All entries for Thursday 29 September 2005

September 29, 2005

Asia Times Letters

Indrajit Basu [India discreet, China bold in oil hunt, Sep 29] makes a fair analysis of the ongoing competition (with the possibility of future collaboration) between India and China over acquiring overseas energy assets. In fact, this whole issue underlines the markedly different nature of the ways in which these countries do business. China can offer [US]$2 billion arbitrarily to clinch an oil deal in Angola, while India can only offer $200 million for a particular railway project. Why? This is because spending of public money in India is vigorously scrutinized by a number of committees, subcommittees and panels before being put to the final debate on the discussion floor of the parliament. Even then the funds are usually categorized, and not free-for-all. China, lacking the desired checking mechanism, can do whatever it wants. Yes, in this particular deal, China's brazen attitude triumphed over India's prudent one – but the kitty has to run out some day. Then what? This is by no means a one-off in the political economy of the China-India story. Consider, for example, the $400 billion non-performing assets stacked up in China's banks vis-a-vis an extremely low NPA ratio for India's banks. Again, this is a case of reckless and unchecked loan-giving by the state-owned banks, as directed by the cadres in Beijing. Contrast that with India, where the finance minister has to criticize the banks for not lending bravely enough.

Getting Worse

The Telegraph, 29.09.2005

Biswarup Sen blames globalization for the decreasing popularity of football and hockey vis-à-vis cricket in India, but his proposition is untenable. The logic of a free market says that if a team were to perform badly in any sport, and not bring in large crowds, the game would not be promoted. From the time India failed to shine in international hockey and football, the numbers following the two games dwindled. Had Indian players been more successful, there would not have been a shortage of sponsors. Sania Mirza or Vishwanathan Anand are popular not because the market arbitrarily chose to support the games they played, at the expense of others.

The need of the hour is to include sports in the mainstream school curriculum. At the moment what goes on in the name of physical education is a farce. To generate interest in sports from a very young age is to plant the seeds of world class sportspersons of the future. Since the state still organizes a number of local and international tournaments both in hockey and football, blaming the government squarely only serves to blur the problem.


Tony Blair's Legacy

India Cause, 28.09.2005

It is all too easy for us to remember Angela Martin’s Baker Tony’s Pizza while gauging the important legacy of Anthony Charles Lynton Blair for this country. Did his pizza “make all the children cry” or did he make most of them smile? For Labour enthusiasts, it is perhaps preferable to look at Gordon Brown’s speech at the Labour Party Conference in Brighton, where he paid “repeated tribute” to Mr Blair for “his achievements in transforming” Britain. The truth, as usual, is somewhere in the middle.

Indeed, Mr Blair was in no mood to harp for his legacy yet, as he gave a very policy-centric speech at the conference on the 27th of September. He dwelt on all major issues- from criminal justice to public services- and re-iterated his party’s commitment to be the “change makers”. A lot of issues are in contention to the determinant of Tony’s legacy- Europe (although both the British adoption of the Europe as well as the constitution seem to have hit a cul de sac), public services, devolution, constitutional reforms (Lords, devolution and electoral system), Iraq and the wider war on terrorism, his ambitious plans for environmental protection and debt relief, among others. Some would even classify London’s winning of the 2012 Olympics bid as a contender.

A few of the “Globalist” visions of Mr Blair have already been discarded. Take climate change for example- America refuses to recognise it as an ongoing phenomenon, and therefore wouldn’t sign the Kyoto Protocol, whereas China and India prefer breakneck economic growth to pollution control. Debt relief hasn’t really made headway despite the recent pledge of $55 billion relief by the World Bank and IMF, as donors insist- correctly, one might add- on better governance and transparency as a precursor to any concessions on that front. Free trade within the EU and the WTO has been continuously professed by Britain, and ignored by France and Germany- so much so that the Hong Kong round of negotiations seem doomed to failure even before the start.

On foreign policy, whether one agrees on the Iraq war or not, consensus is fast emerging that the handling of the post-war situation has been disastrous at best. Violent insurgency in the “Sunni triangle” continues, and even in the relatively quiet southern city of Basra, a judge issued an arrest warrant for two British soldiers for allegedly killing an Iraqi civilian. The enthusiasm that went overboard when Afghanistan clocked a 75% turnout during the presidential elections waned last week, when parliamentary election turnouts fell to around 50%.

Back home, he has tripled the investment in the NHS, which has not produced proportionate results (although improvements have occurred). His achievements on education are more contentious, and foreign students preferring Australia and America to Britain certainly does not bode well for international perception of its state. Economic management is an area where Mr Blair prides himself on, and despite general economic stability, it seems that the good times are at an end. The IMF cut the growth forecast for the UK to 1.9% for this year, down from the Treasury’s rather optimistic 3–3.5%. The deficit in public coffers is hovering around £12 billion.

Two books have also come out recently to analyse how Mr Blair fared. Anthony Selden, in his The Blair Effect argued that he was “quite a weak man”, while Lance Prince, in his The Spin Doctor’s Diary, makes the case rather self-explanatory. Tim Hames, writing for The Times, perhaps hit the nail on the head about Mr Blair’s attitude- “I want it all, and I want it now”.

But perhaps Mr Blair’s real legacy lies in reforming his own party- both in terms of following up on Neil Kinnock’s administrative reforms, as well as by being “the man who saved the British left from socialist irrelevance”, according to Time’s Joe Klein. It could be argued that Mr Blair is merely a part of Mrs Thather’s legacy, as his economic policies almost duplicate hers, but true legacy comes when your followers do it your way. Mr Brown’s insistence on following “Tony’s way” seemed to drive home the point.


September 2005

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Aug |  Today  | Oct
         1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30      

Search this blog

Tags

Galleries

Most recent comments

  • I think if you look at the trend of oil prices, the issues with OPEC reserves, the desperation to fi… by Mark Cowan on this entry
  • I think you can get a better perspective if you also add the following questions to your research (a… by Arjun Sen on this entry
  • Amen. by on this entry
  • Sachin is the best player of the world .Sachin will surely give the answers to all the criticism he'… by heremoumita@yahoo.com on this entry
  • Long time no see bhai. Good to hear from you. Its been a decade! by on this entry

Blog archive

Loading…
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder
© MMXX