India's successful long-range missile test vs. N. Korea's failed one

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/world/asia/india-missile/index.html

India says long-range missile test was a success

From Harmeet Shah Singh, CNN, Thu April 19, 2012

India said Thursday that it had successfully carried out the maiden test flight of its longest-range nuclear-capable missile, which can apparently travel more than 5,000 kilometers.

The Agni V rocket took off around 8:03 a.m. local time (10.33 p.m. Wednesday ET) and "met all the mission objectives," said S.P. Das, director of the missile test site.

The missile, whose stated range of about 3,100 miles puts major Chinese cities within its striking distance, was fired from the coast of the eastern Indian state of Orissa.

In November, India successfully tested the fourth version of Agni, meaning "fire" in Hindi, with a range of 3,500 km. Built years earlier, Agni I could travel 700 km, according to Indian defense authorities.

India borders two nuclear-armed states -- its arch-rival Pakistan; and China, with which it fought a brief but bitter war in 1962.

Currently, the five permanent member nations of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, China, Russia, Britain and France -- are thought to have developed such technology,

India buys a lot of arms from overseas. It has overtaken China as the world's biggest importer of weapons, according to a recent report by the the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-20/friday-news-roundup-international/transcript

Apr 20, 2012

I am Tom Gjelten of NPR sitting in for Diane Rehm. Diane. Joining us for the international hour of the "Friday News Roundup," Michael Hirsh of National Journal, Courtney Kube of NBC and Abderrahim Foukara of Al Jazeera Arabic.

GJELTEN

India also test-launched a long-range missile this week. It was just announced yesterday. The missile that India tested is capable of carrying a nuclear weapon anywhere in China. It is interesting that we had such a reaction, a strong reaction to the North Korean test and almost nothing about the India missile test.

HIRSH

a very mild reaction from the U.S. basically saying, that India has done fairly well with non-proliferation.

This is part of this growing effort to build a strategic partnership with India vis-à-vis China.

The U.S., the Obama administration over the last couple of years has been engaged in a policy of encirclement where we're even making friends with Myanmar now as part of the policy of putting pressure on Beijing

So there tends to be a supportive effort toward India which we see as a future ally in at least putting geo-political pressure on China. So that's why there's something of a mild reaction to that.

GJELTEN

the United States is really anxious to develop strong relations with India. On the other hand, India has not been very supportive of the United States in its effort to isolate Iran. India is continuing among all the big buyers of Iranian oil.  India has not been willing to go along with the sanctions that the United States is proposing. Courtney.

KUBE

the immediate condemnation of the North Korean launch last week that was in the air for 80 seconds or something and then crashed into the Yellow Sea and did nothing

But then when India launches a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying a one and a half ton nuclear warhead...

it launched and 20 minutes later, it was declared successful.

And the United States, the reaction was, India is defensive. And they have a no strike first policy so we're okay with this, which is pretty remarkable, a week later, the difference.

GJELTEN

Well, the head of India's defense research and development organization said this test-firing shows that India has emerged from this launch as a major missile power.

FOUKARA

India plays on so many different ropes. In some cases, it supports the United States. In some other cases, it doesn't.

On the issue of Iran, India obviously sees itself as part of the brick bloc, which includes countries such as Russia, South Africa, Turkey and Brazil and these countries do not look too favorably on being hostile to Iran by the United States and Israel.

But if I may circle this back to Afghanistan ... because it always circles back to Afghanistan in one way or another.

Afghanistan is an influence battleground between Pakistan and India.  Pakistan sees China as an ally, a potential ally against India.  Therefore, China is very relevant to what happens in Afghanistan and to any future settlements between Pakistan and India, and therefore, any future settlements between the United States and the Taliban.  Have I made it any less complicated?

HIRSH

China's point of view is Afghanistan is not that terribly important. It's a little bit mystifying here, where you don't have any sort of really keen ideological difference between India and Pakistan.  They so regard each other as partners.  China came out in its response to the missile launch and said, we see it more of a partner.  This is not the cold war, we're not the U.S. and the Soviet Union and it's a little unclear why this arms race is going on

Deafening Silence, Bhopali at 2012 Environmental Film Festival in the Nation’s Capital

http://www.dcenvironmentalfilmfest.org/

2012 Environmental Film Festival in the Nation’s Capital

http://www.dcenvironmentalfilmfest.org/films/show/838

DEAFENING SILENCE

MARCH 20, 7:00 PM, Directed by: Holly Fisher

Venue: National Museum of Women in the Arts

DEAFENING SILENCE (USA, 2012, 120 min.)

World Premiere A fusion of beauty and terror, observation and anger, roving visuals and intimate stories – funny, contemplative or horrific – this experimental film provides a subjective, layered depiction of Burma (Myanmar) under brutal military dictatorship. Offering a living history of a country arrested in time, this hybrid documentary focuses on ethnic genocide, but with constant poetic resonance and a rich multiplicity of references to history and popular culture. Colonial archives and clips from YouTube are interposed within this tapestry of fragments, often in ironic counterpoint, and always to pierce the chokehold of censorship. The filmmaker made two filming trips to Burma – one posing as a tour guide and the second under-cover with ethnic Karen guerrillas, to film internal exiles surviving a free-fire jungle war zone. Directed and produced by Holly Fisher.

Holly Fisher

Fisher will be discussing DEAFENING SILENCE.

Holly Fisher has been active since the mid-sixties as an independent filmmaker, teacher, and editor of feature documentaries including the 1989 Academy Award Nominee "Who Killed Vincent Chin?"  From 1965-70, together with Romas Slezas, she made independent documentaries that focused on environmental, rural culture, and political issues.  The debut project by Fisher-Slezas Films Inc., Progress, Pork-Barrel, and Pheasant Feathers, received a Blue Ribbon for Conservation at The American Film Festival, NYC, 1966. The next project was an award-winning film called Watermen, a verité portrait of a family of Chesapeake Bay oyster fishermen, premiered in the late 60’s at Constitution Hall in Washington, DC.  Watermen resurfaced in 2010 when screened by Maryland Public TV and at the 2011 Environmental Film Festival.  Another Fisher-Slezas early film is a short spoof from 1968 called PSSSHT that will be screened for the first time in decades in this year’s EFF. To date, Fisher has directed, filmed, and edited five feature works: Bullets for Breakfast (1992); Kalama Sutta: Seeing is Believing (2001) about Burma; Everywhere at Once (2010) in collaboration with photographer Peter Lindbergh and narrated by Jeanne Moreau; Deafening Silence (2012), a new work about Burma; and A Question of Sunlight for release summer, 2012. Each is an open-ended essay, exploring ways to fuse linear narrative within non-linear structures, in order to draw the viewer into the process of its making or toward what the filmmaker calls the “presence” of the work as it unfolds.

During the film

“I wonder why people are so hunger for power? With the money to send a person to the moon, we can feed all the people on this planet.”

Violence v. non-violence

Q and A session after the movie

She said

Made two trips: one as a tourist, the other under cover with a Karen  

It is not hard to edit a documentary to direct or lead audience to a certain view. What is difficult is to present the fact in a balanced way.

Every piece is connected with every piece.

Questions  

.. why is this screened at environmental film festival?

.. things are getting better in Burma?
.. .. .. no, the "change" is smoke screen  

.. how did she get involved in Burma ?

============

=============

 MARCH 22, 6:30 PM

Venue: Johns Hopkins University, School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)

HAS FIRESTONE LIBERIA GONE FAR ENOUGH IN WORKPLACE REFORMS?

The Firestone rubber plantation was completely shut down during civil war. After re-open, it started to operate in a socially responsible way, partly because of support or pressure from new government  

INDONESIA'S PALM OIL DILEMMA

BHOPALI

Directed by: Van Maximilian Carlson

BHOPALI (India / USA, 2011, 83 min.)

Washington, D.C. Premiere Examining the aftermath of the catastrophic industrial disaster, the massive leakage of poison gas from a Union Carbide pesticide factory in the central Indian city of Bhopal, this documentary consistently maintains a tone of soft-spoken outrage. The film reveals that the initial death toll of the Dec 3, 1984 calamity, which was estimated at 10,000 or more, has been surpassed by the significant number of chronic maladies and birth defects attributed to water contamination caused by the leakage. The film tells often heart-wrenching stories of the disaster’s living victims. These include severely handicapped children whose parents, most of whom are very poor, must seek help from charity-funded or government-operated facilities that often are ill-equipped to cope with so many in desperate need. Directed, produced and edited by Van Maximilian Carlson. Co-produced by Kirk Palayan.

Van Maximilian Carlson

Carlson will be discussing BHOPALI.

Van Maximilian Carlson, born November 1984, is a Los Angeles-based director, editor, and cinematographer who has worked on numerous projects including documentaries, commercials, trailers, and several original dramatic films. His directorial works have received numerous awards, such as a “Special Jury Award” at the 40th Annual USA Film Festival, the “Most Promising Director Award” at the Buffalo Niagara Film Festival, and the “Best Director Award” at the Toronto International Teen Movie Festival for a short film he completed while in high school. He directed and shot DISSOCIATIVE (2008), which went on to win a “Best thriller Award.” His film, NINTH NOVEMBER NIGHT (2004), was considered by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Documentary Screening Committee to be “one of the outstanding documentaries of 2004.” His editorial work has also been recognized and awarded three Promax/ BDA awards and one Key Art nomination.

After movie with the director over some light refreshment

He lives in LA, now working on a film on Chinese people in China Town in LA

Spent about three months in Bhopal, at the beginning and end of the year

Why Noam Chomsky?

.. the director said, he has enormous respect for the professor, though the professor did not have an insight specific to the Bhopal incident 

Human Rights & Business: Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility

(Delighted to welcome back alumna Nadia Bernaz, who contributes this guest post)

With BP making the headlines with the industrial disaster in the Gulf of Mexico (prior IntLawGrrlsposts), many have been asking the question of how and whether giant corporations can be made accountable for their actions.

.
The fact is that a combination common in the Western world -- tighter laws governing pollution and higher standards -- has not worked. Rather, it has often meant that multinational corporations, which no longer have to respect national boundaries, move elsewhere, where standards are lax and land and labour is cheap.

.
The growing movement for volunteerism among corporate entities based on corporate social responsibility has had some benefit: it has highlighted the social responsibility that companies have when they invest in a given area. (Prior IntLawGrrls posts) However, it has also allowed many corporations to engage in green-washing their image through the display of sophisticated policies printed in expensive brochures.

.
A new story that has attracted some attention recently concerns the activities of the Vedanta mining concern, one of Britain’s largest companies, who have built an aluminium producing plant in Orissa, in the east of India. Vedanta now wishes to mine bauxite in the region in order to get the plant running at full capacity.

.
Orissa is one of India’s least developed states, with some of the poorest people in the world, with many indigenous tribes among them. It has been known for a long time that this part of India holds significant deposits of mineral resources, but with India speeding towards accelerated development, these resources have suddenly become crucial to sustaining growth.

.

.
Vedanta maintain that their mining activities would bring jobs and increasing wealth to the local population. However, the indigenous Dongria Kondh tribe strongly oppose mining in their sacred mountains, and are concerned about the environmental impact of this activity in the region.

.

.

An Amnesty International report issued in February supports their view.) The tribal members argue that they do not want to change their ancestral way of life, and have no interest in the type of development Vedanta has promised them. (credit for photo by Parth Sanyal /Reuters, captioned "A tribal woman with her child near the mining site of the alumina refinery in Orissa state")

.
From an international legal perspective, the Vedanta story raises several important issues:
► The increased power of transnational corporations has made the seeking of accountability for their actions extremely difficult in environments where they may be able to operate freely, and often with the complicity of the government.
► While globalisation itself cannot be regulated, it is clear that new norm creation activities have been taking place in international law, not least with the presence of the World Trade Organisation.
► However, little of the ethos concerning human development and poverty alleviation feeds into these important discussions.

..

.
To address these challenges, my home institution, Middlesex University in London, England, has created an MA programme in Human Rights and Business. The course covers areas of law such as international human rights law and the law of the WTO, and explores the relevance of these areas to multinational corporations -- especially those corporations operating in emerging economies. The modules are deliberately human rights law-centred, and go significantly beyond the concept of corporate social responsibility. The programme itself is tailored for busy professionals with significant online content and class contact restricted to two days a month (Friday-Saturday). More information here