India’s security expansion not targeted at China

India’s security expansion not targeted at China

Global Times | April 23, 2012 19:45
By Global Times

India has just successfully tested the 5,000-kilometer-range Agni-V missile, further strengthening its security.
In early April, the Indian Defence Minister A.K. Anthony commissioned the Russian origin 8,000-ton Akula II-class nuclear-powered attack submarine, the INS Chakra, in eastern port of Visakhapatnam. This was leased from Russia at a cost of about $1 billion and is meant to patrol the seas, and track and hunt enemy submarines in wartime and be used for surveillance in peacetime.
These two pieces of news, plus a Stockholm International Peace Research Institute report in March saying that India is now the world's largest arms importer, have made many, especially Chinese military analysts, worry that India is sending a strong deterrent signal to China.
Some observers are saying that the Agni-V missile can have Beijing within its reach and is designed to send a strong deterrent signal to China. But since both countries follow a No First Use nuclear doctrine, if China does not use nuclear weapons against India, then the Agni-V will not be used by India against China in a nuclear war. In the past four strategic dialogues at the foreign secretary level between India and China, India brought out proposals for "de-targeting." It does not want to target China with nuclear warheads.
Purely from a military perspective, India's commission of nuclear-powered attack submarine is not aimed at China either. The submarine will carry Klub-class cruise missiles and not nuclear missiles. Hence it is not meant to add strategic deterrence to the Indian Navy. As India, like China, follows No First Use, the counter-strike or second strike response needs to be robust and credible.
Let's then look at India's arms purchasing, which is gaining lots of attention. With sales to India now accounting for 10 percent of all arms purchases during the past five years, there are views that India's "military modernization" comes through buying and renting weapons from other countries, and is aimed at resisting China's rise.
It is true that India is recently able to purchase a lot of conventional weapons from several countries. While China is the target of an arms embargo by the US and Europe, they have no problems selling to India.
However, due to corruption scandals or delays in procurement, India was unable to close many arms deals in the 1980s or 1990s, and several were delayed. That's why the recent purchases by India appear to be overwhelming.
India also spends less on indigenous research and development compared to China. To enhance its indigenous capabilities, India has recently been insisting on either local joint design or license manufacturing agreements with prospective arms sellers. India has also cancelled several arms purchases from the US or other countries.
Western media has been hyping of the military confrontation between China and India. This mentality has much clout. The Western media does not see Indian military modernization as part of occupying and expanding territories, while in the case of China, its military modernization is seen as expanding its territorial claims. The recent controversy about the South China Sea islands is a case in point.
In the foreseeable future, Sino-Indian relations will not be severely troubled. While there are differences between India and China on a number of issues, both are also engaged in mutually beneficial cooperation and participation in multilateral forums.
There will not be a conventional or nuclear war between the two countries. As both are nuclear powers, it is difficult to imagine a war between the two, and both are very clear that escalation from one level to the other can be very difficult to predict. India and China have lots of common interests. The two should understand the mainstream in their ties, and should not be over-influenced by either Western instigation or excessive speculations.
This article was compiled by Global Times reporter Wang Wenwen based on an interview with Srikanth Kondapalli, a professor from School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University.wangwenwen@globaltimes.com.cn

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/706244/Indias-security-expansion-not-targeted-at-China.aspx

Future of Indian pharma lies beyond generics

Future of Indian pharma lies beyond generics

Ajay Dsouza

The Indian pharmaceutical industry's emergence on the global landscape as a strong generics player was due, in no small measure, to the Indian Patents Act, 1970, which allowed only process patents in pharmaceutical products. This was aimed at keeping the cost of medicines at affordable levels by enabling domestic pharma players to build technical expertise in reverse engineering of existing medicines by modifying the manufacturing process and, thus, become efficient producers of generic drugs.

Although India shifted to the product patent regime in 2005, the capabilities developed during the past two decades became a competitive advantage for the Indian pharma industry in the 1990s, when the rising healthcare costs in many developed countries forced them to seek the cheaper generic drug option. Thus, the Indian pharma industry was able to exploit the enormous generic opportunity that was spawned.

The share of Indian pharma companies in the total pie of approvals for generic drugs (called abbreviated new drug applications (ANDA) approvals in the U.S.) has risen steadily. In 2011 itself, more than a third of the ANDA approvals were by Indian firms. As a consequence, formulation exports from India, essentially generic drugs, have grown at 21 per cent compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) between 2005-06 and 2010-11. With about $150 billion worth of drugs set to lose patent exclusivity between 2010 and 2015, Crisil Research expects the growth momentum in exports to continue over the next five years, with exports growing at 14-16 per cent CAGR.

In the near-term, the generic opportunity will continue to lure more companies. And, with competition intensifying, generic drugs will see greater price erosion.

Along with higher competition, the global generic market is set to face another hurdle in the longer term. Already, R&D productivity of large global pharmaceutical players (innovators) has slowed considerably over the past few years. R&D productivity, a function of cost of new drug development and returns from those new drugs, is of critical importance as global players invest heavily in R&D (about 20 per cent of revenues). First, the average cost of developing a new drug has more than doubled in the past five years to $1.5 billion. Second, R&D activities by global players have resulted in only a handful of new molecules.

Further, returns from these few novel drugs have not reached the scale seen in the previous decade. Unlike highly successful launches in the past, such as Lipitor, most patented drugs launched over the five years have not been able to garner sales in excess of $1 billion. The slowing down of new drug launches will mean that the generic opportunity set to open up in the next decade (post 2020) is likely to be significantly lower.

For sustaining growth, Indian drug-makers will, therefore, be forced to look at newer avenues such as entering niche segments, building relationships with global pharma for joint research and development and widening distribution networks through marketing alliances. Other potential thrust areas include bio-pharmaceuticals, contract research and manufacturing, and new drug research.

The Indian bio-pharmaceutical industry is in its emerging stage and is sized at about $1.4 billion as of 2010-11. However, Indian bio-pharmaceutical players largely market vaccines and are yet to make inroads into U.S. and Europe. With the looming patent expiry of many bio-pharmaceutical products globally, Indian firms will look to build capabilities to capitalise on the opportunity that will arise.

The low cost of manufacturing renders India as an attractive destination for contract research, and the availability of a large patient pool makes it appealing for clinical trials, which contributes the most, in terms of revenue, to the contract research segment. An increased presence in contract research will also help them build expertise to move up the value chain and engage in new drug development.

Indian industry's R&D capabilities currently lie in reverse engineering drugs and in process chemistry. With limited experience and high costs associated with bringing a drug to the market, Indian players have traditionally shied away from drug discovery, or in a few cases, out-licensed molecules to multinational companies at early stage of development.

At present, only a handful of Indian companies (leading the pack are: Piramal Life Sciences, Glenmark and Sun Pharma) are engaged in new drug research; consequently, there are only 70-80 molecules in the pipeline from Indian players, of which more than two-thirds are still in early clinical phases. Amid slower growth in the generics space, large Indian players will look to enhance their focus in this area. The high-risk high-return field of new drug research holds tremendous potential for Indian players.

The author is Director, Crisil Research, a division of Crisil. Feedback to msamar@crisil.com

Keywords: Indian pharmaceutical industry

http://www.thehindu.com/business/article3339963.ece

India and China must remember common threat amid missile fuss

India and China must remember common threat amid missile fuss

Global Times | April 22, 2012 20:05
By Global Times

 

The successful launch of the long-range nuclear-capable Angi-V missile on Thursday was applauded and celebrated by many Indian analysts and media outlets. They associate the move with India's wish to set China as a reference point for its military development, and believe that India is going to join the global intercontinental missile club soon.
In fact, India has little to celebrate. Up until the 1980s, India was far more advanced than China in both economy as well as technology. After that, China raced ahead, and today has outclassed India in both areas.
The Manmohan Singh government, because of pressure from NATO member countries, has kept a slow pace with their Integrated Guided Missile Program (IGMP).
The Agni-V is deemed to be in its final stage, whereas in fact the IGMP ought to have progressed to develop a range of 9,000 kilometers.
The celebrations over the missile conceal the inadequacies and slow pace of the program, and hide the fact that successive Indian governments have capitulated to pressure from NATO to restrict the range and power of their launch vehicles.
By now, India ought to be a space power. However, the country is so far behind China in this field that it is embarrassing.
India faces a huge vulnerability. More than 80 percent of its critical weapons systems are imported from France, the US, Russia and Israel.
If these countries cut off supplies or ammunition during a conflict, India would be helpless.
India's recent military output, including a strategic growth in nuclear forces and arms purchasing, is designed to catch the eye. But for how long can borrowed weaponry lead to genuine security?
The fact is, weapons systems imported from abroad are subject to a massive risk of supply disruption.
Those in India who celebrate because the country has become a favorite destination of international arms dealers are just being foolish.
Sadly, it is easy to please the Indian government. All that is needed is flattery.
By playing up the "China threat" and postulating that India can "counter and contain China," vested interests are hoping to ensure that more and more money is spent on foreign weapons systems rather than domestic manufacture.
It is also interesting to see the Indian public's response to the boost of military strength, especially the latest test of the Agni-V missile. There are lots of nationalistic voices to be heard at the moment, they say that the Indian people are strong, the military is motivated and there is no fear of China among the ordinary people.
However, both countries should beware of efforts to create widespread fear and tension. Bad relations between India and China will hurt both countries and aid those who seek to subjugate Asia and the world.
Both Indian and Chinese commentators need to look at the bigger picture and focus on the common threat faced by both peoples; the efforts to derail their nation's development and weaken them internally.
Patriotism is only genuine when it is expressed in a way that helps the country. If expressed in ways that are harmful to national interests, then it is false patriotism.
India still suffers from a lack of funds for infrastructure construction and public voices are speaking out to say that the government should spend more on civil livelihood projects, rather than military schemes. There are similar arguments in China, too.
At China's stage of development, it is not possible to completely separate the military from the civilian.
In the case of both countries, the development of technology is crucial to a better future which means a certain amount of sacrifice has been necessary in recent times.
But it would be short-sighted to slow down on military research and development. On the contrary, technological innovation stemming from military research can help other aspects of the economy to become more competitive internationally. This has to be explained to the people.
Although there is an international effort to paint India and China as enemies and to make the two countries go to war with each other, such an effort will fail. The Chinese and Indian people share a long history and culture, and what is needed is more discussion between the two about their economics, education, tourism and culture.
We must create so many bridges of friendship that the plans of other countries to make China and India into enemies will fail. Together, India and China can make Asia strong. Divided, not only these two countries but all of Asia will remain weak.

The article was compiled by Global Times reporter Chen Chenchen based on an interview with M.D. Nalapat, director and professor of the School of Geopolitics at Manipal University in India. chenchenchen@globaltimes.com.cn

http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/706077/India-and-China-must-remember-common-threat-amid-missile-fuss.aspx

Brics e IBSA

Abril 30, 2011

BRICS set to outshine IBSA?

Rajiv Bhatia

AP From left to right, BRICS leaders, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and South African President Jacob Zuma at a one-day summit in Sanya, China. File photo

When BRICS speaks, its views are bound to receive much greater notice than those of IBSA. If IBSA does not become stronger, it will become irrelevant.

In international politics, nations form new groupings or compete to join existing ones, sustain them for a while or long, and then abandon them, though seldom closing them formally. Following the recent summit of leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS), it is worth pondering what lies in store for the IBSA Dialogue Forum with India, Brazil and South Africa as its members.

The two groupings

Last April, before the second BRIC summit and the fourth IBSA summit, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) stated that BRIC was “still in a nascent stage,” whereas IBSA, as “the older grouping,” was flourishing well. This April, however, the perception has changed. According to an MEA official, BRICS has “a very good future.” He added that South Africa's entry into BRIC, transforming it into BRICS, would not “diminish IBSA in any way.” Is that a given or veiled signal that a serious internal debate is now under way to measure the relative utility, both actual and potential, of the two groupings?

Ironically, South Africa, which invested enormous diplomatic capital to secure its entry into BRIC, will host the next IBSA summit in 2011. And India, which has been in the forefront to project IBSA as a “unique” organisation of leading democracies, pluralist societies and emerging economies from three different continents, will host the BRICS summit in 2012.

In terms of key indicators, BRICS will have little difficulty in outshining IBSA. The former accounts for 26 per cent of the world's area, 40 per cent of its population, and 22 per cent of global GDP. Therefore, when BRICS speaks, its views are bound to receive much greater notice than those of IBSA. It also helps that those drafting BRICS declarations are far more concise and self-disciplined than their colleagues in IBSA who still seem to be driven by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)-style urge to be long-winded.

Sanya declaration

More important, as the Sanya declaration — the outcome document of the recent BRICS summit — demonstrated, five of the largest emerging economies now have “a broad consensus” of views not only on key international economic and financial issues but also on certain global political issues. The need for effective implementation of G-20 decisions, the demand for the reform of financial institutions of global governance — enabling developing countries to enjoy a greater say in them — and monetary reform, including the re-drafting of Special Drawing Rights (SDR), fall in the first category. The idea of a broad-based reserve currency which serves as an alternative to, but not a substitute for, the U.S. dollar would be studied further. The decision in principle to establish payment of credits in local currencies instead of the dollar has been noted widely.

On the political side, three key issues deserve a brief mention. BRICS has voiced support for a comprehensive reform of the U.N., including the Security Council. In this context, Russia and China have underlined the importance they attach to the status of India, Brazil and South Africa in international affairs, committing themselves “to understand and support” the three countries' “aspiration to play a greater role in the U.N.”

This is an advance, albeit a modest one. On countering international terrorism, a common position has emerged, which is significant, considering that South Africa has for long nurtured the notion that a blanket condemnation of terrorism should somehow exclude genuine liberation movements.

On the Libyan crisis, however, BRICS has managed to create an ample air of ambivalence. Prior to the Sanya summit, four countries abstained on the U.N. resolution, thereby providing a cover for western intervention, and one (South Africa) supported the resolution. At the summit, however, all five member- states expressed support for avoiding the use of force and ensuring respect for the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a nation. As the South African President has been playing a mediatory role under the African Union mandate, he succeeded in securing support for the AU High-Level Panel Initiative on Libya, although it has not been getting anywhere so far. BRICS is struggling to cater to its numerous constituencies that are in conflict with one another.

Perhaps the most noteworthy aspect of the development of BRICS is the focus placed on promoting internal cooperation. Their Foreign Ministers have been meeting regularly since 2006. Three summits in less than two years have provided a fillip to discussions involving Finance Ministers, Agriculture Ministers, National Security Advisors and others including national statistical institutions, business communities and Track- II organisations. BRICS has decided to advance its cooperation “in a gradual and pragmatic manner,” making it “inclusive and non-confrontational.” The declaration has put intra-BRICS cooperation in three categories, namely existing cooperation, new areas of cooperation such as health and joint research on trade and economic issues, and new proposals for cooperation pertaining to culture, sports, green economy and pharmaceutical industry.

Comparison with IBSA

How does IBSA compare with the dramatic expansion of BRICS? Quite favourably so far, but it could change quickly.

Since the first meeting of its Foreign Ministers in 2003, IBSA has acquired an institutional character as well as considerable dynamism. Journeying through four summits, its member-states have bonded well, and the new leaders in two of them (South Africa and Brazil) have reiterated their commitment to the Dialogue Forum. Of its four principal facets, the Forum has regularly coordinated its positions on international and regional issues; it has been managing diverse development projects in seven Least Developed Countries (LDCs); it has sought to forge mutually beneficial trilateral cooperation through 16 Working Groups in areas ranging from transportation and agriculture to health, taxation and IT; and, above all, it has innovatively developed people-to-people contacts encompassing business, media, women, academics, and parliamentarians.

However, now that BRICS has emerged as a potential competitor to IBSA, the latter needs to re-calibrate its strategy and refine its unique selling proposition. Four suggestions merit consideration here. Articulating views on world issues should now largely be left to BRICS, the more influential grouping. Secondly, IBSA should dramatically raise its profile as a partner of LDCs. Thirdly, intra-IBSA cooperation now needs to move beyond the phase of trans-continental travels, meetings, studies and MoUs to viable and demonstrable projects. Let IBSA establish effective maritime and civil aviation connectivity, develop a liberal visa scheme, and strive to operationalise India-SACU-Mercosur trade arrangements soon. Finally, more substance should be imparted to people-to-people contacts.

In a short span of two years BRICS has travelled “a long distance,” as Prime Minister Manmohan Singh put it. However, an exercise in fine balancing is desirable. Geopolitical considerations would dictate that India should prevent BRICS from acquiring an anti-U.S. orientation on political issues. Thus, while on key financial and development issues, the IBSA countries may go along with Russia and China, on political and security questions, they would need to strike proximity with Washington and European Union capitals.

External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna asserted recently that BRICS has emerged as “a major voice” in world affairs. India will be in a better position to shape that voice when it succeeds in strengthening IBSA. If IBSA does not become stronger, it will become irrelevant. As the senior most among IBSA leaders, Dr. Singh bears a special responsibility. MEA can help him by being clinical and courageous.

(The author is a former Indian ambassador.)

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article1978593.ece?homepage=true

WikiLeaks, Brasil, EUA e Conselho de Segurança

A divulgação dos telegramas norte-americanos pelo WikiLeaks mostra que os EUA não aprovam a inclusão do Brasil como membro permanente do Conselho de Segurança da ONU, entre outras, coisas, porque o Brasil não se alinhou às posições norte-americanas nos últimos anos. Isso refletiria uma imaturidade da diplomacia brasileira. Com a visita do presidente Barack Obama ao Brasil, aumenta especulação sobre o assunto, se o Obama vai apoiar a candidatura brasileira como fez com a China ou ainda sobre o esforço dos diplomatas que preparavam a visita de Obama para tentar evitar que ele seja questionado sobre o assunto.

Alguns pontos importantes sobre a questão:

1. Interessante os americanos serem contra a presença do Brasil, porque o Brasil divergiu dos EUA. Se isso fosse o motivo, então não poderiam apoiar a Índia. O que gera estranheza e desconfiança nos EUA é um país latino-americano não se alinhar automaticamente às teses americanas. Até a Folha de São Paulo foi capaz de perceber isso:

“O Brasil ainda não é "maduro" o suficiente para ser um ator global. Precisa ser "encorajado" pelos EUA a assumir "responsabilidades", aprendendo a "confrontar" outros países se necessário.
Avaliações como essa de dezembro de 2009, em tom paternalista e às vezes irônico, predominam na reação de diplomatas americanos em Brasília à campanha brasileira por uma cadeira permanente no Conselho de Segurança da ONU.”

2. Outro aspecto curioso é como as críticas americanas à política externa brasileira são convergentes com as críticas que aparecem na imprensa brasileira publicadas pelos luminares brasileiros.

3. Ainda que o Brasil queira de fato uma cadeira no Conselho de Segurança, nesse momento, ser candidato a uma cadeira no Conselho de Segurança é mais importante do que ter o assento permanente . Caso o Brasil não fosse candidato haveria uma desmobilização da política externa brasileira, o Brasil perderia importância no sistema internacional. E isso é mais importante por ser improvável uma reforma no Conselho de Segurança.

4. A reforma da ONU e do seu Conselho de Segurança é improvável, e ainda que ocorra, as mudanças poderão ser vetadas por qualquer membro permanente. Portanto, não basta ter o apoio de um, é preciso o apoio de todos.

5. Neste sentido, o apoio dos EUA à Índia é mais uma estratégia para a região asiática e um posicionamento em relação à China do qualquer outra coisa. A Índia não ficou mais perto de ser membro do Conselho de Segurança por ter o apoio dos EUA. Indianos e norte-americanos sabem disso. Sinalizam uma aliança para a chineses verem.

6. Se o Brasil não apoiasse a entrada da Índia e do Japão no Conselho de Segurança, poderia obter o apoio da China. Mas isso não o aproximaria mais do Conselho de Segurança. Incapaz de realizar uma política de poder, o Brasil realiza uma política de alianças amplas, de cooperação, de prestígio e de defesa de princípios que fortalecem as instituições em relação ao arbítrio, qualquer estratégia de confrontação desmoralizaria a estratégia brasileira.

7. Os conflitos diplomáticos entre o Brasil e os EUA em algumas das principais questões internacionais decorrem da estratégia brasileira para se projetar internacionalmente. O Brasil precisa se opor à política de poder tradicional que os EUA e as grandes potências praticam, porque neste tipo de política o Brasil não tem protagonismo e não tem condições de praticá-la.

Justiça indiana: Astrologia é uma ciência!

Astrology is a science: Bombay HC

MUMBAI: Astrology has been debunked by most world scientists including India's renowned physicist Prof. Yash Pal. However, it is "science" in India.

The Bombay High Court reaffirmed this on Thursday when it dismissed a PIL that had challenged astrology as science.

The PIL was filed by an NGO, Janhit Manch that had sought action against 'fake' astrologers, tantriks, practitioners of Vastu shastra etc.

"So far as prayer related to astrology is concerned, the Supreme Court has already considered the issue and ruled that astrology is science. The court had in 2004 also directed the universities to consider if astrology science can be added to the syllabus. The decision of the apex court is binding on this court," observed the judges.

The judges also took on record an affidavit submitted by the Union government. The Centre had in its affidavit stated that astrology is 4000 years old 'trusted science' and the same does not fall under the preview of The Drugs and Megical Remedies Act (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.

"The said Act does not cover astrology and related sciences. Astrology is a trusted science and is being practiced for over 4000 years," said an affidavit filed by Dr R Ramakrishna, deputy drug controller (India), west zone.

"The said Act is aimed at prohibiting misleading advertisements relating to drugs and magic remedies. The Act does not cover and / or relate to astrology and / or allied sciences like Palmistry, Vaastu Shastra etc. In view thereof, a purported ban on practices promoting astrology and related sciences sought by the petitioner, which is a time tested science more than 4000 years old is totally misconceived and unjustifiable," says the affidavit.

The (PIL) filed by Janhit Manch and its convener Bhagwanji Raiyani, along with his associate Dattaram Kumkar, had questioned the validity of predictions by many well-known astrologers.

The PIL, which ran into more than 100 pages pointed to several cases, including that of Indira Gandhi and Charan Singh becoming prime ministers, despite opposite predictions.

Representing the Union government, advocate Advait Sethna told the court that even the SC had accepted that astrology was a science and many universities had included it as a subject.

Advocate for Maharashtra government, Bharat Mehta too supported the stand taken by the Union government. Mehta submitted an affidavit filed by the food and drugs administration (FDA) department which said that necessary action is being taken against the guilty under the Drugs and Megical Remedies Act.

The PIL had urged the authorities to ban articles, advertisements, episodes and practices promoting astrology and its related subjects like vastu, reiki, feng shui, tarot, palmistry, zodiac signs and rashifal.

Índia e os conflitos no Afeganistão

India's options in Afghanistan
SD Pradhan
02 February 2011, 02:14 PM IST

The Current Situation:

The security situation in Afghanistan is fast deteriorating, which is a cause for concern not only for the neighbouring countries but for all the countries in the world which are facing terrorism. This country along with Pakistan remains the epicenter of terrorism. Violent incidents have spiked over the last two years. In the first half of 2010, rose nearly by 70% over the first six months of 2009. This trend continues till now. In the year 2010, more than 700 foreign troops were killed in Afghanistan on an average of about two per day. The use of improvised bombs was up by 80% and the number of civilian casualtieS increased by third. In fact the year 2010 proved to be the deadliest year.

 

A number of aid organizations in Afghanistan are challenging the Obama Administration’s recent claim that insurgents now control less territory than last year. Nie Lee Director of the Afghanistan’s Safety Office recently stated that “the situation (in Afghanistan) is a lot more insecure this year than last year.”He further stated that “there are fewer places where we have complete unimpeded access”. Security experts say that “Taliban shadow governors still exert control in all but one of Afghanistan’s 35 provinces”. Kandahar which was taken by NATO forces is witnessing violent incidents every thirD day. US and NATO intelligence assessment is that the Quetta Shura of Mullah Muhammad Omar, the Haqqani network and the Hykmatyar clan are fighting together. The Al Qaeda leaders too provide assistance. These outfits work as a syndicate, sharing new recruits, coordinating propaganda and granting one another safe passage through areas under their control.

 

The Pakistani Army and ISI continue to support Taliban. The US National Intelligence Estimate offered a negative assessment in December 2010. It clearly assessed that Pakistan’s unwillingness to shut down militant sanctuaries remains a serious obstacle. Late Special Envoy of US to Afghanistan and Pakistan Holbrooke highlighted the links between the ISI and Taliban in an interview to CNN-IBN on  July 22, 2010. He remarked that the LeT, Al Qaeda and Taliban as also ISI are all working closer together than ever before.

 

There is no dearth of funds with the Taliban as different channels continue to pour money to them. The opium trade provides substantial funds. According to the UN Office of Drugs and Crimes, the Taliban could be getting $160 mn per year from this source alone. In addition, charitable organizations from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic States could be providing $200 mn every year. In these two activities, the involvement of ISI is well documented. Besides, the US intelligence agencies estimate that the Afghan security firms have been extorting as much as $ 4 mn a week from contractors paid tax dollars and then funneling the spoils to warlords and Taliban.

 

For India the situation is becoming alarming with bold attacks taking place on Indians and on Indian interests frequently. Of late, Indian consulates and Indian Embassy in Kabul are receiving threats almost daily. This is undoubtedly happening at the behest of ISI, which is focused on removing the Indian presence in Afghanistan. The intelligence reports suggest that plans of attacks on Indian interests are being worked out in the presence and guidance of ISI officials.

 

Objectives of the Main Players:

The current situation in Afghanistan is becoming more and more complex because of conflicting objectives of the main players. These are:

 

The Karzai regime - There has been a shift in Karzai regime’s objectives of late. While earlier it had been opposing talks with Taliban, now it is going ahead with talks with Taliban elements. Significantly, there has been a shift on the issue of involvement of Pakistan. Notwithstanding the assurance given to the Indian Foreign Minister during his recent visit to Kabul that Pakistan would not be involved in talks with Taliban, the recently formed joint commission (27th January,2011) involving intelligence officials, diplomats and others of Pakistan and Afghanistan to deal with militants suggests that Karzai is now prepared to associate Pakistan to deal with Taliban. This is the second indication of this change of attitude of Karzai regime. The first indication came when Ammanullah Saleh, the chief of Afghanistan’s intelligence (RAAM) who had been opposing Pakistan’s support to Taliban, was removed. Perhaps Karzai has come to accept the view of US that the involvement of Pakistan is inevitable for his continuation. He and his colleagues may be thinking that when US starts withdrawal of troops, Pakistan’s links with the Taliban would have to be used for dealing with them. The ability of the Afghan National Army and the police remains extremely weak to deal with the Taliban and warlords. The corrupt politicians, who are in the Afghan Government, can hardly be of any help to Karzai. The international aid is not being properly utilized. The corrupt members of the Afghan Government and powerful local commanders are pocketing the aid. Economic growth is also hampered by the growing black market.

 

The USA - The US has come to the conclusion that it can not continue to bear the cost of this war and therefore has worked out the strategy to start withdrawal of troops. The Task Force chaired by Richard Armitage, former Secretary of State and supported by Samuel R Berger, former National Security Advisor had pointed out that the cost of the war in Afghanistan was increasing and therefore the strategy needed to be changed. It suggested that power should be transferred to Afghans and for that suitable arrangement needed to be made. Crucially, it recommended involvement of China in this plan. While it is not clear how US is planning to involve China in this task, it is assessed that during Robert Gate’s China visit and Hu Jintau’s visit to US, this issue must have been discussed. The US is well aware of China’s old links with Taliban as well as its hold on Pakistan. Obama Administration’s strategy of Counter-terrorism Plus per se is a sound policy that envisages eliminating terrorism, building capabilities of the Afghan Government and then withdraws from Afghanistan. However, neither the objectives are completely achievable within the stipulated timeframe nor the strategy of involving Pakistan and China is actually going to improve the situation. In all probabilities, the situation would worsen in the coming period.

 

Russia - Russia’s objectives in Afghanistan are elimination of terrorism which is affecting the security situation in Russia with Chechens receiving training in Afghanistan and checking drug trafficking. Russia is cooperating with NATO for this purpose. However, Russia desires concessions from NATO partners. It demands restriction on NATO deployment bigger than 3000 strong brigade in the combined territory of all former Soviet Bloc members as well as restrictions to be imposed on the deployment of aircraft in Eastern Europe and removal of the restrictions on Russian troops in the breakaway enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia is also aware of economic value of Afghanistan and therefore desires a friendly regime that would allow Russia lucrative development and mineral extraction deals. For Russia the best bet is Karzai or any other such person. Russia is unlikely to have good relations with Taliban.

 

China - China at London and Istanbul conferences (2010) asserted that Afghanistan was too critical an issue for regional security and stability to be left to Washington. The Chinese Foreign Minister, Yang Jiechi spelt out clearly that China intended to play an active role in Afghanistan that would safeguard its interests. In essence China desires unconditional and total vacation of foreign troops. China knows that the Taliban would occupy an important place in new dispensation. For the Chinese that would not be against their interests. In the pre 9/11 period, China had maintained links with Taliban and had invested in the development of infrastructure. In this, Pakistan had provided an invaluable support to China. China had obtained unexploded US missiles from the Taliban for reverse engineering. China knows it can easily build relations with Taliban with the support of Pakistan and would be able to reap economic benefits in that country besides protecting its own interests.

 

Pakistan - Pakistan’s single point programme is to bring Taliban back into power to achieve strategic depth against India and ensure removal of Indian presence in Afghanistan. It is opposing Indian involvement in the development programmes. The Indian aid of $ 1 bn is seen as an attempt by India to enhance its influence. The Afghan students coming to India (about 1000 every year) for studies is also not liked by Pakistan. Pakistan has also made the US realize that without Pakistan no operations can be launched in Afghanistan. The ISI sponsored burning of fuel tankers after blocking the supply routes had displayed Gen Kayani’s resolve to squeeze US. This strategy had found favour, both domestically and amongst the Taliban. With this Pakistan seems to have entered into a phase of blackmailing the US to do its bidding. Pakistan is tactically seeking concessions from US in enhancing the aid in military terms and strategically it is bargaining for a key role in Afghanistan’s future dispensation, which US is willing to give in order to leave Afghanistan as per its schedule.

 

Likely Scenario

Keeping in view the interests and strategies of main players, the security experts draw a grim picture. They point out that Karzai regime is unable to control the situation the influence of Taliban is growing. The corruption is rampant and there is hardly any chance that this regime could win over the population. The pressure on Karzai to accommodate elements from Taliban is on the increase. Obama’s idea of re-integrating Taliban is deeply flawed and raises concerns that Karzai would be ultimately forced into making concessions to the Taliban in terms of power sharing. The entire exercise is aimed at a ‘graceful exit’ strategy for the US and its allies and appears to have been carefully stage managed to allow US and NATO troops to start scripting withdrawal. While making a prognosis of the complex situation is not easy, going by the current trends, only two possibilities emerge. First Karzai could become a puppet in the hands of Taliban elements and would be following their agenda and second he may be forced to leave power that would bring Taliban to power in most of the provinces. In all probabilities Afghanistan would be divided in two parts - one larger part that would be governed by Taliban and other smaller part that would be ruled by those who are opposed to Taliban. This means that the situation would be similar to what was in existence prior to US operations.

 

India's Options

India’s options in Afghanistan have to be based on the emerging trends. India has to recognize the prevalent situation, likely scenario that is developing, be prepared to take necessary risks and act with far greater persuasion and resolve so as to apply soft and hard power instruments in an appropriate mix. Our national interest demands that Taliban control of the area would not be in our interest as the territory would continue to be used for training of terrorists of various hues. This in fact would not be in the interest of US and even Pakistan as they too are facing terrorist activities. However the Pakistani Army which is using terrorism as an instrument to deal with India is unlikely to change its stance. The US is in a hurry to leave Afghanistan and therefore is unlikely to wait till the capabilities of Taliban are destroyed and then hand over the country to the elected government of Afghanistan. Under these circumstances, cooperation with US is not going to help our cause. China has its own agenda and therefore the attempts to control Taliban with its help are not going to be of any help to us. The recent efforts to cooperate with China and Russia would require rethinking.

 

Of course, Russia and India have common interests and therefore we need to evolve common strategies to deal with Taliban. In the present circumstances, Karzai needs to be assisted to enable his regime to deal with the Taliban. His army’s ability needs to be significantly upgraded. However, pragmatism demands that we should also take measures to eventually deal with the divided Afghanistan, in which the Taliban would be controlling a substantial area. The Taliban should remain under pressure both from the northern side as well as from the southern side. For this we have to think of a broader strategy. At present our strategy is based on the concept that economic engagement alone will secure our interests. This may not work in view of changing scenario of Afghanistan. There is a need to work out a comprehensive strategy that would include dexterous use of all instruments of diplomacy, strategic intelligence operations and force projection. This is not suggesting that we should use armed forces but take a posture to indicate our will to protect our genuine interests at all costs. In our strategy much greater focus should be on the liberal Pashtuns, who oppose Taliban policy. There are people in Pakistan’s tribal areas who oppose the Talibanization of the area. Their hands need to be strengthened. Many liberal Pashtuns alleged that India did not back them strongly enough in the past. M Dawood, the Advisor to the Afghan Foreign Minister had aptly commented on India’s attitude, “India seems apologetic about its presence. It is a regional player and must behave like one instead of insisting on a benign presence with a penchant for staying in the background.”

 

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/ChanakyaCode/entry/india-s-options-in-afghanistan

Investimento Indiano em Ruanda

Indian firm to invest $250 mn in East Africa

IANS, Dec 18, 2010, 01.12pm IST

KIGALI (RWANDA): An Indian company has signed a pact with the Rwanda Development Board (RDB) to invest $250 million for a knowledge hub and an integrated food park in this East African country, once associated with its fratricidal conflict that claimed nearly a million lives.
India's Universal Empire Infrastructures (UEIL) has been in discussion with the Government of Rwanda for a few months and the company delegation also visited here, the capital of Rwanda. The delegation also held detailed discussions with six cabinet ministers of the Rwandan government.
The memorandum of understanding inked now is a follow-up of the recent road shows held by RDB in New Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore and Ahmedabad, officials said.
Clare Akamanzi, chief operating officer, and K. Balachandran Nair, chairman and managing director, signed the pact on behalf of RDB and UEIL, respectively, in the presence of Munish Gupta, director of UEIL, and Rosemary Mbabazi, director for investment promotion with RDB.
The pact focusses on the establishment of a knowledge hub that entails a multi-disciplinary university that comprises all schools, especially for medicine, in collaboration with Royal Colleges of either Scotland, Ireland or England, as also those for engineering, management, commerce, education, agriculture, arts and humanities, and basic sciences.
It also calls for centres on employable skill development, IT, biotech and research, apart from a sports complex and convention centre, a medical resort with 300 rooms, wellness centre, naturopathy and water sports to spur tourism.
The second part of the pact focusses on the establishment of an integrated food processing park to develop agriculture and animal husbandry.
Rwanda, now led by its second-term, democratically-elected President Paul Kagame, wants to leave the catastrophic genocide in 1994 behind and forge pacts globally to lift the impoverished country. Around 90 percent of the population of this country is engaged mainly in subsistence agriculture and processing of some minerals.

Read more: Indian firm to invest $250 mn in East Africa - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/Indian-firm-to-invest-250-mn-in-East-Africa/articleshow/7122448.cms#ixzz18WEMizfN

‘India, Brazil could lead the way in the bioindustries model'

Published: Dezembro 10, 2010 23:03 IST | Updated: Dezembro 10, 2010 23:03 IST Dezembro 10, 2010

‘India, Brazil could lead the way in the bioindustries model'

 

Interview with Dr. Carlos Nobre, climate scientist.

Dr. Carlos Nobre is one of Brazil's best known climate scientists. He is the Director of the Center for Earth System Science and Senior Scientist at the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) of Brazil, Executive Secretary of the Brazilian Research Network on Global Climate Change (Rede CLIMA), Scientific Director of the National Institute for Climate Change Research, and Chair of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP). Nobre's work focuses on the Amazon and its impacts on the Earth system.

He chaired the Large Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia (LBA), an international research initiative led by Brazil from 1996 through 2002. LBA is designed to create the new knowledge needed to understand the climatological, ecological, bio-geochemical, and hydrological functioning of Amazonia, the impact of land use change on these functions, and the interactions between Amazonia and the Earth system.

Dr. Nobre is also a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a well-known public figure who has been advocating new ways of reducing deforestation by focusing on the value of forest products, led by developing nations like Brazil and India. Dionne Bunsha spoke to Dr. Nobre about his vision for change.

One of the major concerns while thinking about global warming is the deforestation of the Amazon. What do you think should be done to reduce deforestation?

I have been proposing a new model of perpetual economic uses of tropical biodiversity, based on ‘bioindustries'. India and Brazil are two tropical countries that could lead in this new model. It's not a pure, traditional, agricultural expansion model. We must find new uses for forest products — food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics. There can be niche markets for each product. But if you multiply that by 100, 200 or 1,000 new products, you can generate an economy that would be much larger than the current economy based on cattle and soybean, for instance, like in the Amazon. So, the idea is to develop a new series of bioindustries and local products that are not extractive like forest timber, and then add value. Adding value is where the money is and where the good jobs are. It has to be done locally, at least part of the processing of this product has to be local.

The other aspect is renewable energy. Eventually we will have to declare an end to the fossil era, even though international negotiations are stalling, but still there is no way out. We have to move steadily and quickly to the many, plentiful forms of renewable energy.

And, the third element is valuing ecosystem services. Eventually, we will have to change the economic system in order to insert fully the value of ecosystem services like water, carbon, and pollination. Valuing ecosystem services is a profound transformation of economic thinking that has to penetrate very deeply.

So those are the three pillars — bioindustries, renewable energy and ecosystem services.

How do you think Brazil and India could develop this new model?

India and Brazil could lead this new model because developing bio industries and new uses of biodiversity has to be done through science and technology. India and Brazil are the tropical countries that have good universities and R&D facilities that are increasing very rapidly. However, the scientific communities in our countries have to see these possibilities. They still don't see it. Our countries are not inclined to take much risk. Brazilian and Indian economies are averse to risk. Venture capital is not very strong.

In India, the Indian Institute of Technology, which is a fantastic system, should be more attuned to these new things. Their research agenda is very much the traditional agenda, for instance, the focus on software development, which is terrific. In Brazil, the university system is strong, some of our universities are among the top 200 universities in the world. However, to develop bio industries, they need to have a new vision.

Bio industries would be a unique tropical model. The industrialised world has different problems and they are not going to develop things for tropical nations, so we have to do it on our own. That is how a country can really reach a mature stage of development — you invent your own. Yes, you can copy everything that works. But you have to have the capability to invent, create, innovate.

These ideas are more mature conceptually in Brazil than in India. I was in India for a meeting recently and had the opportunities to discuss these ideas at the Brazil-India Science Council. This council is set up due to the India-Brazil Cooperative Agreement, a bilateral agreement between the two countries aimed at promoting exchange of scientists and joint implementation of research projects in areas previously agreed upon. So far, research areas contemplated are: Mathematics, Physics, Nanotechnology, Computer Sciences, Biomedicine and Drugs, Oceanography and Bioenergy.

What are the likely effects of climate change in the Amazon, and what would that mean to the rest of the world?

By and large, the scenarios are showing a very dramatic picture.

The very optimistic scenarios show a small change, perhaps large portions becoming more seasonal forests, like the dry, seasonal forests you have in India. The rainforests would not be able to survive.

Pessimistic scenarios, that predict a temperature change of 4° to 5° C, show a more catastrophic change. Between 30-60 per cent of the rainforest could turn into an impoverished tropical savannah, but not so biodiverse. There will be huge biodiversity loss, between 20 to 50 per cent species lost. There is still large uncertainty in these scenarios, but they predict a very bleak picture for the Amazon entering into the 22nd century.

The Amazonia is the largest contiguous tropical forest in the planet with over six million km{+2}, 18 per cent of freshwater input into the global oceans; it harbours up to 15 per cent of the planet's land biodiversity. It is a large reservoir of carbon in the biomass, estimated at up to 120 Gigaton C; a heat source for the atmosphere, that is, an area where solar heating of the surface is transferred to higher levels in the troposphere by evaporation at the surface and condensation in the clouds.

In sum, the Amazon is a key regional entity of the stability of the Earth system. Global warming of more than 4°C could cause “savannisation” of many parts of the Amazon forest, that is, forest die-back mostly over eastern, southern and south-eastern Amazon and replacement by a type of impoverished tropical savanna. That would release an additional 30 to 50 Gton C into the atmosphere, that is equivalent to three to five years' worth of global emissions of CO{-2}. Furthermore, a likely decrease of basin-wide rainfall would decrease freshwater and sediment and chemical species input into the Atlantic Ocean, changing currents and nutrient balances over the western tropical Atlantic Ocean. Another impact of decreased rainfall would be a weakening of the atmospheric heat source over the Amazon. That weakening would translate into changes in tropical atmospheric circulation affecting distant regions, although it is not possible as yet to predict precisely what and where those changes would hit hardest.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/interview/article944059.ece

Horn of Africa: why India should care more

Published: Dezembro 17, 2010 23:47 IST | Updated: Dezembro 17, 2010 23:47 IST Dezembro 17, 2010

Horn of Africa: why India should care more

Rajiv Bhatia

Share  ·   Comment (2)   ·   print   ·   T+ T+  ·   T-

PTI In this December 2008 file photograph, Commandos of Indian Navy apprehend pirates at Gulf of Aden. Indian Navy warships patrol the Gulf of Aden and quietly provide escort and security assistance to not only Indian but also foreign merchant vessels.

Our strategic community and official agencies should pay more attention to the conditions and power dynamics in the Horn of Africa because what happens in the region has a direct bearing on our security.

Africa has been of growing interest to India for political and economic reasons but does it have security implications for us? The answer is ‘yes,' especially as we focus on a particular sub-region, the Horn of Africa. A recent, distinguished visitor to India from the area — Hailemariam Desalegn, Deputy Prime Minister of Ethiopia — highlighted the wider implications of terrorism and piracy in the east African region. He even suggested that there should be “a naval blockade and no fly zone over Somalia.”

The immediate relevance of the threat posed by piracy has been underlined by the latest incident in which a Bangladeshi-flagged merchant ship, MV Jahan Moni, was hijacked by Somali pirates at a location barely 90 nautical miles from the Lakshadweep Islands.

The Horn of Africa comprises four countries — Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia. As a quintessential microcosm of Africa, the area has seen it all: imperialism, neo-colonialism, Cold War, ethnic strife, intra-African conflict, poverty, disease, famine and much else. Without its recovery and progress, Africa's resurgence would never be complete. With the headquarters of African Union located in Addis Ababa, capital of Ethiopia, the continent's apex organisation gets a direct and unhindered view of what happens in its immediate vicinity.

The sub-region covers a wide spectrum from Ethiopia — an ancient civilisation and a nation that retained its independence (except for a short period) — to Somalia, the most failed state on the planet today. Eritrea and Djibouti, smaller neighbours located on the seashore, have had their own share of strife and strained relations with Ethiopia and Somalia respectively. Eritrea emerged as an independent state after a 30-year-long confrontation with Ethiopia, a development that turned the latter into a landlocked country. Djibouti, the erstwhile French Somaliland, has been a beacon of relative stability and prosperity, which has contributed to mediation and peace-making efforts in and outside the Horn of Africa.

Africa's Afghanistan

Somalia today is a mere geographical expression, not a united country. In the past decade, it has gone through 14 governments. In its northern part, three quasi-sovereign governments exist — Somaliland, Puntland and Galmudug. The southern part is controlled partly by the Transitional Federal Government, but its writ runs in parts of Mogadishu only. Outside, Islamic groups named the Union of Islamic Courts call the shots. The on-going armed conflict within the capital city reminds me of the years I spent in the civil war-torn Beirut. The South has become a veritable hub of Islamic fundamentalists and terrorist groups such as Al-Shabab having links with the al-Qaeda. The North has been the breeding ground of pirates who pose a serious threat to international shipping. Somalia may aptly be depicted as ‘Africa's Afghanistan.'

Somali pirates, operating in the waters off the Somali coast and in the Gulf of Aden through which passes a massive quantum of the world's goods and energy supplies, pose a grave danger. The trend now is for them to take their operations far out on the high seas. The number of attacks in 2008 was 111 and 217 in 2009. The year ending now has seen the problem grow. In a recent assessment, the Institute of Security Studies in Pretoria stressed that piracy has been growing “in frequency, range, aggression and severity at an alarming rate.” Pirates keep trying to harm international shipping, content to extract ransom, but their continuing operations and the potential of building links with international terrorist organisations cause widespread worry. The probability of a major, spectacular attack such as the sinking of an oil tanker cannot be ruled out.

Navy's magnificent work

In this context, the magnificent work the Indian Navy has been doing in the area since October 2008 deserves wider appreciation. Its warships patrol the Gulf of Aden and quietly provide escort and security assistance to not only Indian but also foreign merchant vessels. About 1,350 ships belonging to different countries have availed themselves of this facility so far. During the first fortnight of September 2010 alone, INS Delhi scored success on four separate occasions to foil attacks by pirates. In all, 22 piracy attempts have been averted by the Navy. It has discharged, as Navy Chief Admiral Nirmal Verma put it, “its responsibilities with distinction.”

It is worth noting that a considerable degree of consultation, coordination and cooperation in capacity building in anti-piracy operations has been taking place. However, there is a problem about what to do with the pirates apprehended on the high seas as Indian laws do not permit their prosecution by our courts.

There are, of course, ships of several other countries, including the United States, European Union member-states, Russia, Australia, China and Japan. The growing presence of Chinese vessels demonstrates the country's reach as the emerging naval power. It also juxtaposes China's undue sensitivity about the presence of other Navies on the South China Sea. External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna observed recently: “China is taking more than normal interest in the Indian Ocean and we are monitoring it carefully.”

The world's Navies have been tackling the consequences and addressing the symptoms of the underlying malaise, which is the destruction of Somalia as a state and the resultant anarchy and absence of the rule of law. The United Nations has been helping in the process, both on the political and peacekeeping aspects. But 8,000 troops provided by Uganda and Burundi are considered to be inadequate for the task. On a recent visit to Somalia, Yoweri Museveni, President of Uganda, complained that the international community “did not take the Somali problem seriously enough.” Apparently, moves are afoot to increase the size of the troops to 12,000, whereas the African Union wants it to go up to 20,000 quickly.

‘Not sea bandits'

Other factors also explain the piracy phenomenon. Sugule Ali, a pirate leader, stated: “We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits to be those who illegally fish and dump waste in our seas and carry weapons in our area.” Objective analysts would agree that there is some merit in the argument, but this is hardly a justification for the continuing attacks. Piracy represents a serious challenge to international law and order. Therefore, international community must do more to resolve the fundamental issues, taking a holistic view. As experts have suggested, there is a need to deal with this problem “from the beach side, in concert with the ocean side.” Further, what is required is to craft much greater cooperation among the countries concerned than has been secured so far.

Our strategic community and official agencies too should pay more attention to the prevailing conditions and power dynamics in the Horn of Africa. The government would be well advised to become more active in examining and discussing the complex problem in-depth with the governments in Eastern Africa, the African Union and others concerned so as to be able to make a meaningful contribution to its resolution. The Navy can do only fire-fighting, but surely India is capable of striving more at the diplomatic and political levels. What happens in the region has a direct bearing on our security and well-being, and this is becoming clearer and more urgent by the day.

(The author served as India's High Commissioner to Kenya and South Africa.)

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article959202.ece

'Universities could mandate generic production for poor countries'

Q&A

'Universities could mandate generic production for poor countries'

Feb 1, 2010, 12.00am IST

Many drugs with great therapeutic impact, such as Gleevec for cancer, Stavudine for HIV/AIDS, and Zemplar for kidney failure, have come from university medical research. The Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) is a non-profit organisation rooted in a university students' movement to change the norms of patenting and licensing of drugs discovered in universities to ensure their accessibility in developing countries. UAEM executive director Ethan Guillen spoke to Rema Nagarajan about the campaign.

How did UAEM come into being?
UAEM was formed in 2001 when AIDS patients were dying because they could not afford the cost of treatment, which was $10,000 annually. One of the medicines needed, Stavudine, cost $1,600 per year. As it turned out, Stavudine had been discovered at Yale University, which held its patent. Initial entreaties to the university and Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) to allow generic production were turned down. So, Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), which was treating HIV patients in South Africa, mobilised a campaign with students at Yale. Eventually they were able to convince Yale and BMS to allow generic production of Stavudine, which brought down the price to just $55 per year.

How can universities help increase access to medical technologies?
Universities are key innovators in medicine and other health-related technologies.  For instance, of the HIV medicines approved for use between 2001 and 2006, 36 per cent have patents from universities and public research institutions. Universities are also the originators of critical vaccines. Once a university makes a discovery, it often takes out a patent and passes that medical technology on to a pharmaceutical company through a licensing agreement. The university can put in clauses that require low-cost access to the final product, particularly in poor countries, through a variety of mechanisms. For instance, the university could mandate generic production for poor countries or price concessions. Happily, we're starting to see more of these deals after many years of advocacy on the issue. 

How can university students make a difference?
Today, many universities in the US, Canada, and Europe consider offering affordable access to their discoveries in poor countries. These initiatives have been primarily driven by students by students doggedly advocating on the issue from individual campuses. From getting bills introduced in the US Congress to advocating on the role of universities as public interest institutions at the World Health Organisation, the students have also worked with the WHO to get medicines to treat heart disease onto the essential medicines list in light of the growing burden of non-communicable diseases in poor countries.

How much resistance does UAEM face from the universities or researchers? How does UAEM tackle it?
Initially, resistance to the concept of systematic access licensing was quite strong amongst many university officials, and in certain areas it still is.  In the past 10 years our advocacy has ranged from having meetings to educate university leaders, where we always start, to protests in cases where simply explaining the importance of the issue hasn't been enough.  Researchers have been somewhat different from university administration as they usually do their jobs to find a cure to change the world.  Many have been great allies since the Stavudine campaign.  In that case, the inventor wrote an opinion editorial in the New York Times that was key to the campaign's success. While we have moved a long way toward making access licensing to improve affordable access to medicines the norm, the new resistance we face is universities fighting for provisions to increase pharma company monopolies. We think that universities as evidence-based, public institutions dedicated to improving society, should not mindlessly fight on the side of the pharmaceutical or biotech industry.

What is UAEM's presence in the US campuses and outside the US?
UAEM now has a solid presence in approximately 70 universities in the US, Canada, UK, Germany, Norway, and Brazil (listed in the order in which the movement spread).  Canadian chapters came on board very early. The UK came on board soon after and University of Edinburgh adopted a policy about a year ago, while other universities in the UK are now considering policies.  In Germany, Bayh-Dole-style legislation (named for the US act that governs university patenting) was more recently adopted and the chapters there have worked closely with civil society to spread the word about access licensing. We've seen success from Charite, the largest research university hospital in Europe, based in Berlin, signaling a willingness to adopt a policy.  The movement in Norway and Brazil is much newer, but given the energy of the student members, we have great hope for things advancing quickly. In each case we've worked hard to make sure that UAEM's model is adapted to the local context and have been lucky to lead off with major institutions who can set the tone for other universities. Recently, Jawaharlal Nehru University signed onto a statement on access, though till date we do not know how the policy is being implemented. We have recently made some contacts there and hope to find out.

What does UAEM have to say about the pressures universities face to become self financing and to raise finances for their research?
We need to ask ourselves as a society if we value independent organisations dedicated to both educating the next generations and serving society.  If we do, then governments cannot back away from their commitments to fund universities.  If we imagine a world where universities are funded heavily by industry, we will face a future where universities are no longer making breakthrough discoveries that arise from science for science's sake. Industry funding comes with a focus on commercial outcomes because, quite understandably, industry plays a role in society to create commercial goods. This is not to say that universities do not play a role in this.  The entire biotech industry arose out of university discoveries. In order for universities to become self-financing, we will have to have outrageous unaffordable tuitions, huge infusions of cash from industry, or some other combination of policy changes that will gut the very role of what public universities and research institutions play in society.  Markets have failed in creating new treatments for neglected diseases like Chagas or African sleeping sickness or tuberculosis.  The few researchers who do toil away on finding new treatments are usually in university labs.  If we replicate the failures of the market within our universities by pulling public funding I believe we will be in quite a sorry state as a society. It is worth noting that in the US, industry still funds well less than 10 percent of university research while the government funds around 70 percent.

Will universities be willing to forego the revenue they earn from licensing their drug discoveries?
Most university technology transfer offices (which deal with universities' patents) don't break even. They are often a drain on university finances. Technology transfer is an expensive affair and even now large revenues are concentrated on a few individual institutions, often for one blockbuster discovery. Making medicines discovered by universities available for generic production in developing countries will make little difference to university royalties given the small size of the market in the developing world. For example, Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for less than 1 per cent of the global pharma market. We need to ask if the revenues earned on a patent is worth restricting access to life-saving medicines for millions. This question becomes even more poignant when we consider that universities are public institutions funded by the public. Improving access in developing countries can be done at minimal cost while fulfilling a moral imperative.

Read more: 'Universities could mandate generic production for poor countries' - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/interviews/Universities-could-mandate-generic-production-for-poor-countries/articleshow/7017063.cms#ixzz17qKYjgwL

The Chinese Are Coming

REBOOTING INDIA

The Chinese Are Coming

KANTI BAJPAI, Dec 11, 2010, 12.00am IST

Premier Wen Jiabao of China will come calling next week. China is India's largest and most powerful neighbour by far and therefore in a strategic sense the most consequential. It is also India's biggest trading partner, which makes it vital to the Indian economy. How should we at this juncture think about the relationship with China?
By way of context, it is crucial to remember that China is the second largest economy in the world and probably the second greatest military power as well. By any reckoning, it will be the greatest power on earth in 30 years if not sooner. It is hard to see what could stop its rise. There is a view that China's internal political and ethno-religious problems, its ageing population, and its peculiar state-led crypto-capitalist economy will singly or in combination constrain its elevation to the world's pre-eminent power. However, we should remember that before China both the US and UK had internal problems prior to their rise. Those problems did not fundamentally stop their ascent.
When Wen arrives in Delhi, he will set foot in the Indian capital as the leader of the next superpower if not the next global hegemon. Projections of China's GDP as a proportion of world GDP, in 30 years from now, range from roughly 25 per cent to 40 per cent. Whatever we may say about Indian economic growth, it is highly unlikely our country will be in the same position. However much it may gall us, we must acknowledge that the next century will be China's.
What are India's options in dealing with China? One option is to form an alliance or series of alliances against China to balance against its awesome power. Obvious partners here are the US, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and a string of South East Asian countries plus more remote powers such as France and the UK (or, if it ever becomes a cohesive strategic actor, the EU). All these actors have their own worries about China. Already, we can see an interest in the US and western powers and various East and South East Asian powers in engaging India which by virtue of its population and size is about the only country with the scale to potentially balance China in the long run. The problem here is that given China's economic links to these countries it is hard if not impossible for them to line up against it in an overt, effective way.
The other option is to bend at the knee and make concessions to China with the hope that Beijing will leave us alone. There are a number of bilateral issues that bring the two of us into conflict - territory, Tibet, river waters, and Pakistan, principally. New Delhi could simply give Beijing more or less what it wants on these. The problem is that China may want so much that it will not be possible for India to make sufficient concessions. Furthermore, on the question of our respective energy needs in the years to come, it may well be that the conflict will be so fundamental that India will not be in a position to give in.
A final option is to build Indian military strength to the point that we can deter China even if we cannot match it for overall national power. This is attractive enough but it does not answer the question of how we will do this when the Chinese could bully our military suppliers (Russia, the US, Europe). We could produce our own weapons, but the only weapon of any consequence that we have more or less successfully built is nuclear weapons. In any case, even if we can deter the Chinese from aggression, we may not prevent it from shaping world politics, as the US has done for the past century.
This suggests that perhaps the best thing we can do is what we are doing, namely, negotiate relentlessly with China, refuse to be provoked by it, engage with other states without allying against our northern neighbour, build our economy and internal political resilience, and deter aggression across the Himalayas. China did this in the last phase of the Cold War in its relations with the US. We need to do a China on China.

 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/The-Chinese-Are-Coming/articleshow/7078878.cms#ixzz17qD6tdeC

China está tentando conter a Índia?

Los nuevos participantes en el Gran Juego

Jaswant Singh

2010-09-24

NUEVA DELHI – Dos “grandes juegos” se desarrollan actualmente en el sur de Asia. Al occidente, Afganistán -y los “yihadistas islamistas”, como los llama Henry Kissinger- desafían el orden internacional. Al oriente, un gran número de tropas chinas han penetrado en  los territorios pakistaníes, en lo alto de las intrincadas montañas del Karakórum de Cachemira, que se encuentran en la pintoresca región de Gilgit-Baltistán, no lejos del helado campo de batalla de Siachen, donde India y Pakistán se enfrentan.

Senge Hasan Sering, de Skardu, dirigente del Congreso Nacional de Gilgit-Baltistán, piensa que el número de tropas del Ejército Popular de Liberación chino ahora presentes "podría superar los 11,000," pues también se ha desplegado "cuerpo de ingenieros de dicho ejército." Es aquí donde China está invirtiendo "miles de millones de dólares en megaproyectos como autopistas, túneles y oleoductos y gasoductos.” “Indudablemente”, señala Sering, “no se debe a un altruismo desbordante.”

Los chinos dicen que algunas de sus tropas están presentes en Pakistán por otro tipo de "desbordamientos", que han sido numerosos en esta parte de Cachemira y en el resto de Pakistán. Las fuertes lluvias monzónicas de este año han causado grandes estragos en la región: interrupción de las comunicaciones terrestres, derrumbe de puentes y destrucción de las viviendas de medio millón de personas en estas montañas – se han quedado sin “casas, tierras, bienes muebles,” o incluso “cementerios.”  Esto supera y se agrega a las miles de personas que en enero perdieron todo debido a las fuertes lluvias en la región de Hunza, que arrasaron varios poblados y crearon un lago artificial muy inestable.

El antiguo “Gran Juego” de Rudyard Kipling ahora tiene nuevos concursantes. En lugar de un imperio expansionista ruso enfrentándose al imperio británico, actualmente es China, hambrienta de tierras, agua y materias primas, la que está flexionando sus músculos e invadiendo gradualmente los reductos himalayos y desafiando directamente a la India.

La incursión de China reafirma el antiguo axioma estratégico de que “la geografía es el verdadero determinante de la historia” –y, en consecuencia, también de la política exterior y de seguridad. Robert Kaplan señala acertadamente que “la geografía india es la historia de invasiones desde el noroeste,” y “los desafíos estratégicos de la India todavía son inherentes a este hecho,” razón por la cual Afganistán, a los ojos indios, está vinculado a la historia del subcontinente, y por consiguiente a nuestro futuro.

También es la razón de que exista una “conexión orgánica entre India y Asia Central”. La clave de ese vínculo se encuentra en el Himalaya, que es donde se centra actualmente la rivalidad entre la India y China. Afortunadamente, al menos por el momento, esta rivalidad es mucho menos impulsiva que las relaciones entre la India y Pakistán, puesto que no se deriva de diferencias históricas.

El deseo de China es liberarse de las limitaciones de su historia y, por lo tanto,  de su geografía. Aparentemente, una China segura de sí misma y relativamente estable tiene que expandirse para que las presiones internas contenidas no la desgarren. Por el otro lado, una India fuerte y estable siempre será una potencia del status quo.

Con estos antecedentes debe evaluarse la disputa más reciente entre la India y China. Varios miles de efectivos del Ejército Popular de Liberación  están destacados sin oposición en el Paso del Kunjerab en la frontera con Xinjiang para proteger la autopista de Karakórum, que también reparan en varios tramos. Después de todo, la carretera es un vínculo vital para la búsqueda de China de un acceso directo al Mar Arábigo. No obstante, esto también es territorio indio, y ahí yace el problema, porque la región está siendo víctima de la progresiva codicia de China, con el consentimiento de Pakistán como cómplice más que dispuesto.

A pesar de las reivindicaciones históricamente establecidas de la India en esta región, China se refiere a ella como territorio “en disputa”, descripción que ha comenzado a ampliar a todo el estado indio de Jammu y Cachemira. Esta clase de trucos verbales para ocultar un objetivo estratégico ya se han utilizado anteriormente. En efecto, hace algunos años, una visita del comandante de la región militar de Lanzhou del Ejército Popular de Liberación al Ladak indio se canceló debido a que Pakistán había protestado –lo que insinuaba que Pakistán tenía una reivindicación legítima sobre la región.

Sería un error suponer que la gran expansión de comercio entre la India y China, que actualmente se eleva a más de 60 mil millones de dólares anuales (y por el que China se ha convertido en el mayor socio comercial de la India) debe conducir a mejorar las relaciones bilaterales. A pesar de la expansión del comercio, China está intentando encerrar a la India en fronteras terrestres y marítimas muy reducidas mediante su llamada política del “collar de perlas”.

Este esfuerzo para rodear a la India por mar con estaciones navales estratégicamente ubicadas desde Hainán en el este hasta Gwadar en el oeste, y por tierra mediante el apoyo a las reivindicaciones falsas de Pakistán que socavan la integridad territorial de la India, llevan el “Gran Juego” a un nivel nuevo y más peligroso. En efecto, la tenaza de Afganistán y Gilgit/Baltistán plantea el desafío más grave a la condición de Estado de la India desde su independencia.

Más aún, la lucha que se libra ahora en la cima del mundo bien podría determinar si este será un “siglo asiático” o un “siglo chino”.

Jaswant Singh, ex ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, de Finanzas y de Defensa de la India, es miembro de la oposición en el Parlamento indio.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/singh6/Spanish

Editorial do jornal indiano “The Hindu” publicado após indepedência da Índia em 1947

Published: Agosto 15, 2010 03:12 IST | Updated: Agosto 15, 2010 18:20 IST Agosto 15, 2010

A Red-letter day

 

The Hindu Photo Archives Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru being sworn in as Prime Minister of India at the Viceroy's House in New Delhi on August 14, 1947 midnight by Lord Mountbatten, the Viceroy. Photographer: Pandit Nehru being sworn in Prime Minister of India at the Viceroy's House in New Delhi on August 14, 1947 midnight by Lord Mountbatten , the Viceroy. Photographer:

The Hindu's editorial on India's independence that was published on August 15, 1947.

BY the grace of Providence India enters the comity of free nations to-day, an equal among equals. It is an occasion for rejoicing not only for her people but for all who value human freedom as an end in itself. So long as this country with her hoary civilisation and many-sided culture, her wealth of resources and matchless opulence of spirit remained in political bondage, that very fact constituted an implicit denial of those values to which the dominant nations of the West were wont to pay lip service. That India has at long last achieved her independence by agreement with Great Britain is a fact for which the sagacity and statesmanship of Britain is entitled to the fullest credit. Other imperial Powers are bound to follow in her footsteps sooner or later; for the heart has gone out of Imperialism. The harrowing experience of two wars within a single generation is to a large extent responsible for this awakening among the ruling Powers. But the way in which the people of India have conducted their struggle for emancipation has not been without its influence in bringing about a change in the world outlook. The outstanding marvel of this century is the faith inspired in millions of people that truth may prevail, unbacked though it be by the big battalions,, that you may win over your adversary by putting him on his honour, relying on his good faith and appealing to his reason. By imbuing his countrymen with this faith and sustaining it through the long night-of darkness and despair Mahatma Gandhi has not only won for himself a secure place in our affections; he has placed all humanity in his debt. To him and to the countless men and women who sacrificed themselves cheerfully that others might live to breathe the ampler air of freedom, our hearts turn to-day in reverent homage.

We have achieved freedom; But at what cost! A country and a people that by every test are a unity have been arbitrarily divided. And the wound will take long to heal; for, as Mr. Nehru has sadly remarked, "division has taken place in the hearts of the people of India". But it is idle to brood over what has happened and foolish to get angry and cast about for scapegoats. Many think that there is bound to be a reunion when there has been time enough for people to reflect coolly on the disastrous consequences of this unnatural partition. That is as it may be. But those who are perpetually harping on it, whether from genuine distress or in a fractious spirit, will not be hastening that consummation. It can only act as an irritant. The temptation for the protagonists of a united India and of Pakistan to talk at each other from a distance should be set aside. And both sides should concentrate on the thousand and one practical tasks that will have to be tackled in a spirit of mutual accommodation if life is not to be unnecessarily hard for large masses of men. The responsible leaders have shown a praiseworthy desire to conciliate the minorities and to reassure them. But so long as Lahore, Calcutta, and other big cities remain in the grip of madmen drunk with blood and the civil power stands helpless in the face of organised murder and loot, it is idle to expect the minority communities to be satisfied with verbal assurances however ample. From today the responsibility for ending this disgraceful state of affairs is solely ours. Neither the Government of India nor that of Pakistan must overlook the fact that our new-won freedom is itself gravely menaced by this chronic lawlessness. Every effort should, of course, be made to rally the vast majority of peaceable citizens in support of law and order. But the long arm of the law should be not less ready to collar and swift to punish the malfactors however deeply they might be entrenched.

We have won freedom. And the first thing our people must learn is that it is no picnic. They will have to gird their loins and work as they have never worked before. Any number of paper plans will not usher in the millennium if we go on interminably arguing their relative merits. The consensus of instructed opinion in the country is that our urgent need is to increase production. Dr. John Matthai. in stressing the other day the fact that the redressing of the present gross inequality in distribution is no less essential, was no doubt applying a healthy corrective. But, while admitting this, we would point out that there is some risk in envisaging the pursuit of economic equality in terms of a struggle. Dr. Matthai argued that like all national movements for freedom ours too, has had to lean heavily on vested interests and the latter have taken the fullest advantage of this; and that a determined effort should now be made to shake off this strangle-hold and this could be done, and the energy released by the achievement of freedom could be best utilised by casting vested interests for the role of enemy as we cast British Imperialism for that role till the other day. Dr. Matthai was, we are sure, merely using picturesque language to emphasise his point. But there is a danger in simplifying these things, especially with a people who are still novices in the art of political democracy. We have to deal, not with lifeless things that stay put, but with a dynamic situation which changes under our very eyes. Those who led the fight for freedom yesterday may themselves come to be regarded as vested interests by their self-styled successors of to-day who claim to lead the struggle for economic equality. In act, the epidemic of strikes that has broken out in many key-industries and that is further impoverishing an economy that is already dangerously on the verge of collapse, is often sought to be justified on the ground that the bourgeois leaders are in league with the capitalists. If these ideological recriminations are given their head, we must bid farewell to all hopes of a united drive for maximising production and for opening up new and fruitful fields of economic activity.

Having pinned our faith to the method of peaceful persuasion in our struggle for emancipation it would ill become us to look upon the coercive exercise of the State power as the inevitable instrument for building up a strong and well-knit nation. Among us, as in other parts of the world, there are bound to be wide differences of opinion as to the objectives of State policy. All rational men aim at the good life as the goal of the State; but. though there is general agreement in regard to the material conditions which the term implies, there are considerable differences of opinion over the spiritual values which are no less essential to the good life, such imponderables, among others, as freedom of thought itself. Far from regarding it as necessary in the interests of the public welfare to steam-roller opinion at the behest of a dominant clique, our age-long tradition, to which totalitarian tyranny is profoundly repugnant, has always favoured the allowing of the maximum liberty to people to live their Own lives without denying others their due. If we are to be true to our own best impulses we should depend on education rather than legislation, on the catalytic action of creative thought and not on mass agitation and crude propaganda, to bring about those changes which may be necessary to eliminate poverty, wretchedness and strife and to enable every citizen of free India to attain to fullness of life and that inner freedom which the Vedic seers termed Swaaraajya

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/article571011.ece?homepage=true