Sunday, 28 October 2012

China's ruling families Torrent of scandal: The Economist

http://www.economist.com/blogs/analects/2012/10/chinas-ruling-families?fsrc=nlw|newe|10-26-2012|3939022|106923250|AP

China's ruling families

Torrent of scandal

Oct 26th 2012, 6:28 by J.M. | BEIJING

AT HIS first news conference as China’s prime minister, Wen Jiabao introduced himself to reporters packed into a cavernous room in the Great Hall of the People (as well as to a live television audience) with an unusual reference to his own family history. Chinese leaders normally hide behind the smokescreen of “collective leadership”, downplaying their own attributes. But Mr Wen waxed lyrical about his own upbringing: “I am a very ordinary person. I come from a family of teachers in the countryside. My grandfather, my father and my mother were all teachers. My childhood was spent in the turmoil of war. Our home was literally burnt down by the flame of war and so was the primary school, which my grandfather built with his own hands. The untold suffering in the days of old China left an indelible imprint on my tender mind.”
As a tour de force of investigative reporting by the New York Times now reveals, Mr Wen’s family circumstances have changed a lot since those days. It says that the prime minister’s relatives, including his wife, have controlled assets worth at least $2.7 billion. It notes that Mr Wen has “broad authority” over the major industries where his relatives have made their fortunes. Their business dealings have sometimes been hidden in ways that suggest the relatives are eager to avoid public scrutiny, says the report.
That family members of China’s most powerful politicians cash in on their connections comes as no surprise. Over the past two decades, as the country’s economy has ballooned, rumours and occasional bits of evidence of such behaviour have accumulated at a similar pace. In June Bloomberg shed remarkable light on the fortunes of relatives of Xi Jinping, the man who next month will be appointed general secretary of the Communist Party and, in March, president of China. Chinese officials were deeply unhappy with that report: Bloomberg’s entire website has been blocked in China ever since (as has the Analects story about the Bloomberg report). In the few hours since its exposé of Mr Wen’s family appeared, the New York Times’s website has been subjected to the same treatment (ironically, given Mr Wen’s avowed support for “people’s rights to stay informed about, participate in, express views on and oversee government affairs”: see his speech to the National People's Congress (NPC), the country’s legislature, in March).
Mr Wen and his fellow leaders would prefer any public attention to the business dealings of the powerful to be focused on the family of Bo Xilai, the former party chief of Chongqing region in the south-west. Coincidentally, just after publication of the New York Times story, it was announced that Mr Bo had been expelled from the NPC. This was hardly a shock given that he had already been stripped of every other title, including last month his membership of the party. It prepares the way, however, for Mr Bo to be put on trial (NPC membership confers a token immunity from prosecution). This event will likely be staged some time in the next few months and will be the most sensational of its kind involving a deposed Chinese leader since the trial of the “Gang of Four” in 1980. Managing news coverage of it will be a huge challenge to the “collective leadership”. It will want to convince the public that Mr Bo and family members were engaged in egregious corruption (not least in order to block any possibility of a political comeback by the ambitious Mr Bo). But it will not want gossip to spread about the business affairs of other ruling families (squirrelling money abroad appears a national pastime, as we explain in our China section this week).
The man all but certain to succeed Mr Wen next March, his deputy, Li Keqiang, will be among those squirming. In a powerful report just published, Cheng Li of the Brookings Institution in Washington, DC, has exposed the prominent role of Li Keqiang’s younger brother, Li Keming, in the tobacco industry—even as Li Keqiang has been overseeing reform of the health sector. Airing such conflicts of interest is taboo in the Chinese press.
Our cover this week calls Mr Xi “The man who must change China”. Revelations such as those by the New York Times, Bloomberg and Brookings strengthen the case for this. As we argue in a leader, Mr Xi needs to venture deep into political reform, including setting a timetable for the direct election of government leaders as Deng Xiaoping once suggested should be possible. Our Banyan column explains why Chinese-style “meritocracy” is not enough to prevent the kind of abuses of power that are rife in China today. And in a three-page briefing we look at how Mr Xi is being assailed from all sides by demands for far-reaching change.
(Picture credit: EPA)

Interview between Efraim Halevy and Aaron David Miller (Former Director Mossad) | Wilson Center

Interview between Efraim Halevy and Aaron David Miller | Wilson Center

Interview between Efraim Halevy and Aaron David Miller

Oct 24, 2012

Efraim Halevy is a former Director of Mossad and former Head of the Israeli National Security Council. Aaron David Miller is the Vice President for New Initiatives at the Woodrow Wilson Center. The interview took place following the October 18 meeting “Iran, Palestine, and the Arab Spring: The View from Israel” at the Wilson Center.

  1. Is Iran with a nuclear weapon an existential threat to Israel?
I object to the use of the term [existential] for several reasons. First of all, I am convinced that Israel is here to stay. I know we're going to stay here for the next couple of thousand years at least and after that we can meet and talk. It's not just a question of semi-religious or mythological belief.
I believe that Israel is a strong country. I was there when Israel came to being in 1948. I was then a teenager. My family and I immigrated to what was then Palestine in April 1948. I was a witness of independence. I was old enough to understand what was going on and to follow it very closely, and I heard the roar of the Iraqis’ artillery as they were shooting targets not far from where I was temporarily living in Netanya which is on the coast. I was going to come up to Jerusalem where I had some family, but this was not possible because Jerusalem was under siege.
And this is a war in which there were many, many casualties and many, many had fallen during battle. We suffered since 6,000 men and women were killed in battle which was 1 percent of the population, the Jewish population, so a very large number. And there were days in which hundreds of people were killed in battle. And I do not believe that it is possible to see the demise of the state of Israel. I think we have sufficient power and capabilities to deal with any threats of any kind.
Now, I also object to the use of this term because I believe it is a fatal mistake to say publically that there is an existential threat because it means that if the Iranians, by one way or another obtain such a capability, you begin a countdown to the end of the civil Israel, and I think this is something which is unconscionable.
And the third point is I think there is a terrible mistake to tell you or mark the enemy that he has in his power to destroy you and to put you out of your existence. This, I think, is wrong tactically, it's wrong strategically, and it's wrong professionally to come publically to the Iranians and say, "Look, you are an existential threat to me." This only calls them into trying to prove that what you say about yourself is true. If you say that the other side is capable of emerging as existential threat and the other side will say—if they believe that they can—put us out of business then we should really try and do so. So from every point I think it's a terrible mistake to use this.

  1. If negotiations pursued in a positive and well-intentioned manner and sanctions do not deter the Iranians from continuing their quest for a nuclear, are any circumstances under which you would be willing to entertain or consider military action?
Yes, I believe that if all other means had been totally exhausted. If we had followed all the other avenues to try to persuade the Iranians from doing what obviously they're still trying to do then I believe it is not only acceptable, it's also I think logical that one should take, military means in order to get this capability removed. I say removed but I don't believe that it will be removed. I mean it will be delayed. And I think that delay is important because in history time is of the essence, in both ways, it's time is of the essence in order to do the right thing at the right time and not to wait. Also time is of the essence because time gives you the breathing space sometimes to develop other possibilities which would negate the capability which is now in front of you.
So I think yes it is right to use a capability you have in order to delay the Iranian nuclear program. Now, I believe that if we are looking for the best way of doing it, I think that the United States has far beyond Israel the capabilities of causing and affecting on the Iranians such damage as to prolong this period. I think that if Israel did it, it would be a shorter period of time, and if the United States would do it, it would be a much longer period of time. That's why I believe that a major priority would be to get the United States to agree to take, how shall I put it, this task upon itself.

  1. Is Iran, in your judgment, a rational actor?
I think that yes, I think the Iranians are rational. I think at this particular point in time they are focused on trying to inflict upon Israel major damage. I think maybe they believe that they do have in their power to put Israel out of business and to remove Israel from the face of the earth. And I think that if they really believe that they could do it and they have the means to do it, one has to assume that they might actually use these means. I don't believe that once they have the means, they will not use it.
But I think that there are three things which have to be taken into account in this area. One is that they are persistently saying that it's against their religion to have such a capability. Two, if they develop such a capability they will in fact be saying that they've been lying not only about what they've been doing, they'll be lying as to what their real beliefs are. And three, that is of a serious matter for a religious person to say and to do, and, therefore, I think it's not an easy thing for them to go about this and do it in that way.

  1. I know you're an analyst and not a fortune teller. But will 2013 in your judgment be a determinative point in this process? Will the issue of the nuclear--of Iranian nuclear weapons program either be joined in war and/or diplomacy or might we find ourselves at the end of 2013 where we are now?
I think 2013 is a decisive point in history, a point in time. I think that there is time now to energetically engage in trying to find a solution which is other than a military one. I think that there’s much that can be done or should be done. And I think of course, as I said, that if all other options are exhausted and have been unsuccessful, yes, and maybe 2013 will be a time when Israel and/or the United States will take action.

  1. Why don't we have a conflict-ending agreement between Israelis and Palestinians?
 I can give a long dissertation as to why we don't have it. But I think I'd like to focus on the immediate. And I'd say at that this particular point in time, this is not a viable possibility. It's not viable because I think the Palestinians don't have their act together. They’re divided both geographically and politically. I think anybody who signed such an agreement would not have a real mandate to sign it. And even if he believes he has, he will not have the capability to implement it, certainly not in the Gaza Strip.
And therefore, an agreement of such nature will be a misleading agreement. It will create the notion that an agreement has been reached and it is a serious event in history, when in actual fact it's going to be something much worse than just a non-event. It will be an act of, how should I put it, of hypocrisy, of the worst particular kind. And therefore that's one reason I think there is another possibility.
I also think that the present make up of this Israeli political scene is such that there is no majority in place either in government or in the nation for reaching an agreement with the Palestinians. One because people enjoy life the way it is and they say why take the risks, why move to something which is going to be very painful and which is going to have a lot of repercussions internally? And 300,000 people or so will have to be removed, or 100,000 people will have to be removed, and there are very, very bitter memories of what happened during the Gaza disengagement, and that's already 10,000 people.
And therefore, public opinion will not support this in Israel, at the moment and as far as the political scene is concerned, I don't think that the upcoming elections in Israel are going to produce a result which will make it easier. It will probably make it more difficult, because as the time we are talking now on this, there would have to be a big change in the opposition to the Netanyahu government which does not seem to be in the cards. I think the general trend in Israel today will be towards the more extremist approach rather than the less extremist approach to an agreement with the Palestinians.

  1. And what are the consequences of no agreement?  Do you agree with  those who argue that demography and the absence of a solution will undermine the Jewish and democratic character of the state of Israel?
Yes I do. And I'm very concerned about that because I think that the “no solution” means that there's going to be a one state between the Mediterranean and the Jordan valley in which you'll have two distinct populations. One which will be a majority which is gradually decreasing and a minority which is gradually or not even gradually increasing, and, therefore, we will have a situation which between Jordan and the sea it'll be a democratic system for the minority and a non-democratic system for the majority, and this is unsustainable and untenable.
And it's the most likely solution at the moment and the least desirable. And therefore, I think that it'll be imperative for Israel to seek  some kind of understanding which would entail withdrawal from certain lands and handing them over to Palestinians. And Palestinians, in order to succeed, ultimately would have to get their act together in one way or another; and my guess is that it would not be the Fatah Movement which will be able to achieve this. Fatah today is a hollow movement. It's a movement which is gradually preparing to leave the historical scene.

  1. Are you concerned about the viability of Egyptian-Israeli and Jordanian -Israeli relationships in the face of the political changes sweeping the Arab world?
I think so far the reaction from Egypt has been encouraging. This is not say that I'm happy with many of these statements coming from Cairo; but the most important are repeated statements by the Egyptian president and his representatives and advisors to the public that Egypt will abide by its international obligations.
I think the Egyptians are trying to get their act together. I think they're behaving responsibly. I don't think that they are enamored with Israel. They don't have to be. And I think that there's room for improvement here.
As far as Jordan is concerned, Jordan is now under extreme pressure. But I nevertheless believe that despite the fact that there are enormous pressures on Jordan today—particularly from the influx of refugees—with care, and understanding and wisdom, I'm hoping that King Abdullah will survive.

  1. Does it matter to you whether there are Islamists, democrats or dictators, in power in the Arab world?
I would put it this way, since I don't think we have it in our capacity to influence what is going to happen in states other than our own, and since if that is the will of the people around us, there is nothing that we could do about it. We have to find ways and means of living with it. I think that's the way to look at it. And, therefore, I think we have to accept realities the way they are. That's why it was very encouraging several hours after President Morsi won the elections that prime minister Netanyahu sent a messaging saying, "I congratulate you on your success and I want to work together with you." I think that was a right thing to do.
I would much prefer that there will not be extreme Islamist regimes in those countries. But again there's nothing we can do about it. So, for us it's a test to find ways and means on how to live with them. And we have to work on it and find ways and means of doing it rather than simply throwing up our hands in despair saying, you know, now it's going to be very bad and then close the shutters and pray for supreme godly protection.

  1. Where is Syria headed?
I think in the end there's a good chance that Syria will implode and disintegrate into small statelets. I don't think the Alawites are going to--just give up and go home. But there is also a possibility that once Assad is out of the way, other Alawites will come and find the modus operandi with whatever powers prevail.
What I am concerned about very much is the prospect of whether or not Iranians will be there once Assad is gone. And I believe it's a basic Israeli interest to do everything we can and to prevail upon everybody we can, to ensure that at the end of the day the Iranians are out of Syria.
And the last thing I'd like to say is this, I don't believe that there will be a religious regime in Syria, the kind which exists in Egypt. I think that is because the population  is composed of  Sunnis,  Alawites, Kurds,  Christians, and others  that I think that it's not possible to have a Muslim state in Syria, and it might very well be  some kind  of a  secular type.

  1. Any thoughts on the US-Israel relationship and our upcoming elections?
Israeli-American relations have gone through several bumps. I think that basically they have been very good. I think on the practical side, the United States has been very supportive of Israel during the Obama administration. I think both financially and strategically, we have received a lot of support—support both in equipment and support in political moves like the way the United States has behaved at the UN Security Council and in the UN in general. And I think there should be a little less complaining about it on the part of Israel that the administration has not embraced us warmly. I think international relations is not a love fest in which you celebrate love and fondness. I think it has to be practical business. And Israel should not always pray and expect to be embraced and hugged and pacified and so forth. We're grown-ups and we should act as grown-ups.
Regarding the election, I think many of the statements made by the Republican candidate are very undesirable as far as Israel is concerned. I remember an article of Governor Romney’s in the Washington Post in March of this year in which he advocated the dispatch of American warships to the Eastern Mediterranean. I think shooting from the hip on these matters is a very dangerous sport to be engaged in. I think it should not be done.  And I think that drawing Israel into the campaign is detrimental to Israeli interests. And I regret that one of the candidates is doing this.

  1. As a former intelligence officer, analyst, what do you think is the most important factor that a decision maker has to keep in mind in formulating policy?
I think that before decisions are made—strategic decisions, I'm not talking about tactical decisions—I think one has to take into account your capability of actually carrying out what it is you've decided. And this is something which at a political level, only the political master can do.  And you as an intelligence officer must give him the information or assessment of the situation. But you cannot determine for him what his capabilities are, because capabilities are not just counting the number of troops you have or the number of guns you have, or the number of aircraft. It's also the resilience of the people of a country as a whole and many other factors, that's number one.
Number two, I think it's very important not to be hooked up to a single option choice. I think it is imperative to present at a political level more than one option. It doesn't mean to say you can’t afterwards, express your preference one way or the other; but presenting one option to be linked up to one sole possibility, that's all. Take it or leave it. I think that's a mistake on the part of people who present options at a political level.
And the third thing is—and that I think I learned from Yitzhak Rabin—whatever you are pursuing, always prepare an alternative. Always, never be caught without an alternative. And juggle more than one ball in the air. Always have an alternative. Don't be left in the position where in case the initiative you have undertaken fails, you are left with an empty hand.

Malala Yousafzai and the other half of Muslim history by Asma Afsaruddin - Common Ground News Service

Malala Yousafzai and the other half of Muslim history by Asma Afsaruddin - Common Ground News Service

Malala Yousafzai and the other half of Muslim history
by Asma Afsaruddin
23 October 2012




Bloomington, Indiana - As someone who writes and lectures about women and gender in Islam, I am often asked if women had any role in the making of the Islamic tradition. Happily, the answer is always yes. There were in fact many prominent women in the early history of Islam.

At the top of the list would have to be Aisha, the widow of the Prophet Muhammad who was renowned for her learning and wit. The Prophet in fact is said to have counselled his followers to “take half of your religion” from Aisha – in recognition of her learning. After his death, she spent the rest of her life transmitting the sayings of her husband and commenting on the Qur’an. Her authoritative pronouncements have decisively shaped the later Islamic legal tradition.

The early period of Islam in particular is peopled with such intelligent, assertive, and pious women. Another name that comes to mind is Umm Umara – although she was a prominent companion of the Prophet Muhammad, whom he regarded highly in her own time, she has become an obscure figure over the centuries. One possible reason for this is that Umm Umara was a “difficult” woman – that is to say, she was someone who asked a lot of questions and who protested loudly when she was faced with inequality, especially in regard to women’s rights. Her passion for justice and outspokenness, however, were hardly out of place in the first century of Islam.

As historical records inform us, women in particular excelled in religious scholarship through the late Mamluk period, the 14th and 15th centuries of the common era. This should not be surprising since women’s right to education is firmly guaranteed by Islam. A well-known saying of the Prophet Muhammad asserts that knowledge is equally obligatory for males and females – which has allowed for considerable Muslim receptivity towards providing education for girls and women alongside their male counterparts through the centuries. As a result, women scholars dot the Islamic intellectual landscape.

The famous 9th century Muslim jurist al-Shafii, widely regarded as the father of Islamic jurisprudence, studied with female teachers. Ibn Hajar, another prominent jurist from the 15th century, gratefully acknowledges his debt to a number of his female professors whose study circles he frequented.

Ibn Hajar’s student, al-Sakhawi, dedicated one whole volume of his encyclopaedic biographical work on famous scholars from the Mamluk period to women alone. Among the 1,075 women listed in this volume, over 400 were active in scholarship. One such scholar is on record as having complained that she was not getting adequate compensation for her teaching (a complaint that may sound dismayingly familiar to contemporary professional women the world over today).

Regrettably, the memory of these accomplished women has grown dim over time. As Muslim societies became more patriarchal after the first century of Islam, many of these women have been air-brushed out of the master narrative of Islamic history, leaving us with the impression that the Islamic tradition was shaped mainly by men.

This erasure of women can lead to a dangerously mistaken belief that Islam itself mandates this marginalisation of women. The danger is real – as became recently evident in the Taliban’s brutal and misogynist vendetta against the indomitable 14-year-old Malala Yousafzai. A fearless warrior to promote education for females in her native Pakistan, Yousafzai has paid a huge price for her courageous stance, as she now struggles to recover after being shot by the Taliban.

Yousafzai’s fate is a reminder that women’s historical roles in Islamic learning and scholarship need to become much better known among Muslims themselves. This is imperative so that in the future the Taliban’s grotesque interpretation of women’s rights can immediately be recognised for what it is – a violation of fundamental Islamic principles and one that should not be granted even the veneer of religious legitimacy.

In her fearless insistence on the right to be educated and to be heard in public, Yousafzai is following in the footsteps of her illustrious female forebears from the first century of Islam. Learned, feisty and principled women have contributed much to the Islamic heritage.

Her predicament reminds us why this history must be featured prominently in our own times and why women must be reinstated into the very mainstream of the Islamic intellectual tradition. It is the most effective way to keep religious obscurantism at bay in Muslim-majority societies, especially the kind that threatens the well-being of Muslim girls and women.

###

* Asma Afsaruddin is a professor of Islamic Studies at Indiana University, Bloomington, and a senior editor of the forthcoming Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women (2013). This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews).

Source: Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 23 October 2012, www.commongroundnews.org
Copyright permission is granted for publication.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 








 
 
 
 
 







 

Deepening the U.S.-India Partnership | Center for American Progress

Deepening the U.S.-India Partnership | Center for American Progress

Deepening the U.S.-India Partnership

State dinner for President in India
SOURCE: AP/Charles Dharapak
Members of the U.S. delegation stand during the playing of the U.S. national anthem during the state dinner for President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama hosted by India's President Prathiba Patil and her husband Devisingh Ramsingh Shekhawat at Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi, India, Monday, Nov. 8, 2010. From left are: Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, speech writer Jon Favreau, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, U.S. Ambassador to India Tim Roemer and wife Sally.

U.S. policymakers working to advance American interests are currently confronted with profound political and economic volatility around the world. Since the 2011 Arab Spring, countries in the Middle East have been undergoing rapid political change. The European Union is grappling with an economic crisis whose resolution will have a significant impact on our own slow recovery.  China has begun to flex its economic and military muscles outside its immediate region after three decades of sustained growth. And Al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups continue to plan and conduct deadly attacks, particularly in South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.
Now more than ever, the United States needs friends in order to effectively navigate and respond to these shifting dynamics.
The U.S. role as a world leader for more than half a century has been undergirded by established alliances with countries around the world. In the coming decade there is one partnership that may be more critical to U.S. economic and security interests than any other: the U.S-India alliance. India is a vitally important geo-strategic partner for the United States. India’s economy, democratic values, military capabilities, and technological prowess make it an indispensable ally now and in the future. As Vice President Joe Biden puts it, “My dream is that in 2020, the two closest nations in the world will be India and the United States. If that occurs, the world will be safer.”
Skeptics of this partnership, however, hold out little hope that the United States and India can bridge key differences or produce anything consequential for either U.S. or Indian interests. They point to many significant barriers that limit progress in the relationship, including India’s protectionist foreign investment policies, India’s military alliance with Russia, and an unwillingness in New Delhi to move on international trade and climate negotiations. These critics contend that at best this relationship has failed to produce anything of importance, and at worst India has proven to be an unreliable and even obstinate partner.
The recent record proves otherwise. The Obama administration has made slow and steady progress over the past four years in deepening the relationship with India and delivering important results. On trade and investment, for example, the Indian government has finally begun to open its market to U.S. investors with a series of reforms that, if fully implemented, could be some of the most significant Indian market liberalizations of the last decade. Once an off-shoring and out-sourcing destination for U.S. companies, Indian companies have turned the tables and are now investing heavily in the United States, with billions of dollars spent on information technology, manufacturing, and more. Indeed, bilateral investment and trade is likely to surpass $100 billion this year, a tenfold increase since 1995.
In the security sector, too, cooperation on counterterrorism and intelligence sharing has never been closer. Joint military exercises and training occur with increased frequency. India conducts more joint exercises with the United States than any other country. In addition, the Indian government has bought more than $8 billion in U.S. military goods, potentially signaling a move towards closer synchronization between our respective militaries.
With regard to recent diplomatic and security decision points, the United States and India have moved forward with a shared agenda to approach global challenges. Indian oil imports from Iran have been substantially reduced. The Indian military has begun training Afghan security forces. Indian officials have sought openings, where possible, to build stronger ties with Pakistan. The Indian government supported U.N. Security Council resolutions on both Iran and Libya. And India pledged economic assistance to the Burmese political transition despite their previous objections to U.S. sanctions on Burma’s military regime.
There is no question that many significant differences still remain between the two countries.  But quietly and deliberately, President Obama and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have found ways to bring the two countries closer together in countering common threats and creating new economic opportunities.
The next administration, whether Democratic or Republican, can build on this progress. Three key areas are ripe for further development.
  • Energy and the environment
  • Infrastructure development and investment
  • Defense and homeland security
Let’s examine each in turn.

Energy and the environment

India is starved for energy, made acutely clear when nearly 700 million people were recently sent into darkness for almost 48 hours after large portions of the country’s energy grid experienced cascading failures earlier this summer. Burdened with shortages in available coal and gas, India has been forced to import energy at high prices.
In addition, water has been critically depleted. Water tables, particularly in the North, are at a historic low. While India needs power for people to live their daily lives, significant energy resources will also be required to maintain the 8 percent annual economic growth needed to lift some 400 million people out of poverty over the next two decades. India’s energy production needs will quadruple over the next 20 years to expand access and reliability while powering India’s growing economy.
The consequences of climate change, meanwhile, have ravaged India, as hundreds of millions of Indians’ livelihoods are dependent on climate-sensitive sectors. Monsoon rains have been unpredictable, and when it does rain, it rains harder for shorter periods of time, increasing flooding but doing little to alleviate drought conditions. Temperatures have also climbed, shrinking Himalayan glaciers and creating shortages in the rivers below. Tensions over water between India and neighboring countries are on the rise. As a result of energy shortages and weak crop yields, India’s rural population has continued its migration into the cities, putting additional pressure on power, sanitation, and infrastructure resources in India’s already overtaxed urban areas.
A number of joint initiatives have been launched on clean energy, low carbon growth, climate, and a range of related topics. The U.S.-India Partnership to Advance Clean Energy is the umbrella initiative tying together U.S.-India cooperation on clean energy research and deployment. The United States and India are also collaborating with energy and environment ministers of the world’s major economies in the Clean Energy Ministerial to promote policies and programs that encourage low-carbon energy production and consumption.
While these collaborative efforts have contributed to a richer global discussion on climate issues, more can be done to strengthen this focus. The United States and India could further advance cooperation on climate and clean energy through the development of a joint U.S.-India platform for open innovation in clean energy. Open innovation involves using new strategies to link disparate research and thinkers through virtual collaboration platforms, innovation prizes, and intellectual property rights strategies. These strategies can be powerful tools in accelerating the adoption of clean energy technologies, as an upcoming report from the Center for American Progress by Andrew Light and Arpita Bhattacharyya details. They demonstrate how clean energy could use the same model that information and communication sectors used in the development of the Internet, computer operating systems, hardware, and software.
As a recent Council on Foreign Relations/Aspen Institute India report recommended, the United States could also provide greater support to India’s attempts to combat deforestation through the United Nations Collaborative Program on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation; fund a joint U.S.-India innovation center to “provide clean energy services to the poor focused on creating a bottom-up framework for accommodating the local needs and conditions of Indian citizens”; and collaborate with India to pressure international organizations and forums to place a greater focus on financing for climate change.
The United States needs to build on its important clean energy work with India and make equally important commitments to work in related areas, particularly with regard to water security. Finding clean water is still a major challenge for much of India’s population. Water has become a regional security issue as well, as the need for access to clean water in India and neighboring countries grows more acute. Water security should be elevated within the U.S.-India strategic dialogue, and it should become a more prominent focus of foreign policy between our two countries.
There are a range of other environmental challenges confronting India, including air pollution, sanitation, and rapid urbanization. Many of these problems can be partly addressed through increased investments in infrastructure.

Infrastructure investment

Indian leaders have announced that as much as $1 trillion in new infrastructure would be needed over the next five years to accommodate the demands of what will soon be the most populous country on the planet. Virtually every sector—transportation, sanitation, telecommunications, education, and housing—requires significant additional resources and attention. New cities must be built, and some 600 new universities are required. Airports, subways, highways, and ports all must be constructed or renovated to accommodate the growing population.
Yet U.S. companies continue to be frustrated over India’s closed market, the byzantine regulatory system, and uncertain funding for high-risk ventures. Indeed, the Indian government has acknowledged it will not have the budget available to fund the available projects, and has pushed developers to explore “public-private partnerships” for funding—theoretically a good idea, but quite difficult to launch in practice.
Moreover, India’s federal system, which divides authority for procurement projects between national and state governments, has confused and frustrated U.S. firms attempting to navigate through India’s convoluted bureaucracy. India’s status as a global economic power will depend upon its ability to create a modern infrastructure, reduce the rural-urban divide and respond to the needs of its rapidly expanding population. Integrating U.S. companies into development projects will be in India’s interests but the barriers to investment and cooperation must come down.

Defense and homeland security

Indian restrictions on U.S. defense and homeland security investments remain too strict, inhibiting trade, investment and joint manufacturing between U.S. and Indian companies and keeping many U.S. companies on the sidelines. But some progress has been made, and the trend line is moving in a good direction. After being denied the contract for India’s advanced fighter aircraft in 2011, U.S. aerospace and defense companies are making some gains in this sector. The Indian government has purchased more than $8 billion in military equipment from U.S. companies in the past decade, more than $5.3 billion of which took place in the past two years alone.
But clearly work needs to be done. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to lead an export reform and defense procurement review to jump start U.S.-India defense trade. The Indians need to undertake a similar commitment at defense sector reform to open up the market to U.S. companies and loosen the restrictions related to foreign direct investment and defense offsets. Additionally, both countries should work toward the possibility of cooperative research and development, and co-production where possible.
Similar reforms in the homeland security sector are warranted as well, where the confusion and divisions between the federal and state governments, not to mention the stifling bureaucracy, has deterred U.S. homeland defense firms from fully competing there. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Carter said in India this past summer, “our shared challenge in the next year is to find concrete areas to step up our defense cooperation” and “to knock down any remaining bureaucratic barriers in our defense relationship and strip away the impediments.” That is the right challenge and it is one where progress can continue to be made.

Conclusion

Clearly there is a wide range of areas in which the U.S.-India partnership can be advanced. These three areas presented here are worthy of further development. But it is important to keep in mind that the bilateral relationship has quietly, steadily, and carefully been built up over the past four years by like-minded leaders who recognize the critical nature of this alliance. Engagement at the top levels of government have set in motion the painstaking work by diplomats, development specialists, military officials, and civilian experts of all stripes to make the necessary linkages that pull two nations together (not to mention the millions of people-to-people relationships that have brought our nations closer and have delivered huge benefits for each country).
As written in a previous paper from the Center for American Progress, there will likely be few home runs in the coming years in the U.S.-India relationship. Those waiting for another game-changing achievement like the civil nuclear agreement, for example, are likely to be disappointed. But this shouldn’t stop smaller and less public efforts where gains can be made. Again, while we highlight defense, environment, and infrastructure as three vital areas for focus, the next administration may find other sectors where progress can be made. The key is to continue making progress, even incremental, wherever and whenever possible.
Richard Verma and Caroline Wadhams are Senior Fellows at the Center for American Progress.

Friday, 26 October 2012

PTA notification : LHC scraps overseas phone call tax

PTA notification : LHC scraps overseas phone call tax

PTA notification : LHC scraps overseas phone call tax

Published: October 26, 2012
Government’s move to impose hefty tax on incoming calls from overseas termed unconstitutional by petitioner.
LAHORE:  Justice Ijazul Ahsan of the Lahore High Court on Thursday cancelled the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority’s (PTA) notification to impose additional tax on incoming international phone calls.
The judge also ordered the PTA chairman to submit a reply against the levy by November 5, the next date of hearing.
The court issued a restraining order on a petition of a company, m/s Brain Telecommunication Company.
The petitioner submitted that PTA had unlawfully imposed the additional tax. He said that PTA had also violated competition commission’s rules. He said that overseas Pakistanis faced difficulties due to the implementation of this tax.
He requested the court to declare it unlawful and restrain the PTA from charging additional taxes.
While opposing the petition, the PTA said it was not an unlawful move and the additional tax was being collected in the better interest of the country.

Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor’s International Scholarships | Scholarships Today | College Scholarships and Grants Info

Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor’s International Scholarships | Scholarships Today | College Scholarships and Grants Info

Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor’s International Scholarships

Description
The competition for Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships is currently open for entry in season 2013.
Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships are created accessible for many outstanding international PhD candidates. Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships Awards created for entry in season 2013 might embody either or each of the subsequent, reckoning on the ranking of the application:
The full payment of overseas tuition fees (worth up to £16,390 at 12/13 rates)
A maintenance regular payment in line with RCUK rates (worth £13,590 at 12/13 rates)
Eligibility
Applicants for a Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarship should even be applying for a PhD at the University of solon to start in october 2013;
Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships Applicants should expect to be 'overseas' students for fees functions, however there's no different position criteria;
Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships Applicants is also from any discipline at solon.
Please note that not like Chancellor's Scholarships (formerly WPRS), Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships aren't hospitable current 1st year PhD students, however solely to candidates for a PhD.

Application point in time

Deadline for Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarships applications is eleventh Jan 2013.
Doctoral awards are going to be awarded through a combined Chancellor's/Chancellor's International Scholarship/AHRC student Awards/ Wolfson Foundation Scholarships competition. candidates are going to be thought-about for all scholarships that they're eligible.
There is one form required: Applications for the combined competition area unit created through one combined form for postgraduate admission and for the scholarships. this manner is just accessible inside the desired open amount.
No late applications are going to be accepted.
 
How to apply
The application method are going to be altogether combined with the applications for Chancellor's Scholarships and every one candidates for a Warwick Graduate school, Chancellor's International Scholarship can mechanically even be thought-about for a Chancellor's Scholarship.
 
 
 
 
Download the scholarship details in PDF file

Thursday, 25 October 2012

Einstein was right

Einstein was right 

Einstein was right
Albert Einstein:
"I fear the day when the technology overlaps with our humanity. The world will only have a generation of idiots."

 
 
 
  Having a Coffee...
Description: cid:8331E6F552E14557B4EC8043C6B5AF57@casa948c71d7c9

 

 

Get together in a restaurant...
Description: cid:A6B5DB970F7E460AA7C2BD2A7FE2AE23@casa948c71d7c9
 

Enjoying the beauty in a Museum...
  Description: cid:6C7D87F503034E0384C22A48AC4A3393@casa948c71d7c9
 


Pleasantly Chatting in a cafe' ...
 
Description: cid:A7EE1F2D1AE94726A5913BE500033ADF@casa948c71d7c9

Enjoying a day at the Beach...
 
Description: cid:C15F92E17D994DF9A4D0C0D1FD9A57BA@casa948c71d7c9
 

 

At the Stadium supporting the team...
  Description: cid:0EB58F79597F4F57B9138D32F29ACCA8@casa948c71d7c9
 
 

Having fun with the girlfriend...

Description: cid:EF7FFB8B99344F46840900B563173F92@casa948c71d7c9
 

 

Appreciating the Town in a convertible ..
  Description: cid:BAC9A500AD234F6BB5764D24F0FC19FC@casa948c71d7c9
 

 
Einstein was right

Continued detention of Masarrat Aalam Butt denounced

Continued detention of Masarrat Aalam Butt denounced

Continued detention of Masarrat Aalam Butt denounced

Srinagar, MTT News Desk: In Occupied State of Jammu & Kashmir (OSJK), the Jammu and Kashmir Muslim League denouncing continued illegal detention of Hurriyat leader Masarrat Aalam Butt despite the quashing of draconian Public Safety Act against him said that Indian armed forces were flouting the court orders in the territory.
The JKML General Secretary, Abdul Ahad Parah in a statement in Srinagar said that Udhampur Jail Superintendent in defiance of the quashing orders of Masarrat Aalam Butt had refused to release the jailed Hurriyat leader.
Abdul Ahad Parah has appealed to the international human rights organisations to take a notice of blatant human rights violations, particularly the plight of detained Hurriyat leaders and activists languishing in different jails of India and occupied Kashmir.
--

Tuesday, 23 October 2012

Analysis: US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas create backlash

Analysis: US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas create backlash

Analysis: US drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas create backlash

American approach to deadly attacks proves overly blunt, says journalist and Waziristan native Pir Shah.

specific evidence of known individuals or enemy combatants but rather on general information about “military-age males.” Such strikes were initiated under Bush in 2008, according to the Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko, who has researched them extensively.
“In an effort to reduce the Pakistani safe haven that was being used to attack US soldiers in Afghanistan, President Bush authorized drone strikes against anonymous militants whose behavior – based on signals intelligence, human agents and drone surveillance – resembles that of Taliban or Al Qaeda leaders,” said Zenko.
Noor Khan.
(Haji Mutaba/Courtesy)
“Signature strikes are problematic because they are not carefully vetted by the inter-agency process and they are often less precise and less discriminate,” Zenko told GlobalPost, adding that there also appears to be a pattern in the CIA tactic which includes staggered, follow-on strikes to kill rescuers of initial victims known as “double taps.”
The United States has never issued any statement of apology for the March 17 attack, not has any US government official ever acknowledged nor defended the practice of these “signature strikes” or “crowd kills.”  In fact, the mere mention of signature strikes has left US officials stumbling and evasive.
In April, John Brennan, Obama’s National Security Advisor, was asked at the Woodrow Wilson Center, “If you could address the issue of signature strikes, which I guess aren’t necessarily targeted against specific individuals?”
Brennan replied: “You make reference to signature strikes that are frequently reported in the press. I was speaking here specifically about targeted strikes against individuals who are involved.”
The US government declines to make any recognition of nor comment on such strikes, but as journalist and author Daniel Klaidman uncovered in his new book, Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama Presidency, Obama was uncomfortable enough with the term “crowd kill” that he changed the name, if not the tactic. These attacks, as Klaidman revealed, are now referred to as “TADS,” an acronym for a Terrorist Attack Disruption Strike. And these tactics are being employed not just in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but in Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere, according to Klaidman’s research.
No matter what name it goes by, the attack in North Waziristan has hurt US efforts in Pakistan, according to Pakistani as well as Western diplomats and security analysts. The March 17 strike was a dramatic stain on the record of US drone policy. When mistakes like this are made, they exact a great toll on US interests as well as Pakistani lives. In addition to killing tens of civilians, the strike alienated and enraged not only victims’ relatives like Noor Khan, but the broader group of tribal citizens in the region, some of whom actually had a previously favorable view of discriminate drone strikes as an effective means of eliminating their Taliban enemies while sparing civilian lives.
The United States simply cannot afford any more faulty strikes like this, which are more impactful than the effective strikes. The strike gave further ammunition to the forces which are exploiting the issue for political reasons, and also provided Pakistan with political capital to use as a leverage in its tense relationship with the US. Even 18 months after this attack, litigation remains, victims’ relatives and locals are still angry and political groups (and terrorist organizations) seize upon that energy to keep up the drum beat against America.
“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction and such attacks will result in the increase of hatred for the US,” said Noor Khan. “We have gone to the court to know who has allowed these attacks and on what legal ground,” Khan said about the petition which he, along with other relatives of the victims, have filed in a Pakistani court.
Just last week a march in Waziristan was led by the once-great Pakistani cricket star turned maverick populist political leader, Imran Khan. He gathered thousands of demonstrators, hailing from cities and villages across Pakistan and from other countries, including several dozen activists who traveled from America, to protest the US use of weaponized drones and the way in which their proliferation worldwide is against international law and basic human rights. Their march

2013 AAUW International Fellowships for Women in USA

2013 AAUW International Fellowships for Women in USA

 

October 14, 2012
2013  Master’s, Doctoral and Postdoctoral Fellowships for non US Women at the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in USAhttp://scholarship-positions.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/AAUW.jpgStudy Subject(s): The Scholarship is provided to learn any of the courses offered by the universities.
Course Level: The Scholarship is for pursing Master’s and Doctoral level.
Scholarship Provider: AAUW
Scholarship can be taken at: Students will get their studies in USA.
Eligibility:
- International Fellowships are awarded for full-time study or research in the United States to women who are not U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
- Both graduate and postgraduate studies at accredited U.S. institutions are supported.
-  Applicants must have earned the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree by September 30, 2012 and must have applied to their proposed institutions of study by the time of the application. Up to five fellowships are renewable for a second year.
Scholarship Open for International Students: The International Student can apply for this Fellowship.
Scholarship Description: AAUW has a long and distinguished history of advancing educational and professional opportunities for women in the United States and around the globe. One of the world’s largest sources of funding for graduate women.Fellowship and grant recipients perform research in a wide range of disciplines and work to improve their schools and communities. Their intellect, dedication, imagination, and effort promise to forge new paths in scholarship, improve the quality of life for all, and tackle the educational and social barriers facing women in the United States and around the globe.
Number of awards offered: Not known
Tenure of awards: Not Known
Value:
Master’s/First Professional Degree Fellowship: $18,000
Doctoral Fellowship: $20,000
Postdoctoral Fellowship: $30,000
Other Benefits: Not Known
Selection Criteria: Not Known
Notification: Not Known
How to Apply: The mode of applying is by online.
Scholarship Application Deadline: Do submit your application till December 1, 2012
Further Scholarship Information and Application

Read more: 2013 AAUW International Fellowships for Women in USA : 2012 2013 College Scholarships, PhD Scholarships, Postdoctoral, Graduate International Scholarships Fellowships
http://scholarship-positions.com

Drone Wars: How Russia and Georgia's 'little war' started a drone arms race

How Russia and Georgia's 'little war' started a drone arms race

How Russia and Georgia's 'little war' started a drone arms race

The legacy of the world's first drone war is shaped in part by US precedent.

Hermes-450 is similar in size and capabilities to the US military’s Predator, which has been heavily used for missions across the Middle East.
Russian officials later disclosed that the only drones it operated during the war were outdated domestic models developed in the late 1970s-early 1980s and several were lost. Furthermore, even the most advanced Russian-designed drone in the air at the time, “demonstrated many problems, among them a distinct acoustic signature audible from a long distance, which, coupled with its low [flight] ceiling, yielded high vulnerability to ground fire,” said Vladimir Popovkin, head of the Defense Ministry’s procurement wing.
However, if Russia was drone-poor and Georgia drone-rich before the conflict, everything changed when Israel switched sides.
Less than a year after the war, Russia announced it had bought 12 drones of varying sophistication for $53 million from state defense contractor Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), and in October 2010, the two sides agreed to a $400 million joint venture agreement to produce dozens more. Jamestown Foundation Russia expert Pavel Felgenhauer called the deal “the biggest defense technology transfer deal between Russia and a Western nation since 1945.”
Russia is expected to continue to expand its drone arsenal, although its attempts at producing quality drones domestically have been largely fruitless and hardliners in Moscow have strongly resisted the military’s limited foreign purchases. Nonetheless, Russian President Vladimir Putin specifically underlined the development of Russia’s drone capabilities as a priority in a campaign essay ahead of his election in March and has said that Russia intends to spend $13 billion on drones by 2020 as a part of its military modernization.
Meanwhile, the fate of the drone deals between Georgia and Israel played a major factor in the quick deterioration of what Caucasus expert Michael Cecire described as a “love affair” turned “messy divorce.” Pre-2008, Israel enjoyed arguably its strongest ties in the region with the pro-Western government of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. Israel sold Georgia 40 drones, anti-aircraft equipment, and trained Georgian infantry through private defense firms.
In the run-up to the war, however, Russia put heavy pressure on Israel to cancel its arms deals with Georgia, and publicly implied it would consider selling advanced equipment to Israel’s enemies if it did not give in. Israel acquiesced two days before the start of the conflict, a move that Georgian Minister for Reintegration Temur Yakobashvili, now ambassador to the US, slammed as “a disgrace.”
"Israel did it at the Russians' behest. It aided the terrorists, the Russians. It's a disgrace. I don't know what it received in return, I only see that Hezbollah continues to get Russian arms, and plenty of [them],” Yakobashvili told Haaretz at the time.
In April 2011, Israeli private defense contractor Elbit Systems, which supplied Georgia’s Hermes-450s and other drones, sued the country for $100 million for allegedly failing to pay for equipment. The two sides later settled the dispute with Georgia paying Elbit $35 million and returning “certain equipment and subsystems.”
Furthermore, in emails from private intelligence firm Stratfor leaked by WikiLeaks earlier this year, a Mexican source alleged that the Georgian government believed that Israel had also provided Moscow with the “data link codes” for its Hermes-450 drones, allowing Russian forces to hack them and force them to crash. This came supposedly in return for intelligence on air defense systems Russia had sold Iran.
The source, which Stratfor described as close to Mexican defense contractor Hydra Technologies, said Georgian officials were “frantically” looking for drones to replace its Israeli fleet, which they believed had been “compromised.”
Several defense industry sources told GlobalPost that it was extremely unlikely Israel would agree to such an intel exchange and doubted the credibility of Stratfor overall. Furthermore, Nick Turse, author of the ebook “Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050,” said that there are a number of things that could bring down drones in a conventional warfare scenario, and drones are not particularly difficult to hack even without data link codes.
“Even Iraqi insurgents were able to hack drone feeds. So, we’re not talking about sophisticated military technology here,” he said. “In a traditional air war, drones would be decimated by conventional piloted aircraft, and modern air defense systems would make minced meat out of Predator and Reaper [type drones].”
Nonetheless, while unveiling what he said were a new line of Georgian-designed-and-produced drones in April, President Saakashvili implied he believed Israel had given Russia the codes.
“When you procure from abroad, a seller may not give you a full technology or may share technology [bought] by you to your adversary,” Saakashvili said, as cited by news website Civil.ge. “No one will share this [pointing to the Georgian-made drone] with others.”
A month earlier he was quoted as saying it was important Georgia was producing its own drones because “someone may cheat you or share data to others or refuse [to sell weapons] at a decisive moment.”
Contrary to Saakashvili’s claims, however, Georgia is still not fully self-sufficient in its drone technology. Shortly after the president presented the drones, military bloggers noted that the supposedly Georgian-designed drones bore a strong resemblance to the Swan, a small drone produced by private Estonian defense contractor ELI.
Estonian defense attaché to Georgia Riho Uhtegi confirmed to GlobalPost that the drones were designed by ELI and licensed to Georgia for production. Since the war, Georgia has complained of being under an unofficial arms embargo, even from its Western partners and has publicly demanded weapons systems to replace equipment it lost during the war — specifically drones, air defense and anti-tank weapons.
The Estonian drone contract was the biggest arms deal Georgia has made, albeit secretly, since the conflict and Uhtegi said it was necessary for Estonia to gain approval from other NATO member countries before making the sale.
Still, drone industry experts also emphasized that the Estonian Swans are a big step down from the medium-sized Israeli Hermes-450. The Swan has limited range and altitude and must be launched by a mobile catapult while only being able to land via parachute.
“It’s sort of like comparing a Yugo to a Honda. They’re both cars, they both carry people, but they’re not in the same class,” one expert said.
Nonetheless, Irakli Aladashvili, editor-in-chief of the Georgian military journal Arsenali, said that drones continue to be essential for Georgia because they offer the cheapest way for a small country to scout enemy territory.
“Drones are the best intelligence devices after satellite surveillance. Obviously, the small countries of the South Caucasus can’t afford to put satellites into space, so [drones] are important,” he said.
The first drone war showed that drones can have a major impact on combat, but Turse said they are not necessarily a game-changer on the battlefield.
“For the last 100 years or so, there’ve been these wonder weapons that come around that are supposed to revolutionize warfare and give one nation a tremendous advantage — from tanks to machine guns. But whenever wonder weapons appear, countermeasures develop. War always seems to find a way,” he said.
However, even if drones do not prove to be crucial in winning conventional wars, Turse says they are likely to help start some new conflicts as international law has been slow to adapt to the new realities and the US has “written the rulebook” on their usage. Those “rules,” he said, include the mentality that violating another country’s territory with a robot isn’t a violation at all.
“I think this is embedded in the thinking on this. The US has been violating the sovereignty and airspace of countries for decades now with airplanes and the fact that there are no pilots in these things, the leadership feels like that gives them license to do it, even though there is no fundamental difference between violating it with a piloted plane or a robot plane,” he said.
The legality of such actions is even less clear amid territorial disputes, and, the de facto government of South Ossetia announced in September that it was working on measures to shoot down the Georgian drones it frequently spots in what it considers to be its sovereign territory, leading to fears that an escalation similar to 2008 could repeat itself.
 

Rebalancing China: China's consumer-led growth


Free exchange

Economics

Rebalancing China

China's consumer-led growth

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/10/rebalancing-china?fsrc=nlw|newe|10-22-2012|3861440|106923250|AP
Oct 20th 2012, 12:11 by S.C. | The Economist

CHINA, you may have heard, announced its latest growth figures on Thursday. The speed of growth attracted most of the attention, but the source of growth is perhaps more striking. At a press conference (in Chinese; see an FT report here), the National Bureau of Statistics pointed out that in the first three quarters of this year consumption* contributed over half (55%) of China's growth, exceeding the contribution from investment. If that pattern holds, China's growth this year will not be investment-led (let alone export-led), but consumption-led.**
That hasn't happened for over a decade. Or so I thought. Until recently, the official statistics showed that investment made the biggest contribution to China's growth in every year since 2001. But earlier this week the new edition of the China Statistical Yearbook arrived on my desk with a thud. Its revised figures show that consumption contributed 55.5% of China's growth in 2011; investment contributed only 48.8%. (Net exports subtracted 4.3%.) In other words, China's growth was consumption-led last year as well.
So far, this revision seems to have passed largely unnoticed by China-watchers. (Andy Rothman of CLSA is one notable exception. See also the FT's Lex column.) People are accustomed to the idea that investment is the principal engine of China's extraordinary expansion. That notion is one of the most familiar "stylised facts" about its economy. But this revision of the figures suggests a restyling of the facts is now due.
 
 * Consumption includes government consumption as well as household consumption.
** These calculations refer not to consumption's share of GDP (C/GDP), but to its share of GDP growth (ΔC / ΔGDP). Consumption is still unusually low (and investment unusually high) as a share of China's GDP. But as long as consumption's contribution to growth exceeds its share of GDP, that share will rise.

2012-2013 COMSATS Scholarships for Graduate Students in Pakistan

2012-2013 COMSATS Scholarships for Graduate Students in Pakistan

October 19, 2012
COMSATS offers Graduate Scholarships for MS and PhD Students from OIC  Member Countries and COMSATS Member Countries in Pakistan 2012-2013Study Subject(s): The scholarship is provided to learn Physics, Mathematics, Biosciences ,Management Sciences, Meteorology, Computer Science,Electrical Engineering.
Course Level: This scholarship is for pursuing MS and PhD level.
Scholarship Provider: COMSATS, Institute of Information Technology.
Scholarship can be taken at: Students will get their studies in Pakistan.
Eligibility:
-For MS admission: A 16 years degree in the relevant field from an accredited educational institution with first division (annual system) or CGPA 2.5/4.0 (semester system) with no third division or D grade throughout the academic career. or NTS GAT (General) with 50 % marks.
-PhD Admission: An MS/M-Phil with Thesis/Research Project of 06 credit hours or its equivalent degree with Thesis/Research Project of 06 credit hours in the relevant field from an accredited educational institution with minimum CGPA of 3.0/4.0 or 70% marks with no third division or D grade through out the academic career.
-GRE Requirement: GRE (subject) as per HEC policy or NTS GAT (subject) with 60% marks.
-For admission in PhD Electrical Engineering Program, any one of the existing GAT (subject) tests in Electrical, Computer, Telecom or Electronics will be acceptable with a minimum score of 60%.
Scholarship Open for International Students: Students of Bangladesh, Jordan, Sri Lanka, China, Kazakhstan, Sudan, Colombia, Korea (DPR), Syria, Egypt, Nigeria, Tanzania, Ghana, Pakistan, Tunisia, Iran, Philippines, Uganda, Jamaica, Senegal and Zimbabwe can apply for this scholarship.
Scholarship Description: The Graduate Prospectus of the COMSATS Institute of Information Technology is in your hands. We hope it will bring out the unique and distinctive features that CIIT offers to its graduate students as an institution of higher learning and research. Our aim is to provide you state of the art knowledge, develop your skills and create in you an enthusiasm that will propel you to meet the challenges that lie ahead, and enable you to effectively contribute towards progress and future development of our country in particular and the world in general.
Number of Awards: Not Known
Tenure of award:
-This scholarship award shall be initially valid for one year and may be renewed up to a maximum total duration of [12 or] 24 months, (duration of MS Scholarship for UK is 12 months only), unless otherwise expressly allowed by CIIT, towards MS degree subject to satisfactory academic performance of the Scholar.
-For PhD: This scholarship award shall be initially valid for one year and may be renewed up to a maximum total duration of [48 or 36] months, unless otherwise expressly allowed by CIIT, towards [MS  leading to] Ph.D.  degree subject to satisfactory academic performance of the Scholar.
Value: The payment of allowances admissible under the scholarship program shall be made subject to the complete adherence to all rules and regulations governing the scholarship program as well as satisfactory performance in the authorized field of study.
Other Benefits: Not Known
Selection Criteria: Not Known
Notification: Not Known
How to Apply: The mode of applying is by post.
Scholarship Application Deadline: Contact Employer
Further Scholarship Information and Application