RSS  |  Samvad  |  Vital Infotech Ltd.

December     Last updated: December 30 : 7:00 p.m.

World Window
US new postures towards China

Atul Rawat

THE Reagan Administration began with his now famous speech in which he had called the Soviet Union an evil empire. And the world saw the next eight years the Americans actively promoting first the decline of communism and then the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Now George W. Bush having somehow sailed through the most debatable electoral victory of the last century has made one of his first utterings about China being America's “strategic competitor” rather than “strategic partner”. Whether this observation by the President-elect of the US will also prove as prophetic as the “evil empire” by Reagan will only be known in future but for now it has made the direction clear in which the Republicans wish to steer the United States' foreign policy. A victorious general of the last war as the Secretary of State is a further indicator in the same direction. As if these indicators were not sufficient General Henry H. Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has openly warned that China may emerge as a superpower.

This would mean that the Americans now perceive the Chinese Communist regime as a potential adversary for all military concerns. This would mean a basic policy change from the postulates of “engaging China”. Or would the Americans call it a different way of engagement? The General elaborated: “They are aggressively modernizing their military forces, both conventional and nuclear. At the same time they hope to maintain control of an expanding capitalist-like economy under a communist hierarchy that embraces centralized planning and centralized control.” He further noted that this situation was a contradiction, which could threaten China's internal power and consequently threaten stability throughout the region. The Chinese, who are generally acknowledged as sharp but rough diplomats, have not reacted in their radical style and have taken a posture of “wait and watch”.

The news agency PTI has reported that a senior Chinese diplomat has simply said that the Chinese had taken note of these “hawkish comments” of the President-elect. He further said that they were still optimistic and would adopt a wait-and-watch policy. The Sino-American relations have seen many ups and downs since the landmark Nixon-Mao thaw of early 1970s. But if the new Republican Administration continues the course on which it seems to be starting and continues to perceive China as a “strategic competitor”, and China does emerge as a superpower, then it may lead to a new cold war era. If that happens a whole new set of very complex possibilities and opportunities will open up specially for India. The Indian diplomats should be ready to make use of the best opportunities this new realignment of forces may throw up and also be able to judge negative fall-out. The new Administration will in all probability upset the present status of China vis-a-vis South Asia and we should not be caught napping.

Dealers in Death

thical values and morality are the major victims besides humans in the never-ending race for dollars even in such businesses as medicines. The MNCs that manufacture various drugs are emerging as major dealers of death for their guinea pigs—the lesser humans inhabiting the third world. Without having established the end results, the after effects and actual potency of various drugs, as they should, several MNCs directly begin to experiment their new drugs on people of third world. Sometimes this is done without even the knowledge of the people. No volunteers are requested.

The drugs are just administered with local doctors taken into confidence, which is not always through free and fair means. A case of such research on an unsuspecting indigenous tribe of Latin America came up sometime earlier this year. But now more evidence have surfaced where drugs not properly tested have been administered to even a serious meningitis patient, a Nigerian girl, who died soon after the drug was administered to her. This would have amounted to murder in the US where the multinational company Pfizer was based. But the life is much cheaper in Nigeria where authorities or even doctors could be purchased and experiments on humans could be conducted on unsuspecting patients. The dangerous tests that are not possible in US since the volunteers have to be appraised of all pros and cons of the medicines being tested, are conducted in third world. Recently Washington Post has printed a report on these unethical and immoral activities of the MNCs and has counted low costs, less red tapism and the never-ending need for health care as “important reasons that help the MNCs trap the poor and sick.

The report has said, “At stake are thousands of lives in developing countries and billions of dollars in profits....” Trovan is one such medicine that the American MNC Pfizer launched after a clinical trial of 13,000 patients in 27 countries. The MNC later applied for approval for selling the drug in the United States. When Federal Drug Agency inspector inspected the records of the MNC, it was found that there were many deficiencies in it. This means that many of the findings might have been altered to suit the business interests of the MNC. Later the MNC withdrew the drug after it was discovered that around 140 patients developed liver damage after taking this drug.

The big question is whether the drug was suitable to the 13,000 patients on whom it was tested in developing countries and unsuitable to Americans or, still worse, whether there was any mischief by the company in maintaining the records of those drug tests. In any case why this eyewash of tests at all and use of third world inhabitants as guinea pigs if the motive is not pure and sheer profit? Are these MNCs dealers in drugs or dealers in death?

Polls : Key to Peace

Pyara Lal Bery

Fresh negotiations between Israel and Palestine notwithstanding, chances of any peace agreement seem quite bleak. Amidst fierce fighting that started in September, mid-term election in Israel has taken the center-stage pushing the peace negotiations in the background. In the aftermath of the failure of peace process that ignited a pitched battle between Arab-Muslim militants and Israeli police as well as Jews civil population, elections were inevitable in Israel.

Opposition parties in Israel had blamed Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak for being too soft on Arafat leading the latter to demand more concessions. In this context, elections in Israel have assumed more significance, for it will have serious implications on the future negotiations. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has dubbed disturbances in Palestine and Israel a "war-like" situation. Some countries consider disturbances a fight between the Jews and the Muslims. The conference of Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) held at Doha, the Capital of Qatar, in October declared solidarity with the Muslim population of Palestine. Analysts fear that in these circumstances, a small spark might flare up into a volcano in the region. Now situation in West Asia is very clear. Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Barak with his Labour Party endeavoured his best to make peace agreement with Palestine. During the last elections, Ehud Barak had announced that he would establish peace with Palestine. Also, the election manifesto of Labour Party was very clear on party's stands for making honourable agreement with Palestine. Although the policy of Labour Party envisages that the peace arrangements should be made with Palestine but not at the cost of national interests.

Emerged victorious in the last year's elections, Prime Minister started peace negotiations with Palestine brokered by US President Bill Clinton. The peace policy of Ehud Barak was severely criticised by the opposition parties of Israel according to their domestic political strategy. As the Ehud Barak had formed a coalition government with the support of minor parties, these parties were instigated to sever their relations with the coalition government. But the opposition's efforts did not deter Ehud Barak in pursuing the peace efforts. Although to some extent the propaganda move by rightist parties created an impact.

The leaders asserted that Arabs were not trustworthy as they had betrayed on promises made in the last four decades. Their contention was that the guarantee for peace lies in the fact to become strong to face Arabs. On the other hand, the policy of Ehud Barak is to reach an agreement with Arabs even at the cost of handing over more land to Arabs, seized during the previous wars. Yasser Arafat, Head of Palestine Administration, took sincere efforts of Ehud Barak as his soft points. Perhaps he had the wrong notion in his mind that Ehud Barak would make agreement at any cost sacrificing his national interest. Evidently the assessment went wrong and Camp David negotiations failed. Palestine pressed for new demands to get control over East Jerusalem where Al Aqsa mosque is situated. This was clearly not acceptable to Israel as Mount Temple and the Wailing Wall, most sacred places of Jews, are also there.

However, Barak had promised to give the right to Muslims to perform their religious rituals without any restrictions. Arafat, making the peace negotiations of Camp David a failure, turned down this proposal. In fact Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak's sincere efforts can be gauged by the ventures he undertook for peace. When the negotiations started in Camp David, there were demonstrations in Israel against him demanding not to make agreement for transferring more land to Palestine. Even the Israeli foreign minister David Levy resigned in protest. Also Knesset of Israel passed a no-confidence motion against Barak for fresh elections. In all these circumstances, Ehud Barak did not back out of making agreement.

It is noteworthy that Israel transferred the control of land of West Bank and Gaza Strip for the establishment of present Palestinian State under the Oslo Agreement of 1992. At the same time, there was an important condition in the agreement that the declaration of independent sovereign state of Palestine would be made after the final agreement. This independent state would be declared with the consent of parties including Israel. But after the failure of Camp David negotiations, Yasser Arafat threatened to announce the independent sovereign state of Palestine unilaterally. Now, he wants to internationalise the issue of the declaration. Israel is deadly against this move of Arafat. Bloodshed in Palestine creates an impression that a large number of Palestinians have been killed in the disturbances and Israel forces are responsible for the act. Nothing could be farther from truth.