Notes on Politics and Diplomacy

Was NATO's intervention in Libya justified?

2011-10-30T06:41:00.001-07:00

Disclaimer: I do not intend to authoritatively decree (not that I have any power to do so) as to whether or not NATO’s campaign in Libya was justified or legal. I just wanted to state a few facts and pose a few questions that merit deeper attention.

It’s October-end and the world remains awash with stories related to Col. Gaddafi’s controversial death refusing to die down. We all know that Col. Gaddafi – who had ruled Libya since 1969 – was recently killed in his hometown Sirte on October 20^th. He had been dislodged from power in a civil war that had erupted in February 2011 following similar anti-government protests in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt.

Beginnings (February 2011):

The anti-government demonstrations in Tunisia (December 2010) and Egypt (January-February 2011) had earlier led to the ouster of long-time rulers Ben Ali (of Tunisia) and Hosni Mubarak (of Egypt) respectively. Subsequently, anti-government protests began in the Libyan city of Benghazi. The protesters came to be known as ‘rebels’ and they waged war against the Libyan government. Meanwhile, many prominent government officials and diplomats defected to the side of the rebels. The world media reported that the rebels were fighting for democracy and freedom and we as yet do not have sufficient reasons to not believe in this version of events. Nevertheless, rebels advanced rapidly in the next few weeks capturing many of Libya’s important cities. However, Government forces launched a counter-offensive and drove off rebels from town after town. Eventually by March 2011, the rebels were pushed back to their strongholds of Benghazi and Misrata. The rebels called for international assistance.

Foreign intervention and Gaddafi’s ceasefire offer (March 2011):

On March 17, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted the UNSC resolution 1973 that authorized the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya in order to protect civilians from any airstrikes by Col. Gaddafi’s forces. Thus, UK and France began a series of airstrikes in Libya in order to neutralize the Libyan Air Force so that it did not pose a danger to civilians. Nevertheless, immediately after the passage of the UNSC resolution 1973, the Libyan Government declared ceasefire with the rebels.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739]

The Libyan Government too cited the well-being of civilians as the reason behind it’s decision to declare the ceasefire. The Government further said that it sought assistance from Turkey (a powerful NATO member) and Malta to supervise and implement the ceasefire. However, it seemed the West had already made up it’s mind. After having secured the UN approval to bomb Libya, how could the NATO resist embarking upon the military adventure? US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flatly dismissed the ceasefire offer by the Libyan government. She said "…we would have to see actions on the ground and that is not yet at all clear." Of course, it remains a mystery if the Western nations ever made any serious efforts to “see actions on the ground”. I have not yet come across any news report that shows Turkey or Malta responding to Libyan government’s offer to supervise the ceasefire.

Nevertheless Hillary Clinton went a step ahead and decreed that "We will continue to work with our partners in the international community to press Gaddafi to leave and to support the legitimate aspirations of the Libyan people." [Emphasis added] Wow! Did she forget that the UN mandate was only to protect civilians, not to overthrow the government? The fact that Clinton openly called for removal of an internationally recognized Government amounted to breach of UN Charter which prohibits use of threats against sovereign nations. Anyways, we all know that the rules of international diplomacy are quite different for Western nations, so we shall not bother with this little issue any further.

So, despite Gaddafi’s calls for ceasefire, the NATO went ahead with it’s airstrikes and fighting continued. Of course, there remains the big possibility that Gaddafi was never sincere about the ceasefire proposal. In fact, the rebels claimed that the government forces continued shelling rebel-held Misrata and Benghazi even after the official declaration of ceasefire. So which side do we trust – the government version of implementation of ceasefire or the rebel version of breach of faith? One possible way to gauge the two sides’ sincerity is by studying their official announcements. While the government asked Malta and Turkey to supervise the ceasefire, the rebels dismissed the government’s offer saying that Gaddafi is a “liar”.

The rebel commander Khalifa Heftir said, "Gaddafi does not speak any truth... All the world knows that Muammar Gaddafi is a liar. He and his sons, and his family, and all those with him are liars."

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12787739]

Nevertheless, amidst all the chaos and all the difficulty in determining who was speaking the truth, the Western nations had already made up their mind that Gaddafi must go. So began airstrikes over Libya on 19^th March, giving no time for the government’s ceasefire proposal (which was announced on 18^th March). Fighting continued and rebels advanced under NATO’s umbrella. Rebels captured city after city and Muammar Gaddafi’s 42-year rule looked in serious peril.

Gaddafi’s election offer (June 2011):

In June 2011, after the tide of war had turned against them, Gaddafi’s son Saif al-Islam announced that Col. Gaddafi was willing to hold elections and that he would step aside if he lost. Saif al-Islam further said that the elections could be held within three months and transparency would be guaranteed through international observers. However, NATO and the rebels rejected the offer.

The rebel spokesman Abdel Hafiz Ghoga gave the logic behind rejecting the election offer. "We tell him (Saif al-Islam) that the time has passed because our rebels are at the outskirts of Tripoli, and they will join our people and rebels there to uproot the symbol of corruption and tyranny in Libya," Hafiz Ghoga told Al Jazeera.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/16/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110616]

It is indeed a novelty to see purported pro-democracy rebels opposing elections and more specifically denying a leader (Gaddafi) a chance to prove his support. Anyways, fighting continued and NATO resumed bombing operations. Meanwhile, reports emerged of human rights abuses by both the government and rebel forces. Reports also emerged of NATO bombings purportedly killing civilians.

The Climax (August – October 2011):

Slowly and steadily rebels advanced towards Tripoli aided by NATO air cover. By 22^nd August, Tripoli was in rebel hands. Gaddafi loyalists held out for a couple of months more in Bani Walid and Gaddafi’s hometown Sirte. Commentators have often described the resistance put by Gaddafi loyalists as fierce even in the face of imminent defeat. In fact, NATO officers expressed surprise at the resilience shown by Gaddafi fighters in the face of rebels’ advance and NATO’s airpower.

New York Times on October 10^th, “NATO Commander Says Resilience of Qaddafi Loyalists Is Surprising”

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/world/africa/nato-commander-says-resilience-of-qaddafi-loyalists-is-surprising.html]

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/11/libya-gaddafi-nato_n_1005207.html]

On October 20^th, NATO bombed a convoy in Sirte resulting in the wounding and eventual capture and killing of Col. Muammar Mohammad al-Gaddafi (1942-2011).

Some time in future, when dispassionate analysis would be possible without prejudice, maybe our posterity will be able to judge whether Muammar Gaddafi was a greedy dictator or an anti-imperialist nationalist (or both)… Till then, we can ponder if the foreign intervention in Libya was justified or legal. And what it means for the future of Africa. Is this just a precursor of things to come? More wars to lay hands on Africa’s resources?

Anna no longer supports referendums

2011-10-16T08:06:00.000-07:00

We live in a strange world. Third World countries are “liberated” by occupying them; humanitarian intervention is carried out by dropping bombs over cities. Weak countries are asked to prove that they are innocent of harbouring any evil intentions rather than prosecutors proving guilt: Iran is repeatedly asked to prove that it has no intention of embarking upon a nuclear weapons program. Meanwhile, back home in India, pro-democracy activists seem unable to make up their minds as to what is more important – democracy or territorial integrity.

Picture this:

Headlines on 2^nd October, 2011

Team Anna conducts referendum on Jan Lokpal Bill – Hindustan Times [http://www.hindustantimes.com/Team-Anna-conducts-referendum-on-Jan-Lokpal-Bill/Article1-752784.aspx]
Team Anna launches referendum on Jan Lokpal Bill – Times of India [http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-10-02/india/30235133_1_team-anna-referendum-lokpal-bill]

Headlines on October 14:

Team Anna distances itself from Prashant Bhushan's comments on Kashmir – Times of India [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Team-Anna-distances-itself-from-Prashant-Bhushans-comments-on-Kashmir/articleshow/10351687.cms]
His Kashmir views rankle Anna but Bhushan to stay in Team – The Hindu [http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2537801.ece]

So, what views of Prashant Bhushan did Anna Hazare disapprove of? Well, it turns out that Prashant Bhushan supports the idea of a referendum to resolve the Kashmir issue. Apparently Anna Hazare has a secret formula to determine when referendums are required and when to be rejected. Anna Hazare went even a step further and declared that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Well, it is customary of Hazare to settle all matters by his declarations – like how he declared that only his version of Lokpal bill was worthy enough of being passed by the Parliament.

Meanwhile, Prashant bhushan’s support for Kashmiri’s right of self-determination has so much infuriated the anti-corruption “nationalists” that they are demanding he be removed from the core of Team Anna.

Remove Prashant Bhushan from Core group:IACJK – IBN [http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/remove-prashant-bhushan-from-core-groupiacjk/863171.html] [Note: IACJK stands for India Against Corruption – J&K unit]
Expel Prashant Bhushan from team: MS Bitta tells Anna – DNA [http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_expel-prashant-bhushan-from-team-ms-bitta-tells-anna_1599118]

Surely, we live in strange times.

Is this the most exciting UN General Assembly Meeting?

2011-09-25T09:25:00.000-07:00

So, its after a considerable length of time that I am writing in my blog. Many things have changed since I last wrote about Arundhati Roy and her defiance on the Kashmir issue. As of now, the international arena of diplomacy seems more exciting and thrilling than any drama could be. As I write, diplomats in the United Nations are busy in proclaiming, communicating and negotiating new and old stands on issues that are set to shape the world as we know it.

Palestine applies for full membership, 63 years after Naqba:

In 1948, Zionist migrants from Europe and other parts of the world proclaimed the Jewish Homeland of Israel in much of what was the British mandate of Palestine. Jews sought refuge in the Holy Land as they sought to escape the Holocaust and the pervasive anti-Semitism in Europe. However, the cost of resettling the Jewish refugees was unfortunately borne by an unsuspecting people, who had little to do with Hitler’s Lebensraum or Britain’s imperialist empire or American ambitions. In their bid to create a homeland for the Jews, some Zionist terrorist groups like the Irgun and Haganah drove out Palestinians from their homes, killing those who refused. Some 700,000 Palestinians became refugees in 1948 in order to resettle the Zionist refugees mainly from Europe. The Palestinians were left to pay the price for Israel’s creation. The exodus of Palestinians from their villages is called “Naqba” (catastrophe) by Palestinians. Israel calls it the War of Independence.

For years, the struggle of the Palestinian people centred around the key question of “Right to Return”. The 700,000 Palestinian refugees who were driven out in 1948 (and now number around 5 million) have still held on to their dream of returning to their ancestral homes, braving years of international disdain and indifference towards their plight. Nevertheless, after the 1967 war, the focus steadily shifted from “right of return” to “right of statehood” for the Palestinians. However, Palestinians still retain strong views on the question of return.

Settlement construction a key roadblock to peace:

Negotiations over the establishment of a Palestinian state began in 1993 and have been dragging on ever since. While many reasons can be attributed to the stalemate in the “peace process” over the years, the one major factor that has emerged as a key roadblock to talks in recent years has been Israel’s settlement construction. Israel has been constructing Jewish settlements in the occupied lands of Palestine, in contravention of international law and thus making it increasingly difficult for a viable Palestinian state to emerge in the future.

The difficulty that the settlement construction posed to Israel-Palestine peace was even recognized by US President Barack Obama. After assuming office, Obama pursued hard to revive the Mid-East peace process and asked Israel to extend it’s freeze on settlement construction. However, Benjamin Netanyanhu (Israel’s Prime Minister) eventually decided to resume settlement construction which led the Palestinian leadership to withdraw from “peace talks”. Not only is Israel’s settlement construction a roadblock to confidence-building between the estranged parties, so are the other Israeli policies of expanding Jewish residential construction in East Jerusalem (the widely accepted capital of any future Palestinian state). Moreover, Israel’s security wall that cuts through the West Bank, dividing Palestinian territory from Palestinian territory has further strengthened misgivings over Israel’s intentions toward securing a peaceful settlement of the age-old conflict.

Israel’s belligerence in Gaza does not instill confidence in Israel’s seriousness for achieving peace:

Israel’s belligerence has been further displayed by it’s activities in the Gaza Strip. Israel violated a fragile ceasefire agreement with Hamas on November 4, 2008, when the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) intruded into the Gaza Strip and reportedly killed six Hamas fighters. This incident led to the breakdown of the truce that had held for about the prior six months and paved way for the massive Israeli bombing of Gaza starting in December 2008. The Israelis called it “Operation Cast Lead” and the Palestinians call it the Gaza massacre. The confrontation between the IDF and Hamas in Gaza left some 1,166 to 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis dead.

Nevertheless, the western media has the remarkable ability to portray the victims as being somehow responsible for their unfortunate fate because of some irresponsible decisions that the victims themselves made. The irresponsible decision that the victims of Gaza made was to elect Hamas as their representatives in elections in 2006, for which it was logical that they should pay a price. The Gazans deserved to die because they elected the killer and terrorist organisation of Hamas. And, the Hamas is a terrorist organisation because it resists Israeli occupation of Gaza and kills Israeli Defence Forces. It is terrorism if you kill the IDF and oppose occupation. It is counter-terrorism if you kill the Hamas, even if you have to violate a truce to kill the Hamas. It is counter-terrorism if you drop bombs from F-16s in busy and crowded refugee camps in Gaza. The civilians killed in such operations are unfortunate casualties, who suffer such fate because of the extremist group Hamas and partly because of their poor decision to elect the Hamas. The 1300-odd Palestinians killed by Israel do not make to the Western media’s list of people killed by terrorism.

Frustrated Palestinian leadership finally applies for statehood in UN:

Thus, the aforementioned Israeli policies – aggressive policies in Gaza (including maintainaing a blockade on Gaza), settlement expansion in West Bank, Jewish construction in East Jersulaem – have all added to growing frustration of the Palestinian leadership with the so-called “peace talks”. Therfore the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas decided to apply for full member status in the 66^th UN General Assembly 2011 being held at New York. Abbas submitted the formal request to UN Secy. General Ban Ki Moon on 23^rd September 2011. The statehood bid is doomed to fail as the United States of America is likely to veto it down in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Israel’s stature diminished in international community:

Nevertheless, the statehood bid has been largely endorsed by almost all the countries in the world expect only the US and Israel. This alone stands as a great diplomatic victory for the Palestinian leadership and Mahmoud Abbas. Thus, we have Israel’s status being steadily pushed to that of Apartheid-era South Africa. Israel is turning out to be the pariah state in the international community, some full 10 years after Isreal itself started a campaign to liken Yasser Arafat (Palestinian leader) to Osama bin laden in the aftermath of September 11 attacks in New York. That was 2001 and now its 2011. Its amazing how tables turn and how perceptions change.

India defies USA in the UN:

No less interesting has been the diplomacy being played out by Indian officials in the UN. India took two important diplomatic decisions which have firmly affirmed the Government’s commitment to pursue an independent foreign policy and to go against America’s positions. The two decisions are;-

to endorse Palestine’s statehood bid
to diplomatically engage with Iran

India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, in his UN Assembly speech said,

"India is steadfast in its support for the Palestinian people's struggle for a sovereign, independent, viable and united state of Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital, living within secure and recognizable borders side by side and at peace with Israel. We look forward to welcoming Palestine as an equal member of the United Nations…"

[source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-supports-Palestines-call-for-UNs-full-membership/articleshow/10110882.cms]

Manmohan’s speech stood in stark contrast to Obama’s speech, where the US President urged the Palestinian leadership to return to the negotiating table with Israel rather than seek “unilateral declaration” of statehood. Obama remains concerned that such a “unilateral declaration” of statehood (never mind that the supposed “unilateral” declaration is supported by almost all countries in the UN except the US and Israel) will jeopardize the non-existent “peace talks” that have been dragging on for years and which seem to serve only one purpose – prolong Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

Meanwhile, India also differed from the US on one more important foreign policy issue – Iran. PM Manmohan Singh held a bilateral meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in New York in the sidelines of the UN meet. (It maybe noted that PM Manmohan Singh is not meeting US President Obama in the current trip, however much should not be read into it) While Iran has been subjected to economic sanctions and virulent accusations of human rights violations and nuclear proliferation from the West, it is a very contrasting picture to see the Indian PM (the head of Government of a G-20 country) holding a bilateral meeting with the Iranian President Ahmadinejad who has been widely reviled by the Western media. The meeting underscores that India views Iran as a stabilizing factor in Afghanistan, contrary to Western perceptions. And we have reason to hold such perceptions because Iran was one of the few countries (along with India and Russia) that backed the anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan prior to 2001. Indian foreign policy understandably remains committed to limiting the influence of Taliban and like extremist outfits in post-NATO Afghanistan.

[refer to http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2482785.ece]

Thus, as events pan out, we see greater international isolation of the US and Israel. Fewer countries in the world are today ready to endorse Israel’s seeming impunity from international law. Meanwhile, India’s defiance of Washington over the question of Iran should be welcomed as another positive development towards creation of a multi-polar world order.

Arundhati Roy and the changing language on Kashmir

2010-10-26T13:34:00.000-07:00

26^th night of October. After a long day at work, I just thought it would be fit to record a few observations pertaining to the “controversial” remarks made by Arundhati Roy that seem to be all over the media. It is reported that Arundhati Roy said in Srinagar last week:

"Kashmir has never been an integral part of India. It is a historical fact. Even the Indian government has accepted this."

Earlier, on 21^st October, Arundhati Roy shared the stage with hard-line Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani in at a convention on “Azadi – the Only Way” organised in New Delhi. Thus there have been reports since the morning that Arundhati Roy might be booked and arrested on charges of sedition.

Quite predictably BJP has been in action flaying the UPA government for permitting an anti-India seminar in Delhi. While BJP demanded the arrest of both Geelani and Roy, the internet is full of comments (on news websites like TOI) which call for Mrs. Roy to be arrested, punished, and in some comments even ‘hanged’, for threatening the integrity of our country. [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Fit-case-to-try-Geelani-Roy-for-sedition-Cops/articleshow/6811200.cms] People are taking pains on internet to explain the “attention-seeking” “self-proclaimed” activist that it is only because of the free democracy that India, is that she is able to say things against the Indian state; it is only because of the freedom India gives that people like Geelani are allowed to organize “anti-India” seminars in Delhi. The comments further seek to explain how dissenters would be shot at in regimes like Pakistan and China. Arundhati is further behoved to leave the country as she has failed to respect and value the freedoms that the Indian state gives to its citizens. Never mind the fact that the same freedom deploys an army presence in the valley that is unparalleled anywhere else in the world; the same ‘freedom’ gives the AFSPA to the army; denies justice to Shopian victims; imposes periodic curfews in the valley; restricts free movement of people in the valley whenever it is deemed that stability is at stake; frequently orders streets in Kashmir to be emptied so that ‘peace’ and ‘normalcy’ can return! Perhaps, by peace they refer to the peace of the grave.

Anyways, let me refrain from judging over here. All I wanted to record in my blog post was how dramatically the language of the conflict has been changed within a month or just a week’s time!! The Hindu came up with a news report late in the day which asserted that the Central government was unwilling to book Arundhati Roy on charges of sedition as the government reckoned that it would be ironical to criminalize the mere speech of stating of some disputed facts, esp. at the time when ‘interlocutors’ were given the mandate to talk to ‘separatists’.

“With Dileep Padgaonkar, Radha Kumar and M.M. Ansari (the three interlocutors appointed by the GoI) urging those Kashmiris raising slogans in favour of ‘azadi' to put their thoughts down in writing, the irony of criminalising a mere speech has not been lost on New Delhi.”

[http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article850820.ece]

Thus, it seems finally the political elite in New Delhi maybe warming up to the idea that people can have views that do not necessarily run concurrent with the government’s stand that Kashmir is an integral part of India. This bodes well as a sign of political maturity and willingness on part of the Indian government to listen, compromise and accommodate. Also, it is a great victory for the civil society in India that the jingoism and the aura of sanctity – that guarded the centre’s Kashmir policy from any scrutiny – has been finally broken.

Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage - The crap newspaper that TOI is

2010-03-18T02:16:00.000-07:00

I am a regular reader of The Hindu, but I do occasionally get to read The Times of India also as other guys in the hostel subscribe it. The fact that The Hindu and The Times of India (TOI) are two very different newspapers need not be repeated; however I am unable to control my urge to share with you what I observed – the massive differences between the two dailies with respect to the way they reported proceedings related to the recent ‘Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill’.

The Hindu came out with a brilliant edit page-analysis of the text of the bill on Saturday, March 13th. [http://www.hindu.com/2010/03/13/stories/2010031353671400.htm] The article by Brahma Chellany provided a meticulous analysis of the clauses. Needless to mention, edit page articles in Hindu are generally much longer (in terms of words) than their counterparts in TOI. While it is true that a voluminous article need not be better than a crisp one, but the points that I am about to mention shall nullify all hopes that TOI betters Hindu by putting more quality in lesser words.

1. Incomlete reporting:

On Thursday, March 11th, The Times of India (New Delhi edition) carried a front page report titled ‘N-liability bill trips on compensation’ [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/N-liability-Bill-trips-on-compensation/articleshow/5669477.cms]. The news-piece mentioned the bill as “critical to participation of US firms in atomic commerce with India”. However the TOI did not care to explain to its readers as to why the bill was ‘critical’ (if at all it is critical) for ensuring the participation by US firms. The explanation part was done in The Hindu (13th March edit piece). The Hindu explained to me that the bill would limit the liability – in case of a nuclear accident - of foreign suppliers to a maximum of Rs. 500 crore ($109 million) even in the worst of worst cases, i.e. even if the nuclear catastrophe causes damage in excess of Rs. 500 crore and it was the sole fault of the supplier. Thus “a foreign builder will need to take insurance for a mere Rs. 500 crore”[1]. Thus, as the Hindu article points out, “The Indian Bill, in effect, amounts to a huge hidden subsidy by protecting foreign reactor builders”. Thus, when TOI claimed that the bill was “critical” for ensuring participation of US firms, what it actually meant was that the bill was “critical” for ensuring easy profits to the US firms, and that even at the cost of the taxpayer[2].

2. Ridiculing opposition to the bill:

In the same TOI issue of March 11th, the newspaper carried an article on page 13, titled ‘Liability bill caps payout at Rs. 2.3k cr’ [http://lite.epaper.timesofindia.com/mobile.aspx?article=yes&pageid=13&edlabel=CAP&mydateHid=11-03-2010&pubname=&edname=&articleid=Ar01303&format=&publabel=TOI]. The newspaper did mention that the BJP, the Left and the Trinamool Congress opposed the bill. However, the TOI made no single reference to the faults in the bill that could have possibly created opposition to the bill. Instead, the TOI tried to create an impression that the opposition to the bill has been baseless, naïve and opportunistic. In particular, the article read, “… Trinamool Congress may (object) … (in order to) blunt any “advantage” to Left for opposing a “pro-US” move…” Moreover, in blatant transgression of journalistic ethics, the TOI tried to portray Muslim sentiments as being the main obstacle to passing of the bill. TOI read, “… Trinamool is ultra-sensitive about allergy its Muslim vote bank has to the US”. Please not two terms here – ‘allergy’ and ‘vote bank’. Somehow, the TOI is subtly trying to argue that Muslims do not have the right to have anti-US feelings, or that the feelings of Muslims are naïve (if at all they have such). Moreover, by somehow suggesting that Muslims are somehow responsible for the blocking of the bill (which TOI is presenting to be crucial for participation of US firms), the TOI maybe contributing to negative stereotypes against Muslims.

Contrast this with The Hindu. Although, the Hindu did criticize the Govt. on the grounds of supporting such a bill, but the Hindu never levelled allegations on the Congress party of wooing its urban vote bank who have an ‘affinity’ towards the US. The Congress was never criticized by the Hindu on the grounds that Congress members and ministers have family members in the US and therefore maybe overtly ‘pro-US’. Instead, the Hindu chose to calmly analyse the bill and criticize the bill rather than criticize the Congress. However, the path chosen by the TOI seems to be to ridicule the opponents of the bill, in order to subtly swing readers’ opinion in favour of the bill.

3. Moreover, of the few recent issues of The Times of India that I have read, I have never found a serious discussion of the clauses and facts related to the bill. For example, in its 16th March issue, the Hindu carried three different news items related to the bill, all on page 11. Since, so much about the bill was on one page, one would expect that the newspaper would tell its readers at least something about why the bill was being opposed. But alas, there was no explanation about the limited liability of foreign companies; there was no mention of the fact that victims of any nuclear disaster could not directly sue the foreign company and that only the Indian Govt. may sue the foreign company; there was also no mention of the 10 year-expiry rule of the ability to sue, and so on. In the news item titled ‘Govt defends bill as afterthought’ [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-defends-nuclear-liability-bill-as-afterthought/articleshow/5688307.cms] on the same page (i.e. page 11 of 16th March issue), phrases have been used so as to create an impression – without explanation – that the bill is in ‘national interest’. The phrases that have been used are, “… misconceptions of the new bill” (instead of possibly using “reservations against the new bill”); “… Deep political polarization has made the passage of the bill difficult”. Thus by using the term ‘polarization’, the TOI is subtly trying to suggest that it is petty politics that has held up the bill, and not principled opposition by informed politicians.

Obviously, my analysis is very amateurish and is certainly not serious research. But, I guess, from preliminary examination we can safely conclude that The Times of India is a newspaper that gives more of gossip than news; it is hardly worth the time of some serious reader.

-----------------------------------------

[1] Because the Govt. shall be liable to pay compensation in excess of Rs. 500, and up to Rs. 2087 crore.

George Bush, Lenin and Neoliberalism

2007-12-14T01:14:00.000-08:00

On 1st November 2007, speaking to an audience in Washington, George W Bush had likened Lenin to Osama bin Laden and Hitler. Understandably that drew sharp reactions from CPI(M) leader Prakash Karat. While both Osama bin Laden and Hitler have used religion for political mobilisation, Lenin suppressed religion in Russia in accordance with Marx’s maxim that “religion is the opium of the masses”.

“…Fascism virtually identified itself with an important element of Christianity. It considered religion as the manifestation of the deepest in man. It sought to defend and protect it. This view largely explains the cordial relations Mussolini had with the Pope. Extreme Nazism tried to create a state church but did not succeed much”

[V.R. Mehta, POLITICAL SCIENCE KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES, Textbook for Class XII, NCERT]

It is no secret that Osama is (or was!) profoundly anti-communist. So was Hitler. Then why did Bush care to liken Vladimir Lenin to Osama? Let us explore the possible justifications for such a remark by Bush:-

(1) One of the possible justifications for an analogy between Lenin and Osama is that both used violence to achieve political ends. However, such a justification is flawed because political movements (embodied in the personalities of Osama and Lenin) ought to be classified according to their respective ideologies rather than the means they adopt to realise their goals. Use of violence or of terrorism is just a means to achieve the ends, something that has been used not only by Osama and Lenin but also by many other political movements as well as nation states. Prof. Achin Vanaik, Head of Dept., Political Science, University of Delhi, in a lecture delivered in our college seminar hall on 7th November urged students to acknowledge the menace of ‘state-terrorism’ and categorically referred to USA, Israel and India being guilty of state terrorism. Also, while studying Lenin’s use of violence, it would be pertinent to bear in mind that the communist Russian state that Lenin created was rocked with the Civil War (1918-1920) and the intervention of Allied forces (of the First World War) in Russia against the Bolshevik government.

(2) Another possible justification for the likening of Lenin to Osama and Hitler is the alleged suppression of civil liberties in Soviet Union. However, suppression of civil liberties was also very visible during the McCarthy era (1940s to 1950s) of American politics in the name of anti-communism. Thus, the remarks of President Bush follow from more covert reasons rather than from any genuine historical/political reasoning.

Actually, since the end of the Second World War, there has been propaganda to portray communism and fascism (or Nazism) as similar and allies. The Non Aggression Pact (1939) between Germany and USSR is used as proof of covert alliance between communism and fascism, while the numerous pacts signed by Britain and France with Hitler in the 1930s are conveniently forgotten. Unfortunately, such kind of history writing is also gaining ground in India, especially since Hindu nationalists made an attempt to communalise school textbooks. The NCERT history textbook for class 12 that was introduced in 2003 and later removed by 2005 contained a chapter titled ‘Communism, totalitarianism and the Road to World War II’ which tried to convey that communism was as much responsible for the outbreak of the Second World War as was fascism! Such portrayal of communism and fascism as similar holds little water; fascism sought to promote and protect the interests of the middle class and supported institutions like the church, whereas communism has been very much against the middle class interests and religion. In the context of Bush’s remarks and also because we in India are much fed by the Western media, therefore a review of Lenin can be worth the effort.

Lenin remains one of the most influential thinkers in modern times. He added new dimensions to the existing Marxist thought. The pamphlet “What is to be Done” (1902) still remains one of the key treatises on mobilisation of workers. He made an important observation:

“…We have said that there could not have been Social-Democratic consciousness among the workers. It would have to be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness…” [Lenin, ‘What is to be Done’ (1902) http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm ]

Thus, Lenin doubted Marx’s claim that capitalism would inevitably lead to socialism through class action of the workers. Therefore, Lenin emphasised the need for a party that would educate the workers and guide them for their emancipation. Today almost all communist parties in different countries justify their very existence by Lenin’s ideas of the party.

In his day, Lenin was one of the most outstanding critics of the prevailing world economy dominated by monopoly capital and finance capital. Domination of ‘finance capital’ implied the transformation of bank capital into industrial capital, thereby transforming the bankers into capitalists. According to Lenin, “…The concentration of production; the monopolies arising therefrom; the merging or coalescence of the banks with industry—such is the history of the rise of finance capital and such is the content of that concept…” [‘Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (1916), Marxists Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm ] He explored the economics behind imperialism. For Lenin, the ‘social-chauvinism’, present in the advanced capitalist countries, which glorified colonisation, was not the main reason behind imperialism, but it was capitalism. And even the social-chauvinism that justified imperialism was not something exogenous, but actually a product of capitalism. Lenin, on analyzing Britain, detected the presence of ‘opportunism’ in the working class movement which led to increasing acceptance of imperialism. [refer to ‘Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (1916), Marxists Internet Archive http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/index.htm ] This also explained as to why socialist movements were not successful in the highly industrialised countries, as against the predictions of Marx. Lenin provided five basic features of capitalism as follows:

“(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance…” [‘Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ (1916)]

Lenin concluded in the final chapter of ‘Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism’ “We have seen that in its economic essence imperialism is monopoly capitalism”. The following passage from a paper by Amiya Bagchi testifies the importance and influence of Lenin’s theory of imperialism:

“V.I. Lenin’s theory has so far been the most authoritative of all the theories put forward to explain the phenomenon of imperialism. For the same reason, it has been subjected to the greatest amount of sniping…” [Amiya K. Bagchi, Towards a Correct Reading of Lenin’s Theory, in ‘Lenin and Imperialism’ (edited by Prabhat Patnaik) (1986, Orient Longman)]

Also, Amiya Bagchi asserts that Lenin’s theory has as yet not lost its relevance, especially in the backdrop of rise of neoliberalism since 1970s. Neoliberalism basically refers to the revival of the faith in the efficiency and benignity of markets. Today’s neoliberalism promotes as much exploitation as imperialism did in Lenin’s times. Much similarity exists between the era of monopoly capital and today’s era of globalisation; the presence of finance capital has only got strengthened in world economy over the years. Therefore maligning Lenin can become quite handy for Bush (who may be considered to be an icon of neoliberalism), because a negative public image of Lenin can contribute towards a greater acceptance of neoliberalism.

Now let us briefly see how neoliberalism is akin to imperialism. The neo-liberal ideology today seeks to create a different king of imperialism through globalisation; the neo-liberal state is increasingly protecting only the interests of the bourgeois.

“…The so called “unipolar” world where all nation states “adjust” to the leading role of the US is in fact the coming into being of a surrogate global state to protect the interests of international finance capital…” [Prabhat Patnaik (2007), The State Under Neo-Liberalism, Social Scientist (Jan-Feb 2007)]

Also, the globalisation envisaged by neoliberalism does nothing to reduce the labour reserves of India and China. [Refer to Prabhat Patnaik (2007), Contemporary Imperialism and World's Labour Reserves, Social Scientist (May-June, 2007)]. Labour reserves or ‘the reserve army of the unemployed’ is an important prerequisite for capitalist exploitation. In India and china, growth has been largely export-oriented. While it is feasible for small countries to rely on exports for growth and for depletion of labour reserves, such a dependence on exports would yield little results in large countries like India and China. Because, reliance on export oriented growth requires constant upgradation of technology to retain international competitiveness. Thus increase in exports does not guarantee increase in employment, because upgradation in technology means more of labour saving techniques. Therefore, the need is to strengthen domestic demands since we cannot rely on exports totally. However neo-liberal ideology has a strong apathy for Govt. intervention.

Thus, we students need to unlearn the neo-liberal propaganda and frame our perceptions more objectively by studying different and conflicting viewpoints.

America's Place in History

2006-05-17T06:52:00.000-07:00

5th March 2006

The Position America Will Receive When History of Our Age Would be written

No doubt, America is today's dominant power in world economy and world polity; consequently American policies affect virtually each and every nation of the world. The all-pervasive influence of America on the lives of billions all over the world, as we know, evokes extreme responses in both the extremes - hatred against America and admiration for its work - from different regions of the world. My sympathies lie with the people who criticise America; but in this article I shall refrain from indulging in U.S.-bashing. Instead, I shall present a dispassionate analysis, from the way of a historian, about what position and reverence the USA of today will receive when history would be written.

History is a witness that warring, sturdy and abrasive races have never been respected, they have only been feared. When Europeans write of their own history, then they use the most hideous and the most demonic of words to describe the races of Vikings, Huns, Goths and Mongols. All these four races were great military strengths in their own right - the Vikings repeatedly troubled England in middle ages; the Huns, under their fiery King 'ATTILA The Hun' brought ruin upon the Western Roman Empire in 5th century A.D. and reached the gates of Rome itself; the Goths (especially the Visigoths, under the leadership of Alaric The Goth) were a fiery people and were a constant trouble for the Roman Empire. The Mongols merit special attention because of their unparalleled savagery in warfare; they relished massacring citizens. The Mongols surprised their enemies with the sheer swiftness of their cavalry and therefore his enemies called Genghis Khan 'The Scourge of God'.

The military might of present day USA is comparable to the relative might of the Mongols in their own era; however more than military power, what matters is the attitude of the military or of the nation. It is well known that India was militarily very powerful during the times of Alexander and Selecus owing to the extensive use of war-elephants in Magadh (a powerful state in ancient India) and other north Indian armies. To testify this Jawaharlal Nehru, in his panoramic 'Discovery of India' wrote, "...Selecus Nikator obtained 500 of these war-elephants from India for his campaign against Antigonus in Asia Minor in 302 BC...these elephants were a decisive factor in the battle which ended in the death of Antigonus..." Also, in the same book Nehru has discussed about the high quality and fame of Indian "weapons of war, especially for the quality of her (India's) steel, her swords and daggers." Despite such a military prowess, no historian can ever accuse India of being an aggressive or savage people at any point of time in history. The reason is simple - for Indians, as a race were never abrasive, never eager to intimidate other peoples with her military power, in fact never proud of military might (it is quite a pertinent fact that traditional Indian folklore records and preserves more of those Kings who were embodiments of benevolence, justice, kindness, honesty, sacrifice than of those Kings who were mere conquerors - Asoka The Great is revered in India for he gave up violence; Harshvardhan is remembered for his knack of sacrifice and giving alms to the poor; Akbar is revered for his sense of religious tolerance). The major difference between Indian culture and American culture is the pride the latter takes in a pompous show of 'shock and awe' (recall, the 2003 'Operation Iraqi Freedom' of the US-Army or the Iraq War was described, by President Bush, in these very words of 'shock and awe'). To me, the contemporary America seems nearer to medieval Mongolian Empire than to India; but the Indian media is engrossed in a hypocritical campaign to project India and USA as natural allies in today's world.

True indeed it is a fact that cannot be denied, that American contribution to science and technology and to (potential) betterment of living standards is overwhelming, but what use is all this of if Americans cannot value and respect human life (especially if the human beings are not Americans)? It should not be a problem - especially for us Indians - to understand that the measure of a nation's greatness or benignity does not lie in what it does for its own people, but in the extent of its fair and honest dealing with other peoples (or nations). I am writing 'especially for Indians' because we Indians have been well accustomed to such kind of a thought - it was on these very grounds that (pre-1947) Indian leaders dismissed British contribution to parliamentary democracy as a farce for Britain denied that very right to her colonies and indulged in double standards. Similarly, American ideals of democracy, respect for human life and human rights remain confined to Americans only. A very analytical, yet short, article appeared in The Times of India, New Delhi, Friday, March 3, 2006 titled "Blood On His (Bush's) Hands"; by Peter Singer which accused American policy to be indifferent to civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The article talks about one incident when "...(American) military forces... aimed a missile at a house in Damadola, a Pakistani village near the Afghanistan border. Eighteen people were killed, among them five children. The target of the attack... was not among the dead..." According to the author, and rightly so, the more appalling fact is that Bush did not care to apologise for the attack, nor did he reprimand those who ordered it. Moreover, USA has as yet not apologised despite confirming that it shot down an Iranian civillian airline carrier (although mistakenly), killing 290 people on board. The list is endless... These, according to me, testify the fact that American culture is not benevolent or morally high-grounded but guided by 'enlightened self-interest', a term - however practical and good it may sound - that has been derided by our own Father of The Nation Gandhiji.

'Enlightened self-interest' as a phrase has become quite popular today when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh justifies pro-American leanings in India's foreign policy by declaring that India's foreign policy should be guided by 'enlightened self-interest'. It is not clear what the PM means by this term - anyhow, the term is open to many conflicting interpretations. Perhaps, the PM never thought it important to answer his critics and therefore gave an obscure answer, which betrays the obstinacy and self-righteous attitude of the Congress-led Government with respect to its foreign policy. Again, this policy is reflected when two reputed Congress-members-of-Parliament - Natwar Singh and Mani Shankar Aiyar were removed from their ministries for the apparent reason that both these politicians weren't 'overtly pro-USA'; and in fact, Mani Shankar Aiyar was very keen to see the Iran Gas pipeline project take practical shape. Coming back to our discussion on 'enlightened self-interest', it is a concept that defines modern (or Western) civilization and makes it different from other ancient (or Oriental) civilizations by replacing the concept of 'true morality' (which was the basis for Ancient Indian and Chinese civilizations). The modern Western civilization is founded on 'materialism' from which have derived capitalism, industrialization, imperialism and 'neo-colonialism' more or less in the same chronological order. Mahatma Gandhi was one of the best critics of modern civilization, and to prove that it was firmly grounded on materialism, he brought out the fact that in modern civilization "...man was defined as a creature of infinite desires... the constant satisfaction of his apparently endless wants and the accumulation of wealth acquired moral legitimacy..." (Quoted from Bhikhu Parekh's book 'Gandhi's Political Philosophy', Macmillan, 1989).

Now, let us come back to the question as to what position would be accorded to present-day America when history of our time would be recorded? It is my firm belief, that in the distant future, when today's passions (which influence the contemporary observers and politicians) settle down, then it would be possible for a dispassionate analysis of USA's contributions. And at that time in distant future when the power of USA would get somewhat neutralised, people would not find much difference between the military might ('shock and awe') of (present day) USA with the military savagery of medieval Mongolia. People will scoff at American culture and values, for they lay embedded in self-interest, hypocrisy and double standards, quite the same way as Indians ridicule the contributions of Great Britain towards democracy and Parliament.

When history would be written, the self-righteous attitude of USA (which explains its self-arrogated role of 'International Policeman') would be equated to the nineteenth century colonial attitude of 'White Men's Burden' (which hypocritically legitimised Europeans' claims to colonial empires). Today, within fifty years of the start of the process of 'decolonisation' there is certain unanimity in condemning all the colonial beliefs and practices; therefore it is not unlikely to presume that history will never forgive USA for arrogating to itself the role of an international cop. During the colonial times, the colonial powers like Britain and France gave fantastic arguments and excuses to show that their colonial rule was benevolent and beneficent to all; but all such arguments have been well forgotten within a fifty years, and what remains in public memory is nothing but the cruelty and brutality of colonial rule. Going by such a trend, it is very likely that the reasons that the USA gives for invading (or liberating!) countries will soon be forgotten and people will only remember the savagery of the American military (recall Abu Ghraib).

Even with reference to American contribution to science and technology, America would be bitterly criticised because of the simple reason that while USA presses for free trade in the market for finished goods, the USA doesn't approve of free trading in input markets (inputs for production) - whether in free movement of labour from one countries to another or whether in free trading of technology between different countries. USA wants free trading only in the market for finished products for it is confident of its competitiveness in this market; on the other hand, USA is sure of its lack of competitiveness in the labour market, therefore its policy has been that of 'protectionism' with regard to USA's domestic labour market. In the matter of technology, USA wants it to be confined within USA so that USA does not lose out on the competitiveness it has acquired in the market for finished goods, consequently America is averse to the idea of free trading of technology. Thus, as history will record, we see that America's policies are guided only by self-interest not by morality or truth.

Today, some people in India are convinced that the pursuance of self-interest is 'nothing wrong'. But one thing these Indians forget is that the reason for which we Indians are able to take pride in Indian culture and ethos is not because India was very rich or India once possessed colonies in South East Asia. In fact, it is quite a remarkable fact that Indian tradition did not glorify the Chola Empire over S.E. Asia to the extent it glorified the humility in a mighty ruler like Ashoka. We are able to revere our past for the fact that our ancestors preserved a high degree of morality stressed on non-acquisitiveness. Gandhiji who helped the Indian masses to rediscover themselves reminded this fact to us. Apart from Gandhiji, a practical statesman like Jawaharlal Nehru also expressed his anguish against the prevalent 'opportunism' in politics, repeatedly in his writings. It would be a pity if we Indians of this age doubt the ideals of those two leaders who practically gave birth to present-day India, and instead emulate America and American ideals.