mediavigil

IMO's Draft Ship Recycling Convention Callous towards Environmental Health

2008-10-10T12:31:00.000-07:00

A shameful stain on the conscience of shipping – recycling – remains unaddressed by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)of International Maritime Organisation (IMO). At its 58th meeting in London, the MEPC approved the final draft of its convention on recycling on 7 October, to be considered for final approval early next year at the IMO meeting in Hong Kong. Every new ship would enter service with an inventory of hazardous material.

The draft convention on ship recycling is a “shameful document which will likely do more harm than good” and “an instrument of greenwash” that does nothing to improve the working conditions at shipbreaking yards.

The convention has sought to address the mechanics of recycling business and the responsibilities of party and non-party states. This fails to “address the human rights, health and environmental consequences” of ship breaking.

Environmental groups say that IMO member governments had their own doubts about the convention. “Most notably, the doubt of the European Union is palpable in the reading of the European Commission Green Paper and the European Parliament’s response to it.”Rather than use the convention to set new standards in shipbreaking practise, the industry has used the convention as “a vehicle to avoid the principles of environmental justice embodied in the Basel convention”.

Addressing the opening session of MEPC this week, IMO secretary-general Efthimiois Mitropoulos noted “a sense of satisfaction” that two-and-a-half years’ work on an ad hoc convention were coming to an end.

Following an intersessional meeting of the ad hoc working group, MEPC 58 plans to undertake a final review and approval of the updated draft before submitting it to next year’s diplomatic conference on May 11-15, 2009.

References:

Basel Action Network, www.ban.org

Ship recycling http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=818

Assembly Resolution A.962(23) – IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling
http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=874

Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on Ship Recycling
http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1044

IMO to develop new instrument on recycling of ships

http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1109

Developments and issues on recycling of ships. Article by Dr. Nikos Mikelis, presented at the East Asian Seas Congress, Haikou City, Hainan Province, PR China, 12-16 December 2006.
http://www.imo.org/includes/blastData.asp/doc_id=7420/Developments.pdf

The IMO’s work on ship recycling – London 4-5 May 2005. Article by Sokratis Dimakopoulos
http://www.imo.org/includes/blastData.asp/doc_id=4892/Ship%20Recycling.doc

IMO DOCUMENTS

RESOLUTIONS
A.962(23) IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling. Adopted 5 December 2003
http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=874
MEPC.113(50) Ship recycling for the smooth implementation of the amendments to Annex I of
Marpol 73/78. Adopted 4 December 2003
A.980(24) Amendments to the IMO Guidelines on Ship recycling (Resolution A.962(230).
Adopted on 1 December 2005
A.981(24) New legally binding instruments on ship recycling. Adopted on 1 December 2005.

CIRCULARS

Circular Letters

Circular Letter No. 2579 First Session of the Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on Ship Scrapping 08/09/2004

Circular Letter No. 2615 Intersessional meeting of the Working Group on Ship Recycling, 13 to 15 July 13/01/2005 2005

Circular letter No. 2769 Intersessional meeting of the Working Group on Ship Recycling 19/01/2007MEPC

MEPC/Circ.419 Guidelines for the development of the ship recycling plan
12/11/2004 http://www.imo.org/includes/blastData.asp/doc_id=4489/419.pdf

MEPC/Circ.466 Implementation of the IMO guidelines on ship recycling (Assembly Resolution 25/07/2005 A.962(230))

MEPC/Circ.467 Promotion of the implementation of the IMO guidelines on ship recycling
26/07/2005 (Assembly resolution A.962(230))

ASSEMBLY

A 23/19/1 Consideration of the reports and recommendations of the Marine Environment
Protection Committee. Draft guidelines on ship recycling approved by MEPC 49
Submitted by Greenpeace International

A 23/19/2 Idem. Draft guidelines on ship recycling approved by MEPC 49. Submitted by
ICS, on behalf of the industry working group on ship recycling (BIMCO, Intercargo, Intertanko, ICS, ITOPF, ICFTU, OCIMF, IPTA)

SUB-COMMITTEE ON FLAG STATE IMPLEMENTATION
11th Session (7 -11 April 2003)

Summary Reports : http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=106&doc_id=2677
FSI 11/15 Ship recycling-related matters. Draft IMO Guidelines on recycling of ships.

JOINT ILO/IMO/BC WORKING GROUP ON SHIP SCRAPPING
Terms of reference, Parties, Documents etc. http://www.basel.int/ships/iloimobcwg.html

1st Session (15 – 17 February 2005)
Joint ILO-IMO-Basel Convention Working Group on Ship Scrapping

First meeting: London, 15-17 February 2005.
Press release: http://www.ilo.org/pubcgi/links_ext.pl?http://www.imo.org/home.asp
and Report: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/sectors/shipbrk/bcvg_05_rep.pdf

ILO/IMO/BC WG 1/8 Report of the Working Group

LONDON CONVENTION
25th Session (6 – 10 October 2003)
LC 25/16 Report of the 25th Session of the consultative meeting

27th Session (24 – 28 October 2005)
LC 27/16 Report of the 27th Session of the consultative meeting

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE
44th Session (6 – 8 March 2000)

Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=358

MEPC 44/20 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 44th Session (Section 16 –Recycling of Ships)

46th Session (23 – 27 April 2001)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=774
MEPC 46/23 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 46th Session (Section 7 –recycling of ships)

47th Session (4 – 8 March 2002)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=1753
MEPC 47/20 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 47th Session (Section 3 –recycling of ships)

48th Session (7 – 11 October 2002)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=2543
MEPC 48/21 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 48th Session (Section 3 –Recycling of ships)

49th Session (14 – 18 July 2003)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=2798
MEPC 49/22 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its forty ninth session.

(Section 3 – Recycling of ships, Annex 3 – Draft assembly resolution – IMO guidelines on ship recycling, Annex 4 – List of future work items on ship recycling
50th Session (1 – 4 December 2003)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=3155
MEPC 50/3 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fiftieth session

51st Session (29 March – 2 April 2004)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=3156
MEPC 51/22 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fifty first session.(Annex 3: Terms of reference for the Joint ILO/IN40/BASEL Convention Working Group; Annex 4: Terms of reference for the Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling)

52nd Session (11 – 15 October 2004)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=3663
MEPC 52/24 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 52 d Session (Section 3 Recycling of ships)

53rd Session (18 – 22 July 2005)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=4469
MEPC 53/24 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 53rd session (Section 3 –Recycling of ships, Annex 7 – Draft assembly resolution – New legally binding instrument on ship recycling; Annex 8 – Draft assembly resolution – Amendments to the IMO guidelines on ship recycling (Resolution A.962(23)))

54th Session (20 – 24 March 2006)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=6204
MEPC 54/21 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 54th session
(Section 3 – Recycling of ships)

55th Session (9 – 13 October 2006)
Summary report: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=6219
MEPC 55/23 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 55th Session. (Section 3 –Recycling of ships; Annex 7 – Statement by Greenpeace International in the ship recycling issue)

56th Session (9 – 13 July 2007)
Summary Reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=7537
MEPC 56/23 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 56th Session. (Section 3 –Recycling of ships)

57th Session (31 March 4 April 2008)
Summary Reports:
INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON
SHIP RECYCLING 2nd Session (7 May 2007)

MEPC-ISRWG 2/2 Further development of the draft convention and of the draft guidelines. Report of the correspondence group. Submitted by Norway as co-ordinator of the correspondence group MEPC-ISRWG 2/2/1 Idem.

Suggestions for the development of the Convention. Submitted by Denmark MEPC-ISRWG 2/3 Idem. Draft guidelines for ship recycling facilities for the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships.

Submitted by Denmark MEPC-ISRWG 2/INF.1 Idem. Comments on the draft Convention by Members of the Correspondence Group.
Submitted by Norway as co-ordinator of the correspondence group

Taiwan Arms Sales: Less Than Meets the Eye

2008-10-09T23:36:00.000-07:00

After more than seven years of waiting, there is reason to celebrate the final approval of a $6.4 billion U.S. arms sale to Taiwan. Unfortunately, there is less to this package than meets the eye. Rather than addressing Taipei's deteriorating military balance against China's rapidly modernizing and expanding forces, these approvals provide gasps of new oxygen to Taiwan's aging defenses, which were starved of air initially by domestic politics and then, for the last year, by Washington's concern about Beijing's ire.

Indeed, for the most part, the sales seem to be designed around a new standard: providing no capability that Taiwan does not already have and about which Chinese protests will be perfunctory. For instance, the sale provides upgrades and repairs of existing systems and gives Taiwan new weapons to use against Chinese ground forces in the unlikely event that the People's Liberation Army decides to invade by way of Taiwan's beaches.

The White House also pointedly turned down requests to provide the two systems that Taiwan really needs to dissuade Chinese forces from an attack: upgraded F-16C/D fighter aircraft to maintain the air balance and design work on modern diesel-electric submarines that can challenge Chinese surface invaders.

PAC-3 Missile Defense

The sale does, however, provide one breakthrough: The Bush Administration's approval of 330 Patriot "Advanced Capability" missiles known as the PAC-3s. These missiles give Taiwan its first true defense against China's swelling short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) fleets--1,400 at last count--arrayed against Taiwan.[1]

Yet, even here, the Bush White House directed that Taiwan's initial request of 384 missiles be cut by 15 percent--for no military reason. Pentagon war-planners currently calculate the "kill rate" for PAC-3s against incoming Chinese Dongfeng SRBMs at about nine-in-10. They have also modulated operational doctrine from the older firing of two missile rounds at an incoming attack missile ("shoot-shoot-look") to a "shoot-look-shoot" tactic (fire one round at the incoming, check to see if the trajectory predicts a hit, and, if not, shoot the second round). This still means that the new Taiwanese PAC-3s can defend the island against only about one-fifth of a full Chinese attacking force at most.

War gamers also worry that Chinese sea-launched SRBMs attacking from Taiwan's Pacific Ocean side would still need a two-to-one PAC-3 defense ratio.[2]

With China's SRBM deployments expanding at a predictable 100-200 missiles each year (as they have since 1999), Taiwan's new Patriot ABM system is barely sufficient to defend one high-value Taiwan target. The rest of Taiwan remains absolutely vulnerable to Chinese missile attack. This is not even a minimal deterrent; it positively invites China to contemplate threatening massive missile bombardment of Taiwan as a cost-free tool of political coercion.

U.S.-China Partnership--at Taiwan's Expense

Taiwan is slowly being decoupled from America's network of security alignments in the western Pacific--partially because the Bush Administration has come to see China more as a security partner than as a competitor.[3] A case in point is the administration's promotion of the "North East Asia Peace and Security Mechanism,"[4] a continuation and broadening of a U.S.-China partnership on the Korean peninsula that has proven ineffective at enforcing the denuclearization of North Korea.

Of course, China is also seen as a partner in managing the global financial meltdown: There is no doubt the Bush Administration has a pronounced interest in further investment of Chinese massive foreign exchange reserves in the presently fragile U.S. financial system. Subsequently, during a warm telephone call to Chinese President Hu Jintao on September 22, President Bush "briefed" Mr. Hu on the financial "turmoil" and assured him that the "U.S. government took note of the seriousness of the issue." The Chinese president praised "positive trends in China-U.S. relations" and pledged "to continue our common efforts ... particularly on the Taiwan issue, to promote cooperative constructive relations."[5] The implicit quid pro quooffer of China's financial cooperation in return for U.S. cooperation on Taiwan was hard to ignore.

For an Administration that has insisted on "maintaining the status quo" in the Taiwan Strait, it is astonishing that the Bush national security apparatus has apparently determined that Taiwan can maintain such military "status quo" without major upgrades in capability.

While protesting the current offer, Beijing will take these latest White House decisions on Taiwan arms as the baseline for China's approach to the next Administration, demanding that the capability offered by future arms sales not go beyond that contained in the present package. Taiwan is the canary in the mineshaft: As it slowly decouples from the U.S. security network in the Pacific, we must expect that the rest of Asia will begin to question the value of American security guarantees and reexamine their own options.

The U.S. has a unique security relationship with Taiwan. Thirty years ago, fearing that executive branch diplomacy with Communist China would leverage a future president into abandoning Taiwan, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which provides for arms sales to Taiwan, mandating that those decisions "shall" be "based solely upon ... the needs of Taiwan."[6] President Ronald Reagan also pledged that the U.S. would not consult with China on Taiwan's defenses.[7]

Congress assumed a major role in the shaping of America's strategy in Asia by passing the TRA. It--and the next American Administration--should strive to give full effect to those guarantees. Anything less will constitute an abandonment of American leadership that will not be lost on our friends and allies in the region.

by John J. Tkacik, Jr.
WebMemo #2098

John J. Tkacik, Jr., is Senior Research Fellow in China, Taiwan, and Mongolia Policy in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] See "Taiwanese Study Details China Missile Threat," Jane's Defence Weekly, April 15, 2008. "By November 2007, the PLA had deployed between 990 and 1,070 CSS-6 and CSS-7 short-range ballistic missiles" against Taiwan. U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress, Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008, March 3, 2008, p. 2, at http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf (October 8, 2008). The number of Chinese missiles deployed against Taiwan (and Okinawa) has increased by 100-200 each year since the Pentagon reports were first published in 2001. For earlier reports, see http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html.

[2] This information came in e-mail conversations with a PAC-3 specialist, dated July 5, 2008.

[3] Victor Cha, "Winning Asia, Washington's Untold Success Story," Foreign Affairs, November/ December 2007, pp. 98-113, especially p. 108.

[4] Christopher R. Hill, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, "Afternoon Walk-Through at Six-Party Talks," transcripts from remarks given at the China World Hotel, Beijing, China, July 12, 2008, at http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/106959.htm (October 8, 2008). See also "Press Communiqué of the Heads of Delegation Meeting of The Sixth Round of the Six-Party Talks," July 12, 2008, at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t456096.htm (October 8, 2008).

[5] "Hu Jintao zhuxi tong Meiguo zongtong Bushi tong dianhua, shuangfang jiu zhongmei guanxi ji Meiguo jingji jinrong xingshi deng wenti jiaohuan yijian," Renmin Ribao, September 23, 2008, p. 1, at http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2008-09/23/content_107475.htm (October 8, 2008). See also "Chinese, U.S. Presidents Talk over Phone about Ties, U.S. Financial Turmoil," Xinhua (Beijing), September 22, 2008, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/22/content_10091587.htm (October 8, 2008).

[6] Taiwan Relations Act Section 3302, United States Code Title 22 Chapter 48 Sections 3301-3316 (April 10, 1979).

[7] For a comprehensive look at President Reagan's policies, see Larry Wortzel, "Why the Administration Should Reaffirm the 'Six Assurances' to Taiwan," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1352, March 16, 2000, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1352.cfm.

Running health care industry like banking industry?

2008-09-21T00:46:00.000-07:00

In the run up to the upcoming US presidential election of 2008, scheduled for November 4, 2008, the 56th consecutive quadrennial United States presidential election, Barack Obama, the Senator from Illinois and the Democratic Party candidate and John McCain, the Senator from Arizona and the Republican Party candidate have been trading charges for quite a while on their election campaign trail.

Obama has called McCain out for once suggesting deregulation of the health care industry like the banking industry.

Obama used McCain’s words "Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation," McCain said in the magazine in their September/.October 2007issue.

Obama read back the quote to the crowd and in astonishment said, “So let me get this straight – he wants to run health care like they’ve been running Wall Street. Well, Senator, I know some folks on Main Street who aren’t going to think that’s such a good idea.”

“I know Senator McCain is talking about a “casino culture” on Wall Street – but the fact is, he’s the one who wants to gamble with your life savings,” Obama warned.

McCain's article was published in "Contingencies" magazine last year. You cam find the article over here: http://www.contingencies.org/septoct08/mccain.pdf
In his piece "Better Care at Lower Cost for Every American", he argues, "We must address our health care problems as part of ongoing reform that respects traditional
values, reflects diverse preferences, promotes market-based competition, insists on accountability, and encourages personal responsibility.

Amid the current Wall Street crisis, who can provide the rationale for financial deregulation and promise that if we marketize health care, it will perform as well as the financial industry!

Is the US government's bailing out of American International Group (AIG), the giant insurer with the plan to buy $700 billion troubled assets, an illustration of deregulation & marketization?.

Reliance SEZ: Fate hangs on people's verdict

2008-09-20T23:49:00.000-07:00

Note: Government's stated purpose of creating SEZs across India is “the promotion of exports”. Kamal Nath, Commerce and Industries Minister claims that exports will ultimately grow five times, GDP will rise 2% and that 30 lakh jobs will be generated by SEZs across India. It is also claimed by the government that SEZs will attract global manufacturing through foreign direct investment (FDI), enable transfer of modern technology and will also create incentives for infrastructure. The constitutional tenability of the SEZs remains questionable.

In “The Polyester Prince”, the banned biography of Dhirubhai Ambani, a senior lawyer said, view. 'Today the fact is that Ambani is bigger than government,' said the lawyer in all seriousness. 'He can make or break prime ministers. In the United States you can build up a supere corporation but the political system is still bigger than you. In India the system is weak. If the stock exchange dares to expose Ambani, he tells it: I will pull my company shares out and make you collapse. I am bigger than your exchange. If the newspapers criticise, he can point out they are dependent on his advertising and he has his journalists in every one of their departments. If the political parties take a stand against him, he has his men in every party who can pull down or embarrass the leaders. He is a threat to the system. Today he is undefeatable.'Is Reliance really more powerful than the nation-state?

Is it irrelevant to mention that Sonia Gandhi, United Progressive Alliance chairperson and Congress party president, landed in Moscow in a Bombardier jet belonging to the Reliance that raised many an eyebrows? She was on a four-day visit to Russia as a private guest of President Vladimir Putin.

Most recent illustration of Reliance's might is that when an RTI query on whether lifting of oil from Iraq by Reliance Petroleum was probed by Virender Dayal report on the Iraq Oil-for-Food scam. The UPA government said that the file is untraceable. The Prime Minister's Office, the External Affairs and Finance Ministries, in response to an RTI query whether lifting of oil from Iraq by Reliance Petroleum was probed by Dayal, have said they do not have possession of the report.

In separate submissions before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the MEA intimated that the report, prepared by Dayal after meeting UN officials who probed the agency's Oil-for-Food Programme, would be available with the PMO. The PMO said that the report was with the Department of Revenue under the Ministry of Finance, which too has disowned having it in its possession. Following this, the CIC summoned the Chief Public Information Officer of PMO, MEA and Department of Revenue with the complete copy of Dayal's report, if held by them and if not then explain where this can be accessed.

While, PMO Director Kamal Dayani submitted that only the notings in the matter were traced, but not the report, MEA Joint Secretary Pratap Singh said although the ministry issued the appointment order of Dayal, the report was never submitted there. Revenue Department official S G P Verghese "bashfully" accepted that he had asked the Enforcement Directorate about the report but neither confirmation nor denial came from their side. The ED had informed the Department of Revenue that it falls under the second schedule of the RTI Act, which gives it immunity from disclosing sensitive information. Even if an organisation was included in the second schedule, information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violation is not excluded, the CIC observed.

Almost two years after the plea for information was filed by one Arun Agrawal, the information watchdog finally asked the ED whether the report and full file was available with it or not and to give written submissions as to why the disclosure should not be allowed.

Agrawal, a resident of Bangalore, had sought the entire file along with notings "relating to the appointment, scope of his brief or special envoy" Dayal to obtain papers relating to Volcker report and his report to the Ministry of Law and Justice after meeting UN officials. He had alleged that documents from Volcker report show that Reliance was a non contractual beneficiary for lifting five times more oil than that shown to have been lifted by Congress and Natwar Singh combined. Agrawal claimed that the government did not refer the three contracts (M/09/35, M/10/17 and M11/25) pertaining to Reliance Petroleum, but only referred the two contracts No. M10/57 of Congress Party and contract No. M09/54 of Natwar Singh to the enquiry authority.

"The plea of confidentiality by the government that protecting commercial interest of a corrupt corporate is to national interest cannot be accepted. If that plea is to be accepted then it should have protected the reputation of its foreign minister, which it rightly did not do," said Agrawal in his plea before the CIC.

The might of Reliance manifests itself in myriad ways. Will the villagers be able to outwit Reliance?

Gopal Krishna

Reliance SEZ: Fate hangs on people's verdict

PEN(RAIGAD): The sylvan-looking Pen town in Raigad district is famous
for the Ganesh idols it produces. On September 21 though, this modest
tehsil in the picteresque Konkan region will have another claim to
fame for not so divine reasons. A little more than 30,000 villagers
from 22 hamlets in the Pen tehsils will make known their choice for or
against a special economic zone (SEZ) promoted by RIL chairman Mukesh
Ambani and his close associate Anand Jain.

If a majority of these villagers say in writing that they don't want
to be a part of this multi-product SEZ, the state government will have
little choice other than striking off these 22 villages from the SEZ
map and in the process heralding in a new trend, which could
decelerate the progress of the SEZ bandwagon across the country. And
if the majority tilts towards the SEZ, the public hearing could end up
discrediting the lobby up against industrial projects across the
country. So September 21 could turn out to be the very significant
Sunday for the country.

The Mumbai SEZ

Anand Jain, is proposed to come up over 10000-hectares of land which
cover 45 villages in Raigad district. Of this, 22 villages in Pen
tehsil fall in the command area of the Hetawane dam and the public
hearing has been ordered to let villagers have their if they want the
SEZ or not. On the basis of written statements that will be filed by
around 30,000 villagers, the Raigad collector will make a report to
the state government. This report, along with a status report on the
Hetawane dam to be submitted by the irrigation department, will help
the government take a final call on inclusion or exclusion of these 22
villages. There, however, will not be any 'voting' on Sunday contrary
to some media reports.

At the center of the great hullabaloo fairly early in his career in
civil service, Raigad collector Nipun Vinayak, in his early thirties,
says he does not feel any pressure of the unprecedented moment. "I
don't anticipate any violence. But the district administration is
fully prepared to conduct the public hearing in a peaceful manner
tomorrow. It's not a referendum. It's only a public hearing of a novel
kind wherein the government would get hear what the people concerned
have to say," Mr Vinayak told ET at his sea-facing Alibaugh office.
"We have advertised the proforma of written statement in local
newspapers to create awareness. It has been designed in such a way
that villagers will have the room to express their views in general as
well as specific terms," Mr Vinayak said.

These 22 villages have 5925 villagers whose names figure on the 7/12
land ownership extracts as primary owners. But Mr Vinayak says the
government has served notices to all 30,057 villagers who have their
names on the 7/12 extracts. "If a family has five members and all of
them figure on the 7/12 extracts, all of them will have a say in the
process to make the hearing a broad exercise," Mr Vinayak said.

Irrespective of the government proforma, both pro and anti SEZ lobbies
are busy circulating their own versions of the document that has to be
filled up and submitted to the government. Whatever the text of this
document, the villagers will have to sign it in the presence of
government officials on Sunday.

Like the collector, Mahendra Patil is also looking at the entire
exercise with lot of excitement. The 25-year-old farmer in Tambadshet
village has sold his one-acre land to Mumbai SEZ Pvt Ltd for Rs 10
lakh compensation. "I support the hoagitation against the SEZ simply
because it could fetch me a higher compensation. The land that I have
sold off was fallow but it has got me Rs 10 lakh so far. If the
agitation forces the SEZ people to pay more, what's the harm in
getting even Rs 1 crore for this land," asks Mr Patil.

Mahalgaon farmer Suhakar Mhatre too wants the benefit of a higher
compensation which he feels the agitation could succeed in getting.
This 55-year-old farmer has sold off to acres to MSPL for Rs 20 lakh
and, quite interestingly, invested the money in buying 10 acres at
village Mangaon in a near-bye tehsil. "If I get more in compensaition,
why should I mind the SEZ coming up here?," asks the farmer who would
most likely continue working his farm in the other tehsil even if the
SEZ happgens.

But farmers like Mhatre and Patil could end up as losers if the
majority votes out the 22 villages from the SEZ area. The district
administration says all those sale agreements, which have been
executed between farmers and MSPL would stand cancelled if these 22
villlages are to be excluded from the SEZ area. These villages
constitute 2993 hectares of land and so far 1681 agreement to sale
have been entered into between villagers and MSPL. "These are all
agreements to sale and not final sale deed. They have been entered
into under an explicit contract that the land will be used for the
SEZ. If the SEZ does not come through, the land will be returned to
their original owners and the owners will have to return the
compensation they have got," said a land acquisition officer who did
not wish to be named.

Meanwhile, the Pen tehsil will look like a heavily guarded fortress on
Sunday with the district collectorate calling in additional police
force. Villagers in 22 villages will file their statements before the
district administration at 23 places designated by the government. Mr
Vinayak said the collectrorate will make a report to the government
after a week or so to the government on trhe basis of this exercise.
"The report will be a compilation of facts and public views. We can
also make some recommendations to the government. But the report in
itself will not be binding on the government. It will only help the
government take a final call and the government will provide an
opportunity to the promoters of SEZ to have their say," Mr Vinayak said.

20 Sep, 2008,
The Economic Times

Contaminated milk kills children

2008-09-20T10:00:00.001-07:00

China's food safety crisis has widened after the industrial chemical melamine was found in milk produced by three of the country's leading dairy companies.

Chinese authorities have urged all provinces and major cities to set up 24-hour crisis hotlines to provide information and help to people affected by tainted milk.

The order Saturday from the Ministry of Health follows directions Friday from China's State Council, or Cabinet, that doctors should provide free medical care for babies who have gotten kidney stones from contaminated milk.

The milk, laced with the chemical melamine, is blamed for killing four infants and sickening more than 6,200 others.

Recalls have been announced by Hong Kong authorities and by a major Japanese food company, Marudai Food Company, for products that may have been made with Chinese milk. Malaysia and Singapore have banned milk from China. Burmese authorities are promising to seize and destroy Chinese milk products.

And the U.S.-based Starbucks coffee chain has pulled all its products made with milk from its more than 300 stores in China.

China's top food quality body released a report Friday that said some milk sold by the country's three major dairy companies, Mengniu Dairy, Yili Industrial Group and Bright Dairy, was contaminated with the industrial chemical melamine. The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine report said 10 percent of milk samples were tainted with the chemical.

Concerns about milk and other dairy products have widened the scope of the scandal originally limited to infant formula.

Twenty two dairies have been found selling products tainted with melamine, a chemical that is believed to have been used in milk to make it appear to be higher in protein.

No cases of tainted milk products causing illness have been reported outside of China, but at least two of the 22 dairies listed by Chinese authorities export to other countries in Asia and Africa.

Eighteen people have been arrested in connection with the food scandal. Six of those allegedly sold the chemical, while the other 12 were suppliers accused of contaminating the milk.

UN's children agency UNICEF on Friday asked the Chinese authorities to launch "a full investigation" after four babies were killed due to melamine contamination in their milk.

"We fully expect the authorities to conduct a full investigation," said Peter Salama, who heads UNICEF's health department.

Salama said that UNICEF had always recommended that all infants be breast-fed during the first six months because "it's the safest form of nutrition."

Meanwhile, the World Health Organisation asked the Chinese authorities to explain why it had taken months before the scandal had been made public.

"While the exact onset date of illness resulting from contamination is unknown, a manufacturer received a complaint of illness in March 2008," it said in a statement.

Chinese authorities initially blamed the industrial chemical, melamine, for killing four babies and making more than 6,000 others sick, with symptoms including kidney stones, being unable to pass urine, and vomiting.

But there are now fears the problem could be much bigger after other dairy products were found to be at risk of contamination.

US, Europe & Russia pontificate each other

2008-09-20T09:52:00.000-07:00

Russia Must Honor Ceasefire Terms

20 September 2008

Russia’s plans to position large troop garrisons in Georgia’s separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia threaten to further undermine the truce in the ongoing crisis in the South Caucasus.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said earlier this month that around 7,600 Russian troops will be stationed in South Ossetia and Abkhazia – 3,800 troops in each region. A cease-fire agreement that French President Nicolas Sarkozy brokered, and which President Medvedev and Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili signed on August 14th, requires Russian and Georgian forces to pull back to positions they held before hostilities broke out on August 7th.

The United States is extremely concerned by statements from the Russian government indicating that Russian forces will remain permanently in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. “The ceasefire agreement signed by Presidents Medvedev and Saakashvili obliges Russian troops to withdraw to the positions they held on August 6th,” said U.S. State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack. “Any additional deployments of Russian armed forces beyond their pre-August 7th positions,” he said, “would constitute a violation of the ceasefire.”

President Medvedev’s comments that around 7,600 troops will be permanently deployed to Abkhazia and South Ossetia are “in clear contravention to the ceasefire agreement,” said U.S. State Department Spokesman McCormack. The United States insists that Russia honor its commitment.

Russia: Nato Provoked Georgia War
September 19, 2008

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said Nato provoked the conflict with Georgia that saw his country destroy its smaller neighbour's army.

He also declared that Russia would not allow the West to "contain it behind the new iron curtain".

"No new outside factors, let alone outside pressure on Russia, will change our strategic course," he added.

"We will continuously strengthen our national security, modernise the military and increase our defense capability to a sufficient level."

His remarks followed on from those of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who attacked what he described as other countries' "attempts to drag us back into the Cold War".

He said this was a "direct threat" to his country's future.

Mr Putin told investors at a forum in southern Russia he wanted "rational integration into the world economy" rather than a return to Soviet-era anatagonism with the West.

Both leaders have spoken after US Defence Secretary Robert Gates told Sky News that if and when Georgia joins Nato, a Russian attack on it would provoke an armed response.

Defence ministers from all 26 Nato states are now gathering in London to discuss possible reforms to the alliance.

"I have been a very strong proponent of the view that Nato is a military alliance, not a talk shop," Mr Gates told Sky's foreign affairs editor Tim Marshall.

"Article Five means what it says - so there is a commitment to go to the assistance of our allies if they are challenged."

However, he added: "I don't think there is a new Cold War. This Russia is not the Soviet Union."

Gates On Georgia

He added: "If anything, it's trying to recapture perhaps some of the past glory of the Russian Empire.

"I think Georgia is going to prove to be a pyrrhic victory for Russia over the long term."

Marshall said: "Putin's remarks are clearly timed to coincide with the Nato talks taking place in London, with Robert Gates talking tough and the Georgian Prime Minister in town.

"It's a war of words being conducted in public."

Russia's parliament is currently discussing a draft 2009 budget that calls for a 26% hike in defence spending.

The plan would see a rise from £22bn this year to just under £28bn next year.

SKY NEWS

GEORGIA: INTERNATIONAL OBSERVER MISSIONS FACE UNCERTAIN FUTURE.

Talks at the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) on sending additional monitors to Georgia are deadlocked amid continuing disagreements between Russia and other participating states.

In a statement issued on September 18, the OSCE’s Finnish chairmanship said negotiations "have not brought any results" since "there was no basis for consensus." "Therefore ... there is no point in continuing negotiations in Vienna at this stage," the statement added.

The announcement came three days after the 27 foreign ministers of the European Union gave their go-ahead to a 200-strong civilian observing mission to Georgia. The European observers -- due to be deployed by October 1 -- will be monitoring the implementation of the Russian-Georgian ceasefire agreement French President Nicolas Sarkozy negotiated last month in Moscow in his capacity of EU president.

The Vienna negotiations began a month ago and have stumbled on the issue of where additional OSCE monitors would be deployed.

Russia says both EU observers and extra OSCE monitors should remain outside Georgia’s separatist republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Tbilisi and most western states insist all international observers should be able to get to all of Georgia without restrictions.

Both sides blame the other for the collapse of the Vienna talks.

On August 19, the OSCE agreed to boost the number of its unarmed military monitoring officers (MMOs) to Georgia by up to 100 and to immediately deploy a first group of 20 monitors in areas adjacent to South Ossetia. Participating states also agreed that, pending an agreement on the modalities of the additional observing mission, this advanced contingent would operate under the mandate of the eight MMOs that the OSCE has maintained in the region. Those observers were deployed to monitor implementation of the 1992 Dagomys ceasefire agreement that formally halted military hostilities between Tbilisi and Tskhinvali.

In theory, the 28 OSCE monitors already on the ground should be able to move freely across South Ossetia within the framework of their mandate. Yet, this is not the case.

All OSCE monitors present in South Ossetia left the region on August 8, shortly after hostilities between Russia and Georgia broke out. The OSCE field office in Tskhinvali was damaged during the shelling of the city and has yet to reopen.

Earlier in September, the OSCE said in a statement that, for the first time since the outbreak of hostilities, its MMOs had been able to patrol the road from Karaleti, a Georgian village located outside South Ossetia, to areas inside the separatist republic. But OSCE officials privately complain that both Russian troops and separatist militia are restricting the movement of monitors.

The head of the OSCE mission to Georgia, Terhi Hakala, met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Monday (September 15) in Tskhinvali. An OSCE statement quotes Hakala as saying discussions focused on "the access of [MMOs] to South Ossetia and the need for restrictions to be lifted on freedom of movement of the OSCE [m]ission, as well as the possibility of reopening the OSCE [f]ield [o]ffice in Tskhinvali."

Theoretically, the OSCE’s Permanent Council is expected to extend the mandate of the existing observing mission for another 12 months later this year. But even that is hanging in the balance.

On September 1, Tbilisi denounced the Dagomys agreement and withdrew from the Joint Control Commission, the quadripartite body in charge of implementing it. Georgia’s move effectively deprived the OSCE’s monitoring mission of its raison d’être.

Speaking in Tskhinvali recently, Lavrov said the mandate of the eight OSCE monitors deployed in South Ossetia before the conflict needed to be "clarified." "There is no sense in monitoring agreements that [Georgian President Mikheil] Saakashvili broke," the Russian minister pointed out.

He also said that, from Moscow’s viewpoint, it is now up to "independent and sovereign" South Ossetia to decide whether to let the OSCE monitors redeploy. "Russia is a member of the OSCE and, as such, we guarantee that no longer will issues concerning South Ossetia be discussed at the OSCE in the absence of Tskhinvali’s representatives," Lavrov added.

South Ossetia’s separatist president Eduard Kokoity recently said his government would no longer accept OSCE monitors, whom he implicitly accused of failing to alert the international community on Georgia’s military preparations. But Lavrov struck a more conciliatory tone, saying that "as far as [he] underst[ood]" from his talks with South Ossetian leaders they were "not opposed" to letting the eight OSCE monitors redeploy in the region.

Russia says the task of all other international observers should be to ensure that Georgia no longer tries to retake either of its two separatist republics by force. To back up its view that no additional foreign monitors should be allowed into Abkhazia or South Ossetia, the Kremlin cites an agreement Sarkozy and his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev reached on September 8.

This agreement envisages the withdrawal of Russian troops "from the areas adjacent to South Ossetia and Abkhazia" -- which Moscow refers to as a "security zone" -- and "the deployment in these areas of the international mechanisms, including at least 200 [EU] observers."

Yet, on September 9, the French president told reporters in Tbilisi that the EU observers "will have authority" to fulfill their mandate in both breakaway republics. Addressing the same press briefing, Saakashvili said he had secured a written commitment from his French counterpart and European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso that the EU observer mission would be deployed on the whole of Georgia’s territory.

"First, this is wrong," Lavrov commented the next day. "Second, this is a malicious attempt to not explain honestly to Saakashvili which respective obligations the EU and Russia are now under," he added. Russia’s "Kommersant" daily on September 10 claimed the documet Saakashvili referred to did not bear Medvedev’s signature.

Georgian Foreign Minister Eka Tkeshelashvli’s subsequent remarks that the EU observers will be first deployed in areas adjacent to the zone of conflict and then "be free to monitor the situation wherever they will deem necessary" did not lift the ambiguity.

EU officials have said that they hope the issue of whether international observers should have access to Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be discussed at international negotiations slated to open in Geneva on October 15.

Moscow on September 17 signed with Tskhinvali and Sukhumi cooperation agreements that provide for the establishment of Russian military bases in both breakaway regions and authorize Russian troops to patrol their respective borders with Georgia.

In a recent newspaper interview, Belgium’s Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht warned the international community against sending observers without first securing an agreement on their location. "Should Europeans be able to deploy only in the security zone, that would leave an aftertaste because, in essence, it would mean that we will have to protect borders that we did not recognize," Belgium’s "La Libre Belgique" daily quoted De Gucht as saying on September 13.

Editor's Note: Jean-Christophe Peuch is a Vienna-based freelance correspondent, who specializes in Caucasus- and Central Asia-related developments.

Posted September 19, 2008

LieMeters

2008-09-20T09:47:00.000-07:00

FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com—these are the two websites which vet campaign statements and advertising in the US elections for the veracity of what is put out. The Los Angeles Times reports that both organizations are finding that the McCain campaign is doing more energetic misleading about Obama than vice versa.

Will This Gigantic Bailout Work?

2008-09-20T09:32:00.000-07:00

This is what we might call the $1trillion question. That's $1,000,000,000,000, by the way. It is a little like surgery. The US government has amputated the gangrenous leg of the banking system to save the patient. But it is now preparing to graft the infected limb on to the body politic of America. The US taxpayers will be lucky if they do not feel distinctly unwell as a result of this little experiment.

The truth is that simply buying the banks' worthless securities has been an option, if an unpalatable one, for the authorities since the credit crunch began a year ago. All the plans to lend against these assets, such as the Bank of England's Special Liquidity Scheme, and other "injections of liquidity", were temporary solutions, born out of a hope, if not an expectation, that the crisis would not be prolonged.

We know better now. What the American authorities have done is the only sure way to protect the banking system against further destabilisation. Short-selling or not, left to their own devices, the markets would sooner or later force more banks into the arms of the taxpayer anyhow. It is a sad day when hard-pressed citizens find themselves subsidising private banks for their stupid mistakes. But that is what's happening in the US, and it will surely be done here. The Bank of England hates the notion; but Gordon Brown may well feel that he has no choice.

So for the banks and their shareholders and staff, the US rescue plan is already working, and it will save the wider economy from yet more damage. It is less clear whether it will end the credit crisis or preserve America's fast disappearing economic hegemony.

Even taking a trillion dollars of crud out of the equation can't save the financial system from damage already done. Despite the Fed's efforts, many banks in America and around the world have severely enfeebled balance sheets. They cannot lend, even if they wanted to. With the developed world in recession – Japan, Britain, Germany and Spain are leading the way – the banks will soon be losing money on their conventional lines of business, as mortgages suffer defaults and companies go out of business. We will then see a vicious cycle of bad debts leading to less lending, more job losses, more defaults and so on.

The turning point in all this will be the moment when the US real estate market recovers, and the whole sorry cycle of decline starts to right itself. Sooner or later American homes will look cheap enough to attract even the most nervous buyer. That could take another year or two.

The other legacy of the rescue plan will be another huge debt burden loaded on to the shoulder of the American taxpayer (and the British one, if the precedent is copied).

The good news is that the great vitality of American enterprise has survived such traumas before. Franklin Roosevelt's Federal Reconstruction Corporation used $1.2trillion (at today's prices) of federal funds to fix the banking system and get the economy moving in the 1930s. The rescue of America's savings and loans associations at the end of the 1980s cost $125bn. Yet now we have a different dynamic. Behind all of this is an irreversible shift of income, wealth and power eastwards; from America and Europe to China.

The oil price was another tool in this redistribution – they bid the price higher and made us poorer. The Chinese also, in effect, lent us the money to buy all those overpriced houses. How? Because they had the savings to lend to us to do so, funded, in turn, from the huge trade surpluses – trillions of dollars – they built up with the US and Europe, earned from selling us all of those cheap DVD players, dog food and toys. All that money looking for a home pushed interest rates down to very low levels (aided by their cheap electronic goods, which reduced inflation as well). Now China is lending us the cash to get ourselves out of trouble again, by buying yet more US Treasury bills and shares in the likes of Barclays and Citigroup. For now, they seem content to do so; but we cannot be sure that they, and the Gulf states, the Russians and the others holding dollar assets, will do so for ever. The savers' run on Northern Rock, the institutional runs on Bear Sterns and Lehman Brothers, and every other run in this crisis will be as nothing to a global run on the dollar itself.

Could the US itself soon suffer a crisis of liquidity?

Will This Gigantic Bailout Work?

By Sean O’Grady
20 September, 2008
The Independent

Q&A on cleaning up the financial crisis mess

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government on Friday began to assemble what could be the biggest-ever U.S. bailout, sketching out plans to ask Congress for broad authority to restore confidence in financial markets by rescuing banks from bad debts and taking over worthless mortgages and other distressed debt and assets.

Details remained to be worked out over the weekend between the administration and congressional leaders of both parties. But parts of the pattern were beginning to emerge.

Here are answers to some questions about the plans and earlier financial bailouts.

Q. How would it work?

A. Absent details, it's hard to say exactly. It still wasn't clear whether the government would be buying just the bad mortgages or actually taking possession of foreclosed properties and banks themselves. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson indicated that there would be some government entity to oversee the process.

In the late 1980s, the government set up the Resolution Trust Corp. to help clean up the savings and loan crisis. It acquired defaulted mortgages, foreclosed real estate and other assets of nearly a thousand failed S&Ls and slowly sold them off, restoring order and stability to the system.

It followed the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a Depression-era relief program formed in 1932 by President Hoover that tried to inject liquidity into the market by giving loans to banks and other businesses.

Q. Who would pay?

A. Both Paulson and President Bush indicated there would be significant exposure to taxpayers. Paulson said the program would cost "hundreds of billions" of dollars. The exact cost would depend on how many companies are "rescued" or taken over, and how far home prices fall. Resolving the S&L crisis took six years and $125 billion in taxpayer money — roughly equal to $200 billion in today's dollars.

Some economists have suggested cleaning up the present mess could cost more than that. But the proposal is designed to identify problems before failures occur.

"The risk ... of not acting would be far higher," Bush said. "The vast majority of assets the government is planning to purchase have good value over time because the vast majority of homeowners continue to pay their mortgages," he added.

Q. Who is supporting such an approach?

A. Such an approach seemed to be gaining bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. On the campaign trail, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said it was critical that leaders in both parties work in concert. "Truly, we are all in this together," he said. GOP presidential candidate John McCain said leaders should put aside partisan differences and "any action should be designed to keep people in their homes and safeguard the life savings of all Americans."

McCain has also proposed a separate plan to set up a new agency that would work with troubled financial companies and, in extreme cases, could take control of the companies and their assets.

Q. What has the government done so far to try to stabilize the worst financial turmoil since the Great Depression?

A. The U.S. government has already taken actions that required more than $600 billion of taxpayers' money: Up to $200 billion overall was made available to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when the government seized them earlier this month; insurer American International Group Inc. was given an $85 billion, two-year loan, in exchange for giving the government right to a nearly 80 percent stake in AIG.

Also, as part of JPMorgan Chase & Co.'s takeover of Bear Stearns Cos. in March, the Federal Reserve provided a $29 billion loan. And in a new "Hope for Homeowners" program starting Oct. 1, the Federal Housing Administration can insure up to $300 billion in refinanced mortgages for troubled borrowers — if the existing investor voluntarily agrees to take a loss on the loan.

Q. How does any of this affect money deposited in savings and checking accounts, certificates of deposit and money-market accounts.

A. Through the 75-year-old Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, every savings account, checking account and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000. The government on Friday agreed to extend similar protection, at least temporarily, to money-market mutual funds.

By TOM RAUM

High court challenge to stop toxic French ship arriving in Britain

2008-09-20T08:22:00.000-07:00

On September 18, 2008, The Telegraph reported that Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is making inquiries into an accident at a dockyard in Graythorp.

The site of the accident was the Teesside Environmental Reclamation and Recycling Centre, owned by Able UK.

It was recently awarded a contract for the dismantling of asbestos-contaminated French vessel Le Clemenceau. Able will also be launching an investigation into the accident. Groups such as Friends of Hartlepool have launched a high court challenge to prevent the toxic "ghost ship" Clemenceau being dismantled at the site.

Concerns about the risk of asbestos contained by ship, which is estimated to be 700 tonnes, are a motivating factor in the opposition.

High court challenge to stop toxic French ship arriving in Britain

A High Court challenge has been launched to stop a French aircraft carrier being broken up in Britain after it was deemed too toxic to be taken apart in India.

By Sarah Knapton
3 September, 2008, The Telegraph

The 27,000 tonne Clemenceau, which contains 700 tonnes of asbestos, is set to be dismantled by Able UK in Hartlepool after the company was granted a licence by the Health and Safety Executive.

But Jean Kennedy, of the Friends of Hartlepool group, is taking legal action against the HSE to prevent the ageing aircraft carrier being brought to British shores.
"The HSE have made a special exception to allow this toxic ghost ship and its deadly cargo into our local community," she said.

"We feel that it is a deep injustice to force a small town, which has already disproportionately suffered the ill-effects of polluting industries and has one of the highest cancer rates in the UK, to accept France's toxic waste."

Clemenceau, often affectionately called "le Clem'", was the lead ship of her class, and the 8th aircraft carrier of the French Navy, serving from 1961 to 1997.

The ship was due to be broken up in India but an embarrassed Jacques Chirac was forced to recall the ship after socialist opposition in France accused the president of sending waste abroad while "lecturing the world on the environment."
But the French finally struck a deal with Able UK earlier this year to the anger of local residents.
Hartlepool campaigner Iris Ryder said: "The legal challenge is the beginning of a new stage in the fight by Hartlepool residents to prevent our community from becoming the international toxic waste dumping ground of choice of both governments and polluting industries.

"Toxic waste should be disposed of close to where it is produced, not transported around the world to be buried in our community."

The French have struggled to find a final resting place for The Clemenceau since December 2005 when she first set sail for India. Protests by Greenpeace led the Supreme Court of India to temporarily deny access.

When the ship reached Egypt in January 2006, she was boarded by two Greenpeace activists and denied access to the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities.
Although she was eventually allowed to pass, Chirac ordered Clemenceau to return to French waters and remain on standby at the naval port of Brest where she has been for the past two years until the deal was struck Able UK.

An Able UK spokesman said they expect the ship to arrive from France imminently. A hearing is expected to take place at the Royal Courts of Justice later this month.

Fight to stop scrapping of French vessel Clemenceau
GazetteLive, UK, 5 September

A LEGAL challenge has been mounted to stop a French aircraft carrier being scrapped by Able UK. The Hartlepool-based firm behind the so-called ghost ships plan wants to dismantle the 32,700-tonne Clemenceau at its Graythorp TERRC facility.

But the Friends of Hartlepool group have raised concerns about the vessel which contains asbestos. Legal firm, Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) acting on behalf of Jean Kennedy of the environmental group, has launched a legal challenge against the Health and Safety Executive’s decision to grant a certificate, allowing the import of the ship.

Mrs Kennedy said: “We feel that it is a deep injustice to force a small town - which has already disproportionately suffered the ill-effects of polluting industries and has one of the highest cancer rates in the UK - to accept France’s toxic waste.”
Phil Shiner from PIL said: “When the facilities exist within France to dispose of the toxic waste aboard the Clemenceau, the HSE has a duty to consider these alternatives.”

A spokesman for the Health and Safety Executive said they could not comment until after the hearing, which is expected to take place later this month.
But Able UK hit back, stating the claims by Friends of Hartlepool are “riddled with inaccuracies deliberately designed to smear our company and mislead the public again”.

“Able, as a named interested party, does not believe that the arguments put forward have merit and questions the justification for further public money being incurred on such a damaging exercise,” said an Able UK spokesman.

“One has to ask the question as to why a small number of activists continue to take up the time of the UK legal system, costing Hartlepool taxpayers’ money, constantly costing UK taxpayers’ money, in a desperate effort to maintain the totally discredited scaremongering.

“The contract for the Q790 (Clemenceau) will provide in excess of 50 direct jobs for a year and around 26,000 tonnes of steel scrap material for recycling.”
Dismantling of the Clemenceau would take place alongside the other vessels already berthed at TERRC - including the four ‘ghost ships’ from the American National Defence Reserve Fleet and three UK ships.

It would be the biggest ship recycling project so far handled by any European yard.

Full text of Obama's acceptance speech

2008-09-16T20:41:00.000-07:00

To Chairman Dean and my great friend Dick Durbin; and to all my fellow citizens of this great nation;

With profound gratitude and great humility, I accept your nomination for the presidency of the United States.

Let me express my thanks to the historic slate of candidates who accompanied me on this journey, and especially the one who traveled the farthest - a champion for working Americans and an inspiration to my daughters and to yours -- Hillary Rodham Clinton. To President Clinton, who last night made the case for change as only he can make it; to Ted Kennedy, who embodies the spirit of service; and to the next Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, I thank you. I am grateful to finish this journey with one of the finest statesmen of our time, a man at ease with everyone from world leaders to the conductors on the Amtrak train he still takes home every night.

To the love of my life, our next First Lady, Michelle Obama, and to Sasha and Malia - I love you so much, and I'm so proud of all of you.

Four years ago, I stood before you and told you my story - of the brief union between a young man from Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren't well-off or well-known, but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever he put his mind to.

It is that promise that has always set this country apart - that through hard work and sacrifice, each of us can pursue our individual dreams but still come together as one American family, to ensure that the next generation can pursue their dreams as well.

That's why I stand here tonight. Because for two hundred and thirty two years, at each moment when that promise was in jeopardy, ordinary men and women - students and soldiers, farmers and teachers, nurses and janitors -- found the courage to keep it alive.

We meet at one of those defining moments - a moment when our nation is at war, our economy is in turmoil, and the American promise has been threatened once more.

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can't afford to drive, credit card bills you can't afford to pay, and tuition that's beyond your reach.

These challenges are not all of government's making. But the failure to respond is a direct result of a broken politics in Washington and the failed policies of George W Bush.

America, we are better than these last eight years. We are a better country than this.

This country is more decent than one where a woman in Ohio, on the brink of retirement, finds herself one illness away from disaster after a lifetime of hard work.

This country is more generous than one where a man in Indiana has to pack up the equipment he's worked on for twenty years and watch it shipped off to China, and then chokes up as he explains how he felt like a failure when he went home to tell his family the news.

We are more compassionate than a government that lets veterans sleep on our streets and families slide into poverty; that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes.

Tonight, I say to the American people, to Democrats and Republicans and Independents across this great land - enough! This moment - this election - is our chance to keep, in the 21st century, the American promise alive. Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third. And we are here because we love this country too much to let the next four years look like the last eight. On November 4th, we must stand up and say: "Eight is enough."

Now let there be no doubt. The Republican nominee, John McCain, has worn the uniform of our country with bravery and distinction, and for that we owe him our gratitude and respect. And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need.

But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time. Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment, but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush has been right more than ninety percent of the time? I don't know about you, but I'm not ready to take a ten percent chance on change.

The truth is, on issue after issue that would make a difference in your lives - on health care and education and the economy - Senator McCain has been anything but independent. He said that our economy has made "great progress" under this President. He said that the fundamentals of the economy are strong. And when one of his chief advisors - the man who wrote his economic plan - was talking about the anxiety Americans are feeling, he said that we were just suffering from a "mental recession," and that we've become, and I quote, "a nation of whiners."

A nation of whiners? Tell that to the proud auto workers at a Michigan plant who, after they found out it was closing, kept showing up every day and working as hard as ever, because they knew there were people who counted on the brakes that they made. Tell that to the military families who shoulder their burdens silently as they watch their loved ones leave for their third or fourth or fifth tour of duty. These are not whiners. They work hard and give back and keep going without complaint. These are the Americans that I know.

Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans. I just think he doesn't know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year? How else could he propose hundreds of billions in tax breaks for big corporations and oil companies but not one penny of tax relief to more than one hundred million Americans? How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people's benefits, or an education plan that would do nothing to help families pay for college, or a plan that would privatize Social Security and gamble your retirement?

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

We measure progress by how many people can find a job that pays the mortgage; whether you can put a little extra money away at the end of each month so you can someday watch your child receive her college diploma. We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created when Bill Clinton was President - when the average American family saw its income go up $7,500 instead of down $2,000 like it has under George Bush.

We measure the strength of our economy not by the number of billionaires we have or the profits of the Fortune 500, but by whether someone with a good idea can take a risk and start a new business, or whether the waitress who lives on tips can take a day off to look after a sick kid without losing her job - an economy that honors the dignity of work.

The fundamentals we use to measure economic strength are whether we are living up to that fundamental promise that has made this country great - a promise that is the only reason I am standing here tonight.

Because in the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.

In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

When I listen to another worker tell me that his factory has shut down, I remember all those men and women on the South Side of Chicago who I stood by and fought for two decades ago after the local steel plant closed.

And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work. She's the one who put off buying a new car or a new dress for herself so that I could have a better life. She poured everything she had into me. And although she can no longer travel, I know that she's watching tonight, and that tonight is her night as well.

I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me. And it is on their behalf that I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President of the United States.

What is that promise?

It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.

It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.

Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves - protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology.

Our government should work for us, not against us. It should help us, not hurt us. It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep. That's the change we need right now. So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.
.
Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it.

Unlike John McCain, I will stop giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas, and I will start giving them to companies that create good jobs right here in America.

I will eliminate capital gains taxes for the small businesses and the start-ups that will create the high-wage, high-tech jobs of on Saturday.

I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 per cent of all working families. Because in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle-class.

And for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as President: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

Washington's been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he's said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy - wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.

America, now is not the time for small plans.

Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy. Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance. I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability. And we will keep our promise to every young American - if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education.

Now is the time to finally keep the promise of affordable, accessible health care for every single American. If you have health care, my plan will lower your premiums. If you don't, you'll be able to get the same kind of coverage that members of Congress give themselves. And as someone who watched my mother argue with insurance companies while she lay in bed dying of cancer, I will make certain those companies stop discriminating against those who are sick and need care the most.

Now is the time to help families with paid sick days and better family leave, because nobody in America should have to choose between keeping their jobs and caring for a sick child or ailing parent.

Now is the time to change our bankruptcy laws, so that your pensions are protected ahead of CEO bonuses; and the time to protect Social Security for future generations.

And now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work, because I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons.

Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow. But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.

And Democrats, we must also admit that fulfilling America's promise will require more than just money. It will require a renewed sense of responsibility from each of us to recover what John F Kennedy called our "intellectual and moral strength." Yes, government must lead on energy independence, but each of us must do our part to make our homes and businesses more efficient. Yes, we must provide more ladders to success for young men who fall into lives of crime and despair. But we must also admit that programs alone can't replace parents; that government can't turn off the television and make a child do her homework; that fathers must take more responsibility for providing the love and guidance their children need.

Individual responsibility and mutual responsibility - that's the essence of America's promise.

And just as we keep our keep our promise to the next generation here at home, so must we keep America's promise abroad. If John McCain wants to have a debate about who has the temperament, and judgment, to serve as the next Commander-in-Chief, that's a debate I'm ready to have.

For while Senator McCain was turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, I stood up and opposed this war, knowing that it would distract us from the real threats we face. When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell - but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.

And on Friday, as the Iraqi government and even the Bush Administration have echoed my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq, even after we learned that Iraq has a $79 billion surplus while we're wallowing in deficits, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war.

That's not the judgment we need. That won't keep America safe. We need a President who can face the threats of the future, not keep grasping at the ideas of the past.

You don't defeat a terrorist network that operates in eighty countries by occupying Iraq. You don't protect Israel and deter Iran just by talking tough in Washington. You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances. If John McCain wants to follow George Bush with more tough talk and bad strategy, that is his choice - but it is not the change we need.

We are the party of Roosevelt. We are the party of Kennedy. So don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country. Don't tell me that Democrats won't keep us safe. The Bush-McCain foreign policy has squandered the legacy that generations of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans - have built, and we are here to restore that legacy.

As Commander-in-Chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send our troops into harm's way with a clear mission and a sacred commitment to give them the equipment they need in battle and the care and benefits they deserve when they come home.

I will end this war in Iraq responsibly, and finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease. And I will restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace, and who yearn for a better future.

These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain.

But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism.

The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America - they have served the United States of America.

So I've got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

America, our work will not be easy. The challenges we face require tough choices, and Democrats as well as Republicans will need to cast off the worn-out ideas and politics of the past. For part of what has been lost these past eight years can't just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose - our sense of higher purpose. And that's what we have to restore.

We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country. The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than for those plagued by gang-violence in Cleveland, but don't tell me we can't uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in the hospital and to live lives free of discrimination. Passions fly on immigration, but I don't know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers. This too is part of America's promise - the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.

I know there are those who dismiss such beliefs as happy talk. They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes and the abandonment of traditional values. And that's to be expected. Because if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.

You make a big election about small things.

And you know what - it's worked before. Because it feeds into the cynicism we all have about government. When Washington doesn't work, all its promises seem empty. If your hopes have been dashed again and again, then it's best to stop hoping, and settle for what you already know.

I get it. I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don't fit the typical pedigree, and I haven't spent my career in the halls of Washington.

But I stand before you tonight because all across America something is stirring. What the nay-sayers don't understand is that this election has never been about me. It's been about you.

For eighteen long months, you have stood up, one by one, and said enough to the politics of the past. You understand that in this election, the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result. You have shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington. Change happens because the American people demand it - because they rise up and insist on new ideas and new leadership, a new politics for a new time.

America, this is one of those moments.

I believe that as hard as it will be, the change we need is coming. Because I've seen it. Because I've lived it. I've seen it in Illinois, when we provided health care to more children and moved more families from welfare to work. I've seen it in Washington, when we worked across party lines to open up government and hold lobbyists more accountable, to give better care for our veterans and keep nuclear weapons out of terrorist hands.

And I've seen it in this campaign. In the young people who voted for the first time, and in those who got involved again after a very long time. In the Republicans who never thought they'd pick up a Democratic ballot, but did. I've seen it in the workers who would rather cut their hours back a day than see their friends lose their jobs, in the soldiers who re-enlist after losing a limb, in the good neighbors who take a stranger in when a hurricane strikes and the floodwaters rise.

This country of ours has more wealth than any nation, but that's not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military on Earth, but that's not what makes us strong. Our universities and our culture are the envy of the world, but that's not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

Instead, it is that American spirit - that American promise - that pushes us forward even when the path is uncertain; that binds us together in spite of our differences; that makes us fix our eye not on what is seen, but what is unseen, that better place around the bend.

That promise is our greatest inheritance. It's a promise I make to my daughters when I tuck them in at night, and a promise that you make to yours - a promise that has led immigrants to cross oceans and pioneers to travel west; a promise that led workers to picket lines, and women to reach for the ballot.

And it is that promise that forty five years ago today, brought Americans from every corner of this land to stand together on a Mall in Washington, before Lincoln's Memorial, and hear a young preacher from Georgia speak of his dream.

The men and women who gathered there could've heard many things. They could've heard words of anger and discord. They could've been told to succumb to the fear and frustration of so many dreams deferred.

But what the people heard instead - people of every creed and color, from every walk of life - is that in America, our destiny is inextricably linked. That together, our dreams can be one.

"We cannot walk alone," the preacher cried. "And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back."

America, we cannot turn back. Not with so much work to be done. Not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for. Not with an economy to fix and cities to rebuild and farms to save. Not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend. America, we cannot turn back. We cannot walk alone. At this moment, in this election, we must pledge once more to march into the future. Let us keep that promise - that American promise - and in the words of Scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.

Thank you, God Bless you, and God Bless the United States of America.

The immediate fallout of the US crisis

2008-09-16T13:07:00.000-07:00

US crisis

When a giant tree falls, the impact is felt all around. The financial crisis on Wall Street will have its repurcussions for Indian corporates and the subsidiaries of failed blue chip investment banks such as Lehman and Merrill Lynch in India.

Financing costs have risen sharply and some of the banks, even Indian banks, have gone back on financing deals. There have been cases where corporates which had gone to these banks lured by cheap financing suddenly found themselves caught on the wrong foot. Banks which had originally promised them cheap financing options, reneged on the deals. By the time they went to other banks, financing costs had risen by 20-30%. These corporates had already given firm order for plants on the back of the earlier commitment from banks.

Indian banks too have started tightening the noose on credit. Most banks have started going slow on proposals and are looking not only at the best possible returns but also at the safety factor. Because of the subprime collapse, financing costs for these banks have also gone up drastically. In the past few months, most Indian banks have not tapped the international debt market. Financing costs for most corporates have gone up by up to five times in the past one year. With financing under pressure, fees on loans have at least doubled in the past one year. Most Indian and foreign banks feel that the crisis could last till next year and they now want to play safe.

Investment bankers who could until a year ago choose their jobs are now being rendered unemployed. Bonuses which were paid in stock are now worth nearly 70% less than what they were. The total investment banking fees for the year is already down by 44.1% to $563 million, according to Thomson Reuters. The sharpest fall in fees has been in the equity market, where fees are down by 73.9% to $105.8 million. M&A fees were also down by 27.9% to $352 million. Loans are the only business where fees have gone up marginally.

It’s not just investment banks alone who are feeling the pain. On the back of the subprime crisis, a credit scare has turned lenders extremely risk-averse and financing has become a serious issue. Most bankers feel that multi-billion dollar overseas takeovers could be few and far in between. Corporates are likely to use their cash reserves for acquisitions than taking fresh debt on their balance sheets. Incidentally, a couple of corporates which had announced major acquisitions a couple of months earlier have not been able to line up financing till date.

Indian corporates are getting ready for either shelving projects or delaying implementation. “The demand for capital in a growing economy is high. New projects require both debt and equity; liquidity in the international markets for both these sources has dried up. Risk appetite for the banks is very low and the same is a reflection of the negligible volumes in debt markets. This could impact build-up of new capacities thereby adversely affecting growth projections, “ said Neeraj Gupta, CEO, Essar Capital. Even as officially most banks say that they are still offering financing to Indian corporates, the truth is far from that. There are few banks internationally “which are open to business.”

However, there are seeds of opportunity in every crisis. Most bankers — even foreign banks — now feel that some of the Indian players would have a slightly better hand. Indian firms like Kotak Mahindra, Ambit, Motilal Oswal and others which have been in the business are expected to benefit from the ongoing turmoil even as a host of corporate groups are looking at building their i-banking teams. “Even though the board has given us the approval to build a team, we were unable to do so as the salary levels were very high. Now we could use this opportunity and look at some people,” said the head of M&A at a private sector bank.

Among foreign institutions, firms like StanChart, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Royal Bank of Scotland and Morgan Stanley are likely to benefit from the ongoing events. Corporate heads say the origins of investment banking companies hardly matter for Indian corporates, as currently, the Indian investment banking companies are too small when compared to their international peers. In order to raise funds for big-ticket acquisitions, the corporates leaders say they would still hire foreign banks because of their deep pockets and global reach. “The origins does not really matter. When a corporate needs funds, they will approach any investment banker who can arrange for funds,” points Mr Gupta.

Says TV Raghunath, ED and head M&A, Kotak Mahindra Capital, “Being part of the global franchise may not by itself help a firm in winning a mandate. What would help the firm is their on-the-ground ability as also the issue of credibility and dependability. We see this as an opportunity to expand , at the same time not being irrationally exuberant, to build our business. If you are a long-term player committed to India, this is the time to build.”

But what about the Indian employees of the blue chip investment banks who have been the first casualties of the collapse? Although some may have to live with pay cuts, the situation is not so dire considering that the job market was red-hot until last year. The number of professionals earning million dollars and above had seen a rise of around 30-40% in 2007. New players like Lehman Brothers were offering up to four times existing salaries. Indian firms and banks and even existing foreign firms were finding it tough to retain star employees. Bonuses from 2003 to 2007 had seen a secular rise and almost every investment banker had a job offer letter in his pocket and “Exuberant or disruptive salary levels will go. Good guys would however always have options,” says Mr Raghunath.

17 Sep, 2008,
George Smith Alexander & Dev Chatterjee, ET Bureau

/photo.cm

STATEMENT OF CONCERN ON NIYAMGIRI

2008-08-16T05:13:00.000-07:00

Here is statement on the recent Supreme Court order on bauxite mining in Niyamgiri, Orissa.

STATEMENT OF CONCERN ON NIYAMGIRI

We the undersigned are deeply concerned over the recent order of the
Supreme Court in T.N. Godavaraman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and
Others in the matter of M/s Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. This
Order will pave the way for forcible displacement of thousands of
adivasis for the mining of bauxite by Sterlite Industries Ltd., a
frontal company of the notorious Vedanta Alimunium Industries, which
is already tainted with its corporate malpractices.

We note with deep anxiety that most of the inhabitants here are
Dongria Kondhs who are classified as Primitive Tribes (which itself is
a colonial construct) who know no other way of life hence need to be
dealt with due sensitivity and precaution and who will be uprooted and
marginalized once they are removed from their natural habitat. Today,
where the UN bodies, all the governments, international and national
civil societies including the progressive and democratic organisations
world over are worried and deliberating on global warming and the
impending ecological disaster and death of the planet. The issue
raised by this judgement has become of crucial importance. The Dongria
Kondhs who live a harmonious and symbiotic relationship with their
environment show the way to mankind on how to lead a sustainable,
meaningful and egalitarian life.

It is also to be noted that the present order of the Supreme Court
contradicts the 89th Amendment of the Constitution which clearly
stipulates that no industry, mines or townships or any other
construction activity can be undertaken without the consent of the
Gram Sabhas of adivasis residing in the areas demarcated under the
Fifth Schedule of the Constitution.

This order will also nullify the implementation of the recently passed
Forest Rights Act, under which the adivasis tilling forestland should
get the ownership of the land they have been tilling since years.

We are also deeply concerned that mining in Niyamgiri area will
seriously upset the ecological equilibrium; this area is very rich in
bio diversity including rare flora and fauna and many species of rare
medicinal herbs. Niyamgiri hills are also the source of important
rivers like Nagavali, Vansdhara, which caters to the need of many
districts in Orissa including the southern coastal districts. The
mining in that area will contravene the provisions of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986 because it will seriously violate
the letter and spirit of the Act.

We urge the political parties especially the three most important
pillars of our democracy i.e. the Executive, Judiciary and the
Legislature to take cognisance of the aspirations of innumerable
anti-displacement movements and progressive and democratic
organisations in the country and scrap the draconian and colonial land
acquisition act of 1894. Thus we call upon the Supreme Court,
Government of India and Orissa to reconsider the case of mining in the
Niyamgiri Hills and rescind the permission given to Sterlite
Industries for mining in Niyamgiri.

Kamal Mitra Chenoy School of International Study,JNU

Thomas kochery World Forum of Fisher People ,Special
Invitee,NAPM,NFF,NCI

Professor Arun Kumar Centre for Study of Economic and Social
Planning, School of Social Science, JNU

Vijay Pratap Convenor, Lokayan

Babulal Sharma Convenor, Global Gandhi Forum

Rakesh Bhatt Coordinator, SADED/CSDS

Faisal Khan Asha Parivar, NAPM, New Delhi

Anil Thakur Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, New Delhi

Chandrasekhar Hota Research Scholar, Centre for Political Studies, School of Social Science, JNU

Jeet Bhattacharya Research Scholar, Film Studies, School of
Art and Aesthetics, JNU

Peeyush Pant Editor, Lok Samvad, New Delhi

Sayantoni Datta SADED/CSDS

Asit Social Activist-Researcher, New Delhi

Kumar Sameer Social Activist, New Delhi

Shabnam Hashmi Anhad, New Delhi

Kavita Krishnan Editor, Liberation

Kiran Shaheen Media and Social activist, New Delhi

Kundan Kumar Activist,Researcher,Orissa

Felix Padel Anthropologist,U.K.

Subrat Kumar Sahu film Maker and Freelance Writer, New Delhi

Mamta Dash Social activist and
researcher, New Delhi

Prof Manidra Nath Thakur Centre for Political Studies ,SSS,JNU

Prof Vivek Kumar Centre for Study of Social
System, SSS, JNU

Prof Rohan D'Souza Centre for Study of Science
Policy, SSS ,JNU

Prof Mohan Rao Centre for Social Medicine and
community health, JNU

Prof Janaki Abraham Women's Study Programme, SSS, JNU

Prof Vanitha Damodarah University of Sussex, Sussex, U.K.

Prof Asha Sarangi Centre for Political Studies,JNU

Prithpal Singh randhawa Research Scholar, Instutute of
Development Studies,Sussex, U.K.

Rona Wilson Research Scholar and social
activist, New Delhi

Sunil Kumar Social Activist, New Delhi

G.N. Trivedi Lecturer, Moti lal Nehru
College, Delhi University

Amit Student, CESP/SSS, JNU

Sumandro Research Scholar, JNU

Debolina Biswas Student, CESP/SSS,JNU

Supreme Court bench abandons hearing on Provident Fund scandal

2008-08-07T02:02:00.000-07:00

New Delhi, Aug 7 (PTI) In an abrupt move, a Supreme Court bench today abandoned hearing on the controversial Uttar Pradesh Provident Fund (PF) scandal allegedly involving some judges.

A three judge bench comprising Justices B N Aggrawal, V S Sirpurkar and G S Singhvi abandoned the hearing following "contemptuous" remarks made by former Union Minister Shanti Bhushan and his son Prashant Bhushan.

Justice Aggrawal, who wrote the order, observed that he was "recusing".

The other two judges, however, did not concur or differ and hence the matter has been left to the Chief Justice of India for his decision.

The unprecedented drama was marred by an acrimonious exchange of words between Justice Aggrawal and Shanti Bhushan culminating in the denouement.

August 7, 2008
PTI

Chief Justice withdraws from fund scam case

Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan has withdrawn himself from the Ghaziabad provident fund scam case, allegedly involving some UP judicial officers, certain judges of the Allahabad High Court and a Supreme Court judge.

The CJI recused himself after the Indian chapter of Transparency International challenged his administrative decisions related to the scam probe. The corruption watchdog is seeking a "through and unfettered" probe by the CBI into the scam.

Two petitions related to the sensational case, in which the CJI's Bench had on July 17 issued notices to the Centre and the UP Government on the plea for a CBI probe, is now listed for hearing on August 1 before another Bench headed by Justice
BN Agrawal. The Ghaziabad Bar Association has filed the second case.

Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan had on the last date pointed out on behalf of Transparency International that the CJI could not hear a petition challenging his own administrative decisions relating to the scam probe. Bhushan had said SC Secretary General VK Jain had written to Ghaziabad SSP that he should prepare a questionnaire for examining the Judges of the higher judiciary allegedly involved in the scam for prior vetting. The questionnaire would form the basis of the probe.

Terming it as "unheard of", Bhushan had said there could not be different sets of procedures for judges and other people involved in a corruption case.

The CJI had clarified that the petition did not challenge his administrative decision, inasmuch as its prayer related only to judicial officers (subordinate court judges) while his decision was with regard to Allahabad High Court Judges. He had made it clear that if the petitioner changed its prayer so as to mean the judges of the higher judiciary, he would not hear it. The prayer has since been changed.

According to SC ruling in the Veeraswami case, an HC or SC judge cannot be proceeded against in a criminal case without the CJI's prior permission. In view of this ruling, the Ghaziabad SSP had sought the CJI's permission for probe against judges of the higher judiciary.

July 29, 2008
HT