Success of SAARC After 25 Years of Establishment

The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit is often described as being a mere photo opportunity for south Asian leaders who should actually be using the comatose organization to reinvent regional cooperation in a globalize world. Such pessimism is inevitable if one takes stock of the progress that SAARC has made over the period of time. There exists a SAARC convention to deal with all issues that have a certain salience in the regional context. Yet, even 25 years after its inception the organization is found wanting both in terms of forming a regional identity and of forging any sense of a regional belongingness. This is where the problem lies. Contested national identities constructed by member states have not encouraged an identity based on common socio-cultural heritage to take root.
South Asian countries engage readily and often with powerful states in the international system, yet when it comes to regional engagement, their bilateral relations have remained strained, and are characterized by mistrust and suspicion thus making regional cooperation hostage to bilateral politics.
Gaining Strategic Space
At present, consisting of eight members, SAARC has the potential to expand its membership to include Myanmar. What has been intriguing in the recent past is that while many in South Asia have written the obituary of SAARC as a vehicle for fostering regional cooperation, there are countries who are vying with each other to become part of it as observers. One of the observers aspiring for membership is campaigning for it through its regional proxies. It is too early to say whether SAARC, which could not inculcate a sense of regional solidarity within its membership, will be able to deal with observer countries who are more interested in gaining strategic space rather than in regional cooperation.
The organization has yet not delineated the possible role of the observer countries. In this context it is not clear whether their engagement will benefit the SAARC countries. Some member countries like Sri Lanka and Bangladesh have expressed hopes that the observers would play a positive role. AARC has progressively addressed 'hard' issues that confront the region more than 'soft' issues. If one compares the agenda of the organization when it was formed with its current goals then SAARC can be seen to be slowly moving towards regional integration in the real sense. This integration is beyond having just a common approach to issues like poverty, telecommunication, weather, sports, culture, etc., as was envisaged in the beginning. The translation of its agenda into a meaningful cooperation has also not been possible due to the declaratory approach the leadership has taken and endorsed without having any real commitment towards these goals. The reason could be that the leaders perhaps feel compelled to demonstrate to the people of the region that they are committed to the process of regional cooperation without appearing to be spoilers. There exists popular support for regional cooperation. The people want less rigid visa controls and free exchange of goods and ideas, while keeping the current borders intact. Regional cooperation is a reality. An economic raison d'être is a prerequisite for regional politics in a globalized world where regional cooperation is the only option. The transnational character of problems relating to terrorism, drug trafficking or climate change cannot be addressed individually by countries which share porous and, many a time, un-demarcated and contested borders. The countries of the region realized this but are yet to shed their securitized state-centric mindsets. Regional cooperation without regional commitment Regional engagement among south Asian countries has been minimal compared to their engagement with Western countries. Whether it is security or economics, SAARC countries are more integrated with the global order than with their regional arrangement. There are no underlying economic compulsions that bind the countries of the region as was the case with the European Economic Community (EEC). The countries of south Asia do not have common security concerns to unite them. Threats are mostly seen arising from within the region rather than from the outside. Therefore the problem is: how can the countries of South Asia cooperate with each other when they perceive each other as being responsible for their instability? Because of this mistrust, many of the conventions--such as the Additional Protocol of the SAARC Convention on Terrorism--have become defunct. Each country faces the challenge of terrorism yet South Asian countries have not been able to devise a common approach to it. They neither share intelligence nor is there any commitment to stop cross-border support to terrorist groups. If one analyses the various clauses of the Additional Protocol of Terrorism which criminalised the collection or acquisition of funds for the purpose of committing terrorist acts, it becomes amply clear how the very purpose of dealing with the issue has been defeated because of the double standards prevailing among states in the region. Though SAARC has a Terrorism Monitoring Desk in Colombo it has not yet come out with any report. The SAARC interior ministers' meeting has also not made any concrete suggestions on how best to cooperate. The issue of terrorism has rather been addressed bilaterally. If one studies the speeches of the heads of states at the recently concluded 16th SAARC summit it will be seen that they devoted much time to expounding their countries' achievements in dealing with various socio-economic and terrorism-related problems. Some of these speeches were prescriptive in nature when what was required was how their countries had promoted regional cooperation. The leaders reiterated the importance of regional cooperation without specifying how to take this cooperation forward. The president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, in his speech put greater emphasis on terrorism and said: 'Until all members of SAARC, without exception or reservation, commit not to allow their territories to be used directly or indirectly to shelter, arm or train terrorist groups . . . the wild fire of terrorism will not discriminate in choosing its target'.1 He also stressed that with current bottlenecks, expeditious overland movement of goods and benefits of a modern transport infrastructure would not be felt. Maldivian president, Mohamed Nashid called for a 'comprehensive review of the on-the-ground effectiveness of SAARC'. He asked for greater dialogue between India and Pakistan and expressed the frustration of the smaller countries of south Asia who have often found themselves hostage to the Indo-Pak conflict. The president said that the 'neighbours can find ways to compartmentalise pending differences, while finding areas on which they can move forward'.2 Bhutan felt that SAARC was losing its focus because of the requirement of close to 200 meetings per year. It therefore suggested a substantial reduction of activities and meetings to ensure focus.3 The Indian prime minister said that the countries of south Asia need to accept that the glass of regional cooperation is half empty and the institutions are not empowered sufficiently to be proactive.4 The Bangladesh prime minister rejected anyone using the cloak of Islam or any other religion to perpetuate violence and categorically stated that Bangladesh will not let its territory be used for launching terrorism elsewhere.5 Pakistan's prime minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed, said that SAARC has not made much progress due to historical legacies, differences and disputes while the Sri Lankan president, Mahinda Rajapaksa, said: 'We often tend to provide priority to our engagements with extra regional actors, without devoting sufficient attention to further developing and strengthening the links within our own regional organisation'.6 SAARC needs to follow a bottom up approach rather than a top down one. In this context good relations between the countries can help regional cooperation rather than the other way round. Moreover, even though there is a people's SAARC at the civil society level, attempts should be made to build synergy between the official SAARC and the people. The reason is that SAARC is yet to connect with people and its agreements and commendable conventions have not touched the lives of the people on whose behalf these declarations have been made. Moreover, issues like terrorism are addressed at a bilateral level. This shows that the countries do not have much faith in the regional approach. Even though there exists a convention on terrorism and an additional protocol, Bangladesh has put forward a proposal for forming a regional task force. India, which has been a victim of terrorism and shares its borders with many South Asian countries, has taken up the issue of terrorism bilaterally. Some issues where bilateralism is adopted even though relevant SAARC conventions exist are as follows. The previous Bangladesh National Party government provided shelter to Indian insurgent groups as strategic assets in violation of the SAARC convention. They were arrested and handed over to India only after the Awami League government came to power in Dhaka. This was largely the result of a bilateral initiative. Bhutan's decision to flush out Indian insurgent groups who took shelter in southern Bhutan is again a bilateral initiative. Similarly, the issue of cross-border terrorism originating in Pakistan was decided in 2004 on the sidelines of the Islamabad SAARC summit. The now defunct Indo-Pak Joint Terror mechanism is yet another bilateral initiative. Both India and Afghanistan have approached the United States a number of times to resolve the issue of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. This is in spite of the fact that Pakistan has been a frontline state and a crucial player in the global war against terror but it has been reluctant to cooperate either with India or Afghanistan. Post-Mumbai, Pakistan could have taken action under Article 7 of the Additional Protocol to confiscate funds of the Jamaat-ul-Dawa. However, this was only done following a UN resolution and under pressure from China and the US. This establishes that the regional approach to terrorism has been a non-starter. SAARC speaks of regional connectivity, but Bangladesh's offer to provide transit facilities to India and the use of its ports to India, Nepal and Bhutan has been entirely a Bangladeshi initiative. In the regional context Pakistan has not allowed Afghan trucks to carry Indian goods from Wagah. They go back empty. India also has been using Iran for its trade with Afghanistan. The concept of the South Asia Growth Quadrangle was another way to carry forward sub-regional cooperation under Article 6 of the SAARC charter. There is an urgent need to reactivate the Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and India cooperation under the Growth Quadrangle. The 16th summit declaration: anything new? As has been the case with past summits, the 16th summit declaration says the leaders 'expressed satisfaction' that SAARC has achieved a number of milestones which are not specified. It is silent on whether these 'milestones' have made any difference to the region. Had that been the case the SAARC leaders would not have lamented the failure of the organisation even 25 years after its establishment. As was pointed out in the summit declaration, SAARC's relevance lies 'in providing a platform for regional cooperation'. However, it is up to the member countries to make the platform effective. It is therefore not surprising that now, after 25 years of existence, the leaders are discovering the need for a vision statement. The declaration further states that the: 'silver jubilee year should be commemorated by making SAARC truly action oriented by fulfilling commitments, implementing declarations and decisions and operationalizing instruments and living up to the hopes and aspirations of one-fifth of humanity'.7 The summit recommended public diplomacy to reach out to different sections of society. Such an aim can only be realized if the countries can implement some of the agreements they have signed and evoke these agreements to resolve problems. For example, in spite of two agreements on terrorism, why is there no cooperation between countries to deal with the menace? The member states reiterated their resolve to cooperate on terrorism and drug trafficking and reaffirmed their commitment to implement relevant regional conventions. Implementation will remain a big challenge as long as state sponsorship of terrorism continues. There are inherent contradictions in what the countries project. While Bhutan speaks of Gross National Happiness (GNH) and promises to hold workshops on GNH in the country, it has denied the right of return to its ethnic Nepalese who fled the kingdom in 1990. Economic cooperation between countries of the region is yet to take off and explains why, in spite of South Asia Free Trade Association (SAFTA) being ratified, regional trade has remained below five per cent. On the issue of energy there is no concrete cooperation for establishing a regional energy grid. India has offered to prepare a roadmap for developing a SAARC market for electricity, which needs enabling markets in the member states. One of the welcome developments has been the establishment of the South Asia Development Fund (SDF) which was envisioned in 2005 by reconstituting the South Asia Development Fund established in 1996.8 To make the SDF viable the countries first need to arrive at a consensus and identify areas where these funds would be used.9 One hopes this would not be bogged down by bilateral and trilateral disputes. The leaders have sagaciously agreed that 'the projects being funded through SDF are demand-driven, time bound and aligned with the developmental priorities of the region'.10 It would, however, take a lot of diplomatic sweating to translate this vision into reality. Perhaps one of the issues that SDF needs to address urgently is to fund infrastructure projects to enhance regional connectivity. The summit also recommended increased public-private partnership for greater intra-SAARC investment promotion efforts. This would help in the speedy implementation of projects as this is an effective way to deal with administrative bottlenecks pertaining to land acquisition, electricity supply and bureaucratic red tape. Intra-SAARC investment for the private sector would also be a welcome development. Given the tardy processes of regional trade and restrictions in foreign investment and long negative lists it will not be easy to attract private capital. To implement the public-private partnership trade it will be important to ensure liberalization, harmonization of standards as well as guarantee that products produced through this partnership would have access to regional markets.
Regional Cooperation
SAARC has already established the South Asia Regional Standard Organization. Efforts should be made to make it operational. Bilateral relations between the countries would be crucial to facilitate such investments as private businessmen are unlikely to invest given an environment of distrust which is not conducive for business. For example, bilateral proposals involving investments have already run into rough weather. Even after the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) announced a liberalized policy for investment by Indian businesses there continues to be resistance to Indian investment. An investment proposal by TATA, for example, got derailed due to Bangladesh's internal politics. A common market for south Asia is still in its infancy because of non-tariff and Para tariff barriers. Therefore, unless the tendency to politicize economics does not end, this vision of the leaders of the region will be added to the list of wishful thinking that the SAARC has accumulated over 25 years. The summit also took a decision to declare 2010-2020 the 'Decade of Intraregional Connectivity in SAARC'. It is important that SAARC leaders take steps to implement regional connectivity in order to drive growth, induce better synergy and give a boost to SAFTA.
Observers in SAARC China's growing influence in the region has been a matter of concern for India. China's entry into SAARC in 2005 has been significant and Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan played an important role in facilitating Chinese entry. China's presence is a matter of concern for two reasons. First, there is a growing nexus between China and Pakistan at the heart of which lies the policy to balance India. Its presence therefore cannot be considered neutral. Second, China's presence in SAARC is specifically for gaining strategic space. China has been following a strategy to engage with neighboring countries for defense and economic cooperation. Though China's trade ties with India have seen an upward swing, it has border conflicts with India and Bhutan. The relations between India and China have remained highly suspect. China shares good relations with the neighboring countries whereas India is looked upon with suspicion. In this context China's presence could be a pressure tactic that may be employed on India. A conflicted relationship with China would confine India to the region and prevent it from playing a larger global role. This has been one of the principles of China's engagement in the region. Since SAARC itself has hardly made any progress it is not clear how China can contribute to its progress. Some other observer countries have other interests in the region. For example, Japan is the highest aid donor to the region and the US is heavily engaged in the region to counter terrorism and has a stake in regional peace; Australia has the largest number of immigrants from this region. SAARC will now have to brace for an India-China contest apart from the one between India and Pakistan which was largely blamed for the slow progress of SAARC. The Chinese vice foreign minister said China would 'expand cooperation with SAARC and elevate our friendly and cooperative ties to a new level'.11 It proposes to hold a China-SAARC senior officials meeting. The Myanmar representative said that its geographical proximity, historical and cultural links prompted it to become an observer in SAARC. It also offered to act as a bridge between south and Southeast Asia. However, one has not been able to understand why Myanmar has not applied for membership. The representative of Iran said that Iran's geographical location and extensive transport network enables it to help South Asia in expanding its trade with other parts of the world. Conclusion Regional cooperation in the South Asian region lacks the commitment and dedication that is required to make it a success. Some countries have agreed to cooperate because they do not want to be spoilers while there are others who genuinely believe that this is the way forward. In spite of scathing criticism of SAARC by the leaders of the region on its 25th anniversary, one is not sure whether there would be any fundamental change in the attitude of the countries. Earlier, attempts were made to multi-lateralize bilateral issues but now efforts are being made to resolve some issues like terrorism bilaterally. The countries which do not have bilateral synergy will not be able to make a meaningful contribution to the success of SAARC.
Collective Self-Interest
To quote the Pakistani Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani: 'Only when we refuse to be held hostage to history, only when we sincerely and assiduously work to build trust, resolve disputes, bridge perceptions and see merit in an enlightened collective self-interest, will we be able to unleash our latent potential'.12 The big question that remains is 'When?' It is a tall order to expect regional cooperation between countries who do not see eye to eye even in bilateral matters.
Each country joined SAARC to forward its interests or to avoid getting sidelined, particularly within the Indo-centric region. Pursuing national interests is desirable but to pursue it under the cloak of regionalism is a recipe designed for the failure of SAARC. A regional identity is essential for the success of SAARC.
People-to-People Contact
If the countries try to undermine regional interests for their narrow political advantage then members can resign themselves to this forum becoming a mere talking shop. Even after 25 years it has failed to connect with the masses. Its promotion of people-to-people contact is restricted to judges, diplomats and the parliamentarians.
SAARC needs to get off its elitist pedestal and adopt a subaltern approach. However, the time to write the epitaph of SAARC has not yet come. In spite of all the misgivings, and non-implementation of various agreements and conventions, SAARC provides greater regional visibility to smaller countries and provides them with the opportunity and responsibility to contribute to the region in a meaningful way. For them even a failed SAARC is more attractive as a platform than being restricted to bilateralism in an India-dominated region.

India-Sri Lanka Relations: A Critical Review

India's policy toward Sri Lanka has undergone several twists and turns during the post independence period. From a policy of active involvement, it took a handoff policy after the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. However, given the geographical continuity and ethnic affinity India cannot isolate itself from the developments in the island republic. The recent activities and policies pursued by Pakistan and China is also a matter of great concern to New Delhi.
India's long term interests in Sri Lanka will be a political solution which guarantees the safety and security of all minority groups in the unified country and the removal of extra regional forces which pose a threat to India's security environment. In this paper I propose to highlight some of the important issue which has a bearing on India and Sri Lanka relations.
For the Tamils in Sri Lanka and the also Tamil Diaspora scattered in different parts of the world, Tamil Nadu is their original homeland. For the Sinhalese India is the closest neighbor whom they can always lookup towards help and favor. Despite these close ties, India's policy towards Sri Lanka has always had a negative impact on bilateral relations. The love - hate relationship compounded with the fear of a big brotherly attitude had always made Sri Lanka look at India with suspicion. India, although being in an advantageous state, did little to install confidence in the southern neighbor. What is more New Delhi antagonized its neighbor by its short sighted policies. The ambiguous role played by Central Government in New Delhi and Tamil Nadu Government towards the protracted ethnic conflict between the Tamils and the Sinhalese also played a big role in India burning its hands by its involvement in Sri Lankan issue. While the ethnic crisis is an emotional issue, Indian policy towards Sri Lanka was also guided more by its strategic interests due to the location of Sri Lanka in the Indian Ocean. The Sri Lankan Government should also be given equal credit for contributing towards love – hate relations. Despite her awareness of India's security concerns, Sri Lanka has always tried to play a divisive role by inviting external actors in the affairs of Indian Ocean and thus act against India's interest. A telling example of this attitude became apparent when Sri Lanka allowed Pakistani Air Force to refuel during the Bangladeshi war of 1970. Thus Sri Lanka's self-interest is also one of the reasons for India's over arching security concerns especially on the issue of extra regional presence.
Impact of Ethnic Conflict
The Indian intervention in Sri Lanka, could have been avoided. The India Sri Lanka accord should have been signed between the Colombo and the Tamils and India should have acted as the guarantee. The Indian forces sent to Sri Lanka became a victim to the hasty and un co-ordinated policies of India. Having fought against the LTTE on behalf of the Sri Lankan Government the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was sent out unceremoniously by the Sri Lankan Government. The Tamils who had welcomed the IPKF with open arms also played their part to get the IPKF out of Sri Lanka, bringing to an end India's controversial involvement in Sri Lanka. The end of Eelam War has opened a new chapter in India Sri Lanka relations. India need not now be worried about the presence of the third navy (Sea Tigers), Air Force (Air Tigers) and suicide cadres in the Indian Ocean. But the absence of LTTE does not mean that there is no threat arising from the Indian Ocean, rather the close relations of Sri Lanka with China and Pakistan has increased strategic concerns for India.
Approximately 17 years ago around this time of the year Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi landed at Colombo airport by an Indian Air Force plane in the thick of the Sri Lankan crisis.
He was not taken to the city in a cavalcade by road. Instead, he landed at Colombo's Galle Face by an Indian military helicopter as IAF planes guarded the airspace. Across the seafront were to be seen Indian Navy ships which had been positioned apparently for any contingency.
Sri Lanka was facing a grim situation caught as it was in ethnic crisis. President Jayawardene, who needed a helping hand, had clearly succeeded in persuading Rajiv Gandhi to lend him one.
The result was the India-Sri Lanka Agreement which the two signed later in the day. Among other things, it provided for India sending the Indian Peace Keeping Force to bash up the LTTE which was threatening to carve out an independent Tamil Eelam in the northern and eastern Sri Lanka.
One could feel the tension in the air. President Jaywardene's dissenting Prime Minister, R. Premadasa, stayed away to signal Sinhala opposition to the agreement.
By agreeing to send the IPKF, India instantly provoked a strong reaction among the Sinhalas so much so that on the following day a Sri Lankan Navy rating attacked Rajiv Gandhi with a rifle butt when he was inspecting the guard of honour. India's Prime Minister could have lost his life that day a few minutes before he boarded the IAF helicopter for the airport to fly back to India.
India had willy-nilly jumped into the Sri Lankan mess. In the process it actually earned the anger of both the Sinhalas who hated India for sending its troops to Sri Lanka and the LTTE which the IPKF was to fight against. What was essentially a fight between the Sinhalas and the LTTE became an open conflict between India and the LTTE. No wonder, President Jayawardene was known for his cleverness.
Whatever President Jaywardene's calculations, India's relations with much of the dominant Sri Lankan opinion had become suspect. The IPKF was seen as an occupation force, and India as a hegemonistic neighbor. Centuries of a happy relationship had given way to a quick-fix that did not work but left a legacy of intense distrust.
Seventeen years later, now one, however, experiences a sea-change in the relations between India and Sri Lanka. Distrust has given way to the belief that India means well for Sri Lanka and is a friend and not really a Big Brother, throwing its weight around.
India's Support
The end of the ethnic conflict was accompanied by the displacement of 300,000 Tamil civilians. New Delhi’s primary concern in recent months has naturally been about the rehabilitation of internally displaced Tamils. With an investment of $110 million, India has provided emergency supplies of medicines, temporary housing and cement, and undertaken demining of Tamil habitats located in the battle zones. But this is necessarily only a beginning, in a larger package of assistance that New Delhi has to provide to the Tamil population in the war-affected parts of the Northern and Eastern provinces of Sri Lanka. With plans underway to have an Indian Cultural Centre and renovate the famous Duraiappan Stadium in Jaffna, India would have to invest substantially in building higher educational and technical training institutions in Tamil areas to enable the Tamil population to integrate into an emerging pluralistic and economically dynamic Sri Lanka.
Politically, President Rajapakse should be persuaded to implement the provisions of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lanka Constitution enacted in 1988, pursuant to the Rajiv Gandhi-Jayawardene Agreement of 1987. Moreover, if a return to a situation of Tamil discontent fuelling insurgency is to be avoided, it would only be wise for Sri Lanka to also enact legislation to implement the provisions of the “Constitution of the Republic of Sri Lanka Amendment Bill” of August 3, 2000, and effectively end human rights violations of innocent Tamils.
This Constitutional Amendment Bill was presented after extensive consultations by President Kumaratunga’s advisers G.L. Peiris and Neelan Tiruchelvan and was withdrawn because of domestic opposition. The implementation of this bill, together with the 1988 Constitutional Amendment, will largely address Tamil concerns and aspirations. But, at the same time, the Tamils of Sri Lanka would have to recognize that with the East becoming very different from the North in terms of its ethnic composition, demands for a united north-eastern province may no longer be tenable.
Concerns naturally exist in India about growing Chinese involvement in Sri Lanka and especially its partnership in the development of Hambantota Port. This port, being built with a concessionary Chinese loan of $300 million, will eventually have a LNG refinery, fuel storage facilities, three separate docks, together with facilities for ship repair and construction. It can serve as a base for bunkering and refuelling. Moreover, China has been the largest supplier of military equipment to Sri Lanka in recent years and is involved in projects for the construction of highways, railways and a coal-based power plant.
India has extended the Lines of Credit amounting to $592 million to Sri Lanka for upgrading of the Colombo-Matara rail link, the supply of railway equipment and construction of railway lines in Northern Sri Lanka. Proposals are under consideration for the interconnection of the grids in Sri Lanka and India. But New Delhi would do well to ensure that negotiations are finalized for constructing a 500 MW power plant in Trincomalee.
Tamil Nadu Issue
Tamil Nadu's role in the India-Sri Lanka relations can never be ignored. Due to the close ethnic and geographical proximity, Tamil Nadu had always tried to have a say in India's policy towards Sri Lanka. However on many occasions New Delhi bypassed Tamil Nadu in its crucial decisions.
In the initial stages of the ethnic conflict while the Tamil Nadu and the Central Government in New Delhi were keeping a close watch on developments in Sri Lanka, they scrupulously refrained from doing anything that could be considered interference in Sri Lankan affairs, in spite of there being tremendous support from the opposition parties and other key players of Tamil Nadu for a more active policy toward Sri Lanka. However, Tamil Nadu's role became inevitable only after the Tamil militants began to play an active role in Tamil Nadu. Their presence in Tamil Nadu activated the Tamil social constituency in India and many Tamil public figures, media organizations and even local politicians started sympathizing with their cause. Tamil Nadu factor should be analyzed on the premise of two important factors; first: role of Tamil polity of both Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka during the initial period of ethnic crisis, second: their role since the beginning of ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. Until the movement of Tamils militants into Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Government was only giving lip service and not real involvement, particularly in terms creation of Tamil Eelam.
Sri Lanka is strategically placed to exploit the geopolitical struggle unfolding in the Indian Ocean between China and India, with the United States having its own agenda for retaining its influence. While Pakistan is playing for stakes in Sri Lanka with Chinese acquiescence to queer the pitch for India, the Russians too are keeping a hawk eye on any activity in the Indian Ocean.
Considering that Sri Lanka sits adjacent to the shipping lanes that feed 80 per cent of China’s and 65 per cent of India’s oil needs, its strategic importance can hardly be ignored.
With the bulk of China’s trade passing through the sea-lanes in the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka thought it prudent to enter into a quid pro quo with the Chinese. While it drew upon Chinese support in terms of sophisticated arms and diplomatic backing, Colombo conceded strategic concessions, particularly a major new southern port at Hambantota, to Beijing. Ironically, it was India that Sri Lanka first approached for setting up a port at Hambantota, but when the Indians showed lack of enthusiasm, Colombo wasted no time in going to the Chinese.
China has developed similar port facilities in Myanmar (Burma), Bangladesh and Pakistan as part of a “string of pearls” strategy to develop its naval reach and protect crucial oil and other supplies shipped via the sea-lanes in the Indian Ocean.
In the run-up to the decimation of the Tamil Tigers, the Chinese were not only generous with weaponry but they also encouraged Pakistan to train Sri Lanka Air Force pilots and supply small arms. China sold Jian-7 fighters, anti-aircraft guns and JY-11 3D air surveillance radars to the Sri Lankan army, leaving the Pakistanis to meet the small arm needs of the Lankans.
In July last, for the first time, Sri Lanka attended the Shanghai Cooperation Council meeting as a dialogue partner, a blessing bestowed by Russia and China in recognition of its importance in the new Indian Ocean strategic game.
For India, it was none-too-easy to arm the Lankans to combat the Tamil Tigers due to the fallout this would have had in southern India, but it did provide defensive weapons and intelligence to the Sri Lankan government, besides economic aid, so as to maintain a degree of leverage with Colombo.
The Sri Lankans acknowledge that given its southern compulsions, India did give useful help in fighting the Tamil Tigers in the crucial stages. It helped the Sri Lankan navy through vital intelligence; it gave off-shore patrolling vessels and also provided a blockade against LTTE vessels.
The focus was on preventing Sri Lanka from falling into the Chinese lap and if that meant opening the purse-strings to counter-balance the Chinese supply of arms, Indian strategists were perfectly in tune with it.
There was the classic example of a $2.4 billion loan sought by the Sri Lankan government from the IMF to tackle its balance of payments problem which was refused by the IMF. Ordinarily, Sri Lanka would have turned to China, but before it could do that the Indian government indicated to Colombo that it was prepared to extend that loan if the IMF did not come round. It was indeed a case of once-bitten-twice-shy, having seen how the Chinese had grabbed the opportunity to develop the Hambantota port.
As part of its strategy to make Indo-Sri Lankan relations attractive for Colombo, the Indian government has also taken the initiative to set up a high-capacity power transmission link between India and Sri Lanka which is likely to be completed by 2013.
The 285-km-long power link, including submarine cables, over a stretch of 50 km, would enable the two countries to trade their surplus power, thereby offering a cheaper option to bridge their power generation deficit and also manage their peak demands.
The link will also help Sri Lanka reduce its use of expensive fuels and import cheaper power from India’s surplus. For India, the link would help open up a new market for its projected surplus of power.
India currently faces an over 12 per cent power deficit, with a peak demand of 109,000 MW annually. The government hopes it could add at least 62,000 MW of generation capacity in the next couple of years, with additional capacities being set up by private investors through captive and merchant power plants. This, along with the power from ultra mega power projects has fuelled hopes for a tradable surplus.
India had also signed an agreement with Sri Lanka for the construction of a railway line between Omanthai and Pallai in the island’s war-torn Northern Province. It is all set to open a consulate in the northern town of Jaffna so as to enhance its involvement in “reconstruction and rehabilitation,” for which it has offered a $108 million aid package.
India is also involved in the rehabilitation of the southern coastal railway line from Colombo to Matara by providing credit worth $167.4 million. It has considerable investments in Sri Lanka, including in the retail fuel, telecommunications, hotel, cement, banking, tyre, rubber and information technology sectors.
India can draw satisfaction from the fact that in regard to Sri Lanka, its interests broadly converge with those of the US. The Americans are indeed as keen to ward off the Chinese challenge for hegemony in the Indian Ocean states as India is.
A report published by the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on December 7 last called for Washington to counter Beijing’s influence in Colombo through “a broader and more robust approach to Sri Lanka that appreciates new political and economic realities in Sri Lanka and US geostrategic interests”.
However, India is loathe to Washington’s influence increasing beyond reasonable proportions in its strategic backyard. India is no doubt counting on Washington’s assistance. At the same time, however, it is wary about the US achieving too much sway in its strategic backyard.
With Mahinda Rajapakse having won a second presidential term in Sri Lanka recently, India is pursuing its interests cautiously. New Delhi wants close ties with Colombo to counter the growing influence of rival China and to open up opportunities for Indian businesses. At the same time, it is concerned that political unrest in Sri Lanka, particularly communal tensions involving the Tamil minority, will have consequences inside India, especially in Tamil Nadu.
The Indian Government’s reiteration of the call for a “political solution” to the 26-year civil war in Sri Lanka through a power-sharing arrangement between the Sinhalese and the Tamils is unlikely to find favour with Rajapakse. While keeping the sensitivities of the Indian Tamils in mind, however, India will have to tread warily by not pushing too hard.
There can be little doubt that Sri Lanka under President Rajapakse would continue to take advantage of its strategic position by bargaining with the Chinese and the Indians. The days of India pushing its agenda with the Sri Lankans to the exclusion of China are indeed over. Indian diplomacy will indeed be on test.
Manmohan-Rajapakse Meeting
In November 2011, India and Sri Lanka agreed that the Joint Working Group (JWG) on Fisheries should meet and discuss steps to ensure that peace and harmony prevailed in the waters between the two countries and Indian fishermen are not attacked by Lankan navy.
The decision was taken at a meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had with Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa on the sidelines of the 17th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) Summit in the Maldives.
They were of the opinion that the JWG should ensure that fishermen of India and their counterparts in North Sri Lanka, both speaking Tamil, should meet and discuss issues of common concern.
Future Ahead
It can be said that it is important that India looks at the issue of internally displaced persons numbering to 300,000 in Sri Lanka. Their needs are enormous and immediate and any delay in delaying help to these people would put them into enormous trouble. The Sri Lankan Government with all its insincerity in giving a proper political package in the past has promised a political package for the Tamils. But the fear in most of the Tamils is that Sri Lankan government would again deprive them of a package unless Indian involves itself on the side of the Tamils.
It is imperative that India adopts a pro active policy towards Sri Lanka, to not only save the people but also for its own security reasons. Economy aid could be a big trump card in India's policy. Indian corporate houses have shown interest in investing in Sri Lanka. There is also a favorable mood in Colombo in allowing Indian houses to invest. India can use this leverage to not only develop the north and east that has been affected by the protracted war.
With the end of war, Sri Lanka has become closer to China, Pakistan and Israel because of their support to Colombo during the ethnic conflict. China building the Hambotota port cannot be ignored by India. Hence it is important that India looks at these developments with great caution and ensure a proper policy toward her closest southern neighbor. India needs to invest in Sri Lanka to keep the latter in its zone of influence. India's timely help during the Tsunami has proved to the world that we are capable of handling challenges facing the region. Having proved ourselves, it is important that India should consolidate the good will amongst the neighbors.

NASA Launches Rover to Mars

An unmanned Atlas 5 rocket blasted off on November26 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, launching a $2.5 billion nuclear-powered NASA rover toward Mars to look for life habitats there. This is the third astronomical mission to be launched from Cape Canaveral by NASA since the retirement of the venerable space shuttle fleet this summer. The Juno probe is en route to Jupiter, and twin spacecraft named Grail will arrive at Earth's moon on New Year's Eve and Day.
Nine-Month Journey
The 20-story-tall booster built by United Launch Alliance lifted off from its seaside launch pad soaring through partly cloudy skies as it headed into space to send NASA's Mars Science Laboratory on a 556 million km, nearly nine-month journey to the 'Red Planet'.
The primary goal of the $2.5 billion mission is to see whether cold, dry, barren Mars might have been hospitable for microbial life once upon a time â” or might even still be conducive to life now. No actual life detectors are on board; rather, the instruments will hunt for organic compounds.
Curiosity's 7-foot (2.1-meter) arm has a jackhammer on the end to drill into the Martian red rock, and the 7-foot (2.1-meter) mast on the rover is topped with high-definition and laser cameras.
With Mars the ultimate goal for astronauts, NASA will use Curiosity to measure radiation at the red planet. The rover also has a weather station on board that will provide temperature, wind and humidity readings; a computer software app with daily weather updates is planned.
First Astrobiology Mission
"Mars Science Lab is on its way to Mars," NASA launch commentator George Diller said as the spacecraft separated from the rocket.
The car-sized rover is expected to touch down on August 6, 2012, to begin two years of detailed analysis of a 154-km wide impact basin near the Martian equator called Gale Crater. The mission's goal is to determine if Mars has or ever had environments to support life. It is the first astrobiology mission to Mars since the 1970s-era Viking probes.
Scientists chose the landing area because it has a 4.8-km high mountain of what appears from orbital imagery and mineral analysis to be layers of rock piled up like the Grand Canyon, each layer testifying to a different period in Mars' history.
The rover, nicknamed Curiosity, has 17 cameras and 10 science instruments, including chemistry labs, to identify elements in soil and rock samples to be dug up by the probe's drill-tipped robotic arm.
Curiosity is powered by heat from the radioactive decay of plutonium. It is designed to last one Martian year, or 687 Earth days.
In a spacecraft first, the rover will be lowered onto the Martian surface via a jet pack and tether system similar to the sky cranes used to lower heavy equipment into remote areas on Earth.
Curiosity is too heavy to use air bags like its much smaller predecessors, Spirit and Opportunity, did in 2004. In addition, this new way should provide for a more accurate landing.

51% FDI in Multi-Brand Retail: Boost to Jobs and Investments

The federal government has approved a proposal to allow 51 per cent Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail, and decided to scrap the 51 per cent cap in single-brand retail, where 100 per cent FDI will be permitted.
The government also cleared the Companies Bill, 2011 that seeks to tighten norms on insider trading, prevent corporate frauds and introduce new concepts like class action suits. Once approved by Parliament, it would replace a 55-year-old legislation.
The Bill has introduced ideas like Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), class action suits and a fixed term for independent directors.
Among other things, it also proposes to tighten laws for raising money from the public. The Bill also seeks to prohibit any insider trading by company directors or key managerial personnel by treating such activities as a criminal offence.
The objections to it have centered around foreign multinationals swallowing up mom-and-pop stores, which have on the whole functioned rather inefficiently but do provide a living to large numbers of people. It has also been argued that in time leading foreign brands — that dispense a range of goods of everyday use — would come to enjoy near monopolistic advantage in price negotiations with farmers. There may well be something in these suggestions, but all things considered there appears to be a fear of the unknown in the political class in regard to foreign investments.No proper calculations are made in gauging the employment effect of the entry of foreign capital, but it is evident foreign stores will hire Indian hands to run retail chains supplying quality goods at better prices to consumers. Some of these are likely to be the present family-run stores in which workers are poorly paid. In any case, it is hard to foresee a complete end to small family-run kirana stores.
Creation of Jobs and Investments
The present decision would lead to creation of 10 million jobs and billions of dollars in investments during the next three years.
Brushing aside the criticism by the Opposition parties, including from key UPA ally Trinamool Congress, that necessary guidelines and press note would be issued by next week giving details of the approved policy. “Our initial estimates are that it will create over 4 million jobs in the small and medium industries and another 5-6 million jobs in the logistics sector in the coming three years.
Significant Gain
Undoubtedly, a significant gain from the entry of global retailers could be the strengthening of supply chains. Because of poor storage, air-conditioning and transportation a huge amount of food grains and perishables like fruits and vegetables go waste. This may stop.
The FDI will help build infrastructure apart from providing support to the rupee. Farmers will be able to access world markets too. Effective producer-seller linkages will eliminate middlemen like arhtiyas, who exploit small farmers no less. If an effective monitoring mechanism is put in place, prices too may fall since waste and inefficiencies in supplies will get eliminated.
Advantage Small Farmers
The operations of domestic fresh food supermarkets in India have not made any difference to the producer’s share in the consumer’s rupee so far (one of the arguments of the DIPP discussion paper for permitting FDI in retail) other than lowering the cost of marketing of the producers as supermarkets have collection centers in producing areas unlike the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) markets (mandis) which are in distant cities.
But these supermarkets will buy only ‘A ‘grade produce, that too on open market-based prices, and only a part of the output of farmers, who end up going to an APMC mandi to dispose of the remaining/rejected produce. The chains procure from “contact” farmers without any commitment to buy regularly as they do not want to share the risk of growers. Thus, the involvement of supermarket chains with producers is low and there is no delivery of supply chain efficiency as many of them have already wound up e.g., in Gujarat.
Supermarket Expansion
The supermarket expansion also leads to employment loss in the value chain as compared to 18 jobs created by a street vendor, 10 by a traditional retailer and eight by a shop vendor in Vietnam, a supermarket like Big C needed just four persons for the same volume of produce handled. Metro Cash & Carry employed 1.2 workers per ton of tomatoes sold in Vietnam compared with 2.9 persons employed by traditional wholesale channel for the same quantity sold. The spread of supermarkets led to 14% reduction in the share of “mom and pop” stores in Thailand within four years of FDI permission. In India 33-60% of the traditional fruit and vegetable retailers reported 15-30% decline in footfalls, 10-30% decline in sales and 20-30% decline in incomes across the cities of Bangalore, Ahmedabad and Chandigarh, the largest impact being in Bangalore, which is one of the most supermarket penetrated cities in India.
Rate of Inflation
So far as the role of FDI-driven food supermarkets in containing food inflation is concerned, the evidence from Latin American (Mexico, Nicaragua, Argentina), African (Kenya, Madagascar) and Asian countries (Thailand, Vietnam, India) shows that the supermarket prices for fruits and vegetables and other basic foods were higher than those in traditional markets.
Also, the lower procurement prices through direct procurement from farmers need not lead to lower consumer prices in supermarket chains as procurement prices are more about the bargaining power of buyers and suppliers. Even if it is accepted that supermarkets are able to offer lower prices, the low-income households may face higher food prices because of reasons of distance from supermarkets, and higher prices charged by supermarkets in low-income areas. Thus, there is no direct correspondence between modern retail and lower food prices and, thus, better food security of the poor consumers. Therefore, the inflation containment logic for FDI in food retail does not stand ground given the empirical evidence from across the globe.
India has put out its own policy on FDI in multi-brand retail with 51 per cent limit. China, Indonesia, Russia, Thailand, South Africa, Argentina and Chile have allowed 100 per cent FDI in multi-brand retail. We are not following any nation but guided by national interest.
Cash and Carry Trade
Until now only 51% FDI in single-brand retail and 100% FDI in wholesale cash and carry trade was allowed. The paper put up by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) for public discussion and comments in mid-2010 and the Economic Survey for 2010-11 had argued for FDI in food retail trade in India. In mid-2011 an inter-ministerial group also recommended FDI in retail to control food inflation. The following policy initiatives can be taken to safeguard the interests of local stake-holders:
* Slow down food supermarket expansion through mechanisms like zoning, business licenses and trading restrictions.
* Strengthen competition laws and regulation of supermarkets
* Give legal protection to farmers and suppliers as is done in Japan
* Permit only formal contract farming, not ‘contact’ farming
* Set up an independent retail commission to supervise and regulate supermarkets to protect interests of suppliers, consumers and labor and support to local retailers and farmers
* Establish multi-stakeholder initiatives in food value chains and provide support to small producers and traditional food retailers.
* Producers’ organizations and the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) need to monitor and negotiate more equitable supply contracts with the supermarkets.
* The government should encourage producer companies and farmers’ co-operatives for collective bargaining with supermarkets

Campaign Launched
The government has launched a campaign to sell advantages of FDI in multi-brand retail. The Commerce and Industry Ministry said that FDI in multi-brand retail will help farmers, create more jobs and benefit consumers.

On the other hand, the reality is that domestic retailers will benefit from sourcing their requirements from wholesale cash and carry store at a discount, it said.
The government said in countries like China, Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil and Singapore, where there are no caps on FDI, small retail stores have flourished.The government advertisement said that there is another myth that FDI in multi-brand may result in job losses.

Strong Indonesian Economy, Risky Fiscal

Based on record, Indonesia's economic development is quite good with 6.5 per cent economic growth in first quarter of 2011 due to export and investment performance as well as swiftly capital inflow increasing foreign reserves and strengthening rupiah.
The fiscal condition is also considered good and prudent. Even international rating institutions praise Indonesia's economic performance by improving Indonesia's credit rating closing to investment grade.
However, inflation is still a serious threat. Increasing inflation pressure this year is triggered by increase of world's food and energy price. In addition, there is risk of overheating due to improved economy without watching flow of distribution and limitation of infrastructure. The increase of world's commodities price have implications on fiscal, such as increase of electricity and fuel subsidy.
Food Stabilization Policy
The first test caused by world's food price was wisely responded by the government in the beginning of the year. Domestic food stabilization policy through free import duty on 57 tariff posts related to food, fertilizer, livestock's consumption commodities was proven to be effective to create deflation in March and April.
Unfortunately, the policy was effective only for two months. Inflation returned afterwards. The last position reported by Central Statistics Agency (BPS) was 0.55 per cent inflation in June. Therefore, the year-on-year inflation reached 5.54 per cent which is higher than the 2011 Budget's assumption of 5.4 per cent.
Menawhile, the government seems to be vague in responding issues related to increase of energy price, especially oil price. A number of subsidized fuel consumption control scenarios were mentioned such as limiting subsidized fuel, regulating subsidized fuel consumers, increasing subsidized fuel price, and subsidizing non-subsidized fuel. Nevertheless, there has been no implementation by the government.
The government officials seems to be not in an agreement. The Ministry of Finance has offered option to increase subsidized fuel price by Rp 500 per liter or Rp 1,000 per liter. Yet, the proposal was rejected at the cabinet meeting which discussed about 2011 Revised Budget in the third week of June. In fact, the government is possible to implement the policy based on the Law on 2011 Budget if Indonesian Crude Price (ICP) has gone 10 per cent above the budget assumption of $ 80 per barrel.
Vice Minister of Finance Anny Ratnawati said,’The Revised Budget scenario has been altered. There has been a new assumption. We did not discuss about issues of fuel price increase at the cabinet meeting. We only discussed about the 2011 Revised Budget.’
Coordinating Minister of Economy Hatta Rajasa realized that risk of subsidy increase is inevitable this year because of the oil price increase which has gone above government's expectation. To eliminate the impact, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources with Oil and Gas Management Agency (BP Migas) and PT. Pertamina are called for limiting and regulating the consumtpion of subsidized fuel. The policy was chosen because of people's buying power and inflation factors.
She said,’We have not decided whether there will be an increase in fuel price up to now. So, there is no need to make such a speculation’.
The idea of limiting subsidized fuel has actually been frequently mentioned by the government since last year. It should have been implemented since last April. Nevertheless, it is was postponed to July then postponed further to September.
Only Urging
While waiting for the implementation, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources with BP Migas and PT. Pertamina can only urge middle and upper class community not to consume subsidized fuel. Urging is usually heard but not executed by the people. To sound more insisting, Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Darwin Zahedi Saleh feels the need to call for Islamic Priests Assembly (MUI).
Saleh said: ‘We are open to every element in the community, especially MUI, which is an in stitution that we respect. The follow-up is up to MUI.’
Gross Domestic Product
In the 2011 Revised Budget document issued by Ministry of Finance dated 20 June 2011, the state expenditure was projected to increase by Rp 98 trillion to be Rp 1,327.64 trillion if the government does not issue any policy to control subsidized fuel this year. However, the figure can be reduced to Rp 1,316.8 trillion if subsidized fuel price is increased.
Meanwhile, state income and grant can only be optimized by Rp. 45.1 trillion to be Rp. 1,150 trillion from the initial plan of Rp 1,104.9 trillion in the 2011 Budget. If we refer to the prediction in the document, this year 's budget deficit is potential to increase to be Rp 178.09 trillion (2.5 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product [GDP]) without issuing any policy and/or to be Rp 166.75 trillion (2.3 per cent of the GDP) if increase of fuel price is implemented compared to the initial plan as much as Rp 124.65 trillion (1.8 per cent of the GDP).
In accordance to the cabinet's decision, Minister of Finance Agus D.W. Martowardojo underlined that the government will maintain continuation of fiscal this year without adding new loan and preventing increase of subsidized fuel price. Even it this year's budget deficit will be maintained maximally at 2.1 per cent of the GDP.
He said: ‘We feel that deficit in the revised budget will be at 2 per cent. If it reaches that level, there will be a plus/minus of 0.1 per cent. so, it will be 1.9 per cent-2.1 per cent of the GDP.’
He mentioned that the government will save money by cutting non-priority expenditure of governmental institutions up to Rp. 15.4 trillion, increase tax income, and increase the use of excess budget. The concept and the nominal still needs to be discusssed with the parliament at hearing about 2011 Revised Budget.
Anggito Abimanyu, professor of University of Gajah Mada's School of Business, reveals that budget deficit always becomes a sensitive issue among governmental institutions, including the parliament, in his book entitled ‘Reflection and Idea of Fiscal Policy.’
The inability to cover the budget deficit is worried to be able to trigger fiscal and debt crisis such as in Greece and other European countries.
With or without new loan, there will still be other ways to cover deficit. It reminds me about the fiscal condition last year which is similar to this year's. At the time, the government increased the deficit from 1.6 per cent of the GDP (Rp 98 trillion) in the budget to be 2.1 per cent of the GDP (Rp 133.74 trillion) in the revised budget. The final realization of the 2010 deficit was actually only 0.62 per cent of the GDP (Rp 39.5 trillion) and generated excess budget of Rp 47 trillion.
The government must be careful not to occur again. Position of 2011 Budget per June which was still surplus more than Rp 40 trillion must be a warning for the state fund managers, especially governmental institutions. If governmental institutions do not want to be the problem maker, they must soon improve to optimize its spending performance. Only by a healthy fiscal, strong economy will occur.

Diversionary Tactics, Racial Politics in Sri Lanka

The Sinhala ruling class and Sinhala diplomacy are highly skilled in creating new diversionary problems with the sole objective of creeping out of tight corners. To be specific, they are experts in this art of obfuscation. The recent announcements and actions with regard to the resettlement of Sinhala settlers in Jaffna is also a part of this diversionary tactic.
By compelling opposition factions to think upon and focus their attention on a particular issue, and by crippling their activities on the other hand, the government diverts their attention from the main issue at hand. This has been the time-worn strategy and practice of the Sinhala ruling class.
Resettlement of Sinhala Families
The latest is the creation of the controversy relating to the resettlement of Sinhala families in the Jaffna Peninsula. This has created an issue that diverts the attention of the media and Tamil populace. They think about and talk about no other issue.When they turn their entire attention to this issue they forget their main grievances. Their attention is monopolized by the new issue. Since the issue of resettling Sinhala people in the north has surfaced, their main issues namely resettlement of displaced Tamils, High Security Zones (HSZs), ethnic issue, and development of their regions have been put on the back burner.
It has become a common practice for the ruling faction to postpone or delay dealing with existing problems by creating new problems. This is a ruse that is meant to drive the oppressed class to get embroiled in new problems.
Presidential Election
We quote here a recent example to substantiate our argument. Conducting two major elections simultaneously was a ruse used to divert the attention of the people from the refugee camp issues. Although there was time to hold the presidential election, the government held it ahead of time. With that move it made the presidential election a controversy in itself. Subsequently, the government also conducted the general election. A cross section of people had to cast their votes while still being in refugee camps cut from any and all contact with the outside world.
Not only was this wrong it was also an offense. Giving the people incarcerated in camps no option but to cast their votes was certainly not an opportunity for them to exercise their franchise. It was tantamount to being the commission of a crime because they were prisoners and yet expected to vote. All those people who compelled these people to cast their votes while being in such a plight are co-perpetrators of that crime.
Solving Country's Problems
The elections held during that period took everyone's focus away from their problems and onto the elections. These elections not only drew the attention of the country but also of the Tamil community. Instead of solving the country's problems the government used this strategy to make Tamil parties struggle to contest the election. The media also focused attention exclusively on the election. In this strategy we see that governance means nothing more than a strategy of the Sinhala ruling class. And the Tamil polity as well as political parties were kept gravitating round this strategy used by the Sinhala ruling class to divert public attention away from burning issues. And that is the situation that is once again prevailing in the country.
The issues relating to HSZs, those who are missing, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) leaders who are missing after their surrender to the security forces, a solution to the ethnic issue have all been driven below the national consciousness by the creation of the issue relating to the resettling of Sinhala people in Jaffna.
The government has created a breathing space to overcome the crises it is faced with. And it has done so by staging this drama of Sinhala people seeking resettlement in the Jaffna Peninsula.
The truth is that these Sinhala people had never been refugees anywhere nor have they ever received any form of refugee aid outside Jaffna. They have not been subjected to any form of hardship by any displacement, as claimed. Nor, for that matter, had they themselves ever considered coming to Jaffna to take ownership of lands and assets. They have however by some means been brought to Jaffna in the guise of refugees to create a resettlement issue. We can now see that even the Sinhala people in Jaffna are being used as pawns of the Sinhala ruling class.
The government agent Jaffna has said these Sinhala people cannot in the foreseeable future be resettled in Jaffna. At the same time Minister Douglas Devananda says three months would be needed to make a decision pertaining to their plea for resettlement.
The Jaffna Peninsula is not in a position to welcome these Sinhala settlers and help them in a resettlement process. The peninsula is faced with an issue of landless people and yet, those who claim that they want to resettle in Jaffna have no lands or assets of their own in the peninsula.
As far as Douglas is concerned this is an issue that has trapped him in a crisis situation. He finds himself under pressure with the question pertaining to how the government can send Sinhala people to Jaffna for resettlement when it is dragging its feet over the need to resettle the Tamil people in the HSZs in the peninsula. He therefore used the three-month grace period to resolve the issue. His announcement disappointed the government and also created a bit of a crisis for it in this context. Consequent to such announcement a group of Sinhala people returned to the South. But the Sinhala ruling class did not remain mum. It stirred up the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU). The JHU said that if these Sinhala people were not resettled in the Jaffna Peninsula it would leave for Jaffna and engage in direct action to resettle them in the peninsula.
The Sinhala Urumaya is not such a powerful Sinhala political force. But it has the ability to create an issue. Its announcement was meant to create an opinion that it was pressurizing the government on this issue. The objective of the ruling class in creating forces like the Sinhala Urumaya is to create crises by exploiting such circumstances.
The government also wanted to show that it respects the voice of the Sinhala Urumaya. Hence, by expressing its concerns about the plight of these Sinhala people it is really contributing towards the intensification of this issue into a problem for the Tamil people.
The government wanted to make a show of its concern for the welfare of these Sinhala people who want to resettle in Jaffna. So, instead of telling them to return to the south pending a solution to their demands it told them to remain in the peninsula and sent the resettlement minister there to assure them of a solution.
Minds of Tamils
Resettlement Minister Milroy Fernando arrived in Jaffna. He studied the situation and gathered details from the Sinhala people. He was already well acquainted with the facts relating to this issue long before he came there to speak to them. He did speak to them for the sake of creating appearances that he knew nothing of the issue. Was that not a dramatic touch? The minister played his role well in the drama to mislead the Tamils as well as the Sinhala people.
Finally, he asked these people to wait for some time. He also told them that Minister Douglas Devananda would attend their issue. Minister Milroy has gone back. But these Sinhala people have become fake refugees and made to stay on in Jaffna. The issue remains unresolved in Jaffna. It has become a burning issue as far as the Tamils are concerned and also poses several questions in the minds of the Tamils.
Meanwhile, this issue has given rise to debates relating to the arrival of Sinhala people in Jaffna. An open discussion was held in Jaffna on this issue recently.
There are voices cautioning that this issue be handled cautiously. An analyst claims that the arrival of Sinhala people in the north is not an issue. But their attempts to settle in the north and in the east and the manner in which they are going about it have turned it into an issue. While thousands of Tamils remain to be resettled in Kilinochchi, Mullattivu, and Trincomalee areas what could be the objective behind the government's attempts to settle Sinhala people in Jaffna?
The government shows no interest in resettling Muslim people who fled the north. But the same government and ministers make a big show of deep concern about these Sinhala people. What is the explanation behind this? No one understands.
Racial or Religious Differences
The president says there should not be any racial or religious differences in the country. All are equal and are the citizens of this country. So he says.
But the reality is entirely different from what he claims it is. All differences exist in this country. Does not the president know about all these differences? Do all these incidents take place without his knowledge? Does he expect us to trust him in all this?
The Jaffna District Secretariat has made all arrangements to supply these southerners with relief supplies. Every family is to be supplied with relief worth rupees 10,000 (SIRe). But SIRe 1,000 only is given to Tamil families which have more than five members.
Racial Perspective
The government gives SIRe 1,000 to each Sinhala family. Is this the society without racial or religious differences as claimed by the president?
It is true that certain sections approach this issue in its racial perspective. But it is the government that's creating this effect because the government needs to stoke racism for its survival. It is a well known fact that the leading forces in Sri Lankan politics survive on racism. That such a mode of politics continues even after such enormous losses and destructions the nation has been subjected to is a matter for deep regret. The Tamils have become the victims of racial politics and the government continues to dig its own grave via this brand of politics.

Iran Continues Nuke Program: Threat to World Peace

Iran appears to have worked on designing an atomic bomb and may still be conducting secret research, the UN nuclear watchdog said in a report likely to raise tensions in the Middle East.
Citing what it called "credible" information from member states and elsewhere, the agency listed a series of activities applicable to developing nuclear weapons, such as high explosives testing and development of an atomic bomb trigger.
The report immediately exposed splits among the big powers about how best to handle the row over Iran's nuclear aims: the United States signaled tougher sanctions on Teheran but Russia said the report could hurt chances for diplomacy.
It was preceded by Israeli media speculation that the Jewish state may strike against its arch foe's nuclear sites. But Defence Minister Ehud Barak has recently said that no decision had been made on embarking on a military operation.
Iran, which denies it wants nuclear weapons, condemned the findings of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as "unbalanced" and "politically motivated."
IAEA Chief Yukiya Amano is "playing a very dangerous game," Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador, said.
Teheran's history of hiding sensitive nuclear activity from the IAEA, continued restrictions on IAEA access and its refusal to suspend enrichment, which can yield fuel for atom bombs, have drawn four rounds of U.N. sanctions and separate punitive steps by the United States and European Union.
The report detailed evidence apparently showing concerted, covert efforts to acquire the capability to make atomic bombs. Some of the cited research and development work by Iran have both civilian and military applications, but "others are specific to nuclear weapons," said the report.
Western powers have pressured the major oil producer, which says its nuclear program is aimed at increasing electricity generation, over its record of hiding sensitive nuclear activity and lack of full cooperation with UN inspectors.
The United States will look to put more pressure on Iran if it fails to answer questions raised by the IAEA report, a senior US official said in Washington. "That could include additional sanctions by the United States. It could also include steps that we take together with other nations," the official told reporters.
Russia criticized the report, saying it would dim hopes for dialogue with Teheran on its nuclear ambitions and suggesting it was meant to scuttle chances for a diplomatic solution.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said: "We have serious doubts about the justification for steps to reveal contents of the report to a broad public, primarily because it is precisely now that certain chances for the renewal of dialogue between the 'sextet' of international mediators and Teheran have begun to appear."
Russia and the United States are among the six big powers, also including China, the United Kingdom, France and Germany, which have been involved in stalled attempts to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dispute with Iran.
Sanction on Iran’s Energy Sector
The US Government has announced that it will slap sanctions directly on Iran's energy sector and warned the financial firms in the world against dealing with the Islamist state.
"Recent days have brought new evidence that Iran's leaders continue to defy their international obligations and violate international norms," US State Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at the State Department, referring to the recent alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States, and report by the UN nuclear watchdog on Iran's nuclear program.
Iran and its powerful ally Russia have slammed new Western sanctions imposed on Teheran over its suspect nuclear program, saying they were illegal and futile.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry stated that the unilateral measures against Iran's financial, petrochemical and energy sectors announced Monday by the United States, Britain and Canada amounted merely to propaganda and psychological They were "reprehensible" and would prove ineffective, it said.
Russia -- which with China had blocked any possibility of the Western steps going before the UN Security Council for approval -- took a sterner view, saying in a Foreign Ministry statement the sanctions were "unacceptable and against international law."
The declarations set the stage for a hardening of diplomacy over Iran and its nuclear program. The issue has already generated speculation that Israel is mulling air strikes against Iranian nuclear sites.
The country is already subject to four sets of UN sanctions designed to force it to give up uranium enrichment, along with additional, unilateral sanctions by the United States and the European Union (EU).
The latest sanctions put more pressure on Iran's financial sector, with the United States and Britain invoking anti-terrorist laws to target Iran's central bank and other financial institutions.
Rejection of UN Report
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has dismissed a report from the United Nations' nuclear agency that highlighted concerns Teheran had worked on designing an atomic bomb, saying it was based on "invalid" information from Washington.
"You should know that this nation will not pull back even a needle's width from the path it is on," he said in a speech carried live on state television.
However, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Iran remains ready to engage in negotiations with world powers concerned about its nuclear program, but only if the other parties show it due respect.
The EU may approve fresh sanctions against Iran within weeks, after a UN agency said Teheran had worked to design nuclear bombs, EU diplomats said.
Iran denies trying to build atom bombs and its Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said any US or Israeli attack on its nuclear sites would be met with 'iron fists'.
The United States and Israel have refused to rule out any option to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal.
Diplomats in Brussels said preliminary discussions among EU capitals on new measures had begun and plans may be ready for EU foreign ministers in Brussels to approve on December 1.
Iran already faces a wide range of the UN sanctions, as well as some imposed unilaterally by the United States and the EU.
New EU sanctions would be a significant part of Western efforts to ratchet up pressure on Teheran after the UN nuclear watchdog's report this week that laid bare a trove of intelligence suggesting Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.
Teheran’s Confidence
Iran’s confidence emanates from the fact that its nuclear facilities are supported by Russia and China. Or is it that Ahmadinejad is sitting on a nuclear weapon facility already? Well, this is unlikely because nuclear weapons and the delivery system cannot be made overnight and in such secrecy.
The point is that Ahmadinejad’s brave anti-US postures must, in the natural course, make those who dream of an end to the US hegemony and those who detest George Bush, the war-monger, look up to him. And in that context express disgust over the Manmohan Singh regime’s decision to kow-tow the United States and its allies.
A generation that grew up detesting the United States and participated in umpteen demonstrations and other kinds of agitation against the successive regimes in the US — the Vietnam War some 40 years ago and against the Invasion of Iraq now — must feel happy that they are not alone.
Other View
Economic sanctions would hurt the West more than Iran. The premise of this argument is that any sanctions imposed on Teheran would result in a dramatic rise in oil prices, hurting the economies of Western countries and undermining public support for the sanctions.
WhileIran holds the world’s second-largest reserves of oil and gas and is the fourth-largest oil producer, it is in fact a net importer of refined oil products, including gasoline. And internal consumption of oil products in Iran is growing by 5.2 percent a year, far faster than its ability to increase refining capacity. This means that the levels of imports necessary to make the Iranian economy function will only increase over time.
Russia and China would never go along with sanctions. While persuading Russia and China to support sanctions might take some time and effort, these countries are unlikely to prove reliable allies for the Iranian regime.
Russia has little strategic interest in supporting the Iranian cause. While it may see Iran as a useful tool for balancing U.S. power in the Middle East, it has far more to fear from Iran’s nuclear program in the long term than does the United States or Europe. Iran’s support of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism across the Middle East and Central Asia is a direct challenge to Russian interests in territories that were part of the old Soviet empire and are still considered by Moscow to be within its sphere of influence.
Iran might respond to sanctions by irrationally lashing out at Israel and other U.S. allies. One of the most dangerous assumptions about Iran is that it is acting irrationally or is led by people who do not calculate the potential costs and benefits of their actions.

19th ASEAN Summit

The 19th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit, gathering heads of state or government from 10 ASEAN member states – Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam – was held in Bali (Indonesia) on November 17–19. The summit, themed "ASEAN Community in a Global Community of Nations", is chaired by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
After some 12 months of intense meetings and activities, which left a new landmark in ASEAN's history, Indonesia handed over the chair of the group to Cambodia today.
Visibly proud of what Indonesia's achievements over the past year, President Yudhoyono handed over the symbolic gavil to Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. The simple but dignified ceremony was heralded by a short video of the highlights of ASEAN 2011.
For many delegates in the audience – particularly the exhausted staff of the ASEAN Secretariat – it was a moment of nostalgia, relief, and pride, as they were reminded of the activities which they had slogged for.
Bali Declaration
Leaders of the 19th ASEAN Summit stressed high political determination and the allocation of necessary resources to implement on schedule the process to build the ASEAN Community on three pillars. They also stressed the fully implementation of the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity, which is important in the process to build a consolidated ASEAN Community by 2015, considering it a leading priority in the cooperation within ASEAN and between ASEAN and its partners.
Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung asked ASEAN to continue boosting cooperation and proper investment in such fields as narrowing the gap of development, promoting security, energy, and food security as well as boosting cooperation to effectively deal with emerging challenges, namely climate change, maritime security, environment, the sustainable use of water sources of rivers, especially the Mekong river to contributing to sustainable and uniform development in the region.
On ASEAN Connectivity, the PM stressed the significance of the full implementation of the Master Plan on ASEAN Connectivity in the process of building the ASEAN Community by 2015, saying that this continues to be the top priority in ASEAN cooperation as well as cooperation between ASEAN and its partner countries.
The Vietnamese prime minister added: “The group needs to efficiently implement agreements and commitments on trade liberalization, facilitation of goods and services transactions, investment and people-to-people exchanges, an initial study on implementation of ASEAN Travel Cards for ASEAN citizens, as well as special immigration desks for regional citizens at international border gates of the member countries.”
The Bali Summit addressed a broad range of issues impacting the region such as global economy, G20 Summit, disaster management, climate change, food and energy security, regional integration, among others, and adopted several outcome documents, including the Bali Declaration on ASEAN Community in a Global Community of Nations.
Foreign Ministers’ Meet
The ASEAN foreign ministers have agreed on the need for talks with Beijing over the South China Sea dispute.
After the meeting, Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said that ASEAN seeks dialogue with China over the maritime issue. He also said the foreign ministers were encouraged by Myanmar's attempts at reforms, as Napyidaw says it will release more prisoners under an amnesty deal.
ASEAN-UN Engagement
At the fourth ASEAN-UN Summit, the ASEAN leaders and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon reviewed the implementation of the decisions of the previous summit, which took place in Hanoi in October 2010.
The ASEAN leaders spoke highly of the support of the UN and its agencies for ASEAN in building the Community, realising the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), strengthening regional connectivity, narrowing the development gaps and boosting the development of subregions, especially the Mekong Subregion, improving the capacity to cope with climate change and natural disasters, reduce poverty and prevent diseases as well as boosting the reasonable and sustainable exploitation and use of water resources.

6th East Asia Summit Adopts 2 Declarations

The sixth East Asia Summit (EAS) has recently been held in the Indonesian resort island of Bali. The EAS is a gathering of leaders from 10 Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries – Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam– the Dialogue Partners and the United Nations.
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono addressed the opening ceremony that the combined forces of the participating countries are remarkable. New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are represented by their respective Foreign Ministers.
The EAS discussed broad and strategic issues of common concern at the regional and international levels, and ways to enhance and strengthen the cooperation within five priority areas of the EAS, namely finance, energy, education, communicable diseases, and disaster management.
Joint Declarations
At the end of the summit, leaders adopted two declarations namely, the Declaration of the EAS on the Principles for Mutually Beneficial Relations, and Declaration of the 6th East Asia Summit on ASEAN Connectivity.
The first declaration contains basic norms and common principles taken from various previous basic documents including the UN Charter, the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and other arrangements among EAS participating countries.
It will serve as the guidance of conduct for EAS participating countries toward promoting and maintaining peace, stability and prosperity in the region.
The second declaration includes connectivity as one of the key areas of cooperation of the East Asia Summit besides the existing five priorities, namely finance, energy, education, communicable diseases and disaster management.
This declaration will inter alia support and facilitate further cooperation between the ASEAN and other EAS participating countries in the Connectivity initiative, and a regional public- private partnership development agenda and will promote greater engagement and cooperation in people-to-people connectivity.
The EAS seeks to promote cooperation in political and security issues, boost economic growth and integration, and secure financial stability. At last year's summit in Vietnam, leaders formally agreed to expand the meeting to include the United States and Russia.
With the participation of the two world powers, the group hopes to strengthen cooperation on global challenges and discuss rules on maritime security and nuclear non-proliferation.
About EAS
The EAS is originally an annual gathering of 10-member ASEAN and six other East Asia countries, including Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand. Established in 1967, ASEAN, which groups Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Brunei, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia, forms the core of the broader EAS.
In October 2010, ASEAN leader agreed at the end of the 17th ASEAN Summit to invite the United States and Russia to join the EAS in 2011, which increased the number of ASEAN dialogue partners to eight.
The EAS serves as a forum for dialogue on broad strategic issues of relevance to East Asia as well as other regional and global issues, with the focus on areas such as international terrorism, energy, infectious diseases, sustainable development, poverty reduction and others.
Relief measures for floods and other natural disaster will be a top agenda item for this year's EAS. Leaders will discuss how to recover their economic growth and prevent future natural disaster for the good of the whole region.

9th India-ASEAN-Summit

The ninth India-Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit was held in Bali, Indonesia on November 19. Addressing the summit, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said that greater physical connectivity between India and the 10-member grouping remains New Delhi's “strategic objective.”
The prime minister listed proposals, among others, for an India-Myanmar-Thailand highway and its extension to Laos and Cambodia, and the development of a new highway also linking Vietnam. He also referred to a study on a Mekong-India economic corridor, which proposes to link corridors in the peninsular, and possibly the north-eastern, regions of India with the East Asian region.
The prime minister further urged ASEAN to take considered decisions to link the peninsular region with the North-east. He added: “I would suggest that all these different proposals should be studied in an integrated manner by our officials, so that we take considered decisions to optimize our resources and efforts.”
Trade Cooperation
India's trade with ASEAN had increased by 30 per cent in 2010-2011, crossing the $50-billion mark, and with such a rate of growth, the target of $70 billion by 2012 would be feasible.
India's trade with ASEAN has increased by 30 per cent in 2010-2011 and has crossed the $50 billion mark. According to the prime minister, "With such a rate of growth we should be able to achieve our trade target of $billion by 2012. Pushing for greater physical connectivity between India and ASEAN, 'remains the strategic objective70.'
There are several proposals under consideration with regard to land and sea connectivity, which include the India-Myanmar-Thailand Highway, its extension to Laos and Cambodia and the development of a new highway also linking Vietnam.
Implementation of ASEAN-India Plan
The successful implementation of the ASEAN-India Plan of Action for 2004-10 listing specific items of cooperation was followed by an 82-point Plan of Action for the period 2010-2015, about the ambitious document adopted at the Hanoi Summit in 2010.
India has forwarded a number of cooperative projects as part of this plan as well as part of the $50 million ASEAN-India Cooperation Fund to the ASEAN Secretariat.
Other Developments
In addition to the expansion of India-ASEAN cooperation in the fields of science and technology, space and information technology, several projects were under implementation under the ASEAN-India Science and Technology Fund.
Based on the feedback from the ASEAN, India's Department of Space has revised its proposal for a five-year project for establishing a tracking and reception station and data processing facility for the ASEAN countries and training of ASEAN personnel. India will convene a meeting of heads of space agencies of India and ASEAN in early 2012.
The summit also discussed the security-related issue including maritime security, counter-terrorism, training, exercises and disaster management.
The prime minister has proposed to hold the ASEAN-India Commemorative Summit on December 20-21, 2012 in New Delhi.

Possible Facets of Afghan War

The current year is going about to end and we are entering 2012, the scene is it that the United States and its allies are badly entangled in Afghanistan. The activities of the Taliban are growing with each passing day. The expenditure of the US Army is growing to unbearable extent. According to the promise with the US people and the world, President Barack Obama has to start withdrawal of his forces, but that does not seem to be turning conducive for that. Now even the US officials have also stared admitting that the dream does not seem to be true. In addition to the growing distance between the United States and the allied countries, some Western countries are also starting withdrawal of their troops this year.
The most serious problem is that the harmony between the US, Pakistani, and Afghan Governments, which should be, is not there. The United States will increase pressure on Pakistan for increasing pressure on the Taliban according to the US desire, so that they are defeated on the battlefield or at least they agree to reconciliation on US terms. Pakistan will try that the United States makes it an ally by taking it into confidence on the future strategy for Afghanistan and desists from giving any role to India in Afghanistan. After badly frustrated with the global role, the Afghanistan will make serious effort to reconcile with the Taliban and Kabul will be demanded the United States and Pakistan to delegate it authority and also to compel the Taliban for reconciliation with the Afghan Government.
Carrot-and-Stick Policy
Until now, the situation is that all are pursing the carrot-and-stick policy toward each other. The three parties are also paying their share of the price, but at the moment none is ready to give up its path. It seems this game will continue in 2012 as well and it may further intensify. Thus, there is no chance of the situation taking a decisive turn in 2012. The trends will, however, be set during this year. By the end of the current year, the final moves of all parties will be clear and after the cards are shown by the three players, the plan of action of the resisting groups like the Taliban and Hizb-e-Islami will also become explicit. Al-Qaida as well as the Taliban considers 2012 decisive with regard to their struggle. They will adopt the carrot-and-stick policy toward Pakistan, whereas in response Pakistan will also demonstrate the similar attitude. Both sides will also indicate at reconciliation and full force will also be demonstrated and if no way for reconciliation is found, 2012 will be extremely bloodstained for Pakistan.
The trend of the Taliban's relations with Al-Qaida will also become explicit in 2012 and their direction will be set as to whether the Taliban break up with Al-Qaida or further increase their dependence on it. It is also to be decided this year that whether Al-Qaida maintains the status of this region as its battlefield or turns to any other region.
Lasting Peace in Region
From India to Iran and Saudi Arabia to Russia and Turkey, all are respondents and actors with one reference or the other, but they key is in the hand of three characters -- the US, Pakistani, and Afghan Governments. If confidence is built among them in real sense during 2011; they really become friends; they adopt the path of trusting each other instead of playing games with each other and if they adopt a joint strategy keeping in view the reservations and interests of each other instead of benefiting from weaknesses of each other, the crisis can be resolved and the chances of a lasting peace in the region can be created. But if the games with each other in the name of friendship and cooperation continue and the use of carrot-and-stick at the same time continues, the crisis and chaos will intensify and the difficulties of the three countries -- the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan -- will increase. Thus, not only the game of bloodshed and destruction will continue in the region but this fire will spread to the areas where even it cannot be imagined.
Interests of Other Countries
If the status quo persists or the gulf between the three mentioned parties further widens, the United States and its allies will suffer loss, Pakistan will head toward instability and Afghanistan will continue to be the battlefield. China and India will reap the benefits.
The war of the survival and interests of Iran, Russia, and China will continue on the Afghan and Pakistani soil, whereas the loss and humiliation will fall in the lap of the United States and Afghanistan, and Pakistan will face destruction. India will benefit because the attention of the Pakistani security forces will be focused on the western border instead of the eastern border, while the jihadists, who had turned toward militancy to fight India, will be fighting with the Pakistani forces.

Manmohan-Obama Meeting: Efforts To Accelerate Bilateral Ties

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh met US President Barack Obama in Bali (Indonesia). The Indian prime minister said that India had gone "some way" to allay the concerns of US firms by notifying rules for nuclear business and any specific grievance would be addressed within the "four corners" of Indian laws.
The issue came up during the over one-hour meeting between Singh and Obama here against the backdrop of apprehensions among US firms that Indian liability laws were not supplier friendly.
"I explained to him (Obama) that we have a law in place. Rules have been formulated. These rules will lie before our Parliament for 30 days. Therefore, we have gone some way to respond to the concerns of US companies and within the four corners of the law of the land we are willing to address any specific grievances," Singh told reporters after his meeting with Obama.
The rules, which were notified on Wednesday, make it clear among other things that there would be no unlimited or unending liability on part of the suppliers.
Obama, a day after India signaled it was willing to meet US and other potential nuclear supplier groups halfway by limiting the suppliers’ liability to a shorter period.
US-India-Australia Trilateral Relationship

Obama, in his opening remarks, with a visibly pleased Singh standing by his side, pointedly said the US would focus on how Washington and Delhi could work together “not only on bilateral issues but also in multilateral fora like the East Asia Summit, which we believe can be the premier arena for us to work together on a wide range of issues such as maritime security or non-proliferation, as well as expand the kind of cooperation on disaster relief and humanitarian aid that’s so important.”His remarks mark the culmination of a series of carefully calibrated statements that have pegged India and Australia as part of an emerging “robust, principled US-India-Australia trilateral relationship” in the Asia-Pacific, where the US has shown renewed interest.The prime minister publicly indicated the liability bill was on the agenda, and said as much to the media after the talks with Obama. “I explained to him we have a law in place and rules have been formulated... These will lie in Parliament for 30 days. We have gone some way to respond to concerns of American companies and within the four corners of the law of the land, we are willing to address any specific grievances.”
The prime minister said he had also told Obama that India was ready to ratify the Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC), another issue that the US wants to be done as part of implementation of the civil nuclear deal. "That's where the matter stands," he said.
Sources said the issue came up during the course of review of implementation of decisions taken by the two sides. They claimed that Obama did not respond and merely "noted" the prime minister's statement.
Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act
Under the Rules of Civil Liability for Nuclear Damages Act, foreign suppliers of nuclear material to Indian nuclear power plants would not be held liable for accidents caused by defective or faulty equipment supplied by them if the accident takes place after a guarantee period specified by them.
During the meeting, the first since Obama visited India last November, the two leaders also talked about strengthening the bonds of strategic ties put in place during the historic visit.
The two leaders also discussed issues related to the region as well as Singh's recent meeting with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani in Maldives and steps being taken to improve bilateral ties.
In the context of regional situation, the Prime Minister and Obama discussed Afghanistan. He apprised the US President about President Hamid Karzai's visit to India and the Strategic Partnership Agreement signed between the two countries.
Issues related to Iran's nuclear program were also discussed in the backdrop of damning report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general, with the Prime Minister saying the issue should be dealt with diplomatically.