Showing posts with label CPI (ML) Liberation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CPI (ML) Liberation. Show all posts

Friday, 25 December 2009

CPI (ML): `Shameful betrayal' at Copenhagen -- India and China sign undemocratic US-scripted accord

By Radhika Krishnan (via LINKS)

December 24, 2009 -- Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation -- The 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) has finally ended in Copenhagen, and it is now time to officially write the obituary. This week-long conference, where 110 countries got together to try and evolve a blueprint to handle the climate change crisis, has quite predictably and most unfortunately ended in failure. Predictable, because for a long time now there have been indications that the US would continue to hold the rest of the world to ransom by refusing to accept responsibility for its role in creating the climate crisis.

Much was at stake at Copenhagen. The Kyoto Protocol, which was the first concerted attempt to address global warming, comes to an end in 2012 and the Copenhagen conference was meant to build on the foundations that Kyoto had set. The Kyoto agreement essentially suggested that all industrialised countries cut their carbon dioxide emissions. Scientists however believe that the emissions reductions suggested in Kyoto are far from sufficient to keep the atmospheric carbon dioxide at an acceptable level, and therefore it was widely hoped that the Copenhagen summit would result in an agreement wherein industrialised countries would commit themselves to deep cuts in their current emissions levels.

Before the negotiations officially began, the US came up with a proposal to cut its emissions to just 3 per cent below its 1990 levels. This proposal was patently absurd, since any meaningful effort towards mitigating the climate crisis demands that the US cut its emissions by at least 40 per cent. Apart from this pathetic offer, US President Barack Obama (representing his corporate funders) came to Copenhagen armed with the usual bullying tactics and United States’s oft-used trump card: unless India and China agree to binding emissions cuts, neither will we. In a most shameful betrayal of Third World unity, India and China responded to this blackmail by breaking away from the Group of 77 countries (G-77) and signing a US-scripted "deal" on the last day of the conference. It is indeed shocking and shameful that India and China, along with Brazil and South Africa, decided to sign this deal – an agreement which signifies an important departure from the developing countries’ long-standing position at the climate change talks.

Copenhagen agreement: recipe for disaster

The "Copenhagen Accord" that was finally tabled (though not approved) at the conference is nothing but a recipe for an environmental catastrophe of monumental proportions. To those millions all over the world who were looking forward to an agreement with some teeth, capable of ensuring swift and effective mitigation of the climate crisis, the agreement is a huge disappointment.

To begin with, the agreement mentions no legally binding emission cuts for industrialised countries, thus effectively letting them off the hook. Given the fact that prior to the conference, many other industrialised countries had promised reductions (the European Union for instance had unilaterally agreed to reduce its emissions by 20%, and the UK by 40%), it is clear that the US obduracy and arrogance finally scuttled any meaningful proposal. More importantly, the agreement asks developing countries to also "voluntarily" reduce emissions, thus eliminating the important distinction between developing and developed countries.

Developing countries have fought long and hard to maintain this distinction – and this huge political volte-face aided and abetted by India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh absolves the developed world from their historic role in creating the present crisis, and essentially locks existing inequities for perpetuity. The agreement also states that developing countries’ performance on emissions reductions (even those that are not funded by international finance and technology) will be subjected to “international consultation and analysis”. This clause clearly opens the door to enforcing international monitoring, and will soon lead to binding commitments by developing countries.

Regarding the other important agenda of funding mitigation efforts in developing countries, the developed countries have set a goal of mobilisng jointly US$100 billion a year by 2020. This includes a short-term financing pledge (for 2010-2012) of $10.6 billion from the EU, $11 billion from Japan and $3.6 billion from the US. To put this "dole" in perspective, the EU’s contribution (which is the largest) is approximately 0.5% of global entertainment and media spending, 0.7% of the US military expenditure for 2008 and 1.4% of the bailout package that richest corporations of the world received following the economic recession! The priorities of the powers-that-be, and the level of their commitment (or the lack of it) to tackling the climate crisis, has become abundantly clear.

Indian government surrender to US imperialism

At Copenhagen, Manmohan Singh and environment minister Jairam Ramesh worked overtime to broker this blatantly pro-US deal. An effort which earned them praise from none less than Obama in his post-conference speech. And while this betrayal of the G-77 and of India’s poor is shocking, it is certainly not surprising. Some time back, Ramesh wrote a “confidential” letter to the prime minister articulating precisely the agreement which has been now signed. At that time, the Congress party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) tried to defend itself and fend off the resulting uproar by distancing itself from Ramesh’s proposals. Now, after Prime Minister Singh himself has signed this proposal, the slavish, pro-US kowtowing of the UPA government stands thoroughly exposed. Let us not forget that India has already announced targets for reducing carbon intensity (i.e. not total greenhouse gas emissions, but emissions per unit of GDP generated) – as a result of a "bilateral agreement" with the US.

Not surprisingly, India’s and China’s stand has deservedly invited an angry response from the other developing countries. And it was not just the content of the agreement that merited their anger. The entire process of drafting the agreement was marked by secrecy and a lack of respect for basic democratic principles -- most countries were deliberately kept away from the drafting process. Bolivia, Costa Rica, Venezuela and Cuba have therefore blamed those who have drafted the deal for showing them great "disrespect" by leaving them out of the drafting process and imposing their document on the vast majority. The Sudanese G-77 delegate Lumumba Di-Aping has gone to the extent of comparing the deal to the Holocaust.

Overall, the Copenhagen summit was a shameful display of the UPA’s subservience to US imperialism. Instead of this betrayal, what Jairam Ramesh and Manmohan Singh should have done was to cash in on the massive worldwide support and aspirations for a meaningful agreement. They should have joined hands with the vulnerable coastal nations most likely to suffer the most from the climate crisis and the G-77 to build pressure on the US. The industrialised countries, including the US, have to be forced to accept responsibility for their huge greenhouse-gas emissions. More importantly, they have to be held accountable for the historic role that they have played over the past two centuries in contributing to the climate crisis through their capital and energy intensive economies.

India's emissions

India should of course also reduce its emissions – not because the US demands it, not even because it is a huge contributor of greenhouse-gas emissions (though India’s total emissions are quite high, its per capita emissions are just 0.9 tonnes per person per year compared to the United States' 20.1 tonnes and China’s 2.3 tonnes) but because it is in the larger interests of India’s poor, and because it is essential for maintaining the delicate ecological balance.

India should have demanded funding and technology transfer from the industrialised countries for reducing its emissions. Let us understand very clearly that this funding is not a "gift" from some of the richest countries in the world, it is rather a small attempt on their part to compensate the millions of poor in the developing countries for the massive crisis that they have plunged the world into through the mindless, profit-driven, ecologically insane "development" paradigm that they have been pursuing for centuries. This funding could have been used to completely revamp our internal energy policy. It is an ideal time and occasion to pull away from our fossil-dependent energy policy to a more ecologically sensible one that depends more on renewable sources of energy.

However, it is clear that the UPA is least interested in pursuing any of this. For instance, forcing India's industry to invest in cleaner technology or to comply with strict pollution standards is complete anathema to the current regime, which is hell-bent on protecting the huge profit margins of corporations. The UPA, with its single-minded agenda of pandering to US imperialism and corporate interests back home, would much rather take the business-as-usual approach.

And in the process, be party to what the Sudan has called the new Holocaust.

[This article will appear in the January 2010 edition of Liberation,the magazine of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation.]

Tuesday, 24 March 2009

India needs a genuine Third Front, not an opportunist alliance

By the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation (via LINKS)

[CPI (ML) Liberation representative Kavita Krishnan will be a featured guest at the World at a Crossroads conference, to be held in Sydney, Australia, on April 10-12, 2009, organised by the Democratic Socialist Perspective, Resistance and Green Left Weekly. Visit http://www.worldATACrossroads.org for full agenda and to book your tickets.]

March 17, 2009 -- On the eve of the Lok Sabha (national lower house of parliament) polls, which will be held in five phases between April 16 and May 13, the launch of a ``Third Front'' spearheaded by the efforts of the Communist Party of India (CPI) and CPI (M) (the Communist Party of India-Marxist) has been announced. The front, it is claimed, is a non-Congress party, non-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) front committed to ``alternate policies''.

Most of the non-Left Front* partners -- regional and small parties such as All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), Telugu Desam Party (TDP), Telengana Rashtra Samity (TRS), Janata Dal (Secular) -- have at one point or the other been partners of either the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) or the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) or both. Some parties -- such as Biju Janata Dal (BJD) and the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) -- have maintained a cautious pre-poll distance from the Third Front but are being touted as post-poll partners.

[*The Left Front is the CPI (M)-led alliance that rules the state governments of West Bengal and Tripura. A similar alliance also operates in Kerala.]

The establishment of coalition governments as the norm in India for over a decade reflects the eroded credibility of the main ruling-class formations –- the Congress and BJP -– and the rise of a range of third forces. There is unmistakeable frustration and anger at successive NDA and UPA governments and their anti-poor, pro-imperialist policy orientation. Clearly, there is an objective need for a credible Third Front. The question is: can a rag-tag coalition ever constitute a meaningful Third Front? Isn't a vibrant left movement and a powerful democratic consolidation around a powerful left course a necessary foundation for any viable, serious and durable Third Front?

The ``Third Front'' as it stands today is a highly amorphous formation riddled with paradoxes. It is neither a full-fledged pre-poll alliance nor a well-defined programmatic coalition. Partners like the TDP have been enthusiastic proponents of disastrous neoliberal policies; as for the track record of partners like TDP, AIADMK or Janata Dal (Secular) on secularism and democracy, the less said the better. Potential post-poll partners like the BJD and BSP have an equally dubious and tainted record on both neoliberal policies and secularism (the BJD was the party in power in the state of Orissa, that, leading the state govt in alliance with BJP, has presided over the massacre of Christians at Kandhamal and over the repression and killing of tribal protesters against massive corporate land grab at Kalinganagar, and many other places; while the BSP has the distinction of being the only party without a declared economic policy).

More importantly, the current arrangement ignores the fact that there is a distinct and crucial difference between ``Third Front government'' (or non-NDA, non-UPA government) and a ``Third Front''.

A Third Front in its true sense can be nothing but a left and democratic front that is a powerful voice of a third alternative -– in policies, in vision, in people’s movements -– but which may not necessarily be in a position to form government. Only such a Third Front can be in any way durable, sustainable and credible. What is being called a ``Third Front'' at this juncture is very different: it is merely a potential power-sharing that might emerge in view of the possibility that neither the UPA nor NDA achieve a majority in the impending parliamentary polls -– an eventuality that is difficult to predict with any degree of certainty. Surely a genuine Third Front cannot be a mere exercise in government formation?

The role of the left parties, the CPI and CPI (M), in such a coalition is yet another paradox. On the one hand these parties face major setbacks in their strongholds of Kerala and West Bengal. On the other, CPI (M) leaders have spoken of the possibility of joining a Third Front government at the centre! Answering questions from the press at the release of the party manifesto, CPI (M) general secretary Prakash Karat indicated that the question of joining a Third Front government at the centre is very much open. The CPI (M), since its ``historic blunder'' of 1996, has systematically removed all the programmatic roadblocks to being part of a government at the centre -– it is now free to join any central government which it claims to be in a position to ``influence''.

The CPI (ML) Liberation has made it clear that a role in government formation is not on its agenda or priorities. The party is contesting this election with the agenda of asserting a fighting left opposition within parliament. The seat adjustment [agreement] forged by the CPI (ML) Liberation in Bihar with the CPI and the CPI (M) is quite distinct from any ongoing ``Third Front'' efforts of those parties. This adjustment is based on the CPI (ML)'s consistent efforts in the direction of joint activities and electoral adjustments with left formations. While there has been no let-up in our firm and sustained struggle against the CPI-CPI (M)'s opportunist tactics on the whole and anti-people policies and measures in Left Front-ruled states, the latter have, in the objective conditions of Bihar at this particular juncture (the closing of doors on an alliance with the UPA partners and the impact among left ranks in the state of CPI (ML)'s practice of independent left assertion) responded positively to our appeal for an adjustment in the Lok Sabha polls in Bihar.

We hold that a meaningful Third Front can only be forged on a left basis. The ongoing adjustment achieved by the CPI (ML), CPI and CPI (M) in Bihar is certainly linked in a strategic sense to the efforts and experiments in the direction of such a genuine Third Front -– efforts and experiments marked by a consistent and principled element of struggle as well as of unity of purpose.

The ruling-class design to subject the polity to a duopoly of the UPA and NDA must be frustrated. But a rag-tag ``Third Front'' that offers no policy alternative and is crowded by forces with dubious track records cannot face this challenge. Only a powerful left and democratic camp drawing its strength from the struggles and aspirations of the Indian people for a better tomorrow can be the most effective bulwark against the ruling class's attempt to regiment the polity, and can be the basis for a principled and consistent third alternative and Third Front.

[This article first appeared in the CPI (ML) Update, vol. 12, no. 12, March 17-23, 2009.]