Shakespeare’s Hamlet faced the dilemma. India’s stated goal for the US-India civilian nuclear cooperation agreement is to tap into the substantial nuclear commerce that can help it build nuclear power. But its US partner has as its goal of bringing India into the nuclear non-proliferation dominant stream and strengthen it. India is thus caught on cleft stick, facing the Hamletian paradox.
Siddharth Varadarajan, reporting for the Hindu newspaper from Vienna’s Nuclear Suppliers’ Group meet, wrote in an opinion piece, “What happened at Vienna, however, was a coordinated attack in which the smaller states were encouraged to do Washington’s business for it.” He called it an American “double-cross.”
This space had earlier argued almost two years ago that the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers’ Group is really an organisation where the tasks are divided between the major powers and their ardent followers. The major powers and follower nations have evolved the group out of a consensus on the basis of maintaining the monopoly on nuclear weapons power and nuclear technology. While the major powers ensure the security of minor nations, the latter help them to clamp down on the proliferation of nuclear technology, so that any other nation outside the club cannot barge in through the barn door.
The BJP’s Jaswant Singh had understood this quaint principle quite literally. He had thus thought that India too could shut the barn door behind it, after entering the portals of the club. He had grown that belief on the basis of an understanding that the Indian elite have grown a unity of common interest with the global elite that could transcend the latter’s class consciousness, thus forging even deeper alliances between the two.
But what he failed to realise was that the alliance he, as a member of the Indian elite, sought might not be the alliance the USA sought from India. In the eyes of the USA, India is a ‘wannabe’ power, which could be pandered to only till its limited goals are satisfied.
Take the case of two US Democratic Party legislators. Edward J Markey is the co-chairman of the House of Representatives bi-partisan task force on nonproliferation. And, Ellen O Tauscher is the chairwoman of the House Strategic Forces Subcommittee. They co-wrote an opinion piece in TheNew York Times on 19 August, “India’s nuclear history is checkered at best, and New Delhi has been denied access to the international nuclear market for three decades. The reasons are well known: the country has never signed the nonproliferation treaty or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, it misused civilian nuclear technology to produce its first nuclear weapon in 1974, and it continues to manufacture nuclear weapons to this day.”
They also wrote, “The Indian nuclear deal threatens international security not only by undermining our nuclear rules, but also by expanding India’s nuclear weapons program. That’s because every pound of uranium that India is allowed to import for its power reactors frees up a pound of uranium for its bomb program.”
To ameliorate that stated situation, the US had legislated the Hyde Act. Indian elite believes that they would circumvent the Act by the periodic exclusions that US presidential waivers would entail, as have been included in the presidential “signing statement” of the law. The Indian elite did not tell the Indian public the amount of discretionary power this devolves on the US president over the Indian nuclear programme.
This discretionary power would be wielded only when the interests of the Indian elite would be in line with the interests of the Western elite. In other words, India’s studied silence about the Georgian issue – considering that one of its closest allies, Russia is involved – would be the order of the day.
Another deadline has gone by unnoticed by most on the Iranian gas pipeline deal. India failed to conform to the desire of the Iranian government that the three governments – India, Pakistan and Iran – get together in August to hammer out the final details. Yet, the civilian nuclear deal, for which Manmohan Singh even besmirched his “Mr Clean” image by buying MPs of opposition parties in Parliament, remains undelivered.
New Zealand that is better known for the wool it produces than its nuclear concerns has emerged as the current storm trooper of the US and its other allies, to berate India on its nuclear nonproliferation record. It has now said that, “it wants limits on the scope of the technology that can be given to India and that could relate to nuclear weapons.” What it means in simple language are enrichment and reprocessing technologies, which are dual use technologies.
But what it reflects is the mistrust these nations have about a country that had earlier set aside the arrogance of the nuclear haves, and developed nuclear technology on its own. Now that same country is desperate for entering the ranks of a group that it had once called perpetrators of ‘nuclear apartheid.’ So there is got to be a cost that the Indian elite would have to pay. And that cost is India’s nuclear sovereignty.
Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted atpinaki63@dataone.in
A penetrating insight into the humanity of the Olympians.-Sulekh
Matthew Syed-Times Online, UK
I am often asked if the Olympic village - the vast restaurant and housing conglomeration that hosts the world's top athletes for the duration of the Games - is the sex-fest it is cracked up to be. My answer is always the same: too right it is. I played my first Games in Barcelona in 1992 and got laid more often in those two and a half weeks than in the rest of my life up to that point. That is to say twice, which may not sound a lot, but for a 21-year-old undergraduate with crooked teeth, it was a minor miracle.
Barcelona was, for many of us Olympic virgins, as much about sex as it was about sport. There were the gorgeous hostesses - there to assist the athletes - in their bright yellow shirts and black skirts; there were the indigenous lovelies who came to watch the competitions. And then there were the female athletes - literally thousands of them - strutting, shimmying, sashaying and jogging around the village, clad in Lycra and exposing yard upon yard of shiny, toned, rippling and unimaginably exotic flesh. Women from all the countries of the world: muscular, virile, athletic and oozing oestrogen. I spent so much time in a state of lust that I could have passed out. Indeed, for all I knew I did pass out - in a place like that how was one to tell the difference between dreamland and reality?
It was not just the guys. The women, too, seemed in thrall to their hormones, throwing around daring glances and dynamite smiles like confetti. No meal or coffee break was complete without a breathless conversation with a lithe long jumper from Cuba or an Amazonian badminton player from Sweden, the mutual longing so evident it was almost comical. It was an effort of will to keep everything in check until competition had finished. But, once we were eliminated from our respective competitions, we lunged at each other like suicidal fencers. There may have been a fair amount of gay sex going on, too - but given the notorious homophobia in sport it was rather more covert.
This sex fest was not limited to Barcelona: the same thing happened in Sydney in 2000, my second Olympics as an athlete, and is happening right here in Beijing, where this time I'm a commentator. I spoke to an Aussie table tennis player this week to check out the village vibe and he launched into the breathless patter common to any Olympic debutant: “It is unbelievable in there; everyone is totally crazy once they are out of their competitions. God knows what it is going to be like this weekend. It is like a world within a world.” A British runner (anonymous again: athletes are not supposed to talk to journalists unaccompanied by a PR type, least of all about sex) said: “The swimmers finished earlier in the week and it was like there was an eruption.”
Ah yes, the swimmers. For some reason the International Olympic Committee insists on bunching the swimming events towards the beginning of the Games with the inevitable consequence that the aquatics folk get going earlier - sexually I mean - than everyone else. So much so that, at the outset of the Sydney Olympics, Jonathan Edwards, a Christian and triple jumper extraordinaire, caused a ripple by telling them publicly to keep a lid on it. Edwards was simply concerned about getting woken up by creaking floorboards, but given his biblical credentials, it became a story about morality. Not that his intervention made a blind bit of difference. There is a famous story from Seoul in 1988 that there were so many used condoms on the roof terrace of the British team's residential block the night after the swimming concluded that the British Olympic Association sent out an edict banning outdoor sex. Here in Beijing, organisers have realised that such prohibitions are about as useful as banning breathing and have, instead, handed out thousands of free condoms to the athletes. If you can't stop 'em, at least make it safe.
Which all begs a question, or possibly many questions. First, and most importantly, how can one get access to the village? The bad news is that you can't, unless, of course, you happen to be an athlete with the relevant accreditation. But secondly, where does this furnace of sexual energy come from? Or, to put it another way, why do sportsmen and women have such explosive libidos? I am not implying, for one moment, that every athlete in Beijing is at it. Just that 99 per cent of them are.
Before we get to that, however, it is worth noting an intriguing dichotomy between the sexes in respect of all this coupling. The chaps who win gold medals - even those as geeky as Michael Phelps - are the principal objects of desire for many female athletes. There is something about sporting success that makes a certain type of woman go crazy - smiling, flirting and sometimes even grabbing at the chaps who have done the business in the pool or on the track. An Olympic gold medal is not merely a route to fame and fortune; it is also a surefire ticket to writhe.
But - and this is the thing - success does not work both ways. Gold-medal winning female athletes are not looked upon by male athletes with any more desire than those who flunked out in the first round. It is sometimes even considered a defect, as if there is something downright unfeminine about all that striving, fist pumping and incontinent sweating. Sport, in this respect, is a reflection of wider society, where male success is a universal desirable whereas female success is sexually ambiguous. I do not condone this phenomenon, merely note it. Not all athletes are finely tuned specimens of perfect physical health, of course. A fair number are smokers, not prepared to give up despite the nagging of coaches and physiologists. At Barcelona, there was an area where the puffers would congregate near the transport mall. At the table tennis events in Beijing, a male player from Serbia and another from Greece have often been out catching a drag during breaks in play.
But let us get back to all the sex going down in the village. One possible explanation centres on the fact that Olympic athletes have to display an unnatural (and, it has to be said, wholly unhealthy) level of self-discipline in the build-up to big competitions. How else is this going to manifest itself than with a volcanic release of pent-up hedonism? It is a common sight to see recently knocked-out athletes gorging on Magnums and McDonald's, swilling alcohol and, of course, shagging like crazy. Sometimes all three at the same time. Yet this can be only a part of the explanation because most of the athletes I know are as up for it before and during competition as they are in the immediate aftermath. It is as if sportsmen and women have a higher base level of sexual energy. But why? Can it be that one of the underlying drivers of sporting greatness is also the very thing that produces an overactive sex drive?
If so, you can bet your Olympic accreditation that testosterone is implicated. Testosterone is the hormone responsible for many of the differences between the sexes and is also a key physiological driver of aggression, competitiveness and virility. This is particularly so with regard to women. The dual effect of testosterone on female sporting performance and sexuality was demonstrated - somewhat sinisterly - during the state-sponsored doping programme in East Germany. An average teenage girl produces around half a milligram of testosterone per day. In the mid-1980s German female athletes were doped with around 30 milligrams of androgenic steroids per day. The effect on sporting performance was breathtaking - East German women dominated the world in swimming and athletics - but it also produced libidos (according to the testimony of the athletes themselves) that spiraled out of control.
This is not to say that the athletes in the village are all on steroids, or that elevated levels of testosterone inevitably lead to lots of sex. It is merely to say that, at a population level, higher naturally occurring levels of testosterone in both genders would provide a powerful explanation for the combination of sporting prowess and sexual potency.
I also think it is significant that, for most athletes, the village is thousands of miles from home. The old “what goes on tour stays on tour” mantra is still alive and kicking, not just in sport but beyond. There is something deepseated in humanity that leads us to play by different rules whenever we leave town, a phenomenon that has caused instances of terrible inhumanity. When it comes to sex, it simply means that those in relationships no longer recognise, or at least ignore, the boundaries of fidelity and honesty that underpin human monogamy. Philosophers call it moral relativism; the rest of us call it hypocrisy.
There is also a Darwinian component to this. Scientists have measured, for example, how male fertility varies with distance from one's habitual partner. And guess what? According to a report in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, a man's sperm count doubles when he spends a lot of time on the road - up from 389 million sperm per ejaculate to 712 million. Which, I am sure you will agree, is a lot of extra sperm.
I suggest that it is the coming together (if you will forgive the expression) of these factors that creates such an explosive sexual cocktail within the security-controlled perimeter of the Olympic village. Not that this is a bad thing. I have always regarded sexual promiscuity - for a single person at least - as a basic human right, even if it is no panacea for happiness or, indeed, anything else. Of course, many athletes will abstain, others may even disapprove. Only one thing is certain: they will never again enter a place quite like the Olympic village. Not, at least, until London 2012.
With another $ 450 million dollars added to the initial $ 750 million in aid to Afghanistan, India needs to ask a few billion dollar questions. Taliban was ousted from power in 2002. A new government under Hamid Karzai was put in place in 2003. What has been achieved since in defeating al Qaeda and its religious radical brethren? A prime minister who can show enough guile to make opposition MPs defect before a crucial vote in Parliament, could surely find the gumption to ask a few questions off a new-found ally and a sponsor, the USA.
For, two recent RAND Corporation studies have laid bare the cupboard of the American strategies in fighting the al Qaeda and have found it bereft of any substantial idea that could throw up some hope for an ultimate victory. Now that India under Manmohan Singh has become an active partner in the US-led ‘war on terror’ (WOT) – as a result of which citizens of the country become targets of the terrorists while the prime minister moves around in armoured BMWs and fortified Embraer aircrafts – it behooves upon him that he asks George W Bush what the US is doing.
The two RAND studies – Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and How Terrorist Groups End – Lessons for countering al Qaeda – uniformly say that the military is too blunt a tool to deal with terrorism and insurgency. The first study says at one place, “The most significant lesson from Afghanistan is the importance of encouraging legitimate and effective indigenous governments and security forces.”
The two key words in that sentence are “legitimate” and “indigenous.” Clearly, the study has concluded that the US and allied forces in Afghanistan are neither. The study recommends dramatic improvement in eight ‘key’ areas. They are: police, border security, ground combat, air strike and air mobility, intelligence, command and control, information operations, civil-military activities.
Of these eight, the counterinsurgency (COIN) study suggests indigenous actors to take lead role in seven of them with the US military and civilian agencies taking support roles. The only aspect left to the US to take the lead is air strikes and air mobility.
The study acknowledges that Afghanistan’s devastated state institutions do not yet have the capacity for effective policing. The study notes, “There is currently a plethora of U.S. government agencies involved in police training and equipping….However, they are plagued by a paucity of funding and civilian police. This forces the United States to either rely on contractors, such as DynCorp, or other states or organizations, such as NATO countries or UN civilian police.” Obviously, however much Bush would like to depend on his cronies in the private sector contracting business like DynCorp, the RAND experts have little faith in their abilities.
Cross border support sustains insurgency and terrorism. The al Qaeda and the Taliban take the permeability of the Durand Line to their fullest advantage, The COIN study notes, “In Afghanistan, the United States and other coalition partners failed to alter the will or capacity of the Pakistan government to decrease cross-border activity.” This has resulted in these groups being able to run their training camps in their sanctuaries and recruit at leisure. Obviously, these need to stop. Two elements in this exercise are, COIN operations against such sanctuaries; and choking off the funding sources for such activities of the al Qaeda. The colossal failure of the US in doing both is for all to see. Is it because it lacks the legitimacy to confront such forces? A question to ask.
How does Terror Groups End –Lessons for al Qaeda notes, “The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim countries, where its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment.” This restrained attempt at policy-talk does not hide the fact about how the US forces are viewed in large parts of the world.
Since the time Manmohan Singh’s friends have undertaken their WOT, the RAND study on terror groups computes that the number of al Qaeda attacks have increased manifolds; and so have their reach in geographical terms.
It suggests, “….ending the notion of a “war” on terrorism and replacing it with such concepts as counterterrorism, which most governments with a significant terrorism problem use……Individuals, such as Ayman al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden, should be viewed and described as criminals, not as holy warriors.”
And the report quotes an unnamed British intelligence official saying, “The notion of a war on terrorism suggests to Muslims abroad that the United States is fighting a war on Muslims. And the response has to be jihad, or holy war. War convinces people to do jihad.”
But these are voices of sanity which rarely breaches the cerebral cortices of the players in Bush administration. Indeed, if one accounts for the strands of logic followed by the US presidential candidates during their campaign pronouncements, one could not be greatly enthused about the future. It is a matter of grave concern for India that Manmohan Singh is most comfortable in their company.
Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in
That was the refrain one heard every so often in the speeches made in Indian Parliament in the past week. Manmohan Singh made that statement, in his inimitably furtive way - if only to obfuscate the real reasons for his deal with the USA. Rahul Gandhi made it too, even though he made it sound like an advertisement for an energy potion, meant for the youth of India.
Having said that, it has to be argued that growing India has developed an enormous appetite for energy. Let us leave that tiny three per cent or futuristic eight per cent that Manmohan Singh is so bent on ensuring, for now. Let us talk about something that is virtually fifty per cent of the country’s total energy consumption – petroleum, oil and lubricants. Between April and November, 2007-08, India consumed 131.01 million metric tonnes of oil, which was almost close to the total consumption of the previous year.
Indian Oil’s website says that the Indian basket of crude oil is priced at close to 130 dollars a barrel, which is less than the price of Brent crude but close to the price of WTI (West Texas Intermediate) – the American benchmark crude.
That price could climb down substantially were India to decide to source its crude from Iran – well, not just Iranian crude, but crude that could be transacted at the newest oil exchange of the world, Iranian Oil Bourse. Situated on an island off the coast of Iran, called Kish, it is in an Iranian free trade zone.
One such action could stop the tyranny of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX), futures trade in which has contributed to 60 per cent of the total price rise of crude oil in the past two years.
Iran Oil Bourse had been in the making since 2004. It finally opened on 17 February this year. And it trades in petroleum products on Euro, Iranian Riyal and a basket of major currencies including Yen. Also, because it trades in Euro, it can sell crude at a price lower than when paid in dollars. For the sky-high dollar price of crude is not just a function of the predatory speculators of the USA, who have the president of the country in debt, but the dollar price of crude is also a victim of the eroding value of the currency.
That value would drop more when the cost of saving the US economy from the ravages of the failure of two housing mortgage companies - with $ 5 trillion in credit; yes, trillion – Freddie Mac and Fannie May gets accounted. And this also the time when the people of India should ask its political-bureaucratic class why Indians, seventy per cent of whom live on less than $ 1 a day should pay for a tanking US economy.
Meanwhile, the American establishment continues to fight a low intensity war within Iran. If Seyomour Hersh, the American journalist is to be believed, American Special Forces and CIA Covert War specialists are inside Iran right now blazing a trail of death and destruction. He wrote an expose on this a few weeks ago in the New Yorker magazine.
If anyone believes this war would stop soon as Bush is on his way out, you should take heart at the statement of a recently defeated Hillary Clinton, who threatened to bomb Iran to smithereens. She is now being touted as the vice presidential running mate of Barack Obama, a poll ticket that is being described by salivating Democratic Party faithfuls as a ‘dream ticket.’
Leaving that aside for the time being, one should acknowledge that Iran’s newest venture promise deliverance for a vast section of the world that do not have a particular love for the dollar as the currency of preference.
Iranian Oil Bourse could see curious conjunction of self-interests soon. Europe, which buys 70 per cent of Iranian crude could start frequenting the Bourse. Russia, which sells 66 per cent of its crude to Europe could sell at the new exchange in Kish Island. In April, 2002, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) had begun discussions on switching to Euros for their oil transactions. But that idea eventually got shelved after Bush visited the region. It is believed that US did some serious arm twisting of the Saudi princelings to help them make up their mind about maintaining the status quo.
But other countries like Venezuela are keen to trade in the bourse. So is Nigeria. The bourse would really take off if China and India are to decide that they would source their burgeoning demand from it. China, of course, has a lot of equity oil – oil from fields in which it has a equity stake. India’s Oil and Natural Gas Commission (ONGC) had been taking that route till Mani Shankar Aiyar was the minister in-charge. It stopped when Murli Deora, a friend of many American leaders replaced him. Good economics dictates that we buy from the Iran bourse.
But is it good politics? We have a civilian nuclear deal to preserve and pay obeisance to.
Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in
As the crow flies, the distance between New Delhi and Kathmandu is 802 kms. Yet, the ‘bourgeois’ power elite – as the communists are wont to call some - in the two capitals are so similar in their approach and desire for power. First let’s see Nepal, where I was a fortnight ago.
The main communist party there, the CPN (Maoist) has won in a general election so handsomely that they have emerged as the single largest party. Since the election is for a Constituent Assembly of the country – to frame a new Constitution – the CPN (Maoist), whose ‘democratic’ credentials are being questioned there everyday, said that they wanted a government of national consensus to govern in the interim period, while the country’s constitution is drafted.
But to do that, the previous government needed to resign. That government is led by Nepal’s old war-horse, GP Koirala of the Nepalese Congress (NC). And he refuses to resign. Why? Because he says that the interim constitution by which he was positioned as the prime minister in 2006 did not have an explicit provision calling for the government to resign to pave way for the victors in the popular polls.
If that piece of logic seems impossible, his apologists have some more. For, a senior editor in Nepal who calls himself ‘left liberal’ – one can recall how many people turned ‘left liberal’ in New Delhi soon after the Congress-led UPA government came to power with the support of the left – told this writer that Koirala is “not resigning because he wants to own up for the past mistakes.” That is the reason why he wants to become a president of the new republic. How ludicrous can you get?
So the Maoists now have pushed Koirala’s hands. Their ministers have resigned from Koirala’s cabinet. And they are making one last ditch effort to form a government with the CPN (United Marxist Leninist) – the third largest party - keeping the recalcitrant NC out. Last fortnight they seemed like a party straining at the leash of Parliamentary politics, trying to deal with sobriety a situation that ‘bourgeois democratic politics’ in that country has handed out.
But Baburam Bhattarai, the CPN (Maoist) leader had told me that if their attempts at forming a government is foiled by the so called ‘democrats’ they would go to the people and mobilise them while allowing the Constituent Assembly to frame the new constitution. Thereby hangs one tale.
The other story is now being played out in New Delhi which has similar cast of characters. Here is a group of communist and left parties who support the Congress-led UPA government from outside of government, differing with the latter vehemently about what kind of a country India should be. Should India become a strategic (read military) partner of the USA that has wreaked havoc in this part of the world – Asia – since the 1950s? The Indian left parties also fear that if India gets locked into that kind of a relationship with the USA it would for a long time be in an antagonistic relationship with a giant next door neighbour, China, all for the sake of a partner 14,000 kms away. And finally, the left parties are not sure what the Indian power elite would do next for their constituents in Washington if the deal went through.
One may ask the question that hey, this is just a deal for civilian nuclear power. That question today is really moot. For had it been just about nuclear power, would a Congress prime minister stake his all on that deal. A story is being touted around the country that the Indian nuclear power programme is facing severe shortage of uranium, hence we need the deal. But doesn’t the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group (NSG) have a ‘safety clause’ emergency provision by which even a non-NPT country can seek Uranium from one of the member countries. Just in 2006 Russia gave India Uranium under that provision for Tarapur and later informed the NSG.
So this is not about just ‘a’ nuclear deal. There is more to it and the Congress leadership knows it. But did they contest the 2004 election on the issue of forging a strategic relationship with the USA? They did not. Shouldn’t they have held a referendum in the country before concluding such a deal and got a popular verdict beforehand? What do the democrats say, social or otherwise? Or does the Congress leadership in India like GP Koirala want to ‘own up past mistakes,’ thus be in power?
For the past few days I had been reading declassified exchanges between Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon on the one side and the Chinese leadership on the other. These took place in 1971-2. And at one place, Nixon argues for establishment of a relationship with the Chinese on the fact that the latter could be attacked by India, backed by the Soviet Union!
How time changes, but people don’t.
Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pinaki63@dataone.in
Even after so many summers, power of the written word still fills my senses. The ideas the words convey seem to fulfill my sensate being - some can even make me smell the rot; in others I hear the approaching footsteps of the future. Parallel Mainstream is thus dedicated to that powerful tool for change - the written word.
