Politics and Governance

According to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, multiculturalism has failed in Germany. Why? Listen to Andrew Nagorski’s analysis on National Public Radio’s morning show, “The Takeaway.”

 Obama’s forthcoming visit to India is awaited with muted expectations.  Both sides need a ‘successful’ visit so that the substantial political investment already made in the bilateral relationship is protected.”

Despite Obama’s consistent praise of India’s prime minister, Sibal maintains that there is a disconnect between his actions and his words, specifically in reference to American outsourcing to India: “[Obama] has personally led the charge against American companies practicing outsourcing despite the substantive Indian business links this has created.” Sibal discusses the intricacies of the IT industry explaining that Obama’s criticism has the potential to hinder the bilateral relationship.

“Even if one construes such talk as playing to the domestic gallery at a time of huge unemployment, projecting India as a competitor stealing U.S. jobs advances no core U.S. interest vis a vis India, besides overlooking sizeable job creation by Indian investors in the U.S.” states Sibal.

Another complex aspect of the U.S.-India relationship is the United States’ relationships to China.  Sibal argues that the U.S. needs to acknowledge China’s increasing aggression in the South China Sea and the combined China-Pakistan threat to India.

Sibal concludes: “President Obama’s visit should be genuinely ‘successful’ in mutual interest, but how to ensure this in real substance, not in soaring rhetoric, given the complexities involved, presents a challenge.”

Click here to read Sibal's article in Mail Today (page 12).

Rules for effective advertizing in the commercial world include elements like “keep it simple”, “find an appeal in the market” and “work off a strategy”. Another good guideline is “think in words and pictures”. Now shift to the climate change debate and think of how to package the idea of “parts per million of carbon dioxide” –  a nightmare brief for any advertizing agency. So why then do the world’s political leaders keep trying so stubbornly to sell the message of mitigating climate change by reference to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

As serious as the issue of “ppm” is, few people involved in public policy or business actually identify with the term. How many people wake up in the morning and say: “I need to reduce my ppm today?”  There has been an advance in marketing climate change mitigation in recent years with the advent of the idea of “reducing the carbon footprint”, and many more people identify with their carbon footprint than with their ppm. But on closer inspection, the footprint term is not consumer friendly either. The economics of costing a carbon footprint is almost as inaccessible and contested as the science of climate change.

By contrast, the term “energy saving” is one that is universally understood, from the poorest communities to the richest, from the least educated to the most educated.  In the rich world, there is an immediate hip-pocket effect of saving energy. In the poor world, the immediate effect is in terms of keeping some fuel in reserve to cook a meal or boil water to drink – either next week, tomorrow, or perhaps even later the same day.

How can politicians exploit the appeal of this simpler message to advance the cause of climate change mitigation? There is one option that may provide the lion’s share of the outcome we need in ppm and at the same time build a bigger constituency of support for the end result.

We could get this from an energy efficiency treaty. According to the “alternative scenario” in the 2006 World Energy Outlook from the International Energy Agency (IEA), efficiency measures could provide up to two-thirds of the projected reductions needed to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions and begin to reduce them by 2030.

But the world does not have any universally enforceable treaty that addresses fossil fuels or energy security, nor a global energy organization to facilitate regulation, in spite of repeated demands and a pressing need for these.

There are elements in place, such as the Energy Charter, a European invention steadily gaining wider appeal; the IEA, largely a policy shop for the wealthy OECD countries; and IRENA (the International Renewable Energy Agency) set up in 2009, also a policy shop but with much stronger roles in promotion and organizing concrete actions.

As we contemplate what form an energy efficiency treaty might take, it soon emerges that there is in fact a prototype global treaty in this field – the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The three features of the NPT that have immediate application to the idea of an energy efficiency treaty include: setting a new global norm; a commitment by powerful states to reduce their excesses if the less powerful states commit to a certain path; and a new grand bargain on technology transfer from more developed states that will underpin the commitment by the less developed states.

The biggest challenge in applying this model to a new energy efficiency treaty will be defining the norms. Yet, if the world can agree an International Criminal Court in a few short years, an energy efficiency treaty is achievable in similar time frame. The foundations are there. Most countries and most people aspire to enhanced energy efficiency – here and now.

“The incongruity of this protest can only be gauged from the available statistics,” states Sehgal.

Sehgal follows this statement with statistics and examples of European imports from China, India and Pakistan.  Pakistan’s exports of 3.32 billion Euros to Europe in 2009 amounted to an increase of 1.26 billion Euros from 2005, constituting a mere 0.27 percent of Europe’s overall imports, and only 1.4 percent of the EU’s textile imports. 

“Pakistan’s exports are all commodity items for budget conscious customers which do not compete with the high end fashion items manufactured in Europe,” explains Sehgal.  With Pakistan’s main export of cotton, commodity comparison between Pakistan and Europe is akin to comparing apples and oranges – in other words, they are not comparable.

Sehgal continues by explaining the recent disasters in Pakistan such as the flood and the ongoing war, both of which have robbed the country of its already limited resources: “we cannot engage the hearts and minds of the populace effectively without the economic means to do so,” Sehgal assesses. 

The main concern from the Pakistani perspective is the issue of market access, which has recently improved.  Sehgal concludes: “The force-multiplier effect and optimism created by even the modest export figure increase sanctioned by EU will make a difference in alleviating the misery/disenchantment of the common man of Pakistan. The goodwill generated for the EU as well as the long-term benefits of stability in the region are tremendous.”

Click here to read this piece online

EWI fellow Najam Abbas discusses the upcoming elections in Kyrgyzstan in Al Jazeera.  Al Jazeera asks the question: Can democracy unite the country only four months after the worst bloodshed in its modern history?

“In theory these three countries forging a true partnership could start a new chapter in world history,” states Sibal.

But Sibal maintains that the RIC dialogue may not have as much promise as originally anticipated because “the validity of most of the premises underlying it has been shaken.”  Now that the United State’s sole superpower status has waned, as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the 2008 financial crisis, there is not as much need for Russia, India and China to come together to balance the global power structure.

China provides the most dramatic example of the current realignment in geopolitics. As Sibal puts it: “Since the RIC dialogue began China’s economic rise has been spectacular, with its economy now overtaking Japan’s in size.  China’s self-confidence has bounded and nationalist feelings are being fed at home.”

Despite its rapidly growing economy and population, Sibal believes India is in many ways the weakest member of the RIC dialogue.  Though India is a member of the G20, it is not a permanent member of the Security Council, which limits its role in the RIC in key decisions on global peace and security issues. 

Of the three countries, India and Russia have the most common interests—especially when it come to countering the terrorism and religious extremism that is ravaging Afghanistan and Pakistan, endangering Central Asia and even southern Russia.  Even so, this bond may not prove strong enough to successfully maintain the RIC dialogue.

Sibal concludes: “The RIC dialogue was a grand idea that failed to live up to expectations because the conditions in which it was set up changed rapidly.”

Photo: "Moscow Kremlin" (CC BY-NC 2.0) by Alexey Kljatov (ChaoticMind75)

As the campaign was approaching the crucial final stage, we spoke with MP Safia Saddiqi, a member of Afghan Lower House of Parliament who represents the south-eastern province of Nangahar, about the challenges that women MPs face in Afghanistan. Ms. Saddiqi travelled around Nangahar with her team and discussed the future of Afghanistan with women, and the role they need to play in it.  She shares with us some of her valuable insights from the field.

PN: What were the main difficulties that female MPs running for Parliamentary elections faced during the recent campaign?

SS: Security had a crucial role to play. The lack of security, especially with regards to women candidates, prevented them from travelling to remote areas or to their provinces. This greatly affected their ability to raise the support of their constituency. Financial constraints added to the difficult security situation. Because of the lack of financial resources, women did not have enough funds to organize a proper campaign and print out posters or flyers. Under such conditions, it is hard to compete with male candidates and this means that many women simply can't afford to be active in politics.

Moreover, there is the problem of candidates running for Parliament that actively try to discredit other candidates, and unfortunately these discredited candidates are often women. All these problems are further aggravated by corruption and slander practices. And the situation is the same everywhere in Afghanistan, being it rural or urban.

PN: What are the challenges to come for those women who will be part of the newly-elected Parliament?

SS: I think that the biggest challenge for women is the difficult financial situation. For example, in the former Parliament I did not even have an office. How are we supposed to work in such conditions?

There has not been much attention given to women and their legislative proposals, or any other activities in which they are involved in the Parliament. The Afghan society is still a male-dominated society. Generally, there are no major changes in the situation of Afghan women for many reasons, be it the political or economical situation or the cultural constraints. This situation is mirrored in the Parliament.

Unfortunately there are no signs that the discrimination against women will end in the near future. There is some support from certain male Parliamentarians for the work women have been doing so far in terms of women’s rights, but on the ground, there is no crucial change for the Afghan women. Discrimination between men and women will remain one of the main challenges, as it was for 99% of the women MPs, and hopes that the current situation will change are very low.

PN: How can Parliamentarians worldwide contribute to strengthening the role women MPs in Afghanistan can have in stabilizing and transforming Afghanistan?

SS: I think that there is much value in an international network of Parliamentarians, especially from a working group focused on women MPs in Afghanistan and the wider region. Parliamentarians worldwide need to raise awareness of the importance of women’s participation in the political life of Afghanistan. There needs to be more support from Parliamentarians, especially in the neighbouring countries. The Parliamentarians Network for Conflict Prevention could be the best convener of such events. Women MPs in Afghanistan need to connect with their fellow colleagues, especially from neighbouring countries and learn from their experiences and apply the best practices and lessons learnt. There is a great need to establish cooperation among women MPs, not only within the Afghan Parliament itself but also with women MPs in the wider Arab world, which support our work tremendously. Women from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Iran and other neighbouring countries could greatly benefit from sharing experiences and working together on the issues that concern us all. If we can support each other, work together for our women, children and people, and bridge our political divisions, then we can transform the region and bring peace and stability to our countries.

Click here to read this article on the Parliamentarians Network website

“Last month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s repugnant claim that the events of 9/11 were a U.S. conspiracy set an all-time low in this regard, triggering a walkout by the representatives of 33 countries—a new record,” writes Sidhu.

Sidhu argues that Washington DC’s and Tehran’s mutual misperceptions lie at the heart of this problematic relationship.  With Ahmadinejad’s pronouncements of the U.S.’s immoral political and economic system, and the U.S.’s belief that Iran is on the verge of collapse, neither country evaluates the other realistically.  Both countries’ assessments are too extreme.

Sidhu concludes that Iran made a serious mistake in choosing to attack the U.S. rather than communicate at this year’s UN General Assembly: “Clearly, both sides missed a ‘golden opportunity’ to negotiate their way out of the dangerous impasse on the sidelines of the UN.  In this instance, the blame lies squarely with Ahmadinejad.”

Click here to read Sidhu's piece on livemint.com.

On 23 April 2010, the New York Times referenced a meeting in March between US and Chinese officials as “the first time the Chinese labeled the South China Sea a core interest, on par with Taiwan and Tibet”. The report also said that a visit by a Chinese warship to Abu Dhabi in 2010 was the “first time the modern Chinese Navy made a port visit in the Middle East.”

Sorry, but the famous newspaper and its sources in this report have been misleading. Chinese naval ships have visited the Middle East before this year, with three ships visiting Egypt in 2002. A small Chinese naval flotilla has been on anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden beginning in 2008 – alongside NATO. By early 2010, these ships had reportedly made more than 16 visits to Oman. The New York Times might have said more correctly the “Persian Gulf”.

On the bigger issue, there is no stronger core interest for a state than sovereignty over territory. The two main island groups of the South China Sea (Paracel and Spratly) have been identified both by the Republic of China (ROC) since 1946 and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since 1951 as China’s vital national interest. In 1951, China demanded recognition of its sovereignty over the islands. Through various acts since, China has made clear its view of these islands as vital interests, most visibly in 1974 with the military eviction of South Vietnamese forces from the Paracel Islands, and then through successive shows of force around the Spratly Islands.

For almost five decades, both the PRC and ROC have drawn maps, using the so-called U-shaped line, showing almost the entirety of the South China Sea as within China’s domain. That line has no legal standing but the subsequent evolution of the Law of the Sea would, in the Chinese view and reasonable expectation, place large slices of the South China (though not even half of it) under Chinese jurisdiction for the exploitation of maritime resources.

According to a Pentagon report this year, China “has the largest force of principal combatants, submarines, and amphibious warfare ships in Asia”. The report notes that “China’s naval forces include some 75 principal combatants, more than 60 submarines, 55 medium and large amphibious ships, and roughly 85 missile-equipped patrol craft.” According to an August 2010 report of the United States Congressional Research Service, China has only commissioned around two new major surface combatants per year for the past twenty years. The CRS also obliquely criticized the Pentagon report, not least because “China’s navy includes significant numbers of older, obsolescent ships”. The Office of Naval Intelligence predicts a small decline in the number of major surface combatants by 2015 and a further small decline by 2020.

At the end of the day, the Pentagon statement that China has the “largest” naval force “in Asia” – though true – is misleading. It really needs to be qualified by clearer assessments of the technology levels compared with potential enemies, the age of the ships, procurement rates, China’s relative maritime military power in Asia, the capability of related air assets, the missions assigned the naval forces as part of national strategy, or even perhaps the amounts of maritime territory. Japan alone has around 50 principal combatants even if it has far fewer though more capable submarines and far fewer amphibious ships. If we add the capability of the US Pacific Forces and the political commitment of other Pacific allies to the strategic power of Japan, then PLA naval strength is not the game changer some are suggesting – even on its own door step.

The Pentagon report on China, like the misleading newspaper coverage of China, needs to be handled with care.

Greg Austin is the author of "China's Ocean Frontier."