European journalists in Sweden are complaining that Indian diplomats are refusing visas for visits to India to a “blacklist” of journalists who have been identified as writing negative stories about the country. Freelance journalist Ulrika Nandra and a foreign correspondent of the daily newspaper Goteborgs- Posten, Marina Malmgren, are two of the Swedish journalists whose visa applications have been rejected. After journalists were denied visas in the wake of writing critical reports about the country, Reporters Without Borders (reporters sans frontieres - RSF) condemned actions of the Indian embassy in Sweden.
Jesper Bengtsson, chairman of the Swedish section of Reporters Without Borders said, “in both cases, the rejections appear to be linked to articles they wrote about social problems in India, according to Swedish radio programme, The Media. Journalists are blacklisted if their reports about India are seen as too negative, according to sources quoted by the programme. This has happened to several other Swedish journalists.
This points to a lack of understanding of the basis of press freedom which is deeply worrying. If there is also a blacklist of inconvenient journalists, it is in fact outrageous. It means India has a lot of work to do on respecting press freedom.” Bengtsson told New Europe over the phone, “There was no response to our request to the Indian embassy in Stockholm to clarify the subject but the Swedish foreign ministry has confirmed that they had discussion with (the Indian) embassy in Stockholm,” adding, “still there is no public response (from the Indian embassy).”
Other Indian embassies around the world have also rejected visa applications from journalists, said Vincent Brossel, head of the Asia desk at Reporters Without Borders’ head office in Paris. He confirmed that foreign journalists have also had difficulty returning to India, usually after reporting on sensitive social issues. Reporters Without Borders cited Nandra as saying “I am sincerely shocked that a democracy should tell journalists what to write.”
According to information provided by RSF, Nandra’s problems began in autumn 2007 when she was about to make a second visit to India as a freelance journalist. She submitted a visa application in September but more than one year later had still received no response. Representatives of the media for which Nandra worked, state-run Sveriges Television and daily newspaper Svenska Dagbladet, held a meeting with the Indian embassy in February 2008 at which the embassy said they were displeased with her reports, including one about the sex trafficking in Bombay and a series of articles about changing gender roles in India, carried by Svenska Dagbladet in the summer of 2007.
“India is going through a sensitive phase at the moment and I think they are nervous that negative reports will frighten potential investors. Also, writing about sexuality is very much a taboo in India. Moreover, there may be expectations of me because I am half-Indian that I should be more loyal to India than other journalists,” Nandra said. Reliable sources had told Nandra that it is uncertain that she will ever be able to return to the country, even on a tourist visa. Apart from working in India as a journalist, Nandra also has relatives there, making the visa rejection a strong personal blow as well.
The SAJA (South Asian Journalists Association, www.saja.org) posted the item on its website adding that the SAJA would also like to hear from the Indian embassy in Stockholm about this issue but there was no response to the SAJA or to an email request from Tejinder Singh (a member of SAJA) till going to press. Moreover, as the public service Swedish radio is preparing an investigation about denial of journalist visas by Indian embassies and the undersigned is also interested to investigate further, please do not hesitate to contact the following if you are interested to tell publicly or anonymously your story.
Showing posts with label European. Show all posts
Showing posts with label European. Show all posts
Monday, November 24, 2008
Monday, October 15, 2007
Another dilemma: EU money for high-tech or food innovation
Another dilemma: EU money for high-tech or food innovation
Galileo, the satellite navigation system and the European Institute of Technology EIT, two of the dream projects of European leaders got the financial backing of the European commission, the executive arm of the European Union.
The Commission last week decided to overlook the welfare of the European citizens with proposals to finance the extra 2.4 billion Euro for Galileo and yet another 309 million Euro for the European Institute of Technology (EIT) through a smart revision of the Financial Framework 2007-2013. The proposal will enable the commission to transfer 2.189 billion Euro from the agriculture budget within the margin available in 2007 and 2008 under heading “Preservation and Management of Natural Resources.”
According to common knowledge, the “Preservation & management of natural resources” programme is intended to assist European farmers in the EU citizens’ demand for safe, quality food, produced without unnecessary waste, and a healthy environment. In 2003-4 the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) were ending to a large extent the unhealthy link between subsidies and production. Farmers are since then free to produce what consumers want in a truly competitive market, while ensuring higher standards of environmental protection, food quality and animal welfare.
Moreover, the commission had announced proposals to increase spending on Rural Development to boost growth and create jobs in rural areas - in line with the Lisbon Strategy. Thus the money was set for use not only for innovation and diversification but also for more agricultural activities.
In its quest to quench the thirst of scientific programmes, the Commission announced that these funds which were meant for the benefit of the European citizens won’t be needed, thus leaving a staggering margin of two billion Euro under the ceiling in 2008. To a layperson, this can not be explained as price tags on food shelves are renewed upward everyday and coming after a long period of relative price stability in the food sector. This is more than obvious to every person. Prices of milk and dairy products, vegetables oils have climbed up and the latest flour and bread price hikes have made headlines in all media outlets with Italians deciding to go without pasta one day recently.
The wave of demand that is sweeping across the Continents is also helped by panic buying on the Asian and South American areas as food shortage looms. Although harvest failures, crop mismanagement and other causes can not be ruled out, there is a clear cut case of high subsidies in the European Union for valuable fields being set-a-side and as high subsidies are pushing for the production of energy raw materials.
According to media reports, this year in Germany alone two million hectares out of the 12 million hectares arable land or about 17 percent of the total is dedicated for energy crops. The obvious fallout is on the areas for cultivation land for food and feeds.
On the heels of this turmoil came the tug-of-war between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mariann Fischer Boel. With Sarkozy throwing his weight behind communitarian preference, the commissioner, during the informal meeting of agriculture ministers in Portugal, rejected that the future CAP will be based on the principle of communitarian preference that favours the domestic agricultural productions.
The spokesman for Commissioner Boel declared that “It is not in our interest to turn the communitarian preference as a strength of European agriculture,” since the EU has become a net agricultural product exporter. We see opportunities to export our foods of quality in markets like China and India,” and added that the communitarian preference can only be used “in relation to our international obligations within the framework of the World Trade Organization.”
Stressing the need for an European protectionism policy while talking in the negotiations in the WTO, Sarkozy declared that “the developing nations want the rights of the big nations, but they must also accept the obligations, consider that they have only rights and have no obligations in a system of multilateral commerce” and emphasised this to India, China, Argentina and Brazil.
The French president added that “We cannot impose rules to our producers” and at the same time allow imports from other countries that impose the “environmental, social, fiscal and monetary dumping.” Sarkozy stirred not only strong reaction from commissioner Boel but also from trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, who declared that accusations of the social dumping cannot be made because that would mean that the developed countries are not prepared to accept the comparative advantage that grant the low labour costs of third countries.
With this war of words going on at the top level, the farmers have nothing to gain except to miss out on a European tool to produce what consumers want in a truly competitive market, while ensuring higher standards of environmental protection, food quality and animal welfare. Last, but not least, it is incomprehensible for ordinary European citizens to fid that the Commission on one hand, reiterates at every possible opportunity strong interest in innovative farming and the creation of jobs in rural areas - in line with the Lisbon Strategy while on the other hand it is ready to siphon money out of agricultural sector to pump into high tech satellite applications. Only time can tell which one of the two can generate more jobs: Satellite industry or applied agricultural innovations.
Galileo, the satellite navigation system and the European Institute of Technology EIT, two of the dream projects of European leaders got the financial backing of the European commission, the executive arm of the European Union.
The Commission last week decided to overlook the welfare of the European citizens with proposals to finance the extra 2.4 billion Euro for Galileo and yet another 309 million Euro for the European Institute of Technology (EIT) through a smart revision of the Financial Framework 2007-2013. The proposal will enable the commission to transfer 2.189 billion Euro from the agriculture budget within the margin available in 2007 and 2008 under heading “Preservation and Management of Natural Resources.”
According to common knowledge, the “Preservation & management of natural resources” programme is intended to assist European farmers in the EU citizens’ demand for safe, quality food, produced without unnecessary waste, and a healthy environment. In 2003-4 the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) were ending to a large extent the unhealthy link between subsidies and production. Farmers are since then free to produce what consumers want in a truly competitive market, while ensuring higher standards of environmental protection, food quality and animal welfare.
Moreover, the commission had announced proposals to increase spending on Rural Development to boost growth and create jobs in rural areas - in line with the Lisbon Strategy. Thus the money was set for use not only for innovation and diversification but also for more agricultural activities.
In its quest to quench the thirst of scientific programmes, the Commission announced that these funds which were meant for the benefit of the European citizens won’t be needed, thus leaving a staggering margin of two billion Euro under the ceiling in 2008. To a layperson, this can not be explained as price tags on food shelves are renewed upward everyday and coming after a long period of relative price stability in the food sector. This is more than obvious to every person. Prices of milk and dairy products, vegetables oils have climbed up and the latest flour and bread price hikes have made headlines in all media outlets with Italians deciding to go without pasta one day recently.
The wave of demand that is sweeping across the Continents is also helped by panic buying on the Asian and South American areas as food shortage looms. Although harvest failures, crop mismanagement and other causes can not be ruled out, there is a clear cut case of high subsidies in the European Union for valuable fields being set-a-side and as high subsidies are pushing for the production of energy raw materials.
According to media reports, this year in Germany alone two million hectares out of the 12 million hectares arable land or about 17 percent of the total is dedicated for energy crops. The obvious fallout is on the areas for cultivation land for food and feeds.
On the heels of this turmoil came the tug-of-war between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and European commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mariann Fischer Boel. With Sarkozy throwing his weight behind communitarian preference, the commissioner, during the informal meeting of agriculture ministers in Portugal, rejected that the future CAP will be based on the principle of communitarian preference that favours the domestic agricultural productions.
The spokesman for Commissioner Boel declared that “It is not in our interest to turn the communitarian preference as a strength of European agriculture,” since the EU has become a net agricultural product exporter. We see opportunities to export our foods of quality in markets like China and India,” and added that the communitarian preference can only be used “in relation to our international obligations within the framework of the World Trade Organization.”
Stressing the need for an European protectionism policy while talking in the negotiations in the WTO, Sarkozy declared that “the developing nations want the rights of the big nations, but they must also accept the obligations, consider that they have only rights and have no obligations in a system of multilateral commerce” and emphasised this to India, China, Argentina and Brazil.
The French president added that “We cannot impose rules to our producers” and at the same time allow imports from other countries that impose the “environmental, social, fiscal and monetary dumping.” Sarkozy stirred not only strong reaction from commissioner Boel but also from trade commissioner, Peter Mandelson, who declared that accusations of the social dumping cannot be made because that would mean that the developed countries are not prepared to accept the comparative advantage that grant the low labour costs of third countries.
With this war of words going on at the top level, the farmers have nothing to gain except to miss out on a European tool to produce what consumers want in a truly competitive market, while ensuring higher standards of environmental protection, food quality and animal welfare. Last, but not least, it is incomprehensible for ordinary European citizens to fid that the Commission on one hand, reiterates at every possible opportunity strong interest in innovative farming and the creation of jobs in rural areas - in line with the Lisbon Strategy while on the other hand it is ready to siphon money out of agricultural sector to pump into high tech satellite applications. Only time can tell which one of the two can generate more jobs: Satellite industry or applied agricultural innovations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
