The rise of China and India is unparalleled in human history because never before has the world witnessed the simultaneous and consistent takeoffs of two nations, accounting for more one third of the planet’s population, which have been consistently registering high growth rates for two decades. Their rise has profound implications for the world economy and world politics. Both China and India – the two new big kids on the block – have no difficulty with a rule-based world order, what they want is “a different set of rules”.

European political elites seem to be indulging in a degree of scapegoating about the danger from “ChinIndia”, since the roots of European angst really lie, among others, in European difficulties in managing globalization, declining competitiveness, fear of change, and an unsustainable health, pension and social welfare system. The Europeans tends to perceive the Chinese juggernaut as a direct immediate threat to European jobs in some manufacturing sectors whereas India is seen as a latent and potential threat taking away service-sector jobs, though pressures would increase as both move up the value chain.

The European Union’s strategic partnership with China and India is essentially driven by trade and commerce. India has too much of catching up to do with China. India is clearly in the Commonwealth Games league whereas China is in the Olympic Games league.

The rise of China and India represents both challenges and opportunities for Europe. Rising powers like China and India are challenging the European Union. They will be in a position to shape and influence global agendas and decisions to a greater extent than at present. For both, Europe will remain an indispensable partner since it is a vital source of trade, advanced technology and foreign direct investment. China and India do pose challenges for Europe, but they also provide opportunities since their growth contributes to greater growth worldwide, which means more exports, especially to a swelling consumerist middle class, which will make more demands of European goods, technology, and services.

Rajendra K Jain is Professor of European Studies and Chairperson, Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is Secretary-General, Indian Association for European Union Studies. He has been Visiting Professor at Leipzig and Tuebingen university and at the Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris. He is the author/editor of over two dozen books and has published 70 articles/chapters in books. He has most recently published India and the European Union: Building a Strategic Partnership (2007) (editor).

The renewed cohabitation between Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko has quickly begun to show stress. Will they repeat the 2005 experience, when Tymoshenko was sacked, and how do these tensions complicate Ukraine's current domestic and foreign policy challenges?

Synopsis

Ambassador Pifer begins his talk by recapping the past relationship between President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko. Mr. Pifer then proceeds to analyze the general political situation between the two at this early stage in their coalition. He explains that Yushchenko’s camp is seriously worried about the votes Tymoshenko could take away from him in the 2009 presidential election. Mr. Pifer also reveals that many businesses that work closely with Yushchenko’s administration are more politically aligned with the opposing Party of Regions rather than Tymoshenko’s bloc. In addition, Mr. Pifer discusses the concerns with the maneuvers of the head of the presidential administration who is perhaps working for his own agenda in links with the opposing Party of Regions.

Mr. Pifer briefly analyzes the political situations for the nation’s major party leaders as well. He explains that Yushchenko is losing support as he seems more focused on the 2009 elections and has failed to advance on forming and implementing a policy agenda. Similarly, Viktor Yanukovych, head of the opposing Party of Regions, is also losing support primarily due to poor political tactics such as physically blocking the speaker of Ukraine’s parliament from entering the parliament to speak. Mr. Pifer explains that there are also rumors of internal divisions within the party. However, Mr. Pifer argues Tymoshenko seems to be staying on top and maintaining support. This is arguably due to the achievements she already has to her name with her new cabinet.

Although, it seems that this coalition arrangement is detrimental to Yushchenko politically, Mr Pifer argues that there is little alternative. He explains that it is very difficult to break a coalition and such a move could split Yushchenko’s party. At the same time, Mr. Pifer believes it is clear that Yushchenko and Tymoskenko’s relationship is costing Ukraine. Mr. Pifer feels there is too much infighting and not enough governance, and this is illustrated by the lack of much shared domestic policy. Mr. Pifer also cites the two’s competing trips to negotiate with Gazprom and disputes over the NATO membership action plan as evidence for their disagreements and inefficiency.

Mr. Pifer concludes by arguing that while this coalition is fragile, he feels it may last longer than many believe as there is very little alternative. However, although this coalition will probably not be effective in policy-making, the fact that the economy is sound and both candidates are playing by democratic rules should be taken as a good sign.

about the speaker

Steven Pifer is a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A retired Foreign Service officer, his more than 25 years with the State Department focused on U.S. relations with the former Soviet Union and Europe, as well as on arms control and security issues. His assignments included deputy assistant secretary of state in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs (2001-2004), ambassador to Ukraine (1998-2000), and special assistant to the president and National Security Council senior director for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia (1996-1997). He also served at the U.S. embassies in Warsaw, Moscow and London, as well as with the U.S. delegation to the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces negotiations in Geneva. He holds a B.A. in economics from Stanford University, where he later spent a year as a visiting scholar at Stanford's Institute for International Studies. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Ms. Rees explores the business of sex trafficking in Eastern Europe particularly from the standpoint of her own personal experience. She explains, from her many years in Bosnia, the tragedies of the business, as well as the failures in attempts to stop it. In addition, Ms. Rees looks forward and argues how she feels the problem should be tackled in the future.

Synopsis

Ms. Rees sets the tone for her talk from the start by stating that while our interventions are a response to the phenomenon of sex trafficking, the phenomenon develops as a result of our interventions. Offering a simplified definition, she explains that the sex trafficking business consists of three main stages: recruitment, transfer, and exploitation. Mr. Rees continues by arguing that although there are many different perceptions of trafficking, focusing on only one of them, such as purely the prostitution aspect or solely the migration factor, will lead to eventual failure.

Placing strong emphasis on the fact that sex trafficking is a free market affair and therefore must be treated as such, Mr. Rees begins her focus on the business in Eastern Europe from the perspective of the dire economic situation in post-Soviet states. Discussing primarily her personal experience in Bosnia in the midst of the Balkans conflict, she explains the situation was one where organized criminal activity was for survival. In addition, Ms. Rees reveals that the status of the region both during and after the conflict was perfect for sex trafficking. There were almost no border checks, the 60, 000 peacekeepers provided a large and convenient market, and the police were easily corruptible. Ms. Rees explains that this messy situation lasted until 1999-2000 when the international community finally realized the seriousness of the problem at hand.

Resulting from the stabilization of the region and increased international attention, the crime of sex trafficking and its response was becoming increasingly sophisticated. However, Ms. Rees explains the role of the UN consisted of, in large part, offering clients and doing little to punish their conduct. She also expresses discontent at the UN program of bar raids which shifted the business underground, making it much harder to track. Similarly, Ms. Rees examines the efforts the International Organization for Migration and her concern with the tactics of coercive testimony. Ms. Rees also focuses on the period after 2003, once the UN peacekeepers had left, where the market had shrunk and the business was legitimizing. As women were starting to make money, the law enforcement approach was becoming increasingly messy, and Ms. Rees examines the certain merits of shelters and legal advice for the female victims.

Ms Rees concludes on a more somber note, exposing her belief that Bosnia was a failure in attempts to stop sex trafficking. She emphasizes that it was a failure with considerable economic ramifications. Finally, Mr. Rees finishes by arguing that current approaches do not listen enough to the subjects of the crime, the women. These are who we must base our efforts around.

Ms. Rees also kindly takes the time answer the audience’s various questions, raising a multitude of issues. She explains the inaccuracy and impossibility of estimating the numbers of the sex trafficking industry. Ms. Rees also explores the issues of HIV and pregnancies, as well as immunity for foreign workers such as the UN peacekeepers. Another key point raised was the potential effectiveness of prosecuting clients of the sex trafficking business.

Sponsored jointly by the Forum on Contemporary Europe, Center for Russian, East European and Eurasian Studies, Stanford Law School, and Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research.

This keynote speech kicks off the Trafficking of Women in Post-Communist Europe conference April 18.