Advanced Untraceable Anti-tap / Anti-GSM Interceptor Samsung G600 Mobile Phone

This is a GSM untraceable mobile phone uk device which can’t be tapped or traced and is based on the Samsung cellular phone will ware you about any intrusion and interception attempt.

Every time you change the SIM card, the phone will randomize its unique IMEI number automatically. The IMEI numbers that are produced automatically by this phone will never be repeated. The IMEI will also change on every new call that is made and on any sent SMS messages. Interception of calls made or received by such a phone becomes and impossible mission.

You can change the IMEI number of the device to another number of your choice e.g. enter the IMEI number of another person.

The telephone tap defeat / GSM Interception detection is accomplished using in-built fake base station / GSM Interceptor detector technology of which will alert you if either an SMS / text message, outgoing or incoming call is made via such GSM interception technology.

Over the past decades, telecommunications interception has developed into a huge worldwise industry allowing a phone to be bugged remotely.

Different foreign and local agencies, secuirty organixations within almost all countries routinely intercpt calls and are able to bug a telephone remotely that may yield sensitive politica, military or economic information. The use of wiretapping has become so widespread, simple and unctrolled that you must assume that records of you private calls end up in the wrong hands.

AFRICA: Natural Resources

Colliding Geopolitics and African Resources

7 Dec 2011

Oil well

Is Africa the object of a new Great Game among natural resource imperialists or does the continent offer opportunities for cooperation between global and local stakeholders? This article presents three different views on natural resource politics in Africa.

Prepared by: ISN staff

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Special-Feature/Detail?lng=en&id=134747&contextid774=134747&contextid775=134743&tabid=134743

Over the last few years there has been considerable handwringing over whether we are entering a new era of resource imperialism. New and foreign-owned “plantations,” for example, are appearing in significant numbers and in far-flung places. The technicians who operate these types of concessions are also, at least in the case of the Chinese, trained militiamen who could quickly assume a paramilitary role if required. If traditional geopolitics continues to play a role in Afghanistan and the Middle East, as we have discussed the last two days, then its resource-based cousin is certainly at play in Africa today. Three articles, ranging from the darkly geopolitical to the geopolitically benign, help clarify this growing phenomenon for us. First, Friedbert Pflüger’s A New Great Game: The EU, China and the era of energy imperialismargues that Africa is potentially the site of a ‘new Great Game’ that will ultimately afflict all resource-rich regions of the international system. Jennifer Giroux’s Africa’s Growing Strategic Relevance , on the other hand, is more skeptical about the actual intensity of geopolitical competition within Africa. Yes, the West may have vested interests in safeguarding its natural resource supplies from competing demands, but there are other, non-resources-based issues that influence its policies towards the continent. Finally, Saferworld’s report on China’s growing role in African peace and security casts a thoroughly pragmatic eye over China’s activities in Africa. In doing so, the Saferworld writers argue that Africa could be the site for increased cooperation between global and local stakeholders alike.

Renewed interest in Africa

Despite the negative portrayals of Africa by its doomsayers, it continues to gain in geopolitical significance for both established and emerging global powers. This inexorable interest in a continent that has perennially played the poor relation in the global economy is underpinned by several important factors. Emerging powers like China and India are continuing their social and economic development at an aggressive pace. In turn, and as previously discussed in an ISN analysis of future forecasting , the developed world needs to sustain relatively high levels of economic growth to meet the welfare demands of ageing populations. Such trends bode ill for energy resources in the decades to come. In its World Energy Outlook 2011, for example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) paints a bleak picture of our energy future. It warned that the world is locking itself into an unsustainable demand for energy which will have far-reaching consequences if there is no collective and sustained effort to alter the current trajectory.

Now, if ever-increasing demand is one part of the problem, then supply issues are the other. A large percentage of the world’s natural resources remain located in the Middle East and Central Asia. However, there are a number of well-advertised problems associated with energy-supplies from these two regions. The Middle East is obviously as politically precarious as it has ever been. Central Asia, Potemkin village appearances to the contrary, also suffers from chronic instability. In its recent report,Central Asia: Decay and Decline, the International Crisis Group (ICG) predicts that collapsing infrastructures could bring down the region’s ‘enfeebled regimes’ and create enormous uncertainty in one of the most fragile parts of the world. In such a volatile context it becomes ever more difficult to guarantee that all-important and steady supply of energy resources on which so many countries depend.

Yet, Africa’s natural resources potentially offer a solution to these geopolitical problems. The continent is estimated to hold ten percent of the world’s proven oil reserves, eight per cent of its gas reserves, and is rich in other resources such as diamonds, uranium, copper, (see map, but please note that the oil and gas percentages do not reflect possible reserves off, for example, the West African coast). Moreover, Africa is rich in ‘rare earth’ resources used in the production of many electronic devices ranging from mobile phones to advanced weapon systems. While these elements are not as rare as their name might suggest, many countries are concerned that China has emerged as the single most important (and almost exclusive) domestic producer and exporter of some of these resources. (The United States, for example, imports over 90 per cent of its rare earths from China.) Since Beijing will increasingly need more of the rare earths it produces for its own purposes, other countries will need to diversify their supply chains to reduce their single-source dependency. Against such a backdrop, it should come as no surprise that there is renewed interest in resource-rich Africa.

See large map

Traditionally, the West has been the chief importer of natural resources from Africa. In 2010, for example, almost a quarter of US petroleum imports came from Africa, with Nigeria exporting 980,000 barrels and Angola 400’000 barrels per day. Yet, Beijing’s increasing appetite for natural resources has resulted in China overtaking the United States as the main importer of petroleum from Angola. By 2010, Angola was exporting 788,000 barrels per day to China, more than double the 252,000 barrels it received from Sudan. Accordingly, the West’s and emerging powers’ increasing demand for natural resources has resulted in speculation that a ‘new scramble for Africa’ is underway. But is this argument true? Is this warning legitimate or unfounded?

A New Great Game

Friedbert Pflüger argues in his piece that ‘a new Great Game’ is already in full swing in all resource-rich parts of the world and it features new and emerging players like Brazil, India and Canada – all of whom have joined the scramble for natural resources in the past two decades. However, Pflüger, like others, is particularly concerned about China’s increasing demand for energy. (A consensus argument is that China will need sustained Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth-rates of almost nine percent per year in order to avoid major social unrest.) Given this necessity, Pflüger sees China’s recent expansion into Africa as a predictor of what is yet to come to any place in the world where natural resources are found, especially Central Asia. And indeed, there are reasonable grounds for his assumption. The IEA, for example, predicts that by 2035 China will consume nearly 70 percent more energy than the United States.

Pflüger also contends that China pursues its own interests in Africa without any regard for international agreements. Ricardo Soares de Oliveira agrees: “Chinese oil companies are willing to partner with and shore up some of Africa’s most brutal regimes; show little interest in ‘good governance’, human rights, transparency, or the environment; and provide a discourse that ‘effectively legitimizes human rights abuses and undemocratic processes”. Accordingly, Pflüger predicts that there will sooner or later be serious geopolitical collisions if these recent developments continue. In light of what he calls a “new era of global energy and raw material imperialism,” Pflüger argues that Europe in particular needs to develop a common, comprehensive and assertive energy policy to guarantee its long-term energy security against emerging powers.

No Genuine Geopolitical Confrontation…Yet

If Pfügler’s geopolitical future for Africa is bleak, then Jennifer Giroux’s analysis of Africa’s growing strategic relevance is gray. Giroux argues that warnings of an upcoming Sino-American geopolitical confrontation in Africa seem premature. While she acknowledges that competition among external powers for Africa’s natural resources has indeed intensified, she also shows that Africa’s strategic relevance is not limited to just natural resources. The U.S., for example, remains concerned about the numerous weak states in Africa that do (and might) provide refuge for Islamist terrorist groups. (To begin addressing the problem, Washington set up the U.S. Africa Command in 2007.) But instead of interpreting this added concern as a clear sign of expanding geopolitical conflict, Giroux argues that the results of a vigorous re-engagement by the U.S. and others in Africa remain to be seen.

Like Pflüger, Giroux also confirms that there are several issues that have caused tensions between different internal and external actors in Sub-Saharan Africa. China and the West, for example, employ different approaches to engagement with their African counterparts. As a result, Western initiatives that promote democracy and good governance in Africa are roundly criticized by Beijing. It argues that instead of adopting the patronizing methods of former colonial powers, it prefers to stick to its policy of non-interference abroad. This has arguably been the crucial factor in China’s successful engagement with African leaders who like to get aid packages, loans, massive infrastructure projects and other help from Beijing without any strings attached. After all, Chinese money can be used by African rulers as they see fit – even if this means buying weapons in order to wage a brutal civil war. In return, Beijing mainly gets trade deals and access to the natural resources it desires.

China’s policy towards Sudan exemplifies this approach. It has been Sudan’s most important trade partner and ‘protector’ within the United Nations Security Council and the international community. It has, for example, continued to back the country’s president Omar al Bashir despite the International Criminal Court’s warrant for his arrest, whom it accuses of war crimes during the conflict in Darfur. As Sudan is China’s second most important supplier of oil in Sub-Saharan Africa, its oil fields are fundamental to Beijing’s strategic dialogue with Khartoum. In Western capitals, this has given rise to the concern that China will undermine their engagement in Africa and push them out of the continent. As such, Western policy-makers and civil society regularly criticize China for its material support for many autocratic African regimes.

The potential problem with the above criticisms is not that they are unjustified, but rather that they represent only one side of a complex story. Also, from a Chinese point of view, European criticisms are likely to be perceived as geopolitical rhetoric aimed at stopping China from legitimately doing business with Africa. As many commentators have pointed out, Europe’s own historical record with Africa cannot exactly be called a positive one. What they have thus come to fear is a race to the bottom with regards to upholding human rights and good governance in Africa, especially if other external powers such as the U.S. and Europe were to decide to trade conditionality for access in order to compete with China.

Towards A More Co-Operative Approach to African Peace and Security?

The tensions between Western and Chinese approaches to engaging with African governments have been well documented, but whilst this has mainly been interpreted as a predictor of future conflict, it has also been argued that China’s complex relations with Africa may also result in a brighter future for the continent. Yes, China has exported huge amounts of small arms and light weapons to Africa, many of which have been used in ethnic conflicts that have occurred across the Great Lakes region. Yes, a recent British newspaper article accused the Chinese military of transferring arms to Zimbabwean security services in direct barter for diamonds. And yes, Beijing’s commitment to a policy of non-interference in Africa can be seen as ‘ethically challenged.’ Despite these negatives, however, China has a vested interest in the resolution of local conflicts where natural resources are often fiercely contested between warring parties. China’s leaders are, for instance, concerned about tensions between North and South Sudan , which re-emerged after Juba’s recent secession from Khartoum. (Much of Sudan’s oil is located in the border region between the North and the South.) Saferworld also reports that several Chinese scholars argue that, in recent years, China has become more flexible in its interpretation of non-interference and is willing to take a more active diplomatic role in the resolution of conflicts. (It has, for example, deployed peacekeepers, to Côte d’Ivoire, Liberia and a number of other conflict zones in Africa.) While this overall development is welcomed in many quarters, Saferworld ultimately cautions that China’s bilateral influence should not be overemphasized: it cannot magically solve conflicts alone.

Saferworld’s report – as critical as it is towards many Chinese policies in Africa – suggests that there are signs that Beijing may be forced (if not prepared) to take a more active and responsible role with regard to its engagement with African countries. So, it seems that both China and the West share a common interest in promoting peace, security and development throughout Africa. Saferworld also contends that at such a critical juncture in Africa’s history, the management of the relations between all external and internal actors will greatly determine future prospects for the continent’s peace and development. Put another way, Saferworld’s report argues that everyone involved here can choose cooperation over an escalation of geopolitical conflict, if they want to.

Conclusion

Despite apparent differences of opinion regarding the prospect of Africa becoming the theater for a ‘new Great Game’, the articles under consideration today nevertheless have a lot in a common. There is an acknowledgement, for example, that geopolitical competition on the African continent has increased. And underpinning this competition is the desire to obtain and safeguard access to Africa’s natural resources. The authors also appear to acknowledge that “geographical causation” is a major driver of foreign powers’ strategic calculations regarding Africa. China does not make a secret of the fact that it is interested in improving trade relations to meet its demand for natural resources. Likewise, most Western governments do not engage with Africa simply because they want to promote human rights and good governance. Instead, the West promotes these standards because they also share the same cluster of geopolitical interests in Africa as China.

But will these various acknowledgements result in a ‘new Great Game’ sweeping across the African continent? Despite the geopolitical frictions at play here, needs are not necessarily destiny. The common enemy of Islamic extremism and the tacit acknowledgement that intra-state conflict limits economic development closer to home may provide the foundations for closer cooperation. In the case of Africa, geopolitical analysis remains relevant not necessarily because of its predictive qualities, but because of its explanatory value. Geopolitics explains why the continent has been of growing strategic relevance in recent years, if not necessarily how this is happening.

Bahrain: Pretext for Establishment of a Missile Defense Shield

The illusionary threat of Iran, forged to instill fear among the Persian Gulf littoral states, may eventually backfire if those states view the current security arrangements as ineffective in protecting them from the “Iran threat”.

http://irdiplomacy.ir/en/news/71/bodyView/18345/Bahrain:.Pretext.for.Establishment.of.a.Missile.Defense.Shield.html

By: Makan Eidypour

During 1960s and 1970s, the missile industry underwent a great leap across the world, as the leading powers mastered the knowhow to use missiles as carriers of nuclear warheads and bombs. Earlier, the militaries relied on their air forces to carry nuclear bombs but with the revolutionary breakthrough, they could not be countered by a similar device. As the new military prodigy established its place in the nuclear arrangements, the issue of its containment came to the fore: novel ideas such as Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” and the Missile Defense Shield emerged in response to calls for missile containment as a means to render ineffective the nuclear deterrence strategy.

The missile defense shield was in favor up until the dissolution of the Soviet Union, when it came under doubt due to its high expense. At the outset of the 21st century, in which China and Russia have resurged as globally powerful, nuclear deterrence has been revived as a defense strategy and with Iran’s progress in missile technology, missile containment resurfaces as a top priority in the US defense doctrine. In recent years, there have been great markets for a missile defense shield in the region, and the Persian Gulf Arab countries have shown a particular thirst to purchase military hardware. This trend can be analyzed from two dimensions, i.e. economic and political. Economically speaking, the missile industry has proved quite a lucrative business for the United States. From the political aspect, by selling these weapons and touting their function, the US provides Arab countries with peace of mind to prevent them from devising independent domestic plans. Being in need of long-term security due to their low defense capabilities and insignificant involvement in the regional security arrangements, the Persian Gulf countries unrealistically assume that they are threatened by the Iran’s missile power, as the country is increasingly demonized by the US. However, the establishment of a missile defense shield in the Middle East is not a new development: a few years ago, the UAE requested that Washington incorporate it in an international missile defense structure.

Bahrain: just a pretext

Bahrain –the would-be-host of the shield- is a mere pretext for the US to contain Iran. If the country turns into a hotspot for Sunni and Shi’a leaders, deploying the shield would make some sense. But it has never been so, as Bahrain does not share any borders with Iran and the US Navy is already patrolling the Persian Gulf. Thus, no direct involvement is needed on the part of Washington to defend Bahrain. The issue should be analyzed in the framework of a security dilemma and its domino regional effect: the US has always tried to resolve its regional concerns through stifling regional states’ quest for self-sufficiency. The country has tried to cover up Israel’s threats through entertaining Egypt, Syria and even Jordan with weapons or political inculcation. The same is true of the Persian Gulf countries: the illusionary threat of Iran, forged to instill fear among the Persian Gulf littoral states, may eventually backfire if those states view the current security arrangements as ineffective in protecting them from the “Iran threat”, and they may embark on their domestic military nuclear projects to curb Tehran.

* Makan Eidypour is a strategic affairs expert.
28 Monday November 2011 20:9

Will Egypt Turn into Another Libya

There are scenarios written for Egypt in case of botched power transition and election.

http://irdiplomacy.ir/en/news/68/bodyView/18506/Will.Egypt.Turn.into.Another.Libya.html

By: Saad Idris

The bloody turnover of Al-Tahrir Square was an end to the brutal suppression in the wake of the million-strong rallies against Husni Mubarak. Those rallies were in vain, thought many of the people, as one dictator had been replaced by another. The recent gatherings in Al-Tahrir were evidence that there has been no change in the violent behavior of the State. Citizens still persist in their demands: the military should relinquish power and draft a timetable for the presidential election. In the meantime, the Egyptians are calling for alterations in the constitution in a fashion which precludes the rise of another dictator, calls not met by the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (SCAF) to date. Stern in their demands, Egypt’s citizens have severely opposed the extension of rule of the council until April. They also do not stand for the modifications proposed by Deputy PM Ali Salmi, approved by SCAF Deputy Head Lieutenant General Sami Anan. They have strongly rejected any prescriptions by the Egyptian military regarding Egypt’s political future or any privileges they demand beyond the observation of the national parliament or the council.

Nevertheless, it is not only the delay in calling off the interim rule of the council but also the parliamentary election that matters: it is not clear how it will be held. Looking at Egyptian society, we see the culturati and the political elite who are trying to soothe the anger of the masses. It is not unlikely that the unrivalled Islamists will win the majority of the parliamentary seats. Nonetheless, the most detrimental outcome would be the confrontation of the people and the army, something that has never happened even in the time of Mubarak. Such an incident may trigger a saga like the Libyan blood-soaked scenario, or Syria’s turbulent situation. Some American analysts try to portray Egypt as a country prone to civil war where all capacities should be used to put off a battle. For example, Foreign Policy magazine writes that the presence of millions of Egyptian people last Friday transmitted an important message to the military council that they should not postpone transferring power to civilian rule, they should shut down trials in military courts and annul the state of emergency. It continues that the existing political responses show that Islamists will be the winners of the elections, an occurrence that widens the gap among political parties. The New York Times regards the million-strong presence as the biggest warning to the transitional council since the overthrow of Mubarak’s regime. The Wall Street Journal also called the rally as an end to the alliance between the Islamists and the SCAF.

If the trials of former government’s officials, the law bidding dismissal of the former regime’s political officials and the economic and social crises are added to the blackout the government has imposed, it becomes clear that the upcoming election could be different from what we expected and will fail to fulfill the promises made. Prolongation of this situation is quite dangerous, as it widens the gap between the supporters of the army and the pro-civil rule supporters who rule out any military intervention in politics, plunging the country into a civil war. However, both sides are afraid of Egypt turning into another Libya and are aware of the boundaries.

Regrettably, the Americans and Israelis are trying to indoctrinate the danger of the military or Islamists’ rise to power. CFR member Steven Cook was quoted in the Washington Times as saying that the military council has failed to meet the demands of the al-Tahrir protestors. Military affairs analyst Alex Fischman writes in Yediot Ahronot that the Egyptian top brass are aware that the greatest threat to Egypt is neither economic collapse nor security issues in the Sinai region, but radical Islamism. Fischman compares Egypt to a wounded dinosaur trapped in a net and unable to rescue itself. He adds that the central government in Egypt is on the verge of collapse and the once-spiritual leader of the Sunni world is on the decline.

These are not random remarks, but efforts trying to portray Egypt as a country teetering on the brink of explosion and civil war. There may be a scenario written for Egypt to be performed in case power transition from the SCAF to the civil politicians, and timely elections, do not take place.

* Saad Idris is head of the [Persian] Gulf and Iran Studies unit at Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies and a columnist for the Egyptian al-Ahram Daily.

1 Thursday December 2011 12:51

STATEMENT BY SENATORS McCAIN AND GRAHAM ON PAKISTAN

December 5, 2011




Washington, D.C. -- U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today released the following statement on Pakistan:


“We fully appreciate the importance of U.S. relations with Pakistan, which we believe can serve U.S. national security interests. The cross-border air action that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers was unfortunate and unintentional, and we are confident that the investigation being conducted by NATO and the U.S. military will clarify the circumstances of this terrible tragedy. We join the President and our colleagues in once again expressing our deep condolences to those who lost loved ones.


“The Pakistani government’s response to these events, however, has been deeply troubling and has added to the continued deterioration of our relationship. In recent days, the government has prevented NATO supplies from entering Afghanistan through Pakistan. It has ordered U.S. intelligence officers to leave the country and disrupted their work on important national security matters. And it has boycotted an international conference in Bonn, Germany that supports peace in Afghanistan.


“If these actions were not concerning enough, there were reports just this morning that the Pakistani government has allegedly decided to suspend all bilateral agreements related to counter terrorism, as part of a broader review of Pakistan’s political, diplomatic, and military relations with the United States. Such steps by the Pakistani government would mark a new low for our relationship.


“The United States has been incredibly patient with Pakistan. And we have been so despite certain undeniable and deeply disturbing facts. Most importantly, Pakistani army and intelligence officials continue to support the Haqqani Network and other terrorist groups in Pakistan that are killing U.S. troops in Afghanistan, and the vast majority of the material used to make improvised explosive devices used against U.S. forces in Afghanistan originates from two fertilizer factories inside Pakistan.


“The time has come for the United States to fully review its relations with Pakistan. We must assess the nature and levels of our support for Pakistan. In particular, all options regarding U.S. security and economic assistance to Pakistan must be on the table, including substantial reductions and stricter standards for performance. Most of all, U.S. policy toward Pakistan must proceed from the realistic understanding that certain actions of Pakistan’s military are contributing to the death and injury of our men and women in the military and jeopardizing our national security interests.


“In light of what could be an entirely new relationship with Pakistan, the United States and our allies must develop contingency plans to ensure the continued logistical support necessary for our military operations in Afghanistan.”



http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=10974d5c-9375-faca-6f92-4026304d9334

Video of my conversation with Mark Tully (BBC correspondent) on my book BEING DIFFERENT

http://beingdifferentbook.com/mark-tully/ The above video is a truly remarkable and unusual one. Noted BBC correspondent, Mark Tully, and I recent held a conversation on my new book.Among all the videos made during my recent India tour, this is my favorite one, because it brings out many deep issues that are seldom discussed in the public. Mark is extremely open minded, candid, and is highly appreciated by Indians as a great admirer of India and Hinduism. Both sides very courageously discuss key differences between his Christian faith and my Hindu faith. Throughout the 1.5 hour conversation/debate, he strives to show the similarity between the two faiths. But I continue to present examples of differences in some very specific articles of faith, and by the end it becomes clear that the following three items are irreconcilable: Jesus' historical uniqueness on the Christian side and the multiplicity of avatars on the Hindu side cannot be reconciled. This is a key Christian incompatibility with Vaishnavism. (It is also an incompatible with Shaivite and Shakta notions of our direct access of divinity without recourse to any historical event.) Shakti cannot be equated with Christianity's notion of Holy Spirit. If Christianity were to accept shakti in the genuine Hindu sense as being the same thing as Holy Spirit, that would lead to the Christian acceptance of all Hindu deities, and hence pose "the threat of polytheism" to Christianity. The Hindu notion of self as sat-chit-ananda is not acceptable to Christianity as it would violate the separation of God/souls and the relationship between them. While popular rhetorec likes to equate these, a serious examination of philosophy shows that they are best kept separate. There are many other irreducible differences also, but these three come out clearly in this intense discussion, despite sincere attempts by Mark to accommodate one worldview into the other without distortion. This outcome supports the thesis of my book that differences are not to be wished away but rather respected. Just as the cosmos is built on differences of all kinds, so also diverse civilizations have different faiths that need to engage one another with mutual respect. My book elaborate these points in detail and shows that discomfort with difference is a problem that leads to conflict and homogeneity. IMMEDIATE SHIPMENT OF THE BOOK IS AVAILABLE: Many people are writing that they have not received the book which they have ordered. The problem is that Amazon has numerous third party sellers of the book who DO NOT HAVE IT IN STOCK IN USA. Infinity Foundation has several thousand copies in stock in New jersey with same day shipment. So please place your order by visiting: http://beingdifferentbook.com/ We have recently discounted it to $19.

BREAKTHROUGH IN TERROR INVESTIGATION: NEED FOR CAUTION

B.RAMAN

The recent claims by the Delhi Police of a breakthrough in the investigation of three terror strikes of last year in Pune (February 2010), Bengaluru (April,2010) and Delhi (September 2010)speak well of their diligence in pursuing the investigation despite the absence of any initial clues of a substantive nature.

2. The long time taken by them for collecting evidence and making the initial arrests of six Muslims---- five of Bihar and one from Pakistan--- would indicate painstaking efforts by the Delhi Police to ensure that they kept an open mind during the investigation and refrained from jumping to premature conclusions that might be proved wrong as had happened in the case of the Malegaon and Hyderabad blasts between 2006 and 2008.

3. It seems to be the assessment of the Delhi Police that the blasts in which they have claimed a break-through were carried out by the Indian Mujahideen (IM), which was responsible for a series of blasts in different cities, including Delhi, in 2007 and 2008.

4. While complimenting the Delhi Police for the breakthrough claimed by them, one has to sound a word of caution and cite some factors which don’t click. Firstly, the version of the Pune blast as now given out by the Delhi Police does not tally with that earlier given out by the Maharashtra Police. How does one reconcile the contradictions?

5.Secondly, the IM had generally used well-fabricated and well-timed improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in 2007 and 2008 except those in Bengaluru in 2008 which did not have the lethality expected of them due to defective fabrication. In the three cases for which a breakthrough has now been claimed, a kichdi (hotch-potch) of modus-operandi (MO) seems to have been used---a sophisticated IED in Pune, somewhat crude IEDs in Bengaluru and an IED plus a hand-held weapon in Delhi.This kichdi does not tally with past MO of the older vintage of the IM.

6. Thirdly,the older vintage of the IM always used to come out with authentic sounding claims of responsibility with detailed explanations of what provoked them to carry out the attacks. We haven’t had any such claims in respect of the strikes in which the Delhi Police have claimed a break-through. Ilyas Kashmiri, the Pakistani associated with Al Qaeda, did make a claim in respect of the Pune blast, but his claim remained unauthenticated.

7.It is quite possible that a new vintage of IM has been in action----with the same ideological inspiration and same grievances as the earlier one of 2007-08, but with a lack of uniformity in its skills and MO. It is important to go deeper into it and avoid hasty conclusions and make hasty claims. ( 8-12-11)

( The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai, and Associate of the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.comTwitter: @SORBONNE75)

FDI in retail: Back to Champaran

Sandhya Jain
06 Dec 2011

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2083


A profit-sucking corporate food chain; contract farming and mono-cultivations displacing crop diversity; farmers reduced to bonded labour of 21st century clones of the East India Company – such will be the face of Indian agriculture if we let the UPA impose the disastrous policy of FDI in retail.

It is unbelievable that a regime could be so divorced from history as to foist upon its people the sufferings that blighted the lives of Champaran (Bihar) farmers barely a century ago, when the British forced them to grow indigo instead of food crops, and monopolized the production, marketing and profits of the expensive dye.

This dictating of the terms of ‘free trade’ is the essence of colonialism, and the world is once again facing this menace. Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi lost his power and his life only because he wouldn’t sell his nation’s oil at the price determined by western multinationals in order to maximize their gains at the expense of the Libyan people. Saddam Hussain of Iraq met the same fate for the same reason.

FDI in retail will devastate the Indian economy. There is no merit in the claim that consumers or farmers will benefit from multinationals (or even Indian corporates) establishing monopoly control over the retail sector. Even FDI backers do not claim there will be jobs for the 44 millions of small retailers and hawkers thrown out of business. Anyone who has observed the so-called sunrise industries in the past decade will notice there have been few jobs with salaries and benefits. Instead, thousands of youth across the country were lured to rake in customers and profits for the corporates, in lieu of small incentives, which made the work extremely exploitative and tedious.

There is a chant about ‘elimination of middlemen,’ as if that mystically translates into value addition and lower prices, and as though middlemen performed no legitimate role in garnering remote farm produce to city tables. It is a canard that large corporates alone can bring better technology and inputs through contract farming; how much did the old zamindars invest in agriculture, and what did they leave the farmer? Equally specious is the argument that corporates will reduce wastage by investing in infrastructure; they will build cold storages to enhance monopoly control over national food supply. What we need is village level cold storages, run by solar power or other forms of alternate energy to make them viable.

Instead we get gigantic duplicity. First the state needlessly monopolizes everything in the name of public good, giving us decades of wasted growth, corruption, et al. Then it mindlessly sells huge public assets at throwaway prices – in the name of ‘efficiency’. But when the crony capitalists say they can’t run the electricity grid or the airlines despite getting the best routes at the expense of the national carrier, they are not re-nationalised, or allowed to wither away. Instead, the government tries to put public money into their pockets. The economy has become a ping-pong ball between Government and Corporates.

Government knows FDI in retail will give multinationals direct access to local farmers, and put farmers at the mercy of MNCs which will get control over the food chain. The MNCs will dictate terms of contract farming, supposedly to guarantee purchase of farm produce and ensure quality. Actually, they will impose ‘exclusive’ contracts to debar farmers from selling to other agencies [bonded, not free trade], and acquire monopoly control over the entire produce at prices consistent with their profit margins. In Jaipur, a multinational firm clinched a lucrative deal with 250 egg wholesalers for supply of 5 lakh eggs daily, with the stipulation that they no longer sell eggs to retailers. This puts the humble hawkers who sell eggs at street corners out of business, while doubling the price of eggs at large malls.

Similarly, ‘quality control’ gives MNCs the right to reject the produce. More dangerously, it gives them the right to dictate the seed, crop, fertilizer inputs, etc. Thus they can, Champaran-style, force farmers to switch from food to cash crops, and by dictating the fertilizer or pesticide, ruin the fertility of the fields.

Several studies have shown that the switch to cash crops enhances the risk to the farmer (recall the cotton farmer suicides), while the need to buy their own food affects the family’s nutritional standards. Also, over time, corporates tend to favour certain types of crops to maintain commercial viability; this leads to a preference for staples like rice and wheat and shunning of nutritious grains like ragi, maize, millet, bajra, which affects crop diversity.

An aspect of intrusive farming is the credit extended to farmers by MNCs, the terms of which could aggravate default and farmer suicides. FDI in retail allows MNCs to transfer all risk of production to the unprotected small farmer, while keeping a tight control over profits. This could cause virtual bondage, as happened to opium farmers under the British Raj.

A corollary to the emphasis on corporate culture as the growth engine of the economy is disrespect for street hawkers who are integral to the urban food chain. Even as governments bend backwards to provide real estate to large corporates, or to housing projects for the rich or middle class, there is icy indifference to the poor. This manifests in a growing disinterest in providing housing for the poor, and a cussed determination to disallow street hawkers from selling their wares. Drives to destroy their produce by flinging it on the street or carting it away in municipal vans are relentless; recently hawkers have been driven away from Sarojini Nagar, Delhi, where they were so intrinsic to the shopping experience that regulars did not know what to do without them.

To clinch the argument about FDI and farm incomes, consider that until 1950, the average American farmer earned nearly 70 percent of every dollar spent on food. In 2005, this declined to 3 to 4 percent, though it should logically have risen with the elimination of middlemen. Only, the large corporates purged the chain of intermediaries and creamed off all their profits; the farmer remained at the bottom of the pile. FDI in retail can only help Western multinationals that have saturated their profits in their existing turfs. But why is the Indian government willing to push the farmer and retailer into the whirlwind?


The author is Editor, www.vijayvaani.com

China’s Dam Frenzy

Posted on December 3, 2011

China is the world's most "dammed" country, yet its future is drying up.

Striking facts:

China boasts more dams than the rest of the world combined.
Before the Communists came to power in 1949, there were only 22 dams of any significant size in China. But now China has more than half of the world’s almost 50,000 large dams.

This feat means that China has completed on average at least one large dam per day since 1949. If dams of all sizes are counted, the number in China surpasses 85,000.
According to Wen Jiabao, China has relocated a total of 22.9 million citizens since 1949 to make way for water projects. So, by official count alone, 1,035 citizens on average have been forcibly evicted daily in the past 62 years for water projects.
China is also the global leader in exporting dams. Its state-run companies today are building more dams overseas than the other international dam builders put together.
Brahma Chellaney

Internationally syndicated column by Project Syndicate

China’s frenzied dam-building hit a wall recently in Burma (Myanmar), where the government’s bold decision to halt a controversial Chinese-led dam project helped to ease the path to the first visit by a US secretary of state to that country in more than a half-century.

The now-stalled $3.6 billion Myitsone Dam, located at the headwaters of Burma’s largest river, the Irrawaddy, was designed to pump electricity exclusively into China’s power grid, despite the fact that Burma suffers daily power outages. The State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of China’s State Council hailed Myitsone as a model overseas project serving Chinese interests. The Burmese decision thus shocked China’s government, which had begun treating Burma as a reliable client state (one where it still has significant interests, including the ongoing construction of a multibillion-dollar oil and natural-gas pipeline).

Despite that setback, China remains the world’s biggest dam builder at home and abroad. Indeed, no country in history has built more dams than China, which boasts more dams than the rest of the world combined.

Before the Communists came to power in 1949, China had only 22 dams of any significant size. Now the country has more than half of the world’s roughly 50,000 large dams, defined as having a height of at least 15 meters, or a storage capacity of more than three million cubic meters. Thus, China has completed, on average, at least one large dam per day since 1949. If dams of all sizes are counted, China’s total surpasses 85,000.

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, China’s dams had the capacity to store 562.4 cubic kilometers of water in 2005, or 20% of the country’s total renewable water resources. Since then, China has built scores of new dams, including the world’s largest: the Three Gorges Dam on the Yangtze River.

China is also the global leader in exporting dams. Its state-run companies are building more dams overseas than all other international dam builders put together. Thirty-seven Chinese financial and corporate entities are involved in more than 100 major dam projects in the developing world. Some of these entities are very large and have multiple subsidiaries. For instance, Sinohydro Corporation — the world’s largest hydroelectric company — boasts 59 overseas branches.

Both the profit motive and a diplomatic effort to showcase its engineering prowess drive China’s overseas dam-building efforts. China’s declared policy of “noninterference in domestic affairs” actually serves as a virtual license to pursue dam projects that flood lands and forcibly uproot people — including, as with Myitsone, ethnic minorities — in other countries. But it is doing the same at home by shifting its focus from dam-saturated internal rivers to the international rivers that originate in the Tibetan plateau, Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, and Manchuria.

China contends that its role as the global leader in exporting dams has created a “win-win” situation for host countries and its own companies. But evidence from a number of project sites shows that the dams are exacting a serious environmental toll on those hosts.

As a result, the overseas projects often serve to inflame anti-Chinese sentiment, reflected in grassroots protests at several sites in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Moreover, by using a Chinese workforce to build dams and other projects abroad — a practice that runs counter to its own “localization” requirement, adopted in 2006 — China reinforces a perception that it is engaged in exploitative practices.

As the world’s most dammed country, China is already the largest producer of hydropower globally, with a generating capacity of more than 170 gigawatts. Yet ambitious plans to boost its hydro-generating capacity significantly by damming international rivers have embroiled the country in water disputes with most neighbors, even North Korea.

More broadly, China’s dam-building passion has spawned two key developments. First, Chinese companies now dominate the global hydropower-equipment export market. Sinohydro alone, having eclipsed Western equipment suppliers like ABB, Alstom, General Electric, and Siemens, claims to control half the market.

Second, the state-run hydropower industry’s growing clout within China has led the government to campaign aggressively for overseas dam projects by offering low-interest loans to other governments. At home, it recently unveiled a mammoth new $635 billion investment program in water infrastructure over the next decade, more than a third of which will be channeled into building dams, reservoirs, and other supply structures.

China’s over-damming of rivers and its inter-river and inter-basin water transfers have already wreaked havoc on natural ecosystems, causing river fragmentation and depletion and promoting groundwater exploitation beyond the natural replenishment capacity.

The social costs have been even higher, a fact reflected in Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s stunning admission in 2007 that, since 1949, China has relocated a total of 22.9 million Chinese to make way for water projects — a figure larger than the populations of Australia, Romania, or Chile. Since then, another 350,000 residents — mostly poor villagers — have been uprooted.

So, by official count alone, 1,035 citizens on average have been forcibly evicted for water projects every day for more than six decades. With China now increasingly damming transnational rivers such as the Mekong, Salween, Brahmaputra, Irtysh, Illy, and Amur, the new projects threaten to “export” the serious degradation haunting China’s internal rivers to those rivers. The time has come to exert concerted external pressure on China to rein in its dam frenzy and embrace international environmental standards.

Brahma Chellaney, Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research, is the author of Asian Juggernaut and the newly released Water: Asia’s New Battleground.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.
www.project-syndicate.org

India Taiwan Strategic Economic Partnership

by Dr. Adityanjee
http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=11685

While the Government of India made a botched and controversial move to open the $450 billion Indian retail sector for 51 % FDI from multi-brand retail transnational corporations, the nation is sadly missing out on opportunity for serious investment into her crumbling infrastructure. Taiwan is a cash-surplus economy and a member in good standing of the World Trade Organization. Taiwan is also a democracy with the rule of common law and a respect for human rights. While India does not have formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it does have commercial relations. There was scant interaction between India and Taiwan from 1949 to 1995 owing to India's abnormal fear of Chinese over-reaction. China, under its “One China Policy” has opposed to Taiwan having any kind of independent relations with any country as it considers Taiwan a renegade province. Bilateral relations got some momentum from 1995 when trade representative offices of either country were set up in Delhi and Taipei. Owing to this historic absence of political and diplomatic relations, bilateral trade between India and Taiwan is too small. It stood at only $6.47 billion in 2010 accounting for mere 1.2% of Taiwan's total foreign trade. Taiwanese investment in India from 2001 through 2010 accounted for just 0.04% of Taiwan’s overall outward investment. At the same time, Indian investment in Taiwan amounted to no more than 0.05% of the nation’s total foreign direct investment.

India-Taiwan strategic economic relationship needs to be both deepened and nurtured as both economies are highly compatible and can be mutually complementary to one another in a number of areas. Taiwan’s foreign exchange reserves are still the 4th largest in the world and at the end of October 2011 stood at US$393.327 billion. India has not been very successful in attracting FDI from China, Japan and Russia, the other three top cash surplus countries. There is no existing security threat to India from Taiwan and hence investment of “clean capital” from Taiwan should be acceptable to India without the risk of industrial, defense & strategic espionage, theft of trade secrets or potential loss of intellectual property rights. India will have to take bold diplomatic steps in attracting Taiwanese government and private businesses to favor India while making investment decisions.

The Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou of the Kuomintang Nationalist Party (KMT) faces a serious re-election challenge from the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Tsai Ing-wen on 14th January of 2012. The run-up to the 2012 election has been complicated by the entry of the veteran politician, People First Party (PFP) chairman James Soong, who was expelled from the Kuomintang a decade ago. If the pro-mainland China votes are split between Ma and Soong in a trilateral contest, the likely beneficiary would be the DPP candidate Tsai. Incidentally the same outcome had happened in year 2000 presidential elections when Soong ran as an independent candidate and finished just behind the winner Chen Shui-bian of the DPP relegating the KMT to third position. In the last Taiwanese presidential elections in 2008 which brought the Kuomintang Nationalist Party (KMT) back to power, President Ma Ying-jeou had won by 58 per cent of the votes against the 42 per cent obtained by the then ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate, Frank Hsieh. Taiwanese voters at that time were more concerned with corruption scandals during the eight years of DPP rule under the former President Chen Shui-bian who is currently in prison. Chen Shui-bian had restricted Taiwanese investment in China during his eight year rule in order to reduce the island's dependence on its giant and expansionist neighbor. Clearly, Ma has not been able to bridge the cross-straits geopolitical differences and no peace treaty has been signed during his controversial tenure. Ma is considered a trojan horse for the communist China. Taiwanese businessmen already have invested US$150 billion in the mainland China. If Ma is defeated and the DPP again comes to power, there is a possibility of Taiwanese fiscal disinvestment in view of changed geopolitical perception of China. If there is a flight of Taiwanese capital from China following the January 2012 Taiwanese presidential elections, India should strategically prepare herself as the most likely destination for the freed-up Taiwanese capital to be invested in Indian infra-structure.

Taiwanese investment in India is very low at $1 billion. The investment of 70 Taiwanese companies in India is under 0.3 per cent of Taiwanese investment in China. The India-Taiwan trade target is 10 billion dollars by 2013-2015 compared to the 60 billion dollar India-China bilateral trade in 2010. Taiwanese investment in India has been limited to the manufacturing and technology sectors and most of this investment has been made in the state of Tamil Nadu. India's private sector needs to explore ways as to how Taiwanese capital could be tapped in Indo-Taiwanese business joint ventures. Indian IT giants can explore joint-ventures between Indian High-tech sector and the Taiwanese hardware companies. In a hypothetical scenario, if Ma is defeated and DPP’s Tsai is elected new President of Taiwan, one of the fall-outs will be Taiwanese disinvestment of US$150 billion from the Peoples Republic of China. Should this become a reality India needs to exploit that opportunity for investments into its physical infra-structure that needs approximately US$400 billion of new investment. Taiwan has also toyed with the idea of starting a new Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF) or add more money to its existing executive development fund. This will pave the way for Taiwanese government investment in India. Though not generally known, Taiwanese businessmen have complained about arrogant attitude of their mainland business partners from the PRC who control their investment capital using dubious and deceptive business and legal practices.

The processed food industry is a major component of the Taiwanese economy. In 2009, this sector posted revenues of $17 billion. In fact, four of the top 10 food companies in China are Taiwanese. Taiwanese agricultural technology isn't capital intensive, it focuses on small efficiencies to boost productivity. Taiwan is a leader in the food processing sector and can help India modernize our capacity in the food processing this sector. India should ask for transfer of food processing technologies from Taiwan and joint collaboration in research and development. Taiwan has made heavy fiscal investments in the processed food sector in China. Taiwanese should be thinking of diversifying from China to India. Taiwan imports seafood worth US $ 500 million annually from India and is keen to import seafood from the state of Orissa. Taiwan is also interested in investing in cold storage, refrigeration and seafood processing to increase the Indian seafood export potential. Other areas for Taiwanese investment include production of instant noodles and cooking oils.

A second “Green Revolution” in India would be possible only through industrialization of the agricultural produce and agro-business in India. Taiwan can become the catalyzing agent that can help India feed the world. Indian farmers still fail to get right compensation for their produce owing to lack of proper ware-housing and cold storage facilities. Taiwan has organized retail stores which serve not only to procure and market products but also as places where consumers can deliver goods, buy tickets and pay utility bills. This Taiwanese retailing model is suitable for India's vast rural areas. Instead of welcoming multi-brand retail corporations, India should on a limited scale invite Taiwanese investments. This would reduce food inflation without loss of millions of jobs in small, family owned retail stores in India.

Taiwan currently hosts the APEC SME (small and medium enterprises) crisis management center (SCMC). Indian businesses would benefit immensely from linkages and collaboration with Taiwan’s robust small and medium enterprises. Taiwan revolutionized the whole concept of contract manufacturing - a product is broken down into many smaller assemblies which are manufactured separately at independent locations before being reassembled. At each stage, manufacturing is optimized, thereby, reducing the overall cost of production. One very important lesson for India would be how to develop a globally competitive manufacturing industry. As the Chinese factories close down owing to increasing labor costs and recession in the West, Indian factories can start manufacturing in the global chain with Taiwanese investment in joint ventures.

Over 30,000 Taiwanese Buddhist tourists visited India in 2010. Majority of them went to Bihar to visit Bodh Gaya & Sarnath. Indian tourism sector can get a tremendous boost if we can promote the Buddhism and other Indic religious tourism circuits to the cash-surplus Taiwanese tourists analogous to the Japanese tourists. Other religious tourist destinations like Karnataka, Orissa and Tamil Nadu could be attractive to Taiwanese religious tourists. Indian travel and hospitality industry must aggressively court Taiwanese tourists. For the Taiwanese nation, India is truly incredible in terms of its diversity, culture and languages. There are many Indian dance troupes in Taiwan promoted and staffed by locals who perform Odissi, Bharatanatyam and Kathak.

Taiwanese are also interested in Yoga and meditation that is associated with India. Indian tourism sector needs to leverage the "soft power" of India and her civilizational assets in forging strong people to people as well as economic, and mercantile relationships with Taiwan. Let us not forget that China is trying to control India's soft power by launching the World Buddhist Forum. China's attempts to control the Buddhism tourist circuit include offering investments in Nepal's Lumbini project; offering seed money for India's Nalanda University revival project and by trying to dictate to India about hosting of the pan-Buddhist conference by Asoka Mission. Higher education is another area where joint collaboration could be beneficial mutually. Indian students are willing to go anywhere if there is an opportunity for excellent international education followed by significant job potential. Taiwan can offer scholarships to Indian students for vocational and advanced technical education. Bilateral student exchange programs can help in the areas of linguistics, liberal arts, culture, and educational technologies.

With a stronger India-Taiwan strategic economic partnership, India can harvest secondary benefits. India is not a member of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation or the APEC. APEC has 21 members currently. Both China and Taiwan simultaneously joined the APEC at the same time along with Hong Kong on 12-14th November 1991. Expansion of membership in APEC is frozen on grounds of procedural objections from China. The 9th APEC Ministerial meeting had laid down guidelines for APEC membership that included geographical location in the Asia-pacific Region; broad based economic linkages with other APEC members in terms of size and share; significant integration with the world economy, and broad liberalization and deregulation policies designed to encourage external linkages. India meets all these criteria without any doubt and must be invited to the APEC membership. If direct access is not coming India will have to use a crowbar to secure access to the APEC markets.

In order for India to participate in the trade opportunities in the APEC, having an economic foot-hold in Taiwan would be strategically helpful for India’s trade and mercantile interests in this globalized world. Even if India acquires indirect access to APEC, it can be transformed eventually into Indo-Pacific Economic Cooperation by 2020 when the APEC attempts to realize its Bogor goals, namely the establishment of the free trade area of the Asia-Pacific (now re-characterized as the Indo-Pacific), promising to achieve free and open trade and investment in APEC. India, like Peoples’ Republic of China has not been invited to join the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free trade area. Taiwan is a member of the proposed TPP. Whereas there is bilateral Taiwan-China business, economic and mercantile relationship allowing People’s Republic of China to participate indirectly in the TPP process; India does not have that luxury. Building a strategic economic partnership with Taiwan gives India access to TPP block of countries.

After two years of international arrogance, China is very defensive internationally having lost to India in the IMF elections by a majority of 107 to 77. China is feeling the international heat in the South China Sea and in the recently concluded East Asian Cooperation (EAC) meeting in Bali, Indonesia 15 out of the 18 countries singled out China for its hegemonic tactics in South China Sea. India wisely chose not to rake the issue in the Bali meeting. However, India strongly held her ground stating that she has strong economic interests in the South China Sea that she will not forego her economic interests. China is also miffed at strong resurgence of the US interest into the Asia-Pacific region in the form of TPP from which China has been excluded. China will also undergo transfer of power in 2012 with a new CCP leadership team that may not be prepared to open yet another front with India on latter’s economic relationship with Taiwan.

China continues to deepen its all-weather relationship with Pakistan and has PLA presence in the POK. There is no reason for the Government of India to listen to the likes of MK Bhadrakumar, BS Raghavan and N. Rams from the Planet of the Panda Huggers. Nor is there any reason for the Government of India to worry about possible Chinese economic retaliation if India were to develop deeper strategic economic partnership with Taiwan. India-China bilateral trade currently is $60 billion and is heavily in favor of China. China would be the loser if takes retaliatory measures. It would risk losing an emerging market of prosperous Indian middle class at a time when the purchasing power of the US and Euro-zone consumers is going down.

China has strong economic relationship with Taiwan which has been institutionalized for more than two decades in the form of Taiwan Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) set up in 1990; and the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARTS) set up in China in 1991. In June 2011 China and Taiwan signed the Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement. Both these countries had traded indirectly through Hong Kong route and other third parties prior to establishment of direct commercial and trade relationships. If China can accept FDI from Taiwan and trade directly with Taiwan, so should India. If India can attract flow of "clean" capital without "geopolitical" strings attached. It will be welcomed by Taiwan which currently has surplus of it. It will be a win-win game for both India and Taiwan. Taiwan will get a good and trust-worthy economic partner with rule of law in lieu of China, should Taiwanese businessman decide to disinvest from China.

Taiwan is a ripe candidate for India to do business with. Taking the overall geopolitical situation while China is on the defensive, time has come now for further consolidation of India-Taiwan strategic economic partnership (IT-SEP). Further steps to promote bilateral relationship must include development of a CEO's forum, cultural and academic exchanges, bilateral student exchange programs and an annual Ministerial level strategic & economic dialogue alternating in New Delhi and Taipei. IT-SEP can become a reality in the next five years (2012-2017) bringing dividends to both the countries and their economies, if India plays her economic and trade cards well and woos the Taiwanese FDI without bothering about Chinese reaction.


6-Dec-2011