12

EDITORIAL

HYDERABAD

THE HINDU

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2010

Labour breaks with recent past

t is often said about Britains Labour Party that it is at its best when it is bold and adventurous. In electing Ed Miliband to replace Gordon Brown as its leader, it has certainly shown an extraordinary streak of boldness. The choice of a young, leftof-centre leader in the face of a strong challenge from right-of-centre Blairites represents a decisive break with the past as the party begins the long march back to power. It also signals the arrival of a younger generation of leadership not tainted by the excesses and fatal blunders of the New Labour era. Using his maiden speech intelligently to distance himself from the old ways of doing things, Mr. Miliband proclaimed: I lead a new generation not bound by old thinking. Part of his diagnosis was that New Labour had lost its way and stopped listening to people. He courageously denounced the Iraq invasion, saying it was wrong, wrong, and wrong. In a sign that the party is desperate to move on, every time he mentioned the word young and called for a new direction, he was loudly cheered. At 40, Mr. Miliband non-Marxist son of a noted Marxist theorist Ralph Miliband is the youngest leader in the partys modern history, overtaking Tony Blair by a few months. He was elected an MP only in 2005 but quickly rose to ministerial ranks and became a Cabinet Minister in 2008. Ed Miliband, a surprise late entrant to the leadership contest, was widely regarded as an underdog against David Miliband, his more experienced and high-prole brother. There were three other contenders: Ed Balls, Andy Burnham, and Diane Abbott. But from the moment the younger Miliband entered the fray, it effectively turned into a two-horse race, with the elder Miliband seen as the favourite. As the contest tightened, it took on aspects of a psychodrama. While David appears to have taken his victory for granted and readied a Blairite speech that would have been totally out of sync with the mood within the party, Ed approached the contest with the relaxed air of someone who had nothing to lose. What tilted the balance in his favour was the solid backing of Labour-afliated union members who were impressed by his passionate defence of the role of the unions and his attacks on the savage cuts in public spending. Mr. Miliband has contemptuously rejected the Red Ed tag sought to be foisted by the Tories and the right-wing media. To the unions, his message was that while he sympathised with their cause, he would not support irresponsible actions. He is seen to have made a good start with a speech that, as The Guardian noted editorially, Labour needed, a pointed break with the worst of the recent past but a strong reafrmation of its best.

ussia has thrown its defence ties with Iran on the altar of its reset with the United States. President Dmitry Medvedev last week imposed a sweeping ban on defence sales that goes beyond even the international sanctions on Iran and is likely to have a long-term negative impact on Moscow-Tehran relations. The decree On Measures to Implement the U.N. Security Council Resolution 1929 of June 9, 2010 Mr. Medvedev signed bans supplies of Russian tanks, ghter jets, helicopters, ships, heavy artillery systems and missiles, including the S-300 air defence systems, to Iran. Russia will also stop supplying spares and components for the weapons sold earlier, and ban the transit of arms bound for Iran through its territory. The decree contains a list of Iranian ofcials involved in the countrys nuclear programme, who will henceforth be prohibited from entering Russia. By and large, the Russian sanctions are in line with the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, which Moscow backed, except for one crucial point: the S-300 missiles do not fall under the category of offensive weapons banned by the U.N. resolution. The move added another puzzling zigzag to Moscows back-and-forth policy on Iran. Resolution 1929 states: All states shall prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to Iran [] of any [] missiles or missile systems as dened for the purpose of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms. Meanwhile, the Register clearly states that its denition of missiles or missile systems does not include ground-to-air missiles (emphasis added.) In justifying Mr. Medvedevs cancellation of the S-300 deal, Russian ofcials refer to the U.N. resolutions call on all states to exercise vigilance and restraint over the supply, sale, transfer, provision, manufacture and use of all other arms and related materiel. That said, Resolution 1929 contained no explicit ban on air defence systems and Mr. Medvedevs decree went a step too far. Iron-

Russias U-turn on arms sale R

Vladimir Radyuhin

Moscow has banned supply of S-300 airdefence systems to Tehran even though they do not fall under the category of offensive weapons banned by the U.N. resolution.
ically, defending Moscows ban on S-300, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, in the same breath, lambasted unilateral U.S. sanctions on Iran as being ethically and morally wrong and a violation of the U.N. resolution. The $800-million contract for supply of ve batteries of S-300 air-defence complexes to Iran was signed in 2007. (A typical S-300 battery contains 48 missiles on 12 mobile launchers.) If delivered to Iran, the S-300 would change the rules of the game in the region. In combination with Tor-M1 short-range air-defence missiles Russia supplied to Iran in 2008, the long-range S-300s would have deterred any aerial attack on Iran. In December 2008, the Russian government news agency, RIA-Novosti, quoting defence sources, reported that Moscow had begun implementing the S-300 contract. The report was later denied but Moscow continued to afrm its commitment to supply S-300 missile systems to Iran. We have a contract to deliver these systems and we will honour it. Delays have been caused by technical problems in tuning up the systems, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated as recently as February. Even after Resolution 1929 was approved, Russian lawmakers and arms exporters maintained that the new sanctions would not affect the delivery of S-300. The S-300 systems are not covered by the sanctions and work on the contract is going forward, Mikhail Dmitriyev, Director, Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, said in June. U.S. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley also conceded at the time that Washington had failed to secure a clear-cut ban on the supply of S-300. However, Russian diplomats valiant efforts to save the S-300 deal from being axed

under the U.N. resolution were in vain. The Kremlin used it as a bargaining chip with the White House. The fate of the S-300 contract was apparently sealed when Mr. Medvedev paid an ofcial visit to the U.S. in June and secured President Obamas promise to help Russia modernise its economy. On his return, Mr. Medvedev called for allying Russia with the West. We need to build modernisation alliances with our main foreign partners above all with Germany, Italy, the European Union and the United States of America, he said in a keynote speech to Russian diplomats in July. The formal ban on Russian arms exports to Iran came three months later, timed for the U.S. Congress debate on the New START, a Russian-American nuclear arms pact Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Obama signed in April. Moscow attaches paramount importance to START ratication, seeing it as a turning point in its relations with Washington that would pave the way for other deals U.S. endorsement of a long-pending civil nuclear cooperation agreement between the two countries and Washingtons support for Moscows bid to join the World Trade Organisation. The S-300 ban was designed to facilitate the STARTs passage through the U.S. Senate. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee in mid-September approved the U.S.-Russian treaty and sent it to the Senate oor, but its ratication is still hanging in the balance. The administration would like the Senate to vote on the treaty before it breaks for the November elections on October 8 because the Democrats may see their majority reduced in the new Senate. Mr. Medvedev clearly sought to impress the American public opinion and sway hesitant U.S. Senators in favour of backing the START. The White House strongly welcomed

CARTOONSCAPE

Job creating growth

he UNCTADs analysis of the relevance of export-led growth strategies in the post-crisis global economy, in its Trade Development Report (2010), provides valuable lessons for countries like India. These strategies have served many countries well, and China, South Korea and Japan, among others, have relied heavily on external demand to achieve spectacular growth. However, there is a ip side. Going by the experience over a 30-year period, the TDR says economic growth, however strong, does not by itself generate decent jobs to absorb the labour surpluses typical of developing countries. This became apparent recently when the global nancial and economic crisis was seen to push unemployment to unprecedented levels in many countries. Of special concern is the situation in the United States, where there is no sign of improvement on the job front. The U.S. may no longer remain so huge a market for exports. Since other major economies are unlikely to take its place as a dominant market in the near future, the size of the global export market may shrink. There is something inherently wrong with the agenda of boosting exports pursued by countries that depend almost entirely on keeping domestic wages low so as to gain a competitive edge in global markets. Persistently high unemployment is attributable to labour market rigidities that kept wages from falling to levels low enough to increase the demand for labour. UNCTAD points out that such reasoning ignores the important role of wage increases in spurring domestic demand, and boosting employment to meet that demand. Moreover, it is the expectation of rising demand and favourable nancing conditions rather than a reduction in unit labour costs that drives investment in productive capacities. More employment can be generated if the productivity gains from investments are distributed equitably between labour and capital in a way that lifts domestic demand. Secondly, macroeconomic policies should aim at ensuring that real incomes of the people keep pace with productivity growth. Thirdly, countercyclical scal policies that proved a great success during the crisis in stabilising demand will be useful even in normal times. Fourthly, adjusting wages with productivity gains will check both production costs and demand growth from rising above supply potential. It will also pave the way for an employment friendly monetary policy. Institutional arrangements such as collective bargaining will help in framing a suitable incomes policy. Finally, in many developing countries, public employment schemes are found to have had cascading effects on the rest of the economy.

the faithful and robust implementation by Moscow of the U.N. sanctions resolution. We believe President Medvedev has demonstrated leadership on holding Iran accountable to its international obligations from start to nish, said National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer. Mr. Medvedevs Iran arms ban is a big gift to the embattled Obama, who can now argue that his policy of reset with Russia is bringing tangible dividends. Moscow hopes a grateful Obama will lift the ban on high technology transfers to Russia. Time will tell whether these hopes are justied. Sceptics point out that Russia halted its defence ties with Iran once in the past also, in the vain hope of getting U.S. aid and investments. Under a secret agreement brokered in 1995 by the then Prime Minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin, and U.S. Vice-President Albert Gore, Russia agreed to stop selling weapons to Iran. The deal dealt a hard blow to Russias struggling defence industry, depriving it of what was emerging as the third largest market for Russian arms after India and China. The U.S. thanked Russia by pushing NATO to its doorstep and bombing out its traditional ally, Yugoslavia. In 2000, Russia pulled out of the Gore-Chernomyrdin deal and resumed arms supplies to Iran. The new ban on weapon sales to Iran will have dire consequences for Russia, critics say. Direct nancial losses from the scrapping of the S-300 contract could exceed $1 billion. According to the Russian Centre for Analysis of World Arms Trade, Russia will lose at least $11 billion in weapon supplies to Iran through 2025. Iran will never forgive Russia for this second sell-out in the past 15 years, says defence expert Konstantin Makienko of the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST). Russia may lose forever the Iranian market of not only defence but also civilian technologies. Aviation industry sources said Iran had already stopped negotiations to acquire Russias Tu-204SM passenger aircraft. Russias refusal to supply S-300 systems has put a big question mark on a wide-ranging energy cooperation road map Moscow signed with Tehran just a couple of months ago. Geopolitical costs for Russia could be even higher. The cancellation of the S-300 contract undermines its reputation as a reliable defence partner among its current and potential customers, Mr. Makienko said. China will only be too happy to ll the vacuum left by Russia. Tehrans recent announcement that it had begun work on its own missile system, analogue of the Russian S-300, Russian experts said, was an indication that the Chinese came to Iranians help, offering expertise gained in cloning the S-300 Russia had earlier sold to China. As for rewards from Washington, U.S. ofcials warn Moscow not to expect too many. The objective is not actually to develop a good relationship with Russia. The goal here is to advance our national security and economic interests and to promote universal values, a senior White House ofcial said commenting on the Russian arms ban to Iran. In fact, the Russian concession has encouraged U.S. strategists to put higher demands on Moscow. Some Russia sceptics arent so sure that Moscow has yet made the strategic decision to turn away from Iran and towards the United States, Josh Rogin wrote in his blog on The Foreign Policy website. To convince these sceptics, Russia should stop cooperation with Iran on the Bushehr nuclear reactor, tear up energy deals and support tougher economic sanctions on Tehran. To quote a relevant Russian saying: Put a nger in his mouth and he will bite your arm off.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Why cant we have a temple and a mosque side by side? The much-awaited verdict on the Sarath S. Pillai, Babri Masjid title dispute is set to New Delhi be pronounced today. I appeal to my brethren from both Communal harmony is the communities to treat the verdict as touchstone of Hinduism and Islam. just another judicial Common Hindus and Muslims pronouncement. We want peace know this. But not the politicians, and we should ensure that we are who are to blame for the distrust not misled by a handful of leaders. between the two communities. A In the 63 years of independence, division between Hindus and we have seen enough pogroms and Muslims benets none. Their unity violence to understand that they benets all, more importantly the lead us nowhere. The Allahabad nation. K. Pradeep, High Court judgment will surely Chennai not spell the end of the dispute, which is bound to be dragged to the Supreme Court. It takes more than Although the verdict will most a court judgment for issues certainly be challenged in the involving mandirs and masjids to Supreme Court, what is of immediate importance is the be resolved. Md. Mobbashir Farid, manner in which the country Gaya receives and accepts the High Court judgment. Religion has People should be wary of leaders always been an emotional issue but who are bent on creating it is time we realised that we are disturbances. The judiciary has Indian citizens rst. Saurabh Kunwar, played an important role as the Kharagpur watchdog of our Constitution. Its role in upholding the rule of law, human rights and democratic The most tting tribute we can pay values has been signicant. We to Gandhiji before his 141st birth must accept its verdict with an anniversary is to stay united. He open mind. The party in whose laid down his life for the cause of favour the verdict is pronounced Hindu-Muslim unity. It would be should not celebrate as it can utterly meaningless to garland his frustrate the loser. We should have statues on his birth and death the larger objective of peace and anniversaries unless Indians stand as a single nation. harmony in mind. G. Md. Ashfaq, T. Sankaranarayanan, Kurnool Chennai

Letters emailed to letters@thehindu.co.in must carry the full postal address and the full name or the name with initials. verdict. These leaders do not, in any way, represent the opinion of the vast majority of Hindus. We should reject these bigots and, if necessary, start a movement to defeat their nefarious designs. They have done nothing to uplift their Hindu brethren. The restraint shown by Muslim leaders is truly commendable. Raj Sabapathy, Chennai binding statute on all JanmasthanMosque issues once and for all. O. Abdul Rahuman, Nagercoil families performing the last rites of Pandit families or Pandits protecting Muslims in Kashmir or elsewhere in India are never highlighted or discussed because interested parties want to keep the re of unrest burning. It is really shocking to see young boys on the streets of Kashmir throwing stones and defying curfew, when they should be in schools dreaming big. I still want to believe that the present-day youth is smart enough to understand the evil designs of political vote banks, and extremist forces. Instead of a religious place, why not build a school or a hospital in Ayodhya and bury the ghost of hatred forever? This may sound repetitive but it is worth a try. Jyoti Risbud, Thiruvananthapuram The community in whose favour the verdict goes should gift 50 per cent of the land to the other to build a mosque or temple. The places of worship can be separated by a high-rise compound wall. K.P. Sanal Kumar, Chennai

Need for restraint

That the government expects the fallout of the verdict to be violent is unfortunate. Does it really matter whether a temple or a mosque exists at the disputed site? Have we learnt nothing from the past on the importance of religious harmony?

It is clear from the statement of VHP leaders Pravin Togadia and Giriraj Kishore that they will not accept a verdict other than the one favouring the building of a grand Ram temple that they are in no mood to accept the High Court

If Mr. Tareens letter came as a whiff of fresh air, the same was true of J.P. Reddys letter (Letters, Sept. 29). While peaceful co-existence is undoubtedly the rst priority, I doubt any community will buy it at the cost of self-respect. Surely, there should be an amicable settlement of the Ayodhya issue. But advising Muslims to gift the I respect the views of Jalees Ahmed disputed land to Hindus is an Khan Tareen (Letters, Sept. 28). impractical suggestion. Let both But towards whom are Muslims the communities settle the issue in expected to make the such a manner that there is no magnanimous gesture of offering loser. M. M. Haneef Shabab, the disputed land? The self-styled Bhatkal Hindu leaders and sants, who are criminals in the eyes of law and humanity? Towards those who The Sanatana Dharma is constant would avowedly create more it has neither a beginning nor an misery by raking up Mathura and end. Destruction or construction of Kashi? Towards those whose only a few temples does not matter. The religion is greed and power, and Sanatana Dharma does not need who have done nothing for the self-styled saviours like the VHP, community they claim to the RSS and the Bajrang Dal. They will do more good to society by represent? Ashok Lal, keeping off if the verdict is not in New Delhi favour of a Ram Mandir. Appayya Sastry Marla, Hyderabad It is well known that the sangh parivar has lined up many other Janmasthan-Mosque issues in Even if the court verdict goes in different parts of India, starting favour of the Babri Masjid Action from Mathura and Kashi. Some Committee, Ayodhya cannot be right-wing ideologues claim that dissociated from Ram. Every inch there are 3000 mosques under of Ayodhya reverberates with the dispute. So even if the Ayodhya name of Ram and his lore. It is the issue is amicably resolved, which is right time for Muslims to give up what we all wish, another Ayodhya. G. Azeemoddin, controversy is likely to be raised Anantapur soon. A possible solution is the setting up of a National Reconciliation Committee by the Mr. Tareens letter was thoughtCentre, supported by all parties, to provoking and touching at the look into the issue and enact a same time. Incidents of Muslim

On coexistence

Appeal to media
If there is a dening moment for the media, print and electronic, it is for sure now. With the High Court set to deliver the verdict, the media have gone into a frenzy, speculating on the possible consequences. Such overzealousness can have a negative impact. The media should exercise restraint and do some positive reporting, building trust among various groups. One hopes the fourth pillar will stand rm and not crumble under its own weight. B.R. Kranthi Kumari, Hyderabad
...HY-HY