Να γιατί κ.Παπανδρέου δεν πρόκειται (και εξαιτίας σας) να γίνουμε Ινδία: GLOBAL POWER INDIA, THE WORLD'S LARGEST KLEPTOCRACY!

Σε απλά Αγγλικά για να το κατανοήσετε ακόμα κι εσείς...
Hillary Clinton is counting on India's rise not just as an economic partner but as a global power - one that engages everywhere from Latin America to the Middle East to East Asia. India's leadership in promoting a more stable South Asia - its multibillion dollar assistance commitment to Afghanistan, its determination to re-engage and normalize trade with Pakistan, and its joint projects to boost infrastructure and capacity in Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and the Maldives -- offer the hope of a more peaceful future for the region and...
the world. Ambassador Rao's personal efforts as Foreign Secretary to revive dialogue between India and Pakistan and consider mutually-beneficial steps in trade and other areas are particularly commendable. http://venitism.blogspot.com

James Roberts points out the traditional power base of the ruling Congress Party is benefiting from the corruption. This includes 700 million people in rural India who are involved primarily in farming, many of whom benefit from generous government subsidies and are therefore tolerant of graft in these programs. But as more people move from farms to cities in search of middle-class jobs, that power base shrinks.

In contrast, the middle class faces daily demands for bribes to process government-mandated documents ranging from "$45 for a driving license … $110 to be admitted to hospital … $130 for a marriage certificate" to $100 to a customs officer at Mumbai Airport because a wife's name did not match her husband's in their passports. In addition, beyond insult from petty bribery, there is injury from more sordid corruption.

In November 2010 Ashok Chavan, the chief minister of Maharashtra, one of India's most prosperous states, was forced to quit over his role in a scam involving homes for war widows. Retired senior army officers and relatives of senior politicians are accused of helping themselves to apartments meant for war widows in Mumbai.

Indian government officials were booed during the opening and closing ceremonies of the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi due to revelations of sleaze, incompetence and missed construction deadlines. The games cost $4.1 billion instead of the $270 million first estimated, while revenue was only $38 million.

BS Yeddyurappa of India's main opposition Bharatiya Janata Party quit as chief minister of the southern state of Karnataka in July after he was indicted in a mining scandal. An anti-corruption report alleges the scam cost the exchequer more than $3 billion between 2006 and 2010.

William Burns points out that for Western and Indian policymakers, a successful transition in Afghanistan is a shared imperative and an area of increasing cooperation. As the West draws down its forces and transfers responsibility for security to the Afghan people, we are ever mindful of Afghanistan's recent history and the terrible cost of neglect. None of us can afford to make that mistake again. We are making headway in negotiating a new Strategic Partnership Agreement with the Afghans to extend beyond 2014.

Burns notes that just as the West and India have a mutual stake in supporting a stable and more integrated South Asia, we must also work together as the strategic center of gravity for world affairs shifts toward the Asia-Pacific region, where India has a vital role to play. It is precisely for this reason that the U.S. and India decided to launch a strategic dialogue on the Asia-Pacific in 2010. Since then, this mechanism has emerged as a model for the type of engagement and dialogue that we need to identify new areas of cooperation and to pursue complementary strategies.

Clinton is keenly aware that talk is talk, and that action is key. That is why we are transforming our engagement with India on the Asia-Pacific from dialogue to real action and concrete outcomes in areas such as maritime and port security, counter-piracy, disaster preparedness and humanitarian relief.

Derek Scissors points out that tapping into rising middle-class anger, former Indian soldier-turned-activist Anna Hazare used hunger strikes and other Gandhian tactics to try to change politics as usual. Citizens are better educated and better informed (e.g., via Twitter), and they are demanding changes in business as usual. Hazare is pushing for the creation of an anti-corruption watchdog to be called "Lokpal," from the Sanskrit lok (people) and pal (protector), which would have jurisdiction over all government officials. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh initially rejected the proposal on grounds that it could undermine parliamentary democracy.

Scissors notes versions of the Lokpal legislation have existed for decades but foundered on special-interest opposition and constitutional questions. Reflecting the expansion of the middle class, Hazare has had more success with his version of Lokpal, and some variant is likely to pass the legislature in the next few months. Indians remain divided on Hazare's approach, with some viewing it as an emotive and misguided attempt to promote a utopian one-step solution. No matter one's view of Lokpal, it does not get at the most important issue. Lokpal targets corrupt entities within the state, but the problem is the very notion of state activity!

Burns says India is already a powerful economic and cultural presence in the East -- from the temples of Bali to the dynamic expatriate communities who connect India with the export-driven economies of Southeast Asia. India has built a vast network of bilateral economic cooperation agreements and security arrangements in the Asia-Pacific with traditional American allies like Japan, South Korea, and Australia, and with our other partners, like Singapore, Indonesia and Vietnam. We are launching a new U.S.-India-Japan trilateral consultation on regional issues. India's outreach is growing, moving toward a comprehensive vision for the East Asia region - a Look East policy that is becoming an Act East policy.

Burns hopes that India will join the West in working to strengthen Asia's many regional institutions. Prime Minister Singh's appearance alongside President Obama at the East Asia Summit helps that grouping become the premier forum for our leaders to discuss political and security issues in Asia. Clinton has underscored our commitment to work closely with India as we deepen our engagement with ASEAN. Southeast Asia begins in Northeast India. India already trades nearly as much in goods with the ASEAN region as it does with the United States. An architecture of free trade and investment that connects India to all of Southeast and East Asia will have a profound impact on global trade and economic growth.

The 21st century Asia-Pacific we seek is one in which India, the West and China all enjoy good relations. Whatever our differences, we know that, as this century advances, fewer and fewer global problems will be solvable without constructive cooperation. We will all benefit from enhanced collaboration in the years ahead.

India and America - two leaderships and two peoples with so many converging interests, shared values and common concerns - can help shape a more secure, stable, democratic and just global system. India can make a decisive contribution to building what Clinton has called the global architecture of cooperation to solve problems that no one country can solve on its own.

That's why the United States looks forward, in the years ahead, to a reformed United Nations Security Council, with India as a permanent member. It is why we are working together through the G-20 to rebalance the global economy in what has become the world's leading forum for international economic cooperation. It is why we are helping India spread its agricultural expertise to other developing nations. It is why we have dramatically deepened our cooperation on counter-terrorism and homeland security. And it is why Obama and Prime Minister Singh have each committed their country to the long-term vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.

Burns also hopes we can look together at the profound changes sweeping across the Middle East, and see our common stake in successful transitions in a part of the world that matters enormously to both of us. The singular feature of the revolutions that make up the new Arab Awakening is that they are driven from within, animated by a thirst for dignity and participation in societies which for far too long have produced far too little of either. That is also the great enduring strength of those revolutions, and it is the ultimate repudiation of the al-Qaida narrative that change can only come through violent extremism.

While all of us should be careful not to obscure the home-grown strength of the Arab Spring, none of us can afford to neglect its historic sweep or fail to address the brutalities of regimes bent on denying their citizens their dignity and their universal rights. The simple truth is that there is no going back to the way things were. There is only a path forward - a hard and difficult path, filled with troubles and backsliding and detours -- but a path forward nonetheless.

For our part, accepting India as a global power means learning to agree to disagree sometimes. It means recognizing that profound mutual interests and shared values do not add up to unanimity of opinion. And, with cooperation moving forward on so many issues, a few differences need not cause us to lose momentum or ask whether there is a future for our partnership.

Burns asserts the greatest risk is not disagreement - it is inattention. It is the possibility, through domestic political distractions or failure of imagination or simple complacency, that the West and India might leave the full potential of their partnership unmet.

Perhaps the single biggest component of the corruption drama is an interesting case in which corruption has actually worked to the benefit of Indian consumers. It involves corrupt officials taking bribes from industry, causing the government to "lose" revenue it probably should not have sought in the first place.

Roberts points out in 2008, corrupt Indian government officials conducted an illegal sale of second-generation (2G) telecom bandwidth, depriving the government of a reported $40 billion in tax revenue that might have been realized had a proper and transparent auction taken place. This 2G telecom has been a crucial part of the Indian success story, bringing modern technology into the hands of hundreds of millions and spurring both growth and inclusivity. That would hardly have been possible if the government had drained off tens of billions of dollars before any investments were made.

Roberts notes this unusual case illustrates an important point: Private industries should not serve as cash cows for the state. They are supposed to improve people's lives, both directly through the products they create and indirectly by strengthening the economy. The telecom industry has done that, transforming society from medicine to farming. In this case, the industry's investments were made possible by defrauding the government. Rather than extracting wealth from society, the government did not get its take this time and consumers benefited.

The overbearing state's restrictions on economic growth are not limited to the telecom industry. India's recent growth is not rooted in policies that support economic freedom; market-oriented reform has been almost nonexistent of late. The state maintains an extensive presence in many areas through public-sector enterprises, and a restrictive regulatory environment hampers realization of the economy's full potential.

Roberts muses all economies have black markets. The Indian economy has reached such a size that estimates of the underground segment are in the neighborhood of $500 billion annually. This spurs outrage at black marketeers who supposedly are robbing the Indian people. However, the black marketeers are the people — tens of millions of them. The only ones being robbed are federal and state governments, and that is usually the governments' own fault.

Banned activity

The black market is also directly connected to recent headlines claiming that India has lost more than $400 billion due to illegal capital flows. Some of this is the result of ill-gotten gains from crime, which were illegally earned and ideally would never have existed. Other funds are lost either because they fled domestic restrictions or because India restricts capital movement.

Scissors points out that despite progress in the reform era, India retains tight capital controls even by the standards of emerging markets. What would count elsewhere merely as citizens and companies investing overseas — and bringing benefits back home in terms of financial returns, resources, corporate assets, and so on — is not permitted in India. As in all economies throughout history, people follow their self-interest and invest abroad anyway, but no benefits flow back to India, because the investments are deemed illegal by an interventionist state.

In some incidents of corruption, the Indian government's guilt is directly apparent. The Commonwealth Games, for example, were plagued by lack of competition in contract awards. In other cases, the harm comes to the state, not the people, which should not be defined as corruption or any sort of problem in the first place.

India is wrestling with how to deal a decisive blow against corruption. Scissors asserts the answer is plain: Deal a decisive blow against state interference in the economy. To help, the U.S. should offer a proposal for a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) that liberalizes Indian investment. This would sharply reduce the incentives for corruption. It also might serve as political cover for future Indian governments that want to make the difficult choices needed to defeat corruption in its many forms.