Herman Van Rompuy, the Belgian Prime Minister becomes EU president

European Union leaders named Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy as the bloc's first president on 19th November evening and appointed Briton Catherine Ashton as its foreign affairs chief.

A consensus was reached at a summit in Brussels after Britain dropped its insistence that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair should become president, ending weeks of deadlock and opening the way to agreement on Van Rompuy.

The appointments are intended to bolster the EU's standing and help it match the rise of emerging powers such as China following the global economic crisis.

But Van Rompuy, 62, and Ashton, 53, are low-profile compromise candidates little known outside the EU and at least initially will not have the clout in foreign capitals that an established statesmen such as Blair would have had.

"The deal has been done. Both positions have been agreed," said an EU diplomat present at the talks, which involved all 27 member states.

Malta was represented by Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi.

The EU leaders in their summit today sought a political balance to satisfy member states and the European Parliament, whose approval is needed for Ashton. This was achieved by appointing a centre-right president and a centre-left high representative for foreign affairs.

Van Rompuy, who will not need the assembly's approval, won plaudits for holding together a fragile coalition government after becoming prime minister less than a year ago.

Ashton, a baroness and former member of the House of Lords, Britain's upper house of parliament, is hardly known even in Britain and has little foreign affairs experience. But she has made a good impression since becoming the EU's trade commissioner, its top trade official, last year.

BROWN HELPS BREAK THE DEADLOCK

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's insistence that Blair should become president had been an obstacle to agreement, but a breakthrough became possible when he backed down and decided instead to back Ashton for the foreign policy job.

"As it became clear that the chances of a Blair presidency, for a number of good reasons, were declining, the prime minister made the decisive intervention in this meeting (to stop backing Blair)," a spokesman for Brown told reporters.

Blair had long been the front-runner but many other states wanted a candidate more likely to lead by consensus and Germany and France joined forces to block his candidacy.

He also had no majority among European Socialist parties, where resentment is still felt over his backing for the U.S.-led war in Iraq and many wanted a leader from a country that uses the euro currency.

Agreement on Van Rompuy and Ashton prevented a failure at the summit that would have highlighted the divisions in a bloc representing nearly 500 million people, and undermined the goal it had set of boosting the EU's image on the world stage.

In backing Ashton, the leaders also answered calls by many EU officials for a woman to have one of the Union's top posts.

Although the EU is a major trading bloc, its political influence has not matched its economic might. Political analysts have questioned whether it will be able to do so even after the new appointments.

The post of president of the council of EU leaders was created under the EU's Lisbon treaty, which is intended to make decision making easier now the bloc has 27 member states.

The foreign policy high representative received enhanced powers under the treaty, which goes into force on Dec. 1, and will be in charge of a new EU diplomatic corps.

ASHTON IN MALTA

Catherine Ashton was in Malta in May, when she said the country was well placed to weather the storm caused by the international financial crisis.

"The country had a good strategy plan for its future development of trade," Baroness Ashton said.

Energy Policies Adverse Impact Climate

International Energy Agency shared early excerpts of the World Energy Outlook 2009 to inform the climate change negotiations leading into Copenhagen that continuing with today’s energy policies would lead to severe climate change impacts. It noted that if right policies put in place promptly, this could help to achieve 450 ppm but some wondered whether it will be adequate.

Meanwhile developing countries are opposed to “the concerted efforts to put the Kyoto Protocol aside. There has to be come comparability between the US and EU commitments. Now there is uncertainty regarding law, scope and nature of commitments, said Shyam Saran, the PM’s Special Envoy on Climate Change in Bangkok. He explained that their proposal for funding sources in the form of assessed contributions from developed countries was based on the experiences of the Group of G-77 and China. He said financing provided through existing institutions outside the Convention has been inadequate and he highlighted the need for a compliance mechanism for monitoring how developed countries implement their financial commitments.

Saran noted that 40% reduction (by developed countries) is a rather reasonable target for 2020. Most missed their targets for the first commitment period. We need significant cuts in the second commitment period. The National Action Climate plan (to cut emissions) sets out national actions and not international obligations.
Historical responsibility is an integral part of determining the equitable basis on which a new climate change relationship can be fashioned. The Kyoto is a valid legal document and the negotiations taking place right now have nothing to do with bringing in another protocol. We are not only focusing on carbon emissions, we have a much broader agenda in terms of climate action plan. We don't see that scale of resources (to fund mitigation measures in developing and least developed countries) being made available. We need to look at the IPR regime to make (climate change) technologies, public good. To talk about any deviation from business as usual and not talk about how this is to be supported by technology and finance is simply not saleable. There are commitments, which have to be undertaken by the developed countries and appropriate actions to be taken by the developing countries. Its not on an equal level.

Supporting the Indian stance, China’s Climate Change Envoy, Yu Qing-tai said that ”Ëveryone is born equal” and it was “politically and morally incorrect and unacceptable” that someone who was born Chinese had only a limited entitlement to atmospheric space. There is a concerted effort to put an end to Kyoto Protocol. It is clear that our partners in developed world are not interested in entering into serious discussions on targets for emission reduction".

New multilateral institutions on the lines of the World Bank to manage funding for countries to adapt to gobal warming should not be “donor-driven, to reflect the priorities of the donor community. We are talking about entitlements, not aid," Saran said.

He cited a German colleague saying, “Some 60-70% of such technologies are already available,” he said. “We need a zero-tariff regime on these and eco-friendly goods.
There was an ëxtraordinary responsibility”to spread these technologies as well as a global mechanism to adapt them to different regions, which is why India was advocating regional innovation centres."

Venezuela has emphasized that “99% of the text” reflects proposals by developed countries on market mechanisms and stressed that the text should better reflect proposals by developing countries. South Africa, China and India, Venezuela and Singapore stressed that this subparagraph of the BAP addresses “various approaches,” not just markets.

The US noted that it is uncertain “what the configuration of Copenhagen might be regarding the fate of the Kyoto Protocol” and suggested addressing such uncertainty by adding language that: “the COP shall take decisions necessary to enable the applicability of the CDM under this agreement.”

Algeria noted that countries wishing to use the CDM could ratify the Protocol.
The EU clarified that their intention is “not to step away from the Protocol,” but to build on it. It explained that their preferred outcome from Copenhagen would be an integrated instrument that incorporates key elements from the Protocol, including:
binding QELROs; robust reporting consistent with Protocol Articles 5, 7 and 8; strong compliance; and the flexibility mechanisms. It stressed the intention to: strengthen the legally binding framework for all parties; retain the CDM; and integrate new market mechanisms as voluntary tools for developing countries to engage in cost-effective mitigation. He noted efforts by the EU, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand and others to consolidate their proposals on new mechanisms and provide streamlined text.

Brazil stressed that for his country, the continuity of the Protocol is one of “the key aspects of the Copenhagen outcome” and noted that selectively picking elements from the Protocol would weaken the entire regime.

India has proposed the establishment of a new financial mechanism under Convention Article 11 (financial mechanism). It said only funding channeled through the financial mechanism should count towards the fulfillment of Annex II parties’ financial obligations. Japan and US cautioned against creating new bureaucratic
organizations, noting the need to reconsider the role and scope of the existing funds under the Convention and Protocol in order to avoid duplication. US clarified that their proposal for a global climate fund envisaged new arrangements and not the
creation of a new institution.

G-77 and China stressed that the group’s mandate is to consider the “full, sustained and effective implementation of the Convention,” particularly implementation of Convention Articles 4.1(c) and 4.5 (technology transfer) and urged parties not to
digress from this mandate.

China and India stressed the importance of deep emission reductions by Annex I parties in the second commitment period for “a strong and robust carbon price.”
INDIA warned that the proposed new mechanisms would “flood the market” with cheap credits. China identified the need to define the concept of supplementarity to avoid “mainstreaming” offsetting, specifying that the figure can be further discussed but that it should be below 50%. India proposed that caps on the use of offsets could be scaled according to Annex I countries’ circumstances, such as historical responsibility or sustainable lifestyles.

Interestingly, Norway, the Russian Federation, New Zealand noted that where emission reductions take place is irrelevant for the atmosphere. While the EU recognized the importance of supplementarity and domestic action, it emphasized the role of mitigation potential in determining the amount of emission reductions to be achieved through offsetting, and identified the need to “let the market play.”

Heated discussions on the fate of the Kyoto Protocol also surfaced during the day both in contact groups and in informal consultations. Some of those participating in the AWG-LCA subgroup on various approaches to mitigation commented on the
proposal by the US to introduce language that would include the CDM in an agreement reached under the AWG-LCA. “The US interest in the CDM is obviously welcome news,” remarked one delegate. “I am increasingly worried about the Protocol,” said
another: “If we start discussing the CDM under the AWG-LCA, it means that the AWG-KP will just die - and I don’t want the blood of the Protocol on my hands,” he explained. “It seems that many developed countries are ready to finish off the Protocol,” opined another.

The divide between developed and developing countries on the fate of the Protocol became more evident under the AWGKP in the evening when a small group convened to discuss the legal implications of the Protocol being submerged under a new agreement. Several developing countries stressed that the question was political rather than a legal one, and opposed any discussions implying that the Protocol would cease to exist in the future. Several developing country delegates, in fact,
reportedly walked out of the meeting after expressing this view.

The financial and economic crisis has led to delay in the investments in polluting
technologies. Consequently, CO2 emissions is expected to fall in 2009 by as much as
3% - steeper than at any time in the last 40 years, finds the International Energy
Agency's new study. This would lead to emissions in 2020 being 5% lower – even in the
absence of additional policies -- than the IEA estimated just twelve months ago. The
economic downturn has thereby created an opportunity to put the global energy
system on a trajectory to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions at 450 parts per million
(ppm) of CO2-equivalent, in line with an increase in global temperature of around 2
degrees Celsius.

The IEA 450 ppm Scenario sees the use of fossil fuels peak before 2020, and energyrelated CO2 emissions just 6% higher in 2020 than in 2007. Relative to a Reference Scenario of current policies, emissions in 2020 would need to be reduced by 3.8 gigatonnes (Gt) worldwide to achieve the 450 Scenario. 1.6 Gt of this reduction occurs in OECD countries, while policies and measures in China – already being considered by the Chinese government – account for 1 Gt of emissions reductions, more than anywhere else. This underlines the leading role China will play in the global combat against climate change.

To achieve this energy revolution, incremental investment of USD 10 trillion will be
necessary between 2010 and 2030 in the energy sector - equivalent to 0.5% of global
GDP in 2020, rising to 1.1% of GDP in 2030. Yet fuel savings across industry,
transport and buildings total USD 8.6 trillion between today and 2030, similar to the
additional investment in these sectors.

In 2020, the energy sector in non OECD countries would need to make USD 200
billion of extra investments in clean power, energy-efficiency measures in industry
and buildings and next-generation hybrid and electric vehicles. For this, developing
countries will need some financial support from OECD countries. OECD domestic
investment needs amount to a further USD 215 billion in 2020. But the benefits, in
terms of energy savings, reduced fuel imports and air quality improvements offset
much of this extra cost, not to mention the fact that this will help to avoid extreme
climate change.

The IEA 450 scenario is the energy pathway to Green Growth. Yet we need to act urgently and now. Every year of delay adds an extra USD 500 billion to the investment needed between 2010 and 2030 in the energy sector.

The WEO-2009 excerpt sets out, for key countries and regions (including the United
States, Japan, the European Union, Russia, China and India), the energy
transformation that each might undertake, sector by sector, if the world were to adopt a 450ppm trajectory. It also describes the current trends in energy use and emissions in a fully updated Reference Scenario, detailing the implications of current policies.

The entire WEO 2009 will be launched in London on 10 November 2009 and contains
substantially more climate analysis and provides a comprehensive set of results, by sector and by region, for both the Reference Scenario and the 450 Scenario, and analyses the international financial flows and mechanisms that might underpin a post-2012 agreement.

BRICs, a new economic block

BRICs is an acronym that refers to the fast growing developing economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and China. The acronym was first coined and prominently used by Goldman Sachs in 2001. Of late BRICs has organized themselves into an economic bloc, or a formal trading association, like the European Union has done and are seeking to form a "political club" or "alliance" to convert "their growing economic power into greater geopolitical clout"

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is an intergovernmental mutual-security organization which was founded in 2001 by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. Except for Uzbekistan, the other countries had been members of the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996.

Departure Statement by the PM Dr Manmohan Singh on his visit to Russia on June 15, 2009 in New Delhi

At the invitation of the President of the Russian Federation, His Excellency Mr. Dmitry Medvedev, I am leaving today to attend the BRIC and SCO Summits being hosted by Russia in Yekaterinburg.

The countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) together account for 40% of the world’s population and 40% of global Gross Domestic Product. The BRIC grouping has the potential to lead global economic growth. In fact, global economic recovery is closely linked to the success of the BRIC economies. India is among the fastest growing BRIC economies, and we are ready to play our part in coordinating international efforts to overcome the ongoing financial and economic slowdown. BRIC countries also have a role to play in promoting the principle of multilateralism in international affairs, and in the reform of institutions of global governance, including the United Nations, to reflect contemporary realities. From these points of view, the convening of the first stand-alone summit of BRIC countries is a significant development.

I will also be attending the Summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) for the first time. India has been an observer of the SCO since 2005. My decision to attend the Summit is a reflection of the high regard we have for Russia’s Presidency of the SCO, and our desire to intensify our engagement with countries of our extended neighbourhood in Central Asia. There are issues which concern both of us, such as the fight against terrorism and extremism and cooperation in areas of energy security, infrastructure development, agriculture, transportation, science and technology and education. India and the SCO stand to gain considerably from each other through such cooperation.

During my visit, I look forward to meeting and exchanging views with the other world leaders who will be present in Yekaterinburg.

MIsuse of Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure

Note: Procedural Establishments Under The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives protection to a person who is still a Public Servant at the time the prosecution is launched, and also when he is no longer a public servant. This is to protect the Public Servant from a case being filed against him after his retirement. When the government servant or the employee is not removable from his office without the sanction of the Central Government, then the same is necessary. Sanction under this section is not necessary before a Public Servant could be prosecuted for an offence of bribery under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There are three facets in the consideration of the protection given by Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. to the acts done by public officers. (i) The act complained attaches to it the official character of the person doing it; (ii) The official character or status of the accused gave him an opportunity of doing the act, and (iii) The offence is committed at a time when the accused was engaged in his official duty.

"Nutan Thakur" wrote:

The Lavalin Case- Rethinking over section 197 CrPC

Pinarayi Vijayan is the state Secretary of the Kerala CPI(M) and is also the member of the Central Polit bureau, which is the highest decision making body of the Party. The 19th Congress of the CPI(M) had elected a 87 member Central Committee, which on April 03, 2008 elected a 15 Member Polit Bureau. Pinarayi Vijayan is a member of both these.

The other members of this Polit Bureau include such stalwarts as the General Secretary Prakash Karat along with his wife Brinda, Sitaram Yechury, Biman Basu, Manik Sarkar, the two CPI(M) Chief ministers Buddhadev Bhattacharya and V S Achuthanandan along with others. He is thus among the most important members of the CPI)M).

The so-called Lavalin case relates to memorandum of understanding (MoU) Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) signed with SNC-Lavalin, a Canadian company in August 1995. During the initial period of the contract, G. Karthikeyan of the Congress Party was the Minister for Electricity. Later during further contracts in February 1997 Pinarai Vijayan was the Minister for Electricity.

Later the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) found that Lavalin was only a consultant intermediary and not the original equipment manufacturer and that the supply of goods and services was made by other firms at a much higher cost leading to excess expenditure. According to the CAG, various avoidable (and at times deliberate) failures on the part of the Board and the government to properly execute the deal resulted in heavy losses to the government of an amount nearly Rs 25 crores.

On 16 January 2007, Kerala High Court ordered a CBI enquiry into the scandal. On February 19, 2008, the CBI informed High court of Kerala that the investigation was progressing and hinted at the complicity of former Electricity Ministers Pinarayi Vijayan and G. Karthikeyan.

On 21 January 2009, the CBI filed a progress report on the investigation in the Kerala High Court where it named Pinarayi Vijayan as the 9th accused. A total of 11 persons have been arraigned.

As per CBI's version Vijayan, while serving as Electricity Minister between May 1996 and October 1998, colluded with K. Mohanachandran, Principal Secretary (Power) in a criminal conspiracy already in motion in the matter of awarding supply contracts of the projects to Lavalin.

The investigations revealed that the supply contract for renovation and modernisation of the Panniyar, Shengulam and Pallivasal hydel projects was given to SNC Lavalin at an exorbitant rate and the per MW cost for the same was the highest. This caused a loss to the Government of Kerala with corresponding wrongful. Thus CBI requested an order for prosecuting Vijayan.

Thus came the question of Prosecution. As per our statues, section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with prosecution of Judges and public servants. Section 197(1) states that when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the concerned government.

There are two important Supreme Court judgements in this regards, both exactly opposite to each other. While in the state of Uttar Pradesh vs. Paras Nath Singh, the Supreme Court has ruled that a public servant cannot be given the protection of sanction under Section 197 CrPC if he is facing allegations of indulging in criminal offences.

The Court said that forgery, criminal conspiracy, cheating and taking gratification cannot form part of official discharge of duty by a public servant saying-''A public servant, however, is not entitled to indulge in criminal activities,''. The apex court also noted, "It is no part of the duty of a public servant while discharging his official duties to commit forgery of the type covered by the aforesaid offences. Want of sanction under Section 197 of the code is therefore no bar."

At the same time, in another case related to some senior police officers of Maharashtra another bench of the SC had held the prosecution of these officers under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) illegal, on the ground that the accused cannot be prosecuted without proper prior sanction.

The CPI (M) leadership and the workers, both at the Center and in the state of Kerala have refused to take this prosecution lightly decided to fight it out. While the Press Statement in its statement dated June 8, 2009 said that the CBI case "is politically motivated" and that "it is unfortunate that the Governor of Kerala decided to grant permission to the Central Bureau of Investigation to initiate prosecution proceedings" , the workers on the street took the message wholeheartedly and went for a heavy rampage and large-scale ransacking and violence.

Previously Vijayan had also issued threats of retaliation and punishment to K. Gopalakrishnan, Editor, Mathrubhumi Malayalam for having played a lead role in exposing and pursuing the Lavlin case.

Thus all these efforts are being made to save a person who is primarily being seen as an accomplish in a criminal case where he has supposedly misused his official position to cause heavy losses to the State exchequer. This from a party that has always boasted of belonging to the toiling masses- the workers and the peasants. But more important than the individuals, it is the basic legal postulate that I want to harp upon. Do we really need section 197 of the CrPC?

Isn't this provision of law being misused persistently or is being used selectively for political ends? For the same criminal acts, the governments and the authorities go by different yardsticks. Against some they grant the prosecution sanction while for others they withhold it for years.

From all this, it seems that this provision of section 197 CrPC is primarily being misused or is being used for specific purposes. At least, it shall be scrapped for cases related with forgery, misappropriation, cheating, misuse of official positions for wrongful gains etc. This is something that is immediately required.


Dr Nutan Thakur
Editor,
Nutan Satta Pravah
Lucknow

In China, Bicycles Are Back

Of all the things that have changed in China over the past 30 years, transportation has undergone one of the most obvious of transformations. Where city streets once swarmed with bicycles, they are now full of automobiles. Cars clog intersection and expressways. Their exhaust clouds the sky and the air is full of the sound of horns. But zipping through the congestion is the vanguard of another transportation revolution: vehicles that use no gas, emit no exhaust and are so quiet they can surprise the unwary pedestrian.

In China, electric bicycles are leaving cars in the dust. Last year, Chinese bought 21 million e-bikes, compared with 9.4 million autos. While China now has about 25 million cars on the road, it has four times as many e-bikes. Thanks to government encouragement and a population well versed in riding two wheels to work, the country has become the world's leading market for the cheap, green vehicles, helping to offset some of the harmful effects of the country's automobile boom. Indeed, as engineers around the world scramble to create eco-friendly, plug-in electric cars, China is already ahead of the game. Says Frank Jamerson, a former GM engineer turned electric-vehicle analyst: "What's happening in China is sort of a clue to what the future will be."

Right now the future buzzes along at a sedate pace. Government regulations limit the top speed of e-bikes to about 12 mph. But manufacturers are building bigger and bigger machines with speed regulators that are easily removed. E-bikes that are basically pedal-powered machines with an electric boost are common in cities like Beijing and Shanghai, but e-scooters with heavier motors and top speeds of around 30 mph, fast enough to rival mopeds, are growing in popularity.

The e-bike boom owes much to Chinese policy. The government made developing e-bikes an official technology goal in 1991. Major Chinese cities have extensive bicycle lanes, which means riders can avoid the worst of rush-hour congestion. In cities such as Shanghai, local governments have drastically raised licensing fees on gas-powered scooters in recent years, effectively driving hoards of consumers to e-bike manufacturers.

The relative simplicity of the machines and their components has encouraged a huge number of e-bike companies to open in China. In 2006 there were 2,700 licensed manufacturers, and countless additional smaller shops. Rising to the top of the heap is not easy. Leading manufacturer Xinri (the name means "new day") was founded in 1999 by Zhang Chongshun, an auto parts factory executive who recognized the potential of the field. In its first year Xinri built less than 1,000 bikes; last year it churned out 1.6 million.

Xinri's Zhang puts in thousands of miles on the road a year, visiting as many as six cities a day to investigate local market conditions. But ultimately what makes Xinri successful is that electric bikes have hit a sweet spot in the Chinese economy. As Chinese grow richer, they want more convenient means of transportation. But not everyone can afford a car. "Motorcycles are too dangerous, cars are too expensive, public transportation is too crowded and pedal bikes leave you too tired," says Hu Guang, Xinri's deputy general manager. "So people buy e-bikes."

The company's ads show Jackie Chan riding an e-bike alongside a model in a glamorous European capital. Reality is much more mundane. E-bikes are commonly used by migrant laborers who schlep across town from their quarters in the suburbs to work sites across town, with their drills and saws strapped to their bike racks. Police stations are often fronted by a row of blue and white patrol e-bikes. Delivery workers from McDonald's and KFC haul plastic cases stuffed with Big Macs and fried chicken to office parks. "At first, I picked an e-bike because I couldn't stand the sickening smell of gas from my scooter," says Zhang Dengming, 50, a construction supervisor in Shanghai. "But after awhile, I realized that e-bikes are actually much safer than motorcycles, and better for the environment. Although e-bikes are generally slower than gas scooters, I find them fast enough for my daily commutes. Their price, which is typically just over 2,000 renminbi ($290) is also more acceptable, so I don't feel as bad when they get stolen."

Last year Chinese bought about 90% of the 23 million e-bikes sold worldwide. Experts say that next regions to likely embrace e-bikes are Southeast Asia, where gas-powered scooters are popular, and India, where rising incomes mean personal transportation is starting to be in reach of hundreds of millions. Japan has seen steady annual sales of about 300,000 for several years, and in the cycle-crazy Netherlands e-bikes are beginning to take off. In the U.S., where bikes are still overwhelmingly used for recreation rather than transportation, e-bike sales are expected to break 200,000 this year, or about 1% of China's sales.

E-bikes weren't always so popular on the mainland. Early models were even slower than today's; range was limited and batteries died in less than a year. Now they can travel as far as 100 km on a full charge, more than enough for a day's riding. But batteries remain the weak point. Most e-bikes rely on lead-acid batteries, cheap century-old technology unsuitable for the growing demands of daily commuting. "The battery is the key limiting factor," says Jonathan Weinert, a transportation expert who wrote his doctoral dissertation on electric bikes in China.

While lead-acid batteries are improving, Weinart says that electric bikes will create a larger market for lithium-ion batteries — a newer, lighter technology whose development is key for the future of electric vehicles. Already Giant, the world's largest manufacturer of pedal bicycles but a small player in the Chinese e-bike market, has made headway in northern Europe selling high-end e-bikes that use lith-ion batteries. "To the extent that the electric bike industry can help get battery costs down, test the technology and get it in the market, that may lead" the development of electric vehicles with more than two wheels, Weinert says.

Chinese market leaders like Xinri and Yadea have partnered with top schools like Tsinghua and Peking universities to improve battery technology. And like a slew of other Chinese companies, some e-bike makers are already working on electric cars. Yadea plans to create electric cars for special uses such as shuttling sightseers at tourist destinations. At the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Xinri provided e-bikes and an electric car for use by police at the Bird's Nest stadium.

Electric cars will require more powerful recharging stations than the standard wall outlets used to juice up bikes. But when four-wheeled technology becomes road-ready, it will find a willing customer base in China. "The Chinese have a hundred million people on electric bikes," says Jamerson. "That means a hundred million potential customers" for electric cars. When he worked at GM, which filed for Chapter 11 on June 1, Jamerson said he once suggested the company give away an electric bike with every new car, just to get customers used to the idea of a means of transportation you plug in every night. His bosses thought he was joking. When the electric revolution final comes, China's e-bike makers could have the last laugh.

By Austin Ramzy / Beijing

—with reporting by Jessie Jiang/Beijing and Natalie Tso/Taipei

Source:http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904334,00.html

Giving in to prior restraint

Is civil society mounting enough of a fight against the extraordinary powers Mr Raja's ministry is arming itself with? The rules being framed for the IT (Amendment Act) 2008 are ominous, says SEVANTI NINAN

This article is an expanded version of a column which appeared in the Hindu, on June 7, 2009 titled, “In the name of national security”.

After 26/11 when the Information and Broadcasting Ministry tried to come up with sweeping restrictions on TV channels in the interests of national security there was the predictable outcry and the government backed down very quickly.

Why then is there not enough of an outcry when websites are affected, for the same reason? Particularly over the way rules are being framed for the IT (Amendment) Act of 2008? The powers they give the Government to block websites amount to prior restraint, permitting blocking without informing the affected party, or giving him/her a chance to be heard. Obviously it has been done to deal with terrorism, and it could be argued that you will not be seeking permission from a non-state actor when you are seeking to track him by intercepting his email or blocking the websites he uses to spread his message. But civil liberties can end up being curtailed in the name of combating terror, and individual privacy can be violated the same way. Both are endangered as the new government goes about putting teeth into the amended IT act.

The controversial Mr A Raja does not just preside over telecom, which the country’s biggest industrialists are interested in. He also presides over the lawmaking which governs the use of the Internet in India. Surely that is something which deserves at least as much media vigilance as the awarding of telecom licences to companies?

Last year, a few weeks after the Mumbai attacks in November, a Bill which had been sitting around in a Standing Committee since 2006 was hastily passed, without much debate in parliament. The Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 seeks to give teeth to existing laws on information technology and cyberspace. Last month, shortly before Mr Raja began his second stint, the Department of IT posted on the Internet the results of its labours in drafting rules for this Act. Since the devil is in the details, the import of the Act resides in the rules. These are still at the draft stage, you are invited to send your comments to the Government of India, which does this feedback exercise to show how democratic it is. http://www.mit.gov.in/default.aspx?id=969.

Here, then, is a idiot’s guide to what Mr Raja and his men are proposing to do, in the name of national security, safe internet use, and suchlike.

a) Intercept email, under section 69 of the Act.

Who can give orders for such interception? Technically only the Union Home Secretary or the Home Secretary at the state level, but in unavoidable circumstances also a joint secretary. In further unavoidable circumstances---in an emergency (not defined) in a remote area (not defined)---a security officer of the rank of an inspector general of police can order the interception. They have to get it okayed in a week’s time by a home secretary or joint secretary or cease intercepting.

What about laws protecting privacy? This provision circumvents those in the name of security.

b) Block websites and web content, under section 69A.

A designated officer of joint secretary-level is empowered to handle requests for blocking from departments or individuals. He submits the request to an inter-ministerial comittee of joint secretaries, including one from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. In an emergency, scrutiny by just the designated officer will do, and the final permission has to come from the Secretary, Department of Information Technology. What can be the basis for a request to block? The Sovereignty or Integrity of India, the Defence of India, the Security of the State, Friendly Relations with Foreign States, Public order, and, for "preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above." Apart from the fact that all of the above are open to interpretation, do note the 'preventing incitement' bit. In case somebody thinks you might provoke someone to do something, they can block your website.

What about a right to be heard before the blocking? There is none. The job of Secretary, Department of Information Technology, suddenly becomes a pivotal one in the matter of freedom of expression. He has the final say in any blocking.

Review of the decision? A committee headed by the Cabinet Secretary, GOI, needs to meet at least once in two months for that. As a CERT IN official said at a recent meeting when questioned about the inordinately long time taken for a review, "Bahut cases hote, saab. Cabinet Secretary khali nahin baithe hota." His point was that overall there is a four-level scrutiny, and that so far blocking of web pages or sites has been very rare indeed, three to four cases in the last five years.

c) Monitor and collect traffic data relating to a website, in the name of ensuring cyber security, and foiling cyber security incidents. Under section 69B.

d) Set up an Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN), whose constituency “shall be the Indian cyber community,” under section 70B (1)

If you plough through all the citizen-friendly sounding stuff that this team is supposed to do, you will hit upon this clause: “For carrying out its functions prescribed in section 70 (B) of the Act, CERT-IN may seek information and give directions for compliance to the service providers, intermediaries, data centres, body corporate and any other person, as may be necessary.” This innocuous body can order your service provider to cough up any data it wants. And what level of officer can do this? Any officer of CERT-In, not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India. Again the defence is that this clause only relates to cyber security. The rules empowering CERT-IN are drafted by the organisation itself. Talk of giving yourself powers because you are making the rules!

e) Define the liability of Network Service Providers, under section 79.

This is a section for which the rules have not yet been posted, because there is hectic lobbying going on by industry. It seeks to protect the companies that operate in India as Network Service Providers from being liable for any third party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by them. They are not liable so long as they “do not initiate the transmission, select the receiver of the transmission, and select or modify the information contained in the transmission, and so long as they observe due diligence while discharging their duties under this Act.” But once they come to know of data posted on their servers which could be interpreted as violating the “integrity of India, defence of India, friendly relations with foreign States” bits and do not remove it, they become liable.

Who will be defined as a network service provider? What will be defined as due diligence? What will be the definition of an intermediary? Industry is lobbying with CERT-IN on these issues. Sachin Pilot is the minister in charge.

But is civil society mounting enough of a fight to protect privacy, and prevent web content blocking without a prior right to be heard? Is it doing enough to oppose the extraordinary powers Mr Raja's ministry is arming itself with?

Because given the way we handle technology, actions officially ordered do not end up have the restricted impact they are supposed to. Back in 2003 when there was an attempt at Internet censorship through the blocking of a discussion group on the Web, the Internet Service Providers went beyond the targeted blocking they were asked to do. An organisation in Meghalaya which advocates seccession had set up this group, and the request for blocking it came from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Had the service providers quietly blocked this one discussion group, nobody might have noticed. But they had never received such a request before and three of them (Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Data Access and Sify) wrote back immediately to DoT to say that since their infrastructure made it technically impossible to block just one group they had ("as per your directive") blocked all of Yahoo Groups, thousands of them. Predictably, there was a huge outcry.

And it achieved the opposite of what it set out to do because it sent the curious rushing to a little-visited discussion group. Despite being blocked, the page could be accessed through an anonymizer site on the Net whose express purpose is to allow people to circumvent blocks. Censorship does stay quiet in this country, which is a great thing. Nor does it achieve its objective. See what this attempt did for Kynhun.BriU Hynniewtrep, the Meghalaya discussion group, seeking a separate state for the Khasis. Its membership grew from 25 or so before the censorship, to 214 after it. The year-old group had meandered along unnoticed, with an average of three postings a month. Post ban, it got 23 in four days.

Censorship does stay quiet in this country, which is a great thing. But the point to remember about governments is that where arbitrary powers are concerned, they never stop trying to exercise them.

(This article also draws upon an earlier column available at http://www.hindu.com/mag/2003/10/12/stories/2003101200180300.htm)

Source: The Hoot