Saturday, June 30, 2012

Gene Sharp: A dictator's worst nightmare - CNN.com

Gene Sharp: A dictator's worst nightmare - CNN.com:

Gene Sharp: A dictator's worst nightmare

By Mairi Mackay, CNN
updated 6:34 AM EDT, Mon June 25, 2012
At 84, American political scientist Gene Sharp has seen his lifelong work on nonviolent resistance echo around the world.
At 84, American political scientist Gene Sharp has seen his lifelong work on nonviolent resistance echo around the world.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Political scientist Gene Sharp has been called the father of nonviolent struggle
  • Sharp wrote a manual on how to overthrow dictatorships, "From Dictatorship to Democracy"
  • Sharp says no regime can survive without the support of its people
  • Arab Spring put a new spotlight on Sharp's work
London (CNN) -- It's a dark January evening, and in an anonymous townhouse near Paddington station, a man is talking about how to stage a revolution.
A young Iranian asks a question: "The youth in Iran are very disillusioned by the brutality of the violence used against them ... It has stopped all the street protest," she says. "What would you say to them? How can they get themselves organized again?"
The man thinks for a moment. He's an unlikely looking radical -- slightly stooped with white hair, his bent frame engulfed by the low chair he's sitting in.
When he opens his mouth to speak, all eyes in the room are fastened on him.
"You don't march down the street towards soldiers with machine guns. ... That's not a wise thing to do.
"But there are other things that are much more extreme. ... You could have everybody stay at home.
"Total silence of the city," he says lowering his voice to a whisper, punctuating the words with his bent hands, as if he's wiping out the noise himself.
"Everybody at home." The man's eyes scan the room. "Silence," he whispers again.
"You think the regime will notice?"
He looks around the room, nodding almost imperceptibly. On the wall behind his head hangs a huge print of the Hiroshima atomic bomb mushrooming into the sky.
This is political scientist Gene Sharp, and explosive ideas are his specialty.
Political Scientist Gene Sharp wrote a manual on how to overthrow dictatorships
Gene Sharp, who wrote "From Dictatorship to Democracy," says no regime can survive without the support of its people.
RUARIDH ARROW
He's been called the father of nonviolent struggle. He could be also described as a revolutionary's best friend. Or perhaps, more accurately, as a dictatorship's worst nightmare.
Now 84, the American academic has dedicated most of his life to the study of the bold, some might say reckless, idea that nonviolence -- rather than violence -- is the most effective way of overthrowing corrupt, repressive regimes.
On this winter night, he's talking at The Frontline Club, London's journalism hub, and it's standing room only.
Those without seats have crowded in at the back of the room under a huge photograph of a girl offering a flower to a line of riot police. She could have been inspired by Sharp's writings.
His practical manual on how to overthrow dictatorships, "From Dictatorship to Democracy," has spread like a virus since he wrote it 20 years ago and has been translated by activists into more than 30 languages.
He has also listed "198 Methods of Nonviolent Action" -- powerful, sometimes surprising, ways to tear power from the hands of regimes. Examples of their use by demonstrators and revolutionaries pop up over and over again.
In Ukraine, during the 2004 Orange Revolution that propelled opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko to electoral triumph, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators turned Kiev's Independence Square into a sea of orange flags -- the color of Yuschenko's campaign.
No. 18 on Sharp's list: Displays of flags and symbolic colors.
In Serbia, activists fighting then-President Slobodan Milosevic in the 2000 presidential elections printed "Gotov Je!" "He's Finished!" on stickers, T-shirts and posters to help the population understand he was not invincible.
No. 7 on Sharp's list: Slogans, caricatures and symbols.
In Cairo during last year's Egyptian revolution, protesters lived in a tent city in Tahrir Square, where they produced art, made music and sung anti-Hosni Mubarak songs. Many Egyptians would gather there for Friday prayers followed by mass political rallies.
Nos. 20, 37 and 47 on Sharp's list: Prayer and worship. Singing. Assembling to protest.
His ideas of revolution are based on an elegantly simple premise: No regime, not even the most brutally authoritarian, can survive without the support of its people. So, Sharp proposes, take it away.
Nonviolent action, he says, can eat away at a regime's pillars of power like termites in a tree. Eventually, the whole thing collapses.
For a half century, Sharp has refined the theory of nonviolent conflict and crafted the tools of his trade. His methods have liberated millions from tyranny -- and that makes regimes from Myanmar to Iran quake in their boots.
In 2009, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. During the Arab Spring uprisings, his methods were cited repeatedly.
The applause comes after "decades of hardships," he says. His methods have been dismissed and misinterpreted -- he's even been accused of working for the CIA.
But he's kept on with "the work," sometimes near penniless. He runs his organization, the Albert Einstein Institution, out of his home in East Boston because he cannot afford office space.
He'll give almost anyone a half hour of his time, even a high school kid doing a project. And the pilgrims come.
They come from all over the world because they want to change their situation. They come to hear the extraordinary ideas that Sharp has stubbornly built over a lifetime: ideas that have started revolutions.
The first rebellion
When Sharp graduated college in 1951, he moved to New York and worked odd jobs to put food on the table. He spent his spare time holed up in the New York City Library working on a book about the Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi, who he still loosely describes as his hero.
He was also dodging the draft.
The U.S. was fighting the Korean War, and Sharp was refusing to cooperate with the military draft board. He wouldn't report for physical examinations or carry a draft card.
"I had chosen a particular kind of conscientious objection, I guess the most obnoxious kind that existed -- civil disobedience."
It amounted to draft evasion, a criminal offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
His father, a Protestant minister, and mother were distraught. He was an outstanding student. Why was he throwing away his future?
"They put all kinds of strong, strong pressures on me," he remembers. But he continued. "It was just something I had to do and be done with it."
At first, Sharp applied for conscientious objector status but was refused. Then he changed his mind: "I realized I shouldn't have done it in the first place, I shouldn't have applied for it."
And when the board finally did give it to him, he wouldn't accept it.
By 1953, things weren't looking good for Sharp. He had been arrested by the FBI and locked up in a federal detention center, awaiting trial. But during this tough time, he had an unlikely and important ally: Albert Einstein.
Sharp was just 25, but already he displayed the intellectual chutzpah that would come to characterize his later work. He wrote to the physicist, asking him to pen the foreword to his book and telling him about his court case.
A notable pacifist in later life, Einstein shared Sharp's admiration for Gandhi. He agreed to write the foreword.
"I earnestly admire you for your moral strength and can only hope, although I really do not know, that I would have acted as you did, had I found myself in your situation," Einstein wrote in a letter dated April 2, 1953.
Einstein also wrote the foreword to Sharp's book, describing it as "the art of a born historian" and adding: "How is it possible that a young man was able to create such mature piece of work?"
Sharp used Einstein's name in a speech he made at his trial. In the end, he was sentenced to two years in prison.
His mother, Eve, who had traveled from Ohio for his sentencing also wrote to Einstein. And he wrote her back. Her son, he told her, was "irresistible in his noble sincerity." The letter was, Sharp says, "a big help" to his parents.
In the end, Sharp served nine months and 10 days.
"You count the days in those places," he says now, adding that if he hadn't followed his conscience, it would have been tragic for him.
"I would not have had the self-respect and internal integrity to go on and do in the future what might lie ahead."
Eureka moment
After his release from prison, Sharp concentrated on his work once again.
After a short spell in London as an editor at the pacifist journal Peace News, he moved to Norway where he joined the Institute for Social Research in Oslo.
"It was the first time I had financial support to do my own research and my own thinking and my own writing," says Sharp.
He had been invited by philosopher Arne Næss, who shared Sharp's interest in Gandhi and who, much later, would gain prominence as the father of environmentalism.
For a while, things looked promising. Næss persuaded the institute to fund a major research program into nonviolent conflict.
That's a great advantage -- to know what you don't know. You have a chance of learning -- if you want to and you're not arrogant.
Gene Sharp
But almost before it got off the ground, it was bypassed in favor of a new and more fashionable area of study: peace research.
To this day, Sharp has refused to allow his work to be absorbed into the grander narrative of Peace Studies, losing out on immeasurable funding.
"I still think a lot of the peace researchers are quite naïve and romantic under the guise of science," he says.
Amazingly, Sharp was kept on at the institute to do his own research for a couple of years. It was there that he laid the foundations of his work, tapping out page after page on his little portable typewriter.
But in Norway, Sharp also began to see the flaw in his work: He didn't understand political power.
"That's a great advantage -- to know what you don't know," he says now. "'You have a chance of learning -- if you want to and you're not arrogant."
So he returned to England to pursue a degree in political science at The University of Oxford. He studied under Alan Bullock, the first biographer of Adolf Hitler, reading everything from Machiavelli to Auguste Comte and David Hume; analyses of totalitarianism; histories of dictatorships.
And as he put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together, Sharp started revising his work and asking critical questions.
What gives a government -- even a repressive regime -- the power to rule? The answer, he realized, was people's belief in its power. Even dictatorships require the cooperation and obedience of the people they rule to stay in charge.
So, he reasoned, if you can identify the sources of a government's power -- people working in civil service, police and judges, even the army -- then you know what a dictatorship depends on for its existence.
Once he'd worked that out, Sharp went back to his theories of nonviolent struggle: "What is the nature of this technique?" he asked himself. "What are its methods ... different kinds of strikes, protests, boycotts, hunger strikes ... How does it work? It may fail. If it fails, why? If it succeeds, why?"
Suddenly, he got it. If a dictatorship depends on the cooperation of people and institutions, then all you have to do is shrink that support.
That's when the light went on in Sharp's head. That is exactly what nonviolent struggle does. By its very nature, nonviolent struggle destroys governments, even brutal dictatorships, politically.
It is a weapon as potent as a bomb or a gun -- maybe more so.
"That was the eureka moment," says Sharp. He remembers sitting in his little room in Oxford, shocked and, he says, relieved.
"This was not just a theory. This was actually something that had been applied in many different historical cases."
That moment would evolve into Sharp's first big text, "The Politics of Non-Violence," which was published in 1973. It was immediately hailed a classic and is still considered the definitive study of nonviolent struggle.
The viral pamphlet
Sharp's best-known work, "From Dictatorship to Democracy," is a how-to manual for overthrowing dictatorships.
It started life in Myanmar as incendiary advice printed on a few sheets of paper and surreptitiously exchanged by activists living under a military dictatorship. Those found in possession of the booklet were sentenced to seven years in prison.
From Myanmar, it was taken to Indonesia, then to Serbia. After that, Sharp says, he lost track of the book. But it took on a life of its own, spreading from activist to activist and eventually, some say, inspiring the uprisings known as the Arab Spring.
Ahmed Maher, a leading organizer of the April 6 Youth Movement that played a key role in last year's Egyptian revolution, told The New York Times that the group read about nonviolent conflict.
He said some members of the group traveled to Serbia to exchange ideas with members of The Centre for Applied Non Violent Actions and Strategies . The Belgrade-based institution was formed in 2004 by former members of Otpor!, the youth group that helped overthrow Slobodan Milosevic in 2000 using Sharp's methods.
Political Scientist Gene Sharp wrote a manual on how to overthrow dictatorships
Political Scientist Gene Sharp wrote a manual on how to overthrow dictatorships, "From Dictatorship to Democracy."
RUARIDH ARROW
Journalist and filmmaker Ruaridh Arrow, who made a documentary about Sharp's work called "How to Start a Revolution," was in Egypt during last year's revolution. He says a young activist told him Sharp's work had been widely distributed in Arabic, but he refused to talk about it on camera for fear that knowledge of the U.S. influence would destabilize the movement.
Sharp has written about 30 books and has a 900-page guide to self-liberation available for free download on his website. He says military people often have taken his work more seriously than pacifists.
"They could understand the clashing of forces and the use of strategy and tactics."
One such convert was Robert Helvey, a retired U.S. Army colonel who met Sharp at Harvard University in 1987.
Sharp was director of the Program for Nonviolent Sanctions at the Center for International Affairs at Harvard, and Helvey, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was a senior fellow there.
Helvey's experiences in the Vietnam War had convinced him that there had to be an alternative to killing people. After hearing Sharp speak, he was hooked. Myanmar, Helvey decided, was the perfect place to bring Sharp's theories.
Helvey had been a U.S. military attache in Rangoon (the former capital of Myanmar, now called Yangon) and had become sympathetic to groups opposing the regime. After leaving the army, he started doing consultancy work for the Karen National Union, conducting a series of courses on nonviolent struggle for the leadership of the democratic opposition.
The Burmese were amazed by Sharp's theories. They couldn't believe they had been fighting and killing for 20 years when there was an alternative.
The late U Tin Maung Win, a prominent exiled Burmese democrat, asked Sharp to write something for them.
"I couldn't write about Burma honestly because I didn't know Burma well," Sharp says, "and you should at least have the humility not to write about something you don't know anything about.
"So I had to write generically -- if there was a movement that wanted to bring a dictatorship to an end, how could they do it."
Clearly, the news is getting around that nonviolent struggle exists. And clearly it comes almost as a revelation to people that they are not helpless.
Gene Sharp
And so, "From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation" was born.
Today, the book has been translated into Amharic, Farsi, French, German, Serbian, Tibetan, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Arabic and dozens of other languages.
"Clearly the news is getting around that nonviolent struggle exists," says Sharp. "And clearly it comes almost as a revelation to people that they are not helpless."
Despite the Arab Spring pushing his work into the spotlight in 2011 like never before, Sharp remains skeptical about his actual, measurable influence.
"Even today, I'm credited with some major influence in Egypt, for example," he says. "I haven't seen hard data that would prove that."
Einstein's legacy
Today, Sharp spends much of his time running the Albert Einstein Institution -- the organization he founded in 1983 to spread his ideas and secure some much-needed funding, something he's struggled with his whole career.
"(Nonviolent struggle) was not credited with being realistic or with being powerful," he says.
It's a shoestring operation with outsize influence that he runs alongside Executive Director Jamila Raqib. She's his right hand; a subtle organizing influence, watchdog and second brain when Sharp's memory occasionally fails him.
She also supervises the people who come from all over the world to visit Sharp, allowing her to see his influence on those struggling against tyranny or living under a dictatorship.
They come from India, Syria, Russia, Sri Lanka -- from all over. They leave, says Raqib, "with stars in their eyes."
"There's something happening," she adds. "Oftentimes people would say, you know, 'This can't work for us, my situation is unique, my situation is worse, the repression is particularly harsh.'
"And what he does during those conversations ... they leave with the understanding that, you know ... a seed has been planted; a new possibility is there."
Sharp sees himself as a kind of mentor.
"I always refuse to tell them what to do. I'm trying to get them to realize that they understand maybe more than they thought they did.
"There's one phrase that's been quoted -- 'Dictatorships are never as strong as they think they are, and people are never as weak as they think they are.' "
Earlier this year, he released "Sharp's Dictionary of Power and Struggle: Language of Civil Resistance in Conflicts." He says the major unsolved problems of our time -- genocide, dictatorship, war -- require us to rethink the very language we use to define them.
His dictionary contains some 900 terms. It reconceives many words we take for granted -- such as power or defense. "The defense force -- sometimes they attack," Sharp says.
The institute also supervises translations of Sharp's work into other languages -- a task made more complicated by the precisely defined concepts.
They rely on activists for translating, rather than professional translators, because they understand the nature of the work the words describe.
For Sharp, the language is crucial: "If our language doesn't have clear meanings and accurate meanings, you can't think clearly.
"If you can't think clearly, you have no ability to evaluate or influence what happens. So the distortions of our language help make us helpless."
Sharp has no plans to settle into a comfortable retirement, not now, when things are finally taking off.
He admits that he "gets tired sometimes." But there's so much to do.
"The last few weeks I've been waking up in the middle of the night and finding some ideas ... or a solution to a problem I've been trying to solve for a week or two or three."
At the Frontline Club, the questions from the audience keep coming. Sharp's answers, more than anything, underscore his modesty and lack of pretention.
What about government defectors who want to join freedom groups, asks another Iranian. When should you allow them in and when should you reject them?
"An outsider like me can't tell you what to do," he says, "and if I did, you shouldn't believe me. Trust yourselves.
"You've got to be smart. This takes time and energy ... know your situation in depth."
For those who are serious, Sharp has a condensed version of what he says are the required readings of his work, a guide to self-liberation, available free on the Albert Einstein Institution website.
"It's only 900 pages in English," he deadpans, raising a chuckle.
"And if you're not interested in reading 900 pages, you're not interested in getting rid of the dictator," he retorts, whip smart. "Quite seriously."
At the end, people crowd forward to speak to him, kneeling at his chair as if he were royalty, asking him to sign copies of his books.
Later, as he's helped into his flecked black coat and handed his walking stick, he grins and says how much he enjoyed the evening: "The questions were good and hard."

'via Blog this'

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Modi and responsibility - Indian Express

Modi and responsibility - Indian Express:

Modi and responsibility


  
Return To India - Jobs  ReturnToIndia.comMoving, School, Property, Financial  free quotes and helpAds by Google

We need to discuss if the CM’s office should be an integrity institution
The response to the Ahmedabad metropolitan magistrate’s order, which says, “According to SIT, no offence has been established against any of the 58 persons listed in Zakia’s complaint”, has to be ethical and philosophical, not ideological. We must accept that a judgment has been given and legal procedures followed (properly or not will be examined in the ensuing challenge before a higher court) and hence without going into the issue of the evidence available — 40,000 pages of the SIT report — and whether it meets the standards of the Indian Evidence Act, we still have to take a position on the magistrate’s order.
Since former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri and 68 others were killed or burnt to death in the Gulberg Society riots, while there was a democratic government in power that drew its authority from the Indian Constitution, we are required to reconcile the hard fact of the carnage with the minimum guarantees of due process and constitutional protection to all citizens. This reconciling can be attempted by introducing another level of argument into the debate on the delivery of justice in Gujarat. Somebody must be held responsible for what happened.
There have been times in the evolution of our Constitution when the apex court has responded to the legal complexities of a case by formulating new judicial doctrines that have helped us make progress on the issue and thereby strengthen the constitutional order. Indian jurisprudence has grown with doctrines such as “basic structure”, “rarest of rare”, “guilty until proven innocent” or “right to life includes right to a clean environment”. Oddly enough, the doctrine that comes to mind, and seems to be relevant to the Gulberg Society massacre case, is that of “integrity institutions” formulated by the Kapadia court in the CVC case of P.J. Thomas.
The doctrine is simple: people who head “integrity institutions” must be above suspicion and even if the judicial system has not completed the process of examining the evidence and establishing the guilt or innocence of the person beyond reasonable doubt (as was the case with CVC Thomas), the fact that they are charged with a crime is sufficient basis to debar them from heading integrity institutions. If the doctrine is to be universally applied, the issues that need to be debated are whether the office of the chief minister is an integrity institution, what constitutes integrity, whether Narendra Modi has been charged (not whether he is guilty) and whether this debars him from occupying office. The Gulberg Society case places this moral burden on the public discourse, and on the apex court, to refine further its doctrine of “integrity institutions”. Since the court is seized with several issues of corruption that involve high offices and it is fairly active in its monitoring of these cases, it is perhaps apposite for it to tell us to which institutions the “integrity institution” doctrine applies.
The second issue is the “ethics of responsibility”. There are two aspects to this. The first is the acceptance by an individual in a position of power of the major lapses or commissions committed by the institution or agency under his or her watch. Ministers have been known to resign when trains or planes crashed when they headed the ministry in question. This ethic of “accepting responsibility” has unfortunately passed into oblivion. It belongs to another age. So let us move from the personal ethic of “accepting responsibility” to the public ethic of the “fixing of responsibility”, by political, social or legal process, on a person when a major crime has been committed by the institution or agency of which they are the head. The argument is simple. They could have prevented the crime from taking place, since they had all the necessary instruments at their command, and yet they did not. We have to consolidate this process of “fixing responsibility” for major crimes which requires us to initiate two exercises immediately.
First, we have to set up a process by which a crime can be named properly as a “major crime”, distinguishing between crimes that can be prevented and those that cannot. Was the Gujarat case a riot, a communal conflict, carnage, pogrom or genocide? The court must specify the elements, the basis and the institutional process by which a crime is to be named a major crime as has been done in international law in the case of a crime against humanity. This brings us to the second exercise. Once a case is so classified as a major crime, the person on whose watch it occurred should be debarred from public office. The constitutional order must trump democracy here. This will move the system towards better governance since the shame and fear of being debarred from public office will ensure effective exercise of authority and thereby better protection for the ordinary citizen.
Indian constitutional democracy must evolve such institutional innovations, just as South Africa did to deal with major crimes of the apartheid regime when it created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and not wait for the “law to take its course” to deal with cases such as that of the Gulberg Society. We need to reconcile law with justice.
This brings me to the third ethical argument, that of “social healing”. As forceful as the argument may be of “moving on” and “being practical and forgetting”, the pain, trauma and desire for justice can only be assuaged when there is a genuine gesture of remorse and a public symbol of reconciliation by those in power when the crime occurred. The state must express regret for what happened and build a grand monument to the victims. The state must acknowledge that innocent people lost their lives. It must create a public dialogue between the communities about the truth of 2002 and seek to rebuild the trust that was shattered. It must accept, not deny, what happened. Without this acceptance and remorse, social healing will not take place and the pain will not go away. We cannot have one section of our people in pain. This goes against the promise of our Independence struggle. We must not break that promise.
The author is director, Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla. Views are personal
express@expressindia.com

'via Blog this'

Business Line : Opinion : Natco ruling is a watershed

Business Line : Opinion : Natco ruling is a watershed:

Natco ruling is a watershed

P. T. JYOTHI DATTA
SHARE  ·   COMMENT   ·   PRINT   ·   T+  
The Patent Controller has signalled that critical medicines should be reasonably priced.
Life-saving medicines can turn cheaper, once compulsory licences are issued for patents.
Life-saving medicines can turn cheaper, once compulsory licences are issued for patents.
February 28: The day of the nation-wide trade union strike, few people are on the roads and in offices in Mumbai. But on the second floor of the Patent Controller's office, a handful of people sit around a horse-shoe-shaped table, in a post-lunch session. They are listening to final arguments on pharmaceutical company Natco's application, seeking a compulsory licence on Bayer's Nexavar, an advanced kidney cancer medicine. It is also the last hearing of Mr P. H. Kurian, as Patent Controller General.
Subsequently, at noon, on March 12, the news breaking and burning wires in cyberspace is — India grants its first-ever compulsory licence to pharmaceutical company Natco. The Hyderabad-based company can now make and sell its chemically-similar or generic copy of Nexavar to patients in India. And it will do so, at a price that is 97 per cent less than the price of the original medicine. The compulsory licensing (CL) judgment also pegs royalty that Natco will pay Bayer at six per cent of net sales.
Bayer sells Nexavar at Rs 2.8 lakh for a month's supply of 120 tablets, while Natco will sell that medicine at Rs 8,800. Also in the fray here is Cipla — which sells its generic version of Nexavar at Rs 28,000 per month — but the company is at present fighting a patent-infringement case filed against it by Bayer, at the Delhi High Court.

MATURE DECISION

The Patent Controller's judgment is a path-breaker, as it signals the Government's decision to cast its lot in favour of making a critical and expensive medicine more affordable to the public. It also reflects the maturing of the Patent office, as the intellectual property or IP-driven global community watches decisions coming from of India — since it shoulders the responsibility of being a pharmacy to the international community.
If the CL judgment will open the floodgates for more generic pharmacy companies to explore this route, is something only time will unravel. But it illustrates how the amended Patents Act (2005) is being put to test from different quarters.
The CL judgment also comes in the run-up to the final hearings on another long-drawn benchmark case, at the Supreme Court, on Novartis' cancer medicine Glivec. While Novartis contests the rejection of its patent application on Glivec — in the process, The Patents Act is being put through a high-profile and globally significant test.

PRICE CORNERSTONE

On Nexavar, it is expected that Bayer would go in for a legal review of the CL judgment. But that doesn't take away from the point being hammered home by the Government through the grant of the CL — there is no getting away from the reality of pricing medicines “reasonably”. The bargain is, if the medicine is for the public, what good is it if the public cannot access it, says intellectual property expert Mr Shamnad Basheer. The judgment, a baby step for Natco, is, in fact, a giant leap for rest of the generic pharmaceutical companies, he says. But the principle behind the judgment, to make a product accessible to a larger public, can be used for the rest of the sectors as well, he points out.
A CL is granted under the amended Indian Patents Act (2005), and in the pharmaceutical context, it allows a generic pharmaceutical company to make a copy of a patented medicine, on the payment of royalty to the innovator. Royalty payment is in recognition of the investments the innovator must have put into researching and developing the original medicine. Mr Basheer further clarifies the situations that trigger a CL. In the case of a health emergency, the Government steps in and overruns a company's patent, giving more companies the right to make the said medicine, if it is in the interest of public health.
During the anthrax scare in 2001, the United States government was at the brink of considering overrunning Bayer's patent on Ciprofloxacin, to get the antibiotic at lower prices from the rest of the companies, so more people could access it.
A patent allows a company or the inventor an exclusive monopoly on the product for 20 years — but the alternate situation, where a CL is issued, is when a third party knocks at the door of the Government, on the grounds that the patent-holder isn't serving the local market adequately, Basheer explains. In fact, the Nexavar CL judgment reasons that Bayer hadn't “worked” its patent or manufactured Nexavar locally, and its imported quantities weren't enough to serve the local market. In fact, it served only 2 per cent of more than 8,000 patients who needed the medicine locally, the judgment said.
Companies are allowed to import medicines, but you need to make it affordable to the public, says Dr Prabuddha Ganguli, a patent expert and head of Vision-IPR. Lauding the judgment, he points out that the patentee (Bayer) had conceded it didn't comply with the reasonable requirements of the public. “From that stand-point it is suicidal”, he says. The patent-holder should have voluntarily reduced prices, or given a voluntary licence, allowing another company to make the product at lower prices, but that too didn't happen.
The other “strategic error” on the part of the patentee is that it offered the medicine at a subsidised cost, but under certain conditions — to patients recommended by an oncologist. “Benevolence is no substitute to bypass the law,” Dr Ganguli says.
The lesson for patent-holders is to work their patents, as the Indian patent office has matured, and is taking a serious note of such issues, he points out. Also, multinational companies will now be more judicious in the declarations they are mandated to make to the Patent office — on what they are doing with their patents.
A price rethink is also in order, as MNCs increasingly slant to differential pricing for different countries. In fact, companies like GlaxoSmithKline, are already pricing products differently in different markets, depending on the paying capacity of the people.
But the Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI), a platform largely for foreign companies, is disappointed with the CL judgment. “Compulsory licences should be used only in exceptional circumstances, such as in times of a national health crisis. If used arbitrarily, compulsory licences will serve to undermine the innovative pharmaceutical industry and will be to the long-term detriment of the patient,” says Mr Ranjit Shahani, OPPI President, and the India-head of Novartis. For better access, you need improved healthcare infrastructure and distribution, he points out.

POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY

While the CL judgment gets debated threadbare, the man who scripted it — Mr Kurian, leaves the Patent office, “a satisfied man”. In his three-plus years as its head, he has cleaned it up, brought in more transparency, technology and efficiency, making the patent office more “friendly” to the public. The day the CL judgment was made public, Mr Kurian handed charge to the new man in, Mr Chaitanya Prasad.
Steering clear of discussing the piping-hot judgment, Mr Kurian instead pulls out a book from his black bag — Gurucharan Das' The difficulty of being good – On the subtle art of Dharma — from where he draws inspiration. Quoting Yudhishtra, Kurian explains his own actions: “I act because I must.”
Some see Mr Kurian's CL judgment as an exit in a blaze of glory. Some others say he leaves the office more transparent and efficient, than when he took charge. In Kurian's own words, quoting former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, he says, “Power is nothing but responsibility transferred to you and to be transferred to someone else… I consider power as a responsibility transferred to me, in this case, by the public, by the parliament, by public opinion.”
Or as Dr Ganguli puts it, it's more than the CL judgment. Mr Kurian leaves after having brought in a purpose and a sense of pride in the Patent office.

'via Blog this'

Sunday, June 10, 2012

The Ethiopian Land Giveaway By Graham Peebles

The Ethiopian Land Giveaway By Graham Peebles:

The Ethiopian Land Giveaway
By Graham Peebles
01 June, 2012
Countercurrents.org
It is a colonial phenomenon, appropriate land for the needs of the colonists and to hell with those living upon the land, indigenous and at home. Might is right, military or indeed economic. The power of the dollar rules supreme in a world built upon the acquisition of the material, the perpetuation of desire and the entrapment of the human spirit.
Africa has for long been the object of western domination, control and usury, under the British, French, and Portuguese of old. Now the ‘new rulers of the World’ large corporations from America, China, Japan, Middle Eastern States, India and Europe, are engaged in extensive land acquisitions in developing countries. The vast majority of available land is in Sub-Saharan Africa where, according to The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues report, ‘The Growing demand for Land, Risks and Opportunities for Smallholder Farmers’ “80 per cent (of worldwide land) –about 2 billion hectares that is potentially available for expanded rain-fed crop production” is thought to be. Huge industrial agricultural centres are being created, off shore farms, producing crops for the investors home market. Indigenous people, subsistence farmers and pastoralists are forced off the land, the natural environment is levelled, purging the land of wildlife and destroying small rural communities, that have lived, worked and cared for the land for centuries. The numbers of people potentially affected by the land grab and its impact on the environment is staggering. The UN in it’s report states “By 2020, an estimated 135 million people may be driven from their land as a result of soil degradation, with 60 million in sub-Saharan Africa alone.”
This contemporary ‘Land Grab’ has come about as a result of food shortages, the financial meltdown in 2008 and in light of the United Nations world population forecast of 9.2 billion people by 2050, and three main resulting pressures. 1. Food insecure nations – particularly Middle Eastern and Asian countries, seeking to stabilise their food supply. 2. To meet the growing worldwide demand for agro-fuels and thirdly, by the rise in investment in land and soft commodities, such as coffee, cocoa, sugar, corn, wheat, soya and fruit. Often investors are simply speculators seeking to make a fast or indeed slow buck, by ‘Land Banking’, sitting on the asset waiting and watching for the price to inflate, then selling, the Oakland Institute in its report ‘The Great land Grab’ found “along with hedge funds and speculators, some public universities and pension funds are among those in on the land rush, eyeing returns of 20 to as much as 40%”. Land not as home, land as a chip, to be thrown upon the international gambling table of commercialisation.
Chopping trees cutting Costs
As well we know everything and indeed everyone ‘has its price’. Even the people and land of a country, sold into destitution by governments motivated by distorted notions of development, where people, traditional lifestyles and the environment come a distant second to roads, industrialisation and the raping of the land. People too poor to hold on to their dignity, too weak in a world built and run on power and might, to protest and demand justice for themselves and their families and rounded, responsible husbandry for the environment. And the price of land, well as one would expect bargain basement, with 99 year leases the norm and various government incentive packages. In some cases the land is literally being given away, as the Oakland Institute (OI) states in its report ‘The Great land Grab’ “In Mali one investment group was able to secure 1000,000 hectares (ha) of fertile land for a 50 year term for free. Elsewhere “$2.00 a hectare (roughly equal to two Olympic size athletic grounds) is the going rate.” According to The Guardian (21/3/2011) “The lowest prices are in Africa, where, says the World Bank, at least 35 million hectares of land has been bought or leased. Other groups, including, Friends of the Earth say the figure is higher.”
Ethiopia. For sale
The Ethiopian government, through the Agricultural Investment Support Directorate is at the forefront of this African Land Sale. Crops familiar to the area are often grown, such as maize, sesame, sorghum, in addition to wheat and rice. All let us state clearly for export to Saudi Arabia, India, China etc, to be sold within the home market, benefitting the people of Ethiopia not.
The Oakland Institute research “shows that at least 3,619,509ha of land (an area just smaller than Belgium) have been transferred to investors, although the actual number may be higher.” The government claims that the land available for lease is unused and surplus, this is disingenuous nonsense. Large areas of land are in fact already cultivated by smallholders subsistence farmers and pastoralists using land for grazing, all of which are un-ceremonially evicted. Villages are destroyed and indigenous people expelled from their homeland and forced into large scale villagization programmes. Human Rights Watch (HRW) in its report ‘Waiting Here For Death’ states, “The Ethiopian federal government’s current villagization program is occurring in four regions—Gambella, Benishangul-Gumuz, Somali, and Afar. This involves the resettlement of approximately 1.5 million people throughout the lowland areas of the country—500,000 in Somali region, 500,000 in Afar region, 225,000 in Benishangul-Gumuz and 225,000 in Gambella.” Imposed movement then, often applied with force, in order to provide pristine land, free of any inconveniences to the corporate allies.
Level growing field
There are five areas of prime, fertile land up for grabs. Gambella is the largest where unbelievably a third of the region (around 800,000 hectares) is available. Indian corporations have already snapped up 352,000 hectares (ha) and around 900 foreign investors have so far taken advantage of this giveaway. Afar, The Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region, where 200,000 hectares has been leased or sold, Oromia, where three Indian companies have leased a total of 138,000 ha and Amhara, make up the reduced to clear rail.
With the land grab crucially goes water – and the appropriation of this vital resource, both surface and ground water. Investors are allowed to do what they will with the land they lease, this includes diverting rivers, digging canals from existing water sources, building dams and drilling bore holes. The Oakland Institute in its report ‘Land Investment in Ethiopia quotes Saudi Star stating “that water will be their biggest issue, and numerous plans are being established (including the construction of 30 km of cement-lined canals and another dam on the Alwero River).” There are no controls imposed on foreign corporations whatsoever and no payment structure for ‘appropriating’ water is in place. These politically favoured investors are being offered carte blanche. Water supplies in Ethiopia are poor, even in the capital, where irregular mains flow is common in many neighbourhoods. There is water galore 90% of the Nile e.g. flows through Ethiopia, distribution though is inconsistent, maintained to be so some say, the people drained, exhausted and kept firmly in their place.
In Gambella the government in 2011 offered huge areas of land to Bangalore-based food company Karuturi Global for the equivalent of $1.16 per hectare, to lease more than 2,500 sq. km (1,000 sq. miles) of virgin, fertile land for more than 50 years. This cost compared to an average rate of $340 per ha in the Punjab district of India, no wonder then that the CEO of Karuturi described “the incentives available to the floriculture industry in Ethiopia as “mouthwatering,” including low air freights on the state-owned Ethiopian airlines, tax holidays, hassle-free entry into the industry at very low lease rates, tax holidays, and lack of duties," reports Oakland in its Ethiopia report. Up to 60,000 workers will be employed by Karuturi, who are paying local people less than $1 a day, which is well below the level of extreme poverty set by the World bank. The company will cultivate according to The Guardian 21st March 2011 “20,000 hectares of oil palm, 15,000 hectares of sugar cane and 40,000 hectares of rice, edible oils and maize and cotton… “We could feed a nation here”, says Karmjeet Sekhon, Karuturi project manager. Land and people for a few rupees, cushioned by a cocktail of sweeteners offered by the Ethiopian government, allowing the decimation of the environment and the destruction of lifestyles – generations old. And in a hurry, The Guardian found “the [land] concessions are being worked [by Karuturi] at a breakneck pace, with giant tractors and heavy machinery clearing trees, draining swamps and ploughing the land in time to catch the next growing season. Forests across hundreds of square km are being clear-felled and burned to the dismay of locals and environmentalists concerned about the fate of the region's rich wildlife.”
Unstable supply of staples
Around five million people in Ethiopia rely on food aid and live with constant food insecurity that will only increase under the land grab bonanza. According to the Oakland Institutes report “commercial investment will increase rates of food insecurity in the vicinity of the land investments” and Open Democracy reports an interview with Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, for the Financial Times (7 August 2008), in which he ‘predicted that “large-scale farming could bring some employment, but “not much”. It would not solve the problem of food insecurity.” Intensifying food insecurity is the transfer of vast areas of land used for the cultivation of traditional staples such as Teff to other crops. This is largely responsible for costs of Teff (used to make injera – the daily bread) quadrupling in the last four years. The Guardian (Monday 23 April 2012) reports Friends of the Earth International "The result (of land sell offs) has often been … people forced off land they have traditionally farmed for generations, more rural poverty and greater risk of food shortages" Food security will be realised when local smallholders are encouraged to farm their land, given financial support, machinery and the needed technology, as Oxfam in its report ‘Land Power Rights’ points out, “Small-scale producers, particularly women, can indeed play a crucial role in poverty reduction and food security. But to do so, they need investment in infrastructure, markets, processing, storage, extension, and research.”
Keep development small, for, of, and close to the people in need, and see them flourish.
Land rights, human cost, environmental damage
The land rights of the indigenous people of Ethiopia are, as one would expect somewhat ambiguous. As a legacy of the socialist dictatorship of the 1960s and ‘70s, the government technically owns all land. However there is protection in law for indigenous people. The Ethiopian constitution Article 40, 3 states “Land is a common property of the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia and shall not be subject to sale or to other means of exchange. And 4) “Ethiopian peasants have right to obtain land without payment and the protection against eviction from their possession.” And in regard to pastoralists affected by the land sell off, paragraph 5) “Ethiopian pastoralists have the right to free land for grazing and cultivation as well as the right not to be displaced from their own lands.”
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Ethiopia signed in 2007, making it a legally binding document, states in Article 26/1. “Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources, which they have traditionally owned, occupied or other- wise used or acquired.” And paragraph 2.”Indigenous peoples have the right to own, use, develop and control the lands, territories and resources that they possess by reason of traditional ownership or other traditional occupation or use, as well as those which they have otherwise acquired.” The declaration also outlines compensation measures for landowners. Article 28/1. “Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.” Paragraph 2. “Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources 10equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.”
The law it would appear is clear, implementation and respect for its content is required, and should be demanded of the ruling EPRDF by the donor countries to Ethiopia.
Land and People
People are not being consulted or democratically included in the decisions to transform their homeland. This contravenes the Ethiopian constitution, that states in Article 92/3. “People have the right to full consultation and to the expression of views in the planning and implementations of environmental policies and projects that affect them directly”. Hollow words to those being evicted from their land, like Omot Ochan a villager, from the Anuak tribe whose family has lived in the forest near the Baro river in Gambella for ten generations. Speaking to The Observer Sunday 20 May 2012, he “insisted Saudi Star had no right to be in his forest. The company had not even told the villagers that it was going to dig a canal across their land. "Nobody came to tell us what was happening." He goes on to say "This land belonged to our father. All round here is ours. For two days' walk." Well that was the case until the Government in their infallible wisdom leased some 10,000ha to their friend, the Ethiopian born Saudi Arabian oil multi millionaire, Sheik Al Moudi (In 2011, Fortune magazine put his wealth at more than $12bn) to grow rice for his Saudi Star Company. Omot continued, "two years ago, the company began chopping down the forest and the bees went away. The bees need thick forest. We used to sell honey. We used to hunt with dogs too. But after the farm came, the animals here disappeared. Now we only have fish to sell." And with the company draining the wetlands, the fish will probably be gone soon, too. Sheik Al Moudi plans to export over a million tonnes of rice a year to Saudi Arabia. To ease relations with the Meles regime and as The Observer states “to smooth the wheels of commerce, Amoudi has recruited one of Zenawi's former ministers, Haile Assegdie, as chief executive of Saudi Star.”
Traditional land rights for people who have lived on the land in Gamabella and elsewhere for centuries are being ignored and in a country where all manner of human rights are routinely violated, legally binding compensations are not being paid.
Government drafted lease agreements with investors state the Meles regime will hand over the land free of any ‘encumbrances’ – people and property that means, anyone living or using the land to graze their livestock or pastoralists moving through. The Independent 18th January 2012 reports “Ethiopia is forcing tens of thousands of people off their land so it can lease it to foreign investors, leaving former landowners destitute and in some cases starving.” The Government says any movement is voluntary and not enforced, a clear distortion of the facts. HRW in their report confirms the government’s criminality “mass displacement to make way for commercial agriculture in the absence of a proper legal process contravenes Ethiopia’s constitution and violates the rights of indigenous peoples under international law.”
A price worth paying it would seem, to the Ethiopian government and those multi nationals appropriating the land, seeing a market and capitalizing on the countries need for dollars. Desperate in a world propelled by growth to maximize the value of every so called asset, even if it means prostituting the land, sacrificing the native people and destroying the natural environment.
Graham Peebles is Director of The Create Trust, www.thecreatetrust.org A UK registered charity (1115157). Running education and social development programmes, supporting fundamental Social change and the human rights of individuals in acute need. Contact , E: graham@thecreatetrust.org

'via Blog this'