The Group of Eight (G8) is an international forum for the governments of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Each calendar year, the responsibility of hosting the G8 rotates through the member states in the following order: France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada. The holder of the presidency sets the agenda, hosts the summit for that year and determines which ministerial meetings will take place. Lately, both France and the United Kingdom have expressed a desire to expand the group and include five developing countries, referred to as the Outreach Five (O5) or the Plus Five: Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. These countries have participated as guests in previous meetings, which are sometimes called G8+5.
Russia formally joined the group in 1997, resulting in the 'Group of Eight' - the G8.
G8 summit 2008
The 34th G8 summit took place in Tōyako (洞爺湖, Tōya-ko?, Lake Toya) on the northern island of Hokkaidō, Japan from July 7–9, 2008. The locations of previous summits to have been hosted by Japan include: Tokyo (1979, 1986, 1993); and Nago, Okinawa (2000).
In discussions regarding Africa during the 34th G8 Summit, the G8 leaders set a five-year deadline to commit US$60 billion in funding to help fight disease in Africa and renewed a commitment made three years earlier to double aid for Africa to $25-billion by 2010 and to consider pledging further assistance after 2010. On the topic of global warming, the G8 leaders agreed on the need for the world to cut carbon emissions blamed for global warming by at least 50 percent by 2050. Environmental activists and leaders from the developing countries described the statement as a "toothless gesture".Results of discussions on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which had earlier been leaked by Wikileaks, were not known. The G8 leaders made statements regarding their relations with Zimbabwe, Iran and North Korea. The responses of the G8 leaders to the "Challenge to the G8 Governments" of over 100 NGOs and other organisations and individuals requesting them to "cancel all illegitimate debt", to "end the practice of using loans and debt cancellation to impose conditionalities" and to "facilitate the return of stolen assets kept in the banks in the G8 countries" are not presently known. Regarding the 2007–2008 world food price crisis, the differences between the G8 leaders and the citizens' groups' approaches to solving the crisis appeared unresolved. The G8's communiqué said that it was "imperative" to remove export restrictions, in contrast to requests of the signers of the "Challenge to the G8 Governments".
The G8 summits during the twenty-first century have also involved widespread parallel debates and protests by citizensand claimed human rights violations against some of them during massive police/military operations. Over 40 dissidents were arrested before the summit started and nineteen or twenty Koreans critical of the G8 leadership were detained at New Chitose Airport for at least 24 hours. During a "non-violent demonstration where no acts against property or people took place" according to a legal observer, at least four people were arrested, including a Reuters cameraman. At this venue, amongst the reasons cited for demonstrations and protests were that a G8 summit is merely an arbitrary meeting of national leaders and that it is also a nexus which becomes more than the sum of its parts, elevating the participants, the event and the venue as focal points for activist pressure.
So why are they all wrong? Well firstly, when we specifically talk of the Left, they are always going wrong of late aren't they? Secondly, trying to get the Tatas is absolutely alright. But trying to give them a 1000 acres of prime land 30 km away from Kolkata is like selling themselves off. But then cheap land will never have big kick backs, will it? The land in question in Singur is cultivable 4 times a year and it defies logic why a factory needs to be so centrally located. They can easily give the Tatas land about a 150 km away from the city, and trust me, for them the cost of transporting the cars to various corners of India on the final count won't increase, because the production is taking place a 100 km away from where they wanted it to be... and then if it does and the car is finally available at a lac plus fifty rupees, I am sure no one buying it will crib (that is in case there are enough buyers for it). And while I do understand the commitment (even patriotism) of providing a cheap car to Indians, I sure don't understand what's so sacrosanct about the Rs one lac figure when in any case analysts estimate the car by the time it is produced will only be Rs one lac in namesake, and the real price will be at least 20% to 30% higher. Thirdly, the Left is wrong because as it is common practice for the Leftist dictators in the garb in West Bengal, the state controlled and manipulated police has been ruthlessly beating up farmers, their wives and daughters in Singur, in order to create a fear psychosis, so that the villagers are forced to sell the land; snatches of this have even been captured live on camera. Medha Patkar has gone on record to state that the Leftist CPM's acts in nature, are more than similar to Capitalist America's acts in Iraq.
The fourth problem is around the concept of compensation. The government might at times need to acquire land, but the compensation has to be right. Currently itself, the government is paying less than the market price of the land to the farmers of Singur. And even if they were to pay the market price it would still have been clear exploitation of the farmers in an attempt to enrich the Tatas. Typically, in such cases, compensation has to take a few things into consideration. There is nothing called the market price of land. It varies as per demand. If Tatas were to announce that they are going to acquire 1000 acres of land in Singur, the market price would automatically go up. So what the farmers should be given is that market price of tomorrow and not yesterday, because there is always the cost of opportunity lost involved. Also, today's market price doesn't reflect tomorrow's value once its developed; which in five years may go up by five times. That is why in one such case I know of, Reliance Industries not just gave the market price of land acquired but also let the farmers keep about 20% land ownership rights so that they not only get the market price for 80% of the land today, but can also reap the benefits of its future development from the remaining 20% that they don't sell now! So the compensation being offered by the West Bengal government is far from justice and market realities, though the goal for which it is being acquired is market driven. The bigger secret is of course, how much the government is selling the land in turn to the Tatas for? Defying the Right to Information Act, the Minister for Industry, Nirupam Sen is keeping mum calling it a 'trade secret'. Well...well...well, even the long time loyalist of CPM, Maheshwata Devi who over years kept her eyes deliberately and pretentiously closed to all of CPM's tyranny has gone on record to state that the 'Left is no more left'.
The Tatas on the other hand are known for their ethical commitment to society at large are keeping mum and from time to time threatening to quit Bengal and go to some other state, thereby indirectly supporting the clear acts of wrong. They could like Reliance talk about a more market-driven cost of acquisition and solve the problem or settle for land in Purulia or Bankura where Mamata Didi wants them to go since land there is not fertile and those are the real backward areas of Bengal which require developmental support and industrialisation. Or are they hell-bent
hyde act
The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also known as the "Hyde Act", is the legal framework for a bilateral pact between the United States and India under which the U.S. will provide access to civilian nuclear technology and access to nuclear fuel in exchange for International Atomic Energy Agency-safeguards on civilian Indian reactors. This act provides the legal basis for a 123 Agreement with India. The 123 agreement requires separate U.S. congressional approval and Indian cabinet approval and will define the exact terms and conditions for bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation.
|
|
Signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are granted access to civilian nuclear technology from each other as well as nuclear fuel via the Nuclear Suppliers Group in exchange for International Atomic Energy Agency-verified compliance of the NPT tenets. India, Israel, and Pakistan, however, have not signed the NPT, arguing that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles. The treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid. India insists on a comprehensive action plan for a nuclear-free world within a specific time-frame and has also adopted a voluntary "no first use policy".
In response to a growing Chinese nuclear arsenal, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974 (called "peaceful nuclear explosion" and explicitly not for military purposes). Led by the US, other nations set up an informal group, the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), to control exports of nuclear materials, equipment and technology. As a result, India was relegated to a pariah status within the international nuclear order. In view of continued proliferation by China and Pakistan, and its own huge population, India conducted 5 more nuclear tests in May, 1998 at Pokhran.
Rationale behind the agreement
The growing energy demands of the Indian and Chinese economies have raised questions on the impact of global energy availability. The Bush Administration has concluded that an Indian shift toward nuclear energy is in the best interest for America to secure its energy needs of coal, crude oil, and natural gas. Moreover, the Bush administration insists that India's strong non-proliferation record and stable democracy further helped justify a nuclear pact with India while not providing Pakistan or others the same. Finally,The U.S. also expects that such a deal could spur India's economic growth and bring in $150 billion in the next decade for nuclear power plants, of which the US wants a share. It is India's stated objective to increase the production of nuclear power generation from its present capacity of 4,000 MWe to 20,000 MWe in the next decade.
Indian and American critics along with nuclear industry representatives and developmental economists have questioned each of the administration's claims. They have noted that U.S. nuclear vendors cannot sell any reactors to India unless and until India caps third party liabilities and or establishes a credible liablility pool to protect U.S. firms from being sued in the case of an accident or a terrorist act of sabotage against nuclear plants.
The Respect Developmental economic advising firm of Dalberg, which advises the IMF and the World Bank, moreover, has done its own analysis of the economic value of investing in nuclear power development in India. Their conclusion is that for the next 20 years such investments are likely to be far less valuable economically or environmentally than a variety of other measures to increase and economize electricity production in India. and also to stop or reduce the pollution by traditional usage of natural resources
Since the end of the Cold War, The Pentagon, along with certain U.S. ambassadors such as Robert Blackwill, have requested increased strategic ties with India and a de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India.
Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which would be in charge of inspecting India's civilian reactors has praised the deal as "it would also bring India closer as an important partner in the nonproliferation regime", However, members of the IAEA safeguards staff have made it clear that Indian demands that New Delhi be allowed to determine when Indian reactors might be inspected could undermine the IAEA safeguards system.
While India is self-sufficient in thorium, possessing 24% of the world's known and economically available thorium, it possesses a meagre 1% of the similarly calculated global uranium reserves. Indian support for cooperation with the U.S. centers around the issue of obtaining a steady supply of sufficient energy to grow the economy.
Indian opposition to the pact centers around the concessions that would need to be made, as well as the likely de-prioritization of research into a thorium fuel-cycle if uranium becomes highly available given the well understood utilization of uranium in a nuclear fuel cycle
Agreement
On March 2, 2006 in New Delhi, George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh signed a Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, following an initiation during the July 2005 summit in Washington between the two leaders over civilian nuclear cooperation.
Heavily endorsed by the White House, the agreement is thought to be a major victory to George W. Bush's foreign policy initiative and was described by many lawmakers as a cornerstone of the new strategic partnership between the two countries. The agreement is widely considered to help India fulfill its soaring energy demands and enter the U.S. and India into a strategic partnership. The Pentagon speculates this will help ease global demand for crude oil and natural gas.
On August 3, 2007, both the countries released the full text of the 123 agreement, which may be found on:
tata nano deal
When the Left came to power about 30 years back in West Bengal, the then Finance Minister of West Bengal Shri Ashok Mitra had said that “we will give the capitalists sleepless nights”... That may not have been the most appropriate thing to dream about but then that's what the Left was supposed to be. At that time a sceptic who didn't believe that the communists in India are that dedicated had written a poem stating that in this regime, capitalists will make so much money that they will obviously not be able to sleep in the nights, busy counting their money! As Budhadeb Bhattacharya goes on to say that he is the (middleman) of all capitalists (of course for the benefit of his people), that sceptic must be having the last laugh… So what is the issue? Well, Ratan Tata, certainly a good hearted gentleman wants to give India a Rs one lac car against all market realities (all researches point out that such a car doesn't have a viable demand in India). Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, our new face of Protestant Left often going against the will of the Politburo and to its discomfort wants to get Tatas to set up this unit in West Bengal to give the idea called Bengal a new thrust and life. For this,
the government is trying to acquire land in a place called Singur about 30 km away from Kolkata. Its about a thousand acres that the Tatas want and, the villain of peace is our ever-ready-to shout Oops! fast unto death Mamta Didi...
