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)

The Bush meltdown begins

Which is this the man whom the Western media calls the crusader of the 21st century? Is he still capable of leading the American empire? The president is still busy defending his policies & justifying his adventures in Afghanistan & Iraq. His arguments, however, might not go down well with all in the US, as his policies fail one by one.

The latest in a series of events that exposed the inability of his administration to cope with the challenges of the new world order was the resignation of State Department’s Public Diplomacy chief Karen P. Hughes. Hughes is known to be one of the last members of Bush’s inner circles. Bush brought her to the State Department in an apparent effort to do an image makeover of the US in the muslim world. Was this counterbalancing game successful? If so, she would not have stepped down. Dr. Chinthamani Mahapatra, professor of International Relations at JNU told B&E, “Growing number of American population & Republican leaders are angry with the foreign policy of the Bush administration. Though the resignation of Hughes might have many dimensions, it shows that the administration is in a crisis of sorts. It’s a fact that America’s image is getting worse in the muslim world.”

Hughes is not the first presidential aide to leave. Bush’s troubles started with Rumsfeld’s resignation on 8th November last year. In the following month, Bush failed to get the appointment of John Bolton ratified in the Congress. Last August, his closest ally and the man who was called as the ‘Bush Brain’, Carl Rove, had to quit his team in wake of some fresh scandals. Sixteen frontline people have deserted the president. Does President Bush take any lessons from these setbacks? Most unlikely. He appears to be busy lobbying to get more war funds approved in the Congress & expand the global war zones.

(Published in Business and Economy, 29/11/2007)

Lebanon LIngers

The Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri recently announced a further delay in presidential elections which was scheduled to be held on October 23. The Lebanese president is elected by Parliament, not by popular vote. So far, the ruling coalition & the opposition led by Shiite party Hezbollah have been unable to reach a consensus on a candidate. According to many observers, if the 128-member Parliament fails to elect a successor to President Emile Lahoud before his term ends on November 24, the consequences would be unpredictable. Though the speaker has announced that a new parliamentary session has been scheduled from November 12, not many are hopeful that the election would be carried out smoothly.

The differences between the pro-Western government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora & the powerful opposition Hezbollah have paralysed the government for past 11 months. Given the ground situation, it is illogical to assume that Hezbollah would support the Saniora Government to elect a president of its choice. Similarly, the government too will not settle for a pro-Syrian candidate supported by Hezbollah. The West, which is looking for an opportunity to further isolate Syria in the region, has jumped onto the scene accusing Syria of deliberately attempting to block the Lebanese elections. “Lebanon is sitting on a powder keg; undue interference of Syria has made the situation volatile. There is a planned conspiracy to pull down a democratically elected government. There is a need for dismantling the Syrian apparatus first; elections can wait....” Ziad K. Abdelnour, editor of Middle East Intelligence Bulletin told B&E.

It is now the Lebanese population which can stop the country from becoming a theatre of war between Western style liberal democracy & the political Islamist world view.

(Published in Business & Economy, 15/11/07)

Politics of Comparisons (A letter sent to friends)

Hi,

We are living in a world of comparisons. Our political analyses are so embedded with comparisons that we could understand things in a better way. But what stunned me a few days back was the attempts of Indian corporate media and the extreme left (weak-minded radicals if I use a friend's term) to draw parallels between Budhadeb and the fascist Narendra Modi. We know that every political formation will have its own agenda. Even the middle class apologetics keep their plans wide open in our polity. Initially, I just wrote this bizzare comparison off thinking that it would not work. However, things took a drastic turn as the weak-minded radicals, along with the corporate media, made this Modi-Budhadeb comparison as a weapon to attack the Left.

One can argue that thousands of Muslims were butchered in Modiland in early 2002 while a couple of dozen Bengalis were killed in the March 14 Nandigram firing. Still, I am not after head-counts. Rather, I would like to see the politics behind these incidents and the agenda behind these comparisons. The corporate media, which is anti-Left by its own definition, won in driving a point home. For them, BJP, which is led by the likes of Modi, is a party which shares their economic philosophy. Modi, a Neo-Rightist by all definitions, calls himself the Messiah of corporate Gujarat.
On the other side, the Left, though it's modified its stand on many economic issues including SEZ's, still is a stumbling block for many of the neoliberal projects. Though Budhadeb was the blue-eyed communist of the India Inc., they have always been at odds with the party. There were ample criticisms from leftist corners against the economic policies of Budhadeb well before Nandigram tragedy. Actually, Nandigram should have fuelled the leftist debates about the neo-liberal regime and corporate industrialisation. But the corporate media, which has never tolerated any criticism against the free-flow of the metropolitan capital, wanted to deflect the post-Nandigram debates. The same media houses which once showered Budhadeb with praises, took a U turn to call him a Stalinist dictator. He was compared with Narenda Modi and the party was blamed for its Stalinist nature. Whatever happened was not because of the corporate industrialisation but because of the Stalinist nature of the Marxist party. Singing the same tune, the weak-minded radicals found it an opportunity to beat the mainstream left and started out a campaign calling CPM a ‘Social Fascist’ organisation. This is something Leon Trostsky called Stalin in 1930s criticising his socio-economic policies. Did the radicals become Trostsko-Libertarian anarchists an overnight only because CPM is called a Stalinist party? Or, they are too ignorant to understand the historical significance of the Trotskian term ‘Social fascists’? Malayalies, who read the Naxalite turned Neoliberal, K Venu, might be familiar with that term. Venu started calling CPM a ‘Social Fascist’ party right from early 1990s.
My point is simple. Deflecting the entire leftist debate is an agendum of the corporate houses. Attacking the mainstream left blue and black is, unfortunately, not a way but the objective of the weak-minded radicals. In their combined effort, what's missing is the real focus on the neoliberal barbarism. Whether it is the West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh or Orissa, the common people are suffering because the neoliberal regime. SEZ's are going to be the graveyards of Indian farmers. Instead of pointing out that, we are so caught up with the left-bashing of the corporate India. Drawing parallels between Budhadeb and a cultural fascist like Narenda Modi is ultimately aimed at giving a face-lift to Modi and his fascist agenda. And that's what the corporate India wants to happen.

Stanlee

Well Known, Still a Shock

I WAS SAFE in my hometown in Kerala when Muslims were butchered in Modiland. Thanks to the Malayalam media, we received horrible descriptions of the genocidal State-sponsored crime of the deshi fascists. We knew that everything was pre-planned. We knew that the “protectors” themselves organised this genocide. We knew Modi would be re-elected in December 2002. We knew the victims of the genocide would not get justice. We knew that not even a single RSS supporter would change his or her political outlook and social view.
Yet I was shocked to see TEHELKA’s latest issue. I was shocked when I saw a VHP leaderproudly claim to have torn out the womb of a pregnant women after killing her. I lost control of my senses when he said that they did not spare even a single Muslim in Naroda Patiya, even though I already knew that that was what they had done. I cursed myself when I read about how Muslims were dumped in a well in Naroda Patiya and burned alive. I felt low again when I thought that I was also born in the same country where Modi is a ruler.
Where is one to look for a resolution?
Practically speaking, it is in the reproduction of the facts. The horror of a genocide that took place in front of us should haunt the collective conscience of secular Indians. The miseries of the poor of Gujarat should remain in our debates, in our public sphere, our media, our art, our literature, our cinema. A permanent reproduction of the facts. That should be the foundation of the anti-communal crusade of our generation. We should remind ourselves that we are the children of the killings.
When the Babri Masjid was demolished by the Hindutva fundamentalists, we failed to launch an all-out campaign against the perpetrators. Ten years later, they struck again, killing thousands of Muslims in Modiland. If we fail once again, we do not know what awaits us in 2012.

(Published in Tehelka November 17, 2007)

Manhood Defined

What makes Ernesto Che Guevara one of the most charismatic revolutionaries of the twentieth century? Unlike other leading Marxist leaders of last century such as Lenin and Mao, Che was neither a theoretician nor a supreme leader of any revolution. An Argentine-born doctor, Ernesto Guevara de la Serna, was handpicked by Fidel Castro when the latter was preparing for the Moncado barrack attack. Ever since they met each other in Mexico, Che became a member of Fidel’s July 26^th movement and later the second commandant of the guerilla army that waged a successful war against American backed General Fulgencio Batista in Havana.

As many political scientists have pointed out, Che Guevara was a professional revolutionary. He subscribed to Fidel’s intellection of spreading revolution across Americas with his heart. “The duty of the revolutionary is to make the revolution,” so said Che describing his own eventful life of long battles. After winning the Sierra Maestra battle, we would find him fighting in the Congo. He was entrusted by Fidel to “liquidate the counter revolutionaries in order to save the

revolution”. He even quit Castro’s ruling team to join hands with the Bolivian guerillas, who were fighting the military dictatorship of Rene Barrientos. As noted British Marxist Tariq Ali observes, that single decision changed Che’s image and appeal altogether. As many of the other revolutionaries relinquished their revolutionary credentials after their respective triumphs, Che gave up power to build up a guerilla movement in Bolivian forests against Barrientos. Unlike in Sierra Maestra where he played second fiddle to Fidel, he was the supreme leader of Bolivian guerillas. But history hardly repeats. The heavy hands of Bolivian military generals crushed the rebellion and shot dead its 39-year-old leader on 8^th October 1967.

However, the death of Che Guevara was only the beginning of the story. Fidel Castro declared the year of 1967 as “the year of great revolutionaries”. Drawing inspiration from Che the students and youth across the Europe intensified the anti-war and anti-imperial movements. Che was the icon of the French students who led the May 1968 movement that caused the eventual collapse of the De Gaulle regime. Che became of charismatic larger than life figure, more popular than his own leader Fidel, not only in Cuba, but across the world. His challenge to American capitalism to “create two, three...many Vietnams” echoed in different parts of the world. He was largely considered as a symbol of romantic rebellion during the heydays of the Cold War.

However, the antithesis to this revolutionary appeal is ‘Brand Che’. Fidel Castro might have survived the fall of Soviet Union in the early 1990s. But the changing dynamics in the post-Cold war world order, transformed Che’s image. He once dared capitalism to create more Vietnams. But capitalism, understanding his mass appeal, incorporated him in its market economy as a brand name. Now Che is more a market tool than a revolutionary icon. A glamorous photograph of Che taken by Cuban photographer Alberto Korda Diaz on March 5, 1960, has become a favorite symbol for the neoliberal marketists as well as the Anti American leftists. The bearded face with long hair and eyes fixed at infinity is everywhere in today’s world. Its there on T-shirts, cigarettes, ice cream, socks, alcohols and even on the bodies of football stars. Recently a designer put Che on a bikini. American retailer giant Target has recently reported that its Che Guevara CD cases had topped last Christmas season in the country. “Che is a symbol of romantic idealism. His immortal image has a value which can be used by the market forces as well as for a larger social cause. The contemporary capitalism which is dominated by the media culture has taken Che Guevara’s image out of the context and made it as a brand. Now we witness the icon floating free in the market. But at the same time there are serious attempts to bring the icon back into its revolutionary origin, especially in Latin America,” A.K. Ramakrishnan, a professor of International Relations at Mahatma Gandhi University told B&E.

The “21^st century socialists” such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia seem to have undertaken this mission of liberating the revolutionary from the clutches of market capitalism. Chavez has already said that he wanted to create the guevarista “new man” across the continent. Time would show who would win in this strange battle waged in the name of a charismatic revolutionary.

(Published on Business & Economy, November 1, 2007)