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