Mira Kamdar: India on Track for 2033 Predictions

Citizenship & IdentityCultureEconomy

Mira KamdarSomehow, I don’t feel cheered by indications in the month since I wrote my article for the 25th anniversary edition of World Policy Journal that India seems right on track to fulfill the mixed future I predicted in India: Richer, Poorer, Hotter, Armed. On the wealth front, cellular telephone company Bharti Airtel posted a net profit increase of 27 percent, Standard & Poor’s retained its bullish outlook for future economic growth, inflation snuck down under 11 percent and the stock market roared, snapped, roared and snapped again. In comparison with the continued panicked erosion of the financial markets and economies in the West, India seems poised to survive the global financial crisis not too bruised nor too battered. It will even, along with China, emerge with a new global say in the world’s financial architecture since it’s participation in a new G7 that will rise to some as yet unclear new number is now assured.

On the poverty front, India’s minister of finance, Palaniappan Chidambaram swore that slowed economic growth would not result in job cuts. Indeed, Jet Airways first fired then rehired hundreds of young workers who were shocked that the mall stalking they’d just begun to get used to being able to pay for might come to a sudden end. Even at a slower 7 percent rate, he opined, jobs would still be created though not as many as quickly as at a higher rate of growth. Of course, that doesn’t include India’s still moribund agricultural sector where the vast majority of its people still eek out a living and where growth is at a near-stagnant 2.3 percent. India’s Ministry of Agriculture released its fall or Kharif harvest projections a couple of weeks ago: production has declined across the board in basic food crops and cotton, on which great hopes were placed, increased by only 0.5 percent. Saving a few hundred service jobs in the airline industry cannot come near to compensating for this disaster. After more than 60 years of independence, India is still stealing from its farmers to push for the industrialization and urban development that will make it feel like a developed country. The poor, in other words, continue to be sacrificed to the rich and the newly minted and eagerly consuming middle class.

Shaun Randol: Nukes in the Himalayas

EconomyElections & Institutions

The past two months have seen some interesting developments in Sino-Indian relations. Immediately after India’s official entrance into the group of nuclear states sent shudders through the nonproliferation community worldwide, the latest round of discussions between the Asian giants came and went with little fanfare. Taken together, these developments further confound rather than illuminate understanding of the lurching relationship between the world’s two most populous states.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Congress approved a deal that allows American companies (like General Electric and Westinghouse) to sell India atomic fuel and nuclear technology. A month before Congress made the deal official, member states of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) had waived the usual restrictions to entry into the elite club, warmly welcoming India as the newest nation to openly possess nuclear weapons; this despite the fact that India is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The move landed with a whimper in the U.S. media, but has made a huge splash in Indian news, where the event was largely celebrated as something of a coming out party—India, no longer the shy debutante. Others took notice too: companies in Canada, France, and Russia are salivating at the opportunity to sell nuclear-related material to India, a country once denied such privileges.

Many in the NPT crowd are worried about the implications of this NSG deal. Adam B. Kushner of Newsweek warns that the NSG agreement may spark a nuclear arms race with the likes of Pakistan and Iran. Likewise, Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association says the move blows “a huge loophole in the global non-proliferation system that’s going to make it harder to persuade the Irans and the North Koreas—an already difficult task—to abide by their obligations; and it’s going to make it more difficult to strengthen this global non-proliferation effort which is already fraying at the seams.” But both analysts largely overlook the serious implications with regard to China.

Ian Williams

Ian Williams: Bacardi’s Muddled Fight for “Cuba Libre”

CultureEconomy

Ian WilliamsThe Bacardi family elicits strong feelings across the world. Its propensity for mythmaking, its aggressive commercial competitiveness, its long history of lobbying in Washington, its family obsession with Cuba, and its understandable grudge against Fidel Castro’s regime are all guaranteed to produce friction.

Tom Gjelten has had unprecedented cooperation from both the family and from Cuban officials in writing his book, Bacardi and the Long Fight for Cuba: the Biography of a Cause (Viking , 2008). Neither Castro supporters nor the Bacardi family have exactly trumpeted the financial, political, and logistical backing given by the family to Castro and the rebels. Both sides obviously regret the episode. Ironically, however, now that Raul Castro has succeeded his older brother, both sides are linked to the family business, since Raul married the daughter of a Bacardi executive family in a lavish Bacardi-hosted ceremony attended by Fidel, the original big brother.

Gjelten leaves nothing unrecorded in his objective, warts and all, history of an unusual company, illustrating Cuban history without the canonizations by leftist apologists for Fidel and the demonizations by conservative Cuban exiles and their friends.

He correctly questions some of the company’s mythmaking by copywriters, for example the “Cuba Libre” (rum and Coke), whose Bacardi origins were later dubiously certified by the Bacardi sales manager in New York. However, he is a little too accepting of the family tale, and indeed the Cuban view, of its innovation in rum-making. In fact, for centuries, the Spanish colonies were forbidden from making rum—not, as Gjelten suggests, to protect public morals, but to protect the brandy industry back home.

What Bacardi did was replicate the processes long used by the Jamaicans and other Anglo-Caribbeans, who had long before discovered how important aging in oak barrels was to make the product smooth and palatable. Bacardi made a lighter version of rum, filtered to take out much of the color and, in the opinion of many rum connoisseurs, much of the taste as well. But as part of its innovative marketing, the family was strong on quality control, ensuring that the brand, even if bland, was consistent.

Ketevan Ninua: The Cold War Never Ended

Citizenship & IdentityEconomy

Ketevan Ninua Ketevan Ninua is a co-founder of Georgian Center of Technology, a technology and engineering institute in Tbilisi, Georgia, and a board member of ProGeorgia.org, Inc. Born in Tbilisi, she is a New York representative of the Georgian Association in the United States.

While Russia’s recent invasion of Georgia came as a surprise to most around the world, it should have evoked quite the opposite reaction. Molestation of her neighbors, including setting impoverished Ossetians against Georgians, has long been Russian policy. Today imperial Russia, flouting international law, threatens Georgia’s very existence by bombing the country, slaughtering civilians, and occupying territory. This is a situation that the West has encountered numerous times in the past: Czechoslovakia, 1938; Berlin, 1948; Budapest, 1956; Prague, 1968; Afghanistan, 1979. The world condemns Russia, but condemnations do not curb Moscow’s behavior.

Russian aggression stretches back centuries; its approach to conquest dates from the Middle Ages, when soldiers were sent to war with no promise of payment other than loot. Russian aggression on a macro level is well-documented, but the savagery of its soldiers has not been widely reported. Russian soldiers in Georgia have engaged in widespread looting of food, electronic equipment, furniture, footwear, and clothes—even used toilet bowls and sinks.

Russian soldiers have raped and murdered innocent civilians. In Georgia, three generations often live in the same home; Russian soldiers have beaten elders and shot family members who dared to object. After their looting and killing was over, Russian troops have burned Georgian villages to the ground, destroyed towns, and mined roads—to ensure that no food or humanitarian aid can reach devastated Georgian citizens.

David S. Christy, Jr.: Geneva’s Winners & Losers, A View from the Dugout

Citizenship & IdentityEconomy

David A. Andelman [This post is an update on Mr. Christy’s article published in the summer 2008 issue of World Policy Journal.]

If there were trading cards for the Doha Development Round participants, I’d save Falconer’s. The agriculture negotiations chairman, Ambassador Crawford Falconer is my candidate for MVP—it is a shame he is stepping down later this year; he will be missed. Falconer consistently works to strip away the nonsense, politics, and disinformation that dogs these types of negotiations. His reports read like a stern uncle reining in a bunch of wayward nephews—they are direct, utterly sensible, and beyond cavil. There is not a scintilla of wishful thinking. (This, by the way, accords with my personal experience with Falconer, who chaired a World Trade Organization panel proceeding in which I participated.)

Falconer dishes his latest dose of reality in a terse, 4.5-page report dated August 11. He responds directly to the canard that the July mini-ministerial in Geneva fell apart over technical issues regarding the special safeguard measure (SSM)—which allows protection where a surge in imports threatens domestic agriculture producers. Falconer stresses that the U.S.-India disagreement over the SSM is “not some purely ‘technical’ matter,” but rather is political. He then drives the point home by noting the many other difficult issues that the negotiators did not resolve, including cotton from least-developed countries, new tariff quotas for sensitive products, and tariff simplification. He also notes that the members as a whole had not yet vetted the issues where progress was made. His report has been widely accepted as an accurate account.

WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy’s comments on the progress of the talks and the report of Canadian Ambassador Don Stephenson, chair of the negotiations on market access for non-agricultural products (NAMA), have not been so well received. In the view of some members, Lamy’s comments do not accurately present the splits among the members, reporting agreement where none existed. This may be due in part to the fact that Lamy is nearing the end of his term and this may be his last chance to move the talks forward. Certainly, the members have reasons to back away from concessions given the overall failure of the negotiations, but Lamy’s account is overly rosy. As for Stephenson, the United States has attacked his report for mischaracterizing the state of play on sectoral negotiations, which would eradicate tariffs on specified goods (e.g., chemicals). More importantly, Argentina rejected the July 25 compromise draft on NAMA—which serves as the basis of all claims of progress. Because the WTO operates by consensus, Argentina’s rejection of the package suggests that the widely reported progress is illusory. What to make of all of this?

Jonathan Power

Jonathan Power: From Lagos with Love…to Georgia

CultureEconomyHuman Well Being

Jonathan PowerKosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Chechnya, the Bakassi Peninsula. All disputed territories but only one (the last named), a sizable oil-rich wedge of land lying between Nigeria and Cameroon, has been taken to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for adjudication. Why not the others? To my mind, I can think of no good reason apart from, in the latest conflagration, hubris on the Russian side and an inflated sense of self-importance on the Georgian side, partly borne of America’s encouragement.

Six years ago, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo (on whom I reported for the summer issue of World Policy Journal) was confronted with growing tensions with neighboring Cameroon over the Bakassi Peninsula, long ruled by Nigeria. In a show of restraint, he decided to resist the advice of his minister of defense, who pushed for a military solution, and turned the dispute over to the ICJ. Local newspapers ridiculed Obasanjo and public opinion was nationalistic, but he held his course and did so even when the court ruled in Cameroon’s favor. Yesterday, Bakassi was formally turned over to Cameroon.

Unlike South Ossetia, there was something to fight over—large quantities of oil—but Nigeria swallowed its pride. This doesn’t happen as often as it should, but it does happen.

MacBain

Louise Blouin MacBain: Security for Rich & Poor

African AngleEconomy

MacBainFrom the forthcoming Summer 2008 issue of World Policy Journal.

Many of you are presently suffering from sharp increases in food prices. The main cause of this increase is here to stay since it results from structural changes in the demand for farm products. Reducing farm subsidies and tariffs should help create more room for your own farmers to export thus helping raise their revenues. It should also ensure a better connection between supply and demand. If anyone still wonders why agricultural subsidies and production systems need reform and why this is crucial for Africa, just look in the news everyday!

—World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy, addressing the African Union Conference of Trade and Finance Ministers, April 3, 2008

In mid-July 2008, trade representatives from World Trade Organization (WTO) member states began meeting in Geneva in an attempt to make a breakthrough towards completing what has been seven years of negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda. There had been political commentary on Doha that was skeptical about the success of the agreement; Barack Obama’s economic policy advisor, Jason Furman, for example, has told the media that it is impossible for the candidate to have an opinion on an agreement “that doesn’t exist.” Still, there is a growing consensus among trade representatives such as Peter Mandelson of the European Commission and Susan Schwab, the U.S. Trade Representative, suggesting that while many complex steps still need to be taken in order to complete Doha, a deal in 2008 must be made. Indeed, the need is critical and immediate, not only to help alleviate the pressure brought on by the spike in global commodities—oil and foodstuffs—and lift African economies out of poverty, but also as a symbol that nations can work together to address global issues.

The fundamental purpose of Doha was not just to create clearer and fairer conditions of global trade, but also to open up new opportunities for growth and development in the world’s most impoverished areas. In turn, millions would be lifted from poverty.

Inextricably linked to Doha’s goal of alleviating poverty was the strong desire among WTO members to issue a global response to what were perceived as the imbalances between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, that have been key drivers of terrorism and global conflict. Doha, while idealistic in its goal, set out in 2001 to develop a new platform for global cooperation that would depart from traditional aid and development programs. These have tended to see money simply flowing from rich to poor nations—if at all—usually with strings attached. Instead, this new platform has sought, by liberalizing trade barriers across the globe, to allow impoverished nations a vehicle to develop their own independent economies and stand on their own feet. Doha had, and continues to have, the profound ambition of restoring dignity to the world’s impoverished. Moreover, any Doha trade liberalization also stands to benefit rich nations such as the United States and those that comprise the EU, who are now more than ever relying on exports to maintain economic dynamism and growth.

Vladimir Kvint

Vladimir Kvint: Russia Looks to 2020

Citizenship & IdentityEconomyRisk & Security

Vladimir KvintAfter the disintegration of the Soviet Union and its disappearance from the political map of the world, the Russian central planning system was abolished. It was an inevitable and positive result of 70 years of brutal dictatorship. However, the complete destruction of a planning system was one of many mistakes made during the transition from a centralized system to a free market economy. Until 2008, the Russian government did not have a long-term plan or vision. Learning from the Soviet experience, other countries like France, Italy and Germany have used planning systems in their national policies with varying levels of success. Planning systems have also been developed in several emerging market countries. At the beginning of the 1990s, when I worked at Arthur Andersen, I participated in the analysis of Malaysia’s 2020 strategic plan. Seventeen years later, a program with the same horizon is being developed in Russia. Here is my take on it.

Belinda Cooper

Belinda Cooper: Obama in Berlin

Citizenship & IdentityEconomy

Belinda CooperBERLIN, GERMANY—Barack Obama has come and gone, but excitement remains, along with sober analysis. Obama was again on the front of every newspaper the day after his appearance, and most of the coverage and photos were flattering. (In a recent New York Times op-ed, Susan Neiman refers to Spiegel Magazine’s sardonic cover, but Spiegel is always sardonic and condescending, about everyone; it’s hardly representative.)German newspapers in Berlin.

The day of the speech, people were already making their way to the Siegessäule hours before Obama was scheduled to take the stage. The crowd was international and ethnically mixed, and largely young. The mood was not so much passionate as curious. One longtime American resident of Berlin called it an anti-Bush demonstration of a sort (though with many people waving American flags)

I asked an Eritrean friend I met on the way, who’s lived in Berlin for years and is now a German citizen, what people were saying about Obama. He told me everyone likes him, but they don’t believe Americans will actually elect him. That is, indeed, a concern; many people have asked me whether I really think he has a chance.

Obama’s speech touched on many of the points Germans, especially younger people, are most interested in, but he also alluded to some issues they are not excited about. Back where I was standing, there was little applause for his call for more German troops in Afghanistan or his praise for NATO. To me, his rhetoric about the Cold War and the airlift came across as clichéd and somewhat condescending, but not everyone saw it that way; the airlift still means something to Berliners, particularly older ones. He received a great deal of applause when he spoke of Darfur, several times, and Zimbabwe; of ending the Iraq war and eliminating nuclear weapons; of climate and the environment; and of breaking down barriers between races and religions.

Still, Obama’s rhetoric is American, for example in its tendency towards what one commentator called “light and darkness metaphors,” and sounds strange to German ears. One young woman I spoke to afterwards found the speech superficial (“bullshit” was one of her adjectives). And others have made the same arguments as Roger Cohen in the New York Times—that it was abstract and feel-good.

The staging of an American campaign is equally alien. In a poll by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on the day of his appearance, a majority of respondents nationally felt either that too much fuss was being made, that Obama was using Berlin for his campaign, or that European expectations of him were too high. Most people seemed quite aware that the speech was, in fact, aimed more at the U.S. then at Germany. But many commentators, as well as listeners, found substance in the speech nevertheless. Obama’s admission that the U.S. has made mistakes, for example, and his acknowledgment that many Europeans see the U.S. as a cause of the world’s problems, meant a great deal.