The Unending Iranian Nuclear Crisis

If anybody thought that a change of talk in the Bush administration’s Iran policy would be enough to induce the “isolated” Tehran to give up its intransigence and toe the western line, the July 19 meeting proved him or her wrong. Before the Geneva meeting between Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, the US sent feelers to Tehran. In a clear indication that Washington was prepared to change its belligerent stand towards Tehran, the Bush administration announced that William Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, would attend the meet. In addition, unconfirmed reports said the US was planning to open a diplomatic post in Tehran for the first time since relations were severed during the 444-day occupation of the American embassy in Tehran nearly three decades ago.
Iran welcomed the developments and said it was ready for a “comprehensive agreement” with the five-plus-one powers (the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany), which initiated the latest diplomatic push to find a breakthrough to the impasse over the Iranian nuclear issue. However, despite these goodwill gestures, the Geneva talks ended in another deadlock, thanks to the complexities of the proposal the six-power bloc laid down before Iran and the latter’s increasing inflexibility.
The recent diplomatic initiative gained momentum as Solana, along with the representatives of the five countries (excluding the US) visited Tehran on June 14 with the incentive package that offered political and economic benefits to Iran. The proposal offered direct talks between the six-power bloc and Tehran but only if the Islamic Republic stops producing enriched uranium, which can be used to make electricity or fuel bombs. It also asked Iran to freeze further expansion of its enrichment activities for six months as a confidence building measure in return for the international community freezing its efforts to impose more sanctions on Iran during the same period.
Iran has long made it clear that any precondition to the talks is not acceptable. Soon after Solana’s Tehran visit, President Mohammad Ahmadinejad said that his country was open for talks with the US and other powers, but would not change its nuclear policies. According to many analysts, Iran was responding to the West’s carrot-and-stick policy in the same coin. Tehran does not want to send a message to the outside world that it is weak and vulnerable to the American and Israeli pressure tactics. When Israel carried out a major military exercise in June, which many American officials said was a rehearsal for a potential attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran responded in July with the test-firing of long-range Shahab-3 missiles which can hit Israel. The Islamic Republic has also carried out Prophet Mohammad III war games and reportedly given orders to soldiers to dig 320,000 graves in Iran’s border provinces, in which to bury the bodies of invading soldiers.
General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, also threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz through which almost 40 per cent of the region’s oil flows, if Iran were attacked. In an apparent move to protect the oil installations in the Gulf in case of emergencies, the US, Britain and Bahrain jointly carried out a naval exercise codenamed ‘Operation Stake Net’. These war preparations and threats were going on at the same time when the Iranian diplomats were preparing a written response to the six-power group’s incentive package. Israeli commentator Uri Avnery calls it “psychological warfare”. He wrote recently that the war games and rhetoric could well be part of the strategies of both sides to increase their bargaining capacity in a possible diplomatic engagement.
Iran also understands the complex dynamics in the region very well. It knows that its former President Mohammad Khatami suspended the country’s nuclear activities owing to the pressure of the West, but gained nothing in return. Unlike the Khatami era, today’s Iran is emerging as a regional power, thanks to the wars that the US and Israel have fought in the last few years. Today, when the US is bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq and the Hezbollah has emerged more powerful in Lebanon after Israel’s 2006 summer attack, Iran’s regional importance is much higher. Also, record energy prices would force second thoughts before planning an offensive against the world’s second-largest oil producer.
Ahmadinejad’s government has clearly indicated that it is willing for a diplomatic engagement, but not ready to give up the enrichment programme, which is a key bargaining chip in its talks with the West. The fact that Iran did not reject the latest proposal out of hand, like it did two years ago, demonstrates its willingness for talks. Besides, a powerful lobby within the Iranian establishment is increasingly critical of the way Ahmadinejad has handled the nuclear issue. This difference came into open when Ali Akbar Velayati, foreign policy adviser of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, publicly urged the government to accept the European package. In what was seen as an indirect attack on the president, he warned the Iranian leadership not to make provocative statements on the nuclear issue.
So what is the outcome? Ahmadinejad is playing diplomacy without giving up his nuclear intransigence. The two-page note Iran circulated in the July 19 meeting, “The Modality for Comprehensive Negotiations (Non-Paper),” clearly underscores this stand. Iranian diplomats appear to be very cautious and optimistic while talking to the media, in sharp contrast to their president’s public speeches. After the Geneva talks, Saeed Jalili reiterated that his country was ready for a comprehensive agreement with the international community. But Iran’s letter does not address the key demand of the West – ending enrichment activities. Instead, Iran has proposed at least three more meetings with Solana and six more meetings at the foreign ministerial level, which would start with the halting of sanctions against Iran. The New York Times quoted an unnamed diplomatic source saying, “If you were to try to implement it, it would take minimum of several years.”
Europe has asked Iran to respond to the “freeze-to-freeze” proposal in two weeks. Both the US and Britain have threatened more sanctions. Whether Iran would change its policy and accept the “freeze-to-freeze” proposal still remains unclear. Iran appears not to be in a mood to make concessions to the administration of President George Bush, though its quest for a diplomatic solution still remains strong. The two-page response indicates that Iran wants to buy more time, perhaps thinking that a new incumbent in the White House would be more flexible. One also has to wait for the official response of Russia and China, two powers which have resisted harsh sanctions against Iran, to the Geneva meeting. One thing is, however, clear. The Iranian nuclear crisis is unlikely to be resolved any time soon.

(John Stanly, written for IDSA Strategic Comments July 25, 2008)

We were Bought (Letter to Deep and other comrades)

When Manmohan Singh became the prime minister in 2004 I was working as an editorial trainee in Mangalam daily in Kottayam. The se cular left in MG University as well as in the newspaper was genuinely happy with the poll outcome. We believed that a non-BJP government at the centre was a historical necessity given the atrocities of the Muslim genocide in Gujarat in 2002 engineered by the fascist Narendra Modi and the shameless way the Advani & Co defended them. There was so much hope in the air. We called the critics of the Left-Congress alliance cynics. But a colleague of mine in Mangalam, a Leftist and a committed secularist, warned that it would prove to be a fundamental error if the Left backs Manmohan Singh, a servile of the global capitalism, as the prime minister of the country. We also shared apprehensions at that time, but tried to remain hopeful. I still strongly believe that the decision to support the UPA was a historical one. Historians may judge how this ideological tie-up helped restore the faith of Indian poor and the minorities in the democratic institutions that were completely maligned by the fascist BJP. But as Kishore Abraham, my Mangalam friend, warned, Manmohan Singh steered the corporatisation of Indian democracy through out the last 4 years. He buried down the attempts of the Congress party to regain its social democratic agenda and paved the way for the complete corporate takeover of Indian democracy. When India first voted against Iran in the IAEA, we saw how the Left upped the ante along with the Samajwadi Party and others. In a class room discussion, I asked a JNU professor if India would change its vote in the second IAEA meet. She was blunt: "We were bought". And India again voted against Iran. Those words get louder now. Desperately we have to admit Deepak, we all were bought by the American imperialism.
(John Stanly)

Why the deal should be screwed?

* The deal backers, including the prime minister, says it would lead to a sort of nuclear renaissance and bring about a revolution in India's energy sector. Is it so? Many independent (not part of the govt) scientists have made one point clear. The nuclear deal is not going to make any major difference in India's energy sector why becoz the nuclear energy satisfies only 2.13 percent of our total energy requirement.
* R. Ramachandran, The Hindu's science editor, wrote recently in an opinion editorial that the demand-supply mismatch in the uranium sector is because of the govt's continuous apathy for the last two decades. He argues India could produce enough amount of uranium to run its reactors investing one third of the money it's now paying to the US to buy reactors.
*It was Manmohan Singh, who was the then FM, cut down the spending for uranium production in early 1990s, saying "nuclear energy is not viable" for a big country like India.
*Once India set up the new reactors and started receiving uranium from the US, it will have to ensure, by any cost, the uninterrupted supply of uranium, which according to many, gives a strategic upper hand to the US.
*The PM lied in the Parliament that the 123 agreement overrides the Hyde Act. In fact, State Sec Condy Rice has more than once informed the Congress, which has to ratify the deal that the legislation is binding. The Hyde Act requires the US to stop uranium supplies to any country that conducts weapon tests.
*The deal backers say the US cannot influence the Indian foreign policy since safeguards agreement underscores India's right keep a "Strategic Reserve" of uranium and take "corrective measures" if the uranium supply gets interrupted. But both these options are mentioned only in the preamble of the Safeguards Agreement and have not been explained further. (We know what happened to the proposal of keeping a strategic energy reserve at global level to meet the fuel crisis).
* The basic argument is that whether India shd align itself with the US, an Empire which is on the decline. We know how Indian FP was taken over by the pro-US lobby in the last two decades. If the US is a myth, as what the deal backers argue, why India voted against Iran in the IAEA. Why the NDA government initially decided to send troops to Iraq. (Dont forget that the VP Singh government backed Saddam Hussein when he attacked Kuwait, a move that tarnished India's image in the Arab world).
*Why this deal? It's for whom? Why the government is doing everything possible, including intimidation (CBI reopens cases against Maya), horse trading (Talks with smaller parties) and even reaching an ambigous behind-the-scene deal with the SP, only to sail the deal thru, at a time when the country is reeling under high inflation? It’s an undesirable, mysterious deal in the name of nuclear energy, which is not able to meet even 2.5 of the total energy requirements of the country.

(John Stanly)

Iran: Moving towards confrontation?

The Iranian nuclear crisis is unlikely to go quite. It was not long back, the American National Intelligence Estimate said it had “high confidence” that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapon programme in late 2003. This development appeared to have pushed the ‘war talk’ backwards and signalled a somewhat peaceful solution to the controversial nuclear programme. But that did not happen.

With Iran insisting on its “right to enrich uranium” and the West demanding the enrichment be stopped for any further progress in the diplomatic mission, the crisis is again looming large over West Asia. Though European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana visited Tehran on Jun 14 with a proposal of incentives, not many Iran-watchers think that the latest “diplomatic push” would lead to any breakthrough in the nuclear crisis. Tehran rejects the carrot and stick policy of the West. It says “any precondition is unacceptable”. But the US, on the other hand, has made it clear that the diplomatic mission will take off only if Tehran abandons its enrichment activities.

The US, where Iran is featured in a big way in this election year, is apparently building up pressure on Tehran. The Iranian issue was one of the top agenda of US President George W. Bush when he visited Europe last week. Speaking to reporters in Slovenia after meeting European leaders, Bush said: "Iran with a nuclear weapon would be incredibly dangerous for world peace.” In Germany he seemed tougher. Speaking after holding talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel, Bush said he wanted to pursue diplomacy to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme, but “all options are on the table”.

Bush’s remarks cannot be seen as mere isolated threats of a president, who is in his last months in office. On June 6, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said military strikes to stop Iran from going nuclear looked “unavoidable”. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, while addressing the AIPAC Policy Conference 2008 on June 3, said the “Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means”. He emphasized that the economic and political sanctions “are only an initial step”.

Even Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate who earlier proposed to hold direct talks with Tehran, is now echoing President Bush. Speaking to the AIPAC conference, he said he would do “everything in his power” to prevent Iran from going nuclear. So the message is clear. The ‘Iran action plan’, whatever it is, still on the table.

The pressure-building game is on. These all developments indicate that all major powers, the US, Europe and Israel, have resumed discussing different options to deal with Iran. However, Tehran’s response to the European proposal was on expected lines. Iran did not formally reject it, but said its response would depend on how the West reacted to Iran’s May 13 proposal which called for international talks and international inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities. But it added that the regime would continue to enrich uranium against the wishes of the West. This chilly response seems to have worsened the crisis. Hours after Solana met Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and handed out the proposal, President Bush, who was in Paris, accused Iran of rejecting the “generous offer out of hand”.

The proposal, according to reports, puts forward a precondition that Iran should stop enrichment. Upon that condition, talks between Iran and six world powers – the US, France, Russia, China, UK and Germany. The six countries “will refrain from any new action in the Security Council,” while Iran “will refrain from any new nuclear activity, including the installation of any new centrifuges”.

However, with Iran rejecting any precondition and the US accusing Tehran of rejecting the proposal itself, the impasse is likely to continue. That Iran did not outrightly reject the offer shows that it wants to buy more time. With the Bush presidency is in its waning days, Tehran hopes that it can hold less conditioned talks with a new administration in Washington. But it remains unclear what would be the immediate move of the western countries if Iran formally rejects the offer. Solana has said the world powers had not reached any agreement on more sanctions against Iran. But President Bush during his European trip managed to win the support of the major European countries for harsher sanctions on Iran if it did not stop enrichment. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, in a joint press conference with Bush in London, said on June 16 that the European Union would freeze the overseas assets of Iran’s largest commercial bank, Bank Melli. Some reports say a naval embargo of the Persian Gulf or the refusal to supply western technology needed for Iran’s oil industry are also under consideration.

Earlier this month Iranian media reported that the Islamic regime had started transferring billions of dollars from European banks to Asian Banks, and buying gold and equities to protect its oil revenue. This shows that Iran is also preparing to face more economic hardships. However, the big question is that whether Russia and China would support tougher measures, particularly when oil prices are all-time high. But, if Iran rejects the proposal which seeks a diplomatic solution to the crisis, those who argue for tougher measures would get a say. This tone was visible in Bush’s Paris speech. Speaking in a joint press conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Bush said on June 14 that the Iranian response to the proposal was a “clear indication that its leadership was willing to isolate Iranians further”.

The West is unlikely to back off from its key demand: no nuclear enrichment. Iran so far seems to be determined to continue with the enrichment activities. It seems to be sceptical of the promise that the US would cooperate with other world powers to build a nuclear reactor in Iran that would help Iran meet its energy requirements. It has reason to be sceptical of the key western demand that enrichment activities be stopped. Though the previous Iranian president Mohammad Khatami suspended its enrichment activities, it did not lead to any breakthrough.
If both sides continue sticking to their positions, the latest diplomatic initiative will never take off. Rather, the nuclear tussle will lead to an unhealthy confrontation.

John Stanly

The Politics of Global Food and Energy Crisis

The soaring food prices and the global energy crisis that are glaring at us today have proved many optimists of the past wrong. Some of these optimists had said three decades ago that the world will never have to face the current scenario as had been predicted by some Malthusian thinkers then.
In 1972, the Club of Rome, a global think-tank that deals with various policy issues, published a report entitled "The Limits to Growth" on the predicament of mankind. The report that predicted a major resource crunch by the end of the 20th century drew flak from many capitalist economists at that time. The Club of Rome wrote 30 years ago that only "550 billion barrels of oil remained and that would run out by 1990". Today, as oil prices cross $139 a barrel, many economists fear that the production has now reached its geological limits, or the peak oil.
When the food prices went high, US President George W. Bush had said it was a result of the "growing prosperity" of India and some other economies like China. Whom will the US now blame for the energy crisis? The rest of the world is actually eager to listen to what the world's highest energy consumer - which unleashed a disastrous war in the oil-rich Middle East five years ago - has to say. High prices have sent alarm signals across the world. Indonesia announced that it would quit the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to protest the oil cartel's policies. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called for austerity and efficient energy use as one of the ways to address the crisis. French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested more subsidies, as his country's fishermen staged protests at ports. British Prime Minster Gordon Brown asked oil exporters to raise production as lorry drivers blocked roads in London and Cardiff. Even the US, the apostle of free market policies, is also planning some gas-tax holidays to ease the consumer's burden.
What made the oil market so vulnerable?
"The price of oil was $51 in January 2007, it is now touching $138 a barrel. In the last six months it has risen by 42 percent and this situation is unlikely to change," R.S. Kalha, India's former ambassador to Iraq, told this writer. Many experts say the Bush presidency started the dangerous global fuel-game. Oil economist Mamdouh Salameh, an advisor to the World Bank, recently told Britain's The Independent newspaper that the oil price would now be no more than $40 a barrel had there not been the Iraq war. Before the 2003 war, Iraq pumped some 3.5 million barrels of oil a day, but this has now fallen to just two million barrels.
"Perhaps one of the few countries that has sufficient oil reserves and can easily meet the growing demand is Iraq. With reserves of 115 billion barrels, its present output is not even anywhere near the pre-invasion (2003) levels and is still less than pre-war (first Gulf war of 1990) times," Kalha, the author of the recently published book "The Ultimate Prize - Oil and Saddam's Iraq", said. "If political stability can be ensured and Iraqi oil begins to flow to the markets of the world, much of the present economic distress can easily be avoided and political convulsion contained," he added.
But will that happen in the near future?
The war tightened supplies, setting the stage for a steep rise in the prices. At just under 86 million barrels a day, global oil production has actually stagnated. Another reason, many economists say, for the high energy prices is speculation in the commodities markets. With the global slump in economies, speculators keep moving their funds from sector to sector in search of higher returns. Now, around $260 billion is invested in commodity funds, a 20-fold rise from 2003. The data released by the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), the world's biggest market for oil, show that the number of transactions involving oil futures on the NYMEX has almost tripled since 2004. Whatever reasons the economists have, one thing is clear - the world is leading to a major resource-crunch that will have disastrous political implications - and even food riots as seen in some countries. Food prices have already triggered civil unrest in many parts of the Caribbean and Africa. If energy prices continue to rise, the unrest will spill over to the developing economies like India and China, the experts warn.
The future is bleak. Global consultancy Goldman Sachs says that oil prices will cross $200 in 2009. Though the industry discovered some new oil reserves in Latin America recently, energy economists say it will take years to pump it out from these reserves because of technological reasons. If the situation remains, the oil producers will cut down exports to meet their domestic demand, throwing the international prices into orbit. How will the world survive such a situation? Iraq invasion, according to many, was the first "oil war" in human history. The post-war situation shows that it was just the beginning.

(John Stanly, written for IANS June 18, 2008)

Cracks begin to appear in the US-Pakistan alliance

The June 10 cross border attack by American F-15E fighter bombers on Pakistani paramilitary troops is the latest indication of the changing dynamics of the much discussed US-Pakistani alliance against terrorism.

The attack took place in Mohmand, a dangerous border area, part of Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The US version of the story is simple. Taliban fighters from Mohmand crossed into the Afghan border and unleashed attacks on the coalition troops with rocket-propelled grenade fire. The international troops returned fire and drove the militants back into Pakistan. Then, three US fighter planes crossed the border and dropped about a dozen bombs. The US expressed regrets over the incident. State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos told reporters in Washington that the incident was a reminder that “better cross border communications between forces is vital”.

Is that all? This is not the first time the US jets cross the border and bomb Pakistani people. In March, an American aircraft dropped bombs in South Waziristan, haven of the militants, killing nine people. Similar incidents had occurred in January also. The latest attack comes at a crucial time when the Pakistani government is negotiating a deal with the militants in the borderland, a move that irked the US and its European allies. The change in Islamabad’s counter terrorism strategy, according to many analysts, shook the foundations of the so-called anti-terror alliance between Pakistan and the US.

Islamabad’s response to the Mohmand attack underscored this perception. When Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani denounced the attack as an affront to the country’s “sovereignty, dignity and self-respect” the military’s response was more stunning. The US attack “hit at the very basis of co-operation and sacrifice with which Pakistani soldiers are supporting the coalition in the war against terror”, said a military spokesman. The act was “absolutely unprovoked and cowardly”, he added. The strong response of the Pakistan army makes one thing clear: army has completely moved away from President Pervez Musharraf’s grip. There’s a strong perception in Pakistan, even within its army, that the so-called anti-terror campaign in Waziristan and other border regions is being fought at the behest of the US.

The civilian government appears to hold this view. It says many of the tribal leaders now support the Taliban because of the relentless military raids in the borderland. The government thinks a peace deal with the militants would help it limit their influence within the border districts. However, this policy shift comes at the expense of the US’ interests in South Asia. Holding talks with militants is an anti-thesis to the so-called Bush doctrine, which calls for “eradicating” terror cells through military campaigns. Besides, it undermined Bush’s plan to make headway in its anti-terror campaign in the tribal area before he leaves office by the end of this year.

The frustration was visible as the US many times went public against the Pakistan government in the past three months. NATO, citing figures, stated that there were more cross-border attacks against the coalition troops in Afghanistan in May 2008 comparing to the year-ago period. It added that the peace talks and Pakistani government’s plan to downsize troops in the border region would backfire as the militants were regrouping themselves. The US has also complained that it does not get any military support from Pakistan to continue the fight against Taliban. The Mohmand attack took place against this background. Given the recent developments in the bilateral ties, the bombing is expected to make things more complicated for both sides.

When the Damadola missile attack took place Oct 29, 2006, the Pakistani army suddenly took the responsibility of the attack and actively resisted any attempt to link the US with the incident. The attack on Damadola religious seminary, which killed 82 people, incidentally took place on the same day the provincial government was supposed to sign the Bajour Accord with the local tribes. Many reports at that time claimed that the US, which was opposed to the deal, was behind the attack. But now the scene is different. Both the federal government and army are unlikely to defend the US if any such incident occurs. But, at the same time, many Pakistan-watchers think the US may go to any extend to stop a possible deal with the militants.
It is not yet clear whether the peace talks would bring in any result. Even the Pakistani government’s counter terror strategy looks vague. But, Islamabad seems to be determined to honour its pledges to break with the Musharraf regime. Of course, a bad news for the Americans.

(John Stanly)

Bush is Right - but Equally Wrong: The Global Food Debate

Is there anything common between US President George W. Bush and the 18th century British political economist Thomas Malthus? Most unlikely. But Bush's "discovery" that the growing "prosperity" of India has shot up global demand for food brings back the 'Malthusian Catastrophe' to the centre of the global food debate. The British economist warned the world way back in 1798 that population growth would outpace agricultural production in the future resulting in the "premature death" of the human race.

Many economists would contest the Malthusian fears. But not many would disagree that the current food crisis is a result of the mismatch between surging demand and resource crunch. The UN World Food Programme's Josette Sheeran recently called the food crisis a "silent tsunami".According to UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), wheat and rice prices soared 77 percent and 16 percent respectively last year. This year, the scene was worse with rice prices soaring 141 percent and wheat 25 percent till April. Hunger has triggered food riots in many parts of the world and even sent Haiti's prime minister packing. Countries like Cameroon, Egypt, Bangladesh and Philippines are already under stress.India has also adopted a slew of measures to counter the soaring prices.

According to a report by the New Delhi-based Centre for Science of Environment, low support prices, private players and a drought in wheat exporting countries like Canada, the US and Australia triggered panic in the Indian wheat market. The report added that India would have to import three million tonnes of wheat in the current fiscal to shore up its stocks.According to the FAO, global grain stockpiles are at their lowest level in 25 years. The world has consumed more than it produced for the last seven years. World Bank President Robert Zoellick has already warned that 100 million people could be pushed deeper into poverty due to the current crisis.The situation is grave. According to The Economist, around 1 billion people who live on $1-a-day, are cutting back on wheat, vegetables and one or two meals. Those who live on 50-cent-a-day face a total disaster, the magazine warns.

Bush's statement came in such a situation when most of the poor nations were struggling to deal with the crisis. His remarks have come in for sharp criticism from almost all political parties in the country.However, according to many economists what Bush said was true, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. According to British environmentalist and writer Mark Lynas, the rapid economic growth in India and China has created a new middle class that demands more food - thereby increasing the quantity of grain required for livestock production. But he emphasise that the global resource war initiated by the advanced industrialised world is the major reason for the crisis.Similar to the food price jump of 1973, following the Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt, today's crisis is also more or less related to energy. The shift towards biofuel is seen as the major factor that pushed up food prices. Both in South and North America, more and more land is being diverted to produce biofuel and maize, widely used as cattle feed in the West and being used for production of ethanol.As the rich Indian and Chinese middle class, along with their European and Middle Eastern counterparts demand Western style diets high in meat and diary products, demand for such products obviously goes up. The cattle farmers in many countries replace wheat with maize as cattle feed. This eventually shoots up the prices of grains in international markets.Along with this, economists list out other reasons like drought in North America because of climatic changes, the fertilizer crunch that affects agricultural productivity, the futures trade and the unbridled consumption promoted by the profit-driven market capitalism. All these factors are directly or indirectly related with the economic policies of the US. China with more than 1 billion people consumes 7.9 million barrels of oil a day.

The US with less than one quarter as many people, consumes 20.7 million barrels. This energy greed is now making the world, as Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz warns, an "unviable place".The US, instead of blaming the developing world, should first admit its faults and come forward to work with other major countries to ease the crisis. Otherwise, Malthusian fears may revisit mankind.

(John Stanly, written for IANS, May 18, 2008)

Ahmadinejad’s visit - India intensifies global energy game

Iranian President Mohammad Ahmadinejad’s brief but significant visit to India and his cautious criticism against the “bullying” policies of the “rulers of the world” (read the US and its European allies) make one point clear - New Delhi has finally come out of its strategic confusion. When India sent a strong message to the US ahead of the Iranian president’s visit saying the “two ancient civilizations” needed no guidance in dealing with each other, Ahmadinejad, seemingly understanding the sensitivity of India-US ties, did not use the platform in New Delhi to hit out at his “enemies” in the same fashion as he often does in other capitals. This guarded approach from both sides set the stage for broader India-Iran cooperation in the rapidly intensifying global energy game.

New Delhi’s decision to welcome Ahmadinejad must have taken at least a few of India watchers by surprise. It was just two years ago that India, under pressure from Washington, voted twice against the Iranian nuclear programme in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Since then India’s ties with Iran had not been as warm as they used to be. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has often been criticised both at home and abroad for not showing real interest in the proposed India-Pakistan-Iran (IPI) gas pipeline. Besides, bilateral ties between the two countries hit a new low earlier this year as Israel blasted off a spy satellite with the help of India. Iran’s envoy to India even went public criticising New Delhi over the issue.

Then why this turnaround?

This could be seen as part of India’s changing energy policy. According to a recent New York Times report, cosy relations with Iran are important for India at least for three reasons. Iran is India’s second largest oil supplier after Saudi Arabia, is a potential source of natural gas in the future and wields influence in Afghanistan, a gateway for New Delhi to enter Central Asia’s rich oil and gas fields. Still, India had been reluctant to engage Iran, particularly after the US intensified its campaign to isolate the Islamic Republic. The rumours of a possible US attack on Tehran have also pulled India back from going ahead with its ambitious energy plans.
Now, with the US bogged down in Iraq and the possibility of an attack on Tehran looking remote, New Delhi is back on front-foot in the energy game. With oil prices skyrocketing, India does not have many options but to enter into comprehensive energy cooperation with resource-rich countries. The supply-demand mismatch in India has already sent out warning signals across the ruling class.

India, which imports more than two- thirds of its oil needs, fears that the demand would rise by 90 percent by 2030. According to a recent report, India’s average gas supply between April 2007 and January 2008 was 37 million standard cubic metres against the requirement of 77 million standard cubic metres.

This rising demand of oil and gas across the world has already set the stage for a resource war at the global level in which countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia will become key players. The global scenario demands a tough policy decision from any emerging power like India.
This realisation at the top level was visible when India took another diplomatic U-turn and welcomed the Myanmar military junta’s second most important person, General Maung Aye, earlier this month. Myanmar, with proven gas reserves of 19 trillion cubic feet and vast unexplored areas, could become a potential partner in India’s energy projects.
If External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said India was against imposing sanctions on Myanmar’s junta ahead of Maung Aye’s visit, it was National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan’s turn to signal the thaw in India-Iran relations ahead of Ahmadinejad’s visit. Speaking at an international strategic conference in New Delhi, Narayanan said the Iran issue should be handled diplomatically, not with force. This change in Iran policy seems to have come at the right time.
Iran is no longer an isolated, untouchable republic as what the US wants it to be. Its clout is increasing across the Middle East. It has good relations with Iraq and Syria and enjoys the loyalty of Hezbollah, which virtually shattered Israel’s plans in the second Lebanon war in 2006. Tehran extends moral support to the Palestinian Hamas and stands as an inspiration to the political Islamic movements across the region that challenge the cultural and military hegemony of the West.

After all, India must be calculating that a new president in the White House in 2009 January, possibly a Democrat, will have better ties with Tehran than the Bush administration. Besides, Ahmadinejad’s visit would help the UPA government counter the criticisms at home that it was acting as a client state of Washington. The UPA, which is preparing for the next year’s general election, could use the improving India-Iran ties (if it happens) as a barometer of its “independent foreign policy”.

However, the worst is not yet over. Although both Ahmadinejad and India’s Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon expressed optimism over the $7.6-billion IPI pipeline, several questions remain unanswered. Even if the price issue is settled, India’s main concern would be the security of the pipeline. India wants two assurances from Islamabad and Tehran - Pakistan should ensure security to the pipeline, which runs through the troublesome Baloch area, and both Islamabad and Tehran should guarantee the continuous supply of gas irrespective of the political developments in those countries.

New Delhi is also planning another pipeline project aimed at taking out gas from Turkmenistan via Iran and Pakistan to India. Talks about this project took centrestage as the earlier proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) project looked impossible given the security situation in Afghanistan.

Plans galore. But could New Delhi deliver?

It is a tough test for India. It has to draw out policies to meet its energy requirements without antagonising its strategic allies. Relationship with the US remains the top priority of the policy makers in New Delhi. Israel is India’s second largest supplier of defence equipment after Russia. How would India draw out a clear Iran policy without disturbing the existing equations? That is the major test New Delhi faces.

(John Stanly - written for IANS, May 5, 2008)

Afghanistan Steps Deeper into Security Quagmire

The attempt on President Hamid Karzai's life in the heart of the capital city of Kabul by suspected Taliban militants underscores the growing pessimism about security in the country. If the April 27 attack is anything to go by, Taliban militants are increasing their influence all across the country. Soon after the attack, the Taliban claimed responsibility saying its aim was to show that it could strike from the capital. The message is clear - the Taliban has reached the capital.It was not long ago that US President George W. Bush pledged to "smoke" the terrorists "out of their holes" in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. However, almost seven years after he declared a war on terrorism, Taliban militants, once driven out of Kabul by the US with the help of the Northern Alliance, have shown that they can carry out a well-coordinated attack even against the president in his turf.Given the security situation and the incompetence of the Karzai regime, the latest attack is unlikely to take anybody by surprise. Critics of the US' Afghan invasion long ago warned that Washington could not win over the Taliban with its muscle power.Even after seven years of counter-insurgency operations with perhaps the most sophisticated weapons, the Afghan government and its "international allies" are still struggling to ensure security to the citizens staying outside Kabul. Acute poverty and security threats from the Taliban have forced the citizens, mostly in the south, to shift their loyalty to the insurgents. The government's failure to reach out to the people and take care of their basic needs has driven the Afghans away from Kabul, which is largely perceived as a puppet establishment of Washington.According to the United Nations, 78 of 376 districts in the country are Taliban strongholds where the government's security apparatus is totally non-functional. Government officials agree that there is a growing gap between the government and the people that is being exploited by the Taliban. The government is unable to even carry out reconstruction work in the south as Taliban militants frequently attack government forces and often kidnap aid workers.The Kabul attack shows that the militants are no longer hiding in their "holes" in the Tora Bora Mountains waiting for their opportunity to strike against the foreign troops. They are out in the streets, targeting the supporters and the top leadership of the government - the same strategy the militants used against the Soviet troops in the 1980s. If they succeed in creating a permanent internal security threat among the citizens, they would have won the first part of the battle.This poses serious doubts about the counter-insurgency strategy of the NATO-led international troops. Last year, more than 8,000 people died in violence related to insurgency, and there were 160 suicide attacks. Kabul, where a large number of international troops are stationed, has been considered relatively calm since the American invasion. However, with the latest attack, the militants have shattered the security claims of the government. The ability of the militants to get so close to Karzai with weapons shows that they had inside help.The growing concern over the failure of the Afghan strategy was visible when Uzbekistan President Islam Karimov made it clear at the recent NATO summit in Bucharest that NATO alone could not ensure security in Afghanistan. According to him, apart from the NATO and the US, major powers like China and Russia and also the Central Asian republics should be allowed to play a larger role in Afghanistan. It however still remains unclear whether the US would be ready for a realignment of troops in Afghanistan. Russia, on the other side, has so far been reluctant to get involved in Afghanistan though it has strong interests in Central Asia.A paradigm shift in the western governments' Afghan policy is inevitable, as the situation gets worse day by day. It is already clear that the puppet government in Kabul, even with the support of the international troops, is not capable of quelling the insurgency. The rise of Sunni Islamists in Afghanistan is in nobody's interest. To prevent such a catastrophe, the international community should ensure wider cooperation and consider all possible options.

(John Stanly; written for Indo-Asian News Service (IANS) April 30, 2008)

On Food Crisis ( a letter sent to Jinoy and other comrades)

Jinoy,

This is just the continuation of the debate. You must be remembering an article by Fidel Castro on the Bush admin's energy policy, published on Granma almost one year back. Castro's article was timely written when Brazil's "socialist" president Luis Inacio Lula da Silva visited Washington to clinch a bio-fuel agreement with the Bush admin. Your magazine (Down to Earth) had published one Lead soon after, unless I am mistaken. One year after, we have got all of our international magazines running cover stories and news papers leading debates on the global food crisis. I am not saying that the bio-fuel policy alone is responsible for the crisis. Rather, my focus is on the resource crunch. One argument from the free marketist bloc is that the scarcity of resources and subsequent high prices have eventually led to conservation and innovation. I remember reading somewhere recently about how people a couple of centuries back switched to kerosene from whale oil to fuel lamps. They argue the technological advancement, clean production of electricity, desalination...etc would ultimately help us overcome the resource crunch. Is it so? The criticisms against capitalist mode of production and the free-market driven consumption spree were always rejected as moralist arguments by many among us (including myself). Now Stiglitz warns that if the markets continue their free-run, the world will soon become unviable. Newstatesman asks how did the rich starve the world (http://newstatesman.com/200804170025)? The World Bank warns of riots for food in future. The international press is concerned of the "empty bellies (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/world/americas/18food.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin). Your magazine has also run a cover sty on the same issue (http://www.downtoearth.org.in/section.asp?sec_id=9&foldername=20080415). Perhaps my friends from science background could help me understand this better? We have seen several changes in the Capitalist development pattern in the past. After the great economic depression, they stood for more regulation and welfarism. We had Keyenes. And in 1970s, with Reagan and Thacher coming to the helm, we witnessed a radical overhaul in the world economy. Now the Wall street economists argue for more regulations, but only to save the monetary institutions and corporate majors. This is what somebody critically said abt neoliberalism, Capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich. Is it so?

stanly

Left bounces back in business

A spectre is haunting the capitalist Germany now. The spectre of eastern communism. It’s been almost three decades now since the Berlin Wall was brought down & West Germany triumphed over the East. Throughout this long period, the mainstream German political parties, be it the Christian Democrats (CDU), the Liberal Free Democrats (FDP), the Social Democrats (SPD) or the Greens, collectively treated the children of East German communism as pariahs. Did they succeed in their effort? Yes, but only until some members of the erstwhile East German Communist Party reinvented themselves in a changed political landscape through the formation of a new political outfit.

The Left Party, daring the de facto political untouchability, set out a fresh campaign, which eventually started producing results. When the results of the Feb. 24 Hamburg state election were out, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU lost absolute majority in the state, which simply endorsed the shift of political Centre to the Left. The CDU won 42.7% of popular votes down from the 47% it bagged in 2004. CDU’s main rival SDP scored 34%, 4% higher than the 2004 figure. The most interesting performance is that of the Left Party which is set to enter the Hamburg Parliament for the first time with 6.5% of the votes. Hamburg result was just the continuation of what happened in the state of Hesse in January. The Christian democrats lost absolute majority in Hesse as the Left Party, along with the Social Democrats, emerged as a crucial player. When the Left Party bagged some seats in the 2005 general elections, both the conservatives & the Social Democrats joined hands together to deny any national relevance to the communists.

That cooperation led to the formation of Volksparteien – the CDU and SPD alliance – which has now become a liability for both the parties. The SPD, which earlier ruled out any kind of alliance with the Left, has now changed its tone, expressing willingness to have an informal power sharing agreement at state levels. In Hesse, they started efforts to win the outside support of the Left. SPD chairman Kurt Beck has backed the move. On the other side, Hamburg’s conservative mayor Ole von Beust is now hoping to retain power by winning the support of the Greens. The Left knows that the current political impasse in the country could not be solved without taking them into the mainstream political process. Today or tomorrow, it has to happen. After all, it is election season in Germany. And the spectres seem to be on their way back.

(John Stanly, Published in Business & Economy, 20/03/2008)

The Obama phenomenon!

When could he deliver? So ask Americans who see a potential president in Barak Hessein Obama, a senator from Illinois and a charismatic contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. They wrote him off at the beginning, saying the 47-year-old “inexperienced” Illinois senator could not even pose a potential threat to the former first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton. But, as things stand today, Obama’s popularity is surging day-by-day cutting across the community lines. He has won eight of the nine primaries and caucuses held since Super Tuesday on February 5, while his experienced rival could take only one victory (New Mexico). He has won by much larger margins, both in black and white dominated states. Now more and more corporate houses are ready to pump money into the Obama campaign. The identity politicians and black academia are also fuelling the political debate, although Obama has so far kept himself away from racially-focussed campaigning. Furthermore, his keyword, Change, seems to have shaken up the Democratic campaign as more and more party activists see him as a vibrant better option than Hillary, who is indirectly dubbed as a status-quoist by the Obama camp. So the stage is set for the Illinois senator? Not exactly. Despite Obama’s surging popularity, he is unlikely to win enough number of pledged delegates before the August national convention of the Democratic Party. If neither Obama nor Clinton wins 2,025 delegates, necessary to take the nomination after the final Democratic caucus in Puerto Rico on June 7, the 795 democratic insiders, known as Super-Delegates, would elect the candidate. Since the Super-Delegates are not bound by the popular will, they could pick up anybody who enjoys greater influence within the party.

The Super- Delegates (the country’s Democratic governors, Democratic members of the Congress and the high-ranking party officials) were instituted in 1982 in order to give the elite more control over the common activists. Sensing the danger lurking in the August convention, the Obama campaign has already called on the Super- Delegates to follow the popular opinion. So far, Clinton has got the support of more Super-Delegates than Obama. However, a majority of them, including influential Democrats like Al Gore, haven’t opened their mind. In such a complex, emotional scenario, in which a black Democrat is moving past his rival, the wife of a two-time president, could the Democratic leadership override the popular opinion? Wouldn’t that traumatise the entire Democratic party in the November presidential race? Recent events indicate that the wind has changed its direction. Veteran Vietnam war hero John McCain will be the Republican candidate. The senior leaders of the Democratic party seem to have realised that the party cannot go against the ground level activists. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has publicly admitted this. “It would be a problem for the party if the verdict would be something different than the public has decided,” said Pelosi in an interview last week, giving enough indication that she would support Obama. Furthermore, veteran black Representative John Lewis, snubbed Hillary last week to declare his support for Obama. Yes, Obama is gaining momentum. If his own party elite don’t block him, he might emerge as potential rival to Republican challenge.

John Stanly (Published in Business and Economy, 06,03, 2008)

Is Tibetan Lama Movement Feudal?

I was talking with a friend over the recent violence in Tibet. She also seemed to be obsessed with the "worst human rights records" of the "communist China" and the sympathy towards the Lama Movement. Nancy Pelosy and her fellow Americans certainly looked great in the photographs with the Dali Lama which speaks a great deal of the cultural richness of Tibet. Do we like to see Tibetans as mere cultural dolls forever? I was asking myself. Below is a letter appeared on Newstatesman.

stanly

The Tibetans that have the biggest voice are from the rich, the nobilities, the religious, the lamas. Does any body hear from the poor class and peasants who are the silent majority and benefit from the Chinese government minority policies. Traditionally they worked like slaves for the rich, the powerful and the lamas. Their minds were controlled by religion not to complain. Now the hollywood kind such as Richard Gere came to find meanings from Dalai Lama. Tibet is viewed as so sureal, so enlightened, local Tibetans are viewed not in human terms. They don't seem to need to eat or to live a material life, but just to exist to entertain the hollywood kinds. The media has been led down this path too. When did you see a good report about ordinary life of common Tibetans, whether their lives fare better or worse than ten or twenty years ago, or for that matter sixty years ago when they were ruled by the lamas. The Tibetan culture is fascinating, but when is the media going to treat the Tibetans in the coverage like ordinary human beings, that they need to make a living, to deal with normal human desires, to move up in the economic ladder. If the media thinks that they don't need all these and they are happy, then the media has been pickled by the lamas deeper and longer than theTibetans.

As for China's Olympics, that is no big deal. All the great nations' olympics have been boycotted, US's in 1984 Los Angeles, USSR's in 1990 Moscow. If you are boycotted in Olympics, that means you have arrived, you have made it.

I understand the point you are talking about. Of course it is a matter of concern. But could u tell, why the ambiguity remains about the people of Tibet? Who is hiding the real life there? I don’t think it is the Dalai Lama. If China was an open structure and the situation is like as we fear, do u believe that the Lama would get such a wide support throughout the world? If the situation is worse because of the Budhist monks, the only force that keeps it hiding is the Communist Govt in china.

And while we call Lama a feudal lord, we must be very careful. You may be aware how the Forbes magazine called Castro a millionaire. Let it be an open system first. Then the rotten things will come out naturally. Even it is Lama or the Communist China.

Deepak Chandran

If Forbes magazine calls Fidel Castro a millionaire, why shd I be "more careful" while calling the Lama Movement feudal? We all know that Fidel was an autocrat. A radical autocrat, who earned the love and reverence of the youth and the left-leaned people across the world. If he's a millionaire, we don’t need to hide it.

I would agree that China, like any previous Leninist country, is a closed society. Many people hate China for the same reason. I was just wondering whether the "global sympathy" towards the Lama Movement is by any chance insulated from this hatred! The international press is very sensitive whenever it reports the Lamas, the elite Tibetans.. I would disagree with you at one level. We have plenty of literature abt the neoliberal turn China engineers and the authoritative brutalities of the communist govt though it is a closed system. So, being politically closed might not stop revealing the other side of the Tibetan sty, I think.

I was also going thru some literature these days abt Tibetan feudalism (which, according to many historians) lasted till early 1950s) and cultural nationalism, the ideological pillar of the Lama Movement. And I would like to continue this exploration a bit further

stanly

Earning love and reverence become irrelevant when a revolutionist become a millionaire through the power he has been given by the people to serve them. Any way that is not the case here. Forbes called Fidel a millionaire by counting the investments Cuba had in their public sector companies and other governmental enterprises. It can only be taken as a conspiracy. It is a tool of capitalist. When we call some one as a feudal we have to make sure we are not using the same tool that makes ant to an elephant. I am not telling he is not a feudal, but in a state where every thing is hidden how I can believe the stories the govt is telling. Let them keep the system open. And more over, what the new companies are doing in china. And what about the party? I dont think Lama is a bigger feudal than them. First of all they must become a open society.

In cuba, many electronic items can not be used as people in the other part of the world do. But they never hide it. They openly tell that there is a mammoth shortage of power due to the sanctions by US. So they keep a regulation on electronic items including computer to serve their hospitals, govt offices and their productive systems. Why we can not see such a straight forward business in china.

Frankly speaking for a sympathy towards communism if we start supporting china it will be another crime towards humanity. And more over I dont keep any sympathy towards communism, unless it doesn't represent the real problem of human kind.

Deepak Chandran

I think our debate gets stuck in one larger question. What shd be the future model of governance in China? Whether it shd remain a one-party ruled authoritarian country or an "open society" perhaps in the same lines of Russia , right? I definitely keep a sympathy towards communism for a variety of reasons. First of all, I believe that it has the potential to change the world, to change the life of the masses, to change the course of history. I know you will have thousands of examples from history to point out the brutalities and the authoritarian course of the communist regimes, right from the Soviet Union to Cuba. But that doesn't prevent me from keeping my sympathy, not towards China nor to Cuba, but to the ideology alive, given the historical context.
In Castro's case, you yourself say that he was called a millionaire by the Forbes magazine counting the asset of the nationalised resources. You call it a propaganda. Castro, like any of the Communist forefathers, was an autocrat. Not even a single communist head of the state has betrayed the dictatorial tendencies of the "proletarian regime", unless I am mistaken. So the question is the fundamental one, which many of the Marxists have been working on at least for the last couple of decades. And I really doubt that it will have a single answer, like what the western liberals argue. Shd that be based on the grand notion of "human kind" which u mentioned? Who is going to "open" the Chinese society? Deepak, the problem with many of us is that we think we could replicate history in all the pockets of the world. If X is "free" Z shd also be "free" (the term is highly relative). Two decades after the disintegration of the USSR, we understand that Russian society remains as closed as it used to be, but sans a Communist Party.

I am afraid that we dont touch upon the history of Tibet. Not even a single Western government is ready to support the government-in-exile of the Tibetans. But everybody seems to be very sympathetic towards the "Tibetan cause". My question is that whether this policy, or position is insulated from the larger hate-China stand or a notion-based historical one? We think the Lamas represent millions of Tibetans. Was the recent upsurge was a political movement or an ethnic attack on the Han Chinese group? China's authoritarian political identity itself does not infuse sympathy into my political beliefs towards the Lamas. That's what I am saying. I am against cultural nationalism. I dont mind calling them feudal either though i would also disagree with the Chinese mainland over a number of issues.

stanly



I was also trying to gather some information of the Tibet movement lately.

a) I think it is a well documented fact that the theocratic state called Tibet was one of the most backward regions on earth, prior to Chinese invasion. Feudal Tibet, in which most of the cultivable lands were occupied by monastery, Dalai lamas were enjoying the unquestionable power for centuries. It has also been documented that there was an instituted condition of slavery and the penile code contains various forms of corporal punishments ( which has also been admited by Dalai Lama). Whatever Dalai Lama is, he is surely not a symbol of freedom. The word "invasion" itself is a bit tricky, because, many parts of the pre -second world war China was ruled by a bunch of feudal war lords. One can also argue that the whole China is "occupied".
Please see the Wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama#Criticism

b) All the communist governments now exist were formed during last century, when the idea of democracy was still infantile. It came as a historic experiment to provide something better than the then existing democracy, where a privileged few were still getting all. I think, at present any serious political movement cannot go further without recognizing the spread of democratic values. Many things in China cannot be accepted by anyone. But any analysis won't be complete without seeing incidents on a larger canvas. One has to see the developments in th context of economic and political antagonism of developing countries like china and India towards USA. The blatant involvement of CIA in Tibet is a well documented thing now, as its involvement in Cuba.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOhDBo6x2ZY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwu5qYosTo0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2iaIcoHBl4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJYamwYSe2M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FviSTNWRgHU&feature=related
There are interviews ( can be seen in this video ) of former CIA operatives, one of them happily admits that the Tibet operation was really good because it cost them very less ( all the "man power" were Tibetans) and they made a big menace for the Chinese govt. The CIA involvement was also been admitted by the exile Tibetan govt. officials.

Recently Dalai Lama accused Chinese govt. for bringing more Chinese people to Tibet in order to make Tibetans a minority on their own territory (sounds like Raj Thakrey). But the census data will show that about 93% of population are still Tibetans and there is a large number of Tibetans working and living elsewhere in China just as in any other country where people migrate to other parts of country looking for better living. Critics point out that this is an attempt of Lama to give the issue a racist color and make another Bosnia out of China.

Unfortunately the western media seems to be hiding many of these facts. They are so keen to color Lama as a spiritual leader and symbol of freedom
Raghunath C

There may not be much difference in arguments. But let me clarify my point once again in detail.

There surely is an obstacle in our debate, not only on the future model of Chinese govt, but also our understanding what really is communism. As Stanly mentioned we have a number of experiences and examples to go through. In Russia, certainly it was a power of change towards the society and the life of common man. That time it was not only in Russia, but all over the world Russian revolution give a great hope of change. That hope was that of common men to change their horrible life to a comfortable one. That is the key element, that to give a comfortable life to the common man, what we expect from a revolution and a communist regime. If my understanding is true, before the revolution in Cuba there was a communist party there and it was against the revolution. After the revolution Fidel and other comrades identified themselves that their questions as a continuation to those fundamental questions what Marx has risen. In china, the party has earned enough to be considered as billionaire corporate. I don't know much about Russia. But it is not difficult to understand from the infrastructure of communist parties of china and India that in Russia also it may not been different. There is no need of a single person to accumulate money using power, but doing the same by a party also is enough to call as an evil.

Cuba still keep a high note because, to consider Fidel as a millionaire Forbs has to count the asset of the public enterprises. But if they are doing the same in china the asset of the communist party alone will be enough. It is not just a matter of assets; sometimes having wealth can be natural. But from the recent history we can see the situation of farmers in China is clearly different from that of the party. In Cuba the party could provide a better life to their common man and still doing that. A Michael Moor can go there and could take a picture called 'sicko' to open up the fake side of American imperialist system. They have shown a great way of agriculture to the world where there is no need of any Monsanto. What is there like that china can convey to their common man and to the rest of the world. Millions of tons of industrial wastes of the global corporates! Nothing more !!! They allow the entire international corporate to come and exploit and torture their people, providing a system with no labor laws and regulations. I was talking about this difference all the time.

The communist parties them self identify as the authority to talk about communism throughout the history. There was a period where they called Fidel a CIA agent. I tell this just to mention the irrelevance of labels. The fundamental thing is that whether they address the questions Marx once aroused in the society which are still relevant. They are relevant not because a Marx raised them, but it addresses the fundamentals of economics and politics from the point of view of a common man. As far as I am concerned, who does address these fundamental thoughts is only relevent. If it is party I will be with them and when they fail to do so, there is no point in defending them.

Specifically speaking the issues in China, as I mentioned before, things are not transparent without a reason. If they can achieve at least a silly thing on the sake of this autocracy, one can have support the rulers. But unfortunately that is not the case. So, I think keep the society open first, let the people see the world beyond china. And let them learn that Lama is a Feudal Lord. And let them reject him if he is the same as those articles say.

What we see and learn about Tibet through Wikipedia, youtube, google etc. are not accessible to Chinese people(google.cn is allowed). What does it mean? Being the biggest Feudal, the action of the Chinese govt against Lama never is justifiable. It is just like the way US is talking about Cuba for not having a democratic system while they are supporting monarchs throughout the world.

It is true that the Tibetan land was very poor even before Chinese invasion. And still it remains the same. Who is responsible? Lama or Chinese govt. Our country also was not rich and forward before the independence. If it is not developed now whom we will blame, the land lords or the govt.

I thought of talking to Chinese students here at this point. I am not sure what they tell are completely true or not. But I think it is worth to hear what they have to tell.

Initially when the people's republic of china was established, the inner-Mangolia and Tibet were given autonomy. But it lasted for only a few years. That time they were allowed to use their own local language (As our malayalam, tamil etc.). But latter the govt restricted to use them and declared Chinese as the only official language. Even though other languages can be used to speak (!!!) they were not allowed it to use for official purposes. A farmer in inner-Mongolia cannot use their language scripts to write the address on a letter to his son living some other part of inner-Mongolia. Many people of these region still dont know the chinese language. Many Chinese are telling the govt was not interested on Tibet or inner-Mongolia for a long Period. When the govt identified the Tibetan and Mongolian land have tourist and industrial interests (also some other) they tried to access the land. But the people in Tibet don't like the changes in nature due to religious reasons also the mongoliangs for some thir own reasons (That may be the reason of recent issue). The govt tried to send people from the main land to Tibet and inner-Mongolia to defend their stands. When other people comes, the govt help and other benefits restricted only to the new comers. It is because the govt notification and other official helps are accessible only to them due to the Chinese language. I think that may be the reason the Tibetans and Mongolians oppose the migration. Let me tell that I didn't gone through the links provided by Raghu. Let me do it latter and I will discuss it with the Chinese students here and let you their impression on it.
Deepak

Back to square one!

President Bush wrapped up his Israel trip last week, visiting the Mt. of Beatitudes in Jerusalem where Jesus is believed to have said “blessed are the peace-makers” & ruins of the biblical city Capernaum on the Sea of Galilee. Quite symbolical a start is for a man who has waged two ugly wars in the name of fighting terrorism. Given the past seven years in power, nobody would doubt Bush’s ability to make rhetoric on all the issues, whether it is the domestic economy, ‘war on terror’ or the West Asian peace process. Does his recent visit to the Holy Land mean anything other than a damage control exercise organised by conservatives in the White House?

Well, before the November 2007 Annapolis peace conference, observers had issued sceptical notes against Bush’s diplomatic gambling. Invariably, American presidents in their last year in power, use soft hands in dealing with the West Asian conflict. And now, it’s Bush’s turn. After holding talks with Palestinian Authority (PA) President Abu Mazen in Ramalla, West Bank, Bush challenged the “sceptics” saying, “I believe it’s going to happen that there will be a signed peace treaty by the time I leave office.” Is it as easy as taking a decision to bomb a weak Saddam Hussein regime in Baghdad? Many experts would disagree. Speaking to B&E, the Director of Gulf Studies Programme at JNU, Prof. Gulshan Dietl said, “Bush’s political clout is weaning tremendously. This visit is a theatre set for his own personal history.

Not only that, the leaders who have to reach an agreement are domestically too weak to take any decision. So, this visit is not going to change anything in the ground.” Two months after Annapolis, it’s obvious that the US & Israel are unlikely to take any step beyond their conventional understanding of the national identity of Palestinians. All this is happening amid reports that Israel, with the tacit support of the PA, would attack and reoccupy the Gaza strip, which has been under the control of Hamas since last June. Hamas on the other side declared, “The only dialogue with the enemy will be with rifles & rockets.” If Israel is going to do that, the entire region would be plunged into a civil war. Even if the PA, by any chance, reaches a political agreement with Israel, as years go by, the number of “core issues” only goes up, not down.

john stanly (published in Business and Economy, 7/2/2008)

Confining peace to conferences!

Peace has always been a mirage in West Asia. The region has seen as many wars as conferences for peace. Therefore, a peace meet itself would hardly kindle hopes for the war-ravaged people in the region. Yet, the November 27 peace conference that took place in Annapolis Naval Academy, Maryland, gained much attention, despite West Asia watchers’ repeated warnings to avoid high expectations. What makes Annapolis so different? First of all, it signals a change in President George Bush’s West Asia policy. Till now, the Bush Administration refused to invest its political capital in the Arab-Palestinian conflict. Ever since the electoral victory of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, Bush, along with his European allies, took a ‘Boycott Hamas’ stand. His Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice launched her shuttle diplomacy only after Palestinian Authority President Abu Mazen sacked Hamas from power & appointed a new puppet government. White House & the European capitals understood that this was the moment to isolate Hamas & to go ahead with a conciliatory Abu Mazen. Most of the Arab countries, including Syria, turned up to attend the Annapolis meet. Both the Palestinian & Israeli representatives issued a joint declaration which promised to bring peace by December 2008. “The Annapolis conference did produce one achievement: for the first time in seven years, the Israelis and the Palestinians plan to hold regular negotiations on fundamental issues that divide them,” Greg Myre, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute & a former New York Times correspondent told B&E.

But for achieving long-lasting peace, both parties need to compromise. “Israelis and Palestinians need to negotiate peace directly, under the US-UN—Arab-international umbrella. What is likely, however, is that, it will be left to next US administration to complete this process. I would expect — and one can only hope — that the next US Administration will not do what the Bush Administration did and abandon the Israeli and Palestinian people,” Hady Amr, Director of the Brookings Doha Centre told B&E.

Both Abu Mazen & Olmert look weaker in their respective domestic politics. A weak leader at home is unlikely to take strong decisions. Although the Olmert Government has promised to halt the construction of settlement houses in the West Bank, the Jewish hawks are seemingly determined to block any attempt to dismantle the settlements. Moreover, contentious issues such as border of the prospective Palestinian state, status of Jerusalem & refugees remain untouched.

Still, some would still say, something is better than nothing.

john stanly (published in Business and Economy on 27/12/2007)

Thumping win for Putin’s politics

When the Soviet Union collapsed in early 1990s, the West was busy preaching lessons of liberal democracy to Russians. America’s ‘triumph over the evil empire’ was celebrated as the greatest moment of 20th century liberalism. Sixteen years down the line, where does Russia stand in global democratic industry? Not impressive, if one goes by standards of Western democracies. Well before the December 2 Parliamentary elections, liberal press had warned that President Vladamir Putin, who is leaving Kremlin in March, would use the results to tighten his grip over Kremlin. Despite widespread international campaign against Putin, his United Russia party emerged victorious with 315 seats, 14 seats more than the 2/3rd majority needed to pass constitutional amendments. The only opposition, United Russia would face in the Houses would be Communists. Putin had defeated the liberal opposition parties, Yabloko & the Union of Right, well before the elections, by increasing, the minimum requirement of percentage of total votes, for having a seat in Duma, to 7%.

“In the election campaign, the Unified Russia declared that it was a referendum on Putin’s policies. The “referendum” proved that Russians back Putin & his policies. However, it has not helped Russian democracy in general. Rather, it exposes the facets of Russian political system,” Sidorenko Alexy, a Russian expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace told B&E. Putin, with huge majority in the Parliament, is more powerful now. He has already declared that he would step down in March 2008. What’s in his mind is unknown. But everybody knows that, after investing this much political capital in the parliamentary elections, he’s unlikely to give up his influence in Russian politics.

john stanly (published in Business and Economy on 27/12/2007)

Crack begin to appear in fortress

For almost a decade, the Venezuelan Opposition hasn’t known what a victory is, at the national level. They played all the tactics, right from boycotting elections to staging a coup against the elected president. On the other side, President Hugo Chavez grew in strength. The more the Opposition attacked him, the stronger he became. This was the domestic scene for the last nine years. Yet, the divided Opposition managed to defeat Chavez’s ambitious constitutional reforms by a narrow margin in the December 2 referendum. Chavez sought a series of reforms including letting the President run for re-election indefinitely. The reforms, in his words, would have sped up Venezuela’s transformation into a socialist country. However, many of his supporters, who gave him a victory in the December presidential elections last year, did not turn up to vote ‘yes’ for their Leftist President. Speaking to B&E, Dr. Shannon K. O’Neil, a Latin American expert at the Council of Foreign Relations, said, “This is the first setback for Chavez. Nevertheless, he still maintains substantial power – control of the presidency, the Congress, the courts, most of the media, and most of the local & regional governments. He has significant decree powers, so many of the issues he tried to pass through the referendum could potentially be passed through the pro-Chavez legislature.” The referendum has sparked off a new debate across the US. Is it the beginning of the end of Chavezism in South America? Certainly not in the near future at least, he still has the capacity to withstand setbacks.
John Stanly (published in Business and Economy on27/12/2007)

She’s back in the race

Former US President Bill Clinton called Barack Obama a “kid” ahead of the Nevada Caucus. His wife & Democratic contender for presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton, said that electing Obama would tantamount to electing “another Bush” to the White House. On the eve of the Caucus, the Hillary camp complained that their supporters in the state’s unions were threatened by the union leaders, who backed Obama. The Obama backers hit back saying they received many telephone calls, which made continuous references to “Barack Hussein Obama.” Nevada saw it all. Still, Obama, the charismatic Illinois Senator who changed the entire arithmetic of Democratic contest, could not defeat the former first lady in Nevada.

What went wrong for Obama? He failed to keep up the hype, set by his own media managers, as the campaign spread to other parts of the country. His vulnerability to attract different demographic votes was visible in New Hampshire & Nevada. Although the Obama camp, having understood this fact, attacked the Clintons, saying they haven’t done much for the Hispanic community, it failed to pay. The Hispanic groups, the growing number of Democratic supporters, voted for Clinton in large numbers. She could also walk away with women votes as Obama managed to retain support of the blacks. Obama’s stunning Iowa victory has started to fade away with his straight losses in New Hampshire & Nevada.

“The Clinton-Obama contest is a fascinating showpiece of American political theatre. In addition to the male/female and black/white aspects, the personalities embody a contrast, few other countries embrace that of new v/s old & change v/s continuity. I cannot think of any country apart from the USA where political experience is an electoral liability. The two leading contenders for the democratic nomination, embody these observations, and Obama is praised for his strong commitment to “change” without defining what this means while Clinton emphasises her “experience” without convincingly demonstrating that she has any. It’s American, it’s “show business”, and it’s exciting, even if somewhat primitive,” Dr. Robert


McGeehan, an associate fellow at Chatham House, told B&E. The next Obama-Clinton fight will be on January 26 in South Carolina where the black community is crucial factor. Though the black voters were loyal to the Clintons since the first presidency of Bill, this time, according to the polls, Obama is more popular among them. A victory on Saturday is crucial for Obama to go to the Super Tuesday campaigns with confidence. Obama hasn’t so far played his racial cards vigorously, which many analysts say is a “strategic error.” Would he take them out in pretty American style? Well, let’s wait and see.

John Stanly (published in Business and Economy, 7/2/08)

Are Bush & Mush nuclear allies?

The recent political unrest in Pakistan has again revived the old debate. How secure are the nuclear weapons of Pakistan? One thing is clear. Protecting Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, either through coercion or through inducement, have occupied the centre-stage of the Bush Administration’s South Asia policy in the post-9/11 order.

Fuelling the debate, a well-referred intelligence journal recently claimed that the US took control of the Pakistan nuclear assets soon after September 11. In what could open a Pandora’s Box in US- Pak strategic affairs, the journal stated that Pakistan was given an ultimatum by the US to either allow the Americans to take control of the nuclear weapons or to be prepared to face the consequences. If Pakistan protested, “the US would be left with no choice but to destroy those facilities, possibly with India’s help,” stated the journal. “This was a fait accompli that Musharraf, for credibility reasons, had every reason to cover-up & pretend it never happened, & Washington was fully willing to keep things quiet,” it added. Earlier the US press had reported that the Bush Administration had already spent about $100 million to help Pakistan secure the nuclear safeguards. A New York Times report claimed that the US was building a training centre for nuclear security inside Pakistan. Does the US really have a grip on Pakistan’s nuclear arsenals? Is it the major reason for uninterrupted Bush’s support to Musharraf?

It is a fact that Musharraf has used the threat of a possible jihadi takeover of arsenals to ensure American support even for his dictatorial moves. The central goal of the general’s strategy is to convince Washington & the European capitals that the nuclear country would be plunged into deep crisis if he was removed from the helm. This ‘deluge-after-me’ strategy appears to have gone down well at least with the US. The military regime lets the Americans enjoy control over the warheads, in return the US continues its assistance to Islamabad. This was evident when State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said, “... ultimately, the major responsibility for that (securing arsenals) falls with the Pakistani Government. They have made public comments to the effect that the arsenal is secure, that they have taken a number of different steps to ensure that. We ourselves see no indication to indicate to the contrary.” The question, however, is that how long the ‘super power’ & Cold War ally continue this cat & mouse game? How long the US continue its support for a general who is almost disowned by his own people? The classic crisis the US faces is, it can’t disown Pakistan overnight. But the longer it extends support to Musharraf, the deeper Pakistan’s falls. The more, not the merrier, at least in this case.

(Published in Business and Economy, 13/12/2007)