📰 A way out of the morass: on the US' plan to pull out of Afghanistan
The U.S.’s plan to pull out of Afghanistan is an appropriate time to re-examine the idea of enabling its neutrality
•In an article published in The Hindu (Editorial page, “Another approach to Afghanistan”, December 24, 2003), we had suggested that the only way out of the morass in Afghanistan would be to re-place Afghanistan in its traditional mode of neutrality. For that, two things were essential. The Afghans themselves must declare unequivocally that they would follow strict neutrality in their relations with external powers, and the outside powers must commit themselves to respect Afghanistan’s neutrality. In other words, external powers must subscribe to a multilateral declaration not to interfere in the internal affairs of Afghanistan together with an obligation on Afghanistan not to seek outside intervention in its internal situation.
•We further put forward the idea that the agreement on the Neutrality of Laos, concluded in 1962, could provide a model for the neutralisation of Afghanistan. The present might be an appropriate time to revisit that proposal.
•U.S. President Donald Trump has announced his decision to reduce American troop strength in Afghanistan, 14,000 at present, by half. Though Mr. Trump has not laid down a deadline for this reduction, it is safe to assume that he will make this happen well in time before the next U.S. presidential election in 2020.
•This development has energised the principal stakeholders in Afghanistan to make calculated efforts to place themselves in as favourable a position as possible in an Afghanistan post-American withdrawal. India should also be thinking of what steps it should take to protect its interests in that situation.
Engage with the Taliban
•One thing that should already have been done and must be done is to engage in dialogue with the Taliban. There is no doubt that the Taliban will be a major player in the politics of Afghanistan in the coming months and years. They already control more than 50% of the country and are getting stronger and bolder by the day. They are also engaged in direct talks with China, Russia, the Central Asian states and others. The Americans, represented by former diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad, have begun sustained dialogue with the Taliban. The Taliban have refused to talk to the Kabul government so far, but as and when the Americans pull out, as they are justified in doing for reasons of their own national interest, they might agree to engage with the Ashraf Ghani government. In any future scenario, the Taliban are guaranteed to play an important, perhaps even a decisive role in the governing structures of the country.
•New Delhi has so far refrained from establishing formal contacts with the Taliban out of sensitivity for the Kabul government not wanting to talk directly to the Taliban as long as the Taliban refuse to acknowledge its legitimacy. However, India must look after its own interests. Will a Taliban-dominated government in Kabul necessarily pose a serious security threat to us? While we are in no position to prevent such an eventuality, we would have alienated the Taliban by refusing to talk to them during the present phase. Even Iran, a Shia regime, has established official dialogue with the Taliban, a staunchly Sunni movement. It would not be difficult for our agencies to establish contacts that would facilitate initiating an official dialogue with Taliban; if needed, Iran could help in this even if it might displease the Americans. After all, the Americans have not always been sensitive to our concerns, in Afghanistan or elsewhere and Mr. Trump has publicly shown unawareness of our substantial development assi
stance to it.
A regional compact
•The international community ought to, at the same time, think of how to establish a mechanism which might offer a reasonable opportunity to the Afghan people to live in peace, free from external interference. And perhaps the only way in which this could be done is to promote a regional compact among all the neighbouring countries as well as relevant external powers, and with the endorsement of the UN Security Council, to commit themselves not to interfere in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. The most important country in this regard is Pakistan. Pakistan is highly suspicious, perhaps without any basis, of India’s role in Afghanistan. A multilateral pact, with India subscribing to it, ought to allay, to some extent at least, Pakistan’s apprehensions. India will need to talk to China about cooperating in Afghanistan; Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi already agreed in Wuhan, in April 2018, on working on joint projects there.
•Pakistan should have no objection to formally agreeing to Afghanistan’s neutrality. There is the most relevant precedent of the Bilateral Agreement on the Principles of Mutual Relations, in particular on Non-interference and Non-intervention, signed in Geneva in 1988 between Pakistan and Afghanistan. In that agreement, the parties undertook, inter alia, to respect the right of the other side to determine its political, social and culture system without interference in any form; to refrain from over throwing or changing the political system of the other side; to ensure that its territory was not used to violate the sovereignty, etc of the other side, to prevent within its territory the training, etc of mercenaries from whatever origin for the purpose of hostile activities against the other side.
•As a document on non-interference, it could hardly be improved upon. Pakistan probably would agree to a document with Afghanistan in whose governance its protégé, the Taliban, will play an important role, which would broadly be similar to the one it had concluded with an Afghan regime which it did not approve of.
•The Bonn Agreement of 2001, which made Hamid Karzai the interim chief of Afghan government, contains a request to the United Nations and the international community to ‘guarantee’ non-interference in the internal affairs of Afghanistan, a request not acted upon so far.
Some concerns
•A regional pact on non-interference and non-intervention ought to be welcomed by all the regional states. Russia has reason to worry about a lack of stability in Afghanistan because of its concerns regarding a spread of radicalism as well as the drug menace. China has even stronger concerns, given the situation in its western-most region. The U.S. might have apprehensions about China entrenching itself in strategically important Afghanistan, but there is little it can do about it; a regional agreement on non-interference might give the U.S. at least some comfort.
•It is early days to conclude whether the situation in Afghanistan has entered its end game. In any case, it would be prudent to assume that the U.S. will definitely leave Afghanistan in the next two years, likely to be followed by other western countries. No other country will offer to put boots on the ground, nor should they; certainly not India. The only alternative is to think of some arrangement along the lines we have suggested. May be, there are other ideas; we would welcome them.
📰 Basic income works and works well
India has the technological capacity, the financial resources, and the need for a simple, transparent basic income scheme
•In 2010-2013, I was principal designer of three basic income pilots in West Delhi and Madhya Pradesh, in which over 6,000 men, women and children were provided with modest basic incomes, paid in cash, monthly, without conditions. The money was not much, coming to about a third of subsistence. But it was paid individually, with men and women receiving equal amounts and with children receiving half as much, paid to the mother or surrogate mother. The pilots involved the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) and financial assistance from UNICEF and the UNDP.
•The outcomes exceeded expectations, partly because everybody in the community, and not just select people, received their own individual transfer. Nutrition improved, sanitation improved, health and health care improved, school attendance and performance improved, women’s status and well-being improved, the position of the disabled and vulnerable groups improved by more than others. And the amount and quality of work improved.
•Critics said it would be a waste of money, but they were proved wrong. Above all, the basic incomes improved the community spirit and were emancipatory. Those who do not trust people wish to retain paternalistic policies despite decades of evidence that they are woefully inefficient, ineffective, inequitable and open to ridiculously extensive corruption. The tendency of elites to want to have common people grateful to their discretionary benevolence has blocked sensible economic reform.
•As commentators know, in the 2017 Economic Report tabled by the government there is a chapter on how a basic income could be rolled out across India, and is affordable. Its main author, former Chief Economic Adviser Arvind Subramanian, and others such as Professor Pranab Bardhan have proposed ways of paying for it — primarily by rolling back existing wasteful, distortionary, and mostly regressive subsidies. This should not be an issue to divide the left and right in politics, and it would be wonderful if the main political parties and personalities could come together on it. That is too much to hope. But in this wonderful country, now is a moment of transformative potential.
A ripe idea
•The international debate on basic income has advanced considerably in the past five years. Experiments have been launched in countries of different levels of per capita income, which include Canada, Finland, Kenya, Namibia, the Netherlands, Spain and the U.S., with plans being drawn up in England, Scotland, South Korea and elsewhere. India could take the lead. It has the technological capacity, the financial resources and, above all, the need for a simple, transparent scheme to liberate the energies of the masses now mired in economic insecurity, deprivation and degradation.
•However, as I wrote after the pilots in Madhya Pradesh were completed, planning the phased implementation of basic income will be a serious but manageable challenge. It will require goodwill, integrity, knowledge and humility about what will be inevitable mistakes. As we found, if properly planned, it is possible to introduce a comprehensive scheme even in rural or urban low-income communities, without too much cost. But it is essential to obtain local cooperation and awareness at the outset, and the backing of key local institutions. It is strongly recommended that if the government is to go ahead, it should phase in the scheme gradually, rolling it out from low-income to higher-income communities, after local officials have been trained and prepared.
•It is also recommended that the authorities should not select particular types of individuals and give it only to them. It is tempting to say it should go only to women, low-income farmers, or vulnerable social groups. That would be wrong. It would involve expensive and corruptible procedures, and risk evoking resentment in those arbitrarily excluded, who would probably be equally in need, perhaps more so. The same applies to means-testing targeting. That would be a terrible mistake, for the many reasons reiterated in a recent book on basic income.
•What administrators often do not appreciate enough is that money is fungible. If money is given only to women, men will demand a share; some women will give in, some will resist; it will be divisive. We found in the pilots that if men and women all have an equal individual amount, it promotes better and more equal gender relations. Moreover, giving to all in the community fosters solidarity within households and the wider community, apart from enabling multiplier effects in the local economy.
Farm loan waivers
•The contrast is bound to be made with the Congress’s promise of farm loan waivers. No doubt this policy would lessen the burden on a hard-pressed social group, and lessen rural poverty, but it is a populist measure. It will be popular, but will not alter structures and is bad economics. Suppose the principle were generalised. If one type of loan could be declared non-repayable, why not others? Unless one can show that a debt is odious or illegal per se, it would be a dangerous precedent to declare that one type of debt and not others need not be repaid.
•In the long term, financial institutions would be less likely to extend loans to small-scale farmers. Is that the aim? If the loans were made on fair rules, it would be better to enable the debtors to pay them back less onerously. That is why a basic income would be a more equitable and economically rational way of addressing what is undoubtedly an unfolding rural tragedy.
•The beauty of moving towards a modest basic income would be that all groups would gain. That would not preclude special additional support for those with special needs, nor be any threat to a progressive welfare state in the longterm. It would merely be an anchor of a 21st century income distribution system. Will the politicians show the will to implement it? We need to see.
•Guy Standing is Professorial Research Associate, SOAS University of London, and is co-founder and honorary co-president of BIEN, the Basic Income Earth Network. His most recent book is ‘Basic Income: And How We Can Make It Happen’. He is the co-author of ‘Basic Income – A Transformative Policy for India’
📰 Change in Congo
A contentious election may lead to the country’s first transfer of power via the ballot
•After last month’s general election, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo) is anxiously awaiting the first ever transfer of power via the ballot since gaining independence in 1960. President Joseph Kabila, who had already deferred the polls by two years, postponed them again by a week days before it was scheduled in December. He cited the Ebola outbreak in some provinces and the destruction of electronic voting machines in a fire in the capital Kinshasa as reasons for the latest delay. But Mr. Kabila’s critics dismissed these excuses as coming from a President in denial of his impending defeat after 17 years in power. Their suspicions appeared to be justified, as prominent opposition leaders were barred from the contest by partisan courts and the election commission. Meanwhile, the UN has voiced concerns over the quality of voting machines and the deployment of the state machinery to obstruct opposition campaigns, adding to the sense of uncertainty. Soon after polling closed on December 30, rival camps began to pronounce victory for their own sides. When the election commission last week announced Felix Tshisekedi, leader of the Union for Democracy and Social Progress as the winner, it predictably created a controversy. Mr. Kabila’s candidate, former Interior Minister Emmanuel Shadary, was expected to romp home. In the event, Mr. Shadary, who faces accusations of human rights abuses, was ranked third. The outcome triggered intense speculation that Mr. Kabila had cut a deal to back Mr. Tshisekedi, son of a deceased opposition leader. The candidate who came in second, Martin Fayulu, a political outsider, has challenged the results.
•DR Congo’s Catholic church, which runs an independent poll observation mission, has questioned the official result and has even threatened to legally challenge it. It is but natural that DR Congo’s vibrant civil society groups should expect the judiciary to assert its independence, as did the court in Kenya following that country’s disputed 2017 elections. There are real fears that without genuine attempts to uphold the rule of law, the central African nation could slip into protracted political uncertainty and social unrest. The U.S. has cautioned Mr. Kabila against attempting to doctor the popular mandate. But with an eye on the country’s lucrative mineral wealth, which is needed to power electric cars and the robotics revolution, there are limits to the pressure Western nations will want to exert on Kinshasa in the months ahead. The role of Mr. Kabila, who is just 47 years old, in the coming days will be important to watch. He has emphasised that by stepping down, he is merely respecting the constitutional mandate. The intent behind that assertion will be tested in the ensuing months.
📰 Delhi must engage with Taliban, oppose U.S.-Pak deal outside Kabul: Hamid Karzai
Wary of deals on Afghanistan between the U.S. and Pakistan, the former President urges India to seek an end to violence by speaking to all stakeholders
•More than four years after demitting office, former President Hamid Karzai remains a key figure in Afghan politics. During a recent visit to Delhi for official meetings, Mr. Karzai said India must reconsider its refusal to deal directly with the Taliban, given that the insurgent group was an important stakeholder in the future of Afghanistan.
You met External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and briefly with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Do you feel India’s position on Afghanistan has changed?
•Our expectation is that India should always have its own policy towards Afghanistan, not as a part of anyone else’s. The United States has suddenly begun to speak of peace and reconciliation efforts and the need to engage with the Taliban and re-engage with Pakistan.
We want an Afghanistan that is friendly with Pakistan, but one that is sovereign of Pakistan's influence. In other words, we would help the U.S. for peace in Afghanistan, but equally make it clear that we want no deals on Afghanistan between the U.S. and Pakistan and we hope that India will make that clear as well. Help us gain peace, and be sovereign.
What do you mean by India’s own course in Afghanistan? What role can it play within the parameters that it will not engage the Taliban directly, nor extend security assistance like troops etc. beyond current levels?
•India can play a role at different levels at the same time. We understand its position to engage with the government of the day in Kabul. But India is also a friend of the Afghan people, and the Taliban are part of the Afghan people. They are a part of the reality. My proposal to India is that they must engage with the Taliban, as well as the government. Tomorrow if through a peace deal, the Taliban becomes a part of the government, then India will have to deal with them.
When you ask India to talk to the Taliban, aren’t you saying that an insurgent group should be equated with the state?
•No, what I mean is that India should be seeking an end to violence in Afghanistan, and how can you do that without speaking to all the stakeholders? Unfortunately, the reality is that the government is not the only [stakeholder].
•Unlike India, the United States has been fighting the Taliban, and waging war within Afghanistan because it says it is fighting the Taliban. But today the United States wants to talk to the Taliban.
•India has never fought the Taliban; there has been no direct conflict with the Taliban. Therefore, what I am saying is that India should talk to Afghans amongst whom the Taliban are a part. That’s what India should have done a long time ago.
Your visit [to Delhi] coincided with that of U.S. Special Envoy on Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, who briefed the government on Washington’s talks with the Taliban and you met him too. Do you believe that the U.S. has discarded its South Asia policy announced in August 2017?
•Of course, it has been discarded, and I am glad it has been discarded. That policy announced in 2017 was one of escalating the conflict and making war in Afghanistan; and I stood up against it even then. I support their initiative for peace and the appointment of Ambassador Khalilzad, so long as the distinctions are clearly made between peace, and deals with a foreign country [Pakistan] on Afghanistan, which is not acceptable to our sovereignty.
You mean between the U.S. and Pakistan…The new government in Islamabad has reached out to the Afghan government — do you think it would be prepared to give up that influence?
•Pakistan will not willingly give up the control or influence it has, but it is for the Afghan people not to allow a foreign country to influence us. We have been the victims of the deal concocted between the U.S. and Pakistan during the Soviet invasion, which led to the creation and sustenance of extremist groups here. Pakistan’s actions against Afghan traditions and values still continue, and they must be stopped from wielding that power over the people.
Do you think U.S. troops will be pulled out?
•The U.S. remains intent on keeping bases in Afghanistan, but this is something that can only be granted to them through a legitimate forum. That forum is the Loya Jirga (Grand council of representatives), and it should be convinced that Americans want to stay on to keep peace in Afghanistan. We don’t want the bases used for war-making. The American presence and bases should be a factor of stability and not for war, as we have seen.
What about the worry that the peace process would mean rolling back many of the freedoms Afghans have gained post-Taliban, especially for women?
•We must never allow that. My point is that the focus should be on the outcome of the peace talks and the gains from that rather than the tokenism of how many women are in the process. A strong presence will be judged by the outcome of the talks.
Do you think the presidential elections will be — can be — held this year?
•Right now, the circumstances are extremely difficult, judging by the confusion over the parliamentary elections. What we need is stability and return of the peace before the elections.
•The process could mean there will be a Loya Jirga first, or an international conference like the one in Bonn in 2001 that decides the way forward with international and regional guarantees that no deal will be done between foreign powers on Afghanistan. And this could then be ratified by the Loya Jirga. It is necessary that we, the Afghan people, determine our future and regain the ownership of our country.
📰 India for Afghan-led peace talks
Swaraj’s statement goes against Army chief’s suggestion for talks with Taliban
•India supports the efforts of the government and the people of Afghanistan to build an inclusive nation, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said at a meeting with the Foreign Ministers of Central Asian countries and Afghanistan on Sunday.
•“India supports the people and the Government of Afghanistan in their efforts to build a united, sovereign, democratic, peaceful, stable, prosperous and inclusive nation. India supports all efforts for peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan which are inclusive and Afghan-led, Afghan-owned and Afghan-controlled,” Ms. Swaraj said at the India-Central Asia Dialogue at Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
Support for process
•The statement indicated India’s support for a peace process that will help end the war that has haunted the country for decades.
•“The violence and terror imposed on Afghan people should end. It should strengthen unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country,” Ms. Swaraj said in her speech at the Samarkhand event.
•The ministerial statement indicates India’s unchanged position regarding peace building in Afghanistan.
•Last week, the Chief of the Army Staff, General Bipin Rawat, had urged India to begin talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan, which did not receive support from the government with the External Affairs Ministry saying that India wanted the peace process in Afghanistan to be “Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, and Afghan-controlled”.
Land link
•A joint statement issued after the Samarkand meeting highlighted the opportunities that the collaborative platform would provide for the people of Afghanistan and asked for Kabul’s participation.
•The regional Ministers described Afghanistan as a “land link” in the region that will help in connectivity among the nations.
📰 At mini 2+2, India, U.S. review progress on pacts
The two sides also exchanged notes on developments in the Indo-Pacific and the region
•India and the U.S. reviewed the progress on finalising two key agreements during the 2+2 intercession meeting last week, apart from taking stock of the overall defence cooperation. The agreements are the Industrial Security Annex (ISA) and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA), a foundational agreement.
•“This was to follow up on the 2+2 dialogue and to keep the official-level dialogue going. The two sides reviewed the decisions taken at 2+2 and also exchanged notes on developments in the Indo-Pacific and the region, broadly the countries of interest. Also, the bilateral defence cooperation was reviewed, especially the greater Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) and the first tri-service exercise which will take place later this year,” an official source said.
•The inaugural 2+2 dialogue was held last September. The third foundational agreement, Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement, was signed on the sidelines.
•The U.S. has already shared a draft of BECA, the last foundational agreement to be signed. “We have a working draft [BECA] which we are looking at. It came some time before the Defence Minister’s visit to Washington,” the official said.
•The ISA is particularly essential as the Indian industry looks for a greater role in defence manufacturing. It allows sharing of classified information from the U.S. government and American companies with the Indian private sector, which is so far limited to the Indian government and the defence public sector undertakings. The ISA draft is currently going through the official process in Washington.
•The meeting was attended by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Alice Wells and Assistant Secretary of Defence Randall Schriver from the U.S. and Joint Secretary of the External Affairs Ministry Gourangalal Das and Joint Secretary of the Defence Ministry Shambhu Kumaran from India.
📰 Mekadatu: Not a nod for construction, only project report, Centre tells SC
‘Clearance only for project report’
•The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that the conditional clearance given to Karnataka for preparing a detailed project report on Mekedatu balancing reservoir-cum-drinking water project is subject to the amicable resolution of connected inter-State matters.
•“The conditional clearance is only for preparing the detailed project report and it no way conveys clearance by the central government or the Central Water Commission (CWC) for construction of the project,” the Ministry of Water Resources said in an affidavit.
•The Centre submitted that the conditional clearance for preparing the DPR was as per Guidelines of submission, appraisal and acceptance of irrigation and multi-purpose project-2017. The technical parameters have not been finalised yet.
•It said the nod of the Cauvery Water Management Authority would be a “pre-requisite” for consideration of the DPR for techno-economic approval by the advisory committee of the ministry.
•The government said it was fully conscious of the interests of farmers of the Cauvery delta and would not permit any activity detrimental to the their livelihood.
Water for Tamil Nadu
•It argued that even the conditional clearance was based on the premise that the reservoir would help Karnataka fulfill its obligation to release Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu.
•Tamil Nadu had submitted that the Mekedatu project in its present form violates the decisions of the tribunal and apex court for equitable apportionment of Cauvery water.
•“The proposed construction of any new dam by the State of Karnataka through its instrumentalities would alter the adjudication to the distribution of 10 daily/monthly releases to Tamil Nadu. This amounts to interference with the adjudication, which is in contempt of the Supreme Court judgment of February 16, 2018,” the petition said.
•Karnataka had however termed Tamil Nadu’s grievances against the unilateral approval granted by the CWC to prepare the DPR for the project as “false, frivolous and vexatious.”
📰 Panel pulls up govt. for diverting coal cess
Cess used to make up States’ revenue loss post-GST; committee urges support for gas-based power
•The 42nd standing committee on energy in its report on stressed gas-based power plants tabled in Parliament earlier this month has pulled up the government for diverting coal cess to compensate States for revenue loss post-GST, and recommended financial support to the stressed gas-based power projects in the country from National Clean Energy Fund (NCEF).
•The NCEF was created out of cess on coal at ₹400 per tonne to provide financial support to clean energy initiatives and an Inter Ministerial Group chaired by the Finance Secretary was constituted to approve the project/schemes eligible for financing under NCEF.
•The coal cess collected from 2010-11 to 2017-18 amounts to ₹86,440.21 crore, out of which only ₹29,645.29 crore has actually been transferred to the NCEF. The amount financed from NCEF for projects is only ₹15,911.49 crore, or only about 18% of the total amount collected as coal cess. “The Committee feels that the fund should be used for its intended purpose i.e. to support clean energy initiatives and it should not be diverted to compensate GST losses.
•“Diversion of this fund to unrelated activities reflects poorly on our commitment towards cleaner environment and shows government’s apathy towards clean energy projects. Since it is levied on coal as that is a polluting fuel, the amount collected should be used to promote cleaner fuel,” said the committee in its report.
•It recommended that financial support be extended to gas-based power projects from the NCEF. The Ministry of Power should pursue this matter with the Ministry of Finance, said the panel.
‘Stranded’ capacity
•Out of India’s total installed capacity of about 345 GW of power, gas-based capacity is about 25 GW or 7.2% of the total. However, its share in terms of generation is only 3.8% as 14,305.30 MW of gas-based capacity is stranded due to non availability of domestic gas and unaffordability of imported gas. The consequence is that a large amount of assets in this sector have turned ‘non-performing’ or ‘unproductive’.
Servicing of debt
•A senior GMR Group official said, “We welcome the findings of the committee. Time has now come to understand the real benefits of gas-based projects which can be used as peak-based plants as also for ancillary services. As demand for energy is picking up due to government’s efforts in electrifying all households, revival of gas-based plants will help provide clean energy.”
•The revival will also help all these plants service outstanding debt of ₹50,000 crore with banks, he added.
