It is to be acknowledged that after the start of liberalization, the Government of India, in the year 1991 has structured the LookEastPolicy, a very strategic policy decision as a part of Foreign Policy with Asian economy to strengthen its position in the evolving Global economy. It was a significant shift in Indian’s policy prioritization because hither to India did not have any concrete strategy to create an economic hub in its North Eastern Region by exploring trade and commerce potential with the ASEAN neighbours. The North Eastern Region of India (NER) shares international border with China, Bhutan, Myanmar, Bangladesh and has only a small Siliguri corridor of 22 kilometres wide often referred as ‘chicken neck ’with the rest of the country. The NER consists of 8 states namely Assam, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura and Sikkim. The North Eastern region comprises about 8 per cent of land area and 3 per cent population of India. It is one of the most complex spots in Asia with 200 ethnic groups, languages and dialects and their main faiths and practices constantly creating conflicts of interests. This region is one of the most backward regions of the country and has not seen much development over the years as a consequence of frequent violence and insurgency problem. The Government of India initiated establishment of a separate ministry (DONER) for North Eastern Region and the North Eastern Council (NEC) for the removal of economic backwardness of the North Eastern Region. In order to progress towards prosperity against economic imprisonment of the region, a greater deal of trade relationship has been felt by the Indian Government with the neighbouring counties. During the British rule the cross-border trades got its momentum with the discovery of Tea and Crude oil. In the perspective of the Indian economy, the windows of opportunities of said trade involving North Eastern States could have been opened through boarder trade. Thus, the LookEastPolicy structured by the government of India in regard to the North East India perspective becomes more important to examine and to set how far it can change the economic scenario of this backward region.
After World War II, a great part of the world was left devastated and economically disrupted. Countries in Southeast Asia, after the decolonization by European and Japanese forces, were left to their own devices. Malaysia, which had been colonized by both England and Japan, also struggled with the redevelopment and restructuring of its own economy and government and redefining their own identity. They were helped by the British for a short period after with rebuilding their economy, but Britain was criticized for going after Malaysia's primary resources in order to rebuild their own economy. After Britain withdrew from Malaysia, the Malays were left to govern the country. While most of the economic power was left in the hands of the Chinese, the Malays were in control in the political area. This divided the country into two groups where the Malays held the political power, but were mostly poor, while the Chinese had economic power, but enjoyed less political power. A few years after the independence of Malaysia, ethnic riots in 1969 between these two groups caused many deaths and casualties. Because of such an incident where the racial problems became undeniable, the government tried to secure the issue by implementing the NEP (New Economic Policy). This was meant to decrease the poverty of the Malays and in turn decrease the gap between the two groups. Datuk Seri Mahathir bin Mohammad, who became prime-minister of Malaysia in 1981, was known to be a Malay nationalist after writing his book; The Malay Dilemma in 1970. He struggled to find a way for Malaysia to become a NIC (Newly Industrialized Country) and focused mainly on the development of the poor Malays. One of the first policies he initiated was the “LookEast” policy. This “LookEast” policy was however vague and undefined, but meant to use Japan and Korea as examples for Malaysia. How this was to be executed, was not made out in strict rules and regulations, but stated that Malaysia would need to learn from Korean and Japanese work ethics and values. Malaysians were to be send to Japanese schools to learn their language, history and culture. Mahathir already stressed in his 'Malay Dilemma' that he desired a change of values from the Malays. Besides the cultural context of the policy, it also promoted technology transfer, attracting FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) and constructing joint-ventures with Japan and Korea to promote import substitution.
After the Gulf war, the adverse growth scenario led to introduction of economic liberalization policies in India from 1991 onwards. As a result of embracing the export-promotion led growth model, the need to identify the potential target markets were strongly felt. In this background, the country adopted the ‘LookEastPolicy’ (LEP) during nineties with a two-track approach in mind. While on one hand, Japan, Singapore and South Korea were considered as appropriate sources of advanced technology and investment, high growth rates in several economies of East and Southeast Asia were instrumental in considering them as high potential export markets. India subsequently strengthened its ties with the ‘East’ by becoming Sectoral Dialogue Partner of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1992, covering trade, tourism, investment and science and technology. In the new millennium, the ties with the region has been strengthened through a number of regional trade agreements (RTAs), namely, India-Singapore Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) (2005), India-South Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) (2009), India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (FTA) (2010), India-Japan CEPA (2011), India-Malaysia CECA (2011). Also negotiation on other preferential agreements involving East Asian and Pacific economies are presently going on. These initiatives signify the growing recognition of the region’s importance in India’s development path.
This paper presents a critical assessment of some of the potential gains from and challenges of India’s erstwhile LookEastPolicy (LEP) and more recent Act EastPolicy (AEP) for its northeast region (NER). There has been much euphoria about the benefits that are likely to accrue to NER from the successful implementation of LEP/AEP. The opening of the eastern and southern borders of the region to the countries in East, South and Southeast Asia is expected to establish direct and easy connectivity that is purported to contribute not only to its economic growth and development but also to cultural exchanges. Improved connectivity with the Southeast Asian countries is expected to create and boost trade and investment. Even the distance between NER and the rest of India is likely to be reduced, and this will go a long way in improving economic ties and boosting cultural exchanges. For historical reasons, despite its physical proximity, NER has been kept isolated from the countries in South and Southeast Asia region and is connected to the mainland India through a narrow corridor of about 21 kilometre, often referred to as the ‘chicken’s neck’. 1
Upgrading the trade policy, government has taken different infrastructure development projects both National and International level for better physical connectivity development. All the preventive measure should be effectively implemented, there are sizeable border illegal trade practices are frequently witnesses in border area at the hand of insatiable and greed business men, all the law enforce for illegal trades practices items like; drug, arm smuggling etc. should be make properly channelize to prevent anti socio-economic activities Today, LookEastPolicy is very sensitive issue in Northeastern Region especially in Manipur. The policies as well as people of this region are not well prepared. Ignorance is one of the prominent factors to be considered. The people of the region have to participate and involve in different aspect so that as and when The ‘LookEastPolicy’ is successfully implemented will make Myanmar the gateway of India to Asian countries. It is a fact that once trade with Myanmar is in full swing, it could enter the South East Asian market. Since all goods from and to India have to pass through the north eastern region, the latter will certainly develop commercially through the ‘LookEastPolicy’ of the Government. With Myanmar an ASEAN member and likely to take the chairmanship from Thailand after 2014, common markets as many as 500 million consumers are at the door step North Eastern region for which Myanmar will be the entry point to South East Asian market.
Within India, the LookEastPolicy has been rechristened as Act EastPolicy clearly signifying action oriented approach. The Philippines has been one of the countries which have been increasingly seen as left out of the coverage of first two phases of India’s LookEastPolicy i.e, 1991-2000 and thereafter during 2001-2014. The lack of attention given to the Philippines has been because of few factors which included its Visiting Forces Agreement with US (Philippines was seen as a US ally), the outdated defence arsenal (the defence equipments that the Philippines possesses are primarily for defence purposes and more aimed at counter-insurgency) and a very modest economic growth ranging between 3-4 percent per annum. Moreover, among the major ASEAN economies, the Philippines was perceived as a slow mover both in terms of political participation and economic liberalisation.
Despite this persistent tradition of independence and unilateralism, the influence of “Europe” on French foreign policy thinking is more considerable than commonly thought. In the 1950s, an institutionalised long-term cooperative relationship with Germany through European integration offered a means to compensate for the loss of French national greatness and empire. Yet, the memory o f Nazi defeat and occupation led de Gaulle to insist on “national independence” in the 1960s. The tension between the two strategies has remained a key and recurrent theme in post-war French foreign policy.6 Under CFSP cooperation, the French Foreign Ministry (Quai d ’Orsay) today takes part in the exchange of diplomats with other EU foreign ministries, information sharing, and joint reporting in third countries. French policy makers have been subject to socialisation pressures arising from very frequent and regular consultations with other national diplomats and EU officials. Many scholars argue that these intense and repeated contacts have socialised national diplomacies into becoming more “European” and taking a “coordination reflex” in foreign policy-making.7 Few would however describe France as a “Europeanised state” or “province” subscribing to multi-level governance within the European Union, as Germany has often been portrayed.8 At best, French policy is often portrayed as traditional and selfish national interest in substance, albeit cloaked in the language and form of collective European interest.
I use the term ―pressure‖ with particular reference to Prime Minister Netanyahu. In my opinion, Netanyahu is not committed to a two state solution, and is essentially satisfied with the status quo. Under the status quo, he is not required to give up any of the West Bank that Israel now occupies, including the more remote settlements, and is not required to make any change in Jerusalem as an ―undivided city and the eternal capitol of Israel,‖ or to pay any attention to the Palestinian refugees. On the other side, I think that President Abbas would like to have a peace agreement, an independent Palestinian state, and an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. But, he knows that he would have difficulty, especially in the face of opposition from Hamas, in persuading the Palestinian population to recognize Israel, to give up the emotionally-laden demand of a ―right of return,‖ for the some four million Palestinian refugees, and in all probability, to give up a claim to all of East Jerusalem. Insofar as President Obama would apply ―pressure‖ to President Abbas, it is a ―pressure‖ of ―cover‖ and ―excuse.‖ President Obama would have to persuade President Abbas that whatever he has succeeded in ―pressuring‖ Prime Minister Netanyahu to ―give up‖ in order to achieve a settlement represents the ―best deal‖ for the Palestinians, and that President Abbas can assure the Palestinian that the United States supports an independent Palestinian state, and will provide significant financial assistance to it. The focus then will be on the ―pressure‖ on Netanyahu.
The study will engage in literature review and contrasting two theories of European Inte- gration to trace the development of the Interpretative Notice in a qualitative cross-sectional single-case-study. The case of the EU and Israel and Palestine as the unit of analysis is chosen because it exemplifies a long-time conflict without significant substantial change but deep EU involvement in the last twenty years. The fierceness of the conflict and its prominence in the public debate place all member states under some scrutiny to engage in it, but to weigh their actions very consciously. Also the EU has deeper relationships with Israel than with any other country in its neighborhood (excluding Switzerland, Norway etc.) and has repeatedly stated the creation of lasting peace in this conflict as one of its core long-time goals. 62 As a result of these points, the literature on the relations is extensive and offers many insights into what has hap- pened before. The lack of substantial progress in the political situation makes even literature written twenty years ago very accessible to current problems. The geographical proximity adds to the selection in the sense that unlike some other global conflicts, the one in the Middle East has direct repercussions on and within the political arena in Europe.
Indeed, public sector wage policy is the origin of certain anomalies in the structure of wages in Romania. Public administration wages were nearly twice the average wage at the end of 2006, due to their doubling in real terms since 2004. By comparison, the government salaries are close to the average wage in Germany and the Czech Republic are 10 percent lower than average wage in economy. While public sector productivity is difficult to measure, it would be difficult to claim that public sector efficiency in Romania, as measured by the quality of public services has increased significantly in recent years.
The EAC Common External Tariff (CET) regime, which entered its eighth year in January 2012 (having come into effect on 1 January 2005), harmonized tariffs under three bands: 25 per cent for finished goods, 10 per cent for semi-processed or intermediate goods and zero-rate for raw materials and capital goods. This common policy (CET) applies to 5,429 tariff lines (at the HS 8- digit level), of which 99.8 percent carry ad valorem duties. Exception to this rule applies to 1 percent of the overall tariff lines (i.e. 58 tariff lines)—allowed to accommodate politically sensitive sectors. Among these sensitive products are rice, which attracts 75 percent duty or US $200 per MT; wheat, dairy products, matches, maize; cigarettes; cement; kangu, kikoi, and kitenge fabrics; crown cock; sack and jute bags and battery cells 35 percent duty, and sugar 100 per cent duty. 1
The Framework Agreement was signed in October 2003 with the following principles and provisions: comprehensive coverage of countries and sectors; special and differential treatment for ASEAN states and greater flexibility for CLMV; flexibility for sensitive sectors of ASEAN and Japan; early implementation of cooperation in areas that could provide more immediate benefits such as technical assistance and capacity building for ASEAN, especially for CLMV; trade and investment promotion and facilitation; trade and investment policy dialogue; business sector dialogue; mobility of business people; trade data compilation and exchange; and facilitation and cooperation programs covering a wide field. A big obstacle in the negotiations is Japan’s protectionist stance towards its agricultural and labor markets. Japan wants the CEP to be a single undertaking but negotiations on services and investment are not yet completed. Both sides agreed to incorporate common features of Japan’s bilateral FTAs with ASEAN economies into the ASEAN-wide CEP; this will essentially be an umbrella agreement. The CEP should be realized by 2012 for ASEAN6 and 2017 for CLMV. A notable feature of the bilateral economic partnership agreements is the capped entry into Japan of certain categories of professionals from Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand. This is seen as a major concession from Japan’s normally strict restrictions on labor inflows.
goals of English language teaching. Although English was given central importance other European languages, French, German and Dutch, continued to be taught in senior high schools, usually in addition to English (Candraningrum 2008; Nababan 1991). In 1989, Law 2/1989 established English as a compulsory subject in secondary schooling, a policy change which effectively terminated the teaching of other foreign languages, although they had been gradually losing ground from the 1960s. The text of Law 20/2003 modifies this requirement requiring a foreign language (Bahasa acing) as compulsory, but not specifying the language. However as English was already strongly entrenched this change in wording had little impact on practice. Nonetheless, some languages, notably Chinese, have begun to find a space in Indonesian schools, especially private schools, while Arabic has always had a role as a language of religion in Islamic schools. Although English was a compulsory subject, student achievement continued to be low and poor results for students in national examinations of English has long been the norm (Mistar 2005). The poor results are usually attributed to teacher quality and there is significant evidence that Indonesian teachers of English
worked within the UN Security Council Resolution to resolve the Suez Canal Crisis, although the eventual draft resolution was ultimately vetoed by Britain and France. 71 Under Khrushchev’s leadership, the Soviet Union still believed that it could encourage local communist parties to overthrow their governments and create socialist states. Primakov notes that this mission was especially critical to the ComIntern. 72 For this reason the Moscow gained a unique reputation for disturbing world order and stability while pursuing its interests, even though states like the Britain, France, and the United States engage in similar ways. 73 While the US and the USSR found common ground on issues in the Middle East in the 1950s, once British and French influence had waned in the mid-1960s, the two powers both scrambled to gain influence in the region vis-à-vis the other. Competition for allies in the region would last throughout the Cold War.
The Southeastern and Eastern (SE&E) parts of Turkey are undeveloped economically, socially and politically due to populist and misguided policies applied by the Turkish governments for many years. The clear difference in economic development between the Western and Eastern parts of Turkey has caused a significant economic crisis in the East. After much debate different causes for this crisis have been postulated. Some say that it is an identity crisis. Others argue that there is no substance, the economic bias, leveled at the Eastern part of Turkey that is occupied mostly by a different ethnic group. This underdevelopment has become a fate of this region. There are many factors which undermine economic development. One of the most important of these factors is the lack of education. Thus, in order to develop this region and remove inequalities, educational development will play a very important role.
This paper is very much an introduction to work-in-progress and is based on a presentation at a seminar at London Metropolitan University and the ensuing debate (Mau, 2011). It builds on personal experience as a practitioner in the community language sector for 21 years (Sneddon, 1993), and on experience of research in the field, some of which was carried out with my late colleague Peter Martin. Peter and I began to explore some of the many dimensions of diversity in the complementary school sector on our doorstep in east London. We were fascinated by the way it developed organically to meet the very specific needs of highly localised communities and how issues of power and status impact in different ways and offer different opportunities and challenges to differently situated communities (Sneddon & Martin, forthcoming).