Showing posts with label UN General Assembly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UN General Assembly. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Health, Development and Human Rights in India

The improvement in the indices of health and development for India has been incredible. Yet for millions hunger is routine and the loss of their livelihoods not newsworthy. While medical services impact the health of individuals, the factors associated with longevity of populations are social and economic.
Education and sponsorship which determine access to work contribute to occupational inequality, which, in turn, leads to socioeconomic outcomes. These sequences operate as a cycle of relative socioeconomic privilege and deprivation transmitting inequalities from one generation to the text.
In fact, health and economic development are dynamically interlinked. Low-income countries have poor healthcare facilities. On the other hand, a high proportion of the population with ill health breeds poverty as these societies lack the basic tools such as medicine, fertilizer, credit, etc., to move out of deprivation through development.
However, the relationship between economic development and income inequality takes the form of an inverted U-turn. Income inequality increases during the early phase of development when the main mechanism of growth is the increase in physical capitals and the fact that resources are allocated to those who save and invest. During later stages of development, this inequality reduces on account of mass education, rural-to-urban and agriculture-to-industry migration and also due to social policies of Governments of mature economies which invest in human capital. The income inequality during the early phase, in fact, exacerbates poverty.
However, rising inequality will eventually put pressure on the Government to rectify the situation using the high incomes attained in the later stages of development. The disparities, as is currently happening in India, tend to split society.
Vulnerability to Ill-Health
The World Health Organization (WHO) has argued that health and human rights are inextricably linked. Violation of human rights can have serious health consequences. Vulnerability to ill-health can be reduced by taking steps to protect such rights (rights to healthy education, housing and freedom from discrimination). It argues that we need to apply a human rights-based approach to health care.
Nevertheless, human rights largely remain the concern of specialist lawyers in the country. In recent years, however, there is increased recognition in the public health community that human rights provide a useful framework for ensuring the conditions in which people can be healthy.
Improvement in health care has been an important part in the overall strategy for socioeconomic development over the planning period. Significant demographic changes and epidemiology shifts have occurred but the health scenario in India is still at crossroads with a wide gap between demand and supply of health services. Some measures of success have been achieved on the communities diseases especially in the case of tuberculosis and leprosy in the case of vector borne diseases, concerted efforts are being made both the Central and State Government under the program while under AIDS, the major strategy has been to build up infrastructure and go in for targeted interventions.
As far as development is concerned, the vibrant economy is a reflection of success of India’s middle and upper classes. They form the engine which is driving the country’s development and evoke the image of a shining India. The hope is that the growth of the economy will also uplift the poor, albeit in a trickle-down effect. While poverty based on headcount has reduced, deprivation, defined as the disparity between base and mean consumption, is increasing in the country.

Model for Human Rights
In the present situation, human rights have attained a new meaning—an accepted phenomenon now. But the irony is that everything encompassed by the motion of human rights is subject of controversy.
India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in 1948, just a year after the country attained Independence. It signified the new republic’s resolve to follow the path of democracy, which would ensure human rights to its citizens, despite doubts expressed by leading statesmen of developed democracies about the success of such an experiment in India.
India’s venture was unique in many respects. Democracy was adopted in many countries after completing the phase of industrialization with the launching of the first Five-Year Plan in 1951, and soon after held a general election, on the basis of adult franchise.
Many advanced western nations introduced women suffrage and voting rights to all citizens much after the India did. India has the most diversity in the world—religious, linguistic and racial—united under a democratic set-up.
Yet, threats to individual freedom are formidable. Religious intolerance, caste tensions, regional chauvinism, terror threats, detentions without trial, poverty amidst plenty, crime against women, custodial deaths, corruption in public life and attendant evils constantly violate human rights.
The promise that India had initially showed in the field of human rights and the type of democratic institutions it has evolved, has won it international recognition. For these reasons, it was elected a member of the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, which had replaced the Commission on Human Rights in June 2006 by securing 173 out of 191 votes of the UN General Assembly, the maximum number of votes.
The rights of the poor can never compete against the might of the rich. The huge toll on the underprivileged during the initial stages of development needs to be factored into the country’s economic planning. Macroeconomic policies which protect sectors of the economy which are not able to face the sudden opening up of markets and a phased and carefully planned changeover.
The promotion of the healthcare, social and economic right of the poor is the most important human rights struggle of our times. We should think about human rights in the context of India’s public health. It needs to be realized that a higher standard of human rights is in the best national interest. India need not search for a model elsewhere. It should aspire to be a model for others.

Sunday, January 15, 2012

India-Israel Cooperation: Krishna’s Visit to Tel Aviv

India and Israel have vowed to upgrade their relations in all fields amid the emphasis by External Affairs Minister SM Krishna on working out a joint strategy to "checkmate" the scourge of terrorism affecting both the countries. Krishna’s visit to Israel assumes significance because the last such trip took place in July 2000 when the then External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh traveled here.
The two countries signed an Extradition Treaty and a pact on Transfer of Sentenced Prisoners as Krishna wound up his two-day visit here, first by an Indian Foreign Minister in over a decade.
During his stay, Krishna met the top leadership including President Simon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu besides holding elaborate talks with his counterpart Avigdor Lieberman.
Landmark Visit
Krishna’s visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories earlier this week was a landmark one. In this India displayed, for the first time, open even-handedness, compromising neither its core interests nor core beliefs. In Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, the external affairs minister candidly laid down the significance of India-Israel relations, speaking without hesitation of the reasons why cooperation with Israel was necessary. He stressed agriculture: this country has in recent years counted on Israeli aid in technologies and techniques relating to dryland farming. But mention must be made of the defense equipment and technologies that we get from Israel, which are vitally needed on our borders. The unmanned aerial vehicles and night-fighting equipment of Israeli make have vastly improved India’s management of the border regions with Pakistan and enhanced our capabilities to neutralize infiltration by terrorist groups. It was, therefore, natural for Krishna to mention anti-terrorism cooperation. In recent years, Israel has emerged as a significant source of military hardware alongside Russia and some Western countries.
Tel Aviv’s Support for New Delhi’s UN Seat
Krishna was received with warmth in Ramallah, headquarters of the Palestinian Authority, after his talks in the Israeli capital, indicating the importance the Palestinians attach to India’s unflinching political support for their cause of “an independent, sovereign and viable Palestinian state”, to quote from Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s speech at the UN General Assembly in September, where India made a strong pitch for granting Palestine UN membership in the face of opposition from the United States and its Western allies.

Friendship with both Israel and the Palestinians is not a zero-sum game — one cannot be at the cost of the other, although certain constituencies here continue to adopt such a shortsighted approach. This was underlined without blushing during Krishna’s recent sojourn. If it is important for various reasons to do business with Israel, it is no less necessary to uphold the principle of Palestinian rights and make efforts to give it practical shape.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Current Predicament in Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

At this moment, US President Barack Obama, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and at least 120 heads of State or Government, might have already arrived in New York to attend this year's UN General Assembly. At this year's UN General Assembly, we can UN member countries to debate and discuss issues pertaining to nuclear safety, famine in Africa, Libya and other major issues. But the highlight of the debate and discussion for this year's UN General Assembly definitely focused on Palestinian Authority's application to join the United Nations as a member country.
The determination of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in wanting to file in an application for Palestine to become an UN member country is very firm. After giving his address at the UN General Assembly on 23 September, Mohamoud Abbas submitted Palestine's application documents to join the United Nations as a member country to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. After this, the "showdown" at the UN General Assembly between the Israeli regime and the Palestinian authority will officially be on at the UN platform.
Movement Against Palestinian Authority
At this stage, apart from the Israeli regime which has continued to intimidate the Palestinians, the United States, the European Union and the so-called Quartet West (the United States, European Union, Russia and the United Nations) are still making last-minute effort to discourage and to advise the Palestinian Authority on giving up its application to the UN as a member country. The consequence after the Palestinian authority filed an application in wanting to become an UN member is indeed unpredictable. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has also warned his fellow Palestinians that in the coming days, Palestinians will face even more (unpredictable) problems.
Abbas indeed knows very well that the consequence for the Palestinian Authority to file in an application to become an UN member can be very serious. However, regardless of what will happen to the Palestinians in the coming days, he has decided to fight for the independence of Palestine through seeking the help of the UN member countries now. Such a strong determination taken by the Palestinian Authority in wanting to become an independence country has reflected the political reality that in addition to the despair of the Palestinians after engaging more than 20 years of peace negotiation with the Israeli regime, their despair has also exposed the hypocrisy of the United States in its handling of Israeli-Palestinian affairs all along.
Although the United States has expressed its support for the "two state solution" framework to allow peaceful coexistence between Palestinians and Israelis, but it appears that all the peace proposals coming from the United States in wanting to resolve the pending Israeli-Palestinian conflicts are but empty talks. These empty talks coming from the United States can only let the Palestinians getting "excited" for a short while only. This is because in order for the United States to support and implement the Israel-Palestine "two-state solution framework", the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority must first resolve the vast and varied issues between them. These issues have included calling the Israeli regime to stop building more Jewish settlements in the Palestinian occupied land and for the common border between Israel and Palestine to retract back to the 1967 period. In addition, the Israeli authority must also allow the Palestinians to use East Jerusalem as its capital; to allow the tens and thousands of Palestinian refugees scattered in Jordon and other countries to return to their homeland, and so on. However, so far, the Israeli authority has even refused to issue an official command to stop the Israelis from building more Jewish settlements on the Palestinian land. As such there is no hope for the Palestinian Authority to expect the Israeli regime to take action on other issues that can move toward the two-state solution plan for Israel and Palestine.
Pressure on Israeli Authority
As a strong ally of Israel, the US Government has, besides repeatedly proclaimed that it will support the independence of Palestine, and besides issuing regrets to deplore the uncalled for action taken by the Israeli regime on the Palestinian land, the US Government has not taken any actual or pragmatic action to support the Palestinians. The US Government is afraid to offend the influential Jewish community in the United States.
The US Government dares not exert pressure on the Israeli authority and force the Israeli regime to make concessions toward the Palestinian Authority so that the Israeli-Palestinian peace talk can be resumed again. In this regard, the United States cannot escape the responsibility for causing the present predicament between the Israeli and the Palestinian Authority that has in turn led the Palestinians having to use the United Nations as its next political platform to resolve their pending problems.

Wednesday, June 8, 2011

Whither Middle East Peace Process?

US President Barack Obama, during his maiden visit to the Middle East in May 2009, delivered an important speech in the Egyptian capital -- Cairo. In that address, Obama said that Israel would have to suspend the construction of its legal settlements on the Palestinian lands on the West Bank for the restart of Arab-Israel peace talks. Almost instantly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had rejected the proposal of the US President. The Israeli prime minister said that the building of the settlements was suspended for one year that means up to September 2009 during the tenure of President George W. Bush and after expiry of the timeframe Israel will again start the construction. President Osama had to withstand that insult silently. It had become clear that the Fatah party government of Palestine would not sit for peace talks unless Israel stopped building settlements.
Arab-Israel Conflicts
Since then, Israel has established a good number of new illegal settlement areas on the West Bank and the captured East Jerusalem and built several thousands of structures on the Palestinian lands. Rather arrogant and aggressive Netanyahu and his government blamed the Palestinians for the capture of lands. The argument of the Israeli government was the Palestinians are divided, among them the HAMAS is determined to eliminate the existence of Israel, so no peace talks are possible with them. As the United States and European Union (EU) have recognized HAMAS as terrorist so the plea of Israel is acceptable to them. In the internal politics Obama has earned the wrath of the US capitalist over his national health bill. And his popularity was nosedived.
In addition, Obama did not get enough opportunity to think over the Middle East as he lost majority in the Congress in the midterm polls. Moreover, he will have to seek votes in November 2012 to become the US President for the second term. Obama knows it very well that it will not be possible for him to win the election by annoying the 'most powerful' Israeli lobbies in the US. And as a result, he prefers keeping mum on the issue of Arab-Israel conflicts.
Unexpected Address
President Obama on 19 May gave a completely unexpected statement at the US Department of State. He had definitely an intention of revising to some extent the present anti-US policy in the Middle East. At the beginning of the so-called 'Arab autumn' process the US seemed to be against the trend. But as the development began going out of the control of the US policy Washington welcomed the revolution in Tunisia and Egypt one after another. But in other places the United States is still lagging behind the pace of developments. Washington was in a dilemma for a long time regarding the mass upsurge in Yemen and Syria. Huge criticisms were raised in the US over mysterious indifference of the Obama administration to sending of Saudi Arabian troops to quell rebellion in Bahrain.
In his State Department address, Obama made attempts to minimize those criticisms. He said: 'The US welcomes those changes that expand the scopes for self determination and opportunities- there should not be any doubt about it. For many decades we have been admitting the no change in situation of this region or the Middle East, but now we have gotten the chance of following the path through which the world could advance in the right direction.'
Obama in that address further said that the basis of the Arab-Israeli crisis would be a 'secured Israel' and on the basis of an independent Palestinian state, and the borders of the two states will be along the demarcation line that was before the 1967 war. But Obama said that some changes along the common borders here and there were possible on the basis of mutual understanding.
On 2 May, the US commandoes swooped on a residence at Abbottabad in Pakistan and killed Usama Bin Ladin. Since then popularity of Obama has jumped high repeatedly. The US President might have thought that he would implement his 2009 Cairo address riding on this popularity. Besides, he might have realized that Israel has been using the peace talks with the Palestinian as a technique of killing time and the crisis will no be solved this way. Now he is thinking over the 2002 Saudi proposal. In that Saudi proposal it was stipulated that the borders of Palestine and Israel will be fixed along the demarcation line of 1967 and all Arab states will recognize Israel simultaneously.
Bad Tempered Dialogue
The US foreign policy is not determined in Washington. This is determined in Israel and the Israelis secure this control by dint of the strength of the Israeli lobbies in the United States. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was scheduled meet the US President in Washington on the following day of the speech of Obama. Prior to his departure for Washington, Netanyahu announced that the 1967 borderline was not acceptable to Israel. He said that the ground realities have under gone many changes (because of illegal Israeli settlements) since 1967 and those changes cannot be ruled out. In other words, he said that the Jews (those came from Europe) had the right to build settlements in the areas where they have settlements during the Bible era that means in entire Palestine.
The Jewish people in the United States could hardly be one-thirtieth of the total population. But in pursuance of Zionist conspiracy, they have taken control of the US politics, economy, and media. Of them, the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is the most powerful group. It being said that no bill in the US Congress could be passed without approval from the AIPAC. Obama might have thought that he will be able to create influence by addressing the AIPAC conference. The AIPAC conference silently heard the speech of Obama. But when the US President referred to the 1967 borderline they raised voice in unison to condemn him. To pacify the anger, President Obama was compelled to announce that the United States will oppose the Arab proposal in the UN General Assembly in September 2011 for giving recognition to the Palestinian state.
Netanyahu also addressed the AIPAC conference. In his address, the Israeli Prime Minister said that the 1967 borderline was not acceptable to his country for security reasons. He had again referred to the Jewish settlements in the Bibal area. And it is needless to mention that the address of Netanyahu was welcome amid repeated clapping from the audience. Netanyahu has again demanded that as a condition for establishing peace Israel must have to be recognized as a Jewish state. His proposal means forfeiting the birth right of the Palestinians, expelled from Israel, in returning to their homeland, which the United Nations accepted for many times. The proposal will give Israel the liberty of expelling nearly 2 million Palestinian from that country. The Palestinian will accept the proposal.
On 24 May, Netanyahu was more cordially greeted in the joint session of the two houses of the US Congress than the AIPAC conference. During his address to the House, both the Republican and Democrat members of the Congress gave him standing ovation 18 times. By this time, Obama and Netanyahu held face to face meeting in the White House. According to available information, their discussions were exciting and bad tempered.
Split in Western Alliance
However, Obama was given rousing receptions during his visit to Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. He earned the rare distinction of addressing the joint session of the British Parliament in Westminster Hall. Before him no US President was fortunate to address the joint session of the British Parliament. In his address, Obama traditionally raised the Palestinian issue and said: 'We (US and Europe) are united for cause a secured Israel and an Independent Palestinian state.
But Obama knows it better that the Europe is now not united with the United States on the Palestinian issue. Virtually Europe is getting more intolerant with each passing. So long the Arab-Israel issue has been under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It was true that a quartet was formed on the issue comprising the United Nations, EU, Russia, and the United States. But that quartet was absolutely ineffective. Former US President George W. Bush appointed his cohort in misdeeds -- Tony Blair -- as the representative of that quartet. It seemed from the statements of Tony Blair that protecting interest of Israel was his prime concern. He is going to Jerusalem off and on and Israelis are receiving him very cordially. It being heard that Tony Blair has been benefiting for her relations with Israel.
Now the EU could have realized that the US foreign policy is determined in Tel Aviv, not Washington. And as a result, no just solution of the crisis is possible by the United States. Some of the EU countries believe the Europe now will have to take responsibility from the United States the initiatives of solving the Arab-Israel crisis. Some of the EU countries, including France, have hinted that they are ready to recognize the independence of Palestine if it is unilaterally declared by the Palestinians.
The Europe has some special advantages also. The Israeli lobbies are very active in Europe particularly in France and Germany. But they are yet to become so stronger like the AIPAC in the United States. In addition, the progress of Israeli economy still largely depends on Europe. Israel is enjoying the duty free access to Europe in exporting goods like other EU members. That means Israeli Prime Minister will find no courage to show his red eyes to the Europe the way he has been demonstrating his audacity to hackle the US President. Under the above circumstances, the people, who support an independent Palestinian state inside Israel, will be encouraged.
Recent Development
Meanwhile, a significant change has taken place in the situation of the Middle East. Israel has been successful in laying a siege to Gaza for long four years with active support from the Hosni Mubarak government of Egypt. That the Egyptian Government acting on behalf of the Israeli Administration has closed down the Rafa Crossing on the southern frontier. But a post-revolution Egypt is not ready to act as a guard of Egypt. Egypt opened the Rafa Crossing on 28 May. Most countries in the Middle East are now witnessing mass upsurge. The friends of Israel in Europe believe Israel will be more friendless if 'Arab Autumn' gets perfection. Under the above circumstances, it will be better for Israel to reach a settlement without killing time.
The Arab League, at a meeting in Doha on 22 May, has decided that despite objection from the US they will move a resolution in the UN General Assembly in September for giving recognition to an independent Palestinian state with the border of 1967. That resolution will create very complex situation for the United States. Under pressure from Israel, the United States will try to oppose the resolution. However, most countries in the world are likely to give recognition to the Palestinian state. The public opposition of so many countries will surely hamper the international dignity of the United States.
Only one option has been left for Washington to adopt. The option is supporting the Arab League resolution. If the United States fails, Washington should abstain from voting against the proposal and handover initiatives of resolving the Middle East crisis to the EU.