📰 A game of chicken in the Korean peninsula
On North Korea, the world is way past tactical solutions. Only a comprehensive diplomatic solution will work
•Thirteen thousand kilometres. That’s how far North Korea’s newest Hwasong-15 missile can travel, which puts the United States, its principal adversary, within striking distance. With nuclear capable intercontinental ballistic missiles in its arsenal, and with hardly any workable U.S military options to disarm Pyongyang, nuclear North Korea is now an inevitability and here to stay. Lessons from the tragic end of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qadhafi would further disincentivise North Korean supreme leader Kim Jong-un to give up his weapons. Pyongyang’s neighbours, namely Japan and South Korea, and the international community, the U.S. in particular, however, have not reconciled to this reality provoking a nuclear crisis in the Korean peninsula.
The rationality of escalation
•Kim Jong-un has been called all kinds of names, from a ruthless dictator to a madman. But Kim’s actions consolidating his hold over power in Pyongyang or developing North Korea’s strategic arsenal show that he is anything but irrational. More pertinently, his policy of taking on the entire international community is seemingly premised on the classical military strategy of escalating to de-escalate — to initially escalate to unacceptable levels so as to force one’s adversaries to make concessions in areas they otherwise would not. Being recognised as a nuclear weapon capable state would be the foremost objective; survival of his regime and an eventual removal of sanctions would be the natural consequences of such a recognition.
•Given that Pyongyang is pursuing such an escalatory strategy when there is a great deal of great power disharmony and American indecisiveness, the odds are heavily stacked in its favour. In this game of chicken, Kim seems to be the winner.
Great power buck-passing
•Ever since Pyongyang withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2003, which led to the Six-Party Talks to diffuse the situation in the Korean peninsula, the North Korean regime has played the great powers against each other, exploiting their respective strategic calculations vis-à-visPyongyang, and each other. Having outmanoeuvred the big boys, North Korea conducted several nuclear tests and has now reached a point of no return, leaving the great powers stupefied and outwitted. Notwithstanding Pyongyang’s determination to go down this road by all means, the differing great power endgames and their unwillingness to commit sustained political and diplomatic capital, individually and together, to the Korean peninsula have contributed to the current crisis in a major way.
•Today, having exhausted all its strategies, from imposing sanctions to isolating North Korea, Washington has neither any leverage nor is it in a position to make a successful military strike against the country. China is not only worried about a lethal nuclear fallout in its neighbourhood and the potential rush of North Korean refugees into its territory but also uneasy about what may otherwise be an excellent solution — a reunified Korea, something Beijing thinks will undercut its rising regional predominance. Russia, having had clandestine dealings with the North Korean regime in the past, also has no cards to play. And yet, if the unravelling of the Korean peninsula weakens Washington’s standing in the region further, Moscow and Beijing would certainly not mind that.
•Japan and South Korea, in a sense, then are the real victims in this game of great power buck-passing and geopolitical expediency. Seen as arch-rivals by Pyongyang and located in what is arguably the world’s most dangerous neighbourhood, Tokyo and Seoul would be the first to face Kim’s wrath. What is complicating their plight even more is the shakiness of the extended deterrence commitments of U.S. President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy.
•Going nuclear would not take too much time or effort for either of these technologically advanced countries. The lack of a firm commitment from Washington on security commitments could potentially prompt them to develop a modest strategic arsenal which would have a domino effect for the region and the rest of the international system. In a self-help world of such kind, the NPT-led non-proliferation regime as we know it would cease to exist.
Systemic crisis
•At the heart of it, the crisis in the Korean peninsula reflects an endemic and worrying disorder in the contemporary international system. For one, international diplomacy has failed in the region. The ability of the great powers to compromise and reach a workable consensus to deal with global crises seems to have considerably reduced especially with the arrival of Mr. Trump and the assertion of China and Russia. What is even more worrying is this: the failure of the great powers to arrive at a workable consensus in crisis situations is perhaps a sign of the times to come.
•Second, the current crisis is further intensified by the deal-breaking tendencies of Mr. Trump. For instance, his administration’s tirade against the Iran nuclear deal, the end result of long, arduous negotiations, is sending out all the wrong signals to the international community. If Kim’s North Korea is decidedly revisionist, Mr. Trump’s revisionist tendencies are equally damaging.
•What is also becoming clear today is that isolating states that “misbehave” does not resolve conflicts. Be it Pakistan, Iran or North Korea, isolating states in the international system can only further complicate existing crises. The reason why we have been able to restrain the development of Iranian nuclear weapons is precisely because the P5+1 (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, plus Germany) reached a historic nuclear deal in 2015 despite pressure from within the U.S. and countries such as Israel to use force against Tehran. Had it not been for this deal, we would have had quite a mess in our neighbourhood today.
•Finally, and at a deeper level, the disarmament platitudes of the N-5 (or the five nuclear weapon states) and no progress on their disarmament commitments have eroded the faith of the nuclear have-nots in the global nuclear order. In an indirect but relevant way, such erosion of a normative global order has contributed to the North Korean crisis. Therefore, those lamenting how Kim’s nukes will weaken the non-proliferation regime have only themselves to blame for it.
The future
•Now that Pyongyang has crossed the nuclear threshold, international sanctions and the use of force against North Korea will not yield the desired results. It will lead to immeasurable human suffering within North Korea and in its neighbourhood. We are way past tactical solutions, and, therefore, only a comprehensive, sustained and diplomatic solution will work, though the result of which is uncertain, and the intent for which is non-existent among the great powers at this point. However, if indeed Kim is “escalating to deescalate”, Pyongyang might be open to such engagement especially since it has now gone beyond being forcibly disarmed. Moreover, for Kim, talking itself would constitute a form of recognition for his regime.
•The most unpleasant part of such a comprehensive solution would involve according de facto “recognition” to North Korea’s nuclear weapons. In other words, North Korea has nuclear weapons and its delivery mechanism in its custody, and there is no getting away from that fact, not now. If so, all we can do now is to consider how we can live with a nuclear North Korea rather than think of impractical military solutions to disarm Pyongyang. For sure, it would be a pity to add it to the list of states possessing nuclear weapons. But then there is a time to prevent something from becoming a reality, and there is a time to accept when it becomes an inevitable reality.
•The operational aspect of this approach would involve taking on board North Korea’s historical grievances, involving the regional powers including China and South Korea to reach out to Kim, and reviving the dormant Six Party Talks at the earliest. Revival of the Six Party talks is important precisely because entrusting China and or Russia to solely deal with North Korea would be unwise. Moreover, multilateral engagement would also prevent anyone from engaging in underhand dealings with Pyongyang.
📰 Jayalalithaa fingerprints verification: Does privacy outlive death, asks Supreme Court
Petition opposes Madras High Court order to produce Aadhaar records of the former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister for verification of fingerprints.
•The Supreme Court has thrown open the floor for debate on whether an individual’s fundamental right to privacy subsists after death.
•The question rose in a challenge raised against a Madras High Court order to produce the Aadhaar data records of the late Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa for verification of her fingerprints.
‘HC’s intrusion’
•The apex court stayed the High Court order on a petition filed by AIADMK leaders.
•Also read: Can’t share Jayalalithaa’s thumb prints due to statutory bar, UIDAI tells HC
•They argue that the fundamental right to privacy remains alive even after the person’s death.
•The petition said the “intrusion” by the High Court into Jayalalithaa’s privacy would not have happened had she been alive.
•The court would have been forced to get her consent.
•“Her death does not make any difference as Right to Privacy is available to every citizen
•during his/ her life time and even after the death of that person,” the petition said.
•The apex court has decided to examine whether the High Court’s order “amounts to intruding of fundamental right to privacy of a third party.”
Virtual world
•The issue raises a significant question as a part of modern man’s personal life and identity is embedded in the virtual world.
•The case raises the issue whether courts and authorities can order to see an individual’s personal data without consent after his or her death.
•The examination has to be done in the backdrop of the landmark verdict of nine judges of the Supreme Court which upheld privacy as a fundamental right on August 24.
•The various judges on the Bench, in their separate opinions, deal with the individual’s fundamental right to privacy during the lifetime of the person, that is from birth to death.
•The judgement is silent on whether privacy continues after death.
•Or does the definition of “life” in the judgement extend to after-life.
•“Privacy is a concomitant of the right of the individual to exercise control over his or her personality,” Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said in his exhaustive majority judgement.
•But does the control over personality continue after death?
‘Life with dignity’
•Justice Chandrachud talks about a “life with dignity” and how privacy ensures the fulfilment of dignity.
•Justice S.A. Bobde, in his separate opinion, also talks about privacy in life and the “innumerable activities” between birth and death.
•He said even the acts of birth and death are events when privacy is required for ensuring dignity amongst all civilised people.
•But Justice Bobde is silent on privacy after death.
📰 What does the FRDI Bill do for you?
•Recently, a bill tabled in Parliament in August — the Financial Resolution and Deposit Insurance (FRDI) Bill 2017 — has been making news due to its controversial ‘bail-in’ clauses. However, important as that clause may be, the other provisions of the Bill are equally so:
What the Bill seeks to do
•The FRDI Bill is part of a larger, more comprehensive approach by the Centre towards systematic resolution of all financial firms — banks, insurance companies and other financial intermediaries. The Bill comes together with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code to spell out the procedure for the winding up or revival of an ailing company.
•The need for a specific regulation rose following the 2008 financial crisis, which witnessed a large number of high-profile bankruptcies. With the Centre also actively encouraging people to engage more with the banking sector — both through schemes like Jan Dhan Yojana and moves like demonetisation — it becomes critical to protect savers and those joining the formal economy in case a bank or insurance firm starts failing.
The Bill’s main provisions
•The Bill provides for the setting up of a Resolution Corporation — to replace the existing Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation — which will be tasked with monitoring financial firms, anticipating their risk of failure, taking corrective action and resolving them in case of failure. The corporation is also tasked with providing deposit insurance up to a certain limit yet to be specified, in the event of a bank failure.
•The Corporation will also be tasked with classifying financial firms on their risk of failure — low, moderate, material, imminent, or critical. It will take over the management of a company once it is deemed critical.
Concerns abound
•Among other tools, the FRDI Bill also empowers the Corporation to bail-in the company. While a bail-out is the use of public funds to inject capital into an ailing company, a bail-in involves the use of depositors’ funds to achieve those ends. This can be done either by cancelling the bank’s liabilities, or converting them into other forms, such as equity.
•This has caused a lot of concern among depositors who are worried they may lose their hard-earned money deposited with banks. However, the fact is that the risk is no more or no less than it ever was. The Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation provides deposit insurance of up to ₹1 lakh. The rest is forfeited in the event of a bank failure. The FRDI Bill has not specified the insured amount yet, but it is unlikely to be lower than that amount, as the limit was set way back in 1993.
📰 Arbitrary and irrational
Declaring triple talaq a penal offence does not stand up to first principles of criminal jurisprudence
•The proposal by the government to introduce a Muslim Woman Protection of Rights on Marriage Bill in the winter session of Parliament — wherein a husband who resorts to instant triple talaq can be jailed for up to three years and fined — needs closer scrutiny as there is stigma attached to criminal conviction. On August 22, 2017, a five judge Bench of the Supreme Court, in a majority 3:2 judgment, set aside the practice of Talaq-e-Biddat (triple talaq); the minority view of Chief Justice J.S. Khehar, who led the Bench, and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer was that triple divorce is a valid form of divorce.
•If Parliament wants, it can enact a law on it. But nowhere in its judgment has the top court said that triple divorce is to be criminally punished.
No longer valid
•No one can question Parliament’s power to legislate with respect to personal laws under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List. But in the Supreme Court judgment, the majority of three judges had already “set aside” triple divorce. Under Article 141 of the Constitution, this is the “law declared by the Supreme Court”. Therefore, there is basically no need for any law as triple divorce no longer dissolves marriage. But since the court did not explicitly state the consequences of its three pronouncements, Parliament may say that the three pronouncements will count as one revocable divorce. This is the law in most Muslim countries whose examples were cited by the government in the top court.
•The stand of the government, which, citing data, said that its decision was influenced by over 60 cases of triple divorce even after the Supreme Court’s decision is not correct. The belief that if wrongful conduct becomes a crime, people will refrain from indulging in it is both erroneous and not been substantially proved by any authentic empirical research.
•Since triple divorce no more dissolves marriage, its pronouncement is inconsequential and in no way adversely affects either the wife or society. Thus no legitimate state interest is adversely affected. In making triple divorce a penal offence, the government is in fact like the Rajiv Gandhi government after the Shah Bano case — accepting the view of conservative Ulema who have themselves taken the stand that while triple divorce validly dissolves marriage, the person making three instant pronouncements is liable to punishment. Are we going to insist on mens rea (guilty intention) or make triple divorce a ‘strict liability’ offence which would mean that even if the person did not intend to divorce his wife, he would be punished for mere utterance of the word “divorce” thrice? Since the cardinal principle of criminal law is presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is always on the prosecution which has to prove the case beyond a shadow of a doubt, how will the poor wife prove instant triple divorce if declared orally when no one else was around? The husband will be entitled to acquittal claiming the benefit of doubt. Since the law makes the husband liable for the payment of maintenance, how will he pay maintenance if he is sent to jail?
•Even more crucial, is this question. On what basis has the Bill provided for imprisonment of three years?
Under the IPC
•Why did the government not look at provisions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which is the general criminal law of the country? For what crimes does the IPC reserve imprisonment of three years? Section 148, which is on rioting and armed with deadly weapon, has a provision of three years or with fine, or with both. Section 153A, which is on promoting enmity between different groups, is also for three years, which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 237, which punishes the import or export of counterfeit coin, has the same term. It is the same again with Section 295A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs). These serious crimes are in no way comparable to an individual who instead of taking three months to divorce his wife, just took a minute in making all three pronouncements. Such divorces generally happen out of extreme anger when a person really does not know the nature and quality of his act, and already an exception from criminal liability.
•A cursory look at other sections shows these: Section 304A (Causing death by negligence); Section 147 (punishment for rioting); Section 171E (Punishment for bribery); Section 269 (Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life); Section 272 (Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale); Section 295 (Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class); Section 290 (Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for); Section 337 (Causing hurt by act of endangering life or personal safety of others); Section 341 (Punishment for wrongful restraint) and Section 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) have much smaller terms of imprisonment and fines. Thus imprisonment of three years for triple divorce is excessive, arbitrary and irrational, and violative of Article 14.
•Ideally, divorce should not be treated by divorcees as the end of the world. Our women do not need men to lead a dignified life. We must remove the stigma attached to divorces. Triple divorce should be nothing more than civil contempt of the Supreme Court.
📰 Crunch time at WTO: On farm subsidies
India faces a tough challenge on farm issues at the Buenos Aires ministerial meet
•As leaders at the World Trade Organisation’s 11th biennial Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires seek to define the future contours of multilateral global trade, the challenges the U.S. has mounted on the institution are impossible to ignore. Notable among the proposals trade ministers will consider are those relating to new rules on farm subsidies, the elimination of support for unsustainable fisheries, and the regulation of e-commerce. With the backing of more than 100 countries, a joint proposal from India and China to eliminate the most trade-distorting farm subsidies worth $160 billion in several industrialised economies is arguably the most contentious agenda item at the Ministerial. The two countries see this as a prerequisite to address the prevailing imbalance in the Agreement on Agriculture, which unfairly benefits developed countries. But host Argentina has cautioned that the joint proposal could potentially unravel negotiations. Lending credence to such scepticism is the lukewarm stance the U.S. has adopted towards the WTO over the past year, suggesting that the Ministerial meet should serve as a forum for reflection rather than to shape substantive agreements. The other major dispute centres on finding a so-called permanent solution to the large subsidies that underpin public stock-holding programmes to bolster food security in the developing world. The G-33 coalition — which includes Indonesia, China and India — seeks a complete exemption from commitments to reduce subsidies, such as minimum support prices, from this poverty-alleviation programme. New Delhi has declined to negotiate any more trade-offs on this proposal at Buenos Aires, or accept calls for stringent transparency requirements to monitor these schemes. The EU and Brazil have expressed broad support for the G-33 coalition’s position on public stock-holding programmes. But in return they seek agreement on their own proposal to reduce trade-distorting subsidies on a percentage basis, in both advanced and developing economies.
•The existential crisis facing the WTO is heightened by U.S. President Donald Trump’s combative approach to the multilateral institutional framework. Washington has been exploring an alternative, unilateral route away from the formal dispute resolution mechanism of the Geneva-based body to settle perceived and real trade conflicts with partners. It has blocked fresh appointments to fill vacancies on the seven-member WTO appellate body. The risk of Mr. Trump’s protectionist rhetoric translating into economic barriers remains real. The response to that challenge is to make the gains of globalisation more visible and its transient downsides politically less painful. Trade leaders gathered in Buenos Aires can ill-afford to lose sight of this imperative.
📰 WTO: diverse views fuel bleak prospect for outcomes
India, China, South Africa lead developing nations in seeking commitment to ‘multilateralism, development agenda’
•The World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Buenos Aires meeting commenced amid concerns on support for anti-globalisation, protectionism and bilateralism.
•A vast majority of the 164 WTO member nations — led by India, China and South Africa — are, therefore, learnt to be demanding that the final declaration of the WTO’s highest decision-making body reaffirms commitment to multilateralism and rules-based trading system as well as negotiations with development agenda at the centre.
•However, due to the divergent views of the WTO members on several issues, including the outstanding ones in the ongoing Doha Round negotiations, there is little expectation that the outcome of the December 10-13 Ministerial Conference would be substantial.
‘No new issues’
•The Doha Round had begun in Doha in 2001 with the ‘development agenda’ — to improve trading prospects of developing nations — at the heart of the talks. However, countries, mostly from the developed world, want what they call the ‘21st century trade issues’ — such as e-commerce, investment facilitation, matters relating to small firms and gender equality — to be discussed for rule-making to enhance the relevance of the WTO.
•India, and several countries mainly from the developing world, are against introduction of such ‘new issues’ into the Doha Round, saying it is important to first resolve outstanding issues such as the ones relating to food security and protection of poor farmers before taking up new topics.
•Owing to persistent differences, barring a broad agreement on permanent solution to the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes, it is likely to be decided that issues such as ‘Special Safeguard Mechanism’ (SSM, which will allow developing nations to temporarily increase tariffs to counter import surges or price declines, and in turn protect poor farmers), ‘limiting harmful fisheries subsidies’, ‘possible negotiations on e-commerce’, as well as ‘services trade facilitation’ (including easing rules regarding movement of professionals and skilled workers across borders for temporary work or projects) will be addressed through separate ‘work programme(s)’ post Buenos Aires.
•According to officials privy to the developments here, India, China and South Africa have the support of around 120 WTO member nations on the issue of continuation of the ‘development’ mandate of the Doha Round without any dilution.
U.S. efforts questioned
•On the Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM), an overwhelming majority of the WTO members have questioned efforts by the U.S. to block the appointment of judges to the appellate body — a move that they say would undermine the DSM.
•The DSM, according to the WTO, is “recognised as a fundamental pillar of the organisation” and “enjoys wide support and confidence among the membership, which values it as a fair, effective and efficient mechanism to solve trade problems.”
•The sources also said India’s joint proposal with China — asking the developed nations to eliminate the most trade-distorting form of farm subsidies, known in WTO jargon as Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS) — has the backing of about 120 WTO members including from Africa.
•“Developed countries have more than 90% of global AMS entitlements amounting to nearly $160 billion. Most developing countries, including India and China, do not have AMS entitlements,” according to an earlier statement from the Indian government.
‘No onerous conditions’
•On the ‘permanent solution’ to public stockholding for food security purposes, India’s demand has the support of 120-odd nations, the sources added.
•India had made it clear that it would not accept a ‘permanent solution’ with onerous conditions that in turn make it tough for the [Indian] government or other developing countries as well to meet the food security needs of their people. On agricultural issues including the ‘permanent solution’ and SSM, India is working with G-33 (a group of 47 nations). The G-33 which held a meeting on December 9 to ensure that solidarity is maintained on these matters. To get wide support on India’s interests, commerce minister Suresh Prabhu also met with the South Centre, an intergovernmental organisation of developing nations. Besides, he held a meeting with European Union Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström and conveyed India’s position on various issues including food security and e-commerce. Mr. Prabhu will also be meeting ministers from developing nations.
📰 How marine organisms degrade plastic bags
They add to spread of microplastics
•A single plastic grocery bag could be shredded by marine organisms into over one million microscopic fragments, a study has found.
•Marine scientists at the University of Plymouth examined the rate at which bags were broken down by the amphipod Orchestia gammarellus, which inhabits coastal areas in northern and western Europe.
Main aim
•The results show that marine wildlife are actually contributing to the spread of microplastics within the marine environment, rather than them simply being emitted from the water supply or forming through the physical and chemical break down of larger items.
•Their main aim was to discover whether different types of plastic and the presence of a biofilm — a layer of organic material which accumulates over time — altered the rate at which such organisms broke down plastic debris.
Four times as quickly
•Through monitoring in the laboratory and on the shoreline, researchers demonstrated the bags were torn and stretched by Orchestia gammarellus, with microplastics subsequently being found in and around their faecal matter.
•The type of plastic — conventional, degradable and biodegradable — had no effect on the rate of ingestion, however the presence of a biofilm meant the shredding took place around four times as quickly.
📰 ICAN receives Nobel Peace Prize
Its head urges nuclear nations to sign treaty calling for a ban on nuclear weapons
•The leader of International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), the group that won this year’s Nobel Peace Prize, on Sunday urged nuclear nations to adopt a UN treaty banning atomic weapons in order to prevent “the end of us”.
•ICAN is a coalition of 468 grassroots non-governmental groups that campaigned for a UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by 122 nations in July. The treaty is not signed by — and would not apply to — any of the states that already have nuclear arms.
•Beatrice Fihn, ICAN’s Executive Director, urged them to sign the agreement. “The United States, choose freedom over fear. Russia, choose disarmament over destruction. Britain, choose the rule of law over oppression,” she added, before urging France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel to do the same.
•Ms. Fihn delivered the lecture together with Setsuko Thurlow, 85, a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing and now an ICAN campaigner, who recalled some of her memories of the attack.
•The Nobel prizes in literature, physics, chemistry, medicine and economics were awarded later on Sunday at a separate ceremony in Stockholm.
📰 NASA probes AI for space connect
•NASA scientists are planning to use artificial intelligence (AI) to better manage the increasing communications between its spacecraft and the Earth.
•NASA spacecraft typically rely on human-controlled radio systems to communicate with the Earth. Cognitive radio, the infusion of artificial intelligence into space communications networks, could meet demand and increase efficiency, researchers said.
•“Modern space communications systems use complex software to support science and exploration missions,” said Janette C. Briones, from the NASA’s Glenn Research Centre in the United States.
‘New thrust’
•“By applying artificial intelligence and machine learning, satellites control these systems seamlessly, making real-time decisions without awaiting instruction,” said Ms. Briones.
•“The recent development of cognitive technologies is a new thrust in the architecture of communications systems,” said Ms. Briones.
•“We envision these technologies will make our communications networks more efficient and resilient for missions exploring the depths of space,” she said.
•“By integrating artificial intelligence and cognitive radios into our networks, we will increase the efficiency, autonomy and reliability of space communications systems,” she said.
