4th BRICS Summit: Playing Crucial Role at World Level

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) is a grouping of the world’s emerging economies, representing five continents. The BRICS countries together account for 40 per cent of global GDP ($18.49 trillion). Intra-BRICS trade is worth $212 billion, and is growing at 28 per cent a year. It has set itself a trade target of $500 billion by 2015.
The importance of BRICs in the world economy has increased manifold since the acronym was first coined approximately seven years ago. Few could have imagined then how the US economy would collapse and bring down with it much of the rest of the world. It is worth revisiting the original formulations on the significance of these four major countries that were made by representatives of a major US investment bank
Some member countries in the organization are among the fast emerging economies in the world. At the same time, the world has come to realize that to bring an end to the unipolar world and to maintain the power balance, the importance of Russia cannot be ignored. Countries such as China and Brazil not only want to maintain close relations with the United States, but with Russia as well.
However, the aim of the BRICS is to enhance cooperation among member countries and working together at the international forums. Clearly, it is an opportunity for India to improve and strengthen its relations with China and strive to get their disputes resolved.
The fourth BRICS Summit was held in New Delhi on March 28-29. The summit’s theme was “BRICS partnership for Global Stability, Security and Prosperity.” The participants included Presidents Hu Jintao of China, Dmitry Medvedev of Russia, Jacob Zuma of South Africa and Brazil’s Dilma Rouseff. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hosted the summit, and also held a series of bilateral sessions with his guests, including China’s Hu Jintao.
The summit held against the backdrop of continued profound and complex changes in the international situation, uncertain prospects in world economic recovery and the steadily rising status and role of emerging markets and developing countries in international affairs. It was yet another important event in the ongoing BRICS cooperation. India has worked effectively in preparing for the summit. China tried to work with other BRICS members to push for positive outcomes. On the summit’s eve, the five nations resolved to resist protectionist tendencies worldwide.
The leaders of five emerging economic powerhouses affirmed not just their growing economic clout but also their impact on the global political order.
Delhi Declaration
At the end of the summit, BRICS leaders issued a Delhi Declaration. The Declaration hinted at backing an alternative candidate for the World Bank president's post which has always been appropriated by an American and exhorted the Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to quickly realign their priorities and approach to the needs of the developing world. This is an agenda the five countries intend pursuing at the coming G20 meeting in Mexico as well.
The leaders also weighed the consequences of setting up a “BRICS Bank” and opted for a more contemplative approach by asking their Finance Ministers to examine its feasibility and report back at the next summit in Russia. They agreed that the bank should in no way emerge as a competitor to the World Bank and the IMF but provide funds for projects that do not find favor with these institutions.
In line with their professed commitment to multilateralism in economic and political problem solving, the leaders agreed to invest more in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) which played a major role in catering to the interests of developing countries in the run-up to the setting up of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Seeking to reinforce their growing economic heft with diplomatic clout, the BRICS grouping pitched for a bigger say in global governance institutions, including the United Nations and the IMF, and told the West that dialogue was the only way to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue and the Syria crisis.
The leaders of BRISC’s formulation on Iran came close to condemning the West's pressure tactics to make other countries obey their latest restrictions on trade ties, especially in the energy sphere. Saying that a conflict would have disastrous consequences, it wanted the two antagonists to resolve suspicions over Iran's nuclear program through talks on multilateral fora.
On Afghanistan, BRICS exhorted the international community to stay the course on the development front for 10 years after the West withdraws most of its combat troops by 2014-end and, on Russia's insistence, made a mention of checking narcotic trafficking.
In a fresh assertion, BRICS asked the West to implement the 2010 governance and quota reform before the 2012 IMF/World Bank annual meeting, as well as the comprehensive review of the quota formula to better reflect economic weights. They asked for enhancing the voice and representation of emerging market and developing countries by January 2013, followed by the completion of the next general quota review by January 2014.
In a signature step, the BRICS decided to create their first institution in the form of a BRICS-led South South Development Bank that will mobilise "resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other emerging economies and developing countries." The leaders directed their finance ministers "to examine the feasibility and viability of such an initiative, set up a joint working group for further study, and report back by the next summit."
The development banks of the five countries signed two pacts, including a master agreement on extending credit facility in local currency and BRICS multilateral letter of credit confirmation facility agreement, which could help scale up bilateral trade from $230 billion to $500 billion.
India’s Major Points
Addressing the summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also said that the grouping has agreed to examine in "greater detail" a proposal to set up a South-South Development bank, funded and managed by BRICS and other developing countries.
Singh also urged member countries to speak in one voice on key issues such as the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms. He suggested that BRICS countries should speak in one voice on issues such as reforms of the international body.
On UNSC reforms, Singh suggested that BRICS countries should speak in one voice on issues such as reforms of the international body.
He also said in their restricted session, the grouping also discussed the ongoing turmoil in West Asia and agreed to work together for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
Touching upon the issue of terrorism, Singh said the countries should enhance cooperation against terrorism and other developing threats such as piracy, particularly emanating from Somalia.
UN Millennium Development Goals
BRICS nations are the defender and promoter of the interests of developing countries. In their cooperation, BRICS countries have committed to promoting South-South cooperation and North-South dialogue, endeavored to implement the UN Millennium Development Goals, worked for early realization of the goals set out in the mandate for the Doha development round negotiations, strived to secure a greater say for developing countries in global economic governance and fought all forms of protectionism.
Cooperation among BRICS countries is made necessary by the ongoing economic globalization and democratization in international relations. It is consistent with the trend of the times characterized by peace, development and cooperation, and fully conducive to building a harmonious world of durable peace and common prosperity.
Role of China
An impression is sought to be created that with its massive monetary reserves and political clout, China may exert undue influence in this bank. This is unlikely. Such a bank will not require too much paid-up capital (relative to the average size of respective sovereign reserves) if intelligent financial engineering can help sequester foreign reserves. This would mean that the smallest BRICS economy, South Africa, could easily commit an amount similar to that of China in the capital structure. Such doubts could be further allayed with the institution of a rotating Presidency of, say, a two-year term that could initially be restricted to the BRICS countries alone.
India-India Strategic Ties
The China-India strategic and cooperative partnership has made all-round progress in recent years. A sustained, sound and steady growth of relations between China and India, the two large developing countries sharing borders with each other, will serve not only the well-being of the two peoples but also peace, stability and prosperity in Asia and the world as a whole.
The Delhi Summit will be remembered forever for one major achievement, at least. Its expected decision to set up a BRICS bank on the lines of the World Bank may change the course of economic activity in the member-countries. The setting up of this new financial institution by the bloc that has brought together half of the world’s population may speed up infrastructure development programs in the BRICS countries and serve as a second line of financial defense in times of economic crisis as is being faced by Europe today.

2nd Nuclear Security Summit: Tightening Nuke Weapons Design and Programs

The two-day second Nuclear Security Summit concluded in Seoul (South Korea) on March 27. The first was held in Washington DC in April 2010 after US President Barack Obama mooted the idea in a speech in Prague in 2009. President Obama, who singled out nuclear terrorism as the most serious threat to international security in his speech, was in Seoul. Leading the Indian participation in the summit was Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The gathering of 58 world leaders saw discussing the various issues surrounding nuclear security. The 9/11 attacks in 2001 appear to have spurred countries across the globe to discuss measures that are needed in the event of nuclear materials and facilities actually falling into the hands of non-state actors. Nuclear security is hence seen as a step to combat the threat of nuclear terrorism.
Joint Communique
Seeking strong national measures and global cooperation against nuclear terrorism, world leaders have underlined the central role of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in strengthening the atomic security framework and insisted that the rights of States to peaceful use of nuclear energy will not be hampered.
The leaders said: “We stress the fundamental responsibility of States, consistent with their respective national and international obligations, to maintain effective security of all nuclear materials, which includes nuclear materials used in nuclear weapons and nuclear facilities under their control.”
The communique, adopted by 53 world leaders and five multilateral organizations, also highlighted the fundamental responsibility of the States to prevent non-state actors from acquiring such materials and from obtaining information or technology required to use them for malicious purposes.
In the backdrop of the 2011 Fukushima disaster, the idea of nuclear safety came to the fore at Seoul, with India underlining the need for synergy between nuclear safety and nuclear security. The Seoul communiqué too touches on this aspect. After all, the release of dangerous radioactive materials in sufficient quantities from a legitimate nuclear power plant is no less dangerous than a terrorist stealing and unleashing a dirty bomb.
At a more practical and feasible level, at the Seoul summit, India pushed the expansion of its bilateral ties with South Korea to include the purchase of civilian reactors and military hardware from it, in addition to engaging in space cooperation under which this country would launch South Korean satellites. Maritime security was discussed too between Singh and President Lee Myung-Bak, in addition to stepped up Korean investment in Indian infrastructure.
India’s Stake
Addressing the summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said that India had made a strong pitch for membership of four exclusive nuclear clubs contending that it would help strengthen its export control systems and maintain highest international standards of its nuclear program.
He added that India had never been a source of proliferation of sensitive technologies and the country was determined to further strengthen its export control systems to keep them
At the summit, the prime minister said on par with the highest international standards. He underlined that India had already adhered to the guidelines of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NBG) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
Singh said: "As a like–minded country with the ability and willingness to promote global non-proliferation objectives, we believe that the next logical step is India's membership of the four export control regimes."
India is keen for membership of the NSG, MTCR, Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group. At the same time, Singh said an agreed multilateral framework involving all states possessing nuclear weapons was necessary to attain the goal of a nuclear weapons free world.
"This should include measures to reduce nuclear dangers by reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in security doctrines and by increasing universal restraints on the first use of nuclear weapons," he said.
The prime minister also announced a contribution of one million dollars to the IAEA’s Nuclear Security Fund for the years 2012-13.
India has also made some progress, albeit slowly, on its commitment to set up a Global Centre for Nuclear Energy Partnership. It announced that the centre will have a 200 acre campus in Bahadurgarh, Haryana and comprise four different schools covering nuclear security, nuclear energy systems, and radiation safety.
On India's nuclear program, the prime minister said comprehensive reviews of nuclear safety measures have been undertaken at nuclear facilities.
Concern for Pakistan’s Arsenal
President Obama has voiced concern over safety of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, saying the world cannot allow non-state actors and terrorists to get their hands on the nuclear weapons and end up destroying cities.
“We can’t afford to have non-state actors and terrorists to get their hands on nuclear weapons that would end up destroying our cities or harming our citizens,” Obama told reporters alongside Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani before the two leaders held private talks on the sidelines of the summit.
The West is concerned over the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons as it remains vulnerable because the atomic facilities are located in areas where “Taliban and Al-Qaeda are more than capable of launching terrorist attacks”.
In their first meeting since the killing of Osama Bin Laden in a covert US raid on Pakistani soil in May 2011, the two leaders tried to rescue a troubled anti-terror alliance which has been full of mistrust and recriminations in recent times.
North Korea and Iran Warned
The US President has warned North Korea and Iran that their options are few and their friends fewer as those nations refuse to back down from actions the world sees as menacing.
Seoul warned that it might shoot down parts of a North Korean rocket if they violate South Korean territory, as worries about what Washington calls a long-range missile test overshadowed an international nuclear security summit.
Nuclear Terrorism
The leaders at the summit reached a consensus that nuclear terrorism is among the top global security challenges and that strong nuclear material security measures are the most effective way to prevent it. This may not seem like much, but getting 47 nations to agree on any nuclear issue, however innocuous, is not always easy.
In addition, 29 of the countries present made voluntary commitments to enhance nuclear security. Country-specific steps — colloquially termed “house gifts” — were taken ahead of the summit. Thus, Chile removed all its Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) — 18 kg — in March 2010, while the Philippines joined the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. Several countries, including India, announced that they would create new “centres of excellence” to promote nuclear security technologies.
The outcome Seoul summit, as much as the first one hosted by US President Barack Obama in Washington in 2010, are traceable at the level of theology to President Obama’s Prague speech of 2009. And therein lies the weakness of the enterprise. In that address, the US President had highlighted the dangers of nuclear weapons and nuclear materials falling into the wrong hands, and envisioned a world free of the atom bomb. But until such time as that happens, Obama was quite clear in his vision that the United States would stand ready with its own nuclear weapons to take care of any potential adversary.

Growing Corruption in Defense: Army Chief in New Controversy

Indian Army Chief General VK Singh has blown the lid off defense corruption in India by suggesting in an interview to The Hindu. The General Singh had claimed in media interviews that a lobbyist, who had "just" retired, offered him a bribe of Rs 14 crore for clearing a file relating to purchase of a tranche of 600 "sub-standard" vehicles of a particular make and he had immediately informed Defense Minister A K Antony about the same.
In his explanation through the media he has said that by not addressing the main issue of his date of birth, the Supreme Court has created more confusion. It is clear he did not accept the court verdict in the spirit it was delivered. Instead, after the verdict he has dragged in former Army Chief General JJ Singh, calling him the main architect of the date of birth controversy.
Undoubtedly, the Army chief has committed a few improprieties — not taking up his age issue as upfront as he did when he became the Chief of Army Staff (COAS); making a patently erroneous distinction between his personal case and the office of the COAS; filing a statutory complaint against the government and setting an unhealthy trend among the rank-and-file of questioning lawful authority; and, on rejection of his statutory complaint, taking the government to court. To cap it all, he did not put in is papers even after he lost his case in court.
The Czech-origin Tatra multi-wheeled vehicles, manufactured by a public sector unit under license, were being supplied to the Army for the past 25 years. If the quality of the vehicle was indeed unsatisfactory, why did the Army never complain in writing? What is more, it is said that only one vendor has supplied the vehicle to the Army since 1986 and enjoyed a virtual monopoly. Why was then a bribe needed to be paid to General Singh? While General Singh’s insinuation that at least some of his predecessors might have been bribed to keep quiet about the quality of the vehicle has stirred the hornet’s nest, the retired officer named by the Army chief has denied the allegation and any interest in the vehicle, claiming that he has been engaged in only real estate and mining since his retirement.
Defense Ministry’s Response
The defense minister has corroborated the Army chief’s allegation of a Rs 14-crore bribe offered to him by Lieutenant General (retired) Tejinder Singh, but blamed Gen VK Singh of “inaction” in the matter.
Making a statement in the Rajya Sabha (upper house of the Parliament), Antony mentioned Lieutenant General (retired) Tejinder Singh by name and said he had asked the General to act, but he did not want to pursue the matter for unknown reasons. This, and the assertion that he himself could not act as there was no written complaint from the chief were the explanations that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) refused to buy.
Cases Against Army Chief and Others
Lt Gen (retd) Tejinder Singh has filed a criminal defamation case against General Singh and others in a Delhi court, rejecting allegations that he had offered Rs 14 crore as bribe to the General to strike a defense deal.
Tejinder Singh asked the court to summon and initiate proceedings against General Singh for making the "libelous" statement in media.
In his complaint, the retired Lt General has also named Vice Chief of Army staff SK Singh, Lt Gen B S Thakur (D G MI), Major General S L Narshiman (Additional Director General of Public Information and Lt Col Hitten Sawhney accusing them of misusing their official position, power and authority to level false charges against him.
Alarming Questions
The important aspect of this present controversy is that people fail to understand why did not General Singh, who enjoys a just reputation for integrity — exactly like defense minister— not have his dubious interlocutor arrested on the spot? Asked about this in a television interview, General Singh said he was too shocked as the vile suggestion was made by an officer just recently retired and was couched in indirect terms. General Singh said he went up to the defense minister right away and informed him of the distasteful episode.
What action did Antony choose to take apart from “holding his head” and instructing the chief not to let shady characters into our defense trade. Knowing our Parliament, it will probably get fixated on this issue (it must certainly investigate it though), and not pay attention to the wider (and pressing) question of corruption in defense purchases that could have the effect of selling our soldiers down the river in a military crisis.
Earlier in March 2012, the Defense Ministry banned six foreign and two Indian companies for 10 years for allegedly being involved in the payment of hefty sums to the director-general of the ordnance board to secure the contract for setting up factories to produce specialized materials for artillery shells. The firms included the Israeli government company that manages much of that country’s defense exports to India, and Israel is now India’s second largest defense exporter.
General Singh has used the bribery revelations to illustrate that he is being targeted by the establishment for ferreting out the corrupt within the system which had corroded the internal health of the Army. In graphic detail he has explained how corruption has burrowed into the innards of the Army. He has claimed that a retired unnamed officer offered him Rs 14 crore as bribe if he would clear a file. He asked him to leave and reported the matter to the defense minister.
However, the question lies: when the General B K Singh had informed the defense minister; why Antony kept mum in all these months, he should have ordered enquiry into the matter! Moreover, why the Army chief himself not lodged FIR against the person, who had offered bribe in his chamber; who prevented him how the general also kept mum? Only after the age controversy of General Singh, and the judgment going against him and now he is on verge of retirement, Singh is making public all these things? General Singh should have lodged FIR against the responsible person, who came to him personally to offer bribe! Undoubtedly, the Army chief is of impeccable character but his Defense Minister Antony is also known for honest and integrity.
Wrong Timing of Charges
Moreover, why did General Singh choose to go public with the bribery charge now and not earlier? The question is pertinent because as early as March 6, 2012, the Army put out a press release accusing a retired lieutenant. General of offering a bribe on behalf of a company that supplies trucks. Inexplicably, while the press release did not fight shy of naming the person who allegedly offered the bribe, it was silent on who he tried to induce.
General Singh should have started his crusade against bribe-givers more robustly much earlier and not at the fag end of a flagging career. It is true that he pushed the Adarsh Housing Society scandal and the Sukna land scam. But the timing of the latest revelations in The Hindu and The Economic Times is suspect. The immediate fallout from his interview and allegations is a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry in which the Army chief, the unnamed General, the defense minister and officials of the Ministry will be quizzed. The Defense acquisition procedure in which the Army is worst hit will slow down even further, with more defense companies being blacklisted. Even more worrying will be the worsening state of civil-military relations, especially between the Army Headquarters and the Defense Ministry.
Positive Aspect
An officer of impeccable integrity, General Singh's attempts to crack down on corruption in the Army, particularly the Sukna land and Adarsh Housing Society scams, shows he has what it takes to be a tough reform-oriented leader. Which is what makes the seemingly casual handling of an alleged attempt to bribe him somewhat puzzling. If the defense minister did not take his complaint seriously, the Army chief could have pursued the matter in a variety of ways.
Whatever the reason for this reluctance, it is clear that the controversy over his age — a matter strictly between himself and the defense establishment — has caused collateral damage in other areas and spawned unrelated disputes that have the potential of causing divisions in the Army, particularly in the top echelons, and in the Defense Ministry between uniformed men and political leaders.
Assessment
It is abhorrent on the part of General Singh in making sweeping statements and accusations in public to sensationalize the issue rather than making appropriate moves to get the bribe inducer booked and tried with valid proof. It is high time that he stops sullying the image of the army with his politician like demeanor and brings disrepute to the exalted post he holds until he remits office.
It is really surprising why General Singh who is known for his firm stand against corruption kept mum on following up with this issue and what prompted him to open the can of worms at this point of time? He could have got this monkey off his back as soon as this issue surfaced and why waited for over an year and that too when it is time for retirement?
No investigation would change the systems which have been fine-tuned to corruption. Only a grass roots education of citizens of evils of corruption would help reduce corruption. Hope this takes place. We do not need heroes like Anna to address corruption; we need awareness programs to make a common man aware of evils of corruption. Hope we can initiate these awareness without involvement of political parties.