Where are the Indian workers suffering from radioactive radiation?

Where are the Indian workers suffering from radioactive radiation?

France's Nuclear Safety Authority has alerted the Indian authorities about the radioactive buttons. It said, the lift buttons contained traces of radioactive Cobalt 60. Radiological safety division of India's Atomic Energy Regulatory Board is investigating the concerns raised by France's Nuclear Safety Authority. The original complain was from Otis firm, a French subsidiary of the US company. The factory belonging to Mafelec company, which delivers the buttons to Otis noticed in early October. Nuclear Safety Authority classed the incident at a factory of the Mafelec firm in the east-central town of Chimilin at level two on the seven-level International Nuclear Event Scale. It said that of 30 workers exposed, 20 had been exposed to doses of between one mSv (milli-Sievert) and three mSv. The maximum permitted dose for workers in the non-nuclear sector is one mSv.

Otis Elevator Company. lifts in France had been traced to a foundry in Maharashtra. There is a foundry near Khopoli on the way to Pune from Mumbai called Vipras, which melted this scrap. French firm Mafelec delivered thousands of lift buttons to Otis. Otis has said it is now in the process of removing the buttons, after the Nuclear Safety Authority announced on Tuesday that 20 workers who handled the lift buttons had been exposed to excessive levels of radiation. The French nuclear safety agency said the buttons contained traces of radioactive Cobalt 60.

The components used by Mafelec were supplied by two Indian firms—Bunts and Laxmi Electronics—which purchase inputs from SKM Steels Ltd and and Pradeep Metals. SKM Steels, in turn, worked with foundry Vipras Casting. In this case Vipras was provided scrap by SKM Steels to convert into bars. It is not mandatory for Indian foundries to install radiation detectors to check scrap.

Even Sweden said that steel items imported from India showing faint traces of radioactivity were found. Swedish Radiation Safety Authority was aware of it too. It was the Dutch customs which discovered that a shipment of industrial flanges from India to Sweden showed traces of Cobalt 60. This led to the discovery that a similar shipment had been sent several weeks earlier from India and delivered to three companies at four sites in Sweden.

Skoeld said SSM had contacted France over the Swedish discovery.

"It seemed important to contact France to inform them of the contaminated steel flanges which also came from India," he said.

The Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008 is a declaration to the hazardous waste traders that the Indian Government offers no resistance to transboundary movement of hazardous and radioactive materials. It does not matter if it comes without prior decontamination in the country of export in manifest contempt of Supreme Court's directions in its order dated 14 October, 2003 in Writ Petition (Civil) 657 of 1995.

Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) Rules, 1987 deals with the radioactive waste. There framers of both the Rules were oblivious to a situation where hazardous waste (recyclable metal scrap, according to Environment Ministry) and the products made out of it would be contaminated with radioactive materials.

Hazardous Waste Rules lays down the procedure for import of hazardous waste and how it would facilitate the same by providing administrative mechanism to ensure that even Port and Customs authorities ensure compliance when hazardous waste is imported by paying lip service seeking "safe handling". After creating the loophole it says, Custom authorities would take samples as per Customs Act 1962 prior to clearing the assignments. Technical Review Committee of MoEF as noted in the Rules should now show its sense of purpose by finding out where did the radioactive materials come from in the lift buttons made of scrap steel.

The case illustrates how even the new Rules remain full of loopholes. One would have been surprised, had it not been so because the Ministry defines hazardous waste as recyclable metal...and then asks agencies Customs and Atomic Energy Regulatory Board to probe the consequences of the flawed Rules. The Hazardous Waste Rules do not apply to radioactive waste as covered under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (33 of 1962)and rules made thereunder. Consequently, Atomic Energy (Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes) Rules, 1987 apply to it.

But neither the Hazardous Waste Rules nor the Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Rules seem to have foreseen a situation where metal scrap products are found to be contaminated with radioactive materials although while providing the definition, the Radioactive waste Rules, it says, “radioactive waste” means any waste material containing radionuclides in quantities or concentrations as prescribed by the competent authority by notification in the official gazette".

Safe Disposal of Radioactive Wastes Rules also provides for a “Radiological Safety Officer” who can advise the employer regarding the safe handling and disposal of radioactive wastes and on the steps necessary to ensure that the operational limits are not exceeded; to instruct the radiation workers engaged in waste disposal on the hazards of radiation and on suitable safety measures and work practices aimed at minimising exposures to radiation and contamination, and to ensure that adequate radiation surveillance is provided for all radiation workers and the environment.

Neither Environment Ministry, Labour Ministry nor the Atomic Energy Ministry provides for Radiological Safety Officer in the scarp metal yards. Radiological Safety Officer has to carry out such tests on conditioned radioactive wastes, as specified by the competent authority;to ensure that all buildings, laboratories and plants wherein radioactive wastes will be or are likely to be handled/produced, conditioned or stored or discharged from, are designed to provide adequate safety for safe handling and disposal of radioactive waste. He has to help investigate and initiate prompt and suitable remedial measures in respect of any situation that could lead to radiation hazards; and ...to ensure that the provisions of the Radiation Protection Rules, 1971 are followed properly.

In France, the 20 workers who suffered the radioactive radiation has been found and are being treated (if there is a treatment), our Environment Ministry, the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) and Labour Ministry must now trace the Indian workers who suffered due to radiation while working with the metal scrap (from the scrap yard, re-rolling mills to the lift steel button manufacturing) that was contaminated with radioactive material. The failure of the Ministries concerned is too stark to remain unnoticed. There is an urgent need to rewrite the present Rules that is more concerned about human health than hazardous waste trade. Likes of R K Vaish who drafted the Rules must be made accountable. The issue must be dealt with at a much higher level than is case now. There is no quick fix solution.

As a knee jerk reaction, the government is putting in place radiation monitors at ports to check cargo. Although AERB has just about 200 people, it is also a fact that it is an act of grave omission on the part of Environment Ministry and its loophole ridden Rules that allow import of hazardous wastes in the name of recycling. It is also a result of an exercise in linguistic corruption while drafting the Rules that redefines hazardous waste as a recyclable metal scarp.

The Prime Minister who also holds the Environment Ministry port folio and is in charge of the Department of Atomic Energy must acknowledge this serious lapse and constitute a High Power Expert Committee to investigate metal scrap unit, foundry and every yard of the ship-breaking industry in order to trace the workers and communities who have been exposed to radioactive radiation. It is high time the government revised its existing Hazardous Waste and Radioactive Waste Rules.

In such a situation, is buying radioactive monitors as has been suggested by the AERB sufficient?

Gopal Krishna


Contaminated metals in France and Sweden
24 October 2008

Another version of this story incorrectly stated that the maximum regulatory dose rate for the public and nuclear industry workers is 1 mSv per hour. In fact, the maximum dose in France is 1mSv per year for the public and 20 mSv per year for nuclear workers.

Buttons produced at a factory in France for elevator manufacturer Otis have been found to be radioactive as have metal components imported into Sweden. The source of the radiation has been traced back to a foundry in India.

The manufacturer of the buttons, Mafelec, was alerted by US customer Otis of the presence of radiation in a consignment of buttons it had received. Mafelec informed the French Nuclear Safety Authority (Autorité De Sûreté Nucléaire, ASN) on 7 October.

The ASN took radiation measurements at Mafelec's plant in Chimilin in the Isère region of France. Abnormal levels of some 0.02 mSv per hour were discovered near several packages of metal discs which form the base of the lift buttons. In addition, the ASN found a dose of 0.05 mSv per hour at one of the workstations at the Chimilin plant. The regulatory maximum dose in France for the public is 1 mSv per year, while the maximum for nuclear workers is 20 mSv per year.

The ASN initially gave the incident a provisional classification of Level 1 on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES). However, this was later changed to Level 2 when it was found that more than ten Mafelec employees had received doses exceeding the maximum regulatory level.

The ASN believes that the source of the radiation was likely to be cobalt-60 in the metal discs supplied from India. An inspection by the ASN on 8 October found that consignments of contaminated discs began to be delivered to Mafelec on 21 August. The ASN also determined that a total of some 30 Mafelec employees had been exposed to the radiation, of which about 20 had been exposed to doses ranging from 1 mSv to about 3 mSv.

Cobalt-60 is a corrosion product from nuclear reactor vessels and is mainly used in certain medical diagnosis and treatment equipment.

An investigation by the ASN in collaboration with the Directorate of Civil Aviation found that a consignment of contaminated lift buttons was sent in September from Roissy airport in France to the USA. On its arrival to the USA, a radiation detector indicated that two of the packages were contaminated. Although the two packages were then placed in a controlled area, the authorities do not appear to have been informed.

The ASN has informed the prosecutor of several offences committed by Mafelec, including some under the Public Health Act.

Meanwhile, Swedish officials have discovered traces of radioactivity on steel parts also imported from India. The Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (SSM) said that the levels of cobalt-60 in the steel parts were considered harmless and the components were not recalled.

SSM spokesman Mattias Sköld told the AFP news agency, "Dutch customs discovered that a shipment of industrial flanges from India to Sweden showed traces of cobalt-60." That led to the discovery that a similar shipment had been sent several weeks earlier from India and delivered to three undisclosed companies in the oil and heating sector at four sites in Sweden.

Sköld added, "Inspections were carried out and it was found that the level found in these products was very low and wasn't dangerous." He noted that SSM had contacted ASN over the Swedish discovery.

India's Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB), which had been contacted by the ASN, said that the contamination had been traced back to the Vipras Castings foundry. Satya Pal Agarwal, head of AERB's radiological safety division, told AFP that the components used by Mafelec were supplied by two Indian companies - Bunts and Laxmi Electronics - which purchase inputs from SKM Steels, which in turn worked with the foundry.

Agarwal said that the AERB was still investigating the source of the contaminated scrap metal that had been melted down to produce the steel used in the parts. One possible source of cobalt-60 could be from scrapped hospital equipment used for radiotherapy treatment, which became mixed with other metals. Recycling facilities routinely check shipments of metals for radiation before melting them down but in this case, the practise appears to have failed.

World Nuclear News

The Religion of Guns

Americans worship guns. We stockpile nuclear weapons, we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on conventional weapons, and we keep handguns under our pillows. Not me, you might say: never touched a gun, never will. But you can still be part of the religion without visiting the church. Consider all the video games that involve shooting. And all the movies that center around gunfights in the same way that medieval paintings focus on the life of Jesus. And all the plastic guns our kids have. Then there's our $2,000 annual per-capita share of the Pentagon budget - that's a hefty contribution to the collection plate.

We use all manner of spurious rationales to justify our gun theology. It's a dangerous world out there, we say, and even though we spend as much on weaponry as the rest of the world combined, we need still more. At home, gun advocates hold up the Constitution's Second Amendment: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - even though the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the amendment protects only the rights of state militias, not individuals, to bear arms.

It's bad enough that we're awash in guns in the United States. But we also evangelize. We sell guns as aggressively overseas as a preacher hands out leaflets on a street corner. At Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org), we've published many articles on rising U.S. arms exports. But this week, FPIF columnist Frida Berrigan reports on an equally insidious problem: our exports of handguns. Consider the case of Mexico, where guns are fueling an epidemic of violence and death. "According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, more than 90% of guns seized after shootings or police raids in Mexico or at the border can be traced back to the United States," Berrigan writes. "Last year alone, 2,455 weapons traces concluded that the guns had been purchased in the United States."

I'm writing this from South Korea, where the citizens frankly think that we are all militant fundamentalists when it comes to guns. In South Korea, gun control laws are about as strict as they get. "When a gun is found on the street here," my friend here tells me, "it becomes the focus of national attention." That might change, of course. It wasn't long ago that bread was an unusual food here - that is, until the United States flooded the market with wheat beginning in the 1950s as a food assistance program that also just happened to help out U.S. agribusiness. If American suppliers and the unregulated market have their way, South Koreans will someday enjoy all the privileges of gun ownership - including the privilege of getting shot by accident on the street, by lunatics in crowded suburban malls, or by suicidal loners on school campuses.

Berrigan's column generated a load of anti-gun control responses, several of which suggested that a disarmed population would lead directly to tyranny and even genocide. South Koreans would be surprised to learn of this correlation, since they overthrew tyranny and today live in a democracy, all without guns. I, too, was surprised to learn that bullets, not ballots, are the cornerstone of U.S. democracy. The Aztecs believed that human sacrifice was necessary for the stability of their society. Today, we scoff at this "primitive" belief though we cling to our guns as surely as the Aztecs clung to their obsidian knives. Michael Moore chronicled this obsession in his film Bowling for Columbine. Lars von Trier lampooned it in the brilliant film, Dear Wendy.

Documentaries and satire are fine and dandy. But who will have the courage to stand up to bullies with guns - whether it's the National Rifle Association or the Pentagon - and get them to, in the words of Andy Partridge and the band XTC, "melt the guns, never more to fire them; melt the guns, never more desire them"?

Who will finally be able to convince Americans that the god of guns is the god that failed?


by JOHN FEFFER | October 28, 2008
Vol. 3, No. 43
World Beat

Manmohan Singh's toxic Diwali Gift to Indians

Note:Indian government took an internationally untenable position by opposing the inclusion of Chrysotile Asbestos in the UN's hazardous chemical list under the manifest influence of Asbestos industry and Canadian and Russian governments.

Manmohan Singh government has betrayed the public interest by taking an unpardonable position that endangers each and every citizen of the country at the fourth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-4) of the UN's Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure (PIC) for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade commenced today at the headquarters of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in Rome, Italy.

There are 39 substances on the Rotterdam Convention's international trade watch list, under which an exporting nation must ensure no substance on the list leaves its territory without the consent of the recipient country. The watch list is formally known as the Prior Informed Consent (PIC) Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade.

Chrysotile asbestos, which is widely used in building materials, accounts for some 94 per cent of global asbestos production. The UN World Health Organization (WHO) has identified it as a human carcinogen, and reports that at least 90,000 people die each year of asbestos-related diseases such as lung cancer and mesothelioma. And International Labour Organisation has called for the elimination of its use.

A number of countries, including some that continue to mine and export chrysotile asbestos, blocked its addition to the PIC list when the Parties to the Convention last met in 2006 and further opposition is expected at next week's meeting, according to FAO. India is the largest importers and consumers of Canadian and Russian asbestos to the detriment of its citizens and workers.

Italy born President of Indian National Congress Party, Sonia Gandhi's ruling government headed by Manmohan Singh ignored the appeals by its own Environment & Health Ministry along with trade unions & environmental groups to support the inclusion of Chrysotile Asbestos in the list of hazardous chemicals but Indian officials at the UN meeting in Rome are all set to disregard the public interest concerns and be guided by the industry.

Manmohan Singh government has turned a blind eye towards how the atmosphere around asbestos factory and asbestos products becomes poisonous.

When the matter came for discussion on 28 October, Head of the Indian delegation R H Khawaja, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment opposed the listing of Chrysotile asbestos and endosulphan in the PIC list for hazardous chemicals and pesticides. Indian government's delegation acted under tremendous pressure from the representatives of Indian Chemical Industry and Chrysotile asbestos industry who dictated government's official position.

Reacting to the unfortunate position of the government for the fourth time, Ban Asbestos Network of India (BANI) condemned the Indian position and said,
"It clearly illustrates that the ruling Indian National Congress Party politicians are either themselves owners of asbestos companies or are in hand in glove with these companies in their naked lust for profit."



Gopal Krishna

Asbestos to stay off U.N. watch list

OTTAWA - Chrysotile asbestos will remain off a watch list of dangerous UN chemicals for at least another two years, say observers attending the Rotterdam Convention talks in Rome.

On Tuesday, India, Pakistan, Vietnam and the Philippines made their opposition to chrysotile's inclusion on the list known at the talks.

"Canada got others to do their dirty work for them," said New Democratic MP Pat Martin, who was in Rome as an observer. ''The first speakers were our biggest customers."

Martin said several other countries, like Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, also were opposed, but the "overwhelming majority" of delegations were in favour.

"If it's 126 countries here, it's probably 115 or 120 who support inclusion and seven or eight who oppose"

"After the four initial speeches, they said, 'There is clearly no consensus, so it was taken off the agenda to be revisited next time,'" he said from Rome.

Martin said the Canadian delegation did not make a speech, but Monday vetoed a Swiss proposal to change the ratification process so that it would only require a three-quarter majority for listing a chemical. To be added to the list, consensus has to be achieved.

Substances on the Prior Informed Consent list are deemed dangerous, and importing countries have to be informed about their hazards.

An independent committee of scientists from around the world had recommended that chrysotile asbestos, endosulfan and tributyltin be added to the list this year.

Endosulfan is a toxic pesticide banned in the European Union, and produced in India, among other places, and tributyltin is an ingredient used in products that are applied to boats to kill marine life. Those chemicals have not been discussed yet.

Kathleen Ruff, of the Rotterdam Convention Alliance, said it is expected that tributyltin will be added to the list because "it is not a commercially valuable substance and so there in not an industry lobby to obstruct the Convention."

Chrysotile asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, and more than 40 jurisdictions have bans or restrictions on the mineral. There are many countries that still use the mineral, and last year Canada sold $77 million worth of it, mostly to developing countries. At past meetings, Canada had vetoed the addition of chrysotile, saying the mineral can be used safely.

In Rome, Martin was disappointed in the outcome of the discussion, but not hopeless.

"We may have lost Rotterdam, but I think the jig is up for the asbestos industry, now that the public has been made aware of the shameful policies. I don't think the prime minister can ignore the push back of the general public," he said.

Katie Daubs
Canwest News Service
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
© Ottawa Citizen 2008

IMF forgives its Director's Amourous Affairs

Head of International Monitory Fund(IMF), Dominique Strauss-Kahn is a former Socialist finance minister and contender for French presidency. Libération, the left-wing newspaper, said Strauss-Kahn, whom it described as a “seductive epicurean”, had predicted that he might be a liability in Washington. It said his flirtatious behaviour sometimes “verges on harassment” and that this would not go down well among “Anglo-Saxons”. Referring to Anglo-Saxons, Jean Quatremer, the veteran Brussels correspondent wrote“They do not forgive misplaced gestures or words”.It turns out that he has been forgiven.




The International Monetary Fund said Saturday that it would stand by its managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, despite concluding that he had shown poor judgment in a sexual affair with a subordinate.

After receiving a report from an outside law firm, the executive board of the fund said there was no evidence Strauss-Kahn had abused his power or shown favoritism in his brief relationship with a senior official at the fund, who later resigned to take a job in London.

Still, the longest-serving member of the board, A. Shakour Shaalan, described the affair as a "serious error of judgment" on the part of Strauss-Kahn, 59, a former French finance minister who took charge a year ago and is now steering the fund through the most serious global financial crisis in decades.

In a statement, Strauss-Kahn said, "I am grateful that the board has confirmed that there was no abuse of authority on my part, but I accept that this incident represents a serious error of judgment."

The inquiry, by the firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, concerned a brief relationship between Strauss-Kahn and Piroska Nagy, then an official in the Africa department. Nagy left the fund in August as part of a buyout of nearly 600 employees instituted by Strauss-Kahn to cut costs.
At issue was whether Strauss-Kahn had sexually harassed Nagy, pressed her to leave the fund or used his authority to give her preferential treatment in her buyout. In all cases, the report found no evidence.

Last week, Strauss-Kahn issued an apology to the fund's staff, Nagy and his wife, Anne Sinclair, a French television journalist. Sinclair wrote on her personal Web log that her husband's affair had been a "one-night stand," and that the couple had "turned the page."

Strauss-Kahn's affair came at an awkward time, just as the American mortgage crisis jumped borders to become a global financial upheaval, destabilizing countries from Iceland to Argentina and creating a list of would-be borrowers from the fund.

On Friday, Iceland reached a tentative agreement with the fund for a $2 billion emergency loan to stabilize its economy, which has been devastated by the collapse of its three main banks. Loans to Hungary and Ukraine could be announced next week, fund officials said.

Beyond these efforts, the fund is trying to arrange a huge credit line for countries like Brazil and South Korea, which have sound economies but are suffering from a lack of access to foreign currency.

Strauss-Kahn has been a whirlwind of activity, appearing with President George W. Bush at a meeting of finance ministers of the Group of 7 industrialized countries earlier this month and presiding over the fund's annual meeting in Washington.

Still, Shaalan said that despite retaining the support of the board, Strauss-Kahn would have to work to regain the trust of the staff, particularly female employees. "There are a number of staff who are not at all happy, and do not approve of the managing director's behavior," he said.


IMF Investigates Intern's Appointment

WASHINGTON -- The International Monetary Fund is looking at whether its chief, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, influenced the appointment of a 26-year-old political protégé to a sought-after internship in the IMF's research department.

The managing director's connection with Emilie Byhet was a focus of discussions this summer among a handful of IMF board members, who were fielding complaints from staffers about arbitrary personnel decisions. At the time, the staff was being reduced by about 500 slots. An IMF spokesman said that "there is no evidence of favoritism in this case," in which Mr. Strauss-Kahn's office recommended Ms. Byhet for the slot.
[International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, center, at IMF headquarters in Washington on Oct. 13. Prominent French politicians have lined up to support him amid an abuse-of-power probe.] Associated Press

International Monetary Fund Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, center, at IMF headquarters in Washington on Oct. 13. Prominent French politicians have lined up to support him amid an abuse-of-power probe.

The board members decided against bringing the issue before the whole board, or intervening more broadly, individuals familiar with the deliberations said. Instead, they referred the matter to the legal department, which didn't take further action.

Ms. Byhet's internship ended in August. A man who said his name was Mr. Byhet, in Ms. Byhet's hometown of Normandy, declined to take a message for Emilie. A spokesman for Mr. Strauss-Kahn said Ms. Byhet and her parents are friends of Mr. Strauss-Kahn and his wife.

The episode is being re-examined as part of a larger look at Mr. Strauss-Kahn's personal behavior at the IMF. The IMF has retained the firm of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP to investigate whether Mr. Strauss-Kahn abused his position in connection with a sexual relationship he had with a subordinate, Piroska Nagy, at the time a senior official in the IMF's Africa department. To determine whether Mr. Strauss-Kahn abused his power, the probe is looking at a wide variety of topics.

On Monday, Mr. Strauss-Kahn sent an email to the staff apologizing "for my error in initiating this relationship." Though he didn't cite Ms. Nagy by name, he called her a "talented economist and consummate professional." He said he had apologized to his wife and family.

Over the weekend, Anne Sinclair, the wife of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, said on her blog that she and her husband were expecting the outcome of the IMF investigation "calmly and dispassionately." Ms. Sinclair, a prominent French TV journalist, said that the "one-night affair" was behind them and that "we love each other as much as on the day we met."

Mr. Strauss-Kahn said that the incident "constituted an error of judgment on my part, for which I take full responsibility." But he said, "I firmly believe that I have not abused my position."

Prominent French politicians have lined up behind Mr. Strauss-Kahn. Jean-Claude Trichet, the French president of the European Central Bank, said in a Sunday radio interview he was convinced that Mr. Strauss-Kahn would be cleared of allegations that he abused his position. Luc Chatel, a French government spokesman, also offered support in a radio interview.

The allegations against Mr. Strauss-Kahn are a major distraction for the IMF, which is trying to show that it can play a central role in restructuring financial institutions to avoid a replay of the current global financial crisis. The Byhet matter could complicate its efforts to maintain that focus.
[Piroska Nagy, the IMF staffer with whom the fund's chief, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, had an affair.] Times of London

Piroska Nagy, the IMF staffer with whom the fund's chief, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, had an affair.

In the summer of 2005, Ms. Byhet joined the campaign team of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, who was seeking the Socialist nomination for the 2007 presidential election. According to two people who worked on the team, Ms. Byhet was often seen at La Planche (The Plank), the nickname of Mr. Strauss-Kahn's campaign building.

"She attended all his political meetings," a former college mate of Ms. Byhet at the Institute for Political Studies said. "She admired Mr. Strauss-Kahn and seriously believed he had his chance."

But Mr. Strauss-Kahn, 59, wasn't nominated, and in September 2007 he became IMF chief. Ms. Byhet was awarded an internship in February 2008. According to three individuals familiar with the process, the IMF human resources department usually sends a list of around 10 candidates for departments to choose from.

In this instance, a human resources manager in mid-January sent over Ms. Byhet's name alone. "I would very much appreciate your assistance in assigning her" as an intern, the manager wrote to the research department. Two individuals say that an HR manager also called the research department to say that "management," which in IMF lingo usually means the IMF managing director, favored the appointment.

The IMF spokesman added that "there is no evidence of any direct involvement" in the process by Mr. Strauss-Kahn. However, he noted "that it is accurate to say her name was forwarded to our Human Resources department by the Managing Director's office." He called that "routine practice."

While research interns are usually Ph.D. candidates in economics, Ms. Byhet had a master's degree in public policy and communications. She listed her first "professional experience" as an "internship with the campaign team of Mr. Dominique Strauss-Kahn."

The research department decided to accept the candidacy, in part to accommodate what they saw as a request by Mr. Strauss-Kahn. Her internship was scheduled to last from Feb. 1 to April 30, but was extended through August after she got ill in the middle of her program.

An IMF spokesman said that "standard IMF procedures" were followed in the case. Winter internships often have fewer candidates, the spokesman said, adding that the minimum standard for the position is a master's degree. According to her resume, Ms. Byhet did her undergraduate work at the Sorbonne University, where she studied economic history, and got a master's in public policy at the Institute for Political Studies.

The Wall Street Journal

Exclusive testimony : The third Strauss-Kahn affair

The Dominique Strauss-Kahn(DSK)case could be the tree that hides the forest. At high society dinner parties in Paris, the managing director for the IMF is apparently known for his amorous conquests. His supposed intimacy with a Hungarian economist at the moment has hit the headlines. But this relationship between consenting adults is, after all, inconsequential, as DSK says himself, in the mere case of a banallove exchange. Things get more serious that they appears. A video on the web shows in veiled terms that DSK could have used violence on Tristane Banon, a young journalist and novelist. If the facts are proved, the charge is terrible. The victim does not conceal them, better, she accuses the director of the IMF of bulling her.

(Translated from the French version published on Agoravox.fr) Why didn’t this video make a huge buzz on the Internet? We may ask ourselves. Because its content is breaking. Breaking, perhaps, but impossible to exploit because the protagonist’s name is censored. Yet there is no need to be a genius to know who is behind the beep... We had to ensure that our intuitions were not wrong.

In this video, Tristane Banon, a young journalist and novelist, accuses a man apparently high-ranking male official of assault with intention to rape her. Who is this man? Why all the mystery?

The scene takes place in Paris during the First Issue of Ardisson 93, Faubourg Saint-Honoré (broadcast on 5 and on 20 February 2007)

Tristane Banon is sitting around the table with other diners (Jacques Séguéla, Thierry Saussez, Jean-Michel Aphatie, Roger Hanin, Gérald Dahan, Claude Askolovitch and Hedwige Chevrillonand were also present) then says: "I was with [and the name is replaced by a long beep] with whom things went very wrong. It’s the horny chimp !". Then the host Thierry Ardisson agrees entirely with her, and says: “he is obsessed!”.

Everyone, of course, wants to know the identity of that person whose name is hidden by a beep. To find out, it was enough to ask Tristane Banon herself, who answered emphatically that it was Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

The name of the politician, who in 2002 became a representative instead of a minister, and who, in early 2007, was newly appointed to the IMF, far from Paris, has been censored, but why? "I don’t know at all” Tristane Banon says to us. “What I know is that there had been a problem once when Thierry Ardisson invited me on the show Tout le monde en parle. We had talked about it at the end of my sequence, and the channel wished to withdraw altogether... The decision was taken by Télé Paris and Stéphane Simon. In any case, I’m not the one that asked for it".

Another surprising aspect: why, in February 2007, did nobody talk about this case? And why did this video disappear from the Internet as if some people wanted to permanently delete memories? The accusation by Tristane Banon is serious, but not absurd. And it is recurrent."Who has not been jammed by Dominique Strauss-Kahn ?"Danielle Evenou asked recently during a broadcast of Laurent Ruquier. The English spoken media, followed by French blogs, has also had a field day with her supposed link with Yasmina Reza.

As we know, the current director for the IMF is under fire, in the news, because of a current case that is widely been talked about; its intimate relationship with Piroska Nagy. Piroska Nagy is a Hungarian economist who worked for the IMF Africa department until last August.DSK is suspected by the international institution"for a possible abuse of power that he could be guilty of, giving a too high pay to Nagy or manoeuvring to send her to London”, according to Le Point.

Dominique Strauss-Khan doesn’t deny having been close to Ms. Piroska Nagy. However, he denies any abuse of power. The case would have ended there if people weren’t also criticizing the IMF’s director for having acted in favor of Emilie Byhet, a young woman who worked in his campaign team during the 2007 socialist primaries. He is accused of having suggested the human resources department of the IMF to grant an internship at the research department of the institution...

These cases are not to be taken lightly, but they are not as serious as the accusation that Tristane Banon launches against Dominique Strauss-Kahn. At the time, in 2002, the young woman did not dare complain. When she contacted the legal counsel they made referenceson her attacker on a strong voluminous file. But Tristane Banon decided no to pursue a
complaint. She states:

"Anyway, now I do not even know if the statute of limitations doesn’t apply. Six years have past. Initially, I wanted to complain, but after there was the story of Johnny Hallyday with his girlfriend, and it was stack together with what arrived ...What will prevent 50% of people I will cross not to believe me, they are not supposed to believe in my good faith. So I thought I had to live with that. And then what do I have to gain? More money? I don’t want his money. And if it is to sell books on this kind of reputation, frankly I would rather sell little or nothing ... And then there was simply the fact that I live alone in Paris. He is with a guy. It’s a hard guy who doesn’t always make use of very refined methods ... I don’t think he would have murdered, but I think he would possibly have beaten me...".

How did all this happen? Tristane Banon contacted Dominique Strauss-Kahn in 2002. At that time, she is preparing a book, Erreurs avouées, to be published a few months later by publisher Anne Carriere, without the testimony of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. We understand why by listening to her interview on Paris Premiere:

"... He suggested that we met, he gave me an address that was unknown to me, It surprised me because I was a bit familiar with his life, more or less, so I know where he lives, I know where to find his permanence, I see where the Assembly is located. None of that.

I arrived at the address, I parked, I climb, the apartment was empty, completely empty, with a VCR, television, a bed at the end, very beautiful, it tastes good, a good man taste, sublime beams on inner courtyard, and then he gently closed the door. I put the tape immediately to record, he wanted me to take his hand so I could reply, because he said "I can’t do it if you do not hold my hand", and then after the main arm was taken, and it went a little further, so I immediately stopped ... I arrived there, I had a black turtleneck, perhaps a rolled black collar turns guys on, but stop. After that, things went from bad to worse. We ended up fighting, and the whole affair ended very violently since I told him clearly... [intervention of a guest] no no we fought on the ground, not a simple pair of smacks, I have kicked, he unclipped my bra, he tried to undo my jeans ... It ended very badly, but what impressed me was ... [editing cut]. Well finally, I left. He immediately sent me a text saying "So are you scared of me ?" with that taste of provocative attitude, and I talked to him when we fought, I used the word "rape" to scare him, but he was not scared at all, it seems that he apparently was accustomed, thereafter he didn’t stop send me messages saying "Are you scared of me ?".

According to Tristane Banon, DSK prevented her from publishing the pages that refers to him :

"Anne Carriere had the jitters, she withdrew the chapter. I think that was truly stupid because journalists had received it anyway... What I really did not appreciate was what he has done thereafter. Because until then I was not wicked, I withdrew the chapter, I did all he told me to do. There were many plans for interviews for the press, on TV, etc. and he called Marc Olivier Fogiel asking him to cancel because he was afraid that I would talk about it, especially with Fogiel because it was live. Now it is word against word. That is what Marc Olivier Fogiel told me, and I don’t see why he would lie to me. Fogiel told me when he invited me (I still have the invitation) He said listen Tristane, they threaten to cut the beam if I let you in."

We can Hold forth and ask who is this "they" capable of censoring passages which refer to him on a cable channel, to censure an editor and threatening to cancel a broadcast entertainment on a public channel.

"Strauss-Kahn has only one real problem: his relations to women, Jean Quatremer wrote in one of his notes. He often is on the verge of harassment sots. The media knows about it, but nobody dares to talk about it (we are in France). However, the IMF is an international institution with moral values. An inappropriate gesture or an explicit allusion puts you to the media spotlight."

Now, what is the IMF going to do with those revelations?

The Citizen Media

Ambani gas tussle becomes Triangular

Ambani brothers feud over natural gas sharing reaches SC
26 Oct, 2008

PTI reports, a petition has been moved in Supreme Court seeking vacation of stay granted by Bombay High Court, which restrained Mukesh Ambani-owned Reliance Industries from selling gas to any company other than Anil Ambani group and NTPC.

The petition filed in public interest by one B A Aloor, a practising advocate from Pune, alleged that the feud between two brothers is affecting people at large who are being deprived of "the most-efficient and environment-friendly fossil fuel".

The matter is coming up for hearing on November 10. While challenging the High Court order dismissing its intervention application, the petition said vacation of stay would help early gas production from Krishna-Godavari basin.

Contesting the interim stay order, Aloor said the delay in using the gas from the RIL-controlled KG basin gas fields was against public interest, as the gas could be used as a cheaper alternate source of energy.

According to the petition, the national resources entrusted to private companies cannot be allowed to be wasted due to family feud and it casts an obligation on the company entrusted with the exploration of petroleum resources to consider national interests while discharging its duties.

"Natural gas found in the KG basin has not been produced to its optimum level due to family disputes between the Reliance group of companies... Some gas reserves could be lost permanently in the process," the petition filed through advocate Rukhsana Chaudhury stated.

"The finding of natural gas in Krishna Godavari Basin is a watershed in the history of petroleum exploration efforts and the gas starved customers had been waiting for production of gas," it stated, adding the gas supply had not kept pace with the surging demand.

Reliance Natural Resources Limited (RNRL) agrees to Govt becoming a party in
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) gas case

Earlier Anil Ambani Group company Reliance Natural Resources Ltd has asked Reliance Industries Ltd to pay the difference between the price at which Reliance Industries will sell gas to other buyers ($2.34 per million British thermal unit), and the rate at which RNRL is seeking supply of gas. The suggestion was made by RNRL counsel Mukul Rohatgi as an interim solution to the ongoing dispute between RIL and RNRL over supply of gas. Rohatgi submitted to the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court that it may ask Reliance Industries to pay to RNRL the difference in price for three years.

The division bench of the Bombay High Court on 21 October allowed Government of India to be a party to the ongoing dispute between RIL and RNRL over sharing of natural gas from KG basin fields.

RNRL, which had earlier opposed the move, changed its stand and has not objected to the Government becoming a party at the current stage of the case.

Counsel for RNRL, Mukul Rohatgi, said that if the government is not heard at the High Court stage and if the matter reaches the Supreme Court, the highest court could take a view that the government should have been heard at High Court level. In that case the court might refer the matter back to the High Court. Therefore, to save time, the company (RNRL) has agreed to the government plea for becoming a party to the case, he said.

Counsel for RIL, Harish Salve, said the bench should give the government the opportunity to put forth its case. Otherwise in the Supreme Court the government could say that it was not heard properly in the lower court.

The Government counsel, T.S. Doabia, said that the only issue the government is worried about is the price at which the gas is to be sold and its approval. It is not concerned with the MoU between RIL and RNRL, he said.

The government in its petition field in April 2008 wanted vacation of the interim order of May 3, 2007 that restrained RIL from creating any third party rights and use or supply of gas committed to RNRL.

The Government said that it is a major stakeholder under the Production Sharing Contract (PSC) for RIL’s K-G basin gas. The PSC is between the Government and RIL. A private dispute between the RIL and RNRL cannot threaten the interests of the Government.

Justice J N Patel, who is hearing the case, said the bench has accepted the ‘chamber summons’ (a procedure of approaching the court) of the Government through the Union Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The government must file an affidavit and the officer concerned must be present in the court.

RIL counsel Harish Salve said that he did not expect the Dadri Power Plant of RNRL to be operational for at least the next six years. However, today both the parties agreed on one significant aspect which is the government�s role in the case. Both the parties made it very clear that they have no objection to the government of India becoming a party to the ongoing litigation.

Mukul Rohatgi, Counsel, RNRL said, "We found that it is better if the government is there because they have been saying that they want to be heard. We have nothing to hide or to keep out from the government. So, we said that let them come otherwise there were apprehensions that if they were not to be heard by this court, then certainly they would have a ground in the Supreme Court to say that they were the owners of the gas and that they have not been heard, etc. In order to obviate all these delays, which would have occurred because of this, we have decided to let the government come. Neither we nor RIL has any objections. Government will be added as a party and they will say whatever they have to say. Thus, when the decision comes it will bind all parties",government, RIL and RNRL.

Harish Salve, Counsel, RIL said, "I have given my consent. I don�t mind if they want to join let them join. They are now bringing replies of ministers and they are saying interpret the documents. The court felt if all that is gone to be going into and the court has realized that the argument of RNRL is not as simple as they are trying to portray and they felt it is better to hear the government"

RIL counsel Harish Salve clearly indicated that RIL never had a problem with the government becoming a party to the case. But it did seem like a sudden change in the stance of RNRL when RNRL counsel Ram Jethmalani told the High Court bench today that RNRL had arrived to a decision and that they consent to the government becoming a party to the ongoing litigation at the Bombay High Court.

After the vacation period ends and when the hearing of this case resumes on November 11, this case will have a fully fledged legal triangle comprising Reliance Industries Limited, Reliance Natural Resources Limited and the Government of India.

RNRL files part of family MoU in HC

October 09, 2008

Anil Ambani-controlled Reliance Natural Resources (RNRL) today submitted a copy of the relevant parts of the memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed between the two brothers.

Reliance Industries’ counsel Harish Salve opposed the court taking the MoU on record and stated that he was reserving his right to cross examine. Ram Jethmalani, counsel for RNRL, read out the contents of the affidavit and said that the portions of the MoU submitted were only to enable the court to effectively deal with the frivolous grievances argued by RIL on non-production of MoU.

Still, the two counsels united in saying that the contents of the documents should not be made public. The MoU records the arrangement between the two brothers as part of the demerger scheme and also notes what needs to be done in future. The court has adjourned the hearing of the case till October 15. According to ADAG, RIL had contracted to supply 12 mmscmd of gas per day to state-run NTPC at $2.34 per unit , and it was agreed that if the gas was not supplied, it would be sold to RNRL.

Jethmalani will continue his submissions in the next hearing on 15 October. Justice JN Patel, who is hearing the case, announced that the court would sit on Saturday (October 18), as it would like to complete the hearing before the Diwali vacation and use the Diwali vacation for drafting the judgement.

Arundhati Roy

Interview with Arundhati Roy by Karan Thappar in IBN

Communal Profiling of 150 Million Muslims in India and Terrorising an equal number of Dalits and Adivasis by the Police

Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil's Advocate. Why is Arundhati Roy angry with the police and upset with the press? That's the key issue I shall explore today. Arundhati Roy, let's start with the recent encounter in Jamia Nagar in New Delhi. You've called for an independent judicial enquiry headed by a Supreme Court judge. Why do you involve yourself into this work? What's your locus standi?

Arundhati Roy: Well, I am just one of those thousands of people who are asking some very serious questions of the police. The trouble is that you know, even if you wanted to believe this police version, you don't know which police version to believe. Does one believe the Bombay police, the UP police, the Gujarat police or the Delhi police? All of them have different versions. There's a blizzard of masterminds. The Additional Commissioner of Mumbai police, Rakesh Maria recently said that Tauqeer, who is the Delhi police's mastermind of Indian Mujahideen, is a media creation. The point is who creates the media creations? Is it the media or the police or do they work together?

Karan Thapar: So, you are motivated by these contradictions. Is that the sole reason you need a judicial enquiry headed by a Supreme Court judge?

Arundhati Roy: Again, it is not just me. It was thousands of people who are saying one thing, you know. When the police have killed people, it ceases to be a neutral party. It cannot have an impartial investigation in its own actions. And there are so many serious questions about what happened at Batla House.

Karan Thapar: But before we come to those questions, let me point out what many people will be thinking at this moment. They are going to ask why do you think will an encounter, when a senior police officer like MC Sharma is killed and another injured would be fake. The police would not endanger themselves in a fake and fraudulent incident.

Arundhati Roy: Well, historically the police and security agencies the world over have done things like that. I am not saying it is fake. I am saying lets have an enquiry because this matter of MC Sharma, for instance would be cleared up if they would only produce the post-mortem report. Instead the post-mortem report is leaked in various ways and Mail Today says that he was shot from behind. Praveen Swami (of the daily The Hindu) says he was shot from two sides. The residents say that the police arrived and that there were drills and that they are making holes in the flat now. Why cannot all this be cleared up? If they would just produce the reports, which even the Magistrate asked for, and has put out a warrant for investigating officer and they still haven't produced it.

Karan Thapar: As you speak, I get the impression that your whole premise is that you don't trust the police. Millions of Indians do. Is it fitting and fair that you should question their veracity in this way when you know that it would not just demoralise them but it would seriously undermine their struggle to contain terror?

Arundhati Roy: Well. Millions of Indians do not trust the police. Is our choice not to question them because here we are talking about the communal profiling of a hundred and fifty million people, demoralising them, radicalising a whole generation and asking serious questions of a story that is told to us that is full of holes? Especially because such a senior police officer died in the incident, why should we not clear it up for the sake of police itself?

Karan Thapar: Let me for a moment play Devil's Advocate and point out to you evidence that you are deliberately ignoring. AK-47s were found in Batla House, so were two pistols. Policemen were shot at, policemen were killed. Atif's name appears in the Ahmedabad, Mumbai and UP police findings. Now, most recently, it transpires that Atif's degree from Allahabad is a fake. Why aren't you giving the police, as anyone else will, the benefit of the doubt? The evidence suggests that there is something suspicious, that there is a case. Why do you doubt it?

Arundhati Roy: Let enquiry clear it up. Even in the case of these recoveries, you know, there is a serious procedural lapse. When the police make recoveries at the scene of the crime, they should have independent witnesses corroborating it. They didn't, like in the case of the Parliament attack.

Karan Thapar: Isn't it possible that people are scared to come forth?

Arundhati Roy: No, but they have to get the seizure memo signed, right? And even the magistrate is asking for all these documents, for the FIR, the post mortem report, for the case diary not being produced. Now, let me ask some questions about Atif. The reports in the media given out by the police say that they have had him under surveillance since July 17. If so, then how was he allowed to plant these bombs in September? And even when they say that they had him under surveillance, they say that his number was called by a number, which was called by another number. I mean, c'mon, that's a lead, not proof that someone is a terrorist.

Karan Thapar: Maybe the surveillance wasn't effective. Maybe the police are exaggerating that they had him under surveillance. What about the other evidence that the police have brought into the public domain? It transpires that clips of the car that was used in the Ahmedabad bombings were found inside Atif's mobile, it transpires that literature of al-Qaeda was found at Batla House. It seems that even Saif has been using an assumed name. He has been travelling under a false identity calling himself Rohan Sharma. He even had that gentleman's voter identity card with him. None of these is suggestive or corroborated but you are dismissing it as otherwise.

Arundhati Roy: I am not dismissing it. If there is an enquiry, all this will also be a part of it. I am not dismissing they may be real terrorists. There are real terrorists, who are they? Are these boys the real ones? While the police are giving us evidence, there are also strange stories floating around. The police have been using the media to put out stories. All this is very disturbing and all this could be cleared out.

Karan Thapar: See, if I understand you correctly, there are two things you want clarified. One is that you want the questions and the inconsistencies in the police stories clarified because they suggest that the police hadn't got a clear cut case. And the second thing is that you want to try and get at the proof that establishes that the police had good reason to suspicious of the people.

Arundhati Roy: Exactly! Even their own versions are contradicting each other. On the one hand they say that you know, we did not know that they were terrorists and that is why we went in, in this casual manner. But the minute something came up they come out and say that these were the masterminds. There are so many things, you know. They say that people were killed in the crossfire but the proof is that these two men were killed while they were kneeling with shots in their head.

Karan Thapar: That's an assumption, I must point out!

Arundhati Roy: No, there are pictures.

Karan Thapar: Suggested. But we do not have the corroboration from the police.

Arundhati Roy: The police should show the post mortem report but we see it from the photographs.

Karan Thapar: You know what? Listening to you, people will say, and I am repeating what I have said to you earlier! They will say that her problem arises from the fact that she does not trust the police. Is it right that you should have such serious doubts about them?

Arundhati Roy: Not just rights, I think its our duty to have serious doubts and especially today, when we are sliding quickly into fascism and terrorism. It's our business as members of civil society to ask hard questions.

Karan Thapar: In which case, what are you suspecting the police…or let me put me more strongly and bluntly. What are you accusing the police of, on this issue?

Arundhati Roy: Well, primarily of giving us a story that doesn't hold together and insults our intelligence.

Karan Thapar: Why would they do this?

Arundhati Roy: I don't know. That's what we would like to know.

Karan Thapar: Is it not possible that they have got it right and you have doubts about them?

Arundhati Roy: Maybe! But an enquiry would show that, wouldn't it? The more they block it, refuse to produce the post mortem. The more they subterfuge and obfuscate their way through this, the more people will get suspicious of them.

Karan Thapar: An enquiry at the end of the day, would be in their benefit as well! Is that what you are arguing?

Arundhati Roy: Absolutely!

Karan Thapar: What then do you say of people who argue that this is typical Arundhati Roy. She's been against dams and developments; she's in favour of secession of Kashmir. She's attacked nuclear weapons and is now she is defending terrorists?

Arundhati Roy: Well, to being accused of being typically oneself is not an accusation. But if you are accusing me of having a world view that I do not believe in…I mean I do not believe in neo colonial military occupation, I don't believe in nuclear weapons and I don't believe in ecological destruction; then I am guilty as accused. Raising questions does not amount to supporting terrorism. I raised questions on the Parliament attack along with the people; we want to know who the terrorists are. We don't know. Now, of the people we defended, two of the four 'masterminds' of the case were released. Afzal has been convicted by the Supreme Court which says that says that we have no evidence to prove that he is attached to any terrorist groups but in order to satisfy the collective conscience of society, he is being sentenced to death. Excuse me Karan, its my case that the collective conscience of society is also a part of media construct and a part of the judicial imagination constructed by these stories that being put out.

Karan Thapar: So, you are saying to me that as a citizen, as a conscientious democrat, it is your duty to question. And if the questions are awkward and unsettling, so be it and that they must be answered, none the less?

Arundhati Roy: Yes, absolutely!

Karan Thapar: Arundhati Roy, lets come to the wider issue about how the police treats the people it has arrested and it is holding in detention. You are extremely upset by the fact that India Today journalists were given an access to the young men arrested at Batla House so that interviews could be done. Why do you call this a terrible thing?

Arundhati Roy: Well, look this phenomenon of media confessions is becoming a standard operating procedure with the Special cell and the Delhi police. The point is that neither the courts nor any kind of international law allows you to say that people who are being held in police custody under torture.

Karan Thapar: How do you know that they are being held under torture?

Arundhati Roy: Well, the possibility of torture…maybe that day, they were not tortured. It was the first day.

Karan Thapar: You are saying that Human Rights laws and values do not permit people under detention to be interviewed when they are not willing to be interviewed?

Arundhati Roy: Yes! And even the courts do not accept these as confessions or evidence. But the reason these are done is because they have a propaganda value.

Karan Thapar: The assumption when you say that such incidences have propaganda value is that these are forced confessions…that the young men interviewed did not give the answers they did, willingly and voluntarily. How can you conclude that that's the case?

Arundhati Roy: In this case it is very easy to be sure. Those young men, before they were caught, Zeeshan went to Headlines Today, Saquib went to Mail Today…both these (media units) are owned by the India Today, as you know. They were all people who came out in support of Atif and Saquib and said, look we know this guy. We know who he is.

Karan Thapar: Then how come you are calling those so called confessions when they are incriminating themselves and that when they went willingly to Mail Today or India Today, there are inconsistencies.

Arundhati Roy: Yes, so which version are we supposed to believe? The custodial one or the non-custodial one?

Karan Thapar: All the three men named by India Today and I will name them, Zia-ur-rehman, Saquib Insaar and Shakil admitted to planting bombs. You are denying or doubting the veracity of the so called confessions.

Arundhati Roy: Obviously! Its absurd not to, because they are in police custody. The same guys, Saquib went to Mail Today saying that I have known Atif for years. I got him this house. I mean it's hardly the behaviour of terrorists.

Karan Thapar: I assume that the point you are making is that any interview that is granted in police custody is not a willing and voluntary one and therefore any confession made in that interview is a forced confession and not acceptable?

Arundhati Roy: Well, it is not admitted. Even in the Parliament case, the courts admonished the police for parading these people before the media and giving these media confessions. They didn't do anything to the police which is why the same police; in fact Mohan Chand Sharma was a part of that cell, that same cell did it to theses people and it served the purpose. The propaganda value has been achieved.

Karan Thapar: You are saying that the Courts had admonished the police at the time the Parliament attack had happened for arranging such alleged false confessions and the police disregarded that admonishing and did the same thing again.

Arundhati Roy: That's right.

Karan Thapar: In your eyes, is the police guilty of violating fundamental human rights by arranging what you call false confessions to be made in forced interviews? Is this a violation of basic human rights?

Arundhati Roy: It is a violation of all kinds of rights. I say it again, that in this atmosphere of communal profiling, this kind of propaganda is essential for them. It is the keystone to this whole enterprise. They have achieved what they set out to, regardless of what the court says.

Karan Thapar: The police have made a habit of this. It happened under circumstances, in the Arushi murder case, practically everyday. They hold press briefings, where half baked theories or at least unconfirmed details they are repeated and revealed to the press. The press then prints them as facts. The readers and the viewers of television then accept it as the truth. Are you disconcerted by this?

Arundhati Roy: I am utterly disconcerted by this because now it is the combination of the media and the police…you do not know which ends where and which begins where. In a situation where these encounter specialists are going out and summarily executing thirty people, calling them terrorists…No one asks questions once they are dead. We just accept it.

Karan Thapar: Just a moment ago, you spoke about the collusion between the media and the police. Are you saying that the press is itself in error when it accepts what is given by the police and publishes it without verifying or double checking it?

Arundhati Roy: It is not just an error. It is outrageous to do something like this.

Karan Thapar: So the press' behaviour is outrageous?

Arundhati Roy: It is outrageous. There are statements like…and this man looked at me and he looked like a human bomb…I mean what kind of journalism is that?

Karan Thapar: So when as a result, like many people have said, this collusion between the police and the press leads to Jamia Nagar or to Azamgarh being thought as terrorist hubs or breeding grounds for terrorism, how unfortunate is that?

Arundhati Roy: It is not just unfortunate, its very dangerous. We now have a situation where a hundred and fifty Muslims and an equal number of Dalits and Adivasis in a different set of circumstances are being targeted in this way. Even if half a per cent of them decide to stop putting their heads down and decide to hit back, life as we knew it is over. A whole generation is radicalised and India becomes a threat to not just itself, but to the whole world.

Karan Thapar: This is something very important that you are saying. You mean that this behaviour of the police and the uncritical reporting by the press is going to end up in alienation and breeding the terrorism that we think we are controlling.

Arundhati Roy: Yes, that and also that this is a recipe for sliding into fascism. And we are bang in the middle of it now and this is how it works.

Karan Thapar: Why does the Indian middle class society that is so proud of calling itself a liberal democracy, accept this?

Arundhati Roy: Well, I don't think we are anymore proud of this. We have increasingly accepted that we are a police state and there is a sort of sliding of the democracy into majority into fascism that is a real danger now.

Karan Thapar: So you are saying that the middle class no more stands up for the liberal values it believes in. It is actually in a sense accepting the horrible shortcuts and therefore colluding. It's a very strong criticism, do you really mean it?

Arundhati Roy: I do. In fact, I feel that some day like the Nazis in Germany, we will be called upon to answer for what we have done and why we kept quiet while this was happening.

Karan Thapar: I get the feel that you are deeply disillusioned with the Indian middle classes.

Arundhati Roy: It is not just the middle classes, you know. It is the framework that we are putting into action these days. I have spent ten years writing about it. We are in a very serious situation. If we are to right it, all of us should ask ourselves very serious questions about when we chose to speak up and when we chose to stay quiet.

Karan Thapar: But in keeping quiet, as you say suggesting, Indians today are prepared to do, they are not just betraying essential values that they claim they believe in, they are actually betraying themselves and letting down their country. That's the case you are making.

Arundhati Roy: I am making that case and I am saying that with these policies that we are persuing, today every ordinary Indian's life is going to be at risk and we will pay very heavily for the consequences of what is going on now.

Karan Thapar: So it is virtually the last moment to stand up and be identified with the values that we claim to believe in otherwise those values are gone and with that our lives are gone.

Arundhati Roy: Absolutely!

Karan Thapar: And that's not an exaggeration?

Arundhati Roy: Nope! Absolutely not!

Karan Thapar: Arundhati Roy, a pleasure talking to you on Devil's Advocate

New Treaty Aims to Protect Shared Transboundary Aquifers

New Treaty Aims to Protect Shared Transboundary Aquifers

PARIS, France, October 23, 2008 (ENS) - Underground aquifers contain 100 times the volume of fresh water found on the Earth's surface but they have been neglected under international law despite their environmental, social, economic and strategic importance.

On Monday, that will change as the UN General Assembly receives the draft of a new international treaty to safeguard these enormous pools of underground water shared by more than one country.

The draft Convention on Transboundary Aquifers applies to 96 percent of the planet's freshwater resources - those that are to be found in underground aquifers, most of which straddle national boundaries.

Many shared aquifers are under environmental threats caused by climate change, growing population pressure, over-exploitation, and human induced water pollution.
Blue Eye Spring in southern Albania is fed by the Vjosa / Pogoni Aquifer shared by Albania and Greece.

The draft treaty requires that aquifer states not harm existing aquifers and cooperate to prevent and control their pollution. Prepared over the past six years by the UN International Law Commission with the assistance of experts from UNESCO's International Hydrological Programme, the treaty is intended to fill a gap in the law.

To accompany the draft treaty, UNESCO is publishing the first-ever world map of shared aquifers. It shows the aquifer locations and provides information about the quality of their water and rate of replenishment by rainfall.

So far, the inventory includes 273 shared aquifers - 68 are in the Americas, 38 in Africa, 65 in eastern Europe, 90 in western Europe and 12 in Asia.

The growth in the demand for water since 1950 has been met by the increased use of underground resources. Globally, 65 percent of this water is devoted to irrigation, 25 percent to the supply of drinking water and 10 percent to industry.

Underground aquifers account for more than 70 percent of the water used in the European Union, and are often the only source of supply in arid and semi-arid zones.

Aquifers supply 100 percent of the water used in Saudi Arabia and Malta, 95 percent in Tunisia and 75 percent in Morocco.

Irrigation systems in many countries depend very largely on groundwater resources - 90 percent in the Libya, 89 percent in India, 84 percent in South Africa and 80 percent in Spain.

One of the largest aquifers in the world is the Guarani Aquifer, extending over 1.2 million square kilometers, shared by Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.

Although aquifer systems exist in all continents, not all of them are fed on a regular basis by rainfall. Those in north Africa and the Arabian peninsula were formed more than 10,000 years ago when the climate was more humid and are no longer replenished.
This well in Africa's Sahara desert taps into an underground aquifer. (Photo by J.R. Virtue)

In some regions, even if the aquifers are renewable, they may be endangered by over-exploitation or pollution. In the small islands and coastal zones of the Mediterranean, people often use groundwater more rapidly than it is replenished.

The aquifers in Africa, which are some of the biggest in the world, are still under-exploited, the UN agency says, adding, "They have considerable potential, provided that their resources are managed on a sustainable basis."

Since they generally extend across several national boundaries, the sustainable use of African aquifers depends on agreed management mechanisms that will help prevent pollution or over-exploitation.

Mechanisms of this kind have begun to emerge. In the 1990s Chad, Egypt, Libya and Sudan established a joint authority to manage the Nubian aquifer system.

In their project concerning the Iullemeden aquifer that extends over 500 000 square kilometers in the semi-arid tropical savanna ecoregion of West Africa, Niger, Nigeria and Mali have approved in principle a consultative mechanism for administering the aquifer system. UNESCO says such mechanisms still are rare but the new treaty may encourage their formation.

UK Court of Appeal gives green light for legal challenge against import of toxic French ship, the Clemenceau

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release

Monday 20 October 2008

UK Court of Appeal gives green light for legal challenge against import of toxic French ship, the Clemenceau.

The Court of Appeal has reversed an earlier decision by the High Court and allowed Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) to challenge the importation of a toxic French aircraft carrier (the Clemenceau) into the United Kingdom.

On 16 October 2008 the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Laws granted Jean Kennedy (of the Friends of Hartlepool group) permission to apply for judicial review and ordered the full hearing to take place in the Court of Appeal because of the importance of the issues in this case.

Although the date for the hearing has yet to be set, it is expected that the toxic aircraft carrier will now remain in France until the Court has decided the case.

Jean Kennedy, the Appellant in this legal action, said today:

“We are very satisfied with this result. Friends of Hartlepool have always maintained that the HSE’s decision to allow the importation of the Clemenceau and it’s carcinogenic cargo is unlawful. By overturning the earlier High Court decision and allowing us to put these arguments in full to the Court of Appeal, this Order vindicates our approach”.

Gavin Sullivan, the solicitor at PIL representing Jean Kennedy, said:

“We have asked Able UK to undertake not to take any steps to import this ship into Hartlepool until the Court has taken it’s decision. Obviously, should Able seek to ignore this Order and try and bring this ship from France regardless, we will consider seeking directions from the Court to prevent them from doing so”.

Iris Ryder, a member of the Friends of Hartlepool group, said today:

“This is a fantastic result for the people of Hartlepool and takes us one step closer to preventing this toxic waste from being imported and dumped in our community. Able UK proposes to dismantle and dispose of this toxic vessel for a price of around 10% of that proposed by it’s European competitors. People and groups on both sides of the Channel are rightly asking serious questions about the safety of Able’s proposals. How can they seriously claim to be able to undertake the biggest ship dismantling project ever undertaken in Europe and safely remove the all of the estimated 760 tonnes of asbestos 330 tonnes of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) aboard the vessel for the same price it costs to safely remove asbestos from a small building?”

The Clemenceau - which has been the source of embarrassment for the French government after it was forced to abandon previous plans to illegally dump the vessel in India – is currently docked off the port of Brest in France. French Shipworker groups including Mor Glaz and other NGOs opposed to the export of the ship held a press conference last Friday to renew their calls for the French government to safely dispose of their own toxic ships and vow support for the Friends of Hartlepool legal challenge and campaign.

For further information about the case please contact:

Gavin Sullivan, Public Interest Lawyers: 0121 515 5069; or

Jean Kennedy, Friends of Hartlepool: 01429 295 039



Public Interest Lawyers was established in 1999. Since its formation the practice has taken on some of the most significant public law cases of recent times. The practice focuses on the following domestic areas: Public, Human Rights, Environmental, Planning and Urban Regeneration Law. Internationally, we practise Public, Human Rights, Humanitarian and Environmental Law.


For more information about PIL go to: www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk

UK Court of Appeal gives green light for legal challenge against import of toxic French ship, the Clemenceau

PRESS RELEASE

For immediate release

Monday 20 October 2008

UK Court of Appeal gives green light for legal challenge against import of toxic French ship, the Clemenceau.

The Court of Appeal has reversed an earlier decision by the High Court and allowed Public Interest Lawyers (PIL) to challenge the importation of a toxic French aircraft carrier (the Clemenceau) into the United Kingdom.

On 16 October 2008 the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Laws granted Jean Kennedy (of the Friends of Hartlepool group) permission to apply for judicial review and ordered the full hearing to take place in the Court of Appeal because of the importance of the issues in this case.

Although the date for the hearing has yet to be set, it is expected that the toxic aircraft carrier will now remain in France until the Court has decided the case.

Jean Kennedy, the Appellant in this legal action, said today:

“We are very satisfied with this result. Friends of Hartlepool have always maintained that the HSE’s decision to allow the importation of the Clemenceau and it’s carcinogenic cargo is unlawful. By overturning the earlier High Court decision and allowing us to put these arguments in full to the Court of Appeal, this Order vindicates our approach”.

Gavin Sullivan, the solicitor at PIL representing Jean Kennedy, said:

“We have asked Able UK to undertake not to take any steps to import this ship into Hartlepool until the Court has taken it’s decision. Obviously, should Able seek to ignore this Order and try and bring this ship from France regardless, we will consider seeking directions from the Court to prevent them from doing so”.

Iris Ryder, a member of the Friends of Hartlepool group, said today:

“This is a fantastic result for the people of Hartlepool and takes us one step closer to preventing this toxic waste from being imported and dumped in our community. Able UK proposes to dismantle and dispose of this toxic vessel for a price of around 10% of that proposed by it’s European competitors. People and groups on both sides of the Channel are rightly asking serious questions about the safety of Able’s proposals. How can they seriously claim to be able to undertake the biggest ship dismantling project ever undertaken in Europe and safely remove the all of the estimated 760 tonnes of asbestos 330 tonnes of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) aboard the vessel for the same price it costs to safely remove asbestos from a small building?”

The Clemenceau - which has been the source of embarrassment for the French government after it was forced to abandon previous plans to illegally dump the vessel in India – is currently docked off the port of Brest in France. French Shipworker groups including Mor Glaz and other NGOs opposed to the export of the ship held a press conference last Friday to renew their calls for the French government to safely dispose of their own toxic ships and vow support for the Friends of Hartlepool legal challenge and campaign.

For further information about the case please contact:

Gavin Sullivan, Public Interest Lawyers: 0121 515 5069; or

Jean Kennedy, Friends of Hartlepool: 01429 295 039



Public Interest Lawyers was established in 1999. Since its formation the practice has taken on some of the most significant public law cases of recent times. The practice focuses on the following domestic areas: Public, Human Rights, Environmental, Planning and Urban Regeneration Law. Internationally, we practise Public, Human Rights, Humanitarian and Environmental Law.


For more information about PIL go to: www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk

Le Clemenceau still faces legal challenge in UK

New bid in ghost warship battle

18 October 2008

A CAMPAIGN to stop a controversial French aircraft carrier being scrapped in Hartlepool has taken a dramatic twist.

The 800ft Le Clemenceau was expected in town within weeks after environmentalists lost a High Court challenge to block its arrival on safety grounds.

But a judge has now reversed that decision and ordered a full review be heard in London's Court of Appeal.

Jean Kennedy, of Friends of Hartlepool, launched a legal challenge saying the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) had acted 'unlawfully' by granting Able UK an exemption against asbestos regulations to allow the ship to be dismantled here.

The massive vessel has previously been refused entry into a number of foreign countries for safety reasons.

But Able UK secured a contract to dismantle it at its TERRC (Teesside Environmental Reclamation and Recycling Centre) site at Graythorp.

Ms Kennedy's application, backed by the Public Interest Lawyers group (PIL), was dismissed at the Royal Court of Justice last month, paving the way for the ship to be brought across from the French port of Brest where it is currently berthed.

But following further legal moves by PIL the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Laws has reversed the ruling.

A spokesman for the law firm said: "The Court of Appeal reversed the decision taken by the lower Administrative Court, granted permission for our client to bring the judicial review challenge in full and ordered that due to the public importance of this case that the hearing take place in the Court of Appeal".

Jean Kennedy said: "It is brilliant news. "This gives us the best chance we could ever have to get the whole issue fully aired."

Able UK chairman Peter Stephenson said: "We are targeting the end of November to bring the ship over. We are hopeful of getting an early appeal court date so that this matter can be heard in time and will not affect that contract. "The legal challenge is a direct matter between those bringing it and the HSE and it would not be right for us to comment on that."

A spokesman for the HSE said: "At this stage it is not appropriate for the HSE to comment."


http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/New-bid-in-ghost-warship.4606171.jp

IMO's Draft Ship Recycling Convention Callous towards Environmental Health

A shameful stain on the conscience of shipping – recycling – remains unaddressed by the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)of International Maritime Organisation (IMO). At its 58th meeting in London, the MEPC approved the final draft of its convention on recycling on 7 October, to be considered for final approval early next year at the IMO meeting in Hong Kong. Every new ship would enter service with an inventory of hazardous material.

The draft convention on ship recycling is a “shameful document which will likely do more harm than good” and “an instrument of greenwash” that does nothing to improve the working conditions at shipbreaking yards.

The convention has sought to address the mechanics of recycling business and the responsibilities of party and non-party states. This fails to “address the human rights, health and environmental consequences” of ship breaking.

Environmental groups say that IMO member governments had their own doubts about the convention. “Most notably, the doubt of the European Union is palpable in the reading of the European Commission Green Paper and the European Parliament’s response to it.”Rather than use the convention to set new standards in shipbreaking practise, the industry has used the convention as “a vehicle to avoid the principles of environmental justice embodied in the Basel convention”.

Addressing the opening session of MEPC this week, IMO secretary-general Efthimiois Mitropoulos noted “a sense of satisfaction” that two-and-a-half years’ work on an ad hoc convention were coming to an end.

Following an intersessional meeting of the ad hoc working group, MEPC 58 plans to undertake a final review and approval of the updated draft before submitting it to next year’s diplomatic conference on May 11-15, 2009.

References:


Basel Action Network, www.ban.org

Ship recycling http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=818

Assembly Resolution A.962(23) – IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling
http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=874

Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on Ship Recycling
http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1044

IMO to develop new instrument on recycling of ships

http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=1109

Developments and issues on recycling of ships. Article by Dr. Nikos Mikelis, presented at the East Asian Seas Congress, Haikou City, Hainan Province, PR China, 12-16 December 2006.
http://www.imo.org/includes/blastData.asp/doc_id=7420/Developments.pdf

The IMO’s work on ship recycling – London 4-5 May 2005. Article by Sokratis Dimakopoulos
http://www.imo.org/includes/blastData.asp/doc_id=4892/Ship%20Recycling.doc

IMO DOCUMENTS

RESOLUTIONS
A.962(23) IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling. Adopted 5 December 2003
http://www.imo.org/Environment/mainframe.asp?topic_id=874
MEPC.113(50) Ship recycling for the smooth implementation of the amendments to Annex I of
Marpol 73/78. Adopted 4 December 2003
A.980(24) Amendments to the IMO Guidelines on Ship recycling (Resolution A.962(230).
Adopted on 1 December 2005
A.981(24) New legally binding instruments on ship recycling. Adopted on 1 December 2005.

CIRCULARS

Circular Letters

Circular Letter No. 2579 First Session of the Joint ILO/IMO/BC Working Group on Ship Scrapping 08/09/2004

Circular Letter No. 2615 Intersessional meeting of the Working Group on Ship Recycling, 13 to 15 July 13/01/2005 2005

Circular letter No. 2769 Intersessional meeting of the Working Group on Ship Recycling 19/01/2007MEPC

MEPC/Circ.419 Guidelines for the development of the ship recycling plan
12/11/2004 http://www.imo.org/includes/blastData.asp/doc_id=4489/419.pdf

MEPC/Circ.466 Implementation of the IMO guidelines on ship recycling (Assembly Resolution 25/07/2005 A.962(230))

MEPC/Circ.467 Promotion of the implementation of the IMO guidelines on ship recycling
26/07/2005 (Assembly resolution A.962(230))

ASSEMBLY

A 23/19/1 Consideration of the reports and recommendations of the Marine Environment
Protection Committee. Draft guidelines on ship recycling approved by MEPC 49
Submitted by Greenpeace International

A 23/19/2 Idem. Draft guidelines on ship recycling approved by MEPC 49. Submitted by
ICS, on behalf of the industry working group on ship recycling (BIMCO, Intercargo, Intertanko, ICS, ITOPF, ICFTU, OCIMF, IPTA)

SUB-COMMITTEE ON FLAG STATE IMPLEMENTATION
11th Session (7 -11 April 2003)

Summary Reports : http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=106&doc_id=2677
FSI 11/15 Ship recycling-related matters. Draft IMO Guidelines on recycling of ships.

JOINT ILO/IMO/BC WORKING GROUP ON SHIP SCRAPPING
Terms of reference, Parties, Documents etc. http://www.basel.int/ships/iloimobcwg.html

1st Session (15 – 17 February 2005)
Joint ILO-IMO-Basel Convention Working Group on Ship Scrapping

First meeting: London, 15-17 February 2005.
Press release: http://www.ilo.org/pubcgi/links_ext.pl?http://www.imo.org/home.asp
and Report: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/sectors/shipbrk/bcvg_05_rep.pdf

ILO/IMO/BC WG 1/8 Report of the Working Group

LONDON CONVENTION
25th Session (6 – 10 October 2003)
LC 25/16 Report of the 25th Session of the consultative meeting

27th Session (24 – 28 October 2005)
LC 27/16 Report of the 27th Session of the consultative meeting

MARINE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION COMMITTEE
44th Session (6 – 8 March 2000)

Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=358

MEPC 44/20 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 44th Session (Section 16 –Recycling of Ships)

46th Session (23 – 27 April 2001)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=774
MEPC 46/23 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 46th Session (Section 7 –recycling of ships)

47th Session (4 – 8 March 2002)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=1753
MEPC 47/20 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 47th Session (Section 3 –recycling of ships)

48th Session (7 – 11 October 2002)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=2543
MEPC 48/21 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 48th Session (Section 3 –Recycling of ships)

49th Session (14 – 18 July 2003)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=2798
MEPC 49/22 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its forty ninth session.

(Section 3 – Recycling of ships, Annex 3 – Draft assembly resolution – IMO guidelines on ship recycling, Annex 4 – List of future work items on ship recycling
50th Session (1 – 4 December 2003)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=3155
MEPC 50/3 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fiftieth session

51st Session (29 March – 2 April 2004)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=3156
MEPC 51/22 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its fifty first session.(Annex 3: Terms of reference for the Joint ILO/IN40/BASEL Convention Working Group; Annex 4: Terms of reference for the Correspondence Group on Ship Recycling)

52nd Session (11 – 15 October 2004)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=3663
MEPC 52/24 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 52 d Session (Section 3 Recycling of ships)

53rd Session (18 – 22 July 2005)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=4469
MEPC 53/24 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 53rd session (Section 3 –Recycling of ships, Annex 7 – Draft assembly resolution – New legally binding instrument on ship recycling; Annex 8 – Draft assembly resolution – Amendments to the IMO guidelines on ship recycling (Resolution A.962(23)))

54th Session (20 – 24 March 2006)
Summary reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=6204
MEPC 54/21 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 54th session
(Section 3 – Recycling of ships)

55th Session (9 – 13 October 2006)
Summary report: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=6219
MEPC 55/23 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 55th Session. (Section 3 –Recycling of ships; Annex 7 – Statement by Greenpeace International in the ship recycling issue)

56th Session (9 – 13 July 2007)
Summary Reports: http://www.imo.org/Newsroom/mainframe.asp?topic_id=109&doc_id=7537
MEPC 56/23 Report of the Marine Environment Protection Committee on its 56th Session. (Section 3 –Recycling of ships)

57th Session (31 March 4 April 2008)
Summary Reports:
INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE WORKING GROUP ON
SHIP RECYCLING 2nd Session (7 May 2007)

MEPC-ISRWG 2/2 Further development of the draft convention and of the draft guidelines. Report of the correspondence group. Submitted by Norway as co-ordinator of the correspondence group MEPC-ISRWG 2/2/1 Idem.

Suggestions for the development of the Convention. Submitted by Denmark MEPC-ISRWG 2/3 Idem. Draft guidelines for ship recycling facilities for the safe and environmentally sound recycling of ships.

Submitted by Denmark MEPC-ISRWG 2/INF.1 Idem. Comments on the draft Convention by Members of the Correspondence Group.
Submitted by Norway as co-ordinator of the correspondence group

Taiwan Arms Sales: Less Than Meets the Eye

After more than seven years of waiting, there is reason to celebrate the final approval of a $6.4 billion U.S. arms sale to Taiwan. Unfortunately, there is less to this package than meets the eye. Rather than addressing Taipei's deteriorating military balance against China's rapidly modernizing and expanding forces, these approvals provide gasps of new oxygen to Taiwan's aging defenses, which were starved of air initially by domestic politics and then, for the last year, by Washington's concern about Beijing's ire.

Indeed, for the most part, the sales seem to be designed around a new standard: providing no capability that Taiwan does not already have and about which Chinese protests will be perfunctory. For instance, the sale provides upgrades and repairs of existing systems and gives Taiwan new weapons to use against Chinese ground forces in the unlikely event that the People's Liberation Army decides to invade by way of Taiwan's beaches.

The White House also pointedly turned down requests to provide the two systems that Taiwan really needs to dissuade Chinese forces from an attack: upgraded F-16C/D fighter aircraft to maintain the air balance and design work on modern diesel-electric submarines that can challenge Chinese surface invaders.

PAC-3 Missile Defense

The sale does, however, provide one breakthrough: The Bush Administration's approval of 330 Patriot "Advanced Capability" missiles known as the PAC-3s. These missiles give Taiwan its first true defense against China's swelling short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) fleets--1,400 at last count--arrayed against Taiwan.[1]

Yet, even here, the Bush White House directed that Taiwan's initial request of 384 missiles be cut by 15 percent--for no military reason. Pentagon war-planners currently calculate the "kill rate" for PAC-3s against incoming Chinese Dongfeng SRBMs at about nine-in-10. They have also modulated operational doctrine from the older firing of two missile rounds at an incoming attack missile ("shoot-shoot-look") to a "shoot-look-shoot" tactic (fire one round at the incoming, check to see if the trajectory predicts a hit, and, if not, shoot the second round). This still means that the new Taiwanese PAC-3s can defend the island against only about one-fifth of a full Chinese attacking force at most.

War gamers also worry that Chinese sea-launched SRBMs attacking from Taiwan's Pacific Ocean side would still need a two-to-one PAC-3 defense ratio.[2]

With China's SRBM deployments expanding at a predictable 100-200 missiles each year (as they have since 1999), Taiwan's new Patriot ABM system is barely sufficient to defend one high-value Taiwan target. The rest of Taiwan remains absolutely vulnerable to Chinese missile attack. This is not even a minimal deterrent; it positively invites China to contemplate threatening massive missile bombardment of Taiwan as a cost-free tool of political coercion.

U.S.-China Partnership--at Taiwan's Expense

Taiwan is slowly being decoupled from America's network of security alignments in the western Pacific--partially because the Bush Administration has come to see China more as a security partner than as a competitor.[3] A case in point is the administration's promotion of the "North East Asia Peace and Security Mechanism,"[4] a continuation and broadening of a U.S.-China partnership on the Korean peninsula that has proven ineffective at enforcing the denuclearization of North Korea.

Of course, China is also seen as a partner in managing the global financial meltdown: There is no doubt the Bush Administration has a pronounced interest in further investment of Chinese massive foreign exchange reserves in the presently fragile U.S. financial system. Subsequently, during a warm telephone call to Chinese President Hu Jintao on September 22, President Bush "briefed" Mr. Hu on the financial "turmoil" and assured him that the "U.S. government took note of the seriousness of the issue." The Chinese president praised "positive trends in China-U.S. relations" and pledged "to continue our common efforts ... particularly on the Taiwan issue, to promote cooperative constructive relations."[5] The implicit quid pro quooffer of China's financial cooperation in return for U.S. cooperation on Taiwan was hard to ignore.

For an Administration that has insisted on "maintaining the status quo" in the Taiwan Strait, it is astonishing that the Bush national security apparatus has apparently determined that Taiwan can maintain such military "status quo" without major upgrades in capability.

While protesting the current offer, Beijing will take these latest White House decisions on Taiwan arms as the baseline for China's approach to the next Administration, demanding that the capability offered by future arms sales not go beyond that contained in the present package. Taiwan is the canary in the mineshaft: As it slowly decouples from the U.S. security network in the Pacific, we must expect that the rest of Asia will begin to question the value of American security guarantees and reexamine their own options.

The U.S. has a unique security relationship with Taiwan. Thirty years ago, fearing that executive branch diplomacy with Communist China would leverage a future president into abandoning Taiwan, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which provides for arms sales to Taiwan, mandating that those decisions "shall" be "based solely upon ... the needs of Taiwan."[6] President Ronald Reagan also pledged that the U.S. would not consult with China on Taiwan's defenses.[7]

Congress assumed a major role in the shaping of America's strategy in Asia by passing the TRA. It--and the next American Administration--should strive to give full effect to those guarantees. Anything less will constitute an abandonment of American leadership that will not be lost on our friends and allies in the region.

by John J. Tkacik, Jr.
WebMemo #2098

John J. Tkacik, Jr., is Senior Research Fellow in China, Taiwan, and Mongolia Policy in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.

[1] See "Taiwanese Study Details China Missile Threat," Jane's Defence Weekly, April 15, 2008. "By November 2007, the PLA had deployed between 990 and 1,070 CSS-6 and CSS-7 short-range ballistic missiles" against Taiwan. U.S. Department of Defense, Annual Report to Congress, Military Power of the People's Republic of China 2008, March 3, 2008, p. 2, at http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/China_Military_Report_08.pdf (October 8, 2008). The number of Chinese missiles deployed against Taiwan (and Okinawa) has increased by 100-200 each year since the Pentagon reports were first published in 2001. For earlier reports, see http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html.

[2] This information came in e-mail conversations with a PAC-3 specialist, dated July 5, 2008.

[3] Victor Cha, "Winning Asia, Washington's Untold Success Story," Foreign Affairs, November/ December 2007, pp. 98-113, especially p. 108.

[4] Christopher R. Hill, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, "Afternoon Walk-Through at Six-Party Talks," transcripts from remarks given at the China World Hotel, Beijing, China, July 12, 2008, at http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/106959.htm (October 8, 2008). See also "Press Communiqué of the Heads of Delegation Meeting of The Sixth Round of the Six-Party Talks," July 12, 2008, at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/wjdt/2649/t456096.htm (October 8, 2008).

[5] "Hu Jintao zhuxi tong Meiguo zongtong Bushi tong dianhua, shuangfang jiu zhongmei guanxi ji Meiguo jingji jinrong xingshi deng wenti jiaohuan yijian," Renmin Ribao, September 23, 2008, p. 1, at http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2008-09/23/content_107475.htm (October 8, 2008). See also "Chinese, U.S. Presidents Talk over Phone about Ties, U.S. Financial Turmoil," Xinhua (Beijing), September 22, 2008, at http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/22/content_10091587.htm (October 8, 2008).

[6] Taiwan Relations Act Section 3302, United States Code Title 22 Chapter 48 Sections 3301-3316 (April 10, 1979).

[7] For a comprehensive look at President Reagan's policies, see Larry Wortzel, "Why the Administration Should Reaffirm the 'Six Assurances' to Taiwan," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1352, March 16, 2000, at http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1352.cfm.