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)

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)

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)

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