Book Briefs #4- A Rude Life by Vir Sanghvi

 

What is in the book?

A Rude Life is a collection of memoirs from the life of Vir Sanghvi, beginning from his birth to his present. It broadly has three threads, complexly intertwined across the 61 chapters.

First, about his personal life- family, marriages, the birth of his son and the death of his parents. This takes the smallest share of the three threads- consisting of only a few fleeting sentences here and there and one last chapter about his mother’s death. 

Second, about his career- how he got into journalism by chance, shifting between various publications, transiting to TV from print and most importantly, an entire chapter on the Radia tapes controversy. Unlike his personal life, Vir talks about every detail of his professional journey and gives the reader great insight into the eventful life of a top journalist.

Third, consists of anecdotes from behind-the-scenes of every major event in the country, off-record conversations with who’s-who of the country, and information scoops that weren’t published on record. Thanks to a very long career, Vir has wide-ranging stories to tell- from how Moraji Desai stole papers from the PMO to how Amitabh Bachchan never stops acting! These anecdotes and experiences form the bulk of the book and are very entertaining and engaging. 

What I liked about the book?

The book is exceptionally well-written: crisp and clear. Vir exhibits a distinctive ability to present loads of information on nuanced topics, in a precise and clear fashion. Most of the anecdotes are heavy on details and need context to make sense. However, Vir has successfully weaved a narrative that is not only easy to read but also riveting!

In addition to the writing style, I loved how the book is (shabbily) arranged. The book is broadly chronological but keeps on going back and forth in time. The different threads are complexly intertwined, and there is no linearity or structure to the book. This makes the reader feel like being in a conversation with Vir!

Successful and influential people in public life tend to become narcissistic- a phenomenon Vir himself calls editoritis. And therefore, their autobiographies end up becoming hagiographies. They take the moral high point of working for the nation or social good.  

Thankfully, Vir stays clear of that. He is bold enough to accept his shortcomings (“I have never had the slightest entrepreneurial instinct”) and call out ‘stupid’ decisions he took (quitting Twitter after Radiia tapes leaked). He is candid enough to accept (implicitly) that he chose jobs that gave him good money. I loved his candour!

What I did not like about the book?

Despite a page-turning narrative, I found the ending a bit underwhelming. Vir tries to be emotional and philosophical in the last chapter, but it has little depth. I felt a lack of closure on finishing the book.

Secondly, I would have liked Vir to expand more on his personal and professional life. While the book succinctly narrates the events as they occurred, there isn’t much insight or analysis from the author on his personal and professional life.

Lastly, I found the segment of the book, which describes how he wrote the books Men of Steel and The Game Changers, painstakingly long and pointless. I got the impression that Vir is trying to sell these books to his readers!

Just Another Year for Putin!

We all are desperately waiting for another New Year. People stay awake to witness the clock strike 12 midnight and celebrate as they enter the New Year. They regard the New Year with some expectations, ambitions and resolutions but for the great strategist Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, it will be just another year of his autocratic yet dexterous rule. This post hovers around Putin administration and the way one of the most opaque systems work in Moscow! 

Russia is a federal democracy tainted by corruption and massively influenced by the power and personality of one man- Vladimir Putin. Russia, the largest nation to evolve out of the erstwhile USSR, adopted a new constitution in 1993 preceded and followed by a coup and constitutional crisis respectively. Both of these efforts weren't able to challenge or in any way affect the absolute power that the President had been given thanks to the new Constitution.

This trend of autocracy commenced by President Yeltsin and passed on to his handpicked successor Putin, has made the Russian political regime, centered rather than centrist (as the political party United Russia claims it to be). The current political structure in Russia though constitutes of the State Duma and also the Federation Council, the political life in Russia is dominated by a coterie of generals and KGB veterans called as siloviki.

The result- an atmosphere of paranoia and aggression. Officials seen as sympathetic towards the West are sidelined and the ones who wanted to stop Russia from entering another Cold War with the West are discarded from Putin's circle. A lot of critiques say that there is a danger of Russia going backward. Realizable (if you have a look at the negative GDP growth rate of Russia)!  

Why Putin is Irremovable? 

Really interesting is the way the siloviki works or rather the way Putin makes it work. It is very difficult to break into the opacity of its working since its members have not spoken to media for years together. But a political expert created a diagram titled Politburo 2.0 which remarkably gave a believable insight into the siloviki. The members of the siloviki are old friends of Putin. He trusts people who are true and tried. The reason why the Politburo remains united is because of the personal bond its members have formed with Putin.

One of the most significant features of Putin's politburo is that it doesn't have general meetings. The whole siloviki doesn't ever sit together. It instead consists of certain elite groups which can be referred to as security, political, technical, business etc. Putin meets a single elite group at once rather than the whole Politburo at once. Putin, therefore, keeps his circle divided into clans and factions that seldom meet once. This helps any group from creating a coalition against Putin. Putin remains, even if unpopular, irremovable. Very smart on Putin's part, I have to accept. 

         

However, there are some drawbacks too. As rival factions in the same Politburo compete with each other, they exaggerate the threats that Russia faces. For example, the intelligence service might overstate the threat of foreign spies while the oil and gas tycoons might exaggerate the risk of external competition. Since Putin meets each faction separately, he hears of threats everywhere.. This informal system gives rise to paranoia and creates an unhealthy atmosphere. Rather than solving problems that pertain for the whole nation collectively, the Politburo stresses upon personal interests or the interests of a particular elite group. 

This kind of an informal relationship, has another flaw and that well, is very evident. There is an over dependence on one man. As I said above it is more of a centered system rather than a centrist system. The nation is Putin and Putin is the nation. The working of the siloviki without the already 63 year old, is as of now unimaginable. 

Well Played, Putin! 

Putin is popularly known as the strategist (No wonder). His ambidexterity has not only made him the center of Russian government machinery, but also his visionary strategies have tightened his grip over Russia. Constant efforts of making Putin unpopular, have been reflected to benefit Putin. One of the many such instances is the case of Western sanctions. The members of Putin's circle have their children studying in the West, their bank accounts in the West. They own Western assets. The sanctions imposed by the West on Russia was a method of creating an opposition to Putin's radical policies against the West. But sorry! The West lost here. 

Putin had been urging elites to store 'their fortunes in Russia instead of stashing them in the offshore bank accounts' (as TIME magazine puts it). Many of them were slow to comply before the sanctions put their assets at the risk of being frozen in the West. However, now the fortunes of these elites are much closer to Russia, in other words, the elites are much closer to Putin. So if Western leaders were expecting Putin's allies to mount a palace coup, disappointment. It not only allowed him to tighten his grip on the siloviki, but also intensified the everlasting and unending altercation between the West and Russia. Thanks to Putin's adroitness, the Western sanctions seemed to be gaucherie.     

A New Year for Russia or not?

Putin's term ends in 2018, and he is going to stand again as President in 2018. If he wins a second term, which he surely will (legitimate or illegitimate), Putin is going to be in his early 70s by the time he ends up with his second term. Therefore, there are no signs of the political structure changing in Russia till 2024 (not even a New Decade, forget about a New Year). 

Not only that, as TIME magazine presents it, in a system where 'all institutions are eclipsed by one man, there is no way to know' what happens when he is gone. Of course, Putin isn't immortal (though his persona is). The question is what happens, if say he has a heart attack. An already shambled Russia would be in disarray as the struggle for control would break and some of his friends would be in 'slivers of flesh.' 

Putin is clever, diplomatic and as I fondly call him- strategist. But having said that, I somewhat agree with what one of his chief adviser once said," I don't think that it is out of cleverness that Putin has made everybody afraid of his departure. It's just that he doesn't know how to do it the other way."     

A salute to the Forbes #1 "Most Powerful People" for his dexterity, a happy New Year to all my readers and well, a happy 'just another year' to the Russians! 

Yours truly, Abhimanyu! 

Read more articles and intriguing stuff on FasciNative or click here.   

Do mail me to give your suggestions, opinions, feedback or simply a hello at abhimanyusethia12@gmail.com

Is Shock Therapy the Savior of Economic Slowdown?- Case Studies of Poland, Russia, Chile and India

Recently, I have been researching on shock therapy and how the post-Soviet Russian economy could have been better handled! As a research document as present this post in which I have tried and analysed the failures and successes of shock therapy and its comparison to gradualism. This post also tries to answer the big question of determining when and where shock therapy must be adopted and where it mustn't ! In order to accomplish these objectives, this post draws a comparison between different economic recovery models. Hope you like it! 

Shock therapy basically refers to sudden liberalization and end of a state controlled economy. Within a very short period of time, the state's control over the prices and the market is omitted. This is usually done to hasten the process of transition from a socialist economy to a capitalist style of economy with the prices of commodities being dependent on the market forces like demand and supply. Though shock therapy has had diverse effects  from country to country, a certain pattern is identifiable as a result of certain research on the aftermaths of shock therapy in different countries.

According to this pattern, shock therapy has initial thumbs down! As a feature of the immediate impacts of shock therapy, unemployment mounts up and inflation rises. As PSUs are privatized and foreign companies enter the market, efficiency increases and hence, some jobs are initially destroyed. Also, if the country has formerly been a socialist country with a right to employment, the citizens of such a country fail to win a job in the competitive environment. However, over certain time, the graphs take a U-turn according to my research. Employment grows as more companies enter the market and create more jobs. Inflation goes down as a result of competition. Also, the quality of  products improves as privatization shows thumbs up!

 

However, as mentioned above, there have been certain versions of the pattern in different countries. In the post-Soviet Russia, shock therapy turned out to be a disastrous whereas, post- soviet Poland led a very successful shock therapy model. Chile (Pinochet's Regime) is an epitome of shock therapy worldwide. It is astonishing that all three of these examples are of shock therapy implementation at approximately the same period of time. Pinochet's regime extended from 1973 to 1990, post-soviet Poland during the initial 1990s and Russia from 1992-93. All three cases transited from a socialist economy, all three economies were in doldrums. Poland and Russia in fact where identical cases, both recently freed from the USSR. But the reason why the latter was failure lies below. 

Pinochet's Chile was a military dictatorship where Pinochet was the military dictator unlike Russia where democracy had taken birth and freedoms were being given in the 1990s during Yeltsin years. The difference in the political regime poses a significant impact on the economic conditions. While in Chile, Pinochet was free to take any actions of his choice and was unaccountable, Yeltsin in Russia was repeatedly questioned on his economic policies and criticized upon them. Within merely an year of introduction of the shock therapy, the Russian cabinet ended up in a constitutional crisis reasoned to the conflict between the President and the Cabinet over his policies. Yeltsin also had a constant constrain of the impact of his policies on the people as he was a part of a democratic government. this resisted Yeltsin to successfully lead the shock therapy model and his policies were supplemented by criticism and disfavoring. Yeltsin was not even given a chance to experiment with the economy. 

However, having said that, I would deny that shock therapy cannot be implemented in a democracy. Poland was a democracy like Russia, newly born country like Russia, part of the erstwhile Soviet Union like Russia and with its economy in shambles like Russia. It also experienced the same kind of international pressure and international economic conditions as Russia because both of them led their shock therapy models at approximately the same time. Then why did Poland succeed and Russia didn't? 

The answer lied in Poland's action plan. The sudden impacts of the shock therapy model hold paramount importance especially in a democratic nation. While in Russia, there was an immediate relaxation of influence of state on commodity prices, in Poland, prices of essential commodities like oil and gas were controlled by the government. Though other commodities had price rise, since the prices of essential commodities were kept low, subsistence wasn't endangered and the immediate impacts didn't have an extreme effect on the lives of common people. 

Another very important and significant policy of the Polish government was monetary contraction policy. The Polish government increased the interest rates on domestic loans and stopped printing more money. Since the interest rates on loans increased, people had less money and hence, they spent less. This controlled inflation as due to monetary contraction, the demand dropped.

Another very predominant fact behind the success of shock therapy in Poland was that the Polish population was relatively more experienced and educated. On the other hand, as Russia moved towards privatization, the Russian workforce couldn't earn jobs in the competitive environment where efficiency was held high unlike the former Soviet economy where everyone had the right to employment. Due to both of these reasons the predominant Russian population remained unemployed.

The growth of unemployment and inflation at the same time made shock therapy very unpopular. If the Russian government at that time would have adopted the monetary contraction policy along with the partial price controls and had launched a plan to educate and train its  workforce to earn jobs, the immediate shock of the therapy would have been diminished, if not vanished. 

Though there were some mistakes that Russia committed here and there with the shock therapy it might have worked out and would have brought fruits within 2-5 years with some consistent support from the Russian populace and the government. However, even this couldn't happen. Even as the Yeltsin and his set  of economic advisers along with the IMF and World Bank insisted him to continue with the shock therapy, Yeltsin had a great political pressure. He was becoming very unpopular and there were  attempts of coupe against him alleging him for his 'reckless and baseless' economic policy and 'authoritative' attitude. The scenario was such that the whole cabinet along with the majority of Russian population were against him merely, one year or so after the shock therapy was introduced. This brings me to an altogether different debate though, but the inference is that another drawback of the shock therapy in Russia was the waning control of Yeltsin over Russia and rising dissent against him. 

Therefore, a weak action plan with corruption, oligarchy and the waning control of Yeltsin over Russia along with the possession of a very poor populace and a negative feeling about the investment scenario in Russia and not to forget, frequent coupes brought the GDP growth of Russia in negatives in the years after 1991 disintegration of USSR. The failure of shock therapy in Russia can hence, be reasoned out to a set of things happening in post-Soviet Russia, all at the very wrong time and the success of shock therapy can be reasoned out to a set of things that just worked out at the very right moment. However, from none of the examples can we infer that the concept of shock therapy in itself reflects negatively on economic growth. 

Therefore, in order to understand whether shock therapy as a model is the savior of economic slowdown, lets take an example of India's transition from a State-controlled economy to a mixed economy by a gradual approach. In 1991, India's economy was at an all time low. After having about 40 years of rule by the Gandhi family, India's economy had become a Russia-like economy, with all kinds of state controls imposed, specifically during Indra Gandhi times. The people were starving and national debt was mounting up. Majority of the population was struck by poverty and India's GDP was worth 310.08 US dollars. There was an immediate need of change in economic policy and voila! The prime minister of India (at that time), P.V. Narasimha Rao and his finance minister and soon to be PM, Manmohan Singh, led one of the most successful and idealistic financial reforms in the country. 

The Rao-Singh reforms were also based up on relaxing market barriers and state control over the economy and facilitating foreign investment. The introduction of FDI was considered as the key to economic betterment and well, no doubt, it worked out. However, all the prices were not relived at once which eliminated the 'shock' element of the reforms.

However, even these economic reforms, which Shashi Tharoor  gave full marks to Rao for were criticized in democratic India as while these reforms benefited a majority of the Indian citizens, it arguably hurt the overprotected businessmen and their corrupt friends in bureaucracy. An end to subsidies directed towards state owned industries gave a chance to the political opponents to play politics. 

There is no doubt that the economic reform face serious political obstacles, resources have to be generated , investment privileged over consumption, higher prices are paid for many goods, sacrifices are made in the hope of later rewards but to a middle class Indian, it meant that he or she couldn't afford his/her favorite food item in the market or as Sandeep Waslekar puts it: 

A few million urbanites, white collar workers, large farmers, blackmarketeers could now drink Coke, watch Sony television, operate Hewlett Packard computers, drive Suzuki and use Parisian perfumes, while the rest would live in anguish!

Prime Minister Rao took all this into account, unlike President Yeltsin in Russia and adopted the strategy that he would undertake only those reforms that would be politically accepted to the public at large. This strategy of Rao could be summed up in words of a publication by The Economist which said: 

Rao appears to have reckoned that shock therapy would create losers straightaway, while creating winners only in the medium turn, and decided to leave some reforms to later, when winners had emerged.  

Therefore, the Rao-Singh reforms didn't allow the prices of oil and petroleum to fluctuate as per market forces which continue till even today. Even today, the prices of petroleum and other oil products are decided by the government though they are kept close to the actual market price. These reforms brought down inflation from 17% in 1991 to 7% in 1992 and a further 5.6% in 1993. Indian economy was saved and we continue to see the positive effects of those reforms even today in India. 

Conclusion

Determining whether gradualism or shock therapy is a savior of economic slowdown is subjective and depending on the situation. Shock therapy, if implemented, must supplement a plan to dampen its immediate effects. Howsoever strong the action plan for implementing shock therapy might be, there is always a risk or to some extent certainty of a having a negative impact in the immediate years however, the years that follow would also be equally or sometimes more rewarding. On the other hand, gradualism might not have a 'shock' element, but at the same time, it extends over years to deliver all its merits. 

In 1991 Poland, the GDP growth rate was -1.7% and that in 1991 India was 1.1%. Within four years 

of shock therapy implementation, Poland's GDP growth rate had increased by 14% from what it was before. At the same time India's GDP growth rate from what it was 4 years before 1995 had increased by only 6.5% by 1995. However, at the same time, 22 years from 1991, Poland's annual GDP growth rate stood at 1.7% whereas that of India stood at 5%. 

The inference that we can draw from this study is that over 3 or 4 years, the results of shock therapy are more overwhelming than the results of gradualism, however, over 20-30 years, gradualism would turn out to be a more stable approach than shock therapy (if considered in singularity). Therefore, shock therapy reforms are a short term reform mechanism, more volatile but immediate and gradualism is a long term reform strategy, not immediate but better over time and are less volatile with less risk of failure.

Thanks for reading! Yours truly, Abhimanyu!
Do mail me your feedback, suggestions and opinions on abhimanyusethia12@gmail.com !
Subscribe and follow this blog- Fascinative- abhimanyusethia.tk or click here !

       

Outweighing Instincts- The Art of Thin Slicing

You are a recruiter and I have applied for the job. What'd you prefer- spending a whole day with me or a five minute interview? I bet you'll chose the first one." But it is not that simple... 

Analysis- This word has been synonymous to our very sense of the word "conclusion." Paperwork done in years by Scientists to deduce theories is what is called as analysis. 

Logic- The very basis of analysis, the very fundamental of our belief and the very question that compliments every doctrine. We all strive to make more logical analysis and it also becomes one of the primary criteria of judging our mental ability. Selection for colleges and recruitment for jobs are all done on the basis of this very thing. 

Snap Judgement- You see a statue and you know it is fake. You don't know why and you don't know how but you know it is true. However, you wipe that thought off because it doesn't have a logic. 

Methodology- You wipe that though off because that's isn't an analytical decision and just to find out whether it is fake or not what you do is you call the best of scientists, historians and analysts, you scrape the outer layer of the statue and observe it under the microscope. You do tests and research based upon logic and curate it all with a 100 page lengthy, comprehensive, logical and analytical report ending up saying,"it is fake."

Reader by now- What a stupid guy! He spends millions of bucks and days of his productive time on that research and ends up saying what he said in a Blink. 

Logic- Instincts are baseless. They come in a Blink and it's better you remove it. They are illogical. They come from nowhere. They lead nowhere. It is a mere coincidence that the snap judgement and the researched judgement are the same and not anything more than that. And here lies the simple reason behind following certain methodology.     

It isn't as simple as that. No doubt a method and analysis rectifies the snap judgement. Logical analysis provides a unique satisfaction that doesn't come with the instincts. However that doesn't mean that instincts aren't important. Our brain works at two stages, parallel to  each other. They are called the conscious and unconscious. The conscious which makes us believe what we want to, which allows us to consider women equal to men, black to white. However, there lies an unconscious which still makes us hesitant about accepting race and gender equality. If you don't believe it, then do have an IAT (Implicit Association Test). The fact that the unconscious makes another integral part of our brain makes it all the more important. In order to understand the importance and gist of snap judgement, here lies and example- 

An Ambiguous Responsibility to Protect- Concerns, Implementation, Road Ahead

“We can save lives. We can uphold the principles on which this house is built. We can demonstrate that sovereignty and responsibility are mutually reinforcing principles. And we can assert the moral authority of this institution,”

Mr. Ban ki Moon, the secretory general of the United Nations said these words in the General Assembly just after the Bosnia crisis. The responsibility to Protect is a doctrine which was introduced by the International Commission on Intervention and State Security (ICISS). The Responsibility to Protect doctrine stands on three basic pillars as states by the Report by ICISS- 

1.     A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.

2.      The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.

3.     If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.                     

Legal Concerns over Implementation

The responsibility to Protect doctrine was adopted by the United Nations in 2005 in the World Outlook Meeting. However, it is interesting to observe that the R2P doctrine contradicts Article 2(4) and Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter. While the Responsibility to protect encourages member states of the United Nations to intervene in countries where the countries' government fails to protect its populace from genocide and other crimes against humanity, the United Nations Charter says that member states must 

1.    While most interventions are carried out under the supposed pretext of liberating and providing freedom to oppressed civilians they often have veiled agendas of powerful countries. Frequently the liberation of the people is sidelined for the economic or political agendas. For example, Iraq intervention was not only illegal but also unethical in terms of the intentions. It is believed that the United States was driven by its economic interests in one of the world’s most scarce but widely used commodities-oil. Also, a valid example for politically driven agendas might be the Caribbean interventions were largely driven by agendas such as spreading capitalism. Therefore, it is of paramount importance that intentions are reviewed before backing any intervention because that is the root cause for failure of the responsibility to Protect in many countries.
2.  Intervening states portray themselves to be neutral peacekeepers with humanitarian motives. However, upon deploying forces into conflict states they often further divide the place into regions of “friends” and “foes” taking one side against the other, this approach tends to intensify rather than diminish the civil conflict or possibility of war. They often further subvert the region and polarize factions leading to widespread resentment towards the intervention. Currently in Syria, a very severe civil war persists. Military intervention by the United States along with its allies has forced Russia to get involved. The United States which is currently launching air strikes against the Islamic State and supports the civilians in their protests against the Ba’ath Party government has been using Syria as a war ground for a distressful clash of the Cold War rivals. The Syrian rebels have already expressed their concerns over becoming another Iraq. The United States can fulfill its responsibility to normalize the severe condition of Syria but what the States is doing is just the contrary, distressful indeed. 
   
    
3.   Economic sanctions have been one of the widely accepted “coercive” measures as demanded by the R2P doctrine. I believe economic sanction is an easy way out or maybe for some nation a way to showcase their authority and influence. Though economic sanctions have been successful in fulfilling their objective and have deterred the country’s government from conducting large scale attacks against its populace, it is a loss for the international community as well as the country. When economic sanctions were imposed on Iraq, its economy was destroyed and inflation grew steeply in the country. Iraqi people starved due to unemployment and steep inflation. Secondly, consequent to the signing of an impossible deal between the West and Iran, oil prices dropped severely. If just the dreams of the rich prospects of a deal which has not been accepted by the Senate and nor by the Iranian government could drop oil prices which such great effect what would’ve happened if no Iraqi sanctions would have been applied!
4.  The responsibility to Protect doctrine was adopted by the United Nations in 2005 in the World Outlook Meeting. However, it is interesting to observe that the R2P doctrine contradicts Article 2(4) and Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter. While the Responsibility to protect encourages member states of the United Nations to intervene in countries where the countries' government fails to protect its populace from genocide and other crimes against humanity, the United Nations Charter says that member states must refrain in their international relations "from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Though these clauses might not be directly contradictory but in action they seem to be so. The Libyan intervention in 2011 had the NATO bombing over Gaddafi was a an instance where the Responsibility to Protect doctrine was upheld however, it was a "use of force" and that too "against the integrity or political independence of the country" as it is widely believed that the Gaddafi regime was loved by some sections of the society because of the reforms he brought. Therefore, it is very important that the importance and validity of the United Nations Charter and the philosophy of the Responsibility to protect doctrine work hand in hand and in accordance to each other.   

It must be understood that the criticism exhibited in the points above is just to expose the barriers in the effective implementation of the Responsibility to Protect however, they do not disapprove of the philosophy of the Responsibility to Protect or the idea of humanitarian intervention. There have been very successful interventions which have accomplished their goals like in Afghanistan. However, a general worldview and history of the Responsibility to Protect implies that most of the interventions have not been successful not because of the idea of R2P but because of its ineffective implementation. 

What Next?

How should the international community respond to human rights violation within a state? How should the international system tackle catastrophic atrocities in a state when its leaders themselves have repudiated the responsibility to safeguard the rights of their people? These are some questions that need to be addressed immediately in order to carry forward the spirit of a humanitarian intervention.

Many calls for intervention have been made over the last decade – some of them answered and some of them ignored. But there continues to be disagreement as to whether, if there is a right of intervention, how and when it should be exercised, and under whose authority. Also, there have been a lot of interventions where the consent of the state being intervened in is not taken! Though intervening parties claim to be neutralized in approach history has been evidence to the fact that intervention usually violates the legal fetters of safeguarding sovereignty and resisting intervention in domestic matters of the country. The need for a framework to combat the abuse of the Responsibility to Protect by powerful nations is much needed which must draw a line between humanitarian intervention and a breach of sovereignty!  

Like. Share. Follow. at
www.abhimanyusethia.tk

Feedback, suggestions and Corrections are welcomed at abhimanyusethia12@gmail.com !

The United Nations and the Much Needed Veto Reform

It has been seventy years since the United Nations was formed and it has reached a stage today where it is a universally accepted global forum. It is heartening to observe that within these years the purposes, aims and objectives of the UN have been safeguarded remarkably but it is depressing to observe that leading governments that claim to champion “democracy,” and “good governance,” have been known to behave unilaterally in the international arena, and they sit in the council to resolve problems they themselves have created. The imbalance of representation in the Security Council with an overrepresented Europe and a much forgotten Africa, holds the UNO in an alleged state. With the P5 holding a special Veto power, which has been misused significantly, UNO stands biased. With the clause stating some states as 'enemy,' UNO seems to be unaware. And with the Trusteeship Council still eating up UN's funds with precisely no purpose, UNO seems to be unupdated. While the UNO's objectives have been safeguarded, the need for a major revolution in the procedures, organization and representation has never been more. Some such as the former UN General Assembly Chief have gone as far as to say that if UNO doesn't undergo major reforms, it may lose its creditability as the global forum! This post covers an extensive study of the Veto powers held by the Permanent 5 and the solutions and the way ahead! 

THE VEटO POWER 

Debated since years, the Veto powers held exclusively by United States, United Kingdom, France, China and Russia, empower them to "Veto" any resolution presented in the United Nations Security Council that is these countries possess the exclusive powers to abolish any resolution at once irrespective of the voting results in the UNSC. These exclusive powers of abolishment exercised by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are termed as Veto. All countries which are permanent members of the UNSC (currently 5) tend to possess the Veto powers and hence these countries are called P5 (Permanent five). This power held exclusively by the P5 countries is much debated. Before any further discussion on this topic, we need to understand why 1945 this power was initially allotted. 

The reason ranges back to time of the formation of the United Nations Charter itself. The United Nations was formed in 1945 that is the time when the Second World War ended. The world was in an unstable state. Most of the nations were getting independence and it was high time for putting a stop to these wars and encourage mutual cooperation between nations. When the United Nations Charter was made and signed, the need of a responsible accountable and more stable member was needed to safeguard the objectives and causes of the United Nations Organization. Sighting the most stable government in the world, the P5 were found and empowered with this right with the prime motive of safeguarding UN Charter's causes and objectives and its interests. 

The Debate

The debate about removing or sustaining Veto power would not have arisen, if the P5 would have used these powers responsibly. Sadly and unfortunately, instances where the P5 have misused their powers have heated up this debate and forced the other UN members to question these exclusive powers. 

While debate has arose in the United Nations about this Veto power, prosecution alleges the P5 of misusing the Veto to protect their personal interests rather than the UN's interests. The P5 have used their premium rights for safeguarding their selfish interests. When most nations had had enough with watching the brutal dictatorship of Bassar Al Assad, Russia vetoed the bill and nothing could be done. Till date the Cold war period has seen the most vetoes, bringing the UNSC to a complete standstill. Although, the peace continued to be disrupted and human rights continued to be violated during that time, the SC was virtually powerless. Between 1946 and 1990, the UNSC adopted only 22 resolutions under Chapter VII. All these instances empower the allegations put forward.

These rights held by them are supposedly threatening the under developed nations from protecting their own rights. They are creating a political inequality. The Veto evidently makes the P5 conscious about their allies and their political status. It can be no coincidence that the US has vetoed 30+ resolutions against Israel. These rights also make the UNO biased, unfair and dominated by the P5. The Veto power actually submerge the true meaning of the United Nations that is a platform for all irrespective of their economic, political status. 

The Veto powers have given the UNSC a more political shape where the P5 use the Veto for their own interests rather than worldly ones. I have seen people sight the example of the president of Russia, Mr. Vladimar Putin. Mr. Vladimir Putin said,“In line with international law, only the U.N. Security Council could sanction the use of force against a sovereign state. Any other pretext or method, which might be used to justify the use of force against an independent sovereign state, are inadmissible and can only be interpreted as an aggression." About six months later, the same man “illegally”, as deemed by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), seized Crimea. Yet no action was taken against Russia but mere ignorance. This diabolical behaviour of the P5 has forced the under developed countries to allege and demand abolishment of any exclusive rights exercised by any member state of the United Nations.  

However, there is more to it! The defence has a strong argument too! The P5 say that the P5 are one of the most stable governments in the world and hence, the accountability and creditability of their governments makes them the ideal nations to protect the interests of the United Nations. Also, the P5 are the largest contributors to the United Nations as well as to the IMF (International Monetary Funds). Considering the fact that they are the major contributors to the UNO, they hold these exclusive powers! Though basic philosophy says that for being truly democratic, the economic inequality must not affect the political status of countries!

This is very much disheartening to observe that a country like France which has enlightened the world with principles like equality itself exercises the Veto Power! And who doesn't like power?

The Current Status and the Path Ahead

Well, each time this agenda is discussed in the United Nations, what merely happens is diplomacy and a heated up debate. The current status is discouraging and if the same trends continue maybe we aren't getting any change done to the UN Charter. The G4 are already in quest of the Veto powers and even the P5 know that it is better to share powers than to lose them. On the other side, the Coffee Club is trying to remove Veto. Just because most of the prominent developing nations have made up the G4, the opposition has lost influence. The political and economic influence of the P5 and the G4 together leaves a mere ineffective opposition. If opposition wants a win, the supposed tie up between the P5 and the G4 has to be broken up! 

When we talk about solution, that is still a distant dream. We have basically got two extreme solutions- complete abolishment of Veto or no change being made. The chances of passing an extremist solution are thin and so certain versions of these extremes have been made to make the chances thicker. One of them is that the Veto power is taken away from the P5 but in order to protect the interests of the UNO and the objective of allotment of Veto power, the permanent status of the P5 is sustained. This seems to be a radical one but P5 will never deem to agree. Second solution is that the Veto powers are restricted. Restrictions like a certain number of votes in the UNSC will overrule the Veto ( for instance) must be imposed. Third solution is that the P5 are made to use their powers only in matters regarding their involvement! But then, who will decide the extent of involvement of the P5 and also this must be understood that there are a lot of matters which don't involve certain countries but any decision taken would significantly affect the whole world. Now, how do you scale up the affect of an issue on the world is a question that lies unanswered. 

Remark- This has to be noted that the United Nations Charter doesn't use the word "Veto" in any of the clauses. To give a better understanding, I quote from the Article 27 (3) of the UN Charter, "Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members..." This is all that the UN Charter speaks about voting procedure in the UNSC and this is what has been termed as "VETO." 

We even have in consideration more effective solutions but the process of any amendment to the UN Charter itself resists any initiative taken to make a change in the Veto powers! The United Nations General Assembly can discuss and debate about an amendment made to the UN Charter but what it can pass is mere suggestion or recommendation for amendment of the UN Charter to the United Nations Security Council. Now, it completely lies up to the UNSC whether this suggestion is implemented or not. So, similarly even if any resolution regarding a change in Veto is passed in the United Nation General Assembly, it will definitely be Vetoed in the UNSC due to the simple fact that no one wants to give up their exclusive rights or privileges!  

So basically, there is a negligible chance of any change made to the Veto because to make it possible, the P5 and the G4 will have to break up, the G4 will have to give up the quest for the Veto, the opposition will have to be convincing and effective, the allies of the P4 and G4 would supposedly will have to go against their alliance and most significantly Russia, United States, China, France and the United Kingdom will have to give up their powers, their permanent seats and consequently their influential status in the world politics and economy! That's too much to expect! 

Suggestions, appraisals and other feedback are all accepted at abhimanyusethia12@gmail.com

Liked It? Share It! Subscribe to Fascinative. 

abhimanyusethia.tk

The Third Bottom Line Approach- Mulling Over Sustainability

After mulling over the whole concept for three days with college students (economics and commerce) at Shri Ram College Of Commerce, I feel immense pride and honour to explain the whole concept to you. Basically third bottom line was the term used to exaggerate a company's deeds towards the environment and society. But today the scenario has changed.

WHAT IS A BOTTOM LINE?

A bottom line is defined as the profit or capital of the company. Now, when we talk about the literal meaning of bottom line, it means the base reason for doing something (here opening a corporation). In the history, the base reason for opening a corporation was profit and hence, it is defined as profit. But today we have a third bottom line concept introduced by the United Nations Global Compact which says that other than profit, a corporation should have two more bottom line that is people and planet.

Talking about people and planet, UNGC wants to promote an environmental and social responsibility which was much ignored by corporations. The third bottom line approach is about a tomorrow where taking care of environment and society will be considered as a responsibility of the corporations also. When the third bottom line approach was introduced, as I said before, companies used this term to promote their goodwill and trustworthiness. Much of the situation prevails with some change. Also, am abbreviation was made to make the tedious and complicated TBL approach more attractive. This abbreviation was 3Ps- Profit, People and Planet.

Going into the depth of each topic, profit as we all know is still the prime motive of the companies. Today companies are called large on the basis of their profit and capital but the TBL approach is about a tomorrow where companies will be considered large on the basis of their contributions towards people and planet. But isn't it a start when portraying a company as a responsible one has become a trend? When we talk about people, it not only means a corporation's responsibility towards the shareholders or towards the customers but also towards the laborers and about every person who is effected by the corporation's functioning. If I talk about the "Jago Re" campaign by TATA tea, it is one of their contributions towards society, whatever way it is (this time it is by spreading awareness about voting). The happiness and spiritual state of mind of workers and employees and all the people living or working near any office or plant of the company also lies in the responsibilities of the corporation. Taking about Planet, it is today a topic of concern. It is considered that corporations are crossing their limits in terms if pollution, whether it is throwing of waste in water bodies or environmental pollution. The automobile sector is hunting for a cleaner fuel and the energy generators are searching for cleaner technology. All these facts above, have today made sustainability a necessity, not much like a situation in the history. However, still a lot of barriers lay in the smooth implementation of TBL. Today also, when TBL has been universally accepted implementation remains a grave problem. In this post I will try to highlight some of the major problem and the solution regarding TBL implementation.

SMOOTH TBL IMPLEMENTATION- PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

• Lack Of An Universally Accepted Format for Measuring Sustainability- We currently lack an universally accepted format for measuring sustainability. Now what do I mean by a format for measuring sustainability? For example, if I talk about financial accounting, then all the business firms follow a standard method to calculate their total profit i.e. the simple credit minus debit method. But the case is a lot different about sustainability. Different companies follow different methods of measuring sustainability. Some companies display their social goods and social bad and then assess them. Some companies calculate the total funds spent. The failure of the development of a format doesn't allow us to compare two companies. Now because we can't compare, we can't set benchmarks on the basis of sustainability, we can't create some kind of a competition among companies on the basis of sustainability and we can't even give grades to companies because we can't convert the social goods method to the funds spent method. Therefore, the need of the hour is the development of a format that can measure sustainability. Now, how do you measure your deeds? Well I would like to use a simple assessment theorem over here, to assess anything first priority should be outcome and the second priority should be input. Now, in terms of pollution we can measure the output by the carbon footprints. So, if a company starts using cleaner technology which is a sustainable move, then the output can be measured by the positive impact on the carbon footprints. However, if we take a campaign such as the "Jago Re" campaign, then we can't exactly measure the impact of "Jago Re" on the vote count because if we simply compare votes before the campaign and after the campaign then the difference may or may not be due to the "Jago Re" campaign (surveys would cost a lot and a lot of workforce will be needed). Therefore, we can measure such campaigns by their inputs. Though I have not exactly prepared a model for the measurement of sustainability but a vague picture is what I would like to make in front of you. Second point is that today though we have a format for measuring financial face, its different worldwide. For example, companies in USA follow the GAAP accountability standard but in India they follow the IFRS accountability standard. That again makes us unable to compare Walmart and Reliance by just seeing their annual reports. Though conversion can take place but the more simpler it is, the better it would be. Therefore, even if we develop a format for measuring sustainability, its world wide implementation would still be a problem.

• Mobilizing the Third Bottom Line Approach- Today the scenario is such that when the TBL approach is being followed in aware and richer countries, the weak African nations still remain unaware. Some companies don't know about the TBL. TBL might bring about a greater change when it is spreads to the root level. Therefore, we'll have to localize this global approach. The organizations promoting sustainability and the UNGC should sponsor and encourage the development and growth of local business networks. The local business network spreads awareness, holds social events and conducts frequent training session for professionals. This might turn out to be a strong way of localizing this approach. Inspired from a TED talk by the Milinda Gates, here NGOs and other organizations can learn from CocaCola. What CocaCola does is it connects Coke with happiness. Whether it is the "Give Me Freedom" commercial in Brazil or it is the "Umeedon Wali Dhoonp" commercial in India, what lays common is happiness. However, Coca Cola success lies in the fact that it has localized the approach of spreading happiness in each country's terms! So can't sustainability-promoting-organizations connect sustainability with long term profits. 

• Lack of Drivers and Incentives- Companies must be given an encouragement for following a sustainable pattern. Today, if a company is following a sustainable pattern, it gets no appraisal, nothing different, which discourages the company to follow a sustainable pattern. Won't awards by an organization as dignified as the UNO encourage the companies to move towards sustainability? definitely yes. Then why not? Let us have awards not only on global scale but also on regional scale and an award for the country which has won maximum sustainability awards. Secondly,if UNGC wants to reach all the corporations in the world, it will have to lower down its membership fee. According to my research, UNGC membership costs a large sum of money which cannot be afforded by smaller and medium-sized companies. Also, frequent training sessions and conferences must be held where professionals can be told about innumerable advantages of sustainability.`
• 2nd P Is the Much forgotten People- One of the 3Ps is People which includes company's responsibility towards its labourers and employees. Involuntarily making labourers work overtime and making children work is an exploitation of their fundamental rights as stated by UNHRC and hence, applicable universally (almost). Though this can be caught by the Labour Union Reports but today, these reports are frequently manipulated by the company officials. Also, in companies related with scams and corruption, the financial reports are manipulated. Hence, the intervention of an independent creditable third party appointed by the UN or the Government of the country for auditing the reports would be suggestible. Also, company officials might be told that spending a little bit extra on employees might increase the productivity of manufacturing as the more experienced employees compare two offers not only on the basis of salary but also happiness. Hence, spending that extra might let the company's more experienced official to stay and work in the company. More is the experience of workers higher is the quality of the product and productivity at work.  

• The Upwards Theory of Transition and Change- (Well, that's no theory ) If we want to bring about a change then we need to start from the bottom level. Hence, change will occur from schools, colleges, institutes and universities. Why can't we add chapters about the Third Bottom Line Approach and sustainability? Ethical Accountancy can be made a sub-topic in Accountancy so that the upcoming Chartered Accountants lay major emphasis on sustainability and know how to measure it! Secondly, regular training sessions can be held for the already pass-out and working Chartered Accountants under an Ethical accountancy funding program. However, this can be done only when have a format for measuring sustainability.           

A MESSAGE FOR FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES- WHAT NEXT? 

We are living in a world where very high economic inequality prevails. While the United States and China are considered as the rich or rather the richest nations, the under developed African nations are so poor that people suffer of starvation. This economic inequality has also ranged to social, cultural and political inequality. Just because the African nations are poor they don't lie in the global picture. Just because Sierra Leone is a poor country, it isn't a member of the Security Council and just because China is developed and rich it has the VETO powers. Similar inequality lies in the case of sustainability. Today, USA says that it is working towards a cleaner tomorrow, participates actively in the Rio Conferences and talks positively about sustainability but then isn't this an irony that the United States is the latest contributor to pollution? This is how the United States double speaks. A simple question that remains unanswered is that when the US wants to contribute to reduction in pollution then why does it not ratify the Kyoto protocol? Maybe the reason is it fears it's inability to reduce the greenhouse gas emission as asked to by the Kyoto protocol.

Japan is one of the highly industrialized countries in the world. However, what remains unnoticed is that high level child labor prevails in Japan. Recent cases in the Apple plant have shown that labourers are being forced to work overtime. Russia's pollution is limitless and even Russia hasn't ratified the Kyoto protocol. Therefore, I would not like to press any allegations on any country but all the examples stated above clearly show that its the first world countries majorly responsible for the overall pollution and human rights exploitation by any corporations. Some reports have even shown that Chinese corporations are supplying arms to the ISIS. Now, because these nations are actually the reason for high level pollution then they should payback more than the under developed countries and developing ones. Though US has been talking since a long time about reduction of pollution and greenhouse gases, but what lacks is action! Another solution is the opinion and suggestion of all the countries of the world are considered equal irrespective of their economic, political, cultural and social status. This might empower the not-so-developed nations to ask the US, Russia, China to reduce pollution as it is ultimately harming the whole world.  

HOW DOES THE UNGC WORK?

The Triple Bottom Line is a concept introduced by the United Nations Global Compact and it is the UN body which promotes sustainability. UNGC is a UNO committee that was formed by the United Nations General Assembly. Because of its non-political approach towards sustainability it is of utmost importance and an ideal model for every Non Profit Organization. I recently met two people namely Mr. Abhinav Verma and Ms. Abhilasha Banerjee in my Delhi visit who worked for the UNGCNI that is the network of UNGC in India and they helped me understand the working of UNGC in depth. Now what happens is that the UNGC has its network in each of its member countries. So if a company for instance WIPRO India wants to join the United Nations Global Compact then it won't contact the UNGC but it would contact the United Nations Global Compact Network India (UNGCNI). Now, these networks connect to the companies on a more localized scale. The objective and aim of these networks is to popularize the UNGC world wide and work for its cause at a more local level. These networks conduct frequent social events, meetings and seminars for the professionals to participate in. These events firstly allows the employees in a member company to meet new people and connect to people, secondly promote the sustainable approach for tomorrow and involve as many companies as possible to promote and use a sustainable corporate pattern by using the brand name of United Nations. Also, these national networks are further localized into regional or local networks which further localize this approach by sponsoring the NGOs and other business networks. 

The name of an organization as dignified as the UN is used to reach the smallest of corporations regarding sustainability. How sustainability can be made popular is by associating and involving maximum people. Hence, the UNGC tries to make its global approach more and more local. Companies, NGOs and business networks can get affiliation to the UNGC which can be a strong marketing tool. Also, all the affiliated companies and networks can be seen on the website of the UNGC. 

Now, these local networks have a representative for regional networks which have a representative for national networks and these national networks also have a representative for international network that is the UNGC. Hence, in UNGC it is not exactly the delegate of a country representing the country but it is the representative of the network representing the country. This is very important and positive as due to the representative of the network representing the country, it gives the whole a committee a non-political approach and a major scenario change can be noticed. What usually happens in a UN committee is that the delegates put allegations against each other however just because the representative of the local network is not responsible for any step taken by the government of the nations, allegations are much forgotten of and everyone thinks about progress. Usually resolutions are passed unanimously and all the people in the council have an equal say irrespective of their country. Therefore, a United Nations Global Compact committee session is not dominated by four or five countries and neither do the P5 nations have some special power as in UNSC. This prevents the economic inequality or the political inequality to influence the social and cultural inequality (as mentioned above). In a mock UNGC which I have attended, I learnt that the whole structure is an ideal one as the major aim of this committee is not to change a country but to change the world. In this mock UNGC I attended and participated in, our resolution was passed unanimously by all the 50-60 countries present which I consider in itself is an achievement. I also understood that however hard the US tried to make its opinion influential, it remained just an opinion as it did for Uganda (for instance).      

A LONG TIME TO GO.....

Concluding, I still consider that when people have been made aware of the Triple bottom line approach, when most companies are following a sustainable approach, when sustainability is sub topic in every economics book I have picked up, when almost all companies conduct social events and outings for their employees and when companies are becoming more and more creditable, we still have a long time to go. To sum up with everything, firstly, economic equality and current structure of the UNO, secondly, the dominance of the First World Countries over the world, thirdly, the lack of an universally accepted format for measuring sustainability and fourthly, the innumerable barriers in the smooth implementation of the TBL as highlighted above are the reasons why we still have a long time to go! Last but not the least, if UNGC wants to reach every corner of this world, wants to involve all the corporations of this world, it definitely will have to lower its unaffordable membership fee. But the kind of efforts and groundbreaking advancements that have been made in the field of sustainability gives me immense confidence and assurance that the the future is illuminated and bright.    


Liked It? Share It! Subscribe to FasciNative.
Suggestions, arguments, appraisals and draw backs are welcomed at abhimanyusethia12@gmail.com