NEW DELHI – In India’s Islamic family law codes, a man can divorce his wife via email, or from another city without her knowledge. By simply saying the “talaq” (the Arabic world for divorce) three times, he can end his marriage in seconds and kick his wife out the same day.

Being so simple, divorce can sometimes happen accidentally, as in Aftab Ansari’s case. After a nasty marital fight, Mr. Ansari unknowingly muttered the word three times in his sleep. A waking nightmare followed.

His wife, Sohela, heard what was said. Knowing that he hadn’t actually divorced her, but upset nonetheless, she told a friend about it the next day. People in the village gossiped about it, and the matter soon reached local Islamic religious leaders. They decreed that divorce had taken place and tried to separate the couple by force, even though both husband and wife wished to remain together. When the couple defied the ruling, they were threatened.
The case is an extreme example of the tension building in India’s pluralistic democracy over a delicate issue: Where does a religious freedom end and the rule of law begin?

Having given Muslims the right to follow their own religious laws in the Shariat Application Act of 1937 (including polygamy and triple talaq), India’s courts are now rethinking this delegation of authority. Meanwhile, among India’s Muslims, women are becoming educated and starting to demand their rights from a grudging religious establishment.

Islamic Courts Challenged

Last year, the Supreme Court of India ordered that the Islamic court system, known as Dar-ul Qazas, be examined and possibly dismantled in response to a public-interest lawsuit claiming that the religious courts are subverting the judicial system.

The complaint and continuing inquiry began after a ruling by a village-based Islamic court in a rape case caused a national furor. The court ruled that a woman raped by her father-in-law had effectively divorced her husband by having relations with another man and must marry the rapist. The most powerful Islamic law organization in the country, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), supported the decision and even alleged that the woman lied about being raped.
Islamic Courts Cheap
The AIMLB has no legal standing and is simply supposed to advise people on Koranic Law. In practice, though, because it runs most of the Islamic courts, its decisions are highly influential. As the Indian state court system is usually highly inefficient and slow, hiring lawyers and waiting years for a case to be heard is often out of the question for poor Muslims. Islamic courts are a cheap, fast option used for small disputes.

In poor or remote communities, there are no courts at all, and the local cleric or village council — knowledgeable or not of the constitution or Koran — serves as judge and jury. The state and its systems are so distant from these villagers that verdicts announced in the local mosque must be followed.

Such was the Ansari case. Not accepting the judgment and fearing the wrath of religious leaders and their fellow villagers, they had their marriage registered in court.

India is the only country in the world where triple talaq divorce is legal; even stricter Islamic countries have abolished it. The Koran specifies that a waiting period of one month is required between each utterance of “talaq” — allowing tempers to cool and consequences to be considered.

It was in the 1800s that a British colonial court allowed a triple talaq all at once without the wife being present. The ruling somehow stuck even after India’s independence in 1947.

“This had become the tradition. Yet how much did the (colonial) council understand Islamic law?” asked Bombay High Court advocate Nilofar Akhtar, who specializes in family law.

Islamic marriage is solemnized with the signing of a “nikahnama,” a marriage contract prescribed in the Koran.

When the AIMPLB drew up a model nikahnama this year, women’s groups were outraged. They had long sought revocation of the triple talaq, as well as making the payment of alimony mandatory and giving women the right to initiate a divorce. None of these is included in the document, which added to the confusion by advising that triple talaq be avoided “at all costs unless circumstances become highly compelling.”

Mrs. Akhtar and other advocates made another version of a model nikahnama, one much more liberal than the AIMPLB’s. “Anyone can draw it up… It is actually a personal document in which you can put numerous stipulations. There is a great difference between the AIMPLB’s nikahnama and mine.”

In a nikahnama, a bride can demand larger “mehr” (a dowry given to her by her husband) and even the right to divorce. However, most Muslim women in India are unaware of these rights. But thanks to a new initiative from the International Federation of Electoral Systems (IFES), a Washington-based non-profit organization, this is slowly changing.

In a house built behind the Sufi shrine at Ajmer in Rajasthan state, 50 Muslim women are learning their Koranic and constitutional rights. K.D. Khan, a lawyer who once ran the famous shrine, urges the women to make sure their daughters approve of the man they will marry and write each daughter’s nikahnama so that she can divorce and get alimony.

“Why aren’t women allowed to give talaq?” Mr. Khan asked a crowd. “They are allowed to get married, aren’t they?” They titter, young girls and old women whispering among themselves.

“These programs are in great demand because few women know these laws, and many are illiterate and have not read the Koran,” said Shagufta Khan, coordinator of the program in Rajasthan.

IFES has conducted more than 70 such sessions in Rajasthan and the southern state of Karnataka. The information sessions are not just for women: IFES has run many for men and Islamic religious judges.

How does the Washington group deal with opposition? IFES contacts all orthodox groups and clergy and provides a syllabus of what will be taught. It also hires activists known to the community. Since nearly all this taught can be found in the Koran or the Indian Constitution, its hard to object to it.

But program director Suraiya Tabbassum knows she can’t push too far. The women “can’t change overnight,” she said. Touchy topics such as polygamy are often avoided in the interest of avoiding discord.

Change may seem slow but Mrs. Tabbassum says it is happening: “I foresee the triple talaq will be out in the near future. Everyone us shouting about that.” In a survey she conducted in India Muslim communities, most male and female respondents agreed that the system of triple talaq could not be justified.

Other signs of equality have come as well, many from the camps themselves and the information women have gleaned there.

Informed that they have the right to ask for the dowry written into their marriage contracts, many women participants went back and asked their husbands to give it to them that very night. Most got jewelry and some, even cash.

Mrs. Tabbassum told of one women who examined her marriage contract to find she had been promised just two cents as mehr. Undeterred, she asked for it immediately and bought herself a couple of tea.

Published in The Washington Times

NEW DELHI – From small beginnings less than 40 years ago, India’s national space program has come far. Now, it just has 238,855 miles to go – all the way to the moon.

Chandrayaan-1, India’s unmanned moon mission set for 2007, would make India the fourth country to reach the moon, after the United States, Russia and Japan.

Its main objective is to provide a three-dimension, high-resolution map of the entire lunar surface from orbit, and it will also include a U.S. payload that may finally be able to discover evidence of water on the moon.

But almost as important, it would bring this developing nation into the ranks of superpowers that have reached deep space.
Krishnaswamy Kasturirangan was chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) when the mission was conceived. In an interview with India Today magazine in 2000 he said: “If we go ahead, it will demonstrate to the world that India is capable of taking up a complex mission that is the cutting edge of space research.” India launched its first rocket in 1963, fewer than 20 years after gaining independence from Britain. In 1969, the ISRO was established.

Though it has not yet conducted a manned space mission (the first Indian in space was Rakesh Sharma, who went up with a Soviet mission in 1984), the ISRO has focused on low-cost satellites and developing remote sensing for imaging and mapping.

The Chandrayaan-1 mission is by far one of India’s most ambitious efforts. Its running neck-and-neck with the Chinese moon orbiter mission, proposed for 2007-2008. However, the Chinese mission does not include any contact with the lunar surface and a lander isn’t expected until 2010.

Race With China Denied

ISRO Chairman G. Madhavan Nair denies that India and China are in a race to space. “With a large scientific community and with substantial capability to build and launch satellites… Chandrayaan-1 is a logical step for India,” he said.

The mission Chandrayaan, which means “moon craft” in Sanskrit, will touch the moon, but with something more like a cargo drop than a robotic probe. The impact of the 55-pound load on the surface of the moon will be monitored, and its contents will evaluate the makeup of the atmosphere and take close-up photographs of the surface. Mostly, it will be a test of Indian capabilities for a potential future landing.

The 1,157-pound satellite will be place in orbit around the moon and will have a lifetime of two years. The mission cost is equivalent to about $89 million.

George Joseph, a retired ISRO leader who heads the scientific advisory board for Chandrayaan-1, said that though 98 percent of the moon has already been mapped, most of it was done to identify landing spots, which are the only parts mapped in high resolution. The ISRO also plans to do chemical mapping of the entire lunar surface for elements such as aluminum, calcium and iron, all of which would be essential resources for future colonization.

The mission will carry U.S. and European scientific devices. One American device to be on board is a moon mineralogy mapper developed by Brown University and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Another will be a miniature synthetic aperture radar from Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins University to map the polar landscape and suspected ice deposits.

While water is thought to be frozen in deep craters on the moon, there is no solid evidence. The U.S. lunar prospector, launched in 1998, was plunged into the moon to try to kick up enough debris to show whether water particles were present. None were detected.

PSLV With Nukes?

India’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV), which has already put many satellites into space, will be used to send Chandrayaan-1 to the moon. Many journalists and space watchers have pointed out that using PSLV will help India refine its long-range missile-guidance and control systems, and it is thought that the PSLV, if re-engineered, would be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

M. Krishnamurthy, the ISRO public relations officer, maintains that the defense and space departments are entirely separate organizations.

India’s space forays have not only proved the country’s ability, they’ve proved economical as well. Indian space missions, especially those launched from reusable vehicles like the PSLV, are about 30 percent cheaper than the same class of vehicles elsewhere, Mr. Krishnamurthy said.

Space ‘Outsourcing’

India lunched German and South Korean satellites in 1999, and has since been known for putting commercial satellites into space at a cost savings of thousands of dollars per pound.

Still, many people criticize the Indian government for spending money on space when much of its population lives in extreme poverty. Mr. Joseph, the scientific advisory board leader, disagrees. He echoes the sentiments of Vikram Sarabhai, the man considered to be the father of India’s space program and the first director of the ISRO. “It’s not whether we can afford to do it, it’s whether we can afford not to do it,” Mr. Joseph said. “Science always leads to more productive technologies,” he added.

India does have many satellites for social welfare in space. It recently launched EDUSAT, which will be used for long-distance education broadcasts to villages.

In spite of its many satellites, the moon mission will be India’s first voyage into deep space, and the costs will be steep. But making room for foreign payloads has certainly given the voyage more international appeal.

Opportunities Abound

Mr. Nair, the ISRO chairman, agreed that “India’s Chandrayaan-1 lunar mission offers an outstanding opportunity to begin cooperation in space exploration” and says that the cooperation of the Indo-US joint working group, which was set up in 2004, on this mission will further the goals of both countries in space.

NASA thinks its participation in this program will be an important contribution to the Vision for U.S. Space Exploration announced by President Bush. Beyond satellite launches, India may well see success in cooperating with other space agencies to handle software, data and analysis.

There is a lot of human labor involved in space systems, said Mr. Joseph, and much of it involves sifting through the reams of data that satellites and probes transmit daily. He thinks that since the salaries of Indian scientists are much lower than those in the West, and India has a large scientific talent pool, this could be an opportunity for the country in the future.

At the Indian Science Congress in 2003, there was even discussion of the United States using Indian scientists to sift through voluminous U.S. satellite data. The ISRO confirmed that talks on this subject are continuing. Mr. Joseph’s opinion is that the future of successful international research in space will be “not competing, but complimentary. Consolidation will lessen cost and benefit all mankind.”

Published in The Washington Times, September 2005

WASHINGTON DC – A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the U.S. and China this week to improve the safety of Chinese food exports opens the possibility that the U.S. government will ultimately ease scrutiny for the covered high-risk Chinese food items in a way that it has refused to offer such trading partners as Canada, according to former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official Benjamin England.

Under the agreement, China’s General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) will establish a mandatory registration system for exporters and set up an export certification program for four product categories such as farm-raised fish and pet food. If AQSIQ determines a shipment meets the requirements of the FDA, it shall issue a certificate that contains a unique identifying number. This will be done electronically to prevent counterfeiting.

The gist of the program is to establish a quality control mechanism for the covered foods, and the text states specifically that neither party is obligated to make decisions on imports based on this new system.

But a provision in the attached annex states that FDA could use the information generated by the system to ultimately reduce U.S. border inspections, according to England, now an attorney with Jones Walker. Annex Provision B, Section II, Paragraph 2 says the success of the new program could “inform HHS/FDA import entry decisions, which may include a reduction in the rate of examination of Designated Covered Products that are part of the registration and/or certification program.”

If implemented, it would give special treatment to products from China that the U.S. has refused to such trading partners as Canada and Mexico, who have unsuccessfully pressed the U.S. government to reduce border scrutiny for their exports in exchange for a certification program to ensure safety, according to England.

England also pointed out that the Chinese items in question have had serious food safety problems in the past, to the point of killing U.S. pets earlier this year. “The only way you get a certification program out of the FDA is to import bad stuff and kill some cats and dogs,” England said.

An Health and Human Services spokesman said that the administration’s interagency working group on import safety had developed new approaches to import safety that include creating a risk-based system for inspections. The spokesman said, “Our months-long review of the U.S. system contributed significantly to seeing new ways we might work with our trading partners to improve import processes. Our ongoing negotiations with China at the time presented a timely opportunity to integrate some of these new approaches, such as a certification system.” He also confirmed that the covered products from China may eventually be subject to less scrutiny if the program proves successful.

The spokesman held open the possibility that similar approaches could extended to other countries as well, but said “it’s premature to attempt to characterize what future arrangements or agreeements may look like that we might pursue with other countries.”

The agreement now covers food and feed ingredients such as wheat gluten, low-acid canned products or acidified food such as canned mushrooms, pet food and farm-raised fish other than molluscan shellfish. The details of which exact products will be included will be determined by the parties later, according to the text. Jean Halloran of the Consumers Union criticized the agreement for excluding other Chinese products that have had safety problems in the past, such as apple juice.

John Connelly, president of the National Fisheries Institute, says his members welcome the direction of the agreement but have questions about its implementation. He also said that his group is prepared to work with Congress to get the FDA the authority it needs to make the agreement more effective.

According to Connelly, a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) certificate is already required for seafood exports from China, and that further oversight by Chinese authorities would be positive to address the problem of antibiotics present in some seafood.

England also raised a question about the legality of the information sharing provisions of the new MOA, which says the U.S. will provide to the Chinese government “a list of all establishments registered with HHS/FDA.” This is to help China in its efforts to ensure the safety of U.S. foods imported into its market.

Under the Bioterrorism Act, the information in the FDA’s food producer registration system is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, according to England. He said it is possible that FDA may share the information with China under some other legal authority, but questioned whether U.S. food companies would be comfortable with this.

More fundamentally, other observers besides England said it is unclear how much weight the FDA can give to the Chinese certificates in its handling of these specified imports, since it has no legal authority to require such certificates as a condition for entry into the U.S. Tony Corbo of Food and Water Watch wondered how shipments of specified products without a certificate will be handled by the FDA.

Halloran also said that considering less than one percent of food imports are actually inspected by the FDA, it is likely to have discretion within its current authority to scrutinize shipments on whatever criteria it may want to use.

Several observers said that the MOA leaves open a number of key questions that will be critical in determining whether it can create an effective system to increase food safety of Chinese imports. One of the issues is how China will implement the obligations of the agreement. For example, Halloran pointed out that while China has very strict lead standards in its domestic laws, it has yet to implement them.

Sources also had questions on whether China has the capacity to inspect exporters of these products yearly, as it has pledged, or accurately certify them as being compliant with FDA standards.

AQSIQ also is working on a trace-back system to help find the source of food contamination. However, it is unclear if FDA will receive a list of subcontractors with whom registered exporters do business.

The agreement does encourage faster processing of U.S. requests to inspect facilities in China, but it is unclear whether the FDA has enough resources to do more inspections abroad, sources said. In addition, it is unclear whether FDA has the resources to ensure compliance with FDA standards by doing more testing at the ports, they said.

FDA has only a small amount of its total funds reserved for food inspections, and key senators and private-sector groups called on the President last week to increase funding for the FDA in next year’s budget (Inside U.S. Trade, Dec. 7).

Under the agreement, audits of the new program can only take place when both countries agree.

Halloran criticized the agreement for not giving U.S. inspectors immediate access to Chinese plants it may want to inspect in China. The agreement says the two sides will develop a streamlined process for facilitating inspections in five days after receipt of a request from a party to inspect facilities. Under the agreement, both China and the U.S. shall notify each other within two days of the discovery of a significant risk to public health or gross deception of consumers.

Halloran pointed out that when U.S. inspectors wanted to inspect Chinese facilities after melamine was found in wheat gluten, China took several days to approve their visas. Once the visas were granted and inspectors arrived in China, they had to wait for some days for being allowed a site visit, as the Chinese government insisted there was a holiday that made an inspection impossible, Corbo said.

When the inspectors finally arrived at the sites, all production had ceased, he said. According to Corbo, the FDA “has to study the Chinese holiday calendar very closely” to make sure its inspectors will be allowed access.

The MOA does set out a specific time line for implementation. Within 15 days of the signing, China and the U.S. must notify in writing the primary point of contact for the MOA. A working group of experts must hold its first meeting within 60 days to determine what each side will be responsible for in a work plan; what each must do within the first 12 months of the agreement; and to determine performance measures “as appropriate” to evaluate success.

The work plan must be finalized within 120 days of the entry into force, and the parties will meet to review progress in 180 calendar days of the date of entry into force.

England called these time lines unrealistic given that China has taken on a large responsibility of certifying that its exporters meet FDA standards.

The FDA, for several years, has had a similar certification program for Chinese ceramic containers. But the possibility of chemicals in ceramic containers leaching into food poses less of a risk than contaminated food and problematic drugs and devices. Also, the volume of products covered under the MOA far exceeds the number of Chinese ceramic container imports.

Also unclear is how the success of the agreement will be measured, sources said. Article VIII of the MOA defines possible performance measures for the two countries. It says that HHS and FDA “may base its evaluation” on, among other factors, whether the rate of refusal by HHS or FDA of covered products is comparable to the overall rate of refusal from another “relevant” time period. However, since the FDA does not have the authority to refuse shipments based on the certificates alone, sources questioned how this method would work.

It also mentions that the two agencies could look at the overall percentage of items covered by the agreement that are exported by companies that are not registered as meeting U.S. standards. Finally, HHS and FDA may use the “volume, frequency, and significance in terms of public health hazard” of recalls of covered products, including counterfeit products, from China, the article says. AQSIQ may evaluate the U.S. on similar criteria.

The food safety MOA is one of two HHS signed with China at the Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) meetings in Beijing. The second one focuses on ensuring the safety of drugs and medical devices. The MOA on drugs and medical devices will require exporters from China to register with the Chinese government to prove that they are in compliance with FDA regulations and certified by the State Food and Drug Administration (SFDA) of China.

SFDA will also notify the U.S. “within 24 hours” of “any determination that a product sent to the United States could cause serious adverse health consequences, and also provide the tracking information necessary to identify the shipment and supplier.” It also includes similar possible performance measures to the food and feed MOA.

Following the announcements, U.S. affected industry groups began scrambling to review their details in order to gauge their impact on both imports to and exports from China. AdvaMed, the medical device trade group, said it was “concerned about the nature and extent of several of the provisions on information sharing,” according to a Dec. 11 statement. “We hope to meet with officials from HHS to share our concerns and obtain a better understanding of the scope of this agreement.”

Published in US Inside Trade, December 14, 2007

WASHINGTON DC – House Domestic and International Monetary Policy Subcommittee Chairman Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL) March 20 promised to quickly act on a bill that would attempt to give U.S. states more flexibility to enact measures that encourage divestment in companies that conduct business in foreign countries with questionable human rights records, such as Sudan. However, sources this week said it is unclear whether the legislation under consideration in the House would overcome constitutional hurdles to giving states these rights.

At a March 20 subcommittee hearing, Gutierrez pledged to push for quick committee approval of the Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act. The bill, H.R. 180, was introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) and drew support at the hearing from Reps. Donald Payne (D-NJ) and Frank Wolf (R-VA), as well as Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS).
Lee’s bill would require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to compile a list of companies that conduct business in Sudan directly or through subsidiaries, and publicize that list on its website. It would also require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to prepare a list detailing the extent of Federal Retirement Thrift Board (FRTB) investments in these companies. Lee said during the hearing that if this bill passes, Congress might later require the FRTB to divest of companies on the GAO list.

The bill would also deny U.S. government contracts to any companies on the SEC list, but would exempt companies located in southern Sudan, which is home to rebel groups opposing the ruling Khartoum government, and companies engaged in humanitarian assistance, among others.

Lee’s bill includes a statement of policy that says Congress will “recognize and support” state efforts to pass laws that require state funds and state pension funds to be divested from companies doing business in Sudan due to human rights abuses there.

Four states have approved such requirements, but a Feb. 23 federal court ruling declared Illinois’ measure unconstitutional because it interfered with congressional authority over foreign commerce (Inside US Trade, March 2). The ruling also declared that the divestment of state funds interferes with the federal government’s right to conduct foreign affairs.

The bill’s 84 cosponsors include House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) supported a previous version of the bill in 2006.

A related Senate bill by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) has eight cosponsors, including Sens. Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Barack Obama (D-IL). Durbin’s bill, S. 831, focuses only on the issue of state-level sanctions. It also includes more specific language that says a state divestment measure “does not violate the United States Constitution” because such a measure does not preempt the federal government under the Supremacy or Commerce clause and “does not intrude on, or interfere with, the conduct of foreign affairs of the United States.”

A representative for Lee said Lee’s bill was written before the Illinois court decision, and therefore does not include more specific language as in Durbin’s bill. The representative also said that the divestment section of Lee’s bill is a statement of policy, while Durbin’s bill is a sense of Congress, which sources say has less strength. During the hearing, Lee said she is willing to work on the bill to make it even stronger.

A representative for Durbin said that he and Lee are working closely on the issue, and that it may be possible to combine the bills in the future.

The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC), which filed the lawsuit against Illinois, is “taking a close look” at Lee’s bill, according to one informed source. Though this source did not rule out further challenges to the law if the bill passed, he did say that any constitutional claim that state efforts are preempted by Congress would be “a more difficult argument to make” with Congress’ explicit support.

However, another source questioned whether Lee’s language would be enough to protect it from challenges in court, and thought that there were “stronger ways to write it up.” This source said that language in Durbin’s bill could also be challenged if it was found to interfere with the Constitution’s foreign policy preemption clause, even though the language is designed to resolve this issue in favor of the states. “Just saying something is constitutional doesn’t make it constitutional,” this source said.

Regarding the creation of an SEC list of countries doing business in Sudan, one source said the list would be unfair to companies that conduct business in Sudan but fall under one of the bill’s later exemptions categories, such as being located in the southern region of the country where there is opposition to the ruling government. He said that simply being mentioned on the list could bring bad publicity to companies that are not supporting the Khartoum government.

The NFTC previously opposed efforts to require the SEC to gather information from foreign companies about their business dealings in countries that are subject to U.S. sanctions (Inside U.S. Trade, Aug. 24, 2001).

After her bill was written, Lee reported that two major companies with operations in Sudan, Siemens and ABB, pledged to cease operations there. Siemens stated that it will accept no new orders for business in Sudan, and will complete all orders and service agreements by the end of June 2007, “with the possible exception of essential medical services.” No U.S. companies currently operate in Sudan because of sanctions imposed in 1997.

Lee said it is not clear if companies like Siemens will be included in the SEC list.

In a related development at the hearing, Payne said he plans to introduce language that would block oil tankers that dock at a Sudan port from entering U.S. ports. Payne said this measure would “primarily hurt China,” as that country is one of the largest investors in Sudan’s oil industry.

Published in Inside US Trade, March 23, 2007

WASHINGTON DC – The European Commission is embroiled in an internal fight over two pending applications for the cultivation of two genetically modified (GM) corn varieties that both received safety clearance from the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) in 2005.

The fight is triggered by Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, who has been working against the approval of these two applications for pest-resistant GM corns for fear they could have unintended long-term consequences on fauna such as birds, bees and butterflies.

To block the approval, Dimas is seeking to invoke the precautionary principle, which is set out in EU genetically modified organism (GMO) legislation to take into account factors other than the official scientific opinion of the relevant EU body. If successful, it would be the first invocation of the precautionary principle.

The directorate generals (DGs) for trade, agriculture, industry and research have opposed Dimas’ proposal informally, according to an informed source. At this point, Dimas is reviewing feedback garnered from all EU DGs, an EU source said.

If the feedback is mixed, as seems likely, the proposal would have to come before the European Commission as a group for discussion and a possible vote. The vote would occur if the Commission is not clearly coming out in favor or against the proposal. A simple majority of commissioners would be sufficient to approve the Dimas proposal.

Dimas’ term as commissioner will end in 2009, and biotechnology industry sources speculated that Dimas may want to avoid playing a role in the approval of the two GMO corn for reasons possibly related to his political plans once he leaves the Commission.

Dimas’ move is the latest sign of his reluctance to approve the cultivation of Bt11 from Sygenta and 1507 from Pioneer and Dow. He failed to act on the applications when they were approved as safe by EFSA in 2005, when he was supposed send the applications to the Regulatory Standing Committee within 120 days of the decision.

Instead, Dimas in April 2006 urged EFSA to more explicitly address the potential long-term effects of GMOs and also called for EFSA to review its decision on the two GMOs (Inside U.S. Trade, April 21, 2006).

An EU source said that Dimas questioned the approval of these GMOs in light of studies since EFSA’s 2005 approval that show that the toxins released by GMO corn could have adverse affects on ‘secondary’ animals, and not just the agricultural pests they are meant to keep at bay.

The source said that Dimas does not question EFSA’s science, but instead believes that there is simply not enough knowledge of the long-term environmental effects of such GMOs, and these effects cannot be modeled or predicted by EFSA or other bodies.

Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, both of which are opposed to GMO use, hailed Dimas’ decision. “The two GM maize varieties are engineered to produce a toxin (commonly called Bt) that is poisonous to certain insect pests,” they said. “However, scientific studies show that these GM maize are toxic to certain butterfly species and may also affect other beneficial insects and have long term negative effects on soil health.”

Referral to the standing committee is generally the first step in member state approval of a GMO. If it is deadlocked without a clear position on either side of the issue, the GMO applications would proceed to the Council of Ministers. If the Council remains deadlocked, the process returns to the Commission. It can then choose to use its power to over-ride member states and approve the product.

Sources said that Dimas has been under intense pressure from other parts of the Commission to move the applications forward. The corn applications for cultivation, along with a GMO potato application for cultivation, are the only remaining cultivation applications under the authority of the Environment DG, as under their applications were made under older EU rules of 2001/18.

All new GMO applications, both for food and feed use and cultivation, are now under health and consumer protection DG (Sanko) under 2003 legislation, 18/29/2003.

Published in Inside US Trade, November 16, 2007

WASHINGTON DC  – Agencies within the Bush administration are wrestling internally on how to handle the Food and Drug Administration’s approval for market release of cloned animals to produce meat and milk, according to sources familiar with a White House meeting conducted this week.

The FDA is poised to release its risk assessment of the safety of meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring, which is expected to clear these products as safe, as a draft assessment released on Jan. 2, 2007 did.

But the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) are alarmed that a premature release of cloned animals into the market could lead to trade frictions if the U.S. moves too far ahead with the technology compared to other countries.
But proponents of quick action claim such problems are unlikely because food produced from cloned animals are not likely to hit the market for another three to five years, and that this would give time for trading partners to consider the issue.

Among agriculture groups, the U.S. dairy industry does not see any benefit for producers or consumers in releasing cloned animals and their products into the market. In contrast, U.S. beef producers represented by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association back it along with the American Meat Institute, which represents meat processors. The American Farm Bureau Federation is also in favor of the technology while the the Food Marketing Institute supports the continuation of a voluntary ban on the sale of food from cloned animals.

In the internal debates, USDA and USTR are not questioning the FDA finding that cloned animals do not pose a risk but fear that trading partners may reject products from these animals or the offspring of these animals if they have no familiarity with cloning technology.

For example, trade frictions may arise with Japan or Canada, which does not have regulations to deal with food products from clones, according to one informed source. Canada may question whether such U.S. meat and dairy products from clones or their offspring should enter its market, he said.

By giving these countries time to familiarize themselves with the impact of the new technology, the U.S. can avoid trade frictions, some sources said. This does not necessarily mean these countries would approve the sale of cloned animals and their products domestically, one source said.

He cited as an example the Canadian handling of the use of a milk production-boosting hormone commonly used in the U.S.

Canada did not approve the use of this hormone in its territory, but did not block products made from milk from cows to which the hormone had been administered.

One way to avoid these trade frictions is to ensure that FDA will maintain a voluntary moratorium on the release of products from cloned animals into the market, which the clone industry has upheld up to now. Many clone skeptics believe the voluntary moratorium should continue, a view also shared by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). She successfully offered an amendment to the Senate version of the 2007 farm bill that would require two studies before the FDA can lift the voluntary moratorium.

These would include a National Academy of Sciences review of the FDA risk assessment to see whether cloned animals would hurt public health, and a USDA study on the economic and trade implications of the move. The House farm bill does not contain such a cloning provision and the two versions still have to be reconciled in conference.

However, the omnibus appropriations bill Congress passed last year was accompanied by report language that presses the FDA to delay releasing its risk assessment and to do further studies on the issue.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is also poised to release its own draft risk assessment of the safety of food products from clones and their offspring. Sources agreed the two agencies reviewed much of the same data, so they may reach similar conclusions.

The draft opinion that EFSA issues will be released for public consultation, and an EFSA spokesperson said a final opinion may be adopted in April 2008. A report on cloning from the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies is also pending. The group issues opinions to the European Commission which advise on legislation or policies. EU sources expect this opinion to come out as early as this month.

Cloning is bound to be controversial in the EU where at least one member state, Denmark, has already banned cloning.

FDA found in its draft assessment issued last year that the health of clones is not “qualitatively different” from conventionally bred commercial animals. More clones died during gestation than with traditional breeding practices, but calves that survived past 150 days were normal, FDA found. Consumer groups have charged that the FDA did not consider a large enough sample of animals in its research, Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union said that the FDA has failed to consider whether clones require more drug treatments.

Published in Inside US Trade, January 11, 2008. This article, on the internal controversy over cloning in the Bush administration, beat a Washington Post article on the same issue on Jan. 15

NEW DELHI – A visitor to the New Delhi railway station could not be faulted for thinking nothing has changed. Tobacco stains still speckle the platforms, bleary-eyed migrants are sleeping on the floor and the stink of garbage rises up from the tracks.

But with a few minutes wait, the tracks bring a fresh sight. A modern train able to hit 93 miles-an-hour pulls up, the first of its kind in India. A trip that used to take four hours now takes two. And that’s just the beginning.

The man who brought about this transformation is an unlikely candidate. Railway minister Lalu Prasad Yadav was previously known for cracking jokes in rough Hindi, corruption scandals and ruling over the chaotic state of Bihar. Some journalists even had cow dung poured over their heads during his recent party for Holi, a Hindu holiday welcoming the Spring.
But despite this checkered past, few now doubt that Mr. Yadav has presided over an impeccable business turnaround. He’s the darling of industry groups and business paper headlines, doling out privatization of container traffic and 24-hour food courts. But more importantly, he’s taken the world’s largest employer — a government giant of 1.5 million employees — and grown revenues by 15.5 percent without raising fares.

Says D. Panandiker, head of RPG Foundation, an economic think-tank, “Indian Railways has turned around and made an estimated profit of Rs 112.8 billion in 2005-2006. What is important, however, is that, unlike previous Ministers, Mr. Yadav has looked upon Railways as a commercial enterprise and not a social welfare institution… [He] is a hard task-master and will ensure his subordinates carry out the projects.”

It wasn’t so long ago when India’s corporate community was fiercely opposed to Mr. Yadav. In 2005, he announced, “A ban will be imposed on serving of cold drinks like Pepsi, Cola and Fanta in trains… From now onwards, passengers would be treated to milk, buttermilk and other tasty drinks.” He also attempted to ban plastic cups from being served on trains, replacing them with ‘kulhars’, which are hand-made mud pots often used to serve tea in rural areas.

Yet now the Railway Ministry has announced that they will be allowing 4,000 soft drink vending machines in stations within a year, as well as bank ATMs. All this has brought up questions concerning his sudden change of thinking. The Indian Railways refused to comment on this.

Among the giant government-owned businesses which dominate the landscape here, success stories are few. And though the Indian Railways has provided the back bone of transport for the country since the British rule, it was rarely looked at as something pleasant to ride or profitable to run.

With its separate budget announced just before the federal budget each year, fare cuts were handed out with great fanfare to win over voters. Meanwhile, though, the Railways was sinking into debt. Air-conditioned class fares were routinely raised to keep the operation afloat.

“We understand the needs of the market and our customers. In today’s competitive environment, we can’t increase demand by hiking tariffs,” Mr. Yadav said in a recent media interview.  And there’s no doubt about increased competition. Truck and road transport has been eating away at railway’s share of the freight business for decades, and burgeoning budget airlines are luring away upper-class train passengers. Many chief executives of new airlines admit they are in direct competition with railways.

With salaries and expectations rising among Indian middle-classes, most families are not content to be crammed into dusty train cars for a three-day ride when they could pay a bit extra and fly.

And it’s a reflection of India’s new-found economic clout that Mr. Yadav has also proposed a new kind of class: air-conditioned compartments priced for the poor. Compared to the current sweltering conditions of lower-class railway cars, the concept is revolutionary.

Other revolutionary concepts are on the way as well. Privately-run budget hotels, which will cater to India’s growing number of tourist arrivals, are approved to be built on Railway-owned land at train stations.

Fourteen corporations have bid to carry freight in the newly-open cargo sector. This will do much to help the choked transport system in the country, where rail cargo containers sometimes takes nearly five days to unload.

But not everyone welcomes these changes. The previous contract holders for Railway catering are bristling at the thought of opening up new bids for food service. They have filed over 70 court cases, though the Railways has won almost all of them. After bucking off the cronyism, the size of the mobile food business has increased nearly ten times during the past year.

It’s a lesson much advocated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who was also the economic architect of India’s liberalization in 1991. Mr. Singh is pushing for closure of failing public corporations and transparency in contracts as his government gallops to keep up with India’s growing international image.

He may find it comforting to know that the biggest monolith of all is well on the way to reform — the biggest engine that could.

Published in The Washington Times, April 15, 2006

NEW DELHI — With American special forces training in its remote jungles and indigenously-developed helicopters and cruise missiles ready to hit the international market, India’s defense establishment is breaking down old barriers and gaining influence in the world scene.

Even before a bilateral nuclear deal comes up for approval by Congress, India is already reaping the benefits of closer ties with United States. Legislation for the nuclear deal was approved by the House of Representatives on Wednesday and the Senate is expected to vote on it later this year.

So far, the Bush administration authorized the offer of Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornets and even a US amphibious warship, the USS Trenton, to India.

If approved, the sale would make India the first nation apart from the US to own and operate a landing vessel of its class.

Considering the Indian airforce plans to acquire 126 combat aircraft to replace its aging fleet, it seems the agreement came just in time for American arms dealers. But that’s just the beginning, says defense expert Praveen Sawhney, editor of the magazine Force.

“The outside players know that India will have a requirement of something like $50 billion worth of equipment in the next ten years… A fierce interaction is going on”

Of course, India’s ongoing tensions with neighbor Pakistan still loom large in comparison with its aim to be a big player in the global defense market.

Following the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks, India’s main objective at the G8 meeting was to draw out a stern statement condemning the attackers, who many here believe were aided by the Pakistani secret service. And after last year’s US offer of F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, many journalists in New Delhi gleefully noted that India was offered an even newer model.

New Delhi is also setting its sights on having a military presence in a strategic location in South Asia with a view to protecting its interests and as a counterweight to the influence of Pakistan and China in the region.

Janes Defence Weekly and other sources recently reported that India had established its first foreign military base in Tajikistan. The base is said to be located near the Tajik capital, Dushanbe, on the site of a former hospital where Indian doctors used to treat members of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance during their war with the Taliban.

Pakistan was one of the closest supporters of the Taliban regime until it was ousted by a U.S.-led coalition in 2001. India remains a close ally of the new democratic government in Kabul, providing millions of dollars of aid and helping rebuild the country’s infrastructure.

Most analysts agree that real change in India’s image came after the 2004 tsunami, where the Indian Navy played a key role in not just helping its own citizens, but those of Sri Lanka and Indonesia. The aid won India acclaim and a new respect internationally.

Last week, India sent a war-ship to Beirut — with three more staying nearby — to evacuate hundreds of people from India as well as neighboring countries from Lebanon, which has been hit by Israeli air strikes targeted at Hezbollah.

Before the 1991 fall of the Soviet Union, India bought most of its arms from Russia, as well as developing a few products on its own through government-owned companies. And it wasn’t until 2001 that the former Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government opened up the defence sector to private players.

Though optimistic about gaining a foothold in the international arms market, India’s technical capabilities are far from advanced, and its industry has been hobbled by excessive government controls. To produce viable weapons with up-to-date technology, the government teamed up with its oldest ally, Russia.

BrahMos, a long-range supersonic cruise missile, is a joint product of India and Russia (named after their two most famous rivers, the Brahmaputra and the Moscova). It’s three times faster than the American Tomahawk (though missing other features), and both nations have already started showing it off to potential buyers.

India is also making overtures towards South America, a continent that has never played a significant role in Indian diplomacy. Defense secretary Shekhar Dutt and Army Chief J.J. Singh have both made visits to South America, primarily Chile and Brazil, in the past two years.

Chile has reportedly expressed interest in the Indian-made ALH Dhruv helicopter — produced with assistance from Israel — and BrahMos missiles.

Of late, many countries including some of South America have evinced keen interest in the Indian Army, especially with our reputed training institutions and rich operational experience, both in conventional and sub conventional warfares,” an army statement said recently.

And its India’s Counter Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School (CIJW) which has troops from all over the world sweating it out in the jungles of the North-eastern state of Mizoram.

Set up in 1970 in a region plagued by militant groups, CIJW has become one of the best anti-terrorism schools in the world, where troops undergo rigorous urban and rural combat drills in over 90 percent humidity. India has a large back-log of requests from Western nations to train there, the Indo-Asian News Service said. US soldiers trained with Indian anti-terror experts there last year.

Published in The Washington Times July 29, 2006

NEW DELHI — Years of affirmative action have upended India’s caste system to the point where some upper-caste Brahmins are reduced to working as porters and pedaling rickshaws, while almost half the places in universities will soon be reserved for lower castes and tribal people.

Ramesh Jha, a Brahmin, came to New Delhi because he could not find work in his village in eastern Bihar state, where farming jobs have disappeared and almost all the government jobs are reserved for lower castes.

He now cleans toilets, performing a job once done by only the lowest of castes — “untouchable” scavengers who cleaned excreta with their bare hands.

India’s version of affirmative action has gradually taken hold over the past 50 years, designed to bring justice to those who were long oppressed by the Hindu caste system.

Now the government, using data from a caste census taken in 1931, is on its way to increasing the number of university admissions reserved for lower castes and tribal people to 49.5 percent from 22.5 percent.

When the reservation system was introduced in 1990, violent protests surged through the country and one student immolated himself in protest. This year, large groups of medical and engineering students went on hunger strikes, faced tear gas and left hospitals unmanned for days to participate in protests.

The demonstrators say the quota system will squelch merit in India’s most respected universities and further fracture Indian society. More protests are expected when Parliament reconvenes for the winter session.

Since caste cannot always be determined by looks, corrupt government officials are known to create fake lower-caste certificates for anyone who pays. Recently, the Indian Express newspaper obtained a backward-caste certificate for Atal Behari Vajpayee — a Brahmin and former prime minister — simply by paying a bribe of less than $10.

Meanwhile, the status of Brahmins in many states is abysmal. In Andhra Pradesh, 44 percent of Brahmins in the 5 to 18 age group dropped out of school at the primary level, according to a book by J. Radhakrishna. And hundreds of thousands of Brahmins who were forced to leave insurgency-hit Kashmir now live as refugees in other parts of India.

Much of the progress made by the lowest castes is attributable to the work of the Sulabh Sanitation Movement in New Delhi, which has worked to improve conditions for those who clean public toilets while training them for other kinds of work.

Its founder, Bindeshwar Pathak, a Brahmin, recalls the day from his childhood that his grandmother forced him to swallow sand and cow manure because he had touched an “untouchable.” Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s social movement, he made it his life’s work as an adult to fight against that prejudice.

Mr. Pathak, 64, estimates that 13 million toilets are cleaned by members of the manual scavenging caste — women like Usha who started cleaning sewage when she was 15 years old, just after her marriage.

“I was sick when I did that work,” says Usha, who uses only one name. “My stomach always felt bad. My employers would never hand me food. They would only drop it on the ground.”

The Sulabh Sanitation Movement trained her to make noodles and grind spices to sell to hotels in the area. The community now looks up to her, and she makes enough money to send her children to school.

But, she says, no one in her slum has benefited much from reserved jobs in the government: They only get jobs as cleaners. And no one of her generation has enough education to gain admission to a university, even if the increased reservations are implemented.

Rather, she says, it is members of the subcastes that stand slightly above the untouchables who are in a position to take advantage of the government benefits.

In order to correct this imbalance, Mr. Jha says, reserved jobs and places in universities should be allotted on the basis of income rather than caste.

“Anyone coming from poverty level should be helped by the government, no matter what the caste, so they can grow and develop,” he says.

Published in The Washington Times on September 25, 2006