December 31, 2011

EURO CRISIS


········ A ················ t a closed-door meeting in Washington on 14 April, Europe's effort to contain its debt crisis began to unravel.
Inside the French ambassa- dor's 19-bedroom mansion, fi- nance ministers and central bankers from the world's largest economies heard Dominique Strauss-Kahn, then-head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), deliver an ultimatum.
Greece, the country that trig- gered the euro-zone debt crisis, would need a much bigger bail- out than planned, Strauss-Kahn said. Unless Europe coughed up extra cash, the IMF, which a year earlier had agreed to share the burden with European countries, wouldn't release any more aid for Athens.
The warning prompted a split among the euro zone's repre- sentatives over who should pay to save Greece from the biggest sovereign bankruptcy in histo- ry. European taxpayers alone?
Or should the banks that had lent Greece too much during the global credit bubble also suffer?
The IMF didn't mind how Eu- rope proceeded, as long as there was clarity by summer.
“We need a decision,“ said Mr.
Strauss-Kahn.
It was to be Europe's fateful spring. A Wall Street Journal in- vestigation, based on more than two dozen interviews with euro zone policy makers, re- vealed how the currency union floundered in indecision--fail- ing to address either the imme- diate concerns of investors or the fundamental weaknesses undermining the euro. The consequence was that a crisis in a few small economies turned into a threat to the sur- vival of Europe's common cur- rency and a menace to the global economy.
In April, after a year of drama and bailouts, the euro zone seemed to have contained the immediate crisis to Greece and other small countries. Crucially, euro zone economies such as Spain and Italy had avoided the panicked flight of capital. They were still able to borrow money at affordable rates in the bond market.
But by July, the rift among euro zone leaders over who should bear the burden of Greece's debt had prompted in- vestors to shun all financially fragile euro nations. Like a wild- fire, the spreading uncertainty threatened to engulf the whole of Europe's indebted south, to outstrip the resources of its richer north and to burn down the symbol of Europe's dream of unity, its single currency.
Now, as the bloc's leaders rush to forge a closer political union, the lesson of that period looms large. Investor trust in public debt is part of the foun- dation on which all nation- states depend. And in Europe's common currency--a unique experiment with the livelihoods of 330 million people--nations will win or lose that trust to- gether.
The dispute at the Washing- ton meeting divided two of the Continent's grand old men, both of them born in 1942 and both among the fathers of the euro. Wolfgang Schäuble, Ger- many's ascetic and irascible fi- nance minister, understood the IMF's ultimatum. The euro zone would have to draw up a second bailout package for Greece by summer, just a year after a loan deal for 110 billion, or $140 billion.
But this time, Schäuble said, “We cannot just buy out the pri- vate investors“ with taxpayer money. That would reward reckless lending, he said, and it would never get through an in- creasingly impatient German parliament. Greece's bondhold- ers would be required to lend more money, Schäuble pro- posed, rather than take pay- ment for their bonds at maturi- ty.
Jean-Claude Trichet, the ur- bane French head of the Euro- pean Central Bank (ECB), warned against forcing bond- holders to put in more money, which would effectively delay repayment. “This is not a good way to go in a monetary union,“ Trichet said. “Investors would avoid all euro-area bonds.“
Trichet, in the twilight of a 36-year career as a finance offi- cial, feared that if Greece didn't honour its bond debts on time, the implicit trust that kept cred- it flowing to many weak euro zone governments would shat- ter. More countries and their banks would lose access to cap- ital markets, in a chain reaction with incalculable consequenc- es. The April meeting ended in- conclusively.
Meanwhile, the cost for fixing Greece was rising. The Athens government's budget deficit was stuck at a stubbornly high level.
Italian and Spanish borrow- ing costs were still affordable and stable. The yield on Spain's 10-year bonds hovered around 5.3%; on Italy's, around 4.6%.
The debate over making bondholders contribute to the new funding package for Greece--known as private-sec- tor involvement, or PSI--divid- ed euro zone countries.
Germany had allies. In the Netherlands and Finland, new governments had promised vot- ers they wouldn't pay for prob- lems in less-frugal Mediterra- nean countries. Breaking those promises would risk rebellions in parliament.
But France joined the ECB in resisting burden-sharing by bondholders. France's banks had lent more heavily than Ger- many's to Greece and other in- debted euro nations, and France fretted about a Lehman Brothers-style banking-system meltdown. Italian officials also feared that a precedent for loss- es in Greece would scare inves- tors away from Italy's bonds.
Three weeks after the Wash- ington gathering, on Friday, 6 May, panic erupted. German news weekly Der Spiegel report- ed that Greece was thinking of leaving the euro zone, with pol- icy makers heading to a secret meeting that night in Luxem- bourg. The report was half- right. There was a meeting, but Greece was staying put.
Inside a country chateau, top euro zone officials told Greece's finance minister they expected deeper austerity and faster re- forms in return for a new aid package.
Then Schäuble said he want- ed to discuss how bondholder burden-sharing would work.
The usually smooth-mannered Mr. Trichet lost his patience. “I want to put my position on the record,“ he said: “I don't agree with private-sector involve- ment, so I won't take part in a discussion about the practicali- ties.“ He stormed out.
Trichet's assent was vital. If the ECB were to stop accepting Greek bonds as collateral for its lending to banks on the grounds that the bonds were in default, then Greece's banks, which were stuffed full of their government's bonds, would quickly run out of cash and col- lapse. That would radically drive up the cost of a rescue.
In Greece, a new wave of mass strikes and demonstra- tions was starting. Protesters, angry about Europe's imposi- tion of extra spending cuts and tax hikes, clashed with police in front of the Athens parliament in the biggest and most violent protests in a year.
Spanish and Italian bond prices remained stable. But Eu- rope was at a dangerous im- passe over Greece.
Many euro zone governments hoped Mr. Strauss-Kahn could find a way to relax the IMF's summer deadline. The IMF chief was due to discuss the matter with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin on 15 May, and with euro zone fi- nance ministers in Brussels the next day.
Strauss-Kahn couldn't at- tend. Police in New York pulled him off his Paris-bound flight and charged him with sexually assaulting a hotel chamber- maid. (The charges were later dropped, and prosecutors said they doubted the maid's reli- ability.) An aide phoned Merkel at her central-Berlin home that Saturday and told her the news. The astonished chancellor re- sponded with a German idiom that translates roughly as: “You couldn't make this up.“
The IMF sent a lower-ranking official to Brussels in his place who had no latitude to deviate from the IMF's deadline.
In Athens, meanwhile, a tent city of the “Indignant“ protest movement--a groundswell of anger at the country's impover- ishment--sprang up outside parliament. Spain's bond pric- es began to wobble as investors worried that other countries might also face debt restructur- ing. On 1 June, Schäuble's dep- uty, Jörg Asmussen, presented a German plan at a meeting of finance officials in Vienna, at the Hofburg palace of the for- mer Habsburg emperors. It in- volved pressuring Greece's bondholders to swap their Greek debt for new IOUs that would come due far in the fu- ture. That would cut the amount of European taxpayer funding Greece would need.
After a meal in a palace ban- quet hall, the officials quar- relled into the wee hours.
For the ECB, Trichet's deputy Vitor Constâncio, of Portugal, denounced the German plan as “dangerous.“ Credit-rating agencies would declare Greece to be in default on some of its debts--a so-called selective de- fault. In that case, Constâncio warned, the ECB would refuse to accept Greek government bonds as collateral, dealing a death blow to Greek banks.
France, Italy and Spain all sup- ported Constâncio.
Germany's Asmussen shot back with a threat of his own.
Europe needed Germany's money to fund a new pro- gramme of Greek loans. “With- out private-sector involve- ment,“ he said, “there will be no program.“
Greece was descending into chaos. Embattled premier George Papandreou's slender majority in parliament was fray- ing. On 15 June, a swelling demonstration in Athens's central square veered out of control.
Alone in his office, Papan- dreou phoned the parliamenta- ry opposition leader and of- fered to make way for a nation- al-unity government. Talks broke down, and the Greek government limped on badly wounded.
Even Merkel had some doubts about her finance minis- try's hard-line insistence that Greece's bondholders take a loss. On 17 June, she discussed a softer plan with French Presi- dent Nicolas Sarkozy: a gentle- man's agreement under which Greek bonds would be hon- oured but the bondholders would volunteer to buy new ones.
Schäuble pushed back. The veteran conservative politician was Berlin's biggest supporter of the European dream, but he was also the keeper of Ger- many's purse. He was deter- mined to make banks share the burden with German taxpayers, and he didn't trust them to keep a gentleman's agreement.
When finance ministers met again on 20 June, Schäuble pushed harder. Greece's bond- holders should be told not merely to accept a delay in re- payment, he said, but also to forgive some Greek debt--a so- called haircut.
As Greece's economy moved toward free fall, its debts were soaring beyond the country's ability to pay, the Germans and their northern allies argued.
Trichet and the southern coun- tries resisted. Talks dragged on for hours. The ministers knew they couldn't leave without some agreement.
They tried to please everyone: Greece would get more aid.
Bondholder losses would be substantial, to placate the Ger- mans, Dutch and Finns. But as the ECB insisted, they would avoid pushing Greece into se- lective default.
Investors knew you couldn't have it both ways. As the threat of a Greek debt restructuring sank in, Southern Europe's bond markets grew volatile.
Spain's 10-year bond yield rose above 5.6%. Italy's reached 4.9%.
Greece's parliament debated the extra austerity measures that Europe demanded. Central Athens erupted in violent pro- tests. Anarchist youths tore up chunks of paving stone and threw them at riot police, who fired back with tear gas and stun grenades. Café parasols burned.
Europe hadn't resolved how to keep Greece afloat. The IMF--whose demand for a deci- sion had set off the whole argu- ment--softened its ultimatum.
IMF officials said they were sat- isfied that Europe would sort out some kind of new bailout, and wired Greece its summer aid payment on 8 July. It wasn't enough to calm markets.
Spain's bond yield hit 6.3%. Ita- ly's rose to over 5.8%. Such bor- rowing costs, if sustained, would make it hard for both countries to rein in their debts.
The selloff in bond markets forced leaders to call an emer- gency summit for 21 July.
Determined not to let the summit pass without an agree- ment, Merkel invited the French president, who objected to the German push for bond- holder losses, to Berlin. The pair and their advisers met for dinner in the German chancel- lery the night before the meet- ing. Few of them had time to touch the duck breast and vege- tables on their plates as they searched for a compromise. Fi- nally, Sarkozy said he would ac- cept the private-sector involve- ment--if Merkel dropped her resistance to giving the eurozone bailout fund broad new powers to buy debt of weak countries directly and move to protect such countries as Spain and Italy from bond-market contagion. Merkel agreed.
One more person needed to sign off. Merkel phoned Trichet at his Frankfurt office. He took the last Lufthansa flight to Ber- lin and arrived at the chancel- lery around 10 pm.
Reluctantly, Trichet gave his OK. But he set conditions. Gov- ernments would have to insure Greek bonds against default so that the ECB could continue to accept them as collateral. And they would have to make plain that no other euro country but Greece would have its debts re- structured.
The trio's deal was both com- plicated and vague. Their staffs had little time to flesh out de- tails before the next day's sum- mit in Brussels. As leaders trick- led into the European Union's boxy headquarters, Merkel faced a challenge to placate the euro zone's south, which thought private-sector involve- ment was dangerous, and its north, which thought it didn't go far enough. When the lead- ers assembled at the sprawling summit table, Merkel admitted that the specter of bondholder losses was causing market un- rest. But, she said, some Greek debt relief was essential. With- out it, the bailout's tough aus- terity conditions--made tough- er by Greece's missing its bud- get goals--would be seen as un- bearable.
“If Greece had met its pro- gram parameters in April,“ she snapped, “that would have helped.“
All 17 euro nations had to agree to private-sector involve- ment. But presented with a cal- culation that the plan would re- duce Greece's debt by only about 19 billion out of more than 350 billion total, Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte balked. If it's only 19 billion, he said, “I'm out. I need more.“
Finnish premier Jyrki Katain- en also complained. His parlia- ment wanted collateral in ex- change for more Finnish lend- ing to Greece. “No collateral, no agreement from me,“ he said.
Sarkozy was peeved. “All our parliaments can cause prob- lems,“ he said.
Then it was Slovakia's turn.
Prime Minister Iveta Radi ová was fighting to keep her coali- tion together over aid for Greece--a richer country than her own. Adding more powers to the bailout fund “would be suicide,“ she said.
Greece's Papandreou plead- ed for help. “If we can't solve even Greece, we won't be seen as being able to solve anything else,“ he said. Hours later, the leaders had a communiqué. To appease the holdouts, it left key points broad and noncommit- tal, offering the possibility of collateral to Finland and de- scribing the complex bond- holder deal in a few strokes, vague language that would re- turn to haunt the bloc.
Officials struggled to explain the new Greek bailout and the bondholder losses. Amid the confusion, Rutte dispensed muddled numbers. Bank ana- lysts put out flawed reports.
Investor confidence faltered as it became clear that Europe's compromise achieved the worst of all worlds. Greece would be pushed into a historic de- fault--the first time in nearly 60 years that a developed, Western country wouldn't honor its debts. But the default was so small that Greece was still left with a crushing debt burden.
And then official Europe went on vacation: Merkel to the Ital- ian Alps, Sarkozy to the French Riviera.
Bondholders didn't. They went on a rampage.


December 28, 2011

UNDERSTANDING CORRUPTION



Vertical axis-Energy: shown on vertical axis is the aggregation of negative energies that widen the gap between the ideal conditions and the real conditions in the system. This energy acts as the hindrance or obstacle to the policy makers.
Horizontal axis-Time: shown on horizontal axis is the advancement civilization.
Area: The shaded area in the above figure represents the corruption.
Energy × Time = watt hour which is nothing but energy consumed in terms of units that we normally pay our electricity bills. In similar lines it is unit of imbalance in the society that is corruption.

My conception of corruption:
Since time immemorial the mind and society are in concurrence, developing certain systems that has lead to the growth of civilisation. What we see around us is just one aspect of civilisation that is the material culture but there is also non-material culture which i think is a linchpin that is pivotal in balancing the wheels of progress or development of any society.The values, customs and norms as a part of non-material culture which in turn a part of civilisation that determine the direction in which a society is heading towards.As long as there is evil present in the mind and society the real progress can not be achieved.Corruption is one such an evil which is present both in mind and society,in mind as a intrinsic thing (since human is a biological entity and can not escape from some limitations.) And in society as an institution which is again a making of mind.What i want to convey is no matter what efforts we put we can not eliminate corruption out of system if we can do the society has proven to be reached to the stage of utopia.It doesn't mean that we can not do any thing. certainly we can do, we can do in a constructive way. Now let me explain this through the graph shown above.

The area under the graph is representing the corruption.Why i have shown corruption under the quantum area because corruption is not a event that can be plotted certainly it can not be shown on the negatively it is consequence of so many things hence it is shown as an area. The shaded area represents the corruption resulting out of structural and functional defects in the system.We can reduce the area in two ways.
1. If we could interpolate the negatively sloping line where it starts on the vertical axis then we are partly successful in in bringing down the corruption.
2.by moving back on to the horizontal axis. This means moving back in to the history and civilisation which can not be done.( this axis represents time)
The option one can be done by framing stringent laws against corruption but still we can not eliminate it if we observe the graph the residual defects in the form of mind and society are always present in the society. So what need to be done. The civil society and N.G.Os should involve in reforming and educating the society the only way we can reduce that residual gap.The civil society has no responsibility of governance and its function should limit as an advisory body rather than a dictating body.The government should take the valuable suggestions of the civil society and laws should be framed to counter the corruption.In this regard government is doing its job but the civil society is dictating the terms and making the mockery of Indian democracy. I want to put a question to the civil society. Can lokpal will wipe out corruption out of the country? Why they were so much after one law leaving behind so many factors that need to address to control corruption.
We have abolished SATI through sati prohibition act 1829. Are we able to eliminate the modern sati, the burning of young brides for dowry.182 years have passed since the law has been passed but we could not eliminate the evil in our minds.



                                                                                    To be continued..............






December 26, 2011

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE FREEDOMS


Freedom' is the disguise used by those who wish to exploit without restraint, denying the need for the state to protect the 99 per cent.

Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand forms of exploitation. Throughout the Right-wing press and blogosphere, among think-tanks and governments, the word excuses every assault on the lives of the poor, every form of inequality and intrusion to which the one-per-cent subject us. How did libertarianism, once a noble impulse, become synonymous with injustice? In the name of freedom — freedom from regulation — the banks were permitted to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and raise working hours. In the same cause, U.S. insurers lobby Congress to thwart effective public health care; the U.K. government rips up our planning laws; big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor.

Right-wing libertarianism recognises few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others. So why have we been so slow to challenge this concept of liberty? I believe that one of the reasons is as follows. The great political conflict of our age — between neocons and the millionaires and corporations they support on one side, and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other — has been mischaracterised as a clash between negative and positive freedoms. These freedoms were most clearly defined by Isaiah Berlin in his essay of 1958, Two Concepts of Liberty. It is a work of beauty: reading it is like listening to a gloriously crafted piece of music.

Two concepts of liberty

Put briefly and crudely, negative freedom is the freedom to be or to act without interference from other people. Positive freedom is freedom from inhibition: it's the power gained by transcending social or psychological constraints. Berlin explained how positive freedom had been abused by tyrannies, particularly by the Soviet Union. It portrayed its brutal governance as the empowerment of the people, who could achieve a higher freedom by subordinating themselves to a collective single will.

Right-wing libertarians claim that greens and social justice campaigners are closet Communists trying to resurrect Soviet conceptions of positive freedom. In reality, the battle mostly consists of a clash between negative freedoms.

As Berlin noted: “No man's activity is so completely private as never to obstruct the lives of others in any way. ‘Freedom for the pike is death for the minnows.'” So, he argued, some people's freedom must sometimes be curtailed “to secure the freedom of others.” In other words, your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The negative freedom not to have our noses punched is the freedom that green and social justice campaigns, exemplified by the Occupy movement, exist to defend.

Berlin also shows that freedom can intrude on other values, such as justice, equality or human happiness. “If the liberty of myself or my class or nation depends on the misery of a number of other human beings, the system which promotes this is unjust and immoral.” It follows that the state should impose legal restraints on freedoms that interfere with other people's freedoms — or on freedoms which conflict with justice and humanity.

Saving the tree

These conflicts of negative freedom were summarised in one of the greatest poems of the 19th century, which could be seen as the founding document of British environmentalism. In The Fallen Elm, John Clare describes the felling of the tree he loved, presumably by his landlord, that grew beside his home. “Self-interest saw thee stand in freedom's ways / So thy old shadow must a tyrant be. / Thou'st heard the knave, abusing those in power, / Bawl freedom loud and then oppress the free.”

The landlord was exercising his freedom to cut the tree down. In doing so, he was intruding on Clare's freedom to delight in the tree, whose existence enhanced his life. The landlord justifies this destruction by characterising the tree as an impediment to freedom — his freedom, which he conflates with the general liberty of humankind. Without the involvement of the state (which today might take the form of a tree preservation order) the powerful man could trample the pleasures of the powerless man.

Clare then compares the felling of the tree with other intrusions on his liberty. “Such was thy ruin, music—making elm; / The right of freedom was to injure thine: / As thou wert served, so would they overwhelm / In freedom's name the little that is mine.” But Right-wing libertarians do not recognise this conflict. They speak, like Clare's landlord, as if the same freedom affects everybody in the same way. They assert their freedom to pollute, exploit, even — among the gun nuts — to kill, as if these were fundamental human rights. They characterise any attempt to restrain them as tyranny. They refuse to see that there is a clash between the freedom of the pike and the freedom of the minnow.

Modern libertarianism is the disguise adopted by those who wish to exploit without restraint. It pretends that only the state intrudes on our liberties. It ignores the role of banks, corporations and the rich in making us less free. It denies the need for the state to curb them in order to protect the freedoms of weaker people. This bastardised, one-eyed philosophy is a con trick, whose promoters attempt to wrong-foot justice by pitching it against liberty. By this means they have turned “freedom” into an instrument of oppression

December 22, 2011

NOBEL DIPLOMACY

In 2000 KIM DAE-JUNG was awarded Nobel prize as a result of sunshine policy. he is consider as Mandela of Asia. The South Korean leader died in 18 august 2009, while his counterpart North Korean leader KIM JONG-IL died on 19 December 2011. I think it is apt to bring the sunshine policy that got acclamation across the world.


THE SUNSHINE POLICY: THE BACKGROUND

Th e   S u n s h i n e   P o l i c y, f o r m u l a t e d   u n d e r   K i m   D a e - j u n g’s
administration was influenced by a number of variables. First, it
reflected the impact of global change on the Korean peninsula. After
the collapse of Eastern Europe (1989) and the Soviet Communist
Party (1990), a new post-Cold War era unfolded in the international
community. Despite the opening and reform of the entire communist
bloc, the Cold War remained intact on the Korean peninsula. Seoul
realized that maintaining a hostile stance would be disadvantageous
for both Koreas. In response, Kim Dae-jung pursued two goals: to
establish a peaceful coexistence and to ease tensions between the two
states.
The second  condition has to do wi th Nor th Korea’s   internal
situation.  Despite   the   continued downward  spi ral  of   the  North
Korean economy and the food shortage, there is no sign of imminent
collapse of the North Korean regime. With enormous military power,
North Korea poses a tangible threat to South Korean security. And it
i s  believed  that   the  Nor th would go  to any  length  to  sustain  its system, even the launch of suicide attacks. Accordingly, South Korea
adopted the Sunshine Policy to maintain peace
T h e   t h i rd   c o n d i t i o n   i s   S o u t h  Ko re a’s   c o n t i n u e d   b u i l d u p   o f
national strength. With political democracy taking root, South Korea
has not only secured the legitimacy of its political system, but it also
has   the  uppe r  hand  e conomi cal ly, wi th  the  South Korean  t rade
volume totaling 169 times that of North Korea, the nominal gross
n a t i o n a l   i n c o m e   ( G N I )   1 6   t i m e s   g r e a t e r   t h a n   i t s   N o r t h e r n
count e rpar t, and 13  t ime s  highe r   in GNI  pe r   capi ta.   In  t e rms  of
military power, South Korea maintains a sufficient deterrent with the
South Korea-U.S. alliance structure.
Fourth, the North Korean economy must be revived in order to
s a v e   t h e  No r t h  Ko r e a n   p e o p l e   f rom  s t a r v a t i o n   a n d   t o   e a s e   t h e
economic burden that will ensue during the unification process. In
other words, the recovery of North Korean economy is not only a
humanitarian matter, it is necessary for unification
Finally, the Sunshine Policy is basically a continuation of the
uni f i cat ion pol i cy of  previous  admini s t rat ions .  As   the   fol lowing
c h ro n o l o g y   s h ows, t h e   S o u t h  Ko re a n   g o v e r nme n t   h a s   p u r s u e d
various policies for reconciliation and cooperation over the years: the
July 4 South and North Joint Communiqué (1972), the Diplomatic
P o l i c y   P ro c l ama t i o n   f o r   P e a c e f u l  Un i f i c a t i o n   ( J u n e   2 3, 1 9 7 3 ), a
proposal to implement 20 pilot projects between South and North
Korea (1982), the July 7 Special Presidential Declaration on National
Self-Esteem, Unification, and Prosperity (1988), the announcement of
K o r e a n   N a t i o n a l   C o m m u n i t y   U n i f i c a t i o n   F o r m u l a   ( 1 9 8 9 )   t h e
conclusion of inter-Korean agreement and the Joint Declaration of
the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (1992), the agreement
to hold an inter-Korean summit (1994), and the Unification Formula
for the Creation of a Korean National Community (1994).primary goal, the current administration’s Sunshine Policy adopted
the following principles: no absorption of North Korea in the process
of unification, intolerance of any armed provocation destructive to
peace, the principle of reciprocity, and separation of the economy
from politics

The  pr inc ipl e  of  no   a b s o rpt i on  o f  No r th Ko re a   in  the  process  of
unification clearly states that South Korea has no intention to absorb
North Korea and that it will not seek to provoke the North Korean
regime’s collapse. Instead, South Korea will pursue a policy to bring
about  an  int e r-Korean al l ianc e   that  will gradual ly develop  into
peaceful unification.
S e c o n d, t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f  i n t o l e r a n c e   o f   a n y   a rme d   p ro v o c a t i o n
destructive to peace demonstrates South Korea’s firm commitment to
preserve national security through prevention of war, and clearly
states that North Korea should initiate any armed provocation, South
Korea would take necessary measures against it. In this way, the
South is pressing North Korea to abandon its South Korea strategy,
which is based on armed provocation.
Third, the principle of reciprocity is a declaration that instead of
pursuing unilateral interest, the two Koreas should understand and
respect each other’s positions and promote mutual benefits. The
concept of reciprocity does not refer to equivalence in commercial
transactions. Rather, it states that North Korea should show a certain
level of corresponding efforts to South Korea’s aid to the North, and
other efforts to improve inter-Korean relations.
Lastly, the principle of separation of the economy from politics places
emphasizes that economic exchanges and cooperation should be
pursued autonomously by businesses according to the principles of
t h e   m a r k e t   e c o n o m y   a n d   s h o u l d   n o t   b e   a f f e c t e d   b y   p o l i t i c a l
c i r c u m s t a n c e s .   A d h e r i n g   t o   t h a t   p r i n c i p l e, t h e   S o u t h   K o r e a n
g o v e r nme n t   r e l a x e d   r e g u l a t i o n s   a n d   s imp l i f i e d   p r o c e d u r e s   f o r
e conomi c   t ransac t ions  wi th Nor th Korea by pr ivat e   enterprises
while at the same time, creating conditions to promote economic
exchange and cooperation.

December 14, 2011

carbon emissions


EURO ZONE SUMMIT


Euro Zone summit
1.       Euro zone summit took place in Brussels.
2.       The Euro zone leaders intend to revise the EU Treaty in regarding the Euro Zone financial crisis.
3.       The proposal would obligate all countries in single currency to write a GOLDEN RULE to balance their budgets in their constitutions. The new rule will introduce automatic sanction for country which breaches a deficit limit of 3% of GDP.
4.       It would bring out ESM bailout fund by the year to 2012, allow taking decision by qualified majority and modified status to make clear that a debt write down for Greece was a one-off.
Stands of different countries:-
Germany Stand:-
·         Germany has been in favor of fully automatic sanctions (in case any country breached the new fiscal rules) with national budget submitted or balanced for review by a supranational technocrat as a means of restoring confidence in the currency block. Berlin dropped its demand for European court of justice to have the power to prosecute the rule breakers.
France Stand:-
·         France has favored more flexible and governed approach. It wants to retain the inter governmental approach; never minded such an approach has been founded wanting.
Brittan Stand:-
·         Brittan is not in favor of revision of European treaty that will allow Brussels to exercise greater budgetary and fiscal control, because according old European treaty one country cannot bail out other country debt, which may lead to loss of financial sovereignty of that nation. Brittan had its apprehensions regarding this.
Outcomes of the Summit:-
1.       Euro zone state budget should be balanced or in surplus.
2.       The annual structure deficit should not normally exceed 0.5% of GDP.
3.       If any euro zone member is in breach of 3% debt ceiling there will be automatic sanction including possible sanctions.
Who is going to play big role?
1.       The private player i.e. Read banks especially European central bank (ECB) has a major role to play. ECB welcomed the deal but gave no hint that it was prepared.
2.       The only question that the market is currently asking is whether the political deal open the way for more forceful intervention by the ECB in sovereign debt market. It was not clear what ECB would do.
3.       What was clear was the Euro zone governments are counting on the ECB to sail to the rescue.

December 13, 2011

THE POWER PICTURE


Need for positive, clear-headed reform measures

Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra… no, this is not a listing of States with high growth. These are States that imposed rolling power cuts as late as in October, well after autumn had set in.

In fact, Tamil Nadu still has power cuts for periods ranging from 1-3 hours across the state. So, what's new, you might ask. Aren't power outages a fact of life in India?

Well, the difference this time is that it is happening not during the height of summer but during winter, a period of relatively low demand. Second, the duration of the power cuts is longer than what was faced during the summer.

The frightening fact though is that this could just be a taste of things to come unless the government takes corrective policy measures to clean up the mess in the power sector. What ails the industry?

There are two mainly. First, a conundrum over fuel, which, even a couple of years ago was non-existent. And second, a mess created by the inability of state electricity boards and distribution utilities to charge consumers the right price for the electricity they consume leading to losses.

Fuel trouble

As a country we may be tapping every available source of power generation but sadly all those sources are mired in problems either due to faulty policies or resource constraints or simply inept implementation. Thermal power is the most critical for India , yet that is where we seem to have messed up the most.

Thanks to protective policies on coal mining in the country, coal output is unable to keep pace with the growth requirements in power. In the first four years of the current Plan period ending 2012, coal demand, mainly for power generation, grew by 7.3 per cent but coal output grew by just 5.4 per cent.

In the coming XII Plan period (2012-17), the projected coal deficit is 200 million tonnes and the sector to suffer the most will be power generation. Though 194 blocks have been allotted for coal production to public and private companies, only 28 have commenced production. This is mainly due to problems of environmental clearances and “no-go” policies for mining.

Imports were an option till recently, but not anymore. Countries such as Indonesia that have large coal reserves are clamping down on exports and making it more expensive and difficult for buyers. Indian companies such as Tata Power, Reliance Power, the Adanis and others who have a toehold there are now finding their toes crushed by the weight of the Indonesian government's policy to tax exports.

The options are just two: push domestic coal output in a big way through positive policies and second, brace ourselves for high cost coal imports, wherever they are available. With more than half of thegenerating capacity being coal-fired, the country just cannot afford to go wrong here.

Gassed out

The technical problems that Reliance Industries is reported to be facing in the KG Basin have affected gas-based generation. Gas output from the KG Basin now is less than half of what was projected as possible by Reliance and even this is being supplied to fertiliser companies on priority basis. Imported gas is an option but it is expensive.

The hope is that Reliance will be able to surmount the problems in the near term and gas output will rise again. But even if it does, the gas-based generation capacity available now may not be enough to substitute for the shortfall from coal-based generation.

Hydro dam(ned)

Hydel power, supposed to be environmentally-friendly, has ironically run into trouble with the green lobby. NTPC was forced to halt work on two of its projects in Uttarakhand after pressure from environmentalists. Even last week there were protests in Assam against a large hydro project, Subansiri, being executed by NHPC in Arunachal Pradesh. Hydel projects have always been sensitive anyway due to submergence of land.

If we thought that nuclear power will be our long-term saviour that hope is also now fading away. The imbroglio over supplier liability clauses means that American companies are unable to commence business for reactor supplies. With the performance of the French EPR reactor being questioned after the experience in Finland where it ran into time and cost overruns, it appears unlikely that the first of the planned ones at Jaitapur will ever take off.

The public protests against nuclear power at Jaitapur and lately, in Kudankulam, also mean that progress will be slow and painful in future. Public opinion is veering around against nuclear power post-Fukushima and the example of Germany, which will be totally off nuclear power by 2021, is being widely quoted as an example for us to move away too.

Financial mess

Part reason for the fuel trouble may lie outside our control but the same cannot be said for the financial mess that the sector is in today which is entirely due to our governments, Central and State. State electricity boards are estimated to have accumulated losses of a massive Rs.70,000 crore. Ratings agency Crisil estimates that distribution utilities alone had a cumulative loss of between Rs.35,000 crore and Rs.40,000 crore as of 2010-11.

Riding on government backing, the state electricity boards have been borrowing merrily from banks to sew up the gaping holes in their finances due to these massive losses. And the hole is only growing bigger. Banks, after initially accommodating the state electricity boards have now grown wiser and are refusing to lend.

According to a Crisil report, the total debt of state electricity boards and distribution utilities touched a huge Rs.3-lakh crore or Rs.3 trillion as of March 31, 2011. The same report estimates that as much as a third of the 56,000 MW of thermal generation capacity is in trouble due to the combined impact of fuel and financial problems.

So where does all this leave us? Hopefully not in darkness. We need positive, clear-headed reform measures to be undertaken, including passing on full prices to consumers who can bear them and subsidising the genuinely poor. Some States have reluctantly allowed their boards to revise power prices in the last few weeks.

We need to cut down on transmission and distribution losses and untangle the environmental problems that coal mining has run into. Policymakers have to balance the needs of development with environmental considerations. But for some urgent steps from the government the country may well return to the Dark Ages, literally.


December 12, 2011

PLIGHT OF SMALL FARMER AND CLIMATE CHANGE


When world leaders sit down again to discuss climate change, we hope that the people who live and work on the world's 500 million small farms will be with them, at least in spirit. Their voice — and the issue of agriculture as a whole — has, for too long, been missing from the conversation. But without increased support to smallholder farmers now, the number of hungry people will grow, and future food security will be placed in jeopardy.


The upcoming 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) in Rio de Janeiro in June 2012 — marking the twentieth anniversary of the landmark Earth Summit that produced Agenda 21, “a roadmap” for sustainable development — will both need to ensure that agriculture and the world's smallholder farmers are high on the agenda if we are to overcome the many challenges we face in achieving the Millennium Development Goal 1.

The front line

In the last 20 years the global population has risen from about 5.3 billion to seven billion; the reality of climate change has been accepted beyond doubt; and the number of hungry people in the world has remained stubbornly around the one billion mark. Meanwhile, aid to agriculture has only just recently begun to pick up after decades of stagnation. More needs to be done — a lot more — and supporting smallholder farmers must be at the heart of any agenda.

The rural poor across the world, including India, have contributed little to human-induced climate change, yet they are on the front line in coping with its effects. Farmers can no longer rely on historical averages for rainfall and temperature, and the more frequent and extreme weather events, such as droughts and floods, can spell disaster. And there are new threats, such as sea level rise and the impact of melting glaciers on water supply.

How significant are small farms? As many as two billion people worldwide depend on them for their food and livelihood. Smallholder farmers in India produce 41 per cent of the country's food grains, and other food items that contribute to local and national food security. Small farmers cannot be ignored, and special attention must be given to the most vulnerable groups — particularly women, who make up a large percentage of farmers in the developing world.

Small farms also add up to big business: In the world's 50 least developed countries, agriculture is the backbone of the economy, accounting for 30 to 60 per cent of Gross Domestic Product and employing as much as 70 per cent or more of the workforce. Addressing the plight of smallholders isn't just a matter of equity, it's a necessity if we are going to be able to feed ourselves in the future. Smallholders farm 80 per cent of the total farmland in sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Asia. If we don't help them to adapt to climate change, their achievements — feeding a large portion of humanity — will be endangered.

With appropriate support, smallholders can play a key role in protecting our environment, for example through actions that contribute to carbon sequestration and limit carbon emissions (planting and maintaining forests, engaging in agro-forestry activities, managing rangelands and rice lands, and watershed protection that limits deforestation and soil erosion).

To continue farming in a sustainable way in the face of climate change, rural women and men need to be given the resources to cope with the challenges. Smallholder farmers need support such as resilience-building technologies (including drought- and salt-tolerant seed varieties and new methods of rainwater harvesting), and training in sustainable practices of conservation agriculture, such as minimum-till farming to reduce erosion and moisture loss. Investing in adaptation measures now will be far less costly than in the future.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the M.S. Swaminathan Foundation, together with the government of India and other partners, have undertaken a range of projects to do just that.

For example, in Tamil Nadu, we have been supporting rural communities to produce and market nutri-cereals like millet, which can easily grow in dry and arid environments. We worked with smallholder farmers to use simple techniques to increase their yields, while also helping rural women create and market modern recipes — for example, a millet malt drink now being sold in major health food stores in India. The result has been not only increased food for the community, but also increased income and non-farm employment opportunities.

To help farmers adapt to increasingly dry conditions, a programme in Chhattisgarh has expanded cultivation of traditionally produced Niger seed oil, which grows well in areas that receive little rain. Land and forest regeneration were promoted to improve soil structure and moisture levels, and solar energy technology and biogas digesters have been introduced, which reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as the need for fuelwood. Another project in the northeast has helped restore degraded jhum land and has benefited almost 40,000 households in 860 villages.

Climate-resilient sustainable agriculture requires knowledge. Successful projects such as these can provide a model for others to follow. Knowledge transfer that brings the benefits of research from the laboratory to the farm is essential.

Programmes targeted at vulnerable groups such as women and tribal communities are particularly important. IFAD-supported programmes and projects in India promote tribal development by building and strengthening grassroots institutions that enable vulnerable people to plan and manage their own development, negotiate improved entitlements, and broaden their livelihood opportunities. Conferences and talks among world leaders can do many things but they don't feed people. We hope that leaders will keep in mind those who do: the smallholder farmers. Price volatility and the persistence of widespread, endemic and hidden hunger underline the need for urgent attention to enhancing the productivity and profitability of smallholder agriculture in an environmentally sustainable manner. This is the pathway to increasing agriculture's contribution to climate change mitigation as well as to sustainable food security.

Price volatility and the persistence of widespread and hidden hunger underline the need for enhancing the productivity and profitability of smallholder agriculture in an environmentally sustainable manner.

December 9, 2011

appealing against acquittals by state government

Legal circles question the locus of Gujarat governmentFollowing quickly in the footsteps of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Gujarat government has moved the Supreme Court against the August 29, 2011 Gujarat High Court order acquitting all 12 accused in the Haren Pandya murder case.The CBI filed its appeal on November 25, 2011. The Gujarat government followed suit on December 1. However, legal circles are questioning the locus of the Gujarat government which was not a party to the case. A recent precedent set by the Supreme Court is also being cited in this context. In a 2010 ruling in the disproportionate assets case against former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad, the Supreme Court held that a State government cannot move the High Court against acquittals by the trial court in cases exclusively investigated by the CBI. The trial court acquitted Mr. Lalu and his wife, Rabri Devi, in the assets case. However, the CBI, which investigated and prosecuted the case, decided not to challenge the acquittal. Following this, the Bihar government moved the Patna High Court on its own.The Gujarat police held charge of the Pandya murder case for a mere two days. Pandya, a Bharatiya Janata Party legislator and former State Home Minister was shot dead in his car in the Law Garden area of Ahmedabad on March 26, 2003. The case was transferred to the CBI on March 28, 2003. On August 29, 2011, the Gujarat High Court overturned the conviction by the trial court of all 12 accused, and adversely commented on CBI's shoddy investigation. Said the Court, “… the investigation clearly appears to have been so botched up and misdirected that the confessional statements recorded during police remand, before any police officer, could not be safely relied [upon] for convicting any of the appellants for commission of, abetment or conspiracy to commit, murder..” The Court remarked that the prosecution version had been rendered improbable by medical and forensic evidence, noting in particular the impossibility of Pandya being shot through the scrotum (one of the injuries) while sitting in a closed car with only a three-inch opening on the driver's side of the window.In appealing against this verdict, the Gujarat government relied on Article 136 of the Constitution under which the Supreme Court has the discretionary power to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment. In the Lalu Prasad case, the Bihar government, invoking Section 378 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, argued that it had the right to file an appeal since the CBI had declined to do so. Rejecting this contention, the Supreme Court said: “…[in that case] we would have to say that no matter that a complaint was not lodged by the State government or its officers; investigation was not done by its police establishment; prosecution was neither commenced nor continued by the State government; a public prosecutor was not appointed by the State government; the State government had nothing to do with the criminal case; all steps from the launching of prosecution until its logical end were taken by the CBI and yet the State government may file an appeal from an order of acquittal under Section 378 (1) of the Cr.PC that would be rendering the exception clause in Section 378 (2) redundant, meaningless and unnecessary..”Available precedentsSenior Supreme Court advocate P.P. Rao told The Hindu that the Supreme Court was bound to consider the precedents available (the Lalu Prasad case among them) to it while considering the Gujarat government's locus. He also pointed that the Court had laid down guidelines in respect of appeals in general, restricting their scope to those rare cases where a gross injustice was seen to be done or where the judgment of the lower court was considered perverse: “Except where there is an injustice, the court in general will be slow to interfere in acquittals.”In its 48th report, the Law Commission noted that India was an exceptional country in the matter of entertaining appeals against acquittals: “In most common law countries, the general rule is not to allow an appeal against acquittals. While a limited right of appeal against acquittals has been given in England in respect of an appellate judgment of acquittal, the general rule mentioned above is still adhered to. An unlimited and general rule given as in India in respect of appeals against acquittals is rare in Anglo-American countries.”Significantly, Pandya's wife, Jagruti Pandya, has been doing the rounds of the Union Home and Law Ministries and petitioning the Supreme Court seeking a re-investigation of her husband's murder. But rather than feeling aggrieved by the Gujarat High Court judgment, she has drawn strength from it, arguing that the “real killers” need to be found.

RIL KG-D6 CONTROVERSY


 CAG in its draft report had rapped oil ministry and its technical arm DGH for allegedly favouring Reliance by allowing it to double KG-D6 gas field’s cost but it stopped short of saying if the Mukesh Ambani firm had overbilled the government and thereby caused loss to the state exchequer.The CAG in its draft audit report on KG-D6 block said the ministry and DGH also bent the rules to grant “huge benefits” to Reliance when it was allowed to retain the entire block, but said gains cannot be quantified
The increase in (Phase-1) cost from ($2.39 billion proposed in the) Initial Development Plan (of May 2004) to ($5.196 billion) in the addendum to the Initial Development Plan is likely to have a significant impact on the government of India’s financial take.The CAG conducted the audit of the Reliance accounts after allegations of ‘gold-plating´, or artificially inflating the development costs of Dhirubhai-1 and 3 gas fields, two of the 18 discoveries in KG-D6 block, were levied by the Anil Ambani Group.
CAG recommended that the “role of DGH and government of India representative on the Management Committee may be closely scrutinised to see why the operator was allowed to violate the provisions of Production Sharing Contract (PSC) and not adhere strictly to the terms of the approved initial development plan.On KG-D6, CAG said the submission of an addendum to the initial Development Plan (IDP) instead of a revised comprehensive development plan, as well as lack of adequate details with regard to the Phase-II development cost of $3.3 billion, made it virtually certain that the operator will submit more addendums.It also found a “similar irregular determination of the entire contract area” as ‘discovery area’ in the case of another block operated by Reliance, dubbed KG-OSN-2001/2.
The petoleum ministry said it will intiate action against RIL for not only digging Dhirubhai-1(D-1),D-3 gas fields but also for continuing fall in production that has gone down to 34 million metric cubic meters a day(mmcmd).The target  out put is 61.88 mmcmd.RIL has also achieved the out put around 80 mmcmd .RIL said it would limit the expenditure it was allowed to recoup.Prime minister has said that the fall in production was a cause of concern and punitive action was being considerd as one of the actions.The PSC doesn't link cost recovery to out put, but the petroleum ministry wants to restricts this in proportion to gas production vis-a-vis the target. If there are changes in PSC they will be introduced from future NELP rounds.They will have a prospective effect.

In a status report filed by the company with the petroleum and natural gas ministry, it has stated that the Dhirubhai 1 and 3 (D1 ans D3 ) the first two of the 18 gas discoveries in KG basin that have been put on production and the MA oil field in the same area.The drop on production is due to the dip in pressure in the wells and the increased water ingress led to lower pre- well gas out. Out of 18 wells drilled and put on production o D1 and D3, four wells A2,B1,B2, and B13  had to be closed due to high water cut/sanding issues. As per the status report, out of 22 wells planned in phase-1 of D1 and D3 field development, 18 wells have been drilled and completed so far.

December 7, 2011

OIL PRICING IN INDIA




Thanks to the author of this article Rhaguvir srinivasan dated :04-12-2011, THE HINDU.It is an eye opener and every line is worth reading.


Have you ever wondered why when petrol prices go up or down they do so uniformly across the retail outlets of the three oil marketing companies — Indian Oil, Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat Petroleum? If they are three different companies with their own refineries and distribution systems, then surely their costs and selling prices must be different?

Welcome to the strange world of petroleum product pricing in the country. A world where the laws of economics are turned on their heads, where there is no competition between the different players and where the price that we pay for petrol (or for that matter diesel or aviation turbine fuel) has no resemblance whatsoever to its cost of production.

It is a complicated world of subsidies and strange concepts such as “under-recoveries.” It is a hybrid world of controls and freedom — the oil companies have the supposed “freedom” to revise prices, yet that is subject to a discreet government nod.

The oil companies adopt a strange pricing policy that is linked neither to their costs nor to the competition in the market. The prices of the products that they sell in the domestic market are driven by the prices of the same products in the global markets; currently domestic prices are determined by the price swings in the Singapore oil market.

This is unlike in any other industry. Let's take the case of steel. The price of finished steel produced by an Indian company will be determined by its cost of raw materials such as iron ore and coking coal, the cost of power used to produce the steel plus other items of cost such as salaries and other overheads. The competition that the company faces in the market will determine how much margin it can add to this cost base.

The oil companies simply take the price of petrol in the Singapore market, apply the rupee-dollar exchange rate to that price, add other costs such as freight and import duties and lo, there comes the price that they should charge domestic consumers. Interestingly, not a litre of the petrol that these companies sell in the market is imported from Singapore; they are all produced here in their own refineries.

Now, the problem is that most often the price that they so arrive at has no relation to the prevailing domestic retail price, which is invariably lower. Thus is born the concept of “under-recoveries,” something that is unique to our oil companies. You should note that they don't call this loss, simply because it is not a loss. A loss will be caused when a company is forced to sell a product below its cost of production. In this case, we have no idea what the cost of production is for petrol or diesel or, for that matter, any petroleum product.

Under-recoveries are therefore bogus numbers that bear no resemblance to reality. Yet, pricing decisions for the domestic market are based on these numbers.

A careful reading of the statements that the oil companies put out whenever prices are revised will be enlightening. Here is an extract from the latest one released on November 30. “Review of international oil prices and INR-USD exchange rate of relevant fortnight for prices effective 01.12.11 brings out a further downtrend in international oil prices and a further weakening of the exchange rate. Thus, while petrol international prices have moved down significantly from $116/barrel approx. to $109/barrel approx., the exchange rate has deteriorated from Rs. 49.32/USD to Rs 51.50/USD. The combined impact of the two factors is an over-recovery of Rs. 0.65/litre. It has therefore, been decided to revise the petrol prices downward by Rs.0.65/litre (excluding state levies) w.e.f 1st Dec. 2011.”

Simply put, what this statement from Indian Oil Corporation says is that petrol prices have dropped in the global markets and despite the depreciation in the rupee, there is still room to reduce the domestic retail price. Of course, it goes without saying that if there is a rise in petrol price in the Singapore market and the rupee continues to depreciate, domestic prices will be revised upwards.

The question is: why should we in India pay for petrol a price that has no resemblance to either the cost structure of Indian Oil (or Hindustan Petroleum or Bharat Petroleum) or to competition in the market? Prices in Singapore dance to various tunes ranging from fundamental reasons such as consumption levels by countries in the region or shutdown of refineries or pipelines to market-related reasons such as levels of speculation and money flows into the commodities market. How are we in India affected by these when we do not import a litre of petrol or diesel from Singapore?

This flawed pricing model is a legacy of the control era when we had the administered price mechanism in place. The model does not belong in a liberalised market where the prices should be free and be determined by the costs of refining petroleum products and market competition, say analysts.

A senior official in a leading oil company concedes that this model is flawed and interestingly, says his company is all for a cost-plus pricing structure with competition between the three oil retailers — Indian Oil, Hindustan Petroleum and Bharat Petroleum.

The collusive pricing policy of the oil companies is an anti-competitive practice and has come under the radar of the Competition Commission in the past. Would the government tolerate a situation where MRF, Apollo Tyres and Ceat collude on pricing their tyres? So why should we allow oil companies to collude?

These problems arise because the winds of change that led to serious reform in industries such as telecom have largely bypassed the oil industry. What we need is a strong dose of reform in the form of freeing of pricing of petroleum products while simultaneously encouraging competition. We also need a strong regulator for the retail market; the existing Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board is not tasked with regulating the retail market.

These are important issues that need to be addressed sooner than later by the government.

November 26, 2011

THE BUZZ..... AROUND THE EURO BONDS




The much hyped EFSF(European Financial Stability Facility), which has fallen short of early expectations that it might be able to muster as much as 2 trillion to backstop wobbly Italy.The EFSF, after subtracting its current and expected commitments to Greece, Ireland and Portugal, has between 250 billion and 300 billion available.That's less than a year's borrowing for Italy.


The proposal to end the European crisis comes from the European commission calls for the Euro zone to use its combined strength in the bond markets to replace some or all the fund raising currently being done by the national governments. Germany remains reluctantly oppose to the idea fearing it would be stuck with the bill for the governments spendthrift ways. The European commission in a discussion paper suggests three options for issuing euro bonds.
1.The first option it discusses would be to substitute all national issues by governments with euro bonds carrying what it calls a "joint several "guarantee: meaning that euro zone state would pool the credit risk and each government would agree to guarantee the debt of every other government. Under this scheme all new government bonds will be euro bonds and the existing national government bonds would be converted in to euro bonds.

2.The second option would be to partially substitute national issuance with euro bonds up to a limit, of say 60%, of a country's gross domestic product, or up to a ceiling that could change depending on how closely the government complied with euro zone rules. These bonds would also be jointly and severally guaranteed. Beyond that limit, governments would still have to issue national bonds.
Those two options would require treaty changes, because they contravene the current treaty's clause forbidding one government from bailing out another, but the third option wouldn't.


3.This third approach would have euro bonds replace some national bond issues but the euro bonds would receive guarantees from each government only up to specific limits.The quality of the bonds issued under option three could be further improved by providing collateral, such as cash or gold reserves, or earmarking tax revenues, the paper says.This approach, the paper says, would “deliver fewer of the benefits of common issuance but would also require fewer preconditions to be met.“ These bonds would be unlikely to carry interest rates as low as those issued with joint guarantees.



SOCIAL SECURITY PACTS




Considerable amount of activity has been observed recently in the signing and ratification of social security agreements (SSAs) between India and other countries. Denmark is the latest and sixth addition to the countries with which India now has a ratified SSA. India also has ratified SSAs with Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, Luxembourg and France. In addition, the SSA with the Netherlands is likely to come into force in December. India's network of SSAs is certainly expanding at a rapid pace.
How do SSAs help?
Under SSA, foreign passport holders coming to work in India can obtain a “certificate of coverage“ in their home country and claim exemption from social security contributions in India.
Similarly, Indian passport holders going to work outside India can obtain a certificate of coverage in India and claim exemp- tion from the host country's social security scheme.

A certificate of coverage is a confirmation from the home country's social security authorities that the individual is cov- ered under the home country's social security scheme and con- tinues to be covered during the period of assignment.

Also, an SSA provides other benefits like “totalization of peri- ods“, which means that the period of contribution in the home and host countries will be added to determine the eligibility to social security benefits in either country. For example, in the ab- sence of this provision, an international worker may not be eligi- ble for any benefit from the Indian pension scheme, unless he has rendered at least 10 years of service in India. But if he is cov- ered under SSA, the period of contribution in India and the home country will be added to determine the said period of 10 years.

Further, an SSA enables an individual to receive social secu- rity benefits, irrespective of the country of location (home country, host country or a third country). Exceptions: Not all SSAs cover all the above benefits. For ex- ample, SSAs with the Netherlands and Switzerland do not cover the benefit of totalizing contribution periods.
Risks SSAs pose SSAs may have certain hidden risks that one needs to be mind- ful of. In most SSAs ratified so far, one of the conditions to obtain a certificate of coverage is that the employee should work in the host country on behalf of the home country's employer. This may create permanent establishment exposure for the home country employer in the host country, which should be analysed in detail.

Also, if an Indian employee is going to work in a country with which India has an SSA, he will be considered as an “interna- tional worker“. Special provisions for international workers carved out in the provident fund (PF) law will apply to such an employee. What makes matters worse is that as per a recent clarification from PF authorities, such provisions will continue to apply to him for the entire working life.

One of the special provisions is that unlike a local employee, who is entitled to withdraw PF money two months after leaving employment (if he is unemployed or employed in an uncovered company during those two months), an international worker can withdraw PF money only after retirement or attaining 58 years of age, whichever is later (unless the SSA provides for early withdrawal).

The other one is that unlike a local employee for whom only a miniscule portion of total contribution (8.33% of `6,500 only) goes to the pension scheme, for an international worker, a substantial portion of the total contribution (8.33% of the monthly salary) goes to the pension scheme. The benefit from pension scheme is available only as annuity (on monthly basis) after retirement.

For example, if person A is going for an assignment to France, he will be considered an international worker. If he obtains a certifi- cate of coverage from the Indian PF authorities and claims exemp- tion from French social security, there may be permanent establish- ment exposure for his Indian employer in France. Also, person A will be considered an international worker even after the comple- tion of the French assignment and allocation of his employer's con- tribution to the pension scheme will continue to be high. Also, the restriction on withdrawal from PF will apply until retirement.
Comprehensive SSAs In some of the recent SSAs--with Denmark, Korea, Hungary and Czech Republic--detachment benefit may be available even where the employee is working for an affiliated or subsidiary company in host country. In this case, the employee will not be considered to be working in the host country on behalf of the home country employ- er. Thus, it will enable the employee to obtain exemption from the host country social security without exposing the home country em- ployer to permanent establishment risk in the host country.

Also, India has recently signed a comprehensive SSA with Germany, which will replace the existing limited SSA with Germany. The most notable feature of the comprehensive SSA is that it allows full withdrawal of the balance standing in the PF upon cessation of employment and leaving India. This will en- able German nationals who have contributed to Indian PF to withdraw the accumulated amount on leaving India after com- pletion of their assignments. Similarly, Indian nationals who obtain a certificate of coverage from India and go on assign- ment to Germany (designated as international workers), will be eligible to withdraw the accumulated amount from PF after they cease to be an employee of a covered employer in India.

Social security landscape is still evolving in India. With the signing of new SSA with Germany, one can hope that India will move further ahead in its comprehensive approach to the SSAs