India's fragile ego returns.
What has offended Delhi is a line in the communique issued by President's Hu and Obama in Beijing.
"(The US and China) support the efforts of Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism, maintain domestic stability and achieve sustainable economic and social development, and support the improvement and growth of relations between India and Pakistan," the joint statement said.
In a sign that the US president has a weak hand to play, Washington acknowledged that Beijing has a role in the India-Pakistan relationship. China's sees itself arriving on the world stage thanks to its national power.
Sinologist Alka Acharaya makes the point: "We must realise that China-US have a totally different relationship, they are two of the biggest powers in the world...and will naturally comment on what is happening in the neighbourhood. Instead of making sanctimonious remarks, when the PM goes to Washington we can have a line in the joint statement on Tibet and the Dalai Lama. This would be more meaningful".
India has the power of argument but not the argument of power.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sinners repent
An IMF chief economist says nationalise the US banking system and break it up.
The LSE Fred Halliday sums up Communism's relevance amid a welter of triumphalist clap-trap:
Time for us all to reset our internal political compasses.
From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.
The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated gave bankers enormous political weight—a weight not seen in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man). In that period, the banking panic of 1907 could be stopped only by coordination among private-sector bankers: no government entity was able to offer an effective response.
...there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity:elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.
The LSE Fred Halliday sums up Communism's relevance amid a welter of triumphalist clap-trap:
Communism was not just a utopian project: it was a dramatic response to the inequalities and conflicts generated by capitalist modernity. The continuation of many of these same inequalities and conflicts today suggests that further challenges, of an as yet indeterminate nature, will result.
Time for us all to reset our internal political compasses.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Why climate change is not about being fair. Yet.
Vijay R. Joshi, an Oxford don, makes the case (copy below) for developing countries in climate change negotiations which acknowledges international relations is about power not morals.
This means, he says, that nobody in the rich world can be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors - therefore negating the historical responsibility argument of poor nations. Joshi, also correctly, points out that the earth's resources are not shared equitably so why should poor countries get allocations on the basis on their populations?
But Joshi does argue there is a "minimum requirement of fairness" in global talks.
Interestingly this basically gives poor nations a time frame where they have to erase abject poverty and in return the rich nations bear the burden of climate change mitigation. That is for a period of time wealthy nations either hand out loads of permits, impose a carbon tax on its rich consumers and producers or transfer tech.
But what of the other side of the deal: how do rich nations make sure that poor nations keep their promises? I think it would be only fair that there are measurable aspirations that poor countries need to accept in terms of poverty eradication. The UN's Millenium Development Goals are part of this process.
What Joshi seems to buy is that that rich states, operating in the context of an anarchy and uncertainty, adopt fairness considerations in their strategic interactions. However I think the psychology of poor nations is still that the limited gains won must be "worth it". They must be bought off with enough goodies - a level of compensation that is high enough to signify guilt.
There is a fine balance to be struck here so that a "fair" deal can be struck. Rich countries will do so because they wish for the status quo institutions and regimes to be retained. Poor nations will accept this because it will help entrench fairness as a value to be upheld.
A fairer world? Yes we can.
VIJAY JOSHI
There is now a growing consensus among governments that aggressive climate change mitigation would be desirable, though they remain bitterly divided about how the associated burden should be shared between advanced and developing countries.
Fair distribution of the cost of mitigation is important on moral grounds and for obtaining universal participation. But the concept of ideal fairness is highly controversial, and philosophers have debated it for centuries. Progress in the pivotal climate change negotiations in Copenhagen will require the adoption of a non-ideal but acceptable notion of fairness that could bridge differences in negotiating positions.
Developing countries have two different lines of argument about fair burden sharing. The first concerns “historic responsibility” for the accumulated stock of carbon emitted by the developed economies. These advanced countries have used up a large part of the safe carbon-absorbing capacity of the atmosphere and should, therefore, compensate the developing countries for this “expropriation”. This is a persuasive point. Even so, it runs up against some powerful moral intuitions. The rich countries did not expropriate knowingly. They acted in the belief, universally held until quite recently, that the atmosphere was an infinite resource. Moreover, the “expropriators” are mostly dead and gone. Their descendants, even if they could be identified, cannot be held responsible for acts they did not themselves commit. These points do not entirely overturn “historic responsibility” since developed economies benefit hugely from their past carbon-intensive industrialization. Even so, the extenuating factors alluded to above surely count to reduce the fair liability of the advanced countries.
The second line of argument advocated by the developing countries concerns the fair distribution of the burden of reducing the future flow of carbon emissions. Suppose overall global emissions are controlled by issuing tradable carbon permits. The developing countries argue that the permits should be allocated on a population or per capita income basis. The rationale of the former is rights-based. Each human being has an equal right to use global carbon space. The rationale of the latter is egalitarian; permits should be given to the very poor because they are very poor. Both these principles imply that most of the permits should be given to developing economies. This is because these countries contain most of the world’s people as well as most of the world’s poor. The trouble is, however, that the above principles are not generally accepted in international relations. There is no agreement that natural resources should be equally shared. Why should the atmosphere be any different? Nor is there any enthusiasm about stringent egalitarian obligations. Foreign aid has never reached even half the UN target of seven-tenths of 1% of advanced countries’ gross domestic product.
The way out of this maze is to focus on a principle that is widely accepted as a minimal requirement of fairness. The principle is simply “do no harm”.
In the climate change context, doing no harm means that developing economies should be enabled to reduce their cost of mitigation to zero until they have eliminated abject poverty. In practical terms, this would imply allocating enough tradable carbon permits to poor countries to allow them to maintain the growth of their living standards along the business-as-usual path, say, for the next two decades (two decades is an average. The time horizon would be less for China and longer for Africa). After that time, developing countries’ permit allocations would be progressively reduced. Climate models are capable of calculating the requisite time path of permit allocations. (So far, I have assumed that the instrument of mitigation is tradable permits. Alternatively, a worldwide carbon tax could be adopted. In addition, carbon-saving technology could be transferred, when it becomes available. This makes no essential difference to the above argument. There would have to be a revenue or technology transfer to developing economies of an amount sufficient to reduce their cost of mitigation to zero for a defined period.)
The no-harm approach to burden sharing has many desirable features. It takes some account of “historic responsibility”. This is because a significant portion of the damage inflicted by the accumulated large stock of carbon consists of raising the cost of future mitigation for all countries. In the no-harm scheme, however, developing countries’ mitigation costs would be covered for a defined period.
The scheme also takes some account of rights-based and egalitarian arguments by skewing the allocation of permits towards poorer countries, which would result in a significant financial transfer to them, unlike an allocation of permits based on current emissions, which would strongly favour the advanced countries. But the transfer to the developing countries would not go beyond offsetting the welfare cost of mitigation policies for an agreed length of time. This would be more acceptable to the governments and citizens of advanced countries than distributing permits on a population or per capita income basis, which would result in much larger annual financial transfers to developing countries, several times larger than foreign aid flows today.
The stakes in climate change are so high that inflexible bargaining positions would be a recipe for disaster. The “no harm” principle could provide the basis for an acceptable scheme, since it would go some way towards meeting the concerns of all negotiating parties.
Published with permission from VoXEU.org. Edited excerpts.
This means, he says, that nobody in the rich world can be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors - therefore negating the historical responsibility argument of poor nations. Joshi, also correctly, points out that the earth's resources are not shared equitably so why should poor countries get allocations on the basis on their populations?
But Joshi does argue there is a "minimum requirement of fairness" in global talks.
Interestingly this basically gives poor nations a time frame where they have to erase abject poverty and in return the rich nations bear the burden of climate change mitigation. That is for a period of time wealthy nations either hand out loads of permits, impose a carbon tax on its rich consumers and producers or transfer tech.
But what of the other side of the deal: how do rich nations make sure that poor nations keep their promises? I think it would be only fair that there are measurable aspirations that poor countries need to accept in terms of poverty eradication. The UN's Millenium Development Goals are part of this process.
What Joshi seems to buy is that that rich states, operating in the context of an anarchy and uncertainty, adopt fairness considerations in their strategic interactions. However I think the psychology of poor nations is still that the limited gains won must be "worth it". They must be bought off with enough goodies - a level of compensation that is high enough to signify guilt.
There is a fine balance to be struck here so that a "fair" deal can be struck. Rich countries will do so because they wish for the status quo institutions and regimes to be retained. Poor nations will accept this because it will help entrench fairness as a value to be upheld.
A fairer world? Yes we can.
VIJAY JOSHI
There is now a growing consensus among governments that aggressive climate change mitigation would be desirable, though they remain bitterly divided about how the associated burden should be shared between advanced and developing countries.
Fair distribution of the cost of mitigation is important on moral grounds and for obtaining universal participation. But the concept of ideal fairness is highly controversial, and philosophers have debated it for centuries. Progress in the pivotal climate change negotiations in Copenhagen will require the adoption of a non-ideal but acceptable notion of fairness that could bridge differences in negotiating positions.
Developing countries have two different lines of argument about fair burden sharing. The first concerns “historic responsibility” for the accumulated stock of carbon emitted by the developed economies. These advanced countries have used up a large part of the safe carbon-absorbing capacity of the atmosphere and should, therefore, compensate the developing countries for this “expropriation”. This is a persuasive point. Even so, it runs up against some powerful moral intuitions. The rich countries did not expropriate knowingly. They acted in the belief, universally held until quite recently, that the atmosphere was an infinite resource. Moreover, the “expropriators” are mostly dead and gone. Their descendants, even if they could be identified, cannot be held responsible for acts they did not themselves commit. These points do not entirely overturn “historic responsibility” since developed economies benefit hugely from their past carbon-intensive industrialization. Even so, the extenuating factors alluded to above surely count to reduce the fair liability of the advanced countries.
The second line of argument advocated by the developing countries concerns the fair distribution of the burden of reducing the future flow of carbon emissions. Suppose overall global emissions are controlled by issuing tradable carbon permits. The developing countries argue that the permits should be allocated on a population or per capita income basis. The rationale of the former is rights-based. Each human being has an equal right to use global carbon space. The rationale of the latter is egalitarian; permits should be given to the very poor because they are very poor. Both these principles imply that most of the permits should be given to developing economies. This is because these countries contain most of the world’s people as well as most of the world’s poor. The trouble is, however, that the above principles are not generally accepted in international relations. There is no agreement that natural resources should be equally shared. Why should the atmosphere be any different? Nor is there any enthusiasm about stringent egalitarian obligations. Foreign aid has never reached even half the UN target of seven-tenths of 1% of advanced countries’ gross domestic product.
The way out of this maze is to focus on a principle that is widely accepted as a minimal requirement of fairness. The principle is simply “do no harm”.
In the climate change context, doing no harm means that developing economies should be enabled to reduce their cost of mitigation to zero until they have eliminated abject poverty. In practical terms, this would imply allocating enough tradable carbon permits to poor countries to allow them to maintain the growth of their living standards along the business-as-usual path, say, for the next two decades (two decades is an average. The time horizon would be less for China and longer for Africa). After that time, developing countries’ permit allocations would be progressively reduced. Climate models are capable of calculating the requisite time path of permit allocations. (So far, I have assumed that the instrument of mitigation is tradable permits. Alternatively, a worldwide carbon tax could be adopted. In addition, carbon-saving technology could be transferred, when it becomes available. This makes no essential difference to the above argument. There would have to be a revenue or technology transfer to developing economies of an amount sufficient to reduce their cost of mitigation to zero for a defined period.)
The no-harm approach to burden sharing has many desirable features. It takes some account of “historic responsibility”. This is because a significant portion of the damage inflicted by the accumulated large stock of carbon consists of raising the cost of future mitigation for all countries. In the no-harm scheme, however, developing countries’ mitigation costs would be covered for a defined period.
The scheme also takes some account of rights-based and egalitarian arguments by skewing the allocation of permits towards poorer countries, which would result in a significant financial transfer to them, unlike an allocation of permits based on current emissions, which would strongly favour the advanced countries. But the transfer to the developing countries would not go beyond offsetting the welfare cost of mitigation policies for an agreed length of time. This would be more acceptable to the governments and citizens of advanced countries than distributing permits on a population or per capita income basis, which would result in much larger annual financial transfers to developing countries, several times larger than foreign aid flows today.
The stakes in climate change are so high that inflexible bargaining positions would be a recipe for disaster. The “no harm” principle could provide the basis for an acceptable scheme, since it would go some way towards meeting the concerns of all negotiating parties.
Published with permission from VoXEU.org. Edited excerpts.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Money Money Money
Could not resist highlighting this from P Sainath in today's Hindu:
Spot on.
Take for instance, the 42 MLAs re-contesting this time in Haryana’s polls. On average, their assets have increased by around Rs.48 million each since 2004. A nice 388 per cent leap. That is to say, each of them added Rs.800,000 a month (£10,000) to their wealth in their last term. Or over Rs.1,100 for every hour that they were MLAs (for five years). A healthy rate of growth. Maybe we need a constitutional amendment requiring every Indian to serve as MLA for one term at least. It could be the biggest poverty reduction programme ever undertaken.
Spot on.
The sinking pound in your pocket
Below is today's Business Standard piece about the UK's increasingly flat-earth view of the pound. The world sees London as a great place to live and do business in but the UK currency is an anachronism.
The British currency does give the government some leeway in spending and borrowing compared to Europe, but I think it won't be long now before the weight of EU makes it a club the Brits will have to get full-membership of. Nobody in Washington, Tokyo, Brussels or Beijing loses any sleep over the pound.
The wider point seems obvious: the old powers have lost their way and need new institutions to keep up with the growing muscle of aspirants on the block. In a way Japan was the country that blazed a trail but really this is about designing the world for the new global power centres.
What this means for British electors is that David Cameron, should he be elected PM, will be forced into some face-saving manoeuvres later this year. He will undoubtedly opt to stay in Europe and fight for a bigger say in the Union. He will have allies in Eastern Europe. In this fight for State rights over the Centre, the UK will have to accept that the sun has finally set on Britain.
The pound without a G-string
The time may have come for Britain to adopt the euro
Nearly eight decades after the pound went off the Gold Standard, has the time come for Britain to consider whether it needs the pound at all? Britain’s euro-sceptics have congratulated themselves ever since they rejected then Prime Minister Tony Blair’s abortive attempt to get the pound replaced by the euro, a move that the then chancellor of the exchequer and present Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, had opposed. Indeed, Britain’s euro-sceptics may feel vindicated today as they watch Ireland go into a spin over the decline in its competitiveness vis-à-vis the US because of a strengthening euro (which Dublin had accepted as its currency, replacing the Irish pound). But how long will Britain hold out in the name of its financial district, the City, and because of its desire to remain a global financial centre? Last week’s Irish vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, affirming the country’s support for a European Constitution by another name, brings Ireland closer to the European Union at a popular level, even though Britain has also signed onto the Lisbon Treaty. The Irish have demonstrated less discomfort in accepting their European status. Britain’s island mentality may not fit very well with the European integration process, but the City will have to take note of the US’ kite-flying exercise in Istanbul, on a likely four-currency group—yet another ‘G’ to string China along!
An unidentified US participant at the G-7 finance ministers’ meeting in Istanbul has been reported as saying that the US could consider forming a smaller group within the G-20 to take forward the work of the increasingly anachronistic G-7. The G-7 was the ‘management committee of the global economy’ in the old days of the North-South divide. With the eclipse of the G-7 by the G-20, even the US has recognised that it needs a smaller ‘executive committee’ of the ‘management committee’. Who would the US want in such a core group of the world’s key economies? It seems to regard Europe, Japan and China as natural claimants to membership. Hence the suggestion that a G-4 be formed with the managers of the US dollar, the euro, the yen and the yuan working together to ensure stable conditions in global currency markets. This is undoubtedly a concession to China, which has aggressively pushed for a larger global role for the yuan. The US needs China to play ball to come out of the global imbalances trap and is, therefore, willing to co-opt it.
Where does this leave Britain and the pound? A bit lost, and nervous, perhaps. British spokespersons have rubbished the idea of a G-4 and the US has officially denied any such move. But the writing on the wall for the pound is clear. Go along with the euro, like the Irish and the rest, or join the likes of the ‘has-been’ rouble and the ‘wannabe’ rupee! The idea that the dollar, the euro, the yen and the yuan belong to a special club to which the pound will not be invited must be galling. But this moment was coming, as the once pivotal pound lost its sterling edge three-quarters of a century ago.
Friday, October 2, 2009
The pen is mightier than Gandhi's legacy but not his ideas
A piece that is headed for the Guardian but you read it here first
The rebadging of the ascetic apostle of peace, Mohandas K Gandhi, as a salesman for haute couture fountain pen, costing more than £15,000, in India is a triumph of celebrity over his legacy but not over his ideas.
Gandhi, who spurned both luxury and foreign made goods during his lifetime, was not averse to wealth. Although he shunned ostentatious displays of riches, his campaign to rid India of British rule was backed by both industrialists and the poor masses. It took a lot of Indian millionaires to keep Gandhi in poverty was a quip that resonated because it was true.
However there is little that links the Indian independence movement to the sale of expensive writing instruments. This has not stopped Germany’s Montblanc which has begun selling commemorative fountain pens bearing the Indian leader’s signature inlaid with a saffron-colored opal. The price is £15,500.
Each pen comes with an 8-metre golden thread designed to invoke the cotton Gandhi spun and wove as part of his drive to promote Indian cottage industry. To drive home the penmaker’s marketing message, only 241 pens will ever be made – one for every mile that Gandhi walked during his 1930 "salt march", a protest that called for the abolition of British taxes levied on the making of salt.
By boiling seawater in western India, Gandhi said he was “shaking the foundations of the British Empire”. What he did not think he was doing was the laying the foundation for a marketing campaign for such Gilded Age accoutrements as a rhodium-plated, jewel encrusted fountain pen.
Montblanc must have been aware of the potential blowback by appropriating Gandhi’s image – especially today on the 140th anniversary of his birth, which is a national holiday in India.
To blunt the accurate charges that it was profiting from Indian leader’s name, the company handed over a cheque for £91,000 to Gandhi's great grandson, Tushar Gandhi, for a charity he runs to improve child nutrition and education. The great man’s younger relation, who has previously blasted auction houses for selling Gandhi’s items, coyly admitted the Indian leader “would not have used such an expensive pen." Without irony Montblanc said it was considering a more “accessible” range of Gandhi pens too. Montblanc rollerballs retail at £2,000.
What this sorry tale tells us about is the power of personality in modern-day India. In short Gandhi sells. Although he is still referred to as India’s Bapu or father, the country Gandhi fathered is far from what he idealised.
Gandhi believed in abstinence over gluttony, rural simplicity over urban complexity and economic self-sufficiency over free trade. All are notable in modern India today only for their absence.
Gandhi's India, or at least his influence on economics, has all but disappeared in the past decade. Until the country opened up to the world in the nineties, its leaders backed Gandhi-ite ideas and championed equality and social stability over wealth creation. After 1991, that all changed. Notions of speed and efficiency were stamped on to a civilisation that traditionally took a slower, more relaxed view of life. The message was similar to that of China during the 90s, in the phrase attributed to Deng Xiaoping: "To get rich is glorious."
This sentiment appears dwarfed by India’s teeming millions of poor people. The awful reality is despite India’s rise, the rate of malnutrition in children under five is a shamefully high 45%. The talk of making poverty history sounds hollow in India, a land which is home to a third of the world's poor and where some 300 million people live on less than $1 a day.
Yet another world is growing up, fuelled by the immense wealth that is being amassed by India's new monied classes. Their appetite for goods has seen a new money culture - how to make it and how to spend it. India's masses were, under the more equal state-run economy, denied shopping choices. The country is today undergoing a consumer boom. For some, this is proof enough that, in opening up, India has gained from globalisation - allowing Dior, Bulgari, Rolls-Royce and Montblanc into the country. Consumption in this India is nothing if not conspicuous.
It is not therefore surprising to see that the ruthless exploitation of the Mahatma (great soul) is not limited to penmakers. When Apple urged people to “Think Different”, it used an iconic image of the loinclothed Indian leader. Even Google, which proclaims “Don’t’ be Evil”, has today plastered Gandhi’s image on its search engine.
That Gandhi could become a face for consumer goods and services is a triumph for an economic model he railed against. In accepting this defeat, we should not lose Gandhi’s real message to the world. This was his attachment to his conscience. He thirsted for righteousness in defiance of gods and men. His strategy for non-violence change revolutionised the way we protest today – through non co-operation, peaceful mass dissent and the quiet subversion of the economy.
Because he practised what he preached, he could rally the masses behind him both for the liberation of the country and their “souls”. As a shrewd political operator Gandhi would have been pleased that the modern world has venerated his disciples such as Mandela and Martin Luther King. He was no ideologue, as Mandela pointed out, he even conceded the armed struggle was necessary when the choice was between “cowardice and violence”.
Undoubtedly Gandhi’s image will, like other titans of the twentieth century, become used to sell ever more improbable items. It is in the nature of the modern age to co-opt greatness to peddle the mundane for exorbitant prices. But Gandhi’s advice to be “the change you want to see in the world” is the moral slogan of everyone who seeks to alter the globe for the better – not least for President Obama who has publicly acknowledged his debt to the Mahatma. Find yourself facing a £15,000 luxury pen bearing Gandhi’s signature and the answer is simple: don’t ban his face. Just don’t buy the pen or into the culture that allows it to be sold.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Republics of Fear: India and China
I wrote on the Guardian's Comment is Free section about the rising paranoia between India and China warning of adversarial nationalism becoming part of the two neighbours' dialog.
Here is the Sunday Times' Michael Sheridan making the same point in a piece about the 60th anniversary of the founding of People's Republic.
Here is the Sunday Times' Michael Sheridan making the same point in a piece about the 60th anniversary of the founding of People's Republic.
Curiously, the enemy most often spoken of is India. The censors permit alarmingly frank discussion on the internet of the merits of a war against India to secure the Tibetan plateau.
“Help the Maoists take over power in India to pay them back for hosting the Dalai Lama,” said one contributor.
Veterans who know the PLA from the inside say that despite all its shiny new kit, such grandiose ideas mask the reality of a force that has no recent battle experience and is riddled with corruption. They describe a system of bribes ranging from 10,000 yuan (£909) to get a good post for a private soldier to 30,000 yuan for a place at military college.
“Compared with our last war against India in 1962, our equipment is much better but the devotion to country and people of our officers and men is much worse,” said a retired officer, who cannot be named.
Or, as General Zhang Shutian, a political commissar, put it in a recent speech: “If corruption in the army continues, ideology will decay and open the way for religion, while the promotion system risks causing a mutiny.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
