NAM-badNAM - Printable Version

NAM-badNAM - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Archives (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Forum: Trash Can (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=20)
+--- Thread: NAM-badNAM (/showthread.php?tid=523)

NAM-badNAM - Guest - 09-15-2006

<!--emo& Tongue

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /> When you can't run your non aligned car; the chances of moribund non aligned movement's revival are next to nil. And it has neither relevance nor appropiateness in geopolitics of today. When USA was being actively opposed by erstwhile USSR, NAM might have made some sense but in today's world non alighnment has no meaning whatsoever. As far as India is concerned, we have many better things to do e.g. we have 25% population of world who lives on paltry sum of <$1/day; so, we should be using our resources to bring them above the poverty line. Moreover, there is already UN to take care of such issues as can come up in NAM. There is no need to flog the dead horse like NAM.[FONT=Arial][SIZE=7][COLOR=red]

NAM-badNAM - Guest - 09-15-2006

NAM is useless club.
Now commies are in power and they are trying to go back to same old 2% growth rate.

MMS is useless.

NAM-badNAM - Guest - 09-15-2006

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /> Here is what MMS is saying:
âNAM has a constructive role to playâ
[ 15 Sep, 2006 0943hrs ISTPTI ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

HAVANA: As the summit of Non-Aligned grouping begins, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Friday said the NAM must make a constructive contribution to the new world order free from fear and war and the time has come not to divide the world further but to reduce tensions.

He said there was new anxiety in the world on how to deal with terror and the role of non-state actors and the NAM must live up to its new potential in the highly uncertain, insecure world that was prevailing now.

Talking to reporters on way from Brasilia to Havana, Singh said non-alignment was a state of mind -- to think independently about options and widen development choices -- and in that sense NAM was relevant today as it was before.

He said soon after the end of the cold war era there was complacency in the western world that capitalism would solve all problems but now there was a new anxiety in the world on how to deal with the problem of terror and the role of non-state actors.

"The future of humanity is being increasingly questioned and people are talking about a clash of civilisations, people have also been talking of evil empires.

"So, I do believe that cold war may have ended and the NAM, comprising 116 countries representing all regions of the world, can help and make a constructive contribution to building a new world order free from fear, want and poverty," the Prime Minister said.

"NAM must live up to its new potential in the highly uncertain, insecure world that we live in," he said.

Asked about reported comments of the Cuban Foreign Minister that after the summit, the 116-member grouping would become an "axis of evil" in the yes of the US, Singh said it was not proper for him to react to some casual remarks made.

"I think the time has come not to divide the world further but to adopt approaches which would reduce tensions that threaten to destroy our civilisation as a whole."

On his visit to Brazil for bilateral discussions and the IBSA summit, the Prime Minister said he found an ardent desire among the Brazilian government and elements of civil society to get to know India more intimately and to use all avenues of promoting economic, political and cultural links between the two countries.

He spoke of the immense potential for bilateral cooperation in the field of science and technology, joint ventures, agricultural research and promotion of energy security.

Though the trade in the last three years had grown enormously and there was potential, the Prime Minister acknowledged problems of connectivity in air and in maritime transport.

Singh said the launch of the summit by the three democracies -- India, Brazil and South Africa -- was reflective of the attempt of three nations to achieve their economic and social salvation in the framework of an open economy and society.

"All the three economies have immense potential and we have identified important areas for trilateral cooperation between our three countries.

"We will help to widen our developmental options. Energy security is a key element which figured both in our bilateral discussions. I raised the issue of international terrorism and the need for the three countries to pool their knowledge, wisdom and intelligence to tackle the problem -- to which there was a willing response," he said.

The Prime Minister said he had good discussions at the trilateral meetings on promotion of cooperation in the field of civilian nuclear cooperation.

It was agreed that subject to appropriate safeguards in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) framework, "we would cooperate in the field of civilian nuclear energy and it should be pushed forward," he said.

Singh said his proposed visit to South Africa later this month to participate in the 100th anniversary of the launching of the Satyagraha by the father of the nation would be a major opportunity to interact with the leadership of that country.

He said President Lula Da Silva of Brazil and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa were "tried and trusted friends" of India which augured well for the growth of cooperation between the two countries and IBSA had already caught the imagination of observers from other regions.

The Prime Minister said he was surprised by the enthusiasm of business leaders from all the three countries and possibilities of joint ventures and investment in pharmaceuticals, agriculture, food processing and in energy.

NAM-badNAM - Guest - 09-15-2006

QUOTE(Capt Manmohan Kumar @ Sep 15 2006, 04:18 PM)

The Prime Minister said he was surprised by the enthusiasm of business leaders from all the three countries and possibilities of joint ventures and investment in pharmaceuticals, agriculture, food processing and in energy.
[right][snapback]57349[/snapback][/right]


<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /> <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' />

NAM-badNAM - Guest - 09-15-2006

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/dry.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='dry.gif' /> Along with he is playing terrorism card also:
NAM essential to fight terror: PM
[ 10 Sep, 2006 1754hrs ISTPTI ]

RSS Feeds| SMS NEWS to 8888 for latest updates

NEW DELHI: Noting that NAM countries faced common challenges like terrorism, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Sunday said mutual support and solidarity among its 116 members is of prime importance to deal with the scourge of terrorism, as he left for a tour of Brazil and Cuba to attend the IBSA and NAM summits.

Singh, who is expected to meet Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf in Havana on the sidelines of the NAM Summit, said he looked forward to "fruitful interactions" with a number of leaders from the developing world during his nine-day trip.

The Prime Minister is expected to convey India's concerns over continued cross-border terrorism to Musharraf and ask him to act in a "substantive" manner to eliminate the scourge.

Referring to the NAM as a "great movement", Singh said as a founding member, India will play its part in "helping NAM to revitalise itself so as to pursue the shared interests of its member states in a transformed world".

"Mutual support and solidarity among NAM members is of prime importance as we confront several common challenges such as making globalisation more inclusive, the scourge of terrorism and addressing widespread hunger, poverty and disease," he said before leaving for Brasilia on his first leg of the tour.

India and other members of NAM will rededicate the five-decade-old organisation to the universal causes of peace, disarmament and the progress and prosperity of all human kind.

On his three-day Brazil leg of the tour, the Prime Minister expressed hope that his trip to the Latin American country would "consolidate an extremely positive trend" in bilateral relations.

Underlining that India considers Brazil as "one of the main partners in Latin America", he said his discussions with President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva would cover a wide range of issues including adding content to political and economic interactions.

The discussions are also expected to cover issues like cooperation in defence, agriculture and energy security, he said, while noting that India and Brazil enjoy an excellent tradition of cooperation in international fora.

With regard to IBSA (India-Brazil-South Africa), he said the trilateral forum has already emerged as a shining example of South-South cooperation.

The discussions of the first IBSA Summit, to be attended by South African President Thabo Mbeki besides Singh and Da Silva, are expected to focus on issues of global concern including energy security, international terrorism and challenges of sustainable and equitable development.

The Summit will provide a useful opportunity to review the progress made so far by the three-year-old IBSA.

An IBSA Business Summit will add a new dimension to the interactions of the leaders of the three countries, Singh said.

NAM-badNAM - Naresh - 09-15-2006

Capt Manmohan Kumar Ji :

Captain Saheb, you being an Army Officer, what would be your take on the Cross Border Terrorism and why is it that the Indian Army is finding it difficult to Eradicated the Pakistani Jehadi Terrorists?

Cheers <img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' />

NAM-badNAM - Guest - 09-15-2006

<img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='thumbsdownsmileyanim.gif' /> Lack of political will on part of politicians. Pl read my new post:
Bus conducors or PMs.

NAM-badNAM - Guest - 09-27-2006

<!--emo& Sad

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /> Sunday 24 September 2006
After running a coalition of divergent interests in India, I think, MMS has matured to carry out with finesse.
karat karat abhayas se jarmati hot sujan
rasri awat jaat te sil par parhat nishan
Can one pursue a "non-aligned" policy as well as a "strategic partnership" with a super-power? India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has just proved such a paradoxical feat an eminently feasible exercise.

Singh has done this so successfully that he appears to be aligned with both sections of the domestic opposition - the left and the right - on India's role in the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM). He has attended and returned from a summit of the movement that media spokespersons of the right have described as "a Cold War relic" and posed for the camera with Fidel Castro, whom they regard as a fossil. He, however, has also played at the summit a role that the right can only rejoice over.

Before Singh left New Delhi for Havana to attend the NAM summit on September 15-16, both these political camps had made their positions clear. The right voiced fears about what India's participation in the event could mean for the special ties forged with the George Bush administration and their future. The left wondered and worried about the role the high-priests of India's external affairs establishment would play in Havana - whether they would continue its collaboration with Washington or, as a left leader put it, use this "opportunity to correct its foreign policy course."

No doubt was entertained, however, in a notable external quarter. On the summit's eve, on September 14, US State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack told the media in Washington that the Bush administration had "friends" in the NAM who would "support its vision of greater democracy and freedom." McCormack went on to specify India and Indonesia as the leading examples of such NAM members.

He proved more right than the domestic doubters. Singh and his mandarins went out of their way to vindicate McCormack, well in advance of the summit.

The elite media, with its entrenched pro-West and anti-NAM bias, cheered on the prime minister and party as they testified to their determination to depart from India's and the movement's "anti-imperialist" traditions. Sample: "Even as Venezuela's tin-pot dictator Hugo Chavez and his host plan to use the NAM's Havana pulpit to sharpen their anti-US rhetoric, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has indicated that India was not enthusiastic about this project.... The Prime Minister, in his interaction with reporters accompanying him to the summit, suggested that he did not wish to see NAM as an anti-US grouping. "I don't buy this argument that most members of the NAM do not want relations with the US."

Another report, based on official briefing, said that the "Indian effort" at the summit was "to steer clear of two new tendencies that would have taken the movement away from its moorings." The first was "Malaysia's promotion of the Islamic agenda in its role as both the Chairman of NAM and of the Organisation of Islamic Countries that would have resulted in an almost exclusive focus on the issues relating to West Asia."

The second was "the radical tendency of Cuba with unnecessarily strong language and rhetoric that would have made engagement with the rest of the world difficult." Especially the engagement of New Delhi with Washington, as the Singh government awaited the finalization and formalization of the US-India nuclear deal, which has a few more legislative hurdles to cross.

The Christian Science Monitor needed no briefing from New Delhi to see the connection. As the summit got under way, it reported that NAM member-states were preparing a draft declaration supporting Iran "in its game of nuclear chicken with the West." They were also trying to "enlarge the definition of terrorism to include both the US occupation of Iraq and recent Israeli actions in Lebanon."

"In the past," the paper said, "India might have joined the cavalcade of anti-US decrees" - and subscribed to a definition of terrorism that did not spare occupiers and aggressors. "Today, it clearly will not. India's strategic goals are increasingly consistent with those of Washington, from economics to security.... And with the US Senate considering a deal that would accept India's status as a nuclear power, India has no interest in provoking its new friend with bombastic statements about neo-imperialism."

"It's about how we move from being a protester of the world order to one who takes responsibility for the management of it," said C. Raja Mohan, a leading defender of the nuclear deal, who is no stranger to readers of these columns. The statement reflects a conviction that, from a membership in the nuclear club, it is but a step or maybe a series of steps to a seat in the United Nations Security Council. India's role in the NAM summit was but a rehearsal for a bigger one in the world body.

Domestic critics of India's involvement in the NAM have often decried the movement's hostility to the country's nuclear ambitions. Writing on the eve of the summit, former diplomat G. Partharsarathy said: "India has also gained little by its past support for the Arab cause and for the struggle against apartheid in South Africa. South Africa and Egypt are today members of the 'New Agenda Coalition,' which regularly demands that India should sign the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state and accept IAEA safeguards on all its nuclear installations. And at the Johannesburg NAM summit in 1998, President Nelson Mandela heaped a double insult on us by criticising our nuclear tests and becoming the first NAM Chairman to refer to the Kashmir issue in his address to the summit."

The Havana summit heaped no such humiliations on official India. It conducted itself here as a state awaiting a leap to legitimacy as a nuclear power, and got away with it. It did so on both the nuclear issues to be brought up at the summit.

The first, of course, was the Iran issue. India, certainly, could not vote against Iran here as in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But it played the role of a nuclear power to perfection when Singh reminded Iran of its "obligations" in additions to its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which India has refused to sign resolutely all along.

At the 13th NAM summit in Kuala Lumpur in February 2003, former prime minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee dealt with the then-topical Iraq issue. He declared: "The world's attention ... is riveted on Iraq. Like every other non-aligned country, India fervently wishes for a peaceful resolution. We also support the multilateral route of the United Nations to address this issue. But objectivity - and not rhetoric - should govern our actions. Weapons of mass destruction do need to be eliminated. It is essential that Iraq complies fully with the obligations it has accepted, including disarmament ... As a fellow-member of NAM, this is our sincere advice to Iraq." India's stand on Iran at this summit was almost identical.

On the second nuclear issue of disarmament, India's role was to work for the removal from the summit's final declaration of all references to such ideas as weapons-of-mass-destruction-free (WMD-free) zones in such regions as West Asia. A deal behind the US-India deal, perhaps, was to avert such a danger for Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Almost identical, too, were the stances of Vajpayee and Singh on terrorism. The former Prime Minister told his Kuala Lumpur audience: "The threat of global terrorism presents our movement with an immediate test of its commitment to its core principles. It is imperative that we take a clear and unequivocal stand on this scourge. There can be no double standards, no confusion between terrorism and freedom struggles, and no implicit condoning of terrorism through an investigation of its 'root causes.'"

Singh, for his part, proclaimed: "If NAM is to be relevant in today's circumstances, it cannot afford to equivocate on the subject of terrorism." Reports based on official briefing make it clear, again, that the Indian delegation was concerned that "the determination to fight terrorism would be diluted with qualifications over the right of oppressed people under occupation and the right to self-determination." The final wording, adopted under India's pressure, committed the movement to counter terrorism committed "wherever, by whomsoever and on whatever pretext."

Bush could not have agreed more with both the prime ministers on the definition of terrorism that recognized neither "root causes" nor resistance to "disproportionate use of force," as state terror is diplomatically described.