Germany, France and Italy expressing readiness to join the China-led initiative, overriding objections from the United States, which has been accused by Beijing of adopting a “hypocritical” stance.
“Unfortunately, the bank's launch is being obstructed by the United States - not only does the U.S. itself refuse to join the bank, it is doing its best to prevent some of its allies from becoming founder members as well,” says a commentary published in the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Government.
The financial cracks within the post-war Atlantic Alliance, led by the U.S. became visible after Britain decided to participate in
negotiations for joining the AIIB. London’s move has reverberated from Europe to the Asia-Pacific. While core European Union (EU)members led by Germany, a pivotal industrial heavyweight, are shoring up one geographic flank, Australia has also signaled its intent to join AIIB.
South Korea is also emitting strong signals to join the lender, leaving Japan as the sole U.S ally, which shows no signs of changing its mind so far.
The People’s Daily article accused Washington of hypocrisy by not matching its words with deeds. “In recent years, the United States has been urging China to exercise leadership commensurate with its growing strength and to provide more resources to support international development and other constructive initiatives and global goals.
However, as soon as China tries to assume more responsibility, initiate the establishment of the AIIB, and make a greater
contribution to Asian and international development, the United States sticks a spoke in the wheel. Such conduct goes further than short-sightedness; it is blatantly hypocritical”.
According to the China’s stated perception, instead of being seen a rival, the AIIB will complement the Western-backed World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), which can lend only 10 billion dollars per year . This is far short of ADB’s own prediction that development of infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific requires an infusion of 8 trillion dollars following the decade after 2010.
“The AIIB will fill this huge gap in the field of infrastructure investment in the developing Asian countries,” the commentary said.
An article in the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post (SCMP) berated the U.S. for its “diplomatic debacle” following the revolt by the European countries to join the bank. “Its (Washington’s) clumsy arm-twisting of allies was intended to isolate China and prevent it from forming an alternative institution that could challenge the monopoly of global development policy by the US-led World Bank. Now it's Washington that looks isolated,” said that article.
The write up criticised the US for adopting a “moralistic stance” on the AIIB debate, masking “a naked power struggle” with Beijing, which was also reflected in Washington’s decision to exclude China from membership of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—a free trade deal among 12 countries in the Asia-pacific.
While speaking in favour of the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), the Centre said before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the collegium system of appointing judges was illegal.
The government said that the collegium system that was put in place in 1993, wherein a panel of judges appointed other judges, was not mandated under the Constitution.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted before a three-judge bench, presided over by Justice A R Dave, that the new system as mandated under the NJAC is broad-based, which could be put to the test of Constitutional validity only after it comes into force.
“The government is of the view that collegium system is illegal but I would not like to go into it for now. Nowhere is such a system prevalent where judges appointed judges. Can the elected representatives of Parliament not have their say,” he asked. He said that according to the Constitution, only President appoints judges.
Defending the proposed six-member panel to appoint judges, which includes executive members, Rohatgi submitted that several other constitutional posts—like the Comptroller and Auditor General or heads of 25 tribunals that replace high courts—are selected through a system where the executive also plays a role. Rohatgi described a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the NJAC Act as “academic based on surmises and conjectures” since the notification for the proposed law was yet to be passed.
Speaking further on the pleas challenging the NJAC, Rohatgi said: “It is not somebody’s fundamental right to be appointed as judge. The petitioners cannot claim any injury caused to them through the proposed law.”
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the Supreme Court Bar Association, contended that the matter could not be heard at present as no act had come in force. He submitted that the case relating to challenge the NJAC Act was also not to be referred to a five-judge bench. Dave claimed that it was a fallacy to claim that the new law would strike the basic structure of the Constitution, that is the independence of judiciary, since its impact and effect were yet to be seen.
“Unfortunately, the bank's launch is being obstructed by the United States - not only does the U.S. itself refuse to join the bank, it is doing its best to prevent some of its allies from becoming founder members as well,” says a commentary published in the People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Government.
The financial cracks within the post-war Atlantic Alliance, led by the U.S. became visible after Britain decided to participate in
negotiations for joining the AIIB. London’s move has reverberated from Europe to the Asia-Pacific. While core European Union (EU)members led by Germany, a pivotal industrial heavyweight, are shoring up one geographic flank, Australia has also signaled its intent to join AIIB.
South Korea is also emitting strong signals to join the lender, leaving Japan as the sole U.S ally, which shows no signs of changing its mind so far.
The People’s Daily article accused Washington of hypocrisy by not matching its words with deeds. “In recent years, the United States has been urging China to exercise leadership commensurate with its growing strength and to provide more resources to support international development and other constructive initiatives and global goals.
However, as soon as China tries to assume more responsibility, initiate the establishment of the AIIB, and make a greater
contribution to Asian and international development, the United States sticks a spoke in the wheel. Such conduct goes further than short-sightedness; it is blatantly hypocritical”.
According to the China’s stated perception, instead of being seen a rival, the AIIB will complement the Western-backed World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), which can lend only 10 billion dollars per year . This is far short of ADB’s own prediction that development of infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific requires an infusion of 8 trillion dollars following the decade after 2010.
“The AIIB will fill this huge gap in the field of infrastructure investment in the developing Asian countries,” the commentary said.
An article in the Hong Kong based South China Morning Post (SCMP) berated the U.S. for its “diplomatic debacle” following the revolt by the European countries to join the bank. “Its (Washington’s) clumsy arm-twisting of allies was intended to isolate China and prevent it from forming an alternative institution that could challenge the monopoly of global development policy by the US-led World Bank. Now it's Washington that looks isolated,” said that article.
The write up criticised the US for adopting a “moralistic stance” on the AIIB debate, masking “a naked power struggle” with Beijing, which was also reflected in Washington’s decision to exclude China from membership of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—a free trade deal among 12 countries in the Asia-pacific.
While speaking in favour of the proposed National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC), the Centre said before the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the collegium system of appointing judges was illegal.
The government said that the collegium system that was put in place in 1993, wherein a panel of judges appointed other judges, was not mandated under the Constitution.
Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi submitted before a three-judge bench, presided over by Justice A R Dave, that the new system as mandated under the NJAC is broad-based, which could be put to the test of Constitutional validity only after it comes into force.
“The government is of the view that collegium system is illegal but I would not like to go into it for now. Nowhere is such a system prevalent where judges appointed judges. Can the elected representatives of Parliament not have their say,” he asked. He said that according to the Constitution, only President appoints judges.
Defending the proposed six-member panel to appoint judges, which includes executive members, Rohatgi submitted that several other constitutional posts—like the Comptroller and Auditor General or heads of 25 tribunals that replace high courts—are selected through a system where the executive also plays a role. Rohatgi described a batch of petitions challenging the legality of the NJAC Act as “academic based on surmises and conjectures” since the notification for the proposed law was yet to be passed.
Speaking further on the pleas challenging the NJAC, Rohatgi said: “It is not somebody’s fundamental right to be appointed as judge. The petitioners cannot claim any injury caused to them through the proposed law.”
Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the Supreme Court Bar Association, contended that the matter could not be heard at present as no act had come in force. He submitted that the case relating to challenge the NJAC Act was also not to be referred to a five-judge bench. Dave claimed that it was a fallacy to claim that the new law would strike the basic structure of the Constitution, that is the independence of judiciary, since its impact and effect were yet to be seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment