 |
| READ LINK |
Showing posts with label GEO-POLITICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GEO-POLITICS. Show all posts
Monday, October 24, 2022
Sunday, July 26, 2020
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
INDIA’s UNTAPPED STRATEGIC ASSETS: ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS
 |
| Nicobar 1975-77: Nicobarese boys in a local dugout. |
 |
| Nicobars 1975-77 Pig Fight 3 |
 |
Nicobars 1975-77 Pig Fight |
 |
| WRESTLING |
 |
FOOTBALL GAME |
 |
Nicobars 1975-77 Pig Fight |
 |
Nicobars: 1975-77 Inter-village Boat Race
|
 |
| Nicobars: 1975-77 Boat Race from a distance |
DOWNLOAD BOOK (PDF VERSION)
 |
| DOWNLOAD CLICK |
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Nuclear liability lessons from aviation
May 07, 2010
The present controversy in India over nuclear liability needs to draw some comparison and conclusions from the aviation liability that is an 81-year-old worldwide system. The limiting of liability has been done keeping in mind a balance between operator’s liability and promoting investment in nuclear power. The same principle has been followed in aviation since 1929 with the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent amendments and protocols leading to the new refined Montreal Convention, 1999, which has over time raised the strict liability limits. In aviation, the payment of liability has been put fully on the airline (the operator) and the upper limit has been fixed not as per incident but as per individual (passenger) death or injury in an accident. It is currently SDR 100,000 or about Rs 60 lakh, raised over time from around $6,300 in 1929.
On nuclear liability, there are three main international instruments. They are the Paris Convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy of 1960, the Vienna Convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy of 1963 and the Protocol of 1997. The main convention for our analysis is the Vienna Convention as amended in 1997 and adopted by 80 nations. The main features of this Convention and the 1997
Protocol are that operators of nuclear power plants are liable for damage caused by them regardless of fault. Second, the potential cross-boundary consequences of a nuclear accident require an international nuclear liability regime. National laws, therefore, would be subservient to international convention. Liability is limited both by international convention and national legislation. So, liability falls exclusively on operators of the nuclear installation and is absolute. Jurisdiction of courts is limited to the country of accident.
The 1997 Protocol puts a lower limit on operators’ liability in each nuclear incident of not less than SDR 300 million (approx $400 million or Rs 2,000 crore). Member states may put a higher minimum cap. The Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2009 fixes maximum liability for a nuclear incident at Rs 500 crore for the operator and the government beyond it, but up to SDR 300 million (about Rs 2,000 crore). In the Indian case, the only possible operator under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 is the Nuclear Power Corporation, a public sector corporation.
Comparing nuclear liability to aviation liability, it becomes clear that aviation liability provisions are much better for victims. First, the concept of absolute individual (passenger) liability is missing in nuclear conventions and our Bill. It has been replaced by incident, which means that in the unfortunate case of a nuclear disaster there would be no minimum liability of the operator mandated for payment against each death. This is unlike aviation protocols where individual compensation is currently SDR 100,000 (Rs 60 lakh), which sets a benchmark for cases of injury. Of course, in aviation the limit of number of persons is restricted to number of passengers and also third parties on the ground. In cases of nuclear incidents, the number of affected persons will depend upon the intensity of the accident and the spread of radioactivity (the case of Chernobyl where radiation got spread by wind is still vivid in our minds).
Under the Indian Bill, a claims commissioner will be appointed and will determine the amount of the claim. But the operator’s total liability will not exceed Rs 500 crore and the government’s will not exceed SDR 300 million, irrespective of the number of deaths and injuries. In aviation, there is no upper limit on total liability and airlines are expected to have adequate insurance cover. The Indian Bill (2009) also provides that the central government may, by notification, increase or decrease liability of the operator but not to less than Rs 100 crore. The implication of this provision, especially regarding decreasing the liability, is unclear.
In order to meet states’ liability, International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) in 1997 to meet compensation beyond SDR 300 million. An international fund is to be created using contributions from contracting parties collectively on the basis of installed capacity and UN rate of assessment. For CSC to gain force, at least 5 nuclear installation states, with a combined capacity of 400 GWth, need to ratify. So far, 4 states with a combined capacity of 350 GWth have ratified it. To bring CSC into force, one among France, Japan, Russia or Korea needs to ratify. A combination of India, China and the UK would also suffice. With this, the operator’s liability will shift beyond SDR 300 million to the CSC fund and the states and taxpayers will be exempt from this liability. In the US, under the Price-Anderson Act, an insurance facility has been created with operators’ contribution (which also insures the equipment suppliers). Therefore, the US is not interested in CSC.
In conclusion, while a nuclear accident is likely to wreak greater damage than an aircraft accident, the liability regime is more restricted. No minimum amount of compensation per death has been prescribed, either in the international context or in the domestic Bill. Unless this is changed, the plight of the Bhopal Gas tragedy victims will continue to haunt us.
The author is chairman of the International Foundation for Aviation and Development and former representative to ICAO
The present controversy in India over nuclear liability needs to draw some comparison and conclusions from the aviation liability that is an 81-year-old worldwide system. The limiting of liability has been done keeping in mind a balance between operator’s liability and promoting investment in nuclear power. The same principle has been followed in aviation since 1929 with the Warsaw Convention and its subsequent amendments and protocols leading to the new refined Montreal Convention, 1999, which has over time raised the strict liability limits. In aviation, the payment of liability has been put fully on the airline (the operator) and the upper limit has been fixed not as per incident but as per individual (passenger) death or injury in an accident. It is currently SDR 100,000 or about Rs 60 lakh, raised over time from around $6,300 in 1929.
On nuclear liability, there are three main international instruments. They are the Paris Convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy of 1960, the Vienna Convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy of 1963 and the Protocol of 1997. The main convention for our analysis is the Vienna Convention as amended in 1997 and adopted by 80 nations. The main features of this Convention and the 1997
Protocol are that operators of nuclear power plants are liable for damage caused by them regardless of fault. Second, the potential cross-boundary consequences of a nuclear accident require an international nuclear liability regime. National laws, therefore, would be subservient to international convention. Liability is limited both by international convention and national legislation. So, liability falls exclusively on operators of the nuclear installation and is absolute. Jurisdiction of courts is limited to the country of accident.
The 1997 Protocol puts a lower limit on operators’ liability in each nuclear incident of not less than SDR 300 million (approx $400 million or Rs 2,000 crore). Member states may put a higher minimum cap. The Indian Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill 2009 fixes maximum liability for a nuclear incident at Rs 500 crore for the operator and the government beyond it, but up to SDR 300 million (about Rs 2,000 crore). In the Indian case, the only possible operator under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 is the Nuclear Power Corporation, a public sector corporation.
Comparing nuclear liability to aviation liability, it becomes clear that aviation liability provisions are much better for victims. First, the concept of absolute individual (passenger) liability is missing in nuclear conventions and our Bill. It has been replaced by incident, which means that in the unfortunate case of a nuclear disaster there would be no minimum liability of the operator mandated for payment against each death. This is unlike aviation protocols where individual compensation is currently SDR 100,000 (Rs 60 lakh), which sets a benchmark for cases of injury. Of course, in aviation the limit of number of persons is restricted to number of passengers and also third parties on the ground. In cases of nuclear incidents, the number of affected persons will depend upon the intensity of the accident and the spread of radioactivity (the case of Chernobyl where radiation got spread by wind is still vivid in our minds).
Under the Indian Bill, a claims commissioner will be appointed and will determine the amount of the claim. But the operator’s total liability will not exceed Rs 500 crore and the government’s will not exceed SDR 300 million, irrespective of the number of deaths and injuries. In aviation, there is no upper limit on total liability and airlines are expected to have adequate insurance cover. The Indian Bill (2009) also provides that the central government may, by notification, increase or decrease liability of the operator but not to less than Rs 100 crore. The implication of this provision, especially regarding decreasing the liability, is unclear.
In order to meet states’ liability, International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a Convention on Supplementary Compensation (CSC) in 1997 to meet compensation beyond SDR 300 million. An international fund is to be created using contributions from contracting parties collectively on the basis of installed capacity and UN rate of assessment. For CSC to gain force, at least 5 nuclear installation states, with a combined capacity of 400 GWth, need to ratify. So far, 4 states with a combined capacity of 350 GWth have ratified it. To bring CSC into force, one among France, Japan, Russia or Korea needs to ratify. A combination of India, China and the UK would also suffice. With this, the operator’s liability will shift beyond SDR 300 million to the CSC fund and the states and taxpayers will be exempt from this liability. In the US, under the Price-Anderson Act, an insurance facility has been created with operators’ contribution (which also insures the equipment suppliers). Therefore, the US is not interested in CSC.
In conclusion, while a nuclear accident is likely to wreak greater damage than an aircraft accident, the liability regime is more restricted. No minimum amount of compensation per death has been prescribed, either in the international context or in the domestic Bill. Unless this is changed, the plight of the Bhopal Gas tragedy victims will continue to haunt us.
The author is chairman of the International Foundation for Aviation and Development and former representative to ICAO
Still a slow crawl on the Stilwell Road
2011-01-24
China will reportedly be rebuilding a key section of the famous Stilwell Road. The political and economic importance of this cannot be underestimated. This road will connect India and China through north Myanmar. Myanmar is rich in resources and China already has an upper hand on it. Geopolitically, both Myanmar and Pakistan have signed border agreements with China. China is also building an all-weather road through Gilgit/Ladakh through Balochistan along the west of India and is already connected to Burmese ports by road. The northern most island of Andaman archipelago called Coco Islands is with Myanmar, which has allowed China to set up a listening post and an airstrip there. Even in Sri Lanka, the southern port of Hambantota has been built by China after India did not respond fast enough to requests for the same.
Stilwell Road provides road connectivity between India and China through Myanmar, through a peaceful and undisputed area. The road will also bring prosperity to the Northeast. But India continues to act like an ostrich. Our security setup did not allow construction of roads up to the Chinese border either along the eastern or western posts after 1962. It did not allow the development of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Now, the Stilwell Road up to the Indian border will be constructed by Yunnan Construction Engineering Group and Yuzana Group. This is despite the fact that we had been requested to reconstruct Stilwell Road by Myanmar General Maung Aye in Delhi itself in April 2008.
Stilwell Road connects Assam to Kunming in Yunnan. It was built along the ‘alternate silk route’ by the US army in 32 months under famous General Joseph W Stilwell, commander of the US forces during World War II. This road of 1,726 km was constructed in a short span, a feat not to be underestimated considering the bad terrain, using a large contingent of American Engineers along with the Chinese and the Shinghpo, Khamtoi, Mishmi, Padam, Garo, Galong tribes of India as labour. The road was a joint effort of India, China, the US, Britain and South Africa, and cost $173 million in those days. But the road was abandoned by October 1945. Only about a 63-km fall on the Indian side is well-maintained by our PWD. Even the Myanmar customs post was being maintained by PWD.
The road was abandoned by India and Myanmar for many reasons. The Burmese had little control over the territories north of Mandalay. Independent armies of Kachins and Shans controlled these areas. There was smuggling of arms and narcotics into India. By the early 1980s, as insurgent activities started coming up to Indian side, the government of India sealed the border. Then, in 1999, the Chinese sponsored a Kunming Initiative with a conference on regional cooperation and development in Yunnan, with India, Myanmar, Bangladesh and China. The Indian delegation strongly supported rebuilding of the Stilwell Road but the Chinese did not show much interest. As a follow up, the Institute of Defence Studies, the Centre for Policy Research and the Institute of Chinese Studies in India jointly arranged a second meeting in India, reiterating the Kunming Initiative.
Next, India declared the Stilwell Road open on its side of the border and called it National Highway 153. By 2001, India had constructed another road, connecting Tamu to Kalema-Kahua in Myanmar, and inaugurated by the then foreign minister, Jaswant Singh. In the interim, a border agreement was signed between India and Myanmar in January 1994, promoting trade, education, agriculture, horticulture, etc.
On issues of trade and economic complementarities, it may be stated that coal has been found in the Changlang district of Arunachal Pradesh adjoining Myanmar, and this coal is of good quality. There are prospects of oil, coal, minerals, forest products, etc. So, India really needs to open up ties with Myanmar along the Stilwell Road, especially to check the growing influence of China in Myanmar. China has already taken a lead in Myanmar by establishing better relations with the military regime while we were supporting the pro-democracy movement. It is high time to consider our best interests and act on these rather than non-strategic factors.
—The author is a commentator and has served in Arunachal Pradesh
China will reportedly be rebuilding a key section of the famous Stilwell Road. The political and economic importance of this cannot be underestimated. This road will connect India and China through north Myanmar. Myanmar is rich in resources and China already has an upper hand on it. Geopolitically, both Myanmar and Pakistan have signed border agreements with China. China is also building an all-weather road through Gilgit/Ladakh through Balochistan along the west of India and is already connected to Burmese ports by road. The northern most island of Andaman archipelago called Coco Islands is with Myanmar, which has allowed China to set up a listening post and an airstrip there. Even in Sri Lanka, the southern port of Hambantota has been built by China after India did not respond fast enough to requests for the same.
Stilwell Road provides road connectivity between India and China through Myanmar, through a peaceful and undisputed area. The road will also bring prosperity to the Northeast. But India continues to act like an ostrich. Our security setup did not allow construction of roads up to the Chinese border either along the eastern or western posts after 1962. It did not allow the development of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Now, the Stilwell Road up to the Indian border will be constructed by Yunnan Construction Engineering Group and Yuzana Group. This is despite the fact that we had been requested to reconstruct Stilwell Road by Myanmar General Maung Aye in Delhi itself in April 2008.
Stilwell Road connects Assam to Kunming in Yunnan. It was built along the ‘alternate silk route’ by the US army in 32 months under famous General Joseph W Stilwell, commander of the US forces during World War II. This road of 1,726 km was constructed in a short span, a feat not to be underestimated considering the bad terrain, using a large contingent of American Engineers along with the Chinese and the Shinghpo, Khamtoi, Mishmi, Padam, Garo, Galong tribes of India as labour. The road was a joint effort of India, China, the US, Britain and South Africa, and cost $173 million in those days. But the road was abandoned by October 1945. Only about a 63-km fall on the Indian side is well-maintained by our PWD. Even the Myanmar customs post was being maintained by PWD.
The road was abandoned by India and Myanmar for many reasons. The Burmese had little control over the territories north of Mandalay. Independent armies of Kachins and Shans controlled these areas. There was smuggling of arms and narcotics into India. By the early 1980s, as insurgent activities started coming up to Indian side, the government of India sealed the border. Then, in 1999, the Chinese sponsored a Kunming Initiative with a conference on regional cooperation and development in Yunnan, with India, Myanmar, Bangladesh and China. The Indian delegation strongly supported rebuilding of the Stilwell Road but the Chinese did not show much interest. As a follow up, the Institute of Defence Studies, the Centre for Policy Research and the Institute of Chinese Studies in India jointly arranged a second meeting in India, reiterating the Kunming Initiative.
Next, India declared the Stilwell Road open on its side of the border and called it National Highway 153. By 2001, India had constructed another road, connecting Tamu to Kalema-Kahua in Myanmar, and inaugurated by the then foreign minister, Jaswant Singh. In the interim, a border agreement was signed between India and Myanmar in January 1994, promoting trade, education, agriculture, horticulture, etc.
On issues of trade and economic complementarities, it may be stated that coal has been found in the Changlang district of Arunachal Pradesh adjoining Myanmar, and this coal is of good quality. There are prospects of oil, coal, minerals, forest products, etc. So, India really needs to open up ties with Myanmar along the Stilwell Road, especially to check the growing influence of China in Myanmar. China has already taken a lead in Myanmar by establishing better relations with the military regime while we were supporting the pro-democracy movement. It is high time to consider our best interests and act on these rather than non-strategic factors.
—The author is a commentator and has served in Arunachal Pradesh
Monday, June 17, 2019
DALAI LAMA VISITS TAWANG
Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang on 8th – 9th October 2009 has raised the antennas of the Chinese Government who have expressed their unhappiness for allowing Dalai Lama to go to a territory which they claim to be theirs. The Chinese have consistently been seeking a forward policy with India claiming 93000 sq kilometres of Arunachal Pradesh right down to north bank of Brahmaputra in Assam (besides their occupation of land at Aksai Chin in Ladhak and in Gilgit in Pakistan occupied Kashmir). Now they even object to who should visit Arunachal Pradesh. Even Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh has to been in this light. It is unfortunate that Prime Minister did not visit Tawang when in he visited Arunachal Pradesh last year (which was visited by an Indian Prime Minister after 9 years). While no reasons were provided as to why he did not keep Tawang in his itinerary, it appeared to the country that it was done to avoid the Chinese criticism. However, with his visit to Tawang in October 2009 this issue seems to have been put to rest. The latest issue of Dalai Lama’s visit has again put Chinese antennas up. The Chinese have been told politely but firmly that Dalai Lama is an honoured guest and he can go to any part of India as and when he likes. It is a little reassuring to the people of India that the government has taken a stand to allow Dalai Lama to visit Tawang in spite of the Chinese protest. What is little unsettling is that foreign Journalists have been barred from entering Arunachal during this period.
Chinese aggressive postures have been consistent with the world including India even when they were a weak nation. It may be recalled that in spite of Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru’s indulgence of the communist regime in China since their taking over in 1949, especially taking up the issue of their UN Membership in place of Taiwan when no western power was prepared to do so, has been paid back to India in a totally different manner. The Chinese occupation of Tibet by military force and thereafter treatment of Tibetans in a brutal manner has not been accepted by the world. India, however gave them a certificate in 1954 by the infamous Panchsheel agreement in which we not only conceded Tibet as a region of China, but voluntarily gave up our existing rights in Tibet inherited from the British including maintaining some troops. We also did not even seek a border settlement in return. The Chinese are now also using their economic and political might to downplay visits of Dalai Lama of which the latest victims are President Obama for not meeting Dalai Lama during the latter visit to US, UK’s and France’s abject surrender. While India may not be a powerful country, it has always been ahead of times and taken stand. We provided a lot of accommodation to the Chinese in their early days when they were condemned by rest of the world. We even accepted Tibet as a region of China even though it was a military occupation (still remains). But now with their obnoxious behaviour towards India on issues of direct concern to India like renewed border claims in Arunachal, we need to have little modification in our foreign policy even if we have stand out alone and speak up to China.
In the present instance, Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang, while routine, has irked the Chinese. There is no reason why India should soft peddle the issue and not allow foreign journalists to visit Arunachal Pradesh. Infact, according to press at least four foreign journalist were issued 30 day permits to visit Arunachal Pradesh but the same was cancelled at the last minute. The foreign Correspondents club of South Asia has issue a terse statement to this effect.
If the purpose of the present action is to appease the Chinese Government, it will not help. It will be taken in as yet another buckling in by India- confirming their view that a weak Indian government can always be bullied into submission.
Dr Sanat Kaul was earlier served in Arunachal Pradesh and Ministry of Home Affairs
Chinese aggressive postures have been consistent with the world including India even when they were a weak nation. It may be recalled that in spite of Pt Jawahar Lal Nehru’s indulgence of the communist regime in China since their taking over in 1949, especially taking up the issue of their UN Membership in place of Taiwan when no western power was prepared to do so, has been paid back to India in a totally different manner. The Chinese occupation of Tibet by military force and thereafter treatment of Tibetans in a brutal manner has not been accepted by the world. India, however gave them a certificate in 1954 by the infamous Panchsheel agreement in which we not only conceded Tibet as a region of China, but voluntarily gave up our existing rights in Tibet inherited from the British including maintaining some troops. We also did not even seek a border settlement in return. The Chinese are now also using their economic and political might to downplay visits of Dalai Lama of which the latest victims are President Obama for not meeting Dalai Lama during the latter visit to US, UK’s and France’s abject surrender. While India may not be a powerful country, it has always been ahead of times and taken stand. We provided a lot of accommodation to the Chinese in their early days when they were condemned by rest of the world. We even accepted Tibet as a region of China even though it was a military occupation (still remains). But now with their obnoxious behaviour towards India on issues of direct concern to India like renewed border claims in Arunachal, we need to have little modification in our foreign policy even if we have stand out alone and speak up to China.
In the present instance, Dalai Lama’s visit to Tawang, while routine, has irked the Chinese. There is no reason why India should soft peddle the issue and not allow foreign journalists to visit Arunachal Pradesh. Infact, according to press at least four foreign journalist were issued 30 day permits to visit Arunachal Pradesh but the same was cancelled at the last minute. The foreign Correspondents club of South Asia has issue a terse statement to this effect.
If the purpose of the present action is to appease the Chinese Government, it will not help. It will be taken in as yet another buckling in by India- confirming their view that a weak Indian government can always be bullied into submission.
Dr Sanat Kaul was earlier served in Arunachal Pradesh and Ministry of Home Affairs
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)