India-EU News & Analysis

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Mar 2013 06:47

Faking News
S&P downgrades Italy to "WTF" and India to "LOL"

pralay · Post by **pralay** » 12 Mar 2013 08:28

Shall we launch a "Aackkk thuuu Italy" Campaign ?

saumitra_j · Post by **saumitra_j** » 12 Mar 2013 11:01

I feel outraged, but there is nothing I can do about it except rant! Currently, I am close to the Italians, and all my desi colleagues are blissfully unaware of this issue. With such low level of knowledge in the educated and so called knowledge workers, what can I expect from others who are less privileged?

I think we should appreciate the Italians for protecting the interest of its citizens .. something that Indian government simply does not do for its own. We follow the rules to lose, others use the rules to win. Italian "Pakiness" is a prime example of that.

Before all of us fume at the Italians, look what the unkil has done to us: David Headley is officially protected and there is nothing we can do about it. And IMHO, David Headley has committed a far bigger crime than these Italian jokers.
Forget the so called First world, look what SL and Maldives have done to us, and look how the Pakis outrage us.

We continue to pay the price for NDA losing in 2004, and most of the countrymen don't care

. I find it appalling that the minister gives an answer on the lines of "we are studying the response" and allowed to get away with it. Speaks a lot about the presstitutes in action.

Jai Ho and all that! I go back to lurk mode, no more rants!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 12 Mar 2013 11:21

vishvak wrote:Any protests from anywhere? From family of fishermen killed within Indian waters?

Any protest from diplomatic community on first world god fearimg Italians forcibly setting bloody precedent?

Are European rights orgs silent now?

No chance!!

Our foreign and abrahamic religion controlled DDM media will see to it.

suryag · Post by **suryag** » 12 Mar 2013 12:44

where are our maino and congi kudankulam lovers? The GoI predictably will now send red corner notice and the next time they are caught wont provide evidence, we have seen this song and dance so many times and of course congis will bring up the case of NDA govt personally handing over terrorists in /kandahar

vinod · Post by **vinod** » 12 Mar 2013 14:54

Last time when they went to italy, they put up a bail amount of 6 crores. I bet this time it would be Nil!

I hope I'm proved wrong!

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Mar 2013 15:03

arun wrote: It will be interesting to see what spin the Italian born Party Boss of Congress Party , namely Mrs. Sonia Gandhi will have to put on this matter.

One of the posters is currently offering that Italy is right in not trusting India because undertrials have known to commit suicide in India?

I dont think this one can be beaten for sheer brazenness.

vinod · Post by **vinod** » 12 Mar 2013 15:16

Well, the timing of Italy not sending the marines back couldn't have been better!

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 13 Mar 2013 23:16

On 'the Continent':
Netherlands raises terror threat level to 'substantial'

THE Netherlands raised its alert level for terrorist attacks to "substantial", citing an increase in the number of Islamist militants travelling from the Netherlands to Syria, as well as a radicalisation of Dutch youth.
...
"Close to a hundred individuals have recently left the Netherlands for various countries in Africa and the Middle East, especially Syria."

Germany Bans 2 Ultraconservative Islamic Groups

German authorities banned three ultraconservative Islamic groups Wednesday, including one whose Internet propaganda videos helped inspire the extremist who killed two American airmen at Frankfurt airport in 2011, the country’s domestic intelligence chief said.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/03/13/german ... z2NRbdig4P

But in Londonistan, they're sounding the alarm for Far Right terrorism (like Congress' fear of "saffron terror"):
UK 'faces threat of murderous terror attack from Far Right extremist'

Britain faces the threat of a murderous terror attack from a Far Right extremist similar to the mass murderer Anders Breivik who gunned down 77 young Norweigans, the Security Minister warned today.
...
He disclosed that one in ten cases referred to a Home Office scheme to stop youngsters being caught up in terrorism related to the Far Right.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 15 Mar 2013 00:51

Bosnia and the European Union
A Balkan dysfunction

WHEN Croatia joins the European Union in July Bosnians will no longer be able to export eggs, meat and dairy products to their richer neighbour. The reason is that Bosnia’s politicians cannot agree on who should certify whether their producers meet the EU’s sanitary and veterinary rules. Bosnians knew they had to prepare for this moment. But Muslim Bosniaks want the job done by a central body, whereas Serbs prefer agencies in the two autonomous parts of Bosnia.

The EU says it does not matter who does the certifying, although it wants one central body to talk to. Peter Sorensen, the EU’s special representative, complains that “the producers seem to think it is the EU’s fault.”

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 16 Mar 2013 07:49

Vinod,

This time there was no bail amount. There was no question of bail since they were not in custody at all. When they were allowed to go home for Christmas, they were under trial and hence the court granted bail. In fact, the Supreme Court ruling said that the Kerala High Court was not competent to try the marines, and hence ordered the constitution of a special court for the purpose. The Government has not yet constituted the court, and the permission to go to vote was granted in a situation where the marines are not officially under trial yet. Some uninformed people ask as to why the marines got special privileges that other undertrials don't get. The answer is that they are not under trials at all. In fact, their status does not have a precedent.

What the Supreme court should have done is to leave the matter of whether to grant bail to go and vote to the trial court. It should not have inserted itself into this issue. But that is water under the bridge.

What should be done now? The following article is the first one I have seen that does not spew uninformed garbage.

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/la ... epage=true

arun · Post by **arun** » 22 Mar 2013 07:13

Italy recognises its obligations and falls in line. The Italian Military personnel who murdered two Indians are to be returned to India:

Italy to Return Marine Murder Suspects to India

arun · Post by **arun** » 22 Mar 2013 19:38

Full Text of our External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid's statement to Parliament on the Italian Marines who murdered two Indians:

March 22, 2013

Madam Speaker

I rise to inform the House on recent developments on the issue of return of two Italian marines to India accused in the killing of two Indian fishermen.

In response to concerns raised by the Members of the House, Hon'ble Prime Minister had made a statement on 13 March 2013 on the matter regarding the decision by Italy not to send back two Italian marines accused in the killing of two Indian fishermen. Prime Minister had stated, inter alia, that the Government has insisted that the Italian authorities respect the undertaking they have given to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and return the two accused persons to stand trial in India. The Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Shri Kamal Nath had also stated during the Zero Hour on 13 March 2013 in the Rajya Sabha that all issues raised by Members in this matter will be addressed and answered at a time and in a manner which the Chair may decide.

It would be recalled that the Supreme Court in its Order of 22 January 2013 allowed an application by the two Italian marines, Massimilano Latorre and Salvatore Girone and permitted them to travel to Italy and to remain in the Republic of Italy for a period of four weeks. The Order, inter alia, stated that the marines shall travel to Italy, remain in Italy and return to India under the care, supervision and control of the Italian Republic. On return, they shall once again be bound by the conditions contained in the Order passé by the court on 18 January 2013. The Republic of Italy gave an undertaking to the court that the Italian marines will be kept under its constant custody, supervision and control during this period and took full responsibility for securing the return of the Italian marines to New Delhi on or before the expiry of the period permitted by the court.

Earlier the Supreme Court in its order dated 18 January 2013, in a writ petition filed by the Italian marines and the Republic of Italy raising several jurisdictional issues, had ruled, inter alia, that India has jurisdiction, the matter will be put before a Special Court to be set up by the Union of India in consultation with the Chief Justice of India to try this case and to dispose of the same in accordance with the provisions of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976, the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the provisions of UNCLOS 1982, where there is no conflict between the domestic law and UNCLOS 1982.

A communication was received by the Ministry of External Affairs from the Embassy of Italy in New Delhi late in the evening of 11 March 2013 conveying, inter alia, that Italy deems that there is an existing controversy with India concerning the applicability of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 and the general principles of international law applicable to the Enrica Lexie incident. For these reasons, it requested the Indian Government to set up a meeting at diplomatic level in order to reach an amicable solution of the said controversy, and conveyed that "since a controversy between the two States has been established, the two Italian Marines, Mr. Latorre and Mr. Girone, will not return to India on the expiration of the permission granted to them".

On 14 March 2013, the Attorney General of India filed an Affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court conveying these developments in this matter to the Hon'ble Court. The matter was heard by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18 March 2013. The next hearing is scheduled for 2 April 2013.

Our position has been conveyed in clear terms to the Italian Government. The Supreme Court has affirmed that India has the jurisdiction to try the case even as it has given another opportunity vide its judgement of 18 January, to the petitioners to raise the issue of jurisdiction by adducing evidence before the Special Court to be set up for trial of this case. The Italian requests for diplomatic or expert level meetings to consider the issue of jurisdiction or referring the case to arbitration or any other judicial mechanism cannot be accepted. I have made it clear that the Republic of Italy is bound to honour the solemn commitment that it has made to the Supreme Court to ensure the return of the marines to India within the time period permitted by the Supreme Court.

Following this, we were informed through a diplomatic approach that the Government of Italy would be willing to send the two marines back to India as per its commitment. It sought from India clarifications regarding the conditions applicable to the marines on their return and the provisions regarding the death penalty that could be applicable in this case which was an Italian concern. Notwithstanding the pending proceedings, the Government has informed the Italian Government that the two marines will not be liable for arrest if they return within the time frame laid down by the Supreme Court of India, and shall once again be bound by the conditions contained in the order passed by the Court on 18th January 2013; and that, according to well settled Indian jurisprudence, this case would not fall in the category of matters which attract the death penalty, that is to say the rarest of rare cases. Therefore, there need not be any apprehension in this regard.

These clarifications will also be placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court appropriately. Following the clarification, we have a confirmation that the Italian Government is arranging for the return of the two Italian marines within the time frame permitted by the Supreme Court.

I am glad that the matter has been brought to a satisfactory conclusion and the trial of the marines will now proceed as per the directions of the Supreme Court in its order of 18 January 2013.

From here:

Clicky

arun · Post by **arun** » 22 Mar 2013 19:54

Michele Emiliano, the mayor Bari which is the home town of Salvatore Girone, one of the Italian Military personnel who murdered two Indians:

"A hypocritical government is trying to end its embarrassment by sending the sailors back to India after exhibiting them as 'free' during the election campaign,"

From here:

Marines' return to India stirs anger in Italy

arun · Post by **arun** » 26 Mar 2013 08:05

X Posted from the "Indo-French Ties" thread.

France does an Italy as French troops kill two Indians in the Central African Republic:

French troops kill two Indians in accidental shooting

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 09 Apr 2013 04:52

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/enter ... 81076.html

Indian Holi festival unleashes explosion of colour in Belfast

Indian Holi festival celebrated at Custom House Square in Belfast. April 2013
08 APRIL 2013

A packed Customs House Square celebrated the 6th annual Festival of Colours in Belfast yesterday.

A celebration of Indian cultures, the traditional Hindu Festival of Colours, also known as Holi, marks the arrival of Spring with music, dance and a two-hour colour powder party which sees festival-goers throw powder paint at each other all while enjoying the carnival atmosphere on offer.

Upwards of 6,000 festival goers joined together to mark the occassion, further bolstering its reputation as one of Northern Ireland's largest multi-cultural festivals.

Nisha Tandon, Director of Arts Ekta, Northern Ireland’s award-winning ethnic arts organisation and creators of the Festival of Colours, said:

“Now in its sixth year, the Festival continues to grow in popularity and stature, attracting people of all ages, communities and cultures. The Festival marque was packed to capacity, and the atmosphere something special- the move back to the city centre has been the right one.”

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 11 Apr 2013 10:02

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 12 Apr 2013 01:35

India and Germany see progress in trade deal
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/artic ... z2QBkHm47W

BERLIN (AP) — The leaders of Germany and India said Thursday that progress is being made on a new free trade agreement between India and the European Union but cautioned that there is still work to be done.Negotiations have been ongoing for six years and officials had hoped to conclude the agreement by the end of 2012. But the agreement has been hung up over a wide range of issues, including EU demands for intellectual property protections and investor guarantees, as well as import duties on automobiles.The EU is already India's largest trade partner and the Indian economy is growing robustly, leading German and other European businesses to increasingly look there for new opportunities. India, meantime, is eager for greater integration in global markets as its economic power expands.
Speaking after a joint meeting of their governments, Chancellor Angela Merkel and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said they were optimistic the agreement could be concluded soon

Vipul · Post by **Vipul** » 16 Apr 2013 07:48

India to allow import of 2.5 lakh EU cars at 10% duty.

India is set to bind itself to allowing import of at least 2.5 lakh cars from the European Union at a concessional tariff of 10% — a move that will come as a major relief to European auto majors who have to currently pay 100% customs duty on vehicles that cost over $40,000.

The tariff rate quota — which means allowing a specified number of a product at lower duty — can be used over a five-year period, starting 2017 under the proposed India-EU Bilateral Trade & Investment Agreement. In case of breach of the quota, European car makers will have to pay a concessional duty of 30%, which is almost half the current notified rate. The tariff rate quota will apply to large as well as small cars.

While the EU is demanding that the quota be increased to three lakh, the government has so far held its ground although there are indications that there may be some trade-off so that India can gain in other sectors. Although there is no annual cap, 2.5 lakh cars translate into annual imports of 50,000 units, which industry body Siam said is more than 20,000-22,000 completely-built units imported from Europe.

Sources argued that the concessions from India would also "open up" the EU market for made-in-India cars as the trading bloc had agreed to phase out import duty from the current level of 6.5%. Siam, the Indian lobby group, however, said the move was meaningless as car exports to Europe had come to a halt after the subsidy given to small cars.

Commerce and industry minister Anand Sharma was engaged in intense negotiations with his EU counterpart Karel de Goucht until late on Monday evening in what appeared to be the final leg of ministerial-level talks for the agreement that has been under negotiation for six years now.

The government has, however, turned down a proposal from the 27-nation trading bloc to provide further concessions for auto components as there was no relaxation on environmental rules. The government has come under intense pressure since last week on opening up the manufacturing sector to foreign competition by lowering the customs duty, while EU appears to be reluctant in opening up jobs in the services sector.

For India, a key concern is to get EU to drop the safeguard clause on services sector that will kick in when 20% of EU's committed number of professionals enter member states' territories. In addition, India wants a clause which allows movement of spouses and dependents along with professionals who get temporary entry into a EU member state.

Further, there is a strong pitch on declaring Indian companies "data secure", which will help outsourcing work to Indian IT companies, especially the SMEs. EU law mandates that European countries undertaking outsourcing business with countries that are not certified data secure have to follow stringent contractual obligations which increases operating costs and affects competitiveness.

Although almost all Fortune 500 companies have entrusted India with their critical data, EU has refused to declare India data secure despite repeated requests. India has argued that current provisions of the IT Act are adequate for protection of security of EU citizens' data.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 19 Apr 2013 05:07

The article does not say what India is getting in return for this concession.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 20 Apr 2013 05:05

Hyderabad, Apr 19:

The proposed India-EU free trade agreement (FTA) may pave a way for some European car majors to flood the Indian automobile market with their vehicles, a senior official of Honda Cars India Ltd (HCIL) said here today.

The Indian government should create “a level playing field” for the auto industry in the country, Jnaneswar Sen, Senior Vice President - Marketing and Sales, Honda Cars India Ltd said.

“This kind of FTA is going to remove that level playing field...Europe (automobile market) is not growing. It is only de-growing. It is very easy for some of them to sell the same cars here,” he said.

Speaking after the launch of Honda’s sedan ‘Amaze’ here for Andhra Pradesh market, Sen said, “This (FTA) is going to impact everyone in terms of investment, employment generation. All we want is a level playing field.”

“It is not just car manufacturers, but also others, such as suppliers of spare parts, who will be affected by the (proposed) FTA,” he added.

EU is demanding heavy duty cuts to ensure sale of its automobiles. However, the auto industry in India is strongly opposed to duty cut in the sector.

Notwithstanding the differences resulting in delay in inking of India-EU free trade agreement, the Commerce and Industry Minister, Anand Sharma had yesterday said the negotiations are progressing “very well”.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... 634052.ece

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 20 Apr 2013 09:04

Paul wrote:The article does not say what India is getting in return for this concession.

Nothing. Always think "who benefits?". Who buys imported cars in India?

The rich - NBPJRE.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 22 Apr 2013 21:35

^^^

Doesn't India have other priorities besides importing cars from Europe, for its rich class of people? Why isn't that money instead put into poverty alleviation and building hospitals and schools. Or perhaps the money that is spent by these well to do Indians, could be channeled into India's space programme, which is currently experiencing a shortfall in transponder capacity. Unlike imported big ticket items, the space programme does contribute directly to India's telecommunications, information and broadcasting and weather forcasting capability and infrastructure.

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 22 Apr 2013 22:49

Yes where are all heartbleeding NGOs from Oirope. Europe must have a standard whereby at minimum taxes on luxurious products are not allowed to decrease, in fact such steps has to criticized. What poor Indians get are even less taxes from imports!

This makes no sense other than greed of Oiropeans.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 22 Apr 2013 23:32

Varoon Shekhar wrote:^^^

Doesn't India have other priorities besides importing cars from Europe, for its rich class of people? Why isn't that money instead put into poverty alleviation and building hospitals and schools. Or perhaps the money that is spent by these well to do Indians, could be channeled into India's space programme, which is currently experiencing a shortfall in transponder capacity. Unlike imported big ticket items, the space programme does contribute directly to India's telecommunications, information and broadcasting and weather forcasting capability and infrastructure.

Varoonji it is not fair to ask well to do Indian's to pay the GoI a Rupee in customs tax for every Rupee they spend on their fancy toys that they are buying with their earned money. These people already paid higher taxes on their income. As for how to spend that Tax money, that is the decision of the ruling party in GoI and not of the rich citizens. Whether GoI increase allocation to welfare programs or invests in ISRO is not a private citizens choice. ISRO being under GoI will always be funded by GoI and not by rich citizens. The rewards from ISRO's work benefit all Indians and not just the rich. So let the rich enjoy the fruits of their labor. This will also motivate others Indians to aspire to be rich so all benefit rather than look forward to GoI handouts.

Changing the customs tax to 10% from 100% is fair in my opinion. The 100% customs tax is just a way to prevent a group of nations from selling their automobiles in the Indian market by doubling the cost of their vehicles in the India. Remember that this is just the reduction of customs duty. There is a whole bunch of other taxes that still need to be paid. Also in the past a lot of these richer Indians indulged in a black market operation to procure these expensive cars. They would import the said car from the Gulf as second hand cars. The same cars were being brought home as personal vehicles by returning Gulf based Indians and thus paying lower taxes. This resulted in bribes and breaking of the law by creating artificial scarcity of european cars.

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 23 Apr 2013 08:23

I was making the comment, half serious, half in jest, more with the British and their judgementalism in mind. They are the ones making the most noise about India having a space programme, while still accepting British aid. Why don't these same British make the argument that India has other priorities besides importing cars from Europe? Couldn't the money spent, mostly by very well to do Indians, on imported cars, be somehow transferred to poverty alleviation programmes, perhaps by the selfsame rich?

We know very well, that the British jackasses won't do any such thing. At least if they did, one could say that they are displaying some integrity and consistency, not to mention concern for the poor in India. Not that it's any of their real business what the Indian well-to-do are buying anyway. But criticising the space programme is more about jealousy and bewilderment, than it is about genuine concern for India's poverty.

habal · Post by **habal** » 23 Apr 2013 11:39

We need to support 'our' industries like Jaguar, Land Rover, KTM etc.

BijuShet · Post by **BijuShet** » 23 Apr 2013 18:29

Varoon Shekhar wrote:...
But criticising the space programme is more about jealousy and bewilderment, than it is about genuine concern for India's poverty.

In full agreement with you on this.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 23 Apr 2013 19:12

We might as well roll over and die!

Remember the Italian marines? They seem to be having a nice time partying .
Also seen enjoying the party:
- Archbishop of Delhi
- Secretary to former president Pratibha Patil.

Neela · Post by **Neela** » 23 Apr 2013 19:13

The Indian state is at its weakest now. No wonder everyone is having a good time trampling over us.

arun · Post by **arun** » 23 Apr 2013 20:04

Neela wrote:We might as well roll over and die!

Remember the Italian marines? They seem to be having a nice time partying .
Also seen enjoying the party:
- Archbishop of Delhi
- Secretary to former president Pratibha Patil.

All in all a pretty disgusting spectacle to see the Christist Catholic Church hierarchy, both from the Vatican HQ and our own country, consorting with killers. Actions reeks of racism on the part of the Christist Catholic Church officials from their Vatican HQ and caste prejudice on the part our own country's Christist Catholic hierarchy as I am given to understand that the "Latin" Catholics, to which christist group one of the murdered fisherman belonged, are considered "Low Caste".

A link to go with the story:

Killer’ marines party with Mancini at Vatican Embassy

vishvak · Post by **vishvak** » 23 Apr 2013 20:21

Neela wrote:The Indian state is at its weakest now. No wonder everyone is having a good time trampling over us.

Shows nature of Europeans and unholy nexus with pseudo secular within India. It is all official. Some pseudos may ask how it is a question of propriety when archbishop, European ambassador and trigger happy Italian heroes are partying. Afterall the murderers are innocent till proven guilty even after murders have occurred.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 07 May 2013 04:19

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/eco ... 683942.ece

Raise cut-off limit in plan to issue more visas, India tells EU
Amiti Sen

Share · Comment · print · T+

Move part of free trade talks for duty cut on auto

New Delhi, May 4:

India has asked the European Union to have a higher cut-off for triggering visa curbs introduced in the latter’s proposals offering additional 40,000 visas to Indian professionals every year.

This is part of the ongoing India-EU free trade agreement talks. New Delhi has argued that the a lower cut-off margin could render the concessions meaningless.

In a safeguard clause, the EU will allow individual member countries to take measures to check entry of professionals from India as soon as 20 per cent of the committed number is breached.

Since the EU’s offer is one of the main bargaining chips to nudge India to agree to deep tariff cuts in cars and alcohol, any limit on the number of visas is not acceptable, a Commerce Department official said.

These additional visas are to be issued by the EU-member countries without any Economic Needs Test to show its impact on local workforce, which is otherwise mandated by many countries. “The threshold level is way too low. This means that as soon as a member gives out one-fifth of the total number of visas it has agreed to issue, it could be free to impose restrictions. This is like giving with one hand and taking back with the other,” the official said.

India has listed the issue as top priority to be discussed in the meetings of the negotiating group before the next India-EU ministerial meet scheduled in June. The main problem with EU’s proposed commitments for additional professional visas could be the fact that it imposes different burden on different countries, with the heaviest weight on the UK.

UK’s share of 12,000 is 30 per cent of the total - despite the country making up only 12 per cent of the EU’s population.

The Commerce Department argument is that since these visas are short-term, for up to six months, it would not be burdensome for any country.

India has also asked the EU to grant secondary mobility inside the EU-member state to Indian professionals so that they can move from one EU country to the other without restrictions.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 09 May 2013 02:42

http://www.thehindu.com/business/Econom ... 695909.ece

India-EU FTA talks likely to hit roadblock

Spark Energy - Low Prices - Protect Yourself From High Electric Bills. Lock in a Low Price SparkEnergy.com/Spark.Energy

Ads by Google
Sujay Mehdudia

Share · Comment · print · T+

TOPICS

economy (general)

economic policy

economy, business and finance

social infrastructure

As Centre fails to get through the legislation on hiking FDI in insurance

Negotiations in the crucial round talks between India and the European Union (EU) for the free trade agreement (FTA) set to take place on May 15 here are likely to hit a roadblock in view of India’s failure to get through the legislation on hiking foreign direct investment (FDI) limit in the insurance sector to 49 per cent, a major demand by EU member countries, especially Germany.

The government, on Wednesday, informed Parliament that final positions of India and EU were yet to emerge as the negotiations on various contentious issues, including duty cuts in the automobile sector, were still on. “Final positions are to emerge as the negotiations across various sectors, including cars, are ongoing,” Minister of State for Commerce and Industry D. Purandeswari said.

Of late, Germany, along with some other member EU countries, has been very vocal in its demand for opening up of the insurance and automobile sectors for EU companies. The Indian Government had assured the EU leaders that India was actively working on opening up of the insurance sector and legislation was now pending before Parliament for hiking the FDI limit to 49 per cent from 26 per cent. In fact, Germany’s Ambassador to India Michael Steiner, before Dr. Singh’s visit to Berlin last month, has pitched strongly for opening up of the automobile sector for EU companies and hiking the FDI limit in the insurance sector.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel had also raked up the topic with Dr. Singh, and strongly pushed for an increase in FDI cap in the insurance sector and termed it as an ‘undeniably’ important issue.

However, the failure of the government to get through the insurance legislation in Parliament is likely to cast a shadow over the May 15 round of negotiations. “The inability of the government to get through the Bill on hike in insurance sector is likely to impact the progress of talks. We don’t expect anything dramatic to happen in view of the latest developments,” a senior official in Commerce and Industry associated with the negotiations said.

On the other hand, Dr. Purandeswari said India was seeking a good package on services, including cross-border flow of IT and ITeS, movement of Indian professionals and grant of data secure status. Negotiations across a number of tracks, including trade in goods and services, investment, sanitary and phytosanitary measures (dealing with basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards), technical barriers to trade, trade remedies, government procurement, customs cooperation and trade facilitation, dispute settlement, competition and intellectual property rights are underway. So far, 15 rounds of negotiations have been held since the launch of the talks.

Grand bargaining going on.

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 09 May 2013 03:06

http://www.frontline.in/social-issues/n ... epage=true

Negotiating a sell-out?

The India-E.U. free trade agreement could lead to the bypassing of established legal procedures and the limiting of the government’s role in enacting progressive, pro-people legislation, thus posing a threat to the sovereignty of the country. By SAGNIK DUTTA in NEW DELHI

WHILE negotiations are on between India and the European Union (E.U.) to sign a free trade agreement (FTA), a number of contentious issues about public health, access to medicines, and sovereignty remain unresolved. The secretive manner in which the negotiations are being carried out has raised legitimate concerns of public health activists, lawyers and generic pharmaceutical companies about the E.U. trying to push for greater powers for multinational corporations (MNCs) at the cost of larger public concerns. The negotiating text of the agreement has not been made public yet; however, sections of the text leaked on websites such as those of Medecins Sans Frontieres and Knowledge Ecology International, an international non-governmental organisation that tracks debates on intellectual property policy, indicate draconian provisions that will considerably consolidate and strengthen the monopolies of MNCs lobbying for a stricter patent regime.

On April 10, public health activists and a number of groups representing cancer patients and people living with HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) joined a protest in Delhi demanding that the government reject the E.U’s demands in the proposed FTA. Following high-level dialogue with E.U. members recently, Minister of Commerce and Industry Anand Sharma said that the talks on the India-E.U. FTA and the broad-based bilateral trade and investment agreement (BTIA) were progressing “very well”. The proposed BTIA extends “investor protection” to MNCs, which will then have the power to initiate legal proceedings in arbitration councils against the Indian government for any pro-public interest legislation they perceive as hurting their investments. In fact, in the past decade, there has been a noticeable increase in the number of investor-state disputes in which states have had to pay compensation after being sued by investors under bilateral investment treaties. Most of these disputes are addressed at the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). There have been several instances in recent times of FTAs and bilateral investment treaties being used as instruments to challenge and overturn progressive legislation by governments in developing countries.

Speaking to Frontline, Nagesh Kumar, chief economist of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), said: “In the ongoing negotiations, India should not agree to any additional conditions beyond TRIPs [Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]. The Patents Act is already TRIPs-compliant and it leaves some space for not allowing evergreening of patents. If this space is taken away, it will adversely impact access to affordable medicines produced by generic companies. India has earlier taken a position against investor-to-state arbitration. There are instances where investor-to-state arbitration has led to huge liabilities incurred by the state. A treaty that leads India to move away from its earlier position can be very damaging.”

Enforcement provisions

The most contentious provision in the proposed FTA is the one that allows the enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) through a set of draconian measures that threaten access to medicines. The leaked text of the negotiations is available on the portal of Knowledge Ecology International. In an analysis of the enforcement provisions on its website, Medecins Sans Frontieres states: “These stricter enforcement measures proposed by the E.U. go beyond the requirements of the 1994 TRIPs Agreement and will negatively impact millions of people relying on affordable generic medicines produced in India.”

As of now, trademark and copyright piracy is already covered by the TRIPs Agreement. The FTA text, however, proposes stringent enforcement mechanisms for patent infringements. Article 22 of the proposed text allows for the issuing of injunctions and the seizure of medicines merely on the suspicion of patent infringement. It states: “The judicial authorities shall have the authority to order prompt and effective provisional measures to prevent an infringement of any intellectual property right from occurring, and in particular to prevent the entry into the channels of commerce in their jurisdiction of goods, including imported goods immediately after customs clearance and to preserve relevant evidence in regard to the alleged infringement.”

The text provides for freezing the assets of generic drug companies in case of an allegation of patent infringement. In Article 30 of the text, the E.U. has asked for broader enforcement measures to eliminate “international trade in goods infringing intellectual property rights”. This poses a grave threat to the export of affordable generic medicines to the developing world from India as they could even be seized for suspected trademark infringement.

Speaking about the far-reaching impact of such provisions, Y.K. Sapru of the Cancer Patients Aid Association said, “The Supreme Court’s judgment keeping Section 3(d) alive and intact has captured global attention, sparking off global debates on the need for developing countries to protect only genuine innovations in medicines, not evergreening. Having failed to get its way at the Supreme Court in the Novartis case, we can expect the E.U. to push its industry’s demands for changes in the Indian law to curb the Indian judiciary.”

Investor protection

The investment chapter in the negotiating text is particularly problematic as it provides foreign investors extensive investment protection and limits the powers of the Indian government to formulate progressive legislation in the public interest. An analysis of the investment chapter by Medecins Sans Frontieres highlights the grave risks posed by this provision: “This arbitration mechanism gives foreign investors, including foreign IPR holders, the right to circumvent normal legal processes and bring a case directly to a secret arbitral tribunal.” Anand Grover, senior counsel for the Cancer Patients Aid Association in the Novartis case and director of Lawyers Collective, told Frontline: “The provisions for investor protection in the proposed India-E.U. FTA will completely obliterate the sovereignty of India and judicial processes in India which would otherwise have jurisdiction in these matters.”

In fact, in the past decade there has been a manifold increase in the number of investor-state disputes, leading to states being dragged to arbitration councils and sued for exorbitant sums of money, sometimes running into millions of dollars. In several of these instances, the state has been sued for framing legislation that addresses larger public concerns.

A report titled “Profiting from Injustice” published in November 2012 by the Corporate Europe Observatory and the Transnational Institute notes that the number of investment arbitration cases has surged in the past two decades from 38 cases in 1996 to 450 in 2011 (according to data registered at the ICSID). It further notes that the amount of money involved has also expanded dramatically. In 2009-10, 151 investment arbitration cases involved corporations demanding at least $100 million from states. The study also notes that arbitrators earn hefty salaries, as much as $1 million in one reported case. It states, “These costs are paid by taxpayers, including in countries where people do not even have access to basic services. For example, the Philippines government spent U.S. $58 million defending two cases against German airport operator Fraport: money that could have paid the salaries of 12,500 teachers for one year or vaccinated 3.8 million children against diseases such as TB, diphtheria, tetanus and polio.”

The assertion of private investor rights has proved particularly harmful for the public interest in the developing world as most arbitrators tend to defend investor rights above the public interest. The study cites a number of instances of progressive legislation being challenged by private corporations. In 2001-02, Argentina froze utility rates of energy and water in response to a financial crisis. It was sued by 40 investors, including giant companies such as CMS Energy (U.S.), Suez S.A. and Vivendi S.A. (both France), Anglian Water (United Kingdom) and Aguas de Barcelona (Spain), who demanded multimillion-dollar compensation packages for revenue losses. In 2007, Italian investors sued South Africa over the Black Empowerment Act, which required mining companies to transfer a portion of their shares to black investors. The dispute, settled under South Africa’s Bilateral Investment Treaty in 2010, provided the investors with new licences with much lower requirements for disinvestment of shares. In another instance, the tobacco giant Philip Morris sued both Uruguay and Australia in 2010 for their anti-smoking laws. The company argued that large warning labels on cigarette packets prevented it from displaying its trademarks and caused a loss in market share.

Against the backdrop of an increasing number of investor-state disputes causing a threat to the public interest, several governments, such as those of Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, have terminated investment treaties and withdrawn from the ICSID. Argentina has refused to pay arbitration awards. In 2011, Australia announced that it would not include investor-state dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements.

Another study, by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) titled “Recent Developments in Investor-State Dispute Settlement” released in March 2013, states that the total number of treaty-based cases reached 518 in 2012, and the total number of countries that have responded to one or more such case increased to 95. It further states, “In 70 per cent of the public decisions addressing the merits of the dispute investors’ claims were accepted, at least in part. Nine public decisions rendered in 2012 awarded damages to the claimants, including the highest award in the history of ICSID (U.S.$ 1.77 billion) in Occidental [Exploration and Production Co.] vs Ecuador, a case arising out of the unilateral termination by the state of an oil contract.”

Other concessions

According to highly placed sources in the government who did not wish to be identified, the E.U. is also pushing for patent term extension, data exclusivity and patent linkage to be included in the FTA.

As of now, Article 33 of the TRIPs Agreement provides for 20 years’ patent protection from the date of filing of the patent application. According to informed sources, the E.U. is pushing for a patent term that takes into consideration the time taken for regulatory procedures, approvals and delays. This in effect means that if it takes 10 years for a multinational company to be granted a patent for a drug, it can ask for patent protection for 30 years. This will have an adverse effect on generic drug companies and access to affordable medicines.

Shiba Phurailatpam of the Asia-Pacific Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS said, “The majority of people living with HIV in the Asia-Pacific region are dependent on Indian generics. The impact of the E.U’s demands will be felt far beyond India’s borders.”

Patent linkage will prevent the government from granting marketing approval for generic versions of patented drugs. There has been a consistent demand for patent linkages by MNCs. Earlier this month, Merck Sharp & Dohme sought an injunction from the Delhi High Court against the sale of the generic drug Januvia launched by Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, alleging an infringement of intellectual property rights on the grounds that it had a patent for the drug.

Data exclusivity provides exclusive rights to technical data generated by innovator companies through clinical trials and prevents competitors from producing low-cost generic versions of the drug during the period of exclusivity. The TRIPs Agreement already provides for data protection. However, data protection is different from data exclusivity. Anand Grover explained: “Article 39(3) of TRIPs prevents unfair commercial use or marketing by generic companies of the data generated by clinical trials from innovator companies and submitted to the drug regulator. However, this is not the same as data exclusivity. As of now, Indian firms that make generic versions of innovator medicines get their approvals after proving that their product is bio-equivalent to the original drug. The drug regulator uses the data submitted by the innovator to decide the safety and efficacy of the generic drug. Data exclusivity will prevent this. The regulator will not be able to use the innovator’s data to make decision. This will in turn oblige generic companies to undertake clinical trials and delay the entry [into the market] of generic drugs.”

Concerns of other sectors

Other sectors of the economy, including the dairy industry, agriculture, and micro, small and medium enterprises, have also voiced a number of concerns about the FTA. There are legitimate concerns that the FTA heavily favours the E.U. and will lead to substantial duty cuts on the imports of agricultural and milk products and greater market access for the E.U.

In a statement, Praveen Khandelwal, secretary general of the Confederation of All India Traders, said: “The E.U.-India FTA will apparently involve cutting duties on more than 94 per cent of all goods (agricultural and industrial). This means more and more agricultural goods will have to be included.”

Naresh Sirohi, general secretary of Rashtriya Kisan Morcha, said that the agreement would threaten food security and self-sufficiency and pose a threat to the livelihoods of people.

In negotiating any bilateral trade agreement with the E.U., the Indian government should tread cautiously so as to safeguard domestic concerns and the public interest at large.

The recent Supreme Court judgment in the Novartis case was lauded worldwide for upholding the public interest and protecting access to affordable medicines. The judgment has wider ramifications not only for India but for the whole of the developing world as it recognises the importance of placing public concerns above MNCs. Any bilateral trade negotiation that encourages the bypassing of established legal procedures and limits the role of governments in enacting progressive, pro-people legislation will pose a serious threat to the sovereignty of the country and undermine democratic structures of governance.

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 16 May 2013 14:05

X- Posting from Protection of Liberalism - International and Indian trends.

Mukesh.Kumar wrote:Weird article on Washington Post: A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries
More India baiting- India is shown as one of the most racially tolerant countries.

Where and how did they come to this conclusion. This needs to be investigated and rebutted.

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 16 May 2013 14:57

Digging a bit deeper-

1) Primary observation seems to be that the question asked was "Whether they would like to stay next to someone of a different race?" and not "Whether they will not like to stay next to someone from a different race?" The unnamed Swedish authors here seem to take an inconsistent logical leap/ assumption.
2) Also, why are the Swedish economists not named? Or there institutes. There is no way a peer review can be proved or data checked. You have to really dig into the article to find them out.
3) Again, while the WVS is an established source, the article alludes that the data comes from WVS whereas it is derivative/ interpretation of selective data.
4) Surprisingly, it's not even the Swedish economist whose work is used to draw up this red and blue info-graphic but the reporter's own interpretation on using the data. The original work was trying to see if racial tolerance was correlated to economic success. From there Washington Post gives the whole thing a different spin and draws up a list of tolerant and non-tolerant countries.

I am wondering whether it would be more charitable to call this "Yellow Journalism" or "Unprofessional two bit hack."

vinod · Post by **vinod** » 16 May 2013 17:32

Wow! All the previous slave owning countries are racially tolerant ones. Surprisingly, South Africa which had apartheid till few years ago is also tolerant. Dubious!

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 16 May 2013 18:00

Pakistan is more tolerant than France, China and Turkey, and as tolerant as Germany.

Indians are the least tolerant of all, in other words, less tolerant than China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran.

Shape up guys, wtf!!!

Mukesh.Kumar · Post by **Mukesh.Kumar** » 16 May 2013 19:09

Wrote a rebuttal to them, with CC to IEDtor. They said they would get back. Awaiting feedback.

As Indians we need to push back and challenge such pieces. If data is thereto prove, then we learn, else people realize that there is is a sufficient amount of fallout before they print libel.