The Central Committee of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) met in New Delhi from May 5 to 7, 2010. It issued the following statement.
The Central Committee warmly congratulated the CPI (M) and the Left Front of Tripura for their sweeping victory in the Tripura Tribal Autonomous District Council elections. Of the 27 seats which went to the polls, the Left Front has won all the 22 seats declared so far.
Source: People’s Democracy dated 16-05-2010
THE EMS Chair for Marxian Studies and Research in Calicut University organised on April 17 a national seminar on “Global Warming: After Copenhagen,” in the university’s Seminar Hall. It was attended by people from all walks of life including teachers, scholars, students and employees of the university. CPI (M) Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury inaugurated it.
INTENSIFYING THREAT TO EARTH
Inaugurating the seminar, Yechury pointed out that the day of the seminar recorded the highest ocean temperature in history while the volcanic eruption in Iceland caused suspension of air traffic in Europe. He said the global warming might lead to the extinction of all species, including man. The rise in temperature is due to emission of certain gases into the atmosphere, which is causing the greenhouse effect.
The United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), began in 1990, has by now established that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is rapidly approaching the levels beyond which irreversible and potentially catastrophic changes in global climate could occur. While these changes will affect all of humanity, the worst affected will be the poor especially in the developing world. India is likely to suffer severe damages with the melting of Himalayan glaciers, drastic changes in rainfall pattern, floods, raising sea levels and displacement of millions. Undoubtedly there is an urgent need to limit such emissions and ensure that temperatures do not rise beyond 2° C.
There is, however, another view that global warming may be due to factors beyond human control. Despite all scientific advances, one area where little is known is about what is happening below our feet. Drilling for 19 years to probe the depths of Earth whose radius is over 6000 km, the Soviets reached a depth of nearly 13 km before the USSR collapsed. No one has ventured beyond this. Even this minuscule penetration sprang many surprises negating what scientists presumed on the basis of seismic waves and by other indirect methods. For instance, at a depth of 10 km the temperature was found to be 1800° C, nearly twice the forecast level. The happenings below may well be impacting the surface temperatures.
DEVELOPED WORLD’S RESPONSIBILITY
Yet this must not detract us from the efforts to ensure that we breathe cleaner air and reverse the changes that affect both livelihood and quality of life of billions --- what the last two decades of negotiations aimed at achieving. This was based on the inviolable principle of “common but differentiated responsibility,” underling the fact that the developed countries, having contributed the most to greenhouse emissions, must take greater responsibility now in reducing them. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) set binding targets for developed counties while exempting developing countries, but calling upon them to take measures commensurate with their capacity. However, instead of reducing emissions by five per cent compared to 1990, developed counties increased their cumulative emissions by ten per cent; the USA, which refused to ratify the protocol, increased its emissions by a massive 17 per cent. That is why they are now asked to commit to mandatory emission cuts of 40 per cent by 2020 and 90 per cent by 2050.
It is precisely this that they are resisting by calling upon all countries, including themselves, to announce voluntary, internationally monitored cuts. They are thus jettisoning the accepted concept of differentiated responsibility and imposing an unjust ‘common’ order. The USA has offered to cut 17 per cent from the 2005 levels, i.e. just three percent from the 1990 level --- less than what was proposed at Kyoto. This is virtually mocking at the world.
Copenhagen was no milestone in the journey started in 1990. There are two fundamental foundations of the UN Convention, and the US wants to violate them. First, during the last 150 years developed counties made big contributions to the rising of temperature. Thus developed countries have to take greater responsibility to limit the rise in global temperature below 20° C. The second principle is that everybody has the right to equal access to the atmosphere.
Today the situation is the per capita emission in USA is 20 times more than that in India. So if India is to reduce greenhouse emission by one unit, the US needs to reduce it by 20 units, by the ideals of national justice. That is why the per capita measure was accepted. So “common but differentiated responsibility” and per capita measurement for reduction of emissions were accepted as two fundamental principles. This came into effect in 1994.
These are the two principles imperialism wants to negate today.
ROLE OF COPENHAGEN
As far as developing countries like India are concerned, they need more energy to removes poverty. About 70 per cent Indians do not have modern sanitary facilities; 55 per cent of the households do not have electricity. Hence it is certain that India will have to emit more greenhouse gases. We can reduce the emission if we use green technology but this is costly.
However, there was no accord at the Copenhagen conference. Instead, only a declaration was made. The only saving grace of the Copenhagen summit is that the process has not been aborted; there will be another meet next year in Mexico through which time negotiations are to continue. But the formulations of this accord open up new windows that can completely jettison the United Nations Framework.
The first of these windows is aimed to negate the very fundamental underpinning of the negotiations so far, viz recognition of the fact that developed countries have contributed the most in damaging global climate and hence must bear the greater burden of correcting this trajectory. From this emerged the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” In a not so clever nuance, President Obama, speaking at the summit, changed this by announcing “common but differentiated response.” In one stroke, he thus attempted to change the so far established understanding that while the developed countries will adhere to legally binding targets of greenhouse emissions, developing countries will take non-binding responsibilities keeping in mind their respective levels of social and economic development and poverty eradication requirements.
Further, the Kyoto protocol envisaged legally binding penalties for countries that have violated the reduction targets. But some developed countries have transgressed these targets by as much as 40 per cent. These legally binding targets and penalties have been given the go-by through the “further guidelines adopted by the Conference of Parties.” Thus the coming year is crucial in ensuring that the Kyoto protocol is not jettisoned. Already, attempts have been made to negate this protocol by circulating two appendices, one for the developed countries and another for others, asking them to voluntarily declare their levels of reduction. This negates the legally binding mandatory levels for the former. The effort to impose undifferentiated responsibility must be strongly resisted during the run-up to COP 16 in Mexico.
ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE OBLIGATIONS
The second subterfuge concerns the obligation of the developed countries to provide adequate financial resources to the developing countries for what is called “mitigation and adoption.” Accepting their “historical responsibility” in damaging the global climate in the past, developed countries were obliged to fund such efforts in the developing countries through the state exchequer. This commitment is now being negated by making such transfer of resources conditional on the adherence to domestic plans of action declared by individual developing countries. The Copenhagen accord says, “In the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, developed countries commit to a goal of mobilising jointly US 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. This funding will come from a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multinational, including alternative sources of finance.” In other words, state funding by developed countries is to be abandoned and resources are to be raised from the market. Clearly, in times of a global recession, such resource raising would be virtually impossible. The developed countries thus seek to escape from their previously agreed obligations. During the course of the coming year, this window needs to be closed.
The third window is of an international mechanism to measure, report and verify (MRV) the domestically declared action plans by developing countries. This is dangerous in the sense that once it is internationally accepted, the USA, for instance, can, in accordance with its existing laws, impose trade and other sanctions on any country that they declare as not adhering to their domestic action plan. The world is witness to the blatant lies having been passed off as scientific assessments by the US to target specific countries. This move to convert the consultations and analysis into MRV must be rebuffed. They have publicly stated that this clause would provide the “legal framework” to virtually catch India and China by the collar on the implementation of their domestic action plans.
The fourth window would negate the commitment of technology transfer to developing countries without the obligations of the international property rights (IPR) regime. The redrafted version reads: “in order to enhance action on development and transfer of technology we decided to establish a technology mechanism to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action of adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.” Thus the developed world wants to escape its own previously agreed responsibility on this issue and make this transfer conditional upon action taken. Of course, there is no mention of exempting the IPR.
Thus, what emerges from Copenhagen is an undisguised effort by the developed world to negate the very understanding of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change and to jettison their commitments and responsibilities as contained in the Kyoto protocol and the Bali plan of action. While the ongoing negotiations will continue, the coming year would establish if the world is able to arrive at a consensus on tackling climate change, limiting the rise in global temperature to below 2° C, and ensuring that the developed countries part with their due share and obligations.
STRENGTHEN UNITY OF EMERGING ECONOMIES
In the effort to resist the developed world’s efforts to jettison the entire process at Copenhagen, an important element that played a crucial role was the unity of four “emerging economies,” viz India, China, Brazil and South Africa. This needs to be strengthened along with the other developing countries of the G77 during the course of this year in order to resist the developed countries’ pressures. Such resistance is needed to ensure that the process of climate change is tackled on the basis of justice and equality. Justice and equality demand that every human being on this planet must have an equal share of carbon space. This can be ensured only if developing countries together put up firm resistance to the continued pillage of the global climate by developed countries.
The bursting of the bubble that the finance economy had created has pushed the developed countries into severe recession. To overcome it, developed countries want the freedom of greater gas emissions at the expense of developing countries. We must guard these evil designs of imperialism to transfer the burden of their recession to developing countries in the context of climate change.
Everybody knows that India’s posture vis-à-vis the US is submissive. This will prove catastrophic. Hence we have to mobilise public opinion to bring pressure upon our government.
Dr M P Parameswaran, and Dr A Achuthan and Dr T M Anil also spoke on the occasion. Advocate C H Ashique, member of the Calicut University syndicate, presided over. P Asokan, coordinator of the EMS Chair, made the welcome speech. V Stalin proposed the vote of thanks.
Source: People’s Democracy dated 16-05-2010
THE last week of April was dedicated to financial business in both houses. In Lok Sabha increases in the prices of essential commodities, petroleum products and fertilisers were the issue on which the Left and other opposition parties walked out for three consecutive days. There was a division on cut motions moved by the Left and other parties when a large number of demands for grants were guillotined. In the voting on finance bill on April 29, the Left parties’ amendments were defeated by voice vote. The Left and other parties registered their protest over the price increases and walked out during the voting.
On May 3, the involvement of a union minister of state, belonging to Trinamul Congress, in illegal arms deal from Bangladesh rocked the parliament; these arms were meant for use against the CPI (M) in West Bengal. However, in Lok Sabha, in order to divert attention, Trinamul MP, Sudip Bandopadhyay, abused and menacingly advanced towards the CPI (M)’s Basudeb Acharia. Demanding an apology from the MP, CPI (M) members rushed into the well of the house and shouted slogans against this hooliganism. This led to adjournment of the house.
On May 4, the CPI (M)’s deputy leader P Karunakaran sent a notice of suspension of question hour, demanding that the house reprimand the Trinamul MP. In order to maintain the sanctity of the house, the speaker reprimanded the MP for his “unbecoming” behaviour. Acharia too did not insist on an apology from Bandopadhyay. But an obstinate Bandopathyay challenged the chair to show the record of the day’s proceedings. As unparliamentary words and threats are not recorded, he only made himself a laughing stock. However, he succeeded in diverting attention from his party’s involvement in arms deal.
Raising in Rajya Sabha the issue of illegal arms purchase by a minister, Moinul Hassan, CPI (M), said one central minister had himself told a press conference that he had paid Rs 1.20 lakh through a partyman to a Bangladeshi arms dealer to buy arms. This minister and his colleagues are trying to destabilise the law and order situation in West Bengal. These arms were used in bank dacoities in Howrah district and also by the Maoists. Hassan insisted on an inquiry into the taped conversation between the minister and the arms dealer as it concerns national security. Demanding stern punishments for those purchasing arms from across the border, he asked the government to come out with a statement on this issue.
The railway minister’s absence from the house also created hullabaloo in Lok Sabha. The entire opposition demanded the minister’s presence in the house on the issue of motormen’s strike and condemned the use of ESMA against them.
Amid pandemonium, the government passed The Employees’ State Insurance (Amendment) Bill 2009; the Payment of Gratuity Bill 2010 and the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Bill 2010 within minutes, without discussion.
On May 5, Lok Sabha witnessed eyeball to eyeball confrontation between Ananth Kumar (BJP) and Lalu Prasad (RJD). During the discussion on the parameters of conducting the census 2011, Ananth Kumar accused the RJD leader of being “a traitor to the country,” alleging that Lalu was sympathetic to illegal Bangladeshi immigrants. With this, all hell broke loose as RJD and SP members rushed down the aisle, protesting furiously and demanding an apology from Kumar. In a sharp rejoinder to Kumar’s remarks, SP leader Mulayam Singh Yadav accused the BJP of having a “poor track record” of patriotism. BJP leader Susma Swaraj apologised on Kumar’s behalf.
Source: People’s Democracy dated 16-05-2010
NEW DELHI: The unabashed pursuance of neo-liberal policies during the first year of United Progressive Alliance–II (UPA-II) has spawned crony capitalism, observes Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat in his evaluation of the government's performance which will appear in the coming issue of People's Democracy.
Pointing out that the nexus between big business and politics has become the hallmark of the Congress regime, Mr. Karat draws attention to several trends that have dominated the UPA-II's one year in office.
These include the legitimacy provided to foreign capital flows from dubious sources through tax havens, political protection to illegal mining business and reluctance to penalise law breakers and super rich tax evaders.
“All this has promoted perverted capitalism which is celebrated as India's growth story,'' observes the CPI (M) general secretary. The first year of UPA-II has already notched up scandals such as the IPL, 2G spectrum allocation and mining by the Reddy brothers. “All this can be directly sourced to the nexus between big business and ruling politicians.''
Mr. Karat drew a distinction between the first edition of the Left-supported UPA government and its second avatar — UPA-II. The latter did not spell out a common minimum programme. Instead, it announced that it would take up policy measures it couldn't push through in its first term in office.
UPA-II failed to tackle the price rise of essential commodities and believes in providing a tax bonanza for big business and maintaining favourable terms for foreign finance speculators. In fact, the proposed Direct Taxes Code will make India one of the least taxed countries as far as the rich are concerned.
Every sphere of policy-making — pricing of gas, allocation of telecom spectrum, opening up of mining and minerals, the financial sector, retail trade or allowing foreign educational institutions into the country — bears the “imprint'' of a government pandering to big business and their foreign finance collaborators, observes Mr. Karat.
“Shallow concern”
The UPA government's concern for the aam aadmi has proved to be shallow. It is still debating the Food Security Bill. The Public Distribution System has been further weakened. Farmer welfare does not seem to concern the government which has cut fertilizer subsidy.
On the political side, UPA-II failed to strengthen secular forces to push for firm anti-communal measures and seems “visibly reluctant'' to come to terms with the Ranganath Mishra Commission report recommending reservation for the minorities on the basis of socio-economic backwardness. There has been a noticeable lack of political initiative in dealing with the problem of Kashmir.
As far as tackling the Maoist violence is concerned, Mr. Karat feels the Centre tends to treat it solely as a law and order problem ignoring the fact that some of its own policies are alienating the tribals.
Positive stance
On the foreign policy front, the government has “remained steadfast in its fealty'' to the U.S. As a quid pro quo for the nuclear deal, India has agreed to buy billions of dollars of U.S. arms and equipment. One of the few positive aspects is the Prime Minister's refusal to adopt a confrontationist stance towards Pakistan despite what sections in his government and party wish.
“If there is an impression of drift and being directionless, the Congress government has only itself to blame for this plight… After the first six months of the government, there has been the rising tempo of popular struggles and movements… the struggle is on against the harmful policies of the government and to defend the livelihood and the rights of the working people. The question is whether the UPA government has learnt any lessons from its first year in office.''
