We The People

Potsdam Failure : Implications on the World Trade

2007-07-16T06:01:00.000Z

It is ironic that Potsdam, a city in Germany at the banks of Havel River has again come into international light due to failure of an attempt to bring consensus. We know this city better for the post world war II attempts to reach an consessus among remaining super powers over territorial rights. Seven days after the surrender of Germany, Josef Stalin, first Winston Churchill and then Clement Attlee, and Harry S. Truman met at a conference from July 17 to August 5 to deliberate on the administration of the defeated Germany and Austria and also to re-draw a new world map. The relations between the superpowers were so strained that they soon turned into Cold War. In the same city Ms Susan Schwab, Trade Representative of the US, Mr Peter Mandelson, the European Union Trade Commissioner, Mr Kamal Nath, the Minister for Commerce and Industry and Mr Celso Amorim, Brazil's Foreign Minister, abruptly ended the negotiations in the Doha Round of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), two days ahead of the schedule. Let us try to understand the entities involved in this failure.

Multinational Trade Agreements

The dynamics of international trade in present times have become much complex owing to various controls and dependencies countries have over cross border trade. The fundamental aspect still rotates around productivity and market access. The cost of goods and services depends upon a host of factors making certain countries naturally favoured locations for them. Such countries naturally produce much higher than what is required for the domestic consumption. Under such circumstances they seek newer markets to keep the pace of their development. This poses serious threats to other nations where local producers can not compete in terms of cost due to various reasons. Their livelihood falls under jeopardy. Whereas this comes as a boom for the consumers who gain out of price war, the local industries have to face the hit. The most impacted area always has been the agriculture. Developed nations have better infrastructure to produce surplus agricultural goods at lower costs. Fractions of population dependent on agriculture is also less in developed countries. But in developing and third world countries, cost of agricultural produce is much higher due to poor facilities. The number of agriculture dependent people is also substantially higher here. Under these conditions it is only fair to expect the weaker nations to retaliate against any trade agreement which do not favour them substantially. Trade agreements are necessary however to control the chaotic pattern of free trade. Prosperity can not be achieved if we fail to have liberal trade terms internationally. But these should not aim to boost already developed nations under marginal gains and apathy to hundreds of poor citizens of the developing and under developed nations.

World Trade Organization (WTO)

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was an international organization created in 1947 to reduce trade barriers through multilateral negotiations. In January 1995, the GATT was replaced by a stronger World Trade Organization (WTO), the result of eight years of GATT negotiations. Today, member countries number 125 (nearly the whole world except China, some former communist countries, and a number of small nations) and WTO rules apply to over 90 percent of international trade.

Negotiators from member nations revised GATT rules and liberalized world trade several times in multi-year conferences called “Rounds.” The GATT’s (and now the WTO’s) approach to reducing trade barriers was based on the “most-favored nation” principle, which requires that when a nation grants a trade privilege to one country, it must grant the same privilege to all GATT members. Another guiding principle is that of “national treatment,” which requires nations to give equal treatment to foreign imports of goods or services as to domestic goods or services.

The Doha Round

The Doha round of WTO negotiations began in November 2001. aims to lower trade barriers around the world, permitting free trade between countries of varying prosperity. As of 2006, talks have stalled over a divide between the developed nations led by the European Union, the United States and Japan and the major developing countries (represented by the G20 developing nations), led and represented mainly by India, Brazil, China and South Africa. The Doha round began with a ministerial-level meeting in Doha, Qatar in 2001, with subsequent ministerials in Cancun, Mexico (2003), Hong Kong, China (2005) and recently in Potsdam, Germany. Related negotiations have taken place in Geneva, Switzerland in 2004, Paris, France in 2005 and again Geneva in 2006.

The new trade agenda of the developed world was dubbed the Doha Development Agenda, and from there all countries were committed to negotiations opening agricultural and manufacturing markets, as well as services negotiations and expanded intellectual property regulation. The intent of the round, according to its proponents, was to make trade rules fairer for developing countries. Opponents however charged that the round would expand a system of trade rules that were bad for development and interfered excessively with countries' domestic "policy space".

It is important to understand the aspirations from Doha Round in the backdrop of The Uruguay Round. The Uruguay Round was a trade negotiation lasting from September1986 to April 1994 which transformed the GATT into the WTO. It was launched in Punta del Este in Uruguay (hence the name), followed by negotiations in Montreal, Geneva, Brussels, Washington D.C. and Tokyo, Japan, with the 20 agreements finally being signed in Marrakesh - the Marrakesh Agreement. The main aims of the Uruguay round of negotiations were to reduce agricultural subsidies, put restrictions on foreign investment, and begin the process of opening trade in services like banking and insurance. They also wanted to draft a code to deal with copyright violation and other forms of intellectual property rights. However this round was highly criticized criticized for paying insufficient attention to the special needs of developing countries.

Times we Live in : Managing Social Threats

2007-06-06T15:32:00.002Z

We have been consistently listening to the threats being posed from different fronts on our existential right. Sometime these become so regular that they stop having effects on our regular life. Let me categorize the kind of threats that I am trying to bring to your attention. The first are those threats that we can directly relate ourselves with. These impact us on a regular basis and have localized effects. We are more able to associate the cause and effect patterns of such threats. Often these are less manageable also. The second are such threats which do not directly relate to us. Often we are not aware of such threats unless a movement is mooted in public media. These have effects on long terms and affects globally. These are more manageable but less convincing. So a people movement in such regard is difficult to gather.

Public opinion with respect to all kind of social threats is always important to understand because they have profound impact on the way threats finally shape up. Most often we see people not reacting to threats because it has not affected them. This is naturally acceptable behavior. We are always more concerned with the immediate happenings affecting us. But obviously what we miss here is the fact that if we fail to react on time, we might be at the target of such threats in due course of time. What I am stressing here is a proactive social action to curb what looks like a threat. Here I refer to all sorts of threats that we see and that we fail to see.

From a threat management perspective, we need to define the roles and responsibility of all the partners of society that come into picture. This includes government, corporations, private firms, social organizations and individual people. Here I feel important to mention that all threats you hear may not have actual bearing. Some of them are deliberate efforts of anti social elements to gain personal and unethical profits. Here comes the role of social infrastructure like government to put control on such threats. But definitely individual responsibility is to verify all such threats that they here and avoid spreading any threat that they are not sure of. Individual bearing have great impact on spreading rumors.

If we talk about threats that impact us globally on a long run, it’s important that all sections of the society come together to spread the knowledge and share the actual bearing these threats might have. It’s important to understand that the effects might not be visible in our lifetimes, but from a human sustainability perspective, it becomes our responsibility to analyze and handle all such issues with utmost care. A timely action will prove worthy in the sense, we will save a lot of effort when such threats start showing their effects. Why these require our special attention because it will always be difficult for every individual to digest these threats and act accordingly. Threats which are more visible are often took care by people due to their direct bearing, but indirect threats always escape mass attention.

It is needless to say we have numerous such indirect threats which have come to limelight due to recent media attention they have received. It’s our duty to analyze each of then and take a stand befitting to our society in long run. Public consciousness can always guarantee that certain anti social elements do not cheat us for narrow benefits. It’s high time we rise to all such calls. It’s our society and so is our responsibility to see it foster.

Running an Enterprise out of Social Benefit

2006-12-01T15:17:00.000Z

The age old notion of profit and non profit making industry has created an stigma in the mind that if something is for people welfare, it has to be non profit making. This jinx is to break if corporate level effort has to come out from welfare organizations.

The problems are multi pronged. Welfare organizations are presently running under adhoc management principles. For most of the financial and manpower needs they depend upon the mercy of benevolence. They have vision and dream but down the line it gets diluted and the organization traps itself in the myriad of conflicting objectives.

The world has widened its perspective in terms of political, economic and social dynamics. This has far reaching consequences on the lives and times of human beings. The rapidly changing world at times becomes difficult to sustain basic human rights. At the same time there is growing concern to address these issues from all quarters. Hence financial and human aids for welfare concerns are never less. The real challenge is always to allocate and distribute them appropriately and timely.

The whole economic aspect of running welfare missions come from leveraging the possibilities of making operations efficient. The formula of right thing at the right place in right quantity is definitely the baseline. The abstractness of this philosophy can be made concrete using past experiences over such missions and requirements of modern times. The processes of such mission should be carved into corporate structure with humane skills. We can learn a lot from many established corporate firms stretching their arms in welfare missions.

A big problem of such organizations always remained with the definition and scope of their work. It has been traditionally assumed that welfare organizations are required or operated only in the times of human calamity which are rapid and fierce in nature. But we forget that neither human misery nor the need for help is absent at any time. Only at the times of calamity these become widely noticed. So such organizations should base them over solid grounds for long term sustenance and focus human misery in all forms spread all across.

To make this world a better place to live is a responsibility of each and every of us and such efforts can rarely run just on the kind feelings of people. We need to make this mission as strong as a corporate chase and run it in the similar fashion.

Human Psychology and Social Development

2006-12-01T14:45:00.000Z

Human psychology is quite a mirage. It’s such complex and unexpected that normal logical analysis fails to fathom. It’s an interesting phenomenon though. When we think about the complexities of human psychology, we forget that our minds are also somewhat captured in this complex web. So a fairly independent analysis is just not possible. But what we can definitely try is to understand major trends and norms of human interactions, especially in social organizations.

Let’s try to chalk out the history of society. The reasons and factors why it took this path are interesting outcomes of human interactions in different environments. Why had primitive humans wanted to talk to their fellow humans? This is important to understand, as this rooted an important characteristic of human i.e. social animal. Survival seems to be the sole reason why such a desire could have occurred. The survival in hostile natural environment was just not simple without cooperation. Thus could have been laid the seed for first social framework.

The society developed out of sheer need of one human on others for survival. Now that the interactions developed and got facilitated through the development of aids like language, other factors started creeping in. Many psychological factors like fear, anger, love, hatred, jealousy etc. govern our interactions with fellow humans. While for other animals, such factors are quite limited and hence their interactions do not go beyond a certain limit, for humans the development of their relationships take fantastic turns. As the size of community increases, these complexities also rise, however there is a cognitive limit to which humans can sustain their relationships. Hence the nature of relationships categorize dramatically.

As the superiority of humans started to reflect in their ability to sustain in adverse environments and their ability to rule rest of the animal kingdom, different factors started to crop up. Needless to say these were also deeply affected by their interactions with the environment. The understanding of natural phenomenon was quite nascent and hence forced them to adopt a whole different behavior. Such deep rooted was this effect that it took years even after they realized their mistakes to change their attitude. Under such complex web of factors human interactions with each other took uncharted ways to develop. The factors grew slowly and interdependencies of various relations within cognitive limits and beyond them started to show. Social development took complex shapes like village, clan, state, brotherhood, nations and many more. Even these cohesions had overlaps. After a time it became really difficult for some people to control the development of society and the society became self sustaining.

Interesting is the fact that humans created society for their sustenance and slowly society grew to engulf human independence for its sustenance. Today we are largely governed by many norms that society has devised over years. Even when we feel the redundancy of such things, we really find ourselves helpless to cut away.

Genes of Monsanto

2006-01-25T11:51:00.000Z

Time and again generation of wealth has been done in ways that do not conform to our social norms. Right from big corporates to governments have been a party to this foul play. In an age where we talk of human rights and information transparity, still there are many who get lured by the dishonest practices of wealth creation. North south disparity is a big result and a prime mover of this game. It has led to a vicious circle in which poor gets poorer and rich gets richer. What more! Poors have to be sacrificed for the margin that rich enjoys. This shamelees game is played in many forms and almost all arenas. Whereever there is a prospect of gain out of unbalanced economy, there are hidden tears of thousands and bullion in a few pockets. Genetic Engeneering has right that prospect.

The technology of Genetic Engineering (GE) is the practice of altering or disrupting the genetic blueprints of living organisms—plants, trees, fish, animals, humans, and microorganisms. This technology is wielded by transnational “life science” corporations such as Monsanto and Aventis, who patent these blueprints, and sell the resulting gene-foods, seeds, or other products for profit. Life science corporations proclaim that their new products will make agriculture sustainable, eliminate world hunger, cure disease, and vastly improve public health. However, these gene engineers have made it clear, through their business practices and political lobbying, that they intend to use ge to monopolize the global market for seeds, foods, fiber, and medical products.

Monsanto Story

Lets look into the story of Monsanto this time.The Monsanto company was created in 1901 by John Francis Queeny. Named after his wife, Olga Mendez Monsanto, the name Monsanto has since, for many around the world, come to symbolize the greed, arrogance, scandal and hardball business practices of too many multinational corporations.Monsanto is considered the Mother of agricultural biotech. Their "Roundup Ready" crops have been genetically engineered to allow direct application of the Monsanto herbicide glyphosate allowing farmers to drench both their crops and crop land with the herbicide so as to be able to kill nearby weeds without killing the crops.

Monsanto also came under heavy public fire with their "Terminator Technology", a.k.a. "suicide seeds", in which they developed and planned to market seeds that, after one season's growth would not germinate again forcing farmers around the world to buy their seed from them every year rather than saving their best seed for the next years planting, a traditional and economical practice. Seed saving has had the benefit of allowing farmers to continually improve the quality of their crops through careful artificial selection. Fears were also expressed that Monsanto's terminator genes could spread to wild plants. In 1999 Monsanto called the program off, however there are disturbing indications that they may be planning to resurrect it. On June 29, 2004 The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture went into effect giving farmers in those countries which have ratified it, with the exception of the U.S., the right to save seeds.

In 1998 Dennis wrote an article that began "'According to recent data compiled by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), people who eat organic and natural foods are eight times as likely as the rest of the population to be attacked by a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria.

Organic farms are increasingly finding that via cross-pollination their pure food has been contaminated with GM DNA thus ruining their businesses. "In 2002, Ontario farmer Alex Nurnberg had tests conducted on his 100-ton harvest of organic corn. Twenty tons were found to be contaminated by GMOs, which Nurnberg believes were blown by the wind from the corn on a neighboring farm. 'I was not ready for it. I feel such a wrath about it,' says Nurnberg".

GE ! What is that?

Lets look more deeply at the technology in question, Genetic Engeneering. GE is a revolutionary new technology that is still in its early experimental stages of development. This technology has the power to break down the natural genetic barriers—not only between species—but between humans, animals, and plants. Randomly inserting together the genes of non-related species—utilizing viruses, antibioticresistant genes, and bacteria as vectors, markers, and promoters—permanently alters their genetic codes. The gene-altered organisms that are created pass these genetic changes onto their offspring through heredity. Gene engineers all over the world are now snipping, inserting, recombining, rearranging, editing, and programming genetic material. Animal genes and even human genes are randomly inserted into the chromosomes of plants, fish, and animals, creating heretofore unimaginable transgenic life forms. For the first time in history, transnational biotechnology corporations are becoming the architects and “owners” of life.

With little or no regulatory restraints, labeling requirements, or scientific protocol, bio-engineers have begun creating hundreds of new ge “Frankenfoods” and crops. The research is done with little concern for the human and environmental hazards and the negative socioeconomic impacts on the world’s several billion farmers and rural villagers. An increasing number of scientists are warning that current gene-splicing techniques are crude, inexact, and unpredictable—and therefore inherently dangerous. Yet, pro-biotech governments and regulatory agencies, led by the us, maintain that ge foods and crops are “substantially equivalent” to conventional foods, and therefore require neither mandatory labeling nor pre–market safety-testing.

This new technology has many potential hazards if used unchecked just to make wealthy wealthier. Apart from the drawbacks cited above, lets look at the possible consequences,

Genetic Pollution
Genetic “Bio-Invasion”
Food Allergies
Increased Cancer Risks
Damage to Food Quality & Nutrition
Antibiotic Resistance
Damage to Beneficial Insects and Soil Fertility
Creation of GE “Superweeds” and “Superpests”
Increased Pesticide Residues
New Viruses and Pathogens
Socioeconomic Hazards
Ethical Hazards

Take Action Today

The question before us is not to outcry about the technology. It is certainly a revolution of science. The worrying fact is unethical use of the technology for immoral causes and without the awareness among consumers. The need of the hour is a well informed consumer base, concerned governments, proactive scientific community and ethical corporate entities. It is time for us to use a gift of science for our betterment and avoid our future generations cursing us for a manhandled technology like nuclear power.

Stay Informed: http://www.organicconsumers.org/gelink.html

Failure of Basel Convention

2006-01-17T09:14:00.000Z

French President Chirac has announced a dramatic recall of the asbestos-laden warship Clemenceau -- it has turned back to France. My congratulations to all the Green Concerns of Citizens acroos the globe and also to the French Government for taking right action at the right time. May Earth sustain and grow.

There has always been an internal conflict between urge for sustainable existence and morality. Today the world has advanced to such a platform that an existence of one hides deep somewhere sacrifices of many others. The increasing divide of economic might has led to such trades which are shame on any civilization or times. Today the sense of cooperation is limited to threats. If a powerful nation has to exploit some aspects of world dynamics, poorer nations would have to sacrifice their will. This is at times imposed to such a level that humanity lose all its meanings. For poorer nations this is a situation of falter or die. We have seen many examples to support this in near past. Be it world trade, nuclear disarmament, pollution control or fuel, it has always been in favor of a few mighty nations. The third world countries have suffered time and again. And whats beautiful is that, this all is done in a cover of legal frames like United Nations and its many branches.

One such derogatory trade that is run for the benefit of wealthier nations is Hazardous waste movement. The are many reasons why wealthier nations like to throw their wastes in poorer nations. One of them is definitely disposal costs. Industrialized countries generate an enormous volume of toxic waste, which is either impossible or extremely costly to recycle. The solution for many years has been to export it to third world countries who have more lenient environmental regulations, are in greater need of funds and where concern for the health of the population is minimum or non-existent.

Following several waste trafficking related scandals in the 1980Ã’s, on March 22, 1989, the Basel Convention was adopted, with the goal of controlling movement and disposal of all kinds of toxic and hazardous waste. Initially the Convention -in force as of May 5, 1992- was criticized by environmental groups because it failed to effectively ban toxic waste exports to poor countries, succeeding only in excluding Antarctica as a destination for such waste. In 1995, however, and as a result of pressure exerted by several countries and environmental groups, an amendment to the Convention was introduced, prohibiting all exports of contaminating material. This ban will only enter into force when the amendment is ratified by 62 of the countries party to the Convention (as of May 2003, 36 countries had already done so). In any event, the scope of the Convention is severely limited by the fact that the United States, the largest toxic residue producer in the world, is not among the signatories.

In spite of the restrictions imposed by environmental groups regarding toxic waste destination, not only has the volume of residues generated not gone down, over the last few years it has gone up, and this increase has not been accompanied by the implementation of effective waste recycling or resource conservation techniques.

The prohibition on toxic waste exports involves reducing toxic waste generation to a minimum and ensuring that the disposal of any waste produced is done in an environmentally sound way, and as near as possible to the source of generation. The aim of banning waste producing countries from exporting their waste to developing countries, for low-cost recovery, recycling or disposal purposes, is to stimulate these countries to produce clean technologies. Industrialized countries produce nearly 80% of the 400 million generated annually in the world, and they export 10% of that proportion, for the most part to underdeveloped countries in dire economic straits. For years, Latin America -and in particular southern countries like Paraguay or Argentina- was used by industrialized countries as a garbage dump, leading some of these countries to be among the most active promoters of ratification. Notwithstanding which, bilateral treaties excluded from the Convention have enabled violations of its provisions, such as the intention to import Australian nuclear waste to Argentina, allegedly for treatment and removal.

There have been many stories running in media that expose failure of Basel Convention. This is happening due to reluctance on the part of a few countries that shy away from the convention for economic benefits. It will continue the same way. Infact this is nothing new. Similar fates have been observed for many other efforts in past. The only way out is to strenthen the will power of southern countries. It is high time for them to say no to import of hazardous wastes from north for short term economic benefits. It has far reaching consequences. The countries of south should understand their responsibility for their people and land. It is only fair to ask the nation which creates the wastes to handle them responsibly.

Official site of Basel Convention : http://www.basel.int

Trading Basic Human Necessities

2005-09-12T10:59:00.000Z

Human civilizations over the past have evolved due to some vital factors. Availability of life sustaining resources in abundance and for free is one of the most important factor. No body has been taxed for free and pure breathing air so far. Though its availability in pure form is hardly seen. Water has been the base of life. Life without water is totally out of context. Water has been available to us through various sources. Natural sources have provided us with pure and abundant water since our growth.

But the pressure of increasing population has changed the scenario in a much distorted manner. Every resource has got its limitation. With ever increasing population, the natural sources are becoming insufficient day by day. Added to that increasing population and development that we have achieved have rendered many sources either unfit for use or unhealthy to consume. Industrial discharge containing toxic ingredients has found its way to rivers and lakes for years now. Industrial pollution has many other forms that keep exposing as the related problems are developing. Human population is mired today by numerous diseases that result from unsafe drinking water.

The divide between rich and poor which has always been fuelled by the capitalist control of market and resources, make the scene worse. Rich people are able to get ultra purified drinking water in the leisure of their confinements. But the vast majority of poor and deprived people, who are unable to get fair nutrition are forced to consume unhealthy water and face the consequences. Here the role of government comes handy. Any elected government has the moral and legal responsibility to ensure that natural resources that are gifts of nature, reach to each and every one in a human manner. Ensuring pure air and water is the first and least expectation from any government. If rich and poor divide is able to deter this, its the utter failure of the governance.

Making money out of human necessities is not a new concept. It has always been there in the society. There are many socio-economical factors that make it complex to comprehend. But what is quite simple to see is the fact that human race has always faced greed as its enemy. The recent happenings around the globe to privatized civic water supply has raised such similar concerns. It is slowly creeping the society in different lucrative forms and by the time people would realize, everything will be out of their hands. Lets look at this more deeply.

Water is, according to Fortune magazine, "One of the world's great business opportunities. It promises to be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th." In the past ten years, three giant global corporations have quietly assumed control over the water supplied to almost 300 million people in every continent of the world. A 12-month investigation by journalists in Canada, the U.S., Europe, Asia and Latin America shows that the results range from questionable to disastrous. And it shows how well-meaning municipal governments in the U.S. and Canada can become vulnerable to the persuasive techniques of these high-powered corporate giants.In Europe and North America, analysts predict that within the next 15 years these companies will control 65 percent to 75 percent of what are now public waterworks. The companies have worked closely with the World Bank and other international financial institutions to gain a foothold on every continent. They aggressively lobby for legislation and trade laws to force cities to privatized their water and set the agenda for debate on solutions to the world's increasing water scarcity. The companies argue they are more efficient and cheaper than public utilities. Critics say they are predatory capitalists that ultimately plan to control the world's water resources and drive up prices even as the gap between rich and poor widens. The fear is that accountability will vanish, and the world will lose control of its source of life.

A fact check on water demand and supply around the globe reveals:

About 1.1 billion people lack access to clean drinking water.
About 2.4 billion people lack access to sanitation. Most are in Africa and Asia.
Roughly one-third of the global population lives in countries with moderate-to-high water stress. Water stress occurs when water consumption exceeds 10 percent of renewable freshwater resources.
West Asia faces the severest threat. More than 90 percent of the population in the region lives under severe water stress.
About 80 countries, comprising about 40 percent of the world's population, had experienced serious water shortages by the mid 1990s.
In less than 25 years, two-thirds of the world's population will live in water stressed conditions.
By 2020, water use is expected to increase globally by 40 percent.
Two billion people (about one-third the world's population) depend on groundwater. Countries around the world face rapidly depleting groundwater resources, including parts of India, China, West Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, the former Soviet Union and the western United States.
The cost of bringing poor universal access to water by 2015 is projected to be $30 billion a year.

Source: United Nations Environment Programme, GEO-Global Environment Outlook 3, Past, Present and Future Perspectives

Privatization is an umbrella term that includes selling assets to a private company, tendering a water concession to a private company, or awarding management contracts to a private company. These projects received loans either from the World Bank or from its investment arm, the International Finance Corporation. The bank lends only to governments, but it can require government leaders to privatize state-owned assets, such as water utilities, before granting loans. The IFC can lend to businesses.

The matter has to be addressed today before it can grow out of proportion. People need to understand and intervene if their governments continue such processes. The resources like water and air are natural gifts and no people or organization can control them. Awareness and timely action is the only way out. People need to realize the truth and horror behind attractive offers. We have to save our future before money minded devils can cripple it.

Find more at : http://www.publicintegrity.org/water

Cloning and Our Society

2005-08-23T04:09:00.000Z

Society is a stable System in which many forces coexist by virtue of selective compromises to foster in harmony. But it is true only till such compromises are acceptable to all. Diverse faculties might have diverse views on a subject pertaining to the society at large. What is important here is to understand the importance of each faculty and honour them. Society as a dynamic and stable entity can exist only when we try to accommodate as diverse views as possible.

A recent issue that has been making rounds around the world and collecting many conflicting views is cloning. Many sections of the society have their opinion regarding this scientific breakthrough that has many promises in store. There can be many angles to this issue, but most importantly we have to consider cloning with respect to science, religion and ethics. These cover almost every concern that has come after it first made news.

Scientifically speaking there are different types of cloning, and cloning technologies can be used for other purposes besides producing the genetic twin of another organism. A basic understanding of the different types of cloning is key to taking an informed stance on current public policy issues and making the best possible personal decisions. There are three types of cloning technologies viz. recombinant DNA technology or DNA cloning, reproductive cloning, and therapeutic cloning.

The terms "recombinant DNA technology," "DNA cloning," "molecular cloning,"or "gene cloning" all refer to the same process: the transfer of a DNA fragment of interest from one organism to a self-replicating genetic element such as a bacterial plasmid. The DNA of interest can then be propagated in a foreign host cell. This technology has been around since the 1970s, and it has become a common practice in molecular biology labs today.

Reproductive cloning is a technology used to generate an animal that has the same nuclear DNA as another currently or previously existing animal. Dolly was created by reproductive cloning technology. In a process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCANT), scientists transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth.

Therapeutic cloning, also called "embryo cloning," is the production of human embryos for use in research. The goal of this process is not to create cloned human beings, but rather to harvest stem cells that can be used to study human development and to treat disease. Stem cells are important to biomedical researchers because they can be used to generate virtually any type of specialized cell in the human body. Stem cells are extracted from the egg after it has divided for 5 days. The egg at this stage of development is called a blastocyst. The extraction process destroys the embryo, which raises a variety of ethical concerns. Many researchers hope that one day stem cells can be used to serve as replacement cells to treat heart disease, Alzheimer's, cancer, and other diseases.

Scientists hope that one day therapeutic cloning can be used to generate tissues and organs for transplants. To do this, DNA would be extracted from the person in need of a transplant and inserted into an enucleated egg. After the egg containing the patient's DNA starts to divide, embryonic stem cells that can be transformed into any type of tissue would be harvested. The stem cells would be used to generate an organ or tissue that is a genetic match to the recipient. In theory, the cloned organ could then be transplanted into the patient without the risk of tissue rejection.

There are several ethical issues involved with cloning. Embryo that is used as a vital source of stem cells is the origin of human life form. Thus when embryo gets destroyed in the process of extracting stem cells, it might be seen as killing a seed with potential to develop into a human form. We need to analyze the issue of right to life for an embryo. Feoticide is a crime in almost all the nations and cultures. Feotus is an advanced stage of the embryo. So we have to decide upon the actual point when a lump of live cells can be attributed as potential life forms.

Then there are religious issues involved. Almost all the religions existing today except a supreme creator in some or the other form. That supreme creator have certain wishes which get manifested in the form of nature. If we try to reproduce in non traditional forms as cloning, it conflicts with the nature. Then there are other forms of reproduction which have been accepted today as bypass. Popular among them are in-vitro fertilization and the concept of surrogate mother. They faced stiff resistance and with time got accepted by a society crippled with the various forms of fertility diseases.

What need to be searched is a way that look into all the concerns above and propose a solution. Simply denying the benefits of cloning at a stage where it hosts the promises for solution to many problems should definitely not be the way. On the other hand it needs to be very critically scrutinized to avoid the misuse of its potentiality. Scholars from different faculties and cultures need to brainstorm without any prejudices to achieve this target.

Learn more about cloning : http://gslc.genetics.utah.edu/units/cloning/index.cfm

Energy war and Colonialism

2005-08-22T04:27:00.000Z

This is an accepted fact today that any development require energy. Our cultural joyride from primitive times to the most modern times have been fuelled by availability of enormous amount of organic fuels. But like every good things, this reserve is poised to end. At this stage of advancement and current pace of growth rate, the requirements for energy is liker never before. But the end of this natural gift is quite before our eyes. This aspect has multifaceted bearings on our society. The major concerns of world economics and politics today is spinning around fast ending oil reserves. If we look back at the last century, we get almost every event directly or indirectly related to the power play for energy. Since the early decades of colonization to the later decades of world wars, the powerful nations has one thing in mind, capturing energy reserves. They knew that one who would capture these reserves would rule the world in the days to come. Then came the era of freedom. Colonies started getting freed. Hence there was a race to develop and exist with the already developed and strong nations. The world was ravaged by the havocs of two world wars. There was lot to build and regain. These two factors led to an unparalleled growth rate. This required lots of energy. The vast reserves of energy started flowing to the extremes of the world to satisfy the quenching demand to grow. What was missing here was a farsightedness. No one gave a serious thought to the issue of a world with exhausted energy reserves. The energy rich nations kept pumping out the resources to trade and other nations kept buying to compete. At the same time there were a few nations who were not happy with this setup. They knew that this energy is not merely a trade item but a form absolute power. The only way to achieve this was to renew the era of colonialism. What the British Empire and other European nations had rivaled for in fifteenth century, there was a need to revisit the same concept. But the world was not ignorant today. With the advancements of media and a stronger concept of nationalism, it was not at all easy for modern superpowers to carry out similar accessions. This gave rise to an era of diplomatic colonialism. The later half of the last century saw several examples. The regular interference of superpowers in the internal affairs of West Asia is not without a reason. The prime focus here is quite obviously the major chunk of world energy resources. While the superpowers has slowly militarised this area, other nations have started getting skeptic of their concerns. Many of the national governments are mere puppets in the hands of this superpower. The story does not end here. Military force is not the only and deadly tactic against the world order, diplomacy plays a yet more vital role. In the race to develop, every nation is an enemy of the other. Added to this there are land disputes, cultural disputes and the monster of population looming over the so called developing and under developed nations. This has allowed the industrialized nations to play nasty politics with the region and made their task easier. The days are not far when we would wake up to the beginning of a new era of colonialism. The form would be much more severe and effects long lasting.

Crippling Kyoto and the World

2005-08-19T05:05:00.000Z

Background

Kyoto Protocol was intended to protect the world environment from the deadly effects of Green House Gases(GHG) emission, which is a byproduct of the industrial revolution and urbanisation. Covered under the umbrella of United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change. UNFCCC was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. All parties to the UNFCCC can sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to the UNFCCC cannot. This protocol suggested cutting down the GHG emissions to the participating nations. Originally the idea was to cut the emmision of Carbon Dioxide and five other GHG. It was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on march 15, 1999. The agreement came into force on Feb 16, 2005 following ratification by Russia on Nov 18, 2004.

The agreement had been ratified by 141 countries representing over 61% of global emissions. Countries do not need to sign the protocol in order to ratify it; signing is a symbolic act only.

Objectives

The Protocol is predicted to reduce the average global rise in temperature by somewhere between 0.02°C and 0.28°C by the year 2050 (source: Nature, Oct 2003), compared to the increase of 1.4°C to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100 predicted by the IPCC. The Protocol reaffirmed the principle that developed countries have to pay, and supply technology to, other countries for climate-related studies and projects. Each Annex I country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market.Countries also receive credits through various shared "clean energy" programs and "carbon dioxide sinks" in the form of forests and other systems that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change acknowledges the principle of a "common but differentiated responsibilities." This principle recognizes that,

The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries.
Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low.
The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.

In other words, China and other developing countries were exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to climate change.

Status

The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified.On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On Nov 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasises the uncertainties he asserts are present in the climate change issue. Furthermore, he is not happy with the details of the treaty.

The prospect of the U.S. staying outside the agreement influenced a number of other countries including Australia, Japan, and Canada to discuss whether they should ratify the agreement, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the U.S. While Japan and Canada ultimately decided to ratify the protocol, Australia's current government has said it will not ratify. Although the major opposition parties have committed to ratification if in a position to do so, Prime Minister Howard was reelected in the 2004 elections, so it seems unlikely that Australia will support the treaty in the near future.

Views

To evaluate the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol, it is necessary to compare global warming with and without the agreement. Several independent authors agree that the impact of the Kyoto protocol on global warming is likely to be very small. Even some defenders of the Kyoto Protocol agree that the impact of it is small, but they view it as a first step with more political than practical importance, for future reductions, perhaps of up to 70%. The UNEP says the effectiveness of Kyoto really depends on whether it lays a good foundation for the climate convention process, which might lead to greater reductions later.

The two major countries opposed to the treaty are the USA and Australia, based on the public statements of their governments. Some public policy experts who are skeptical of the global warming hypothesis see Kyoto as a scheme to either retard the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative. Some critics say there are problems with the underlying science. For example, Russia's influential Academy of Sciences (RAN) said the government's decision to approve the Kyoto Protocol was "purely political," and that it had "no scientific justification." The Russian experts told president Putin that Kyoto was scientifically unfounded nonsense. Anderai Illarianov, Putin's economic policy advisor, compared the Kyoto Protocol to fascism.

The 1997 Leipzig Declaration called the Kyoto Protocol "dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living". However, most of the signers of the Leipzig Declaration were non-scientists or lacked credentials in the specific field of climate research. Some argue that the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions and the standards it sets would be ineffective at curbing or slowing climate change. Beyond other arguments some theorists predict that even if the world's leading industrial nations agree to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that there would be no net change in emissions worldwide. If the industrialized countries cut their demand for fossil fuels to meet the emission reduction responsibilties, the law of supply and demand would tend to cause the world prices of coal, oil and gas go down, making fuel use more affordable for poorer nations. These theorists predict increased fuel use (primarily coal) in the "non-Annex I" countries, tending to offset the reductions of the "Annex I" countries.

Conclusion

The views in favour of the protocol and those against it hold strong grounds. But what we should be looking forword is towards a fair asessment of the implications of a world without the protocol and a world with it. The approach needs to be wholistic. If the major industrailised nations like the US and Australia choose to stay outside the realms of this protocol, other nations need to come back to the table and rethink. It would not take the world anywhere by merely creating issues out of Kyoto. A serious assesment of the global warming hypothesis need to be undertaken by a multinational body comprising of experts from all the geographies. The recommendations then need to be incorporated in practical solutions and roadmap drawn. The solution need to be binding not in the spirit of dictatorship but in the spirits of a combined effort towards healthy future. Not all nations ae going to be on the same platform from financial perspective. A balance of effects need to be created by supporting traeties covering all the areas influenced by Kyoto. The solution is definately not easy but initiatives need to be taken as the object under stake is our planet. The protocol is a sincere initiative which need to be nutured in a right direction.

Find more about Kyoto Protocol : http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html