pertinent to post-war developments would outweigh its costs.

Towards a Secular Sri Lanka

There is no doubt t at t i c o t ri an an soci ty r ir s r str ct rin based on the values t at t y coll cti ly o t or rin t ir in n nc movement 36 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

THE ONLY WAY AHEAD To conclude, there is no doubt that the edifice of the Sri Lankan society requires restructuring based on the values that they collectively fought for during their independence movement. Interestingly, the Sri Lankan society had evolved from a feudal agrarian society to modern industrial society. The so-called freedom fighters a.k.a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;National Heroesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of Sri Lanka had envisioned that that evolution would move towards an egalitarian society. Unfortunately, that evolutionary process was disturbed or distracted by sub-nationalism or ethno-national conflicts. Only the end of that ethno-nationalistic syndrome would restore the social progress of Sri Lanka towards a peaceful society. Today Sri Lanka is witnessing an unprecedented peace, which provides an ample space for reconciliation and normalisation process. Of course, the memories of recent past would continue to haunt the political imagination of this generation and the generations to come. But, the onus rest on the GoSL to protect these secular values and spirit of the nation and must make sure that the citizens of all ethno-religious denomination enjoy freedom, equality and sense of ownership. It should not let the divisive forces to dictate political terms according to their parochial interests. As a war ravaged country for three decades over ethnic identity politics, the people of Sri Lanka can no longer afford such conflict anymore. The Tamils and other minorities politics is now confined to securing livelihoods not nationhood. All they need is a reassurance that their freedom will not be curtailed; Let the real purpose of Sri Lankaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Independence movement to ensure a vibrant and secular state prevails over pseudo-political discourse. n

about the author Dr. J Jegan Naathan, Research Fellow, Institute of Peace and Con ict Studies (IPCS), New Delhi

Asia

ri an a and its Development After War by Dr N. Manoharan

t is nearly four years since the end of “Eelam War IV”. All four editions of ‘Eelam War’ claimed over 100,000 lives; the latest one accounted for nearly half of those. The conflict also displaced lakhs of civilians. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), nearly 300,000 were internally displaced and hundreds fled as refugees to other countries, especially to India. The defeat of the LTTE was certainly a big relief not only to Sri Lankans, but also to the whole of the region. On the surface, peace prevails in Sri Lanka. However, there is a criticism that what prevails is only a ‘negative peace’ and not a comprehensive one. How far is this true?

Four D’s After the termination of ‘Eelam War IV’, President Mahinda Rajapaksa outlined “Four-Ds” strategy – Demilitarisation, Development, Democratisation, and Devolution. On the order of transformation, Rajapaksa justified that ‘demilitarisation’ lays the foundation for peace and development; without ‘development’ one cannot have democracy; ‘democracy’ is important to know the minds of the people; and then comes ‘devolution. The ‘demilitarisation’ strategy of the government was

basically aimed at preventing any regroup of the LTTE in any form in the near or distant future. Appreciably, and thanks partly due to international pressure, within months of the formal end of violent ethnic conflict, the ‘National Action Plan for the Reintegration of Ex-combatants’ was put in place by the Government of Sri Lanka. Called by President Rajapaksa as “Humanitarian Mission - 02” the framework of reintegration covered five aspects: disarmament and demobilisation, rehabilitation, reinsertion, social reintegration, and economic reintegration. Separate “welfare centres” for each category were set up – 24 in all – in the districts of Jaffna, Batticaloa and Vavuniya to rehabilitate them. The first category – 556 child combatants – were provided with catch-up education classes and allowed family visits and reunion. Nevertheless, free access to specialised independent international agencies like Save the Child, UNICEF and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) could have made the rehabilitation more successful. In the initial stages, there were human rights abuses in the rehabilitation process, but mellowed down later. Some of these former LTTE heavyweights are now working with the Sri Lankan Military Intelligence in neutralising the internal and external networks of the LTTE. On non-combatant category, the

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Asia

Finding a lasting political settlement to the ethnic issue by taking into account the root causes and grievances of the aggrieved communities are vital in establishing sustainable peace government has been bit easy. However, despite rehabilitation and reintegration, the stigma as former Tigers remains. The Government should also consider periodic orientation of those reintegrated ex-militants just to make sure that they do not slip away from the right path in the long run.

Economy Trends Appreciably, the island’s economy has been recovering fast since the termination of the war. The GDP grew between six to eight percent. Inflation has come down, but still is a cause for concern to the common man whose real income has not kept pace with the inflation. The government has been counting on aid flows meant for post-war reconstruction to bail itself out of the crisis. At the same time, one cannot discount the fact that a durable peace can bring a turnaround to the ailing economy. The current United People’s Freedom Alliance (UPFA) regime strongly believes that there exists no ethnic issue, but only a problem of development. The belief, therefore, is the ethnic issue would “wither away” if development is taken care off. After the “liberation of the east”, in July 2007 the government ventured on development in the name of Nagenahira Navodaya (“Eastern Awakening”). Development programme in the north, after the formal end of conflict in May 2009, has been undertaken in the name of Uthuru Wasanthaya (“Northern Spring”) that involves reconstruction of the war-ravaged areas, resettlement of the conflict-displaced and security. Since development programme in the east commenced much early, the situation is comparatively better. Under the ‘Presidential Task Force for the Development of the Northern Province’ the process of development in the north has been proceeding on some logic like demining of areas meant for resettlement and reconstruction, building up of basic infrastructure like houses, roads, schools, energy grid, and telecommunications. Providing livelihood opportunities to all the resettled IDPs is yet another mammoth task before the government.

38 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

The government finds lack of sufficient resources as the major challenge confronting its reconstruction plans. Principal state actors involved in Sri Lankan development include India, China, Japan, Libya, Pakistan, Iran, the United States, and the European Union. Interestingly, Asian countries are dominantly present than Western predominance in such tasks.

Pitch for Democratisation ‘Democratisation’ strategy in the post-conflict phase was justified by President Rajapaksa to give “voice to the people”. Soon after his re-election as the Executive President in January 2010, Rajapaksa dissolved the parliament and announced elections scheduled for April 2010. For the first time in two decades there was no diktat for the Tamil voters from the LTTE. The main Opposition United National Party (UNP) was also at its lowest point in the political history of Sri Lanka. All these factors, apart from Rajapaksa’s charisma, helped the ruling UPFA to secure a landslide victory (144 out of 225 seats). This was the first time in the history of Sri Lanka that a party or coalition getting a comfortable majority under proportional representation system. Within months after the war, the government conducted elections to local bodies of Jaffna and Vavuniya. This was the first elections held in the Tamildominated areas after the formal end of ethnic war in the island. The election results, that gave majority to TNA, signified that Tamils still nurture grievances and look forward to a responsible leadership. Polls for the entire Northern Province is expected to take place this year as announced.

Is There a Silver Lining? Finding a lasting political settlement to the ethnic issue by taking into account the root causes and grievances of the aggrieved communities are vital in establishing sustainable peace. In this regard, President Rajapaksa did indeed appoint an ‘All Party

Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa with Praneet Kaur, Minister of State for External Affairs, India

Representative Committee’ (APRC) in 2006 to “fashion creative options that satisfy minimum expectations as well as provide a comprehensive approach to the resolution of the national question”. However, instead of exploring “creative options”, the APRC, in its interim report submitted in January 2008, advised the President to implement the 13th amendment to the Constitution, which outlined devolution to the provinces in the aftermath of the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord of 1987. At last, the APRC reportedly submitted its final report to the President. The President, however, chose not to make it public. It is more or less dead now. At the maximum, what is on cards is some arrangement revolving around the existing 13th amendment. On reconciliation, the Sri Lankan President appointed a eight-member Commission on ‘Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation’ (LLRC) in May 2010. The LLRC was a good step, but its mandate was very limited and ethnic reconciliation in the real sense was looked into seriously. When the LLRC submitted its report in December 2011, things became clear. Although it was not 100 percent objective, it was not disappointing either. It tried to do a balancing act containing both positive and negative aspects. On positives it talked about the need for demilitarisation, investigation of disappearances, apart from acknowledging existence of ethnic grievances; surprisingly, it supported devolution of powers to minorities, although did not spell them out. At the same time, it did not fix accountability for human rights abuses during Eelam War IV. For the collateral damage the report reasoned out as a result of LTTE action and military reaction. Talks with TNA were a good move, but they did not take things any further. In the same vein, the Sri Lankan government must count-in the Opposition’s contribution in the nation-building. Without bi-partisan

consensus, any political settlement to the ethnic question would be unsustainable. Post-LTTE Sri Lanka is indeed far more peaceful country. A sustainable peace can only be achieved when Sri Lanka reconciles with its minority communities, reaches out to the opposition that is presently weak and polarized, practices democracy in the real sense, desecuritises its functions, and makes up with the international community. There is an urgent need to find a credible and sustainable political solution to the ethnic issue. In the present situation, devolution of powers to provinces through the ‘13th Amendment Plus Plus’ is a realistic option. Riding on popular support, the President should be in a position to withstand the nationalistic pressures and forge an island-wide consensus for a lasting solution to the ethnic question. Most importantly, a suitable reconciliation mechanism should be adopted to construct bridges among all the communities in the island. Overall, it must be realised that this is the historic opportunity available to Rajapaksa regime not only to resolving the ethnic issue once and for all, but also to take the island state to new heights by establishing sustainable peace. n

about the author Dr N. Manoharan, Senior Fellow, Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi.

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

International

Competitive Learning Communities

ralia and anada in he Ra e or n erna ional den by Margaret Walton-Roberts

he current global ‘race for talent’ in migration policy is reflected in current education internationalization. This push to attract international students is shaped by knowledge based capitalism and the continued development of the higher education sector as a key export earner for key OECD countries. The Student Partnership Program (SPP) is a Canadian initiative that was introduced to India, and now China, to manage international student admissions to Canadian Community Colleges. The policy has had initial success, and provides a tool that can be used as a stepping stone to achieve permanent resident status for qualified international students in Canada. The SPP can be assessed as a form of policy translation, particularly with reference to interjurisdictional learning with Australia.

The Immigration policy Landscape Seeking or producing the highly skilled Immigration policy across many OECD states is converging in various ways; Systems of temporary and circular labour migration

40 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

have become central to fulfilling the labour markets needs of western economies, many based on bi-lateral agreements that are advertised as ‘win-win’ policy solutions for all parties concerned, despite the problems inherent in the programs. The proliferation of bi-lateral migration agreements is matched by a related increase in Regional Consultative Processes (RCPs) on migration, which permits for dialogue in a non-binding informal manner (Koser, 2010). A focus on highly skilled immigration, meanwhile, is leading to the emergence of increased competition for talent, leading to policies offering a ‘talent for citizenship’ exchange. The need for highly skilled labour is also being addressed via the ‘red card to red carpet’ transition, where international students are increasingly feted as permanent migrants. International students represent a form of partially complete human capital. The intensification of this migration stream acts a net transfer of capital away from nations such as India, that need to educate their population in order to reap the demographic dividend. The convergence of migration policies that entail greater

migrant selectivity can be seen in the growing orthodoxy of the skilled points based system across immigrant receiving states. More lately the widespread adoption of models to permit the conversion of international students to permanent migrants has emerged, though clearly waxing and waning with economic conditions as the UK’s recent situation reveals. For scholars interested in diplomacy, international student migration provides a site to explore inter –jurisdictional exchanges within competitive communities such as Canada and Australia. These two nations have similar migration policy frameworks, and are often the basis for comparative analysis. Recent shifts in Canada’s immigration selection policies are suggestive of a dialogue with Australia’s policy; for example Canada’s recent cutback in family class immigration, and greater policy coherence in terms of creating pathways for international students to progress to permanent status. This last example is central to the Student Partners Program (SPP). The program streamlines the screening and processing of applicants enrolled in approved courses in

accredited public colleges. The program requires that colleges follow up and report on student success. The results of the program were initially spectacular; an increase in Canadian student visas issued to India from 3,244 in 2008 to 5,720 in 2009, and close to 12,000 in 2010. This represents a radical transformation in Indian student acceptance from Canada, because while the absolute applicant numbers of applicants increased, the rate of acceptance also increased during the initial period of the program. In 2008 only a third of visa applications were accepted, but in 2009 the rate of acceptance doubled for the SPP. Before the emergence of the SPP Canada was seen as seriously lagging in the international student market in India, especially compared to Australia.

Canada and Australia Learning communities in competition When we compare Canada’s experience with Australia that we can see the clearest example of inter-jurisdictional learning, since the SPP emerged in light of a number of serious problems

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

International

Canada was able to make the most of both Australia’s policy successes, and failures

with Australia’s policy, and this arguably set the learning environment for Canadian bureaucrats. Australia’s international student immigration policy was initially seen as hugely successful, with international education emerging as the nation’s fourth largest foreign currency earner, the last few years have seen a dramatic decrease in both domestic and international support for the program, with dire consequences reported in the PSE sector. Concern started to emerge in response to the proliferation of private colleges that emerged to service the migration, rather than the educational, features of the policy. This created a situation where some international students were not labour market ready at the end of their studies, and failed to convert to permanent immigrant status, one of the cornerstones of the policy’s attractiveness. Accompanying this was increasing anxiety, both within and outside Australia, regarding student safety in light of acts of discrimination and violence against international students, particularly those from India. At the same time, in light of Australia’s problems, Canadian officials were working on a model to build a Canadian education brand in key overseas markets, one that would capture some of the enormous demand for quality secondary education emerging in markets such as India and China. The SPP pilot program was developed by managers at the Immigration Program at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi and senior executives at ACCC. Despite the program’s Canadian beginnings, elements of its structure replicate and converge with Australia’s model.

Venues for such learning include New Delhi, where visa program managers from the embassies and consulates of the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA meet with their counterparts informally at monthly lunches. In addition, visiting Ministers and visa program managers also meet officials from other consulates and embassies and exchange information about program development. These meetings permit peer learning and exchange. There is also the grey literature, for example, CIC and Statistics Canada commissioned a comparative review of Australian and Canadian immigration. Leslie Anne Hawthorne’s reports made a compelling argument regarding the success and shortcomings of Australia’s two-step migration process in terms of international students, arguing that the two step migration process Australia developed for international students created more labour market ready skilled immigrants. She also made a case for the relative success of Australia’s more targeted approach to skilled permanent immigration than that of Canada’s. These reflections illustrate the confluence of interests surrounding the process of policy sharing and inter-jurisdictional learning, even in contexts where states are ostensibly in competition. Policy formulation is contingent on mistakes and failures of nations and their counterparts. Canada was able to make the most of both Australia’s policy successes (replicating some elements of their program), and failures (picking up applicants and launching its brand during a period when Australia’s attraction to Indian students had plummeted). n

about the author Margaret Walton-Roberts is an associate professor in the Geography and Environmental studies department at ilfrid aurier niversity ntario, and is affiliated with the alsillie School of International ffairs She is currently associate director of the International igration esearch Centre at the alsillie School er research addresses gender, Indian igration, i igrant settle ent in Canada, and the i act of transnational networ s in both source and destination locales

42 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

Visits

ormal ame a on ered i le

Hollande’s Visit to India by Kamakshi Nanda

President of France, Mr Francois Hollande with Dr.Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India

he ‘Bonjour India’ festival gave premonitions of the coming of their President. The French flair was extensively displayed across metropolitans in India where different art forms – music, theatre, film screenings, and dances – delighted the Indian audiences and reminded them of the vivaciousness and effervescent character of the archrivals of their Colonial masters. It almost appeared that the French had taken a leaf out of the Indian diplomatic experiment, of the effective use of ‘soft’ power, as they enthusiastically participated in the Delhi Book fair as the Guest of Honour country. Away from the realm of cultural delights, the good omen was overshadowed by various Sikh organizations protesting and pressuring the Indian government to take up the issue of the ban on turbans in public schools in France. The lurid case of a father, French national Pascal Mazurier, raping his own toddler created a stir in Paris itself. President Hollande allegedly met the lawyers representing the father at the Elysée Palace on 8th February 2013. It invoked strong reactions from feminists based in Paris like Marieme Helie Lucas. The Presidential visit was put in a further quandary with the victim’s mother requesting for an audience with Hollande to discuss her side of the story and the discrimination meted out to her and her children by the French consulate in Bengaluru.

Breezy but Productive Visit Unlike the hype and rhetoric that surrounds the visit of a Head of State of a permanent member of Security Council, and the attention that was accorded to former President Sarkozy in the past, his successor breezed through the political and financial capital of the country, without creating so much of a flutter among the Indian media in particular and people in general. Hollande’s delegation included five ministers including Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and Defence Jean-Yves Le Drain and chief of more than 50 leading French companies for the two-day trip on 14th15th February. All the right noises were made by representatives of both sides to underline the importance of the trip. While Indian ambassador in Paris, Rakesh Sood, gloated about India being the first emerging country outside Europe and Francophone Africa to feature in Hollande’s travel agenda, French officials stressed on the principal purpose of the French delegation to strengthen “strategic Indo-French partnership launched 15 years ago.” Once in Delhi France and India inked four agreements covering various sectors. A formal letter of intent on intensification of cooperation in the fields of higher education and research, and promise of setting up a support fund for student and faculty mobility between Paris Institute of Technology (Institute des sciences et

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Visits

technologies de Paris) and a consortium of seven Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) was agreed upon. Commitment to long-term cooperation between Indian Space Research Organisation and its French counterpart, the Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales was also made. French government’s arm for cooperation in international development, Agence Française de Développement (AFD) and the Department of Economic Affairs in the Indian Ministry of Finance formalised a Credit Facility Agreement for the Bangalore Metro Rail Project with the AFD promising 110 million euros.

Rafale, Rafale Where Are Thou? A well known deal that was bound to feature in the talks was the multi-million dollar purchase of 126 Rafale fighter jets of France’s Dassault Aviation to India. Luckily the same jets got free publicity to prove their efficiency, as they were deployed in the French offensive against Islamic fundamentalists in Mali. The nuclear-capable jet (that can also be used on aircraft carriers) was shortlisted by India last year for exclusive negotiations. Hollande was expected to lobby hard for the company even though India had already indicated earlier that no contract would be finalized during his stint in India. Moreover the Indian defense procurements had gone into a toss due to corruption charges clouding the chopper deal with Italian firm AgustaWestland. At a media interaction Hollande vetoed the possibility of French companies compromising themselves and going against the rules of the trade. However all was not lost for the President in the Rafaele case

44 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

because the Dassault chief executive Eric Trappier later revealed that the Indians demanded for additional 63 planes over and above the initial order of 126 aircrafts. Bangalore-based Aviators (India) Private Limited placed an order for 50 choppers from Eurocopter for Helicopter Emergency Medical Services operations in India. The Aviators (India) Private Limited too asked for the first batch of seven Eurocopter EC 135 choppers. Both the deals were formalised on the sidelines. Another hot topic that was discussed was the progress of the Areva’s 9,900-megawatt nuclear power plant in the western coastal state of Maharashtra. Although $9.3 billion framework agreement was decided upon during Sarkozy’s visit to India in 2010 the project has not taken off. People are opposing the plant on ground of environmental concerns due to seismic activity in the area. Indians are also falling in line with world-wide apprehension on the safety of nuclear power following the Fukushima disaster in Japan. The original plan was for the construction of two pressurized reactors at Jaitapur just 400km south of Mumbai, with an option of additional reactors. Indian officials reiterated their belief and commitment to the civil nuclear plants but expressed uneasiness over the escalation in costs. François Hollande categorically stated that he was ‘no travelling salesman’ to the news agency France24. He identified building closer political and cultural ties with the world’s most populous and largest democracy as the core purpose of his sojourn in India. Not to focus primarily on facilitating lucrative

A Rafale Fighter Jet

e identified building closer political and cultural ties with the world’s most populous and largest democracy as the core purpose of his so ourn in India business contracts. His bold stand came at a time when his economy shrank a further 0.3% in the fourth quarter. In his typical quiet and determined demeanor, he did not hesitate to accept that France and India did not necessarily share cultural similarities or economy but respect similar values and principles of independence, democracy and autonomy. He emphasized the confidence that France reposes in India, “which is a peaceful power… and we must provide the best material and equipment to India… It is a relation of confidence and trust between us.” He also acknowledged India’s extend of support of $1million to the UN-backed mission in Mali. France’s trade with India is said to be even less than that of its tiny northern neighbor Belgium with India. Franco-Indian trade stands at a mere $10 billion, well below a target set by Sarkozy in 2008 during a visit of $16 billion. France was India’s 26th-largest trading partner in 2012 a big drop from the previous rank of 13th in 2006. France’s imports and exports represent only 1.1 percent of India’s total trade. The tirade of French Industrial Renewal Minister Arnaud Montebourg against Lakshmi Mittal and threat to nationalize the blast furnaces of Arcelor Mittal sent shock waves among Indian investors. While on the other hand, many French companies perceive India as a difficult terrain to enter. Long convoluted bureaucratic processes, lack of clarity and consistency in

government policies are major deterrents. This is not to say that the French are not interested in Asian markets. Look East, they do, but to more attractive and ‘easy’ destinations like China. Nevertheless at Mumbai Hollande confirmed France’s support to India in EU negotiations on the free-trade agreement. A richer Hollande returned to France but not as a very rich man. His short stay in India is a break from the usual trend set by other P5 Heads of State to sign and sing volumes of the big ticket sales made, and the multi-million dollar deals swapped. If the visit was indeed a venture to familiarize himself to India, establish and strengthen contacts, then he did do a good job. In terms of monetary wealth he might not have gained as expected or hoped, however, Indian policy-makers might take warmth in Hollande’s conscious decision to engage with India personally. n

about the author Kamakshi Nanda is an independent political analyst based in New Delhi, India.

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Perspectives

A Sociologist’s View on

Travelling

a le la

by Prof Susan Visvanathan

hashi Tharoor and Shiv Visvanathan, representatives of their class situation (as seasoned former diplomat, and corporate academic with socialist views, respectively) have written and spoken about Gandhiji’s mode of travel, which they rightly feel, should not be implicated in Nostalgia, that dread word. Today, “Third Class” travel, or “cattle class” as Tharoor calls it, is problematised in a way that it was not, in the 70s and 80s of the last century. Like the concept of “Third World”, “Third Class” travel does not exist in India, as every rail passenger knows. What was the “Third World”? It mediated between America and Europe, and the mosaic of the Soviet Countries. Today, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a relic event of the 20th century, ghettoised spaces exist all over the world, and the global traveller does not need to visit these, since home cooking and used tooth brushes in a chipped vase does not ever enter their domain. More comfortable in airports, than on the sofa at home, how would they imagine the life of students and the unemployed, the activist and the housewife, the pilgrim and the backpack traveller, workers, many of whom still travel second class sleeper? The nostalgia evoked by “Third Class” travel is specific to age, gender, class, caste and race. I remember going on a fieldwork

46 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

visit only ten years ago, where the entire compartment was filled with a village of goldsmiths with their families from Sonepat, Haryana, going on a pilgrimage. They booked their train tickets in a such a way, that they did not sleep in a hotel, but every night got into a new train, a new compartment, and woke up in a new temple town. From Benaras to Ramanathapuram, this was what they had been doing in a puri and halwa laden journey, where occasionally they bought a mess of sambar rice in silver foil trays, if the children insisted. Young tourists from abroad also travel in crowded second class discomfort if they cannot get another ticket. My mother, got government refundable first class tickets for my sister and me and herself, so up to 1979 when she retired as Public Health Supervisor at Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi, she would take us to the South, in cool clean comfort, with the food served in round trays, with little containers in which a variety of vegetables and gravies would be served at all meals. I say 1962, because I was five years old, and could remember

those long drawn out journeys taking up to five days to reach Kerala, via Chennai. My father never travelled with us, because he was a Gandhian and on the occasional trip to Kerala, he would travel 3rd class, and we would walk nervously through the clanging connections of inter compartment corridors to see him. He would be sitting comfortably among five other people, in a compartment, meditatively watching the scenery go past without a single regret that he was not travelling with us in 1st class comfort. The term “Third Class” got deleted sometime in the seventies of the last century to be substituted by hierarchies of 1st and 2nd, and various permutations of the term sleeper class, such as two tier and three tier and air conditioned or not. “Vatanakool” (air condition) was probably my first big Hindi word, along with “Doorbhash” for telephone, both unknown commodities to kids like me in the 1960s. When I got married, in October 1979, I was 22 years old, and the first time we travelled together was definitely “Third class”, (because my husband was a Research Associate and had a salary of one thousand, one hundred rupees per month, and I got four hundred and fifty rupees stipend as a PhD student). Across our seats was a couple, (both were bankers with a penchant for fried foods) with a new baby which they strung between the seats in a large gauze odni or scarf, and every time they swung the bundle, the baby would hit me in the face. However, our need to meet our mothers, both living in South India, was very strong, and we braved second class travel twice a year for twenty

Those journeys were lovely, long, boring, but full of chance events, such as surprise conversations and encounters with fellow passengers years, till I, as a salaried University employee, started to receive government refunding once every two years. When the children were small, we would make winter journeys, to Chennai with our thick cotton stuffed quilts keeping out the bitter cold, the train delayed by five hours because of midnight fog. My husband would tuck everyone into our berths, tying up the edges of the rexine bunks, with ropes which he bought before every train trip, so his daughters would not roll off. They routinely fought over occupying the upper or middle berths, wanting to climb up, jump down and play word games across the different levels. Those journeys were lovely, long, boring, but full of chance events, such as surprise conversations and encounters with fellow passengers. In 1997, when we made our last journey in a “Third Class” Compartment

May 2013 | diplomacyandforeignaffairs.com |

Perspectives

with our daughters, two school teachers from Sardar Patel School were with us, returning from Pondicherry. That might have been the time, when the train stopped outside a tunnel in the middle of a field, and my husband got off and plucked us a handful of wild flowers and handed it to us triumphantly, through the window grill. There were other occasions, such as when the train took off without our bogey, and we had to start again the next day. And the time, the train was forty hours late, because of a flood that washed off the tracks. And yet another time, when because of a rail accident, eighteen trains were stranded for three days at Jolarpet Station. My youngest daughter had just been weaned, and at 9 months, was started on a diet of bananas, bought from Railway vendors, because we were just stuck on the platform for three long days. But we always arrived in Chennai, triumphant that the 48 journey was completed, and a loving aunt was always

there to receive us, and at hand to help us with the three children, as soon as we stepped off. There is a new generation out there, who needs to travel second class till they are able to afford better or more convenient modes of travel, so all power to them. I hope they in turn, canvas and work for the children who run into the compartments to clean the floors, ragged, friendly, hopeful and contented with the small coin they receive, or the parcel of left over food. Do we have the statistics of how many cleaners per train for second class compartments? As the nation gets ready to privatise everything, including school education, what we really need to understand is the vitality of people’s movements in India, and the soul of the children who serve the country by their labour, or by waiting and watching and hoping. Next time you see them waving to you from the fields and hillsides, wave back. n

about the author Prof Susan Visvanathan teaches Sociology at Centre for the Study of Social Systems, JNU, New Delhi. She is the author of “The Christians of Kerala”, (OUP 1993) “Friendship, Interiority and Mysticism” (Orient Blackswan 2007) “The Children of Nature: The LIfe of Ramana Maharshi” (Roli 2007) and most recently, “Reading Marx, Weber and Durkheim Today” (Palmleaf Books 2012). Susan is also a fiction writer, and her latest novel is called elycinda and ther Stories , the the e of which is the ancient pepper and spices trade of the Malabar coast, and the relations India had with the Gulf countries, Europe, Africa, and China, contextualised for the 3rd century A.D and its present day cosmopolitan continuities among Keralites (Roli 2012). She has been a Fellow of the ehru e orial useu and ibrary, and an onorary Fellow of Indian Institute of dvances Studies Prof isvanathan has been Charles allace Fellow at ueen s niversity, elfast She has been isiting Professor to S , Paris, to niversite 13 in Paris, and to Freie niversity, erlin

48 | Diplomacy & Foreign Affairs Magazine | May 2013

Apply for Net Banking facility today at your nearest branch

www.canarabank.com

Visit

CanMobile Carry your Bank Account wherever you go...

Funds Transfer Mini Statement Balance Enquiry

Exit