Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Agromet Advisory Services - Farmers Empowerment
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
U.S. - Russia Relation: Signed New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
Presidents Barack Obama of the United States and Dmitry Medvedev of Russia signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty for the reduction of their nuclear weapons stockpiles on April 8, 2010.
The new START deal, which will last for ten years, was signed at a meeting in Prague, where President Obama outlined his vision for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation around a year ago.
Speaking after the signing, President Obama said, “This day demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia - the two nations that hold over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons - to pursue responsible global leadership.”
President Obama further said that the treaty would significantly reduce missiles and launchers and puts in place a “strong and effective verification regime.” He added that it would also maintain the flexibility needed to protect and advance the U.S.’s national security and guarantee its “unwavering commitment to the security of our allies.”
Describing the deal as a “win-win” for both countries, President Medvedev said, “This agreement enhances strategic ability and, at the same time, allows us to rise to a higher level of cooperation between Russia and the United States.”
Specifically, the treaty agrees to aggregate limits of 1,550 warheads; a combined limit of 800 deployed and non-deployed Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile launchers, Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missile launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments; and separate limit of 700 deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments.
The White House noted that the warheads on deployed ICBMs and deployed SLBMs will count toward the limit and each deployed heavy bomber equipped for nuclear armaments would count as one warhead toward this limit. The warhead limit itself was 74 percent lower than the limit of the 1991 START Treaty and 30 percent lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty, a White House statement added. Further, the limit on launchers and bombers is less than half the corresponding strategic nuclear delivery vehicle limit of the previous START Treaty.
In terms of verification and transparency, the new treaty has a verification regime that combines the appropriate elements of the 1991 START Treaty with new elements tailored to the limitations of the Treaty. In this regard, the White House also stated that measures under the new treaty include “on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by the Treaty.”
The signing of the new treaty came two days after the announcement of the Obama administration of its Nuclear Posture Review, in which the U.S. forswore nuclear attacks on all nuclear states compliant with the Non-Proliferation treaty. However, the U.S. reiterated its commitment to maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent.
START I or Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
START (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was a bilateral treaty between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The treaty was signed on 31 July 1991 and entered into force on5December 1994 . The treaty was signed by the United States and the USSR, that barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. Proposed by United States President Ronald Reagan, it was renamed START I after negotiations began on the second START treaty, which became START II.
The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009. On 8 April 2010, the new START treaty was signed in Prague by U.S. President Obama and Russian President Medvedev. It will enter into force after its ratification through the parliaments of both countries. The first START proposal was presented by United States President Ronald Reagan inGenevaon29 June 1982. Reagan proposed a dramatic reduction in strategic forces in two phases, which he referred to as SALT III at the time. The first phase would reduce overall warhead counts on any missile type to 5,000, with an additional limit of 2,500 on ICBMs. Additionally, a total of 850 ICBMs would be allowed, with a limit of 110 "heavy throw" missiles like the SS-18, with additional limits on the total "throw weight" of the missiles as well. The second phase introduced similar limits on heavy bombers and their warheads, and other strategic systems as well. At the time the US had a commanding lead in strategic bombers. The US B-52 force, while aged, was a credible strategic threat but was only equipped with AGM-86 cruise missiles, beginning in 1982, because of Soviet air defense improvements in early 1980s.
The US also had begun to introducenewB-1BLancer quasi-stealth bomber and was secretly developing the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB) project that would eventually result in the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber. The USSR's force was of little threat to the US, on the other hand, as it was tasked almost entirely with attacking US convoys in the Atlantic and land targets on the Eurasian land mass. Although the USSR had 1,200 medium and heavy bombers, only 150 of them (Tupolev Tu-95s and Myasishchev M- 4s) could reach North America (the latter only with in-flight refueling).
They also faced difficult problems in penetrating admittedly smaller and poorly defended US airspace. Possessing too few bombers available when compared to US bomber numbers was evened out by the US forces having to penetrate the much larger and heavier defended Soviet airspace. This changed when new Tu-95MS and Tu-160 bombers appeared in 1984 equipped with first Soviet AS-15 cruise missiles. By limiting the phase-in as it was proposed, the US would be left with a strategic advantage, for a time.
As Time magazine put it at the time, "Under Reagan's ceilings, the U.S. would have to make considerably less of an adjustment in its strategic forces than would the Soviet Union. That feature of the proposal will almost certainly prompt the Soviets to charge that it is unfair and one-sided.
No doubt some American arms-control advocates will agree, accusing the Administration of making the Kremlin an offer it cannot possibly accept a deceptively equal-looking, deliberately nonnegotiable proposal that is part of what some suspect is the hardliners' secret agenda of sabotaging disarmament so that the U.S. can get on with the business of rearmament." However, Time did point out that, "The Soviets' monstrous ICBMs have given the ma nearly 3-to-1 advantage over the U.S. in "throw weight" the cumulative power to "throw" megatons of death and destruction at the other nation."
Negotiations
Continued negotiation of the START process was delayed several times because US agreement terms were considered non-negotiable by pre-Gorbachev Soviet rulers. President Reagan's introduction of the Strategic Defense Initiative program in 1983 was viewed as a threat by the Soviet Union, and the Soviets with drew from setting a timetable for further negotiations.
Due to these facts, a dramatic nuclear arms race proceeded during the 1980s, and essentially ended in 1991 by nuclear parity preservation at a level of more than ten thousand strategic warheads on both sides. This treaty also stated that the United States and Russia would have 6,000 fighter aircraft, 10,000 tanks, 20,000 artillery pieces and 2,000 attack helicopters.
Ratification
It was signed on July 31, 1991, five months before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Entry-into-force was delayed due to the collapse of the USSR and awaiting an Annex that enforced the terms of the treaty upon the newly independent states of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. The latter three agreed to transport their nuclear arms to Russia for disposal.
It remains in effect between the U.S. and Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine These latter three have disarmed since becoming independent nations in the wake of the break up of the Soviet Union. Today, the United States has 3,696 and Russia has 4,237 deployed strategic warheads. The US has roughly 10,000 total warheads, counting strategic and tactical, both deployed and in reserves. The figures for Russia are less reliable, but are considered to be in the range of 15,000 to 17,000 total warheads.
Implementation
365 B-52Gs were flown to the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Center at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Arizona. The bombers were stripped of all usable parts, then chopped into five pieces by a 13,000-pound steel blade dropped from a crane. The guillotine sliced four times on each plane, severing the wings and leaving the fuselage in three pieces. The ruined B-52s remained in place for three months so that Russian satellites could confirm that the bombers had been destroyed, after which they were sold for scrap.
"It remains in effect between the U.S. and Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine. The latter three became non-nuclear weapons states under the Treaty on the non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of July 1, 1968 (NPT) as they committed to do under the "Lisbon Protocol" (Protocol to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms) after becoming independent nations in the wake of the break up of the Soviet Union."
Efficacy
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have disposed of all their nuclear weapons or transferred them to Russia; while the U.S. and Russia have reduced the capacity of delivery vehicles to 1,600 each, with no more than 6,000warheads.
Expiration and renewal START I expired December 5, 2009. Both sides agreed to continue observing the terms of the treaty until a new agreement is reached. There are proposals to renew and expand the treaty, supported by U.S. President Barack Obama. Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute of the U.S. and Canada, said: "Obama supports sharp reductions in nuclear arsenals and I believe that Russia and the U.S. may sign in the summer or fall of 2009 a new treaty that would replace START-1". He added that a new deal would only happen if Washington abandoned plans to place elements of a missile shield in central Europe. He expressed willingness "to make new steps in the sphere of disarmament," however, saying they were waiting for the U.S. to abandon attempts to "surround Russia with a missile defense ring." This referred to the placement of ten interceptor missiles in Poland, as well as an accompanying radar in the Czech Republic.
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, said, the day after the U.S. elections, in his first state of the nation address, that Russia would move to deploy short range Is kander missile systems in the western exclave of Kaliningrad "to neutralize if necessary the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe." Russia insists that any movement towards a new START should be a legally binding document, and must, then, set lower ceilings on the number of nuclear warheads, and their delivery vehicles.
On March 17, 2009, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev signaled that Russia would begin a "large scale" rearmament and renewal of Russia's nuclear arsenal. President Medvedev accused NATO of pushing ahead with expansion near Russian borders and ordered that this rearmament commence in 2011 with increased army, naval, and nuclear capabilities. Additionally, the head of Russia's strategic missile forces, Nikolai Solovtsov, told news agencies that Russia would start deploying its next-generation RS-24missiles after the December 5 expiry of the START-1 treaty with the United States. Russia hopes to change the START-1 treaty with a new accord. The increased tensions come despite the warming of relations between the United States and Russia ever since U.S. President Barack Obama took office.
As of May 4, 2009, the United States and Russia began the process of renegotiating START, as well as counting both nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles when making a new agreement. While setting aside problematic issues between the two countries, both sides agreed to make further cuts in the number of warheads they have deployed to around 1,000 to 1,500 each.
The United States has said they are open to a Russian proposal to use radar in Azerbaijan rather than Eastern Europe for the proposed missile system. The Bush Administration was using the Eastern Europe defense system as a deterrent for Iran, despite the Kremlin's fear that it could be used against Russia. The flexibility by both sides to make compromises now will lead to a new phase of arms reduction in the future.
A 'Joint understanding for a follow-on agreement to START-1' was signed by Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitri Medvedev in Moscowon 6 July 2009. This will reduce the number of deployed warheads oneach side to 1,500–1,675 on 500–1,100 delivery systems. A new treaty was to be signed before START-1 expired in December 2009 and the reductions are to be achieved within seven years. After many months of negotiations, Presidents Obama and Medvedev signed the successor treaty, Measures to Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, in Prague, Czech Republic on 8 April 2010.
START II
START II (for Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was signed by United States President George H.W. Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin on January 3, 1993, banning the use of MIRVs on ICBMs. Hence, it is often cited as the De-MIRV-ing Agreement. MIRVed land-based ICBMs are considered destabilizing because they tend to put a premium on striking first. When a missile is MIRVed, it is able to carry many warheads and deliver them to separate targets and thereby possibly destroy more than one missile of an enemy who does not strike first in their silos. The LGM-118 Peacekeeper missile was capable of carrying up to 10MIRVs. However, in 2001, President George W. Bush set a plan in motion to reduce the country’s missile forces from6,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200. Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to follow a similar plan and in October 2002 the deactivation of the Peacekeeper missile began and was completed by 19 September 2005.
The Minuteman III ICBM is the primary U.S. missile system and can carry up to 3 MIRVs. Hypothetically, if one were to assume that each side had 100missiles,with 5warheads each, and further that each side had a 95 percent chance of neutralizing the opponent's missiles in their silos by firing 2 warheads at each silo, then the side that strikes first can reduce the enemy ICBM force from 100 missiles to about 5 by firing 40 missiles with 200 warheads and keeping the remaining 60missiles in reserve. Thus the destruction capability is greatly increased by MIRVs but the number of targets does not increase.
START II followed START I and, although ratified, the treaty has never entered into force; in other words never been activated. On June 14, 2002, one day after the U.S. withdrew from the Anti- allistic Missile Treaty, Russia withdrew from START II. The historic agreement started on June 17, 1992 with the signing of a 'Joint Understanding' by the presidents. The official signing of the treaty by the presidents took place on January 3, 1993. It was ratified by the U.S. Senate on January 26, 1996 with a vote of 87-4. However, Russian ratification was stalled in the Duma for many years. It was postponed a number of times to protest American invasion of Iraq and military actions in Kosovo, as well as to oppose the expansion of NATO.
As the years passed, the treaty became less relevant and both sides started to lose interest in it. For the Americans, the main issue became the modification of the ABM Treaty to allow the U.S. to deploy a national missile defense system, a move which Russia fiercely opposed. On April 14, 2000 the Duma did finally ratify the treaty, in a largely symbolic move since the ratification was made contingent on preserving the ABM Treaty, which it was clear the U.S. was not prepared to do.
START II did not enter into force because the Russian ratification made this contingent on U.S. Senate ratifying a September 1997 addendum to START II which included agreed statements on ABM-TMD demarcation. Neither of these occurred because of U.S. Senate opposition, where a faction objected to any action supportive of the ABM Treaty. On June 14, 2002, one day after the U.S. withdrew from the ABM Treaty, Russia announced that it would no longer consider itself to be bound by START II provisions.
The treaty was officially bypassed by the SORT treaty, agreed to by Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin at their summit meeting in November 2001, and signed at Moscow Summit on May 24, 2002. Both sides agreed to reduce operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,700 from 2,200 by 2012.
START III
The third Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START III, was a proposed Nuclear disarmament treaty negotiated between the United States and Russia. It was never signed. It meant to drastically reduce the deployed nuclear weapons arsenals of both countries. The treaty was meant to continue the weapons reduction efforts that had taken place in the START I and START II negotiations. The framework for negotiations of the treaty began with talks in Helsinki between President Bill Clinton and President Boris Yeltsin in 1997.
Proposed basic elements of the treat included: By December 31, 2007, coterminous with START II, the United States and Russia would each deploy no more than 2,000 to 2,500 strategic nuclear warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine- launched ballistic missiles, and heavy bombers. Russian officials stated that they were willing to consider negotiated levels as low as 1,500 strategic nuclear warheads with in the context of a START III agreement.
The United States and Russia would negotiate measures relating to the transparency of strategic nuclear warhead inventories and the destruction of strategic nuclear warheads, as well as other jointly agreed technical and organizational measures to promote the irreversibility of deep reductions.
The talks faced a number of obstacles. Russia opposed the eastward expansion of NATO and American plans to build a limited missile defense system (which would have required changes to or the US withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty). Russia strongly hinted that any progress on START III would be subject to the satisfaction of its concerns on these issues. In addition, a Russian proposal to reduce stockpiles still further to 1,000-1,500 warheads was opposed by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. Very little progress was made towards completing negotiations on START III. President Clinton revived the issue in 1999 and it played a role in the 2000 presidential elections, but persistent disagreement, especially on the issue of missile defense, resulted in stalemate. The 2002 decision by the Bush Administration to with draw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty all but killed START III. It was superseded by much the weaker SORT treaty.
SORT
The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT), better known as the Moscow Treaty "represents an important element of the new strategic relationship between the United States and Russia". with both parties agreeing to limit their nuclear arsenal to 1700–2200 operationally deployed warheads each. It was signed in Moscow on May 24, 2002. SORT came into force on June 1, 2003 after the Bush-Putin ratification in St. Petersburg, and expires on December 31, 2012. Either party can with draw from the treaty upon giving three months written notice to the other.
Mutual nuclear disarmament
SORT is the latest in a long line of treaties and negotiations on mutual nuclear disarmament between Russia (and its predecessor the Soviet Union) and the United States, which includes SALT I (1969– 1972) the ABM Treaty (1972), SALT II (1972– 1979), the INF Treaty (1987), START I (1991), START II (1993), and START III, which died as of the linkage to START II.
The Moscow Treaty is different from START in that it limits actual warheads, whereas START I limits warheads only through declared attribution to their means of delivery (ICBMs, SLBMs, and Heavy Bombers). Russian and U.S. delegation smeet twice a year to discuss the implementation of the Moscow Treaty at the Bilateral Implementation Commission, or "BIC".
The treaty has been criticized for various reasons: There are no verification provisions to give confidence, to either the signatories or other parties, that the stated reductions have in fact taken place.
The arsenal reductions are not required to be permanent; warheads are not required to be destroyed and may therefore be placed in storage and later redeployed.
The arsenal reductions are required to be completed by December 31, 2012, which is also the day on which the treaty loses all force, unless extended by both parties. This is why some experts joke that SORT is only 'sort' of a treaty.
There exists a clause in the treaty which provides that with drawal can occur upon the giving of three month's notice and since no benchmarks are required in the treaty, either side could feasibly perform no actions in furtherance of the treaty, and then simply with draw in September of 2012.
Implementation
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reported that President Bush directed the US military to cut its stockpile of both deployed and reserve nuclear weapons in half by 2012. The goal was achieved in 2007, a reduction of US nuclear warheads to just over 50 percent of the 2001 total. A further proposal by Bush will bring the total down another 15%.
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks refers to two rounds of bilateral talks and corresponding international treaties involving the United States and the Soviet Union-the Cold War superpowers on the issue of armament control. There were two rounds of talks and agreements: SALT I and SALT II. A subsequent treaty was START.
The first ever negotiations started in Helsinki, Finland, in 1970. They were held during Apollo 12's flight - four months after astronauts from Apollo 11 had returned safely home. Primarily focused on limiting the two countries' stocks of nuclear weapons, the treaties then led to START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty). START I (a 1991 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union) and START II (a 1993 agreement between the United States and Russia) which placed specific caps on each side's number of nuclear weapons.
SALT I
SALT I is the common name for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks Agreement, also known as Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty. SALT I froze the number of strategic ballistic missile launchers at existing levels, and provided for the addition of new submarine- launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers only after the same number of older intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and SLBM launchers had been dismantled.
The strategic nuclear forces niche of the Soviet Union and the United States were changing in character in 1968. The U.S.'s total number of missiles had been static since 1967 at 1,054 ICBMs and 656 SLBMs, but there was an increasing number of missiles with multiple independently target able reentry vehicle (MIRV)warheads being deployed. MIRV's carried multiple nuclear warheads, often with dummies, to confuse ABM systems, making MIRV defence by ABM systems increasingly difficult and expensive. One clause of the treaty required both countries to limit the number of sites protected by an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system to two each. The Soviet Union had deployed such a system around Moscow in 1966 and the United States announced an ABM program to protect twelve ICB Msites in 1967. A modified two-tier Moscow ABM system is still used. The U.S. built only one ABM site to protect Minuteman base in North Dakota where the "Safeguard Program" was deployed. Due to the system's expense and limited effectiveness, the Pentagon disbanded "Safeguard" in 1975.
Negotiations lasted from November 17, 1969 until May 1972 in a series of meetings beginning in Helsinki, with the U.S. delegation headed by Gerard C. Smith, director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Subsequent sessions alternated between Vienna and Helsinki. After a long deadlock, the first results of SALT I came in May 1971, when an agreement was reached over ABM systems. Further discussion brought the negotiations to an end on May 26, 1972 in Moscow when Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Interim Agreement Between The United States of America and The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Certain Measures With Respect to the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. A number of agreed statements were also made. This helped improve relations between the USA and the USSR.
SALT II
It was a controversial experiment of negotiations between Jimmy Carter and Leonid Brezhnev from 1977 to 1979 between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, which sought to curtail the manufacture of strategic nuclear weapons. It was a continuation of the progress made during the SALT I talks. SALT II was the first nuclear arms treaty which assumed real reductions in strategic forces to 2,250 of all categories of delivery vehicles on both sides.
SALT II helped the U.S. to discourage the Soviets from arming their third generation ICBMs of SS- 17, SS-19 and SS-18 types with many more MIRVs. In the late 1970s the USSR's missile design bureaus had developed experimental versions of the semissiles equipped with anywhere from 10 to 38 thermonuclear warheads each. Additionally, the Soviets secretly agreed to reduce Tu-22Mproduction to thirty aircraft per year and not to give them an intercontinental range.
It was particularly important for the US to limit Soviet efforts in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) rearmament area. The SALT II Treaty banned new missile programs (a new missile defined as one with any key parameter 5%better than in currently deploye dmissiles), so both sides were forced to limit their new strategic missile types development although US preserved their most essential programs like Trident and cruise missiles, which President Carter wished to use as his main defensive weapon as they were too slow to have first strike capability. In return, the USSR could exclusively retain 308 of its so- alled "heavy ICBM" launchers of the SS-18 type.
An agreement to limit strategic launchers was reached in Vienna on June 18, 1979, and was signed by Leonid Brezhnev and President of the United States Jimmy Carter. In response to the refusal of the U.S. Congress to ratify the treaty, a young member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware, met with the Soviet Foreign Minister Andrey Gromyko, "educated him about American concerns and interests" and secured several changes that neither the U.S. Secretary of State nor President Jimmy Carter could obtain.
Six months after the signing, the Soviet Union deployed troops to Afghanistan, and in September of the same year senators including Henry M. Jackson and Frank Church discovered the so-called "Soviet brigade" on Cuba. In light of these developments, the treaty was never formally ratified by the United States Senate. Its terms were, nonetheless, honored by both sides until 1986when the Reagan Administration withdrew from SALT II after accusing the Soviets of violating the pact.
Subsequent discussions took place under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
USA/USSR Arms Limitation Treaties
Partial or Limited Test Ban Treaty (PTBT/ LTBT): 1963. Also put forth by Kennedy; banned nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater and in space. However, neither France nor China (both Nuclear Weapon States) signed.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): 1968. Established the U.S., USSR, UK, France, and China as five "Nuclear-Weapon States". Non- Nuclear Weapon states were prohibited from (among other things) possessing, manufacturing, or acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. All 187 signatories were committed to the goal of (eventual) nuclear disarmament.
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM): 1972. Entered into between the U.S. and USSR to limit the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons; ended by the US in 2002.
Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties I & II (SALT I & II): 1972 / 1979. Limited the growth of US and Soviet missile arsenals.
Prevention of Nuclear War Agreement: 1973. Committed the U.S. and USSR to consult with one another during conditions of nuclear confrontation.
Threshold Test Ban Treaty: 1974. Capped Nuclear tests at 150 kilotons.
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF): 1987. Eliminated nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with intermediate ranges, defined as between 500-5,500 km (300-3,400 miles)
Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty I (START I): 1991. This was signed by George H. W. Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev; reduced the numbers of U.S. and Soviet long-range missiles and nuclear warheads from10,000 per side to 6,000 per side.
Mutual Detargeting Treaty (MDT): 1994. U.S. and Russian missiles no longer automatically target the other country; nuclear forces are no longer operated in a manner that presumes that the two nations are adversaries.
Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty II (START II): 1993.Will reduce the numbers of U.S. and Russian long-range missiles and nuclear warheads from 6,000 per side to 3,500-3,000 per side. (START III proposed for 2007).
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) 1996. Prohibits all nuclear test explosions in all environments; signed by 180 states, and ratified by 148. The United States has signed, but not ratified, the CTBT.
Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT/Moscow Treaty (2002)). Established bilateral strategic nuclear arms reductions and a new" strategic nuclear framework"; also invited all countries to adopt nonproliferation principles aimed at preventing terrorists, or those that harbored them, from acquiring or developing all types of WMD's and related materials, equipment, and technology.
Foreign Direct Investment in India: Policy Platform for FDI
Union Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma on March 31, 2010 released the final document of FDI Policy Framework that would now comprise the single document on FDI policy and mark the inception of a whole new chapter on FDI policy.
Mr. Sharma said the current exercise had been initiated with the aim of integration of all prior regulations on FDI, contained in Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), RBI circulars, and various Press Notes into one consolidated document, so as to reflect the current regulatory framework. Having a single policy platform would also ease the regulatory burden for Government. The intention of this exercise is not to make changes in the extant guidelines, but to deal with them comprehensively.
Limit in LLP firms
The government said it was considering allowing FDI in limited liability partnership (LLP) firms and also to clearly define whether shares and bonds issued to overseas investors could be treated as foreign direct investment.
The government may also do away with Schedule IV of the FEMA that deals with sale and purchase of shares and debentures by NRIs and overseas corporate bodies on non-repatriable basis, Mr. Sharma said.
“There are many issues related with FDI policies that are currently under discussion in the government,” he said after releasing a compendium. LLP, the fast emerging form of business structure, is a hybrid of companies and partnership firms, which allows unlimited number of partners in an entity but their liability is restricted to the extent of the stake held by them.
FDI Inflows Touch US $ 1.72 Billion During February 2010
The Minister said that such consolidation would ensure all information on FDI policy is available at one place, which is expected to lead to: simplification of the policy; greater clarity of understanding of foreign investment rules among foreign investors and sectoral regulators, as also predictability of policy. “Having a single policy platform would also ease the regulatory burden for Government. Updation of this document will be carried out after every 6 months. This consolidated Press Note will be superseded by a Press Note to be issued on September 30, 2010, ensure that the framework document on FDI policy is kept updated”, Shri Sharma said.
Earlier, the draft document was released on 24 December, 2009 and was open for comments until the 31st of January, 2010. The response to the draft document has been excellent. Comments from 60 stakeholder organizations (including various Government Departments, Reserve Bank of India, Law Firms, consultancy firms, Chambers of Commerce and private companies) have been received. All comments, received until date, have been considered, before preparation of the final document. Even after receiving the responses, we held another round of discussions on the document with a number of consultancy firms that had offered comments on the draft, as also with the Reserve Bank of India and the Department of Economic Affairs.
There are a number of issues related to FDI policy that are currently under discussion in the Government, such as foreign investment in Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), policy on issuance of partly paid shares/warrants, rescinding Schedule IV of FEMA, clarifications on issues related to Press Notes 2, 3 & 4 of 2009 and on Press Note 2 of 2005, as also certain definitional issues etc. When a decision on these is taken, the Government decision would be announced and thereafter incorporated into the Consolidated Press Note subsequently.
Foreign Direct Investment into India is a capital account transaction under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999. The Government of India and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) regulate such transactions. The Government comes up with new regulations or amends/changes the existing ones, keeping in view the requirements that may exist at a particular point in time. Various aspects of FDI policy are, accordingly, pronounced/ notified through Press Notes issued by DIPP, RBI circulars, Acts and changes in regulations. DIPP itself has issued about 177 Press Notes since 1991, covering various aspects of FDI policy, including cross border investment, policy liberalisation, policy rationalization and foreign technology collaborations, Industrial Policy etc.
As far as FDI policy is concerned, it had been felt, through interaction with various investors, counterpart government organizations and other stakeholders, that there is a need for further simplification and consolidation of the FDI policy framework, so as to make it more comprehensible to all investors and stakeholders. The Prime Minister, in his remarks at the World Economic Forum in December, 2008, had also announced that, “Our policy will be guided by the desire to make India even more attractive for Foreign Direct Investment. We are particularly keen to rationalize and simplify procedures so as to create an investor friendly environment”. The present exercise was a step in the above direction.
FDI Inflows
FDI equity inflows for the month of February, 2010 have been US $ 1.72 billion, which represents an increase of 15%, in US $ terms, over the inflows received in February 2009 (which were of the order of US $ 1.49 billion). FDI equity inflows for current the financial year (i.e. April, 2009 to February, 2010) have been around US $ 24.68 billion. These are comparable to the FDI equity inflows for the comparable period of the previous year, which were around US $ 25.39 billion.
FDI inflows for almost all months in the current financial year, from June onwards (excepting September, 2009 and January, 2010) have shown an increasing trend over the FDI inflows of the same months in the previous financial year (2008-09). The pace of inflows, therefore, is stable.
Accordingly, it is likely that the total inflows in the current financial year (2009-10) are comparable to the total inflows received during the last financial year (2008-09). This is despite the fact that the UNCTAD World Investment Report, 2009, had noted a fall of global FDI inflows, from a historic high of 1.979 billion in 2007 to 1.697 billion in 2008, a decline of 14%. UNCTAD had subsequently predicted a fall in global FDI investment flows by 30%, from US $ 1.7 trillion in 2008 to US $ 1.2 trillion in 2009.
It is relevant to note that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in its latest report on investment, released in March, 2010, has noted a significant stagnation in the global investment activity. It has noted that: The average monthly Merger&Acquisition (M&A) activity in the past 12 months was just under US $ 50 billion. The last time monthly M&A activity fell below US$50 billion was in April 2006. Year on- year, global M&A activity is now at its lowest level since the beginning of the global economic crisis, at around 35% of the levels reached two years ago (March, 2007 through February, 2008).
India-Britain Relation (Declaration on Civilian Nuclear Cooperation)
India on feb 11 signed a “declaration” on civilian nuclear cooperation with the U.K. which officials described as a “general umbrella agreement.”
The two sides are expected to make a public announcement in the coming days. The U.K. becomes the eighth country with which India has signed a civilian nuclear pact since breaking out of restrictions imposed on it. The agreement was signed by Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Srikumar Banerjee and British High Commissioner Richard Stagg. The pact will provide a legal framework for British companies that have expertise in supplying components.
According to the Nuclear Industry Association of the UK, 185 British companies in the island nation which include the nuclear plant operators, those engaged in decommissioning, waste management, nuclear liabilities management and all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle. The British nuclear industry exports nuclear goods and equipment worth over 1.11 billion dollars and can supply 70-80 per cent parts of a new nuclear reactor.
Since September 2008, when the Nuclear Suppliers Group lifted the embargo on India's participation in international nuclear commerce, India has signed civil nuclear cooperation agreements with France, USA, Russia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Argentina and Namibia. India has also finalised a civil nuclear cooperation deal with Canada, which is expected to be signed soon.
India-UK Bilateral Relations
India’s multi-faceted bilateral relationship with the UK has intensified over the past few years. Recent dialogues at the highest level have underlined the bilateral strategic partnership in all areas. The UK is an important interlocutor in the bilateral, EU, G8 and global contexts.
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh visited the UK on 19-20 September 2004 and met PM Tony Blair. During the visit, the two Prime Ministers adopted a Joint Declaration titled 'India-UK: Towards a new and dynamic partnership' which envisages annual Summits and meetings between Foreign Ministers. It also outlined areas for future cooperation in civil nuclear energy, space, defence, combating terrorism, economic ties, science and technology, education and culture.
The then PM Tony Blair mooted the idea of India joining G-8 discussions. At his invitation PM visited the UK on 7-8 July 2005 for the “G-8 Plus 5” Gleneagles Summit (India, China, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico). He visited India on 6-8 September 2005 in his capacity as EU President for the EU/ India Summit on September 7, and also for the bilateral Summit held on September 8 in Udaipur. PM met the then PM Blair in St. Petersburg in July 2006 during the meeting of the Outreach Countries with G8 leaders.
Prime Minister Dr. Singh visited UK from 9-11 October 2006 and held the third annual India-U.K Summit. Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s visit to India (20-21 January 2008). The fourth India-UK Annual Summit was held in Delhi on January 21, 2008 during the visit of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Building on the achievements of the two declarations (2002, 2004), the two sides issued a joint statement on India-UK Strategic Partnership.
The two sides agreed
On the importance of more representative and effective international institutions to address global challenges. The UK reaffirmed its firm support for India’s candidature for a permanent membership in an expanded UNSC.
To cooperate in developing collaboration between small and medium enterprises, entrepreneurs and venture capitalists.To forge a closer partnership of two knowledge societies in the field of higher education. In particular, it was agreed to establish an Education Forum to work towards an early conclusion of an education partnership agreement and to enter into a MoU on an Indo-UK Higher Education Leadership Development programme to develop leadership skills in higher education.
To establish a Science Bridge Initiative shall be established to build institution to institution relationship on equal partnership with joint funding under the principle of parity. To promote cooperation in civil nuclear energy and would work towards a bilateral agreement for this purpose. The UK supports the India-US civil nuclear cooperation initiative.
Both sides expressed satisfaction over the announcement of UK-India agreement on the second phase of UK-India Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation study aimed at identifying the barriers to local carbon technology transfer. Remain committed to build on existing cooperation on counterterrorism including establishment of bilateral dialogue on terrorist financing.
Prime Minister met Prime Minister Brown on the sidelines on the UNGA Summit in New York on 26 September 2008. The two leaders discussed the global economic crisis, terrorism, and other bilateral and regional issues. Prime Minister of UK Gordon Brown was on a half-day visit to New Delhi on 13th December 2008 as part of his visit to the region following Mumbai terror attacks. He met the Prime Minister and conveyed his condolences on the Mumbai terror attacks.
India-UK Round Table
The 11th India-UK Round Table was held in India in 2-5 May 2008 at Shimla. The issues discussed include prospects for the world economy, the demographic dimension, health care, the dialogue of cultures & education, research and innovation. The next round of India-UK RT will be held in Dichley, UK on 3-5 July 2009 (both days inclusive). Economic and Commercial Relations
Bilateral economic linkages have strengthened through increased trade and investment flows. Two-way bilateral trade in goods has crossed £ 8.11 billion in 2007-08 and is expected to cross £ 10 billion before 2010. Trade in Services is estimated to be more than £3.5 billion in 2007-08 and thus the total bilateral trade in goods and services amount to £ 11.6 billion in 2007-08. The export basket from India has undergone substantial diversification and more than 50% of India’s exports now constitute non-traditional and hi-tech goods like petroleum products, engineering products and pharma products.
UK fourth largest investor in India
UK is the fourth largest investor in India and the cumulative investment by UK from April 2000 till September 2008 was $ 5,058 million. For the period April-September 2008, the total investment by UK was $ 695 million. The UK is the most preferred nation for investments by Indian companies in 2008 so far, accounting deals worth $6 billion. (till August 08). India has emerged as the third largest foreign investor in the UK and the second largest overseas investor in London and Northern Ireland in terms of number of acquisitions / investments. India is the second largest creator of jobs in the UK with opening of offices by over 500 Indian companies. London Stock Exchange hosts 52 Indian companies, with a combined market cap of £ 9 billion. Indian firms have raised a total of £3 billion through listings on the exchange. In March 2008, Tatas acquired Jaguar and Land Rover for £2.3 billion.
India-UK Joint Trade and Economic Committee (JETCO)
The fifth meeting of JETCO was held during the visit of Peter Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Shri Kamal Nath, Minister for Commerce and Industry on 20 January 2009. Liberalisation of visa regime, progress on the eight working groups set up was among the issues discussed. The fourth meeting in London on 13th December 2007 had constituted Working Groups under the JETCO in order to identify the barriers and to promote the business.
The working groups have been set up in Hi-Tech Industry, Agribusiness, Accountancy, Financial Services, Intellectual Property Rights, Legal Services, Infrastructure and Healthcare sectors.
India-UK Financial Dialogue
This initiative was launched in January 2007 by Finance Minister Shri Chidambaram and UK’s then Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Gordon Brown with a view to exchange views on bilateral and global financial issues. The second meeting of the India-UK Financial Dialogue was held on 11 August 2008 between Shri P. Chidambaram, Finance Minister and UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling.
The discussion focused on the Doha trade talks and financial services liberalisation in India. The Ministers also discussed commodity markets and energy policy. The two Ministers signed a Memorandum of Understanding to encourage sharing of best practices in the development of Public Private Partnerships.
India-UK Investment Summit
The first ever India-UK Investment Summit took place in London on 10 October 2006 to coincide with Prime Minister’s visit to the UK. The second India-UK Investment Summit took place in India in January 2008 during the visit of Prime Minister Gordon Brown. At the summit, both sides agreed to cooperate in developing collaboration between SMEs and entrepreneurs and venture capitalists.
The British side agreed to support the establishment of a capacity building programme in India for public private partnership in infrastructure. CII delegation was invited by Prime Minister Gordon Brown on 25th March 2008 to follow up issues discussed during the summit. UK side agreed to consider CII’s request to implement a UK funded three year programme to impart vocational skills to one million Indians in rural areas.
Education
The 2004 Joint Declaration identified education linkages as a priority. India has (November 2004) become a strategic partner in the Global Gateway Initiative of the UK Department for Education and Skills for linkages between schools. The share of Indian students in UK universities and higher education is growing steadily. There are about 22,000 Indian students in Britain. The annual intake has crossed 18,000.
In September 2005, then PM Tony Blair had announced £ 10 million UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI), during his visit to India, and launched it in April 2006. Four corporates – BAE, BP, GlaxoSmithKline and Shell, have together contributed £ 4 million. The first meeting of the India-UK science and Innovation Council in London (June 2006) had endorsed UKIERI and agreed to match the UK’s contribution for bilateral research projects. Overall, total anticipated fund for UKIERI is in excess of £ 25 million over 5 years. The three main strands of the initiative are Higher Education and Research, Schools, and Professional and Technical Skills.
Indian Community in Britain
Indian on Britain’s population of 59.8 million, the population Community of Indian origin is estimated to be around 1.5 million, accounting for the single largest segment of ethnic population. Over 40% of them live in inner and outer London. Outside London, Indian community’s main concentrations are in West and East Midlands, Leicester and Greater Manchester. Over the years Indians have performed extremely well in various fields.
Majority of the second generation have opted for higher education and are in white collar professions like doctors, engineers, solicitors, chartered accountants, etc. House of Commons MPs of Indian origin: Parmjit Dhanda, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Marsha Singh, Keith Vaz (all Lab.) and Shailesh Vara (Cons.).
House of Lords: Raj Bagri, Narendra Babubhai Patel, Meghnad Desai, Navnit Dholakia, Shreela Flather, Tarsem King, Bhikhu Parekh, Adam Patel, Swaraj Paul, Usha Prashar, Diljit Rana, Kumar Bhattacharya, Kamlesh Patel, Karan Bilimoria, Sandip Verma, Mohamed Sheikh. In addition, there are Indian origin Councillors in active politics in many Councils across UK.
UK Profile
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK or Britain, is a sovereign island country located off the northwestern coast of continental Europe. The UK includes the island of Great Britain, the northeast part of the island of Ireland, and many small islands.
Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with a land border, sharing it with the Republic of Ireland. Apart from this land border, the UK is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the English Channel and the Irish Sea. The largest island, Great Britain, is linked to France by the Channel Tunnel.
The UK has an area of 244,100 sq. km. forming a group of islands lying off the North-West coast of Europe. The two largest islands are Great Britain proper (comprising the greater parts of England, Wales and Scotland) and Ireland (comprising Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland). Britain does not have extreme weather, but is subject to frequent changes depending on the prevailing southwesterly winds. The temperature rarely rises above 32 C or falls below -10 C.
According to statistics compiled in 2000, the population of UK was 59,755,700 with England accounting for 50.0 million, Scotland 5.1 million, Wales 3.0 million and Northern Ireland 1.7 million. United Kingdom is set to become Europe’s most highly populated nation within two generations, driven by immigration. Forecasts published by the European Commission suggest that UK will overtake Germany within 50 years as the population rises from 60.9 million today to 77 million.
The UK has a parliamentary system of government where the Constitution is not based on a written constitution but is the result of gradual evolution over many centuries. Unlike most countries, the British Constitution is not set out in a single document but is made up of statute law, common law and convention. The monarchy is the oldest institution of the Government, with Queen Elizabeth II as the Head of the State. Britain follows universal adult suffrage from the age of 18. It has a bicameral system of Parliament, with an elected House of Commons (646 seats) and a nonelected House of Lords, which has recently been reformed to consist mainly of appointed life peers.
Economy
The economy of the United Kingdom is the fifth largest in the world in terms of market exchange rates and the sixth largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). It is the second largest economy in Europe after Germany's. Its GDP PPP per capita in 2007 is the 22nd highest in the world.
The credit crunch and the ongoing economic crisis have severely affected UK. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) in UK revealed that Britain's economy shrank during the third quarter of the year for the first time since 1992 and endured the worst single quarter since 1990. It said gross domestic product (GDP) from July to September 2008 was down 0.6 per cent on the previous quarter. The contraction came at a faster rate than previously thought, and was down from last month’s initial estimate of a 0.5 per cent contraction.
» GDP (PPP): $2.772 trillion(2007 est.) (5th)
» GDP growth: (-) 0.6 % (Q3 2008)
» GDP per capita: £ 23,500 (2008 est.)
» GDP by sector: agriculture (1%), industry (26%), services (73%)
» Inflation (CPI): 4.4% (2008 est.)
» Population below poverty line: 14% (2006 est.)
» Labour force: 31 million (includes unemployed)
» Labour force by occupation Services: (81%), industry (18%) and agriculture (1%) (excludes unemployed) (2007)
» Unemployment: 6.0% (Oct.2008)
» Exports: $470 billion (2007 est.)
» Main export partners: USA 15%, Germany 11%, France 10%, Ireland 7%, Netherlands 6%, Belgium 6%, Spain 5%, Italy 4% (2007)
» Imports: $600 billion (2007 est.)
» Main import partners: Germany 14%, USA 9%, France 8%, Netherlands 7%, Belgium 6%, Italy 5%, The People's Republic of China 4%, Ireland 4%.
United Nations Report on Toxic Electronic Waste
United Nations Report on Toxic Electronic Waste
According to a United Nations report released recently Developing countries face increasing environmental and health hazards from electronic waste unless toxic materials are collected and recycled properly.
The report highlights the problem of recycling and salvaging procedures in poorer countries, often in unsafe conditions by unregulated operators. Sales of electronic devices are set to rise sharply in the next 10 years, particularly in emerging economies such as China and India, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) said.
According to report, titled Recycling - from EWaste to Resources, the world produces about 40 million tons of waste from electronic devices, known as e-waste, every year.
Main Feature
Experts said exposure to toxic chemicals from ewaste - including lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium and polybrominated biphenyls - can damage the brain and nervous system, affect the kidneys and liver, and cause birth defects.
The report was launched in Indonesia’s resort island of Bali. It used data from11 developing countries to estimate current and future e-waste generation from discarded computers, printers, mobile phones, pagers, cameras, music players, refrigerators, toys, televisions and other items.
China produces an estimated 2.3million tons of ewaste annually, and though the country has banned e-waste imports, it remains a major dumping ground for waste from developed countries, the report said.
The UN research predicts that in South Africa and China, e-waste from old computers may jump by 200 to 400 per cent from 2007 levels and by 500 per cent in India.
E-waste from mobile phones in the same period is forecast to rise seven times in China, and 18 times in India.
According to the report, over 1 billion mobile phones were sold in 2007 worldwide, up from 896 million in 2006.
The report said most e-waste in China was improperly handled, with much of it incinerated by backyard recyclers to recover valuable metals like gold. Jim Pucket of the Basel Action Network, a nongovernmental organization fighting the international trade in toxic wastes, said massive amounts of discarded devices had been exported to China for years.
But China is not alone in facing the serious e-waste problem. India, Brazil, Mexico and others may also face rising environmental damage and health problems if e-waste recycling is left to the vagaries of the informal sector.
Report urged governments to establish e-waste management centres, building on existing organizations working in the area of recycling and waste management.
What is Electronic Waste
Electronic waste, e-waste, e-scrap, orWaste Electricalc and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) describes loosely discarded, surplus, obsolete, broken, electrical or electronic devices. The processing of electronic waste in developing countries causes serious health and pollution problems because electronic equipment contains some very serious contaminants such as lead, cadmium, beryllium and brominated flame retardants. Even in developed countries recycling and disposal of e-waste involves significant risk to workers and communities and great care must be taken to avoid unsafe exposure in recycling operations and leaching of material such as heavy metals from landfills and incinerator ashes.
Problems
Rapid technology change, low initial cost, and planned obsolescence have resulted in a fast-growing surplus of electronic waste around the globe. Dave Kruch, CEO of Cash For Laptops, regards electronic waste as a "rapidly expanding" issue. Technical solutions are available, but inmost cases a legal framework, a collection system, logistics, and other services need to be implemented before a technical solution can be applied. An estimated 50million tonnes of E-waste is produced each year. The USA discards 30 million computers each year and 100 million phones are disposed of in Europe each year.
In the United States, an estimated 70% of heavy metals in landfills comes from discarded electronics, while electronic waste represents only 2% of America's trash in landfills. The EPA states that unwanted electronics totaled 2million tons in 2005. Discarded electronics represented 5 to 6 times as much weight as recycled electronics. The Consumer Electronics Association says that U.S. households spend an average of $1,400 annually on an average of 24 electronic items, leading to speculations of millions of tons of valuable metals sitting in desk drawers. The U.S. National Safety Council estimates that 75% of all personal computers ever sold are now gathering dust as surplus electronics. While some recycle, 7% of cell phone owners still throw away their old cell phones.
Surplus electronics have extremely high cost differentials. A single repairable laptop can be worth hundreds of dollars, while an imploded cathode ray tube (CRT) is extremely difficult and expensive to recycle. This has created a difficult free market economy. Large quantities of used electronics are typically sold to countries with very high repair capability and high raw material demand, which can result in high accumulations of residue in poor areas without strong environmental laws. Trade in electronic waste is controlled by the Basel Convention. The Basel Convention Parties have considered the question of whether exports of hazardous used electronic equipment for repair or refurbishment are considered as Basel Convention hazardous wastes, subject to import and export controls under that Convention. In the Guidance document produced on that subject, that question was left up to the Parties, however in the working group all of the Parties present believed that when material is untested, or contains hazardous parts that would need to be replaced as part of the repair process, then the Convention did apply.
Like virgin material mining and extraction, recycling of materials from electronic scrap has raised concerns over toxicity and carcinogenicity of some of its substances and processes. Toxic substances in lectronic waste may include lead, mercury, and cadmium. Carcinogenic substances in electronic waste may include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Capacitors, transformers, and wires insulated with or components coated with polyvinyl chloride (PVC), manufactured before 1977, often contain dangerous amounts of PCBs.
Up to 38 separate chemical elements are incorporated into electronic waste items. Many of the plastics used in electronic equipment contain flame retardants. These are generally halogens added to the plastic resin, making the plastics difficult to recycle. Due to the flame retardants being additives, they easily leach off the material in hot weather, which is a problem because when disposed of, electronic waste is generally left outside. The flame retardants leach into the soil and recorded levels were 93 times higher than soil with no contact with electronic waste.[12] The unsustainability of discarding electronics and computer technology is another reason commending the need to recycle or to reuse electronic waste.
When materials cannot or will not be reused, conventional recycling or disposal via landfill often follow. Standards for both approaches vary widely by jurisdiction, whether in developed or developing countries. The complexity of the various items to be disposed of, the cost of environmentally approved recycling systems, and the need for concerned and concerted action to collect and systematically process equipment are challenges. One study indicates that two thirds of executives are unaware of fines related to environmental regulations.
Hotspots
Increased regulation of electronic waste and concern over the environmental harm, which can result from toxic electronic waste, has raised disposal costs. The regulation creates an economic disincentive to remove residues prior to export. In extreme cases, brokers and others calling themselves recyclers export unscreened electronic waste to developing countries, avoiding the expense of removing items like bad cathode ray tubes, the processing of which is expensive and difficult.
Defenders of the trade in used electronics say that extraction of metals from virgin mining has also been shifted to developing countries. Hard-rock mining of copper, silver, gold and other materials extracted from electronics is considered far more environmentally damaging than the recycling of those materials. They also state that repair and reuse of computers and televisions has become a "lost art" inwealthier nations, and that refurbishing has traditionally been a path to development. South Korea, Taiwan, and southern China all excelled in finding "retained value" in used goods, and in some cases have set up billion-dollar industries in refurbishing used ink cartridges, single-use cameras, and working CRTs. Refurbishing has traditionally been a threat to established manufacturing, and simple protectionism explains some criticism of the trade. Works like "The Waste Makers" by Vance Packard explain some of the criticism of exports of working product, for example the ban on import of tested working Pentium 4 laptops to China, or the bans on export of used surplus working electronics by Japan.
Opponents of surplus electronics exports argue that lower environmental and labor standards, cheap labor, and the relatively high value of recovered raw materials leads to a transfer of pollution-generating activities, such as burning of copper wire. In China, Malaysia, India, Kenya, and various African countries, electronic waste is being sent to these countries for processing, sometimes illegally. Many surplus laptops are routed to developing nations as dumping grounds for e-waste.
Because the United States has not ratified the Basel Convention or its Ban Amendment, and has no domestic laws forbidding the export of toxic waste, the Basel Action Network estimates that about 80% of the electronic waste directed to recycling in the U.S. does not get recycled there at all, but is put on container ships and sent to countries such as China. This figure is disputed as an exaggeration by the EPA, the Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, and the World Reuse, Repair and Recycling Association.
Guiyu in the Shantou region of China, Delhi and Bangalore in India as well as the Agbogbloshie site near Accra, Ghana have electronic waste processing areas. Uncontrolled burning, disassembly, and disposal can cause a variety of environmental problems such as groundwater contamination, atmospheric pollution, or even water pollution either by immediate discharge or due to surface runoff (especially near coastal areas), as well as health problems including occupational safety and health effects among those directly involved, due to the methods of processing the waste. Thousands of men, women, and children are employed in highly polluting, primitive recycling technologies, extracting the metals, toners, and plastics from computers and other electronic waste.
Proponents of the trade say growth of internet access is a stronger correlation to trade than poverty. Haiti is poor and closer to the port of New York than southeast Asia, but far more electronic waste is exported from New York to Asia than to Haiti. Thousands of men, women, and children are employed in reuse, refurbishing, repair, and remanufacturing, sustainable industries in decline in developed countries. It is held that denying developing nations access to used electronics denies them affordable products and internet access.
Opponents of the trade argue that developing countries utilize methods that are more harmful and more wasteful. An expedient and prevalent method is simply to toss equipment onto an open fire, in order tomelt plastics and to burn away unvaluable metals. This releases carcinogens and neurotoxins into the air, contributing to an acrid, lingering smog. These noxious fumes include dioxins and furans. Bonfire refuse can be disposed of quickly into drainage ditches or waterways feeding the ocean or local water supplies.
In June 2008, a container of electronic waste, destined from the Port of Oakland in the U.S. to Sanshui District in mainland China, was intercepted in Hong Kong by Greenpeace. Concern over exports of electronic waste were raised in press reports in India, Ghana, Ivory Coast, and Nigeria.
Recycling
Today the electronic waste recycling business is in all areas of the developed world a large and rapidly consolidating business. Electronic waste processing systems have matured in recent years, following increased regulatory, public, and commercial scrutiny, and a commensurate increase in entrepreneurial interest. Part of this evolution has involved greater diversion of electronic waste from energy-intensive down cycling processes (e.g., conventional recycling), where equipment is reverted to a raw material form.
This diversion is achieved through reuse and refurbishing. The environmental and social benefits of reuse include diminished demand for new products and virgin raw materials (with their own environmental issues); larger quantities of pure water and electricity for associated manufacturing; less packaging per unit; availability of technology to wider swaths of society due to greater affordability of products; and diminished use of landfills.
Audiovisual components, televisions, VCRs, stereo equipment, mobile phones, other handheld devices, and computer components contain valuable elements and substances suitable for reclamation, including lead, copper, and gold.
Electronic Waste Substances
Some computer components can be reused in assembling new computer products, while others are reduced to metals that can be reused in applications as varied as construction, flatware, and jewelry.
Substances found in large quantities include epoxy resins, fiberglass, PCBs, PVC, thermosetting plastics, lead, tin, copper, silicon, beryllium, carbon, iron and aluminium.
Elements found in small amounts include cadmium, mercury, and thallium.
Elements found in trace amounts include americium, antimony, arsenic, barium, bismuth, boron, cobalt, europium, gallium, germanium, gold, indium, lithium, manganese, nickel, niobium, palladium, platinum, rhodium, ruthenium, selenium, silver, tantalum, terbium, thorium, titanium, vanadium, and yttrium.
Almost all electronics contain lead and tin (as solder) and copper (as wire and printed circuit board tracks), though the use of lead-free solder is now spreading rapidly.