Summary of BRICS Think Tanks Symposium, March 2011

March 2011
Link to original website

Scholars and experts from BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries have said that the current crisis in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) regions should be resolved expeditiously in the interest of regional stability and in conformity with the aspirations of the peoples of MENA and said that the current crisis demonstrated that the global governance system needed to be more responsive.

This formed part of a recommendation document prepared for the Third Leaders Summit to be held at Sanya, China in April this year. At a meeting of 60 scholars of think tanks from the five BRICS countries, held in Beijing on March 24 and 25, 2011. A seven-member delegation of Indian experts, led by Observer Research Foundation, took part in the meeting of the BRICS Think Tank Symposium, hosted by the China Centre for Contemporary World Studies (CCCWS) and the China Foundation for Peace and Development (CFPD). It comprised of former Indian ambassadors Mr. HHS Viswanathan (Distinguished Fellow, ORF) and Mr. T.C.A. Rangachary, Mr. Samir Saran, Vice President and Senior Fellow, ORF, Dr. Ravni Thakur Banan, Associate Professor, Delhi University, Dr. Saroj Kumar Mohanty, Professor and Senior Fellow, Research and Information Systems for Developing Countries, Dr. Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya, Fellow, Indian council for Research on International Economic Relations and Sriparna Pathak, Junior Fellow, ORF.

In the recommendations proposed for the consideration of the Third BRICS Leaders Meeting to be held in April in China, the scholars said that the leaders should give attention to the changing international context, sluggish economic recovery, governance issues, reform of the international economic and financial architecture, Sustainable Development and Climate Change.

In the opening speech, Mr. Sun Jiazheng, Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and President of CFPD, made three suggestions regarding cooperation among BRICS: (1) Undertaking intensive studies, and recommendations on issues that concern BRICS. (2) Focusing on major areas of international finance, international order, world peace and stability (3) Strengthening exchanges between think tanks of BRICS.

At the opening session, delegates from the five countries spoke on the need for reforming the global financial institutions, democratising global governance system, avoiding unilateralism, increasing discussions within the grouping on issues of wages, poverty, energy, health and education, defining a BRICS identity and mission and widening the BRICS’ agenda.

The first session discussed “Challenges and Opportunities- Environment and Background for the Development of BRICS Countries”. The presentations focused on the opportunities and challenges for BRICS post the financial crisis and the way ahead on issues of development and global governance Delegates from BRICS countries also spoke on issues of technological innovations, moving away from reliance on OECD countries, and greater engagement with other developing countries to enable sustainable growth.

On the topic of ‘Changes and Responsibilities: Agenda and Items for BRICS Countries in Advancing Global Economic Governance’, participants elaborated the need to realise inclusive growth and emphasised on stability, peace, shared prosperity, and development, South- South cooperation, open markets and mutual trade and investment among BRICS.

The theme of the third session was ‘Unity and Cooperation- Practical Cooperation and Institutional Building of BRICS Countries’. This panel discussed how BRICS can be a bridge for North- South cooperation, and the need within the BRICS grouping to resolve differences and seek common goals. Presenters also spoke on strengthening trade among BRICS, strengthening framework for polycentric world, promoting cooperation and engaging private sector actors in agriculture and other sectors among BRICS.

‘Exchanges and Mutual Trust- Cooperation Among Think Tanks of BRICS Countries’ was the final theme of the symposium. The discussions delved into ways to deepen BRICS interactions and the need to convene international seminars on areas of bilateral and multilateral areas interests. There was a strong emphasis on the need to establish a BRICS institutional framework at the governmental and non governmental level and to create working groups on select projects. It was also agreed to create a BRICS Think Tanks website for scholars to contribute to.

The interactions were free and friendly and there were no contentious issues. It was obvious that the delegates were trying to find the relevance, mandate and evolution of the Group.

One high level political interaction was organised for the delegates to meet Mr. Dai Bingguo, a State Councillor, where he praised the work of the delegates in coming up with new ideas. He also cautioned that the leaders may not have the same ideas. He spoke of “broadening” the Organisation, a concept not liked by the Russians.

Some divergences on issues like trade and currencies notwithstanding, there was a general feeling that BRICS is here to stay and contribute to a change in global governance. How this will be achieved is the question to which nobody seemed to have a clear answer. There were references to the need for an alternative model of development in which BRICS countries do not repeat the same mistakes committed by the developed world. There were also statements that BRICS should act as a bridge between the developing and the developed countries. But would the other developing countries (particularly potential aspirants to the Group like Indonesia, Turkey and Mexico) like BRICS to play this role?

One theme that came up constantly was the lack of intra-BRICS cooperation in comparison to the potential that exists. For example, BRICS contributes to about 20% of global GDP. Further, 60% of the global Foreign Exchange Reserves today are held by BRICS. But these are parked mainly in Western countries when BRICS themselves desperately need capital for development.

Apart from some general references to the need for reforms of global financial institutions and replacement of dollar by SDR as the global currency, no in-depth discussions took place on these issues. However, the increase in the voting shares of China, Brazil and India was referred to as a beginning of a change in the mind-set of the developed world. One theme that was very evident was the need to coordinate BRICS positions in G-20 so as to have a greater voice.

BRICS, In the News

China.org.cn reports on BRICS Think Tank meeting, 2011

April 15, 2011
Xinhua, China
Link to original website

Representatives from think tanks of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) discussed ways to fight climate change at a seminar here Wednesday. The seminar, called BRIC Think-Tank Summit, gathered members of think tanks from the BRIC countries to examine the global economic situation and the role of BRIC countries in the post-crisis global transformation.

World countries need to take joint action to fight climate change, said Indian representative Samir Saran from the Observer Research Foundation. Chinese representative Wu Enyuan, with the Institute of Russian, Eastern European and Central Asian Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the developed countries had a bigger responsibility on carbon emission reduction as the current climate change is a result of some 150 years of industrialization process of the developed nations.

But he said the developing countries, including the BRIC nations, should take their fair share of responsibility as well, and adopt measures to fight global warming. “China has fulfilled its responsibility by taking practical actions in either energy conservation or environmental protection,” he said, adding that other BRIC countries have also committed themselves to carbon emission reduction.

Brazil’s representative Eduardo Viola said that implementing these measures is more important than holding discussions. Russian representative Nikolai Mikhailov said climate change unveiled the notion that human beings can treat nature as they want without caring about the consequences. Only a radical change in their attitude could make a difference, he said.

The two-day seminar was held on the eve of the second BRIC summit scheduled for Friday in the Brazilian capital.

In the News

Institute of Peace and Conflict studies reviews “South and Southeast Asia”

by Tuli Sinha, Research Officer SEARP, IPCS
2011
Link to original website

This book marks the success of the initiative taken by two extremely renowned research institutes of India and Southeast Asia. The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) and Observer Research Foundation (ORF) assembled in Singapore to discuss the crucial issues emerging in South and Southeast Asia. The first Dialogue was held in New Delhi in 2006 and it focused on the Political and Security Dynamics of South and Southeast Asia. This book is the culmination of papers presented in the second Dialogue held in Singapore in 2009, which concentrated on Changing Geo-Political and Security Challenges in South and Southeast Asia. With a world engulfed in the aftermaths of financial meltdown and the uncertainty pertaining to the future trajectory of Asian geo politics and Asian regionalism, the dialogue efficiently selected themes to suit the changing power dynamics in South and Southeast Asia.

The book is divided across five major themes. First, on Major Power Dynamics in South and Southeast Asia, this incorporates the works of Dilip Lahiri and Daljit Singh regarding these two regions. The two essays examine the shifts in the dynamics of the super power relations in India and Southeast Asia. The changing role of the United States and China is explained in the context of end of Cold War and present day scenario in both the regions. Also, an effort is made to predict the future conflict or conditions of a peaceful co-existence among the super powers in the Asia-Pacific.

The second theme focuses on the Rise of Asian Maritime Power and its Implications on Southeast Asia. This section contains essays by Vijay Sakhuja and Admiral P S Das, which gives a detailed account of the rising Chinese naval strength and Indian concerns on maritime security issues. Their work brings forth the direct implication of a strong Chinese naval base for Southeast Asia and India. The phenomenal rise of China as a regional power in terms of maritime might is a matter of concern for Southeast Asian and Indian security as the seas are and have always been the fundamental source of trade and energy explorations.

The third section of the book deals with Security Issues in Southeast Asia by Ian Storey, Carlyle A Thayer and K Yhome. These works revolve around the central issues of concern in Southeast Asian context. The South China Sea Dispute is examined in context of the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties. The other chapter in the section is on Myanmar, which is one of the most dynamic and strategically located countries of Southeast Asia. The chapter argues that given the context of rising geo strategic importance of the region, it becomes imperative to assess the current situation and the future prospects of Myanmar in particular. With unlimited avenues of energy and other economic and commercial opportunities, this region is eventually looked upon as the hub of economic activities by the external powers. Despite prolonged conditions of political turmoil and instability, the region has managed to carve a niche in the eyes of China and the United States for future engagements which is highly commendable.

The fourth theme deals with the Evolving Asian Regionalism and comprises essays by Rodolfo C. Severino and K V Kesavan. These works primarily discuss the role of regional institutions amidst the rise of East Asian regionalism and India’s position. They have exquisitely explained the formation and significance of ASEAN and its several offshoots that have emerged over the years. There is also a detailed mention of the concept of Look East Policy of India and its future with regards to maritime and nuclear security concerns.

Finally, the last theme assesses the extremely recent and most critical concern of the world through the chapter on Non-Traditional Security Challenge: Climate Change; it assesses the implications for South and Southeast Asia. This section incorporates the works of Lee Pon Onn and Samir Saran, which presents an extensive account of climate change and issues regarding globalization. Amidst the nuances of the Copenhagen Summit held in 2009 and rising concerns about climate, this chapter holds great significance and is central to the title of the book. Besides climate change, several other significant issues such as water, agriculture, forestry and health in the regions have also received deserved attention.

Summing up, the book is an excellent amalgamation of issues of strategic importance to South and Southeast Asia in the current geopolitical scene. The strength is in coherent showcasing of diverse viewpoints of the scholars from both the regions of South and Southeast Asia. The work stresses upon the major power shifts in this region, in context to the super power relations in the region. Collectively these eminent scholars have discussed the probable effects of such a power shift in varied sectors of Asia-Pacific. The essays forcefully bring forth the argument of an increasing cooperation between India and Southeast Asia validating the notion of the successful India’s Look East Policy. The identification of the themes is deft and presents a detailed historical background to each study to forge better understanding. With regard to the recent developments in Traditional and Non-Traditional security aspects, the work unravels the myriad connotations of several initiatives in the area of climate change, energy security, terrorism and water and further examines the future role and prospects in the region.

Though the book impressively portrays the crucial issues of concern in both the regions, it has certain limitations. First, the book tends to focus on the United States and China relations in South and Southeast Asia and comes across as a China centric study. Second, several other countries as Indonesia, Thailand of this region have not received a thorough engagement in the work. It merely discusses the case of Myanmar, India and ASEAN as other countries have been bypassed. Third, the sporadic reference to terrorism, nuclear proliferation and energy in particular, is unable to do justice to such issues of vital concern in history as well as in years to come. Further, though every essay provides a detailed explanation of changing geopolitical and strategic security challenges, they fail to raise abundant burning questions regarding the future possibilities and prospects of the same. Also, the inclusion of theoretical base to the study of power play in Southeast Asia and India would have enhanced the qualitative dimension.

This combined effort of such expert scholars and K V Kesavan and Daljit Singh in particular, as the editors, is certainly an asset to the available literature on geostrategic issues for scholars and researchers in the relevant field. It provides an excellent assessment of the super power play in the regions and how it has paved the way for several opportunities and challenges simultaneously. It is gratifying to note the various global, regional and inter-regional initiatives that have been started in order to address security concerns and the efforts being made in numerous dimensions, aptly dealt with in the essays of this volume. This book is definitely among the best works in the subject which discusses different regional perspectives on the dynamic geopolitical scenario in South and Southeast Asia and adds to the existing facts as well as sets the base for further research work in years to come.

In the News, Water / Climate

Human Security Gateway features ORF’s report on water security in South Asia, 2011

May 2011
Link to original website
Feature on Feedblitz

Type :	Report
Title :	Water Security in South Asia: Issues and Policy Recommendations
Source :	Observer Research Foundation
Date Added:	20-May-2011
Publication Date :	28-Feb-2011
URL :	http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/ORF-Water-Security-in-South-Asia.pdf
Abstract :	This brief is largely based on several discussions organised at Observer Research Foundation over a period of time. These discussions were enriched by the presence of some of the well-known experts on water issues in the country, like former Union Minister for Water Resources, Dr. Suresh Prabhu, current High Commissioner of Bangladesh, Tariq Ahmad Karim, Mr. Sunjoy Joshi, Director, Observer Research Foundation, Ms. Clare Shakya, Senior Regional Climate Change and Water Adviser, DFID*, India, Mr. Samir Saran, Vice President, ORF and Dr. Dinesh Kumar, Executive Director, Institute for Resource Analysis and Policy, Hyderabad.It is estimated that by 2030, only 60 per cent of the world’s population will have access to fresh water 1 supplies . This would mean that about 40 per cent of the world population or about 3 billion-people would be without a reliable source of water and most of them would live in impoverished, conflictprone and water-stressed areas like South Asia. Water is already an extremely contentious, and volatile, issue in South Asia. There are more people in the region than ever before and their dependence on water for various needs continues to multiply by leaps and bounds. The quantum of water available, for the present as well as future, has reduced dramatically, particularly in the last half-acentury. This is due to water-fertiliser intensive farming, overexploitation of groundwater for drinking, industrial and agricultural purposes, large scale contamination of water sources, total inertia in controlling and channelising waste water, indifferent approach to water conservation programmes and populist policies on water consumption.

In the News, Non-Traditional Security, Politics / Globalisation

Australian’s Raleigh Times covers ORF’s Latin America event, 2011

August 2, 2011
Link to original website

Participating in an interaction at Observer Research Foundation, envoys from 17 countries from Latin America said their countries are keen to strengthen economic relations with India. “We want better, mutually beneficial relations with India. We have got lots of natural resources, especially oil and other energy resources. But we don’t want to be just provider of resources. We want you to cooperate in our development also,” said Columbian Ambassador Juan Alfredo Pinto Saavedra.

Saavedra, the coordinator of the group of Ambassadors of the Latin American countries, said the US and the Europe used resources from their countries for their development, but did not help them in the development. “While they used our resources, we remained poor,” he said. He wanted India and China to be different in their approach to Latin American countries.

Besides the Columbian Ambassador, Ambassadors from Paraguay, Uruguay, Panama, Costo Rica, Mexico, Peru, Cuba, Dominican Republic attended the interaction. The other countries were represented by high level diplomats like Deputy Chief the Missions and Charge d’ Affaires. The Ambassadors were given a presentation on the ORF Report on India’s non-traditional security threats, titled “Navigating the Near” by Samir Saran, Vice President, Observer Research Foundation. This study was done by ORF for the Integrated Defence Staff, the Ministry of Defence.

Chairing the meeting, M. Rasgotra, a former Foreign Secretary and now President of the ORF Centre for International Relations, said Latin American countries enjoyed good sentiments in India. He said India would be keen to have mutually beneficial cooperation with them.

Former Foreign Secretary K. Raghunath and ORF Director Sunjoy Joshi also took part in the meeting.

BRICS, In the News

Chinese Crienglish.com reports on BRICS Think Tank meeting, 2011

March 26, 2o11
Link to original website

BRICS think-tanks call for closer economic ties

Think-tanks from five major developing economies are now calling for closer economic ties among the BRICS countries, just ahead of the group’s summit in Hainan, China next month. BRICS countries include China, Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa.
International relations expert Jin Canrong from China’s Renming University says, despite booming economies, the five countries still do not have enough say in global economic dialogues.

“The top agenda of the next summit is still the economy, and especially the top ten topics talked about at this year’s G20 summit in France. For instance, the fluctuating raw material prices, and the possibility of giving an index for economic imbalance – those are all important.” Samir Saran, senior researcher with India’s Observer Foundation, says the BRICS countries could find more shared interests economy-wise. “For the BRICS countries, there is still enough room to enhance their cooperation in energy, electricity, food security, agriculture and technology. Also, the five countries could learn from each other regarding eliminating poverty, improving healthcare and education.”

In the News, Water / Climate

Samir attends the SANSAC Climate and Security Roundtable, 2010

August 6, 2010, New Delhi
Link to original website

Summary of discussion
Chair: Fergus Auld, UK Cross-Government Climate Change and Energy Unit, India

International Alert convened a roundtable meeting, kindly hosted by the British High Commission in New Delhi, with the generous support of the EU, to generate a critical discussion on the inter-linkages between climate change and conflict in South Asia and to identify the institutional and governance level knowledge and capacity gaps to promote effective responses to these risks.

The meeting was an opportunity to take forward discussion in India on the relationship between climate change, resilience and security. Bringing together institutional representatives and civil society experts, the discussion addressed the complexities of responding to climate change in conflict-affected contexts in South Asia and the institutional responses to dealing with such risks. In particular, the group explored:

Where human (and indeed state) security should fit into the climate change policy discussion?
What the link between climate change and violent conflict means for development policy?
The specific issues to be addressed in fragile communities.
The best ways to move the debate with not only the necessary sense of urgency but also awareness of the depth and breadth of the issues and the appropriate policy responses.

Background:
As more people become aware of and motivated by the links between climate change, conflict, peace and security, both the possibility of and the necessity for clarity about these links increases. Regardless of the scarcity of data, the climate change and security dialogue is moving ahead and shaping thinking and policy as it goes. Alongside this is concern from some quarters about the so-called ‘securitisation’ of climate change. A pragmatic response to this means ensuring the climate change and security dialogue is as informed as it can be by appropriate actors keying into the dialogue to embed sustainable development and peacebuilding priorities into the core of the debate.

Key issues discussed:

What is the value of the climate change and security discourse? Is it a distraction from adaptation and mitigation priorities?There are three particular risks in the climate change and security nexus:

i) Just as security fears can mobilise people and change, sensationalist scenarios demobilise, especially when they turn out not to justified by the evidence.

ii) Treating conflict and security issues as if they will produce direct threats from one country against another, or even one group against another, which is the language of military security will distort the debate and the policy response; at worst, the response will be inappropriate and wasteful.

iii) Basing the argument on an over-simplified linkage could generate policies that miss their targets in other ways and simply lead to confusion and uncertainty about what the problem is and why anyone should care.

Yet the discourse exists and will continue to move in some cases with more policy leverage than the adaptation or ‘common but differential responsibility’ for mitigation discourse. As such, the three risks above notwithstanding, engaging in the security discourse is a vehicle for getting critical development and governance concerns to the policy table.

What is the nature of the causal link between climate change and security?

Policy cannot and should not be based on a straightforward cause-and-effect relationship between climate change and violent conflict or political instability. There is a lack of research findings on the topic and what there is does not offer robust conclusions. And there are good reasons for this: namely that causality is always complex. Armed conflicts not only have several different causes but several different types of causes. These are often conflated, blurring the differences between background or root causes, the immediate trigger, the role of the external actors etc. The fact is that simple cause-and-effect is rarely if ever enough to explain the origins of a conflict.

Given this lack of clear causal link, the sparse research literature on climate change and security contains some that declares that no link can be proven. But the fact that no link can be proven is not the same as saying none exists. A real limitation of studies so far is that they work by reflection on the past – whereas the key point to understand about climate change is that the future will be different from the past.

Perhaps the largest security risk of climate change is the most preventable one. That is the risk that climate change policy itself will be the most destabilising factor in fragile communities. The reasons are three-fold:

i) New financing mechanism on climate change strive towards ‘national ownership’, but where the state government is an actor in the conflict and is party to structural exclusion and marginalisation, this essentially provides an additional ‘point resource’ for elite capture and for the perpetuation of existing systems of exclusion and inequity.

ii) Lack of adequate consideration of the knock-on consequences on interventions to address climate change can have inadvertent negative consequences which could stoke instability. The rapid switch from food to fuel crops in the ill-informed bio-fuels experiment which lead to global riots in 2008 is a case in point. There are many more trip wires of unintended consequences in the path low carbon development which need to be understood from a conflict sensitivity perspective, particularly around REDD and hydro.

iii) Any action involves a trade-off and creates new winners and losers. A shift in priority to narrow and technical adaptation or mitigation responses will entail others issues – perhaps basic services such as health or education – being pushed down the agenda. In already fragile communities where governance is weak and basic service delivery is poor, such a shift could rupture an already weak social contract between citizens and the state.

How to address the lack of empirical evidence?

The evidence base for climate and security interlinkages is necessarily weak; there has been too little time since the effects of climate change began to receive adequate attention for research data to have accumulated of the kind needed for large-scale quantitative studies that can reliably depict trends. Further, the state of knowledge in the natural sciences does not let us attribute specific events such as flood or drought to climate change, nor does it offer any policy relevant predictions of impacts at the regional level. As such, there is a case for turning instead to case studies. While limited in their generalisability, developing a broad geographic spread of case study evidence which drill deep down to understand community level perhaps offers the best solution to the knowledge gap in the interim.

Conclusions:
There was strong consensus that the solution to the risk of climate change policy itself becoming a security threat is linking dialogues. This entails much more local level research into climate change and security links and risk transmission pathways (such as rural-urban migration, food insecurity, service delivery failure), addressing governance capacity constraints to ‘joined-up’ programming, and advocacy to move the debate beyond concerns that the security dialogue will hijack the climate change dialogue, and instead to bring the dialogues together.

Next steps:
Interested parties are to remain part of an ongoing dialogue process in India, and also to link into the regional climate change and security dialogue. Specific aims of this dialogue process would be to bring development and human security concerns, lessons and good practice to the heart of the climate change and security debate. Alert is happy to facilitate the dialogue. ORF have offered to host the next meeting. In the meantime, all participants are welcome to share resources through the South Asia Network on Security and Climate Change web-space (www.sansac.org).

List of participants:
1. Ranu Sinha, Operations Analyst, Water Resource Management, World Bank

2. Samir Saran, Senior Fellow and Vice President, Observer Research Foundation

3. Rob Donkers, Environment Minister Counsellor, EU delegation India

4. Mansie Kumar, EU Delegation India

5. Uttam Sinha, IDSA

6. Gitanjali Nandan, First Secretary, Australian High Commission

7. L Vijayanathan, Senior Adviser, Environment, Climate and Energy, Norwegian Embassy

8. Karolina Hedström, Regional Crisis Response Planner – South Asia, EU India

9. Deepti Mahajan, Research Associate, Resources and Global Security,Teri

10. Fergus Auld, First Secretary Climate Change and Energy, DfID India/British High Commission

11. Clare Shakya, Senior Regional Climate Change and Water Adviser – Asia, DfID India

12. Janani Vivekananda, Climate Change and Security Adviser, International Alert

In the News

Samir featured in Hindustan Times article “Business and Barbs”, 2009

by Gaurav Choudhury
September 11, 2009, New Delhi
Link to original website

Here they are in the heart of Delhi, a maze of narrow corridors and shops where clones of the world’s sophisticated inventions can be bought after a good haggle: palm-sized iPods, sleek touch-mobiles, glitzy wristwatches. Don’t let the image mislead you. It’s a theatre of war. The 900-odd shops in the Old Lajpat Rai market are filled with cheap unbranded Chinese goods, as are thousands of markets across India, part of the same onslaught of consumer goods that China made across the world, and is now threatening millions of Indian craftsmen, businessmen and traders.

“The audio clarity in a Chinese mobile handset is even better than a Nokia phone,” said Narender Kumar, who runs a retail outlet of mobile handsets at the crowded market in Old Delhi. “About 90 per cent of the phones we keep are made in China,” he said, pulling out a Sycee Tong mobile phone that resembles a Nokia 6300 in shape and features. “While the Nokia set would cost Rs 7,000, the Chinese is priced at Rs 2,000.”

All that has made China — which fought a war with India in 1962 — its largest trading partner and the single largest source of imports, with a share of over 10 per cent of India’s total imports of $287.75 billion in 2008-09. From Barmer to Bangalore, thousands of Chinese engineers, computer hardware professionals and even unskilled workers are also working in India. And Indian companies like NIIT and Infosys are swiftly becoming the backbone of China’s computer software ambitions, with dozens of centres sprawling the nation.

It is an economic relationship that is soaring. One is the world’s factory, the other the global back-office. The two neighbours, housing nearly 37 per cent of world’s people, are also the hottest growth economies. If China sizzled with a 9 per cent growth in 2008, India grew at 6.7 per cent — at a time when the US, EU and Japan were reeling under recession. And yet, it is a relationship fraught with disputes, some niggling, some serious.

India is trying to crack down on the flood of counterfeits and cheap products using globally agreed-upon laws to prevent dumping, a manufacturer in one country exporting a product to another at a price below what it charges in its home market. China has accused India of adopting anti-trade measures, allegations New Delhi denies. In turn, it has blamed Beijing of imposing non-tariff barriers to prevent access to its market. There have also been instances of Chinese firms selling medicines under the “Made in India” label in Africa.

In June, the Nigerian Government Drug Regulatory Authority seized a large consignment of fake anti-malarial generic drugs labelled “Made in India” but allegedly produced in China, said an Indian commerce ministry official who declined to be named as he is not authorised to talk to the media. The tablets could have affected some 6,42,000 customers.

China remains out of bounds for Indian basmati rice exporters. India also believes that the Chinese government is blocking entry of fruits and vegetables on grounds not necessarily economic. New Delhi had sought market access for 17 fruits and vegetables including mango, guava and pomegranates. Only three have been allowed. This year, India has so far launched 38 anti-dumping investigations over goods as varied as sodium nitrite, sodium carbonates, tyres and even the seemingly innocuous Vitamin C drug. As many as 22 of these pertain to products originating in China.

India has also put quality restrictions on mobile phones, dairy products and toys in a measure primarily aimed at blocking the flood of cheap imports from China. India’s Directorate-General of Foreign Trade said mobile handsets without the International Mobile Equipment Identity number, which helps authorities track the sale and use of the phones, can’t be imported. While no official estimates are available, industry sources estimate that close to one million such phones enter India every month from China. China’s Ministry of Commerce (MoC) has expressed “serious concerns” over India’s intensive trade probes. “China hoped that India could show prudence and restraint in using trade remedies… it could pose a threat to bilateral trade,” MoC said in its web site. India shrugs off the criticism.

“Anti-dumping duties are imposed after a process of thorough investigation,” Commerce Secretary Rahul Khullar told HT. “Initiating the process of inquiry does not hinder imports.” He said even after final anti-dumping duties were imposed, they ended up affecting less than 1 per cent of the total trade. But in the big picture, as China-India relations go, all’s good, analysts say. In October last, the commerce departments of both the countries set up an expert group to promote cooperation. “Any nuance in India-China relations should be looked through the nuance of security and history,” said Samir Saran, vice president of the Delhi-based think-tank Observer Research Foundation.

In the News, Non-Traditional Security, Politics / Globalisation

TruthDive.com covers ORF’s Latin America event, August 2011

August 2, 2011, New Delhi
Link to original website

Envoys of Latin American countries today sought mutually beneficial cooperation with India. Participating in an interaction at Observer Research Foundation, envoys from 17 countries from Latin America said their countries are keen to strengthen economic relations with India. “We want better, mutually beneficial relations with India. We have got lots of natural resources, especially oil and other energy resources. But we don’t want to be just provider of resources. We want you to cooperate in our development also,” said Columbian Ambassador Juan Alfredo Pinto Saavedra.

This study was done by ORF for the Integrated Defence Staff, the Ministry of Defence. Chairing the meeting, M. Rasgotra, a former Foreign Secretary and now President of the ORF Centre for International Relations, said Latin American countries enjoyed good sentiments in India. He said India would be keen to have mutually beneficial cooperation with them.

Former Foreign Secretary K. Raghunath and ORF Director Sunjoy Joshi also took part in the meeting.

In the News, Water / Climate

Samir attends the Renewable Energy and International Law (REIL) roundtable in Cambridge, 2011

June 20-21, 2011, UK
Link to original website
Feature in Global Energy Review, July 12, 2011
Feature in Business Weekly, June 13, 2011

Anglia Ruskin University’s Global Sustainability Institute (GSI) is co-hosting the prestigious Renewable Energy and International Law (REIL) roundtable in Cambridge from 20-21 June.

REIL is an informal network of international climate change and clean-energy experts. Its members include policymakers, private investors, technology developers and academics, all working to increase the use of cleaner and more efficient energy solutions.

Delegates taking part in the roundtable include Bob Simon, Chief of Staff of the United States Senate Energy Committee; Brad Gentry, Director of the Yale Centre for Business and the Environment; Melinda Kimble, Senior Vice President of the United Nations Foundation; Samir Saran, Vice President of the Observer Research Foundation in India; Richard Kauffman, Chairman of Levi Strauss & Co; and Eomon Ryan, Leader of the Green Party in Ireland.

The event, which is being held at the University of Cambridge’s Moller Centre, will focus on strategies to address climate change and the development of the low carbon economy. Topics for discussion include financing clean technology; the convergence of food, water, and energy issues; and sustainable energy access.

“With long-term international political processes finding it difficult to come to agreements, it is ever more important to be thinking creatively about solutions to climate change and access to energy. REIL brings together key influencers from across the climate change policy and finance world. In particular it offers a unique opportunity for public and private sector delegates from the UK and US to share innovative thinking and approaches to tackling issues within the energy sphere. The group of people meeting in Cambridge for this workshop will examine some of the key challenges that we face and demonstrate that a solution is possible and can be found,” said Dr Aled Jones, Director of Anglia Ruskin’s GSI.

REIL members convene regularly, with an annual roundtable held at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. This year, REIL are holding their first ever roundtable at Cambridge University in partnership with the Cambridge Centre on Science and Policy (CSaP) and Anglia Ruskin University’s GSI.

The synergy between REIL, CSaP and GSI is strong, with CSaP acting as a networking organisation dedicated to building relationships between policy makers and experts in the fields of science and engineering.

The GSI is a research institute based at Anglia Ruskin that encompasses a broad portfolio of areas and interests including environment, built environment, technology, tourism, business practice, education and health.

The roundtable will comprise discussions on the following subjects:

Financing Clean Technology (including proposals for Green Investment Banks)
Convergence of Food, Water, and Energy Issues
UNFCCC: From Cancun to Durban
Technology
Sustainable Energy Access
Financing Energy Efficiency

Event chairs:

James Cameron (Founder and Vice Chairman, Climate Change Capital)
Bradford Gentry (Director, Yale Center for Business and the Environment, Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies)
Leslie Parker (Managing Director, REIL)
Martijn Wilder (Partner and Head of Global Environmental Markets Practice, Baker & McKenzie and Adjunct Professor, ANU)

Timings
Monday 20 June: The meeting will start at 10am and finish with dinner in Trinity Hall.
Tuesday 21 June: Day two of the meeing will start at 9.30am and finish at 5pm.
Please note that attendance is by invitation only. There is no fee associated with attending the workshop and dinner.

Location:
The Møller Centre
Management Training & Conference Centre
Churchill College, University of Cambridge
Storey’s Way
Cambridge
CB3 0DE
United Kingdom

Company: Reil (Renewable Energy & International Law)
Website: http://www.anglia.ac.uk/ruskin/en/home/news/climate-change-event.html

August 2, 2011, New Delhi Link to original website

August 2, 2011, New Delhi
Link to original website